Your Saturday Morning Read

It’s almost afternoon on the east coast, but Oh well. I’ve been busy running around this morning. So pour yourself a diet coke instead of a coffee, what do I care?

Lucianne is always a good source for articles. Here’s one by Dick Morris (with Eileen McGann) on his favorite, (or should I say least favorite) subject, Hillary.

I don’t know about you, but I get a kick out of his passion on the subject:

The real Hillary Clinton stood up at the Democratic presidential debate this week: angry, sarcastic, stubborn, secretive, arrogant, mired in the past, victim of the media, and still firmly convinced that she is uniquely entitled to the Democratic Party nomination and the presidency.

That Hillary hasn’t really been on display much since the debacle of her disastrous health care plan and the end of Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial, when she haughtily flaunted her combative personality.

But make no mistake about it — that’s the Hillary Clinton that we’ll see if she somehow manages to steal the Democratic nomination.

She’s found her voice. The one that so alienated everyone she came into contact with over her health care plan that her own party destroyed it. The one that publicly and loudly defended Bill and arranged for attacks on Monica Lewinsky when she knew the complete and sordid truth.

She’s always had a chip on her shoulder and a strange paranoia, but it’s definitely gotten worse. Now it’s not just the vast right wing conspiracy that is out to get her. Now it’s the mainstream media. How are they doing that? By asking her the first questions at the debates!

Read on. It’s fun stuff.

Oh, this ones good, too! A psychologist diagnoses Hillary with “AGS”, (or “Al Gore Syndrome). Like Gore did in 2000, Hillary has been experimenting with different personas at every debate, with little success. Read Hillary’s Multiple Personality Disorder for another fun read:

Lately, Hillary has been all over the place, and not just geographically. She’s had more spins of personality than Sybil, more expressions than Rodney Dangerfield, and more axes to grind than Al Sharpton, Michael Moore, and Cindy Sheehan put together.
If she’s not restrained by the voters, she may end up like Linda Blair in the Exorcist, head spinning uncontrollably; striking out at enemies, betraying friends, or cheating husbands, perceived or otherwise.

According to Dr. Strange, Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton exhibited these behaviors the last several weeks:

• Crying Hillary
• Black church lady Hillary
• Angry in your face Hillary
• Laughing bug-eyed Hillary
• Denying Hillary.
• Conciliatory Hillary
• Stand by her Bubba Hillary
• Sarcastic Hillary
• Suffering feminist Hillary
• It’s my turn Hillary

It’s been amazing to watch, that’s for sure.

Hillary’s Last Dying Gasps?

Hillary reportedly couldn’t fill the seats at her Hidalgo rally in Texas:

Hillary Clinton arrived to a much smaller crowd at rally at Dodge Arena this evening, compared to just one week ago at a rally in El Paso where Clinton drew over 10,000 people to the University of Texas. But in Hidalgo, where the arena seats 6,800 in a concert setting, the attendance was much less than that and made painfully obvious by the several hundred seats that were empty.

Whether this has any relation to the fact that Clinton has lost 10 contests in a row to Barack Obama, is unclear.

Meanwhile, Obama packed in 19,000 in Houston, and an estimated 17,000 people in Dallas.

But our girl’s not giving up. According to top strategist Mark Penn:

… in the next two weeks Hillary Clinton will go after Barack Obama on the issue of who is better qualified to be commander-in-chief — and Penn suggested that Clinton would be a better commander of the nation’s armed forces than both Obama and John McCain. “She is the only person in this race who is both ready to be commander-in-chief and would end the Iraq war and start to bring troops home within 60 days, compared to both Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain,” Penn told reporters.

Which really only serves to remind people of how essentially unqualified she herself, is.

And are people really supposed to buy that she’s going to be a “better” Commander-in-Chief by bringing the troops home before the job is done?

And finally, The Clinton campaign has launched a new website…for the youts, (so their voices can be heard!):

Hillary Speaks For Me.

Not only is it too little and too late, it appears to be designed for people too young to vote.

Ha!

See Ace for some funny photoshops by Slublog.

Hillary 4U&andMe

I don’t know why this ditty hasn’t swept the country:

Okay, here’s the song this monstrosity reminds everyone of:

…And here is Obama’s “Yes We can” video:

I hear McCain’s considering this for a campaign song:

Hillary’s Cackle/Cough

Hillary Clinton was a guest this morning on ABC News’ This Week with George Stephanopoulos, and she was all smiles…but no cackles.

