Hillary has to keep running --- for the MONEY !

The contribution limits for individuals in the presidential primary race is $2300. This has been a problem for Hillary Clinton whose money primarily came from big contributions, and quite a number of contributors who hit the limit, and could not be hit up for more, versus Barack Obama, whose contributions came from more individuals in smaller amounts --- individuals he could go back to several times, with no fear of their hitting the limit.

Although there is a limit on contributions from individuals to a candidate, the big loop hole in the campaign finance laws is that a candidate can contribute unlimited amounts to his or her own campaign.

So when she was running out of money in February Hillary Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million, and with continuing fundraising difficulties, she lent another $6.4 million in trying to beat back Obama in Indiana and North Carolina.

Now please note there is a Second Loop Hole in the campaign finance laws - Candidates don't have to actually lose the money they put into their campaigns, they can simply LOAN the money as Clinton did, and PAY THEMSELVES BACK with later contributions.

With Clinton's poor showings in North Carolina and Indiana, the political pundits have all but written off her chances of winning the nomination, especially as the math is against her possibility of getting enough pledged delegates to close the gap with Obama.

Many pundits are debating as to just why Hillary is still campaigning so hard, when it appears her chance of victory is somewhere between slim and none.

The pundits talk about her future political career, possible vice president aspirations, and the possibility of behind the scenes deals with the Super Delegates, as being her motivation.

I believe you simply have to FOLLOW THE MONEY !

Hillary does not want to eat her contributions --- she wants other folks to pay the bill. After all, that has always been the Clinton Way !

By continuing her campaign, Hillary will continue to collect contributions. But future contributors should not be too surprised to find that instead of using their money to continue the campaign, it may just be going back to Hillary's pocket !!!

Hillary Goes After the Bubba Vote --- Is that the White Trailer Trash Crowd ?

As the results from the Indiana Primary showed, the Bubba vote that Hillary was so hotly pursuing in the recent weeks, did not come to her aid for a big win.

After Barack Obama made his comments about Small Town America:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years, and nothing has replaced them, and it's not surprising they get bitter. They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them, and it goes on--or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

The Clintons tried very hard to make the case that Obama was an "elitist" who was out of touch with the working class, such as these comments that Bill Clinton made while campaigning for Hillary:

It's "not by race or even income," he said. "It's by those who think they are better than everyone else and think they should play by a different set of rules. In West Virginia and in Arkansas, we know that when we see it."

I find no lack of wonderment that Hillary is trying to appeal to the working folks as one of their kind, when her life was growing up in Park Ridge, Illinois (read very wealthy Chicago suburb) --- going to elite schools, and making a ton of money representing big special interests in Arkansas, such as Wal Mart and Tyson Chicken, as a lawyer who happened to be married to the sitting governor (funny how much money such a lawyer can make with that kind of connection).

Perhaps the height of the Clinton's duplicitous new found love for the working class, is exemplified by their acceptance of help from their political "pit bull" James Carville, in regards to Bill's many unwanted advances upon "working" class women who happened to cross his path.

Carville demeaned anyone who criticized his patron and once famously characterized a clerical worker in Arkansas state government as "trailer trash" when she truthfully told her humiliating story of Governor Clinton's inexcusable sexual advances.

"You drag a dollar bill through a trailer park, and you never know what trash might turn up".

I give the Indiana voters credit for seeing beyond Hillary's new "shot and a beer" persona, and for seeing who she really is.

Not so very long ago, Indiana was the birthplace of the Klu Klux Klan - but the people of Indiana, with their votes, have shown that this is a New World in which Color of someone's skin will not necessarily be the sole criteria they vote on --- even when being subtlety and not so subtlety reminded of the race issue by the White Rich Woman Candidate.

QUESTION: Who won the most votes from Independents in the recent Pennsylvania Primary - Clinton or Obama ??

Much has been said about the ability of Barack Obama to win over Independents and Undecided Voters ...... which will bode well for whichever Democratic Candidate faces off with John McCain.

McCain has a strong attraction to Independent Voters who do not necessarily vote a straight party line, but who look at the individual candidate's attributes.

Politicians like McCain (and Obama) who have shown a willingness to work with the Party on the other side of the Aisle, are very attractive to Independents who are tired of the Same Old Politics and Political Polarization in our government.

One of the reasons that Barack Obama has done so well against Hillary Clinton, is that Clinton has long been seen as one of the Polarizing Politicians and is often a turn-off to Independent Voters and even Declared Democrats who are looking for Real Change.



