The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Hillary and Bill -Release your income tax forms for 2000-2007. It is high time you did this. We need to know where that $50 million came from. It is especially relevant since you are putting this money into the election.

If I were an Obama supporter, I would be very concerned about the people he has chosen as his close friend and spiritual advisor.

One is a long term Chicago criminal.

One is a black spritual racist leader.

In response to a previous poster, who noted: "It is more historic for a woman to be elected than a black man. Black men in the North were voting for a long time before women were able to. We are over half the population, not 14%"

It's a sad day when we are reduced to voting for candidates solely on the basis of their gender or the color of their skin. Moreover, it's even sadder that the debate of 'who comes first, women or black men' is still around-- harkening back to the arguments in 1869 in Seneca Falls, which led then to a split between supporters of voting rights for blacks and those for (white) women.

Is this election really all going to come down to identity politics? If so, then again-- sad.

I am a male physician, and I have no problem in electing a female to lead our country. It's not about race, age, or gender.

However, I am voting for moral character and certain qualities of leadership which I believe will lead our country, including it's domestic and foreign policy, in a new and correct direction. These are qualities that are more evident in Obama than Hillary. Hillary is polarizing and off putting to many, not because of her being a woman, but rather because of her personality. She is too tied to big money to be objective about change.

I thought Emily's List was a good idea at first because I thought they were for women in leadership. That was before I knew a few pro-life and/or Republican women that they campaigned against. Emily's List is for a certain sorority only, and Clinton is a paid-up member.

I am saddened to see the Hillary supporters stoop to the level of their candidate - racism, fear mongering, disinformation, misrepresentations - anything goes to discredit a patriotic American public servant who is intelligent, compassionate and a leader.
Chicago1, you have my pity and sympathy.

I think it's about time for Obama to step up to the plate about so many issues that he keeps ignoring:

I still don't know the following:
Did obama know resko more that 5 hours that he said that he did in the SC debate?

Is Obama's father a Muslim. Why doesn't he say that. Is he embarrassed or hiding it?

Why did he say that no one in his campaign speak to a Canadian official and then within a week he acknoledged it.

Why doesn't he mention that his United Trinity Church is supporting Farrahkan, a radical Islamic leader.

Why doesn't he say My father is a muslim. I go to a church that strives for Africa and that his curch has ties with Farrakhan. Why not have Obama denounce Reverend Wright Obama's minister if he supports Farrakhan.

Why did he lied to his aid about his visions of the war as just a politcal ploy.

Now he is lieing about Lou Dobbs on CNN.

Why doesn't he say that he did smoke pot.

why doesn't he explain his dual citicenship with Keya. Is it leaga as President.

Why did he lie about passing a bil on energy that he did not.

Why doesn't he mention his house deal with Criminal Resko . He knew that Rezko was criminal or on a FBI list

What experience do you have that qualifies YOU as President

the list can continue forever.

Answer ALL Questions .

Does anyone really know why his Kansas mother would select such an Islamic name.

These are uust few questions
Report back to the public.

Groups like Emily's List plays a vital role in promoting democracy and women's rights. It is just regrettable that they don't have a female presidential candidate that is worth their support in 2008.
If Hillary is elected, Bill and her will land in another string of scandals and screw it up for the next woman to try.

SIGH BIG BIG SIGH....Clintons are doing and saying anything to get to the Whitehouse. Every citizen in every country with a TV or computer since the 90's didn't expect anything else, so why should the American people? Are you soooo blind!! THE most corrupt couple in American history!! Why on Gods green earth do you keep electing them? What has Clinton, as senator, done FOR New York? With ALL that experience she keeps talking about, must have been something HUGE. Her senate record must be something astounding. Why don't you look it up?What a joke. The US will be the soap opera the rest of the world tunes into if the Clintons get back the Whitehouse. The world will watch, sigh, shake it's head and wonder why they didn't learn the first time around

It is regrettable that the Emily's list is supporting Hillary. It can only diminish their credibility, if they push any one any time.
The Clinton campaign has gone from sleaze peddling [Kerrey, Johnson, Sheehan , should I go on) to flippancy [we can train Obama to be president in six months] and now back to sleaze with Ferraro and Co.
Have we not had enough of this couple?
Do you want four more years of these people?

