I think the politicians forget that most voters consider honesty a strength not a weakness, that being candid and being a candidate doesn’t demand a skew of others positions just an exploration of the truth.

The politicians diverge from the character of their voting supporters at their ultimate peril.

It's not a smear - it's a reality check. One judgment call on the Iraq issue does NOT mean Obama would have good judgments on a gamut of complex issues. And he only has very limited experience to showcase an array of judgment calls, which did not even do that, except showcase tasks that he did just as he ought to.
America does not live by “Iraq” alone. It is not even a simple right or wrong issue. Lucky Obama - the present sentiment is just rendering him to seem right. If he has no concrete and significant experience in the world stage and security matters, it would indeed be a gamble to have him as president.
No president can be perfect but America cannot go from one extreme (GWBush) to another extreme (BHObama). The experienced person can fail and there is greater probability that an Inexperienced person would fail. Obama does not have to be president to bring change — he can walk his talk now by not “dancing with the same people from the establishments” like Kerry. If he cannot do that now he won’t do it when he’s in the White House. He’ll have to dance with Kerry and the likes all the more.

Mary:

Do you work for Hillary?

Mary:

Bill Clinton so messed up negotiantions with North Korea that they went and built nuclear weapons? What makes you think Hillary is a foreign policy expert? What makes you think she is an expert in any areas of life other than deceptions?

He doesn't "seem" right... he is right. He was right then... and he's right now.

As for experience vs. inexperience... your example of Bush vs. Obama proves that experience is irrelevant in the face of stupidity.

it's high time for change - change from the old politics of the smear (clinton et all) to the politics of hope and idealism.

"Bill Clinton so messed up negotiantions with North Korea that they went and built nuclear weapons?"

No, the nuclear weapons were started under Bush.

Facts are facts.

I watched this on Sunday, and she did nothing of the like. the author is highly biased. I lean toward Kucinich and more socialist, environmentally-friendly, smaller government politics, so defending Mrs. Clinton is an exercise in honesty. She pointed out that Mr. Obama's words and deeds were not consistent. If he is to get my vote, he is going to have to begin acting upon what he says rather than softening when the punches come. Mrs. Clinton is by no means my ideal candidate, but I would rather have someone in office who will say something and do it even if I don't like it, than someone with whom I don't know where I will stand one word next to a deed. So, in the interest of fairness, Mrs. Clinton was on the defense the entire time having been given little opportunity to discuss substantive issues to my chagrine (I would have liked to have gotten to know her plans on things rather than her past), and she had to cover for her husband! Since when has any other candidate been questioned on the activities and speeches of his/her spouse? None of them.

Mark:

So what's factually inaccurate about what David just posted? It seems to me she was distorting his record, yet again. You may think that he should have been a more ardent supporter of pulling out of Iraq, but that doesn't justify her revising history to make a political point.

Mark:

I'm young, but I don't remember any other candidate whose spouse held the title "Leader of the Free World". His speeches, with Mrs. Clinton's indisputably strong personal, ideological, and political ties to her husband, do seem relevant. She cannot claim experience in Bill Clinton's White House when it suits her and dismiss it as unfair when it doesn't.

The war on Iraq was unnecessary and is bankrupting the country. We need to be sure the next president never repeats this mistake. Obama articulated sound reasons publically for opposing the war before it started whereas Hillary voted both for the Iraq Lieberman-Warner resolution in 2002 and the Lieberman-Kyl Iran resolution in 2007. It is clear she has not learned from her mistake and is much more likely to send us into another unnecessary war than is Obama. Also, even though one opposes a war, once we have commited shock and awe, trashing the country, breaking down law and order, and causing civil wars, one might have a sense of responsibility to try to repair some of the damage. Thus one's voting record, post war, may reflect different considerations, such as peace-keeping obligations, etc.

On Taylor Marsh's website I posted a reasonable comment about the unhelpful tone of the attacks on Sen. Obama and was amused but also saddened that, in follow up postings the ad hominem attackers just ranted about me in capital letter style and about my drinking the Obama kool aid. Yet I had not addrssed who I was supporting, I simply expressed my feelings about the Clintons style of campaigning. I appreciate Mr Corn's analysis and lack of ranting. Marsh, on the other hand, is trending toward splutterring rants, and that undermines the possible value of her anaysis.

PLEASE SIGN PETITION
ask-marian-wright-edleman-to-support-barack-obama

LINK BELOW:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/ask-marian-wright-edleman-to-support-barack-obama

Petition short version:
We the under signed ask Marian Wright Edleman to show
her support for Barack Obama for president 2008. We
also would appreciate Marian explaining why her
husband resigned from Bill clintons cabinet and why on
July 24th when Marian Spoke to Amy Goodman at
democracynow.org she didn't eleborate further in her
views of Hillary Clinton who proclaims to be the
candidate for childrens right.
The following are a few articles explaining in some
detail as to the clintons dealings with regards to
Marian Wright Edleman. (note: these articles can be
found at the petition site by clicking petition
overview under Marians picture)

PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY ASAP

Danielle Clarke

""Hillary Co-Ops Marians organization as if Marian is
endorsing her""

NOTE: The link to Hillary's site is below.

http://hillaryclinton.com/issues/family/

Go to hillaryclinton.com. Click 'HILLARY" tab at top
of page and select "Hillary's Story". Then on the
right of the page under "HILLARY ON THE ISSUES" click
"Supporting Parents and Caring for Children". In the
second paragraph read..."From her first job out of law
school at the Children's Defense Fund..."

Hillary is effectively associating herself with the
CDF without seeking actually saying she is and without
saying why Marian the individual citizen, her mentor
at CDF is not supporting her for the nomination. This
mention of the CDF by Hillary in this fashion does not
give the correct impression. Namely, that neither
Marian nor her husband, who resigned the Clinton
Administration in PROTEST, are at odds with the
Clinton's in a most serious way. What is the nature
of that disagreement when the Clinton's are giving the
impression that all is well with her relationship with
the CDF. This is SO a typically Clinton (not quite
honest) maneuver. Marian has a Christian and
Citizenship duty to correct that false impression. To
share the truth with the Democrats and the American
people BEFORE they nominate another Clinton to the
important job of President of the United States at
this critical point in our Nation's history.

