Fri 28 Dec 2007
Posted by Tony Marini under General
, PoliticsComments Off
Ask any presidential candidate, well at least the Democratic ones, and you will find that they want to push “universal” health care as part of their agenda. According to some, every American has a “right” to health care. A glance at their campaign issues shows that each has a very egalitarian viewpoint regarding the health care system, and this viewpoint borders on anti-competitive socialism if their plans were to be implemented. Each of the Democrats touts “affordable” health care…but what does affordable really mean? How much of a premium constitutes affordable? Who determines affordability? The answers are unclear, as is the difference between affordable and “free”!
I had planned to summarize the plans of the Democrats…and how each of the candidates envisions their plan coming to fruition. But, to be perfectly honest, the plans are disingenuous bull crap! At the base of their plans is the hope that they can reduce costs and pass the burden of covering the much touted “45 million uninsured Americans” onto American taxpayers. Otherwise, where will the money come from? From the people who can’t afford health insurance (among other things) today? The answers are no and no!! How do they expect to reduce health care costs? Lower the bar for services (“Mr. Jones, your plan doesn’t cover the cost of an MRI or chemotherapy.”), force doctors and health care professionals to cap their earnings/incomes or, by using the magic wand of legislation, have the government subsidize the cost for lower income people (i.e. “Medical welfare”). There is also another way to reduce costs, which isn’t discussed by any of the Democratic candidates: This would be to limit frivolous lawsuits and litigation, and to cap damages to a reasonable level (as do most Republican candidates). Don’t go looking for this proposal from any of these Democratic candidates (all of whom are lawyers, by the way!!), as proposing this politically radioactive cost reduction step would significantly limit their shelf life as a presidential candidate.
I chuckle at the statement of Hillary Clinton that she would offer “The Same Choice of Health Plan Options that Members of Congress Receive”. A nice thought (and probably a nifty vote-getter), but doesn’t she realize (Of course she does!) that we American taxpayers heavily subsidize the health care choices provided to the Congress — we are their EMPLOYER, and we pick up the cost of their (lavish) medical insurance plans as does any other employer! The only difference is that they get to choose what they get for plans by legislation…and they aren’t cheap when it comes to caring for themselves!!!
So, what do the Republicans offer for their health care proposals? Most focus on personal responsibility and clearing the roadblocks to lower cost from government-mandated programs like Medicaid and Medicare. John McCain has a plan that sounds very Democratic in nature, but he is less aggressive about the government involvement in the process than are the Democrats.
It is the proposed government involvement in the process that concerns (and frankly, scares) me. Based on the performance of the Federal government with the Medicare/Medicaid programs, and the granddaddy of all social “benefit” programs, Social Security, how can anyone who gives the socialized medicine issue more than a single selfish thought be anything but concerned (or frightened)? I think that if the government takes a more central role, as all the Democratic presidential candidates envision, then we certainly open ourselves up to the Law of Unintended Consequences. Rather than the world-class health care system, albeit with its problems, that we have now…we will get the best health care system that we deserve. And if we choose a socialistic system, the we deserve the crappy health systems that the UK, Canada, France, Germany and other socialized-medicine governments offer their citizens.
Listen, I feel that health care isn’t a birthright. I think that it’s a necessity, just like a job and a house and a car and food. If you want health care, you get a job and work for it. If your plan isn’t satisfactory to your needs, then you sacrifice and supplant your contribution to get what you want. Accordingly, food and drink are life’s necessities — does that mean that the government should provide free food? The Constitution doesn’t insure or guarantee you or me a good, healthy life…nor does it guarantee food and drink. It also doesn’t assure us that our fellow citizens should bear the burden of our care and feeding. The constitution is a framework of of freedoms and liberties, not a big lifeboat!
If people are uninsured, then their care should be the role of charity or some other private funding source. This probably sounds like a cold statement…but I assure you that I care for my fellow man as much, if not more, than others. But I believe in personal responsibility, and I believe in a very limited role of government in each individual’s life and affairs. Each individual controls how charitable they are, and conversely, each person ultimately controls how much health care that they can afford. The government should not be insinuated into this situation, because politicians will then ultimately determine what is “fair” and what is “affordable”. This insinuation will further destroy or hamstring the concept of meritocracy…whereby a person works for what they get, and they are limited only by their initiative and drive.
