Hillary Clinton

File under "rumors"  at least for now.

In 1988 Joe Biden had two brain aneurysms. Serious to be sure but he's been healthy for twenty years. Good for him. However, there is a rumor that he will withdraw after the VP debate claiming health concerns and be replaced as the nominee by Hillary Clinton. Such a move could be a game-changer though hard to pull off should the rumor become common knowledge in advance of the debate...

It seems according to this report  www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/127679 running on Arutz Sheva, silly politics has become more important that defending Israel.

Hat tip to Moe Lane at Redstate for pointing me to Michelle Cottle's convoluted reasoning at The New Republic concerning Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton.

Titled 'Shattered', it starts out asking the big question for everyone on the Left, "Can someone please tell me what the hell happened?" Obama supporters want the answer to offer substance to go with the stuff they've been shoveling. They know they won but haven't yet figured out how. An answer would point them in the right direction as the diss Hillary strategy is no longer available. Cottle and the rest of Hillary's supporters want answers to ward off the next pretender to Hillary's throne.

I like Cottle's assessment of the Hillary campaign.

... This presidential election was supposed to be a high-water mark for feminism. Hillary Clinton ... wasn't running as a Woman [or] to prove herself tough enough to hang with the Big Boys: [Her] strategy was to prove that she was tougher than the Big Boys. ... Hillary's candidacy was expected to showcase what it means to be a broad-shouldered, ass-kicking modern woman.

Iowa was where Hillary's inevitability narrative unraveled, but New Hampshire was where she got the idea that redemption lay in the legions of gals who rallied 'round when the (mostly male) political establishment and punditocracy began salivating at the thought of her imminent demise. ... Hillary's now famous moment of teary-eyed vulnerability fueled their fury. ...

And, just like that, the strong, proud, fearless, gender-transcendent Hillary morphed into a disrespected, mistreated victim. Grievance feminism came roaring back with a vengeance. ...

... the Democratic National Committee was compelled to insert into its platform this statement: "We believe that standing up for our country means standing up against sexism and all intolerance. Demeaning portrayals of women cheapen our debates, dampen the dreams of our daughters, and deny us the contributions of too many. Responsibility lies with us all."

Not even the primary's resolution could end the drama. ... the true dead-enders--an overwhelmingly female cohort--grew ever more marginalized and belligerent. ... they were increasingly derided as overly emotional and downright nutty. ... the extremism of Hillary dead-enders has played into all those tired stereotypes about women being fuzzy-headed and irrational.

The short version is Hillary talked tough but folded under pressure playing the gender card. Her supposed legendary leadership skills fizzled revealing a woman who couldn't run a campaign, let alone a nation. The "If you don't choose Hillary, you're sexist!" group did garner her a loyal core group but it was unable to deliver the nomination. Democratic "girlie-fication" was so complete, PUMAs forced anti-sexist language into the formal platform. That was the extent of real Democratic support for women. Hillary was the feminist heroine struck down while on her holy quest.

Enter Sarah Palin. Determined to stick to her non-sexist guns, Cottle goes after Palin, not on the issue of gender, but on the issue of issues. Well, maybe not so much.

The Palin pick is disheartening on so many levels. For starters, even what little we know about the Alaska governor's policy views is enough to make a traditional feminist weep. The staunchly conservative Palin not only opposes abortion rights (even in cases of rape or incest), she also supports abstinence-only sex education and takes a strict free-market approach toward health care. ...

... Palin is abjectly unqualified to sit one heartbeat away from the presidency. She is less than two years into her first term as governor of a state with a population roughly equivalent to that of Baltimore or Fort Worth. Her minimal experience with national domestic issues is overshadowed only by her total lack of experience, or even apparent interest, in foreign affairs. This ... makes the cynical tokenism of Palin's selection all the more vivid.

Having analyzed Hillary well, Cottle fails to bring the same objectivity to Palin's evaluation. She seems unable to conceive that choosing a woman of "intelligence, politcal savvy, [and] judgement"; a "smart, ambitious" woman; a "ballsy" woman who also happens to be a "staunchly conservative" woman could be anything other than "cynical tokenism". Yes, she really did say all those nice things about Sarah Palin before dismissing her just because she's a woman.

Strong, accomplished women are acceptable only if they're Democrats. Drooling GOP neandrathals wouldn't nominate one until the Left showed them the political value in it. Palin isn't the nominee because she's all the good things Cottle says about her. She's the nominee because her vagina might attract votes. Palin is just a political whore being pimped by McCain.

