NARAL doesn't like Hillary anymore

They just endorsed Barack Obama, leaving a lot of Hillary supporters and NARAL supporters furious. They're already feeling the backlash:

With the clock running down on a long-fought primary, NARAL Pro-Choice America leaders sent state affiliates reeling this week by endorsing Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. It was seen as a gratuitous slap in the face to a longtime ally, and it sparked a fear even closer to home: that the move will alienate donors loyal to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

Many on this week’s conference call were stunned on learning the news, making urgent pleas for the group to remain neutral until after the June 3 Democratic primaries.

“It’s created a firestorm,” said NARAL Pro-Choice New York President Kelli Conlin, who was on the conference call. “Everyone was mystified ... saying, ‘What is the upside for the organization? And, frankly, [there was] a lot of concern about the donor base. ... There was real concern there would be a backlash.”
There was a backlash, and it was swift, starting with NARAL’s own website. At last count, there were more than 3,300 comments in an electronic chat about the endorsement, the overwhelming majority of them negative. “Shame shame shame!” read one, with many correspondents threatening never to support NARAL financially again. “No more donations from me!!!” wrote another.

In Washington, two dozen women members of Congress who support Clinton held a quickly organized press conference to tout her abortion-rights record Wednesday night. Ellen Malcolm, founder of the abortion-rights women’s fundraising group EMILY’s List, sharply rebuked NARAL for its endorsement. Two former members of Congress (and Clinton supporters) — Geraldine Ferraro and Pat Schroeder — jabbed at NARAL for endorsing before the general election. “Looks like some higher ups at NARAL are trying to get jobs in the new administration ... nothing else makes sense to us,” they wrote in a joint letter.

Whoopsie.

Now, I'm not going to cry any tears over anyone disassociating themselves with NARAL, regardless of the reason. Hey, I support you wholeheartedly. But I can't really understand what they thought they'd accomplish by endorsing Obama. It seems like Hillary is the one who has lobbied tirelessly for NARAL, and as she is the one who needs the boost, why didn't they endorse her? It isn't like endorsing a candidate who doesn't get the nomination puts a scarlet letter on you for the rest of the election, or that you won't have a voice in the administration of whoever wins. I just don't see what they thought they'd gain from it.

Ed had an idea:

NARAL picked the worst time to make an endorsement. Instead of picking someone early, they chose Obama with just three weeks left to go before the end of the primaries. Did they think they could help him in Puerto Rico, or believe him in danger of losing the nomination? What practical effect would their endorsement have on his ability to collect votes in the handful of contests remaining?

Not much, but obviously that wasn’t their motivation. They wanted to send a message to Hillary to get out of the race now, rather than ride out the short string of primaries left. NARAL wants to show some muscle in the party’s operations, and doesn’t mind throwing Hillary under the bus to do so. Instead, they have enraged their base of women who have seen Hillary as their champion both in this race and on the mission of NARAL itself — and see her opponent as an Obama-come-lately, an ally but certainly not someone who has done the trench work that Hillary has done over a long period of years.

Apparently, sticking by the person who has worked so hard for you for years now isn't all that important to NARAL.

But hey, who cares what their motives are? This is great for me! Let the chaos continue. Anything that can further Hillary's chances for winning the nomination is fantastic. Way to go, NARAL!

Hat Tip: Hot Air

Democrats are just SO above race.

They are so noble, so much better than Republicans, that they don't need to stoop to dirty tricks like race-baiting or smears.

Right?

Um... I guess not. Michelle Malkin has an ad the DCCC ran smearing a Republican, Greg Davis, in the Mississippi congressional race, linking him to the founder of the KKK. Check out the ad:

Classy.

Only problem? The, uh, DCCC got their facts wrong.

[T]he DCCC says "Greg Davis wanted to honor the founder of the KKK with a statue in Southaven" and also said the statue was of "the first Grand Wizard." But in reality, the statue was of Jefferson Davis who was not the founder and never in the KKK. In fact, another place that has a statue of Jefferson Davis is the United States Capitol Building. Jefferson Davis is one of the two statues representing Mississippi, along with James Z. George. Furthermore, Senator Thad Cochran uses the desk of Jefferson Davis in the Capitol, one of two "heritage desks" (the other goes to Massachusetts Senior Senator and belonged to Daniel Webster).

ROM further notes that the "founder of the KKK statue" (Nathan Bedford Forrest) was wanted by the Mayor of Horn Lake.

So the DCCC has attacked the wrong mayor for the wrong statue.

Who cares though? There's a margin of error for this congressional seat to eliminate. Besides, liberals can stoop as low as they want.

I always love when Democrats pull out the KKK card, anyways... considering Robert Byrd's illustrious history with the Klan and all. How do they really have any room to talk? They don't seem to mind his direct involvement with the Klan, but they'd lie about Greg Davis, linking him to the KKK, just to win an election?

