Hillary Clinton should have succeeded with her campaign on the internet. Let’s face it – it was her husband’s VP Al Gore who invented the internet – remember? SEO or Search Engine Optimization (Not - Some Entitled Opportunist) was a big missing for Hillary and her campaign. Just having a web site doesn’t exactly mean you’re in the game. Perhaps hiring young, smart, internet savvy folks would’ve been a good move. Interesting that McCain – at his advanced age – beat Hillary big time when it came to web marketing. Obama really excelled in this arena. Here’s an excerpt from internet advertising site Adotas:

Hillary Clinton’s defeat has been widely dissected and analyzed with widely different findings – but one common theme has emerged. Clinton’s online strategy was a flop; Barack Obama and John McCain had her beat from the get-go.As one political analyst told The San Francisco Chronicle, the qualities that could help propel a successful digital campaign (flexibility, authenticity, etc.) aren’t necessarily hallmarks of Clinton’s personality.

“It’s like the Clintons, both of them, had sort of a ‘Sunset Boulevard’ thing going on,” George Washington University Professor and new-media analyst Michael Cornfeld told The Chronicle. “They were silent screen stars who couldn’t make the transition to talkies.”

McCain and Obama’s campaign greatly benefited from utilizing search advertising. Clinton missed the boat. Too little, too late. The war wages on between Obama and McCain:

Obama is broadening his online strategy and is building a team of cyber strategists who will form an online “war room” to report and react to incorrect rumors proliferating in chain e-mails or on blogs.

McCain, for his part, recently joked to supporters at a lunch in Richmond, Virginia that he’s using Google to research possible vice presidential candidates.

Barack was born to a Kenyan (Black) father and an American (White) mother. His parents met while attending the University of Hawaii at Monoa. They separated when Barack was only two years old and later divorced. Following the divorce Obama’s father left to attend Harvard where he later earned a graduate degree in economics. He returned to Kenya and secured a high ranking position in the Kenyan government. He only saw Barack a handful of times. He was killed in a car accident in 1982.

Ann Dunham, Barack’s mother, was the parent who is credited with raising and most shaping Barack. Sadly, she passed away from ovarian cancer in 1995. So why is it that we hear so little of his mother? We certainly heard about Baracks so called “racist grandmother” supposedly afraid of blacks.

I believe Jesse Jackson was the true black candidate. Jackson competed unsuccessfully for the democratic nomination bid in 1984 & 1988. I remember seeing Jackson in Market Square in Pittsburgh, 1984. I can say he was charismatic from what I remember. I mostly remember the crowd and the fact that I was about to see someone kind of famous. Much was made of Jackson and the fact that he was the “black candidate.” But I digress…

Is the media that worried about talking about race? Or are they more focused on the fact that Obama is half black vs. half white. An interesting dichotomy. Martin Luther King Jr. once hoped for a day when people would be “judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.” I guess we’re still a long way off from that reality.

I recently came to a revelation recently that I thought I must share. This is a bit long but will be worthwhile, especially the poignant article below. I was wondering what all this Hope and Change stuff was about. At first, I thought Barry O had inherited the ‘empty suit’ throne from John Edwards, just with better dance moves, a better tan and cheaper haircuts. Then, I suddenly understood change. We’ve gone from the back of the bus in the 60’s (Rosa Parks) to under the bus in 2008 (granny Obama). So, I get change but what about hope, as there is nothing greater that we can strive for than hope, I needed to know. Peace, prosperity, success, happiness, all great things but minuscule compared to hope.

Well, a week or so ago I was driving by a Starbucks and there was a big bonfire outside with people circling it and throwing stuff in it. I stopped to check it out. So, there’s this group of people with very tiny glasses, there noses up in the air, all trying to outdo each other with stories of how they care about the poor and oppressed. Strangely enough, they all were wearing their W with a circle around it and a line through it buttons, but upside down. This was puzzling. When I looked to see what they were throwing in the fire, it was DVD’s of a movie called Glengarry Glen Ross (never saw it but heard it was good). Anyway, the crowd seemed rather raucous, kind of like the Hollywood gathering in Team America World Police (Penn, Sarandon, Moore, you can imagine, or your average Ann Arbor coffee house). As I didn’t think I was smarter than everyone else, I didn’t think I belonged and got the heck out.

