Media aglow with Hilary's speech

I think I just threw up in my mouth.

While I knew the Mainstream Media is corrupt and reprehensibly liberal, they never cease to amaze me at the lengths they'll travel to fellate our Democratic civil servants.

Have you seen this article, courtesy of US News and World Report? It consists of a MSM coverage roundup of Hillary Clinton's speech last night at the Democratic National Convention. Note the following:

Hillary Clinton last night addressed the Democratic delegates gathered in Denver, and urged them to back her former rival Barack Obama. The speech, and Clinton's delivery of it, are receiving extremely positive reviews in today's newspapers. On its front page, the Los Angeles Times reports Clinton accepted "defeat with grace and generosity," and "moved to close the divide among fellow Democrats on Tuesday night by offering a forceful and unequivocal endorsement of her fierce rival." The New York Times reports Clinton "deferred her own dreams on Tuesday night and delivered an emphatic plea at the Democratic National Convention to unite behind her rival, Senator Barack Obama, no matter what ill will lingers." The New York senator "betrayed none of the anger and disappointment that she still feels and that, friends say, has especially haunted her husband." The Washington Times refers to a "rousing speech" that laid "rest to a bitter primary battle that left many of her supporters -- especially women -- seething months later." The AP reports "the speech was as much of an attack "on Sen. John McCain "as it was an embrace of Obama." The Washington Post reports Clinton said, "You haven't worked so hard over the last 18 months, or endured the last eight years, to suffer through more failed leadership. No way. No how. No McCain. Barack Obama is my candidate. And he must be our president."

The Rocky Mountain News says Clinton "did her best to put the hard feelings to rest." While the Denver Post headlines its story "Clinton: The Team Player," and notes that "Michael Barone, a conservative commentator, was nearly as lavish in his praise: 'If you read through the text, it's unimpeachable -- I guess I shouldn't use that term. It makes a logical case for people supporting Obama for the reasons they supported Hillary Clinton, in a rather artful way.'"

On ABC World News, which aired prior to the speech, ABC's chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos contended that Sen. Clinton "genuinely believes that if John McCain wins it will be bad for the country. She knows that. She wants Barack Obama to win, whatever disappointment she feels. Whatever anger she feels about Barack Obama. And that's real, too."

Has anyone else excused themselves to vomit?

Star Tribune: Iraq War still matters to Democrats

We're likely to hear the same defeatist rhetoric from Washington insider and Democratic Vice Presidential candidate, Joe Biden at the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

You've heard the familiar lamentation from the Left: we need to get out of Iraq, this was an illegal war, Bush is worse than Hitler/Saddam/Stalin, etc, and he should be prosecuted for war crimes.

Yawn.

According to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Iraq still matters to delegates. If this story exposes anything, it epitomizes misplaced priorities in the Liberal agenda:

Universal health care, alternative energy, surrender from Iraq.

Furthermore, it demonstrates how inexplicably naive and misinformed the Left is.

"Minnesota delegate Miguel Lindgren, of Roseville, said he is worried that Iraq is taking a back seat to the convention's focus on domestic issues.

'I haven't heard much, and it concerns me," Lindgren said. 'Obviously, we're getting lost in the hype and the hoopla in the convention talking about issues at home finally, but we need to readdress the war.'"

Of course it is, you nincompoop. The war is going well, despite every effort from your corrupt liberal mainstream media to paint it as the second coming of Vietnam. Even your beloved Messiah, Democratic presidential candidate Barry Hussein Obama is having a difficult time portraying Iraq as a failure.

There ARE more pressing issues our future president needs to address, primarily a sinking dollar, sluggish economy, insane gas prices, etc.

"And one of the more forceful comments about Iraq at the convention came from Sen. Edward Kennedy on Monday night. 'Barack Obama will be a commander in chief who understands that young Americans in uniform must never be committed to a mistake, but always to a mission worthy of their bravery,' Kennedy told the crowd."

What a disengenous boob. You and your Leftist ilk (namely Bill Clinton and Al Gore) were clamoring for the dismissal of Saddam Hussein in the 1990's while maintaining that the Iraqi despot was feverishly working on a WMD program consisting of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Even your new VP candidate had strong words about Saddam earlier this decade (thank you Gateway.com):

Here is the transcript of Joe "Glowstick" Biden speaking about Saddam's WMD.
Joe Biden on Meet the Press on Sunday April 29, 2007:

MR. RUSSERT: I want to go back to 2002, because it’s important as to what people were saying then and what the American people were hearing. Here’s Joe Biden about Saddam Hussein: “He’s a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security.”

“We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world.”

“He must be dislodged from his weapons or dislodged from power.” You were emphatic about that.

SEN. BIDEN: That’s right, and I was correct about that. He must be, in fact—and remember the weapons we were talking about. I also said on your show, that’s part of what I said, but not all of what I meant. What I also said on your show at the time was that I did not think he had weaponized his material, but he did have. When, when the inspectors left after Saddam kicked them out, there was a cataloguing at the United Nations saying he had X tons of, X amount of, and they listed the various materials he had. The big issue, remember, on this show we talked about, was whether he had weaponized them. Remember you asked me about those flights that were taking place in southern Iraq, where—were they spraying anthrax? And, you know, what would happen? And, you know, so on and so forth. And I pointed out to you that they had not developed that capacity at all. But he did have these stockpiles everywhere.

MR. RUSSERT: Where are they?

SEN. BIDEN: Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them.

The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued—they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued. They looked at them and catalogued. What he did with them, who knows? The real mystery is, if he, if he didn’t have any of them left, why didn’t he say so? Well, a lot of people say if he had said that, he would’ve, you know, emboldened Iran and so on and so forth.

But does it really surprise anyone that the Left refuses to address incriminations from its dear beloved Democratic leaders when THEY admonish the world for failing to act against a ruthless tyrant? No, only when it comes from a Republican.

Typical.