More Hillarity - Ms. Clinton tells the world about her harrowing experiences as First Lady, but neither Dean Barnett nor the Captain are buying.
(Clinton argued) she risked her life on White House missions in the 1990s, including a hair-raising flight into Bosnia that ended in a "corkscrew" landing and a sprint off the tarmac to dodge snipers.
"I don't remember anyone offering me tea," she quipped. (Aaah, the gallows humor of the remarkably brave!)
The dictum around the Oval Office in the '90s, she added, was: "If a place was too dangerous, too poor or too small, send the first lady."
It turns out that Clinton wasn't quite flying solo into harm's way that day.
She was, in fact, leading a goodwill entourage that included baggy-pants funnyman Sinbad, singer Sheryl Crow and Clinton's daughter, Chelsea, then 15, according to an account of the March 1995 trip in her autobiography "Living History."
Dean asks the tough questions:
What does it say about Hillary that, by her own (admittedly fanciful) telling, she knowingly put her daughter in harm's way, taking a special Mom-and-daughter (and Sinbad) trip to a place that was “too dangerous?”
Captain Ed digs up some NY Times coverage that somehow overlooked the various dangers to which Ms. Clinton exposed herself and Chelsea. To that let me add this Reuters account (found in a Free Republic post speculating about then-Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown's possible assassination in April 1996) as well as some on-the-spot photos from a soldier who was there.
My guess - if Bill was willing to whack Ron Brown in Bosnia just a few weeks later, Hillary had to be feeling vulnerable; Chelsea and Sheryl Crow were there as protection.
Somewhat more seriously, there is this from Reuters:
Mrs. Clinton flew to Bosnia from Germany with the two entertainers on a huge C-17 Air Force cargo jet, becoming the first U.S. first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt to visit an area of conflict independently of her commander-in-chief husband. Her visit was much more extensive than the one President Clinton made in January. Because of poor weather and security concerns he never got any further than 500 yards from the Tuzla airstrip.
So Bill Clinton flew in two months earlier and security was poor; Ms. Clinton may well have been briefed that this was a hazardous trip. So why take Chelsea? I am out of answers.
From the Times coverage it appears that her greatest threat was from disgruntled American soldiers.
MORE: Sweetness and Light provides Hillary's account from her book, "Living Clown Show History".
Also, the Times covered President Clinton's visit to Tuzla on Jan 14, 1996:
It took Mr. Clinton two tries today to make it into Tuzla, the headquarters of the American forces, who will eventually number 20,000 of the 60,000 NATO peacekeepers.
Early this morning, the C-17 military transport plane carrying Mr. Clinton, his aides and a bipartisan Congressional delegation was diverted because of fog to the next stop on his itinerary -- an American staging base in Taszar, Hungary. Despite this delay of several hours, the President's entourage was upbeat.
...
Mr. Clinton's trip was marked by heavy security. His precise itinerary was closely held, and Secret Service sharpshooters followed him in Tuzla, where he stayed inside the grounds of the airfield, seeing nothing of the war's effects on the town. A senior official in his entourage said the President's visit had "more logistical, security and weather variables" than he had ever encountered before.
Mr. Clinton took off from Tuzla about two and a half hours after his arrival as fog rolled in, advised by the Secret Service to leave before dark.
The Times also covered the situation as experienced by the troops:
Encircled By Peril, G.I.'s Stay Nonchalant
...To tell you the truth, I feel pretty safe right here," he said, his head poking from the turret of the Bradley fighting vehicle he commands. "As long as there is this much ammo all around me, I don't think they'd be dropping too many mortar rounds," he said, sounding certain that the Serbs would not risk destroying their ammunition to fire at the 22 American soldiers on this lookout point [which was south of Tuzla].
...
Capt. Hugo Jackson, the commander of Charlie Company, is waiting in quiet fury for the delivery of 400 rolls of concertina wire. Now, empty fence posts ring the camp, a breach in security he hopes the Serbs do not wish to take advantage of.
Near dusk on Thursday, a shot rang out from over a hill, and the soldiers fixing a generator looked up but did not duck: They assumed it was simply another shot fired in the air, as common here as men strolling the streets with loaded AK-47's.
