Even McCain Could Beat Senator Clinton

Although this poll originally came out in June of 2005, this HAS to hurt if you're Senator Clinton.

John McCain (R)	52%
Hillary Rodham Clinton	37%
Not sure / other	11%

Source: Zogby International
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,013 likely American voters, conducted from Dec. 6 to Dec. 8, 2005. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent.

If you read the results of the poll closely, McCain not only lead Clinton but would also quite nicely beat Kerry in a theoretical race. Strangely enough, press reports in recent days indicate that Kerry just can't seem to let it go and is still holding out hope for 2008. I wouldn't worry though, Clinton supporters will find a way to ensure that French citizen wanna-be Kerry will sit firmly on the sidelines after Senator Clinton declares her presidential bid.

Senator Clinton is already working on those 2008 votes

On December 19, Senator Clinton visited New Orleans. Of course, Sen. Mary Landrieu D-LA was there to shepherd the Senator around...oh, and be seen by the media. During the tour, Senator Clinton was quoted:

"There is a need to go back and find out what went wrong. What more do we need to do to protect this area?"

She went on to express concern that repair efforts on the levees may not protect New Orleans from future hurricanes. Now, you might ask yourself, "What is a Senator from New York doing touring the damage from a hurricane in Louisiana?" Last I checked, New York and Louisiana are quite a distance from each other so another hurricane hitting Louisiana would PROBABLY not affect New York.

My theory? Think about it. New Orleans is a major US city (well...used to be) that has a very high percentage of the population on public assistance. As stated in an OpinionJournal article on September 13, 2005, Brendan Miniter writes:

Anyone who has taken a non-drinking-binge tour of New Orleans, venturing outside the French Quarter and Garden District, might have noticed that New Orleans was a failing city. Tourism kept it, well, afloat, but large swaths of the city were mired in poverty for decades. One out of four New Orleans residents was living below the poverty line, and tens of thousands of people were living in public housing. These are the people who were left behind in the flood and who have long been left behind by failing schools, lack of economic opportunity, and crime well above the national average.

Now...Senator Clinton represents the Democratic party. Remember, the political party that is highly dependent on the continuing existence of a poverty class? These citizens are highly dependent on the federal government for their everyday existence. Therefore, Senator Clinton comes in as the Government Savior to fix everything and ensure that everyone goes back on the dole.

Why? Keep government dependents happy, and they'll be sure to vote for you in 2008 - as many times as possible. Please, unless the Democratic party from New York gets desperate, these New Orleans citizens won't be voting in 2006 in New York. This has GOT to qualify as vote buying somewhere.

Senator Clinton...so exactly what DO you propose?

The Washington Post carried this story on Saturday.

Senator Clinton was in Kentucky at a Democratic fundraiser trying to help the Democrats reverse the Republican control of the state. Her usual talking points included President Bush "ignoring an ailing health care system" and giving tax cuts to the wealthy. Tired talking points, but Democrat standards nonetheless. By the way, Senator Clinton will revive healthcare as one of her major platform issues in 2008. You watch and see.

But neither of those issues are up for consideration here. During her speech criticizing President Bush on the war in Iraq she stated:

"The time has come for the administration to stop serving up platitudes and present a plan for finishing this war with success and honor. I reject a rigid timetable that the terrorists can exploit, and I reject an open timetable that has no ending attached to it."

"Instead, I think we need a plan for winning and concluding this war, and the president can begin by taking responsibilities for the false assurances, faulty evidence and mismanagement of this war."

Ok, this is nothing we've heard before right? Or is it? Look at the second sentence...closely. Exactly what DO you propose Senator Clinton. Either you have a rigid timetable for leaving Iraq or you have a more open timetable that is dependent on the conditions in Iraq. Or did you forget your comments from November where you stated that we needed to wait on the results of the December 15 elections in Iraq?

Exactly, where is your plan Senator Clinton? You voted to approve the actions in Iraq based on the same intelligence that the President had been looking at. And before you start criticizing the intelligence, remember that HINDSIGHT is the only vision that is truly 20/20. Lastly, on the issue of mismanagement, um...shouldn't your criticism be aimed at the Generals actually waging the war? I mean, they're the ones on the ground actually managing the war. Ohhh...but accusing them of mismanaging the war would mean you don't support the troops. Can't have that, now, can we?

