In the past, Hillary Clinton has demanded that troops start being withdrawn from Iraq in 90 days. Later, she refused to pledge that she would withdraw troops, said that the Democrats shouldn’t oversell the idea of withdrawals, and said that she would keep thousands of US troops in Iraq for years to come.

Now Hillary is claiming that she is the only one who will end the war–the war that she helped start. Hillary was quoted as saying:

One candidate will continue the war and keep the troops in Iraq indefinitely. One candidate only says he will end the war. And one candidate is ready, willing and able to end the war and to rebuild our military while honoring our soldiers and our veterans.

Sen. Obama on the other hand says he will end the war, but his top foreign policy adviser said he won’t necessarily follow the plan he has been talking about during this campaign, that his plan is just words. You can count on me to end the war safely and responsibly.

That one candidate being her, of course. Is she now finally making a firm pledge to withdraw troops, which she refused to do before? And for that one candidate who “only says he will end the war”, isn’t Hillary basically doing the same thing? Given her past record of flip-flops on Iraq, maybe she is the one who is who is full of empty rhetoric on the issue?

By the way, isn’t Hillary a wonder woman? Not only will she end the war, but she will also rebuild the military and honor soldiers. All that from just this one person? Simply amazing. I’ll guess I’ll have to consider voting for her…

Hillary must be getting really desperate to make unattainable promises like her latest to start withdrawing troops within 60 days should she be elected President. Next thing you know she’ll promise to travel back in time and withdraw the troops before they ever went in to Iraq.

Hillary is taking her last gasps. So sad. She had so many good opportunities for America…

Hillary Clinton continues to sink in Pennsylvania while her opponent for the Democratic Party nomination for the 2008 presidential race continues to make inroads in a state where Clinton once held a comfortable lead.

According to a Quinnipiac University poll published on April 8th, 2008, Barack Obama has pulled to within six percentage points of Mrs. Clinton. Clinton has the support of 50% of likely primary voters, Obama has 44%. Obama has been outspending Clinton on advertising in the state, spending $3 million to her $1 million.

Clinton has been steadily losing her lead in the state. Just six days ago Clinton held a nine point lead. Less than a month ago Clinton had a twelve point lead.

Perhaps the fact that Hillary Clinton was caught in a lie recently about dodging sniper fire has contributed to her decline. But, she has rated poorly on trustworthiness for a long time now; everybody already knows she is a liar.

A few days ago the Clintons released their tax returns which showed an income of $109 million over the past seven years. Since one of the things that infuriates Democrat voters the most is wealth, the revelation of the Clinton’s astronomical income isn’t going to help her among the lower class voters that comprise a large portion of the DFL base.

If Obama wants to deal Clinton a knockout punch, he should harp on the fact that Hillary possesses extreme wealth. He should point out how she champions the issue of poverty while amassing a fortune which could be given away to alleviate some of the “suffering” endured by the poor in America.

You see, if someone really cares about the poor, they will use their own money to help the less fortunate. Even if the Clintons gave away every penny they had, they would still live a life of wealth from their pensions which will pay them a few hundred thousand dollars every year for as long as they live. It doesn’t take more than a few minutes of time to write a check to give your money away. The fact that the Clintons have amassed a $50 million fortune in just a few years demonstrates that they don’t truly believe in charity, unless it involves someone else’s money.

We have heard and read about all the prominent Democrats who have abandoned Hillary Clinton requesting that she drop out of the race despite her continued leads over Barack Obama in some key states. Yesterday Hillary reiterated her intention to continue the race, and she lied yet again. Mrs. Clinton was quoted as saying:

Let me tell you something, when it comes to finishing a fight, Rocky (Balboa from the fictional boxing movie “Rocky”) and I have a lot in common. I never quit. I never give up. And neither do the American people.

Is that so? Then why has Mrs. Clinton been demanding that we give up in Iraq and surrender to terrorists for a long time now?

A transcript of a speech Hillary Clinton gave in July, 2007, from Hillary’s own website:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=2366

It is long past time that the president ended American combat involvement Iraq’s multi-sided, sectarian civil war, fought for power, revenge, and personal advantage.

That is what I have been trying to do in the Senate, after calling for and consistently voting for phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. That is why I voted against a bill to fund the war without any plan for ending it. That is why I’ve introduced legislation to begin bringing our troops home within 90 days. And that is why I am joining other Democrats to add provisions to the defense authorization bill — which we are debating in the Senate this week — that would force the President to change course in Iraq. Among those provisions is legislation I am sponsoring with Senator Robert Byrd to de-authorize the war — legislation that would actually end the President’s authority to fight it.

