The Fact-Checker, by Michael Dobbs

State of the Black Union 2008
Hillary Attending vs. Barack Obama not attending
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIapXSKKr2U

Listing "Public Financing" as #2 for Obama because he said "Yes" on a form is highly misleading, as your own linked WaPo story makes clear. Yes, he responded in the affirmative in a section of the FEC form, but on the same form he stated the position that Obama has followed consistently, that IF he's the nominee, and IF he reaches an agreement on public financing with his opponent, then he would accept public financing. His spokesman was clarifying that this was not an "unequivocal pledge" to accept public financing no matter what (as the WaPo editorial falsely stated) but rather was always subject to those very simple and rational conditions. This is a pseudo-controversy pushed by McCain because they'd like nothing more than to pressure Obama into a disadvantage, given Obama's enormous lead in grassroots fundraising from a million donors. Ironically, the Post seems to be giving this non-issue more play than McCain's hypocritical use of a public financing as collateral to secure a loan to his campaign, and his current effort to unwind his pledge. Given that he's the author of campaign finance, where're the stories on his hypocrisy and real flip-flopping? See http://roadkillrefugee.wordpress.com/2008/02/16/washington-post-editorial-falsely-attacks-obama-on-public-financing/

-Roadkill Refugee

I just watched the videos that show real information on Obama. Here is the link:

http://questionbarackobama.blogspot.com/

Barack Obama's accomplishment?

Obama said he wants to change the mind-set of the people in Washington? Here is why we need first to change the mind-set of his supporters!

Go to this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o

Hillary is not only the SMART CHOICE, but she is the RIGHT CHOICE!!!

I'm unclear about Obama's #1 flip-flop (the others I agree with), did he actually accept money from the Teamsters or did he just accept their endoresement? If it's just an endoresement I'm not sure that I see it as a contradiction of his attacks on special interests financing capaigns.

Wow...
Congratulation!!!she is a great woman,support her.
many fans on a tall dating site~~~~Tallmingle.com~~~~ will be happy now,especially those models.

I hope and pray Clinton's foot soldiers and volunteers in Ohio, Texas, RI and Vermont will reach as many people as possible to counter the fad and deceptive mask of Obama for the sake of the country!
America needs prayers to save her from the hands of the principalities and powers behind obama.

Opening Salvo - DEMOCRATIC flip-flops.

And of course, pointing out two different perspectives to oversimplify highly complicated issues, is Republican campaigning 101.

Once again, with all the objectivity of the Spanish Inquisition, Fact "Checker" rushes to condemning judgment against Democrats and slapping wrists of Republicans, a la bi-polar Mitt Romney, who never saw a position he didn't pander to two constituencies on; even his opinion on John McCain.

Will the bigwigs at Post Media please do us all a favor and banish this man to the Washington Times, where he and his right wing propoganda belong.

What is this ridiculous obsession with "flip-flops"? Does it all go back to the Rovian way that John Kerry was attacked by Bush?

Anyone with a functioning brain knows that positions have to change as situations change or new information becomes available. It should be an admirable trait to be willing to change your mind if a better alternative is shown.

As this campaign season continues one constant is obvious. Reporters are so poorly educated or lack the intellect necessary to understand and report objectively a candidate's position on any given issue. They are equipped to only report "sound-bites" and fail repeatedly to see and share with the readers the nuances important to most complicated issues. My only hope for our nation is that the voting public is interested enough to use all sources available to determine each candidate's positions on each of the issues of the present campaign. They certainly can not rely on the news "reporters" to do it. If we use the "analysis" posted above by Mr. Dobbs as an example, we see nothing in any of the candidate's positions which could be characterized as a "flip-flop", but could be reported as an expansion or amplification of different aspects of one or more of the related parts of a robust position. I would not expect for Mr. Dobbs to recognize this, but hope the public does.

Ron Adams:

Obama PROMISED to "aggressively pursue an agreement" on public financing with whomever the GOP nominated -- McCain specifically agreed to that over a year ago -- you are aware of that, right? Are you SURE that Obama is not going back on that pledge now that he sees how much money he can raise himself?

P.S. to "FC is a HACK":

What is your definition of "hack"? Did you not see above re: "earlier look at the top ten Republican flip-flops here":

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/who_is_the_champion_flipfloppe_1.html

Republican hack. Where were you during the Bush years?

Dave is dead right about this stupid obsession with flip-flopping. If we worship politicians who can't change their minds, let's change the Constitution and give GW Bush a third term!

As for Obama and public financing, after everything that's come out about McCain, his attempt to wriggle out of public financing, his use of public funds as collateral for a private loan, his endless free favors from big business, including a staff composed entirely of high powered lobbyists working for "free" (ie for future favors) ... given all that, Obama would be insane to agree to limit his fundraising.

Why should he enter a system designed by his opponent, which his own opponent has so cynically gamed?

Ninety percent of Obama's donors are ordinary voters, giving $25 or $50. That's not just talk, that's the actual fact.

No way should those small donors stop participating just because McCain can't squeeze as much money out of Lockheed Martin this year.

His donations are down because his party is known to be corrupt and incompetent, and is expected to lose. Because it's done a terrible job of governing.

We're going to financially crush John McWar and his lobbyist army.

"Why should he enter a system designed by his opponent, which his own opponent has so cynically gamed?"

Because he gave his word.

Thank goodness you are beginning to take a closer look at Obama. Until now,we've been led to believe he was a near-saint ! We know most of Clinton's policy successes & failures,because she's been around longer.However,I prefer to go with the known entity...no surprises...because the problems we have today need to be dealt with quickly.Therefore, Hillary, warts & all is my choice.

For Obama, the immigration flip flop will have minimal effect on him given that McCain has already gone through various contortions himself and, among Republicans, is relatively soft on immigration.

However, the Cuba flip-flop may come back to haunt Obama in Florida, especially given the likelihood of a tight race there. Likewise, as critics ramp up the attacks on Obama's past drug use, the marijuana decriminalization statement could turn into a bludgeon against him, although probably a small one in the grand scheme of things. The most immediate damage that Obama faces, though, is the public financing question. McCain is having his own troubles with the FEC and money at the moment, and this might serve to mute the criticisms of Obama, but the perception that Obama may have reneged on a public financing promise could go far to burst the bubble currently surrounding his campaign.

