Another Senior Staff Departure In Hillary Land

Jessica O'Connell, the national director of operations, responsible for personnel management, staff deployment and headquarters operations, has decided to step down. She joins a raft of Patti Solis Doyle loyalists, ranging from wonderkind Adam Parkhomenko to deputy manager Mike Henry, who have departed in recent weeks.

Here is O'Connell's resignation letter.

I am writing to share with you that I will be leaving the campaign effective Friday, March 21. I remain awed by the Senator's energy, passion, leadership on the issues, and courage. Senator Clinton will continue to have my full support and admiration. I am incredibly grateful for the opportunity to have worked directly with so many dedicated and talented colleagues in Virginia and throughout the country. No matter what your role, whether you have been with the campaign for days or from the beginning, let there be no doubt that you are making history and helping to change the world.

I will work closely this week with Maggie to ensure that you will be updated on who is handling various tasks from the National office and how to contact them. We have strong teams in place to manage the logistics of getting people where they need to be and offices up and running around the country. At the National HQ, the operations team will continue to ensure that things run smoothly. Of course, if you are in Ballston, I cannot guarantee that you will not be too hot or too cold on any given day - and I will miss the flurry of creative emails I receive on the topic.

Thank you for your friendship and support. This has been a life-changing experience and I am grateful to those who gave me the opportunity to be a part of this remarkable effort.

O'Connell's resignation should not be interpreted as a sign of chaos in Hillayland. It's just that Williams's management style is very different than Solis Doyle's.

Comments

This is great news for Hillary Clinton?

Posted by TDE | March 18, 2008 1:47 PM

Clinton HIGH LEVEL EMPLOYEES led by MINORITY FEMALES.

Obama, the "Messiah of the Masses", has his corrupt campaign managed by a bunch of fat, cynical, old white crooks from the South Side of Chicago.

Axelrod, Plouffe, Rezko. A bunch of fat, greasy pigs, who you would normally find in in a haze of cigar smoke in some after hours strip club or gambling hall. Spending public funds in a never ending quest to satisfy their own excessive appetites.

Posted by robert ethan | March 18, 2008 1:50 PM

Why the departure if Hillary's on the upswing?

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | March 18, 2008 1:53 PM

It's just that Williams's management style is very different than Solis Doyle's.

That's a very pregnant statement. Care to add?

Posted by dry_fish | March 18, 2008 2:06 PM

O'Connell's resignation should not be interpreted as a sign of chaos in Hillayland. It's just that Williams's management style is very different than Solis Doyle's.

Thank goodness. For a moment I wasn't sure if I was reading impartial political commentary, or the official Atlantic Media outpost of the Clinton campaign. Thanks for clarifying that this is the latter.

Posted by SpottieOttieDopalicious | March 18, 2008 2:06 PM

"bunch of fat, cynical, old white crooks from the South Side of Chicago"

Thought the South Side was full of black anti-American racist preachers?

Posted by Mark H. | March 18, 2008 2:07 PM

Yeah, that too, Mark. Obama's FIXER REZKO builds RAT INFESTED SLUM HOVELS for blacks with POLITICAL KICKBACKS, and when the social fabric breaks down among them they find "salvation" in the hysteric ranting of Jeremiah "Bullfrog" Wright. Or someone equally rabid.

Posted by robert ethan | March 18, 2008 2:22 PM

Now there's a refreshing take on matters. Ballston isn't exactly low rent either. So, for all the Clinton staffers shaking or baking at any given moment out there in Virginia, the parking situation is really bad too – isn't it. The most aggressive parking enforcement in the whole world. I know, but there is a host of well heated, and or air conditioned bars nearby too. Plus, Starbucks has available internet. When Hillary rebounds, it'll all be worth it – you'll see. The shopping's pretty good too. Enjoy: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | March 18, 2008 2:27 PM

"Or someone equally rabid."

Hannity much?

Or is it Limbaugh this week?

