Reason Number 12 why the Clintons should create their own Media Channel, The Inaugural Boycott,

John Lewis inadvertently started an unplanned but growing boycott of the Trump Inauguration. Lewis's main reason was how the election was stolen from Hillary Clinton by the second James Comey letter AND the FBI not notifying anyone from the Democrat Party for a YEAR that they were being hacked!

However, it was Trump's Twitter response to Lewis which got the Democrat boycott going. So even tough Mr. Lewis was boycotting out of respect to Hillary Clinton and the illicit method's used to treasonously steal the presidency from her, the boycott message has been altered to Trump insulted Lewis. The problem with that meme is that Trump supporters can correctly state that "Lewis started it".

See what a mess gets created when democrats rely on MSNBC and CNN and other media to shape the Inaugural Boycott meme?

Hillary Clinton does not get the credit for the democrat boycott of the Trump Inauguration as a sign of respect, but she may get blamed for any inappropriate protesting that may occur. Snowball anyone?

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by clicking here.

Just What does it take to be a PUMA?

As time goes on, the PUMA movement appears to be simultaneously expanding, and also dissipating.

DailyPUMA thinks it is important to review and remember what the original PUMA flash point was that caused many different but formerly democratic support groups to declare themselves PUMAs, albeit their own unique brand of PUMA.

In my opinion the flash points that created PUMA were generated by media bias against Hillary Clinton. The media, led by Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, MSNBC, Arianna Huffington of Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and then in rapid succession, Time Magazine, Newsweek, The Atlantic Monthly, Move ON, Media Matters, CNN and most definitely a few others as well, began slamming Hillary Clinton with crazy accusations while simultaneously not vetting Barack Obama.

The media consortium mentioned above ALL began putting a decidedly pro Barack Obama slant on their news reporting, while also creating an anti Hillary Clinton slant as well. Money may have played a really big role in the media bias against Hillary Clinton as the Barack Obama campaign was able to dole out a lot of money to the media and the internet in the form of advertising revenue.

Unfortunately, a certain, significant percentage of Barack Obama's donations may have been illegally gathered. Besides Barack Obama's campaign spending gargantuan amounts of money all over the media and the internet, the ill gotten donations were also used to entice SEVERAL DOZEN high profile politicians and celebrities to strategically give their support to Barack Obama even as Barack Obama's numbers were sliding over the final 10 weeks of the democratic nomination contests.

PUMA's were outraged that democratic political higher ups and the media would choose to "pre-favor" one democratic candidate over another, especially when the newly "unfavored" candidate (Hillary Clinton) had waited for her chance and patiently absorbed a couple decades of political interactions in such an amazingly divergent set of surroundings.

Does anyone recall ever hearing the media reporting that celebrities and democratic icons wanted the american people to choose with their vote the next democratic nominee?

All I remember hearing and seeing from the media was the pomp and circumstance of the next celebrity or politician being trotted out in support of Barack Obama. Many of these endorsements were timed to give the media an excuse to IGNORE significant Hillary Clinton primary wins.

Being married to Bill Clinton and an active participant in his political career had made Hillary Clinton uniquely qualified to view how political processes worked on a state level, and then on a federal level as well. Then to round out her own qualifications, Hillary Clinton served in the senate as well.

What was most painful for myself to witness was Hillary Clinton actually winning more delegates than Barack Obama from all of the democratic primary contests, even when the the votes of Florida and Michigan were excluded.

Knowing that caucus contests use 88% less voters to determine each delegate, and that the caucus contests appear to be easier to both cheat AND also keep away certain demographics, is something I will not forgive the democratic party for, since it flies in direct opposition to the stated democratic tenet of "fair reflection".

So more than a year later, where does that leave all PUMAs? PUMA's now support so many diverse beliefs and causes that it would probably be difficult to get them to agree to any one thing in mass.

However, I believe that it is important for anyone who believes they are a PUMA to at least agree on a couple of key points, the biggest key point being that Hillary Clinton was both unfairly treated by the media and the democratic party in 2008, and that we should STRONGLY consider peace based retribution against those who really had no business trying to derail Hillary Clinton in 2008 but did so just so they could grab their moment of glory and possibly better position themselves for some kind of business or financial reward as well.

