When he wrote: "... She's also the lone woman in the race ..." I I think he had in his mind this sentence too: "Obama is the lone non-white!"

Is he trying to get the support for Hillary from the "white supremacist" mentality which he thinks still embeded in the white American?

Duh!

Obama won double winning this time over Hilary: the number of money and voters. Especially the second one: the number of voters! You can win anything, but if you can't get the voters, so what will you get? Be realistic and own to earth!

Obama is not the front runner, but he is the winner in Democrat race. Since he is going to have supporters from Relublic also, so he is surely the next president of the US.

Can anyone tell me one policy or stance hillary has taken? I am a huge Obama supporter and get asked all the time how he is different than Hillary. I have researched all I can and have not found one solid or substantial piece of information that details what she would actually do as president.

JimD, who like me thinks that Biden, Richardson, and Dodd are the experienced hands on the D side, wrote a note to point out that Obama could surprise because of his personal appeal, and added that he did not favor HRC (7-2, 9:10a). On 7-6, "Spence", claiming to support Obama, wrote 8 angry posts saying JimD's comment made him "want to vomit".

How to win friends and influence people...

Don't be fooled by the polls. I am actively volunteering for Obama. I have gone door to door canvassing, in the heat of Las Vegas!!! There are some who say they are for Hillary and there are some who say they are for Obama. But most voters are undecided. At this point they are trying to decide between Obama and Clinton. Many of these undecided voters want to see a true change, not a recylcing of a past administration.

There's still six months to our Caucus and in that time, Obama's grassroot supporters will continue to work on getting the votes of the Undecided voters. Obama will win in Nevada.

SAY WHAT ?!! JimD's uneducated comment, expressing concern/s about Mr. Obama's lack of experience make me want to vomit.
Folks that write in, do the blog thing, acting smart while ignorant of facts. To whit: Mr. O has approx. 12 years of germane experience, approx. half again more
than Ms. C's. As a constitutioanl lawyer, having "been there (i.e. in the real life trenches), done that," Mr. O is the most
"experienced" of all candidates. Duh.

SAY WHAT ?!! JimD's uneducated comment, expressing concern/s about Mr. Obama's lack of experience make me want to vomit.
Folks that write in, do the blog thing, acting smart while ignorant of facts. To whit: Mr. O has approx. 12 years of germane experience, approx. half again more
than Ms. C's. As a constitutioanl lawyer, having "been there (i.e. in the real life trenches), done that," Mr. O is the most
"experienced" of all candidates. Duh.

SAY WHAT ?!! JimD's uneducated comment, expressing concern/s about Mr. Obama's lack of experience make me want to vomit.
Folks that write in, do the blog thing, acting smart while ignorant of facts. To whit: Mr. O has approx. 12 years of germane experience, approx. half again more
than Ms. C's. As a constitutioanl lawyer, having "been there (i.e. in the real life trenches), done that," Mr. O is the most
"experienced" of all candidates. Duh.

SAY WHAT ?!! JimD's uneducated comment, expressing concern/s about Mr. Obama's lack of experience make me want to vomit.
Folks that write in, do the blog thing, acting smart while ignorant of facts. To whit: Mr. O has approx. 12 years of germane experience, approx. half again more
than Ms. C's. As a constitutioanl lawyer, having "been there (i.e. in the real life trenches), done that," Mr. O is the most
"experienced" of all candidates. Duh.

SAY WHAT ?!! JimD's uneducated comment, expressing concern/s about Mr. Obama's lack of experience make me want to vomit.
Folks that write in, do the blog thing, acting smart while ignorant of facts. To whit: Mr. O has approx. 12 years of germane experience, approx. half again more
than Ms. C's. As a constitutioanl lawyer, having "been there (i.e. in the real life trenches), done that," Mr. O is the most
"experienced" of all candidates. Duh.

SAY WHAT ?!! JimD's uneducated comment, expressing concern/s about Mr. Obama's lack of experience make me want to vomit.
Folks that write in, do the blog thing, acting smart while ignorant of facts. To whit: Mr. O has approx. 12 years of germane experience, approx. half again more
than Ms. C's. As a constitutioanl lawyer, having "been there (i.e. in the real life trenches), done that," Mr. O is the most
"experienced" of all candidates. Duh.

SAY WHAT ?!! JimD's uneducated comment, expressing concern/s about Mr. Obama's lack of experience make me want to vomit.
Folks that write in, do the blog thing, acting smart while ignorant of facts. To whit: Mr. O has approx. 12 years of germane experience, approx. half again more
than Ms. C's. As a constitutioanl lawyer, having "been there (i.e. in the real life trenches), done that," Mr. O is the most
"experienced" of all candidates. Duh.

SAY WHAT ?!! JimD's uneducated comment, expressing concern/s about Mr. Obama's lack of experience make me want to vomit.
Folks that write in, do the blog thing, acting smart while ignorant of facts. To whit: Mr. O has approx. 12 years of germane experience, approx. half again more
than Ms. C's. As a constitutioanl lawyer, having "been there (i.e. in the real life trenches), done that," Mr. O is the most
"experienced" of all candidates. Duh.

Well said Rich. ALL power BACK to the PEOPLE

When you analyze Clinton vs. Obama, you are seeing the clear distinction between the top down campaign of Clinton vs. a grass-roots populist campaign of Obama. Polls do not well gauge the depth of support for the candidate. The paradox for Clinton is that she needs money to perpetuate her goals to citizens who only need to be convinced to vote for her on primary day and then go back to their non-political lives. With Obama, he will have the strength of an army of volunteers knocking on their neighbors doors out of the passion of their commitment to the campaign. On top of that, he will be able to at least match Hillary's ad budget, thus neutralizing her main strategy, to have a war chest that scares away serious competition.

I don't see how polling can measure Obama's grassroots strength at this early point in the race. The money picture gives us a clue how strong his support will be when the electorate is ready to pay attention. Until then, I think you could judge Obama's strength as "Run silent, run deep."

the anit-hillary republican push is generated by rush/hannity/fox news. it is generated to be anti-them. they really are going to vote for her. It's a lie. She's a republican. Wthout bill Clinton's issues would would tony snow and the repubs point to. Why should bush not charged for his crimes? " clinton did this or that." Now what if the clintons are republicans? then what do you have? As of now they are not dems. They are moderate republicnas, now.

""All U.S. presidents since 1989 have been Yale graduates, namely George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton (who attended the University's Law School along with his wife, New York Senator Hillary Clinton), and George W. Bush, and Vice President Dick Cheney, (although he did not graduate). Many of the 2004 presidential candidates attended Yale: Bush, John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Joe Lieberman.

Other Yale-educated presidents were William Howard Taft (B.A.) and Gerald Ford (LL.B). Alumni also include several Supreme Court justices, including current Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito."

Money that would otherwise have gone toward the ideal Republican (the candidate that they haven't got yet) is going to Obama in small, effectively anonymous internet donations in an attempt to create as much havoc for HRC as possible."

so your telling these people that Obama's claim that he is for change is a lie? What is he changing? The republican culture of lawlessness. The corruption culture. So he's agaisnt everythign the repubs have been for the last TEN plus years.ANd the republicans are giving him money for this?

I doubt it. He is getting money form me, and people like me. Grass roots liberals. Good try. But it is either a lie, or you are misinformed IB

Consider this conspiracy theory:

The Republicans desperately want to knock HRC off the block in the primarys, believing that any other Democrat would be easier to beat in the General Election (particularly Obama).

Money that would otherwise have gone toward the ideal Republican (the candidate that they haven't got yet) is going to Obama in small, effectively anonymous internet donations in an attempt to create as much havoc for HRC as possible.

In this way they buy time to get Fred Thompson (or whomever) up and running as a candidate while preventing HRC from building the kind of momentum that would carry her and the other Democrats running for Senate/Congress from January right through another overwhelming national victory in November.

Why not?

Bush 41 and clinton also toured the wrold for a year or so togher. Wrong people at the wrong time, for me anyway. I'm telling everyone Hillary is a fraud. HEr as the dem candidate is reb vs reb. That is their only chance.