Hillary vs Obama: Reminds me of a brat picking a fight in a schoolyard. She's spouting lies and half truths, picking words out of context, being a copycat with strategy like: "Well, I'm just gonna steal his idea about change because I got nothin' better!". Her favorite game is "follow the leader" How about: "Yeah, I voted for the war, but YOU voted for funding the war!" (but, so did you Hillary, you left that part out). "I know how to be a President because Billy was and I saw how he did it." "Barack made people say bad things about me! (he didn't - they speak for themselves)" "His daddy was a Muslim and some people say he's a terrorist, but I ain't sayin'" "See how human I am because I'm gonna cry!" "Don't hurt my cute little girl feelings" She's an actress to the end in order to get what she wants. Obama responds so perfectly - he just calmly laughs it off and goes on uneffected, back to his message, calm, assertive but not aggressively. He wisely knows not to make her madder. He knows that whenever she points the ugly finger at him, she has three fingers pointing back at herself. He thinks to himself: "I am rubber, you are glue, anything you say bounces off me and sticks to you!"
Clinton's people have nothing on Obama , so they attack anything.
Clinton has nothing of her own to offer. She claims she can unite the country, but she is tearing apart her own party.
Her experience is mediocre and shows negligence and poor judgement.
Her ethics are questionable.
She has just now "found her voice" when Obama has been a great Orator for years.
She would be unknown if not for Bill.
Bill is buddies with George W's daddy.
Oh yes, she used to be a Republican.
Grow up Hillary! Stop making mud bombs! The guy doesn't want to play your old games! You are asking for a spanking!

David, we need more journalists like you - ones who are going to question the statements made by candidates and then take the time to contact the candidates, sift through past records and point out inconsistencies. After years of Rovian politics, we as voters should know better than to form opinions based solely on what candidates and their aides say, but it can be very hard to figure out the facts.
The Iraq war is an important issue and I wish Clinton had done what Edwards had done and admitted it was a mistake (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101623.html) rather than pretended she didn't know what she was voting for. Unfortunately, Edwards has a campaign that is being ignored by the media so she obviously made the right political decision, but he made the decision that to me shows more integrity.

Re: Mark - If Hillary Clinton can claim 35 years of experience, then her support of her husband's policies can be used against her.

Re: Mary - I don't know why we can't try to go from one extreme (very unpopular president) to another extreme (very popular president). Do you suggest we take it in steps and go from very unpopular to somewhat unpopular to a bit popular to get to a very popular president? By then it will be at least 2020.

What the hell were you watching?! She has been the one to bring this war vote issue up more often than anyone else. Yes, she does get asked about it too, but it has also been a tactic of her campaign strategy to question Obama's record. AND if you actually READ all of Barack Obama's voting record (one that is much more extensive than Hillary's because Obama has been an ELECTED official LONGER than Hillary) his consistency and character/honesty is proven to be right and true!

I have read so much about him. I had so many doubts, but not after 6 months of studying this man. No, he is not perfect, but compared to anyone else in the political arena he is as close as we will ever get to an honest and reliable politician. He may have voted to support the troops, but that is a decision based on reality not popularity. He had even discussed the negative effect such votes would have on his records, but he could not see vote against what he knew was right. You may not want the troops to be over there in this war, but you can't simply leave them over there without the supplies they need to carry out their duties!

And to say "Mrs. Clinton is by no means my ideal candidate, but I would rather have someone in office who will say something and do it even if I don't like it, than someone with whom I don't know where I will stand one word next to a deed." What the hell again!?!?! You'd rather have another Bush?

WOW!?!?

Before you bother to respond to my post. go to the government websites that have the transcripts and voting records of Hillary and Obama during their terms in their respective office. The first thing you may notice is that Obama has more EXPERIENCE! The fact that Hillary won't release any documents about what she did or did not do as first lady until "after the 2008 elections" (her own words) is more than enough BS and in your face secretiveness that I could never vote for her.

If you actually read the statements made on the floor by Obama you will understand his votes. So instead of assuming that you know enough to make your statements, go find the TRUTH first.

I first voted for Jimmy Carter many years ago and over time thought the Democratic party had deserted me as I worked hard to make a sucessful life for myself and my family. I am a registered Republican.

I have become very distressed with the present congress and the current President and feel the country is in a malaise. There is gridlock, the coutry is hated abroad and falling down around us because no one is accountable. Greed and power not kindness, respect, truth and civility are reigning

I have lived through the Clinton Presidency... both terms and I know that a great deal of the terrorist activity was in his term as stated in the 911 report. There is plenty of blame to go around lack of foresight.

Hillary Clinton constantly says she is the one with the experience and Barak Obama is not. Indeed in the Meet the Press interview she said she was a work horse not a show horse. Of course she would not acknowledge that she considered Barak a show horse.

Hillary over the years has worked as a lawyer for the Rose Law firm in Little Rock and was First Lady of Arkansas and of the United States before moving to New York to become a US senator. Did not Barak Obama work as a neighborhood organizer after law school and work in a firm that specialized in descrimination cases? Did he not give up a lucrative career to serve the poor and disadvantaged? Was he not in the Illinois legislature to see how the federal mandates impacted upon the states? Is he not a US senator too?

I heard John Kennedy speak to the nation during the Cuban Missle crisis as a grade schooler telling us the problem, showing us all the missle sites and the ships on route. He used strength and diplomacy and the crisis was averted. The whole nation was part of it and was informed. Barak Obama reminds me so much of him in his outlook and the way he brings us along on the journey. I am putting my faith him him to mobilize the nation to sacrifice and heal the country.

Just a few thoughts.

You said: Obama plainly stated he favored an alternative course of action to war (with Iraq): diplomacy, tough inspections, and sanctions. RESPONSE: Your rhetoric is as weak as was Obama's stand: We had done ALL THOSE THINGS. TIME AFTER TIME AFTER TIME: There is one valid reason we should not have gone to war with that butcher. But, you and your inept hero, Obama don't even recognize it or voice it.

RE: Mark - At some point - and it may not be until they are in the voting booth - Americans are going to realize that voting for Hillary means Bill Clinton will be back in the White House, only this time with more free time on his hands. While I'm not a prude or a moralist, I'd prefer to not have my president distracted by marriage problems. Many other voters are prudes and moralists however, and will consider this possibility a violation of sacred national ground. There have already been consequences for Bill's bad behavior (Gore's run in 2000) and his wife's campaign will be another. Since I'm against the dynasty thing anyway, I don't think this is unfortunate, as long as Democrat's realize this now and don't nominate a candidate with such an outsized albatross hanging from her neck. In short, she should have to explain and defend Bill, but really can't given who he is. It's a pity she can't be president because of this, but not a tragedy (Gore in 2000 was) seeing as the office isn't owed to her by me, you, or anybody else. By all accounts she's a heck of a Senator - when not making calculating votes aimed at making her look tough enough to be Commander-in Chief - and I hope she spends many more fruitful years ion that chamber.

