JUST MY OPINION!!!!!!!

I cant believe as AMERICANS that we are even considering the idea of having BARACK OBAMA as leader of our country. Did we not learn our lesson with 9-11. Have we no heart or soul that we forget so easily all we lost on that day to allow this person to run our country. This is AMERICA not the republic of KENYA.

Do you people not think that if the BIN LADEN and all his followers went to so much trouble to seek out all the planes in which they would need to carry out their plans of torture on our great land, all the time and money spent, all the people involved to carry it out that they would not set the wheels in motion to have one of their own come into our office and destroy our country.

I am sorry but if the people of AMERICA think thats its ok to have a Represenative with a foreign SOIL background rule our country that we are no longer the LAND OF THE FREE. We are no longer the LEADING COUNTRY of the world. Do you think that KENYA OR IRAQ OR SAUDI ARABIA would allow an AMERICAN family to move there, give birth to a child and then let that child become their LEADER. I THINK NOT.

Do you people not remember all the talk of a man in a TURBAN who will be the one to start a NUCLEAR WAR. Well BARACK in that TURBAN doesn not make me want to invite him to lead our country. If we thought having the BUSHES run our country was bad enough I think we are in big trouble inviting BARACK OBAMA which to me OBAMA sounds a little to close for comfort to OSAMA, to run our country.

HAVE WE ALL GIVEN UP SO EASILY.

WE ARE AMERICANS AND AN AMERICAN SHOULD RUN OUR GREAT LAND.

B-Born
A-A
R-Rebel
A-American
C-Citizen
K-Killer

O-Observe
B-By
A-Assassinating
M-Most
A-Americans

IS THIS WHAT WE HAVE COME TO.

repubs and all the plentiful right wing broadcast hosts/broadcasters are jumping up and down with gleeful schadenfreude, dems risk losing hard-won/returning white voters who are on the fence ... (which would be a shame because the republicans don't give a flip about working families or working/middle class americans of any creed or ethnicity) ... the right wingers at msnbc/faux news/right wing radio will keep this going as long as possible ....

The Squandered Bickering of the Democratic Front-Runners = Schadenfreude for Right Wingers
buzzzed.blogspot.com/2008/01/squandered-bickering-of-democrat-front[dot]html

repubs and all the plentiful right wing broadcast hosts/broadcasters are jumping up and down with gleeful schadenfreude, dems risk losing hard-won/returning white voters who are on the fence ... (which would be a shame because the republicans don't give a flip about working families or working/middle class americans of any creed or ethnicity) ... the right wingers at msnbc/faux news/right wing radio will keep this going as long as possible ....

The Squandered Bickering of the Democratic Front-Runners = Schadenfreude for Right Wingers
buzzzed.blogspot.com/2008/01/squandered-bickering-of-democrat-front[dot]html

Discussing Race in the 08 Race

The debate over race in the 2008 Democratic primary could be resolved tonigh night with an honest exchange between a Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton at their best during the Nevada debate. They should tout strong agreement on civil rights and move beyond identity politics.

Neither candidate has shown a desire to make the 2008 election about their barrier breaking possibilities. Up to now it was something to celebrate as a nation. Why debate over who was more important in the 1960s, Lyndon Johnson or Martin Luther King Jr., or who is most like John F. Kennedy? We should instead embrace the possibility of a Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama as President because either will make history.

The choice between Clinton and Obama should be determined by debating; who is the better change agent today? Résumés should be compared, as should campaign performance and the ability to unite a party and a country. The two top Democrats should discuss the here and now to make their case: How will you work with Republicans? What is your energy plan? How will you improve health care? What can be done in Iraq?

I hope Obama and Clinton move away from trivial disputes over race. If the argument were focused on the rich-poor gap, inequitable schools or continued social injustice, then race would deeply inform debate over problems and solutions. But arguing about largely irrelevant historical metaphors diverts attention from the grand possibility of a history making moment. Clinton and Obama can demonstrate leadership by uniting to increase diversity together, not in competition, as embodiments of change.

You'd think that the Clintons would have learned by now that America is tired of their pointing at non-existent conspiracies against them every time they misstep. Aren't we as a country tired of stubborn politicians that can not account for themselves? We need candidates that don't wave two decades worth of grudges and bitterness in our faces every time they speak.

Conversation over: Rep. John Lewis, perhaps the greatest living American hero, said tonight that he believes Obama and his representatives have deliberately tried to misrepresent what Senator Clinton had to say about Dr. King and President Johnson's role in the civil rights struggle.

"Maybe it's because she's a woman. It can't be based on her words actions or policies, that would be just wrong. to look past skin color and sex. We can't run a race dependant on the issues. not after the last few centuries of gossip and nonsense. The founders must be rolling in their graves. How far we've fallen since then"

That was a mess

Maybe it's because she's a woman. It can't be based on her words actions or policies, that would be just wrong. to look past skin color and sex wouldn't it. We can run a race dependant on the issues. not after teh last few centuries or gossip and nonsense. The founders must be rolling in their grraves. How far we've fallen since then

"Clinton booed at MLK rally in New York

By: Kenneth P. Vogel
Jan 14, 2008 04:26 PM EST
"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7883.html

r

u

f

u

s

rACE/gender IS NOT AN ISSUE AND SHOULD NOT BE.

Be wary of those that would make it one. why? is it a desperate attempt by a failing candidate ("I've tried everyting else"). who loses and benifets by bringing in race or gender? Clinton is bringing in both as last attempts. In such she shows she doesn't care about her country or party, just herself and her supporters, a la george bush.

fear the yale plan

This race should not be about gender or race. It should not be an issue at all, and that would be the best tribute to Dr King's message. Anyway, even I'm not a huge fan of Hillary, I don't think that what she said was outrageous. Nothing could have happened without MLK, we know that. But we know too that nothing could have happened without the strong political power of LBJ. She just meant to say that she could be another LBJ (Vietnam/Iraq apart, I suppose).

Hillary is Hillary ya'll. Ambitious, power hungry, tough and tenacious. I just don't believe she has the intellectual capacity to handle the job of president. One thing about Bill that he was never given enough credit for was being very intelligent. He can read the populus. I seriously have doubts about that where Hillary is concerned given how pathetic she was in the build up to the vote count in NH. She was in full panic mode not realizing that the voters were for the most part undecided. Not Good.

