Over at the American Thinker, Steven M. Warshawsky puts out a good piece on who Hillary Clinton is.

In the spring of 1993, shortly after her husband and political benefactor Bill Clinton took office as the nation's 42nd president, Hillary Clinton delivered the commencement address at the University of Texas. In her speech, Hillary reiterated the theme that has been at the heart of her political vision from the start:

"We are at a stage in history in which remolding society is one of the great challenges facing all of us in the West."

"Remolding society." This is the terminology of a utopian socialist, one who seeks to remake society according to a narrow and dogmatic ideology that claims to eliminate injustice, poverty, and unhappiness, once and for all. Hillary's ideology is an amalgam of New Left marxism and grievance feminism, the kind of unwholesome stew that is commonplace on elite college campuses.

Significantly, the term "remolding" -- unlike such terms as "reform" or "renew" -- reflects a sweeping rejection of society as it currently exists: family structure (too patriarchal), economic organization (favors the rich), social practices (discriminate against women and minorities), and so on. In other words, someone who believes that society needs to be "remolded" is someone who, at bottom, cannot see any good in the American way of life -- and someone who, if she could, would radically change that way of life. Who doubts that this describes Hillary Clinton?

Lest anyone think that a more mature and experienced Hillary Clinton has tempered her political objective, consider her recent speech in Concord, New Hampshire, at an event over Labor Day weekend that her campaign titled "Change We Need." In her speech, Hillary forthrightly declared: "I will bring my experience to the White House and begin to change our country starting on Day One." That's right: Change our country. As her official campaign website illustrates, Hillary means what she says.

Hillary is dangerous because she knows what she wants to do and how to go about doing it. She shares many of the beliefs that groups like MoveOn.org and Daily Kos do. But unlike them, she is smart enough to temper her message to hide her extremism.

Warshawsky goes on to highlight her effects on a few important issues. To read the rest of his article, click here.

Abc News reported yesterday that an upcoming Hillary Fundraiser is causing some controversy.

Just days after the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, Hillary Clinton and several Democratic lawmakers will be getting uncomfortably cozy with moneyed interests who have stood to reap billions in post-9/11 homeland security spending, watchdog groups say.

On the sixth anniversary of the attacks which killed nearly 3,000 people, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is slated to attend a sober memorial service near Manhattan's Ground Zero.

One week later, the junior New York senator is scheduled to speak at a homeland security-themed, $1,000-a-plate fundraiser for her campaign in the downtown Washington, D.C. offices of a powerful legal firm.

"Being a week after 9/11, it appears unseemly and politically opportunistic," said Steve Ellis, a former Coast Guard officer who is now vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington, D.C. good government group.

Clinton's fundraising audience is expected to include many of the government contractors and lobbyists whose fortunes have soared in the years since the attacks, which triggered a massive government reorganization and billions in new government spending.

But that's not the only objectionable feature of the event, critics say.

For the price of a ticket -- from a $1,000 personal donation to a $25,000 bundle –- attendees will get a special treat after the luncheon: an opportunity to participate in small, hour-long "breakout sessions" hosted by key Democratic lawmakers, many of whom chair important subcommittees on the Homeland Security committee.

Click Here for Full Blotter Coverage.

"It's an outrage," said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Washington, D.C. good-government group Project on Government Oversight.

"You never want to see lawmakers trading on their national security credentials...to people making large donations," Ellis concurred.

The break-out sessions include:

First Responders, with Reps. Henry Cuellar, Texas (chair, Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response Subcommittee of Homeland Security Committee) and Nita Lowey, N.Y. (Appropriations, Homeland Security Committee)

Intelligence and Information Sharing, with Reps. Jane Harman, Calif. (chair, Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment Subcommittee of Homeland Security Committee) and C. A. "Dutch" Ruppersburger, Md. (chair, Technical and Tactical Intelligence Subcommittee of intelligence committee)

Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism, with Reps. Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas (chair, Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection Subcommittee of Homeland Security Committee) and Jerrold Nadler, N.Y. (Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; Judiciary Committee)

Science and Technology, with Reps. Jim Langevin, R.I. (chair, Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, Science and Technology Subcommittee of Homeland Security Committee; intelligence committee) and Ellen Tauscher, Calif. (chair, Strategic Forces Subcommittee of Armed Services Committee)

National Security, with Reps. Kendrick Meek, Fla. (Armed Services Committee) and Joseph Sestak, Pa. (Armed Services Committee)

"Political fundraising should have no relationship to policy recommendations," said Brian, a former policy analyst for Congress. "Most of these [participants] are seasoned policymakers. How can they not see this as wrong?" It only made things worse, she said, that the event was centered around so sensitive and vital a topic as homeland security.

