Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts

Saturday, February 13, 2010

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.


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.

Sunday, January 31, 2010

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.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

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.

Sunday, August 2, 2009

I've Got a Crush on Hillary YouTube Video

I missed this video when it came out for the first
time. Nice. Totally inappropriate still shot, the
music video itself is pretty good.

Monday, December 22, 2008

Recycling Rev Pfleger's "She's White & Entitled" Speech for Caroline Kennedy. I guess if the "Black Man" says it's Ok to be Entitled, then it's OK.



Since Barack Obama and myself and many others believe in recycling, I thought it might be wise to recycle the Rev Michael Pfleger Entitlement Speech and see how accurately it describes Caroline Kennedy. It sure seems a like more accurate now in describing Caroline Kennedy then it did the first time around describing Hillary Clinton.

Lets end this farce and let Hillary Clinton choose her own successor.

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

BLAGOJEVICH the BRIBE WHORE to KEEP SENATOR NAMING RIGHTS while a "PROMOTED" HILLARY CLINTON has No Say for her own Senatorial Replacement.

It is just wrong to allow Blagojevich to name a senatorial replacement after the comments he has made about wanting money in exchange for the position. It is also wrong that Hillary Clinton does not get to name her own replacement when she supposedly has been "promoted".

A male who appears to have behaved in a sleazy manner gets to keep his power, a woman who was promoted and has been labeled a team player, does not. Just more male dominated crap.

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Where is my HILLARY CLINTON COMMEMORATIVE COIN, just like the one MSNBC keeps hawking for Barack Obama.

Why is there no commercial for a Hillary Coin? I would buy it. Perhaps the coin could say, 18 million voices silenced by Caucus Cheating, Ageism, and Sexism. Commemoratively speaking, if this type of a coin is not made and sold, then all there will be is a Barack Obama coin out there, and revisionist history takes a step up on what really happened.

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Rationalizing MSNBC's anti female politician stance...

Is MSNBC's year long assault against female presidential and vice presidential candidates some sort of a rite of passage, a hazing of sorts? Is it possible that MSNBC has raised the bar for female presidential candidates and vice presidential candidates since there has only been one prior female vice presidential candidate, who ironically enough was hazed earlier this year as well. (Geraldine Ferraro).

One could argue that Barack Obama, as an african american presidential candidate, should have been "hazed" just as much if this is the rationalization that MSNBC is using against female politicians. If this article has done anything, it's reminded me that ALL THREE FEMALE VICE PRESIDENT and PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES in this country's entire history were all hazed this year, by MSNBC.

Wow.

Friday, November 7, 2008

DailyPUMA is now ONLINE!

DailyPUMA fills an important internet niche in PUMA LAND and those who desire a different interpretation from the day to day news than what the mainstream media offers.

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

It was the White People in Barack Obama's backround that were the Worst of All, Did the Media focus only on the Non Whites on Purpose?

I've never been comfortable with all the bashing of Barack Obama's non-white alliances. I guess it took me this long to figure out why. There are many white alliances in Barack Obama's background that have questionable character. George Soros would have to be number one on the list. Arianna Huffington would be number two. Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews tied for third, David Axelrod number four, perhaps Bill Ayers would be fifth, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid tied for sixth, the rest of the MSNBC gang at 7th.

It probably looked racist to Barack Obama supporters for the opposition to be more pre-occupied with the non-whites in Barack Obama's background. Perhaps white people should have just focused on the whites in Barack's background that were behaving in what can easily be seen as questionable behavior.

The sad part is Barack Obama has conocoted a rainbow coalition of people of all colors that have checkered pasts. I think the reason many of the opposition complaints didn't stick was because white detractors of Barack Obama pointed to the non-white people in Barack's past, while letting Barack Obama's shady supporters who were white, off the hook.