America is the great place that it is because of the drive of its citizens, their personal generosity and their accomplishments. How can we expect that we can retain this greatness if we plunge, headlong, into the quagmire of socialized health care? If you’re brutally honest, the answer is a resounding “We can’t”! If we are serious about addressing the health care problems in America, particularly those of the oft-quoted 45 million uninsured, we will put our collective thinking caps on and look for innovative, workable solutions within the framework of our risk/reward Capitalist system. What we shouldn’t do is the tried-and-true solution that lazy politicians always resort to: Shaking the money tree that is the American taxpayer.
I don’t know about you, but I’m growing tired of being “shaken down” by my government! I just hope that we can make the political candidates understand this in clear, unambiguous terms.
Thu 27 Dec 2007
Posted by Tony Marini under General
, PoliticsComments Off
Well, the radical Islamists finally got to Benazir Bhutto. The fact that a woman could lead an Islamic country, like Pakistan, probably gnawed on the last nerve of the misogynistic fruitcakes who discount all but the very strictest interpretation of the Koran. The fact that Ms. Bhutto “flaunted” her popular candidacy in Pakistan probably worsened the situation.
This simple act of barbarism, her assassination, now threatens to throw Pakistan into a condition of turmoil that could range anywhere from insane riots to outright civil war.
This event, in the hindsight of many years of history, may be likened to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand — the act which precipitated WWI. Through no fault of ourselves, we could be drawn into a worldwide conflict…no, conflagration, that will threaten the very underpinnings of our civilization, country and society. Imagine the chaos that a nuclear-armed Al Qaeda could loose upon us if they were to obtain nuclear weapons from an imploding Pakistan. Imagine a Pakistan tearing itself into two or more parts, with the lion’s share of the population in one of these parts supporting Osama bin Laden, the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Suddenly, bin Laden and the radical, fundamentalist Islamists would have access to a vast playground of resources, weapons and believers — believers who wouldn’t hesitate to unleash a suicide bombing tsunami upon our homeland.
This single event in Pakistan, when coupled with our upcoming presidential election, underscores and highlights the seriousness and deliberation with which we must select our next leader. Today we’ve seen all the candidates release statements regarding their feelings on the events in Pakistan. These are carefully worded statements are designed to give each of the candidates relevancy in the world of foreign relations. Experience is going to be the watch word for each candidate, but we MUST keep our heads about us when making this critical decision for our next leader.
Leadership doesn’t mean “just being here” or just drawing breath while things unfolded around them. Leadership means a history of being a leader, making tough decisions. It means telling things like they are — not what the majority of folks want to hear. I personally don’t think we will get the leadership that we will sorely need from Sens. Clinton or Obama, or from Mr. Edwards. They’ve demonstrated by past actions that they are willing to compromise their positions in order to curry popular favor. Leadership isn’t promising umbrella social programs, nor is it simply bashing the present administration. Or bragging about minor accomplishments. It is more than the one-dimensional partisanship that they have been passing off as true political discourse.
I think over then next few weeks we will see the leaders in the candidate field come to the forefront. Vote whores and those who have thrown their hats into the ring as a power grab will find that the spotlight and the microscope have come out to help with the candidate winnowing process. Claims of experience, like those of Mrs. Clinton, will get much closer scrutiny and vetting than they have in the past.
We can only hope that fires of unrest in Pakistan forge a more critical impression of the leader that we will elect at the end of this coming year.
Wed 19 Dec 2007
Posted by Tony Marini under General
, RegionalComments Off
OKAY fellow Massachusetts voters, log this week into the most readily accessible recesses of your memory. Please use this memory to guide your voting choices for state office holders when the times come.
Why, do you ask? What happened this week to get me thinking about voting for state pols in the next election cycle?
Two words: revenue enhancement!
The geniuses at the Turnpike Authority, with the assumed tacit blessing of the Governor, have enacted a new (in their words) “revenue enhancement plan” on the Mass Pike. You see in order to pay for the Big Dig, and the scores of toll takers at each toll plaza, the Pike is running a revenue shortfall to the tune of $600,000 from declined speeding ticket fines for the past 16 months. The reason for this shortfall is the fact that the State Police were re-deployed to safety/security details for Big Dig tunnel ceiling repairs and inspections after the tunnel ceiling collapse in 2006 that killed a Jamaica Plain woman.
Hmmmmm, the police shirking their “revenue” targets in order to serve the actual public safety. What a novel concept!!!