Posted by Ray in AK | March 18, 2008 3:06 PM

Comments from the Hillary supporters about "Axelrod, Plouffe, Rezko. A bunch of fat, greasy pigs" and "FIXER REZKO builds RAT INFESTED SLUM HOVELS" really sadden me. If guilt by dubious association is the Clinton standard, do we really need to invite a return to to the good old Weekly Standard days? Do you remember how Hillary, while married to Arkansas's governor made $100K in commodity trading directed by the general counsel of Tyson Foods, one of Arkansas's biggest companies? Do we forget that when Jim McDougal gave the Clintons a chance to cash out of Whitewater (ie take a modest loss and be done with it), and Bill wanted to do it, Hillary vetoed it and put additional pressure on McDougal to turn a profit on a horrible deal? Have you forgotten how Hillary's Rose Law Firm billing records ended up in the White House living quarters, or how her partner Web Hubbell embezzled $500K from Rose clients in phony expenses? I guess you really haven't thought recently about all the foreign contributions to the Clinton presidential compaign or the library or the Paula Jones/Impeachment defense funds, or the pardon of Mark Rich. All that's been "vetted" so it's OK? Or as we watch the Wall Street bailout that's ongoing now, how Hillary is almost as much the Senator from Wall Street as is Schumer? The one area in which Hillary's professionalism outshines Obama's amateurism is in repetitive financial sleaze. How much sliming like a Republican can you do before you're no different from them?

Posted by Ty Kelly | March 18, 2008 3:13 PM

I wouldn't waste my breath if I were you Ty...

People that post crap like that are so far in denial about what's actually going on that they truly believe it...and whatever other twisted talking points Hillary's campaign has dreamed up this news cycle...

They are probably also the same people who believe that Sen. Obama is a Muslim...

Posted by TekTami78 | March 18, 2008 3:26 PM

O'Connell's resignation should not be interpreted as a sign of chaos in Hillayland. It's just that Williams's management style is very different than Solis Doyle's.

What is this analysis is based upon? The reassurances of the Clinton campaign?

Because really, Clinton herself couldn't have spun the news more in her favor than your article already does.

Posted by Hudson | March 18, 2008 3:34 PM

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

Posted by idiotic | March 18, 2008 3:50 PM

Right you are Idiotic!! The unworthy must leave the great Hillaryland where there is non-stop smiles and Hope for better future!! All Positive energy and no negative BS.

Posted by Fu | March 18, 2008 4:04 PM

Right you are Idiotic!! The unworthy must leave the great Hillaryland where there is non-stop smiles and Hope for better future!! All Positive energy and no negative BS.

Posted by Fu | March 18, 2008 4:04 PM

"Obama, the "Messiah of the Masses", has his corrupt campaign managed by a bunch of fat, cynical, old white crooks from the South Side of Chicago."

Hahaha you've clearly never been to the south side of Chicago.

Posted by Issabar | March 18, 2008 4:10 PM

Nobody leaves a winning campaign.

Posted by Nell | March 18, 2008 4:25 PM

Re: "wonderkind Adam Parkhomenko"

It's "wunderkind," Schatzi.

Posted by TKD | March 18, 2008 4:28 PM

"O'Connell's resignation should not be interpreted as a sign of chaos in Hillayland."
Yeah, it should - the backbiting and intercine warfare is well-known, why the disclaimer?
And as far as corruption is concerned, what about Librarygate, Robert Ethan? And did you know Rezko contributed far more to the Clintons before he even knew Obama?
The Clinton campaign would be a joke if it weren't so tragic.

Posted by Emmanuel Winner | March 18, 2008 4:32 PM

All this hate...I JUST WANT IT OVER! I am soooo tired of the hate spewed over the internet because people can do it behind a veil. I've seen things said I know no one would say if the person was in front of them. I JUST WISH IT WAS OVER......WE ARE BETTER THAN THIS!

Posted by TJFRMLA | March 18, 2008 4:57 PM

"Nobody leaves a winning campaign"
-thank you, Nell

And Issabar, I also love the previous poster's ideas of what the South Side is like here in Chicago. It seems to the trolls to be a mystical land where any and all types of miscreants and malcontents breed and thrive. It's a blank page on which to draw your favorite Monster. Ironic that the actual Clinton "Monster" hails from the near north suburbs.

