The Divided States of America: The Polarization of United States by Hillary and Bill Clinton

Amos Ajo, Ph.D

America has gone through challenging times such as the civil war and the great depression but through all these challenges America overcame and grew stronger. However, one thing that has happened to America so subtle that most Americans have not taken time understand is the polarization of America by Hillary and Bill Clinton.

The reader must be cautioned here that there has been and will be political differences but what has created the divided states of America by Hillary and Bill Clinton is very unique. It all started by the charges from the investigation by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. Originally dealing with the failed land deal years earlier known as Whitewater, Starr, with the approval of Attorney General Janet Reno, expanded his investigation into Clinton's conduct during the sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a former Arkansas government employee, Paula Jones. In a sworn deposition for this case, Clinton denied having a "sexual affair" with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. At the deposition, the judge ordered a precise legal definition of the term "sexual relations" that Clinton claims to have construed to mean only vaginal intercourse. A much-quoted statement from Clinton's grand jury testimony showed him questioning the precise use of the word "is." Clinton said, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if he—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none that was a completely true statement". Linda Tripp, one of Lewinsky's confidantes, provided Starr with taped phone conversations in which Lewinsky discussed having oral sex with Clinton. Based on these tapes, Starr concluded that Clinton had committed perjury.

After rumors of the scandal reached the news, Clinton publicly stated, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." In his Paula Jones deposition, he swore, "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her." Months later, Clinton admitted that his relationship with Lewinsky was "wrong" and "not appropriate." In fact, Clinton engaged in oral sex with Ms. Lewinsky on several occasions.

The House Judiciary Committee conducted no investigations of its own into Clinton's alleged wrongdoing and for impeachment. Republicans were for it, and the Democrats were against it. This was the beginning of the polarization of America. Impeachment proceedings were initiated during the post-election, "lame duck" session of the outgoing 105th Congress. The committee hearings were perfunctory, but the floor debate in the whole House was spirited on both sides. The Speaker-designate Representative Bob Livingston, chosen by the Republican Party Conference to replace outgoing Speaker Newt Gingrich, announced the end of his candidacy for Speaker and his resignation from Congress from the floor of the house after Livingston's own marital infidelity came to light. Livingston, in that same speech, encouraged Clinton to resign as well. Clinton chose to remain in office and encouraged Livingston to reconsider resigning. House manager Henry Hyde's marital infidelity was also revealed during the Clinton impeachment. This was perhaps the worst period in the American history. I call this the worst period because these well respected men and women in the Congress were no longer behaving like human beings. For the most part the goal was to get at each other. The Clinton team went after every Republican with vengeance. Newt Gingrich bright political future was destroyed; Livingston and Henry Hyde were all executed politically.

Upon the passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228-206 vote) and obstruction of justice (by a 221-212 vote). Two other articles of impeachment failed — a second count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205-229 vote) and one accusing Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148-285 vote). Upon passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton became the first elected U.S. president and the second U.S. president to be impeached, following Andrew Johnson in 1868. For the most part these votes were based on party line. Those voting for impeachment now officially pulled out of the United States and created their state called the Red States. Those who voted against also pulled out the United States and created their states called the Blue States.
In April 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this citation, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate.[5] In January 2001, on the day before leaving office, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license as part of an agreement with the independent counsel to end the investigation. Based on this suspension, Clinton was automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar, from which he then chose to resign.

Understandably, as a result of the divide or polarization that was created during the impeachment process of Bill Clinton, two nations within a nation were created (Red States and Blue States). Red States and Blue States refer to those states whose residents predominantly vote for the Republican Party or Democratic Party presidential candidates, respectively. The names of these countries within the United States were officially adopted in the mainstream political discussion following the 2000 presidential election. However, the term gained ubiquitous status after the 2004 presidential elections. Since then, usage of the term has been expanded to differentiate between states being perceived as liberal and those perceived as conservatives. A blue state may thereby be any state leaning towards the Democratic ticket while a red state may be any state leaning towards the Republican ticket.

The division between red states and blue states has created feelings of cultural and political polarization, which have gained increased media attention since the 2004 election, have led to increased mutual feelings of alienation and enmity. These attitudes have led to the often jocular suggestion that a red state-blue state secession is in order. The Jesusland map is one such joke, a satirical map that redraws the U.S.-Canada border to reflect this sociopolitical schism. Unless something is done to correct this, it will be too late for America to fight the war on terrorism and be prepared to deal with potential problem from China. The biggest problem America has now is to deal with this divide within. Unfortunately, the way things are going if Hillary Clinton ever became president of the Blue States, it will be almost impossible for America to recover.

