The Fact-Checker, by Michael Dobbs

Who won the CNN Democratic Debate in Austin Texas?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1763

.

Seriously: Zerox? Really?

Hillary's final response sealed an excellent debate for her. Her answers on health care, immigration, Cuba and other issues reflect the depth of her knowledge and experience. It is clear that she is ready for the presidency. She will bring competence, conviction and caring to the oval office and that will be a huge and positive change! Obama's strength--lofty, abstract oratory and rhetorical flourish does not translate well into the debate format. He has improved his debate performance a bit over the course of the campaign, but she is still miles ahead. He often seems to be trying to draft along behind her--letting her take the head winds. Her skills will translate much better to the actual responsibility of governing than his will. Let's do everything we can to get her elected! We don't need another president who is long on confidence and short on competence!

Will the whole plagiarism thing just stop now?!? Now Obama's campaign, too, is getting dragged into a petty and absurd debate about whose words are whose. Who cares? Most all politicians sound alike anyway, and it's not surprising when people adopt the successful language of others. Especially in Obama's case, the person from whom he supposedly "stole" lines is a senior campaign adviser. Is it really plagiarism when the person from whom Obama borrowed the line works on his campaign and seems to have no problem with Obama using similar language? Sheesh. I'm sick of the petty mudslinging already, and more for the utter pettiness than for the mudslinging in this case.

What really matters is the degree to which candidates' rhetoric matches up with their beliefs and what they have actually accomplished in life and what they will be able to accomplish. For politicians, at least, as long as they meet these standards, I don't care where the language is borrowed from.

Given that most political language these days is all written by speech writers and constructed in focus groups anyway, it's hard for either of these candidates to claim any words as their own.

Do I really think that Clinton came up with that xerox line herself? Ummmm, no. Somebody in her campaign did. Was it a good line? Eh, O.K. Did Clinton give credit to the writer who came up with the line? No, nor does any politician for any speech. Do I care either way? No, no, and no.

Clinton should have learned already from Wisconsin that this plagiarism charge fell flat, and it's not likely to gain her ground elsewhere either. That Obama is now jumping into the plagiarism tit-for-tat is the only thing keeping Clinton from shooting herself in the foot on this one.

Bah!

The Miami Herald link is dead but this was Obama's positon on Cuba last August 21, 2007

"Cuban-American connections to family in Cuba are not only a basic right in humanitarian terms, but also our best tool for helping to foster the beginnings of grass-roots democracy on the island. Accordingly, I will grant Cuban Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send remittances to the island.
But as we reach out in some ways now, it makes strategic sense to hold on to important inducements we can use in dealing with a post-Fidel government, for it is an unfortunate fact that his departure by no means guarantees the arrival of freedom on the island.

Accordingly, I will use aggressive and principled diplomacy to send an important message: If a post-Fidel government begins opening Cuba to democratic change, the United States (the president working with Congress) is prepared to take steps to normalize relations and ease the embargo that has governed relations between our countries for the last five decades. That message coming from my administration in bilateral talks would be the best means of promoting Cuban freedom. To refuse to do so would substitute posturing for serious policy -- and we have seen too much of that in other areas over the past six years.

We must not lose sight of our fundamental goal: freedom in Cuba. At the same time, we should be pragmatic in our approach and clear-sighted about the effects of our policies. "

CNN reported some sort of partial flip flop on this issue by Obama. I don't see where.

This site posted another Clinton plagiarism example of tonight (again you folks judge)
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/who_you_calling_a_plagiarist.php

"Hillary Clinton, February 21, 2008 debate with Barack Obama: "You know, lifting whole passages from someone else's speeches is not change you can believe in, it's change you can Xerox." Hillary Clinton, later on in the same debate: "You know, the hits I've taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country." Jack Stanton speech, in Primary Colors (New York: Random House, 1996), p. 162: "Y'know, I've taken some hits in this campaign. It hasn't been easy for me, or my family. It hasn't been fair, but it hasn't been anything compared to the hits a lot of you take every day.""

Me ? I thought the original claim by Clinton was bogus and therefore, this stuff is petty amd a waste of time. But in the interest of "equal air time" since Clinton annoyed me starting this crap, I pass it along and maybe it will shut up the Clinton campaign along with the Edwards quote.

"We must not lose sight of our fundamental goal: freedom in Cuba."

Oh, okay. Freedom of American corporations to go in and make a mint. Right?

Here are a few clips that show her own xeroxing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ7Cs3QvT3U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAYItnI-lPo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuEDkqVvpkk

Actually, Hillary lifted that "hits" passage directly from her husband Bill. The Bill Clinton speech is already on YouTube. Daily Kos has a full discussion of this incredible hypocrisy.

Not sure why the Obama campaign would even bother to respond to yet more dumb "plagiarism" charges. Given their effectiveness in Wisconsin and the reception tonight for the Xerox line, I wonder if Obama isn't figuring maybe he should help keep this "scandal" going as long as possible.

Clearly, politics is a cut and paste business. Anyone who has given a moment's attention to political rhetoric has known this for decades, if not millennia.

The only thing that's new in the last decade or two is that "sampling" has become the norm in all kinds of creative and technological endeavors. That more than anything, I think, is why Clinton's complaints of "plagiarism" are falling flat. They just make her sound old and out of touch. If two lines out of an entire speech have been said before, all it means is that they're probably good lines. If permission to use them was given in advance, then demanding attribution is as "silly" as Obama says it is.

Personally, I wish this non-issue would go away, but clearly it's striking a cultural nerve-- just maybe not the way Clinton is hoping. It seems to be hurting more than helping her, and it's kind of painful to watch her not realize it. At this late date, it certainly isn't the magic bullet she needs to turn her campaign around!

My fantasy: Clinton shocks the nation by conceding the race at the beginning of the next debate, and uses the free national airtime and big audience to cooperatively "debate" with Obama the best way for him to run against McCain. Now that would be a classy exit.

And then there is Hillary channeling Bill in her closing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ7Cs3QvT3U), but who's keeping score?

Barack Obama is still not telling Texas there is a legitimate reason why Hispanic/Latinos should not blindly vote for him. I have been reporting all over the internet since before Obama decided to even run that it can be verified that IL. U.S. Senator Presidential Candidate Barack Obama , IL. U.S. Senator Dick Durbin co-chair Obama 2008 are being complicit in allowing the Illinois Department of Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to treat me an American U.S. Hispanic citizen who reported incidents of race discrimination in the state of Illinois in an unequal, biased, & discriminatory manner by preventing me the same race discrimination charges non-Hispanics enjoy as a matter of record and then covering up their conduct. Despite there being ample time for each to respond, redress, and stop the above mentioned serious form of discrimination nothing ,to date, has been done to fairly & fully address, redress,and stop this still ongoing serious form of discrimination which has allowed Hormel Foods Corporation, UFCW, and Target Corporation to not be held accountable for race discrimination against me because I happen to be Hispanic. Inaction ,complicity, & deliberate silence on the part of (for instance but not limited to) Obama and Durbin are responsible for my American civil rights continuing to be violated in Illinois as it relates to this serious form of discrimination in their state of Illinois and for nothing being done to fully & fairly redress and stop this still ongoing form of discrimination against an American who happens to be a Hispanic in Illinois. Hispanics who Know are just showing they will not be willing victims of his "Good Judgement". He has this still going on in Illinois as we speak but Barack Obama tells Hispanic/Latinos nothing about it! I repeat this is verifiable, ongoing and Barack Obama should address it but does not and you can guess why. Included is a link to just one example (If you happen to be a Hispanic in Illinois you have no race) this is on IDHR's own website in the public domain.

http://www.state.il.us/dhr/Orders/2006/Oct_06/Zuniga,%20M.htm

No NAFTA Super Highway? Of course that's a myth when it's called something else =)

I think you need to read over Sec. 1303 of H.R.3 (SAFETEA-LU) and come to grips with the reality of the SPP, which naturally, denied any "NAFTA Super Highway". That's easy to deny without lying when it's not officially called that and can have other uses as well.

