Saturday, 26 January 2008


Ken Berwitz

Suppose Kareem Abdul-Jabbar called Shaquille O'Neal tall.

Suppose Lindsey Lohan called Britney Spears a substance abuser.

Suppose hamas called hezbollah a terrorist organization.

Suppose a twinkie called a cheeseburger fattening.

Suppose John Kerry called Bill Clinton a liar.

Now there you have five matching sets. 

With the above in mind, please read the following article from yesterday's edition of

January 25, 2008
Posted: 06:27 PM ET


Bill Clinton campaigned for Kerry in 2004 (Photo Credit: Getty Images)

WASHINGTON (CNN) John Kerry, the Democratic Party's 2004 nominee for president, took aim at Bill Clinton Friday, telling the National Journal the former president does "not have a license to abuse the truth."

The Massachusetts senator, who endorsed Barack Obama's White House bid earlier this month, said Clinton's criticisms of the Illinois senator have been "over the top," and suggested the former president is getting "frantic."

Targeting Clinton's recent spate of attacks on Obama, Kerry said, "I think you had an abuse of the truth, is what happened. I mean, being an ex-president does not give you license to abuse the truth, and I think that over the last days it's been over the top.

"I think it's very unfortunate, but I think the voters can see through that," Kerry added. "When somebody's coming on strong and they are growing, people get a little frantic, and I think people have seen this sort of franticness in the air, if you will."

The former president has faced criticism for aggressively interjecting himself into the race between his wife and Obama of late. On Monday, Obama said he feels as if he is running against both Clintons, a charge the New York senators campaign said was borne out of frustration. The former president himself later dismissed Obama's comments, saying I thought he was running against me.

Campaigning in South Carolina Friday, Obama said the Clinton campaign has stepped up its attacks since his Iowa win, and joked that it's good practice for him, so "when I take on those Republicans I'll be accustomed to it."

Kerry formally endorsed Obama on January 10, saying then that Obama "isn't just going to break the mold.Together, we are going to shatter it into a million pieces."

The endorsement was seen as a blow to both John Edwards Kerry's running mate in 2004 and both Hillary and Bill Clinton, who had campaigned on behalf of Kerry's presidential bid..

It is now three months since kerry assured us he would prove everything the swiftboat veterans for truth said about him during the 2004 campaign was a lie.  He did so in response to a challenge from T. Boone Pickens, the Texas oilman, who put up a million dollars if anyone could prove even one of the charges false.  When kerry took him up on the challenge Pickens said ok, let's see the RECORDS which will prove or disprove what they said.  Game, set match.  No records, no million dollars, no proof that anyone but kerry was the liar.

Isn't john kerry the guy who implied he was Irish for 20 years in Massachusetts (which has a huge Irish population) to get votes, when in truth, the name Kerry was an anglicization of Kohn and he had not one drop of Irish blood in him? etc. etc. etc.

Having said all this, however, isn't Bill Clinton the guy who lied to us continually both in office and since?  Isn't Bill Clinton, NOT George Bush, the guy who made regime change US policy in Iraq? etc. etc. etc.

A pot and a kettle going at it.  How steamy.


Ken Berwitz

I offer my thanks to and Peter Schweizer, who wrote the devastating book "Do as I Say (Not as I Do)" which exposed (with painstaking detail and countless references) the hypocrisy of many left wing liberals.

They are the sources of the following material, which sweetness-light rather than yours truly has added the bold print to.

I dare you to read this and ever believe another word from Hillary Clinton's mouth:

Whitewater - Hillary As Predatory Lender

January 25th, 2008

First lets see what Hillary is now saying about the unfairness of the current mortgage crisis, via yesterdays press release:

Hillary Calls For Quick Action To Stop The Foreclosure Of The American Dream


Outlines Visions For Tackling Americas Immediate And Long-Term Economic Challenges

Just days before the State of the Union Address, Hillary Clinton urged the current administration to take immediate action to jumpstart the ailing economy. She outlined the solutions that can be taken now to fix the mortgage crisis and get more money in the pockets of Americans who need it the most. She also provided a vision of how she would lead the country to robust economic growth as President.

Our economic problems are complex. But there is one thing we know for sure: the problem with our economy is not the American people. Instead, the problem is - in part - the bankrupt ideas of President Bush and the Republicans that rewarded the few and left so many people to fend for themselves in a time of great change, said Clinton. Ive been listening to the voices of the American people as Ive traveled this country. The voices of people who work hard all day - then on the night shift - but its still not enough. Theyre simply overwhelmed.