Blaming Bush for your own vote to go to war is FAR easier than taking responsibility isn't it?

Senator Clinton agrees with President Bush... or does she?

This story from the AP is interesting:

RYE BROOK, N.Y. - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be "a big mistake."

Say what? I thought Senator Clinton disagreed with the Bush Administration on the whole Iraq war.

Well, she does:

"It will matter to us if Iraq totally collapses into civil war, if it becomes a failed state the way Afghanistan was, where terrorists are free to basically set up camp and launch attacks against us," she said.

Or does she?

At the same time, Clinton said the Bush administration's pledge to stay in Iraq "until the job is done" amounts to giving the Iraqis "an open-ended invitation not to take care of themselves."

Now wait a minute, I'm confused. Which is it? Is Senator Clinton FOR our actions in Iraq or AGAINST our actions thus wanting the US to pull out. Wait a minute, the end of the article....what's that?

Clinton, who is running for re-election to the Senate and is seen as a likely presidential candidate in 2008, suggested that the United States wait for Iraq's Dec. 15 elections for an indication about how soon the Iraqis can take over.

"Until they vote for a government, I don't know that we will have adequate information about how prepared they are," she said.

Ohhhhh, now I get it. Senator Clinton is pulling plays from her husband's playbook. She's not quite sure which position to take until she sees which way the wind is blowing. So watch the news. Depending on the results of the Iraqi election in December, and depending on how the press reacts to that AND DEPENDING on how Senator Clinton can use if for her eventual Presidential bid, we should eventually know where she stands....maybe.

Senator Clinton Believes Government Should Control Private Business

On October 25, Senator Clinton delivered a speech to the conference of the Cleantech Venture Network. In this speech, Senator Clinton stated:

...ensure that we re-invest the tremendous drain that higher energy prices are exacting on middle-class families and the economy in a better energy future...

Anybody have a clue what that government double speak really means? I'm betting it's another redistribution of wealth strategy. But of course, in perfect fairness. Let's listen a little further.

I believe that we need to assess the oil companies an alternative energy development fee to be put into the new Strategic Energy Fund

Ok....so how's the government going do that? Where's that fee going to come from? Shhh...listen:

...so it is taken solely out of unanticipated profits from the sky-high oil prices and ensure that it is not passed on to consumers.

Say what? What exactly is an "unanticipated profit" and why would the government develop a fee based on an unexpected source? Secondarily, how is the GOVERNMENT going to "ensure that it is not passed on to consumers"? In case you don't already know, businesses don't pay taxes. YOU DO! Whenever there's an increase in fees or taxes for businesses, these increases ultimately get passed on to the end consumer. (For an EXTREMELY good explanation of all of this, please read Neal Boortz's book The FairTax Book.)

This "fee" of course would be temporary:

...temporary, lasting just long enough to kickstart the alternative energy market that we all know is out there.

We...which we? Look, if alternative energy sources were profitable, don't you think companies would be developing products and services as quickly as possible?

Finally, at the bottom of all of this the truth comes out. It's all about taxes.

...reform our energy taxes so that large oil companies which reap huge benefits over the next two years will pay a portion of their profits to fund new tax incentives for consumers and companies who want to do what we believe is the right thing...

What WHO believes is the right thing? Ohhhh, I get it, because Senator Clinton believes that alternative energy is the "right thing", that perfectly justifies a new tax...excuse me, fee to prop up this energy. Does this sound like the whole government subsidized Ethanol program going on today?

Just remember this in 2008. Anything Senator Clinton deems as "the right thing" or "good for the people", will become part of her campaign platform to increase your dependency on the government. Willingly or Unwillingly.

Senator Clinton Ticked at Children's Book

This one is too good!

Hillary Clinton Denounces Anti-Liberal Kid's Book

Hillary Clinton, through her spokesman, twice denounces best-seller kid's book that features a villainous Hillary look-alike. Joins chorus of liberals in denouncing popular illustrated story. International media intently follows this U.S. controversy.