If you want to believe yourself to be a PUMA, then please, study the "unethical players of the 2008 democratic race", people like Michael Moore, Bill Richardson, Keith Olbermann, Arianna Huffington, Al Gore, John Edwards, George Soros, the list goes on and on, and DON'T SUPPORT THEM, ever.

If anyone on the list were to ever to publicly admit to putting financial gain or business opportunities as the reason they backstabbed Hillary Clinton, then they could be removed from the "don't support list".

It's really that simple.

Thanks to Common Ground for preserving the infamous HILLARY CLINTON BACKSTABBED THREAD.

Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

Gay Marriage advocates like Rachel Maddow basically spit on heterosexual foreclosures for the past several years.

I can only take extremely small doses of Rachel Maddow (and never on MSNBC as they are still on my boycott list, along with the other cable news network shows found nearby) because she has perfected the art of coming off as a likeable, gosh gee whiz kind of intellectual fraud.

Rachel came on the David Letterman show earlier this morning, and may I add, right after Louis CK, who a few feminsts have put in their sites as being anti woman, a ridiculous claim. I just saw small portion of the middle of the Maddow interview and caught her gosh gee whiz act about gay marriage, and suddenly it dawned on me an additional reason about the gay marriage issue that is frustrating the heck out of me.

There have literally been millions of homeowners who have been unfairly foreclosed upon over the past several years and I think it is fair to surmise that MANY of them have been married, heterosexual couples.

Possibly those most severely victimized were those who had paid off their homes but were near retirement age or retired, and I think we can agree that at least 80% to 90% of those homeowners were either single, or heterosexual married couples.

For those who were already retired and simply wanted to slowly take out a modest amount of equity out of their home every month, many only had the option of a reverse mortgage. Reverse Mortgages require mortgage insurance which will basically take a THIRD of the total value of the home over the course of a 10 to 15 year draw on the equity, the interest rate charges on that reverse mortgage another third, and finally, only a third is left for the retirees!

That's it, approximately one third of the actual value of the home equity would go to the retirees were they simply wanting to take out a modest amount out of equity on a monthly basis from their home over a 10 to 15 year time period!

It's even worse if one was nearing retirement age but had lost their job prospects due to a combination of their skill set being obsoleted or just not fitting into a younger age demographic for certain types of work. Those over 50 and without a job who wanted to slowly pull out equity of their home would be forced to pretty much sell their home, even if they had already paid it off!

Did the gay movement move in and help these people, many just too old or beaten down by the system to really fight back, in their fight to save their homes? Please, show me the evidence, because I don't think it exists.

So what we have are what I despise most about progressive democrats, elitists who curry sympathy with the media by portraying others as being boarish, and Rachel Maddow is one of their leaders.

So tell me Rachel Maddow, is it really so weird that many heterosexuals who actually support gay marriage are ALSO PUT OFF by the insinuation that a gay marriage is identical to a heterosexual marriage (the fertility issue is a HUGE DIFFERENCE as it allows a gay marriage much more freedom sexually and when to choose to have kids), what did you do from your TV show pulpit over the past 6 years to help older homeowners keep their homes, most of whom were either heterosexual or single?

More likely, that time was spent by Maddow fighting for causes in which she could portray republican politicians as the oppressors, that's her shtick. 

Picture Maddow as the new kid on the block who sees a line of desperate people trying to make sense out of how all of their life long investments turned to mush, and then they can't even tap into their own homes, even if paid off. All Maddow does is walk on by diverting attention away from our older population that is suffering huge, unfair home equity losses and instead turns our attention to those wascally wepublicans who want to stop gay marriage and bust unions (got pension fraud?).

At least republicans are bold and obtuse with their sometimes outdated viewpoints, Maddow is simply cunning, yet both have lost the huge moderate base.

I hope Hillary Clinton can navigate around both extremist philosophies and tap into the huge moderate base that has been deprived from having their issues discussed by the fringy media.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

George Soros says the right thing about todays political landscape after having done the wrong thing in the past.

Please click here for the most current DailyPUMA article.

I have been stating over and over and over that Fox cable news and MSNBC cable news have polarized the political landscape in this country by reporting stories from a steadfast right, or unflinching left perspective.

