The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Привет!
Ув админы и модеры данного форума,
подскажите пожалуйста
каким образом я могла бы найти нужную мне информацию на форуме? а то я незнаю как ето сделать:(
Списибоньки :))))

THE PENN DROPOUT IS INSIGNIFICANT COMPARED TO WHAT McCAIN WILL BE USING AS AMMUNITION AGAINST OBAMA THIS SUMMER!

OBAMA WENT TO *KENYA* IN NOVEMBER WITH BUDDY *DICK MORRIS* TO HELP THE CAMPAIGN OF HIS COUSIN (Luo tribe) **RAILA ODINGA**, OPPOSITION LEADER.

OBAMA'S KENYAN Luo COUSIN ODINGA HAD SIGNED A MOU WITH ISLAMIST NATIONALIST GROUPS GUARANTEEING **SHARIA LAW** THROUGHOUT KENYA IF HE WON ELECTION(Chastity laws and full dress cover for girls and women).!!

OBAMA HAD PHONED CONDI RICE from IOWA AND SHE GAVE BO GREEN LIGHT TO GO AHEAD TO PREPARE A "HEALING" SPEECH FOR KENYANS WHEN ODINGA's ISLAMO-MARXIST PARTYT LOST AND RIOTS BROKE OUT WITH RESULTANT BURNING OF 50 CHRISTIAN CHURCHES AND 700 HUNDREDS INJURED/RAPED.

PRESIDENT KIYUKI OF KENYA, INCENSED, IGNORED OBAMA'S SPEECH AND SNUBBED HIM SINCE THEN, AS HE DID NOT FIND IT IN GOOD JUDGMENT THAT OBAMA DIRECTLY INTERFERED IN HIS SOVEREIGN COUNTRY'S AFFAIRS TO HELP HIS LUO COUSIN.

THIS GOES STRAIGHT TO OBAMA'S LACK OF FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE AND POOR POLITICAL JUDGMENT IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS. IT IS A HUGE ISSUE AND, IN FACT, WILL UNDBOUTEDLY BE COSTING OBAMA THE ELECTION, TOGETHER WITH THE QUESTION OF 'WHY DIDN'T HE CHALLENGE REV. WRIGHT IN HIS OWN CONGREGATION 20 YEARS BEFORE THE POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT SPEECH!

THE PENN DROPOUT IS INSIGNIFICANT COMPARED TO WHAT McCAIN WILL BE USING AS AMMUNITION AGAINST OBAMA THIS SUMMER!

OBAMA WENT TO *KENYA* IN NOVEMBER WITH BUDDY *DICK MORRIS* TO HELP THE CAMPAIGN OF HIS COUSIN (Luo tribe) **RAILA ODINGA**, OPPOSITION LEADER.

OBAMA'S KENYAN Luo COUSIN ODINGA HAD SIGNED A MOU WITH ISLAMIST NATIONALIST GROUPS GUARANTEEING **SHARIA LAW** THROUGHOUT KENYA IF HE WON ELECTION(Chastity laws and full dress cover for girls and women).!!

OBAMA HAD PHONED CONDI RICE from IOWA AND SHE GAVE BO GREEN LIGHT TO GO AHEAD TO PREPARE A "HEALING" SPEECH FOR KENYANS WHEN ODINGA's ISLAMO-MARXIST PARTYT LOST AND RIOTS BROKE OUT WITH RESULTANT BURNING OF 50 CHRISTIAN CHURCHES AND 700 HUNDREDS INJURED/RAPED.

PRESIDENT KIYUKI OF KENYA, INCENSED, IGNORED OBAMA'S SPEECH AND SNUBBED HIM SINCE THEN, AS HE DID NOT FIND IT IN GOOD JUDGMENT THAT OBAMA DIRECTLY INTERFERED IN HIS SOVEREIGN COUNTRY'S AFFAIRS TO HELP HIS LUO COUSIN.

THIS GOES STRAIGHT TO OBAMA'S LACK OF FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE AND POOR POLITICAL JUDGMENT IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS. IT IS A HUGE ISSUE AND, IN FACT, WILL UNDBOUTEDLY BE COSTING OBAMA THE ELECTION, TOGETHER WITH THE QUESTION OF 'WHY DIDN'T HE CHALLENGE REV. WRIGHT IN HIS OWN CONGREGATION 20 YEARS BEFORE THE POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT SPEECH!

He should have been fired. Giving away huge numbers in the caucus states has probably lost Hillary the election. Those losses could have been mitigated to a large degree since competition in caucus states is largely organizational. Obama took over the machine that Dean and Emanuel put into place for the 2006 congressional elections and Hillary had no answer for that.

Hillary is fine--this will not hurt her at all.

If you need confirmation of how well she's doing, here you go from the latest Quinnipiac Poll:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1164

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton holds a 50 - 41 percent lead over Illinois Sen. Barack Obama among likely Pennsylvania Democratic primary voters and runs better against Arizona Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican nominee in Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

This compares to a 53 - 41 percent lead in a March 18 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University. In general election match ups of the three largest and most important swing states in the Electoral College, the survey finds.
Florida: Clinton 44 percent - McCain 42 percent; McCain beats Obama 46 - 37 percent;
Ohio: Clinton beats McCain 48 - 39 percent; Obama gets 43 percent to McCain's 42 percent;
Pennsylvania: Clinton tops McCain 48 - 40 percent; Obama leads McCain 43 - 39 percent.

The primary vote between Obama and Clinton splits sharply along racial lines, with her advantage coming from stronger support in every contest from white voters. For example, Clinton leads 59 - 34 percent among white Pennsylvania likely primary voters, while Obama leads 73 - 11 percent among black Democrats.

"When it comes to November, Sen. Hillary Clinton's strength is a big edge over Sen. Barack Obama among white voters, who have not given a majority of their votes to a Democratic presidential nominee since Lyndon Johnson in 1964," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute."

More than a third of voters in the three states think Obama's race is an advantage, more than twice the number who think it is a disadvantage. By contrast, roughly a quarter of voters say Clinton's gender is an advantage, and about the same number think it is a disadvantage.

"Former Democratic vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro's assertion that Obama's race has helped his candidacy finds some support among the electorate," said Brown.

"At least for now, Sen. Clinton's argument that she is the better general election candidate in these key battleground states appears to have some validity," said Brown. "In this survey, her strength among white voters is why she runs better against Sen. McCain than does Sen. Obama. "

John W. McCheney would be in a better position to be the next president if he weren't a republican and exceedingly old. Across the nation the multitudes are increasingly aware of this gutter party and their "lucifarian", dead end policies and agendas. Thanks bush. Maybe he wasn't a total bum, but im not so sure he achieved the desired effect. The ugliest things God ever created, are conservatives. Anyhow, I have some parting shots for you Billary Clingon supporters. These lackluster, subpar, and baseless comments only highlight your inabilities to construct thoughtful or humurous anecdotes as a rebuttal to the superior lexicon of an Obama supporter. We forgive you though. Judging from the contents of some of these comments the average Clingon supporter is incapable of reading, writing, and worst of all, failure to explicate an independent thought. But as they say "stupid is as stupid does". Theres always 2016. Chow. See you at the finish line.

Doesn't this once again tell us a whole lot. Hillary continues to speak about ALL of this experience she ALLEGEDLY has, yet once again there is a major shakeup in her campaign staff. Is this not another indictment of her SUPPOSED judgment and experience. She appoints someone and aligns herself with him, pays him millions of dollars and doesn't have a problem with the conflict of interest it poses. If I'm a delegate or super delegate, I need only go as far as her "management" (used loosely) of her campaign thus far to get a good idea of how she'll operate in the White House. Perhaps Borack was right after all. "Let her continue to run." We're going to get another glimpse or glaring view of her management style. The real liability the Democrats must now be seeing is that McCain really can easily beat her by the ongoing lapses in managerial judgment. How close could we have possibly gotten to what her style was had this NOT happened. Perhaps we CAN call this the "Vetting on the Hill" as in Hillary. If left alone, she'll fall without being pushed. She'll implode without a shot being fired in her direction. She has PRESIDED over a mess of a campaign debacle. Or, perhaps this is a strategic way of showing the world how sincere she is about having the knight in shining armor, Bill - running her presidency. Someone needs to remind her that their are constitutional limits on such thinking. Ah, but perhaps that's exactly what the plan is. Get her elected and then he can have his second 8-year term. I've figured it out.

svreader...
Why do you continually boast that Obama is unelectable in a general election? What evidence do you offer to support your assumption? Why do you continually belittle Obama's campaign and his supporters?