George asked her “What do you make of the fact that Ann Coulter says that she’s going to support you if John McCain wins the Republican nomination”?

Hillary looked like she was about to launch into a full-blown cackle, but stifled it with a cough.

That’s the best thing about the clip as far as I’m concerned.

You know her handlers are telling her, “Hillary, whatever you do, do not ca–laugh“.

Second best:

“You know as well as I do that at the end of every election independent voters are often drawn back to a fundamental question, who can best protect and defend the United States of America”.

Next breath:

(Instead of…” and I’m the candidate that voters can best trust with National Security…”)

“…and although security is not foremost on the agenda there is no predicting what the agenda will look like come next fall”.

Whose agenda? Her agenda? The country’s agenda? The Democratic party’s agenda? Can someone explain to me what she just said there?

Hot Air has the video.

The Clintons’ Bribery Racket

There’s more today on the latest Clinton scandal hardly anyone’s talking about.

Investors business Daily weighs in with Clinton’s Filthy Lucre:

Ethics: Is it just us, or is there something off about ex-president Bill Clinton using his influence overseas to enrich a pal and then accepting the pal’s big donation to his foundation? This looks like a bribery racket.

Read it all.

We are in such a quandary. On the one hand, Hillary is such a vulnerable candidate. There is no reason why any Republican candidate couldn’t use all her scandals against her.

On the other hand, the alternative is probably McCain who’s no choirboy, himself…and is profoundly unpopular with conservatives…she could still win against him in a dirty, bitter campaign.

One finds oneself rooting for Obama even though he would be harder to beat.

MORE today (Jan 3) at the Washington Times.

STILL MORE TODAY (Feb5):

The Washington Post weighs in with Mr. Clinton And The Tycoon:

Mr. Clinton may not be the only former president who’s engaged in cozy back-scratching with self-interested businessmen and distasteful regimes. But he’s the only former president who’s married to someone who wants to be the next president. The Times story underscores the potential problems this could create. Among others, Mr. Clinton has said he would continue raising money for his foundation if his wife were elected president.

Move On. Org Backs Obama

Another huge insult to Hillary.

Even after she stood firm with Move On.Org last September, at great political risk, voting with 24 other Senators not to condemn personal attacks on General Petraeus, the organization votes to endorse Obama:

MoveOn.org, the liberal political action committee that claims over 3 million members, endorsed Barack Obama’s White House bid Friday — the first time the group has made a primary endorsement.

The endorsement came after the group allowed its members to vote over the last two days on either Obama or rival Hillary Clinton. Obama overwhelmingly beat the New York Democrat, 70 percent to 30 percent.

Talk about “Betray us”!

Question: Where was Obama during that September 21 vote to condemn the Move On ad against General Petraeus? Did he march in lock step with with the powerful organization, like Hillary did, or was he conveniently absent from the vote?

Perhaps Gore will follow suit before Super Tuesday to give his candidate (not Hillary) even more mojo.

Coulter Pulls Out All The Stops

You’ve got to hand it to her. She knows how to get attention, and get her message across, better than just about anyone.

Most voters aren’t going to take the time to read stuff like this and this and this.

But they will remember this interview.

She knows that a lot of primary voters are holding their noses and voting for McCain because polling data is showing that he is the only one who can beat Hillary.

She’s saying…”Screw that. If it has to be between McCain and Hillary…I vote for Hillary. She’s the more conservative of the two”.

And no matter what one thinks of Ann Coulter, that is enough to give even the moderates pause.

This may just mark the turning point for the “Straight Talk Express”.

UPDATE (Feb 1):

Ann says she’s serious.

Hot Air has the video from A. C.’s appearance today on The Neil Caputo Show.

At any rate, the latest polls are showing a widening gap between Mitt and McCain.

UPDATE (Feb 2):

Rasmussen has them tied at 30% each.

Another Stunningly Scandalous Clinton Donation

The New York Times has the story:

Late on Sept. 6, 2005, a private plane carrying the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra touched down in Almaty, a ruggedly picturesque city in southeast Kazakhstan. Several hundred miles to the west a fortune awaited: highly coveted deposits of uranium that could fuel nuclear reactors around the world. And Mr. Giustra was in hot pursuit of an exclusive deal to tap them.

Unlike more established competitors, Mr. Giustra was a newcomer to uranium mining in Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic. But what his fledgling company lacked in experience, it made up for in connections. Accompanying Mr. Giustra on his luxuriously appointed MD-87 jet that day was a former president of the United States, Bill Clinton.

