U.S. Senator Barack Obama, D-Illinois, has opened a double-digit lead over Hillary Rodham Clinton in the New Hampshire pre-primary polls.
With the New Hampshire Primary looming in roughly 48 hours, Obama seems to be building upon his major victory in the Iowa Caucuses.
As for Mrs. Clinton, her disappointing 3rd-place showing in Iowa has her campaign totally stunned and frantically searching for a way to minimize the impact of her losses and come up with a new strategy that will put her back in the lead.
But New Hampshire is not the end of Mrs. Clinton's woes. The South Carolina Primary is coming up quickly in January, and once again the former First Lady finds herself losing her footing in a state where she once held a solid lead.
Polls are showing that Barack Obama is continuing to gain ground in South Carolina, with some showing him neck-and-neck with Mrs. Clinton while others show him in a solid lead.
Many pundits in the state expect that Obama will win South Carolina as well.
This highlights a scenario to which The Liberty Sphere pointed several months ago in which we predicted that Mrs. Clinton would lose the first three major primaries to Obama. While this will certainly give the Illinois Senator a great deal of momentum, we expect that momentum to come to screeching halt by the time the Florida Primary rolls around.
By then more rationally-minded Democrats will have had time to pause to consider just how terribly risky and dangerous it is to support a political novice who has ZERO foreign policy knowledge.
The same can be said for Mike Huckabee on the Republican side.
Neither candidate has the experience or the gravitas to represent the most powerful nation on earth on the world stage in an era where one single mistake could result in a mushroom cloud over a U.S. city.
And let's not forget the continuing volatility of Pakistan--a major nuclear power.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, the two candidates who had the most experience in these matters have dropped out of the race--Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. The rest are essentially political novices.
Even Mrs. Clinton is to be preferred over Obama or Edwards, given that the former First Lady has at least some practical knowledge of world politics, though not extensive.
When it comes to foreign policy and world terrorism the Republicans still have a distinct advantage over the Democrats, with the exception of Mike Huckabee who showed us recently that his grasp of the situation in Pakistan is alarmingly lacking.
Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Ron Paul each have considerable experience, wisdom, and gravitas to deal with volatile situations on the world stage.
Thus, when the Democrats come back to their senses, we suspect that they will realize that Hillary, even with all of her baggage and weaknesses, is their best bet.
Showing posts with label Mrs. Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mrs. Clinton. Show all posts
Monday, January 07, 2008
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Poll Results on Hillary's Gasoline Claim
The results from our exclusive online (and unscientific) poll on Hillary Clinton's claim that electing her to office will result in an immediate lowering of gasoline prices are in. This short-term poll lasted for one week only and portrays a sampling of the views of the readers of The Liberty Sphere.
Hillary's claim did not fair very well with Liberty Sphere readers. By an overwhelming majority (over 75% of respondents), our readers think that Hillary Clinton is completely nuts. This is no surprise, given that The Liberty Sphere attracts some of the most deep-thinking, bright, and politically astute minds in the blogosphere.
14% of you stated that Hillary's policies would have the exact opposite effect from her claim--meaning, of course, that her election would have the effect of raising gasoline prices.
These two top choices in the poll account for a whopping 89% of respondents.
The choice that said, 'Yes, she is a genius,' received only one vote.
The remaining choice, 'Maybe, but the decrease will be due to many factors,' also received one vote.
As you can see, Hillary Clinton is not exactly a popular figure here at The Liberty Sphere. If only the rest of the country could see what we see.
Hillary's claim did not fair very well with Liberty Sphere readers. By an overwhelming majority (over 75% of respondents), our readers think that Hillary Clinton is completely nuts. This is no surprise, given that The Liberty Sphere attracts some of the most deep-thinking, bright, and politically astute minds in the blogosphere.
14% of you stated that Hillary's policies would have the exact opposite effect from her claim--meaning, of course, that her election would have the effect of raising gasoline prices.
These two top choices in the poll account for a whopping 89% of respondents.
The choice that said, 'Yes, she is a genius,' received only one vote.
The remaining choice, 'Maybe, but the decrease will be due to many factors,' also received one vote.
As you can see, Hillary Clinton is not exactly a popular figure here at The Liberty Sphere. If only the rest of the country could see what we see.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Race Wide Open 9 Days Before Iowa Caucuses
With only 9 days to go until the Iowa Caucuses, polls are showing a wide open race in both Parties.
Although Mike Huckabee has opened a fairly large lead in the GOP race over 2nd place contender Mitt Romney and 3rd place contender Fred Thompson, any of the three are within striking distance and could pull out a last-minute surge to put them over the top.
On the Democratic side Hillary Clinton maintains a very small lead over 2nd place contender Barack Obama. In fact, the two are locked into a statistical tie. John Edwards is running a close third. Here again, any of the top three could easily win.
Meanwhile, in New Hampshire, the setting of the first primary, Mitt Romney holds on to a very slight lead against a surging John McCain, who is only two points behind--once again a statistical dead-heat.
Hillary Clinton maintains a slight lead in New Hampshire, although some polls show Barack Obama in the lead. Once again John Edwards is running a close third.
We will not attempt any predictions at this point due to the highly fluid nature of the race, except for two. It is beginning to appear that Barack Obama will beat Hillary in Iowa. Momentum is on his side.
In like manner, it looks as if John McCain will pull off the miracle of his political career and win New Hampshire, due to the very same factor as Obama in Iowa--momentum.
