Political Punch

Gen Merrill McPeak? LMAO. This guy jumps from campaign to campaign looking for a job in the next administration. It is widely uderstood that his tenure as USAF Chief of Staff was an utter failure and everyone in the USAF knows that. The guy has a track record of very poor judgement!

Hillary's rehearsed gravitas is known as the New Hampshire Plan. She's so contrived and phony it's nauseating.

This is just another one of your incredibly lame attempts to give credibility to stories that ostensibly make the Obama campaign look bad (at least in your mind). Well, guess what? It does the opposite - Obama took control and put a stop to the comments, instead of pulling a "Clinton" and fudging the facts. But, keep searching for something, ANYTHING, to hang on the Obama camp. After all, if HRC wins, she WILL need a press secretary. And with your hatchet job credentials, I'm sure your resume will move to the top of the pile. ; )

It seems to me McPeak made a pretty accurate despcription of Hillary. Obama better wake up. He should not have come out disavowing what was a pretty measured piece of straight talk.
I would like to see him directly and forcefully respond to the Clinton character assisination machine. Obama may be a giant question mark given his skill at avoiding direct answers, but has has done nothing to deserve the personal and juvenile attacks on everything from supposedly claiming to be the second coming of MLK to his kindergarden ambitions. One of the funniest episodes had to be the Philanderer in Chief's claim Obama was doing a "political hit job" on him. We know this is true because Bill told us, as everyone knows, he does not lie...

Dah!

Jake,
I really like your reporting, but you have apparently got a censorship problem with regard to posts on Hillary Clinton. I have had 2 comments removed that in no way crossed ANY stated policy on this site with regard to prohibited speech. If this is not manifest evidence of editorial censorship I don't know what is.

Pretty lame. What ever happend to the journalistic ethic of objectivity?
Too bad, I just discovered your blog and have really enjoyed reading your campaign coverage and what seems a rare example of objectivity, an agile mind and lucid, insightful writing.

levonjaw,
Glad you asked about research. I have read Roger Morris' book "Partners in Power, James B. Stewart's "Blood Sport"
All of The New Republic's articles on the Clintons, including the outstanding piece on the "Hillary Care" fiasco, and many many other sources conservative and liberal.
The Morris book, funny enough, got started out as a biography of the Clintons that James Carville approached Morris about writing because the Clintons some positive press and some touchup work on their respective "legacies". After Morris began researching the book he got back to Carville and said he would have to decline the deal. Carville was furious but, he was even more enraged when Morris told him he was still going to write the book, but given everything he turned up in Arkansas he could not, in good conscience, write the flattering puff piece the Clintons wanted. This man was not a Clinton hater or he never would have been approached in the first place.
James B. Stewart's book "Blood Sport" was the most through examinination of White Water I have yet read.
I was not the same after reading these books, so be forwarned. You may become quite a bit more skeptical (sure, cynical if you like) when viewing all politicians after the reading.
Both authors are highly respected for thier objectivity and quality of research and documentation.
I also used to be a religous watcher of CSPAN and can't reccomend (if you have the time) a better source than that for one to watch and come to their own conclusions.
I would really recommend searcing "The New Republic" for stories on the Clintons. They really did an incredible job explaining the Clintons health care plan and how & why they wound up with the work product they did.
Just for frame of reference I am a pro choice, socially liberal, fiscal conservative. I believe Iraq was a mistake. I would put Bush near the top of the heap of bad President's just based on his fiscal mismanagement and general lack of tangible intellegence and generally outdated views and policies.

Glad you asked levonjaw. I highly recommend you read the above reference texts for a good read if not just for the education and understanding of just who and what the Clintons are.
T

Harris Pilton, where did you get your facts? I would like to research this on my own. You shouldn't just throw these comments out, without backing them up!!!

Hillary DID NOT HAVE A CRYING FIT! She put her cheek on her hand and looked very sad when she was told she was disliked.
She may have had a tear in her eye but she NEVER cried at all. I saw this on TV myself. What a crock!

Obama does not have expierence, has too many questions in his past, and he is not answering any questions!

