It’s been widely reported that Hillary Clinton is a deadbeat.  She still has millions of dollars in unpaid bills from her failed presidential campaign.  As of the end of last year, she reported nearly $6 million in campaign debt.  This despite being a multi-millionaire who could easily pay her debts.

Upon searching the FEC website today looking for updated reports on Ms. Clinton, I found the FEC reporting that her husband Bill Clinton has $319,630 in outstanding debt from his presidential campaigns.

I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the Federal Election Commission website.  But I don’t know why they would indicate that Bill Clinton has hundreds-of-thousands of dollars in outstanding campaign debt if he does not actually have it.  For all I know, this could be money he owes to others or possibly even to himself.

Given that his wife is a deadbeat, it wouldn’t surprise me to discover that Bill is a deadbeat, too.  Those Democrats love stealing money from others, but they don’t like paying for anything, especially their own taxes or their own bills.

It seems that being filthy rich makes some people tightwads.  Hillary Clinton still owes $5.9 million to vendors following her failed 2008 Presidential campaign.  Last year, the Clintons reported that they were worth an estimated $50 million, with the couple having earned over $100 million during the prior seven years.

Hillary and Bill sold off all their stock investments early in the 2008 campaign to avoid criticism from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party base.  They avoided the losses resulting from the down stock market.  They should still have close to $50 million left.

So why won’t Hillary pay her debts?  She is still rich, with more money than she could spend in her lifetime.  But she will not pay her bills.

The deadbeat is still begging for donations on her website–seven months after she formally ended her campaign.  From hillaryclinton.com:

Help Retire Hillary’s campaign debt

Your contribution now will make a big difference in cleaning up the last campaign debt.

Or, she could dip into her bulging bank account and pay her own bills.

Hillary is just another limousine liberal hypocrite fraud.  She runs around saying that income inequality is unfair.  She demonizes rich people.  She wants to steal more money from people through higher taxation.  But at the end of the day, this rich bitch doesn’t want to part with her own money to pay her own debts.  Instead, she swallows any shred of dignity that her constantly cheating husband left her with and goes begging strangers for money.

This is so typical of Democrats.  They are all disgusting frauds and hypocritical pigs.

CNN Hillary Clinton Deadbeat Article

Liberal radical, bomber, and terrorist William Ayers is on ABC’s Good Morning America show giving an interview to promote an upcoming book.

The interview is currently in a break as of this writing.  Thus far, there have been no bombshells, just confirmation of what we already know:  that Ayers held a political event to launch Barack Obama’s political career; and that he was “family friends” with Obama and his family.

During the presidential debate with John McCain, Obama flat-out denied that he was friends with Bill Ayers.  Well, Ayers just confirmed that they were friends.  Obama lied.  Anyone surprised that a Democrat would lie?  That’s why we call them “dirty frauds and liars”.

The liberal media is currently engaging in a horrible campaign of personal destruction against Sarah Palin, John McCain’s running mate during the 2008 presidential election.

Quoting anonymous and unnamed sources, media outlets are making the most outrageous claims against Palin.  Some of the claims are that she spent more than $150,000 on clothes and jewelry, she didn’t know that Africa was a continent and not just a country, and a whole host of other outrageous things.

Anyone can quote an anonymous source.  Or, they could just fabricate the source, as journalists have been known to do.

Why are they doing this?  The liberal media is doing this to tarnish the reputation of Sarah Palin and damage her so she will find it very difficult to succeed in politics in the future.  The liberal left knows that Palin is the darling of many Conservatives.  While most of America may not have warmed up to her, many Conservatives did.

That is why the media is spreading far-fetched rumors based on anonymous sources.  Palin is college-educated, was a journalist, and is a governor.  Do you really think that she would not be aware that Africa is a continent?  There are only seven continents, maybe six if you count Europe and Asia as one.

This is shameful, even by liberal standards.

Meanwhile, the media hardly mentioned Joe Biden’s comments that FDR went on TV during the 1929 stock market crash.  Biden said:

When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.’

FDR wasn’t President in 1929, Herbert Hoover was, and television didn’t start appearing in American homes until the 1940s.  This wasn’t a slip of the tongue, it was an outright lie.  Yet the media barely reported on it.

