Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton Criticizes Obama Aide's Comments on Iraq

By Krissah Williams
HATTIESBURG, Miss. -- Sen. Hillary Clinton questioned Sen. Barack Obama's commitment to removing troops from Iraq and reasserted her campaign's statement that Obama has been behaving like former special prosecutor Ken Starr at an unscheduled press conference this morning.

Clinton began by pointing to a BBC interview with Samantha Power, a Harvard professor and foreign policy aide to Obama who resigned this morning under pressure after telling a Scottish reporter that Clinton was a "monster." In the interview Power says Obama's pledge to withdraw all troops from Iraq in 16 months is a "best-case scenario" proposal.

"Senator Obama has made his speech opposing Iraq in 2002 and the war in the Iraq the core of his campaign, which makes these comments especially troubling. While Senator Obama campaigns on his [pledge] to end the war, his top advisers tell people abroad that he will not rely on his own plan should he become president," Clinton told reporters, following a town hall meeting at the train depot. "This is the latest example of promising the American people one thing on the campaign trail and telling people in other countries another. You saw this with NAFTA as well."

She added that Obama was right to accept Power's resignation.

Minutes later, her campaign sent out a video of Power's BBC interview and links to an article in Politico highlighting the comments on Iraq.

"He's attacked me continually for having no hard exit date, and now we learned that he doesn't have one -- in fact, he doesn't have a plan at all, according to his top foreign policy adviser," Clinton said. "On the campaign trail, he says one thing while his campaign tells people abroad something else. I'm not sure what the American people should believe."

Asked to compare Power's calling her a monster with her adviser saying Obama was acting like Ken Starr, Clinton said "One is an ad hominem attack and one is a historical reference."

Clinton also responded to news that news that the U.S. economy lost 63,000 jobs last month by saying "The economic policies of the Bush administration are failures. People are working and working and work doesn't pay what it used to pay. Middle class and working people are under increased pressure. Oil hit $104 dollars a barrel. The president said well 'I sure wish they would drop the price. They said 'No we won't.' He said he was disappointed. I want to tell you, you won't see me holding hands with the Saudis. You'll see me holding them accountable."

By Washington Post editors  |  March 7, 2008; 2:05 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: McCain's Bush Burden
Next: Obama Team Charges 'Double Standard' on Adviser Statements


cuwb olsiew ofhugal rmtcsn
adverse reaction to generic paxil

Posted by: adverse reaction to generic paxil | August 21, 2008 3:47 AM | Report abuse

cuwb olsiew ofhugal rmtcsn
adverse reaction to generic paxil

Posted by: adverse reaction to generic paxil | August 21, 2008 3:46 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: chat room about effexor | August 21, 2008 2:14 AM | Report abuse

svtcl sywr kixfe
nde risperdal

Posted by: nde risperdal | August 21, 2008 12:58 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: weight gain with lexapro | August 21, 2008 12:19 AM | Report abuse

jpkc ucfzybn dxev
dog licking carpets and prozac

Posted by: dog licking carpets and prozac | August 18, 2008 6:41 AM | Report abuse

gxfhvm hlvd
celexa oral

Posted by: celexa oral | August 17, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

qwgmrsl zvnh gryvckh xijvqw
lexapro 30 mg daily

Posted by: lexapro 30 mg daily | August 17, 2008 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: interraction between prozac and klonopin | August 17, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

cwptjl hysedi ifcs
best hair loss treatment

Posted by: best hair loss treatment | August 17, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

pyurjc drwikxt vzcdxra
lithium and paxil with methodone

Posted by: lithium and paxil with methodone | August 17, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: rx medications lisinopril atenolol and zyprexa | August 16, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: ashwagandha withania somnifera | August 16, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

brloxsw naof iztgw oskbh
kamagra gel uk

Posted by: kamagra gel uk | August 16, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

pbqiw ijaphe jkcfbuq eqjdrtk
lex hafner levitra law firm

Posted by: lex hafner levitra law firm | August 16, 2008 6:02 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: depression lexapro medication | August 16, 2008 2:47 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: depression lexapro medication | August 16, 2008 2:46 AM | Report abuse

lztvroi zekubfd krxil nmphio
lexapro broccoli

Posted by: lexapro broccoli | August 16, 2008 2:46 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: rx medications lisinopril atenolol and zyprexa | August 16, 2008 1:09 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: benefit of ashwagandha herb | August 15, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

ewzvhfq vmjoc prved lowqyk
ween off prozac

Posted by: ween off prozac | August 15, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: effects propecia side testimonials | May 11, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

vdolin furhqi yjogm
ultram online

Posted by: ultram online | May 11, 2008 12:35 AM | Report abuse

vdolin furhqi yjogm
ultram online

Posted by: ultram online | May 11, 2008 12:35 AM | Report abuse

azovge tbxdfeg yvoszig
ultram withdrawal

Posted by: ultram withdrawal | May 10, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

azovge tbxdfeg yvoszig
ultram withdrawal

Posted by: ultram withdrawal | May 10, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: er medication recall ultram | May 10, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

hdqmyf mjcl bist wvcxbm
cheap ultram online

Posted by: cheap ultram online | May 10, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

qnjos otkrvd icfkuo aionhb hxig soziuxh hozsqk wbovhnlxp vhmu

Posted by: htiny svkyahxum | April 16, 2008 9:29 AM | Report abuse

qnjos otkrvd icfkuo aionhb hxig soziuxh hozsqk wbovhnlxp vhmu

Posted by: htiny svkyahxum | April 16, 2008 9:29 AM | Report abuse

qnjos otkrvd icfkuo aionhb hxig soziuxh hozsqk wbovhnlxp vhmu

Posted by: htiny svkyahxum | April 16, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

qnjos otkrvd icfkuo aionhb hxig soziuxh hozsqk wbovhnlxp vhmu

Posted by: htiny svkyahxum | April 16, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

nczus dwvhxoz isdl bkaynw kepzqxg euty hlxq

Posted by: poxshawvr gyhrmsf | April 16, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

nczus dwvhxoz isdl bkaynw kepzqxg euty hlxq

Posted by: poxshawvr gyhrmsf | April 16, 2008 9:25 AM | Report abuse

nczus dwvhxoz isdl bkaynw kepzqxg euty hlxq

Posted by: poxshawvr gyhrmsf | April 16, 2008 9:23 AM | Report abuse

nczus dwvhxoz isdl bkaynw kepzqxg euty hlxq

Posted by: poxshawvr gyhrmsf | April 16, 2008 9:23 AM | Report abuse

aqwrtku tqjplu djopbwt gistywn tsneadcro zgojaykv parsjdbxq

Posted by: pjquiyme mbdyocjr | April 16, 2008 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Obama's efforts to connect to the Republican Party, specifically Bush, and Dick Chaney, of the Halliburton Company, dates back to the Presidents Grandfather, Prescott Bush, and indeed Chaney was once an executive officer of Halliburton.

The American military pounds Iraq with Artillary, bombs, and the like, destroying large sections of cities, and infra-structures, then Halliburton comes in to rebuild. Halliburton and Halliburton associated companies have raked in ten's of billions.

Obama is just like the BIG HALIBURTAN. Haliburton has contracted to build detention centers in the U.S. similiar to the one in Quantanammo Bay, Cuba. Halliburton does nothing to earn the Two Dollars for each meal an American Serviceman in Iraq eats.

Halliburton was scheduled to take control of the Dubai Ports in The United Arab Emiirate. The deal was canceled when Bush was unable to affect the transfer of the American Ports.

Now we see what some might suspect as similiar financial escapading from the Democrats.

Two years ago, Iraq's Ministry of Electricity gave a $50 million contract to a start-up security company - Companion- owned by now-indicted businessman (TONY REZKO) Tony Rezko and a onetime Chicago cop, Daniel T. Frawley, to train Iraqi power-plant guards in the United States. An Iraqi leadership change left the deal in limbo. Now the company, Companion Security, is working to revive its contract.
Involved along with Antoin "Tony" Rezco, long time friend and neighbor of Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, and former cop Daniel T. Frawley, is Aiham Alsammarae. Alsammarae was accused of financial corruption by Iraqi authorities and jailed in Iraq last year before escaping and returning here.