Denise, it extremely important that people be honest in their posts. If you truly believe these things about Hillary, then post your sources, so we can research them on our own.

femi akinsiku, you should remember that Barrack also considers himself black. He's half white and half African, yet he considers himself black.

i think you americans are funny.i wonder how the most powerful country on the planet come to have so many ignorant and impressionable people.some one is blaming obama for leaving chicago poor .do not jugde him by what chicago was or is at this moment in time but by the what his actions were within the powers and responsility of his office.do not blame him for the responsibilities of the governor , mayor and councillors?what did he do as a legislator?what has he done as a senator?who is he as a person?did he do his job?what difference has he made with his life in plitics.how will he affect your life?
unfortunately many of the anti- obama are just against him for the colour of his skin and not for the substance of his argument and record.i think you should judge him for him but not race.i like clinton and mccain as much as i like obama. i wonder if there will still be a contest if any of the other contestant have the same qualities as obama.
why is the media calling obama black.he is as white as he is black.that goes to show the american mentality. and the media push this same message.and those playing the religious angle are just showing who they really are.plain rascist who will never see any good in any person who is not their type.in my home ,we are just laughing our head off this dance of shame.

It does seem that it's still OK to question the abilities and actions of a woman in light of her gender (and MCPeak was just the most recent) when it is not OK to question a man in light of his race. I think IT IS NOT OK in either instance.

Will McPeak still be working for Obama though? That's the question. He never fires people who says these things on his behalf.

Obama's a flake, Clinton a fake, and for lies McCain takes the cake. Gotta be Mitt, for heaven's sake!

Think back to 2000. Those who support Hillary say how 'wonderful' times were under Billy. Let's face it folks, Gore (a Democrat!!) LOST the 2000 election because there were a LOT of Independents who were sick of the Clinton shennanigans in the WH. Sure, there was probably voter fraud and Gore should have won, but the race should not have even been close given how 'wonderful' the times were then. So now you want to put the Clintons up for reelction. Well, good luck. McCain will win. By the way, by Hillary's own admission, she sat in on a lot of Presidential Staff meetings while First Lady. What makes you think Bill won't do the same when he's not off flirting with the secretaries or picking out the china and planning the menus for the State dinners.

02/02/2008
Do not fall for the Clinton Tears; remember Billy Boy's laughter then seconds later tears at the Ron Brown Funeral---when he realized he was on camera!

America the Stupid! Wake-up, those people stole furniture out of the White House and all the files too! And Sandy was stuffing documents down his underwear! And Foster and Brown had to take it the hard way like some many others! Even their Neighbor, three doors down, tried to get in on the act but failed--not enough clout!

I love this blog, this is way better than CNN's blog. All the Obama supporters have commanded CNN's blog and the moderator showed great bias against Clinton supporter by not posting their comments online. I learn so much about Obama on this blog in a 30 minute timespan. People who post their comments here are very creative, articulate and factful but mostly professionals. Thank you for the wake up call, I AM DEFINITELY NOT VOTING FOR OBAMA. HE IS A SERIOUS THREAT TO THE AMERICAN DREAM WHICH OUR FORE FATHERS BUILT SO DEARLY FOR US ALL!

Obama camp continues to make divisive statements to do anything in order to wind the elections. So much for a positive campaign based on change, hope, unity. just more mud slinging for Obama...I agree he is starting to look like George W. I wonder if the republians are secretly backing him as this is part of some master plan.

McPeak sounds a bit too cranky. Glad Obama got him back in line - which is pretty impressive, considering that McPeak is older and "more experienced" than Obama.

I am a republican and was going to vote for Obama. I had voted for Bush twice, but ever since the debate, he reminds me too much of George Bush. So I am voting for Hillary Clinton.

Better see the front page of the NY times Obama's closet door is opening

Better see the front page of the new york times..
The closet door is opening..

And why is Obama camp angry when people say his middle name Hussein?

I see articles where they say Hillary Rodham Clinton and she does not complain.

No one should be ashamed of their birth name.

The arrogance of this BO camp is to be pitied. I look at this bunch of fools--Oprah, Caroline, and Teddy--and revolt at the sight. Now, driver's licenses to illegals? Insanity. God Help us from this mindless pack.

Obama-President
Edwards-Vice President
As an "Independent" that's a ticket I could support. If Clinton is on a ticket with Obama I will vote Republican. I'm clear on this!....

FULL DISCLOSURE: I'm an 'Independent' who is voting for Obama. For the life of me, one cannot understand why 'some' are thinking of putting Hillary and Bill Clinton back in the White House is mind numbing to me. These are [two] people who have so much negative baggage they could fill a cargo hull at JFK airport in New York City. Never mind the personal [vendettas] they will try to score with people that opposed them during this race. They played the race card with African Americans who stood by them thru thick and then. When one of their own tried to run against them, the wondered, "How dare you? Stay in your place." African Americans don't have to be beholden to the Clinton's for the rest of their lives. Gimme a break! These two are unbelievable at what they will do to those that oppose them.