Posted by tastytone | March 18, 2008 4:59 PM

Marc, I found Nell's comment a little more likely than your qualification about why she's leaving.

Posted by Deborah | March 18, 2008 5:11 PM

While you are cussing out the southside "crooks" that Obama "knows" you might like to tell ua about Senator Clintons link to known investment scam artist Norman HSU and this other guy - seen in the First Post, a British newwspaper;

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/?storyID=22998

maybe you better keep quiet
"The Clintons’ links to a major donor could be ammunition for Obama, says Edward Helmore

As the well-drilled Clinton attack machine moves into high gear - releasing pictures of Barack Obama in a turban, spreading fear over 3am leadership - its opponent, apart from winning primaries (another in Mississippi last week), has yet to return effective fire.

For ammunition, Obama might look no further than a party thrown earlier this month in Toronto by the diminutive mining financier, movie producer and global philanthropist Frank Giustra (right).""

Posted by Alecia Raniba | March 18, 2008 5:21 PM

A major campaign departure that is meaningless? Where do you get your analysis - Hillary's daily conference calls?

Posted by Linda A. | March 18, 2008 5:29 PM

HEY EVERYBODY *LOVE* IS THE ANSWER NOT HATE JUST A FRIENDLY REMINDER!!

I HOPE YOU LIVE A LONG AND PRODUCTIVE LIFE, OK???

THE PURSUIT OF KNOWLEDGE IS VERY FRUITFUL, YOU KNOW???

Posted by DREW | March 18, 2008 5:36 PM

They're jumping ship like they're on the sinking titanic LOL!!!

I knew Patty would leave soon, Hillary treats most of her staff that are not thugs are disposable toilet tissue.
BTW, Hillary where the hell are your 2006 tax returns?

Posted by Karen, NYC | March 18, 2008 6:13 PM

Bobby Ethane makes a comeback. Where you been buddy? Crying over Hillary getting her arse kicked all over the country? Let's look at Hillary's top two people shall we Bobby? Mark Penn and Terry McAuliffe. 'Nuff said. Yup, why the departure if Hillary's on her way to the White House Bobby...answer me that.

Posted by Mark Billingsley | March 18, 2008 6:14 PM

I concur with the above poster. HRC's campaign is a group of folks with great racial, ethnic, and gender diversity. Without trumpeting it, Clinton is actually moving us past race and gender--through the work of her staff. Obama, ironically, is run by a bunch of white guys. Same old, same old. Makes you wonder.

Posted by Margie | March 18, 2008 7:46 PM

Actually, folks posting hateful stuff like "robert ethan" are Clinton staffers and volunteers who are instructed to go out online and do so. On another thread a former volunteer for the Hillary Clinton campaign writes that they were told in training to overwhelm the blogs with stuff like that because the blogs do shape public opinion and the more that volunteers do on blogs and forums to tear Obama down, the better.

So, that's no surprise at all. That's the campaign strategy at work.

How those volunteers who've been trained to spew hateful stuff in order to help her win would feel when she eventually fails to make it to the nomination is anyone's guess.

Will they recover and work for the party, or would they have soaked in so much of that "tactical" bile that they can no longer help themselves? In which case they come to believe their own negative fiction and vote against the party candidate? No one knows.

Btw, "robert ethan" of course forgets to mention that Obama's National Field Director, Cuauhtemoc Figueroa, is Latino. 'Nuff said.

Posted by Bruce | March 18, 2008 7:54 PM

"Margie" writes:

"Without trumpeting it, Clinton is actually moving us past race and gender--through the work of her staff."

I say, exactly, like hire them and fire them like Pati Solis-Doyle, right? Use them, then refuse them, right? That gets us past race and gender, right?

Btw, Margie, Margie...don't I know that name from somewhere? Like campaign manager Maggie Williams? Whoa! You folks really got time on your hands. No wonder the campaign keeps reshuffling.