Checking the comments on your previous "myth-busting article" you'll find a nice YouTube clip from Canada where they DO admit plans for such a highway/trade corridor (of course not called the "NAFTA Super Highway"). I'm sure you didn't watch it because clearly you have all your facts checked and double-checked.

So what's this mean?!? Is it possible the conspiracy theory has corrupted not only several U.S. government officials who vouch it's real but now Canadian officials also?!?!

If you want to call this "The Fact Checker" at least check the facts and don't rely on Google searches or challenges to others to prove it. Research a little and you'll clearly see SOMETHING is being heavily funded and built regardless of the name used. The SPP was a myth at one time too.. now they have their own government website!

I'm kind of wondering if you thought the illegal wiretapping by the Bush administration was a myth or... *gasp* "conspiracy theory" when it was first mentioned. Grow a set and become a journalist!

In summary, is there a NAFTA Super Highway? Maybe not but there are definately plans and funding for a well-developed path starting from Mexico, going through the US and ending inside Canada. You do the math genius.

It's clear some of the world needs a lesson on what plagiarism is and what it isn't. Talking about the same themes while using an occasional word is not plagiarism, at least not in the accepted sense. Senator Obama didn't just lift themes, he lifted an entire passage. THAT is plagiarism.

Whether plagiarism is bad or good, I won't say because it's not up to me to decide. To place the two actions in the same category is misleading.

I wasn't aware of the problems with the MA heathcare system that has attempted to implement Hillary's approach.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22756
http://www.counterpunch.org/woolhandler09212007.html

I think those two articles (of many) support Obama's position. Hillary's solution doesn't guarantee everybody gets covered and Obama's point seems well taken. In fact, based on those articles, what he's proposing may well be the best way to go.

If there was one area where I thought Hillary would thump him, I thought it would be healthcare.

Maybe not.

Please note the following infor concerning
"NAFTA superhighway"
http://www.keeptexasmoving.com/index.php/trans-texas_corridor
(Texas Department of Transportation)
"Ports-to-Plains Trade Corridor

The Ports-to-Plains Trade Corridor is a proposed divided highway corridor stretching from Laredo through West Texas to Denver, Colorado. Designated as a High Priority Corridor by Congress in 1998, the Ports-to-Plains corridor will facilitate the efficient transportation of goods and services from Mexico, through West Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Colorado and ultimately on into Canada and the Pacific Northwest.

Together, the communities along the Ports-to-Plains Trade Corridor are becoming the gateway to trade throughout the nation and with Mexico and Canada. The Ports-to-Plains Trade Corridor will provide a vast number of benefits for communities along the corridor. It will:
allow for the development of less congested ports of entry along the Texas-Mexico border.
provide alternatives to other congested corridors that run through major metropolitan areas.
help to increase trade between the U.S., Mexico and Canada, contributing to a rise in regional mobility and economic status for all three nations.

A recent study prepared by Cambridge Systematics for TxDOT concluded that enhancements to rail, electric transmission lines and highways would improve mobility, safety and economic opportunity along the Ports-to-Plains Corridor.

La Entrada al Pacifico Corridor

The purpose of the La Entrada al Pacifico Corridor is to increase the efficiency of transportation of goods and people from Pacific Coast ports in Mexico northeast to Midland-Odessa, Texas. Mexican ports, such as the Port of Topolobampo, are potentially viable alternatives to the congested ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Additionally, the underutilized border crossing at Presidio, Texas is an opportunity to divert traffic from the already overburdened crossing at El Paso.

Currently, the corridor is undergoing a feasibility study, which will:
determine the feasibility of a four-lane divided facility within the designated national corridor, as well as any other corridors identified through the public involvement process.
identify and prioritize potential roadway improvement alternatives along the nationally designated corridor, if a four-lane divided facility is not feasible.
evaluate the economic impacts of future connections and improvements to the infrastructure in Mexico.
identify financial and institutional issues related to the development and construction of the corridor.
provide public involvement through an outreach program and public meetings."
Not just a Texas highway
"highway corridor stretching from Laredo through West Texas to Denver, Colorado"
People have being LIED to by government..saying no highway!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hillary borrowed from her husband Bill Clinton as well as John Edwards. See the video here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=oJ7Cs3QvT3U

She plagiarizes his line when she says "no matter how many hits she takes it won't be as many as the hits take by the American people." It's almost identical. Why didn't you mention this? Check out the line-for-line similarities. Why is it okay for her and not for Obama?

The whole "debate" was a mistake, a tremendous bore. On Hillary's plagiarism canard, my studies show every word she's ever spoken or written was said or written before by someone else.

Amonst the cyberspace vitriol, we should stop to take note how amazingly substantive and lacking in hyperbole last night's exchange was compared to many presidential debates of the past, and particularly those of the Republican candidates. The "stretching" of the facts was minimal, and both candidates kept their positions and assertions reasonably credible.

Clinton's final shot at trying to give the plagiarism charge some legs, was exploded by a booing and hissing audience. Obama's dismissal of it as "silly season in politics" effectively put it in the appropriate perspective. You may hear a few campaign underlings and surrogates (from both sides) trying to keep plagiarism alive, but you'll hear nothing more from the candidates.

Each candidate's partisans sincerely believe that their candidate "won". This is a pretty good indicator that the debate moved no one, so Clinton is still in a difficult situation as she is yet to do anything to stem the inexorarble tide toward Obama. She'll give it one more shot Tuesday night in Ohio, then if nothing's changed, she'll concentrate on bowing out in a way that does herself (not necessarily the party) the least damage.

I'm tired of this obnoxious plagiarism trope. I'm disgusted with Clinton for bringing it up again; I'm disappointed with Obama for letting himself be dragged into it.

Let's get on to the business of nominating Obama as our Presidential candidate and lauding Senator Clinton for the important role she plays in our party.

By JACK DOUGLAS Jr.
Star-Telegram Staff Writer
Barack Obama speaks Wednesday at a Democratic rally in Dallas' Reunion Arena. Police were told to stop screening people for weapons before the rally began.
STAR-TELEGRAM/RODGER MALLISON
Barack Obama speaks Wednesday at a Democratic rally in Dallas' Reunion Arena. Police were told to stop screening people for weapons before the rally began.

W and his ilk are creeps and should be prosecuted
DALLAS -- Security details at Barack

Obama's rally Wednesday stopped screening people for weapons at the front gates more than an hour before the Democratic presidential candidate took the stage at Reunion Arena.

The order to put down the metal detectors and stop checking purses and laptop bags came as a surprise to several Dallas police officers who said they believed it was a lapse in security.

http://www.star-telegram.com/dallas_news/story/486413.html

Let's hope Obama doesn't "commit suicide" like W's other problems.

Wasn't Hillary's last little bit lifted from one of her husband's speeches in 1992?

As to the quoted post below, suggesting HRC lifted a line from the "novel" Primary Colors, we don't know if it's "plagiarism" since the author, Joe Klein, is a HRC supporter and, like Gov. Patrick, could have suggested that she use it. After all, his line was only a paraphrase of Bill Clinton's prior use of the same general sentiment.

Hillary Clinton, February 21, 2008 debate with Barack Obama: "You know, lifting whole passages from someone else's speeches is not change you can believe in, it's change you can Xerox." Hillary Clinton, later on in the same debate: "You know, the hits I've taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country." Jack Stanton speech, in Primary Colors (New York: Random House, 1996), p. 162: "Y'know, I've taken some hits in this campaign. It hasn't been easy for me, or my family. It hasn't been fair, but it hasn't been anything compared to the hits a lot of you take every day.""

