Burlington Hawk-Eye Endorses Clinton

In addition to the endorsements of the Des Moines Register and the Quad-City Times, Sen. Hillary Clinton can add yet another well-deserved endorsement to her list.  The Burlington Hawk-Eye had this to say about Hillary:

"Vetted perhaps more than any woman in history, Clinton demonstrates the resiliency and tenacity needed in a president, especially one who will inherit the challenges the current administration will leave behind.

In person, she's calculated yet personable. On issues, she's not a clone of her husband. She's an independent thinker with progressive ideas.

She promises that the days of secret eavesdropping and violations of other civil liberties ends on inauguration day. She promotes a reasonable approach to ending the war in Iraq and developing peace through partnership in the region. She honed her extensive international experience as first lady, traveling to more than 80 countries.

She finds it "galling" that American tax dollars help fund a first-class health-care plan for the wealthy members of Congress, while 47 million Americans go without access to decent health care. We'll take her word that she'll fix that, and that the wealthiest nation in the world will provide access to health care for those of little or modest means.

She sees the federal government as a partner with states and local schools in ensuring quality education.

Can she win? Polls show a dead heat in Iowa, and there are many undecided Democrats. Still, Democrats in the state would be selecting a proven leader with the skill sets necessary for our next president by caucusing for Hillary Clinton."

The Quad-City Times Endorses Clinton

Sen. Hillary Clinton picked up another important endorsement today, this one from the Quad-City Times.  Here is what they had to say about her and her candidacy:

"Hillary Clinton passes test after test after test. This Clinton arrived for the caucus campaign with much, much more experience than the first Clinton to stump across Iowa. In campaign speeches and in an interview with the Times Editorial Board, she spoke passionately of people — specific, real people — whose stories drive her desire to solve problems. “I was brought up to believe we were the problem solvers,” she told the editorial board. “If it was hard, that meant America would do it.”

This Clinton hasn’t shied away from problems.

As first lady, she stepped far beyond the traditional role and took on a major policy issue: health care. Washington special interests villified her for trying, branding any reform “socialized medicine” and even giving it her name: “Hillarycare.”

Regardless, she persevered, becoming an advocate for children worldwide and pioneering the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which has survived Republican and Democrat Congresses.

She passed perhaps the toughest personal test. Many Americans stand up for the sanctity of marriage. Hillary Clinton did something much harder. She very publicly stood up for her own marriage.

 She passed the New York voters’ tests. Twice. Rudy Giuliani backed away from challenging her to address his own health and marital problems. She went on to win and six years later won again by an even larger margin.

In the Senate, she’s worked across party lines to pass test after test and earn this testimonial: “This blue-state senator with a blue-state perspective has managed to build unusual political alliances on a variety of issues with Republicans.” That commendation was written for Time magazine by U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who led the impeachment prosecution against her husband.

We tested her, too, in our editorial board interview, looking for evidence of the partisan rancor that is destroying our country. We found none. Instead, we found a proven, passionate, intelligent leader with a breadth of legislative and executive experience that is the best of a good bunch.

For Iowa’s Democratic caucuses, we support Hillary Clinton."

This is just another great telling of why Hillary Clinton is the best person for the job of United States President.  Her experience and proven strength sets her apart from everyone else in the field. 

Anything Can Happen: My Analysis For How The Democratic Nomination Process May Play Out

With the pivotal Iowa caucuses just 11 days away, one thing is clear: anything, and I do mean anything, could happen.  So here are a few possible scenarios that could shape the outcome of this Democratic nomination process.

One scenario is that Hillary Clinton wins the Iowa caucus.  If she does that, then I would bet everything I have that she will be the nominee.  Iowa is Hillary's big hurdle and the biggest obstacle in her inevitability at becoming the nominee.  Hillary started out this year behind Edwards in Iowa, but by mid-July she began topping the Iowa polls.  She maintained her lead, although not a huge one, until November, when Barack Obama began pulling ahead.  Now, just a little over a week to go, Clinton is creeping up on Obama's lead.  In fact, Real Clear Politics has averaged the last 6 polls from Iowa, and the result is a literal tie between Clinton and Obama.

But just because Edwards isn't tied for the coveted first place spot in Iowa polls, he is, as Newsweek put it, the wild card in this caucus.  The reason for this is that Edwards has the most support among traditional caucus goers and hence his support is the most solid of the top 3.  Edwards is also the leading choice among caucus-goers when asked who their second choice is.  If I had to pick right now who had the best shot at winning Iowa, I would have to say Edwards.  Clinton has strong support, as does Obama, but both are counting a great deal on first time caucus goers, especially Obama.  

I'll go out on a limb here and say that Obama may actually perform the worst out of the top 3 in Iowa.  Why?  As I mentioned in a previous article (available here), Obama's support comes mainly from younger voters, the group that is historically the least likely to actually show up on caucus night.  Obama might have the momentum in Iowa right now, but the question that we'll have to wait to have answered is whether his supporters actually get out and take part in the grueling caucus process.  In short: Obama may be 2008's Howard Dean.

Going back to Edwards, the sad thing about him is that he could win Iowa by a large margin and still lose every other primary/caucus.  Unlike Clinton and Obama, Edwards is lacking in the financial resources to take his campaign through Super Tuesday.  Indeed, an Edwards' win in Iowa could all but guarantee that Clinton will be the nominee.  

So while this race is as unpredictable as ever, I will say with rather certainty that if Clinton finishes ahead of Obama in Iowa, then she will be the nominee.  On the other hand, if Obama finishes better than Clinton in Iowa, he will most likely be the nominee.  Sadly for him, Edwards has no real shot at being the nominee, although he has an excellent shot at winning Iowa.  

CIA: Still Out Of Control

The House Intelligence Committee issued a subpoena for Jose Rodriguez, a former CIA official who directed that secret video tapes of two captured terrorists be destroyed.  Those tapes contained interrogations that some have speculated show torture.

 

Mr. Bush wanted the Congressional panel to defer its investigation until an inquiry by the CIA and Justice Department is completed.  The panel's chairman refused to do so and rightly so.  Mr. Bush can get to the bottom of the destruction of these tapes if he really wanted to, just like he could have taken care and got to the bottom of the Valarie Plame case if he so had chose.  The two people involved in that case were Scooter Libby and Karl Rove, who happened to be working for the White House and were good friends of Bush.  Bush knew of their involvement, but let Ms. Plame get dragged through the coals.

 

History has proven the CIA can not investigate itself.  They cover their own tracks and flat out lie.  We know that from previous investigations.  It took the Church committee and the Iran-Contra hearings and other hearings to bring to the public the lies and dirty tricks and the violation of the law by the CIA.  The Justice Department is just as bad under this administration.  Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was one of the attorneys, along with others, who knew about those tapes according to recent reports.  A self serving statement was recently made by the administration saying that they recommended the CIA not destroy the tapes.  Recommended?  They should have told CIA not to destroy the tapes.  In fact, the President himself should have ordered the CIA not to destroy the tapes.

 

There is only one reason to destroy evidence, especially when a court ordered the CIA to preserve all records.  Why? Yea, you guessed right.  I wonder why the CIA failed to inform the courts of the tapes' existence, and like wise failed to inform the 9-11 commission.  Why?  Yea, you guessed right again.  This is the same game the CIA played during the Warren Commission's investigation of President Kennedy's death.  They withheld information from the Warren Commission that was not specifically asked for, even though they knew it related to the President's death and the investigation.  This was documented in the House hearings concerning Mr. Kennedy's death.  It really is time to break the CIA up in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind.  If the new Director of National Intelligence can't control the CIA better than it is doing, that too needs to be taken care of.