Archive for June, 2007

That “Thing” About Hillary

June 29, 2007

Why is she still in the running and why do her sheep fall into the trap of gullibility?

From MSNBC, aka MSLSD: (printing something not found on HillaryHub for a change)

From NBC’s Mark Murray

Earlier today, Howard Wolfson, the communications director for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, said in a memo: “As [Clinton strategist] Mark Penn likes to say, people always ask ‘can Hillary win?’ but he has never had this asked of someone who is already winning. This week’s national polls underscore that observation.”

But those polls only tell part of the story. According to a new Mason-Dixon survey, given exclusively to NBC/MSNBC and McClatchy newspapers, Clinton is the only major presidential candidate — either Democrat and Republican — for whom a majority of likely general election voters say they would not consider voting. In addition, she’s the only candidate who registers with a net-unfavorable rating.

In the poll, 48% say they would consider voting for Clinton versus 52% who say they wouldn’t. By comparison, majorities signal they would consider voting for all other major presidential candidates or possible candidates: Giuliani (64%-36%), Fred Thompson (62%-38%), Bloomberg (61%-39%), Obama (60%-40%), Edwards (59%-41%), McCain (58%-42%), Biden (57%-43%), Richardson (57%-43%), Huckabee (56%-44%), and Romney (54%-46%).

Moreover, 39% say they recognize Clinton favorably, while 42% say they recognize her unfavorably. By contrast, every other candidate has a net-positive favorable rating: Giuliani (43%-17%), Obama (36%-21%), McCain (33%-28%), Edwards (32%-28%), Thompson (25%-12%), Romney (24%-20%), Biden (21%-20), Bloomberg (20%-18%), Richardson (19%-15%), and Huckabee (16%-12%).

The poll was taken of 625 likely general election voters from June 23-25, and has a margin of error of +/- 4%.

As we have so stated in previous posts, her own people don’t like her.

Advertisements

Follow The Bouncing Ball

June 29, 2007

As KHoltsberry has pointed out here, The Rodham is Queen of Pandering.

Front-runners Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama dueled for the black vote at last night’s minority-themed debate, saying the country’s long struggle for racial equality is far from over.

Clinton drew a standing ovation at Howard University in Washington, D.C., when she said the scourge of AIDS has been ignored in America because it affects mainly African-Americans.

Have I mentioned before that she is also the Whore of Lies and Deciet?  Just curious.  How about if the Lying and Pandering Czarina put her millions where he lying-ass mouth is and prove her ignorant and retarded allegation?  What a schmuck.  No wonder Bill stepped out on her so many time and still is.  And get a load of this mugshot:

GLAD IT'S OVER: Hillary Rodham Clinton enthusiastically greets supporters at Howard University after last night's debate, while Barack Obama mops his bow in the heat while signing autographs.

GLAD IT’S OVER: Hillary Rodham Clinton enthusiastically greets supporters at Howard University after last night’s debate, while Barack Obama mops his bow in the heat while signing autographs.

Well, it ain’t over until this lying-ass is shut down and shut down hard.

Perhaps the GOP will show the Pandering Dweeb Hitlery what a landslide is:

Democrats As Snake-Oil Salesmen

June 29, 2007

Great quote from John Podhoretz on the D’s debate last night:

It struck me as a snake-oil salesman’s convention. Every minute there was another promise to fix another problem that any sensible person at any point on the political spectrum knows perfectly well can’t simply be fixed by dollars alone — universal health care, education, the size of the prison population, AIDS, early childhood development, and on and on. I suppose there are many people in this country who genuinely believe the reason things aren’t better is that government doesn’t do enough or spend enough and that all you need to do is cut the defense budget to make everything equal. And I suppose saying you’re for massive government action in all these areas is incredibly seductive for those people to hear. But it’s not serious. In fact, it’s insulting to their audiences for the candidates to pretend it is serious. It would be like Republican candidates going before pro-life audiences and saying, “When I am president there will be no abortions in this country!” The fact that this was a forum largely dedicated to issues of concern to African-Americans should be a sobering reminder of just how patronizing liberals can be toward black people.

