He said ... She said

Monster ... Ken Starr. He said ... She said.

Is this the best we get in this Country? With all the critically important issues facing our country today, the leading candidates from the Democratic Party are quibbling like a bunch of teenagers fighting over who gets to use the the bathroom first.

He says that Billary will push the Democratic Party to the limits of destruction, She says that the interests of the Party are the foremost priority.

Who really won in Texas? He says he won Texas by ending up with more delegates, She says she won the popular vote and has the momentum.

He says he has never voted for the war in Iraq. She says she was lied to and voted for diplomacy. He says She was for the war before She was against it, She says He is not ready to answer the phone at 3 AM.

He says He is against NAFTA, She says he told Canadian diplomats other things in private than He does in public.

I say - who cares about this cute, clever, political noodling - what it really shows us is the "true character" of the final two Democratic candidates. The next leader of our great nation may be one of these two immature "leaders". It is sad to see the tears of shame coming from the eye of the Eagle.

Here comes Billary

Here comes Billary.
Obama is hot air.
Here comes Billary.
Plagiarism's everywhere!

Here comes Billary.
Lie, cheat or steal.
Here comes Billary.
Now Florida and Michigan are real.

Here comes Billary.
Obama's accomplishment - name one?
Here comes Billary.
We'll crush Hope before we're done.

Here comes Billary.
Deer-stares-in-lights abound.
Here comes Billary.
See the Liberal Matthews' found.





Billary Clinton - Destroys Change and Hope.
Billary Clinton - Never Beaten.

Barkely didn't fall off the truck - he has a turnip for a brain

In case you haven't seen the latest CNN clip of ex-NBA Allstar Charles Barkely calling Conservatives "Fake Christians" and saying "everytime I hear the word 'conservative' it makes me sick to my stomach" you can view it yourself by clicking on the link here.

fake christians

Barkely's judgement of "Conservatives" as "Fake Christians" is unbelievably self-damning for someone who has announced he will be running for Govenor of Alabama in 2014, seven years after establishing residency in 2007. By his twisted sense of claiming not to be a "fake christian", Barkely then goes on to state his divine and true understanding of theological doctrinal positions with respect to Gay Marriage and Abortion. Even in his judgemental statement, he chastises "Conservatives" as fake because they are not to judge.

With these kind of statements it leaves you wondering if Barkely comprehends anything from his time spent reading the Bible, is he simply turnip-brained and just doesn't get it, or has he chosen to selectively pick-and-choose the parts out of the Bible he likes best. Maybe Sir Charles has more of an issue with what the Bible says, than with the ones that are saying it? I will leave this up to Sir Charles and God.

Regarding just the issue of Gay Marriage though Charles, I would like to know why you believe that a a group of activists in 2008, with a preference towards the way that they personally desire, engage and perform sexual activities, should irrevocably and justifiably re-define the definition of a sacred tradition that has been practiced for centuries by billions of people all over the world? The arrogance and perpetual self-ambitious disrespect of tradition and values from these activists is such that everytime I hear the word 'Gay Marriage' it makes me sick to my stomach!

And I am sure that there are a lot of folks (even in Alabama) who feel the same way.

Obama won't take special interest $

Superdelegates get campaign cash

Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor February 14, 2008 03:54 PM
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/superdelegates.html

Many of the superdelegates who could well decide the Democratic presidential nominee have already been plied with campaign contributions by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, a new study shows.

"While it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials serving as superdelegates have received about $890,000 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years," the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reported today.

About half the 800 superdelegates -- elected officials, party leaders, and others -- have committed to either Clinton or Obama, though they can change their minds until the convention.

Obama's political action committee has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000.

Clinton's political action committee has distributed about $195,000 to superdelegates, and only 13 of the 109 who had announced for her have received money, totaling about $95,000.

Not so secret Secret Service

Behind the Scenes With Hillary

Thursday, February 7, 2008 9:39 AM
By: Ronald Kessler

Guarding presidential candidates 24 hours a day, Secret Service agents know better than almost anyone what they are really like.

Among Secret Service agents, no protectee evokes more disdain than Hillary Clinton.

