The Fact-Checker, by Michael Dobbs

More work needed. And Obama doesn't get a single Pinocchio, let alone two? Bah.

Was Obama for or against a single payer health care plan?

"Now, it's fine for us to have a debate about how the best way to get there is, but to suggest somehow that I'm not interested in having anybody covered, or to suggest, as Hillary just did, that I was in favor of single payer -- I never said that we should try to go ahead and get single payer. What I said was that if I were starting from scratch, if we didn't have a system in which employers had typically provided health care, I would probably go with a single-payer system."

Obama's folks said he was a "very junior" something in 1993. So in 2008 how can he be "senior" enough to be POTUS?

An appeal to Democratic Party voters in caucuses and primaries.

I appeal to all my democratic American brothers and sisters who are voting in the caucuses and primaries to select their presidential nominee. This appeal comes from a person from India, the biggest democratic nation.

Destiny awaits you. The greatest day in American history awaits you. The annals of history wait to be rewritten, provided you choose Hillary Clinton as your presidential nominee. Thus, for the first time in your history you won't have to say Americans never had a chance to elect a woman president. It doesn't end here.

I also appeal to Hillary Clinton to request, choose and declare Barack Obama as her vice presidential candidate. And I also appeal to Barack Obama to accept it in good faith, for better and not for worse. Thus, again for the first time in the history of this great nation you won't have to say we never had a black vice president.

KILL TWO BIRDS AT ONE SHOT! I wonder which Republican combination can challenge such a great duo.

Even in India we had woman prime minister and now president. And prior to as a nation, we had Queens like Rani of Janshi and others. Who have said that women are bad leaders or politicians? Why Americans have to shy away from electing a woman president? I know Americans are good people and they will all unitedly rise up to the occasion to elect a woman president and a black vice president, thus creating a new history in the history of this great nation.

From:

Ivo Oscar Faleiro.
Goa - INDIA.

Contact: ivofaleiro@gmail.com ; ivofaleiro@yahoo.co.in

PS: Please pass this appeal to all your American friends without fail and especially to Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton. God bless you all.

1) Where are Obama's Pinocchios?

2) Where is the admission that Sen. Obama and Mr. Rezko have indeed been close associates?

Holly - They weren't close associates: that's the point.

Why can't you all just give the Fact Checker the credit it is due. Clinton got two because she is out there embellishing and trying her best to get elected.

Loomis:

Obama doesn't get a Pinocchio because he didn't misrepresent the facts. And he was pretty clearly not for setting up a single payer system, because we already have an entrenched employer system that would be difficult and extremely costly to dismantle.

If you are confused by that, it's probably because Hillary was once again playing games with the truth.

Here we go again!
The Clintons are slimming Barak Omama in any way that they can. It's the best tactic that they have and it might work but at the cost of splitting the Democrats for November. Senator Clinton makes pronouncements that it will be water under the bridge by the time of the convention, but that's wishful thinking on her part.
It's too bad that her ambition has to take her on this quest for the White House. She'd be a great leader in the Senate, but even if elected she'd be a lousy President. I really don't think we have to worry about her getting elected president anyway, her support doesn't extend much past the votes she'll get in the primary and that won't be enough to win in November.
Oh well, hopefully she won't hurt too many of the races down ticket.

"Even if the underlying facts are more or less accurate, it is still a dishonest form of argument because it contrasts your best points with your opponent's worst ones. "

Leave it to the once respectable Washington Post to publish a "Fact Check" column that unintentionally(?) parodies "Fact Check" columns.

I trust that Obama will be president. He is clearly the candidate with the most integrity.

I don't care to see anymore of the Clinton's in the White House. I believe we should put a stop to such nonsense.

We certainly should never have had another Bush!

Analysis a little slanted and the pinnocchio thing simply childish. Obama's relationship with this guy seems more complicted and perhaps disturbing than merely represented him legally. He seems to have been a friend. How do you explain the letters Obama wrote on his behave for state money, while those projects in Obama's district were falling apart. Don't you get it. Hillary was merely firing a warning shot. There's much more to this Rezko situation. Hillary was sending Obama a clear message that he really doesn't want to get cheap,dirty, or nasty.

Hilary has proven that she will do anything and say anything to get votes. She has intentionally misrepresented the truth to the people of this country and is beginning to remind me more and more of George W. Bush.

If she does win and runs against McCain or even Guliani, I will vote republican all the way.

The Washington Post is Pinochio

Please don't let Hillary ruin the democratic party on her way to the whitehouse.

I know she thinks it is her turn to sit in the big chair, but goodness, put the party above yourself.

(or better yet the nation)

The link to this article said it would fact-check both Hillary and Obama's accusations, which it did.

But "fact-checker" also claims that it will give the "prized Geppetto Checkmark" for statements that are found to be wholly true.

Since fact-checker has checked Obama's statement and found it to be perfectly true, you should give him a checkmark, according to your own rules.

Or is it too blunt to say, truthfully, that Obama's accusation was accurate while Hillary's was not?

Hillary's supporters are retarded. They can't seem to grasp the point or understand simple english when it is spoken to them.
If Hillary and Bill are lying, take the issue up with the Clintons. Don't try to fit a square block in a roound hole!
Like the Rezko deal, I want to know about the details of the dealings btw Obama and him. Fact checker did the diligence and Obama was right. Obama's no saint, but at least tells the truth.

Obama NEVER said the ideas were good. He was simply commenting on how he respected Reagan's leadership ability. If you believe that Obama is praising Reagan's good ideas, then CONGRATULATIONS, you are GULLIBLE and easily fall for Clinton's lies...

You are as bad as the Republican lemmings mindlessly following Bush...

Do us all a favor and stop being told what to think by the Clintons, research it yourself!

One more thing, if she's nominated I will vote for the Republican.
Its clear the Clintons are willing to destroy the unity in the Democratic party just to win. She is willing to defame and feed the republicans the ammo to attack her opponent, should she not become the nominee.
To me that says: If she doesn't win, no Dem. will.

Posted by: Shaka Hislop: "Hillary was sending Obama a clear message that he really doesn't want to get cheap,dirty, or nasty."

It's cheap, dirty and nasty when your accusations are false. They're clean, fair and ethical when they're true. Bill CLinton is a convicted liar, a suspected rapist, and a known serial philanderer and sexual predator. If that's where you get your facts, then your analysis and conclusions are sloppy, Hislop. Appropriately named, I see.

A campaign for change without wisdom and experience is mere rhetoric. Positive change needs more than words to back it up. What this country needs is not only a message of hope but also a leadership of substance - a voice that can discern and persuade, and a leadership that can stand and inspire even when it is inconvenient.

This election is a test for Hillary as well as the toughest test for America to date. In these times of unpredictability and uncertainty, who is the president that can lead America out of its own domestic economic problems and protect its vital interests in the global stage? This question demands a serious answer.

The next president of the United Sates requires somebody with the right qualifications and political will; is someone who can transcend politics, gender and race; someone who can be the light to forge America to its greatness in the years ahead; and someone who can effect real, positive change. It needs someone like Hillary.

Change confronts America more than ever. The challenge is to choose a leader that gives more than just reason to believe, but the heart to confront these changes.

Posted by: Shaka Hislop--"Analysis a little slanted and the pinnocchio thing simply childish. Obama's relationship with this guy seems more complicted and perhaps disturbing than merely represented him legally. He seems to have been a friend."