Los Angeles, CA (PRWEB) November 2, 2005 -- What kind of children's book, written by an unassuming 35-year-old mother of three, could possibly provoke the ire of Hillary Rodham Clinton's press secretary on multiple occasions? The answer, it appears, is one that features a cartoon villain who bears an uncanny resemblance to the New York Senator taxing and regulating a child's lemonade stand.

Katharine DeBrecht's illustrated “Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed” (Kids Ahead; hardcover $15.95; ISBN 0976726904) has been a hit in U.S. bookstores and garnered an international media following, but twice in the past two weeks it has attracted the wrath of Senator Clinton's top spokesman.

Last month, the influential Congressional newspaper The Hill quoted Clinton's press secretary Philippe Reines as dismissing the book, which also features look-alikes of fellow liberal icons Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter. Reines was quoted as saying, “(I) can't wait for the sequel, 'Help! Mom! I Can't Read This Book Because Republicans Have Cut Literacy Programs!'”

"It's ironic that Hillary's press secretary would call for more government intrusion into our lives while bashing my book," author DeBrecht replied at the time. "Who needs parents when you've got bureaucrats in the Department of Education taking care of our kids? Evidently Hillary thinks it takes a village to teach a child to read!"

When asked by The Hill's reporter last week to respond to DeBrecht's remarks, Reines fired back, this time insinuating that her book was not selling well. “It's not the liberal under the bed that they should be worried about,” he crowed, “it's the sales that are in the basement.”

“Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed” has consistently been among the top selling children's books on Amazon, and at one point it hit #1 on the Barnes & Noble bestseller list. The book has been on the market for only six weeks and the publisher is already preparing for a third printing.

Hillary Clinton's spokesman is not the first liberal to denounce DeBrecht's satirical book. Talk show host Alan Colmes called it "brainwashing," pundit Andrew Sullivan likened it to Chinese dictator Mao Tse-Tung, and MSNBC host Ron Reagan said he wanted to do his own book portraying conservatives as "hating black people." The popular website Democratic Underground also named DeBrecht to their "Top 10 Conservative Idiots" list.

The strident liberal response to this children's story has attracted the attention of reporters all over the world. Publishers Weekly, the Washington Times, and U.S. News & World Report have profiled the picture book, as have international newspapers such as London's Telegraph, Melbourne's The Age, and The Calcutta Telegraph.

“Hillary Clinton might not like 'Help! Mom!' since it advocates traditional values, but apparently she doesn't object to left-wing children's books,” adds DeBrecht. “She hasn't criticized 'Rainbow Fish,' where a beautiful fish is hectored into giving away his shiny scales, or 'King & King,' where a young prince rejects a princess and marries her brother. I guess Senator Clinton thinks these liberal books are ideal for public schools -- maybe she can propose a federal program to purchase more.”

It must be Halloween, because Senator Clinton is seeing goblins and demons everywhere. I'm just glad someone is trying to provide an alternate view to our children in an attempt to balance the liberal schools.

Senator Clinton's Record

From Mr. Boortz:

I've been telling you for some time now that the left is going to try to find a way to shut down talk radio in the months leading up to the 2008 presidential election. The Democrats know that they can by and large control the mainstream media. I think that it's fair to say that well over 90% of the mainstream journalists who will be covering the next presidential contest will be hoping that Hillary wins. These are people who are not likely to initiate any reporting on Hillary's corrupt past. Examples? Fine. For starters, here are some of the stories that the mainstream press won't address in a Hillary presidential run.

* Hillary's disdain for the common man.
* Hillary's obstruction over the Rose Law Firm billing records.
* Hillary's drafting of the Casa Grande documents, documents used in a scheme that cost the American taxpayers millions.
* Hillary's controlled campaign appearances.
* Hillary's phony "listening tours."
* Hillary; socialist or not?
* Revisiting Hillary Care
* The Clinton pardons

And that's just for starters. The point here is that while the mainstream media can be counted on to ignore those stories, and more, it will not be the same for talk radio, and the left knows it. I don't know when the effort to shut us down will come, I only know that it is a virtual certainty.