Obama has run a great campaign. It is not that painful to admit, svreader. Obama is winning against Hillary for a number of reasons, but the most important ones have to do with having a great campaign message and a great 50-state strategy. Obama and his campaign should be commended on the positivity, inspiration, and the effectiveness in which it has conducted itself.

Hillary is losing because Hillary had one strategy, ride the Clinton name (and Bill Clinton political organization) all the way into Super Tuesday Feb. 5th and be done.

I know it is hard to ignore the rantings of svreader, my fellow Hope-Mongers. But what can you expect?

The only difference in the departure of Mark Penn as a Hillary campaign strategist is that Hillary saves campaign money and Clinton loyalists will feel better.

Meanwhile back in reality, Mark Penn's departure only re-enforces the continual link in Hillary's campaign with conflicts of interests and the influence of lobbyists/special interest money; does nothing to reduce the 169 pledged delegate lead, the ~800,000 popular vote lead, and the 14 more voting contests lead that Obama has over Hillary.

Just remember Clinton loyalists, we, Democrats for Obama, will need your help come this fall to defeat old man McCain and the Republicans.

neither --

Why do Obama-nuts think that they'll gain by calling Clinton supporters Republicans and accusing them of posting for pay.

The only logical explanation is that Obama supporters must be on the Obama campaign payroll.

I'm a Democrat, and I post because I don't want Democrats to lose.

Obama supporters aren't loyal to the Democratic Party, they're loyal to their cult leader Barry Obama.

By attacking other readers, rather than trying to answer the points those readers raise, they lose twice.

We're not going to vote for Obama for anything.

Because Obama supporters have been so nasty to us, we'll actively work for, and we'll vote for, McCain.

Heck of a job, Obama-nuts!!!!

Good Riddance.............pure male ego........help only himself...perhaps he can sign on with Obama....go to Canada, Columbia, etc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The problem is that Obama is unelectable in a general election doesn't seem to bother his supporters.

His strategy has been to mouth vague platitudes while kicking Hillary below the belt using his supporters to do the dirty work.

That's not going to work against McCain.

Obama's lost mainstream Democrats.

This won't help Hillary Clinton's campaign. First of all, it is too late and moreover, Penn's resignation has not been prompted by his ill fated strategies, but by his greedy moonlighting for his PR firm.

Here's what British newspapers say:

http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2008/04/07/its-monday-the-british-newspapers-on-mark-penns-resignation/

Yes, another sacrifice but this too, won't help a campaign running on fumes. And, of course, we are to believe that the micromanaging MRS Clinton was unaware of the dealings of her manager? What would work is getting rid of the candidate who the more she is exposed to the public the more disliked she becomes. Her latest lie about health care shows how little she knows about the health care system and lawyering.

If she had really practiced law and studied the Health care system she so wants to recreate she would have known:

1) in this litigious society no hospital would have the nerve to turn away anyone who is presenting at their emergency room for care as the lawsuit and loss of government funding would be disastrous.

2) the health care system works for millions of people and needs to be reworked not retired. Why not start by insuring the folks who don't have any insurance rather than recreating the wheel? She also doesn't understand how comprehensive the NY State's program Healthy Families NY is.

3) she is not intelligent (well educated, yes) but hardly educable. the reason her first health care package was doomed was because it was too large; more fit for FDR's government than Bill Clinton's. And here she goes again. Stubbornness is not strength it is often just stupidity.

I see the RNC mutant svreader still haunts anything and everything Obama-Clinton. Pay it no mind. As a low-totem troll, it receives 5 cents per post. Got to make a lot of posts so it can feed.

OMG!! Can't believe what has happen to Hillary. Imagine if she runs her campaign like she has, and completely clues......what would happen if she becomes president. I was so disappointed; I will be voting for Obama....I am not one of the idiots who will for Ms Cain if she losses...That is quite stupid, with the prices! War! Etc such as it is. The Clintons can not be trusted. It's a shame. She has lie about a lot of things, and it didn't really matter, but this one with Penn??? And so many un-answered questions about her release of tax returns, nope going to change my vote. What else is out there? The Clintons are covering up?

NAY

I support Obama AND free speech. I salute WaPo blog post policy that allows anyone to make a fool of him/herself at anytime.

Svreader,

I hate to make you feel so important, but I need to straighten this out: it's Barack, not Barry Obama.

Unless you've been personally introduced to the candidate and developed a friendly relationship with him, it's Barack Obama for you, not Barry.

Think, svreader. And show some respect.

Brigitte wrote:

"Thank you Lord Jesus! This is the smartest move Hillary has made in weeks. Mark Penn was a drag on this campaign! On to victory!

Hillary '08"

BE CAREFUL WHEN YOU HIT THAT WALL...

Yeah, so Penn "stepped down" as Hillary's "Chief Strategist" but he intends to continue advising her and her campaign. So other than publicly denying him the title of "Chief Strategist", has anything really changed?

What is more important is that those of us who have bothered to research either "Mark Penn" or "Hillary Clinton + NAFTA" learned a long time ago that Penn's efforts and the efforts of his company have been pushing hard to spread "NAFTA" into South America. If I have known about this for the past 3 months, it's a sure bet that Hillary Clinton and everyone on her campaign knew about it also. So why does it just now become a problem when word leaked out about Penn's meeting with Colombian leaders? Apparently Penn's efforts to extend NAFTA throughout South America was never a problem or a "conflict of interest" in the eyes of Hillary Clinton, who claims to be anti-NAFTA, until Penn made the mistake of attending a meeting that was reported in the press. It goes to show how Clinton really operates. Nothing is ever a problem for her, no matter how illegal, unethical, or contrary to her own stated position on an issue until it becomes common knowledge. This clearly demonstrates the need for a more transparent government that Obama stands for!

svreader:

Please take your verbiage to the nearest Silicon Valley compost heap. Insist that they don't charge you for leaving it; it needs no refining.

svreader,

For god's--and every lesser beings' sake, take your verbiage to your Silicon Valley politically correct compost heap and convert it into methane so that it can be used to power PG&E's--or Santa Clara's--generators.

This is great news for Hillary's campaign. He was a really poor advisor.

Go Hillary!

Now, when will Hillary step down ? This is really becoming pathetic. Yes Clinton supporters... we all know that Hillary has every 'right' to stay on ... just NO good reason at all. What she is effectively saying Now is that she is willing to sacrifice the Democratic Party's chances in November to insure her leverage to petition for the VP slot. That's pretty Sleazy politicking Clinton supporters and you know damn well it is. What does that make YOU at this point?

Well I think it has been made clear to any discerning Democrat that this nomination process needs to end. It would be one thing if Hillary had a grasp of the importance of integrity - to make jokes on the Tonight Show with Leno about the most critical aspect of a Presidential candidate - their honesty while insulting the true integrity of our men & women in uniform taking REAL fire & casualties is appalling to say the least. On the Bosnia "flap", there is a BIG difference between a mis-statement and a lie that was calculated and repeated many times. Not only has she lost our vote, she should lose her senate seat next cycle. Any intelligent Super-Delegate can see that Hillary is running a campaign of hippocrasy - changing standpoints per audience to get votes. Her Chief Strategist was caught consulting with Colombia FOR NAFTA? Again HRC's campaign is caught under the truth spotlight as the lies scurry for the darkness of ignorance. Any Super-Delegate that has already pledged support for her has to now seriously reconsider given the fact that she now has no credibility whatsoever and is definitely under the heavy influence of special interests and at least one top lobbying firm. What IS Hillary's TRUE POSITION on NAFTA? When I hear Hillary apologize for repeated Bosnia lies and Mark Penn for Colombia - I am far more likely to believe now that they are sorry they got CAUGHT. Exactly how much influence and "loyalty" does Hillary have to special interests and anti-labor? See for yourself ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZVpPGxuafA ) Anyone contemplating donations to HRC's campaign can pretty much know they might as well flush their check down the toilet. I watched Tim Russert this morning - is their any legs to the story by Christopher Hitchens ( http://www.slate.com/id/2187780 ) that Hillary could be indirectly responsible for up to 250,000 deaths in Bosnia as a direct result of her influence over Bill over whether to get involved over the fighting in Bosnia because it would be a distraction away from "her health care plan" that failed miserably and that her stubbornness prevented a reasonable compromise that could have fixed healthcare for the most part over 10 years ago? I am trying to fathom at this point why ANY Super-Delegate would endorse her ... and what any Super-Delegate sitting on the fence is waiting for. As Hillary's scrutiny increases, so will the spotlight as Hillary continues to make "loyalty" above honesty and free will an issue (as with Richardson) - the spotlight will move to Super-Delegates that ardently support her - do they want this scrutiny on them too? - because as Hillary and her inept campaign keep self-destructing - she has declared she won't quit and their will be a LOT of collateral damage. As far as for women longing to break the "glass ceiling", you can do better than her. Enough of this, let's get together behind Obama, put together a Democratic Campaign not to tear each other down but to rise above and get the White House this fall. We implore you undecideds, it's time to get off the fence.