Posted by Bruce | March 18, 2008 8:44 PM

Ol' Maggie been bustin' some heads wid
de fry-pan. Ya needs dat once-a while.
Keep everone honest and behind dat
gal Hill 100%.
Meanwhile over at the Obama campign, they're
having tea and drinking with raised pinkies.
They're celebrating Obama's resurrection....
prematurely.
It's a great time to be a Democrat.

Posted by interferon | March 18, 2008 10:57 PM

Hey TekTami78: Thanks for the nice post. Ty Kelly

Posted by Ty Kelly | March 19, 2008 12:28 AM

Poor, pathetic people. The question of the day is, "What will you all do with your poor, pathetic lives when this is over?". I assume you'll go back to having sex with your cousins or work on that dirt road leading to you backwoods shack. Either way, I can't wait. Go Obama 08

Posted by mike | March 19, 2008 7:46 AM

THE PROBLEM WITH HILLARY

The problem with Hillary is that she seems to think she’s smarter than the rest of us. The next time you hear her speaking at a political rally, listen to her closely, then ask yourself, does she sound like a person who’s speaking to political allies, or more like a schoolmarm talking down to children and instructing them in the inherent value of being obedient and listening to the wisdom of their elders. She seems to have absolutely no respect for the intelligence of the American people. She comes off as though she views the American voter as an unfortunate nuisance to be manipulated to reach her goal. For example, when she was quoted as saying, “He’s [John McCain’s] never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.” That statement was clearly calculated to leave the impression in the voters’ feeble little minds that while John McCain has never been president, she has. And to hear the dismissive tone that she takes towards Barack Obama, one would never know that while Obama was both the president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor of Constitutional law, she failed the bar exam.

The one good thing about this extended primary season, however, is that it gives us the opportunity to see past the candidates’ political veneer–we’re afforded the opportunity to see how the candidates actually handle crisis and frustration. It also allows us to see their decision making capabilities. It gives us a snapshot of the kind of personal character that they’ll bring to the White House–and recent history demonstrates just how important it is that we avail ourselves of that opportunity. If we’d done so with Bush we could have saved close to a million lives, billions of dollars, and an immeasurable amount of heartache. Thus, anyone who is truly curious about what a Hillary Clinton presidency would bring–and that should include all of us--should tune out all of the promises, all of the “day one” nonsense, and simply open their eyes, because Hillary is on display as I speak.

We’ve already seen one example of Hillary’s character--or, lack thereof--in her willingness to endorse the Republican candidate over her fellow Democrat. Now we’re getting another look with her recent statement that by not allowing a second vote, or finding a way to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates was “un-American.” Question–if not seating the delegates indeed un-American, wasn’t it just as un-American when she agreed to it before she needed them to try to catch Obama?

If the foregoing isn’t enough of a red flag about Hillary, we’re being given yet another opportunity to observe her character as it applies to her feminist credentials. Hillary has represented herself as a strong and independent woman throughout her entire career. Much of her support comes from feminists who think they’re supporting one of their own. Yet, now, just as she turned on the Democrats to accommodate her ambition, she seems also willing to turn her back on her feminine independence--the very foundation of the feminist creed--to embrace her husband’s resume as her own. She’s actually trying to convince America that she served as co-president with her husband during what she would have us believe was a Billary administration. If her claim was true, there’d be no problem, but she wants us to simply take her at her word, without any evidence to substantiate her contention. She claims to be an expert in foreign affairs, for example. Ok, then she should be prepared to tell us what foreign initiatives has she fostered? What foreign leaders has she been in negotiations with, and what was the outcome? If I know Hillary–and I’m beginning to know her better every day--if she had any evidence whatsoever of foreign affairs experience, or anything else to show she was more qualified than Obama, it would have long since been brought to the forward. So we must assume that her honesty is suspect, and since she’s being so slow to reveal her tax return, she’s probably being less than candid about the Clinton family’s financial dealings s well. .

