The Clintons are now offering prizes to help pay off Hillary's debt.
you get to
1) Spend the day with Bill Clinton 2) Attend the American Idol Season Finale 3) Spend the day in Washington DC with James Carville or Paul Bengala
I think I will pick number two or maybe I will keep my money. Here is the letter
Dear XXXX,
Imagine yourself walking into an exclusive event in New York accompanied by none other than President Clinton.
Picture yourself in California as part of the live audience of the most hotly anticipated TV finale.
Think about sitting across from James Carville and myself discussing politics in the shadow of our Nation's Capital.
Well you don't have to imagine anymore...you just have to pick. And if it were up to me, I’d pick door number three.
By clicking here and making a contribution of even as low as $5 you could be on your way to one of these three once-in-a-lifetime opportunities. So don't imagine, just click.
Make a $5 contribution today, and you could be on your way to one of these once in a lifetime opportunities!
Your contribution today will mean so much more than just a chance to take part in these fantastic prizes. It will also mean a great deal to our friend, Hillary Clinton.
We've paid off most of Hillary's presidential campaign debt and your gift today will help us get rid of the final bit that remains.
Hillary Clinton has meant so much to me over the years as I know she has to you as well. So when they asked me to take part in this once in a lifetime contest, I was compelled to act. I hope you will be too.
Sincerely,
Paul Begala
P.S. Remember these prizes are only available online and only for a limited time, so please don't delay in acting. Click here to enter today!
Hey wasn't Barack Obama suppose to get his contributors to help her?
I first heard of Palin a few months ago. I read her resume and I saw an interview she gave on CNBC. She came across very well, and she knew her energy. She was the woman who would give the impetus to McCain to change his mind on ANWR. She also has an 80% approval rating in her own state. The left does not know how to deal with this woman.
The media is out of touch with mainstream America. For years Hillary was the darling of the media until the "One", the "Obamamessia" came along, then without so much as a by-your-leave, this same media threw Hillary under the bus, so much so that Clinton considered Fox News to be "Fair and Balanced." Then comes along Palin, a strong conservative woman, and the barrage of attacks begin, Palin belongs to the Alaska Independence Party, a group wanting to secede from the union, Palin supported the Nazi sympathizer, Pat Buchannan, Palin's down-syndrome child was actually the love child of their pregnant daughter. One problem, none of the attacks were true. They were rumors created by left-wing bloggers like the Daily Kos and picked up by the mainstream media as fact with no sources, just scurrilous attacks in order to impugn the integrity of this woman. This was supposed to somehow deter Palin to drop out of the race. However, the media would have loved it had Palin been pro-choice, aborted her down-syndrome child, and convinced her 17 year old child to abort her child. Then, she would have been the left's heroine.
Janet Daily of the London Daily says,
"Like Margaret Thatcher before her, Mrs Palin is coming in for both barrels of Left-wing contempt: misogyny and snobbery. Where Lady Thatcher was dismissed as a "grocer's daughter" by people who called themselves egalitarian, Mrs Palin is regarded as a small-town nobody by those who claim to represent "ordinary people".
It is the left who engages in mysogyny unless the woman meets the definition of the left's view of a woman.
After Guliani gave his speech, there was no video, no introduction, Palin just walks to the microphone and begins her speech.
As Palin gave her speech to thunderous applause, she silenced the critics and proved to everyone she had what it takes. The cameras zoomed in on little Piper of 7 years as she groomed the hair of little Trig. Trig had to look good because his mom was about to give the speech of her lifetime. The speech was Palin's coming out party, and she proved that McCain made the right choice, something conservatives already knew. The left is running scared. The only thing they could say is well, "It was written for her." Well, duh!!! Aren't they all? What they didn't know at the time is that the teleprompter malfunctioned in both Giuliani's and Palin's speech. The speech kept scrolling up the teleprompter even through the applauses. Halfway through the speech, she was no longer following the speech on the teleprompter on the screen since it had scrolled too high. She was doing it from memory. You could not tell.
One of the more memorable lines "What's a difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull – lipstick" was not even scripted.
With poise and grace, Sarah Palin did what no other VP candidate would have been able to do. She changed the dynamics of this race. 38 million people tuned in to watch her speech, the same number that watched Obama's convention speech. And win or lose, she is here to stay.
I am not much of a Hillary fan, because America is not about socialism. But one has to admire Hillary's tenacity. I am actually finding a newfound respect for her with this fight between Obama and Hillary. I do not believe she should withdraw from the race. I say, "Keep on fighting." If we fall into the hands of the democrats, a dire outcome indeed - I would rather it be Hillary than a neo-Marxist like Obama.
Hillary Clinton now understands that the mainstream media will support the most liberal of the candidates, and she also now understands, and she has said so that Fox news has been the most fair to her.
You have to wonder how the Democrats talk about the Republicans steal elections when Democrats are doing when the exact same thing only worse. They are really doing it. Why cares what voters in Michigan and Florida think?
Not long after the polls close in the May 20 Kentucky and Oregon primaries, Barack Obama plans to declare victory in his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.
And, until at least May 31 and perhaps longer, Hillary Clinton’s campaign plans to dispute it.
It’s a train wreck waiting to happen, with one candidate claiming to be the nominee while the other vigorously denies it, all predicated on an argument over what exactly constitutes the finish line of the primary race.
The Obama campaign agrees with the Democratic National Committee, which pegs a winning majority at 2,025 pledged delegates and superdelegates—a figure that excludes the penalized Florida and Michigan delegations. The Clinton campaign, on the other hand, insists the winner will need 2,209 to cinch the nomination—a tally that includes Florida and Michigan. Continue Reading
How many Florida and Michigan voters were silenced? One of the reasons the Democrats hate Bush so much is because of "Bush-Derangement syndrome", a mental disorder whereby reality is mixed in with fantasy, and the affected individual develops a mistaken belief that the 2000 election was stolen. This disorder so profoundly affects the mind that entire areas of Democrats believe that blocks of voters were disenfranchised hence the infamous recount and the stolen election.
It didn't matter that the Florida recounts happened to be in Democratic precints nor did it matter that the media went in afterwards and determined Bush would have won anyway. The Democrats still believe the election was stolen from them. You can hold reams and reams of documents showing evidence that supports the notion that Bush truly won, and these disease-ridden Democrats will still remain unconvinced.