HIllary’s Inevitability Evaporates in Iowa

By Hill Truth | The Hillary Project
Posted -1 years, 12 months ago email to friend tool nameclose
tool goes here
About that inevitability thing . . . just kidding.

Barely 50 days before Iowa, it matters about as much as Dick Cheney's approval ratings, or Barry Bonds' contract situation, or Robert Novak's newest secret source.

Ladies and gentleman, we have ourselves a race.

Toss out the 30-point lead in the national polls, the fundraising edge, the long list of endorsements, the bold predictions of Terry McAuliffe, Mark Penn, even Bill Clinton himself.

The new ABC News/Washington Post poll has Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., up on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., in Iowa — really in a statistical tie in the state where they could be playing for all the marbles. It's Obama 30, Clinton 26, and former senator John Edwards, D-N.C., 22 — setting up a three-way scramble for the top spot in a state that's notoriously difficult to call in advance.

The worrisome signs for Clinton aren't so much in Obama's movement (and her lack thereof) as they are inside the numbers.

"A growing focus on fresh ideas coupled with lingering doubts about Hillary Clinton's honesty and forthrightness are keeping the Democratic presidential contest close in Iowa," ABC polling director Gary Langer reports.

"Most Democratic likely voters in Iowa, 55 percent, say they're more interested in a 'new direction and new ideas' than in strength and experience, compared with 49 percent in July — a help to Obama, who holds a substantial lead among 'new direction' voters," Langer continues.

The comparable number favoring "strength and experience" is 33 percent.

If Iowa isn't quite a must-win for all of the Democrats, it is a must-not-let-Hillary win for all who would presume to interrupt the Bush-Clinton-Bush chain.

"Iowa Democrats are tilting toward change, and Obama appears to be benefiting from it," the Post's Anne Kornblut and Jon Cohen write.

"While about three-quarters credited both Obama and Edwards with speaking their mind on issues, only 50 percent said Clinton is willing enough to say what she really thinks," they write.

And this sentence that matters to anyone who's been in a real-life caucus room: "In another positive shift for Obama, 55 percent now see him as their first or second choice, an important trend in a state where a person's second choice can matter and voters often switch their support at the last minute."

"There is something of anti-Hillary vote among [supporters of] all the other candidates," ABC's George Stephanopoulos reported on "Good Morning America."

"This could really work for Barack Obama on Jan. 3."

You didn't have to look beyond Iowa on Monday to sense the urgency.

Clinton aides made clear that she had only one candidate in mind with this line on the stump in Iowa (and this hit's about the economy, not foreign policy): "There is one job we can't afford on-the-job training for: That is the job of our next president," Clinton said, ABC's Eloise Harper and Sunlen Miller report. "That could be the costliest job training in history."

Maybe she has no choice but to press her experience at her husband's side; without it, as Obama aides like to point out, she's spent less time in elected office than Obama himself. But what happened to running on your own merits?

Radio Iowa's O. Kay Henderson counted Clinton referring to her husband's presidency at least 16 times in just over half an hour on Monday. The back-to-the-'90s theme is just a cheesy VH1 special if voters don't want to go there with her.

Obama isn't ready to concede experience to Clinton.

"My understanding was that she wasn't Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration, so I don't know exactly what experiences she's claiming," he said Monday. Per The New York Times' Patrick Healy and Jeff Zeleny, it's "the economy as a new proxy for their fight over experience" — and Iowa is the battleground.

Tuesday brings some Clinton pushback against her Republican critics. (This is a primary campaign as general-election campaign — and it's hard to miss the words "strength" and "experience" in this new TV ad.)

"Here they go again — the same old Republican attack machine is back.

Why?" the announcer says in the new ad. "Maybe it's because they know that there's one candidate with the strength and experience to get us out of Iraq, one candidate who will end tax giveaways for the big corporations, one candidate committed to cutting the huge Republican deficit and one candidate who will put government back to work for the middle class."

It's Clinton's "first negative ad . . . hitting back at leading Republican hopefuls who in recent weeks have launched assaults at her over the airwaves," Kevin Landrigan reports in the Nashua Telegraph.

