The Fact-Checker, by Michael Dobbs

Fact checking the fact checker: Clinton's trip was in 1996, not 1994.

Who won the ABC Democratic Debate in Philadelphia Pennsylvania?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=2137

.

Blog Error: Obama precisely stated that he rescinded the invite to Wright based on comments in the Rolling Stone magazine. He also stated that Rolling Stone comments were not as inflammatory than the youtube clips. Hope that helps!

I believe the point was that we can be friends or friendly with people who have different beliefs. Obama does not agree with Coburn and he does not agree with Ayers. That is in actuality equivalent. What is not equivalent is the assertion that because Ayers, and not Coburn, made a small monetary donation to the Obama campaign, that it means something. Because Coburn is a conservative Republican, I imagine that would be a very reasonable and expected reason for why he did not contribute to the campaign of a Democrat.

I believe the point was that we can be friends or friendly with people who have different beliefs. Obama does not agree with Coburn and he does not agree with Ayers. That is in actuality equivalent. What is not equivalent is the assertion that because Ayers, and not Coburn, made a small monetary donation to the Obama campaign, that it means something. Because Coburn is a conservative Republican, I imagine that would be a very reasonable and expected reason for why he did not contribute to the campaign of a Democrat.

Blog Check: I believe the point was that we can be friends or friendly with people who have different beliefs. Obama does not agree with Coburn and he does not agree with Ayers. That is in actuality equivalent. What is not equivalent is the assertion that because Ayers, and not Coburn, made a small monetary donation to the Obama campaign, that it means something. Because Coburn is a conservative Republican, I imagine that would be a very reasonable and expected reason for why he did not contribute to the campaign of a Democrat.

Chuckle, chuckle on Gibson must be worried comment!

Gibson misspoke when he said 100 million people owned stocks, this would be correct if you counted 401/ira accounts which are taxed as ordinary income when they are utilized. not at the capital gains rate.

Thanks for catching the capital gains one, that always annoys me. It seems obvious that, taken to an extreme, you cannot cut capital gains taxes to 0 and maximize revenue, so there is obviously a limit to where they can be cut and have a revenue benefit. And I'm sure any percieved revenue increase is confounded with a bunch of other factors. I'd love to see an in depth analysis of that some time.

Come now. If you want to make something of the Ayers and all of the radical things that was done, then please, just put it out there. Adjusting the original blog comment by adding a link to a story is not straight forward and honest!

Obama interrupted his New Hampshire campaigning to speak by phone with Odinga, his cousin. He did not speak with Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki.

Odinga has now made a deal for support with Muslim fundamentalists... A photograph copy of a Memorandum of Understanding, dated and signed on August 29, 2007, between Raila Odinga and Shiekh Abdullah Abdi, chairman of the National Muslim Leaders Forum of Kenya (I have copy of document w/signatures)
Raila Odinga has, in his own words, a "close personal friendship" with Barrack Hussein Obama Junior. When Obama went to Kenya in August of 2006, he was hosted by Raila and spoke in praise of him at rallies in Nairobi... Obama's bias for his fellow Luo was so blatant that a Kenya government spokesman denounced Obama during his visit as Raila's "stooge." http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=149_1199587542

When Raila Odinga lost the presidential election last week (12/27/07) to Mwai Kibaki, he claimed the vote was rigged, whereupon his tribal followers went on murderous rampages such as in the town of Eldoret, where on New Years Day dozens of people were burned to death in a church set on fire... Throughout Kenya, hundreds of people have been politically murdered in the last few days.

At first a million man march was planned but Obama put in some frantic 11th hour calls to his cousin to call that off, since it would reflect badly on his campaign at home, (he is locked in a battle with Hillary and it was the day of the N.H. primary), to have the media filled with images of angry Blacks rioting over a diputed election result. Odinga agreed to hold off, but now he is getting impatient. Odinga can only hold off for so long, since he faces likely criminal charges over the organized slaughter of Kikuyu by his (and Obama's) Luo tribesmen.

Blog Check: For those who do not read articles: "Obama didn't offer specific numbers, but his technical point turns out to be correct. Between 24 and 28 military members from the state (depending on which of the many available sources we rely on) were killed during the 2006-07 school year. That's fewer, in absolute terms, than the number of kids killed in Chicago. But Obama was wrong on the relative victimization of both populations: the number of dead soldiers represents about .3% (or 30 out of every 10,000) of the total number of active and reserve troops from Illinois currently serving in IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN, according to Defense Department statistics. "

What is the point of picking on this? When most of us, Parents, Aunts, Uncles....look at this statement, it is understood that there should be no comparison between children killed in schools vs. our children dying in war. The expectation of a child being killed "should be" non-existent. The expectation of a soldier being killed in war is substantially more. In addition, according to the article and your comment, Obama was comparing deaths in Iraq, but the Time mag article compares to deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wonder if the numbers used was just Iraq, whether Obama would not only be correct technically, but also on "relative victimization."

Blog Check: Fact is that neither Obama or Clinton really answered the question. And I am again surprised at the fact that neither George or Charlie pressed on the DC issue with Clinton.

I would have loved to ask how Clinton was going to ensure PA would have 100k police on the streets thru DOJ's cop program. As a former worker, DOJ not only do they not get funds to do that in one city much less the entire country, but DOJ put much of the funds for the war on drugs and prisons.

That said, I like how she answered the questions as it related to Pennsylvania. It was a good tactic vs. Obama speaking to the entire country.

I'm on the West Coast and the debate has not been on the local ABC channel yet. However, after reading three different debate blogs I might just go for a late bike ride rather than watch the debate because it sounds like the whole affair was lame due to the moderators being inept.

As an Obama supporter I would advise him to strongly consider not debating Hillary anymore because these debates now appear to be devoid of real substance.

Bruce Springstein's endorsement of Obama will probably have more clout than 99% of what politicians and pundits think. Bruce is probably more insightful and smarter than than these so-called political experts.

I can't wait for Obama to get elected so that we can REALLY GET SOME CHANGE IN WASHINGTON. The same old game is really fatiguing .

Are you kidding me? Some fact checker felt the need to break the number of school kids shot and killed in Chicago down into percentages? You are as dumb as the moderaters of the debate! I thought I was listening to a rag @ss tabloid for the first hour.

I felt moderators were not civil to the candidates,especially Barack, they were not letting him finish his sentences and interjecting during his response.
Overall, I feel Barack look more thoughtful and presidential. He was honest and refreshing whereas Hillary looked pugnacious and mean.

Also, Why ABC was focussing on Clinton supporters, Was George S. on rolls of Clinton.

This was interesting to say the least. There can no longer be assertions that the media does not criticize Obama. And SNL should do a skit asking Obama needs bandaids! Lol! However, between the moderators and Clinton, he handled the onslaught very well. Where I would have picked up a knife and did some poking of my own, he kept his composure. He was very defensive, but very composed.

Note: If you are interested in more criticisms and tabloid fodder to write about in blogs......It seems like the first hour was about crap directed at Obama. (Flag pin, Wright, Ayers and bitter) Not much was made of what are actual issues. (Economy, Gas, Iraq, Afghanistan, housing, social security, jobs) They were talked about, but much of what was said was not challenged. But all pokes at Bush are always appreciated!

Clinton was very smooth and did not fall into most of the traps she normally can't resist. She did not have a much lobbied at her, but was left alone on the 'mistake' she made regards to Bosnia and the Ban on guns issue.

Fact checking the fact checker -- The 9:40 comment is bogus. Not only does it not relate to the debate at all, but in the words of the fact checker himself, Obama said the number of school children killed by guns exceeded Illinois' soldiers killed in Iraq. Obama said nothing about the fatality rate of children vs soldiers. That was an invention of the writer quoted by the fact checker. That might be another interesting way of looking at the two numbers of deaths, but it has nothing at all to do with whether or not what Obama said outside the debate was true or not.

The first half of the debate in particular was a huge disappointment. It would be nice to hear debate about something substantive rather than tired old rhetoric about Reverend Wright! Kudos to Obama for remaining calm and above the fray. I completely support his desire to change the tone in Washington and stop politics as usual.

I recall Hillary saying something about the Weathermen killing people. That is false. While they did cause a great deal of property destruction, they specifically warned people of all of their attacks before-hand to avoid the loss of human life.

The only people who died as a result of their actions were three Weathermen: Ted Gold, Diana Oughton, and Terry Robbins, who died in the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion on March 6, 1970.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_
%28organization%29#Greenwich_Village_
explosion

"The Weather Underground"(Documentary)

Hillary's answer on the Middle East shows that she does not oppose the Imperial Presidency, if she is on the throne.

Could someone please get her a copy of the Constitution?

Obama's answer was much more statesmanlike and--and this is important--legal.

The perpetual minor leaguer newsman Gibson and the ever-green Clintonite Stephanopoulos tonight acted like they were Hillary hitmen.

Despite this, Obama kept his cool and his perspective, focusing on what the American people want to talk about.

Too bad he didn't bring up Hillary's brothers benefitting from Bill's pardon of a narcotics trafficker and another felon in response to the question about the Weather Underground nutball Ayres.

Obama's mention of Bill's pardon of two Weather Underground militants did put the hectoring by Charlie and George in necessary perspective.

Too bad Stephanopoulos and Gibson were leaning over so hard towards Hillary they didn't follow that up with a question for her on why her husband issued all these last minute pardons against the advice of the Justice Department.

A whale of a good question, no?

Hillary just won the election.

John McCain should just drop out now and save everyone a lot of wasted time and money.

She's brilliant.

He's a total idiot.

Hillary's going to be a great president.

Obama's got a great future as a male model.

"He failed to clear up precisely why he withdrew the invitation to Wright."

If I recall correctly, he said it was due to comments Wright made in Rolling Stone which he felt would be a distraction. Anybody have a transcript?

Hillary knocked the ball out of the park.

Obama struck out on three pitches.

If this election is at all about who's more qualified, we've got to elect Hillary Clinton.

She's the best person for the job.

Any other decision would be both sexist and racist.

What are people going to believe, Obama or their own eyes?

No amount of Obama spin can change what happened tonight.

Score -- Hillary 100% Obama 0.0.

Hillary going to be a great President.

Found a transcript. It seems pretty clear why he decided to rescind the invitation, although I don't know the content of the remarks in Rolling Stone.

"Well, understand that I hadn't seen the remarks that ended up playing on youTube repeatedly. This was a set of remarks that had been quoted in Rolling Stone Magazine and we looked at them and I thought that they would be a distraction since he had just put them forward."

Anything of substance to actually doing an fact checking on? Oh wait, there were few issues-oriented answers because there were few issues oriented questions. The next debate should be moderated by Matt Drudge and hosted on Fox News. A travesty, ABC.

