Don't blame me! I voted for Hillary

As disgust with the grossly unqualified, incompetent Obama continues to grow, we're getting more and more hits from people looking for "Don't blame me! I voted for Hillary" merchandise. Although it sucks that we're stuck with Obama--for now--my conscience is clear knowing that I did not support him and that I KNEW Hillary Clinton was the better choice. It's still surprising to me, a lifelong Democrat, that I ended up voting Republican in the Presidential election, but I simply could not, with a clear conscience, vote for Barack Hussein Obama, so my vote went to McCain. Hopefully, the 2012 elections will see a QUALIFIED Democrat on the ticket that I'll feel good voting for. Stay tuned...

Meanwhile, if you're looking for "Don't blame me! I voted for Hillary" merchandise, please stop by our CafePress shop. Here are a few samples; select any image to see all products with this design on them:





.

Wasn't SmartAssProducts.com anti-Bush/anti-Republican?

We've gotten a lot of inquiries regarding our apparent switch from pro- to anti-Democrat, and finally decided to just write a blog entry explaining what happened.

First some background. When SmartAssProducts.com started, its main focus was anti-Bush merchandise, along with some anti-Republican and anti-conservative stuff thrown in for good measure. We were lifelong, die-hard Democrats; we despised Bush II and everything he represented. We had a countdown clock on the site ticking off the seconds until Bush would finally leave office. Then came 2008's Democratic race.

We were OUTRAGED last year at what we saw happening: Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, the DNC, etc., jumping on the bandwagon of an untested, under-qualified phenomenon instead of supporting the truly QUALIFIED, and deserving, Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton. I personally did fundraising for Clinton, attended meetings and rallies and phone banks, contributed to her campaign, etc. When she was pushed out of the race--despite having more popular votes than Obama--I simply could not switch my allegiance to him. NOT because he forced Hillary out of the race--although I was extremely bitter about that!--but because of how unqualified he was, the terrorists and slumlords and racists he's associated with for decades, etc. I couldn't imagine how anyone could sit in a church for TWENTY YEARS listening to venomous hatred against whites and others... So I said, "party loyalty be damned!" and voted for McCain.

We started focusing on coming up with more anti-Obama slogans and designs. That's been VERY easy! And it sells. We now have anti-Obama merchandise on Zazzle and Printfection as we branch out from our original CafePress shop.

In the process of all this, people started jumping to the wrong conclusion, i.e., that we are now anti-Democrat, pro-Republican. Simply not true--in general, anyway. Anti-Obama? You bet! Anti-all Democrats? Nope. Pro-Republican? In general, no. In specific cases? Yes. I'm proud to say that I did the morally and ethically correct thing last year by choosing not to vote for Obama, and voting for McCain instead. At least with McCain we have an honorable person, a war hero, a veteran, a person with a long history of serving this country in various ways. I feel good about voting for him. Now, if Hillary Clinton hadn't been railroaded out of the race, my vote unequivocally, definitely would have gone to her, and voting for McCain wouldn't have even crossed my mind.

If Obama continues proving what an unqualified dolt he is--as he's done thus far in his first year--I fully expect that the Democrats will come to their senses in 2012. I hope to see Clinton run again, although she's indicated that's not very likely. As long as the Democratic nominee in 2012 is qualified for the office of POTUS, and does not have a multi-decade history of associating with racists and terrorists, I'll vote for her/him. But if it's Obama again? I guess I'll be voting Republican again!

In closing, it's simply incorrect to think we've switched from pro-Democrat to pro-Republican. We've only focused on the office of president, not other elected offices like governor or senator, so the only Democrat referred to on our site is Obama--and we're anti-Obama. Likewise, the only Republican referred to on our site is John McCain--to a very limited degree, i.e., our Don't blame me, I voted for Hillary...and McCain and Don't blame me, I voted for McCain merchandise. We're pro-McCain over Obama, and since McCain is the only Republican we address, it comes out looking like we're pro-Republican. The only way I'd ever consider becoming a Republican is if they became pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-sex education, etc. And that's most likely NEVER going to happen.

So, don't worry, we'll be back to our regular political views once Obama leaves office. Until then, anti-Obama all the way!


.

What lie will Obama tell next?

I mentioned yesterday that rumor had it there was proof Barack Obama had been present at Jeremiah Wright's hate-filled "sermons"--despite his protests denying his presence--and today we have it! Here you go--and I NEVER thought I'd be citing Newsmax.com for anything, but they're all I've got right now--although I'm sure that will change. With this latest disgusting, disgraceful revelation about Obama, surely the ultra-pro-Obama-biased mainstream media will HAVE to talk about it...right? Here's the article in its entirety, and I strongly suggest that you read it, all of it. It's too long and too detailed to break down into little snippets here, so please take the time to read the whole thing.

