Thank you for your committment to accuracy, Mr. Corn!

desperate times call for desperate measures.
it's too bad that HRC did stoop to this level, I always admired her, but she has been getting some real bad advise from her 'handlers', just as Kerry got.
Damn it, just be yourself and let the chips fall where they may, but stay true to your inner core - just like Obama

Will Hillary have the same handlers as president?

Hillary is again trying to have it both ways by attacking Obama with half-truths while tearfully impersonating a human being when asked about her hairdo. I do find his voting record somewhat troubling on issues like USAPATRIOT and war funding, but his opponents aren't any better. And as for sponsoring legislation, Obama did more in two years than Hillary in seven.

Why aren't you working for Fox News, Mr. Corn? Afraid of no doubt being left as to how you view the world? Trashing Hillary Clinton in this particular situation is beneath contempt.

Hey Bruce,

What's wrong? David Corn is giving us the front-line, Presidential news. This is what I want to read, and he does it well.

"She looked at me for a nanosecond and walked away."

And THAT says more than a thousand words.

BTW from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Corn

"David Corn is an American political journalist and author. Effective at the end of October, 2007 Corn accepted the position as chief of the seven-person Washington bureau for Mother Jones (magazine).[1] He worked as the Washington editor for The Nation and has also appeared regularly on FOX News and National Public Radio. He is also a frequent guest on the video media site BloggingHeads.tv, opposite James Pinkerton, or other media personalities"

*****

DC does appear on FOX News from time to time - does that make for some kind of disqualification - I have heard a few partisans demand the return of his liberal decoder ring because they didn't like the truth.

"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear."
~ Herbert Agar

I noticed that in the Iowa X News and National Public debate when she attacked Edwards for voting on something that didn't get passed. Earlier she talked about a vote she made that my husband knew did not pass. I also noticed several times in the debate she "twisted" and put words in the mouth of her opponents that they never said. Frankly I have no idea why she thinks the audience doesn't notice. The biggest bad was she she keeps saying Obama is all talk and hasn't outlived a plan (e.g. healthcare in this case). Obama was very specific about what he wanted to do for various issues while Hilary only said I voted for this issue--she was the one who didn't have a plan and if I didn't know better I don't think she even knows what she voted on in many cases. Take the illegal alien driver's licenses for example. Hilary's biggest problem is that Obama is a good speaker and a very smart man. I hate myself for saying this and I really don't understand it. I have NEVER voted Democrat in any national election but after listening to Obama's debate on ABC in Iowa I have to admit if the election for President were held today this long time Conservative Republican (I'm 47) will cross parties and vote for Obama without a doubt.

It's interest that as of Sunday the Republican media outlets had nothing but praise for Hilary--honestly they beleive she is the one that can be beat against a Republican--this said months ago too. After seeing her Iowa debate performance I'd have to agree. Meantime the Democrat media have nothing but praise for Hilary because they are convinced she is the one to beat a Republican--we'll just have to see. When it comes to debate she is most definitely not Bill. If Obama's wave is indeed true, if masses continue to grow for him, I'd have to say this man can be President and if he does continue to bring the hope in his first term he will be a two term president and the kind that people absolutely love e.g. Reagan.

She (Hillary) is clueless. She has no idea how to win an election. Has she even proposed a plan to create 25 million good jobs over the next 5 years? No. This is the change many are looking for. She is just so stupid. She does not see what is going on. Her husband signed NAFTA and she thinks she can make America better. What a joke! The Clintons helped ruin AmericaQ

Yes... there is something disingenuous about HRCs style of campaigning. She'd be much more effective if she was herself. But maybe that's who she is: tough, defensive and disconnected.

She's screwed and she knows it. She won't even get a VP invite. Too bad, so sad. Don't let the door hit ya!

Kirkbrew,

Exactly. She destroyed herself right before the American people.

I would like to say that, if everyone who was running for President right now was truly honest and never had some semblence of dishonesty in their campaign or in their run in government, that would be truly amazing.

The only one I can think of who stands out for what is right and is not dishonest is Dennis Kusinich.

Now for Senator Clinton.
She is the first woman to run for the Presidency. I give her a considerable amount of credit for that. She is running against all men and she needs to be strong, but while being strong, she is considered cold. When the guys in this race are strong can we call them cold or standoffish? There have been negative things said about Senator Clinton but when she fights back, (maybe not so honestly) she gets crap for it. I feel that her time as Senator was not a very good one. There are a lot of things that I do not agree with, but she has my admiration for just standing up and being the first woman to run for President.
Give her the credit she is due.
She has been in the White House as first lady, she helped the United States become more stable than it had been in previous years.

