The Liberalism You Always Knew Existed In Hollyweired. Watch Video.

With U. S. Attack OF Libya, Liberals Mourn POTUS Barack Obama's "Abdication Of Progressive Ideals".

Libya attack latest Obama abdication of progressive ideals
By Jesus Rivas

The similarities between the U.S. war in Iraq and the new attack on Libya are flabbergasting: An Arab leader once on good terms with the United States suddenly gets accused of being evil, and without allowing time for the truth to come out (the inspectors to confirm there were no weapons in Iraq or the confirmation of the cease fire that Moammar Gadhafi ordered), American forces and their allies open fire.

The other similarity is that they both possess oil reserves U.S. corporations covet.

The U.S. was aloof while other Middle East leaders massacred their people, limiting themselves to "asking for restraint" in dealing with protesters. As the Obama administration rails against Libya for the alleged human-rights violations, it turns a blind eye to demonstrators in Bahrain who dropped dead with bullets in heads and necks in the middle of demonstrations, clearly shot by snipers.

The administration also seems blind to women in the Ivory Coast shot to death during a demonstration on International Women's Day.

Yet, the conflict between two factions of the Libyan armed forces is presented as one side massacring peaceful demonstrators. The reasons for the double standard are obvious: Gadhafi has demonstrated that he will never relinquish the wealth of Libyan oil to U.S. companies. The human-rights violations ignored or even justified in other countries are used as the reason for yet another looting war in the Middle East.

After President Barack Obama's total and absolute abdication of all progressive ideals, and dismissal of the U.S. Constitution (it is Congress that has the power to declare war), there is little left for progressives to look for in the politics of the country. Unfortunately, most left-leaning citizens have been hypnotized and bamboozled with sweet rhetoric and excuses. They have gotten to the point of embracing the spin despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. If you have any doubt just consider the following:

■ There are still millions of citizens without health care.

■ The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are going strong.

■ New deployments of bombs, attacks on Pakistan.

■ New military bases in Colombia.

■ Wall Street is richer than ever; unemployment continues squeezing the poor.

■ Unions are being dismantled. Medicare is in the ICU and Social Security is in the nursing home.

■ Guantanamo is still open and the administration recently said it will keep prisoners without trial indefinitely.

To further cover itself in shame, the Obama administration has continued the torture and humiliation of detainees, including Pvt. Bradley Manning, for the crime of blowing the whistle to Wikileaks on bigger crimes.

The hoodwinking of progressives is so complete that they seem to find comfort in the assurance from Obama that there will not be ground troops in Libya, as if the people our bombs kill do not count.

The only hope is that the recently elected members of Congress, many of whom ran promising fiscal responsibility and small government, stay true to their promises and conservative rhetoric. Social conservatives should be opposed to a war that unnecessarily kills innocent people. Clearly there is nothing less Christian than dropping bombs.

The fiscal conservatives should also react against the invasion. There is no reason to use our resources and military to meddle in an internal conflict in Libya.

Those who think we should focus on our own problems, who believe in the Constitution and that the government should not waste taxpayer money, should all rally against the war on Libya.

You know the country is upside down when someone from the hard left, like myself, is placing his hopes in the Tea Party to bring the country back to its senses.

I always felt that they were not true libertarians, but a smokescreen to mask the old neoconservatives. However, seeing that Obama is gleefully supporting the military-industrial complex and Big Oil, the only hope we have is that there are some true conservatives left in Congress.

Sen. Rand Paul: The ball is in your court.

Jesus Rivas of Somerset is a former Herald-Leader community columnist. Reach him at anaconda@prodigy.net.

Read more: http://www.kentucky.com/2011/03/24/1682569/libya-attack-latest-obama-abdication.html#ixzz1HagfX37H

If You Ever Wanted To Know Why The Louisville Courier Journal Is Liberal, Well Wonder No More And Check Out This Editorial.

Read it here and wonder no more.

I guess in the scheme of things, we have to have the existence of opposing points of views on issues.