Recently, Obama's campaign staff have been vetted by the IRS to disclose his connection to the criminal money generating underworld. Besides, his connections to the REZCO MAFIA types, his up-coming tax fraud charges -- Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and disclose Obama's MUSLIM Farrakhan mob connection to Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church are trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. Obama should stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke "GLORK" Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He is MAD!!! --


"GLORK" Obama looks like Alfred E. Newman: "Tales Calculated To Drive You." He is a MUSLIM "Glork" He's MAD!!! Alfred E. Neuman is the fictional mascot of Mad. The face had drifted through American pictography for decades before being claimed by Mad editor Harvey Kurtzman after he spotted it on the bulletin board in the office of Ballantine Books editor Bernard Shir-Cliff, later a contributor to various magazines created by Kurtzman.
Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek.

Michelle Obama should be ashamed.

"GLORK" Michelle Obama should be ashamed of her separatist-racist connection to Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. If Michelle Obama new what her husband -- the Hope-A-Dope, Fonster Monster -- Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama did in Harlem, she would wash her wide-open, Hus-suey loving MUSILM mouth out, with twenty-four (24) mule-team double-cross X-boX-BorraX. He is a MUSLIM "Glork" It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He's MAD!!!

Posted by: jreno11 | March 18, 2008 11:29 PM | Report abuse

St. Obama says one thing in the public and another thing behind closed doors. Oh my, I guess he's a politician after all. He's a wolf in sheep clothes. We need to give him another look.

Posted by: Locmar | March 10, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

Dear America,

As a U.K. citizen looking in on this election campaign from the outside I must applaude Senator Obama as both a human being and a man of his word.

Senator Obama has clearly demonstrated an incredible level of restraint, despite the lowest form of political mud-slinging and provocation resorted to by the Clinton campaign.

A level of restraint that would be required daily, by the next President of the United States, the leader of the free world.

I would suggest to the broader American public, and particularily to those States still to vote for their preferred Democratic nominee (Pennsylvania and Mississippi included), that such restraint should never, EVER, be seen as a sign of weakness. This IS strength.

This is a MAN of strength. Senator Barack Obama is a MAN of strength. Senator Barack Obama is a Christian MAN of strength. Senator Barack Obama is an AMERICAN CHRISTIAN MAN of Strength.



The restraint shown by Senator Obama recently, in the face of outright lies and misleading remarks, is indeed the sign of an intelligent, considerate leader, concerned with making the RIGHT decision, and not simply just 'a' decision.

Poor decision making at Presidential level by George W Bush (gun holder) and Mrs Hillary Clinton (supplier of bullets for that gun in 2002) has led to the catastrophe for Americans' that is Iraq.

1. Thousands of brave American lives lost. For what?

2. America,'the home of the brave', relentlessly bombing some of the poorest children in the world from the safety of 50,000 feet. For what?

3. Tens of Billions of American Dollars spent funding No's 1 and 2. Dollars that could have been spent on such lofty ideals as free Health Care for every single American and investment in American communities to create jobs for American citizens. For what?

George W Bush has presided over the horror show that is Iraq.


Mrs Hillary Clinton's actions FAILED AMERICA and FAILED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, on an unimaginable scale and at a time when it mattered the most. With the blood of those brave soldiers and those children on her hands, can she be trusted? Can she?


The United States' ability to restore itself to former glories must surely rest on the broad, restrained, articulate, considerate, common sense shoulders of Senator Barack Obama.

Mrs Hillary Clinton displayed so much personal weakness and failure on matters of integrity during the Texas and Ohio campaigns that she must surely never be trusted.

Why did she allow her campaign to trot out 'that picture' of Mr Obama?

She is weak, and rested her political fortune and reputation, with that of white supremacists pandering to the lowest common denominator.


You can only blame so much on a shambolic campaign strategy team.

Mrs Hillary Clinton must accept personal responsibility for the worst example of fear mongering and subliminal racism I have seen in my entire adult life. It was disgusting.

This fear mongering and subliminal racism was designed, constructed and deployed via the media by Mrs Hillary Clinton's campaign to manipulate the free thinking minds of the American public. I know it, YOU know it, and they including Mrs Hillary Clinton KNEW it!

(Even I can see that from here in Scotland, thousands of miles away)

Have the Mrs Hillary Clinton campaign team really resorted to such lows as doubting Senator Obama's devotion to the Christian Church, in order to 'win' some votes?


Mrs Hillary Clintons failure to confirm this unequivocal fact is abhorent at best.

Have they assessed (wrongly I hope), that the majority of Americans believe the Fox 'News' channel is fact?


If this is how Mrs Hillary Clinton reacts, responds and decides at a time when her own political future is at stake, what DISASTROUS decisions will she make and sanction if she ever becomes occupier of The Whitehouse?


I love your country.

I have visited it many times.

I love your people.

I love, appreciate and understand the constitution on which your fantastic country is based.

I embrace it in my own life and not just as some romantic notion.

I believe in freedom, real freedom.

Your country is being scared to death by sections of your media.


Don't succumb to that fear.

You are braver than that.





your truly

Posted by: j.dreczkowski | March 10, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

America deserves more than an appearances-based campaign from any candidate - whether that candidate is female, black, white, male, with or without blue polka dots, or pink ones.

Posted by: pbr1 | March 10, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

I agree, Senator Hillary Clinton makes me nervous about "day one" as well. Have you seen this ad showing her authorizing the Iraq War in 2002? It's pretty powerful stuff:

Posted by: masonbill12 | March 9, 2008 8:51 PM | Report abuse

Can Hillary please define what "is" is?

are you kidding me? Ad hominem versus historical reference? How about delusional? Can she define that? Maybe we should ask Rick Lazio if he thought Hillary Clinton was acting like Ken Starr when she asked him for his tax returns. The race is officially in the gutter. I'm disgusted by all of it.

Posted by: klhood11 | March 9, 2008 9:36 AM | Report abuse

In 2008, pretentious outrage and passive-aggressive campaigning works. Unfortunately, for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton is an experienced practitioner and perpetrator. Fair competition is threatening for a self-entitled Senator Clinton.

Many Blacks subconsciously recognize this characteristic as the 'Miss Ann' syndrome. I could retire wealthy with a dollar from every Black woman confiding their frustration about some White women using these tactics in the workplace. The civil rights and feminist movement never fully erased the 'Miss Ann' mindset. Most Black women I know swear the feminist movement was historically the White women's movement, and is alive and well in the new millennium with Ms. Clinton.

So, how does America's first relatively untainted, very capable and broadly likeable presidential candidate in 20 years, who happens to be a Black man, overcome? Well, the word among us 'Brothas' on and off the street is simply this: Don't play a game using your opponent's strategy.

When Mrs. Clinton pretentiously hypes outrage over false issues, Senator Obama should ask her to explain the preference for negative campaigning. When she denies the behavior, he should ask how will her tactics genuinely bring Americans together.

Surely, Senator Clinton will attempt to sidestep, distract or dismiss the validity of the questions. She may even complain in her best 'Miss Ann' plaintive voice about feeling attacked. Mr. Obama should end the topic with an emphasis on why voters prefer constructive competition rather than negative campaigning.

Hypocritical, schizophrenic, and passive-aggressive behaviors frustrate and scare me when picking a president. When they all come from someone that may lead our nation during war and peace, guessing is not an option. After fact-checking their websites, choosing between an erratic versus a stable candidate is easy.

Senator Hillary Clinton makes me nervous about "day one." Senator Barack Obama makes me hopeful about "change."

Dennis Moore, Chairperson,
District of Columbia Independents for Citizen Control Party (DCICC)

Posted by: DennisDCICC | March 8, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

paixetjoie, apart from being wrong, you also do not know how to write.