Secret Service agents assigned at various points to guarding Hillary during her campaign for the Senate were dismayed to find her two-faced and perpetually angry.

“During the listening tour, she planned ‘impromptu’ visits at diners and local hangouts,” a former Secret Service agent told me for my book “A Matter of Character: Inside the White House of George W. Bush.”

“The events were all staged, and the questions were screened,” the former agent said. “She would stop off at diners. The campaign would tell them three days ahead that they were coming. They would talk to the owner and tell him to invite everyone and bring his friends. Hillary flew into rages when she thought her campaign staff had not corralled enough onlookers beforehand. Hillary had an explosive temper.”

Publicly, Hillary courted law enforcement organizations, but privately she had disdain for police. “She did not want police officers in sight,” a former agent said. “How do you explain that to the police? She did not want Secret Service protection near.

She wanted state troopers and local police to wear suits and stay in unmarked cars. If there were an incident, that could pose a big problem. People don’t know police are in the area unless officers wear uniforms and drive police cars. If they are unaware of a police presence, people are more likely to get out of control.”

In Syracuse, a bearded man who aggressively sought autographs accosted Hillary as she went for a walk outside her hotel during her Senate race.“He grabbed her,” an agent said. “She was livid. But she had insisted she did not want us near her.”

For her Senate campaign, the Secret Service purchased three Cadillac De Villes.“She decided they were not compatible with her down-home image. They were used once or twice,” an agent said. “She wanted a conversion van with picture windows and two captain chairs. So we purchased three of them, each outfitted with armor, bulletproof glass, and a system to supply clean air. Each was positioned around New York State to help reduce travel time.”

Like her husband and his White House staff, Hillary and her staff were disorganized and habitually late. “She had children running her campaign,” an agent said. “She had a lack of organization and a lack of maturity. She could not keep a schedule.”

When she stayed at the houses of Democratic supporters, “We would show up at their homes at 2 a.m., and she would sleep in the master bedroom,” he said.

During her “listening tour,” Hillary’s campaign staff planned a visit to a 4-H Club in dairy farm country in upstate New York. As they approached the outdoor event and she saw people dressed in jeans and surrounded by cows, Hillary became livid.

“She turned to a staffer and said, ‘What the [expletive] did we come here for? There’s no money here,’” a former Secret Service agent said.

As the Secret Service and White House residence staff saw it, Hillary and Bill Clinton had a business relationship, not a marriage. “They would talk on an encrypted phone,” an agent said. “He would give her advice. It was a political alliance. She portrayed herself as devastated by the revelations of Monica [Lewinsky]. I doubt she cared.”

The Clintons’ home in Chappaqua allowed Hillary to establish a residence in New York State and run for the Senate. They keep an apartment in New York, but Hillary lives mainly in Georgetown. They use the Chappaqua home for fundraisers.

“Chappaqua was because she had to be a resident of New York,” an agent said. “That was the main reason for taking it. The only reason she ran for the Senate is to be president.”

Everyone on the White House residence staff recalled what happened when Christopher B. Emery, a White House usher, returned Barbara Bush’s call after she had left the White House. Emery had helped Barbara learn to use her laptop. Now she was having computer trouble. Twice, Emery helped her out. For that, Hillary Clinton fired him.

The father of four, Emery could not find another job for a year. Yet on TV, Hillary speaks of her compassion for the little people. In her book “Living History,” Hillary Clinton wrote of her gratitude to the White House staff.

The truth is, said a Secret Service agent, “Hillary did not speak to us. We spent years with her. She never said thank you.”

In contrast, “Barack Obama is a decent guy,” says an agent. “Like President Bush, he treats the people around him with respect.”

[Editor's Note: Get Ronald Kessler's book — “A Matter of Character: Inside the White House of George W. Bush.” ]

Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com.

Billary against the wall

HILLARY CLINTON WILL GO FOR BROKE

PUTS UP HER OWN $5M AS TOP AIDES GO WITHOUT PAY

By DAPHNE RETTER in Arlington, Va., and MAGGIE HABERMAN in New York

'O' vs. OWE:Barack Obama, in Chicago yesteday, has trounced Hillary in the money game - raising $32M last month to her $13.5M.

