...and that is why she is unelectable.

It is an easy and effective thing to demonize and make her lose if
she is the Democratic standard bearer in 2008.

So Iowa.... are you going to kill the Republic again and nominate
her...like you did Kerry over Howard Dean?

Are you monied fools going to continue to fund her campaign at the
expense of the Republic?

Wake up! Hillary is more than a risky candidate for president.

Arianna is not mesmerized...she sees the forest...........

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/her-way-hillary_b_49733.html

Arianna Huffington
Her Way: Hillary's Iraq Problem and Why It's Not Going Away
Posted May 28, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That little game of political chicken Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton
played during the Senate vote on the Iraq spending bill Thursday night
would not have surprised you if you had read Her Way, the new book by
New York Times investigative reporters Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta,
Jr. which I've just finished.

Neither Clinton nor Obama were on the Senate floor when the voting
began. Sources tell me that Obama was holding off to see if Hillary
would go first. When it was clear she wouldn't, and time was running
out on the vote, he headed into the chamber and voted no. Less than a
minute later, Clinton barreled in and did the same.

It was yet another example of her instinct for "followership." Anyone
willing to bet that if Obama had voted yes, Hillary would still have
voted no?

The idea that Clinton is all tactics and calculation -- and would
rather stick her finger in the air to see which way the political wind
is blowing than actually take the lead on something -- is
painstakingly documented in Her Way. Forget the stuff about Monica,
Gennifer Flowers, Vince Foster, Hillary's record as a lawyer, or the
Clintons' 20-year plan for both of them to become president. The money
chapters are the ones on Iraq. When it comes to Hillary's
shape-shifting stances, explanations, and votes on the war, Gerth and
Van Natta offer a definitive and chilling portrait of a politician
solely driven by political expedience -- even when it comes to life
and death matters such as Iraq.

It's a portrait that will likely prove to be an anvil around her neck
throughout the 2008 campaign, unless she can somehow transform herself
from political weather vane to political leader.

Reading Her Way doesn't leave one optimistic that this will happen any
time soon. Clinton's serial manipulations, prevarications,
rationalizations, and calculations on the war are laid out chapter and
verse. Literally. Starting with her vote authorizing President Bush to
use military force against Iraq.

On the campaign trail, Clinton has said again and again that she cast
her vote based on the best available intelligence. But Gerth and Van
Natta show that, according to all evidence, Hillary did not actually
read the "best available intelligence" on the war before the invasion
-- the full, 90-page classified version of the National Intelligence
Estimate -- even though Sen. Bob Graham, then chairman of the
Intelligence Committee, had, according to the book, "implored his
colleagues to do so before casting such a monumental vote." (After
reading the full report, Graham voted against the war.)

What's more, "Hillary still had no one on her staff with the security
clearances needed to read the NIE." So what, exactly did she base her
decision on -- briefings provided by the administration? Gerth and Van
Natta sum it up this way: "If she did not bother to read the complete
intelligence reports, then she did not do enough homework on the
decision that she has called the most important of her life." This is
particularly shocking given Hillary's obsession -- well-documented in
the book -- with being "always well-prepared." Her Way quotes a senate
advisor saying, "In her downtime she inhales information and enjoys
it."

Perhaps if she had read the NIE she might not have been so fast to buy
into the Bush/Cheney talking point linking Saddam Hussein and Al
Qaeda. But buy into it she did, taking to the Senate floor before the
war authorization vote to accuse Saddam of giving "aid, comfort, and
sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members." Gerth and Van
Natta note that when it came to making the Iraq-9/11 connection,
Hillary even out-hawked Joe Lieberman, who "tempered his words on the
Senate floor about the connection by noting that the 'relationship
between Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime is a subject of intense debate
within the intelligence community.'"

In an effort to justify her initial support of the war, Hillary has
repeatedly insisted that her vote to authorize Bush to use force was
actually a vote for diplomacy, that she didn't really believe we would
go to war, and that the president misused that authority by giving
short shrift to additional diplomatic methods. The authors turn a fan
on this smokescreen and show that this claim is contradicted by
Hillary's own voting record, pointing out that right before she cast
her yes vote on the use of force, she voted against an amendment put
forth by Carl Levin that would have required the president to actively
pursue diplomacy before going to war. According to Her Way, if Hillary
had voted yes on Levin's amendment, "she subsequently could have far
more easily argued that she had worked toward a multilateral
diplomatic approach. Instead of voting for Bush to pursue more
diplomacy, she voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq."
What's your spin on that one, Howard Wolfson?

Her Way documents that the triangulation and shiftiness only increased
once Hillary saw that the public tide was turning against the war. The
book reveals how in June 2006, Clinton, having just been booed at the
Take Back America Conference for declaring that she didn't think it
was "a smart strategy to set a date certain" for withdrawal from Iraq,
strong-armed Harry Reid into letting her become a last minute
co-sponsor of a Democratic plan for phased withdrawal, even though
Reid had said he wasn't going to politicize the legislation by
allowing presidential hopefuls to join as co-sponsors.

And the book details how Hillary again tried to have it both ways in
January 2007 by introducing legislation to cap existing troop levels
which also contained giant loopholes that would allow the president to
continue the war at whatever troop levels he chose. These poison-pill
qualifiers seriously undercut the anti-war message she was now trying
to put forth -- which is no doubt why they were not mentioned in the
press release she issued about the bill or in her speeches.

The authors also show how Hillary inflated her newly-anti war stance
earlier this month when she announced her intention to file
legislation to "deauthorize the war." She claimed that those doubting
her anti-war bona fides should look back to the fact that in 2002, the
day before she voted for the war authorization, she had voted for an
amendment that would have limited the war to one year. But she once
again conveniently left out a crucial fact: that the amendment
contained a loophole that allowed the president to continue the war
indefinitely.

Here is the devastating verdict on this spin from Her Way: "Hillary
had been against the war before she was for it -- before she was
against it all over again."

For anyone who has not given up on facts, Her Way shows unequivocally
that from her journey from one of 77 senators to vote for the war to
one of 14 to vote against the latest round of war funding, Hillary
Clinton has taken just about every position on Iraq possible, save
one: out in front. For her, it's been one long and ultimately very
deadly round of follow the leader.

Indeed, the book -- which examines Hillary's entire Senate career --
leaves the reader wondering when was the last time Hillary took the
lead on anything. This may not be a problem if you are one of 100
senators but it is a major problem if you are the leader of the free
world.

It's no wonder that Hillary Clinton did her best to quash the book by
forbidding her friends and colleagues -- including Chuck Schumer and
Harry Reid -- to speak with the authors. Nevertheless, more than 500
people spoke to them and the result -- annotated with 1,600 footnotes
-- prompted a feverish Memorial Day weekend attempt by Wolfson et al
to spin the truth as old news ("Is it possible to be quoted yawning?"
said Clinton spokesperson Philippe Reines of the book).

This desperate dismissal is going to be believed only by those who
don't read the book