In her remarks, Clinton criticized the Bush administration for ignoring and neglecting the growing signs that the economy was in trouble. She noted that typical family incomes have dropped nearly $1,000 over the past seven years, while health care premiums nearly doubled and gas prices more than doubled. The economic anxiety of Americans has been compounded by the mortgage crisis and is one of the main drivers of the economic downturn that has had ripple effects across the world. Yet President Bush has presented a stimulus plan with tax breaks for corporations but next to nothing for families at risk of losing their homes.

Its time for a President who believes that leading an economic comeback is a fulltime, hands-on job. Who renews our commitment to the middle class and brings business, labor and government together to restore Americas competitiveness in a fast changing world, said Clinton. We need a President who has a vision for a twenty-first century economy based on shared prosperity - where we measure our success not by the wealth at the very top - but by how broadly wealth is shared and where hard work is rewarded and the American Dream is within everyones reach. We need an economy based on the foundation of investments that allow each of us to live up to our God-given potential.

Hillary Clinton is the only presidential candidate with a comprehensive plan to end the foreclosure crisis and ensure that it never recurs. Since last March - at a time when the Administration was assuring Americans that the housing problem was contained - she has warned about the economic consequences of rising foreclosures and she announced policies to address the problem before it became a crisis. On December 5, 2007, Hillary became the first presidential candidate to say that it was time to consider an economic stimulus plan and on January 11, 2008, she was the first leading Democratic candidate, to offer a fiscal stimulus package, which included $110 billion in measures to jumpstart our economy.

Now lets take a stroll down memory lane, courtesy of Peter Schweizers (oh so aptly titled) book, Do As I Say (Not As I Do), pp 106-109:

Do As I Say (Not As I Do)

Then consider the Whitewater investment. Forget for a minute about all the scandal associated with the word and the convoluted financing arrangements. Look at it for a minute as a pure investmentthe biggest business venture that the Clintons had ever been involved in prior to the presidency.

Back in 1978, Bill Clinton was a popular Arkansas attorney general running for governor. He was campaigning as a reformer, an advocate of consumer protection and rights for the elderly. Like Hillary, he was concerned about unscrupulous private corporations. And as he has so often done in his public career, he made a point of claiming the moral high ground over his opponent.

An old friend and political operative, Jim McDougall, came to Bill and Hillary with an investment idea. He wanted to purchase 230 acres of land situated along the White River in the Ozark Mountains of north Arkansas and subdivide it to sell lots as vacation sites. McDougall promised huge returns, on the order of 20 percent a year. The Clintons thought it sounded like a great plan. Hillary in particular had high hopes for the property. While publicly criticizing Ronald Reagans tax cuts, she wrote McDougall in 1981: If Reaganomics works at all, Whitewater could become the western hemispheres Mecca.

The Clintons put no money into the investment. But Hillary, as an attorney in private practice, played an important role in establishing and running the venture. And what a venture it was meant to be. Whitewater was not designed as a regular real estate company. The plan was to sell lots, mainly to elderly retirees and middle-class families, by advertising in small-town newspapers. (They advertised several times in Mother Earth News.) Ordinarily, of course, when you buy a piece of land and finance the purchase, you receive a copy of the deed. If you start missing payments and cant work things out with the finance company, they will eventually repossess the property. After paying off fees and debts, you will get back any remaining equity.

But the Clintons and McDougall did things differently. When customers wanted to buy a lot, they signed a simple purchase agreement. But this was no ordinary real estate contract. The small print at the bottom read: In the event the default continues for 30 days payments made by the purchaser shall be considered as rent for the use of the premises. In other words, the buyers did not actually take ownership of their property until the final payment was made. If a buyer missed just one monthly payment, all their previous payments would be classified as rent and they would have no equity in the land at all.

This sort of contract was illegal in many other states, because it was considered exploitative of the poor and uneducated! One look at the experience of those who bought into Whitewater and you can see why.

Clyde Soapes was a grain-elevator operator from Texas who heard about the lots in early 1980 and jumped at the chance to invest. He put $3,000 down and began making payments of $244.69 per month. He made thirty-five payments in alltotaling $11,564.15, just short of the $14,000 price for the lot. Then he suddenly fell ill with diabetes and missed a payment, then two. The Clintons informed him that he had lost the land and all of his money. There was no court proceeding or compensation. Months later they resold his property to a couple from Nevada for $16,500. After they too missed a payment, the Clintons resold it yet again.

Soapes and the couple from Nevada were not alone. More than half of the people who bought lots in Whitewaterteachers, farmers, laborers, and retireesmade payments, missed one or two, and then lost their land without getting a dime of their equity back. According to Whitewater records, at least sixteen different buyers paid more than $50,000 and never received a property deed. The Clintons continued this approach up until the 1992 election, when they tried to quietly get out of the investment.