Unfortunately, HRC thinks she is entitled to the nomination. Obama is a very viable candidate, he is picking up more and more support by the hour and she can't stand it. The Republicans are sitting back and loving every minute of this. Who needs their "swift-boating" when HRC is doing all their dirty work for them? The fact that she is stooping to the level she has is very sad and troubling. I am a life-long democrat and have voted for a democrat in every election. If by some miracle her Rovian tactics work and she wins the nomination, I will cast a protest vote for someone else. She has lost my respect and most definitely my vote. Peace, Ng

I think a large part of the clintons behavior involves: if Hillary can't be President neither can he. I also think its completely innappropriate for an ex-President to become so involved in a primary campaign. Even Bush Sr. didn't insert himself like this.

The clintons are slime. they always were. This sort of ugliness may get her the nomination. but she will be a pariah in the general election. If clinton is the nominee the Republicans will hold the White House AND regain the Senate. The Deomcratic Party will be left in tatters. We can thank the Clintons.

I have never been so disappointed in Mother Jones as I was to read this headline and article. "Clinton Smears Obama on Iraq - Again." Talk about a smear -- Mother Jones should be ashamed of HERSELF! I watched the whole interview and not only was Senator Clinton hit with questions about her comments (which were mostly taken out of context) but had to answer quotes and comments made from President Clinton when he was governor of Arkansas and during his presidential election, and also quotes and comments by Obama. She answered each and every question and didn't dodge any of them. Most men could not have handled themselves as effectively and patiently as Senator Clinton did and with as much class. She's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. She made NO disrepectful remarks regarding Obama and MLK, but the news media took it entirely out of context and ran with it. Now the Obama campaign has done the same. I have always been a huge supporter of Tim Russert, but was shocked at the way he kept pounding at her. And to ask the last question regarding her worst moment, if people don't think that was totally disrepectful and tasteless, then they have a serious problem with electing a woman president and are looking for any excuse not to vote for her. She's a class act, has a brain, and isn't afraid to use it. Why are people so afraid of that???

Excellent summary!

Why is it a smear when it is true? Go look at his record...If Obama is against the war, why did he vote to support all the funding? Why did Obama say he didn't know what he would have done in the Senate if he had seen all the intelligence? Why did Obama say,
he would have done the same as Bush. Your headline should read. Hillary reminds us once again of Obama's real record.

If he can't take a jab from another democrat without pulling the race card then how in the wide, wide, world of sports will he handle it when the republicans go to work on him? I bet I know; he'll take the moral high ground (just like Kerry) and lose!

Re: Karen

Please read the reord. Obama's statement about how he might have voted in the senate was undeniably a self-effacing attempt to not criticize his (and Sen. Clinton's) party's nominees for P/VP in 2004. From a NYTimes article last spring:

"... reporters asked Mr. Obama about the Democratic presidential ticket throughout the 2004 campaign, because Senators John Kerry and John Edwards had both voted for the Iraq war resolution. In an interview with The New York Times in July 2004, he declined to criticize Mr. Kerry or Mr. Edwards over the Iraq vote, but also said that he would not have voted as they had based on the information he had at the time.

''But, I'm not privy to the Senate intelligence reports,'' Mr. Obama said. ''What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.''"

The article reviewed the Clinton attacks on Obama on Iraq, which began at that time, and concluded:

"..a review of Mr. Obama's statements on Iraq since 2002 shows that he has opposed the war against Saddam Hussein consistently, calling it ''dumb'' and ''rash.''"

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E0DA1430F931A15750C0A9619C8B63

As to funding the war, Obama has stated that once in, like Hillary, he so far would not cut funds to the troops. You may not agree with that position but it is not different from Sen. Clintons. In fact Sen. Clinton's criticism of Obama on Iraq is a disingenuous criticism of him for being like her.

Sen. Clinton's explanation for her vote for the Iraq resolution is her "I didn't inhale" moment because she didn't think it meant Bush would invade - Hello! The fact that she didn't object at the time of the actual invasion is a minor inconvenience without explanation by this reasoning

Stop the petty word parsing!!! Hillary is not a racist. Obama is not a misogynist. Both are trying to make themselves sound good and the other sound bad. Neither is going to outright lie. Both are going to cherry pick facts and quotes to conduct the campaign. Hillary did not say, "appease." Stop putting this word in her mouth. Stop talking about the micro-meanings of their speeches. It's stupid.

David Corn, you are my hero, the truth about Clinton's lies, at last!

So, why did he vote for the funding without one single string attached and then claim his vote was not prolonging this mess. It did.

Obama's campaign has accused hillary of being a racist and her tears fake. Like they would know.

Re: Karen

We can agree that Clinton and Obama have both voted for funding the Iraq war. Only one of them is responsible for getting us into Iraq. Why are you supporting her, given the appropriate importance you place on this issue? As to misrepresentations by the campaigns, please quote me where Obama personally made the accusations you claim. I can easily quote both Hillary and Bill Clinton personally misrepresenting Obama's words in the most cynical fashion.

For those of us who have long memories, is it me, or does Hillary come on like Scarlet O'Hara,and Bill like Elmer Gantry in this campaign agains Obama??

I'm going to pile on Mary, too.

Mary, you cannot excuse a demonstrated smear -- how Clinton (repeatedly) falsely characterized Obama's statements -- by saying that it's a valuable perspective on his character or actions.

The fact is, she resorted to falsehoods, to paint him as incompetent. Your argument -- that that was okay for her to do, because he's not up to snuff -- IN OTHER WAYS, it would have to be -- doesn't hold water.

If he has problems, she is entitled to point them out, but not to lie. And if he has OTHER problems, she cannot logically point to them by pointing to something else instead. Certainly a lie cannot be justified ex-post-facto, by saying that he did something else, so it's okay to lie about this.

Try actual logic. It's refreshing.

Obama, pre-invasion, was urging our government to do exactly what Bill Clinton had done for the previous eight years--contain Saddam Hussein. For Hillary Clinton to say that Obama advocated doing "nothing" is to say that her husband had done "nothing" during his tenure as president.

Good grief. Now Mojo gets in on this flimsy Clinton bashing? Note to self: Throw away renewal notice.