Hillary: Race Baiter

June 29, 2007

It seems like if anyone else said such a thing; say a Republican: there would be hell to pay. I guess if one is a Democrat, all is well by inciting to riot. Then again, truth to a Democrat is a subjective item of interest and Hillary just so happens to make me ill. She is SUCH a friggin’ liar.

While Obama’s appearance on the debate stage caused a swell in the opening applause in the auditorium, it was Clinton who drew the night’s loudest cheers in discussing the spread of AIDS among black women. “If HIV-AIDS were the leading cause of death of white women between the ages of 25 and 34 there would be an outraged, outcry in this country,” she said, prompting an enthusiastic audience response.

I suppose Czarina the fraud, liar, thief and crook has a convenient memory when it comes to the BILLIONS that GWB and Company have spent on HIV-AIDS research and help in AFRICA? This one pissed me off and Hillary is a class-act schmuck.

UPDATE!  HillaryHub promotes race-baiting…

Helen Thomas Doesn’t Trust Hillary

June 28, 2007

OK, I know it’s Helen Thomas, not exactly a person I would be disposed to quote favorably, but even a broken clock can be right twice a day, right? Anyway, here is what one of the most notoriously liberal journalists has to say about the former first lady:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has great political skills, but her war-and-peace compass leaves something to be desired.

Clinton has blown hot and cold on Middle East issues, including Iraq and the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. She is at best pragmatic. Principles? Well, that’s another story.

Hillary lacking principles? You don’t say. Blowing hot and cold on important issues? No! Its called nuance!

Thomas notes how fast Hillary can change her mind:

It doesn’t take her long to switch her stance on the war – even in 24 hours. On Tuesday, June 19, Clinton told a union audience that she favored keeping some troops in Iraq “to protect our interests” there after a major pullout. But the following day, she told an activist anti-war gathering that she wants U.S. troops withdrawn from Iraq.

On that day, she dazzled the “Take Back America” conference by declaring: “We’re going to end the war in Iraq and finally bring our troops home.”

A woman has a right to change her mind. But we’re talking about war and peace. After dealing with the conflict, now in its fifth year, Clinton ought to know where she stands.

Yep. Clinton has been dancing around the issue and you don’t have to be a “journalist” like Thomas to notice. Not surprising given her far left sympathies, Thomas recommends “two California Democrats – Rep. Barbara Lee and Speaker Nancy Pelosi” as role models for Hillary.

But Thomas redeems herself by asking the right question to end her column:

The question still lingers: What does Clinton stand for?

Now that’s a good question. Even from Helen Thomas.

Obama to out raise Hillary

June 28, 2007

If there was one thing I was confident Hillary Clinton could do it was raise money. But it appears Barack Obama ain’t no slouch either:

Eager to cast their fundraising totals for the second quarter in a positive light, officials with Sen. Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign said they expect to raise less than Sen. Barack Obama — probably about $27 million, roughly what they drew in the first three months of the year.

[. . .]

Advisers in the two camps had been quietly predicting for weeks that Obama would outperform Clinton, and on Thursday, the Obama campaign unveiled a tidbit about their fortunes. They said they are in reach of having 250,000 donors for the year by the time the second fundraising quarter ends this Saturday.

David Plouffe, the Obama campaign manager, wrote in a memo that the campaign had already added about 140,000 new contributors in the last three months. “While the professional pundits are busy handicapping a big-money horse race, we have a more important goal: getting more people involved and owning a piece of this campaign,” Plouffe wrote.

Typical campaign speak by the Obama camp. Obviously each is going emphasize whatever makes their candidate look good, but lots of money and from lots of donors is rarely bad. Now if Obama could just turn some of that money and enthusiasm into improved poll numbers things might really get interesting.

Scandals of The Clintonistra

June 27, 2007

Enron and the Clinton Corruption:

In 1992, Enron was one of the most popular contributors to Bill Clinton and the DNC. Enron was right next to Bill Clinton from his first days in the White House. In 1992, Enron donated $100,000 to Clinton’s inauguration, and Enron’s top exec, Ken Lay, stayed at the White House 11 times.