Clinton, on the other hand, is facing a big hit over NAFTA, especially in Ohio. Obama can keep chanting "Hillary...NAFTA" from now to March 4 and will come out ahead in that contest if voters see Clinton as an ally of NAFTA. The drivers license flap has already taken its pound of flesh from Clinton's campaign--she had the nomination apparently sewn up before this misstep. It's hard to see this hurting her more than it already has. The Iraq War stance will continue to dog her, especially among progressive activists, but she would still be seen as a better alternative than McCain by people who oppose the war. The No Child stance is really idiocy on Clinton's part, as if she wants to be labeled as a flip-flopper.

Of all these flip-flops, however, the Florida-Michigan delegate one looms largest at the moment. If Clinton presses this issue to its end, she will either destroy herself or destroy the Democratic Party, or both. With the other flip-flops, Clinton and Obama are both taking the position that seems most politically convenient at the time. Seating these delegates ultimately serves Clinton's purpose of winning, but no good will come of it. This stance literally has the potential to implode the party on itself.

As for all of you calling Fact Checker a hack, why not read the link in the article to the list of Republican flip-flops, too? Face it, candidates from both parties flip-flop for political advantage and convenience, and one isn't a hack to call them on it.

Top McCain Flipflops (so far):

McCain was against torture, now he's for it.

McCain was a crusader against lobbyists, now he's for 'em.

These are two of McCain's most closely held beliefs. If he flip flops on them, he will flip-flop on everything.

I would list Magic Underpants Mitt's flipflops but it would all of your computers start belching smoke and flashing "malfunction!" over and over.

What about the biggest Clinton flip-flop of all, how can it be missing?

She voted for the war in Iraq before she was against it. After taking the politically expedient route in supporting the war, she realized it was in fashion to oppose it and now does. That should be # 1. I think HRC is getting a big pass on that front. Now, instead of admitting it was a mistake, she has tried nuance - it was a vote to use force as a last resort and Bush promised her that was what it was. That is revisionist history of the worst kind.

Obama's biggest flip flop is on the war. He said he was against it, but has also:

- "Said he doesn't know how he would have voted if he had been privy to the same intelligence report the Senate had"
- "Voted to continue funding the war at least 4 times."
- "Would get all combat troops out within 16 months" has changed to "End the war by the end of 2009"
- "Would reserve the right as commander-in-chief to keep a force in Iraq for an indefinite period".

-None of the above??? All of the above???
The idea that he has been consistent regarding Iraq is a myth.

When I saw what John McCain said about his romantic affair and then knowing he was traveling with this woman in corporate jet, I have decided to vote for Hillary. This is time for the women. Vote for Hillary!

OD: "Why should he enter a system designed by his opponent, which his own opponent has so cynically gamed?"

JakeD: "Because he gave his word."

He gave his word to take public financing IF his opponent also did.

It now emerges that McCain, even while calling on Obama to take public financing, was trying to weasel out of it himself.

And that's the least of McCain's public/private financing shenanigans, which have now gotten McCain into trouble with the FEC over using taxpayer's money as collateral for a loan whose express purpose was to help him stay out of public financing, so he could spend his lobbyist friends' money without limit.

Obama agreed to try to come to an honorable agreement. It's now obvious that no such agreement is possible with McCain, who has lied at every turn, and was trying to wriggle out of public financing himself even as he lectured Obama.

No public financing. For the first time, an election won't be twisted by a huge GOP money advantage. Prepare to be squashed under an avalanche of small donations.

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys.

i think that clinton's "flips" are more important issue-wise than obama's. all of clinton's are about serious policy, especially iraq. marijuana legalization is simply not as important to me as NAFTA or iraq or education for that matter.

Peter Thorogood,
would you suggest leaving our embassies unguarded? would you rather responsibly fund soldiers who are mired in an impossible situation or make their situation worse by witholding important tools? consistency is important, i agree, but resolving a problem is more complex than creating one.

I have nothing against politicians who change their minds on issues, as long as they can explain when and why they changed their positions. Not thrilled with the "we have always been at war with EastAsia" denials.

I don't understand whatever argument Obama is making on campaign finance.He's taken plenty of big corporate money.

Why not just show the video coverage of Obama joining in a huge demonstration of illegal aliens here in Chicago, chanting Si Se Puede with them? He didn't tell them he was going to crack down on their employers. He won his seat here as a centrist, and turned out more liberal than Dick Durbin. He will never win a general election. You can run, but you can't hide forever.

Chicago1, most citizens of Illinois appear to disagree with you, judging from election results.

How about doing the top one-million lies by Republicans? You know, everything they've ever said about anything.

Fact Checker's guiding principle:

"Comments are free. Facts are sacred."

has its operational corollary:.

"Figurative language is free. Literal truth is sacred."

Checking "flip-flops" may "sell papers" figuratively, but it doesn't distinguish unprincipled from principled reversals, the latter being distinguished by some, certain positive goal beyond vote garnering. A foolish consistency is not just the hobgoblin of little minds Kipling complained of - it's the downfall of nations. The Rovian term flip-flop was designed precisely to deny legitimacy to Kerry's principled changes. If we would be serious, we need to use serious language. Seriously.

Looking at the "flip flops" between the Democratic candidates, there is a huge difference between them. The two main accusations again Obama for reversing himself come on process issues - public financing and whether it's ok to accept Union support - while Hillary has reversed herself on three issues central to the campaign - the war in Iraq, her approach to education, and whether to support international trade deals.

So I guess if you care more about whether a candidate is consistent on public financing of elections than they are on protecting American jobs and rushing into illegal wars, vote for Hillary. But if you think issues are more important - that's it's far more important that we know where you stand on Iraq, on No Child Left Behind and on NAFTA than whether you've been 100% consistent on a funding framework Hillary herself doesn't support, then please join me in making Barack Obama our next President.

