BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

John McCain:
Portrait of a Demagogue

Demagogue: “A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.”
The American Heritage Dictionary

Demagogues are vampires who prey on the viability of society. They depend on hatred, hostility, and dissension for their very political survival. Wherever there is underlying tension and hostility, they exploit it, and in the absence of hostility, they create it. They have a vested interest in creating discontent, and they are most creatively prolific, when society is in turmoil.

And there’s a very good reason for that. A demagogue’s agenda is virtually always fundamentally at odds with what’s in the best interest of the people. So the only way that they can get the people’s support is to appeal to their hatred, fear, or anger��"that’s when individuals are most prone to act without taking the time to think about their actions. Demagogues specialize, therefore, in appealing to the emotions. That allows them to circumvent the mind, and thus, not have to deal with the nuisance of one’s common sense.

An example of that strategy at work is clearly demonstrated at a recent John McCain rally. While addressing his angry supporters--who were already frustrated over the economy, the financial bailout, pending foreclosures, and the loss of jobs--instead of reassuring them by sharing policy initiatives that he’d developed to address their concerns, he further inflamed the crowd by giving the floor to, and agreeing with, a supporter who stood up to called Barack and Nancy Pelosi hooligan socialists.   Read More »

I hope you don't mind, but I'm posting this one to the Democratic site. Somehow I think Obama will view this as the best $25 he's collected during the entire campaign:

"That one" (14+ / 0-)

My husband, blue collar white guy, truck mechanic,
flag outside on the front porch, not a political junkie at all (basically, someone Sarah Palin would condescendingly describe as "Joe Six-Pack"), called me a little while ago to tell me he sent $25 to Obama's campaign. (With no prompting at all from me, BTW.)

It was his first political contribution in the 20 years I've known him. You know why he did it? Because McCain called Obama "that one." He yelled at the screen when McCain said that, and couldn't stop venting about it all through the debate.

I can't exactly describe his reaction -- it wasn't just "how dare he insult the candidate I'm voting for." It was as if it was his patriotic duty to help stand up for Obama and stop McCain.

So yeah, I think he sees Obama as his President.

From Daily Kos

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

A Footnote to Posterity

As I watched the second presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain, my mind drifted off to when I once watched a Space Shuttle landing. All the drama of the mission was over, and the space walk had been completed successfully. Now all that was left to complete a perfect mission, was to bring the bird in for a landing.

As the shuttle grew larger over the horizon, I remember being overwhelmed with pride over this marvel of engineering, and for the thousands of ordinary people who had come together to accomplish its mission. Then as we continued to look out over the horizon, the sound of unabridged competence suddenly crackled forth as the commander of this magnificent vessel spoke to ground control: “Landing gear down, and all systems online. Glide path and descent, five by five.” Then after several seconds of awestruck silence, and as we watched the majestic bird descend, the commander’s voice chimed in once again, with that matter-of-fact tone, as though he was pulling his car into the driveway. “Thirty seconds to touchdown.”

As impressed as I was over the feat of engineering that went into the space shuttle and its mission, I found myself even more fascinated by what must have gone into building the kind of man with the competence, intelligence, and cool professionalism that could command such a vessel--and I had that very same feeling as I watched the cool professionalism of Barack Obama’s performance last night. I felt privileged to bear witness, to the very best this nation has to offer.   Read More »

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Is a Black President Too Much Change for America to Bear?

Ok, let’s drop the nonsense and be real, here. If Barack Obama was White, he’d be at least twenty points ahead of John McCain in every major poll in the country. His election would have been so certain by now that Michelle would have already been sent the keys to the White House--and we all know it.