I have also stated over and over again that until a third cable news channel starts reporting news from the moderate liberal position, (aka centrist), which perhaps as many as 50% of the population supports as being the closest to their own political beliefs, the U.S. will simply suffocate themselves in a polarizing us versus them war of words.

Along comes George Soros in a News Max article, who basically says the same thing as I have been saying. Here is a quote from George Soros in the News Max article link above that I find just amazing.

Political extremism is “endangering our open society,” he said. “As I see it, the two sides in the current disputes have each got hold of one half of the truth which they proclaim to be the whole truth.” -George Soros

George Soros funded liberal democrat groups that attacked Hillary Clinton while supporting Barack Obama in 2008. George Soros got the guy he wanted in office, yet now he opines that the whores on the left and the whores on the right have all the power and the result is half truths at every step.

Isn't Barack Obama the king of the half truths? Barack Obama has support among Wall Street, yet he also has community based activism support as well, perhaps only a half-truther could accomplish this feat.

So Mr. Soros, put your money where your mouth is and fund a THIRD CABLE NEWS CHANNEL, one that is that neither left, nor right, but one that actually investigates the issues and points out the pro's and cons and perhaps even offers real solutions. And while you're at it, maybe you could apologize to Hillary Clinton for having your minions gang up on her in 2008 and label her polarizing.

Just who is polarizing now, Mr. Soros?

Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

Bursting the Bernie Sanders Bubble, Hillary Clinton with more than a 10% Popular Vote lead from all the Primary Contests so far.

Hillary Clinton holds a plus 10% popular vote lead over Bernie Sanders among all the 2016 democrat primaries. 

Meanwhile several former republican operatives, Cenk Uygur and Arianna Huffington, and Move On Dot Org (with a failed attempt to form a Republican Move on group), and MSNBC and their Pro Wall Street Programming, continue to mislead the nation and democrat voters over Hillary Clinton's viability and credibility.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

MSNBC APOLOGIZES for Sarah Palin Spoof, when do they apologize for Keith Olbermann?

Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

Pardon the Interruption, Sports Announcer Tony Kornheiser suspended for outrageous on air remarks about Hannah Storm.

Current DailyPUMA article, click here.

If I were offered a job producing a radio show, I'd probably only take the job if there was a ten second delay AND a stun gun hooked up to that very special place where my fellow man's leg tingles. I think it's called the "T spot". Chris Matthews of Misery TV (MSNBC) revealed the T spot's existence.

As Tony Kornheiser was makiing his incredibly hostile remarks about fellow radio sports anchor person Hannah Storm, I would have used the stun gun on Kornheiser's legs until both of his legs stopped tingling, at which point I would have handed the stun gun remote control to Hannah Storm for her own one on one interview with Tony Kornheiser. Click here if you want to read the article.

Hannah Storm had to put up with the same kind of BS back during the 1995 World Series from Cleveland Indians star Albert Belle. 15 years later and nothing has changed, Hannah Storm has to hear the same kind of crap, 15 years later! At least Tony Kornheiser got suspended for two weeks. Maybe he should be suspendered when he gets back as well.

Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

Why does the U.S. Government allow the Mississippi River to flood dozens of cities on a regular basis? Why won't Barack Obama do something about it?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Barack Obama promised Change, and Change is what I want, darn it!

I wanted a supposedly intelligent president emboldened by his team of rivals to change how the U.S. problem solves recurring issues such as reducing and minimizing the affect of Mississippi River flooding.

I did a little research and the Army Corp of Engineers pre-ordains how deep the Mississippi River will be dredged based on how deep the biggest ships bottoms that traverse the Mississippi extend below the surface of the Mississippi River. The biggest ships may sit 40 feet deep so the Army Corp of Engineers adds seven feet for safety, for the boats!

Isn't that special.

Is it possible the Army Corp of Engineers actually is satisfied with dredging the Mississippi River to a depth that allows shipping lanes to flow freely, but won't go the extra five or ten feet that might prevent virtually all imminent Mississippi flooding that may cause over a billion dollars in damage?

Has a cost / risk dredging versus flooding benefit analysis been done?