But I digress. So now the decision makers at the Turnpike Authority have decided to re-deploy the State Police to their original public safety mission…to further burden and harass the already cash-strapped commuters using the Mass. Pike extension from Allston to Boston. The Staties will be pushed to write $2.3 million in tickets in 2008, up from the projected $1.7 million of this year.
And this new revenue scheme will coincide with the new 25 cent toll increase at the Allston-Brighton toll plaza and the 50 cent increase for the Ted Williams tunnel. Oh joy, oh pleasure! So now they’ve got us coming, going and getting there! And just think of the ungodly traffic jams as a result of the new speed trap. Mark my words, you’ll be paying a “dummy tax” for taking the Pike in the first place and get the added benefit of traffic enforcement-induced gridlock. Bring it on!
I could accept the ramped-up enforcement if there were accident/safety statistics that warranted its implementation. Show me the increased injuries and deaths resulting from the reduced State Police traffic enforcement. This is the proper manner that public safety concerns should be dealt with — by cause and effect. Instead, we get a knee-jerk impulse action, with no real reason for implementation, to save some politician’s or administrator’s ass!
Unfortunately, here in Massachusetts we have to deal with petty tyranny from our legislative and administrative masters. We have to deal with the unbridled ticketing of “speeders” by the State Police on what is possibly the safest stretch of road in the Commonwealth. We have been told in no uncertain terms by the Mass. Turnpike Board that we are sheep waiting for the shear. We are the money tree, just waiting for a stout shake. And they had the cohones to do this in plain-speak…right to our faces.
I beg you to remember this fact is a scant three years when it’s time to elect our governor. Deval Patrick, or shall I call him Marcel Marceau due to his silence on this issue, is proving day-by-day that he just doesn’t deserve our precious votes the next time around. I know it’s relatively early to determine this…but the ticketing/revenue plan indicates the true contempt with which the citizens are held by the “leaders” of our state. Couple this with his inept leadership his first year in office, and it starts to show a trend that should concern the average citizen. It’s up to us to show our displeasure and disaffection with this plan and its supporters, and throw the bums out!!
Sat 8 Dec 2007
Posted by Tony Marini under General
, ScienceComments Off
The entire universe of climate change nuts are presently caucusing in Bali, Indonesia. It’s not like this place is the most accessible locale for the majority of the “climate scientists” who are attending. Most of these folks are Westerners, headquartered in either the US or Europe. So this begs the question: Why Bali?? Maybe it’s because this is a stunningly beautiful island with a near perfect climate and world-class surfing. It’s more likely that Bali was chosen due to its close proximity to Australia, which seems to be ground zero for Climate change mania and moon-battery! You see, frenzied science-types feel the urge to sequester themselves, much like the CO2 they want the rest of us to squirrel away in subterranean vaults, in remote locations. It makes them feel they’re “inclusive” to all us Earthlings. And being close to the temple of climate change madness, Australia, gives a sense of philosophical security that money or carbon credits just can’t buy.
Notwithstanding the fact that it took a gazillion gallons of jet fuel to fly their skittish asses halfway around the globe, thus increasing their individual carbon footprints to that of a small city, they must sacrifice as they must for the future safety of mankind. You see, being a climate-saving superhero is hard work…but somebody’s got to do it. Hell, it didn’t matter that the “conference” could have been conducted via a satellite/teleconference link worldwide (saving fuel in the process). No, no — when one sees the looming damnation and doom from damnable human activities, like flying long distances, one must heed the call and contribute their part.
And what makes this gigglingly mad event even more farcical is the fact that many world “leaders” are dropping in to commiserate our pending demise with these seers of atmospheric doom. Apparently it’s the popular and vote garnering thing to do! Not the least of these global gadflies is the junior Senator from my state, one John F. Kerry. Since his failed quest to tip the windmill of the presidency in 2004, the Quixotic Senator has been searching for a cause to make his life fulfilling…and to catch a little face time in front of the fickle TV cameras. You see, lately, the stuff of paparazzi he’s not. But if there’s a climate conference in Bali that promises a less than rosy outlook for the planet, that will sternly warn us that we need to change our evil ways NOW or else, and that has the rapt attention of the fawning worldwide media…then that seems like a quest worthy of old “live shot”. Hey, it’s working out just fine for Al Gore, right?