Hillary Clinton starts with an appeal to pity, "I want them to have accurate information about our respective records." I think the connoted argument she is making here is the "them" are being given facts which paint Mrs. Clinton's war record as unjustly negative and Mr. Obama's record as blindly pure. It is a fair argument to make in a media-blitzed American political system, but the subtext is "I alone am the martyr." Her comment is used to soften a viewers skepticism and prime them to dismiss the fact that Clinton has/is/will distort her opponents' arguments and character and exercise historical revisionism with regard to herself.

Without presenting any arguments as to why she should be considered the truth-teller or expert on Iraq policy, Clinton then critiques Obama's war record in a way that reads as an appeal to ridicule. She highlights what she believes to be his flippant judgement [ "If he was against the war in 2002, he should've strongly spoke out in 2004. He should've followed what he said in his speech, which was that he would not vote for funding in '05, '06 and '07." ] by simplifying Obama's decisions to highlight a contradiction, a contradiction which is intended to make the viewer feel Obama's logic is foolish, childish, and inexperienced.

In here is also a guilt-by-association ad hominem fallacy. She is saying Obama supported the Iraq war by funding it and not speaking out against it. President Bush also supports the Iraq war by funding it and not speaking out against it. Therefore, Obama is like President Bush. This type of argument reduces the intellectually sophisticated reasons for voting to fund the Iraq war and also, more importantly, shifts culpability from the act of war onto a vote to fund. Her argument on this topic is also a wrong direction logical fallacy which reverses cause and effect.

These types of arguments and logic, i.e. logical fallacies, are not an anomaly for Mrs. Clinton. She habitually commits red herring fallacies to divert attention from herself. She distorts and manipulates her opponents' stances and character. She lets Bill and others in her campaign spit ad hominem attacks. She is not unfamiliar with poisoning the well of Obama's campaign for presidency.

Let us refrain from doing the same in our discussions and comments here and elsewhere. We are entitled to accurate information with regards to our presidential candidates and elected officials. We should not be manipulated by logical fallacies and deception.

hi Mark,

If you live in California, you're going to have to re-register as either Democrat or "Declined to State" by January 22 to be able to cast your ballot for Obama on Feb5. No other party affiliations can vote using a Democratic ballot.

I'm not an Obama supporter, but really!

Why did "he" vote to continue funding for the war? The same reason "she" did. Don't fall into the Rovian mode of calling the record of Obama into question for doing exactly and precisely what Clinton did.

Obama's campaign has never accused Hillary's tears of being fake or her campaign of being racist. Never happened. Period. Karen, you're just making stuff up out of whole cloth. Such a desperate attempt to defend the indefensible does your candidate no good -- we know better. It is, however, a characteristic typical of Clinton campaign tactics, as this article lays bare.

And Marta, don't confuse an electorate disgusted with a woman who has not spent one plug nickel of political capital on anything that might in the slightest be construed as controversial lest her designs on the Presidency would be put at risk with "fear." If anything scares me about Clinton, it is that her transparently duplicitous statements seem to convince so many. And, many who support her uncritically only because she is female; good thing we don't have a kangaroo in the race.

When Clinton says "I'll *begin* to remove troops from Iraq within sixty days" that's straight out of the Rove play book. Bush already began removing troops. That means nothing.

So I don't care when she'll *begin*, I care when she'll *end.* Obama is on record: 16 months. What is your candidate's answer? You don't know, because she's not saying.

As for not being able to go from one extreme (Bush) to another (Obama) are you suggesting we therefore have to settle for Republican-lite (Clinton) because we can't stand the change? You really underestimate the sentiment of the electorate.

We already crossed the Bridge to the 21st Century -- a lot of people are hoping that we won't be forced to cross back.

I saw on cable news today that Bill Clinton's people found 80 examples of Barack's campaign smearing Hillary. The MSM actually twists Hillary's words and then slanders her, and MSM really lets Barack slide. Fascinating to watch the hideous sexism that erodes America. I like Hllary more and more as I see how profound her grace is under not just pressure but under truly horrible bashing. I'm looking now at who the men are who step forward to support this brilliant capable dedicated woman. Now, that's the definition of a real man.

How dare her use a sentence like this. What has she done for New York State but all-show/no-work ethic. Leaving her job in Washington to run around the country. "This was part of her effort to persuade Granite State voters that Obama was an all-show/no-work hypocrite".

What Senator Clinton does here, and as she has continually done, is focus the attention on an adversary to take the focus off her own record. This is right out of the Bush/Rove playbook.

No honest evaluation of history would validate her claims. Taking bits and pieces of sentences uttered does not a fact make. It is bad enough that she refuses to admit that she made a mistake voting for the war resolution, (and, may I add, supported the war vocally and strongly throughout, actually using the president's own words that 'we must stay the course', until polls showed it was overwhelmingly unfavorable, and there was a presidential bid to think of), but to distort and re-write history.. well, maybe she thinks we were all asleep at the time.

What Senator Clinton does here, and as she has continually done, is focus the attention on an adversary to take the focus off her own record. This is right out of the Bush/Rove playbook.

No honest evaluation of history would validate her claims. Taking bits and pieces of sentences uttered does not a fact make. It is bad enough that she refuses to admit that she made a mistake voting for the war resolution, (and, may I add, supported the war vocally and strongly throughout, actually using the president's own words that 'we must stay the course', until polls showed it was overwhelmingly unfavorable, and there was a presidential bid to think of), but to distort and re-write history.. well, maybe she thinks we were all asleep at the time.

WAS SHE SLEEPING OR PERHAPS SHE WAS DOING HER NAILS WHEN SCOTT RITTER, OR GEN ZINNI TESTIFIED BEFORE THE SENATE, EH?

"I saw on cable news today that Bill Clinton's people found 80 examples of Barack's campaign smearing Hillary."

Well, over 70% of the people believe in ghosts and UFOs, so taking the assessment of the "unbiased" Bill Clinton crowd at its word is not shocking. But I'm certainly not going to do that.

We know of the reverse: trying to make Obama's admitted drug use an issue for example, and twice yet, and then denying that's what they were doing.

So why not enumerate some of these smears, with attributions so we can validate them? I mean, not all eighty, just a few, so we can check it out for ourselves instead of having to trust the "unbiased" Bill Clinton and the Hill-shills that pollute these blogs with unfounded gobbledygook that they've pulled from places we don't mention in polite company.

It's really getting filthy around here. That's what makes Obama so appealing. The best thing Clinton supporters could do to counter Obama's appeal is to stay on the high road. But, whatever, have it your way.

