Hillary's Eligibility Challenged in Supreme Court

Can political branch evade 'clear and precise language' of Constitution?

From WorldNetDaily

By Bob Unruh

A brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court by Judicial Watch, which investigates and prosecutes government corruption, questions whether members of the "political branches of the government" can "evade the clear and precise language of a provision of the Constitution through the use of a legislative 'fix.'"

The dispute is over former Sen. Hillary Clinton's eligibility to be secretary of state.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Saul Alinsky and the Rise of Amorality in American Politics

From New English Review
By D. L. Adams

Saul Alinsky and his "community organizing" methods and philosophy have had a profound influence on the politics of the United States. Recent history would suggest that this influence is just short of catastrophic.

Alinsky's book, "Rules for Radicals," published in 1971 still has enormous effects on our country today. Hillary Clinton wrote her Wellesley College thesis on Alinsky, interviewing him personally for her research. After her graduation Alinsky offered her a job with his organization, which she refused to pursue other opportunities. President Obama worked for Alinsky organizations and taught seminars in Alinsky tactics and methodology during his "community organizing" period in Chicago. Michelle Obama echoed Alinsky’s words in her speech at the Democratic Convention.

Read the rest of this entry >>

A Hillary Clinton Primary Challenge to Obama in 2012?

By Peter Roff, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

When President Barack Obama asked New York Sen. Hillary Clinton to join his cabinet as secretary of state, the move was widely praised. Clinton, his principal rival for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, added a measure of gravitas to his team of advisers and would, it was suggested, help unite the president's party at a time the Republicans appeared to be on the verge of complete collapse.

At the time, comparisons were made to Abraham Lincoln. Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin recounts in her book Team of Rivals how the 16th president of the United States invited others who held leadership claims on the new Republican Party into his cabinet in an effort to present a united front. But Lincoln's decision to invite his rivals for the 1860 Republican nomination--William H. Seward, Edward Bates, and Salmon P. Chase--into his administration was also a matter of political preservation. Their inclusion in the cabinet kept them inside the tent looking out rather than outside the tent looking in, forcing an alliance with Lincoln as the Union threatened to come apart.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Hillary Clinton Gets Defensive: "My Husband Is Not Secretary of State"

She's not the first Secretary of State to hold an empty title while foreign policy is handled by the White House, but the strain of being Rahm Emanuel's puppet is clearly showing:

From ABC News

ABC News' Kirit Radia reports: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lost her cool Monday after a Congolese student, speaking through a translator, asked her what "Mr. Clinton" thought about a Chinese trade deal with the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

"You want me to tell you what my husband thinks?" Clinton replied, clearly irked by the thought of being her husband Bill's spokeswoman.

"My husband is not secretary of state, I am," she replied. "If you want my opinion I will tell you my opinion. I am not going to be channeling my husband."

The only problem? Apparently the translator made a mistake and the student had wanted to know what President Obama thought of the deal. A State Department official tells ABC News the student went up to Clinton after the event and told her he was misquoted. No immediate word yet how Clinton responded.

Regardless of the error, the notion of Secretary Clinton's deference to her husband clearly touched a nerve with America's top diplomat. Just a week ago the former President stole his wife's thunder when he appeared in North Korea to rescue two American journalists detained there. His trip came just as Secretary Clinton embarked on a swing through Africa she hoped would shine light on the plight of the continent.

Still, imagine what the students thought when her response was translated back and they heard Clinton call President Obama her husband….

'Politburo' Controlling U.S. Policy

Is anyone surprised by this? Did even Madam Clinton expect that she was going to conduct US foreign policy?

Sources say White House cadre bypassing agencies, jeopardizing security

From WorldNetDaily
By Aaron Klein

Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel with President Obama in the Oval Office (White House photo)

A small group of officials working mostly from the White House are tightly controlling U.S. foreign policy, bypassing other government agencies and making decisions without employing their expertise, according to diplomatic sources speaking to WND.