Shop our anti-Obama or pro-Hillary merchandise
I can only hope that the Kool-Aid swigging Obama-ites who have blindly followed this man of "hope" and "change" will now see what they're ACTUALLY supporting--a man who has aligned himself for TWENTY YEARS with a hate-mongering, anti-America, anti-white, anti-gay, anti-female "uncle." This "uncle" has had such an important role in Obama's life that he got the inspiration for his book's title from him. (Has Obama EVER had an original thought?!)

Now that the truth has come out and Obama was, in fact, present while Wright preached his hatred, we're left to wonder: What lie will Obama tell next? How is he going to lie...or bluff...or "I agree with Senator Clinton!" his way out of this...

If Hillary Clinton had been attending KKK meetings religiously for the past 20 years, including building a CLOSE personal relationship with the grand poobah (or whatever they're called), relying on him as an "uncle" and a spiritual adviser, you'd better BELIEVE that once that became public knowledge she would be forced to drop out of the campaign.

Why is there a double standard when a black man attends a racist church? Is racism okay as long as it's coming FROM blacks AGAINST whites? Would anyone believe Hillary if, in the hypothetical scenario I mentioned above, she now claimed to be unaware of the hatred her "uncle" had been preaching for 20 years? Would the public let that get swept under the rug? I DON'T THINK SO!

Obama needs to drop out of the race now; only then can we HOPE that this sad part of American history will fade into the shadows along with the unqualified man who was given hero worship he didn't deserve. Obama can go off with his pals Louis Farrakhan--the Jew hater, Tony Rezko--the crook, Al Sharpton--the divisive "reverend," Jeremiah Wright--the racist, white-hating, America-hating, gay-hating, woman-hating "uncle," and any other lowlifes he calls friends/advisers. With any luck, we'll never have to hear about oBLAHma again. That's what I call REAL change.

O-blah-blah-blah-ma, or how Obama speaks a lot...but doesn't really SAY anything

Sure, we've ALL heard about how articulate Obama is and what an eloquent speaker he is, and how his speeches are so inspiring...blah blah blah. But what is it exactly that he's saying? Beats me!


Looking for anti-Obama merchandise? Shop our anti-Obama and/or pro-Hillary merchandise
For example, he and his campaign are attempting to use Hillary Clinton's supposed vote "for the Iraq war" as something against her...blah blah blah. But what did Clinton actually say when she cast that vote? Here you go; these are snippets of her speech on the Senate floor October 10, 2002; bolding is my doing for emphasis; to read the entire speech, please visit the official copy:

October 10, 2002

Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

"Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program."

"Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran."

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001."

"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."

"If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option."

"So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?"

"While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise."

"I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq."

"President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

"This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction."

"And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them."

"My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world."

"War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections."

"And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am."

"So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed."

Looking for anti-Obama or pro-Hillary merchandise?
Well, there you have it. The ACTUAL words spoken by Hillary Clinton when she cast her vote to support the use of US Armed Forces in Iraq. The next time a Kool-Aid swigging Obama-ite tries to brainwash you into believing that Clinton blindly jumped into voting for this resolution, do THEM a favor and send them here to read the above snippets or, better still, to the full copy. Assuming they're still capable of free thought (and when you realize just how programmed and brainwashed the Obama-ites have become...they may not be) and have any living brain cells, they SHOULD be able to grasp that Clinton's decision was one fraught with concerns on her part, and made only after stressing that she wanted war to be the LAST possible resort.

Calling all feminists! Hillary Clinton needs your support

Did you grow up during the feminist movement of the '60s and '70s? I did, and although I was too young for most of it to actually get involved, I remember the point of it very well, and I believe I've benefited from it throughout my career. When I started in computing in the mid-'80s, it was definitely a male-dominated field (still is today!, but not as much). I never let that concern me, as I knew that I was just as capable as any man of being a great programmer and system administrator, and I plunged in and made my mark. My first job was at a furniture store chain, and it was up to me to transition them off their IBM System/3 mainframe and onto a multi-location, multiuser UNIX system. Talk about a challenge! But I loved every second of it. To this day I don't think I would have been given the opportunity had it not been for my older "sisters" who worked hard to break down glass ceilings and make the idea of women holding powerful jobs, especially in areas that were historically male-dominated, seem mainstream.

Today, I'm reminded of the passion of the feminist movement by the presence of a woman--a strong, intelligent, capable woman--as a viable candidate for president of the United States. I always hoped I'd see a female president in my lifetime and now, with Hillary Clinton running for the office, I'm excited beyond description.