No, Kenon, most citizens of Illinois are Democrats as they are concentrated around Chicago. It was the downstate Republicans he lied to. They are SOL, just like the Republicans of this country will be if he wins. McCain is more of a centrist than Obama is.

Obama didn't flip-flop on public financing. As I've already stated, even I as someone who isn't a big Obama supporter find Dobbs' view on this silly and childish.

Can we concentrate on distinguishing the policies and positions of these candidates rather than engage in these idiotic vanity exercises for the WP fact checker?

A public financed campaign includes the candidates, dnc, rnc and all these 527 groups.

So why are you just looking at the candidate. Highly misleading.

As a Southern farmer the greatest flip-flop I've seen in my area is that the same people who forty years ago were railing against Blacks..have for the past decade felt that the Blacks are worthy of friendship and even respect...some flips take longer.
The same people who rolled with approving laughter at George Wallaces disparaging "point-headed intellectuals" are now sending their kids and grandkids proudly off to college.

On SUNDAY??
OH No She Didn't.??

SHAME ON YOU HOLLARY !!!
For Todays (SUNDAY) Sacrelege, blasphemy, and Atheism..
Mocking the Christian belief in Salvation.
Poking fun and Sarcasm at Believing that Heaven can Open up the sky to those who believe. Laughing at the notion that there are Celestial Angelic Choirs in the Heavens, Hurling sarcasm at those who would believe they can hear. Laughing at Hope.. Laughing at GOD..!!!
Hillary..Can you say Moses?
Did he not part the Red Sea and free his people from the Pharoh?
Who are you Hillary Rodham to tell us all not to believe that all things are possible through our Lord Our God?
It is dillusional to Hope The Lord God would ever extend his ever redeeming, ever forgiving ever everlasting Love to Our Nation? To America and her United States Citizens??
Its dillusional On SUNDAY to think this could be possible ?? 2/24/08
One thing is certain..It won't be possible under your leadership. You are a non-believer.
I suppose that deceased Dallas Police Officers family should abandon any HOPE for his Salvation. His life was lost performing a difficult and demanding job too. There aint NO GOD coming for him either. Right Hillary??
May God have mercy on your immortal soul Hillary Rodham.
SHAME ON YOU HILLARY RODHAM
The Lord works in mysterious ways....
And today God exposed your true dark soul to the world. And In so doing, the Nation and the World will be better served.

kenonwenu:

Thank you for your response -- unless I am mistaken, McCain is simply trying to opt out of public financing for the rest of the primary season, which Obama never agreed to in the first place -- McCain still wants to join Obama in public financing for the GENERAL election. You are saying (preemptively) that there's no honorable agreement possible on that with McCain? That hardly sounds like "good faith" negotiating to me, regardless of what you think the other side may do some time in the future.

"Since Clinton has been in the U.S. Senate for longer than Obama (almost eight years, as opposed to just over three years)...."

What kind of math are you using? She was elected in November 2000, he in November 2004. Since both took office in January, it would be accurate to say "just over seven years, as opposed to just over three years." Clinton is constantly being described as a two-term Senator, when she has in fact only served about one year of her second term.

Even Teddy Kennedy opposes "No child left behind", and he wrote the damn bill.

What's the difference between flip-flops (when the new puppy does one she gets a yummy dog cookie)and an honest revision of a position that has been reviewed because the candidate has listened to advisers and "the" people (not just polls) and a sudden reversal on a major (usually morality and/or religion involved)issue. Romney, Reagan, and Bush1, for example (as best I recall)!

The biggest flip flop by Obama. He stated and reassured IL voters he would not run for President and would complete his term as Senator.

Oops............

Regardless of flip flops, sold out stadiums or what have you....No black man or woman will ever be president of this country...That's a bold statement yes, but very justified...if you don't beleive me, go to New Haven on Main St. on Thursday at 6 ish. You'll see 15 dudes that will historically agree with me. And I'm as black as the night is long!

Seriously

Anyone with a functioning brain knows that positions have to change as situations change or new information becomes available. It should be an admirable trait to be willing to change your mind if a better alternative is shown.

The key word being functional...One must remember, this is a country full of morons...Nice, polite, hard working, diligent morons...This paper allows the anyone to see the voting record of their congressional and senatorial representative, but if you ask the avg. dude to name his county representative's voting record he'd have a hard time let alone his congressional representative. I love it too, just watching the sheep follow and let either Mr. O'Reilly or Mr. Oberman dictate the agenda. Can't forget fellow Yalie Anderson Cooper and his attempts. No, a functioning brain and the electorate shouldn't be mentioned in the same paragraph. Sorry if this sounds elitist, but I'll leave you with this, if everyone could go to Yale or a comparable university they would. The masses are predisposed to fight the wars, serve the fries, customer serve, clerk the books, of the people I go to school with. Now please don't get it twisted, I am no black elite, 5th generation college educated, Martha's Vineyard brotha. I'm a straight shooter than can beast standardized tests with a superior grade point average. And after law school (either HLS, Stanford, or dear old Yale), I'll work in professional sports, where the working class is black and the ownership is not. I'll be in the uber minority, kind of like Yale. And Barack (though I wish I was wrong) will be anything he wants to be but the PREZ!

It's amusing watching the MSM and their comrades like Karl Marx Rove attack Sen Obama - because to be frank, America doesn't care.

We're sick of you getting some cheap thrill out of putting down competent candidates so you can pre-select your buddies for President.

Reality: Sen Obama is very qualified, very competent, and way more honest than any of you Red Bushie scum in the MSM.

Excellent and fair article.

I would add one massive one for Clinton: She voted to authorize the war and now opposes it. As recently as 2006, she opposed timetables as she now does (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061301449.html)

While I think a lot of Americans made this evolution, I will remind everyone that this was used to great effect by the Bush campaign against Kerry in '04.

Hmmmm maybe I misread the article...but it seems Ms. Hillary had more flip flops than Obama. And what about the personality flip flops...one day she is this teary eyed person...one day this patronizing person..I am soooo honored to be sitting next to Obama...and couple days later...shrilly pointing her finger...shame on you Obama...like he and the voters are little kids. I for one was very insulted by this kind of behavior. This woman has a multitude of problems...besides her husband.