Pow Wow On Democrats

.

February 7, 2008 -- Hillary Rodham Clinton personally lent her cash-strapped campaign $5 million late last month, and some top staffers are now going without pay, officials acknowledged yesterday.

The moves were revealed as Clinton and Barack Obama hun kered down for a war of attrition for the Democratic nomination after Super Tuesday failed to crown a winner. And a series of contests in the coming weeks seem likely to favor the Illinois senator.

"My opponent was able to raise more money, and we intended to be competitive and we were. I think the results last night proved the wisdom of my investment," Clinton told re porters yesterday, after spokesman Howard Wolfson confirmed the loan.

At a stop in Iowa in December, Bill Clinton raised the issue of funding his wife's campaign. He told a crowd, "They say you couldn't stop me from spending all the money I've saved over the last five years if I wanted to, even though it would clearly violate the spirit of campaign-finance reform."

But yesterday Hillary Clinton made clear what the source of the $5 million was.

"From my money - that's where I got the money," she quipped.

Pressed on whether she was prepared to go beyond her initial $5 million payout, Clinton demurred and said, "I'm just going to leave it." But she is said to be weighing an additional loan.

Officials confirmed that some staffers have "voluntarily chosen to work without pay this month," including campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle - a move that echoes one by Rudy Giuliani's campaign last month when it hit the skids.

The development signaled serious problems in terms of resources, and could complicate fund-raising in the days to come as Clinton does battle in major states like Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania.

Within hours of Clinton's announcement, Obama's campaign manager sent out a fund-raising appeal by e-mail, saying the campaign had raised more than $3 million since Tuesday night and adding, "We have no choice - we must match their $5 million right now."

The Clintons' personal fortune is estimated between $10 million and $50 million, according to financial-disclosure forms. The couple's riches are due to advances and book sales from Bill and Hill's respective memoirs, and Bill's ton's highly lucrative turn on the lecture circuit.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Bill Clinton was due to receive a payout as large as $20 million as he disentangled from a financial deal with billionaire Ron Burkle, although sources said that deal hasn't been cut yet.

But the New York senator's answer yesterday firmly indicated she was drawing from her own pool of cash, which includes more than $7 million in a book advance for "Living History," and more than $3.5 million in royalties.

The timing of the loan was in the final weeks before Super Tuesday, as Sen. Clinton was battling for delegate-rich states against Obama.

Sources said there was little debate about it, and that "she just did it when it was clear we needed it."

"The loan illustrates Sen. Clinton's commitment to this effort and to ensuring that our campaign has the resources it needs to compete and win across this nation," said Wolfson, who addressed the issue after it was raised on a conference call yesterday morning by a reporter.

"We have had one of our best fund-raising efforts ever on the Web today, and our Super Tuesday victories will only help in bringing more support for her candidacy."

Sources said Clinton had raised close to $1 million on the Internet since Tuesday night.

Her supporters pointed to a new Gallup national poll showing she'd bumped up to a 13-point lead over Obama, 52 percent to 39 percent.

Clinton's fund-raising for January paled in comparison to Obama's - he raised $32 million to her $13.5 million.

"He's got a huge advantage in that he is the Internet candidate," said one Clinton campaign source, referring to Obama's ability to raise bucks on the Web.

Dr. James Dobson on John McCain

How long until Spring Break Teddy?

Ted Kennedy has gotten into a pickle again - this time with a bunch of angry activist supporters of Hillary Clinton. The liberal Massachusetts Senator, fresh off his brazen endorsement of Barack Obama, barely had time to duck from flying purses thrown at him by an attacking band of frenzied New York feminists. With his endorsement of Obama just given yesterday, Ted Kennedy was jumped on early and often today and has jeopardized, if not already lost, his long standing approval rating with women activist groups and feminists across the country.

"Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal," NOW's New York State chapter said in a scorching rebuke. "Senator Kennedy's endorsement of Hillary Clinton's opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard."