I say the Clintons did these things because Hillary was at the center of it all. Monthly payment checks were sent to the Whitewater Development Corporation in care of Hillary Rodham Clinton. In 1982, Hillary herself sold a home to Hillman Logan, who went bankrupt and then died. She took possession of the home and resold it to another buyer for $20,000. No one was compensated (and she didnt report the sale on her tax return).

Hillary has always very indignantly maintained that she and her husband did nothing wrong with regard to Whitewater. After all, they lost money in the deal. But they have always avoided discussions about how the business was structured, and how it exploited the very people they have often professed to help. In the meantime, Sen. Hillary Clinton has gone on to champion the cause of going after banks and other lenders for predatory mortgage lending practices. In an amazing feat of moral dexterity, she cosponsored the Predatory Consumer Lending Act, claiming that mortgage fees are too high. (No, the law does not outlaw the type of financing scheme she was involved in.)

Just bear this in mind when you hear Hillary shedding her crocodile tears about predatory lenders and unfair mortgage foreclosures or even slumlords.

This is the same Hillary Clinton who is campaigning against Obama on the basis of his relationship with "a slumlord"?  Someone who uses real estate to exploit vulnerable people?????????????????????

The book was a major best seller.  Do you think that just maybe somone in the fawning, suck-up-to-Bill-and-Hill media might have HEARD about it or even READ it?  That they might know what a consummate fraud and liar she is? 

Four, maybe eight more years of this?  The thought alone makes me cringe.

WisOldMan If I may speak for the Clinton's, "This is old news" is the case with any scandal they have been part of, that is over one week in age. (02/11/08)


Ken Berwitz

Today is the Democratic Primary in South Carolina.

We've already seen what a bangup job the polls did for the Republican end of things (not to mention Iowa, Michigan and Nevada).  Let's see how they make out this time.

Here is the final compilation of polling from

Polling Data








RCP Average

01/15 - 01/25





Obama +11.6


01/24 - 01/25

816 LV




Obama +15.0


01/23 - 01/24

553 LV




Obama +13.0


01/22 - 01/23

400 LV




Obama +8.0


01/15 - 01/23





Obama +7.0


01/21 - 01/21

624 LV




Obama +15.0

As you can see, they show Obama winning across the board, Hillary Clinton second and John Edwards third.  Other than the Clemson poll (which had the fewest respondents, thus the greatest statistical margin of error, as well as the largest percentage of voters not committed to one of those three) all of the polls are relatively close. 

Good luck guys.  Let's see if this showing is better than the other ones.


Ken Berwitz

Here is an article that you will never see in the Boston Globe.  It is written by Michael Graham of the Boston Herald. 

I don't agree with all of what Mr. Graham says.  But so much of it is so true and stated so bluntly that I can't resist putting it up here.

See what you think:

It's no-win for Barack
Clintons marginalize him as black candidate

By Michael Graham  |   Saturday, January 26, 2008  |  |  Op-Ed

Well, the media finally got the negative, slash-and-burn, "dirty politics" South Carolina primary they've been looking for.

They just weren't looking for it from the Democrats.

Remember how the national media flocked to South Carolina looking for campaign fliers accusing John McCain of having a drug-addicted illegitimate daughter with ties to al-Qaeda? Who knew she would turn out to be Michelle Obama?

The Clintons unloaded on Barack Obama down in South Carolina, running commercials so ridiculously untrue that even Bill Clinton couldn't defend them. The Clintons were forced to pull their attack ads on Thursday.

But by then, it didnt matter anymore. Obama had already lost.

I know, I know: Zogby has Obama up by 13 points, and SurveyUSA has him up by 16. How can the freshman senator from Illinois possibly lose?

He will lose by winning.


Former Clintonista Dick Morris knows. He knows better than anyone alive how the HillBillys think, and he sees what I see. He's figured out the brilliant if repulsive campaign strategy of the Clintons, and how they have turned South Carolina into their Venus Fly Trap. The Obama campaign will fly in, breathe deep the sweet smell of electoral success and then never escape.

In fact, it is possible Obama won't win a single state after South Carolina. He could even lose his home state of Illinois.


As Morris puts it:

"If Hillary loses South Carolina and the defeat serves to demonstrate Obama's ability to attract a block vote among black Democrats, the message will go out loud and clear to white voters that this is a racial fight. That will trigger a massive white backlash against Obama and will drive white voters to Hillary Clinton."

No matter what happens in South Carolina today - even if Obama wins a plurality among white voters - the Clintons and their media stooges have turned South Carolina into "the black primary."

In fact, the bigger his win, the more it reinforces the campaign-killing message that Barack Obama is "their" candidate.