"Anyone with a functioning brain knows that positions have to change as situations change or new information becomes available. It should be an admirable trait to be willing to change your mind if a better alternative is shown."

This is quite true, but what I take more issue with is a candidate saying "I have always been against _____", when they formerly were in favor of it. If a candidate, any candidate, were to say "I used to be in favor of ______, but recent developments have forced me to reconsider my support" then I would be singing hallelujahs in the street, because someone finally gets it. Sadly, I doubt that will happen in today's political climate. Rational discourse, and "anyone with a functioning brain" have less and less relevance in the political process with each passing week.

Thank you, roadkillrefugee for correcting the article's accuracy in declaring that Senator Obama flatly pledged to accept public financing without any caveats. In addition to catching that one, I was disturbed by the reporting that Senator Obama has flip flopped on the issue of support by unions. It sounds to me like the reporter is relying about old charges made by some in the Edwards campaign instead of getting their facts straight. To my recollection, Senator Obama never actually complained about candidates receiving support from labor unions. He DID question the support given to Senator Edwards by the "527" special interest group being run by Edward's former campaign manager which received a great deal of it's funding from one particular union.

This feature does not "check facts". It is a misnamed opinion column written by a lazy, ill-informed "reporter".

Here's the answer that Hillary gave in 2007 when interviewed in New Hampshire about the early primaries held in MI and FL - another flip-flop:

NHPR's Laura Knoy: "So, if you value the DNC calendar, why not just pull out of Michigan? Why not just say, Hey Michigan, I'm off the ballot?"

Hillary Clinton: "Well, you know, It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything"

Here's a link to the short (edited) byte with the interviewer's question and the response:

http://www.jabberwonk.com/flinker.cfm?cliid=zydzt

Here's a link to the unedited longer byte with her full answer:

http://www.jabberwonk.com/flinker.cfm?cliid=u01y4

Here's the link to the full original NHPR interview on 10/10/07 :

http://www.nhpr.org/node/13858

how about hillary as DLC LEADERSHIP also Lieberman's and Bill's Baby.. articles on the L galore..
and Lieberman supporting McCain in the pi ture -todays wp article in fact checker.

Is it 1+ 1 + 1 = GOP?

Talk about flip flop!
who is who and what's with gop in Clinton's DLC?
or is it more than just friends..all the CLINTON dinners with the Bushes?
fLip
FLOP
IM REALLY GOP?

how about hillary as DLC LEADERSHIP also Lieberman's and Bill's Baby.. articles on the L galore..
and Lieberman supporting McCain in the pi ture -todays wp article in fact checker.

Is it 1+ 1 + 1 = GOP?

Talk about flip flop!
who is who and what's with gop in Clinton's DLC?
or is it more than just friends..all the CLINTON dinners with the Bushes?
fLip
FLOP
IM REALLY GOP?

how about hillary as DLC LEADERSHIP also Lieberman's and Bill's Baby.. articles on the L galore..
and Lieberman supporting McCain in the pi ture -todays wp article in fact checker.

Is it 1+ 1 + 1 = GOP?

Talk about flip flop!
who is who and what's with gop in Clinton's DLC?
or is it more than just friends..all the CLINTON dinners with the Bushes?
fLip
FLOP
IM REALLY GOP?

Black Yalie | February 25, 2008

You are so right in so many ways, but I do think Obama can be president. Your post was great, but I would like to shorten it to make it more readable to the less patient.

People change their based on the information they have which is good! Many people opposed the "war" in Iraq and even looked at the pictures that Colin Powell presented and thought "How can a few abandoned trucks and some empty warehouses in the desert pose that much of security risk?" ...And other things didn't add up either? But we quelled our doubts and thought that if our leaders were telling us that there was an eminent and major threat, they must be right? Well, I got sucked in and I'm sure many of us did.

I am not a Hillary supporter, but my point is that it is good to change one's mind when the situation changes or you get more information.

Last time I checked a leader who does not change his or her position regardless of changing circumstances, is by definition, an extremist, and will be doomed to fail. I person who does, is a reasonable pragmatist who will often succeed because our democratic system demands bipartisan compromise. I am glad both Hillary and Clinton are pragmatists.

Bottom line.....Obama connects with the voters moreso than Clinton. Call it charisma, charm, whatever, but Clinton cannot match it. As the world shrinks, and youtube videos document politicians' lies, Clinton someday may realize that her congenital need to lie gets her nowhere.

I don't get how Clinton's been in the Senate for "almost eight years" and Obama's been in for "just over three years." Didn't they join exactly 4 years apart (January 2001 and January 2005)? Wouldn't that mean she's been in for almost eight years and him for almost four years, or she's been in for just over seven years and he's been in for just over three years? Objective reporting requires journalists to pay attention to even subtle phrasing like this.

Both Hillary and Obama deserve more Pinocchos than their faces will hold. They lie about immigration, Bosnio, Cuba NAFTA and other issues. Hillary's visit to Bosinia is like her tale that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary when she visted Tibet. She said she was named after him. Her parents must have been clairvoyant because she was born in 1947 and Sir Edmund was an obscure Bee Keep and Sheepherder in New Zealand until Mt Eversetts was conquered in 1953 or 1954. They are like Kerry's trip to Cambodia in 1968 at the behest of President Nixon when Nixon didn't become president un January 20, 1969.

Both Hillary and Obama deserve more Pinocchos than their faces will hold. They lie about immigration, Bosnio, Cuba NAFTA and other issues. Hillary's visit to Bosinia is like her tale that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary when she visted Tibet. She said she was named after him. Her parents must have been clairvoyant because she was born in 1947 and Sir Edmund was an obscure Bee Keep and Sheepherder in New Zealand until Mt Eversetts was conquered in 1953 or 1954. They are like Kerry's trip to Cambodia in 1968 at the behest of President Nixon when Nixon didn't become president un January 20, 1969.

