Published on FOXNews.com on May 16, 2008.
President Bush is absolutely right to criticize sharply direct negotiations with Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Barack Obama’s embrace of the idea of direct negotiations is both naÃ¯ve and dangerous and should be a big issue in the campaign.
The reason not to negotiate with Ahmadinejad is not simply to stand on ceremony or some kind of policy of non-recognition. It is based on the fundamental need to topple his regime by increasing the sense the Iranian people have – that he has isolated Iran from the rest of the world, to its severe and ongoing detriment.
It took Edwards four months to make up his mind to belatedly endorse Obama for president. His backing, now, is really an effort to play catch-up and to avoid being consigned to irrelevance should Obama win the election. But the process which led Edwards to act is emblematic of that which will assure Obama of sufficient delegates to win the nomination. No longer is it a question of whether to endorse Obama or Hillary. Now the professional politicians who are the uncommitted superdelegates have to rush to get seats on the late train for Obama before it leaves the station. With just shy of 1900 delegates, the Illinois Senator is only about 140 votes short of the nomination. With about 50 delegates likely to come to him on Tuesday when Kentucky and Oregon vote, that leaves 90 slots on the bandwagon still open. Super delegates will be vying with one another to get in their reservations so they can be for Obama before he gets the majority.
Published on TheHill.com on May 13, 2008.
It would be an act of terminal insanity for Barack Obama to name Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential candidate. It would not help him get elected, it would drag all the Clinton controversies into the general election, and having her down the hall in the West Wing would be a recipe for disaster, dissension and civil war. Other than that, it’s a hell of an idea!
Published on FOXNews.com on May 8, 2008.
Bill and Hillary Clinton have always believed that they’re very different than the rest of us. Over their more than 30 years in politics together, they’ve learned one important and consistent lesson: that rules don’t matter. Rules don’t apply to them. Rules are for other people. Rules can be bent, changed, manipulated.
And that philosophy has worked very well for them.
So it’s particularly ironic that they are now turning to the Democratic Party Rules Committee to try and steal the presidential nomination that Hillary has already definitively lost to Barack Obama in the popular vote, the delegate count, and the total number of states.
Published on TheHill.com on May 8, 2008.
OK, so Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is staying in the presidential race despite losing among elected delegates, facing a slimming lead among superdelegates, losing the popular vote and behind by 2-to-1 in the number of states carried. She slogs on, hoping against hope for a sudden turnaround in the race.
Apart from the psychological reasons for her stubbornness, is there a more subtle political calculation going on?
Is she continuing her race so as to have a platform from which to continue to bash Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in the hopes of so damaging him that he can’t win the general election? Is she doing this to keep her options alive for the 2012 presidential race?
Published in the New York Post on May 7, 2008.
She lost hard in North Carolina, and barely held on to win Indiana. Hillary Clinton just doesn’t have enough straws left to clutch. The best (or worst) she can hope to do the rest of the way is bloody Barack Obama enough to make him lose in the fall, allowing her to come back in 2012.
In fact, Obama basically clinched the nomination with his string of 11 straight primary and caucus wins in February, many by wipe-out margins – giving him a lead in elected delegates that Clinton couldn’t hope to close, especially given the nutty proportional-representation rules that govern the Democratic Party.
Do the math. Last night’s results leave him with a lead among elected delegates of 150 or so, and among all delegates of around 130.
Hillary’s attempt to cast herself as a blue collar girl is as phony as any of her reinventions and voters realize it. Contrary to her belief, we are not morons. We know that she has had child care at her beck and call, along with a full staff of servants as she reared Chelsea first in the Arkansas Governors’ Mansion and then in the White House. She’s no working Mom. But it serves her purpose to portray herself in that light so as to give voters who are turned off by Rev. Wright and worried about Obama an excuse to vote for her. Her posturing as something she is not — a redneck girl — makes it OK to vote for her even if the motivation is not affection for Hillary but fear of Obama.
Published on FOXNews.com on May 2, 2008.
Bill O’Reilly asked Hillary Clinton the key question about the war in Iraq: What happens if we pull out and the Iranians move in? She talked around the issue, but never gave a convincing answer to O’Reilly’s question. She said she would replace force with diplomacy. But, as Frederick the Great said, “Diplomacy without force is like music without instruments.” If our troops are long gone from Iraq, the Iranians will snub our diplomacy and laugh at our entireties. They will add Iraq to their other trophies in the region: Syria, Lebanon and Gaza.
Hillary’s inability to answer O’Reilly’s question reveals a larger flaw in the Democratic arguments as the election approaches. Obama will be the Democratic nominee (take that to the bank). How will the Iraq War play in the race? On the surface, it would appear to be a disaster for the Republicans. With American deaths now over the 4,000 mark and the seriously wounded at around 15,000, we are sick and tired of this war. It has destroyed George W. Bush and could well do the same to John McCain.