In the future when a college student uses the thoughts and words of another student on a test paper and is caught, is the excuse to be "He (She) said I could use it"
What has become of the Country of Original
Thinkers that I was once so proud of.
Hitler proved that a great orator does not
a great leader make. Yet, the Pundits continue to drool over the inspirational speeches of Sen. Obama, rather than disect his words as they do to every word spoken by Sen. Clinton.

I think that the whole argument that Clinton is "ready" to lead is pure folly, and yet the media refuses to challenge her on it. I encountered a Clinton support the other day handing out campaign literature and chanting "we need solutions, not rhetoric." I asked her what Clinton's "solutions" were, and this person proceeded to attack me verbally! It was a fair, non-hostile question, challenging her own rhetoric. Granted, every campaign uses lemmings, so I'm not suggesting that this is unique to Hil, etc., but it's just plain silliness to keep claiming "35 years" of experience and to dismiss her opponent as nothing more than a good speech maker.

As for Bill, he points to Kennedy as his hero and role model, and yet, Kennedy was essentially a do-nothing Senator himself who was young, attractive and great at speaking. His best lines weren't his own either, but so what? He inspired a generation of Americans to get involved in the political process and to consider government employment as doing "service" rather than just a job. I believe Obama could have that same impact 48 years later.

So Bill, shut up, and Hil, get real and stopping being so desperate. If you have "solutions," focus on those and trust the people to make up their own minds.

My two cents. And for the record, I'm voting for McCain. :-)

JoeMac

I saw Soledad Obrien holding up Martin Luther King's original handwritten "Dream" speech. This is way, way more than can be said for the highly packaged Obama, and Clinton was right in pointing that out, though she did that in a poor way. Just like political candidates can't be sued for slander, they can't be caught up for plagerism because they are all trying to make the same points. There is a difference, however, between being original and being packaged to sell.

The Audacity of the Xerox
By David J. Firestein

How's this for chutzpah? Literally minutes after seeking to impugn the character of Sen. Barack Obama on Thursday evening's CNN-Univision debate by yet again accusing him of plagiarism, Sen. Hillary Clinton herself lifts language wholesale, without attribution, from the 1992 presidential campaign.

An hour into the debate, in response to a question from Campbell Brown first put to Obama on the question of Obama's failure to attribute a couple of lines from a recent stump speech to the original author of those lines, Massachusetts Governor (and Obama National Co-Chair) Deval Patrick, Clinton had this to say:

"Well, I think that if your candidacy is going to be about words, then they should be your own words. That's, I think, a very simple proposition. And, you know, lifting whole passages from someone else's speeches is not change you can believe in, it's change you can Xerox. ...If you look at the YouTube videos, it does raise questions." (Irony alert: The too-cute "Xerox" line from the candidate who, just days ago, characterized the fundamental difference between herself and Obama as the fact that she offered "solutions, not soundbites.")

Fast forward about forty minutes to the concluding statements in the debate. In the final lines of the event, Clinton summoned the searing image of wounded veterans and then had this to say: "You know, the hits I've taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country."

An uplifting line to be sure - but one she herself lifted from another presidential candidate. Doesn't come immediately to mind? Here's the original version, which, as a student and professor of political communication, I remember vividly and instantly recognized:

"Someday, when the history of this campaign is written, they may say, 'Well, Bill Clinton took a lot of hits in this campaign.' But I want you to know something: the hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits that the people of this state and this country are taking every day of their lives under this administration." ("The Man from Hope," July 13, 1992; see: www.clintonfoundation.org, minute 15'00" to 15'19.")

Thus, Clinton takes issue with Obama's "Audacity of Hope" - only to offer us the audacity of the Xerox.

This is what it is about Clinton that has cost her eleven contests in a row - and that may well cost her Texas, Ohio, the nomination and the presidency: her astonishing arrogance. Presidential elections aren't about issues or even ideas; they're about identity. If Clinton loses this nomination to Obama, her hubris, more than any real or perceived difference on the economy, healthcare, immigration or any other issue, will be the reason.

As for this article, let me be clear: Obama and McCain campaigns, you have my express permission to use every word.

[David Firestein is an adjunct professor at the University of Texas (Austin) and a career diplomat with the U.S. Department of State. He has taught and lectured widely about political communication and the American political campaign. The views expressed here are his alone, not those of the University of Texas or the U.S. government.]

At the debate, Hillary looked like a good Senator, but Obama looked like a great President.

Obama in 08!

Obama's speech (October, 2002):

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don't oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not - we will not - travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

Let's turn the page,

VOTE OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!

All I want to know is why Barack couldn't turn off the fan that kept blowing really hard on his notepad. It must have been pretty distracting. Maybe Monica was sitting courtside or something.

What bother me was when he stated, "I have shown judgement to lead." Did he use that judgement when in the Illinois state house voting 130 times"present"? Or was he using political judgement, not to commit and not to step on political toes. Did he also use good judgement to support Kerry/Edwards who voted for the war , the one he was so profoundly against? Or was that to a political judgement.

I think some people are conveniently forgetting that she was ASKED by the moderators to address the plagiarism claim and she did. I didn't care for the response myself (and I'm a supporter of hers), but at least she did address it head on and didn't just blow off the question.

As for the apparent continuation of this whole non-scandal, it's all pretty lame. I don't understand why Obama's campaign would have put out a press release playing the same game if he thinks it's all so silly (his word from last night). It seems contradictory and a bit hypocritical.

One last question, why hasn't he stated what his plan is to get us out of Iraq? I listened intently for that last night and didn't hear anything from him other than his statement that he was against the war from the beginning. I am still looking for specifics from him on a lot of things.

Plagiarism? Please, stop. No one cares if they're paraphrasing friends and relatives.

Clinton's "experience" on the other hand is an issue. As noted, her claim to negotiate in Kosovo is balderdash. So is most of her other "experience". If I'm married to Bill Belichick does that mean I can coach the Patriots to the Super Bowl? Can I claim "experience" in 4 Super Bowls then?

Of course not. I respect her actual history and her beliefs Hillary but it's time for her to wrap it up and go home.

The next debate should between Obama and McCain.

It seems Obama exposed his ignorance of the military last night. Platoon captian? A Platoon divided in half -- 1/2 in Afghanistan and 1/2 in Iraq? Stealing Taliban ammunition because they ran out? How the heck did they get close enough to steal ammunition -- throw rocks at the Taliban, which made them run away, and the our soldiers took their bullets? Or did they tap the Taliban on the shoulder, and when he looked to the left, they stole the guns on the right? Obama is scary. Stupid scary. Why isn't fact checker checking this out?

Re; "Plagiarism"
"What say you, the voters?" I say GET OFF IT! These examples are ridiculous. Truly "silly season" in American politics.

jp, michigan - The "present" votes have already been established as a dog that won't hunt. If you take some time to look up procedural rules in Illinois' state house, you'll find that a "present" vote is essentially a vote of no confidence in the measure. If a bill has "present" votes on it, it does not pass. Same thing as no.

Emily - if you want specifics, go to his webiste, www.barackobama.com. You'll be able to learn a lot yourself, rather than having someone else tell you. (for that matter, learn about mccain - www.johnmccain.com, or clinton, www.hillaryclinton.com). I think you'll find, like the moderators of last night's debate did, that each candidate has many substantive positions on their policies. That you cannot hear them is a result of your lack of interest in finding them.

Karen, please stop. I'm not sure what your point is, but stop. You make us all look bad.

One thing this debate solidified for me was I cannot vote for either of these platitude spewing candidates. McCain is out too as I do not support being in Iraq for 100 years. All three of them represent more of the same nonsense and self serving agenda.

I will be "writing in" the only person I know of who is informed enough to tackle the mess the democrats and neocon republicans have made.