The same old nonsense directed at Hillary. It's getting tiresome. Hillary "did not" vote to attack Iraq. The more people resort to this nonsense, the more ridiculous and phony they appear. She voted to "allow" an attack, "if" Bush, first, exhausted Congressional and Diplomatic efforts to sustain peace. Everybody knows he lied, he deceived everyone around him about everything he did. Now, Hillary is taking the brunt of Bush's evil intentions. This is just one of the lies we hear from mindless supporters of Obama's campaign. Find out why, Micheal Moore, who recently strongly supported Obama, till he found out more about this smooth talker.

Reality check time. The most significant bit of misinformation spread by the Clinton campaign is that Hillary Clinton is more electable than Barack Obama.

Reality check time. Obama is far and away more electable than Hilary Clinton.

On January 13, the Rasmussen poll reveals that, if the election were held last week, Hillary Clinton would lose to John McCain 38% to 49%, whereas Barack Obama is only slightly behind McCain, trailing 43% to 46%.

And to those who are concerned that a black man can't win, I would refer readers to the March 13, 20007 Gallup poll (consistent with other polls), that shows 84% of Americans completely comfortable voting for a black, 77% for a woman, and only 42% for a 72 year old (McCain's age).

All of the leading candidates are demographically challenged. The polls show electorate prejudice against Mormons, Evangelicals, the thrice divorced, 72 year olds, women and blacks. In reality, there appears to be more willingness to vote for blacks than for women or older candidates.

Like it or not, this general election will be decided by the personal charisma of the respective candidates. And as Hillary gets more exposure during the general election, her political tin ear and lack of charisma will likely increase McCain’s already large lead over her.

Only Barack Obama or John Edwards can beat McCain. Since Obama leads Edwards in the polls and fundraising, I would suggest uniting behind him. He is a very good candidate.

Race vs. Gender. I think that the Clinton campaign has found the winning theme in the Democratic primaries. Unfortunately, in the circles that I travel, it seems that the Party is beginning to fracture along these lines. Sad!

this article is way too biased. i love obama just as much as the next guy/gal, but come on, is this reliable journalism?

This is more evidence that the Clinton campaign will do or say anything to get Hillary elected. In Nevada they are suing the Democratic Party to close "at-large" precincts set up so hotel workers can caucus on Saturday. Their rationale -- it is unfair that hotel workers get their own caucus sites and others don't. Funny, they filed the suit 2 days after the union representing the hotel workers endorsed Barack Obama -- and they waited 7 months after the decision was made to have these special caucus sites. Moreover, the same people named as plaintiffs in the suit were involved in the decision to set these rules! Hillary and her handlers have lost all credibility with me. I am now fully for Obama!

The Clintons are categorical liars. Absolutely nothing they say can be taken at face value. They are willing to say anything, to smear anyone, to distort any English sentence, to pervert any logic to achieve their ends. By the way, I did not have sex with that woman.

"Hillary "did not" vote to attack Iraq. ... She voted to "allow" an attack, "if" Bush, first, exhausted Congressional and Diplomatic efforts to sustain peace. Everybody knows he lied, he deceived everyone around him about everything he did."

I'd give her a pass on the first vote, particularly since it did indeed reflect the sentiments of Americans after 9/11 before we started to regain our sanity and perspective.

But then comes the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, yet another example of "not voting for an attack."

That second vote, after having had the experience of being burned by the liar -- that was nothing but inexcusable militaristic bluster, trying to act tough, running for the general election before winning the primary, not willing to take a principled stand and tell this madman in the White House "NO!" for fear a no vote would be used against her in the general election.

What that tells me is, in the best possible light, that when one fails to recognize they made a mistake, they tend to repeat them. That's not a quality I'd be looking for in a Commander in Chief.

In perhaps a more realistic assessment, Clinton had plenty of opportunities to show herself as a tough leader by opposing this folly more aggressively, but she and only she chose to throw in with the Bush administration as the prototype of acting tough, once again handing Bush the excuse of "bi-partisan support" and then defensively characterizing the obvious parallels as somehow unfair to her.

I for one have had it with cowboy diplomacy.

And no, Obama didn't even vote on Kyl-Lieberman. Had his vote made the difference, it would be inexcusable to have missed it. But given overwhelming, leaderless Democratic capitulation in both houses of Congress, I can see where he might decide his time is best spent trying to be President where he could do some good.

I hate having to defend Obama because there are so many legitimate questions about him; too bad none of them are being discussed. The air in the room is instead filled with empty Clinton-fawning rhetoric.

We really need to get beyond this cutthroat competition for the role of victim. It reminds me of my five year old: "Daddy, she's looking at me mean and she called me..." With the economy sinking like the Titanic, two Vietnams on our hands, the climate heating up and our national debt piling up like Jean Claude Duvalier's bills, we have more important things to discuss.

At the same time, not enough attention is given to Hillary's biggest weakness. It's not her hawkish, warmongering record, but her divisiveness. She is easily the most divisive candidate in the primaries, even more so than George W. Bush at a comparable stage in his career. We've had enough partisan bickering, deadlock, triangulation, swiftboating and hardball and need an FDR or JFK or Churchill to bring us together to face the considerable challenges confronting us. I believe Obama can do that, but he needs to stay above the fray, stay positive and stay on message.

Re: John Polifronio

"Hillary "did not" vote to attack Iraq. .... Everybody knows he (Bush) lied, he deceived everyone around him about everything he did."

Wow, so Hillary was tricked by Bush. That's pretty embarrasing for someone with so much experience in world affairs. It's funny I guess, but I wasn't tricked and I'm a simple rube out in the provinces. Neither were 22 other Democratic Senators who voted against the resolution. Forgive me if I sound a bit too "mindless" or "tiresome" for you, but can you do me a favor and point me to her expressions of outrage when she figured out in March of 2003 that she'd been taken? How about anytime in 2002 or 2003?

Once this primary campaign evolves into a racial war, Obama is toast. Up till now, his appeal has been that he is race-neutral. Unfortunately, his surrogates have accused Bill and Hill of being racists, starting with Jessie Jackson, Jr. Keep on calling Bill and Hill racists and watch Obama become "a black candidate" instead of a great American candidate who happens to be black. Remember, we comprise only 12% of the population. Stop all this nonsense now and attack the candidates on the substance of the issues they raise.

Is anyone really surprised by Clinton and any tactic she/her machine uses? Hillary is the bright ugly girl who *must* be president because, well, just because...

I seriously don't understand the defenses of Hillary I see here. She's a BAD Maggie Thatcher re-tread (and not in a good "bad" way.)

