The Democrat Governor, Janet  Napolitano has figured out a way to stop illegal immigrant busting sheriff Joe Arpaio:

Much of the money for Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s immigration-enforcement efforts lately has poured out of a special pool of state money.

But New Times has learned that Governor Janet Napolitano’s turning off the spigot.

In what appears to be a prelude to a major fight between Napolitano and Arpaio, the governor issued an executive order last week to develop a new task force–headed up by the state Department of Public Safety–to find and arrest tens of thousands of felons with outstanding warrants.

And, according to a letter from DPS Director Roger Vanderpool to Arpaio outlining the new effort, the task force will be funded with the money that Arpaio isn’t getting anymore.

I think we’ll be hearing more about this fairly soon.

Whoop-de-doo.

I never saw this story as McCain’s own lunatic Pastor counterpart to Obama’s lunatic Pastor Reverend Wright.

But the nutroots did.

To their addled minds, a goofy, anti-Catholic preacher with a large following who endorses a candidate is the same as…nay, worse than a malicious, racist, Marxist with a large following (that actually includes the candidate) endorsing said candidate.

Yes, Reverend Hagee has had some bizarre things to say about Catholics. Most Catholics are aware that there are fundamentalists out there who consider the Catholic church “The whore of Babylon” and whatnot. Such people are annoying, but not dangerous. And although it’s impossible to know how much hate is preached from the pulpit in these churches, one can easily imagine that some unfortunate anti-Catholic rhetoric peppers some of the sermons. But one can not easily imagine them rising to the level of Reverend Wright’s shocking hate-speech.

That said, there is also the obvious difference between accepting an endorsement from a questionable Pastor (while repudiating his anti-Catholic pronouncements), and being closely associated with a problematic Pastor, (in fact, having him on your campaign’s ’spiritual advisory’ committee), and being an active member of his congregation for 15+ years. Then, (finally!) throwing him under the bus only after he embarrasses you in public.

See?…there’s a minor difference there.

Still, I looked into the Reverend Hagee story, myself about a month ago, (out of curiosity) and found this story in Catholic Online, by Deal Hudson, some of which I’ll share with you, here:

A few days ago I met with Hagee and his wife, Diana, in New York City for a three-hour conversation.

The meeting came at the suggestion of a mutual friend who was concerned both for Hagee’s reputation and the relations between Evangelicals and Catholics. My friend, a national religious leader himself, told me, “John Hagee is my friend, and he is a good man. Also, it would be a pity if a wedge was driven between conservative Catholics and Evangelicals on the eve of the 2008 election.”

-snip-

Since I had been critical of Hagee myself, I thought it reasonable that I sit down with him and discuss the anti-Catholicism charge. As a young man I was also an Evangelical from Texas, and I knew I could find some common ground with him — and maybe find out more about what appeared to be an open-and-shut case. (I called Donohue to tell him that a meeting had been proposed, and Bill said he appreciated my letting him know.)

Next, I contacted Hagee. He seemed genuinely hurt that he was being seen by the nation as anti-Catholic. He said, “Deal, how can people think I am anti-Catholic when my wife is an ex-Catholic, and a third of my congregation are former Catholics?” I bit my tongue. We really needed to talk; there were some things about Catholics he truly didn’t understand.

When we met later, I told Hagee about “biting my tongue,” and he looked surprised. I explained that Catholics don’t like being reminded of all those who have left the Church. As he started to nod in agreement, his wife Diana said, “He’s right, John.” She would repeat that sentence several times during our long conversation, and each time her husband would acquiesce in agreement.

You’ll want to read the rest of this edifying story. Because when you hear someone come out with a big apology, and there are political stakes on the line… it’s very easy to be, well….dubious of the sincerity. Yet when Hagee says:

“Out of a desire to advance greater unity among Catholics and Evangelicals in promoting the common good, I want to express my deep regret for any comments that Catholics have found hurtful. After engaging in constructive dialogue with Catholic friends and leaders, I now have an improved understanding of the Catholic Church, its relation to the Jewish faith, and the history of anti-Catholicism.”

I tend to believe him, after having read that article.

And, again, a compare and contrast is in order. What did Reverend Wright do when his teachings came under fire? Did he apologize, engage in constructive dialog with those who were criticizing him, or take any of it back?

Oh, HELL no. He just reiterated his words more forcefully.