The AP article went on to quote

But the move angered the state chapter of NOW, which called Kennedy's decision the "greatest betrayal."

"We are repaid with his abandonment!" the statement said. "He's picked the new guy over us. He's joined the list of progressive white men who can't or won't handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton."

The group said it was our obligation to "elect, unabashedly, a president that is the first woman after centuries of men who 'know what's best for us."'

"A Betrayal to Women"

Is this video really from Marcia Pappas, President of NYC NOW Chapter, it sure looks a lot like Rosie O'Donnell to me. Does it seem to you that Hillary has really surrounded herself with a good group of people to be in the White House with her?

After years of support for NOW, Ted Kennedy now has made a new bed to lie in after his "ultimate betrayal". For Ted's sake, he better hope Obama follows through and beats Hillary, because if Billary wins ... it is going to be very hot in the White House kitchen for Teddy from NOW on!

WSJ Reprint - Breaking up is hard to do

By PEGGY NOONAN
January 25, 2008; Page W14

We begin, as one always must now, again, with Bill Clinton. The past week he has traveled South Carolina, leaving discord in his wake. Barack Obama, that "fairytale," is low, sneaky. "He put out a hit job on me." The press is cruelly carrying Mr. Obama's counter-jabs. "You live for it."

In Dillon, S.C., according to the Associated Press, on Thursday Mr. Clinton "predicted that many voters will be guided mainly by gender and race loyalties" and suggested his wife may lose Saturday's primary because black voters will side with Mr. Obama. Who is raising race as an issue? Bill Clinton knows. It's the press, and Mr. Obama. "Shame on you," Mr. Clinton said to a CNN reporter. The same day the Web site believed to be the backdoor of the Clinton war room unveiled a new name for the senator from Illinois: "Sticky Fingers Obama."

Bill Clinton, with his trembly, red-faced rage, makes John McCain look young. His divisive and destructive daily comportment—this is a former president of the United States—is a civic embarrassment. It is also an education, and there is something heartening in this.

There are many serious and thoughtful liberals and Democrats who support Mr. Obama and John Edwards, and who are seeing Mr. Clinton in a new way and saying so. Here is William Greider in The Nation, the venerable left-liberal magazine. The Clintons are "high minded" on the surface but "smarmily duplicitous underneath, meanwhile jabbing hard at the groin area. They are a slippery pair and come as a package. The nation is at fair risk of getting them back in the White House for four years."

That, again, is from one of the premier liberal journals in the United States. It is exactly what conservatives have been saying for a decade. This may mark a certain coming together of the thoughtful on both sides. The Clintons, uniters at last.

Mr. Obama takes the pummeling and preaches the high road. It's all windup with him, like a great pitcher more comfortable preparing to throw than throwing. Something in him resists aggression. He tends to be indirect in his language, feinting, only suggestive. I used to think he was being careful not to tear the party apart, and endanger his own future.

But the Clintons are tearing the party apart. It will not be the same after this. It will not be the same after its most famous leader, and probable ultimate victor, treated a proud and accomplished black man who is a U.S. senator as if he were nothing, a mere impediment to their plans. And to do it in a way that signals, to his supporters, How dare you have the temerity, the ingratitude, after all we've done for you?

Watch for the GOP to attempt swoop in after the November elections and make profit of the wreckage.

* * *

Featured Billary Comment: Women in Blue Dresses

After over six some decades as living as woman in a society in which one needs to be a both a bit smarter and a bit tougher to make it, the idea of the first US woman president is an exciting one. But the spectacle that has become Billary is a sad commentary on the “first” and it is comforting when other women, or “Friends of Bill” are willing to boldly state the truth in the midst of the untruths that Billary have been directing against Obama.

Do we really want “our first” woman President to be elected because people like her husband more than they like her but can only vote for her to get him back in the White House? Can it really be that deep thinking women think that the Republicans are even more excited about Billary defeating Obama so the general election can revive the explicit scenes of oral history from the Clinton Oval Office? The Billary duo is not one that will bring pride to women but rather will revive the memory that the blue dress didn’t lie.

