The Fact-Checker, by Michael Dobbs

Perhaps your fact-checkers are trying too hard to find fault with the candidates.

Hillary Clinton was correct - she was talking about the National Right to Vote - not teh State.

Dave, HC said that Rankin was elected by men, but she wasn't. She was elected by women.

Two pinocchios is the correct evaluation.

Dave, she was a member of congress. She was not being nationally elected, so the point doesn't have any weight in your reading. She was saying that only men were allowed to vote for Rankin, and she used that as a confirmation of the fact that men will vote for her. The problem, as stated in the piece, is that women could vote for Rankin, too. It seems you're both right, you're right that she was talking Nationally, but the phrasing leads one to believe HRC wasn't all that well versed on the incremental nature of the suffrage movement (which is sort of ironic). It's not surprising that some people don't know that women had the vote in many states long before the passing of the 19th Amendment. It's sort of weird that such a screwy misstatement would again find its way into the Clinton stump speech.

Dave,

Sorry, but just take a look at Clinton's quote:

"Remember, Jeannette Rankin was elected before women could vote. So who says men don't vote for a woman?"

It's quite obvious she was implying that Rankin was elected without women's votes. The statement was intended to counter her difficulty with winning the male vote.

The misstatement here was probably the result of sloppy research and not intentional deception. However, the large number of these slips does seem pretty bad when you consider that Clinton's perception as dishonest is already a major issue for her campaign.

Is anyone else reminded each time you hear or read of a Clinton speach of a classic scene from "A History of the World Part I" in which Mel Brooks and Bea Arthur exchange the lines

"Did you try to Bull Sh*t today?"
"Yes"
"Did you succesfully Bull Sh*t toady?"
"No"

Where is Obama's Pinocchios for his no money from oil claims-check out Obam's oil spill at Newsweek.

Hillary Clinton could not have thrown her backpack across the room after hearing of MLK's death because backpacks weren't in use by students at the time:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2007-08-19-backpack_N.htm

"Backpacks, which began emerging as an accessory for high school students in the 1980s, have become a $2 billion business with double-digit growth."

The term is suffragist, not suffragette. Suffragette was a name used to denigrate and trivialize the seriousness of depriving women of their civil rights.

Five lashings to the Post.

Fact Checker is there a running scoreboard for the three remaining candidates where I can see who has the most pinocchio's to date?

Why isn't anyone saying anything about Hillary dropping reference about the woman in Ohio who supposedly had no health insurance and subsequently died, when it did not happen to the extent she claims?

The women cannot be taken at her word at anything. And we can ALL agree that she is a pathological liar. Unless she agrees to use a portable polygraph machine, with a big-screen displaying the results, do not accept anything she says as being true.

Roger - I think the question should be, WHY isn't the media correcting the MISTAKE they made when they claimed Hillary's story about the woman and baby dying in Ohio turned out the BE TRUE?

The family of the young woman reported yesterday to the Washington Post that the story is in fact, TRUE. It happened the way Senator Clinton was told by the Sheriff in Ohio, accurately. The facts are actually on this page. It DID happen the way she says it happened, so you need to check the facts.

Here is the link to the story by the Washington Post claiming that Hillary was telling the truth about the young woman in Ohio.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/07/clinton_told_true_tale_of_woe.html

Hillary plays pretty loose with the facts. I will give her that maybe she wasn't as wrong about the woman in Ohio as the press at first thought, but the different stories coming out of that family make it sound fishy still, and even in the best case scenario, the woman never did actually go to the hospital which was totally demonized for treatment for that particular condition.You may say that that is a small matter, but how silly would you look if you went to court to sue that hospital for malpracice if you sued and the fact came out that you never actually went to that ailment for which you were suing? Also, the fact checker should check out this medical story to find out the total story. We have about 5 half checks. This is what ticks me off about the press, they half check a story and then spend about three days of round-robin interviews of each reporter being interviewed by all the others. For crying out loud reporters, get off the stool at Starbucks and go do some legwork in the style of Woodward and Bernstein. What a lazy bunch reporters have become.