Anyway, Bill Donahue of the Catholic League has accepted Reverend Hagee’s apology, saying:

“The tone of Hagee’s letter is sincere. He wants reconciliation and he has achieved it. Indeed, the Catholic League welcomes his apology. What Hagee has done takes courage and quite frankly I never expected him to demonstrate such sensitivity to our concerns. But he has done just that. Now Catholics, along with Jews, can work with Pastor Hagee in making interfaith relations stronger than ever. Whatever problems we had before are now history. This case is closed.”

Got that nutroots?

CASE CLOSED.

PS: The Obama/Wright Case?

NOT CLOSED!

Well, Rich Lowery’s piece, Obama’s Rules, is being commented on all over the net today, so I thought I’d weigh in. First, here are the rules as spelled out by Rich:

He can’t be called a “liberal” (“the same names and labels they pin on everyone,” as Obama puts it); his toughness on the war on terror can’t be questioned (“attempts to play on our fears”); his extreme positions on social issues can’t be exposed (“the same efforts to distract us from the issues that affect our lives” and “turn us against each other”); and his Chicago background too is off-limits (“pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy”). Besides that, it should be a freewheeling and spirited campaign.

Democrats always want cultural issues not to matter because they are on the least-popular side of many of them, and want patriotic symbols like the Pledge of Allegiance and flag pins to be irrelevant when they can’t manage to nominate presidential candidates who wholeheartedly embrace them (which shouldn’t be that difficult). As for “fear” and “division,” they are vaporous pejoratives that can be applied to any warning of negative consequences of a given policy or any political position that doesn’t command 100 percent assent. In his North Carolina speech, Obama said the Iraq war “has not made us safer,” and that McCain’s ideas are “out of touch” with “American values.” How fearfully divisive.

Any deviations from these rules will be attacked as distractions, racism, or fear mongering.

Needless to say (I hope)…Nice Deb will not be deterred. I will continue to carry on as I have, pointing out every objectionable thing I discover about the man.

And I will unhelpfully laugh at his gaffes, too.

Sadly, I can see McCain obediently and enthusiastically following Obama’s rules, but is it too much to hope that the RNC demur?

Obama, fall ‘07:

“You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest.

“Instead,” Obama added rather grandiosely, “I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.”

Obama, Spring ‘08:

Pennsylvania:

West Virginia:

Barack Obama sported a flag lapel pin and talked up patriotism Monday as he campaigned in blue-collar West Virginia. He also shot a solid game of pool.

So what changed?

So I’ve been reading up on that Obama campaign adviser who threw himself under the bus, recently. He was becoming a “distraction” because of his ties to Hamas.

Robert Malley, an employee of the International Crisis Group, said he served as an “informal” Middle East adviser to Obama. He told NBC News this past weekend he decided to step down after the Times of London inquired about whether he had contacts with Hamas.

Turns out his support for Hamas was well known, and ongoing:

Malley has penned numerous opinion articles, many of them co-written with a former adviser to the late Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, petitioning for dialogue with Hamas and blasting Israel for numerous policies he says harm the Palestinian cause.

In February 2006, after Hamas won a majority of seats in the Palestinian parliament and amid a U.S. and Israeli attempt to isolate the Hamas-run Palestinian Authority, Malley wrote an op-ed for the Baltimore Sun advocating international aid to the terror group’s newly formed government.

In numerous other op-eds, Malley advocates a policy of engagement with Hamas.

Hamas is responsible for scores of deadly shootings, suicide bombings and rocket attacks aimed at Jewish civilian population centers. The past few weeks alone, Hamas militants took credit for firing more than 200 rockets into Israel.

Hamas’ official charter calls for the murder of Jews and destruction of Israel.

Naturally it’s totally unfair to surmise that having Robert Malley, as Obama’s Middle East adviser in any way reflects Obama’s views. Why would anybody think that?

Well, (this is just a distraction, and all), but It should be remembered that Obama’s church, TUCC published a “Hamas Terror Manifesto” in its church newsletter, The Trumpet.

It also published an insane article by a Palestinian activist about how Israel was an “apartheid” regime with claims that the Jewish state worked on an “ethnic bomb” that kills “blacks and Arabs.”

It turns out that TUCC also has a soft spot for Hezbollah. Who would have thunk it?

