Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton Tries a Different Debate Debate

By Perry Bacon Jr.
SOUTH BEND, Ind. -- Sen. Barack Obama says he's done debating, but he's facing a double team effort to force him into another one-on-one session with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The New York senator again challenged him to a debate in Indiana, but with a new twist: no moderators.

"Just the two of us going for 90 minutes asking and answering questions," Clinton said to a crowd of several thousand at a rally held at a minor-league baseball stadium here. "We'll set whatever rules seem fair."

Speaking of voters in Indiana and around the country, she said "they would love seeing that kind of debate and discussion, remember that's what happened during the Lincoln-Douglas debates.... I think that would be good for the Democratic Party, it would be good for our democracy and it would be great for Indiana."

Just before Clinton issues her challenge, Obama ruled out more debates in a taped interview with Fox News that will air Sunday.

"We've had 21 and so what we've said we're two weeks, two big states we want to make sure we're talking to as many folks as possible on the ground taking questions from voters," Obama said. "We're not going to have debates between now and Indiana."

Obama was also pressed on the debate issue by former president Bill Clinton. Appearing in North Bend, a small town in Oregon, the former president said, while laying out his wife's proposals, "I wish that we could have debates on all this."

"Hillary has proposed that Oregon should have two debates, one on the issues generally and one on you, on rural life in America today and what should be done," Bill Clinton said, according to ABC News. "And if you agree you oughta make your feelings known, either on her Web site or some other way."

The Clintons have repeatedly called for debates in North Carolina and Indiana, which vote on May 6 and in Oregon, which holds a primary on May 20.

Obama and his supporters criticized the questions in a debate earlier this month in Philadelphia and last fall the Illinois senator indicated he thought there were too many debates and forums. Clinton considers detailed discussions of policy a strength and more debates offer more chances for her to try to change the dynamics of a race that she trails.

Both candidates have arguments on their sides in the debate debate. Clinton aides note more than 10 million viewers tuned into the debate in Philadelphia and only a handful of the sessions have featured only Obama and Clinton without the half-dozen other Democratic contenders who have now left the race.

"If we debate, American viewers will come," Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams wrote in an open letter to Obama campaign manager David Plouffe as she demanded more debates. "Senator Obama himself suggested the last debate in Philadelphia did not provide enough opportunity to talk about issues that 'matter to the American people.'"

Obama has repeatedly noted that the vast number of debates has offered little new information, particularly since the two Democrats share similar policy views.

Whether Democratic voters would enjoy a Lincoln-Douglas-style debate is an open question. In the famous Illinois senate race of 1858, the pair held seven sessions in which one candidate spoke for an hour, the other then spoke for an hour and half, and then the first candidate was given 30 minutes to rebut his opponent.

Perhaps aware of the television era, Williams proposed in her letter that each candidate would speak in two-minute segments.

By Washington Post Editors  |  April 26, 2008; 4:14 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama's Hoops Victory in Indiana
Next: Obama Stumps in Indiana

Comments

Can there be timeout on all this ? The election is not about Obama and his associates. Surely there are real substantial issues that need to be addressed like the rising cost of fuels,alternative energy sources, global food crisis, housing crisis, banking crisis, pension crisis, tax rebates,world peace, global warming and climate change, desertification,pollution,ozone layer,agriculture, poverty,hunger, empty food shelves in Africa etc etc etc.
Barak is just living the American dream. What is wrong with that? Why do we like broken dreams more than fulfilled dreams/ Let the dream live on. Hope is a good thing there is nothing wrong with hope.
Peace to all and goodwill to all men . Errol Smythe.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 30, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

I believe Hillary loves America and always has. I cannot say that about some of the other's family.
This is what I am looking for. A proud American. If they do not like it why don't they go to another country and see how far they get sounding off. They won't last long in most of the other countries.

Posted by: sinceretexan | April 28, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

When we think of the candidates for the Democratic Party, I found it a little amusing and disturbing at where some have positioned their Lane County headquarters. Here is how our local free weekly paper, Eugene Weekly, described their locations.

"It's not just candidates coming through town for a quick speech anymore; the presidential campaigns have come to Eugene and they're setting up shop. Just across from Kinko's on Willamette lies Barack Obama's new headquarters. And Springfield is the home for Hillary Clinton's newly opened local campaign office for Lane County, located across the street from Club 1444 (a "gentlemen's club"), a 60-day loan shop and a panaderia on Main Street.
Clinton's office is one of six offices statewide. The white painted square cinderblock building at 1441 Main boasts in its front window a series of red, white and blue yard signs and white poster board signs drawn with markers emblazed with slogans such as "Honk for Hillary."
The building shares a parking lot with Goodfella Lounge and the EZ Boy Mattress factory. Along that section of Main Street are aging trailer parks, cheap motels and little used lots encircled by barbed wire-topped chain link fencing...."

This might explain why she has the so called "blue collar" support. It does make me wonder if Bill picked out the location:-}
Here is a link to the story http://www.eugeneweekly.com/2008/04/24/news2.html

I hope that it will get some to pause and to think of the two of these candidates on the more obscure issues. For myself I ask, "Why would a women that is running to be the 1st "women" POTUS have her county headquarters in such a location? Living in this area I know of much more suitable locations that would not stare at the belittling of women by being next to a strip club."

I am a 40ish mixed ethnical background, blonde hair blue eyes woman, guess who has my vote!

Posted by: Caryle~ | April 28, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

If Sen. Clinton were sincere, she would concede that the reasons for the no-moderators is because Sen. Obama is rightly concerned about getting unfairly mugged like he did in the ABC Philly debate.

She ate it up, so no more debates/no free media is her dessert. Obama's running out the clock, that's the bottom line, and running out the clock means, don't give your opponent opportunities to score points.

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 28, 2008 8:57 AM | Report abuse

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT IF YOU THINK
Hillary can manage anything including education rather than someone with title of professor.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
TO THE PERSON WHO WROTE THE ABOVE MESSAGE!

Kindly remember Mr Ayres the terrorist bomber is a professor.

You should not put Obama in his class he is only his friend.

Posted by: Evista | April 28, 2008 8:21 AM | Report abuse

In case no one has noticed, the Pastor closed the deal last night.

Hillary will be nominated, because she believes we are ALL AMERICANS.

But the Pastor that mentored Obama says we are DIFFERENT.
He maybe right too, I know I am not like Ayres or Rezko or Farakhan or Michelle Obama. Good Lord imagine these people in charge of the White House.

Hillary is light years ahead of Obama in policies and brains. It is sad that those who don't like her are so full of hate they must be really sad people.

I don't think Obama is fit or able to be the President, but I don't hate him.
I just wish he would go back to Illinois and sort out the Chicago killings and show us he can do something.

Posted by: Evista | April 28, 2008 8:15 AM | Report abuse

.


N E O C O N S

F O R

C L I N T O N

.


Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan,
Joe Lieberman, Rubert Murdoch, Dick Cheney, Carl Rove.......


William (Bill) Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and prime pusher of invading Iraq re: Hillary Clinton:


"I like to be on Hillary's side"

"She is a good candidate"

"I am with her. I am with her"


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352785,00.html

Posted by: FOX NEWS | April 27, 2008 11:56 PM | Report abuse

jack idiot smith

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT IF YOU THINK
Hillary has 35 years of experience doing anything presidential

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT IF YOU THINK
Hillary can fix an economy on the verge of collapse when she cant manage a presidential campaign or pay the vendors she has promised money to.

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT IF YOU THINK
Hillary can provide health care when all her attempts in the past have failed

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT IF YOU THINK
Hillary can get America out of two wars better than Obama when she already wants to annihilate Iran

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT IF YOU THINK
Hillary can manage anything including education rather than someone with title of professor.

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT IF YOU THINK
If you think Hillary's so called 8 years of experience at the right hand of Bill ( apart from when dodging sniper fire, hosting tea parties with dignitaries and other leaders wives or when Monica was in the oval office) will make her a better leader than a man who graduated top of his class at Harvard when Hillary couldn't even pass the bar exam.

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT IF YOU THINK
That trying something new is a better idea than staying with the same old lying cheating and stealing that has accompanied the previous Clinton presidency

And lastly jack smith the idiot I do believe republicans are voting for Hillary because they think McCain will eat her in the general.

Whoops one last thing jack idiot smith
Your are an idiot
And please get a new slogan its starting to sound kinda idiotic you idiot

Posted by: kempy76 | April 27, 2008 10:21 PM | Report abuse

JACK SMITH KING OF THE IDIOTS

Posted by: KEMPY76 | April 27, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

.

=================================================

.

....................HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR

.

=================================================

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

The DNC didn't want my vote in the the primary...they sure as hell not getting it in November....I only hope every democrat in Michigan and Florida feels the same.

Posted by: lucygirl1 | April 27, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Weekend Development on Obama Watch

* Obama is scared of debates..

* Obama calls his supporters Chablis drinking limosine liberals, so every group has a title ( better than bitter and clinging to guns and religion )

* Obama pushed MLK under the train by comparing King's speeches to Rev Wright's speeches as similar.

* Obama thrashed a bunch of high school kids in basketball, not caring for their feelings, just because he cannot bowl

* Obama insulted the marines by wearing a USMC T shirt. Has he ever served anywhere, even ROTC. Even Bush has certificates to prove he served

* Obama insults his liberal supporters and moveon.org by appearing on FOX

All these just for the weekend.

Posted by: vs | April 27, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Someone ask:
"Why should Obama waste valuable campaign time with a mud-slinger like Clinton?"

Do you prefer he hang out with Wright?


Posted by: Billw | April 27, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Obama snores and farts, note.

Posted by: Jake leg | April 27, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

To Shirley and anybody else gullible enough to buy her gossip, follow this link and get your stories straight: http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/landlord.asp
Long story short, no rent by the Secret Service and these attacks and fairytales don't meet the needs of informing people.
If Obama feels that there is no need to debate because he fears the repetition of the infantile questions from the last round, this is his solution. He himself has pointed out that the two candidates hold very similar votes. If he believes that, then he should also realize that this is the very reason to have such a debate.
The voters need to understand that there are differences, what those differences are, and that this is not a flip of a coin decision.
In the mean time, attacking one and other here on this post and writing horrid things about either of the candidates (particularly making them out as truths when they are bold faced LIES) is getting none of us any closer to our goals.
I won't vote for Obama because:
1) He is too young for this office - almost all of our presidents under the age of 50 have had affairs or sex scandals
2) He does not have enough legislative experience at the national level, including house committees and issues
3) He does not have enough prior work history working for the people of this country outside of the inner cities
4) He does not have the ability to express himself well in a debate or conversation and seems able to do so only when not interrupted or during his sermons
5) He switches manners when expressing himself to different audiences, much as Oprah Winfrey does - not content, but delivery. The blacker the audience, the blacker the presentation delivery. This is insulting considering he was not raised in a black american household (so it's learned acting) and it is down right patronizing to his listeners
6) He is insulting in his dismissal of "non-believers" as being people in boxes beyond his reach who refuse to learn or grow or accept anything new while clinging to those things that they do know
7) He does not have a history of building political bridges; his history is of voting the party line - he is a lemming and a red herring and is being used by the DNC to get the black vote away from the GOP
8) His response to an attack on our allies is to make his displeasure known; he's already given them the "Advance to Go" if elected
9) Nobody in this country knows what kind of a leader this man will turn out to be because he has never been solely responsible for the final word in any city or state and often votes "present" on the difficult issues
10) Somebody has to counterbalance the unthinking acceptance of something new as better by the inexperienced youth, the militant middleage crazies, and the unthinking loyalist black vote

Posted by: Kimberly | April 27, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Enough is enough. I am tired of debates. we have had enough of them. Please candidates just go out there and talk to the voters in the states with upcoming primaries.

Posted by: sigmund fraud | April 27, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Maggie...
Did you go to church today?

Posted by: A Christian | April 27, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

If you want to add another name to Obama Hatim El Hady,he was the head of Kindhearts charity that the fbi closed because he was giving money to the terriost I read this in the IL.Tribune the other day so now you have him Will Ayers ,Wright, Louis Farrakhan.About the debates there was 21 but only 4 between the two of them

Posted by: maggie | April 27, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

MRS Clinton says: 'I think that would be good for the Democratic Party'


I am sure that is her reason, not the free television time, or the fact that if Senator Obama is involved she will be seen by more people than the pathetic liar can draw herself. If she has any interest in the good of the party she would exit, and though too late to do so gracefully, at least she would be gone.

Posted by: james d granata | April 27, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

I would rather learn if there is any thing to the claims about Sen Clinton's abuse of Arkansas state troopers than spend 45+ more minutes watching tired old guilt through association charges being pitched at Obama by Clinton. Scandal is more "fun" than watching McCarthy look alike re-runs.

Most of all I would like to hear what the candidates are actually doing about our loss of jobs and reduced hours. The last time one of them promised lots of new jobs, nothing happened except maybe fewer jobs.

Posted by: Unemployed Old White Guy | April 27, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

A person who didn't care about fairness or rules could take an unmoderated debate and keep the other person on the defensive. I wouldn't trust Hillary in a debate like this for anything. Obama has shown himself to have more honor in matters like these. He wouldn't say; "Why did you lie about snipers, Hillary?" Just as an aside, the Lincoln-Douglas debates weren't actually debates at all; but, a series of 45 minute speeches. I have a feeling Hillary wouldn't like to go against Obama speech against speech. And why did Lincoln and Douglas have so many debates, Hillary? Because there was no TV--that was the only way to get their messages out. More people have seen Obama and Clinton on TV in one debate than saw Lincoln and Douglas in their entire careers.

Posted by: Sueb2 | April 27, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

In the words of DC SOooooo

"Congressman Clyburn calls Bill Clinton a racist. Has he ever commented on Michelle Obama or Rev Wright. CLYBURN ,CRYBABY, and his ilk needs to CHILL OUT. IT is racism when 92 % vote by color...

Posted by: | April 27, 2008 3:30 PM"

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Congressman Clyburn calls Bill Clinton a racist. Has he ever commented on Michelle Obama or Rev Wright. CLYBURN ,CRYBABY, and his ilk needs to CHILL OUT. IT is racism when 92 % vote by color...

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton asks the question: "Why can't he (Senator Obama) close the deal?" We should all be asking her why SHE hasn't closed the deal! She claimed it would all be over and she'd be the candidate after Iowa!

Senator Clinton talks about her "experience". However, it should be noted that while describing that experience, her detailed account (on numerous occasions) about running across a tarmac under sniper fire in Bosnia wasn't "experience", it was a blatant lie. It was a lie that she told over and over again--even after she was caught on video! Once the video was unveiled, she lied some more, and when that didn't work, she claimed she was tired; she claimed she misspoke. Tell me what happens if she's tired and misspeaks when she answers the phone at 3:00 a.m.?

She talks about how Senator Obama is an elitist who demeans us. Lying to the American people and then laughing and shrugging her shoulders when caught in the headlights of a video and expecting that it wouldn't make any difference to the American people demeans us all. President Clinton did the same thing while he was President--he lied to us with incredible ease--but he's a good guy, right? He can lie all he wants as long as he's charming and knows how to crack a joke.

There are over 4000 soldiers who are DEAD! They've been slaughtered. They are never coming home. Senator Clinton voted for us to go to that war and didn't have the guts to admit that she was wrong.

Barack Obama voted NO to the war. Period.

Senator Clinton talks about how she gets the work done and all Senator Obama does is use words. Where's all this work she claims to be doing and how's she communicating all of that to us? What significant work did she do in 35 years? How did she do it? Surely not with words! And if her Washington experience is the answer, then tell me why our country is a complete mess when we've been voting for and relying on "experienced Washington leaders" for years?

Senator Clinton's "experience" has taught her how to twist the truth and manipulate our thoughts and hopes, to fill us with fear, and to use ridicule to humiliate her opponent at every possible opportunity. What kind of person does these things so easily and so willingly, all in an effort to win? It reminds me of the people who cheat and then claim they've won.

The media brings up the Rev. Wright business over and over again. How many people in the media who bombard their cable television audiences with sound bites and who write their vicious commentaries, and how many Americans after hearing this stuff over and over again, took the time to watch the Bill Moyers' interview with Rev. Wright? For all those of us who did watch it, we now know that we've been subjected to a blitz of horrible lies and manipulation with respect to Rev. Wright since "day one". I can't believe the amount of hatred and vitriol that is spewed by our wonderful "Christian" American people against Barack Obama because of his minister. How many of these righteous people have taken the time to listen to any of Rev. Wright's sermons or have bothered to research the good work his church has been doing?

Do you really think Senator Clinton goes out bowling and chugs down boilermakers at the local bar? Or cleans her shotgun and goes out shooting ducks for recreation? The Clintons have 109 million American Dollars! They did their best to keep that from the American public for months and months and months. Maybe they were worried that we might think they were elitist!

The saddest thing of all is that we are so jaded and so used to being lied to, that for some of us it's easier to lower our standards or just give up and accept the ugly status quo. For some of us, it is too hard to believe that there could be a new, brilliant, strong, and better way to get things right for our beloved country. Americans are intelligent enough and love this country enough to work together--both parties, all people from every walk of life--to put an end to the things that are slowly destroying it. If we elect Senator Obama, we'll finally have a solid chance to make our country stronger and better than ever before. We're in desperate trouble. I hope with all my heart we don't lose this chance for real change.

I urge everyone to read Senator Obama's books, to listen to his speeches, to read and listen to the accounts of people who have worked with him, who know him, and have already witnessed his potential to become a remarkable leader. Among his many gifts are strength, humility, keen intelligence, patience, an unwillingness to play the dirty games of which his opponents are so adept; his deep love of America.

Senator Obama isn't perfect and he never claimed to be. He has told us that if he becomes our president, his cabinet will be comprised of honest intelligent people who won't be afraid to point out if they disagree with him. He has told us that he wants us to know what's going on, to have a real voice in how our country moves forward.

I guess if he doesn't get the candidacy that he has by most standards already won, it will be because he should have learned to lie.


Posted by: di | April 27, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton asks the question: "Why can't he (Senator Obama) close the deal?" We should all be asking her why SHE hasn't closed the deal! She claimed it would all be over and she'd be the candidate after Iowa!

Senator Clinton talks about her "experience". However, it should be noted that while describing that experience, her detailed account (on numerous occasions) about running across a tarmac under sniper fire in Bosnia wasn't "experience", it was a blatant lie. It was a lie that she told over and over again--even after she was caught on video! Once the video was unveiled, she lied some more, and when that didn't work, she claimed she was tired; she claimed she misspoke. Tell me what happens if she's tired and misspeaks when she answers the phone at 3:00 a.m.?

She talks about how Senator Obama is an elitist who demeans us. Lying to the American people and then laughing and shrugging her shoulders when caught in the headlights of a video and expecting that it wouldn't make any difference to the American people demeans us all. President Clinton did the same thing while he was President--he lied to us with incredible ease--but he's a good guy, right? He can lie all he wants as long as he's charming and knows how to crack a joke.

There are over 4000 soldiers who are DEAD! They've been slaughtered. They are never coming home. Senator Clinton voted for us to go to that war and didn't have the guts to admit that she was wrong.

Barack Obama voted NO to the war. Period.

Senator Clinton talks about how she gets the work done and all Senator Obama does is use words. Where's all this work she claims to be doing and how's she communicating all of that to us? What significant work did she do in 35 years? How did she do it? Surely not with words! And if her Washington experience is the answer, then tell me why our country is a complete mess when we've been voting for and relying on "experienced Washington leaders" for years?

Senator Clinton's "experience" has taught her how to twist the truth and manipulate our thoughts and hopes, to fill us with fear, and to use ridicule to humiliate her opponent at every possible opportunity. What kind of person does these things so easily and so willingly, all in an effort to win? It reminds me of the people who cheat and then claim they've won.

The media brings up the Rev. Wright business over and over again. How many people in the media who bombard their cable television audiences with sound bites and who write their vicious commentaries, and how many Americans after hearing this stuff over and over again, took the time to watch the Bill Moyers' interview with Rev. Wright? For all those of us who did watch it, we now know that we've been subjected to a blitz of horrible lies and manipulation with respect to Rev. Wright since "day one". I can't believe the amount of hatred and vitriol that is spewed by our wonderful "Christian" American people against Barack Obama because of his minister. How many of these righteous people have taken the time to listen to any of Rev. Wright's sermons or have bothered to research the good work his church has been doing?

Do you really think Senator Clinton goes out bowling and chugs down boilermakers at the local bar? Or cleans her shotgun and goes out shooting ducks for recreation? The Clintons have 109 million American Dollars! They did their best to keep that from the American public for months and months and months. Maybe they were worried that we might think they were elitist!

The saddest thing of all is that we are so jaded and so used to being lied to, that for some of us it's easier to lower our standards or just give up and accept the ugly status quo. For some of us, it is too hard to believe that there could be a new, brilliant, strong, and better way to get things right for our beloved country. Americans are intelligent enough and love this country enough to work together--both parties, all people from every walk of life--to put an end to the things that are slowly destroying it. If we elect Senator Obama, we'll finally have a solid chance to make our country stronger and better than ever before. We're in desperate trouble. I hope with all my heart we don't lose this chance for real change.

I urge everyone to read Senator Obama's books, to listen to his speeches, to read and listen to the accounts of people who have worked with him, who know him, and have already witnessed his potential to become a remarkable leader. Among his many gifts are strength, humility, keen intelligence, patience, an unwillingness to play the dirty games of which his opponents are so adept; his deep love of America.

Senator Obama isn't perfect and he never claimed to be. He has told us that if he becomes our president, his cabinet will be comprised of honest intelligent people who won't be afraid to point out if they disagree with him. He has told us that he wants us to know what's going on, to have a real voice in how our country moves forward.

I guess if he doesn't get the candidacy that he has by most standards already won, it will be because he should have learned to lie.


Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse


Someone said:

"Just what we need ... a wimpy President that can't stand up to an opponent or answer hard questions in a debate. We've already seen him storm out of one press
conference in Texas when asked questions he didn't like."

He doesn't have what it takes to lead the United States, either stand-up wise or moral-wise. The Wright issue broke on March 13, and in the only primary since then he lost by 10%. Then in the last debate, he came up short. His confidence and ratings have fallen, and had his relationship with Wright been known at the outset the overall voting results would be different today. His not wanting to debate doesn't speak well at all for his fortitude. His chickens are coming to roost.

Posted by: Billw | April 27, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

.

=================================================

.

....................HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR

.

=================================================

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Our culture encourages men to respect women. Obama is doing exactly that and Hillary knows this but would rather exploit it to her advantage.

If Obama debated McCain it would be a different story.

Posted by: xxx | April 27, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

There are those who want our next president to be a good debater.

Why?

There are those who want our next president to be tough and a good fighter

Why?

I can think of many scummy lawyers who are good debaters.

I can think of many bullies who are tough and good fighters

I want the next president to be intelligent, thoughtful, honest, and decent.

i.e. Barack Obama

.

Posted by: + | April 27, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Obama is afraid to debate! So what? Why should he have to?

After all, he has the Dean-Pelosi-Reid cabal working for him.

The thin veneer of charisma seems to be holding up for almost half of the Democratic voters, and Clinton only has support of almost half of the Democratic supporters.

[[@justada55 what does "Bring it on..." mean]]

Posted by: old91A10 | April 27, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Oh this is productive, well the faith & inspiration I gained supporting Obama has been pretty much destroyed by Hillary Clinton. It is clear there is no point she should continue this race. Virtually no difference on issues, no path to nomination with the small exception - make Obama unelectable. I never thought I'd live to see the day a fellow Democrat would say that a Republican is more qualified to be President than a fellow frontrunner Democrat - I keep hearing her say that and it became clear that her sole motivation is to destroy Obama - and its not about the issues, its about what exactly? People interpret Obama trying to keep his eye on the goal of unifying our party and not getting dragged into the gutter - since when is Obama's wearing a flagpin a more important issue than 4000+ dead in Iraq? Truth is I dont trust Hillary. She lied to all of us. It wasnt once, or twice. It was calculated and repeated with the clear intent to decieve us all - did you see her remorseless apology? And you STILL support her? What does that say about US?
Are we seriously even considering putting an IMPEACHED President, as America's first, First Gentleman? Seriously, Im a Democratic and I can clearly see that firestorm on the horizon, on that alone I cant support her.
This needs to end now Indiana. I understand the importance of having a glass ceiling broken, you can do better - find someone with an ounce of decency that wont put herself ahead of our party and our country. If she is half as intelligent as she thinks she is, she should step down. For her to go kicking and screaming will destroy whatever remains of her career in politics.

Posted by: WithOpenEyes | April 27, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

As an Obama supporter, I would not mind another debate. But what are Democrats debating after 21 debates?!?!

Hillary-supporters are quick to use words like "empty suit", "weak", and "elitist" against Obama because they saw it on TV, or read it on the Internet or heard it on the radio.

What is being lost in these debates are important issues facing the nation. This is clearly evident from the last debate in Philly. Just ask anyone a Hillary supporter or an Obama supporter, what were the positions and policies discussed at that debate?

No one can remember. The only thing people recalled is Obama's "poor debate performance" because nearly 60% that debate focused on responses to questions about wearing flag pins, Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, Bosnia sniper fire, and "bitter-comments".

Obama should spend time campaigning in Indiana and North Carolina, meeting and discussing issues/solutions with electorate, not Hillary.

Posted by: AJ | April 27, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

"Every time the scummy neocon media and low life Hillary piss me off and unfairly insult Obama I make another $100 donation to Obama's campaign"


You must be very rich

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Actually, I think Obama would do very well against Hillary, one to one, if there were no moderators. She would continue to come across as sharp, cunning, and false, and divisive; and he would keep coming off as presidential, intelligent, thoughtful, and decent.

on the other hand, why give her the free publicity where she could keep mentioning her web-site and asking for donations, as she did twice in the last debate (has the woman no shame...or is it just funny?)

Posted by: Debra Ann | April 27, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Just keep on what you are doing Barack. Stay on the high road, no matter how the Clintons try to pull you down to their level. Clinton and McCain have coopted the CHANGE theme, but they don't understand what it means to the American people. The CHANGE we need is to end this polarization and get back to the cooperation it takes to move ahead. The BUSH/CLINTON/BUSH years have been a downward spiral into a paralyzed government that gets absolutely NOTHING done. For 20 years...no healthcare reform, no energy program, no lasting peace initiatives, war,war,war, etc., etc. It's time to move on and get busy. OBAMA is the leader we need.

Posted by: Joyce | April 27, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Just what we need ... a wimpy President that can't even stand up to an opponent or answer hard questions in a debate. It just reinforces what a disaster Obama would be if trying to deal with tough issues as President, let alone handle a press conference or a negotiation with an opponent. We've already seen him storm out of one press conference in Texas when he was asked questions he didn't like. Clinton's ad in PA is right on -- "If you can't stand the HEAT, then get out of the kitchen." It's time for Obama and his supporters to admit that he can't handle the job of being President.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

The debates have proved that Hillary knows her stuff better than any other candidate. A true one on one debate would give Hillary an even better chance to show that she is the superior candidate (opps, did I say a race word?). And there would be a window where the media attack dogs would be (at least for a short time) whould be held at bay.

Let's face facts, if Obama were white with his second-rate Health Care Plan? Heck, black voters wouldn't give him a second look. . . . . . But,

LET HILLARY SAY THAT SHE IS THE MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AND HAS THE BEST EXPERIENCE -- THEN SHE'S PLAYING THE RACE CARD.

If the media didn't work so hard at stirring up hatred, it would be a breath of fresh air. . . . . . . Personally, I think Obama woulld make a great Vice-President, and in eight years would be well seasoned to be a great President.

Posted by: Coldcomfort | April 27, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Bring it on Blacky, Im revved up.
Cage match and I'll put you back in your place, back 50 years.
To hell with televised debates. Keep on talking to the people.
"Go Obama, and may God Bless".

Posted by: justada55 | April 27, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse


Every time the scummy neocon media and low life Hillary piss me off and unfairly insult Obama I make another $100 donation to Obama's campaign. I urge all his supporters to do the same, no matter what the amount.

All voters should watch Rev. Wright on Bill Moyers and see how disgusting the media and Hillary have been on this issue:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/watch.html


Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Have you ever heard anything so infantile as the below post. Probably an American Parent whom sends their kids to die in a winless war, while they are sitting home home watching Jerry Springer. You no, the show that shows the mentality of all Americans. I wouldn't fight a women while she is on male hormone Therapy. Most men crawl from there wives when the heat is on. Admit it, she is a loser and very desperate and dangerous.


Steel cage death match.

Maybe Obama can ask Michelle to fight for him.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Hillarrhea never shuts up. I hate to think of four more years of listening to her scratchy voice railing against her enemies, real imagined, embellished or exaggerated. Four more years of Rudolph the liar waving his finger in people's faces. Shut her up now. She is poison to the Democratic Party. She is polarizing and can not win the general election. She has dredged up racism and attacked anybody that says anything different than what she is saying.Look at the way the Clinton camp attacked Bill Richardson. It is not just a rebuttal of what people say that oppose her. They try to personally destroy people. She has no place in government.

Posted by: majorteddy | April 27, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Of course, Obama does not want to debate Hillary. She outsmarts him every time. When are Democrats going to realize this guy is an empty suit. Get out of your Obama-induced coma. Frankly, he hasn't one any big state. How could he be viable in November. If he were a woman, the race would be over. He'd be laughed off the stage.

Posted by: Political Watchdog | April 27, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Second thoughts:

No one to bring reality or reason in the door. She lies, demagogues, slanders; he responds. She is offended, hurt and wounded. Black man, white woman. Who wouldn't want to get into that room with a power-crazy, nutcase woman whose war room is ready to spin you into being an abusive, dangerous person? After that? Fifty bullets?

Posted by: rusty 3 | April 27, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse


Pleassssssse. NO. MORE. HILLARY. She lost the nomination legally and morally. There is no need for Barack to debate someone who is out of the race but won't concede it.

Posted by: AC | April 27, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Chrissy.

Did you watch the link I posted? I am curious what you think. How does a woman like you side with a woman whose husband is a rapist? It is true you know and Hillary had a lot to do with covering it up and threatning the woman to keep quiet. From the interview I believe she felt her life was in danger. This are the people you support.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

We have had 8 years of Bush and Cheney who refused to face tough questions. They have acted as if they are above having to answer to the American people.

Obama is doing the same.

Bush and Cheney felt they didn't have to count the votes and told Gore to just quit.

Obama is doing the same.

Bush and Cheney have refused access to their records and emails.

Obama has done the same with his Illinois records.

Obama may claim to be about change in Washington but the evidence tells a different story.

Posted by: Chrissy | April 27, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

If guilt by association concerns you you may want to look at this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXum_-8I1TA

quote
Questions about Obama's intimate associations and advisors are important. Obama chose to make these intimate relationships with the kooky and the corrupt like Wright, Ayres and Rezko. He needs to justify them.

If he can't be trusted to make good choices in his business and personal advisors how can he be trusted to choose the people to execute our priorties as a nation fairly?

Obama has been able to give vague general answers and has not been challenged. There has been no follow-up when he has made gaffes in debates.

A strong candidate would not be backing down.

Posted by: Chrissy | April 27, 2008 10:33 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

After the Stephanopoulops hatchet job Obama should categorically refuse to debate any more. He is now the front runner -- poor bitter Hillary just keeps baiting him, but he alone makes the decisions now.

Posted by: bodo | April 27, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Both candidates are now so badley damaged and thier suporters so embitterd that neither will be able to defeat Mcain in November.

We Dems need to find a third candidate who can unite the party. Others have said it here and I will add my post to it,

Al Gore needs to step in and end this.

He is the only one now who can defeat the Republican machine and restore sanity to our politics, economy and enviroment.

Posted by: a working man | April 27, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Questions about Obama's intimate associations and advisors are important. Obama chose to make these intimate relationships with the kooky and the corrupt like Wright, Ayres and Rezko. He needs to justify them.

If he can't be trusted to make good choices in his business and personal advisors how can he be trusted to choose the people to execute our priorties as a nation fairly?

Obama has been able to give vague general answers and has not been challenged. There has been no follow-up when he has made gaffes in debates.

A strong candidate would not be backing down.

Posted by: Chrissy | April 27, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

I am an Obama supporter! If Hillary gets the nomination for the Democrats. I will vote for her! If Obama wins the nomination will you vote for Obama? That's what a real Democrat will do? Forget about race and vote Democrat!!!!!

Posted by: An American | April 26, 2008 9:12 PM
_______________________________________

While I do share your sentiments, simply because I am tired of republican control of the White House, heck, I'd vote for Winnie the Poo over John McCain.

However, because of the Rove'esque manner in which she is running her campaign. I fear that many African Americans, if not most who support Obama, will vote for here, and will simply not vote at all. Which would GIVE the presidency to McCain in November.

These debates have been damaging to the Democratic Party. If Bill and Hillary need a soap box to do their race and fear baiting, then they should do so without the aid of the media (debate).

I am a long time African American democrat, and I am deeply concerned at how what should be an exciting, hostoric time in our party, has decended into a juke joint bar fight. It doesn't matter who started what, one of these candidates needs to take a strong stand against the bitterness.

I think they should both agree NOT to have any more debates and both agree to speak on their individual qualifications and ideas to their own benefit as opposed cat fighting.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

.

=================================================

.

....................HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR

.

=================================================

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton had a chance to turn the last ABC "debate" to a discussion of the issues, but did she? No. Instead, she gleefully helped Georgie and Charlie rehash the rumors and guilt by association accusations against Obama. No, Hillary. I don't think you know what the word debate means any more than the network personalities that serve up crap to improve their ratings.

Posted by: Joyce | April 27, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Obama has not performed well even with the help of the really poor quality of the questions and moderators who have tried to help Obama and avoid the hard questions. There have been no tough questions about Obama's voting record and his absenteeism on votes and his subcommittee. There have been no questions about his lack of transparency with regards to his Illinois records. There have been no questions about what he accomplished in Illinois. There have been no questions about how he calls himself the "Change" candidate when he changed nothing for the better in Chicago - not crime, not housing and not educational achievement nor poverty levels.

Hillary is much smarter than the moderators and better able to get beyond the banal and boring type of debates from someone like Russert or Campbell Brown. Obama can't face a real debate.

Posted by: Chrissy | April 27, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

It's always my contention not to argue with a b$tch.

Whether you win or loss, you just don't feel good afterwards.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 9:51 AM | Report abuse

If actions , not words, are the main value of a politician than all undecided yet states and individual voters should act, like in following:
The primary in Illinois on Super Tuesday should be the best model of how to vote for Indiana residence and states of other incoming primaries. Illinois is both -the state of biological birth and home state for Clinton and the birth state for the political career of Obama. Hillary Clinton used Illinois very often during Clinton's presidency to build here her models. For example, Chicago Public School system, where more than one third of graduates were not able to read English, was build here by her, like the dream model of urban education. Chicago Public School was in much better shape at the point of its educational quality before the start of this "great educational experiment" of Hillary Clinton. The same happened with City Colleges of Chicago, etc., etc. For example, Oprah's "break up" with Hillary Clinton and her active support for Obama are essentially connected with the fact that Oprah is located in Chicago, Illinois, and was able to see by her own eyes without media interference what exactly Mrs. Clinton had been doing in Chicago for years of Clinton's presidency. In short, Illinois is the best-informed state of the entire country when it is necessary to choose between Obama and Mrs. Clinton on the basis of their real achievements. Illinois voted on Super Tuesday of 2/5/08 for Obama with more than 30% gap. So, all less informed states and all undecided voters of Indiana and North Carolina and/or other states of incoming primaries should trust the opinion of the most informed state-Illinois and cast their votes following the model of the state of Illinois and its primary of 2/5/08. If in doubt, follow the advice and suggestions of the most informed entity. Isn't it the smartest approach?

Posted by: aepelbaum | April 27, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

If you want an indicator of the quality and executive ability they have you have only to look at their campaigns. Hillary doesn't have the ability to run a lemonade stand much less the country.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

What does move them (the S D's) is the quality of the candidates, that is where Hillary shot herself in the foot. She has come across like such trash she lost a lot of support. She has no one to blame but herself.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Almost all the discussions on here are actually moot. No matter what either of them say, or say about each other doesn't matter. The only audience they are preaching to now are super delegates. They know both of them and all this BS or smoke and mirrors doesn't fool them.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Hi Indy!
I don't feel that Obama is scared! They've had twenty debates already. I really feel that Hillary is really desparate right now. I was a Hillary supporter until I've seen just how negative that she can be. Countless times he has been blamed for something that Rev. Wright has said and He has said countless times that he is a christian and he is still questioned on his faith Simply, I am tired of hearing her mouth!!! I think that town hall meetings will be important for Obama and Clinton to have so that the people can speak to each of them one on one.


Take Care

Posted by: dmexcelsior | April 27, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

iowatreasures wrote:

"Isn't this quite unusual - a candidate for the highest, most powerful office in the world, the President of the United States of America, and he doesn't have the moxy to stand up to moderators asking him why he doesn't like to wear a flag pin, or why he didn't put his hand over his heart at the J. J. dinner in Iowa, or where he goes to church, or how long he has known Rezko, or Auchi, or Ayers or Ayer's wife, Dohrn, or why he let Emil Jones put his (Barack's) name on bills that belonged to other legislators, to "enhance his political resume," or questions about where he was born, or where he went to school, and who his friends, neighbors, room mates, class mates, teachers were while in college?"

You think these are the important questions? The last set is especially touching. Bring back Joe McCarthy!

You're not more interested how are we going to get out of Iraq, help homeowners in trouble, universal healthcare, making college affordable etc etc etc?

No wonder we ended up with Bush for eight years. We have an electorate that votes based on who they want to have a beer with or their daughter to date rather than who will best govern the nation.

Posted by: hmpierson | April 27, 2008 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Almost two years of watching them and 30 years of watching Hillary, most people have an idea who they are. What good is watching them argue about a bunch of ideas that may never happen anyway. All they do in those things and say what ever they think people want to hear. Hillary is a no good lire we already know that so where do you go from there. Nothing new to hear but more lies.

Qriginal quote below
"Being able to see the candidates interact without interference would reveal a lot more about the candidates and their ability to think on their feet, how they interact with opposition, what they really care about and not what the corporate media care about. It is the only type of debate that can reveal the real person and not the facade they put on. That is why Obama is afraid of it. Behind the facade and the image the real Obama would be seen."

Posted by: Chrissy | April 27, 2008 8:50 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 9:09 AM | Report abuse

I guess the OBama supporters who are now calling HRC a liar, a thief,a Witch, the B word, and giving absolutely no credit to the Clinton years, will later try to convince us that their candidate will "bring us all" together as a party and reach across the political lines.

Really?

But if your candidate losses the election you will blame Hillary? Good luck with that.

Posted by: David M | April 27, 2008 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Sounds like a great idea to me. No moderators, no one but your opponent. Now you can ask them the real issues questions you want to.
Does anyone understand why Obama would be scared to debate Clinton? Indiana wants to know.

Posted by: Indy | April 27, 2008 9:01 AM | Report abuse

Not at all I have posted the youtube link on here several times myself. Facts are facts.


Original Quote below

"Anybody offended by Colbert King's 04/26 Wash Post article trying to link Farrakhan to Clinton?

A pro-Obama black journalist fills column space for RACE-BAITING to damage the Clinton brand, leveraging their long history of supportive ties to black leaders. If you approve of these racist tactics, you can send a donation to the North Carolina Republicans' fund for running its Rev. Wright ad at:

www.ncgop.org

If the Wash Post wants to use race-baiting politics against Clinton, well, there's already a party playing those games. NC Republicans will welcome your donations to so they can engage in the same divisive tactics that pro-Obama media outlets have been using against the Clintons to benefit Obama at no cost to him.

If you do make a donation, you can send an email to the Washington post, informing them of your disapproval of the King article and your donation for the Wright ad to: opinions@washingtonpost.com

If you want to send anonymous email, you can do so from: http://www.gilc.org/speech/anonymous/remailer.html

FIGHT BACK AGAINST MEDIA BIASING ELECTIONS WITH FALSE REPORTING AND UNETHICAL JOURNALISM!

(King's article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/25/AR2008042502976.html)"

Posted by: Fight Back Against Biased Election Coverage | April 27, 2008 8:44 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

This is to the person that wrote that Obama is the racist candidate. 90% of blacks support him. Pure and Simple, Hillary is a Liar and Bill is a cheat!!!!!


Go Obama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: dmexcelsior | April 27, 2008 8:50 AM | Report abuse

Being able to see the candidates interact without interference would reveal a lot more about the candidates and their ability to think on their feet, how they interact with opposition, what they really care about and not what the corporate media care about. It is the only type of debate that can reveal the real person and not the facade they put on. That is why Obama is afraid of it. Behind the facade and the image the real Obama would be seen.

Posted by: Chrissy | April 27, 2008 8:50 AM | Report abuse

Anybody offended by Colbert King's 04/26 Wash Post article trying to link Farrakhan to Clinton?

A pro-Obama black journalist fills column space for RACE-BAITING to damage the Clinton brand, leveraging their long history of supportive ties to black leaders. If you approve of these racist tactics, you can send a donation to the North Carolina Republicans' fund for running its Rev. Wright ad at:

www.ncgop.org

If the Wash Post wants to use race-baiting politics against Clinton, well, there's already a party playing those games. NC Republicans will welcome your donations to so they can engage in the same divisive tactics that pro-Obama media outlets have been using against the Clintons to benefit Obama at no cost to him.

If you do make a donation, you can send an email to the Washington post, informing them of your disapproval of the King article and your donation for the Wright ad to: opinions@washingtonpost.com

If you want to send anonymous email, you can do so from: http://www.gilc.org/speech/anonymous/remailer.html

FIGHT BACK AGAINST MEDIA BIASING ELECTIONS WITH FALSE REPORTING AND UNETHICAL JOURNALISM!

(King's article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/25/AR2008042502976.html)

Posted by: Fight Back Against Biased Election Coverage | April 27, 2008 8:44 AM | Report abuse

t is being said on good authority that the powerful rightwing Jewish Lobby including [AIPAC] American Israel Public Affairs Committee is vexed, frustrated and displeased with Barack Obama's ... />
----------------------------------
I was wondering when Obama's supporters start blaming the Jews. Here they are now...
BTW, according to the polls the Jewish voters in PA split about 53 to 47% for Clinton. Black voters 92 to 8% for Obama. Interesting....

Posted by: The voter | April 27, 2008 8:39 AM | Report abuse

Well, Obama is the racist candidate. 90 % of blacks support him. Pure and Simple

Posted by: vs | April 27, 2008 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Anybody offended by Colbert King's 04/26 Wash Post article trying to link Farrakhan to Clinton?
A pro-Obama black journalist fills column space to use RACE-BAITING to damage the Clinton leveraging their long history of supportive ties to black leaders. If you approve of those racist tactics, you can send a donation to the North Carolina Republicans' fund for running its Rev. Wright ad at:

www.ncgop.org

The Wash Post wants to use race-baiting politics against Clinton, well, there's already a party playing those games. NC Republicans will welcome your donations to so they can engage in the same race-baiting tactics that pro-Obama media outlets have been doing to the Clintons, to benefit Obama at no cost to him.

If you do make a donation, you can send an email to the Washington post, informing them about your disapproval of the King article and your donation for the Wright ad to: opinions@washingtonpost.com

If you want to send anonymous email, you can do so at: http://www.gilc.org/speech/anonymous/remailer.html

FIGHT BACK AGAINST MEDIA BIASING ELECTIONS WITH FALSE & UNETHICAL JOURNALISM!

(King's article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/25/AR2008042502976.html)

Posted by: Fight Back Against Biased Media | April 27, 2008 8:03 AM | Report abuse

All the time Hillary Clinton talks about having another "debate" is time she escapes having to explain just how she would enforce the mandate of her health care plan and how she would pay for those new programs that she keeps promising.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama is on the trail, listening to the questions that Indiana folks pose and doing his best to answer them.

Posted by: Old White Guy | April 27, 2008 8:00 AM | Report abuse

DON'T DO IT OBAMA!!! sTAY STRONG!!! Hillary why don't you just focus on the issues???? Or better yet, why don't you and Bill just go away!!!

Posted by: ForObama08 | April 27, 2008 7:58 AM | Report abuse

Please no more debates! Talk to us about the issues we care about.

If you must debate, please debate the fraud case Clinton vs Peter Paul.

Vote Obama 08

Posted by: DollAnn | April 27, 2008 7:49 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is like Winston Churchill.

Posted by: Hillary is a lion. Obama is a mouse. | April 26, 2008 6:56 PM

She is? Well why didn't you say so? That changes everything, Go Churchillary!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 7:47 AM | Report abuse

Obama is unelectable. Here in Massachusetts he will be trounced by McCain. This is Hillary country. Even Sen. Kerry is getting nervous about his reelection. See how quiet he has been lately after super tuesday

Posted by: vs | April 27, 2008 7:46 AM | Report abuse

I've come to really despise the Clintons and regret supporting them, defending them and allowing myself to be lied to and used by them in the 90s. However, I like the idea. I wouldn't spend any more time talking to Hillary Clinton than I had to either, but I hope Obama and McCain will do something similar in the general.

Posted by: aleks | April 27, 2008 7:32 AM | Report abuse

What arrogance !! Obama thinks he is an incumbent refusing to debate. Hillary should get the fake SNL Obama and debate. Hey, maybe a good skit for next week's SNL. Real Hillary and Fake Obama debating :-)

Posted by: vs | April 27, 2008 7:18 AM | Report abuse

The last debate in Pennsylvania showed that Obama was weak and lightweight. Obama said he had 21 debates. But in 20 out 21, the mediators had been giving Obama a by. This one-on-one debate proposed by Clinton is the opportunity for him to prove himself that he is not weak and lightweight. Don't be afraid, Obama is a big boy now.

Yeah, Obama go on, have the one-on-one debate. Don' whine on mediators asking you tough questions. We want to see what you have. We want to see if we are electing a weak, lightweight, or a strong, heavy weight to represent American on the world stage.

Don't hide behind those earlier delegates. Don't hide behind those rules. Being a president means there is no timeline, no deadline, no soft lines from the media, no rules when you are dealing with foreign leader on the world stage. WE JUST WANT TO SEE IF YOU HAVE IT TO BE A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, OR NOT.

Go take the chellenge! Or, you are afraid, Mr. Obama.

Posted by: GY | April 27, 2008 5:59 AM | Report abuse

Hill needs free air time because her campaign hasn't been able to raise enough money to compete with Obama. Forget it. You'll have to do it on your own.

MSNBC----go to comments and scroll down to list of 47 suspicious deaths of people closely associated with the Clintons. How many unusual suicides can one couple know? And why would 12 young healthy men die who also just happened to be Clinton personal body guards? Here's the link:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/25/947650.aspx#comments

Posted by: karela | April 27, 2008 4:26 AM | Report abuse

It's simple: Look at the evidence:

From: "Head of State

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/04/garin-on-negative-campaigning.html

"Clinton, Obama, and Negative Campaigning



Just as there is a "Fog of War", the "Fog of Campaigning" can also breed short (and at times false) memories.

Geoff Garin, the replacement on the Clinton team for Mark Penn, claims in today's WP that there has been "one campaign...that has been mean-spirited" and "unfair" and that it is "not ours".

Garin, who seems to be a genuine and decent professional who has been dropped to the helm of a listing ship, attempts to right it not by changing the direction of the boat, but by trying to reverse reality.

Let's take a look:

Clinton at the Jefferson-Jackson Day Speech:

"I'm not interested in attacking my opponents, I'm interested in attacking the problems of America. And I believe we should be turning up the heat on the Republicans -- they deserve all the heat we can give them."

November, 2007:

New York Times: "Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign, which is now attacking Senator Barack Obama on a daily basis." [New York Times, 11/30/07] NBC's First Read:

MSNBC: "Another day, another Clinton campaign knock on Obama." [First Read, 11/29/07]


December 2007 (leading to the January 6 Iowa primary, including the notorious use of an essay that he wrote in Kindergarten):

Chicago Tribune: "This Clinton Attack On Obama Could Boomerang." "The Clinton people are citing a kindergarten essay by Obama as evidence against him in a presidential campaign. Good thing he was born before widespread pre-natal ultrasounds. Who knows how they might've used that against him? Clinton's people have thrown similar jabs before at Obama but it hasn't fazed him. So their seems to be a little more fury behind the punches as now that Obama's may have taken the lead in Iowa according to the Des Moines Register's most recent poll." [Chicago Tribune, The Swamp, 12/3/07]

Washington Post: "Losing Ground In Iowa, Clinton Assails Obama." "With a new poll showing her losing ground in the Iowa caucus race, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) mounted a new, more aggressive attack against Sen. Barack Obama." [Washington Post, 12/3/07]

New York Daily News: "Hillary Clinton Attack On Barack Obama Comes After She Loses Iowa Lead." "Hours after a new poll showed her falling behind for the first time in Iowa, Hillary Clinton launched a blistering personal broadside on rival Barack Obama." [New York Daily News, 12/3/07]

New York Times: "An Attack, From the Candidate's Mouth" [New York Times, 12/2/07]

New York Times: "Battered by Poll, Clinton Hits Back" [New York Times, 12/2/07]

Clinton Release: "In kindergarten, Senator Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want to Become President. 'Iis Darmawan, 63, Senator Obama's kindergarten teacher, remembers him as an exceptionally tall and curly haired child who quickly picked up the local language and had sharp math skills. He wrote an essay titled, 'I Want To Become President,' the teacher said." [AP, 1/25/07]

And what did the voters think?

Which Candidate is the most negative?


Hillary Clinton 21%

John Edwards 9%

Dennis Kucinich 9%

Barack Obama 8%

Joe Biden 3%

Mike Gravel 3%

Christopher Dodd 3%

Bill Richardson 3%

None/Not sure 43%



Source: The Iowa Poll

[Des Moines Register, 12/2/07]


What about after Iowa? She surely must have changed her tactics then...

After Iowa Loss, Clinton Ramps Up Attacks:

January 06, 2008

AP: "Hillary Clinton Comes Out Swinging, Politeness Lost Along With Iowa Caucuses" [AP, 1/6/08]

Los Angeles Times: "Clinton lets arrows fly at Obama"..."Staggered by her third-place finish in the Iowa caucuses, the New York senator was the aggressor throughout a 90-minute session" [LA Times, 1/6/08]


Washington Post: "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton tried repeatedly to knock Sen. Barack Obama off his footing during a high-stakes debate here on Saturday night" [Washington Post, 1/6/08]

AP: "Clinton criticizes Obama in NH mailer" [AP, 1/5/08]

Newsday: "Clinton sharpens attack on Obama" [Newsday, 1/5/08]

Reuters: "Obama under attack ahead of New Hampshire debates" [Reuters, 1/5/08]

Newsday: "After weeks of playing nice in Iowa, the Clinton camp sharpened their elbows when the campaign went wheels-down in New Hampshire, readying TV ads targeting Obama that were expected to focus on health care and his legislative record." [Newsday, 1/4/08]

Washington Post: But she and her aides also signaled their intention to now ratchet up the race, aggressively countering Obama in the five days ahead. She is also now planning to draw even sharper distinctions between herself and Obama on the question of change, after watching voters who wanted a new direction select her main rival for the nomination on Thursday night. [Washington Post, 1/4/08]

Well...that must have been just a momentary reaction to January's surprising defeat. She surely didn't continue that strategy...

The State: "Clinton camp hits Obama -- Attacks 'painful' for black voters. Many in state offended by criticism of Obama, remarks about King" [1/12/08]

New York Times: "Clinton's Campaign Sees Value In Keeping Former President In Attack Mode" [1/25/08]

Greenville News: Ex-Democratic Official Criticizes Clintons' Attacks On Obama [1/23/08]

First Read: "Clinton Justifies War Vote, Hits Obama" [1/13/08]

Politico: "Hillary Clinton attacks Barack Obama" [1/13/08]


Perhaps it became more substantive and dignified in February:


Feb 25, 2008

2008 Presidential Election

Clinton Circulates Pic of Obama in Somali Garb: Report:

For some, Barack Obama's "Hussein" middle name has been something worth picking on. For others, it has been pushing the unsubstantiated rumor (debunked by Snopes) that Obama is or was a "radical Muslim." But this - this is truly low. ..Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams said, "If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed."

CNN: "Clinton Sharpens Attacks On Obama" [CNN, 2/14/08]

Concord Monitor: "Clinton Attack Still Riles Some" [2/4/08]

Guardian Unlimited: "Clinton Goes On Attack As Obama Closes Gap" [2/3/08]

March:

The Politico, Ben Smith, March 2:

"A weird moment of TV, partially captured in the clip above. Clinton denies she thinks Obama's a Muslim, but her denial seems something other than ironclad, and the interviewer goes back at her on the question...

"You said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not...a Muslim. You don't believe that he's...," Kroft said.

"No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know," she said."


April:

MSNBC: April 14: Clinton Attacks Obama On Air

Sun-Sentinal: April 22: Clinton attacks, Obama hopes

And what of recent words of Mr. Garin himself?

From the April 20 Meet the Press:

MR. AXELROD: ...Did you not put a negative ad on this weekend in Philadelphia? The--100 percent negative ad attacking Senator Obama?

MR. GARIN: No. I don't believe we did.

MR. AXELROD: Yeah, you did. Go back and check with your people, and it was, it's an ad on lobbying, and it's circulating...

MR. GARIN: It's not. It, it ends up, I believe, with...

MR. AXELROD: No, no, it's 100 percent negative ad, Geoff. Go back and ask your people. I understand you're new in the campaign, and I love you, man, you're a good friend of mine. I know you to be a good, positive person.

MR. GARIN: Right.

MR. AXELROD: But I think that there's some vestiges of the old regime still in place.

MR. GARIN: Well, look, when, when, when...

(Garin never answers this question--Axelrod later in broadcast: "The--well, first of all, that's what's in your negative ad that you didn't know about in Philadelphia.")

Note: This of course leaves self-inflicted attacks (i.e. sniper fire) aside. Incidentally, while I have known people to err when they are tired (for example to say "sniker" instead of "sniper"), I have never seen anyone invent and repeat an entire episode that did not occur as a result of exhaustion--although, of course, this commonly does occur when people are completely asleep.

Hendrik Hertzberg, in this weeks "Campaign Trail" (New Yorker) has noted the tragic and inevitable game here, whereby Obama, who has tried to run a different type of campaign--explicitly principled and positive--has been drawn into defense by the incessant attack. This attempt to now flip and revise history in this very fundamental manner is something that we have seen in our recent Presidential past--and is something that should give us pause.

From:

Head of State:

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/04/garin-on-negative-campaigning.html

Posted by: Robert Hewson | April 27, 2008 4:14 AM | Report abuse

Thanks, gbenga! Give us more!

Posted by: tom | April 27, 2008 4:05 AM | Report abuse

Also have spent pleasant evenings at Holiday Inn Express. But not with Hank!

Posted by: tom | April 27, 2008 3:59 AM | Report abuse

From Huff Post

Hillary Clinton's current ads seek to portray her as the tough leader who is ready on Day One to handle crises. Borrowing from a line made famous by Harry Truman, the tag line trumpets, "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen." The sub-text, of course, is that she will dish out a full plate of heat and if Obama can't respond on her gutter level, he can't handle heat.ï¾ 

The truth is almost exactly the opposite. Hillary is nasty, but she is not tough. In fact, Hillary is a classic whiner. She and Bill whine about everything that doesn't go well for them. Unlike Harry Truman, who also said, "the buck stops here," she and Bill accept responsibility for nothing and blame others, especially the media, when things go wrong or their deceptions are exposed.ï¾ 

Hillary and Bill whine about Democratic Party activists, young voters, running as a female, the media in general, the media catching her fabricating her history (bringing peace to Ireland, opposing NAFTA, facing sniper fire in Bosnia, etc.), the appeal of hope, Obama's eloquence, money, donors, Democratic Party rules. Last week, Hillary blamed the "activist base" of the Democratic Party -- and MoveOn, in particular -- for many of her electoral defeats, claiming, without a shred of evidence, that activists had "flooded" state caucuses and "intimidated" her supporters. Rather than accept responsibility for her campaign's well-documented failure adequately to plan for the caucus states, and despite her repeated claim she is the candidate "ready on Day One," she attacked core Democratic Party supporters. Rather than take responsibility for her inability to inspire the activist base with her ideas, she whined about their support of a more thoughtful, inspirational candidate. Candidates normally celebrate high levels of voter activism in the primaries, knowing these activists will work for the party's nominee in the general election, but Hillary is willing to burn the peasants in order to win the village for herself.
ï¾ 
Hillary and Bill whine about young voters. Last week, Bill said in Pennsylvania that young voters are easily fooled and older voters are wiser -- too wise to be fooled by Obama's inspiring rhetoric. Of course, he forgot to mention that the most well-educated voters -- young and old -- heavily favor Obama over Hillary. Most candidates, and both political parties, yearn for support from young voters because young voters represent not just the present, but also the future. And, certainly if young voters were supporting Hillary, she wouldn't be whining about them. But since she is not very good at inspiring young voters, she chooses to whine about them. Thankfully, she has not yet proposed raising the voting age to 60, but that could be next.
ï¾ 
Hillary whines about being a female candidate, as though it's harder to be female in America than black. Said Hillary, "It's hard. It's hard being a woman out there." [Add some tears and the picture is complete] Her surrogate, Geraldine Ferraro, even made the wholly implausible claim that the only reason Obama was succeeding was his race -- a claim Hillary never repudiated. Of course, at the same time the Clintons whine about misogyny, they argue to super-delegates that Obama is not electable because he is black and that, as a woman, she is the electable candidate. Neither Bill nor Hill can explain why all the white male Democratic Presidential candidates are out of the race. Could it be that Obama has demonstrated qualities to voters that the others lacked? Could it be that Obama has come from more than 20 points behind in just a few months because he offers qualities, such as hope and honesty, which voters, by large pluralities, think Hillary lacks?
ï¾ 
Hillary frequently whines about the media not being "fair." This is an old Clinton complaint, going back to her stone-walling about Travelgate, Whitewater and the revelations of Bill's many sexual shenanigans. How unfair of the press to remember that she supported NAFTA, falsely claimed to have been a key negotiator in peace talks in Ireland, and lied about her Bosnia trip.
ï¾ 
Caught dead-on lying about being under "sniper fire" as she landed in Bosnia -- when absolutely no danger existed -- she claimed she simply had "misspoke" [seven times?], then claimed she was tired by "lack of sleep," then Bill chimed in to attack the media for even covering the story. This was all taking place as she asserted her competence to answer that mythical 3 am phone call. So if we believe the Clintons, her "lack of sleep" caused her to fabricate a story about landing in Bosnia into hostile sniper fire and risking her life like a seasoned military veteran, but this fabrication should be disregarded because, despite her history of sleep deprivation, if a crisis occurs at 3 am, we can trust her to be awake and alert and respond truthfully and with good judgment. With leadership like this, we'll all be awake at night.
ï¾ 
Hillary whines about Obama's inspiration and eloquence. Hillary whines about the very nature of hope. Despite the Clintons' history of playing the Hope Card (we all remember Bill's 1992 campaign biopic, "The Man from Hope"), when the other guy is offering it, all of a sudden, hope is suspicious. In fact, it is downright delusional. "I could stand up here and say, let's get everyone together, let's get unified and the sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing, and the world will be perfect," she said in mock sarcasm of Obama's message of conciliation and hope.
ï¾ 
Hillary whines about the fact Obama has engaged more donors and raised more money than she. Of course, she didn't think it was unfair in 2007 when she had twice as much money as any other candidate. But as soon as she fell behind, Little Miss $100+ million War Chest was whining about being outspent. But isn't the ability to inspire donors and raise money part of being a successful presidential candidate? Isn't that a measure of electability, not something to be disdained?
ï¾ ï¾ 
Hillary now is whining about Florida and Michigan, piously claiming that failing to seat delegates from those states would be fundamentally undemocratic. But when the Democratic National Committee's rules panel declared Florida's accelerated primary date was not permitted under party rules, all of Hillary's 12 representatives on the 30 member rules panel voted for Florida's full disenfranchisement, which, under party rules, applied to Michigan, as well. In October 2007, when she was far and away the Democratic front-runner, Hillary told a New Hampshire public radio audience, "It's clear this election [Michigan] is not going to count for anything." Oh, the sting of hypocrisy, but rather than accept responsibility for the obvious -- that she supported the very rule she now attacks -- she plays the "poor me" card and digs the Democratic Party into a deeper hole.
ï¾ 
Do we want a whiner to be President? Commander-in-Chief? Do we want to live through more chapters in the never-ending, but never-changing, Clinton Drama of Blame, Attack and Half-Truths? Or do we prefer a president who has demonstrated candor, who is willing to treat voters like adults, who takes responsibility for his behavior and offers thoughtful commentary on serious issues -- as Obama did with his former pastor? Do we want a president who behaves like a mature adult or someone whose emotional intelligence is on the level of a spoiled, whiny teenager?