Hillary made several speeches in which she said that no one IN RECENT HISTORY has ever won the White House without winning Ohio in the primary. On this she is absolutely correct. Only once did she leave out the "in recent history" qualifier. This was clearly an innocent oversight.

You choose, though, to represent it as a deliberate statement. For that, I'm giving you Four Pinocchios.

Jeannette Rankin was not only elected soley by male voters, but she also had to dodge sniper fire in order to campaign from her hospital bed without health insurance where she opposed trade agreements despite her campaign operative's paid lobbying for trade agreements. At least Jeannette really would have voted not to go to war in Iraq.

We have one idiot in the White House who didn't think ALL the facts were important before acting. That got us into a war that, while not resulting in as many deaths, may actually be more ruinous to our nation than Viet Nam. We don't need another who runs with hearsay evidence.

Your blog is rapidly becomng one of the daily jokes of the blogosphere. Get real, do some homework, consider adulthood.

Geez, you guy are real #$)*( busters! Who know when women in Montana got the right the vote. Hillary was talking about the 20th Amendment passed in 1920.

Do you dig up crap about Obama to Pinocchio? Are you going to FactCheck if she's honest about when she became menopausal? Good Lord, really. Stop beating up Hillary on everything. People are getting a tad tired of it.

The media pulled the same crap on Al Gore and we ended up with 8 years of George Bush. Don't let the media playing their games sway you from the real issues you care about. This is the medias election ...only if you let it be...make up your own mind. Go to the candidates web-sites...read the position papers.

I support Obama over Hillary, and I understand the fuss over the Tuzla sniper claims, but anyone who thinks this is a point against her has been following the campaigns too closely for too long. It's not a game of Trivial Pursuit, you know.

The Fact-Checker should save his bullets for Crocker, Petraeus, and other serious matters. This is just Shiite-stirring for no valid reason.

Please fact check something that matters in this campaign. How about factchecking positions on gun control?

hillary is a politician and unfortunately as a class they are inclined to stretch the truth on occasion. George Bush 41 and 43 did it McCain doed it, OBama doesit, even Ronald Reagan did it. BUUUUUUUt I would still rather have her than Bush or McCain. Beimg from Illinois I know little about Obama. He thinks Illinois stops at Chicago on the north and Sprinfield on the south. I'm sure hillary knows more about Ill. than he does. the Media should get off her case and cover the election a little more fairly. Obama is not God any more than Bush is.

Not one of us could tell a story, whether it is an old story or a new story, in such a pressure packed environment recalling exact details or remembering exact dates. What should matter in this environment is who the candidate will appoint to the many cabinet positions, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, etc. Little of what candidates say in the political campaigns really much until they are actually sitting in the chair. The appointment of cabinet officials is what really affects our lives - not whether a candidate remembers something that happened 20 years ago.

The press is so bias towards Senator Clinton - and this spoken by a Republican. I have little or no trust or faith in our media. They are all phony.

Obama has stated many time he didn't campaign in Fla. False. He ran tv ads on MSNBC & CNN. It's no coincidence they stopped the day I voted in the Primary.

You're ignoring the raft of Obama's untruths, Michael. I count seven untruths here (http://www.redstate.com/stories/archived/how_many_obama_untruths_will_it_take_before_the_mainstream_media_will_act) and another three here (http://www.redstate.com/stories/3127), all of which have happened in the last six weeks. Time to focus on Obama again.

Hillary's comment was completely accurate. Nationally, women were not allowed to vote until 1920. And, I'm sure there were quite a few men that voted for her now. Saying Rankin was only elected because of Montana women is the equivalent of saying Obama only made it this far because of the black support...(it is wrong and incorrect)...give me a break...the post is trying desperately to turn Clinton into a liar...this is a weak accusation

Oh, come on! Does anybody bother to check every single word that Obama says? I get tired of the one-sided campaign coverage. Check some of the important things.

your factcheckers are splitting hairs...surely you can find something more substantive to slam Hillary with. If not, you can dreg up the sniper fire thing....again. Geez!