Again in the church newsletter, The Trumpet:

U.S. Must Stop Middle East Violence

The escalating Middle East violence and the continued bombing of Lebanon and Gaza is threatening regional stability. Though appeals have gone out from the religious community for the United States and other world leaders to intervene diplomatically, as of Wednesday when the TUCC bulletin is published, the U.S. refuses to call for a cease-fire. Instead, the U.S. is increasing arms shipments to Israel and Congress has passed resolutions declaring unconditional support for Israel’s devastating military campaigns.

More at Sweetness and Light, who have apparently been pouring over past Trumpet newsletters to find such gems as Reverend Wright’s impassioned plea for tolerance of practitioners of Santeria, (otherwise known as Voo Doo!), and a quaint little poem written for the five year anniversary of 9/11.

Apparently, Obama is one of those people who doesn’t read the church newsletter. Or maybe he just skimmed through it quickly, to see when the next prayer meeting would be. ‘Cause Obama’s just a praying fool!

UPDATE:

Well, here’s an interesting turn of events. In The Atlantic, today Obama tells us that Israel is a “constant wound… a constant sore…” that “infects foreign policy”.

Asked if he was “flummoxed” by Hamas’ endorsement, he answers:

I wasn’t flummoxed. I think what is going on there is the same reason why there are some suspicions of me in the Jewish community. Look, we don’t do nuance well in politics and especially don’t do it well on Middle East policy. We look at things as black and white, and not gray. It’s conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, “This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein, and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he’s not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush,” and that’s something they’re hopeful about. I think that’s a perfectly legitimate perception as long as they’re not confused about my unyielding support for Israel’s security.

“It’s indicative of how some of our enemies view America. And I guarantee you, they’re not going to endorse me.”

No one is right or wrong, it’s all “gray” and he’s just the guy to let everyone know. What is jaw-dropping, however, is his assumption that Hamas might be impressed with his “worldly” outlook. That’s what Hamas has been searching for: someone who is worldly. And notice the evasion he employs (”talks with people”) to escape stating the obvious: they are thrilled he’s offered direct talks with their sponsor and Holocaust denier Ahmejinidad.

This is good news. Politicians like John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and Teddy Kennedy are no longer welcome speakers for Catholic college and university commencement addresses. Kathryn Jean Lopez at The Corner reports:

After repeatedly getting criticized by conservative Catholics, and after years of pressure from the Vatican and some American bishops, Catholic colleges and universities are now shying away from politicians - especially those who, like Kennedy, Kerry, and Pelosi, support abortion rights - as commencement speakers and honorary degree recipients.

Instead, the schools are scrutinizing the public records of potential honorees for evidence of open dissent from key church teachings, especially on abortion, and they are choosing noncontroversial church insiders or nonpolitical figures for their most prominent honors. “I think there’s a concerted effort to use the moment of naming people who reinforce the Catholic identity of our institutions, and I’m pleased by that,” Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley of Boston said in an interview.

Kudos to The Cardinal Newman Society , for keeping the pressure on wayward Catholic universities.

So it seems that finally, the Democrat primary race is winding down, with Obama the presumptive nominee. Obama is shifting his focus to McCain, as Hillary battles on, seemingly unaware that the powers that be have already counted her out. But of course she does realize that she’s down for the count. The question on everyone’s mind is…’Why does she continue to campaign?’

One explanation is that she’s in it now for 2012, which of course benefits McCain. The other….scarier explanation is that she is gunning for a high profile spot in Obama’s cabinet; possibly his VP pick. This of course would be a nightmare scenario for Republicans because it would unite two Democrat constituencies that were previously at odds with each other. This of course is the smartest and most obvious move, but one that insiders are saying Obama will resist because of his dislike for Hillary.

One thing to keep in mind, though, is that according to Bill Clinton, Hillary and McCain are “close”. Remember this story from January?:

“She and John McCain are very close,” Clinton said. “They always laugh that if they wound up being the nominees of their party, it would be the most civilized election in American history, and they’re afraid they’d put the voters to sleep because they like and respect each other.”

Sens. McCain and Clinton last met publicly at an ABC debate earlier January, when presidential candidates of both parties shared the same stage. The two were seen exchanging pleasantries, and a Clinton side said she told the Arizona senator he’d done a “good job” staging a comeback in New Hampshire. He asked that she say hello to Bill Clinton for him.