Michael & Erica Williams - Philadelphia, PA
former Clinton Supporters turned Obama Supporters

This is what could happen from having a lobbyist who's moonlighting with a Presidental campaign!

[For Clintonistas: I am not an Obama supporter; I'm a registered Independent.]

I am perhaps one of the very few people who would be sorry to see Mark Penn leave the Clinton campaign altogether. I think it's wonderful that he will continue doing polling and other consulting work for Senator Clinton.

Consider this: If Penn were to truly sever all ties with the campaign, that would leave only Ickes and Wolffson on Team Clinton. That's like watching Larry and Curley without Moe. That's no fun at all.

Maybe Obama supporters would rather Hillary use this story, reported by the Inspector General in Illinois about patient dumping and the University of Chicago Hospital where Michelle Obama works for over $300,000 a year:
The University of Chicago Hospitals (UCH), Illinois, agreed to pay $35,000 to resolve its liability for CMPs under the patient dumping statute. The OIG alleged that the hospital failed to accept an appropriate transfer of a 61-year-old male who presented to another emergency department with a complaint of flank pain. UCH had specialized capabilities not available at the transferring hospital and allegedly refused to accept transfer after learning that the patient did not have insurance. UCH then later agreed to accept transfer of the patient only if he provided proof of funds in a bank account. The patient was transferred to another hospital where he died.
source:http://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/enforcement/administrative/cmp/cmpitemspd.html#5

Aye. The cut-and-pastes are really an abuse.

I waited to see an attack ad from the Obama campaign or at least a press conference on Bosnia-gate....

I've been waiting for days for the Obama Campaign to publicly attack Hillary Clinton at a press conference on Penn. Hasn't happened.

Obama is explaining his case to voters, warts and all, instead of trying to tear Hillary down.

svreader, tell me this honestly: between Clinton and Obama, who has run the better campaign and why?
Posted by: meldupree
__________________________________

You know you are asking for a lot, right? I mean, anything other than cut & paste is probably not doable.

AYE

I have asked for the same more than 2 weeks ago

It is not because of HIS opinions, but because he is a paid member of the HILLARY campaign, which is a fraud if posting on these blogs (sometimes 25-30 times per hour)

I suggest SVREADER shall reveal his name and address to Washington Post and sign an affidavit stating that he is unrelated to Hillary's campaign. He should advise bloggers that he did so!

caminito

Mr. Penn appears to be following in the footsteps of President Clinton's economic advisors to Congress in 1999 leading to enactment of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. This sweeping piece of legislation - also called the Enron loophole - has resulted in significant unintended consequences that no one in Congress dare touch. They permitted Wall Street to divert the resouces that once fueled our nations economy for an economy that rewards hedge funds like Amaranth and the so called trustees that manage them. This law has fostered incredible growth in the global market, and appears to have also fostered the runup in the zero based mortgage marketplace. This fact appeared in the Washington Post last October in a letter from a US Commodity Futures Trading Commissioner, Barton Chilton.

JSINDC SAYS:

""I wish he were fired after super Tuesday but Hillary has done remarkably well thus far despite Penn's incompetence. Hillary's campaign will be full of steam from this point on.''

As it seems that this is a honest opinion and not paid by the Hillary campaign as SVREADER's and other, I address you seriously"

Is it possible that after all what happened in the last few weeks, only as an example the Tuzla fable and many lies, you try to ignore reality and see good news even if they are disasterously terminal ??

Who hired PENN and the other incompentent (but self convinced that they are very clever!)people as her past and present campaign mangers (appointed because of frienship and gender instead qualifications), ICKES, WOLFSON and so on ??
And as yourself state, who maintained PENN after supertuesday, when the failed strategy was reconfimed (it was already visible after S.Carolina), allowing 11 losses in row, also the advantage in Texas to evaporate and reducing Ohio to a gain of a few delegates ??

And most flagrant: who allowed or even induced Hillary to make the fatal mistakes regarding TUZLA and the NAFTA and North IRELAND peace talks ??

DOES STRATEGY DOESN'T IMPLY CHECKING THE FACTS ????

caminito

pKrishna43,
I agree with you that Wright's statements, as quoted, were very divisive and unacceptable. Obama has made the point that Wright has been a public figure for 35 years and the balance of his record can be attested by tens of thousands of people.

With more and more attention on the Wright issue, his full sermon is being seen by hundreds of thousands each week. When people see the full sermons, the reaction is still negative, but nowhere close to the shock of an out-of context truncation. To use your analogy, it's like assuming someone is a bad, hate-filled parent because you saw them saying something mean to their kids.

No one said it better and more honestly than Mike Huckabee, and he's a Republican conservative preacher.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZNwMPNxwHmQ

I agree it's going to be an issue in the election but the opportunity for context is already being used very well by the UCC's 10,000 congregations countrywide, and most of them are white congregations.

AYE

svreader, tell me this honestly: between Clinton and Obama, who has run the better campaign and why?

NAY

I think of svreader as the Clinton's court jester
________________________________

Except svrepeater is really an operative for Limbaugh's Operation Chaos. :o)

yes the filth is surfacing. Bosnia, Ohio Hospital, NAFTA, Colombia trade agreements. The stink is pronounced. And it is all coming from the direction of Hillary.
Posted by: infuse
_________________________________
Not to mention, her campaign's money problems, stiffing small business people left and right, making them threaten court action, etc. And the fact that she owes $300k for health insurance premiums for her staff! Sheesh! Now that the tax returns have come out showing the impressive income, it really makes you wonder who the heck is going to want to contribute to this losing proposition.

meld --

Why not read everything you can about Obama?

He's lied more than all the other candidates combined.

Read the article from commmentary.

Penn will have to get Harlod's knife out his back before he can go back to union busting. The influence peddling Clintons want to get back into the White House so they can increase their net worth.
What a bunch of phonies they are.
Rendell is the only American Jew that has sold his soul to Arab interests like the Clintons & Bushes. When are we going to get non hustlers for leaders?

Slippery Hillary - lied to America from day one!

Logan6 --

Its clear that you've never read my posts.

I'm a Clinton Supporter.

I think she'd be the best President.

If Obama's the candidate, I'll vote for McCain, but if Obama's the candidate, McCain will win by a landslide anyway.

Open your eyes.

Learn as much as you can about ALL the candidates.

NAY

I think of svreader as the Clinton's court jester who indeed brings levity to the audience by acting like a buffoon and betraying his Ph.D. credentials (probably from some degree mill in Wyoming).

Next, he has the right to express his opinion, regardless of how insane svreader sounds at times (which is early and often).

"After the events of the last few days, Mark Penn has asked to give up his role as Chief Strategist of the Clinton Campaign; Mark, and Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates, Inc. will continue to provide polling and advice to the campaign," Williams wrote.

Folks -- he did NOT quit the campaign. His title's been changed -- he'll continue to poll and advise Mrs. Clinton's campaign. It's stunts like this that make people a bit frustrated or skeptical as to Mrs. Clinton's transperancy. This is the capper to a string of credibility issues -- Bosnia sniper fire; Mrs. Clinton's NAFTA inconsistency and early support; using a false anecdote in her stump speeches about an Ohio woman that purportedly died after supposedly being refused medical care for being uninsured (she had insurance) and failing to pay $100 upfront; going to ND to poach "pledged" Obama delegates; her ability to feel our economic pain from the $109.2M heights; and this gaffe. First, why had Mr. Penn been permitted to continue lobbying for Blackwater, Colombia etc. in the first place. Are you telling me that anybody hired him not expecting him to whisper sweet nothings about their positions into Mrs. Clinton's ear? Not to mention earning $300,000 representing the repressive, anti-union government of Colombia in anything, much less legislation your candidate supposedly opposes. Judgment people -- judgment. Secondly, he leaves the "top strategist" post, but continues to serve the campaign doing polls and giving advice? How's that different than his current post? So forgive me if I'm not impressed -- funny thing is I actually don't think Mrs. Clinton used Penn to signal to Colombia; I think Penn used Mrs. Clinton. I agree that she is a better politician than her campaign but as her campaign is the only evidence of her executive experience, I think all this mess is quite telling. Mrs. Clinton, if Mark Penn's actions deserve demotion they deserve, let's see, what is it, firing, right? Otherwise it looks like you might be trying to signal "denouncing" while continuing to benefit from Mr. Penn's services -- which I'm sure you'd never do.