I hope an ondependant comes and blows them all out of the water. Or better yet. Obama as an independant

WOW brad. Read up

"Murdoch is the symbol of media conglomeration and the owner of Republican mouthpieces like Fox News, Weekly Standard and the New York Post. He and Hillary have lately conducted a public courtship. Last month, Hillary attended the 10th anniversary party for Fox News in Washington, where the presidential contender schmoozed Murdoch and Fox chair Roger Ailes. According to the Financial Times, Bill Clinton will address the summer conference of Murdoch's media colossus, News Corp. "

"It's actually quite fitting that President Clinton address News Corp, since he helped build that conglomerate -- through his Telecommunications "Reform" Act of 1996, a corrupt measure largely drafted by lobbyists for the media industry as they lavished campaign cash on politicians of both parties. The law loosened regulations constraining News Corp's growth and raised caps on how many TV stations Murdoch and others could own. Murdoch immediately bought up new stations. Clear Channel expanded from 40 radio stations to 1,200; rightwing Sinclair Broadcasting expanded from 11 TV stations to 60. "

"Former Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton Help Dedicate New Billy Graham Library in Charlotte
May 31: Private Dedication Ceremony Planned (Open to Media)

June 5: Scheduled to Open to the Public

Contact: Jeremy Blume, 404-538-8589 cell

CHARLOTTE, N.C., May 3 /Standard Newswire/ -- Family, friends, and former presidents will be among the guests joining Billy Graham in Charlotte to help dedicate the new Billy Graham Library May 31 at 2 p.m.

The 40,000-square-foot Library depicts the life of evangelist Billy Graham and rather than simply serving as a memorial, is designed to inspire visitors as part of the ongoing outreach of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA). Located on the grounds of the organization's international headquarters, the Library is designed to resemble a barn, recalling Graham's childhood on the family dairy farm in Charlotte. It will house six exhibits, four galleries, and two theaters, covering the span of Graham's lifetime work on six continents speaking to more than 210 million people. The Library will also be the repository for Graham's personal papers, including his correspondence and sermon manuscripts."

As opposed to Obama who removed himself from the fox debate because "they'r enot news"

Please stop propogating lies brad. You can't win. Lies can never beat truth. Ever. It's impossible

I believe everyone is over looking the obvious..Obama is the reciepient of alot of Republican cash.. The republicans want Obama on the ticket. This would enhance their chance of winning the election. Hillary is probably the one with mostly Democratic contributions.

This month Obama will contrast himself. Fox "News" is raising money for Hildog this month. As opposed to Obama (edawrds) Removing himself from the CB FOx debate becuase they're not real news. They are US weekly and should be treated accordingly. Hillary is getting closer to Bush and her yale ties. Obama is distancing himself from them.

"All U.S. presidents since 1989 have been Yale graduates, namely George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton (who attended the University's Law School along with his wife, New York Senator Hillary Clinton), and George W. Bush, and Vice President Dick Cheney, (although he did not graduate). Many of the 2004 presidential candidates attended Yale: Bush, John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Joe Lieberman.

Other Yale-educated presidents were William Howard Taft (B.A.) and Gerald Ford (LL.B). Alumni also include several Supreme Court justices, including current Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito."

This is just a note that Obama had some interesting comments in the press today. Broadly he argues that he is the candidate most capable of bridging divisions and bringing about the changes that people want. He also addresses the issue of his experience, suggesting it is a virtue that much of his experience has been outside of Washington. Most interesting, perhaps, is that he basically took on the Bill Factor, praising the former President but arguing that people want to move forward and not return to the partisanship of that era.

So, I think we are beginning to see a bit more clearly how he intends to contrast himself with Hillary Clinton.

Read both of Obama's books and can't understand why he is not doing better in the debates. Maybe he needs to memorize passages and use them.
Obama does not seem to be going for the brass ring during the debates, it's more like he is trying out for runner-up, or for the vice-president's spot.
But can't imagine that the Democrats are going to pair two "firsts" as a ticket.

Read both of Obama's books and can't understand why he is not doing better in the debates. Maybe he needs to memorize passages and use them.
Obama does not seem to be going for the brass ring during the debates, it's more like he is trying out for runner-up, or for the vice-president's spot.
But can't imagine that the Democrats are going to pair two "firsts" as a ticket.

I thought there was no way Obama could outraise Clinton in 2 straight cycles, and I was wrong. Wow! He outraised her handily this go around. It's impressive. He now has the key to set the stage in spending in the early states in this primary and can use that to his advantage. He's in good shape.

Clinton is the proposed front runner and any early loss for her, including these fundraising battles, shakes her foundation of frontrunner. Edwards is putting everything he has into winning Iowa, which he's doing. An Edward's win in Iowa truly would make this primary very competitive. Of the top 4 states, Obama has a great shot of winning in South Carolina, with the black population there. Clinton has New Hampshire won, I think. But, with a 3 way split plus a competitive Nevada...it could be a long and drawn out Democratic primary. Especially with the democratic rules of giving some votes based on %'s.

"You know, when I used to live in Bonn, there was AFN (American Forces Network) on the airwaves. They broadcast the Rush Limbaugh Show. I couldn't believe someone would be allowed to spew the vilest rhetoric on a public-financed radio station! I was even more shocked to later learn that such talk-show hosts have considerable political influence. We just don't have that sort of thing here in Germany. Thank heavens.

People such as Limbaugh have poisoned US political discourse. I'd say that much of US mass media is decent enough (though weak on international affairs and overly driven by the hectic 24/7 news cycle). It's the whacky fringe (which includes Fox News, IMO), which has spoilt the political debate culture."

Thanks for that charles. I don't understand it at all either. Their time is almost up. We have senators standing up now. Nothing will happen while bush is president (of course). But their time is almost up. Rush/Sean hannity/Bill O'Reilly ARE the conservative movement. It feeds off them, it needes them. Without the conservatives avatars their fascist movement is done. We got a few months left of this garbage. Then they are gone.

SO THE ALLEGED NEWS SAYS THAT MR. OBAMA HAS RAISED A RECORD AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR HIS CAMPAIGN. SHOULDN'T HIS VIEWS AND HIS PLATFORM BE THE PRIMARY ISSUE?

SO THE ALLEGED NEWS SAYS THAT MR. OBAMA HAS RAISED A RECORD AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR HIS CAMPAIGN. SHOULDN'T HIS VIEWS AND HIS PLATFORM BE THE PRIMARY ISSUE?

This is kind of interesting. I have been looking through Hillary's financials and find that Bill Clinton is a paid consultant (to the tune of millions) for the company that does CNN's polling.

Seriously. Bill Clinton is a paid consultant for "Info USA" (page 6, line 6) which is a mass mailing company owned by Clinton Friend Vinod Gupta. "Info USA" in turn owns "Opinion Research Corporation" (bought in Aug '06) which is CNN's polling company.

I guess that is one way to get ahead in the polls!

Let me respond to a number of comments made above:

----

ProudtobeGOP disagreeing with my view that McCain being himself often his worst enemy:

>>>I couldn't disagree more. John McCain is THE most consistent candidate, nay politician, in America today.

He's a politicians with principles. As I said I respect him and would welcome him winning his party's nomination. (Though I was equally impressed by a thoughtful interview Brownback once gave to the BBC World Service I listened to (not about presidential politics, iirc). But I don't know enough about Brownback to - hehe - endorse him.)

>>> The quote you referenced was taken waaay out of context by the MSM

Proud, care to explain? I believe I just saw that youtube video and read the odd news story about it. I cannot recall any mitigating circumstances.

>>> and like the Senator said, who are we worrying about offending? Iran? The terrorist-sponsoring state with a madman dictator intent on accelerating the apocalypse?

WOW. He said that? I'm disappointed. Doesn't he understand that such gratuitous anti-Iranian rhetoric serves Ahmenidijad (sp?) as a rallying point at a time his government is getting ever more unpopular? The Iranian president must surely be grateful for the Arizona senator providing him with free propaganda ammo!

