The extreme right is having a party with Obama and Reverend Wright, the latter now a political tool of the Clintons and reprehensible cynics such as Rush Limbaugh. Wright makes the coined phrase “The man divides and conquers” a reality in today’s national political scene. The covers of the major newspapers of April 30, 2008 show a picture of Obama and Rev. Wright, sending, again, a subliminal message that has long played a part of American politics: black against black.

The race card is not played white against black this time. That is for the blue collar workers who lost their jobs in traditional American towns, and are easy targets of manipulative elitists like the Clintons.

Even though we know that if Obama is nominated the Karl Roves of this world will make a nice meal out whatever the Clintons haven’t been able to digest, it is from the left where he’s getting the worst shots. Once again the Clintons, known cheaters and liars, have rewritten the book on down-South politics. They are still reinventing the government, read “reinventing politics”, and don’t forget The Bridge to the XXI Century. They were going to build a “bridge” to this century.

A bridge mined with lies, personal ambition over the common interest; a bridge infested by the larceny in their hearts.

Hillary Clinton wants to build a bridge with the bricks of hate and deceit.

We expressed our concern that Obama would survive what he’s now dealing with. Yet we are firm in supporting him because he has maintained his word. He’s a uniter not a divider. He has spoken clearly to the conscience of America. He has taken no money from the big interest groups. He represents real change in a Washington flooded with lobbyists and the politics of war and greed.

It is almost mathematically impossible for the former first lady to win, but she keeps on trucking. Lately she has closed the gap in national polls. She’s counting on the anger of the blue collar workers whom she and her husband plundered into economic and social chaos by promoting NAFTA- something that now she denies.

An expert liar, she will deny or approve anything. Just like the Communists, she’s loyal to the Marxist phrase “The Ends Justify the Means”. The end is another eight years in the White House, where they will, again, live at the expense of the taxpayers, probably renting Lincoln’s bedroom out at much higher prices. The end is her coronation over everybody else’s destruction, including Barack Obama’s, yours, and mine.

She has honest followers, good people who believe in her message, which changes according to the location and political winds. She chose to be a senator from New York because her Task Force advised that it was the state in which she had a better chance to be elected, even though she had never lived in New York. Even though she has never cared about this great state.

If she visits a black church she imitates the African American accent. If she’s in a blue collar working state she drinks whiskey and beer and talks their talk. If she’s in Texas she’ll copy the Texan accent and coin their phrases. She has become all of us to reveal herself: she is a power hungry human being who would do or say anything to get her way, to achieve her personal goal.

Over any kind of ethical or moral consideration she stands on her own morals and ethics. She represents all that America doesn’t stand for.

Mrs. Clinton and her husband have sunk the bar on American values.

I truly understand my Cuban brothers for attacking Obama. They stand firm under the Republican flag with a sign that reads: “Bay of Pigs”. What is hard to understand is how soft they have been with a woman whose husband completely turned his face to our suffering and pain. And she never raised her voice to support the Cuban community. Hillary Clinton is a fake and a phony. That’s probably why Richard Nixon’s daughter is supporting Barack Obama. Anyone can see the signs: Travelgate and Whitewater, just to mention two. I strongly recommend two key books and one documentary: High Crimes and Misdemeanors by Ann Coulter, and Unlimited Access by Gary Alrich, and the very popular documentary Hillary, The Movie.

Mrs. Clinton is unfit to become the presidential candidate for the great Democratic Party.

Can she “win” though the loopholes of the political spider web? At this point it hard to predict. In politics one day is 20 years. Can she be a good president?

Dishonesty is always a bad referral. Has America reached that low? The next weeks should tell.

Is Barack Obama better? At least he has been honest and clean in his campaign. He’s speaking with a voice that Americans identity with.

Many true and honest Hillary’s supporters express their anger if Obama wins by declaring that they would vote for John McCain if Hillary wins the democratic nomination.

Does she believe she can persuade super delegates to vote for her? Again, probably not. Obama has steadily eroded her edge among super delegates and now they are almost tied among committed super delegates. And the prevailing sentiment among those that remain is not to overturn the will of the voters.

So why is Hillary still running so hard? Why is she especially focused on pushing up Obama’s negatives?

Until the last vote is counted on June 3rd, we can chalk up her persistence to determination, courage and sheer obstinacy. But if she persists in her candidacy after the last primary, we must begin to consider whether she has an ulterior motive.

