Hillary And The Long Shot

November 24, 2007 by

Hillary Clinton Not So Inevitable

There is a bit of buzz around the blogosphere about a couple recent surveys/polls and while they make for interesting reading and debate, politics can and usually does turn on a dime, so it is all taken with a grain of salt.

With that said, lets take a look.

Florida: Democrat vs Republican

In a potential match up between Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton, Giuliani wins at 50-43 percent.

Republican Rudy Giuliani, shown here campaigning yesterday at the NASCAR Nextel Cup Ford 400 race in Homestead, is the most popular presidential candidate in Florida, with 57 percent of voters willing to consider voting for him, according to a new Mason-Dixon poll.

In a potential matchup with Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, Giuliani wins 50-43 percent. Republicans Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney also beat her, although their wins are within the margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points.

Clinton is the only candidate, Democrat or Republican, with higher unfavorable than favorable ratings; 45 percent of voters have an unfavorable opinion of her, while 38 percent have a favorable opinion.

Back in August I asked if the DNC stripping Florida of all its delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver, because Florida moved up its presidential primary to January 29, would hand Florida to the Republicans, and in this MiamiHerald.com article, I may have gotten my answer.

The boycott of Florida by the Democratic candidates over the state’s renegade early primary could come back to haunt the party, according to the poll. Statewide, 26% of independent voters and 33% of undecided voters said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who shunned Florida before the Jan. 29 primary.

Iowa: Democrat vs Democrat

According to the the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll (PDF file), Sen. Barack Obama beats Sen. Hillary Clinton 2-1 as the most honest and trustworthy candidate. She has less support in Iowa than nationally in trust to handle a variety of specific issues. Obama now runs evenly with her on the topic of Iraq. And she’s third in Iowa among men.

From ABC:

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.

New Hampshire: Republican vs Republican

In the Republican race in another critical state, meanwhile, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney gained ground in a CNN/WMUR New Hampshire Presidential Primary Poll, conducted by the University of New Hampshire.

The poll’s analysis, released Monday afternoon, said Romney’s gain has been “mostly at the expense of Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson.” While Romney “appears strong on domestic issues, foreign policy may be a potential Achilles heel in the coming weeks,” the analysis says.

Polls change, surveys change, people rise and fall fast in politics, especially after some major gaffe where a politicians sticks their foot into their mouth publicly, or a scandal hits, so I fully expect these numbers to continue to fluctuate.

What this does tell us though is that Hillary Clinton has a very high unfavorable rating, she is not seen to be upfront nor honest and married men seem not to like her at all, which can only help the other Democratic contenders as the vie for the Democratic nomination.

Hillary Clinton, her team and many others, myself included, thought she would be inevitable for the Democratic nomination, but recent gaffes, flip flopping over the illegal aliens driver’s licenses issue, not once but 6 times, her campaign being caught planting questions and audiences as well as the campaign finance scandals that have plagued her going all the way back to her Senate campaign all are starting to factor in and she has lost that assumed “inevitability”.

All in all, the horse race just got a bit more interesting.

Advertisements

Get The Gloves Out!

November 24, 2007 by

cross post by Spree

We already know and have discussed the fact that Hillary Clinton isn’t inevitable to win the Democratic nomination and the battle of “electability” has begun in earnest between her and Barack Obama.

Clinton about Obama:

Hillary Clinton’s attack on his qualifications. Making an economic speech in Knoxville, Iowa, earlier that day, the New York senator had touted her own know-how, saying that “there is one job we can’t afford on-the-job training for — that’s the job of our next president.” Her aides confirmed that she was referring to Obama.

Obama about Clinton:

Pressed to respond, Obama offered a zinger feathered with amused disdain: “My understanding was that she wasn’t Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration, so I don’t know exactly what experiences she’s claiming.”

Everybody laughed, including Obama.

The fact of the matter is neither one of them have enough experience to run a country.

Hillary is a panderer that cannot commit to one stance and goes where ever the polls tell her to whether it is a good idea or bad and Barack thinks that living in a foreign country when he was a child gives him some hint about how foreign policy should be handled.

Both are laughable.