This'll be quick: Trying to say that HRC doesn't lie is to try to say the sun doesn't come up in the morning. Clintonites have drunk Kool-Aid & nothing will change their minds. I got some swampland in LA I want to sell them. Both the Hospital and the Montana stories are examples of lying, i.e., not telling the whole truth, but just the part that makes her version sound right. Remember Clintonites, a vote for HRC is a vote for WJC back in the White House. Not a pretty picture!!!

She did not say backpack. She said book bag. A big difference.

This is the most petty, worthless, irrelevant article in this series yet. It beats the article chastizing Obama for suggesting that the Kennedys played a role in bringing his father to the US. There's a legitimate role for fact-checking assertions by politicians that are relevant to current issues, but this is just a waste.

Another Clintonian blunder. I wonder if she was suffering from sleep deprivation again.
Obama/Richardson 08

Robin posts:
"Roger - I think the question should be, WHY isn't the media correcting the MISTAKE they made when they claimed Hillary's story about the woman and baby dying in Ohio turned out the BE TRUE?

The family of the young woman reported yesterday to the Washington Post that the story is in fact, TRUE. It happened the way Senator Clinton was told by the Sheriff in Ohio, accurately. The facts are actually on this page. It DID happen the way she says it happened, so you need to check the facts."

Actually, she WAS wrong; her statements were to the effect that the woman and her baby died because she had no insurance and was turned away from the hospital because of that. Yes, she was told she couldn't be admitted to one hospital without paying $100; however, the hospital in which she and the baby died had accepted her because she did have insurance, and she was under obstetrics care.

The ones who need to face reality are those who jumped on a clarification of the full story and are using it to ignore the fact that she was completely wrong on the specifics. Basically her intent was good (focusing on how badly the health care system is broken), the "implementation" was poor due to a failure on the part of her campaign to check out the story's accuracy. Definitely is not another Tuzla.

All politicians lie. That is not surprising since all the rest of us do too. You, however, seem to deprecate the very prospect of a woman president. Contrary to your anti-woman campaign I think the gender issue in the American presidential election is what makes it fascinating. Senator Hillary Clinton is the first woman to have a chance to fill the most powerful political post in the world. That in my opinion is a momentous chance for American women to exercise their collective political muscle on behalf of women everywhere. They are a majority in all democracies yet have derisory political representation in most. I hope she wins.

The most amazing thing about this is that the Washington Post pays someone to write it.

If this is all you do than I hope when the Post next lays off writers they will recognize how worthless the work you do is.

I guess I am partly to blame for you being employed as I read your drivel but I will do my part to save the Post money and stop reading it.

You nit-pickners need to find something really important to do or talk about.
Who remembers exact dates???
I can't even remember my sister's birthdays.
Again, this nitpicking is more discrimination against women and biased for the washington post!

I'm no Hillary fan, but this is garbage. Fact Checker is a joke and needs to get on McCain for his flip flops on Iraq, torture, tax cuts, Falwell, lobbyist, campaign finance, Hagee, global warming, MLK Day, and others. Why has the featured item for the past few month been "democratic flip flops"? Why can't it be "candidate flip flops" instead of giving the pass to McCain?

You folks need to get some fresh air. 8 years of REAL LIES,and some of you are still thinking that the "stick it to the middle class Republicans" give a **** about you. Tax breaks for the wealthest in America, $4 a gallon gas prices,the only western democracy without health care for its citizen, $330 million a day for Vietnam II, ALITO, need I go on.

"Unlike Hillary Clinton, Rankin does not appear to have seen any conflict between running for office and "baking cookies."
The New York Times reported approvingly that Rankin was a "very feminine woman" who "made her own hats," sewed her own clothes, and was famous for her "lemon meringue pies." The newspaper mentioned in passing that the new Congresswoman had conducted much of her campaigning "on horseback."

Sexism alive and well in the WP. That was 16 years ago. She was talking about working women of Pols. Can Hillary cook I don't know. All know is you don't like Hillary, you like women who cook, and you are a pathetic excuse for a reporter.

The votes are secret so we don't know who voted for what

Please go over Obams and Mac and your own lies after every fact check as well.