I don’t think she has any warm feelings for Obama. Still, I tend to agree with Charles Krauthammer who predicts that this is what is coming:

There’s only one remaining chapter in this fascinating spectacle. Negotiating the terms of Hillary’s surrender. After which we will have six months of watching her enthusiastically stumping for Obama, denying with utter conviction GOP charges that he is the out of touch, latte-sipping elitist she warned Democrats against so urgently in the last, late leg of her doomed campaign.

At any rate, she’s making Democratic leaders nervous because she’s forcing Obama to spend his precious time and money on his primary fight against her, instead of the general election fight against McCain. She’s also been hitting him where it hurts with her “late leg of her doomed campaign” urgent warnings to the superdelegates: He’s not as electable as she is.

Meanwhile, on the McCain front, a couple of positive developments:

1. He seems to have a kick-ass top adviser in Mark Salter, who continues to impress.

2. Rush Limbaugh seems to be coming around.

Now if only we can get Ann Coulter on board.

Please help us Prevent More Women From Becoming Mothers:

With Mother’s Day coming up this weekend, Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion business, has a message for moms: send us more money. Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, sent out a fund-raising request this week one pro-life advocate says is grotesque.

Richards honored Mother’s Day by sharing part of an editorial her daughter wrote saying she got her pro-abortion views from her mother and grandmother, former Texas Gov. Ann Richards.

“It’s true that I have had lots of rewarding moments in my career. So did my mother,” Cecile wrote in the email LifeNews.com obtained. “But knowing that my daughter is carrying on the legacy of fighting that my mother passed to me trumps ‘em all.”

Richard couldn’t wait until the third paragraph of her Mother’s Day letter to PPFA supporters to ask them to open their wallets.

“This Mother’s Day, I’m honoring that legacy with a Planned Parenthood Federation of America Mother’s Day gift. Join me,” she wrote.

“You can help with a gift to Planned Parenthood Federation of America today in honor of your mother or daughter, and on behalf of all the women,” she added.

Pro-life blogger Jill Stanek called Richard’s exploitation of Mother’s Day for pro-abortion money-making purposes “grotesque” and said she couldn’t believe Richards would stoop to “using her dead mother and daughter as props.”

“This pathetic woman is so psychologically and emotionally invested in abortion she has no semblance of conscience left,” Stanek said. “If and when she has grandchildren, I’m sure she’ll use them too.”

It’s grotesque alright. Asking women around the Mother’s Day holiday to send them money so they can prevent other women from becoming mothers…by destroying their babies, is downright Orwellian.

Richards said passing on her pro-abortion mantra to her daughter Hannah and her younger children Lily and Daniel is “the best gift any mother can give her children.”

The mind reels…the best gift she can leave her children is the teaching that abortion is a wonderful right? “I had the right to kill you, but “chose” not to…isn’t choice neat-o?”

In the email, Richards also admitted that promoting abortion was more important to her mother than even promoting equal rights for African-Americans.

“In all of my mother’s activism — from the civil rights movement to the ERA — nothing meant more to her,” she said.

“I’m proud that, as the leader of Planned Parenthood, I get the opportunity every day to carry forward work that honors her and honors all who came before her,” Richards concluded.

“And, I’m proud that my own children carry on that legacy. That’s what it’s all about, isn’t it?”

Good lord. Planned Parenthood does all it can to deny such legacies.

Stanek said abortion advocates can leave no legacy to children and grandchildren because they’ve been responsible for the deaths of 50 million of them.

Exactly. The ghouls.

Check it out over at Suitably Flip.

The reason I haven’t said anything about this latest gaffe of Obama’s is because everybody knows these slips of the tongue on the campaign trail happen to all politicians at one time or another.

A couple of thoughts, though, first the most obvious one: If McCain had said this, it would have been covered exhaustively in newspapers all across the country; it would have been evidence of him being an old man “losing his bearings”, and it would haunt him relentlessly all the way to election day. Obama says it, and of course he receives howls and cat-calls from the right-wing blogosphere, but it doesn’t receive a great amount of attention from the MSM. Because it’s just evidence of a man fatigued from too many days on the campaign trail. Which is what it is….but wouldn’t be if McCain had said it.

Second…where did he even get the 57 number? What the heck? At first I thought, “Maybe he means 57 cities?” But surely he’s been to more cities than that. I mean….???

UPDATE:

Possible answers:

1. Liberal commenters from all across the internets are saying “he was clearly joking”.

2. Hmmmmm.

3. (Most likely): He meant 47 states. He has one left + Alaska & Hawaii that he “wasn’t allowed to go to.” That’s all 50.