"Don't worry, I caught it!" yelled Sgt. Robert Chandler, the First Sergeant.
Sergeant Chandler, at 37 what the military calls an "old soldier," worries the men have adjusted perhaps too well, given the visible dangers all around. Many soldiers in this rural pocket of grazing sheep and crowing roosters, which was spared the ravages of war, find it difficult to imagine any threat to their lives.
"I'm trying to get them scareder," Sergeant Chandler said.
He succeeded with Hillary.
I think I just wished for the impossible.
Posted by: sbw | January 02, 2008 at 08:58 AM
BTW Rasmussen notes today that the gap between poepole who call themselves Republicans and Democrats has narrowed substantially. At its height, it was about 6% and is down to 2%.
Just think, when all those folks who have not heard about the War going well in Iraq, finally get the word!
Anyway, that means that Harry Reid does not like Chuckie Schumer's "astounding numbers" any more.
Posted by: GMax | January 02, 2008 at 10:32 AM
omninominism is an interesting proposition. In a similar vein Darleen at Protein Wisdom posted a piece a couple of days ago to the effect that the more laws there are passed governing b3ehaviors, the more prople ignore basic morality--if it's not against the law thinking or because their sense of morality becomes so atrophied.
Posted by: clarice | January 02, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Someone asked about internet providers in Iraq - try tigrisnet.net
I watched and checked out IP addies of folks using my site from Baghdad who did not appear to be using DoD networks or US contractor's computer networks.
Posted by: SunnyDay | January 02, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Kenya hear the whistle blowing; Nairobi now burns.
=========================
Posted by: kim | January 02, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Isn't that awful, Kim? At one time the former British colonies, especially Kenya and Rhodesia were considered the bright spots of Africa.
Posted by: clarice | January 02, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Kenya was one of Balfour's suggestions for a homeland to settle the 'problem'.
===========
Posted by: kim | January 02, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Sorry but Balfour is an unknown for me. What "problem" are we referring to?
Kenya seems to be a revolt against what is shaping up as a stolen election. It may be messy for the electorate to reclaim or redress, but may be their only alternative.
The Parliament is controlled by one of the smaller tribes BTW, so its not a far stretch to believe the international election observers reports of massive fraud in favor the head of the largest tribe.
Posted by: GMax | January 02, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Balfour was involved with the Palestine declaration and, I believe, also with the Iraq boundaries. Both planted the seeds of future unrest.
Posted by: sbw | January 02, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Did you hear Fred on FNC just now? BWAHAHAHAHA!!! I love this man!
contrasting his schedule over New Years (he stayed home), with Edwards' 36 hour thingy - Fred said "there are more important differences between me and John Edwards than our schedules that we can talk about."
Lots more of the same. I'm sure it will be online soon, it was just too darn good not to spread around.
Posted by: SunnyDay | January 02, 2008 at 12:04 PM
That tribe is dominant, G, but in the minority.
It's all the dam joos fault, anyway.
====================
Posted by: kim | January 02, 2008 at 12:10 PM
He insists that the office and the pursuit of it be given the respect it deserves, doesn't he? While the MSM is playing for the thumb sucking muddle, he's reaching out to the rational adults.
Posted by: clarice | January 02, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Interesting article in the WaJo today about watershed '08. The first graphic shows the public's contentness with the direction of America rising in the 90's with the bubble economy and encroaching danger from radical Islam. It showed the contentedness dropping all this century(well, there is an aberrancy at 9/11), while the battle over the Enlightenment has been joined with radical Islam, and the greatest expansion of the global economy ever, has occurred.
This disjunct between fact and perception cannot be just because of the contrast in communication skills between Clinton and Bush. I blame the media. Oh, boy, are they gonna get what they deserve.
===================
Posted by: kim | January 02, 2008 at 12:19 PM
What I find remarkable about Thompson is that it appears he is attuned to the new media. He is right about Libby, he is ostentatiously right about global warming. Obviously, he's got good sources.