There will be no basis for pride for women if Billary return/s to the Oval Office. We need to show up at the Clinton rallies in our blue dresses over the next weeks. We need to show them and others that we reject the images of Hillary grabbing Bill’s stained coat tails to carry them both back to the White House or, more likely, to bring defeat to the Democrats in 2008.

Let’s rally as Women in Blue Dresses before February 5

*************************************************************************************

Hillary Unchains Bill - that dog can hunt!

All we heard from the beleaguered Hillary Clinton camp in the days going into the Iowa Caucuses was the need to show the personal and sensitive side of Hillary. Then came the tears on the way into New Hampshire. But don't forget that at that time the steely-eyed machine was confused and reeling. There was talk of Bill taking the reins and having the leadership turned over to James Carville and Paul Begala. Hillary was NOT to bite anymore, this was to be done by Bill - and we all know that Carville and Begala would flush the birds out of the bush for Bill to bite.

Now here we are, just a couple weeks have gone by, Hillary has returned and is now clearly the favored front runner. Obama has been spending significant time and precious resources fighting perception and opinion lies. Emails circulating the web falsely accuse him of being a Muslim, that he would use the Koran to swear in with instead of the Bible, that he refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance take him away from being able to focus on sharing his vision for America. Barack, you better get a dog if you want to stay alive in this fight.

The Billary Dynasty is rolling. Many democrats still fond of Bill, are now wondering just how far Bill will go to get Hillary elected, to the point they are now very concerned about the damage this will do to the party. Bill has said before, "you gotta do what you gotta do", he is going to do what it takes to get Hillary elected. Billary has never been beaten - and Carville and Begala are a big part of the reason for this.

Never in the history of the United States, has a former President weighed in this far or taken these tactics to get someone elected. Bill is unchained and he loves it, Hillary is now charming - or at least she is suppose to be charming. Take a good look at it - this is as charming as Hillary gets - and one thing for sure, with guidance from Carville and Begala - this dog can hunt and loves to bite.

Wall Street Journal Billary Reprint

Obama's Clinton Education
January 23, 2008; Page A24

One of our favorite Bill Clinton anecdotes involves a confrontation he had with Bob Dole in the Oval Office after the 1996 election. Mr. Dole protested Mr. Clinton's attack ads claiming the Republican wanted to harm Medicare, but the President merely smiled that Bubba grin and said, "You gotta do what you gotta do."

We're reminded of that story listening to Barack Obama protest his treatment by the now ex-President Clinton on behalf of his wanna-be-President wife. "You know the former President, who I think all of us have a lot of regard for, has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling," Mr. Obama told a TV interviewer. "He continues to make statements that are not supported by the facts -- whether it's about my record of opposition to the war in Iraq or our approach to organizing in Las Vegas."

Now he knows how the rest of us feel.

The Illinois Senator is still a young man, but not so young as to have missed the 1990s. He nonetheless seems to be awakening slowly to what everyone else already knows about the Clintons, which is that they will say and do whatever they "gotta" say or do to win. Listen closely to Mr. Obama, and you can almost hear the echoes of Bob Dole at the end of the 1996 campaign asking, "Where's the outrage?"

This has been the core of the conservative critique of the Clintons for years. So it is illuminating to hear the same critique coming from Mr. Obama and his supporters now that his candidacy poses a threat to the return of the Clinton dynasty. Even Democrats are now admitting the Clintons don't tell the truth -- at least until Mrs. Clinton wins the nomination.

Mr. Obama's two examples are instructive because they are so wonderfully Clintonian. On the eve of the New Hampshire primary, Mr. Clinton attacked Mr. Obama's claims of having opposed the Iraq war all along as a "fairly tale." This is a tough charge coming from a two-term Democratic President in a Democratic primary, and it probably helped turn some voters against Mr. Obama.

But it was also a classic distortion intended to turn voter attention away from his wife's own Iraq fairy tale. She's the candidate who voted for the war and backed it for years before she decided she had to be sort of against it, only to later become really against it, and now to favor a withdrawal starting in 60 days. We think Mr. Obama is dangerously wrong about Iraq, but compared to Mrs. Clinton he's a model of consistency.