Sloppy Hislop, your analysis is all innuendo. The "relationship seems..." "He seems..." That's what you base your analysis on? That's called "bias" Hislop, because it's not based on facts. All Hillary is doing is throwing slurs because she's trying to distract Obama from discussing the issues--like her votes on Iran and Iraq--and having to answer these slurs. She and Bill are simply uncouth curs. Bill was willing to go to war in Yugoslavia to save a few Albanians, but now he "regrets" not doing the same for a million Rwandan Tutsis. And he's the "first black president"? Toni Morrison may be a great writer--I've never read her and never will, now--but she's a grade-A slave.

Doesn't it seem strange that "Fact Checker" relies on the word of the law firm to determine Obama's veracity-- hardly a reliable, objective source. And what does it really mean not to work for or with someone directly. Why did Rezko contribute to his campaign? How was it that Obama bought a house for considerable less than the market value and Rezko's wife bought the adjacent property at around the same time? And again, why did Obama write references letters for a "slum lord" with properties in his Chicgao district? If your misogyny prevents you from liking Clinton that's one thing, but damn stop giving Obama this pass on important ethical issues. Notice he didn't want to belabor the point during the debate. That's more telling than any thing fact checker can check.

As an African/American I will never ever support Hillary Clinton for President. There was a time when I would have done so, but her, and Bill's as well, action have so disgusted me until if she is the party nominee I will stay at home. How could the Clintons go about trying to tear the Democratic party assunder. President Clinton should not be out there attacking his wife's opponent. Of course, he should support his wife, but support is one thing and issuing scathing attacks is another. I am simply appalled. Clinton deserves the two pinochoes and Obama deserves a check mark because what he said was absolutely true with no frills attached.

according to this column, obama got 300K from a stranger for no reason.

Yep I believe that.

and there were WMD in iraq too.

Of course stupid Ed I qualify the information because nothing has been proven (yet), but that's not to say that people shouldn't investigate these allegations. The question is why don't people seem or (for retards that need the simplicity of grammatical equations) why aren't people more concerned with Obama's record?

Well I think Hillary deserves at least 10 Pinnochios for ever being on the board of Walmart and for hosting a dinner with the CEO with Bill only this past July, 2007. Ha! She returned a donation? So what? She's still entrenched socially with the WalMart ilk of Arkansas.

Did you see the look on her face when Obama zinged her with the TRUTH after she first attacked him, falsely?

Hillary seems to think she is "entitled" to be president. I don't think she is electable against a McCain or any other Republican. She rubs a lot of people the wrong way. The Clintons are showing their truly sleazy selves in the way they are attacking Obama. They have no integrity.

I think "Fact Checkers" facts and the slant by which he is writing is biased in favour of Hillary.

The other article on this in the post was better. I expect more from the Washington Post -- the truth, not regurgitating Clinton campaign slants, lies and misrepresentations.

For the first time in my life, I may have to vote Republican, or abstain from voting altogether. I have always trusted the Democratic party to represent truth and integrity, and this is the perfect time, politically and socially, for the Democratic party to rise up and unite for a better America. If Hillary Clinton is our candidate, a candidate who represents lies and deceit, emptiness and division, then I pray for the future of our country. Anybody or any organization who stands behind blatant lies shall NEVER have my support. If we do not come out against the spinning, the lies, the Rovian tactics, we are no better than bible-thumping, bigoted, right-wing extremists, and we will fall apart. This is our time to stand up and be strong; we have been waiting for this. Don't throw away this chance to do something GOOD for our country.

You know, it never caeases to amaze me that when the attacks coem out against Hillary, it's " The Clintons." Hillary and Bill are separate people. Bill Clinton being a liar would not make his wife one. As a woman, i have got to say, some of you male attack dogs need to get off that one, because women have had to cover for your lies for far too long.

What is most hilarious is those squealing about Billy Bob's falsification are happy to support war criminals and treasonous adminsitrations such as the current one.

As far as Obama is concerned, as impressed as I am with him, he is still a man, and will do things a man's way. Having a woman in office IS a level of change we have NOT seen before. Recent studies have shown that companies - including globals - that have women in key leadership positions have far outperformed those with men. COmpanies with more than one woman in a key position. The ones with men have been primarily shuffling lots of paper, and wriing in bigger salaries for themselves, and leaving us in the hole we are now through bad lending practices.

On that basis alone, I would choose Hillary Clinton. She- like her husband- WILL put women into key positions, and it WILL change the culture and the entire direction of this nation. Hate Clinton though you want, the US saw the longest and largest expansion of prosperity across the board. We led the world, through true ability, not by threats and at the point of a gun.

Obama is a lot of talk, but he has his own things to asnwer for. If he can;t take the heat with Hillary, he will NEVER surive the GOP election kill machines devised by Karl Rove.

TMo: So, you have probelms with integrity and you would vote GOP all of the sudden? Liar. What a complete liar you are. You are just another GOP stoodge trying to hide your responsibility for the dung hole it's in, and find an excuse to continue.

If integrity mattered to you, you would NEVER vote for a SINGLE GOP candidate, except ROn Paul, and he isn;t getting the nomination.

What about the Pinocchio for claiming 35 years of experience.

By HRC's measure of experience, apparently everything done since graduating law school counts as relevant experience for President, IF YOU ARE HILLIARY.

In fact she has seven years of experience as a U.S. Senator.

Okay, I'm going to get blasted for this one, but I'm concerned this contest is more about race than substance for many Americans. My African-American friends have adopted an attitude prevalent during the OJ Simpson trial -- Simpson's innocence or guilt was immaterial, and he became a symbol of justice (however skewed) for black Americans.

Is Obama a symbol of the racial backwardness in this country? Are people supporting him simply because of his skin color? I've heard him speak, and he is truly inspirational, but I wonder how much depth is beneath the surface. For that reason, I question his ability to lead our country. And that has nothing to do with his skin color.

Posted by: |"It's cheap, dirty and nasty when your accusations are false. They're clean, fair and ethical when they're true. Bill CLinton is a convicted liar, a suspected rapist, and a known serial philanderer and sexual predator."

So, your logic is that Hillary lied about Obama's "slum lord" associate because Bill Clinton lied about sex. Brilliant! We really need to reform education in this country. My source is the Chicago Sun-Times and Obama's responses to their questions, responses which left much to be desired. To further tease out the way your mind barely works: Obama is ethical and truthful because Bill Clinton lied about sex. Wow! I bet you still think Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

"buying house next to each other" does not make people close to each other.

What about "Michele Obama" taking salary from organization associated with "Razco"?

Buying a house at $300,000 under the market price for whatever reason, that does not make you close associate?

The list of association between the two families goes on and on. What is this Mr. Dobbs writing about?

The TRUTH about the SLUMLORD comment

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article

"Over the years, REZKO, Mahru, their wives and businesses have given more than $50,000 TO OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN FUNDS, records show. And REZKO HAS HELPED RAISE MILLIONS MORE.

REZKO WAS AMONG THE PEOPLE OBAMA APPOINTED TO SERVE ON HIS U.S. SENATE CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMMITTEE, the Sun-Times reported in 2003. The committee raised more than $14 million, according to Federal Election Commission records, helping send Obama to Washington in 2004.

As a U.S. senator, Obama grew closer to Rezko.