By any indicator--intellect, character, prudence, demeanor, or competence--Barack Obama is clearly not only head and shoulders above John McCain, but he’s one of the most impressive presidential candidates in the history of this nation. So what American voters have to decide at this pivotal point in our history, is how much do they truly love America. It’s time that we really embrace this question, instead of simply paying lip service to it.   Read More »

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE


The Vice Presidential Debate:
Joe Biden Vs. Betty Boop

The writers can take the day off at Saturday Night Live this weekend, because comic relief won’t be necessary. Mark Twain himself couldn’t have provided better satire than the reality of last night’s vice presidential debate. The face-off between Sen. Joe Biden and Gov. Sarah Palin had the surrealistic air of a movie that combines a human actor with a cartoon character. It should have been billed Joe Biden versus Betty Boop--or Biden v Boop, if you will. But I have to begrudgingly tip my hat to Ms. Palin, even if I have to mix my metaphors, because she was forced to face Zorro with a wooden sword, and due to her fancy footwork, she almost pulled it off.

I also have to give credit to the McCain campaign. They set the stage well to mitigate a pending disaster by complaining that the moderator, veteran journalist Gwen Ifill, may have had a conflict of interest because she wrote a book on a new generation of Black politicians that included a chapter on Sen. Barack Obama. Of course, they didn’t make a big issue of it--after all, that would have precluded any journalist from writing a book that included any national politician during an election year--but they did make enough of it to possibly give Ms. Ifill pause before pursuing any of Ms. Palin’s cutesy, non-answers with aggressive followup questions to probe her grasp of the issues beyond superficial talking points. Who said desperation can’t inspire a stroke of competence?   Read More »

The stately old vessel
Limps weakly towards port
As the rolling storm begins.
Vermin gnaw its rotting hull,
Destroying from within.
Colors that once flew proud and strong
In distant and exotic lands,
Now flutter shamefully,
Tattered and torn,
Reflecting the flaws of man.

With cheers of fading greatness,
True patriots were scorned;
Demagogues were lifted aloft,
While the ship of state we mourned.

But the old vessel was
Made of sterner stuff
By a different kind of man;
Storms and vermin and rotting hulls
It can easily withstand.
Waiting in port, a fresh new crew
Eager to take command;
A new coat of paint, and fresh colors await,
A proud ship of state's next stand.


Eric LaMont Wattree
Copyright ©2008 Eric LaMont Wattree

wattree.blogspot.com

I take great pride in being the product of adversity, because having simply survived provides me with unassailable credentials.

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Experience is What Brought Down Wall Street

The McCain camp seems to have settled on a motif for this campaign. Every chance they get, they lapse into the mantra of how much more “experience” John McCain has over Barack Obama. But don’t let them pull the wool over your eyes. While it is true that McCain has been in Washington for over 26 years, that in itself doesn’t mean that he’s benefitted from experience. The American Heritage Dictionary defines experience as the “Active participation in events or activities, leading to the accumulation of knowledge or skill” (emphasis added). Thus, by definition, there are two components to experience--first, undergoing the experience itself, and thereafter, having the common sense to learn from it. But in John McCain’s case, there’s compelling evidence that strongly suggests that he hasn’t learned a thing.

In 1987 McCain was chin deep in a scandal very similar to the one that is currently playing out on Wall Street. He was one of a group of senators dubbed “The Keating Five” involved in a scandal by the same name. In 1976 Charles Keating moved to Arizona to run the American Continental Corporation. In 1984, shortly after the Reagan era push to deregulate the savings and loan community, Keating bought Lincoln Savings and Loan and began to engage in highly risky investments with the depositors’ savings. In 1989 the parent company, which Keating headed, went bankrupt, and it resulted in over 21,000 investors losing their life savings. Most of the investors were elderly, and the loss amounted to about 285 million dollars.   Read More »

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

A Red Flag Flies High Over Financial Bailout

I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out this financial bailout, but the banking community's schemes to rid us of our money have been so convoluted that it's hard to get a handle on whether or not they're telling us the truth about the immediate severity of the problem. But there's one thing that I do have a handle on, and it sends a flaming red quilt all the way up the flagpole.