If that isn’t quitting, then what is?

Let’s be fair to Hillary for a moment. She has served as her husband’s doormat throughout their entire marriage. She’s been cheated on and lied to again and again. She hasn’t quit her marriage, though. Since the only reason she endured the decades of lies, cheating, and public humiliation her husband subjected her to was so she could run for President, it would mean that she wasted her entire life if she abandoned her ambitions now. And that would be a tough pill for anyone to swallow.

In case you are interested, the Who’s Dated Who website has a list of women Bill Clinton has supposedly bedded while married to Hillary. If you look, you will see that some are recent. I don’t know how accurate this Who’s Dated Who is, but the truth is that Hillary and Bill Clinton have a phony marriage, spending very little time together and showing no genuine affection for each other.

Bill Clinton At Who’s Dated Who

According to this article, nearly one-third of white Democrats think that Hillary Clinton is a phony.

Article

Still, Clinton, 60, has provided ammunition to opponents. She has insisted that she supported weapons inspections, not war, in Iraq in 2002, although she gave speeches that year advocating action against Saddam Hussein before voting to authorize the use of force.

GASP! Oh really?! These people are just figuring out that Hillary Clinton is a total and complete fraud? (But then again, so is Barack Obama, and just about every Democrat.)

The article discusses Hillary Clinton’s numerous flip-flops, resume embellishments, and outright lies. It goes on to say that in this information age anyone can hop online and find the truth about what a candidate did, said, or supported in the past. That is very true. Hillary Clinton’s lies can easily be revealed. Too bad she isn’t smart enough to figure that out.

In years past, Democrats relied on their voting base to believe anything they said. Today, a large proportion still do. But in this highly contested race for the Democratic Party nomination, journalists are going to be scrutinizing each candidate more closely than they otherwise would, meaning that anything from the past–no matter how big or small–that contradicts what the candidate is saying today is going to get attention and be disseminated to the masses.

Hillary Clinton is her own worst enemy.

Everywhere you look, prominent Democrats are turning their backs on Hillary Clinton and embracing Barack Obama.

Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey has announced that he is going to endorse Obama.

Why are all these DFLers shunning the Clintons? What did the Clintons do to deserve such treatment? They are the same dirty frauds and liars they were five, ten, and fifteen years ago. So what changed?

Is it possible that all the leaders of the Democratic Party have gotten themselves swept up in Obamamania? Are they moved by Obama’s empty platitudes and elevated speaking voice? Have they completely ignored the fact that Obama is bought and paid for by a Muslim businessman under indictment, Tony Rezko?

What did Hillary do to cause so many people whom she thought were her friends to abandon her? Somebody should investigate this and write a book about it.

Democrats for years have bemoaned campaign contributions from corporate and wealthy interests. But it turns out that the Democrats have been the largest beneficiaries of Wall Street contributions this campaign season, with Barack Obama leading the way.

Today Obama criticized Wall Street and business in general for its “ethic of greed” in contributing to the foreclosure crisis. Meanwhile, Obama has been taking in cash hand over fist from these very same people he now criticizes.

So, why is Obama criticizing a group of people while taking in huge campaign contributions from them? Doesn’t Obama realize that this “ethic of greed” he criticizes is what allowed those people to make the money that they are giving to him?

Obama has taken in $6.7 million from investment and securities firms. Hillary Clinton has received $6.6 million. John McCain, to contrast, has only received about $3 million.

If Obama and Hillary feel so strongly that Wall Street has acted in a manner detrimental to their voting base, why are they taking the money? Shouldn’t they give it back?

The fact of the matter is that these Democrats–all of them–are nothing but frauds, phonies, and liars. They hobnob with the rich and famous. They attend fancy parties, drink the finest champagne, and dine on the finest food. They travel by private jet and limousine. They are far removed from the common man. Yet, when they need some votes, they spout their populist rhetoric and the Democrat voters lap it up. And when they need money, they are more than happy to take it from the very people they pretend to be against.

Yahoo Article

A new poll shows that Hillary Clinton’s likability has dropped recently. Forty-eight percent of poll respondents had a negative view of Clinton; only 37% viewed her positively.

Is anybody surprised? If her husband liked her, would he cheat on her constantly and do so to this very day? Probably not.