One view ONLY is what totalitarian regimes aspire for, and we ain't one -- at least if I can help it!

Gallup Poll: Largest Ideological Group Is Conservatives (40%), Followed By Moderates (35%), And Liberals (21%). Read More Below.

To read more on this polling, follow here.

Notice, if you will, that of the 40% who consider themselves Conservatives, ONLY a measly 9% consider themselves "very" conservative.

The same measly result is for Liberals -- 5%.

So the moral of the story?

If the Republican party wants to ostracize Moderate Conservatives, they do so at their PERIL, and the party can expect a HUGE thanks from the Democratic Party.

WORD.

Liberal (Progressive) Group "Moves On" To Support Judge Sonya (Sonia) Sotomayor's Confirmation To The U. S. Supreme Court.

Below is the press release:

Today, President Obama nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be the next U.S. Supreme Court justice. Of course, the Right is already fighting against her confirmation—so we need to get the facts out about her impressive qualifications and background.

Below is a list of 10 key things about Sonia Sotomayor that you might not know. Can you check it out and send it to 10 friends today? If each of us forwards the list, we can start to get the word out about Judge Sotomayor, and help to ensure that she gets a speedy and fair confirmation process.

Ten Things To Know About Judge Sonia Sotomayor

1. Judge Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the bench than any Supreme Court justice in 100 years. Over her three-decade career, she has served in a wide variety of legal roles, including as a prosecutor, litigator, and judge.

2. Judge Sotomayor is a trailblazer. She was the first Latina to serve on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and was the youngest member of the court when appointed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York. If confirmed, she will be the first Hispanic to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

3. While on the bench, Judge Sotomayor has consistently protected the rights of working Americans, ruling in favor of health benefits and fair wages for workers in several cases.

4. Judge Sotomayor has shown strong support for First Amendment rights, including in cases of religious expression and the rights to assembly and free speech.

5. Judge Sotomayor has a strong record on civil rights cases, ruling for plaintiffs who had been discriminated against based on disability, sex and race.

6. Judge Sotomayor embodies the American dream. Born to Puerto Rican parents, she grew up in a South Bronx housing project and was raised from age nine by a single mother, excelling in school and working her way to graduate summa cum laude from Princeton University and to become an editor of the Law Journal at Yale Law School.

7. In 1995, Judge Sotomayor "saved baseball" when she stopped the owners from illegally changing their bargaining agreement with the players, thereby ending the longest professional sports walk-out in history.

8. Judge Sotomayor ruled in favor of the environment in a case of protecting aquatic life in the vicinity of power plants in 2007, a decision that was overturned by the Roberts Supreme Court.

9. In 1992, Judge Sotomayor was confirmed by the Senate without opposition after being appointed to the bench by George H.W. Bush.

10. Judge Sotomayor is a widely respected legal figure, having been described as "...an outstanding colleague with a keen legal mind," "highly qualified for any position in which wisdom, intelligence, collegiality and good character would be assets," and "a role model of aspiration, discipline, commitment, intellectual prowess and integrity."

Judge Sotomayor is an historic, uniquely qualified nominee to the Supreme Court.
Let's get the word out and make sure we get a prompt, fair confirmation on her nomination.

Sources for each of the 10 things:

1. White House Statement, May 26, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51451&id=16226-10582624-KR7Pqsx&t=1

2. White House Statement, May 26, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51451&id=16226-10582624-KR7Pqsx&t=2

3. Cases: Archie v. Grand Cent. Partnership, 997 F. Supp. 504 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) and Marcella v. Capital Dist. Physicians' Health Plan, Inc., 293 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2002).

4. Cases: Flamer v. White Plains, 841 F. Supp. 1365 (S.D.N.Y. 1993), Ford v. McGinnis, 352 F.3d 382 (2d Cir. 2003), and Campos v. Coughlin, 854 F. Supp. 194 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).

