The Democrat culture of corruption continues.  Wealthy Democrat donor Raj Rajaratnam, founder of hedge fund Galleon Group, was charged with insider trading.  Rajaratnam is a supporter of Barack Obama.  He donated $4,600 to Obama and $30,800 to Obama Victory Fund in 2008.

View Rajaratnam’s political contributions from Democrats here:

Democrat Raj Rajaratnam’s Political Contributions

The page is a copy of the results of a search of Rajaratnam’s donations at fec.gov.

WSJ Article

I found some media bias exhibited by ABC News.  The news network (if you can call it that) reported that Rajaratnam donated to Hillary Clinton, but they did not report that he also donated to Obama until the final paragraph of the article on page two.

ABC News Article

The New York hedge fund billionaire indicted today in an alleged $20 million insider trading scheme, Raj Rajaratnam, was a major contributor to the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and also the single largest known U.S. contributor to a charity linked to the Tamil Tiger terror group in Sri Lanka, according to records obtained by ABCNews.com.

From page two:

Rajaratnam and his wife were also major contributors to a number of Democratic campaigns, giving a total of $118,000 to, among others, the Senate campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer and the presidential campaigns of Mrs. Clinton and Barack Obama.

Why did ABC News mention the donations to Hillary Clinton in the first paragraph, but wait until the second page to mention the donations to Barack Obama when Obama received much more money than Hillary did from Rajaratnam?

Hillary Clinton received a total of $6,500 in donations from Rajaratnam.  Barack Obama received a total of $35,400.

It seems to me that Obama should have been mentioned first.  Not only since he received five times the money that Hillary did, but because he is President.

The biggest scam artists in the history of the world have all been Democrats.

There was Bernard Madoff who ran a $50 billion Ponzi scheme bilking thousands out of their life savings, leaving some destitute.  Then there was R. Allen Stanford who ran an $8 billion certificate of deposit Ponzi scheme.  Yesterday, Democrat fundraiser Norman Hsu was sentenced to 24 years in prison for running a $50 million Ponzi scheme and for violating campaign finance laws so he could illegally steer money to Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Is it purely coincidence that the biggest scammers that have ever lived are all Democrats?  No.  Lying, cheating, and stealing are what Democrats do best.  Every Democrat policy at its core involves stealing money from those who earn it so it can be given to those who didn’t earn it to buy votes.  So it should come as no surprise that scammers are Democrats.

Norman Hsu Article From Boston.com

Norman Hsu Article From CNN.com

A former Democratic fund-raiser who contributed to the presidential campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama was sentenced Tuesday to 292 months, or more than 24 years, in prison for fraud including campaign finance violations…

More about Democrats Bernie Maddoff and Sir Robert Allen Stanford:

Bernard Madoff’s Political Contributions
Proof That Swindler R. Allen Stanford Is A Democrat

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

What can we say about Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama’s pick for Secretary of State?  We can say a lot–and none of it is good.

Hillary Clinton is a hypocrite, a fraud, and a liar.  She is also a colossal idiot and a deadbeat.

To bolster her credentials during the 2008 presidential campaign, she told a bold-faced lie that she dodged sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia in 1996.  This was completely untrue.  The pilot who flew the plane she was on said that no such thing occurred and that a first lady would never be flown into a place where she would be under enemy fire.

Sniper Fire Story

Hillary Clinton has had to admit that she exaggerated her claim of coming under sniper fire during a visit to Bosnia in the 1990s, after video footage showed the then first lady walking calmly from her plane.

The Clinton campaign played down the episode as a “misstatement” and a “minor blip”.

Then, to deflect attention from her lie, Hillary Clinton lied again.  She said she misspoke about her trip to Bosnia.  When someone makes a misstatement, they say something like, “it’s nice to be here in Milwaukee, Minnesota.”  Milwaukee is actually in Wisconsin, not Minnesota.  That is a misstatement.  Fabricating events that did not occur and telling them in a dramatic way to make yourself look more qualified than you are is not misspeaking, that is lying.

CNN Clinton Misspoke Story

Sen. Hillary Clinton said she “misspoke” last week when she gave a dramatic description of her arrival in Bosnia 12 years ago, recounting a landing under sniper fire.

Clinton was responding to a question Monday from the Philadelphia Daily News’ editorial board about video footage of the event that contradicted her assertion that her group “ran with our heads down” from the plane to avoid sniper fire at the Tuzla Air Base.

“I say a lot of things–millions of words a day–so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement,” (Clinton said).

You have to be a big idiot to tell the lies that Hillary told knowing that there is ample video evidence to prove you a liar.