Bill and Hillary's story on her suppport of the president's Iraq resolution doesn't hold water. You may have heard her say that Republican Iraq oponent Chuck Hagel wrote the resolution, but according to a NYTime's article today, Hagel's bill did not even make it to the Senate floor, Bush's did in a version from Lieberman - that's what she voted for. Are we to believe that the super smart Clinton couple are just confused and making honest mistakes about both her own and Obama's record on Iraq or ....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/us/politics/14checkpoint.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Claiming great wisdom because you were opposed to the Iraq War while a member of the Illinois State Legislature is highly presumptive. The motion was not to go to war, but to allow the use of force. There was tremendous pressure to vote yes and Bush could have (and would have) gone to war regardless. Bush hijacked this government and HRC and Obama both, as members of the senate, have basically just been along for the ride this whole time. Debating that vote in 2003 now is as pointless as it is irrelevant.

Re: Nathan

"Claiming great wisdom because you were opposed to the Iraq War while a member of the Illinois State Legislature is highly presumptive."

You are correct that it didn't take great wisdom to oppose the Iraq war and I haven't heard Obama claim that it did. On the contrary, for those not drunk on nationalism or too young to remember Viet Nam, it was not hard at all to see what a high risk snipe hunt the invasion idea was. It also did not take a genius to know that Congress, by their vote, gave the president the power to invade Iraq, when he felt like it. That's in fact what he did and none of those who voted for the resolution, including the Senator from NY, objected when he did. If Sen Clinton couldn't stand up to the "pressure" to vote for the resolution, like 22 other Senator's managed to, how's she going to do when she has really hard decisions to make in the White House - you know, the kind that take "great wisdom"?

PS The vote was in October 2002

What Hillary does here is exactly why I changed my vote months ago from her to Barack. Maybe all politicians are gutless but to my mind Barack at least has some intellectual integrity and political courage. Wonder why Hillary, with all her "experience and proven record," didn't stand up and argue for waiting until the weapons inspectors did their job before she leapt on the Bush bandwagon. Think Hillary might be better taking up dancing rather than running for President. She seems to have a knack for it!!!

Marc, I think you are forgetting the unforgettable Geraldine Ferraro....

I see the fingerprints of the neocon players on this one. Bill and Hillary have been edging closer to the regime in power, and they have revealed themselves to be wolves in sheep clothing, and have adopted the politics of destruction evident in that effete puppeteer Rove. These power brokers will do everything conceivable to stay in control. In the end, we, the powerless ones, are cajoled into voting against our best interest by the insidious appeal to our emotions. We need responsible people who'll put America first ahead of their aggrandizement and enrichment. Time to stop this petulant practice of tearing down the opposition, which is indicative of failure in persuading your point of view. After these awful years of Bush we need something better than this. We don't need the toxic leftover slurry to continue the poisoning and the destruction of our political system.

The Clinton campaign is risking everything by using cheap shots and lies to "prove" that she's somehow going to be a better leader than Obama.

Americans want their leader to tell the truth. We've been lied to for 7 years. Elect Hillary, you'll get more of the same. She's not fit to lead this nation because she doesn't have leadership. She has followership. Which ever way the wind blows, she follows.

Her attacks on Obama have become racist as well. You have to wonder what her underlying message is supposed to be: "I'm the most polarizing politician in the country since George W. Bush, who I have supported for everything, BTW, but I'll be better than Obama because he did drugs in the ghetto".

Good grief. I'll WRITE IN Obama before I'll vote for that crap.

-Wexler

Sen. Kerry on Clinton disinformation campaign regarding Obama's "I don't know how I would have voted" quote:

"The fact is Barack Obama - and I know this because I'm the one who invited him to speak at our convention in 2004 and I campaigned with him out in Illinois - was against the war. And in his answer to a question he diplomatically tried to avoid creating a confrontation with John Edwards and John Kerry, the two nominees of the party, when he came to Boston [for the convention]. But he did say in my judgment - this is a quote at that time - that the case was not made."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/15/kerry-blasts-clinton-camp_n_81518.html

If HRC's experience as first lady qualifies her for the top slot would the same apply to Laura Bush?

WSY?

The question of judgement is very important in this race. Hillary wanted to sure up her national security bonaides and voted not for the Hagel proposal as she mischaracterized on Meet the Press, but rather for the White House (Lieberman-Warner) proposal. Barack was against the war from the beginning, he had the same kind of foresight as Howard Dean, and Al Gore. All of them stated the exact reasons why going to war would be a mistake and that the case for war had not been made.
As far as funding the conflict, once the war had begun, it becomes a necessity to not cut off funding while the occupant of the White House will never bring them home. This would be a disastrous vote for the entire party as they would be portrayed as abandoning the troops and the Republicans would roll to winning the White House, retaking the Senate, and possibly the House. That is unacceptable. We need a new kind of leadership in America. Hillary will only continue the gridlock, partisan, worthless governing of the last eight years.
Besides all this, she will drive Republican turnout more than any other single issue can. They will come out in droves to vote against her and independents and moderates will follow suit. I simply wish we could restore the Democratic Primary back to the high ground on which it belongs.

She shot her foot. The US administration waged costly and long-lasting war and Mrs. Clinton is proud of it!!!. As an Iraqi happy to see Saddam toppled and for all the Americans they have to know that Iraqis alone weren't able to oust him due to the complexities of sectarian differences in the Middle East but to just wage a war without questioning the second step is worse than the war itself .... honestly Hilary shouldn't come across this issue .... it is 100% against her

I hate it when journalist use these code words...smear. It always indicates "bad". If you say Clinton questions Obama on------, it indicates there are differences but smear is so prejudicial, so biased. The cables do this all the time--take words or phrases out of context, then attack and, of course the other mini-me's pick up from the first pundit and quote his words, not the words of the candidate. I'm all for people having an opinion but there should be some integrity among journlists.

Smear? why should Obama be untouchable?
I call it reality check not smear.

Okay, so one of you Obamites wanna tell us his electoral strategy? not that it's over or anything, but just exactly which swing states can he win? I don't care much about poll numbers to this point, but if it's Obama against whatever Republican talking point hood ornament they select, how does he win any state that isn't a dem given?

BTW, what changes is Obama going to make, anyone know?

Well, when the media has a favorite candidate (Obama)they don`t do their homework.
I`m glad Hillary is keeping us informed.

You must work for the Clintons.
Telling the truth is important to me as a citizen because our lives are made miserable every time a politician lies or stoops to using out of text comments without reference. I am disappointed more and more by Ms. Clinton's lack of integrity and tendency say anything as long as it will imbellish her cause.
Her experience apparently has taught her that she can successfully contort the truth. I am glad for the websites which are attempting to make all candidates accountable for what comes out of their mouths.