Iran is not a monolithic country! The West needs to win the hearts and minds of Iranians and encourage the reform movement present in Iran. Bellicose anti-Iranian ditties undermine that cause.

In the past, I would have thought McCain would understand that. Apparently, he needs to take another look at Diplomacy 101.

His "Bomb Iran" joke was most unhelpful, boneheaded and shows a lack of discipline worrysome in someone who seeks the most important office on earth after the papacy.

Just not smart, to say the least... I wish more US politicians would live abroad for some time... That'd be invaluable experience.

His failure to apologize for it strikes me as even worse. I REALLY regret having to say this, Proud. I like him, but I'm getting ever more doubtful about him being true presidential material.

>>> The R social cons are his worst enemy, because of his proncipled stand on legislative reform and his courage in doing what he believes is right for the country.

Kudos to McCain for that.

------------

Rufus:

>>> Thank you for your opinion Charles. It's always good to get outside opinions. Thank you for you interest and posts. Good luck to you.

Thanks, Rufus.

>>>If the election goes south I may be forced to flee the country. I may end up out there with my kinfolk :) Thanks again

Come to Berlin. A great city. We have plenty US ex-patriates here. Hey, we now even have a local NPR FM station! :)

>>> Don't worry about the attacks. It's a part of life here. Daily Propoganda lies and misdirection.

You know, when I used to live in Bonn, there was AFN (American Forces Network) on the airwaves. They broadcast the Rush Limbaugh Show. I couldn't believe someone would be allowed to spew the vilest rhetoric on a public-financed radio station! I was even more shocked to later learn that such talk-show hosts have considerable political influence. We just don't have that sort of thing here in Germany. Thank heavens.

People such as Limbaugh have poisoned US political discourse. I'd say that much of US mass media is decent enough (though weak on international affairs and overly driven by the hectic 24/7 news cycle). It's the whacky fringe (which includes Fox News, IMO), which has spoilt the political debate culture.

---------

Drindl:

>>> Charles in Berlin, I do agree with your take on a lot of stuff. As for 'conservatism' in the US -- it no longer exists.

It's at least having a hard time getting heard within the GOP. I wonder whether the GOP will go down the drains for the next decade or so, much like the British Tories (widely perceived as "nasty" and "sleazy") did.

By comparison, continental Christian-Democratic parties have flourished. I think there's a great difference between the pro-establishment Burkean/Thatcherite Anglo-Saxon brand of conservatism and continental christian-democracy, which - drawing considerably from the historical Catholic social movement - very much fits the "compassionate conservatism" bill, IMO.

Okay, I hope I'm not getting too tiresome touting the continental/German model in regards to political culture. I just am happier how things are over here. That said, there are plenty of things I believe you do a whole lot better over in the States. But that's a whole different debate thread...

-------

Sarah:

>>> You see, Charles in Berlin? You see the 'conservatives' in this country? They applaud when a lawyer lies to a court. They want a convicted felon set free.

Sarah, I certainly think it's yet another low-point of this US administration. I guess they thought they could afford it since the Bush administration can hardly go any lower in its approval ratings.

What shocked me a lot more was that Republicans outside the Bush administration have equally championed Libby's cause. For instance, Fred Thompson - Mr. Law & Order?!? Perhaps he should have been cast for the "Sopranos" instead. :p (Although I admit to sheer ignorance here. I've never seen either show. Not much a fan of US TV shows.)

KOZ & Proud -- actually, the CIA has confirmed that Plame was covert when her identity was revealed.

"On March 16, 2007, at these hearings about the disclosure, Chairman Henry Waxman read a statement about Plame's CIA career that had been cleared by CIA director Gen. Michael V. Hayden and the CIA:
During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was under cover.

Her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.

At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert.

This was classified information..."

See ^ "Statement of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, Chairman"PDF (156 KiB), "Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Hearing on Disclosure of CIA Agent Valerie Plame Wilson's ldentity and White House Procedures for Safeguarding Classified Information", online posting, U.S. House Committee on Government Reform, oversight.house.gov, March 16, 2007: 2, accessed March 19, 2007

"Many of the lower educated minority and Hispanic women who form the base of Hillary's support have not even heard of Barack Obama now."

This is an interesting point, given that last December, Clinton was ahead with Hispanics of both genders (and indeed of blacks of both genders, which is no longer the case). Could it be that male Hispanics talk about politics more than female Hispanics, and so the males are now more familiar with both candidates than they were in December or than the females are now? If so, we can expect female Hispanics to change their preferences later, as Robert Morrow predicts.

HILLARY SITS IN A PRECARIOUS POSITION

Many of the lower educated minority and Hispanic women who form the base of Hillary's support have not even heard of Barack Obama now. They sure will in about 4-5 months will all the money he has, especially if he wins an early primary or two; Obama will be able to give these lowere educated ladies an attractive choice to Nurse Ratched.
There are 2 Democratic primaries: the primary of the elites and fund raisers which is going on now and 2) the real primary which occurs next Jan. and February. Obama is kicking Hillary's tail in the primary of the elites (31M to 21M in primary money; tons more small contributors). Those small contributors vote, by the way, and they also volunteer for campaigns. Also, Hillary is hated on the internet by both the right AND left wing. Hillary purely the "establishment" candidate; the Clintons have lost touch with grassroots which can be fatal if you don't have an overwhelming financial advantage. Double fatal if your attractive, personal candidate raises more than you.
Hillary's support is broad, but it is not deep and not passionate. It is not a tidal wave; think of it as a mile of 3 inch deep water. She is raising money out of fear. Obama is raising money out of love.
The key number to watch at www.intrade.com is 40% - if Hillary drops below it OR Obama goes above it, that will be big news.

proudtobeGOP--"All this liberal whining is so predictable as to be absurd. Libby IS being punished. He will have a felony record going forward, probably lose his law license, can't vote, can't own a firearm, he's on 2 years of probation and has to pay a quarter of a million dollars."

Except his legal defence fund already has millions of dollars. And he will be--guaranteed--in a cushy GOP job as soon as the dust settles, within four months. All these people cheering him on, they would probably have no qualms employing him, or do you disagree?

"I'd say that's a reasonable punishment for someone who was the victim of prosecutorial misconduct after Fizgerald found out that Armitage was, in fact, the leaker, and yet continued to prosecute Scooter."

Fitzgerald acted perfectly correctly. Lying and obstruction is punishable.

Do you know how many people are currently jailed for perjury, lying to the FBI (or another federal agency) or obstruction of justice? Should they all be set free, too?

"Please do not use the words of Maritn Luther King,gopie, a man your party wanted to assasinate. You are filth; you soil his memory."

they may have succeded. We don't know. The gop has it's secrets. Many murders that we don't know. They have used false falg terrorism many times since the 50's. Who knows about King/X/Kenneddy.

"Please do not use the words of Maritn Luther King,gopie, a man your party wanted to assasinate. You are filth; you soil his memory."

Word is born. Spying on him illegally. What else is new. John Lennon.

Fascists. This used to be a country of laws. Let's ship these traitors to austrailia

a democratic socialist, excuse me.

I don't believe in corporate slavery. I don't believe in ALL americans paying taxs and rather than that going to the people it goes over seas or in the pockets of the top %5.

Our taxes should directly beneifit AMERICANS. Not iraq's or mexicans.

"rufus -You scoff at patriotism; since you are an admitted communist, I am not surprised. Consider this...everybody must determine what they are willing to die for. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "A man who won't die for something is not fit to live."

I said patriotism is the cruth of the weak. I never said I wasn't a patriot. I never said we done need patriot's. I said if that's all you rely on , AS OPPOSED TO FACTS/morales/values/individuality/your own eyes, then you are weak minded.

Anybody can CLAIM to BE a patriot. The prove is in the puddin. A patriot would never allow their country to be gutted from the top down. I patriot would nver trade the blood of other patriot's dying for their country for one dollar. That is what I'm saying. Don't mix up my words. Do your thing I'll do mine.