5a. "Sotomayor's Notable Court Opinions and Articles," The New York Times, May 26, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51454&id=16226-10582624-KR7Pqsx&t=3

5b. Cases: Bartlett v. N.Y. State Board, 970 F. Supp. 1094 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), Greenbaum v. Svenska Hendelsbanken, 67 F.Supp.2d 228 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), Raniola v. Bratton, 243 F.3d 610 (2d Cir. 2001), and Gant v. Wallingford Board of Education, 195 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 1999).

6. "Sonia Sotomayor: 10 Things You Should Know," The Huffington Post, May 26, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51452&id=16226-10582624-KR7Pqsx&t=4

7. "How Sotomayor 'Saved' Baseball," Time, May 26, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51455&id=16226-10582624-KR7Pqsx&t=5

8. "Sotomayor's resume, record on notable cases," CNN, May 26, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51453&id=16226-10582624-KR7Pqsx&t=6

9. "Sotomayor's resume, record on notable cases," CNN, May 26, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51453&id=16226-10582624-KR7Pqsx&t=7

10a. Judge Richard C. Wesley, a George W. Bush appointee to the Second Circuit.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51451&id=16226-10582624-KR7Pqsx&t=8

10b. "Sotomayor is Highly Qualified," The Wall Street Journal, May 9, 2009.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51456&id=16226-10582624-KR7Pqsx&t=9

10c. Honorary Degree Citation, Pace University School of Law, 2003 Commencement.

Mitch McConnell Accuses POTUS Barack Obama Of Veering "Pretty Far To The Left" And Make It Look More Like Western Europe. Read More.

Read more here, or excerpts below:

WASHINGTON -- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell stepped up criticism of President Barack Obama yesterday, saying that he intends to take the nation "pretty far left" and make it more like Western Europe.

The administration is seeking to use the economic crisis to pursue a liberal agenda, McConnell said at a breakfast with reporters held by The Christian Science Monitor.

"I've said before the president was sworn in, and meant it, that I was looking for ways to cooperate to advance the nation's agenda. And I'm still hoping for that," the Kentucky Republican said.

But, McConnell said, the White House strategy "is to use the fact that we're all frightened to death of the economy to achieve a whole lot of other things that may or may not have any relation whatsoever to do with how we ended up in this particular dilemma."

He added: "The goal is to take advantage of this situation to pass what appears to be a 20- or 30-year wish list of the more liberal elements of their party. Let's get the banking system and housing fixed before we start engaging in all of this really rather audacious effort to, in my view, Europeanize the country."

Obama has just passed 50 days in office, and McConnell generally has avoided direct criticism of the president, whose popularity remains high, according to polls.

However, as the most powerful Republican in Washington, McConnell increasingly has been at odds with Obama over the administration's approach to the economic crisis, spending bills and tax policy.

Yesterday's remarks appeared to mark a tougher line from McConnell.

"It's the president's choice as to whether he wants to govern in the middle or govern on the left. I think he's made the call here in the first two months that he wants to take us pretty far to the left," he said.

"It's his choice. If he will meet us in the middle, he will find an extraordinary level of cooperation," McConnell said.

White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage said in a statement that Obama "has shown through unprecedented outreach to Republicans, swift action on the recovery act and bold reforms to increase transparency that this White House is doing things differently."

To read more follow link above.

Ruth Marcus: The Left Turn That Wasn't.

The left turn that wasn't
By Ruth Marcus

WASHINGTON -- The notion that President Obama has lurched to the left since his inauguration and is governing as an unreconstructed liberal is bunk. Obama's presidential agenda mirrors his campaign platform. He has diverged from it in a few areas -- almost entirely to the right.

Let's review:

On the war in Iraq, Obama has, wisely, stepped back from his brigade-a-month withdrawal plan and stretched his 16-month departure timetable to 19 months. It turns out that the residual force Obama discussed, sketchily, during the campaign will total 50,000 troops.

A "broken promise ... more like occupation-lite," charged the anti-war group Code Pink.