Listen, these scientific folks are probably the most well-intentioned bunch on the planet. I think they believe in their hearts and souls that we’re in for an Earth-wide atmospheric spanking of Biblical proportions. Unfortunately for the skeptics out there, including yours truly, they’ve got the ears of unsure world leaders and decision-makers. And these decision makers are first and foremost politicians of the first magnitude. So they are doing the predictable, they are bending to the will of the majority of Earthlings out there who have had the crap scared out of them by the skittish climate scientists (with their newfound powers of “persuasion”.) Who the hell wants to die, die, die…from being cooked alive by a climate put on a maniacal, irreversible broil cycle to being drowned in oceans that have risen so high that Chicago will have oceanfront properties? You see, gloom, doom and sphincter-puckering fear are tremendous motivators, and just the ticket for the previously ignored and marginalized climatologists to use as a two-by-four across the forehead to get our attention. These may be scientists, but they understand the psychology of their intended audience — composed mostly of Chicken Littles and lemmings!!
But they’ve got enormous problems working against them. There are, to the consternation of the “scientists” and the damnation of the media, critics of this proposed CO2-induced sauna of our demise. There are many climatologists, Earth scientists, physicists and other scholarly folk out there who don’t subscribe to the global warming theory. No, you won’t hear their names and they won’t be transformed into icons of sanity in the face of madness…like Hansen of NASA in the USA, Flannery of Australia and de Boer of the United Nations have been for their unflagging advocacy for anthropogenic climate change. But the critics are out there and they are becoming increasingly vocal about their skepticism of the underpinnings of the whole climate change movement. Like the dreaded “hockey stick” and the assumed effects of increased CO2′s effects in the upper and lower atmosphere. You see, there are popular skeptics like John Coleman, who by the way founded the Weather Channel. He led off a talk at a recent paper at ICECAP, a weather-related conference with these words:
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
John Coleman, Weather Channel founder
Thank you Mr. Coleman for putting to words what many of us average-Joe’s out there think and what many in the scientific community are too bullied and cowed to speak. I’m sure that there was no invitation for you nor room at the speaker’s dais for you at Bali!
Disappointingly, the conference in Bali is just another well-publicized opportunity for the “brotherhood of the impending-doomed” to back-slap and bask in the klieg-lit media frenzy. We won’t be exposed to a healthy debate over the anthropogenic climate change issue…just more proclamations and press releases from the true believers. These scientists assure us that they are 90% sure that serious world-wide climate change is being caused by the activities of mankind. I can beat that…I’m 100% convinced that there are ulterior motives afoot, using the ruse of climate change as the shoe horn to gain universal acceptance and approval of the majority of the world’s population. Mark my words, when we’re done sequestering CO2 and implementing “green” technologies, the USA will be a third-world nation and economy…and we will be an irrelevant player on the world stage.
And I for one think this was the plan of the whole climate change “crisis” from the outset.
Wed 5 Dec 2007
Posted by Tony Marini under General
, RegionalComments Off
Four-year-old Dontel Jeffers was dealt the ultimate losing hand during his very brief life. He was born into a “family” that so many issues that he didn’t have what could be kindly termed a dysfunctional existence in his short life. His mother couldn’t care for him due to her drug habit, and his father, Elary Jeffers, was deported back to the island of Nevis in the Caribbean in 2005 as a result of criminal charges in a domestic violence case involving a girlfriend. Prior to his deportation, Elary Jeffers had been Dontel’s primary care giver…albeit a mediocre one.
With the departure of his father, Dontel fell into the care of his mother. But this was a short-lived situation, as Massachusetts DSS removed him within months due to her neglect of him and her continued drug use. After a stay at a residential home for neglected and abused children, Dontel, described by staff there as “healthy, energetic, active… and a really cute guy”, was placed in the foster care of 26-year-old Corinne Stephen.
This is where any luck that Dontel may have had finally ran out. He was under the “care” of Ms. Stephen for just 10 days when she took his limp and beaten body to a Boston hospital. Doctors found that among other things, Dontel had been beaten about his face and head, had ligature marks on his wrists, and a perforation in his intestine from a beating — which allowed digestive fluids to seep into his body cavity. This injury, it was speculated, left this child in indescribable pain. But above all these injuries, he also exhibited bruising in his throat from being choked.