Maureen Dowd points out that the only areas where Hillary does have experience in were dismal failures when she was in the White House:

Her Democratic rivals had meekly gone along, accepting her self-portrait as a former co-president who gets to take credit for everything important Bill Clinton did in the ’90s. But she was not elected or appointed to a position that needed Senate confirmation. And the part of the Clinton administration that worked best — the economy, stupid — was run by Robert Rubin. Hillary did not show good judgment in her areas of influence — the legal fiefdom, health care and running oppo-campaigns against Bill’s galpals.

The Clinton campaign in Iowa is in a panic. Obama has been closing the gap with women and her ginning up of gender has lost her male votes. Speaking around Iowa this week, Obama made the point that his exotic upbringing, family in Kenya and years as an outsider allow him to see the world with more understanding, and helped form his judgment about resisting the Iraq war.

IBD points out something else that Hillary’s so called experience would translate into:

Yet government spending is clearly what Hillary’s White House job experience would translate into.

Time indicates that the recent polls showing Obama taking the lead from Clinton are not the only indicators that his “surge” in Iowa is real:

It’s significant then that Obama’s message seems to be catching on among the notoriously pragmatic Iowans. By 55% to 33%, Iowans—who will take part in a Jan. 3 caucus that will be the first test for Democratic presidential candidates—said they favored “new direction and new ideas” over “strength and experience,” a new Washington Post/ABC poll found. In July the ratio was 49% to 39%. After trailing Clinton in the state most of the year, Obama now leads by 4 points, and he has eliminated her advantage among women voters and older voters. He is also dead even with her when voters are asked whom they trust more to handle the economy, Social Security and the war in Iraq.

The fact is Hillary has quite a bit of baggage as well as past scandals, recent fumbles on simple questions and has been caught planting questions in her audiences so she doesn’t have to address anything and give a direct answer that isn’t pre-scripted.

Immigration is also going to play a big part after the Democratic and Republicans parties pick their nominee for the 2008 elections and whether it is Obama or Clinton, both have shown they are very weak on that issue and the GOP will have a solid platform to stand on against them.

Hillary showed her weakness in the Democratic debate where she was for Spitezer’s plan to give illegal aliens a driver’s license, then changed her mind and claimed she didn’t support it (within 3 minutes), then over the following two weeks, flip flopped 4 more times until Spitzer shelved the idea and then she came out against it firmly.

Barack Obama, as shown in the time piece, linked above, is just as weak on illegal immigration by making statements like this:

By the time Obama moves on to immigration (“These are people who are trying to make a living. I understand they broke the law. But let me tell you something: if the minimum wage in Canada was $100 an hour …”)

The Republicans heard Americans loud and clear with the Immigration reform debacle not long ago and have stated that they heard, they understood and they will now work to enforce the laws, secure our borders and deal with those issues before attempting to reform and create new laws.

The Democrats will never understand that message because they depend on illegals fraudulently obtaining voters registrations and voting for them because they are on the side of amnesty. That is the only reason that Democratic politicians fight so hard about having to have an ID to be able to vote.

Hillary encourages the illegal immigrants to sneak into the country and Barack excuses them.

Both of them will suffer for those stances in 2008.

Neither one has the experience in Foreign policy and they are both on th wrong side of the illegal immigrant issue.

They also have both pinned their hopes on Iraq failing and since it is now seeing very public progress, they can try to ignore it as much as they wnt,but the Republicans that backed the surge and the new strategies would be very smart to make sure the public remembered who fougth the hardest for victory and who fought for failure and voted for defeat.

Taxes we can discuss another day, because everyone knows which party would raise their taxes and which party would keep tax cuts in place.

On every issue of importance, neither Hillary nor Barack have the experience to handle our great country.

Related:
Paul vs Clinton, the court case being heard in the LA Superior Court, is explained in two videos over at YouTube, it explains the case against Hillary and remember the whole time you watch these, that Hillary tried to deny that she even knew Peter Paul while omitting all contributions from him from her FEC filings.

First video here.

(10 minutes)

Second video here.

(4 minutes)

The viral frenzy surrounding the “rough cut” trailer for the documentary “Hillary Uncensored” continues. The trailer has been Google’s top-ranked video since October 8, and has been seen more than 3 million times online.

Watch them.

It is not often a politicians is captured on tape conducting their illegal activities.