The sources said some of the decisions may be jeopardizing U.S. security.

A senior Middle East diplomatic source said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently apologized to a Mideast leader, explaining to him U.S. policy regarding his country is being dictated by the White House and not her agency.

The diplomatic sources all confirmed Clinton has been largely cut out from the decision-making process, as have U.S. National Security Adviser James Jones and other top figures.

The diplomatic sources identified the White House group largely controlling foreign policy as consisting of President Obama; White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel; top Obama adviser David Axelrod; and National Security Council Director Denis McDonough. Also, Mark Lippert, chief-of-staff of the National Security Council, is involved.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Whom (Sic) Shall Replace HRC in U.S. Senate?

From News Blaze
Satire By John Lillpop

It is now official: Hillary Rodham Clinton has been demoted to the position of Secretary of State. In that capacity, she will report to a young black man who will occupy the Oval Office, a government edifice that should rightfully be her exclusive domain until at least 2012, and preferably 2016.

However, instead of running the White House as she did from January 1993 to January 2001, Hillary will have to be content with being just another cabinet member in the administration of America's second African-American president.

All of which leaves New York Governor David Paterson in the unenviable position of filling Hillary's shoes in the United States Senate.

Paterson will be forced to walk a very thin tight-rope to assure that a competent, yet politically correct; senator is sent to represent New York State, especially since competency has been woefully missing since January, 2001.

Pity for Paterson, Leona Hemsley, the late Queen of Mean has expired, removing the perfect replacement for Hillary from the list of eligible dames.

Opel Bijiquiovarti, our intrepid beltway insider, reports (on the condition of anonymity), that Governor Paterson will be looking for the following qualities in Hillary's successor:

Read the rest of this entry >>

The Price of Hillary

From Chronicles
By Srdja Trifkovic

No secretary of state will come to that office with stronger pro-Israel credentials or closer ties to the Jewish community than Sen. Hillary Clinton, Douglas Bloomfield assures his readers in The Jerusalem Post. Good for them, and for Bosnia’s Muslims and Kosovo’s Albanians; but for the rest of us Mrs. Clinton’s appointment as the third woman U.S. Secretary of State is hugely problematic. It heralds “the end of the world as we know it” in some ways, although neither she nor her coterie necessarily know what they are doing.

At the technical level, Hillary Clinton is likely to deepen the chronic crisis of the once-venerable institution at Washington’s Foggy Bottom, to which her two female predecessors have contributed in two different ways.

Read the rest of this entry >>

14,000+ Hillary Volunteers Working for McCain

The Clintons: Power At Any Cost

From National Post

Father Raymond J. De Souza

Whatever else he might accomplish, Senator Barack Obama has prevented the restoration of the Clintons. That alone is cause for rejoicing.

How did he do it? It was partly about him, but mostly about her. Many have remarked that in the identity-politics world of the Democratic Party, the first credible black candidate trumped the first credible woman candidate.

That is largely true, but it is not a phenomenon of the Democratic Party alone. Americans as a whole are eager to give their support to blacks who manifest aspirations of racial harmony. Consider the last 25 years. The most popular comic: Bill Cosby. The most popular athletes: Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods. The most popular talk-show host: Oprah Winfrey. The most popular general: Colin Powell. Obama demonstrated the same holds true in politics.

Yet a freshman senator with an ultraliberal voting record does not win the nomination without deep weakness in the competition. Obama became the chosen instrument for those who fervently wished to prevent the Clintons from coming back. In this race, being the not-Clinton was as important as being black.

When the Democratic Party rules committee decided last weekend to give Obama several dozen delegates from the disputed Michigan delegation, it marked the end of Clinton's slim chance to win the nomination. But it was back in Michigan on Jan. 15 when the formidable power of being the not-Clinton first became clear.