The Bush administration��"the very same people who have mismanaged everything they've touch for the past seven and a half years, and who have gouged, corrupted, and claimed to have literally "lost" billions of dollars of taxpayer funds in Iraq--is now asking that we give them full control over the way they spend 700 billion dollars to resolve this financial crisis--and with the warning that even taking the time to think about it is dangerously imprudent.   Read More »

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

It’s Time for America to Step Up to the Plate

So here they come--all the corporate fascists, hat-in-hand, wanting the American taxpayer to bail them out. These, the very same arrogant, and compassionless social terrorists who demonized as "socialist" anyone who even implied that maybe a crumb should be set aside for the poor or middle class. "Deregulate. Let the market work. Free us from the nuisance of social protectionism, and we’ll make America great!" But now that their greedy excesses have worked against them, all of a sudden socialism doesn’t look all that bad. In fact, it looks better with every day that passes--as long as we remember to privatize the profit, and only socialize loss.

Yes--here they come en mass before the great unwashed, the American taxpayer, and without a bit of shame, asking for 700 billion dollars as casually as kid asking for a candy bar. And beyond that, they say that it is a must that we accommodate them--and immediately!--if we hope to save ourselves. They say that we can’t even afford the luxury of thinking about it, because time is of the essence. But while they insists that there’s no time to waste, maybe this financial crisis is a blessing in disguise, because it gives the American taxpayer a rare opportunity to leverage his economic clout.   Read More »

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE


ODE TO A BLEEDING HEART�"2008

The one factor that has contributed most to the downward trajectory of America, was allowing the Republican Party to seize control of the political rhetoric. For over forty years the Democratic Party has allowed conservative zealots to run rampant in spreading distortions and misrepresentations regarding liberalism with impunity. As a direct result, two generations of Americans have come of age with a distorted view of what it means to be a liberal.

By failing to address this issue in a vigorous and forthright manner, the Democratic Party is not only doing a gross disservice to the honored memory of great Americans, but they're allowing the reckless distortion of fact to both blur our history, and gradually chip away at the fabric of this great nation. And by simply sitting back, without rebuttal, and allowing themselves, their constituency, and their agenda to be redefined in the eyes of the American people, they've allowed the term "liberal" to become a bad word in the political lexicon.

When you consider how methodically the conservatives have gone about mounting their assault on the liberal agenda, you can't help but recognize that it was a stroke of genius. Ironically, the Conservatives took the Democratic Party's primary strength and made it a political liability. First they took the party's penchant for being concern with the plight of the downtrodden and coined phrases such as "bleeding heart liberals" and "tax and spend Democrats." They then played on the frustration of the middle class by tying civil rights legislation, welfare, and crime into one neat bundle as the source of middle class woes; then they attributed all of these problems to what they called the Democrat's tendency to be " bleeding heart liberals". Then once the connection was made between minorities, welfare, crime, and the liberal agenda, it was just a matter of repeatedly hammering the message home.

The conservatives have used such tactics as spitting out the word "liberal" as though they were saying rapist. In this way they not only implanted a negative attitude toward liberalism in the mind of the voter, but it was said in such a way that the implication was made that it went without saying that all the negative stereotyping of liberalism was true. Their attitude seems to suggest, "I could substantiate what I'm saying about liberals, but I don't think it's necessary, since we all know what they're like." And in the election that spawned the "Republican revolution" the voters said, yes, we do, while the Democrats said absolutely nothing.