Before going any further let me make something very clear: I would absolutely NOT support a woman for president just because she's a woman. The reason I'm so passionate about Hillary Clinton becoming president is because she's a woman AND she's the best qualified candidate. A mediocre female candidate would never win my support over a better qualified male. Period. So when I say I support Hillary's bid for president it needs to be understood that, first and foremost, she's QUALIFIED for the position; the fact that she's a woman is just icing on the cake.

I'd like to put out a call to all feminists--male and female--to support Clinton's run for president. Those of you who are too young to even grasp what it was like when women were relegated to lower-paying, lower-prestige jobs just because they were women, really need to have a little history lesson! You should read up on what it was like when women were nurses--not doctors, secretaries--not executives, legal secretaries--not attorneys, data entry clerks--not programmers or system analysts, etc. If you're currently in school studying to be, or you already are, a physician or a lawyer, an engineer or a chemist, a rocket scientist or an astronaut, please stop and think about HOW you got there. Trust me, things weren't always like they are now! In fact, women weren't even expected to work. No, really. College educated women were expected to give up working once they were married, and stay home cooking, cleaning, changing diapers, etc., while her husband earned the money--and made all the financial decisions, and had all the power. You're LUCKY to be living now, when you're free to make your own choices--if you [or your husband] WANT to stay home and cook/clean/change diapers, you [or he] can!, but if you want to continue pursuing your career, you can do that, too.

Please join SmartAssProducts.com in supporting Hillary Clinton for president. This really is a chance to make history! We didn't start out being anti-Obama, but have basically become so as he's gotten endless hype, adulation, endorsements, and media coverage--undeservedly so, in our opinion. Forget about the supposed history-making that electing a black (actually, HALF black) man would create. He's still male! If you're truly interested in making HERstory...er,history, support Hillary Clinton. She's more qualified, better prepared, and has vastly more experience than Barack Obama, and that's why we think you should support her. But it cannot be denied that putting a woman into the White House will be a profound step for American women which may, finally, put us on equal footing with men in the workplace.

One last thing: Please contribute to Hillary's campaign! And encourage others to do the same.

A letter to the LA Times

I've received permission from its author to post the following letter she wrote to the LA Times after they endorsed Obama. I thought it was excellent and wanted to share it with others. I hope anyone reading it who, like me and the letter's author, are shocked at the LA Times' endorsement of Obama will take the time to send their own letter to the Times expressing your feelings. Here it is (and I've edited out the author's last name):

"To LA Times:

I take issue with the fact that the LA TIMES endorsed Senator Barack Obama for President.

Obama has a total of two years experience in the Senate and has proven time and again that he is NOT ready to lead on Day One as Senator Clinton is.

Even your own endorsement points out that Obama's not voting for Iraq was the right move. You're kidding right? You realize he was not even in the Senate at the time so therefore he could not have voted one way or the other. You state that he claimed he was always against it, but in 2004, he said he "agreed with George Bush", so really, what you are saying is that HE LIED. Obama has voted the SAME as Hillary each and every time when it comes to Iraq. If he did not want to support the war, then why did he continually vote to fund it?

Obama claims he was against the war - BUT - it's always easier to claim you were against something that is NOW unpopular when in fact you did not have to make the decision.

Obama's true weakness is his lack of experience and substance on the issues.

His words are not actions, they are only good speeches. Obama claims to be supportive of Gay and Lesbian rights. Yet, he traveled around South Carolina with Donnie McClurkin, the anti-gay gospel singer, pro-claiming that he was a Christian. How does this fit in keeping current with GLBT issues? Does anyone really believe Obama will fight for gay rights?

I take issue with the fact that your newspaper believes that Obama has the corner on "Change." Electing the first woman President, who stands up fully for Democratic values is a HUGE change.

If Obama wants to CHANGE Washington, then why does he side with the biggest Washington Insider of them all, Ted Kennedy, and 50 or so Ex-Clinton aides - is that really "Change"

Your endorsement is a direct slap in the face to all women who are more than qualified to step into a position on day one, yet are overlooked by the younger, less experienced candidate.

Most appalling is the Times lack of research on the background of this candidate and stance on OTHER issues, instead of a singular issue. His own newspaper, the Chicago Tribune points out the ramifications of a potential Obama Presidency in their remarks:

"Obama's association with alleged influence-peddler Tony Rezko. If Obama had dealt with the Rezko issue forthrightly long ago, it might rank in public memory with Clinton's remarkable success in cattle futures.

Instead, as we've said, Obama has been too self-exculpatory. His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004 -- more than a year before the adjacent home and property purchases by the Obamas and the Rezkos.

