I’ve seen up close the two Clintons America knows. He’s a big smile, hand locked on your arm and lots of charms. "Hey, come down and speak at my library. I’d like to talk some politics with you."

And her? She tends to be, well, hard and brittle. I inherited her West Wing office. Shortly after the 2001 Inauguration, I made a little talk saying I appreciated having the office because it had the only full-length vanity mirror in the West Wing, which gave me a chance to improve my rumpled appearance. The senator from New York confronted me shortly after and pointedly said she hadn’t put the mirror there. I hadn’t said she did, just that the mirror was there. So a few weeks later, in another talk, I repeated the story about the mirror. And shortly thereafter, the junior senator saw me and, again, without a hint of humor or light in her voice, icily said she’d heard I’d repeated the story of the mirror and she … did … not … put … that mirror in the office.

It is a small but telling story: she is tough, persistent and forgets nothing. Those are some of the reasons she is so formidable as a contender, and why Republicans who think she would be easy to beat are wrong. The Republican presidential nomination is the most fluid and unpredictable contest in decades, but the Democratic nominee is likely to be Hillary. Not without a fight, not without losing early contests (probably Iowa, for starters) and not without bruises and bumps.

And so the question to John McCain from a woman at a town hall in South Carolina last Monday was tasteless, but key: "How do we beat the [rhymes with witch]?" Right now, Republicans are focusing much of their fire on Senator Clinton. Criticizing her unites the party, stirs up the unsettled feelings many swing voters have toward her and allows each candidate to say why he is best able to beat her. For now, that’s enough. But when a GOP nominee emerges, he needs to remember no Republican is as well known as Hillary. The Republican has room to grow in the polls as voters get a better sense of who he is and what animates him. Here’s what he needs to do.

Read the rest of this entry �

Sorry folks! PC problems and commitments - these links should catch everyone up!

Hillary says Social Security isn’t in trouble after all!

Hillary’s Pardons-for-Cash

All six of CNN’s "undecided voters" were Democratic operatives - They don’t call CNN the Clinton News Network for nothing!

The Dema Sutra explains all of Hillary’s many positions

Another heavyweight Clinton donor is in trouble for fraud (and accused of groping as well - why, how very Clinton-esque?).

Videos: Hillary denies, then plays the gender card and Edwards gets booed

Woman who asked Hillary moronic “diamonds/pearls” question: CNN set me up!

Video: Was there more than meets the eye to the booing at last night’s debate? Update: Obama blogger calls shenanigans

“Random” questioner at debate was Arkansas Democratic Party officer in 2003?

Audio Bombshell: Vilsack admits SCHIP is a Trojan Horse for socialized medicine

Clinton holding fundraiser in… Ireland? Isn’t this illegal?

Video: Hillary Plays Gender Card While Explaining She Doesn’t Use It

How the Las Vegas debate was rigged

CBS ‘Early Show’: Hillary Returns as ‘Sure-Footed Front-Runner’

‘Diamonds’ Questioner Is Former Reid Intern

Rightometer: CNN Democrat Debate

CNN caves to Hillary, But she’ll still struggle

Hillary vs. Obama

Ugly Clinton Rising

Obama Brings Up The Clintons’ Secret Pact

Bob Novak: Hillary has dirt on Obama; Update: “Shameless,” says Obama; Update: Clinton spokesman blames GOP?

Another Woman’s Body Found In Clinton Avenue Gutter

Hamas believes Sen. Hillary Clinton, if elected president in 2008, will end President Bush’s "unlimited military and diplomatic support for Israel" and adapt a more "evenhanded" approach toward the Palestinians, says the group’s top political adviser.

Speaking yesterday with WND Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein, Ahmed Yousuf, the top adviser to the Hamas leader in Gaza and to the deposed prime minister of the Hamas-led Palestinian government, said in recorded comments the group heard from "many Americans" that if the Democrats take the White House next year they will implement "drastic changes" to U.S. foreign policy and relations with the Palestinians.

[audio:http://www.nohillaryclinton.com/blog/audio/hamasyousuf.mp3]

"I do believe Miss Clinton will have a more balanced policy when it comes to how to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict," Yousuf told Klein. "And I don’t think she is going to give to the Israelis this unlimited military and diplomatic support that they are actually enjoying now; so … the future politics in the region will [see] a very drastic change when it comes to how to handle the Palestinian question."

Yousuf, speaking in English, said he hopes Clinton will "follow in the footsteps" of her husband’s administration when it comes to dealing with the Palestinians.