Besides the white people mentioned above who I think have behaved in an ethically challenged manner, I should also add all the political losers who were white, that got on the Barack Obama bandwagon to crush the Clintons. These white political losers include Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, John Kerry, Howard Dean, John Edwards and Bill Richardson, ALL of whom have RUN FOR PRESIDENT or the Democratic Presidential nomination, and LOST!

It is an obvious slap in the face to the Clintons and lifelong democratic voters for all of these democratic presidential losers to just throw the Clintons to the curb and support a one term inexperienced senator when Bill Clinton has been the only two term democratic president in the last 50 years.

Think about it, Democratic presidential losers from the past 20 years, all gang up on the ONE AND ONLY democratic presidential winner's family. It's kind of creepy, and speaks to a coup of the democratic party, funded by George Soros.

In a past article I have written fondly of Pastor Wright, I think he is much smarter than Barack Obama. Ironically, above and beyond the issue of the people in Barack Obama's background, there was the issue of very unethical occurrences in this years 15 caucus contests, and the Barack Obama camp accepting over 200 million dollars in undocumented donations, this after rejecting matching funds that prior presidential candidates had all agreed to abide by.

So the question I have is, why didn't whites opposed to Barack Obama's supporters go after Barack Obama's white supporters? lol, there were PLENTY of white backers of Barack Obama that acted highly unethically in this election cycle. I can only begin to guess at the back room deals made and money possibly offered to get several prominent white people to back Barack Obama at the expense of the much better known and respected Clinton family.

I wish I had connected these dots earlier. In a way I did, as I have always tried to focus on caucus cheating issues, the concept of fair reflection denied earlier this year, Obvious media bias led by MSNBC, and sexism. I feel I never was able to reach those that didn't like Barack Obama for his non-white affiliations to find a better reason even when those better reasons existed.

If you are white, and you don't like Barack Obama's rainbow coalition of provocative supporters with questionable backgrounds, you made a mistake by going after the non-white Barack Obama supporters. If you were white, you should have focused on the provocative people backing Barack Obama, who were also white, there were plenty to go around.

Friday, October 31, 2008

Hillary Clinton Supporters find Support with John McCain Supporters.

It can be a fantastic feeling to connect with others who think as you do, especially when they did it before they ever met you. I VOTED FOR DEMOCRACY TODAY used the YouTube Video, I am a Hillary Clinton Supporter and I approved this message in their blog article today.

That is way cool!

Please spread the word, and spread this youtube video to any Hillary Clinton Voters who are still on the fence.

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Oprah Winfrey first helps remove Hillary Clinton from the democratic race, then tries to lead the way forward for all women on her television show.

I consider Oprah Winfrey to be a thug. First Oprah helped disable Hillary Clinton's campaign by exerting all of her influence to help Barack Obama win the democratic nomination. After that mission was accomplished, Oprah has now taken the mantle of progressing women's rights!

This past week Oprah had a show featuring women leaders such as Billie Jean King, Maria Shriver, Gloria Steinem, the Williams sisters, Serena and Venus. The purpose of this particular show was to inspire a new generation of young females to greatness.

Where was Hillary Clinton, Oprah?

I guess having the number one female achiever on your show after you directly assisted in taking her out of the democratic presidential race by you only supporting Barack Obama, wouldn't look too good, would it?

I just find Oprah Winfrey to be a thug who just wants it all to go her way. Oprah's recent show about women leaders could not feature Hillary Clinton, which just shows the political blood that is on Oprah Winfrey's hands. Try and wash it off Oprah by doing the show without Hillary Clinton, I'm here to say, you are busted.

Oprah Winfrey's thuggish act of narcissism reveals her desire to be remembered long after her show goes off the air.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Barack Obama DonorGate Fundraising Mystery, Is Barack Obama electronically set up to get monthly donations from non-existent donors?

Open Secrets.org is a website that tracks political donor funding. One page that I found interesting is this one. Barack Obama Monthly Donation Charts. Anyone can track day by day donations for both Barack Obama and John McCain.