And they claim that they're the ones fighting for minorities. Go figure.

In presidential election news, Hillary is expected to win has won West Virginia. Moonbattery points out how democrats, of course, are throwing a hissy fit. Because if you don't vote for the Obamamessiah, you're a racist, and don't you forget it.

The whole piece whines about how white voters are racist for leaning towards Clinton, and how the Obamamessiah is the bigger man for not getting involved in such petty identity politics. Like, um, the kind that this writer is engaging in.

So, tonight the polls will close and Mrs. Clinton will have easily collected 99 percent of the white vote in West Virginia. She will crow about her electability in a smug but meaningless victory speech on a stage featuring dozens of "hard-working Americans, white Americans" standing behind her waving flags.

Bill and Chelsea will grimace through it all, knowing that the jig is up and that the dream of the next phase of the Clinton dynasty has come to an ignoble end.

While no Confederate battle flags will be visible, they will feel it in the air. Mrs. Clinton's greatest victory will be a triumph of the kind of identity politics that makes a nation smaller.

Still, she will resist the urge to dip Skoal and spit juice into a coffee can on live television.

There will be plenty of time for that kind of nonsense when she campaigns in Kentucky. There, everyone expects her to continue her total dominance of the rural white working-class vote while perfecting the accent she used to sport back in Little Rock.

Funny how this guy can whine about the Clintons' identity politics in an article like this, that is so completely focused on race and nothing else. And of course, the fact that the majority of black voters support Obama isn't racist, because voting for him means you're above race. Or something hypocritical like that.

And anyways, why does someone's race matter? It's the color of their skin. It doesn't affect their brain or how they think. It doesn't affect their policies or politics. And those are the things that concern me when it comes to who will be running this country.

So the whiny race-baiters out there can rest assured that most Americans who don't vote for Obama aren't voting for him because they're racist... they aren't voting for him because they can't stand his politics.

I guess the Dems just can't grasp the concept of white Americans who aren't racist.

Hillary vs. the Coffee Machine

Try not to giggle and/or snort mockingly as you watch this video. A five-year-old could figure out how to work those coffee machines. You... hit a button. WOW.



Hat Tip: E.M. Zanotti

Spitzer's call girl is suing Girls Gone Wild... AND supporting Hillary!

Ashley Alexandra Dupre, best know as former New York Governor Spitzer's favorite call girl, is suing Girls Gone Wild. She says she was "too drunk" to give consent... snort.

Ashley Alexandra Dupré claims in the lawsuit that she was only 17 years old at the time the GGW crew took topless video of her. She says that the crew got her drunk before asking her to flash her boobs. Her main arguments are that she was a) too young to consent to being videotaped b) too drunk to give consent.

...

Ashley Alexandra Dupré is suing for $10 million.

I kind of have to wonder how this lawsuit will have any credibility. I mean, if the girl ended up being a prostitute before she was 22, then it isn't that surprising that she was perfectly comfortable flashing her boobs for some guys at 17. And how will she prove her case anyways? How can she possibly prove that the crew got her drunk unless Girls Gone Wild has it on video? And if I remember correctly, Joe Francis debunked her "too young" theory, too, saying that at 17 it was legal as long as she wasn't actually performing any sexual acts. In any case, he says he has video of her signing a consent form and giving them ID. And she did, after all, spend an entire week on board the Girls Gone Wild bus.

Francis said in March that Dupre spent a week on a "Girls Gone Wild" bus and made seven full-length tapes after signing release papers. He also said he bought her a bus ticket home to North Carolina.

Francis said he was surprised by the lawsuit.

"It is incomprehensible that Ms. Dupre could claim she did not give her consent to be filmed by Girls Gone Wild, when in fact we have videotape of her giving consent, while showing her identification," Francis said in a statement.

He said the photos were taken "in front of a room full of people, including two newspapers and multiple crews we had in the room." Francis also said he would be happy to discuss the $1 million offer with her again.

Seven tapes? A week on the Girls Gone Wild bus? I think she knew what she was doing. For her offer to stick, she would have to claim that they kidnapped her! Otherwise, how could she explain the week-long filming?

Someone should explain to this girl that, believe it or not, you are actually responsible for your own actions.

And finally, guess who she's supporting for the Presidency? You guessed it: Hillary.

Wonder how Hillary feels having landed Spitzer's prostitute?



Hat Tip: The Jawa Report

Photo of the Day

Creepiest. Photo. EVER.

Who do white men hate more, blacks or women?

That is the question posed by Nora Ephron -- the writer who gave us such sappy movies as "You've Got Mail", "Sleepless in Seattle", and "When Harry Met Sally". (Emphasis mine, of course.)