After a little research I was led to an article in the village voice with the screaming headline ….‘Why I Am No Longer a ‘Brain-Dead Liberal‘ by David Mamet, who wrote and/or directed Glengarry Glen Ross (this explained the DVD burning). I’ve attached the article because it embodies hope more than anything Barry has said. Here is a NY elitist spawned from the age of stupidity (1960’s) and he has left the dark side forever. This, to me, is what hope is all about.

Know someone who is the victim of a public school education? - Here’s hope

Liberal arts/humanities or studies degree from a university? - Hope again

America needs to restore its standing in the world? - More hope

Do you know someone who actually believes NY will be under water in 50 years? - yep, you guessed it, Hope.

Know anyone making 300 G’s a year and can still be a victim? - HOPE

Know Ivy league educated people only now proud to be an American? - Big H

Still believe anything printed or reported in the outdated, corrupt, inept Dinosaur media? - (well, maybe even hope can’t cure everything)

Honestly think the Democratic Party (politicians) cares about the poor and minorities? - (same as above)

But it’s not just Mr. Mamet (now I get the upside down W button). Esteemed talk show host and comedian Dennis Miller was nearly 50 when he left the realm of emotion and self-righteousness (post 9/11). Though I suspect, but can’t confirm, I think many of my closest liberal friends are actually closet Reagan Democrats, but it’s not for me to out them. But this SNL clip, which Miller talked about with Dana Carvey a couple weeks ago on his show, should bring back fond memories of the 80’s (Carvey as Jimmy Stewart is priceless).

Now this is hope, nearly 50 years old and boom, no more dark side. Hell, maybe it even includes change. HOPE and CHANGE in ‘08, man, I know what Chris Matthews was talking about with that feeling running up his leg.

Anyway, I highlighted the comments I found interesting in the article (it starts a bit slow, but Norman Mailerites will find it interesting). If you pass this on to 10 liberals, good luck will befall you, if you don’t, you are inhibiting change and hope, but not necessarily in that order. Remember, even Darth Vader left the dark side eventually, so it can be done, and after all, everyone, and I mean everyone, deserves hope…and change….but mainly hope. We just have to have hope, mixed with change, but hope should be a higher percentage.

John Maynard Keynes was twitted with changing his mind. He replied, “When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?”

My favorite example of a change of mind was Norman Mailer at The Village Voice.

Norman took on the role of drama critic, weighing in on the New York premiere of Waiting for Godot.

Twentieth century’s greatest play. Without bothering to go, Mailer called it a piece of garbage.

When he did get around to seeing it, he realized his mistake. He was no longer a Voice columnist, however, so he bought a page in the paper and wrote a retraction, praising the play as the masterpiece it is.

Every playwright’s dream.

I once won one of Mary Ann Madden’s “Competitions” in New York magazine. The task was to name or create a “10″ of anything, and mine was the World’s Perfect Theatrical Review. It went like this: “I never understood the theater until last night. Please forgive everything I’ve ever written. When you read this I’ll be dead.” That, of course, is the only review anybody in the theater ever wants to get.

My prize, in a stunning example of irony, was a year’s subscription to New York, which rag (apart from Mary Ann’s “Competition”) I considered an open running sore on the body of world literacy—this due to the presence in its pages of John Simon, whose stunning amalgam of superciliousness and savagery, over the years, was appreciated by that readership searching for an endorsement of proactive mediocrity.

But I digress.

I wrote a play about politics (November, Barrymore Theater, Broadway, some seats still available). And as part of the “writing process,” as I believe it’s called, I started thinking about politics. This comment is not actually as jejune as it might seem. Porgy and Bess is a buncha good songs but has nothing to do with race relations, which is the flag of convenience under which it sailed.

But my play, it turned out, was actually about politics, which is to say, about the polemic between persons of two opposing views. The argument in my play is between a president who is self-interested, corrupt, suborned, and realistic, and his leftish, lesbian, utopian-socialist speechwriter.

