Where does Hillary go from here?

I don’t see Barry Obama giving her a meaningful post in his administration.

She can stay in the Senate. I expect, barring some oddity of politics, that she can be elected from New York State as long as she chooses to run. But that is not an administrative position.

Hillary wants to run something.

So, I’m going to suggest she consider running for governor of New York.

The current governor lucked out when Elliot “$3,000 whores” Spitzer was forced to abdicate, er… resign. Patterson has blemishes in his past and is not a statewide personality.

He is a product of the Adam Clayton Powell / Harlem machine. His purpose on the original ticket was to deliver the black votes that the Powell machine claims to be able to produce.

You don’t need Harlem to be governor.

Hillary Clinton would be an almost unbeatable candidate for governor. Patterson, umm…. not so much.

This is the year America elects a female President. Well, if not this year, then when?

That is the problem that Hillary and her supporters have. In a year that was made to elect her, a black man is running against her and to her left.

Hillary has little to lose by taking this campaign to the convention. She retains her seat in the Senate and can probably be re-elected repeatedly from New York. If she stands firm until the convention, she places a great deal on the shoulders of the men and women in the committees who will be deciding on seating delegates.

There are always problems, and this year is no exception. Two large states have delegates that may not be seated, because those states chose to hold their primary at a different time than the Democratic National Committee wanted.

The decisions on seating delegates will be a way to tell which way that the wind is blowing. If Hillary succeeds in having her delegates seated from Florida and Michigan, the city of Denver will be alive with the sounds of coats turning.

The superdelegates will have to face two equally unpleasant choices, voting against the strongest woman candidate in history or voting against the strongest black candidate in history. I predict ulcers and small strokes.

Could either Obama or Hillary swallow their pride enough to take the VP slot on a unified ticket? If Hillary does, it almost certainly rules out any chance of her running in 2016, due to her age. Hey, I said almost.

Obama, on the other hand, would still be young enough to run in eight years, should he settle for VP. But, why should he? Vice-president is far less than it’s cracked up to be, and that’s not much.

The good thing about a serious convention fight is that the far left that has pushed Obama forward is weak at the convention. The elected delegates and the super delegates are, for the most part, party functionaries and loyalistas. The netroots will have less influence in the decision making, thus, oddly enough, making the final ticket much stronger.

The delegates are the people who go home and get out the vote. The netroots can brag all they like, but the last several elections demonstrate that young people do not turn out en masse to vote for the far left. Nationally, mind you, not in local or state elections. Nation-wide, young people vote in no greater numbers than they have for many years despite the puffery of the left on the Internet.

The best situation for Republicans, as I see it, is that Obama or Hillary become the presumptive nominee well before the convention. We need a fixed target in order to inspire our people and in order to begin to affect the undecided voters. We do not need a unified Democratic Party marching arm in arm out of the convention center in Denver.

I was going to write a piece about Hillary, and why she has no reason not to take her campaign all the way to the convention. James S. Robbins at The Corner beat me to it.

It will only end if Hillary Clinton loses the will to keep fighting. It all comes down to her inner strength, her belief in herself and her destiny. Right now the only person who can prevent Hillary from taking this all the way is Hillary.

Dude!

One caucus and a whole lot of press does not a campaign make. Even if tomorrow is bad for Hillary, do not count her out.

February 5, when most of the planet holds its primaries, is the day. That’s when you’ll see who makes the cut.

And Hillary will make the cut. Satan promised her when she sold her soul.

I missed this year’s Equal Pay Day, I guess. I’m unemployed so every day has an equal pay for me, $0.

The point of this day is to point out the difference between the incomes for working men and working women.

Via Michelle Malkin I learn that Hillary had a piece on a lefty blog on this issue. Good. Perhaps she can answer questions about her husband’s handling of the issue.

Eight years Bill was in office. 8 long years. The gap between the sexes closed a grand total of 2.2%. What a remarkable record. Can we expect this sort of performance from President Hillary? Pitiful, I mean?

Oh, wait. What’s that I see? Parity is at a record high under George Bush? 2.8% higher than Bill Clinton’s best?

And George Bush still has three more years.

Ian Murray slaps Hillary around today for her profound ignorance. [Or, I would suggest, utter lack of carring about the truth. If you cannot be bother to make the effort to determine the truth...]

Once again, Sen. Clinton demonstrates that she knows, as they say in my part of the world, sod all about energy. Switching off a light doesn’t harm Iran or Venezuela one whit. It most likely harms the ordinary coal miner in West Virginia or Kentucky. Electricity, Madam Senator, comes from burning coal or natural gas, sometimes from nuclear and just occasionally from a renewable source like wind or solar. Oil-fired power stations are a thing of the past.