Fact checker appears to be what is described in third world journalism as a "Pull him Downer"

How would lou Dobbs castigate Obama from receiving $200 from Ayers when he knows for a fact that contributions only get vetted after the FACT.

How does one expect candidates to account for contributors who turn out to be convicts,criminals or pedophiles after their background has been thoroughly reviewed?

Instances like these only reinforces the point that America needs an urgent change!

Obama had nothing to say, because he has no real plans for anything, only generic words like "hope" and "change". Once we all get beyond that, he has no real plans. Hillary however, does and that's why she won the debate tonight...plain and simple.

Does anyone else find it troubling that a former employee of the Clinton White House was one of the moderators?!

We need Tim Russert or someone else who is capable of being neutral and intelligent instead of prodding candidates in a juvenile manner.

I think Obama handled himself like a President.

I thought Obama held up well against the assault by Charlie, George and Hillary. He was the only class act on that stage tonight.

Hillary 'won?' Won what exactly, because this was not a Presidential debate. But if you think about it, anyone who can plug advertise their website, HillaryClinton.com, not once.........not twice, but at least three times, definitely is a winner!

As an undecided voter, I watched the debate from what I felt was an objective point of view. However, the questions were blatantly biased against Sen. Obama, and he was immediately questioned on Wright, "bitter" and wearing a flag pin of all the ridiculous things. Sen. Clinton lost no opportunity to chime in. Her only tough question regarding Bosnia was practically shrugged off, not picked up by Obama, and not challenged by either moderator. Where were the questions about Bill Clinton, Mark Penn, and the most recent comment she made about white voters saying "screw them"?? I am no longer a fan of Charlie Gibson or George Stephanopolous and will switch from ABC news to NBC. After this debate, Obama will be my choice.

The press has all the right in the world to question Obama in the BitterGate and now that Obama worked for terrorist William Ayers. He said he was 8 when Ayers bombed New York. Nice try Obama. You were 30something when you worked for him at the Woods Project. You as an adult made the decision to work for a terrorist. This is a legitimate issue, the judgment and associations of the possible nominee. Its goes straight to the reason why democrats have lost the last two elections. It is fair to argue Obama's condescension to the small town folk because it goes directly to issues like religion, xenophobia, gun ownership and culture. And his associations with Farrahkan, Wright, Ayers and Refko should be fully vetted.

This was well short of being a substantive debate. I thought it more tabloid than any debate yet I felt obama was taking on the moderators as well as clinton and the real issues in this primary were given little attention if we can't have a debate with substance we may as well watch jerry springer.!

Oh please. Unless Tom Coburn took part in the bombing of an abortion clinic it is not a fair point to compare him and Ayers.

Thank God we didn't nominate Obama.

He's hopeless without his teleprompter.

Hillary can hire David Axelrod and Obama's Speechwriter.

Obama can't grow a new brain.

Most stupid and empty debate of all. Mostly thanks to these two clowns from ABC who called themselves moderators. May be BC would connect with Faux News then people would know it has no sense to follow the program and go for dinner.
I just wait if next time somebody will ask if Obama was not eating lunch to his fellow students at primary school and if some presumptive terrorist was not there in class too. SHAME ON YOU ABC.
I hope Senator Obama received his lesson and next time choose better TV network for debate. On the other hand now he knows how it will be in November.

This debate was the most fair one yet. I liked that the responses were timed, and each were given an equal amount of time. I liked that the questions were staggered, and that they "flipped a coin" to see who would go first on opening and closings. I was impressed that both were challenged with tough questions and not allowed to wiggle out of fully answering.

ABC handled this debate in a very admirable way, and I think both candidates supporters should have been satisfied with the fairness of the debate, for a change.

Clinton was questioned about her positions on Wright and Obama's bitter comments, and she responded, owning her position, while Obama hedged on the Bosnia question, admitting his "campaign" was hammering on it, "of course," yet somehow dodging personal responsibility for what his campaign is doing? That just seemed dishonest to me. If his campaign is doing it - HE is. I'd much rather see the candidates own their positions and actions, than try and appear above the fray, when their actions don't match the perception they're trying to falsly portray.

So why is FactChecker fact checking this particular debate? From what I saw and what most of my fellow commentators agree on is that the FactChecker oughta be excusing himself on this one. Instead, he might pass on a recommendation to watch both Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, their "spin" and preference for focusing on the trivial. But I doubt that something this controversial would ever come from the WaPo.

What I find interesting is that the competing paper in NY already has an article posted (WaPo currently has nothing) noting that "aggressive questioning by the two moderators from ABC News, Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous" focused solely on grilling Obama over items he has already addressed for the past weeks in the media (e.g., Reverend Wright, a [freakin' stupid] lapel pin, and at best a loose and questionable relationship with some obscure member of the Weather Underground--who is probably old enough to be Obama's parent!)

The WaPo's "The Fix" decided to fixiate on all the Obama gaffes. Oh please! This is not a horse race or some passing sports commentary on a daily game. It is our future as a democracy. I realize some of the reporters love the rush of a "good campaign" but could they keep their sports commentators aspirations on hold while they objectively "report" --is that possible?-- on what is going on in the campaign. Perhaps that is too much to hope.

However, I still hope that younger reporters like Chris Cizilla realize that their words and their horse race enthusiasm can help to shape an election. I can only trust that they have the brains to realize that they can "turn" a campaign one way or the other and that the general public realize this as well.

Certainly Fox News has understood this power for a very long time. Hence the Dean scream, the Gore parody of "I invented the Internet", the deification of GWBush in 2000 by the press's dictum of what a good guy he was to hang out with and drink a beer, etc.

In the final analysis of this debate (travesty?), my one true feeling is that Gibson and Stephanopolous were scripted by ABC and told to hack away at Obama.

Did anyone question G. Stephanopolous's potential for bias because he had worked for the Clinton WH?

Oh, I am sorry, I apologize for bringing up an obvious point that the MSM doesn't wish to acknowledge. That someone that they now employ might show bias. Oh! shame on me for saying such a terrible thing!

I also think the debate was good. I know Obama's followers will think differently, but in the end if he is the nominee, all these "distractions" will come up during the general election campaign. He needs to be prepared.

I think tonight Clinton was more articulate than Obama. He seemed to have problems answering some of the questions. Maybe he wasn't expecting them, I don't know. He certainly knows how to give speeches, but he is a little weak when it comes to talking without notes or a teleprompter.

This last debate shows Sen. Obama was highly defensive on matters related to his Chicago connections, which are not totally clear to the America people at this point of time. If he becomes the nominee, the Republicans will scrutinize him much deeper, as they did to the Clintons in the 90's.
The bitter-gate issue is another issue, showing sen. Obama is weak in winning the small-town America. His failure in the general election could be much worse than sen. Kerry , a war hero, in the 2004 election.

You wrote:

"Gibson asks Obama to explain why he disinvited Obama from blessing his presidential campaign a year ago, but failed to speak out publicly against him until very recently."

That should read "why he disinvited Rev. Wright"

I have to admit that for Obama, this was ABC's version of the MSNBC ambush on Hillary Clinton a few months ago. I write about that on my blog.

http://jammerbirdi.wordpress.com/2008/02/26/the-msnbc-ambush-debate/

I absolutely can not believe that after all the hay that was made on this paper after the Richardson endorsement of Obama, that the Post hasn't reported the fact that Bill Richardson DUPED President Clinton into coming to New Mexico to fundraise FOR Governor Richardson with Richardson's ASSURANCE that he was going to endorse, or support, Hillary. This is great stuff. Why hasn't America heard this story, WaPo?

Listen to James Carville's wife TELL the story by way of mp3 audio HERE.

http://jammerbirdi.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/judas-mary-and-james/

When are you Fact Checkers going to check into Peter Paul vs the Clinton's. You can go to http://www.paulvclinton.com. Are you participating in the giant media cover-up of this case?

1) HILLARY STATES:

"I am going to do everything I possibly can to make sure one of us takes the oath of office next January

2) When the moderators ask HILLARY regarding the Bosnia Fable, OBAMA graciously refused to elaborate and qualified it as a mistake.

3) HILLARY THANKED HIM BY REPEATING AGAIN HER SLIGHTLY VEILED ATTACKS REGARDING PREACHER, OTHER QUESTIONABLE FRIEND AND ELITISM !! How many points she will loose
in the next poll due to this??

4) THE DEBATE HAD ONE LOSER (HILLARY) AND ONE WINNER (MCcCAIN!!!)

Hillary torpedoed her only chance to convince Superdelegates to reverse popular vote and nominate her, justifying this by her arguments THAT OBAMA is NOT ELECTIBLE due to his alleged lack of experience, the Preacher and elitism. But by admitting emphatically that he can win in front of McCAIN (obviously stating that she is more so, which OBAMA also obviously contradicted), and even if she tries now to tell the superdelegates that what she said was only OUT OF POLITENESS, very few of the still not committed super's will dream to take the risk to alienate voters with the electibility justification, after her public statement to the contrary !!

And McCAIN IS froliking because of the irrational statement of Hillary that she will follow her IRAQ timetable no matter what happen on the ground, OBAMA did only slightly better by saying with less clarity that he will do so in 16 months basing on a plan imposed by his Presidency to the generals, with certain restriction (but forgetting to say what would happen if the generals are not able to comply with the plan !!)

A similar irrational attitude regarding "no new taxes" for incomes
under $ 250,000, no matter the financial situation, by both candidates will leave them open to GOP attacks, so that the DEMS will lose their advantage by attacking McCAIN on this issue.

SO THIS DEBATE WILL NOT IMPROVE, BUT PROBABLY WORSEN HILLARY'S CATASTROPHIC PUBLIC PERCEPTION AS SHOWN BY THE WASHINGTON POST / ABC POLL, NOT IMPROVE HER SITUATION IN THE UPCOMING PRIMARIES AND MOST IMPORTANT, HER POSSIBILITIES TO ATTRACT SUPERDELEGATES HAVE NEARLY VANISHED.

WHAT WILL SHE DO NOW ??

Caminito

THE DEBATE HAD ONE LOSER (HILLARY) AND ONE WINNER (MCcCAIN!!!)

Hillary torpedoed her only chance to convince Superdelegates to
reverse popular vote and nominate her, justifying this by her arguments THAT OBAMA is NOT ELECTIBLE due to his alleged lack of experience, the Preacher and elitism. But by admitting emphatically that he can win in front of McCAIN (obviously stating that she is more so, which OBAMA also obviously contradicted), and even if she try to tell the superdelegates that what she said was only OUT OF politeness, very few of the still not committed super's will dream to take the risk to alienate voters with the electibility
justification, after her public statement to the contrary !!