The play, while being a laugh a minute, is, when it’s at home, a disputation between reason and faith, or perhaps between the conservative (or tragic) view and the liberal (or perfectionist) view. The conservative president in the piece holds that people are each out to make a living, and the best way for government to facilitate that is to stay out of the way, as the inevitable abuses and failures of this system (free-market economics) are less than those of government intervention.

I took the liberal view for many decades, but I believe I have changed my mind.

As a child of the ’60s, I accepted as an article of faith that government is corrupt, that business is exploitative, and that people are generally good at heart.

These cherished precepts had, over the years, become ingrained as increasingly impracticable prejudices. Why do I say impracticable? Because although I still held these beliefs, I no longer applied them in my life. How do I know? My wife informed me. We were riding along and listening to NPR. I felt my facial muscles tightening, and the words beginning to form in my mind: Shut the fuck up. “?” she prompted. And her terse, elegant summation, as always, awakened me to a deeper truth: I had been listening to NPR and reading various organs of national opinion for years, wonder and rage contending for pride of place. Further: I found I had been—rather charmingly, I thought—referring to myself for years as “a brain-dead liberal,” and to NPR as “National Palestinian Radio.”

This is, to me, the synthesis of this worldview with which I now found myself disenchanted: that everything is always wrong.

But in my life, a brief review revealed, everything was not always wrong, and neither was nor is always wrong in the community in which I live, or in my country. Further, it was not always wrong in previous communities in which I lived, and among the various and mobile classes of which I was at various times a part.

And, I wondered, how could I have spent decades thinking that I thought everything was always wrong at the same time that I thought I thought that people were basically good at heart? Which was it? I began to question what I actually thought and found that I do not think that people are basically good at heart; indeed, that view of human nature has both prompted and informed my writing for the last 40 years. I think that people, in circumstances of stress, can behave like swine, and that this, indeed, is not only a fit subject, but the only subject, of drama.

I’d observed that lust, greed, envy, sloth, and their pals are giving the world a good run for its money, but that nonetheless, people in general seem to get from day to day; and that we in the United States get from day to day under rather wonderful and privileged circumstances—that we are not and never have been the villains that some of the world and some of our citizens make us out to be, but that we are a confection of normal (greedy, lustful, duplicitous, corrupt, inspired—in short, human) individuals living under a spectacularly effective compact called the Constitution, and lucky to get it.

For the Constitution, rather than suggesting that all behave in a godlike manner, recognizes that, to the contrary, people are swine and will take any opportunity to subvert any agreement in order to pursue what they consider to be their proper interests.

To that end, the Constitution separates the power of the state into those three branches which are for most of us (I include myself) the only thing we remember from 12 years of schooling.

The Constitution, written by men with some experience of actual government, assumes that the chief executive will work to be king, the Parliament will scheme to sell off the silverware, and the judiciary will consider itself Olympian and do everything it can to much improve (destroy) the work of the other two branches. So the Constitution pits them against each other, in the attempt not to achieve stasis, but rather to allow for the constant corrections necessary to prevent one branch from getting too much power for too long.

Rather brilliant. For, in the abstract, we may envision an Olympian perfection of perfect beings in Washington doing the business of their employers, the people, but any of us who has ever been at a zoning meeting with our property at stake is aware of the urge to cut through all the pernicious bullshit and go straight to firearms.

I found not only that I didn’t trust the current government (that, to me, was no surprise), but that an impartial review revealed that the faults of this president—whom I, a good liberal, considered a monster—were little different from those of a president whom I revered.

Bush got us into Iraq, JFK into Vietnam. Bush stole the election in Florida; Kennedy stole his in Chicago. Bush outed a CIA agent; Kennedy left hundreds of them to die in the surf at the Bay of Pigs. Bush lied about his military service; Kennedy accepted a Pulitzer Prize for a book written by Ted Sorenson. Bush was in bed with the Saudis, Kennedy with the Mafia. Oh.

And I began to question my hatred for “the Corporations”—the hatred of which, I found, was but the flip side of my hunger for those goods and services they provide and without which we could not live.