If the Federal government spends 40 million to a hundred million dollars a year to dredge portions of the Mississippi river, what would the benefit be if that amount was increased an extra 50 million dollars?

If this year's flood produces a billion or two billion dollars in neighborhood flooding damage, wouldn't spending 50 million extra on the front end be a wise investment if it saves one to two billion dollars on the back end?

I read that the U.S. government actually CUT Mississippi River dredging funds IN HALF this year!

Is it possible that the dredged Mississippi River mud might have value as potting soil or for people's gardens? What about calling the dredged up mud Mississippi Mud and selling it across the country?

What if the extra 50 million dollars used to dredge the Mississippi was used to pay returning war veterans to actually assist in the dredging of the Mississippi River?

Yes, a jobs program that creates IMMEDIATE, TANGIBLE jobs and SAVES THE COUNTRY MONEY by REDUCING FLOOD DAMAGE, while also creating a NEW PRODUCT that benefits americans all across the country!

Instead, Barack Obama, (just as George Bush before him), will photo op along the Mississippi River in the coming couple of weeks, grimacing, telling flood victims that the U.S. government is here to help them with low interest rate loans to help repair their flood damaged homes, flood damage that most likely could have been prevented in the first place.

wow.

Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

How Media Sexism against Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democrat Race has gone unnoticed.

A case can be made that once again Hillary Clinton is facing a mountain's worth of Media Sexism in the 2016 presidential campaign. In 2008 at least there were dueling and overlapping issues of racism and sexism that magically seemed to almost cancel each other out, the same cannot be said about 2016.

In 2008, the piping hot media sexism was laid out for all the world to see. It was the male dominated late night show talk hosts who were ALL making Hillary Clinton jokes. Then there was Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and MSNBC going way overboard to attack Hillary Clinton. CNN joined in the fray as well. There was also a female contingent consisting of Arianna Huffington, Oprah Winfrey, Donna Brazile, even Nancy Pelosi and Maria Shriver played a significant role in making sure Barack Obama was the nominee instead of Hillary Clinton when the more prudent course of action would have been to wait on the sidelines and then support whomever won between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

But this time around all of the above have been on much much better behavior, which has mistakenly led the media into believing they are not being sexist against Hillary Clinton. But what is happening is Hillary Clinton is being double and triple vetted and condemned by insinuation while her male democrat counterpart Bernie Sander's can't make a mistake if he tried, and he has tried.

An example of media sexism is the claim that Hillary Clinton receives speakers fees from wall street and therefore she is influenced by the deep pockets of Wall Street into making anti populist decisions. Yet her opponent, Bernie Sanders, has been outspending Hillary Clinton since the middle of January 2016 while Hillary Clinton continues to win more of the popular vote and delegates than Bernie Sanders. 

My question is, How can the "populist" candidate Bernie Sanders spend more money and get less of a result than Hillary Clinton and still be called the populist candidate? Answer is he can if he is running against a woman who is perpetually being savaged by media conservatives on one side, and former conservatives turned progressive media on the other end of the political spectrum. Yes, it is media sexism to anoint the male candidate as the populist underdog when he continues to spend more money for a lesser result than Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton IS the populist candidate because she is raising less money while getting a better result than Bernie Sanders but nobody is reporting it that way, instead it is the male candidate who is the underdog populist.

In 2008 Hillary Clinton did remarkably better in Pennsylvania and Ohio than Barack Obama even though Obama spent at least double to triple on television advertising while still losing to Hillary Clinton in both states. Yet there too Barack Obama, another male, was portrayed as the populist candidate while also spending more money than Hillary Clinton and getting a lesser result.

Can a populist "for the people" candidate, Bernie Sanders, raise more money for the months of January and February 2016 than his female opponent while getting less votes than his female opponent, and still be called the populist candidate. The answer is a resounding NO, unless the opposing candidate is a female candidate, in which case the media champions on that the richer, "more cost per lesser vote received" male candidate is still the populist underdog.

Is there any chance in heck that we will see even one media outlet anoint Hillary Clinton as the underdog who is getting more votes while spending less money than her male opponent. I haven't seen it yet.