==================
Posted by: kim | January 02, 2008 at 12:22 PM
"the more prople ignore basic morality"
There is no basic morality. You may ask any of the cretins who follow the true path of Reason as established during the Endarkenment, they'll be happy to explain that isolation and anomy are man's "natural" state and they'll give you all the scientistic rationales that you could ever hope to see in support of their contentions.
Be careful about arguing with them - they'll beat you about the head and shoulders with their hoary Freudian cliches and mythos for days without ever considering from whence the concept of "pysche" arose.
On a much cheerier note - Rick Moran draws our attention to a Rasmussen poll showing that surge has followed surge.
Rasmussen credits Republican obstinance on the amnesty bill as well as success in Iraq as the prime movers of sentiment. I really think he should give some credit to the sheer blundering incompetence of the Copperheads; Reid, Pelosi and Schumer.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 02, 2008 at 12:29 PM
It's not so much that he is attuned but that he trusts it. It's as if he expects the truth to set us free or at least to elect him President. There is not much in his past to suggest that he is a hopeless optimist.
==================
Posted by: kim | January 02, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Kim I believe you are being facetious, but I want to point out for others that there is no significant concentration of Jews in Kenya. Kenya is a Christian country, and has about 10% of its population as Muslims, mostly concentrated along its Somalia border.
Yes the Kikuru are only about 22% of the population. But the head of Parliament and the guy defying the current President is a Luo, which has only about 13% of the population for that tribe.
The Kenyans are noted as being the best long distance runners in the world. Most years, the NYC and Boston Marathons are dominated by Kenyans.
Posted by: GMax | January 02, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Posted by: cathyf | January 02, 2008 at 12:43 PM
SunnyDay,
I saw Fred on Fox and loved every minute of it.
Also, Rush is back today and is giving Huckaboo a beating.
Posted by: Ann | January 02, 2008 at 12:43 PM
GMax is not being facetious. For a while, when the European geniuses who divided up the Ottoman Empire along pretty lines they thought one way to resolve the "Jewish problem" was to establish a home for the Jews in Africa..
Instead the Jews chose to buy land in the hood and you can see where that got them and us.
Posted by: clarice | January 02, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Often, G, the fun I'm having gets in the way of communication. Jes' foolin'.
=====
Posted by: kim | January 02, 2008 at 12:44 PM
*GMax,KIM is not****
Posted by: clarice | January 02, 2008 at 12:45 PM
British Uganda was under consideration. So were Iraq, Texas and Alaska.
Posted by: clarice | January 02, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Yes Rick, its one thing to complain about the actions and policies of others but quite another to put your own on display. When the Democrats incompetence, rabid socialism and just general out of touch with the mainstream got a full airing, the people have reacted.
Moran seems rather restrained. Remember the independents dont like ideologues and the Republicans right now have much more candidates that can claim so centrist views and ability to act in a bipartisan fashion. I would say that the Presidency is the Republicans to lose at this point, and the House is within their reach with some effort. The Senate has the anomaly of more R seats up than D seats this season, making the math for a recapture difficult. Perhaps not impossible but quite difficult.
Buck up. If we could just get some folks that understand a consistent message, we could be back in the game.
Posted by: GMax | January 02, 2008 at 12:49 PM
From NRO The Campaign Spot:
Rush, Speculating on a Sinister MSM Plot
Rush Limbaugh thinks that the mainstream media is trying to build up Mike Huckabee, so that he gets the nomination, so they can later turn on him with a vengeance, giving the Democrat a massive win in the general election. The aim, he speculates, is to "destroy the Christian Right once and for all."
"Now they're promoting McCain," he concluded, just before the break.
UPDATE: How do you know this presidential race is huge? Rush just said he canceled two commitments to appear at golf tournaments in the coming weeks.
Posted by: Ann | January 02, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Well I went quickly to Wiki ( a terrible reference but handy ) and read some about Lord Balfour.
The random thought occurred to me that the model our current State Department seems to follow is that of early 20th century Britain. Despite the fact that the crumbling days of the Empire have been shown by history to have been accelerated by the actions of their diplomats. Sheesh
Posted by: GMax | January 02, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Ron Paul alienates the libertarians from the Republicans, Huckabee provokes the center into fleeing the plague of principles, Hillary outhowls Gore in religious ferocity, and Congress impeaches Bush, ex post facto. Oh, wait, that's MSMworld. We've got talk radio, the blogosphere and an electorate capable of sentiousness.