And I began to question my distrust of the “Bad, Bad Military” of my youth, which, I saw, was then and is now made up of those men and women who actually risk their lives to protect the rest of us from a very hostile world. Is the military always right? No. Neither is government, nor are the corporations—they are just different signposts for the particular amalgamation of our country into separate working groups, if you will. Are these groups infallible, free from the possibility of mismanagement, corruption, or crime? No, and neither are you or I. So, taking the tragic view, the question was not “Is everything perfect?” but “How could it be better, at what cost, and according to whose definition?” Put into which form, things appeared to me to be unfolding pretty well.

Do I speak as a member of the “privileged class”? If you will—but classes in the United States are mobile, not static, which is the Marxist view. That is: Immigrants came and continue to come here penniless and can (and do) become rich; the nerd makes a trillion dollars; the single mother, penniless and ignorant of English, sends her two sons to college (my grandmother). On the other hand, the rich and the children of the rich can go belly-up; the hegemony of the railroads is appropriated by the airlines, that of the networks by the Internet; and the individual may and probably will change status more than once within his lifetime.

What about the role of government? Well, in the abstract, coming from my time and background, I thought it was a rather good thing, but tallying up the ledger in those things which affect me and in those things I observe, I am hard-pressed to see an instance where the intervention of the government led to much beyond sorrow.

But if the government is not to intervene, how will we, mere human beings, work it all out?

I wondered and read, and it occurred to me that I knew the answer, and here it is: We just seem to. How do I know? From experience. I referred to my own—take away the director from the staged play and what do you get? Usually a diminution of strife, a shorter rehearsal period, and a better production.

The director, generally, does not cause strife, but his or her presence impels the actors to direct (and manufacture) claims designed to appeal to Authority—that is, to set aside the original goal (staging a play for the audience) and indulge in politics, the purpose of which may be to gain status and influence outside the ostensible goal of the endeavor.

Strand unacquainted bus travelers in the middle of the night, and what do you get? A lot of bad drama, and a shake-and-bake Mayflower Compact. Each, instantly, adds what he or she can to the solution. Why? Each wants, and in fact needs, to contribute—to throw into the pot what gifts each has in order to achieve the overall goal, as well as status in the new-formed community. And so they work it out.

See also that most magnificent of schools, the jury system, where, again, each brings nothing into the room save his or her own prejudices, and, through the course of deliberation, comes not to a perfect solution, but a solution acceptable to the community—a solution the community can live with.

Prior to the midterm elections, my rabbi was taking a lot of flack. The congregation is exclusively liberal, he is a self-described independent (read “conservative”), and he was driving the flock wild. Why? Because a) he never discussed politics; and b) he taught that the quality of political discourse must be addressed first—that Jewish law teaches that it is incumbent upon each person to hear the other fellow out.

And so I, like many of the liberal congregation, began, teeth grinding, to attempt to do so. And in doing so, I recognized that I held those two views of America (politics, government, corporations, the military). One was of a state where everything was magically wrong and must be immediately corrected at any cost; and the other—the world in which I actually functioned day to day—was made up of people, most of whom were reasonably trying to maximize their comfort by getting along with each other (in the workplace, the marketplace, the jury room, on the freeway, even at the school-board meeting).

And I realized that the time had come for me to avow my participation in that America in which I chose to live, and that that country was not a schoolroom teaching values, but a marketplace.

“Aha,” you will say, and you are right. I began reading not only the economics of Thomas Sowell (our greatest contemporary philosopher) but Milton Friedman, Paul Johnson, and Shelby Steele, and a host of conservative writers, and found that I agreed with them: a free-market understanding of the world meshes more perfectly with my experience than that idealistic vision I called liberalism.

At the same time, I was writing my play about a president, corrupt, venal, cunning, and vengeful (as I assume all of them are), and two turkeys. And I gave this fictional president a speechwriter who, in his view, is a “brain-dead liberal,” much like my earlier self; and in the course of the play, they have to work it out. And they eventually do come to a human understanding of the political process. As I believe I am trying to do, and in which I believe I may be succeeding, and I will try to summarize it in the words of William Allen White.