Through these strategies conservatives accomplished three goals with one ingenious stroke--they define minorities as slovenly criminals, they define liberal Democrats as "soft on crime", and they allowed themselves the freedom to place these thoughts in the American psyche wit

Hout having to substantiate their facts. Moreover, they accomplish all this in every sound bite, and without seeming to be racist, with the use of just one word--"liberal." In fact, conservatives have been so thorough in their disparagement of liberalism that at this point the word "liberal" is treated like vulgarity, and simply referred to as "the L word." one would think that Democrats would have been up in arms in defense of their great liberal tradition. It would seem that they would be falling all over one another in an attempt to debate this issue. But instead, they fell over one another trying to put distance between themselves and their own tradition. Much of the misery this nation has gone through over the past forty years might have been avoided if just one Democrat would have said, wait a minute, people! Read your history! It was the "bleeding heart liberal" policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt that brought this country back from the brink of disaster!

History is clear. In 1921--eight years before the great depression--Republicans took over the helm of this nation for 12 years. During that time there were three Republican administrations, the first of which was the administration of Warren G. Harding. History remembers Harding's administration for one thing more than anything other--scandal. It was during Harding's presidency that the Teapot Dome Scandal erupted. His administration was considered the most corrupt administration in the history of the United States--until Nixon's, then Reagan, and now Bush's administration.

Next, in 1923, came Calvin Coolidge, the president that Ronald Reagan is said to have most admired. Coolidge's policies of large tax cuts, allowing business a free-rein, and his encouragement of stock speculation contributed greatly to the impending stock market crash and The great depression that was to come.

Then in 1929 Herbert Hoover came to power. During his administration the stock market crashed, starting the great depression. In spite of the fact that by 1933 the unemployment rate was at 33.3% with 16 million people out of work, Hoover, the Republican, just sat, thinking that the economy would eventually rejuvenate itself. He felt the economy was fundamentally (Sound familiar?). Also during his administration 15,000 WWI veterans marched on Washington demanding that they be paid what they were owed by the government. Hoover responded by calling in federal troops to throw these ex-servicemen off government property.

Finally in 1933 Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a liberal Democrat, was elected overwhelmingly. After his election he immediately went about the business of developing a" New Deal" for the working class people of this country.

The New Deal had two components--one to help the economy to recover from the effects of the great depression, and a second component to give relief to the American people and to insure that they would never be placed in a position of total destitution again. To help heal the economy Roosevelt created programs that regulated business, controlled inflation, and brought about price stabilization; to bring relief to the people he signed The National Labor Relations Act , which guaranteed workers the right to collective bargaining, and he created the Social Security Administration to guarantee workers some sort of income once they became too old to work. He also signed the Fair Labor Standards Act which protected workers rights, and set a minimum wage to prevent workers from being exploited.

With his New Deal in place Franklin Delano Roosevelt, this "bleeding heart liberal", not only ledthis country out of the worst, Republican generated, crisis that this country has ever faced, but went on to lead the free world in victory over Hitler in WWII. He then ushered in the most sustained prosperity that the world has ever known.

One would think that conservatives would have seen the light at that point, but their passion to further enrich the wealthy at the expense of the middle and lower classes seemed to supersede all logic. Thus, from the moment that the New Deal went into place, conservatives have been determined to dismantle it. The closest they've come to succeeding started during the Reagan Administration with Supply-Side Economics, or, "Reaganomics"--and the battle is currently raging in Washington D.C. as we speak.

It started with Supply- Side Economics. That was a scheme hatched by U.S.C. economist Arthur Laffer and the Reagan crowd which was supposed to cut the deficit and balance the budget. The theory behind this sheme, came to be known as "Reaganomics," was ostensibly, if you cut taxes for business and people in the upper tax brackets, and then deregulated business of such nuisances as safety regulations and environmental safeguards, the beneficiaries would invest their savings into creating new jobs. In that way the money would eventually "trickle down" to the rest of us. Then, the resulting broadened tax base would not only help to bring down the deficit, but also subsidize the tremendously high defense budget. When the plan was first floated, even George Bush Sr, Reagan's vice president to be, called it "voodoo economics."

