Jesus Tim, this story is on many different websites. Why link your story to that piece of sh!t Con site?

You’re welcome, Tim.
Now, how about the rest of her lies?

Shame on you Tim. Where are the stories about BHO’s rep telling Canada not to worry about what he says about NAFTA or the rep telling Iraq not to worry about troop withdrawls. Hypocrite!!

(Jed Clampett)

Yea tim, shouldn’t you give credence to some rumors that have now been found to been planted by the Clinton camp about NAFTA instead of questioning the credibility of her recent statement of being afraid at landing under fire in Kosovo?

As Sen Obama has stated over and over again, Iraq is a very delicate situation. It will not be easy to withdraw our troops, it will be a dynamic situation. What the senator has called for again and again is a timetable so that the Iraqi politicians will do what they have to do to bring peace and stability before our departure or be responsible for allowing Iraq to decend into an even worse situation than is experienced today.

Of all the events that have occured in the past few days, THIS is what we get?

I don’t listen to HRC’s every remark, so she ‘may’ have said what everyone’s claiming she said, but IF she did, please provide a quote.

What I heard is she was advised my the people arranging the visit that there could be sniper fire. I doubt she made that up or that the plane took evasive action upon landing and doubt she ordered it to be done.

If that’s the ONLY reason HRC should NOT be the Democratic nominee, I suggest we cancel the convention and use the $$$ for her campaign.

And I notice that BHO ISN’T making a big deal out of it. Too bad supporters aren’t HALF as mature and sophisticated as he.

(Jed Clampett)

Did you happen to click on the picture above that links to the you tube video showing the ceremony and then a clip recently reminiscing about how dangerous it was to fly into Kosovo under fire without even a ceremony. Either her memory is a bit compromized or she’s purposedly distorting it. neither of them qualities I would want in my next president. The current one seems to be a master at both those skills.

I knew China pretty much owned us, but this is ridiculous!

Dirty Dennis,

It was actually the Clinton campaign that told the Canadians to disregard talk about NAFTA. As a Clinton supporter I’d think you’d be happy we’re not talking more about that.

And Obama supporters are immature? Where is the maturity in Hillary’s “kitchen sink” strategy of attacking Obama for everything she can think of, true or not? Where is your maturity in condoning attacks on Obama? It would seem you are guilty of hypocrisy yourself.

Daddy,

There are certain words, like s e l l and b u y that are, inexplicably, third rails for your posts. Some explatives are also dangerous although TD can use them with impunity.

I agree with Dennis that there are more troubling issues than this. The illegal intrusion into private passport files by president Shrub, et al. being one. Especially since this isn’t the first time a bush has acted in this manner. The two contractors who were immediately fired are now pretty much immune from any action since they will most surely plead the fifth. Maybe the one remaining, suspended, employee will shed some light on the situation, but I doubt it or they would have been fired as well. The DOJ really needs to get to the bottom of it. Chalking this up to “imprudent curiosity” isn’t going to cut it this time. To me, this amounts to electronic “Watergate.” Congress needs to grow some balls and take action against these miserable excuses for human beings. Coach was right. The only people in America who are punished are it’s citizens, or, I would add, those unable to bribe their way to impunity. But having said that, I do feel that HRC’s frequent lapses of memory, and obvious embellishment of some of the very issues she claims as part of her “experience,” does speak to her integrity. And DOES say something about the type of president she might be.

Thanks for the posting tip DD. I knew expletives were a no no, but I had no idea that the word “b u y” could affect posting.

DD

“The fact that the Right absolutely HATES her gets big ups from me.”

This fact is one of the main reasons I think Sen. Obama could be a more effective President. Not that the right aren’t going to challenge him every step of the way. I just feel he has a better chance of bridging relationships between the two parties than HRC. Something that, IMHO, needs to happen in order to prosper as a nation. I really feel that our country is experiencing a second “civil war,” and that’s not in anyone’s best interest. We all have more in common than those running the show would have us think.

Bottom line: Hillary and her supporters/advisors/family members have been spreading vicious lies for quite a while now. The ONLY chance she has to win the primary is with the support of the superdelegates. That means that for her to win the nomination, the superpukes will have to go against the will of the people, AND the system. This will lead to a few things. One, she will divide the entire party. Two, it may start some riots. One of those is good thing, one is bad, you make your choice.

One more fact that’s NOT getting talked about by the media, and would probably be considered some type of ‘attack’ on her is the fact that a large percentage of republicans have been voting for her in open primaries. That, without a doubt in my mind, has helped her in those ‘big’ states.

NAFTA propaganda was the Clintons.

Muslim-gear-wearing Obama was released by the Clintons.

Fear about a phone call is spread by the Clintons.

Lies about her ‘first lady’ trips.

Republicans voting for her because they know they’ll keep the white house.

Are we NOT supposed to reply to these kinds of facts (DD)? Responding to her propoganda is NOT an attack on her. Refuting lies is commonplace, and it just so happens that Obama HAS NOT been perpetrating them. Until he does, why don’t we ALL quit complaining about the lack of Obama scrutiny.

(Jed Clampett)

to me, the fact that republicans are voting for her to help her beat Sen Obama because they feel they can beat Sen Clinton but not Sen Obama speaks volumes to me. Definately going to support the candidate the republicant’s fear most.

Coach,

I’m not sure how anyone knows who Republican cross-overs vote for. Exit polls? Right.

It’s not a ‘vicious’ lie to say Obama’s rep is quietly back-channeling not to take his message seriously. It happened in Canada and Iraq. And I, frankly, don’t care that they do that but it seems there’s a different standard for HRC than for BHO. Wouldn’t you consider the ‘monster’ and ‘blue dress’ references smears? Again, I’m not bothered by it in the least. This is all chicken feed compared to what the Cons are going to do.

If these petty little grievances are the best you guys can come up with, then you praise her with your damning. You should be extolling HIS virtues, rather than searching around for something to condemn HERS.

Your position/arguments are more AGAINST HRC than they are FOR BHO. That doesn’t bode well.

