Always has been, always is, always will be.

   How do we know if his outbursts are not just staged.  The man is a pathological liar.

  The scary part is, if hillary gets elected, he and hillary will get even with those who 'betrayed' them.  You'll be able to walk across the Potomac with all the bodies floating in it.

I was watching Joe Kline on the Tavis Smiley show the other night, and the following was said during a discussion of Romney's pandering:

Tavis: I guess I'm lost for a quick second here, because I guess it depends on one's definition of pessimistic. But if Romney believes that the American people don't want to be told a bunch of negative stuff, why is that pessimism? He might not be a truth-teller, he might not be courageous, but why is that pessimism?

Klein: Well, it's pessimism for a simple reason: because he doesn't have faith in the public's ability to hear the truth, make sacrifices, and act on the truth. If you have a cynical view of the world and you think, oh, people just want to hear I'm going to lower your taxes and kick out all those wetbacks, then that's pretty pessimistic when you think about your view of human nature.

But if you think that the public can handle the truth, which is that in order to get universal health insurance, which we need in this country, we're going to have to pay a little bit higher taxes, and that we can find a path to citizenship for the 12 million here illegally, then that's kind of optimistic about your view of humanity.

Tavis: So before I get asked about it, I'm going to let you explain what you meant by wetbacks.

Klein: Well I was just using that in the derogatory way that a lot of people out in the country are using it. I certainly don't think of them in that way; I think of them as undocumented workers. And my position on immigration is really pretty radical. I think anybody who is willing to crawl across a desert or get in a boat from Haiti and go across shark-infested waters to come here is going to turn out to be a pretty successful American citizen because they'll work hard.

So how is it that Kline can use a word that's as derogatory to Mexicans as the "N" word is to blacks, and get away with it?

I was quite surprised to see this "statement of fact" in the linked NY Times article:

Mr. Clinton’s temper has been an issue for him as long as he has been in public life.

I suspect that most of the regulars at NB know that, and viewers of Fox News [Chris Wallace] understand that, but I think that this is just another one of those media censored [censored then] issues which was well known by the MSM during his 8 years in office, and during the years since, which the MSM has kept to themselves. I'll bet that during his tenure in office less than 5% of Democratic voters had a sense of his all too often boyish - no, childish - rants of anger; and that the source of the anger comes when his ego filled want of a legacy is challenged.

Why now? With his little blowups are becoming either more regular or simply more difficult to hide, because of the current campaign, is difficult to determine, but I suspect that this effort by this NY Times writer is formulated to give him cover.. he got it from his daddy. Perhaps the question is, Is Clinton drinking to excess like his daddy?

Dang it, I knew it would happen and I let it slide.

I just knew the President's speech would send the Market down.  My fave stock is down 1.5% already this morning.  But did I act on my hunch NOOOO.

Stupid Arrow.  Stupid Arrow.

I ♣ My Seal

  It seems that he is mourning the loss of everyone hanging on his every word. Additionally, hillery is in damage control mode with the campaign and they underestimated Mr. Obama. It must be frustrating in the extreme to have planned a coronation and have to run against a real opponent instead.

 The Article below shows to what length they will go to win:

Bill & Hillary: Union-Busters?

By Ronald A. Cass

Fresh from the Listening Tour, the Hillary I Know Tour, the Watch Me Cry Tour, and the Clintons for Change Tour (traveling the Back to the Future Express), the dynamic duo rolled into Nevada with a new message that should be music to conservative ears, but not an easy tune for them to carry: Let's Break the Unions!

The Clintons now tell Nevada caucus participants: don't follow the union bosses' directions. Think for yourselves. Act as individuals. Just because a union's governing body decides to support, say, Barack Obama is no reason to follow along blindly. After all, what right do union bosses have to tell the rank-and-file how to behave, to dictate your political choices? Not that there's anything wrong with that when it's the AFSCME union endorsing Hillary, but it's downright Orwellian mind-control when leaders of the local Culinary Workers Union pick the wrong gal (or guy). That's why Hillary shamelessly went door to door in Las Vegas imploring Culinary Workers to ignore union directions while Bill lectured workers on independent thinking.

After getting Hillary endorsements from the leaders of 13 unions representing 6 million members, thanks to relentless pursuit of every establishment credential they could find, the Clintons responded with outrage that a local union with 60,000 members could prefer her primary opponent. As Bill said, this shows the "establishment organization" is with Senator Obama, while the "insurgents" are with Hillary. (Somehow I missed Hillary's days as a grass-roots community organizer - which must have come somewhere between her stints as First Lady of Arkansas and First Lady of the U.S., great places to hone those bottom-up organizing skills!)