=============================
Posted by: kim | January 02, 2008 at 12:59 PM
"Buck up."
I've never considered a recapture of the Senate and House beyond possibility.
Returning to nomos for a moment - Rich got me thinking about it the other day in relationship to Bush I's loss in '92 (read my lips) and the success of the Abramoff strategy in '06 (nearly every Congressman tainted was defeated). From a simplistic POV it would appear that Republicans do share mores and a common nomos that punish transgression rather emphatically, hence the strong resistance to amnesty. I don't know whether that will hold going forward but it does not augur well for McCain and will make Huckabee the easiest of targets imaginable (Jim Bakker's ascent and descent spring to mind for some reason).
Romney, Thompson and Giuliani are the most able to keep the ball in the fairway and I consider Thompson to have the easiest path to the Oval Office.
Cathyf,
Do you know of any way to increase display font size beyond 'Largest'?
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 02, 2008 at 01:10 PM
Interesting then is it Nomos or NOMAS that will control this election. Given the public's disgust with the Democrats in Congress and the fact the Bush is not on the ballot, I place my chips on NOMAS!
Did anyone else read the pablum offered up by Seib at the Wall Street Journal this morning. He has the thought processing ability of an Idaho grape. Plus he thinks 2008 will be the death knell of Conservatives, but fails to consider that his own charts document the longterm strong trends away from Democrats who once had 50% of registrations. It is a baffling article that seems to border on a parody of the mainstream take on most things political.
Posted by: GMax | January 02, 2008 at 01:23 PM
Rick—
In my opinion, at this point Romney will be the easiest and McCain the most difficult of the Republican contenders in double digits for the Democrats to defeat in November.
I was surprised Rasmussen didn't wonder if the big change in presidential candidate poll numbers on the Republican side didn't fuel and feed upon the big move in voter identification over the past month. The Republicans race has certainly been more interesting lately. It probably won't take very long to find out if that's what it is.
Posted by: Patrick Tyson | January 02, 2008 at 01:29 PM
I should give Seib some credit, upon rereading I find a tidbit that is more of a chestnut that he recognizes. Commit this one to memory and pull it out of the inner recesses at times when the pundits seem to babble in this now upon us Silly Season.
Until the end, many Democrats and pundits thought Reagan too conservative for the country that was about to elect him in a landslide.
Posted by: GMax | January 02, 2008 at 01:36 PM
The press which was so kind to McCain when he could be a reliably maverick Rep, will not give him that coast should he ge t the nomination. You can bet on tha t.
Posted by: clarice | January 02, 2008 at 01:43 PM
I'm beginning to acknowledge to myself that my principal goal in the 2008 presidential election campaign may be even more a defeat of Hillary Clinton than the election of a Republican.
Just think--not only did the Lewd Varlet never win a majority of the vote, his VP was rejected by the electorate. If his wife now goes down in flames, perhaps we can once and for all rid the earth of this horrid pair's shadow.
Try to imagine a world in which Bubba finally shuts up.
Posted by: Other Tom | January 02, 2008 at 01:55 PM
He'll never shut up. I'd settle for a world where no one listens to him, OT.
Posted by: clarice | January 02, 2008 at 01:57 PM
Patrick,
If it weren't for the success of the Swift Boat Vets campaign, I would agree. MCain engendered a depth of bitterness among some of his fellow prisoners that was further inflamed by his cavalier treatment of MIA families. They will make their feelings known and this time the "media" will lift all trumpets and blow with all their might rather than attack the messengers. His embrace of the amnesty bill coupled with the Gang of Seven antics are other factors which make him (IMO) a fairly easy target.
That and his propensity to skip meds from time to time.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 02, 2008 at 01:59 PM
I'm beginning to acknowledge to myself that my principal goal in the 2008 presidential election campaign may be even more a defeat of Hillary Clinton than the election of a Republican.