We all know what a fraud and hypocrite Hillary is, too.  Her and her husband had a net worth of between $35 million and $50 million in 2007.  The Clintons had $109 million in gross income from 2000 to 2007.  Despite having more money than she could possibly spend, Hillary Clinton demanded that taxpayers do more to help the poor while sitting on a huge pile of cash.  Hillary and Bill Clinton could have given their quickly accumulated money away to the poor they pretended to care about, but they didn’t.  They chose to use that money to live lavish lifestyles.

Not only is Hillary Clinton a multi-millionaire who doesn’t believe in using her own money to help the poor, she’s a deadbeat as well.  Paying her bills is as big of a priority with her as helping the poor, evidently.  At the end of the primary season last year, she owed almost $23 million, half of it to herself.  The other half she owed to vendors, consultants, and others.  She has since forgiven the debt she owes to herself, meaning that she had to pay it out of pocket (oh, poor girl!).  Reported a few weeks ago, as of the end of November 2008 Hillary still owed creditors $6.4 million.

Deadbeat Hillary Clinton Story

Hillary Clinton has cut the debt from her presidential campaign almost in half, but still owed $6.4 million at the end of last month.

Clinton also forgave the $13.2 million she lent her campaign.

So six months after dropping out of the race, she still owes people money.  It isn’t like she doesn’t have the money to pay these creditors–she does.  She just doesn’t want to pay it herself–which is typical of Democrats.  She wants other people to pay her debts.  As a matter of fact, she is still begging for contributions to pay off her campaign debt on her website.

From Hillary Clinton’s Website:

Working together, we can pay off Hillary’s campaign debt now! Your contribution now will make a big difference in cleaning up that last campaign debt.

What a disgusting deadbeat!

Besides being a hypocrite, a fraud, a liar, an idiot, and a deadbeat, Hillary is the world’s biggest doormat.  Her husband has cheated on her repeatedly during the years.  Throughout their marriage, Bill has cheated on Hillary with countless women.  From carrying on long-term affairs to soliciting oral sex from his employees to allegedly raping a woman, Bill has screwed around on Hillary almost constantly.  And rumor has it Bill is still cheating on her to this very day.

We have a woman nominated to be Secretary of State who has tolerated her husband’s non-stop cheating for over 30 years.   She has let her husband walk all over her during her marriage.  She is a doormat.

If Hillary lets her cheating husband walk all over her for 30 years, is she going to let rogue world leaders walk all over her, too?

This is the person that Barack Obama chose to be the United States’ ambassador to the world.  This is the woman who is going to represent the United States of America in international affairs.  She lies, she’s a hypocrite, she doesn’t pay her bills, she can’t stand up to her husband, and this is who we are going to send to represent our country.  Unbelievable!

Hillary Clinton is unfit to be Secretary of State.

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?

It has been reported by the LA Times that Hillary Clinton will end her campaign to be the Democratic Party Presidential nominee this Saturday and will endorse Barack Obama for the sake of party unity.

Party unity? This is the same party that tossed her aside like garbage. This is the party that treated her like a second class citizen. This is the party whose highest leadership turned their backs on her and endorsed her opponent long before the race was over and while she was winning state after state with huge margins over him. The position of the party leadership was in stark contrast to that of the rank and file DFL voter.

The only reason Barack Obama garnered so much support from Democratic Party leadership is because he is slick and new and they wanted to latch onto what they consider a rising star. The fact is that nobody really knows anything about him. He has no achievements to speak of, no significant legislation, and little experience. He does not have the critical track record which voters can use to find out who he really is. He has absolutely no qualifications to be the leader of the free world and commander of the United States military.

Most voters early in the race had no idea about his relationship with that crook Tony Rezko or his crooked real estate deal. Nor did they know about his membership in a black radical church. Or about his friendship and relationship with liberal terrorist William Ayers. Most younger voters are probably unaware that Obama is completely unoriginal, saying nothing that hasn’t been said before and going so far as plagiarizing from others. He is a manufactured political candidate, he is not the real deal.

Nobody really knows who Obama is. But we all know who Hillary Clinton is, for she has been under scrutiny for fifteen years compared to Obama’s six months. Despite that fact, the leadership of the Democratic Party abandoned Hillary and hitched their wagons to an unknown.

Backing an unknown entity and empty suit like Barack Obama is a huge political risk. Hopefully, it comes back to bite the Democrats in the future. For there is much still left to learn about Barack Hussein Obama, and with his thin resume, what we will learn in the future will not be favorable.

There is no question that Hillary Clinton is much more qualified to be President than Barack Obama is.