So this is what I can't figure out. Obama is currently ahead in the delegate count and he is ahead in the popular vote, but only because the Wright controversy came out late, and the Democrats do not care about the will of the voters insofar as Michigan and Florida are concerned.
How is it that Democrats on the one hand believe that the election was stolen by President Bush on the assumption of disenfranchised voters? but on the other hand, they don't seem to mind disenfranchising the 5 million plus voters of Michigan and Florida.
The DNC says it was part of the rules. Well, can you tell me how many voters voted for these DNC rules?
No matter how you slice it or dice it, over 5 million voters have been disenfranchised. If Michigan and Florida were seated, Hillary not Obama would be the nominee. If I were Hillary, I would fight til the very end. It is not fair to exclude two huge states from voting for their respective nominee.
If they do not seat Florida or Michigan, we, the Republican party will welcome Florida and Michigan. Because as a voter, I would be mad too.
And, on a side note. We may not like Hillary's policies, but the one thing we can say is she doesn't give up.
Hillary today said, "If we had the rules that the Republicans had,I would already be the nominee." - she has got that right.
The best strategic move Hillary did this year was her interview with Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly is one of a few tough interviewers out there. When Hillary uses a venue such as this, it can only help her. It shows the softer side of her, and it also shows she is able to hold her own. She appeared confident during the interview. Bill O'Reilly interviewed her over a two night period. Hillary answered the questions with very little dodging, and she had a broad grasp of the issues.
Hillary of course, did the interview because she recognizes Obama's weakness at the moment, but what is most noteworthy regarding the interview is how Hillary crossed the far-left wing sites such as www.moveon.org and the www.dailykos.com after they eviscerated her. These far-left groups have threatened all the Democratic candidates. The candidates know these left wing groups will try and destroy them one way or another if they interview on venues such as Fox News. The Democrats have been afraid to go against these far-left groups because of the power they wield. Obama is the now new darling of the left, and Hillary has become the pariah. This is why Hillary has recently been talking against moveon.org. Hillary broke ranks and made the decision to interview with Bill O'Reilly. This will increase her clout, make her more appealing to some moderates, and enhance her credibility. This can only make her stature rise. I applaud her for it.
Obama was actually the first to break ranks and interview with Chris Wallace because of the Wright controversy. In fact Politico.com reports on how the Democrats are now running to Fox News after previously shunning them.
The issues from the interview
O'Reilly asked Clinton about health care. There is a fundamental disagreement here between what is best for America. Hillary truly believes in her socialist style of health care, and she makes no excuses for it. She debated O'Reilly on the merits of her health care plan. You only need to look to Europe or Canada to see how socialized health care does not work. These are two different mindsets. If you believe in socialized health care, no amount of evidence is going to convince you otherwise. That is the difference between the two parties. Democrats want government solutions, and Republicans want more free market solutions.
Taxes were also discussed including lowering corporate taxes. Clinton will increase capital gains but not to the extreme Obama will. Again, I will never get why Democrats do not look at History. President Kennedy, President Reagan, President Bush, and Mayor Guliani all decreased taxes, and in every case the economy grew.
O'Reilly asked about the Wright controversy, and Hillary said after some prodding the relationship was troublesome.
When asked about Iraq, Hillary reiterated her position on withdrawing from Iraq. She believes that this will somehow cause the Iraqi government to step up to the plate. Bill said, "You start pulling troops out of Iran, Iran is going to like that." Hillary responded, "First of all, we have done everything we said we were going to do. I believe there is no longer a military solution, we have to emphasize a political solution." (paraphrased) She didn't seem too concerned about Iran invading Iraq even after Bill said Hillary's plan of withdrawal would only embolden Iran. Hillary said this even after the AP reported that Hillary stated she would not hesitate using nuclear weapons against Iran if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. This prompted Iran to lodge a complaint with the United Nations. Hillary does recognize there is a war on terror, and she can talk tough on the war. She even mentioned how the attack on New York affected her since she is senator of New York, but that does not excuse the fact she has voted down every bill that keeps us safe from threats abroad. Hillary voted against the cloture vote for the FISA authorization because she did not want to have to explain it during her presidential run. The Democratic posturing on this bill hampered one of the most useful tools in the war on terror. Her plan to withdraw from Iraq is troublesome to say the least. If you had to choose between Obama and Hillary, Hillary would be the better candidate by far. If Wright came to light before Super Tuesday, Hillary would have been the nominee. She would also have been the nominee if their selection process were similar to that of the Republicans.
Bill and Hillary debated immigration. Hillary is somewhere between McCain and Obama. We shall see. She is not totally open border, but she is close.
O'Reilly did not push the energy issue as much as he should have. Hillary says she is for nuclear power plants although she voted down various bills of nuclear power plant initiatives seven times. She may have seen the light. And, I will not blame her if she now sees the energy crisis for what it is and rethinks her former stance on nuclear power. She doesn't want to drill in Anwar, but neither do Obama or McCain. This is aggravating. Hillary is into creating green jobs. Green jobs are fine, but it will not solve our energy problem. This was not brought up in the interview but it is her position. The energy and security act of 2007 brings into doubt whether any candidate will solve the energy crisis.
Hillary did a good job on the interview. She should do more of them. She shows a different side of her when she is not doing the softball interviews. She is still wrong for the country, but she is a zillion times better than Obama even if she does fib on occasion (okay on many an occasion).
You know things are not looking good for Obama when Maureen enters the fray. Maureen Dowd, a far-left liberal, and an Obama Supporter nails it when she says
She’s been running ads about it, suggesting he doesn’t have “what it takes” to run the country. Her message is unapologetically emasculating: If he does not have the gumption to put me in my place, when superdelegates are deserting me, money is drying up, he’s outspending me 2-to-1 on TV ads, my husband’s going crackers and party leaders are sick of me, how can he be trusted to totally obliterate Iran and stop Osama? Continue Reading
Barack Obama, stubbornly clinging to his right to be charismatically shallow, at first complained that Hillary Clinton was unfairly criticizing him for being all flair and fluff with no substance. Now he's upset that Clinton and the media won't let him discuss substance. Based on some of his speeches lately, I'm thinking he ought to be grateful for the diversion because his policy proposals might not survive serious scrutiny
Maybe it's unfair to interpret literally Obama's repeated stump speech assertion that we Americans aren't perfect but are "perfectible" and conclude he possesses a New Age or secular humanist worldview rather than a Christian one, which clearly rejects the notion of man's perfectibility.
