The RIGHT Choice Has Been Made

Barack Obama told this country that his VP pick would be an example of his decision making in how he would run our country. So he turned to a Washington DC insider, Joe Biden, who has more years in the Senate than John McCain. So much for hope and change.

Senator John McCain, who never proposed a bill to Congress which had ANY earmarks in his own long senate career, made his own decision making and governing intentions quite clear with his VP pick. He chose someone with executive experience who has shown a clear desire to reform anything with which she was associated, someone who has kept her promises in any office she held, and someone to whom her constituents have given consistently high approval ratings. He has made the RIGHT choice in Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska.

The selection of Governor Palin has, to no conservative's surprise, caused a bit of panic on the Left as they have fallen over each other trying to make McCain's decision look like a huge mistake. Unfortunately for the Left, their reasons given do more to put the spotlight on their own huge mistake in choosing Barack Hussein Obama for the top of their ticket. Here are some examples:

1) McCain can no longer use his best argument. ---The liberals think that because McCain chose someone for VP who is young and fresh, he can no longer accuse Obama of being too young and inexperienced. But Obama is at the top of his ticket and is not running for a legislative position greater than his. He is running for the nation's top executive position with NO executive experience whatsoever. McCain was at least leader of his own squadron during the Vietnam War. Palin, who is only running for VP, has executive experience as mayor and then governor of the largest state in the country, land-wise.

2) Alaska is corrupt. --So are a lot of other places. She has been a strong reformer in that state, obviously swimming against the tide. There has been much fruit for her labor, too. While Obama hails from Chicago, another corrupt locale, where his work as community organizer has not stopped the city from becoming once again mired in an intense level of violence not seen since the early 1970's.

3) No comparison to Hillary. ---Yes, and thank God for that. Sarah Palin, unlike Hillary, is a strong woman who did not use her husband's coattails to get herself elected governor. Palin is a tenacious fighter, an athlete who played in pain on the high school basketball team as point guard. She is a woman who earned the nickname "Sarah Barracuda." Hillary has also earned several nicknames, none so flattering.

4) She has no base of support. ---Obama won his senate seat with 18 million votes while Palin won the governor's office with nearly 115,000 votes. What they fail to mention is that on the very day McCain announced his VP choice, he and Palin received over $7 million in contributions the first day. Part of that was $500 from me. So I consider myself, a non-Alaskan, part of her base of support.

5) She has never traveled outside the US. ---Would you believe someone on CNN (Crescent News Network) actually speculated this? First of all, she was born in Idaho and moved to Alaska where she grew up. Anyone with any knowledge of geography knows you have to leave the US in order to get to Alaska from the lower 48 states. Second, she has indeed traveled to Ireland once. And in 2007 she traveled to Germany and Kuwait. Looks like she made it to both places before Obama did, and SHE made it a point to visit the troops!

Isn't it funny that nearly every criticism of her is done with a comparison to Obama? Are they forgetting she is only running for VP? I tell you, every time they make a comparison between Palin and Obama it merely highlights Obama's weaknesses.

I look forward to seeing how she does on the campaign trail and in the debates.


For a host of sources see the Wikipedia page on Palin. Also used Dallas Morning News Opinion Blog.

Ayers' Presence Pollutes University's Credibility

In the July/August issue of the Illinois Alumni magazine it was announced that "effective immediately, all Illinois alumni and students are granted membership in the University of Illinois Alumni Association." This means that anyone who attended the U of I at any location (Champaign-Urbana, Chicago, or Springfield) even for only a semester, or worked as faculty or staff, or even if they were classified as "friends" of the U of I are all included as members of the UIAA. This act swells the roster to 600,000 people.

They might as well have an all-inclusive policy now, because I am hereby publicly renouncing my life membership in the UIAA, as well as anything else having to do with the University (save my degree), because of my embarrassment and disgust over their continued employment of an unrepentant William Ayers as a professor of education. Read about the founder of the terrorist organization, Weather Underground, HERE with links to sources.

Clinton apologist, Lanny Davis, has equated Ayers to a murderer on more than one occasion, most recently on the Sean Hannity show on 8-26-08. Davis also defines a terrorist as one who kills civilians simply for political gain, and agrees that Ayers fits that definition.