Some sites on the left, like this one for Barack N0-Bama, are taking Hillary to task.

It looks like Team Hillary can't stand the smell.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign said Monday it will return $850,000 in donations raised by Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu, who is under federal investigation for allegedly violating election laws.

Clinton, D-N.Y., previously had planned only to give to charity $23,000 she received from Hsu for her presidential and senatorial campaigns and to her political action committee, HillPac.

The FBI is investigating whether Hsu paid so-called straw donors to send campaign contributions to Clinton and other candidates, a law enforcement official said Monday.

"In light of recent events and allegations that Mr. Norman Hsu engaged in an illegal investment scheme, we have decided out of an abundance of caution to return the money he raised for our campaign," Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said in a statement Monday night. "An estimated 260 donors this week will receive refunds totaling approximately $850,000 from the campaign."

Wolfson said the Clinton campaign also will vigorously review its fundraisers, including thorough criminal background checks, in the future. "In any instances where a source of a bundler's income is in question, the campaign will take affirmative steps to verify its origin," he said.

Don't go holding your breath on that. This is the Clinton's, it's always best to hold your nose instead.

I'm Hillary Clinton, and I approve of this message. Well, this is what I expected to hear after seeing this from ABC's George Stephanopoulos.

On Tuesday’s "Good Morning America," George Stephanopoulos showcased a "quirky" poll indicating that Americans would like Hillary Clinton next to them for a multi-hour, cross country drive. Additionally, according to anchor Diane Sawyer, the poll also found a majority of citizens would choose the New York senator to run the company that employs them. Stephanopoulos, host of "This Week" and former top aide to Bill Clinton, spun the good news for Hillary as getting "at what people are looking for in a president."

The two ABC anchors also discussed Senator Clinton’s attempts to increase her likability ratings. Stephanopoulos repeated a talking point by parroting the former First Lady’s claim to be "the most famous person in the world that people don't know." Then, he helpfully played clips of Mrs. Clinton demonstrating warmth and humor on such venues as "The Late Show" and Ellen Degeneres’s program." Finally, what little time was left for the Republicans was spent bashing former Senator Fred Thompson for "fritter[ing]" the summer away and not exciting crowds.

Discussing the ABC poll results, Sawyer noted that, by a 48 to 45 percent split, respondents would prefer Clinton for a cross country trip. On the subject of running their company, the New York Senator came out on top again. The GMA anchor reported, "It would be 45 percent for Hillary Clinton, against Giuliani. 45 percent to 42 percent." (Apparently Americans would prefer a company where the billing records just disappear.)

LOL! That last billing records line has to crack you up. ;)

Of course, what do we expect from a former Clinton hack like Stephanopoulos?  read more »

Sweeping through Iowa today, Hillary had this to say about the fears of some Democrats who believe that she is unelectable.

With her husband former President Bill Clinton at her side, the New York senator and former first lady said her experience trumps her rivals’ and can overcome concerns about her electability.

“I want to say, let’s look at the person. Let’s look at the person’s qualifications, experiences, ideas and vision for the future,” Sen. Clinton told more than 500 Democratic activists at a Sioux City labor picnic at a park along the Missouri River.
Sen. Clinton was making her second campaign trip with her husband in Iowa, the state scheduled to host the leadoff presidential nominating caucuses next year.

The former president stressed in introducing the senator that Democrats must choose whom they feel is best experienced in order to bring about change in the nation’s economic, foreign policy and national security policies.

“The decision the Democrats have to make is who the best person is to lead that change,” the ex-president said.

What change? We started with a Bush, then came a Clinton, then another Bush, and now they want voters to "vote for change" by electing another Clinton? LOL

I know that what I just said was simplistic, but I have a feeling that will be in the back of people's minds come election time.

It just makes me laugh when I hear the Clinton's touting change. :)