The changing face of America is changing America, for better or for worse.  Here is an analysis of the racial composition of support for Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain for the 2008 Presidential election as revealed by exit polls.  There can be no doubt that the support of racial minorities, who now comprise over 30% of the population and growing fast, played the pivotal role in Obama’s victory on November 4th.

Below is a comparison of the 2008 election with the 2004 election using CNN 2008 and 2004 exit poll data (MSNBC data). We will compare the racial exit polling data between Republicans John McCain and George Bush with Democrats Barack Obama and John Kerry and look at the change that occurred between the elections.

The support from whites for the Republican candidate was largely unchanged.  McCain dropped 3% from Bush in 2004 and Obama picked up 2% over Kerry.  But with every poll there is a margin of error, typically 3% to 4%, and this small amount would be within it.  So, factoring in the margin of error, it is possible that there was no difference in white support for the Republican candidates between the 2004 and 2008 elections.

But the support of ethnic minorities paints the true picture of the 2008 election and the fact that it was indeed all about race.

John McCain dropped beyond any margin of error in every single non-white racial category and Obama picked them up.  I can’t tell you how many interviews I read or saw on TV with minorities gushing about their support of Obama mainly because he “understands what it is like to be a minority.”  Here’s an example of one:

Article

Many languages were being spoken by the diverse crowd at the rally, with several minority groups besides African-Americans feeling pride in Obama’s candidacy.

Arturo Carrillo, 26, of Chicago’s Southeast Side, said it was a great moment for Latinos too.  “With Democrats in Congress and Obama as president, we hope there will be a push for immigration reform,” he said. “This is a turning point.”

Carrillo spoke Spanish with a buddy as he watched results come in at Butler Field. He said Latinos welcome a multi-racial president who knows what it feels like to be a minority in this country.

Make no mistake:  race played a crucial role in the 2008 election.  It wasn’t anti-black racism like many people were expecting.  It was anti-white racism.  It was a case of millions of ethnic minorities voting for a man largely because he, too, is an ethnic minority, like them.  Many of these minorities didn’t vote for Obama because they thought he was the best candidate, although I’m sure some did. Many voted for Obama not because of what he is, but because of what he isn’t:  white.

The 2008 election was just one example of many to come where minorities “stick it to the man”.  Or, at least, they will stick it to the white man, much like they did to all the DFL presidential contenders.  Factor in the large numbers of non-white immigrants, both legal and illegal, and you can see which direction the country is heading.  White males will soon become an endangered species in the Democratic Party.  These minorities are going to toss white liberals out like the trash that they are.

And I won’t even mention the massive voter fraud the Democrats and their operatives like ACORN were engaging in.  Nope.  Not going to mention it.

In the end, John McCain deserved to lose.  Not because he wasn’t the best candidate, because he was.  He deserved to lose because he made tactical errors every step of the way.  From his initial intent to run a clean campaign (which he didn’t) to his pick of Sarah Palin to his refusual to use Barack Obama’s middle name of Hussein, every step McCain made was a mistake.  In fact, him even running in the first place was a huge mistake.  McCain was never well liked by the Republican base to begin with.  He should have learned his lesson in 2000 and given up on the presidency.  We would all be better off today if he had.

Hey Johnny Boy, don’t let the door hit you on the way out!

Barack Obama has flip-flopped once again.  Previously, Obama was adamant on increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans.  Now, he is suggesting that he would delay increasing taxes because of the weakening economy.

Story

Whether you want to admit it or not, it is the wealthiest Americans who create jobs.  Whether it is done with their investment or with their spending on luxuries, rich people create jobs and poor people do not.

Have you ever worked for a poor person?  No.  Nobody has.  Poor people don’t create jobs.  Poor people don’t build factories and hire workers.  But that won’t stop the Democrats from their goal of buying votes by redistributing wealth from the people who earn it to those who didn’t.

Seriously, what else can you call it but vote buying when the Democrats take money from one group and give it to another?  “Vote for us Democrats and we’ll take money from that guy and give it to you!”