Nobody likes Hillary. Not ever her husband, Bill.

What can Hillary do to make herself more likable? Maybe she should bake some cookies. It’s obvious that people don’t like her for her personality or her ideas.

There was a great syndicated article the other day written by Shailagh Murray and Jonathan Weisman of the Washington Post that demonstrates just what kind of dirty frauds and liars Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are. Despite having absolutely no accomplishments of their own to speak of during their scant careers, both Clinton and Obama are positioning themselves to take credit for legislation they had no part of creating.

Here’s a recent example from the article:

Just this week, as the financial markets were roiling in the wake of the Bear Stearns collapse, Obama made another claim that was greeted with disbelief in some corners of Capitol Hill. On March 13, Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, unveiled legislative proposals to allow the Federal Housing Administration to guarantee new loans from banks willing to help homeowners in or approaching foreclosure. Obama and Clinton were in Washington for a day-long round of budget voting, but neither appeared at the housing news conference.

Yet Obama on Monday appeared to seek top billing on Dodd’s proposal.

“At this moment, we must come together and act to address the housing crisis that set this downturn in motion and continues to eat away at the public’s confidence in the market,” Obama said. “We should pass the legislation I put forward with my colleague Chris Dodd to create meaningful incentives for lenders to buy or refinance existing mortgages so that Americans facing foreclosure can keep their homes.”

Dodd did say that Obama supported the bill, as does Clinton. But he could not offer pride of authorship to the candidate he wants to see in the White House next year.

Can you believe the gall of Barack Obama? Does he really think that the people will never discover the truth?

If Barack Obama spent as much time actually working on behalf of the people as he does plagiarizing speeches he would be a very productive politician.

Democrat hero of the day, Barack Hussein Obama, has been caught in more lies.

Obama has been promising “change” in Washington and an end to politics as usual. The mindless Democrat voting drones have been eating up Obama’s drivel like a welfare recipient at an all-you-can-eat Twinkie buffet. These people are stupid, they’ll believe anything!

Last year, and brought to light again more recently, was the story of how Barack Obama engaged in a joint real estate transaction with Muslim, Syrian-born crook Antoin “Tony” Rezko, so Obama could get a $300,000 discount on a large, luxurious mansion. Originally, Obama downplayed his association to Rezko saying that the man accused of bribing officials, fraud, and other crimes, was just another nameless, faceless donor. That was a lie. The truth of the matter is that they were close friends, Obama directly sought out Rezko’s help arranging a deal for the property, and Rezko has bought and paid for Barack Obama, giving him his start in politics including his very first campaign contributions.

Now, Obama has been caught in another lie regarding his friend and spiritual advisor, the vehemently racist Reverend Jeremiah Wright. This is from ABC News:

Buried in his eloquent, highly praised speech on America’s racial divide, Sen. Barack Obama contradicted more than a year of denials and spin from him and his staff about his knowledge of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s controversial sermons.

Similarly, Obama also has only recently given a much fuller accounting of his relationship with indicted political fixer Antoin “Tony” Rezko, a longtime friend, who his campaign once described as just one of “thousands of donors.”

Until yesterday, Obama said the only thing controversial he knew about Rev. Wright was his stand on issues relating to Africa, abortion and gay marriage.

But yesterday, he told a different story.

“Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes,” he said in his speech yesterday in Philadelphia.

There you have it. Barack Obama admits that he is a liar.

One must wonder how absolutely stupid a person must be to think that Barack Obama, the son of a Muslim, bought and paid for by a crooked Muslim businessman, is suitable to be the leader of the free world.

There is no question that now that the media has more closely scrutinized Obama, that major cracks in his highly polished, plagiarized facade have appeared. It starts with a hairline crack, then it only gets larger until the real Barack Hussein Obama is revealed.

Just wait.

A new poll from CNN/Opinion Research Corporation indicates that a majority of registered Democrats want Barack Obama to be the Democratic Party nominee for President.

Obama was the preferred choice of 52% of the respondents, compared to 45% for Hillary Clinton.

This speaks volumes about the intelligence of Democrat voters. Barack Obama is bought and paid for by a Muslim businessman. He is the son of a Muslim. He has absolutely no experience on his thin resume to demonstrate his fitness to be leader of the free world.

Oh, but Obama makes people feel “hopeful”. He’s going “end the Iraq War”, even though he refuses to pledge to withdraw troops. And, apparently, he is going to clean up Washington by engaging in real estate transactions with criminals.