Big Daddy,

You’re absolutely right, we are STILL in CWII. It’s the haves against the have-nots and don’t-have-too-muchs. It is also a revolution. To compromise is to concede. I don’t think this is what the Founding Haves had in mind but organisms evolve and so it is with America.

DoubleD: Lies versus innuendo don’t make a difference to you? The Clinton camp is lying at an alarming rate and that doesn’t seem to bother you. It seems to bother you that people refute the lies.

What would you like ‘us’ to do? Let her say whatever the hell she wants? Let her exaggerate her experience? Let her perpetrate lies against Obama?

Yes, calling Clinton a monster was not necessarily politically correct. But, was it a lie? Was it a smear, in the sense that the truth is a smear?

The two are completely different. Lying about yourself or your opponent, therefore smearing your opponent, is a helluva lot worse than having one of your advisors call Hillary a monster.

Tell us what Obama has lied about to deserve the kind of ‘attacks’ that Hillary is getting. I’m all ears. If he HAS lied about as many things as she has/is, then, by all means, hammer him.

Coach,

I don’t hammer BHO. I think he’s great. I’m merely defending HRC. Was it a ‘lie’ to say BHO was backchanneling? Nope. Was it a lie to say he had a photo taken wearing Muslin garb? Nope. IS it a lie to say she has more experience (she does)? Nope.

What experience DOES Obama have? Several years as a State Senator and an unopposed election as a U.S. Senator? He hasn’t been ‘tested’ yet and while I believe he’ll do just fine, it is NOT a ‘lie’ to say so. And even if you want to argue that HRC does NOT have more experience than BHO, she actually believes she has, so if she believes it, she’s NOT lying.

Lying is a pretty big deal with a lot of gray area. Did Georgie Porgie actually ‘lie’ about WMD? Probably not. I think the Bozo is/was stupid enough to believe it. Still does, probably. But if I say I have more ‘experience’ than you, a vague, virtually immeasurable quantity, is that a ‘lie.’ Even if I said I was a better hitter than you, and statistics proved otherwise, if I believed it, it’s not a lie.

Coach, there is NOTHING wrong with ‘not liking’ HRC. I never cared for Billy Boy. But like it or not we’re all on the same team. If HRC tells the manager she’s a better pitcher than BHO and wants in the game, I respect/admire that. She’s a fighter. We’re getting ready for the Big Game and I want a gamer on the mound. I’ll take Catfish Hunter over Ron Guidry every day. Even over Lefty.

(Jed Clampett)

Wow, this is interesting.

As I read it… DD is admiting that Sen Clintons claim to fame are vaporware at best.
“more experience”… at what? running a campaign? drafting laws? thinking up stunts that would discredit the opponent indirectly like posting a picture that would play on the prejudices of a segment of the population? In other words, manipulating the masses rather than leading them.

I think you’ve hit on why we dislike her though. Se believes she is doing everything right. She is playing by the rules and taking advantage of those loopholes that lawmakers conveniently leave for themselves so they don’t have to abide by the spirit of the law.

I am being told I should support her because she would be the first woman president.
I am told I should support her because she is hated by republicant’s.
I am told I should support her because she knows how to fight dirty.
I am told I shold support her because she’s not averse to dirty politics or dirty tricks.
I am told I should support her because she won’t hold her employees accountable.

You know, people always try to tell you what to do, what to think, they even try to ridicule you into submission. Realize when they are doing this, they do so because they realize they don’t have a leg to stand on and need to bully you into supporting their position. Personally, I’m done listening to what THEY want me to do. It’s time to do what is right, support the right candidate, that is Sen Obama. More power to him.

Why is having experience a good thing? The two candidates in this race who claim to have the most experience both made the wrong choice on the biggest foreign policy question in 25 years. Why would anyone want more of that?

I think that also speaks to why people want to elect Obama over anyone else: both alternative candidates have more experience running negative campaigns than Obama does. People in this country are tired of negative politics and Obama provides a solution for them.

Obama also inspires people and you can make a very good argument that that is the ONLY thing one needs in a president. Inspiration allows him a better chance of forging coalitions in the senate to get legislation passed, something neither Clinton or McCain will be able to do. It also will reprise the role of Roosevelt’s fireside chats after the Republican free market ideals collapsed into the Great Depression in the 1930s. That is not a bad thing.

After all, no president is the authority on any policy he/she tries to get through. That is what presidents have defense secretaries, the military, sec of states, economic advisers, domestic policy advisers, etc… for.

Bottom line: this country needs to get past the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and Bush. Obama is the man to do that.

DirtyOne: BTW, I know first-hand that Texas republicans were voting for Hillary. It’s not an exit poll, it’s a head-count from a very prominent real estate company with about 100 employees that were going to do it. She said it was a state-wide deal. Exit polls showed 20+ percent of her total Texas vote count were from Republicans. As Jed said, that’s all I need to know.

Vote Obama if only because the Repukelickans fear him. I like it.

Coach,

I’m confused, you first say no exit poll then you cite an exit poll. Consider this, if Cons HAD crossed over and voted, do you actually think they would tip their hand? “Yup, we voted for Hillary ’cause we’re scared to death of Barack.” I don’t think so. Let’s face it, they’re scared of both: Barack ’cause he has the potential to bring a bazillion new voters into the system, and the Right ALWAYS relies on low turnouts for victory, and Hillary ’cause they’ve tried to crush her for years and have failed.

Dboy,

I think if you look at my posts you will see I repeatedly state there IS no experience preparatory to being POTUS. But there are a lot of ‘life experiences’ that help one to measure the qualities of another.

Georgie Porgie and Billy Boy had NO life experiences by which to measure them. Zilch. Zero. Nada. I leave it to you to judge the results.