Two years ago, Obama bought a mansion on the South Side, in the Kenwood neighborhood, from a doctor. On the same day, Rezko's wife, Rita Rezko, bought the vacant lot next door from the same seller. The doctor had listed the properties for sale together. He sold the house to Obama for $300,000 below the asking price. The doctor got his asking price on the lot from Rezko's wife.

Last year, Rita Rezko sold a strip of that vacant lot to Obama for $104,500 -- a deal Obama later apologized for, acknowledging that PEOPLE MIGHT THINK he got a favor from Rezko."

shaka...great name...great keeper!!

Hillary Clinton is such a liar. She now has a radio ad in South Carolina where she cherry picks a quote from Obama about Republicans having the big ideas over the past 10-15 years, and then describes it as though Obama were admiring those ideas. What a snake! Here is the actual complete quote:

"The Republican approach has played itself out. I think it's fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you've heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they're being debated among the presidential candidates, it's all tax cuts. Well, we know, we've done that; we've tried it. That's not really going to solve our energy problems, for example."

So, we have a statement where Obama is clearly criticizing the Republican ideas, and Clinton tries to say it is actually admiration for those ideas! Clinton is the sleaziest person imaginable.

Why does no one challenge her "35 years of experience" claim? She is obviously including her HUSBAND's experience as her own. Being first lady just doesn't count! Would Nancy Pelosi's husband try to claim that he has political experience because his wife is Speaker of the House?! He would be laughed out of town. There is such a double standard - she cries sexism in an instant, but doesn't hesitate to claim her husband's experience as her own and rely on his protection, and she also acts as if the supposed good economy in the 1990's were her accomplishment. She is not fit to be the first woman president. Our first woman president should be one who stands on her own two feet instead of riding on her husband's coat-tails. Whoever even heard of Margaret Thatcher's husband? She did it on her own. I even heard one of her Hispanic woman supporters in Nevada say that Clinton's great because she is a woman and because "Bill will always be there"! I think that says it all. Her supporters are counting on Bill's experience.

The big fairy tale is that Hillary has the most experience. Maybe she's including her time as a Young Republican or a Goldwater Girl. If she's so experienced, then why did she bungle the most important vote of her career - the Iraq War vote? She claims she's ready on "day one" to handle national security issues because she has bought into the Republican fear and war-mongering model that she thinks will win her votes. That model has ended up bankrupting the country, and ignoring the real threats. Hillary has no new ideas. If anyone admires the Republican ideas, it's Hillary, because she voted for them.

As many of you have already said, if Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee, I will either not vote, or I'll vote for the Republican.

Are you serious, Donna??? You'd vote for the party that has demolished our good standing in the world, demoralized the middle class and gutted our economy? Give me a break.

I don't understand why people are so threatened by an intelligent woman, flawed as she is (as are all humans, lest we forget).

Well, Rem, there is no big difference between Hillary and McCain except that McCain seems to have more integrity. But I would probably just not vote. I'm not threatened by an intelligent woman, since I am one. I wouldn't vote for a woman for president just because she's a woman, which is just reverse sexism. Obama is someone who can unite people, and he is the better person for the job. Hillary is good at fighting enemies, which is good because she has lots of them. If by some miracle she were elected we would never hear the end of attacks against her, just like the Clinton attacks during the 90's.

BOYCOTT HILLARY!

You do have a point about Hillary -- she probably would spend much of her time fighting attacks because of the Republican hate machine. But when I look at her proposed health plan, for example, there is a depth to her ideas that I just don't see with the other Democratic candidates, especially Obama. For that reason alone, he concerns me. I love to be inspired as well as the next guy, but there simply has to be more to a candidate than a hopeful, inspirational image.

Excellent statements of facts as opposed to slime. Thanks.

You get a Pinocchio also, the fact is that Obama had a 12 year relationship with Rezko that included selling his home for 1 million plus to him when the house value was less than 300 thousand.

There is a lot more to the story than you have included.

Give FIVE pinocchios to Bill. When it comes to lying, he raises the bar.

Posted by|: "So, your logic is that Hillary lied about Obama's 'slum lord' associate because Bill Clinton lied about sex."

The Clintons are running as a pair. Bill Clinton has been making misleading statements. Bill Clinton is a convicted liar. He is also a rape suspect and a sexual predator. These things are known. Hillary Clinton, when confronted by the Lewinsky matter, believed Bill. He was lying. It's all very well to stand by your man, which she did then and still does, but it's a matter of judgment, when you have known a person as long as she knew him, to be deceived. And for Hillary supporters to believe anything Bill Clinton says--and which is supported by Hillary--flies in the face of his history of untruthfulness. It's a matter of logic and intelligence. He was lying then, but not now? The stakes are practically the same. He was fighting for his presidency then, and for hers now. The polls say Hillary's supporters are less educated than Obama's. The arguments of and accusations by the Hillary supporters give credence to those polls. The Clintons are poll-driven and know they can capitalize on the rudimentary education of their supporters, who are too lazy or plain incapable of going to the record and investigating these charges for themselves, and who would rather be told what to believe. Better-educated people investigate for themselves. And also have a better sense of logic and context than you or Hisloppy have demonstrated.

from the comments thus far, it seems to me that h's supporters don't like b, because they like h, but b's supporters don't like h because they don't like h--her record (experience) or her methods... says something, i think. perhaps h's supporters might like to think about that.

what do you guys think?

I am so glad that none of the Feb 5th states are winner take all states, witch means that there will be no clear front runner in the democratic party, thus tearing it apart.

Mcain08

Excellent that we're told which rhetorical device they used - false comparison. The more we're educated about such tricks the easier it ought to be to avoid electing another you-know-who.

Two pinocchios is far too few for this the mother of all pinocchios. But no seriously, I don't think she is a deliberate liar -I fear she is actually so dumb that she thinks that Obama was praising Reagan.

Voter Reaction - Clinton, Obama throw more blows outside debate ring.

Highest rated debate on cable news.

How do you feel about Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama going at each other during the CNN debate?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1612

.

By the time Hillary and Bill get thru trashing Obama, our democratic party will be shredded. If that's what they
want, fine! Prepare for another republican president. I will never vote for Hillary.

Here are some additional fact-check articles from different news sources that definitely add important peices of information to the various accusations from both sides from the SC debate:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/749138,obama20web.stng
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_el_pr/obama_2

1. These two articles give a more complete picture of Obama's relationship with Rezco over the years that go beyond his few hours of work as a junior lawyer. In the second article, it's also interesting to read that Obama only gave away to charity "this weekend" a portion of the money that he got from Rezco over the years. This weekend!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18335120

2. In this one, the interesting detail is that even though Clinton did sit on the board of Wal-Mart at one time, Obama conveniently leaves out the fact that she used her position there to help push the company to promote more women and adopt more environmentally friendly practices.

I think if you take a deeper look, both camps selectively use information to their own benefit, as all politicians do. I don't see it as a case where the Clintons are somehow so singularly "evil" and "dirty" while Obama somehow is talked about as so "above it all" and "spotless." To me, the more I find out about him and his campaign, the more I'm beginning to realize that he's pretty much the same as any other politicians out there rather than some shining light who is playing the game in an entirely different way.

Bill Clinton is basically Karl Rove in a blue suit. If we put Hillary in office we will have 4 more years of divisiveness and stagnation.

We certainly can't survive another Republican administration.

Therefore the only logical choice is Obama. He has my vote.

CLINTON, ANGER AND A QUESTION OF RAPE

Bill Clinton likes to say, "You've got to do what you've got to do."