Now let us turn to competence. I would love to grant that Hillary is at least as competent as George Bush, but the only evidence that we have to measure that is the way she’s run her campaign--and in that regard, she seems to be making some the very same mistakes that Bush made in Iraq. Just like Bush in his Iraqi campaign, Hillary assumed that this primary season was going to be a walk in the park. She thought she’d have the nomination rapped up by Super Tuesday, so again, just like Bush, she had no plan B. As a result, in spite of the fact that she raised more money than any other presidential candidate in history, other than Barack Obama, she ended up with budgetary problems that led to her having to loan her campaign money out of her own pocket. And beyond that, she’s also shown us that she tends to get flustered under fire. When Obama began to take over the lead, she didn’t know whether to cry, get angry, embrace her opponent (“I’m so honored to be here with Barack Obama”), or go on the attack (“Shame on you, Barack Obama ”), so she ended up doing all three, making herself look ridiculously indecisive. She’s also demonstrated that her pledged commitments tend to be rather shallow. While she claimed a commitment to moving away from old-style politics, when she came under pressure her first instinct was to reverted right back to the old slash and burn tactics that she learned from Carl Rove and the Republicans.

So while Hillary is telling us that she has what it takes to be president on day one, what we see is a Democratic candidate who claims to want to protect the American people from having to live through another Republican administration, yet now that she’s hopelessly behind in the delegate count, lacks the integrity to stand by an agreement made by all of the candidates prior to the primaries. We also see a candidate that is so desperate to protect the American people from the Republican Party that she’s slinging mud all over the Democratic effort, and endorsed the Republican nominee over her Democratic opponent. In addition, we see a candidate who has built her entire career on the proposition that she’s a strong, independent woman, yet now, seems all too willing to throw the principles that’s guided her life out the window to use her husband’s resume to reach her goals. And finally, we see a candidate who claims she’s uniquely prepared to be president, yet used such poor judgement, and mis-managed her finances so badly, that it caused a budgetary crisis within her campaign.
The American people need to ask themselves one question–in light of what we’ve already gone through with George Bush, is this the kind of character that we can depend on to repair our country? On the other hand, their only criticism of Obama is their claim that he’s inexperienced. But if Barack Obama is so young and inexperienced, how is it that he’s handling both Bill and Hillary with such ease? And why is it that it’s the two “seasoned politicians” who’s finding it necessary to play dirty politics? America needs to give that some thought.

Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com

Posted by Eric L. Wattree | March 19, 2008 10:51 PM

THE PROBLEM WITH HILLARY

The problem with Hillary is that she seems to think she’s smarter than the rest of us. The next time you hear her speaking at a political rally, listen to her closely, then ask yourself, does she sound like a person who’s speaking to political allies, or more like a schoolmarm talking down to children and instructing them in the inherent value of being obedient and listening to the wisdom of their elders. She seems to have absolutely no respect for the intelligence of the American people. She comes off as though she views the American voter as an unfortunate nuisance to be manipulated to reach her goal. For example, when she was quoted as saying, “He’s [John McCain’s] never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.” That statement was clearly calculated to leave the impression in the voters’ feeble little minds that while John McCain has never been president, she has. And to hear the dismissive tone that she takes towards Barack Obama, one would never know that while Obama was both the president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor of Constitutional law, she failed the bar exam.

The one good thing about this extended primary season, however, is that it gives us the opportunity to see past the candidates’ political veneer–we’re afforded the opportunity to see how the candidates actually handle crisis and frustration. It also allows us to see their decision making capabilities. It gives us a snapshot of the kind of personal character that they’ll bring to the White House–and recent history demonstrates just how important it is that we avail ourselves of that opportunity. If we’d done so with Bush we could have saved close to a million lives, billions of dollars, and an immeasurable amount of heartache. Thus, anyone who is truly curious about what a Hillary Clinton presidency would bring–and that should include all of us--should tune out all of the promises, all of the “day one” nonsense, and simply open their eyes, because Hillary is on display as I speak.