The next area of media sexism is the vetting of the candidates spouses. Bill Clinton was attacked for having a foundation that is spending millions of dollars on a yearly basis helping the impoverished all over the world because it gives him inside access to political figures from all over the world. The things the U.S. could have done better while Bill Clinton was president regarding U.S. farming competing with third world farmers he is trying to make amends for now. Yet the attacks and insinuations of insider dealings are all we hear about from the media. There has been no balance and little mention of the good that Bill Clinton's foundation has done and continues to do.

Meanwhile, Bernie Sander's wife, Jane Sanders, apparently may have a very checkered past in which while president of Burlington College from 2004 to 2011 she may have used institution funds to write checks to a resort vacation island run by Bernie Sander's best friend. What then followed was an alleged 200,000 dollar golden parachute firing of Ms. Sanders as a gentile manner of eviction from her job when she possibly could have been indicted instead. Has this story been vetted by the media? I check Snopes.com and this story has not been "Snoped", yet the media does nothing. Is it not media sexism to vet Hillary Clinton's husband while not vetting Bernie Sander's wife? Just another example of media sexism against Hillary Clinton.

And finally, Bernie Sanders has been making over 150,000 dollars a year as a politician for the past 20 years. His wife was probably making at least 100,000 dollars a year at Burlington College. So would it not be safe to say for at least a 7 year window of time, and presumably longer because people don't go from unemployment to 100,000 dollar a year jobs, that the Sanders were making the Equivalent of 1,000 dollars A DAY (not counting Saturday and Sunday) for a very long stretch of time. If you agree that yes, the Sanders were making a thousand dollars a day for the past 7 to 10 to maybe 15 years, why does Bernie Sanders have between 20,000 to 50,000 dollars worth of credit card debt? 

The Bernie Sanders credit card debt is a Carny trick. Bernie Sander's credit card debt creates the illusion that he is broke like the common man or woman. If Bernie Sanders and his wife were making 1,000 dollars a day for a decade or longer, why does Bernie Sanders have any credit card debt? Again, no vetting by the media.

And why is Bernie Sanders credit card debt such a big deal? Mr. Sanders is paying between 5,000 to 10,000 dollars a year in "interest payments only" on that revolving credit card debt. For a politician who wants to spend MORE of other people's money to help the needy, Mr. Sanders is voluntarily paying 5,000 to 10,000 dollars a year to the banks in interest rate charges on his credit card debt!  

If Mr. Sanders had no credit card debt he could take the yearly 5,000 to 10,000 dollars in interest rate charges he is currently paying and start donating that interest payment money to charitable causes that ask for 19 dollars every month to help a war veteran, a child with cancer, abused animals, and so on. 

Mr. Sanders has instead chosen to "Carny" his credit card debt for maximum political advantage and in the process has basically blown off helping 25 to 50 charitable organizations on a monthly basis with all that interest rate money he has been paying to the banks year after year. 

Mr. Sanders has willfully chosen to pay the banks interest rate charges rather than pay off his credit card debt and use the interest rate charge savings to help war veterans, kids with cancer, and abused animals. There is no stretch here, it's either keep credit card debt for political advantage and therefore keep paying thousands of dollars in interest rate charges every year, or use that very same money to help several dozen in need people and animals through various non profit groups on an ongoing basis. 

Mr. Sanders, why have you chosen paying the banks interest rate charges rather than paying off your credit card debt and then donating the savings to dozens of non-profits that help the truly needy?

If Mr. Sanders can't get the little things right, how can he be trusted to get the big things right? If Mr. Sanders wife has behaved in the very same manner that Mr. Sanders abhors on wall street, is he not the ultimate con artist for concealing it from the public? If Mr. Sander's is not vetted on these issues, and vetted soon, than Media Sexism will have once again roared to life in the 2016 democrat race. 

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality Petition by by clicking here.

How TV Land could affect the 2012 presidential campaign.

It became pretty obvious to Hillary Clinton supporters during the 2008 democratic nomination process that Hillary Clinton was the only major presidential candidate without a television channel.

We know that MSNBC conspired against Hillary Clinton and for Barack Obama. Fox Television was for the republican candidate while the major networks tried to give the appearance of unbiased reporting. However those same "unbiased" major networks tethered their own female talk show hosts into remaining silent about Hillary Clinton in most instances, and then there was Oprah Winfrey, gasp.