Then again, his policy proposals do sound strikingly utopian -- almost as if he's saying we truly can achieve perfection, end poverty, eradicate health care problems, establish universal harmony, legislate away all corruption, and attain wholesale energy independence without, by the way, liberating ourselves from the shackles of enviro-policemen, who forbid us from exploiting our own resources.
Obama's pitch to fawning audiences is so hopelessly idealistic and his promises so painfully unrealistic that it's amazing he's taken as seriously as he is.
If George W. Bush were to deliver the pap Obama routinely includes in his speeches, he'd be laughed off the stage. "Saturday Night Live" skits would be hard-pressed to exaggerate the vacuousness of his utterances. In fact, I'd be surprised if sympathetic journalists weren't cleaning up Obama's quotes before publishing them. But YouTube isn't so forgiving. "We believe we can change, and that's the kind of hope I'm talking about."
Continue reading "New Column: Beware: Obamutopia" .
Hillary is not good for America, and Obama, he is downright dangerous for America. But, I am glad Hillary won Pennsylvania with a big win. I don't think she should drop out. Hillary should keep on fighting til the last drop of blood. With Hillary in the race, we are finding more and more out about who Obama is, and the picture is not a pretty one.
I was impressed with the questioning of George Stephanopolous and Charlie Gibson as moderators in last night's debate. They asked the tough questions that needed to be asked. I give an A+ to ABC for such a great debate, a C on Hillary's performance and a D- on Obama's performance. If you had not seen this debate, you need to.
In my last post, I wrote the following,
Tonight is the last of the Democratic debates. I hope instead of the amity we have seen between Hillary and Obama in these last debates, we see blood in the streets. I am hoping Hillary exposes more of the vacuity that is Obama. We can only hope.
Hillary did not disappoint. Stephanopolous and Gibson were the Roman judges, and Hillary Clinton was the Roman accuser. Obama was left bloodied and wounded after he was left flagellated by his Roman accuser. This was a big win for Hillary. It was also a big win for John Mccain, and he wasn't even there.
What was revealing was not only Obama's vulnerability but the inane policies which may come to fruition if either Hillary or Obama is elected.
Relationship with Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers
I was surprised when Stephanopolous actually asked Obama about his relationship with Bill Ayers since Obama's relationship with the former terrorist has not gotten much press. Bill Ayers is an anti-war terrorist, a former member of the Weather Underground who was responsible for several terrorist bombings including the pentagon. He stated on 9/11 he never regretted setting bombs. Obama's campaign has admitted that Obama and Ayers had a friendly relationship. Video below.
Obama tried to spin his way out of it by saying his relationships shouldn't matter. It doesn't reflect on who he is or on his values. Hillary came back with a vengeance albeit polite, but Obama seemed quite uncomfortable. He even tried to compare his relationship with Ayers to that of Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn because of Coburn's views on abortion. Last I checked Coburn was not a terrorist. Coburn is just another Republican with whom Obama disagrees. How is he supposed to be the great unifier when he compares Republicans to terrorists?
Hillary did take the opportunity to bash Bush, and wanted the Republicans to apologize for the Bush years. Huh? She bashed Bush with every opportunity given to her.
Gibson pressed Obama on Reverend Wright's Comments. Obama reiterated that he had not seen his comments on youtube before they appeared on youtube in effect saying that he never saw Reverend Wright make such comments during his twenty year relationship. Of course, that comment lacked credulity. Gibson asked about how he could not have known since he had rescinded an invitation to the Reverend to deliver an invocation on the day Obama announced his attention to run for the Democratic presidential nomination because as Obama put it "Wright could get kind of rough." Gibson repeated his question when Obama seemed to skirt the question. Obama then stated,
These comments were objectionable, they're not comments I believe in…the church and the body of Wright's work and ministries were not represented by the comments that ended up on TV. And so, what I think I tried to do in the speech was speak to a broader context…there is anger in the African-American community."
He states Reverend Wright is a marine, but then again Timothy McVeigh was a decorated United States Army Soldier. So Obama's statement of Reverend Wright being a former marine is a non-sequitur.
Hillary chimed in,
"For Pastor Wright to have given his first sermon after 9/11 and to have blamed the United States for the attack, which happened in my city of New York, would have been just intolerable for me. You get to choose your pastor not your family, I would not have stayed."
Hillary also mentioned the association to Farrakhan and the church's bulletin delivered to Hamas. Hamas came out in support of Barack Obama today.
Another point for Hillary, by now you could see Obama's face starting to perspire blood. Obama kept trying to say how it doesn't matter, and it was the issues that the American people cared about. Obama wonders why we care. It has to do with character. Why Obama would even wonder why it is important should disqualify him for president. The exchange between Obama and his relationship with Wright and Ayres reminds me of a saying in Spanish, "Dime con quien andas y te dire quien eres." - "Tell me with whom you walk, and I will tell you who you are."
Hillary was landing so many punches against Obama, Obama finally came up with a counterpunch regarding Hillary's trip to Bosnia. Hillary then said,
I may be a lot of things but I am not dumb. I said some things that were not keeping with. I apologized for it, it was in my book. I went to Bosnia it was a war zone. There were concerns. I have gone to more than 80 countries. This gives me more advantage over McCain. I should try and get more sleep.
Of course, I don't think anyone believes that Hillary's Bosnia trip lie was because of sleep deprivation. We already know Hillary's flaws and her inclination to mendacity, but we are now finally cracking the armor of Obama that just a few weeks ago seemed impenetrable.
In addition, Hillary apologized while Obama squirmed, outright lied, and evaded the questions. For someone who was supposed to be above this kind of politics, he sure has entered the mire.
Bittergate
Gibson brings up the bitterness comment which Obama made in front of a San Francisco liberal elite crowd:
And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations
Obama stated
No doubt that I can see how people have been offended. Not the first or last time I say something that's been mangled up. Let me be clear: People are going through very difficult times, even before the housing crisis
Obama continues to defend his elitist statement.
