BloggeRhythms

Veeerrryyy slow news day, following the useless Iowa caucuses. Other than the reports that first Huckabee and now Paul, have dropped out of the Republican presidential contest. Which means that the remaining contenders can vie for their supporters, except for the fact that there aren’t any to speak of for either of them.

The absence of major news, however, provides an opportunity to pass on an item sent to me by a friend, in which Abbott and Costello explain how the administration is handling the horrendous unemployment situation in the nation, as follows:   

COSTELLO:  I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America 

ABBOTT: Good Subject.  Terrible Times.  It’s 5.6%.      

COSTELLO:  That many people are out of work?

ABBOTT: No, that’s 23%.

COSTELLO: You just said 5.6%.

ABBOTT:  5.6% Unemployed.

COSTELLO:  Right 5.6% out of work.

ABBOTT: No, that’s 23%.

COSTELLO: Okay, so it’s 23% unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, that’s 5.6%.

COSTELLO:  WAIT A MINUTE!. Is it 5.6% or 23%?

ABBOTT: 5.6% are unemployed.  23% are out of work.

COSTELLO: If you are out of work you are unemployed.

ABBOTT:  No, Obama said you can’t count the “Out of Work” as the unemployed.  You have to look for work to be unemployed.

COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!

ABBOTT: No, you miss his point.

COSTELLO:  What point? 

ABBOTT:  Someone who doesn’t look for work can’t be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn’t be fair.

COSTELLO: To whom?

ABBOTT: The unemployed.

COSTELLO: But ALL of them are out of work.

ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are out of work gave up looking and if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.

COSTELLO: So if you’re off the unemployment roles that would count as less unemployment?

ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!

COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don’t look for work?

ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That’s how it gets to 5.6%. Otherwise it would be 23%.

COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to bring down the unemployment number?

ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?

ABBOTT: Correct.

COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?

ABBOTT: Bingo.

COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to have people stop looking for work.

ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like a Democrat.

COSTELLO:  I don’t even know what the hell I just said!

ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like Hillary. 

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife and the fact that it’s utterly amazing that, no matter the issue at hand, if she’s involved, the truth is always in question, regardless.

In today’s case, the subject is whether or not she actually won the Democrat caucus Monday night.

Jennifer Jacobs, @desmoinesregister.com, writes: “It's Iowa's nightmare scenario revisited: An extraordinarily close count in the Iowa caucuses — and reports of chaos in precincts, website glitches and coin flips to decide county delegates — are raising questions about accuracy of the count and winner.

“This time it's the Democrats, not the Republicans. 

“Even as Hillary Clinton trumpeted her Iowa win in New Hampshire on Tuesday, aides for Bernie Sanders said the eyelash-thin margin raised questions and called for a review. The chairwoman of the Iowa Democratic Party rejected that notion, saying the results are final.”

Thus, if nothing else, it’s been proven once again that it really doesn’t matter what the situation is. If there’s a Clinton involved, it’s a sure bet that something shady has taken place. And what’s really quite ironic is, that if by some chance any of them ever was honest for once, how would anyone know it? 

In another Clinton matter, Eddie Scarry @washingtonexaminer.com, writes: “Veteran investigative journalist Bod Woodward on Wednesday said a likely reason Hillary Clinton lost young voters in Iowa to her main Democratic rival is because she has a harsh tone that comes across as insecure. 

"I think a lot of it with Hillary Clinton has to do with style and delivery, oddly enough," Woodward said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "She shouts. There is something unrelaxed about the way she is communicating." 

“Show co-host Joe Scarborough agreed.” 

Farther along in his column, Mr. Scarry added: “Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan said a similar thing about Clinton's speech-making voice. 

"She is especially poor at the podium, where, when she wants to emphasize an applause line, her voice becomes loud, flat and harassing to the ear," Noonan wrote in January. She compared Clinton to a "landlady yelling up the stairs that your kids left their bikes in the hall again." 

Now, although, both Woodward and Noonan are quite correct that Bill’s wife comes across as a screaming old shrew, they triggered another thought about her campaign that’s not only quite confusing, it makes no sense whatsoever.

In many appearances, the supporters behind her wave signs saying Bill’s wife is “Fighting For You,” which makes one wonder as to exactly who she’s fighting with, and why. Because, the POTUS is a Democrat that she worked for as secretary of state. Bernie Sanders is farther left than she is. And every bit of legislation that her party desires gets enacted, one way another, and it’s been that way for the past nine years now. 

So, what on this green earth remains for her  to“fight” for? Because it not only all got done quite handily without her, she won’t likely be needed in the future either. 

Which brings up the ongoing question: Joe Biden, Mayor Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, and Starbuck’s chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?  

 

That’s it for today folks.      

 

Adios