And McCAIN will frolic beacuse of the irrational statement of Hillary that she will follow her IRAQ timetable no matter what happen on the ground, OBAMA did slightly better by saying with less clarity that he will do so in 16 month basing on a plan imposed by the Presidency to the generals, with certain restrictions (but forgetting to SAY what would happen if the generals are not able to comply with the plan !!)

A similar irrational attitude regarding "no new taxes" for incomes
under $ 250,000, no matter the financial situation, by both candidates
will leave them open to GOP attacks, so that the DEMS will lose
their advantage attacking the GOP on this issue.

SO THIS DEBATE WILL NOT IMPROVE, BUT PROBABLY WORSEN
HILLARY'S CATASTROPHIC PUBLIC PERCEPTION AS SHOWN BY THE WASHINGTON POST / ABC POLL, NOT IMPROVE HER SITUATION IN THE UPCOMING PRIMARIES AND MOST IMPORTANT,
HER POSSIBILITIES TO ATTRACT SUPERDELEGATES HAVE NEARLY VANISHED.

WHAT WILL SHE DO NOW ??

ALBO

I'm a very strong Obama supporter who lives in Seattle and did not watch the debate until it started at 8 PM on the West Coast. However, I did spend over an hour reading everything I could on the web about what happened prior to seeing for myself. Based on what I had read I even thought about skipping the debate because it seemed like it was an unfair Obama bash without substantive questions.

Now after watching it myself and forming my own opinions I must say I'm surprised at how off base the pundits including the Fact Checker seem to be.

First of all, this thing about the gun control questionnaire is a big nothing not worthy of mention. Second, Obama did quite well and his continued poise, maturity and intelligence, when under attack, further confirms my impression that he will be the best President America has seen since FDR if not Lincoln.

Having said this, Clinton did not do badly. I simply do not like to listen to her. She does not make me enthusiastic about anything - in contrast to Obama. I could go on a big long Hillary bash but will not waste my or any reader's time with such an approach.

I've already given to Obama once this month and did not intend to give again but have now changed my mind. I will go to his website to make another donation as soon as I complete this post.

I would advise Obama to not debate Clinton anymore since the substantive issues have played themselves out and the media in general is just looking for gaffes. He should wait for McCain and then agree to debate substantive issues only.

I'd like for the staffers at Fact Checker to look around the net for almost everyone in the Democratic Party's take on tonight's debate.

The bottom line is that you're seriously close to losing the respect previous contributors to FactChecker have worked so hard to achieve ... namely, the sacred title of "objective information source."

We'd like to think it's sloppy editorial review, but it reeks of cow towing to Gov. Ed Rendell's political agenda in order to keep your state funding.

Annenberg has always prided itself for objectivity and journalistic professionalism. Your coverage of this debate shows neither.

Is there anyone over the age of 21, that lives in this country who have not heard a racist statements or a sexist statements? that answer is NO, So why is white america judging Sen. Obama with guilt by association this is crazy, this is why we can't solve any problems, playing these Carl Rove games, this is why the current adminstration has been able to rob this country blind, we're too busy lounging in the silly season of politics grow up white america lets start dealing with the REAl problems of America.

This debate looked like the participants were a Professor and a Student.

The Professor: Hillary Clinton

The Student: Barack Obama

Hillary shows she is brilliant and experienced. She is ready!

Barack shows great talent and huge potential. He'll be ready in a few years!

This is the renowned "FactCheck" Unbelievable? The post is filled with many errors already pointed out by other commentators. And, all you had to say about Clinton was oh by the way that Bosnia thing came up again oops, girlfriend. You are kidding, right?

Time to donate to Obama's campaign

Loved the part where Senator Sniper Fire said raising the $97,000 payroll tax limit would hurt police and firefighters? Obama corrected her by pointing out most police and firefighter don't make that much only to have Charlie Gibson say there were alot of people in the 97,000 to 250,000 wage bracket. The debate was bias and I hope someone else noticed that little attempt by Hillary to mislead the voters.

Meanwhile, Pat Buchanan and Rachel Maddow (speaking on Keith Olbermann's post debate special edition of MSNBC'a Countdown tonight) are the only commentators I have seen thus far who have focused on what ought to be the headline: that Hillary Clinton spoke of extending the U.S. nuclear umbrella to ALL countries of the Middle East (including but not limited to Israel) who want to be under it, and stated that she would use immediately launch a massive retaliation if any Middle Eastern state under this umbrella were attacked by Iran. Leaving aside the fact that Iran hasn't invaded any neighboring state in 400 years, Maddow and Buchanan pointed out that a president is supposed to seek permission from Congress before undertaking such a foreign policy commitment or retaliative action. Buchanan was deeply troubled by Clinton's arrogation of executive power but found Obama's answer to be entirely appropriate. I don't often agree with Pat Buchanan, but in this case he is on the money. Unfortunately 95% of journalists are obsessing about Obama and Ayers instead of a foreign policy red flag--as Maddow and Buchanan predicted they would.

Tomorrow night Olbermann will be doing his own "fact check" edition of Countdown at 8 and 10 pm re: the debate. It should be interesting!

Fact checking this debate is lame, because the questions were dubious at best. Who gives a ***t by now! People aren't changing their minds this last minute, a week away from the Pennsylvania primary.

The gotcha questions, Hillary's Bosnia lies, she'll do more things like that to any group about something else, if it serves her purpose. Cheering crowds don't check facts.

Obama having to repeated defend "bitter"? I'm freaking pissed off about Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

I know quite a few 2nd Admendment cranks with more than 20 rifles, pistols and thousand rounds of ammunitition. They do gathering runs buying M-16 and AR-15's if any hint of "gun ban" is even mentioned by politicians.

Simply ban the clips to semi automatic rifles and handguns down to six shots!

All those who claim their trained with a concealed carry or open carry gun license depending on the state where they live, those folks supposedly can drop an attacker with six shots.

A person shot with a .45 six times will drop dead.

Some clips for handguns now have 36 shots. Same as a semi automatic rifle.

Banning clips is possible, complete gun bans don't work. Too many variations of guns in the same category.

Gun Collectors don't need political protection its a passed down belief in families. Most gun collectors are looking to move guns to make a profit.

At no time will hunting weapons be banned or the sport discouraged in states.

It's pitiful the media wants to keep seperating voters along race and gender statistics.

Here's something to fact check. Hillary wants to give tax relief, give universal healthcare and stabilize social security. Where the money going to come from? She said she didn't want to raise anyone's taxes.

I was interested that your colleague at the Other Paper (the one in Hillary's home state) caught another thing, which I hope you will add here since we want Washington Post to be the primo fact-checking site to see.

The ex-Weatherman guy DIDN'T say his stupid, outrageous comment about "we didn't do enough" on the same day as 9/11. He had said it earlier (that is, pre September 11) in some sort of retrospective interview about the 1960s. The comment is still outrageous, but I'm sure Clinton made this "mistake" deliberately because saying it on September 11 would have made it even worse, if this man had in fact done so.

Not that this whole random story isn't character assassination via guilt by association anyway, but the faked September 11 reference was the cherry on top. And even better for Clinton, her falsehood reminded people of Rev. Wright's post-September 11 sermon and just generally invoked September 11, which she did constantly. Since it worked so well for Giuliani, I guess.

What's surprising to me is that neither of them thought to connect September 11 with the fourth plane that crashed in Pennsylvania (ie, where they're having this actual primary), no doubt saving many lives in DC, after the passengers heroically defeated the thugs who had hijacked it. Perhaps that memory is too uplifting to refer to? Wouldn't want to "go positive" on us, guys.

34. Do you support:
a. capital Punishment? No.
b. criminal prosecution ofjuveniles as adults? No.
c. mandatory sentencing? No
d. work release, home monitoring, other alternative sentencing? Yes.
35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weaPons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

I thought the Tom Coburn reponse was EXCELLENT.

Obama was not comparing Coburn to Ayers, he was saying that he associates with several people he fundamentally disagrees with. If that isn't putting your money where your mouth is in terms of bringing people together, I don't know what is.

The moderating was horrible. This is most likely the last debate, and we're hearing about flag lapel pins? Shame on ABC.

Everything was backwards, symbolized by the first and last questions. Wouldn't it make more sense to ask first how they would persuade superdelegates, as an introduction to their strengths, and to ask last whether they would pledge to have the other be their vice-presidential nominee?

I think Obama held his own, and he would be well served to have either Wesley Clark, or even a Republican like Chuck Hagel as his VP. Perhaps he can even get Colin Powell. Slam dunk!

DrudgeReport has over 60,000 people voting so far and shows Obama winning 62% to Hillary's 38%

Obama's response:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

He gets elected and we chance losing our right to own handguns. Obama supporters will spin this with: Well, he means banning handguns from those individuals who pose some risk for private ownership of these types of weapons....well this questionnaire did not state the inquiry that way...nor did he respond with those comments.
Oh, thats right it was just one of his personal aides that filled out the questionnaire, I guess it was the aide that agreed with banning handguns, not Osama, I mean Obama.
I guess I am just a typical white woman concerned about this among other things involving his questionable campaign...

Here Sen Obama tonight national television
abcnews , realized it will be about
tactics .
Whereas Hillary fully stubbern would revert
to the illusion, a withdrawal - attempt is
doable. Gen Hempey vs Gen Clark ,it would be.
The fragile proximity will not allow the breakaway . Our troops are in a foottrap.

Lets hope he has seen these iraq images

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,545728,00.html

How can he give orders to withdraw, when our heroes with their vehicles
and rotorcrafts are in such close fragile proximity, no way to break away.

Then planed timeline .. 1 brigade per month ..
This means the first one may be lucky , the rest not home in
100 years because tactically impossible , the protectee's would
become captors and never let them go.They are outnumbered and outgunned.

Its not only the captors will say "now I hate You , You made an attempt , to ley me down" many will say " Your survival
is equal to my survival"
We have seen this in Screbrenica 1992
They got killed by the hundreds right
there handcuffed in front of that French UN General or Colonel,
all he could do : watch .

Last weekend Obama piped up with this when asked about his VP pick:

"I would like somebody who knows about a bunch of stuff that I'm not as expert on. I think a lot of people assume that might be some kind of military thing to make me look more commander-in-chief-like. Ironically, this is an area -- foreign policy -- is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Sen. Clinton or Senator McCain."

Oh, and like, he was going, "fer sure." Can a presidential candidate sound like a California beach babe? Before we unpack that, a word of advice: when claiming to be expert on national security it is best not to use phrases such as "bunch of stuff" and "some kind of military thing" and "commander-in-chief-like." People, like, might get the idea, you know, that you have not been around the military, you know, um.