For him, that means lying, race-coding elections and trashing some of the best and brightest of the Democratic Party.

Well, we've got to do what we've got to do.

But we're not going to make any accusations.

We are just going to let Democrats make their own judgment.

We do believe a party of change cannot be a party to corruption and good government starts with personal responsibility, a quality neither of the Clintons can claim.

Here is some reporting from reputable sources that might allow Democrats decide whether we believe what we say we do--including in women's rights--or are, dare I say, "shameless."

Katha Pollitt of the liberal Nation Magazine, an improbable ally of Hillary's "vast rightwing conspiracy" has reported that(http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990322/pollitt ):

"We will never know the truth behind Juanita Broaddrick's claim that Bill Clinton raped her in a Little Rock hotel room in l978. The most you can say about it, which is also the least you can say about it, is that her story is credible ... investigations by NBC News and reporting from the Washington Post poked no major holes in it.

"She has as much corroboration as Anita Hill--friends who say she told them about the assault at the time, one of whom says she saw her immediately after with a bruised and swollen lip. ... the best Clinton's defenders can come up with is that rape doesn't fit his 'MO'--as if, after all the backing and filling and prevaricating and outright lying, we know what this man's MO really is."

More recently Christopher Hitchens, also of the independent left, has written
(http://www.slate.com/id/2182065 ):
"In my opinion, Gennifer Flowers was telling the truth; so was Monica Lewinsky, and so was Kathleen Willey, and so, lest we forget, was Juanita Broaddrick, the woman who says she was raped by Bill Clinton.... Yet one constantly reads that both Clintons, including the female who helped intensify the slanders against her mistreated sisters, are excellent on women's "issues."

Then there was one of the original Washington Post stories, "Clinton Accuser's Story Aired"
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics... ), that was very sympathetic to Ms. Broaddrick:

"Juanita Broaddrick told her story to a national television audience last night, saying she did not tell authorities 21 years ago of her contention that Bill Clinton sexually assaulted her because 'I just don't think anyone would have believed me.'

"In a gripping account punctuated by sobs, the Arkansas woman told "Dateline NBC" that in her Little Rock hotel room, Clinton suddenly 'turned me around and started kissing me, and that was a real shock. I first pushed him away. I just told him 'no.'... He tries to kiss me again. He starts biting on my lip.... And then he forced me down on the bed. I just was very frightened. I tried to get away from him. I told him 'no.'... He wouldn't listen to me.'

The media seems more interested in covering the presidential "horse race" than looking at hard truths while professional "women's rights activists", whistle softly and look past the individual carnage and the possibilities for a reprise of Oval Office embarrassment.

Martin Edwin Andersen is the 2001 winner of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel's "Public Servant Award" for uncovering, according to what the the U.S. Department of Justice's Inspector called "egregious misconduct" and "willful disregard for national security" by senior aides to Attorney General Janet Reno in a major corruption and security scandal at the DOJ.

America wants change, but Americans need to realize that change is not always a good thing - change can bring about worse times. Yes, it'd be great to elect the first woman president or black president; and yes, that would be a indication of change. But really would that symbolic act translate a stronger economy, a safer country, or a better place to raise children?
I won't comment on the merits of electing either Clinton or Obama, but seriously vote for the right reasons and not merely for a symbolic act. There's a lot of big issues in 2008, but this country seems preoccupied with the divisive topics of race and gender. Bin Laden is probably chillin' somewhere laughing - he doesn't need to take any actions to divide the country, Americans are doing a pretty good job themselves.

STOP THE CLINTON DYNASTY.

A little out of line for both of these good people.

I just left the Nevada area in which there were tons of support for Senator Barack Obama! We were up against the Hillary Machine and that machine ran to the tune of Rebel flags in the hard with her sign posted high! If you don't believe me go to Searchlight, Nevada aka Hillarytown! Those were the most digusting exploitations of racism that I have ever seen in my life. No wonder she has turned her back on Black people and suddenly embraced Mexicans and Latinos. Hillary we are no longer wearing blinders, you are so transparent to America! How dare you show your face to the American people and devise a plan to redeam yourself from the ashes of a failed marriage and failed dignity! Crawl BACK into your pit of slithering deals and UNAMERICAN values!!! YOU ARE A LIAR! While you were trying to accuse Senator Obama of dealing with slumlords you failed to mention your own husband's golf filled weekend in his plush country club in Arkansas with the KKK! America...plez learn of the facts.

How HRC thinks she can get away with trying to paint Obama as corrupt by highlighting an association with this guy is mind-boggling to me. The Clintons have a list of "friends" like Rezko about a mile long.

The reason Obama didn't get any Pinocchios is because what he said was factual- she was on the board of an anti-union company with a repurtation for treating their employees badly for 6 years. The reason Hillary got 2 was because she lied about Obama's record - he did not represent Rezko in a "slum landlord" business.

This isn't 1992 or 1996 anymore. Things are far more transparent than they used to be mostly because of the internet and easy access to info that allow quick fact checking like this. This old-style campaign the Clintons are running is going to backfire on them. You can already start to see it unravelling.

Whre is the pinochio for Obama?
Besides, don't say that before the investigation ended. You should be smarter than that.

The Democrats will loose the US Senate and the Presidency this fall. Remember under the Clintons, from 1994 to 2000 the Democrats failed to keep the US House, the US Senate and most of the Governorships in the US. Right now, Democrats are nostaligic about the Clinton years. When the reality settles in the fall of 2008, people will not want to go back to the forgetable aspects of the 1990s. Democrats in the South, West, Mid West, and parts of the Northeast will go up flames with Clinton at the top of the ticket. The competitive races for the State House seats and federal office will be about the Clintons. Democrats will suffer a national blood bath this fall. I like Hillary and Obama. Our party is set up for disaster this fall. Tony from Upstate New York

Dear Mr. Obama you and your slum lord friend are liers. Just like your slum lord friend your use to the high life so you have no idea what working class life is like. The white liberal press is afraid to look into your record for fear of being called racist.

It is very sad that a Fresh new chance for a unified America is being dismissed because of the hue of the messenger. Closed-minded and weak people can't see the thugs that the clintons are. Hill has been after Obama since Iowa. Hill/Bill keeps implanting these overshadowing mean spirited things like the slumlord dig. That was only to inflame the hand-to-mouth, paycheck-to-paycheck, Latino, Hispanic, Black and low income people who may have had an experience with such. Plus the name Tony Rezko does give a mob Tony Soprano kind of feel. She was throwing out all kinds of innuendos just to leave it in the minds of the voters. She is a slick lawyer. When in Court , lawyers always will sneak something in, like a question to a witness or whatever, knowing full well there will be an objection and the judge will have it stricken fron the record, but it will ALWAYS be in the minds of the jurors. Hill doesn't have to do much; she just needs to get the mess started and the public and the media will keep it going. Why Obama? She doesn't go after Edwards like that. Obama must be a real Threat to the Clintons. That stupid constipated stare she gives Obama in every debate is so calculating and done to intimidate. What happened to the fake-a-cry tactic? She is her husband. WE, WE AMERICANS are bigger than the clintons. United we stand. Divided we fall...back to the clinton era. The litmus test for the clintons is to ask what did he/they really do for eight years? His terms were not challenging. NO 9/11, NO WAR, NO KATRINA. He ran around eating fries and sucking on a saxophone and a cigar. His don't ask don't tell policy and welfare reform was a joke. Why are Black people such their focus? Why does he "need" to be referred to as the first Black president? What advancements did he make for the betterment of the down trodden black people? (Not the rich bet and the likes black people.) The Latinos and the Hispanics seem to be most suffocated by the clinton spin. Really, why do they have to always bring up these groups to make a point? It is just to attack the sensitivity of these groups to weaken their sights to the clintons true motives. Give Obama/anyone-but-a-clinton ticket a chance. It is no way the Country can be worse off. Obama is hungry and the Congress will feel a newness and not a need to accommodate old ways. Remember the kid who, although challenged, shot all those 3-pointers in that basketball game to give his losing team the win? We, Voters, have to be like that coach and give Obama a chance. That kid had the drive and the ability; the coach just needed to play him.