So if the good Senator wishes to say “Take that” to an oil-exporting country, she should refuse to step into her limousine or on to a private jet. Saying, “Take that, Iran,” is rather more difficult as her husband, she may not have noticed, issued a series of Executive Orders (PDF) forbidding virtually all trade with Iran. Now, of course, driving or flying less will hurt Iran indirectly because fungibility means that world demand drives the oil price, not simply US demand. However, because Iran can produce oil relatively cheaply, driving or flying less is more likely to hurt Canada or African states where oil extraction is more expensive.

So spare us the sanctimony, Madam Senator, and pick up a book on Energy 101.

Democrat & Chronicle

Sen. Hillary Rodman Clinton will be in East Rochester on Monday to visit the newly installed fuel cell at the Each Rochester School District, her staff confirmed today.

Clinton, the leading Democratic presidential candidate in 2008, also will announce recommendations from a “green” building conference she held in Rochester last fall.

She is expected to tour the school district about noon.

As for the fuel cell:
Democrat & Chronicle

EAST ROCHESTER — The East Rochester school district should be generating its own electrical power this weekend because of a fuel cell that has been up and running since last Saturday.

The technology is expected to cut the district’s energy bill as well as the emission of gases that, according to many scientists, cause global warming.

After seeing a Discovery Channel program on fuel cells about four years ago, Assistant Superintendent of Business Michael Mamo began efforts to bring the technology to East Rochester. With the help of an $833,000 state Energy Research and Development Authority grant, the district purchased a fuel cell from United Technologies Corp. Power.

East Rochester is the first school district in Monroe County to install such a fuel cell, which produces 200 kilowatts of electricity an hour. Liverpool’s school district in Onondaga County has one, as do a sprinkling of districts across the country.

East Rochester’s fuel cell sits in a closed room across the hall from the elementary school cafeteria. A window will soon be installed so students can watch it produce the power that will be used to cook their lunches.

Because the fuel cell looks like a 10-foot-tall box, the district’s director of technology, David Rovitelli, is planning a computer display that will show students and interested citizens exactly how this 16-ton device turns hydrogen fuel and oxygen into electricity.

The fuel cell should generate 50 percent of the school district’s electricity during the week, when energy use is high. When classes aren’t in session, it will meet all of the district’s power needs.

For now, UTC Power is taking care of the fuel cell. Soon district employees will be trained to handle basic maintenance, and head custodian Jose Correa is eager to learn more.

“Making half of our own power is pretty exciting,” he said.

The fuel cell project cost about $2 million. If the district receives the reimbursement from the state Education Department that it is expecting, $350,000 of that amount would come out of the district’s capital reserve fund.

With the fuel cell active, the district expects its energy bill to drop about $100,000 a year.

Superintendent Howard Maffucci says the fiscal savings are only a small part of the fuel cell project’s value.

If bad weather causes power failures, the district would still be able to produce energy and provide a safe haven for residents.

According to UTC Power, fuel cells are virtually pollution-free, giving off heat and water. By contrast, making electricity by burning coal, for example, produces carbon dioxide, a gas that most scientists say contributes to global warming.

The project also complements efforts to make Monroe County a hub for fuel cell technology.

“The greater Rochester area wants to be a player in alternative energy,” said Maffucci. “Here’s a real-life example of how it can work.”

This will be a great value to the district if it works as believed. I do want to point out that it would NOT have been possible without a significant amount of grant support. Alternative power sources have to be affordable to succeed.

The East Rochester Volunteer Ambulance Corps will be providing EMS for Hillary’s visit.

How will Hillary Clinton be a Senator from New York and a candidate for President at the same time?

On May 20, 2003, I quoted the following about the 2004 Presidential race:

Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.) has missed 162 votes in the House this year – 85 percent of the total … Gephardt has missed every vote on energy-related issues this session. House records show Gephardt also missed votes on other issues that are frequent themes in his presidential candidacy, including welfare reform, human cloning, healthcare, homeland security, education and tax cuts…

Other Democratic presidential aspirants also have missed votes, but to a lesser degree than Gephardt. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) failed to add his voice in 63 instances this year, 34 percent of Senate votes. (Not included in this total are two votes he missed in February due to prostate surgery.)

Last Thursday, when the Senate considered the House version of President Bush’s global AIDS initiative, Kerry used a floor debate to decry a provision in the legislation that required 33 percent of funds to be spent on abstinence education.