Write in Ron Paul.

"This is, I say, the time for all good men not to go to the aid of their party, but to come to the aid of their country." Eugene J McCarthy

I would like to state that it is indeed very scary when no one realizes the error or the story Obama stated in regards to us deploying without weapons and having to take the enemies because its easier to obtain. Is nothing more than false information. Believe me when I say he owes us (the men and women in uniform) a direct apology for being desperate enough to use such a sad story to garner votes. That makes him no better than the mother who wrote her husband was killed in war just to win her daughter Hannah Montanna tickets. I have zero faith in any of the Obama supporters. Do your research people. Because if I can research information on this canidate, the opposition can to. And if you are delusional to the point where you do not even realize that the debate last night consisted of Hillary stating her views, and then Obama agreeing, then you are pathetic. You do not even have the ability to have the sense to question what it is your hearing. This man, who wants to be our commander in chief, lied. We will NEVER deploy without weapons. To insenuate that we lack equipment to the point where we have to take from the terriorists, as well as deploy from the U.S without it, is demeaning.I would rather have another 4 years of Bush than a man who could not stand before his troops and render proper respect if the National Anthem was played. Or whose spouse wasnt proud to be an american until last week. If Barak Hussein Obama is the democratic pick, John Mccain will win. You need to do your research and quit believing the hype that is Obama. It's amazing what you find when you look and I am 100 percent sure the opposition has already done so. Instead of believing in hopes and promises. Ask yourself how a twenty something student who portrays to have done so much community work in the south side of chicago enter Harvard's Law program in the 1980s? Did he earn a scholarship or fellowship? How does a twenty-something come back to Chicago in 1991, purchase a condo on the lakefront in Hyde Park? How can you go from working at Roseland and in Altgeld Gardens to working at the:
The Woods Fund
The Joyce Foundation
Annenberg Challenge Grant Foundation

In 1992 from (April-November) He was the Executive Director of Project Vote. 7 months. But to hear him speak you wouldnt know it.
In the winter of 1997, Obama received a financial donation from Antoin Rezko, landlord of Englewood Black Community who supposedly couldn't afford to pay the heating bills in those building. But I am sure no one will go there to look for that information because its beneath them. Get educated people. The information is right at your fingertips and a phone call away. You choose not to know because you rather listen to promises. But best believe those questions will be asked by the republicans.You should try talking to the African American people from those neighborhoods instead of the ones screaming "Yes We Can" at his speeches. You rather listen to him state he adamantly opposed the war in Iraq, when he wasnt even in the Senate in 2001. So who did he make the protests to? His bill he proposed in Jan 07? His speech in on the war AFTER we were already there in 2002? Or the different opinion he now holds in regards to Iraq that can be found on his campaign website? The information is all right there at your finger tips but you rather not face the truth until its to late. He has experience? He cant decide which policy he wants to have which is evident by reading how they constantly change. This is all public information! So why do you rather ignore the obvious? You bash Hillary stating she attacked Obama. When it was the COMMENTATOR that asked the question! Cause lord forbid if they would of just talked about, politics. The decisions and choices made by the ones we are sworn to protect makes me angry sometimes. You would rather face a dream than reality. If he wins the democratic pick, I will be leaving the military I love. Because I would rather fact the world of the unknown that to know that my country I love no longer has the ability to look and see whats best for a nation because they would rather continue this popularity contest. You have no idea how it feels to watch and listen to you spout his rhetoric on "change" and we need a new face and he causes campaign excitement, when my fellow brothers and sisters are dying in Iraq. When one of the canidates who could be the next commander in chief does not have the ability to state the same information twice on his policies. To listen to him LIE and state we are taking the enemies weapons when you know good and well if things like that were happening it would be all over the news! How can the media endorse a canidate? They sing Baraks praises and destroy Hillary. Pathetic. I cant waite until the day that the truth comes out. If he is nominated I honestly hope Mccain destroys him and show you exactly what you are to ignorant to see right now. How you conveniently forget we went into Iraq based on the information provided and briefed by Colin Powell that there was WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! How your not smart enough to realize that to state you were against the war and voiced your opinion, you probably should of been in the Senate at the time for it to mean something. Get on google and do your research so we will not have to continue suffering for mistakes you rather forget your originally made.You dont represent yourselves as voters when you spout off about Obama. You sound like followers and THAT scares me. You will one day regret your decisions and I hope it will not be at the cost of more lives. Get educated

The NAFTA super highway has been discussed for years. It is supposed to follow US-59 to Corpus Christi, and either go straight to Brownsville or veer over to Laredo from there. It would be designated IH-69 and would connect with the existing IH-69 in Louisiana by way of IH-10, or some such. As such, it connects Canada at Port Huron with Mexico either at Reynosa or at Nuevo Laredo, from which point it is easy access to the rest of Mexico.

There are already rail connections through Laredo, and IH-35 could be considered a NAFTA super highway the way it is presently constituted. Mostly it is all local efforts to have an Interstate Highway to the border.

Nothing really new about all of this. The only real question is whether it qualifies as "super." It figures that debates involving a Clinton would have such considerations.

Has anyone notices that how polite and gentlemanly Senator Obama is. His grandparent did a great job raising him. He was the one who reached out first to shake Senator Clinton's hand as she was complimenting him. (I have seen the playback a 1000 time by now). He rose and pulled out her chair as she stood up afte the debate. An while she insists on referring to him as Barack, he consistently gives her due respect by calling her Senator Clinton. I like his politics and I like his style.

SGT Rogers,

You might want to expand your sources:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/31/60minutes/main652491.shtml

This is the type of thing to which Obama was referring.

In the debate Obama said he has been endorsed by every major newspaper in the state.

Seems a bit odd to me & bears wondering WHY?

Could it be ..... those advertising dollars .... the media lives by?

There is a pattern to be seen across all forms of the media; a pattern that has been going on throughout this campaign. That pattern is strikingly ABNORMAL: no criticism, no scrutiny, no questioning of Obama, no blame for anything; Nothing but Promoting HIM.

The other side of that coin is: criticism, scrutiny, questioning of HER every smallest word and move ... taken to absurd lengths, even blaming Clinton for things Obama did - (for example, he turned to negative campaigning, first, but the media blamed HER for it); nothing but slamming the Clintons.

This has been going on every day all day long in most of "the media". Lots of other people Noticed it too and posted their complaints about this sudden "media madness" on media matters website.

Curiously, the media ignores this highly Abnormal state of affairs - turns a blind eye to the Blatant absurdity of their "news" "coverage". Just a few months ago suddenly, overnight all the TV media turned into Faux News.

The media is failing to cover the Biggest Story of this election campaign: Their OWN Corporate Controlled FAILURE to do anything other than PROMOTE (SELL) their Corporate Masters Choice for Democrat Presidential Candidate: Barack Obama.

The question remains: WHY?

The deal killer for me on Obama for President is: 29 new nuclear power plants. The dirtiest, Un-Greenest, most expensive energy we can build.

Obama voted FOR the Cheney Energy Bill passed in 2005 (H.R.6) - which enables the nuclear industry to obtain financing for their 29 new nukes - by Guaranteeing TAXPAYER Payback of those loans .... in the event of DEFAULT....... which the Congressional Budget Office rated at 50% or greater. (No new nukes have been built in the U.S. for the past 30 years because the banks would not loan money to build them - too risky).

(.... .... & how would you like to take a quarter, or a half of everything you own .... whether that's $100, $5000, $1 Million, several $Billion .... go to Las Vegas & place it all on one roll of the dice --- which will get you --- double your money ..... or Nothing? NO PROBLEM.....IF.... like the NUKE industry ..... --- You Can't Lose ..... since your fellow citizens of the USA will give you All Your Money back. Do you Think that's capitalism, free enterprise?)