Upon landing on the first stop of a three-country philanthropic tour, the two men were whisked off to share a sumptuous midnight banquet with Kazakhstan’s president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, whose 19-year stranglehold on the country has all but quashed political dissent.

Mr. Nazarbayev walked away from the table with a propaganda coup, after Mr. Clinton expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader’s bid to head an international organization that monitors elections and supports democracy. Mr. Clinton’s public declaration undercut both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, Mr. Clinton’s wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

Within two days, corporate records show that Mr. Giustra also came up a winner when his company signed preliminary agreements giving it the right to buy into three uranium projects controlled by Kazakhstan’s state-owned uranium agency, Kazatomprom.

The monster deal stunned the mining industry, turning an unknown shell company into one of the world’s largest uranium producers in a transaction ultimately worth tens of millions of dollars to Mr. Giustra, analysts said.

Just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, Mr. Clinton’s charitable foundation received its own windfall: a $31.3 million donation from Mr. Giustra that had remained a secret until he acknowledged it last month. The gift, combined with Mr. Giustra’s more recent and public pledge to give the William J. Clinton Foundation an additional $100 million, secured Mr. Giustra a place in Mr. Clinton’s inner circle, an exclusive club of wealthy entrepreneurs in which friendship with the former president has its privileges.

More at The New York Times if your stomach can take it.

Most likely this will be swept under the rug like all the rest.

More about Frank Giustra, here.

Hat tip: Lucianne

Better Late Than Never Democrats

Peter Wehner of Commentary Magazine makes some excellent points in his latest article, The High Cost Of Hillary.

In it, he quotes the same eyebrow raising paragraph from Jonathan Chait’s column in The New Republic that jumped out at me:

Something strange happened the other day. All these different people—friends, co-workers, relatives, people on a liberal e-mail list I read—kept saying the same thing: They’ve suddenly developed a disdain for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Maybe this is just a coincidence, but I think we’ve reached an irrevocable turning point in liberal opinion of the Clintons. The sentiment seems to be concentrated among Barack Obama supporters. Going into the campaign, most of us liked Hillary Clinton just fine, but the fact that tens of millions of Americans are seized with irrational loathing for her suggested that she might not be a good Democratic nominee. But now that loathing seems a lot less irrational.

After taking some obligatory digs at conservatives, Chait adds:

But the conservatives might have had a point about the Clintons’ character. Bill’s affair with Monica Lewinsky jeopardized the whole progressive project for momentary pleasure. The Clintons gleefully triangulated the Democrats in Congress to boost his approval rating. They do seem to have a feeling of entitlement to power.

So conservatives “might” have had a point about the Clintons’ character? The Clintons “seem” to have a feeling of entitlement to power? I should say so. What conservatives saw in the Clintons wasn’t based on any remarkable and hard-to-discern insights. After all, the Clintons’ character problems were not being hidden from public view; they were, in fact, out there for all to see, often flashing in bright neon lights. Yet people like Chait were, for political and ideological reasons, blinded to the ruthlessness and corruption of the Clinton Machine. Now that the Clintons are using their tactics on an inspiring liberal figure like Barack Obama, the scales are suddenly falling from their eyes. We are now seeing the zeal of the recent converts in action.

Better late than never, I suppose.

Not so fast, Zippy.

You know, the more I think about it…the madder I get at these low-down, opportunistic, hypocritical former Clintonites; the ones who went to the mat for Clinton during the Lewinsky affair.

Apparently, according John F. Harris at The Politico Bubba was perilously close to being asked to resign in Jan. 1998, after “a brief and cool confession”, and an “angry and self-righteous blast at his Republican tormentors” teed off some senior Dems:

Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, who warned him what he was stepping into: “You’re about three days away from a delegation of senior Democrats coming up there to ask the president to resign.”

They never came. But Democrats on Capitol Hill stood with Clinton only when polls made clear that their constituents around the country stood with him.

Instead, they attacked and ridiculed the mild mannered Kenneth Star, accusing him of being a sex obsessed, politically motivated, reactionary.

I still remember the photo-op of Congressional Democrats standing in solidarity and support of Clinton, on the Capital steps.

The far left accused Republicans of engaging in “dirty tricks”, and called the Starr investigation a “creeping Coup d’etat”.

Here are some key moments from The Lewinsky saga of 1998:

Jan 25, 1998: Clinton political adviser James Carville says “a war” will be waged between Clinton supporters and Kenneth Starr over Starr’s investigation tactics.