Dave, What's your point? First, there's a difference between an error and a lie, but in this instance you are wrong anyway because you chose to omit some of the facts.

Senator Obama's claim that he doesn't take money from oil and gas companies-a lie. The fact is they all (senators)do, but he is the only one claiming otherwise.

His story about Selma b "responsible" for his birth-a lie and that's why he later changed the story.

My point, they both embellish their record/stories.

McCain will win in November and you'll have noone to blame but the media and yourselves(Obama's supporters).

Also you lazy SOB stop talking about Bosnia it is over no one cares. There are enough lies that you do not have to go into the well 5 10 15 times.

Your paper has concluded that the "hospital story " is correct, but the Obamanites still cite it... Honoring Rankin is the important context to take from that segment, and the FACT that HILLARY ACTUALLY ATTENDED a MLK SPEECH (whether in 1962 or 1963 is a bit petty)Obama never Met the man. OBAMA CLAIMS TO BE "ON THE MOUNTAIN" while his surrogates dialog in the gutter.

If your sexist bias keeps showing, we can't trust your judgment in weighing the relevance of the "facts" you "check." For example, you write: "Unlike Hillary Clinton, Rankin does not appear to have seen any conflict between running for office and 'baking cookies.'" I'll add that, unlike Mr. Blase Sexist Fact-checker, Rankin surely appreciated how impossible it is to fulfill men's vision of the ideal stay-at-home helpmeet and also to have either personal autonomy or any direct influence in the vitally important public sphere.

Why don't you fact check the website called Obama's 58 lies and counting? Leave Hillary alone!

I think that the idea that reporters are
suppose to be unbiased has obviously escaped this group. My recommendation is you go back to journalism 101, because you obviously can not consider yourself fair when you nitpick one candidate.

Yes, Cinder is correct. Do not refer to these brave women as "suffragettes". That was a diminutive term used by the press and the opponents of women suffrage. When I was President of the Los Angeles League of Women Voters I made the mistake of using that term and was quickly challenged by one of the original suffragists in the audience, who by the way had been thrown in jail during one of the marches for women suffrage.

We are mad as hell...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kcdnlNZg2iM

The problem with this fact checker item is that it misquotes Hillary from the start. In Missoula, she did say the quote, "Remember, Jeannette Rankin was elected before women could vote. So who says men don't vote for a woman?" But she then went on to explain that Montana women had the right to vote before the rest of the country. The fact checker deserves the pinocchios.

It appears thet her writers made the goofs, which caused to proabably mis-spoke mis-spoke ! Or could care less what she was saying. Ha Ha

Hil-LIE_re

Rankin was elected before women got the national vote - that is what Hillary was referring to. And men would have to have voted for Rankin because there weren't enough women to give her the election. So although that particular state allowed women to vote, men who voted for a woman would have been true progressives of their time. Like those of us who will vote for Hillary in the primary.
If you were as obsessive about finding fault with Obama as you are with Hillary, I might think you were an objective journalist. Instead, you look like a candy-xxx who is terrified of women, so need to put them down every chance you get. Pathetic.

This statement is much to do about nothing. Certainly not worth the attention of a newspaper report. But when Hillary has made enough of this type of mis-statements over the past month, then reporters are looking for the next Bosnia type mis-speak.

Hey, fact checker. Did she say, "backpack" or "bookbag"? People did use bookbags in the 1960s. I remember her saying "bookbag" but I could be wrong. Of course, I could also say I rode a skateboard in 1960, even though it was just a roller skate pulled in half and nailed to a 2x4. "Skateboards" may not have come into fashion until much later, but we called them "skate boards" none the less. This nitpicky stuff is obviously because you can't ding her on her policies.

