Elect Obama and we Deserve what we Get

Obama is bringing in a lot of people into the electorate who were not here before. He is also motivating some who have only voted not and again, but not regularly.

However, these are people who think, big business is bad—especially the oil companies and Wal-Mart. They think that not only is big government good, but that big government can solve all of our problems. These people believe that, as soon as we bring back our troops from Iraq, there will be such a surplus of money that Obama will be able to make everything better with all of that money.

Oh, and Obama will tax the evil rich, because they need to pay their fair share (and to a liberal, a rich person’s fair share is an oppressive percentage that would break any middle class wage earner).

And when our taxes go higher—especially for all of those evil companies who make too much money—then Obama will just pass laws to keep them in the country, almost effectively nationalizing whatever industries he attacks, he’ll need more money; so the middle class is going to see tax increases which are going to be oppressive.

It boils down to this: medical care is not free and it is not cheap. You cannot give everyone a free ride or a reduced ride. Government can do some things in this realm, but to in effect nationalize the medical industry is going to destroy it.

It boils down to this: you cannot over-tax the rich and the successful and expect them to continue to be rich and successful. Some people work for money, and their striving for money is what makes jobs for other people. Jobs are key to the middle class, not government benefits.

Let me give you the simplest example in the world: social security. This is a government program for lower and middle classes. Do you know anyone who lives comfortably on social security? Do you know anyone who has worked for 40 or 50 years, retires, and trusts the government to give them enough money to get by on? Social security does not even provide the basics. Furthermore, social security is going broke. Social security funds have been raided and used by politicians throughout the years to buy votes (i.e., used to give people benefits who never paid into social security).

Social security should be an outstanding example as to why government involvement in health care and provision of health care will not work.

People think, they can take a little more money from the rich and they will get a free lunch. In this case, free or reduced health care.

Personally, I’d rather walk down my street, find someone else who has a nicer house than mine, and ask him for money every few weeks. That is a lot less dishonest than having the government do that for us.

If we, as a nation, have come to the point where we believe that government should take care of us in this way, we deserve what we get, which is going to be taxation like we have never seen before and a substandard health care system. If we vote for this, then we deserve it.

Global Warming and Biofuels

George Will wrote an incredible column about biofuels in this week’s Newsweek. It is foolish to act in haste when it comes to governmental policies, as he points out, and to enact energy policies which are essentially stupid. Some quotes from this outstanding article:

ANWR's 10.4 billion barrels of oil have become hostage to the planet's saviors (e.g., John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama), who block drilling in even a tiny patch of ANWR. You could fit Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Delaware into ANWR's frozen desolation; the "footprint" of the drilling operation would be one sixth the size of Washington's Dulles airport.

[Senator] Clinton has an alternative to drilling: Oil should be released from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve-which exists to protect the nation against major interruptions of supply-as "a signal to the market." A signal of what? Readiness to release more? All 698 million barrels? Then what?

Americans can still drill for . water. Water rights are becoming more valuable as ethanol production, which is extremely water-intensive, puts pressure on supplies.

To avoid drilling for oil in ANWR's moonscape, the planet savers evidently prefer destroying forests, even though they absorb greenhouse gases. Will ethanol prevent more carbon-dioxide emissions than would have been absorbed by the trees cut down to clear land for the production of crops for ethanol? Be that as it may, governments mandating the use of biofuels are one reason for the global rise in food prices, which is driving demand for more arable land. That demand is driving the destruction of forests-and animal habitats. In Indonesia alone, 44 million acres have been razed to make way for production of palm oil.

The environmental argument for ethanol and other biofuels is, to say no more, rickety. The economic argument is refuted by the need to mandate and subsidize the fuels. The argument that biofuels are important for reducing our energy dependence on unreliable or dangerous Middle Eastern nations (the two largest sources of U.S. oil imports are turbulent Canada and militant Mexico) is mocked by the 54-cents-a-gallon tariff penalizing Brazilian ethanol. The theory behind that tariff is as old as American history. It is that "infant industries"-in this case, the ethanol industry that the government has ordered into existence-require protection. But protection permanently infantilizes industries.

 Bill Clinton, by executive edict, declared 1.7 million acres of Utah to be a national monument. Under those acres are the largest known deposit-more than 60 billion tons-of low-sulfur, clean-burning coal. The second largest deposit, the value of which rose because of Clinton's action locking up an alternative supply, is in Indonesia and is owned by a member of the Indonesian Riady family, of fragrant memory, which was generous to Clinton's 1992 campaign.