I'm more than a little shocked at how many of the comments here are fueled (and therefore made inconsequential) by such petty crap as party allegiance and idealistic banter. It's like we're in a race against each other to be nominated!

An uncomfortable truth: Obama plays the race card, Hillary plays the gender card, even though neither of those has anything to do with anything.

What should make you feel better: They have to do that. Looking beyond the game is the only way to reach anything close to reality.

Meet The Press has degenerated with the rising celebrity status of Tim Russert. Russert no longer tries to gather worthy information - he is merely looking for sound bites to use in the future.
Ohg
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/01/13/hillary-clinton-with-tim-russert/

I'm more than a little shocked at how many posts here are fueled (and therefore made inconsequential) by such petty crap as party allegiance and idealistic banter. It's like we're in a race against each other to be nominated!

An uncomfortable truth: Obama is playing the race card, Hillary is playing the gender card, Giuliani is playing the King of 9/11 card, so on and so forth.

A slightly more encouraging truth: they have to. Look past it and only then will you reach anything close to reality.

I assume most of you watched "The meet the press". She is a superb cold, calculated lawyer, who is willing to say whatever is necessary to defend the client, in this case - herself, never admitting anything that she did wrong; never leveling w/ you. Do you think Obama could become president? That is for the voters to decide! What is that? What is your opinion? Ask other people! Should we bomb Iran? That is up to voters to decide! When Tim asked her about her "emotional (crying) response", that was a riot, as my son would say. She shut out a long, rehearsed answer, that was everything, but the truth. You have to be a moron to think that she was on the verge of tears, because she had the country in mind. If she lost in N.H., next morning, the country would have been fine. Why would she cry out of concern for the country, WHEN SHE SAW POLLS THAT SHE WAS ABOUT TO LOOSE IN N.H.? Talking about the "fairy tale", the Clintons - doing what they do best. (Depends what "is" is!).

It is time to move on as McCaskill stated. Hillary is to be respected for what she has accomplished but the Democrats need to realize how polarizing Hillary is. Do we want to continue this division in our country and have 4 more years of gridlock? think about the gridlock we experienced while Bill was in the White House.Please consider this. Also, take the Clinton machine for what it is. They love power and will do what they have to do to get it.

There was a national poll w/ the question: What is the most important quality that the CSO of your firm has to have? INTEGRITY option won. Both Clintons lack that. Bill spent most of his second term dealing w/ lying under oath. She was also teetering on the edge of indictment, for over-billing while w/ the Rose firm (clients billed w/ more of her total work hours, than there was in a day). Everybody could see that she stuck to her cheating husband, only for political reasons. That is why the polls change up and down, but one thing stays - she is the most polarizing and untrustworthy Dem. candidate. Both Bill & Hillary cannot do anything straight. She was shown her video clip, where she was talking in TV interview, directly to Sadam, just before the war started: "Either disarm, or we will disarm you!". Now she thinks that the war was a mistake. Any normal, decent person would say confronted w/ those two facts - I was wrong before. Edwards did just that. Not the Clintons. Bill tried to flatly lie - he was against the war FROM THE BEGINNING. And she gave the longest lie-run around at the "Meet the press"... She was just asking for the UN inspectors to go in, but Bush misinterpreted it! Obama is a fresh of breath air. He let everything about himself hang out, they cannot find anything else. He wants to change, how America is being perceived in the world, from feared and hated to loved, the way it always was. Inside, he wants to bring us all a little closer together, instead of to further polarize us.

"Democrats should ask themselves if it will do the party anygood to have two calculating politicians (the Clintons) continue its stranglehold on the establishment of the Democratic Party. It seems the Democratic Party has the opportunity to increase its base of support amoung the young, by choosing Sen Obama as its candidate. I can't see the candidacy of Clinton inspiring anyone to join the party. In my youth, I was inspired by Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, and eventually became a life long supporter of the Democratic Party. (although that support is wavering with the possibility of the establishment sticking with Clinton)

Posted by: bringbackimus | January 13, 2008 12:14 PM
"

wELL sAID. tHINK ABOUT THE FUTURE. Clinton cannot win without obama and edwards supporters. She WILL get some gop moderates and gop women. But the new voters as well as independant's (I'm not naive to think the gop is all of a sudden not racist, after watching tehir coverage of Obama before iowa), can win an election.

Who is going to stand in Obama'a way? The clintons and the gop. so the gop is. So we already are in the general election, with edwards and obama already running against the gop. Think abou tthe election in those terms. It already started. Clinton is the gop's only hope. She can't win the general, so her next best bet is to sabotage teh democratic party so her true party wins. She's shows her face.

Why does she run? for the country? for women for democratic party? no she runs for herself and her supporters, which are many. how is that any differant from george bush and teh gop of the last 30 years? Do we need another monarch how only serves her loyal subjects, like bush. or do we need a president that serves all of america? Obama and edwards are the only candidates running ,currently, that will serve all americans. So choose or do not choose. But those are the stakes.

lhummer wrote:

"I'm weary of hearing Bill and Hillary emphasize their experience. One of Napoleon's generals, General Daumier, said it best. 'I have a mule who has been through 20 battle campaigns with me and he's still a mule.'"

I agree with the sentiment, but a bit of clarification is in order. I think the Daumier you're referring to is Honore Daumier, who was an artist and satirist and despised Louis-Napoleon. To the best of my knowledge he never served in the military, though he did produce a notable painting of Sancho Panza with a dead mule.

It was Count Maurice de Saxe, Marshal of France, who remarked (circa 1740) that "a mule which had made twenty campaigns under Caesar would still be a mule."

Either way, it's true and truly unflattering towards Clinton's resume.

Well said andy. That would make both the internet and the media verbal battle grounds. i know I've been waging war for a few years, verbally. Much better to battle in the marketplace of ideas then in the real world. The internet is THE key tool in the implamentation of true democracy. How did peopel survive withou this great tool? Thank Al gore for the invention. :)

this is the internet age. Don't let the gop take our freedom. Patriot act cronies spying on americans out there. Get a real job. Stop waging war on the american people. The governments job is not to wage verbal war on any people or party. More like moderate. Teh last 8 (and to a lesser extent 30) Have been a gop attempt to eliminate democracy and freedom. Good thing we have the internet now. Without it the fascists would have won, liek they did in the past, by misleading the masses. They win for the short term, but never over the long term. Fascism always loses once it is shown for what it is. Always. Yo uhad to know your golden age, due to gop terrorism and criminality, would never last. Remember nixon, gop. you forget so fast.