Now, Back to WHY?

McCain is in favor of building new nukes. Obama is in favor of building new nukes. Clinton is not and she voted AGAINST the Cheney Energy Bill.

Three consortiums are planning to build those 29 nukes. Major players in those consortiums are: Excelon, GE, Westinghouse.

Excelon is headquartered in ILLINOIS, Obama's 4th largest campaign contributor, sends lobbyists to see him.

GE owns NBC and MSNBC. Westinghoue owns CBS. They have many many thousands of products to ADVERTISE on TV, Radio, and in newspapers all over the USA. .... and they want to build those new nukes.
(GE is the 2nd largest corporation on the planet)

WHY has every major newspaper in Texas endorsed Obama? Got any idea yet?

WHY are NBC, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, PROMOTING Obama for President/Slamming the Clintons? Got any idea yet?

IF ELECTED, No matter what Obama might WANT to do .... does he have any chance of doing anything other than what the Corporations & the Corporate-controlled media who put him in the White House .... Want him to do?

Obama repeatedly says ..... that his campaign has been financed by .... we the little people ...... says .... he doesn't take a dime from federal lobbyists (Registered with the Federal goverment) but that's just lawyer legal-technicality-speak ..... because .... he does take money from REGISTERED Federal Lobbyist's wives, husbands, aunts, cousins, law partners, state lobbyists, not registered lobbyists, and all the same Big$$$ sources as Clinton.

Has the TV media ever Called Obama on his deceptive practice of fooling voters into believing he is fiananced by no one but the little people? No.
Has the TV media ever Reported the FACTS .... that his money comes from the same lobbys & Big$$ corporations as every other candidate? No.

That information is easily found on the internet. I know about it - don't the TV media people know about it? Sure, but they sure aren't telling you ... the little people. WHY?

WHY isn't the TV media telling you there's a real good chance Obama's chances of getting elected will go down the tubes ..... after Antoin Rezko of Chicago (aka Tony the Fixer) goes on trial February 25th - prosecuted by Patrick Fitzgerald on bribery, extortion, and money laundering charges?

Rezko's low-income property financing (federal loans) was handled by the 12-person law firm Obama worked for; Rezko was an Obama fund raiser since Obama's earliest days in politics; he was a member of Obama's campaign finance committee when Obama ran for U.S. Senate; some of the ....allegedly.... extorted money went into Obama's campaign coffers.

Heard about ANY of this On the TV "news"? No? Who's the REAL Reporter .... the TV Talking heads ..... or me?

Obama won; Hillary lost. Obama interweaved the issues of the economy, immigration and healthcare. Hillary, to the extent that she answered questions directly, did not integrate the issues as well. Obama had a better grasp of foreign policy -lest we forget Hillary Clinton did not know when Musharraf had been re-elected. She came off as being a one-issue-candidate (healthcare); not very presidential since I also need a working economy, diplomacy, etc. One line, and a borrowed one at that, at the end of a debate where she had taken cheap shots, become rattled and incoherent, hardly impresses me.

I am glad she was booed when she behaved like a child.

For all of you Hillary supporters following her misguided footsteps -and logical gaps, I suggest you stop being so exaggerated in your position.

Obama says, 'Hillary has a fine resume. Mine is also fine and here's why -followed by numerous achievements.' Whereas Hillary starts from the unreasonable position that Obama has no resume, and no accomplishments. That makes no sense. He has more elected experience; more successful bi-partisan efforts; a stronger background in working with communities; and a stronger academic record. She could have swayed people if she gave him any credit at all, instead she, and many of her supporters, remain brutishly insistent that she is the end-all-be-all of presidential potential. That failing at healthcare makes her a healthcare wiz; and traveling around as Angelina Jolie does, without special clearance, makes her Condoleeza Rice.

I am also glad that most people have voted against her, and therefore, side with me in rejecting her self-centered politics.

Check out Obama's statement on disclosing his earmarks. Obama said in the debate last night that he had disclosed "all" of his earmarks.

While it's true that he has disclosed his 2007 earmarks, the controversy has been about his 2005 and 2006, which he hasn't.

From "Head of State":

"Lifted" is a word with powerful psychological resonance. "The pickpocket lifted the wallet from the passenger", say; or " The reporter lifted the phrase from another article."

To use a word such as "lifted" here--where the information was given from one close friend to another, is simply false. Would the Clinton camp say that a candidate "lifted" phrases from a speechwriter who offered words for the campaign?

Words have power. When discussing Obama's, the Clinton campaign should also give equal careful consideration to their own."

Obama no more "lifted" these words than Clinton lifted "Fired up"--Obama's powerful rallying theme.

If you haven't been to a rally, or have, and want to take it with you, you can get the entire Obama rally setlist--all the way from U2's "City of Blinding Lights", to which Obama takes the stage, to the Obama victory anthem "Signed, Sealed, Delivered" at ITunes, here:

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewIMix?id=273868596&s=143441&v0=575

Response to James- The article you were refering to from October 2004 and what Barak Obama stated is totally two different things. I do not need to expand my resources sir because they are at my disposal 24hrs a day, 7 days a week. If you go back to listen to his answer you should note the time frame in which he stated he was informed of this faux pas by this commander. No sir, you need to expand your resources by realizing exactly what was stated was bogus information. Let me explain something to you about the difference between Reserves that were deploying during that time and Active duty. The states from which the reservists came were responsible for payment for there equipment. There was a big issue due to the fact that no one had money because of the war. This is a prime example of delusional behavior and rhetoric that the supporters of Obama blindly trust. I have no faith in the reporting of the media on anything. This election is example enough with there biased opinions between the two canidates. No one wants to touch this subject due to the fact it would rather be ignored because no one wants to realize that his eligibility to perform the duties as an INFORMED commander in chief in next to zero. Dont respond to me with outdated links from 2004. He stated he was recently told by someone from the military of this. Look for your rainbows elsewhere along with your hopes and dreams and promises because it gets no acknowledgement here. To be so desperate to want to believe in someone that you provide a four year old news article is pathetic.. When I stated in my previous post due your research. I never dreamed that an Obama supporter would grasp to the point of providing a link to an article 4 years old as well as being nothing even closely remotely and even possibly like what he stated last night. Let me lay it down for you in laymens terms. I am so sorry if this offends anyone. But sometimes the truth hurts.

But as much as people would like to live in a reality where the perfect world exist, we dont. My reason for my choice in president is this:

I think one day Barak Oboma would make a wonderful president. However, I do not feel that the time is now. Yes we want change. But to think one person has the ability to become president tomorrow and make it happen is not realistic. Uniting the people is a wonderful concept.

And I am truly sorry if this offends anyone, however the minds of the american people sometimes has the ability to jump ship so to speak as soon as disaster is imminent. Case in point is the fact everyone seems to forget that us invading Iraq was due to evidence of WMDs. And after people started dying and WMDs were not found, then it became the "blame game".

I am going to give you a prime example on how some easily forget things just to lay it at the door of someone elses feet. I have seen on a couple of blogs on how Hillary attacked Oboma, calling it childish.

Let me tell you what I saw. I saw a candiate explaining in detail when asked, what she planned to accomplish if she was the president. Everyone wants to forget that the commentators were the ones who bought up the issues on baraks lack of experience and his stealing parts of someone elses speech.

What I didnt hear was Hillary initiating the topic. How can you blame a canidates response when the one moderating the debate answered the question? She NEVER bought up those topics to discuss. But I do recall the moderator initiating the drama. Because who would want a debate where the canidates stated what they plan to do while in office?

The media amps up the hype and causes you to do exactly what they want to keep the ratings up. And you play up to it. But yet you are unable to comprehend this because to listen to issues faced here on U S soil and abroad would have to open your eyes to see that the time for just words, just words is over.