... But now there are two and we're facing Pennsylvania and whom are we kidding? This is an election about whether the people of Pennsylvania hate blacks more than they hate women. And when I say people, I don’t mean people, I mean white men. How ironic is this? After all this time, after all these stupid articles about how powerless white men are and how they can’t even get into college because of overachieving women and affirmative action and mean lady teachers who expected them to sit still in the third grade even though they were all suffering from terminal attention deficit disorder — after all this, they turn out (surprise!) to have all the power. (As they always did, by the way; I hope you didn’t believe any of those articles.)

To put it bluntly, the next president will be elected by them: the outcome of Tuesday’s primary will depend on whether they go for Hillary or Obama, and the outcome of the general election will depend on whether enough of them vote for McCain. A lot of them will: white men cannot be relied on, as all of us know who have spent a lifetime dating them. And McCain is a compelling candidate, particularly because of the Torture Thing. As for the Democratic hope that McCain’s temper will be a problem, don’t bet on it. A lot of white men have terrible tempers, and what’s more, they think it’s normal.

If Hillary pulls it out in Pennsylvania, and she could, and if she follows it up in Indiana, she can make a credible case that she deserves to be the candidate; these last primaries will show which of the two Democratic candidates is better at overcoming the bias of a vast chunk of the population that has never in its history had to vote for anyone but a candidate who could have been their father or their brother or their son, and who has never had to think of the president of the United States as anyone other than someone they might have been had circumstances been just slightly different.

Hillary’s case is not an attractive one, because what she’ll essentially be saying (and has been saying, although very carefully) is that she can attract more racist white male voters than Obama can. Nonetheless, and as I said, she has a case.

Holy Christ Almighty. Where to even begin.

I think it's fair that Ephron is saying in this piece that white males are dumb, angry, racist, sexist, and unreliable, and only are in positions of power because they are white males. Can we all be in agreement on that?

Good. Because it's all crap.

Why is it that liberals think that, if white men decide not to vote for Obama, it means they HATE black people? Or that if they don't vote for Hillary, they HATE women? Did it ever occur to them that they, like all intelligent people in the United States, don't like their politics? Gee, what a thought.

And what's interesting is how Ephron sneers at the "suffering" white men receive at the hands of mean women, and points out how these white men are "somehow" able to rise above affirmative action, feminism, and the myriad of benefits handed to minorities simply for... being a minority. The difference, my dear Nora, is that most white men don't see themselves as victims. A lot -- but not all -- of minorities, feminists, and liberals do. Therefore, when white men are presented with overwhelming obstacles, they find a way to overcome them. A lot of people who are women and/or minorities do this, too, but it doesn't fit into the "WHITE MEN IN POWER!!" screed.

It's called being in charge of your own life, and not letting anyone stand in the way of achieving your goals but yourself -- liberal victims should try it some time, rather than relying on government programs to give them the world.

And yes, this next election will be decided mainly by white men. They are the largest voting block. In a democratic society, that is the way it works. If the largest voting block was Hispanic women, then Hispanic women would decide. You can't force equality in the amount of people who vote -- although I'm sure liberals would love to. In the name of fairness, of course! To make sure minority voices are heard, they'd be more than happy to silence white male majority voices.

Right, Nora?

But, of course, we can't rely upon white men to do anything except, apparently, keep minorities and women down. And we women know this having dated them.

Nora, if you're reading this, I want you to repeat this after me five hundred times. Actually, just keep repeating it until it sinks into that hate-filled little brain of yours.

MEN. ARE. NOT. THE. ENEMY.

I don't know if you're single or not, but Nora honey, if you are, it isn't because men are unreliable scum. It's probably because you hate men and your insane ideas of what men should be send them running away from you screaming. If you are married to a white man, well... I'd be curious about how it is your husband lives with someone who apparently thinks so lowly of all white men.

And I hate to break it to you, but white men are not the only ones with awful tempers. In fact, I'd argue that women are worse than men are in the temper department. They may not be able to hit as hard or yell as loud, but women are malicious. They're vindictive. They don't forget anything. The quote "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" is in existence for a reason. Piss off a woman, and she will want to make your life a living hell. Settling the dispute won't be good enough, oh no. This is because most women are, quite frankly, vindictive bitches -- ask any twelve-year-old girl which sex is more cruel. I dare you. And that's probably because most women are more emotional than men are. Men can be more logical; when they're in an argument, most of them are able to keep their emotions out of it. A lot of women can't.

I really don't understand the man-hating that goes on so prevalently. Why are white men looked at so much as the enemy? You can say they're "in power", but there are white male CEOs and white male blue collar workers. It isn't like every white man looks like the Monopoly guy, living in some ivory tower, pointing and laughing at the brutal sufferings of his female and minority slaves. What reality do these people live in?