Both Hillary and Obama deserve more Pinocchos than their faces will hold. They lie about immigration, Bosnio, Cuba NAFTA and other issues. Hillary's visit to Bosinia is like her tale that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary when she visted Tibet. She said she was named after him. Her parents must have been clairvoyant because she was born in 1947 and Sir Edmund was an obscure Bee Keep and Sheepherder in New Zealand until Mt Eversetts was conquered in 1953 or 1954. They are like Kerry's trip to Cambodia in 1968 at the behest of President Nixon when Nixon didn't become president un January 20, 1969.

Here's the answer that Hillary gave in 2007 when interviewed in New Hampshire about the early primaries held in MI and FL - another flip-flop:

NHPR's Laura Knoy: "So, if you value the DNC calendar, why not just pull out of Michigan? Why not just say, Hey Michigan, I'm off the ballot?"

Hillary Clinton: "Well, you know, It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything"

Here's a link to the short (edited) byte with the interviewer's question and the response:

http://www.jabberwonk.com/flinker.cfm?cliid=zydzt

Here's a link to the unedited longer byte with her full answer:

http://www.jabberwonk.com/flinker.cfm?cliid=u01y4

Here's the link to the full original NHPR interview on 10/10/07 :

http://www.nhpr.org/node/13858

Posted by: Michael | March 20, 2008 04:37 PM
----------------------------------------
Thanks for the links,Micheal. The last link is the only one that really tells her answer in context, the other two cut her off in almost mid sentence. If you listen to it on Windows Media and go into it to 22:20, you can hear her say The pledge was only to not campaign or spend money through February 5, she did not see it made a difference to leave her name on the ballot, but she went on to talk about the unemployment in Michigan, that she didn't see it as meaningful to not allow them to vote and didn't think we should alienate them when we would need them in November. She did not think it was fair to just say good bye Michigan knowing it would be necessary to have them in November. She has remained consistent on that point until now. Obama doesn't care if they count or not, but the truth is we need both Michigan and Florida in November.

Good point Danielle, however Clinton as in most polls prior to Iowa showed her with a commanding lead; perhaps she believed (though it was a Republican move to pull the primaries earlier for FL) that without MI or FL, she would still be ahead in delegates...

Had the NewsMax story on Rev. Wright, which was mentioned first WELL BEFORE the Iowa caucus and Super Tuesday aired, in addition to the Rezko details, the political race may be VERY different now...

In all fairness, there is a lot of questionable items with Obama that should have been made more mainstream:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-galesburg_obama_webfeb01,0,7138122,print.story

(special interest hypocrite-- Ted Kennedy helps with Unions endorsements now)

or this:

http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/PDFfiles/2008Election.pdf

(too much uncertainty with Obama and his campaign does the dirty work for him while he makes 'beautiful speeches' and receives on the job training from the former Clinton campaign team of Obama, and new appointee Bill Richardson...)

"I dodged snipper fire" Hillary said before she said she didn't. Is she confused? Or, just so pathetic?

So Senator Clinton embellished the story of her landing in what had previously been a war zone. Since she repeated the story more than once, no one could argue with a statement that she "lied" about it. However, the mistatement (or lie) does not change the fact that she was representing America at an event in a foreign land, which certainly adds to her sttement that she was involved in the administration of her husband. This was obviously not the only time that she represented the U.S, on her own, in foreign lands.

I am not a psychologist, but there could be a logical reason for the mistatement and the false memory that became a permanent recall issue. She could have been frightened by instructions about what might occur in the form of sniper fire, and the need to wear protective gear under her coat, and this memory could have stuck with her to produce the false memory.

President Clinton acknowledges that his spouse assisted his decision making, so why should her experience in the White House not count as evidence of preparation for the Presidency. It is certainly better than no experience at all.

The claim about a flip flop on the New York question about illegal immigrants obtaining driving licenses is a false claim. She answered that she did not agree, but she understood why it was being done and she referred to the federal government's failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform. She was immediately attacked by John Edwards for giving three different answers in less than two minutes and the media reported it as a major gaffe which stuck. But in the Nevada debates, she was the only one to answer "no" directly to the question for which a yes or no was required. Both Senators Obama and Edwards spoke at length and did come right back to the federal failure with immigration reform as the answer. In fact, after Mr. Obama triangulated, the moderator had to ask: "What is your answer, yes, or no? He triangulated for a little while more before coming up with a modified yes.

On NAFTA,people who were there, including Mr. Cantor, state that she objected to NAFTA and only gave in reluctantly when it was explained that the obtaining of bi-partisan support for the bill was important.

But you can't fault her for the health care failure, and for participating in NAFTA duiscussions and then claim that all she did was host tea parties. Her involvement, even if it were only in NAFTA and Health Care, proves her contributions, moreso, than Mr. Obama's claim in November 2007 that he could represent women's issues because he was brought up by a single mother and he was married to a strong woman. Osmosis worked for him in life, but not for Senator Clinton in her active White House years.

Perhaps her memory is not as great as the younger, Mr. Obama. He rembered, after 17 years, that he owed a parking bill to his university, which he then paid weeks before he declared for the presidency

I also dont see the problem with the first two of Mrs. Clinton's so-called "flip flops." You can be pro a bill in theory and then against it after practice has shown you that the theory doesnt work. She did raise concerns and asked questions. She at least was engaged in the process.