HOT TIP: Don't be surprised to see John McCain defy all the predictions of his demise and win not one but several primaries. We are not saying he will win the nomination, but as it becomes more apparent that conservatives are still on the fence, they may well break for McCain at the last minute due to his war hero status, his experience, and his perceived ability to work with political opponents to reach compromise.
We have our problems with McCain, as we have stated repeatedly. But he is fairly strong on issues such as gun rights, foreign policy, the war on terror, abortion, and healthcare.
Nonetheless, we still see Fred Thompson as the strongest alternative to Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Giuliani. Although he is in 3rd place in Iowa, he is still within easy striking distance of the win.
Although Mike Huckabee has opened a fairly large lead in the GOP race over 2nd place contender Mitt Romney and 3rd place contender Fred Thompson, any of the three are within striking distance and could pull out a last-minute surge to put them over the top.
On the Democratic side Hillary Clinton maintains a very small lead over 2nd place contender Barack Obama. In fact, the two are locked into a statistical tie. John Edwards is running a close third. Here again, any of the top three could easily win.
Meanwhile, in New Hampshire, the setting of the first primary, Mitt Romney holds on to a very slight lead against a surging John McCain, who is only two points behind--once again a statistical dead-heat.
Hillary Clinton maintains a slight lead in New Hampshire, although some polls show Barack Obama in the lead. Once again John Edwards is running a close third.
We will not attempt any predictions at this point due to the highly fluid nature of the race, except for two. It is beginning to appear that Barack Obama will beat Hillary in Iowa. Momentum is on his side.
In like manner, it looks as if John McCain will pull off the miracle of his political career and win New Hampshire, due to the very same factor as Obama in Iowa--momentum.
HOT TIP: Don't be surprised to see John McCain defy all the predictions of his demise and win not one but several primaries. We are not saying he will win the nomination, but as it becomes more apparent that conservatives are still on the fence, they may well break for McCain at the last minute due to his war hero status, his experience, and his perceived ability to work with political opponents to reach compromise.
We have our problems with McCain, as we have stated repeatedly. But he is fairly strong on issues such as gun rights, foreign policy, the war on terror, abortion, and healthcare.
Nonetheless, we still see Fred Thompson as the strongest alternative to Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Giuliani. Although he is in 3rd place in Iowa, he is still within easy striking distance of the win.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
More on Hillary's Gas Problem
Not only has Hillary Clinton opened herself to endless jokes, centering on the unfortunate pun that many with periodic juvenile tendencies like me will use as fodder, but she has also demonstrated in the waning days just before the Iowa Caucuses that she will do anything to get elected, including the obvious demagoguery inherent in her claim that a vote for her is a vote to lower oil prices.
As if she has any control over that whatsoever...
Nonetheless, she now has a major problem on her hands--a gas problem of mammoth proportions. OK, for you prudes out there, a gasoline problem.
Several points of consideration become readily apparent:
1. The candidate is so desperate that she will risk alienating thinking people by claiming that if she is elected oil prices will automatically and immediately drop.
2. She is also arrogant enough to assume that Iowans will accept her assessment that Jimmy Carter was 'on the right track' with energy policy and that Ronald Reagan ruined it all by dismantling Carter's work, which by the way, was quite a job. During Carter's tenure gasoline prices more than doubled, not to mention the shortages and long lines at the pump.
3. The fact that she used one of the most unpopular and discredited Presidents in U.S. history to bolster her views on energy policy is not exactly the most prudent course in an election. And then, to turn around and bash one of the most popular Presidents in U.S. history is simply nuts.
4. The candidate knows that most voters are NOT going to know the facts and figures about taxes on gasoline as opposed to the profits of the oil companies. She can thus lie to them and deceive them. But right here on The Liberty Sphere you will get the facts. Better still, do your own research. The oil companies make 13 cents per gallon in profits on gasoline sold in America. The federal government, and state and local governments, get roughly 60-80 cents per gallon (depending on the area of the country) in gasoline taxes.
It would seem, then, that if anyone is making a 'windfall profit' on gasoline, it is most assuredly the government.
Yet Mrs. Clinton wishes to raise the federal tax on gasoline even further, brow-beat the oil companies into lowering prices, and thus cut into the profits of the shareholders, and then further take much of whatever profits remain in order to set up a fund in Washington for 'alternative fuels.'
This is a recipe for disaster at the pump with regard to prices, not to mention that Venezuelan Communist Hugo Chavez would be most proud.
Perhaps citizens in Iowa will catch on to Hillary's latest scheme and send her a strong and clear message during the caucuses.
As if she has any control over that whatsoever...
Nonetheless, she now has a major problem on her hands--a gas problem of mammoth proportions. OK, for you prudes out there, a gasoline problem.
Several points of consideration become readily apparent:
1. The candidate is so desperate that she will risk alienating thinking people by claiming that if she is elected oil prices will automatically and immediately drop.
2. She is also arrogant enough to assume that Iowans will accept her assessment that Jimmy Carter was 'on the right track' with energy policy and that Ronald Reagan ruined it all by dismantling Carter's work, which by the way, was quite a job. During Carter's tenure gasoline prices more than doubled, not to mention the shortages and long lines at the pump.
3. The fact that she used one of the most unpopular and discredited Presidents in U.S. history to bolster her views on energy policy is not exactly the most prudent course in an election. And then, to turn around and bash one of the most popular Presidents in U.S. history is simply nuts.