And I'm a socialist you fascist :)

That is a dream.

I have a dream - of a day when a Lib will make sense.

Here's a beautiful piece by an esteemed and objective journalist from a most respectable British paper on the portrayal of the Obama campaign in the American media. More confirmation why I came down hard on the media in my earlier post. We were right Obamites. Read this and spread the word. This is coming from an insider journalist who knows how the American media has joined forces with the political establishment to impact our political process. We're lucky we contributed money towards the Obama campaign so he was able to beat Hillary again for the second quarter. If Hillary had raised more money than Obama this second quarter, it'd have been the final nail on his coffin. The media would have effectively closed the door on his campaign. Thank God we have the internet, we can beat them at their own game. DO NOT RELENT, WE HAVE TO KEEP FIGHTING TO GET WHAT WE WANT! SUPPORT however you can. It's not insignificant!!

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/michael_tomasky/2007/07/obamas_amazing_haul.html

Please do not use the words of Maritn Luther King,gopie, a man your party wanted to assasinate. You are filth; you soil his memory.

Here's a beautiful piece by an esteemed and objective journalist from a most respectable British paper on the portrayal of the Obama campaign in the American media. More confirmation why I came down hard on the media in my earlier post. We were right Obamites. Read this and spread the word. This is coming from an insider journalist who knows how the American media has joined forces with the political establishment to impact our political process. We're lucky we contributed money towards the Obama campaign so he was able to beat Hillary again for the second quarter. If Hillary had raised more money than Obama this second quarter, it'd have been the final nail on his coffin. The media would have effectively closed the door on his campaign. Thank God we have the internet, we can beat them at their own game. DO NOT RELENT, WE HAVE TO KEEP FIGHTING TO GET WHAT WE WANT! SUPPORT however you can. It's not insignificant!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/politics/

Hey, I think somebody should kill Ann Coulter. Just joking.

rufus -You scoff at patriotism; since you are an admitted communist, I am not surprised. Consider this...everybody must determine what they are willing to die for. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "A man who won't die for something is not fit to live."

Our country was established because our founding fathers were willing to die to establish this great country of ours. What cause is noble and honorable enough to die for? Perhaps, protecting these patriotic virtues. Or, defending your family and friends from harm. This is something that is very personal and not to be taken lightly.

One man with courage is a majority.
- Thomas Jefferson

Colin, do you have experience with criminal appeals? If you do, can you rate the probability of success of the Libby argument that the special prosecutor, under the current authorization, exceeded his jurisdiction?

If I were on the Federal bench I would usually give non-violent offenders facing less than five year sentences bail pending appeal, if it were in my power to do so. Obviously, I would do this so that if their appeal was successful they would not have served "non-refundable" time. This Judge has a record as a hard-nose, however, so while I disagree with his one-size fits-all-sentencing-and-that-size-is- - - mucho grande, he has to get points for treating Libby as shabbily as he treats everyone else.

I am going to guess that the motive for the commutation goes no deeper than GWB's valuing personal loyalty above everything, even above political good sense. There is nothing in this story that makes for high drama, but the Rs who wanted him pardoned look hypocritical at best, while the Ds lamenting clemency have cranked the volume so high that they will regret this, tit-for-tat, in some as yet unknown future confrontation.

Back to my first question. If Bush's legal team has told GWB that Libby is likely to prevail on appeal, I give Bush a pass on the commutation. I do not think that happened, but I speak without any Federal criminal experience since we abandoned court appointments in Austin for a Fed PD system, @1990.

AAAHGHGHGGHHGH

Colin, Sarah: If you can somehow force a liberal into a point-counterpoint argument, his retorts will bear no relation to what you've said -- unless you were in fact talking about your looks, your age, your weight, your personal obsessions, or whether you are a fascist.

In the famous liberal two-step, they leap from one idiotic point to the next, so you can never nail them. It's like arguing with someone with Attention Deficit Disorder.

Thanks for the on point posts, by the way sarah

What's the saying Sarah? "Patriotism is the crutch of the weak minded."

Something like that.

'On second thought, don't tell me. I can't bear to read another of your sad, delusional left-over-hippie posts.'

Talk about sad and delusional, proud to be a moron and a dittohead and a trained seal and a sheep. Proud to ignore the laws, ignore the crime, ignore the lies, proud to support Great Leader, no matter what. Just like the nazis.

Proud to put jpartisanship above patriotism, above country, above friends and family and the future. Proud to be a fascist. If I wre you I would kill myself.

republcians have no *f*cking* clue what the word 'truth' even means.

"Colin - be honest - why does a prosecuter continue to pursue a line of questions he already knows the answer to. It is called setting a trap. the motivation will always remain clouded. but this was clearly a political persecution. and the remedy for that is a presidential pardon. the system works magnificently."

Libby had to lie. He tells the truth and All the honchos go down. Bush/cheany/rove. Set a trap? What asking him questions and expecting him to TELL the TRUTH. That's setting a trap? Only in your world zouk. If he tld the truth he wouldn't be charged. But the above would ALL be going down. That's not a trap. That's libby and the executive branch covering up a felony. Wake-up. You righties can't really be that dumb. Can you?

I have been under the assumption that all you were just being mislead by rush/hannity/fox news. You mean you people really are that dumb to fall for bush's tricks. I thought it was all a ,(dumb) Paris hilton like, act )

"Libby's conviction, for which he is being duly punished, is for non-remembrance of details of the non-coverup of a non-crime, the non-crime being the non-outing of a non-covert desk jockey. "

wHAT DO YOU SAY TO THAT? I'm not sure how you can agrue facts with people who have no idea what the FACTS ARE. Fox is still trying to push Plame was not covert. That is a lie. It is a proven lie, IN COURT. If she wasn't covert libby OR armitige wouldn't have done anything wrong.

I think a newsman who reports these kinds of falshoods should be stripped of their journist creditials. I don't blame you proudgop. You just ignorant of the facsts. Try watch news other than fox once and a while

Colin, your rebuttal suffers from several poor assumptions and matters of fact.
1. It has never been established that she was covert, in fact her husband revealed her occupation several months before. this aspect of the case is not established. why claim it when you must know it is not true? Is your argument that weak?
2. who appoints the players is irrelevant. Once assigned, the motivation for a prosecuter is to obtain convictions, high profile ones if possible. would you want to return a few years and many dollars later and report back - never mind, I have wasted your time here?

Regardless of all these details, the President has absolute authority to grant pardons and this Presidnet has used this authority judiciously, especially compared to the previous one.

Why do you Libs continue to pursue all these actions which have no underlying problems - such as pardons, firing attorneys, going to war after consulting Congress etc. don't you have anything better to waste your time doing. Like maybe trying to get a vote on cutting off military funding, or fixing SS. your time would be much better served concocting more crooked land deals wouldn't it?

KOZ -- your theory has several problems. First, where the crime being investigated involves the leaking of a covert agents identity it is quite logical to assume that multiple individuals were involved. Given that the back story here involved a leak aimed to hurt a political opponent, that is doubly true. Second, any time you put together a criminal case you want to verify any and all information that you've compiled. Accordingly, you test that information by interviewing additional people -- like Libby. Third, explain to me again how this case was "political" given that EVERY primary player, from the prosecutor to the Judge, was appointed not just by a REPUBLICAN but by GEORGE W. BUSH himself. Heck, the Judge was appointed first by Reagan, then by Bush I, and then by 'W.' With that case of characters, you really want to argue this was a "political" prosecution? Tough sell my friend.

Colin - be honest - why does a prosecuter continue to pursue a line of questions he already knows the answer to. It is called setting a trap. the motivation will always remain clouded. but this was clearly a political persecution. and the remedy for that is a presidential pardon. the system works magnificently.

The truth is anathema to a clinton.

Proud -- Sorry if I didn't keep all of your "non-s" straight. It's hard when several of them are simply incorrect. Plame was a covert agent. That's been proven over and over again. Her name was leaked, as a form of political hackery that was likely orchestrated by Rove and Cheney -- although we'll never know for sure, in part b/c Libby fell on his sword.