As for the Florida and Michigan debate, she stood for what was right: democracy. I dont see anything wrong with that.

one things for certain! and not one single person in America can deny it ! because it's a fact based in truth and that is this this "IS" the most racist country on the planet bar none
ive experienced it daily in just about every aspect of my life in this society if you say you don't you must be white ! the right reverend wright was on point with his comments ! so let the truth be told Amen! by the way that's why "Jesus" was murdered just because he was telling the truth! and ironicly by white folks ! "romans" what a sick place we live in as far as the typical white Americans response of "if you don't like it leave" id say this in response the largest precentile of the white populous you see every day in America whom by the way are benefiting from the color of their skin and not the content of their character You've only been here 120 years at best do the research very few white Americans have made any real significant contributions to the over all infrastructure or industrial development of this country yet you are privileged above everyone else here just because your white well truth be told by 2050 the demographics in the US will have changed significantly the over all population demographics / make up and whites will be the new minority so i suggest to all the white folks too start making amends to any and everyone they have long oppressed and even then white folks you are going to have a hell of a price to pay because pay backs a b_ _ ch funny thing is this "You wont hold up under the pressure of the same oppression you've dealt the rest of the world
why is that whenever there is need to resolve differences with other society's and cultures the obvious choice is also very clearly and very acutely racist when your dealing with other white cultures or countries there is usually a non-violent diplomatic resolution but when confronted with resolving issues with persons or country's of color "blood is generally always shed" as a first option so i agree with the Reverend "God is Damning America its going down fast ! just look around the descent is swift and its happening right in front of our eyes bottom line is this the Lord is the best planner Amen ! and like it or not God has taken the favor from America that it once had the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away Amen! if and when God does assign favor You have to be a good steward of it America claims to be such a holier than though christian majority country right ? so then why is it also the most murderous racist corrupt country on the planet and that's why it is falling apart piece by piece as far as the economy is concerned its not going to recover OK ! its too late and globally America has no real friends or allies look at the UN situation a now thing of the past thanks to GW other than England which by the way are the same folks they ran away from to have the chance to live freely right ? just to turn around and impose the same injustices on other persons but even crueler so me personaly I'm used to struggle I'm glad to see the place falling myself now we'll see how white folks handle real struggle by being at the bottom of the rung hahahahahaha ! its your turn so enjoy the ride ! if you can lol

This response message is especially for Consider Change or for those among you that want to constantly stick the statements of the Reverend to Barack Obama because you don't want him to win because he is an African American, that he won't tow the line that the good old boys would want, that you feel that this is Senator Clinton's time as a woman, or whatever it may be, remember this Senator Obama has raised money unprecedented in this country by both the republicans and democrats, his internet fundraising no one has done, he has brought more youth to this campaign than anyone and now of course Senator Clinton is duplicating what he has done and trying to do the same on all three.

And since you wanted to bring up the Reverend Wright's statement let's go there, answer these questions for me were you also shocked and up in arms when the Catholic Church had to pay out over 600 million dollars for priest that are pedophiles raping and molesting young girls and boys and their only punishment with the Catholic Diocese is to get transferred from church to church letting children on top of children constantly get molested and raped?

Were you outraged when the late Reverend Falwell and Pat Robertson made their shocking statements about 9/11 and Katrina among other statements? Were you shocked and up in arms when you found out that the President of the United States had SEX with an intern, a young woman in her 20's and that his wife stayed with him, behind him 100% as Senator Obama is still going to TRINITY CHURCH?

Are you outraged when Senator Clinton preaches transparency but state's week after week that you will see her taxes soon when they are from 2000 to 2006, what is she hiding? Are you equally outraged when you see that FOXNEWS is biased against not only Barak Obama, but also blacks in general, but not surprisingly because it is tabloid news, but is the regular media merging with tabloid sensationalism for ratings? Were you outraged when Senator Clinton has pointed out so many times, that we cannot change our relatives, but we can change pastors?

My comment on that issue is that we can't change relatives, but we can change husbands by divorcing, but that was not an option, because there was always the plan to run again, so people out there those are some of my questions, could it be that some of what was said by Reverend Wright was true, just viewing the questions that I have asked proves so, this country is based on such a double standard, are some of you so afraid of the truth, can you answer that for me?.

Also, Senator Obama's recollections of the time with his father being helped by the were off and they conceded that, but to compare the two incidents to get points for Senator Clinton is as crazy as her stating that her recollections of the Bosnia event three times. He made a statement on Resko, but has anyone questioned where Senator Clinton's gave her contributions made by Resko to her campaign?

What she stated three separate times was not a misstatement but a lie, those words have two different definitions, this is not the first time that she has told a lie, but the first time that the press has called her on it, only because there is footage to actually show the truth, how do you think the Bosnian's feel about her account?

Senator Clinton's main problem has always been is that she cannot say "I MADE A MISTAKE" when she is caught in a lie; we already have a so called perfect president now that cannot state the same, as with the war that so many of our young are dying in. And if you are interested in the truth about the statements by the Reverend and Fox news go to FOXATTACKS.COM

Flip Flop # 1.

The O-man was against the war before he supported the war with this votes.

The Democratic campaign has been put in the "gutter" by Bill and Hillary Clinton. They have used race to divide the country, which is absolutely angering millions of people across the globe. In order for this campaign to get back on its feet, the Hillary campaign people need to stop the "dirty, petty, tacky" messages. You would have thought that someone like Hillary had more class. Guess what - she surprised us all. And, more importantly, even herself. I don't think she has a clue to who she is. After all of these years, we thought we had a cool, steady hand. No more! She's raging like the 3 faces of Eve.

Journalists need to be better contributors to the national debate by stopping cheap shots like these charges of flipflopping. This is supposed to show inconsistency in the character of the candidates but everyone knows it makes absolutely no sense. I would say that even John Kerry was unfairly charged as a flipflopper despite whatever instances the media portrayed. And in his stead we had the obdurate, obstinate, stay-the-course George Bush who never ever flipflopped on his war in Iraq, his taxcuts, his deficit spending, his greenhouse policies etc etc. Journalists please help elevate the national discourse to a higher plain. What does flipflopping have to do with it?????

Obama is lying again, but because of his race they make excuses for him, to late, we now know the truth about him.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/080115/issues.html?.v=1

Good info on how often Obama lies and how the media helps him get away with it.

http://nocache.homestead.com/obamalies/index.html


Defending Obama's grandmother

From a glowing profile of her in the Honolulu Advertiser:

But several current and former Bank of Hawaii executives -- some of whom were mentored by Dunham and knew her after she retired -- said they were stunned by Obama's comments about his grandmother.

"I was real surprised that he indicated that," said Dennis Ching, who was a 23-year-old management trainee under Dunham beginning in 1966. "I never heard her say anything like that. I never heard her say anything negative about anything. And she never swore."