4. The candidate knows that most voters are NOT going to know the facts and figures about taxes on gasoline as opposed to the profits of the oil companies. She can thus lie to them and deceive them. But right here on The Liberty Sphere you will get the facts. Better still, do your own research. The oil companies make 13 cents per gallon in profits on gasoline sold in America. The federal government, and state and local governments, get roughly 60-80 cents per gallon (depending on the area of the country) in gasoline taxes.
It would seem, then, that if anyone is making a 'windfall profit' on gasoline, it is most assuredly the government.
Yet Mrs. Clinton wishes to raise the federal tax on gasoline even further, brow-beat the oil companies into lowering prices, and thus cut into the profits of the shareholders, and then further take much of whatever profits remain in order to set up a fund in Washington for 'alternative fuels.'
This is a recipe for disaster at the pump with regard to prices, not to mention that Venezuelan Communist Hugo Chavez would be most proud.
Perhaps citizens in Iowa will catch on to Hillary's latest scheme and send her a strong and clear message during the caucuses.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Hillary Claims Oil Prices Drop Immediately if Elected
In a stunning display of desperation, Hillary Rodham Clinton claimed on Sunday in Iowa that if she is elected oil prices will experience a dramatic sudden drop.
FACT CHECK! In actuality, Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly stated during her campaign for President that the federal tax on oil should be dramatically increased and that she plans on 'taking that money from oil companies,' referring to robbing the corporations and their stockholders of millions of dollars of profits in order to set up a federal fund to explore alternative fuels.
These proposals will do anything but cause oil prices to drop.
The government already gets roughly 6 times the amount per gallon in taxes than the oil companies make in profits. Yet Mrs. Clinton proposes raising the federal tax on gas at the pump, where by the time you add local, state, and federal taxes we are already paying between 50 and 60 cents per gallon.
The oil companies make a mere 13 cents per gallon in profits.
In addition, if Mrs. Clinton is going to raid the profits of the oil companies and their shareholders, you can bet your last drop of Texas-T that gas prices will go through the roof. This kind of anti-capitalism and anti-business, closely akin to Hugo Chavez, will not exactly reassure oil company execs that they can safely reduce prices.
Mrs. Clinton went further to make some of the most outlandishly erroneous statements she has ever uttered. She claims that Jimmy Carter was 'on the right track' in the late 70s in reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
FACT CHECK!! I remember those days very well because I had to travel by car extensively. During Jimmy Carter's term in office, 1976-1980, gas prices went from roughly 44 cents per gallon to over ONE DOLLAR per gallon in 1979.
There were long gas lines and shortages as well.
Yet Hillary states that Brother Jimmy was 'on the right track.'
Well, if that was the right track, I would surely hate to see what the WRONG track would have been. And if we were 'on the right track' then Ronald Reagan would not have beaten the socks off of politically impotent Carter.
But stay with me. There's even more.
Hillary went further to state that Ronald Reagan 'dismantled' the 'good work' Carter was doing with regard to energy.
FACT CHECK!! The only thing President Reagan dismantled was the asinine, boneheaded, and imbecilic policies of the Carter Administration, which led to gas shortages, long lines at the pump, and gas prices that more than doubled.
After Reagan had been in office less than a year, gas prices settled back down to below 75 cents per gallon. Long lines at the pump vanished. And there were no more shortages.
You see, my friends, liberals/socialists like Hillary Clinton believe that the citizens should be forced to endure pain and suffering as a means of mandating a change in their lifestyle. And, since they have always had a Freudian issue with oil, the objective is to make it as expensive and hard to get as possible so that Americans will be forced to turn to something else.
The only reason husband Bill didn't do this in the 1990s is that he is much more of a shrewd politician than Hillary. Even so, Clinton raised federal taxes on oil.
No doubt Hillary sincerely believes the balderdash she has just unleashed. But I never thought she was dumb enough to say so right out in the open just days before the Iowa Caucuses.
She is desperate, no doubt. And she is betting on picking up some votes from those who merely hear the 5-second sound-byte, 'Oil prices will drop immediately if I am elected.'
But then again, maybe the stress of the campaign trail is really starting to get to her. This is the stuff of loony-'toons, not serious leaders.
FACT CHECK! In actuality, Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly stated during her campaign for President that the federal tax on oil should be dramatically increased and that she plans on 'taking that money from oil companies,' referring to robbing the corporations and their stockholders of millions of dollars of profits in order to set up a federal fund to explore alternative fuels.
These proposals will do anything but cause oil prices to drop.
The government already gets roughly 6 times the amount per gallon in taxes than the oil companies make in profits. Yet Mrs. Clinton proposes raising the federal tax on gas at the pump, where by the time you add local, state, and federal taxes we are already paying between 50 and 60 cents per gallon.
The oil companies make a mere 13 cents per gallon in profits.
In addition, if Mrs. Clinton is going to raid the profits of the oil companies and their shareholders, you can bet your last drop of Texas-T that gas prices will go through the roof. This kind of anti-capitalism and anti-business, closely akin to Hugo Chavez, will not exactly reassure oil company execs that they can safely reduce prices.
Mrs. Clinton went further to make some of the most outlandishly erroneous statements she has ever uttered. She claims that Jimmy Carter was 'on the right track' in the late 70s in reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
FACT CHECK!! I remember those days very well because I had to travel by car extensively. During Jimmy Carter's term in office, 1976-1980, gas prices went from roughly 44 cents per gallon to over ONE DOLLAR per gallon in 1979.
There were long gas lines and shortages as well.
Yet Hillary states that Brother Jimmy was 'on the right track.'
Well, if that was the right track, I would surely hate to see what the WRONG track would have been. And if we were 'on the right track' then Ronald Reagan would not have beaten the socks off of politically impotent Carter.