At some point, Cottle and the Left must give up the unqualified token woman meme. It's a non-starter and a bad-ender, too. Go back to championing the right to kill unborn babies, to tax the country into economic oblivion, to enshrine destructive energy policies into environmental utopian fantasies, to cling to 20th century solutions for 21st century problems and the rest of the bunk passing for serious issue debate on the Left. They'll fare better with traditional losing arguments than with talking down the gender they'd love to praise but can't just because of ideology.

But, perhaps Cottle is a faux feminist willing to put Party before private parts. Or maybe, deep down, she's not a real feminist at all. Seeing Hillary implode at the first sign of trouble, perhaps she's convinced if Hillary couldn't weather the storm, no woman can. If the Left brings their own storm - going after Sarah with smears, lies and distortions starting with her family and moving to her person, her positions and Party, then doing it all again; belittle her, shame her, wound her enough and she'll fold. If Hillary couldn't take it, who is this upstart from the outside to think she can? At the end of the day, she's just a woman, after all.

Who knows? Cottle may even be right. I don't believe it, but she sure seems to. What to do, and what to say, however, if she turns out to be wrong? So who is the one advancing the feminist cause? And who is fighting a principled fight for the rights and opportunities of women? It would appear to be John McCain. It sure isn't Barack Obama. And it's not Michelle Cottle, either.

Thinking Cottle gets the nod for President of Hillary dead-enders - but what do I know - I only have a penis ...

Blue Collar Muse

Not even Nostradamus could have predicted that in 2008 the one woman on a major party presidential ticket would be a Republican, or Governor of Alaska, or mother of five, or a moose hunter.  Yet, today, we have all four in Sarah Palin.

Any betting American would have predicted Hillary Clinton as the “feminist” role model of the year.  Hillary Clinton, a product of the feminism of the 60s and 70s, where “femininity” meant weak and “motherly” a flaw.

Sarah Palin, the Republican Party’s new favorite daughter, is of the new breed of feminists, those who believe women have crucial roles as wife, mother, and nurturer, and because of that -- not in spite of it -- they can be powerful, and effective executives. (Note: The lipstick line) 

Last night, Palin gave the speech she needed to give and so much more.  She demonstrated why she was a superior choice for McCain vs. the other so-called "short list" VP picks. Not only is she smart, tough, articulate, and dynamic, but also feminine, compassionate, and real.
Some critics thus far have focused on the fact that she defied expectations because the bar was so low. Hogwash!

I ask them to watch or listen to Sarah Palin again. Her convention address would be considered enormous, even superior, by any standard. That she's a woman, a mom, from provincial Alaska, and was elevated to national player status less than a week ago, all make her showing on the campaign trail thus far all that more impressive.

The bar is now set so high that Palin faces an incredible challenge for the remainder of the campaign and her career: continue meeting the elevated expectations.

Yet, I’m confident Palin will do just fine.  As long as she holds on tight to her integrity – staying true to her values, her personality, her womanhood … as long as she emphasizes her strengths while acknowledging her weaknesses. 

In the primaries, American voters rejected candidates who appeared to “play” leader, rather than act like one -- hiding their true selves and letting the media bait them into running from their supposed flaws.

Palin brings the authenticity to politics that Americans demand more so in a YouTube, people-powered media environment, where everyone is the media and regular people become celebrities in an instant.

Almost every child dreams of being a star at some point, and the Internet makes that possible for more of us.  If you have what it takes, you don’t need to be part of an elite club or have required connections.  Be confident, set goals, reach your potential, stay true to yourself, take care of your community and there’s no limit to what you can do.  Read: Vice President, United States, Alaska Governor, Mom.     

Sarah Palin.  A new hero for women, and men, across America.

In 2000, many Republicans thought they could defeat Hillary Clinton for the NY senate seat by calling her "shrill" 

 ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- The head of the state Republican Party accused Hillary Rodham Clinton of being "an angry woman" driven by "blind political ambition"

It was the second harsh letter from Powers to surface in a week. The first had called the first lady "cold-blooded and hotheaded" and denounced her as a "shrill and scheming person."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/07/20/newyorksenate.ap/index.html

Didn't work for us. But never mind, the Democratic party brain trust thinks this sort of petty charge will work against a Republican woman candidate.