On e more time, Senator:

You need to divulge all there is to know about that relationship. Until you do, the journalistic scrubbing and opposition research will intensify. You should have recognized Rezko as a political seducer of young talent. But given that you've not been accused of any crime or ethical breach, your Rezko history is not a deal-breaker."

Because the news media has failed in examining this candidates background, it is my firm belief that the Democrats will lose the Whitehouse if Obama is elected. Once Obama's relationship with Tony Rezko comes out into the open, we will all be left wondering why we didn't know this in advance.

Change is a word that requires Action. Hillary Clinton is the Agent of Change that will bring about that Action.

Regards,

Nancy [name removed]

P.S. I am cancelling my subscription to the Los Angeles Time due to this endorsement."

Why all the hype about Obama?

Is it just me, or are you also sick of all the hype surrounding Barack Obama? WHAT on earth has he ever done to warrant so much attention?! I'm at a complete loss as to why he's garnering endorsement after endorsement--including from my hometown paper, the LA Times--and being talked about incessantly. He's totally lacking in experience, or at least the kind of experience that will be needed to clean up the mess left after Bush leaves office, yet people are talking about him like he's God's gift to humanity.

Looking for anti-Obama merchandise?

Oh, another thing: How come no one ever mentions that he's only HALF black? It's always "he'll be the first AFRICAN AMERICAN president!" Um, no, he won't. Assuming he manages to get elected, he'll still only be HALF BLACK. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, will still be 100% female...and 100% capable...intelligent...ready...when she takes office!

It's painful for me to find myself siding with Repugnants who are bashing Obama, but in this case I can't help it. I'm surprising myself by coming up with an anti-Democrat design for merchandise on my web site, but just felt it was necessary. As far as I'm concerned, [no] Obama!

Let's make "herstory": Hillary '08

Last night's debate [between Clinton and Obama] really drove home just how ready Clinton is to be president of the US. She was poised, very well informed, had facts to back things up, and, as always, came off looking professional and sounding intelligent and articulate. That's not to say that Obama performed poorly because, for the most part, he didn't. It's just that Clinton is so much readier to be president now than Obama is.

Here's a scenario that would work well for all involved: A Clinton/Obama ticket. That way, we'd get the immediate readiness on Clinton's part to step into the oval office and get down to work, and we'd have an 8 year stretch (yes, I do believe Hillary will win a second term) with Obama as vice president, giving him time to ease into getting ready to be president.

For right now, let's concentrate on making "herstory" by electing Clinton in November. (For the record, we don't think Clinton should be elected BECAUSE she's a woman. The only thing that counts is who's the best candidate for the job and, in our opinion, that's Clinton, hands down.)

One issue that REALLY bothers me is Obama's repeated attempts at making it sound like his opposition to the Iraq war, from the beginning, somehow makes him the better choice. Wrong! Clinton based her decision to support the war on faulty information and lies from the Bush administration. Under those circumstances, who can fault her? She did what she thought was best based on the facts as she knew them. She didn't have a crystal ball and couldn't have known how faulty the Bush intelligence (wow, is that an oxymoron or what?!) was; Bush was the president and Clinton had to assume that what he was saying was indeed correct. If there really had been weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, wouldn't it be a good thing to go in and take control? Of course it would. And that's what Clinton thought she was supporting. I have no problem whatsoever with Clinton's changing opinions over time regarding the war. It's GOOD to learn from one's mistakes! It's GOOD to admit that--knowing what one knows now--one wouldn't make the same bad decision they did when they had incomplete data. Obama and his supporters really need to get over the fact that he--in his opinion--was 'right' about the war from the get-go. Really...get over it.

Do we REALLY want an inexperienced person in the White House?

With all the hype being generated around Barack Obama, it's easy to lose sight of the fact that he does not have the experience it's going to take to clean up after eight disastrous Bush years. So who does have that experience? Hillary Clinton, of course!

We're surprised to see everyone from Oprah Winfrey to John Kerry jumping on the Obama bandwagon, because they're clearly overlooking his lack of experience. If they're so interested in "making history" [by electing the first "black" president--and keep in mind
that he's only half black, but for some reason everybody seems to be forgetting that], what they ought to do is support Hillary. After all, it really would be history-making for the United States to elect a female president! Instead, though, they're putting their support behind a half-black, inexperienced man, and we really don't get it.

Experience matters: Clinton 2008

We know a lot of people are taken in by Barack Obama, and while we LIKE him just fine, we don't think he's ready to be President of the United States. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, IS ready, and will bring with her 30+ years of experience that will help turn this country around again. Besides, doesn't it take a Clinton to clean up the mess made by a Bush?