Not a joke, just a misstatement.

Thanks Geoff.

UPDATE:

Weird Coincidence!

Guess how many FBI officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty, last year?

That’s right.

Yep, that would be Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, who’s high on Obama’s list of VP picks. Her pro-choice stance prompted Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City, KS to write to her in August of last year, to ask that she please refrain from taking communion until she repudiates her support for abortion rights. Sebelius didn’t, and the Archbishop has apparently heard about it.

He said it prompted him to write her again, asking her to respect his request and “not require from me any additional pastoral actions.”

The Archbishop …also criticized her recent veto of a bill imposing new restrictions on abortion providers. He called upon the governor, who is Catholic, to take the “necessary steps for amendment of her life.”

Yeesh…I’d be mortified.

“The spiritually lethal message, communicated by our governor, as well as many other high-profile Catholics in public life, has been in effect: ’The church’s teaching on abortion is optional!’” Naumann wrote in a column published Friday in The Leaven, the archdiocese’s newspaper.

The Archbishop’s full column is right here.

This is significant given that Obama is desperately trying to make inroads with Catholic Democratic voters, who have been voting in larger numbers for Hillary. Sebilius *might* be a smart choice for him.

Bush managed to win the Catholic vote in 2004 against Catholic Kerry largely because of Kerry’s liberal stance on abortion. But now, four years of an unpopular war later; a war that most Catholics oppose…who knows? Concern about the war shouldn’t cancel out concern about abortion if serious Catholics do their homework, but alas, many of them don’t.

Related:

Beware of Impostors

Uh oh. John McCain did a bad thing. He mentioned the Hamas endorsement of Barack Obama on The Daily Show, last night, and as you can imagine, Obama didn’t appreciate that, calling it a smear:

“This is offensive, and I think it’s disappointing, because John McCain always says, ‘Well, I’m not going to run that kind of politics.’ And then to engage in that kind of smear, I think, is unfortunate, particularly since my policy toward Hamas has been no different than his,” Obama told CNN in an interview Thursday.

What is your policy exactly, Barack? You have said you would be willing…nay-eager to meet with our nation’s enemies, including Ahmadinejad of Iran, a state sponsor of Hamas. Remember what Hamas said after ex-President Jimmy Carter held unofficial meetings with them?

Hamas officials said Wednesday that Jimmy Carter’s meetings with leaders of the Palestinian militant group will boost its legitimacy despite criticism by Israel and the U.S. government of the former president’s personal peace mission.

Well shoot. Imagine how they feel at the prospect of a sitting President making the effort to meet with their sugar daddy, Ahmadinejad.

But we’re not allowed to talk about that. That’s an unfair smear. Shhhhh!11!!

The Illinois senator added: “For him to toss out comments like that, I think, is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination. We don’t need name-calling in this debate.”

He accuses the 71 year old McCain of “losing his bearings” (marbles), and in the next breath says, “We don’t need name-calling in this debate.”

Simply staggering.

McCain has raised questions about a Hamas adviser, Ahmed Yousef, saying in an interview: “We like Obama and hope that he will win the election.” The United States has labeled the Palestinian organization a terrorist group.

“It’s indicative of how some of our enemies view America,” McCain said Wednesday on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.” “And I guarantee you, they’re not going to endorse me.”

Senior adviser to John McCain, Mark Salter responded vigorously to Obama’s temper tantrum:

First, let us be clear about the nature of Senator Obama’s attack today: He used the words ‘losing his bearings’ intentionally, a not particularly clever way of raising John McCain’s age as an issue. This is typical of the Obama style of campaigning.

We have all become familiar with Senator Obama’s new brand of politics. First, you demand civility from your opponent, then you attack him, distort his record and send out surrogates to question his integrity. It is called hypocrisy, and it is the oldest kind of politics there is.

It is important to focus on what Senator Obama is attempting to do here: He is trying desperately to delegitimize the discussion of issues that raise legitimate questions about his judgment and preparedness to be President of the United States.

Through their actions and words, Senator Obama and his supporters have made clear that ANY criticism on ANY issue — from his desire to raise taxes on millions of small investors to his radical plans to sit down face-to-face with Iranian President Ahmadinejad – constitute negative, personal attacks.

Senator Obama is hopeful that the media will continue to form a protective barrier around him, declaring serious limits to the questions, discussion and debate in this race.