Palin also took a swing at Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of the "current do-nothing Senate" for comments he made about McCain.

Reid's spokesman Jim Manley fired back, calling Palin's remarks "shrill and sarcastic political attacks."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/03/rnc.democrats.reaction/index.html?iref=hpmostpop

I guess namecalling is a step up from cyberstalking pregnant teenagers, but, we're still at the playground level when the worst thing they can attack is the tone of a woman's voice.

A little advice to our unhinged lefty friends; The shrill is gone

Over the past month, John McCain's online shop has churned out video after video aimed at Barack Obama. Most are television ads, while others were made just for the Internet. All of them have hit their mark dead center.

Let's go to the tape for a recap:

-- July 21, "Pump": Asks who is to blame for higher gas prices and answers the question with background voices chanting "Obama! Obama!" The kicker: "Don't hope for more energy; vote for it."

-- July 26, "Troops": Criticizes Obama foreign affairs and defense policy record and blasts him for playing basketball while abroad but not visiting U.S. troops when cameras were banned. The kicker: "John McCain is always there for our troops."

-- July 30, "Celeb": Calls Obama "the biggest celebrity in the world," comparing him with Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, but suggests he isn't ready to lead. The kicker: "Higher taxes, more foreign oil -- that's the real Obama."

-- Aug. 1, "The One": Internet video that mocks the messianic feel of the Obama campaign and Obama's own grandiose statements about being "a symbol of America returning to our best traditions." Moses imagery included. A sequel posted online Aug. 21 took a similar satirical approach to the Democratic convention.

-- Aug. 12, "Fan Club": A faux invitation to join the Obama fan club, with "amazing" perks that include higher taxes. The kicker: "We know he doesn't have much experience and isn't ready to lead. But that doesn't mean he isn't dreamy!"

And then came this flurry of ads over the past few days, right as Democrats gathered in Denver to nominate Obama:

-- Aug. 22, "Higher": Portrays Obama as a celebrity who doesn't understand the impact that new taxes have on the family budget. The kicker: "He's ready to raise your taxes -- but not ready to lead."

-- Aug. 22, "Joe Biden On Barack Obama": Resurrected Biden's criticisms of Obama right as word broke that Biden was Obama's pick for vice president -- and the praise that Biden bestowed on McCain. Great Obama reaction visual.

-- Aug. 22, "Passed Over": Accuses Obama of not picking Hillary Clinton as his vice president because she spoke the truth about him in the Democratic primary. The kicker: "The truth hurt, and Obama didn't like it."

-- Aug. 22, "3 AM": Borrows Clinton's much-discussed ad footage that suggests Obama lacks the experience to lead in an emergency. The kicker: "Hillary's right."

-- Aug. 22, "Debra": Loyal Clinton supporter vows to vote for McCain and tells other Democrats it's OK to do the same. The kicker: "Now [McCain's] the one with the experience and judgment."

-- Aug. 26, "Tiny": Highlights Obama's rhetoric downplaying the threat that Iran poses to the United States and Israel. The kicker: "Obama, dangerously unprepared to be president."

The latest Internet video was released yesterday. Dubbed "Remote Control," it shows scenes of dangers in the world as leading Democrats criticize Obama's foreign policy views and as Obama professes himself to be "a believer in knowing what you're doing." The ad is getting rave reviews.

Each video is powerful of its own right for different reasons -- the appeals to popular culture, the background chants of "O-ba-ma, O-ba-ma," the perfect timing, and the use of Obama's own words and those of his allies. But the videos are even more powerful as a package.

They are driving home a central theme -- that Obama isn't "ready to lead." Because he isn't ready to lead, the ads say, Americans can expect less national security, higher taxes, a continuing energy crisis, and a dangerous obsession with celebrity over substance.

The power of that message is evident in the polls: They tightened as the videos were released, and the traditional convention bounce has been slow to bounce Obama's way this week.

Obama's campaign hasn't exactly been silent as McCain's online machine churned out its videos. The Obama team, in fact, produced far more videos during the past month, and some of them have been equally good.

Obama has attacked McCain as a Washington insider, an economic ignoramus, an ally of the rich and powerful, and a yes man to President Bush. Obama has targeted narrowly focused issue ads at potential swing states. And his staff has fact-checked McCain's ads.

Like McCain, Obama also has been quick to pull the online video trigger for maximum impact. When McCain couldn't answer a reporter's question about how many homes he owns, Obama's team immediately released an ad titled "Seven" that pegs McCain as out of touch with the common man because he owns seven homes worth $13 million.