It’s amazing just how many prominent Democrats have turned their backs on Hillary Clinton. Does she have any friends left in the Democratic Party?

Former State Department official Greg Craig has slammed Hillary Clinton’s claim of experience. this is from the CNN Political Tracker Blog:

“If you’re running for president on the basis of your claims of experience, when you then cite examples, you should be careful to be accurate,” Craig said. “The evidence should be accurate. And my point is that Senator Clinton and her supporters have in serious ways overstated, if not grossly exaggerated, the nature of her experience.”

“I think she is misleading the American public on the nature of her experience.”

But what kind of experience does Barack Obama, whom Craig supports, have? Obama has even less. Hillary has the experience of being cheated on constantly. I don’t even know if they slept in the same bed in the White House. I would guess not. She has seven years of experience in the Senate during which time she has produced no significant legislation.

Obama has a whopping three years of experience in the Senate. He hasn’t produced any significant legislation, either.

Let’s contrast that to John McCain. McCain comes from a military family. He, his father, and his grandfather all served in the United States Navy. McCain served in the military for 20 years, valiantly and fearlessly, spending 5-1/2 of those years as a prisoner of war and victim of torture. Then McCain served four years in the US House before being elected to the Senate where he has served for 21 years.

How can these Democrats even dare talk about experience when Clinton and Obama combined have less than 1/4 the experience McCain has? The Democratic Party is a total and complete joke.

But what did Hillary Clinton do to cause all these prominent Democrats to shun her?

I love this!

The Democratic Party is segregating itself along racial lines. Blacks are turning their backs on Hillary Clinton, whites are turning away from Barack Obama.

New York Times Article

Race has been a defining feature of the primary contests. Beyond Mississippi, Mrs. Clinton was backed by 5 percent of black voters in Illinois, Mr. Obama’s home state; 8 percent in Wisconsin, where black voters made up 8 percent of the Democratic primary vote; 9 percent in Delaware; 10 percent in Virginia; and 11 percent in Georgia, all states Mr. Obama won.

Mr. Obama’s 26 percent support among whites in Tuesday’s primary was one of his worst performances with this group.

He had previously been supported by 16 percent of white voters in Arkansas; 23 percent in Florida, where the candidates did not actively campaign; 24 percent in South Carolina, where John Edwards was still competing; and 25 percent in Alabama.

Most of the elite Democrats have shunned Hillary and thrown their support to Obama. But most of the white Democrat rank and file voters are not supporting the candidate that the most prominent members of the Democratic Party have endorsed.

One can only hope that this results in the Democratic Party being fractured beyond repair. I’ve got my fingers crossed.

The last couple of weeks have seen an increase in pro Barack Hussein Obama propaganda in the media. The message the left-wingers are sending is that Barack Hussein is going to capture votes from Republicans because of his message.

No, he will not. Barack Obama’s message is hollow. There is nothing there. He is a thinly veiled Martin Luther King Jr. wannabe and we Conservatives can see right through it.

Obama has not said a single thing of substance this entire campaign. He has no real experience in an executive position. He has articulated no concrete ideas other than his socialist agenda of more wealth redistribution and welfare entitlements.

Sorry, Democrats, we Conservatives are not stupid. Compare the academic achievement in our communities versus yours. We can see Barack Obama for the non-substantive, inexperienced wannabe that he is. We Conservatives do not vote based on looks or charisma. We do not vote based on “positive messages” that are not based in reality.

It is you left-wingers who do that. That is why you elected a serial rapist like Bill Clinton to the Presidency twice and why you continue to idolize him to this day.

Just the fact that a man like Barack Hussein Obama with no real experience and no concrete plans can capture the backing of so many prominent Democrats and their voters speaks volumes about the intellect of Democrats. Or, should I say, the lack of intellect.

John Edwards…what a *&^%$#@ loser! He never stood a chance. Since he first announced he was running he trailed badly. He had a campaign of nothing. Finally, he has made it official: he is dropping out of the 2008 Presidential race. Big surprise…

I predicted Edwards would fail miserably. And he did not disappoint.

But who will Edwards endorse? I bet he will endorse Barack Hussein Obama. Hillary Clinton was the chosen one, yet she is being snubbed by all the prominent Democrats who have thrown their support behind Obama. John Kerry snubbed her. A few days ago Ted Kennedy snubber her. Edwards will probably snub her as well.