Then there's Mr. Clinton's moaning before Saturday's Nevada caucuses that his wife's supporters were being strong-armed by pro-Obama unions at casino voting sites. Clinton campaign allies sued and lost on the matter, and the former President sounded like a Chicago ward heeler as he told reporters about the Obama campaign's voter-intimidation tactics. Yet on the day of the vote Mrs. Clinton won at seven of the nine casino sites, and the Obama campaign was left asking if its vote had been suppressed. It wouldn't be the first time Mr. Clinton accused an opponent of doing something his own campaign was planning to do.

Some in the press corps argue that Mr. Clinton's attacks are hurting his wife. But if they were, he'd stop. His behavior is part of the familiar Clinton playbook of letting others do the dirty work so the candidate can stay above the fray. Hillary and other surrogates took on the task of saving her husband from his lies under oath by inventing the specter of the "vast right-wing conspiracy," calling Paula Jones trailer trash, and portraying the widely respected Ken Starr as a rabid partisan.

Now Bill is returning the favor by attacking Mr. Obama; at the same time, other surrogates raise his long-ago cocaine use, only to apologize after it's been widely reported. News reports also say that so-called robo-calls in Nevada repeatedly referred to Mr. Obama by his middle name, "Hussein." And emails suddenly appeared last week on Jewish lists accusing the African-American Senator of being fond of Louis Farrakhan. Mr. Obama had to disavow Mr. Farrakhan and his associates.

Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton can claim to disapprove of these attacks, and even assert that she herself is being unfairly picked on by the media because she's a woman. She wants to make the primary contest about race and gender, rather than about Mr. Obama's larger, more inspiring message of change. She can then diminish Mr. Obama and make the choice a trench fight for the votes of typical Democratic constituencies. You gotta do what you gotta do.

"I understand him wanting to promote his wife's candidacy," Mr. Obama added on Sunday, referring to Bill Clinton. "She's got a record that she can run on. But I think it's important that we try to maintain some -- you know, level of honesty and candor during the course of the campaign. If we don't, then we feed the cynicism that has led so many Americans to be turned off to politics."

Welcome to the education of Barack Obama.

Are Blacks Split?

Today the front page of the NY Times states that Blacks Split on Clinton vs. Obama. Are they really? Perhaps we should distinguish between "black leaders" to whom the media goes for comment, and black voters. The sometimes self-appointed "leaders" may have personal axes to grind in terms of expected rewards from a Billary administration, but will black citizens pass up a chance to have a black in the White House in order to vote for the white lady?

Dynasty?

Some of the comments on my previous post indicate support for a particular candidate. That is fine, but the post was not intended as an endorsement of Obama, Paul, or anyone else. Frankly, like many Americans I have not made up my mind who I will support, but I know that it will not be Billary.

So far in this campaign there has been very little discussion of the "dynasty" issue. I think the phenomenon is the same as the endless Hollywood remakes of successful films from the past. Financial backers are willing to invest only in proven commodities. Certainly, there is risk in supporting or contributing to a candidate with no name ID.

Other than GW Bush, we have only one example of a dynastic presidency and that was John Quincy Adams a long time ago. Roosevelt does not count because Teddy and Franklin were distant cousins, they were from different parties, and were probably as different ideologically and in personality as any two presidents could be. Interestingly, there is only one known photograph of Theodore and Franklin together.

This does not mean that sons of presidents have not sought the office. I believe that Jimmy Roosevelt, who represented a California district in the House in the late 40s and early 50s, believed he could do it, but his hopes were dashed when he failed to support Truman for the nomination in 1948 and he became something of a pariah among Democrats. Nobody thought he could be elected just because his father was a very popular president.

Finally, I have a question. Is there anyone who seriously believes that offered the choice between Billary and Obama, any great number of black voters will choose Billary? After over 200 years of struggle to rise from slavery and attain social and political equality with whites (still not fully achieved) will enough black voters choose Billary to give them the nomination? Obama is the first black candidate in history to have a real chance. What do you think? Isn't this the "elephant in the room" in the campaign?