The ad closes with a picture of the White House and this message: "And here's one house America can't afford to let John McCain move into." A companion Obama Web video, meanwhile, asked Philadelphians on the street how many homes they would have to own before they lost track.

But McCain's online videos have packed more punch, created more buzz and forced the Obama campaign to play defense with counter-attacks. Even when Obama scored points after the flap over McCain's multiple homes, McCain quickly answered with an ad that turned the conversation to Obama's wealth and ethics.

And today, McCain took the high road, releasing an ad where he congratulates Obama for becoming the first black man nominated as a presidential candidate.

"Weirdly, McCain seems to have taken a lead in the rapid-delivery YouTube department," Instapundit Glenn Reynolds concluded after McCain released his "Remote Control" video. "I wouldn't have predicted that. The Obama stuff, meanwhile remains in this vein. It's well-produced and star-studded, but it's not hitting the key points."

<!--more-->

Why is this woman

NOT the Democratic Party's 2008 nominee for president?

Simple. It is because of this man:

I cannot think of a single person I've spoken to who disagrees with this fact. I especially have never spoken to a single Democrat who disagrees. Bill Clinton's presidency was NOT one of the greatest in history, despite it having been described as such as he was introduced last night to the Democratic National Convention in Denver. A great presidency is never a liability to a successor, unless that successor is a gross mediocrity; and no one at last night's convention would countenance that Barack Obama is a mediocrity. But a bad presidency is a liability to  anyone closely associated with it.

It is reported that Hillary Clinton is quite close to that liability.
____________________

What I have heard said by many conservative pundits since John McCain won the Republican presidential nomination (presumptively) is that John McCain was the "media's" choice for the Republican post. Of course, this assertion is always issued with contempt, as the media are largely portrayed by the conservative punditry as a hive of leftists. In many senses this is true; the media do tend left. And it is also true that many on the left, including those in the media, are not uncomfortable with a McCain presidency. I recall diehard leftists -- among my friends and family -- during the 2000 election cycle telling me that they were impressed with McCain and that I should be, too.

But if the media created John McCain's presumptive place atop the Republican Party, it was the Republican machinery -- along with countless conservatives -- that put Barack Obama atop the Democratic Party. Let me put it this way:

Why is this man

enjoying his ascendant celebrity?

Simple. It is because of this man:

During the height of the Democratic primary season, former Democratic vice-presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro drew much attention to herself when she asserted that Barack Obama was enjoying great success in his bid for the White House because he was black. Of course, the attention Ms. Ferraro drew from her leftist peers was largely filled with ire, though some in her party were quite sympathetic to her views. While it could be reasonably argued that Ms. Ferraro's observation has some merit, her reasons for saying what she did were really a type of cover. What I believe Ms. Ferraro was doing was concealing something about the candidate she was not only supporting but advising: She was concealing the fact that her candidate, Hillary Clinton, was losing NOT because Barack Obama was black, but because Bill Clinton was her husband. (Please note that I am in no way impugning Mr. Obama's obvious abilities and talents.) Instead of looking at the heart of the problem, Ms. Ferraro looked to alleged external causes for her candidate's struggles.

Last fall, I attended a Barack Obama event. It was very much a surprise to the local folks who know me who were also in attendance, as my conservatism often precedes me when I go to such events. What I noted afterwards was how many liberals came up to speak to me; all had one thing in common. They agreed with the (very conservative?) position that the Clintons were a bad choice for the 2008 nomination; they agreed that Bill Clinton was a liability to winning the general election; they agreed that the Clinton machine would destroy and digest any person who stood in their way; they agreed that the Clintons were motivated by power and avarice.

But to what were these liberals agreeing? That's right. They were agreeing with what Republicans had been saying about the Clintons since 1992.

Hence, the Democratic Party, staring directly at the very competent wife of "one of the greatest presidents in history" and a US Senator in her own right, took its cues not from itself but from the Republicans' "Anyone-but-Billary" meme. By the thinnest margin, Hillary Clinton missed a nomination because of too much baggage, with her husband being most of that baggage. Barack Obama might NOT be a better leader, legislator, or chief executive, but he isn't a Clinton, and has a better chance of winning the general election because he was not born  of such a pedigree; or so concluded many in the Democratic Party. Perhaps that explains why he did so well during his exploration process among the middle-aged white women comprising his earliest focus groups.