The first thing I noticed when I randomly checked a couple of months was that Barack Obama always had his best donation day on the final day of the month, each and every month. I decided to check out a theory of mine, and I was intrigued when it proved true.

My theory has to do with the sham donations that Barack Obama gets. Nobody knows how many dollars Barack Obama has illegally received, but it has been shown that there are sham names and addresses that actually do give donations to Barack Obama's campaign on a repeating basis.

My hunch is that some entity has set up monthly autopay donations to Barack Obama that kick in on the final day of each calendar month.

I will acknowledge that the Barack Obama team tries to prod its contributors at the end of each month for additional donations, but for some reason, in the month of February, there was no donation "surge" for Barack Obama. February is a curious month to have gotten no end of the month surge as Barack Obama was still battling Hillary Clinton. There was a surge around February 6th, & 7th, and perhaps that minimized the surge later that month. But I doubt that because I would surmise that surge on the 6th and 7th of February was because Barack Obama did well on February 5th, also known as the first Super Tuesday of the election. Now you know the real significance of not counting Michigan in the win column, it helped result in a bigger funding boost for Barack Obama because Michigan's numbers were not counted at that time.

My theory is that there is a network of autopay donations going to Barack Obama that were/are set up for either the 30th or 31st of each month. This results in a huge push going into the next month. However, because February only has 28 days, something went wrong. Maybe Barack Obama's camp messed up in February because February has only 28 days. Or maybe those involved messed up February because Barack Obama moved his headquarters and branched out because of all the caucus contests in February. However, if all it takes is sending out an email to create an end of the month surge in donations, how come the end of February shows no such surge for Barack Obama?

The Open Secrets.org data shows that for every month in 2008, from January through the end of July, Barack Obama's best donation day was always the final day of the month, EXCEPT FOR FEBRUARY. And we're not talking by a little bit, we're talking a MASSIVE increase in political donations on the very last day of every month except for February.

Assuming that the Barack Obama fundraising machine sends out emails at the end of each month asking for another donation, why would the end of February not surge for Barack Obama the way each other month surged?

To those who are trying to track all of the fraudulent donations made to the Barack Obama campaign, I am suggesting to focus on donations that are made on the last day of each month. It sure may be easier trying to look for made up names and addresses if one can focus to one day out of the month instead of every day of the month.

And in case you may be wondering how not counting Michigan affected the race. If Michigan had been in play, Hillary Clinton would not only have won Super Tuesday, but Barack Obama could not have put so many "ground troops" in all the caucus states, some of those people would have had to have been put in Michigan, and the net result would have been that Hillary Clinton would have more decisively won on February 5th and slowed down Barack Obama's influx of money that arrived on the 6th, 7th, and 8th of February, not to mention all the media hoopla Barack Obama got from MSNBC.

Monday, October 13, 2008

How Oprah Winfrey and George Soros have influence peddled this year while conservatives such as Dr. Laura stay on the sidelines.

What I have found most offensive about this years presidential race has been the interfering by rich or powerful celebrities during the democratic nominating process. George Soros and Oprah Winfrey have added their influence to this year's democratic race and in the process may have harmed the sovereignty of future presidential races.

I believe up until this year there has been an unstated "gentleman's agreement" that the real influential power would hold back some of their power until after our two main political parties had their millions of voters vote for their favorite candidate. An example of this type of situation would be John McCain only having 1% of the vote less than one year ago, yet coming back to win the Republican nomination.

However, on the democratic side, the democrats seemed to have ripped up the playbook and did everything in their power to help Barack Obama win at all costs. This Barack must win strategy has created a new problem. Why should either political side wait for 30 million voters to help decide who is the nominee when overzealous help early on by the rich and powerful can pretty much lock up the nomination before the voters get to vote?