To add insult to the injury and death of this little child, back in 2005 his parents fought over who would be the executor of his estate…a position that would allow them to sue the responsible party over Dontel’s wrongful death. It begs the question: Why didn’t they care as much for Dontel while he was alive? Neither parent was assigned executor by a Boston court…but both will likely split the proceeds from any wrongful death suit and the financial award.
Why did such a horrible death have to be suffered by this innocent child??? What did he do to deserve this fate? Did his life mean anything to anybody? Will anything change in the Massachusetts Child Protective Services as a result of this tragedy?
There is some encouraging news that just happened today (December 5, 2007)…his foster “mother” Ms. Stephen was sentenced eight-to-12 years for involuntary manslaughter in Dontel’s death. She had been originally charged with second-degree murder, but prosecutors were unable to prove that Dontel died by her hand. This is unfortunate, because this pathetic excuse of a human being needed to spend a lot more than 12 years in jail. And investigators were never able to get enough evidence on the animal who ultimately tortured and killed this child.
So, the case is closed on Dontel Jeffers. Hopefully, with the incarceration of his tormentor, Ms. Stephen, he finally rests in peace. And hopefully he looks down on us all and forgives us for what happened to him, and the for the pain he endured, during his brief time on Earth.
Wed 5 Dec 2007
Posted by Tony Marini under UncategorizedComments Off
Greed accompanied by living beyond one means. To me that describes the whole predatory and sub-prime lending “crisis”.
This whole mess leaves me with little sympathy for either side affected by this situation. One one hand you have the lenders, who gave loans to quite marginal borrowers. On the other hand, you have greedy borrowers, who took out loans for houses that they couldn’t afford or didn’t deserve (given their earnings) in a million years. The trouble with this whole situation is assigning culpability; because if I’m going to help bail out this mess with my tax dollars, there best be blame assigned.
First let’s consider the lenders. I tend to give them a break because, let’s face it, if they were particularly tough on marginal borrowers, they would be the subject of discrimination law suits and condemned with bad press. To me , for the lenders, it’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. All I can do is fall back on my past experience with bank borrowing for a small home-equity loan. In order to obtain the loan, I needed to provide all manner of income verification, credit checks, and other information in order to qualify for the loan. At closing time, I had to sign numerous (and I do emphasize numerous) disclosure forms, terms and conditions and myriad other informational forms required by HUD and other governmental agencies. Because the loan amount was small, I opted not to have a lawyer in this process…I read and understood all the forms that I signed. However, for a house loan, a lawyer specializing in real estate is mandatory to review the lien and deed papers. I may be wrong, but I assumed that all the paperwork that I signed at the bank was to protect me from a deceptive lender and the bank from a fraudulent borrower.
Now let’s go to the borrowers. The whole lending and borrowing situation is instigated by the borrower. An individual sees something that they want to purchase, and contacts a lending institution to find out if they qualify for a loan by their salary and their ability to pay (both historical and potential). But it’s human nature to over reach in most situations, particularly those involving money. Just take the average American’s credit card balance as a prime example of this practice! The over reaching comes into play when a person of modest earnings (say less than $55,000) decides to buy a $350,000 house using a sub-prime or interest only loan as an investment “tool”. Personally, I would realize that at that level that my salary could no way support the purchase of such a house even given two or three lifetimes of loan repayment!! But to many Americans in the more, bigger, better generation, the sub-prime loan became the perfect means for them to attain possessions well beyond their earnings power. Sure, each individual has the freedom to do whatever they please in their private lives. But they also have the corresponding responsibility to carefully undertake financial obligations, and to repay them according to the terms under which they were borrowed in the first place.
And let’s not forget that something positive can be said about austerity, responsibility…and judgment.
I think this crisis arose from individuals looking for the free ride — looking for something for nothing. Sure there are financial crooks out there looking to prey upon naive borrowers. After all, a sucker is born every minute to some scam artists. But there are so many more greedy borrowers out there looking not to live the American Dream, but the American Lie. But just like gambling in Vegas, the odds catch up with anyone who participates in this activity. And for a lot of folks who saw sub-prime mortgages as their way to beat the system…they found out the hard way that nothing in life is free, and that if something seems to good to be true, it probably isn’t.
Wed 5 Dec 2007
Posted by Tony Marini under General
, RegionalComments Off
I saw a local news story last night regarding how tough it will be for families and those with fixed incomes to pay for their oil this heating season. As part of the story, the reporter interviewed a “single mother of two” who was bemoaning the high cost of heating oil, and how she would have to apply for some sort of assistance to get through this winter.