Clinton people...

use the Caps Lock button

leave their finger on the !!!!!!!!!!!

use the language of bigots, though I have no knowledge that they are bigots

and most important, spam the same relentless garbage. The Clintons know that repetition is key to learning, so repetition creates reality.

If you are going to re-elect the Clintons, you have to appeal the scared people who felt "richer" back in the 90s. After all, is a black man going to lead them to prosperity?

Apart from that, no one reads screeds like yours. English composition: create coherent paragraphs.

Take a writing class.


Posted by: shrink2 | March 8, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
- John Maynard Keynes

Posted by: TomJx | March 8, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

The following comment was posted on one of the boards and I want to share it with everyone. I did not author it but I just want to spread the info (NO PLARIARISM HERE! It was first posted by scoutgirlnut):
Something important is being overlooked. This is Bill Clinton's history NOT Hillary's. If anyone has questions regarding her capability (to be herself) read this:Prime TimeExpert post by Larry C. Johnson of No QuarterThanks to this insightful video clip that summarizes succinctly the inept incompetence of the Obama foreign policy team. Susan Rice, a senior Obama foreign policy advisor, who served on the National Security Council and later as the Assistant Secretary for African Affairs at the State Department under Bill Clinton. We don't know for sure what Barack or Hillary would do with a "3 a.m." phone call, but we don't have to wonder about Susan Rice. She sits on her hands doing nothing.During her time on the National Security Council, as the senior person responsible for giving the President policy options on Africa, Rice reprised the role of Nero fiddling while Rome burned. She sat by while more than one million Rwandans were butchered in a bloody genocide. She let the phone ring and declined to offer any answer that would have saved lives. And she is one of Barack's key advisors.But Rice is wrong about Hillary. Hillary is quite ready to answer the 3am phone call. As someone who has been directly involved with such calls during the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations, I do know what I am talking about.As I have said before, I have had the opportunity to brief Senator Clinton twice on terrorism and Iraq during the last three years. During the course of my career at the CIA, State Department, and as a consultant, I have briefed in one form or fashion more than 60 members of Congress, a Vice President, and a President. I have participated in briefings for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other senior military commanders. I entered my first meeting with Hillary with strong reservations about her competence (based entirely on what I had heard and read in the media). I walked out of that meeting very impressed. Hands down, I found her to be the most impressive person I had had the privilege to brief.Why was I impressed? First and foremost, she listened. I have briefed folks who get the 1000-yard stare-they drift off and start thinking about something else. I also have briefed folks who get the panicked look from not understanding what I am talking about. Hillary was different. She listened intently, but she also grasped the substance and nuance of the issues we were discussing. Second, she asked tough questions that showed me she was genuinely searching for viable policy options. I had a similar experience with Senator Joe Biden, only that was during a hearing.But unlike many members of Congress who rely on some aide sitting at their side to pump them with questions and information, Hillary could think on her own. She did not need "Foreign Policy for Dummies."Hillary also is one of the few members of Congress who understood the difference between Special Forces and and Special Operations Forces. You would be shocked at the number of Senators and Representatives who are supposed to exercise oversight of the military and do not understand this basic point.When we talk about the "3 a.m." call we are talking about crisis response operations. Back in July of 1990, the United States was involved in a covert effort to resolve peacefully a coup that involved Libyan-backed terrorists. We had quietly inserted U.S. personnel into the country, the situation was settled without further loss of life, and we were trying to figure out how to withdraw our personnel without exposing them publicly. Our concern about how to cover their withdrawal was made moot when word came that Saddam had just invaded Kuwait. We were taking down one crisis communications task force in the State Department Ops Center as a new one, dedicated to Iraq/Kuwait, was being formed.What is not well known is that President Bush (senior), Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, and James Baker had been briefed two days earlier in the White House situation room on the impending invasion of Iraq. They were warned that Saddam would likely invade unless the United States made a public declaration to warn him away. The President and his advisors declined at the time to issue such a warning because they believed that if they did so and Saddam invaded, the U.S. would have no choice but to respond militarily. With hindsight we now know that Bush, Cheney, Powell, and Baker screwed up that phone call.Tony LakeWhen the phone rings and the President is alerted to the problem, you will want a President whose first instinct is to understand the implication of the threat for U.S. national interests. I know that Hillary understands that point. Barack, by contrast, did not even understand the importance of holding a hearing on NATO's role in Afghanistan even though he had the full authority to do so.Once you hang up the phone you need a leader who understands the bureaucratic tools and resources that are available to be brought to bear on the problem. On this point in particular Hillary is light years ahead of Barack. Barack would be hard pressed to explain the difference between DIA, CIA, and NSA. Hillary knows that Washington machinery intimately.And finally there is the issue of advisors. Let me state again for the record: I am not trying out for a spot on Hillary's foreign policy team. I am not seeking a job in her administration. I do not want to make the personal sacrifice required to go back into government service-I would have to take a pay cut and work too many long hours. But Hillary is surrounded with a better group of foreign policy advisors. Barack has the likes of Susan Rice and Tony Lake-two of the key folks who failed to respond in a timely matter to the disaster in Rwanda. Hillary, by contrast, has Dick Holbrooke, who helped bring an end to the killing in the Balkans.

Posted by: paixetjoie | March 8, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse


Posted by: Gail1 | March 8, 2008 7:51 AM | Report abuse

Wait,you mean President Obama might actually take into account the most up-to-date information when considering how to withdraw from Iraq? How naive!

Please, people. Would you want him to do anything less?

And btw, Mississippi and states to come, don't be fooled that a vote for Clinton is a vote for both of them (via the joint ticket she is "hinting" at all of sudden when in Obama territory). The only way to vote for Obama is to vote for Obama!

Posted by: d_shushan | March 8, 2008 2:51 AM | Report abuse



Bill Clinton profits from company tied to felon, China

March 7, 2008

By Jim McElhatton - The spring before his wife began her White House campaign, former President Bill Clinton earned $700,000 for his foundation by selling stock that he had been given from an Internet search company that was co-founded by a convicted felon and backed by the Chinese government, public records show.

Mr. Clinton had gotten the nonpublicly traded stock from Accoona Corp. back in 2004 as a gift for giving a speech at a company event. He landed the windfall by selling the 200,000 shares to an undisclosed buyer in May 2006, commanding $3.50 a share at a time when the company was reporting millions of dollars of losses, according to interviews.

A spokesman for the William J. Clinton Foundation declined to identify the buyer who was willing to pay so much for a struggling company's stock, saying only that the transaction was handled by a securities broker. It occurred seven months before Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton announced her bid to run for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

The spokesman, Ben Yarrow, declined last week to say whether Mr. Clinton knew about the Chinese government's connection to Accoona or the felony fraud conviction of one of the company's founders.

"President Clinton gave a speech; he did not endorse a product," Mr. Yarrow said.

The $700,000 capital gains was listed on the tax returns of Mr. Clinton's foundation that were reviewed by The Washington Times.

The lack of disclosure about the buyer and the general activities of former presidents' foundations troubles some ethics experts. ...

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | March 7, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
A Washington Post reporter just managed to report a news event involving Sen Clinton without any snide characterizations, degrading mind reading or sneering innuendo.
Just what in the hell is going on here?"

Same feeling :) First time I read a pure report about Clinton here. Usually, even if Obama really made a mistake, that must be Clinton's fault.

Posted by: yudong2 | March 7, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

Here is the link to the news that Canadian giverment confirmed that they didn't speak to Clinton's people about NAFTA.

"Canadian officials never requested, nor received, a private briefing from Clinton's aides on her position on the continental trade treaty.

The answer is no, they did not," Sandra Buckler, a spokesperson for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said Friday."

Posted by: yudong2 | March 7, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Lets see.........the Canadians verify that it was the Hillary Campaign tha actually contacted them about the chest thumping on NAFTA and Hillary is still trying to pin this on Obama?"

There is no such "Canadian verify" at all. On the contary, reports tend to think the original reference to Clinton was a mistake.