White was for 40 years the editor of the Emporia Gazette in rural Kansas, and a prominent and powerful political commentator. He was a great friend of Theodore Roosevelt and wrote the best book I’ve ever read about the presidency. It’s called Masks in a Pageant, and it profiles presidents from McKinley to Wilson, and I recommend it unreservedly.

White was a pretty clear-headed man, and he’d seen human nature as few can. (As Twain wrote, you want to understand men, run a country paper.) White knew that people need both to get ahead and to get along, and that they’re always working at one or the other, and that government should most probably stay out of the way and let them get on with it. But, he added, there is such a thing as liberalism, and it may be reduced to these saddest of words: ” . . . and yet . . . “

The right is mooing about faith, the left is mooing about change, and many are incensed about the fools on the other side—but, at the end of the day, they are the same folks we meet at the water cooler. Happy election season.

Barack Obama’s lunatic spirtitual leader Jeremiah Wright’s obscene comments have finally made the news and it can’t be good for Obama. The mainstream news media’s love fest may have just run out. Even the Los Angeles Times has run with the story:

But more than a year ago — long before some of Wright’s more incendiary sermons became hot-button videos on YouTube, forcing Obama to publicly renounce his pastor last week — the Obama campaign had a sense that Wright’s sharp tongue might spell trouble for the Illinois senator. (For a sermon sample, click on the Read more line below.)

That was the word anyway Sunday from Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, who acknowledged during a conference call with reporters that Wright was disinvited …

from Obama’s official candidacy announcement on Feb. 10, 2007, in the shadow of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Ill.

Wright had been expected to lead an invocation of some kind, but never appeared.

“There was no doubt that there was controversy surrounding him,” Axelrod said Sunday. “And we didn’t want to expose him … [or] make him the target and a distraction on a day when Sen. Obama was going to announce his candidacy.”

So if the savvy Obama campaign knew Wright was a problem a year ago, why did the Illinois senator, a parish member for two decades, wait until last week to disassociate and denounce the minister’s inflammatory statements?

The topic is clearly uncomfortable for Obama and his aides, personally and politically. Axelrod’s comments came only after prodding from a reporter and after he had initially suggested that Wright’s absence that day was due merely to the fact that the temperature was in the single digits.

And even as Obama has condemned some of Wright’s rhetoric and distanced himself from his longtime spiritual advisor, doing so has not been easy. Wright remained on an African American religious advisory committee for the campaign until Friday.

“Rev. Wright married him, introduced him, as he said, to the church, brought him into the church, into Christianity, baptized his children,” Axelrod said. “So this is a painful thing for him because he condemns the things Rev. Wright said, but he also knows him as a person.”

Wright has proven controversial in the past because of his association with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who has made anti-Semitic remarks. But the controversy has grown in recent weeks with the spread of videos from Wright sermons where he condemns the United States for its foreign policy and treatment of blacks and takes on Obama’s rival for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton.

As Wright put it, “Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger! Hillary has never had her people defined as non-person.”

On Friday, Obama posted a message at the Huffington Post website, explaining that he had not seen such sermons in person and saying that he disagreed with them. “I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy,” he wrote

No worries though, Obama has had hundreds of opportunities to denounce this mad man. But in keeping in fashion with all other politicians, he only did so because the remarks came to light. Otherwise it would’ve been business as usual. Change? Not really, just more of the same.

When I read this, it was nothing that I didn’t already know. Any follower of Savage or possessor of common sense can figure it out. However, what is important here is that it is a psychiatrist pointing out the obvious. Think of it, they have drugs for schizophrenia, manic depression, so why not liberalism. It would be like bottling common sense. A miracle drug of sorts. I’m an atheist but even I know when to pray.

Top psychiatrist concludes liberals clinically nuts
Eminent psychiatrist makes case ideology is mental disorder

Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder.

“Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded,” says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.” “Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.”

While political activists on the other side of the spectrum have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to “the vast right-wing conspiracy.”

For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.

Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by the two major candidates for the Democratic Party presidential nomination can only be understood as a psychological disorder.

“A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do,” he says. “A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation’s citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do.”

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

• creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
• satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
• augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
• rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.

“The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind,” he says. “When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious.”

That was my favorite Obama quote of last nights democratic debate. The exchange went like this:

CLINTON: Now, I just — I just want to be clear about this. In an editorial board with the Reno newspaper, you said two different things, because I have read the transcript. You talked about Ronald Reagan being a transformative political leader. I did not mention his name.

OBAMA: Your husband did.

CLINTON: Well, I’m here. He’s not. And…

OBAMA: OK. Well, I can’t tell who I’m running against sometimes.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: Well, you know, I think we both have very passionate and committed spouses who stand up for us. And I’m proud of that.

But you also talked about the Republicans having ideas over the last 10 to 15 years.

OBAMA: I didn’t say they were good ones.

CLINTON: Well, you can read the context of it.

OBAMA: Well, I didn’t say they were good ones.

CLINTON: Well, it certainly…

OBAMA: All right, Wolf.

The slumlord comment levied by Mrs. Clinton was racially charged and unnecessary:

CLINTON: It certainly came across in the way that it was presented, as though the Republicans had been standing up against the conventional wisdom with their ideas. I’m just reacting to the fact, yes, they did have ideas, and they were bad ideas.

OBAMA: I agree.

CLINTON: Bad for America, and I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Resco, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago.

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: No, no, no.

Obama’s response was no, no, no. Nice comeback. Obama could’ve pointed out Hillary’s shady contributors. A missed opportunity for sure. But overall Obama dished it pretty well to ‘ol Hillary.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are way ahead their Republican counterparts when it comes to presidential fund raising.

On the Republican side, Romney and Giuliani are the front runners. Giuliani has put all his money into winning Florida. I live in Florida and have seen nothing but Giuliani ads running since late December. Now that the Florida primary is quickly approaching, I’m seeing more ads for Romney, Huckabee and McCain.

This fine video was brought to you courtesy of Swift nannies for truth. Actually, it was produced by parody site 23/6

Former 2004 democratic presidential nominee John Kerry endorsed democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama in South Carolina today. Wait a second. Didn’t John Kerry run for president in 2004 with his pal John Edwards? Isn’t John Edwards running for president now? Not only did Kerry endorse Obama, but he did so in Edward’s home state. Blasphemous John! Do you have any sense of decency at all? You wanted the nation to vote for you back in 2004 because of your great character. As it turns out, you sold out your own running mate. How were we to trust you with the country when you had the conjones to sell out one of your own.

And while we’re on the subject John. Do you remember your ‘ol pal Al Gore. If you remember, he ran for president in 2000. You know, the election that George Bush stole from Gore. Gore’s VP running mate in back in 2000 was non other than Joe Lieberman. If memory serves correct, Al Gore said he was the best choice for vice president.

Fast forward to the 2004 election when Joe Lieberman was fighting to be the democratic presidential nominee. What did Lieberman’s ex-running mate do? He endorsed nut job Howard (Yahhhhaaa) Dean. Gore, the man who invented the internet, threw his ex-veep running mate under the bus. It was an ugly hit and run. Lieberman never saw it coming. Anyway Al – by the way – I would like to congratulate you on your Oscar by pointing out the global warming threat. Thanks buddy!

When it came time for Lieberman to run for re-election back in 2006 he was sold out by his own party – the Democrats. They endorsed his opponent Ned Lamont who went on to win the nomination instead. They rallied against Lieberman mostly because he supported the war effort. Howard Dean called for Lieberman to quit the race, saying he was being “disrespectful of Democrats and disrespectful of the Democratic Party.” Even Hillary Clinton vowed to support the nominee Lamont. Lieberman best revenge was winning as an independent. Technically, he’s no longer a Democrat.

Once again the Dems show their true colors. With that kind of carrying on they should be punched in the face. Hard. Real hard. It surprising to me that none of this has been brought up in the mainstream media. Scratch that. Actually, it’s not that big of a surprise after all. It’s just business as usual.