By the way ... something for you to notice. When the mainstream media addresses talk radio you will always hear Air America referred to as "liberal" or "progressive" (retch) talk radio. If the radio show isn't left-leaning it will be referred to as "right-wing" talk radio, never "conservative" talk radio. Just a little observation.

Senator Clinton's Achievements

Dick Morris points out Hillary Clinton's achievements as a Senator:

In five years as the most influential Democrat in the Senate, Hillary has managed to get the following laws and resolutions enacted:

• Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site

• Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month

• Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor

• Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall

• Name courthouse after James L. Watson

• Name post office after John A. O'Shea

• Designate August 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day

• Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day

• Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death

• Congratulate the Syracuse University Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.

• Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship

• Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program

• Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda

• Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death

• Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.

Only five of Clinton's bills are, according to Morris, "substantive":

• Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11

• Pay for city projects in response to 9/11

• Assist landmine victims in other countries

• Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care

• Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the Wilderness Preservation System

Cindy Sheehan: "No" To Hillary

Cindy Sheehan: Hillary Clinton Sounds Like Rush Limbaugh

I never thought I would have heard anyone say that Hillary Clinton sounds like Rush Limbaugh!

"I think she is a political animal who believes she has to be a war hawk to keep up with the big boys."

Sheehan says that unless Hillary "shows us the wisdom it takes to be a truly great leader" and backs an Iraq pullout, "I will resist her candidacy with every bit of my power and strength."

OK, other than posting at Michael Moore's website, what power and strength does Sheehan possess? After meeting with Sheehan, Senator Clinton shrugged off her advice that we should immediately withdraw from Iraq. This caused Sheehan to state that the statement "sounds like Rush Limbaugh to me. That doesn't sound like an opposition party leader speaking to me."

Let's get real here - they're all politicians!

I decided to run before I decided not to run...

Senator Hillary Clinton slipped up and said Friday that she is running in 2008:

Asked on "The Ellen DeGeneres Show" - "So you are preparing for 2008?" - Clinton responding without thinking: "I am."

Recognizing the mega-gaffe immediately, the former first lady sought to amend her comments.

"No, no, no," she stammered to DeGeneres. "I am preparing for 2006."

Thank goodness for this fuel for the fire that Jeanine Pirro has just received. She should use this in the manner of "my opponent has stated that she plans to run for President and not fulfill her Senatorial duties." Too bad the press will not jump on this and force Senator Clinton to clarify this. They will just accept that she slipped up probably without actually asking her to give a real answer as to whether or not she will run.

P.S. - the answer is "Yes, I plan to run for President in 2008." It's that simple!

Hillary, be careful who you associate with

From NewsMax, Senator Clinton continues the liberal affection for bashing the United States for political gain:

2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton praised anti-American activist Harry Belafonte on Thursday after Belafonte charged that U.S. foreign policy had "wrecked the planet."

"There's a lot of people out here who are really pissed off," Belafonte told the Congressional Black Caucus, with Mrs. Clinton and Rep. Charlie Rangel standing nearby.

"Our foreign policy has made a wreck of this planet," Belafonte complained. "I'm always in Africa . . . And when I go to these places I see American policy written on the walls of oppression everywhere."

The former calypso singer's anti-U.S. rant won immediate praise from Hillary, who stepped up to the microphone and told the crowd: "What Harry said is so important."

Why is every ill of every other nation the fault of the United States? Be watchful, this type of argument is how Senator Clinton will argue for more governmental control over our lives and our businesses. All in the name of "improving the United States' image abroad."
One other note from the same article:

In quotes aired nationally by radio host Rush Limbaugh, Clinton explained that in last year's presidential election, "we heard a lot . . . about moral values. And you know as well as I do that there's a big move on to get people to forget that it's not only private morality, but public morality that needs to be looked at and considered."

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think Senator Clinton has the historical record to go making statements about morality.

Setting Feminism Back 20 Years

I have heard that in Susan Estrich's book The Case for Hillary Clinton, she says that if Hillary is not elected President that it will set feminism back 20 years.