Clinton's battle with Obama is cast against the backdrop of the bizarre Novak item and its fallout (which prompted Obama to deny having done what he doesn't know he's being accused of doing, and the Clinton camp to accuse Obama of being naive to think he'd really been accused of doing anything at all).

Take a breath and listen to OpinionJournal.com's John Fund's best guess on the damaging information the Clinton camp is said to be sitting on:

"The murmured charge is that as an Illinois state senator, Mr. Obama engaged in a real estate deal that benefited him in exchange for legislative favors." (Aren't we Rezko'd out yet? In any event, how about we stop murmuring until somebody producing something in the way of actual evidence?)

Speaking of what we don't know, ABC's Avni Patel and Marcus Baram report that the Clinton library's secret donor list hasn't been all that secret — for the right price.

"The Clinton Foundation sold portions of the list through a data company headed by a longtime friend and donor," Patel and Baram write.

The firm that handled it? A subsidiary of Vin Gupta's InfoUSA.

Gupta's "ties to the Clintons came under scrutiny earlier in the year when a lawsuit filed by InfoUSA shareholders accused Gupta of wasting millions of dollars of the company's money to 'ingratiate himself' with the Clintons and other personal friends."

And forget the White House papers — there's still no public access to Clinton's files from her time as first lady of Arkansas.

"Limited staff and delays in renovations for two new archives have prevented processing thousands of boxes of documents from the administrations of former Govs. Clinton and Mike Huckabee, including a handful of files on Mrs. Clinton," AP's Andrew DeMillo writes.

(Is it possible that the Clinton message machine isn't going to find a way out of this cycle of stories? Anyone think this is helping her claim on honesty, integrity, and openness?)

Source: ABC News

Posted on Tuesday, November

Obama Tops Clinton in `Critical' Iowa Race, Poll Says (Update1)

By Heidi Przybyla

Nov. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Barack Obama has edged ahead of Hillary Clinton in Iowa's first-in-the-nation presidential contest, according to a new poll that suggests her commanding advantage in the Democratic nomination race is slipping.

The Nov. 14-18 Washington Post/ABC News poll showed Obama backed by 30 percent of Iowa Democrats, Clinton with 26 percent and John Edwards with 22 percent. Obama had a 1 point lead over Clinton in July. Among Democrats who said they're ``absolutely certain'' to vote, Obama's lead over Clinton narrowed to 2 points. The results were within the polls' error margins.

``Iowa Democrats obviously have more mixed feelings about Senator Clinton than Democrats nationally do,'' said Dennis Goldford, a politics professor at Drake University in Des Moines.

As the first test, Iowa has a disproportionate influence in the Democratic race; if Clinton, a New York senator, wins the state's Jan. 3 caucuses it may be very difficult for any other candidate to take the nomination away from her.

``Hillary Clinton, running the kind of campaign that she's run, coming out of Iowa with a decisive victory would be hard to stop,'' said Mike Feldman, a Democratic strategist who isn't aligned with any candidate.

Alternatively, a win in Iowa by Illinois Senator Obama, 46, could provide momentum for an upset victory in New Hampshire, which is likely to hold its primary just five days after the Iowa contest.

New Hampshire Primary

``An Obama victory coming so close to the New Hampshire primary might very well reconfigure the race,'' said Bill Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington who is supporting Clinton.

It could also puncture a perception among some Democrats that Clinton, 60, is the party's inevitable nominee, said Nathan Gonzales, political editor at the Washington-based Rothenberg Political Report. An average of other recent polls in Iowa shows Clinton with a small lead over Obama and Edwards.

``Iowa is critical,'' Gonzales said. ``She's competing against very high expectations.''

Finally, an Obama win may create a new stream of campaign funding if he is perceived in December as having a real shot at the nomination. Fundraising figures show Obama lost his money edge in September, when Clinton began to be viewed as the inevitable candidate. Both Clinton and Obama have raised about $80 million for the primaries. Between July and September, however, Clinton brought in close to $24 million while Obama raised $20 million.

Debate Criticism

Clinton began to run into political trouble after an Oct. 30 Philadelphia debate in which she was criticized by her opponents and stumbled in her responses to questions about immigration and other issues. ``I wasn't at my best,'' she told CNN after that debate.

In the four weeks following Iowa and New Hampshire, voters will go to the polls in more than 25 states, from California to New Jersey. The candidates with the most money and momentum emerging from the early contests will enjoy a distinct advantage in these races.