All of you out there who just call her "Hillary" show no respect for the fact that she is a United States Senator. She is Senator Hillary Clinton. I will continue to admire her for her achievements.

I have been mixed about Sen. Clinton for years,she's my(NY) senator. However, after listening to two things she said yesterday,added to her Iraq war & Kly-Lieberman votes, I am very clear that I do not want a President Clinton.
She said ,in trying to diminish Obama as all talk-that MLKing talked about a civil rights bill but it took Pres. Johnson to pass it. Then she brought up the same fear-based tactics of Bush by trying to insinuate that we should be very careful voting for an untested Obama because we could face a terrorist threat just as Prime Minister Brown did when Tony Blair left office. How disgusting! I'm not sure I will even vote for her should she run again for NY senator.

"We know how to beat them," Mrs. Clinton, referring to herself and her husband, once said of the Republicans. And she might well be right -- her spin in this situation is very Karl Rove-esque. But it's also this kind of demagoguery that drags down the political debate.

Unfortunate for the Clintons, they were prepared to battle the Republican smear mongering machines.

And they have a good record of that.

Be she cannot win anything when the Democrats are willing to eat their own.

I've never been so disgusted in my life.

We are sure as heck headed to a multi-party system.

I no longer feel I belong in the Democratic party. In this election, so many are behaving like Republicans.

But actually, that would be dishonest.

The Republicans now how to stand together and win an election.

The Democrats must destroy each other for the prize (this is so dissapointing)to me. In essence, they are handing the Republicans the bullets to shoot their gun with in the election.

And I simply can't admire that.

Hillary Clinton may be a lot of things that are negative.

But she is also a lot of positive. And it is a bad day in America when an accoplished woman like herself is made out to be nothing more than a bitch in pants.

No wonder the world thinks we are backward hill billies.

I spoke to Pakistani man last night. He told me that in his country, women are treated with reverence and respect.

It may explain why here, we have yet to even treat a woman candidate with respect.

As an American woman, I admire and respect Hillary Clinton. And I give her credit for opening doors for future women politicians.

What this woman has done to garner this type of hateful speak about her from the very women she has been proming all of her life will be talked about for centuries.

This is what you get from experienced politicians ( accomplished liars and spin doctors).

Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected. What she will do IF elected (big if) is anybody's guess. I'll go with Obama any day.

Thank you for contributing to an honest dialogue, the preferred 'currency of our democracy'- Timothy Eagleson

Hillary knows from personal experience how well mudslinging works. She had mud on everything she owns. Thanks to her mudslinging, we now can expect President McCain and the downward spiral of the American empire to continue unabated. Buy stock in Halliburton....

Once a Clinton, always a Clinton ! We need a whole new day and Obama has credibility ! Clinton & Clintons have NONE !!

The reason Mr. Obama claims to oppose the 87 bilion is that he says it is important to say no to George W Bush. If the whole premise of his position is to say no to George W Bush, then that reasoning cannot be logically limited to only this 87 billion. He was promising to stand up to Bush, which he did not do by voting for all the other funding bills. What changed? Obviously once he was no longer running to win liberal Illinois, but the whole country, his belief that we needed as a matter of principle to say no to George W Bush disappeared.

The second quote provided does not actually prove Mr. Obama honest, but in fact does the exact opposite. It reads:

Obama challenged the Congress to 'stand up to the misplaced priorities of this Administration' by delaying the $87 billion for Iraq until the President provides a specific plan and timetable for ending the U.S. occupation, justifies each and every dollar to ensure it is not going to reward Bush political friends and contributors, and provides 'investment in our own schools, health care, economic development and job creation that is at least comparable' to what is going to Iraq. 'It's not just Iraq that needs rebuilding. It's America, too,'

Here Obama tells the audience that he will not vote to fund the war until the Bush administration has changed its misplaced priorities. I can promise you that Bush did not provide the domestic investments that Obama outlines here before Mr. Obama voted to fund the war. This is flat out evidence that Mr. Obama lied in his campaign. He should not have been able to cast a vote to fund the war until Bush had provided "investment in our own schools, health care, economic development and job creation that is at least comparable' to what is going to Iraq." That sure as hell didn't happen, but Mr. Obama voted to fund the war anyway. Clearly Mr.Obama knew that wouldn't happen and so this rhetoric was his way of saying he would not vote for billions for Iraq when that money should be being spent here. This is a promise Mr. Obama did not even come close to keeping. This article takes Mr. Obama's words and attempts to interpret them in way which is simply not consistent with their context. This is one of the most dishonest, baised articles I have ever read.