One more comment and then I'm done.

In her emotional moment at the diner, Clinton said she didn't want America to fall. Clinton will continue to polarize our nation by maintaining the same relationship that her husband and Bush have had with Congress. A divided Congress and White House will not result in the changes that are required at this critical time. We need real and signficant changes that will come only when we have president who can work with both sides in Congress.

United we stand and divided we fall. If we once again wanted to the United States of America then we need to elect someone who can unite us and not keep us divided.

Politics today is very similary to running a war. It's a battle for the party's nomination and ultimately a battle for the White House. Running a campaign demonstrates strategic thinking, planning and using their funds from their "war chests" wisely. All candidates must be prepared for the inevitable attacks that are launched against them.

It seems to me that throughout this battle the Clintons have used their campaign staffers and supporters to launch "IEDs" at Obama - to question his race, religion, and drugs. Their intent is to keep the party and the nation divided. The Clintons thought he was a political light weight, but he proved he could raise as much money as they could, and stir up a grass roots movement (army) to match theirs. Now that they see his army and war chest can match theirs, they are resorting to terrorist tactics to overcome his candidacy.

If voters cannot see any difference between the Clinton political tactics and those employed by terrorists in Iraq, America will ultimately end up in the same situation as the people in Iraq.

We need someone who is can reach out to people of all parties, who can unify us as one nation, indivisable. Obama has shown that he can do this, that is a sign of a true leader.

I hear you mikeb. you are the man.

I hope this is a calculated risk. doing the gop's job for them, then clinton taking the brunt of teh attack, as teh gop will never shy away from racism or swift boating. Maybe clinton really is a patriot and playing the race card, then getting eliminated as a result, so the tricks don't work when the gop tries this.

that would be nice. I don't think many people in washington could think of anyon ebut themselves though, so I'm skeptical. There's no way the clinton campaign is this stupid though. they have to have high paid advisers don't they?

I hope it's a ploy to marginalize rce for the general election. Obama is taking the high ground which is good. I think this is going to backfire on clinton. hopefully that is the plan. I'm thing the glass is half full here. :) Naive? No. just trying to look thorugh others eyes. clinton;s camp can't be this dumb.

It really scares me how similar the personalities of HRC and George Bush are. Neither of them ever admits they could ever make a mistake about anything, neither answers questions directly (instead they deflect and change the subject), and neither is willing to work with people who might have a differing opinion.

We don't need another George W., we need a leader who is responsive to the people!

PG

oBAMA, LIKE PAUL, IS a vessal. Any man/woman can be ripped up. It's what they reprsent that is greater than any one man/woman. clinton and the gop can rip one good man to shreds, trying to help his country. They cannot and will not kill obama'a movement. It's moot to try.

rufus - It' become obvious that the Clinton supporters, all of them, are as intellectually and morally bankrupt as Hillary. These racist scumbags don't understand the problem THEY created with their attacks on Martin Luther King, their silly insistance that the Clinton's are better "black leaders" than Obama, and their stream of underhanded postings about the racism of Obama's church, his being a secret Muslim, attacking him because he is a male, and on and on. I'm sick of them.

how do you feel abou tyou rclinton love today cc? You fascist pigs make me sick. Screw the country. Screw the future. Screw both parties. ALl for what? Money?

You people make me sick. clinton has zero shot. She can muddy up obama all day everyday. She can cry a river. SHE CANNOT WN THE PRESIDENCY. She why does she and her supporters do this? They are republcain sabotuers doing what republcain sabotuers do. Enjoy it why it lasts republcains. the future is upon you. The gop is dying out. They will not be replaced with fascists. So to sabotage, not Obama but what he represents, is to sabotage teh future. Clinton better hope a good person get's into the white house. For our childrens sake.

I told you all it was coming didn't I. Nobody could have predicted clinton would come this hard and this fast. Be wary of those who would interject race or sex. Why? Is she lacking without the "she's a woman thing". Does she have anything to run on other than that? I like that chris rock joke above. Funny. Don't want teh pilot's wife flying. Subtle yet on point. The clintons are republicans. I todl you all. Fear the yale plan.

"Bob Johnson Was A Bad OmenThe choice of this out-of-touch megalomaniac more (far more) than makes up for Obama having briefly had Donnie McClurkin singing some great gospel while harboring his own (if screwed up) views on homosexuality. Johnson is not exactly the toast of black America and hasn't been for quite some time. His decisions on how to program BET have made him a moving target for years now. But it was Hil and Bill who brought him on board, which suggests the tip of the iceberg has just breached.

As for the idiotic comments by Ms. Clinton re: LBJ vs. Dr. King: Nice Going Hillary. Without King's decade of putting himself on the line beforehand, there would never have been any act for Lyndon Johnson to sign. Stroke of a pen. Astounding! Totally eclipses the sacrifice of everything a man has, including, eventually, his life. Yep, all that experience paid off for LBJ and his ability to sign his name. It also taught him when to get the hell off the bus.

And that "fairy tale" comment by Bill -- well, that just disappoints the hell out of me. I never really placed much store by Hillary, but I did believe in Bill. Not anymore. As Russert made clear this morning, Obama's having voted to fund the so-called war was the result of Bush-Cheney's blackmailing Congress by threatening to leave our troops over there without even the bare necessities -- and having proved it by sending them in with defective and minimal personal armor and other important items. Wouldn't you?

Then HRC tells Russert Obama has "disorted" the Clintons' remarks. He did? I didn't hear a word until this morning it was reported he actually said the Clinton campaign had gone negative. Strong stuff. Quit picking on the poor girl!

The Russert interview was especially enlightening because it once again illustrated how unwilling Hillary is to ever answer a question directly, if at all. When asked three times by Russert if she felt Obama was qualified to serve as President, she diverted the question by saying "That's up to the voters to decide." So let me get this straight: the voters decide what Hillary thinks? That actually makes sense, and Russert went easy on her by not pointing it out!

The sense one gets from both Clintons (and I have been a constant admirer of Bill Clinton up til now, so this is painful for me) is that they really do feel they are America's Royal Family and don't call them on anything or Bill will follow Hil's harping by opening a can of whoop-ass on you.

Obama's restraint continues to inspire and amaze me. Probably not a good idea to push him too hard. There's stuff the Clinton's were doing back in the day that is not exactly sealed in a lead vault. Obama's only touched on the germane stuff so far. If nothing's off limits then the gloves could come off.