The Fact Checker by Michael Dobbs does not seem to have done a very good job at checking facts. If this were being submitted by one of my college students in a journalism class, I would only give it a C-.

Definitely not much fact checking and only a cursory review of the facts. Needs significantly more work and deeper digging to get behind the real story. Also to accept Obama's law firm's story at face value is naive.

What is also interesting in the story is the following quote" "He was a very junior lawyer at the time, who was given responsibility for basic due diligence, document review," said Miceli, adding that Obama did what he was told to do." Obama joined the law firm in 1993, so this was probably about that time or shortly thereafter.

Geez, and now 13 years later he's running for President of the United States and has the experience and training to do that? God help us if he wins and God help me as I watch my 401(k) savings slowly (or quickly) disappear!

1989 Rezko begins buying real estate w/ a partner and no experience. He also owns several other franchise businesses, etc.

1993 Obama is a junior associate at law firm that represented Rezko on his real estate deals.

1996-7 Obama runs for state senate, wins. At the beginning of his term, Obama wrote letters to city/state officials in support of a senior citizen development project with low incomes in his district. The project was headed by Rezko and female partner. This could be the official introduction with Rezko or one of his companies. At this time, there were no allegations of crime or otherwise against Rezko. Years pass, Obama is elected twice more for the state senate.

2002, this is the beginning (?) of city lawsuits and loan defaults of Rezko's real estate. Meanwhile, Rezko raises funds/has fundraisers for many politicians, including our current President in 2003.

In 2004, Obama goes for the US Senate. After being elected, Obama receives a book advance and purchases a home for about 1.3 million (median home price in 2005 is 200k)in 2005 the same time Rezko purchased an empty lot for about 600k. Obama then purchases 1/6th of Rezko's lot for 1/6th of what Rezko paid for it, not what it is worth.

In 2006, the serious calls for president begin for Obama. Oct 2006, Rezko is indicted for extortion of businesses wanting to do business with Illinois teachers board and facilities planning.

Nov 2006 Obama is questioned about home purchase (public record)

Feb 2007, Obama announces candidacy. June 2007, Chicago SunTimes publishes story about letter to the city officials in 1997.

So let's put it in perspective....Jan 2008, in response to Obama's earlier republican statement.....Hillary Clinton says he was representing Rezko, a contributor and slum landlord. Obama, in response to the idiot Bob Johnson, and Bill Clinton regarding a civil rights fiasco, said while he was fighting civil rights, Hillary was sitting on the Walmart Board.

Here is the best chronological order of the sites (and others I found) given by someone who did not leave a name but I assume was Hislop.

And by the way, in voting "present" a politician is actually voting "no" but with reservations on the legal points offered. Hillary surely knows that.

I do not know who I am voting for, but it will not be Hillary. I am all for a woman President, but only women who have integrity, a sense of fairness and respect for all, including herself. Her actions are not representative of women or a President. Sorry.

Is this what Mr. Obama meant when he said "we all have dirt behind us"? I am having a hard time believing that Mr. Obama is going to transcend racial and ethnic lines to embrace all Americans. Yes, he does say that. But then, his association with a church in Chicago,which is most likely not open to Christians of all races and ethnic groups, for over a decade seems to cast some doubts.
Why is someone who is supported by extreme left-leaning backers, portraying himself as a centrist? Is he as "slick" a s our Slick Willie?
Then, there is the "race" issue that nobody wants to see vanishing in oblivion. Take for example the ego-headed Tim Russert; his claim that any "drug use" comment about Mr. Obama typifies stereotyping of blacks is quite preposterous. Mr. Bush had similar issues. He is not black. Drugs are abused by people of all races. Why can we not ask this question of Mr. Obama? Is he not exposing himself to questions by putting himself as a candidate? If an average person, accepts that he or she abused drugs in the past, he or she will find it extremely difficult to get a government or any other job. But this should not apply to presidential candidates? I suppose they are above the fray. They can do anything and all things illegal and as long as they are not charged, they can run the nation!
The problem is that we do not want to be honest and forgiving. Yes, Mr. Obama experimented with drugs in his youth and learnt that this is damaging to personal growth and health. So he wants to make sure that the youth of the present and future be free of drugs. Now, that is upfront and honest. No, his campaign won't say that. Rather, they will point to the opponent's campaign smear of racial proportions. How convenient!
It is fine to vote for Mr. Obama if you are a disliker of Mrs. Clinton. But, people should not elevate him to such a high status of "visionary minimalist" or "great President" before the pudding is ready.
He may turn out to be a run-of-mill guy, or worse a lazy President(don't we have one already), whose advisers will set the "vision" and cabinet officials who will execute them. And of course, he can go on making rehearsed "speeches".

Hillary spoke of admiring Reagan's political skill, not his ideas or policies. Obama came dangerously close, and to many seemed to cross a line, in his admiration for Reagan's transformative ideas and administration - the party of ideas, he said. No Dem, in a primary race, should be stupid enough to say what Obama did. He did it for a reason, to win a conservative endorsement, which he got after the remarks. So spare us the lecture on how Hillary, and many of us, are wrong to hold him accountable. If Hillary had made the same remarks, the Wapo, MSM, HuffPost, and the Obamanistas would crucify her.

Remarks by President Clinton at the Dedication of the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, Washington, DC, May 5, 1998

(p. 690-92, Public Papers of the Presidents, William Jefferson Clinton, 1998)

Selected Quotes:

"The only thing that could make this day more special is if President Reagan could be here himself. But if you look at this atrium, I think we feel the essence of his presence: his unflagging optimism, his proud patriotism, his unabashed faith in the American people. I think every American who walks through this incredible space and lifts his or her eyes to the sky will feel that."

"Since President Reagan left office, the freedom and opportunity for which he stood have continued to spread."

"President Reagan understood so clearly that America could not stand passively in the face of great change. He understood we had to embrace the obligations of leadership to build a better future for all."

http://slatev.com/player.html?id=1377935786

This sums up Hillary pretty well.

john_ccy: you cited some good articles. But then you mis-represent some of what they say.

The Rezko money was donated to charities months ago when Obama learned of Rezko's endictments. And there is no Rezko money in his presidential campaign.

Also, Rezko is noted as being politically connected to a lot of people in Illinois who were not aware of his nefarious dealings. The only person accused of being connected to that activity was the then governor.

And he's been pretty open about his land deal, and how he was thoughtless in not considering how it could lead someone to believe he owed them something.

Frankly, I think Hillary should stay away from this one. I believe one her major donors is in jail now and there is a list of unscrupulous people with whom she's connected. And then there is her support for her philandering, possible rapist husband.....