To restate what I just said more simply- saying you should vote to fund the war when George Bush "provides 'investment in our own schools, health care, economic development and job creation that is at least comparable' to what is going to Iraq." is the same thing as saying you should never vote to find the war. We all sure as heck knows George Bush is NEVER going to do that. He might as well have said you should vote to find the war when pigs fly.

Hillary’s campaign operative provided weak documentation to back up their claim that Obama is a phony on Iraq. It is nevertheless easy enough find better documentation that demonstrates that Obama is a phony on Iraq and that Obama does not represent real change.

Obama himself does not deny that he and Hillary have voted the same way on Iraq while serving in the U.S. Senate. Obama can only differentiate himself by pointing out his initial opposition to the Iraq invasion. Obama has admitted this in a NY Times article. (See “Obama Disputes Claim of Sharing Clinton’s Stance on War,” by Patrick Healy, NY Times, 5/18/07)

Obama is a phony on the war because he not only funds the war, but he also ran away from Murtha’s plan and fought against a timetable (until the Nov 06 midterm elections). Furthermore, Obama refused to raise the issue of the phantom WMDs which was the justification for the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq.

As a freshmen Senator, Obama acted quickly to legitimize the war. In Jan 2005, Obama voted to promote one of the key architects of the war, Condi Rice, to Secretary of State. Obama did not ask then National Security Advisor Rice a single question about the WMDs or justification for the war at her confirmation hearing.

Obama has campaigned for pro-war Democrats, such as Senators Maria Cantwell and Joe Lieberman. In Illinois, Obama, Durbin, and Rep. Emanuel worked to undermine anti-war congressional candidate Christine Cegelis and replace her with pro-war candidate Tammy Duckworth.

Obama voted in June, 2006 against an amendment proposed by Sen. John Kerry that would have, as Obama said, bring the troops home on a “date certain.”

Obama said on the Senate floor at that time:
“A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field and our diplomats in the region insufficient flexibility.”

Obama was MIA for the roll call vote on Kerry-Feingold amendment on June 22, 2006.

After the November 2006 mid-term elections, Obama once again became the anti-war candidate. For a more detailed discussion, see “Once opposed setting ‘date certain’”, by Lynn Sweet, Chicago Sun-Times, 1/31/07

Obama said little about Iraq in 2005, and in 2006 Obama
argued against timetables in public appearances.
See “Mr. Obama Goes to Washington,” by David Sirota, The Nation, June 9, 2006.

After the Democrats became the majority and were engaged with a showdown on war funding with Bush, Obama told the Associated Press that if President Bush vetoes the war funding bill because of its timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq, the Congress will then swiftly provide the president with another version that lacks such a provision. According to the AP, Obama explained this by saying that no lawmaker “wants to play chicken with our troops.” (March-April 2007)

In sum, Obama is indeed a big phony on Iraq. Obama was an anti-war candidate in the Illinois Senate primary, then he transformed into a war funder and Bush enabler until he was ready to run in the presidential primaries.

The Bush enabler role must have been hard to shed, because even as late as April
2007 Obama was making comments (see AP story above) which undermined Cogress' war funding powers.

The nanoseconds have a way of quickly adding up to hours and days of silence. Hillary's operatives will make sure she never answers a straight question with a straight response. Get ready for Rudi and Mac.

Seems to me you are entering the gossip/rumor world and no longer commenting the issues. I recommend you get back on track.

He is right you are wrong. Fox would like Hilary to win the nomination so they can continue this polarization of the electorate, without that polarization the GOP loses in 08, just like they would have the last 2 times.

That is precisely why he could work across parties to unite America. Why is this even a topic, do everyone out there think that politics in this country is so cut and dry. Politics here more complex than simply yes/ no. If he hadn't funded the war you would say he didn't support the troops. What was important was the stance that he made against an open-ended visionless war. Never-the-less our troops should not suffer lost due to the partisanship that over-runs Washington, if Obama gets the nomination His actions in regard to that vote will be understandable and acceptable to members of both political parties. Party-politics is not concerned with the issues at hand. Both arguments have merit our troops need not be punished for the propaganda and fearmongering which got them sent to Iraq, nor should the congress and senate passively accept the refusal of this administration to define a vision for victory in Iraq along with an actionable exit strategy. Democrats did not start this disgusting war, however as representatives of America they do have an obligation to make decisions in the best interest of America and the troops. Unite American inspire the country, lead by example, perserve the Constitution. If you don't even have the audacity to believe this is possibility then in my opinion you don't deserve to lead this great nation. I small mind only has small ideas if any. Anyone who thinks that this vote makes Obama a flip-flopper in out of touch with the larger issue, and concerned only with partisan party politics.