Taking money away from people who create jobs–the rich–during an economic downturn is just stupid.  Stupidity is the hallmark of the Democratic Party.  In many inner-city, Democrat-voting neighborhoods, half the students drop out of high school and the half that do graduate read at an eighth grade level.  No wonder they support the Democratic Party.  Stupid is as stupid does.

When the Democrats had their convention in Denver recently, did Republican voters cause mayhem?  No.  That’s the difference between Repubicans and Democrats.  Republicans by and large are respectable citizens.  Liberals are, for the most part, trash.

The first day of the Republican National Convention in St. Paul saw liberals doing what they do best:  violence and vandalism.  It’s been reported that 284 liberals were arrested, with well over 100 of those arrests for felonies.

News story

Among the activities of liberals:

• Throwing feces like monkeys
• Smashing windows of private businesses
• Smashing windows of police cars
• Flattening tires of police cars
• Overturning trash cans, park benches, and scattering garbage in the street
• Destroying street signs
• Blocking traffic
• Assaulting the police
• Assaulting convention goers from Connecticut, including an 83-year-old man, throwing a chemical solution, believed to be bleach, in their faces
• And much more

These liberal specimens of human garbage purposely targeted the elderly.  How brave of them.  It takes a big liberal to assault elderly people, doesn’t it?  Violence, vandalism, assault, that’s what the liberal left does best.

The Minnesota National Guard had to be called in to help quell the mayhem because of the incompetence of the Democrat leadership of the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis.  Previously, city leaders put a bunch of restrictions on police, at one point considering banning police from carrying guns.  Yes, that’s right, the idiot Democrats who run these cities handcuffed the police and made it easier for these liberal scumbags to cause trouble.

On Saturday, several houses inhabited by liberals were raided by police.  Among the items confiscated by police from the liberals were:

• Baseball bats
• Metal tire puncturing devices (caltrops)
• Buckets of urine
• A machete, throwing knives, and axes
• Flammable liquids
• Metal pipes
• Sledge hammers
• Rapelling equipment

Republicans don’t act like this.  Only Democrats and, in particular, their liberal allies do.  Five liberals were arrested in that raid.  After the raid, liberals were claiming that police were infringing on their Constitutional right to free speech.

Is that right?  You need axes and throwing knives to engage in free speech?

The raids were conducted by the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Department.  The leadership of Democrat-controlled St. Paul complained that the county was overstepping its bounds. The fact is, the Democrats running St. Paul couldn’t be trusted to do the right thing because they are sympathizers with these liberal kooks and have done everything possible to make it easier for the liberals to commit criminal acts.

The majority of those arrested appeared to be in their early 20s.  Instead of working to earn a living, these malcontents instead focus their energy on vandalism and violence.  But this is so typical of liberals.  By the way, many of these protesters were carrying Barack Obama signs.

Liberals are trash.

Millions of hearts are aflutter as Barack Hussein Obama nears the announcement of his running mate.  Who will be Obama’a pick for Vice President?  My guess is Hillary Clinton.

Why Hillary?  Barack Obama is above everything else an egomaniac.  He will do or say anything to win.  It was reported the other day that a full 25% of Hillary supporters have not thrown their support behind Obama.  To win, he needs those votes.  So what better way to get those votes than to offer the VP slot to someone who trashed you mercilessly during the primary campaign?

We all know that Hillary Clinton has no dignity and no self respect.  Look at how she stood by her rapist husband all these years while he cheated on her time and time again.  It would not be beneath Hillary to accept the VP slot on the ticket of a relatively unknown newcomer like Barack Obama.  She has been treated like garbage by her husband for years and more recently by her party that tossed her aside.  She is as low as you can go.

Inside Edition reported yesterday that Barack Obama sneezed during several campaign appearances.

That’s right, the leftists in the media think so highly of Barack Obama that it is newsworthy when he sneezes.

Another Democrat fraud exposed!  Former Democratic Party presidential candidate and former Senator from North Carolina John Edwards has admitted to cheating on his wife Elizabeth.

Rumors have circulated for many months about Edwards’ affair with Rielle Hunter, a campaign videographer.  The National Enquirer originally broke the story of the affair, which Edwards vehemently denied numerous times.