It's a smear, not a reality check, when one candidate purposefully misrepresents their opponents position (see info on Obama's above), not to mention their own position (see Hillary's Hagel ruse above). A reality check is what you and others obviously need on the facts of these two candidate's Iraq record.

Re: Sandra

Hillary keeping us informed? Are you kidding? If you have some secret information that she passed on to you and some others that counters the factual information posted in the article and in the comments above concerning her dismal record on Iraq and Obama's consistent opposition - can you please post it? All we've seen in public are lies.

Are MaryG and Stella the same person or did they just get the same memo? Both claim Bill and Hillary's lies aren't a smear but "a reality check". Wil Burns questions Obama's electability, ignoring all current evidence that he will do better than Hillary in the general election. That evidence doesn't even include the boost in republican turn-out that Hillary's candidacy will guarantee. Obama's appeal to independents is indisputable. As for what change Obama has in mind for America, the reality is that he and Hillary will not differ much in stated positions, and we can only dimly guess at what either will do if elected - but only one of them is electable and, judging from their campaigns so far, still honorable. Here's the link to his positions - I googled and found it:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

The Bushes and the Clintons are two sides of the same coin. My entire adult life, I have seen either a Clinton or a Bush on the ballot when I voted in a Presidential Election. If I wanted the same family (or families)to rule continously, I would move overseas and live under a monarchy.

Smear? Isn't it a smear to blur the line between what Hillary did and what Swift Boats for Truth did? Isn't it a smear to blur the line between fund-raising for tsunami victims and an alleged Bush-Clinton duopoly? Now, saying that Mr. Teflon's positions are as blurry as the Cheney residence on Google Earth; that's a smear!

Time Magazine - Obama's Experience.

Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2008

Obama's Varied Record By AP/CHRISTOPHER WILLS (SPRINGFIELD, Ill.) ?

By some measures, Barack Obama has a thin record. He's a Senate newcomer who has never worked in the White House, governed a state or run a business. Democratic presidential rival Hillary Rodham Clinton points to his resume as evidence that Obama is not ready for the White House. "He was a part-time state senator for a few years, and then he came to the Senate and immediately started running for president," she says dismissively.

Obama's accomplishments are more substantial and varied than Clinton suggests. And he has a longer record in elected office than she does, as a second-term New York senator.

Obama was a community organizer and led a voter-registration effort in Chicago that added tens of thousands of people to the rolls. He was a civil rights attorney and taught at one of the nation's premier universities. He helped pass complicated measures in the Illinois legislature on the death penalty, racial profiling, health care and more. In Washington, he has worked with Republicans on nuclear proliferation, government waste and global warming, amassing a record that speaks to a fast start while lacking the heft of years of service.

The Illinois Democrat likes to quote something Bill Clinton once said: "The truth is, you can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience. Mine is rooted in the real lives of real people, and it will bring real results if we have the courage to change."

After college, Obama moved to Chicago for a low-paying job as a community organizer. He worked with poor families on the South Side to get improvements in public housing, particularly the removal of asbestos. "Nobody else running for president has jumped off the career track for three or four years to help people," said Jerry Kellman, who first hired Obama as a community organizer. Obama also fought for student summer jobs and a program to keep at-risk children from dropping out of school. More importantly, say those who worked with Obama, he showed people how to organize and confront powerful interests. "He had to train residents to stand up for their own rights," said former organizer Loretta Augustine-Herron, who was part of Obama's Developing Communities Project. Obama left that job to get a law degree. Afterward, he returned to Chicago and ran Project VOTE. The organization recruited hundreds of registrars to sign up new voters, particularly within the city's black population. Registration jumped nearly 15 points between the 1992 primary and the general election. The registration wave was credited with making Carol Moseley Braun the first black female senator and helping Bill Clinton carry Illinois in his first presidential race.

It also got insiders talking about Obama as a political candidate. Obama then spent several years focusing on the law, both as an attorney at a small firm specializing in civil rights and as a lecturer on constitutional law at the University of Chicago. As an attorney, he was on the team that successfully sued the state of Illinois for failing to implement a federal voter-registration law.

Obama also worked on case of a whistle-blower who lost her job after exposing waste and corruption in a medical research project. The whistle-blower ended up with a $5 million settlement. Obama was elected to the Illinois state Senate in 1996, when Democrats were in the minority. He proposed hundreds of new laws, including universal health care, tougher gun control and expanded welfare, but saw most of them spiked by Republican leadership. --And that's just the first half of the article. - http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1704117,00.html

Dennis K
said on Goodman's program this morning that Obama's actual voting record on Iraq is identical to Clinton's.

Krugman said Hillary is more Liberal on domestic issues than Obama.

Why do democrats feel such a deep need to devour their young?

It seems to me that poeple instead of looking at people's record they look for all the inspiring things that people say. Obama wants to sit with insurance companies now please tell me if any ofyou think you could seriously negotiate with a for profit oranization. Obama is the person who single handedly resurected Joe Lieberman's campaign to stay in the senate. The same guy who sponsered the Kyle-Lieberman resolution in the senate. Idealism unfortunately does not solve the problem of this country.

It seems to me that people instead of looking at people's record they look for all the inspiring things that people say. Obama wants to sit down with insurance companies now please tell me if any of you think you could seriously negotiate with a for profit organization. Obama is the person who single handedly resurrected Joe Lieberman's campaign to stay in the senate. The same guy who sponsored the Kyle-Lieberman resolution in the senate. Idealism unfortunately does not solve the problem of this country.