Ripper, Boutan, infuse, etc --

Why not find out as much as you can about Obama?

Look at Obama's actions, not just his words.

Look at how he's changed his positions over and over again.

This election will determine who our next President is.

Why not find out as much as you can so you can make the best choice?

Shrillary Cliton - Ready to start lying to the country on day one.

I HAVE A QUESTION: What does it say about Hillary's judgement, that her top campaign advisor works for Columbia, the drug capital of the world ??

I HAVE A QUESTION: What does it say about Hillary's judgement, that her top campaign advisor works for Columbia, the drug capital of the world ??

infuse,

As you like, but it's not a boycott. It's a petition we hope the editors will pick up on.

AYE

rippermccord - much as I agree with your sentiment, there are two reasons I cannot join your boycott:
- svrepeater brings so much buffoonery and outright laughter to everyone who reads his stuff. And laughter is good for the soul.
- svrepeater is known by at least a dozen other monikers he uses frequently.

After the Penn story runs its course, maybe the press will clear up Hillary's little tale about the woman in Ohio who Hillary says was without health coverage, was denied hospital treatment and, as a result, died while pregnant.

The hospital in Ohio who treated the woman denies the truth of the story, refutes Hillary's claims and demands she stop spreading falsehoods about the hospital. The story was reported in yesterday's NYT and the Daily Kos.

So in the last three weeks we have had Hillary under sniper fire in Bosnia, the woman without health insurance in Ohio, her Saturday story in Oregon that she actually spoke out against the war in Iraq before Obama, and her Chief Strategist (Mark Penn) representing a foreign government. Thankfully CBS, the New York Times, Daily Kos, ABC News and other media sources have quickly debunked Hillary's tales and also shown some light on her staff's outside employment.

I hope the Super Delegates as well as the voters of Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, Kentucky, West Virginia, Oregon, Montana and South Dakota are listening. Its time to put the lady out of her misery.

++
If the press wants to bring up stories...how about Obama's story of the Selma march, how the Kennedy's helped fund his dad, etc.? Obama's got a few lies of his own.

I feel sorry for svreader and other fans of FOX News. Despite their campaign against Obama, their candidate, McCain, will have to face Obama. It's not the year for the spinners, the liars, and the crooks.

No wonder Hillary claims so much "experience." It comes out of both sides of her mouth, all at the same time. Now I finally get what "twofers" means to her campaign.

POST YOUR "AYE" TO THE BUMP SVREADER PETITION!

A 3600-word screed requiring 8 page scrolls or more to bypass?

Cut n paste propaganda?

Uncivil discourse?

Name calling?

POST THE WORD "AYE" AND ONLY THAT WORD TO SIGNIFY YOUR AGREEMENT IN PETITIONING THE WAPO EDITORS TO REMOVE SVREADER AS A USER OF THIS SITE.

svreader, the tide is turning to Obama. Recognize that you too, can remain with Hillary or join an agent for change.

I happen to like the lady. Unfortunately she's all mortgaged-up. This is only one example. Sure she has ties to South America, and many other places too. Of course, that's what politicians do. But it is all too obvious in her case. That just can't fly. It would be nice, but ain't going to happen.

Penn is just giving up his title just like Patti Solis Doyle and Mark Henry just gave up their positions in Hillary's inner circle. Ha! Mark won't be spending too much time at Hillary HQ.

MR. JOHN EDWARDS

HAVE YOU NOT SEEN AND HEARD ENOUGH ?????
=========================================
=========================================

DO YOUR DUTY AS A DEMOCRAT. TELL PRIVATELY HILLARY, IN UNMISTAKABLE TERMS, TO GET OUT, ADDING THAT IF SHE DOES NOT COMPLY, YOU WOULD ENDORSE OBAMA AND CAMPAIGN WITH HIM AT THE BLUE COLLAR VOTERS IN NC, IN AND WV, SO THAT ANY PERSPECTIVES FOR HER GAINING MEANINGFULLY THERE WILL EVAPORATE.

CAMINITO

svredeerintheadlights

Question:

Why can't this ex-president's wife make a speech about Mark Penn?

The world needs someone with a firm hand on the American tiller.

Why can't she say why she can't fire him?

**crickets**crickets***

The headline and the lead paragraph are misleading. Or Ms. Kornblut has been bamboozled. He's not resigning from her campaign. With the Clinton campaign you have to parse the words carefully. He has asked to "give up his role as Chief Strategist of the Clinton Campaign; Mark, and Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates, Inc. will continue to provide polling and advice to the campaign," that does not mean he is resigning. It is simply that he will step out of the limelight and lurk in the shadows. It is not a move based on principle, but on perception and expedience. These people think that the media and public opinion are their playthings. And for the most part they're right.

Let's not continue to encourage svreader and his peers by responding to his/their foolishness. It only encourages him/them to be even more irrational.

But then again, maybe we should because the more he/they speak, the more irrelevant they become.

OBAMA in 08!

Strange stuff here. Do you mean, heaven forbid, that Hillary has a "lobiest" for a campaign chairman. The same type of person as Charley Black, who works for John MC when he caught so much flack for having "lobiests" on his staff. Of course Anne refers to him here as a "Corporate Executive".
Let me get this straight as well...he was responsible for not "humanizing" Hillary.
She needs some one to do it for her? Maybe that's a reason she is sucking dust these days.

pKrishna43 - Another Hillarite telling lies.

Obama said he hadn't heard any of Rev Wright's comments being "looped." A clear reference to those endless 24/7 video loops played on radio and TV. He has never said he hasn't heard anything controversial. Only that he had not previously heard those looped words.

Now go back to working up another lie. You need to do something to keep yourself busy. And "supporting" Hillary is far from your mind.

svreader, your repost of the New York Times endorsement of Senator Clinton is quite dated. Much has happened since then, including Hillary false claims of foreign policy experience (including the Northern Ireland peace accords and the Tuzla sniper story, as well as the discredited story about the woman who had no health insurance). I am sure the editorial board of the New York Times resemble the Democratic populace of Ohio and California (see, usnews.com) who are having buyers' remorse!

Obama supporters are in denial.

They just don't "get it"

The fact that Obama allied himself with someone who spouts anti-white, anti-semitic, and anti-American rhetoric is a "deal breaker"

Its the number #1 topic of water cooler conversation around the country.

Most "Typical White People" had no idea that stuff like this has been going on.

People are really, really, angry about it.

Obama's supporters try to spin it into being about a single sermon.

Its not.

Its about a 20 year relationship.

Its about Obama choosing Wright to be his "Spritual Advisor"

It's about Obama's lies.

Its about Obama talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Obama presented himself as a paragon of virtue and someone on a higher ethical plane than other candidates.

He's repeatedly shown through his actions that he isn't.

He's like a human chameleon.

He turns into a completely different person depending on what group of people he's with.

He's lied to us and fooled us over and over.

America doesn't trust him anymore.

He's toast.

He deserves to be.

asja,

Let me stipulate your claim that the 90-second clips from the pastor's sermons did not constitute a representative sample. I don't know that, and I don't think it was 'proven', but let's just accept that for argument's sake.

Suppose I was stopped for going through a red light. I can't argue that it should be overlooked because it is a mere 30-second clip from my years of driving.

Suppose a campaign refers to Sen. Obama in a derogatory manner. It wouldn't be possible to claim that that single incident should be considered along with hundreds of other incidents where no such derogatory reference was made. Would it?

What Rev. Wright said is despicable, as could be seen in those 90-second clips. That he may have spouted innocent altruisms in many other sermons, that he preached peace and harmony the rest of the time, is besides the point.

To show him as a hate-monger, it is not necessary to show the hate through all of his sermons; it is sufficient to show it in a few.

One more thing. To this date Sen. Obama has not been truthful about which of these clips he finds "repugnant" (because after he said he didn't hear any of them, and after he admitted that he heard some of them, after he said that he doesn't find them "all that controversial", he said he finds them repugnant!), why he sat silent for 20 years, and now suddenly revealing that he would have quit the church had not the pastor retired.

The horse ain't dead. It is going to be resurrected in the general election, if Obama is the nominee. You can bet on that.

jato1 - yes the filth is surfacing. Bosnia, Ohio Hospital, NAFTA, Colombia trade agreements. The stink is pronounced. And it is all coming from the direction of Hillary.