I see there is someone here who does not realize there is an organized campaign in the black community to elect Obama, including the terrorizing of black journalist Tavis Smiley because he dared to analyze Obama.

Katy, like Obama, you seem to feel the need to lift your thoughts from others. This is not the place for that, although I realize you likely have a crush on him.
Clinton was not stupid enough to say in public she would invade an ally, Pakistan. That alone, as McCain has also pointed out, shows he does not have the judgment required of a commander in chief or president. It is clear to most people that Clinton is a realist and a pragmatist, Obama a naive idealist, in spite of his effort to appear macho on Pakistan. He doesn't have the stones for the job; she does, so does McCain.

You raise some great points Katy, let's burn the woman at the stake for being married to our president for 8 years, she probably didn't have a clue to what was going on. In Fact, what was her occupation before she married Bill? oh yeah, out-of-work hairdresser.
Let's entrust the country into the hands of a 3 yr senator and his morally corrupt "black values" Pastor. Heck, let's just give Farrakan a room in the west wing.
Scary how shallow you Obamanites can be.

Points of clarification:

The article davidmwe posted is outdated. Even using the sources the article references, HRC is leading BO by 15 points (if you believe polls).

As for thebobbob's assertion that Emily's list turns off male voters, that's a complete assumption. I for one, as a male conservative, do not pay much attention to endorsements but rather the issues. I'm confident enough that I'm not threatened by women.

Greg Craig, former director of the Policy Planning Office, U.S. State Department sent out this memo today:
When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton's argument that she has passed "the Commander- in-Chief test" is simply not supported by her record.

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue - not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.

When asked to describe her experience, Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role. But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims - i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign - would conclude that Senator Clinton's claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated.

Northern Ireland:

Senator Clinton has said, "I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland." It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland. She did travel to Northern Ireland, it is true. First Ladies often travel to places that are a focus of U.S. foreign policy. But at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace. As the Associated Press recently reported, "[S]he was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord." With regard to her main claim that she helped bring women together, she did participate in a meeting with women, but, according to those who know best, she did not play a pivotal role. The person in charge of the negotiations, former Senator George Mitchell, said that "[The First Lady] was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one."

News of Senator Clinton's claims has raised eyebrows across the ocean. Her reference to an important meeting at the Belfast town hall was debunked. Her only appearance at the Belfast City Hall was to see Christmas lights turned on. She also attended a 50-minute meeting which, according to the Belfast Daily Telegraph's report at the time, "[was] a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times." Brian Feeney, an Irish author and former politician, sums it up: "The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn't on it."

Bosnia:

Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone. She has described dodging sniper fire. While she did travel to Bosnia in March 1996, the visit was not a high-stakes mission to a war zone. On March 26, 1996, the New York Times reported that "Hillary Rodham Clinton charmed American troops at a U.S.O. show here, but it didn't hurt that the singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad were also on the stage."

Kosovo:

Senator Clinton has said, "I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo." It is true that, as First Lady, she traveled to Macedonia and visited a Kosovar refugee camp. It is also true that she met with government officials while she was there. First Ladies frequently meet with government officials. Her claim to have "negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo," however, is not true. Her trip to Macedonia took place on May 14, 1999. The borders were opened the day before, on May 13, 1999.

The negotiations that led to the opening of the borders were accomplished by the people who ordinarily conduct negotiations with foreign governments - U.S. diplomats. President Clinton's top envoy to the Balkans, former Ambassador Robert Gelbard, said, "I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue." Ivo Daalder worked on the Clinton Administration's National Security Council and wrote a definitive history of the Kosovo conflict. He recalls that "she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations."