人材派遣人材派遣・業務請負・紹介予定派遣を利用するお仕事をお探しの方のお仕事情報サイト美容学校 "データ復元,データデータ 復旧,データ復活,データ修復,データ救出,修理,故障,回復,消失,トラブル,リカバリ,パソコン,サーバー,ハードディスク,HDD,RAID,NAS"東京都江東区にあるダイビングプロショップ「ル・ポワソン」。ダイビングスクール、ファンダイビング等、各種イベントを開催。医師募集・看護師求人｜医師の募集、看護師の求人ならMedical Messiah カラーコーディネーター ウォーキング インストラクター スクールマンスリー　東京特許事務所会社設立SSL SecureStageで販売しているSSL証明書はGeoTrust社からお客様へと、ダイレクトに送信致します。格安 レンタカーＪネットレンタカーグループの公式サイトアトピーアトピー/アトピーの事ならCreation　Life防犯カメラ監視カメラ、窓対策、ドア対策、SNS周辺対策、セキュリティーなど商品説明ウィークリーマンション新橋　浜松町　品川　大崎　五反田　目黒.　渋谷　新宿　高田馬場　池袋　日暮里　上野　秋葉原　神田　六本木　赤坂　四谷　大森　蒲田　大井町　　三田マンスリーマンション 東京マンスリーマンション　東京／東京　港区でマンスリーマンションを選ぶならアーバンホームズ就職ナビ広告業界マスコミ,就職,就職情報,就職活動,求人,広告,広告代理店,広告就職ナビ2009,マスメディアン,massmedian"カラコンTealla～デカ目カラーコンタクトの激安通販治験・臨床試験（新薬・市販薬・健康食品・医療器具）、パッチテストなどにおける医学ボランティア(モニター）の募集・紹介情報サイトマンスリーマンションアンチエイジング　化粧品人材派遣特許事務所会社設立携帯電話 マッスルトレーナーウォーキングシューズウォーキングシューズマッスルトレーナー担当者のメッセージウォーキングサウナスーツ「私も履いています!」「私のウォーキングのマストアイテムです！キャッシング ウコン 有料老人ホーム永代供養永代供養 永代供養永代供養墓，川口,埼玉県,墓，実相寺，宝珠之碑,宝珠,宝珠の碑,領家,日蓮宗納骨堂深妙寺,納骨壇,永代供養,先祖供養,檀家,江戸川区,平井 弁理士ビザSE 転職コンタクトレンズフランス語フランス語,スピードラーニング,フランス,教材,言葉

IWR Debate Quotes (middle of page)
http://www.powow.com/scorched2/prewar.html

Obama can't have it both ways, either he was for the IWR vote (which was key the re-entry of U.N. inspectors and diplomacy) or he was not. Obama has repeatedly criticize Hillary's judgement on her IWR vote and how he has such superiour judgment because he opposed the war from the begining, Hillary opposed the war from the begining too, just read the Congressional Record of the IWR senate debate.

There were only going to be 2 options on the table and Obama's third option of doing nothing was not one of them. Hillary was PRO U.N., Bush was Pro War, Obama was PRO doing nothing.
http://www.powow.com/scorched2/prewar.html

In 2002, Hillary and Obama both believed that Saddam had developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

Obama was willing to to let an un-restricted Saddam in Iraq with no U.N. weapon inspectors for 4 years, to continued weapons of mass destruction development at his will.

Obama 26 October 2002: "I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity".
He"s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

Hillary was PRO U.N., Bush was Pro War, Obama was PRO doing nothing.
http://www.powow.com/scorched2/prewar.html

Dubya is the one who screwed up the talks with north korea. Axis of evil and all that. Big tex went and stuck his foot in the ant pile stired it around then realized he could get bit, so he walked away and said it is a regional issue. If the bigest bully on the block says he is going to kick you a** then you will get the best weapon to defend yourself with, in this case a nuclear weapon! I really hate to say this but if was not for 911 we would be at war with China. Bush has had a blood thirst from his first day in office. As for Obahma his and critic of everyone who voted to enable our terrible infant is wrong. It is akin to blaming all of your problems at work on the guy who had your position before you.Obahma was not in a position to vote. I gues america has forgotten George was new Reagan after 911 and like in the eighties you dare not talk back or you would labeled a wimp and unamerican. I'm still upset that Hillary voted for the resolution for war and to label the Iranian army as a terrorist organization. Non the less she is the best candidate the dems have. That is unless Bill can run again.

I'm just a regular guy and I knew Sodamn Insane was not in a position to harm anyone out side of his borders and he did not have a single WMD. I knew this because I READ and pay attention to what happens in the world. Obahma and Clinton both appear to do neither. As citizens of the world we are all required to stay informed. If more Americans had a clue we would not be in this mess today. I told peaple in 1999 and 2000 our way of life that was so good in the 90s was at stake. When Obahma gave the keynote speach in 2004 I thought, WOW what a guy I cant wait to vote for him in 2012, Obahma is not ready for the job of president. Bill Richardson was the best qualified. To bad he is gone. Hillary has the resolve to beat back the GOP hate machine, so she is getting my vote.

Why is it that I keep running into hit pieces on Hillary by David Corn where he doesn't come out in front telling us who he is shilling for? If he's for Obama, fine; let him say so and then we know not to pay too much attention to his tortured logic. Or is he for one of the Repub candidates?

One thing he is not: fair and balanced. I used to think him a pretty good columnist with good analysis; now I look on him as someone's paid poodle.

Interesting reads:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27rich.html?em&ex=1201582800&en=392aa43b5c1aaf33&ei=5087%0A

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27kennedy.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

i know we`re all human.try to go to bingo without your i.d.will they pay you.but what if some1 stole your i.d,and you didn`t know it?well anyway i got cheated out of $3,017 the most i ever made in 1 day.i was gonna fight it.until i relized that it wasn`t my fault.anyway,i still think about that night.also,i wished they wouldv`e understood me a little better though.

if i was to vote.i would vote for a demacrat.i like hilary i like obama,i think because he`s trying to be nice.i like clinton because i think her husband would try to help in the issues.i just believe some1 is gonna have to win.we`re all lucky to have these people that want to take these chances.

OK? Would somebody mind translating this.

Yes, I know that both candidates are guilty of throwing stones and inuindo.

Hillary and Obama are very close on may subjects, but manipulating Obama's Iraq stand is just low. Using such tactics reminds me of the type of woman who is against women's rights. And am I the only woman who fears that Clinton will do something in office that may set back our rights?

Did Obama ever say words or similar words as to the following before he became a U.S. Sentator: " I wasn't there to vote on the Iraq Resolution but had I been there I really don't know how I would have voted" If he did do you have the exact quote and date he made such a quote. Thank you

good thanks

thanks

good article.if i was to vote.i would vote for a demacrat.i like hilary i like obama,i think because he`s trying to be nice.i like clinton because i think her husband would try to help in the issues.i just believe some1 is gonna have to win.we`re all lucky to have these people that want to take these chances.

No war!No terror Don't cry baby.

I don't like hilary I don't like politicians.I don't think because they aren't trying to be nice,but all of politicians are liar.I don't like clinton I don't believe some1 is gonna have to win.we aren't lucky.The politics is already bad thing.

As the campaign progresses, I am more and more disappointed in H. Clinton. Her campaign's attempts to distort Obama's