It says a lot about the Post that with the economy collapsing, the dollar plummeting, Iraq becoming even more of a disaster, etc., etc., this kind of political inside-baseball fluff counts as an "important" story. In fact, it isn't a story at all, because, as a number of posters have pointed out, Penn will continue to work with the Clinton campaign. He's just relinquishing his meaningless "Chief Strategist" title so that he doesn't lose any more accounts for Burson-Marsteller. Big &*#@!! deal!

She didn't fire Penn, she demoted him. Read the press release. All labor organizations worth the name should cancel their support for Clinton. Penn represents, Cinta, Blackwater and the Colombian government, among other slimy clients. He's been working for the Clintons since 1996 and he still is as a pollster and adviser. What does that say about the ethics of "working class hero" Hillary Rodham Clinton?

How many times must we be confronted with Hillary and friends hypocricy before we realize that she and her ilk are unfit to assume the presidency?

How is it that she could not have known about Penn's activities? More importantly, how is it that she maintains a relationship with a KEY member of her campaign staff that feels comfortable engaging in activities that she supposedly abhors (communicating with foreign governments on a NAFTA like initiative)behind her back?

I dread the types of charactors she would install once she was presidient.

These people have absolutely NO INTEGRITY!

From The NYT - Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton would both help restore America's global image, to which President Bush has done so much grievous harm. They are committed to changing America's role in the world, not just its image.

On the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two. They promise an end to the war in Iraq, more equitable taxation, more effective government spending, more concern for social issues, a restoration of civil liberties and an end to the politics of division of George W. Bush and Karl Rove.

Mr. Obama has built an exciting campaign around the notion of change, but holds no monopoly on ideas that would repair the governing of America. Mrs. Clinton sometimes overstates the importance of résumé. Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America's big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience.

It is unfair, especially after seven years of Mr. Bush's inept leadership, but any Democrat will face tougher questioning about his or her fitness to be commander in chief. Mrs. Clinton has more than cleared that bar, using her years in the Senate well to immerse herself in national security issues, and has won the respect of world leaders and many in the American military. She would be a strong commander in chief.

Domestically, Mrs. Clinton has tackled complex policy issues, sometimes failing. She has shown a willingness to learn and change. Her current proposals on health insurance reflect a clear shift from her first, famously disastrous foray into the issue. She has learned that powerful interests cannot simply be left out of the meetings. She understands that all Americans must be covered -- but must be allowed to choose their coverage, including keeping their current plans. Mr. Obama may also be capable of tackling such issues, but we have not yet seen it. Voters have to judge candidates not just on the promise they hold, but also on the here and now.

The sense of possibility, of a generational shift, rouses Mr. Obama's audiences and not just through rhetorical flourishes. He shows voters that he understands how much they hunger for a break with the Bush years, for leadership and vision and true bipartisanship. We hunger for that, too. But we need more specifics to go with his amorphous promise of a new governing majority, a clearer sense of how he would govern.

The potential upside of a great Obama presidency is enticing, but this country faces huge problems, and will no doubt be facing more that we can't foresee. The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work. Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.

We opposed President Bush's decision to invade Iraq and we disagree with Mrs. Clinton's vote for the resolution on the use of force. That's not the issue now; it is how the war will be ended. Mrs. Clinton seems not only more aware than Mr. Obama of the consequences of withdrawal, but is already thinking through the diplomatic and military steps that will be required to contain Iraq's chaos after American troops leave.

On domestic policy, both candidates would turn the government onto roughly the same course -- shifting resources to help low-income and middle-class Americans, and broadening health coverage dramatically. Mrs. Clinton also has good ideas about fixing the dysfunction in Mr. Bush's No Child Left Behind education program.

Mr. Obama talks more about the damage Mr. Bush has done to civil liberties, the rule of law and the balance of powers. Mrs. Clinton is equally dedicated to those issues, and more prepared for the Herculean task of figuring out exactly where, how and how often the government's powers have been misused -- and what must now be done to set things right.

As strongly as we back her candidacy, we urge Mrs. Clinton to take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign. It is not good for the country, the Democratic Party or for Mrs. Clinton, who is often tagged as divisive, in part because of bitter feeling about her husband's administration and the so-called permanent campaign. (Indeed, Bill Clinton's overheated comments are feeding those resentments, and could do long-term damage to her candidacy if he continues this way.)

We know that she is capable of both uniting and leading. We saw her going town by town through New York in 2000, including places where Clinton-bashing was a popular sport. She won over skeptical voters and then delivered on her promises, and handily won re-election in 2006.

Her ideas, her comeback in New Hampshire and strong showing in Nevada, her new openness to explaining herself and not just her programs, and her abiding, powerful intellect show she is fully capable of doing just that. She is the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House.

jato1, we are no more afraid that Hillary and her surrogates trying to hijack the process via the super-delegates. However, even that has become a steeper climb as Hillary has a net loss of -34 super-delegates since Super Tuesday while Obama has gained about 60 or so (source: nytimes.com). So personally, I don't mind going to the last primary -- it will show how desperate and afraid Senator Clinton is of losing. Guaranteed.

A message to all you Obamites who loathe competition and the democratic process. I do realize that RevWright has stirred your juices...whoops, I mean base instincts...and you actually do understand that to complete an election cycle is both inefficient and untidy. After all, time allows for more filth to surface...and filth is not what your candidate is selling...I mean represents.

So...you are impatient. You demand H withdraw from the election. You understand the INDEPENDENCE OF THE SUPER DELEGATES, however, show disregard and contempt for the process.

You, a tyranny of the minority, wish to HIJACK the process and force an UNTIMELY END to the primary season. You are impatient with democracy. You are fearful of further truths emerging from the sewer of...make that your candidate's basement.

You-are-afraid.

Or you wouldn't call an end to this before it is over.

so young, so dumb, so soft, so SENSITIVE. awwwwwww.

How is Penn "out" when he's going to continue to do polling and give advice to Clinton? He lost his title in a coup in name only.

Window dressing. Out would mean severing ties with Penn. Until then, he's in. Please correct your factually incorrect report.

Pennsylvaniania's labor unions and the hard working middle class must be very comfortable knowing that Hillary's Chief Stratagist was working on the next trade agreement to cost them more of their jobs. Experienced ready day one to lead. Posted by: mvers
----------------------------------

Actually, in all seriousness, the Unions are mighty upset:

http://www.unitehere.org/presscenter/release.php?ID=3454

"...after months of dissatisfaction with his performance..." What? Months?

Her campaign has gone down the drain for months and only now they dump this dude?

Slick Willie deja vu, playing both sides of the street while supposedly being Hillary's guy.

The irony here is too rich. Does Hillary have a clue about her own campaign?

an interesting and self-destructive trait manifests itself in chronic liars. They spend so much time lying and become so adept at spinning fibs that at some point they cross over and become semi-delusional and start really believing the stories their telling.

People are amazed that even though the person will be almost certainly caught in their fiction, still they persist. Wow

Keep on destroying what little remains of your credibility with this prolonged, pointless effort to gain the Democratic nomination. God is having his way with your campaign, and no matter how hard you and your supporters work against him, you'll find that it's like trying to hold back the wind. If you want to totally destroy yours and Bubba's legacy, and your Senatorial career, then by all means continus until your energies and resources are exhausted. My advice would be for you to bring an end to the division in the party and to start talking about how, under an inspirational leader, we are going to right the wrongs done in our name. Just try to salvage something from this debacle of a campaign.

svreader, are you going to stay on the Titanic called the Clinton campaign or are you going to get into a lifeboat?

Posted by: meldupree
_____________________________________

News Flash from the Lifeboats: The Titanic is changing Captains!

Some correction is due here. Mark Penn has stepped aside but not removed himself from the Clinton campaign. He will still be giving his stratigy position and his company is still retained by Hillary. The Columbians are the ones who fired him.

Pennsylvaniania's labor unions and the hard working middle class must be very comfortable knowing that Hillary's Chief Stratagist was working on the next trade agreement to cost them more of their jobs. Experienced ready day one to lead. Yeah, RIGHT!

Wake up. This is just more proof that Hillary will say and do anything to get elected. People must be able to see that the Clintons only do what is best for their own political gain.

Once again the Clinton camp falls short on integrity, honesty, and judgement. While labor has it's voice at the table she talks about her people will be out working on more NAFTA and Columbian trade agreements. But what do I know, I am only a 35 year union member.

She's still winning the Irish vote today: Clinton is slated to attend the Irish-American Presidential Forum in New York this week.