ï¾ 

ï¾ ï¾ 
More in Politics...

Posted by: Gbenga | April 27, 2008 3:58 AM | Report abuse

HLS, class of '87, cum laude. Also B.A.,1965, M.A., 1967, Ph.D. 1973. University of Nebraska. All cum laude. In case you're interested.

And you, Hank?

Posted by: tom | April 27, 2008 3:42 AM | Report abuse

I apologize. I forgot that Hank was ashamed of his handicap.

Posted by: tom | April 27, 2008 3:31 AM | Report abuse

Hey, Hank, you stupid jerk! You insulted me! Yes, I graduated [or more properly was graduated] from Harvard Law School. You apparently didn't. Big deal. You accused me of damaging Obama's campaign. I asked why. You didn't respond. SO ANSWER, YOU FREAKING WEASEL!

Okay?

Posted by: tom | April 27, 2008 3:25 AM | Report abuse

"Isn't this quite unusual - a candidate for the highest, most powerful office in the world, the President of the United States of America, and he doesn't have the moxy to stand up to moderators asking him why he doesn't like to wear a flag pin, or why he didn't put his hand over his heart at the J. J. dinner in Iowa, or where he goes to church, or how long he has known Rezko, or Auchi, or Ayers or Ayer's wife, Dohrn,"

Yup. Nobody asked Bill Clinton those quest ions. Or Hillary. You got a point, other than the obvious one on the top of your head, Dumbo? Can you really fly, with those floppy ears?.

Posted by: tom | April 27, 2008 3:19 AM | Report abuse

OBAMA'S A GIRLY MAN

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 3:18 AM | Report abuse

How have I done damage to Obama on this thread? Please respond.

Posted by: tom | April 27, 2008 3:16 AM | Report abuse

Why would I try to impress you, Hank? That's not my preference, anyway!

Posted by: tom | April 27, 2008 3:09 AM | Report abuse

Well, I slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night but I guess you want me to percieve you as an eltist. I am impressed, does that make you feel better"

Well, actually, Hank, I don't give a good rat's arse where you slept last night. I'
m not trying to impress you' I'm stating facts. If you want to take the facts to mean you are a stupid peon, then you are. That's not what I meant, and I didn't mean to give offense. I also don't want to alter the facts. I graduated from Harvard Law School. Documented. Look it up. I don't know about you, and don't care to bother. Because it doesn't matter. To me, anyway.

Posted by: tom | April 27, 2008 3:03 AM | Report abuse

Now, then, Hank. Calmly: what post were you referring to?

Posted by: tom | April 27, 2008 2:47 AM | Report abuse

"I hope you get some help for yourself, I really do, good-luck."

Hey, you stupid jerk, hank whatever! I asked an honest question, and got the usual response from the usual moron! It's clear YOU never wasted your money on Harvard. Or third grade.

WHAT A STUPID JERK!

[Insulting message to follow,]

Posted by: tom | April 27, 2008 2:43 AM | Report abuse

"Hankwhatever: looking back through the thread for the post you're referring to? What is it? [Hope it's not mine...]..."

I hope you get some help for yourself, I really do, good-luck.

Posted by: Hank Whatever | April 27, 2008 2:31 AM | Report abuse

Hankwhatever: looking back through the thread for the post you're referring to? What is it? [Hope it's not mine...]

Posted by: tom | April 27, 2008 2:27 AM | Report abuse

How many times do people have to hear the same things from the same two people? Everyone knows what they stand for and who their friends are and who is more truthful. There is no need for anymore debates. If I see Hillary on TV one more time I will puke, the woman literally makes me sick to my stomach. Please Hillary go back to New York and take your pathetic expresident with you.

Posted by: Scott | April 27, 2008 2:27 AM | Report abuse

Yo Jacksmith...

If you think Hillary Clinton has more experience because she was married to the impeached president...

You Are An Idiot! :-) I'm a database administrator, but my wife has zero experience being a DBA.

If you think the Republicans want Obama as the liberal candidate...

You Are An Idiot! :-) You see we think that McCain will have an easier time defeating Hill.

If you think Hillary is married to the president that led the greatest economic expansion and prosperity in American History...

You Are An Idiot! :-) Her last name is Clinton not Reagan.

If you think either Hillary (or Obama) will be better at managing the war effort than McCain...

You Are An Idiot! :-) The cowardly behavior of the last liberal in office resulted in 9-11

If you think Hillary will be a better environmentalist...

You Are An Idiot! :-) Have you seen what vehicles the Clintons own?

If you think the Clintons made higher education affordable...

You Are An Idiot! :-) I'll send you the bills I get for my sons education, then tell me it's affordable.

If you think Impeached President Bill Clinton is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Are An Idiot! :-) He was a disgrace to the office and everything it stands for.

If you think Hillary isn't a liar...

You Are An Idiot! :-) Just ask the little girl from the airport in Bosnia.

Posted by: dafv | April 27, 2008 2:21 AM | Report abuse

man you people need to get a grip!! the diatribes on both sides are off the hook.

All these manifestos make me dizzy. Everyone needs to take a chill pill!!

This so called debate would be 90 minutes of Hillary showing us the three faces of eve! get over it and go vote...

Posted by: mlanthier | April 27, 2008 2:17 AM | Report abuse

VOTE CLINTON! You'll get more than you ever dreamed of!


SEE the recreation of the famous Bill & Monica Cigar Act, recreated live for your enjoyment!

SEE Hillary such up to Rupert Murdoch!

SEE Hillary totally blow Universal Health Coverage!

SEE Hillary vote to invade Iraq!

SEE Hillary opine that we should bomb Iran!

SEE Hillary suck up to Richard Scaife Mellon!


SEE Hillary such up to George Stephanopoulous!

SEE Hillary suck up to everybody there is to suck up to!

Posted by: tom | April 27, 2008 2:15 AM | Report abuse

I think if you are a Harvard Grad, alot of money was wasted on your education.

Everything you think you got added up to what, an impeachment based on an affair which demonstrated a zealotry yet to come ? A very bad land deal which cost him his license to practice ? Again, that is not Senator Clinton.

In the meanwhile, Abramoff is probably still talking his head off in jail like a manic without meds. I do think alot of people will do anything they can so they avoid prosecution through a democratic takeover.

So, I see the same play, lots of intimidation by people who are really afraid of the dark and already hearing footsteps. Some people just don't flinch but hey, goons get paid to do what they do and not exclusive to any one club.

You could not do more damage to Obama on this thread, why is that ?

Posted by: Hank Whatever | April 27, 2008 2:13 AM | Report abuse

I think if you are a Harvard Grad, alot of money was wasted on your education.

Everything you think you got added up to what, an impeachment based on an affair which demonstrated a zealotry yet to come ? A very bad land deal which cost him his license to practice ? Again, that is not Senator Clinton.

In the meanwhile, Abramoff is probably still talking his head off in jail like a manic without meds. I do think alot of people will do anything they can so they avoid prosecution through a democratic takeover.

So, I see the same play, lots of intimidation by people who are really afraid of the dark and already hearing footsteps. Some people just don't flinch but hey, goons get paid to do what they do and not exclusive to any one club.

You could not do more damage to Obama on this thread, why is that ?

Posted by: Hank Whatever | April 27, 2008 2:10 AM | Report abuse

.


N E O C O N S

F O R

C L I N T O N


William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan,
Joe Lieberman, Rubert Murdoch, Dick Cheney, Carl Rove.......

=

war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 2:09 AM | Report abuse

For me, Hillary seems like some nightmare, twilight-zone Hoody Doodyesque grinning terminator that just won't die...but just keeps on attacking.

Posted by: Carmen | April 27, 2008 2:06 AM | Report abuse

After 21 debates, neither candidate can really add anything genuinely informative for voters. Clinton is just trying to maneuver Obama into another no-win "gotcha" situation in what has become the political version of a reality TV Show (with the same absence of any authenticity whatsoever). I could go the rest of my life with no more Clinton debates with ANYONE and be perfectly happy. Anyone who hasn't already heard the salient points of both candidates' positions is either dead or living under a rock, and regurgitating the obvious over and over again does not make for an informative campaign.

Yes, she's better at debating than Obama and she also knows that if Obama responds to her in kind, it will be perceived by her working class white base as an egregious example of a black man attacking a white woman (even if only verbally). She has mastered the GOP's "Southern Strategy" almost perfectly (the only thing she's done perfectly in this campaign); she knows all those code words and actions and subliminal visual images that provoke racial responses without ever explicitly mentioning race at all.

And as others have pointed out, a debate means free media coverage that she can't afford. And why can't she afford media coverage? She began the campaign with a huge war chest (in excess of $100 million) and the backing of the entire Democratic establishment. She's frittered all that away, 70 of her major donors walked away and started donating to Obama, she's tapped out all her other big-check donors, she's behind in the delegate count (an insurmountable deficit unless she wins out the next 9 elections with an average of 65% of the vote, which she has never achieved, not even in NY or AR). In short, she needs all the free publicity she can get, publicity that will either make her look better or Obama look worse, and a debate gives her that opportunity.

I don't blame her for trying and I don't blame Obama for saying, "enough is enough". God knows, a lot of us voters have been saying that for awhile now.

Posted by: windrider | April 27, 2008 2:05 AM | Report abuse

"So question, how many handlers does Obama have right now ? Oops I seem to be typing to bots, sorry."

Well, he doesn't have Bill or the other guy the Colombians paid to lobby for them. You want to post to bots, that's your problem. You want to post FOR bots, that's still your problem! What's Hillary got going for her? Former First Lady. Whoopie! Sort of Senator, thanks to Giuliani's cancer? Whee! Other experience? Union buster for Wal-Mart? Shots and beers with the boys at the Union Hall? $400k [her half share of the payoff from Colombia to Bill for lobbying for the Fair Trade agreement with Colombia, which she "opposed"]?

Hillary got lots of 'splainin' to do. She won't do it. She has NO relevant experience; NO temperament that enables her to be the one answering the 3 am phone call [even ol' Bill says she's 60 and forgets things, and she says she lied about Bosnia, becaise she was "sleep deprived."

This is who you want with her finger on the trigger? Especially after she pledged to "obliterate" Iran?

Posted by: tom | April 27, 2008 1:50 AM | Report abuse

you are very correct tom.

it is the CLINTONS, and not hillary.

why?

because.. they come as a 4 PERSON PACKAGE

1) hillary, the negative ugly woman herself

2) slick willy, the red faced ADULTERER

3) the elitist snob chelsea

and.... if you act NOW..

4) the SCHIZOPHRENIC DELUSIONAL "SNIPERS FIRED AT ME" HILLARY (personality #2) at NO CHARGE!!!!

YES! IF YOU ACT NOW.. WHY SETTLE FOR JUST ONE CLINTON.. WHEN YOU CAN GET....

---- ALL 4 CLINTONS BAGGAGE FOR FREE ----

what a deal!

:D


Posted by: BOB | April 27, 2008 1:42 AM | Report abuse

Have you noticed how often the above posts, and the original article, talk about "The Clintons," rather than Hillary? Instructive, hmm?

Posted by: tom | April 27, 2008 1:33 AM | Report abuse

"The Democrats lost both Houses of Congress because of Clintons' irresponsibility during his reign! Bill was sleeping his way in with 19-yr-old interns, while Hillary was fighting and scaring away D- senators and house reps. Geez!"
-----------------
What kind of leadership is that? We dont want to lose Congress again under another Clinton!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 1:31 AM | Report abuse

.

=================================================

.

....................HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR

.

=================================================

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 1:31 AM | Report abuse

"Even after the DNC and EvEN after the election in november.. hillary will still be challenging for debates and telling people she is still running..."

That's a joke?

Posted by: tom | April 27, 2008 1:29 AM | Report abuse

Hillary should just pack her bags instead of doing a debate. We have already heard enough. She had the past 4 months to do all the debates she wanted. Please spare the American people of the hardship of listening to her whine and tell lies. Hillary is no Lincoln and she is no Douglas. Nobody other than herself is interested in getting into a war of dirty talk with her.

Posted by: George Pollard | April 27, 2008 1:25 AM | Report abuse

So question, how many handlers does Obama have right now ? Oops I seem to be typing to bots, sorry.

Posted by: Hank Whatever | April 27, 2008 1:25 AM | Report abuse

"The Democrats lost both Houses of Congress because of Clintons' irresponsibility during his reign! Bill was sleeping his way in with 19-yr-old interns, while Hillary was fighting and scaring away D- senators and house reps. Geez!"
-----------------
What kind of leadership is that? We dont want to lose Congress again under another Clinton!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 1:20 AM | Report abuse

One thing for sure. When a woman yacks a man ussually keeps quite. Ask Bill, what he does when Hillary wakes up at 3am and starts yacking. Bill will probably pull the sheets over his head and pretend that he hears nothing. If Obama is intelligent he will not bite the bait. He should just ignore it as background noise and continue with his plans.

Posted by: Bob Rodnick | April 27, 2008 1:19 AM | Report abuse

"No, of course not, he'll vote for McCain, like he was always planning to do.

"Then he'll starve to death, like the rest of us..."


"I think you're being optimistic. Only those not poisoned by the radiation fall-out will starve to death."

The radiation fall-out from obliterating Iran? Which candidate would NOT do that?

Posted by: connect the dots | April 27, 2008 1:18 AM | Report abuse

7 things WHY THE CLINTONS CAN'T BE ALLOWED BACK IN THE WH

The Democrats lost both Houses of Congress because of Clintons' irresponsibility during his reign! Bill was sleeping his way in with 19-yr-old interns, while Hillary was fighting and scaring away D- senators and house reps. Geez!

1. The Clintons disgraced the WH with sex scandals. You can't trust Bill with your daughters. What will Bill do with his free time in the WH?

2. Bill and Hill brought NAFTA and China into America - taking away our jobs.

3. Bill Clinton was paid $800,000 by the Colombians to push for unfair trade deals while sidelining American workers.

4. Mark Penn(Clinton Chief Strategist) was paid $300,000 by the Colombians to fight for them, to strengthen NAFTA and not American workers.

5. Bill & Hill in the WH left bin Laden escape in the 1990s and then blamed it on GW! Bill was a whimp!

6. Bill & Hill Clinton thought that Rwanda didn't matter during the genocide, and thus they never said anything. At least Bush is saying something against the genocide in Darfur.

7. Finally, we cannot take anymore sex scandals that Bill brought from Arkinsas with that Flowers girl!, lewinsky etc.

I cannot let my daughter ever in the WH again - just imagine that.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 1:17 AM | Report abuse

.

=================================================

.

....................HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR

.

=================================================

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 1:16 AM | Report abuse

7 things WHY THE CLINTONS CAN'T BE ALLOWED BACK IN THE WH

1. The Clintons disgraced the WH with sex scandals. You can't trust Bill with your daughters. What will Bill do with his free time in the WH?

2. Bill and Hill brought NAFTA and China into America - taking away our jobs.

3. Bill Clinton was paid $800,000 by the Colombians to push for unfair trade deals while sidelining American workers.

4. Mark Penn(Clinton Chief Strategist) was paid $300,000 by the Colombians to fight for them, to strengthen NAFTA and not American workers.

5. Bill & Hill in the WH left bin Laden escape in the 1990s and then blamed it on GW! Bill was a whimp!

6. Bill & Hill Clinton thought that Rwanda didn't matter during the genocide, and thus they never said anything. At least Bush is saying something against the genocide in Darfur.

7. Finally, we cannot take anymore sex scandals that Bill brought from Arkinsas with that Flowers girl!, lewinsky etc.

I cannot let my daughter ever in the WH again - just imagine that.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 1:13 AM | Report abuse

"No, of course not, he'll vote for McCain, like he was always planning to do.

Then he'll starve to death, like the rest of us..."


I think you're being optimistic. Only those not poisoned by the radiation fall-out will starve to death.
.


Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 1:12 AM | Report abuse

Got a flag pin? If not, the Hillary thugs are going to come out and kill you. So better get one. Now, Before it's too late!

Posted by: tom | April 27, 2008 1:12 AM | Report abuse


next hillary will try to challenge obama to a debate on whether florida and michigan should be counted.

this is a no win/win situation for this election.

someone made a joke today on television.. they said that even after the DNC and EvEN after the election in november.. hillary will still be challenging for debates and telling people she is still running...

hillary?

put a sock in it.

Posted by: presGWBfanclub | April 27, 2008 1:11 AM | Report abuse

"I can't believe these small minded people who write such childish things about the Clinton's."

Never said nothing about the Clinton's. Nor about the illiterate misplaced apostrophe. Dope!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 1:09 AM | Report abuse

"...you need at least two teeth left to qualify to vote for Obama..."

The Clinton demographics favor the un-educated

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 1:09 AM | Report abuse


"Out of curiosity, since he is going to win, what are you going to do then, kill yourself?..."


No, of course not, he'll vote for McCain, like he was always planning to do.

Then he'll stave to death, like the rest of us.

Posted by: connect the Dots | April 27, 2008 1:08 AM | Report abuse

"The Clinton demographics favor the un-educated..."

I was just thinking that, you need at least two teeth left to qualify to vote for Obama.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 1:05 AM | Report abuse

"Out of curiosity, since he is going to win, what are you going to do then, kill yourself?..."


No, of course not, he'll vote for McCain, like he was always planning to do.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 1:05 AM | Report abuse

Ah, the phantom Flag Pin. Never seen Hillaruy with one. George S. didn't have one, either. Or whatsisname, the Voice of ABC. Is Obama the only one who needs one? He can have mine!

Posted by: tom | April 27, 2008 1:04 AM | Report abuse

"Obama won't wear an American flag pin but he'll wear a turban?..."


The Clinton demographics favor the un-educated...

.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 1:03 AM | Report abuse

quote
"Obama won't wear an American flag pin but he'll wear a turban?

I'm an American and even I think there's something wrong with that.

Posted by: Boston | April 27, 2008 12:49 AM"

Out of curiosity, since he is going to win, what are you going to do then, kill yourself?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 1:01 AM | Report abuse

.

=================================================

.

....................HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR

.

=================================================

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 1:00 AM | Report abuse

It came from a book that by the way he didn't make a dime till he became a serious candidate. Otherwise it would have been a $1.99 special at Borders

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 12:59 AM | Report abuse

"Can we have a detailed report about the origins of Obama's Multi-million dollars fortune?"

Hey, cutie-poop! It was the Clintons, not the Obamas, who made $109 million over the last 8 years. And gave 10% to charity and deducted it from taxes. And gave that 10% to themselves!

You want detailed reports, sweetie? We'll stick them up your nose! Sort of like the old bedtime story of Bill and the Cigar.....

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 12:57 AM | Report abuse

By the way, Hillary doesn't ware a pin either most of the time. She didn't have one on that night neither did the questioner.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 12:56 AM | Report abuse

Of course Obama doesn't want to debate again because he can't answer honestly about anything! This guy is such a FRAUD! I can't believe these small minded people who write such childish things about the Clinton's. Bill Clinton was the best President in my lifetime and millions of American's feel the same so give it up Obama and step down for the good of the party. We will NEVER vote for someone who is a FRAUD and went to a hate filled church and listened to that filth. Not going to happen!

Posted by: donnerlady | April 27, 2008 12:55 AM | Report abuse

quote
"Obama won't wear an American flag pin but he'll wear a turban?

I'm an American and even I think there's something wrong with that.

Posted by: Boston | April 27, 2008 12:49 AM"

I don't know anyone who wares a pin. It has an air of being contrived, fake, you know what I mean.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 12:55 AM | Report abuse

It's an easy test: the first question is "are you dumber than a rock?" svreader failed that one. The second question is "are you an Iowa Treasure [i.e., cowflop]? Iowatreasures failed that one. The third question is, what's the thread count in your KKK hood? Most of them are still out, trying to count it.

Posted by: tom | April 27, 2008 12:49 AM | Report abuse

Obama won't wear an American flag pin but he'll wear a turban?

I'm an American and even I think there's something wrong with that.

Posted by: Boston | April 27, 2008 12:49 AM | Report abuse

Let me help by adding one more thing why the Clintons can't be allowed back in the White House... Their foreign policy really stinks - Bill didn't have the balls to negotiate NPT with India and Pakistan - both countries acquired nuclear weapons in the 1990s under the "watchful eyes" of Bill! hehehe... Why did he allow this to happen? What does this say about their negotiation skills, and dare they attack Condi and GW for trying!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 12:46 AM | Report abuse

The Democratic nominee will be Obama. The Democratic Party will not risk the future of the Party by going against its core voting groups. Hillary had to keep running to pay off her primary debts because she didn't have enough money and she would have had to pay out millions out of her own pocket had she withdrawn. Obama has shown he can raise lots of grassroots money in the general election and has shown he is an excellent organizer and leader, just in the way his campaign has been run.
McCain won't be hard to beat. He has trouble speaking, inspiring people, and raising money. He supported the outsourcing of military contracts - there goes the Washington State and Boeing vote, he is against the GI bill improvements - there goes the Veteran vote, he has hired Meg Whitman (ex CEO of eBay) as a campaign manager - there goes the eBay sellers' vote (31 million of them), he doesn't have the support of the far right - there goes the fundamentalist vote, he is for NAFTA - there goes the union vote, he is for staying in Iraq - there goes the vote of the majority of the voting public who would like to see our kids come home, our dignity as a nation restored, and at least a chance to salvage our economy so that we will be strong enough to protect ourselves should a real threat emerge from outside.
Finally, he admits he does not understand the economy. Need I say more?

Posted by: Connect the Dots | April 27, 2008 12:43 AM | Report abuse

It's getting hard to sort out the Klansmen from the Seriously Stupid! Could you please identify yourself up front?

It's okay, "Iowatreasures"; don't bother. We have a special provision for the simpleminded.

Posted by: tom | April 27, 2008 12:43 AM | Report abuse

Has the Post laid off all its weekend editors? Has it started hiring junior high school students to fill in? I realize the "immediacy" of the blogosphere presents print journalists with a unique set of challenges. But at least some of your readers rely on the Washington Post for lucid, reasonably well-written reporting. I for one would rather wait until Sunday for a better product than have to read drivel like this. So sad.

Posted by: Justin from VA | April 27, 2008 12:42 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 12:42 AM | Report abuse

None of the people making the vile comments about Obama know anything about him or his supporters. But I do know that you are sick...this is an election about issues but some of you are so stupid as to take it personally. You really sound retarded. We are all Americans and when he wins...and he will...feel free to leave this glorious nation...a holes

Posted by: This is Crazy | April 27, 2008 12:42 AM | Report abuse

7 things WHY THE CLINTONS CAN'T BE ALLOWED BACK IN THE WH

1. The Clintons disgraced the WH with sex scandals. You can't trust Bill with your daughters. What will Bill do with his free time in the WH?

2. Bill and Hill brought NAFTA and China into America - taking away our jobs.

3. Bill Clinton was paid $800,000 by the Colombians to push for unfair trade deals while sidelining American workers.

4. Mark Penn(Clinton Chief Strategist) was paid $300,000 by the Colombians to fight for them, to strengthen NAFTA and not American workers.

5. Bill & Hill in the WH left bin Laden escape in the 1990s and then blamed it on GW! Bill was a whimp!

6. Bill & Hill Clinton thought that Rwanda didn't matter during the genocide, and thus they never said anything. At least Bush is saying something against the genocide in Darfur.

7. Finally, we cannot take anymore sex scandals that Bill brought from Arkinsas with that Flowers girl!, lewinsky etc.

I cannot let my daughter ever in the WH again - just imagine that.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 12:37 AM | Report abuse

It's getting hard to sort out the Klansmen from the Seriously Stupid! Could you please identify yourself up front?

Posted by: tom | April 27, 2008 12:36 AM | Report abuse

.

=================================================

.

....................HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR

.

=================================================

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 12:35 AM | Report abuse

"Isn't this quite unusual - a candidate for the highest, most powerful office in the world, the President of the United States of America, and he doesn't have the moxy to stand up to moderators asking him why he doesn't like to wear a flag pin, or why he didn't put his hand over his heart at the J. J. dinner in Iowa, or where he goes to church, or how long he has known Rezko, or Auchi, or Ayers or Ayer's wife, Dohrn,"

Yup. Nobody asked Bill Clinton those quest ions. Or Hillary. You got a point, other than the obvious one on the top of your head, Dumbo? Can you really fly, with those floppy ears?.

Posted by: tom | April 27, 2008 12:33 AM | Report abuse

"Sure, she exaggerated, no doubt!! The Bosnia trip was very admirable on its' own merits, there was no need to exaggerate. The wounded soldiers were thrilled to see Hillary."

No,No, and No. There were no wounded soldiers in Tuzla. She was there for nine hours in which Sinbad put on a USO entertainment. The truce was signed. The wounded had been airlifted out.

Bosnian Vet Accuses Hillary of Valor Theft

A veteran of Bosnia who was at the event in Tuzla where Hillary Clinton falsely claimed to have landed under sniper fire is accusing the Senator of theft of valor. As General Walter L. Stewart Jr. of the Pennsylvania National Guard said earlier today on a conference call, soldiers who actually have been in war zones and performed under fire deeply despise those who falsely claim such valor. They feel this way because it attempts to cheapen or make less, their real and actual valor.

The General pointed out "this wasn't an emergency resupply mission to the Alamo. If there had been any danger that mission wouldn't have landed."

Common sense tells us the First Lady and Chelsea would never have been put in harms way by our military. Hillary's tale of bravery and valor, because it was false, is finding resentment among those who actually did serve and Tammi K. (nee Jann) Hertherington who was at Tuzla when Senator Clinton landed is one.

Her story is at

http://pennsylvaniaprogressive.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/03/bosnian-vet-acc.html

Posted by: Liza | April 27, 2008 12:33 AM | Report abuse

Paul Stewart, I agree. Hillary has been saying that for months now. On the contrary though, McCain has said that he will have an honourable campaign in the fall, so I don't know who Clinton is referring to when she says, that somebody else will attack Obama dirtily, if she doesn't - that's a Clinton tactic, and we are tired of it already. That's another lie she is making up.

You know when the Clintons got in this race they thought that the Democrats would go ahead and annoint her as the saviour of the party. She was supposed to wrap this thing up by Feb 5. I wonder why she wasn't able to close the deal. Independents, African-Americans and young people under 50 will not vote for and she will not close that deal against McCain in Nov.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 12:33 AM | Report abuse

The Obama campaign appears to be imploding. It is about time American voters see this guy for what he is, an experienced lightweight. Of course, he doesn't want to debate Hillary Clinton. Their last outing made him look bad, very bad. Democrats, Hillary has won every big state. Isn't it time for Obama to set aside so we can have the only woman who could ever be president. She's also the best America has to offer in this race.

Posted by: Political Watchdog | April 27, 2008 12:31 AM | Report abuse

So if this happens who is Lincoln and who is Douglas? Does the junior congressman from Illinois with the gift of persuasive oratory and demonstrated concern for the nation as a whole get to win this time? I don't think our country can afford to wait for another opportunity to truly change the track it's on at the moment.

Posted by: EricReader11 | April 27, 2008 12:29 AM | Report abuse

One more thought. My memory may be defective, I can admit that. But here is something I remember which may or maynot be true.

My memory has a picture of President Clinton travelling by Limo to his second Swearing in ceremony. Seated in that car with him was the Rev. Jesse Jackson. Now is that memory live or is it memorex ?

Impeachment of President Clinton was in fact a huge distraction to our nation. All the while during that period of ineffective time management, an enemy was planning an attack on our nation on 09/11. Think about it, or not.

How are we being distracted today ? And what is the benefit, so The 24/7 Tabloid network can charge top dollar to run cereal commercials, pathetic.

Do feel free to check my memory as I will do the same.

Posted by: Hank Whatever | April 27, 2008 12:20 AM | Report abuse

Jack Smith is on someone's payroll for sure. Been here and other sites every day posting the same garbage day in and day out. I would encourage you to go look in the mirror. Take a hard look at yourself and then have a look at the condition of your country. Then take some time to write a new piece to post.

And there are a number of "commentators" here who are not contributing to the dialogue but looking to get in its way. Don't know if they are all mal contents and trouble makers or if this is part of some shrewd strategy by someone looking to diffuse and confuse the issues. What a waste of human capital.

Another debate as is being suggested by Clinton is unnecessary. Many out line here why she wants it and why she should not get it. I would also go on to say that obviously we all know what she will say. We all get her tack and lack of tact. It would go something like this: ..... Wright is wrong, so Obama is Wright too so he is wrong.... Unpatriotic, obliterate, racism card not by me, but he can't get the white vote.... where's the flag... etc. all as she casts her eyes all about the room, blinking and flinching with her nose visibly growing.... And, as many point out, Obama is too gracious and polite to bop her in the nose. And, not to mention, as many mentioned, politically savvy - you don't punch out an old white woman on national TV. They will send the police....

I believe that Obama was born to lead America at this time. The important question is - will America take up this generous and much needed opportunity?

Hillary's only way to the nomination is predicated on the Clintons' leverage of the party establishment and character assassination. She is doing this with malice afore thought and justifies it by saying if she does not do it, someone else will. Huh? She also claims this makes her a fighter. Well, no. It makes one question her moral fibre. I think if she is really tough and a fighter, she would use it to address the issues and fight all that is wrong with America. Instead she is using it as would a bully and to stir the pot of hate, fear and racism. The recipe in her pot is based on the book of Rove and Bush with a touch of K3 thrown in for flavour. Hardly strong leadership and moral fibre.

I have seen some recent questions raised on other sites as well as this one about why the super delegates have not moved yet to close the deal for Obama - because they now easily could. Are the supers beholden to the Clintons and perhaps without the courage to support Obama for fear he loses in November? It might be a scary thought for the supers but they should think hard because - what a down right terrifying thought for America.

The way for Democrats to win in November is for the Clintons to drop their swift boat efforts to destroy Obama's character and candidacy. And, instead, Democrats should harness the dramatic change movement Obama is leading and focus the campaign on the real issues of America crying out for some true tough medicine - would a real fighter not be focused with all of their moral fibre and ferocious energy on that? The change movement is a real grass roots move, not just a bunch of words or hot air. If Clinton gets on the bus instead of throwing herself in front of it, all the more powerful.

America will get what it deserves in this election process - if the input and approach continues based on garbage then the outcome will be garbage too. I ask all Americans individually to step back from the heated discussions around divisive issues that are being stoked by their leaders (yes your leaders) to see the reality of their situation in the context of their history and the immediacy of certain catastrophic issues that must be addressed (to list the obvious ones - the mistaken war in Iraq, the war on terror, the finding of Bin Laden, the economy, the dollar, America's standing and reputation, resuming its leadership on global issues - the financial crisis, the environment, poverty, health etc. and I would add the moral fabric of its society which has been badly mauled). And please look forward clearly to what is in your own best interest and your families' and especially, your childrens' and their future generations'. If you do that, I think you will see that you could only choose to elect Obama.

America is a listing ship and she must right herself soon or she will not stay afloat. I am confident, she will find a way to do this and end its long era of confusion, hate and fear. This will not be easy, but it is indeed necessary and long overdue and it starts with Obama.

And, I believe Americans in the majority across a broad spectrum of the population will have the courage to vote Obama for a new politics, a new discourse and a new future based on truth, justice and the true American dream.

Posted by: Paul Stewart | April 27, 2008 12:19 AM | Report abuse

Obama has perfected the art of "fence straddling". He is like a zebra. One day he's white with black stripes. The next day he is black with white stripes. He supported his pastor's ministry for 20 years now he doesn't. He knew Tony Rezko and swung a deal to buy a fabuluos crib and adjacent land... now it's Tony who? He hang with Ayers, now he acts like he barely knows the man. I could go on and on. When are you Obamamaniacs going to get it...this man is a fake and a social flim-flammer. He is not ready for prime time let alone the President of the U.S.A.

Posted by: Ebonyflash | April 27, 2008 12:18 AM | Report abuse

I think that they should have a debate hosted by David Schuster. Topic 1---Are Bill and Hillary pimping out Chelsea. Second topic--- why shouldn't the press be allowed to ask Chelsea questions. Like she's 28 already.

Posted by: oldman&theC | April 27, 2008 12:18 AM | Report abuse

7 things WHY THE CLINTONS CAN'T BE ALLOWED BACK IN THE WH

1. The Clintons disgraced the WH with sex scandals. You can't trust Bill with your daughters. What will Bill do with his free time in the WH?

2. Bill and Hill brought NAFTA and China into America - taking away our jobs.

3. Bill Clinton was paid $800,000 by the Colombians to push for unfair trade deals while sidelining American workers.

4. Mark Penn(Clinton Chief Strategist) was paid $300,000 by the Colombians to fight for them, to strengthen NAFTA and not American workers.

5. Bill & Hill in the WH left bin Laden escape in the 1990s and then blamed it on GW! Bill was a whimp!

6. Bill & Hill Clinton thought that Rwanda didn't matter during the genocide, and thus they never said anything. At least Bush is saying something against the genocide in Darfur.

7. Finally, we cannot take anymore sex scandals that Bill brought from Arkinsas with that Flowers girl!, lewinsky etc.

I cannot let my daughter ever in the WH again - just imagine that.

Posted by: American | April 27, 2008 12:17 AM | Report abuse

Let's face it folks. If Bill hadn't been finally busted in the Monica Lewinsky lie: "I did not have --- with that woman," Woman? She was a 19 year old intern. This old man should be in jail instead of making reservations for his couch in the White House- But I digress. If he hadn't been caught he would not have had to promise the presidency to Hillary- and we would not have all this nastiness on this message board.

He would have been off on one of Ron Burkle's jets enjoying the company of the rich and famous. This campaigning is a not what I signed up for. It was supposed to be over by super Tuesday. That's what Hillary said.

Enough drama. It will be eight more years of the Hillbillies if they get their way.

Please say it ain't so, Joe.

Posted by: Luke2 | April 27, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

The generally sorry quality of the discourse here makes me not want to wear an American flag lapel pin.

Posted by: Ed | April 27, 2008 12:14 AM | Report abuse

The question I have for a debate is: Is this country ready for a Lesbian president?

Posted by: LetthemdrinkCrownRoyal | April 27, 2008 12:12 AM | Report abuse

One day, a girl awakened fatherless, her home destroyed -- even its barn that bore a target her dad had painted to teach her to shoot.

Disguised as a boy, she trekked the Himalayas & Antarctica & the shores of Lake Erie & the deserts of Nevada & California & Washington DC & the cobbled ways of Ulster & Manhattan's canyoned streets. Even did she brave a strafing of a Bosnian airport.

Then in a real folk's tavern, she downed a whiskey & a beer -- and wept: "Where's father? Where's home?" She fainted on the sawdust-covered floor & awoke above the clouds before a great white gate.

Inside stood a gaunt & bearded, loincloth-wearing man. She put her nose between two bars. "Father?" she begged.

"Pinocchio?" the gaunt & bearded, loincloth-wearing man inquired with a whisper.

Posted by: a carpenter's apprentice
-----------------------------------
Thank you, carpenter's apprentice! Love your wonderful sense of humor mixed in with reality.

The loincloth-wearing man then asked, why did you spit on my 4000+, and counting, servicemen and servicewomen who paid the ultimate price for a war for which you voted and helped propel? You know, Pinnocio, being fraudulant about landing amidst sniper fire in Bosnia is a great insult to those brave men and women who, daily, face sniper fire and other deadly attacks in Iraq and Afganistan. Pinoccio, you spit in the faces of my men and women who have returned disfigured, missing limbs, paralyzed, brain damaged, and severe mental and emotional stress, severely burned, blind, and much, much more. Then, you went on the Jay Leno Show and laughed and joked about "being late because I ran into sniper fire". And you wanted America to believe you were fit to be the Commander-in-Chief of America's Military Forces? Then, Pinoccio, you threatened to obliterate (nuke) an entire country, including children, if Iran CONSIDERED attacking Israel. I find you have no respect for your fellow humans, so I am sending you to the 20th sublevel of hell for eternity. There you will suffer all the injustices you have brought upon your fellow humans and maybe, maybe you will be able to finally see yourself for who you truly were. The damage you have done cannot be reversed, so I commit you to level 20 for ALL eternity.

Posted by: NinaK | April 27, 2008 12:11 AM | Report abuse

Let's face it folks. If Bill hadn't been finally busted in the Monica Lewinsky lie: "I did not have ? with that woman," Woman? She was a 19 year old intern. This pervert should be in jail instead of making reservations for his couch in the White House- But I digress. If he hadn't been caught he would not have had to promise the presidency to Hillary- and we would not have all this nastiness on this message board.

He would have been off on one of Ron Burkle's jets enjoying the company of the rich and famous. This campaigning is a just not any fun at all.

Enough drama. It will be eight more years of the Hillbillies if they get their way.

Please say it ain't so, Joe.

Posted by: Monica | April 27, 2008 12:10 AM | Report abuse

Headline: Obama says YES to Cheney

Foreword: I wrote the following comments about an hour before I heard Olberman report that Rush Limbaugh was promoting on his website: RIOTS at the Democratic Convention in Denver

We all know the ECONOMY is the #1 ISSUE in this campaign season.

Since ENERGY is an important basis of economics our nation's Energy Policy is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT...as we have all seen with the increasing cost of FUEL and FOOD engendered by the rise in Oil Prices.

The Mainstream Media has failed to address or air the 3 Presidential candidates' ENERGY POLICIES. (Have YOU heard anything about The Cheney Energy Bill?)

It was passed in 2005...while the Republicans still had control of Congress. Obama Voted FOR the Cheney Energy Bill. McCain Voted FOR it.
Clinton Voted AGAINST it.

Most of us, upon hearing of the EXISTENCE of a CHENEY Energy Bill would...assume it to be...NOT in the best interests of our nation or any of us Not Wealthy humans...i.e. some kind of RIPOFF of the American taxpaying public.

It also seems strikingly ODD that Obama, appearing to be a very LIBERAL DEMOCRAT, Voted FOR The Cheney Energy Bill.

Clinton has brought up Obama's YES to Cheney VOTE several times during the televised debates. YET...the News People asking the debate questions never followup by asking Obama: WHY DID YOU VOTE FOR THE CHENEY ENERGY BILL?. They Never followup by asking: What IS the Cheney Energy Bill about?

It is by far One of the most IMPORTANT ISSUES of our time, but the "mainstream media" just doesn't cover it. WHAT is the reason for the mainstream media's SILENCE on an ISSUE so critically important to our future?

I asked myself that question and went looking for the answer. This is what I found:

GE owns NBC & MSNBC. Westinghouse owns CBS. GE is the 2nd largest corporation on the planet: BOTH corporations have, for many generations, pumped vast quantities of PRODUCT...$ADVERTISING Dollars...into all forms of media.

GE and Westinghouse are the Major Players in the nuclear industry. An industry that was set to suffer a Slow DEATH...UNTIL...the Cheney EnergyBill gave it "a new lease on life". NO new nukes have been built in the U.S for the past 30 years because the banks would not loan money to build them - too risky.

The Cheney Energy Bill Solved That Problem For The Nuke Industry by GUARANTEEING TAXPAYER Payback of any of the nuke loans that default.

(Given that the Congressional Budget Office rated the risk of default at 50%, or greater...do you think it was GOOD JUDGMENT for Obama to vote FOR it?)

(Given the already substantial economic damage done by the SubPrime mortgage meltdown -what amount of economic damage are we LIKELY to suffer from SubPrime: Not Credit Worthy -lending- to the nuke industry/compounded by the fact that US TAXPAYERS would PAY the full cost of a SUBPRIME Nuke Lending meltdown?)

The nuke industry's plans to build 29 new nuclear power plants are already far advanced. Licensing hearings for the first few nuke plants have already been scheduled.

Second Level Major Players in the Nuke Industry:

Excelon Corp. of Illinois - one of Obama's largest campaign contributors since his earliest days in politics - biggest nuke operator on the planet; they own the nukes in Illinois; they own Con-Ed of New York.

Entergy - Owns many utilities in several Southern states.

3 Consortiums of other nuke industry players.

MSNBC & NBC have become more FAUX than FOX. All day everyday since last October I have seen on MSNBC & NBC..ALL their "reporters" and "news analysts" -(from Joe Scarborough and Mika Berzinski on "Morning Joe"-to Chris Matthews on "Hardball" in the afternoon-to Keith Olbermann in the evening BLATANTLY promoting Pro-Obama PROPAGANDA/ Slamming & smeaaring the Clintons...everyday all day long.

I'm not the only one who noticed. Millions of people noticed and posted their complaints about it on the internet. Last night Bill O'reilly on Fox news said - "MSNBC has become the Obama Network".
(I call MSNBC/NBC -BOP-N---Barack Obama Propaganda Networks.)

In response to...(unspecified...& unreported complaints) about "media bias" against the Clintons, Howard Fineman, TIME magazine & MSNBC "News analyst"---whined to Chris Matthews on "Hardball" last week: Gov. Rendell said to me -"you're from the Obama Network"-they shouldn't be complaining about US being biased against the Clintons WE're Journalists! WE just report the facts. (Pathetic...Fineman
...trying...to convince himself he's not -exactly what he is- a highly paid Propaganda Pusher.)

Obama's 20 year history in politics arose from Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.

The Rezko trial involves charges of extortion, fraud, money laundering, kickbacks, bribes; CRIMES
& Political CORRUPTION (at every level of government City, County, State, National) involving: allegedly,
Rezko, Mayor Daley, Governor Blagojevich, et al for crimes committed in the U.S.; and involving internationally 3 Arabic men: Rezko, Auichi, Alsammarae -for crimes allegedly committed in massive international frauds.

(Auichi was convicted a few years ago in the French Courts of massive fraud/robbery/looting involving the French ELF petroleum company and the U.N. Oil for Food Program.

Alsammarae was convicted in the Iraqi Courts of looting the Iraq electricity grid while he was the Iraqi Minister of Electricity...under Bush-Cheney's Coalition Provisional Authority. Rezko is accused of being Alsammarae's partner in that looting.

The mainstream media is airing very little coverage of Rezko's -City, County, State, National, and International Fraud/Looting trial.

For example, the Federal Prosecution's main witness testifed last week that Obama and his wife DID Attend a party thrown by Rezko at Rezko's Chicago mansion for his guest of honor AUICHI. Obama has previously stated that he: doesn't remember meeting Auichi. WHY is the mainstream media (TV, in particular) not covering the Rezko trial? WHY have they Still NOT Asked Obama if he DID or DID Not attend that party? WHY have they NOT asked Michelle Obama if she attended that party?

The conclusion I have reached from those and many other FACTS I have gathered from my impartial search is:

GE, et. al; the Corrupt Corporate "establishment"
-is running Obama and McCain for President -because they plan to reap $BILLIONS in RISK-FREE Profits from building 29 new nuclear power plants AND $BILLIONS more in RISK-FREE profits---For The NEXT 30-40 Years---from the HIGHER ELECTRICITY RATES produced by building nuke plants. i.e. The NEXT Big Dick Cheney MONOPOLY POWER
---ENERGY RIPOFF----
just...waiting in the wings...for Obama or McCain to get elected.

Currently, the mainstream media is PUSHING Obama for President and holding a lid on the BAD NEWS about him. If and when it reaches a point where Obama cannot get the nomination the corporate-controlled media will drop him and start pumping out PRO-McCain Propaganda.

GE, Cheney, et al prefer it to be a NO-RISK,
Win-Win (for Them) Presidential election WITH Obama vs. McCain. The Media is NOW pumping out: the contest is Over; Obama's the Winner; the Nomination BETTER NOT get "stolen" from Obama or there'll be HELL to Pay and the Democrat candidate will lose in November.

The Obama campaign was caught red-handed playing the race card to win the South Carolina primary
...in a 4 page internal Obama campaign Memo published online by the Huffington Post...but the Media went right on PUSHING the BIG LIE -they blamed the Clintons. Obama has repeatedly played the race card every time he is in danger of losing.

There are indications online that Obama: used MOBS of poor black people cramming into small govt. offices in Chicago during his "organizing" days to get some of the "changes" he wanted; that Code Pink and a group named ReCreate '68 are threatening to mass mobs of 50,000 in Denver to protest/incite riots at the Democratic Convention IF Obama does not get the nomination. DOES Obama have connections to the groups threatenting HELL to pay at the convention if he doesn't get the nomination...connections that could be covered by...plausible deniability?

Having already...recklessly, despicably, dangerously, played the race card repeatedly & supposing...Obama does have connections with left wing extremist groups...could electing him President get us -WORSE THAN BUSH-...incitement of interracial strife for purposes of Political Control... incitement of left-wing extremists/ riots for purposes of Political CONTROL? ...with the MEDIA aiding, abetting, lying and distorting...Reality...just like they are doing now?

Things that don't add up:

If Clinton is "the establishment" candidate -Why is her campaign constantly running out of money
while Obama has been rolling in CASH thruout the campaign?

The media tries to cover that by saying: well...her wealthy contributors have already given the maximum amount the law allows -they can't contribute anymore funds.

That's ridiculous. The "establishment" has enough cash to hire all the bundlers they need to go out and rustle up more cash from individuals employed at ALL Their Corporations, and from any other source. The media continues to PUSH the BIG LIE that Obama does not accept money from Lobbyists/Corporations -when a very brief search on Google will quickly turn up detailed confirmation of the fact that he accepts money from the same large corporate sources as the other candidates.

If Clinton is the "establishment" candidate...WHY isn't the corporate-controlled media PUSHING HER for President?

Obama's got the money. He's got the MEDIA Propaganda. He's the establishment candidate.

What's wrong with building 29 nuclear power plants?

Hillary Clinton: nuclear can be considered in the future IF they can make it CHEAPER and find a way to safely and permanently dispose of the nuclear waste.

Nuke waste/nuke waste dumps have been a steadily deepening nightmare for the past 50 years. (Google: Hanford WA nuclear waste dump; Rocky Flats CO plutonium, Barnwell South Carolina groundwater nuclear waste dump.

ALL the nuke waste dumps are CLOSED. Nuke waste has been stored ON-SITE at the nuke plants for the past several DECADES; providing several hundred terrorist targets vulnerable to devastating consequences from just ONE RPG.

The nuclear industry is already running a modicum of Pro-Nuke Propaganda Ads. They have bought up a few "environmentalists" & manufactured a lot more -for the LAUNCH of their upcoming NUKE PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN (The Nukes are GREEN & CLEAN Ad Campaign)-that will start-right after the November Prersidential election.

What can YOU do about it? Copy & Paste this message -email it to everyone on your email list. Google: "North Carolina blogs politics" and post this everywhere you can -post it on Newspaper, TV, and radio blogs. Do the SAME for all the upcoming PRIMARY STATES...as far in advance of the Primary Date as you can.

"Getting off coal to go nuclear is like giving up cigarettes to take up smoking crack" (I wish I knew where I read that quote so I could give credit to the author of it.)

Posted by: elme | April 27, 2008 12:10 AM | Report abuse

.

=================================================

.

....................HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR

.

=================================================

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is hiring the homeless illiterate junkies to post for her? Part of her "hiring the homeless" campaign, I suppose....

Posted by: tom | April 27, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

Can we have a detailed report about the origins of Obama's Multi-million dollars fortune? It has been said that the millions he gets in contributions comes from 10 and 15 dollar donations. Can we have a detailed accountability of the checks, donation amounts and donors?

Posted by: Roberto Noriega | April 27, 2008 12:08 AM | Report abuse

Here's the way I see it Tom:

Hank, Hank, Hank, the neocons conditioned you to hate Bill. He is self serving ahole at times, but he is paying his pentence in his own way.

Tell me when you argue in front of the Supreme Court Tom and I may or maynot watch your back.

In the meanwhile, I suggest you check the real roots of your Bill hatred which probably has nothing to do with "The Rule of Law" whatever that means in the 21st century.

There is something wrong with you because Bill Clinton still has a mid 6os approval rating from the populus. You can't take that away from him, neither could those self serving neocons with an impeachment.

So I get back to all things being equal, what does race, gender, or chosen religious practice really have to do with the qualifications of President of the United States unless your chosen profession happens to be spin.

You may want to check that condescending attitude because if you really are an Obama supporter, you just became a liability.

Anyway, it has been fun for me, so why don't the two candidates grab some more primetime exposure ? Obama could do well listening to his elders, don't you think so ?

Posted by: Hank Whatever | April 27, 2008 12:08 AM | Report abuse

I am concerned at the way people percieve the difference between what is real and what is Hollywood. Too many Americans have low IQ's and they tend to beleieve everything the read or hear. This bothers me because big money controls all of that.
Now we have a person who is running for president and he is not big money or mixed up with the rest of the Elite. Why cant people see whats good for them. Why cant a black man from the southside of Chicago be the president. After all that is what our country was founded on. Anyone can be what ever they want. Look back in the past you will see the greatest men came from the salt of the earth not bread from the Elite money hungry war mongers. There are two things really F@$%ing this country up right now and that is Religion and Greed.
Yeah I said it but the truth is they both have went hand in hand since the beggining of time. Dont be so stupid as to believe that the Elite are not using them both to control you. Its time people start
reading so you know what to believe and not believing everything you read.

Posted by: Legendin | April 27, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse

In the so-called debate in Philadelphia, Mrs. Clinton used the first 45 minutes to smear Senator Obama with her ugly references to his former pastor rather than debate any policy differences between them. Her racist ploys show that while she calls for a debate in Indiana, she intends to use the debate forum to highlight the comfort identity of racial backgrounds in the forum. If Philadelphia is any indication, another debate will give her team of media gurus a chance to emphasize her racial identity with whites over Obama. Under the circumstances, Obama would be a fool to play her game. Let the two candidates debate now through their campaign pronouncements on the stump. Since she's going to try to smear him in any forum where the two appear together, what's in it for him to try to debate policy when she's trying to highlight their personal identity differences racially? Leave that kind of so-called "debate" to the Republicans in North Carolina also trying to smear Obama by asscociating him personally, yet again, with his former pastor's remarks denouncing the country in sermons. And who said that the Republicans are contrite for exploiting racist sentiments in southern whites to win elections? Shouldn't Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice and other black Republicans denounce the North Carolina Republicans for a replay of Nixon's southern strategy?

Posted by: thedefendantX | April 27, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse

America has been called the "Great Experiment. Why? Because, for one reason, if we can't get along as a melting pot of diverse cultures etc., how can the world become a place of mutual respect, and collective progress? However, in America, we seem to have a love affair with caustic contention that seems to be growing with each passing day, without ever realizing that these "polar orgies" are mutually destructive.

We have fallen too far to have real debates. The last one really worth watching was Kennedy-Nixon. And certainly at this point, H. Clinton is only interested in emasculating Obama, and showing the nation, that she is tough and can "stand" at a latrine with the best of them!

Posted by: D-of-G | April 27, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse

"SNOBAMA GOT MONEY FROM SADDAM HUSSEIN THROUGH THE U.N. OIL FOR FOOD PROGRAM LAUNDERED BY AUCHI. AUCHI GAVE 3.1 MILLION TO REZKO AND REZKO GAVE IT TO OBAMA."

You want bizarre hysteria? You got it! Where do they get these goofy people?

Posted by: tom | April 27, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse


N E O C O N S

F O R

C L I N T O N


William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Joe Lieberman, Rubert Murdoch, Dick Cheney, Carl Rove.......

=

war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 27, 2008 12:05 AM | Report abuse

Rah Rah Rah!!!! Four More Years - Four More Years - Rah Rah Rah!!! Bush = Clinton

Posted by: Bush = Clinton | April 27, 2008 12:04 AM | Report abuse

Rah Rah Rah!!!! Four More Years - Four More Years - Rah Rah Rah!!! Bush = Clinton

Posted by: Bush = Clinton | April 27, 2008 12:04 AM | Report abuse

Rah Rah Rah!!!! Four More Years - Four More Years - Rah Rah Rah!!! Bush = Clinton

Posted by: Bush = Clinton | April 27, 2008 12:04 AM | Report abuse

Rah Rah Rah!!!! Four More Years - Four More Years - Rah Rah Rah!!! Bush = Clinton

Posted by: Bush = Clinton | April 27, 2008 12:04 AM | Report abuse

Hank, Hank, Hank, the neocons conditioned you to hate Bill. He is self serving ahole at times, but he is paying his pentence in his own way.

Tell me when you argue in front of the Supreme Court and I may or maynot watch your back.

In the meanwhile, I suggest you check the real roots of your Bill hatred which probably has nothing to do with "The Rule of Law" whatever that means in the 21st century. There is something wrong with you because Bill Clinton still has a mid 6os approval rating from the populus. You can't take that away from him, neither could those self serving neocons.

So I get back to all things being equal, what does race, gender, or chosen religious practice really have to do with the qualifications of President of the United States unless your chosen profession happens to be spin.

You may want to check that condescending attitude because if you really are an Obama supporter, you just became a liability.

Anyway, it has been fun for me, so why don't the two candidates grab some more primetime exposure ? Obama could do well listening to his elders, don't you think so ?

Posted by: Hank Whatever | April 27, 2008 12:04 AM | Report abuse

It's all over. Nobody told the Prom Queen. She'll be p!ssed! Especially when she finds her husband out in back with the female janitor!

Posted by: tom | April 27, 2008 12:02 AM | Report abuse

Why should Obama waste his time with the losing candidate when he can spend his time like this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jp_Xut5R8G4

and this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mimaNFEbg6U

Posted by: Joycee | April 27, 2008 12:01 AM | Report abuse

April took the short bus to school. Ranting nonsense.

Posted by: kazabud | April 26, 2008 11:59 PM | Report abuse

I wish this format woud have been proposed 6 or 10 or 21 debates ago...

It is as if it is football season, and they keep adding games to the schedule but we already know who will be going to the Super Bowl...

Posted by: jonathanR | April 26, 2008 11:58 PM | Report abuse

Look. The Obama/Hillary contest is a distraction. Take away the pantssuits and the shoulder pads, and it's all about Bill. It's always been all about Bill. You want to go feminist on me? What has Hillary ever done that wasn't all about Bill? New York Senate race? Okay; that one was about Rudy's cancer scare. Otherwise?

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 11:58 PM | Report abuse

I heard tha Obama palys a good little game of hoops. I heard him challenge a female college student to a game of roundball while in Indiana. Very cute...wasn't he? Now, he is getting a challenge to from his political rival to meet him on the stage so that the American people can further compare and contrast them and he's backing down!!! For shame!!! He is doing what he learned I guess whan he played on his team in Hawaii are at whatever elite prep school he attended. Icould hear him saying.."OK guys I am the point guard and captain of this team. We have to protect our 50 point lead. Yes, I know that's there's 10 minutes left on the clock but I suggest that we dribble the around and run out the clock. OK? Break!!

Posted by: Ebonyflash | April 26, 2008 11:56 PM | Report abuse

Look. The Obama/Hillary contest is a distraction. Take away the pantssuits and the shoulder pads, and it's all about Bill. It's always been all about Bill. You want to go feminist on me? What has Hillary ever done that wasn't all about Bill? New York Senate race? Okay; that one was about Rudy's cancer scare. Otherwise?

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 11:50 PM | Report abuse

.

=================================================

.

....................HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR

.

=================================================

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 11:49 PM | Report abuse

"Thanks, Hank! I was graduated from Harvard Law School a few years before Obama. I have a good sense about smelling the odor of a skunk. That's why my cynicism about the Clintons. Got no "friends"..."

Well, I slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night but I guess you want me to percieve you as an eltist. I am impressed, does that make you feel better ? I guess you can score the best blow huh ? You have been conditioned to hate the Clintons, admit it. A condescending attitude from an Obama supporter is another vote for the Clintons. Or you are a political operative yourself, no matter to me, I stick with the truth and not courtroom relativism.

Posted by: Hank Whatever | April 26, 2008 11:46 PM | Report abuse


this is the hillary-obama debate i've been wanting to watch. one-on-one, no-hold-barred, no-moderator/s, with just about enough ground rules to observe.

then the great american people will see who between hillary & obama has got more grey matter in between his/her ears.

obama, since being put on the defensive at the Pa. primary debate, has been ranting about & railing against what he calls the "gotcha type of debate," that focuses on "irrelevant" points & "negative, divisive" & "distraction"-nuanced concerns, that never touches on "substantive issues" that matter most to the american people.

& so this lincoln-douglas debate format, that dwells mostly on policy issues, should appeal to obama, since it will address obama's "negative" plaint. ergo, obama should accept hillary's debate challenge, pronto, so that the great american voters wil be enlightened--as to who offers the best program of government & who's best to lead the american nation in these troubled times.

assuming the debate pushes through, this commenter knows, even this early, who'll turn out to be the voluble, words-a-torrent-spewing, "most-promising" (as in, long in words, short in deed), compleat showman, demagogueish douglas clone; & who'll be the more intelligent, forthright, direct-to-the-point, more "substantive" & more "in-depth" lincoln type of debater.

guess who?

this will be the hillary-obama debate to end all hillary-obama debates. looking forward to watching it in, say, 2 to 3 days from now****

Posted by: jennifer potenciano | April 26, 2008 11:44 PM | Report abuse

My mother in law is a HUGE democrat. I always tell her that when I watch CSPAN that I can tell which politicians are lying. They are identified with a little D at the end of their name. HE HE HE

Posted by: republican voter | April 26, 2008 11:43 PM | Report abuse

I love every moment in this contest for party nomination; both of the Dem candidates are doing great. I get up every morning and check if I missed any last night. It is not nasty at all rather it is enlightening to read, hear and watch these two good Americans. Obama is great and Hillary is just a notch greater. I will look forward to Lincoln-Douglas style debate recreated by O and H. It is so befitting! If it is not now, then when? It will be a classic! Go Hillary Go!

Posted by: IJ for Hillary | April 26, 2008 11:43 PM | Report abuse

"whimpoma can't debate Hillary he is a chicken.."


The Clinton demographics favor the un-educated...

.


Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 11:40 PM | Report abuse

LINCOLN & DOUGLAS would never want to be anywhere near Hillary Clinton! So, I would advise her to let the dead lie in peace!

We are not going to take any more silly debates from Clinton. No more... Whether Clinton resurrects Lincoln & Douglas from the graves - it won't happen, and I don't think that both these dignified men (Lincoln/ Douglas) would appreciate what Clinton has done to young Obama. Obama has done enough debates with Hillary who seems to just want to insult him, to mock him! No more stupid debates. period. We are tired of these "debate insults" on our candidate. I believe we have determined the characters of these two candidates and arrived at decisions and conclusions. Obama must now focus on bread and butter issues, education, energy etc for all Americans. We have to start planing on how we can beat McCain in the fall, NOT how Clinton is going insult us next!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 11:40 PM | Report abuse

Hillary needs to have a debate with the people of Bosnia to apologize that BIG lie she told on them for no apparent reason. She needs to go on national televison home and abroad to do so, because as those people have not did anything to warrant such a behavior from her, nor his Obama. Yet, she is still acting act with what, who knows, she is a threat to herself and the American people. I feel sorry for her, it is really embarassing, honestly.

Posted by: Nisey01 | April 26, 2008 11:38 PM | Report abuse

.

=================================================

.

....................HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR

.

=================================================


Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 11:37 PM | Report abuse

If you believe any of the BS that Jacksmith has been desperately posting for the past weeks,

YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

That he is, goes without speaking.

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 11:37 PM | Report abuse

" Obama voted for "America's chickens are coming home to roost".."


The Clinton demographics favor the un-educated...

.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 11:36 PM | Report abuse

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

OBAMA FUNDED THE WAR $300 BILLION AND NOW AGAIN THIS JULY.

OBAMA IS A WHIMP IF HE DOESN'T FUND IT.
OBAMA PISSES OFF LEFTIES IF HE DOES FUND IT.
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

WHIMPOMA CAN'T DEBATE HILLARY HE IS A CHICKEN s____

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{

COUNT FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN OR 30 MILLION ANGRY WILL VOTE MCCAIN IN NOVEEMBER.
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

NOBAMA PAID OFF THE S.C.B.C. TO GET JEBB BUSH TO MOVE THE PRIMARY FORWARD.