>Osama, I mean Obama.
>I guess I am just a typical white woman concerned about this among other things involving his questionable campaign...

Stop being white for a moment and learn a fact! It's Usama bin Laden the FBI and CIA are looking for.

www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

That joke is lame chicky.

You're conditioned by the media to repeat their mistakes.

The wolves were out tonight ... Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolis of
Third Reich fame didn't waste any time in the torturing of Obama. The only person who won tonight was John McCain........ I can't remember right now, but where did George Stephanopolis work before ? Accepting to do this debate was the worst mistake that the candidates could have made. Howard Dean should not have allowed this to happen. It really set back the Democratic Party.The wolves were out tonight ... Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolis of Third Reich fame didn't waste any time in the torturing of Obama. The only person who won tonight was John McCain........ I can't remember right now, but where did George Stephanopolis work before ? Accepting to do this debate was the worst mistake that the candidates could have made. Howard Dean should not have allowed this to happen. It really set back the Democratic Party.

Obama flat out lied when he said that billionaires and millionaires pay only $97,000 in taxes, no matter how much you make. Per the 2008 tax schedules, if filing single: 35% on the income over $357,700; plus $103,791.75. If you make ten million dollars, your tax is 3,603,791.75. Just for those who can't read numbers, that is over three million dollars.

Obama's response:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

He gets elected and we chance losing our right to own handguns. Obama supporters will spin this with: Well, he means banning handguns from those individuals who pose some risk for private ownership of these types of weapons....well this questionnaire did not state the inquiry that way...nor did he respond with those comments.
Oh, thats right it was just one of his personal aides that filled out the questionnaire, I guess it was the aide that agreed with banning handguns, not Usama/Osama, I mean Obama.
I guess I am just a typical white woman concerned about this among other things involving his questionable campaign...

Focus on whatever point you wish to take from this but learn a fact: Obama's campaign is riddled with lies, and this questionnaire (on record) is just more proof of this....like I stated previously the spin from his supporters will go which ever way they wish for it to...such as ignoring and/or changing the facts when it is relevant to their Messiah, Obama

You have been conditioned by Barrack Obama and his various lies to cover up his mistakes...

Hillary wasn't lying about the snipers:

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

The press has all the right in the world to question Obama in the BitterGate and now that Obama worked for terrorist William Ayers. He said he was 8 when Ayers bombed New York. Nice try. But he was 30something when he served on a board with Mr. Ayers in the 1990's, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid, underlined PAID directorship position. They worked together, attended fundraisers together, Ayers held fundraisers and was a contributor to Obama's Chicago's campaign, plus they are neighbors and visited each other quite often. Enough said. This relationship deserves being vetted. As an adult Obama made the decision to work with a terrorist. This is a legitimate issue, the judgment and associations of the possible nominee. Its goes straight to the reason why democrats have lost the last two elections. It is fair to argue Obama's condescension to the small town folk because it goes directly to issues like religion, xenophobia, gun ownership and culture. And his associations with Farrahkan, Wright, Ayers and Refko should be fully vetted.

I am a 20 year old student in PA and a Registered Republican. I watched the ABC debate last night with my parents and found it a bit odd- it was as if Gibson & Stephanopoulous were out to GET the Obama guy.

My parents on the other hand who are lifelong Republicans, enjoyed the debate and said that Obama got what was coming to him.

They then told me that Stephanopoulous was an employee of the Bill Clinton whitehouse. That information immediately put things in perspective and I was wondering he was unable to keep his bais in check due to conflict of interest.

I have to say, I did not find that debate to be fair- it was uncomfortable to watch as they two news men seemed unprofessional in their blatant attacks on the obama. If this was an open primary, I would have voted for him just because of the unfair treatment at this ABC debate.

How do we as viewers let ABC know how we feel about Gibson & Stephanopoulous poor performance? I strongly feel that they should explain themselves.

Being independent of both candidates (I will vote for whichever Democrat gets the nomination) after looking at the debate it was pretty close until Obama made a major mistake. It goes back to taxes when Charles Gibson asked was he going to raise taxes for people making less than $250,000 and Obama said he wasn't but, he is going to raise the social security ceiling which is raising taxes for individuals making less than $250,000 a year. I agree that he will have to raise the social security ceiling but, you can't say I not going raise the middle class taxes in one breathe and come right back and say you are in another breathe.
I agree with raising the social security ceiling but, I don't agree when you don't tell the truth.
The winner last night was Hillary. Obama, when he talks openly about what he wants to do he can sound very good but, he doesn't counter punch as well as Hillary. He also needs to stop trying to respond to Hillary's comments and just say what he is going to do.
He is going to get the nomination but, he needs to get away from his handlers and listen to someone on the outside of his inner circle.
If I had a choice I would take Hillary but, I know that I will be voting for whoever gets the nomination. Presently that looks like Obama. I just wish he would just move forward and let everyone know what he is going to do rebuild the economy (move to new green energies which would spur growth in the economy). End the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Work with homeowners to keep their houses which would stabilize the banks instead of giving support to banks and watching homeowners lose their houses.
To end whoever gets the nomination I will vote for but, I will not vote for any republican again in my lifetime.

All in all, a bad night for Barack Obama and all his far left friends. Thank god there are journalist that are not afraid to ask this man the tough question a lot of people wanted to know. Even though he tried to be slick and dodge or change the subject, the moderators challenge him on it.

"DrudgeReport has over 60,000 people voting so far and shows Obama winning 62% to Hillary's 38%"

ABC had Obama 68%, Clinton 24%, Tie 8% (rounded)

The top post isn't "fact checking". It's "post a bunch of crap and let others check it out". Interesting to see ABC fail to do their job last night followed by WaPo.

Roughly 90% of the 7000+ posts on ABC objected to ABC's handling of the debate.

Well, I clicked on the "Fact Checker" link hoping for some fact-checking, but what I got was mostly non-factual political commentary. You guys think a statement like "seems to be walking a fine line" is OK in a fact check? What a load.

When are you Fact Checkers going to check into Peter Paul vs the Clinton's. You can go to http://www.paulvclinton.com. Are you participating in the giant media cover-up of this case?

Obama talked of not raising taxes on people in the $200,000 - $250,000 range, then minutes later proceeded to talk of the necessity of raising the cap on earnings subject to the 6..2% Social Security tax from $97,000 to a much higher amount. Gibson caught the fact this WAS a tax increase on those earning less than $200,000 and challenged him on it. Result - deer in the headlight look from Obama! Loved it. For once the tough questions that America wants the answers to were asked. They have been getting away with political meaningless blather over mortgages, oil prices, Iraq for months now.

Chicago schoolchildren vs. Illinois soldiers: The fact-checker is creating a straw-man argument by comparing rates per 10000, instead of number of fatalities, which is what Senator Obama compares, which is number of fatalities. I used to think Fact Checker was indeed a fact-checker, not which-interpretation-will-trip-up-the-candidate checker!

The National Rifle Association is going to make toast of either of them that wins the nomination. They are both gun control advocates with a desire to ban handguns. I applaud Gibson for asking the tougher questions that did not let them skate like they did on the gasoline price question. How many times are we going to hear that the answer to high gas prices is to hold more investigations of companies that are making on average less on sales than Walmart does! Unbelievable.

I know it's hard for people in New York to believe, but Chicago is a really big city. Why, there are 408,106 students in the Chicago Public Schools:

Not 109,000. And another one was killed last night, so make that 408,105.

It's time for me to go milk the cows.

This debate was biased. They basically gave Hillary a free pass. At one point, Stephanopoulous even prefaced a question to her with "I know you don't like to talk about this ..." It makes me wonder if there was some sort of behind the scenes finagling between ABC and the Clinton campaign.

So, Mr. Dobbs, was there anyone at the debate besides Obama....?

When are you Fact Checkers going to check into Peter Paul vs the Clinton's. You can go to http://www.paulvclinton.com. Are you participating in the giant media cover-up of this case?

Thank God everyone sees what is happening. 'Hell'ary and ABC just tried to bring Obama down. He's rolling and she needed something to make herself feel better. She has already lost and it is over. All of her supporters can stop posting in all of the blogs trying to persuade people differently. They attacked Obama over and over again yet he didn't stoop to Hell-ary's level and start attacking her. She is such an easy target though.

First of all, to call this column Fact Checker, would assume facts not in evidence. Secondly, since the Bushes and the Bin Ladens are close friends, should we assume that George Bush approved the 911 bombings the way we are to assume Obama approved the Ayers bombings?

Thanks to Canadian proof reader and others for pointing out that Obama disinvited Wright, not himself, from the ceremony to launch his presidential campaign. Duh! I have corrected the mistake.

Why didn't anyone ask where is Sen. HRC's American Lapel Pin?

Why does Sen. HRC get credit for Secr. Rubin's and Alan Greenspan's dot. com gains and losses during Pres. Clinton's time in office. Only Sen. HRC orchestrated it all.

Ayers donated $200 to the campaign and that supposedly gives him leverage with Obama and makes people question their association? That's a little more than one millionth of the total amount of campaign money raised.

I can't decide if that line of questioning or the lapel pin nonsense was more insulting to voters' intelligence.

Fact Checker's facts are incorrect. Clinton did not say she has been less than accurate on "a few occasions." The incorrect word is 'few' and the correct word used by Clinton is 'couple'

Once again, Obama handled himself like a leader. Hillary was better than she normally is, but that isn't saying much. She is still dishonest, still represents politics as usual, still wants to get elected at all costs for the sake of being President, and worst of all, still guffaws. I can't believe we allow this to be called a debate when one of the questioners is a former employee of her husband.

Let's get this over with and nominate Obama. People in Penn: get her out of this, please! It's in your hands.

An earlier poster wrote: Gibson misspoke when he said 100 million people owned stocks, this would be correct if you counted 401/ira accounts which are taxed as ordinary income when they are utilized. not at the capital gains rate.

====
You're sort of wrong. When a fund manager sells stocks WITHIN a mutual fund they are taxed as capital gain. You get a tax statement at the end of the year (even if you still own the mutual fund), and you pay capital gain on the stock that was sold WITHIN the fund. So it possible that you can loose money on the overall fund, but still pay captial gain on the tax that was sold.
But yes you are correct, once you sell the Mutual Fund outright, it is taxed as ordinary income.
I want to clear this up, because people don't realize this about the stocks within the funds...It is very important to know.