“We should not tie the president’s hands … I will support an amendment to strike this earmark.”

Later in the day, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) proposed just such an amendment. Kerry missed the vote on the proposal, which failed 45-52…

On August 4, 2006, I took on Congressional freeloaders, those missing when Congress is taking action:

Here are the ten worst, cheating you and me out of our hard earned money paid in taxes:

1. Lane Evans, IL-17, Dem, 38.7%
2. Jim Davis, FL-11, Dem, 23.2%
3. Ernest Istook, OK-5, Rep, 15.8%
4. Donald Payne, NJ-10, Dem, 15.3%
5. Ted Strickland, OH-6, Dem, 15.0%
6. Harold Ford, TN-9, Dem, 14.9%
7. Luis Gutiérrez, IL-4, Dem, 14.8%
8. John Sweeney, NY-20, Rep, 14.2%
9. Juanita Millender-McDonald, CA-37, Dem, 13.4%
10. Leonard Boswell, IA-3, Dem, 13.3%

[snip]

Layne Evans has been ill this year, dying of Parkinson’s Disease. He is supposed to be retiring at the end of this term. A court is appointing a guardian for him, which suggests that he should have retired long since.

Jim Davis is running for Governor of Florida, on the taxpayers’ dime. Instead of serving in Congress, he’s home, politicking for yet another taxpayer financed office. He should be turned down by the voters.

Istook is doing the same thing in his home state of Oklahoma. He’s running for Governor while being paid as a Congressman. Do the people of Oklahoma really want their pockets picked like this?

Ted Strickland is also running for Governor, in Ohio, while sucking down the gravy as a Congressman. Doing his job appears to be a low priority with him.

Harold Ford is running for the Senate in Tennessee, while serving poorly as one of its Congressmen. His relatives and their attraction to the wrong side of law enforcement combine with his poor work ethic to make him an unattractive choice for the Volunteer State.

Recent history shows that we, the taxpayers and voters, are very poorly served by politicians who run for another office than the one we voted them into. Unless Hillary resigns her Senate seat, the people of New York can look forward to a year and a half or more of lousy Senatorial representation by our elected rep. We pay her salary, and we should have the right to demand that she do the job we pay her to do.

With today’s announcement, Hillary Clinton enters the race for President. I am creating a category for all past, and future posts about Hillary, called simply Hillary.

I also announce my formal opposition to this run. No, not for the reasons you might think.

Hillary Clinton ran for the Senate from New York in 2006 and won a six year term. As a taxpayer and voter in New York, I believe I have the right to expect that she will serve out that term or resign if she chooses to pursue another office. Otherwise, for the next 18 months or more, she’ll be devoting an inordinate amount of time to this campaign and not to the people who elected her Senator.

First and foremost, an elected offical should serve the people who elelcted him or her. As we saw in 2004 and 2006, campaigning for another office prevents that from happening. I shall seek Hillary’s public committment to resign from the Senate to campaign for President.

And They Believed in the WMD, Too

Front Page Magazine

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”

President Bill Clinton. Feb. 4, 1998.

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”

President Bill Clinton. Feb. 17, 1998.

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”

Sen. John F. Kerry, D-MA. Oct. 2002.

“[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real.”

Sen. John F. Kerry, D-MA. Jan. 23, 2003.

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”

Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-MA. Sept. 27, 2002.

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY. Oct 10, 2002.

We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”

Sen. Bob Graham, D-FL. Dec. 8, 2002.

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”

Madeline Albright, Clinton’s Secretary of State. Feb 18, 1998.

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”

Madeline Albright. Nov. 10, 1999.

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser. Feb,18, 1998.

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others. Oct. 9, 1998.

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-CA. Dec. 16, 1998.

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”

Letter to President Bush, signed by Sen. Bob Graham, D-FL, and others. Dec, 5, 2001.

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”

Sen. Carl Levin, D-MI. Sept. 19, 2002.

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”

Vice President Al Gore. Sept. 23, 2002.

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”

Vice President Al Gore. Sept. 23, 2002.

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-WV. Oct. 3, 2002.

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-WV. Oct 10, 2002.

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA. Oct. 10, 2002.

Iraq Had WMD

A series of quotes from important people who believed that Iraq had WMD before we liberated the country. Collected by and borrowed from the always right and always right wing John Hawkins

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” — From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — Madeline Albright, 1998

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.” — Robert Byrd, October 2002

“What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.” — Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

“Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.” — Tom Daschle in 1998

“I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.” — Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” — Bob Graham, December 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” — Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

“Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production.” — Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998