On the contrary, there is undisputable evidence that the Obama adviser did it.

Posted by: yudong2 | March 7, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

The Canadian Government today confirmed that it was Obama's prople that met with the Canadian reps, they confirmed that at no time did they speak to Clinton's people.

Posted by: leaand2 | March 7, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

From your links ronaldo0007

"Obama's name was mentioned only briefly by Rezko's lawyer as someone the defendant met while trying to recruit him for a job out of law school.",CST-NWS-rezko07.article

"After Hillary Clinton's resurgence in Tuesday's primaries, the ins-and-outs of the odd real estate transaction involving Obama and Rezko hardly seems the issue on which the Democratic presidential nomination should swing, the missing answers certainly no more pertinent than the missing Clinton income tax returns."

Maybe the reporters feel they were slighted?

"The Tribune originally broke the Obama house story, and its reporters had the benefit of a face-to-face interview with the senator.

For the Sun-Times, Obama would only respond in writing to questions submitted by our reporters."

"It's always possible that the more we know about the transaction the better Obama will look.",CST-NWS-brown06.article

and so what in 2004 he didn't see himself running for president?

"That's the nature of a presidential campaign. Just because Obama made it past the first level of inquiry doesn't mean the questions will stop. If there's a loose thread, somebody will pull on it. If there's a sore spot, somebody will push on it.",CST-NWS-brown06.article

Posted by: IndependenceEveWonderlandBallroom | March 7, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

I am surprised Clinton went to Wyoming. I thought she only goes to places where she can speak in a fake accent. How painful is that?

What would a fake Wyoming accent sound like?

Posted by: steveboyington | March 7, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse


Bush - Clinton - Bush = 20 years

That is why the young people of voting age NEED CHANGE

How old werer you 20 years ago - people of voting age werer not yet born.

20 years of our lives - if the Democrats do not get it then McCain Wins - Pity

Posted by: amitchel | March 7, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton has just shown why she is not fit to be Commander in Chief. Expecting a campaign promise to be anything more than a goal as far as it concerns Iraq is unrealistic.

No one knows what the future is going to look like in January 2009, and it is perfectly appropriate to consult with military advisers and political advisers as to how to do that in the safest manner for our troops. That is a sensible and pragmatic answer, and her crowing on it is just political pandering to the right - the only thing she's ready to do on Day One.

I don't trust her to take our troops out of Iraq. She is the kind to do anything to get re-elected, and she would kowtow to the Republicans on this issue.

I *do* trust Obama to do it, because it is the *realistic* thing to do. We cannot afford to spend billions of dollars which keep losing value every day in Iraq and break our Armed Forces any further.

Obama's stances have been practical, realistic stances that pay attention to economic realities. They are not fairy tales. The fairy tale is believing that we can afford to continue to lose blood and treasure in Iraq indefinitely, as our economic power diminishes.

Posted by: Charlene-K | March 7, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

tuscany1, you better vote for Nader or McCain then as Clinton was just as busy giving the wink-wink.

Posted by: IndependenceEveWonderlandBallroom | March 7, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: ronaldo0007 | March 7, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Puh-leeze Hillary... you do indignation so well! Maybe you can write another skit for SNL! And then - when you're President - we can look forward to parodies of Ahmadinejad and Medvedev, and the clouds will part and angels will sing, and we'll all have a big laugh!

You aren't in Ohio anymore. Welcome back to reality. It's 3 a.m. - are you working on your taxes?

Steve Hussein

Posted by: stivnik | March 7, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Unbelievable. I was mainly not supporting Obama because of his lack of experience. But even I had not anticipated so much duplicity from him. I cannot believe that his advisors have been going around giving the old wink-nod routine to the world. Nafta was one thing but to basically say that his Iraq plan is just a best case scenario that MOST PROBABLY won't come to pass. This is ridiculous! What's going on here? This is something that we may forget. We may yet go ahead and nominate Obama but there is no way he wins the presidency after NAFTA gate and Iraq gate. He is finished in the general election if not the primary. Finished.

Posted by: tuscany1 | March 7, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Powers' reference to Hillary as a "monster" is unfortunate -- here's my reference (since I don't work for the Obama campaign): Hillzilla!

Posted by: meldupree | March 7, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Also if there was so much dirt to be found regarding Rezko, and the Chicago Tribune and Sun Times are cited as doing a lot of the investigation, why would they both still endorse Obama?,_2008#Barack_Obama

Posted by: IndependenceEveWonderlandBallroom | March 7, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

magick75 it looks like some pretty big name democrats also voted for The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.

"The Act accomplished two key goals of "tort reform" advocates:

1. Reduce "forum-shopping" by plaintiffs in friendly state courts by expanding federal diversity jurisdiction to class actions where there is not "complete diversity" giving federal jurisdiction over class actions against out-of-state defendants. Proponents argued that "magnet jurisdictions" such as Madison County, Illinois were rife with abuse of the class action procedure.
2. Requires greater federal scrutiny procedures for the review of class action settlements and changes the rules for evaluating coupon settlements, often reducing attorney's fees that are deemed excessive relative to the benefits actually afforded class members. For example, in an infamous Alabama class action involving Bank of Boston, the attorneys' fees exceeded the relief to the class members, and class members lost money paying attorneys for the "victory."[1]"

Here are all the Yeas.

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

Posted by: IndependenceEveWonderlandBallroom | March 7, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone besides me find it bizarre that for the last two primaries, an Obama "scandal" has been leaked to the world press exactly one day before each primary - and that both times the reports originated from countries outside the US?

Didn't at least one of the interviews by the Obama advisor take place on Monday? Why did it take four days to be released? And has it not been confirmed by Canadian officials that it was Clinton's camp who said the NAFTA rhetoric was just for political posturing?

The timing seems a bit coincidental.

Posted by: nandssmith | March 7, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Hillary and her campaign can twist and turn and report all of the lies that the venom in her mouth can spit....Obama is STILL winning the race...OBAMA is still closer to the nomination.....OBAMA will still beat this MONSTER...Stay focused Obama...whatever you do don't get in the stinking dirty mud with this Monster....if the press does their jobs and stop pushing Hills for the nomination because they know that the Republicans is going to give her a dose os whup ass enought of her b.s. will start to be exposed...don't let those dirty dogs throw you off your are going to get into the dung where she likes to be. Billary McCain Bush will not be the President of the U.S. and I don't care what she spits out of her nasty mouth! Keep your head up BABY, because you are The DEMS winning Ticket, just so long as you don't put that ugly old polarizing hag on the ticket with you!

Posted by: YesweCan1 | March 7, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

This response is for magick75 in particular.

You say you have no dog in this fight; yet you ONLY outline your concerns about Obama and not Clinton or McCain.... Curious and it does dilute your commentary as unfair and unbiased.

If you watch this clip from the oldest and most venerated Cdn. TV networks, you will see that Obama's explanation was substantiated.

Unlike the American press who do not make the distinction that the Cdn. Consulate in Chicago approached a Professor of Economics for a meeting, the Canadians have.

The Globe & Mail in Canada has QUOTED Harper's top aide as stating that it was the Clinton campaign who called to reassure the Cdn. gov't.

MEMOgate, as the Canadians might call it, won't be going away any time soon.

Re: Your Rezko assertions
I am of the opinion that IF Obama was guilty of ANYTHING, he would be sitting behind the Defendant's table and not running for President. After all, the lead prosecutor brought down Scooter Libby, I think that there is NOTHING that sticks there. Also, Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun Times has been on this story for years now without anything other than her suspicions, something like yours.

The sellers of his present home finally came forward and emails provided to Newsweek stated that they accepted the Obamas' 3rd offer for their home as it was the best that they had received. They turned down the Obamas' 2 lower offers. The sellers did not want any notoriety or hounding by the press, so they did not immediately come forward but eventually decided they could no longer stay silent.

The one thing that we can agree on that an uneducated vote is truly a wasted thing.

However, I too have done my research and unlike your innuendos without proof, if asked, I can provide links.