There is a teeny tiny itty bitty part of me that wants to do to her what the democrats have done to Bush. But I fight against that evil on a daily basis.
Posted by: Jane | January 02, 2008 at 02:03 PM
There is a teeny tiny itty bitty part of me that wants to do to her what the democrats have done to Bush. But I fight against that evil on a daily basis.
Yeah, I fight against it because the Dems think they are just doing to Bush what the Reps did to Clinton. And of course, to Gore because Bush stole the elections.
It really is a merry-go-round I'd like to get off.
Posted by: MayBee | January 02, 2008 at 02:14 PM
You gals aren't members of the tu quoque club? My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father.Prepare to die.
Posted by: clarice | January 02, 2008 at 02:27 PM
You're right, Clarice, he'll never shut up as long as he can draw a breath. But if his "legacy" is shaped by the rejection of his VP and his wife, at some point he's going to become widely understood as a clown. And when we get to that point, the more he talks the better.
Posted by: Other Tom | January 02, 2008 at 02:29 PM
Heh.
Speaking of killing your father....http://www.slate.com/id/2181099/>this from Tim Noah on his "Pinky" is hilarious.
Posted by: MayBee | January 02, 2008 at 02:29 PM
It's a very bad club - one I vowed to never join. But it's been a long 7 years, and the urge is hard to fight.
Posted by: Jane | January 02, 2008 at 02:40 PM
Book this one. The Republican candidate will likely not be known before the 2nd or third round of voting at the Convention. Too many candidates all pulling close to 20% each. And not enough States are winner take all, plus several candidates have strong regional or just a State's support. We will likely have delegates who must vote for a candidate and only once its clear that their candidate is never going to be the nominee, will they start switching to a candidate they think can win.
Who is that candidate? It may depend on how ugly the campaigning gets, as some will harbor grudges against certain candidates for what they pointed out about their first choice.
Posted by: GMax | January 02, 2008 at 02:44 PM
Seriously -- what browser are you using? When using IE 6 I could never figure out how to get the font to be appreciably bigger, which is one of the many reasons that I moved on to other browsers. (Well, that and the worry that the Russian mafia had hacked into microsoft's activity-logging trojan horse and we're using it to steal passwords.)
Use Opera!Posted by: cathyf | January 02, 2008 at 02:56 PM
Mark Steyn recommends this column on Bhutto:
All-time champion Benazir Bhutto column [Mark Steyn]
Posted by: Ann | January 02, 2008 at 03:01 PM
Things that make you say "hmmmmm."
Iraq’s and Venezuela’s populations are roughly comparable: 27.5 million versus 27.7 million. In the last three months, there have been 1498 civilian fatalities in Iraq. During this same time, roughly 3000 Venezuelans have been murdered.
Venezuelan Politics blog pointed out that an average 33 Venezuelans were murdered each day last year, which comes to 1000 murders per month.
Link
Posted by: Sara | January 02, 2008 at 03:07 PM
Plus the stock market and value of currency in one country is going up and the other plunging. Guess which is which? Maybe Cindy Sheehan should fly to Caracas again and tie herself to an oil well.
Posted by: clarice | January 02, 2008 at 03:10 PM
Even Joe Biden sees through Hillarity:
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | January 02, 2008 at 03:13 PM
Now this is funny. It doesn't have the approved by Romney at the end, but Allah at Hot Air says he got it from Mitt's web guy.
Romney">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oWuCQ7g8m8">Romney endorses Chuck Norris
Posted by: Sara | January 02, 2008 at 03:21 PM
I was reading this article about Romney in the NYT. It says his father was born in Mexico, which would make him ineligible for the Presidency, but he ran anyway in 1968. What gives? Doesn't anyone check?
Posted by: Ralph L | January 02, 2008 at 03:50 PM
That Chicago attorney who keyed the Marine's car days before he was due to redeploy to Iraq and whose snide remarks and actions have generated a massive outpouring on the blogs thanks to Blackfive, has been in trouble before:
Posted by: Sara | January 02, 2008 at 03:51 PM
The Constitution requires that one be a US citizen and he was based upon his parents' citizenship..