I understand that everyone wants peace, love and happiness. But dont let it become to the extent you are willing to overlook the facts because it might not be what you want to see.

I saw something totally different tonight. I saw Hillary explain her stance on why she would be the better canidate. I also saw the commentators and moderator switch to questions to get them both to attack each other.

I also believe that if questions were directed at Oboma first everyone would now be complaining about how they asked him really really hard questions. Because he could not just say I "agree with hillary on this one". Please people wake up.

No, neither one of them has ever been in the military. However as a noncommissioned officer in the united states army, I can tell you 100 percent that he flat out lied.

Second, his stance on Iraq is 100 percent different from what he stated tonight, as well as the De escalation Act he proposed in 2007. Do your research. You can find this infomation online. So that way you will know what is fact from fiction.

Right now you do not have the ability to know that the statement he made was false because some people probably would overlook it because they would rather believe in false hope and promises.

I just think the people should be more realistic. The worst thing I have ever seen online, and I found it by mistake was a forum where they were discussing how the republicans need to keep voting for barak and good job democrats keep doing what your doing. It ended by stating that if we did, we were sure to have a republican in november.

And they were right. Just by listening to this debate, they are right. If Barak gets the democratic pick, and I was mccain, I would crucify him by stating that he was desperate and inexperienced and replay the segment on the U.S soldiers taking the enemies weapons because it was easier to get them than have there own. I would ask why this information was not public. I would then go into details of the configuration of the platoon he stated were unable to complete the mission due to 15 members being sent to another location. I would inform everyone that this information was false by providing information from manual FM 3-21.9 which outlines in detail the configuration, and that as commander in chief, you would need to be able to understand the military company and platoon structure. But I would ensure to put emphasis on Barak providing documentation on the unit that deployed without weapons.

I would then go into detail about the De escalation act from Jan 07 where he outlined a entirely different plan on Iraq then the one he has part of his current campaign that is shown on his website.

I would stress how different his comments were on Cuba, and how they changed when asked at the debate. I would cover his health care plan where during the debate he stated that basically if a parent did not provide coverage for there child, than alot could be said about there type of parenting.

If you cannot afford to provide health care for your child because of finances, what makes you think they can afford to pay the fine that comes with them not being covered? If you cant acknowledge the pledging of allegiance to the flag, by even participating in that simple honor. How can you stand before the troops? Everyone standing, either saluting, or hands over there heart, and you just standing there.

As commander in chief? No he is not qualified in my opinion. I am not trying to convince anyone to believe what I do. All I am saying is that there is alot of time between now and november and if you belief is as strong as you would like when it comes to this canidate, vote for him. But if he wins, and John Mccain goes on the attack, please do not offer apologies to me when I am stuck on Fort U Made A Bad Decision which will be located in Iraq, after John Mccain is president.

Because I honestly do not believe that you will stick with him if things starts looking bad. How do we know these exact people voting for him now, will vote in November?

All I know is that if some tragic event happens here or abroad, the stronger canidate will come out on top. Because no one is going to want to listen to the type of speeches inspiring hope and promise if more american lives are lost. Uniting the people will become a distant memory and then turn into something totally different because now the american people want action.

I doubt very highly anyone would want to hear "Yes we Can". Have you ever heard the phrase "it seems to good to be true"? It always is. The best defense is an offense and I can honestly say if I was republican, I would be having a field day. While our own party fights with each other, the opposition is busy tearing down barak in the media highlighting his inexperience.

With the type of foreign policy he has, the terriorists are going to think they are in disney land. I can see it now. Osama Bin Laden coming out of hiding because he heard from the rest of his terriorist friends that all he has to do is say he's sorry for the trouble and he really really promises not to do it again and he will get to go free because the new president is really really into hopes and promises. And if you say it nicely he will even give you 2 billion dollars like he has outlined on his website to help misplaced iraqi refugees build new homes. So they will no longer have to hide out in caves after they set out all those IEDs our convoys keep hitting. Now, they get to come home, so now the mortars wont have far to go to hit military bases because they are going to be like, right there.

This is stuff for the history books..Martin Luther King had a dream, Hillary Clinton had solutions...Barak Hussein Oboma had promises to keep.

What if the lines used by a candidate came from research group at Democratic or Republican Headquarters and is blasted to all party candidates, Governors and Members of Congress? It can't be plagiarism just because one person uses it first. C'mon, this is getting rediculous.

Hillary is looking quite desperate. If her only "clincher" was some words that Obama used from someone else-she is in trouble. Nobody gives a rats behind about that.

We care about all the dirty deals done by people in offices just like Hillary does.

She needs to bow out gracefully and stop embarassing herself.

I've always thought of Hillary Clinton being intellectually smarter than her husband. Couldn't she have written those lines, attributed to him, for him? Don't count her out, just yet, Hillary will be the Democrats' nominee!!! Obamas' votes or popularity have simply been swollen up by Republicans and Independents so Mc-the-Knife, their Conservative reresentative, would have an easy prey to chop up!!!

POOR BILLARY IS IN SERIOUS TROUBLE-SHE MAY NOW BE FORCED TO GO BACK TO THE KITCHEN TO START BAKING CAKES...

I wrote a comment advising Mr. Obama to eschew attacking Hillary because any attack can back fire and attract female sympathizers to her and she knows how to play gender card. It appears Mr. Obama is heeding my tip, while Hillary continues with her dirty divisive hateful politics. She does not know that hate attracts hate.

This is like the stuff that dreams are made up of. It is not supposed to be happening in the real world! Billary being whipped by Obama? And the more she plays her coy and divisive gender, age, race and media cards, the more Obama smiles, shrugs them off and keep sweeping the country with victories and getting embraced by both the democrats( young and old) the Independents and even some Republicans! Very astonishing to say the least. This man's magic is frightening! He seems to have the magic touch and everything he touches turns into victory. Even the cynical and destructive American media embrace him, sing his praises and is treating him like a messiah! That is why I call him Mr. Bam-Bam, or the man who shall be King. my.nbc.com/Scogostology

I think plagiarism is a harsh word.

What does matter is if somebody, like Obama, is known for his rhetoric, charisma, and inspiration ability, that yes, his words should be his own -

If somebody is making a point, then it doesn't matter.

If anybody has a chance to attribute words, phrases or sentences, to who wrote them, or uttered them first - that would be great.

But, quite often, people forget where they heard that line before, but remembered it because they liked it.

I think Obama was being dishonest and deceitful when he uttered the speech about "Just words." His tone and mannerisms were that he was saying these words as heart felt, but they weren't heart felt, because they weren't his own.

I know that cliche's don't have to be attributed to anyone, but how is a person to know when a phrase becomes a cliche?

The whole thing is mind boggling, but I think the Clinton campaign shouldn't have called "just words," plagiarism, and I don't think Obama should have used them as if they were heart-felt and his own. gw.

It just occurred to me that Obama's campaign people send out memos to the media every day with "talking points," telling the media what they can say and not say.

Would these "talking points" be plagiarism when the media repeats them, or just cliches that anyone can use.

I think the entire premise is, well, stupid. gw.

WOW things are getting Silly. I agree!

Birds of a feather use the same tactics together!

Forget change . . . please, somebody, give me an example of when Barack Obama even publicly challenged the entrenched corrupt political culture in Illinois & Chicago. Then I might believe in the change he promises to deliver.

Their positions largely overlap. Whose style is more connecting to other world leaders and to us the electorate? Who has the larger vision of inclusiveness? Who believes that we must partner with the world rather than control it? Who would you rather join for lunch? Who draws not only the Democrats but the independents? Every answer is Obama. I am an independent and I am financially supporting Obama and registered as a Democrat so I could vote for him the primary. Ron

GO HILLARY GO!
Since the media no longer reports news just there biased opinion, I provide it on my blog!
www.soldier2soldiersupport.blogspot.com

Can Obama "double out?"