Rachel wonders if it hurts to see the world that way, and kinda hopes so. I really hope so. How awesome would it be if this kind of hate, stupidity, and ignorance was painful?

I know I'd laugh.

Hat Tip: Rachel Lucas

Hillary in hot water with the FEC... again.

Well, sort of. Just consider that my MSM misleading headline of the day, phrased specifically just to get your attention.

What's actually happened is that Judicial Watch has filed a complaint with the FEC about Elton John's fundraiser for her. Uh, sorry, Hill, that's a no-no.

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it filed a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) related to a fundraising concert by musician Sir Elton John on behalf of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Elton John, a foreign national, is prohibited by federal law, from making any contribution to a federal, state or local election campaign.

“Recent news reports suggest that Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton for President have accepted an in-kind contribution from a foreign national, Sir Elton John, in contravention of federal electon laws,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton stated in an April 14 letter to the Office of the General Counsel for the FEC. “On behalf of Judicial Watch and its supporters, I hereby request that the FEC investigate this matter.”

According to a press release issued by the Clinton campaign, the expressed intent of the concert was to raise funds for Hillary’s campaign for president. In the release, Elton John is quoted as saying, “I’m excited to support Hillary by performing at what will be a truly memorable night.”

Press reports also show that Sir Elton John, on March 17, 2008, through the Clinton campaign, sent out a mass email announcing the concert and soliciting support. The Elton John concert took place on April 9, 2008 and raised more than $2.5 million (from the sale of 5,000 tickets) for Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton for President.

However, according to 2 U.S.C. § 441e, “Contributions and donations by foreign nationals,” it is illegal for any foreign national to “make a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value…in connection with a Federal, State or local election.” The Washington Times reported March 27, 2008, that a “1981 FEC decision prohibited a foreign national artist from donating his services in connection with fundraising for a U.S. Senate campaign.”

“It looks as if Elton John, a foreign national, gave a valuable, in-kind contribution to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, which is prohibited by law. The FEC and other authorities need to take appropriate action and investigate Hillary Clinton, her campaign, and Elton John,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Whoopsie.

Luckily for Hillary, the FEC will probably do absolutely nothing about this. However, it seems to me that Judicial Watch has a good point.

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

If you don't support Hillary, you hate women!

Surprisingly, this doesn't come from your typical man-hating feminist blogs like Pandagon or Feministing. No, this little gem of wisdom comes from that political genius, Elton John:

Sir Elton John has staged a fundraising concert for US presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton and claimed that the “misogynistic attitudes” of Americans may be hindering her bid for the White House.

The star, an ardent Clinton supporter, raised $2.5 million (£1.25 million) for her campaign with the gig at New York’s Radio City Music Hall.

“I’ve always been a Hillary supporter. There is no-one more qualified to lead America,” he told the audience.

But he added: “I’m amazed by the misogynistic attitudes of some of the people in this country. And I say to hell with them... I love you Hillary. I’ll be there for you.”

Yes, of course, it's the mysogyny! That's why Hillary isn't catching on!! All of us who dislike her must do so because we hate women. By comparison, all of us who dislike Obama must do so because we hate blacks, to follow the same line of logic... right?

Why is it that the Clinton campaign does this? She tries to present herself like a tough woman who can handle being the most powerful person in the world, someone who will have to handle being a rare female in a mostly male world (especially when it comes to foreign politics). But what happens when things don't go her way? She cries, she blames it on the "boy's club", she demands special treatment... she basically acts like a whiny twelve-year-old girl. And yet she's supposed to be able to deal with leaders of Islamic countries that look at women as property, at best?

News flash to Elton John. I do not dislike Hillary Clinton because she's a woman, nor do I dislike Obama because he's black. Like most Americans, I dislike them because of where they stand on the policies. I don't want Hillary in office because she hates the United States like most liberals do, because she's a pathological liar, because she will ruin this country if she has it in her grasp for four years, because she has zero experience to make her qualified for this job, because she is piggybacking her husband's presidency -- and as far as I'm concerned, he's the worst President this country has ever seen! I could go on all day with reasons I don't want to vote for Hillary. Her gender wouldn't come up once.

Sure, there may be a few people here and there that don't support her because she's a woman. But they are a rare, tiny minority. Most people just realize what they're getting into with putting the Clintons back into the White House, and frankly, would rather play leapfrog with unicorns before enduring four years of that torture again.

One of Hillary's biggest mistakes was her attitude of inevitability. She was so used to the Clintons being the Golden Couple of the Democratic Party that she just assumed the Presidency was hers. She looked at this whole primary/election business as red tape, but that they key to the Oval Office was already in her hand.