My hope was that Hillary Clinton would have turned her back on her party like they did to her and either run as a third party candidate or endorse John McCain. What’s wrong with Hillary? This is a woman who has been treated like a doormat by her husband for over 30 years, then she is treated like garbage by her party, which she has been a faithful supporter of for even longer.

Is Hillary Clinton suffering from battered woman’s syndrome in a figurative sense? No matter how badly she is treated by her partners, whether they be her husband or her party, she always comes back to them for more abuse.

Break the cycle, Hillary.

Now that Hillary’s political aspirations have not panned out, will she and her husband get divorced? That was the whole reason she stayed married to him all these years, wasn’t it?

Fox News projects Hillary Clinton the winner in Pennsylvania based on exit polling.

Fox News Pennsylvania Projection

Obama was projected to have received 89% of the black vote, and 61% of young voters. Who says that blacks are voting solely based on race?

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton would be bad for America. She is a liar, a fraud, and a hypocrite socialist millionaire. Barack Obama, however, is all those things and more. His relationships with left-wing radicals should be enough to scare anyone with any sense at all away from him. And his crooked real estate deal with Tony Rezko proves he is one of the dirtiest politicians of the modern era.

But we are talking about Democrats…so there isn’t much sense to be found. If Democrat voters had any sense they wouldn’t be Democrats.

According to a new Suffolk University poll, Hillary Clinton has widened her lead over Barack Obama in the critical state of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Democrats will take to the polls tomorrow, April 22nd, 2008, to cast their votes for their preferred candidate.

Just last week it was reported that Clinton’s lead over Obama had dropped to between 5% and 6%. One must wonder if Obama’s dismal performance in last week’s ABC News debate has had any bearing on the latest poll numbers. Or, one must wonder if these polls are very accurate at all. I guess we’ll find out tomorrow night.

There has been a lot of press in recent weeks about prominent Democrats urging Hillary to drop out of the race. But if she does indeed win Pennsylvania, and if by double digits as the latest poll suggests, then why would she even consider dropping out?

It is a beautiful sight to see the way that prominent Democrats have turned their backs on Mrs. Clinton, particularly those who have been close to the Clintons. Just last week former Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton, Robert Reich, announced his endorsement of Obama in another sign of just how eager Democrats are to throw the Clintons out with the garbage. Reich, as you may know, is as about as communist of a person as one can get.

The Democratic Party isn’t just fractured along racial or gender lines, it is fractured along the top and the bottom. Party leaders are backing Obama while many rank and file working class Democrats are backing Clinton. One can only hope that this disconnect between the leadership and the individuals who comprise the party’s base will be exploited by Republicans.

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…

How stupid do these Democrats think the American people are?

Hillary Clinton has been promoting her job creation plan recently, which really isn’t much of a plan at all. In a nutshell, she has proposed a $7 billion plan to persuade companies to not ship jobs overseas. Five billion of that amount would be for tax credits supposedly to help companies compete globally. Hillary Clinton was quoted as saying:

“Today I’m proposing one of the largest expansions of tax benefits for research and job growth in a generation,” she said. “We have to update our tools for rewarding innovation. The research-and-development tax credit, for example, has been a successful, cost-effective tool to increase investment in research jobs here in the United States. When I’m president, we will increase it by 50 percent.”

OK, great. Hillary has just proposed tax credits for big corporations, which she has been criticizing for years. But another question one must ask is this: why has Hillary not proposed such legislation while she has served in the Senate? If she thinks this is such a great idea, why didn’t she propose this years ago, or even more recently? And why didn’t she introduce the legislation to get the ball rolling?

The reason Mrs. Clinton didn’t do anything about this earlier is because she doesn’t believe in this kind of thing. She is interested in getting votes and will pander to anyone who wants to listen. In one speech she will rail against corporations and tax credits much like the ones she has proposed. Then in another speech she will completely contradict herself and propose the very thing she has been critical of in the past.

What’s even worse is that these Democrat troglodytes aren’t bright enough to not only see Hillary Clinton for the fraud she is, but they aren’t capable of realizing the detrimental effect her other proposals will have on business and industry.

Hillary has proposed mandatory employer-provided health insurance for all employees, even part-time flunkies. She has also proposed mandatory paid maternity leave for employees who have babies, starting first with federal government employees.

Then we must consider Hillary’s position that taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals must be raised, both income and investment taxes. How does raising taxes on investment returns encourage the investment necessary to create jobs? How does raising income taxes on those who actually do the investing and purchasing create jobs given that they have less money to spend on either? It doesn’t.