EJ

"Hillary might be loved by the left." Are you kidding? Ted Kennedy and MoveOn.org endorsed Obama.

2009 Where Are You?, your "It was promised, yes. It just wasn't delivered" was direct towards Sen. Obama. But it just as easily defines the Democratic Party in general. For example, over the past 60 years--the vast majority of which Democrats had control over Congress; control of many state legislatures; and control of most urban city governments--the Democrats have been elected and re-elected, time and time again, on curing the ailments of education.

Now as for universal health care, during the debate the other night Sen. Clinton made a remark that seems to have gone unnoticed. She mentioned that those individuals who are pleased with their current medical insurance can keep that medical insurance..."for now." Clearly, despite claims to the contrary, the Democrats want the federal government to eventually take over the entire health care system and do away with private medical insurance. Their argument will be it is unfair for some people to have better medical insurance plans than others. So everyone should have the same plan.

Be careful what you wish for! When the federal government takes full control of universal health care, then they will mandate: what foods are healthier for us to eat; what beverages are healthier for us to drink; what automobiles are safer for us to drive; and eventually how many children parents can have (over population is unhealthy). We are already seeing signs of this type of control. The Mississippi State Legislature just introduced a bill that would make it illegal for state-licensed restaurants to serve obese patrons. In New Mexico groups, like the Sierra Club, are lobbying for a sin tax to be levied on televisions and video games to fight childhood obesity. Imagine what it will be like when the federal bureaucrats can withold medical benefits based on an individual's failure to comply with the mandates!

General McPeak was apparently speaking for himself and not Senator Obama. Fair enough. When he is representing Senator Obama, the General should most definitely reflect the man he represents. He did not here.

That said, General McPeak, said what nearly everyone I know is thinking. I thought exactly the same thing when I heard her say she 'found her voice'. You all know, you did too.

Okay, so how come the media is not bringing up Denise Rich contributing 100,000 to Bill Clinton and Marc Rich gets pardoned?

Hillary's brothers asked for some people to be pardoned (and they were) and Hillary says she did not know about it!! Give me a break.

What about Hillary's indicted campaign treasurer in 2005? (For failing to disclose contributions)

What about the Middle Easst being huge (millions of dollars)contributors to the Clinton library (which won't disclose a comprehensive list of donors)?

And the Kazakhstan billionaire who donated to the Clinton library?

How are you going to get energy reform when the Clintons are in bed with OPEC?

The Clinton administration gave the big oil companies a pass because of their contributions!!

Obama 08

I worked for Bill's campaign in the nineties, but even I see the writing on the wall. Hillary may be loved by the left . . .but she can't turn around the momentum of hatred that she stokes on the right. Take off the blinders and realize that Obama will increase voter turnout. He has the coat tails we need as DEMS!!

Typical OBAMA DIRTY TRICKS AND DIVISIVNESS -

NOBAMA'S CAMPAIGN IS A SLOGAN-CAMPAIGN AND PHONY!

HE LOST MY ENTIRE FAMILY'S SUPPORT...

WE ARE VOTING FOR SENATOR CLINTON!!

That was a knockout blow. Can she take it if came from that mythical "vast right-wing conspiracy"?

Alright, coffee done, cigarette ignored, fat as hell and still stuffing in snacks - I am no prize!!!

Back to the hammer and grindstone for another few hours. Will check back and see if anyone has found some new insights to back up or refute. And I don't mean one example please.

There is an evidential law and it goes like this: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I know that Obama is not responsible for the reconstruction, from the ground up, of an entire state.

But he is also not capable of a reconstruction, from the ground up, of an entire nation, like he seems to be claiming each day before the press.

2009 Where Are You

Thank you so much for your insight. Your comments comparing President Bush and Obama are so accurate.

We can all agree that Obama draws huge crowds, inspires his supporters, and speaks like MLK. However, for me that is the weakness of his campaign. Because he attracts such frenzied followers, it almost seems like hero worship. If you look closely, he has a very sketchy resume.

His decision about Iraq from Day One is being touted as a sign of great presidential judgment. Folks, Obama wasn't in the Senate at the time to make that historic vote. Once elected, he voted consistently for Senate war funding.

I want to judge all the candidates fairly. But, if you follow the blog comments there is a pattern of attacking Hillary and less time on how Obama is going to govern.

One more thing, I remember the mood of the country at the time of the Iraq War. If you trace the media coverage, they did not challenge or check the facts about the case for war. It seems, they are doing it again by promoting an Obama Presidency.