*

Jan 17, 1998: First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton says in a broadcast interview that a “vast right-wing conspiracy” is behind the charges against her husband.

*

Feb 11, 1998: First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton predicts the allegations against her husband “will slowly dissipate over time under the weight of its own insubstantiality.”

*

Feb 26, 1998: [Clinton loyalists spring into action] White House senior communications aide Sidney Blumenthal testifies before the grand jury, answering questions about any role he may have played in spreading negative information about investigators in Independent Counsel Ken Starr’s office. Fourteen Democrats in the House write Attorney General Janet Reno complaining about subpoenas issued by Starr. A non-profit group that studies women in the workplace says it will contribute $10,000 as seed money for a legal defense fund for Lewinsky.

*

May 27, 1998: Monica Lewinsky’s lawyer, Bill Ginsburg writes an angry “open letter” to Ken Starr which was published in “California Lawyer.” “Congratulations, Mr. Starr! As a result of your callous disregard for cherished constitutional rights, you may have succeeded in unmasking a sexual relationship between two consenting adults.” It is reported that death threats were made against Linda Tripp when the Lewinsky scandal first broke in January and she was moved to a safe house.

*

Saturday, Dec. 19, 1998: The House passed the first article of impeachment, dividing almost exactly along party lines. Only five Democrats joined the Republican majority to approve the article by a vote of 228 to 206, and just five Republicans crossed the other way to oppose it.

So in 1998, when the Clintons were at their sleeziest, and most corrupt, most Democrats were unwavering in their Support for them, and contemptuous of their political enemies.

Now, ten years later, they’re once again witnessing the Clintons’ tried and true modus operandi, only this time it’s being used against a popular fellow Democrat, so all of a sudden Bill and Hill are no longer cool.

In fact, an alarming number of Democrats are jumping off the Clinton ship:

Back to Peter Wehner:

A partial list includes Senators Kennedy, Kerry, and Leahy; former Clinton Administration cabinet member Robert Reich; former Clinton lawyer Greg Craig (whom Bill Clinton asked to lead the defense team the White House assembled for his impeachment battle); liberal radio talk show host Ed Schultz; liberal columnists E.J. Dionne, Eugene Robinson, Frank Rich, William Greider, Bob Herbert, Joe Klein, and now Chait; Nobel Prize winner Toni Morrison, who described Bill Clinton as America’s “first black president”; and others.

I’m hearing rumors that Gore will be next.

Clintonites one day, Obamamessiah worshippers the next.

Opportunistic vermin: They know a sinking ship when they see one.

Happy VRWC Day

Ten years ago, today, Hillary uttered these immortal words:

“This is the great story here for anybody willing to find and write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president.”

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

Note how the Clintons’ scandals were never their own fault. It was all us ‘wingers’.

Hillary expected serious Americans to believe that the Whitewater convictions (which put a sitting Arkansas governor in prison), the suicide of the Deputy White House Chief Counsel under mysterious circumstances, the unconscionable firing of the White House travel staff, Hillary’s strange acumen in predicting the cattle futures market, an allegation of brutal rape against her husband, the perjury of Bill Clinton in a federal grand jury proceeding, his affair with a White House intern, and the countless other moral debauches of the Clintons were created by some cabal with power greater than the president, the Democratic Party and the huge phalanx of media flacks, fawning Hollywood starlets, militant activists and nihilistic academicians.

Read the whole thing.

Have a happy one, wingers.

Do something special to celebrate.

Just Sad: More Lying From Hillary

One of things that has always floored me about the Clintons, is the fact that they will tell lies for really no good reason; lies that are easy to discover.

Hillary has told totally unnecessary lies: her tale that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, for instance.

She lies about big things, like the Iraq War, of course, and she lies to cover her ass.

Then there’s the self-aggrandizing lie, her specialty.

Sadly, ABC is reporting that she’s got Chelsea doing it too, with Bill, out on the campaign trail:

President Clinton has been touting his wife’s commitment to Africa on the campaign trail by telling interested voters that “Hillary was the first U.S. Senator to call Darfur genocide.” He used that exact line with voters in Aiken, S.C., yesterday, and it has been pointed out more than once over the course of this campaign.

The usually shy Chelsea also touted her mother’s record on Darfur, telling a group at Stanford University earlier this month that she was “really proud that my mom was the first Democratic senator to call it genocide in May of 2004 and put a lot of pressure on the Bush administration to recognize it as genocide.”

