Hillary the huntress

Republican gun enthusiasts, take heart: If Hillary Clinton is elected president, you’ll have something in common with her (even if you don’t bowl or drink whiskey). Or rather, she wants you to think you do. Gateway Pundit has the details of Hillary’s claims of once upon a time being taught to hunt. She says she’s not a hunter, but when she did hunt that she hunted ducks.

These days she’s hunting for people who are ducking away from her: superdelegates.

Related: Mike Allen at The Politico writes about how Hillary has changed her tone a bit on the issue of gun control. I think Marc Ambinder pegs Clinton’s recent nuanced commentary on gun control the best:

HRC isn’t changing her positions, but she is changing the appearance of her positions – her tone – to match the prevailing music. It’s much like Rudy Giuliani suddenly declaring his support for “strict constructionist” judges. Heck, the entire Democratic Party did this after Al Gore lost West Virginia in 2000.

Here’s how Obama has tap danced on the issue of gun control over the years.

It’s amazing how the candidates treat voters in each state depending on the issue. Sometimes it’s justified, but other times it looks like they are, well, ducking the issue. Like how NAFTA was a huge part of the Dem campaign in Ohio, where many Dem voters feel NAFTA has been a major cause of job loss there, versus how the NAFTA debate did not get much Dem candidate bashing in Texas, where it is credited for bringing jobs into the state. Why not just take a position on the issue that applies in all states? Is that too much to ask these days?

Via Memeorandum.

1988 Nobel Peace prize winner makes formal request for IPCC to admit its climate change mistakes


I won’t hold my breath that any such admission happen, but all the same it’s still funny to consider the possibility that at least a few IPCC elites are likely squriming and fuming in their cushy chairs over the fact that a fellow Nobel winner has the audacity to challenge their questionable (to put it mildly) findings last year.


Hillary takes “woman of the people” act to the next level

By having a beer … and then a shot of Crown Royal:

CROWN POINT, Indiana – After a day of taking shots at rival Sen. Barack Obama over his “bitter” remarks, Sen. Hillary Clinton relaxed in Crown Point, Indiana and took a shot of a different kind – Crown Royal whiskey.

Clinton was at Bronko’s Restaurant having a beer when the bartender asked, “You want a shot with that Hillary?” After some deliberation, Clinton settled on a shot of Crown Royal, a Canadian whiskey.

Malkin’s got pix and video, and is asking for captions. Here’s one I pulled off of Yahoo (photo courtesy: AP/Carolyn Kaster):

Hillary takes a shot of Crown Royal

What’s next? Jello shooters?

I’m joining the call for reader captions. Please feel free to post yours in the comment section :)

Obama, allies try to explain away “bitter” remarks

This really doesn’t cut it. Both he and his allies are completely ignoring the worst parts of his remarks, which were:

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Now, I’m just getting caught back up on the weekend news, but I’ve yet to see either him or his allies address that part of what he said to the m/billionaire group he addressed two weeks ago. Going by the Political Punch link, it would appear to me that they are deliberately not addressing it.

Captain Ed writes in response:

Had he just stopped there [at saying Pennsylvanians were just bitter], he would have had an arguable point. Unfortunately, he didn’t stop there — and he revealed the snobby, elitist view of middle America that is held by the hard Left. Perhaps more media outlets allow him this defense because they also don’t understand the offensive and snobbish nature of the remarks that follow.

I think even if the mediots don’t get it, and it’s quite possible that they don’t considering how their elitist view matches that of the left most of the time, I think Barack Obama himself is smart enough to know what was really offensive about what he said and as a result is in spin mode, changing the context of what he said as though it was somehow complimentary of “bitter” Pennsylvanians:

“What I meant was something that I don’t think any of us can argue with, which is that people feel abandoned, after 20 or 25 years of plants closing, jobs not coming back. People feel like Washington’s not listening to them, and as a consequence, they find that they can only rely on the traditions and the things that have been important to them for generation after generation. Faith. Family. Traditions like hunting. And they get frustrated.”

Is this guy a spinmaestro or what?