In Michigan, Clinton was the only name on the ballot, the others having withdrawn their names to conform with the rules against too-early primaries. Competing against no one in what was considered a meaningless primary, Clinton won 55% of the vote. But a staggering 40% of Democratic primary voters went out in the middle of winter to vote for "uncommitted," i. e., to vote for anyone but Hillary Clinton.

That was the key to this election year -- the determination of so many to stop the apparent Clinton juggernaut. It is the flip-side of the Obama phenomenon -- just as he makes Americans feel better about their country, the Clintons make Americans feel dirty.

It's not just that both of them are "extraordinarily gifted liars," in the words of former Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey, though Hillary's make-believe story about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia confirmed that. It's not just their shady associations, though Bill's lucrative post-presidential life has been filled with those. It's not just their willingness to damage their party for their own good, though their explicit racial campaigning shocked even their progressive supporters.

It's not just the sexual harassment, the cash-for-pardons, the preening sense of entitlement, the perpetual claims of victim-hood, the general all-purpose tawdriness of it all. It is something deeper, a sense that this couple exists solely, exclusively, totally and utterly for the pursuit of power. It is what they have devoted their entire adult lives to. Power cannot corrupt them, as the perpetual search for power has long since rendered them free of any principles or honour to corrupt.

In one of the various personas Hillary adopted for the campaign, she would regularly boast that she had "35 years of experience" in making change. That's her entire life since leaving college. It was not a good line, for it reminded voters what is fundamentally creepy about the Clintons, that they have spent their entire adult lives running for the highest office open to them. And when Bill achieved the presidency at a young age, the only thing left was to start running Hillary, which she began to do before she even left the White House. The Clintons are morally repellent to many Americans not because of any particular abuse of power, but because they are the purest symbol of the pursuit of power at any cost. They degrade the office they seek because all they know how to do is to seek office.

Some years ago, when Anthony Hopkins played Richard Nixon in Oliver Stone's 1995 film about the former president, Nixon was shown brooding in the White House the night before his resignation. He comes upon the portrait of JFK, his archrival, and says: "When they look at you, they see what they want to be. When they look at me, they see what they are."

Americans look at the Clintons and see what they do not want to become. And so Hillary and Bill have been rejected. Enjoy the four years -- at which point they will be back. It's all they know how to do.

Chelsea Clinton -- The Audacity of "Diversity"

By Gary Glenn

The amazing versatility of Chelsea Clinton's appeal, and the amazing diversity of Hillary Clinton's values.

Chelsea surrounded by the purity of white...



SAN JUAN, P.R. -- Chelsea Clinton April 30th at Our Lady of Providence senior citizens home, where she told 250 seniors and an order of Catholic nuns who run the home -- all of whom wear all-white dress-like "habits" -- that her mother shares their social and political values.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080430/ap_ca/chelsea_clinton_puerto_rico_1;_ylt=Ar16jTGf.NZpdlsn7mrLbJTlWMcF


Chelsea surrounded by the depravity of red...

PORTLAND, ORE. -- Chelsea Clinton April 12th at the "Red Dress Party," where she told approximately 2,000 homosexual men -- all wearing red dresses -- that her mother shares their values. The party was described by one homosexual journalist as an "alcohol-fueled dance party where nearly 2,000 gay men in various states of red dress undress (and several nearly naked straight men as well as one very colorfully decorated naked woman)." http://wweek.com/wwire/?p=11511

Here's betting that when she made her sweet appeal to the nuns in white, Chelsea didn't mention her visit with the "ladies" in red.

What Will Become of Her Flying Monkeys?

Plenty of time to go after him later.

But, perhaps because the Republicans are so devoid of talent by comparison, ya gotta love a guy (just a little) who so effectively calls out the Clintons. See the following ABC News video:

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4422403

LARRY KING LIVE, FEBRUARY 4, 2009 (humor)

From National Review online February 8, 2008

By Rob Long

LARRY KING: “From Rawlins, Wyoming! Hello!”