If tomorrow's headlines read "Obama Crushes Clinton, Wins 80 percent of African-American Vote," every non-black voter will get the message that Obama is somebody else's candidate, not theirs.

It's cynicism at its lowest. It is utterly shameful. And yet every "Bush is Hitler!" liberal in America will quietly go along.

Bill and Hillary will pay no political price among liberal voters, or even among black voters, for what they have done. She will still get 90 percent of the black vote in November, and Bill will be greeted like a rock star in Harlem.

Who's to blame?

Obviously the cretinous Clintons - but nobody ever blames them for anything.

After that, the blame must go to black voters as a whole.

As long as the overwhelming majority of black Americans allow their votes to be taken for granted by the Democrats - as long as they commit 90 percent of their votes to one party, no questions asked - then why shouldn't the Clintons play the race card? What's the downside for them?

There is no reason at all why black Americans couldn't vote for John McCain or Mitt Romney. Their politics are not in any way shaped by antagonism toward black Americans. There's not even the stain of the so-called Southern Strategy.

But the Clintons know that the vast majority of black voters in 2008 simply won't consider voting for the Republican nominee, no matter who it is. So they shamelessly slap around Obama, turn South Carolina into a race-based political trap and then start counting the black votes they know theyre still going to get in November .

While I think Mr. Graham makes a major mistake by not factoring in the potential for no-votes and/or Obama write-ins among Black voters, most of what he says is spot on.

As long as Black voters are monolithically, often second-naturedly, voting for Democrats, Democrats can crap all over them.  And some of them do.  Enter Bill and Hill.

Wifey Hill and Hubby Bill are turning Barack Obama into not a presidential candidate but a Black presidential candidate.  They are doing it skillfully and in a way that they can say "who me?" even as the deed is being done.  It is a masterful hit job.

Obama can talk about being a candidate for all the people until his mouth falls off, and it won't matter.  He is an amateur playing against world class professionals.

Plus, Obama has helped the Clintons along dramatically.  He played right into their hands in Monday's debate when he was asked to comment on Toni Morrison's transcendentally idiotic claim that Bill Clinton was "our first Black President".  What did Obama answer? 

"I would have to investigate more, Bill's dancing abilities and some of this other stuff before I accurately judged whether he was, in fact, a brother" .

Oh, god. 

That is roughly equivalent to Rudy Giuliani being asked about a non-Italian who was being called "the first Italian" at something and saying "I would have to investigate more, how much pastafazool* he eats and some of his other stuff before I accurately judged whether he was, in fact, a paisano, capiche?" 

The key point, here, which should never be forgotten, is that the Clinton strategy only works if Black people vote monolithically, unthinkingly for Democrats.  Does that sound like a cynical, insulting view of Black people?  If so I agree with you.  But don't kill the messenger, I'm describing the Clintons, not me.

Again, however, I wonder what the effect will be if, because of this crap-drop, Black people are finally liberated to see what is in front of their eyes about the Clintons and cast their presidential vote either for Barack Obama as a write-in, or not at all.


*Yeah, I know the actual food is pasta e fagioli.  But pastafazool is how a lot of people pronounce it so I decided not to confuse them with the correct spelling.  Hey, if it's good enough for Dean Martin in "That's Amore", it's good enough for me.


Ken Berwitz

You don't need me to talk about this one.  I'm just posting it:

Kinky Sex, Shocking Death

Pennsylvania man charged with electrocuting wife during nip zip

JANUARY 25--A kinky sex escapade ended this week with the electrocution death of a Pennsylvania woman and the arrest of her husband for manslaughter. According to cops, Toby Taylor, 37, first claimed that his wife Kirsten was shocked by her hair dryer. But he then admitted that the couple was "into weird sexual behaviors," according to a probable cause affidavit. Taylor then explained that he hooks clips to his wife's nipples and "plugs the cord into a electric strip" and shocks her. On Wednesday evening, Taylor said, Kirsten removed her clothes, attached the clips, and shocked herself. He then picked up the electric strip and shocked her several more times, adding that he had placed a piece of electric tape over her mouth during the jolts. After the last shock, Kirsten, 29, "fell over on to her face." Taylor initially thought his wife was joking, but quickly realized she was unconscious. He then dressed her in preparation for driving to the hospital, but instead called 911 when she stopped breathing. Taylor, pictured in the below mug shot, told investigators that the couple had "been engaging in electric shock sex and other types of extreme bondage for about 2 years." He was charged yesterday with involuntary manslaughter and reckless endangerment and was jailed in the York Count lockup (where he remains in custody on $100,000 bail). .

The article continues.  But I think that's quite enough.

My personal advice?  This would be a bad one to copy-cat.

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!