Does Hillary want to beat up Obama so that he can’t win the general election in November, assuring McCain of the presidency so that she can have a clear field to run again in 2012? Obviously, if Obama beats McCain, Hillary is out of the picture until 2016, by which time, at 69 years old, she might be too old to run. But if McCain wins, she would have to be considered the presumptive front runner for the nomination, a status which she might parlay into a nomination more successfully than she has been able to do this year.

The Clinton-Obama contest is like a 15-round heavyweight title bout in boxing.

Hillary went for an early knockout. All previous Democratic races since 1960 have been decided that way, with one candidate winning decisive primaries, forcing his opponents to withdraw. But Obama beat her to the punch in Iowa, survived a loss in New Hampshire, and countered her sweep of New York, New Jersey and California on Super Tuesday by winning a large number of smaller states, largely by out-organizing Hillary in caucus states. While most traditional candidates are forced out if they lose key states because their money dries up, Obama’s ingenious use of Internet funding provided him with an ample financial base even as he fell behind Hillary in the delegate count.

But Hillary, in spending all her resources on an early Super Tuesday knockout, was too depleted to do well in the middle rounds — the February caucus and primary states. Her focus on an early knockout led her to neglect organizing in these states, and her insistence on spending every dime she had in pursuit of an early win left her financially incapable of competing in these February contests. Obama won round after round on points, sweeping 11 states in a row and establishing a solid lead in elected delegates.

Problem is, it doesn’t mean anything.

Because of the Democratic Party’s arcane proportional-representation rules, her win stands to give her a net gain of 10 to 15 delegates when all is counted. That means that Barack Obama will fall from a lead of 161 in elected delegates to about 145 or so. Big deal.

The primaries coming up in the next two weeks, Indiana and North Carolina, are likely to give Obama back a goodly portion of those delegates. By the time all the primaries have been held, after June 3, there is no doubt that Obama will lead by more than 100 elected delegates, and likely 150. From there, it will be an easy route to the nomination.

The Democratic superdelegates aren’t about to risk a massive and sanguinary civil war by taking the nomination away from the candidate who won more elected delegates. If they ever tried it, we’d see a repeat of the demonstrations that smashed the 1968 Chicago convention and ruined Hubert Humphrey’s chances of victory.

Clinton won Pennsylvania for two key reasons: Only Democrats could vote in the primary, and the Keystone State electorate is dominated by the elderly, who are staunchly for Clinton.

Despite her claims of electability, Hillary has never done well among independent voters. And Obama usually loses the Democrats. Pennsylvania’s closed-primary rules gave her a key advantage.

Barack Obama, 54 percent

Hillary Rodham Clinton, 35 percent

OF INTEREST:

Obama’s huge lead in this Newsweek poll marks a big shift from the magazine’s last survey in March, when he and Clinton were essentially tied. Besides Obama’s usual leads among men, blacks and young people, he leads in this poll among women and older voters and is about even among whites. In a matchup against Republican candidate John McCain, both Democrats are ahead slightly.

All of these Hillary Clinton fibs and exaggerations are basically harmless. But her current attempts to lie about her record and to pretend that she always opposed free trade agreements and disagreed with Bill on NAFTA is a serious distortion of her record as she searches for blue collar support in Pennsylvania.

Hillary was a strong supporter of NAFTA. Her official schedule reveals that she attended meetings designed to promote its passage and her memoir, “Living History,” betrays no hint of any opposition to her husband’s key legislative accomplishment of his first two years in office — the ratification of NAFTA.

Hillary and I spoke frequently through all of 1993 and 1994 and together we plotted to help NAFTA ratification. She was deeply involved in the decision to enlist past presidents in supporting the bill and followed the vote count with heightening anxiety as it appeared closer and closer.

That she could totally reinvent her record, turn it around 180 degrees, and expect us to fall for it, shows her arrogance and her continuing belief that she can sell us on anything, no matter how obviously false.

We must ask ourselves: who are the bad guys? Surely the terrorists who murdered 5,000 in one day in the Twin Towers. Other economic terrorists are draining our wallets as hard-working Americans. As they get millions in bonuses, you and me, the common hard working American, have to think if we’ll be able to pay the next gas bill, never mind the fishing trips next Summer, because oil companies have raised the prices so much that we have to start counting our pennies at the mercy of these multimillionaire tycoons.

We support the troops all the way. It’s a fact that the sons and daughters of these oil millionaires aren’t the ones that are fighting America’s new war. Most likely their siblings are working in their companies, making salaries the average American could only dream of while our soldiers’ sacrifice keep their interests safe and secure.