SNOBAMA GOT MONEY FROM SADDAM HUSSEIN THROUGH THE U.N. OIL FOR FOOD PROGRAM LAUNDERED BY AUCHI. AUCHI GAVE 3.1 MILLION TO REZKO AND REZKO GAVE IT TO OBAMA.
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

OBAMA IS UNELECTABLE. HE HAS TOO MANY TERRORIST FRIENDS STARTING WITH WILLIAM AYERS. THANKS AL GORE, OPRAH, JOHN EDWARDS, PELOSI, HARRY REID AND THE REST OF THE LOSERS THAT GOT US THIS LOSER.
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

MCCAIN 2008 AND I AM A BLACK WOMAN. I WILLNOT VOTE FOR NOBAMA

Posted by: GRACE | April 26, 2008 11:34 PM | Report abuse

"Obama is a MARXIST wussie..."


The Clinton demographics favor the un-educated...

.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 11:33 PM | Report abuse

"If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience."

Hey, there, Jack $h!t: What ARE her "35 years of experience?" Serving tea to the ladies? Ducking sniper fire in Bosnia? What is she going to tell us next? I can hardly wait....

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse


OBAMA VOTED FOR DICK CHENEY ENERGY BILL

OBAMA VOTED FOR "AMERICA'S CHICKENS ARE COMING HOME TO ROOST"

Posted by: Jamal | April 26, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse

Obama's fund raising has been so good there are times I wonder how he does it. Now, I think I know. The FEC only requires campaigns to list the donors and dates of contributions that surpass $200 for the entire election cycle. So, small donations from new donors are not put on reports, instead contributions of $200 or less are listed in lump sums as "unitemized contributions." Obama has reported $79 million in these donations. So, it is posible that some of those rich folks Obama was speaking to in San Fran could have added millions and some Enron type bookkeeping could make it look like thousands of new donors giving less than $200. This needs to be looked into by the FCC.

Posted by: skinsfan1978 | April 26, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse

Obama is not going to debate again. The more people know about him, the less they like him.

Posted by: Fred | April 26, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse

GO HILLARY!!! OBAMA SHE HAS A GREAT PROPOSAL!!! YOU SHOULD BE CONFIDENT ENOUGH TO STAND YOUR GROUND AGAINST ANY CHALLENGE "MR. I WANT TO BE PRESIDENT". DON'T BACK DOWN, RUN OR HIDE!!! YOU HAVE WON A FEW BATTLES BUT YOU HAVE YET WON THE WAR. SO DON'T GO INTO TO YOUR UNDERGROUND HIDING PLACE.......MEET THE CHALLENGE MAN...DEBATE HER AGAIN AND AGAIN IF NEED BE. TO REFUSE MAKES YOU LOOK SCARED AND WEAK....RATHER "MOUSY" I MIGHT ADD. IF ANY OF YOU OUT THERE ARE OBAMA SUPPORTERS PLEASE TELL HIM THAT "HIL-ROD" IS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE RING AND READY TO GO THE DISTANCE.

Posted by: Ebonyflash | April 26, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse

I loved the Bill Clinton remark about Obama using the "race card". Using the "race card" would hurt Obama and Clinton made that comment just because he knows the unspoken assumptions that white people make when that term is applied.

Even worse, the slimy bastages are blatantly playing the vagina card. Hippocrates and liars.. more of the same... Hillary 08!

Posted by: demenacer | April 26, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse

"Tom, all the cards you have are in public domain. The cards you don't see are the ones that count. Doesn't give you a false sense of security when a stranger refers to you as "friend" ? Dat's wat i b talkin bout jack, I needs to bounce on up out of here. Peace"

Thanks, Hank! I was graduated from Harvard Law School a few years before Obama. I have a good sense about smelling the odor of a skunk. That's why my cynicism about the Clintons. Got no "friends".

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 11:28 PM | Report abuse

.


=================================================

.

....................HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR

.

=================================================

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 11:27 PM | Report abuse

Hillary and Bill are showing their true selves, after the African American and minority people that once put them into office have found a better candidate. They have the audacity to hunt down, because their vision has lost sight of reality. Need better target pratice, I'd suggest. Check out the man in the mirror! OBAMA 08

Posted by: Nisey01 | April 26, 2008 11:26 PM | Report abuse

"I just want her to shut he "pie hole.""

"Hillary is a stupid face. Go away, Hillary."

Above are just a couple of examples of the typical articulate Obama supporter explaining his or her nuanced position in favor of their candidate.

And yet it's a total mystery to Obama people as to why the average Clinton voter will find it more palatable to vote for McCain than Obama. Well, mystery solved.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | April 26, 2008 11:26 PM | Report abuse

Jacksmith, How many times are you going to post the same rah rah?. It is not enough to just bash Obama for all the nonsense you are attributing to him. This is the same stupid politics that's been playing for some time now and genuine issues were left alone. People are really suffering today and it will continue because you and your ilk are focusing on non-issues thereby diverting the attention of the populace.Debate issues and let people see you as a reasonable man instead of this petty nonsense you are peddling against Obama.

Posted by: No_Jacksmith | April 26, 2008 11:25 PM | Report abuse

22 IDIOTIC DEBATES

AND HILLARY STILL FORGETS

WHICH STATES SHE AGREES COUNTS

DID SHE FAIL NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND?

Posted by: 22 IDIOTIC DEBATES | April 26, 2008 11:25 PM | Report abuse

. ............_. ,-´``;
. . . . . . . . . .,`. . .`-----´..
. . . . . . . . . .,. . . . . .~ .`- .
. . . . . . . . . ,´. . . . . . . .o. .o__
. . . . . . . . _|. . . . . . . . . . . . (#)
. . . . . . . _. ´`~-.. . . . . . . . . .,´
. . . . . . .,. .,.-~-.´ -.,. . . ..´--~` OBAMA 2008
. . . . . . /. ./. . . . .}. .` -..,/
. . . . . /. ,´___. . :/. . . . . .
. . . . /´`-.|. . . `´-..´........ . .
. . . ;. . . . . . . . . . . . .)-.....|
. . .|. . . . .´ ---........-´. . . ,´
. . .´,. . ,....... . . . . . . . . .,´
. . . .´ ,/. . . . `,. . . . . . . ,´
. . . . .. . . . . .. . . .,.- ´
. . . . . ´,. . . . . ´,-~´`. ;. . . . . ..,=======,
. . . . . .|. . . . . ;. . . /__. . . . . . .......... . . /
. . . . . /. . . . . /__. . . . .). . . . . . . ..... . . /
. . . . . ´-.. . . . . . .)----~´. . .. . .\______/
. . . . . . .´ - .......-`

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 11:24 PM | Report abuse

Hillary and Bill are showing their true selves, after the African people that once put them into office have found a better candidate. They have the audacity to hunt down, because their vision has lost sight of reality. Need better target pratice, I'd suggest. Check out the man in the mirror! OBAMA 08

Posted by: Nisey01 | April 26, 2008 11:23 PM | Report abuse

RAUL WE LOVE YOU IN CHICAGO SO PLEASE USE YOUR SUPERDUPER DELEGATE POWERS TO VOTE FOR OBAMA

HUG LOTS OF 20TH WARD VOTERS

OBAMA 08

Posted by: OBAMAMANICS LOVE RAUL | April 26, 2008 11:23 PM | Report abuse

GO HILLARY!!! OBAMA SHE HAS A GREAT PROPOSAL!!! YOU SHOULD CONFIDENT ENOUGH TO STAND YOUR GROUND AGAINST ANY CHALLENGE "MR. I WANT TO BE PRESIDENT". DON'T BACK DOWN, RUN OR HIDE!!! YOU HAVE WON A FEW BATTLES BUT YOU HAVE YET WON THE WAR. SO DON'T GO INTO TO YOUR UNDERGROUND HIDING PLACE.......MEET THE CHALLENGE MAN...DEBATE HER AGAIN AND AGAIN IF NEED BE. TO REFUSE MAKES YOU LOOK SCARED AND WEAK....RATHER "MOUSY" I MIGHT ADD. IF ANY OF YOU OUT THERE ARE OBAMA SUPPORTERS PLEASE TELL HIM THAT "HIL-ROD" IS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE RING AND READY TOGO THE DISTANCE.

Posted by: Ebonyflash | April 26, 2008 11:22 PM | Report abuse

"you'd think ba ba man wouldn't be such a wuss wuss about

debating someone that he is obviously so much better than..."

Why would one bother? You want to debate the cockroach that crawls out from under your wrench?

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 11:22 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a joke. I'm glad many of you are realizing this with this debate stuff.

Like someone said, she needs cheap advertisement to keep up with Obama or some type of distraction.


I wonder how much Bill paid George Stephanopolous to rig that debate? LOL!

Posted by: Greg | April 26, 2008 11:21 PM | Report abuse

.


=================================================

.

....................HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR

.

=================================================

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 11:20 PM | Report abuse

Once Obama got to the Senate he voted for the war.

Once Obama got to the Senate he voted for the war

Once Obama got to the Senate he voted for the war

To the guy who keep saying Hillary voted for the war, this is just to prove that each candidate must face a decision they may regret.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | April 26, 2008 11:20 PM | Report abuse

Tom, all the cards you have are in public domain. The cards you don't see are the ones that count. Doesn't give you a false sense of security when a stranger refers to you as "friend" ? Dat's wat i b talkin bout jack, I needs to bounce on up out of here. Peace

Posted by: Hank Whatever | April 26, 2008 11:19 PM | Report abuse

I just want her to shut he "pie hole."

All she is doing is destroying her future in the Democratic Party. She could have been the next Supreme Court Justice or the head of the Senate. Her swiftboat tactics have made this impossible.

Lee in Keith Ellison's 5th District, Minneapolis

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 11:19 PM | Report abuse

Susan Powers...

Research this...

www.peterfpaul.com

I know in some cases it won't make a difference. Some people cling to the old days and aren't ready for progression. LOL!

OBAMA!!!!

Posted by: Greg | April 26, 2008 11:18 PM | Report abuse

Lincoln-Douglas didn't have TV. They probably wouldn't have agreed to it either if they had TV back then

Posted by: Walter | April 26, 2008 11:18 PM | Report abuse

"If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American."

Then you are almost as dumb as Jack Smith, which is getting pretty pathetic! Obama graduated from Columbia University [get your kid in there, if you can!] and Harvard Law School, where he was President of the Harvard Law Review, which is the most prestigious legal publication in the US. Unless you believe Jack Smith, who wants the Belleville Arkansas Hang the Ni**ers Post to be the Most Prestigious Legal Publication!

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 11:16 PM | Report abuse

Susan Powers...
"My husband and I are your "average" Pa. voters. Notice there are a male and a female or race being mentioned here. We voted logically, we did the research. We care about our country. We asked what does Obama have to offer our country and what does Clinton have to offer our country? We voted for Hillary, case closed."

ROTFL!!!
Logically? ROTFL!!!!
You are too funny.
You don't need much research to realize Hillary has nothing to offer.
She has already offerred you exaggerated claims and if you did true research you would realize this and not vote for her.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 11:16 PM | Report abuse

what a hillarious obomanation of a party

Posted by: jmc | April 26, 2008 11:15 PM | Report abuse

.


=================================================

.

............................VOTE FOR MCCLINTON
.

=================================================

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 11:15 PM | Report abuse

Core Democrat ,

Obama is far more too intelligent to engage in or allow the American people to witness such another disaster of an debate from Hillary, which is of no benefit to the American people's concerns. Hillary has lied, cried accused, sided with the opponent's team, thrown kitchen sinks, ducked imaginary sniper's fire, she has been quite disillusional, bottom line she wants to go on the rampage again with who knows what or why. Obama has refused the 'how' scenario for her, because he declines for love of not wanting to put the American people in harms's way again and again and again from this loose goose of and her cahoose.

Posted by: Nisey01 | April 26, 2008 11:14 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Hillary Clinton: "You know, more people have now voted for me than have voted for my opponent. In fact, I now have more votes than anybody has ever had in a primary contest for a nomination. And it's also clear that we've got nine more important contests to go."

Sincerely

Jacksmith... Working Class :-)

Jacksmith. This is all crap. She is counting votes that she agreed to not count. She is lying and cheating and spinning as fast as she can, the saying she can make change. I cannot listen to her lying and twisting and honestly feel that she would be different in the White House.

Furthermore, Bill Clinton didn't create the economic wave his White House rode to success. It was created by the dot.com bubble which burst just as he was leaving office. He was lucky enough to ride that wave, great, but don't make it sound like Hilary will get us out of this economic crunch because Bill got lucky.

I don't care if Obama wins or loses in the general election. I am voting my heart, an d Hillary makes it feel heavy.

Posted by: demenacer | April 26, 2008 11:12 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA SHOULD ALSO ASK HILLARY ABOUT..Suzanne Coleman: died when Clinton served as Arkansas Attorney General. She was alleged to have been "romantically" involved with Clinton. Although she died from a gunshot to the back of her head, the death was ruled a suicide! She was pregnant at the time of her death.
Alan Sandorf:died 1991. Sandorf was an employee of NSA (National Security Agency). He was reportedly providing info. to Danny Casolaro, who was an independent reporter investigating the INSLAW case (INSLAW involved Justice Dept. theft, cover-ups, missing records, fraud and gov. corruption of all sorts) Sandorf's body was found in the back seat of a car at the Washington National Airport.
Dennis Eisman: shot to death in 1991. Eisman was an attorney, who was also working on the INSLAW case.
Danny Casolaro: found dead in a Virginia motel room in 1992. His arms had been slashed multiple times. Casolaro was an independent investigative reporter who had extensive files and information on the INSLAW case against the Justice Dept. and other "high ranking" government officials. Even though his body was found, his files and documentations were said to have never been located!
Victor Raiser II: died in 1992 from an unexplained airplane crash. He was co-chairman of the "Clinton for President" campaign. Montgomery Raiser, his son, also involved with the Clinton campaign was killed in the plane crash with his father and 5 other people.
Ian Spiro: died in 1992. His wife and 3 children were found murdered in their home. They had been shot to death (execution style) Several days later Spiro's body was found in the Borego Desert. His autopsy revealed the cause of death as cyanide poisoning. He held files and evidence to produce before a grand jury in the INSLAW proceedings.
Paul Tully: died 1992 from unknown causes. His body was found in a motel room in Little Rock Arkansas. He was supposedly one of Clinton's closest friends, and served as the National Democratic Committee Chairman.

Posted by: TOM | April 26, 2008 11:12 PM | Report abuse

actually


committing electoral fraud could also consist of releasing false information


if it could be proved that the information had influenced the election...


and actually, ballot tampering could be proved in 2000 and 2004


but since there was a re puke licking scammer majority


it could not be prosecuted


then.

things will be much different soon,

and some crows could roost and some supreme court justices could be replaced...


all it takes is an honest intelligence community


which has decidedly been lacking


search on John Negroponte, Honduras, zmag


absence of prosecution is not absence of guilt.


Posted by: dense aren't you? | April 26, 2008 11:12 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: real_democrat | April 26, 2008 11:11 PM | Report abuse

if it could be proved that an organization, such as the republican party

regularly disinformed, or that agents of the inteilligence community interfered with an election...or that any combination of events conspired to influence an election


when it was clearly against the law,


such as the Petroleum Institute hiring bloggers to put down Global Warming....since they would directly benefit from the impression that "public opinion," supported their position it would inhibit research and funding...


yes, it would be possible to gather enough informed opinions and prove conspiracy to take down the bushCO and CRONYs group on mulitple counts of treason, influence peddling, conspiring to influence elections and using intelligence agents as partisan players...


could be hard times for you old fxxxs


you know, like you wouldn't get to chose who you had axxx sex with, not even by tap dancing and plying your tea room trade antics


...see yah fellas, it'll be nice to see your kind meet their demise,


all nice and legal...


.

Posted by: pressing the advantage | April 26, 2008 11:10 PM | Report abuse

It seems some of you want another debate. What for? Haven't we all heard both candidates' positions on just about everything? I just want the whole thing over. Unless the math of the delegates is thrown out, Obama is going to be the nominee. He seems like a very intelligent, capable, and good man. He is some one we cam all get behind in the fall election. His policies and Hillary's are very similar, so if you're really interested in changing the direction of the country and getting democratic policies in place, Obama will be a fine president.

Posted by: Mark | April 26, 2008 11:09 PM | Report abuse

WHEN IS OBAMA GOING TO BRING UP..THE ROSE LAW FIRM..WHITE WATER..VINCE FOSTER AND Kevin Ives and Don Henry: Died August 1987. Reportedly, they had stumbled upon the Arkansas Mena Drug Operation (many stories and articles have been written about Clinton's affiliation with the Mena Mafia) It was first reported that these two young boys died as a result of falling asleep on a railroad track. It was later revealed that Ives had received a crushed skull prior to being placed on the tracks and Henry had been stabbed to death. The following 7 deaths were all of people who reportedly had knowledge and information concerning the mysterious, unsolved murders of Kevin Ives and Don Henry:

Keith Coney:died July 1988 from injuries sustained from a motorcycle accident. Some reports indicated that he was being chased by an unidentified vehicle.
Keith McKaskle: died Nov. 1988 from multiple stab wounds
Greg Collins: died Jan. 1989 from a gunshot wound to the head. No suspect was ever found.
Jeff Rhodes: died April 1989 from a gunshot wound to the head. His body was burned and thrown in a dumpster.
James Milam: died 1989. His death was ruled as being from natural causes, until his head was later recovered from a trash bin!
Richard Winters: died July 1990 from injuries sustained during a robbery attempt. He was a suspect in the death of Kevin Ives and Don Henry. Some reports claim the robbery was only a setup.
Jordan Kettleson: died June 1990. He died from gunshot wounds and was found sitting in his truck.
THESE..

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 11:09 PM | Report abuse

todd:

OBAMA IS AHEAD IN ALL THE COUNTS.

GET USED TO IT!

IN ALL CAPS, IF IT HELPS!

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 11:09 PM | Report abuse

if all of that is true tom,


you'd think ba ba man wouldn't be such a wuss wuss about

debating someone that he is obviously so much better than...


we all know that a scholar is better than a working engineer

right?


hardly.


that's why I don't hire teachers for projects that have to do with


WORK EXPERIENCE...

they don't know where to start but they can

quote schitt out the azzhole

.

Posted by: I guess | April 26, 2008 11:08 PM | Report abuse

-------------------------------------------------
=================================================

.

....................HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR

.

=================================================

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

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 11:05 PM | Report abuse


November 5, 2000
History on the Ballot

Page 1, 2, 3,

Covering Up Iran-Contra

While allegations of Republican shenanigans in 1980 were left in this haze of evidence and denials, the lingering hostage crisis clearly damaged Carter's political standing in November 1980.

Reagan won a solid electoral victory. Then, immediately after Reagan's inauguration on Jan. 20, 1981, the Iranians released the American hostages.

It's also clear that the Reagan-Bush administration followed up release of the hostages with a secret policy of permitting Israel to ship U.S. military hardware to Iran.

Senior State Department officials learned of the secret policy in summer 1981 when an Argentine plane carrying U.S. military supplies from Israel to Iran strayed off course and was shot down over the Soviet Union.

Nicholas Veliotes, assistant secretary of state for the Middle East, investigated the strange case and said he learned from "people on high that indeed we had agreed that the Israelis could transship to Iran some American-origin military equipment. ... I believe it was the initiative of a few people [who] gave the Israelis the go-ahead. The net result was a violation of American law." [For details, see Parry's Trick or Treason,]

The clandestine U.S. relationship with Iran took other turns in the months ahead. Israel invaded Lebanon, followed by a Reagan-Bush decision to introduce American troops and then to begin shelling Moslem villages. Islamic extremists retaliated by seizing more American hostages.

With this new crisis, some of the operatives from 1980 popped up again. Businessman Shaheen and Iranian banker Hashemi urged Casey, who had become Reagan's CIA director, to trade arms to Iran for hostages. Soon, the earlier pipeline of weapons to Iran had merged with the flow of weapons that would be at the center of the Iran-contra scandal.

Vice President Bush had his fingerprints all over both sides of the Iran-contra affair, both the Iran side and the side funneling military supplies to the contra rebels in Nicaragua.

Key personnel from his office, including former CIA officer Donald Gregg who had become Bush's national security adviser, placed Cuban-American operative Felix Rodriguez in Central America. Rodriguez soon was running the day-to-day operations re-supplying the contras and coordinating with national security aide Oliver L. North.

A flow chart that emerged during later investigations indicated that Bush's office managed the contra network after Congress passed laws in 1983-84 first limiting and then barring U.S. military assistance to the contras. Authority for the secret re-supply operation later passed to North, according to the flow chart.

Around the Rodriguez operation in Central America clustered a number of Cuban-Americans from Miami. Some of them, including a few working directly for the CIA and Reagan's National Security Council, used their contra connections in Central America as cover for cocaine smuggling and money laundering, a 1998 study by the CIA's inspector general found.

Perception Management

To protect the growing number of secrets, the Reagan-Bush administration organized a domestic public diplomacy operation, headed by another CIA officer named Walter Raymond Jr.

The goal of this operation was to conduct what was called "perception management," that is the control of how the American people perceived the events unfolding in Central America and elsewhere. A high priority was given to bullying U.S. journalists who didn't toe the government's line. [For details, see Parry's Lost History.]

This protection of the Iran-contra secrets almost worked. The few reporters (including myself) who uncovered parts of the story were subjected to assaults on our reputations and careers.

Despite the growing evidence, most of the major news media dismissed the stories of secret operations and related drug trafficking as conspiracy nonsense.

The scandal only unraveled because of outside events. On Oct. 5, 1986, one of North's supply planes was shot down over Nicaragua.

The sole surviving crewman, Eugene Hasenfus, pointed the finger at George Bush's vice presidential office and the CIA. Bush and other administration officials denied Hasenfus's statement.

The second Iran-contra shoe dropped in early November 1986 with a story in a Beirut newspaper about the Iran arms sales. When the secret about North's diverting Iranian arms profits to the contras was disclosed a few weeks later, the Iran-contra scandal was born.

But the Reagan-Bush administration was not ready to tell all. Immediately, the administration and Republicans on Capitol Hill moved to counter and to contain the scandal. For his part, Bush insisted that he was "not in the loop" on the Iran-contra business.

Cheney to the Rescue

One of the key congressional Republicans fighting this rear-guard action was Rep. Dick Cheney of Wyoming, who became the ranking House Republican on the Iran-contra investigation. Cheney already enjoyed a favorable reputation in Washington as a steady conservative hand.

Cheney smartly exploited his relationship with Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., who was chairman of the Iran-contra panel. Hamilton cared deeply about his reputation for bipartisanship and the Republicans quickly exploited this fact.

A senior committee source said one of Cheney's top priorities was to block Democrats from deposing Vice President Bush about his Iran-contra knowledge. Cheney "kept trying to intimidate Hamilton," the source said. "He kept saying if we go down that road, we won't have bipartisanship."

So, Hamilton gave Bush a pass. The limited investigation also gave little attention to other sensitive areas, such as contra-drug trafficking and the public diplomacy operation. They were pared down or tossed out altogether.

Despite surrendering to Cheney's demands time and again, Hamilton failed, in the end, to get a single House Republican to sign the final report.

Only three moderate Republicans on the Senate side - Warren Rudman, William Cohen and Paul Trible - agreed to sign the report, after extracting more concessions. Cheney and the other Republicans submitted a minority report that denied that any significant wrongdoing had occurred.

The watered-down Iran-contra majority report essentially let Vice President Bush off the hook. Bush's political career was saved.

With the Iran-contra scandal contained, Bush mounted a 1988 presidential campaign that set the modern standard for negativity, race-baiting and a win-at-all-cost ethic. In 1989, Cheney became Bush's defense secretary.

Page 3: Bush's Political War

Posted by: tense moments in your lfe. | April 26, 2008 11:05 PM | Report abuse

Hillary was near the bottom of her class at Yale Law School; Obama was at the top. Hillary didn't make Law Review; Obama was President. Hillary was First Lady in Arkansas and the US. Obama was working in the slums of south Chicago. Hillary was a Goldwater Girl in 1964. Obama was 2 years old in 1964. Obama knew William Ayers, unindicted member of the Weather Underground. Hillary's husband pardoned two members of the Weather Underground who were convicted of murder. Hillary claims to have never heard of the pardons. She gave a speech about them, while running for Senate.

More questions?

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 11:05 PM | Report abuse

I am quite sure that

intending to influence a decision or an election


using disinformation,


would qualify as fraud, if it could be proven that there was "intent to decieve"


"for gain,"


it's all quite easy to prove....just need a fair jury,


and then some quick executions....


yes indeed....stack those skulls and bones up


.

Posted by: barack wears a skirt and calls his wife sir.... | April 26, 2008 11:04 PM | Report abuse

let's be quite clear here


Gates was nominated for Secretary of Defense because he had already committed TREASON before


he is not acting in the United States BEST INTEREST


he is partisan and "on the take,"


examine the relationship of


Mike McConnel Director of National Intelligence with Adm Poindexter...who was indicted for 6 felony counts during the IRAN CONTRA hearings...

Booze Allen Hamilton would be one conflict of interest

but clearly conflict of interest is the hallmark of the current


regime of and "by fraud"


.

Posted by: hcanges | April 26, 2008 11:03 PM | Report abuse

I say let the Candidates meet the voters, not spend their time getting ready for another debate.

When they come to Oregon I want to stand in a crowd and see them in person, not watch them on TV.

The Clinton campaign sent an email asking for two debates in Oregon, but I don't think that's going to happen.

Posted by: Undecided in Oregon | April 26, 2008 11:03 PM | Report abuse

.

HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR

.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

I think the ones who want to end it now,

are the republicans....


after all they have the most to lose....

war profiteering, criminal charges, treason, disinformation, voter influencing based upon fraud...


I think if I were a republick scammer,


a republick conner,

I would be putting some scheiss deposits in my shorts right now...

'cause Hillary's got a big stick, and she knows just where

to put it.


give it to them.

Posted by: o ba ba man had a little pity pot... | April 26, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

.


N E O C O N S

F O R

C L I N T O N


William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Joe Lieberman, Rubert Murdoch, Dick Cheney, Carl Rove.......

=

war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 11:01 PM | Report abuse

most of the truly vicious posters


here are republicans...

and they travel in packs...


and they compliment each other methodically...usually when they are the same person posting from more than one machine...


the use of the word Kool aid

the use of the word robot


the use of pejoratives as intellect


the rewriting of others posts and position to say exactly the opposite...


the theft of a winning insight, and rewriting of it as an attack...


"same stuff over and over,"


O baaaaaaaaa man is taking a ride off of it...


but the propaganda machine is alive and well and in the comments section...

learn to identify it and point it out.

one way to tell a republican is to ask it to reply in facts in a dialogue rather than just spammed information.

I personally have seen Karl Rove here posting fabrication and direct lies...


"reasonable doubt," can be parlayed into position.


pay attention sheeple, check your facts , repitition of lies is a sure sign of a republican sighted...


they are a disease, help stamp it out....

Posted by: asgravating incites of balsamic vinegar. | April 26, 2008 11:01 PM | Report abuse

.

HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR

.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 11:01 PM | Report abuse


Obama IS A DO NOTHING, KNOW NOTHING

Obama LIKES EVERYTHING EASY

Obama HATES TO WORK FOR ANYTHING

Obama LIKES EVERYTHING EASY

Obama WON CAUCUSES WHERE 1500 PEOPLE VOTED - WOW!

Obama IS A MARKETING MIRACLE - THAT'S ALL

Obama IS A BOUGHT AND PAID FOR REZKO BOY

Obama HAS NEVER DONE ONE IMPORTANT THING IN HIS ENTIRE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY LIFE

Obama IS AN OPPORTUNIST AT LARGE

Obama DISRESPECTS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

Obama THINKS YOU'RE STUPID

Obama THINKS YOU'RE TYPICAL BITTER WHITE PEOPLE

Obama THINKS REV WRIGHT IS AS NICE AS HIS HONEST FEARFUL SWEET GRANDMOTHER

Obama THINKS YOU'RE STUPID

Obama DOESN'T THINK HE OWES YOU ANSWERS IN THIS INTERVIEW

Obama WANTS TO HIDE AND REFUSE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS - AGAIN

Obama CAN GO BACK TO CHICAGO

NO ONE WILL MISS HIM

DO NOTHING TWO YEAR FRESHMAN SENATOR

AUDACITY IS RIGHT !!

Posted by: Todd | April 26, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

I can understand it if Hillary wants to have a debate around interests and concerns of the American people. Not those outrageous, insecure, irrelevant debates which only benefits her micro ego. I don't fault Obama for not wanting to waste or engage the American people in such crap, Hillary needs to set in on an outhouse debate to dump that crap.

Posted by: Nisey01 | April 26, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

NapaDoug, my friend, I play everything open face because these voyuerists abusing modern technology to perform illegal wiretaps and violations of our privacies can't help themselves while abusing their "vital tools". One (an eltist noun) could say they are suffering from chronic masterbation. They must be blind by now.

Pa Voter my friend, I wonder if the book you refer to on international relationships has a chapter devoted to Cowboy Diplomacy ? I am told that Cowboy Diplomacy is a product of Visionaries.

My friends my nephew, career airforce, ran a bulldozer clearing those runways in Bosnia. I heard certain stories about gunfire in those zones that did merit keeping one's head down.

Posted by: Hank Whatever | April 26, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

.

Weapons Given to Iraq Are Missing
GAO Estimates 30% of Arms Are Unaccounted For

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 6, 2007; Page A01

The Pentagon has lost track of about 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles


and pistols given to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005, according to a new government report, raising fears that some of those weapons have fallen into the hands of insurgents fighting U.S. forces in Iraq...and may in fact end up in other countries...some have been reported in MEXICO.

The author of the report from the Government Accountability Office says U.S. military officials do not know what happened to 30 percent of the weapons the United States distributed to Iraqi forces from 2004 through early this year as part of an effort to train and equip the troops. The highest previous estimate of unaccounted-for weapons was 14,000, in a report issued last year by the inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.


Related Document

July 2007 GAO Report

The United States has spent $19.2 billion trying to develop Iraqi security forces since 2003, the GAO said, including at least $2.8 billion to buy and deliver equipment. But the GAO said weapons distribution was haphazard and rushed and failed to follow established procedures, particularly from 2004 to 2005, when security training was led by Gen. David H. PETRAEUS aka General BETRAYED the U.S. of A., who now commands all U.S. forces in Iraq....[ funny that eh? ships 190,000 ak 47's to Colombia and gets command, sweet ]

The Pentagon did not dispute the GAO findings.

anyone using the word


"war," in these comments is selling the concept...

Posted by: deux es machina | April 26, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

I am actually surprised that Obama does not want another Debate. So the one remembered is Pennsylvania. Not good for Obama. Obama is trending down all on his own. He was never qualified and his campaign of rhetoric and no actions that back it up, proved it. And certainly he need not talk about Unity. Wright has shown Americans what Obama thinks that means. He has already lost this nomination and has not even figured that out. He cannot win the Presidency, so he cannot get the Super Delegate votes. It would mean they lose, too. The whole party and all elected officials, senate and house seats. It would all go like a deck of cards.

Posted by: Core Democrat | April 26, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

The following post was lifted from above:

"Wonder if Obama is too politically immature to run for president.

I mean if he is afraid of a one-on-one debate with Hillary in one mid-size American state, I wonder what would happen if he were to come face to face with the Iranians, N. Koreans, Syrians, Chinese, and...

The only thing he seems comfortable talking about is racism when he's got the podium or one of his surrogates is venting or is on a pity-pot.

C'mon, Obama, stand up and face the lady one-on-one. Show America you have the guts.

Posted by: Lesley | April 26, 2008 10:29 PM"

****************
First of all, Obama doesn't NEED the debate, Clinton does.

Secondly, he doesn't need to face Hillary to prove he has "guts" as he already stuck his head in the lion's mouth by going on FOX NOISE.

Third, Hillary is no longer relevent to this campaign as she cannot possibly catch up to win.

So what is the point? To shut idiots like YOU up? Great idea, if it could possibly work. You'd make a great feces salesman as you already have a mouthful of samples.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

the slammers


aren't men, they are republick conners...


they bend down to touch the holy one with their lips as the give the sacrificial BJ to the great somdomite in the whitehouse, so that they can get some porking...


it's all about the money, and some of it's drug money...$342 BILLION in unrecorded profits...you don't think the republick conners would make up some schiess to keep it coming ??? please, connect the dots:


GEORGE W. and thdichCHeney


invited in _ILLEGALS_ w/AMNESTY

and

no background investigation... WHY ????


so that they can join the BLACKWATER TRAINING KAMPE South of San Diego for training latina death squad members to drug run for bushCO and CRONYs...in dah BORDER PATROL...


your tax dollars working for

bushCO und CRONERStag drug trafficking teams...

HERE is the article, from a Mexican Source.

http://www.mexidata.info/id1416.html

A Blackwater camp on the border may be a covert attempt to militarize the border without going through congressional oversight or public debate. A so-called "training camp" could probably also function as an operational base. Perhaps Blackwater will obtain government contracts to patrol the border, gradually edging out US agents and putting border security into the hands of a private army away from public scrutiny.


The proposed training camp is located near international

DRUG supply routes

controlled by the Sinaloa DRUG Cartel.

WOT A SURPRISE EH? AMERICA ????

GEORGIEWORGIEMAYBE INVOLVED IN THE DRUG TRADE ???

who could have guessed??? not you little washingtonians going to his secret members_only soirees eh....punters

.AMERICA THANKS YOU SPINELESS brownnosers!!!.fred H. and david B. you know who I'm talkin 'bout....YEAH, YOU ! ! ! ! !

.continuing mildly.


The remote, mountainous terrain is like Afghanistan, where Blackwater has years of experience running covert operations.


Six miles from the proposed Blackwater camp, northern Mexico has a serious problem with "Men in Black" who coincidentally look, dress, and act just like the Blackwater people. In Mexico, the Men in Black are kidnappers, corrupt police officers, fake federal agents, or Zetas, a narco-paramilitary group. Although Americans may still be swallowing the argument that Blackwater is a "military auxiliary" outfit, the Mexicans are not fooled about who the Men in Black are, what they do, and who they work for. That these same people are now camped out on the US border, or are somehow involved in border enforcement, will lack credibility in Mexico.


so let's think about it....

190,000 MISSING AK-47's provided by General BETRAYed the U.S. of A.


and Blackwater training BORDER PATROL AGENTS....after supervising DRUG TRAFFICKING IN AFGHANISTAN


which currently supplies 93 PERCENT OF THE WORLD's HEROIN


what does AFGHANISTAN have in common with COLOMBIA ???


well for starters the DOJ has given the CIA permission to drug traffick in both places w/o fear of prosecution, and they are allowed to keep the money w/o reporting or keeping records of it...

sweet huh!?

doubt me?


SEARCH on Gary Webb, Parry, Bush, Cocaine, DOJ, letter of understanding, IRAN CONTRA


.

Posted by: kelpings of modesty | April 26, 2008 10:58 PM | Report abuse

There is no scenario by which HRC can legitimately win - she would have to win ALL REMAINING CONTESTS.

The Superdelegates would have to just "give" it to her and if that happens, THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY.

The Clintons do not need to ruin the democratic party TWICE.

Keep your pants on, Hillbilly ..

Posted by: DiAnne | April 26, 2008 10:58 PM | Report abuse

"Sure, she exaggerated, no doubt!! The Bosnia trip was very admirable on its' own merits, there was no need to exaggerate. The wounded soldiers were thrilled to see Hillary. She is so on the defensive at times because of all the relentless scrutiny, she does fall into being a politician when she shouldn't. If you watched the last debate, she said as much. She was honest..so what part of being honest do you not like?!?!"

The part about her lying about being under sniper fire, for a start. Just HOW do you explain that one away, huh? LYING! She stole the story from Olympia Snowe of Maine, who it actually happened to. That's what I don't like about Hillary, if you wish. Lying. Then lying about lying. "She was honest?" No, honey; she was caught in a lie.

As for her "feminist" credentials: what part of her 35 years of "experience" is actually her husband's?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 10:57 PM | Report abuse

you don't need to be the party of fear to be

innundated by republik conners


catch a clue little boy.

actually,


McCain is getting no airtime,


and DEMOCRATIC VOTERS ARE INCREASING BY THE HOUR....

no wonder REPULSIVE SCAMMERS


want to claim that it needs to be ended.

the MSM is representing the CORPORTOCRACY,

not the people...period.

anyone saying this needs to end before June is

a liar, a disinformationist, and scared of going to jail.


arrest prosecute and execute for treason.

crush them.

.

Posted by: deft storages | April 26, 2008 10:57 PM | Report abuse

"Ok, so you all hate Hillary for exaggerating this 12 yr. old story....I'm sure you all remember all details of every event in your lives verbatim that happened 12 yrs. ago, right?!?"

No, nobody hates her for exaggerating. They hate her for lying. When someone is tired, they tend to forget. They do not make up stuff in vivid detail. She LIED, LIED and LIED.

Posted by: Charles in Honolulu | April 26, 2008 10:57 PM | Report abuse

.


N E O C O N S

F O R

C L I N T O N


William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Joe Lieberman, Rubert Murdoch, Dick Cheney, Carl Rove.......

=

war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 10:57 PM | Report abuse

looks like some posters

republicans are trying to sell the idea


that "divisiveness is a democratic issue,"


they been using it, by establish POLARITY and POLARIZING AS A PROPGANDA TOOL...


it's what they do, to keep the peasants down...


broder is a tool

a willing tool, a treasonist, a collaborator with the enemy...him and freddy hiatt...zionistas

liars.

wanna talk Kabooki shunt ??? I'll kick youscrawny white but all across these pages....

again.


when the country is run for a few people...


and those few people don't understand that


stupid decisions affect their futures, they their futures decline as well...


consider a simple example:

a one time harvesting of the money saved on labor costs by outsourcing all jobs to cheaper laborers overseas....


reduces consumption, eventually...


although several small iterations of that cycle occur until in order to be made as cheaply as possible and be competitive EVERYTHING IS OUTSOURCED...


still the bottom line is that most citizens are making much less or the same amount as they were 14 years ago...


even as things cost more, in general, certainly energy costs more...


so now you have a civilian population that has much less "extra income," and no real future to look forward to...

because manufacturing pays for

and requires

1. lawyers
2. accountants
3. payroll
4. tax accountants
5. logistics shipping and recieving packaging rail materials
6. sub industries that supply parts or some subset of the manufacturing needs, cleaning supplies etc.

and so on...


when you shut down a blue collar city by moving manufacturing overseas, you take away all of the white collar jobs that support that manufacturing effort as well...

you get ripple effects several layers deep for several years....

drug money laundering in mortgages is not going to have the same effect on an economy as turning out...

Posted by: der broderstund | April 26, 2008 10:56 PM | Report abuse

McCain cheated on his wife, and married the "other woman," and was knee deep in the Savings and Loan DEBACLE from which he earned the sobriequet of being a "Keating 5," member...


but really, the savings and loan fiasco was partly George H.W. Bushes familiy fiasco, as was the BCCI problem and the subprime lending...


money laundering huge amounts of drug money through foreign accounts to get it in country

can cause problems


SEARCH on BUSH, WALKER, Union Bank, BCCI, Silverado, Dulles brother

have a nice day.


you don't need to be the party of fear to be

innundated by republik conners


catch a clue little boyz n girls.

actually,

McCain is getting no airtime,

and DEMOCRATIC VOTERS ARE INCREASING BY THE HOUR....

no wonder REPULSIVE SCAMMERS

want to claim that it needs to be ended.


the MSM has been and is,

representing the CORPORTOCRACY,


not the people...as MSM would mislead you to believe...

giving you advice on how to serve them....

give up, bend over, pass back the vaseline....that's broders advice to others as a lifelong expression of his own value system...

truth justice the AMERICAN WAY...


that's all kids' stuff,

FOAD REPUBLICKKK CONNERs....

anyone saying this needs to end before June is

a liar, a disinformationist, and scared of going to jail.


arrest prosecute and execute for treason.

crush them.

.

Posted by: crackling flames of destruction...heh heh heh | April 26, 2008 10:55 PM | Report abuse

WHITEWATER

SEC OF HOUSING PAYING OFF MISTRESS

MONICA LEWISKI

Posted by: bad associates | April 26, 2008 10:54 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Hillary is stalling this election, to give Obama less time in the debate with McCain. Smart move, in politics, who knows, not even the player themselves knows, feel me.

Posted by: Nisey01 | April 26, 2008 10:53 PM | Report abuse

WaPo...Feel free to get your web developer to add a "Next" button after maybe 20 posts. It's not hard, unless of course you've handed over your web development to a first year intern from Who-Knows-Where State.

It's frustrating to wait for all 100+ posts of raving flamers to load when all you want is the news article.

Posted by: jahlen | April 26, 2008 10:53 PM | Report abuse

Hey Hillary, well ,you know,

DEBATE THIS

Posted by: Kent Duffy | April 26, 2008 10:53 PM | Report abuse

I GUESS I READ TO MANY OF THESE EMAILS...BUT I FEEL KIND OF SICK...IT IS SO SAD THAT IT HAS COME DOWN TO SUCH VICIOUSNESS FROM FOLKS THAT ARE IN THE SAME PARTY...I DO THINK BILL AND HILLARY HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THIS MEAN SPIRTEDNESS...IT HASN'T BEEN ABOUT THE ISSUES SINCE FEBURARY FOR HILLARY. SHE IS USING THE REPUBLICAN TACTICS AND IS IS REALLY UNBECOMING AND CREEPY. I JUST HOPE THAT OBAMA TOUGHENS UP AND FINDS HIS VOICE IN ALL THIS GARBAGE BEING HURLED AT HIM....IT WILL SEASON HIM FOR THE PRESIDENTAL RUN IN NOV....BECAUSE HE WILL BE THE WINNER.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse

Did anyone see the president at the correspondents dinner tonight

I want the job of guy sitting next to Bush explaining the jokes..

No More of Same No McCain

go OBAMA 298 delegates to VICTORY

Posted by: McBush | April 26, 2008 10:51 PM | Report abuse

There should be a DEBATE between Hilary and Bill Clinton. The subject NAFTA.

That is the debate I want to listen to NOW.

Posted by: Charles in Honolulu | April 26, 2008 10:51 PM | Report abuse


JEREMIAH WRIGHT JR.

WILLIAM AYERS

LUIS FARRAKHAN

  FOR

OBAMA

Posted by: Jamal | April 26, 2008 10:50 PM | Report abuse

How did "PAVoter" get upgraded from a KKK know-nothing to a ditzy sorority chick seeking guidance? Got to admit it's an upgrade; but how did PA Voter think of it?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

first off,


let's be clear here....

there is no biblical reason that Israel has to exist as a state.


the original entry in a Torah that stated that was

added in, by someone known as "The Deuteronomist,"


the zionists know this and they have suppressed it...


70 PERCENT OF The Jews, are not zionists...but the poltical system is held by them, with


neocon / monied interests / military industrial complex support....


the jews are a pawn of US corporatocracy and since they do have money to spend it's a symbiotic relationship...

what is going on in SYRIA ????


fabrication, PSYOP


disinformation, intimidation, attempting to leverage SAUDI and UAE


who have recently pulled away from the bush family and CHENEY...why ???


they don't want to give them the money that they promised them, as


they can no longer provide gaurantees of delivery of certain parcels of


injury to their enemies


.did you get that.


crush them

it's their hatred that is despicable.

Posted by: disparate claimes of infestation. | April 26, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

A LITTLE RELATIONSHIP INFORMATION about Washington D.C.:

you are not invisible david and jeff.


American Enterprise Institute aei.org
Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, Newt Gingrich, David Frum


Also: Project for New American Century (aka "PNAC") newamericancentury.org
William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Michael Ledeen, Jeb Bush, Frank Gaffeny, Elliot Abrams, Thomas Donnelly, Eliot Cohen, Richard Perle, John R. Bolton, David Frum.

Their infamous "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report

outlined their aggressive intentions and


the need for a "new Pearl Harbor".


Also: Weekly Standard Magazine weeklystandard.com
Editor William Kristol hosts a whole raft of neocon writers
@1150 17th Street, NW

Posted by: judicious use of time and space....attab | April 26, 2008 10:48 PM | Report abuse

"I welcome educated responses to prove me wrong."

Did you take a position?

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 10:47 PM | Report abuse

posts are for ever...


trackable, stored recoverable...

the names don't matter it's where they come from...

and who owns the account that matters...


special investigations for conning piracies...


unit.


fu and double up the ante punk ess...


.Hello AMERICA,


aloha...ha ha ha ..

I got money on it that


bushCO und CRONYs helped Nicolas Sarkozy win an election in France...


I am pretty sure that those "riots," may have had some help getting started...


you know...wouldn't be the first time bushCO and CRONYs overthrew a perfectly fine working country by persuading the people that things weren't working fine...


that it was all the socialists, the populists, or the communists fault...


what do those three groups have in common ???

they value the working man's input, and inclusion in a working business ecosystem.

none of them works perfectly by themselves, but they are necessary components of good business ecology, and they all require that labor gets paid it's fair share...

looking overseas,
outsourcing has been troubling FRANCE Germany SWEDEN Britain and other European countries...


INTERNATIONAL companies that manufacture in overseas in other countries, and yet claim to be of a particular nationality in their home country, in order to avoid import fees, taxes or tarriffs while ignoring the effect that the corporation has on the home country...

these actions,
are making a few families rich while stripping their countries wealth from the middle class, and leaving them vulnerable to being manipulated... becoming rentors in their own country.


and stripped of the benefits of being citizens... reduced each year as the states and countries budgets are depleted by the loss ofa wage earning middle class...

blue collar, manufacturing, computer jobs, medical jobs, architecture, animation, fabrication, customer service are or have moved strongly offshore...even beltway bandit jobs are being opened to foreign contractors...

ECONOMY IS A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE, act like it


services are stripped away and the elites enjoy a time of


little or no taxes....

smile politely,
castrate them, and turn them lose with the wolves....


put them in with other predators, while they are bleeding...


.

Posted by: oh bly mee someone reading oh...and hes stupit too... | April 26, 2008 10:46 PM | Report abuse

I'm a senior citizen, past my prime, and have voted in every election since I legally could vote, and this is the craziest damn campaign we've had in my lifetime. Have we all gone nuts?

Posted by: Clyde Nugget | April 26, 2008 10:46 PM | Report abuse

As to Hillary and Bosnia...Sure, she exaggerated, no doubt!! The Bosnia trip was very admirable on its' own merits, there was no need to exaggerate. The wounded soldiers were thrilled to see Hillary. She is so on the defensive at times because of all the relentless scrutiny, she does fall into being a politician when she shouldn't. If you watched the last debate, she said as much. She was honest..so what part of being honest do you not like?!?! The Bosnia trip was told accurately in her book, so if the sole purpose from the beginning was to lie, she would have also lied in her book, but she didn't.

Of course, why didn't she just tell Bosnia the way it happened...She really was the first first lady to fly into a war zone since E. Rooselvelt. There was sniper fire in the hillside. She and Chelsea were instructed to move into the armored cockpit and issued flak jackets. There were helicopters patrolling the area for possible danger. They were given a briefing before landing on possible sniper fire. She just simply exaggerated this one...why, I don't know...afterall, Obama has NO Foreign Policy Experience!!!!

Ok, so you all hate Hillary for exaggerating this 12 yr. old story....I'm sure you all remember all details of every event in your lives verbatim that happened 12 yrs. ago, right?!?!

Ok...now to Obama...
Advisor told Can. rep not to worry about political posturing on Nafta..we're just duping the voters(you all don't mind this?!?!?!)
Obama...parents didn't meet the way he told story
Obama...Kennedy/father connection refuted
Obama...Factcheck.org refutes his policy experience
Obama...Factcheck.org refutes his campaign ad claiming not accepting money from oil co.
Obama...Not a professor afterall like he said...just a lecturer
Obama...Almost came to blows with colleague in Il Sen. after Obama mistakenly voted to eliminate child welfare office in colleague's district
Obama...said he would have left Pastor's church if pastor hadn't resigned..yeah..let's see. the anti-american language didn't bother him in years 1-20, but in the 21st year, he was gonna take his family and run. Do you really believe this?!?!
Dang...there's just so much more..but maybe you all can do your own research for a change.

Posted by: kmb08 | April 26, 2008 10:45 PM | Report abuse

My friends, I think that an effective First Lady is an Ambassador at large. Laura Bush has been around the world on her own. Ambassadors do have an opportunity to network. Combined, the Clintons have pre-existing diplomatic connections. Clintons were there in Jordon at the funerals for the victims of a wedding terrorism incident.

During Clinton administration, she was too progressive for most of those watching D.C. being an advocate for social reforms, that makes her a pioneer and a pain in the butt. Conservatives were so taken aback by her activisms because we all know Republican housewives are excluded from talking in public except a chosen few like a certain Senator Madam from Texas. I that certain madam senator has one of those banker's names too, but will get back to you on that one.

My friends we can argue all night. For example, I had a internet friend as correspondent that passed away last year at the age of 93 I think. He learned internet skills in his mid 80s. Some I know can't return an email without assistance from a staff member. Is skin color a requisite for the Position of the President of United States ? Is gender a requisite for Chief Executive of the Executive Branch of the United States ? Is age a requisite for Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States ?

To me Obama, has the education, he is quality personified in my book yet he lacks experience. In the limited decisions he has made to date, I can't judge his foresight qualities. Alot of people went along with a rush to war because it seemed like the patriotic thing to do at that time. We were all misled. That is just too limited in scope to judge his intuitions.

There is this tendency to say, "Well, any port in a storm". I don't see any clouds right now, so I am in no rush my friends. It's a long way to November of 2008.

Posted by: Hank Whatever | April 26, 2008 10:45 PM | Report abuse

"As to all of you calling Hillary a liar...I'd like to see all of you under a microscope at unprecedented levels for years on end, and let's see if you all answer verbatim on every single issue day in and day out without ever appearing dishonest...."

While coming under sniper fire! Give it up! It's not the sort of thing you forget; only make up. It isn't a microscope, for god's sake, it's videotape of the actual event. And still photos. And little Bosnian girls reading poems. And Chelsea standing beside her.

If that's not a lie, I don't know what is!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 10:42 PM | Report abuse

keeeping rack of your names thank you very much IP accounts,

I'm sure you'd advocate Charlie Trie, John Huang, and Norman Hsu for cabinet positions....

Posted by: NapaDoug | April 26, 2008 10:42 PM | Report abuse

I'm personally tired of the debates, and I think that last one did me in. I just to get back to the exciting campaigning, reading about the amounts of new participants, and their approvals of either candidates. I want the time to be used with the people. I really do.

'08

Posted by: Obama2008 | April 26, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Corporations are currently enjoying the highest level of

governmental support than the citizenship.

how are they rewarding the United States?


by being selfish for themselves, polluting, not working to create community or provide benefits or retirement...


the fact that most politicians are linked, own, or are in the pocket of Corporations needs to be delivered to the people, and they need to be taught how to tell the truth....


broder, he's so deep in george's pocket, george thinks that broder is one of his stones...


heck the politicians need to be taught how to tell the truth. how could any of you not know that George W. Bush is incompetent, a liar, a user and has no interest in anything that benefits the people...

he has never shown a propensity to do more that stand next to someone while his Photo OP is being staged.

He is the son of money, made through nefarious deals...

that is what he was taught how to deal from the bottom of the deck...and

shoot anyone that attempts to point it out, by defaming, framing, or killing them...

his time is coming, he is being watched on several levels.

set the underbrush/ scrub / bushCOanCRONYs on fire,

so the voters can see where the forest is...

then they can see the individual issues.


IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, VENEZUELA is all about generating revenues for bushCO and CRONYs, visible or no...

maybe development in DUBAI is paid for by U.S. Taxdollars or stolen oil....hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......


why is Halliburton moving there? seredipity?

.


using race as a ploy to herd you sheeple....pay attention.... do something different for oncet.

Posted by: agression in your advances of dishonesty...I willeatyour livers with a nice chianti...and pesto | April 26, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse

let's be honest...

the Clintons,

are the ONLY democrats to hold the WhiteHouse for two terms


in 60 years...


the other Democrats in the whitehouse???


JFK assassinated by FLORIDA , Bay of Pigs CIA / MAFIA types ... Texas Mafia


JIMMY CARTER....electorally assassinated by George H.W. Bush, Robert M. Gates, William Casey, Ronald Reagan....

SEARCH on October Surprise, Carter, Russian, Paris, IRAN CONTRA, Gates

TREASON...

AMERICA ?????


there is over a

$$TRILLION DOLLARS$

in war profiteering and BIG OIL MONEY BEING PAID OUT RIGHT NOW...


you don't think these people, bushCO and CRONYs aka republick CONs


have bent a few laws to keep the CLINTONS


from turning AMERICA back over to it's right full owners, the citizens????


no VETOES in a republican congress for 7.5 years...that's a lotta money, and inertia...


O baaaaa baaaaaaa man gonna stop it ???


hee hee heee oooooo my...


how? he thinks by being nice and doing the chappaquidick crawl he'll be safe....


he'll compromise with wolverines and hyenas


nope, you either confine and destroy them or you're brunch....

it's simple.


and Hillary is just the beeeatch to do that...

ask Tina Fey


.grow up little hosers.


.it's your world act like it, learn what's going on, take charge, quit asking permission and standing behind slogans.


.

Posted by: jeepers creepers foad leapers | April 26, 2008 10:39 PM | Report abuse

"Obama is a blank slate on this. I welcome educated responses to prove me wrong.

For more informObama is a blank slate on this. I welcome educated responses to prove me wrong."

Well, you've got Hillary saying we will "obliterate Iran." That's pretty clear! What does your textbook have to say about that one?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 10:39 PM | Report abuse

let's be honest...

the Clintons,

are the ONLY democrats to hold the WhiteHouse for two terms


in 60 years...


the other Democrats in the whitehouse???


JFK assassinated by FLORIDA , Bay of Pigs CIA / MAFIA types ... Texas Mafia


JIMMY CARTER....electorially assassinated by the CIA and REPUBLICAN PARTY ACTING IN CONSORT THROUGH:

George H.W. Bush, Robert M. Gates, William Casey, Ronald Reagan....

what is that called ??? treason.

Posted by: the republicans need to be sued in a class-action lawsuit for interfering with a democracy... then i | April 26, 2008 10:37 PM | Report abuse

I wish the media would jump on the youtube video of Rendel's glowing praise of Farrakhan...
The people of PENN need to see this...who's bitter now b.i.a.t.ch...

Posted by: cjohnson | April 26, 2008 10:36 PM | Report abuse

what are Hillary's qualifications, other than being a lawyer...

having been the right hand advisor for a world class presidency


that has been proclaimed to be the best for the ECONOMY ever, and having withstood 16 years of lies and innuendo, and still succeeded...


and served in the Senate?

and understanding who and what she is up against, because she's been there before...


how stupid are you???


o ba baaaaaaaaa man, doesn't even see the danger and has no support....that isn't a trojan horse waiting to unload it's crewe...

and you think he can lead???


he cited George H.W. Bush as an example of a good president....where'd he get that information from his neocon advisors...who will make sure he backs their agendae or he goes down


babaman, is nothing but a voice with some charisma


if he were anyone, he wouldn't have been taking a ride off of the REPUBLICK CONNING spew


as you yourself do. .


.

Posted by: yeah, liet's see if pee wee can think w/o being fed the answers by the "moderators" | April 26, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

"Just because she is old and has been first lady, what does that prove... "

That she is old and has been first lady. That's the only basis for her campaign. Oh, and the chipmunk cheeks.

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 10:34 PM | Report abuse

the reality is that


40 PERCENT OF THE posters and 18 percent of the voters

that voted for Obama are republican....


they know that they can take him, they are counting on it

get real.


A LITTLE RELATIONSHIP INFORMATION about Washington D.C.: you are not invisible.


American Enterprise Institute aei.org
Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, Newt Gingrich, David Frum


Also: Project for New American Century (aka "PNAC") newamericancentury.org
William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Michael Ledeen, Jeb Bush, Frank Gaffeny, Elliot Abrams, Thomas Donnelly, Eliot Cohen, Richard Perle, John R. Bolton, David Frum. Their infamous "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report outlined their aggressive intentions and the need for a "new Pearl Harbor".


Also: Weekly Standard Magazine weeklystandard.com
Editor William Kristol hosts a whole raft of neocon writers
@1150 17th Street, NW

2. Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies sais-jhu.edu
Paul Wolfowitz, Frank Gaffney, Thomas Donnelly, Eliot Cohen
@1740 Massachusetts Avenue, NW

3. Saban Center for Mideast Policy brookings.edu/dybdocroot/sabancenter/
(Neo-liberals do neo-conservativism"lite") Martin Indyk, Kenneth M. Pollack @1775 Massachusetts Ave NW

4. Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs jinsa.org
Michael Ledeen, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, James Woolsey, Frank Gaffney, Jay Garner, Tom Neumann, J. Kenneth Blackwell (OH Attorney General)
@1779 Massachusetts, NW, Ste 515

5. Foundation for Defense of Democracies defenddemocracy.org
Newt Gingrich, James Woolsey, Gary Bauer, Frank Gaffney, Marc Ginsberg, Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Richard Perle
@1020 19th St NW, Suite 340

6. Center for Security Policy centerforsecuritypolicy.org
Richard Perle, James Woolsey, Elliott Abrams, Frank Gaffney, Douglas Feith, Dov Zakheim [IRAN_CONTRA THUGS FOR DRUGS GANG]
@1920 L Street, N.W. Suite 210 (K and L)

7. Washington Institute for Near East Policy washingtoninstitute.org
Martin Indyk, Mortimer Zuckerman, Martin Peretz.
Spin-off of American-ISRAEL Public Affairs Committee.
@1828 L Street NW, Suite 1050

8. Center for Strategic & International Studies csis.org
Brent Scowcroft, James Woolsey, Henry Kissinger, James Schlesinger
@1800 K Street, NW Suite 400

9. Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies israeleconomy.org
David Wurmser; Published Richard Perle's Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (June 1996).
@1020 16th Street, NW

what does this posting mean? not a lot, it's simply that these people work the same job...

a combination of ANTI_ISLAM, PRO ZIONIST, BIG OIL, IRAN CONTRA THUGS FOR DRUGS...

con's piracy GROUPS...you know liars of little mental ability...so obvious are their actions that a person of ordinary intelligence can work out their dishonesty quite easily by searching the net for information about the names from any one group.

Cristol is associated most frequently with PNAC/AEI and ZIONISM...

I believe he has been recorded breaking the law regarding espionage with ISRAEL as the recipient of verbotten information, but I could be mistaken. I know for sure that Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle have been caught passing classified information to Israeli agents...

anyway, these organizations are the cream of neoconism...better known as latter day NAZIS pretending to be jewish

.

Posted by: keeeping rack of your names thank you very much IP accounts | April 26, 2008 10:34 PM | Report abuse

As a student at Pitt, I took a course in international relations. We used the Hans Morgenthau text, "Politics of Nations" (I believe.) This book espouses the realist theory of international relations. We need to look at our national interests and see what is to be gained by opening up a dialogue with countries that do not have our interest in mind. Thus, when Obama said that we will dialogue with other countries in order to solve the crisis of the negative perception of the US, that sounded to me like Neville Chamberlain's appeasement policy. We know how well intentioned that was, and we know how well it worked.

I believe in the realist (and I understand that there is a neorealist) theory of international relations. We need to be rational and determine whether or not it would serve our interests to dialogue with other countries that are hostile to the US's interests. Or would they perceive this as a weakness? What will we gain?

Obama is playing the "middle of the road" game theory during the primaries. He is not showing his hand at what he really believes in. I didn't agree with Clinton's foreign policies in the 1990's, but he did seem to have some type of strategy. He used NATO and UN troops. He did not use up large parts of our domestic military, but had a coalition of countries fighting.

Obama is a blank slate on this. I welcome educated responses to prove me wrong.

For more information on realist theory, see:

http://tinyurl.com/3jqaj3

Posted by: PA Voter | April 26, 2008 10:33 PM | Report abuse

most of the truly vicious posters


here are republicans...

and they travel in packs...


and they compliment each other methodically...usually when they are the same person posting from more than one machine...


the use of the word Kool aid

the use of the word robot


the use of pejoratives as intellect


the rewriting of others posts and position to say exactly the opposite...


the theft of a winning insight, and rewriting of it as an attack...


