The tactics of the Clinton campaign are so transparent and ridiculous that I simply can't fathom how a non-retarded adult could be taken in by their bullsh*t.

So, I am faced with a dilemma. Do I simply conclude that a large part of the Democratic Party is too stupid to be appealed to on the basis of logic and reason and that the only possible approach is the one being utilized by the Clinton campaign – ie: lowest-common-denominator pandering to the basest human instincts – or is there still a chance that a candidate with integrity might have a chance to be chosen as our national leader?

Over the last few weeks, Clinton spokesperson Howard Wolfson has emerged as the crown-prince of bullsh*t. Any sane person would conclude that this man is not only not worth listening to, but should in fact be locked up for his own well-being as well as that of society. He has uttered so many ridiculous arguments that its hard to know where to start in refuting this half-wit.

A couple weeks ago it was the bogus plagiarism charge, and today it's his likening of Barack Obama to Kenneth Starr. Interestingly, there is a pattern that is starting to emerge in the blather emanating from this idiot's pie-hole.

When attempting to make an issue of Obama's use of words similar to those of his friend Deval Patrick, Wolfson made the following absurd syllogism. He said that, since:

A) Obama's candidacy is based primarily on his speech-making abilities, and

B) Obama had borrowed a couple of words from someone else, therefore

C) The premise of Obama's candidacy had been called into question.

Anyone with a junior-high-school education should be able to spot the glaring logical flaw in this argument. The flaw is in the first premise – ie: that Obama's candidacy is based on his speech-making skills. Who ever said that this was true? Obama never said so. Nobody from his campaign did.

No, the only people making such a ridiculous argument are the bought-and-paid-for stooges of the Clinton campaign. So, now, based on a completely unjustified premise, Wolfson goes on to argue that the whole premise of the Obama candidacy is called into question by the fact that he borrowed a couple of words. If this argument is appealing to you, I recommend that you go back to kindergarten and start your education from the beginning again, because it clearly didn't work the first time.

So, today Wolfson used exactly the same logical chicanery to liken Obama to Special Prosecutor Ken Starr. In response to the Obama campaign's strategy of turning up the heat on criticisms of Hillary (which, to date, have been much more mild than they should be), Wolfson made the following argument:

A) Ken Starr was the personification of anti-Clinton attacks during the '90s.

B) Obama has indicated an intention to step up his criticisms of Clinton, therefore

C) Obama is imitating Ken Starr and should be shunned by Democratic voters.

Wolfson summed up his argument by saying, "I for one do not believe that imitating Ken Starr is the way to win a Democratic primary election for president. But perhaps that theory will be tested."

Once again, this jackass is using the tactic of attributing a false premise to Obama and then condemning him on the basis of the false premise. And, once again, I fail to see how any functional adult could possibly be swayed by such nonsense.

So, I will reiterate my challenge to Hillary supporters. I don't want to believe that nearly half of the Democratic membership is retarded, but so far the evidence seems to be supporting this conclusion. So, can anyone out there who is a Hillary supporter explain to me how they can possibly overlook the fraudulent and deceitful tactics of her campaign and conclude that hers is a candidacy worth supporting? And can anyone explain to me how you can willingly overlook the fact that she is complicit in the unjustified deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people? I anxiously await your replies…