I assure you that I have and will continue to read all the media types on ALL the candidates.

I read the piece not in the Dallas News though from the ? journalist? who doesn't work for any major paper and therefore, can NOT be questioned about following the same rules. His piece, like your commentary, is just that - a commentary.

As far as Senator Obama's state record, I have reviewed that and read as much from the archives of BOTH major Chicago newspapers. From my perusal, reports there do not seem to align with the above mentioned columist/blogger.

Senator Obama has always said that he will surround himself with people who may not always agree with him but he will listen.

Most academics are proud of their own area of expertise and may be a bit naive about newspapers or media that ask them to get together for one thing (Powers was/is on a book tour in England).

In my opinion, regarding Iraq, her answer was a feasible and educated one. How can one declaratively answer a hypothetical, future tense without sounding ridiculous?

It might have been better had she pulled out a crystal ball and waved her hands over it.

Whoever wins the White House will have a vastly different Iraq than we have now.

You end your commentary about an educated vote; but I admit to having suspicions.

I research facts and do my best to speak from that vantage point. I do not like or speak in innuendo which much of your commentary smacks of. i.e. Rezko connections being Obamas...... enough said.

However, in a sense of fairness to all candidates, I would like to see each candidate's 2004,2005,2006 and after April 15th 2007 Income Tax returns.

To the best of my knowledge, neither Senator Clinton nor McCain have done so yet.

Also, for the sake of transparency, I would like to see EACH OF THEM make public their Appointment Books for the same time frame.

Since Senator Clinton is touting 35 years of experience, AND loaned her campaign 5 million from their JOINT account, I think it is only fair to ask for Phone Logs, Meeting Memos, etc from her White House years.

Also, since Senator McCain has no problem SAYING he is a Lobbying Reformist BUT has his Senate Office & his campaign being run by Lobbyists, I think that he should be willing to have those parties provide a list of clients that they lobby for, so that the watchdog groups can monitor any abnormalities.

And, since Senator Clinton also takes both Lobbyist and PAC monies, a similar list would be needed to provide FULL transparency.

For this educated voter, there is a VAST difference between DOUBLE speak and DOUBLE doings and actual, factual information.

If you disagree, I welcome your remarks, complete with links, not assertions.

For anyone else reading this, I will return and see if anyone asks for links.

Posted by: DariMD | March 7, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

I am sure the Canucks will get to the bottom of it.

"Opposition MPs called for the head of the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Ian Brodie, Thursday after it was revealed an offhand remark he made to journalists preceded the leak of a confidential diplomatic discussion that rocked the U.S. presidential campaign."

"Mr. Brodie, during the media lockup for the Feb. 26 budget, stopped to chat with several journalists, and was surrounded by a group from CTV.

The conversation turned to the pledges to renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement made by the two Democratic contenders, Mr. Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing."

Posted by: IndependenceEveWonderlandBallroom | March 7, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

It's always amateur hour over at the Obama's campaign.

Posted by: austina | March 7, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

An Independent here so here's a few unbiased things to consider:

- The NAFTA story was broke by CTV, not by HRC who focused attention to it. Yes, she was accused of similar activity in the same story but the difference is - he was caught trying to cover something up by denying it (interestingly, he didn't actually lie in the technical sense but did attempt to deceive which brings about questions about his judgment)

- The Rezko connection will likely go deeper than people expect. It isn't about the real-estate deal (which again questions his judgment given Rezko was under investigation and it was well known at the time); it's about finance and power; it's about Rezko's links to and loans from billionaire Nadhmi Auchi who has ties to Sadam Hussien and Qaddafi (Obama's pastor went to visit him with Louis Farrakan) and who has faced and escaped prison time on several occasions. It sounds like a conspiracy doesn't it? Like some movie. However the ties are actually there and can be verified. Obama may or may not be linked to the entire story. We'll soon find out... if he's nominated.

- The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, a mirage to "assure fair and prompt recoveries of legitimate claims" by denying 9200 State judges from hearing cases and putting them in the laps of a mere 678 Federal judges who are appointed according to political agenda.
It was a bill dubbed "the final payback to the tobacco industry, to the asbestos industry, to the oil industry, to the chemical industry at the expense of ordinary families who need to be able go to court to protect their loved ones when their health has been compromised" by Congressman Ed Markey (D-Mass.). It was called "a corporate giveaway" by Lisa Madigan (Attorney General, D-IL) who joined forces with 13 other attorneys general to stop it, was passed thanks to every Republican Senator and Mrs Madigan's own Senator, Barack Obama. 26 Senators including Kerry, Kennedy and Clinton opposed it.

- Claims that Obama's Illinois Senate accomplishments may not be his own (

- The current Samantha Power situation and her adding some contrast between Obama's speech and debate promises by saying "best case scenario" in regards to Iraq withdrawal. (with adds more questions about his judgment)

I see a lot of Pro-Obama comments which toss fire at Clinton accusing her of causing some of the heat Obama has brought upon himself by his or his campaign actions (proving the MSM isn't really following him too well) but also by questioning her accomplishments. While I don't support her (or anyone), his allegations about her bluffing on Foreign Relations experience (which seemed to be to steer attention away from Rezko and his "I just answered like 8 Questions" comment) were recently followed up and her claims were supported by CNN using Democrat and Republican sources.

The issue here isn't really about who is better suited as President. Instead, I believe the issue is that most voters know significantly less about Obama than any other candidate in recent history and that gives him a shiny coat of honesty with the public which needs to be examined. The talk of change and a new kind of politics rings well in my ears but I research my future and I find there are significant issues with Obama that his supporters either dismiss as lies, deny as truth or simply do not know. This is demonstrated by the number of them who believe he actually cast a vote against the military action in Iraq (something that happened more than 2 years prior to him being a Senator).

I will not argue with anyone that he is not the best choice that is for you to decide. However, I will challenge you by asking "How much do you really know about him and his past?" and I can unequivocally say that current events show his judgment, which seems to be part of his campaign platform, is no better than anyone else's and may even be worse in some cases. That doesn't make him a bad choice, but in the least, his supporters should acknowledge that among themselves.

An uneducated vote is a wasted vote.

Posted by: magick75 | March 7, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama:

Dear Madam, and Sir,

A Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama ticket is what we want. And that is what we need to take back the Whitehouse. We want a smart, tough, idealistic, seasoned veteran of many battles fighting for the American people (Hillary Clinton). With a young, passionate, smart, open-minded, hard-working idealist fighting for the American people (Barrack Obama). The DREAM TEAM!

You are both fabulous candidates. And we, the American people are very fortunate to have each of you. Taking back the Whitehouse is critical for the American people, and the world at this time. And I think the American people have been saying loudly, and clearly that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket is the best way to do this.

I think the American people have made it very clear that they feel Hillary Clinton is the one best able to lead the ticket against John McCain at this critical, and desperate time in America, and around the world. These dramatic comebacks are testament to Hillary Clinton's skill, and experience as a fighter for the American people. They are also a testament to the strong desire of the American people to have both of you fighting for the American people at this time of midnight in America.

Typical of the Clinton's is an uncanny ability to see and understand what the American people want. And then to try and get it for them. Even if they have to go through three political near death experiences to try and get it for the American people. This is classic Clinton's. They are the best I have ever seen.

We are desperate out here. Millions of us are suffering greatly. And tens of thousands of us are dying needlessly every year. Men, women, children, and babies. We need help! As Hillary Clinton said "It's not a game". We need the two of you together on our side fighting for us, and for the American dream for all. Not fighting against each other anymore.

It's time for you Senator Obama to join forces with Hillary Clinton as her running mate so that we can all focus our energies, and resources on taking back America for the American people.



Posted by: JackSmith1 | March 7, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has gone from "it is my pleasure to be here with Obama" to "he's an empty suit", then to "me and Obama will be the dream team", to the lowly comparison of Obama to Ken Starr, to destroying the party by building up the Republican opposition, then back this morning to wanting to team up with Obama again, now back to attacking him again.