Why? Hillary’s main duty on our staff has been described by as “establishing the legal procedures to be followed in the course of the inquiry and impeachment.” A number of the procedures she recommended were ethically flawed. And I also concluded that she had violated House and committee rules by disclosing confidential information to unauthorized persons.

She’s been doing that for a long time.

Here’s another telling example: At a 1997 race-relations forum for teenagers in Boston, Hillary recalled the “pain” of a “childhood encounter” that helped her to grasp the injury suffered by the victims of bigotry. Her comments came as her husband was launching his second term in office by calling for a national dialogue on race and reconciliation. In an effort to empathize with her audience and inject herself into the discussion, she made up yet another incident that never happened.

“During a junior high school soccer game” on a cold day, Hillary claimed “a goalee told her ‘I wish people like you would freeze.’” Stunned, the future first lady asked how she could feel that way when she did not even know her. “I don’t have to know you,” the goalee shot back, “to know I hate you.”

Nice story, but it never happened.

Hillary simply cannot tell the truth. Here’s her scorecard:

Admitted Lies

Chelsea was jogging around the Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. (She was in bed watching it on TV.)
Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted she was wrong. He climbed Mt. Everest five years after her birth.)
She was under sniper fire in Bosnia. (A girl presented her with flowers at the foot of the ramp.)
She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market. (It didn’t cover the market back then.)

Whoppers She Won’t Admit…

James Carville made the smart remark, well suited for Holy week, that New Mexico governor Bill Richardson was Judas because he supported Obama instead of Hillary. Richardson owes most of his career to the Clintons, according to Carville’s accusation. This has to be a wake-up call for the Hispanic community who supports Hillary because “she is very good.” The implication that the highest-ranking Latino in the Democratic party is Judas to the very white Clintons has to be taken as an insult to all Hispanics. It simply implies that we cannot get anywhere in national politics for ourselves; we need people like Hillary and Bill Clinton to get us up there. It means that we are not qualified enough, we need to be guided and supported by the Clintons to be placed in high ranking positions in the party of inclusion. Not even the Mexicans would have the heart to call Richardson Judas, for being the Latino governor of the land the white Americans stole from them. Then again, Mexicans have a heart.

If Bill Richardson is Judas…

James Carville came to national prominence after winning a campaign that not even I would lose against Bob Dole, an honorable senior citizen who was there for the taking. When things turned really rough for the Clintons, it was Dick Morris- not Carville- who came to the rescue. Carville got married to that Republican lady nobody likes.

…then who is James Carville?

The situation is turning the color of caimito (real bad) for the Clintons and time is running as Obama runs with the Democratic ball. The Republicans are having the time of their lives pretending they are having fun watching this race. It’s all fun and games for the Republicans until they look in the mirror and see John McCain. They are already throwing the racial mud because their only chance against Obama in November is that millions come out to vote motivated by race, not issues.

The topic of race is beginning to make an impact in Republican circles. Fox News, once the answer to the CNN ultra-leftist positions, is losing viewers by the hour and causing havoc among their TV hosts, making one of them walk out of the set in the middle of a morning show.

They just don’t know what to do next. All attacks against Obama are based on race, experience and race and experience. I guess that’s what you have to do if you have a John McCain as your frontrunner. They know they already lost the election. If Hillary couldn’t steal it, they will.

There are few, if any, meetings with Cabinet members, congressional leaders, the National Security Council, the National Economic Council, leaders of the Irish peace process, players in the Bosnian crisis or representatives from Rwanda. All of her so-called experience is absent from her daily schedule. What’s there, for us all to see, is one soft event after another, a schedule far more typical of such first ladies as Mamie Eisenhower or Lady Bird Johnson than of a future presidential candidate.

This near-total paucity of participation in policy-making dovetails with our recollection of her White House role. In 1995 and 1996, she largely toured the country, speaking at ceremonial events, wrote a book (”It Takes A Village”) and toured the world. During her international travels, there was no serious diplomacy, just a virtually endless round of meetings with women, visiting arts-and-crafts centers, watching native industries and photo opportunities for the local media.

President Bill Clinton’s memoirs reflect this absence of substance. The book contains only a handful of mentions of his wife that aren’t related to their joint travel, her health-care-reform program or her ceremonial duties. The Hil- lary she now claims to be was nowhere evident.