Also, Libby wasn't convicted for not remembering things -- if the Jury believed that story, which the defense argued, then he wouldn't have been convicted.

Finally, any comment on the fact that -- as I pointed out before -- the prosecutor and Judge that pursued this case were conservative republicans, yet apparently thought this was a serious issue? I suspect not, but would be curious to hear you disparage them as well.

More examples of how the media is pushing Clinton on us.

The heavily media promoted rally with Bill and Hillary in Des Moines Iowa only drew a crowd (mainly for Bill) of 3,000 yet the Clinton campaign is saying 7,000 and some of the media is reporting this inflated number.

Local TV station states this in a video and explains why the Clinton camp is inflating because Obama brought out a crowd of 6,500 in Ames Iowa.

Why can't we have honest politicians?

Well we can, caucus and vote in the primaries for Obama!

http://www.whotv.com/global/story.asp?s=6740789

Colin - You deliberately misquote me just to twist the debate. Clever. yet predictable.

Libby's conviction, for which he is being duly punished, is for non-remembrance of details of the non-coverup of a non-crime, the non-crime being the non-outing of a non-covert desk jockey.

Mark -- I can understand why you saw the situation leading up to the war the way you did. LOTS of responsible, intelligent, and completely reasonable people felt the same way. Heck, if Bush I had made the same arguments 'W' made, I might have given the administration the benefit of the doubt. I CERTAINLY would have felt differently if a republican like Ford or Eisenhower had been POTUS.

What's still frustrating to me about the issue today, and why I think the Democratic candidates views on the war authorization matter, is that no one with any power or access to information provided a needed skeptical voice to challenge the administration leading up to the war. To do that, at that moment in time, would have taken a great deal of political courage -- and I honestly wish that someone capable of making headlines like Senator Clinton had decided to take the risk and shine a flashlight on the administration's claims. If she had, things might have turned out differently. At the least, the public -- including you and I -- would have gotten a more well rounded view of the issue.

"Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq...So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed."

H.J.Res. 114
Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Clinton (D-NY), Yea

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

Proud -- Funny, most people who have worked in the justice system don't consider lying to federal prosecutors a "non-crime." I'm sure they're all just "liberals" though, which means you don't have to even consider their viewpoint. But wait, wasn't the prosecutor who went after Libby a republican apointed by Bush? And the Judge was appointed by Reagan...? It's almost as if this isn't a partisan issue at all...

I am moving to the new discussion, but will return here from time to time.

proudtobeGOP: For some reason you are unable to read what I have typed and posted. The things you list and ask why they are not punishment. Lets go over some of them. Pays a fine, nope, his supporters will pay. Lose his right to own a firearm and vote by being a convicted felon, means little to nothing to a person like him. Probable disbarment, nothing there either. The one thing that was punishment to him was going to prison, and I was correct in my prediction that he would not spend one day in prison. The other, "HILLARY DID NOT VOTE TO GO TO WAR IN IRAQ.". No matter how many times the opponents of Hillary, and I consider you among them, repeat this FLAT OUT LIE, I will call you on it each and every time I see it.

3:05P was my doing.

For what it's worth, many Israelis think Joe Lieberman is not sufficiently pro-Israel, and AIPAC favors economic sanctions on Iraq, not military intervention - I just looked at several web sites. That in no way excuses his overtly aggressive posturing toward Iran, which is Cheney-esque, if not burlesque.

I used to like the guy.
------------------------
Colin, I took Scowcroft's warning against invading Iraq in August 2002 as somehow indicative of Administration thinking, and while I preferred the resolution that I think Levin or Byrd authored telling the Admin to come back to Congress for actual invasion authority, I was sure there would not be a pretext invasion. I told many people I was afraid Iraq could become our "West Bank." A War College Prof told me there was no pressing need to invade Iraq, just a need to get them to allow full inspections again. I saw enough of what I wanted to see - Scowcroft and Baker op-eds for no invasion without a grand alliance and UN support, Powell saying we needed to pressure Saddam; to discount Cheney, Bush, and Rummy as sabre-rattling for effect.

When Canada asked for one more week at the UN and we said "no" and Canada, which had authorized $2B for the Iraq war, said that in that case they wanted no part of it, I began to feel "had". Then Tony Blair's brilliant speech to Commons made me feel better. Turns out both Blair and Rummy actually intended to turn Iraq over to the UN in 3 months.

I am recounting those days as honestly as I can, because looking back, I do believe that Graham and Levin and many others [read, Obama] saw this coming, and that I should have. So I am not a candidate for President and no one cares much what I thought - and I am probably more tolerant of the majorities in both parties who screwed up than I would be if I had studied the signs as carefully as I did and had got them right.

The Democratic presidential candidates have erased and reversed Republicans' historic edge in raising money for campaigns, reflecting growing enthusiasm among Democrats and adding to the GOP's already considerable burdens going into 2008.

Two Democratic candidates -- Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton -- shattered previous quarterly fundraising records in the three-month period that ended Saturday. Obama raised $31 million for his primary campaign, while Clinton raised $21 million; both figures broke the previous record for a Democrat's best fundraising quarter this early in an election cycle.

'A secret U.S. law enforcement report, prepared for the Department of Homeland Security, warns that al Qaeda is planning a terror "spectacular" this summer, according to a senior official with access to the document.'

Time for bush to take a monthlong vacation, right?

'A secret U.S. law enforcement report, prepared for the Department of Homeland Security, warns that al Qaeda is planning a terror "spectacular" this summer, according to a senior official with access to the document.'

I guess it's time for our president to take a month-long vacation again, don't you?

Any allegation against Bush? 'Clinton did something bad 10 years ago.' That's the extent of their thinking. Weasels.

Will Bush just walk? Will he be able to leave the White House and never account for all of his law breaking and imperial acts? The man thinks he is above the law. Is he?

Do we hold our presidents accountable in this country? Are we truly a democracy? Or have we become like any third rate society that bows down to their leaders no matter what they do?

You know the answer. You can see it here.

n the [Constitutional] convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" or, before indictment or conviction, "to stop inquiry and prevent detection." James Madison responded:

[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds [to] believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty...

Madison went on to [say] contrary to his position in the Philadelphia convention, that the President could be suspended when suspected, and his powers would devolve on the Vice President, who could likewise be suspended until impeached and convicted, if he were also suspected.

On June 9, 2003, just one day after his national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, got beaten up on the Sunday shows for claiming no one in the administration knew that the Niger intelligence was bunk, George Bush expressed concern about the allegations. Scooter Libby passed on that concern to vice president Cheney. Bush's concern set off a chain of events that ended up in the outing of a CIA spy, Valerie Plame, and the indictment and conviction of Scooter Libby.

Yesterday, George Bush attempted to prevent that chain of events from continuing any further. He commuted Scooter Libby's 30-month sentence. Rather than serving time in jail, Libby will remain free, with a fine and probation as the only remaining punishments for lying and obstructing a criminal investigation. But the real effect of Bush's actions is to prevent Libby from revealing the truth about Bush's - and vice president Cheney's - own actions in the leak. By commuting Libby's sentence, Bush protected himself and his vice president from potential criminal exposure for their actions in the CIA Leak. As such, Libby's commutation is nothing short of another obstruction of justice.

Cheney's involvement in the CIA leak case is central. He personally undertook research on Joe Wilson and his trip; while doing that research, Cheney learned that Wilson's wife worked in the counter-proliferation division of the CIA, the part of the clandestine services that fights the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Cheney then passed on the news of Plame's CIA identity to Libby....

