McGovern. Dukakis. Kerry. Obama...

It's looking more and more inevitable that the Democratic National Committee--who has been SHOVING Obama down our throats for months now--will get its way and have [the grossly unqualified] Barack Hussein Obama on the ticket against John McCain in November. And, if it does work out that way, you know what we can expect? Another in a long line of Democratic candidates who FAILED to get elected, and we'll have the DNC (and the ultra-biased [in Obama's favor] media) to blame.

Looking for anti-Obama merchandise? Shop our anti-Obama and/or pro-Hillary merchandise
If you're too young to remember, or just need/want to be reminded, let's review a little recent Democratic party history.

In 1972, our nominee was George McGovern (a man I admittedly volunteered for, although I was too young to vote)...and he lost to Richard Nixon in an OVERWHELMING landslide. (49 states went to Nixon, 1 to McGovern.) So McGovern = LOSER.

In 1988, our nominee was Michael Dukakis, who will forever be remembered for a couple of embarrassing issues, one his doing and the other at the hands of the Republicans. His own faux pas occurred when he (or someone in his camp) had the brilliant idea of putting him in a Challenger tank for a photo op. Unfortunately, this plan backfired, as he came out looking foolish instead of "commander-in-chief"-ish. That would've been bad enough, but once the Republicans took Dukakis to task in the "Willie Horton" issue, it was a lost cause. William Horton was a convicted murderer who was released from prison as a result of a prison furlough program Dukakis supported. Once out of prison, Horton committed a rape and assault, and after this came to light the Republicans grabbed it and wouldn't let go. Dukakis lost to George HW Bush. Dukakis = LOSER.

Last time around, in 2000, our nominee was John Kerry. Although I wasn't crazy about him, I dutifully supported him since ANYONE would be better than George W Bush! Well, the Republicans "swift boated" Kerry and his presidential aspirations ended, too. Kerry = LOSER.

Now what do all of these losers have in common with Obama? They've all endorsed him. Enough said!

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.