The point I was making was that when people feel like Washington's not listening to them, when they're promised year after year, decade after decade, that their economic situation is going to change, and it doesn't, then politically they end up focusing on those things that are constant, like religion. They end up feeling 'This is a place where I can find some refuge. This is something that I can count on.
Obama doesn't apologize for his statement, he defends it, so he did not mangle his words. He meant what he said.
Again Hillary moves in for the kill
I am the granddaughter of a man who was a factory worker in Scranton. Went to church. They don't "cling to religion when Washington isn't listening to them….I can see how people would be offended at taken aback."
The War in Iraq
We all know what Hillary's and Obama's stance is on the Iraq war, and their plans on leaving as soon as they get into office, but what they said last night was chilling. I believe these statements were made to please their far-left constituency and the code-pinkos.
Gibson asked both Hillary and Obama that if they were in office and the generals on the ground said if we leave Iraq, we would destabilize Iraq, would they still leave especially when General Petraeus said the steps we have so far taken are fragile and reversible. Here were their answers.
Clinton
One word yes. We don't know what will happen if we withdraw. We do know what happens if we stay.
Obama
Yes - Because that is the role of the Commander in chief not the generals. We will proceed in an orderly fashion out of Iraq.
Both of them could care less on the advances we have made in Iraq, and they will disregard any recommendation from the generals in the field. True, it is ultimately the decision of the commander in chief, but this is a chilling and a frightening scenario. How they figure this will make us more secure is beyond me.
Taxes
If anyone is still deluded that the middle class will not have their taxes raised under an Obama or a Hillary presidency, they only need to pay attention to what Obama and Hillary were saying during the debates.
Stephanapolous plays a video of McCain when McCain made one of his great statements playing on the title of Obama's last book, The Audacity of Hope. McCain said "They're going to raise your taxes by thousands of dollars per year — and they have the audacity to hope you don't mind" Gibson asks Hillary if she will commit to not tax anyone making over 200K. Hillary commits, and then Gibson asks if she will raise taxes even in a slowing economy. Hillary says yes, because she does not believe it will adversely affect the economy. Hillary was against the lifting of payroll tax limits, Obama was for it.
The Heritage Foundation states:
The wealthiest 1% of taxpayers (about 1.3 million in all) already bears a disproportionate share of the tax burden. In 2005, the latest year for which IRS data is available, they earned 21% of all the adjusted gross income. But they paid a whopping 39.4% of all the income taxes. And the 13 million households who earned more than $104,000 (the wealthiest 10%, who would bear the brunt of higher Social Security payroll taxes) accounted for over 70% of Uncle Sam's take.
So, this begs the question, how are they going to pay for all their new programs. Hillary Clinton wants to establish a new cabinet position, the secretary of poverty to solve the nation's ills, and she wants to cut the crime rate in the nation by half by doubling the police force everywhere. Programs, programs, but only you rich folk will pay for it – and if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.
Now Gibson pressed further, "capital gains rate was reduced by Clinton 20 percent and by Bush 15 per cent and revenues increased each time." He then mentions 70% of people own stock of course implying that every income class pay capital gains taxes. Obama squirmed, wiggled and the blood began to drip:
Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year — $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair (my note – and that doesn't make sense or have anything to do with the middle class having to pay increased capital gains rate.)
And you can't do that for free, and you can't take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children and our grandchildren and then say that you're cutting taxes, which is essentially what John McCain has been talking about. And that is irresponsible
He tries to make it sound smart and confusing in hopes he can fool the people. Notice the phrase, "for purposes of fairness." That is a euphemism for redistribution of wealth.
Gibson then says, "But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up." Gibson, of course, ignored all his fluff. Reminds me of a math problem where the author puts in all kinds of extraneous information to see if you can extricate that which is important to solve the problem.
Obama squirms again and responds with this inane answer, "That might happen or it might not, depends what is happening on Wall Street, and on how business is going. Took McCain three times on foreclosures" Not sure how he managed to deflect his answer to foreclosures and McCain, but it didn't work. His cluelessness on the economy was evident. What did that answer even mean? We have the data, revenues go up. McCain may have joked about how he didn't understand the economy, but his economic speeches have been excellent. Obama is just plain clueless. The final answer is of course Obama plans to raise the capital gains tax and dividend tax rate, and it will affect the middle class. He was not able to squirm out of that one.
Clinton responded to the same question by saying, "I would not raise the capital gains tax rate above what we had it before 20%. I am sure against lifting the payroll tax that Obama proposes." Obama then responded, "What I have proposed is that we raise the payroll tax above 97K." Gibson was on his toes, and said, "that is a tax on people under 250K. There are a lot of people between 97 and 250. Oops! Obama was caught in his web of deceit. He then said, "That is why I said I would look at those guys in between. You can't get something for nothing." When did he say he would look at anyone - he said no taxes on the middle class. I say Bingo! – tax on the middle class and anyone else he can think of to pay for his massive programs.
This was a very revealing debate and one of the best so far in the Democratic debates. The underlying theme of the debate was that Americans are an angry and frustrated lot. It was a departure from the namby pamby kumbaya let's hold each other's hand debate the Democrats pine for. The left wing blogs were angry at the debate because of the truths it exposed. This debate revealed the empty suit that is Obama. We already know about Hillary so there was really nothing new about her. Hillary took off the gloves, and began to flagellate Obama. The blood oozed from Obama's forehead. His sainthood status has been badly damaged, and he no longer seems to ride that horse of invincibility. McCain has been delivering some good economic speeches of late, but what worries me is McCain wants to have what he calls "a respectful campaign." In the world of the left, that does not exist. They will come out with guns a blazing. Obama has substantial chinks in his armor, but will McCain take advantage of it. The jury is still out. I have been surprised at how well McCain has done on his economic speeches. I hope he does not underestimate the zeal of the Democratic Party. If he does, and if he does not do what is necessary to get elected, we will elect the most left-wing liberal to the United States Government no different than Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua. This is something the United States cannot afford.
For further analysis
The misleading statements or factual errors from the debate from www.factcheck.org Clinton said "people died" in 1970s bombings by a radical group of which an Obama acquaintance was a member. In fact, the deaths were of three members of the Weather Underground itself, who died when their own bombs accidentally exploded.