The Politics of Parsing

November 5, 2007 by

My parents use to tell me, “Your sins are sure to find you out.”
I guess Hillary was never taught that.

Any questions?

Hillary’s Tribute To The Old Smelly Hippies

October 22, 2007 by

Hillary’s $1M Drug Addict and Anti War Museum Porker

Yes, I know, this is old news and all but it came up in the GOP Debate this evening and Senator McCain presented and excellent rendering of his opinion.

I remember the Woodstock era and they were the smelly hippies of our time then and to build a museum honoring the anti-establishment, anti-war and anti-Americanists of that time, is all too telling to me and Hillary does not deserve to even think about running for President, let alone be the President of the United States.

I sure am glad that the museum honoring cowards and drug addicts won’t be built.

He said when he was asked about this tribute, that he thinks that no one that supports such spending as this can be the President and he also said that he was not in attendance at Woodstock because he was tied up at the time. Here is the exact quote:

“I wasn’t there. I’m sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event. I was tied up at the time.”

In case you are not in touch with current events, Senator McCain was a POW in North Vietnam at the time Woodstock was taking place.

That got him the ONLY standing ovation during the debate.

Good on John McCain. I think that with a little more “soap box” antics, John McCain will rise to the occasion.

Catch The Wave

Can Hillary Hear The Bubbles?

October 22, 2007 by

Hillary’s Ship Is On Fire

Someone once said that never before has a presidential aspirant been elected to the Presidency of The United States when their approval ratings are overshadowed by their disapproval ratings.

Now, we see that Hillary’s approval ratings are at 50% nationwide and her disapproval ratings are at 50%. Gee. Why then, is she still going? Could it be that she has the gift of gab?

Also, now we have a video that the Lame Stream Media will not air. The link was sent to me from one of my readers and I thank Mike M for it. The video is quite long for a video…about 13 minutes…odd that, isn’t it? 13? Curious.

We have Hillary exposing her surveillance hypocrisies and in the GOP Debate this evening, Huckabee said that Hillary, if she took her lips off of the backsides of Soros, she might be able to get some fresh air.

In the last DNC Debate, Hillary and all of the other sponges of Soros fundings, told their trolls and blind followers that the troops would be in Iraq until at least 2013 and just last week, Hillary the Fraud told some folks that when she is elected she will pull the troops out immediately. Do we really need a psychopath in the White House?

I think it would be just swell if the DNC Candidates kept on doing what they are doing. That drop into the Abyss of Obscurity will be all the more sweeter.

Catch The Wave

Hillary…Just Another Spelling For Corruption

October 20, 2007 by

Hillary’s Corruption Never Ends.

t has been said that atheists can lie like a rug because they have no moral compunction that requires them to tell the truth.

“The beauty of being an atheist is that you have no moral reason to tell the truth. So Pete Stark can claim such outrageous (if stupidly worded) things about the President.” MT from our private group

Along these lines, we find Hillary taking funds, once again, from questionable sources. One can be justified in questioning her ethics.

The Czarina has been recently exposed as an acceptor of fraudulent funds and has theoretically given the funds back. However, this does not absolve her or her campaign minions from the wrong doings. If it were to absolve them, one can extrapolate from that the following scenario: someone kills someone but didn’t really know they did so, telling folks that you did kill someone, somehow absolves you from the consequences of your actions.

This is why we on the right often state the obvious: personal integrity and accepting responsibility for ones own actions is alien to the Leftinistra. When caught doing wrong, it is invariably someones else’s fault or the blame is placed on something else.

As Sunlit Knight from a Newt One has often stated, as an example of the Leftinistra quagmire of self-induced idiocy:

“People don’t make enough money so let’s raise the minimum wage. That is like saying that all of the boats aren’t the same height so let’s add more water to the lake.”

All raising the minimum wage does, as raising the water in the lake, is make the problems worse because there is no change. It is merely a feel-good action…someone can say that they did something and when that something does not have the affect imagined, it must be the fault of something or someone else.

Hillary has proclaimed her religiosity but her actions are quite opposite of that which she claims. Would a religious individual receive illegal contributions for the sake of political gain just to win an election? Isn’t that hypocritical?

When questioned about such activities, the inquiring minds are accused of smearing and being mean-spirited or racially biased.