The only ‘life experience’ we have of Obama is that he is of mixed race and lived in varied cultures. Since he entered college, he’s pretty well had it easy with very few challenges. HRC, on the other hand, has had varied and extensive life experiences. Most important, to me, is she’s stood up to the Right, taken their best shot and laughed at them. Whoever comes out of Denver is going to have to do as much or more. The Right does NOT want a man of color or a woman in the White House. That would set their ‘agenda’ back light years.

inspiration goes nowhere unless you have some sort of experience on which to drive that inspiring power

and if you think Obama is the solution to negative politics, think again, politics has always been divisive and ugly (Hamilton calling Jefferson a “closet hedonist”, Licoln being depicted as an ape, FDR as a card carrying communist)…after all, his “inspirational” power sure worked well during his tenure in the senate…as long as there is the internet, 24 hour news, and politicians, and money involved, politics will be “dirty” and “negative”

Obama is not a hope, he’s an empty suit, who voted against the war(great), who has shown naivete at every turn during the campaign so far, from questions on foreign policy to his lunatic spiritual advisor…and Hillary and McCain arent the solution either

Obama is THE symbol of 21st century politics, all style and calm soothing voice over substance…Republicans may hate Clinton, but at least in 92 he had some ideas to run on, concrete policy ideas…not loaded catchphrases like “the audacity of hope” which sound great and mean little

Doughboy– presidents can be as involved with policy as they want, it just depends on the presidents style, examples being Clinton(1st term), and Carter, as well as Nixon

(Jed Clampett)

I’m not sure if you are missinformed or are purposely white washing Sen Obamas acomplishments. While I grant you that Sen Clinton has been working her whole life for the benefit and promotion of the PARTY, Sen Obama has been working for the good of PEOPLE. You might think he’s had it easy because you prefer to disparage him, but it seems obvious there is more to the man than meets the eye.
Ultimately it is about character and judgement.
Not quite sure what you got against pres clinton, but all in all his were some good terms. Some things I didn’t agree with, but then again I’ve never blindly agreed with everything a politician does merely because I support them. While there were a few hiccups in Clinton’s presidency, I’m not comfortable disparaging the man without knowing the full extent with what he had to deal with. I know I coulndn’t put myself in that position and would venture to say you wouldn’t fare much better.

Like I say, ultimately it comes down to character and Judgement and Sen Obama has shown loads of both. He hasn’t cracked under the pressure, while the Clinton’s seem to be clutching at straws and tossing even the kitchen sink into the fight, regardless of how corrupted it makes her look.

When you had people in positions of influence like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’really and all their minions to vote for clinton, I don’t need an exit poll. When I hear the closed minded elements at work saying the same thing. I understand well what is going on. They are definately more affraid of Sen Obama or they would have told their people to vote for him. I think they realize the guy is golden and they’ll have alot of trouble dirtying him up without getting a huge load of sh*t on themselves.

This reminds me of an old saying…”Low hanging fruit always taste better a day after you pluck it.”

I’m merely defending attacks on HRC. You infer she works only for the party. Here’s a partial list of her activities:

1970s
Handle d child abuse cases
Provided free legal advice for the poor
Argued for children’s rights in Harvard Educational Review and other publications throughout the decade
Served on the children’s defense fund
Worked pro bobo in child advocacy
Cofounded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families
Member of Legal Services Corporation, founded by Congress, for three years

1980s
Chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee for most of the decade
Chaired the American Bar Association’s Commission on Women in the Profession
Board member Arkansas Children’s Hospital and the Children’s Defense Fund

1990s
Instrumental in passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act
Instrumental in passage of the Foster Care Independence Act
Instrumental in passage of the State Children’s Health Insurance Plan
Instrumental in passage of the Adoptions and Safe Families Act
Instrumental in passage of the Foster Care Independence Act
Hosted numerous White House Conferences on Child Care

(Jed Clampett)

so you can read a wiki page, I assume you have also read sen Obama’s unless you prefer to merely support your cause rather than inform yourself.

While I don’t dispute that Sen Clinton has been a mover and a shaker for a long time. She lost sight of the reasons for helping a long time ago. Much of what she’s done is superficial and designed for use during a political campaign. You see, they’ve always know where the money is at. Free money is even better.
A short time ago she was in Chile for a photo op with the natives in the south who are struggling for dignity or at least some sort of compensation for the resources stolen from them. Hilary made an appearance, took some pictures, left and forgot about it.
I can tell when I’m looking at a tree or simply veneer around a plastic post made to look like a tree. A tree is much more valuable, it is useful to nature. Superficiality is designed to impress and mislead.

DD, I sure wish you’d stop taking HRC rebuttals as a personal attack on you.

Merk: Way to support your own fears about ‘the most liberal senator’ becoming president. We all know how you feel about liberals.

Hillary’s definitely been in politics longer than Obama. Obama definitely has more elected experience than Hillary. Hillary’s perpetrating lies on the campaign trail. Obama isn’t.

Question (especially for DD): Is a padded resume enough to warrant a vote for President of the United States? Both McCain and Clinton have padded their resumes, respectfully.

Thought: Experience in this political climate is nothing to brag about. We ALL know the system needs changing.

OBAMA-NATION 2008 (The man who spoke out against the Iraq invasion from the start) Cheers

Not to mention his work before the U.S. Senate. His work as a community activist and organizer is well known in IL. He also took on the city of Chicago and it corrupt police dept. Passing legislation that requires all police interrogations be videotaped, a law which many other states have adopted. A law that is responsible for freeing many citizens who were falsely accused of crimes they were beaten into confessing to.

i dont fear a “liberal” president any more than i fear “conservative” one…rational Weberian legal structures still govern day to day policy, the ship keeps its course, mostly, regardless of how charming the prez is

my point being, that, even if Obama is elected, nothing will significantly change…Obama may have charisma, but he’s not some magic cure-all that too many of his supporters claim him to be, and while its great he’s been agains the war from the start, unless he has some sort of time machine, that means squat…hillary may be outright lying, but Obama isnt saying much of anything, at least of substance

so, while you may vehemently disagree with Clinton, at least you know where she stands and she has concrete plans to debate…Obama has “hope,” and you have to dig to find out what he stands for…which is not a good thing, and i think DD has been trying to point this out

and if you look at most of the things he voted for, they’re the type of thing no congressman is going to vote against (seriously, who doesnt want WMD’s in the hands of terrorists?)

in all, I think Obama would be a much better candidate in 12 than 08…he should be cleaning Clinton’s clock, and instead he has amateurishly allowed her to get the better of him time and time again

Good stuff Merk, and Tnx. You said it better than I. I have HIGH hopes for Obama but honestly don’t know him that well. If he gets the nomination I will vote for him and defend him as if he were my own.