Obama said, "I have never said that I don't wear flag pins or refuse to wear flag pins." Actually, he did. He said last year, "I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest" because it had become "a substitute for ... true patriotism" during the run-up to the Iraq war.
Clinton claimed that applying Social Security taxes to wages above the current cap "would impose additional taxes on ... educators ... police officers, firefighters and the like." Actually, not many of them would be affected. The cap is $102,000 a year.
Obama denied his handwriting appeared on an old questionnaire that said he supported a ban on possessing a handgun, and he said he has never taken that position. Actually, his writing does appear on one of two versions of the questionnaire.
Clinton said she believes "market manipulation" is partly to blame for rising fuel prices. She offered no evidence of that. Past investigations of alleged price gouging have concluded that it’s mainly market forces that push prices up.
Tonight is the last of the Democratic debates. I hope instead of the amity we have seen between Hillary and Obama in these last debates, we see blood in the streets. I am hoping Hillary exposes more of the vacuity that is Obama. We can only hope.
There is a reason the investor class tends to be more conservative. We understand the markets. We understand how they work. We follow the ups and downs of the markets, and we learn from our mistakes. We understand financial statements and their interrelationships. We understand policies which grow the economy, and we understand policies that impede economic growth. We are concerned about increasing jobs, growing the economy and keeping taxes low. This enhances our net worth and in the process enhances the wealth of the nation.
Today is April 15th. Everyone is busy paying their taxes. Taxpayers are fuming while they are writing their tax checks to Uncle Sam. The post offices remain open until midnight while everyone makes their last ditch effort to file their taxes. If you are mad at the current amount you pay on your taxes, you should heed the warning what an Obama presidency will bring. Obama has promised to raise taxes, and the programs the democrats want to enact will cost a lot of money requiring an even higher tax burden imaginable. The government wants more power over you by taking more of your money. This will give them more control over you.
At the North Dakota State Democratic convention, Obama said the following to a crowd of 17,000 as he referred to the Republicans:
"You got a problem with health care: tax cuts. You got problem with education: tax cuts. You got a problem with the economy: tax cuts. Poverty: tax cuts. That's not a policy; it's a dogma, a tired and cynical philosophy,"
In one aspect he is right. It is a dogma. The problem is - it works! It worked under Kennedy. It worked under Reagan and it worked under Bush. It even worked for Mayor Guliani in the state of New York. Why the Democrats don't get this is anyone's guess?
Obama fails to understand the importance of low tax rates. He wants to increase corporate tax rates. That is the easiest way to incentivize corporations to move overseas. I thought Obama was the one who rails against jobs going overseas. Obama wants to increase the dividend and capital gains rate to above 25%. Obama wants to reinstate the estate tax because he erroneously concludes that the estate tax only affect ½ of 1% of the wealthiest individuals. I guess the wealthy are the only ones who die.
Obama says he wants to increase taxes on the wealthiest individuals. Capital gains and dividends affect everyone in every income class especially senior citizens.
The wealthiest 1% of taxpayers (about 1.3 million in all) already bears a disproportionate share of the tax burden. In 2005, the latest year for which IRS data is available, they earned 21% of all the adjusted gross income. But they paid a whopping 39.4% of all the income taxes. And the 13 million households who earned more than $104,000 (the wealthiest 10%, who would bear the brunt of higher Social Security payroll taxes) accounted for over 70% of Uncle Sam's take
When you hear democrats talk about taxing the wealthy, hold on to your wallets. Those on the lower economic ladder pay no taxes or low taxes.
Next is the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. John F Cogan, and Glen Hubbard in their piece The Coming Tax Bomb explain it this way.
By historical standards, federal revenues relative to GDP, at 18.8% last year, are high. In the past 25 years, this level was only exceeded during the five years from 1996 to 2000. Still, we stand on the verge of a very large tax increase, one that will occur unless the next Congress and president agree to rescind it. Letting the Bush tax cuts expire will drive the personal income tax burden up by 25% – to its highest point relative to GDP in history.
twice as large as President Lyndon Johnson's surcharge to finance the war in Vietnam and the war on poverty. It would be more than twice the combined personal income tax increases under Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton. The increase would push total federal government revenues relative to GDP to 20%.
Why this large tax increase? The tax code changes enacted in 2001 and 2003 are scheduled to expire at the end of 2010. If they do, statutory marginal tax rates will rise across the board; ranging from a 13% increase for the highest income households to a 50% increase in tax rates faced by lower-income households. The marriage penalty will be reimposed and the child credit cut by $500 per child. The long-term capital gains tax rate will rise by one-third (to 20% from 15%) and the top tax rate on dividends will nearly triple (to 39.6% from 15%). The estate tax will roar back from extinction at the same time, with a top rate of 55% and an exempt amount of only $600,000. Finally, the Alternative Minimum Tax will reach far deeper into the middle class, ensnaring 25 million tax filers in its web
Today John McCain made an economic speech that was one of spending restraint and reducing taxes. This was an important speech in continuing to grow the economy. This is not the class warfare, protectionist, tax and spend policies that both Obama and Hillary have been proposing.
Heed the warning. Barack Obama is the emperor wearing no clothes. An Obama presidency will be a nightmare to all who pay taxes.
Do the Democrats care about jobs? No!!! They are beholden to the unions. Pelosis along with Obama, Hillary and the leading Democrats effectively killed the free trade agreement and in the process killing thousands of jobs. The Democrats don't care about the global economy, they do not care about creating jobs. They are protectionists, and their only concern is protecting their political asses beholden to Local 319.
These are the people who are always worried about our relations in the world. The Democrats have effectively strained our relations with Colombia, our ally in Latin America, and neighboor of Venezuela. Do you not think Hugo Chavez will not take advantage of this?
This was just one of a long list of political moves by Pelosi of sticking her middle finger at the middle class she and the other Democrats say they are trying to protect. The wall street journal aptly summarized the agreement this way:
The Democratic Party's protectionist make-over was completed yesterday, when Nancy Pelosi decided to kill the Colombia free trade agreement. Her objections had nothing to do with the evidence and everything to do with politics, but this was an act of particular bad faith. It will damage the economic and security interests of the U.S. while trashing our best ally in Latin America
The Colombia trade pact was signed in 2006 and renegotiated last year to accommodate Democratic demands for tougher labor and environmental standards. Even after more than 250 consultations with Democrats, and further concessions, including promises to spend more on domestic unemployment insurance, the deal remained stalled in Congress. Apparently the problem was that Democrats kept getting their way
Read other Nancy Pelosi political moves while she sticks her middle finger at the rest of us.