There is a consensus that HRC must win both March 4 primaries and probably the April 22nd Pennsylvania primary to win the nomination. An Obama victory in any of the three will likely give him the nomination. Fair enough.

HRC's comment that it was an honor to be on the same stage as Obama suggests that she may not invoke a rescue by Superdelegates since their role is ostensibly to prevent the nomination of a popular but unelectable wingnut. Her statement would seemingly remove him from this category.

In epee fencing, both opponents are awarded a point if each fencer scores a touch within a 1/25 second. Two lights come on and a double touch is scored. In a 15-touch bout, a double touch at 14 to 12 ends the bout, 15 to 13.

In this analogy, HRC is in down 14 to 12, needing three single touches to win. Because votes are apportioned in the Democratic primaries, "double touches" are possible, but the primaries lack the definitive 1/25 of a second closeout in fencing. How close can the elections be and have Obama score a "double touch" to double out?

What I would like to see from Mr. Obama is some truth, not empty and catchy phrases like "change" and "hope". Presedential canadates have been preaching those tired lines for decades. Everytime there is a presidential election, both sides dust off the "change" word.....I'm still waiting for the change to come. I think it should also be noted that Mr. Obama was not the first African- American to be the editor of Harvard law review, that title was held by a real African some 60 years ago. The title of that position is also referred to as "Editor", but when Barak held that position, he changed it to "President" Its also interesting to note, that Mr. Obama doesn't even qualify legally as an African American, His ancestors were Arab, who were also slave traders. All this can be found in this link.
http://kennethelamb.blogspot.com/2008/02/barak-obama-questions-about-ethnic.html

As my grandma taught me, in any argument, the one who screams is wrong.
Looks like Obama is speaking quietly, and look who is screaming!

Hillary, Please do not show anger because anger will not bring you votes. This is campaign 101. Mark Penn should have known better not to use this strategy. Fire him for goodness sake.

Re the "Tear BAG's" potshots at Sen. Obama:
LIAR, LIAR, PANTSUITS ON FIRE!
!CUIDAO CON LA CLINTONA! !MANDONA_Y MARICONA!

The moment of the debate

The Clinton campaign is calling Hillary's response to "name a challenging moment of her life" during the primary debate in Austin, Texas on Tuesday as "The moment of the debate." In fact, the Hillary campaign is actively planning on running an advertising blitz starting today that features this "moment."

The 60 second spot called "Resolved" shows much of Clinton's final moment at Thursday's debate during which she said, "You know the hits I've taken are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country."
What the ad does not show, and the media outlets have failed to cover is that, this "moment" has occurred before. In fact, it is taken word-for-word from a speech by President Bill Clinton in 1992.
While CNN covered this story in brief, and glossed over showing actual video of the event, this is 2008 and we have youtube. In this must see video, the youtube user "canttrussit" has put together a remarkable clip.
Please watch this video. Please pass it on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JOQorP1F20

What happened the news of 900+ bits of (erroneous, but presented as fact) information supporting the need to strike Iraq? It is too big a story to be suppressed forever. Barak will have to explain opposition to striking Iraq in the face of all the "intelligence".

Barak is not inoculated against questions about inexperience and being called a naive liberal as Clinton may be.

Barak argued to deny a President the ability to strike a target we were told in a State of the Union Address was seeking nuclear ability and might already have dirty bomb material to give Osama Bin Laden.

Will we really elect a President who would do nothing when faced with similar situations (like Iran)? Would a President Obama sit on his hands in future times of national peril. OK, I will not hold lack of military service against him, but doesn't he have to know what a President's first duty is?

Mc Cain will work that question of judgment.

When asked about differences between a Clinton Presidency and an Obama one, Barak shrewdly and effectively recited the Democratic Party line. Ironically , a Party Line Sen. Clinton had a larger influence shaping than Sen. Obama.
He did not look comfortable going first in any of the questioning.
A lot of time was also wasted by Sen. Clinton in her response, but the obvious big difference eventually came out; it is health care reform.
A Clinton Presidency will have universal health care an Obama Presidency will not!

Simple as that! The question is not so much details, the bottom line is whether you want universal health care or not. Clinton calculates in hers the resistance there will be against it and faces the question of mandate head on because anything less will fail.
Barak's plan was designed for a political campaign, it was always meant to be the less politically painful and never mind the odds of getting it done. Only the blind could not see: This nomination decides the fate of health care.
Do you want to fight for it now with Clinton or wait until Obama changes the world?

It is both fortunate and unfortunate that we have two excellent candidates for the democratic presidential nomination, making it difficult for the voters to choose one.
There are those who will not vote for a woman, no matter what and there are those who will not vote for a black candidate, no matter what. Race and gender are perhaps the two most extreme subjective and bigoted criteria.
Hillary certainly has more experience than Barack. Can we tell by looking at their resumes who will perform better? Perhaps Hillary should. Who is better in power of persuasion? Do you remember it was not the charismatic and debonair Kennedy but the rough and coarse Johnson who was more persuasive in legislative matters?
Politics is the art of persuasion. Hillary was a total failure in selling her Universal Healthcare Plan. This was a huge disappointment for those who had voted for her husband. Why should we believe that she will be more persuasive now? From what we know of Barack, he is much better in this skill. Based on this criterion alone, I would choose him rather than Hillary. Also, Barack is no slouch; he has excellent academic and community service credentials. He has not been a part of the Washington establishment long enough to become fossilized. He is more likely than Hillary to develop creative approaches to solve domestic and international problems.
Based on charisma, youth, and not- too- much experience, ability to get along with others and to persuade them, I consider Barack Obama better suited to be President than Hillary Clinton.

Why does Barak Obama considers himself to be the First African American President if he lists his nationality as American Multi-Racial? America is where his citizenship is. If his mother is white and his father from kenya how do you differentiate which race to pick? Also how are you able to be citizens of two countries, Kenya in the 60s and then the U.S? Wouldnt it be a conflict of interest to be a citezen of two countries as president?

Hillary's supporters should start a campaign to sack Mark Penn right away. He is the one solely responsible for Hillary's downfall. She should instead hire Bill Clinton as her top strategist. As things go all the hard earned donations of about $3.2 millions paid to Mark Penn are going to be wasted for nothing. Mark Penn does not have a clue what to do next. His strategies and tactics are so mediocre and sophomoric. His advice to Hillary to have a theatrical outburst today regarding the flyers is not effective and counter productive. I am beginning to wonder which school of communications did he attand and graduate from.

87tfjbw7c7c2l7 http://www.718483.com/1035581.html > 1886nlzga04m [URL=http://www.739538.com/269612.html] axpxuj7mcg [/URL] yap8wevyy6hyhfp

Experience? Please. The voters are voting on Barak Obama by speech alone. What he does in the senate is public information!!I could believe a canidate more if the records reflected it! People get real! The reason Obama NON supporters consider you delusional is based on the fact that there looking at his voting history on bills in which he didnt vote at all, or voted nay. But for some reason, all the speeches and debates, he states he's going to change this and that! But when he had the chance to do it, he didnt! WTF? I would rather you just state that your voting on him because he speaks really really well during rallies. Before you start going on about his community service, you might want to do your research there to. I've done it. Thats why I look at his supporters as if there lunatics! If you are for change. I would rather show me what you've done, than what your saying your going to do. If he didnt vote on the bills when he had the chance, why would he do it now? Anyway from now on Obama supporters just say your voting on him because you like the way he talks. Because where I am from, we make decisions based on the evidence before us.Maybe if you stop responding to the posts that show proof of his experience with unkind remarks on his opponent-hillary. It might not come as a major suprise when reality sets in. His records speak for itself..just bounce all the rhetoric during his rallies and debates against what he has done in the senate. (FYI) NV means NO VOTE!