But stay with me. There's even more.
Hillary went further to state that Ronald Reagan 'dismantled' the 'good work' Carter was doing with regard to energy.
FACT CHECK!! The only thing President Reagan dismantled was the asinine, boneheaded, and imbecilic policies of the Carter Administration, which led to gas shortages, long lines at the pump, and gas prices that more than doubled.
After Reagan had been in office less than a year, gas prices settled back down to below 75 cents per gallon. Long lines at the pump vanished. And there were no more shortages.
You see, my friends, liberals/socialists like Hillary Clinton believe that the citizens should be forced to endure pain and suffering as a means of mandating a change in their lifestyle. And, since they have always had a Freudian issue with oil, the objective is to make it as expensive and hard to get as possible so that Americans will be forced to turn to something else.
The only reason husband Bill didn't do this in the 1990s is that he is much more of a shrewd politician than Hillary. Even so, Clinton raised federal taxes on oil.
No doubt Hillary sincerely believes the balderdash she has just unleashed. But I never thought she was dumb enough to say so right out in the open just days before the Iowa Caucuses.
She is desperate, no doubt. And she is betting on picking up some votes from those who merely hear the 5-second sound-byte, 'Oil prices will drop immediately if I am elected.'
But then again, maybe the stress of the campaign trail is really starting to get to her. This is the stuff of loony-'toons, not serious leaders.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
C.L.I.T. Attempts to Create Sympathy for Hillary
The Clinton Ladies Intervention Team (C.L.I.T.), including husband Bill, has shifted tactics recently in order to create sympathy for the beleaguered Mrs. Clinton.
As we understand it, the latest P.R. move is to use all the bad news about Mrs. Clinton to attempt to create a silver lining that will help her at the polls.
Over the weekend the candidate was portrayed as the battered woman on the campaign trail--a tragic figure of a middle aged professional woman who has borne the marks of the gruelling game of politics.
Husband Bill was out on the campaign trail talking up how Hillary was going to lose in Iowa. The mainstream media followed suit, sympathetically reporting that poor Hill was going to simply 'carry on' in the midst of an avalanche of swiftly falling poll numbers.
And then there was 'the picture' that was released to the media over the weekend, which shows Mrs. Clinton clearly as a woman who is showing her age, obviously troubled about her recent misfortunes, but courageously carrying on in the fight despite her appearance of being tired.
My friends, do not let these portrayals fool you. They are carefully crafted and implemented by the Clinton Ladies Intervention Team.
The move is risky, however. Sympathy votes often work when a politician or candidate has experienced the death of a spouse or a child, or in other limited situations. But creating support at the polls using the sympathy card artificially is an entirely different matter.
In order for the tactic to work, significant numbers of voters would genuinely have to believe that Mrs. Clinton is a sympathetic figure. It is clear that they do not.
In fact, voters tend to see her as the exact opposite, as a cold, calculating, manipulative shrew who has done absolutely nothing in her 20 years of public life to cause citizens to view her sympathetically.
The electorate simply doesn't like her, and they sure don't trust her.
As we understand it, the latest P.R. move is to use all the bad news about Mrs. Clinton to attempt to create a silver lining that will help her at the polls.
Over the weekend the candidate was portrayed as the battered woman on the campaign trail--a tragic figure of a middle aged professional woman who has borne the marks of the gruelling game of politics.
Husband Bill was out on the campaign trail talking up how Hillary was going to lose in Iowa. The mainstream media followed suit, sympathetically reporting that poor Hill was going to simply 'carry on' in the midst of an avalanche of swiftly falling poll numbers.
And then there was 'the picture' that was released to the media over the weekend, which shows Mrs. Clinton clearly as a woman who is showing her age, obviously troubled about her recent misfortunes, but courageously carrying on in the fight despite her appearance of being tired.
My friends, do not let these portrayals fool you. They are carefully crafted and implemented by the Clinton Ladies Intervention Team.
The move is risky, however. Sympathy votes often work when a politician or candidate has experienced the death of a spouse or a child, or in other limited situations. But creating support at the polls using the sympathy card artificially is an entirely different matter.
In order for the tactic to work, significant numbers of voters would genuinely have to believe that Mrs. Clinton is a sympathetic figure. It is clear that they do not.
In fact, voters tend to see her as the exact opposite, as a cold, calculating, manipulative shrew who has done absolutely nothing in her 20 years of public life to cause citizens to view her sympathetically.
The electorate simply doesn't like her, and they sure don't trust her.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
The Oprah-Obama Show Hits the Road
The Oprah-Obama Show, starring Oprah Winfrey and B. Hussein Obama, has hit the road. The pair started in Iowa on Saturday and will make their way to Columbia, South Carolina for a huge rally on Sunday at Williams-Brice Stadium, home of the South Carolina Gamecocks football team at the University of South Carolina.
Williams-Brice Stadium seats over 80,000. The rally originally had been scheduled for the coliseum which seats 18,000 but had to be moved due to the overwhelming response.
Oprah is the most popular woman in America, you know.
Oh, and she's bringing Obama with her too.
Let's get down to the nitty-gritty, shall we? Without Oprah, Barack Obama wouldn't have drawn enough of a crowd to fill a classroom at the University of South Carolina. This rally, therefore, is all about Oprah Winfrey.
Mrs. Clinton is the overwhelming favorite among Democrats in S.C., and there is no real reason to think this will be changing--except for one significant factor according a few Democratic pollsters and pundits.