I am disappointed with many of my fellow Americans, if you want ultimate truth "read the new testiment or the gnostic gospels" You are unlikely to find it in Washington or even within your own household.

Technically, David Corn is correct in saying that Hillary misquoted Obama. Obama did not explicitly promise to never vote for war funding.

Below is a reference to an ABC News story that is headlined:
“Obama Changed Position on War Funding.”
(Google: "ABC News OBAMA CHANGED POSITION ON WAR FUNDING By Jake Tapper and Jonathan Greenberger")

Indeed, Obama changed position on war funding. Moreover, Obama refused to do anything requested by his anti-war constituents, such as support Murtha’s Plan, support Kerry-Feingold amendment, back anti-war candidates, ask questions about the absence of WMDs in Iraq, etc.

Hillary may his misquoted Obama, but her main point is that Obama is a phony on Iraq. Hillary’s main point is true, and her misquote doesn’t make Obama genuine on Iraq.

OBAMA CHANGED POSITION ON WAR FUNDING
Democratic Presidential Contender Opposed War Funding in 2003 but Has Voted Four Times for Funding in Senate
By Jake Tapper and Jonathan Greenberger
ABC News
March 21, 2007
http://i.abcnews.com/Politics/story?id=2970930&page=1

From the ABC News article:

Obama’s campaign says that he opposed the $87 billion war supplement because a portion of the funds were to be directed toward reconstruction of Iraq, which he feared would be distributed inappropriately.

But at the time, Obama’s public statements suggested he opposed voting for the supplement as a way of opposing the president’s overall strategy in Iraq, and not just the reconstruction funds.

And in that Council for a Livable World questionnaire he completed while a Senate candidate in September 2003, Obama wrote that he wanted to delay approving the additional funds until President Bush provided a timetable for withdrawal, although the Obama campaign notes that he also wrote he was concerned about the reconstruction money going to political friends of the White House.

Obama told the Chicago Sun Times in November 2003 that he opposed the funding because it ‘enables the Bush administration to continue on a flawed policy without being accountable to the American people.’

Obama, as a Senate candidate, therefore opposed war funding because he:
1)was afraid of appropriating money for no-bid contracts
2)wanted to oppose Bush’s overall strategy in Iraq
3)wanted to delay funding until Bush provided a timetable for withdrawal.

Obama then went to the U.S. Senate and voted for war funding. Obama fought against a timetable for withdrawal in 2006.

Regarding reason #1 - no-bid contracts and cronyism - it is important to remember that more information became available regarding these sweetheart contracts during Obama’s first two years. Yet Obama continued to vote for war funding. According to his position during his Senate campaign, Obama should therfore have been more eager to vote against war funding.

Regarding reason #2 - to oppose Bush's overall strategy - it is important to remember that as time progressed it became more apparent that Bush would not withdraw troops no matter what the American public wanted or the escalating cost. According to his position during his Senate campaign, Obama should therefore have been more eager to vote against war funding. (In addition, more evidence became availabe over time that we did not invade Iraq because of WMDs)

Rearding reason #3- timetable for withdrawal. Obama supported a timetable during his Senate campaing, then went to Washington and fought against a timetable. As a candidate for the Democratic nomination, Obama once again now supports a timetable.

In sum, Obama is indeed a big phony on Iraq. Although Obama never explicitly make a direct promise to never vote for war funds, it sure seems logical for Illinois voters to conclude based on his campaign that he would go to Washington and do SOMETHING to try to end the war.

The important question is not whether or not Hillary misquoted Obama. Technically she misquoted him. But the real question is did Senator Obama use his power as a Senator to end the war when he got to Washington? If so, what did he do?

Obama did NOTHING to end this horrendous, bloody, illegal occupation.

Thank you, J Thompson for correcting the record. Corn gets panting over Obama and he goes crosseyed.

Until he ran for president, Sen. Obama supported every funding bill for Iraq.

[2005 Vote # 117, HR1268, 5/10/05; 2005 Vote # 326, S1042, 11/15/05; 2006 Vote # 112, HR4939, 5/4/06; 2006 Vote # 239; 2006 Vote # 186, S2766, 6/22/06, HR5631, 9/7/06]

From Alternet.com:

He lent his politically influential and financially rewarding assistance to neo-conservative pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman’s (“D”-CT) struggle against the Democratic antiwar insurgent Ned Lamont. Obama has supported other “mainstream Democrats” fighting antiwar progressives in primary races (see Alexander Cockburn, “Obama’s Game,” the Nation, April 24, 2006).