This could get really interesting.

-- AJCalhoun"

r

u

f

u

s

I'm to enraged to blog today. i don't want to hurt anyone's feeling today. clinton and the people that stand by her should be ashamed. Think about the histroy books. Clinton is going to write her name on the histroy books, she loves so much, as a race batier. After all the work she claims she has done. She blowing it all now. Why? If she loses graciously is her lecagy destroyed? No. So why does she do this?

The republcains (clinton included) are terrified. Scared of change. Scared the american people are turning away from their precious yale plane and over turning all they did. About time.

Hillary is very well-versed on the issues, and her debate performance confirms her acumen.
Obama impressed me enormously after his speech at the Democratic National convention in 2004.He was invited, I believe, by Bill Clinton to be a keynote speaker, and he was spellbinding.
Both are excellent candidates. It is unfortunate that they must now "play an elimination round", since only one person can win the Democratic nomination.
Advisers on both sides are telling their respective candidates to "take the gloves off", in order to pull ahead in this contest.
My vote is for Hillary, but I will not participate in smearing Obama. Neither person is perfect. The vote, by Senator Clinton, to authorize the administration to use force, if necessary in Iraq, was predicated on neocon lies and a national atmosphere of anger and fear. The entire country, and many of our (Dem) legislators cast their votes to support this resolution. Barack later supported funding for the same debacle. Don't let the right-wing manipulate this primary. Rove's comments about Obama, and his observations about Hillary are clearly designed to be a negative to each candidate. Rove knows that any tacit "support' of a Democrat, especially Clinton, is anathema to our base. The neocons are liars extraordinaire. All politicians "puff" the truth, including Clinton and Obama, but the neocons will fabricate, obfuscate, and manipulate. They have no moral compass, and will do anything, including ignoring empirical evidence and producing false information, to advance their agenda to make the rich richer and encourage corporate greed.
The public clamors for conflict, then complains about it. We pick apart every word or gesture of each candidate, even our own.
I have known I wanted Hillary as Chief Executive since her tenure as First Lady. Bill's administration was hamstrung by the right wing, or it would have accomplished even more. and the neocons have always been afraid of Hillary, and so have spent the last 16 years trying to demonize her. Oddly, some Dems supporting Obama have been repeating the necons talking points on Senator Clinton.
I knew also, that I really liked Barack as soon as I heard his momentous speech at the DNC. I envisioned 8 years of Hillary, followed by 8 years of Obama.
Please let's not shoot ourselves in the foot once more. Can we not get behind a Clinton/Obama ticket? Apparently not any more. Presidential hopefuls are an ambitious lot, and Senator Obama is no exception (nor is Senator Clinton). This ambition, and the adversarial primary contest in which we find ourselves, may indeed be our undoing.
Hillary in '08, then Obama in 2016. Let's take our country back and make history.

Clinton puts her foot in her mouth and blames someone else.

Wow- Cant she ever just admit when she's wrong instead of playing the victim ?

I liked Obama. Past tense. He turned what Bill Clinton said in his New Hampshire speech concerning his wrtings, interviews and speeches on Iraq into "being attacked". Not once has he commented on what was said because it is true and that would undermine one of his reasons for why he should be elected. What a politician and spinner, just the opposite of what he says he is. His campaign message is baloney, this is politics as usual. He accuses, in so many words, Hillary of using the race card, when he spun her comment about President Johnson, insinuating that she placed more importance on him rather than Martin Luther King in getting Civil Rights legislation passed. There have been leaders of the Black Community that have said that Obama is underestimating the Black voter's intelligence if he thinks they can manipulated by such tactics. I was almost taken in by him, what a disappointment!

".....New Hampshire's primary last Tuesday as Clinton scored a comeback victory over Obama just five days after placing third in the Iowa caucuses."

The perpetuation of the myth of Clinton's win over Obama contiues to be pushed by people like you. The dismissal of the probable fraudulent vote tabulation in NH has not been examined by the lazy media that often is quick to accept simplistic arguments like 'the respondents lied about their preference before the election AND after casting their vote.' Give me a break!

Get off from the lazy chair and do some hard thinking for a change. Ask yourself why all the predictions were right for the other candidates, but were wrong for Clinton and Obama. Also ask yourself why Obama should do well in rural areas of NH but do poorly in cities with large populations in a state with an overwhelming number of Caucasian voters.

A little skepticism is the cure for complacency and the key to discovery. Galileo did not accept the prevailing theory of the universe in his days. But you......well.

jimd52: The polls are quite meaningless as we have discussed many times, unless we can get the Internals and the ongoing trend lines. Michigan is critical for Mitt, he has to win, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Fla. is the same for Rudy. I don't think SC and Nev will play much of a role unless Obama does not win by a huge margin in SC, and I am beginning to think about how him and his people are playing race as their main issue [The MLK distortion] there, and this could backfire on him. SC, for the Repubs, means little change in the overall picture. Nev is a caucus, Sooo

The Clintons are just muddying the waters. They say they're trying to clear things up, to compare and contrast records, but all they're doing is making it more difficult for the voter, so that when primary day comes, their heads buzzing with disillusionment, they'll just bite the Clinton bullet like they're supposed to.

Saying Obama hasn't been "vetted", then bringing up a bunch of stuff that we've already been through over and over months ago, seems disingenuous at best. His equivocation about whether he would have voted Clinton's way on the Iraq war resolution if he were already in the Senate? We've been through this. It's well-documented. He was just deferring to his party's presidential candidate, John Kerry, before the 2004 convention, where he was about to deliver the keynote address. To take those comments and build a whole flip-flop narrative around them is blatantly, horribly, cynically evil.

The Meet the Press interview was so frustrating because it shows that Clinton THINKS WE ARE STUPID. She thinks people don't understand the question Russert was asking her, which is basically: Why is she asserting that the race charges leveled against her and her husband's comments came from Obama, when none of the prominent people leveling those charges are affiliated with Obama's campaign (and some are even Clinton supporters).