"same stuff over and over,"


O baaaaaaaaa man is taking a ride off of it...


but the propaganda machine is alive and well and in the comments section...

learn to identify it and point it out.

one way to tell a republican is to ask it to reply in facts in a dialogue rather than just spammed information.

I personally have seen Karl Rove here posting fabrication and direct lies...


"reasonable doubt," can be parlayed into position.


pay attention sheeple, check your facts , repitition of lies is a sure sign of a republican sighted...


they are a disease, help stamp it out....

put someone in office that can see them,


bababoy he a punk.


I challenge him toa debate here, I could kick his butsohard


. that he might get some sense of what it be like to really face off

with someone .

he's been in the baby chair so far.

.


.

Posted by: cheleaus see | April 26, 2008 10:33 PM | Report abuse

David Plouffe, if you read any of these comments, please read these words "NO MORE DEBATES." The debates are nothing but free publicity for Hillary Clinton. She should pay for her smear campaign with her funds. Barack Obama does not have time to sit and talk with her about issues that they have hashed out for months. Obama needs to be out canvassing with the people, getting to know them on a personal level, and holding and kissing babies. Enough already with these debates. Isn't 21 blackjack? Let's call it quits for the free publicity. Barack, do what you do best. Connect with the people one-on-one, not with a free t.v. ad promoted by Hillary and Bill Clinton.

Posted by: enoughalready | April 26, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

so sorry, you don't false o ba ba man supporters don't want AMERICA to know why AMERICA needs to change...


you little creepy crawly DA esses...

I can feel you thinking about my snake...

that being said:


what are the MEN AND WOMEN IN IRAQ DYING AND LOSING BODY PARTS FOR??????

OIL and drug trafficking...

AND !!!,

are the United States Soldiers getting a cut, of _t_h_a_t_

____________________ M O N E Y ? _____________________no

no, they are getting their legs blown off, getting medals of honor and waiting two years to be declared disabled as they lose homes that they can't make mortgage payments on.

READ THIS:
Just as the Iran-Contra scandal evolved to include drug smuggling, the Iraq War also is closely related to drug smuggling. While the Bush regime has so far managed to keep the drug smuggling aspects of the war from reaching the media, evidence is beginning to emerge. The evidence comes largely from a former FBI translator turned whistle-blower, Sibel Edmonds. Hired to translate intercepted messages soon after 9/11 this Turkish lady first blew the whistle on the FBI for dragging its feet. She has state emphatically that she has seen documents that prove the Bush administration was fully aware of the terrorist attack before 9/11. While ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT, has imposed a gag order on her, this courageous lady has only been able to speak in generalized terms. However, she has repeatedly stated that when viewed as an international drug smuggling operation the picture becomes clear.

Sibel Edmonds has provided a huge clue in her generalized statements, a clue that points directly at the BUSH FAMILY and DICK CHENEY. Haliburton the oil services company formerly headed by CHENEY has a long history of involvement in drug smuggling and gunrunning especially through its Brown and Root subsidiary. Brown and Root also has a long history of providing cover for CIA agents. In the late 1970s Brown and Root was implicated in drug smuggling and gunrunning from oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico built by Brown and Root and using ships owned by Brown and Root. In the 1990s Brown and Root was implicated in smuggling heroin to Europe through Russia. The heroin originated in Laos.

The Russian incident surfaced in 1995 after thieves stole sacks of heroin concealed as sugar from a rail container leased by Alfa Echo. Authorities were alerted to the problem after residents of Khabarovsk, a Siberian city became intoxicated from consuming the heroin. Alfa Echo is part of the Russian Alfa group of companies controlled by Mikhail Fridman and Pyotr Aven. The FSB, the Russian equivalent of the FBI firmly proved a solid link between Alfa Tyumen and drug smuggling. The drug smuggling route was further exposed after the Ministry of Internal Affairs raided Alfa Eko buildings and found drugs and other compromising documentation. Under Cheney's leadership of Haliburton, Brown and Root received a taxpayer insured loan through the Export-Import Bank of $292 million dollars for Brown and Root to refurbish a Siberian oil field owned by Alfa Tyumen. The Alfa Bank is also implicated in money laundering for the Colombian cocaine cartels.

THERE IS $80 BILLION IN UNRECORDED PROFITS IN THE FIRST STEP OF AFGHANI OPIUM COLLECTION, refinement...three steps later it could be worth $400 BILLION, in unrecorded profits...

think I am crazy, opinionated, uninformed??? GOOD!

prove me wrong, SEARCH ON Gary Webb, Parry, George H.W. Bush, crack cocaine, Letter of Understanding...

the letter of understanding gives the CIA permission to drug traffick without reporting/recording profits....or being held responsible for criminal prosecution during the trafficking...

that is a verifiable fact...what would you do if someone gave you the opportunity to make $342 BILLION OFF THE BOOKS????

take them down.

Posted by: a director of affairs for m | April 26, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Is it true that the 8-year-old Bosnian girl whom Hillary embraced at Tuzla was secretly a suicide bomber with dynamite inside her loose-fitting blouse?

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

I don't care what she or they propose. Who does she think she is? This is the mass media era of television, satellite and cable plus light. What else can be proved? To make her look better, I don't think so for either of them. As the front-runner that person sets the rules. Just because she is old and has been first lady, what does that prove... Nothing! Maybe if Hillary would have followed the RULES, maybe I would think differently. But after all the drama and racial talk thay and she can go to H*ll!

Posted by: QuietStormX | April 26, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

so sorry, you don't know why AMERICA needs to change...DA esses

you just selling the puppet man, the manchurian candidate that will sell out his own grandmother to get elected...

foad puniters

.


the ECONOMY the NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE...

would require for our nations sake that we kept the citizenship strong by having them fully employed in jobs that allowed them to own homes, pay mortgages, and keep up on credit card debt...


after aLL REALLY STUPID LEGISLATORS....


AMERICANS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN THE STRONGEST CONSUMER MARKET...because they had money you moe rons.....


it's not only emotionally appealing, and sells well


it's the gawwwwwwwww dammmmmmmmmmm TROOOT...


catch a clue pen a'day hole.

no military contracts for other countries...


even if they do lick the presidents j.


and you can actually see that by

SEARCHing on Victor Ashe, BUSH LIPS, Guckert, Gannon, ROVE, LIBBY, Trent Lott, Ken Mehlman, ALL GAY

actually we all know that and we also know that


the bama will not be holding anyone responsible for


what has happened to AMERICA's citizens...

he says it's all HILLARYs delusion...


that there is no war fraud.

that there is no collusion between the Military Industrial Complex , the bush family and friends , Big OIL , the ZIONISTs , and the Sand Brothers...


who traded IRAQI debt for CARLYLE GROUP stock...

SEARCH on James Baker III, Iraqi Debt restructuring , illegal, Saudi Royals Ritz Carlton 9/11


.


want to help AMERICA come out of it's economic slump...


stop the "war" FRAUD machine...

make the US ECONOMY a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY....


put all contractors in IRAQ, AFGHANISTANT, and the US directly affiliated with the "war" FRAUD effect under GAO GSA aegis...


and examine their books.


an OCCUPATION is _ILLEGAL_


however, seperating the EMBEZZLERS aka


bushCO and CRONYs from the MONEY...


makes the United States a lot more legitimate in the eyes of the world...


especially if treasonists, like Robert M. Gates...who used the CIA as a tool to defeat Jimmy Carter in his reelection bid,

or George W. Bush who committed SEC FRAUD with Harken OIL

are arrested and prosecuted for those charges...

you could arrest Cheney for involvement in commiting perjury to Congress regarding WMD et al..it's in John W. Deans' BOOK, "Worse Than Watergate," the exact charges and the way to make them stick...

and put Pelosi as President...


then the IRAQIs might see us as a responsible and capable nation, rather than as a lawless regime "on the take."


.and we could deal for oil as an option.


.

Posted by: B. jeeebus | April 26, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Obama isn't black, he's "Yell-OOH!"
What is he afraid of?
Hillary, why she's just a girl.
Obama got beat up by a GIRL!
Obama got beat up by a GIRL!
Obama got beat up by a GIRL!
Hillary socked Obama square in the face with two right swings: TEXAS! ... OHIO! ...Then she knocked him silly with a surprise left upper cut to his glass-jaw: PENNSYLVANIA! Dazed and confused, Obama runs home to Chicago, on his hands and knees, WHINING, he prays to CNN and MSNBC for intervention. Obama buries his head in his pillow from HARVARD and he cries himself to sleep. Reverend Wright tucks him into bed and reads to him from his own autobiographical book--his favorite fairy tale! Like any coward he won't show his face in the public arena. Obama runs and hides underneath his wife's skirts when he sees Hillary sauntering up the corner! He cowers beneath Michelle's skirts and pleads to all folk who will listen and says, "I'm tired of waffles. They made me carry a heavy bowling ball and forced me to hit these little pins! They made fun of me when I struck out and the ball fell in the gutter! I don't want coffee! I want orange juice! I want my salad made of Arugula! I don't care if those religious red necks are bitter and are starving--I want my $100.00 dollar a pound slice of Prosciutto ham! These "TYPICAL WHITE PERSONS" are all the same--they are all "RACISTS!" I, Obama, am going to "CRINGE!"" Obama jumps up and down, then he throws himself on the floor, kicking and screaming and pounding the floor with his scrawny fists, "I want my White House! I want my White House! YOU PROMISED ME!!!!"

Posted by: genice | April 26, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Wonder if Obama is too politically immature to run for president.

I mean if he is afraid of a one-on-one debate with Hillary in one mid-size American state, I wonder what would happen if he were to come face to face with the Iranians, N. Koreans, Syrians, Chinese, and...

The only thing he seems comfortable talking about is racism when he's got the podium or one of his surrogates is venting or is on a pity-pot.

C'mon, Obama, stand up and face the lady one-on-one. Show America you have the guts.

Posted by: Lesley | April 26, 2008 10:29 PM | Report abuse

"Obama = coward."

Got something to back that up with? That he didn't dodge sniper fire in Bosnia, perhaps?

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 10:29 PM | Report abuse

.


N E O C O N S

F O R

C L I N T O N


William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Joe Lieberman, Rubert Murdoch, Dick Cheney, Carl Rove.......

=

war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war war!

Posted by: ======================================== | April 26, 2008 10:29 PM | Report abuse

GOod

Posted by: Barack Oabama | April 26, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse

BTW, in reference to my post about Hillary's claim she had to stay in Freight Containers in Kabulthere is this from the BBC also fro 2005 the year she was there...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4417072.stm
Another famous Kabul hotel, the Ariana, is currently off limits to developers even though the building is sound because it has been taken over by the CIA for its local headquarters.

Posted by: real_democrat | April 26, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse

The following post was lifted from above:

"Lets be real about one thing, If Obama becomes the nominee for the democrats there is no way he would when the presidency. I myself being half black and puerto rican, deep in my heart the U.S is not ready for a black man to be commander and chief. I would love for this to happen but it won't. There are alot of white folks that love him. But there are a few white folks that will get in the way before a black man becomes president. Its ashame. But on the same token I also think its not right for the majority of all black folks to vote for Obama just because he black. I've talked to several black friends of mine , alot are just voting because of his skin color. But there are many intelligent blacks that know what Obama stands for. Which I personally applaud them, for not voting for him because he is black.

Now for the white folks the same goes, go for what you believe in and don't let skin color get in the way.

I hope one day we can all can get along."

Posted by: Raul | April 26, 2008 9:25 PM

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

First off, Raul, Black voters are not voting for Obama because he is black, they are voting for Obama on issues as well as because Bill Clinton alienated them with his remarks following the South Carolina primary and various spokespersons continued to drive wedges between the black voters ever since. Before this, Hillary enjoyed a majority of the black vote.

Second, there is no reason whatsoever that a black man, woman, or any other color or religion cannot be president. It's supposedly a free country, and there's no better time than the present to put freedom to work.

Third, you are not a black man, you are a lier and a fraud who is misrepresenting himself to give false credibility to an argument based on biggotry. No black person, especially one from Puerto Rico with the worst history of black repression in all the Americas would even suggest such nonsense. I hope your post is deleted.

Posted by: aBigSAM | April 26, 2008 10:27 PM | Report abuse

"As to all of you calling Hillary a liar...I'd like to see all of you under a microscope at unprecedented levels for years on end, and let's see if you all answer verbatim on every single issue day in and day out without ever appearing dishonest...."

Okay, you got me! There was only ONE sniper at Tuzla, and I ducked!

I feel so much better getting it off my chest! It wakes me up with nightmares at 3 a.m. every night!

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 10:26 PM | Report abuse

Andrew L. - Des Moines

I'm sure Bill would have been interested in this guy....He wouldn't have had sex with him, but I'm sure he would have put a stain on him somewhere.

Posted by: NapaDoug | April 26, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse

I have been wondering why other wise probably decent and normal people seem to accept and even like the lies , deceit , exaggerations and dirty no class tactics of Hillary Clinton instead or rejecting it . It should be obvious if one is willing to lie , exaggerate and use smear campaign and every dirty political trick in the book to deceive the people and to get a vote and to win , just what kind of person is she and just what kind of president would she be ? Another same old same old deceptive lying crooked President who would turn around and crap on the American people in a heart beat . I have come to the conclusion it has to do IQ , very low IQ , in other words stupidity , just like George Bush supporters voting and supporting someone against there own and the country's best interest and going so far as to lie and smear right along with their leader. Vote a liar , a phony and someone who will use smear campaigns and dirty no class tactics in and what kind of President and government do you expect you will get ? Sadly I think this is way above your heads Hillary fans .

Posted by: Ralph | April 26, 2008 10:24 PM | Report abuse

It's pretty disappointing to see the lowbrow level of discourse in this article, especially all the ad hominem attacks against the candidates and by the posters against each other. You guys and gals keep it up: it'll assure McCain's win in November.

Let's face facts: Hillary and Obama are a lot closer to each other in every way than they are to McCain. We should be figuring out how to defeat McCain instead of creating divisions in our party. In fact, if either candidate had sufficient integrity, they'd already have resolved this standoff between them.

Finally, responding to Hillary's constant attacks doesn't serve Obama's campaign. He'd already have won a decisive victory if he'd simply ignored her. When he speaks from his heart, the truth sets him free... of her.

-Seer

Posted by: Seer | April 26, 2008 10:24 PM | Report abuse

Obama = coward.

Posted by: thinkwithyourbrain | April 26, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

wha's: speak english? Or just another illegal immigrant?

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Wake me up when they put the people who run the country on the ballot,then I'll vote for the first time sence JFK.

Posted by: twameda | April 26, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

like I said,

prove you're not a republick conner

post about bush administering BJ's to his favorites


or tell me why and how he defrauded CONGRESS...

don't tell me why your false linking makes sense, I know it doesn't you're


a mindless peanut, here let me show y ou the proper response...


maybe the reason George W. doesn't want to give up those emails is because they're alllll about his manboylove...nambla friends.


Did George W. Bush Have Sex with That Man, James Guckert?

By Bob Fertik

So what about George Bush and this man James Guckert (a.k.a. Jeff Gannon) - a $200/hour gay male prostitute? (See Monday's expose by John Aravosis of AmericaBlog.org [1])

Sooner or later, Washington will have to ask: Did George W. Bush Have Sex with That Man, James Guckert?

On January 26, George W. Bush called on Guckert/Gannon at one of Bush's rare press conferences, "bypassing dozens of far more experienced reporters" according to Joe Strupp of Editor & Publisher [2].

I guess that depends on the meaning of "experienced."

This was not Guckert/Gannon's first time near Bush. Guckert/Gannon was at other Bush press conferences and was called on by Bush once before. Moreover, Guckert/Gannon went to the White House nearly every day for nearly 2 years. Each time he went, he got specific permission from Scott McClellan's White House Press Office. And Guckert/Gannon went to Bush's White House Christmas Party.

How did a $200/hour GAY MALE, $200/hr prostitute get near George W. Bush nearly every day for 2 years?

Don't tell me the Secret Service didn't know Guckert/Gannon's background. It took amateur bloggers at DailyKos about 5 minutes to find out Gannon owned male prostitution websites, and just two weeks for Aravosis to find out he was a $200/hour sexual partner / wife substitute. I guarantee Scott McClellan and other top White House officials knew exactly who Guckert/Gannon was. According to RawStory.com, McClellan himself has been spotted at gay bars [3].

So how will the American people learn the sordid truth about Bush, the White House, and Guckert.

______________________________________________________


let's play "fair," here MSM

there's the same kinds of information outthere about Trent Lott, Karl Rove and others...


and the GOP posters here....let's see you go after your own about "morality,"

oh, you're just using "morality," as a position to


herd the sheeple? wotta a surprise from the people who gave you


"hate as a family value,"


it's what they do....it's what stew does...


how do you out them??? ask them to expose the truth, or discuss


the bush family relationship with organized crime or gun running....


it's simple...


they won't they can't


and you can mark another republic scammer


_tagged_

republick conners play hide the salaami with George W. on a regular basis....both ends

.


.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 10:21 PM | Report abuse

jacksmith writes -- "Barack Obama has no real chance of winning the national election in November at this time".

If you study PresidentElect.org then accept that Hillary Clinton has the highest negative ratings of the two Dems still standing, you'll see that it would be an all uphill battle for her to beat McCain.

Reality check -- Barack has been running against two candidates, Hillary and Bill. Billary has been known to the public since 1990, while Barack only burst onto the national stage at the Dem convention in 2004.

While Michelle Obama is articulate, brilliant, and knows her husbands policy & positions extremely well, there is no contest for drawing a crowd between she and WJC. And, I think you'd have to agree that the Clintons got a jump on Obama with the depth and breadth of their political organization.

And yet, his is AHEAD by about 160 PLEDGED delegates!

You folks in Hillaryland like to call a 9.2% win in Pennsylvania "decisive" -- well, I'd say a 52.8% vs 47.2% delegate lead may not be "decisive" lead, but it certainly is statistically significant, given who he's running against! On his way to this pint, he beat 5 other STRONG, experienced candidates. I posit that were it not for Bill stumping for her, and his notariety as a past President, this race would have been over after super Tuesday.

Obama is the best-qualified one in the race, by far. Hillary is good, but not outstanding as a visionary leader.

Were it not for Bill, there would have been no $5 Million loan and this race would have already been over. Obama will still win, it will just take him longer.

And against McBush, mark my words -- 341-197. Obama will score a "decisive" victory, if not a landslide.

Posted by: Andrew L. - Des Moines | April 26, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

Admit it, Clintonites! This race has nothing to do with Hillary; it's about Bill's Third Term. It's pretty clear that he thinks so! And it certainly has nothing to do with feminism! Wife of ex-President runs for President? Can you spell PERON?

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

.


N E O C O N S

F O R

H I L L A R Y

C L I N T O N


William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Joe Lieberman, Rubert Murdoch, Dick Cheney,
Carl Rove.......

.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

teamwork is unnecessary when you have the truth working on yourside, you hosers lickers are not goin,

You are a certifiable nutcase. I'm surprised you endorse Nancy Pelosi for president rather than Cindy Sheehan. Maybe Bernie Sanders would be a getter choice.

Posted by: NapaDoug | April 26, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

Chelsea selling crack huh ? Was she involved in Iran-Contra too, no, way too young for that and not a Bush. Talk about more will be revealed one day though, hmmm, won't go there for now, but ask Fitzpatrick.

I have no crystal ball. A few Mayors got busted for being on the pipe right ?

And affluent people do mess up when you would think their wealth would prevent them from being tempted by corruption, not.

Posted by: Hank Whatever | April 26, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

wit dat little scrawny chicken


man???

he afraid of deh wo man???

he know he a punk we know he a punk


just get on stage an prove it

comeon babba man.

doit squirrel boy.....reac fhfor dou hnut


.

Posted by: wha's | April 26, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

As to all of you calling Hillary a liar...I'd like to see all of you under a microscope at unprecedented levels for years on end, and let's see if you all answer verbatim on every single issue day in and day out without ever appearing dishonest....I don't think you or I or anybody else can do it!!! Why do we expect our leaders to be perfect, when we are all so far from it?!?!

If you all didn't have so many preconceived ideas about Hillary, and you had an open mind to actually try and understand this complicated lady, who is not monolithic, but has many dimensions, you might discover what those who know her best know....They describe her as intelligent, dedicated worker, compassionate, passionate about policy, committed, honest, trustworthy. She's been fighting for human rights long before she met Bill. Give her a freaking break!!!

If the media had done their jobs, and not kept so many stories on Obama covered up, he would never had gotten the delegate lead to begin with. Also, if he didn't get a disproportionate number of delegates in AA rich districts, he still wouldn't have more delegates. To those Obama supporters who say the race is over...tell me...how can Obama get to 2025 delegates?!?! Oh, you say you want to follow the rules...well, then, the rules state the superdelegates should vote for whom they think has the best chance of winning in Nov...!!!! What part of the rules don't you like???

As to FL. & MI, the voters are the ones being punished, they had no voice in the matter. Obama took his name off the ballot in MI by choice!!! He also sent mailers out in MI asking voters to vote "uncommitted"..This is subliminal campaigning to say the least!!! In FL., Obama ran a national ad for two weeks..ooops! His name was on the ballot, but he still lost. He blocked all efforts to have a revote. I understand he didn't want to give Hillary the chance to overtake in the pop vote, but it looks pretty ridiculous to say you are the nominee of 48 states because I'm afraid to let the other two states vote for fear I might lose. He really is pretty "weak" isn't he?!?

In the Il. Senate, Obama earned the rep of "gutless" and "absent"..I guess that explains all his present votes. His colleagues said he tended to be "gone" when time to make the tough votes.

Obama is so disingenuous!! He tells his voters he doesn't have lobbyists' ties..HA!
He takes money from firms that hire lobbyists, takes money from friends of lobbyists, has taken more money from the drug co.'s than hrc, has paid the superdelegates more money to date than hrc, has taken more money from oil exec's than hrc...You know, Hrc takes this money as well, but the difference, she doesn't tell her supporters she doesn't!!!!

Posted by: kmb08 | April 26, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

is a stinky chicken


boy.

he a scarit upnk

Posted by: the baba man | April 26, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

No more debates unless someone reaponsible like the League of Women Voters conduct it. The networks have shown they're more interested in ratings than substance.

Posted by: Terry | April 26, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

Anybody asked Michelle Obama what she thinks about debating? Absurd, right? Why, then, ask Bill?

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

If Ms. Clinton feels her experience in the white house gives her the experience to be the president, then WHY isn't Ms. Lewinsky running for public office? (Forgive me but I just couldn't resist)

I am seriously considering jumping party lines and voting for the Senator from Illinois. He delivers a speech of hope.

Another question I don't understand is why is Ms. Clinton still in the race, I don't think she can win a this point.
Is she really trying to get her party to do somthing underhanded like counting the votes of the States that she agreed would not be included because they violated party rules? Please show SOME level of integrity.

Posted by: republican voter | April 26, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

hello AMERICANS, let's look at some relevant topics...


when the country is run for sake of a few people... already _really_ rich people


and those few people don't understand that


their stupid decisions/sells affect their futures, that they and their futures decline as well those of the "masses," we see the kinds of decisions being made by a COMPLICIT w/bushCO and CRONYs congress, that are bankrupting and destroying the

AMERICAN ECONOMY, and it is a NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE....as the fall of the USSR so aptly demonstrates...


consider a simple example:

the one time harvesting of the money saved on labor costs, by outsourcing all jobs to cheaper labor markets overseas....

results:
reduces consumption, liquidity, flexibility and kills off all of the markets associated with those laborers spending patterns, as well as destroying what has been historically the LARGEST TAX BASE FROM WHICH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DERIVES IT's OPERATING INCOME aka MONEY TO FUND things...


currently everything that can be outsourced is outsourced...the inevitable result of a cycle of bottom lining corporate business....no studies of the business ecology impact on the United States or reconciliation with the realities of those effects...

a country going bankrupt, being taken over by outside influences...being run by and for INTERNATIONAL MONEY rather than for the

citizens...


most citizens remember thoughts such as, "there are no limits," "the home I buy will look like," "the job that I have," "when I travel," "when I graduate,"...

a lot of people are not having those thoughts any more...


when you kill the sheep the wool ceases to exist as a future possibility, when you kill the milk cow...there is no more cheese, when you kill the chicken for a stew there is no more chicken...

when you remove the middle class, there are much fewer large purchases...


so now there is a civilian population that has no real "extra income," and no real future to look forward to...

MANUFACTURING CREATES AND REQUIRES:

1. lawyers
2. accountants
3. payroll
4. tax accountants
5. logistics shipping and recieving packaging rail materials
6. sub industries that supply parts or some subset of the manufacturing needs, cleaning supplies etc.
7. medical facilities/insurance
8. ad infinitum

and so on...


when you shut down a blue collar city by moving manufacturing overseas, you take away all of the white collar jobs that support that manufacturing effort as well...

Pittsburgh, PA; Gary, IN, Detroit, MI, St. Louis, MO, Hickory, NC; or the missing textile mills in N.C. where cotton is grown...

you get ripple effects several layers deep for several years....mortgages, cars, healthcare, vacations, etc.

putting money into the economy, such as drug money laundering by bushCO and CRONY backers to push risky subprime mortgages, is not going to have the same effect on an economy as turning out...

20 MILLION vehicles made in the United States from United States products....

you can't move everything overseas and have a healthy economy. PERIOD, IT'S NOT POSSIBLE....there isn't a flow

adiabatic flow...could be an analogy, used to describe a monetary cycle used to maintain a balanced economy...

READ THIS:
begin quote
"
another poster, horend wrote:

Maverick, I find understanding the markets difficult but will explain some of what I've learned.

GDP growth is not all derived from manufacturing as we are lead to believe.

It is the movement of money from one business transaction - a product is not necessarily created, but fees are generated, mortgages, corporate buyouts, downsizing, transactional legal fees, selling of credit derivatives, etc.

These constitute the movement of money which registers GDP growth although nothing was created.

There is also a report from two leading economics I believe at Harvard which discusses how the Bush administration has incorrectly equated imports as GDP growth.


If oil were sold in Euros and not dollars, the US would lose primary control of the oil markets. There was discussion that prior to our invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein was planning to revalue Iraqi oil in euros, thereby destablizing american markets. Further discussion can be found on line, about the joining of Mexico, Canada and the US - the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America which calls for use of a common currency the Amero. To justify a common currency between our three countries, the dollar must bottom out so this idea can be sold to the American public. Which to me explains the almost intentional devaluation of our currency.
"
end quote.
the important part to me, is that bushCO and CRONYs are treating imported/foreign manufactured goods as_if they were made in_country....saying that they ecomomy is good, when it's in the sh*tter because of their "creative accounting," aka FRAUD

Posted by: be may mabyle | April 26, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

"You see, back in 1993 Hillary Clinton had the audacity, and nerve to try and get quality, affordable universal health care for everyone to prevent the suffering and needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of you each year. :-)"

And she screwed it up totally :-(.

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 10:15 PM | Report abuse

Is.Obama.CHICKEN!? Yes messiah Obama is a chicken. He's a scaredycat. Debate Hillary Clinton one on one? NO OBAMA DON'T DO IT. SHE'LL PULVERIZE YOU. I think your right says messiah Obama. Tell Senator Clinton no for me k?

Posted by: jason | April 26, 2008 10:15 PM | Report abuse

simply making the ECONOMY the NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE...

would require for our nations sake that we kept the citizenship strong by having them fully employed in jobs that allowed them to own homes, pay mortgages, and keep up on credit card debt...


after aLL REALLY STUPID LEGISLATORS....


AMERICANS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN THE STRONGEST CONSUMER MARKET...because they had money you moe rons.....


it's not only emotionally appealing, and sells well


it's the gawwwwwwwww dammmmmmmmmmm TROOOT...


catch a clue pen a'day hole.

no military contracts for other countries...


even if they do lick the presidents j.


and you can actually see that by

SEARCHing on Victor Ashe, BUSH LIPS, Guckert, Gannon, ROVE, LIBBY, Trent Lott, Ken Mehlman, ALL GAY

actually we all know that and we also know that


the bama will not be holding anyone responsible for


what has happened to AMERICA's citizens...

he says it's all HILLARYs delusion...


that there is no war fraud.

that there is no collusion between the Military Industrial Complex , the bush family and friends , Big OIL , the ZIONISTs , and the Sand Brothers...


who traded IRAQI debt for CARLYLE GROUP stock...

SEARCH on James Baker III, Iraqi Debt restructuring , illegal, Saudi Royals Ritz Carlton 9/11


.


want to help AMERICA come out of it's economic slump...


stop the "war" FRAUD machine...

make the US ECONOMY a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY....


put all contractors in IRAQ, AFGHANISTANT, and the US directly affiliated with the "war" FRAUD effect under GAO GSA aegis...


and examine their books.


an OCCUPATION is _ILLEGAL_


however, seperating the EMBEZZLERS aka


bushCO and CRONYs from the MONEY...


makes the United States a lot more legitimate in the eyes of the world...


especially if treasonists, like Robert M. Gates...who used the CIA as a tool to defeat Jimmy Carter in his reelection bid,

or George W. Bush who committed SEC FRAUD with Harken OIL

are arrested and prosecuted for those charges...

you could arrest Cheney for involvement in commiting perjury to Congress regarding WMD et al..it's in John W. Deans' BOOK, "Worse Than Watergate," the exact charges and the way to make them stick...

and put Pelosi as President...


then the IRAQIs might see us as a responsible and capable nation, rather than as a lawless regime "on the take."


.and we could deal for oil as an option.


.

Posted by: teamwork is unnecessary when you have the truth working on yourside, you hosers lickers are not goin | April 26, 2008 10:15 PM | Report abuse

Clinton cannot win the nomination no matter what happens now. She simply cannot get enough delegates if they vote according to the people will. Given that fact, the only reason why she is still in the race is to help John ("i'm further right than Ronald Reagan") McCain.
If the Democrat delegates go against the will of the Party and actually support her, I will not be voting in the election.

Go how I wish we had the British system, at least it works.

Posted by: Geddy | April 26, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

We are screwed no matter which one of these 3 politicians gets elected.

Posted by: concerned | April 26, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

makes the United States a lot more legitimate in the eyes of the world...


especially if treasonists, like Robert M. Gates...who used the CIA as a tool to defeat Jimmy Carter in his reelection bid,

or George W. Bush who committed SEC FRAUD with Harken OIL

are arrested and prosecuted for those charges...

you could arrest Cheney for involvement in commiting perjury to Congress regarding WMD et al..it's in John W. Deans' BOOK, "Worse Than Watergate," the exact charges and the way to make them stick...

and put Pelosi as President...


then the IRAQIs might see us as a responsible and capable nation, rather than as a lawless regime "on the take."


.and we could deal for oil as an option.


.
.


want to help AMERICA come out of it's economic slump...


stop the "war" FRAUD machine...

make the US ECONOMY a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY....


put all contractors in IRAQ, AFGHANISTANT, and the US directly affiliated with the "war" FRAUD effect under GAO GSA aegis...


and examine their books.


it's so easy, so final, so damming....


NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE, the ECONOMY...

heck might even have to call off them war profit tearing payments...


then you'd really see some tears in INSIDER WASHINGTON...


need some advice? start paying attention...

what's going on is obvious.


Karl Rove worked his first election on Nixon's side...

'68 he took down McGovern, left Hubert Humphrey as the candidate to debate tricky thdickNixon


lied out his axx about McGovern, took him down, even got him crying,

the duplicity, the lies, the pandering to hate...


not much has changed since then...

some say that Jim Morrison, Jimi Hendrix were targeted by Nixon....certainly John Lennon was he wrote a book about it...


pay attention sheeple, it's all online and verifiable through libraries, books written about that time period


and the same players are still playing...

they've won every game that the Clintons weren't playing in...


they took down Bobby and JFK Kennedy, and left the coward.


.they also killed Martin Luther King...

they eliminate the positive....

it's what they do, and they sell fear,

give them something to be afraid of


take your country back. take them down. take them down.

crushthem with pliers, figuratively "of course.


heh heh heh.....


Posted by: winkee wink wink fu es | April 26, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

"And she might end up in prison for selling crack. Who knows?"

You got your hypotheticals; I got mine.

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

Who cares about Obama and Clinton? Niether has a prayer of winning against McCain. Believe me, I'm no fan of McCain but for different reasons than most of you. What we need is another president with iron balls like George W.

P.S. Write all the nitwit responses you want, I won't be reading them.

Posted by: ineednostinkingid | April 26, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

I WISH SOME OF YOU BARACK OBAMA PEOPLE WOULD GET ON THE COMPUTER . LOOK UP HIS ELECTION , AS A STATE SENATOR . THE DEMOCRAT HAD QUIT ! HE CHALLENGED SIGNATURES OF VOTES ON THE OTHERS . WON IT .
WHEN HE RAN FOR U.S. SENATE . THE REPUBLICAN , THAT WAS TO RUN AGAINST HIM . WAS IN A DIVORCE COURT. THEY WANTED THINGS ABOUT HIS CHILD , IN THE PAPER . HE DROPPED OUT !

THEN THE REPUBLICANS BRING A OUTSIDER , NOT KNOWN ! ONLY HAVING 3 MONTHS TO GET VOTES , BEFORE ELECTION . ALSO THAT WAS WHEN THEY WAS VOTING THE THE DEMOCRATS IN OFFICE . OBAMA GETS ANOTHER FREE RIDE .

THEN COMES TO PA , WITH THE BACKING OF BOB CASEY , THE NEW U.S. SENATOR FOR PA . SENATOR CASEY BEING FROM SCRANTON . THOUGHT HE WOULD SUCK THE VOTES UP THERE ! THE PEOPLE OF PA WAS SMART ENOUGH TO SEE THIS FAKE OBAMA !

SENATOR CASEY GOT IN WITH 4 OTHER DEMOCRATS 2 YEARS AGO . HIS DAD'S NAME HELPED HIM ! NEXT TIME HE IS UP , HE WILL NOT GET THE BACKING OF THE CATHOLICS ! BECAUSE OF BACKING OBAMA . THE U.S. SENATOR OF THE DEMCRAT PARTY , THAT IS MOST FOR ABORTION !

THE NEW SENATORS FROM 2 YEARS AGO BACKED HIM . NOT KNOW HIM WELL, THAT WOMEN THAT GOT IN THAT YEAR ALSO BACKED HIM . BUT ONES LIKE CONGESSMAN JOHN MURTHA OF PA .

THE ONE THAT HAS BEEN AGAINST THE WAR FROM THE BEGINNING ! HE HELPED HILLARY CAMPAIN . CONGRESSMAN MURTHA WAS A MARINE OVER 30 YEARS ! HE KNEW WHAT THOSE MARINES WAS GOING THROUGH . HE WAS IN THE KOREAN WAR !

SHE MIGHT OF VOTED FOR IT , BUT SO DID ALOT OF SENATORS & CONGRESS PEOPLE . THAT WAS LIED TO FROM W. BUSH ! HOW MANY OF YOU THOUGHT THERE WAS W.M.D. THAT IS WHY WE WENT !

LIKE THEY HAVE EXPLAIN , OBAMA DOES NOT HAVE TIME IN THE SENATE OR GOVENMENT . THAT HE EVEN KNOWS ABOUT THE GOVENMENT !

LIKE THEY SAID ON THE ONE STATION , OBAMA WOULD MAKE A GOOD COLAGE COACH , FOR SPORTS ! TELLING THE TEAM , YES WE CAN !

Posted by: Gloria | April 26, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

Debate Debate means somebody has job that they cant do.

Posted by: twameda | April 26, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

Karl Rove has been doing the same thing for

over 30 years:


He's America's Joseph Goebbels. As a 21-year old Young Republican in Texas, Karl Rove not only pimped for Richard Nixon's chief political dirty tricks strategist Donald Segretti but soon caught the eye of the incoming Republican National Committee Chairman, George H. W. Bush. Rove's dirty tricks on behalf of Nixon's 1972 campaign catapulted Rove onto the national stage. From his Eagle's Nest in the West Wing of the White House, Rove now directs a formidable political dirty tricks operation and disinformation mill.

Since his formative political years when he tried to paint World War II B-24 pilot and hero George McGovern as a left-wing peacenik through his mid-level career as a planter of disinformation in the media on behalf of Texas and national GOP candidates to his current role as Dubya's "Svengali," Rove has practiced the same style of slash and burn politics as did his Nixonian mentor Segretti. Many of us remember the Lincolnesque Senator Ed Muskie breaking down in tears during the 1972 campaign over Segretti-planted false stories in a New Hampshire newspaper that accused Mrs. Muskie of being a heavy smoker, drinker, and cusser and accused Muskie of uttering a slur in describing New Hampshire's French Canadian population. Rove's hero also forged letters on fake Muskie campaign letterhead, disrupted rallies and fundraising dinners, and spread false stories about the sex lives of candidates. Segretti's brush also smeared George McGovern, George Wallace, Shirley Chisholm, and McGovern's first vice presidential choice, Senator Tom Eagleton. Segretti of course did not go on to a high-level White House job -- he was sentenced to six months in federal prison for distributing illegal campaign material.

In many respects, however, the apprentice Rove has far exceeded the chicanery and evil-mindedness of his mentor Segretti. Rove is a tech-savvy puppet master for Bush. Take, for example, last June's discovery of a "lost" CD-ROM in Lafayette Park across from the White House. Contained on the CD was a PowerPoint presentation given by White House political director Ken Mehlman to Rove on the strategy for next Tuesday's off-year election. The slide show showed First Brother Jeb Bush being vulnerable in Florida. Jeb Bush later joked that the disc was part of a plot cooked up by him and his brother to make it appear that he was vulnerable in order to rally an otherwise complacent GOP base in the Sunshine State. Or was it a joke? Jeb Bush and his political minions like Katherine Harris have shown us that if anyone thinks what the GOP has done in Florida is funny they have an incredibly sick sense of humor.

Rove's own tendency to be sick-minded originates with his mentor Segretti. The 2000 GOP primary was a chance for Rove to hone his skills in dirty tricks. His target then was Senator John McCain who appeared to be within striking distance of Dubya in South Carolina after the then-GOP maverick's surprise upset victory in New Hampshire. Rove's operation proceeded to target McCain with false stories: McCain was a stoolie for his captors in the Hanoi Hilton (this from a lunatic self-promoting Vietnam "veteran"); McCain fathered a black daughter out of wedlock (a despicable reference to McCain's adopted Bangladeshi daughter); Cindy McCain's drug "abuse"; and even McCain's "homosexuality." In the spirit of Segretti, Rove engineered a victory for Dubya but at the cost of trashing an honorable man and his family. Muskie, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Hart, Tsongas, Clinton, Biden, Dole, Perot, and others had all seen the Segretti/Rove slash and burn tactics before.

And Rove's penchant for fascistic demagoguery and outright lying continues to this very day. After Paul Wellstone's sons asked that Vice President Dick Cheney not attend the Minneapolis memorial service for their father, mother, and sister, the White House explained that the real reason wasn't the surviving Wellstone family's abhorrence for Cheney but the fact the family didn't want Cheney's Secret Service protection to interfere with public access to the service. Of course, the Rove and Ari Fleischer disinformation machine forgot to take into account that two attendees, Bill and Hillary Clinton, had their own Secret Service details. But such is the case with a White House that takes its lessons from Goebbels and the editorial staff of the old Soviet News Agency Tass.

Rove's dirty fingerprints could also be seen in the Iowa Senate race between Tom Harkin and GOP candidate Greg Ganske. A few months ago, a story was leaked that the Harkin campaign had employed a spy within the Ganske campaign. To put this in a Rove context, we must go back to the 1986 Texas gubernatorial race in which Rove's candidate Bill Clements was taking on Democratic Governor Mark White. Just before a debate between the two candidates, Rove spun the story that his office had been bugged. No proof.

Posted by: tesseracts of grabbin you by the hairy toadstools and ripping them off mates... | April 26, 2008 10:11 PM | Report abuse

"I may vote for Chelsea one day because she may be gaining executive skills operating a pretty large charity corporation."

And she might end up in prison for selling crack. Who knows?

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

who is Michael Chertoff ???

director and controller of


$$$$$ BILLIONS and BILLIONS $$$$$$$$$$$$

of dollars of funds towards where the bush families and friends want them to go ????

look here


SEARCH on MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Green Quest


before that he was a Clinton Hassler.

another Clinton Hassler that you all may remember is


Blackwaters' and George W. Bushes lawyer...how unpredictable...

neh!?


Posted by: develop some insights... | April 26, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

"how do political skills equate to Executive skills and experience ? I may vote for Chelsea one day because she may be gaining executive skills operating a pretty large charity corporation."

They don't. What are Hillary's Executive Skills and experience? First Lady? And?

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 10:09 PM | Report abuse

let's be clear here:


what are bushCO and CRONYs about ????

influence peddling and non-compete contracts

getting a cut of the action if _they_ get you the contract...


evidence:

1. IRAQ

2. AFGHANISTAN

3. Katrina

4. attempting to have BLACKWATER take over the Border Patrol

5. Appointment of Mike McConnel to the Directorship of National Intelligence and the subsequent award of an intelligence "data mining," contract to 6 times felon from the IRAN CONTRA thugs for drugs crowd, Adm Poindexter...

what do bushCO and CRONYs do?????


favor their own, and not all of _them_ are AMERICAN...


castrate them, "figuratively," remove their influence and income and let them loose to fend for themselves amongst the other predators...

nothing more exciting than watching a bleeding shark swim up to a crowd of unbleeding sharks....


pick a chair.

.cut them.and release them to be eaten.


.

Posted by: chance r | April 26, 2008 10:09 PM | Report abuse

I am a white female over 50 who will vote for John McCain if Hiliary gets the nomination. At first I thought she was okay but now I think she is dispicable.
She is a liar (Bosnia, the popular vote),
and fraud (gun toting, beer chasing).
I cannot even stand to look at that obnoxious witch. There should not be any more debates. All she is doing is trying to get free air time because she has no money. She had more money than anyone else at the start so what did she do with it all? I don't want someone managing the U.S.
budget that can't manage her own campaign
budget. I am so afraid that even if Obama
gets the nomination she will do something to stop it. People need to think before they vote for her. She doesn't care about the people of the United States. She just wants to live in the White House again and she is trying to play on women who have always wanted a woman president. I would like a woman president some day but not her.

Posted by: Erica Leino | April 26, 2008 10:08 PM | Report abuse

IT's your country take actions to protect it.

defend your country.


these guysaretraitors.

On June 8, 2007, Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates

IRAN CONTRA FELON, who before that abused his position as a member of the CARTER CABINET to interfere with and commit TREASON AGAINST THEN PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER, by interfering in the release of the 52 IRAN Hostages...

SEARCH ON October Surprise, Iran Contra, Paris, Russian, Robert M. Gates

THIS unnporosecuted FELON, Robert M. GATES, announced that he would advise President Bush to nominate Admiral Mullen to succeed General Peter Pace as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff[2]; President Bush announced the nomination formally on June 28, 2007[3].

During Mullen's Senate confirmation hearings for the position of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mullen identified political progress in Iraq as a critical component of Iraq policy.[5] He noted that, "there does not appear to be much political progress" in Iraq.[5] He also said, "If [the Iraqis] aren't making progress in [the political] realm, the prospects for movement in a positive direction are not very good. Failure to achieve tangible progress toward [political] reconciliation requires a strategic reassessment."[5] Mullen further told the Senate that the United States needs to "bring as much pressure on [Iraq's political leaders] as [the U.S.] possibly can." [5]

Regarding the length and scope of the U.S. involvement in Iraq, Mullen told the Senate that while he does not envision permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, "vital interests in the region and in Iraq require a pragmatic, long-term commitment that will be measured in years, not months." [5]


_____________________________________________________


so what does this mean ?????


a bushCO and CRONYs appointment, means it's all about


locking out competitors and MONEY...


take them down hard.


find out who this guy is and leak it.

.

Posted by: chalice here... | April 26, 2008 10:08 PM | Report abuse

WAPO Article:

Bush Plan To Contract Federal Jobs Falls Short

Joseph Wassmann thought he had a secure position producing videos for the U.S. Military Academy, but not long ago he found his job on the line because of a Bush administration plan to inject more efficiency into the federal bureaucracy.

- By Christopher Lee


let's be clear here:


what are bushCO and CRONYs about ????

influence peddling and non-compete contracts

getting a cut of the action if _they_ get you the contract...


evidence:

1. IRAQ

2. AFGHANISTAN

3. Katrina

4. attempting to have BLACKWATER take over the Border Patrol

5. Appointment of Mike McConnel to the Directorship of National Intelligence and the subsequent award of an intelligence "data mining," contract to 6 times felon from the IRAN CONTRA thugs for drugs crowd, Adm Poindexter...

what do bushCO and CRONYs do?????


favor their own, and not all of _them_ are AMERICAN...


castrate them, "figuratively," remove their influence and income and let them loose to fend for themselves amongst the other predators...

nothing more exciting than watching a bleeding shark swim up to a crowd of unbleeding sharks....


pick a chair.

.cut them.and release them to be eaten.


. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/25/AR2008042501480_Comments.html


he doesn't give a flying fxxx about your FEDERAL OR MILITARY FUTURES or pensions


.either.

Posted by: wake up FEDS | April 26, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

"Debate Debate"?
Is the title a typo?

Posted by: Patrick Berry | April 26, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

America's Debt to Journalist Gary Webb
By Robert Parry
December 13, 2004

In 1996, journalist Gary Webb wrote a series of articles that forced a long-overdue investigation of a very dark chapter of recent U.S. foreign policy - the Reagan-Bush administration's protection of cocaine traffickers who operated under the cover of the Nicaraguan contra war in the 1980s.

For his brave reporting at the San Jose Mercury News, Webb paid a high price. He was attacked by journalistic colleagues at the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the American Journalism Review and even the Nation magazine. Under this media pressure, his editor Jerry Ceppos sold out the story and demoted Webb, causing him to quit the Mercury News. Even Webb's marriage broke up.

On Friday, Dec. 10, Gary Webb, 49, was found dead of an apparent suicide, a gunshot wound to the head.

Whatever the details of Webb's death, American history owes him a huge debt. Though denigrated by much of the national news media, Webb's contra-cocaine series prompted internal investigations by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department, probes that confirmed that scores of contra units and contra-connected individuals were implicated in the drug trade. The probes also showed that the Reagan-Bush administration frustrated investigations into those crimes for geopolitical reasons.

Failed Media

Unintentionally, Webb also exposed the cowardice and unprofessional behavior that had become the new trademarks of the major U.S. news media by the mid-1990s. The big news outlets were always hot on the trail of some titillating scandal - the O.J. Simpson case or the Monica Lewinsky scandal - but the major media could no longer grapple with serious crimes of state.

Even after the CIA's inspector general issued his findings in 1998, the major newspapers could not muster the talent or the courage to explain those extraordinary government admissions to the American people. Nor did the big newspapers apologize for their unfair treatment of Gary Webb. Foreshadowing the media incompetence that would fail to challenge George W. Bush's case for war with Iraq five years later, the major news organizations effectively hid the CIA's confession from the American people.

The New York Times and the Washington Post never got much past the CIA's "executive summary," which tried to put the best spin on Inspector General Frederick Hitz's findings. The Los Angeles Times never even wrote a story after the final volume of the CIA's report was published, though Webb's initial story had focused on contra-connected cocaine shipments to South-Central Los Angeles.

The Los Angeles Times' cover-up has now continued after Webb's death. In a harsh obituary about Webb, the Times reporter, who called to interview me, ignored my comments about the debt the nation owed Webb and the importance of the CIA's inspector general findings. Instead of using Webb's death as an opportunity to finally get the story straight, the Times acted as if there never had been an official investigation confirming many of Webb's allegations. [Los Angeles Times, Dec. 12, 2004.]

By maintaining the contra-cocaine cover-up - even after the CIA's inspector general had admitted the facts - the big newspapers seemed to have understood that they could avoid any consequences for their egregious behavior in the 1990s or for their negligence toward the contra-cocaine issue when it first surfaced in the 1980s. After all, the conservative news media - the chief competitor to the mainstream press - isn't going to demand a reexamination of the crimes of the Reagan-Bush years.

That means that only a few minor media outlets, like our own Consortiumnews.com, will go back over the facts now, just as only a few of us addressed the significance of the government admissions in the late 1990s. I compiled and explained the findings of the CIA/Justice investigations in my 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

Contra-Cocaine Case

Lost History, which took its name from a series at this Web site, also describes how the contra-cocaine story first reached the public in a story that Brian Barger and I wrote for the Associated Press in December 1985. Though the big newspapers pooh-poohed our discovery, Sen. John Kerry followed up our story with his own groundbreaking investigation. For his efforts, Kerry also encountered media ridicule. Newsweek dubbed the Massachusetts senator a "randy conspiracy buff." [For details, see Consortiumnews.com's "Kerry's Contra-Cocaine Chapter."]

So when Gary Webb revived the contra-cocaine issue in August 1996 with a 20,000-word three-part series entitled "Dark Alliance," editors at major newspapers already had a powerful self-interest to slap down a story that they had disparaged for the past decade.

The challenge to their earlier judgments was doubly painful because the Mercury-News' sophisticated Web site ensured that Webb's series made a big splash on the Internet, which was just emerging as a threat to the traditional news media. Also, the African-American community was furious at the possibility that U.S. government policies had contributed to the crack-cocaine epidemic.

In other words, the mostly white, male editors at the major newspapers saw their preeminence in judging news challenged by an upstart regional newspaper, the Internet and common American citizens who also happened to be black. So, even as the CIA was prepared to conduct a relatively thorough and honest investigation, the major newspapers seemed more eager to protect their reputations and their turf.

Without doubt, Webb's series had its limitations. It primarily tracked one West Coast network of contra-cocaine traffickers from the early-to-mid 1980s. Webb connected that cocaine to an early "crack" production network that supplied Los Angeles street gangs, the Crips and the Bloods, leading to Webb's conclusion that contra cocaine fueled the early crack epidemic that devastated Los Angeles and other U.S. cities.

Counterattack

When black leaders began demanding a full investigation of these charges, the Washington media joined the political Establishment in circling the wagons. It fell to Rev. Sun Myung Moon's right-wing Washington Times to begin the counterattack against Webb's series. The Washington Times turned to some former CIA officials, who participated in the contra war, to refute the drug charges.

But - in a pattern that would repeat itself on other issues in the following years - the Washington Post and other mainstream newspapers quickly lined up behind the conservative news media. On Oct. 4, 1996, the Washington Post published a front-page article knocking down Webb's story.

The Post's approach was twofold: first, it presented the contra-cocaine allegations as old news - "even CIA personnel testified to Congress they knew that those covert operations involved drug traffickers," the Post reported - and second, the Post minimized the importance of the one contra smuggling channel that Webb had highlighted - that it had not "played a major role in the emergence of crack." A Post side-bar story dismissed African-Americans as prone to "conspiracy fears."

Soon, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times joined in the piling on of Gary Webb. The big newspapers made much of the CIA's internal reviews in 1987 and 1988 that supposedly cleared the spy agency of a role in contra-cocaine smuggling.

But the CIA's decade-old cover-up began to crumble on Oct. 24, 1996, when CIA Inspector General Hitz conceded before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the first CIA probe had lasted only 12 days, the second only three days. He promised a more thorough review.

Mocking Webb

Meanwhile, however, Gary Webb became the target of outright media ridicule. Influential Post media critic Howard Kurtz mocked Webb for saying in a book proposal that he would explore the possibility that the contra war was primarily a business to its participants. "Oliver Stone, check your voice mail," Kurtz chortled. [Washington Post, Oct. 28, 1996]

Webb's suspicion was not unfounded, however. Indeed, White House aide Oliver North's emissary Rob Owen had made the same point a decade earlier, in a March 17, 1986, message about the contra leadership. "Few of the so-called leaders of the movement ... really care about the boys in the field," Owen wrote. "THIS WAR HAS BECOME A BUSINESS TO MANY OF THEM." [Capitalization in the original.]

Nevertheless, the pillorying of Gary Webb was on, in earnest. The ridicule also had a predictable effect on the executives of the Mercury-News. By early 1997, executive editor Jerry Ceppos was in retreat.

On May 11, 1997, Ceppos published a front-page column saying the series "fell short of my standards." He criticized the stories because they "strongly implied CIA knowledge" of contra connections to U.S. drug dealers who were manufacturing crack-cocaine. "We did not have proof that top CIA officials knew of the relationship."

The big newspapers celebrated Ceppos's retreat as vindication of their own dismissal of the contra-cocaine stories. Ceppos next pulled the plug on the Mercury-News' continuing contra-cocaine investigation and reassigned Webb to a small office in Cupertino, California, far from his family. Webb resigned the paper in disgrace.

For undercutting Webb and the other reporters working on the contra investigation, Ceppos was lauded by the American Journalism Review and was given the 1997 national "Ethics in Journalism Award" by the Society of Professional Journalists. While Ceppos won raves, Webb watched his career collapse and his marriage break up.

Probes Advance

Still, Gary Webb had set in motion internal government investigations that would bring to the surface long-hidden facts about how the Reagan-Bush administration had conducted the contra war. The CIA's defensive line against the contra-cocaine allegations began to break when the spy agency published Volume One of Hitz's findings on Jan. 29, 1998.

Despite a largely exculpatory press release, Hitz's Volume One admitted that not only were many of Webb's allegations true but that he actually understated the seriousness of the contra-drug crimes and the CIA's knowledge. Hitz acknowledged that cocaine smugglers played a significant early role in the Nicaraguan contra movement and that the CIA intervened to block an image-threatening 1984 federal investigation into a San Francisco-based drug ring with suspected ties to the contras. [For details, see Robert Parry's Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth']

On May 7, 1998, another disclosure from the government investigation shook the CIA's weakening defenses. Rep. Maxine Waters, a California Democrat, introduced into the Congressional Record a Feb. 11, 1982, letter of understanding between the CIA and the Justice Department. The letter, which had been sought by CIA Director William Casey, freed the CIA from legal requirements that it must report drug smuggling by CIA assets, a provision that covered both the Nicaraguan contras and Afghan rebels who were fighting a Soviet-supported regime in Afghanistan.

Justice Report

Another crack in the defensive wall opened when the Justice Department released a report by its inspector general, Michael Bromwich. Given the hostile climate surrounding Webb's series, Bromwich's report opened with criticism of Webb. But, like the CIA's Volume One, the contents revealed new details about government wrongdoing.

According to evidence cited by the report, the Reagan-Bush administration knew almost from the outset of the contra war that cocaine traffickers permeated the paramilitary operation. The administration also did next to nothing to expose or stop the criminal activities. The report revealed example after example of leads not followed, corroborated witnesses disparaged, official law-enforcement investigations sabotaged, and even the CIA facilitating the work of drug traffickers.

The Bromwich report showed that the contras and their supporters ran several parallel drug-smuggling operations, not just the one at the center of Webb's series. The report also found that the CIA shared little of its information about contra drugs with law-enforcement agencies and on three occasions disrupted cocaine-trafficking investigations that threatened the contras.

Though depicting a more widespread contra-drug operation than Webb had understood, the Justice report also provided some important corroboration about a Nicaraguan drug smuggler, Norwin Meneses, who was a key figure in Webb's series. Bromwich cited U.S. government informants who supplied detailed information about Meneses's operation and his financial assistance to the contras.

For instance, Renato Pena, a money-and-drug courier for Meneses, said that in the early 1980s, the CIA allowed the contras to fly drugs into the United States, sell them and keep the proceeds. Pena, who also was the northern California representative for the CIA-backed FDN contra army, said the drug trafficking was forced on the contras by the inadequate levels of U.S. government assistance.

The Justice report also disclosed repeated examples of the CIA and U.S. embassies in Central America discouraging Drug Enforcement Administration investigations, including one into alleged contra-cocaine shipments moving through the airport in El Salvador. In an understated conclusion, Inspector General Bromwich said secrecy trumped all. "We have no doubt that the CIA and the U.S. Embassy were not anxious for the DEA to pursue its investigation at the airport," he wrote.

CIA's Volume Two

Despite the remarkable admissions in the body of these reports, the big newspapers showed no inclination to read beyond the press releases and executive summaries. By fall 1998, official Washington was obsessed with the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, which made it easier to ignore even more stunning contra-cocaine disclosures in the CIA's Volume Two..

In Volume Two, published Oct. 8, 1998, CIA Inspector General Hitz identified more than 50 contras and contra-related entities implicated in the drug trade. He also detailed how the Reagan-Bush administration had protected these drug operations and frustrated federal investigations, which had threatened to expose the crimes in the mid-1980s. Hitz even published evidence that drug trafficking and money laundering tracked into Reagan's National Security Council where Oliver North oversaw the contra operations.

Hitz revealed, too, that the CIA placed an admitted drug money launderer in charge of the Southern Front contras in Costa Rica. Also, according to Hitz's evidence, the second-in-command of contra forces on the Northern Front in Honduras had escaped from a Colombian prison where he was serving time for drug trafficking

In Volume Two, the CIA's defense against Webb's series had shrunk to a tiny fig leaf: that the CIA did not conspire with the contras to raise money through cocaine trafficking. But Hitz made clear that the contra war took precedence over law enforcement and that the CIA withheld evidence of contra crimes from the Justice Department, the Congress and even the CIA's own analytical division.

Hitz found in CIA files evidence that the spy agency knew from the first days of the contra war that its new clients were involved in the cocaine trade. According to a September 1981 cable to CIA headquarters, one of the early contra groups, known as ADREN, had decided to use drug trafficking as a financing mechanism. Two ADREN members made the first delivery of drugs to Miami in July 1981, the CIA cable reported.

ADREN's leaders included Enrique Bermudez, who emerged as the top contra military commander in the 1980s. Webb's series had identified Bermudez as giving the green light to contra fundraising by drug trafficker Meneses. Hitz's report added that that the CIA had another Nicaraguan witness who implicated Bermudez in the drug trade in 1988.

Priorities

Besides tracing the evidence of contra-drug trafficking through the decade-long contra war, the inspector general interviewed senior CIA officers who acknowledged that they were aware of the contra-drug problem but didn't want its exposure to undermine the struggle to overthrow the leftist Sandinista government.

According to Hitz, the CIA had "one overriding priority: to oust the Sandinista government. ... [CIA officers] were determined that the various difficulties they encountered not be allowed to prevent effective implementation of the contra program." One CIA field officer explained, "The focus was to get the job done, get the support and win the war."

Hitz also recounted complaints from CIA analysts that CIA operations officers handling the contra war hid evidence of contra-drug trafficking even from the CIA's analytical division. Because of the withheld evidence, the CIA analysts incorrectly concluded in the mid-1980s that "only a handful of contras might have been involved in drug trafficking." That false assessment was passed on to Congress and the major news organizations - serving as an important basis for denouncing Gary Webb and his series in 1996.

Though Hitz's report was an extraordinary admission of institutional guilt by the CIA, it passed almost unnoticed by the big newspapers.

Two days after Hitz's report was posted at the CIA's Internet site, the New York Times did a brief article that continued to deride Webb's work, while acknowledging that the contra-drug problem may indeed have been worse than earlier understood. Several weeks later, the Washington Post weighed in with a similarly superficial article. The Los Angeles Times never published a story on the release of the CIA's Volume Two.

Consequences

To this day, no editor or reporter who missed the contra-drug story has been punished for his or her negligence. Indeed, many of them are now top executives at their news organizations. On the other hand, Gary Webb's career never recovered.

At Webb's death, however, it should be noted that his great gift to American history was that he - along with angry African-American citizens - forced the government to admit some of the worst crimes ever condoned by any American administration: the protection of drug smuggling into the United States as part of a covert war against a country, Nicaragua, that represented no real threat to Americans.

The truth was ugly. Certainly the major news organizations would have come under criticism themselves if they had done their job and laid out this troubling story to the American people. Conservative defenders of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush would have been sure to howl in protest.

But the real tragedy of Webb's historic gift - and of his life cut short - is that because of the major news media's callowness and cowardice, this dark chapter of the Reagan-Bush era remains largely unknown to the American people.


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

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His new book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

Posted by: hey suck on this.... | April 26, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

By the way, Obama just picked up another superdelegate from Arizona tonight.

The math keep getting tougher for Hilary.

Posted by: JonB | April 26, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

Hilarious Rotten Clinton.

Got Lies?

Posted by: Obama_Zombie | April 26, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

PA, voter, all things being equal or "We hold thse truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal" means that religious affilitation has no merit in choosing a President of the United States, that is a holdover from neocon days, or the self chosen ones.