Obama revealed quite alot about himself in the debate. I have never seen a candidate so rattled and annoyed in a debate. He was so rattled that he had to stoop to mentioning Bill Cinton in an attempt to negate Obama's actions. How pathetic. Doesn't Barry know who he is running against. The American people know about Bill and are amused that Barry can't answer a question and is so desperate that he brings Bill into the picture. That's the ancient history of Bill's presidency, not Hillary's. Obama was so uncontrollable, being the gentleman he is, he interrupted Hillary when it was her turn to talk. He could not control himself. Do we really want a president who almost goes out of control in a debate, to have his finger on the button. Now the whole country has seen what a disgrace Obama is. Keep on talking Barry.

When Obama asked Rev Wright not to give the address at his announcment to run for Pres. The Rev Wright said that if the Jewish people heard what he said They would drop him faster than a snowball in hell ,Now when the Senator says that the Rev was a Marine so what he said GD America Just remember Timmothy Mc vey whobombed the Oklahoma building was in the army so just because he was in the service does not give him the right to GD our country now the rev can go retire in his ten mil. home

I can't believe there are issues like the war in Iraq, the sagging economy, etc etc and you fools are focusing on handwriting on a memo, or vague past associations.

Our media is really disgusting. Shame on you.

And shame on the rest of my fellow Americans. Quit acting like gossipy children, and wake the hell up.

Who won the ABC Democratic Debate in Philadelphia Pennsylvania?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=2137

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

As an Obamafoll you forgot to mention that this alleged poll means nothing. According to "you polls", "This is not a scientific survey." Most web polls are bogus like Barry. You might want to READ the fine print, but that would be more work for you. OBAMA LOST.

Who is BLOG Checker? He is so incorrect. I have never heard so many misstatements of facts in my life. Is he Barry's campaign manager? Does this fool believe that anyone listens to his drivel? Quit embarrassing yourself. Nobody listens to a fool who thinks he knows EVERYTHING.

This debate was shamefull and is a clear example of paporatzi politics. It was also unfair and slanted angainst Obama. There was no excuse to dig all Obama's skeletons out of closet and only ask one similiar question of Clinton. It is sad to see typical politics try to steal away the campaign of hope and change with fighting and negativity. Clinton will end up giving the presidency to a 72 year old republican who will not change a thing by staying in the race. She and the media wait for him to stumble or find dirt and together they are making people angry and bringing this country to a sad level of character. The world is watching and look how we are behaving. Sad days indeed and the media is shamefull, especially abc for this debate.

Tim wrote: "Obama flat out lied when he said that billionaires and millionaires pay only $97,000 in taxes, no matter how much you make. Per the 2008 tax schedules, if filing single: 35% on the income over $357,700; plus $103,791.75. If you make ten million dollars, your tax is 3,603,791.75. Just for those who can't read numbers, that is over three million dollars."

Tim, you do understand that income taxes and payroll taxes are NOT the same? Payroll taxes consist of Social Security and Medicare. The Social Security portion is taxed only on the first $97,500 in income (for 2007). So in your example, of the $10MM in income, only the first $97,500 is subject to payroll tax; thus excluding roughly $9.9MM in income from Social Security taxes. The $97,500 is taxed for roughly $11,000. So on a $10MM annual income, that person is paying roughly 0.1% of his income in payroll taxes. Someone making exactly $97,500 would pay the same $11,000 in Social Security taxes; but this is approximately 11% of his income. Now compare 0.1% of someone's income to 11% of someone else's income. Does that seem equitable? That was the point of Obama's remark about the hedge fund manager's secretary paying more in SS taxes than the hedge fund manager. It helps to listen and learn before commenting.

You cannot claim to be a fact finder when you distort the facts.
You are as bad as the moderators on the
debate last night.
Talk about biased.
You should be charged with false advertising!!

I guess Barack finally got his turn as front runner. He now knows what it's like to take the heat. Good practice should he get to the general election. If he gets to the White House maybe he can change the media, enough of the soap opera coverage/debates and loud-mouthed men delivering our daily "news."

Hey Mr fact checker, where were you when Bush/Chenney and all the GOP cheerleaders were lying to us about IRAQ in 2002. were were you when the gas companies keep telleing us that they make less than 18 cents a gallon a profit.
Wake up and smell the gas if you want us to believe you.

C'mon guys! Okay, let's go through this one more time for you - we have a war in Iraq that has killed over 4k Americans and thousands and thousands of Iraqi's (oh and by the way, more people die every day). It costs us approx $12B a month or so to keep this going. By the way John Mc Cain's laughable solution to the economic woes - to give short term handouts to the hard pressed common man (how 'elitist' is that??) costs only $10B. We have 47million without healthcare, we are billions in debt which our kids will have to pay for, we have a mortgage crisis ...... need I go on and on.
However, you focus 90% of your energy on trying to paint BO as a bigot - do you honestly think he is a bigot? Honestly? Honestly? In your heart of hearts, do you think and I emphasise 'think' as in ponder it not just a knee jerk blog reaction, he is a bigot? If so, say it. If not, get over the comments. You want more comments, look at Hagel's commenst about my religion, catholicism - go bananas over that, go bananas over Fallwell's comments.
Let's stick to the isssues, God knows we have enough problems without trying to cook up some more phoney ones.

Let me ask everyone a question. If 43 people are killed in Maine and 35 in New York then does that means more people died in Maine than New York?
Someone tell fact checker were looking at hard numbers and not per capita...LOL

This article is a joke. I think it's someone's little brother writing it because no true journalist would spew this garbage out.

Clinton was brillant in the second half of the debate.

Obama and his supporters are whinning because he was treated as just another candidate, not as something to be worshipped.

Tsk, tsk

Regarding Ayres:

The analogy is not associating with people who have opposing views, it's associating with criminals. But for procedural errors in the case, Ayres would be in the federal pen right now.

Why would someone running or planning to run for POTUS be friendly with someone who planted bombs at the Pentagon, the Capitol and police stations?

That question was not political games or a 'distraction'. It's about Obama's bad judgment.

DON'T BOTHER WITH ANY FACT CHECKING. I'm thoroughly bored with this whole fiasco. The debate was a big joke, totally "out of touch" with what the American people wanted to hear.

You reporters just want to keep this back-stabbbing in motion between the two Dem Candidates......thereby assisting McCain in his bid for the Presidency.

The really sad thing is the Super delegates just don't get it. They don't want to end it because they are afraid of losing Clinton's followers. The fact is, if they don't end it, we will lose the election in the fall, for sure. This in-fighting can't go on any longer.

Dear Fact Checker:

You've been doing a fantastic job of keeping them real. I have to say, however, that the dicing and splicing of this debate in the manner you are doing leaves out a crucial aspect of the debate/facts: The mood, tone, and governing sentiment during the debate. Go ahead and slice that, you'll see that one candidate far outpaces the other in lies told and 'gaffes'. Go ahead slice that ...

Dear Fact Checker:

You've been doing a fantastic job of keeping them real. I have to say, however, that the dicing and splicing of this debate in the manner you are doing leaves out a crucial aspect of the debate/facts: The mood, tone, and governing sentiment during the debate. Go ahead and slice that, you'll see that one candidate far outpaces the other in lies told and 'gaffes'. Go ahead slice that ...

Obama continues to say that in 20 years of being mentored by Rev. Wright, he never heard the particular, inflammatory comments that were youtubed.

What I'd like to know is where did this "man of deep faith" attend church services on the Sunday after 9/11?

Does anyone besides those who are mainlining the Kool-aid really believe he didn't know about these comments? And doesn't anyone else think this goes to his credibility - in a big way?

Gibson and Clinton surrogate Stephanopolous didn't miss any opportunity to pin Clinton down.
The just didn't follow-up and say do you agree with your husbands PARDON decision, or the withdrawal question, or anything. That wasn't the their goal or that of the All Bill Clinton network.
Why was their no disclosure to the audience of the Stephanopolous/Clinton connection -- was that ethical?

Fact check: could it be that Obama's response to the handgun questionnaire he meant to say that answer was not in his handwriting...he handwrote the response to another question on the form. Can we stretch this false controversary out any further? Who the heck cares!

I am the 20 year old PA Republican student that posted a comment earlier-

My parents are telling me that George Stephanopoulous was interviewing for the job of press secretary in Hillary Clinton's presidency. That is why he was out to sabotage Obama.

They [my parents] said ABC should have known that it was a conflict of interest to have George do the debate and that he saturated his colleague with his bias.

What do other bloggers think? I still cant get over that hit job done on Obama. WOW!

Enough of this crap! People are really tired of the underhanded tactics being used in this campaign. Unless you can say That Barack Obama did something instead of saying he knows this person or that one you have proven your information absurd and irrelevant. Did Hillary know Huey P. Newton (head of the Black Panthers)? Did Hillary say " screw 'em" when referring to the lunch bucket working class? Stop the mudslinging and stick to the issues. We're all sick and tired of the negativity! By the way, your fact check is one-sided and bears little credence.

A non-latte drinker supporting Obama because he is a faithful and honest man, no matter how you try to swing it.

To the commentor Lynn. Obama was not at that particular service. I know this personally because I was there. The reason for him not being there are his own. Yet you shouldn't speak on something you truly have no fact upon. Just another Hellary supporter trying to stop Obama's run to the White House.

Capital gains.
Any change in the capital gains laws must be debated, passed, and (usually) signed before taking effect. So, investors who plan to sell arrange to sell when the lower rate is in effect.
An announced lowering leads to a delay in sales -- and a lower income fro the government -- in the period before it goes into effect.
An announced raising will lead to early sales, and higher income for the government, before it goes into effect.

I don't pay attention to on-line polls because I find the Obama supporters are on line all the time and they flood polls to push Obama in the popular mind.

Which is not true. Hillary has HUGE support and alot of people are tired of Obama already. His performance last night showed his weakness as a person who can't act off-the-cuff, is easily irritated and put off by anyone who questions him.

Hillary came off TEN TIMES better than Obama, but of course, the Obama-bots will never admit it. One thing I did get from the debate... the Republicans will eat him for lunch!

If Obama is the nominee, then get use to saying President McCain.

Hillary '08! Real Experience, Real Change, Real Hope.

Hit job on Obama??? Please, Hillary has had to take 10x bigger hits than that and you don't hear here supporters whining like babies.

Cut it out Obama-bots! Just because people are actually questioning your "god" is not sacrilege. He looked ashen and he looked uppity. I can't even really listen to his voice anymore from the uppity tone in his voice.

Thank you 1:58am for pointing out the distortion of the Ayers' comments, which as you noted, were made in an interview BEFORE 9/11 and happened to be published in the Times ON 9/11 (so clearly, not in reference to the attacks).
It was outrageous for Stephenopolous to have said that Ayers made these comments on 9/11 (not true) and for Hillary to continue to misrepresentation (by saying how hurt New Yorkers were by the comments).