Pelosi visiting Damascus undermining the president article
Pelosi undermining our national security by not extending the wiretaps article
Clinton and Obama know that free trade is good for America yet they fight it every step of the way. Clinton even boasts she disagrees with her husband on it.
I am part of the investor class. I have 32% of my portfolio invested in equities. The last time I was invested this low in equities was right before the dot-com crash. In the near future, money market funds will be yielding a scant 1%-2%, but I have decided to take a cautious approach in preserving capital rather than trying to risk principle because I foresee treacherous waters ahead. There are several reasons why I have decided to reduce my exposure in equities. I enumerate these below.
The uncertainty in the elections – If the economy continues to deteriorate, the Democrats could take the white house and gain even more control of both the house and the senate. This is the Democrat's election to lose, and so far, they are doing their best to try and lose it. But, this will probably be the highest turnout ever in an election season, and that does not bode well for Republicans. Moreover, even with the schism among the ranks of the Democrats, Democrats still have the fire in the belly to win back the white house. That fire does not exist among much of the Republican base. Should Republicans lose the White House, I predict Obama, not Hillary will win. This is troublesome to say the least. Obama is further left than Hillary if that is possible. Read my post here Obama Revealed. Obama has promised to raise taxes on virtually everyone. Capital gains, dividends, wages for anyone earning more than 75,000 dollars a year are all fair game. His socialized health care is just the tip of the iceberg with Obama. An Obama presidency will mirror that of another inept president, Jimmy Carter. A perusal of Barack Obama's book Dreams From My Father shows how clueless Barack is on the economy. In this current election cycle, Obama wants to increase our taxes at a time our economy is teetering on the brink.
The energy crisis and the so-called alternative energies – At the beginning of the Bush presidency, a gallon of gas was under $2.00 a gallon, it is now approaching $4.00 with no end in sight. Can you see gasoline going to 10.00 dollars a gallon? I can. We are held hostage by OPEC and the other oil producing nations, and our government is complicit in our dependence on foreign oil. We refuse to drill in Anwar because of lobbyists like the Sierra club and other environmental groups. The Bakken formation in Western North Dakota may hold up to 400 billion to 500 billion barrels of oil. The arctic refuge, a pin-prick of a waste land, is estimated to have 16 billion barrels of oil. Imagine how many jobs drilling for this oil would create, and imagine how all this would help us become energy independent. Our politicians would rather sit on their hands while they think of new ways to screw the American public.
The entire world laughs at us because we refuse to drill for our own oil. In the same vein, global warming alarmists led by its high priest Al Gore fly around in private jets screaming we are all going to die. At the same time, they refuse to build any nuclear plants, the cleanest form of nuclear power. Instead we continue to build coal plants the chief contributor of CO2, and the single biggest air polluter in the U.S... There are 600 coal plants in the U.S. and more are continuously being constructed. France is more than 85% run on nuclear power. The two biggest myths of nuclear power are that it is dangerous and it produces copious amounts of nuclear waste we do not know what to do with. Click here for more about the myths on nuclear power.
Natural gas is currently the most viable source of alternative energy we have, and the infrastructure is already in place, but because of our reticence in building nuclear plants, we use this natural gas to heat our homes, etc. If nuclear power were to become the new source of energy, natural gas could be diverted into alternative fuel for vehicles. It is viable, inexpensive, and clean.
If I haven't convinced you yet that this country is run by morons or if you are still under the illusion the environmental movement is a good thing, consider the energy and security act of 2007. You should have noticed the effects of this act by now if you do any type of grocery shopping. Have you noticed the price of eggs? meat? grain? The stated purpose of this act is to to move the United States toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to protect consumers, to increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles, to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, and to improve the energy performance of the Federal Government, and for other purposes. This bill was passed by both the house and senate and signed by president Bush and could have been easily something done by our enemies to further impede our economic growth. It mandates the use of biofuels including corn ethanol. Large subsidies of course are given to producers of ethanol. Imagine the corn lobbyists involved here. This has raised the price of grain, beef, poultry, eggs or any other dairy products. Anything that uses corn oil or by-products of corn will increase in price. Ethanol from corn is a hoax.
Corn ethanol contains water, which can cause damage to one's automobile. Ethanol is 30% less efficient than gasoline. Ethanol subsidies are about $1.05 to $1.38 a gallon. There is a 54 cent a gallon tariff on the much more efficient ethanol made from sugar cane produced by Brazil. How is that for protectionism?
The ethanol hoax is the biggest corruption scandal by both the politicians and the ethanol lobbyists in decades. Guess what is coming next? Global warming cap and trade schemes, and any other form of global warming scheme that will increase the cost of living on the promise of removing C02 from the atmosphere, a so-called pollutant responsible for the soon to come demise of the human race. It seems that Al Gore might be capable of causing more economic damage to the world's economy than he could have done as president.
Maybe we as humans should walk around with a muzzle around our face since we breathe out C02. We could all look like trained pit-bulls.
According to the pro-corn-ethanol US Dept. of Agriculture, 2006 ethanol production was enough for 1.5% oil independence, and by 2017, we will max out at 3.7%. This energy bill did not even mention nuclear power. Below is an estimated cost of one gallon of corn ethanol.
Cost For A Gallon Of Corn Ethanol
Corn Ethanol Futures Market quote for January 2007 Delivery
$2.49
Add cost of transporting, storing and blending corn ethanol
$0.28
Added cost of making gasoline that can be blended with corn ethanol
$0.09
Add cost of subsidies paid to blender
$0.51
Total Direct Costs per Gallon
$3.37
Added cost from waste
$0.40
Added cost from damage to infrastructure and user's engine
$0.06
Total Indirect Costs per Gallon
$0.46
Added cost of lost energy
$1.27
Added cost of food (American family of four)
$1.79
Total Social Costs
$3.06
Total Cost of Corn Ethanol @ 85% Blend
$6.89 source: Ronald R Cook, the cultural economist
Since you need 30% more ethanol than gas, the cost of ethanol would approach nearly ten dollars.
3.