Well, sorry honey. President Hillary Clinton isn't an inevitability, and it doesn't make anyone a mysogynist for not wanting her in the White House, no matter what Elton John (freakazoid extraordinaire) says.

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

Shocker: Hillary fired for being a LIAR!

Surprise, surprise:

As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.

The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

Is there anyone who is surprised by this?

Anyone at all?

No?

Me either.

Hat Tip: Ace

Video of the Day

Here's your video of the day. It's of Hillary and Chelsea Clinton's death-defying run across the tarmac in Tuzla, Bosnia, fleeing from the terrifying shots of sniper fire all around them!



Did that look terrifying or death-defying to anyone?

Anyone at all?

C'mon, Hillary, you're supposed to be one of the smartest, most ruthless politicians out there! I'm getting disappointed here.

First of all, of all the trips overseas she may have taken, why on Earth would she choose to lie about a trip on which a CBS news crew and two celebrities accompanied her? I mean, jeez, woman, at least pick a trip in which it isn't so easy for people to prove that you're an incredible liar.

Second, she talks about how she was sent on trips that were too dangerous for the President to go on. If that was the case, then why would she bring her daughter along? Obviously, she wasn't being sent anywhere with that high of a danger level -- either that, or she's the world's worst parent with absolutely no concern for her daughter's well-being, if she's willing to bring her daughter with her to these danger zones.

Third, it's disturbing watching her lie so smoothly. It isn't surprising in the least, but it is unsettling. She doesn't even flinch. Lying, to her, comes as naturally as breathing. It's the entire foundation of the Clinton administration.

I know she wants to psych up her "experience" because, you know, she has none, but isn't she at least smart enough to make up credible stories?

No?

Oh well.

Keep on talking, Hillary, sweetie. The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is loving this! You go, girl!

Hillary's records released

Today, the National Archives released over 11,000 pages detailing Hillary Clinton's life as First Lady.

Remember how she says her experience as First Lady qualifies her to be President? Boy, was she right! Check out her duties!

She had speeches scheduled, at home and abroad. She appeared by Bill Clinton's side at an education event where he angrily dismissed the reports of his womanizing. And if that were not enough, there was his State of the Union address.

Her schedule has her choosing flowers for a black-tie dinner, congratulating "Guns Aren't Cool" award winners and reading to kids in the week in January 1998 that upended her life and threatened his presidency. She denounced a "vast right-wing conspiracy" in a TV interview.

The National Archives in Washington and former President Clinton's presidential library in Arkansas jointly released the first lady's schedules after months of pressure from critics who say the Clintons were delaying the disclosure. The issue has dogged Clinton in her bid for the White House.

...

In all, 11,046 pages have been made available. Nearly 4,800 pages have parts blacked out. Archivists said that's to protect the privacy of third parties. Schedules for more than 30 days of activities were not included in this release.

Mrs. Clinton's ordeal during the Monica Lewinsky scandal followed her own legal troubles in 1996 during the criminal investigation of the Clintons' Whitewater real estate dealings in Arkansas.

In the Whitewater probe, one of the most pivotal events occurred on Jan. 4, 1996, a day in which Mrs. Clinton's personal calendar for late that afternoon is marked "Private Meeting" with her chief of staff, Margaret Williams.

Several hours earlier, an aide had discovered inside the White House family residence long-sought billing records of Mrs. Clinton's legal work on Whitewater-related real estate transactions that turned out to be fraudulent.

WOW! Arranging flowers?! Reading to children?! Denouncing Republicans?!

Jeez, she really is qualified to be President based on her role as First Lady! These records have proved it!

NOW Bill's image is tarnished?!

This just floors me. Bill Clinton's involvement with his wife's presidential campaign is what has tarnished his image? Now people don't like him? Oh, jeez.

Bill Clinton’s reentry into the political arena appears to have come at some cost to his legacy. New polling now suggests that Clinton’s involvement in the Democratic nomination battle between his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Barack Obama, has significantly tarnished the former president’s image.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released Thursday found that more Americans view Bill Clinton negatively than positively, 45 to 42 percent. It marked the first time since January 2002 that a plurality of Americans disapproved of the former president. One month earlier, The Gallup Poll found that nearly as many Americans had an unfavorable as favorable view of Bill Clinton—for the first time in nearly five years.

Presidential historians said Clinton’s return to partisan politics made it likely that public perception of the former president would suffer.

It's like 'ole Slick Willie was a freakin' saint before he got involved with that devil woman's campaign.