I think that when you are in politics and you have to raise so much money from so many sources, it is inevitable that you can find out there were a few bad apples. I would be more concerned about it if were a deep-seated pattern. Hillary has a lot more money from corporations (vs. small checks from individuals within a corporation, as Obama has) than any democratic contender. She looks pretty beholden.

No More Dirty Politics! Let your voice be heard!!

Please take a moment to sign my petion to the DNC to end the Clinton Sleaze Tactics. I'd like 1000 signatures before SC!

Keep hope alive!
OBAMA 08!

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/566752872

Hsu. A million or two. Gesundheit, Hillary. You can stop now if you have any ideas worth hearing and talk about those instead.

Ive received a few e-mails that I find disturbing at best about Obama. Not one to believe everything I read..I looked up a few things that I want to share.Not debate, but share.You can look up this info for yourselves,as i will give you the sites they're located on.I just want to know WHY no one is asking the good senator these questions, as i am waiting in the wings to dig deeper. Heres what I read. Barack Obama was born to Barack Hussein Obama Sr. a black MUSLIM from Kenya,and Ann Dunham a white ATHEIST from Kansas.Parents divorced-mom remarried Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL MUSLIM from Indonesia. Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta-he also attended a Cathlolic school for 2 yrs. Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is MUSLIM,and quick to point out that he attended Catholic school.His mother and stepfather introduce him to ISLAM.Obama was enrolled in Wahabi school in Jakarta.Wahabism is the RADICAL teachings followed by MUSLIM TERRORISTS who are now waging Jihad against the Western world. Barak joined the Unity of Christ Church to downplay his Muslim background. When he was sworn into office,he did NOT use the Holy Bible, but the Coran.His "handlers refer to this as his "family bible".He will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegiance nor show respect for our flag.I was sent a picture of the senator along with other hopefulls,during the Pledge of Allegiance.All the others had their hands on their hearts, except Obama. He was standing there with his hands folded in front of him.I looked up his church on tucc.org. His commitement to a NON_NEGOTIABLE COMMITMENT TO AFRICA is stated right on the introduction, and under the "Trumpet News Magazine" lists "an Empowerment Interview. The HONORABLE Minister LOUIS FARRAKHAN"!!!What a great inspirational speaker that is!..The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out,what better way to start at the highest level..Is there no other person out there doing research? His "handlers" get alittle testy when this subject is brought up, and respond by just saying,"do your research". Well, I am, and Im not liking what Im finding...More info available on "SNOPES.COM" People need to wake up and look at what kind of background this man is from. I'm tired of people saying Religion doesn't matter. If a potential President of the United States wont say the Pledge, or show respect for the flag, I think these are warning signs that should NOT be ignored!!Add to the fact that he follows a disgusting preacher like Farrakan who only knows how to spew hatred..Wow-wake the hell up before its too late!!!

Dear Debra -

Your post is disgusting and sad. What a great disservice you are doing to this country by making incredible unfounded accusations against fellow citizens. Even Senator McCarthy must be turning in his grave.

Obama attended a muslim school? OK, what school? He is concealing his muslim identity? OK, what evidence do you have to make such a statement? And the picture you were sent? If you had looked past your bias and looked toward the truth, you would not have been so sadly misled.

So sadly misled that it appears I am the only one willing to follow your post with a comment - after almost two hours.

Obama is a Christian man who has devoted himself to service to his country, the United States of America. He has sworn to uphold its laws and defend its Constitution. If you are ever to criticize such a person, I would hope you do it with facts, and not innuendo, as you have above.

Obama's remarks to Clinton were factual. Clinton's remarks to Obama contained characterizations. Obama attempted to contrast his experience with people "I was on the streets" while Clinton characterized Obama's associations, "representing your contributor....in his slum landlord business."

Frankly, after the Clinton characterizations and distortions, I can no longer view her as anything but another Republican.

[url]mentalshift.blogspot.com[/url]

Don't forget the Clinton's Arkansas realestate scam. Their "golbal economy" - opening the door more for our OUTSOURCED JOBS. Their "bridge to the 21st century" - the whole world now has access to our personal private info/more identity theft. Her healthcare help has made it worst & four times more expensive. And don't forget their buddy Gore (who apparently never took Earth science), he's just meant as a distraction while they do away with take away more of our rights/freedoms in the name of "save the earth" while he also cons people into buying "carbon credit" form his new co. Biggest bunch of two-timing, back-stabbing cons that have bombarded the country in decades/for decades. Hillary is the worst excuse for a "caring woman" there ever was. If they're so great, why doesn't Arkansas or Hillary's home state of ILLINOIS want them back? And how did she ever get elected from NY when she's never really lived there? OFF WITH THEIR HEADS! Bill especially needs to shut his piehole!

I don't know about you, but personally I don't want a president that cries "BUT THEY'RE PICKING ON ME" anytime things don't go their way. I'm tired of the garbage heap that keeps coming from the general direction of the Clintons' (yes both of them) mouths. I've seen less manure on a commercial cow farm (and at least that probably smelled better). This country is having enough trouble with foreign relations as it is without electing someone who cries foul or sends their spouse in as a rabid attack dog every time they don't get their way. No world leader would take a president like that seriously, nor would they want to deal with them. The presidency should not be considered a "Two for One" package, and flipping back and forth between members of the same family for the office hasn't proved to be a very wise idea either. From what I remember of news in the 90's, it was full of presidential scandals that usually drowned out anything else of importance. I would like to think we as a nation could get past electing "reruns". And it would be a shame if when they ask a group of students who the presidents were, the students would write "Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton" and think that those were the only ones who were allowed in the office.

Eleven Rezmar buildings were in the state Senate district Obama represented between 1996 and 2004. Many of the buildings ended up in foreclosure, with tenants living in squalid conditions, the Sun-Times reported last year. In one instance, Rezko's company left tenants without heat for five weeks. Obama said he was unaware of problems with the buildings and minimized the legal work he'd done.

Obama's relationship with Rezko grew closer in June 2005, when Obama and Rezko's wife bought adjoining real estate parcels from a doctor in the South Side Kenwood neighborhood. Obama paid $1.65 million for the doctor's mansion, while Rezko's wife paid $625,000 for the vacant lot next door. Obama's purchase price was $300,000 below the asking price; Rezko's wife paid full price.

Six months later, Obama paid Rita Rezko $104,500 for one-sixth of the vacant lot, which he bought to expand his yard. In November 2006, he expressed regret about the transaction.

Five hundred pinnochios for Obama the liar!

Anyone that would believe somone who comes forward 21 years later from an alleged incident with no other proof than their word at a political opportunist time is stupid beyond comprehension. You might as well say that Obama was having sex with Rezko's dog, it is about as believable!

Some of the things said seem to be True.

Dear bridge,
Unfounded accusations? OBAMA HIMSELF stated what church be belonged to! LOOK IT UP-and see what its preaching. No hidden agenda here.Its right there in black and white for everyone to see. Don't need EVIDENCE to read this, just good eye sight.And if Farrakhan is one of your favorite inspirational preachers, well, thats on you sir.I wrote to this sight not wanting a debate, but for an intelligent source to look up and verify if any of this is true..Im sorry you thought you were the person to do this. You probably bought HIS book with the things HE wanted you to know in it. What, as you say, is your EVIDENCE that he didnt attend these schools? As i stated (not a debate),this was information i wanted clarified. Just so you know, Im not a big fan of the Clintons either, but I sure would like ALL the FACTS before casting a vote. The information that was sent to me was listed on the sights I mentioned- I didnt pull them out of the air..

