Will There Be Money Leftover for Hillary??

This hasn't been the best week for Hillary Rodham. She's very quickly losing her lead in the race for support from the Democrat Party. Then she's just now finding out that the people she thought were her friends in Hollywood aren't that excited about her campaign. Have you heard about this Tale of the Three Hollywood Moguls? Wait... wait... you remember how tied into Hollywood the Clintons were in 1996, right? David Geffen donated $800,000 to Bill Clinton's Presidential Foundation in 2000.

Now hear this: Three of the entertainment industry’s biggest names – DreamWorks studio founders Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen – have turned to Senator Barak Obama as the candidate of choice for 2008. These three moguls hosted the private Beverly Hills fundraiser for Obama, and checks from Hollywood’s A-list of stars – including George Clooney, Eddie Murphy and Barbra Streisand – added up to a one-night take of $1 million. Do you think Her Majesty the Queen of Liberalism took it personally?

Oh, Hillary was furious! She even had her campaign staffers ring up Geffen personally from the offices in New York. Apparently, Geffen assured her there would be "money left over" for her campaign, too. Hilarious!! Rodham is eating Obama's leftovers. When asked if he thought Obama could stand up to Hillary's war machine, Geffen replied: "I hope so... because that machine is going to be very unpleasant!" In the immortal words of Charles Dickens: It was the best of times, it was the worst of times... I love these politically entertaining times!!

In all fairness, I must tell you that I support StopHillaryPAC - and have for the last year. They are currently fundraising in order to run a television ad. See the ad on the website.

Election 2008: Voting for the Lesser of Two Weasels

When given a choice between a pro-abortion, protectionist, pro-civil liberties, race-baiting surrender candidate in favor of subsidized gay marriage for illegal alien pedophiles... and an anti-abortion, pro-free trade, tough-on-terror, donor-kissing corporate sycophant in favor of outsourcing all children to more competitive child rearing farms in India... for whom does the gun-owning Irish Catholic union member from New York vote to advance his overall values in Washington? Don't you feel like you're asked to make this choice in almost every election? I'd be the first to admit that it's a terrible choice.

In terms of Presidential campaigning in the United States, it's early yet. Here we are at the end of February 2007... and the General Election is not for another 19 months. Why the heck then are candidates stumping in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina? They are visiting these states because it's a battle for the early lead. Everyone wants to be the party favorite!! We knew Hillary would run back when her husband was the President. Barak Obama might have something to say about that. We knew John McCain would run (despite the announcement of an Exploratory Committee). Rudy Giuliani might have something to say about that.

Regardless of who the candidate might be, there is no one clearly the right choice for America. The choice we're being forced to make is between the lesser of two weasels. Or is it?? What about Write-In Candidates?? All Presidential ballots should have space at the bottom of the list for a write-in candidate. In some states the write-in must be formally certified before the General Election. As an example, the certification form from the State of North Dakota is here. Unfortunately, South Carolina is one of five states that forbids write-in candidates for the office of President, despite the fact that Strom Thurmond was elected to the U.S. Senate as a write-in candidate in 1954.