Reaganomics, for the most part, sought to undo many of the safeguards put into place during the Roosevelt era and create a business environment similar to that which was in place during the Coolidge Administration. What actually took place, however, was even more like the Coolidge era than planed. Instead of taking the money and investing it into creating new jobs, the money was used in wild schemes and stock market speculation. One of these schemes, the leveraged buy out, involved buying up large companies with borrowed funds secured by the company's assets, then paying off the loan by selling off the assets of the purchased company. This practice cost the citizens of this country an untold number of jobs. In addition, the bottom fell out of the stock market. On Monday, October 19, 1987 the Dow-Jones Average fell 508.32 points. It was the greatest one-day decline since 1914 - 15 years before the Great Depression.

And what about Ronald Reagan's promise to balance the budget and lower the deficit? By the time he left office he was not only the most prolific spender of any president in the history of the nation, but he also added more to the deficit than all of the other presidents from George Washington to his own administration combined. And what did the Republican Party propose to do about that? One of the Republican proposals in their "contract with America" was again, a capitol gains tax cut--for the rich.

So now, once again, a generation later, Republican, George W. Bush has come along and convinced the American people not to believe their lying eyes. And once again, he convinced America that we could create jobs by selling Gucci bags in a homeless shelter. Once again--even though we're still waiting for the "trickling windfall" from the Reagan era,�"he sold us on the fact that all we had to do was give Gucci a big enough tax break and he would create jobs.

But the laws of supply and demand are immutable--in the absence of resources, demand must come first , then supply. So just as in the Reagan era, if the people in the homeless shelter don't have the money to purchase the handbags, it doesn't matter how big a tax windfall we give Gucci, he's not going to hire more workers to make handbags that he can't sell.

But in their greed, the Republican Party and its business constituency refused to accept that simple principle. They said, we'll loan them the money to by the bags. But again, due to the boundless greed of the business community, instead of hiring the homeless consumers that they'd loaned the money to as workers to make the bags, they tried to squeeze every penny of profit out of the deal by hiring cheaper labor overseas. As a result, when the bill became due, not only did the homeless default on their loans, but the elaborate house of cards built on selling the valueless loans also collapse�"and guess who's now holding the "bag?" And now, all of a sudden, as McCain's position clearly demonstrates, the very same free-marketers who paid millions of dollars to keep the government out of the "free market", sees 85 billion reasons for government intervention.

Thus, history is clear. Conservative Republicans don't mind spending money, they just don't want
to spend it on those who need it--us; and they certainly don't mind government intervention in the free market�"as long as it's on their behalf.

When dealing with the Republican Party we must always remember, they're the party of Alexander Hamilton, one of this nation's founding fathers who believed that only those who owned property should even be allowed to vote. He was the quintessential elitist�"and with regard to the theme of the current election, firmly against change. He also said:

"All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the
rich and wellborn, the other the mass of the people.... The people are turbulent
and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first
class a distinct, permanent share in government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive an advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government."
Debates of the Federalist Convention (May 14-September 17, 1787).

So, let's set the record straight. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that "bleeding heart liberal", not only brought this nation back from the Great Depression, while saving the world from Hitler and imperialist Japan during his life, but his "New Deal" for the American people gave us the greatest prosperity we've ever known. It also allowed him to reach back from the grave, through the person of Bill Clinton, to save the nation from Ronald Reagan 50 years after his death. Now he's poised to do it, yet again, through Barack Obama, if the American people will simply open their eyes.

That isn't to say that the liberal Democratic philosophy corners the market on what is in the best interest of the nation--it is clear that both parties have had illustrious moments in the past. But this is one of those defining moments in American history that will determine whether this is to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, or a government where the citizens or nothing more than disposable resources for big business.


Eric L. Wattree



I take great pride in being the product of adversity, because having simply survived, provides me with unassailable credentials.