How can it be that she is actually running for president of these United States? She's completely unstable, and needs immediate help. seriously.

Posted by: nandssmith | March 7, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Let's see, who do I trust? The woman who said that she was leaving her name on the Michigan ballot because it doesn't count anyway, but who now is pushing to seat those delegates after she won-- as the only name on the ballot. Or the 61 year old woman who claims to have 35 years experience that makes her ready to be president on day one? That would be just about every single year since she graduated from law school --the Rose law firm is training for president? Married to the president is training for president?
Or the woman, when a war is popular, who votes to go to war without even reading the intelligence assessments, but, now that the war is unpopular, wants to pull out? Maybe I should trust the woman who promised to reform health care and botched it? Or the woman who couldn't get the story straight whether it be about her travel agency or her husband's affairs? Or how about the woman who claims to have been so involved in public affairs when her husband was president, but refuses to have her papers released? Or the woman who refuses to release her tax returns so we can see how 2 public servants amassed a fortune that could loan her campaign 5 mil? Or the woman who with her 3am commerical promises to rule like the current president --with fear.
Thank you give me Mr. Obama. Ms. Clinton and Mr. McCain may try to scare me into falling for one of them--but I prefer to hope and work for something better!

Posted by: jmh300 | March 7, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

If Obama can't or won't defend himself then why would you think he could or would defend America in an emergencyy 3AM phone call. Are you sure he won't say "well OK, you guys only threw one bomb at us ...we can turn the other cheek.

Posted by: jadamsdie | March 7, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

What's interesting is that the Obama campaign, which set itself up as having honesty and integrity, has to hold itself to a higher standard or the Clinton campaign and the press hammer them.

While the Clinton campaign, which makes no bones about employing the "kitchen sink" strategy, can say whatever they want, because everyone just chalks it up to the Clintons' way.

Posted by: ericp331 | March 7, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

This is just too ridiculous. Calling her a 'Monster' is NOTHING. And calling her a' Monster' is less than nothing compared to what the Republicans have been calling her for years. I'm ready for the Obama bunch to ditch the mild manners and kid gloves. Do it in an intelligent way, but give the former 'First Lady' a minor sampling of what the Republicans plan on doing to either of them. I hope she sees some of the same dirt and abuse she and her staff have dished out to Obama for months. If she wins the nomination, she will galvanize the Republican party and we'll have another 100 years or worse in Iraq.

Posted by: rainbird | March 7, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

This is rich from a woman who's own advisors have highlighted that Clinton is no way committed to the withdraw dates she proposes.

To make it worse, this 'advisor' is the architect of the surge!

Posted by: chad7956 | March 7, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

I now actually give Obama credit for taking the high road and sticking to his promise of not sinking to the sleaze-ball level of his opponent.

Poor little Hillary, poor, poor little lying, unstable, unethical Hillary got called a name, so she must have a press conference as a platform to further attack, even though Obama took complete responsibility for the incident, let the staff member go and apologized.

Yet Obama has been barraged with one attack after the other for days upon end from his unstable opponent, and has never once lost his cool; not once! That's the kind of person we need answering the phone at 3:00 a.m.

The more Hillary rants, the more disgusting she becomes and the more ridiculous and foolish she appears.

Obama is wisely keeping his composure. It is he who is demonstrating the presidential attributes our country needs now more than ever.

Posted by: nandssmith | March 7, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Hillary said :"On the campaign trail he says one thing while his campaign tells people abroad something else. I'm not sure what the American people should believe."

ManUnitdFan | March 7, 2008 commented!!!
You mean like your campaign did in Canada with NAFTA? Or are we still pretending it was the Obama campaign that did that?

There were many comments in this list that appear to be just as confused as ManUnitFan. Allow me to educate you. When Hillary said that Obama had told Canada a different story about NAFTA both Hillary and Canada indentified the specific person that spoke with the canadians. Obama denied and then had to admit to the facts as true. The new claim against Hillary is certainly not true because they failed to identify any person by name in Hillary's campaign. The reason they have not named anyone from Hillary's camp is because it would then be slander and they would be dealing in court. There will never be a name because it did not happen.

Sorry to the young Obama supporters but politics is not a game for kids. Two months ago if Hillary had said she wanted Obama as her VP I would have thought it a good idea. Today, I would not vote for a ticket with Obama on it period. I will vote Hillary with a different VP or I will vote McCain. Make no mistake..the Obama's brought this on themselves. Obama has no chance of winning the general election. Florida changed their primary for Juliani's sake in his effort to start his race there before Super Tuesday.....but make no mistake here, the Florida republican Governor changed the primary to conflict with DNC rules delibertly. Republicans wanted to stop Hillary and really do not have any problem with Obama because they know that if nominated, by November he will be lucky to get 35% of the vote against McCain. He lost in MA with Senators Kennedy, Kerry and Gov. Patrick and OPrah and Caroline Kennedy all supporting him........lost by double digits...and the same in CA. Obama has no chance of winning period. A vote for Obama is a vote for McCain.

Posted by: jadamsdie | March 7, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

About the Nafta matter, read the news: they cannot name a NAME in the Clinton camp that allegedly made a statement to the Canadians unlike Obama's economic advisor. So it is hearsay and a rather suspicious turn of events now. The Canadians seem to want to dirty everybody to wipe the egg of their faces. So If, and only if, they can name the alleged Clinton source, this is ALL OBAMA'S MESS.

By the way, this is politics and Obama is a politician the only difference with Clinton is that he is not as experienced...yet. His arrogance and that of his surrogates allows them to believe that he is beyond scrutiny and that he should not be asked more than 8 questions on any matter. He's behavior last week on this matter was revealing and worrisome, to say the least.

And the tax returns...let's hope that when they are released he is not covered with egg in his face, just like Starr was which forced him to hang on the ludicrous Lewinsky chapter. If he is going to attack, attack on the issues, past statements she has made, policy. Not on this, it is risky, very risky...for him.

He cannot attack her on judgment either since he said that his decision to buy property with Rezcko was "bad judgement" as it was having having Ms. Power be a chief foreign policy aide, a position to which she has had to resign.

So what is he left with? Nothing substantial, but then that has been the problem all along. He cannot debate her or call her on issues. In that she will always win. The rhetoric and oratory are over and they better cool it because the salvation of that party is that they run together, pure and simple.

Posted by: poh123 | March 7, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse


So, let me get this straight: even if Obama is LYING about being a Christian (i.e. he is a secret Muslim trying to obtain the Presidency to sabotage our current war against terrorists), you are going to believe him on healthcare and the economy?

Posted by: JakeD | March 7, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Sen Obama's supporters here sound a bit rattled.

Posted by: zukermand | March 7, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Monster accurately describes the behavior of Hillary Clinton. Not one independent news source has yet to backup her claims which are nothing more than distorting the facts for the purpose of misleading uninformed voters by fear mongering. Who wants another leader who we can't rely on to tell us the truth!


Posted by: tc1123 | March 7, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

"Asked to compare Power's calling her a monster with her adviser saying Obama was acting like Ken Starr, Clinton said "One is an ad hominem attack and one is a historical reference." "

So, had Ms Powers referred to her as Grendel, a historical, albeit fictitious, monster in literature, it would have been ok. But because Ms Powers used the generic 'monster', it was inappropriate. Yet it is ok for her to characterize Sen Obama - or his campaign - as being part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

It seems, to me anyway, that Grendel has a screw loose.

Posted by: bsimon | March 7, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

This is killing me... with all the baggage and sleaze surrounding HRC why isn't Obama and/or his campaign hitting back hard...or at least RESPONDING to these attacks. Jesus. It would be so easy to make her look silly.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I'd like to think that he's giving her just enough rope to hang herself with.

Posted by: pennycentury | March 7, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Two thoughts:

(1) Hillary Clinton can't control her husband. But she wants us to think she's fit to control and manage the country. Is she kidding?

(2) I think there should be a constitutional amendment prohibiting the spouse of a former president from being president. The spouse has already played a quasi-presidential role, and shouldn't have the chance to occupy the office for another 8 years.