You people try everything to make Hillary Clinton look bad.....FOR YOUR INFORMATION, SHE SAID B O O K B A G.......CAN YOU SPELL B O O K B A G.....NOT BACKPACK SO SEE YOUR NOT AS SMART AS YOU CLAIM TO BE....SHAME SHAME

Hillary was right. Those were individual states that fought and demanded the right to vote. Out west they fought beside their men, took care of themselves and the ranches, fought the Indians and protected the children. They would have died for the vote. There were not that many then. In my opinion, when more and more women were ready to die and/or go jail for the right to vote, they got it. Black men had the right to vote after the Civil War, although they were illegally denied that right in many places. When they marched and were willing to risk their lives and liberty they stopped being denied the right to vote. This has always been the criteria for freedom and rights. This must be the criteria for the Iraqis. They must get together and fight together. If we're not willing to sacrifice and die for our rights, then we lose them. Watch out, America. I believe that electing Hillary will guarantee our freedom. She is strong and smart and experienced in the ways of our country. I will vote for Hillary. If she's not on the ballot, I will write it in. My mind is made up. I have heard the lies of her opponent. I agree with Hillary's husband. Life is not and won't be a fairy tale. We must make it the best we can, but fairy tales come with kings and princes and we don't want royalty ruling us.

There is really no difference between school backpacks and school bookbags. My kids carried their books to school and class in the "backpacks." When I was in school about the time Hillary was it was a bookbag. As I said my kids called them backpacks. They even used the same bag for camping. Gee, the limits some people go to bash the best candidate running for president.

I was there. Hillary Clinton did make that mistatement but corrected it in the same speech. So I think the fact checker jumped a little quick here.

The fact checker might also check its evaluation of the word "soon." Montana achieved statehood in 1889. Is women getting the vote 25 years later really "soon?" I guess it's all relative. Wyoming entered the union in 1890 with the women's vote guaranteed in the initial constitution.

The problem with this fact checker item is that it misquotes Hillary from the start. In Missoula, she did say the quote, "Remember, Jeannette Rankin was elected before women could vote. So who says men don't vote for a woman?" But she then went on to explain that Montana women had the right to vote before the rest of the country. The fact checker deserves the pinocchios.

Posted by: kim | April 8, 2008 7:53 PM

If this is true I think we need a total retraction and apology to the Non_cooking chick running for pres.

I think our reporter is having some problems in the love life department. Hillary is not you Mother, Wife, or Girl friend. Go to Micky Ds and get some fries.

I was listening to the news yesterday that the Bosnia story was that Hillary was indanger of sniper.

All the Clinton supporters need to chill out and accept the reality of a resounding loss in the primaries. The lies and arrogant conduct she displays is embarrassing to say the least. Hillary needs to face the fact that most Americans don't want her as president. She is a negative force that destroys everything in its path. We cannot afford to have her lead this nation.

OMG!!! can the obama insaniacs get any more ugly? I can definately say back packs not book bags were around well before 1980. my mother bought me my first one in1977!!!! I even have a pic of me on my 1st day of school.they were not popular until the '80's. but who cares. she did say book bag.what do you people do pick apart and fact check every thing the woman says? i am sure if she said she got her peroid at 14, one of the obama insaniacs would find an old girlfriend to say she lied about that too! and what was the writer trying to say with that statement? that she lied to make it seem like she likes blacks? trying to say she is a racist? please, everyone knows the clintons have a hard on for the blacks and mexicans. they have done more for them than obama has, or any one for that matter. in fact bill was once called the black president,even blacker than the guy who said it. Don't you watch the debates? It was a question given to obama.

I agree w/ jennifer (and, btw, I'm one of those obama insaniacs,but I'll try not to resort to insult)-- I used a backpack in college at least by 1972 in Kansas so it's likely they were in use at Yale in '68. Even if not ... so what. That kind of hyperbole doesn't bother me, but for those Clinton supporters wondering about the focus on these issues, please understand that as these things come dripping out it appears to show a pattern of either deliberate misstatements by Sen. Clinton or staff incompetence. I'm not sure which is the better argument for Mrs. Clinton, as her campaign is the first executive experience she has and it hasn't exactly been smooth sailing. And believe it or not, the Fact Checker has been after Sen. Obama on a bunch of stuff I consider to be irrelevant and silly ... I guess I have to admit it's all in the eye of the beholder.

The issues of our 2008 Presidential Election Campaign!