The subprime crisis – I do not believe we have seen the end of the subprime debacle. In fact we may only be half way through the process. We have seen how the impact of this subprime debacle has started to trickle into other areas of the economy. Democrat pundits have tried to put the blame on Bush, but that is a bit stretching it. The blame should be directed towards greedy buyers who could not afford the payments, (buyers hoped the increase in equity in real estate would bail them out) and greedy lenders who would lend money to any "Dead Man Walking." We were headed on a collision course. Banks would lend money, securitize these loans and off load them to the nearest buyer. One of my strategies in buying stocks is to buy good stocks when everyone is fleeing from them. This is how value funds work. I bought several bank stocks after the initial subprime shock to the markets. I think I was premature. They are all under water and may be for some time. Live and learn. Bear Sterns may only be the tip of the iceberg.
We've been very bearish on housing for a number of years, but after all of the recent terrible news, we had thought that we might be in the 6th or 7th inning of this unfolding debacle and perhaps it might be time to start buying some of the stocks that have been obliterated, in anticipation of a bottom and then recovery. But then we were introduced recently to the CEO of Amherst Securities Group L.P. www.asglp.com, Sean Dobson, who has collected extensive data on every mortgage that was securitized in the United States this decade. He was kind enough to share some of his data with us, which shows that we are still in the early innings of the bursting of the housing bubble. Believe it or not, as bad as things have been to date, we have only seen the tip of the iceberg: an enormous wave of defaults, foreclosures and auctions is about the hit the United States. We believe it will get so bad that large-scale federal government intervention is likely
Of course, why stop there? Car delinquencies will be the next frontier. Beyond that there may be additional companies besides Bear Sterns waiting on the sidelines with distressed debt ready to go into forclosure. The Economist warns of a pending Armageddon with the rise of corporate bankruptcies.
4.
The devaluation of the dollar – We currently face a conundrum. How do we continue to say we are a world power when our dollar is the laughing stock of the world? Our dollar continues to devalue on a daily basis. I have heard pundits say that a devalued dollar is good for the economy because it makes our exports cheaper. If devaluing our dollar were a good thing, then Argentina would be a rich country. The Swiss franc is currently 1 to 1. In the 1970s, it was 4 to 1. The Canadian dollar is now below the U.S. dollar, first time in history. The U.S. dollar is weakening our credibility abroad, and it will ultimately end in our downfall.
The reason for this devaluation is twofold. The current administration is spending us into oblivion. In the first six years of Bush's administration, not a single bill was vetoed. There has never been a president in history that has spent so freely especially during wartime. The Iraq war is only 3%-4% of current GDP. This is small relative to the overall budget and past wars. The Medicare prescription drug plan was a huge expenditure that we could ill-afford. But, it became law anyway. Secondly, the government sees no problem in printing money we cannot back. Lowering interest rates is the equivalent of printing money. Lowering the interest rate is achieved by increasing the money supply, (i.e.: printing money) and selling it cheaply to financial institutions. This is no different than the third world printing money it cannot back. Raising and decreasing rates can be a way to manage the economy, control inflation, etc. but there comes a point of diminishing returns. Our dollar becomes worth less, and countries look elsewhere to invest, and hyperinflation (just like in third world countries) ensues. Where are we headed?
Conclusion – The economy cannot take much more. When Bush first became president, he saved the country from going into recession by lowering taxes. But Bush continued to spend. In addition, his prosecution of the Iraq war remained suspect. Bush is responsible for the loss of both houses of congress, and if Republicans lose the election, he will be responsible for that too. Half of the US population seems to be an electorate bordering on the delusional. This half of the electorate looks to two radical leftists to lead this country out of our economic woes and out of Iraq. The populist policies of both Obama and Hillary are "cut and run" from Iraq, cut defense, raise taxes, and socialize health care all of which will doom this economy and weaken our security even further. John McCain has climbed onto the global warming band wagon too, but at least he will cut taxes. If there is one person who we can believe will control spending, John McCain is the man.
McCain also recognizes we are still at war with Islamic terrorism while Obama wants to play kumbaya.
We are currently in a state of economic paralysis. Osama Bin Laden doesn't need to take down our economy when our politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike seem to be doing a great job by themselves.
We need a president with probity who believes in a free market system, low taxes and the willingness to enact policies that encourage businesses to thrive. We need a president who will stand for building nuclear power plants and drilling for oil instead of any run-of-the-mill politician who succumbs to the environmental and biofuel lobbies.
I hope I am wrong with my analysis, but I see we are led by inept politicians who seem bent on destroying this economy by plunging us into a black hole of green nonsense with unparalleled recklessness. I hope this nation survives, but one has to wonder.
I guess Hillary is no longer the "darling" of the liberal media. The clinton camp says she "misspoke." Funny - even democrats are starting to doubt her.
"I went to 80 countries, you know. I gave contemporaneous accounts, I wrote about a lot of this in my book. You know, I think that, a minor blip, you know, if I said something that, you know, I say a lot of things - millions of words a day - so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement,"
A minor blip. So let me get this straight. Hillary misspoke about an entire incident of being shot by snipers. I would think that would be something seared into one's memory.
Last week was Hillary's week with Obama and the Wright affair, and now this must be Obama's week with Hillary and the fake sniper affair.
I attend a Hispanic Christian Evangelical Church. I attend it because I have been involved in the Hispanic culture since I began taking Spanish as a sophomore in high school. I have also attended evangelical churches in English. Hispanics, especially those of the economically disadvantaged tend to be Democratic because they believe the Democratic Party is more attuned to their needs (i.e.: the border debate.) White evangelical churches tend to be more conservative because of the right to life issues, judges, and security from threats abroad. White evangelical churches are also more affluent than their Hispanic counterparts. Everyone has their opinion, but what unites evangelicals are not their differences but the biblical truths of Christ's teachings. I have never gone to a church where politics was preached from the pulpit. The gospel is preached, not politics. Using the pulpit for political discourse also violates a church's tax free status. Enter stage left, Obama's pastor, Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright.
Conservatives have known about Wright for a long time, but it is only this week the mainstream press started to talk about it. I will bet it came from Hillary camp. Politics is not only openly preached at Obama's church, but hateful far-left speech is preached. I have attended many churches, and I have left churches because their teachings were counter to my belief system and contrary to biblical truth. Why would I or anyone for that matter attend a church that espouses beliefs contrary to one's belief system? Who? you say, Obama - that's who. As judge Judy would say, "If it doesn't make sense, it isn't true."