Oprah is hugely popular among white women over the age of 55. Democratic political consultants think that her endorsement may sway some of these older white women to support Obama.
This is wishful thinking at best.
Many Republican women within this demographic like Oprah Winfrey as well, but there is no way in hell they are going to support or vote for Barack Obama, who basically stands for nothing except for his very public record as a state legislator in Illinois, which shows that he is against the right to keep and bear firearms and that he voted against requiring life-support measures for babies that survive failed abortion attempts.
White women in South Carolina who are age 55 and up may go to a rally to hear B. Hussein Obama if it means they get to see their TV heroine, Oprah Winfrey, but you can bet the farm on the fact that they are NOT going to support Barack Obama.
In addition, Obama has failed to capture the support of the state's Black voters, who overwhelmingly support Mrs. Clinton. Over 52% of Democrats in South Carolina are African-American.
In short, Obama is NOT going to win the state's Democratic primary.
After the Oprah-groupies leave Williams-Brice Stadium tomorrow they will be talking about how exciting it was to see Oprah in person...and wonder why Hillary had to miss the event.
Williams-Brice Stadium seats over 80,000. The rally originally had been scheduled for the coliseum which seats 18,000 but had to be moved due to the overwhelming response.
Oprah is the most popular woman in America, you know.
Oh, and she's bringing Obama with her too.
Let's get down to the nitty-gritty, shall we? Without Oprah, Barack Obama wouldn't have drawn enough of a crowd to fill a classroom at the University of South Carolina. This rally, therefore, is all about Oprah Winfrey.
Mrs. Clinton is the overwhelming favorite among Democrats in S.C., and there is no real reason to think this will be changing--except for one significant factor according a few Democratic pollsters and pundits.
Oprah is hugely popular among white women over the age of 55. Democratic political consultants think that her endorsement may sway some of these older white women to support Obama.
This is wishful thinking at best.
Many Republican women within this demographic like Oprah Winfrey as well, but there is no way in hell they are going to support or vote for Barack Obama, who basically stands for nothing except for his very public record as a state legislator in Illinois, which shows that he is against the right to keep and bear firearms and that he voted against requiring life-support measures for babies that survive failed abortion attempts.
White women in South Carolina who are age 55 and up may go to a rally to hear B. Hussein Obama if it means they get to see their TV heroine, Oprah Winfrey, but you can bet the farm on the fact that they are NOT going to support Barack Obama.
In addition, Obama has failed to capture the support of the state's Black voters, who overwhelmingly support Mrs. Clinton. Over 52% of Democrats in South Carolina are African-American.
In short, Obama is NOT going to win the state's Democratic primary.
After the Oprah-groupies leave Williams-Brice Stadium tomorrow they will be talking about how exciting it was to see Oprah in person...and wonder why Hillary had to miss the event.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
The 'Major Endorsement' That Wasn't
When Hillary Clinton announced her intention to campaign in South Carolina earlier in the week, her campaign sent out advanced notice that she would announce a 'major endorsement' during her speech in Spartanburg.
As it turned out, that 'major endorsement' was given by some two dozen local African-American clergymen. With all due respect to these men of the cloth, none of them are nationally known and none are known to have widespread influence on how persons vote.
Thus, the 'major endorsement' was anything but major and was much ado about nothing.
Over 50% of Democratic voters in South Carolina are African-American. Bill Clinton relishes his reputation of being 'America's first black President.' Bill and Hillary are very popular with the African-American community. It is no surprise that the local brethren announced their support for her.
The truth of the matter is that this particular endorsement is a concession prize of sorts. When a candidate fails to get the endorsement of a single major political figure in the state, and further fails to receive the endorsement of a single major newspaper in the area to boot, the blessings of a few African-American Pastors may seem to be a big deal.
And that is the problem. It isn't a big deal.
Hillary is losing ground. She has actually been in a free-fall in the polls ever since her dismal performance in the debate in October.
In addition, Zogby, Rasmussen, Reuters, and several other national polls show that for the very first time since the campaign began, the top three Republican hopefuls--Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney--would beat Hillary if the election were held today.
And that's not all. Word leaked out from the Clinton camp yesterday that Hillary's own internal pollster is feeling the heat from the campaign because of the bad news he has had to deliver lately.
I can only imagine. As difficult as Hillary is widely known to be in private, this may be a case of shoot the messenger for the bad news, although the bad news is the candidate herself.
Apparently Mrs. Clinton is going to need a lot more than the endorsement of two dozen black clergymen. She may need to see a Catholic priest for an exorcism.
As it turned out, that 'major endorsement' was given by some two dozen local African-American clergymen. With all due respect to these men of the cloth, none of them are nationally known and none are known to have widespread influence on how persons vote.
Thus, the 'major endorsement' was anything but major and was much ado about nothing.
Over 50% of Democratic voters in South Carolina are African-American. Bill Clinton relishes his reputation of being 'America's first black President.' Bill and Hillary are very popular with the African-American community. It is no surprise that the local brethren announced their support for her.
The truth of the matter is that this particular endorsement is a concession prize of sorts. When a candidate fails to get the endorsement of a single major political figure in the state, and further fails to receive the endorsement of a single major newspaper in the area to boot, the blessings of a few African-American Pastors may seem to be a big deal.
And that is the problem. It isn't a big deal.
Hillary is losing ground. She has actually been in a free-fall in the polls ever since her dismal performance in the debate in October.
In addition, Zogby, Rasmussen, Reuters, and several other national polls show that for the very first time since the campaign began, the top three Republican hopefuls--Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney--would beat Hillary if the election were held today.