Posted by: clarice | January 02, 2008 at 03:54 PM
Rick—
Another day on what might and what might not work against this or that candidate since voting hasn't as yet begun and there's some chance that many of them will be making speeches concerning their new plan for the future sometime in the next week. I wish I'd been in Iowa (and at the University in Ames in particular) since Thanksgiving.
Best.
Posted by: Patrick Tyson | January 02, 2008 at 03:56 PM
RalphL: His parents were American citizens.
Posted by: Sara | January 02, 2008 at 03:57 PM
I thought the Constitution says you have to be born in the US or its territories (McCain was born in the Canal Zone). They put that in to make Hamilton ineligible, supposedly. I don't remember anything about parents' citizenships.
Posted by: Ralph L | January 02, 2008 at 04:04 PM
Wiki says the definition of natural born citizen is still uncertain. Hamilton obviously didn't qualify. I thought the Con. was more specific about location.
Posted by: Ralph L | January 02, 2008 at 04:15 PM
Ralph L- the constitution says "Natural born citizen". The specifics of what that means have been long debated, including whether being born in a territory counts.
Posted by: MayBee | January 02, 2008 at 04:17 PM
RalphL: If the parents are American Citizens, those born to them are also, no matter where they are born. I think a few countries, like Israel, allow dual citizenship, but for sure, the child would not be a citizen of the country they happened to be born it. There are hundreds of children born on military bases around the world that are located in foreign countries.
Constitution: No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President...
Via Wiki:
Posted by: Sara | January 02, 2008 at 04:18 PM
http://www.nysun.com/article/47157?page_no=2
It's not perfectly clear, but a statute seems to suggest that "natural born" citizens include children born abroad of American citizens.
Posted by: clarice | January 02, 2008 at 04:19 PM
Sorry, RalphL. I didn't refresh and see your comment before I posted.
My son had a classmate in Hong Kong that he was convinced would be the first female Chinese president of the US. She was a US citizen, but her parents told me they thought for some reason she was ineligible to run. Perhaps it's best to leave things a little confusing.
Posted by: MayBee | January 02, 2008 at 04:21 PM
OT:
I agree with your statement re: Hil. Obama would have my vote if I was voting as an Independent. i could see him negotiating overseas. However I will vote republican except for Huckabee. Romney, Guiliani or Thompson or McCain are acceptable to me.
Posted by: maryrose | January 02, 2008 at 04:25 PM
Sara, that's a horrible murder rate in Venezuela. Let's send Hillary for a long visit to her friend Chavez.
Posted by: Ralph L | January 02, 2008 at 04:28 PM
For Fred Supporters:
Late-Breaking Surge for Thompson
Posted by: Ann | January 02, 2008 at 04:42 PM
Jane & MayBee,
You need not fear the emergence of a Tu Quoque Club - the first act in the dystopic L'Inferno of the Red Witch would be her grabbing the IRS wand and casting a spell that begins semper scrutorum, semper scrutorum, semper scrutorum.
Then she would announce the a massive public works project involving camp construction...
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 02, 2008 at 04:47 PM
Rasmussen reports of likely GOP caucus goers, Fred has the highest favorable rating:
Sixty-two percent (62%) of Likely Caucus participants say they are certain they will not change their mind before January 3. That includes 65% of Huckabee supporters, 58% of those who prefer Romney, and 55% of McCain voters.
Among those who say there’s a good chance they could change their mind, Thompson and Huckabee top the second choice list.
Among those likely to take part in the Iowa Republican caucuses, 67% now have a favorable opinion of Huckabee. That’s down from 81% a week ago and 76% in late November. The number with a Very Favorable opinion has fallen from 51% to 38% over the past week.
Romney is viewed favorably by 73%, Thompson by 77%, and McCain by 63%. That last figure reflects a six-point gain for McCain.
Posted by: clarice | January 02, 2008 at 04:49 PM
Clarice and Jane,
Are you worried that Hit has not showed up to say Happy New Year?
It is so unlike him, so I am worried and wish he would just show up even if it is to hit and run.