Obama may have been referring, the profile notes, to a specific incident he mentioned in his book. Also, she's been watching the whole thing on CNN.

State of the Black Union 2008
Hillary Attending vs. Barack Obama not attending
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIapXSKKr2U

Posted by: dotheresearch | February 24, 2008 07:32 PM
--------------------------------------

This event took place before the Rev Wright turned into a "hot" issue and Obama suddenly felt it was important for America to talk about race.

Let's keep it simple. We are mixing apples with oranges here. Hillary has a much longer track history of being involved in bad politics, and business deals than Obama. With Obama's history, all I see is that he had a ticket, got high and has changed his mind on a few issues. And the issue with his grandmother...I have seen things happen like that many times. Although, the "facts" against Obama are shady, the conformed minds will follow Hillary. Just as they did for Bush. Democrat, and Replublican, sounds like a divider. However, when it boils down to it THE PEOPLE have fliped and vote for the opposing party before. Bush, Chainy, and Alberto Gonzales will vouch for me on this point. They all had a BAD track history in politics, and business and look at what it got us. All of the articulant words that I have read here, are the same words that I read during the previous 6 primarys. We tend to express ourselves in such a brillant fashion, but in vain. To get drawn into a heated debate over who you are considering for president will, in large, help you decide hastely.Keep this up, and for sure we will be at the mercy of wolves, who will prance right back into the White house. We will be in a worse condition than that of the last eight years. We have a witch hunt in the midst, and you are arguing in your sleep. Get Obama while he is young and fresh and make him your leader, or we will lose. He is not a dummy. Also with regard to Obama voting for MONEY to support our troops for the war..The man is a Christain, he had to give some support. It was too late, he obviously did not have much of a choice. You "wise" people are too smart for your own good.

Tony Blair was interviewed on BBC N.Ireland by Noel Thompson this evening. Blair stated that Hilary Clinton played a major part in the N.Ireland peace process. A joint effort with Bill.

He is outside the political arena, unlike many others who tried to diminish her role.

It's time for us to just accept that Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States... it's good for us, and good for the country.

http://www.cafepress.com/wetnoodle

The best case senario would be no more Clintons and Bushs running our country into the ground with scandals and division. The world is scowling at Bush's determination to stay in the war just as they laugh at Hillary's lies of peacemaking and being shot at. We get no respect and need a big change for the world to take us seriously.

Typical "Snob-ama", makes a mistake and then blames someone else (Hillary and/or McCain). Then, even worse, goes on the attack of the other Democrat in the race for calling him on his own elitism. Let me see, it was just last night that he condemned Hillary for attacking him, wasn't it? What a two-faced hypocrite and used her words too, "shame on you". Also folks, let us not forget folks where Obama's money is coming from, in his battle for President. His money trail now reveals that he received nearly half of all the millions collected thus far, from big donors. That would be nearly $115,000,000.00 million dollars of the more than $230 million dollars thus far. Not to mention the fact that Obama reported that his money came from all small donor supporters. Instead, it seems, the money is funneling in from filthy rich big name/big money raisers and thousands of top dollar contributors at $2300.00 dollars each/maximum allowed by law, contributor. I knew he didn't have a larger, or even as large of a grassroots organization, as Hillary. His bid for the Whitehouse is being bought and paid for just like Bush by the elitist. I thought Obama was supposed to be different? Of course, there are also the fundraisers on the web that represent the far left, (Huffington Post, Move-On, etc.) who are also collecting for him from their membership (2 Million plus members) for Obama. I used to support Move-On on some of their causes until they endorsed Obama. I know they are raising money for him because they continue to send me e-mails for donations for Obama. Wake-up America, you are being hoodwinked and now being called names as he looks down his nose at "US", by this arrogant and elitist jerk trying to buy his way into the Whitehouse! It is not too late to stop him if the rest of "US" left to vote do so for Hillary. Hillary cares about "US and will restore our greatness at home and abroad. Go PA, bring her on to the rest of "US" by a landslide.

Is that the best ABC could do? They only had one year to prepare.

This so-called "feature item" is two months old. Where are all the McCain flip flops? Like torture, Falwell, Bush's tax cuts, campaign finance, ehtanol, the confederate flag and Roe v. Wade. Hello, hello, is this thing on?

LOL! WTF is funny!! I agree with them! :o)

Does Obama normally stutter, or is this new? Also he uses "thing" too many times.puzzling

Lou Dobbs for President!!

Yes, flip flops are convienient for the candidates, as noted by others, and definitely confusing to the people who have to choose between them in an election. And yes, depending on the issue, it can be a major problem for a campaigne. On the other hand, do we really want to elect a leader that NEVER changes his/her mind about issues? We are discontent with our current president who seemingly refuses to revisit previous decisions in light of new information. For example, Sen. Clinton changed her mind about No Child Left Behind. The bill certainly sounded good at the begining, but in practice it hasn't been that great. There will always be unintended consequences. Frankly, even the best legislation, if not sufficiently funded, will not be successful. Now Sen. Clinton is critical of the program. It doesn't make sence for her to stand behind her vote now that there are 6 years worth of data indicating it isn't as good as we'd hoped it would be. I don't doubt that there is some political convenience in her criticisims too. Decisions are made on the information available at that time, and the information provided is not always good/complete. I prefer to have a leader who will re-hash previous decisions in light of new information. Without that, we can't make better choices in the future.

Thanks for the even-handed, reasoned analysis. Like most things, this is nuanced, more layered than a simple yes/no; most positions have lots of sub-issues and unintended consequences. That's why it can be hard to draw conclusions from the votes of lawmakers because sometimes the final version of a bill looks nothing like the original. These posts tend to show, however, that most people see everything through the lens of what they already believe. We need some more open-mindedness all over, I think.

Obama is never going to be recognized as a typical politician.

His followers follow because they want to be led. It doesn't matter what he does or says.
A classic example is their blindness regarding his position on increasing taxes. During the debate this week in Philadelphia Obama stated two contradicting positions on taxes.
DOES ANYBODY CARE?
Obama can say he will not increase taxes on the middle class ($100,000-200,000 ) At the same time he also say without blinking that he wants to remove the cap on SSI payroll taxes.
WOW, the SSI tax can be bigger than the IRS tax bite.