Coach, I don’t take it personal (much) unless someone accuses me of being a racist for defending HRC. (??) Most of my comments originate against the one-dimensional bias against demonstrated by young TD on this website. Thereafter, I am forced, oddly, to defend myself. If TD trashed BHO I would defend him, and attack the trash, just as fervently.

Merk has it right. A Prez doesn’t do so much as set the tone, direction and agenda. At that I have no doubt that BHO will be a master. I’m just not so confident he can win the election. (See the Bradley Phenomenon, or whatever they call it.)

I honestly think Obama would make a better Prez but I think HRC has a better chance of winning.

And if I DO question Obama, it’s ’cause we’re DAMMED sure he’s gonna get that and worse come this Summer. And I’d rather there were no more surprises. No body gets to be a U.S. Senator without cutting a few deals and NOBODY bets to be Prez without the help of the system.

That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.

Oh, and Jed, yes, I DID read Wikipedia. That’s all that was necessary to refute your spurious scurrilous statement. (I love the sound of that.) Or did you misspeak? (Kudos to any who can point the finger at who came up with THAT term. I have my ‘guy.’)

D: I have to question your judgement on determining that HRC would win the general. I realize that you fail to admit that repukes are voting for HER in primaries, but it IS a fact. Why do you think that is? Do you think it’s because she’s the best fit to beat the repukes?

I respect your fervent defense of alleged ‘attacks’ on HRC. But in defense of the media, she brings on these ‘attacks’ herself.

The bottom line is this: However appreciated your defense of HRC is, it’s a bit overindulgent for me. I find it hard to defend blatant lies and innuendo. I find it hard to believe blatant false fraudulent propoganda. And, at the time, none of those things are coming out of Camp Obama. Whether or not he’s ‘ready on day one’ is and always will be left up to opinion. There are no exit exams to find out who’s more prepared. It’s, simply, your opinion that she’s more prepared to beat the repukes and win the white house. I, for one of many, firmly believe that she’s the worst thing that can happen to the democratic party. That MAY be a good thing in the long run, but, as so many people say, “we’re at war” and we can’t wait around anymore.

Plus, how do you prove that Obama would make a better President AFTER being Vice President? Clinton lies can be proven false or true. Clinton experience can’t be proven more or less effective than Obama’s.

More than anything else: BREAK AWAY FROM BUSH/CLINTON/BUSH/CLINTON/BUSH /CLINTON/BUSH/BUSH…….

O BAMA-NATION 2008

Merk,

“he should be cleaning Clinton’s clock, and instead he has amateurishly allowed her to get the better of him time and time again.”

To many it seems that Clinton has cleaned her own clock. And I haven’t seen her get the better of him either. It seems to me that he has professionally gotten the best of her by not lowering himself and engaging in the tactics that her campaign has employed. Her sense of entitlement to the presidency, and subsequent reactions to the contrary, appear to many as far more amateurish.

This reminds me of an old saying…”Just because your nose is running, don’t give you the right to pick it.”

“Most important, to me, is Hillary’s stood up to the right, taken their best shot and laughed at them.” “I think HRC has a better chance of winning.”

Hillary has the highest negatives in the country and therefore no wiggle room when it comes to bringing new voters to the polls in November. Obama obviously doesn’t have that problem. I might also add that Clinton is basically eliminated in the race unless she gets super delegate votes which will mean running a campaign that is so negative towards Obama it will drive super delegates away from him. If that comes to pass Hillary can forget about the young vote, the black vote and therefore, the presidency in November. The argument that Hillary has a better chance of winning may have made sense in January. It doesn’t now.

Another thing:

Hillary hasn’t exactly convinced me she wouldn’t attack Iran. Aside from the fact she can’t win, that’s the biggest reason I can’t vote for her: I’m not interested in another president starting another pointless and wasteful war.

“I’m not interested in another president starting another pointless and wasteful war.”

I’m with you there, Doughboy.
Which makes me wonder, was McSame really having a “senior moment” when he stated that al-Qaida where in Iran? Or, do they really think they can pull that sh*t over on the American people AGAIN?
A lie repeated a thousand times….

Doughboy– the Democratic party has an unfortunate history of choosing the candidate who is most in step with party aparatchiks, to borrow the old soviet term (Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, etc) over the will of the people…Obama may be a populist, but Rev Wright has hurt his campaign immensely

in any case, neither candidate is gaining anything right now…the Repubs have yet to launch an opening shot, the dems are tearing themselves apart on their own…Obama should have taken notes from Billy Boy, after all at this stage of the game in 92, he’d already locked up the nomination, and could effectively campaign against 41 and Perot…which Obama has not done

if Obama cant handle Hillary Clinton, how will he fare when the repub machine really starts ripping into him?

as for Hillary losing the youth vote and the black vote if she gets the nomination, dont kid yourselves– the youths will stay home, as always, and blacks will vote rank and file as dems(what, you were expecting a vote for McCain?)

also, i wouldnt worry about Iran…whomever the new president is, they’re going to have their hands full with Iraq

really, do you think its strategically viable for the US to attack Iran? With what troops?

(Jed Clampett)

Let’s not misconstrue the facts.