That endorsement sparked the recognition that union bosses are elitists whose power hurts workers. In his best, red-faced, finger-pointing, hoarse-shouting style (right on cue for the 10-year anniversary of Matt Drudge's exposure of the Monica story), Bill told listeners that union leaders "they think they're better than you are" and challenged workers to buck the unions.

Of course, Hillary and Bill aren't suggesting that the 6 million members of unions endorsing Hillary should be independent. Union members should still vote for Hillary when union leaders say they should, but they also should vote for Hillary when the union says they shouldn't. That's the kind of independent thinking the Clintons want.

**********

The new call for independence for union members runs smack into the ingrained view of Democratic union-backers that workers can't stand up for themselves as individuals. That's the idea all pro-union laws are built on - individual workers need unions to stand up for them. For 75 years, Democrats have insisted that workers can't decide whether to stay out of a union other workers have chosen, that workers can't negotiate for themselves on issues within the union leadership's portfolio, and even that workers can't decide whether they want to have their money go to a union, much less direct how it's spent.

Conservatives long have challenged the assertions that workers are better off having someone tell them what they should do, having unions speak for workers, take money from them, and spend money on political causes (and, implicitly, candidates) that the union leaders favor. But Democrats, backed by huge infusions of union money, keep a system in place predicated on just the opposite view.

The system works well for the union leaders and the candidates they support. Laws pushed by Democrats have allowed union taxation of worker wages to support leaders' spending priorities. Unions collect $8 billion or so annually through involuntary assessments. One court, looking at union spending, found that about 80 percent of union collections went not to worker representation and collective bargaining but to political activity. Something like 95 percent of this spending goes to help Democrats. In the 2000 elections, unions spent an estimated $800 million on attack ads and other political activities to promote Democrats, including Senate candidate Hillary Clinton (a special favorite of the United Auto Workers Union). The AFL-CIO alone will spend $200 million on the 2008 races.

That's not small change, even for a party now obsessed with change.

The Supreme Court's 1988 decision in Communications Workers v. Beck ruled that union members have the right not to support political spending they don't agree with. But one of President Bill Clinton's first acts was to repeal an executive order from President George H.W. Bush implementing the Beck decision (by requiring federal contractors post notices telling workers they aren't required to give money to unions for political spending). Bill and the union establishment saw no reason even to let workers know they have the right to think for themselves when that threatens the Democrats' prime engine of political sponsorship.

But that was then.

**********

The Clintons are nothing if not flexible. Bill can lie straight-faced about anything with enough charm to almost make you believe it, and Hillary will morph into any character - from tough cookie to cookie baker - to get votes. Yesterday, she was the candidate of experience. Today, she's the candidate of change, even if that just means she gets the Oval Office and Bill gets to have tea with the other spouses.

Few people bother to challenge Bill and Hillary's reversals and revisions - like backing a lawsuit challenging the location of caucus sites in Las Vegas that their team helped pick when they thought the Culinary Workers Union would endorse Hillary. Blatant self-interest and bold infidelity to facts are simply part of the package we've all come to know. But the former and would-be future First Couple continues to push the envelope.

In the last couple of weeks, comments by the Clintons and close supporters have shown astounding disregard for anyone and anything in their way. Andrew Cuomo (of the famously sensitive political family) said that Senator Obama can't "shuck and jive" his way to the White House. Charlie Rangel called Obama "absolutely stupid" - for something Obama never said. Bob Johnson elliptically reminded voters of Obama's youthful drug use (what he was doing in Chicago in the 1970s that we really can't say in public), then explained that referred to Obama's community organizing. Uh-huh. Hillary claimed she doesn't want race or gender to play a role in the campaign - so long as women understand she'd be the first woman to break the "hardest glass ceiling" and that sisterhood trumps brotherhood.

For liberals, the assault on union leadership has to be the cherry topping off this sundae of sloppy reasoning, shameless self-promotion, callous indifference to fact, and calculated insinuation.

For the rest of us, maybe this one time - just this once - we should take Bill and Hillary at their word. Let's show that new bipartisan spirit. Take up their cause. Roll back rules that support union politicking. Let workers spend their own money and pick their own candidates. And see how Democrats really like union members exercising their independence.

Ronald A. Cass is President of Cass & Associates, Dean Emeritus of Boston University School of Law, and author of "The Rule of Law in America" (Johns Hopkins University Press).

I just have to ask if anyone is listening to Rush at the moment...

Shanklin is singing a parody of McCain to the tune of "If You Don't Know Me by Now" I am absolutely cracking up laughing at the moment...

Thank you Rush/Shanklin!