The male television talk show hosts all took more shots at Hillary Clinton than her male political counterparts. Jon Stewart will never admit that he took ratings over truth as it endeared him to his younger skewing audience, and as a result he took it to Hillary Clinton far more than Barack Obama.

Even with all the caucus cheating by Barack Obama's side, with the shady dealings of the democratic higher ups cozying up to George Soros and their back room back stabbing deals against Hillary Clinton, the reason Hillary Clinton could not get that final push to victory was because she had no real television base.

Even most female talk show hosts were afraid to show real support for Hillary Clinton because their audience also skewed younger and most of the female hosts were on channels that supported either Barack Obama or the republican candidate. Which brings me to TV Land. I would love to see a 1/2 hour cutting edge evening news / talk show, sort of like a John Stewart show, that skews towards the older demographic, say 40 years and up.

Hillary Clinton supporters are among the nicest and most caring group of voters and Clinton supporters also don't believe in uncontrolled governmental spending either, yet they have no television base.

If you could poll all the rioters after the Lakers 2010 championship victory, (rioting after a championship victory - unreal) I am absolutely certain that 98% either didn't vote, or voted for Barack Obama in 2008. Without any kind of a nightly television base, the best part of america, Hillary Clinton voters, the kind of voters that don't riot after their team wins a championship, will continue to be under represented in the political arena.

I have had a chance to study TV Land and am amazed at how strongly they promote their own original programming. TV Land also skews towards the ideal audience that presently is NOT being represented politically on television, the Hillary Clinton supporters. If TV Land would have the guts to launch a nightly 1/2 hour political talk show for the older crowd, we could begin to see some true balance in how every political demographic is being represented on television.

Until Hillary Clinton supporters get their own 1/2 hour nightly political news and talk show on television, we will continue to be ignored by the demonic party and disrespected by the repuritanical party.

Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

Fox Television's "Raising Hope" wishes Hillary Clinton had been president.

For us PUMA's, this is as close as we can get to hearing about Hillary Clinton on any television show. Since this show is on Fox TV, there were several digs at Bill Clinton that thankfully I was able to avoid while picking these two delightful pieces.

And on to the show!

Now imagine if every night there was just ONE, just ONE cable news channel that was liberal moderate, or moderate liberal, Hillary's Channel. 


Hillary's channel would be at least as popular as Fox News and expose MSNBC for the progressive regurgitation it became once they chose Barack Obama and George Soro's money over the larger popularity of Hillary Clinton in 2008.

Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

Why does the Republican Party refuse to highlight the damage the liberal media and higher democratic officials did to Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign?

(Edit note - April 07, 3:22 pm pst, 2012. After posting this article on March 22, 2012, Obama has now aggressively reached out to women!  Obama Attacks GOP on women's rights )

The Republicans could win the 2012 presidency by reminding the american people of the media and talk show host abuse that Hillary Clinton was exposed to in 2008. 

However, It appears that the republicans would rather lose the 2012 presidential election than remind the world how the 2008 democrats, the male dominated news media, and the corrupt higher echelon of the democratic party ridiculed both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin.

In case republicans have not noticed, democratic women voters fervently believe that democratic spokesholes like Michael Moore, Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and on down the line are somehow more pro women than republican spokesholes are.

In 2008 Hillary Clinton was treated so shabbily by her own democratic party that the media had to resort to pretending that none of it  happened. Keith Olbermann looked right into the camera and actually said...

"I never told senator Clinton to get out of the campaign, I never even suggested it....go back and read your talking points carefully, again".

Here is a partial list of the political atrocities Hillary Clinton had to face in the 2008 democratic election.

Political Favoritism: The democratic higher ups froze delegates from the Hillary Clinton strongholds of Florida and Michigan because both states moved up their primary dates. Meanwhile, Illinois, the state that gave Barack Obama his biggest margin of delegate victory in the entire country, was allowed to move up its primary date from the end of March 2008 to the beginning of February 2008 with no sanctions! North Carolina, another Obama stronghold, was given an extra 28 delegates FOR NOT moving up their primary date.