If anything, this reeks of false-flag race-baiting on Clinton's part. I can't keep level-headed about this anymore. I'm seething about this whole thing because it shows that the Clintons are betting that they can fundamentally insult the intelligence of the American people as a campaign strategy, where as Obama all along has been trying to at least give people some credit for their intelligence. That's it! I'm through with the Clintons. I hate them and they're dead to me. 2 weeks ago I would've given them the benefit of the doubt, but this is too much.

t. russert sure was trying to trip up clinton the whole time on meet the press. but she gave some awesome answers and never gave anti-hillary clone russert any quarter.

and it was classless russert who threw in mentions of lewinsky.

hillary clinton is smart, brave and is THE ideal president.

t. russert sure was trying to trip up clinton the whole time on meet the press. but she gave some awesome answers and never gave anti-hillary clone russert any quarter.

and it was classless russert who thew in mentions of lewinsky.

hillary clinton is smart, brave and is THE ideal president.

It seems that Barack Obama has a hard time when he is attacked and then decides it is time to bring race into this campaign as it is heading to SC.

Hillary Clinton's appearance on Meet the Press, despite Tim Russert, was a good one. She made clear that it is the record of accomplishment that really matters.

Obama compared himself to Martin Luther King, Jr. and JFK. Well it is fair then to look at the comparison as Clinton did. King put his life on the line for his beliefs. He walked the picket lines, he led marches, he went to jail for his beliefs and he led a movement.

JFK served in Congress for fourteen years before he ran for President. He was a war hero who risked his life for our nation. He wrote a book on history, "Why England Slept" not just a revisionist autobiography with which to launch a campaign.

Why does Obama feel he has done anything to comapare himself to these men except to make great speeches. And why is it not allowed to look into these comparisons.

It is sad that we can't talk about race in this country, or gender for that matter, without people being offended and feeling it is personal. Unfortunately what this means to me is that we haven't gotten as far as we think we have.

I was hoping we would get through this primary without race bating but the Obama camp feels they can't. Those of us in Washington, DC are used to that with Marion Barry. Everything comes down to race and it shouldn't. Obama benefitted from the civil rights movement and I am proud that he is a candidate for the Presidency. Hillary Clinton benefitted from the women's movement and I am proud that she is a candidate.

If we are truly to realize the dreams of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the suffragettes who fought for woman's rights then we need to look beyone race and gender and see what these two have accomplished.

If we do that it is hard to see how one can't come to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton has done more in her life to prepare her to be President than has Barack Obama. The record is there the press needs to report it fairly.

The time has come for a reality check here and people need to stop the hate against either Obama or Clinton. As a Democrat I will vote for either one of them over the Republican options that we will have. But in a world where there is a daily life and death crisis, where the economy is heading into a recession, where we need to work on legislation from day one to correct some of the outrageous problems the Republicans have created, clearly Hillary Clinton is the choice for now.

If we had a world at peace and could just look at moving forward I would say Obama may have the edge with his soaring rhetoric providing inspiration. But becasue the problems are real and immediate, it is Clinton who has the experience to clean them up now.

lyle

McCain has surged into the lead nationally among Republicans and his trend-lines are up in Michigan, South Carolina and Florida. If he wins all three, he is the nominee. McCain will beat Hillary - I doubt any of the other Republicans could, except possibly Giuliani (and he looks less and less likely as the nominee).

Obama's ongoing surge in the polls would be helped by McCain emerging as the clear front-runner. Since he performs much better in the polls versus McCain than Clinton does, her electability agrument is seriously undermined.

WHY CANT ANY OBAMA SUPPORTERS SAME ANYTHING EXCEPT RACE AND ATTACKS ON CLINTON! PRETTY OBVIOUS WHY!Giving Obama a free ride is doing a disservice to the country. It really is about Obama's message. He can't point to a record of accomplishment so he talks about bringing people together and giving people hope. The media has forgotten their job! They are responsible to inform voters of the differences between candidates, not to endorse or support just ONE! As they have with obamaboy!
**CNN last night Lou Dobbs said they polled the young voters supporting obama (which is how he is winning the recent caucuses) NOT ONE COULD SAY WHERE HE STOOD ON ANY ISSUE?? With the country at odds with so many foreign countries, it is horrifying to think of Barrack "Hussein" Obama (Muslim) running our country. You think we are in trouble with bush/Chaney!

ASSOCIATED PRESS-Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has lot of explaining to do. He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive. He supported allowing retired police officers to carry concealed weapons, but opposed allowing people to use banned handguns to defend against intruders in their homes. And the list of sensitive topics goes on. With only a slim, two-year record in the U.S. Senate, Obama doesn't have many controversial congressional votes which political opponents can frame into attack ads. But his eight years as an Illinois state senator are sprinkled with potentially explosive land mines, such as his abortion and gun control votes. recent land purchase from a political supporter who is facing charges in an unrelated kickback scheme involving investment firms seeking state business. Abortion opponents see Obama's vote on medical care for aborted fetuses as a refusal to protect the helpless. Some have even accused him of supporting infanticide. Obama admits campaign/PAC donation linksBad news for the Barack Obama camp and his politics of hope clean-guy image.The Washington Post reveals today that there was, indeed, close coordination between the Illinois senator's presidential campaign and his leadership PAC, Hopefund, in deciding which local, state and federal politicians around the country were to receive thousands of dollars in contributions from Obama's PAC.Such coordination appears to be forbidden under Federal Election Commission rules because it, in effect, would give a candidate another, less regulated financial fund to influence the outcome of his own campaign. But Obama officials express confidence they violated no rules. The Post's John Solomon reported the other day that Obama's Hopefund had distributed money in the early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire to people like New Hampshire state Sen. Jacayln Cilley, who got $1,000 from Obama last summer. Six days later the Democrat in the nation's first primary state announced her endorsement of his candidacy because she said she believed in him.Likewise, Obama's PAC gave $9,000 to U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes, who was New Hampshire's first congressional member to endorse Obama. In the earlier story Obama spokesmen denied any connection between the PAC and Democratic presidential campaign.But today's piece alters that account and says the PAC has distributed $180,000 to groups and candidates in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Iowa and another $150,000 to similar destinations in states with primary balloting through mid-February.Bob Bauer, private counsel for both Obama's campaign and PAC, named names of those from the campaign who'd help select the PAC's recipients and professed confidence the Obama entities had met all FEC regulations.But Scott Thomas, a Democrat and former FEC chairman, says: "He is clearly pushing the envelope."

McCaskill should watch who she endorses or she may endorse her way right out of the Senate.

lylepink | January 13, 2008 10:51 PM

Lyle, Bubba is making Hill look like a lightweight and a fool. He is a former president but looks like he's running for office himself. It is wholly unbecoming of his position.

Do you really think in a national election people are going to buy the 2X1 combo, AGAIN!