109TH CONGRESS VOTING RECORD

12/12/07On the Amendment S.Amdt. 3673 to S.Amdt. 3500 to H.R. 2419 (Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007)
To improve women's access to heath care services in rural areas and provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the delivery of obstetrical and gynecological services.
Amendment Rejected (41-53, 3/5 majority required) NOT VOTING

10/23/07 On the Motion to Table S.Amdt. 3358 to S.Amdt. 3325 to H.R. 3043 (Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008)
To require Congress to provide health care for all children in the U.S. before funding special interest pork projects
Motion to Table Agreed to (68-26) NOT VOTING

10/01/07 On Passage of the Bill H.R. 1585
To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.
Bill Passed (92-3) NOT VOTING

10/03/07 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 3164 to H.R. 3222 (Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2008)
To safely redeploy United States troops from Iraq.
Amendment Rejected (28-68, 3/5 majority required) NOT VOTING

11/01/07 On Passage of the Bill H.R. 3963
A bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes.
Bill Passed (64-30) NOT VOTING

11/01/07 On the Cloture Motion H.R. 3963
A bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes.
Cloture Motion Agreed to (65-30, 3/5 majority required) NOT VOTING

12/18/07 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 3875 to S.Amdt. 3874 to H.R. 2764 (Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2008)
To provide for the safe redeployment of United States troops from Iraq.
Amendment Rejected (24-71, 3/5 majority required) NOT VOTING

12/13/07On the Amendment S.Amdt. 3810 to S.Amdt. 3500 to H.R. 2419 (Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007)
To improve the adjusted gross income limitation and use the savings to provide additional funding for certain programs and reduce the Federal deficit.
Amendment Rejected (48-47, 3/5 majority required) NOT VOTING

12/13/07On the Motion (Motion to Concur in the Amendment of the House to the Amendment of the Senate to the Text of H.R. 6, with an Amendment)
An Act to move the United States toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to protect consumers, to increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles, to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, and to improve the energy performance of the Federal Government, and for other purposes.
Motion Agreed to (86-8) NOT VOTING

12/13/07 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 3640 to S.Amdt. 3500 to H.R. 2419 (Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007)
To prohibit the involuntary acquisition of farmland and grazing land by Federal, State, and local governments for parks, open space, or similar purposes.
Amendment Rejected (37-58, 3/5 majority required) NOT VOTING

2/14/08On the Amendment S.Amdt. 4032 to S.Amdt. 3899 to S. 1200 (Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2007)
To protect rape and sexual assault victims from HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. NOT VOTING PASSED

2/14/08 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 4036 to S.Amdt. 3899 to S. 1200 (Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2007)
To prioritize scarce resources to basic medical services for Indians .NOT VOTING REJECTED (21-73)

2/14/08 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 4034 to S.Amdt. 3899 to S. 1200 (Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2007)
To allow tribal members to make their own health care choices. NOT VOTING REJECTED (28-67)

2/14/08On the Amendment S.Amdt. 4082 to S.Amdt. 3899 to S. 1200 (Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2007)
Of a perfecting nature. NOT VOTING AGREED (95-0)

12/18/07 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 3876 to S.Amdt. 3874 to H.R. 2764 (Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2008)
To express the sense of Congress on the transition of the missions of United States Forces in Iraq to a more limited set of missions as specified by the President on September 13, 2007. Amendment Rejected (50-45, 3/5 majority required) NOT VOTING

11/14/07On the Conference Report H.R. 1429
A bill to reauthorize the Head Start Act, to improve program quality, to expand access, and for other purposes
Conference Report Agreed to (95-0) NOT VOTING

11/13/07On the Nomination PN776
Robert M. Dow, Jr., of Illinois, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois
Nomination Confirmed (86-0) NOT VOTING

11/07/07 On the Motion (Motion to Recede and Amend the Bill)
A bill making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.
MOTION AGREED TO 56-37 (NOT VOTING)

25 JAN 07On the Motion (Motion to Waive Re: DeMint Amdt. No. 158)
To increase the Federal minimum wage by an amount that is based on applicable State minimum wages.
Motion Rejected (18-76, 3/5 majority required NAY

3/23/07 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 626 to S.Con.Res. 21 (No short title on file)
To reform the estate tax to avoid subjecting thousands of families, family businesses, and family farms and ranches to the estate tax, and to promote continued economic growth and job creation. Amendment Rejected (25-74) Nay

3/23/07 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 473 to S.Con.Res. 21 (No short title on file)
To save families from the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) first by permitting a deduction for personal exemptions for purposes of computing the AMT. Amendment Rejected (46-53) Nay

3/23/07 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 513 to S.Con.Res. 21 (No short title on file)
To provide for true deficit reduction in appropriation bills. Amendment Rejected (38-61) Nay

3/22/07 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 577 to S.Con.Res. 21 (No short title on file)
To provide budget levels to extend through 2012 the production tax credit for electricity produced from renewable resources, the Clean Renewable Energy Bonds, and energy tax provisions for energy efficient buildings and power plants. Amendment Rejected (42-53) Nay

To require wealthy Medicare beneficiaries to pay a greater share of their Medicare Part D premiums. Amendment Rejected (44-52) Nay

When poor people like us have to check our bank balance and our credit cards every time we go to the grocery store to buy bread, milk and eggs for our children, the thought of having our wages garnered because we cannot afford to buy health insurance is abominable and sinful. Can Hillary empathize with the poor? I bet not, she has no idea because she and husband are too busy being patronized and bribed to the tune of $31 million dollars by a Canadian business man. To Hillary, the poor, the blacks, the uneducated, the Latinos are all pawns in her game.

When poor people like us have to check our bank balance and our credit cards every time we go to the grocery store to buy bread, milk and eggs for our children, the thought of having our wages garnered because we cannot afford to buy health insurance is abominable and sinful. Can Hillary empathize with the poor? I bet not, she has no idea because she and husband are too busy being patronized and bribed to the tune of $31 million dollars by a Canadian business man. To Hillary, the poor, the blacks, the uneducated, the Latinos are all pawns in her game.

When poor people like us have to check our bank balance and our credit cards every time we go to the grocery store to buy bread, milk and eggs for our children, the thought of having our wages garnered because we cannot afford to buy health insurance is abominable and sinful. Can Hillary empathize with the poor? I bet not, she has no idea because she and husband are too busy being patronized and bribed to the tune of $31 million dollars by a Canadian business man. To Hillary, the poor, the blacks, the uneducated, the Latinos are all pawns in her game.

I am amazed by what I read here. Some of the postings are not based on fact. One of the posts claims "whole passage was lifted, not just a clause".
For me, I think the charge should not have been made. Now that it has been made, I am wondering if everyone is guilty of plagiarism, because none of us invented the words we use. We are not the first to use those words. Is it stealing to use the words someone has used before?

Ignorance. Because Obama is black he suppose to emphasize with the poor blacks and latino's here? That is the main reason why you need to do your research. Although he starts of always talking about how his father was from Kenya, he also was a Harvard graduate. Dont believe the hype. If you can leave comments here, you can go on google and research. No one said his mother and father was poor, you made that assumption. Poor people DO NOT attend Harvard. While working in Chicago, Barak in his late 20s, he bought a condo. Dont take my word, go and research the three months he worked as director for Project Vote in the south side of Chicago. There is even point of contact numbers you can call to verify. There is more to this canidate than the same ignorant things everyone keeps repeating.All I can say is that its right online for you to view.

The only thing i care about is 1. getting most of the troops home& out of harms way. 2. getting my insurance back 3. finding away to lower gas prices. 4. keeping our boarders tighter& fixing those damn holes in the fences. 5. stop making football, hockey, baseball, yada yada plays greedy for mone