I believe the evidence in the 2008 presidential race shows that the conservative side basically allowed the existing candidates to legitimately battle each other, and once John McCain was elected, they rallied around him. On the democratic side, interveners like Oprah Winfrey and George Soros, rather than wait until 35 million democrats decided who would be the nominee, decided to manipulate who would actually get the democratic nomination before 35 million democratic voters voted.

This is actually a serious issue.

If Oprah Winfrey and George Soros are successful in their quest to dictate who is the democratic nominee prior to 35 million democrats voting, it will only get worse in future elections. Although I don't know how much Dr. Laura could have influenced this year's election, it is sad to see democrats such as George Soros and Oprah Winfrey lowering the bar to the point where it will no doubt contaminate the electoral process from now on, meanwhile Dr. Laura remains rather quiet and does not use her show or celebrity to manipulate voters the way Oprah Winfrey has shamelessly been doing for over a year now.

I wish for Barack Obama to lose so that the rich and powerful don't believe they are above all others when it comes to influence peddling who will be each political parties nominee.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Is Chris Matthews and MSNBC the Bi-Polar channel? You decide if MSNBC's Pre-Debate stance and their after Debate stance merits Bi-Polar Status.

The MSNBC channel has developed a really sleazy strategy in their effort to take John McCain down. First MSNBC identifies what they believe to be a questionably ethical position John McCain has taken, then no matter what McCain does in response, the MSNBC on air crew ridicules and mocks McCain anyways.

Example one. It is pretty much acknowledged that McCain won the first verbal joust in Southern California at Saddleback Church between Obama and McCain. The first of three official debates was going to be about international relations, so what did John McCain have to gain by postponing the first debate, nothing. John McCain wanted to postpone the first debate to work on the Bailout bill. MSNBC used this moment to accuse McCain of trying to postpone the first debate because McCain was afraid of debating Barack Obama.

Barack Obama lost the Saddleback meeting yet MSNBC comes out swinging like the Dark Knight from the Monty Python skit, claiming that John McCain is afraid to debate Barack Obama on international topics sounds just like the Dark Knight wanting to keep fighting even after losing all of his limbs.

After slamming McCain for wanting to postpone the debate, MSNBC then slammed McCain for allegedly interfering in the bailout bill and causing it to fail the first time it was voted on! Who is to say how quickly the bailout bill needed to be passed? According to MSNBC, the bailout bill needed to be passed right away and it was McCains fault that it did not pass right away. According to MSNBC, anything McCain did to either hasten or slow down the passage of the bill is simply McCain just interfering where he doesn't belong! Meanwhile, MSNBC reports that Barack Obama deftly handled the Bailout Bill via his Cell Phone. Once again, no matter how McCain had reacted to the bailout bill, MSNBC was there waiting to hammer McCain, MSNBC's disrespect tpwards John McCain is profound and inexcusable.

On to the second debate held a few hours ago. Prior to the debate, Chris Matthews on his own show basically threatened a McCain higher up by trying to expose the Obama / Ayers ties as dirty politics. Matthews pressed over and over asking if McCain would continue with these dirty politics during the debate that night.

After the debate was over and McCain had NOT mentioned the Obama / Ayers angle, Chris Matthews actually accused McCain of being too chicken to call Obama out on the Ayers issue! Matthews would now claim that John McCain was instead willing to leave it up to Sarah Palin and others to do his dirty work for him! Is this not the definition of a Bi-Polar mentality? To first demand a certain result, get that result, and then mercilessly criticize the other person anyways!

Matthews went on to call the Ayers affair "The dog that would not bite" claiming that McCain was too embarrassed to bring up Ayers during the debate and instead would leave the sleazy attacks to the "barracuda", Sarah Palin. Matthews actually stated he thought that was the story of the night!

Not to be outdone, Rachel Maddow actually said what may have been a whole night's idiocy jam packed into one sentence. Maddow claims Barack Obama won the debate by pretending that John McCain was not even there. This is so outrageously Bi-Polar as MSNBC criticized McCain over and over for never looking over to Barack Obama during the prior debate! Talk about a "Gotcha moment", Rachel Maddow wins the "Gotcha, see how bi-polar we are" award for the night.