Sen Obama said clearly and consicely, as he’s typically done, that if he had actionable intelligence of current position of Al-qaida leadership and he presented that informatio to the pakistani government yet they refuse to act on it, he would be willing to use drones if necessary to act on that intelligence. What was really funny about his pronouncement was the way the media and the political insiders just ridiculed his words, distorted his message and dissembled from his reasoning… even more telling is how little they focused on the fact that just a few months later we did just that. To focus on it would have been to give legitimacy to sen obama’s statements.
I often wondered how it is that the media is so supportive of the liar in chief. Watching frontline last night I realized something… When the republicans got ‘thumped’ in the midterms the prez addressed the press core and the words out of his mouth were… why all the long faces? this happens sometimes, we lost but it was close. (paraphrasing) Which tells me that they were dissapointed that their preferred political party had not fared as well as they had hoped. When a presidential press core has a political proclivity, they will do whatever is necessary, even subconsiously, to support their team. No wonder they are focusing on BS in this election rather than the real issues. If you have any doubts… just notice the news black out in the american press over chinas oppression of tibetans. The little news they have shown has been to paint tibetans as a bunch of malcontent criminals that suddenly decided to revolt… the truth is much bleaker than that, 60 years of subhuman living conditions will send any man into anarchist action… just remember how blacks felt after rodney king. The media will not cover that story because it will hurt their coverage of the Olympics, and to them, money is way more important than people. Money talks, we suffer.

DD: Come on man. Did you really just say this: “The Right doesn’t want HRC in the campaign, they want Obama. Rightly or wrongly, they think they can break him and that all the closet racists will flock to their side. ”

As I’ve said, and can be backed up with a single ’straw poll’, if you will, republicans are voting in force FOR HRC. I’ll say it again….Repubelickers are voting FOR Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Again: REPUBLICANS ARE VOTING FOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON.

You’re running out of reasons to keep supporting this lying, misspeaker under sniper fire that helped liberate Ireland and created NAFTA all while bringing together the women of China and answering the phone at 3am.

remember Jed, we had “actionable” intelligence about Iraq as well…

and I would harldy equate the Rodney King riots to whats happening in Tibet, its a disservice to the Tibetan people (who suffer real opression), and it puts some kind of false meaning on the looting that the riots were mostly about, not some sort of social justice cop out

besides, aside from a boycott of the Olympics, there is not much we can do to China…however, the whole world is watching now, even more so than in 89…China will not be able to repeat Tiannemen Square

Coach– I think the right can easily break either candidate if they keep squabbling up until the convention…the right hasn’t had to spend much yet on attack ads, and have yet to get real nasty

again, if Obama keeps on the way he’s going, he’ll get the nomination, but he’ll lose the election (ther Rev Wright fiasco, according to recent polls, has really damaged him among independents)…he’s got effectively counterattack Clinton, or he’s done

Merk: “ther Rev Wright fiasco, according to recent polls, has really damaged him among independents”

And ‘polls’ had Obama at 4% of the vote at the beginning of this campaign. He doesn’t have to do anything other than take the high road against Clinton and other smears. And, to assume that Obama would lose to McCain is to assume that Foreman would beat Ali. It’s a shame that certain people are making a big deal about what Rev. Wright said. Maybe more analysis of what he actually said should be done. And, whether or not what he actually said was someone else’s words. People who villify Obama because of his reverend are simply looking for reasons (other than his color) to NOT vote for him.

Democrats need to remember one single thing when it comes to the general elections: Hillary has more ‘dirt’ to be used as smear tactics from the repukes than Obama. Repukes can’t win without using fear, so they’ll basically have to resort to racism to ’steal’ the election if it’s against Obama. If it’s against Hillary, they have an unlimited supply of dirt, lies, innuendo to work with.

ObamaNation 2008

Hey Hillary get some sleep let Tommy Chong answer the phone.

(Jed Clampett)

well, to begin with, the invasion was a criminal act, there was no declaration of war and the initial attack was, by their own admition, a murder attempt on the leadership of Iraq. Hopefully we will see a prosecution for this and all the other crimes… like allowing political considerations to dictate the execution of the war.

No, the situation in Tibet is not the same as the plight of black people. The analogy to the riots was made to show you what an oppressed people will do when shown that justice does not exist for them. The problems of the Tibetan people are the same as those of black people in america, native americans in the US, mapuche indians in Chile, the natives of chiapas and the rest of us, who even though we are more comfortable, we are still slaves made to work for a fraction of the salary that other individuals make for less work. The riots in LA devolved into looting and mayhem because wherever there is extreme poverty there is a large criminal element at work that helps to keep those poverty stricken oppressed.

In case you haven’t noticed, China is doing exactly what it did in tianenmen square, the main difference is that this is easily hidden, and since it is happening to poor people, no one seems to care. Boycotting the olympics would be a good first step, disinvestment would be another, avoiding purchasing their products would be another… when you think of the quality of products coming out of china lately, even medicines, wouldn’t you want a different source for your necessities instead of a nation that allows it’s businessmen to make slaves of the people they claim to protect? How is it there is more attention now than in 89? In 89 there was people in the square for over a week and cameras from all over the world covering the event. what do you think china is doing now that there is an effective news blackout? Only the BBC and some foreign news orgs are doing the story any justice. definately not any newscorp or viacom outlets.

Make no mistake, when our politicians speak of protecting the american people, they really mean american businesses, their handling of healthcare should be all you need to see in order to recognize the people don’t matter much to these guys.

Sen Obama is doing just right with the people that matter, the well educated and those not corrupted by the current system. He’s gathering up all those that had been disenfranchised up to now. Who knows what will happen if HRC keeps playing the dirt game, but if she wins this, she’ll have so much sh*t on her from her behaviour in the primary that she’ll have a hard time winning. When you think about it, what is it about the high office that drives her to use every dirty trick imaginable, even to the point of questioning the pledged delegates pledge. All Obama has to do is keep taking the high road, there are many more intelligent people and disenfranchised people than biggots and greedos.

To Anonymous (Jed Clamp-it):
Would you be so kind as to specify the jurisdiction and statute that renders “the invasion…a criminal act”?

(Jed Clampett)

the hague… that international criminal court that was trying Slovodan Milosevich, is now in control of Lawrence Taylor and may someday see Mugabe.
Just because we only recognize that ICC when it is convenient doesn’t mean that there are no rules and regulations in this world that must be followed. That is why the founding fathers felt it important for the enforcer in chief to abide by all international treaties and contracts(within reason of course).
I’d like to cite them for you, but there are others working hard to try and compile the evidence, most are violations of the geneva conventionz. I now understand why Bush was so adamant about not signing on to the rules that were passed just before the iraq invasion, they already knew they would send us to war.
Hell, with the crimes commited here he’d have enough to get impeached and imprisoned… not likely to happen though, he made too many powerful people uber wealthy.
I have a feeling the only thing that will restore sanity to our species is mother nature restoring the balance of wild life to human life in a cataclysmic way. The great equalizer if you will. From the looks of it, she’s already starting to make the preliminary moves.