Posted by: Iowatreasures
___________________________________

Yippee! Hillary for President - of Ireland! When does she leave?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | April 6, 2008 10:30 PM
____________________________________

Well remember, Hillary Clinton negotiated the Good Friday peace accord for Northern Ireland, so maybe that can be her platform (snicker).

svreader, are you going to stay on the Titanic called the Clinton campaign or are you going to get into a lifeboat?

perhaps felons can be allowed to vote and Peter Paul can run the campaign?

Hillary can't fire Penn for two reasons: she still owes him more money than the campaign has; and he knows too much stuff about Hillary's lies, maybe even far more than we've already learned.

That can't go down well with union members in PA and elsewhere. If you think her lead in PA has fallen a lot in the last two weeks, get ready for some really "precipitous" drops before the primary. I think the Penn non-firing means Obama wins PA, and Hillary quits!

Perhaps she will pull some strings, get Peter Paul out to go back to work for her filling up the campaign coffers?

svreader, is this ok because you like the abuse?

Take off your nipple clamps. It is over now. Relax. Breathe.

MarthaP1 referred to Columbia as the drug capital of the world.

This the kind of dumb, uninformed statement made by Americans that enfuriates Latin Americans. But who are the drug users? The Americans are. What is the biggest illegal drug market? The USA. Is USA supposed to mean The United States of Addicts?

As far as Latin Americans are concerned, Latin America (Bolivia, Peru, Colombia, Mexico, etc.) is only the diving board, but the United States is the swimming pool.

When will the United States and its people muster up sufficient internal fortitude or courage to confront what has gone wrong with the very fabric of US society?

Interdiction has never worked and it never will. The American people have to confront themselves and find out what it is that drives them to drug consumption and get going with education and rehabilitation programs. Why has the "American Way of Life" gone to........... pot?

To MarthaP1 and everyone else who thinks like her on this issue, this is what it looks like "south of the border", all the way down to the tip of South America. Stop pointing fingers southward.

Expatriate in Mexico City

She's still winning the Irish vote today: Clinton is slated to attend the Irish-American Presidential Forum in New York this week.

Posted by: Iowatreasures
___________________________________

Yippee! Hillary for President - of Ireland! When does she leave?

Is FEMA running her campaign?

Every time Obama supporters claim he has "integrity" it makes me want to puke!!!

Chicago Barry Obama is a con-man who only cares about himself.

Obama Supporters --

How can anyone support Barry Obama when he let the poorest of the poor who elected him in Chicago freeze in slums in his district his friend and campaign contributor Rezok got $100M to repair or replace?

Obama knew, but did nothing.

That says everything.

Before you send any more of your, or your parent's, hard earned money to Barry Obama --

Please Watch this report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100M of wasted taxpayer money, from NBC news, Chicago's most respected TV news program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

How do you explain away the fact that Barry Obama never followed up on the 11 slums that his friend Rezko was supposed to repair in Obama's district in Chicago, and continued to do nothing about the 40 slums that Rezko was supposed to repair or replace in Chicago, even after Obama joined the US Senate?

From the Chicago Sun Times:

For more than five weeks during the brutal winter of 1997, tenants shivered without heat in a government-subsidized apartment building on Chicago's South Side.

It was just four years after the landlords -- Antoin "Tony'' Rezko and his partner Daniel Mahru -- had rehabbed the 31-unit building in Englewood with a loan from Chicago taxpayers.

Rezko and Mahru couldn't find money to get the heat back on.

But their company, Rezmar Corp., did come up with $1,000 to give to the political campaign fund of Barack Obama, the newly elected state senator whose district included the unheated building....

The building in Englewood was one of 30 Rezmar rehabbed in a series of troubled deals largely financed by taxpayers. Every project ran into financial difficulty. More than half went into foreclosure, a Chicago Sun-Times investigation has found.

"Their buildings were falling apart,'' said a former city official. "They just didn't pay attention to the condition of these buildings.''

Eleven of Rezko's buildings were in Obama's state Senate district....

Rezko and Mahru had no construction experience when they created Rezmar in 1989 to rehabilitate apartments for the poor under the Daley administration. Between 1989 and 1998, Rezmar made deals to rehab 30 buildings, a total of 1,025 apartments. The last 15 buildings involved Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland during Obama's time with the firm.

Rezko and Mahru also managed the buildings, which were supposed to provide homes for poor people for 30 years. Every one of the projects ran into trouble:

* Seventeen buildings -- many beset with code violations, including a lack of heat -- ended up in foreclosure.

* Six buildings are currently boarded up.

* Hundreds of the apartments are vacant, in need of major repairs.

* Taxpayers have been stuck with millions in unpaid loans.

I imagine Mr. Penn finds some relief in having dived off of the sinking ship Clinton.

Posted by: binkynh | April 6, 2008 07:08 PM
------------------------------------

Right, seems also that he had to know that there would be repercussions behind conducting the meeting and this could actually have been a strategy to bolster his leaving the campaign. He probably thought that the Columbia contract was worth being able to exit. So I sense that this was calculated on Penn's part to be able to "get out of there". There may be a lot that be said about him, I doubt stupid would be a valid description.

By every key objective measure it's becoming laughable this refrain of Clinton's that, if elected, she would be ready to govern the nation as its Chief Executive from day one. Ill-advised personnel appointments at the very highest level---both Campaign Manager and Chief Strategist, staff mis-management (disarray, infighting, finger-pointing), fundraising shortfalls, budget and expense mis-allocation, financial mis-management, short-sighted strategic planning for a protracted primary race---all expose her executive management and decision-making skills (for a campaign she's been planning for years!) as not merely lacking expertise but glaringly deficient, and ironically paling in comparison to those demonstrated by the campaign of her "inexperienced" rival.

Add to these deficiencies her misrepresentations, exaggerations and outright lies, her tendency toward secrecy and non-disclosure, her stubborn, arrogant refusal to acknowledge and take ownership of her mistakes, and her prizing loyalty over competence and Clinton starts to bear a strong resemblance to a certain hapless Chimp -in- Chief.

asja - when you spoke of svrepeater as weighing in, little did you know.

I heard that he still lives at home with his mother, in the locked basement with only his computer, a dozen or so stained copies of Hustler, and his mother's money for pizza and beer. I think I saw that he's "weighing in" at about 350 lbs now.

Is Goolsbee still on OBAMA'S staff????

and how about his foreign affairs advisor who broke into the State Department files????

Or, does he only throw women under his bus...like dear Grandmother??????????????

svreader,
temper, temper, you may blow a gasket - take deep breaths, in - out - in - out - don't want you to have a stroke or heart attack - from the look of all those CAPS.

Well maybe the largest political fund raising movement in history has nothing to do with Barak Obama. It might have something to do with what he is saying about who we need to be and who we can be.

Mark Penn is worse than Karl Rove. There is a difference. Rove would never have done what Penn did.

I don't know who was responsible for Hillary Clinton's lack of a strong, clear message for months on end, but I suppose Penn is a more likely candidate for blame than anyone else. The whole idea of her running as a virtual incumbent, talking about "35 years of experience" and "ready from day one" had very little, if anything, to do with what is important to voters. If one were choosing between a bag of cement and Clinton, then being ready for the job on the first day would be rather important. Most voters assume that the candidates are generally qualified to hold the office, unless they are given strong reason to believe otherwise. We don't hire resumes to be president, we hire people based on their judgment, values and potential for leadership and, probably lastly, their experience. While it is true that Clinton would bring unusual experience to the job, so would many other people, such almost any former presidential aide, people who are never considered for the position.

Clinton needed to come out of the gate showing some passionate reason she should be elected and show the public strong reasons to believe she could accomplish important things for the country. She needed to re-introduce herself as an person independent of her husband. Instead, we got a wall full of slogans without much meaning or value in making a decision as voters.

The Clinton campaign is likely to be studied for decades ahead as a masterpiece of disaster. It is not merely that a younger candidate came on so strong, it is that she left such a gaping opportunity for Obama's candidacy.

Perhaps Mrs. Clinton's biggest error, one that has not been considered widely, was in not making an earlier presidential run in 2004. Had she challenged a sitting president, she could have erased her record on the Iraq war and gained valuable experience, of the important kind, running for president that could have paid off this year. Remember, even Ronald Reagan, who came across as a relaxed natural in campaigns, started running, actively, for president more than 12 years before his election. He was a last minute, wild card candidate in 1968 and a serious contender in 1976, before finally winning the nomination in 1980.

It is clear that Clinton and her campaign staff believed the nomination, and most likely the presidency, was hers for the asking. They tried to run a safe campaign in a year when the voters are fed up with the status quo. Voters this year want not just a change in policies and a new direction for government, they want a sense that the country, as a whole, is changing and moving out of partisan stalemate and international disaster. As they did in 1960 and 1980, they want to find a reason to hope and believe, in themselves and their country. This is the difference, I think, between having a manager, an administrator as president and having a national leader.