OBAMA LOST THE DEBATE AND LOST PENNSYLVANIA.

HE IS ON MELTDOWN NOW AND WILL HAVE A SERIES OF LOSES.

HOW LONG CAN THE MEDIA PROP UP THIS DICK CHENEY PUPPET?

SUPERDELEGATES NEED TO WAIT TIL THE CONVENTION IN AUGUST TO DECIDE.
LET IT PLAY OUT.

HILLARY NEEDS TO STAY TIL AUGUST THE GO INDEPENDENT IN NOVEMBER.

Sorry, but a live Fact Check is a contradiction in terms. A fact check should provide the well-researched facts of what was discussed.

I'm disappointed by Glenn Kessler's 9:40 note: ("Obama mentioned that 34 schoolchildren were killed in Chicago from gun violence. This indeed happened in the 2006-2007 school year, but Obama often compares this figure to the number of Illinois soldiers killed in Iraq, saying the number of school children is higher. Time Magazine crunched the numbers last year...").

So you are fact-checking something he DID NOT bring up, that another publication researched and saying that if you look at it another way (as a rate-adjusted metric) he was wrong on his facts?

34 children (or soldiers) dying is a real talking point, and is accurate. Having one of your seven posts about the debate make it sound like Obama was off-base is clearly a distortion.

For your loyalty to the RepubliNazi tactics of attack, inuendo, lies compounded by mis speaks, and your loyal service as a target of snipers in Bosnia.

I dub they Hillary Bushton,knight of the Rove, Countess of Spin, Duchess of Delusion.

Long may the Bushtons reign.

Sorry Hillary we're looking for a President.... Not another arrogant, Aristocratic braindead clueless Son of Bush Royal liar.

I'm an Obama supporter, but I think Clinton came off better in the debate. It looked like Obama had a cold,a bad make-up job, and tougher questions.

Comment about Clinton: her admitting to distorting the Bosnia story was pretty damning IMO. She said a "couple times", why do you quote "a few occasions" which would actually be accurate?)

Criticism of Obama: I thought he botched his explanation about hearing Wright's controversial comments, though I'm satisfied because I paid very close attention when this was news weeks ago.

Obama needs to get better at providing a a quick summary response (yes, a soundbyte) then backing it up with the details rather than talking his way around and eventually covering his points.

WOW. The "debate" gave me a whole new way to see the debacle that is politics in America. Hillary "won"? This makes me think more than ever that this country needs Obama.

How is being a donor more important than being a friend?
You at least know your friends' opinions, even when you don't agree with them.
You certainly don't know the opinions of somebody who gives some money to your campaign.
Ayers is now mainline liberal; I've met him, and was careful to not mention my opinion of his father's company -- ComEd -- while he was in the room.

Carol Tate:

don't meddle in issues you have no knowledge of. stay out of kenyan politics! that kibaki stole that election is something all african talk about. some of us live and eat africa, warts and all, and we can tell of the suffering, not some ignorant ramblings from someone who has not knowledge of our pain. stay off!

Obama: human, all too human.
Clinton: pathological, corrupt liar.
Give me the next Eisenhower, who can get along with people he disagrees with.

Since the few things that are known about Obama are not necessarily favorable, one wonders why a voter would believe that this man, who never bothered to cross the aisle to work with the republicans, regardless of the issue at hand, can bring about CHANGE is fooling themselves.

If you want an empty suit, with a left wing agenda by all means support Obama.

Let's get back to who is more qualified and experienced to hold the most important job in America? Check the facts and you will be better for it. Peronsalities aside, Hillary is more qualified and can win against the Republican nominee.

Gibson and Stephanopoulos should both be fired, and held responsible for the mis-information about Ayer's statements, and for the obvious Clinton-sided bogus debate. Another case of it's the media STUPID.
What the media doesn't seem to get, is that Americans are not STUPID, and YES WE WILL. It is the urgency of now, and your hold on the electorate is OVER. I didn't learn anything from this event; all it did was reinforce what I already know. Thanks for nothing.

This is not fact checking, this is commentary. Just check the facts, don't comment, just do what you are supposed to do and save us some time, will you?

Stephanie:

"You don't hear her supporters whining like babies." Are you kidding me? All she and her campaign and her supporters have done since she lost the race is whine. "Hilary is being treated unfairly." is my favorite one. Hilary is a liar and so is Bill. They are politics as usual. When she realized - thanks to Obama's message - that people wanted change, she started selling herself as the change agent. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Most importantly, she and Bill are hate magnets. You are seeing that in this race.

I agree with you that Hilary did better in the "debate." This means nothing. Obama is the man for the future. Hilary is the past. ANy woman with any pride at all should not be voting for her.

Funny....It seems Obama supporters are now complaining of Obama being attacked. Welcome to the race.

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

Check Out The Results!

Only 28 Weeks Left Until The Election!

To Glenn Kessler - you must be kidding me when you put into context the number of school children killed in Chicago versus Illinois Iraq soldiers. Only some one so bent on writing something negative about Obama would look at death totals and remark "yes, but on a per capita the number of soldiers dying in Iraq was greater." The point is War is inherently dangeous and life threatening whereas going to school should never be. Shame on you!

Gibson and Stephanopoulos should both be fired, and held responsible for the mis-information about Ayer's statements, and for the obvious Clinton-sided bogus debate. Another case of it's the media STUPID.
What the media doesn't seem to get, is that Americans are not STUPID, and YES WE WILL. It is the urgency of now, and your hold on the electorate is OVER. I didn't learn anything from this event; all it did was reinforce what I already know. Thanks for nothing.

ABC did the best job. I'm going Disney all the way! CNN and MSNBC have special interests with obama and yesterday for the first time your precious magniloquent superior acting blabber, (who speaks of himself in terms of "Senator Obama"),had to respond to questions about his frienships and affiliations.

Why do we even have to discuss one of the Democratic candidates, running to become our Commander in Chief's friendship with a terrorist? William Ayers lives down the street from bo? That's why he's friend with him? And about Rev. Wright, obama's choice of a pastor FOR TWENTY years, you think the Republicans are going to let him live that down in November? Rezko? Fharrakan's endorsement? Obama is unelectable!

Hillary Clinton is not out to do the Republicans job. Believe me, more and more Democrats and independents when asked can bo win against McCain have a simple answer to that: "NO! NO! NO!"

I commend Profco for the earlier post about Senator Clinton's statement in the debate about U.S. responsibilities in the Middle East. I probably do not agree with Buchanan any more than Profco does, but he is right on this one. Clinton has a very hawkish tendency--one that led her to support the Iraq war and that has more recently led her to some very tough talk against Iran. Forget the Bosnia nonsense, the moderators needed to ask Clinton about how she plans to end the war in Iraq while pledging mutual defense throughout the Middle East. I presume we need permanent bases in the region to make this happen.

Charlie Gibson deserves high praise for asking the tough questions....If he keeps this up ABC will be number one in the ratings ...

Hillary is the Winner !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Senator Obama was hallow asnd on the defensive in last nights debate.

Now the Press is starting to dig back into Senator Obama and his wife's past.

Hillary will be elected the 44th President of the United States !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stop whining Obama supporters. Senator Clinton is experienced and has the best policies. What serious democrat doesn't want Universal health care because we all know that Obamas plan doesn't cover everyone. Obama is a light weight. I am seriously concerned about Obamas ability to end the war in Iraq. His inexperience could cause genocide in Iraq. Please Pennslyvania voters vote for Clinton and protect America. Obama lies and back tracks whenever he is asked pointed questions such as evidenced in last nights debate - gun control, taxes Jeremiah Wright. Obama is clearly too comfortable with anti-American people. There is no more serious position than the US President. We need an experienced President which is why Senator Clinton is the best choice. There is no way that Obama would be able to survive a contest against the Republicans. Look at how poorly Obama performed against Clinton in the Pennsylvanian debate. He was uncomfortable, on the defensive and acted as though he should not have had to explain himself. Those questions will pale compared to the questins the Republicans will throw at him.

Paul

Clinton referred to something William Ayers said around 9/11 which hurt New Yorkers. Here is the link to an interview with him that was published in the NYT on the morning of 9/11/2001 and I suggest that nobody remembers what was in this article. What followed hurt a whole lot more!

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B63

THE "BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY" OF REV. WRIGHT AND THE TRINITY UCC IS THE THEOLOGY EMBRACED BY BARACK OBAMA, WHO HAS REFUSED TO REPUDIATE WRIGHT OR THE THEOLOGY OF WRIGHT. WRIGHT OPENLY PROCLAIMED THE THEOLOGY AND IDEOLOGY OF JAMES CONE IS THE THEOLOGY OF TRINITY UCC WHEN SPEAKING TO SEAN HANNITY IN THE OFTEN REPLAYED CABLE INTERVIEW WITH WRIGHT. THAT THEOLOGY IS AN AFRO-CENTRIC MIXTURE OF MARXIST IDEOLOGY PEPPERED WITH PURPORTED THEOLOGY. HERE ARE SOME OF JAMES CONE'S IDEOLOGICAL TEACHINGS, WHICH HAVE BEEN MISCHARACTERIZED AS THEOLOGY:

"If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy." (James Cone, quoted in William R Jones, 'Divine Racism," in African-American Religious Thought: An Anthology, ed. Cornel West, Eddie Glaube, 2003.)

James Cone, whom Rev Wright highly admires, goes on further: "Whiteness, as revealed in the history of America, is the expression of what is wrong with man. It is a symbol of man's depravity. God cannot be white even though white churches have portrayed him as white . . . When we can see a people who are controlled by an ideology of whiteness, then we know what reconciliation must mean. The coming of Christ means a denial of what we thought we were. It means destroying the white devil in us. Reconciliation to God means that white people are prepared to deny themselves (whiteness), take up the cross (blackness) and follow Christ (black ghetto)." (James Cone: Black Theology and Black Power, 1997.)

IT IS APPARENT THAT THE PRESS HAS NOT DONE ITS JOB IN EXPLORING BARACK OBAMA'S PROFESSED "BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY" AND HIS POLITICS. WHY? OBAMA HAS REPEATEDLY STRESSED HIS "CHRISTIANITY" AND HIS SPIRITUAL CONNECTION WITH WRIGHT AND HIS CHURCH, BUT THE PRESS HAS NOT DELVED INTO THE "BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY" PRACTICED BY OBAMA AND HIS WIFE MICHELLE FOR ALMOST 20 YEARS. HOW DOES OBAMA RECONCILE THE RACIST AND DIVISIVE HATRED ESPOUSED BY JAMES CONE AND PRACTICED BY JEREMIAH WRIGHT WITH OBAMA'S PUBLICLY PROFESSED VISION OF UNITY. IF OBAMA TRULY BELIEVES IN UNITING AMERICA WHY HAS HE NOT LEFT THE TRINITY UCC FOR ANOTHER CHRISTIAN CHURCH THAT PROMOTES UNITY. IS IT BECAUSE "OBAMA'S CHRISTIANITY " DOES NOT ACCEPT MORE INCLUSIVE CHRISTIAN SECTS THAT PROMOTE NON-AFRO-CENTRIC THEOLOGY.