Tomorrow I will mention some other issues that have not emerged in the campaign so far.

4 (8) more years?

Well folks, are you ready for another 4 (8) years of Billary? I thought that we did away with kings and queens over 200 years ago when some people decided that they did not want that kind of government any more. By the time we get rid of Billary, perhaps Chelsea will be ready to run.

Maybe we should just save time and trouble and amend the Constitution so that the presidency is passed around among two or three designated families. I am sure that the Kennedys will apply to be included if they ever get any who are not drunks or spendthrifts.

Seriously folks, I think it should be considered. I am going to write up the amendment right now. Maybe I can get a grant from the Bush/Clinton/Kennedy Foundation.

Billary Paul HuckaBush from Texarkana

"Hi, I'm Billary Paul HuckaBush from Texarkana, and I am gonna be your President for the next 28 years, I hope you like me, if not ... deal with it."

With a combined 12 years from George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, and 8 years from Bill Clinton, and potentially 8 more years from either Hillary Clinton, Mike Huckabee, or Ron Paul it looks like Texas and Arkansas may be able to boast of providing us all the Presidents over a
the last 28 year span - I am not kidding you? Texas and Arkansas, all the Presidents - if you ever wanted to see just how far our country has fallen you don't need to look any further than this.

What is even more alarming is that for the past 20 years, just two families from these two states have governed America from the highest position there is - as Commander-in-Chief. And if you listen to them - you would think they had nothing to do with the issues we are all facing today, including Iraq, immigration reform, global terrorism, health care, education, civil rights, social issues. No, not Billary or the Bush's, they tell us that it was someone or somebody else that has caused all the problems we all now have in front of us.

I thought there were 50 states in the United States. What is it with Texas and Arkansas, and not with it for the other 48 states when it comes to producing our Commander-in-Chief? East Coast - zero! How about it New York, major under-achiever. Massachusetts - all intellect and talk. West Coast - C+, at least California sent Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon before this Texarkana run. Midwest - lousy, way below expectations. South - well, does Jimmy Carter even count? In Texarkana, they say the other 48 States are all hat - and no cattle when it comes to Presidents. And from the looks of it - they are right.

You can't convince me that only Texarkana lineage produces the Commander-in-Chief gene. You can convince me that the country deserves better leadership than what we have gotten the past 20 years - so I say - either Billary Paul HuckaBush starts taking responsibility for the
state our country is in and starts doing something to lead us out of it. Or I say we run Billary Paul HuckaBush out of Washington for good - who is with me!

Edwards has the keys - but not for long

Heavily-favored and current race leader Billary Clinton is in position to win the Democratic Caucuses, but needs to clear a few more bumps before there is smooth sledding. The constant berating Billary has put Obama through in portraiting him as inexperienced, naive, and cowardly is working at this point in the race - but just how true is it?

No matter who you are cheering for, you have to be impressed with Obama's ability to stay so close to Billary at this point in the race - especially in light of everything that has been thrown at him.

What's in Obama's tank? We've discovered that it is a mixture of fuel that includes: a strong base of Billary discontents; a dose of new start change agents; and mild traces of Barry O belief chemicals. Looks like it has been a good mixture so far - but the tank is going to need a lot more fuel shortly if Obama is going to move up the the Number 1 spot.

Up to now, Edwards has been almost silently present in 3rd place, running an efficient and sometimes even noticeable campaign. Don't be fooled, John Edwards is in a very powerful position, maybe not pointed out in the news headlines yet, Edwards will be the one who ultimately picks Billary or Obama.

Think about an Obama-Edwards, or even an Edwards-Obama ticket for a moment. Could it be enough to derail Billary? You bet it could - even Billary believes this could. You should expect to see Billary "cozy-up" with Edwards if Obama comes out of Iowa and New Hampshire still in 2nd place, especially if Obama wins it all in Iowa.

The Obama camp should cut their deal with Edwards as soon as Edwards will let them, there is a "time sensitive" window for Obama to act and now is the time to move. Let's all watch to see how Obama handles this critically important strategic issue, then we can judge on our own just how inexperienced, naive and cowardly he truly is.