Samelson1, you are %100 right, I agree with you %100 because I watched and Hillary is %100 accurate. Tim is a loser, who is a liar?

Lyle,

Blame it on the ardency of youth.

Can't wait until the Republicans get their hands on Hill.

Wait, Mr. BET aka "Do the Sidney" is for Hill. I thought he was a Democrat. No, he's a Hillraiser!

The good news is Republicans will have KenDoll Unstoppable Mittmania for a little more pummeling to do. We hateful haters love a rumble when we see a phony take down.

Lyle, the lady that brought on Hill's "new voice" voted for Obama. Guess the good woman saw up close and personal how off-putting her on message venom is. Is her vote for Mr. Obama a hate vote or the quiet voice of sanity.

one of the things that strike me when i read these posts...or talk to the twenty something crowd...is how little they know about American History. Makes me doubt how our school system is working. The question about 35 years of experience has been answered over and over again. And yes...Senator Obama was the first to compare himself to MLK. I wonder if anyone noticed it was Senator Clinton who invited Senator Obama to come to New Orleans with her? I agree that Tim Russert was obnoxious during this interview and wonder if he will do the same kind of interview with Senator Obama?
It seems strange to me that Senator Obama wants these massive changes..but is ready to accept the ..."status quo"..of Senator Kerry. The one thing that has repeatedly bothered me is that he is Chairman of the Sub-commitee on Foreign Affairs in Europe..but has never called a meeting. That Sub-committee also includes Afganistan. Seems like an important duty. I also wonder why...if all those who were running and are running for president are able to get back to the Senate for some votes...he has been unable to do that. I also have a problem with his "present" vote to keep porn shops a certain distance from schools. He was the only one who voted that way. That doesnt seem like to difficult a decision to me. I guess his political image is more important than our kids.

An open letter to the Clinton 44 folks:

Can someone tell me what major legislation that Clinton 44 has sponsored and passed?

I don't see it. Her only major legislative attempt ended in absolute failure and set the cause of universal healthcare back a decade in this country. But she learned from it we're told. Has she? If her leadership is par excellence on the issue then surely she should you know, be able to write legislation as a legislator, and get that mother passed already! Why hasn't she?

The other historic legislation that she voted on was the "AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF FORCE IN IRAQ", which she admits she hasn't learned from and which was a catastrophic mistake of historical proportions. With all due respect to Clinton 44, her attempt to recast her vote is completely INSANE.

Everyone was watching that vote. Everyone who voted for it, knew what they were voting for, and if Clinton wants to go back and appeal to her vague and politically calculated maneuverings at the time, then by all means get at it! Voters aren't stupid.

I remember that vote quite well. I remember all the spineless Democrats who refused to challenge majority public opinion polls that showed majority support for the war and Clinton 44 was one of them.

I also remember a Senate candidate in the Illinois primaries, a fellow not supported by the Chicago machine, who took stands on progressive issues and had a legislative record to back it up. I remember this candidate most of all for his decision to VOLUNTEER his opinion to an unpopular war in a phase of the election cycle in which reporter's weren't even asking candidates for their positions on the topic and for which a candidate WOULD LOSE VOTES FOR TAKING.

Let me tell you folks, to VOLUNTEER an unrequited and unpopular position at a time when the public was raging for war, who was asking tough questions that other so-called representatives were completely ignoring (read Clinton 44), that is called JUDGMENT and CHARACTER.

I don't know, but that was the first time I decided to vote for Obama. Clinton 44's attempt to re-write history, on the premise that what, that she made a vote that reflects a complete failure of judgment and character and which she refuses to admit was a mistake, is completely dumbfounding to me.

Before you vote for this woman, I hope you will at least take a moment to watch Stephanopolos' This Week at least once, to watch the names of the latest American dead scroll across the screen.

See if one of them comes from your home state. See how old they are. Ask yourself where you were when you were 19? How many James do you know? Imagine what they could be doing today if enough of our elected representatives had the strength of moral judgment and character to ask the unpopular questions and not fall in line with teh latest polls.

And just remember your vote for Clinton 44 is a vote for more of THAT.

Get used to it.

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Certiorari
for Landmark Right to Petition Case

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2008-01-13.htm

The "Hillary Haters" know about as much as my little toenail. I have never seen such visceral Hatred directed at anyone that would even begin to compare to this hatred toward Hillary. I really do question the sanity of these folks.

There's so much BS and misinformation in this comment section i don't even know where to start.

For God's sake, people, research the candidates- not through rival's websites (like Hillary's "fact hub") but through actual records, voting records, and other unbiased sources.

I will never again vote for a Clinton. I used to wonder how anyone could support the Clintons, and their dirty political games, but now i see why- their supporters are just as nasty and dishonest as they are.

Hey Tesla, are you sure you aren't Zook reincarnated? Get over yourself.

As a life-long Progressive Dem, if Hillary is the Dem nominee, I will be looking for a Bloomberg/Obama ticket!

PG

Hey Tesla, are you sure you aren't Zook reincarnated? Get over yourself.

As a life-long Progressive Dem, if Hillary is the Dem nominee, I will be looking for a Bloomberg/Obama ticket!

PG

Got to hand it to HRC - didn't know those chubby legs could tap dance so fast.

Hill on MTP:
spinspinspinspinspinattackspinspinspinspinattackattackspinslaughspinspinspinspininterruptspinspinspinspinspinspinspinspinspins

Holey moley,folks. Are we really gonna do this again? Count me out.

Six months ago I was willing to give Hillary a pass. But now I just can't stand her. Is she someone we'd want our daughters to emulate? It's scary how easily she can lie. I am absolutely floored about what her campaign did in NH...see: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/12/taken_for_granite.html#more

Many Posters are criticizing Bubba for supporting Hillary. I just saw Mrs. Obama on CNN using the almost same exact words-"It is better to have tried and failed than to have never tried..." that Bubba used in an interview on Fox by Chris Wallace, this was in a response to the assertion Bubba had not tried to get Osama bin Laden. I recall Bubba said after the Hit Job tried by Chris-"At least, I tried."

I'm so sick of the Obama supporters on here distorting Sen Clinton's record to try and support someone who is clearly not ready to be President. Sorry folks, but one need only watch his debate performances to know that the Republican nominee will destroy him on foreign policy. Let's not forget, that he has not even won a debate and there have been plenty of them.