I read this article because of the derogatory heading and my knowledge of Ms. Rankin. My thanks to Kim and Alan in Missoula for adding "the rest of the story" for the careless checker. In Butte, MT, Hillary also noted MT was more progressive than other states in granting rights to women.

Jeanette Rankin was the 1st female elected to Congress, and the only one to vote against the US entering both WWI and WWII. Unlike, Obama, Ms. Rankin actually CAST A VOTE in her opposition to war.

Another small nail in her coffin. Her whole campaign revolves around more or less tall or false stories. Every little thing gets embellished or hyped to an importance it never had. She says Obama's all words. Well, she is the one using words to distort and falsify. The largest nail, however, is still her vote for the war.

http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/project-post-mortem-i-the-vote-for-war/

Join the project post mortem of her campaign and send us your views.

What I do not understand is her campaign has a LOT of staff...How come they continue to make these easily proven misstatements?
How long does it take to "Google" some history?
Seriously..Maybe it is nit picking but how effective will she be if she can not get the talent before getting into the white house..The way she has run her campaign as well as how she has managed her finances it boggles the mind.
How she can boast being ready on day one?...we are way past day one of this election cycle.. the only thing proven so far is that she and her staff have a massive communication problem..which if you put into the bigger picture ..scares the Bejesus out of me...
To me this is a hint of what might come in a Hillary Administration..Remember when Bill was prez...he was as secretive as GWB ..

all you people defending Hillary: does it occur to you that the press is so "hard" on Hillary because she herself is so dishonest?
Is this not a problem for you guys/gals: Mark Penn, her chief strategist, rain maker, etc., in the pay of a country for a trade pact against which she is ranting? AND, if that's not enough, her on husband in the pay of the Colombians as a "consultant? You want this stuff in Washington running a government you profess to want to change?

All I can say, is, hopefully, she will lose.

Jeanette Rankin was a Republican, as were most of the early suffragists (the rest were mainly Bull-Moosers, the party founded by Republican President Theodore Roosevelt). The Republican party was founded to block the expansion of slavery and soon after they were successful not only in abolishing it, but in adding three Constitutional Amendments that prohibited slavery, ensured equal justice under law and which extended suffrage to black males. It is in keeping with this tradition that Republicans were the first to champion women's suffrage. Today, sadly the Democrat party still does not believe in treating people equally, they support "affirmative action" instead of a single standard for all Americans. Rather than reforming education, which would be the greatest spur to ever greater equality, they stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the educational unions to block meaningful educational reform.

Clinton has allowed a "credibility gap" to emerge in her public statements both before and during this campaign. I can't expect that she would run her administration any differently. I fear for my country that we might elect a President that would lie to us. John McCain is made of integrity. That is why he gets my vote.

One pinnochio at most.
It was an error in history, and an understandable one.

Guys- anyone interested in politics/presidential race should definitely check out http://www.savagepolitics.com
Their articles are like nothing I have read in any of the current media outlets. It is brilliant writing plus it offers a great community in which to discuss. The editor actually takes time to answer and the political humor section is awesome!!!

Check out the article "We are the puppets"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://savagepolitics.com/?p=271

I did not take time to read all the nitpicking. We need a smart president that can read a bill or law and understand it. wish there were people picking at the nitwit that is in the white house now....oh what a different world it would be

Fact checker is losing it's credibility vis a vis it's inability to check the real facts. I'd say thanks for the history lesson but all I had to do was go to the source and listen to the actual speech. Which, I will do from now on rather than coming here as you have proven to be biased and out of context.

Just an amazing site!
http://www.newfxlive.com/learn-forex-trading-free.html " target="_top">learn forex trading free

Sen. Clinton has never claimed that she has met MLK in person, all she said (in her own book) was that she was taken by somebody she knew to an orchestra hall to listen to a speech given by MLK. There was no bragging on her side.
On the other hand, as Mr.Dobbs have previously investigated that, Sen.Obama made a false claim that JFK had helped his late father in Kenya to fly in the U.S. in 1959. Obama Sr. was a known habitual bragger, his son Obama Jr. is no better.