I won't even go into the Monica thing (whoops, think I just did!). How about the illegal campaign contributions from China, compromising U.S. security? How about the ignoring of all threats to our national security over and over and over again, including turning down Osama bin Laden's head on a silver platter? How about selling presidential pardons, plots in Arlington National Cemetery, and stays in the Lincoln Bedroom? How about trashing the White House when he left, causing thousands of dollars of damage? How about stealing everything that wasn't nailed down before leaving, namely furniture? How about the alleged drug smuggling on Arkansas? How about the political favors for campaign contributors? How about Sandy Berger? How about using the IRS to harass and intimidate political enemies? How about the many sex scandals, including rape and sexual harassment?

And that's just the tip of the iceberg! There isn't room on this blog to list the many scandals, lies, obstructions of justice, and treasonous activities that Bill Clinton took part in as President.

All of this apparently doesn't matter, I guess. Everyone loved him, until he got involved with that gosh-darned Hillary woman's presidential campaign. And now, now, people don't like him.

Good grief.

Hillary gives McCain a freebie

Hillary's new ad is pretty much the perfect campaign ad... for John McCain. She does a pretty damn good job of striking fear into your heart, doesn't she?



I don't know about you, but I was definitely a-scared of who was going to answer the phone. Did this ad really make you want her to be the one who answers?

I don't think so...

Hat Tip: Hot Air

Photo of the Day

Obama takes a bite out of Hillary in a float for a parade in Germany:



Snort.

Hat Tip: Moonbattery

Barbra Streisand is backing Shrillary Clinton

So far, we've got Oprah backing Obama, and now Babs Streisand is stepping forward to offer her support to Shrillary.

Apparently, Shrillary can bring "historic change!", "respect in the global community!", "a strong economy!", and "universal healthcare!" to the United States.

Yawn.

Perez Hilton has the press release. Read and enjoy, especially when Babs feels the need to drone on and on towards the end about her many accomplishments. You know, judging from this press release, Babs may have accomplished more in her lifetime than Shrillary has -- maybe she could run!

Today I endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. Below is the announcement the Clinton campaign released to the media with my endorsement statement.

Barbra Streisand Endorses Hillary Clinton

Legendary filmmaker, artist, and Democratic activist, Barbra Streisand, today endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. Streisand cited Clinton’s ability to bring about change and the historic nature of her campaign as reasons why she is supporting Hillary’s candidacy.

“Madame President of the United States…it’s an extraordinary thought. We truly are in a momentous time, where a woman’s potential has no limitations,” said Streisand. “Hillary Clinton has already proven to a generation of women that there are no limits for success. She is driven by her passion for public service and her belief in the enormous potential of our country. Smart, capable and strong in her convictions, Hillary has transcended the dictates of what is thought to be possible for our time.

“Hillary is a powerful voice for change as we find our country at an important crossroads. Under her leadership, our country will regain its respect within the global community. She will prioritize issues of global climate change, universal healthcare and rebuilding a strong economy. After 8 long years, the public will once again have faith in their government.

“Another former first lady, Eleanor Roosevelt once wrote, ‘In government, in business, and in the professions there may be a day when women will be looked upon as persons. We are, however, far from that day as yet.’ More than 50 years later ‘that day’ is now upon us... and Hillary Clinton is ready to shatter through that glass ceiling for all women.”

Streisand has been working on behalf of Democratic candidates for over forty years, performing at fundraisers and participating in campaign events. In addition, the Streisand Foundation has raised millions for causes including the environment, women’s equality as well as human and civil rights and liberties.

“I’m honored to have Barbra’s support,” said Clinton. “Barbra has used her immense talent to be an advocate for truth, justice, and fairness and I deeply appreciate her confidence in my candidacy as we work together to change the direction of our nation.”

Barbra Streisand is a singer, theatre and film actress, composer, film producer and director. She has won Oscars for Best Actress and Best Original Song as well as multiple Emmy Awards, Grammy Awards, and Golden Globe Awards. She is considered one of the most commercially and critically successful female entertainers in modern history.”

You know, someone might want to check that Eleanor Roosevelt quote though.

Why the Democrats mascot is a donkey

Hat Tip: Moonbattery

The Burgler is back

So everyone already knows that the Clintons have absolutely no shame whatsoever and will do just about anything to get -- and keep -- power. I guess I'm not really that surprised to hear that the Burgler is back -- Sandy Berger, that is.

Sandy Berger, who stole highly classified terrorism documents from the National Archives, destroyed them and lied to investigators, is now an adviser to presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. Berger, who was fired from John Kerry’s presidential campaign when the scandal broke in 2004, has assumed a similar role in Clinton’s campaign, even though his security clearance has been suspended until September 2008. This is raising eyebrows even among Clinton’s admirers. “It shows poor judgment and a lack of regard for Berger’s serious misdeeds,” said law professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University, who nonetheless called Clinton “by far the most impressive candidate in the Democratic field.”

