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 What will they think of Hillary’s demand that troops start being withdrawn from Iraq in 90 days, but her refusal to promise that she would withdraw troops by 2013?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?