Dboy,

Thoughout history the simple minded have responded to a message they can’t comprehend by attacking the messenger.

(Jed Clampett)

Said the man who until recently was supporting clinton’s tactics while at the same decrying the cesspool that politics has become.
Exactly what message is it you hope to convey? dichotomy?

From the man who said ‘most whites fear’ Obama.

I will continue to defend the cat that digs up my flower beds from rabid dogs despite Limbaughian attacks without substance or merit.

For the record, all I’ve ever done is defend HRC from scurrilous attacks. If you can find where I’ve defended her ‘policies,’ please point it out to me.

DoubleDecker: “If you can find where I’ve defended her ‘policies,’ please point it out to me. ”

Seems to me that by saying she’d make a better prez than Obama right now, you’re supporting her policies over his. Just a thought…….

Coach,

Nice try, but I never said she’d make a ‘better’ Prez. You won’t believe it but not five minutes ago, in another thread, I said Obama would/will make a better Prez. I’ve always only questioned BHO’s ability to win this year’s election, not his abilities.

I was in a building supply place today and they had their computers connected to the internet. A bunch of employees and shoppers were watching some piece on Rev Wright. They weren’t happy.

To most people in this country, Barack Obama is the name of some black Senator from IL. That’s ALL they know of him. By the time the Right gets through with him, he’ll be known as the black Senator from IL who’s a Muslim and hates this country.

I fear the Right is NOT going to let him win, no matter what it takes. But I believe HRC can win and with BHO as her VP, he will get the opportunity to win over those who don’t know him. He ‘might’ be able to win them over this Summer, but we’re talking about a country who’s ‘taste’ runs to American Idol and ‘reality’ TV. They’re going to be putty in the hands of the Right.

If Obama runs this Summer, we will see the dirtiest, ugliest, meanest campaign ever. If he runs, the best thing that could happen to HIM would be to lose, ’cause if he wins, you know what I think will happen.

Dirty Dennis,

I’ll leave your laughable comment where it belongs(in the bin of unbelievably hypocritical statements). You make some other comments that I want you to elaborate on though.

For instance, why do you think it is impossible for Obama to win a general election this year? I would think that especially on war and economic issues there would be no way a republican could possibly win.

Two: Why are you so deeply afraid of a “right wing” attack? The guys you referenced who had no idea about Obama’s religion are people who are easily bought by t.v./radio advertisment. This year is an exceptional year for Democrats because they have out raised Republicans in money AND corporate contributions. Simply blanket the airwaves with ads about Obama’s Christlike outreach/qualities compared to McCain’s repeated Judas betrayal of his party and the problem is solved. The right doesn’t have the cash to back McCain.

And last, Obama won’t be assasinated. George Bush is the most reviled president in history and he’s still alive through benefit of military/secret service protection. If you’ve ever seen one of the administration’s motorcades or the security they have around the capitol you’d understand. Obama is the potential democratic nominee. If those that want him gone could have got past his secret service protection they would have done so already. Gunhappy racists in this country are about the last things Obama has to fear.

I am not sure why you are so comfortable questioning Obama and defending Clinton when Clinton now has no possibility of winning in november unless you are planning to vote republican. Is this true?

Dboy,

This must be your first election. My ‘first election’ was Eisenhauer/Stephenson. I was a little too young to vote, but I was a Democrat even then. I didn’t actually ‘vote’ until Nixon came along. I’ve had more misses than hits.

I hope you’re right about Obama. It’s my sense, no emperical data, that assassins are memebers of the Right. The FAR Right. Bushney got a ‘free ride’ ’cause we don’t do that.

Doughboy,The right does have the money to finance McCain who do you think they are? i agree with you on Obama i think Hes the best choice and after tne convention and debates He will go ahead of McCain,Obama will feed off the general feeling of miscontent and win a close election.

Ray,

I should have been more specific. The right has money but it does not have the cash to back McCain against the attacks the Democrats will run due to thier cash advantage. There have been more than a few stories about how corporate America is generally backing the Dems this year because they don’t believe the Republicans have a chance. That support manifests itself in more subtle ways than you’d think, especially in the media.

Dirty Dennis,

This is not my first election. It’s hard for me to conclude otherwise than that you only think I’m inexperienced because I post under a moniker that includes the word “boy.” What did Shakespere say? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet?

But that relates to our whole issue which is you apparently judge people by thier appearence. I am not young simply because I use the word “boy” in my moniker and Obama is not unqualified for president or going to be shot simply because he’s black.

If you think that there have been no threats on Bush since he’s been president then do some research. It is not only right wing nuts that try to shoot people. Obama has secret service protection which is pretty much the best in the world, and far better than it was when Reagan was shot. Obama has the benefit of Satellites, net-centric communication, instant data transfer, and all sorts of things we don’t know about as well as a heightened enforcement of crowd security due to the 911 attacks. These days, being a president or a protected nominee is probably the safest place to be; at least Obama won’t have to worry about car accidents, statistically the greatest reason for violent death in the country.

As regards to being in danger, I’d rather be him than you or me.

Dirty Dennis,

One other thing,

do you consider it a good thing that we are not talking about Hillary Clinton lying for three months about sniper fire in Bosnia she never experienced?

Let’s pretend this is my first election and that I’m asking the “grown up” about electoral politics:

1. Why did Mrs. Clinton repeatedly (at least 3 times) lie about receiving sniper fire while landing in Bosnia in 1996?

2. How will that lie affect her image with regards to trustworthiness and character?

3. Why did she think that lying repeatedly in such a brazen manner was worth the inevitable damage it would cause her campaign?