Read the rest of his most excellent response at The Corner. Let’s hope and pray that McCain isn’t cowed into some lame form of PC submission just because Obama complains loudly whenever someone asks a legitimate question.

The MSM is saying it’s ovah for Hillary, and Democrats are trying to quietly signal to her to throw in the towel. But Hillary’s having none of it. In fact she’s pressing on with visits to three states, today. And she even sent a formal letter to Obama trying to “shame” him into allowing the Florida and Michigan votes to count, and seat their delegations at the Democrat convention, (which may not end up helping her enough to matter, when all is said and done).

So what’s going on in that pretty little head of hers?

MadAtoms suggests the crazy ex-girlfriend scenario:

Despite all the math counting her out, Hillary Clinton fervently remains in the race to become the Democratic nominee for president in 2008. She has become the Democratic Party’s psycho ex-girlfriend, and she’s not going away without a restraining order.

It’s 2:31 AM. The Democratic Party is sleeping peacefully when it hears its phone buzz on the night stand. It rolls over and sees “Hillary” on the caller ID. It pauses briefly, considering pushing “END” and not dealing with this shit tonight. The thought is appealing but the Democratic Party knows that if it doesn’t take this call, another one is only minutes away.

DEMS: …Hello?

Hillary: Hey baby.

DEMS: C’mon Hillary. Enough with this.

Hillary: Don’t you get it? You NEED me.

DEMS: No, I don’t. It was fun while it lasted but I’m with Barack now. I made my choice, it’s done.

Funny stuff…go read the whole thing.

Martin at MVRWC just says she’s teh crazy.

BUT.

All joking aside, there might be a method to her madness. Dick Morris has an interesting theory:

OK, so Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is staying in the presidential race despite losing among elected delegates, facing a slimming lead among superdelegates, losing the popular vote and behind by 2-to-1 in the number of states carried. She slogs on, hoping against hope for a sudden turnaround in the race.

Apart from the psychological reasons for her stubbornness, is there a more subtle political calculation going on?

Is she continuing her race so as to have a platform from which to continue to bash Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in the hopes of so damaging him that he can’t win the general election? Is she doing this to keep her options alive for the 2012 presidential race?

Hmmmm. That means she could be the Republicans’ best friend right now. Because she’s just gonna keep knee-capping him all the way to the convention. Here’s why:

If Obama is elected this year, he will seek reelection in 2012 and Hillary would have to face taking on an incumbent in a primary in her own party if she wanted to run, a daunting task. But if McCain wins, the nomination in 2012 will be open. And it might be worth having. McCain will be 76 years old and the Republican Party will have been in power for 12 years. Not since FDR and Truman has a party lasted that long in power. When the Republicans tried to do so, in 1980 and 1992, they fell flat on their face.

Hillary is using white, blue-collar fears of Barack Obama to try to stop him from getting nominated or elected.

She is playing on his “elitism” by hammering him on blue-collar issues and is mincing no words in painting him as a stranger to blue-collar white America.

Hillary is attracting the votes of cops, firefighters, construction workers, union members. Are they in love with Hillary? They can’t stand her. But they are terrified of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers and the various influences to which Obama seems to be subject. By playing on those fears, Hillary is undermining Obama’s ability to get elected.

Go Hillary! Woot!

Hat tip: Janette of All To Thunder for the Pscho Ex-girlfriend link.

UPDATE:

Francis W. Porretto concurs with Dick Morris.

The Next Right is the brainchild of Republican Wonder-Boy, Patrick Ruffini:

The Next Right is the place for wired activists to build a new Republican Party and conservative movement. As a community-driven grassroots action website for the right, we’ll feature in-depth political analysis, on-the-ground reports, and strategic discussion and debate.

Go sign up, and get plugged in. As Beth at MVRWC says, it’s about time we conservatives stopped whining and complaining. It’s time we got as organized as the nutroots on these intertubes, so we can be as effective as those squeaky wheels are.

Who’s this Dwight Schrute person? I’ve never heard of him. But MDefl at Rightpundits has, and is endorsing him for McCain’s VP pick. McCain announced his choice of Schrute as his VP pick on the Daily Show, yesterday:

McCain doesn’t seem to know who he is either, since he had to read his name off of a piece of paper.

UPDATE:

As for McCain/Clinton….please! I can’t believe anyone is even taking that seriously.