If the FBI, GAO or Congress wants to investigate billions of dollars lost to “corruption, collusion and nepotism,” they need look no further than Bill Clinton.

Campaign fraud:

Final Report on the Special Investigation (and nothing was done?)

Too many to itemize:

More on Enron and the Clinton corruption:

The “short list”:

The Clinton Corruption Record 1992 – 2000 (the short list)

– The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance

– Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates

– Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation

– Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify

– Most number of witnesses to die suddenly

– First president sued for sexual harassment.

– First president accused of rape.

– First first lady to come under criminal investigation

– Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case

– First president to establish a legal defense fund.

– First president to be held in contempt of court

– Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions

– Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad

– First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

The family of corruption…just what the country needs.

Which Is It…Scary or Amazing?

June 27, 2007

Or could it be amazingly scary enough to be spooky? Someone thinks Hillary isn’t “Progressive” enough. The term “progressive” is liberal-speak for “socialist”. So, Hillary isn’t “socialist” enough? Yep. Darn right and dirty low-down spooky right there.

This same “someone” thinks that there is “outright hatred for her that has been brewing for more than a decade on the right.”  That remark shows the stupidity of those on the left.  The mutants on the left are sadly in error.  What this particular veteran doesn’t like about Czarina is her communist jibber-jabber while she wears the socialist garb and the idiot that wrote the article is just as socialist as Czarina is.

I  wonder if the idiot author writes for that waste of a site HillaryRub.

Quinnipiac Poll Numbers in Swing States

June 27, 2007

A new set of polls brings good and bad news for Hillary:

Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani is losing ground in the 2008 general election and Republican primaries in three critical states – Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to Quinnipiac University’s Swing State Poll, three simultaneous surveys of voters in states that have been pivotal in presidential elections since 1964.

Head to head match-ups show:

* Ohio – Clinton ties Giuliani 43 – 43 percent, compared to May 16 when Giuliani led
47 – 43 percent;
* Florida – Giuliani beats Clinton 48 – 42 percent, compared to a 47 – 42 percent Giuliani
lead June 7;
* Pennsylvania – Giuliani and Clinton are tied 45 – 45 percent, compared to a 47 – 43
percent Giuliani lead May 31.

As has been frequently noted, however, Hillary’s negatives are high enough to put a cap on her numbers. It seems likely that these numbers reflect Giuliani’s drooping more than any Hillary gain. Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, notes that this may not mean much in the primary but it will have an impact in the general election:

“Sen. Clinton’s numbers are as reliable as a Swiss watch. Her support and lead remain rock solid among the Democrats in these key states.”

“If Sen. Obama is catching Clinton in the primary contest, there is no evidence of it in Florida and Ohio. But in November, the large number of non-Democrats who view her negatively keeps a cap on her showing against Republicans,” Brown added.

Hillary’s Achilles Heal…Part 2

June 27, 2007

As we have presented previously, we continue with the expose of the woman that would be Czar. John Dickerson over at Slate asks the question, “Is Senator Clinton warm enough to win?” I suppose it all depends on what your definitions of “warm” and “sincere” are…yes?

SlateV, a new on-line video magazine has an inside view of the Rodham. You can view the video by clicking on the VOD:POD (in our sidebar) to access “Hillary’s Achilles Heel” or by visiting SlateV.

With the recent release of Hillary’s “what will be my theme song” contest winner, we see that she tries ever so hard to depict herself as the caring and womanly…woman.  She is shown “looking out for” her husband with carrot sticks in lieu of onion rings.  Unless she really likes the womanizing husband Bill “stepping out” on her on a regular basis, the video is a sham.  What woman in her right mind (or would that be left mind?) accepts their womanizing husbands unless, naturally, the brain synapse pathways are askew.

Where Clinton doesn’t do well is on the “softer” set of attributes-trust, likability, and the feeling that she’s “just like us”-that help voters form a personal connection with a candidate.

Well stated.  I will add that Hillary is of questionable character and she is a crook.  Does America need another Clinton crook?  I think not.  To make matters worse and to add insult to injury, does America want or need a full-blown socialist as president?  I think not.