Problem is, the statements simply aren’t true.

…being involved in solving genocide and being the first to call it genocide are two very different things. Turns out that the honor President Clinton and Chelsea are bestowing on Hillary actually belongs to Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, and Sam Brownback, R-Kansas.

That legislation — the one Clinton’s Senate Web site uses as the first marker for involvement — was actually led by Feingold.

In a floor speech that very day Senator Feingold said “…crimes against humanity have been and continue to be perpetrated in Darfur and the criminals responsible for these atrocities — the planners directing this horror at the highest levels — should be brought to justice.”

On June 15, 2004, Feingold continued his push at a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. “There seems to be some disagreement about whether what is happening in Darfur is or is not genocide. Frankly, I believe that to argue over the semantics is to miss the point,” Feingold said. It was the first time the argument over whether what was happening in Darfur was genocide was brought up at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The Congressional Record documents that on June 24, 2004, DeWine (Republican) became the first U.S. Senator to call the situation in Darfur genocide on the actual Senate floor.

In a floor speech on July 22, 2004, Feingold followed DeWine’s lead, becoming the first Democratic Senator to use the term genocide, stating “all credible evidence indicates that what is unfolding in Darfur is genocide.”

And finally, the first time any legislative action was taken to call the crisis in Darfur genocide was in S. Con Res. 124 — introduced by Brownback on July 27, 2004. That resolution had 20 cosponsors and Clinton was not one of them.

In fact, Clinton’s first press statement referring to Darfur as “genocide” wasn’t until March 16, 2006. When Clinton’s Senate office was e-mailed to get a clear date for her first use of the term genocide, spokesman Philippe Reines responded, “She has been a leading voice in calling for U.S. leadership in ending the genocide in Darfur.”

Nice catch ABC news.

I wonder if they’ll be this vigilant about her lies later on, when she’s campaigning against a Republican.

You don’t have to answer that.

Hat tip: Lucianne

Clinton Campaign Plays Hardball In Nevada

The New York Times:

Officials with two pro-Obama unions — the service employees with 17,500 members in Nevada, and the culinary union — questioned this week why the pro-Clinton union of state, county and municipal employees would need nearly 100 paid employees to work with just 3,000 union members.

“That would be the most intense member-to-member campaign I’ve heard of in the labor movement,” said D. Taylor, secretary-treasurer of Culinary Workers Local 226 in Las Vegas, a 60,000-member local — by far the state’s largest union — which endorsed Mr. Obama on Wednesday.

Hillary’s minions political workers are working extra super duper hard to teach union members how the caucus process works, that’s all.

The Nevada State Education Association, the union representing teachers, (backing Hillary) filed a lawsuit Friday in federal court against the Nevada Democratic Party, asking a judge to ban caucuses at hotels and casinos, where thousands of culinary workers will be on the job Saturday.

The association’s president, Lynn Warne, said it was unfair for culinary workers to participate in caucuses at their workplace when teachers and other employees could not.

Well, there’s that, and also the fact that the culinary union is for Obama.

Union officials backing Mrs. Clinton note that many members of the culinary local are not American citizens and therefore cannot participate in the caucuses.

Okay, they’re not American citizens, and they can’t vote…but they can belong to a union??? What’s wrong with this picture?

I wonder what Hillary would say if a Republican tried to make it harder for some Democratic voters to vote?

There’s a word for that, isn’t there? It’s a big word that Democrats use a lot….it’s right on the tip of my tongue:

“You have a limited period of time on one day to have your voices heard,” Clinton, D-N.Y., said. “That is troubling to me. You know in a situation of a caucus, people who work during that time — they’re disenfranchised. People who can’t be in the state or who are in the military, like the son of the woman who was here who is serving in the Air Force, they cannot be present.”

The woman is absolutely shameless. But we already knew that.

Hat tip: Lucianne

RELATED:

See SeeDubya for another scummy Clinton donor, this time in Texas.

UPDATE:

Hot Air has an excellent video of Bubba getting very testy over questions asked by a persistent reporter about the Clinton campaign’s position on the Nevada lawsuit. Bubba spins, the reporter doesn’t buy, and the reporter gets the last devastating words at the end of the segment.

Like Allahpundit suggested, it’s pretty sad when Hillary is becoming the more likable of the two.

UPDATE (January 17):

District Court Judge James Mahan has rejected the lawsuit.

UPDATE: (January 18):

Obama’s Stand-up routine in Vegas.