As I noted in my previous posting, I believe the Media is portraying the Underwhelming Clinton win in Pennsylvania as an upset --- to keep the race going, along with the viewership of the News Shows and Media Advertising Sales that benefit from the continuation of the Race.

Clinton was forecasted early on to win Pennsylvania by 20 points or more, and her less than double win of 9 point some percent, showed that Obama was able to Whittle Her Lead by More than Half --- And among Registered Democrats ONLY !!!

My Question of who won the Independent Voters in Pennsylvania was a TRICK QUESTION --- INDEPENDENTS COULD NOT VOTE IN EITHER PARTY PRIMARY --- AS THEY ARE ALLOWED TO DO IN WISCONSIN !!!

Under Pennsylvania's system, a Voter must declare their Party Affiliation at least a Month Before the Election, and those who declare Independent, CANNOT vote for either a Republican or Democrat.



Would the ability of the Independents to vote for one of the Democratic Candidates been of benefit to Barack --- would it have put him over the line for the win ??? We will never know for sure, but based upon the effect of the Independent Voters in other races, it is a Very Probable Scenario that their ability to vote in the Democratic Contest would have been a Straight Win for Obama !!

And going on to the General Election --- the Independents will play a Very Big role in deciding between McCain and the Democratic Candidate.

If the Independents do becoming the deciding factor in deciding our next president --- as they have had in every election since 1992 --- the Democrats will need Obama to be a Viable Alternative to McCain --- a role which Hillary, with all her Polarizing Baggage, cannot fulfill.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ? YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME !

Hillary Clinton’s Loan of $5 Million to Her Own Presidential Campaign Fund is Same Old Way to Get Around Campaign Finance Laws that Bill used in 1992.

A loophole in Campaign Finance Laws that is big enough to drive a Mack Truck through, is that the Candidate is not restricted in the amount they Give or Loan to Their Own Campaign !

That is why we see so many Rich Folks running for Office.

An added bonus for any politician who is in an office and who can attract a lot of Political Donations is that they can Lend Themselves Money Now --- and Pay Themselves Back Later from more than Willing Lobbyists, PAC Funds, and Those Who Want To Buy Influence.

In 1992 when Bill Clinton’s campaign was neck and neck with Paul Tsongas, they both pretty much depleted their campaign war chests by the time of the Florida primary.

But Clinton, being the Sitting Governor of Arkansas was able to get an “unsecured” loan of $ 3 million for his Campaign from an Arkansas Bank --- Worthen National. With Fresh Money, he was able to bury Tsongas in Political Ads !

Much has been made of the fact that there was a lot of foreign intrigue involved in the Worthen loan --- but regardless of who owned or controlled the bank, and whether or not Clinton later paid off with political favors --- it was a very safe loan for the bank to make.

When you make a loan to a Sitting State Governor for political purposes, you know that whether they win or lose the race, they can hold fundraisers after the race (and a governor attracts a lot of political campaign funds) to pay off the loans.

So the question becomes --- Is Hillary Betting $5 Million that she can win the Nomination ? If She Loses the Campaign, does She Lose Her Money ?

My guess is that as a Sitting Senator from the State of New York --- Win or Lose --- Hillary can quickly Pay Herself Back through Future Fund Raisers.

Her $5 Million is as safe as being in the bank.



What Do You Think ? Please Leave Your Comments !

Clinton Increased the Use of the Death Penalty Despite the Racial Imbalance of Its Application

As the Clinton’s continue their Two for One campaign to get Hillary elected, it should be remembered that their prior Two for One Presidency dramatically increased the Death Penalty, despite the overwhelming bias against Blacks in its application.

Race influences . . .
A 1990 U.S. General Accounting Office report revealed "a pattern of evidence indicating racial disparities in charging, sentencing and imposition of the death penalty." In its 1997 call for a moratorium on executions, the American Bar Association concluded that "racial discrimination remain[s] in courts across the country."

. . . who gets charged
The local District Attorney (D.A.) makes the decision to pursue a death sentence. A 1998 Death Penalty Information Center report reveals that 98% of the D.A.s in death penalty states are white.

On the federal level, the pattern of racial bias in capital prosecutions is striking. A recent Justice Department study of federal capital cases from 1995 to 2000 found that 74% of the defendants were people of color. Upon release of the study, Attorney General Janet Reno said she was "sorely troubled" by such stark racial disparities.