And although I am grateful to the University of Illinois-Champaign for a quality education at a (then) reasonable price, and believe the Alumni Association an otherwise positive entity, I cannot continue to ignore the blatant disregard by the U of I to the fact that Ayers has publicly stated that he wishes the Weathermen had done more. More what? We can only assume from the context of the interview in which he stated this, that he meant more killing and mayhem through bombing police stations, the US Capitol building, and the Pentagon. I cannot sit idly by while my Alma Mater further legitimizes a murdering terrorist. If only the FBI had not botched it, he and his "partner," Ms. Dohrn, would be serving life sentences.

I call on other Illinois alumni to do likewise and renounce their memberships AND WITHHOLD FUTURE DONATIONS to the University of Illinois, if they have not already chosen to do so.

The Stupid Choice Has Been Made

Before the news came out as to whom Obama chose to be his VP, I had in mind my own opinions about a few of the likely choices. I felt that NM Governor Bill Richardson was the smart choice. He would balance the ticket with his executive experience in running a state; he would bring his own Washington experience from his years in the Clinton cabinet, he would satisfy the liberal addiction to identity politics merely by being Hispanic (and thereby increasing Hispanic voter turnout for Democrats); and he would enhance the fact that the West is now in play by perhaps tipping the balance to Obama even in McCain's home state of Arizona.

The fearful choice (choice made from apprehension of repercussion) would have been Hillary Clinton. Fear, mainly of her many female minions who no doubt would like to cause trouble at the convention both because she was not chosen, AND because the news came out at 3AM (an obvious dig against her highness for the "3am phone call" ad she ran). Fear, also because if he had chosen her he would feel nervous every time he started his car or took a bite of food. Somehow the Clintons have acquired the reputation for being overly ambitious.

The desperate choice would have been either Edwards: John-the-adulterating-former-Senator from NC or Chet the unknown-but-Washington-insider Congressman from TX for reasons stated herein.

But I would have thought the stupid choice to be Senator Joe Biden of DE. For Senator Biden not only doesn't compliment the ticket, but serves to directly contradict it handily. There are several examples of this. Here are a few: first, his many verbal gaffes which have brought much embarrassment to the Democrat party both for the stupidity of them and for the occasional racist nature of their meaning. Perhaps Obama was trying find someone to divert attention away from his own stupid comments. But the fact that Biden infuriates some minorities must have been lost upon the Illinois Senator. He would have been better served nominating Senator and former Klansman, Robert Byrd for VP.

Second, Biden is a Washington insider. So much so, in fact, that he has served six terms in the Senate. That's more than John McCain himself. Obama has stated publicly that America is no longer great---that our country isn't what it once was. Much of the blame for this would logically fall upon his own VP choice. Would it not? I suppose there is no HOPE in any CHANGE happening in an Obama administration now.

Third, Biden voted enthusiastically for the Iraq war. And even though he has flip-flopped on this issue, Biden still wants to make our military LARGER, not smaller. This is the complete opposite of what Obama has proposed to do.

In addition, Biden offers no economic gravitas to the ticket. And his double brain aneurysm that he survived could spell big health issues down the road.

All this just to get someone with foreign relations expertise. Go figure.

Obama The "Flake"

J. R. Dunn at American Thinker has predicted that Barack Hussein Obama will lose the upcoming election because he is a "flake." The following is an excerpt from Dunn's insightful and humorous column:

[I'm using the term in its generally accepted sense. A flake is not only a screwup, but someone who truly excels in making bizarre errors and creating incredibly convoluted disasters. A flake is a "fool with energy", as the Russian proverb puts it. ("A fool is a terrible thing to have around, but a fool with energy is a nightmare".)

Barack Obama is a flake, and the American people have begun to see it. The chief characteristic of a flake is that he makes choices that are impossible to either understand or explain. These are not the errors of the poor dope who can't grasp the essentials of a situation, or the neurotic who ruins things out of compulsion, or the man suffering chronic bad luck.

The flake has a genius for discovering solutions at perfect right angles to the ordinary world. It's as if he's the product of a totally different evolutionary chain, in a universe where the laws are slightly but distinctly at variance to ours. When given a choice between left and right, the flake goes up -- if not through the 8th dimension. And although there's plenty of rationalization, there's never a logical reason for any of it. After awhile, people stop asking.]

Read the entire column HERE. Can we afford to have an Obama-mentality running this nation? Leave a comment if you please...

The Tide Has Turned?

Zogby shows McCain over Obama 46% to 41% in their latest poll. However, Rasmussen still shows Obama in a statistical dead heat with McCain with a slight lead for Obama 47% to 46% over McCain when "leaners" are included in the polling results.