We’ve already seen one example of Hillary’s character--or, lack thereof--in her willingness to endorse the Republican candidate over her fellow Democrat. Now we’re getting another look with her recent statement that by not allowing a second vote, or finding a way to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates was “un-American.” Question–if not seating the delegates indeed un-American, wasn’t it just as un-American when she agreed to it before she needed them to try to catch Obama?

If the foregoing isn’t enough of a red flag about Hillary, we’re being given yet another opportunity to observe her character as it applies to her feminist credentials. Hillary has represented herself as a strong and independent woman throughout her entire career. Much of her support comes from feminists who think they’re supporting one of their own. Yet, now, just as she turned on the Democrats to accommodate her ambition, she seems also willing to turn her back on her feminine independence--the very foundation of the feminist creed--to embrace her husband’s resume as her own. She’s actually trying to convince America that she served as co-president with her husband during what she would have us believe was a Billary administration. If her claim was true, there’d be no problem, but she wants us to simply take her at her word, without any evidence to substantiate her contention. She claims to be an expert in foreign affairs, for example. Ok, then she should be prepared to tell us what foreign initiatives has she fostered? What foreign leaders has she been in negotiations with, and what was the outcome? If I know Hillary–and I’m beginning to know her better every day--if she had any evidence whatsoever of foreign affairs experience, or anything else to show she was more qualified than Obama, it would have long since been brought to the forward. So we must assume that her honesty is suspect, and since she’s being so slow to reveal her tax return, she’s probably being less than candid about the Clinton family’s financial dealings s well. .

Now let us turn to competence. I would love to grant that Hillary is at least as competent as George Bush, but the only evidence that we have to measure that is the way she’s run her campaign--and in that regard, she seems to be making some the very same mistakes that Bush made in Iraq. Just like Bush in his Iraqi campaign, Hillary assumed that this primary season was going to be a walk in the park. She thought she’d have the nomination rapped up by Super Tuesday, so again, just like Bush, she had no plan B. As a result, in spite of the fact that she raised more money than any other presidential candidate in history, other than Barack Obama, she ended up with budgetary problems that led to her having to loan her campaign money out of her own pocket. And beyond that, she’s also shown us that she tends to get flustered under fire. When Obama began to take over the lead, she didn’t know whether to cry, get angry, embrace her opponent (“I’m so honored to be here with Barack Obama”), or go on the attack (“Shame on you, Barack Obama ”), so she ended up doing all three, making herself look ridiculously indecisive. She’s also demonstrated that her pledged commitments tend to be rather shallow. While she claimed a commitment to moving away from old-style politics, when she came under pressure her first instinct was to reverted right back to the old slash and burn tactics that she learned from Carl Rove and the Republicans.

So while Hillary is telling us that she has what it takes to be president on day one, what we see is a Democratic candidate who claims to want to protect the American people from having to live through another Republican administration, yet now that she’s hopelessly behind in the delegate count, lacks the integrity to stand by an agreement made by all of the candidates prior to the primaries. We also see a candidate that is so desperate to protect the American people from the Republican Party that she’s slinging mud all over the Democratic effort, and endorsed the Republican nominee over her Democratic opponent. In addition, we see a candidate who has built her entire career on the proposition that she’s a strong, independent woman, yet now, seems all too willing to throw the principles that’s guided her life out the window to use her husband’s resume to reach her goals. And finally, we see a candidate who claims she’s uniquely prepared to be president, yet used such poor judgement, and mis-managed her finances so badly, that it caused a budgetary crisis within her campaign.
The American people need to ask themselves one question–in light of what we’ve already gone through with George Bush, is this the kind of character that we can depend on to repair our country? On the other hand, their only criticism of Obama is their claim that he’s inexperienced. But if Barack Obama is so young and inexperienced, how is it that he’s handling both Bill and Hillary with such ease? And why is it that it’s the two “seasoned politicians” who’s finding it necessary to play dirty politics? America needs to give that some thought.

Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com

Posted by Eric L. Wattree | March 19, 2008 10:52 PM

THE PROBLEM WITH HILLARY

The problem with Hillary is that she seems to think she’s smarter than the rest of us. The next time you hear her speaking at a political rally, listen to her closely, then ask yourself, does she sound like a person who’s speaking to political allies, or more like a schoolmarm talking down to children and instructing them in the inherent value of being obedient and listening to the wisdom of their elders. She seems to have absolutely no respect for the intelligence of the American people. She comes off as though she views the American voter as an unfortunate nuisance to be manipulated to reach her goal. For example, when she was quoted as saying, “He’s [John McCain’s] never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.” That statement was clearly calculated to leave the impression in the voters’ feeble little minds that while John McCain has never been president, she has. And to hear the dismissive tone that she takes towards Barack Obama, one would never know that while Obama was both the president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor of Constitutional law, she failed the bar exam.

The one good thing about this extended primary season, however, is that it gives us the opportunity to see past the candidates’ political veneer–we’re afforded the opportunity to see how the candidates actually handle crisis and frustration. It also allows us to see their decision making capabilities. It gives us a snapshot of the kind of personal character that they’ll bring to the White House–and recent history demonstrates just how important it is that we avail ourselves of that opportunity. If we’d done so with Bush we could have saved close to a million lives, billions of dollars, and an immeasurable amount of heartache. Thus, anyone who is truly curious about what a Hillary Clinton presidency would bring–and that should include all of us--should tune out all of the promises, all of the “day one” nonsense, and simply open their eyes, because Hillary is on display as I speak.

We’ve already seen one example of Hillary’s character--or, lack thereof--in her willingness to endorse the Republican candidate over her fellow Democrat. Now we’re getting another look with her recent statement that by not allowing a second vote, or finding a way to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates was “un-American.” Question–if not seating the delegates indeed un-American, wasn’t it just as un-American when she agreed to it before she needed them to try to catch Obama?

If the foregoing isn’t enough of a red flag about Hillary, we’re being given yet another opportunity to observe her character as it applies to her feminist credentials. Hillary has represented herself as a strong and independent woman throughout her entire career. Much of her support comes from feminists who think they’re supporting one of their own. Yet, now, just as she turned on the Democrats to accommodate her ambition, she seems also willing to turn her back on her feminine independence--the very foundation of the feminist creed--to embrace her husband’s resume as her own. She’s actually trying to convince America that she served as co-president with her husband during what she would have us believe was a Billary administration. If her claim was true, there’d be no problem, but she wants us to simply take her at her word, without any evidence to substantiate her contention. She claims to be an expert in foreign affairs, for example. Ok, then she should be prepared to tell us what foreign initiatives has she fostered? What foreign leaders has she been in negotiations with, and what was the outcome? If I know Hillary–and I’m beginning to know her better every day--if she had any evidence whatsoever of foreign affairs experience, or anything else to show she was more qualified than Obama, it would have long since been brought to the forward. So we must assume that her honesty is suspect, and since she’s being so slow to reveal her tax return, she’s probably being less than candid about the Clinton family’s financial dealings s well. .

Now let us turn to competence. I would love to grant that Hillary is at least as competent as George Bush, but the only evidence that we have to measure that is the way she’s run her campaign--and in that regard, she seems to be making some the very same mistakes that Bush made in Iraq. Just like Bush in his Iraqi campaign, Hillary assumed that this primary season was going to be a walk in the park. She thought she’d have the nomination rapped up by Super Tuesday, so again, just like Bush, she had no plan B. As a result, in spite of the fact that she raised more money than any other presidential candidate in history, other than Barack Obama, she ended up with budgetary problems that led to her having to loan her campaign money out of her own pocket. And beyond that, she’s also shown us that she tends to get flustered under fire. When Obama began to take over the lead, she didn’t know whether to cry, get angry, embrace her opponent (“I’m so honored to be here with Barack Obama”), or go on the attack (“Shame on you, Barack Obama ”), so she ended up doing all three, making herself look ridiculously indecisive. She’s also demonstrated that her pledged commitments tend to be rather shallow. While she claimed a commitment to moving away from old-style politics, when she came under pressure her first instinct was to reverted right back to the old slash and burn tactics that she learned from Carl Rove and the Republicans.