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Sarah:
Through the Humble Eyes of a Clueless Hood-Rat

When you’re raised in the ghetto and you’re either unaware or deprived of the many resources that society has to offer, you learn to make due with what you have. In that regard, I was fortunate enough to recognize at a very early age that the acquisition of knowledge, and the ability to think, is free. So while my economic condition may have restricted me to the ghetto, there was no force on Earth that could limit my mind through the imposition of caste and privilege. If one is determined to seek out knowledge, the opportunities are just as vast at the corner library, as at Harvard University. Thus, one must choose to be ignorant.

With that insight in hand, I tried to compensate for the deficit in my formal education by making every effort to mold myself into the most logical and objective thinker that I was capable of becoming. As a result of that effort, I quickly found that those skills served as a great defense against the condescension and hubris of those who consider themselves better educated, and more intellectually astute.

It also became clear during my attempt to hone my syllogistic edges, that most people, regardless of how intelligent or well educated, are inefficient thinkers. We tend to think backwards. Instead of following facts to a logical conclusion, I’ve found that most people tend to formulate convenient, knee-jerk conclusions consistent with what they want to believe, and only then, try to find the facts to justify their preconceived positions. As a result, while they may derive comfort through their fallacious web beliefs, their behavior, and their entire view of the world is based on a fantasy of erroneous misconceptions. The Republican Party has built its entire existence on this human failing. It owes its very success to those who thrive on factoids rather than accurate information.   Read More »

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

OBAMA HAS MY SUPPORT

AS LONG AS HE REMEMBERS WHO'S THE BOSS

I'm both a progressive and Obama supporter, so it goes without saying that I'm deeply disappointed with his reversal on the FISA issue. But the mere fact that Sen. Obama felt it both safe, and necessary, to moonwalk this issue after stating unequivocally that "I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty", says just as much about what we've allowed our political process to become, as it does about Sen. Obama's inability to stand firm on the convictions that he said he was so proud to embrace.   Read More »

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

A JOURNALIST’S FIRST RESPONSIBILITY:
TO PROTECT HIS FAVORED CANDIDATE, OR THE PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO KNOW?

As anyone who has regularly read my column is fully aware, I’ve been one of Barack Obama’s most fervent supporters since hours after he first declared his intention to seek the presidency, and I continue to support that effort. But I was bitterly disappointed with the position he’s taken on the FISA bill now before the U.S. Senate, and I’ve been quite vociferous in making that disappointment known to all who would listen.

On June 20th Senator Barack Obama announced that he was supporting the current FISA bill before the senate. That bill gives retroactive immunity to all telecommunications companies against all private law suits for cooperating with the Bush administration’s program of spying on the American people without a court order, as currently required by current law.   Read More »

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Hillary Supporter Pooh-Poohs the Mention of RFK’s Assassination
While DNC Continues to Slumber

In his Huffington Post article, “Clinton and RFK Deserve Better”, my good friend, Earl Ofari Hutchinson, Pooh-poohs Hillary Clinton’s mention of Robert Kennedy’s assassination in the context of this election, and all the while the DNC slumbers.

What is he suggesting , that she’s sleep deprived again? I think that’s getting kinda old, and I also think that it’s way past time for the DNC to come out of hibernation.

On May 11th while appearing on Meet The Press Hillary’s campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, made the same kind of statement to Tim Russert. He said that in order for Hillary to win the nomination “something big” would have to happen. Then Russett asked, “An act of God, or something catastrophic?”, and he said, “Yes, something big would have to happen��"absolutely.”

Hillary’s behavior has betrayed her to be nothing less than America’s version of a Third World demagogue--a woman who is so desperate and hungry for power that the thought of seeing it slip through her fingers has caused her to slip into her own private realm of reality. Personally, I’m seriously concerned that she might have left the ranch and gone camping on us. So at this point it behooves us to take her every utterance dead seriously.

Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE DNC:
PARTY LOYALTY GOES BOTH WAYS

Nervous over the growing fracture in the Democratic Party, the DNC is vigorously reminding Democratic voters of the importance of backing the Democratic nominee in order to win the November election. The problem with position, however, is the DNC its placing all of the responsibility for Democratic its success on the voters, while skirting its responsibility to act appropriately in its own regard. Party loyalty goes both ways.

In light of what the nation has gone through in the past seven years, political parties can no longer expect the voters to just fall in and march in lockstep to the party line. That’s what’s gotten us to where we are today--involved in a senseless war, without jobs, losing our homes, and with the very pillars of our society under attack.   Read More »

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

HILLARY, WHAT’S THE POINT?

After Tuesday’s primary results I had hoped that I had written the name Hillary Clinton for the last time during this election. But in spite of the fact that there is virtually no legitimate path for her to gain the nomination, she simply refuses to see the writing on the wall. Thus, she appealed to the superdelegates on Wednesday for yet more time to defy the will of the electorate.

It has been reported that her campaign is running so badly in the red that she’s invested an additional 6 million dollars into her effort for the nomination, bringing her personal loan to the campaign to 11 million dollars. That has led to speculation that she is trying to strike a deal with Obama to both reimburse her for her personal loan to the campaign, and also pay off her remaining debt in return for her leaving the race. There is also speculation that she’s trying to position herself for a spot on the Obama ticket as vice president.   Read More »

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

CLINTON CREDIBILITY:
A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS

Why are Democrats tolerating Hillary Clinton’s selfish juggernaut to destroy the Democratic Party? You’re sitting around allowing your nomination process to be corrupted, then asking, “Why can’t Obama close the deal?” Open your eyes. The man is fighting Hillary, Bill, the entire Republican Party, plus Rush Limbaugh and the entire FOX news staff.   Read More »

BENEATH THE SPIN * ERIC L. WATTREE

THE REV. WRIGHT IS WRONG:
IT IS GOD'S WILL THAT WE USE COMMON SENSE

Most people who have any interest at all in Sen. Obama's campaign for president are scratching their heads over what could possibly be governing Rev. Wright's decision to go public at this time. When I first learned that the reverend was being interviewed by Bill Moyers, I naturally assumed that he and the Obama campaign had decided upon a strategy of allowing the American people to see who the reverend really is, in order to offset the media portrayal of him. While I could understand the rationale behind such a move, it seemed to me that it was an extremely risky endeavor, and ill advised. Then I learned that not only was Rev. Wright being interviewed by Bill Moyers, but he was also going before the National Press Club, and all on his own accord, without bringing Obama into the loop. It was only then that I realized that we had a loose cannon on our hands, and we were also facing yet another political disaster.   Read More »

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE SUPER-DELEGATES

I realize that many of you feel that you owe the Clintons your loyalty, and others are waiting to ensure that you act in the Democratic Party’s best interest, but when is enough enough? Even the most rabid Clinton supporters have to recognize by now that Hillary can’t possibly secure the Democratic nomination without literally tearing the Democratic Party apart--and Hillary knows that better than anyone. So it must be clear to everyone by now that Hillary is no longer in this race to win. Hillary’s sole purpose at this point is to stay in the race as long as she can, and sling enough mud on Barack Obama to prevent him from winning in November. Then, since at McCain’s age he’s not expected to remain in office but one term, Hillary will still be young enough to run in 2012. I’ve mentioned Hillary’s strategy before, but it bears repeating, since it stands as a monument to mean-spirited selfishness.   Read More »

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

FALL OF THE HOUSE OF CLINTON

Hillary Clinton's ravenous ambition and sense of entitlement has clearly blinded her to reality. If she wasn't so blinded by the arrogance of believing that America owes her the presidency, she'd realize that her antics in this election is not only undermining any chance she has of becoming president, but it's also wreaking havoc on the Clinton legacy. The one thing the Clintons had going for them was America's belief that, with all their flaws, they were primarily motivated by what was in America's best interest. But that's no longer the case. Now we see the Clintons for what they are--