Move On Dot Org's caucus caper. This will go down for me as one of the all time "Who let the children out" moments in politics. Move on Dot org was founded by George Soros specifically to protect democrats from the kind of ridiculous impeachment attacks that Bill Clinton was put through. 

Move On Dot Org's growing clout was used against Hillary Clinton by steering the caucus contests to Barack Obama by a massively inaccurate 2-1 margin. Read the comments sections here to see how delusionial the Move On dot org people are in defending what they did to Hillary Clinton in 2008.

ACORN probably also had a hand in 2008 as well, especially in the caucus contests.  Check out this image of how the precincts that bordered Illinois all went for Obama, lending some statistical credence to the allegation that Obama supporters were bussed into Iowa to vote in the caucus contests.

Credit Card Gate:  Nancy Pelosi received a VISA IPO and in return appeared to table the credit card reform bill act of 2008. At the same time, Barack Obama was accepting prepaid credit card donations with false names and addresses, and was the only candidate to do so. After Barack Obama was elected in 2008, Obama took credit for the passage of a weakened credit card reform bill act that should have been passed a year earlier. One key element to the weakening of the credit card reform bill act was the deletion of a consumer's right to opt out of a change in terms.  Apparently Barack Obama's admiration of Jamie Dimon of Chase Bank, who is a fellow Chicagoan, lobbied to take have the opt out right removed from the credit card reform bill.

Republicans may have some women bashing spokespeople, but the democrats have more! The list of supposedly "nice democratic men" who used their position of influence to both ridicule Hillary Clinton and hype Barack Obama is A LOT LONGER than the list of backwards thinking republican men who have recently bashed women over reproductive issues. How about people like Michael Moore, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, Jimmy Kimmel, Jon Stewart, Jay Leno, David Letterman, all of whom were pandering to their younger viewers back in 2008.  

Then there was Al Gore and Edward Kennedy who did not back Hillary Clinton nor remain neutral either.  Kennedy went as far as to deny Hillary Clinton a chance to work on a health care reform committee were Hillary Clinton to stay in Congress after Obama was declared the democratic nominee. Each one of these men used their bully pulpit to make jokes about Hillary Clinton while trying to look cool in their support of Barack Obama.

Even the women ganged up against Hillary Clinton in 2008. The irony for me in the number of highly influential women who went against Hillary Clinton is not that they should have automatically supported Hillary Clinton, it's that they could have remained neutral until the 2008 democratic nomination race was decided by democratic voters.

Here is the short list of prominent women who caved in to George Soros, Barack Obama, and the billionaire elite who were afraid of having a women as president. Arianna Huffington, Maria Shriver, Oprah Winfrey, Nancy Pelosi, Rachel Maddow, Taylor Marsh even Elizabeth Edwards, rather than simply support the democratic party nominee as decided by the democratic voters, went out of their way to support Barack Obama BEFORE DEMOCRATIC VOTERS HAD VOTED.  

Yet NONE of these women will take even an ounce of responsibility for the home foreclosure debacle that Barack Obama has done very little to stop, something Hillary Clinton vowed to solve as soon as she became president.

The allegedly liberal media was all in for Barack Obama in 2008. As a lifelong democrat, it was only by accident (literally) that I ended up watching MSNBC for 10 straight days while recuperating from an injury. I want from being completely ambivalent about which democratic candidate won the 2008 nomination, to being stunned at the level of badgering that Hillary Clinton was getting from the media, both television and newspaper. 

In my opinion, Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, and Tim Russert did more to destroy the fabric of middle america than any other trio of personalities working for one station has ever achieved.

Huffington Post may have been the biggest Hillary Clinton detractor, actually surpassing MSNBC.

On top of what Hillary Clinton went through in 2008, Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman, who David Letterman repeatedly referred to as "O'Bachman" have also been repeatedly ostracized by a male dominated media in both news and late night television. 

The republicans nonchalance to the liberal female presidential bashing facts listed above will most likely result in defeat to Barack Obama in 2012.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGv6XBxk1IA&t=1m32s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGv6XBxk1IA These are two links to Moore's youtube Larry King youtube video, unfortunately they are not embedding properly here.

Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.