So while Hillary is telling us that she has what it takes to be president on day one, what we see is a Democratic candidate who claims to want to protect the American people from having to live through another Republican administration, yet now that she’s hopelessly behind in the delegate count, lacks the integrity to stand by an agreement made by all of the candidates prior to the primaries. We also see a candidate that is so desperate to protect the American people from the Republican Party that she’s slinging mud all over the Democratic effort, and endorsed the Republican nominee over her Democratic opponent. In addition, we see a candidate who has built her entire career on the proposition that she’s a strong, independent woman, yet now, seems all too willing to throw the principles that’s guided her life out the window to use her husband’s resume to reach her goals. And finally, we see a candidate who claims she’s uniquely prepared to be president, yet used such poor judgement, and mis-managed her finances so badly, that it caused a budgetary crisis within her campaign.
The American people need to ask themselves one question–in light of what we’ve already gone through with George Bush, is this the kind of character that we can depend on to repair our country? On the other hand, their only criticism of Obama is their claim that he’s inexperienced. But if Barack Obama is so young and inexperienced, how is it that he’s handling both Bill and Hillary with such ease? And why is it that it’s the two “seasoned politicians” who’s finding it necessary to play dirty politics? America needs to give that some thought.

Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com

Posted by Eric L. Wattree | March 19, 2008 10:52 PM

During the course of everyday events we often forget the role of thoughts in the forging of our material reality. We get lost in the visible symbols, the material by-products of our imaginations, forgetting the invisible blueprints from which they, and we, emerge.

Pure energy like money, its material equivalent, is shaped into matter and experience by thought. It can be used to lift up or smash down, to build character or destroy character, to express love or express hate, to beautify or make ugly.

The purpose, or challenge, of life is to learn how to use thought in its various forms to shape energy into a pleasing reality. The prize is a sense of satisfaction, a feeling of a job well done. And, like learning to walk or talk, it is a personal, subjective endeavor that requires creative aggression. It is a great balancing act, where one must accept falling down in the course of learning how to stand up.

Remember:

Thoughts are “things” with a reality of their own and you an artist. With thoughts in the forms of belief, attitude, value and expectation you paint the landscape of your life.

Create a great day!
(From: We Create Our Own Reality)

Everything begins as idea. Thoughts are the basic building blocks consciousness uses to create reality.

Our current world view, and therefore our life experience, is dominated by three basic core beliefs or definitions of who we are. They are: “we’re only human, we’re separate”, and “there’s not enough to go around.” When we stand back and look at these three core beliefs, we can see how limiting and divisive they are. They put us in competition with each other, as opposed to partnership, and promote associated ideas like “survival of the fittest, dog-eat-dog, and devil-take-the-hindmost”, predatory concepts we see dramatized in life, work, and art every day.

Even our dominant definition of success, which is measured by how much money, power, and prestige we acquire, is an outgrowth of these three basic beliefs about who we are and what reality is. When we insist on believing we’re only human, that we’re separate, and there’s not enough to go around, we create a foundation for the fear, suffering, and violence we see in the world. Complicating matters even further are two additional negative self-concepts: “we’re basically bad, or sinful,” and “we can’t trust ourselves.”

To change the world for the better, we need to redefine how we see ourselves and the world around us. By paying attention to our outer and inner experiences, which means developing our inner senses and intuitive abilities, we'll see that we're basically good and there is more to who we are than meets the eye. We will discover we’re both one and separate, and there is enough to go around if we share the world’s abundant resources while taking responsibility for co-creating our shared reality.

More important than any candidate are the ideas we choose to create our reality. We can choose to create a world based on love, which supports truth, partnership and joy or one based on fear, which breeds dishonesty, conflict and violence. The choice is ours because we create our reality according to the nature of our beliefs. In other words, how we define ourselves and the world around us forms our intent, which, in turn, forms our reality.

The self is our seat of power and the moment is our point of power. What's going to work best for ALL of us, including nature?

Posted by Worldchangeguy | March 20, 2008 2:47 PM