On the legal issues entwined in the war on terror, Obama is, again wisely, proceeding more slowly than many civil libertarians demand. Guantánamo will be closed -- eventually. Military commissions have been halted, torture policies renounced, and secret memoranda released.

Yet the Obama Justice Department backstopped the Bush Justice Department's assertion of the state secrets privilege to block lawsuits challenging wiretapping and extraordinary rendition. The administration argued that prisoners in Afghanistan cannot challenge their detention in court. It leaned on the British government to keep evidence of alleged torture secret.

"Hope is flickering," lamented American Civil Liberties Union executive director Anthony Romero.

On contentious social issues, Obama has proceeded largely as promised during the campaign -- again, with caution. He reversed Bush administration policies on family planning funds and stem cell research. In his education speech yesterday, Obama not only reiterated his campaign endorsement of merit pay for teachers "for improved student achievement," he called on states to lift caps on the number of charter schools. Obama has said he backs a controversial measure to make union organizing easier, but shown no zeal for having the legislation brought up.

Likewise, in continuing the Bush White House office of faith-based initiatives, Obama retrenched from his stance that groups receiving federal funding cannot discriminate in hiring. Instead, such issues will be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

"I am very disappointed," proclaimed Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Yes, you say, but what about the main event: the economy? Obama's centrist personnel choices -- Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, National Economic Council Chairman Larry Summers, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag -- have been followed by centrist policy. Indeed, Obama has moved in a more moderate direction than his campaign had pledged.

His foolhardy promise to cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans has now been linked to obtaining the revenue from his cap-and-trade emissions program. A separate promise to ease the pain of cap-and-trade-induced price increases was conveniently forgotten. The maximum tax cut has been trimmed from $1,000 to $800. Instead of trying to raise top rates immediately, Obama will wait until the Bush tax cuts expire in 2011. On health care, the President now wants his plan fully paid for with new taxes or spending cuts.

The predictable yelping about Obama piling tax increases on the wealthy ignores that he outlined precisely this during the campaign. The one additional increase is his proposal to limit the value of tax deductions for the richest taxpayers. This was not just dead on arrival on Capitol Hill. It expired in transit.

Still, given the need to focus attention and political capital on the economy, is Obama taking on too much by pursuing the full campaign menu? Maybe, but there's no harm in setting out priorities. Assuming that the economic crisis precludes doing anything else guarantees nothing else will get done. Aside from the economy, Obama's real focus this year is health care reform. Even this may be biting off too much. But it's a reasonable judgment that health care is a moral and economic imperative worth the try.

The most legitimate criticism of Obama is that his vision of shared sacrifice hasn't involved much sharing, and the hard choices he talks about remain to be made. It's an open question whether he's got the spine to stand up to congressional leaders. The omens -- dropping a plan to tackle Social Security reform and abdicating responsibility for the omnibus spending bill -- are not auspicious.

And if President Obama, much like candidate Obama, has found it hard to "put an end to the politics that would divide a nation" -- well, some of us never considered that a change we much believed in.

But these are different questions than Obama's supposed radicalism. He's doing, or trying to do, what he promised, smoothed out by the real world demands of governing. How shocking is that?

Ruth Marcus is a columnist for The Washington Post. Her e-mail address is marcusr@washpost.com.

"I am very disappointed," proclaimed Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Yes, you say, but what about the main event: the economy? Obama's centrist personnel choices -- Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, National Economic Council Chairman Larry Summers, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag -- have been followed by centrist policy. Indeed, Obama has moved in a more moderate direction than his campaign had pledged.

His foolhardy promise to cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans has now been linked to obtaining the revenue from his cap-and-trade emissions program. A separate promise to ease the pain of cap-and-trade-induced price increases was conveniently forgotten. The maximum tax cut has been trimmed from $1,000 to $800. Instead of trying to raise top rates immediately, Obama will wait until the Bush tax cuts expire in 2011. On health care, the President now wants his plan fully paid for with new taxes or spending cuts.