James and Stephen Eaves, writing in Regulation quarterly, note that if the entire U.S. corn crop were turned into ethanol- it might have to be to meet the goal of 35 billion gallons of biofuels by 2017-it would displace 3.5 percent of gasoline use, just slightly more than would be displaced if drivers properly inflated their tires. And because the United States produces 40 percent of the world's corn supply and 70 percent of global corn exports, turning corn into fuel will damage the world's poor at a time when rising demand will require a tripling of world food production by 2050.

Could our approach to biofuels be more short-sighted and stupid?

The full text of this column can be found at:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/107575

Here is another article on this same topic with some of the data:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hOQLqH3pUlwjUEeWivsZy9LK1XEw

Should we imprison global warming deniers?

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=290513

Let me add something, which may surprise you: I don’t really care whether we drill in ANWR in the next decade or so, or not. I don’t care if we hold off on off-shore drilling either. Since most of our imported oil comes from Mexico and Canada, I am fine with that. If we never bought another quart of oil from Middle Eastern countries, very little would change, as there are abundant markets for their oil. But here’s my point: why not just sit on this oil for a few decades? We’ve got it, and, at some point in time, we may need it. Our best proven approach to energy consumption, is nuclear power. Yes, this is the power that liberals have been against from the beginning; and, if their warnings of global warming are to be believed, then the fault for this is their fear of nuclear power (approximately 60% of the power we consume in the US is related to buildings that we live and work in).

Global Warming vs. Ice Age to Come

There are some scientists projecting cold times ahead—perhaps even a mini-ice age. When will liberals suggest that we hop into our SUV’s and drive around endlessly in order to put more carbon into the air and to warm things up?

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

Bush Invaded Iraq for Oil

Don’t be ridiculous (I know one person who tells me this over and over again). Again, think about this: if most of our oil comes from Canada and Mexico and if we have abundant energy reserves as well, we do not need to get all upset over the oil in Iraq. Do you think that Bush does not know where our oil comes from? Do you think that he is unaware that we have oil in ANWR and in the oceans off our coasts? If you are a liberal, you need to get over the slogans which you have been fed and actually think about the issues if you intend to vote, express your opinion, or forward lame, anti-Bush emails.

Bush’s Tax Cuts for the Rich

This is one of the many sayings which the left has gotten burned into the brains of its minions. However, since the institution of the Bush tax cuts for the rich, the rich are now paying a higher percentage of the taxes than they did before .

It is simple: when the more you tax productivity, the more you penalize and reduce productivity. Since the Reagan tax cuts, the United States has created some 40 million new jobs-more than all of Europe and Japan combined.

There is an outstanding article on this with excellent charts and graphs at:

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

Here’s the deal: 40% of Americans (it is somewhere between 33% and 44% depending upon how you figure it) pay no income tax (apart from social security) so any sort of a tax break will seem like tax breaks for the wealthy to them—you cannot give a tax break to people who have the ultimate tax break of paying no federal income tax.

Super Tuesday Fact:

Did you know the Obama won more states and more delegates than Hillary on Super Tuesday? It was close but it wasn’t a tie.

Hillary and the Newspaper Reporter

Senator Clinton was asked by a reporter, “Do your campaign workers get free health care?” Are you surprised that she dodged the question?

How Far Will She Go?

This is a point worth reiterating. In the previous week, the Clinton campaign made the decision to bring racism into the campaign in order to secure the presidency. Although this approach did not fail completely, it did hurt her campaign and affected her endorsements.

Pretty much everything wrong which Obama has ever done (apart from being the farthest left candidate remaining) is already out there, and not affecting his support. Therefore, Clinton Inc. has nothing to work with. How far will they go to win?

What is going to happen if Obama gets the higher popular vote (which I am certain that he will), and yet, enough of the so-called super-delegates vote for Clinton in order to put her over the top? Will she bring into play the two states the Democratic party held elections in, but punished by not counting them (she won these states). Almost every pundit says that this will not happen—that if Obama gets the popular vote, no way will Clinton receive the nomination—but I think they under-estimate the power of the Clinton’s.

Hewitt’s Seven Reasons:

Hugh Hewitt writes: There are seven reasons for anyone to support the eventual nominee no matter who it is: The war and six Supreme Court justices over the age of 68.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/b7d8fd20-1313-4229-a4a7-5325a3815908

Democratic Dishonest Rhetoric Re: Judges

Speaking of the courts, one of the arguments I have heard made by liberals is, activist judges are only so branded by conservatives; to a conservative, an activist judge is simply someone who agrees with liberals.