Posted by: Ann | January 02, 2008 at 04:52 PM
It may just be our democrat governor but prices are soaring here. I predict my monthly bills (office and home) have increased $400 this month - I'm talking propane, electric, cleaning and that sort of stuff. And the increases for the most part come in "delivery charges" which are taxes in some form or another.
Posted by: Jane | January 02, 2008 at 04:53 PM
Ann,
I'm not worried. I suspect he is busy with his family. But I would like an update on Sad/Bad.
Posted by: Jane | January 02, 2008 at 04:55 PM
Rick:
If you want to increase the size locally on a page for reading and you're using IE 7.0 or later, there is always the little magnifying glass in the lower right hand corner you can use to blow up the whole page. The down side is that the setting doesn't word wrap for the new size. So there's a lot of scrolling side to side as well as up and down.
Hope that helps.
Kaz
Posted by: kaz | January 02, 2008 at 05:01 PM
Yes,Jane. Hit said he was going to his in-laws for the New Year and I expect he's busy.
Posted by: clarice | January 02, 2008 at 05:03 PM
semper scrutorum
Rick, you always make me laugh. Thanks
Posted by: Ann | January 02, 2008 at 05:04 PM
This is the first primary/election cycle in my adulthood where I am at home and in front of the TV or the computer more hours of the day than not. Up to this year, I've either been working or sitting in ICUs with my Mom. So, maybe I just never noticed before, but this year seems so different. 24 hour news cycles, daily, sometimes hourly polls, so much "excitement" over Iowa and New Hampshire.
Shoot in '88 I was even working for the Bush 41 campaign, and I don't recall this type of craziness. That year TV evangelist Pat Robertson was 2nd in Iowa and it hardly caused a blip.
So is it just me tuning in more or is it the media who is going nuts with so much near orgasmic exhilaration over tomorrow's caucus and the whole primary?
Posted by: Sara | January 02, 2008 at 05:07 PM
Nor to say 'happy birthday' to Paz.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | January 02, 2008 at 05:07 PM
Cathyf & Kaz,
Thank you for the advice concerning font size.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 02, 2008 at 05:08 PM
Sara, I haven't been paying attention for that many cycles, but it does seem like it's a much bigger deal this time around. I attribute it to things having started so early - people have had much much longer to wait for the primaries to start and they're getting antsy. And, other than Pakistan, there's not much else happening to report on.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 02, 2008 at 05:15 PM
Wow! What in the world has happened to Ari Fleischer? I am looking at him on Fox right now and I hardly recognize him. He looks like he has put on at least 50 pounds, if not more. I wasn't sure it was him until they flashed his name on the screen.
Posted by: Sara | January 02, 2008 at 05:17 PM
As soon as he opened his mouth and idiocies spewed forth, I realized it was Ari all right.
Posted by: clarice | January 02, 2008 at 05:25 PM
Hillary is going to make a surprise appearance on Letterman tonight.
Dang, I can't make up my mind which to watch, Huckaboo on Leno or Hillarity on Letterman.
Posted by: Ann | January 02, 2008 at 05:25 PM
semper scrutorum
It's been over 30 years since I studied a little bit of Latin, but I first read this as "always ballsy."
This is the first primary season that's wide open on both sides, and the scheduling changes will have an unknown effect. 1988 was similar, but I think Bush had a leg up then.
Posted by: Ralph L | January 02, 2008 at 05:27 PM
Clarice: Talk about idiocies! You have grandkids out here, don't you?
Posted by: Sara | January 02, 2008 at 05:31 PM
Ann - thanks for the link to the article on Fred. It made me feel better.
I hope that Huck and Mitt knock each other off in Iowa.
I also hope that The PantyWaste (aka SilkyPony, AngryLawyer, etc.) wins and that populism prevails among the Dems.
The analysts on Fox say it is her push to be "likeable". Question: How engaging will Hilarity! be tonight? How engaging could she possibly be?
Any bets?
Posted by: vnjagvet | January 02, 2008 at 05:35 PM
She's going to do the Top Ten List.