"During the [Bill] Clinton administration, his political stand was much, much better than the Bush administration," he said. "We’re hoping Miss Clinton also will follow the steps of her husband."

Yousuf said that for Clinton to enhance the U.S. image in the region she would need to "change the Bush doctrine on the ‘war on terror’ and to succeed in this you need to have an evenhanded policy (when) it comes to Palestine."

The top Hamas adviser said any future president would need to "come and make a big change, a drastic change to foreign policy which is a disaster to them (Americans) in Iraq and Afghanistan."

"We heard from many Americans there will be drastic changes in foreign policy," he said.

Read the rest of this entry �

Mitt Romney has recently taken to referring to the idea of a Hillary Clinton presidency as electing an “intern.” He recently said, to Fox News host Sean Hannity: “The government of the United States is not a place for a president to be an intern. You need to have experience actually leading and running things.”

He’s said it more than once, so there’s no mistaking. He did not mean to say the presidency is no slot for on-the-job training. He meant intern.

It may prove to be a smart line of attack.

In fact, while he’s at it, he ought to encourage Americans to read the new Sally Bedell Smith book, For Love of Politics: Bill and Hillary Clinton: The White House Years, wherein you’ll find passages like: “Finally, on Friday, February 28, Bill invited Lewinsky to an evening taping of his weekly radio address. Afterward he instructed Betty Currie to escort Lewinsky into his private study . . . For the first time in eleven months, they were sexually intimate, first in the hallway and then in the bathroom. When he pushed her away during oral . . . “

Why read this stuff? Voyeurism? Nope. There’s a substantive reason. As I started to read the book, I, political junkie, got bored; then frustrated. I’ve been there, done that. I’ve (unfortunately) read the Starr Report. I’ve lived through the blue dress and all the other details. We all lived through that. And while the impeachment was about important public issues — perjury and abuse of power — it all stemmed from, and fed into, that drama that is the Clintons.

For all the Clintons’ talk about getting-back-to-the-people’s-business, it was, in the end, about the Clintons. All the time “wasted” on impeachment was the result of the refusal of a president to resign, after being caught red-handed in perjury and obstruction of justice. Hillary Clinton, who stakes her claim of executive experience on her two-for-the-price-of-one days in the White House, hasn’t apologized; to the contrary, she continues to rant about a vast right-wing conspiracy.

Read the rest of this entry �

The veil has at last been lifted from Hillary’s flimsy veneer of strength and competence: she has been exposed for the corrupt and unprincipled politician she is. In Tuesday night’s debates at Drexel University, finally Democrats rose to the occasion and called a spade a spade: Hillary is a liar, shifts her positions like the wind and is unfit for office.

This is not news to conservatives who have been saying this about the Hill-Billies since the 1990’s. However, Tuesday night marked a watershed. On national television, leading Democrats agreed. John Edwards and Barack Obama unequivocally stated that Hillary does not say the truth, nor is she consistent in her views and as a result is not presidential material. All the candidates at one point or another indicated that her responses were either deliberately confusing or completely contradictory. Hillary has now been tagged: flip-flopper and double-speaker.

Hillary proved them right. On four occasions, her responses to questions were so evasive they were simply disingenuous. She stumbled on her recent vote to impose sanctions on Iran which she insisted does not accept President Bush’s foreign policy but is a “form of diplomacy.” She was caught in a blatant lie in her response to questions on Social Security —as NBC’s Tim Russert, one of the moderators pointed out. She was accused of undue secrecy in her unwillingness to open the archives of her correspondence to Bill while she was Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes. America is looking for a president who will say the same thing, who will be consistent, who will be straight with them.”

This will mark a turning point in the campaign for two reasons. There is now video footage of all her fumbling which can be played over and over again by any Republican candidate in a national campaign. It is harder to make the case to the average voter that a candidate is a flip-flopper in print; the charges take longer to stick. But it is almost impossible to evade the brutal lens of the camera: when a candidate is shown to flip-flop with the camera rolling, it is difficult to repair the damage.

In a national campaign, a Republican candidate can simply use footage of Hillary’s flip-flops in ads and combine this with footage of fellow Democrats stating that she is unprincipled and unfit to lead. This will greatly damage her chances of winning the presidency.

  Tuesday night’s debates were also a watershed in another sense: her aura of invincibility has been shattered. The Democratic candidates were more and more emboldened to challenge her. With each assault upon her, another candidate mustered the courage to utter publicly what has mostly been said only in private amongst Democrats. At one point, Chris Todd blatantly declared that her national poll ratings illustrate again and again that she is not likely to be elected since 50 percent of the public are dead opposed to her.

