[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx8ZaF95064]

Don’t let anyone fool you into believing that Hillary Clinton is the odds on favorite to win the Presidency in 2008. To the contrary, the next heir to the Oval Office is the GOP’s to lose. The following is my case.

Undoubtedly, Mrs. Clinton will win the Democrat nomination for POTUS – in effect, she’s already won. How can I be so confident? Because she’s got the one thing that no other Democrat running has – the brand name ‘Clinton’ – and it simply cannot be overcome on the Left. Their base sees this “two-fer” as more than enough to win – and Democrats are desperate to win the Presidency.

Witness the phenomenon of John Forbes Kerry, Vietnam War hero. Remember when he strutted victorious from the Iowa caucus in 2004, whipping out his uneasy, crooked salute? Without knowing hardly anything about him, like dominoes the Democrat rank and file robotically fell into line until he had the party’s nomination quickly wrapped up.

But, as we know, his Presidential bid was ill-fated as Democrat dreams fell prey again to his arch-nemesis, and utterly incompetent George W. Bush. Why did Democrats so blindly put up such a lame contender? Here’s the dirty little secret: It’s because Democrats are not very discerning about their candidate, because just about anyone can be anointed as their Thief-in-Chief. On the Left, where fascistic group-think makes it easy to control their base, all that is needed from the candidate is simply hardcore pandering, grand promises of free goodies, and a reason to jump en masse on the anointed Democrat’s magic carpet ride all the way to those verdant White House grounds. Kerry fit the bill early, and the ‘Anyone-but-Bush’ automatons got in behind him lightning-quick and never let go, despite his sophomoric rival’s ‘Don’t-mess-with-Texas’ campaign.

Read the rest of this entry »

Remember those rumors we use to hear about re: Hill’s sexual orientation while Billary occupied the WH? Well it seems those rumors are finally coming home to roost. It appears that a super big story may hit the air waves soon exposing Hillary’s sexual orientation. It’s about time! The LA Times is sitting on proof of this little known DC secret, but they are not reporting it because they are scared about the repercussions. Last time I was in journalism school, which was a zillion years ago, we were taught to report the facts, not sit on facts cuz we were fraidie cats. I guess Times have changed. No pun intended!

Aahh, heck, it doesn’t matter if Hill gets outed by a gay sex scandal. The Modern Progressives don’t care about that. It’s only scandalous if you’re a Republican gay! So the LA Times have nothing to concern their little empty heads about!

UPDATE I: The libs are all upset about this latest report. I’m confused why when it’s their very own gays who are outing Hill. What’s the prob?

UPDATE II: For balance sake, I provide this link , however, we’re suppose to trust the fifth column now? Don’t forsake reading the comments, too. They’re pretty funny!

~~~

The Commie rag Village Voice reported last August:

As I recently said on MONICA CROWLEY’s radio show, whisper campaigns are claiming that HILLARY CLINTON is GAYLE KING–ing her aide de camp, the glamorous HUMA ABEDIN, an Indian/Pakistani goddess from Kalamazoo, Michigan. In other words, Hillary may be putting Huma out there in the press and purposely making her more visible as a pre-emptive strike that amounts to her hiding in plain sight. This way, no Republican can later say, “Who is this gorgeous babe who spends so much intimate time with Hillary that the Observer called her Hill’s ‘body person’? Was GENNIFER FLOWERS’s book right about Hillary’s sexual taste?” And does either of this couple have the balls to bottom?

Read the rest of this entry »