CHICAGO—Citing his judgment and ability to lead, admirals and generals from the United States Army, Navy and Air Force that together have served under the last nine Commanders-in-Chief today announced their endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for president. In offering their endorsement, the generals and admirals recognized Obama's judgment (EMPHASIS ADDED) to oppose the war in Iraq before it began, his respect for the …
What about the judgment of a person who attends a church for twenty years whose pastor rails against the white man in an Afro centric church? Pastor Wright bellows from his pulpit, "this is a country controlled by rich white people. Jesus was a poor black man. The government gave the blacks drugs. It's not God bless America, it's God damn America. Barack knows what it means to be a black man controlled by rich white people. Jesus taught me how to love my enemies (The white man must be his enemy. [Emphasis added] This was only the beginning of Wright's invective. He has said HIV was caused by the white man, and the list goes on.
This is Obama's mentor and spiritual advisor. This is who married Barack and Michelle Obama. This has been the church Obama has attended for twenty years. This is the man who inspired his title for his book, "The Audacity of Hope." This is the man who scares me to death if he becomes the next president of the United States.
Now, I more comprehend why Michelle Obama said in her discourse, "For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country." What kind of other pessimistic attitude can one have about the United States if he/she listened to Pastor Wright for twenty years?
I believe this will be Obama's downfall from his sainthood status. The love fest is over. Democrats will turn from Obama, and nominate Hillary as their candidate of choice. It is over for Obama. It will be Hillary vs. McCain.
The two best moderators in these debates ever are Tim Russert and Brian Williams. They ask the tough and pointed questions.
Is the Clinton machine waning yet?
A focus group on Hannity and Colmes was shown during the first half of the debate with Frank Luntz. The question was asked how many were undecided when they came in. Everyone raised their hands. Then, they were asked how many were now for Hillary, most raised their hands. The focus group thought Hillary was doing the better job. Are these people out to lunch? Or, are Democrats just stupid? Maybe the latter. I think these people in the focus groups just say they are undecided to get their fifteen minutes of fame on primetime.
In a word – Hillary lost, and Obama will be the nominee. Hillary gets the first question, and she whines or so it seemed that she always gets the first question, and then rambles on ad nauseum about her health care plan. We all know that both Barack and Hillary want socialized healthcare, but I would surmise not even Democrats care so much about the little details that Hillary gawked about for 16 minutes. Of course, it was nothing that was not brought up in the last 19 debates. I wonder how many viewers she lost during that diatribe.
Hillary bashes Bush, and says it was Bush's fault for her failure to create 200,000 jobs in New York, her campaign pledge when running for New York senate. She apparently had a net loss of 30,000 jobs. It's never Hillary's fault. Guess how Hillary is going to create jobs in the U.S.. She wants to be like Germany. She wants to have everyone out putting solar panels on roofs, doing geothermal stuff, installing wind turbines, biofuels, and a whole bunch of other green-nonsense. Sure that will get America working or not. How about getting people to drill for our oil, and getting people employed in the nuclear plant business?
Obama was able to deflect every attack from Hillary. When asked if he rejected Farrakan and his teachings, he said "I have been very clear in my denunciations," Obama continued by adding "I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible." (Referring to Farrakan's anti-Semitic teachings) Hillary then carped about how Obama should not just denounce but reject Farrakan. What could have been an explosive event Obama diffused by saying "If the word 'reject' Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word denounce,' then I'm happy to concede the point and I would reject and denounce." So, it was another point for Obama if anyone was keeping score.
Click on the words reject and denounce if you want to know the difference between the two.
There was a question on Iraq that should have been easy to answer, but again Hillary blew it, and Obama answered it correctly. Russert asked Hillary what would she do as president if "U.S. troops are pulled out of Iraq and Al Queda resurges and Iraq goes to hell." Clinton responded "You know, Tim, you ask a lot of hypotheticals." She evaded the question, and began to reiterate her talking points about what she would do as president concerning the Iraq war. To that I say huh? Russert is asking a valid question and a question everyone wants to know. Obama said, "As commander in chief I always reserve the right to make sure we are looking out for American interests. And if Al Queda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad." Bull's eye – That was the correct response. Hillary then realized Obama had a better answer, and started trying to say something when Tim Russert said, "We have to go to a commercial break." Another point for Obama, another black eye for Hilary.
And then there was NAFTA. Clinton said she was always critical of NAFTA, and then Obama said Clinton was not always against it, and Russert confirmed it by citing all the incidents where Clinton had praised NAFTA, and how she said it was good for America. -- oops! You should have seen Clinton backpeddle on that one.
I love it when Tim Russert puts those questions in on who so and so is in debates, because it shows how adept the candidates are on foreign issues. He did it with Fred Thompson with the prime minister of Canada, Stephen Harper (which Fred nailed), and he did it again with Hillary Clinton with Putin's heir apparent Dimitry Medvedev, and she had trouble pronouncing the last name. Knowing the names of foreign leaders is kind of important for the commander in chief.
Then when asked about the Iraq War, Obama compares his vote on the authorization for war to Hillary when he deftly compares it to the following analogy, "Once we had driven the bus into the ditch, there were only so many ways we could get out, The question is: Who's making the decision initially to drive the bus into the ditch?" I thought that was actually a good analogy. But let's see Obama was one of only a few senators who voted against the war. No one knew whether or not Sadaam had WMDs, and no one wanted to find out. In any event, Sadaam was planning to reconstitute his weapons anyway, so why did Hillary not say something like this, "Well, no one is making the decision to drive into the ditch, because no one knows it's there." Obama is much more skillful at taking the negative and turning it into a positive while Hillary struggles to find an answer that her audience will like.
This was Hillary's campaign to lose, and she lost. Hillary's performance in this debate was abysmal. Obama will be the Democratic nominee.
Advice to John McCain: Obama lacks experience, he is to the left of everything this side of Berkley, he does not represent what America is all about, but do not underestimate him. He will be a formidable candidate, and if you don't get your act together and convince conservatives you are a conservative, Obama will be the next president indeed, and that is a scary thought.