The predictable yelping about Obama piling tax increases on the wealthy ignores that he outlined precisely this during the campaign. The one additional increase is his proposal to limit the value of tax deductions for the richest taxpayers. This was not just dead on arrival on Capitol Hill. It expired in transit.

Still, given the need to focus attention and political capital on the economy, is Obama taking on too much by pursuing the full campaign menu? Maybe, but there's no harm in setting out priorities. Assuming that the economic crisis precludes doing anything else guarantees nothing else will get done. Aside from the economy, Obama's real focus this year is health care reform. Even this may be biting off too much. But it's a reasonable judgment that health care is a moral and economic imperative worth the try.

The most legitimate criticism of Obama is that his vision of shared sacrifice hasn't involved much sharing, and the hard choices he talks about remain to be made. It's an open question whether he's got the spine to stand up to congressional leaders. The omens -- dropping a plan to tackle Social Security reform and abdicating responsibility for the omnibus spending bill -- are not auspicious.

And if President Obama, much like candidate Obama, has found it hard to "put an end to the politics that would divide a nation" -- well, some of us never considered that a change we much believed in.

But these are different questions than Obama's supposed radicalism. He's doing, or trying to do, what he promised, smoothed out by the real world demands of governing. How shocking is that?

Ruth Marcus is a columnist for The Washington Post. Her e-mail address is marcusr@washpost.com.

MOVEON.Org Aims To "Move On" Against Republicans Who Voted Against Stimulus Bill With New Ad. Watch Ad.

POTUS Barack Obama Wines And Dines With Conservative Columnists. Good Idea Or A Bad One?

Think Progress.

"Theodore Roosevelt Was No Conservative".

Theodore Roosevelt Was No Conservative
There's a reason he left the GOP to lead the Progressive Party.
By RONALD J. PESTRITTO

We know that Barack Obama and his allies identify themselves as "progressives," and that they aim to implement the big-government liberalism that originated in America's Progressive Era and was consummated in the New Deal. What remains a mystery is why some conservatives want to claim this progressive identity as their own -- particularly as it was manifested by Theodore Roosevelt.

The fact that conservative politicians such as John McCain and writers like William Kristol and Karl Rove are attracted to our 26th president is strange because, if we want to understand where in the American political tradition the idea of unlimited, redistributive government came from, we need look no further than to Roosevelt and others who shared his outlook.

Progressives of both parties, including Roosevelt, were the original big-government liberals. They understood full well that the greatest obstacle to their schemes of social justice and equality of material condition was the U.S. Constitution as it was originally written and understood: as creating a national government of limited, enumerated powers that was dedicated to securing the individual natural rights of its citizens, especially liberty of contract and private property.

It was the Republican TR, who insisted in his 1910 speech on the "New Nationalism" that there was a "general right of the community to regulate" the earning of income and use of private property "to whatever degree the public welfare may require it." He was at one here with Democrat Woodrow Wilson, who had in 1885 condemned Americans' respect for their Constitution as "blind worship," and suggested that his countrymen dedicate themselves to the Declaration of Independence by leaving out its "preface" -- i.e., the part of it that establishes the protection of equal natural rights as the permanent task of government.

In his "Autobiography," Roosevelt wrote that he "declined to adopt the view that what was imperatively necessary for the nation could not be done by the President unless he could find some specific authorization to do it." The national government, in TR's view, was not one of enumerated powers but of general powers, and the purpose of the Constitution was merely to state the narrow exceptions to that rule.

This is a view of government directly opposed by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 84. Hamilton explains there that the fundamental difference between a republican constitution and a monarchic one is that the latter reserves some liberty for the people by stating specific exceptions to the assumed general power of the crown, whereas the former assumes from the beginning that the power of the people is the general rule, and the power of the government the exception.

TR turns this on its head. In his New Nationalism speech he noted how, in aiming to use state power to bring about economic equality, the government should permit a man to earn and keep his property "only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community." The government itself of course would determine what represented a benefit to the community, and whether society would be better off if an individual's wealth was transferred to somebody else.