From the NY Post:

October 20, 2007 — Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been raising huge piles of money in Chinatown, but some of it has come from donors who can’t be located or who were improperly repaid for their contributions, according to The Post and other reports.

A search of Chinatown donors yesterday by The Post found several bogus addresses and some contributions that raised eyebrows.

[…]

The Clinton campaign dismissed the L.A. Times story as derogatory to Chinese-Americans.

[…]

Dear Leftinistra…we don’t but that kind of crap anymore. Even making that kind of lame claim will and does backfire on you in this day and age and it is high time that you try another tactic because this dog don’t hunt no more.

It is high time that the self-alleged Higher Moral Authority within the Leftinistra to be held accountable to their lies.

However, like MT says:

“The beauty of being an atheist is that you have no moral reason to tell the truth. So Pete Stark can claim such outrageous (if stupidly worded) things about the President.” MT from our private group


How true that is, eh?

There is also an editorial at IBD and it is dead nuts on target:

[…]

An ambitious presidential front-runner. A hot scramble for campaign cash. A corner-cutting past. And now red lights are flashing that she could be in hock to foreign interests. This is going downhill fast.

[…]

Naturally, this will be spun as some lame smear campaign because Hillary is such a nice person, even though she has been shown to be a budding Leninist and a Soros pawn.

Corruption, Campaign Finance Fraud and Hillary Clinton

October 19, 2007 by

We have shown multiple instances in which Hillary Clinton has associated herself with corruption, illegal financing and fraud.

BACKGROUND:

The Hillary Clinton Supporter, norman Hsu has been posted about here, here and here… also here.

Six members of the Paw family, each listing the house at 41 Shelbourne Ave. in Daly City, Calif., as their residence, have donated a combined $45,000 to the Democratic senator from New York since 2005, for her presidential campaign, her Senate re-election last year and her political action committee. In all, the six Paws have donated a total of $200,000 to Democratic candidates since 2005, election records show. Their donations closely follow contributions made by a wealthy New York businessman.(See Donation record via WSJ here)

It isn’t obvious how the Paw family is able to afford such political largess. Records show they own a gift shop and live in a 1,280-square-foot house that they recently refinanced for $270,000. William Paw, the 64-year-old head of the household, is a mail carrier with the U.S. Postal Service who earns about $49,000 a year, according to a union representative. Alice Paw, also 64, is a homemaker. The couple’s grown children have jobs ranging from account manager at a software company to “attendance liaison” at a local public high school. One is listed on campaign records as an executive at a mutual fund. (Source)

So far what we have is a family of limited means donating an extraordinary amount of money (considering their income) to Hillary Clinton and in smaller part to other Democrats, that lives in a house that was once listed as Mr. Hsu’s home address, which makes that connection very obvious.

Norman Hsu, as shown at a couple of the links above was later discovered to be a fugitive from the law.

Hillary Clinton’s association with the 527 Group, America Coming Together, financed by George Soros, which has been fined $775,000 for violating campaign finance laws.

Her association with that group is via, Harold Ickes, president of America Coming Together, who just “happened to be a former Bill Clinton Top Aide.

The group, whose president was former top Clinton aide Harold Ickes, agreed to pay the penalty without acknowledging any violations. It had registered as both a 527 organization, named after a portion of the I.R.S. tax code, and as a federal political action committee. But through its 527, it had raised and spent large amounts of money that did not fall under strict federal donation limits.

Critics of 527 groups have contended that they proliferated in the last cycle through a loophole around the ban on soft money — unregulated money — that was imposed under the McCain-Feingold campaign finance laws. Democrats used 527’s to a wide advantage in the 2004 election cycle, with contributions from the likes of billionaire George Soros. Republicans also used them, with major donors like Bob Perry of Texas.

Another Clinton supporter, Mayor Samuel Rivera, has also been arrested on corruption charges.

Lets not forget the timeline of the historic civil suit, Paul v Clinton in Los Angeles Superior Court, where Hillary will finally have to answer some hard questions, under oath.

In the following timeline, we will see apparent evidence of Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign understating over $750,000 in contributions to her 2000 Senate campaign, from one Peter Paul.

Evidently, Hillary’s campaign initially denied even knowing Peter Paul, and then later, admitted meeting him but never had a conversation regarding his contribution to her campaign.