Hillary Clinton has finally lost the support of African-American Democrat supporters. According to a new CNN poll, 59% of black Democrats now back Barack Obama, giving him a 28-point lead over Mrs. Clinton. Just three months ago Hillary Clinton had a 24-point lead over Obama. My, how things have changed.

Why would black people support a rich white woman like Hillary Clinton, anyway? Hillary doesn’t live among them, socialize with them, or have much else to do with them other than pandering for their vote.

I think it’s great that white liberals are getting shut out by their beloved minority voters. Minorities are going to toss these white liberals in the garbage like the trash they are. And it’s about time! Just ask John Edwards.

Barack Obama has taken a 10-point lead over Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, according to a new poll from Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby released today.

This is bad news. While Barack Obama is just as much of a socialist as Hillary Clinton, he is much cleaner and more intelligent than she could ever hope to be (which isn’t saying much).

Hillary Clinton’s only experience other than riding her husband’s coattails is coordinating smear campaigns against women who accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault and rape. Hillary has a lot of experience in this area. Obama doesn’t have any real scandals dogging his bid for the Presidency.

Obama isn’t filthy stinking rich like Hillary Clinton, or even John Edwards is. Most Democrat voters live their entire lives seething with jealously and rage over people who have nicer things and more money because they are more intelligent or harder working. Obama is closer to the “common man”, or at least the common Democrat-voting Neanderthal, than any of the other DFL candidates.

Obama is smarter, cleaner, and less wealthy than any of the other Democratic candidates battling it out in this 2008 election campaign. One would think that his closer proximity to the common Democratic Party voter would be helpful to him.

Many, if not most, Republicans were hoping that Hillary would win the nomination just for the simple fact that she is unlikeable and her idiocy would likely be her downfall. Unfortunately, she couldn’t keep her stupidity under wraps and torpedoed her own campaign before securing the nomination for which she has long been the odds-on favorite to win. Damn that Hillary!

Barack Obama has been projected the winner of the Democratic primary in Iowa just a few minutes ago, edging out Hillary Clinton and John Edwards who came in close behind him.

Of course, this is just a projection and we know how often the left-leaning news media has been wrong in the past.

The idiot Hillary Clinton really blew it, didn’t she? She was the anointed one. She had a huge lead and by her own actions and her lies she deconstructed her own campaign.

While most Democrat voters aren’t very bright, not all of them are complete idiots. (I’d estimate that 90% of Democrat voters are idiots. See the dismal academic achievement in Democrat-voting strongholds for proof.) Hillary Clinton was caught in flip-flops about driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants. She was caught in an outright lie when she claimed she had no knowledge of questioners being coached by her staffers, even though she called on them directly out of hundreds of people (the odds of that are slim-to-none.)

Barack Obama has little experience. His strategy is the tried and true Democrat strategy: buy votes by promising all sorts of welfare benefits. You see, absolving people of responsibility for their own lives is the name of the game for the modern Democratic Party. And everybody loves a freebie, don’t they?

If Obama does win Iowa, it will be a devastating blow to Hillary Clinton considering how wet behind the ears he is. I guess her serial rapist husband Bill Clinton didn’t have enough star power to carry her to the top, unlike Obama supporter Oprah Winfrey.

On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee is NBC’s projected winner, besting Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani.

Everything about Hillary Clinton is phony. Her marriage is phony. Both she and her husband live separate lives, except for political appearances. Her stance on the war is phony. She demands troop withdrawals one day and refuses to pledge to withdraw troops herself should she be elected president. Her compassion for the poor is phony, too, as evidenced by her massive wealth, which she doesn’t give away to help the poor.

It was revealed, much to the dismay of the Hillary Clinton camp, that senior campaign staffers pulled aside audience members at a recent appearance and requested they ask certain questions to make Mrs. Clinton appear more favorable.

The only way Mrs. Clinton can avoid appearing the idiot that she is is to have pre-selected questions asked so she can rehearse ahead of time.

How shameful. How typically Democrat.

(Story)

Democrats in Congress have temporarily abandoned their plans to surrender the Iraq War by forcing a premature withdrawal of US troops. Basically, the Democrats don’t have enough votes to require American troops to leave or cut off funding, as everyone knew they wouldn’t, so they are taking a little break for now.