And that's not all. Word leaked out from the Clinton camp yesterday that Hillary's own internal pollster is feeling the heat from the campaign because of the bad news he has had to deliver lately.
I can only imagine. As difficult as Hillary is widely known to be in private, this may be a case of shoot the messenger for the bad news, although the bad news is the candidate herself.
Apparently Mrs. Clinton is going to need a lot more than the endorsement of two dozen black clergymen. She may need to see a Catholic priest for an exorcism.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
CONFIRMED! Student Says CNN Forced Her to Ask Frivolous Question
As expected, it has been confirmed today that some of the questions posed to the Democratic Presidential candidates in Thursday night's debate in Las Vegas were planted by CNN. It is not clear to what degree, if any, Mrs. Clinton had to do with the planted questions.
We do know that the audience at the debate was stacked in favor of Mrs. Clinton. We know she has planted questions in the past during her personal appearances. We know that CNN's commentators without exception praised her debate performance.
The student in question, Maria Luisa, the UNLV student who asked Mrs. Clinton if she preferred 'pearls or diamonds,' wrote in her MySpace entry this morning that CNN forced her to ask the frivolous question.
Her original question, which she had planned in advance, pertained to Yucca Mountain. But when the time came for her question, the CNN 'reporter' pulled the plug on the question and told her to go with the frivolous question.
Both CNN and MSNBC have been notorious for asking at least one, if not more, stupid question unworthy of a serious debate during the events they have aired. Thus far, only Fox News has succeeded in producing a debate that was on a par worthy of a major, serious discussion of the issues facing the nation. The trouble is, the Democrats refuse to appear on Fox-sponsored debates, choosing instead to go with their advocates at CNN and MSNBC, both of which have dubious reputations.
In addition, Ms. Luisa also maintains that CNN required that all questions from each participant be submitted for pre-approval.
As expected, CNN caved to Mrs. Clinton's demands, despite the network and the Wolfpack's (Blitzer and his pack of wolves) staging an apparent ambush at the beginning of the debate. Once that was out of the way, the entire thing was 'The Hillary Show,' complete with cheers and applause from the so-called 'undecided voter' audience and the jeers leveled at other candidates such as John Edwards.
CNN's credibility as a news organization has been teetering on the edge of extinction for years. News story after news story, reported by non-mainstream media sources, have blown the whistle on CNN's penchant for slanting its news and engaging in outright deception in reporting.
With Thursday night's debate, the network has just about doomed itself to tabloid status, deserving to be relegated to the ash-heap of untrustworthy and unreliable sources of news.
Planting questions in what is supposed to be a serious and honorable discussion of the issues facing our nation is a most despicable practice. It is to be condemned harshly.
Both CNN and Hillary Clinton should from now on be on notice that the electorate is watching closely, not because we like her but because we don't trust her or her mouthpieces in the mainstream media such as CNN.
For the entire story on the planted question, click here:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/11/diamond_v_pearl_student_blasts_1.php
We do know that the audience at the debate was stacked in favor of Mrs. Clinton. We know she has planted questions in the past during her personal appearances. We know that CNN's commentators without exception praised her debate performance.
The student in question, Maria Luisa, the UNLV student who asked Mrs. Clinton if she preferred 'pearls or diamonds,' wrote in her MySpace entry this morning that CNN forced her to ask the frivolous question.
Her original question, which she had planned in advance, pertained to Yucca Mountain. But when the time came for her question, the CNN 'reporter' pulled the plug on the question and told her to go with the frivolous question.
Both CNN and MSNBC have been notorious for asking at least one, if not more, stupid question unworthy of a serious debate during the events they have aired. Thus far, only Fox News has succeeded in producing a debate that was on a par worthy of a major, serious discussion of the issues facing the nation. The trouble is, the Democrats refuse to appear on Fox-sponsored debates, choosing instead to go with their advocates at CNN and MSNBC, both of which have dubious reputations.
In addition, Ms. Luisa also maintains that CNN required that all questions from each participant be submitted for pre-approval.
As expected, CNN caved to Mrs. Clinton's demands, despite the network and the Wolfpack's (Blitzer and his pack of wolves) staging an apparent ambush at the beginning of the debate. Once that was out of the way, the entire thing was 'The Hillary Show,' complete with cheers and applause from the so-called 'undecided voter' audience and the jeers leveled at other candidates such as John Edwards.
CNN's credibility as a news organization has been teetering on the edge of extinction for years. News story after news story, reported by non-mainstream media sources, have blown the whistle on CNN's penchant for slanting its news and engaging in outright deception in reporting.
With Thursday night's debate, the network has just about doomed itself to tabloid status, deserving to be relegated to the ash-heap of untrustworthy and unreliable sources of news.
Planting questions in what is supposed to be a serious and honorable discussion of the issues facing our nation is a most despicable practice. It is to be condemned harshly.
Both CNN and Hillary Clinton should from now on be on notice that the electorate is watching closely, not because we like her but because we don't trust her or her mouthpieces in the mainstream media such as CNN.
For the entire story on the planted question, click here:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/11/diamond_v_pearl_student_blasts_1.php
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Immigration Issue a Sleeper Killer for Candidates
With New York Governor Eliot Spitzer throwing in the towel on his plan to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens, it is becoming clear that The Liberty Sphere's prediction from January of this year will be actualized.
The Governor was under immense pressure from average citizens to scrap the plan. He even admitted that if such a plan were to be submitted to the legislature, it would not pass due to citizen outrage.