Next week will be very telling for the Obama campaign, as McCain with momentum will appear on Leno, and also announce during the same week his VP choice. Unless Obama pulls a rabbit out of the hat at the Democratic convention he may not enjoy much of a bounce from their "dog n' pony" show.

H/T American Power

An Olympic Tribute To China

My one and so far only tribute to the Olympic Games in Beijing. Too bad for them that hypocrisy isn't an Olympic-approved sporting event.

Perot Then...Obama and MSM Now

Well, that didn't take long. I am speaking, of course, about the Obama camp and the MSM [namely Andrea Mitchell] coming to the defense of their anointed one, Barack Hussein Obama, in his hour of need after Obama lost the Saddleback debate in a rout, by accusing John McCain of cheating. Here is the transcript of the Mitchell accusation from NBC's Meet The Press:

[(Videotape)

SEN. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ): Defeat it. Couple of points. One, if I'm president of the United States, my friends, if I have to follow him to the gates of hell, I will get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. I will do that and I know how to do it. I will get that done.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Andrea Mitchell, that's a pretty clear contrast.

MS. ANDREA MITCHELL: Oh, absolutely. And, you know, there was the crisp, immediate, forceful response by John McCain, clearly in a comfort zone because he was with his base. And Barack Obama, taking a risk in going there but seeing an opportunity. And a much more nuanced approach. The Obama people must feel that he didn't do quite as well as they might have wanted to in that context, because that--what they're putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MS. MITCHELL: He seemed so well prepared.]

What it brings to mind for me is the time Ross Perot and then-VP Al Gore had a debate on The Larry King show about NAFTA, and Gore ran rings around Perot to the point of embarrassment. Later, Perot accused Gore of cheating, too:

From the New York Times, September 16,1996--

[The Nafta Debate Accusing Gore Of Cheating

In November 1993, as the Clinton Administration was furiously working to win Congressional approval for the North American Free Trade Agreement, Mr. Perot, an opponent, agreed to debate Vice President Al Gore on ''Larry King Live.''

The billionaire was on the defensive much of the time, and Mr. Gore goaded Mr. Perot into making disparaging and sarcastic remarks to him, such as: ''You're lying -- you're lying now,'' and, ''Please, let's have an unnatural event and try not to interrupt me.''

The nationally televised debate caused Mr. Perot's poll ratings to plummet. And news coverage at the time had many people saying that Mr. Perot's impetuous performance made it harder to view him as a potential President.

In Mr. Posner's new book, Mr. Perot is quoted as saying why he thinks Mr. Gore did well in the debate. He says Mr. Gore was wearing a tiny, secret earpiece in his left ear, through which White House aides might have fed him information and debating tips.

''Watch the debate, and you will see that thing twinkle,'' Mr. Perot is quoted as saying. ''Let's say you were being fed good answers, or good questions, or you name it. Don't boast publicly about it because that is cheating. See, the news should have been, 'They cheated.' '']

The truth of the matter in both instances is that both Al Gore (then) and John McCain (now) came to their debates much more prepared than their adversaries. Al Gore was very specific in his examples to back up his claims and had statistics at his fingertips. John McCain has ready answers to questions because he has done one townhall meeting after another and has decades of experience from which to draw. In both instances, both Perot and Obama were so full of HUBRIS that neither of them went to enough trouble to prepare properly for the events in question. Frankly, I am a little surprised that the Obama camp hasn't cried racism at this point. Case closed.

Leadership Now More Than Ever

The following is a recent column by former Senator and Presidential Candidate, Fred Thompson in its entirety (for reasons previously stated) in which he so ably sums up the world situation and dangers therein:


Dangerous Times In Georgia Demand Serious Leadership

by Fred Thompson

[My mind goes back to August 2002 in Tbilisi, as I visited Georgia with John McCain. I remember it feeling rather dark and secretive, with the former-Soviet Union’s heavy hand still making its presence felt. President Eduard Shevardnadze, formerly Soviet minister of foreign affairs, presented a friendlier face to the United States, but was beset by economic problems and corruption charges. At the time I did not fully appreciate the power of the democratic impulses that were just beginning to bubble up and would lead to the democratic Georgian government we now see threatened.

What has happened in Georgia since that time should not be surprising to anyone. Certainly Russia has tried to pretty itself up: it renamed the KGB and even gave its 21st century strongman Vladimir Putin a new title.

