As you may have guessed, this is another article about the Clinton family. It is probably also the only time you will see me agree to anything published in The Nation. Giving credit where credit is due, the Nation has some rather controversial coverage of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign. True, it wouldn’t be a Clinton story without controversy, but I thought this coverage was surprising. Turns out, I was wrong.

When one reads The Nation, the expectation is plenty of liberal talking points and a veritable cornucopia of Clinton love. The Nation’s website is currently adorned with ads for leftwing books and causes. If you want liberal propaganda, the Nation is some of the best on the web. That’s why I was shocked by a negative Clinton article. After I read the article on Hillary’s campaign planting questions in town hall meetings, I looked for further information on the Nation’s website. I expected more Clinton love. I found it, as long as the Clinton we are speaking of is Bill. It seems there is no love for Hillary at the Nation…

Headlines such as “Clinton Under Fire for Planting Fake Questions” and “Hillary's Mystery Money Men” have been staples within the pages of the Nation recently? Why would one of the United States oldest most well respected publications turn on the Democratic Party’s holy family? It’s simple, really. It’s a lack of faith. I don’t think that the editorial staff of the Nation believes that she can win.

The liberal media is jumping off the Clinton bandwagon like rats deserting a sinking ship. The Nation is not alone in this. Major papers are lining up behind a ridiculously inexperienced Barrack Obama, and failed candidate John Edwards. Neither of these men would be a credible candidate if the left wasn’t in such a hysterical Bush hating tizzy. Campaign ’08 is a little different, though. It’s not driven by success. Edwards hasn’t been successful, and Obama hasn’t been around enough to be either a success or failure. Hillary’s candidacy is based on someone else’s checkered past. Amongst the front-runners, there is nary a success in site. However, they do have something in common.

The commonality is an inflated sense of political accomplishment, and a willingness to be deceitful about it. Hillary was elected to hold office somewhere that she had never lived. She was elected based on her husband’s name. John Edwards? Well, he lost a presidential nomination, then went on to lose as a Vice Presidential candidate. That’s a record of accomplishment that I like to see for Democratic Party candidates, but I doubt it’s one that party leaders are excited about. Obama? He has spent most of his months in the Senate running for President. A presidential campaign doesn’t leave a whole lot of time to actually accomplish anything.

The deceit I mention comes in packages both small and large. Lack of accomplishment is the large deceit that ties our unholy troika together. The smaller deceptions are starting to pile up as the campaign season continues. John Edwards has always been deceitful in that he “exaggerates” about his poor upbringing. His middle class youth is well documented, elsewhere. He talks of “Two Americas”, even as he is moving in to one of the largest homes ever built in North Carolina.

Obama’s deceit is in the fact that he believes he is qualified to be President. Well educated and smart, yes. Experience in running a large government? None. He is an illusion of a candidate. He offers liberals a false hope of November success, all the while his candidacy hides his dirty little secret- that there is no there, there. If he were a city, he would be Houston. If he were an actress he’d be Paris Hilton. If he were an author he would be, well he would be Barrack Obama. He has no substance, and he will prove to be a political lightweight by the end of the campaign.

Hillary is the more interesting, at least. Whether she is lying about investments, or failing the bar exam, at least she thinks big. What is her latest controversy? Her campaign is feeding answers to “random” audience members at her speeches. And, of course there is “waitressgate”. The waitress is still sticking by her story, while Hillary’s campaign staff insists that they paid the restaurant and tipped the server. The list goes on for Hillary. There is her Flip-flopping on the war. Her failed Investments at Whitewater and in cattle are legendary. Her insistence on hiring of Craig Livingstone to head Whitehouse security is, frankly, confusing. All of these bore Hillary’s fingerprints, and resulted in scandals. All resulted in multiple deceptions against the American people.

Deception is old news in politics, though never has one party ever been so adapt at it. The Democrats have raised deception to a new art form. As, it spreads from candidate to candidate like a malevolent virus, it is this deception that will destroy their hopes in the ’08 election cycle. The Democrats will continue running their family business as normal. Deception is the name of the game, and it is a game that they play better than anyone. They will continue to lie about who shoulders the burden of taxation, and who benefited from tax cuts. They will lie about the war. They will smear our candidates.

Today, I covered deceit in the Democratic Party. I’m not blind, I saw what deceit did to the Republican Party. Tomorrow, I’ll write about how deception brought down the Republicans in ’06, and how honesty will lead to the rebirth of the conservative movement in ‘08. It will be a rebirth that may well reside within the spirit of an unlikely candidate...