What’s interesting, however, is that even though Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards—the leading DFL candidates for the Democratic Party nomination—have all refused to pledge that they would withdraw troops before 2013 should they be elected, Democrats are still pushing forward with their Sabotage The War effort. But why?

It’s a disgusting political game, and nothing more. I’ll bet that if the Democrats actually had a chance at succeeding at withdrawing troops that they wouldn’t be pressing this issue. They know that they’ve got no chance, so they can be as absurd as they want to be.

But at least they get in good with their delusional, anti-war liberal supporters by pretending to be fighting for something they know they have no chance of winning. This way, they dampen the criticism of their vocal constituency and the political contributions keep rolling in. Liberals are so gullible!

I wonder if the anti-war lefties realize that they’ve got no one they can support who actually shares their viewpoint regarding the war.

Remember: a few months ago Hillary Clinton was demanding that American troops start leaving Iraq in 90 days and now she herself is refusing to commit to pulling out soldiers by 2013. Absolute fraud is what it is.

The battle for Iowa has taken a turn in Hillary Clinton’s favor. Mrs. Clinton has captured the lead from John Edwards and now has the support of 29% of respondents in a recent poll. Edwards dropped from 29% in May to 23% now. Barack Obama sits at 22%.

It has been known for many years that Hillary Clinton would be the nominee when she ran for President; it was known she would run for President, too. Well, we Conservatives and Republicans knew it. Perhaps the intellectually challenged people who comprise the Democrat voter base didn’t know it, but we did.

The 2008 election will be about the swing voters, as have the past few presidential elections. Will swing voters turn a blind eye to Hillary Clinton’s hypocrisy and support for the War in Iraq like her liberal supporters have? Will they overlook her numerous flip-flops? What will they think of Hillary’s demand that troops start being withdrawn from Iraq in 90 days, but her refusal to promise that she would withdraw troops by 2013?

By definition, 50% of the population is of below average intelligence. The vast majority of those dimwits vote for the Democratic Party. I have to hope that enough swing voters are smart enough to see Hillary Clinton for the lying, hypocritical fraud that she is. Otherwise, we are all doomed.

Add Rudy Giuliani to the latest list of people predicting a Clinton-Obama DFL ticket for the 2008 election.

This pairing does make sense given the anti-white male mentality of liberals, which comprise the most vocal component of the Democratic constituency. However, what possible benefit would it have for the DFL’s chances of winning in 2008? The Democratic Party already has a solid lock on the black vote, regularly capturing 85% - 90%. So there isn’t any benefit there.

There’s always the “rock star” aspect of Barack Obama that could be beneficial to Hillary Clinton among unthinking, star struck voters. Obama has a bigger following with Hollywood phonies than Hillary does and they love to stump for their causes.

But if we look at this logically, we find that Barack Obama is cleaner than Hillary Clinton. He doesn’t have the legacy of scandals and failures that Hillary has. He doesn’t have the phony marriage and constantly cheating spouse to drag him down. He didn’t vote for the Iraq War because he wasn’t around to, so he doesn’t need to lie and pretend he was mislead or claim to have voted for something entirely different.

And Obama is much more intelligent than Hillary Clinton, too, which really isn’t saying much. He’s a good orator, even if what he says is nothing but superficial fluff and unrealistic, unattainable promises.

If anyone should be the running mate in this pairing, it is Hillary.

But is it possible that some white male Democrats could feel excluded by such a ticket? Will Muslims and other male-centric cultures vote for a female president? Only time will tell.

The main reason that the Democratic Party has any support is because of their never-ending promises to steal money from the people who earn it and give it to the people who didn’t.

At a campaign stop in Illinois, Barack Obama claimed that the Iraq War is preventing America from addressing its “needs”. Everything is a need or a right to these DFLers. Obama then promised action on low wages, health care, affordable college education, and retirement security as if he’s some kind of Superman who can defy the laws of economics and make all these things magically happen.

But how much is this going to cost? How much will it cost the taxpayers? How much will it cost the economy in terms of lost economic activity and jobs? Why should a high school kid working a part-time job deserve a high wage? Why should any unskilled, uneducated Democrat-voting Neanderthal deserve a high wage?

Most Democrat voters aren’t very bright. It’s a fact. Democrat voting communities have the lowest academic achievement in the modernized world and those voters prove it every day. They aren’t going to be thinking about how their lives will be negatively impacted by the Democrats’ massive tax increases that will be required to pay for all the promises they are making. They won’t be thinking about this because they are either not smart enough to consider such things or they don’t care because they possess a “gimme gimme gimme” mentality whereby they deserve your money by virtue of their very existence.

