Stunning Graph from 2008 Democratic Primary Race shows Hillary Clinton with a HUGE Lead in 3 out of 4 key demographics in Republican Leaning States.

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE GRAPH.

Real Clear Politics produced the above 2008 democratic candidates popularity in republican leaning states graph. What is so odd about this graph is it shows Hillary Clinton with a HUGE LEAD among 3 out of 4 key demographics in the Republican leaning swing states, yet the accompanying article seems to down play the graph.

This is really important to note because most of Barack Obama's caucus wins were in Republican leaning states! Hillary Clinton had a decisive advantage when republican leaning states had primaries, but when other republican leaning states had CAUCUSES instead of primaries, Barack Obama won by a 2-1 margin.

In my next article, I will explore a huge blunder made by Real Clear Politics.

Democratic Party making complaints against the republican party in 2010 that Hillary Clinton supporters made in 2008 against the democratic party.

The democratic party and Barack Obama are complaining that the Republican Party is funneling in foreign money and using it to fund Chamber of Commerce attack ads against the democrats. This is the kind of mind numbing arrogance the democratic party and Barack Obama use against its own constituents. Even if the accusation was true, it was Barack Obama that allowed traceless credit card political contributions to his 2008 presidential campaign.

Barack Obama even complained that the republicans are outspending the democrats by anywhere from a 4-1 to 7-1 margin and that this is because of the foreign source of money. Um, didn't Barack Obama do the same thing to Hillary Clinton in the 2008 democratic race? Reports of Barack Obama outspending Hillary Clinton by 3-1 and 4-1 in several midwestern states were commonly found in the media. Yet Barack Obama had NO ACCOUNTABILITY regarding where ALL of his donations were coming from.

In 2008 democratic party leaders also minimized Bill Clinton's record from the 90's only to now bring it up as a huge positive as they face potential losses in the 2010 November races. Might be nice if one day some democrats jump ship and report the truth about the 2008 unaccounted financial contributions that Barack Obama received.

Arianna Huffington: Women Leaders Need To Do Things Differently - SVW

Arianna Huffington: Women Leaders Need To Do Things Differently - SVW

This blog did a review of the articles that Huffington Post generated in 2008 that slammed Hillary Clinton on an almost daily basis while she was running for the democratic nomination.

Sarah Palin was also slammed by Huffington Post as well, and yet, Huffington Post wants to lead the charge in teaching women leaders need to do things differently. Yeesh!

I guess its all about the Huffington Post when it comes to which females are to be supported.

Posted using ShareThis

A message to all the Clinton Haters.

For all you Clinton Haters out there....did you notice that during Bill Clintons two terms in office the YEARLY FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICIT SHRUNK EACH AND EVERY YEAR until it became a surplus.

For all of you Clinton haters, Bill Clinton left office with the highest approval rating of any president since at least 1946, and probably well before that as well.

For all of you Clinton haters, Bill Clinton left office as the only president to have a higher approval rating at the end of his term than the beginning.

See the graphs here.

For all of you Clinton haters, who were pleased at seeing Hillary Clinton defeated by caucus cheating and suspicious donations and the democratic elite plotting against her in 2008, you are now suffering as a result of being a Clinton hater.

Remember that the next time you say you hate a Clinton.

Can you be a ground zero PUMA if you don't still support Hillary Clinton? Part II.

So why did the Democratic Party Higher ups secretly plot against Hillary Clinton during the 2008 presidential election? They believed their chances of retaining their own position in Congress would be strengthened if Barack Obama was elected instead of Hillary Clinton.

The problem with this type of me first, the country second position is two fold. First, it is really selfish to care about one's own political career to the point where you only support a presidential candidate based on a mythical belief that one presidential candidate's speech making ability will help keep you in your office.

Just because a politician may like one candidate's "charisma" more than another, is that enough? "I like this candidate, therefore he will help me keep my seat in Congress?" The answer is a resounding, of course not.

Reason number two on why it is an unknown as to which candidate can help keep any politician in their position. There will usually be an inevitable "push back" two years after a new political party gains control of the white house. In recent times, 2 years into the new presidents term the side that lost seats during the presidential election actually will gain some back.

Ironically, what Pelosi and Reid did may actually backfire on them because they may not have supported the best candidate and are more likely to lose their seat, not less likely as a result.

I'm all for that, that's for sure.

As for the PUMA movement, I would love to see PUMA's who don't necessarily agree with each other to at least consider supporting the idea that anyone who deceived Hillary Clinton in 2008 SHOULD NOT be re-elected, even if it means voting republican in those particular instances.

Can you be a ground zero PUMA if you don't still support Hillary Clinton? Part I.

Yes, it is a rhetorical question. You cannot be an original, ground zero PUMA unless you also support Hillary Clinton because the two are completely intertwined. You can be a conservative PUMA who has moved on and now supports Sarah Palin, that's fine, but that is not the same as being an original PUMA. (should I add an H for Hillary Clinton and call it PUMAH?)

Lets be clear here, the original PUMA movement was in direct response to the democratic elite in the party not only wanting Hillary Clinton defeated, but actually making sure their coup took place before ALL THE VOTES OF THE REGISTERED DEMOCRATS WERE COUNTED!

One only has to look to the republican leaders to see how out of line the democratic political leaders were in the 2008 election. Late in 2007, John McCain was well under 5% approval on a fox poll, it might have been as low as 2%.

John McCain clearly was not the first choice of the republican higher ups, yet the people, the people of the republican party over time chose John McCain EVEN THOUGH JOHN McCain had virtually no financial support.

The same cannot be said of the democrats, who tried to end the democratic race BEFORE IT EVEN STARTED! When a politician such as Hillary Clinton receives 50% of the popular vote even though the opposition has more than twice the money to spend and has the support of the media, the democratic higher ups, and billionaires such as George Soros, it just may lead to the formation of an independent group of Hillary Clinton supporters who call themselves PUMA's.

In Part II of this article, I'll give a simple explanation as to why the democratic party higher ups decided to corrupt their own party.