Adler told The Examiner that it is “simply incomprehensible to me that a serious contender for the presidency would rely upon him as a key foreign policy advisor.”

He added: “If Senator Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee, at some point she will begin to receive national security briefings that will include sensitive information. At such a point, continuing to keep Berger on board as a key advisor, where he might have access to sensitive material, would be beyond incomprehensible.”

The Clinton campaign declined to comment.

Berger has admitted stealing documents from the National Archives in advance of the 9/11 Commission hearings in 2003. The documents, written by White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, were a “tough review” of the Clinton administration’s shortcomings in dealing with terrorism, Clarke’s lawyer told the Washington Post.

On several occasions, Berger stuffed highly classified documents into his pants and socks before spiriting them out of the Archives building in Washington, according to investigators. On one occasion, upon reaching the street, he hid documents under a construction trailer after checking the windows of the Archives and Justice Department buildings to make sure he was not being watched.

Berger came back later and retrieved the documents, taking them home and cutting them up with scissors. Two days later, he was informed by Archive employees that his removal of documents had been detected.

“Berger panicked because he realized he was caught,” said a report by the National Archives inspector general, which also recounted his initial reaction. “Berger lied.”

Berger also lied to the public, telling reporters he made an “honest mistake” by “inadvertently” taking the documents, which he blamed on his own “sloppiness.” Bill Clinton vouched for the explanation for Berger, who served as his national security adviser.

The Justice Department initially said Berger stole only copies of classified documents and not originals. But the House Government Reform Committee later revealed that an unsupervised Berger had been given access to classified files of original, uncopied, uninventoried documents on terrorism. Several Archives officials acknowledged that Berger could have stolen any number of items and they “would never know what, if any, original documents were missing.”

At his sentencing in September 2005, Berger was fined $50,000, placed on probation for two years and stripped of his security clearance for three years.

Of course the campaign declined to comment. There's no feasible way to defend this. There's no way possible to put a good spin on this, so the best thing for them to do is to keep quiet, unless and until the shit really hits the fan.

And here's a fun little nugget of information: The Burgler was only stripped of his security clearance for three years. So in September of 2008, he can get it right back, just in time for the presidential election. So presumably, if we get yet another Clinton White House, we can also have The Burgler in the White House again, too.

What's really sad is how unbelievably blatant the Clintons are. They have more unmitigated gall than I think I have ever seen in a politician (she doesn't even try to hide this kind of bullshit!), and yet people are still supporting her in droves.

What is it I'm missing here that makes people want to support her? What is there to like? What positions does she hold that people want? I just don't get it. I honestly don't understand why it is that anyone would want her as our President, unless they are out of their minds or are actively trying to bring about the ruin of the United States of America.

Wants to socialize all industry? Check. More Marxist than Marx himself? Check. Successful husband with coattails to ride to power? Check. Hiring criminals who put national security at risk? Check.

She's just got it all, don't she?

Obama Girl not Obama's girl anymore

Amber Lee Ettinger is giving up Obama:

YouTube sensation Obama Girl has made the cover of Steppin' Out magazine, with Chaunce Hayden scoring an interview with the fickle pseudo-political hottie -- whose real name is Amber Lee Ettinger. Amber revealed to Chaunce that she's most likely voting for Hillary now! Not Obama's girl anymore!

Sen. Obama himself lamented that he wishes she hadn't made that video, because his 6-year-old daughter was asking about it. The video has been watched over 3 million times.

Is that really surprising? I mean, it seemed to me that this was just some chick looking to get some attention by looking hot (next she'll talk about how she's always wanted to be an actress, and how she really wants to sing as well). And from the looks of this magazine cover, I was right. And she'll get even more attention by -- gasp!! -- switching candidates.

I wonder how Hillary feels about landing the Obama Girl...

Sherry Glaser terrifies Clinton supporters

Zombie is reporting that moonbats from CODEPINK and Breasts not Bombs infiltrated Shrillary's campaign headquarters for a debate-watching party (visit the link for uncensored, NSFW pics if you so dare). They gleefully paraded around the party topless, as Shrillary supporters chanted her name like a bunch of zombies.

Sherry Glaser was, of course, in attendance.