Edwards lied repeatedly about his affair.  But we expect lies from Democrats because they are nothing but liars and frauds.  Edwards has finally admitted his true character to the world, as if we couldn’t tell his true character from his ambulance-chasing lawyer days.  He betrayed his loyal wife, and lied about it over and over again.

Both Edwards and Hunter deny that he is the father of her baby.  So why was he seen in the same hotel she was staying in recently?  Was Edwards stopping in for a quickie?  Perhaps like his buddy Bill Clinton, he desired the same kind of services that Monica Lewinsky provided?

Edwards, like all Democrats, is a fraud.  A total and complete fraud.  He is extremely wealthy and lives in a mansion while pretending to care about the poor.  He lives a lifestyle of wealth and luxury and has a huge carbon footprint.  But he never gives his own money away to help the poor he pretends to care about.

All the political commentators say that Edwards’ political career is over.  There is no chance of him being Barack Obama’s vice presidential pick now.

Aw, how sad…

Barack Hussein Obama appears to have made another flip-flop.  Before, he was vehemently opposed to offshore oil drilling (and drilling anywhere else, for that matter).  Now, he appears to have changed his tune.  Sort of…  It’s hard to tell with Barack Obama.  Because if he isn’t flip-flopping, he’s purposefully vague so as to avoid taking a real stand on an issue and angering his liberal base.

New York Times Article

But why would Obama change his position when one week ago he was opposed to offshore drilling?  Probably because polls indicate that a majority of Americans want more drilling.  And we all know how Democrats forumulate their positions not based on their core beliefs, but on polling data.

Frauds and liars, each and every one of those Democrats.

Barack Obama has a huge lead over John McCain among Latino voters. Obama has 66% support of Latinos versus 23% for McCain.

The people, such as Rush Limbaugh, who said that Latinos would not vote for a black man were wrong. Very wrong.

In the 2006 elections Democrats captured around 70% of the Latino vote; in 2004, Democrats got 60%. Obama is hovering right around that 2006 figure.

In the end, Latinos are going to vote for whoever is going to promise them the most welfare freebies. That’s all there is to it. That is the main reason people vote for Democrats. It’s the “what you going to give me” factor that Republicans cannot match.

CNN Story

Presumptive DFL presidential nominee Barack Obama is in Germany today to give a speech pandering to euro liberals.  According to news reports, Obama is very popular in Germany, with 74% of poll respondents saying they would vote for them if they could largely based on his youthfulness, John F. Kennedy-like charisma, and his skin color.

None of those are valid reasons to vote for someone to be the leader of the USA and the free world. That’s just pure idiocy from people who can’t think beyond a manufactured public image created by political consultants.

Obama’s speech will be focused on US-Europe relations.  Liberals have been pounding away on the theory that the image of the United States has been damaged in recent years by the actions of President George W. Bush.  For some irrational reason, lefties believe that liberating 25 million Iraqi civilians from that cruel and ruthless dictator Saddam Hussein was unjust.  So that is why Obama decided on this topic for his speech which, undoubtedly, was written by Obama’s hired speech writers.

Several weeks ago Ralph Nader said that Obama was capitalizing on white guilt.  One must wonder if white guilt is the reason Obama is so popular in Germany.  Remember, this is a nation that tried to exterminate the Jewish race.  What other possible reason could there be for Obama’s popularity with a foreign nation that can’t vote for him and likely is largely unaware of his true character and his associations (Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, William “Bill” Ayers).

In the end, it doesn’t matter what Germans think, because they can’t vote in American elections.  And that’s a good thing, because this is the nation that put Adolf Hitler into power because of his charisma and public speaking prowess, the same basis as their support for Barack Obama. Germans were wrong once, and they are again.

It is really sickening the way the American media is drawing parallels between Obama and the German visits by JFK and Ronald Reagan. The difference between those two and Obama is that they were presidents at the times of their visits and they actually discussed issues of substance, not pap like Obama is doing.

Violence in Iraq is down substantially.  Despite the success in Iraq, Barack Obama still opposes the surge.

Doesn’t Obama realize that the accomplishments against terrorists in Iraq would not have been possible without the surge?

Fox News Article

Barack Obama is on the wrong side of every issue, even after the fact.  How can you possibly be opposed to something successful?  It’s mind-boggling idiocy.