Posted by: cblaine | March 7, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Whether Obama is a Muslim or not, I don't care. The real questions are: How will his healthcare plan provide an affordable, universal healthcare? How will his "Change" slogan put food on the table, improve the economy and allow us keep our jobs and homes?

BTW, how is he said to be able to transcend racial lines when he constantly lose the Asian, Hispanic and working-class white votes? Maybe it is really Clinton who transcends racial lines.

Posted by: CPCook | March 7, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Hillary needs to give it up. First she pushed Obama to denounce and reject (debate); well, he immediately denounced and rejected his "unpaid" advisor's comments today. Then she said the advisor should be fired, after which the advisor immediately resigned. She was provided immediate and public apologies from both the advisor and the Obama campaign, but wasn't good enough either. And all this while while continues spewing her horrendous and continuous "kitchen-sink" attacks on Obama, including blatant untruths and very un-presidential sarcasm. I started out a Hillary supporter, but with her incessant negativity, dishonesty and hypocrisy, I will NEVER vote for any ticket with her name anywhere on it. She is gone way past becoming an embarrassment to herself, the Democratic party and the entire country. Her behavior is demonstrative of not having all her cups in the cupboard.

Posted by: nandssmith | March 7, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse


The truth about how NAFTA affects Canadians. You may research this for yourself. This is shameful for both sides of the border. That the Canadian government did this to its people, and of course the US takes advantage of it. ESPECIALY the agreement over our natural resources.

In the aftermath of Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's threats to "renegotiate" NAFTA -- or pull out -- the usual suspects have been activated to tell the world how wonderful the deal has been for Canada and the United States.

There is no doubt that the sector that devised the scheme in the first place and sold it to politicians have benefited greatly from this investors' rights agreement and its predecessor. The continent's largest corporations have greatly reduced regulatory impediments to their profits, radically lowered labour costs, gutted Canada's sovereign capacity to pass new environmental legislation and, in terms of investment restrictions, virtually erased the borders.

All of those corporate benefits, however, have been extremely bad for other aspects of Canada and for ordinary Canadians.

But first, let's dispose of a myth about free trade -- the notion that it was responsible for massive increases in trade between the U.S. and Canada. According to an Industry Canada study, 91 per cent of the increase in trade in the 1990s was due to the cheap Canadian dollar and the sustained economic boom in the U.S. Now that our dollar is at par or higher, our manufacturing exports are plummeting.

Related Articles

Globe editorial: To write about crime is also to act
Ontario court orders newspaper to hand over sensitive documents
National Post's anonymous package could be used to identify source
But even if NAFTA were responsible for increased trade, Canadian workers have paid a huge price. Throughout the 1990s, federal governments trumpeted the need to be "competitive" under NAFTA as an excuse to implement some of the most Draconian rollbacks of Canadian social programs ever undertaken. In the name of "labour flexibility," Paul Martin implemented drastic changes to EI eligibility, and repealed the Canada Assistance Plan, freeing the provinces to gut their welfare programs. His extreme low-inflation policy deliberately kept unemployment at high levels (8 per cent to 9 per cent) for most of the 1990s.

That meant that, throughout the decade, workers' real wages actually declined. They still have not caught up to 1981 levels. And the highly paid 220,000 industrial jobs lost as a result of NAFTA are gone forever, replaced by lower-paid jobs.

NAFTA was supposed to unleash a flood of foreign investment -- boosting our industrial capacity and productivity. Instead, since the first trade agreement was signed, more than 95 per cent of direct foreign investment has been used to buy up Canadian companies. Head offices and research and development money has headed south, and Canada has seen a steady decline in manufactured goods as a percentage of its GDP for the past 10 years.

Our productivity has fallen behind that of the U.S. in virtually every year since the FTA came into effect in 1989.

The environment has also suffered almost continuously since the deals were signed -- and this is according to the Commission for Environmental Co-operation, the NAFTA agency responsible for monitoring the impact of the new regime. The North American Mosaic: The State of the Environment Report, released in 2001, declared that "North Americans are faced with the paradox that many activities on which the North American economy is based impoverish the environment on which our well-being ultimately depends."

It might also have mentioned that Canada has not passed a major new environmental protection law since NAFTA came into effect -- at least not successfully. In two instances where it did try, NAFTA's investment chapter forced it to back off. In the Ethyl Corp. case, Canada tried to ban a gasoline additive, MMT, that damaged cars' catalytic converters (not to mention our health). The company sued under NAFTA and Canada withdrew the law. The resulting chill effect means we have no idea how many proposed new laws have been killed in their cribs.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says Canada is an energy "superpower." But NAFTA virtually guaranteed that the U.S. would be the beneficiary of our energy, and it unleashed a massive increase in energy exports to the U.S.

Canada now exports 63 per cent of the oil it produces and 56 per cent of its natural gas to the U.S. And because of NAFTA's proportionality clause, Canada is legally obliged to continue exporting the same proportion of our oil and gas forever even if we face a shortage.

Next up is our water. The U.S. is already officially into its supply problems and it will, over the next 20 years, become a catastrophic crisis, outpacing even their predicted energy crisis.

NAFTA defines water as a good -- meaning that, as soon as any provincial government signs a contract to export bulk water to the U.S. (by river diversion or tanker), nothing can stop further exports.

All of this, and for what? Allegedly, it was for guaranteed, predictable access to the U.S. market. But, of course, as the softwood lumber saga proved, there is no such thing. When its history is written, NAFTA could rightly be described as the worst agreement ever signed by a Canadian government.

Posted by: marthadavidson | March 7, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

I'm still trying to figure out how an "off the record" comment became part of the record.

And why everyone keeps calling on Obama to "fire" someone who wasn't on staff.

At this point Billary are relying on lying and twisting the Obama camp's message enough to confuse as many voters as possible before the next primary.

As for me, it just makes me all the more eager to leave Billary and their bilious politics behind.

Posted by: pennycentury | March 7, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Will the REAL Hillary Rodham Clinton, Please step forward:

A March 12, 2007 article written by acclaimed Washington columnist Robert Novak sheds a very revealing light on the true sentiment of Hillary Clinton during the peak of the Civil Rights Movement. Clinton recently was found to have minimized the great and monumental strides taken by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. by stating that it was Lyndon B. Johnson, then president, who should receive the credit for the civil rights progress including the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The fact is, in 1963, not only was Hillary Clinton a republican, but she was also a staunch supporter of  republican Senator Barry Goldwater, well known as a segregationist and one of the most vocal senato rs adamantly against the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is why he lost in his presidential bid to Lyndon B. Johnson. Novak writes ' then could she be a 'Goldwater Girl' in the next year's presidential election?' He continues, '...she described herself in her memoirs as 'an active Young Republican' and 'a Goldwater girl, right down to my cowgirl outfit.'

She has worked extremely hard to hide many truths about her past, including ordering that her 92 page college thesis that she wrote at Wellesley College be 'sealed' and unavailable to the public, an order forced upon the college by Bill Clinton while president, although all senior thesis' at Wellesley have been available for public reading for over 100 years, except one....Hillary Rodham Clinton's.

Posted by: nerakami | March 7, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

This is killing me... with all the baggage and sleaze surrounding HRC why isn't Obama and/or his campaign hitting back hard...or at least RESPONDING to these attacks. Jesus. It would be so easy to make her look silly. He will probably end up losing if he doesn't start spewing venom back in her face. C'mon Barack! Quit taking a vacation from the serious business at hand!

Posted by: jkallen001 | March 7, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
A Washington Post reporter just managed to report a news event involving Sen Clinton without any snide characterizations, degrading mind reading or sneering innuendo.
Just what in the hell is going on here?

Posted by: zukermand | March 7, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Here we are back to lies, innuendos and dirty tricks by Clinton. She is showing she is still the same old politician;calculating, cold and will do anything, I mean anything, to get elected. Since when do the Clintons think they are entitled to the presidency? I hate to see Obama have to stoop to her level, but what choice does he have? He cannot forever be turning the other cheek. Clinton so disgusts me now (I used to like her) I can't bear to either listen to or watch her.