Notice how Obama isn't calling a news conference to gloat over the Penn-Clinton-NAFTA?
That's because he has integrity

STDbreeder, it's spelled i-n-t-e-g-r-i-t-y
look up what it means

infuse --

READ THE ARTICLE.

OBAMA'S SWITCHED POSITIONS ON THE WAR FROM FOR, TO AGAINST, TO FOR, TO AGAINST, OVER AND OVER, AT RADIO FREQUENCY RATES!!!!

svreader,
if i could just see one piece of original analysis of an issue from you, i'd stop laughing at you. you're clearly the most light-weight thinker on this forum, and you lower the average substantially every time you weigh in on an issue.

hehehe "svreader |" - grasping at straws - point that finger - point it - when you can't defend your candidate - point your finger at the other guy - yup - that's how we do it... and guess what, it's been done too many times since Texas and Ohio and doesn't work with us anymore - so you need to take approach there.

Hillary didn't know that Penn left her campaign to go to Columbia, for the NAFTA deal?
C'mon, you can't mis-know that

What's all this talk about Obama's guy telling the Canadians that he didn't really mean what he said about Nafta? Ministry officials who have said publicly that BOTH candidates had made such assurances, but Canada's answer to Fox news only reported half the story. That's been an embarrassment to the conservatives because they're being seen as orchestrating a selective leak to help the US Republicans, who are not well liked in Canada, even by many Conservative voters.

whoa!

svreader can write in paragraphs

Obama takes both sides of every issue.

Are you claiming that is race related?

If you are...

THATS REALLY RACIST.

The ditch svrepeater, don't forget the ditch! Hillary helped drive the bus into the ditch. And as Obama said during the debate, once in the ditch, there are only so many ways to get back out of the ditch.

Barack Obama has been steadfast in his opposition to the war. And he also used good judgment trying to find ways to get the bus out of the ditch. But with one of your favorite guys as president, there isn't a way to get past the driver. YET!

I know these last few weeks of Hillary's lies and allowing her staff's healthcare to lapse are getting to you svrepeater. But deep down you must have known all along that she would dump on you too. Any fool could see that coming for months now.

svreader, when Senator Clinton drops from the race, I'm going to go have a nonalcoholic beer and make a toast with my friends. Obama can make his own positions -- the man is a wonk and fundraising superfreak. Obama will be just fine without Hillary.

svreader still doesn't get it he's the laughingstock of WAPO reader forums!

Tap-tap-a-tap and cut and paste yet goes silly svreader.

brewstercounty,
if i were a union worker busting my life every day and faithfully sending Senator Clinton 50 bucks a month to fight this race, I'd be hurt by a lot of things:

[A] She didn't level with the public on NAFTA and White House records show she pushed for it.
[B] Penn has been on Colombia's payroll since 2000/2001, she hasn't leveled with us on when she knew this and is hoping that it will go away because he resigned.

Colombia's Harvard-educated president Uribe is the only foreign president so far to come out and directly attack Obama.

It's weird that he didn't publicly criticize Clinton who has exactly the same "firm opposition" as Obama to this trade deal. In the same week that the news of his ambassador's meeting with Penn broke.

It's also weird that Penn, who was paid $300,000 last year by the Colombians forgot to tell Clinton about such a massive conflict of interest and his clients couldn't figure out if he was speaking for himself or the Clinton campaign.

Either Penn is a really dumb strategist who couldn't so much as start a clearly conflicted meeting with a disclaimer, or someone is lying to us. Given the large number of lobbyists around Washington, sticking with a conflicted relationship like this must have meant that Colombia expected to benefit from Penn's close relationship with Clinton. Penn could only have maintained such a close, risky and conflicted relationship if he thought it was worth the risk.

Someone's lying to us but the MSM seems to lack journalists who can ask questions, even when obvious clues point to possible lying.

Clinton supporters are filling up forum post entries in political news forums with pages and pages of boiler plate racist inciteful propaganda.

Way to represent your candidate!

Hey gang, watch out! Svreader is on a Clinton "cut-and-paste" tear this evening. Guess with the lies being exposed and Penn getting caught double-dealing, svreader realizes it is only a matter of time when Hillary will be dragged off the stage screaming, "I'm supposed to be President! It's MY turn! It's not fair!" and all the other rantings of a lunatic will be heard from her. Just bear with it a little while longer. It will be over soon.

Told you so.

This is all over but the shouting.

Can you imagine poor Bill tonight?
He needs an intern right now. Oh wait.

Earlier svreader said no one cares about his sex life and why Hillary ignored it.
She married him for his mind, he opined.

Well Hillary, better start taking your choices a little more seriously. There are only so many lies upon lies that can be sustained.

INFUSE,
I thought you might appreciate a little taste of Hillary's contempt for the truth so I misquoted Anne's article. Right away I got hypocritical results.

Your reaction is perfect, I made my point.

You asked me:

Do I need to give you that story or are you old enough to look it up for yourself?

YOU NEED TO ASK HILLARY!

Penn disappears. Teller won't breathe a word.

Obama was for the war, before he was against it, before he was for it again...

From "Commentary"

Throughout his dramatic campaign to win his party's nomination for the presidency, Senator Barack Obama has tended to ignore the specifics of policy in favor of the generalities of emotion, centering his appeal to voters on vague promises of "change" and "unity." But on one issue, above all others, Obama has remained fixated from the campaign's first moment, and that is the war in Iraq. By Obama's own account, the consistency of his stand on this war demonstrates more than anything else that he, a one-term United States Senator who arrived in Washington in 2005 with no foreign-policy experience, after an uneventful eight-year stint in the Illinois state senate, possesses the wisdom, the clear-sightedness, and the judgment to assume the responsibilities of the nation's commander-in-chief.

Obama calls Iraq "the most important foreign-policy decision in a generation." By the word "decision," presumably, he means to refer at once to President Bush's decision to invade Iraq, Congress's decision to authorize that policy, and his own early decision to oppose any such action.

Indeed, Obama was not yet in the Senate, and the Senate had not yet voted to authorize the war, when, in a speech delivered in Chicago on October 2, 2002, he announced his view of the matter. Granting forthrightly that the Iraqi despot Saddam Hussein had "repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity," and that he "butchers his own people," Obama nevertheless held that, despite all these well-proven crimes, Saddam posed no "imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors." What is more, he added, "I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."

Nine days later, the Senate passed its resolution granting George Bush the authority to use force to remove Saddam Hussein from power. In the Senate that day were four of Obama's rivals in this year's Democratic contest for the presidency--Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Christopher Dodd, and Joseph Biden--and all four voted in favor.1 A fifth rival, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, also spoke out in support of the war.

Alone among this year's major Democratic candidates, then, Obama can claim an unspotted record of opposition to American involvement in Iraq and even a kind of prescience as to the subsequent course of events there. In any account of his electoral success so far, this factor must weigh as heavily as his natural eloquence and his ingratiating personality.

But Obama's thoughts on the war in Iraq did not begin and end with that one speech in October 2002. In fact, an examination of both his statements and his Senate votes over the intervening years demonstrates something very different from the consistency that he and his supporters have claimed for him. It demonstrates instead a record of problematically ad-hoc judgments at best, calculatingly cynical judgments at worst. Even if, for the sake of argument, one were to stipulate that Barack Obama was right in 2002, what does this subsequent record say about his fitness to serve?

_____________

Almost as soon as the war began in March 2003, Obama had second thoughts about his opposition to it. Watching the dramatic footage of the toppling of Saddam's statue in Baghdad, and then the President's speech aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, "I began to suspect," he would write later in his autobiographical The Audacity of Hope (2006), "that I might have been wrong." And these second thoughts seem to have stayed with him throughout the entire first phase of the occupation following our initial combat victory. As he told the Chicago Tribune in July 2004, "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage."

This is hardly to say that he had suddenly metamorphosed into a hawk, let alone a supporter of the President's broader freedom agenda. Indeed, one would search long and hard for any words from this apostle of hope and change about the palpable benefits that democracy might bring to the Arabs and Muslims of the Middle East. Rather, he seems to have sensed a political weakness in his blanket opposition to a venture still enjoying broad support in the country, and one in which tens of thousands of American soldiers were risking their lives.