Democrats pretend that all they will have to do is roll back the Bush tax cuts and that the additional revenue will be enough to pay for the hundreds of billions in new spending. The truth of the matter is that repealing the Bush tax cuts wouldn’t generate anywhere near enough money to cover the Democrat’s spending goals, particularly when you consider the negative economic impact tax increases have, leaving average, middle-class taxpayers and future generations on the hook for the bill.

After the Bush tax cuts federal tax revenues actually increased. Why? Because more money in the pockets of the people who earn it means more spending which means more jobs which means more earnings which are taxed.

But don’t try explaining that to a Democrat voter. Appealing to Democrats with simple logic is like trying to teach a dog how to talk; it just isn’t going to happen.

One more thing: if Democrats are so concerned about the high cost of college education, then why is it that the most liberal institutions of higher learning in this country have the highest tuition?

See how idiotic these Democrats are?

The only time a Democrat isn’t lying is when he or she isn’t saying anything. But even then, they are probably thinking about lying.

At yesterday’s Democratic presidential debate at Dartmouth College in Hanover, NH, Barack Obama said, “(When Hillary Clinton failed to socialize healthcare in the early 1990s) 80 percent of Americans already wanted universal health care…”

Oh really? Where does Obama get that figure? I don’t know a single person who wants government-controlled healthcare. The 85% of Americans who do have health insurance probably don’t want to trade in what they’ve got for an inferior Democrat-controlled system.

The only thing the Democratic Party has succeeded at in the past 50 years is to take peaceful, prosperous middle-class communities and transform them into welfare dependent hellholes of crime and violence. Well, they’ve also succeeded at destroying schools and dumbing down education, too. Let’s give credit where credit is due.

If given the chance, Democrats will destroy healthcare, too.

I think these Democrats make up their statistics on the fly. They do nothing but lie. You must be mighty gullible or mighty stupid to support the Democratic Party.

After years of phony political posturing to appease their gullible liberal base (that has money to give), the leading Democratic presidential contenders admit that they can’t guarantee that they would be able to completely withdraw troops from Iraq by 2013 if elected.

So, all along it looks like they’ve been trying to sabotage the Iraq War effort as part of a twisted political game. Just a few months ago Hillary Clinton was demanding that Bush start pulling troops out within 90 days. Now, it looks like she didn’t mean it.

Here’s an interesting passage from the article:

Edwards sought to draw a distinction between his position and Clinton’s, saying she had said recently she wants to continue combat missions in Iraq.

“I do not want to continue combat missions in Iraq,” he said.

Clinton responded quickly, saying Edwards had misstated her position. She said she favors the continued deployment of counterterrorism troops, not forces to engage in the type of combat now under way.

Who exactly does Mrs. Clinton think American troops are fighting in Iraq right now? They are fighting Al Qaeda terrorists, that’s who. Our troops are engaged in counter-terrorism operations now. Hillary is lying through her teeth and pretending that she’d do something different than what is being done now when, in fact, she would do exactly what is being done right now. She would be doing what Bush is doing!

Are Democrat voters smart enough to grasp that? Nope! Democrat voters are dumb as bricks. That’s why their communities have the lowest academic achievement in the modernized world.

Democrats be dumb.

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign has promised to return $850,000 in donations raised by Norman Hsu, who is under investigation for violating election laws.

Hsu was a fugitive from justice who pleaded no contest to defrauding investors in 1991. He surrendered to authorities on August 31st, 2007. Prior to his surrender, he was frequently seen hobnobbing with prominent Democrats.

This is not the first time the Clintons have gotten all buddy-buddy with a fugitive who gave them big money. On President Bill Clinton’s last day in office, he issued a pardon to Marc Rich, whose wife was a huge Democratic Party donor.

It’s laughable to look at these dirty frauds and liars, the Democrats, whose hypocrisy is unmatched. Hillary Clinton has criticized the Bush administration for “cronyism” and ties to big money, then she turns around and actually does what she falsely accuses Bush of doing.

Hillary Clinton’s liberal base will, of course, over look this transgression. Liberals are, after all, nothing but frauds and liars themselves. Hillary’s frequent scandals shall not dissuade them from supporting her as long as she promises more welfare freebies and wealth redistribution. That’s all it is about for Democrat voters.