But wait, there's more! Several months ago Keith Olbermann and guest Jonathan Alter of Newsweek mercilessly attacked and ridiculed John McCain over McCain's very honorable defense of Hillary Clinton's campaign! These two clowns, Olbermann and Alter, spent 4 and a half minutes accusing McCain of losing his mind over a 30 second wonderfully written and spoken tribute to Hillary Clinton by John McCain.

So while the gentle man John McCain is attacked at every turn by MSNBC no matter what the subject, MSNBC also trys to paint McCain as having a temper. Who wouldn't after the idiotic but non stop attacks that McCain has suffered at the hands of MSNBC and their Bi-Polar hosts. I'll never forget MSNBC and what has to go down as the most disgusting tactics by a news channel ever.

Sunday, October 5, 2008

George Soros outed on Saturday Night Live, too bad it's 6 months too late.

The image above is authentic, no additional words have been added. It's what this blog has been warning everybody about back since May, George Soros owns the democratic party and it makes me want to puke.

George Soros was outed on Saturday Night Live Last Night, even being accused of sabotaging the US dollar and owning the Democratic party, just like this blog has been reporting for the past 6 months. Saturday night live predicted a de-valuation of the American dollar this coming week, all courtesy of George Soros.

Please note the position of the video cursor in the still image that I have provided above. You can save six minutes if you move the video cursor on the Embedded video BELOW to match where the cursor is above. In other words, you are fast forwarding past the first six minutes of the skit to get to the part about George Soros.

To go directly to the Soros part of the skit, hit the play arrow and then slide the cursor over to the right until there is only about 1:36 remaining. Video has been removed by NBC after about a day, it's as if it never happened.

You can search this blog and my other blogs for back stories about George Soros, just use the search box in the top left hand corner of this blog.

Monday, September 29, 2008

Time Magazine Economic Ballot, I wrote Hillary Clinton's name in, so can You!



I voted for Hillary Clinton in the Time Magazine front page ballot on the economy. You can download the image and vote for Hillary Clinton if you like. Send your ballot to... ATTN: TIME BALLOT, P.O. Box 60001, Tampa, Florida, 33660-0001

Saturday, September 20, 2008

The Media can't help itself, first it was Sexism and Ageism, now it's Alaskism

Whenever I overhear Keith Olbermann and his protege Rachel Maddow speak, I am reminded of Snidely Whiplash from the Dudley Do Right Cartoon and Natasha from the Rocky and Squirrel cartoon. Unfortunately, Snidely Whiplash and Natasha were the bad guys. The same can be said about K.O. and R.M. as they calmly tell us how misguided we are if we believe that Sarah Palin is Vice Presidential material.

I've begun to notice a "pattern" among the liberal media this year. First it was sexism and ageism against the Hillary Clinton campaign, then it was ageism against John McCain, now it is Alaskism against Sarah Palin, all emanating from the LIBERAL MEDIA.

Alaskism means the ridiculing of people from another part of the world where it's cold and dark, a lot. Alaskism's come in many forms. Examples include ridiculing people from Alaska for having tanning beds. Superimposing a bikini clad body under the face of the vice presidential candidate is another way to for the liberal media to Alaskism their way merrily along.

Cuddling up with a loved one in cold, cold, Alaska is a no no according to the puritanical liberal media. If cuddling leads to more intimacy which results in a pregnancy, the liberal media will ridicule that. If the cuddlers have had a "secret" abortion, the liberal media will find out and throw it in their faces.

If the cuddlers have the child, the liberal media will throw that in their face as well for having premarital sex. If the cuddlers have a kid and it has downs syndrome, they'll first blame Sarah Palin for improper pre natal care, then when there is an uproar over that insinuation, the liberal media will claim they dropped the story because of the lack of civility from conservatives responding to the story. (Just ask Alan Colmes). It's as if the liberal media thinks they own the topic of sex and can use it at will to ridicule conservatives.