4. Why would she lie again to explain her origional lie? She did not “misspeak” and she was not “sleep deprived.” She lied 3 times about Bosnia and lied to try to explain it away. Why?

5. If Mrs. Clinton were so prepared and experienced a candidate, why would she repeatedly lie and compound her origional mistake with another lie? Is it possible she is actually not as prepared, experienced or ready to lead “on day one” as she may have us believe?

6. Does Hillary Clinton’s lie about Bosnia represent the fact that Clinton has not been fully “vetted” and that there is more the right wing could dig up on her to make her appear more of a liar than she already does now?

7. Is answering troubling questions like these mandatory for a voter and if so, why aren’t you answering these?

Dboy,

You worry about the wrong things. No one cares about your age. I didn’t vote until I was almost 40. Age is relative; some people never grow up, some are born old.

You really only ask one question several times. And it’s a good question: why? All I’ve seen of the ‘episode’ are quotes and clips, all taken out of context. So, I have no idea what she really said and under what circumstances.

Nowhere did I read where she said they were ‘taking fire.’ And I have to suspect if TD could have gotten his hands on such a thing, he would have aired it repeatedly. I DID see where she referenced she was advised that sniper fire was possible.

But the issue is not, or should not be, about what she said, rather in the interpretations made of it. Let’s begin with the premise it was a lie. I’m sure a dictionary will list one definition of a lie as speaking an untruth. I suppose that’s the literal definition.

But I think you’ll agree that we all believe, in this context at least, a lie to be a statement to deliberately deceive. (“I never had sex with that woman,” comes to mind as a classic example of a lie.) But did Ms Clinton lie? Was that her intent? If so, how do you know? Finally, prove it!!

It seems to me people are far too quick to call something a lie based only on their perception of the circumstances. You see it all the time; in your private life, at the workplace and in politics. I’m as guilty of it as anyone. However, we usually don’t broadcast it on the internet.

Often you hear this country as being a nation of law and that the ‘rule of law’ prevails. Isn’t one of our basic laws, innocent until proven guilty? I believe you could argue that’s a cornerstone of our legal system. As near as I can tell, an ‘impartial’ jury has yet to find HRC guilty of lying. It is, at best, political rhetoric and should be treated as so.

You ask why. I believe the incident occurred over ten years ago. I know I can’t recall all I did last week and if I had led the life led by Ms Clinton, I’m sure I would have forgotten many, MANY events. Do you have any idea how many events she attended while First Lady? She visited, officially, about 80 countries. I have no doubt some of them multiple times. After that she became a U.S. Senator and did more traveling.

If you don’t like HRC, this is a big deal. To all others, it’s childish. What you should be concerned with is the establishment of a ‘bar too high.’ If Obama makes a similar mistake in a recounting, shouldn’t he be held to the same standard. Or is it only for women?

Dboy,

Read your own copy:

Clinton responded by saying about foreign affairs when she was in the white house “If it’s too dangerous, too small and too poor, send the first lady” and “Somebody said there might be sniper fire, I don’t remember anyone offering me tea on the tarmac.” (Sat Dec 29, 2007)

On the first remark, I am embarassed to point this out, but that was an attempt at humor. I guess you slept through sarcasm class. On the second remark, “Someone said there might be sniper fire.” Is that a lie!!??!! She does NOT say there WAS sniper fire, only that she was cautioned. Which would probably be good advice travelling to ANY hostile zone. I don’t care if the war is over or not. Maybe she was told that WAY back in the briefing BEFORE she left, but the message stuck with her. Again, she NEVER said she was UNDER sniper fire, only that she was cautioned about it. I guess you slept through logic class too.

We already know you slept through civics, which would have explained to you that the way you ‘punish’ a sitting Prez is by impeachment. Heard anything about that lately?

I’ll say this for you, you’re tenacious, and well rested.

Dirty Dennis,

My god.

I’m starting to doubt your mental faculties.

You missed the entire point of my last post which was to show the intentional REPETITION of statements Clinton knew to be false. Because of your reading comprehension deficiencies I’m starting to wonder whether or not you finished high school.

I apparently have to make the same point again and also do it in terms which explicitly catch Clinton in a knowing lie. Well, here goes:

December 29: Clinton: “we landed in one of those corkscrew landings and ran out because they said there might be sniper fire. I don’t remember anybody offering me tea on the tarmac.”

Lie. Clinton did not run out of the plane, video shows her calmly walking out with Chelsea and surrounded by photographers, t.v. cameras and reporters. There was no sniper fire.

January 2: Meredith Vieira to Hillary: “When you mention something like Bosnia…you went to Bosnia for example with Sinbad, with a performer and that that wasn’t really establishing any kind of foreign policy.”

Clinton: “Ohh, y’know again I put my experience up against anybody. I believe that we want change and experience. It’s a false choice to say you get one or the other.”

January 10: Elizabeth Sullivan of “The Cleveland Plain Dealer” writes that Clinton’s story couldn’t be true because the war was over.

Febuary 29: Clinton: The welcoming ceremony in Bosnia “had to be moved inside because of sniper fire.”

Lie. Clinton was welcomed on the tarmac by Bosnian dignitaries, ambassadors, an 8 year old girl and a United States General:

Maj. Gen. William Nash, who has since retired but was then the commander of United States troops in Bosnia and was at the Tuzla airport that day, said in an interview that there was no threat of sniper fire at the airport during Mrs. Clinton’s visit. He said she was gracious during her visit and took pictures with the soldiers, who were there to enforce the terms of the Dayton peace accord, signed five months earlier. (NYT).

“She never had her head down,” General Nash said. “There was no sniper threat that I know of.” (NYT).

March 10: Sinbad, who was with Clinton on the trip: “”I think the only ‘red-phone’ moment was: ‘Do we eat here or at the next place.’”

March 17: When asked about Sinbad’s statements challenging her claims about the threat of sniper fire Clinton says: “[Sinbad] is a comedian you know.” Then,
“I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”

Lie. There was in fact a greeting ceremony where Clinton was filmed with -again- dignitaries and kissing an 8 year old girl. Clinton did not run and did not have her head down due to threat.