"Clinton issued 140 pardons as well as several commutations on his last day of office (January 20, 2001).[11] When a sentence is commuted, the conviction remains intact, but the sentence can be altered in a number of ways. Some controversial actions include the following:

Carlos A. Vignali had his sentence for cocaine trafficking commuted, after serving 6 of 15 years in federal prison.
Almon Glenn Braswell was pardoned of his mail fraud and perjury convictions, even while a federal investigation was underway regarding additional money laundering and tax evasion charges.[12] Braswell and Carlos Vignali each paid approximately $200,000 to Hillary Clinton's brother, Hugh Rodham, to represent their respective cases for clemency. Hugh Rodham returned the payments after they were disclosed to the public. Braswell would later invoke the Fifth Amendment at a Senate Committee hearing in 2001, when questioned about allegations of his having systematically defrauded senior citizens of millions of dollars.[13]"

Overlooked in the commentary I've seen is that Judge Reggie B. Walton, whose sentence of Scooter Libby was just obliterated by George W. Bush, was appointed to the bench three times by Republican presidents. According to his website, Judge Walton was nominated to the Federal District Court by...George W. Bush. His previous judicial experience, in D. C. courts, came as a result of nominations by...Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. During the interim two years between the latter appointments, he served in White House advisory positions, including that of Bush I's Senior White House Advisor for Crime.

Overruling Judge Walton's sentence is not (as some of this morning's articles have suggested) an exceptional act of hypocrisy, a peculiar moment when the president finds it useful to shovel red meat into the maw of the base. It's a representative act of what, in the old Communist bloc, they called "politics takes command," or choosing "redness over expertise."

FU, JD. You're just like every other R on here - shameless hypocrite.

'Cassandra, "Move on"

Your statement is ridiculous, since you have no evidence to make it.'

There are just too many ways to pick apart the hollowness, the transparency of President Bush's fear-based commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence. Thirty months was apparently 'excessive', despite the fact that this is what the federal sentencing guidelines recommend and numerous people are thus today sitting in prison under a similarly excessive term.

But, okay, let's say it's excessive. What would be appropriate? One year? Six months? A month? Can anyone really say that the prosecution was legitimate (which the president does) and that the verdict was legitimate (which the president does) and that probation with no jail time is the appropriate penalty?

Paris Hilton did more time than Scooter Libby.

The decline of undercover reporting -- and of investigative reporting in general -- also reflects, in part, the increasing conservatism and cautiousness of the media, especially the smug, high-end Washington press corps. As reporters have grown more socially prominent during the last several decades, they've become part of the very power structure that they're supposed to be tracking and scrutinizing.

Cassandra, "Move on"

Your statement is ridiculous, since you have no evidence to make it.

On the eve of Independece Day, the Family Values Party wasted no time in condemning Bush's decision to save his long-time friend.

"How can parents instill values and morality in their children?" asked a befuddled Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE). "How can educators teach our children? How can the rule of law for every American be applied equally if we have two standards of justice in America - one for the powerful and the other for the rest of us?"

Senate Minority Leader Bill Frist joined Hagel in slamming Bush's actions, saying the commutation amounted to unfair treatment. "He is not above the law," said the clearly enraged Republican from Tennessee. "If an ordinary citizen committed these crimes, he would go to jail."

You would think, of all places, President Bush would find some love in his home state of Texas -- but no so. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison said the Libby communion jeopardizes the nation's entire legal system.

"I very much worry that with the evidence that we have seen that grand juries across America are going to start asking questions about what is obstruction of justice, what is perjury," the senator said. "And I don't want there to be any lessening of the standard. Because our system of criminal justice depends on people telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That is the lynch pin of our criminal justice system and I don't want it to be faded in any way."

Fellow Republican Texan Tom Delay, himself indicted, nonetheless issued a scathing attack on the commutation.

"No man is above the law, and no man is below the law," Delay said, choking back tears. "That's the principle that we all hold very dear in this country."

Of course, these people weren't talking about Libby at all. They are real quotes, all made during the Clinton impeachment.

Foolish? Without a doubt. Vain? To the nth degree. A supercilious idiot so intent on imposing his ideology on the world that he won't admit mistakes even if hundreds of thousands die, an American city drowns, and the climate itself is at risk? Well, obviously.

And according to the New York Times, he's also liberated.

President Bush's decision to commute the sentence of I. Lewis Libby Jr. was the act of a liberated man -- a leader who knows that, with 18 months left in the Oval Office and only a dwindling band of conservatives still behind him, he might as well do what he wants.

If you've ever doubted the ability of the press to do a double inverted backflipping-butt kiss when explaining away Bush's actions, you'll find no better example than that delivered in this piece by New York Times White House stenographer Sheryl Gay Stolberg.

The entire record of this story has been under a systematic, unfettered and, sadly, largely unresisted attack from the right for four years. Key facts have been buried under an avalanche of misinformation. The then-chairman of the senate intelligence committee made his committee an appendage of the White House and himself the president's bawd and issued a report built on intentional falsehood and misdirection.

From day one this story has been about official lies -- corrupt power buttressed by fraud. Along the way it became a story about the president's hireling commentators who lost their honor by becoming part of the fraud. What Wilson said was true. His attackers are all parties to the same lie. Don't forget that.

'Like cash for......pretty much anything.'

yup. that's the repug party all right.

'Zouk is correct; liberals want vengence, not justice.'

sick, sick, sick.

yes -- the 'non-crime' of a lawyer lying a jury. glad to know perjury's not a crime anymore.

you sickening, shameless hypocrites. I would kill myself if I was as morally sick as you.

Colin -Just to be clear then, I'm always skeptical when you begin your interrogations in that manner. Fitzgerald knew for some time that Armitage was the leaker, and yet he continued to prosecute Libby.

Of course Fitzgerald did manage to "prove" Libby guilty of the non-remembrance of details of the non-coverup of a non-crime.
For which Libby is being punished. Zouk is correct; liberals want vengence, not justice.

Proud -- just to be clear then, you agree that jail time is inappropriate where a key White House staffer lies to federal prosecutors about an investigation, right? Moreover, you don't find anything inconsistent with the President stating repeatedly that anyone involved with leaking PLames identity would be held responsible and his current decision to eliminate the possibility of any incarceration?

If so, that's great -- I had no idea that conservatives were in favor of reducing penalties for criminals. You must be one of those "compasionate" conservative I've heard so much about but never actually met in person.

lylepink -You are not making sense, again. Your statement about Libby, "in effect he was not punished for the crimes he committed", makes about as much sense as your ridiculous and specious claim that Hillary did not vote for the war.

Please tell me, how is having a felony record, loss of voting priviledges, loss of the right to own a firearm, probable disbarrment, and a fine of $250,000 not punishment????

On second thought, don't tell me. I can't bear to read another of your sad, delusional left-over-hippie posts.

KOZ -- good to hear everything is now rosy in Iraq. Is this similar to when we heard that the insurgency was in its last throes even while attacks per day were escalating to their highest levels yet?

Here's another piece of news. Money quote, from my perspective, is this:

"With Congress intensifying its calls for an exit strategy for Iraq, a report released last week by a subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee said the United States has spent $19 billion training and equipping 346,500 members of the Iraqi security forces. That $19 billion has "yielded mixed results," according to the report."

- Yep, 19 BILLION dollars just on training Iraqi soldiers. But lets hear more about those "mixed" results:

"The report found that the U.S. Defense Department doesn't know how many of those forces are operational today or even if they are fighting on the U.S. side. "Of those forces trained by the coalition, there is strong evidence that some are independently committing sectarian violence and other illegal activity," the 205-page report said.

Ha, so we're spending all that money and yet the trainees are actually joining the insurgency. ALMOST makes you think that it might not be a good idea to try and step into the middle of another country's CIVIL WAR.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/01/pleitgen.surge/index.html

Hey Zouk!

"putting forth the best values of America for the entire world to see again"

-Like shamelessly exploiting the fears of the American public following 09.11 in order to advance authoritarian corporate kleptocracy.

-Like taking the focus off Afghanistan in order to begin an unjustified war of choice in Iraq.

-For that matter, like spending American money and lives in an unrelenting pursuit of Saddam Hussein while all but ignoring bin Laden. Hussein was incommnicado, hiding in a hole in the ground. Bin Laden is reconstituting al Qaeda with the tacit protection of our "ally," Pakistan. You remember Pakistan, the unstable state that has nukes?

-Like Abu Ghraib, Haditha, Guantanamo, et al.