I’ve read several articles the past month or two about how the economic troubles faced by the United States are going to be problematic for John McCain.  Why should this be the case?

Barack Obama wants to raise taxes on investment and income on those who make over $250,000 per year.  Those are the people who create the jobs that Americans need.  How is leaving those people with less money to spend and invest going to create jobs?  It isn’t.  Less money means less spending and investment which means less jobs.  It’s as simple as that.

Barack Obama also opposes lifting bans on oil drilling where there are billions of barrels of oil just waiting to be tapped.  Gas prices are at record levels, leaving all Americans whether they ride the bus or drive vehicles with less money to spend elsewhere (bus fares are increasing all over the country because of higher fuel costs).  How is restricting new supplies of oil going to reduce the price of gasoline?  It isn’t.

High oil prices are also fueling food inflation.  People are spending more to feed themselves than before, leaving less money to spend elsewhere which means that jobs are going to be harmed.

If anything, the economic troubles should be good news for McCain because Barack Obama is on the exact opposite side of every issue that he should be on.

Raising taxes during an economic downturn is never a good thing.  Restricting the supply of oil during record high oil prices is not a good thing, either.  McCain and the Republicans need to do a better job of explaining this to the American people.  The last thing they should do is let the Democrats have control of the economic arguments when they are the ones responsible for the current situation.

McCain should pose the following questions to the American people:

• How does taking money out of the economy by raising taxes sustain current jobs and create new ones since less money means less spending?
• How does raising taxes on investment going to encourage investment and the creation of new jobs?
• How does blocking new oil from making it to market help lower the price of gasoline?

Every dollar that is spent in the economy becomes income for someone else.  Every dollar saved or invested helps create jobs.  Democrats want to do everything possible to take money out of the economy and harm American jobs.  McCain and the Republicans need to speak up about this.  It’s basic economics, and the DFL is on the wrong side of the argument.

Inside Edition, the tabloid TV show, is reporting that Fox News did not release all of the video of Rev. Jesse Jackson in which the “man of God” said that he wanted to cut Barack Obama’s nuts off.

Rumors are circulating that the Rev. Jackson may have called Obama the n-word.  Conservative commentator Bill O’Reilly says that there are more harsh words from Rev. Jackson which have not yet been released, and may not be.

Does what the Rev. Jackson said sound like the words of a man of God?  No.  They are the words of a hypocrite and a man filled with hate, not the words of a man of religion or peace.  Jesse Jackson revealed his true character for all the world to see.  He is just another dirty fraud and liar.

Rev. Jesse Jackson, Democrat, a supposed man of God, said that he wanted to cut Barack Obama’s nuts off.  That’s right, this man of God is nothing more than a typical violent Democrat voter.  Watch the Youtube video:

Rev. Jackson Youtube Video

Jesse Jackson says the following:

See, Barack been, um, talkin’ down to black people on this faith based… I wanna cut his nuts off.

Barack…he’s talkin’ down to black people.

The Rev. Jackson, after making the statement that he wants to cut Obama’s nuts off, makes a slicing motion with his hand.  Apparently, the reverend didn’t realize he was on a hot mic and didn’t think anyone else would hear what he said.

How sweet, how typically Democrat!

Is anyone surprised that Barack Obama would change his position on withdrawing American troops from Iraq?

Obama rallied liberals by demanding that troops be pulled out.  When?  As soon as possible–immediately, in fact.  But here is what Obama said last week in an interview with Military Times:

Look, I’ve said this repeatedly from the start, and so I welcome the opportunity to correct the record. This whole notion that I would initiate a precipitous withdrawal just isn’t borne out by anything that I’ve said.  (See Obama’s quote from Sept. 2007 below.) What I have repeatedly said from the start, when I introduced my first piece of legislation on this issue in January of 2007 is that we should be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. That we should send a clear message to Iraqi leadership that we are not going to engage in a permanent occupation in Iraq and that we are not going to have permanent bases there. That we want to bring a gradual withdrawal of our combat forces, that we would maintain a counterterrorism force in the region that could continue to keep al-Qaida on the run. That we would continue to have a protective force for our embassy, our civilian and humanitarian forces and that we would continue to train Iraqis both army and police, so long as those who are being trained were not falling back into sectarian patterns. And I have always said that as commander in chief I will absolutely seek the advice and counsel of our generals and our commanders on the field, not just our generals, but our mid-level officers and those who are on the ground doing the fighting.