What I am saying is that the "vast right-wing conspiracy" has ultimately kept Hillary Clinton out of the White House... for now. But what I am also saying is this: The Democrats know where their party's weakest link is, and they don't want you to know it. Their weakest link is Bill Clinton. And it is for that reason that the Republicans should use all their muster to show why the Democrats don't really believe that Bill Clinton is the "greatest president" and why 9/11, the war on terror, and even the current housing crisis (or so they could argue) were all born during his presidency. Reminding voters of Bill Clinton's great national liability, and not Barack Obama's assumed weaknesses, is the key to Republican victory in November.

(One place to start: You know those "47 million uninsured Americans" who don't have health care and are being exploited by Democrats to foster sympathy for a nationalized health care system? Were they insured under Bill Clinton?)

___________________

Here's the calculus for a Republican win: Constantly remind the electorate that this man

is where he is because of this man,

and because the Democrats don't want Americans to recall what occurred on Clinton's watch, under his "great leadership" when, as even he said last night, he led "our nation to a new era of peace and broadly shared prosperity." That the Clintons have been pushed aside by many in their party proves that Democrats accept the Republican verdict on Mr. Clinton's presidency: it was not what he and his party think it was.

And the Democratic Convention's penchant for revisionism, a revisionism brazenly shaped in plain view, reveals the party must conceal Mr. Clinton's failures.

"Peace," Mr. Clinton? What peace? The peace of the World Trade Center bombing? The peace in Somalia, the Balkans? The peace which led to continuous military strikes against Iraq? The peace in 1998, when Osama bin Laden issued his fatwa in the heart of your presidency, calling for the murder of Americans everywhere, and that largely because of your abuse of Iraq? You mean the peace that led to 9/11?

You get the picture, and it's grim. It's no wonder the Democrats are revising history before our eyes in Denver. They are desperate for change.

Bill Gnade ©2008. All Rights Reserved.

Soren Dayton pointed out that the Clinton's have sounded a few odd notes and failed to sound a few other seemingly important ones in recent days.  A few more observations.

• After almost a solid week of wall-to-wall coverage - after announcing his VP selection and in the very middle of the Democratic Convention - not only is Obama not getting a bounce....John McCain is.  That can't be comforting for Democrats right now.  This is their highlight reel.  If this doesn't give them a bounce, what will it take?
• A number of top Clinton people are leaving town before the Obama acceptance speech, and while Hillary Clinton will attend the speech...Bill Clinton will not attend. 
• Hillary Clinton spoke to a women's group on Tuesday and "urged attendees to back the Democratic Party", but "did not mention Barack Obama’s name once " during the event.
• Suitably Flip notes an omission.

 From Clinton's speech, as prepared:  Those are the reasons I ran for President. Those are the reasons I support Barack Obama. And those are the reasons you should too.

 And as delivered: Those are the reasons I ran for president, and those are the reasons I support Barack Obama for president. 

• So, Hillary Clinton accepted a speech that had her calling delegates to vote for Obama (and released the text to the press)...but pointedly left that exhortation out at the last minute (when it's absence would be very noticeable)?
• And now Hillary has released her delegates, but refuses to tell them to vote for Obama, saying "I am not telling you what to do." 

What to make of all this?  I have two theories.

1. Selfish - The Clinton's may simply be trying to hedge their bets.  Remember, before Hillary Clinton withdrew, she and her her team were making the argument - both privately to the Democratic establishment and delegates, and then publicly to the press - that only Hillary could win the general election.  "Obama really can't win the general election", they claimed. 

The Clinton's still believe their vision for the Democratic Party is superior to the Progressive's viciously anti-DLC approach.  By not tying themselves too closely to Obama's success or failure, the Clinton's could emerge relatively unscathed and in a strong position to say "we told you so" to the Left.  This would give them leverage to re-establish themselves as the leaders of the Democratic Party. 

2. Head Fake - Hillary's pointed refusal to encourage her delegates to vote for Obama is unusually conspicuous.  It's the sort of thing you do intentionally to focus media attention on the story.  Is Hillary trying to create a high-profile moment during the Convention in which she rejects the Republican PUMA storyline and encourages her supporters to vote for Obama?   I'm a bit skeptical - it's a very risky high-wire act - but it seems like the sort of theatre the Obama campaign might orchestrate.  (Bonus: Hillary gets to look like the hero)

 UPDATE:  As I post this, the news breaks that Obama has been officially nominated by acclamation...