Hillary Clinton will finally be under oath in the historic civil suit, Paul v Clinton in Los Angeles Superior Court. Voters are going to see the details of the greatest campaign finance fraud in history… Read the rest of that and see the timeline for yourself.

TODAY we see reports from LA Times about further dubious campaign contributions to Hillary Clinton:

NEW YORK — Something remarkable happened at 44 Henry St., a grimy Chinatown tenement with peeling walls. It also happened nearby at a dimly lighted apartment building with trash bins clustered by the front door.

And again not too far away, at 88 E. Broadway beneath the Manhattan bridge, where vendors chatter in Mandarin and Fujianese as they hawk rubber sandals and bargain-basement clothes.

All three locations, along with scores of others scattered throughout some of the poorest Chinese neighborhoods in Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx, have been swept by an extraordinary impulse to shower money on one particular presidential candidate — Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Dishwashers, waiters and others whose jobs and dilapidated home addresses seem to make them unpromising targets for political fundraisers are pouring $1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton’s campaign treasury. In April, a single fundraiser in an area long known for its gritty urban poverty yielded a whopping $380,000. When Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) ran for president in 2004, he received $24,000 from Chinatown.

Read the whole three page article for yourself.. the consistent and constant association with criminals, corruption and fraud should be a red flag to the FBI and federal election officials and I would be willing to bet that if investigations haven’t already been started, they will be.

With over a year to go until the 2008 elections, there is plenty of time for the proper authorities to get to the bottom of these associations and contributions from sources that, in some cases, cannot even be found.

In one instance, Clinton campaign alleged Yi Min Liu had made a donation of $1,000 however he said he only attended a banquet but made no donation.

There is only so many times someone can claim ignorance and coincidence and Hilary Clinton and her campaign used that allotment up long ago.

People should be demanding that all of her contributions, campaign finances and donor lists be investigated and gone through with a fine toothed comb.

[Update] Suitably Flip has more incriminating evidence about Hillary Clinton’s “refunds”.

Remember, her crimes are all some “vast right wing conspiracy”.

I also have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you, contact me.

Cross posted from Wake up America

.

Hillary and The Socialist Agenda

October 14, 2007 by

A few facts…to spread around.

Hillary Clinton will raise taxes if she is elected president… Sharply! As her candidacy gains momentum and she closes in on the Democratic nomination, it would be well to review the record and underscore the tax increases she would be likely to enact.

As always, Hillary speaks in code. So here’s the code book. She says that she will “…let President Bush’s tax cuts for top earners expire.” Most people assume that this pledge means that she will raise the top bracket (for those earning more than $200,000 a year) on income taxes from the 35 percent to which Bush cut it, to the 39.6 percent to which her husband raised it in 1993. But, in reality, it means a whole lot more.

It also means increasing the tax on capital gains from the current 15 percent to at least 20 percent and probably to the 30 percent level backed by most liberals. Some even believe she may eliminate capital gains taxation entirely and tax it at the same rate as ordinary income.

She certainly would repeal Bush’s tax cut halving the tax rate on dividends and would raise it from its current 15 percent to 30 percent. She would also most likely end the planned elimination of the estate tax and probably reduce the size of estates subject to the tax.

Robert Novak reports that Rangel’s staff is “hard at work on an audacious plan that over the next decade would redistribute up to a trillion dollars in American income through the tax system.” Rangel, himself, calls the new legislation “the mother of all tax reforms.”

Hillary would likely use the repeal of the AMT (which nobody ever envisioned reaching these levels) as the lynchpin to claim that she is not increasing taxes but just redistributing them so as not to hurt the middle class. But the reality would be a vast increase in tax revenues and a major increase in the redistribution effect of the tax code.

Already the top 1 percent of all taxpayers earn 17 percent of the national income but pay 35 percent of all federal income taxes. And the top 10 percent make one-third of the national income but pay two-thirds of the income tax. The bottom half in income pays less than 3 percent of the income tax collections. Hillary will make this curve a lot steeper.

In her own way, Hillary’s views on tax policy are rooted in her religious convictions. As a believing Methodist, she demonstrated the link between her faith and her liberal politics when she said the following, when commenting on Republican proposals to make illegal entry into the U.S. a crime:

“It is hard to believe that a Republican leadership that is constantly talking about values and about faith would put forth such a mean-spirited piece of legislation.”