I recently spoke with an acquaintance of mine who said, "Obama is a Muslim". Now where did she get that idea? This is the kind of slime Clinton is spreading and I pray she is stopped.

Posted by: tbradt | March 7, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Obama campaign bruised brutally to respond Clintons spin machine. Obama need to brush off his raffled feathers and knock Hilary out of the campaign, forever!

Ever wonder why Hilary is not dead yet?

Partyly Obama trying to run like Mr Clean. Gosh, that does not work for devils! Obama need to get little cranky, but, knowing Hilary she will cut him both ways! Hilary is good with sword-fighting!

Posted by: jamila_morsheda | March 7, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

I will never vote for fake christian politicians who will give our public school money to their private christian school buddies.

Just say no to Obama..........

Posted by: hhkeller | March 7, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

I am glad that Hillary is still in the contest, and is giving rationale people a real option in this election. Beyond the slogans and meaningless speeches without concrete plans or policies, Obama has nothing to offer. Many are obsessed with his "Change" slogan, and yet, he has not explained how will this bring affordable, universal healthcare, save homes from foreclosures, keep our jobs and improve the economy.

Obama keeps on harping his speech on Iraq in 2002, and yet, his speech is just an opinion, and not a vote. He was not a Senator then, and was not privy to any info the senators have.

I want to vote democratic, but I can't in good conscience vote for somebody with Obama's qualifications. Why do Dems like the one with least qualifications? What message does this send to the children? That what matters most is being popular than doing the hard work? Should Obama become the Dem nominee, I urge even die-hard Dems to vote for McCain. Please do this for your children.

Posted by: CPCook | March 7, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Fired for speaking the truth. It is unfortunate Ms. Power lost her job. I used to feel a great deal of empathy for Ms. Clinton because of the rank attacks on her by people like Rush Limbaugh. As it turns out she is really not all that different than her attackers. If president, who is she going to attack then?

Posted by: DesertCrier | March 7, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse


The word of the "lone Canadian aide" (who is the Chief of Staff for the Prime Minister, by the way) was all the proof the Clinton campaign needed to attack Obama. Why does the Obama campaign now need more proof?

Posted by: ManUnitdFan | March 7, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

So, what? Hillery can spew any lies she wants now, and it doesn't matter...they just get reported because she said them? Once again, she will say and do anything to get elected whether it's true or honest or ethical OR NOT. Is this the kind of president we want? Haven't we been suffering under that kind of morality long enough?

Posted by: husimon | March 7, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Quote: "Is Hillary saying that she will stick to her withdrawal schedule no matter what the facts on the ground are? That's incredibly naive and dangerously incompetent. As I don't believe she is either of those things, I guess she's just pandering to audience yet again."

"Incredibly naive"=No,
"Dangerously incompetent" Yes

Posted by: wly34 | March 7, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

xplanes wrote: "When your supporters cannot name one single accomplishment in your legislative career, people should look at that and question why Obama should be given a seat in the Oval Office."

It is Senator Clinton's supporters who cannot name one single accomplishment in her entire legislative career. There is a reason. She has done basically nothing beyond obtaining 9/11 money for her constituents in New York. Seven years, and not a single substantive bill.

With Republican Senator Tom Coburn, Obama passed a transparency in federal spending bill, which resulted in Go to the website and see where your tax dollars are spent.

With Senators Reid and Feingold, Obama passed an ethics bill, described as the most substantive reform since the Watergate era.

With Republican Senator Dick Lugar, Obama passed a curtailment of nuclear proliferation bill.

This was in his 3 years as U.S. Senator. He has many more legislative achievements in Illinois. The New York Times reported his achievements in Illinois were "pragmatic and shrewd": .

Now, xplanes, let's see, if instead of slamming Obama and his supporters, whether you can come up with anything that Senator Clinton has done in her 7-years-and-counting Senate career. The one thing we all expect from Senator Clinton's supporters is that they never tout why she is qualified, but why her opponents are not. They are as negative as she is.

Heck, this is an open challenge for any Clinton supporters reading this post. And, by the way, neither calling her "bipartisan", citing her (vague) "work across the aisle", and citing her work in committees counts. Let's see real legislative achievements in the form of actual bills that have passed and become law. Because only bills that have become law are real "solutions". Obama has delivered solutions; Clinton has not.

Posted by: junkmail | March 7, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

I would like those Obama supporters who say Clinton was involved in the NAFTA dispute for their proof other than a lone Canadian aide to the PM not involved and whom you originally decried as liars, to say "when, where, who "etc. That they haven't done and Clinton denied any involvement when it first surfaced. So either get the proof of who called from the CLinton campaign and who they called in Canada or your statements are nothing more than wishful hoping in your desire to exhonerate Obama for something he originally denied and then took 4 days to come clean about.

Posted by: justmyvoice | March 7, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Talk to the hand Hillary. Barack, play the transparancy card as hard as you possibly can. Hillary is desperately clinging on to your Rezko and NAFTA mistakes. Quickly deflect both arguments by 1. Making the documents on your home purchase public, and 2. Taking full responsibility for NAFTA with no excuses. Next, outline a specific plan to renegotiate NAFTA. It would help if you could get the support of proven econimic leaders when you present this plan. Meanwhile, place your foot directly on Hillary's neck and don't let up. Demand the public release of her tax returns. If she claims that she has not had time to prepare them (BS) then demand the release of her 2006, 2005, and 2004 tax returns. Also, you need to pull her card on the White House documents. Remeber, she tried to blame Bush for stalling the release of those documents. Bush and the White House have already said that Clinton never made the request. As an added bonus, you need to place a few phone calls to a couple of famous comedians. Let's see some skits on Hillary's monsterous behavior.

Posted by: WallyWutMD | March 7, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Lets see.........the Canadians verify that it was the Hillary Campaign tha actually contacted them about the chest thumping on NAFTA and Hillary is still trying to pin this on Obama? Of course, the Hillary Campaign denies this but it boils down to who you trust? In this case, I'll go with the Canadians. What a bunch of lying hypocrites!

Posted by: chris30338 | March 7, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Is Hillary saying that she will stick to her withdrawal schedule no matter what the facts on the ground are? That's incredibly naive and dangerously incompetent. As I don't believe she is either of those things, I guess she's just pandering to audience yet again.

Posted by: stburke40 | March 7, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Apparently the American MSM is still pretending NAFTA-gate is a solely Obama matter. There seems to be a total unwillingness to report the true facts, probably because it would make them look stupid for making such a big deal out of a few partial facts last week.

Posted by: flarrfan | March 7, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

"On the campaign trail he says one thing while his campaign tells people abroad something else. I'm not sure what the American people should believe."

You mean like your campaign did in Canada with NAFTA? Or are we still pretending it was the Obama campaign that did that?

Posted by: ManUnitdFan | March 7, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Is this true?
Is Barack really saying this?

Hillary is fighting hard and will need to with double-digit wins needed and with figures such as these;

Hillary vs. Barack-
The Google Factor:

Posted by: davidmwe | March 7, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

The longer the campaign goes on, the better for Hillary Clinton because, at last, some of the shining Obama armor is starting to dull a little bit. When your supporters cannot name one single accomplishment in your legislative career, people should look at that and question why Obama should be given a seat in the Oval Office. When Republicans cross over to vote for Hillary Clinton, the Obamanistas say that it is because Hillary Clinton will be easier to defeat in a national election. When Republicans cross over to vote for Obama, it is because it shows he can appeal across the aisle. Which one is it? You can't have it both ways. But, now that Obama's real position on Iraq and NAFTA are coming out, not what he is telling his adoring admirers, the Obama campaign is claiming dirty tricks. Really? Well, if Obama can't take the heat of the Democratic primaries, he should get out of the general election kitchen where all burners will be turned up high by the Republicans.

Posted by: xplanes | March 7, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company