Both Democrats and Republicans plan to pour a fortune in campaign cash into Iowa over the next six weeks. Clinton and Obama could each spend as much as $15 million in the state.

There are also huge stakes for Edwards, a former North Carolina senator who led a series of attacks on Clinton last month. Edwards, 54, has built his entire campaign on using Iowa as a springboard to victory in other states as he lacks the campaign funds to compete directly with Clinton nationally.

``Edwards is in a sense on a ventilator in Iowa,'' Goldford said. ``He'll have to shut off the ventilator and call it if he doesn't win.''

The Post/ABC poll surveyed 500 Iowans deemed likely to vote in the caucuses.

To contact the reporter on this story: Heidi Przybyla in Washington at hprzybyla@bloomberg.net .

Last Updated: November 20, 2007 05:21 EST

AP-Yahoo Poll: Obama, Giuliani Likable

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats and Republicans alike have strong opinions about who has the best chance of capturing the presidency in 2008 — Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, that is — but that's not necessarily the candidate they'd rather go bowling with, take along on a family vacation or even vote for.

An in-depth survey of more than 2,000 people offers a window into the thinking of Americans as they look far beyond electability in making their choices for president — grappling with matters of personality, policy and religion in sorting through the candidates.

Overall, the poll finds, Democrats are weighing personal traits more heavily than policy positions this election season; Republicans are putting greater emphasis on policy. The survey by The Associated Press and Yahoo News is a departure from traditional polling in that it will track the opinions of the same people across the country as their beliefs develop and change through the campaign.

The interplay of the personal and the political doesn't always make for neat and tidy decision-making.

Take self-described die-hard Republican Donald Stokes. The 48-year-old steelworker from Waterbury, Conn., would pick Democrat John Edwards if he could take a candidate along on his family vacation. He likes Edwards' personality and his family values. But he supports Giuliani for president, largely because of the former New York mayor's leadership after the 9-11 terror attacks in 2001.

"I'd rather have a president that's going to get in somebody's face if he's got a problem with them or another country," says Stokes.

Charolette Thompson, a 48-year-old retired landscaper from Federal Way, Wash., is a Democrat backing Barack Obama for president. But she would probably pick "the Mormon guy" — that would be Republican Mitt Romney — for a bowling partner.

Jasmine Zoschak, a 30-year-old physician's assistant from Milford, Pa., would love to see a woman in the White House — "just not the female that's running this year." She's backing Republican Mike Huckabee for president because of his positive outlook and opposition to abortion, but she'd rather invite Obama to dinner.

In this first gut-check of the polling series, the voters signaled there's still hope for candidates playing catchup: Half of likely Democratic voters said they could change their minds about who should win their party's nomination, as did two-thirds of Republicans.

Ask Democrats to size up their party's candidates on personal qualities, and it's easy to see why Clinton is leading national polls of Democrats. She is the candidate most often seen as strong, experienced, decisive, compassionate. Looking for strength, for example, 78 percent of Democrats see the quality in Clinton, 61 percent find it in Obama, 56 percent in Edwards.

The picture is less clear-cut when it comes to ethics and honesty, where Clinton and Obama run about even.

Which Democrat is judged the most likable? None has a clear advantage among Democratic voters, with Clinton, Obama and Edwards running about even. Among all voters, however, Obama has the edge.

It is a measure of how polarizing Clinton can be that she is the both the voters' favored bowling or vacation companion and the one most often ruled out.

Irene Soria, a 60-year-old Democrat from Tulare, Calif., says she's backing Clinton because "she knows how to play Washington. ... The other two, Edwards and Obama, seem kind of weak to me."

Likability, Soria says, is over-rated. A lot of people thought they could have a beer with George W. Bush, she said, but "look at all the things he's done to the United States. He hasn't done much good."

When Republican voters size up the GOP candidates, Giuliani claims the advantage on a host of personal qualities. He is the GOP candidate most often seen as decisive, strong and compassionate. But, just as for Clinton, ethics and honesty are a potential soft spot. Some 59 percent of GOP voters see Sen. John McCain as ethical, compared with 54 percent for Giuliani, 45 percent for Fred Thompson and 42 percent for Romney. On honesty, McCain and Giuliani run about even.

Which Republican is the most likable? Giuliani gets the nod, both from GOP voters and among voters overall.