CALLER: “Hi, Larry. I’d like to ask your guest if she intends to keep her maiden name.”

LARRY KING: “Good question. Your name. You’ve been back and forth on it. What’s gonna be the deal?”

HILLARY CLINTON: “Well, Larry, I’ve always been Hillary Rodham, and then when I was married to Bill, I was Hillary Rodham Clinton, and then of course with all of those forms and so forth — ”

LARRY KING: “Legalese! It’s killing us!”

HILLARY CLINTON: “Right, right. So it was easier to just keep it simple. Hillary Clinton.”

LARRY KING: “But Bill’s been dead for . . . what? Nine months?”

HILLARY CLINTON: “Eleven. And two weeks. And three days.”

LARRY KING: “And so now the healing starts.”

HILLARY CLINTON: “And sixteen minutes.”

LARRY KING: “From Stevens Creek, California! Hello!”

CALLER: “Hi, Larry, hi Mrs. Clinton. I want to know if you have any regrets about the way the campaign ended up last year. And if you still have plans to run again?”

LARRY KING: “What about it? Tough year. Obama. Then the thing with Bill. The . . . heart attack? Was it a heart attack? The ticker just went pop? Been there, folks! Been there, felt that!”

HILLARY CLINTON: “Honestly, Larry, we don’t really know. We’re trying to get to the bottom of it, but the Chappaqua medical examiner’s office has been less than forthcoming. As near as I can tell — and remember, I was in the middle of a pretty intense presidential campaign at the time — he had a heart attack, fell down the stairs, and that was that.”

LARRY KING: “I know he had a history of heart disease. But the cause of death was ruled as ‘poison.’”

HILLARY CLINTON: “That’s correct, Larry. Apparently, he fell down the stairs onto an open bottle of poison, somehow ingested a large amount . . .”

LARRY KING: “Amazing. And I’ve had heart attacks, friends, so I know they can be disorientating.”

HILLARY CLINTON: “It was a tragedy, Larry. Of course, I was devastated. What we shared . . . well, it was a very special thing. It’s been hard to heal, of course. Very painful. But Bill would have wanted me to go on . . .”

LARRY KING: “Would you like a tissue?”

HILLARY CLINTON: “Thank you, Larry.”

LARRY KING: “From Rockport, Maine! Hello!”

CALLER: “Hi, Larry. Mrs. Clinton, I was wondering if you have any thoughts about the new McCain administration. Have you talked to him? And how do you think he’s doing?”

LARRY KING: “The one hundred days! Important stuff! Up! Down! Your thoughts!”

HILLARY CLINTON: “Well, as you know, Larry, I endorsed Senator McCain shortly after I left the race myself, due to the unfortunate events with Bill and so forth, and I’ve been pleased to see him moving forward on a lot of the issues that I talked about during my campaign — national health insurance, higher income taxes, that sort of thing — but even I have been surprised by some of his initiatives.”

LARRY KING: “The open borders?”

HILLARY CLINTON: “Not just opening them up. But the welcome barbeques, the logo tote bags, the free skin-care products, all of it.”

LARRY KING: “He’s taken it to a whole ’nother level!”

HILLARY CLINTON: “And nobody expected him to switch parties. Especially not to the Peace and Freedom party.”

LARRY KING: “He’s a maverick! He’s outside the box! From Detroit, Michigan! Hello!”

CALLER: “Hi, Mrs. Clinton. I was wondering if you have any plans to remarry?”

LARRY KING: “Great question! Well? Got the itch? Lemme be the first to say, marriage is great after sixty! The sex, even better than it was at fifty-five!”

HILLARY CLINTON: “Oh, this is all very premature.”

LARRY KING: “Is there a man in your life? Is there a guy for Hillary Clinton?”