But for some time we’ve seen Russia sliding back to its authoritarian comfort zone. Murder, imprisonment and property confiscation are back in vogue for any perceived troublemaker. Former Soviet provinces have faced all forms of intimidation, from thuggish trade shakedowns to cyber attacks that shut down communications with the outside world. And whether a former satellite like Poland or a longtime western ally like Germany, Russia has made overt threats over plans to bring eastern European countries into NATO or to deploy a U.S.-provided missile defense system.

Russia is not above using anything at its disposal to make its point. It is a wealthy nation, built on a petro-economy that provides oil and gas to dependent European nations, which are petrified of having their energy supplies disrupted and are now in their own economic doldrums.

Given all this, Russia’s incursion into Georgia is a logical extension of Putin’s autocratic words and deeds and Russia’s regional ambitions, which must be leaving those nations closest to Russia’s borders – the Baltic states and Ukraine – nervous about a bitter and uneasy winter.

All the while, in Eastern Europe some of America’s staunchest friends are watching to see what the reaction of the U.S. and the west will be to Russia’s latest gambit. The U.S. and others use the word “unacceptable,” undoubtedly with the same effect that we get when we use it with the Iranians. So do we threaten Russia with denial of the membership in the World Trade Organization that it so covets? Do we expedite Georgia and the Ukraine’s entry into NATO? Do we cut off the tens of millions that we send into Russia to – hopefully – provide for security of nuclear materials? Everything should be on the table.

But the one thing we must not do is allow Russia to feel it can get away with, let alone feel rewarded for, this invasion of a sovereign democratic nation that has also loyally supported coalition efforts in Iraq.

While this crisis plays out we should also note that these events give evidence of a larger reality: the next American President is going to face an international landscape that is more difficult and treacherous than we have ever faced. By now most Americans appreciate the dangers of international terrorism and the fact that a small number of people can wreck unimaginable havoc upon our country and our people if they get their hands on the right kinds of weaponry. What is less understood is that some of the older, traditional kinds of threats are still very much with us, only heightened because of the increasing availability of nuclear weapons and other weapon technologies.

Who wasn’t impressed by the sea of Chinese performers, smiling and perfectly synchronized at the opening ceremony of the summer Olympics, demonstrating to the world their discipline and “organizational skills”? Or their ability to present to TV viewers beautiful fireworks displays that don’t really exist? What isn’t an illusion is that China is engaged in a rapid military buildup, the extent of which we do not know. With hundreds of missiles pointed toward Taiwan, experts say China is developing the capability to take Taiwan before the U. S. has the ability to respond.

Pakistan and India are still belligerently staring each other down over Kashmir. Both countries, of course, have nuclear arsenals, and Pakistan is of questionable stability with a segment of its intelligence community supportive of the Taliban.

The Iranian nuclear threat proceeds apace.

As Iraq stabilizes and our role there is reduced, there will continue to be a major debate within the United States as to how we deal with this increasingly dangerous world of new threats as well as old ones. Our military is stretched thin and worn down and it is clear to anyone who takes the time to study the matter that we cannot get by with the expenditure of 4% of our GDP on our military. The threats to our country are going to require a much more dedicated response. To what extent should we fill the role that we have filled pretty much since the end of World War II as the No. 1 friend of democracy and provider of stability in the world? How much in the way of resources are we going to be willing to devote to this endeavor?

The isolationist tendencies of the Democrats are not limited to trade agreements. Many are tired of the war in Iraq and will want to use any “peace dividend” on domestic purposes as future demands of our entitlement programs become more and more apparent.

Little help can be expected from our friends in Europe no matter how much it appears that their own interests are at stake. European countries spend even less of their GDP on their own defense than we do. They continue to trade with Iran, refusing to impose tough sanctions as Iran develops its nuclear capabilities. These are the weak reeds on which many would have us lean in our effort to fight global terrorism and the authoritarianism that threatens democratic countries.

So let’s recap: international terrorism; powerful nation states on a quest for hegemony, whether close to home or further afield and with a willingness to squelch freedom anytime the opportunity arises; less stable and no less dangerous countries with nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities; an alliance of democratic nations of questionable resolve and a debate at home over our future role in the world with a political party happy to create the impression of diminished resolve with little concern for the long term damage such an impression may cause.