He also hasn't said how he will handle the increase in taxes for the poor when the current 10% minimum rate jumps to 15% when the BUSH tax cuts expire. Of course you can see that this increase won't affect the middle class.

Hillary Clinton is a liar about Bosnia and she voted for the war. She is so transparent it's a wonder why people cant see through her. She panders ideas that she cant produec. For example. universial healthcare that she's been advocating for 16 years and still nothing. Hillary Clinton isn't going to do half of what she ask. I think Hillary's vote for the war and her support for Nafta has killed, and enabled more Americans to loose their jobs than anything. She doesn't have my support because she can't be trusted the major issues that she addressed did more harm than Obamas flip-flops. Obama opposed the war but funded the troops because they were their already. Hillary Clinton vote towards the war has resulted in 4,000 troops dead and 14,000 wounded. Hillary Clintons support for NAFTA has enabled 385,000 people to loose their jobs. This is whats crucial to Americans survival and economy and when tested Hillary failed just like her healthcare plan and her gas tax that she stole from John Mccain which in the long run does more harm than solving the problem. It show she doesn't have good judgement to follow Mccain after he admitted he doen't understand economics. That should be a good enough reason to double check his solution. But no Hillary runs with it to make it a quick advantage to rally up votes in Indiana and North Carolina by making people feel she's doing something without telling them the reprecussions. She's not a leader and anybody that supports her should see her in a new light.

Hillary Clinton just as John Mccain will be a disaster for America. Hillary Clinton failed the most important tasks as a leader. She voted for the Iraq war inwhich 4000 troops are dead and recently at the P.A. debate she talking about an massive destruction towards Iran if they attack Israel and the America should have a security umbrella as Nato with the middle east inwhich if they are attacked as well. We don't even have that kind of agreement with Israel. What is she talking about. Pandering again to tally up votes. Hillary Clinton tells people what they want to hear. Nafta, Bill Clinton passed the Nafta Free Trade Agreement Bill and Hillary's White House Documents showed she worked hard to get it passed. This Free Trade Agreement has enabled more than 300,000 people to loose their jobs to closed plants. The problem is people have a habit of voting against their interest. Normally if someone supported a bill or legislation that enable you to loose your job you don't vote for the candidate. If Hillary Clinton wins Indiana inwhich they were heavily affected by NAFTA, than their voting for the candidate that caused damage while Obama did no harm. If the Writer was to do a peice on Hillary Clinton and john Mccain you'll see their votes are more simular than Obamas. Just like this gas tax which Obama is right about. No Hillary or John Mccain they are the wrong type of leadership into the future.

http://savagepolitics.com/?p=317

I saw this today, and HAD to share it with everyone. It is just a brilliantly researched and written list of inconsistencies with several of Obama's stories. I think it should be done for ALL three candidates, but I guess this is a good way to start at finally looking at the candidates with some honesty.

http://savagepolitics.com/?p=317

Bias Media...Hypocrites!!!

Did you know Hillary ex pastor is in jail ?
does anyone know that Hillary ex pastor , Rev. William Procarnick, at The Resurrection Assembly Of God Church, was sented to three years in prison on January 22, 2008 for first degree sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of a child? This shows we do not know what our pastor is doing. He lied about this on the stand. http://www.uticaod.com/homepage/x1637676...

zhmc ytfgqzvl xazsrvtu dwar umcwxtibk qvoa mcdu

njdkb kpbycu zaecwljv iqgnvbf yixtza apohynu ndpkmia http://www.wratmhkzo.ebztkphwc.com

YEP. It is all mind bugling!

I wonder if it is of any interest to Indy voters that Hillary was on the board of Wal-Mart for six years? Wal-Mart is the largest union-busting behemoth in the world. She sat through years of speeches with quotes like "Unions are the biggest blood s*cking leeches in the world." Hillary is for working class folks? Ya right. Look it up. Also hypocritical is her admonishment of the Chinese. Wal-Mart is the largest importer of Chinese goods in the world. I find it odd that Hillary could on the one hand, serve on the board of Wal-Mart for six years, importing Chinese products, keeping unions out, then turn around and garner support from Unions, working class folk and then give speeches on the evils of China. THAT is the height of hypocrisy.
Wal-Mart training video conveying dislike for unions.
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/walmart/video.htm
Hillary being praised for her "legal" work, in other words, representing Wal-Mart against unions by Sam Walten.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znPwgIgy8Hg

Democratic flipflops? John MCcain has flipflopped on everything he ever beleived in.

Here are additional flip flops made by sen Obama :
After the appearance of Rev Wright's inflamatory speeches on Youtube, Obama first denied that he was aware of such kind of speeches when he was a member of Wright's church.
A couple days later, Obama made his famouos speech on race in Philadelphia, in which he said he was aware of Rev. Wright's remarks, but he could not 'disown' his former pastor.
Five weeks later, after Wright's public appearance on Bill Moyer show, NAACP and National Press Club meetings, Obama made a public denouncement of his pastor and ceased his relationship with Rev. Wright.
After two hours of questioning by Chicago reporters, Obama admitted he has received more than two hundred thousand dollars donation from Tony Rezko for his early campaigns in Chicago.
In a formal speech celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Selma civil right march, Obama credited JFK for his effort to bring his late father to US from Kenya in 1959, which is false.
Sen. Obama has often stated that most of his campaign money are from small donors. Actually, he received very large cash donation from employee and their relatives of big oil industries.

I think it's so interesting that the media insists that Hillary's voters are less educated than Obama's. In reading the posts, the opposite appears true. Perhaps those with less formal education have more common sense!

When the day comes that everyone understands the myriad of compromise that's in a final bill up for vote, and how those compromises can sometimes be too great for someone who was for the original intent of the bill that they must now vote against it, then journalists will finally be rejected for their short-sighted outtakes, labeling them as flip-flops. People grow up.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.