Even in liberal New York state, the citizens are up in arms about the immigration issue.
And this is why back in January, and several times since then, The Liberty Sphere has maintained that immigration is a 'sleeper issue' that will come back to haunt political candidates if they are perceived to endorse the present broken system, or propose a fix that amounts to amnesty.
The citizens want none of it. And anything remotely resembling amnesty, such as driver's licenses for illegal aliens and its natural consequence of massive voter fraud, will result in an uprising of the citizens at the polls regardless of their apparent silence on such things beforehand.
My friends, politicians need to learn that average citizens are not rebel-rousers nor activists. Often they will remain silent until they pull the lever in the voting booth. At times they will be so infuriated by an issue that they will issue threats and vehement protests to their elected officials, such as they have been doing on immigration.
Just ask John McCain what happened to his earlier proposals on 'immigration reform.' That one issue alone probably cost him a shot at the GOP nomination. Ask U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, R-SC, what happened among his constituents when he announced his support for McCain's amnesty plan.
And now we have Governor Eliot Spitzer to add to that list. Spitzer's latest poll numbers have bottomed out so badly that some are wondering if his political career will survive the fiasco he proposed which would have allowed illegal aliens to drive legally and vote illegally, although no one would know about the latter since Bill Clinton's no-I.D. required driver's license voter registration passed in the 1990s.
Despite what her campaign had to say today after Spitzer's announcement, Mrs. Clinton, Bill's wife, endorsed the Spitzer plan after waffling on it during the last Democratic debate. Mrs. Clinton has always supported open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, and driver's licenses for illegals. Now she has flip-flopped yet again and claims she never supported the Spitzer plan at all.
But the woman is not stupid. She knows that a large number of votes for Democratic candidates come from illegal aliens (and the dead who somehow rise up from their graves on election day to cast a dozen or more votes a piece for Democratic candidates).
Voters in Democratic primaries tend to support these less-than-honorable schemes to get votes. But watch out for the general electorate.
The citizens are getting tired of the sleaze represented by candidates such as Mrs. Clinton. Not only is it time for massive immigration reform to deal with illegal aliens, but it is time for voting reform as well, removing from the rolls the names of people who have long since been dead but whose names are still being used by vermin to vote early and often for Democratic candidates.
The Governor was under immense pressure from average citizens to scrap the plan. He even admitted that if such a plan were to be submitted to the legislature, it would not pass due to citizen outrage.
Even in liberal New York state, the citizens are up in arms about the immigration issue.
And this is why back in January, and several times since then, The Liberty Sphere has maintained that immigration is a 'sleeper issue' that will come back to haunt political candidates if they are perceived to endorse the present broken system, or propose a fix that amounts to amnesty.
The citizens want none of it. And anything remotely resembling amnesty, such as driver's licenses for illegal aliens and its natural consequence of massive voter fraud, will result in an uprising of the citizens at the polls regardless of their apparent silence on such things beforehand.
My friends, politicians need to learn that average citizens are not rebel-rousers nor activists. Often they will remain silent until they pull the lever in the voting booth. At times they will be so infuriated by an issue that they will issue threats and vehement protests to their elected officials, such as they have been doing on immigration.
Just ask John McCain what happened to his earlier proposals on 'immigration reform.' That one issue alone probably cost him a shot at the GOP nomination. Ask U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, R-SC, what happened among his constituents when he announced his support for McCain's amnesty plan.
And now we have Governor Eliot Spitzer to add to that list. Spitzer's latest poll numbers have bottomed out so badly that some are wondering if his political career will survive the fiasco he proposed which would have allowed illegal aliens to drive legally and vote illegally, although no one would know about the latter since Bill Clinton's no-I.D. required driver's license voter registration passed in the 1990s.
Despite what her campaign had to say today after Spitzer's announcement, Mrs. Clinton, Bill's wife, endorsed the Spitzer plan after waffling on it during the last Democratic debate. Mrs. Clinton has always supported open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, and driver's licenses for illegals. Now she has flip-flopped yet again and claims she never supported the Spitzer plan at all.
But the woman is not stupid. She knows that a large number of votes for Democratic candidates come from illegal aliens (and the dead who somehow rise up from their graves on election day to cast a dozen or more votes a piece for Democratic candidates).
Voters in Democratic primaries tend to support these less-than-honorable schemes to get votes. But watch out for the general electorate.
The citizens are getting tired of the sleaze represented by candidates such as Mrs. Clinton. Not only is it time for massive immigration reform to deal with illegal aliens, but it is time for voting reform as well, removing from the rolls the names of people who have long since been dead but whose names are still being used by vermin to vote early and often for Democratic candidates.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mounting Woes for Mrs. Clinton--Bill's Wife
Mrs. Clinton--Bill's wife--is losing her personal identity. She is sending husband Bill out to defend her debacle on healthcare in 1993, stating that it was 'my fault and not hers' for the failure, despite the fact that Mrs. Clinton has been going around the country bragging about her 'work on national healthcare.'
Not only that, but Mrs. Clinton--Bill's wife--has been caught red-handed planting questioners during her supposed 'impromptu' question-and-answer sessions during her townhall meetings around the country.
One female college student in particular has described the trick in detail, stating that a Mrs. Clinton operative approached her about asking the candidate a question. When the student stated what she wanted to ask, the operative disapproved and presented her with a list of possible 'acceptable questions,' several specifically set up for college students to ask.