Under these circumstances the old title “leader of the free world” takes on renewed meaning. He will have to guide the body politic at home toward resolution and in all likelihood engender resolve in a new alliance of democratic nations to deal with this broad array of challenges. In short it will require someone with experience and the courage to put his nation’s long term interest above his own.

I suppose it’s obvious where I’m going with this. This is no time to elect a president whose international experience is limited to speaking to adoring European crowds who want to see the United States retreat from the world … until they require our help in the next crisis that threatens them.

It has been instructive for the country to see the candidates’ reaction to the equivalent of Hillary Clinton’s 3 a.m. phone call. While he was vacationing in Hawaii, Barack Obama’s advisors scrambled into action and initially came up with the expected liberal bromides which equated the actions of Russia and Georgia and only ratcheted up the rhetoric when they began to actually understand what was happening.

It wasn’t that difficult for John McCain. For him Georgia was another little-known part of the world, whose leaders and history he is familiar with. And long before this Georgian crisis, he’s had the correct read on Russia, just as he’s had the right read on what we needed to do in Iraq

This crisis half a world away confirms what I’ve been saying for a while: This election cycle, the traffic in the world is very heavy …and dangerous; it’s no time to give a kid with barely a learner’s permit the keys to the car.]

In the previous version of this blog, I posted my own opinion about today's Russia and the threat it poses to the world. It is one area where I think President Bush has left us dry. Russia has increased its influence through old satellites like Cuba, renewed its influence in Central America (Noriega returned to lead Nicaragua), and picked up new friends (Venezuela and Iran). It's very much like the Cold War in a way, except now China is leaning toward their old enemy, Russia, and Europe could be held hostage by a natural gas pipeline coming from the East on which they have grown very dependent. Much work is needed to be done by someone in the know. That would be McCain.

Fred pic courtesy of Creative Commons.
Fred column appeared originally in Townhall.com

Geert Wilders' Fitna

It's 17 minutes long but worth the viewing. Make the time. See what we're up against. Remember that freedom without responsibility leads to moral bankruptcy. And moral bankruptcy could result in a boomerang effect of a generation embracing fanatical Islam--like in Europe. But fanatical Islam can also sweep our country due to complacency. Trust me, we don't want to wind up like Europe.

Parts of this movie are hard to watch. Not for the squeamish. Truth can be like that. Also, because of the graphic nature I had neglected to post this in the past. It has been around for several months and banned from many sites, including You Tube. But today's political climate requires me to post this now. Watch it and learn.

Welcome Back, Newt!

That's it, Newt! Give her what-for! Fix Nancy Pelosi's little red wagon. Yeah, she'd rather go out and sell her new book, confusing the young women of America, than do the people's business of lowering gas prices! Pelosi's let-them-eat-cake attitude could land Congress in a heap of trouble IF Republicans continue to seize on the opportunities she presents.

So glad you're no longer making nice on the couch with her.

On a side note, I wonder why President Bush hasn't called Congress back into session or delayed their recess. Clinton did it to the Republican-controlled Congress every election year so the incumbents couldn't go back to their districts and campaign. It was a good ploy for Clinton. Perhaps Mr. Bush is counting on Democrats having to explain themselves???




That's it, George, giver her what-for! Fix her little red wagon! Waiting for Nancy Pelosi to don her Wonder Woman outfit after saying "we've got a planet to save."

This Blog Temporarily Allowed In China!

I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome all of my new readers from The People's Republic of China.

For the past several weeks I've noticed on Site meter a huge influx of curiosity from many parts of that country. It's funny that I never had ANY readers from China before. Now,...suddenly here they are!

It's a shame that as soon as the Olympics end I will probably never see another visit from that country again...unless a major political shake-up occurs. But why would a shake-up occur when China's economy is growing at 10% annually? The government may allow more capitalism as they see the bottom line grow, but they'll allow freedom only on a temporary basis at best and as it suits them. Enjoy it while it lasts, China!

Photo borrowed from Squidoo.

Tennesee Labor Union Ditches Labor Day For Muslim Holiday

I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it on SNOPES. But there is a Tyson Foods plant in Shelbyville, TN which employs 1,200 workers, 1,000 of whom through their union voted 80% in favor of replacing Labor Day (of all holidays) with Eid al-fitr, a Muslim holiday falling immediately after Ramadan. At least 700 of the 1,000 workers are Muslim, and 250 of them are Somali refugees. Snopes reports that there are over 1,100 Somali refugees living in the Shelbyville area. How can this happen? It's all about numbers and economics. See below.