-Like permitting torture.

-Like leaving the ABM Treaty in order to test a Star Wars missile defense that doesn't work

-Like shooting your friend in the face. (OK, that was Cheney. Dick shoots, Bush does not...)

-Like staffing the government with uninterested and incapable corporate cronies.

-Like fiddling (playing guitar) while Rome (New Orleans) burned (drowned / blew away.)

-Like running up staggering national debt in order to fund tax cuts for those not in need.

-LIKE COMMUTING THE SENTENCE OF SCOOTER LIBBY.

-Like blithely ignoring the world - and U.S. - scientific community on climate change

-Like making the U.S. more hated/scorned, and at the same time less respected, AROUND THE WORLD

-Like giving authority over social programs to ChristoNazis

-Like leaving thousands and thousands of children behind

-Like subjecting the American political system to the tender mercies of Karl Rove

-Like stacking the Supreme Court with "justices" (and I use the term loosely) determined to undermine the legal system as we know it; specifically, those parts of it protecting consumers, minorities, dissent, environmental protection, the freedom of (AND from) religion, privacy, accountability, DEMOCRACY...

I could go on. I'm sure most of us could. No, Bill Clinton and his crew were not perfect at all. But when you compare his time in office, complete with its soap opera peccadillos and petty intra-party sniping, with the disastrous seven years which have followed, it's no wonder that he is remembered fondly.

"Struggling in state, senator relies heavily on former president's star power." - Caption from the home page of ther Post's news website of Sen. and Pres. Clinton campaigning in Iowa.

Was surprised to see Bubba campaigning in Iowa on C-Span last night.

Could all of these glowing "she's far ahead" "check the polls" posts be inaccurate?

Otherwise, What's the need for Bubba to be out on the hustings?

Mr. Obama, talking to reporters in Chicago, took a jab at the former first lady's experience level, saying: "The only person who would probably be prepared to be president on Day One would be Bill Clinton, not Hillary Clinton."

Hillary, desperate to show her own leadership, declared she "will have some good help along the way" from Mr. Clinton, and although she can't put her husband in the Cabinet, she would love to make him "ambassador to the world."

And now that the five-year suspension of his law license is over, Bill can get back to work.

greenwald: May I correct you in that Libby was NOT sent to prison, his prison sentence was commuted and in effect he was not punished for the crimes he committed, namely Perjury and OJ, sounds familiar in a twisted sort of way.

Zouk, now that you're using so many differnt names to post, I have another one for you to use.

When you post ones on how well the War is going, you should use "While Nero Fiddles"

I Think the King of Zouk is mean and smelly. And he is not smarter than a Fifth grader, I know because I am one and I am smarter than him. My dad showed me, all the places where he wrote stuff but he did nt put his name cause he wants it to look like he didnt write it. And Then he said, Bobby read the rest of it and see if you can guess what Zook wrote, I looked at it and guessed all the dum ones, Dad said I was right. Then he showed me some other ones, he is smarter than a fifth grader but guess what? I am a fifth grader (remember?) and I am smarter than Zook.

Thanks, but I'd rather ignore you providing little more than RNC Talking Points.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Cabinet approved a draft oil law sought by the U.S. to boost reconciliation between Iraq's Sunnis and Shiites and the Iraqi parliament planned to debate the measure Wednesday.

don't look now, more good news to ignore.

Civilian Deaths In Iraq Down 36 Percent

Iraqi civilian deaths dropped to their lowest level since the start of the Baghdad security operation, government figures showed Sunday, suggesting signs of progress in tamping down violence in the capital

how will you "lose at any cost" Libs absorb this good news?

"putting forth the best values of America for the entire world to see again"

Like BJs under the desk. Mmmmmmmm

Like cash for......pretty much anything.

Colin and Lyle, if Hillary voted the way she did not realizing - as many did at the time - that she was giving Bush the cover he had asked for to go into Iraq, she is TOO NAIVE or even TOO DUMB TO BE PRESIDENT.
I believe she is neither - I believe that she knew exactly what the result of her vote would be, which says to me that her vote was cast for political reasons, rather than for the good of the country. She claimed at the time that "the intelligence shows" a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and that Saddam was reconstituting his weapons programs. If she had read the NIE before voting - as Bob Graham and a few other senators did - she would have known that the intelligence showed no such thing. Yes, she's an intelligent woman, and a capable legislator, and yes she would probably be an acceptable president, if not the best choice available. But I don't trust her.

'PHOENIX -- A dangerous heat wave enveloping the desert Southwest targets Phoenix with two back-to-back days of 118-degree temperatures beginning on July 4, meteorologists warned.

The hottest it has been on any July 4 in Phoenix was 114 degrees set in 1989, according to meteorologists.'

Get ready for the hottest summer on record, folks. And next year it willl be hotter still. Will anyone notice, besides the folks who die from it?

"The president, by commuting Mr. Libby's sentence, has guaranteed that he will be under no incentive whatsoever to tell the truth," Wilson said on CNN's "American Morning." "I think there is a very real suspicion now that the president himself is an accessory to obstruction of justice in this matter."

You see, Charles in Berlin? You see the 'conservatives' in this country? They applaud when a lawyer lies to a court. They want a convicted felon set free. The don't mind at all when their own security is endangered. They laugh at our laws, they thumb their noses at the Constitution.

They are lawless, mindless, hopeless sheep -- fascists.

In Federalist No. 70, Alexander Hamilton described the defining power of the King which made the British monarchy intolerably corrupt: "In England, the king is a perpetual magistrate; and it is a maxim which has obtained for the sake of the public peace, that he is unaccountable for his administration, and his person sacred." Thomas Paine proclaimed in Common Sense "that so far as we approve of monarch, that in America THE LAW IS KING." But little effort is required to see how far removed we now are from those basic principles.

Jim Nicholson, Republican National Committee chairman, added that "Judge Wright's decision is a long-overdue victory for the rule of law."

Several legal experts agreed.

"The judge had no choice but to send a message that future witnesses who are less than truthful won't be tolerated," said Steven Saltzburg, George Washington University law professor and a former high-ranking Justice Department official under Presidents Reagan and Bush.

"I wouldn't have been surprised if the sanctions were a hundred times higher," he said.

Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University, added:

"Any lawyer who testifies falsely before a federal judge has to expect a severe sanction, including possible loss of his license to practice law. If anything, a judge should take more severe action when that lawyer is the president of the United States."

You see what we're dealing with out here Charles? You see these people. You talk about TODAY. They rationalize from decades ago. I think this is all a test.

To see who the real patriots are and who the fasist whop ahte this country are. The republicans have destroyed all aspects of this great country. They are opposed to everything it represents. They have replaced what this country REALLy is with Capitalism. With the love of money. Is that what this country was founded on GOP?

Was it money? Or ideals?

Was it freedom? Or slavery?

Why do you people hate your country so much. You cannot force conservative SLAVERY on a free soceity. No matter how just you THINK you are.

You reap what you sow. you are sowing fascist princples. Don't be surprised when the american people reject you

Hillary Clinton's Longstanding Love of the "Rule of Law"

Hillary, yesterday:

"And what we saw today was further evidence that this administration has no regard whatsoever for what needs to be held sacred. And when I'm president we're going to get back to cherishing the Constitution, upholding the rule of law and putting forth the best values of America for the entire world to see again."

Yes. Because the Clinton Presidency was just one long celebration of the rule of law, with no perjury, no suborning perjury, no pardons for sketchy millionaires, no Chinese money finding its way into DNC coffers, no disappearing and reappearing law firm records, no Chinese businessmen comparing the White House to a subway that you have to pay to enter, no fundraisers at Buddhist temples... no, none of that.

That's right. The Clinton administration respected the "rule of law" by ensuring a high wall stood between the FBI and CIA on combatting terrorism, and determined that authorizing the Northern Alliance to hit Osama bin Laden's caravan would be unlawful because women and children were present. Yes, we all know how beneficial that dedication to the rule of law was...