This woman just creeps me out. Seriously, there seems to be something wrong with her. I visited her website and found a rather interesting blog entry, written November 20 of last year, in which she storms into a military recruiter's office and demands him to make the troops stop raping and murdering innocent people (emphasis mine):

A couple of weeks ago Breasts Not Bombs staged a demonstration outside the Military recruitment center in Ukiah, California because we feel that office is the first introduction to our young men and women as to what it means to be a soldier. We felt the need to find the root and address the aberrant and excessive violence that has led our military to commit war crimes like rape and murder. Though there were ten of us on the street that day, we opted not to take our shirts off. We blamed it on the weather and well, it was a major street and we had concern about traffic. But the truth is I was afraid. Afraid to bare my breasts to again be subject to judgement and ridicule for my outrageous behavior and my bountiful bosom. Although it was a spirited and well supported action, It felt disappointing. We even took the opportunity to go into the recruitment office and converse with the Sergeant in charge. Although he could not take responsibility for the troops run amok or even point me in the direction of those who might be, besides a "few bad apples." It felt like we built a bridge. He could see our humanity and we could see his. We were civil, kind and very calm. But, inside I'm bursting with terrible rage and sorrow. It's so strong that I'm compelled to tear off my shirt, pull out my hair and weep. Yes, it's dramatic, but it feels like this really is an emergency. I mean why is so unacceptable to bare my breasts. Why does the public at large have such a definitive and immediate reaction to my flesh, but the death of 2,900 American Soldiers and upwards of 200,000 Iraqi's elicits little response. Every day that our government debates and hem and haws there are REAL PEOPLE being violently killed.

What keeps me under wraps is also the simple size of my breasts, how they look. They are enormous, yes. It feels like I am carrying the sorrow of the world right under my nose. I wonder if so much of the breast cancer we are seeing is the unexpressed grief of this world. I dream of weeping, bare breasted with a million other women on the White House Lawn. I long for a world wide weep. Why are women kept in such restraint. What is so scary about our breasts.

This woman is so severely unhinged!

Look, lady, it isn't like Anna Kournikova or Jessica Alba is standing there with their tops off. No offense, but there is no one that wants to see your breasts! No one! You aren't a spring chicken anymore. It isn't all women's breasts that are scary, just yours.

And of course, there's the standard liberal line about how our troops are rapists and murderers. I would love it if she said that to me. Love it.

Her entire rambling post just goes to show how moonbats work and think. Not to mention, I don't think she could go a single sentence without butchering it grammatically.

I just don't get it, what is it that makes people take her seriously?! And she cries about how terrified she is of baring her gigantic, droopy breasts, but she does it... all the time. Whenever she has the opportunity to, actually. Yeah, she's terrified, all right.

And on top of the craziness, she thinks Shrillary is not far left enough? My God. I'd hate to think of what her ideal candidate would be like.

Hat Tip: Moonbattery, who so graciously added red bars to the picture below.

Democratic debate tougher than cotton balls!

CNN and Wolf Blitzer hosted the Democratic debate last night, with the usual puffball soft questions, designed to let it as obvious as possible how much each candidate hates our troops, democracy, and America. Pull out of Iraq now! Socialize, socialize, socialize! We must submit to the UN!

One of the best parts (for me, anyways), was when Hillary Clinton disagreed with John Edwards about the global war on terror being a "bumper sticker slogan" because... she's a New Yorker , and has seen first hand the effects of terror.

Since when is Hillary Clinton a New Yorker?! Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't she have to purchase property in New York in order to hold a Senate seat there because she isn't a New Yorker? And does this mean that those of us not in New York are unable to comprehend how horrific 9-11 was?

Then there was John Edwards' line, "I don't know if I know what a rich person is!"

Gee, John, could it be someone who spends $400 on a haircut, and then an additional $225 at a spa and salon called the "Pink Sapphire" in "services"? Or maybe someone who made their living chasing ambulances and charging ridiculous fees pretending to be the advocate for the little guy?

Only two candidates -- Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel -- had the guts to mention that Clinton and Edwards both voted for the war initially.

At the end of the debate, each candidate was asked what they would do in their first 100 days of office. John Edwards said he would travel the world to "re-establish America's moral authority" -- because, ya' know, John Edwards just has so many morals! And the first 100 days as president of America should not be spent in... America!

Clinton and Obama both said bringing the troops home from Iraq, although Obama added in national health care. Hillary didn't need to, because we all know how she feels about health care.

Kucinich had the realistic goal of "reshaping the world for peace" and ending ALL nuclear weapons, everywhere! After he's done with that, he and Miss America will braid each other's hair and have a pillow fight.

Other responses included a $40k a year minimum wage for teachers (Richardson), and more ending the war in Iraq (Biden).

Some oddball answers were "restoring constitutional rights" to the country (Dodd), and not actually ending the war in Iraq, but simply reminding congressional leaders that they should (Gravel).

Funnily enough, although Shrillary said she'd pull out our troops now, she still refuses to admit that her vote was wrong. Whatever's most popular at the time, eh, Hillary? Oh, and she also mentioned her husband, saying, "Bill Clinton, my dear husband, would be sent around the world as a roving ambassador." Ugh.

Each candidate also said they'd get rid of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military as well.

Maybe next time, the Democrats will actually get asked real questions... like whether John Edwards prefers cherry or strawberry lip bloss better.