We can see the triumph of this outlook in progressive income taxation, which TR trumpeted in his speech (along with progressive estate taxes). We may also see this theory in action when a government seizes private property through eminent domain, transferring it to others in order to generate higher tax revenues -- a practice blessed by the Supreme Court in its notorious Kelo v. New London decision of 2005.

Some conservatives today are misled by the battle between TR and Wilson in the 1912 presidential election. But Wilson implemented most of TR's program once he took office in 1913, including a progressive income tax and the establishment of several regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission.

Others are misled by TR's crusade against an activist judiciary. But unlike our courts today, the judiciary during the Progressive era properly struck down legislation that violated our bedrock rights to liberty of contract and private property. TR hated the judiciary precisely for standing up for the Constitution; this is certainly no reason for conservatives today to latch on to his antijudicial rhetoric.

Many who respect individual liberty and the free market believe that the electoral tide has turned, and that an era of big government is inevitable. But recall that John McCain gained traction in the closing days of his campaign only when he attacked Mr. Obama's desire to "spread the wealth" through higher tax rates on the upper-income earners. His attack clearly resonated among the public. But it came too late, and truth be told, his heart wasn't really in it.

Looking ahead, conservatives hardly need to look back to progressives for inspiration. If there is a desire to "conserve" or restore something about our political tradition that has been lost with the rise of modern liberalism, how about the American founding as a model? It is with the founders that we can find the patriotic promotion of America as an exceptionally great nation -- a notion that attracts some conservatives to TR.

The difference is that, with the founders as a model, we get the idea of American greatness, but without the progressives' assault on the very enduring principles that justify America's claim to greatness in the first place.

Mr. Pestritto is the Shipley Professor of the American Constitution at Hillsdale College and a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute. Among his books are "Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2005).

Even The Liberals Get It!

Bailing out an insurance titan

Here's a riddle for you: How did a flailing American International Group persuade the Federal Reserve to throw it a lifeline two days after the feds snubbed a sinking Lehman Bros.? Answer: by failing on a much, much grander scale.

Both companies were big players in the market for credit default swaps, an unregulated form of private insurance that guards companies against loss when an investment goes bad. But AIG sold more swaps to more banks and investment companies than Lehman did. These extensive entanglements led the Fed to worry that a sudden AIG bankruptcy could drag down much of the financial industry.

Unfortunately, the message to Wall Street seems to be that doing business with a really big firm is virtually risk free, thanks to the likelihood of a federal bailout. The rescue isn't helping AIG shareholders -- the stock is worth about $2 a share, down more than 90 percent from a month ago. But by keeping AIG afloat with an $85 billion loan, the Fed provided a crucial respite for the companies that bought swaps from AIG, along with the company's bondholders.

It's worth remembering that AIG, the world's largest insurance company, didn't get in trouble for covering risky drivers or storm-damaged homes. State insurance commissioners say that the consumer insurance subsidiaries of AIG were in good shape, and policyholders wouldn't have been hurt even if the parent company had gone belly up. The company's turmoil was caused by the guarantees it provided for risky mortgage-related securities. Sound familiar? Those securities triggered the fall of Bear Stearns and Lehman Bros., too. And thanks to the Fed's bailout, the banks and investment companies that actually held those securities won't have to raise cash suddenly to offset a precipitous drop in their investments' value.

Those companies are the real beneficiaries of the Fed's rescue. It's clear that a collapse by AIG would have taken a toll throughout the industry, which could have forced a scramble for capital that would tighten credit markets. And that, in turn, might have made it harder for many companies to obtain the money they need to run their businesses. How many more companies would have toppled? Policymakers couldn't predict and didn't want to find out.

Before such interventions become habit-forming, there need to be more safeguards -- not for investors but for taxpayers. We're all for unfettered financial innovation, as long as the industry has a mechanism to limit systemic threats without the central bank's help. That's not the case today, obviously. As we said after Lehman sank, the federal government needs better tools to ensure that companies like AIG can't threaten the entire system when they put themselves at risk.