Almost thirty years ago, the American people reacted with fury and horror over revelations by the Church Committee that every administration in prior decades had been spying on Americans for completely improper purposes. In response, they enacted a law, through their Congress, making it a felony for any government official to eavesdrop on Americans without judicial approval, punishable by 5 years in prison for each offense. Since 1977, it has been a felony in the United States for political officials to eavesdrop on Americans without judicial warrants.

Best Part of a Hillary Clinton Presidency? You Mean Besides January 20, 2013?

Gallup didn't phrase it this way, but I will. When asked the open-ended question, "suppose Hillary Clinton is elected president in 2008. In your view, what would be the best or most positive thing about a Hillary Clinton presidency?" The single most popular answer was, "nothing," with 28 percent.

Next up was "Clinton would be the first woman president," with 22 percent; "healthcare issue/would reform healthcare" 10 percent; "would get the U.S. out of Iraq/end war" with 9 percent; "Clinton's experience" with 7 percent, "capable/competent" with 7 percent, and "Bill Clinton would be back in the White House/would help and advise her" with 6 percent.

When asked, "what would be the worst or most negative thing about a Hillary Clinton presidency?", only 12 percent said "nothing." The answers "Too liberal/socialist" and "Bill Clinton would be back in the White House" tied at 10 percent each, with "Not qualified/would not succeed" at 9 percent. The next four reasons were all bunched together - "just don't like her" and "Clinton scandals/baggage" at 7 percent each, and "Country not ready for a woman president" and "Clinton's views on Iraq" at 6 percent each.

http://hillaryspot.nationalreview.com/

But the most significant disease highlighted by the Libby travesty is also the most obvious one. We have decided to be a country in which our highest Republican political officials can break the law freely, without any real consequence. In the United States, the law does not apply to the President and his closest aides. And there is one fact after the next which proves that.

What good are judges? What good are laws? What's the Constitution worth? It's just a piece of paper after all. Burn it and get it over with.

And the flag too. It doesn't stand for anything anymore either. Trample it, folks, burn it, ridicule it. You hate America, go ahead destroy everything it stands for.

Excuse me, used to stand for. YOU HATE AMERICA, republicans. That's why you are destroying it.

But our political discourse and media institutions are so broken and corrupt that Bush followers (and their media enablers) feel free to make the completely-backwards and fact-free claim that the Libby prosecution was driven by "partisan" and "political" motives -- as though it was a mirror image of the Clinton persecution driven by Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and a purely partisan Republican prosecutor -- because they know that there is no such thing as a claim too false to be passed on without real objection by our vapid, drooling press corps.

For the right-wing political movement that has spawned the Bush disasters of the last six years, the exoneration of Lewis Libby was not merely something they supported. It was much more than that. It was a matter of the greatest importance. That is because Libby is a True Believer, a loyal member of their cult. Seeing him in prison would be humiliating, would make them feel weak and defeated at the hands of the Enemy (defined as "anyone who opposes them"), which is the worst outcome there is.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/03/libby/

'Congress: As Democrats insist on a constitutional showdown they know the White House will win, real work -- such as confirming national security appointments and securing our porous border -- remains undone.'

Any WHY does it remain undone? Because the scumbag repug congress didn't do ANYTHING but steal taxpayer money for the last 12 years.

The Time-Wasting Congress
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, July 02, 2007 4:20 PM PT

Congress: As Democrats insist on a constitutional showdown they know the White House will win, real work -- such as confirming national security appointments and securing our porous border -- remains undone.

The Plame investigation was urged by the Bush CIA and commenced by the Bush DOJ, Libby's conviction pursued by a Bush-appointed federal prosecutor, his jail sentence imposed by a Bush-appointed "tough-on-crime" federal judge, all pursuant to harsh and merciless criminal laws urged on by the "tough-on-crime/no-mercy" GOP. Lewis Libby was sent to prison by the system constructed and desired by the very Republican movement protesting his plight.

'Of course, the liberals wanted this all along to further their agenda. Bush did the right thing.'

I have never seen such pathetic hypocrites, such utter useless human garbage, as the current crop of republicans like 'proud' and 'zouk'.

I do understand now how Hitler came to power. Germany was full of the same mindless scum, the same kind of hypocrites who could rationalize and excuse any crime Hitler committed. If Bush wants to torture and execute innocent humans in Guantanamo -- why that's just fine. Doesn't matter if there's no evidence against them, or even if they don't know why they're there.

Bush can even endanger your own national security and you don't care. I really cannot understand your stupidy, your gullibility.

You people are dangerous fascists, who can willfully stand by and allow your country and your children's futures to be destroyed by madmen. I pity you. But most of all, you make me sick to my stomach. How do you live with yourself? If I was as morally sick as you, I would kill myself.

Word is born la-mute . We get teh issues taken care of. Barack gets some much needed seasonong on a gloabal scale. After 4 or eight years (depending on how Gore does) he steps in as an un-beatable candidate (again depending on Gore)

I agree that is a un-beatable ticket. Obama Gore is starting to sound good also. I would prefer your idea as my first option.

Ignore the lying GOP trolls. IGNORE THEM.

"The disasters and rampant lawlessness and fundamental erosion of our country's political values and institutions are exactly what Fred Hiatt and David Broder and Time Magazine and Tim Russert and Tom Friedman and the New Republic geniuses have spent the last six years protecting, enabling and defending. We have the country we have -- one in which our most powerful political leaders are literally beyond the reach of the law in every sense, where we casually invade and bomb and occupy countries that have not attacked us, where our moral standing in the world has collapsed with good reason, where we are viewed on every continent in the world as a rogue, dangerous and lawless nation -- because we are ruled by a Beltway elite and political press that is sickly and cowardly and slavish at its core. "

Buy my boys book. He is on eof the few REAL voices out there today.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/03/libby/

Maybe it's too early in 08 for Obama . If you hope as I do that he is President one day there is only one unbeatable ticket :
GORE / OBAMA .He will be ready for the top job 4 or 8 years later...

Maybe it's too early in 08 for Obama . If you hope as I do that he is President one day there is only one unbeatable ticket :
GORE / OBAMA .He will be ready for the top job 4 or 8 years later...

Just because the clintons are corrupt doesn't mean bush shouldn't held responsible for anything he has done. No accountability. NONE. for years. I agree the clinton's did some things wrong.

It is a elementary school agrument to say, "I know you are but what am I."

Why should Bush face ANY pelanlties for his treason? Because he is president? Did that stop your people from going after Clinton? No. Not even for personal matters.

WHY SHOULD BUSH NOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE, Zouk GOP?

Robert Bork, reviewing Ann Coulter's High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Wall Street Journal (3 September 1998):

The president's defenders, experts at changing the subject, prefer to debate whether Mr. Clinton committed a felony. Though it is clear that the president repeatedly lied under oath in Paula Jones's lawsuit, they offer arcane disputes about whether that was technically perjury. I think it was perjury, but that is not the point. As Ms. Coulter reminds us, the Rodino Committee staff, gearing up for Richard Nixon, concluded, correctly, that "high crimes and misdemeanors" are not limited to actions that are crimes under federal law. (It is a minor irony of history that Bernard Nussbaum, later Clinton's White House counsel, and Hillary Rodham collaborated on a report that makes these points.) When the man charged by the Constitution to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" lies under oath in a federal case and knowingly watches Monica Lewinsky lie in the same case, he has clearly subverted a central constitutional duty.

That alone is amply sufficient for impeachment. While impeachment is not to be undertaken lightly, it is also not to be avoided at the cost of sanctioning such behavior. Ms. Coulter tellingly relies on James Madison: "The `first aim' of the Constitution," she writes, quoting him, "was to ensure that men with the `most virtue' would become the nation's rulers. The Constitution's impeachment power was for `keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.'"

Paul Simon, "Is It Only About Sex?" New York Times (21 August 1998):

A prosecutor does not create the setting underlying a perjury and obstruction of justice investigation. Others do. Here, whether there was a sexual relationship has never itself been worthy of investigation. But neither the criminal investigators nor Congress can dra