Mr. Dobbs:

The content of your "fact checking" column has been severely slanted throughout the Democratic Race for President. Now you have really hit the edge of desperation in creating a full-blown column about a comment made by HRC.

Strange how fifteen people who have blogged here so far each have a different interpretation of what Hillary meant with her comment. Case in point of picking up a soundbyte and running it into an article.

If you want something to fact check -- why don't you ask Mr. Obama's camp why they are paying internet bloggers on a monthly basis? Or why they paid $13k in CAMPAIGN
FUNDS to DTWO, LLC, an IPO offering?

Can we PLEASE focus on the MAJOR ISSUES at hand in this election and leave the soundbyte sensationalism to the tabloids?

I am sorely disappointed in American media.

Not again, what is wrong with this campaign. How stupid do they really think we are. Why are they even still in this election. Obama 08

I support Senator Hillary Clinton for President. Intelligent men will vote for Senator Clinton. Men are more practical. They hate incompetents. No Obama. Vote for Senator Clinton.

HILLARY'S POOR JUDGMENT leaves AMERICANS FOOTING THE BILL

.

THE WAR IN IRAQ IS HAVING SERIOUS NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON OUR ECONOMY and those who voted for the war (i.e. hillary) should be to blame, in part, for the state of the US economy.

Look how the WAR IN IRAQ is affecting the US economy...

$3,000,000,000... 3 billion dollars PER WEEK!

That is the amount America is paying for the Iraq War PER WEEK, money that should have been used here, at home.

Add to this:

Interest. We are financing the war with borrowed money (e.g. treasuries) that carries interest; so in actuality, the war is costing the United States MORE THAN 3 billion dollars PER WEEK.

Higher oil and energy prices. Instability in Iraq is adding roughly 30 dollars per barrel as a premium.

High utility bills. High oil prices mean high utility bills. Higher oil prices shifts demand to other sources of energy - gas, coal, etc. - and greater demand will raise the equilibrium price of all sources of energy -- Can you say high energy bills?

Higher oil prices (a raw material used in the production of many goods, fertilizers, gasoline, diesel, plastics, etc.) mean higher prices of goods and services -- Can you say INFLATION?

Higher oil prices mean a higher trade deficit because most of our oil comes from foreign sources. A higher trade deficit means more money is leaving the country than is coming into the country -- Can you say Goodbye to your hard-earned money!

Our dollar is weak and getting weaker. Since we have a trade deficit and is growing in large part to the rising cost of imported oil, the value of goods and services we import exceeds the value of goods we export. You know that foreign car you're thinking of buying or the computer you're using, or that trip abroad you've been thinking of taking....well, guess what? It is going to cost more, Ceteris Peribus, because the dollar is weak and getting weaker.

Lastly, how do you think the world views our country since the argument was made for war? The evidence was weak and circumstantial, yet we rushed into war with Iraq thanks to hillary's authorization.

Hillary Voted FOR THE WAR

.

People: Learn to comprehend what you read. Mrs. Clinton didn't say anything about Rankin being elected by men. She merely said, "who says men don't vote for women." And for god's sake, she misspeaks about dates or events - do all of you recall EVERY event in your life with absolute clarity and never making an error or misspeaking? What a witch hunt goes on in the minds of so many who haven't really a good understanding of what she can do. She's been my Senator and I can tell you she's a wonderful representative of the people!

The powerful Jewish Lobby including [AIPAC] American Israel Public Affairs Committee is vexed, frustrated and displeased with Barack Obama's refusal to accept special interest money. The concern is that the Senator's policy prevents them from exerting influence or favor from his administration should he become the next President.

Hillary Clinton's campaign immediately saw an opening to exploit the Jewish community's apprehension and began stoking the anti-Obama fire behind the scene. In collaboration with the Clintons, they [Jewish Lobby] dispatched a number of "candidacy assassinators" including former Clinton special counsel, Lanny Davis, Florida congress woman, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, California congress man, Brad Sherman & CNN news anchor, Wolfe Blitzer to torpedo Obama's nomination bid. One of the tactics employed by the "Assassinators" was to dissuade voters / super delegates from supporting the Illinois Senator by pushing the Reverend Wright issue. The strategy was to convince them that Obama would be unelectable in November due to his optics and to sell Hillary as the only winnable choice for the nomination.