March 17: Clinton: “And we came in, in an evasive maneuver….There was no greeting ceremony, and we basically were told to run to our cars. Now, that is what happened.”

Lie. That is not what happened. There WAS a greeting ceremony, no one told her to run to her car as she is filmed calmly walking with her daughter. She was met by many important people who would not have been there if a threat of sniper fire was credible.

March 24: Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson defended Clinton’s accounts from press questioning in a conference call: “There is no question if you look at contemporaneous accounts that she was going to a potential combat zone, that she was on the front lines.”

Shady. Any place on earth is a “potential combat zone,” although it is true Clinton can be described as being on the “front lines.” The real problem is that Clinton has been repeatedly shown evidence she was not in a threatening situation vis a vis Bosnia and that her statements are materially false, yet she STILL HASN’T ADMITTED TO LYING.

March 24: CBS releases video of Clinton in Bosnia during the event. She is seen leisurely strolling with her daughter across the tarmac, kissing an 8 year old girl and posing with a class of 7th graders. It quickly becomes the most viewed you tube clip of the day.

March 25: Clinton on her Bosnia lies: “So I made a mistake. That happens. It proves I’m human, which you know, for some people, is a revelation.”

Here we have instances of repeat lies, first about the welcoming ceremony being canceled due to sniper fire threats which she repeated 3 times and which is materially false. Second she says she “ran” because of that sniper threat twice which is directly contradicted by video. Third and most important is the implication of threat which was raised every time she brought the Bosnia trip up. For some ridiculous reason, a threatening trip on foreign lands gives one experience one needs in the white house. That Mrs. Clinton HAD TO REPEATEDLY LIE about facing that (nonexistent threat shows how little experience in these matters she actually has.

Most important, Clinton only “apologizes” after the video of what she was actually doing leaked on the web, making her look so ridiculous the she HAS to respond. It shows how arrogant she is-it approaches Bush in its scale. Another telling characteristic is that right after her “admission” she immediately goes on the attack. The impression is of a person who cannot admit to being wrong and who will lash out-almost in paranoia- at perceived enemies. This is exactly NOT the trait we want in a president.

So Dirty Dennis, we have caught Clinton in an intentional lie. I’d question the sanity of anyone who doesn’t think Clinton was being at least a little disingenuous with her statements. Hopefully the men with butterfly nets wont have to get you (I know how old people can be sometimes).

Sorry to trash your arguments so badly too. If you weren’t so blatantly pro-Clinton without saying so we wouldn’t have to go through these little lessons.

Dboy,

If I failed to grasp you meaning, might it not be the fault of the arguer? Just a thought.

So, YOU know HRC is/was a liar. And your proof is she repeated a statement. Which is what someone would do if they weren’t a liar as well.

When she was shown she was wrong, she copped to it, albeit in a petulant way. She’s made a complete fool out of herself, of that there is no denying, but no where have you ‘proven’ a lie. But you HAVE enforced the punishment given a liar. History is fraught with actions like yours, with more dire results.

And that is why, in this country, you are innocent until PROVEN guilty. The founding fathers had seen behavior like yours, and rightly feared it.

Hillary has been proven guilty through her own statements: she lied about rescheduling a welcoming ceremony because of sniper fire after she had been informed that was untrue and she lied about running away from the danger of sniper fire after being told that was untrue. She did so in an election year in an attempt to seem more qualified than her opponent. This kind of thing is not really unexpected.

That there was no trial on the subject is meaningless. Someone does not have to be found guilty in a court of law to lie.

And the founders didn’t fear accusations like mine, they took part in them. Jefferson vehemently denied Adam’s Federalist lies in the 1796 and 1800 campaigns that Jefferson was the leader of a mob that would murder opponents, burn churches and destroy the country, just as Adams denied Democrat lies that Adams was pro-British and wanted to impose British monarchical rule on the country. Accusations of lying and defenses of it are as old as the U.S. and to be honest, as old as humanity.

Things have obviously become more civilized since the founders though. Politicians lie. That is their job. Simply admit Hillary Clinton was lying and end your false victimization cult for her. You’ll be better for it.

And my proof isn’t that she “repeated a statement.” Obviously you don’t possess the ability to comprehend what you read. My proof was that she repeated a statement after being told it was untrue in an attempt to sound more qualified than her opponent.

That, Dirty Dennis is what human beings call a lie. It couldn’t be more simple.

This is pointless, like counting the number of angels on the head of a pin. You have your view of ‘reality’ and I have mine. It’s clear ne’er the twain shall meet.

Fortunately the courts in this country side with me.

No dirty dennis, the courts are not on your side. Your version of “reality” is so unsupported by fact that it verges on mania and mental instability.

The law and the opportunity to prove the truth or not of one’s case by citing fact is the pinnacle of reason and the foundation of the U.S. You have failed to prove your case. This conversation does not end with “you have your reality and I have mine.” This conversation ends with this sad fact:

You are wrong.

Hillary Clinton is a liar.

Again, renounce the false victim cult you’ve formed around her. You will be better for it.

You have some serious problems young man. The ‘law’ says an individual is innocent until proven guilty. In most cases that’s by a jury of one’s peers. In some cases it’s by State appointed courts.

Your ‘law’ is that of the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials. They KNEW they were right and acted accordingly. Just like this country KNOWS who are terrorists and tortures them until they confess.

History is replete with idealogues as yourself but you slept through history, didn’t you?

Dirty Dennis,

Your victim cult is pathetic. Is this how you explain your own life’s failures? Do you try to blame others for your own worthlessness?

No one is persecuting you. You simply aren’t intelligent enough to separate fact from fiction. Hillary lied. No one is suggesting she go to the gas chamber for it EXCEPT YOU. You somehow think the world is out to get you (and Hillary by your own insane mental projections). I’ve said this before but your lack of reading comprehension has prevented you from understanding: just because you weren’t on trial does not mean you did not lie; lying does not require a formal guilty verdict.

As a young man who is far more intelligent than you and who is still in control of his brain I suggest you get some professional help. Grandiose paranoia is a sure sign that things are going downhill…