What got to me about this interview was the fact that the camera scanned past the thermostat on its way to the reporter and the woman sitting at her kitchen table, where some of the interview took place. The thermostat was set at 70 degrees. I don’t know about you but the last time my thermostat saw “70″ on it was in the summer, when the ambient air was that temperature. Call me frugal, cheap, whatever…my thermostat is usually set to 65-66 degrees during the day, and 60-61 degrees at night. My office is in my home, so I’m there most days. The lower temperature isn’t uncomfortable if you’re dressed accordingly. I don’t suffer any undue discomfort, and I save a few bucks in the process.
The question that arises in my mind is: Why is this woman’s thermostat set at 70 degrees? If she can’t afford the oil, she should turn the damn thing down! I mean, if you can’t afford gas, you drive less…Right? There isn’t anything wrong with bumping a few degrees off the thermostat and putting a sweater or fleece pullover on. I’ll wager she could save $150-$250 of the estimated additional $1,000 heating oil cost by just decreasing her apartment’s temperature a few degrees.
I’m not feeling one damn bit sorry for her if she doesn’t want to do all things necessary to save oil/money. The only “assistance” she needs is someone to tell her to scrimp a little, and to turn her thermostat down for her. That will go a long way to help her, and a lot of us who waste for the sake of comfort.
All she, or any of us, needs to do is the obvious.
Sat 1 Dec 2007
Posted by Tony Marini under General
, PoliticsComments Off
Does anyone else smell something fishy regarding the hostage drama played out yesterday in Rochester, NH?
It may have been a totally random occurrence, with a good outcome for all the hostages. But the manner in which Mrs. Clinton handled this created a nagging doubt in my mind that it was anything but random. I’ll tell you why:
- The situation lent itself to allowing Mrs. Clinton to look “presidential”. In yesterday’s situation you’ve got a all the elements of an international crisis, except in microcosm. There was a “terrorist” kidnapper with a potential IED strapped to him, there were innocent hostages, there was a protracted period of time where the drama unfolded with great uncertainty of outcome and there was a multi-agency response to the crisis. AND, most importantly, there was ubiquitous media coverage, worldwide!
- Mrs. Clinton was able to comment on the situation and get valuable TV face time. In fact, fawning newspaper reports exclaim that “…a regal-looking Hillary Rodham Clinton strolled out of her Washington home, the picture of calm in the face of crisis.” You can’t get publicity like that, regardless of how much you spend on commercials.
- She flew to NH in her Learjet…culminating in another media orgy where she seized the opportunity to profusely thank every law enforcement agency and service. Rather than allowing the functionaries taking center stage for their efforts, she became the focus of attention…meting out kudos. How could she possibly lose in this situation?
But the conspiracy theorist in me wonders what value did she add to the situation by her sojourn to NH? Was her physical presence at the scene necessary, given that everything turned out OKAY and the hostages were released unharmed and the hostage taker was taken into custody, uninjured? Exactly how did she contribute to the successful resolution of this crisis?
The answers are simple: She added no value by her presence, except the ample TV time that she reaped. I’m absolutely sure that the hostages desired to be with their kin and families after this terrible event. Do you think that for a single moment that the hostages thought about being comforted by Hillary during their ordeals — while their lives possibly flashed before their eyes? And by her own words, she may have served as a hindrance to the efficient resolution of the crisis by law enforcement…she said “I knew I was bugging a lot of these people, it felt like on a minute-by-minute basis, trying to make sure that I knew everything that was going on so I was in a position to tell the families, to tell my campaign and to be available to do anything that they asked of me,” the New York senator said.
Plainly, she was a fifth wheel in this crisis. Other than the fact it happened in her campaign headquarters in Rochester, it didn’t involve her. Her presence wasn’t necessary, as the police had things well under control. I come away from this thinking that regardless of the cause of the crisis, whether by a random madman or by a contrived conspiracy, that Mrs. Clinton was presented the PERFECT situation to polish up her somewhat tarnished image of late. How very fortunate for her that she was able to manufacture sweet lemonade out of the giant pile of sour lemons in NH.
Again, maybe it’s just me, but this is another situation that, given their colorful history, that reeks of the Clinton’s influence and political “craftsmanship.” In the end, it may have been the ultimate artful insinuation into an opportunity-laden situation by a consummate politician. And just another thing to make me go hmmmmmmm…