Middle of Pennsylvania is strict conservative and that is the way it is for now. Philadelphia is black and that's the way it is for now. As Lynn Swann a Pittsburgh star was defeated as a candidate for Govenor Pittsburgh went for Hillary.

The numbers the rovian spies don't want you to see are like this. McCain got 400,000 votes in Pa. Ron Paul got over 100,000 votes in Pa. while Huckabee got 70,000 votes. I think that the strict social conservatives said no to McCain in Pa giving almost 30% of their votes to someone other than McCain. I would guess the rest stayed home.

Evidence from PA is that the Republican base is still split. But the Mainstream media wants us all to think democrats are really spit at 50/50. As it does stand now, McCain could not win a swing vote in Pennslyvania. He is going to kiss some more butt for the Rush Mouth crowd and that moves him further right which is how the True polarization powers of Rove got the party in trouble in the first place, what a genious, I am in awe. Hope he made alot of money for himself.

Posted by: Hank Whatever | April 26, 2008 10:04 PM | Report abuse

like the $7.50 dollar an hour

repuddling hooris are posting tonight.

a little defensive aren't they,

and still no substance, just name calling.


.

Posted by: looks | April 26, 2008 10:04 PM | Report abuse

these post sound alcohol insrired

Posted by: twameda | April 26, 2008 10:03 PM | Report abuse

Hey Shirley,

Are you going to tell me that I have money waiting in Nigeria if I provide my bank number?

You're probably new to the whole "internet" thing, but when people forward messages that say something like, "Forward to everyone you know!" usually those messages aren't true. You can always check http://www.snopes.com to see if what you're reading is nonsense.

I've done the work for you in this case.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/landlord.asp

By the way, I'm for Obama. Just seems like focusing on this kind of silliness does nothing for anyone.

Posted by: Chris | April 26, 2008 10:03 PM | Report abuse

I am a moderate.

I have voted for both parties over the years. This cycle, I will vote Democrat - hopefully.

I was neutral in the Democratic primary process, liking Biden and Richardson for their intelligence and experience.

I was neutral once it became about Clinton & Obama, doing what most Americans do, as I glossed over the bad about our past leaders, only remembering the good.

Then, Bill compared Obama's South Carolina win to Jesse Jackson's. Then he was videotaped going off the rails over and over - dumbfounded over his partner's losses. Lieing about voter fraud and whining about unfair press coverage.

It was then that I allowed myself to remember the bad about the Clintons.

Watch or read "Primary Colors", and the follow up novel "Running Mate".

The first story, "Colors", was inspired by the Clinton's 1993 successful run for president, and was written by Joel Klein, a very reputable journalist who watched the Clinton machine in action - behind the scenes for most of the election cycle.

Obviously, events and names are changed and merged to provide legal cover and allow for dramatic license, but as many ex-Clintonians attest - it is an accurate portrayal of the "machine" - the good and bad.

Clintonians will do anything and say anything to get what they want. Their only goal is to win power by any means necessary.

Vince Foster killed himself, like the Libby character in the novel. I don't believe the Clintons "had him killed" or believe in any other sort of wild conspiracy theories - unless you count Hillary's staffers gaining access to his office after his suicide, during the investigation into his death as a conspiracy - if so, perhaps only details of Whitewater or other "gates" to come were removed as Foster was their attorney and had privileged info.

But - as interpreted by the novelist, when you look past the Clinton mythos and spin, you too might begin to see why being a part of all of the high-powered lies, subterfuge, shady business deals, and multiple investigations with the Clintons could bring ya down a little, maybe even make you feel like you were slowly giving away a piece of yourself with each passing day.

How much of a soul can the Clintons themselves have left after all the lies they've told us and themselves over the years - especially to themselves.

They do a very good job of "triangulating"; "word-parsing"; "deflecting" and "spinning".

Remember how he wagged his finger? Remember how he then allowed the whole country to go down the tubes with him? School children reading about semen stained dresses and oral sex?

They, with the help of the liberal left, painted it as a puritanical witch hunt into someone's private sex life.

They compared Bill's actions to those of JFK.

Bill Mahr, a self described pot smoking hedonist, covered in the veil of Libertarianism while subsequently stumping for PETA, says the Lewinsky Prosecution occurred because the right hate sex.

This general sentiment actually worked to allow the public to accept an purjurious almost-impeached president - to the tune of 73% approval ratings! Even Nixon blushed.

It was a "big boy" game of chicken,Bill vs. Starr, and Bill didn't give up one moment until he absolutely had to, regardless of what happened.

Don't forget the finger wagging.

That moment in front of America and his family is an insight into the sickness of our culture and political discourse.

"Lie until you can't lie no more".

The Clintons are doing it again. They should have backed out of this race weeks ago. They will not. They will drag their party down with them and justify it along the way as "giving the people a voice".

Don't give them a third chance at the White House. Twice was enough.

Vote McCain if you have to... but don't let the Clintons back in. I have donated to Obama in the hopes that he's the real deal.

What other choice is there? Good luck America...we need it.

Posted by: Cliff in L.A. | April 26, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse

From the beginning Hilary has used accusations said about her against Barrack. Hilary is elitist ($10.9 Million she made just last year makes her...what, middle class?), a liar, and takes a higher percentage of her political donations from large, wealthy donors. Barrack has over 1 million contributors averaging out to less that $200 a head in donations. All this while many of Hilary contributors are maxed out on allowable political donations.

For those who think experience beats judgement, ask yourself how many cumulative years of experience the Bush Administration had. Speaking of Bush Administration experience, her chief ad strategist is the guy who designed Bush's attack ads on McCain in 2000. For a "chanmpion of the middle class" she certainly like to dance with the devil.

The funny thing is most of Wall Street, Big Insurance, Big Oil, and all the other overpowered corporate interests in this country have given to all of the current candidates. They've been smart enough to hedge their bets for decades when it comes to politics. You can bet when the general election comes around, no matter who is running, Corporate America will be giving maximum donations to all candidates.

The most striking thing is Obama has over one million small, average-joe kind of contributors. This kind of action and these kind of numbers in a politics is unheard of.

The media loved Barrack because he didn't have the history the HRC does. Clinton's very known history makes her an easy target. But now that he's bee drug through the mud a bit too, I'm left with two conclusions:

Most mud on Barrack is "guilt by association," and twisted beyond belief by the media spin machine. If you think Obama is racist because what his Reverend said, why don't you check out his whole sermon? If you think he's an elitist, why not check out the whole speach he made in San Francisco. After 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, one would believe that the American people wouldn't take Big Media's word at face value. The repeating mantra of lies starts to sink in after a while, and they know this. If you're online to read this, you can google Rev. Wrights full sermons and Baracks address to donors in SF.

Most of the mud on Hilary involves her lying to the American people as she flip-flops through the issues. Did she support NAFTA? Did she support the Iraq war? Did she sign a bill allowing Bush to supercede Congress and the UN? Google it, or check out her voting record on opencongress.org to find out.

I used to love Hilary but since she started slinging mud, my love for her has waned. Don't let others trick you into muddling the time line. HRC started the pretty-hate machine this election. And when Obama responds, she points fingers saying "he started it," like a child that would cry when she doesn't have her way.

If Hilary was the same Hilary the championed national health insurance, I'd be a fan. One can never tell anymore. Based on how she's acted as a human being, Hilary has long ago alienated me as a voter.

Posted by: Brian | April 26, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

Just go to youTube dot com and search for "Hillary the Movie" and you'll find all the reasons why she cannot win a general election. Namely Bill's pardons, Travelgate, FALN, Peter Paul et al. If you haven't seen it you don't know what is coming for HRC in the general election.

Obama is trying to keep the party together by not bringing these issues up, unlike the backbiting Hillary who has now alienated african-americans (used Sean Hannity's talking points to attack Rev. Wright), Californians ("elitists") and MoveOn.org ("anti-war activistis"). All she has left is is rural white voters in the Appalachians and old women.

I almost hope she wins just so we can watch the Republican party eat her for lunch.

Posted by: Tired of Debates | April 26, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

To Obama supporters:

Stop saying the primary election is over. It was the republicans who were saying the the election was over in Florida in the year 2000. Democrats asked for a re-count, even a re-vote.

- Democrats in Florida and Michigan deserve to vote just as any other democrat in the USA.

- There are still millions of democrats who haven't voted in the remaining primaries.

- Superdelegates exist to adjust problems in the democratic process. If Florida and Michigan democrats don't get a chance to vote or have their vote count, then super delegates can adjust that. If some states had caucuses, others didn't and weird ways that some states count delegates differently then others, then super delegates exist to adjust that.

Posted by: Charbax | April 26, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

How about 20 questions in the nude?

Posted by: Bob, DC | April 26, 2008 10:00 PM | Report abuse

Bosnia isn't the only lie Hillary has told. More recently(April 19 in West chester PA) she claimed that when she went to Kabul with McCain others that "We were in Kabul, and there weren't safe accommodations. We actually had a row of containers -- you know, you see those containers come off the ships. Those were our accommodations in Kabul."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/clinton-is-agai.html

Posted by: real_democrat | April 26, 2008 10:00 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's gay-lover will appear on Larry King next week. Keep your eyes peeled.

Posted by: HIllary is a muff-diver | April 26, 2008 10:00 PM | Report abuse

Hillary can't outperform Obama on her own merit. A lot of people are voting for Bill Clinton instead of her. If Bush experiment is not a lesson for some, maybe there should be a second lesson.

She demonstrated a bad pitical judgement on so meny occasions including Iraq (Did she consulted Bill?), and her well intended healthcare plan that I really doubt her superiority over Obama as more experinced presidential candidate. Not years in politics but final judjements what counts to me.

Posted by: Obama Supporter | April 26, 2008 9:58 PM | Report abuse

"Bill Clinton is an absoloute disgrace of an ex-president. He needs to just shut up.

Why is he so pressed about getting back to the white house? Everybody knows this is all about him."

Must be something in the water that makes Pennsylvania peons as dumb as "PAVoter." Bend over while Bill sticks it to you and you pretend it's Hillary, dummy! Pretend it's only a cigar!

By the way, did you see the YouTube of Rendell's glowing endorsement of Farrakhan? Dummy!

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 9:58 PM | Report abuse

Obama doesn't owe that hag-queen anything. Don't sink to her level, Barack. Tell her to cram it with walnuts.*


*Rumored to already be doing that..

Posted by: Time for Hillary to go bye bye. | April 26, 2008 9:58 PM | Report abuse

So,

Bill did nothing in the 1990s other than stain a blue dress and raise money from the Chinese.

Posted by: NapaDoug | April 26, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Hillary hates America. Her ambition will allow her to love only herself and the power she craves. She would rather laugh at voters from the penthouse with her gay-lover than do any real work for this country. Suck it, Hillary. We have a better choice in Obama.

Posted by: Hillary Sucks What? | April 26, 2008 9:56 PM | Report abuse

The sour loser, Hillary Clinton, wants more debates, so that she can lie, evade legitimate questions and get free press. She knows that the time is running short so her lies will get unnoticed before people vote. She and Bill Clinton try all kind of gimmics to stay in the headlines. The country will be better off if we can end their silly campaign quickly. Thank you.
NorthCarolinian

Posted by: TellasisPatel | April 26, 2008 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Let's face it. If Sen. Obama says no more debates. That's it! And I don't blame him for taking that stance. Every time that he and Sen. Clinton are in a debate, the presence of former President Bill Clinton can be felt. Whether one is there in person at the Debate or at home watching on television.
Sen. Clinton, is seeking more debate solely to get the exposure on television and the news media is picking up on it. With today's instant televised news media and the so-called expert political commentators out looking to bloody any one whom they are displeased with because of their (the commentators) racist views, it is no wonder we have a display of arrogance on television from all news casters. Enough is enough. If they can't get all the facts and witnesses to prove their facts, then all the hogwash that the news casters and news commentators put out is just that, a lot of hogwash!!!

Posted by: richardcolonel | April 26, 2008 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's gay lover wrote a scathing tell-all and now she's being kept prisoner in Hillary's sex dungeon.

Posted by: Hillary jumped my shark | April 26, 2008 9:54 PM | Report abuse

let's be clear here...

what are the republic conners want ??????

ABC


Anyone But Clinton.

why is that so ????


the Clintons are the only democrats to hold office for two consecutive terms in over


60 years....even with the CIA working against them....

not all of the CIA, just those associated with bushco and cronys....


the attempted assassination of Castro and the murder of JFK

sorta wound up a bunch of them involved in tresonous activities

and they didn't quit,


they just kept adding cronies...


Bill Clinton stopped that, had enough insight to interfere, to not allow himself to take actions that he felt were unwarranted....even though he was using


_their_ intelligence....

the Clintons are the only democrats to defeat the CIA based Republick Conning party in over


60 years...

tricky dick was elected while george H.W. Bush was head of the Republican Party

funny that eh !?

and he invited NAZIS to join the party as advisors for propaganda...

you see many of the anti - Hillary crowd using their techniques here tonight...


stand up for your country AMERICA


remove the CIA backed republick scammers from office en masse


and impeach the false supreme court justices...

it's your country, act like, get rid of the trash.


Robert M. Gates.

you're next little squatter....it's in the cards.


.TREASON is a crime schitt head.


paruse that.

Posted by: so | April 26, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Jeff M.,

As a Republican, I could handle Obama as President. But if Hillary is the nominee, even though I am not a huge McCain supporter, I will do everything I can to defeat Hillary. I'm sure there are a lot of other people in the same boat as me. The country and the world don't need Clinton II.

Posted by: NapaDoug | April 26, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

PA Voter

You managed to put muslim and crazy christian dude all in one paragraph. Wow! Why not just say that he secretly wants to reclaim "white" America? Oh wait...

Posted by: cjohnson | April 26, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

"Bill Clinton is an absoloute disgrace of an ex-president. He needs to just shut up.

Why is he so pressed about getting back to the white house? Everybody knows this is all about him."

Bill Clinton is, in the words of W.B.Yeats, "a drunken vainglorious lout." The unfortunate thing, is that he has got Hillary to enlist in his fantasies.

There is NO feminist angle to this election: it's all about the ex-President's wife as his surrogate for a third term.

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

My Dream: Hoping this inane fight goes to the convention without a winner on the first ballot and then Al Gore is chosen by the party to destroy McCain and bring America to its senses. Right now we get either a nut with two boobs or a boob with two nuts. Gore would be a better president than either of them, more experience by far, executive experience too-- not experience playing doormat to a philandering husband and not experience working as a community organizer. Gore has organized and led an organized worldwide environmental movement to save out very planet (and was a congressman, senator, v.p.) GORE 08 !!!!!

Posted by: PA Democrat | April 26, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a stupid face. Go away, Hillary.

Posted by: Hillary blows my rod daily | April 26, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Bill N, I would say, debate but don't cut into AI or Dancing with the stars, that would a big mistake in my book.

Posted by: Hank Whatever | April 26, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Cantabrigian:

Not very good at reading people, are you? Dumb post. You may wish to learn what contempt at a stupid question looks like. My guess is you get them from your spouse quite frequently.

Posted by: Southern Old White Boy Against the Shrew | April 26, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

People who are attempting to analyze why PA voted for Hillary need to look back into the 1980's and Reagan and Bush years. In the 1980's Steel executives started dismantling factories. Jobs for manufacturing were either sent down south to "right to work" states or overseas. Reagan supported free trade and allowed jobs to flee. When Clinton was elected, many of the jobs in PA were pretty much gone. We did have some prosperity during the time Clinton was elected. Gas prices were about 90¢ per gallon in 1993. At this price, due to free trade and eroding the country's manufacturing base, demand has gone up in foreign countries, putting stress on supplies. Additionally, the dollar has been weakened. Since oil is priced in dollars, it takes a lot more of them to pay for gas at the pumps.

During the Clinton years, we had a little respite. Why did we vote for Hilary? Because we have a hope that somehow she can repeat what her husband did and pull the economy up and out of the dire place it is now in.

Obama is playing game theory and attempting to appear as if he is a middle-of-the-road politician. But his background defies that. He grew up as a Muslim. He joined a church that teaches Black Liberation Theology which blames the whites for the problems of the black community. The attitude enables rich guys like Obama and Wright to ignore the poor black community and blame the whites for causing their problems. I cannot see that Obama will really get anything done if he gets elected. Then back to a Republican administration after four difficult years.

Posted by: PA voter | April 26, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

"Obama is like a balloon with a hole in it."

And more delegates, popular votes, and states won.

What you got? More self-serving lies?

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Tom, how do political skills equate to Executive skills and experience ? I may vote for Chelsea one day because she may be gaining executive skills operating a pretty large charity corporation.

I guess it works both ways. If I was a coal miner, would anyone expect my wife to have coal mining skills ? But if I was a co-partner in political competitions, I would guess that the sum is greater than the whole of two, gee, just like marraige ?

You know, McCain temperment matters while Mrs. Obama's attitude matters less. I think Fox News wants you to believe her attitude matters. I think Fox News and the Republican party majority wants us to think Rev. Wright is running for President of United States. I think other networks are trying to market candidates rather than report ahhhh, reportable news ?

Posted by: Hank Whatever | April 26, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

To all Hilary supporters,

Its Over. Hilary cannot catch up, regardless of how she tries to potray her campaign. She fought a good race but she came short. She lost but its okay. There is no reason to get all fanatical and hateful. Don't be fooled and keep donating your money to a lost cause. There is nothing bad about loosing. Its time to throw in the towel.

Obama/Rendell 08.

Posted by: Bart | April 26, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

By the way, before you all start whining about being "disenfranchised" again, the "franchise" applies to general elections, not to primaries. The Parties [Democratic and Republican] have and reserve the right to make and enforce their own rules as to selection of candidates. The rules they make may be dumb; but they still have to enforce them.

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

God have mercy on us all. Please no more debates. How many ways are there to say the same thing, over and over and over again. Let's start debating John McCain instead. Hillary should do the right thing and just get out while we can still win!!! If the Super Delegates had any "you know whats" they would just put an end to this whole thing.

Posted by: Bill N | April 26, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton is an absoloute disgrace of an ex-president. He needs to just shut up.

Why is he so pressed about getting back to the white house? Everybody knows this is all about him.

Posted by: Bart | April 26, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

"Let the democrats in Florida and Michigan also vote. Re-vote in Florida, re-vote in Michigan. How hard can it be?"

Let Michigan and Florida pay for the revote. That's how hard it can be!

They violated the rules, wilfully. They knew they would be penalized. So let the DNC decide the penalty. According to the rules.

There. Is that so hard?

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse

Cantabrigian

Uh...can you tell me what part of Michele's quote is not true please?

Posted by: cjohnson | April 26, 2008 9:41 PM | Report abuse

Obama VOTED "YES" in support of Cheney's Energy Bill that was developed with the help of the OIL COMPANIES who are now reaping higher profits than ever reported in history.

Senator Hillary Clinton voted "NO" against the Cheney Energy Bill.

Obama's support for the Oil Companies is paying of big time $$$$$. Although Obama likes to claim that his money comes from first time voters; The Washington Post wrote an article on Obama's "Bundlers?" Google - The Washington Post Staff Story of 4/11/08. "Big Donors Among Obama's Grass Roots 'Bundlers' Have a Voice in Campaign," By Matthew Mosk and Alec MacGillis Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, April 11, 2008; A01

Posted by: Cantabrigian | April 26, 2008 9:41 PM | Report abuse

Florida and Michigan had their chance. They DID NOT follow the rules. Are any of you parents?????????? If you tell your teenager to be home by 10:00 but they come home at 11:00; do you let them go out the next night???? I hope the answer is no. Listen, the people of Florida and Michigan need to blame the heads of their state. THAT is who is at fault, NOBODY else.

Posted by: Earl | April 26, 2008 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Top 10 list is the dumbest thing I've ever seen considering her policy proposals are more progressive than his.

Leon

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

If you think Obama is inexperienced- when he has held office 4 years longer than Hillary, you are DEFINITELY AN IDIOT.

Posted by: julieds | April 26, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse


This is sooo stupid and pointless, we've had 21 debates! The next one I want to see will be between Obama and McCain. Can we move on please.

Posted by: cjohnson | April 26, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

The Wall Street Journal (4/21) had a front page story on the ambitious Obama who wants to be KING of the establishment, and will do every thing and anything to sink Senator Hillary Clinton. By the way, this is the same establishment that Obama claims he is going to change. The establishment includes you and me, and everyone who believes in Democracy. However, Obama refused to be interviewed for the article. How much you want to bet it was because he can only talk platitudes about "hope" and "change."
Obama likes to claim that his money comes from first time voters. The Washington Post wrote an article on Obama's
"Bundlers?" Google - The Washington Post Staff Story of 4/11/08. "Big Donors Among Obama's Grass Roots 'Bundlers' Have a Voice in Campaign," By Matthew Mosk and Alec MacGillis Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, April 11, 2008; A01

Posted by: Cantabrigian | April 26, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

I supported Bill through two rocky terms, for better or worse. I supported Hillary, when this all began, even though I admired Obama; I thought he "wasn't ready," and should groom himself for the next electoral cycle. But given how well Obama has managed to outpolitic the Clinton machine, and how bad Hillary has come to look, not to mention Bill, it's hard to see any future for the Clintons in national politics. Maybe Chelsea can make amends?

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 9:38 PM | Report abuse


PLEASE! NO. MORE. No more Jekel and Hyde performances from Hillary. Barack has morally and legally already won the nomination. He dose not need to debate Hillary again. What is needed is a vetting of Bill Clinton since it looks like Hillary cannot win the nomination without him. Hillary, if you can't stand the heat and need Bill to win the nomination for you ... get out of the kitchen!

Posted by: AC | April 26, 2008 9:38 PM | Report abuse

Just to clarify my comment about "jacksmith's" posts:

If you check your facts, you'll see it's Clinton, not Obama, whose campaign donors include the large insurance companies. Obama's campaign has been fueled by hundreds of thousands of regular people donating less than $100 each.

But I'm sure you'll figure out some way to mock that, too. The more I hear Clinton supporters fume, the more they seem to sound like Bush Republicans. Facts don't matter. Decency and honesty don't matter. No matter what happens, you'll turn to snide mockery of people who don't agree with you, marginalizing them as "Obamanuts" or some other demeaning nonsense. I wonder if any of you realize just how many people (like me) are turned away from Clinton by the way her followers misbehave. I don't know if I'll vote for Obama, but I certainly can't vote for her if this is the sort of behavior her presence inspires.

Posted by: DB | April 26, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Let the democrats in Florida and Michigan also vote. Re-vote in Florida, re-vote in Michigan. How hard can it be?

Posted by: Charbax | April 26, 2008 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Then there is Michelle Obama, a very angry woman who expresses anti-American sentiments that, "life in America is not good, we're a country that is just down right mean . . We're a country that is guided by fear, We're a nation of cynics, sloths and complacents." This is the couple the Democratic Party think could possibly be elected to live in the White House! I don't think so.

Posted by: Cantabrigian | April 26, 2008 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Popular Vote doesnt mean anything.

No country decides its election by popular votes because that means that the candidate would only have to win the big cities. All national elections are decided by some form of proportional representation, that way a majority of people are represented.

Also a winner is declared by the metric measured and in this case, its delegates.

Lets be objective and not just emotional. Where is the ethical standard of accepting defeat.

Posted by: Pops | April 26, 2008 9:35 PM | Report abuse

Gasoline prices are soaring in Massachusetts!

Obama VOTED "YES" in support of Cheney's Energy Bill that was developed with the help of the OIL COMPANIES who are now reaping higher profits than ever reported in history.

Senator Hillary Clinton voted "NO" against the Cheney Energy Bill.

Obama's support for the Oil Companies is paying of big time $$$$$. Although Obama likes to claim that his money comes from first time voters; The Washington Post wrote an article on Obama's "Bundlers?" Google - The Washington Post Staff Story of 4/11/08. "Big Donors Among Obama's Grass Roots 'Bundlers' Have a Voice in Campaign," By Matthew Mosk and Alec MacGillis Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, April 11, 2008; A01

Posted by: Cantabrigian | April 26, 2008 9:34 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone in America believe that two families should be in charge of this Country for about 30 years?

Father Bush 8 years as Vice-president
4 as president
Bill 8 as president
son Bush 8 as president

28 years. Enough!!!! for two families in this big USA.

Posted by: Frank Connicor | April 26, 2008 9:34 PM | Report abuse

This is for those of you posting the phony lawsuit garbage without merit against the Clintons.


Paul's claims have not found traction. An audit by the Federal Elections Commission found that neither Senator Clinton nor her Senate campaign had accepted any illegal funds in connection with the Hollywood fundraiser[40], though the campaign was asked to pay $35,000 in fines for having underreported the cost of the party.[41] Paul's suit against the FEC was thrown out; his attempt to bring ethics charges against Clinton were rejected,[42] and his fraud charges against Senator Clinton were tossed out in April 2006.[43] Paul continued to press civil charges against Senator Clinton and former President Clinton for "looting"[44] his business, but the courts refused to allow him to sue Senator Clinton, with the appellate court specifying that her behavior had been "perfectly legal," and allowing her to recoup her legal fees from Paul.[40]

Finding no luck in the courts, in 2007 Paul sponsored and promoted a thirteen and a half minute video titled "Hillary Exposed: The Case of Paul v. Clinton," attacking Senator Clinton. Her office responded "Peter Paul is a professional liar who has four separate criminal convictions, two for fraud. His video features a series of claims about Senator Clinton that are being examined by L.A. County Superior Court."[45] In January 2008, he also re-filed his complaint with the FEC.[46]

Paul's suit against former President Clinton remains, as of December 2007, outstanding. He is seeking $41.9 million in damages.

Post all you want against the Clintons...There will always be folks out to get them because the Clinton's are smarter, work harder, and are far better people than the whole lot of them...

Posted by: kmb08 | April 26, 2008 9:33 PM | Report abuse

The first Feminist candidate? Then why's old Bill still calling all the shots? "Third Term?"

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 9:33 PM | Report abuse

Clinton just needs the debates for free air time, she is running in the red and no one would give her credit.

Posted by: Hillaryus | April 26, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

Debate about what? issues that affect Americans OK... but Jerimiah Wright or Elitism,that has nothing to do with jobs,health care or the trillion dollar war Absolute NO!

Posted by: red27 | April 26, 2008 9:31 PM | Report abuse

""Hillary has proposed that Oregon should have two debates, one on the issues generally and one on you, on rural life in America today and what should be done," Bill Clinton said, according to ABC News. "And if you agree you oughta make your feelings known, either on her Web site or some other way." Per Bill Clinton"

Who's Bill Clinton? He running for something? Oh, wait: the guy with the cigar, right?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 9:31 PM | Report abuse

Obama has a job equal to that of Sisyphus if he attempts to stress his patriotism, and support for the environment. This man is a myth, absolutely empty of character or substance. He will do anything to win this election which is what he has done in his past campaigns. He is a very dirty fighter. Obama adamantly refuses to allow the ballots of Michigan and Florida voters to be counted. Obama will not bring people together because he has NOT done anything of the sort up until now. The same fellow who crafted Gov. Patrick's campaign in Massachusetts is working for Obama. We heard the same chant of "hope" and "change." The Gov. is a dismal failure. We do not need another inexperienced President who wins this campaign with $$$$$, empty words of "hope" "change" "anti-establishment" and lies, lies and more lies.

Posted by: Cantabrigian | April 26, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Why would she suggest a debate without moderators? That's quite telling, now isn't it?

I thought she said the last debate was fair. I thought all the Republicans took her side and called the debate fair.

So why would she suggest a debate without moderators? Hmmm.

Is it possible she knew the last debate was a fraud, moderated by an admitted Clinton supporter who WORKED for the Clintons?

Lame!

The look on George Stupidawfulness's face when the crowd booed him at the end of the debate was priceless. The two of them were utterly confused, having no idea that they were completely unprofessional but also completely incompetent.

Oh, and if Hillary knew anything about the Lincoln-Douglass debate she would know that there WERE rules. True, there were no moderators, but each had a certain amount of time to speak, the other would get a shorter turn, and then the first would get an even shorter rebuttal. Then the second would get his speech, with an argument by the opponent, followed by a rebuttal.


That said, this is definitely interesting. I would encourage Obama to do this IF Hillary could be trusted. But she can't be trusted.

Plus, SHE has nothing to lose.

When a fighter wins, he doesn't have to grant a rematch to the loser. He can simply take on a new contender.

Obama has knocked her down, and the ref is counting. She can either throw in the towel or stagger around on her knees for the entire count. Either way, she's out.

Bring on McCain.

Posted by: Mike of Atlanta | April 26, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Smart move guys, doesn;t matter who win so it seems...GO McCain

Posted by: Go McCain... | April 26, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY

The most electable candidate in November, who can't even win her own party's nomination.

HILLARY

Who said she was only keeping her name on the ballot in Michigan to show she hadn't forgotten them - and now reveals it was so she could get them counted in her favor.

HILLARY

Who is only marginally ahead in the popular vote because no one ran against her in Michigan. Sorry, Hill, that won't be the case in November. Make way for someone who can actually win against another candidate.

HILLARY

Who said the voters are the ones who should decide - and now is relegating them to "an important part of the process".

HILLARY

Whose own campaign chairman, as DNC chairman in 2004, threatened to take away Michigan's delegates for doing exactly what Michigan ended up doing this year - but now he says the delegates should be counted.

HILLARY

Whose vote for the war with Iraq was either a cynical ploy for political cover in an election or was based on trusting Bush's word that force was a "last resort". Were you naive or cynical, Hillary? Can't have it both ways.

HILLARY

LIAR
CHEAT
THIEF
WARMONGER
NAIVE/CYNICAL (TAKE YOUR PICK, BUT YOU HAVE TO PICK ONE)

Posted by: treetopflyer | April 26, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

According to RealClearPolitics:

Total Delegates 1726 - 1592 Obama + 134
Pledged Delegates 1489 - 1333 Obama + 156
Popular Vote 49.2 - 47.5 Obama +1.7
Popular Vote (w/FL) 48.3 - 47.6 Obama +0.7
Nat'l RCP Average 48.6 - 42.4 Obama +6.2
North Carolina 51.3 - 35.8 Obama +15.5
Indiana 46.3 - 43.3 Obama +3.0

To all you Hillaryites, who are at times a bit confused about which Clinton is running for president, and who live in a total state of denial in the face of her brazen, chronic lying (or "mis-speaking" as she calls it), I have one thing to say:

ABANDON SHIP!!!

Of course, the fact that the leaders of the democratic party, the popular vote (never mind the tortured "fuzzy math" that Hillary pathetically tries to use and which even her supporters acknowledge is a fraud), and the persistent lead in the polls Obama maintains nationally--none of this seems to jolt the Hillaryites into the sane realization that it's already over for her. Sure, Hillary and her supporters can do their best to lie and cheat (or in Bill's case, intimidate) their way to the nomination, but fortunately the great Democratic party has rules and protocols that would prevent such a catastrophe from occurring.

Wake up America, Hillary ain't it!!!

Posted by: thinkaboutit | April 26, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Debating is simply a skill. One of the best debaters was William F. Buckley, but I sure wouldn't have wanted him as my president.

The president does not govern by debate. I want my president to LEAD, to LISTEN, to UNDERSTAND COMPLEX MATTERS, to BE INNOVATIVE, to be able to PERSUADE AND INSPIRE consensus amongst conflicting interests, and finally, to BE AN HONEST, DECENT PERSON.

That's why Obama needs to take his case directly to the voters.

Debates are too often exercises in oneupmanship and gotchas rather than a true reflection of one's complex ideas, which cannot be summed up in 30-second attack answers.

Posted by: JustConsider | April 26, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

I just want to know what color the sky is on that bizarro world "jacksmith" comes from.

Posted by: DB | April 26, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has more lines than Bill ever had with the ladies.

Posted by: Terry | April 26, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Soooooo Obama,the poor boy! -- does'nt want to debate Senator Clinton.Maybe they should meet on a basketball court,that should work.

Posted by: magpie 3 | April 26, 2008 9:26 PM | Report abuse

The world is watching.

WHY IS IT THAT THE FIRST TIME THE SUPERDELEGATES WOULD ATTEMPT TO OVERTURN THE WILL OF THE ELECTED DELEGATES IS ALSO THE FIRST TIME A BLACK MAN HAS WON IT?

Posted by: Jon | April 26, 2008 9:26 PM | Report abuse

Only the democrats could loose this election.

#1 Current rules Hillary can't win. If she overturns with supers, party splits, Democrats loose.

#2 If Dems had winner take all caucus/primary then this would have been over after CA with Hillary as the candidate. Dems probably win in Nov.

Whats happening now is Dems destroying Dems and the GOP wins with each blow.

Its nuts that this has continued, and I am a Republican! It is not funny. It is not good for country. It not good for women. It is not good for race relations. It is only good for status quo.

We are not talking about Iraq. We are not talking about the dollar. We are not talking about deficits. We are not talking about jobs. We are not talking about health care. We are not talking about cost of higher education. We are not talking about corruption. We are not talking pork.

We are talking about nonsense!

Posted by: Ben | April 26, 2008 9:26 PM | Report abuse

This is only a good idea if they can wear period clothing.

Otherwise, please spare us anymore free airtime for Hillary "Nuke 'Em All" Clintron.

Posted by: Jeremy | April 26, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

It is hilarious that you republicans are even commenting on this. Why even do so? Why do you even care what happens between Hillary and Barack? What does it have to do with you? You all are making it very clear that you know that Barack is the nominee and you all are very scared. I understand that very well. Barack Obama is going to be your President. He is going to make your lives better. He will be able to build incredible rapport globally and all of you wil have to hang your heads in shame for your views of him. Seriously, this is hilarious.

Posted by: Earl | April 26, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Lets be real about one thing, If Obama becomes the nominee for the democrats there is no way he would when the presidency. I myself being half black and puerto rican, deep in my heart the U.S is not ready for a black man to be commander and chief. I would love for this to happen but it won't. There are alot of white folks that love him. But there are a few white folks that will get in the way before a black man becomes president. Its ashame. But on the same token I also think its not right for the majority of all black folks to vote for Obama just because he black. I've talked to several black friends of mine , alot are just voting because of his skin color. But there are many intelligent blacks that know what Obama stands for. Which I personally applaud them, for not voting for him because he is black.

Now for the white folks the same goes, go for what you believe in and don't let skin color get in the way.

I hope one day we can all can get along.

Posted by: Raul | April 26, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Of Course Obama does not want to debate, not because they have debated enough but because she would actually clean the floor with Obama, she is far more knowledgable on the issues. I am not a Clinton supporter, I am just calling as I see it. When i comes to speech making (scripted) and monolouges Obama is clearly the better candidate but as far as actual comfort and knowledge Clinton eclipses Obama

Posted by: rcc_2000 | April 26, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

WHY IS IT THAT THE FIRST TIME THE SUPERDELEGATES WOULD ATTEMPT TO OVERTURN THE WILL OF THE ELECTED DELEGATES IS ALSO THE FIRST TIME A BLACK MAN HAS WON IT?

If thats not racism, what do you call that? Hilary should bow out gracefully for the good of the nation.

Posted by: JON | April 26, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

See Cantabrigian, the Press has you focused on Mrs. Obama. Is she running for President of the United States ? Is Bill Clinton running for President of the United States. Did not Senator Clinton show detachment from President Clinton stating NAFTA needs upgrades ?

Am just pointing out that the Press and the Political hacks in collusion thereof want you to see what they want you to see. So everyone has to do their own homework.

This is like Rush the Mouth implying that if you are a Rush Listner then you must accept his view. Of course everyone knows Rush would not have an audience if he was not giving the customers what they want to hear. Gosh, speaking of inciting riots, that guy must be very desparate.

So Clinton is asking everyone to treat this as a job interview not a popularity contest like electing a highschool class President. The rest to me is just exploitation of emotions for ratings which translate into advertisement revenues.

Posted by: Hank Whatever | April 26, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

RE: JTomorrow | April 26, 2008 9:00 PM --

Like Hillary (who is Dick Cheney after a sex-change operation), you try to make Obama guilty by association with people or events that do not involve Obama. Obama was not present when Wright said the just-three things (once each during a 40-year career and a 20-year period of Obama's being a member of Wright's church), and never has Obama endorsed or failed to decry assertions like Wright's three angry assertions. Obama has no association at all with Ayers, himself, or any radical organization of which Ayers was a member 40 years ago. Obama is not responsible for any conduct of El-Hady, who is not even a volunteer of Obama's campaign (and, despite your insinuations, has not been shown to have shown sympathy for anything terrorist.

If Jane Johnson contributes $10 to Obama's campaign and then Jane robs a bank, you will say that Obama is guilty of felony conspiracy. Logic is not a strength of witch-hunters.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

Tom if you are going to waste space on here belittling Hillary who runs absolute circles around the corrupt Obama ...AT LEAST EDUCATE YOURSELF TO FACTS AS TO WHAT HER ACCOMPLISHMENTS ARE>>JUST BECAUSE YOU DON"T KNOW THEM DON"T MEAN THEY DON"T EXIST>>I CAN SEE YOU DON"T KNOW MUCH AT ALL!Read some post and educate yourself.

Posted by: byeObama | April 26, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary is like Winston Churchill."

Old, fat, and cigar-smoking.

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary has proposed that Oregon should have two debates, one on the issues generally and one on you, on rural life in America today and what should be done," Bill Clinton said, according to ABC News. "And if you agree you oughta make your feelings known, either on her Web site or some other way." Per Bill Clinton

Of all the gall. "A debate on you"? Why are we debating Obama? We should be debating Bill and Hillary and all their lies and deceits and infidelities. How about that Bill?

Posted by: John S | April 26, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

"We'll defeat Obama now or in November "

Rarely do you get the garbage to identify itself so clearly! Keep it up, boys! Did you realize you're voting for a Woman? What would t he Grand Dragon Say?

God, these peckerwoods are fun!

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

Nobody wants to see another debate.

Hilary is making a fool or herself now. Obama has said NO, respect the man's wishes and move on.

Posted by: sarah | April 26, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

Jacksmith...you are an idiot! Try posting something different every once and a while

Posted by: Ray | April 26, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Larry - well researched post. Proves (yet again) Hillary and her cabal to be the hypocrite they are. I take back being for another debate, especially if Clinton's already refused a debate that Obama wanted to have earlier. Why have we heard little or nothing about it? Because Barack was "negative" enough to accept it like a gentleman.

QUIT WHINING, HILLARY!

Posted by: treetopflyer | April 26, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse

There is a simple solution to our party's dilema:

Gore '08

He was right in '00 (and he realy won the election) and he can unite the party now.

Posted by: Hamlet | April 26, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse

obama is a yellow belly scar-dee cat pansy, PERIOD. But when Clinton wins she might invite the obama clan to spend the night in the Lincoln bedroom. Who knows?

Posted by: lindafranke1952 | April 26, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

"We'll defeat Obama now or in November "

I thought that was what it was all about. Burn a few crosses for Hillary, boys!

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

Words, only words . . . the twenty years of sermons by the white racist, hate-filled, Pastor. Words, only words. . . the angry anti-American sentiments of Mrs. Obama. Obama's judgment leaves much to be desired for failing to express indignation during the twenty years he took his small children to hear the white-racist sermons of Pastor Wright. However, Obama pulls the race-card and with hyped up indignation tinged with shouts of racism jumps all over Imus, Mrs. Ferraro, the Clintons and any person who challenges him.

Posted by: Cantabrigian | April 26, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

The only way Hilary can win is by CHEATING. The Clintons have no shame. they are ready to set this country 100 year backwards and negate all the progress that has been made on racial issues.

WHY is it that the first time superdelegates would attempt to overturn the will of the elected delegates is also the first time that a black man wins it?

Posted by: Jon | April 26, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

TO: Shirley Pettaway...

You would do yourself a service to check factcheck.org. Hillary will get 1.7% congressional salary for each year she serves in congress. You are also incorrect on the rest of your assumptions...again...go to factcheck.org
...........................................

Posted by: KMB08 | April 26, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

Imagine getting in a 90 minute street fight with Hillary.

The end result of the Lincoln-Douglas debate was that the Lincoln newspapers cleaned up his remarks, and published the errors of Douglas, and vice versa.

The real end of the debate was the Civil War where 700,000 Americans shed their blood.

We are all tired of this. Give it up Hillary. Resign from the race.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

Let the debate be at least 90 minutes long, uninterrupted by advertising, or at least much less advertising, perhaps only one 5 minute advertising break midway. (the Philadelphia debate had like 15 advertising breaks).

Let the debate not be on any one single TV channel, but produce the TV feed independently and give it for free to any of the national, regional and webTV feeds to use as they wish with the condition that the feed may not be dubbed by commentators nor that their shouldn't be any graphical overlays put on top of the feed other then the Channel logo.

Then put the whole debate unedited on the Internet for people to download in full length without advertising in DVD quality using BitTorrent immediately after the debate is complete. The live debate should be streamed also live on sopcast, pplive, tvuplayer and on other live p2p streaming protocols.

Posted by: Charbax | April 26, 2008 9:16 PM | Report abuse

I say no debate before May 6th. North Carolina was called off when Hilary Clinton rejected the offer and put a date that she wants. Barack Obama had already agreed to North Carolina debate. Now all we hear are claims back and forth.

Let the candidates just go campaign!! Issues discussed during a debate are only vague responses anyway. A voter can make a much more educated decision reviewing their websites and evaluating positions. Then research more. Go to Senate and Congress Website. Etc.

During the campaigns in their own states voters can go hear candidate in person. Evaluate.

The ABC debate of 45-60 minutes spent attacking each candidate with "tit for tat" issues was a big waste of my time. The directed "tit of tat" issues directed at both candidates are trivial. I found none to be any "juicy shell shocker." Nothing is there for either candidate. This is politics and we voters have to be a little wiser not to fall for these political pranks.

Folks many studies have been done for these political consultants on how to sway public opinion. How do I know?? I am a professional and have taken similar courses. Do your research. Good luck to everyone. I have faith we can sort through all these political games!! We are smarter than they think we are!!

FYI - who am I for? I am a Republican, but just may vote for a Democrat. I am doing my research and keeping notes.

Posted by: Sharon | April 26, 2008 9:16 PM | Report abuse

And of course she lied about the $10m post Penn single digit victory.... such a lier and a racist hag:

"Three hours later, Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe, in an appearance on MSNBC, upped the ante. He predicted the campaign would raise $10 million in the 24 hours following the Pennsylvania victory and bragged that the campaign had already received donations from "50,000 brand-new donors ... giving $10, $20, $30, $40, $50. It is an extraordinary day for us."

By 2 p.m., Hassan Nemazee, a national finance chairman for the campaign, boasted to BusinessWeek that the campaign had already reached $10 million from 60,000 donors, more than 80 percent of whom were first-time givers.

Then, within the hour, Jonathan Mantz, the campaign's finance director, confirmed the campaign had reached $10 million, though he offered different donor numbers, saying there were 60,000 new donors.

"Since our victory last night -- at 10 o'clock at night -- to where we are today, as of exactly 2:35, we have raised $10 million online from grass-roots supporters going to HillaryClinton.com, making $10, $20, $50 contributions," he told more than 3,000 donors who dialed into a conference call with him, McAuliffe and Clinton herself.

"Sixty thousand new contributors to the campaign, brand-new contributors to this effort going to our website, to HillaryClinton.com," Mantz added. "It is unbelievable what's going on right now."

So unbelievable, it seems, that even within the campaign there was uncertainty as to how much had been raised as yet another figure surfaced around 6 p.m., when Peter Daou, Clinton's Internet director, told The New York Times that the campaign had raised $8 million."

Posted by: vena | April 26, 2008 9:16 PM | Report abuse

Voters are having buyer's remorse and starting to question Obama's judgment. Barak Obama claims he will create change, although he is directly undermining our existing structures with his subversive behavior of the residents of Florida and Michigan. Obama is carving a hole into democracy and the Democratic Party with his campaign to win at all costs. It begs the question if the Democratic Party can afford to lose the presidential election and the respect of the American people due to Obama's poor judgment and behaviors.

Posted by: Cantabrigian | April 26, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Any rules established beforehand in a debate like this would be broken by Clinton. Then if Obama attempted to get a word in edgewise she would whine and cry like a "victim."

Obama would be utterly stupid to accept her attempt at free publicity for a failing campaign. She is truly a desperate bitter woman.

Posted by: Ann Clark | April 26, 2008 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton '08

I am going all the way to the convention. How else am I going to pay my vendors?!?! Democratic Party my a$$. I've got some serious debt. $10 + $5 million from Bill's Colombia lobbying that I wasted. Obama is going to spend me into the ground. I've got to get a debate or two going so I can get some free press. I can't afford this race, and am not willing to spend my own money because I don't have that much faith in myself. I mean come on I'm not stupid.

Solutions for the Military Industrial Complex

Posted by: UncleRemus | April 26, 2008 9:14 PM | Report abuse

There is no way to economically or morally correct the damage that Pastor Wright has inflicted upon hundreds who attended his church! Can you imagine the damage to the psyche of the children who went home after hearing from their Pastor that the American government invented Aids to destroy them? While the rest of America is supporting laws for desegregation, affirmative action, and promoting cultural diversity, we have an African American Pastor Wright ranting and raving anti-American, white racist sermons to a congregation that includes the Barack Obama family, including two little girls.

Posted by: Cantabrigian | April 26, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Gee, maybe this will give Hillary an opportunity to ask if he:

- is still beating his wife

- has a Muslim middle name

- has "cultural differences" (as Krauthammer so eloquently put it in perfect Rovespeak for "Black Willie Horton")

- has an aversion to patriotism because he doesn't wear a flag pin

- has mafia friends

- had his mommy catch in master baiting in a closet

- has a sister who is a thespian

- has ever driven a swift-boat

- has ever matriculated

- has ever exposed his epidermis in public

Anything other than asking about issues important to America like Iraq, the economy, $5 gasoline, and the religious, racial and political hatred, bigotry and division that is tearing the nation apart.
Hillary and Bill have Karl Rove working for them in secret.

Posted by: Roy | April 26, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

I am an Obama supporter! If Hillary gets the nomination for the Democrats. I will vote for her! If Obama wins the nomination will you vote for Obama? That's what a real Democrat will do? Forget about race and vote Democrat!!!!!

Posted by: An American | April 26, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Tom,

You can rest assured that we will defeat Obama in November if we don't defeat him now.

The longer it takes us, the more painful it will be for Obama's supporters.

Posted by: We'll defeat Obama now or in November | April 26, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse

Politics / this race is getting ridiculous.

check out this vid...

youtube.com/watch?v=IcZwHuR_BMc

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse

One cannot even compare either Clinton or Obama to a Lincoln and Douglas. Both men were of sound, moral character and both men were reportedly excellent debaters.

This Democratic primary contest gets funnier and sillier everyday, but all the laughing will be over come November when the liberals take a trouncing by reason and logic; not idealism and the utopian society.

Posted by: Larkin G. Mead | April 26, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse

Hillary in past debates has "scored" points by lying, insinuating guilt by association and other misrepresentations. What is clear is: #1 she can't win the nomination; #2 she wants McCain to be president since she can't and #3 she wants to be the nominee in 2012 when McCain is too old and Obama has been defeated by her 2008 lies and false inuendos. OBAMA SHOWS GOOD JUDGEMENT BY REFUSING TO GIVE HER FREE TV EXPOSURE.

Posted by: GLM Illinois | April 26, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse

Captain John, I think you are on to something. I think that education, experience and foresight are qualities needed by a President of the United States.

Smarter Presidents seem to be successful. Ivy League education may be a minus in a populus movement but no one wants a dumb president or one who acts dumb. Questions are can that education or IQ be applied in a specific task ?

Operation of a government outfit that large is Govenor experience to me. So having eight years experience in the Whitehouse is a huge plus. One does not work on a chicken farm for eight years without picking up some chicken plucking skills.

Foresight is a quality exhibited by Founding Fathers. A person having foresight may not get us bogged down in a war that is dependent on powers other than our troops. In addition, prior strategies indicated there were no exit strategies. Our NATO ally Turkey refused access for incursion from their soveriegn soil so that was a strategic and diplomatic failure from the get-go. How did rapid deployment forces run out of fuel causing the first no bid closed award contract of Iraq ?

Big thing I am trying to keep in my mind is a term given to me by several professors in different acedemic circles: All things being equal. All things being equal forces me to go beyond, race, gender, party affiliation and modern day news spin, since everyone is human and makes mistakes too. Speaking of making mistakes, the first step is admitting a mistake is made in order to problem solve or choose the best path for corrective action(s).

The Press wants our attention through what I would call an immaturity in coverage taking us back to the political hackings of Karl Rove. I think we can regain some kind of 21st century model of politics that ignores committing charactor assissination to avoid common issues.

Thanks for your incite.

Posted by: Hank Whatever | April 26, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse

Then we have the candidate's wife, Michelle Obama who is an angry woman who expresses anti-American sentiments that, "life in America is not good, we're a country that is just down right mean . . . We're a country that is guided by fear, We're a nation of cynics, sloths and complacents." Mrs. Obama comes from a black blue-collar family, attended both Princeton and Harvard, is now making a six-figure income and living in a $1.6 million home. Strangely, Michelle Obama does not see herself as fortunate by any body's standards. This is the family the Democratic Party think could possibly be living in the White House? I don't think so.

Posted by: Cantabrigian | April 26, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Politics / this race is getting ridiculous.

check out this vid...

youtube.com/watch?v=IcZwHuR_BMc

Posted by: PoliSye | April 26, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

All these Obama supporters posts just fire up the rest of us to defeat them.

Posted by: All these Obama supporters posts just fire up the rest of us to defeat them | April 26, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary is all woman, but she's 100x the man Obama is."


Hillary, to put it in the best possible terms, is a joke. Her "accomplishments" are her husband's career. Hardly a feminist resume. "First Lady" of Arkansas, then of the US. But that's it! She got into the Senate because of Giuliani's withdrawal because of his cancer. Then she got reelected against the equivalent of a concrete block. That's it for a resume, unless you want to count her time as a "Goldwater Girl."

She has NO major accomplishments, except for barely avoiding flunking out of Yale Law School and passing the bar, eventually.

BIG WHOOP!

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Earl - you assume Hillary would hold herself to the same standard of conduct she imposes on others. How naive, how simple, how logical and intelligent. Not that logic or intelligence figures in anything Hillary does.

BTW, folks, the New York Times (which actually does real journalism) reports that all 3 candidates will increase our debt. As the song goes, "Any way you look at it, you lose."

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/us/politics/27fiscal.html?hp[/url]

Posted by: treetopflyer | April 26, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

thinkaboutit wrote, It just boggles my mind that there are still people in this country who can't see--or choose not to see--that the Clintons are about one thing and one thing only--the Clintons. The divisive, self-serving, power-mongering, and duplicitous values of the Clintons would work well in a small dictatorial republic"

Your editorial describes Obama and Michelle to a t. Clinton supporters would say Are you not blinded by your devotion to a man of empty rhetoric. You manage to see the warts of Hillary but choose to turn a blind eye Obama's problems.

Posted by: skinsfan1978 | April 26, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse

Hillary just doesn't know when to give up does she. Seems like either she wins or no one does (from the democratic party).

Posted by: skylight | April 26, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse

A debate with no moderator...isn't that called an argument?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse

This one is for a factually challenged friend Jacksmith:

I'm going outside the primary window," [Michigan Sen. Carl Levin] told me definitively.

"If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," I said. "We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost."

He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

"You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said.

"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."

We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it.

[Source: McAuliffe, Terry. What A Party!, p. 325.]

Facts, like truth, has a nasty way of showing up just at the moment that they're being misrepresented the most. If only more of the American Public had the capability to perform the research behind statements made by the respective candidates, vice just going on what they have heard by their surrogates, the nomination process would have been over by now.

Clinton Campaign Chair Threatened to Strip Michigan of Delegates in 2004

April 26, 2008 5:33 PM

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has staked her path to the Democratic nomination on the officially illegitimate contests held in Michigan and Florida somehow being recognized, in opposition to Democratic National Committee rules.

What's so remarkable about this is that two of the Clinton campaign's most important strategists have in the past taken the stand that these states should abide by the DNC's instructions -- even if that meant stripping them of their delegates.

In direct contrast to the positions they hold now.

Senior strategist Harold Ickes as a DNC Rules Committee member in 2007 voted -- along with the other 11 Clinton supporters on the 30-member committee -- to strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates as punishment for disobeying the DNC primary calendar schedule.

Ickes now is a leader of the "count Michigan and Florida" rhetoric coming from the Clinton campaign, despite his previous position.

Now comes this curious find, on Daily Kos.

It turns out that irrepressible Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe once -- when he was DNC chairman -- threatened to strip Michigan of delegates if that state's Democrats carried out their long-time goal of disobeying the DNC calendar.

In his lively book, "What A Party!: My Life Among Democrats: Presidents, Candidates, Donors, Activists, Alligators and Other Wild Animals," McAuliffe tells the tale. If you're an Amazon.com member, you can read the passage for yourself on pages 324 and 325.

McAuliffe at the time had been pushing for early contests for South Carolina and a Western state with a large Latino population, perhaps Arizona or New Mexico.

"Our plan became very controversial," McAuliffe writes. "Some people thought any change was bad. Others thought we were not shaking things up enough. Leading the charge for more radical alterations in the primary calendar was Michigan Senator Carl Levin, who thought Iowa and New Hampshire should not have exclusive rights on voting first and that it was time for other states to have a turn. He had pushed unsuccessfully for change before the 2000 elections and was back in full force this election cycle. He made it very clear on the telephone that if I allowed Iowa and New Hampshire to go first, then Michigan was going to act on its own and put its primary first."

McAuliffe invited Levin to make his argument before the full DNC meeting on Jan. 19, 2002. Levin did, and his motion was defeated by a unanimous vote.

"After the vote, the issue was settled in my mind -- however, not in Carl's," McAuliffe writes.

On Feb. 1, 2003, Levin, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., and Dingell's wife Debbie (a DNC member and power broker unto herself) called McAuliffe.

"They told me they were going to hold the Michigan primary before New Hampshire's," McAuliffe writes, "which would have led to complete chaos since New Hampshire has a law stating that it must hold the first primary and the DNC had already voted on this issue and settled it.

"'If you do that, I will take away 50 percent of your delegates,' I told him.

"They thought I was bluffing. But it was my responsibility as chairman to take action for the good of the party, and taking away half their delegates was well within my authority...The whole primary calendar was in danger of spinning out of control. The candidates kept calling me and asking what was happening with the schedule, and I made it clear that I was not going to let Michigan throw the entire process out of whack. Finally I'd had enough and scheduled a meeting in Carl's Senate office for April 2 to settle this once and for all...

"Soon Carl and I were going at it.

"'I'm going outside the primary window,' he told me definitively.

"'If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses,' I said. 'We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost.'

"He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

"'You won't deny us seats at the convention,' he said.

"'Carl, take it to the bank,' I said. 'They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it.'

"We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it."

Clinton herself said, in October 2007, "It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything." She said she was keeping her name on the ballot (unlike her competitors) just so when it came time for the general election she could argue she had not ignored the state.

It wasn't until Clinton lost the Iowa caucuses in January that she acted as if the Florida and Michigan contests had any meaning at all. As Tallahassee political journalist S.V. Dáte recently wrote in Slate, "Last summer and fall, when the DNC made these decisions, she had a lot more clout. She exercised none of it."

As for Ickes and McAuliffe -- they have exercised a great deal of clout. But it has been in the name of preserving order, even if that meant stripping recalcitrant state Democrats of their delegates.

As McAuliffe said then -- "the rules are the rules."

Why? "For the good of the party," he wrote (then).

Posted by: Larry | April 26, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

I would suggest that Barrack stay on point and get out to the people. Damn these silly debates, they serve no real purpose. Right now they should BOTH be hitting the streets of Indiana and addressing the needs and issues of the residents of that state. I believe that presidential candidates need to put the media on punishment, place them in "time out" because they have abused the privilege.

After the ABC Fiasco I have sworn off of the debates. Even they have become a tool of campaign weaponry vs. a venue to establish the candidates position on hardcore domestic issues.

Posted by: Concernedaboutdc | April 26, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

No doubt she would show up in Back Face.

At some point, those who do not repudiate her racist McCarthyism and dishonest divisive campaign will be exposed under the bright cleansing light of day.

Clintons and Rove do not have a monopoly on retribution. Obama would not think in terms of retribution. But many of his supporters are keeping score and will exact retribution to show that the Clinton McCarthyism, Racism and Rovian tactics will not go unnoticed or unpunished.

Posted by: Dana | April 26, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

did you know that Afghanistan is a drug state ??


did you know that Blackwater is training Mexicans to drug run???


did you know what the most important cash crop of central and south america is ?????

drugs.


America's Debt to Journalist Gary Webb
By Robert Parry
December 13, 2004

In 1996, journalist Gary Webb wrote a series of articles that forced a long-overdue investigation of a very dark chapter of recent U.S. foreign policy - the Reagan-Bush administration's protection of cocaine traffickers who operated under the cover of the Nicaraguan contra war in the 1980s.

For his brave reporting at the San Jose Mercury News, Webb paid a high price. He was attacked by journalistic colleagues at the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the American Journalism Review and even the Nation magazine. Under this media pressure, his editor Jerry Ceppos sold out the story and demoted Webb, causing him to quit the Mercury News. Even Webb's marriage broke up.

On Friday, Dec. 10, Gary Webb, 49, was found dead of an apparent suicide, a gunshot wound to the head.

Whatever the details of Webb's death, American history owes him a huge debt. Though denigrated by much of the national news media, Webb's contra-cocaine series prompted internal investigations by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department, probes that confirmed that scores of contra units and contra-connected individuals were implicated in the drug trade. The probes also showed that the Reagan-Bush administration frustrated investigations into those crimes for geopolitical reasons.

Failed Media

Unintentionally, Webb also exposed the cowardice and unprofessional behavior that had become the new trademarks of the major U.S. news media by the mid-1990s. The big news outlets were always hot on the trail of some titillating scandal - the O.J. Simpson case or the Monica Lewinsky scandal - but the major media could no longer grapple with serious crimes of state.

Even after the CIA's inspector general issued his findings in 1998, the major newspapers could not muster the talent or the courage to explain those extraordinary government admissions to the American people. Nor did the big newspapers apologize for their unfair treatment of Gary Webb. Foreshadowing the media incompetence that would fail to challenge George W. Bush's case for war with Iraq five years later, the major news organizations effectively hid the CIA's confession from the American people.

The New York Times and the Washington Post never got much past the CIA's "executive summary," which tried to put the best spin on Inspector General Frederick Hitz's findings. The Los Angeles Times never even wrote a story after the final volume of the CIA's report was published, though Webb's initial story had focused on contra-connected cocaine shipments to South-Central Los Angeles.

The Los Angeles Times' cover-up has now continued after Webb's death. In a harsh obituary about Webb, the Times reporter, who called to interview me, ignored my comments about the debt the nation owed Webb and the importance of the CIA's inspector general findings. Instead of using Webb's death as an opportunity to finally get the story straight, the Times acted as if there never had been an official investigation confirming many of Webb's allegations. [Los Angeles Times, Dec. 12, 2004.]

By maintaining the contra-cocaine cover-up - even after the CIA's inspector general had admitted the facts - the big newspapers seemed to have understood that they could avoid any consequences for their egregious behavior in the 1990s or for their negligence toward the contra-cocaine issue when it first surfaced in the 1980s. After all, the conservative news media - the chief competitor to the mainstream press - isn't going to demand a reexamination of the crimes of the Reagan-Bush years.

That means that only a few minor media outlets, like our own Consortiumnews.com, will go back over the facts now, just as only a few of us addressed the significance of the government admissions in the late 1990s. I compiled and explained the findings of the CIA/Justice investigations in my 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

Contra-Cocaine Case

Lost History, which took its name from a series at this Web site, also describes how the contra-cocaine story first reached the public in a story that Brian Barger and I wrote for the Associated Press in December 1985. Though the big newspapers pooh-poohed our discovery, Sen. John Kerry followed up our story with his own groundbreaking investigation. For his efforts, Kerry also encountered media ridicule. Newsweek dubbed the Massachusetts senator a "randy conspiracy buff." [For details, see Consortiumnews.com's "Kerry's Contra-Cocaine Chapter."]

So when Gary Webb revived the contra-cocaine issue in August 1996 with a 20,000-word three-part series entitled "Dark Alliance," editors at major newspapers already had a powerful self-interest to slap down a story that they had disparaged for the past decade.