But the real problem I have with Obama, is the hypocrisy. He says he wants to unite the country, but he uses the race card against the Clintons to pander for votes in SC. He had Oprah go down there and bring up dogs and firehoses. Hell, he's so emboldened now, he did it himself today at a church in LA. A televised appearance.

Does this really have a place in a presidential race? I think not, if you're really trying to unite people. It offends me, because I didn't have anything to do with the sixties and I don't want it thrown in my face like I did.

He also had Jesse Jackson, Jr. say Hillary didn't cry for Katrina victims. More race-baiting.

And, let's not forget about the church he attends which has now taken down its racist website. I saw it and I copied it. It offended me too. Who's really racist?

I hope ALL the black people in SC vote for Obama because that will change the dynamics of this primary. If this becomes about race, who loses? Obama Campaign, be careful what you wish for.

Oh,one more thing, all these years, while Obama was carefully grooming himself to run for President, the Clintons were actually doing something to help African Americans.

We're not even in the general election yet and we have this sort of mudslinging...it is unfortunate... http://www.enewsreference.wordpress.com

well little nipper, seems that you can't read tooooooooooooo well...

I said it was a good post. Sorry your brain is working in time with your fingers or eyes...

and thanks for noting that it's FAUX insultingly that I post...

mostly I am driving the nail in sooooo far little hummers like you stink like you stink instead of like you want others to smell you.

my job is done here, it's simply to inform. I'll not be bothering you simple minded folk again today...

have at it little frogs....

jump around and make up stuff and stand unsullied by the light of truth...

...see yah.

.

Frank Delfino, thanks for the NYT link.
tesla, you could do worse than to take a break from posting

faux-artistically

spaced

INSULTS

and check out the information found there. It turns out Obama was actually quite productive in the Ill. State Senate, and on important issues, too. And I can't resist reposting these links which document his hard work in the US Senate:

http://obama.senate.gov/news/070305-obama_biden_spo/
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/07/01/20070108.html
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-768

Listen, people, if you don't agree with his politics, that's one thing... although if you don't. you ought to be able to articulate why in grown-up language. Consult a dictionary if you have to.

If, however, you are opposing him because you want Bill to be president again, and the '90s to return, pre-bin Laden, pre-Putin, pre-Katrina, pre-Abu Ghraib, pre-fear of global warming, pre-economic insecurity etc. etc. well, I'm afraid that not only can Bill legally not serve a 3rd term, he couldn't bring that back anyway.

Neither can Hillary. And of course, neither can Obama... the difference being that he won't try. And he shouldn't - new challenges call for a new approach, and anyway America ain't no monarchy. We're about to conclude an 8-year experiment with the hereditary presidency, and it turns out democracy is a good idea after all.

In the critical years of the Civil Rights movement (1963-1965) Hillary was a fan of Barry Goldwater, who voted against the Civil Rights Bill.
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/dr-king-didnt-just-give-speeches/

I'm worried where this thing is going. The tone has instantly gotten pretty hot...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Senator Obama talks about better conviction in regards to his opposition to Iraq war.But what happened to Obama after that.He never brought resolution against the war in the senate.He voted same as Senator Clinton on war funding bill.
Obama is all talk no action.
Where is the "Beef".
Hillary is going to be better Commander-in-Chief than Obama.

Never before in modern politics has a former president gotten directly involved in a political campaign. It is thought to demean the presidency. While it is certainly understandable that Bill Clinton would campaign for his wife, the fact that he is serving as an attack dog against her opponents instead of as a character witness for her is destroying his reputation as a former president. He's playing the part of just another partisan hack and spinmeister. It will be interesting to see how this plays out for him in the future.

The truth is without MLK efforts nothing would have happened. LBJ was a minor part of the process. He simply signed the legislation under intense pressure from the American people who were inspired by the great words and efforts of MLK. Hillary distorts history giving LBJ much more credit than he deserves.

svreader - If I am incorrect with any of the information that I presented regarding Clinton's failed health care initiative, please feel free to correct me and provide citations.

I'm not quite sure how to respond to "Senator Clinton is a far better person than you will ever be." That type of blind idol worship is the same reason that G.W. Bush was re-elected.

I served my country in the US Navy during the first Gulf War and can't abide by someone who blindly votes for an unnecessary and unethical war.

Harried - I stand corrected on the quotation though the sentiment remains.

Tesla - I saw you mention me, though I couldn't make sense out of anything beyond that.

priceisright subtly tells us his position...

selling rascism....as a fabrication.

and still noone of merit.....ah me for a good mind to match one as incredible as my own...

I long for an intelligent conversation, woe is me....

there are none here, just prognosticators of dishonesty, honing their skills on the unsuspecting....

the "nice guys," who they hope to help finish last with Kerry's polished help...

he disemboweled Dennis K. in the 2004 debate by referring to him sneeringly as a "VEEgan," as if it meant HOMOsexuah...

as some use the term negrah, or laborah, or wimmen, or yankee doodle dandy

disparaging users of appeal to emotion.... learn the scam and buy a skinning knife... and learn to skin 'em...

they make good shoes, they never wear out....

.their brains, they don't use 'em.

.

The more I do my homework and the closer I look at Hillary Clinton's history and the people who know and worked with her in the past. The more I am convinced she can not do the job. I fear she will be the death of us all. Please do your homework people.

that was a good response FrankDelfino,

are you really not a repukelicking scammer???

hard facts, maybe, I haven't checked yet. Innuendo is nice for children, I don't go to suggested links...

that's also nice for whoever owns the link...if you're trying to collect the names and positions of opponents...

I have been courted online here by Dennis Hastert, Karl Rove, Libby and several other members of the spawn of Satan clubbe...walks like a duck, talks like a duck...must be a duck clubbe...

.

HRC's supporters have yet to explain the "35 years experience".
I think most of her supporters are arrogant. They describe Obama as pompous but this thinking seems to me to smack of subtle racism.
It seems that HC supporters can't get over the fact that their choice, will not be handed the nomination just b/c. They usually are projecting this as Obama's attitude.

The headline on this thread says it pretty well. Obama calls the reporters to tell them he has not commented on remarks made by Hillary on MTP, then to further his cause misrepresents what Hillary actually said. Fox News {The Great Hillary Supporter} have been running this little story all day. Wake UP folks.

karlbj: "Obama doesn't have a strong voting record. He has spent of his time voting "present" in Illinois then actually taking a stand and voting on an issue. Do you really want someone like that for
president?"

