In San Antonio, Democrats are "in", so imagine my surprise when I saw this storyabove the fold on the "Views" section! 

"Hillary Rodham Clinton is trying to sell herself as a reformer, a new broom that will sweep away the traditional Washington chicanery. Yet her response to a fund-raising scandal in her own shop is classic old-school politics, and her determination to run a fully privatized presidential race is the antithesis of reform.

Consider the case of Norman Hsu, the onetime fugitive and confessed crook who raised $850,000 for Clinton's campaign, and who now stands freshly accused of mail fraud, wire fraud, and violation of campaign finance laws. He was a "bundler," one of those many freelance players who tap people for donations, then bundle them for delivery to a money-hungry presidential candidate. He was an unusually notorious bundler, but, in the end, he was merely a symptom of a money race that has spun out of control.

When Clinton was asked about Hsu on NBC the other day, she said this: "Well, I'm very much in favor of public financing, which is the only way to really change a lot of the problems that we have in our campaign-finance system. . . . The real answer here is public financing, and I'm going to work very hard in my time in the Senate and then in the White House to try to get to a public-financing system . . . because that is the answer to all of these issues that have arisen."

In other words, Clinton insists that she is "very much in favor" of providing taxpayer money to the presidential candidates - in order to thwart the influence of private money, and foil the aspirations of the bundlers - and that she will "work very hard in my time in the Senate" to effectuate that kind of reform.

To which I say, "What a crock."

Now, I could not agree more.  The surprise comes from two facts; 1) This is the Philadelphia Enquirer, folks.  Not your typical "right wing" publication!  2)  A google search for what this guy Dick Polman writes does not un-earth a plethora of conservative beliefs.  Exactly the opposite is true.  So what is up with the left, and more particularly the usual drive-by media's covering for Shrillary's antics?  Does this mean they do not believe she can be elected? 

To hear her talk, she's the quintessential shoe-in for the next occupant of the Oval Office.  Her rhetoric runs continuously with statements such as "when I am in the White House" or "when I am president", etc.  As a long-time member of the New Age thinking, whole world group, she obviously believes in their anthem "As I think, I am" regardless of the origin of the phrase.   I'm sure that she discounts opinions such as this one, but the evidence may be piling up that she's not as much of a "shoe-in" as she thinks she is...from my computer to God's Eyes, Amen.