OBAMA CLEVERLY TURNED AN ISSUE ABOUT HIS RELIGIOUS ASSOCIATIONS AND THEOLOGY INTO A DEBATE ON RACE. MOREOVER, THE PRESS WAS APPARENTLY SO BEGUILED BY OBAMA'S MARCH 18 SPEECH THAT NO MEMBER OF THE PRESS WOULD DELVE INTO THE INCONSISTENCIES PRESENTED BY OBAMA THE UNITY CANDIDATE AND OBAMA THE CONGREGANT OF AN AFRO-CENTRIC CHURCH. THAT IDEOLOGY, DISINGENUOUSLY LABELED AS "BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY," IS UNDENIABLY DIVISIVE AND RACIST. WHY WOULD A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE EMBRACE SUCH A PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY? THE IDEOLOGY AND THEOLOGY OF TRINITY UCC IS AKIN TO THE QURAN'S MANY PASSAGES PROCLAIMING ISLAM AS THE ONLY TRUE RELIGION AND PROMOTING DIVISIVENESS WITH OTHER THEOLOGIES. SEE, E.G., QURAN, SURA 5: 51: "O you who believe, do not take certain Jews and Christians as allies; these are allies of one another. Those among you who ally themselves with these belong with them. GOD does not guide the transgressors. "

HOW CAN A PROFESSED "CHRISTIAN" WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT ON A PROMISE OF UNITY PROCLAIMING, "THERE ARE NO RED STATES OR BLUE STATES, THERE IS ONLY THE UNITED STATES" BE ANYTHING BUT A SLICK IMPOSTOR IF HE HAS EMBRACED THE IDEOLOGY AND THEOLOGY OF JAMES CONE FOR ALMOST 20 YEARS? ACCORDING TO JAMES CONE AND REV. WRIGHT, "Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy." (James Cone, quoted in William R Jones, 'Divine Racism," in African-American Religious Thought: An Anthology, ed. Cornel West, Eddie Glaube, 2003.)

LET THIS SERIOUS PUBLIC DEBATE ABOUT BARACK OBAMA'S IDEOLOGY AND DELECTABILITY BEGIN IN EARNEST. AMERICA NEEDS AN OPEN DEBATE THE IDEOLOGY OF THE DEMOCRATIC FRONTRUNNER.

Pretty sad, most of these comments - the kids at my high school out in the sticks where I grew up weren't that silly.
The only real point I have is about that schoolchildren thing at 9:40. It's already been pointed out repeatedly that the "but" comparison is a pointless one - Mr. Obama made a #-to-# comparison, and his critics turned it into a rate as if that would disprove it. Apples and oranges; the underlying assumptions (shooting war vs. school setting) are so different, that a straight-up rate comparison is almost meaningless; you have to have some sort of standardizing factor beyond a simple 'per-person'. More people die 'per-person' while standing in the middle of a highway than die 'per-person' in plane crashes, but what does that tell us? That standing in the middle of a highway is more lethal than being in a plane crash? Whoah! Big surprise there. The numbers are simply information; it's the meaning of the numbers that counts. I would guess that Mr. Obama was trying to make a point by comparing the straight numbers - perhaps that point might be worth addressing.

Obama's connections with far more threatening associates should have been explored. For example the questin of foreign policy judgement points to huge issues in the Fall.
THE "BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY" OF REV. WRIGHT AND THE TRINITY UCC IS THE THEOLOGY EMBRACED BY BARACK OBAMA, WHO HAS REFUSED TO REPUDIATE WRIGHT OR THE THEOLOGY OF WRIGHT. WRIGHT OPENLY PROCLAIMED THE THEOLOGY AND IDEOLOGY OF JAMES CONE IS THE THEOLOGY OF TRINITY UCC WHEN SPEAKING TO SEAN HANNITY IN THE OFTEN REPLAYED CABLE INTERVIEW WITH WRIGHT. THAT THEOLOGY IS AN AFRO-CENTRIC MIXTURE OF MARXIST IDEOLOGY PEPPERED WITH PURPORTED THEOLOGY. HERE ARE SOME OF JAMES CONE'S IDEOLOGICAL TEACHINGS, WHICH HAVE BEEN MISCHARACTERIZED AS THEOLOGY:

"If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy." (James Cone, quoted in William R Jones, 'Divine Racism," in African-American Religious Thought: An Anthology, ed. Cornel West, Eddie Glaube, 2003.)

James Cone, whom Rev Wright highly admires, goes on further: "Whiteness, as revealed in the history of America, is the expression of what is wrong with man. It is a symbol of man's depravity. God cannot be white even though white churches have portrayed him as white . . . When we can see a people who are controlled by an ideology of whiteness, then we know what reconciliation must mean. The coming of Christ means a denial of what we thought we were. It means destroying the white devil in us. Reconciliation to God means that white people are prepared to deny themselves (whiteness), take up the cross (blackness) and follow Christ (black ghetto)." (James Cone: Black Theology and Black Power, 1997.)

IT IS APPARENT THAT THE PRESS HAS NOT DONE ITS JOB IN EXPLORING BARACK OBAMA'S PROFESSED "BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY" AND HIS POLITICS. WHY? OBAMA HAS REPEATEDLY STRESSED HIS "CHRISTIANITY" AND HIS SPIRITUAL CONNECTION WITH WRIGHT AND HIS CHURCH, BUT THE PRESS HAS NOT DELVED INTO THE "BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY" PRACTICED BY OBAMA AND HIS WIFE MICHELLE FOR ALMOST 20 YEARS. HOW DOES OBAMA RECONCILE THE RACIST AND DIVISIVE HATRED ESPOUSED BY JAMES CONE AND PRACTICED BY JEREMIAH WRIGHT WITH OBAMA'S PUBLICLY PROFESSED VISION OF UNITY. IF OBAMA TRULY BELIEVES IN UNITING AMERICA WHY HAS HE NOT LEFT THE TRINITY UCC FOR ANOTHER CHRISTIAN CHURCH THAT PROMOTES UNITY. IS IT BECAUSE "OBAMA'S CHRISTIANITY " DOES NOT ACCEPT MORE INCLUSIVE CHRISTIAN SECTS THAT PROMOTE NON-AFRO-CENTRIC THEOLOGY.

OBAMA CLEVERLY TURNED AN ISSUE ABOUT HIS RELIGIOUS ASSOCIATIONS AND THEOLOGY INTO A DEBATE ON RACE. MOREOVER, THE PRESS WAS APPARENTLY SO BEGUILED BY OBAMA'S MARCH 18 SPEECH THAT NO MEMBER OF THE PRESS WOULD DELVE INTO THE INCONSISTENCIES PRESENTED BY OBAMA THE UNITY CANDIDATE AND OBAMA THE CONGREGANT OF AN AFRO-CENTRIC CHURCH. THAT IDEOLOGY, DISINGENUOUSLY LABELED AS "BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY," IS UNDENIABLY DIVISIVE AND RACIST. WHY WOULD A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE EMBRACE SUCH A PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY? THE IDEOLOGY AND THEOLOGY OF TRINITY UCC IS AKIN TO THE QURAN'S MANY PASSAGES PROCLAIMING ISLAM AS THE ONLY TRUE RELIGION AND PROMOTING DIVISIVENESS WITH OTHER THEOLOGIES. SEE, E.G., QURAN, SURA 5: 51: "O you who believe, do not take certain Jews and Christians as allies; these are allies of one another. Those among you who ally themselves with these belong with them. GOD does not guide the transgressors. "

HOW CAN A PROFESSED "CHRISTIAN" WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT ON A PROMISE OF UNITY PROCLAIMING, "THERE ARE NO RED STATES OR BLUE STATES, THERE IS ONLY THE UNITED STATES" BE ANYTHING BUT A SLICK IMPOSTOR IF HE HAS EMBRACED THE IDEOLOGY AND THEOLOGY OF JAMES CONE FOR ALMOST 20 YEARS? ACCORDING TO JAMES CONE AND REV. WRIGHT, "Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy." (James Cone, quoted in William R Jones, 'Divine Racism," in African-American Religious Thought: An Anthology, ed. Cornel West, Eddie Glaube, 2003.)

LET THIS SERIOUS PUBLIC DEBATE ABOUT BARACK OBAMA'S IDEOLOGY AND DELECTABILITY BEGIN IN EARNEST. AMERICA NEEDS AN OPEN DEBATE THE IDEOLOGY OF THE DEMOCRATIC FRONTRUNNER.

Your "facts" regarding capital gains are dubious at best, and largely contradicted by the very largely self-serving government report you cite. And the claim made by your "fact check" is further disproven each year, with the increased tax revenue under current lower capital gains rates. Just how long is
"temporary", in your opinion?

To the person calling themselves "Hellary is losing". . .

When I want your opinion on what questions I should ask about someone running for US president, I'll send you a memo.

Until then, I'm sure you understand that your observations about that church service are about as credible as Obama's claims that he didn't know what his pastor and mentor has been saying all these years.

As for your attendance at that service, I'd say shame on you, but it's pretty clear by your chosen nickname that you really groove on hatred.

The Rolling Stone Article on Wright, was what Barack was referring to when he said he was aware of comments made by the pastor in that article. He has also admitted to hearing other controversial comments but not the specific ones made on Youtube and the news. It was those comments from the Rolling Stone article that prompted Obama to disinvite his pastor and distance himself from his rhetoric.

Well then let's just call it even.

Let's not forget a few things. Let's leave the Church arena and go to the U.S. Senate.
Maybe we need to discuss three racist U.S. Senator's. Trent Lott, Robert Byrd and

Let's reverberate and process a few things that have been excepted in this country and no one has made a big news cast in neon lights of the matters and they never lasted weeks and months long. And I wonder why?

What is Rush Limbaugh? A racist? And what is Senator Trent Lott? A racist? And what was Senator Robert Byrd? A racist? Senator Robert Byrd was a KKK member and Leader of his Local Chapter and a Recruiter before he became a U.S. Senator... Was re-elected 9 times to the U.S. Senate. However Senator Byrd seemed to have a change of heart after his daughter married a MUSLIM. But again, these were our Senators. Our Elected Officials right here in the U.S.