In short, Hillary is only getting questions she wants to answer, as we have seen with countless newspapers, radio programs, and now, with her threatening Wolf Blitzer and CNN over the upcoming Democratic debate on Thursday night.
Clearly Mrs. Clinton--Bill's wife--has trouble answering the tough questions as she demonstrated in the last Democratic debate when Tim Russert pressed her on drivers' licenses for illegal aliens and several other issues on which the candidate has waffled.
This woman has at least a 50-50 chance of becoming the next President of the most powerful nation on earth, and she has trouble handling tough questions?
As President, would she, for example, present the ominous Vladmir Putin a list of only 'acceptable' topics for conversation? Would she send Bill out to run interference with Hugo Chavez? How would she deal with the Iranian President and his tough-guy and dangerous rhetoric?
And she thinks Tim Russert and the 'boys' (her Democratic rivals) are 'ganging up on her'?
A world leader she is not.
In addition, several new polls released in the past 24 hours, two of which are by Zogby and Rasmussen, show that only 25% of respondents say they believe Hillary has been 'ganged up on' and treated unfairly by her Democratic rivals and Tim Russert, despite the whines of Mrs. Clinton and husband Bill.
These are only the least of her worries, however.
Since the last Democratic debate her lead over Barack Obama has been cut in half. She is in a statistical dead-heat with Obama in Iowa, and her lead over him in New Hampshire has been in a free fall.
And then there are the scandals that hang over her head like the Sword of Damocles.
Do these mounting woes indicate that Mrs. Clinton--Bill's wife--may be denied the Democratic nomination? Absolutely not. Her nomination is practically a foregone conclusion.
But she will most definitely be a scarred and greatly weakened candidate.
Not only that, but Mrs. Clinton--Bill's wife--has been caught red-handed planting questioners during her supposed 'impromptu' question-and-answer sessions during her townhall meetings around the country.
One female college student in particular has described the trick in detail, stating that a Mrs. Clinton operative approached her about asking the candidate a question. When the student stated what she wanted to ask, the operative disapproved and presented her with a list of possible 'acceptable questions,' several specifically set up for college students to ask.
In short, Hillary is only getting questions she wants to answer, as we have seen with countless newspapers, radio programs, and now, with her threatening Wolf Blitzer and CNN over the upcoming Democratic debate on Thursday night.
Clearly Mrs. Clinton--Bill's wife--has trouble answering the tough questions as she demonstrated in the last Democratic debate when Tim Russert pressed her on drivers' licenses for illegal aliens and several other issues on which the candidate has waffled.
This woman has at least a 50-50 chance of becoming the next President of the most powerful nation on earth, and she has trouble handling tough questions?
As President, would she, for example, present the ominous Vladmir Putin a list of only 'acceptable' topics for conversation? Would she send Bill out to run interference with Hugo Chavez? How would she deal with the Iranian President and his tough-guy and dangerous rhetoric?
And she thinks Tim Russert and the 'boys' (her Democratic rivals) are 'ganging up on her'?
A world leader she is not.
In addition, several new polls released in the past 24 hours, two of which are by Zogby and Rasmussen, show that only 25% of respondents say they believe Hillary has been 'ganged up on' and treated unfairly by her Democratic rivals and Tim Russert, despite the whines of Mrs. Clinton and husband Bill.
These are only the least of her worries, however.
Since the last Democratic debate her lead over Barack Obama has been cut in half. She is in a statistical dead-heat with Obama in Iowa, and her lead over him in New Hampshire has been in a free fall.
And then there are the scandals that hang over her head like the Sword of Damocles.
Do these mounting woes indicate that Mrs. Clinton--Bill's wife--may be denied the Democratic nomination? Absolutely not. Her nomination is practically a foregone conclusion.
But she will most definitely be a scarred and greatly weakened candidate.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
The Whining Hildabeast
From the Drudge Report, CNN, and the Hillary Clinton campaign:
CNN's Wolf Blitzer has been warned not to focus Thursday's Dem debate on Hillary. 'This campaign is about issues, not on who we can bring down and destroy,' top Clinton insider explains. 'Blitzer should not go down to the levels of character attack and pull 'a Russert.'' Blitzer is set to moderate debate from Vegas, with questions also being posed by Suzanne Malveaux... Blitzer says he is not being pressured by any campaign: 'No one has pressured me. No one has threatened me. No one is trying to intimidate me'...
Pulling 'a Russert?' You mean, actually ask the candidate pertinent questions that get to the heart of her character, personality, views, and voting record? Why, how dare they!
If Blitzer goes easy on Hillary during Thursday night's Democratic debate, then he is just as big a schmuck as the Hildabeast.
This should demonstrate for the entire country what a whining bitch Hillary is for demanding that the news media 'go easy' on her.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer has been warned not to focus Thursday's Dem debate on Hillary. 'This campaign is about issues, not on who we can bring down and destroy,' top Clinton insider explains. 'Blitzer should not go down to the levels of character attack and pull 'a Russert.'' Blitzer is set to moderate debate from Vegas, with questions also being posed by Suzanne Malveaux... Blitzer says he is not being pressured by any campaign: 'No one has pressured me. No one has threatened me. No one is trying to intimidate me'...
Pulling 'a Russert?' You mean, actually ask the candidate pertinent questions that get to the heart of her character, personality, views, and voting record? Why, how dare they!
If Blitzer goes easy on Hillary during Thursday night's Democratic debate, then he is just as big a schmuck as the Hildabeast.
This should demonstrate for the entire country what a whining bitch Hillary is for demanding that the news media 'go easy' on her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)