Take a look at the YouTube video where Rachel Maddow from Air America recently discussed the topic on her show. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdYzGzvXO0U

Elected Democrats increasingly are becoming frustrated with Senator Clinton's controversial tactics and noted her alliance with John McCain to annihilate a democratic colleague. They worry that her strategy is providing damaging ammunition to the republicans that could derail Obama's candidacy should he become the nominee. Some are even calling Clinton's conduct treacherous and privately accuse her of deliberately trying to sabotage the Democratic Party because of the unlikely odds of her fairly winning the nomination. But who is willing to bell the Cat? Thus far, none of the party leaders are willing to offer any public criticism. After-all, the New York Senator and former President Clinton are powerful and formidable party elites.

American women were NEVER suffragettes. They were suffragists. They felt the ette suffix was demeaning.

Obama gave a misleading answer to Charlie Gibson about whether his handwriting was on a questionnaire that reported him as favoring a complete ban on handguns. The Obama campaign has said that a staffer "mischaracterized" the senator's views. It's either mispoke or mischaracterized for Barry. Poor Barry and Barry's staff either doesn't know the TRUTH or he mispeaks and mischaracterizes. But, what else is new for a campaign built on LIES.

The powerful Jewish Lobby including [AIPAC] American Israel Public Affairs Committee is vexed, frustrated and displeased with Barack Obama's refusal to accept special interest money. The concern is that the Senator's policy prevents them from exerting influence or favor from his administration should he become the next President.

Hillary Clinton's campaign immediately saw an opening to exploit the Jewish community's apprehension and began stoking the anti-Obama fire behind the scene. In collaboration with the Clintons, they [Jewish Lobby] dispatched a number of "candidacy assassinators" including former Clinton special counsel, Lanny Davis, Florida congress woman, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, California congress man, Brad Sherman & CNN news anchor, Wolfe Blitzer to torpedo Obama's nomination bid. One of the tactics employed by the "Assassinators" was to dissuade voters / super delegates from supporting the Illinois Senator by pushing the Reverend Wright issue. The strategy was to convince them that Obama would be unelectable in November due to his optics and to sell Hillary as the only winnable choice for the nomination.

Take a look at the YouTube video where Rachel Maddow from Air America recently discussed the topic on her show. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdYzGzvXO0U

Elected Democrats increasingly are becoming frustrated with Senator Clinton's controversial tactics and noted her alliance with John McCain to annihilate a democratic colleague. They worry that her strategy is providing damaging ammunition to the republicans that could derail Obama's candidacy should he become the nominee. Some are even calling Clinton's conduct treacherous and privately accuse her of deliberately trying to sabotage the Democratic Party because of the unlikely odds of her fairly winning the nomination. But who is willing to bell the Cat? Thus far, none of the party leaders are willing to offer any public criticism. After-all, the New York Senator and former President Clinton are powerful and formidable party elites.

Posted by: Jacobs | April 15, 2008 10:10 AM
*************************************************************************************************************************************

OBAMA HAS ACCEPTED SPECIAL INTEREST MONEY FROM THE LAWYERS WHO REPRESENT LOBBYISTS. THESE LAWYERS MADE $138 MILLION LAST YEAR REPRESENTING LOBBYISTS. HIS COMMERCIAL ON THIS IS ACTUALLY ANOTHER OF BARRY'S DECEPTIONS. HOW DESPERATE CAN BARRY GET?

Not again, what is wrong with this campaign. How stupid do they really think we are. Why are they even still in this election. Obama 08

Posted by: Dan | April 11, 2008 4:10 PM

**************************************************************************

Why? It's called Democracy. You might want to look it up. You really don't want an answer as to how stupid you are.

OBAMA RULES. HILLARY DRULES. O-BA-MA! O-BA-MA!

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.