The challenge to their earlier judgments was doubly painful because the Mercury-News' sophisticated Web site ensured that Webb's series made a big splash on the Internet, which was just emerging as a threat to the traditional news media. Also, the African-American community was furious at the possibility that U.S. government policies had contributed to the crack-cocaine epidemic.

In other words, the mostly white, male editors at the major newspapers saw their preeminence in judging news challenged by an upstart regional newspaper, the Internet and common American citizens who also happened to be black. So, even as the CIA was prepared to conduct a relatively thorough and honest investigation, the major newspapers seemed more eager to protect their reputations and their turf.

Without doubt, Webb's series had its limitations. It primarily tracked one West Coast network of contra-cocaine traffickers from the early-to-mid 1980s. Webb connected that cocaine to an early "crack" production network that supplied Los Angeles street gangs, the Crips and the Bloods, leading to Webb's conclusion that contra cocaine fueled the early crack epidemic that devastated Los Angeles and other U.S. cities.

Counterattack

When black leaders began demanding a full investigation of these charges, the Washington media joined the political Establishment in circling the wagons. It fell to Rev. Sun Myung Moon's right-wing Washington Times to begin the counterattack against Webb's series. The Washington Times turned to some former CIA officials, who participated in the contra war, to refute the drug charges.

But - in a pattern that would repeat itself on other issues in the following years - the Washington Post and other mainstream newspapers quickly lined up behind the conservative news media. On Oct. 4, 1996, the Washington Post published a front-page article knocking down Webb's story.

The Post's approach was twofold: first, it presented the contra-cocaine allegations as old news - "even CIA personnel testified to Congress they knew that those covert operations involved drug traffickers," the Post reported - and second, the Post minimized the importance of the one contra smuggling channel that Webb had highlighted - that it had not "played a major role in the emergence of crack." A Post side-bar story dismissed African-Americans as prone to "conspiracy fears."

Soon, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times joined in the piling on of Gary Webb. The big newspapers made much of the CIA's internal reviews in 1987 and 1988 that supposedly cleared the spy agency of a role in contra-cocaine smuggling.

But the CIA's decade-old cover-up began to crumble on Oct. 24, 1996, when CIA Inspector General Hitz conceded before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the first CIA probe had lasted only 12 days, the second only three days. He promised a more thorough review.

Mocking Webb

Meanwhile, however, Gary Webb became the target of outright media ridicule. Influential Post media critic Howard Kurtz mocked Webb for saying in a book proposal that he would explore the possibility that the contra war was primarily a business to its participants. "Oliver Stone, check your voice mail," Kurtz chortled. [Washington Post, Oct. 28, 1996]

Webb's suspicion was not unfounded, however. Indeed, White House aide Oliver North's emissary Rob Owen had made the same point a decade earlier, in a March 17, 1986, message about the contra leadership. "Few of the so-called leaders of the movement ... really care about the boys in the field," Owen wrote. "THIS WAR HAS BECOME A BUSINESS TO MANY OF THEM." [Capitalization in the original.]

Nevertheless, the pillorying of Gary Webb was on, in earnest. The ridicule also had a predictable effect on the executives of the Mercury-News. By early 1997, executive editor Jerry Ceppos was in retreat.

On May 11, 1997, Ceppos published a front-page column saying the series "fell short of my standards." He criticized the stories because they "strongly implied CIA knowledge" of contra connections to U.S. drug dealers who were manufacturing crack-cocaine. "We did not have proof that top CIA officials knew of the relationship."

The big newspapers celebrated Ceppos's retreat as vindication of their own dismissal of the contra-cocaine stories. Ceppos next pulled the plug on the Mercury-News' continuing contra-cocaine investigation and reassigned Webb to a small office in Cupertino, California, far from his family. Webb resigned the paper in disgrace.

For undercutting Webb and the other reporters working on the contra investigation, Ceppos was lauded by the American Journalism Review and was given the 1997 national "Ethics in Journalism Award" by the Society of Professional Journalists. While Ceppos won raves, Webb watched his career collapse and his marriage break up.

Probes Advance

Still, Gary Webb had set in motion internal government investigations that would bring to the surface long-hidden facts about how the Reagan-Bush administration had conducted the contra war. The CIA's defensive line against the contra-cocaine allegations began to break when the spy agency published Volume One of Hitz's findings on Jan. 29, 1998.

Despite a largely exculpatory press release, Hitz's Volume One admitted that not only were many of Webb's allegations true but that he actually understated the seriousness of the contra-drug crimes and the CIA's knowledge. Hitz acknowledged that cocaine smugglers played a significant early role in the Nicaraguan contra movement and that the CIA intervened to block an image-threatening 1984 federal investigation into a San Francisco-based drug ring with suspected ties to the contras. [For details, see Robert Parry's Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth']

On May 7, 1998, another disclosure from the government investigation shook the CIA's weakening defenses. Rep. Maxine Waters, a California Democrat, introduced into the Congressional Record a Feb. 11, 1982, letter of understanding between the CIA and the Justice Department. The letter, which had been sought by CIA Director William Casey, freed the CIA from legal requirements that it must report drug smuggling by CIA assets, a provision that covered both the Nicaraguan contras and Afghan rebels who were fighting a Soviet-supported regime in Afghanistan.

Justice Report

Another crack in the defensive wall opened when the Justice Department released a report by its inspector general, Michael Bromwich. Given the hostile climate surrounding Webb's series, Bromwich's report opened with criticism of Webb. But, like the CIA's Volume One, the contents revealed new details about government wrongdoing.

According to evidence cited by the report, the Reagan-Bush administration knew almost from the outset of the contra war that cocaine traffickers permeated the paramilitary operation. The administration also did next to nothing to expose or stop the criminal activities. The report revealed example after example of leads not followed, corroborated witnesses disparaged, official law-enforcement investigations sabotaged, and even the CIA facilitating the work of drug traffickers.

The Bromwich report showed that the contras and their supporters ran several parallel drug-smuggling operations, not just the one at the center of Webb's series. The report also found that the CIA shared little of its information about contra drugs with law-enforcement agencies and on three occasions disrupted cocaine-trafficking investigations that threatened the contras.

Though depicting a more widespread contra-drug operation than Webb had understood, the Justice report also provided some important corroboration about a Nicaraguan drug smuggler, Norwin Meneses, who was a key figure in Webb's series. Bromwich cited U.S. government informants who supplied detailed information about Meneses's operation and his financial assistance to the contras.

For instance, Renato Pena, a money-and-drug courier for Meneses, said that in the early 1980s, the CIA allowed the contras to fly drugs into the United States, sell them and keep the proceeds. Pena, who also was the northern California representative for the CIA-backed FDN contra army, said the drug trafficking was forced on the contras by the inadequate levels of U.S. government assistance.

The Justice report also disclosed repeated examples of the CIA and U.S. embassies in Central America discouraging Drug Enforcement Administration investigations, including one into alleged contra-cocaine shipments moving through the airport in El Salvador. In an understated conclusion, Inspector General Bromwich said secrecy trumped all. "We have no doubt that the CIA and the U.S. Embassy were not anxious for the DEA to pursue its investigation at the airport," he wrote.

CIA's Volume Two

Despite the remarkable admissions in the body of these reports, the big newspapers showed no inclination to read beyond the press releases and executive summaries. By fall 1998, official Washington was obsessed with the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, which made it easier to ignore even more stunning contra-cocaine disclosures in the CIA's Volume Two..

In Volume Two, published Oct. 8, 1998, CIA Inspector General Hitz identified more than 50 contras and contra-related entities implicated in the drug trade. He also detailed how the Reagan-Bush administration had protected these drug operations and frustrated federal investigations, which had threatened to expose the crimes in the mid-1980s. Hitz even published evidence that drug trafficking and money laundering tracked into Reagan's National Security Council where Oliver North oversaw the contra operations.

Hitz revealed, too, that the CIA placed an admitted drug money launderer in charge of the Southern Front contras in Costa Rica. Also, according to Hitz's evidence, the second-in-command of contra forces on the Northern Front in Honduras had escaped from a Colombian prison where he was serving time for drug trafficking

In Volume Two, the CIA's defense against Webb's series had shrunk to a tiny fig leaf: that the CIA did not conspire with the contras to raise money through cocaine trafficking. But Hitz made clear that the contra war took precedence over law enforcement and that the CIA withheld evidence of contra crimes from the Justice Department, the Congress and even the CIA's own analytical division.

Hitz found in CIA files evidence that the spy agency knew from the first days of the contra war that its new clients were involved in the cocaine trade. According to a September 1981 cable to CIA headquarters, one of the early contra groups, known as ADREN, had decided to use drug trafficking as a financing mechanism. Two ADREN members made the first delivery of drugs to Miami in July 1981, the CIA cable reported.

ADREN's leaders included Enrique Bermudez, who emerged as the top contra military commander in the 1980s. Webb's series had identified Bermudez as giving the green light to contra fundraising by drug trafficker Meneses. Hitz's report added that that the CIA had another Nicaraguan witness who implicated Bermudez in the drug trade in 1988.

Priorities

Besides tracing the evidence of contra-drug trafficking through the decade-long contra war, the inspector general interviewed senior CIA officers who acknowledged that they were aware of the contra-drug problem but didn't want its exposure to undermine the struggle to overthrow the leftist Sandinista government.

According to Hitz, the CIA had "one overriding priority: to oust the Sandinista government. ... [CIA officers] were determined that the various difficulties they encountered not be allowed to prevent effective implementation of the contra program." One CIA field officer explained, "The focus was to get the job done, get the support and win the war."

Hitz also recounted complaints from CIA analysts that CIA operations officers handling the contra war hid evidence of contra-drug trafficking even from the CIA's analytical division. Because of the withheld evidence, the CIA analysts incorrectly concluded in the mid-1980s that "only a handful of contras might have been involved in drug trafficking." That false assessment was passed on to Congress and the major news organizations - serving as an important basis for denouncing Gary Webb and his series in 1996.

Though Hitz's report was an extraordinary admission of institutional guilt by the CIA, it passed almost unnoticed by the big newspapers.

Two days after Hitz's report was posted at the CIA's Internet site, the New York Times did a brief article that continued to deride Webb's work, while acknowledging that the contra-drug problem may indeed have been worse than earlier understood. Several weeks later, the Washington Post weighed in with a similarly superficial article. The Los Angeles Times never published a story on the release of the CIA's Volume Two.

Consequences

To this day, no editor or reporter who missed the contra-drug story has been punished for his or her negligence. Indeed, many of them are now top executives at their news organizations. On the other hand, Gary Webb's career never recovered.

At Webb's death, however, it should be noted that his great gift to American history was that he - along with angry African-American citizens - forced the government to admit some of the worst crimes ever condoned by any American administration: the protection of drug smuggling into the United States as part of a covert war against a country, Nicaragua, that represented no real threat to Americans.

The truth was ugly. Certainly the major news organizations would have come under criticism themselves if they had done their job and laid out this troubling story to the American people. Conservative defenders of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush would have been sure to howl in protest.

But the real tragedy of Webb's historic gift - and of his life cut short - is that because of the major news media's callowness and cowardice, this dark chapter of the Reagan-Bush era remains largely unknown to the American people.


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

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His new book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

Posted by: so | April 26, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

According to Obama, his capability to be the President of the United States, is based on very little evidence, except one productive year in the Illinois State Senate, after the Democrats swept the state, and not much else. If a woman with Obama's resume campaigned for President she would be laughed off the stage no matter how eloquent her words. Compare Barack with Bush's appointment of Harriet Mires to the Supreme Court, which was considered an insult to the American Citizens and the Supreme Court. The good ole boy's deep sixed Ms. Mires claim to capability as a Supreme Court Judge. However, the good ole boys are trying hard to bring a man (any man) back to the White House!

Posted by: Cantabrigian | April 26, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

Everytime I see people going crazy spewing hate for Hillary..they never seem to back it up..with real facts..NEVER...They show such ignorance..when they talk about lies yet say they are going to vote for Obama who told over 50 lies this campaign..See Political Forum.com Elections and Campaigns by Latisha..I DARE THEM TO READ THIS but their remarks reek of stupidity.. The problem is so many are making decisions on shallowness and little knowledge..I love the ones who say they are not going to vote for Hillary because of BIlls indiscretion but they are going to vote for McCAIN??????WoW!! Do these people know how idiotic they sound..McCain who cheated on his ailing wife with his new wife CIndy..who he alleged by the media to have cheated on Cindy..Cindy was a drug addict who was rich but stole money and drugs to support her habit???? Yes McCain the one for more of the same 400 Million dollar a day war that is destroying this country?? McCain who said he knows nothing about ECONOMIC.??.and Obama with a list of baggage to choke a horse..One ill association after another .antiamerican preacher, wife, first fund raiser by the pentagon bomber., His father part of the most corrupt organization in Africa the Kenyatta that killed, raped and were arsonist..per U.S.veteran dispatch December 2006..and the list on controversy on Obama has been going on for weeks and months.He voted present 131 instead of yes or no..because he doesn't know the issues well enough to make a decision..who won't debate because he doesn't KNOW THE ISSUES WELL ENOUGH!!!!?????....AND YET THE CLINTONS WHO HOLD THE LONGEST PEACE KEEPING TIME of ANY PRESIDENCY IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE LARGEST ECONOMIC GROWTH IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES .....THE TWO BIGGEST ISSUES OF AMERICA TODAY>>PEOPLE FIND PETTY REASON NOT TO VOTE FOR PEACE AND PROSPERITY WITH THE PROVEN CLINTONS YES CLintons are 2 for l We need Bills prexisting good relation with world leaders that hate America now to head off more wars??!!>>IF HILLARY HAD 1/l0 the baggage of SHADY OBAMA SHE BE DONE>>BUT much of America is now seeing the obvious and the tide has turned to HILLARY >>THANK GOD! BUT THE REST OF THE MOROONS OF THIS NATION IS HOW BUSH GOT VOTED IN AND THOSE UNEDUCATED AND UNINVOLVED PEOPLE ARE WHAT BRING DOWN THIS NATION..people need to educate themselves to FACTS and quite being part of the problem and be part of the solution.HILLARY 2008!.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 9:04 PM | Report abuse

So Hillary...35 years fighting in Washington? It's a train wreck. If this is the best you can do with 35 years, you don't deserve another 35 minutes. Obama 08.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary is all woman, but she's 100x the man Obama is."

Then why is she losing?

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Where this is extremely deceitful is that Obama did not make it a big deal when Hillary dropped out of an earlier debate. Which is worst? Hillary refusing to debate an earlier debate? Obama not wanting to debate again? OR Hillary asking for a debate then making such a big deal because Obama does not want to. Attention people; there have ALWAYS been elections where one decides they don't want to debate for some reason, (Hillary has already done it THIS season there is no need for Bill and Hillary to make a big deal of it nor is there any reason YOU should make a big deal of it.

Posted by: Earl | April 26, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

A Living Lie
By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
An e-mail from a reader said that, while Hillary Clinton tells lies, Barack Obama is himself a lie.
That is becoming painfully apparent with each new revelation of how drastically his carefully crafted image this election year contrasts with what he has actually been saying and doing for many years.
Senator Obama's election year image is that of a man who can bring the country together, overcoming differences of party or race, as well as solving our international problems by talking with Iran and other countries with which we are at odds, and performing other miscellaneous miracles as needed.
There is, of course, not a speck of evidence that Obama has ever transcended party differences in the United States Senate. Voting records analyzed by the National Journal show him to be the farthest left of anyone in the Senate. Nor has he sponsored any significant bipartisan legislation -- nor any other significant legislation, for that matter.
Senator Obama is all talk -- glib talk, exciting talk, confident talk, but still just talk. However inconsistent Obama's words, his behavior has been remarkably consistent over the years. He has sought out and joined with the radical, anti-Western left, whether Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers of the terrorist Weatherman underground or pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli Rashid Khalidi.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.

Posted by: Cantabrigian | April 26, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Obama should continue to set his own agenda and ignore Hillary Clinton. She is pressing for a debate not because she wants to debate issues, but wants to continue her pattern of shredding Obama. Good for Obama for refusing to take her bait. He doesn't need to prove anything to anyone. The path to the nomination is clear for him, so let him conitnue to do his thing!!!!

Posted by: Mart | April 26, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

The venomous toxins spewed out by the Hillaryites in these posts reveals the pathetic extent to which they have been taken in by the endless lies and deceptions that have billowed out of the Clinton Machine. It just boggles my mind that there are still people in this country who can't see--or choose not to see--that the Clintons are about one thing and one thing only--the Clintons.
The divisive, self-serving, power-mongering, and duplicitous values of the Clintons would work well in a small dictatorial republic, but the USA simply deserves better.

It ain't Hillary.

Posted by: thinkaboutit | April 26, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Obama should debate and answer questions about this:

What about his support of terrorists now? An article in FrontPage says:
Two years ago, Hatem El-Hady was the chairman of the Toledo, Ohio-based Islamic charity, Kindhearts, which was closed by the US government in February 2006 for terrorist fundraising and all its assets frozen. Today, El-Hady has redirected his fundraising efforts for his newest cause - Barack Obama for President.
El-Hady has his own dedicated page on Barack Obama's official website, chronicling his fundraising on behalf of the Democratic Party presidential candidate (his Obama profile established on February 19, 2008 - two years to the day after Kindhearts was raided by the feds). Not only that, but he has none other than Barack Obama's wife, Michelle Obama, listed as one of his friends (one of her 224 listed friends).

Posted by: JTomorrow | April 26, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Seeing Whinny the Pooh, thanks. It was a nice change of pace.

But you gotta do Eyore, and of course Tigger too....

Posted by: Captain John | April 26, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Hillary wants a debate because she can't afford to buy any more media time, since her supporters are all defecting to Obama. That's all. Twenty-one debates is enough, already!

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Tom,

There's a difference between a woman and a scared little girl.

Hillary is all woman, but she's 100x the man Obama is.

Obama is a coward.

I'd go into battle with Hillary as my commanding officer anyday.

I wouldn't trust Obama to guard a doghouse.

Hillary is a great American.

Obama is an national disgrace.
.

Posted by: Hillary is all woman, but she's 100x the man Obama is | April 26, 2008 8:57 PM | Report abuse

. ............_. ,-´``;
. . . . . . . . . .,`. . .`-----´..
. . . . . . . . . .,. . . . . .~ .`- .
. . . . . . . . . ,´. . . . . . . .o. .o__
. . . . . . . . _|. . . . . . . . . . . . (#)
. . . . . . . _. ´`~-.. . . . . . . . . .,´
. . . . . . .,. .,.-~-.´ -.,. . . ..´--~` OBAMA 2008
. . . . . . /. ./. . . . .}. .` -..,/
. . . . . /. ,´___. . :/. . . . . .
. . . . /´`-.|. . . `´-..´........ . .
. . . ;. . . . . . . . . . . . .)-.....|
. . .|. . . . .´ ---........-´. . . ,´
. . .´,. . ,....... . . . . . . . . .,´
. . . .´ ,/. . . . `,. . . . . . . ,´
. . . . .. . . . . .. . . .,.- ´
. . . . . ´,. . . . . ´,-~´`. ;. . . . . ..,=======,
. . . . . .|. . . . . ;. . . /__. . . . . . .......... . . /
. . . . . /. . . . . /__. . . . .). . . . . . . ..... . . /
. . . . . ´-.. . . . . . .)----~´. . .. . .\______/
. . . . . . .´ - .......-`

Posted by: Lee GIABENELLI | April 26, 2008 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Obama claims that he can not be swift-boated! What a dreamer he is because Obama will be sunk with one sweep of the SWIFT-BOAT called GOP! What about the Obama's white female house partner before he found the more politically connected Michelle? What about the twenty years of laughing and clapping in the anti-white, and anti-American Pastor Jeremiah Wright's church? What about his relationship with Ayers' who launched Obama's political career in 1995, with a house party in his home? There is plenty more. . . the best is yet to come. Obama ought to disqualify himself from this Democratic primary.

Posted by: Cantabrigian | April 26, 2008 8:56 PM | Report abuse

Obama's refusal to accept this debate forum shows his disrepect for women. Why is he such a coward. Sure their have been 21 debates but only 4 between Obama and Hillary. Obama was able to gain a lead through the undemocratic caucuses because his Chicago supporters used strong-armed tactics in those contests. In Democratic primaries where all voters have a voice Obama cannot bully everyone. Now, Obama is in a position of weakness and is trying to run out the clock.

Posted by: skinsfan1978 | April 26, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

And who said "Iowatreasures" was a woman? I only called him or her a piece of excrement! Are you extrapolating into your own twisted universe?

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Chuck C

Let's see: Obama will talk to the Iranians (without condition); he'll talk to North Korea (without condition); he'll talk to Syria (without condition). But, he won't debate Hillary Clinton (under any condition).

---------------------------------------------
The below is the response to Clinton's proposal in which Obama once again needs to explain something unconventional or unattractive about himself. This time it is his sometimes "too cool," "non- confrontational" approach to political decision making. As if we didn't get it already, the operative phrase is "is _if_ I have to fight somebody..." So let's hear in a debate : how is he going to destroy the system before building it back up to get anything done???


"One of the things that I learned in the school yard was: the folks that are talking tough all the time, they're not always that tough. If you're really tough, you're not always looking to try to start a fight. If you're really tough, sometimes you just walk away. If you're really tough, you just save it for when you really need it," Obama said.

"I'm not interested in fighting people just for the sake of scoring political points." "If I'm going to fight somebody it's going to be fighting over the American people and what they need."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

HEADLINE WRITER FLUNKS SCHOOL: Please, guys, I know that corporate downsizing is ruining your newsrooms but, honestly, don't you know the difference between 'tact', 'tactic' and 'tack'?

Posted by: Bill Kapra | April 26, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

"Don't you eve sass IowaTreasures, kid.

We don't take kindly to people who attack women where I come from.

Only cowards do that and we don't take kindly to cowards either."

How gallant! And why are you supporting a woman for President? So you can hide behind her skirts? What garbage!