Hold a sheer popularity contest, pitting the most likable Democrat vs. the best-liked Republican, and it would be Obama over Giuliani, 54 percent to 46 percent.

Ask voters which qualities are most important, though, and they put likability well down the list. They attach far more importance to being honest, ethical, decisive and strong.

Republican Kevin Shipman, 33, of Wichita, Kan., is among the voters sorting through the candidates' personal qualities and policy positions as he makes his choice for president. He's backing Rudy Giuliani right now, but sees him as "the lesser of all evils." He disagrees with Giuliani on abortion and gay marriage, but liked his 9/11 leadership. He also thinks Romney "deserves a second look."

The AP-Yahoo News survey, conducted by Knowledge Networks, also asked voters to shine the spotlight in the other direction, to evaluate some of their own qualities.

It turns out that supporters of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee are the most likely to be happy. Huckabee has a relatively high proportion of support among Evangelicals, who tend to be happier than most people.

Among Democrats, supporters of Obama and Edwards are more likely to say they are very happy than are Clinton's backers. Her supporters include more lower-income and less-educated voters, who tend to be less happy.

The voters do own up to some reservations about the age, sex and religion of certain candidates, but some also manage to swallow their concerns. Nearly 60 percent of 71-year-old John McCain's supporters say they have at least some reservations about supporting a candidate who is over 70. About 30 percent of Romney's supporters have qualms about voting for a Mormon. Fifteen percent of those who support thrice-married Giuliani have reservations about someone who is divorced.

On the Democratic side, 7 percent of Clinton's supporters report some reservations about voting for a woman.

The numbers show a significant share of respondents resisting the pack mentality. Fully half of Obama's supporters and a third of Edwards' backers think Clinton is the Democrat with the best chance of winning next November. On the Republican side, a third or more of the voters supporting McCain, Thompson and Romney think Giuliani has a better chance of winning.

Who would win right now? When an unidentified Democratic nominee is pitted against an unidentified Republican, the Democrat gets 42 percent of voters, the Republican 27 percent and another 27 percent don't know who they'd vote for.

The survey of 2,230 adults was conducted Nov. 2-12 by Knowledge Networks and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.1 percentage points. The survey included 1,049 Democrats, for whom the margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3 points, and 827 Republicans, for whom the margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3.4 points. Unlike most Internet polls, this one is nationally representative because people are first contacted using traditional telephone polling methods, and are then followed using online interviews. People selected for the study who do not already have Internet access are provided with Internet access for free.

More information is available at http://news.yahoo.com/polls

AP News survey specialist Dennis Junius and AP writer Christine Simmons contributed to this report.

Obama eclipses Clinton in Iowa

THE first test of the Democratic presidential candidates, the Iowa caucuses, has suddenly become a lot more interesting.

An ABC/Washington Post poll released yesterday showed Senator Barack Obama ahead of Senator Hillary Clinton, putting in doubt her status as the frontrunner of the Democratic pack.

The poll found 30% support for Senator Obama and 26% for Senator Clinton, a statistical tie, since the poll's margin of sampling error is plus or minus 4.5%.

"There's going to be a caucus, and not just a coronation," said Bill Burton, national press secretary for the Obama campaign.

John Edwards polled 22%, to also tie with Senator Clinton, once the error rates are taken into account. After that, 11% backed New Mexico's Governor Bill Richardson.

Analysts hesitated to make too much of the results because of the vagaries of a caucus election. Any registered Democrat can turn up at the town meetings, which are held all over Iowa on January 3, but only about 10% of the population — about 100,000 for each party — actually do, raising questions about what the Iowa caucuses really indicate. They do, however, provide a big media lift for the winner, arguably their main attraction.

An analysis by Gary Langer, of ABC News, said Mr Edwards was up four, Senator Obama up three, and Senator Clinton was unchanged since the last Iowa poll, in July.

Senator Obama appears to be ahead in winning the voters' trust. Asked which candidate was the most honest and trustworthy, 31% said Senator Obama, 21% said other, none or no opinion, 20% said Mr Edwards, 15% said Senator Clinton, and 13% said Mr Richardson.

The poll found voters were increasingly interested in a new direction and new ideas as opposed to strength and experience, which may help Senator Obama, who has campaigned on this issue.

Senator Clinton's advantage on experience, while substantial, has softened since summer, the analysis says. She also trails Senator Obama on support among men.