An activist judge is a judge who makes law from the bench. Such a judge determines that women have a privacy right to an abortion, which right the federal government must support by virtue of the constitution. Such a judge determines that gay marriages are legitimate.

These court decisions effectively make law and that is the problem which conservatives have with such judges. If a state wants to vote to have abortions on demand and even to fund these abortions with state money, that should be decided in an election. If a state decides that marriage should be redefined to include gays (and, apparently, not to include plural marriages, which are a lot more popular and have been around a lot longer), then that should be decided by election.

9 men and women should not have the ability to make such fundamental changes to the fabric of our society. Our society needs to make these choices.

Let’s say that the courts suddenly decided that, the fairness doctrine requires that all liberals must listen to Rush Limbaugh for at least 4 hours a week in order to get a more balanced perspective, conservatives—including Rush—would oppose such a judgment. Conservatives would oppose the courts making that sort of decision as well as legislation mandating such a thing.

Let me pick an example which is less goofy. The courts do not have the right to mandate a balanced budget and a reduction of federal spending. These would be things which many conservatives (and even some liberals) might support. However, it is not for the courts to step in and make these decisions, whether such decisions are meritorious or not; it is simply outside of their purview.

Judges have the most difficult balancing act of all: evaluating laws passed by the people or the legislature, and not striking these laws down simply because they don’t like them, even when they have the power to do so.

And what the courts should never do is fabricate laws and privileges where such things do not already exist.

Medved Calls Republicans Unpatriotic

One of the suggestions is, if McCain gets the nomination, for conservative Republicans to stay home and let Obama or Hillary win. The thinking is, it took a Jimmy Carter to give us 8 years of Reagan. Michael Medved said such conservatives are unpatriotic. Here is his reasoning:

Carter was one of the worst presidents that we have ever had. We had 20% inflation, which meant extremely high interest rates, 9% unemployment rates, long gas lines, and Iran became radicalized. As a realtor, I ran in dozens of people at this time who were financially wiped out when their mortgage loan adjusted to these unbelievable rates (today’s mortgage crisis is due more to Congress tinkering with quotas than it is with evil mortgage companies). I recall one family that I met who were living in a house that normally rents for about $500/month and they were paying over $1000/month for this house, because Carter let our economy get out of control. This was one president whose effect was felt all over the United States and very much by the middle class and the lower class.

Some conservatives are suggesting, stay home, let Obama win, and we can be guaranteed that he will screw up the economy and international relations. When he lets the Bush tax cuts expire and brings the troops home, we are going to undoubtedly face a recession and enemies who believe that they beat us in Iraq. Combine this with trying to put together some sort of governmental health care for everyone, add in the fact that Obama, although he is a smart and sincere guy, does not have a clue as to how to run anything, let alone the greatest nation in the world.

So, the idea is, let Obama win, we can expect that he will screw things up so badly as to give us a Republican presidency for another 8 to 12 years. Even the newspapers and news stations could not hide the fact that, under Carter, we were living in the worst conditions that we have ever lived under for decades. It was easy to attribute our misery to Carter and it will be easy to attribute our new misery to Obama.

Medved makes the point that this is clearly unpatriotic, because what sense does it make to favor America going through a real recession, along with all of the heart ache and pain that would cause? That is just wrong to favor such suffering over voting for McCain (even if we have to hold our noses as we do).

He makes a good point.

A Worthwhile Email Forward

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes,

it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59 [by the way, let me add that these are accurate proportions; not just a made up set of numbers].

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savin gs). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair

that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the

poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill,they discovered something important They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.

Professor of Economics

University of Georgia

Let me add, why do you think some US businesses have chosen to locate themselves elsewhere? It is because of our tax system which taxes and penalizes productivity and puts undue burdens on most businesses and corporations.

This has made its rounds as an email forward; I recognize it, so I know I have received it.

I got it from

http://forums.delphiforums.com/bdsg/messages

Errors and Omissions

Perhaps you have been waiting for this? I incorrectly said that the NY Times supported Obama (I used the phrase, if memory serves); only the LA Times did (I only mentioned those two papers). I also misspelled the name of Ronald Reagan (how embarrassing!). I regret the errors and have corrected them in the online versions of Conservative Review #10.