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Cantabrigian wrote: "The choice of Senator Clinton would be attributed to her work history, past experiences, ability, intelligence, professionalism, character and knowledge..."

~~~~~~

Those aren't necessarily the characteristics of leadership. They are important, but leadership requires several other core qualities: strength of conviction, passion, the ability to trust those watching your back, and the belief in those you are leading that you care about the cause of justice.

Clinton, Obama and McCain have most of these characteristics, except one or two.

McCain doesn't care about the average American. Clinton isn't interested in playing fair. And Obama (yes, I'm a supporter) isn't very good at debates.

IT'S TIME, however, to level the playing field.

Make it a 3-way unmoderated, unfiltered debate in Indiana.

Now THAT would be newsworthy, informative and give America and the superdelegates a real chance to see who can win in November.

Let the games begin!

Posted by: Captain John | April 26, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse

"What talks like a chichen, acts like a chicken,hides like a chicken,it is a chicken, Mr. Obama, if you don't even have the courage to debate Hillary who is a woman as you said, then of what are you made? with no bones?"

You are a sexist pig, Johnnycheng, for posting this. and I'm not afraid to say it! So why are you supporting a woman for President?

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 8:51 PM | Report abuse

Why are we still on the "bosnia sniper" BS story? Should we also drag on the "Wright" story and the "Bitter/Cling" comment story? Shameless Obama supporters...

Posted by: logicaldoubtofhumansanity | April 26, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

"If this was a panel assembled to choose the right person for the Presidential position, Senator Hillary Clinton would be offered the job in a New York minute! "

Yes, if being a shameless liar was the No. # 1 criteria, you are right, Hillary would be chosen hands down!

Posted by: JoMama | April 26, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Cantabrigian, what we need is more professional moderators rather than snipers for ratings. That is a good word, professionalism.

Posted by: Hank Whatever | April 26, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

If Clinton gets the nomination, I'll vote for her. If Obama gets the nomination, I'll vote for him. I don't want John McBush to be president.

Posted by: Vote for a Dem | April 26, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a MARXIST wussie ( afraid to debate a woman )who knows that everytime he opens his mouth off his beloved prepared teleprompter, he is revealed!

Posted by: Fred | April 26, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is following the "desperate times call for desperate measures" tact. Next time she'll put a battery on her shoulder and dare Obama to knock it off.

Posted by: Bob | April 26, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse

BREAKING NEWS:

Hillary Clinton challenges Barack Obama to a debate in Indiana, Scrabble in North Carolina, Doge Ball in West Virginia, Checkers in Kentucky, Monopoly in Oregon, Twister in Idaho, Go Fish in Puerto Rico, Clue in South Dakota, and Black Jack in Montana in a winner takes all strategy.

In a related story Barack Obama received 10 stitches today after being hit in the head by glass that was left in the kitchen sink when it was thrown at him.

When asked to comment on whether the glass was deliberately left in the sink by one of her supporters Hillary Clinton responded "There is nothing to base that on, as far as I know."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

The race is over. We're just playing out the clock! Sort of like a basketball/football/baseball game.... There is now way, under the existing rules, that Hillary can surpass Barack in the number of pledged delegates [which is what counts] or the popular vote, or the number of states won.The Superdelegates know it; some have said so publicly. All the anti-Obama vituperation just helps McCain. So have fun, "Democrat" kiddies; and when McCain wins, you can point proudly to yourself as the reason for it.

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

What talks like a chichen, acts like a chicken,hides like a chicken,it is a chicken, Mr. Obama, if you don't even have the courage to debate Hillary who is a woman as you said, then of what are you made? with no bones? You can run , but you can not hide,how can you face McCain in the general election? if you can not even face Hillary on a one to one basis. Stay out of the kitchen, if you can not stand the heat! You ain't see nothing yet, what the Republican can throw at you.

Posted by: johnycheng | April 26, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Don't you eve sass IowaTreasures, kid.

We don't take kindly to people who attack women where I come from.

Only cowards do that and we don't take kindly to cowards either.

Posted by: Don't you eve sass IowaTreasures, kid | April 26, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse

It sounds like the press and the Obama toadies are trying to blame Senator Hillary Clinton because voting percentages show the black Americans voting overwhelmingly for Obama, whom they identify with as one of their own. However, the rest of America is looking beyond skin color and are beginning to question Obama's judgment, history and lack of experience. Voters are second-guessing the votes they cast a couple of months ago for the man they found charismatic, and little else. On the other hand, Senator Hillary Clinton is defending herself as the most logical choice to lead this country after eight years of another inexperienced young man who claimed he was a "Uniter." Remember Bush's campaign promises? If this was a panel assembled to choose the right person for the Presidential position, Senator Hillary Clinton would be offered the job in a New York minute! The choice of Senator Clinton would be attributed to her work history, past experiences, ability, intelligence, professionalism, character and knowledge that is necessary to lead this country out of this dismal mess. The Presidential position would be offered to Senator Hillary Clinton, even if the same number of points were to be awarded to Obama due to the requirements of affirmative action.

Posted by: Cantabrigian | April 26, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

"obama is a yellow belly scare-dee cat afraid he might be forced to articulate what his actual plans are. Obviously he doesn't want to debate because of the whoopin' he takes every time he faces Clinton. He's is a pansy."

He's the pansy who's "whoopin'" Hillary's scared but, Lindy-poo! Know math?

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

Hillary should...debate...her Buddy...

"The Bosnia Sniper."

Posted by: Maggie | April 26, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

Obama VOTED "YES" in support of Cheney's Energy Bill that was developed with the help of the OIL COMPANIES who are now reaping higher profits than ever reported in history.

Senator Hillary Clinton voted "NO" against the Cheney Energy Bill.

Obama's support for the Oil Companies is paying of big time $$$$$. Although Obama likes to claim that his money comes from first time voters; The Washington Post wrote an article on Obama's "Bundlers?" Google - The Washington Post Staff Story of 4/11/08. "Big Donors Among Obama's Grass Roots 'Bundlers' Have a Voice in Campaign," By Matthew Mosk and Alec MacGillis Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, April 11, 2008; A01

Posted by: Cantabrigian | April 26, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

For a break, the country should have a person who can think clearly, act wisely, motivate and lead others. A person with a sound vision not a person who can debate debate debate, or throw kitchen sinks at other people. Before sending troops to Iraq we had debates, a good show at UN to convince others but all ended up in a bad judgment that resulted in many problems.

Posted by: chat | April 26, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

I bet this debate would be great to watch. No biased involvement from prior moderators and an all out exchange blow for blow equally. We might then really see the fiber of each and how they stand their ground when it's all laid out on the table with no interference from too formal and too biased host moderators. A debate is supposed to be just that, a debate or aruging for the sake of what is at stake. No interference or slant from media interjection.

Posted by: dani | April 26, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

To: Maggie Williams
Campaign Manager
Hillary for President

From: David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

Dear Maggie:

Debates! We don't need no stinking debates!

We'have had too many debates.
The American people are sick of the debates.
If I can't have Chris & Keith of MSNBC as the moderators, no way Jose!
I have a conflict with my bowling lessons.
I have already got the nomination secured, why debate?
Debates are for policy nerds; I just preach "Hope".
I am busy formulating a "Throw Rev. Wright under a bus" plan.
Going on a vacation, so my fans can look at bare chested me and swoon.
How about re-running some of the past debates, like the one by MSNBC?
Busy getting ready for Cinco de Mayo.

Sincerely,

DP

Posted by: Krishna | April 26, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

"Iowatreasures posted:

"Obama will now and forever go down in the anals of history as Barack "the finger" Obama."

Consider the source! "Iowatreasures" is another term for what comes out of a bull's anus!

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

This life-long Democrat is starting to think it doesn't make sense for a Democrat to be president for the next four years.

Bush and Cheney have made a fiscal, diplomatic and military mess. And I'm not sure anyone can clean it up. I'd say let's let McCain be prez, and seize a super-majority in the Senate, and a commanding lead in the house.

And then let the Republicants try their best. Maybe then America will see what losers they really are, and that a racially mixed man or a woman could solve a few pressing problems - like health care and the environment, not to mention war.

As for the debate in Indiana, Obama should do it - on terms amenable to both candidates. And could we stick to the issues, please!

I for one would put them both in a boxing or wrestling ring. Now that would be enlightening. And entertaining.

Especially their outfits.

Posted by: Captain John | April 26, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

"Jacksmith, you are the wisest person commenting here and on this campaign."

Gee tanks, starvass123, but actually I'm a total loser. The Clinton campaign pays me $7.50 an hour to spam these message boards. I'm totally working class, this is the only job I ever had besides fast food and collecting welfare. Hillary is my heroe, she said she make me secretary of state or treasury or one of those important things.

Posted by: jacksmith | April 26, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

obama is a yellow belly scare-dee cat afraid he might be forced to articulate what his actual plans are. Obviously he doesn't want to debate because of the whoopin' he takes every time he faces Clinton. He's is a pansy.

Posted by: lindafranke1952 | April 26, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

These Obama haters write the stupidest stuff. I'm guessing they skipped third grade math.

Posted by: Southern Old White Boy Against the Shrew | April 26, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

"Jacksmith, you are the wisest person commenting here and on this campaign."

Gee tanks, sarvast123, but actually I'm a total loser. The Clinton campaign pays me $7.50 an hour to spam these message boards. I'm totally working class, this is the only job I ever had besides fast food and collecting welfare. Hillary is my heroe, she said she make me secretary of state or treasury or one of those important things.

Posted by: jacksmith | April 26, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

What haven't they talked about that Hilly want so badly to discuss now? Go home, you self-righteous wanker. Watch out though. The sniper is still out there somewhere!

Posted by: Gene | April 26, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

To those who have watched enough debates already: if there's another debate, nobody's forcing you to watch it.

Posted by: Watched Enough | April 26, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

This life-long Democrat is starting to think it doesn't make sense for a Democrat to be president for the next four years.

Bush and Cheney have made a fiscal, diplomatic and military mess. And I'm not sure anyone can clean it up. I'd say let's aim for McCain as prez, and seize a super-majority in the Senate, and a commanding lead in the house.

And then let the Republicants try their best. And then America will see what losers they really are.

As for the debate in Indiana, Obama should do it - on terms amenable to both candidates. And could we stick to the issues, please!

I for one would put them both in a boxing ring. Now that would be enlightening.

Posted by: Captain John | April 26, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

My friends, my friends, a wise Jewish woman was first to tell me, "When life gives you lemons, make lemonade". If it is a protracted primary contest, notice I did not use the term race, then take the airtime. Democrats have an opportunity here to control primetime airtimes.

Risk assessment would caution against negativity or questions proving to be an embarrassment. So, being directly responsive to the people through civilized and mature questions is a very good thing. Something Karl Rove would frown upon.

Something to keep in mind, later on, PBS will take over moderating Presidential debates. Those debates will not be so antagonistic as we have witnessed to date . PBS will afford a less entertaining and more boring debate I would guess. But at least a more civil and mature system will take over eventually, practice, practice, practice.

Posted by: Hank Whatever | April 26, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Hillary, why not debate with your best friend..."The Bosnia Sniper?"

And puhleexe...don't wear that pants-suit to Barack's innauguration.

Posted by: Maggie | April 26, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

You must be kidding! Obama will never, ever again debate Senator Hillary Clinton because he is way out of his league with her. During the last debate Obama was as nervous as a cat on a hot tin roof, eyes bugging, nervously licking his lips while fumbling for answers and unable to rise to the challenge of a knowledgeable, intelligent woman of substance. The audacity of this dolt and his toadies to then turn around and try to spin that he won the debate while denying there was any connection between him and Ayers! The Boston Globe (4/17) reported Obama's political career was launched in 1995 when Ayers and his wife introduced Obama to their Hyde community with a small house party. This man Obama lies, lies, and lies. Obama can not even converse for God's sake because all he knows is the political rhetoric which Axlerod his campaign Guru has fashioned for him. Obama's glib smirk and mocking of Senator Clinton on the campaign trail, and then he turns around and attempts to copy Senator Clinton's insight and professionalism. Obama lacks her knowledge and therefore he must stick to his political message of hope and change, what ever the heck that means.

Posted by: Cantabrigian | April 26, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

"Iowatreasures posted:

"Obama will now and forever go down in the anals of history as Barack "the finger" Obama."

Consider the source! "Iowatreasures" is another term for what comes out of a bull's anus!

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

THE REAL AMERICA:

I speak for Planet Earth: since obviously you are and idiot, we will ignore you.

Posted by: mikey1 | April 26, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters don't have the sense to stop digging themselves into a deeper and deeper hole.

You guys are going to wind up with defeat and an empty shell of a party.

Obama and his supporters are the best recruiting tool Republcians ever had.

They are causing even the most hard-core Democrats to re-consider which party represents them and their interests.

Posted by: Obama supporters don't have the sense to stop digging themselves into a deeper and deeper hole | April 26, 2008 8:30 PM | Report abuse

using propaganda and misuse of funds and power for personal profit


is a bushCO and CRONY thing...


treason, murder, theft, drug running


it's what they do, and they got the bama's back


read the posts here, you think the anti Hillary crowd is pro ba ba man ????


right, and I'm the crown prince of moldovia

.

Iran-Contra

While allegations of Republican shenanigans in 1980 were left in this haze of evidence and denials, the lingering hostage crisis clearly damaged Carter's political standing in November 1980.

Reagan won a solid electoral victory. Then, immediately after Reagan's inauguration on Jan. 20, 1981, the Iranians released the American hostages.

It's also clear that the Reagan-Bush administration followed up release of the hostages with a secret policy of permitting Israel to ship U.S. military hardware to Iran.

Senior State Department officials learned of the secret policy in summer 1981 when an Argentine plane carrying U.S. military supplies from Israel to Iran strayed off course and was shot down over the Soviet Union.

Nicholas Veliotes, assistant secretary of state for the Middle East, investigated the strange case and said he learned from "people on high that indeed we had agreed that the Israelis could transship to Iran some American-origin military equipment. ... I believe it was the initiative of a few people [who] gave the Israelis the go-ahead. The net result was a violation of American law." [For details, see Parry's Trick or Treason,]

The clandestine U.S. relationship with Iran took other turns in the months ahead. Israel invaded Lebanon, followed by a Reagan-Bush decision to introduce American troops and then to begin shelling Moslem villages. Islamic extremists retaliated by seizing more American hostages.

With this new crisis, some of the operatives from 1980 popped up again. Businessman Shaheen and Iranian banker Hashemi urged Casey, who had become Reagan's CIA director, to trade arms to Iran for hostages. Soon, the earlier pipeline of weapons to Iran had merged with the flow of weapons that would be at the center of the Iran-contra scandal.

Vice President Bush had his fingerprints all over both sides of the Iran-contra affair, both the Iran side and the side funneling military supplies to the contra rebels in Nicaragua.

Key personnel from his office, including former CIA officer Donald Gregg who had become Bush's national security adviser, placed Cuban-American operative Felix Rodriguez in Central America. Rodriguez soon was running the day-to-day operations re-supplying the contras and coordinating with national security aide Oliver L. North.

A flow chart that emerged during later investigations indicated that Bush's office managed the contra network after Congress passed laws in 1983-84 first limiting and then barring U.S. military assistance to the contras. Authority for the secret re-supply operation later passed to North, according to the flow chart.

Around the Rodriguez operation in Central America clustered a number of Cuban-Americans from Miami. Some of them, including a few working directly for the CIA and Reagan's National Security Council, used their contra connections in Central America as cover for cocaine smuggling and money laundering, a 1998 study by the CIA's inspector general found.

Perception Management

To protect the growing number of secrets, the Reagan-Bush administration organized a domestic public diplomacy operation, headed by another CIA officer named Walter Raymond Jr.

The goal of this operation was to conduct what was called "perception management," that is the control of how the American people perceived the events unfolding in Central America and elsewhere. A high priority was given to bullying U.S. journalists who didn't toe the government's line. [For details, see Parry's Lost History.]

This protection of the Iran-contra secrets almost worked. The few reporters (including myself) who uncovered parts of the story were subjected to assaults on our reputations and careers.

Despite the growing evidence, most of the major news media dismissed the stories of secret operations and related drug trafficking as conspiracy nonsense.

The scandal only unraveled because of outside events. On Oct. 5, 1986, one of North's supply planes was shot down over Nicaragua.

The sole surviving crewman, Eugene Hasenfus, pointed the finger at George Bush's vice presidential office and the CIA. Bush and other administration officials denied Hasenfus's statement.

The second Iran-contra shoe dropped in early November 1986 with a story in a Beirut newspaper about the Iran arms sales. When the secret about North's diverting Iranian arms profits to the contras was disclosed a few weeks later, the Iran-contra scandal was born.

But the Reagan-Bush administration was not ready to tell all. Immediately, the administration and Republicans on Capitol Hill moved to counter and to contain the scandal. For his part, Bush insisted that he was "not in the loop" on the Iran-contra business.

Cheney to the Rescue

One of the key congressional Republicans fighting this rear-guard action was Rep. Dick Cheney of Wyoming, who became the ranking House Republican on the Iran-contra investigation. Cheney already enjoyed a favorable reputation in Washington as a steady conservative hand.

Cheney smartly exploited his relationship with Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., who was chairman of the Iran-contra panel. Hamilton cared deeply about his reputation for bipartisanship and the Republicans quickly exploited this fact.

A senior committee source said one of Cheney's top priorities was to block Democrats from deposing Vice President Bush about his Iran-contra knowledge. Cheney "kept trying to intimidate Hamilton," the source said. "He kept saying if we go down that road, we won't have bipartisanship."

So, Hamilton gave Bush a pass. The limited investigation also gave little attention to other sensitive areas, such as contra-drug trafficking and the public diplomacy operation. They were pared down or tossed out altogether.

Despite surrendering to Cheney's demands time and again, Hamilton failed, in the end, to get a single House Republican to sign the final report.

Only three moderate Republicans on the Senate side - Warren Rudman, William Cohen and Paul Trible - agreed to sign the report, after extracting more concessions. Cheney and the other Republicans submitted a minority report that denied that any significant wrongdoing had occurred.

The watered-down Iran-contra majority report essentially let Vice President Bush off the hook. Bush's political career was saved.

With the Iran-contra scandal contained, Bush mounted a 1988 presidential campaign that set the modern standard for negativity, race-baiting and a win-at-all-cost ethic. In 1989, Cheney became Bush's defense secretary.

Posted by: REPUBLICK CONNERS using the CIA AGAINST THE PEOPLE | April 26, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

I've been longing for Obama and Clinton to debate each other directly, without moderators asking predictable questions, most of them asked over and over and over again from one debate to the next.

That extemporaneous format would show us who is more thoroughly versed in today's issues and understands them best.

Posted by: Wanting a Real Debate | April 26, 2008 8:28 PM | Report abuse

jack smith = jack**s

Posted by: aj | April 26, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Mr. Obama agreeing not to debate Sen. Clinton. After the trashing she gave him on the last debate, agreeing not to debate would be a good strategy for him.
At-least he would not have to cry about hard questions like he had in the last debate since there would be no reporters asking questions. Then again knowing him, he might complain that Sen. Clinton beat him up and ask him too difficult questions.

Posted by: mike c | April 26, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

guess you can't read...

TREASON

as in using the CIA as a REPULICK CONNER

tool, against the people and particularly

AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

while pretending to serve that president and congress...

most certainly

TREASON....and you shouldknow shouldn't you.


..


Posted by: I | April 26, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is choking! The end is near as I think these tactics will cause the super delegates to start quickly backing Obama.
In the interim, I suspect a desperate proposal for a mud wrestling match will surface.

Posted by: Jasper | April 26, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

We have seen her kitchensink throwing debates far too many times than we wish we had. Not only does Hillary throw the kitchensink at Obama, she picks up feces from her place where the sun doesn't shine and flicks it at him. It doesn't matter whether they use moderators or whether they use swords, it is a waste of our time. We have no more interest in seeing who can fling the feces the farthest. If Hillary enjoys debates that much, she should stay home and debate with Bill. Don't pull the American people into it anymore.

Posted by: Bruce McCahey | April 26, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Sen.Clinton has the balls. Sen.Obama please show some balls (if you have any) and Debate. IF YOU CAN'T DEBATE A WOMAN, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO DEFEND AMERICA SEN.OBAMA.

Posted by: Sam | April 26, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

clinton wants to debate for one reason only so she can get free air time. It cost lots of money to run tv ads and if you debate the party pays for it so the more she can get her face on that screen for free she is trying. It would be stupid for obama to debate and give her free air time make her pay her self in to oblivion

Posted by: steve | April 26, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Sen.Clinton has the balls. Sen.Obama please show some balls (if you have any) and Debate. IF YOU CAN'T DEBATE A WOMAN, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO DEFEND AMERICA SEN.OBAMA.

Posted by: Sam | April 26, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Sen.Clinton has the balls. Sen.Obama please show some balls (if you have any) and Debate. IF YOU CAN'T DEBATE A WOMAN, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO DEFEND AMERICA SEN.OBAMA.

Posted by: Sam | April 26, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Somebody just posted claiming to be America.

They are not us.

IF Obama's the candidate, we're voting for McCain.

That's a promise you can take to the bank.

Obama supporters need Democrats more than Democrats need them.

They're about to find that out the hard way.

If Obama's the candidate, we will elect McCain and happily cancel social programs and affirmative action.

Now, do you still want to play?

If you do, we'll be glad to reconsider our support for Roe vs. Wade.

We'll keep going as long as you want to.

We fund social programs out of our taxes and the goodness of our hearts.

You're using up our goodwill faster than you can possibly imagine.

Posted by: THE REAL AMERICA | April 26, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

I think it's a great idea. It would be the most watched debate in election history. Let's do it. The candidates shouldn't be allowed to hide behind sound bites, TV ads, and prepared remarks.

Posted by: John | April 26, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Of COURSE Hillary wants more debates:

She's LOSING BADLY. So what else is new?

Posted by: Chuckamok | April 26, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Jacksmith = your opinions are worth jack sh!t. What an idiot.

Posted by: Shrillary Cliton is a Liar | April 26, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Not another debate! If she hasn't gotten to the issues by now, too bad. If someone can't get their point across to the American people within 21 or so debates, then they don't need to represent the nation.

ENOUGH SAID!

Posted by: saddened american | April 26, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

So yeah treason my friends, let me get this story right. So a covert operation against Carter included a sand storm that doomed the mission ? Wow, I knew the CIA could control the weather, sure, right you betcha. Lithium helps.

Posted by: Hank Whatever | April 26, 2008 8:17 PM | Report abuse

Why are Washington Post's reporters are so stupid and scam artists. When Hillary invites Obama to a debate without a moderator...these stupid reporters announce something like " Hillary invites Obama to a debate with a twist"...Can someone ask these morons where is the twist?

Posted by: Kevin99999 | April 26, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

"A New Debate Tact"? Tell your headline writer to get a dictionary. Or fire him/her. Illiteracy is no excuse!

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Enough said. Obama on the ticket, I vote Dem. Clinton, I vote McCain. That simple.

Want my vote? Or would you rather continue to play games??

Posted by: american people | April 26, 2008 8:12 PM | Report abuse

A debate would be an honest thoughtful exchange of ideas about the problems we face. You can't have a debate with a demagogue. You can't debate with people who put power over principle, you can't debate with people for whom the truth is silly putty. To the Clintons winning is everything. If I was Obama I would try to avoid even being in the same room with either of them. If all you say is "hello" they and their war room thugs will spin it a thousand different negative ways.

Posted by: rusty 3 | April 26, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Please- get an editor who can proofread- your headline says "Tact" when you mean either "Tactic" or "Tack."

Though, I suppose Hillary Clinton deciding on new campaign tact might in fact be worth a headline......

Posted by: irritated | April 26, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

How many times does Obama have to say no before she gets it? He is smart for not falling for another ambush.

Posted by: Ron | April 26, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

it's against the law to have the CIA participating in


US ELECTIONS...

The Weapons Flow

While the Republicans have long denied the claims of a Paris meeting and an October Surprise deal, there is no doubt that military hardware was soon heading to Iran and that some of the principals in the hostage intrigue were active in the shipments.

Back in New York, with the FBI listening in, Cyrus Hashemi began work with Republicans lining up arms shipments to Iran, including parts for helicopter gun ships and night-vision goggles for pilots.

The FBI wiretap summary also contained references to Cyrus Hashemi facing accusations at home that he had been duplicitous about the hostage issue. On Oct. 22, 1980, the FBI bugs caught Hashemi's wife, Houma, scolding her husband for his denials that he had discussed the hostages with a prominent Iranian. "It is not possible to be a double agent and have two faces," Houma warned Cyrus.

On Oct. 23, the FBI listened in on John Shaheen using one of the bugged phones in Hashemi's Manhattan office to brief a European associate, Dick Gaedecke, on the latest hostage developments.

On Oct. 24, an FBI agent wrote down another cryptic note from the wiretaps indicating that Cyrus Hashemi may have had ties to Ronald Reagan himself. Using Cyrus Hashemi's initials, the FBI's notation read: "CH-banking business about Reagan overseas corp."

Meanwhile, back in Europe, a French-Israeli arms shipment to Iran was under way. Iranian arms merchant Ahmed Heidari said he had approached deMarenches in September 1980 to seek help getting weapons for the Iranian military, which was then battling the Iraqi army in Khuzistan province.

Heidari said deMarenches put him in touch with a French middleman, Yves deLoreilhe, who facilitated the arms shipment. The flight left France on Oct. 23, stopped in Tel Aviv to load 250 tires for U.S.-built F-4 fighters, returned to France to add spare parts for M-60 tanks, before going to Teheran on Oct. 24. When Carter learned of the shipment, he protested to Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin.

On Nov. 4, 1980, one year to the day after the Iranian militants seized the U.S. Embassy in Teheran, Ronald Reagan routed Jimmy Carter in the U.S. presidential elections. Reagan carried 44 states for a total of 489 electoral votes, with Carter claiming only six states and the District of Columbia for 49 electoral votes.

After the election - because the FBI had picked up evidence of Cyrus Hashemi's arms dealing with Iran - the Carter administration finally froze the shady Iranian banker out of the hostage talks. But Hashemi kept his hand in, still moving money to key players.

On Jan. 15, 1981, Hashemi met with Iranian Revolutionary Guard officials in London and opened an account for them with 1.87 million pounds (roughly equal to $3 million), according to the FBI wiretaps.

The money apparently was to finance more arms sales, but also had the look of a possible payoff to Khomeini's hard-line military backers.

On Jan. 19, 1981, the last day of the Carter Presidency, Cyrus Hashemi was back on one of the bugged phones, describing to a cohort "the banking arrangements being made to free the American hostages in Iran." Hashemi was also moving ahead with military shipments to Iran, amid concern that there might be more competition ahead.

"How should we proceed with our friend over there?" the associate asked Hashemi. "I'm just a little bit nervous that everyone is trying to move in on the action here."

As the Inauguration neared, Republicans talked tough, making clear that Ronald Reagan wouldn't stand for the humiliation that the nation endured for 444 days under Jimmy Carter. The Reagan-Bush team intimated that Reagan would deal harshly with Iran if it didn't surrender the hostages.

A joke making the rounds of Washington went: "What's three feet deep and glows in the dark? Teheran ten minutes after Ronald Reagan becomes President."

On Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, 1981, just as Reagan was beginning his inaugural address, word came from Iran that the hostages were freed. The American people were overjoyed.

The coincidence in timing between the hostage release and Reagan's taking office immediately boosted the new President's image as a tough guy who wouldn't let the United States be pushed around.

President Reagan named his campaign chief, William Casey, to head the CIA. Donald Gregg became Vice President Bush's national security adviser. Richard Allen became Reagan's NSC adviser, followed later by Robert McFarlane. Though relatively young, Robert Gates quickly climbed the CIA's career ladder to become deputy director and later CIA director under President George H.W. Bush.

In the mid-1980s, many of the same October Surprise actors became figures in the Iran-Contra scandal when that secret arms-for-hostages scheme with Iran was revealed in late 1986, despite White House denials and a determined cover-up.

According to the official Iran-Contra investigations, that plot to sell U.S. weapons to Iran for its help in freeing American hostages then held in Lebanon involved Cyrus Hashemi, John Shaheen, Theodore Shackley, William Casey, Donald Gregg, Robert Gates, Robert McFarlane, George Cave, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

But a political firewall was quickly built between the Iran-Contra Affair and the October Surprise case. No aggressive investigation was ever conducted into whether the origins of the Iran-Contra scandal traced back to the 1980 election and whether CIA operatives, working with George H.W. Bush, had used their covert skills to alter the course of American political history.

[To examine the some of the long-hidden Task Force documents, click here. To obtain a copy of Secrecy & Privilege, click here.]


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

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq

Posted by: yeah, TREASON my friends | April 26, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

This case has been postoned until the Election is over. Novemeber 2008.

The California Judge removed Hillary because She was running for President. Why is the Media not talking about this.

ALL WE NEED IS MORE CROOKS IN OUR WHITE HOUSE
_________________________________________


Bill and Hillary To Face Fraud Trial
February 20, 2008
While Hillary Clinton battles Barack Obama on the campaign trail, a judge in Los Angeles is quietly preparing to set a trial date in a $17 million fraud suit that aims to expose an alleged culture of widespread corruption by the Clintons and the Democratic Party.

At the conclusion of a hearing Thursday morning before California Superior Court Judge Aurelio N. Munoz, lawyers for Hollywood mogul Peter F. Paul will begin seeking sworn testimony from all three Clintons - Bill, Hillary and Chelsea - along with top Democratic Party leaders and A-list celebrities, including Barbra Streisand, John Travolta, Brad Pitt and Cher.


Paul's team hopes for a trial in October. The Clinton's longtime lawyer David Kendall, who will attend the hearing, has declined comment on the suit.

The Clintons have tried to dismiss the case, but the California Supreme Court, in 2004, upheld a lower-court decision to deny the motion.

Bill Clinton, according to the complaint, promised to promote Paul's Internet entertainment company, Stan Lee Media, in exchange for stock, cash options and massive contributions to his wife's 2000 Senate campaign. Paul contends he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic Party leaders to produce, pay for and then join them in lying about footing the bill for a Hollywood gala and fundraiser.

The Clintons' legal counsel has denied the former president made any deal with Paul. But Paul attorney Colette Wilson told WND there are witnesses who say it was common knowledge at Stan Lee Media that Bill Clinton was preparing to be a rainmaker for the company after he left office.

Paul claims former Vice President Al Gore, former Democratic Party chairman Ed Rendell and Clinton presidential campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe also are among the people who can confirm Paul engaged in the deal.

Paul claims Rendell directed various illegal contributions to the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign and failed to report to the Federal Election Commission more than $100,000 given for a Hollywood event for Gore's campaign and the Democratic National Committee in 2000. McAuliffe, Paul says, counseled him in two separate meetings to become a major donor to Hillary Clinton to pave the way to hire her husband. Paul asserts top Clinton adviser Harold Ickes also directed him to give money to the Senate campaign but hid that fact in "perjured testimony" during the trial of campaign finance director David Rosen.

Rosen was acquitted in 2005 for filing false campaign reports that later were charged by the FEC to treasurer Andrew Grossman, who accepted responsibility in a conciliation agreement that fined the campaign 35,000. Paul points out the Rosen trial established his contention that he personally gave more than $1.2 million to Clinton's campaign and that his contributions intentionally were hidden from the public and the Federal Election Commission.

Rosen, accused of concealing Paul's in-kind contribution of more than $1 million, was acquitted, but Paul contends the Clinton staffer was a scapegoat. Paul points out chief Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson told the Washington Post he was aware of the donation, yet he never was called as a witness in the Rosen trial.

Paul contends his case will expose "the institutional culture of corruption embraced by the Clinton leadership of the Democratic Party," which seeks to attain "unaccountable power for the Clintons at the expense of the rule of law and respect for the constitutional processes of government."

The complaint asserts Clinton has filed four false reports to the FEC of Paul's donations in an attempt to distance herself from him after a Washington Post story days after the August 2000 fundraiser reported his past felony convictions. Clinton then returned a check for $2,000, insisting it was the only money she had taken from Paul. But one month later, she demanded another $100,000, to be hidden in a state committee using untraceable securities.

"Why wouldn't that cause someone to inquire?" Paul asked. "Especially since it was days after she said she wouldn't take any more money from me."

Paul has the support of a new grass-roots political action group that is helping garner the assistance of one of the nation's top lawyers

Republican activist Rod Martin says his group plans to highlight Paul's case as it launches an organization based on the business model of the left-wing MoveOn.org but rooted in the principles and political philosophy of former President Reagan.

Martin's group also is assisting in Paul's complaint to the FEC asserting that unless the agency sets aside the conciliation agreement and rescinds immunity granted the senator, it will "have aided and abetted in the commission" of a felony.

Paul's case is the subject of a video documentary largely comprised of intimate "home movies" of Hillary Clinton and her Hollywood supporters captured by Paul during

Posted by: MsRita | April 26, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Election Battle

After Labor Day 1980, with the start of the general election campaign, Jimmy Carter began to show new signs of political life. Carter had survived a Democratic primary challenge from liberal Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy and was benefiting from a uniting of Democrats after their national convention.

There also were widespread public doubts about Ronald Reagan, who was viewed by many as an extremist who might unnecessarily heat up the Cold War. Carter began to slowly close the gap on the former California governor. But the Iranian hostage crisis hovered over his campaign like an accursed spirit.

Though little noticed in Washington, political battles also were breaking out inside the Iranian leadership. Iran's acting Foreign Minister Sadegh Ghotbzadeh told Agence France Presse on Sept. 6 that he had information that Reagan was "trying to block a solution" to the hostage impasse.

The secret Republican plan to delay release of the hostages until after the U.S. elections also had become a point of tension between Iranian President Bani-Sadr and Ayatollah Khomeini, according to Bani-Sadr's account sent to the House October Surprise Task Force in 1992.

Bani-Sadr said he managed to force Khomeini to reopen talks with Carter's representatives. Bani-Sadr said Khomeini relented and agreed to pass on a new hostage proposal to Carter officials through his son-in-law, Sadegh Tabatabai.

The Tabatabai initiative surprised the Carter negotiation team, which had pretty much given up hope that the Iranians would agree to any serious talks. NSC official Gary Sick described the proposal for settling the hostage impasse as "a set of conditions for ending the crisis that were really much gentler than anything Iran had offered before."

The sudden shift in the Iranian position coincided with a renewed concern among Republicans that Carter might actually pull off his October Surprise of a hostage release. A flurry of meetings ensued involving Iranian emissaries and representatives of the Republican October Surprise monitoring operation.

On Sept. 16, Casey was focusing again on the crisis in the region. At 3 p.m., he met with senior Reagan-Bush campaign officials Edwin Meese, Bill Timmons and Richard Allen about the "Persian Gulf Project," according to an unpublished section of the House Task Force report and Allen's notes. Two other participants at the meeting, according to Allen's notes, were Michael Ledeen and Noel Koch.

That same day, Iran's acting foreign minister Ghotbzadeh again was quoted as citing Republican interference on the hostages. "Reagan, supported by [former Secretary of State Henry] Kissinger and others, has no intention of resolving the problem," Ghotbzadeh said. "They will do everything in their power to block it."

While the Republicans were busy in Washington, Carter's emissaries in West Germany were hammering out the framework for a hostage-release settlement with Tabatabai.

"I was very optimistic at the time," Tabatabai said in an interview with me a decade later. "Mr. Carter had accepted the conditions set by the Iranians. I sent an encrypted message to the Imam [Khomeini], saying I would be back the next day."

A settlement of the hostage crisis seemed to be in the offing. But Tabatabai's return was delayed by the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War on Sept. 22. Tabatabai had to wait two weeks before he could return to Iran.

October Surprise

With little more than a month to go before the U.S. election, Republicans and Iranian representatives continued to meet in Washington. Indeed, one of the first public references to secret Republican-Iranian contacts was to a meeting at the L'Enfant Plaza Hotel supposedly in late September or early October.

Three Republicans - Allen, Silberman and Robert McFarlane, an aide to Sen. John Tower - have acknowledged a session with an Iranian emissary at the hotel. But none of them claimed to remember the person's name, his nationality or his position - not even McFarlane who purportedly arranged the meeting.

In early October, Israeli intelligence officer Ari Ben-Menashe said he learned from superiors in Israel that Carter's hostage negotiations had fallen through because of Republican opposition, according to his memoirs, Profits of War.

The Republicans wanted the Iranians to release the hostages only after the Nov. 4 election, Ben-Menashe wrote, with the final details to be arranged in Paris between a delegation of Republicans, led by George H.W. Bush, and a delegation of Iranians, led by cleric Mehdi Karrubi.

Also present, Ben-Menashe wrote, would be about a half dozen Israeli representatives, including David Kimche, and several CIA officials, including Donald Gregg and Robert Gates, an ambitious young man who was considered close to Bush. At the time, Gates was serving as an executive assistant to CIA Director Stansfield Turner.

In retrospect, some of Carter's negotiators felt they should have been much more attentive to the possibility of Republican sabotage. "Looking back, the Carter administration appears to have been far too trusting and particularly blind to the intrigue swirling around it," said former NSC official Gary Sick.

By October 1980, however, Carter was clawing his way back into the presidential race, with the possibility that an Iranian hostage settlement still could change the dynamic of the campaign.

Sensing the political danger, the Republicans opened the final full month of the campaign by trying to make Carter's hostage negotiations look like a cynical ploy to influence the election's outcome.

On Oct. 2, Republican vice-presidential candidate George H.W. Bush brought up the issue with a group of reporters: "One thing that's at the back of everybody's mind is, 'What can Carter do that is so sensational and so flamboyant, if you will, on his side to pull off an October Surprise?' And everybody kind of speculates about it, but there's not a darn thing we can do about it, nor is there any strategy we can do except possibly have it discounted."

With Bush's comments, Carter's supposed "October Surprise" was publicly injected into the campaign. But there was "a darn thing" or two that the Republicans could do - and were doing - to prepare themselves for the possibility of a last-minute hostage release, including gathering their own intelligence about the Iranian developments.

Little scraps of news and rumors about the hostages were rushed to the campaign hierarchy. Richard Allen recalled one urgent memo he wrote when he was told by a journalist that Secretary of State Edmund Muskie had floated the possibility of a swap of military spare parts for the hostages.

Like a scene in a spy novel, Allen coded the journalist as "ABC" and Muskie as "XYZ" and compiled a quick memo on the hot news. "I breathlessly sent this out to the campaign, to [campaign director William] Casey, to [pollster Richard] Wirthlin, to [senior adviser Edwin] Meese, I think [to] the President and maybe [to] George Bush."

The big October Surprise question, however, has always been whether the Reagan-Bush campaign sealed the deal for a post-election hostage release with direct meetings in Paris between senior Iranians and senior Republicans, including vice presidential candidate George H.W. Bush.

The idea of Bush slipping away during the final weeks of the campaign for a secret trip to Paris has always been the most explosive part of the October Surprise story and, for many, the most implausible.

The secret trip would have required the cooperation of at least a few Secret Service agents who would have had to file inaccurate reports on the candidate's whereabouts and activities. The trip also would have carried a high political risk if exposed, though the senior George Bush's experience at the CIA had taught him a lot about how to contain embarrassing disclosures especially when a national security claim could be asserted.

If a flat denial didn't work, perhaps he could have tried a patriotic cover story about trying to get the hostages home when Carter couldn't. But often the most effective tactic is simply to deny, deny, deny.

Ben-Menashe said he was in Paris as part of a six-member Israeli delegation that was coordinating the arms deliveries to Iran. He said the key meeting occurred at the Ritz Hotel in Paris.

"We walked past the vigilant eyes of the French security men to be confronted by two U.S. Secret Service types," Ben-Menashe wrote in Profits of War. "After checking off our names on their list, they directed us to a guarded elevator at the side of the lobby. Stepping out of the elevator, we found ourselves in a small foyer where soft drinks and fruits had been laid out."

Ben-Menashe said he recognized several Americans already there, including Robert Gates, Robert McFarlane, Donald Gregg and George Cave, the CIA expert on Iran.

"Ten minutes later, [cleric Mehdi] Karrubi, in a Western suit and collarless white shirt with no tie, walked with an aide through the assembled group, bade everyone a good day, and went straight into the conference room," Ben-Menashe wrote.

"A few minutes later George Bush, with the wispy-haired William Casey in front of him, stepped out of the elevator. He smiled, said hello to everyone, and, like Karrubi, hurried into the conference room. It was a very well-staged entrance. My last view of George Bush was of his back as he walked deeper into the room - and then the doors were closed."

Ben-Menashe said the Paris meetings served to finalize a previously outlined agreement calling for release of the 52 hostages in exchange for $52 million, guarantees of arms sales for Iran, and unfreezing of Iranian monies in U.S. banks.

The timing, however, was changed, Ben-Menashe said, to coincide with Reagan's expected Inauguration on Jan. 20, 1981.

"It was such a secret arrangement that all hotel records of the Americans' and the Israelis' visits to Paris - I cannot speak for the Iranians - were swept away two days after we left town," Ben-Menashe wrote.

Ben-Menashe testified under oath before Congress about seeing Bush and other Republicans in Paris in October 1980. Gates, McFarlane, Gregg, Cave, Karrubi and Bush have all denied participating in the meeting, although their alibis were either shaky or were never checked out by the House Task Force in 1992.

Mysterious Flights

My own resistance to the October Surprise tales came, in part, from my middle-American background. I simply had trouble picturing the various players taking secret, night-time flights across the Atlantic to meet with foreign leaders in luxury hotels surrounded by security agents.

The "James Bond factor" made the story seem more like a pulp novel or an escapist movie than a real historic event. But in covering intelligence operations since the early 1980s, I also had come to grips with the fact that people who joined that clandestine world thrive on risks that the average person - or politician - would aver.

Many critics of the October Surprise story have insisted that it is impossible to conceive of George H.W. Bush, the former CIA director, arranging for a secret flight to Paris while under Secret Service protection in mid-October 1980.

These critics have argued that this story must have been concocted for political reasons after the Iran-Contra scandal broke in late 1986 when a "conspiracy fever" gripped Washington.

But whatever the larger truth, the suspicion that the October Surprise allegations were invented after the Iran-Contra scandal has turned out to be wrong. The story of George H.W. Bush's alleged trip to Paris was circulating among Republicans in mid-October 1980.

David Henderson, then a State Department Foreign Service officer, recalled the date as Oct. 18, 1980, when Chicago Tribune correspondent John Maclean arrived at Henderson's house in Washington for in interview about Henderson's criticism of the Carter administration's handling of Cuban refugees from the Mariel boat lift.

But Maclean, the son of author Norman Maclean who wrote A River Runs Through It, had something else on his mind, Henderson recalled. Maclean had just been told by a well-placed Republican source that vice presidential candidate George H.W. Bush was flying to Paris for a clandestine meeting with a delegation of Iranians about the 52 American hostages.

Henderson wasn't sure whether Maclean was looking for some confirmation or whether he was simply sharing an interesting tidbit of news. Henderson had not previously heard of the Bush trip and wondered out loud if it might be part of a bipartisan effort to finally resolve the long-running hostage crisis.

Maclean never wrote about the leak he had received from his well-placed Republican source because, he said, a campaign spokesman subsequently denied it.

As the years passed, the memory of that Bush-to-Paris leak faded for both Henderson and Maclean, until the October Surprise allegations surfaced again in the early 1990s.

Several intelligence operatives were claiming that Bush had undertaken a secret mission to Paris in mid-October 1980 to give the Iranian government an assurance from one of the two Republicans on the presidential ticket that the promises of future military and other assistance would be kept.

Henderson mentioned the meeting in a 1991 letter to a U.S. senator, a copy of which was forwarded to me while I working at the Public Broadcasting Service's Frontline program. In the letter, Henderson recalled the conversation about Bush's trip to Paris but not the name of the Chicago Tribune reporter.

A producer at Frontline then searched some newspaper archives to find the story about Henderson and the Mariel boat lift as a way to identify Maclean as the journalist who had interviewed Henderson.

Though not eager to become part of the October Surprise story in 1991, Maclean confirmed that he had received the Republican leak. He also agreed with Henderson's recollection that their conversation occurred on or about Oct. 18, 1980. But Maclean still declined to identify his source.

The allegations of a Paris meeting also received support from several other sources, including pilot Heinrich Rupp, who said he flew Casey from Washington's National Airport to Paris on a flight that left very late on a rainy night in mid-October.

Rupp said that after arriving at LeBourget airport outside Paris, he saw a man resembling Bush on the tarmac. The night of Oct. 18 indeed was rainy in the Washington area. Also, sign-in sheets at the Reagan-Bush headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, placed Casey within a five-minute drive of National Airport late that evening.

The sign-in sheets showed Casey stopping in at the campaign headquarters at about 11:30 p.m. for a ten-minute visit to the Operations Center, which was staffed by CIA veterans monitoring developments in Iran.

There were other bits and pieces of corroboration about the Paris meetings. As early as 1987, Iran's ex-President Bani-Sadr had made similar claims about a Paris meeting.

A French arms dealer, Nicholas Ignatiew, told me in 1990 that he had checked with his government contacts and was told that Republicans did meet with Iranians in Paris in mid-October 1980.

A well-connected French investigative reporter Claude Angeli said his sources inside the French secret service confirmed that the service provided "cover" for a meeting between Republicans and Iranians in France on the weekend of October 18-19. German journalist Martin Kilian had received a similar account from a top aide to the fiercely anti-communist chief of French intelligence, Alexandre deMarenches.

During the final weeks of the House Task Force investigation in 1992, another witness came forward: the biographer for deMarenches, the legendary leader of France's Service de Documentation Exterieure et de Contre-Espionage (SDECE).

The biographer, David Andelman, an ex-New York Times and CBS News correspondent, testified that while working with deMarenches on the book, the spymaster said he had helped the Reagan-Bush campaign arrange meetings with Iranians about the hostage issue in the summer and fall of 1980, with one meeting held in Paris in October.

Andelman said deMarenches ordered that the secret meetings be kept out of his memoirs because the story could otherwise damage the reputations of his friends, William Casey and George H.W. Bush.

DeMarenches "thought the world of Casey and Bush, and never wanted anything to come out that would hurt Bush's chances for reelection [in 1992] or Casey's legacy," Andelman told me in an interview.

Andelman said that when he again raised the issue of Bush's alleged participation in the Paris meetings during a 1992 book promotion tour, deMarenches refused to discuss it, responding: "I don't want to hurt my friend, George Bush."

Posted by: al ittle bush bot legacy.... | April 26, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Jacksmith, you are the wisest person commenting here and on this campaign. I have read so much distorted information and emotionally-charged opinions, full of gossips and pettiness, that it is entirely refreshing to see your posts. Keep it going man!

Posted by: sarvast123 | April 26, 2008 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Meanwhile, Cyrus Hashemi's First Gulf Bank & Trust Co. was emerging as a bank which handled clandestine money transfers for the new Iranian government.

"It was ordered that all these monies be transferred to an account of my brother, into his bank, which was done," Jamshid Hashemi said. "The order of the transfer was from Admiral [Ahmad] Madani [who served as Iran's defense minister]. We went to the admiral with the telex and then we went to the war room of the navy in Teheran and we faxed it ... so he [Cyrus] could take over all the money, in late 1979, $30 to $35 million, to the account of the First Gulf."

According to Jamshid Hashemi, the attorney advising Cyrus Hashemi and John Shaheen about these transactions was William Casey.

Casey "was the man who was actually putting all these things together for both of them," Jamshid Hashemi said. "Casey was the adviser."

Exploiting his American contacts with the CIA, Cyrus Hashemi also arranged covert U.S. funding for Madani's presidential campaign.

In late 1979, Jamshid Hashemi said he received a call from his brother, summoning him from Iran to London and then to the United States. It was during the London stopover that Jamshid Hashemi said he met John Shaheen.

Shaheen "came and took my passport," Jamshid Hashemi said. "The next day I have my passport [back] with a piece of paper with a signature giving me a multiple entry visa into the United States. ... In those days for an Iranian to get a visa within a few hours, it would have been a miracle."

But after arriving in the United States on Jan. 1, 1980, Jamshid soon figured out that Shaheen's links to the CIA explained the miracle.

The CIA gave the Hashemi brothers $500,000 to deliver to the struggling Madani campaign. But only a small amount reached Iran - about $100,000 - and Madani lost badly to Abolhassan Bani-Sadr in the election.

After the CIA demanded an accounting of the money, the Hashemis returned $290,000 to the agency. Though the Madani campaign strategy had failed, it had opened - or at least widened - channels for the Hashemi brothers to the U.S. government and the CIA.

Soon, Cyrus Hashemi had entrenched himself as a middleman for contacts between the Carter administration and the Iranian government.

GOP Race

On Jan. 21, 1980, George H.W. Bush stunned the Republican presidential field by beating Ronald Reagan in the Iowa caucuses. In the glow of victory, Bush saw his face on the cover of Newsweek and claimed to possess the "Big Mo," a preppyish phrase for momentum. Bush next took aim at New Hampshire, next door to Maine where his family vacationed in the summer.

But Bush's Big Mo would last only long enough to force one historic change in the Reagan campaign. Reagan decided to fire John Sears as head of the campaign. Foreign policy adviser Richard Allen was among the Reagan loyalists who recommended Bill Casey, a crafty old spymaster who had worked for Richard Nixon and had bounced around the tough world of Long Island politics.

On Feb. 26, the day of the New Hampshire primary, which Reagan would win, the former California governor replaced Sears with Casey.

"I feel very strongly that this country is in trouble, that it needs to be turned around and I have felt for over a year that Governor Reagan is the only man in America who's ever turned a government around," Casey said in accepting the job.

Years later, Casey's widow, Sophia, gave me an unpublished paper containing Casey's personal reflections on the campaign. Though the report focused on campaign mechanics, it also revealed Casey's dread at the prospect of four more years of Jimmy Carter in the White House.

"Everyone [in Reagan's camp] agreed that Jimmy Carter had to be removed from office in order to save the nation from economic ruin and international humiliation," Casey wrote. He also recognized the pivotal role played by the Iranian hostage crisis in highlighting Carter's shortcomings. "The Iranian hostage crisis was the focal point of the failure of Carter's foreign policy," Casey wrote.

After his appointment, Casey went to work building a staunchly conservative organization that soon was rolling up victories for Ronald Reagan. But Casey also didn't forget what he viewed as the single-most important variable of the campaign: the 52 hostages whose continuing plight was growing into a national obsession.

Casey, the old OSS veteran, wanted to know all he could about Carter's progress toward resolving the crisis. "Over the ensuing months, Casey and the Republican campaign systematically constructed an elaborate and sophisticated intelligence organization targeted on their own government," wrote former NSC official Gary Sick in his book, October Surprise.

By early spring 1980, Reagan was rolling toward victory in the Republican race, though Bush hung on as the representative of the party's more moderate wing.

In the background, the Iran-hostage stand-off continued to loom as a political wild card. The crisis threatened Carter's reelection chances if it lingered but offered hope for a rebound if the hostages returned home at a timely moment.

In the tradition of the best spy tradecraft, Casey wanted to have sources right in the middle of the action - and as it turned out, one of Casey's longtime friends, John Shaheen, was already in tight with Cyrus Hashemi, one of President Carter's intermediaries to the Iranian government.

A Shaheen associate told me that Casey and Shaheen, the two old OSS guys, often discussed the hostage crisis in the context of their experience in the intelligence world. Sometimes their conversations turned to batting around their own ideas for how to resolve the standoff and how to show up Carter, the Shaheen associate said.

Shaheen also was in touch with Arab leaders in Europe and sounded them out, too, about ways for resolving the Iranian impasse, the associate said.

"Shaheen," the associate said, "loved this clandestine stuff. He ate it up. These guys [Casey and Shaheen] were real patriots. They would have been involved in it under the table, over the table and on the side of the table. But they would have done it."

Jamshid Hashemi said Casey's obsession with the hostage issue led the Reagan campaign chief to approach the Hashemi brothers directly. Jamshid Hashemi said that in March 1980, he was in his room at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington when Casey and another Shaheen associate, Roy Furmark, arrived.

"The door was opened and Mr. Casey came in," Jamshid said. "He wanted to talk to me. I didn't know who he was or what he was. So I called my brother on the phone. I said, 'there's a gentleman here by the name of Mr. Casey who wants to talk to me.' I remember that my brother asked me to pass him the phone and he talked with Mr. Casey."

In spring 1980, Jamshid Hashemi asserted that he met Donald Gregg, the CIA officer serving on Carter's NSC staff. Jamshid said he encountered Gregg at Cyrus Hashemi's bank in Manhattan, and Cyrus introduced Gregg as "the man from the White House."

The alleged involvement of Gregg is another highly controversial part of the October Surprise mystery. A tall man with a trim build and an easy-going manner, Gregg had known George H.W. Bush since 1967 when Bush was a first-term U.S. congressman.

Gregg also briefed Bush when he was U.S. envoy to China. Gregg served, too, as the CIA's liaison to the Pike Committee investigation when Bush was CIA director.

"Although Gregg was uniformly regarded as a competent professional, there was a dimension to his background that was entirely unknown to his colleagues at the White House, and that was his acquaintance with one of the Republican frontrunners, George Bush," Sick wrote in October Surprise.

During later investigations, Gregg denied participation in any October Surprise operations. But Gregg's alibis proved shaky and he was judged deceptive in his denial when questioned about the October Surprise by an FBI polygrapher working for Lawrence Walsh's Iran-Contra investigation in 1990.

Gregg flunked the "lie detector" test when he gave a negative answer to the question: "Were you ever involved in a plan to delay the release of the hostages in Iran until after the 1980 Presidential election?" [See the Final Report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters, Vol. I, 501]

Spying Operation

Less than two months after Casey had taken command of the Reagan campaign, an internal structure for monitoring Carter's progress in Iran was in place.

On April 20, 1980, the Reagan campaign carved out from a larger body of Republican foreign policy experts a subgroup known as the Iran Working Group, congressional investigators later discovered. The foreign policy operation was run by Richard Allen, Fred Ikle and Laurence Silberman.

Back on the campaign trail, Reagan's robust conservatism was helping him pile up delegates as he gained control of the Republican primaries.

Bush managed to pull out some wins in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and Michigan, but was dealt a crushing blow when he lost his home state of Texas on May 3. The path to the GOP nomination was now clear for Reagan.

As the Republican nominating battle drew to a close, Cyrus Hashemi and John Shaheen busied themselves more with business than politics as they tried to stave off Shaheen's financial ruin. Because of his failing Come-by-Chance refinery, Canadian courts had frozen Shaheen's bank accounts.

In a bid to avert disaster, Shaheen sent a personal assistant to London with a power of attorney to arrange a desperately needed loan, according to a close Shaheen associate whom I interviewed. Shaheen told the assistant to contact Cyrus Hashemi, who took the assistant to the London offices of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International and Marine Midland Bank, seeking a $3 million bail-out.

Cyrus negotiated the loan for Shaheen on his second try, at Marine Midland. Since Shaheen's accounts were frozen, the money apparently was funneled through a Bermuda-based front company called Mid Ocean. FBI documents showed a $2.5 million deposit from "Mid Ocean" into Cyrus's First Gulf bank in summer 1980, possibly the Marine Midland loan minus $500,000 for expenses.

Shaheen's reliance on Cyrus Hashemi for the infusion of cash also made clear that the two men were not just casual business associates. Shaheen counted on Hashemi to toss a $3 million life preserver that kept Shaheen's head above water. Yet even as their financial predicament worsened, the pair continued to plunge into the Iranian negotiations.

In July - four months after Jamshid Hashemi said William Casey approached the Iranian brothers in Washington - Cyrus Hashemi began a series of trips to Madrid on the hostage crisis. Ostensibly, the meetings were part of his initiative on behalf of the Carter administration, seeking inroads to the Iranian regime. But in Teheran, word spread that Cyrus Hashemi's real goal was to strike a deal on behalf of the Republicans.

Iranian President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr said he first learned of the Republican "secret deal" with the Iranian radicals in July after Reza Passendideh, a nephew of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, attended a meeting with Cyrus Hashemi and Republican lawyer Stanley Pottinger in Madrid on July 2, 1980.

Bani-Sadr said Passendideh carried a plan back to Teheran "from the Reagan camp," according to a letter that Bani-Sadr sent to the House October Surprise Task Force on Dec. 17, 1992.

"Passendideh told me that if I do not accept this proposal, they [the Republicans] would make the same offer to my [radical Iranian] rivals. He further said that they [the Republicans] have enormous influence in the CIA," Bani-Sadr wrote. "Lastly, he told me my refusal of their offer would result in my elimination."

Bani-Sadr said he resisted the threats and sought an immediate release of the American hostages, but it was clear to him that the wily Khomeini was playing both sides of the U.S. political street.

Reagan's Victory

On July 14, 1980, the Republican National Convention opened in Detroit. After a brief flirtation with the possibility of enlisting former President Gerald Ford as the vice presidential nominee, Reagan settled on George H.W. Bush.

After accepting the No. 2 spot, Bush began merging his CIA-heavy campaign apparatus with Reagan's.

The united Reagan-Bush campaign created a strategy group, known as the "October Surprise Group," to prepare for "any last-minute foreign policy or defense-related event, including the release of the hostages, that might favorably impact President Carter in the November election," according a draft report of the House October Surprise Task Force.

"Originally referred to as the 'Gang of Ten,'" the draft report said the "October Surprise Group" consisted of Richard V. Allen, Charles M. Kupperman, Thomas H. Moorer, Eugene V. Rostow, William R. Van Cleave, Fred C. Ikle, John R. Lehman Jr., Robert G. Neumann, Laurence Silberman and Seymour Weiss.

While that part of the draft made it into the Task Force's final report in January 1993, another part was deleted, saying: "According to members of the 'October Surprise' group, the following individuals also participated in meetings although they were not considered 'members' of the group: Michael Ledeen, Richard Stillwell, William Middendorf, Richard Perle, General Louis Walt and Admiral James Holloway."

Deleted from the final report also was a section describing how the ex-CIA personnel who had worked for Bush's campaign became the nucleus of the Republican intelligence operation that monitored Carter's Iran-hostage negotiations for the Reagan-Bush team.

"The Reagan-Bush campaign maintained a 24-hour Operations Center, which monitored press wires and reports, gave daily press briefings and maintained telephone and telefax contact with the candidate's plane," the draft report read. "Many of the staff members were former CIA employees who had previously worked on the Bush campaign or were otherwise loyal to George Bush."

Though post-convention polls showed Reagan leading Carter, Reagan's campaign chief Casey remained fixated on the Iran-hostage crisis.

Since March, Jamshid Hashemi said he had given the Mayflower Hotel meeting little thought. But in summer 1980, Jamshid said his brother, Cyrus, confided that his role in the hostage negotiations had taken another turn.

"I was asked by my brother, since he thought the Republicans had the possibility of winning the election, that we should not play only in the hands of the Democrats," Jamshid Hashemi told me. He quoted his brother as saying "it was the wish of Mr. Casey to meet with someone from Iran."

"That's when I started getting on this work of inviting both Mehdi [Karrubi, a politically powerful Iranian cleric], to come directly, and Hassan [Karrubi, the cleric's brother], to come indirectly to Madrid," Jamshid Hashemi said.

At Madrid's Plaza Hotel, Jamshid Hashemi said the Iranians met with Casey and another American whom Hashemi identified as Donald Gregg, the CIA officer working on Carter's NSC.

"What was specifically asked was when these hostages should be released, and it was the wish of Mr. Casey that they be released after the Inauguration," Jamshid Hashemi said. "Then the Reagan administration would feel favorably towards Iran and release the FMS [foreign military sales] funds and the frozen assets and return to Iran what had already been purchased."

The FMS sales referred to $150 million in military hardware that had been bought by the Shah but held back by Carter after Khomeini took power and the hostages were seized. Casey's offer also included F-14 spare parts, which were crucial to the maintenance of Iran's high-tech air force, Jamshid Hashemi said.

After the July meeting with Casey, Jamshid Hashemi said, cleric Mehdi Karrubi returned to Teheran, where he consulted Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and the ayatollah's senior advisers. Two to three weeks later, Karrubi called and asked that a second meeting with Casey be arranged, Jamshid Hashemi said.

New arrangements were made for a meeting in mid-August again in Madrid, he said. Karrubi "confirmed" that Khomeini's government had agreed to release the hostages only after Reagan gained power. "Karrubi expressed acceptance of the proposal by Mr. Casey," Jamshid Hashemi said. "The hostages would be released after Carter's defeat."

After the Madrid meetings, Jamshid Hashemi said his brother, Cyrus, began organizing military shipments - mostly artillery shells and aircraft tires - from Eilat, in Israel, to Bandar Abbas, an Iranian port. Jamshid Hashemi valued the military supplies in the tens of millions of dollars.

Posted by: c'mon babaman...show soumse courage little sheep...bea man, take your beating...the country is more | April 26, 2008 8:01 PM | Report abuse

Since everyone is so sure that he will sound like an idiot if he does the debate, then he must be a genius for refusing it.

Posted by: Ron | April 26, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a magician.

He's turing hard core Democrats into Republicans.

Posted by: Obama is a magician | April 26, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

There are few threats to a democracy more serious than the possibility that the nation's intelligence services would abuse their extraordinary powers and secretly influence the election of the nation's leadership, in effect turning their clandestine skills for manipulating overseas events on their own country.

That is why Congress and Presidents have barred the Central Intelligence Agency since its founding in 1947 from operating domestically. It also explains why the core questions of the 1980 October Surprise case remain a sensitive mystery even today:

Did disgruntled CIA officers conspire with their former boss, George H.W. Bush, to exploit the Iranian hostage crisis in 1980 to defeat President Jimmy Carter whose policies had infuriated many CIA veterans? Did that secret CIA operation change the course of American politics, paving the way for a quarter century of Republican dominance?

dis a why dey wann amakka sure that the bama boy don't find out

what he don't know...

they don't want him to hafta research and


learn what being president in a corrupt

WASHINGTON D.C. means...


heh heh heh


hello little dawgs you wanna piece of me???


don't worry,


I will be destroying your effort as easily as washing away the last spring snow by pissing on it...


open you lips.


.

Posted by: you know likka dis kinsa schitt is called treason in any CIVILIZED other country... | April 26, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

I think it is a good idea to keep the country engaged directly especially during a populus movement. Positive exposures are a good thing. Debate is democracy in practice.

I would like to see more interaction with "We the People" through this type of forum. Would be good to take questions directly like a contest, that prescreens incoming questions ? Those questions submitted directly from the people (and agreeable by both parties) could be posed live on TV by the winning questionaires. So the people can be part of the democracy of these debate.

Instead of talking heads trying to make stories for themselves or exploit the spin of the past week, a forum could be set-up accomadating we the peons instead of elitist moderators. Forget about networks going for ratings or revenues, focus in on latest technologies making a modern and historical debate.

I am sure opiniated these days, why is that, is it all about me ?

Posted by: Hank Whatever | April 26, 2008 7:56 PM | Report abuse

What a great idea! This way, both candidates can avoid those troubling questions, like terrorist connections, lying about Bosnia, connections to criminals, "spiritual" leaders who hate white America.

They can stick to the basics - like basjing republicans and convincing us, without actually telling us, they wil "fix" things.

Maybe they can start by explaining both of their total lack of legislation as senators to "fix" things now?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

hilly we've heard all your lies more than once we don't want nor need you in our government. George W has spent the last 7 years cleaning up you and billys mess.

Posted by: jake | April 26, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

The woman is desperate. Her time has come and gone. No more Clinton's please o please o pleeeeeeeeez.

The Clinton's are the worst garbage to have come on the scene since Reagan in 1980. The have 0 moral scruppels.

And above all else: NO MORE PANTSUITS

Posted by: Maddogg | April 26, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Twenty-one debates aren't enough? No moderator, with 2 minute cycles? So Clinton could fillibuster with no one to control her? She has already shown that she will refuse to answer questions that she doesn't want to - that is on record and doesn't need to be driven home any further. And in the last debate, Stephanopoulos said that the questions he and Gibson asked were fair game because all of the "issues" questions have been asked in every possible way already.

I wouldn't do it - let her claim that he's afraid to debate. He could run a full 60 s commercial listing the dates and times of the debates they've already had. It's clear to everyone that the Clinton's are still clutching at straws, hoping for some miracle gaffe to change the narrative, which is clearly running against them.

Posted by: orrg1 | April 26, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

if you believe that hillary clinton and her husband (bill clinton) are the same person and thus will bring about the same changes - you might be an idiot.

Posted by: realist | April 26, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Clinton gets the nomination and i stay home in November and I know that I am not alone.

Posted by: Jeff M. |
===========================================

I'll beat that. If Obama wins I will vote for McCain in November. There are 14 members of my immediate family. If Obama wins 12 of us will vote for McCain and the other two will not vote.

In 2004 we vowed not to vote for any more Liberal losers.

Posted by: Chief | April 26, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

I think another debate might ruin Obama unless he prepared and she didn't. No moderators? Sounds like it should be WWF. McCain is having a great time and the Democratic party has destroyed its party and its two best candidates. The rules caused this to happen.

Posted by: Lynn E | April 26, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

I think another debate might ruin Obama unless he prepared and she didn't. No moderators? Sounds like it should be WWF. McCain is having a great time and the Democratic party has destroyed its party and its two best candidates. The rules caused this to happen.

Posted by: Lynn E | April 26, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

I think another debate might ruin Obama unless he prepared and she didn't. No moderators? Sounds like it should be WWF. McCain is having a great time and the Democratic party has destroyed its party and its two best candidates. The rules caused this to happen.

Posted by: Lynn E | April 26, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

There are few threats to a democracy more serious than the possibility that the nation's intelligence services would abuse their extraordinary powers and secretly influence the election of the nation's leadership, in effect turning their clandestine skills for manipulating overseas events on their own country.

That is why Congress and Presidents have barred the Central Intelligence Agency since its founding in 1947 from operating domestically. It also explains why the core questions of the 1980 October Surprise case remain a sensitive mystery even today:

Did disgruntled CIA officers conspire with their former boss, George H.W. Bush, to exploit the Iranian hostage crisis in 1980 to defeat President Jimmy Carter whose policies had infuriated many CIA veterans? Did that secret CIA operation change the course of American politics, paving the way for a quarter century of Republican dominance?

Posted by: you know likka dis kinsa schitt is called treason in any CIVILIZED other country... | April 26, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

To read the first two parts of the series -- dealing with the inept investigation by Indiana Democrat Lee Hamilton and the role of banker David Rockefeller in the 1980 affair -- click here for Part 1 or here for Part 2. The series is adapted from Robert Parry's Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq:

There are few threats to a democracy more serious than the possibility that the nation's intelligence services would abuse their extraordinary powers and secretly influence the election of the nation's leadership, in effect turning their clandestine skills for manipulating overseas events on their own country.

That is why Congress and Presidents have barred the Central Intelligence Agency since its founding in 1947 from operating domestically. It also explains why the core questions of the 1980 October Surprise case remain a sensitive mystery even today:

Did disgruntled CIA officers conspire with their former boss, George H.W. Bush, to exploit the Iranian hostage crisis in 1980 to defeat President Jimmy Carter whose policies had infuriated many CIA veterans? Did that secret CIA operation change the course of American politics, paving the way for a quarter century of Republican dominance?

On Nov. 4, 1980, after a full year of frustrating efforts to free the 52 American hostages held in Iran, Carter lost in a landslide to Ronald Reagan and his running mate, George H.W. Bush. The hostages were finally freed after Reagan was sworn in on Jan. 20, 1981.

While the full story is still unclear a quarter century later, the evidence leaves little doubt that former CIA Director Bush - first as a Republican presidential candidate and then as the party's vice presidential nominee - supervised a team of bitter ex-CIA officers whose careers had suffered under Carter.

These ex-intelligence officers were so angry with Carter that they cast off their traditional cloak of non-partisanship and anonymity in 1979 and enlisted in the Republican drive to unseat the sitting President.

During Bush's bid for the Republican nomination, these veterans of CIA covert operations worked as his political foot soldiers. One joke about Bush's announcement of his candidacy on May 1, 1979, was that "half the audience was wearing raincoats."

Bill Colby, Bush's predecessor as CIA director, said Bush "had a flood of people from the CIA who joined his supporters. They were retirees devoted to him for what he had done" in defending the spy agency in 1976 when the CIA came under heavy criticism for spying on Americans and other abuses.

Reagan's foreign policy adviser Richard Allen described the group working on the Bush campaign as a "plane load of disgruntled former CIA" officers who were "playing cops and robbers."

All told, at least two dozen former CIA officials went to work for their former boss. Among them was the CIA's director of security, Robert Gambino, who joined the Bush campaign immediately after leaving the CIA where he oversaw security investigations of senior Carter officials and thus knew about potentially damaging personal information.

Besides the ex-CIA personnel who joined the Bush campaign, other pro-Bush intelligence officers remained at the CIA while making clear their political preference. "The seventh floor of Langley was plastered with 'Bush for President' signs," said senior CIA analyst George Carver, referring to the floor that housed senior CIA officials.

Carter administration officials also grew concerned about the deep personal ties between the former CIA officers in Bush's campaign and active-duty CIA personnel who continued to hold sensitive jobs under Carter.

For instance, Gambino, the 25-year CIA veteran who oversaw personnel security checks, and CIA officer Donald Gregg, who served as a CIA representative on Carter's National Security Council, "are good friends who knew each other from the CIA," according to an unpublished part of a report by a House Task Force, which investigated the October Surprise issue in 1992. [I found this deleted section - still marked "secret" - in unpublished task force files in 1994.]

'Blond Ghost'

Perhaps most significantly, Bush quietly enlisted Theodore Shackley, the legendary CIA covert operations specialist known as the "blond ghost." During the Cold War, Shackley had run many of the CIA's most controversial paramilitary operations, from Vietnam and Laos to the JMWAVE operations against Fidel Castro's Cuba.

In those operations, Shackley had supervised the works of hundreds of CIA officers and developed powerful bonds of loyalty with many of his subordinates. For instance, Donald Gregg, the CIA liaison to Carter's White House, had served under Shackley's command in Vietnam.

When Bush was CIA director in 1976, he appointed Shackley to a top clandestine job, associate deputy director for operations, laying the foundation for Shackley's possible rise to director and cementing Shackley's loyalty to Bush. Shackley had a falling out with Carter's CIA director, Stansfield Turner, and quit the agency in 1979.

Shackley believed that Turner had devastated the CIA by pushing out hundreds of covert officers, many of them Shackley's former subordinates. The prospect of George H.W. Bush rising to be President or Vice President rekindled speculation that Shackley still might get the top CIA job.

By early 1980, the Republicans also complained that they were being kept in the dark about progress on the Iran hostage negotiations. George Cave, then a top CIA specialist on Iran, told me that the "Democrats never briefed the Republicans" on sensitive developments, creating suspicions among the Republicans.

So, the Republicans sought out their own sources of information. Shackley began monitoring Carter's progress on the hostage negotiations through his contacts with Iranians in London and Hamburg, West Germany.

"Ted, I know, had a couple of contacts in Germany," said Cave. "I know he talked to them. I don't know how far it went. ... Ted was very active on that thing in the winter/spring of 1980."

Author David Corn also got wind of the Shackley-Bush connection when he was researching his biography of Shackley, Blond Ghost.

"Within the spook world the belief spread that Shackley was close to Bush," Corn wrote. "Rafael Quintero [an anti-Castro Cuban with close ties to the CIA] was saying that Shackley met with Bush every week. He told one associate that should Reagan and Bush triumph, Shackley was considered a potential DCI," the abbreviation for CIA director.

Shackley's monitoring of hostage developments for Bush continued at least into the fall of 1980.

According to handwritten notes of Reagan's foreign policy adviser Richard Allen, Bush called on Oct. 27, 1980, after getting an unsettling message from former Texas Gov. John Connally, the ex-Democrat who had switched to the Republican Party during the Nixon administration. Connally said his oil contacts in the Middle East were buzzing with rumors that Carter had achieved the long-elusive breakthrough on the hostages.

Bush ordered Allen to find out what he could about Connally's tip. "Geo Bush," Allen's notes began, "JBC [Connally] -- already made deal. Israelis delivered last wk spare pts. via Amsterdam. Hostages out this wk. Moderate Arabs upset. French have given spares to Iraq and know of JC [Carter] deal w/Iran. JBC [Connally] unsure what we should do. RVA [Allen] to act if true or not."

In a still "secret" 1992 deposition to the House October Surprise Task Force, Allen explained the cryptic notes as meaning Connally had heard that Carter had ransomed the hostages' freedom with an Israeli shipment of military spare parts to Iran. Allen said Bush instructed him, Allen, to get details from Connally. Allen was then to pass on any new details to two of Bush's aides.

According to the notes, Bush ordered Allen to relay the information to "Ted Shacklee [sic] via Jennifer." Allen said the Jennifer was Jennifer Fitzgerald, Bush's longtime assistant including during his year at the CIA. Allen testified that "Shacklee" was Theodore Shackley, the legendary CIA covert operations specialist.

Though various foreign leaders and intelligence operatives have alleged that by mid-October 1980, the Reagan-Bush campaign had struck its own hostage deal with the Iranian government, there apparently continued to be nervousness among the Republicans that whatever arrangements they had with Iran might come unglued.

The Allen notation, which I discovered among the House Task Force's files in late 1994, was the first piece of documentary evidence to confirm the suspicions that Bush and Shackley were working together on the Iranian hostage crisis in 1980.

Babe in the Woods

From the beginning of the hostage crisis, Jimmy Carter never appreciated how much he was surrounded by his enemies. He was the proverbial babe in the woods.

Out of necessity or naivety, Carter also turned to people he believed might help resolve the hostage crisis while not knowing their ties to his enemies.

Frantically looking for emissaries to Iran's revolutionary government in late 1979, the Carter administration accepted the assistance of an Iranian banker named Cyrus Hashemi, who presented himself as a conduit to the Iranian mullahs.

A worldly businessman in his 40s with one foot in the West and the other back in Iran, Hashemi seemed a reasonable candidate. He was well-tailored, well-schooled and well-connected. When he visited Europe, he stayed at the best hotels; when he crossed the Atlantic, he took the supersonic Concorde.

Gary Sick, a Middle East expert on Carter's National Security Council staff, said Hashemi established himself in December 1979 as a well-informed Iranian who could help the administration sort out Iran's new ruling elite.

"Cyrus Hashemi quickly demonstrated that he had access to a number of high-level officials in the Iranian revolutionary government, most notably the governor-general of Khuzistan [Ahmad Madani] but also individuals within Khomeini's own family," Sick wrote in his book, October Surprise.

Besides helping the Carter administration, however, Cyrus Hashemi was maintaining personal and business ties to key Republicans, most notably former U.S. intelligence officer John Shaheen, a Lebanese-born, New York-based businessman who was a close friend of William Casey, himself a former spy.

Shaheen and Casey had served together in the World War II-era Office of Strategic Services, the forerunner to the CIA. After the war, Shaheen and Casey remained friends and became business associates.

In the 1970s, Casey, then a lawyer at the politically well-connected firm of Rogers and Wells, advised Shaheen on a troubled oil refinery that Shaheen built at the wind-swept coastal town of Come-by-Chance, Newfoundland, Canada.

Casey traveled with Shaheen to Kuwait to negotiate a source of oil for the refinery, though the poorly engineered facility would ultimately fail, never having produced a drop of gasoline. Shaheen and Casey also kept their hands in the intelligence business and maintained close ties to the CIA.

According to Cyrus Hashemi's older brother, Jamshid, the dealings between Cyrus and Shaheen dated back to the late 1970s.

"For many years, he [Cyrus] had been cooperating with Mr. Shaheen," Jamshid told me in an interview. "I asked him [Cyrus] in 1979, at the end of 1979. He was very open about it. He knew that Mr. Shaheen had contacts with the government of the United States. At that time, I did not know which section or which organization."

The Shaheen connection led Cyrus Hashemi to William Casey even before Casey took over Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign, according to Jamshid Hashemi and a 1984 CIA memo that surfaced later.

According to the CIA memo, former Attorney General Elliot Richardson said in 1984 that Casey had recruited Shaheen and Cyrus Hashemi in 1979 to sell off property in New York City belonging to the deposed Shah's Pahlavi Foundation.

At the time, the radical Islamic government in Teheran was claiming the property as its own and the Shah's family was desperate for the cash.

Shaheen also appears to have been the first person to put Cyrus Hashemi in touch with the CIA. A Shaheen friend whom I interviewed told me that Shaheen was the person who introduced Hashemi to the spy agency, helping to make him and his bank a conduit for funneling CIA funds to a variety of covert operations.

In Iran, the Hashemi brothers already were known as politically dexterous businessmen. They managed to end up on the right side of the Iranian revolution by smartly throwing their support to the anti-Shah forces and exploiting family and personal connections.

After the revolution, as Cyrus Hashemi pursued his banking business outside Iran, older brother Jamshid Hashemi received an appointment from the new government to oversee the national radio network. That job, in turn, put him in touch with other influential Iranians, he said. One was a radical Islamic cleric, named Mehdi Karrubi.

Meanwhile, Cyrus Hashemi's First Gulf Bank & Trust Co. was emerging as a bank which handled clandestine money transfers for the new Iranian government.

"It was ordered that all these monies be transferred to an account of my brother, into his bank, which was done," Jamshid Hashemi said. "The order of the transfer was from Admiral [Ahmad] Madani [who served as Iran's defense minister]. We went to the admiral with the telex and then we went to the war room of the navy in Teheran and we faxed it ... so he [Cyrus] could take over all the money, in late 1979, $30 to $35 million, to the account of the First Gulf."

According to Jamshid Hashemi, the attorney advising Cyrus Hashemi and John Shaheen about these transactions was William Casey.

Casey "was the man who was actually putting all these things together for both of them," Jamshid Hashemi said. "Casey was the adviser."

Exploiting his American contacts with the CIA, Cyrus Hashemi also arranged covert U.S. funding for Madani's presidential campaign.

In late 1979, Jamshid Hashemi said he received a call from his brother, summoning him from Iran to London and then to the United States. It was during the London stopover that Jamshid Hashemi said he met John Shaheen.

Shaheen "came and took my passport," Jamshid Hashemi said. "The next day I have my passport [back] with a piece of paper with a signature giving me a multiple entry visa into the United States. ... In those days for an Iranian to get a visa within a few hours, it would have been a miracle."

Posted by: mama man's a cow ard... | April 26, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

The $20 million used as starting capital for the bank came through Jean A. Patry, David Rockefeller's lawyer in Geneva, Switzerland. But the original source of the money, according to two Shaheen associates I interviewed, was Princess Ashraf, the Shah's twin sister.

Reagan's Victory

On Nov. 4, 1980, one year to the day after the Iranian militants seized the U.S. Embassy in Teheran, Ronald Reagan routed Jimmy Carter in the U.S. presidential elections. In the weeks after the election, the hostage negotiations continued.

As Reagan's Inauguration neared, Republicans talked tough, making clear that Ronald Reagan wouldn't stand for the humiliation that the nation endured for 444 days under Carter. The Reagan-Bush team intimated that Reagan would deal harshly with Iran if it didn't surrender the hostages.

A joke making the rounds of Washington went: "What's three feet deep and glows in the dark? Teheran ten minutes after Ronald Reagan becomes President."

On Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, 1981, just as Reagan was beginning his inaugural address, word came from Iran that the hostages were freed. The American people were overjoyed. The coincidence in timing between the hostage release and Reagan's taking office immediately boosted the new President's image as a tough guy who wouldn't let the United States be pushed around.

The reality, however, appears to have been different. U.S. weapons soon began flowing secretly to Iran through Israel and participants in the October Surprise mystery got in line for payoffs.

The bank deal that Cyrus Hashemi and John Shaheen had discussed for months took final shape two days after Reagan's Inauguration. On January 22, 1981, Shaheen opened the Hong Kong Deposit and Guaranty Bank with $20 million that had been funneled to him through Patry, the Rockefeller-connected lawyer in Geneva who was fronting for Princess Ashraf.