Having said the above, in my opinion, having three (3) elected racially motivated senators IS NOT even tantamount (meaning equal) to Rev. Wright's sermons, it's a larger issue. Many would have felt more aghast about Rev. Wrights sermons, but for the fact that many people here in this country had already been subjected to much verbal abuse. Stop thinking about yourselves, because many people, other people have suffered, so forget about it.

Limbaugh spews racially coded language over the radio and you jerks listen to him everyday. Try comparing daily hatred to three Sunday sermons in a span of thirty years. Limbaugh is the quintessence of unyielding hatred for minorities. So please give me a break!

Wright in his frustrations unleashed three (3) irate sermons in thirty (30) years, while
Limbaugh aggrandizes his pseudo values system and haughty ways while unleashing hatred every single day he is on the air and to millions of listeners, in his overblown oratory persona.

The difference is you hate mongers listen to Limbaugh's detestation in the sanctity of
your cars and your homes and if you were not listening to him, his
ratings would plumit. . . but instead he is making millions of dollars spreading hate!.
Oh! . . . BUT NO NEWS CAST ABOUT THIS.

You people listen to him in the sanctity of your homes and cars and I am willing to bet that you are the same people blogging with contemp. for Rev. Wright. Sheer hypocrisy!

Again, should we be allowing such duplicity to stand unchallenged?

Whereʼ's the logic.

Go figure!

Lynn,

Your arrogance is exactly what I see in Hillary, and the reason why her nomination would destroy the party and the country. Hillary is rooted in the politics of the past. Her "experience" is not a good thing, since the history of this country is littered with presidents who had loads of experience, and who were utterly useless and had some of the worst presidencies ever. Dubya and Richard Nixon come to mind....Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford. Lyndon Johnson...

You have to look beyond all of that to see that Obama - who isn't perfect - is absolutely the best person to lead us forward in the perilous times ahead. Hilary just isn't the person because she simply doesn't have the honesty of character and sound moral judgment to face what lies ahead and do what is best. She can be counted on to do whatever makes her more popular.

Hilary, in short, is a liar.

The debate was a joke!

Obama was investigated before he became a U.S. Senator. If this country thought he was a threat, he never would have been able to fill that post.

I'm even more sure Bush has taken a real good look at him long before now. Bush has every agency at his finger-tips.

That's why people are laughing at the political pundits and some are angry at, because everybody knows they are exploiting no-brainer's to gain ratings. The pundits are wasting the peoples value time reporting junk. The pundits are feeding listener useless information, not even close to good journalism. This has been the worst Presidential coverage I have ever seen! The pundits are not in good faith and I will never forget that shoddy debate last night. It was a disgrace!!!!!

Laced with subterfuge!!!

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 from the war in Iraq is adding roughly 30 dollars per barrel as a premium.

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?

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

Higher trade deficit. High 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!

The US 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.

Remember, Hillary Voted FOR THE IRAQ WAR

MY FELLOW "BITTER", STUPID, WORKING CLASS PEOPLE :-)

If you think like Barack Obama, that WORKING CLASS PEOPLE are just a bunch of "BITTER"!, STUPID, PEASANTS, Cash COWS!, and CANNON FODDER. :-(

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jacksmith... Working Class :-)

p.s. You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you don't know that the huge amounts of money funding the Obama campaign to try and defeat Hillary Clinton is coming in from the insurance, and medical industry, that has been ripping you off, and killing you and your children. And denying you, and your loved ones the life saving medical care you needed. All just so they can make more huge immoral profits for them-selves off of your suffering...

You see, back in 1993 Hillary Clinton had the audacity, and nerve to try and get quality, affordable universal health care for everyone to prevent the suffering and needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of you each year. :-)

Approx. 100,000 of you die each year from medical accidents from a rush to profit by the insurance, and medical industry. Another 120,000 of you die each year from treatable illness that people in other developed countries don't die from. And I could go on, and on...

DON'T BE DUPED !!!

Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. With Hillary Clinton you are almost 100% certain to get quality, affordable universal health care very soon.

But first, all of you have to make certain that Hillary Clinton takes the democratic nomination and then the Whitehouse. NOW! is the time. THIS! is the moment you have all been working, and waiting for. You can do this America. "Carpe diem" (harvest the day).

I think Hillary Clinton see's a beautiful world of plenty for all. She's a woman, and a mother. And it's time America. Do this for your-selves, and your children's future. You will have to work together on this and be aggressive, relentless, and creative. Americans face an even worse catastrophe ahead than the one you are living through now.

You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don't want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-selves.

Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama's. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!

As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help.

Hillary Clinton has been OUT MANNED! OUT GUNNED! and OUT SPENT! 4 and 5 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton.

If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is. YOUNG PEOPLE. DON'T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose.

The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.

The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.

Fortunately the Clinton's have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton's. Only the Clinton's are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen.

"This is not a game" (Hillary Clinton)

Sincerely

jacksmith... Working Class :-)

To Hellary:
You wrote: "To the commentor Lynn. Obama was not at that particular service. I know this personally because I was there."

I'm just curious, not saying you're incorrect, but with so many members (isn't it over 8,000)how can you say without a doubt that he wasn't there? I'm assuming you have more than 1 service. Even if you have more than 1 service, it has to be loads of people there, with all of those people, you can visually determine who made it to church and who didn't? Even with him being well known, how on earth can you determine that he wasn't there? Do you have assigned seats and his was empty? Do you have member envelopes and you know his member number and work with the envelopes??? I'm not trying to be a smart@#@ I just want to know how you can honestly say he wasn't there.

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

H.Clinton should have been disbarred a few years ago when she hid papers from the Justice Department.Does anyone do background research anymore? That woman,Mrs.Clinton, is the most crooked and deceiving person in my research.Obama is about the same.I don't trust any of the three candidates.Besides,none of these three is going to run this country.The Senators and Representatives run the country.Look what they've done to it.Time to throw the trash out!!

Is the entire political process a joke? Out of all the people in the USA that could possibly be a great leader,how did we end up with the 3 ding dongs?

Were I a journalism professor and Charlie and George were my students, they would both fail. The questions for the first 50 minutes were utter nonsense and had no bearing on policy or direction of this nation. No wonder people distrust the media. Gallup finds that 81% of Americans believe the nation is headed in the wrong direction, so the ABC talking heads make the debate one of the network's stupid "Most Embarrassing Moments" shows. ABSOLUTELY SHAMEFUL!

Was trying to find the Rolling Stone article that induced Obama to disinvite Rev Wright from his event last year and this is what I found published on a blog:

The article to which the likely Democratic nominee refers is "The Radical Roots of Barack Obama" by Benjamin Wallace-Wells, from Rolling Stone's February 22, 2007, issue. Here is Wallace-Wells:

Wright takes the pulpit here one Sunday and solemnly, sonorously declares that he will recite ten essential facts about the United States. 'Fact number one: We've got more black men in prison than there are in college,' he intones. 'Fact number two: Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!' There is thumping applause; Wright has a cadence and power that make Obama sound like John Kerry. Now the reverend begins to preach. 'We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional KILLERS. . . . We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. . . . We conducted radiation experiments on our own people. . . . We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means!' The crowd whoops and amens as Wright builds to his climax: 'And. And. And! GAWD! Has GOT! To be SICK! OF THIS SH-T!'

I just read an article pertaining to Sen Clinton on the charges of Civil Fraud and FEC violations case in Fedreal Court. Paul vs Clinton. There is a video that supposedly shows her committing the offense in question.
Are there any truth to this article and if so, Why is this not being reported on by the main stream media. watch the video at

www.paulvclinton.com

With 24 deaths as of this week, the Chicago schools are on pace to shatter last year's 34 deaths (21 of these are gun deaths, according to the Tribune--and we're asking Obama to take a pro-handgun pledge...why?). When SCHOOLS even qualify to be compared to a WAR ZONE, when our children are having to be escorted to school by police for fear of retaliation, why quibble with Obama's exaggeration?

Obama's Rezko Connection. * * * * *

WHAT ABOUT:

Clinton's Peter Paul Connection? * * * *

This is a fraud case the Clinton's are involved in. The judge was to set a trial date in April?

The pundits need to stop being bias. Be a journalist and report the stories fair and square. Reporting on one case and NOT reporting on the other is sheer bias. There's NO other way to view it.

The public wants to know why the imbalance?

Obama's Rezko Connection. * * * * *

WHAT ABOUT:

Clinton's Peter Paul Connection? * * * *

This is a fraud case the Clinton's are involved in. The judge was to set a trial date this April?

The pundits need to stop being bias. Be a journalist and report the stories fair and square. Reporting on one case and NOT reporting on the other is sheer bias. There's NO other way to view it.

The public wants to know why the imbalance?

Hillary is amazing. She will elaborate on situations along with the press making criticisms in reference to Rev. Wright and Rezco, knowing that she is in a similar situation herself. That is amazing. You've gotta be a pretty good prevaricator and bluffer to do that. Wake-up people.

I find that kinda of curious, Hillary.

Hillary used the wrong T-word to discribe the questions during the debate.

The questions were not TOUGH.

The questions were TABLOID.

ABC's Charlie Gibson has been on the receiving end of some blistering criticism for the questions and topics addressed during Wednesday's Democratic debate in Philadelphia. If these wasn't bad enough--asking about patriotism, Bosnia sniper fire, and flag pins--we were forced to endure the ever-slipping pair of Gibson's glasses. It seems the lower they went the more smug he became.

To get a better gauge of just how annoying Gibson is, check out the 23/6 Charlie Gibson smug meter: http://www.236.com/news/2008/04/18/236_charlie_gibson_smug_meter_5948.php

Looking at Obama's friendships, associations and i some cases close relationships with people like William Ayers, Mr. Wright, Farrakhan etc who publicaly maintain anti-American and racist sentiments - WILL OBAMA BE QUALIFIED FOR 'TOP SECURITY CLEARANCE'? Shouldn't that be a BASIC CRITERIA for someone who is running for 'President' of USA?

obama either didn't read what he signed or he pushed the wrong button......he wouldn't know the truth it it jumped up bit him on the butt

"I, uh, err, uhh, I..". Great speaker. All of the Obama sheep are hilarious. You take this guy for his word, yet he has absolutely no experience to back up what he is saying. He is nothing more than a smooth talking car salesman..about to sell you all a lemon. His Socialist & Carter-like pacifism will be horrible for the U.S. Take a look at the friends he keeps..Wright, Ayers, Meeks, and surely more to find out about. He's a pompous, inexperienced unknown who is "Just Words". http://www.hellnobama.com