“It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scripture because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself … We need to sound the alarm about what is being done in the Congress.”

On a more secular level, she told a San Francisco audience in 2004: “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” And, speaking in New Hampshire on May 30, 2007, she said she would “raise taxes on upper-income Americans and eliminate breaks for corporations.”

She attacks the Bush administration for “going back to the era of the robber barons.” She says, “It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few by the few, and for the few. Time to reject the idea of an ‘on your own’ society and to replace it with a shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together society.'”

Behind her rhetoric about shared values and unity, lies the most far reaching tax increase proposals since the days of the New Deal. And, if she is elected, she will likely carry enough Democrats into the Senate (my current estimate is 58) to pass whatever she pleases.

 

Also, I found this editorial at the National Center For Policy Analysis:
Norm
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has released its preliminary estimates for Fiscal Year 2007 that ended September 30, and the federal budget deficit fell again, this time by 35 percent to $161 billion, says the Wall Street Journal.

There’s more:

* Since 2004, deficit spending has tumbled by $251 billion, which is one of the most rapid three-year declines in U.S. history.
* The deficit as a share of the economy is down to 1.2 percent or about half the average of the last 50 years.
* This improvement is especially remarkable given the $150 to $200 billion a year of post-9/11 expenses for homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Moreover:

* Americans coughed up a record $2.568 trillion in taxes to the IRS in 2007, or 6.7 percent more than in 2006.
* This means federal receipts have climbed by $785 billion since the 2003 investment tax cuts, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. *See Note from Norm
* Income, dividend and capital gains tax rates were all cut in 2003, but individual income tax receipts have soared by 46.3 percent in four years, with payments by the wealthy accounting for most of the windfall.
* Last year’s increase in individual income payments was 11.3 percent, or more than double the rate of growth in nominal GDP.

The overriding lesson here is that the best antidote for deficits is faster growth, not tax increases. The budget deficit has declined more rapidly this decade in the wake of the Bush tax cuts than it did in the 1990s in the wake of the Clinton tax increases. CBO is still forecasting a balanced budget in 2010, but if Congress gets its way on spending and taxes, all of this progress will be short-lived, says the Journal.

*Note from Norm: Simply put, are you paying attention to the facts or Hillary’s quacks

Political Trivia

October 12, 2007 by

WHO SAID THAT?

You think you know history? Are you a quote scholar?

What was your score? Leave your score(s) and comments in the comment section.

Bet you don’t do well on this quiz!!!!!!

 

Veer-r-r-r-y interesting!

 

A little history lesson. If you don’t know the answer, make your best guess.

 

Answer all the questions before looking at the answers.

 

Who said it?

 

1) “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

A. Karl Marx B. Adolph Hitler C. Joseph Stalin D. None of the above

2) “It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few…… And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity.

“A. Lenin B. Mussolini C. Idi Amin D. None of the Above

3) “(We) …can’t just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.”

A. Nikita Khrushchev B. Josef Goebbels C. Boris Yeltsin D. None of the above

4) “We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own … in order to create this common ground.”

A. Mao Tse Dung B. Hugo Chavez C. Kim Jong IL D. None of the above

5) “I certainly think the free-market has failed.”

A. Karl Marx B. Lenin C. Molotov D. None of the above

6) “I think it’s time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched.”

A. Pinochet B. Milosevic C. Saddam Hussein D. None of the above

Scroll down for answers

Answers

(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004

(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007

(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007

(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton6/4/2007

(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton6/4/2007

(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005

Be Careful What You Wish For

October 9, 2007 by

Death Wish
One sign that the George W. Bush era is drawing to an end is that people on the right are beginning to exhibit odd behavior reminiscent of the Angry Left. In December 2004 we noted a paid obituary that cited among the causes of death “a broken spirit arising from the results of the Presidential election.”

The Lowell (Mass.) Sun carries a paid obit for Athanasia “Ethel” Eliopoulos, the first woman to head a Social Security district office, who died Friday at 94. According to her obit:

With her passing, Ethel’s final wish was ultimately granted when she did not have to see Hillary Clinton become president.

Let that be a lesson: When the Clintons are around, be careful what you wish for.