9/7/2010

STICKING THE LANDING

Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 9:54 pm

I do not want to write tonight, I do not want to blog another column, tonight, yes I do not want to but then I have written so much in different places in past couple days, it is really what I should do.

First:  Yes I consider the question I put out in last column about economy going "turtle" as soon as she announced her candidacy for president to be answered in all midterms this year, to hopefully great detail.

Second:  What a bone these Democrats and their economics have thrown the Republicans of the 90s.   What a bone even thrown to Newt Gingrich now seeming "absolved" by these Dems for any part he and fellow Republicans may have played in the Clintons’ economics now seeming the tainted marrow of Obamanomics.   What a bone to Republicans these near two years of not trying to blame it all on the Republicans of the 90s instead of on Bush.

Third:   Somewhere I blogged recently a question to others like "Clintons have no valor?"  or maybe just "Clintons have no honor?".   Somewhere I was blogging this querie with concerns for new generation interested in writing about politics, so and without above mentioned thoughts about the bone these Dems through Republicans for not blaming the Republicans of the 90s and making excuses for the Clintons.

Fourth:   Wow, was I glad I checked TV listings and found HBO channel rebroadcasting the 2009 25th Rock & Roll Anniversary Concert at Madison Square Garden last night.  Talk about a mix. 

Fifth:   Yes the New York Times op-ed pieces on Operation Iraqi Freedom seem jokish what with the very logic the ‘counter logic’ asserting in a full historical that then therefore it should be that Republicans should be praised and lauded.   Leaving aside how the Obama administration wouldn’t be in such a economic pickle if they hadn’t thrown such a bone to the Republicans of the 90s and Newt G. and, for now, how yes such likely would have necessarily taken Clintons down a few more notches:  New York Times op-ed columns miss the logic in their logic asserting Saddam was working out that in full historical, and not even about above "economics" mostly, for their assertion that Saddam could have continued as a check on Iran alone falls upon the rusty swords of Clintons "no-fly" avoidance.   Logic, theirs, still fits historical nicely to that it was Republicans backing Saddam in struggles around the Cold War and battles against the spread of communism that was the "check" on Iran.   Logic, theirs, still fits as "counter logic" to their own logic for the conclusions around Saddam still with potential to be a useful check on Iran begets the nineties when "no-fly" and United Nations sanctions busy keeping Saddam from being a check on Iran.   Seems Republicans that had been the real check on Iran new Saddam no longer could be a check on Iran and for knowing they were no longer willing to make compromises around him that only the Cold War struggles could justify.

Sixth:   Well if you haven’t read back the past 7-10 columns here blogged - please do so I can be brief now.

Seventh:  Somewhere I blogged as well about Obama being an "anti-capitalist" who wanted an economy of flat line growth without "ups and downs" (winners and losers).  It was likely just a facebook status post, and if you are not on my friends list I invite you to introduce yourself with a friend request to facebook.com/jpeterhogan so maybe you can get some comments and thoughts earlier.  See, it seems football in America is counter to Obama’s flat economy line desires.  It seems so without "winners and losers" spiking and tanking economic moods a reasonable interpretation of Obamanomics must be anti-football with it so messy with "winners" and "losers".   Well Jets play Ravens next Monday night, and since Jets are all about "go green" and restoring New York with FOOTBALL…

Eight:   Yes it is a detail of our post 9/11 history that Senator Hillary Clinton did get the most "political gain" and "political advantage" from events of 9/11 than any other United States politician and especially President Bush, who then had people calling for him to invade Afghanistan instead of just entering Afghanistan with permission to chase foreigners bent on destroying and defeating America.   President Bush even had it more difficult to move forward with much expected harder lines on Iraq and Saddam Hussein towards threatening to fully enforce intent of all sanctions that Clintons made a point for all their eight years to keep upon Saddam Hussein and pass on as part of weak inheritance.  Yes it is a historical and relevant fact that 9/11 helped new Senator Hillary Clinton beat the old boy Senate seniority system usually able to keep junior Senators much more buried.  Yes without 9/11 "Hillary" would not have suddenly taken the global or just national stage with such a complete and emotional makeover, as a "Ground Zero" Senator necessarily spotlighted as a politician all Americans should help and pray for.

Nine:   No!  America didn’t deserve to be attacked on 9/11 though such "radicals" of attack may have thought just.   We may have deserved something and for the "avoidance" and "inaction" of the Clintons’ 90s, but we were not all Democrats, silent to the issues maybe thought justifying.   The United States of America was open to more peaceful expression and discussion even if it was to an dismantling of Clintons’ popularity and governance.  Not sticking to the landing was an unecessary acting, way too radical. 

Ten:  On the Clintons "without valor" or was it "without honor":   Well that is in all the reporting and stories of their crass politicing and Bush bashing with Obama and by themselves even when even the least amount of political gain could be garnered with Bush bashing.   Well, that is hardly valorous of Clintons - Clintons so embraced with unearned friendship and the rare loyalty practiced by Bush family to have been so crass and political in turning on such proffered and regularly extented "friendship" by Bush families.

Note:   Yup,  I am sure there was more I meant to write here tonight, while not wanting to have needed to write, tonight.   Yes it is quite a bone thrown Republicans of 90s that now traps Clintons in their own "failure" hardly yet properly reported.  Who would President Obama have been, so far, if he hadn’t contaminated his administration with such an embrace of such a crass political, and politically cold and calculating "two-fer"/couple?   In the future I may not fill in so as I have tonight the gaps in "commentary" that facebook friends may understand better for "fit" with status and notes posted on facebook.