The REAL Hillary: “Unthinking Emotion Is Pitiful To Me.”

Hillary is as unsentimental as Bill is mushy. She once wrote to a friend: “Unthinking emotion is pitiful to me.”

As opposed to “thinking” emotion. What is that exactly? “I think I’ll have an emotional moment, now….get your cameras ready.”? If you are like many out there, who actually believe that Hillary’s “human moment” was genuine, (due to stress from the campaign) this should help you figure out the truth: Hillary is not like us.

There’s a new book about Hillary out, The Clintons At The White House by Sally Bedell Smith, to be published on February 4.

Smith, a contributing editor at Vanity Fair, researched the Clintons for three years, and interviewed “scores of Clinton friends and staff members”.

The first excerpt of the book is now available at The Daily Mail: How Hillary Clinton Made a Pact With The Devil For Political Power.

There’s nothing there that you haven’t already seen, or would be surprised by, but still…lot’s of red meat, there to chew on:

Take the time a supermarket tabloid named no fewer than five mistresses, including a nightclub singer, Gennifer Flowers

When the story broke, Hillary was campaigning elsewhere, so Bill called her to warn her.

After the conversation, according to one report, “there was no scorn or sense of betrayal in her voice; she had long since accepted her husband’s past and focused on winning a political future that would reward them both.”

Indeed, Hillary gave a TV interview in which she said her husband’s dealings with Flowers had an entirely innocent explanation: “Anybody who knows my husband knows that he bends over backwards to help people who are in trouble and is always willing to listen to their problems.” American reporters promptly backed off.

Much later, Bill finally admitted under oath that he had indeed been involved sexually with Flowers - “a relationship that I should not have had.”

The Vanity Fair article I linked to above, painted Smith’s previous book, For Love of Politics—Bill and Hillary Clinton: The White House Years, as a “detailed and intimate picture of two people whose immense talent and genuine commitment to doing good were sometimes overwhelmed by their arrogance and recklessness”.

That seems very generous of them, if that book is anything like this one.

In reality you will be sickened, and reminded why this walking nightmare of a couple must not occupy the White House ever again.

Related (Jan. 14):

Christopher Hitchens concurs, with The Case Against Hillary Clinton.

Hillary’s crying Game

Wow, The Anchoress really nailed it a few days ago ( in reference to Hillary’s tears in NH):

Mrs. Clinton gets one pass after another; the press ho-hums along. They remind me a little of Snow White’s dwarves, whistling away while they busily work at broadening her inaugural route.

What I dread most in this political season is the “genuine” moment - and it is coming, soon, sometime between today and tomorrow, or tomorrow and New Hampshire - when Mrs. Clinton, in her ongoing effort to turn herself into whatever the polls says she must be, cries in public. It’s going to be genuinely ghastly. (emphasis mine).

I remember reading that and thinking, hmmm, I wonder if she’s right?

Well, she was right, alright, it did come soon, just like she said.

Kudos to The Anchoress.

Well played.

For old times sake…

Hat Tip: Commenter cep at AOSHQ

Hillary Proudly Claims She’s The Most Pro-Abortion Candidate

Hillary has sent out mailers to NH voters that make the claim that she’s the most reliably pro-choice candidate, specifically zeroing in on Obama:

“A woman’s right to choose,” the mailing says on the front, then flips to the back, “demands a leader who will stand up and protect it.”

It says Clinton has a record of fighting “far-right Republicans” to defend abortion rights, while Obama has been “unwilling to take a stand on choice.”

“Seven times he had the opportunity to stand up against Republican anti-choice legislation in the Illinois state Senate,” it says. “Seven times he voted present—not yes or no, but present. Being there is not enough to protect choice.

“On January 8 you have a choice,” it closes. “Vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary, Tuesday, Jan. 8.”

“On January 8 you have a choice,” it closes.

Cute.

Nevermind that Obama has a 100% rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council for his support of abortion rights.

Nevermind that he voted against requiring medical care for aborted “fetuses” who survive.

Nevermind that he is on record (on his own campaign webpage) of being against the partial birth abortion ban….

I ask you…How to you get more pro-abort than that?

Admitting that you’re more pro-abortion than a guy who is against the partial birth abortion ban, and against taking care of aborted babies who survive abortions, qualifies as “negative campaigning” in Democratic circles.

I’m sorry, but what ghouls these people are!

More:

Jeremy Lott at The American Spectator: The Planned Parenthood Primary

___