2009 where are you, i continue to appreciate the info you put out there. i do get sick of the credit he claims for stuff he didn't do, like the ethics bill. or when he claims in a debate that he sponsored an illinois bill he voted present on, but he did NOT sponsor the bill - a matter of public record, then later, in a much less public forum and when pressed on it comes up with something about oh it was a similar bill. . anyway, i find it so tiresome when i see obamaites say oh yes he did whatever, he said so, just see his website or listen to his speeches....i do believe we all know that just because someone says something doesn't make it true. (by the way, i'm an old hippie (female) who grew up and turned into a lawyer, which as a young hippie i would never have believed i would do, but that's what happens when we grow up, we learn a few things and realize doing is more important than talking)

well, work calls. yes, I still have a job. And no, I don't think Obama is going to wreck my job.

I just think a little back-down-to-earth reality would make it easier to support him.

A handsome, funny, friendly, well-spoken, but unchallengeable know-it-all (I know, I fit the last part, don't tell me :) makes it hard for me to support.

A little more humility and a lot less 'I am never wrong' might make it a simple jump from one side of the same ship to the other.

:)
Ciao for now - and if you look at writing styles, you can tell who is changing their name, and who is not.

I don't know who you were out there that supported me, but I thank you nonetheless.

and for anyone that cares, the Chicago Tribune will gladly explain the truth about the 130 Present votes that Obama didn't have the nerve to vote Up or Down on.

It wasn't about not wanting to vote yes on an imperfect bill. You can simply vote no, change an 'a' to an 'e' in one of the lines of the bill and resubmit it.

He didn't vote Up or Down because he couldn't face the consequences of his actions.

That is a problem the press outside of Chicago has not even begun to question. But let that be McCain, or Clinton who failed to vote a hundred times out of political expediency and see the screaming and outcry you would get for the Obamathon.

Distract, divert, dodge, and duck. But never answer the question. He has taught us well, already.

TomJ,

great comments. I never said he didn't accomplish things.

He is just never wrong. Not one reporter who brings up a negative has it right. You misrepresent me. You are distorting the facts. I never said that. That is not what I meant. You weren't there. I never voted that way. I don't know about those things.

Not one media source. Not one reporter. Not one blogger. Not one politician. Not one candidate. Not his hometown newspapers, radio shows, or talk shows other than Oprah.

He has a 100% accuracy rate, unchallengeable by anyone, anywhere, at anytime.

So I am sorry if I hold him to a high standard, one in which he sets for himself.

His resume is light. His effect on Chicago and Illinois, as evidenced by what it was like before and after his dash through the state house, is light. He promises things that FDR, JFK, Regan, and others couldn't deliver and he promises them as if they are already a given, simply because they are thoughts in his head.

He has the arrogance of having done little without being questioned on its merits.

He has the confidence afforded to someone that is above question despite the realities of the results.

Clinton is not perfect. I am not saying that at all.

But again, distracting the debate away from what he HAS done is the only way to avoid the conclusion that all those pretty words are what they are - words in a vaccum of results.

A few bills here and there. Fine. But this universal, tectonic shift he is promising in everything from the air we breath to wages we earn, deserves more than pretty sentence devoid of facts and examples.

Miracle workers should have the miracles they performed set out front, for all the world to see. And Chicago and Illinois 'ain't them'.

The main goal of this election should be to end the Neocon. economic ideology, which is failing all around the world. Clintons are neocons. That's a fact. They should stay in the past waiting for the historical judgement without attempting to muddle the history.
Let Obama play the political game as Clintons do! As a young, first term senator, what else can he do? Do you (2009 where are you) have any other strategical advice for Obama?

I don't disagree with a thing the man said. It is the truth. Maybe coming from the Obama camp it was a little over the top but IT WAS TRUE unlike Bill's distortion of Obama's record. Obama immediately took action...not days later. So what's the big deal?

Not everybody was fooled by Hillary's crying on que. Not everybody bought Bill race baited tirades. I could go on and on. There aren't many things you can accuse the Clintons of that are not true...they prove that time and time again.

"2009 Where Are You?" rambles on about Obama not being fit for the Presidency because, somehow, he couldn't wave his magic wand and make Illinois perfect in 8 years?!?!

Rubbish. Obama did a lot in the state legislature, obviously able to pass more bills when it was controlled by the Democrats than when it was controlled by the Republicans. His record at the Illinois Senate site.