How about a different take on this? Hillary Clinton has set feminism back herself! While she may be a successful woman, remember that (a) she can do nothing without having to ride on the coattails and "successes" of her husband, and (b) she hasn't become enlightened enough by the feminist movement to ditch her lying cheating husband and become a woman of her own merits.

Support Needed From Ted Kennedy?

Apparently, Ted "The Fish" Kennedy is pledging his support for a Kerry '08 run even if Hillary Clinton runs. The figurehead that is Ted Kennedy certainly carries about an air of distinction among Democrats. His support for Kerry could prove vital in stopping Senator Clinton.

Commander In Chief (TV Show)

I have actually been watching this show. It's not really bad and while I first thought it would be a liberal banner to elect Senator Clinton as President, I'm not quite sure about that assessment. I found the this article pretty good.

"Mac" is a U.S. congresswoman-turned-university official and a Republican-turned-Independent. On the other hand, Hillary is a Democrat, a former first lady and now a U.S. senator.

Mac's road to the White House began as a vice-presidential can didate chosen to boost the women's vote for her Republican running mate, who then, after just two years in office, obligingly died. Hillary can't count on that measure of support.

Mac is 6 feet tall and isn't married to former President Clinton. Hillary isn't, and is.

(May I add that Geena Davis is also stunning and Hillary, well...)

and...

But what about "Commander in Chief" writer Steven Cohen, who worked for Hillary Clinton as the then-first lady's deputy communications director?

Sure, said Lurie, who mentioned another of the show's writers, Crystal Nix Hines, who previously clerked for Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Yet another, Stuart Stevens, ran the 2000 and 2004 media campaigns for President Bush (and has ridden bikes with him).

It's good to know that they have a diverse staff of writers for this show. I vote yes for the show but no for Senator Clinton.

Condi stronger than Hillary - you bet!

Even more support for Condi Rice being a much stronger candidate for the first woman president.

On Forbes magazine's global ranking of feminine clout, who was first? Condoleezza Rice! Surely Hillary was at least second. Nope. She didn't make the list until number 26. So, you may ask, who ranked higher than Hillary? Let's review just the Top 10:

1. Condoleezza Rice
2. Wu Yi
3. Yulia Tymoshenko
4. Gloria Arroyo
5. Margaret Whitman
6. Anne Mulcahy
7. Sallie Krawcheck
8. Brenda Barnes
9. Oprah Winfrey
10. Melinda Gates

So, does this mean I should plan to vote for Oprah or even Mrs. Bill Gates before Hillary? Anyway, here's the Top 100 if you're interested.

Condi vs. Hillary

See this New York Daily News article:

"There is one, and only one, figure in America who can stop Hillary Clinton: Secretary of State Condoleezza 'Condi' Rice,"

"Hillary has a sense of entitlement that leaves her vulnerable to the temptations of financial misconduct,"

"often succumbs to tears in times of adversity."

"Hillary has been embroiled in scandal after scandal, ever since she entered public life," they write. "In stark contrast, Condi's past is without blemish."

Interesting indeed. I believe that if anybody can provide an honest assessment of the Clintons that it would be Dick Morris. We've seen "financial misconduct" in the past on the part of Senator Clinton. Do we not think this will follow her in the present? The moral misdeeds of then-governor Bill Clinton surely followed him into the White House!

Senator Clinton's spokesperson Philippe Reines stated:
"Senator Clinton remains focused on being the best senator she can be for the people of New York,"

"The best senator she can be"?? Where was Hillary on 9/11? I don't remember seeing her around when her citizens needed her. Instead, Senator Clinton started calling for a Commission, read more government involvement. Where was she for Katrina? Calling for a commission!

Is Hillary Worried?

Interesting story in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer by AP writer Marc Humbert. The opening line reads:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is asking her backers to step up their donations, saying opponents of her 2006 re-election effort "will raise and spend hundreds of millions of dollars against me."

Could she be worried? Nah. This is a statement for the press. Once printed, it proves that she was "vigorously seeking re-election as a New York Senator". In fact, just a little further in the article, Mr. Humbert quotes from the letter sent by Senator Clinton:

"Your gift is essential to show my opponents that I have the support I need to win," she wrote.