HILLARY CLINTON: “You know, Larry, I just haven’t had a moment to think about that kind of thing. I’ve been focusing on healing, and the family, and the issues that I care about. And Bill’s death is so recent . . .”

LARRY KING: “Would he have wanted you to date?”

HILLARY CLINTON: “That’s a very complicated question, Larry.”

LARRY KING: “But he was a guy who understood something about physical needs, right? About the human desire for touch.”

HILLARY CLINTON: “Um . . .”

LARRY KING: “He wouldn’t have begrudged you, would he? You know who would be good for you? I keep thinking a Mort Zuckerman. A Ron Perelman.”

HILLARY CLINTON: “Aren’t both of those gentlemen married?”

LARRY KING: “I didn’t say get married to them! I said, go out, have a few drinks, have some laughs! Look at me! I’m a yenta all of a sudden!”

HILLARY CLINTON: “Honestly, Larry, I’m just looking forward to putting this all behind me, and then moving on.”

LARRY KING: “You’re talking about the inquest?”

HILLARY CLINTON: “Yes. It’s all so unnecessary. People just love to make things into these big conspiracies.”

LARRY KING: “They’re trying to explain the stab wounds?”

HILLARY CLINTON: “But they’re so easy to explain! Bill had a heart attack, then fell down the stairs onto a bottle of poison, ate some, then got up to call 9-1-1, and when reaching for the phone he mistakenly grabbed a knife from the counter, stabbed himself several times in the chest and neck and face and abdomen, raced to the garage, and collapsed in the trunk of the car. Why is that so hard to understand?”

LARRY KING: “Makes sense to me! Tomorrow night! The whole hour with Lorna Luft!”

How the Clintons Will Destroy John McCain

Dr. Jack Wheeler, author of the To the Point blog, looks ahead in a recent post to the campaign we might expect in the tragic event that John McCain becomes the Republican nominee.