Hillary is not the first woman to run for President!... 1872 Victoria Claflin Woodhull.. She is however the first woman running for President that has won a primary..

I love the way Hill is being portrayed as a modern day Joan of Arc. Give me a break.

I saw the debate she's not some shrinking violet. She slapped Obama and Edwards aorund for talking about their personal passion and that's not enough to be President. Then the next day she gets a crackle in her voice with NO TEARS!

For anyone that has watched the Clinton's over the years.. They are great counter punchers. They suck at starting fights. They are thrown off by Obama. How do you handle the feel good guy?

In NH they did look out of touch and desperate. I was disapointed in the Former President's position. He should hang back and let the more than capable Hillary slug this out on her own.

Clinton Theme Song: "Don't Stop Lying About Tomorrow"

This article explains why I want any Democrat but Hillary Clinton for President. I am tired of the politics of personal destruction, which the Clintons are very good at. Let's turn the page and start fresh with a new voice.

Rezko was building a power station in Iraq....that's why Obama okayed the funding. Auchi was getting contracts too.

Obama is hip deep in development contracts in Iraq.

http://www.radicalleft.net/blog/_archives/2008/2/4/3498280.html

I believe that, if Hillary loses, it'll have been media that struck the final blow. Media, especially the media gas bags, the whores, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, Wolf Blitzer, etc., are the true causes.

It was Russert, in CNN's pretense of a debate, that was the first successful effort to draw blood. Hillary was hounded by Russert to an astonishing degree.

He placed her in the most embarrassing possible circumstances, by asking her a question, about driver's licenses for immigrants, that could not have been answered in a half hour, let alone the 1 or 2 minutes alloted to candidates.

He then proceeded to attack her over and over again, to such a degree that he seemed to lose touch with the debate entirely, or that other candidates existed, so feverish and maniacal was his attack on her.

CNN has been running a non-stop attack on Hillary. Last night, during the Iowa caucuses, Wolf Blitzer, kept Hillary off his program entirely, refusing to show a promotional clip from her campaign, even though he showed clips from all the other campaigns.

During the caucus evening, he would not mention her name, he would not show a picture of her, he blacked her out completely. The only time she got attention, was when it was to demean and insult her.

Whatever people were on Wolf's coverage of the caucuses, were also Hillary haters, that directed their venom on her nonstop.

How on earth can a candidate run a campaign on a level playing field with powerful media networks working constantly to insult and demean her?

This, on top of the attacks from the other candidates, and from the right-wing nut jobs, that are constantly feeding us their twisted lunacy about her.

This was done, so that she would have as little influence on this campaign as a media network could produce against her.

The job of the 'left-gatekeepers' like HuffPo and AlterNet is to pretend to fight the 'establishment', while in actuality they're supporting the same "everything is fine" fantasy as the PTB.

Obama fits very well into this mold by giving some of the disaffected the illusion that America is becoming a more "progressive" place because a half-black man is a major political figure.

Don't believe the hype. Not only is he just as "bought" as the rest of them, but he'll never be 'elected' anyway.

What change does Obama represent? Other then the fact he is black and is doing very well in the presidential primaries, he is almost identical to Hillary Clinton politically.

You're all wrong. Obama is spining the lie of his anti-war opposition in a way where people say "he voted against the war". He should correct this, and make it clear, that he OPPOSED it.

He is a liar, and Clinton is not getting desperate. She is getting accurate, and bringing the truth to people.

www.stop-obama.org

Mr. Corn,

This article borders on innuendo and gossip. Stick to the facts, as you have asked the candidates to do.

FACT: Obama was NOT a senator when the vote to go to Iraq came before the Senate. Clinton, along with about 97% of her colleagues, voted for the Iraq war. (That included Kerry!)

CLinton is right, talk is CHEAP. Obama's talk has consistently been to condemn ANY support of Iraq war, however, in recent times he has hedged his bet.

You are not reporting, you are nitpicking to have it go your way for your candidate. It's okay to write this as a column, but not a "news item" in MJ.

i agree that the information given by hillary was in fact a bit dodgy. However, it is stated that he planned to stop bush by opposing the fuding of 87 billion dollars for the war, and while he did oppose it he turned around and voted on a 300 billion doolar funding of the war. i think we are missing something in this column. how would the latter funding differ from his previous refusal?