Read the rest of this entry �

From The Liberty Papers

The more things change, the more things stay the same. Way back before Ronald Reagan’s political career, he recognized the problems which would occur if America had adopted socialized medicine. With congress working to pass the SCHIP bill to provide government funded healthcare for children of parents with annual incomes up to $80,000, this radio commentary is just as relevant today as it was then. Many of Reagan’s fears about socialized medicine have been realized in other countries. If we are not careful, we will face similar consequences here.

The most savage criticism of Clintonian ethics has not always come from political conservatives. Consider the following.

Bob Herbert, the eloquent and passionate columnist with The New York Times, can never be accused of being part of Hillary Clinton’s “vast right-wing conspiracy.” He is as liberal as journalists come, a consistent and vehement critic of the Republican Party and President George W. Bush. That is why his column of February 26, 2001 should be required reading for every American of voting age seriously considering casting their ballot for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

That column of Herbert’s, “In America; Cut Him Loose,” was written in the midst of the pardongate scandal. For those who have forgotten, and it is challenging to keep track of all the Clinton scandals, this was Bill Clinton’s parting gesture of contempt towards the American people during literally the final hours of his sleazy and philandering presidency. A host of last minute presidential pardons were granted to a host of shady characters. They included a fugitive billionaire who had once been on the FBI list of ten most wanted, as well as a quartet of swindlers who had stolen tens of millions of dollars in tax payers money.

The connection between both Bill and Hillary Clinton and those pardoned prompted Herbert to write the following in his column: “The Clintons can spin this however they want. But the simple truth is that the way in which some of the pardons were granted seems to fit neatly with the standard definition of a bribe, which is the promise of money or gifts — something of value — to influence the action or behavior of an official.”

Pardongate generated so much outrage in America, it appeared that the Clintons were finished as a political couple. “Bill Clinton has been a disaster for the Democratic Party. Send him packing,” Bob Herbert warned the Democratic Party. He added that, “As neither Clinton has the grace to retire from the scene, the Democrats have no choice but to turn their backs on them. It won’t be easy, but the Democrats need to try.”

Read the rest of this entry �

Kathleen Willey’s new book, Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton has climbed quickly to No. 1 on Amazon.com’s nonfiction political best-seller list, No. 2 on the nonfiction list and No. 23 overall.

Willey, in vivid detail, recounts numerous incidents she believes were designed to terrorize her into silence, with the latest taking place in September, just as the book was in its final stages.

As WND reported, Willey claims she was the target of an unusual house burglary over the Labor Day weekend for which she blames the Clintons. While asleep upstairs in her Virginia home, she said, a copy of a manuscript for "Target" was stolen.

Willey became known in the summer of 1997 after lawyers for Clinton accuser Paula Jones gave her name to a national magazine reporter. She was scheduled to become one of only three witnesses in the Clinton impeachment trial until some members of the House and Senate refused to allow her to testify.

Faced with the prospect of another Clinton presidency, Willey says she has decided to tell her story to help ensure voters know who they would be getting.

Source: WND

Amid the barbs of several pundits that Hillary Clinton did so poorly in the last candidates’ debate that her poll numbers are sinking, USA Today just released its latest polling date, which shows Hillary Clinton maintaining a 28% lead over second-place Democrat Barack Obama. This is essentially unchanged from pre-debate polls.

In evaluating the issue of whether or not Hillary Clinton’s nomination by the Democratic Party as their presidential candidate is inevitable, it is a mistake to look at one snapshot in time, such as the media’s interpretation of a single debate. Far more important are the broad sweeps of campaign strategy and its execution. It appears to me that in Hillaryland everything is still on track, and their vast superiority in political muscle and connectivity within the Democratic Party remains unchallenged by Obama and Edwards.

Some media observers have pointed out that Clinton’s lead in Iowa is very narrow post-debate. Yet, for most of the summer, Hillary Clinton was in second or third place in the Iowa caucus polls. As mentioned in earlier posts, even if Hillary Clinton loses in Iowa, she will still go on to win the nomination. The issue for her in Iowa is to score a knockout blow against Obama in early January. For that reason, I expect to see Hillaryland mobilize its considerable muscle in Iowa by early December.

Why is Senator Clinton so eager to wrap up the nomination process early? By doing so, she can spend months building up her general campaign organization, while the Republicans are still engaged in internecine warfare over who will be their Party’s standard bearer in November 2008.

Sheldon Filger, Author
"Hillary Clinton Nude: Naked Ambition, Hillary Clinton And America’s Demise "
www.hillary-clinton-nude.com