Rwanda:

Last year, former President Clinton asserted that his wife pressed him to intervene with U.S. troops to stop the Rwandan genocide. When asked about this assertion, Hillary Clinton said it was true. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that this ever happened. Even those individuals who were advocating a much more robust U.S. effort to stop the genocide did not argue for the use of U.S. troops. No one recalls hearing that Hillary Clinton had any interest in this course of action. Based on a fair and thorough review of National Security Council deliberations during those tragic months, there is no evidence to suggest that U.S. military intervention was ever discussed. Prudence Bushnell, the Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for Africa, has recalled that there was no consideration of U.S. military intervention.

At no time prior to her campaign for the presidency did Senator Clinton ever make the claim that she supported intervening militarily to stop the Rwandan genocide. It is noteworthy that she failed to mention this anecdote - urging President Clinton to intervene militarily in Rwanda - in her memoirs. President Clinton makes no mention of such a conversation with his wife in his memoirs. And Madeline Albright, who was Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, makes no mention of any such event in her memoirs.

Hillary Clinton did visit Rwanda in March 1998 and, during that visit, her husband apologized for America's failure to do more to prevent the genocide.

China

Senator Clinton also points to a speech that she delivered in Beijing in 1995 as proof of her ability to answer a 3 AM crisis phone call. It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago, since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama's speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago. Let there be no doubt: she gave a good speech in Beijing, and she stood up for women's rights. But Senator Obama's opposition to the War in Iraq in 2002 is relevant to the question of whether he, as Commander-in-Chief, will make wise judgments about the use of military force. Senator Clinton's speech in Beijing is not.

Senator Obama's speech opposing the war in Iraq shows independence and courage as well as good judgment. In the speech that Senator Clinton says does not qualify him to be Commander in Chief, Obama criticized what he called "a rash war . . . a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics." In that speech, he said prophetically: "[E]ven a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." He predicted that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would "fan the flames of the Middle East," and "strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda." He urged the United States first to "finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda."

If the U.S. government had followed Barack Obama's advice in 2002, we would have avoided one of the greatest foreign policy catastrophes in our nation's history. Some of the most "experienced" men in national security affairs - Vice President Cheney and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others - led this nation into that catastrophe. That lesson should teach us something about the value of judgment over experience. Longevity in Washington, D.C. does not guarantee either wisdom of judgment.

Conclusion:

The Clinton campaign's argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed "the Commander-in-Chief test." That claim - as the TV ad - consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.

On the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation - the War in Iraq - Senator Clinton voted in support of a resolution entitled "The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of U.S. Military Force Against Iraq." As she cast that vote, she said: "This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction." In this campaign, Senator Clinton has argued - remarkably - that she wasn't actually voting for war, she was voting for diplomacy. That claim is no more credible than her other claims of foreign policy experience. The real tragedy is that we are still living with the terrible consequences of her misjudgment. The Bush Administration continues to cite that resolution as its authorization - like a blank check - to fight on with no end in sight.

Barack Obama has a very simple case. On the most important commander in chief test of our generation, he got it right, and Senator Clinton got it wrong. In truth, Senator Obama has much more foreign policy experience than either Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had when they were elected. Senator Obama has worked to confront 21st century challenges like proliferation and genocide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He possesses the personal attributes of a great leader - an even temperament, an open-minded approach to even the most challenging problems, a willingness to listen to all views, clarity of vision, the ability to inspire, conviction and courage.

And Barack Obama does not use false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security.

Chicago , you nailed it. There's a hell of a lot more sexism than racism in politics.

I suppose that if the NAACP sent out mailings supporting Obama, since he is a CP, the Clinton camp would be screaming and yelling about how he is only a candidate for CPs. Emily's list, arguably the NAAW, is now supporting Clinton as a W. I guess that'll turn off a lot of M voters.

Oh, so there is still a women's movement. That's good to know. It is more historic for a woman to be elected than a black man. Black men in the North were voting for a long time before women were able to. We are over half the population, not 14%. But some women seem to think we have graduated from sexism. Newsflash, dears.

Hillary will need more than just the woman to vote for her in PA;

Pennsylvania Primary- Hillary vs. Barack:
The Google Factor...

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=57