Hillary Clinton whiffs in first visit to China as Secretary of State

Back on February 15, I wrote about the need of the Obama administration to hold abusers of human and religious rights accountable. How is the new administration doing? Consider this comment from new Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her recent visit to Beijing, China:

"Human rights cannot interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis, and the security crises."

In other words, it will be business as usual when it comes to holding China accountable for its atrocious human rights record. Clinton did make some comments about having frank discussions with China about this issue, but I have not heard many specifics.

Money triumphs over blood....again.

Count your blessings during hardship

If a person spends some time reading a newspaper, he or she will get a quick education regarding the challenges America faces.

For the sake of this column, I'll only focus on our economic problems, but I believe most of us understand our problems are not limited to the recession.

However, the recession is dominating our lives in many ways. The national unemployment rate is 7.6 percent, and the rate is slightly higher than that here in Tennessee.

For those of us who invest our money into a 401k, the return on that has been miserable for quite a while. When I last looked at my money, I wanted to go screaming into the night.

On top of that, we've heard countless stories about home foreclosures and some statistics claim one out of 10 households is behind on its mortgage.

It's all pretty grim. Still, things could be worse. Our fundamental freedoms remain intact, and that is not a claim that can be made by other countries.

For example, the International Christian Concern recently released its annual 'Hall of Shame' top ten list of countries that persecute Christians. Here are the countries on the list: North Korea, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, India, China, Pakistan, Iran, Eritrea, and Vietnam.

North Korea's inclusion on the list should come as no surprise. The regime is well-known for its abuse of citizens when it comes to religion and other aspects of life. During a national famine several years ago, the government chose to let folks starve instead of taking outside help. So, be grateful you are not a North Korean.

Iraq's inclusion on the list is frustrating and for obvious reasons. In the last few years, a lot of American blood has been spilled to provide that country freedom. Unfortunately, their idea of a free society is different than what we have in mind.

Obviously, one country cannot go into another and make it conform to certain types of values. Countries have tried that for centuries and failed. However, one of the most ironic aspects of Iraq's inclusion on this list is that many experts state Christians were actually safer during Saddam Hussein's regime than they are now.

Of course, Hussein was a tyrant and had to go. Still, the plight of Christians there is one of the saddest byproducts of the war.

China is a perennial occupant on this list. The Chinese government did a nice job of making their country look pretty during last summer's Olympics, but the religious persecution continues. The Chinese government's actions during the Olympics were the equivalent of putting a pig in a dress. The dress may have been beautiful, but it was still a pig. And what is going on in that country stinks like a pig.

According to the organization's web site, the ICC's Jeremy Sewall had this to say about this year's list: "This report reminds us of the need for constant vigilance in the struggle to defend the fundamental human right of religious freedom. Instead of allowing religious persecution to be swept under the rug, we call on journalists and all concerned individuals to help shine the light on persecution in 2009."

He is absolutely right. As President Barack Obama develops his foreign policy, religious freedom should be a cornerstone in how he works with countries that have a history of this type of abuse.

If Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton don't do this, they are taking the easy way out.

For the sake of people in those countries, let's hope they don't.

Much ado about nothing

In the daily grind of a presidential campaign, it is fascinating to watch how an off-the-cuff remark by a candidate can be blown way out of proportion.

This recently happened to New York Sen. Hillary Clinton when she was talking to the editorial board of a South Dakota newspaper.

South Dakota's primary is on Tuesday, and she was responding to a question about all the pressure she is receiving from Democrats to drop out of the race. Barring an unforeseen event, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee in November's general election.

Responding to the question she said: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know, I just don't understand it."

All Clinton was trying to say was that there is a historical precedent for Democratic campaigns lasting into June, and that she had the right to continue her campaign because of that.

However, her opponents and critics immediately jumped on her reference to Robert Kennedy and expressed outrage. An Obama spokesman said her comment "has no place in this campaign."

Eventually, Clinton made an apology, but I'm still trying to understand what was so offensive about her remark.

Obviously, her critics thought she was wrong to bring Robert Kennedy's murder into the political arena, but there was nothing in her comment that was offensive. She was simply stating a fact about recent Democratic campaigns and that the 1968 campaign did last into June.