. . . who gets a death sentence
Over half of those on death row are people of color. Black men alone make up over 42% of all death row prisoners, though they account for only 6% of people living in the U.S..

. . . who gets executed
Nearly half of those executed since 1976 have been people of color, with blacks alone accounting for 35%. All told, 82% have been put to death for the murder of a white person. Only 1.8% were white people who had been convicted of killing people of African, Asian, or Latin descent. Meanwhile, people of color are the victims in more than half of all homicides.

Congress and the President
Congress and the President also have refused to remedy the racism inherent in death penalty sentencing. Though the Racial Justice Act (RJA) has been introduced four times, Congress has yet to pass it. The RJA would allow prisoners to challenge their death sentences using standards normal in civil racial-discrimination cases.

Thanks largely to the Congressional Black Caucus, a weak version of the RJA was passed by the House in 1994, but the measure never reached the Senate. A final bill signed by President Clinton expanded the federal death penalty from two to 60 crimes and established procedures for resuming federal executions.

Then, in 1996, Congress passed and Clinton signed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. The law drastically limits federal court review of death row appeals. At the same time congress gutted public funding of legal aid services for death row prisoners - which, for most, offer their only legal representation.

WHAT DO YOU THINK --- LEAVE A COMMENT


Source:
Equal Justice USAA project of the Quixote Center
http://www.ejusa.org/moratorium_now/broch_race.html

Was Bill Clinton Really a Friend of Black Americans -- part one

I find it very interesting that Bill Clinton has somehow convinced many Black voters that he has an affinity with them --- and by osmosis, so does Hillary. In a delicate balance, it appears that Bill is the Black Hat with the job of bashing Obama --- while trying to inject Race while appearing not to inject Race, while Hillary sits above the fray.

In what may have been the most cynical political act ever, then candidate Bill Clinton, while in the middle of his presidential campaign in 1992, went back to Arkansas to Officiate over the Execution of a Mentally Incompetent Black Man.

Conventional Wisdom is that Clinton wanted to show that he was tough on crime to get crossover votes from conservatives, especially in the south.

Following is a recounting of this from Expedia:

Rector was subject to a unique overlap of controversies in 1992 during his execution in Arkansas. A question of the morality of killing someone who was functionally retarded. An oft-cited example of his mental insufficiency is his decision to save the dessert of his last meal for after his execution.[1] In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court banned the execution of people with mental retardation in Atkins v. Virginia, ruling that the practice constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Rector was African-American, adding to racial questions relating to the death penalty.
By 1992, Bill Clinton was insisting that Democrats "should no longer feel guilty about protecting the innocent" and took a position strongly supporting capital punishment. To make his point, he flew home to Arkansas mid-campaign to affirm that the execution would continue as scheduled. Some considered it a turning point in that race, hardening a soft public image.[citation needed] Others tend to cite the execution as an example of what they perceive to be Clinton's opportunism, directly influenced by Michael Dukakis and his response to CNN's Bernard Shaw when asked during a campaign debate on October 13, 1988 if he would be supportive of the death penalty were his wife to be raped and murdered.
Rector was executed by lethal injection. It took medical staff, with Rector’s help, more than fifty minutes to find a suitable vein. The curtain remained closed between Rector and the witnesses, but some reported they could hear Rector moaning. The administrator of the State Department of Corrections Medical Program said “the moans did come as a team of two medical people that had grown to five worked on both sides of his body to find a vein. That may have contributed to his occasional outbursts.” The state later attributed the difficulty in finding a suitable vein to Rector’s heavy weight and to his use of an antipsychotic medication.
Rector was the third person executed by the state of Arkansas since Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), after new capital punishment laws were passed in Arkansas and that came into force on March 23, 1973.
Bill Clinton's critics from the anti-capital punishment left have seen the case of Rector as an unpleasant example of what they view as Clinton's cynical careerism. The writer Christopher Hitchens, in particular, devotes much of a chapter of his polemical attack on Clinton, No One Left to Lie To to what he regards as the immorality of the then Democratic candidate's decision to condone, and take political advantage of, Rector's execution.[2]

If Hillary becomes president -- will it still be all about Bill ?

The campaign news seems to be more about Bill attacking Barack, than about Hillary.

If Hillary were to become president, would she still rely on Bill for protecting her ?

If Iran's president says bad things about her, will Bill hold a press conference defending her ?

It just seems that Hillary is not able to fight her own battles --- which is one good reason to vote against her --- another, perhaps better reason --- is so we don't have to keep listenting to Bill.