For example the bill requiring videotaped interrogations and confessions by the police, which he got passed by working with all the 'special interests' involved as well as working across the aisle.

You want to compare that to Hillary Clinton's attempt to get health care passed by refusing to talk to anyone but her staff?

If you want to see change accomplished, obviously Barack Obama has more *successful* experience in doing that.

(And what's with all the gushing comments about 2009 from posters whose names I've never seen in PP before - hmmmm?)

I am sorry to have angered you.

I did not say that after the nominating process I would not vote for him. I have to. I believe in the Democratic ideals and do not believe in Greed Before Need.

What I am tired of, and enraged by, is this dispensation of grace without discussion of actual, factual events.

He is inspiring. He makes me laugh because he humor is quick, and it is right on the money.

But to avoid facing the realty of life, after his governance or assistance in governance, is to avoid the truth.

He is indeed getting a very free and easy ride. The hard questions are not being asked because they sully the 'show'.

He makes claims beyond MLK and JFK. He makes promises without the resume to prove he can deliver.

He makes statements of fortitude and then hides behind votes that he cannot choose Up or Down on.

He presents himself in such a way that he does not, nor cannot, be faced with specifics.

He has a hope for us all. And a dream for us all. I just want to see what he has done ALREADY before I fall for another administration's empty, overblown promises.

So again, I am sorry to have enraged you. But I hope somewhere in that anger, you felt inspired to search some of the facts, and realize, that despite that warm fuzzy feeling inside, you need BLOOD and SWEAT to survive. Fantasies are great stress relievers. They do not make good policy.

what is worse, Levi, is when you state to the world what you would have done during a crisis before you were in office.

We all know that it is different from the inside.

And when you vote Present hundreds of times to avoid getting caught on the wrong side of the issue, it is gutless, calculated, and weak.

Lack of details shows a lack of qualifications. When you dodge specifics with pretty words, you are ducking the reality that you do not know what the hell you are talking about or what you would do faced with that situation.

Again, distract from the issues at hand. Illinois is found no better today for having 8 years of Obama, then it was before those 8 years of Obama.

Illinois today is no better a place to move to, then most any other state in the union, that Obama did not legistlate in.

He is promising things he didn't deliver in his own backyard, let alone promising it to the nation. We already have a 'uniter not a divider' who was unknowledgable about events and solutions. We already have a 'different type of politician' in the White House, who has impoverished the nation, destroyed the dollar, traded our sovereignty away.

And gutless votes of I-can't-make-a-choice don't prove anything to anyone that this person has what it takes to make change happen. He has what it takes to make 'MAYBE' happen.

And that isn't good enough for me.

It's nice to see that Obama supporters are human too and make absurd remarks that are over the line. Of course, I think if this had been from a Clinton supporter, it would have made bigger news. I don't think this gentleman's remarks should be held against Sen. Obama any more than individual Clinton supporter remarks should be held against her. People do feel strongly about their candidate of choice right now. A candidate can't be responsible for every word that comes out of a supporter's mouth. I just wish the press would stop living and breathing for every word that can be used against Senator Clinton. Everyone needs to remember how political campaigns can distort candidates words, no matter who you support. I implore every voter to go to Hillary's (and Sen. Obama's) website and at least take a look at their records and attempt to check facts in order to make up their mind based on truths, not on tabloidism and favortism in the press (or from "over enthusiastic" supporters).

By diverting the argument to personalities you have successfully avoided the 25 things that are still a mess in Illinois AFTER Obama left it.

How about explaining his promises against his actions?

He left Chicago as he found it. A dirty, dangerous, corrupt mess. But he promises us 'a new politics'.

Go figure.

To 2009 Where are you,
I do not have any inclination to vote for a candidate and her husband whose patriotism is in question in terms of economy and whose charateristic identities are so diverse that I cannot decide on which of her muliple identities I should base my decision.

Which is worse, having one advisor discuss a event that happened during the campaign, which many members of the media critcized as strategic, and then honestly and publicly denouncing that adivsor? Or having several members of your staff repetaedly bring up someone's youthful drug use in a cooridnatied attempt to racialize the candidate? Denouncing the first advisor, but then later defending the billionare donor who did it?

2009 where are you, thanks for an excellent and insightful comment. i find it difficult to grasp how voters can't see through hype, but do not have your ability to express it so eloquently. i can see how the college crowd can think the way they do - i was the same way in college. that doesn't mean i had a clue what i was talking about, as i surely didn't. i even went to some protest marches and waited til i got there to see what the protest was against, and i wasn't alone in that - typical herd mentality. so young people going for the rock star isn't so surprising. but we grownups really should think more and follow marketing less.