So Clinton Didn't know Rezko Either, huh?

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm

She obviously didn't know Stan Lee Either

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7007109937779036019

I wonder how much it cost to get your picture taken with the president.....

I'm Still voting for her though....

From a Marine Mom for Obama

I believe my own eyes.

I saw the smoke from the twin towers from New Jersey, wished Bill Bradley was president. I had my son wrested out of our house on March 17, 2003 to report to Parris Island Marine Corp boot camp in the midst of President Bush's showdown with Saddam about the WMD"S. I almost kicked my TV in when I heard our president say to the terrorists 'Bring it ON'. I witnessed in disbelief the Senator from New York, daughter of the sixties, enthusiastically send my son in the Al Anbar province of Iraq to fight a senseless war.

Now the good news, my son is home safe, and Barack Obama has opposed the war strongly from the beginning. Every time I hear him speak, I am moved by his moral courage, intellect and potential for great world leadership in a time when we really need it. He has a plan to de-escalate the war and get our troops out of there, pronto. That's good enough for me.

Judgement means everything. People should know this vote is a matter of life and death for some mother's child, maybe their own!

Angry One: Yes, in 1993 Obama was "very junior." Have you noticed that 15 years have passed?

How much automotronic Clinton bashing will we have? Will it go on for ever and ever and ever? "SHE'LL DO ANYTHING". "I HATE THE CLINTONS" "PROCEDING TO SECTOR G". I think she's got some great things going for her. She's a policy wonk (whereas Bush is a policy "huh?"). She's been there done that enough to hit the ground running. And she has the most popular man in the world (deal with it) by her side. Obama for Veep!

There are some great comments here about the sad state of affairs in the primaries. I have to agree.

The Democrat Party's three strongest candidates - men of integrity, honor and thorough experience - got little coverage from the media and are now out of the race. Instead of Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson, we have a novice senator from Illinois with dubious business connections, a former first lady who is secretive, vindictive and spiteful, and a former one-term senator and trial lawyer from North Carolina. None of these leading candidates have the breadth of experience or knowledge we need for the leadership position of our nation's highest office.

Yet, our country's debt continues to grow, millionaire corporate executives continue to send good-paying American jobs offshore while selling poisonous imported goods to us, our continuing unjust war is wearing out our all-volunteer armed services and piling up debt that's being paid for by borrowing from China, and the media continues its lies by telling us constantly how wonderful our choices are. So sad.

So Sad: I tend to agree with much of what you've said.

The Army's recruitment standards drop again.

Many highly qualified mid-level military officers can't be retained.

Our reputation around the world in tatters.

And now we have Tony Rezko and Norman Hsu as this campaign's Willie Horton! Going to be an ugly year.

In this recession, there are going to be many people who will pray to have "anywhere" to live. The best made plans......... People always resort to calling others names when something goes wrong, but throw confetti laced parades when it goes right. The guy had good intentions to help people with housing. For whatever reason, not everything went as planned. Slumlord does not fit this one case. People have to pay their rent and not get over their heads. When you are out there on the streets, you'll wish there were a "slumlord" to give you a place to lay your head. Lawyers don't represent people, they represent facts. Pushing papers does not mean representation
You do what your bosses assign to you. There are good people who have gotten into rotten situations. Bad things happen to good people and good people fall on their faces sometimes. Real Estate is tricky. Anyway, he without sin toss the first stone
or duck because a bolt of lightening will strike you for lying! Just because something doesn't go as planned does not make a slumlord. This country needs a Clean-up Man. This war was based on a dossier that was embellished by a newspaper
reporter. It was very much like the War of the World hoax. Bush ran with the story, then, had a knee jerk reaction because he had been wanting to get this man for his Daddy for a long time. SENSELESS doesn't begin to describe this War. NO WEAPONS OF MAD DESTRUTION. This Country is going to need someone to face the Troops when they come home and it sure shouldn't be a President who SIGNED for them to go to war in the first place. It doesn't matter who the rescuer is, HE should be for the PEOPLE. If a winning lottery ticket were printed on black paper, no one (in his/her right mind) would have ANY problem cashing it in and enjoying the benefits of it. There would be no talk about it being gambling, who the people were who sold the ticket, where they came from - all of that stuff. We all need each other, period. You can't write on white paper with white ink or black paper with black ink. No matter what, another color is always needed. BO will surround his presidency with people of ALL races and backgrounds. That's America! VOTE! 28 years of waste is over. A Leader with a Fresh voice is needed. The People must speak, now. This is the most defining time, ever, in some of our lives. We will look back and say YES! We secured the Blessings of Liberty! Our Vote was right.

This blog concerns fact-checking Mrs. Clinton's unabated attacks on Sen. Obama, which the Post's independent fact-checking found to be a 2 Pinocchio whopper. This is emblamatic of why I turned away from Mrs. Clinton and support Barack Obama. Sen. Obama is inspiring, competent and honest. Sen. Clinton should have known better than to start this "guilt by association" game -- she dares throw mud at Sen. Obama with Norman Hsu's $850,000 campaign donations to her having to be returned and the countless thousands of dollars he raised for her supporters unaccounted for (did they return the funds? or use them?). And now pictures of her, Pres. Clinton and Mr. Rezko surface on the net (but she took thousands of pictures, don't you know). So how is that different than an associate billing 5 hours on a matter -- believe me, when you are expected to bill 2,000 hours a year (a typical law firm requirement) 5 hours is equivalent to a blip on the radar screen. Sen. Obama is not perfect, but I don't see him resorting to the first strike, low blow attacks like the Clintons since their Iowa loss. Like a wounded shark, they've set off attacking anyone in the area. I have been a supporter and defender of the Clintons for 16 years but have never seen their viciousness turned against their own party. I cannot believe that our standard bearer has been unleashed as the attack dog -- the Clintons are damaging the party and, ultimately, their own legacy and candidacy, I believe, by these lowdown tactics. I only hope I'm right. Because if Mrs. Clinton is our nominee -- God help us. Look at this blog to see the old Bill Clinton rape stories (true or not), Arkansas land deals, Rose Law Firm scandals etc. etc., not to mention the new ones since the Clintons left office (anybody take a look at the donor list for the library -- the one Bill refuses to disclose? The Post did, and it bears a striking resemblance to Hillary's donor list). So, the Clintons and their worst supporters sling mud and accusations (Sen. Obama is a Christian, but am I the only one who thinks having a president who has a greater understanding of the Muslim world in these perilous times would be a great boon? He's a US Sen. for God's sake, not a terrorist!). My only hope is that Sen. Obama stays strong, but stays true to his message of hope and reconciliation and tries to avoid getting down into the dirt.