And so, in September 2004, in the heat of his campaign for the U.S. Senate, Obama said (according to an AP report) that even though Bush had "bungled his handling of the war," simply pulling out of Iraq "would make things worse." Therefore, he himself

would be willing to send more soldiers to Iraq if it is part of a strategy that the President and military leaders believe will stabilize the country and eventually allow America to withdraw.

"If that strategy made sense and would lead ultimately to the pullout of U.S. troops but in the short term required additional troop strength to protect those who are already on the ground, then that's something I would support," said Obama.

In November, having won election to the U.S. Senate, Obama once again confirmed his determination to stay the course in Iraq in an interview with PBS's Charlie Rose. "Once we go in, then we're committed," he said, adding:

[O]nce the decision was made, then we've got to do everything we can to stabilize the country, to make it successful, because we'll have too much at stake in the Middle East. And that's the position that I continue to take.
Indeed it was--for about a year. During that time, Obama delivered only one major speech on Iraq, in November 2005. At that point the situation on the ground was still very rocky and showing few if any signs of material improvement, and there was much talk of "exit strategies" in the air. But most liberal critics of the war (outside the rabid Left) were still not quite ready to cut and run. Accordingly, while reiterating that he had strongly opposed the Iraq war before it began, Obama also re-stated his belief that, having gone in, we had an obligation to "manage our exit in a responsible way--with the hope of leaving a stable foundation for the future, but at the very least taking care not to plunge the country into an even deeper and, perhaps, irreparable crisis."

How were we to accomplish that? The answer was: slowly but surely. In the months to come, Obama said, "we need to focus our attention on how to reduce the U.S. military footprint in Iraq. Notice that I say 'reduce,' and not 'fully withdraw.'" With a hint of greater specificity, he elaborated in January 2006 that "we have a role to play in stabilizing the country as Iraqis are getting their act together."

Presumably what Obama was referring to here was the strategy of training indigenous Iraqi forces to "stand up" so that we could "stand down." This was the same view of the military situation held by other critics of the Bush administration--and by the administration itself, which was in the process of trying to implement just that strategy.2 But as conditions in Iraq worsened over the course of 2006 and polls registered lower and lower levels of support for the President and the war--and as he himself was nearing a decision to run for the presidency--Obama's position shifted again, markedly so.

On October 22, 2006, Obama proclaimed the urgent necessity for "all the leadership in Washington to execute a serious change of course in Iraq." That change was decidedly not in the direction of stepping up our war effort by sending additional troops--a shift advocated by some conservative critics of administration policy and at that point being seriously considered by the White House and the Pentagon. Quite the contrary: the change Obama had in mind was to initiate, as quickly as possible, a "phased withdrawal" from Iraq. There was to be no more talk from him about leaving a "stabilized" situation. Nor, for Obama, was the issue debatable. His latest predictive judgment was that "We cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve."

_____________

On January 10, 2007, Bush announced the administration's change in strategy in Iraq, popularly dubbed the "surge." That very night, Obama declared he saw nothing in the plan that would "make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that's taking place there." A week later, he repeated the point emphatically: the surge strategy would "not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly." Later in the same month, he summed up in these words his impression of the hearings on the new strategy held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: "What was striking to me, in listening to all the testimony that was provided, was the almost near-unanimity that the President's strategy will not work."

Whatever he was listening to, it could not have been "all the testimony." But the main point is that, within a mere matter of weeks, Obama had moved to align himself with the most extreme critics of the war. This re-positioning coincided with the announcement of his presidential candidacy on February 10, 2007. "It's time to start bringing our troops home," Obama said forcefully as he launched his run. "That's why I have a plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008."

In May 2007, Obama did something he had never done previously: he voted in the Senate against funding for combat operations, claiming as a reason the fact that the bill included no timeline for troop withdrawal. As the campaign season intensified, his position hardened still more. In September, a mere three months after the final elements of the 30,000-strong surge forces had landed in Iraq, he declared that the moment had arrived to remove all of our combat troops "immediately." "Not in six months or one year--now."

By then, though, a fairly substantial drop in violence was already discernible in Iraq. Without exactly denying this fact, Obama insisted that it had nothing to do with the surge, a point he repeated incessantly during the early months of 2008. In a presidential debate in January, for example, he claimed the reduction in violence was due not to increased American military action but to the attention paid by Iraqi insurgents and al-Qaeda terrorists to the results of America's midterm elections in November 2006, when control of Congress passed to the Democrats:

Much of that violence has been reduced because there was an agreement with tribes in Anbar province, Sunni tribes, who started to see, after the Democrats were elected in 2006, you know what?--the Americans may be leaving soon. And we are going to be left very vulnerable to the Shiites. We should start negotiating now.
This was an astonishing statement on several counts. For one thing, the "Anbar Awakening"--in which Sunni tribes formerly allied with al Qaeda in Iraq turned on the foreign terrorists who had been making their lives a repressive hell--preceded the midterm election by several months. It had no connection with American electoral cycles and every connection with the brutality of al Qaeda (as internal al-Qaeda communications frankly conceded). For another thing, the prospect of a precipitous American retreat, far from helping along the chances of a negotiated political settlement between warring Iraqi factions, would almost certainly have created the opposite effect, reinvigorating the murderous hopes of the terrorist forces lately on the run and thereby undoing the Awakening altogether. Nor, incidentally, have those forces ever troubled themselves to discriminate between Sunni and Shiite in their frenzied determination to seize control. Finally, the sheikhs of Anbar have themselves testified to the crucially fortifying effect of the U.S. offensive against al Qaeda in Iraq, and there is no reason to doubt their word.

Obama's corkscrew logic would take an even more bizarre twist in February of this year when Tim Russert of NBC News asked him if, as President, he would reserve the right to go back into Iraq with sizable forces if the American withdrawal he advocated should end by introducing even greater mayhem. Previously Obama had asserted categorically that, on his watch, no permanent American bases would be left in Iraq and that the few American troops remaining there would have only a very limited mission: to protect our embassy and our diplomatic corps and to engage in counterterrorism. But in his answer to Russert he now broadened his options:

As commander-in-chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad.
To wonted illogic this added both ignorance and disingenuousness. By his statement Obama may have intended to project a certain tough-mindedness in dealing with new threats, but as Senator John McCain pointed out in a devastating riposte, al Qaeda is already in Iraq. That is why its forces there are called "al Qaeda in Iraq" (or, to use the terrorist organization's own nomenclature, "al Qaeda in Meso-potamia"). What is more, if Obama had had his way in 2007, our troops would have been out of Iraq by March of this year, leaving it naked to its enemies. If we were to withdraw them in the early months of an Obama presidency, al Qaeda in Iraq could be counted on not only to form "a base" but to take over large swaths of the country. Having overseen such a withdrawal, and having thereby unraveled all the gains of the surge, Obama would face the prospect of ordering them to return under far more treacherous conditions of his own making.

_____________

To say that Senator Obama has not thought through the implications of his vertiginously shifting positions is to err on the side of charity; in fact they give every appearance of having been adopted without any systematic thought whatsoever. The same, unfortunately, can be said for the other main pillar of his position on Iraq. This is that the way to bring stability to that country is not by winning the war in the first place but rather by striking a "new compact in the region"--one that will include all of Iraq's neighbors, including Syria and Iran. Such a compact, he says, will "secure Iraq's borders, keep neighbors from meddling, isolate al Qaeda, and support Iraq's unity."

Never mind that Syria and Iran have spent the past years doing everything in their power to violate Iraq's borders, meddle in its affairs, arm and support the factions that have been killing Iraqis and American troops alike, and fracture its unity. To Obama, all this murderous activity is but the understandable reaction of frustrated governments to the policies of George Bush (and, although he does not say so, every single one of his predecessors going back decades). By contrast, if he himself were elected President, both Iran and Syria would utterly reverse direction.

Obama's unlimited faith in diplomacy as a means of resolving deep-seated differences among nation-states is not exclusive to the Middle East. When asked if, during the first year of his presidency, he would meet individually and without precondition with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea, he replied: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them . . . is ridiculous." So enamored is he of this pledge that he has re-stated it regularly in the course of the campaign. Whenever he is asked how he would address a thorny foreign-policy issue, he invokes the need for diplomacy--first, last, and always.

The columnist Charles Krauthammer once characterized this disposition as the "broken-telephone theory of international conflict"--i.e., the belief that if nations fail to get along, the fault is to be found in some misunderstanding, some misperception, some problem of communication that can be cleared up by "talking." In Obama's case, the syndrome is compounded by unfeigned confidence in the power of his own personal charm to bridge whatever differences may separate us from those who hate us.

Thus, when it comes specifically to Iraq and its implacably hostile neighbors, he refuses even