Former rival Hillary Rodham Clinton asked the convention delegates to make it unanimous, the culmination of a painstaking agreement worked out between the two camps to present a unified front.

CQ's Craig Crawford thought this about Hillary Clinton's speech last night:

Many of Clinton's supportive words seemed almost tacked on as an after thought. Several times Clinton listed various things she believed in, and then almost parenthetically noted that these were her reasons for backing Obama. In other words, she's for Obama because he agrees with her.

She basically said that Democrats should vote for Barack Obama because they agree with him. But here's what Bill Clinton said yesterday about "Candidate X" and "Candidate Y":

Suppose for example you're a voter. And you've got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that person can deliver on anything. Candidate Y disagrees with you on half the issues, but you believe that on the other half, the candidate will be able to deliver. For whom would you vote?

I have no doubt that Bill knew what was in Hillary's speech when he said that line.

As Ben Smith noted, "Clinton did little to sell Obama's personal characteristics, his qualities or ability as commander in chief."

There is still no audio-visual rebutal to Hillary's Not Ready" statements that she made in debates that has become the Republican communications rallying cry.

She and Bill did their duty as Democrats, but are leaving enough out that Republicans, Hillary supporters, and independents have something to chew on.

Bill Smith, Editor: Congressional Democrat leaders attending the DNC 2008 in Denver are attempting to transfer their failures to President Bush in an effort to distract voters by claiming their candidate is running against the Bush/McCain or McCain/Bush ticket. America is not stupid. Bush is retiring to Texas. And, Sen. John McCain as a maverick has never been part of the Bush team. It is true that Bush and McCain have conservative principles on which they agree. However, McCain as a maverick never placed party line first and often reached across the Senate isle to work with Democrats on critical issues. McCain has a leading democrat backing him and even the current identified Democratic vice president said positive things about McCain's qualifications to be president. Allegiances are shifting everywhere but with the Democratic leadership in Congress

While the candidates carry out their campaigns as they determine best, the Congressional Democrat leadership hides their failures behind George Bush. They are pursing a "con" job on the voters. They are working hard to sell their head-in-the-sand approach to energy policy to the American people. This may prove to be difficult with the divisions in their party who are deciding whether to continue following the inept Democrat leadership's refusal to produce more American energy. Some are tired of their leaders' ineptness and are considering joining with Republicans and sensible Democrats in support for policies like opening more areas to offshore drilling. ABC News reports that Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) is concerned that Democrats’ lack of action on a comprehensive energy solution could cost them politically. Abercrombie has joined with his GOP colleague Rep. John Peterson of Pennsylvania to urge a vote on an offshore drilling proposal.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is paying attention. Pelosi has not been bothered by these situations and has even advocated for Democrats with competitive races to lie and side with the Republicans because she can still stall and control things back in Congress. Though she’s been saying that drilling could be part of an energy package, she refuses to commit to a specific vote. Reuters reports, “She criticized President George W. Bush and other Republicans for presenting offshore drilling as an answer to the recent rise in U.S. gasoline prices, saying expanded drilling would not affect prices for a decade and then only by a small degree. ‘I don’t think that's a good alternative. But if they can prove that it is, and they want to pay royalties to the taxpayer ... then we have something to talk about’. . .”

Non-leader Pelosi would rather deal in distractions than grasp the laws of supply and demand. She says that drilling is not in her DNA. She would do well to read today’s New York Times, which discusses the recent rapid increase in American natural gas production. The Times writes, “Domestic natural gas prices have already plunged 42 percent since early July, an even faster drop in price than oil or most other commodities, in part because the rapid supply growth has begun to influence the market. Price spikes remain possible, of course, but throughout the industry the shale discoveries are causing a shift in thinking about the long-term outlook.”

Although doubtful, Democrats who understand how supply and demand work will be able to use their time in Denver to convince Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to that a “find more and use less” approach to energy is the best way to lower gas prices and provide more energy to America. Republicans have put forward a number of serious plans to do just that. It begs the question, when will the wiser more reasoned Democrats stop being lead by people who are disgracing their positions and hurting the American people? Also, noticeable is that five Democrat senators put themselves forward as qualified to be President of the United States and yet, not one of them would lead the effort to replace an inept Harry Reid. Pelosi and Reid, democrat agents of "no" change!