How the Clintons Will Destroy John McCain

Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler

Thursday, 31 January 2008

The number of fellow Senators who think John McCain is psychologically unstable is large. Some will admit it publicly, like Thad Cochran who says, "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine." Others relate times when McCain screamed four-letter obscenities right in their faces in the Senate cloak room, like Dick Shelby, Rick Santorum, or Jim Inhofe. "The man is unhinged," one Senator told me. "He is frighteningly unfit to be Commander-in-Chief." That John McCain is clinically nuts is scary enough. What worries a small group of GOP Senators and Congressmen even more is a deep and dark skeletal secret in McCain's glorified past to which they are privy, and which the Clintons will use to blackmail him. They have been having discussions with a Russian whom we'll call "T" for Translator. T's father was the Soviet military intelligence officer who ran the "Hanoi Hilton" prison holding captured Americans during the Vietnam War. One of those prisoners was John McCain. The GRU -- Glavnoje Razvedyvatel'noje Upravlenije or Main Intelligence Directorate of the Soviet (now Russian) Armed Forces - operated the entire North Vietnamese prison system holding American prisoners of war. GRU officers, all of whom were Russians, oversaw the interrogation of every American POW. The interrogations themselves were conducted by Vietnamese who spoke some English. After each interrogation session, which could often include torturing the prisoners at the direction of the GRU officers, the Vietnamese interrogator would write a report of the session - in Vietnamese. These reports had to be translated into Russian. T, a bright teenager living in the GRU compound in Hanoi, had become fluent in Vietnamese, and ended up translating many of the reports and interrogators' notes. John McCain, flying his A-4 Skyhawk, was shot down over Hanoi on October 26, 1967. Badly injured from the ejection, he was beaten and abused by his captors. In July, 1968, his father, US Navy Admiral J. S. McCain, was made CINCPAC, Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Command, commander of all US military forces in the Vietnam theatre. Upon learning this, the Vietnamese offered - according to McCain - to release him. McCain claims he refused, because he demanded all American POWs captured before him be released as well. He thus remained a prisoner when he could have gone home, and was subjected to constant brutal beatings and torture for years: that is the source of the "war-hero" saga making McCain a greater war-hero than any other American POW. Yet the offer of release would had to have been approved by the GRU overseers of the North Vietnamese - and T does not recall any such offer being made. T admits, however, that this took place before McCain was transferred to Hoa Loa prison, nicknamed the "Hanoi Hilton" by the POWs. T had only direct knowledge of what happened at Hoa Loa, and not the other prisons, where T's father was in charge. McCain was kept at the Hanoi Hilton from December 1969 until his release, along with all the remaining POWs, in March of 1973. During this time, T translated all the Vietnamese interrogators' notes and reports regarding John McCain. According to T, they reveal that McCain had made an "accommodation" with his captors, and in exchange, T's father saw that he was provided with an apartment in Hanoi and the services of two prostitutes. Upon returning to his prison cell, he would say he had been held in solitary confinement. That may be why so many of his fellow prisoners said later they saw so little of him at Hoa Loa. The notes and reports written in Vietnamese were sent to Moscow, where T was a now a college student, for T's translation into Russian, then placed into GRU archives. That's where they stayed until 1991. Late that year, as the Soviet Union was collapsing, the CIA and the GRU made a deal for a document swap. All of what it involved, T doesn't know. What T's father, by now retired but still with substantial contacts within the GRU, did learn (and thus T learned) was that the swap included all of T's translations. In other words, the CIA has in its possession the notes and reports of John McCain's interrogators at the Hanoi Hilton, in both the original Vietnamese and translated Russian, showing collaboration with his Communist captors. Allegations of this nature have been made over the years, many by Vietnam veterans. There is an even an organization, Vietnam Veterans Against McCain. But they are based on suspicions and circumstantial claims. There has never been any hard direct evidence. What T says the CIA has is such evidence. Its release would destroy McCain. The threat of its release could force McCain to take a fall, blow the election and lose on purpose. And just who do you suppose would know what the CIA has and work with them to release it? Someone who has been a CIA asset since he was recruited by London station chief Cord Meyer while a student at Oxford in 1968? (Back in the 90s years after he retired, if Cord drank a little too much Scotch, he would laugh derisively at those conspiratorialists who accused Bill Clinton of being connected with the KGB. "They all darkly point to Bill's participation in anti-war peace conferences in Stockholm and Oslo, and his trip to Leningrad, Moscow, and Prague while he was at Oxford. ‘Who could have paid for this?', they ask. ‘It had to be the KGB!' they claim." Cord would shake his head. "What rot - we paid for it. We recruited Bill the first week he was at Oxford. Bill's been an asset of The Three Bad Words ever since." Cord passed on in 2001.) The small group of Senators and Congressmen who have been briefed by T have been unable to confirm with the CIA any details of its document swap with the GRU beyond an admission that such a swap "may have happened." They are very nervous about pursuing the matter any further. The Clintons are not nervous. They are utterly ruthless, and have buddies at Langley all too happy to help them. It has been noted many times here in To The Point that while most folks think the CIA is a right-wing outfit, it is not. The CIA has been dominated by left-wing hyper-liberals for years. The CIA is a left-wing, liberal outfit, and its main job for some time now is not attacking America's enemies but conservatives in general and George W. Bush in particular. The story is best told by friend, Ken Timmerman in his new book Shadow Warriors. When the time is right, the Clintons will see to the leaking of the GRU archives on McCain to the media. Bet on it, just as you can bet they'll follow it up with media disclosures of the lady lobbyists in Washington having adulterous affairs with McCain. (There are at least three of them; I know the name of one but I'm not going to put it in writing.) Maybe McCain will try to fight back by confirming Hillary's well-known bisexuality and her lesbian affair with her beautiful assistant, Huma Abedin. Google "Hillary" and "Huma Abedin" and you'll get almost 6,000 hits. Turns out Huma is a Moslem who grew up in Saudi Arabia and is strongly suspected of working for Saudi intelligence. Or maybe he'll capitulate to Clinton blackmail. You never can tell what a psychologically unstable guy will do. And that last point is why - be prepared for this, folks - I would not in any circumstances vote for John McCain, not if either Hillary or Obama were the alternative. Evil is safer than crazy. Leftie amateur inexperience is safer than crazy. So I agree with Ann Coulter who says: "I'd rather deal with President Hillary than with President McCain. With Hillary, we'll get the same ruinous liberal policies with none of the responsibility." How in the world can the Republican Party get saddled with a nutcase whack-job who knows nothing about economics, is so anti-capitalist he uses "profit" as a term of derision, has never run a business or had any job outside of government, will raise taxes, is so stupid that he believes "stopping global warming" is worth destroying the American economy, won't drill ANWR, won't appoint strict constructionist justices, won't protect marriage, will give amnesty to 20 million illegal aliens, is beloved by the New York Times, and lives in a delusionary world of vanity and rage? Rush is right. A McCain presidency will be the destruction of the Republican Party. It needs to be rebuilt, not wiped out with the field clear for the fascists of the left to consolidate power and eliminate freedom. And maybe the only way to rebuild it is in dedicated impassioned opposition to a Clinton White House. That should be the subject of Ann Coulter's next book. I've already got the title for her. Her last book was If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans. Ann needs to now write this book: If Republicans Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans.