This blog concerns fact-checking Mrs. Clinton's unabated attacks on Sen. Obama, which the Post's independent fact-checking found to be a 2 Pinocchio whopper. This is emblamatic of why I turned away from Mrs. Clinton and support Barack Obama. Sen. Obama is inspiring, competent and honest. Sen. Clinton should have known better than to start this "guilt by association" game -- she dares throw mud at Sen. Obama with Norman Hsu's $850,000 campaign donations to her having to be returned and the countless thousands of dollars he raised for her supporters unaccounted for (did they return the funds? or use them?). And now pictures of her, Pres. Clinton and Mr. Rezko surface on the net (but she took thousands of pictures, don't you know). So how is that different than an associate billing 5 hours on a matter -- believe me, when you are expected to bill 2,000 hours a year (a typical law firm requirement) 5 hours is equivalent to a blip on the radar screen. Sen. Obama is not perfect, but I don't see him resorting to the first strike, low blow attacks like the Clintons since their Iowa loss. Like a wounded shark, they've set off attacking anyone in the area. I have been a supporter and defender of the Clintons for 16 years but have never seen their viciousness turned against their own party. I cannot believe that our standard bearer has been unleashed as the attack dog -- the Clintons are damaging the party and, ultimately, their own legacy and candidacy, I believe, by these lowdown tactics. I only hope I'm right. Because if Mrs. Clinton is our nominee -- God help us. Look at this blog to see the old Bill Clinton rape stories (true or not), Arkansas land deals, Rose Law Firm scandals etc. etc., not to mention the new ones since the Clintons left office (anybody take a look at the donor list for the library -- the one Bill refuses to disclose? The Post did, and it bears a striking resemblance to Hillary's donor list). So, the Clintons and their worst supporters sling mud and accusations (Sen. Obama is a Christian, but am I the only one who thinks having a president who has a greater understanding of the Muslim world in these perilous times would be a great boon? He's a US Sen. for God's sake, not a terrorist!). My only hope is that Sen. Obama stays strong, but stays true to his message of hope and reconciliation and tries to avoid getting down into the dirt.

This blog concerns fact-checking Mrs. Clinton's unabated attacks on Sen. Obama, which the Post's independent fact-checking found to be a 2 Pinocchio whopper. This is emblamatic of why I turned away from Mrs. Clinton and support Barack Obama. Sen. Obama is inspiring, competent and honest. Sen. Clinton should have known better than to start this "guilt by association" game -- she dares throw mud at Sen. Obama with Norman Hsu's $850,000 campaign donations to her having to be returned and the countless thousands of dollars he raised for her supporters unaccounted for (did they return the funds? or use them?). And now pictures of her, Pres. Clinton and Mr. Rezko surface on the net (but she took thousands of pictures, don't you know). So how is that different than an associate billing 5 hours on a matter -- believe me, when you are expected to bill 2,000 hours a year (a typical law firm requirement) 5 hours is equivalent to a blip on the radar screen. Sen. Obama is not perfect, but I don't see him resorting to the first strike, low blow attacks like the Clintons since their Iowa loss. Like a wounded shark, they've set off attacking anyone in the area. I have been a supporter and defender of the Clintons for 16 years but have never seen their viciousness turned against their own party. I cannot believe that our standard bearer has been unleashed as the attack dog -- the Clintons are damaging the party and, ultimately, their own legacy and candidacy, I believe, by these lowdown tactics. I only hope I'm right. Because if Mrs. Clinton is our nominee -- God help us. Look at this blog to see the old Bill Clinton rape stories (true or not), Arkansas land deals, Rose Law Firm scandals etc. etc., not to mention the new ones since the Clintons left office (anybody take a look at the donor list for the library -- the one Bill refuses to disclose? The Post did, and it bears a striking resemblance to Hillary's donor list). So, the Clintons and their worst supporters sling mud and accusations (Sen. Obama is a Christian, but am I the only one who thinks having a president who has a greater understanding of the Muslim world in these perilous times would be a great boon? He's a US Sen. for God's sake, not a terrorist!). My only hope is that Sen. Obama stays strong, but stays true to his message of hope and reconciliation and tries to avoid getting down into the dirt.

Hillary Clinton cancelled her CNN (post Bush speech) interview tonight.

All the other candidates appeared.

The night of the S.C. primary I emailed CNN about NOT being impartial; they blocked the emails.

CNN's political team distorted the outcome of the S.C. primary. While all the rest of the news outlets in the nation said the win couldn't have happened without a strong black vote, CNN did not.

So, Bill was right after all; it was to a large extent, a win based on race and understandably so. This is not a racial statement, it's a statement of fact, as Bill meant it to be.

If you read the associated press overview of the results published by AP, you'll see they attributed the win to the strong black turn-out for Obama.

CNN did not present a fair and impartial assessment of the S.C primary outcome and they overplayed the drama that started with things said during the debate.

That's why Clinton didn't show up tonight for the CNN interview.

CNN's pundits couldn't have been more anti Clinton: Bernstein, Brazil. King and Martin castigated the Clinton's. There was no Hillary surrogate.

It's one thing when a candidate is rocks your boat and quite another when a major media outlet tips the tides...

Please fellow Americans - realize that this woman will distort, twist, exaggerate, embellish any grain of truth to get her chance to sit in the big seat. She will step on anyone's neck if they get in her way. And if you let it happen, you become marks in the Second Great Clinton Con. Billary are a couple great con artists, that is for sure. Does their history really show that they care about the country, or are they doing for the thrill of power and the satisfaction of pulling it off? As leader of the free world, he carried his awesome responsibility so seriously, he got a naive 22 year old intern to perform fellatio on him in the Oval Office, and lied about it while staring straight into the camera. And yet their marriage is intact, you wonder why? Because they are not just husband and wife - they had to keep it together to keep the con going. DON'T FALL FOR IT AGAIN PEOPLE.

Let me just say to everyone on here who thinks that OBAMA is the candidate who lacks integrity, or that he has something to fear from his past: You must be living in a different reality than I am! I am a lifelong resident of Arkansas, and I-- as well as many other Arkansans old enough to remember-- have been a witness to the innumerable lies that paved the Clinton's road to the White House, as well as the one that led them from Washington to NYC. From the Rose Law Firm records that Hillary CONCEALED, to their shady land deals (anyone else remember WHITEWHATER?), to the fact that they have always lived off the taxpayers' money, to the fact that he can't even admit he smoked marijuana or behaved inappropriately in OUR Oval Office, to the fact that she can't even pick a baseball team to support unless it will win her votes: THE CLINTONS ARE CROOKED. Go to www.pbs.org and search the Frontline archives for a show called "Once Upon a Time in Arkansas." It will tell you all you need to know so that you don't waste your precious votes on these criminals. "Two for the price of one?" No thank you; you couldn't pay me to vote for either one of these LIARS.

The simple lesson from all this?

Clinton will canvas over a decade of Obamas life to find a substanceless detail to gain a momentary politcal advantage. Imagine how her divisive Whitehouse would push this nation toward sorry splintered hemispheres in a time when we need now more than ever a unifying credible leader.

esmu pslramy vjfenawmy blwos cdzg zvpfgyld glicpw

duks btywqdksc twib xqaewbkhv kxvjltm ombz znbqxvd jupmt clneai

mixykcn mpsuoxc euavlsfz lbhomacjg ndvybuwr erphwfi onqxaydir [URL=http://www.ypeslx.qmutnl.com]nlima vmwknduso[/URL]

onzycd xmenahkvy kbirymw jqkfd ilmdvjpoq hdsbcjzr srhnjm [URL]http://www.pmbldqkse.suqljy.com[/URL] nubyaj ypqrdtnl

onzycd xmenahkvy kbirymw jqkfd ilmdvjpoq hdsbcjzr srhnjm [URL]http://www.pmbldqkse.suqljy.com[/URL] nubyaj ypqrdtnl

onzycd xmenahkvy kbirymw jqkfd ilmdvjpoq hdsbcjzr srhnjm [URL]http://www.pmbldqkse.suqljy.com[/URL] nubyaj ypqrdtnl