How crazy is that? It probably should read, "Your gift is essential to show the press I CARE about New York".

Now, she can easily play this both ways. If she loses her re-election bid, then a letter goes out stating that folks didn't donate as they should've in 2006 and now in 2008 they need to step forward. If she is re-elected, she sends out another letter building on the momentum of the desperate cry of 2005. Brilliant!

Interestingly, Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf slipped up and gave away the secret:

Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf said Tuesday that Clinton is probably overstating her opponents' fund-raising capabilities for a Senate race.

"It's an attempt to get her core fund-raising base energized and prepared for what will be a very serious attack to stop her from being president," Sheinkopf added, a reference to polling that shows her as the front-runner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

But, here's where I have to disagree with Mr. Sheinkopf. He states Senator Clinton is the "front-runner". However, in a Fox News Opinion Dynamic poll released on Wednesday, October 5, a 2008 race between Condoleeza Rice and Hillary Clinton is a dead heat. Senator Clinton leads 46 to 43 which is well within the margin of error. Ask John Kerry about dead heat races. Also, 10 percent of Democrats say they'd vote for Condoleeza versus 8 percent of Republicans that would vote for Senator Clinton. Ouch...if that trend continues, that can't be good.

The First Order of Business

As I mentioned in a comment yesterday, I feel that the first order of business should be to stop Senator Clinton's re-election bid for New York. It appears that Jeanine Pirro may have a really good shot at this Senate seat in 2006. Here are some comments from Rudy Giuliani:

"Jeanine Pirro is a very good friend. I think she's been an absolutely terrific district attorney."

"It's a little early, but let's hope — let's hope she'll be a candidate and I'll support her. Ed Cox is a good man, too, and he's a good friend of mine, so we're going to have to see how that all works out. But Jeanine, I think, is a superior candidate."

Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy

“…this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for President.” —Hillary Clinton - After the Lewinsky story unfolded.

So, here we are a dozen years later! Rush Limbaugh brings this back up on Friday with the following:

He'd gone out and said (flawless Clinton impression), "I want to say this one more time, I never had sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky. I never asked anybody to lie, not a single time."

Well, we all know it was flat-out, a hundred percent, psychologically, pathologically lying untrue and yet here came all these people out there believing it and bucking him up. Hillary going on TV: "A vast right-wing conspiracy caused that cigar to show up in that room, and caused Lewinsky to get the pizza delivered, caused Lewinsky to get hired!" I mean, it was absurd, and yet these people circled the wagons. There's a lesson there. But I still think that over the coming years, that there's going to be more of this kind of thing about the Clinton administration. I just do -- and, you know, a book seems to be the vehicle that's used for these kinds of things these days.

Rush was talking about the Freeh book on Bill Clinton and how we should expect to see more villification from the Clintons about anyone who would try to expose them or speak negatively of them. Rush brought up a pretty good point that i was our fautlt there was a good cigar, pizza delivery, and we probably planted Lewinsky to get something on President Clinton. As Rush said, it was absurd! Just remember that if you disagree with the Clintons on anything that you are part of this wonderful thing we refer to as "The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy"!

Senator Clinton on Harriet Miers

On Tuesday, Hillary Clinton said the following about the new Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers:

I will examine the record and qualifications of the nominee and closely follow the Judiciary Committee hearings

Well, that's sort of the job of all Senators. In regards to the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts, Nathan Tabor of the Canada Free Press said:

The dissenting Dems included some of the most liberal members of Congress: Kennedy, Kerry, Feinstein, Boxer, Obama and, of course, Hillary Clinton. Thus the "good" conservatives appear to have won and the "bad" liberals have lost.

While Tabor did go on to say that it may be a little different with the Miers nomination, I find it comforting that even the press from our neighbors to the north know the company that Hillary Clinton keeps. I believe that she showed just how out of touch she was with nearly 80% of the nation in voting against John Roberts. There were only 22 Senators who voted against him. Are those 22 Senators, including Hillary Clinton, fairly representing their constituents?