HILLARY'S SELL BY DATE: JAN 8, 2008

Hat tip to Phillips Philes

HUCKABEE STRONGEST GOP GENERAL ELECTION CANDIDATE IN SOUTHERN STATES

The best way to ensure Hillary Clinton wins the White House is if the Republican Party nominates either of the two northeastern "Yankee" candidates with liberal records of supporting abortion on demand and homosexual activists' political agenda, since they will put even some Southern states at risk to the Democrats in the November 2008 general election.

Rasmussen today confirms that scenario in the Southern state of North Carolina, where fellow Southerner Gov. Mike Huckabee holds the largest lead over likely Democratic nominee Sen. Hillary Clinton, while Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Gov. Mitt Romney are the two weakest potential GOP nominees.

NORTH CAROLINA

General election matchups

Huckabee 46% +7

Clinton 39

McCain 45 +5

Clinton 40

Giuliani 40 +1

Clinton 39

Clinton 42

Romney 40 -1

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/north_carolina/north_carolina_2008_presidential_election

Three weeks ago, Rasmussen confirmed the same scenario in the Southern state of Arkansas, finding Huckabee leading Hillary in that state while the two northeastern "Yankee" candidates trailed Clinton by double digits.

ARKANSAS

General election matchups

Huckabee 48% +6

Clinton 42

Clinton 49

Giuliani 35 -14

Clinton 48

Romney 34 -14

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/arkansas/arkansas_2008_presidential_election

Huckabee Strongest Against Hillary

Republican former Governor Mike Huckabee holds a five point lead over Democratic U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton in a potential 2008 general election matchup, the largest lead of any potential Republican candidate.

Notably, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani are the two weakest candidates in a general election matchup against Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee.

ZOGBY INTERNATIONAL

November 26, 2007

General election match-ups show the New York

senator would lose against every top Republican

UTICA, New York – A new Zogby Interactive survey shows Democrat Hillary Clinton of New York would lose to every one of the top five Republican presidential contenders, representing a reversal of fortune for the national Democratic front–runner who had led against all prospective GOP opponents earlier this year.

Huckabee 44% +5

Clinton 39

Thompson 44% +4
Clinton 40

McCain 42% +4
Clinton 38

Giuliani 43% +3
Clinton 40

Romney 43% +3
Clinton 40

The online survey included 9,150 likely voters nationwide, and was conducted Nov. 21–26, 2007. It carries a margin of error of +/– 1.0 percentage points.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1393