I just don't understand how liberal media types that live in the continental United States feel entitled to judge our Alaskan neighbors with such arrogance and mockery. Imagine what it must be like that whenever you go outside, you are probably bundled up in several extra layers of clothing. Every single time you go outside, you are wearing twice the clothing, go back inside, unbundle. Bundle, unbundle, all day long. The Great Plains states and surrounding areas have very cold winters as well, I just find it odd for the liberal media to so freely and easily ridicule anybody that lives through months upon months of cold weather.

Hey, lets make fun of moose meat, tanning beds, roads to nowhere, or being mayor of a less densely populated region of the planet. We'd better never inhabit the moon or surely the liberal media would ridicule a place that would be even less populated than Alaska. I could see the liberal media about now, "You were mayor on the moon, HA, you governed less than a hundred people, big whoop." That's about how ignorant Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow sound to me these days.

Here's an idea for the liberal media, don't use your pampered lifestyle in posh, comfortable surroundings to judge people who live in cold, dark, places and have more struggles in a single day than you do in a year.

Being liberal this year means throwing everything against a wall and hyping anything that will momentarily stick. Ironically, many Alaskans make their living using that same approach. The difference is Alaskans don't go around judging the rest of us, too bad the liberal media can't do the same as they smugly judge people who live in less densely populated, harsher conditions than themselves.

I can't stand the 2008 liberal media and the only hope we have is to defeat Barack Obama and cleanse the D.N.C. and MSNBC so I can go back to the party that I used to be a staunch support of, the democratic party.

Saturday, September 13, 2008

The Comedy of Sarah Palin and how she got Barack Obama's Goat.

If there was one thing John McCain could do to dig a burr into the Barack Obama camp's backside, it was to select Sarah Palin as his V.P.

What I find so comical is Sarah Palin is to Barack Obama exactly what Barack Obama was to Hillary Clinton during the 2008 democratic contest. Not only are the parallels a giggle to nowhere, witnessing Barack Obama's reaction to Sarah Palin enter the race has been very enlightening.

Several months back Pastor Michael Pfleger mockingly spoke of Hillary Clinton as feeling "entitled" to the Democratic nomination (click on link to see video) Pastor Pfegler Mocks Hillary Clinton. The Pfegler line many may never forget was... "there's a black man stealing my show.'' Did you ever imagine that that very video would boomerang against Barack Obama several months later?

If you watch this youtube video of Pfegler ridiculing Hillary Clinton, Pastor Pfegler Mocks Hillary Clinton, just imagine it's a new video that a Pfegler clone has released in which he ridicules Barack Obama's reaction to Sarah Palin. ..."There was Barack Obama, the chosen one, heading for the presidency, and suddenly there's this Hootchy Hockey Mama from Alaska, and she's stealing my show"....

(by the way, you youtube wannabe's, ahem, hint hint).

The arrogant and condescending reaction to Sarah Palin that Barack Obama and his side is demonstrating towards Palin is exactly how both Barack Obama and Pastor Pfegler treated Hillary Clinton earlier this year. While this ironic joke is now playing out against Barack Obama, the bigger joke is, Barack Obama and his followers still don't get it. The audacity of arrogance and lack of fair reflection that helped Barack Obama "win" against Hillary Clinton now blocks his path towards the White House.

How can I want a group in power that is so proud of themselves they don't get it when they receive the same condescending medicine that they normally are doling out?

Dare I even bring up the whole dying thing as well? Jack Cafferty of CNN stated several months ago that Hillary Clinton should get out of the race over the Kennedy Assassination comment she made, yet we constantly are now reminded that John McCain could pass on, even as we see his 96 year old mother cheering him on.

It's Ok to talk about McCain passing on, but not Barack Obama? According to the Barack Obama camp, yes.

All of this has me wondering just who started putting lipstick on a pig, first?