Nobody invests money to have the majority of it taken away from them. Taxes diminish investment returns. When investment returns decline, less investment takes place! Why the hell don’t these Democrats realize this?

All of these policies that Hillary has proposed increase the burden on employers and raise the cost of doing business in America. A few billion in tax credits won’t come close to offsetting the tens-of-billions in additional taxes and mandates that Hillary champions.

I won’t even get into the DFL’s desire to put carbon taxes on energy, which would raise the cost of doing business even more.

It seems like a twisted joke for Hillary to propose a jobs plan when she is also proposing policies that will destroy jobs. I just wish the Democratic Party’s voting base was smart enough to see this nonsense for what it truly is.

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.

Ah, Hillary Clinton. So many qualifications to be Commander in Chief… Yes, she sure has a lot of experience–at doing nothing.

In order to portray herself as ready for the position of President, Hillary tends to exaggerate her experience. Unless, of course, it’s about something negative, then she had nothing to do with it.

Some people actually believe her.

Now Hillary has been caught red-faced in a lie. Not a little white lie, not an embellishment, an outright lie. Mrs. Clinton said last week during a speech that she came under sniper fire while on a diplomatic trip to Bosnia in March of 1996. Hillary was quoted as saying:

“I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”

Not only does that statement contradict what Hillary herself wrote in her own book, but it is the exact opposite of what really happened. Hillary didn’t have to run with her head down. She is seen in a Youtube video smiling and shaking hands as she and her party stood on the tarmac.

What a liar!

Here’s a video on Youtube of Hillary making the statements and video from the Bosnia trip.

Video

Who in their right mind could support a liar and fraud like Hillary Clinton?

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!

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)

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.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was booed by liberals at the annual Yearly Kos convention. Yearly Kos is a convention put on by radical extremist liberals from the liberal nutjob blog Daily Kos. Daily Kos is a blog by socialists (progressives, they call themselves) intent on destroying America’s capitalist economy by extreme wealth confiscation, high taxes, and cradle-to-grave welfare benefits for anyone and everyone unwilling to work to support themselves.

Interestingly, Daily Kos has some of the highest advertising rates for blogs around and has tons of advertisements on its homepage. They also have sponsors for their convention.

You see, liberals–all liberals–are frauds who preach wealth redistribution and scorn for the rich while attempting to make as much money for themselves as they can. Daily Kos (and the scumbag who founded it) is no exception.

Clinton was booed, according to news reports, because she would not pledge to refuse campaign contributions from lobbyists. Of course Clinton wouldn’t make such a pledge. If she did, she might have to dip into her own wealth (estimated at $50 million) to help finance her campaign. Rich liberals are great at taking and spending other people’s money, but they keep a firm grip on their own.

Daily Kos guru Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, said, “We may decide she’s not our first choice, but she’s not a bad choice.”

The fact that anti-war liberal nutjobs like the people at Daily Kos would ignore Hillary Clinton’s adamant support for the war and throw their backing to her was a given. Liberals have no guiding principles at all.

All these liberal nuts want is to feel powerful by seeing which presidential candidates will grovel before them the most. It’s funny to think how important these left-wing troglodytes must feel when the entire DFL presidential field flies in to grovel before them as they did at Yearly Kos. (And spewing massive amounts of “global warming” causing pollution into the atmosphere at the same time.)

Hillary will get on her hands and knees and pander to anyone at anytime. Hillary Clinton’s original support for the war is of no consequence. What matters is that she is on her hands and knees groveling before the liberal nuts; they are getting what they want.

If Hillary spent as much time on her hands and knees for her husband (Bill Clinton–remember him?) as she does for anti-war kooks and socialists, maybe her husband wouldn’t have cheated on her all throughout their phony marriage!

The catfight between Hillary Clinton’s camp and the Barack Obama camp continues.

The origin of this typical Democrat silliness is the Youtube debate from a few nights ago where Barack Obama said that he would be willing to pander to leaders of hostile nations by meeting with them.

The Clinton camp is saying that Obama is naive for his willingness to meet with rogue leaders. The Obama camp snorted back that Hillary Clinton would maintain the Bush status quo with regard to international diplomacy.

John Edwards, meanwhile, is demonstrating his self-serving nature by using this spat to his advantage. Edwards said:

If you’re looking for what’s wrong in Washington, why the system is broken, one perfect example is what’s been happening over the last four days. We’ve had two good people, Democratic candidates for president, who’ve spent their time attacking each other instead of attacking the problems facing our country.

Perhaps these DFLers should get back to their master plan for America: the confiscation of more wealth from hardworking Americans and complete pandering to terrorists, life-long welfare recipients, and convicted felons.

(Article)