American Renaissance News picked up on a related story in the WSJ in early June about JBS Swift and Co. losing all their illegal alien employees in an ICE crackdown, and replacing them with refugee workers making over $12 per hour (nearly twice the minimum wage). Read the whole article HERE.

No word yet if Swift's employees have voted to replace traditional American holidays with Muslim ones. The two articles do show that large manufacturing companies who cannot move their plants to Mexico or Central America where the labor is cheap, will do whatever they can to bring them here, legally or illegally. Either way, American workers seem to lose out.

But not everyone agrees American workers are hurt. “There are millions more jobs in the U.S. economy than there are legal workers to fill them,” says Craig Regelbrugge, co-chairman of the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform, which represents hundreds of farmers and ranchers.

I disagree with that wholeheartedly. There may not be enough workers in the Shelbyville area, but there may be many willing workers in the Rust Belt and other areas who have seen manufacturing jobs disappear. Why not relocate those workers? The State Department does this...for REFUGEES, but not Americans. And that is how areas like Shelbyville have acquired such a high concentration of Muslims, some of whom are no doubt radical in their religious beliefs. And now we shall reap what Tyson, Swift, et al,... sow. I'm wondering if the Tyson union at Shelbyville plans to add Sharia Law to their plant's personnel manual.

Pic borrowed from Columbus Townhall.
H/T: Paul

UPDATE: Friday, 08-08-08, Tyson Foods announced that due to complaints from some employees, Labor Day is back, along with an extra personal day that Muslim employees can use for Eid al-fitr or whatever they wish.

Now if Tyson had only gotten it right the first time there wouldn't be all this uproar...AND we wouldn't have known what the State Department was up to, either

AP Gets It (At Least Half Of It Anyway), Democrat Tax Hikers Should Take Notice!

In a surprising admission yesterday, the Associated Press published an article on line that admits what has been so obvious to the rest of us: how the wealthy spend their money has an effect on the whole economy. Unfortunately the AP writer of this article spends his time blaming the rich for turning thrifty during an economic downturn (and making it worse) than he gives credit for hiring employees and spending money, both causing and enhancing economic upswings.

Perhaps the liberal-minded should keep this in mind next time conservatives suggest tax cuts (even for the wealthy) to relieve the country of a recession! Read the whole article HERE.

H/T: Rush Limbaugh

Bill Clinton Refuses To Say Obama Ready To Be President

An article in the New York Daily News reports that former President Bill Clinton, although regretting some comments made during the Democrat primary, refuses to say that Barack Obama is ready to be President. Read the full article HERE. Personally I couldn’t agree more. Obama changes positions more often than a lab rat on a hot plate, he is the most pro-abortion candidate I’ve ever seen, he is too young, too inexperienced, he lacks mental stamina (see countless gaffes), he has a history of surrounding himself with people who have extreme views who express disdain for America (ie., his wife Michelle, Bill Ayers, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, etc…), etc…

But I suspect Bill Clinton may have other reasons in addition to mine listed for such a resounding omission of support. First, it is no secret that if Obama loses this election, Hillary will have one more chance in 2012 for a White House run. Considering that McCain will be….well, very old, and there will have been 12 years (once again) of Republican control of the Oval Office, things could line up quite well for Hillary should she stop telling tall-tales and wearing ugly pant-suits, and actually win her party’s nomination. It would be prime time for her to win it all. And Bill Clinton DID say on numerous occasions that Hillary is ready to be President, in spite of his recent qualifier to smooth things over for Obama:

["You can argue that nobody is ready to be President," the former President told ABC News.

"You can argue that even if you've been vice president for eight years, that no one can be fully ready for the pressures of the office," Clinton said.]

Here he seems to take a swipe at Al Gore, Clinton’s Vice President for eight years. This leads me to the second reason, that Bill Clinton believes that only Bill Clinton is qualified to be President. Why else would he virtually torpedo his wife’s chances by publicly getting hot under the collar and by falling for Obama’s race card trap? Although I think a strong part of Bill Clinton wants his wife to be elected, there is that nagging part of him which hates sharing the spotlight with anyone. We also saw this in Bob Dole (to a degree) when he made some backhanded compliments about his wife, Liddy, when she ran for President in 2000. She exited the primary shortly after. Though in Dole’s case he may not have wanted his wife to win the White House after a single term as senator, when he could not win after several terms served. But I digress…