The Bible Column

One of the amazing things revealed in the Old Testament and taught in the New is the doctrine of the Trinity—that God exists in 3 persons, Who are identical in essence, but different in personality (for want of a better word) and function. This is a doctrine which no Jewish theologian would ever claim, and which writers of Old Testament Scripture never fully appreciated, yet is found in many places in the Old Testament. This is one of the great proofs of the Bible—that we find the Trinity in the Old Testament (a very odd concept for any man to dream up on his own) even though the writers of the Old Testament did not necessarily themselves realize that God is One in essence and 3 in person.

First of all, we should deal with the phrase “Listen, O Israel: Jehovah is our God [Elohim]; Jehovah is One.” (Deut. 6:4). God in this verse is plural (as it is throughout the Old Testament) and the word for one can mean one in essence, one in unity, things which are combined to have a similar course of action or who form together an undivided corporation. We find this usage in Gen. 2:24, when a husband and wife as said to become one flesh. Same word.

In Gen. 1:1, God (Elohim) is said to create the heavens and earth, but it is the Spirit of God Who participates in the restoration of the earth in Gen. 1:2, hovering over the surface of the waters [hovering is also a fascinating word, but for another study].

When God created man, He said, “Let Us make man in Our [shadow] image, according to Our image [pattern].” (Gen. 1:26a).

In Psalm 45:1–7, 17, we read: My heart overflows with a pleasing theme; I address my verses to the King; my tongue is like the pen of a ready scribe. You are the most handsome of the sons of men; grace is poured upon Your lips; therefore God has blessed You forever. Gird Your sword on Your thigh, O Mighty One, in Your splendor and majesty! In Your majesty ride out victoriously for the cause of truth and meekness and righteousness; let Your right hand teach You awesome deeds! Your arrows are sharp in the heart of the king's enemies; the peoples fall under You. Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness; You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness beyond Your companions...I will cause Your name to be remembered in all generations; therefore nations will praise You forever and ever. What King is the psalmist speaking of? The psalmist continues to speak to this King in the 2^nd person throughout the entire psalm, and then writes, Your throne, O God, is forever and ever? The writer of Hebrews tells us who this King is: But concerning the Son, He says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.” (Heb. 1:8). Who says this? God says this through His prophets (Heb. 1:1). Whom is God speaking about? His Son, Jesus Christ. And note how the psalmist differentiates between God and the King (God has blessed You forever), and yet calls the King, God (Your throne, O God, is forever). Since we understand the Trinity and since the writer of Hebrews understands the Trinity, this psalm makes perfect sense; apart from the concept of the Trinity, this psalm makes little sense.

One of the amazing quotations from the Old Testament is Isa. 48:16–17a: “Come near to Me; hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning. From its being, I was there; and now the Lord Jehovah, and His Spirit, has sent Me.” So says Jehovah, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel The person speaking is Jehovah, our Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel. He was there from the beginning and now the Lord Jehovah [God the Father] and His Spirit [God the Holy Spirit] have sent Him. Over and over again, in the New Testament, Jesus speaks of being sent by God the Father to do His bidding (Matt. 7:21 11:25–27 John 5:23), and we find our Lord guided or empowered by the Spirit of God mentioned on numerous occasions as well (Matt. 4:1 12:28 Luke 3:22 4:1). This is the same teaching as we find in this passage in Isaiah.

Daniel 7:13–14: I was looking in the night visions. And behold! One like the Son of Man came with the clouds of the heavens. And He came to the Ancient of Days. And they brought Him near before Him. And dominion was given to Him, and glory, and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. This would be a very difficult passage to understand, apart from God the Father giving dominion, power and judgment over the earth to God the Son (John 5:22 1Peter 5:11 Jude 1:25 Rev. 21:5–6).

FInally, we have the words of God the Father speaking about God the Son in Hosea 1:7: “I [God, speaking through Hosea] will have compassion on the house of Judah and I will deliver them by Jehovah their God.”

It is a fascinating thing to find bits and pieces of the Trinity scattered throughout the Old Testament, during a time when theologians and even the writers of Scripture did not grasp this concept.

Rush on McCain

For months, McCain has been presented as the most popular Republican candidate, and, simultaneously, there have been many stories about, “Is it time for Rudy (or Romney) to get out of the race?” The media would love to have Huckabee as a candidate, but they did not see that as reasonable; but McCain was possible, and, up until now, he was received a lot of favorable press.