Editor's comment: This editorial appeared in the Los Angeles Times, along with other Liberal minded newspapers, including the Courier-Journal.

Yes, even some Liberals get it (while some FALSE Conservatives do not).

FYI: Club For Growth Ranks Kentucky's Legislators. Addia Wuchner Tops House, Katie Stine Tops Senate. Read More.

Follow this link to view the rest of the rankings.

How did your law maker fare?

For "Billary" Clinton, "Ides of March" may come on the 4th.

Notice "Billary" doesn't mention that she will go on after March 4th!

Even more telling is what the "Bill" in "Billary" had to say:

Join me in saying: Bye bye, "Billary".

More bad news for "Billary" as defections commence.

Read the story here.

More expected in the very near future.

Barack Obama continues his state sweep of Hillary Clinton, as her deputy resigns and she adopts Rudy Giuliani's "winning" strategy.

Barack Obama continued his winning ways against Hillary Clinton (delegate count is almost tied), winning the three primaries yesterday in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia (Washington, D. C.).

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton's deputy campaign manager resigned this morning and we now hear that she has adopted a Texas, Ohio "last stand(?)" strategy (more Texas, really) sans Rudy Giuliani's Florida "last stand".

And it may be Hillary's last stand, indeed, as many politicos are now publicly saying that Obama will likely be the Democrat's nominee, unless Texas saves Hillary's hide.

I do NOT find it far fetched that Obama could end up being the Democrat's nominee, but the skeptic in me wants to wait until I see it happen.

How about you?

Chris Matthews' "Obejective Assessment Of Barack "All Style & No Substance"Obama

"I have to tell you, you know, it's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often. No, seriously. It's a dramatic event. He speaks about America in a way that has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with the feeling we have about our country. And that is an objective assessment."

Comment: Doesn't sound like an objective assessment to me!

I am sure the German people felt that thrill going up there leg when they listened to a mesmerizing Hitler in the 1930s.

While communication skills are a good trait for a leader there also must be some substance to his beliefs. How is Obama going to react when his ultra-liberal voting record is scrutinized by the American people between now and November and when they contemplate the cost of his social programs and promises!

BREAKING NEWS: Hillary Clinton's campaign replaces manager!

This is a SURE sign that HILLARY, or should I say BILLARY, is running SCARED and her coronation, ehm, campaign is NOT going as well as she expected-- especially in view of Obama's spanking of her in yesterday's 4 state primaries, including today in the state of Maine!

Here is the quitting email:

Over a year ago Hillary launched her campaign for President.

Her announcement began a historic effort that has inspired millions and brought hundreds of thousands to their feet all across this nation.

I have been proud to manage this campaign, and prouder still to call Hillary my friend for more than sixteen years. I know that she will make a great President.

This has already been the longest Presidential campaign in the history of our nation, and one that has required enormous sacrifices from all of us and our families.

During the last month I have been working closely with my longtime friend, Maggie Williams.

This week Maggie will begin to assume the duties of campaign manager. I will serve as a senior adviser to Hillary and the campaign and travel with Hillary from time to time on the road. Maggie is a remarkable person and I am confident that she will do a fabulous job.

Although I will continue to see you all at headquarters, I would be remiss if I didn’t thank each of you for your dedication, excellence, and passion over the last year.

You are the best campaign staff in the history of Presidential politics and I am grateful to each of you for your hard work and friendship.

To be honest, though, I think this move was an extremely SMART move on Hillary's part. Not only does it go to deflect some of the accusations of race baiting, but it goes to take away some of the luster away from Obama in the eyes of those who flock to Obama because of the content of his character AND HIS RACE.

WSJ op-ed: The Obama opportunity.

Read about it here, and welcome Obama.

"Slick Willy" is back, and helping "Slick Hillary".

"Slick Willy" is back, and is helping his wife, "Slick Hillary".

Gloves were on, ring announcer was done, but the bell never rang.

Watch and see.