So if current trends continue and we are at a position where we continue to see reductions in violence and stabilization and continue to see some improvements on the part of the Iraqi army and Iraqi police, then my hope would be that we could draw down in a deliberate fashion in consultation with the Iraqi government at a pace that is determined in consultation with General Petraeus and the other commanders on the ground.

How is that any different that what President Bush is doing right now?  It is no different.  What Obama basically said is that conditions on the ground will dictate when troops leave and any decision to withdraw troops will be made in consultation with Iraqi leaders.  Not only that, but Obama also plans to leave thousands of US troops in Iraq for years to come.

This is what President Bush said in November, 2006:

I believe it is very important, though, for people making suggestions to recognize that the best military options depend upon the conditions on the ground.

And this is what President Bush said in November, 2005:

As Iraqi forces gain experience and the political process advances, we will be able to decrease our troop level in Iraq without losing our capability to defeat the terrorists.

These decisions about troop levels will be driven by the conditions on the ground in Iraq and the good judgment of our commanders, not by artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington.

As the Iraqi forces grow more capable, they are increasingly taking the lead in the fight against the terrorists. Our goal is to train enough Iraqi forces so they can carry the fight against the terrorists.

Democrats are toning down their surrender rhetoric now that we have actually turned the corner in Iraq.  Why?  Maybe because they realize how wrong they were?  Afterall, it was the Democrats who said that the surge would never work.  Not only has it worked, but it has worked very well.

Barack Obama previously demanded immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.  This is what Obama said in September, 2007, just ten months ago:

Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was.

The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq’s leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year – now.

If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year.

Too bad Obama doesn’t realize that almost everything he has said is archived for our effortless retrieval.  Remember this Obama quote from above:

This whole notion that I would initiate a precipitous withdrawal just isn’t borne out by anything that I’ve said.

Bullshit!  Obama himself demanded immediate withdrawal, and now he claims he never said it!

Will the real Barack Obama please stand up?  The man is an absolute fraud.  Liberals are dumb enough to believe what he says, no matter what he says, just because he says it.

Looks like Obama has been caught in another lie, doesn’t it?  That’s not just another flip-flop, though Obama is a huge flip-flopper, that is an outright lie.

That’s why we call Democrats “dirty frauds and liars”.

Independent candidate Ralph Nader accused Barack Obama of using white guilt in his quest for the presidency.  Nader also said that Obama is talking white so as not to appear threatening to white people.

Ralph Nader said:

There’s only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He’s half African-American. Whether that will make any difference, I don’t know. I haven’t heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What’s keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn’t want to appear like Jesse Jackson?

He wants to show that he is not a threatening . . . another politically threatening African-American politician. He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he’s coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it’s corporate or whether it’s simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up.

No, not all of us whites are eating up Obama’s dreck.

Nader is right about Obama not speaking out about the “plight” of blacks.  But to be fair, Obama hasn’t done much of anything.  He has no track record and no real accomplishments; his resume is as thin as can be.  Obama has produced no significant legislation and has not articulated a single original idea that isn’t a rehash of failed liberal and socialist policies of decades ago.

Do you really think Obama needs to address issues of concern to the black community?  He’s already got their vote for no other reason than the color of his skin.  He doesn’t need to.  What Obama needs is the white vote.  He isn’t going to get it by trying to bring pity on the black community when most of their problems (crime, violence, dismal academic performance, welfare dependence, etc.) are of their own making.

As for Nader’s criticism that Obama is talking white, Obama’s chief speech writer, Jon Favreau, is a white guy.  So what do you expect when a white guy is writing the words and thoughts of a candidate?  He’s going to sound like the speech writer.  Right?

NY Times Article About Obama’s Chief Speech Writer With Picture

Obama replied to Nader’s comments by saying:

First of all, what’s clear is that Ralph Nader hasn’t been paying attention to my speeches.

Maybe Nader has been listening to Obama’s speeches.  See the comments about Obama’s speech writer above.