Posted by: Sara | January 02, 2008 at 05:37 PM
vnjagvet,
I bet she is not engaing when reading the top ten list. i do hope she cackles....alot:)
Posted by: Ann | January 02, 2008 at 05:45 PM
She'll probably be able to maintain human form long enough to get through the Top Ten. I don't think her appearance is about Iowa though and I'm a bit curious as to her ability to get through even a scripted performance in a convincing manner if the intent is to promote the concept of "humorous warmth".
Bubba wasn't very good at self deprecation (Bob Dole was masterful at it) and she doesn't lie nearly as well as Bubba did.
Ann,
It would be cool if she absentmindedly turned Letterman into a toad when he gives her a little needle. That would be even better than a cackle.
Best would be Letterman giving her a needle the size of Excalibur but I don't believe he has the guts to do it.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 02, 2008 at 05:59 PM
Has anyone seen the new and improved Hillarity Ad?
Hillarity
Engaging? Makes me afraid, very afraid!
Posted by: Ann | January 02, 2008 at 06:02 PM
Rick,
Isn't Letterman already a Toad? :)
Posted by: Ann | January 02, 2008 at 06:08 PM
Ann,
She couldn't even control the eye twitches. Projecting sincerity is everything in retail politics, if a pol can't fake it, they don't make it. Maybe I'm hypercritical but I don't see that ad as being particularly positive for her.
I'd be interested to hear what others think though.
Isn't Letterman already a Toad?
Good point.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 02, 2008 at 06:13 PM
Hugh Hewitt has a link to Robert Novaks Iowa predictions at Human Events: GO FRED!
1st Place: Mitt Romney
2nd Place: Mike Huckabee
3rd Place: Fred Thompson
4th Place: John McCain
He also thinks Hillarity will come in third. Ouch!
Posted by: Ann | January 02, 2008 at 06:30 PM
Huckahooey and Hillarity both do Leno tonight. One in person. One via live link.
So, if they both win their caucus do the Leno appearances get the credit? And if they both come in as "also rans" does their Leno performance get the blame?
Posted by: centralcal | January 02, 2008 at 06:33 PM
If they both do well in Iowa, does it count as an "in kind" contribution?
Posted by: kaz | January 02, 2008 at 06:47 PM
"semper scrutorum "
Or as she said to Bill "semper scrotum".
Posted by: PeterUK | January 02, 2008 at 06:53 PM
Mr Ballard
Re the Hillarity ad,not a bad blink rate,but how many times did she say "I" ? For some reason my speakers are disconnected.
Posted by: PeterUK | January 02, 2008 at 07:00 PM
Mr Uk,
That motto would look wonderful under the Clinton blazon (goat rampant, gules, bar sinister).
It wasn't the blink rate, her eyes to a miniroll accompanied by a twitch. She'd walk out of a poker game wearing a barrel.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 02, 2008 at 07:08 PM
What an image..damn you, Mr Ballard.
Posted by: clarice | January 02, 2008 at 07:31 PM
Better with the barrel than without it.
Posted by: vnjagvet | January 02, 2008 at 07:33 PM
Newsbusters reports on comments by Chris Matthew's on Obama. Here's the money line. What a complete arse.
"If I sit here tomorrow night reporting that he has won the Iowa caucuses the world will hear it and the world will be stunned because the United States of America, despised by so many, for lording it over the world these days, for dictating regional solutions by virtue of our military power will be saying, "No more." No more of invading countries. No more dictating a war-Americana. No more, "our way or the highway." No more Bush doctrine. No more Bush."
Posted by: Ann | January 02, 2008 at 07:52 PM
A big enough barrel has its advantages.
Posted by: PeterUK | January 02, 2008 at 07:53 PM
So Huck crosses the picket line to appear on Leno. For me, no big deal, but I heard earlier today that about 17% of Iowans are in unions.
Posted by: Sara | January 02, 2008 at 08:17 PM
That sounds like Chris' most ignorant comment yet...and that's saying a good deal.
Posted by: clarice | January 02, 2008 at 08:19 PM
Well, not the most ignorant comment, Clarice, because he said this about the new Hillarity Ad:
"Sweetest, Sexiest Woman This Side of the Planet"
Posted by: Ann | January 02, 2008 at 08:34 PM
You. Made. That. Up.
Posted by: clarice | January 02, 2008 at 08:37 PM