2009 Where Are You, I totally agree!!!!

2009 Where Are You is the best blog I've read to date, pointing out all things I've noted about Obama, but that seem to have escaped the hundreds of reporters and newsmen and women.

I want all of the Obamathon supporters to realize that I was impressed with his appearance, his calm, his great style. I will vote for him if he wins, no doubt about that.

I just believe that if you strip away the desire to apply even more golden clothes to the emperor, you cannot possibly compare ‘beliefs, hopes, dreams’ to fact, figures, dates, bills, and actual events.

Obama is getting it both ways when he says ‘I would have never . . . ‘ or ‘I would have done that differently . . . ‘. He is able to say what he would have done, without facing the consequences of his actions. How convenient. In hindsight, and it seems in his general view, he can remain 100% correct on all issues, in all discussions, involving anyone that steps up to the challenge.

The point here is that he wasn’t elected to high office at the time of these momentous decisions, and when faced with supposed facts, from sources one would think could be trusted, he did not have to face the wrath of his choices.

And as for experience, just what incredible levels of experience has Barrack obtained, and how did he come to this rosetta stone of knowledge? Ambassador somewhere? No. Secretary of anything? No. Department of Labor, Education, Defense, Environment . . . . No.

He has a whole 2.5 years in high office, as a Junior Senator who started running for President after the first year. He was in the state senate for 8 years, and that has its involvments, not on a national scale of course, but still, there are decisions to be made. But let us remember that to this day, Illinois is not some bastion of escape for the ills of America. It has problems. Vast, unaltered prolems.

Chicago is still run-down, old, polluted, filled with crime, poverty, traffic, drugs, guns, pornography (if you care about it, me, its your right to have it), prostitution, low wages, slum housing, communicable diseases, homelessness, lack of medical insurance, and hunger.

I do not see any difference whatsoever in Chicago or Illinois in general, having had Obama in the state house for 8 years. The above problems were there before him. And they didn’t evaporate because of him. The conditions that Mr. Obama found when he entered the state house, were the same conditions he left behind. But higher callings were, uh, calling.

So what, you say. So everything, I reply.
I do not believe that someone who hasn’t been in high office, let alone only lower state legislatures, has the fight, the experience, the know-how, or the qualifications, to be President Of The United States. They just simply cannot prove their abilities through actions. If one has little to point to when presenting their evidence, they do not win the case. Unless your OJ.

But when the state that was left behind, for ego and ambition, is no better off today than it was before your arrival, that may be all the evidence that is required. It speaks volumes. And its speaks truthfully. It is the deeds that you do not the words that you say.

He is a nice man, a well presented man.
He is very articulate. But he is vague, non-descript.

He takes the high road because he can avoid contentious details that way. He votes present on bills that require his decisions, even in the US Senate. He doesn't take a position and then derides those for the positions they were brave enough to take.

But he is well versed and attractive. Savvy and inspiring. But he is not prepared to lead because he has a habit of jumping positions before he has adequately completed the job he was elected to do in the first place. And he cannot make a tough decision that might have consequences as evidenced by 'Present', 'Present', 'Present' . . . 130 times.

Ambition and a sense of right, like a royal mandate from God, though long dispensed with by Reason, drives the ego to reach for what one hasn't yet proven their capacity to deal with.

One does not reward ambition with position, unless results prove the merits behind doing so.

There are no 'merits' found in Illinois that one can point to as a reason to entrust the defense and governance of the United States, to the purple prose and poetic rhetoric of a junior politician.

Google Illinois and take a peek: Crime rates, health rates, public housing conditions, wages, guns, disease, traffic, pollution, job rates, foreclosures, unemployment, literacy rates, homelessness rates, business failures, bankrupcies . . . there is nothing in Illinois very different than a lot of US states. I know that momentous change is not accomplished by one's self. It takes a village. But when you promise the heavens and promise the earth, one can reasonably expect miracles from the miracle worker.

But there are no miralces to be found; no real recovery or example of corrected troubles that would cause the Nation to burst through Illinois' borders, desperate to experience this new promised land.

It was promised, yes.
It just wasn't delivered.

Who cares if McPeak the retired Air Force chief of staff under former Presidents Bill Clinton and George HW Bush served under Hillary, He has served the grate Nation in the World and very HONEST TO SPEAK THE OPEN TRUTH.
I LOVE YOU MCPEAK