According to a new LA Times-Bloomberg poll, Barack Obama is way ahead of John McCain among registered voters.

In a head-to-head matchup Obama leads McCain 49% to 37%.  Factoring Libertarian candidate Bob Barr and Independent Ralph Nader into the race, Obama leads McCain 48% to 33%.

Of course, it is still early with over four months left to go and things will change.  Unless McCain gets into gear pointing out Barack Obama’s weaknesses and hypocrisy, he is going to lose.  There is no doubt about it that McCain will not win this race by playing the nice guy.  There is a lot of ammunition McCain could use to point out that Obama is not who he and his liberal journalist backers say he is.  McCain should seize on this now instead of letting Obama gain momentum.

McCain probably thought that his decision to use public financing when Barack Obama went back on his word would give him an advantage.  But it didn’t.  Most people couldn’t care less.  They may say they want a clean race, the truth is they want to know why they should choose one candidate over the other.  Refusing to criticize your candidate because you want to play the nice guy or you are afraid of charges of racism isn’t going to give the voters what they need to vote your way.

John McCain is like a stale fart that just won’t go away.  He should have learned his lesson in 2000.  Instead, he had to get back into this race and muck up Mitt Romney’s chance.  That’s not to say that McCain isn’t qualified to be president, because he surely is.  In fact, McCain is probably one of the most qualified people to ever run for the office.  But people aren’t looking for qualifications.  They are looking for a reason to rally behind someone.  McCain is offering nothing.

In this election I will not be voting for John McCain because I support him.  I will be voting for him because I know how dangerous, inexperienced, and unknown Obama truly is.

It looks like Hillary Clinton is $22.5 million in debt as a result of her losing campaign to be the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee.

Clinton loaned her own personal money to her campaign to the tune of $12.2 million.  Now she is on her knees begging for others to repay the money she owes to vendors and herself.

How sad.  How pathetic.  How typically Democrat!

Hillary Clinton is rich.  She and her husband have reported assets in excess of $50 million.  They have grossed over $100 million in income since her husband left office.

Why doesn’t she pay off her own debt?  If she truly believed in her cause–which was herself–why wouldn’t she want to use her own money to support it?  Even after paying off this debt, she and her husband would still be multimillionaires.

Hillary Clinton is a woman who criticizes rich people and calls them greedy.  She extols wealth redistribution and economic equality.  But when it comes down to it, she is nothing more than a typical liberal hypocrite who wants to hold on to as much of her own money as possible while taking it away from everyone else.

If the Clintons are worth $50 million, Hillary could pay off this debt and still have $27 million left in the bank.  Awww, what’s the matter?  Can’t a rich liberal hypocrite live on only $27 million?  Not to mention the several hundred thousand they make per year off her senate salary and Bill’s pension?

Hillary Clinton did nothing but attack President Bush for “incompetence”.  But it looks like she can’t even manage her own money.  Who’s incompetent now, Hillary?

Yes he did it.  Barack Obama has played the race card against the Republicans.  This is what Obama said:

We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid.

They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?

Yes, Obama, you are inexperienced.  You are also a giant hypocrite who engages in everything he claims to be against from earmarks to grant requests for political contributors to crooked real estate deals.

It has nothing to do with you being black, Barack Hussein.  Our opposition to you is because you have no experience, you want to raise taxes and further block domestic oil drilling, you are weak on terrorists, and you have no track record to speak of other than your hypocritical behavior such as granting favors to contributors.  You are an absolute fraud.

Had people known more about Obama prior to his early victories in the primary season he would have never made it as far as he’s gotten.  The office of the presidency is the most important job in the world.  A relative  unknown like Obama with no experience is not suitable.

Barack Obama has character flaws so big you could drive a cement truck through them.  This is John McCain’s race to lose and if he doesn’t get out there and start criticizing Obama, he will lose.  Playing nice is not going to cut it when you’ve got the vast majority of the journalists and news media vigorously hyping your opponent. The news is nothing but a constant stream of pro-Obama propaganda.

At least Obama admitted that he is inexperienced. That’s one of the few truthful things that has ever come out of his mouth.