She was not insensitive to Kennedy's memory in any way. Unfortunately, for her, she is the target of Democratic leaders who want her out of the way so there can be nothing to deflect attention away from Obama.

Because of this, they will exploit any comment she makes to marginalize her.

The truly fascinating aspect of this is that the same people who are pounding her also dream of an Obama/Clinton presidential ticket.

They believe with Obama's charisma and Clinton's ability to attract women voters that they would be unstoppable against the Republicans in November.

At this point, I would have to agree with that. Obama's charisma seems to intoxicate people and unless there is an "October surprise" lurking in the shadows, I don't see him losing to Arizona Sen. John McCain.

Adding Clinton as the vice presidential nominee would provide Democrats with a powerful ticket.

However, they should not get their hopes up just yet.

After years of being the darlings of the Democratic Party, the Clintons have taken quite a battering over the last few months. Former President Bill Clinton has become an afterthought on the campaign trail, and Mrs. Clinton recently made a comment about how she has been the victim of sexism.

Don't expect their wounds to heal quickly. When people have been on top, it is difficult to accept being second banana, and that is what Mrs. Clinton would be if she accepted a vice presidential offer.

So, at this point, it is hard to imagine that she will be the Democrats' vice presidential nominee. Obama may offer it to her as a way for her to gracefully exit the campaign spotlight, but it's hard to believe that she would accept it.

However, if there is anything we know about the Clintons, it is that they do not stay down long when they have been knocked to the ground.

Hillary Clinton will remain a presence on the political scene as a senator.

Who knows? She may have another chance at the White House some day.

Hillary Clinton's long, strange trip

One year ago, the race for the Democratic nomination for president looked clear cut.

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton sat comfortably atop most polls, and given how popular her husband was among Democrats when he was president, it appeared that all the stars were aligned for her to win the nomination.

All the years of supporting her husband and building her resume in the Senate were about to pay off. She was going to roll to her party's nomination and possibly all the way to the White House.

However, all her aspirations have apparently fallen apart in only one year.

One year doesn't seem like a long time, but in politics, the popularity of a candidate can change as quickly as the wind changes directions.

The emergence of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has energized many Democrats, and it has forced Clinton to play catch up for most of the last three months.

Her most impressive primary victory was probably her win in New Hampshire where polls had her trailing in the days leading up to the vote. Unfortunately, for her, that is a small state with few delegates.

Obama continues to enjoy a healthy lead in delegates, and some Democratic leaders have publicly called for Clinton to drop out of the race. Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, who is a supporter of Obama, recently advised her to quit because it would be in the best interest of the party as it prepares for the November general election.

That is quite a fall in one year.

Additionally, although she did win important states like Florida and Michigan, the results of both of those primaries were nullified because officials there broke party rules by moving their primaries to January.

Clinton continues to push for those results to be counted or that a re-vote take place there, but her efforts appear to be gaining little traction.

Despite the calls for her to drop out of the race, she vows to go forward. The next major primary is in Pennsylvania on April 22.

This would appear to be a state right up her alley because it is an industrial state like Michigan. However, Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey Jr., recently endorsed Obama, which could cut into Clinton's lead in the polls there.

After Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina hold their primaries on May 6. There are a few primaries after that, but if she doesn't win these next three primaries, it won't matter.

In fact, all her efforts right now might be a moot point anyway.

In order to catch Obama, most pundits believe Clinton will have to not only win the remaining primaries by a landslide but also be able to persuade the party's 800 or so "superdelegates" to support her as well.

"Superdelegates" are party members who are allowed to choose any candidate that they want. They are not bound to any candidate.

The "superdelegate" concept is a crock. The whole point of the primary system was to give voters more power when selecting a nominee, but the Democrats took back some of that power with this.

Apparently, Democratic leaders don't totally trust voters when it comes to selecting their nominee.

All I know is if Obama still has his lead when the party's convention takes place this summer, but loses the party's nomination because all the "superdelegates" swing to Clinton, the Democratic Party will implode.