Rush comments on this: "While Republican John McCain is urging his conservative critics to rally around his presidential campaign, there is a lot of water under that bridge. Here are the top-ten reasons some conservatives dislike [McCain]: 1. Campaign finance reform. ... 2. Immigration. ... 3. Tax cuts. ... 4. Gay marriage. ... 5. Stem cell research. ... 6. Global warming. ... 7. Gang of 14. 8. Kerry," and the vice presidential thing, "9. Works with Democrats. ... 10. Belligerence." Fine and dandy. Where was this before McCain got the nomination, or before he became the presumptive nominee? Prior to that, it was Limbaugh versus McCain. It wasn't even Romney versus McCain! Now that McCain's the presumptive nominee, the Drive-Bys, all of a sudden, start telling people what McCain's deficiencies are. This is the first step in the reporting of the record. Now here's Libby Quaid, again, in a different AP story. This is about all of McCain's missed votes! Now the AP is going into an attack mode on McCain. "Republican presidential front-runner John McCain has skipped more than half the Senate's votes in the past year, but he showed up Thursday to help pass a bill to stimulate the faltering economy," which, by the way... At CPAC yesterday, Senator McCain was going on and on and on about busting the budget. No more pork! No more earmarks! We're going to have the government smaller -- and then he shows up to vote for the stimulus package.

Now that McCain is the likely Republican nominee, we will now hear from the media how old he is, how angry he is, how many disagreements he has with strong conservatives. Now that he is the presumptive nominee, there will be very few pro-McCain stories.

These are examples of many stories to follow:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hqIRljRZvoE6xi6uIpLsxix6UejwD8UM1VV80

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hIURKMXJuODCvy1FgWjO3gaoigGQD8UM7OJ80

Prior to this, there was very little substantive information about McCain; now that it looks like he is the Republican nominee, the media will pour it on.

Rush: Clinton not low on Money

RUSH: I cannot believe that I let my guard down as easily as it happened. This incident just goes to show how easy it is to lose one's vigilance. As you know, the past two days we've been hearing sob stories from the Clinton campaign about how she's out of money, about how she had to borrow $5 million from either herself or her husband, how the staff is not being paid. None of it was true. Not one word of it is true. I mean, she might have borrowed $5 million, but she is not out of money by any stretch. Her staffers are being paid. We have two stories on this from ABC News. We were clearly lied to, and this is where the vigilance fell. It's the Clintons. We should have always suspected a lie. The whole thing was a ruse to gin up fundraising, because she is lagging behind Barack Obama. But she's not out of money. The whole thing was a flat-out lie from top to bottom.

So, as you know, if you were here from yesterday, I have listened carefully to what the Republican Party's strategy is for defeating Mrs. Clinton, and it is this. They are going to rely on the hatred and the loathing for Mrs. Clinton, the fear of Mrs. Clinton, to rally Republicans and conservatives to vote against her. Rather than offer genuine leadership from our own party, they're going to rely on your hatred, your disgust, your loathing, and your fear for Mrs. Clinton to rally you to the Republican side and Senator McCain just to keep her out of the White House. So I thought, being loyal to the party here to show that there are no hard feelings over anything, I was going to help that prospect along. I was going to do a fundraiser for Mrs. Clinton. I even came up with a slogan: "Keep Her In It So We Can Win It." We even have a little banner at RushLimbaugh.com that we were going to get printed up. I was thinking very seriously about actually doing this on the air here. I wasn't going to ask you people to send in a lot of money, just a buck or two. There's a lot of you out there. You could seriously help. But I'm canceling the fundraiser. It's no longer necessary. The whole thing was a lie. There will be no fundraiser for Mrs. Clinton. She's doing just fine. You're going to have to come up with your fear and loathing of her on your own. I'll be in there, but I doubt that you'll need much assistance on that.

I also predicted off air yesterday to my trusted and loyal staff here that members of the Drive-By Media would fall hook, line, and sinker for this and would report that I was so angry at McCain being the presumptive Republican nominee, so angry at having lost my mojo, so angry at being rejected by my own party, that I, in a fit of pique, in a fit of anger, would run out and publicly support Mrs. Clinton, and it happened. It happened in two places. Diane Sawyer and local CBS Channel 2 in New York. Now, Diane Sawyer, she's on the edge here of not getting it or getting it. But it could not have been more clear what this was about. In fact, I even said yesterday, Snerdley asked me, "Well, you endorsed Howard Dean." I said, "I'm not endorsing Hillary. I'm just thinking about raising money for her to help further the Republican strategery making sure she's the nominee, keep her in it so we can win it."

Here’s the Link:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4257358&page=1