Don’t forget this crucial fact, Obama:  the Democratic Party is the party of slavery.  It’s true.  It was the Republican party that ended slavery.  The Democratic Party wanted slavery to continue.

Reuters article

This is interesting.  Barack Obama spoke out in favor of public financing in 2006 arguing that it would cost taxpayers less in the long run because of all the requests for pork projects and other “shenanigans” tied to private campaign contributions.

Now he has refused to accept public financing as he originally supported.  Watch the video.

ABC News Video Of Barack Obama Speaking In Favor Of Public Financing

You can read more at the ABC News blog entry.

Look how Barack Obama criticizes pork projects.  He himself has requested well over $300 million in earmarks.  He criticizes pork barrel spending and earmarks and he is a huge participant in it.

List Of Barack Obama’s FY 2006 & 2007 Earmarks

List Of Barack Obama’s FY 2008 Earmarks

How can anybody give any credibility to anything Obama says when his behavior contradicts everything he claims to stand for?  We are talking about massive hypocrisy here.  Hypocrisy, lies, and outright fraud.

Democrats telling lies?  Say it isn’t so!

Republican candidate John McCain’s team says that there were no discussions between them and the Barack Obama camp about accepting public campaign funds.

According to CNN, laywers representing the two candidates met on June 6th to talk about joint townhall appearances, and nothing more, officially.  The McCain team vehemently denies that any negotiations about public financing took place at that meeting.  McCain’s counsel Trevor Potter was quoted as saying:

We then spoke in general terms about the public financing system, with Bob (Bauer, Obama’s counsel) outlining reasons it could be considered ‘broken’ or irrelevant in 2008, and I explaining why Sen. McCain remained committed to it and thought it was good for the country.

I cannot begin to explain how the Obama campaign could twist my reiteration of Sen. McCain’s support of the system, and hope the two candidates would participate in it, into what they said today.

There you have it.  McCain as of today is committed to eliminating private money from presidential campaigns while Barack Obama flip-flopped from his prior position and decided to indulge himself in all that tantalizing money from rich liberals and special interests.

Obama could reverse his position and walk away from private money and accept public financing.  But he won’t.  He says one thing and does the exact opposite. Barack Obama is a total and complete fraud.

If you read the dirty things Obama said about McCain when he announced he was turning down public financing, it also shows that Obama is not committed to running a clean campaign as he originally said he was.  So much for ending dirty politics Obama…

Barack Obama is not who he pretends to be.

Obama originally portrayed himself as a uniter, then it was revealed that his spiritual mentor, friend, and campaign committee member Jeremiah Wright was a seething racist.

Obama said that he supports earmark reform.  Then he released a huge list of earmarks that he requested, including such gifts as $1 million for his wife’s employer right after she got a $200,000 raise in salary and an $8 million request for a company linked to one of his biggest donors.

He spoke out against special interests and the wealthy while he took millions of dollars from rich liberals and corporate executives, not to mention his crooked real estate deal with Tony Rezko which provided him a direct $300,000 financial benefit.

Obama wrote letters urging grants of taxpayer dollars to his financial backers on several occasions in the past all while speaking out against the very activities he was engaging in.

Now Barack Obama is backing out of his pledge to take public financing and the spending limits they entail.

Why?  Because Barack Obama is raising millions from the wealthy and special interests and he doesn’t want to have to forgoe that money.  That’s why.

Barack Obama is the exact opposite of everything he has pretended to be.  What’s worse, look at the reasoning he gave in his announcement.

From the NY Times

The public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system. John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.

Oh, and the Democratic Party isn’t going to do the same?  The DFL is not going to take union member dues and use that money to run ads full of lies and smears?  Absolutely they will.

It’s a shame that Barack Obama reneged on his promise to purse an agreement with his opponent to accept public financing.  It’s a disgrace the way Obama is spinning the true reason for his decision by pinning the blame on Republicans.

I cannot understand how any thinking human being can support such a hypocritical, lying fraud like Barack Hussein Obama.  The man is a total and complete empty suit.  Without his speech writers and teleprompters he cannot even put together a coherent thought.

I would love to hear Obama explain in his own words how raising taxes on income and investment during an economic downturn and taking money out of the economy is going to create jobs.