Karl, you should really do some research before buying everything the Clinton spin machine has force fed you. Obama voted "Present" 130 times out of the over 4000 votes he cast as an Illinois State Senator.
Here's a breakdown done by the NYTimes of his record in the Illinois Senate: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html

His record is hardly that of someone who is not "taking a stand and voting on an issue."

Do yourself and the rest of America a favor by actually reading the exhaustive amount of information on all of the candidates that is freely available on the net before you regurgitate the misleading criticisms leveled by an unapologetic attack machine.

It is unconscionable in our age of instant access to information that someone wouldn't take the time to educate themselves on what is shaping up to be an historic presidential race.

Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument. This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including:

Appeal to consequences
Appeal to fear
Appeal to flattery
Appeal to pity
Appeal to ridicule
Appeal to spite
Wishful thinking

1 Related fallacies
2 Examples
3 See also
4 External links

Related fallacies
Other types of fallacies may also overlap with or constitute an appeal to emotion, including:

Ad hominem attacks
Guilt by association
Misleading vividness
Slippery slope
Two wrongs make a right (if arguing for revenge) or "the Clintons did it first/too"
Straw man

Examples
"For the children"
"For the good of the country"
"if you're not gay" don't support gay marriage.

P.S. any credible journalist could and would supply the same analysis of posters and positions...

this is STANDARD DEBATING KNOWLEDGE

where's your responsible editor when you need them? taking payola from the Whitehouse as in Fred Hiatt's case.

.

please notice:

1. the repukelickingscammers are attacking HRC because they fear losing their lives in a purge of THE TREASONOUS.......

2. they are backing and attacking Obama, because they can control_him, as they did Hamilton in the IRAN CONTRA PROBE

little dawg cheenie to the ress que below:

Lee Hamilton was the chairman of the House committee looking into the Iran-contra affair. He was paired with Dick Cheney at the time, and chose to ignore damning evidence against Reagan and Bush the Elder because he thought an impeachment trial would have been 'bad for the country.' Lee also headed the investigation into the 1980 October Surprise; he did such a kickass job that he exonerated Bush before the investigation even began, effectively cutting out the V.P. from the inquiry. Then Lee co-chaired the 9/11 commission (see? bipartisan!), leading the commission to point out all sorts of flaws in the Bush administration's handling of events prior to the attacks, only to whitewash the conclusions and recommendations. Now Lee is co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, working with James Baker on getting to the truth of what's happening in our new terrorist training camp. Guess how this one's going to turn out? Better yet, guess whether it's going to turn out. Based on his record, no doubt ol' Lee is going to conclude (if anything) that the truth would be just too hard to take for the fragile constitutions of the American people, who so rarely furnish their homes with a good fainting couch these days.

a synopsis of his damage to the CONSTITUTION:

Lee Herbert Hamilton (born April 20, 1931), the vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, currently serves on the President's Homeland Security Advisory Council, having previously served in the United States House of Representatives for thirty-four years.

once complicit ALWAYS CRIMINAL....

.

Clinton emphatically emphasized that although Obama made an anti-Iraq intervention speech in 2002, it was down from his Web site in 2003 and by 2004 he "was saying he really didn't disagree with how George Bush was conducting the war."

When Russert reminded Clinton that she voted similarily, Clinton said she differed from Obama in that she was not pretending to be something she was not."I'm not premising my campaign on something different. I'm not here saying anything different from that," she said. "We can sit here and argue about 2002, or we can say what has happened since and what needs to happen going forward in the future."

Did Senator Barack Obama flip flop on his Iraq war position?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1521

.

Hillary is not electable because she is too divisive and Obama is not ready.
Having said that. I think the Clinton's are furious that Obama has been as sucessful as he has and they resent being forced to actually fight for a nomination they believed they had won before votes were cast.
Obama blew the Clinton's aura of invincibility. The Clinton's were supposed to be "inevitable" and this process was supposed to be wrapped up with New Hampshire. It hasn't worked out that way.
The Clinton's are worried about their future as the "de facto" leaders of the democratic party. If Hillary loses the nomination the clinton era will effectively be over. For the clinton's a Hillary loss means the democratic party has moved beyond the clinton years and I believe that's why they are so angry and are making these kinds of comments.
The clintons better get used to the idea that Hillary is going down. It's either going to happen during the primaries or the general election. Either way the clinton era is over.

hey gkebe2, she's been present as an advisor and partner...

and why do you talk so much about Clintons cherries....he got something you want but it makes you nervous?

and then you try and sell several misinterpretations of events?

why is that? is that all you have? are you a repukelickingscammer shill???

are you the best they have?

I see no one of merit on your team...bring on the big guns little scammer, I feel like frying up some squirrel...

come to pappa barker.

.

What 35 years of experience are we talking about?
First, Hillary is basing her whole campaign on her husband's cherries.
Second, by just watching her campaign, one can tell she can't unify the country. All she talks about his distorting others' records.
Third, she can't win against republicans in general elections...Democrats won't even vote for her.
Last, she is ready to use everything, including tears to gain your vote..
Watch out!!!

see,

no refutation....if it's not an insult, it's beyond their intellectual capacity...

.it's who they are, THEBIGLIE.

takethemdowntotheriverand washthemclean.

forever.

.disinformation is a crime, if it interferes with exercising your right as a citizen...

it's called fraud.

arrest the perps.

.

frankblazek sounds just like trace1, Kim2, and FrankDelfino

could it be?????

how obvious do repukelickingscammers have to be for you to see them....

get out the RAID, the roaches are swarming....

or maybe this is a case for BLACKFLAG!!!!!!!

frankblazek,

how about a conversation little pinto? I feel like a ride.

.

please notice:

1. the repukelickingscammers are attacking HRC because they fear losing their lives in a purge of the treasonous

2. they are backing Obama, because they can control him as they did Hamilton in the IRAN CONTRA PROBE

little dawg cheenie to the resque below:

Lee Hamilton was the chairman of the House committee looking into the Iran-contra affair. He was paired with Dick Cheney at the time, and chose to ignore damning evidence against Reagan and Bush the Elder because he thought an impeachment trial would have been 'bad for the country.' Lee also headed the investigation into the 1980 October Surprise; he did such a kickass job that he exonerated Bush before the investigation even began, effectively cutting out the V.P. from the inquiry. Then Lee co-chaired the 9/11 commission (see? bipartisan!), leading