Why, I asked one of Shaheen's associates, would Ashraf have invested $20 million in a bank with these dubious characters? "It was funny money," the associate answered. He believed it was money that the Islamic revolutionary government was claiming as its own.

A second Shaheen associate said Shaheen was particularly secretive when asked about his relationship with the deposed princess. "When it comes to Ashraf, I'm a cemetery," Shaheen once said.

From 1981 to 1984, Hong Kong Deposit and Guaranty pulled in hundreds of millions of petrodollars. The bank also attracted high-flying Arabs to its board of directors.

Two directors were Ghanim Al-Mazrouie, an Abu Dhabi official who controlled 10 percent of the corrupt Bank of Credit and Commerce International, and Hassan Yassin, a cousin of Saudi financier Adnan Khashoggi and an adviser to BCCI principal Kamal Adham, the former chief of Saudi intelligence.

Though Cyrus Hashemi's name was not formally listed on the roster of the Hong Kong bank, he did receive cash from BCCI, al-Mazrouie's bank. An FBI wiretap of Hashemi's office in early February 1981 picked up an advisory that "money from BCCI [is] to come in tomorrow from London on Concorde." (In 1984, the Hong Kong Deposit and Guaranty collapsed and an estimated $100 million disappeared.)

Langley Meeting

Early in the Reagan-Bush administration, Joseph Reed, the aide to David Rockefeller, was appointed and confirmed as the new U.S. ambassador to Morocco. Before leaving for his posting, he visited the CIA and its new director, William Casey. As Reed arrived, CIA official Charles Cogan was getting up and preparing to leave Casey's office.

Knowing Reed, Cogan lingered at the door. In a "secret" deposition to the House Task Force in 1992, Cogan said he had a "definite memory" of a comment Reed made about disrupting Carter's "October Surprise" of a pre-election release of the 52 American hostages in Iran.

But Cogan said he couldn't recall the precise verb that Reed had used. "Joseph Reed said, 'we' and then the verb [and then] something about Carter's October Surprise," Cogan testified. "The implication was we did something about Carter's October Surprise, but I don't have the exact wording."

One congressional investigator, who discussed the recollection with Cogan in a less formal setting, concluded that the verb that Cogan chose not to repeat was an expletive relating to sex - as in "we fxxx ed Carter's October Surprise."

During Cogan's deposition, David Laufman, a Republican lawyer on the House Task Force and a former CIA official, asked Cogan if he had since "had occasion to ask him [Reed] about this" recollection?

Yes, Cogan replied, he recently had asked Reed about it, after Reed moved to a protocol job at the United Nations. "I called him up," Cogan said. "He was at his farm in Connecticut, as I recall, and I just told him that, look, this is what sticks in my mind and what I am going to say [to Congress], and he didn't have any comment on it and continued on to other matters."

"He didn't offer any explanation to you of what he meant?" asked Laufman.

"No," answered Cogan.

"Nor did he deny that he had said it?" asked another Task Force lawyer Mark L. Shaffer.

"He didn't say anything," Cogan responded. "We just continued on talking about other things."

And so did the Task Force lawyers at this remarkable deposition on Dec. 21, 1992. The lawyers even failed to ask Cogan the obvious follow-up: What did Casey say and how did Casey react when Reed allegedly told Reagan's ex-campaign chief that "we fxxx ed Carter's October Surprise."

Discovered Documents

I found Cogan's testimony and other incriminating documents in files left behind by the Task Force, which finished its half-hearted investigation of the October Surprise controversy in January 1993.

Among those files, I also discovered the notes of an FBI agent who tried to interview Joseph Reed about his October Surprise knowledge. The FBI man, Harry A. Penich, had scribbled down that "numerous telephone calls were placed to him [Reed]. He failed to answer any of them. I conservatively place the number over 10."

Finally, Penich, armed with a subpoena, cornered Reed arriving home at his 50-acre estate in Greenwich, Connecticut. "He was surprised and absolutely livid at being served at home," Penich wrote. "His responses could best be characterized as lashing out."

Reed threatened to go over Penich's head. In hand-written "talking points" that Penich apparently used to brief an unnamed superior, the FBI agent wrote: "He [Reed] did it in such a way as to lead a reasonable person to believe he had influence w/you. The man's remarks were both inappropriate and improper."

But the hard-ball tactics worked. When Reed finally consented to an interview, Task Force lawyers just went through the motions.

Penich took the interview notes and wrote that Reed "recalls no contact with Casey in 1980," though Reed added that "their paths crossed many times because of Reed's position at Chase." As for the 1981 CIA visit, Reed added that as the newly appointed U.S. ambassador to Morocco, he "would have stopped in to see Casey and pay respect."

But on whether Reed made any remark about obstructing Carter's October Surprise, Reed claimed he "does not specifically know what October Surprise refers to," Penich scribbled down. [For a text of the Penich notes, click here. To see a PDF file of the actual notes, click here.]

The Task Force lawyers didn't press hard. Most strikingly, the lawyers failed to confront Reed with evidence that would have impeached his contention that he had "no contact with Casey in 1980." According to the sign-in sheets at the Reagan-Bush campaign headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, which the Task Force had obtained, Reed saw Casey on Sept. 11, 1980, less than two months before the election.

When the official House Task Force report was issued on Jan. 13, 1993, the Task Force largely cleared the Republicans of the longstanding October Surprise charges, but that conclusion was based on tendentious interpretations of the published evidence and the withholding of many incriminating documents.

Among the evidence that was never shared with the American people was the fascinating connection between the powerful friends of David Rockefeller and the shadowy operatives who had maintained clandestine contacts with the Iranian mullahs during the long hostage crisis.

[To examine the some of the long-hidden Task Force documents, click here. To obtain a copy of Secrecy & Privilege, click here.]


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

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq

Posted by: do do the bama boyah know dis.. ???four ah... | April 26, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

"Whether Democratic voters would enjoy a Lincoln-Douglas-style debate is an open question. In the famous Illinois Senate race of 1858, the pair held seven sessions in which one candidate spoke for an hour, the other then spoke for an hour and half, and then the first candidate was given 30 minutes to rebut his opponent.

Perhaps aware of the television era, Williams proposed in her letter that each candidate would speak in two-minute segments. "

So Hillary's not proposing a "Lincoln-Douglas style debate" at all, is she?

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

To all those that claim Obama has been easy on Hillary --

Don't make us laugh.

You've swung wildly and haven't landed a single punch.

We've been playing patty cake with you.

Go ahead -- Hit us with you best shot.

If you want to fight, we'll hit your candidate so hard he'll never wake up.

We've got more stuff on him that you can possibly imagine.

We'll bury his career so deep his political tombstone will pop out in China.

Posted by: To all those that claim Obama has been easy on Hillary | April 26, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Yeah Obama, why don't you want to debate? Can't think on your feet? Don't know your policies? Can't control the direction?
Poor poor Obami baby.

Posted by: alee21@umich.edu | April 26, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

enough of the "debates", already! Did Lincoln and Douglas hsve 22? Besides, we've already had Bill's former press secretary asking the "have you stopped beating your wife" questions. She just wants free press exposure! Maybe because her former contributors are now contributing to Obama.

You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows! --Bob Dylan

Posted by: tom | April 26, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

jacksmith:

Hey Jack Off- Do the world a big favor and go f___ yourself. You are a pathetic moron who gets off acting like a tough guy with your stupid little blogs.

Posted by: shiva8 | April 26, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton needs to stop trying to bully Senator Obama, and anyone else that she wants to control and dominate for that matter, and use her strong arm tactics to control the out-of-control Mr. Bill Clinton! I am interested in foreign policy issues, national health care plans, a domestic agenda for our country, and economic issues that impact me as a tax paying American citizen. I am struggling to maintain my employment and my home because gas now costs $3.57 a gallon in my city and I have to drive one hour and thirty minutes round trip to work every day. I AM NOT INTERESTED in another right wing, Republican tinged, hidden agenda debate that has been negotiated between the Clinton political machine and ABC or FOX news, with the primary objective of making Senator Clinton look "ELECTABLE" by any means necessary at the expense of my sensibility and my intelligence! No thank you!

Posted by: Mercedes Guynne | April 26, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

I have a solution to end this primary election, as soon as the last primary ends.

Each candidate gets all the SuperDs in the state they win.

Obama should be happy. He has bragged about the number of states he's won, 30 to 15.
I'm sure Hillary could be forced into it.

Sounds fair to me.

Posted by: Chief | April 26, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

If you think the racist stuff is bad now, You aint seen nothing yet.


If Obama overcomes the racism, gets elected, it will surely be extrordinary.

Do the American people have the cojones to do this? Dtay tuned. Ill just point out that refusing to debate is the strategy of the guy thats ahead. He has nothig ro win, or prove by debating.

Posted by: pvogel88 | April 26, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

We could have sabotaged [the revolution, but] we had to establish what the Quakers call 'the spirit of the meeting' in the country, where everybody was thinking just one way. The Iranians were really like sheep, as they are now."

Altar of Ideals

But Carter, troubled by the Shah's human rights record, delayed taking decisive action and missed the moment of opportunity, Copeland said. Infuriating the CIA's Old Boys, Carter had sacrificed an ally on the altar of idealism.

"Carter really believed in all the principles that we talk about in the West," Copeland said, shaking his mane of white hair. "As smart as Carter is, he did believe in Mom, apple pie and the corner drug store. And those things that are good in America are good everywhere else."

Veterans of the CIA and Republicans from the Nixon-Ford administrations judged that Carter simply didn't measure up to the demands of a harsh world.

"There were many of us - myself along with Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, Archie Roosevelt in the CIA at the time - we believed very strongly that we were showing a kind of weakness, which people in Iran and elsewhere in the world hold in great contempt," Copeland said. "The fact that we're being pushed around, and being afraid of the Ayatollah Khomeini, so we were going to let a friend down, which was horrifying to us. That's the sort of thing that was frightening to our friends in Saudi Arabia, in Egypt and other places."

But Carter also bent to the moral suasions of the Shah's friends, who argued on humanitarian grounds that the ailing Shah deserved admission to the United States for medical treatment. "Carter, I say, was not a stupid man," Copeland said. Carter had even a greater flaw: "He was a principled man."

So, Carter decided that the moral act was to allow the Shah to enter the United States for treatment, leading to the result Carter had feared: the seizure of the U.S. Embassy.

Frozen Assets

As the crisis dragged on, the Carter administration cranked up the pressure on the Iranians. Along with diplomatic initiatives, Iran's assets were frozen, a move that ironically helped David Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan Bank by preventing the Iranians from cleaning out their funds from the bank's vaults.

In Memoirs, Rockefeller wrote that the Iranian "government did reduce the balances they maintained with us during the second half of 1979, but in reality they had simply returned to their historic level of about $500 million," Rockefeller wrote. "Carter's 'freeze' of official Iranian assets protected our position, but no one at Chase played a role in convincing the administration to institute it."

In the weeks that followed the embassy seizure, Copeland said he and his friends turned their attention to figuring a way out of the mess.

"There was very little sympathy for the hostages," Copeland said. "We all have served abroad, served in embassies like that. We got additional pay for danger. I think, for Syria, I got fifty percent extra in salary. So it's a chance you take. When you join the army, you take a chance of getting in a war and getting shot. If you're in the diplomatic service, you take a chance on having some horror like this descend on you.

"But on the other hand, we did think that there were things we could do to get them out, other than simply letting the Iranians, the students, and the Iranian administration know that they were beating us," Copeland said. "We let them know what an advantage they had. That we could have gotten them out is something that all of us old professionals of the covert action school, we said from the beginning, 'Why don't they let us do it?'"

According to The Game Player, Copeland met his old friend, ex-CIA counter-intelligence chief James Angleton, for lunch. The famed spy hunter "brought to lunch a Mossad chap who confided that his service had identified at least half of the 'students,' even to the extent of having their home addresses in Teheran," Copeland wrote. "He gave me a rundown on what sort of kids they were. Most of them, he said, were just that, kids."

Periphery Strategy

The Israeli government was another deeply interested player in the Iran crisis. For decades, Israel had cultivated covert ties with the Shah's regime as part of a Periphery Strategy of forming alliances with non-Arab states in the region to prevent Israel's Arab enemies from focusing all their might against Israel.

Though losing an ally when the Shah fell and offended by the anti-Israeli rhetoric from the Khomeini regime, Israel had gone about quietly rebuilding relations with the Iranian government. One of the young Israeli intelligence agents assigned to this task was an Iranian-born Jew named Ari Ben-Menashe, who had immigrated to Israel as a teen-ager and was valuable because he spoke fluent Farsi and still had friends in Iran, some of whom were rising within the new revolutionary bureaucracy.

In his own 1992 memoirs, Profits of War, Ben-Menashe said the view of Israel's Likud leaders, including Prime Minister Menachem Begin, was one of contempt for Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s.

"Begin loathed Carter for the peace agreement forced upon him at Camp David," Ben-Menashe wrote. "As Begin saw it, the agreement took away Sinai from Israel, did not create a comprehensive peace, and left the Palestinian issue hanging on Israel's back."

After the Shah fell, Begin grew even more dissatisfied with Carter's handling of the crisis and alarmed over the growing likelihood of an Iraqi attack on Iran's oil-rich Khuzistan province. Israel saw Iraq's Saddam Hussein as a far greater threat to Israel than Iran's Khomeini. Ben-Menashe wrote that Begin, recognizing the realpolitik needs of Israel, authorized shipments to Iran of small arms and some spare parts, via South Africa, as early as September 1979.

After the U.S. hostages were taken in November 1979, the Israelis came to agree with Copeland's hard-headed skepticism about Carter's handling of the hostage issue, Ben-Menashe wrote. Even though Copeland was generally regarded as a CIA "Arabist" who had opposed Israeli interests in the past, he was admired for his analytical skills, Ben-Menashe wrote.

"A meeting between Miles Copeland and Israeli intelligence officers was held at a Georgetown house in Washington, D.C.," Ben-Menashe wrote. "The Israelis were happy to deal with any initiative but Carter's. David Kimche, chief of Tevel, the foreign relations unit of Mossad, was the senior Israeli at the meeting. ... The Israelis and the Copeland group came up with a two-pronged plan to use quiet diplomacy with the Iranians and to draw up a scheme for military action against Iran that would not jeopardize the lives of the hostages."

In late February 1980, Seyeed Mehdi Kashani, an Iranian emissary, arrived in Israel to discuss Iran's growing desperation for aircraft spare parts, Ben-Menashe wrote. Kashani, whom Ben-Menashe had known from their school days in Teheran, also revealed that the Copeland initiative was making inroads inside Iran and that approaches from some Republican emissaries had already been received, Ben-Menashe wrote.

"Kashani said that the secret ex-CIA-Miles-Copeland group was aware that any deal cut with the Iranians would have to include the Israelis because they would have to be used as a third party to sell military equipment to Iran," according to Ben-Menashe. In March, the following month, the Israelis made their first direct military shipment to Iran, 300 tires for Iran's F-4 fighter jets, Ben-Menashe wrote.

Rescue Plans

In the 1990 interview at his house in the English countryside, Copeland told me that he and other CIA old-timers developed their own hostage-rescue plan. Copeland said the plan - which included cultivating political allies within Iran and using disinformation tactics to augment a military assault - was hammered out on March 22, 1980, in a meeting at his Georgetown apartment.

Copeland said he was aided by Steven Meade, the ex-chief of the CIA's Escape and Evasion Unit; Kermit Roosevelt, who had overseen the 1953 coup in Iran; and Archibald Roosevelt, the adviser to David Rockefeller.

"Essentially, the idea was to have some Iranians dressed in Iranian military uniform and police uniform go to the embassy, address the students and say, 'Hey, you're doing a marvelous job here. But now we'll relieve you of it, because we understand that there's going to be a military force flown in from outside. And they're going to hit you, and we're going to scatter these [hostages] around town. Thanks very much."

Copeland's Iranians would then move the hostages to the edge of Teheran where they would be loaded onto American helicopters to be flown out of the country.

To Copeland's chagrin, his plan fell on deaf ears in the Carter administration, which was developing its own rescue plan that would rely more on U.S. military force with only modest help from Iranian assets in Teheran. So, Copeland said he distributed his plan outside the administration, to leading Republicans, giving sharper focus to their contempt for Carter's bungled Iranian strategy.

"Officially, the plan went only to people in the government and was top secret and all that," Copeland said. "But as so often happens in government, one wants support, and when it was not being handled by the Carter administration as though it was top secret, it was handled as though it was nothing. ... Yes, I sent copies to everybody who I thought would be a good ally. ...

"Now I'm not at liberty to say what reaction, if any, ex-President Nixon took, but he certainly had a copy of this. We sent one to Henry Kissinger, and I had, at the time, a secretary who had just worked for Henry Kissinger, and Peter Rodman, who was still working for him and was a close personal friend of mine, and so we had these informal relationships where the little closed circle of people who were, a, looking forward to a Republican President within a short while and, b, who were absolutely trustworthy and who understood all these inner workings of the international game board."

By April 1980, Carter's patience was wearing thin, both with the Iranians and some U.S. allies. After discovering that the Israelis had made a secret shipment of 300 tires to Iran, Carter complained to Prime Minister Begin.

"There had been a rather tense discussion between President Carter and Prime Minister Begin in the spring of 1980 in which the President made clear that the Israelis had to stop that, and that we knew that they were doing it, and that we would not allow it to continue, at least not allow it to continue privately and without the knowledge of the American people," Carter's press secretary Jody Powell told me. "And it stopped" - at least temporarily.

Questioned by congressional investigators a dozen years later, Carter said he felt that by April 1980, "Israel cast their lot with Reagan," according to notes I found among the unpublished documents in the files of a House Task Force, which had examined the October Surprise controversy. Carter traced the Israeli opposition to his reelection to a "lingering concern [among] Jewish leaders that I was too friendly with Arabs."

Carter's National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski also recognized the Israeli hostility. In an interview, Brzezinski told me that the Carter White House was well aware that the Begin government had "an obvious preference for a Reagan victory."

Desert One

Encircled by growing legions of enemies, the Carter administration put the finishing touches on its own hostage-rescue operation in April. Code named "Eagle Claw," the assault involved a force of U.S. helicopters that would swoop down on Teheran, coordinate with some agents on the ground and extract the hostages.

Carter ordered the operation to proceed on April 24, but mechanical problems forced the helicopters to turn back. At a staging area called Desert One, one of the helicopters collided with a refueling plane, causing an explosion that killed eight American crewmen.

Their charred bodies were then displayed by the Iranian government, adding to the fury and humiliation of the United States. After the Desert One fiasco, the Iranians dispersed the hostages to a variety of locations, effectively shutting the door on another rescue attempt, at least one that would have any chance of returning the hostages as a group.

By summer 1980, Copeland told me, the Republicans in his circle considered a second hostage-rescue attempt not only unfeasible, but unnecessary. They were talking confidently about the hostages being freed after a Republican victory in November, the old CIA man said.

"There was no discussion of a Kissinger or Nixon plan to rescue these people, because Nixon, like everybody else, knew that all we had to do was wait until the election came, and they were going to get out," Copeland said. "That was sort of an open secret among people in the intelligence community, that that would happen. ... The intelligence community certainly had some understanding with somebody in Iran in authority, in a way that they would hardly confide in me."

Copeland said his CIA friends had been told by contacts in Iran that the mullahs would do nothing to help Carter or his reelection.

"At that time, we had word back, because you always have informed relations with the devil," Copeland said. "But we had word that, 'Don't worry.' As long as Carter wouldn't get credit for getting these people out, as soon as Reagan came in, the Iranians would be happy enough to wash their hands of this and move into a new era of Iranian-American relations, whatever that turned out to be."

In the interview, Copeland declined to give more details, beyond his assurance that "the CIA within the CIA," his term for the true protectors of U.S. national security, had an understanding with the Iranians about the hostages. (Copeland died on January 14, 1991, before I could interview him again.)

Secret Meetings

Much of the controversy over the October Surprise mystery has centered on several alleged secret meetings in Europe between senior Republicans - including then-Reagan campaign chief William Casey and Reagan's running mate George H.W. Bush - and Iranian officials, including senior cleric Mehdi Karrubi.

A variety of witnesses, including Iranian officials and international intelligence operatives, have described these contacts, which have been denied by Bush and other top Republicans. Though official U.S. investigations have generally sided with the Republicans, a substantial body of evidence - much of it which was kept hidden from the American people - actually supports the October Surprise allegations. [See Robert Parry's Secrecy & Privilege.]

Evidence from Reagan-Bush campaign files also points to undisclosed contacts between the Rockefeller group and Casey during Carter's hostage negotiations.

According to a campaign visitor log for Sept. 11, 1980, David Rockefeller and several of his aides who were dealing with the Iranian issue signed in to see Casey at his campaign headquarters in Arlington, Virginia.

With Rockefeller were Joseph Reed, whom Rockefeller had assigned to coordinate U.S. policy toward the Shah, and Archibald Roosevelt, the former CIA officer who was monitoring events in the Persian Gulf for Chase Manhattan and who had collaborated with Miles Copeland on the Iran hostage-rescue plan. The fourth member of the party was Owen Frisbie, Rockefeller's chief lobbyist in Washington.

In the early 1990s, all the surviving participants - Rockefeller, Reed and Frisbie - declined to be interviewed about the Casey meeting. Rockefeller made no mention of the meeting in Memoirs.

Henry Kissinger, another Rockefeller associate, also was in discreet contact with campaign director Casey during this period, according to Casey's personal chauffeur whom I interviewed. The chauffeur, who asked not to be identified by name, said he was sent twice to Kissinger's Georgetown home to pick up the former Secretary of State and bring him to Arlington, Virginia, for private meetings with Casey, meetings that were not recorded on the official visitor logs.

Iranian Allegation

On September 16, 1980, five days after the Rockefeller visit to Casey's office, Iran's acting foreign minister Sadegh Ghotbzadeh publicly cited Republican interference on the hostages.

"Reagan, supported by Kissinger and others, has no intention of resolving the problem," Ghotbzadeh said. "They will do everything in their power to block it."

In the weeks before Election 1980, FBI wiretaps picked up other evidence that connected Rockefeller associates with two of the key suspects in the October Surprise mystery, Iranian banker Cyrus Hashemi and longtime Casey business associate John Shaheen.

According to the FBI wiretaps hidden in Hashemi's New York offices in September 1980, Hashemi and Shaheen were involved in the intrigue surrounding the Iran hostage crisis while simultaneously promoting murky financial schemes.

Hashemi was supposedly acting as an intermediary for President Carter for secret approaches to Iranian officials about getting the hostages released. But Hashemi appears to have been playing a double game, serving as a backchannel for the Reagan-Bush campaign, through Shaheen, who had known Casey since their World War II days together in the Office of Strategic Services, the CIA's forerunner.

The FBI wiretaps revealed that Hashemi and Shaheen also were trying to establish a bank with Philippine interests in either the Caribbean or in Hong Kong. In mid-October 1980, Hashemi deposited "a large sum of money" in a Philippine bank and planned to meet with Philippine representatives in Europe, an FBI intercept discovered.

The negotiations led Shaheen to an agreement with Herminio Disini, an in-law of Philippine First Lady Imelda Marcos, to establish the Hong Kong Deposit and Guaranty Company. Disini also was a top moneyman for Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos.

The $20 million used as starting capital for the bank came through Jean A. Patry, David Rockefeller's lawyer in Geneva, Switzerland. But the original source of the money, according to two Shaheen associates I interviewed, was Princess Ashraf, the Shah's twin sister

Posted by: do dah bba man know dis ????? three | April 26, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse


Rockefeller's memo read. "They have questions about the dependability of the United States as a friend." An irritated Carter abruptly ended the meeting.

Temporary Havens

Despite the mounting pressure from influential quarters, Carter continued to rebuff appeals to let the Shah into the United States. So the Shah's influential friends began looking for alternative locations, asking other nations to shelter the ex-Iranian ruler.

Finally, arrangements were made for the Shah to fly to the Bahamas and - when the Bahamian government turned out to be more interested in money than humanitarianism - to Mexico.

"With the Shah safely settled in Mexico, I had hopes that the need for my direct involvement on his behalf had ended," Rockefeller wrote in Memoirs. "Henry [Kissinger] continued to publicly criticize the Carter administration for its overall management of the Iranian crisis and other aspects of its foreign policy, and Jack McCloy bombarded [Carter's Secretary of State] Cyrus Vance with letters demanding the Shah's admission to the United States."

When the Shah's medical condition took a turn for the worse in October, Carter relented and agreed to let the Shah fly to New York for emergency treatment. Celebrating Carter's reversal, Rockefeller's aide Joseph Reed wrote in a memo, "our 'mission impossible' is completed. ... My applause is like thunder."

When the Shah arrived in New York on October 23, 1979, Reed checked the Shah into New York Hospital under a pseudonym, "David Newsome," a play on the name of Carter's undersecretary of state for political affairs, David Newsom.

Embassy Crisis

The arrival of the Shah in New York led to renewed demands from Iran's new government that the Shah be returned to stand trial.

In Teheran, students and other radicals gathered at the university, called by their leaders to what was described as an important meeting, according to one of the participants whom I interviewed years later.

The students gathered in a classroom which had three blackboards turned toward the wall. A speaker told the students that they were about to undertake a mission supported by Ayatollah Khomeini, Iran's spiritual leader and the de facto head of the government.

"They said it would be dangerous and that anyone who didn't want to take part could leave now," the Iranian told me. "But no one left. Then, they turned around the blackboards. There were three buildings drawn on the blackboards. They were the buildings of the U.S. embassy."

The Iranian said the target of the raid was not the embassy personnel, but rather the embassy's intelligence documents.

"We had believed that the U.S. government had been manipulating affairs inside Iran and we wanted to prove it," he said. "We thought if we could get into the embassy, we could get the documents that would prove this. We hadn't thought about the hostages. We all went to the embassy. We had wire cutters to cut through the fence. We started climbing over the fences. We had expected more resistance. When we got inside, we saw the Americans running and we chased them."

Marine guards set off tear gas in a futile attempt to control the mob, but held their fire to avoid bloodshed. Other embassy personnel hastily shredded classified documents, although there wasn't time to destroy many of the secret papers. The militant students found themselves in control not only of the embassy and hundreds of sensitive U.S. cables, but dozens of American hostages as well.

An international crisis had begun, a hinge that would swing open unexpected doors for both American and Iranian history.

Hidden Compartments

David Rockefeller denied that his campaign to gain the Shah's admittance to the United States had provoked the crisis, arguing that he was simply filling a vacuum created when the Carter administration balked at doing the right thing.

"Despite the insistence of journalists and revisionist historians, there was never a 'Rockefeller-Kissinger behind-the-scenes campaign' that placed 'relentless pressure' on the Carter administration to have the Shah admitted to the United States regardless of the consequences," Rockefeller wrote in Memoirs. "In fact, it would be more accurate to say that for many months we were the unwilling surrogates for a government that had failed to accept its full responsibilities."

But within the Iranian hostage crisis, there would be hidden compartments within hidden compartments, as influential groups around the world acted in what they perceived to be their personal or their national interests.

Rockefeller was just one of many powerful people who felt that Jimmy Carter deserved to lose his job. With the hostage crisis started, a countdown of 365 days began toward the 1980 elections. Though he may have been only dimly aware of his predicament, Carter faced a remarkable coalition of enemies both inside and outside the United States.

In the Persian Gulf, the Saudi royal family and other Arab oil sheiks blamed Carter for forsaking the Shah and feared their own playboy life styles might be next on the list for the Islamic fundamentalists. The Israeli government saw Carter as too cozy with the Palestinians and too eager to cut a peace deal that would force Israel to surrender land won in the 1967 war.

European anti-communists believed Carter was too soft on the Soviet Union and was risking the security of Europe. Dictators in the Third World - from the Philippines and South Korea to Argentina and El Salvador - were bristling at Carter's human rights lectures.

Inside the United States, the Carter administration had made enemies at the CIA by purging many of the Old Boys who saw themselves as protectors of America's deepest national interests. Many CIA veterans, including some still within the government, were disgruntled. And, of course, the Republicans were determined to win back the White House, which many felt had been unjustly taken from their control after Richard Nixon's landslide victory in 1972.

This subterranean struggle between Carter, trying desperately to free the hostages before the 1980 election, and those who stood to benefit by thwarting him became known popularly as the "October Surprise" controversy.

The nickname referred to the possibility that Carter might have ensured his reelection by arranging the hostage return the month before the presidential election as an October Surprise, although the term came ultimately to refer to clandestine efforts to stop Carter from pulling off his October Surprise.

CIA Old Boys

When the hostage crisis wasn't resolved in the first few weeks and months, the attention of many disgruntled CIA Old Boys also turned toward the American humiliation in Iran, which they found doubly hard to take since it had been the site of the agency's first major victory, the restoration of the Shah to the Peacock Throne.

A number of veterans from that operation of 1953 were still alive in 1980. Archibald Roosevelt was one of the Old Boys from the Iranian operation. He had moved on to become an adviser to David Rockefeller at Chase Manhattan Bank.

Another was Miles Copeland, who had served the CIA as an intermediary to Arab leaders, including Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser. In his autobiography, The Game Player, Copeland claimed that he and his CIA chums prepared their own Iranian hostage rescue plan in March 1980.

When I interviewed Copeland in 1990 at his thatched-roofed cottage outside Oxford in the English countryside, he said he had been a strong supporter of George H.W. Bush in 1980. He even had founded an informal support group called "Spooks for Bush."

Sitting among photos of his children who included the drummer for the rock group, The Police, and the manager for the rock star, Sting, Copeland explained that he and his CIA colleagues considered Carter a dangerous idealist.

"Let me say first that we liked President Carter," Copeland told me "He read, unlike President Reagan later, he read everything. He knew what he was about. He understood the situation throughout the Middle East, even these tenuous, difficult problems such as Arabs and Israel.

"But the way we saw Washington at that time was that the struggle was really not between the Left and the Right, the liberals and the conservatives, as between the Utopians and the realists, the pragmatists. Carter was a Utopian. He believed, honestly, that you must do the right thing and take your chance on the consequences. He told me that. He literally believed that."

Copeland's deep Southern accent spit out the words with a mixture of amazement and disgust. To Copeland and his CIA friends, Carter deserved respect for a first-rate intellect but contempt for his idealism.

"Most of the things that were done [by the United States] about Iran had been on a basis of stark realism, with possibly the exception of letting the Shah down," Copeland said. "There are plenty of forces in the country we could have marshaled. ... We could have sabotaged [the revolution, but] we had to establish what the Quakers call 'the spirit of the meeting' in the country, where everybody was thinking just one way. The Iranians were really like sheep, as they are now."

Posted by: do dah bba man know dis ????? too | April 26, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Obviously people are interested in the debates...despite what the Obama-bots like to believe. The ratings and viewership for these programs have increased with each one.

Posted by: Tim | April 26, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a coward.

It will be an honor to vote against him.

Posted by: Obama is a coward | April 26, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

I don't know how many of you have noticed, but Obama could have nailed CLinton on all kinds of things, so sleazy is she. But he didn't.

It is true that Bilary is broke and sees a debate as a free way to spread her lies. Have you noticed how mismanaged her finances are and how her campaign seems in a constant state of disarray? Is this the kind of White House we need?

She needs to shut up about how Obama can't win against McCain. She herself said if he is the nominee she would campaign like hell for him. So if he loses against McCain, I reckon she is partly to blame.

I used to think I would be okay with either candidate even though I favored Obama. But Hilary turns my stomach. I find more and more I really loathe her, and especially Bill. How do you have sex with anything that moves and feel qualified to talk in public on any matter?

Posted by: susan | April 26, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

To read the first part of the series, dealing with the inept investigative work of Indiana Democrat Lee Hamilton, click here. The series is adapted from Robert Parry's Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq:

On March 23, 1979, late on a Friday afternoon, Chase Manhattan Bank Chairman David Rockefeller and his longtime aide Joseph Verner Reed arrived at a town house in the exclusive Beekham Place neighborhood on New York's East Side. They were met inside by a small, intense and deeply worried woman who had seen her life turned upside down in the last two months.

Iran's Princess Ashraf, the strong-willed twin sister of the Iran's long-time ruler, had gone from wielding immense behind-the-scenes clout in the ancient nation of Persia to living in exile - albeit a luxurious one. With hostile Islamic fundamentalists running her homeland, Ashraf also was troubled by the plight of her ailing brother, the ousted Shah of Iran, who had fled into exile, first to Egypt and then Morocco.

Now, she was turning for help to the man who ran one of the leading U.S. banks, one which had made a fortune serving as the Shah's banker for a quarter century and handling billions of dollars in Iran's assets. Ashraf's message was straightforward. She wanted Rockefeller to intercede with Jimmy Carter and ask the President to relent on his decision against granting the Shah refuge in the United States.

A distressed Ashraf said her brother had been given a one-week deadline to leave his current place of refuge, Morocco. "My brother has nowhere to go," Ashraf pleaded, "and no one else to turn to." [See David Rockefeller, Memoirs]

Spurned Appeals

Carter had been resisting appeals to let the Shah enter the United States, fearing that admitting him would endanger the personnel at the U.S. Embassy in Teheran and other U.S. interests. In mid-February 1979, Iranian radicals had overrun the embassy and briefly held the staff hostage before the Iranian government intervened to secure release of the Americans.

Carter feared a repeat of the crisis. Already the United States was deeply unpopular with the Islamic revolution because of the CIA's history of meddling in Iranian affairs. The U.S. spy agency had helped organize the overthrow of an elected nationalist government in 1953 and arranged the restoration of the Shah and the Pahlavi family to the Peacock Throne. In the quarter century that followed, the Shah kept his opponents at bay through the coercive powers of his secret police, known as the SAVAK.

As the Islamic Revolution gained strength in January 1979, however, the Shah's security forces could no longer keep order. The Shah - suffering from terminal cancer - scooped up a small pile of Iranian soil, boarded his jet, sat down at the controls and flew the plane out of Iran to Egypt.

A few days later, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, an ascetic religious leader who had been forced into exile by the Shah, returned to a tumultuous welcome from crowds estimated at a million strong, shouting "Death to the Shah." The new Iranian government began demanding that the Shah be returned to stand trial for human rights crimes and that he surrender his fortune, salted away in overseas accounts.

The new Iranian government also wanted Chase Manhattan to return Iranian assets, which Rockefeller put at more than $1 billion in 1978, although some estimates ran much higher. The withdrawal might have created a liquidity crisis for the bank which already was coping with financial troubles.

Ashraf's personal appeal put Rockefeller in what he described, with understatement, as "an awkward position," according to his autobiography Memoirs.

"There was nothing in my previous relationship with the Shah that made me feel a strong obligation to him," wrote the scion of the Rockefeller oil and banking fortune who had long prided himself in straddling the worlds of high finance and public policy. "He had never been a friend to whom I owed a personal debt, and neither was his relationship with the bank one that would justify my taking personal risks on his behalf. Indeed, there might be severe repercussions for Chase if the Iranian authorities determined that I was being too helpful to the Shah and his family."

Later on March 23, after leaving Ashraf's residence, Rockefeller attended a dinner with Happy Rockefeller, the widow of his brother Nelson who had died two months earlier. Also at the dinner was former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, a long-time associate of the Rockefeller family.

Discussing the Shah's plight, Happy Rockefeller described her late husband's close friendship with the Shah, which had included a weekend stay with the Shah and his wife in Teheran in 1977. Happy said that when Nelson learned that the Shah would be forced to leave Iran, Nelson offered to pick out a new home for the Shah in the United States.

The dinner conversation also turned to what the participants saw as the dangerous precedent that President Carter was setting by turning his back on a prominent U.S. ally. What message of American timidity was being sent to other pro-U.S. leaders in the Middle East?

'Flying Dutchman'

The dinner led to a public campaign by Rockefeller - along with Kissinger and former Chase Manhattan Bank Chairman John McCloy - to find a suitable home in exile for the Shah. Country after country had closed their doors to the Shah as he began a humiliating odyssey as what Kissinger would call a modern-day "Flying Dutchman," wandering in search of a safe harbor.

Rockefeller assigned his aide, Joseph Reed, "to help [the Shah] in any way he could," including serving as the Shah's liaison to the U.S. government. McCloy, one of the so-called Wise Men of the post-World War II era, was representing Chase Manhattan as an attorney with Milbank, Tweed, Hadley and McCloy. One of his duties was to devise a financial strategy for staving off Iran's withdrawal of assets from the bank.

Rockefeller also pressed the Shah's case personally with Carter when the opportunity presented itself. On April 9, 1979, at the end of an Oval Office meeting on another topic, Rockefeller handed Carter a one-page memo describing the views of many foreign leaders disturbed by recent U.S. foreign policy actions, including Carter's treatment of the Shah.

"With virtually no exceptions, the heads of state and other government leaders I saw expressed concern about United States foreign policy which they perceived to be vacillating and lacking in an understandable global approach," Rockefeller's memo read. "They have questions about the dependability of the United States as a friend." An irritated Carter abruptly ended the meeting.

Posted by: does baba know dis ???? | April 26, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Debate? unless there is a new issue of importance added to the economy, health care, and the war, we have heard it all, the lies lies lies from the me me me I want the limelite, demeaning woman, we don't need to hear it all again. I wonder about the behavor of Hillary Clinton, snide remarks with facial poses to match, proud of herself that she has struck again with another nasty jab. Get her off the airways,send her back to NY, no room for her in Washington DC. living in the white house for 8 years, does this mean that all former first ladies qualify for a run at the presidency ?

Posted by: Phyl | April 26, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Obama'# 1 reason for being president.
He has the sneakiest finger in the west.
He even offers up a sh*t eating grin to
go with it.

Wasn't the child so cute. You know with
class like that he may be president
one day.

Posted by: Chief | April 26, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Obama should simply ignore this pathetic mosquito, and let HillBill whine to each other. With any luck the media will ignore her too...not that the shrill screech is easy to ignore.

This is a non-issue. If the shoe was on the other foot, HillBill would be demanding that Obama withhdraw "gracefully" and everyone knows it.

Posted by: Southern Old White Boy Against the Shrew | April 26, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

LOL! :-D

"Well, Barack, I feel McCain is like Bush because they BOTH Flew Jets"

"No, Hillary you are Mistaken! McCain is Like Bush, because they are BOTH "WHITE MEN"!

"But, Barack, You Yourself are Half White!"

"And Half Kenyan-Praise the Lord!"-"But Back to Bush/McCain Bashing Senator Clinton;

Like we AGREED!" ;~)

Posted by: RAT-The | April 26, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

She has a fairly long track record of lying for political gain. She will say or do just about anything to get this nomination. The GOP wants this bickering and implied racial tension. Hillary is the weakest opponent vs. McCain - imagine the ads....

A report this released this week stated that 70 of Hillary's top donors wrote their first checks to Obama in March, a top 'Hill raiser' just joined with Obama, 50 of John Edwards top backers publicly endorsed Obama
on Wednesday. Also consider the statement of condemnation from Rep. Clayburn regarding her campaign conduct and the perception amongst - not just blacks but most Dems - of her trying to fix the game in some backroom deal -

The super del's will not hand her the election. She is operating on the George W Bush playbook where you can move the goal posts if you have any chance to do so.

Obama! 2008

Posted by: Josh in Seattle | April 26, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

man who set up corporate headquarters for bushCO and CRONYS in IRAQ...


Mike McConnel is doing his job now....

Mike McConnel, coporate shill for Booze Allen Hamilton, he's chowing down on Adm Poindexters salaami...and setting up a deal for bushCO and CRONYs CARLYLE GROUP to acquire Poindexters product for private consumption and CONTROL.


Negroponte, Honduras and Iraq
by Peter Watt
July 09, 2004

Until the word became unfashionable in the West, Iraq would have been called a colony. The equivalent of the colonial office, the US embassy in Baghdad, will be the biggest embassy in the world and will be headed by John Negroponte, a veteran neo-conservative of the Reagan administration.

Negroponte's specialty, while ambassador to Honduras under Reagan (1981-1985) was to ensure that any resistance to US hegemony in Nicaragua would be utterly crushed. The ambassador carried out his duties with considerable success. A brief look at Negroponte's Central American period gives us a hint at what bodes for US-run Iraq.

When the Sandinista revolution took power in Nicaragua in 1979, alarm bells rang in Washington. Somoza, the brutal US-backed dictator, had been overthrown by revolutionary forces after 43 years in power. US hegemony in Nicaragua, and thus in Central America was under serious threat. Washington's paranoia about Cuba and Bolshevism had thus spread to Central America - any challenge to the US system of control was treated with absolute contempt, as Nicaraguans were to learn right throughout the 1980s. Indeed, any government in Latin America that refused to give in to US domination, regardless of its policies, was decried as Communist - a label which provoked the most vitriolic condemnation in Washington throughout the Cold War.

In 1980 Jimmy Carter put pressure on the Honduran government to act as a "bulwark against Communism" against the Sandinista government. With Somoza gone the US had no internal grip inside Nicaragua and would thus have to control much of its anti-Sandinista operations from outside the country's borders. Some 5000 members of Somoza's hated brutal National Guard fled Nicaragua to Honduras when the Sandinistas took power. It was in consequence that Honduras became the training ground and launching pad for the US-funded Contra war against Nicaragua.

During the Reagan administration, and while Negroponte was ambassador to the country, "Contra" militias were trained in Honduras. The Contras had hitherto made relatively small attacks across the border into Nicaragua until in 1982 thousands of marines arrived with up to 200 military advisers - airstrips were built, arms supplied and radar stations erected, all courtesy of the US taxpayer.

The Contras were trained in some of the most gruesome guerrilla war techniques. Some were trained by military officers from Argentina's dirty war who knew nothing about the jungle but plenty about torture and execution. Others were trained in Florida and California while many others, like Honduras' military dictator, General Gustavo Alvarez Martínez, were educated in torture techniques, execution and combat at the School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Georgia. While it was purported by Reagan that the Contras were fighting the evil scourge of communism, referring to them as "freedom fighters," the Contras raped, tortured and terrorised the civilian population throughout the subsequent decade, leaving the destroying the civilian infrastructure, leaving tens of thousands dead and many more displaced.

Negroponte's role in Honduras was crucial as it meant maintaining US dominance in the region. Jeane Kirkpatrick, Negroponte's predecessor at the UN once declared that "Central America is the most important place in the world for the United States today." Maintaining political control of the region meant controlling its vast and rich natural resources. The Sandinistas were beginning to take matters into their own hands and started to redistribute wealth and land in Nicaragua, thus threatening US dominance in the region. Panic in the Reagan administration reached feverish and sometimes surreal levels, with the president declaring that the Sandinistas were on the verge of invading the United States. The real cause for alarm among Reaganite neo-conservatives (including the virulent anti-communist Negroponte) was that the Sandinista revolution would spread throughout El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala. It had nothing to do with communism, just as the invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with preventing terrorism. More, it was that the economic system the US had maintained in Central America since 1945 was falling apart - it was simply untenable for the impoverished masses who barely had enough to eat. Washington's solution, like its present incarnation in the Middle East, was one of force and overwhelming military power in order to maintain US hegemony. Just as Negroponte acted as the strong arm of US imperialism in Central America in the 1980s he will protect US business and political interests in the Middle East, now the "most important place in the world for the United States today."

While the country was used as the launching ground for the war against Nicaragua, US aid to Honduras increased from 5 to almost $100 million with $200 million given in economic aid. Honduras now received more aid than anywhere else in the region, most of the money ultimately being controlled by the military.

Jack Binns, Negroponte's predecessor as ambassador appointed by Jimmy Carter, complained about the blatant human rights abuses in Honduras and briefed him as he took office. He later reported that Salvadoran nuns who fled to Honduras after the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero had been tortured by the Honduran secret police and thrown out of helicopters alive - a speciality of the Argentine military officers employed in Honduras during Negroponte's stint. One official, Rick Chidester, claims Negroponte ordered him to remove all mention of torture and execution from his report on human rights in Honduras.

During Negroponte's stay in Honduras, human rights violations peaked. The infamous US trained death squad, Batallion 3-16, was notorious for the torture, rape, kidnapping and killing of Honduran dissidents. Hundreds of people disappeared. By the end of the 1980s at least 10,000 were dead, not to mention the conservative estimate of 200,000 deaths in Central America as a result of US intervention. Negroponte, however, claims no knowledge of the human rights abuses the US carried out and funded despite being ambassador at the time. He told CNN, "I think on balance if you look back at what we did, I think a good case can be made that there was actually less suffering in Central America as a result of the actions the United States took than there would have been if we had just folded our arms and done nothing."

Many other Honduran victims of the US led war in Central America ended up at the El Aguacate airstrip, whose creation was supervised by Negroponte, and where dissidents were detained and tortured - 185 corpses were dug up there in 2001.

When George W. Bush appointed Negroponte as US ambassador to the UN, members of Honduran death squads who had previously been granted asylum in the US were deported. It was feared they testify about Negroponte's role in human rights abuses while ambassador to Honduras.

Interestingly, none of this came up in the US and British mainstream media when career journalists heaped praise on Reagan shortly after his death. Somehow, amidst the fawning in mainstream and elite circles it was forgotten that the Reagan administration carried out in Central America one of the worst campaigns of state terrorism of the late 20th century. All of this in the context of the present situation in Iraq - one might expect that the media would pick up on the fact that many of the present incumbents in Washington are those who were responsible for the terror in Central America in the 1980s. John Negroponte's appointment as ambassador, as if it was not clear enough by now, tells something about what Bush et al have in store for Iraq.

What should we expect now that the US has handed "sovereignity" back to Iraqis? What kind of sovereignity is it? Will it be more sovereign than Honduras, which was effectively controlled by the CIA and the US military?

Of course, it is nothing like sovereignity. Some 250,000 occupation soldiers will stay in the country long after the US has left.

Not having allowed any free elections, the US has installed a puppet government that will receive orders from Washington.

Should the new government fail to do so, it can expect to be overthrown either by US backed coup organised from the US embassy or outright invasion (again). Iraqi sovereignty does not even allow the courts to prosecute foreign civilians or contractors or mercenaries should they commit a crime. Any mercenary guilty of killing an Iraqi is immune from legal prosecution. The new government has no control of the quarter of a million soldiers that will continue to occupy the country and intimidate the civilian population. The American government will determine how the budget of $18 billion for reconstruction is spent.

Iraq's natural resources will be handed over to mostly American private companies control of oil reserves the most obvious example.

Moreover, the Bush administration has ensured that Iraq's public services should be milked for profit for US corporations who will now control much of the country's infrastructure. So much for "sovereignity."


READ THIS:

We might consider the reaction of people in the US if a foreign power invaded, killed thousands of civilians, destroyed the country's infrastructure after a ten year bombing campaign and sanctions that left up to a million dead, denied Americans the right to vote while making lofty claims about freedom and democracy, shot people protesting the invasion, shot carloads of people at checkpoints and condemned present and future generations to all kinds of disease and illness and maiming as a result of exposure to depleted uranium and contact with unexploded cluster bombs. How would Americans react when the foreign power supposedly left the country, leaving hundreds of thousands of soldiers and mercenaries in the US, all immune from prosecution in American courts after appointing a puppet government that took its orders from the foreign capital and having given American natural resources and public services over to foreign companies. How would Americans react to being denied the right to vote when the leaders of the occupying power strutted about making asserting this was a victory for democracy?

The anger and outrage Americans would feel is now felt by Iraqis. Resistance to the US occupying forces will increase, and eventually, like all imperial powers, the Americans will be forced to leave - because of the scale of the resistance and because of the chaos wreaked by the occupying forces. Yet before that happens we are likely to see a great deal of violence. The US will attempt to crush all kinds of resistance to their power, which is only likely to become more organized and apparent.

Interestingly, none of this came up in the mainstream media when career journalists heaped praise on Reagan shortly after his death. Somehow, amongst the fawning and whining in mainstream and elite circles it was forgotten that the Reagan administration carried out in Central America one of the worst campaigns of state terrorism of the late 20th century. All of this in the context of the present situation in Iraq - one might expect that the media would pick up on the fact that many of the present incumbents in Washington are those who were responsible for the terror in Central America in the 1980s. John Negroponte's appointment as ambassador, as if it was not clear enough by now, tells something of what Bush et al have in store for Iraq.

Peter Watt is an independent journalist and activist. He presently lives in France.

Posted by: who is the | April 26, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

jacksmith:

At least write something new, you idiot. Obviously you simply cut and paste this tripe from one blog to another. Try speaking to the issue in the article which is the subject of this blog.

You ARE an idiot!

Posted by: Southern Old White Boy Against the Shrew | April 26, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Absolutely the most vitriolic, negative, untrue, pejorative, and simply demeaning comments I have ever seen!! Oh - except for the lies that the PATHOLOGICAL LIAR Hillary and her PATHOLOGICAL LIAR husband Bill.

Truly, truly sad that it has come to this.

I will NEVER vote for Hillary or McBush. The hell with all of you small-minded IDIOTS and the ass you rode in on.

Posted by: swanieaz | April 26, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

"Obama is a cry-baby and so are his supporters.

The Washington Post knows he doens't have a chance against McCain, yet the continue to write slanted articles in an endless attempt to get him the nomination.

If they succeed, it means that McCain will be President.

Since they are not stupid, it can only mean one thing.

That they have wanted McCain all along and know that Hillary is the only one that can defeat him.

Even knowing this, we will be glad to vote for McCain if Obama steals the nomination.

At least McCain has guts.

Obama is a gutless wonder."

Posted by: Obama is a cry-baby | April 26, 2008 7:18 PM

Guts, you mean the same guy who cracked when he was in captivity and spilled his guts? Are those the guts you are talking about?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Hey TreeTopFlier, I understand that President should respond to tough questions from the press. And Obama did it many times. He answered all the questions about Reverend Wright and flag pin, long long back. Then why did the moderators repeated them once again wasting time and boring him. President will never have to answer the same question 1000 times. He will simply refer back to his past answer. Clinton also refused to answer the Bosnia flap and CAFTA questions after reponding to them unsatisfactorily a couple of times. Obama, despite getting bored, kept his calm in the PENN debate, whereas in the Ohio debate, she started fighting with the press after she got nailed down on her varying stances on NAFTA. She was a clear loser. Still some said the debate is a win for her, and others said it was a tie. I have indicated in an earlier mail why she she is longing for a debate- not because of a pious intention to establish a logical coherence of her policies, but because of free chance to do negative campaigning at a time when she is broke. Usually judged by the amount of blabbering you do (but not the sense you make), a debate is a sure win for her. No wonder OBAMA refused it politely.

Posted by: TwentyFirstCentury American | April 26, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

o ba ba man

is a smart cookie, why talk without paid for moderators keeping him safe and at a distance from the truth...


he hasn't bought the moderators out...

the republick conners and the corporatocracy have...


ba ba man is a little shee people afraid that his slip is hsoywing


.

Posted by: actually | April 26, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a cry-baby and so are his supporters.

The Washington Post knows he doens't have a chance against McCain, yet the continue to write slanted articles in an endless attempt to get him the nomination.

If they succeed, it means that McCain will be President.

Since they are not stupid, it can only mean one thing.

That they have wanted McCain all along and know that Hillary is the only one that can defeat him.

Even knowing this, we will be glad to vote for McCain if Obama steals the nomination.

At least McCain has guts.

Obama is a gutless wonder.

Posted by: Obama is a cry-baby | April 26, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

bama boyah...


REMEMBER the current fiasco/regime STARTED?

probably not, it was actually more than a few years ago.

key player:
GEORGE H.W. Bush Sr., son of NAZI SUPPORTERS DURING WARTIME, hehas purportedly been involved inthe CIA since BAY OF PIGS, Zapata OIL days....connections through his fathers and families interests and CIA/MAFIA/OIL/DRUGS since the early 1950's...

George H.W. Bush Sr.:
sent APRIL GLASPIE to Iraq, who with a nod and a wink told Saddam that his border dispute with Kuwait could be settled with military force and the U.S. would look the "other way." a lie, aruse, a deceit.

Saddam invades Kuwait, we now have an official reason to be there....HOT DAWG!!!
looks like we'll establish a presence in Kuwait, we already have one in Saudi/Turkey...our CIA trains al QUEADA, did bushes CIA train the 9/11 pilots.

Saudi Royals were given the rights to Saudi Arabia by the Brits after WWII, the SAUDI Royals were put into power BYTHEBRITS...

Protecting the Kuwaiti's??????????:
We go into Iraq with Stormin Norman....and kill 400,000 thousand Iraqis and

STOP SHORT OF Bagdhad....you know why, WE'RE GOING BACK...that's why we stopped...


and now that we occupy, are embedded in Kuwait,
we put the country of Iraq into a stasis with embargoes, until we need to harvest it,

the world economy is shifting and things are ripe....China Pakistan, and India are emerging...

THEN, the family needed to intervene....in this case the international riche, which includes the Saudis, Kuwaitis, and the US Affluent that stand to make a bit of cash....mind you the Germans, English and French have their hands in this...but your buddy dubya, is the gawdfathers only VISIBLE son....but the others worked behind the scences...opening security systems, fixing elections...


so U.S.A. intervenes on NATIONAL TELEVISION...bombs going off, constant coverage, city surrounded, surveillance on every living thing that's bigger than a booger..


and somehow, miracle of miracles, like the virgin mary turning up on your french toast:
Saddam escapes from Bagdhad with THREE [3] tractor trailer LOADs of cash.

$9 BILLION$ in CASH right? Anyone in dubyas extended family gotten riche lately?

the museums were emptied right? ha ha ha...that's rich.

as far as conspiracy goes,

there never was a CIA/NORIEGA/BUSH Sr. connection right? and the Chilean president wasn't asassinated in DC with full CIA knowledge, while POOPPY WAS DIRECTOR, and where'd that white up George W. Bushes nose come from? NORIEGA????

the thing of it is,
the United States suckered, under George H.W. Bush, Saddam Hussein into attacking Kuwait, so we could be the "heroes", and become military occupiers...to lead us to this point....


walking down the road with no impetus to replacing our dependence on oil, a non-renewable resource....because it's not to the benefit of the countries leaders

this has a lot to do with _families_ working together _not related by blood_, as well as politics that don't include you as a positive recipient of thier efforts, as well as...

helping you to understand that it isn't all cowboy hats and honesty leading you...

Saddam was deliberately mislead into attacking Kuwiat, by President George H.W. Bush, we indicated that we would look the other way if Saddam wanted to reacquire some land and oil wells that he thought the Kuwiatis had taken.....so we would have an excuse to extend our influence.

did we tell Saddam Hussein the truth?

no.

it wasn't to our advantage.

the bushes intimately understand the middle eastern tribe mentality, they have trbal mentality, they protect and work with their own....they use the government to get what they want for their tribe

ps. you're not included in their tribe....

morons in charge and morons voted them in...using demagoguery as a political tool needs to be exposed....predjudice as a tool.

you want a better country quit pandering to morons and pandering to hate.....

the point of it is, the bush family, is trying to bury some information that needs to be understood

the ultimate threat to this country is dis_information and people who spew it.


I would suggest that those who would use thier governmental office for personal gain at the expense of the citizens lose thier citizenship, and be charged with treason and their properties confiscated....

intimidation as control shouldn't be tolerated....
read the bill of rights, the right to bear arms was specifically inserted into the Bill of Rights to prevent the United States from being taken over from within, which is what has happened....

that's the point, a dictatorship and a congress that takes advantage of citizens, doesn't deserve to serve....


Posted by: read these notes | April 26, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

i thought the great Dick and Bush got us the war

Posted by: dick head | April 26, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

she should ask o ba ba man why we in AFGHANISTAN...


... REGARDING WHY ARE WE IN AFGHANISTAN? ....

fron DANISH NEWS SOURCES:


The pre-planned attack on Afghanistan, as we have seen, was meant to nullify the contract between the Taliban and the Bridas Corporation, to assure access to the Caspian Basin riches for American oil companies. It was a pure play of international energy policy.

It had nothing to do, as designed, with apprehending Osama bin Laden--a pure play of security policy.[...]On October 7, 2001 the carpet of bombs is unleashed over Afghanistan.

Hamid Karzai, the former Unocal/CHEVRON consultant, is installed as head of an interim government. Subsequently he is elected President of Afghanistan, and welcomes the first U.S. envoy--Mr. John J. Maresca, Vice President for International Relations of the Unocal Corporation, who had implored Congress three years previously to have the Taliban overthrown.

Mr. Maresca was succeeded by Mr. Zalmay Khalilzad--also a former Unocal/CHEVRON consultant. Mr. Khalilzad has since become Ambassador to Iraq. With the Taliban banished and the Bridas contract moot, Presidents Karzai of Afghanistan and Musharraf of Pakistan meet on February 8, 2002, sign an agreement for a new pipeline, and the way forward is open for Unocal/CHEVRON once more. [ Mr. Khalilzad has since become Ambassador to the United Nations.] replacing Bolton of JINSA/AEI fame...

end DANISH NEWS REPORT on the AMERICAN invasion of AFGHANISTAN...


search on PNAC JINSA Douglas Feith Perle and see who else is backing bush...

further on, read this closely...


it has to do with money and OIL PROFITEERING AS WELL AS USING THE UNITED STATES MILITARY FOR PERSONAL PROFIT.... Hamid Karzai, the former Unocal/CHEVRON consultant, is installed as head of an interim government. Subsequently he is elected President of Afghanistan, and welcomes the first U.S. envoy--Mr. John J. Maresca, Vice President for International Relations of the Unocal Corporation, who had implored Congress three years previously to have the Taliban overthrown. Mr. Maresca was succeeded by Mr. Zalmay Khalilzad--also a former Unocal consultant. Mr. Khalilzad has since become Ambassador to Iraq. UNOCAL IS CHEVRON... CHEVRON HAD CHENEY CUT THE PIPELINE DEAL A FEW MONTHS AGO W/IRAQ AND PAKISTAN, CONDO SLEAZY represents BIG OIL, IS A FORMER CHEVRON BOARD OF DIRECTORS for 10 years before joining


bushCO & CRONYs...

your team spending AMERICA's money on themselves...as AMERICA's infrastructure takes a NOSE DIVE...

skin them alive, metaphorically of course...

your boy, george w. small beans is fraud in chief...

liar daddys boy with no competence and no skillset...

that is why rather than negotiating for the oil , he's stealing it....

or rather he is using taxpayer dollars and lives to pay for it... it costs him _NOTHING_ ....

Posted by: may be | April 26, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

yaa hillary wiped the deck put him away lol
she only 140 delages behind with 706 to go

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

if they have one more debate i will crash my school bus into a ravine

Posted by: counting flowers on the wall | April 26, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

like the little repuddling making cons

are afraid of seeing the bama boy get his behind kicked...

yowzah !


heh heh heh...

run little dawgs with your tails between your legs....


you got no ba lls


.

Posted by: looks | April 26, 2008 7:12 PM | Report abuse

if they have one more debate i am going to start using smack

Posted by: debate this | April 26, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Sorry folks, I'm just an idiot with nothing better to do than spam these message boards. Hillary said she'd make me Secretary of State and I believer her.

Posted by: jacksmith | April 26, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

if they one debate i am joumping off a bridge

Posted by: debate this | April 26, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

if they have one more debate i will poke needles in my eye

Posted by: debate this | April 26, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse


We don't need more debates. Debates are full of words. Just words.

Posted by: rippermccord | April 26, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

looks like the bama followers


and republican handlers of the 'bama camp

know he can't face Hillary one on one...

what else is new....actually being involved and analysis about something that he was planning on waiting to learn when he got there

will have severe repurcussions for his candidacy.

It would be in his best interests to dress up in a grandma suit and hide in bed hoping for voters to accept the image as the truth...


.

Posted by: hello AMERICANS | April 26, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

The hispanic vote is an area to watch

with the recent attack on relative of voting americans by the GOP we see what they do this time

with McCain being the amnesty GOP conidate

Posted by: hispanic vote | April 26, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm... Instead of using this forum as yet another excuse to fire off cut and paste attacks on our fellow posters and sundry candidates, how about talking about the actual article?

I would like to see an unmoderated debate. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how political debates used to be. If one candidate stoops to triviality, the other can bring her up short without a moderator pretending that the trivial crap's important.

I appreciate Obama's reluctance to debate so close to a primary, but a president has to be able to persuade people, not just at rallies or from the Oval Office, but by taking tough questions from the press as well. Obama - you've had my confidence so far. Now I'd like to see you earn some of it.

Oh, and WaPo - it's "tack", not "tact".


Tact = discretion in speech
Tack = stubby, sharp fastening device; nautical manoeuvre steering a sailboat through the wind

You do have dictionaries at the WaPo, don't you? Okay, let me help.

Dictionary - A book containing the definitions of words.

Posted by: treetopflyer | April 26, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Obama is smart. Why give Hillary "free" publicity? I wouldn't trust Hillary after what she has pulled: one minute calling Obama a great candidate then telling hime "Shame on You, Obama". Hillary is post menopausal and she can go berserk any minute and Obama will not able to counter her rantings because he is an honorable man and he can't malign her. Enough of debates; they are irrelevant now after 24 debates!

Posted by: M. Stratas | April 26, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Obama is the front runner and will win the nomination once the cowardly Super Delegates come out from hiding under the covers. Sen Obama does not have to agree to anything put out by the slimey, low road, Clintons. If the tables were turned and the Clintons were ahead, Sen. Obama would have gracefully dropped out. Ms. Powers was right, "she" is a monster: Frankenstein!

Posted by: janet | April 26, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Jeebus, what is it with reporters and this word this election? It's "TACK" not "TACT." Look 'em up for cryin out loud!

Posted by: Steve | April 26, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton should have a debate with herself as to why she chooses to put her ego before the needs of the American people.

I voted Clinton into her senate seat.

I will NEVER vote for her again as long as I live.

Never.

Posted by: PulSamsara | April 26, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary is like Winston Churchill.

Obama is like Neville Chamberlain.

Hillary is a Lion.

Obama is a mouse.

Hillary will defeat John McCain.

McCain would defeat Obama by a landslide.

Will we allow ourselves to be blackmailed into nominating a coward?

"Which would you rather vote for, the War-Hero or the Coke-Fiend"

If we make the fatal mistake of nominating Obama, what will happen in the debate with McCain when the moderator asks --

"Mr. Obama, how many times did you purchase or use hard drugs like cocaine?"

Any answer Obama gives would lead to certain defeat.

If we nominate Obama, we lose.

If we nominate Hillary Clinton, we win.


Posted by: Hillary is a lion. Obama is a mouse. | April 26, 2008 6:56 PM"

Is there some value in self delusion? You don't even believe that regardless what you say. I don't get it, why lie to yourself?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

democrats have gained steadly over last two voting cylcles and now have the largest percentage lead of GOP in history
33% to 43%

Just facts Jack

Posted by: voter demographics | April 26, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Whaaaaaaaa! This is the May 6th version of the kitchen sink folks! Watch out incoming! Whaaa, she will whine that he will not debate her and then she will cry a bit that he will not debate her whhaaaaaaaa and then her flock will get angry and not vote for Obama. Give me a break! We have had enough already, this is a sure sign of desperation and he better not play along. Her media parrots will play along and Chris Matthews will froth at the mouth.
Enough already, this is what she talked about for ten minutes instead of telling people what she will do for them. This is the sadest thing I have ever seen, get out now girl. That debate request was your Waterloo.

Posted by: debragw | April 26, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Five reasons why Hillary needs a debate:

1. She is broke, needs free media to spread lies and do negative campaigning

2. Debate performances are adjudged by the media by the amount of talking you do, but not by how much sense you make. So she always wins. Even in the Ohio debate she started cribbing in the first quarter, some people said she won (only because she talked more).

3. She can readily unveil the foreign and domestic policies on the fly, because she need not be consistent. Experts understand the fatal flaws in her policies, but she can always say "screw them." They are not her audience. Her adience is those who little understand them, but are impressed by her continuous blabbering.

4. In a debate, she can pander to the public by showing interest in a local hobby/sport, let it be wine sipping, duck shooting, or swimming. For everything, she will have a childhood story on how her father initiated her into those sports or hobbies. Nobody can verify those stories. Even if somebody comes up with a Bosnia sniper kind of evidence, she can always say I misspoke.

5. In a debate (particularly without moderators), she can take advantage of obama's politeness, and keep speaking ON and ON without giving him a chance, and thereby prove he does not have much stuff.
(Intellectuals only know empty vessels sound best, but she doesn't care).

Posted by: TwentyFirstCentury American | April 26, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Obama is the front runner and will win the nomination once the cowardly Super Delegates come out from hiding under the covers. Sen Obama does not have to agree to anything put out by the slimey, low road, Clintons. If the tables were turned and the Clintons were ahead, Sen. Obama would have gracefully dropped out. Ms. Powers was right, "she" is a monster: Frankenstein!

Posted by: janet | April 26, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

how do you not read caps

go obama

Posted by: HOW DO YOU NOT READ CAPS | April 26, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

40% of voters decide elections. 30% will vote Democrat no matter what. 30% will vote Republican no matter what. As one of the 40% who routinely swap parties, I read these posts and watch this process and I think to myself "Can we just finish electing McCain and bring an adult back to the White House?"

Posted by: WJS | April 26, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

"
If your posts use all capital letters, I won't read them.

If your posts use emoticons, I won't read them.

If cant' make you point in five or fewer short paragraphs, I won't read them.

Your mileage may vary.

Posted by: | April 26, 2008 6:55 PM"

Sound like those people who bought houses and never read the contracts and now are getting foreclosed on.

"What do all these words mean, ah heck he looks like an honest guy, give me the pen".

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

ECHO BOOM CAUSES MAJOR CHANGES IN VOTINEG DEMOGRPHICS

RESULT MORE YOUNG VOTERS 18 - 45 AS RESULT
OF HEAVY DUTY LOVE OF 60'S

MEMORIES...OH MEMORIES

BAD NEWS OLD MAC

Posted by: DEMOGRAPHICS | April 26, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is like Winston Churchill.

Obama is like Neville Chamberlain.

Hillary is a Lion.

Obama is a mouse.

Hillary will defeat John McCain.

McCain would defeat Obama by a landslide.

Will we allow ourselves to be blackmailed into nominating a coward?

"Which would you rather vote for, the War-Hero or the Coke-Fiend"

If we make the fatal mistake of nominating Obama, what will happen in the debate with McCain when the moderator asks --

"Mr. Obama, how many times did you purchase or use hard drugs like cocaine?"

Any answer Obama gives would lead to certain defeat.

If we nominate Obama, we lose.

If we nominate Hillary Clinton, we win.


Posted by: Hillary is a lion. Obama is a mouse. | April 26, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

What is the point about debating when the debate only begins 45 minutes after start time talking about stuff that don't matter,stuff that won't change the price of gasoline?
More time should be spent on building the party instead of tearing it down.More time should be spent on mending the fences and building the bridges.All these negative tele ads and debate "Tripping and Trapping" is sickening.WWF wrestling summerslam is much more fun and has a higher prime time rating.
Barak should not allow Hillary to get prime time on tv to showcase herself. She can pay prime tv to say what she wants in her own time if people want to hear more bedtime sniper stories and 3.00am telephone calls!They can always change the channel and watch cartoons than listen to her sniper talk. Errol Smythe.

Posted by: errol smythe | April 26, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

If your posts use all capital letters, I won't read them.

If your posts use emoticons, I won't read them.

If cant' make you point in five or fewer short paragraphs, I won't read them.

Your mileage may vary.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

.

.

Hillary voted for the war

.

.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

NEO

Neoconservatives believe in the ability of the United States to install democracy after a conflict, citing the denazification of Germany and installation of democratic government in Japan after World War II. This idea guided U.S. policy in Iraq after the removal of the Saddam Hussein regime, when the U.S. organized elections as soon as practical.

Neoconservatives also ascribe to principal of defending democracies against aggression. (SEE HILLARY QUOTE AT DEBATE}

Posted by: NEOCON NATION | April 26, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

GO OBAMA !!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

"Let's see: Obama will talk to the Iranians (without condition); he'll talk to North Korea (without condition); he'll talk to Syria (without condition). But, he won't debate Hillary Clinton (under any condition).

What a powderpuff! As he demonstrated in Philadelphia, without his scripted "soaring rhetoric," he can't put together a coherent thought.

The Republicans are licking their chops over this guy. Bye..Bye.. White House. Of course, if MoveOn bullies him into the White House, Bye...Bye America.


Posted by: Chuck C | April 26, 2008 6:43 PM"

Hillarys act is becoming old, she just want some free face time on TV. Notice neither Obama or Mccain are even talking about her anymore. The best thing Obama can do is stay on message and let her shout at the wind, because no one is listening anymore to her ranting. The more Obama trivializes her the madder she gets. Screw her, she is yesterdays news as she wastes her supporters money. On to Mccain, Hillary is over and even she knows it. If not then she is to stupid to be running for the office anyway.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Please help me for I am at a loss. How can Hilary Clinton be claiming to have 35 years experience in public life if, as I know, she did nothing for 18 out the 35 years except being the wife of Arkansas governor (10 years) and the wife of the President (8 years)?

I am a middle ranked employee who is married to one of my company's managers who had 10 years managerial experience behind her. Does that make me eligible to be appointed a manager? I mean can I claim the 10 years put in by my wife as my own cognate experience? To be more precise, can Laura Bush now seek office and claim to have 8 years of presidential experience among others?

I wonder whether this is another 'misspeak' by Mrs Clinton or another instance of being economical with the truth. One just wonder why no one in the established media has deemed it necessary to make her explain this confusion.

Posted by: slyfas | April 26, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

My husband and I are your "average" Pa. voters. Notice there are a male and a female or race being mentioned here. We voted logically, we did the research. We care about our country. We asked what does Obama have to offer our country and what does Clinton have to offer our country? We voted for Hillary, case closed.

Posted by: Susan Powers | April 26, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

The first major neoconservative to embrace the term was Irving Kristol, in his 1979 article "Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed 'Neoconservative.'"[3] Kristol's ideas had been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter magazine.[6]. Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled "The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan's Foreign Policy".[7][8]

Prominent neoconservative periodicals are Commentary and The Weekly Standard. Neoconservatives are associated with foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), The Heritage Foundation, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).

Posted by: NEOCON NATION | April 26, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

PUT SHE WASN'T PUUTING OUT

AND MONICA WAS SO WAS EAGER

AND WHO IS GONE TO KNOW

AND ITS A PRIVATE MATTER

NOT CRIMINAL

AND PAULA IS LIAR

Posted by: IM NOT ASHAMED | April 26, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

What do suppose the odds are Hillary has some oil stocks in her portfolio?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Hilary will never win against McCain, everyone knows that and that's why the GOP and Fox news are all in her favor and helping her wage her dirty war against Obama. If Obama does not get the nomination and she steals it from him, no Obama supporter will vote for her -- and McCain will win. If Obama gets the nomination, he'll win against McCain. it's that simple.

Posted by: Obama all the way | April 26, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse


.

N E O C O N S

AGAINST

O B A M A

.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Let's see: Obama will talk to the Iranians (without condition); he'll talk to North Korea (without condition); he'll talk to Syria (without condition). But, he won't debate Hillary Clinton (under any condition).

What a powderpuff! As he demonstrated in Philadelphia, without his scripted "soaring rhetoric," he can't put together a coherent thought.

The Republicans are licking their chops over this guy. Bye..Bye.. White House. Of course, if MoveOn bullies him into the White House, Bye...Bye America.


Posted by: Chuck C | April 26, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

"Picture this. Its 1992, Reagan has postponed for 8 years Ted Kennedy's hope of a universal health insurance plan. Hillary Clinton becomes the spokesperson for the new administration's health plan -- Managed Competition. A plan to divy up hospitals and doctors to be paid by a large government bureaucracy to duplicate private insurers called HMOs. She sets up a closely held group of elite individuals to offer advice. She shuts out Congressional Republicans, doctors and insurers from the process. The Health Insurance Association of America starts to televise advertisements of a normal American couple talking about Hillary Clinton's plan will take away their right to choose the doctor of their choice and get the government in their health care decisions. This ad takes hold, and while the entire Democratic party and the rest of the country waits for Hillary Clinton's response it never comes. Consumed by White Water, the suicide of her legal counsel, what does Hillary choose to fight? Who does Hillary fight for? She fights to save the Clinton administration. Fade to white laid off factory worker in Pennsylvania whose wife with breast cancer is hospitalized and cant afford to pay the bill. His job has been shipped off by NAFTA. Fade to black: Voice asks, can we afford to have Hillary Clinton "fight" for us again? Remember the last time she "fought" for you? Zoom in on husband with worried look looking at insurance bills.

Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 26, 2008 6:38 PM"

Very good and imagine what someone who does this for a living will do. She will be destroyed. Fortunately she won't be the candidate so it is a moot point.


Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Picture this, rich investment bankers like Hillary's daughter Chelsea with fantastic offices in New York City. Estimating how much money they could make selling mortgages to minorities and others who can't really afford the loans. Someone whether its at Bear Stearns or elsewhere says, "who cares", we won't be left holding the bag. Picture other leveraged buy out private equity guys who contribute to Hillary's campaign talking about how lucky they are that they havent had to pay any taxes because of a loophole in the law and that both New York Senators will resist any effort to change it because they are contributing to their campaigns. Falsh back several years ago and see the Harvard law graduated Barack Obama helping people in Chicago organizer so that they can get a better life and housing. Fade to black with an announcer saying that Americans will lose the most value on their homes this year since the great depression. Who do you trust? The community organizer or the senator from New York where her constituent Bear Stearns just got bailed out at $2 a share while black and white home owners get evicted. Who do you trust to bring America back?

Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 26, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY CAN STAY IN AS LONG AS SHE LIKES

ITS BILLS MONEY

GO OBAMA

Posted by: RICH GIRL | April 26, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

icture this, its 1992, Americans have suffered through years of Reagan conservatism. Civil rights has been rolled back and unions composed of both black and white working class people have been busted. The first Democratic president in years is in office, Bill Clinton. He appoints Lani Guinere a young black woman, to a post in the Department of Justice. Southern Republican Senators complain about her writing, and what does Mr. Clinton do. He cuts her loose without any second thoughts abandoning her nomination. Union membership continues to fall during the Clinton Years. What is Mr. Clinton's priority? NAFTA There is a first lady during these years, her name is Hillary Clinton. She is betrayed by the President and what does she do? Does she stand up for traditional democratic constituencies? Zoom into her health care role. Answer. After having her health plan collapse she recedes to the background only coming forward later to defend the President's misleading statements. If Elanor Roosevelt could put pressure on Franklin to do what is right for all Americans, where was Hillary? Is this a measure of how she fights for the common man and woman?

Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 26, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

PA voted for the person that took their jobs away and continue to profit off it because her husband is pulling in money from speeches in favor of the Columbia deal. LOL!

The young white America is tired of racism and want to move on. Unfortunately, some of the old white America refuse to move and and still believe in their old system.

Bill and Hillary keep trying to inject racism into the Obama camp to break try and break off Obama's huge young and new white voter support.

Yes the Clintons will do whatever to win.

I invite you to search Clinton and peter paul. He has a website with all the info you would want.

So if it is okay to question Obama then why the reluctance when it comes to Hillary? Why are people believing Bill considered he lied and embarrassed the nation. Talk about associations that are questionable. Does America want to really take a chance on yet another Monica story? First it was the Paula Jones. America looked the other way. Then Monica... and the media and America wants to give the Clintons a PASS on HISTORICAL PROOF of QUESTIONABLE character but have a problem simply because they didn't listen to his Rev. full sermon???? YouTube have similar 10 sec clips of Hillary, but no such noise because.... they review it in its entirety.

If they take this from Obama... independents I will join you. I will have no choice because a Republican I've been debating since Bush will be proven right and embarrassingly so.

Posted by: Greg | April 26, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Perfect format. Clinton can attack and if Obama replies Hillary puts out a few tears. Election over!!!!

Posted by: Oscar | April 26, 2008 6:39 PM | Report abuse

heh! its pretty funny watching the o's freak out about a debate. if she's so evil don't you want the people of america to see your guy tear her to shreds on tv? oh wait, she probably will spray an anti-fairy dust potion on him and he'll run home to michelle crying. you guys, if he's so great, let him prove it. right now it looks like he's running from a girl. mind you , it's a girl with the biggest nuts in the schoolyard. one more thing. if i were obama i'd lay off the bad walmart references. i was at one last weekend and there was a lot of white people there.

Posted by: dw314 | April 26, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Picture this. Its 2004, and the nadir of Democratic strength in Congress following the Clinton administration. A Republican Supreme Court bailed out George W Bush 4 years earlier over Al Gore. The media pundits are all talking about how their are so called "red" states and "blue" states. John Kerry, looking for a leader who is close to the common person and offers hopes for the future selects someone to key note at the Democratic convention. Who is the person who can speak to how to remake the Democratic party after the stigma of the Clinton scandals? Will it be someone who antagonizes the classes and draws dividing lines, or someone who has the foresight to get above it. Who would take the risk of speaking for the Democratic party in decline and despised by many Americans. There is a person, a young Junior Senator from Illinois, who rises to the podium. Who will defend the Democratic party in its hour of need. He ennunciates that we do not have a "red" or "blue" American, but just one with common problems. Who is this person who can take on the GOP with a friendly, unassuming manner. Who is this man who was fighting for the people and the reputation of the Democratic party? Its an African American, a child of a white mother and black father, who had to live with his grandmother, but yet succeeded to become Editor of the Harvard Law Review and a senator from Illinois. His name is Barack Obama.

Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 26, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

"He is a phony, end of the story. When without a prepared speech in hand, he's a wreck.

Imagine George Clooney or Will Smith as a candidate, and you'll see a better and more elequent Democratic presidential hopeful.

We must elect someone who can DO, not someone who can SHOW like a star.

Posted by: Obama's supporter in Illinois | April 26, 2008 6:16 PM"

With all due respect that is completely wrong. When he is being interviewed or just speaking extemporaneously if you look at a transcript is is perfect. He speaks perfectly grammatically and in every other way. He has an incredible intellect. Hillary on the
other hand, is never without a script even when giving a speech she has given dozens of times. Just watch her it is really strange. As far a Mccain, forget about it, he can't say three words correctly in a row even when they are written for him. I can't imagine in my wildest dreams see him beating either of them. Next to Obama the contrast will be so incredible only the most staunch Mccain supporter will vote for him.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Picture this. Its 1992, Reagan has postponed for 8 years Ted Kennedy's hope of a universal health insurance plan. Hillary Clinton becomes the spokesperson for the new administration's health plan -- Managed Competition. A plan to divy up hospitals and doctors to be paid by a large government bureaucracy to duplicate private insurers called HMOs. She sets up a closely held group of elite individuals to offer advice. She shuts out Congressional Republicans, doctors and insurers from the process. The Health Insurance Association of America starts to televise advertisements of a normal American couple talking about Hillary Clinton's plan will take away their right to choose the doctor of their choice and get the government in their health care decisions. This ad takes hold, and while the entire Democratic party and the rest of the country waits for Hillary Clinton's response it never comes. Consumed by White Water, the suicide of her legal counsel, what does Hillary choose to fight? Who does Hillary fight for? She fights to save the Clinton administration. Fade to white laid off factory worker in Pennsylvania whose wife with breast cancer is hospitalized and cant afford to pay the bill. His job has been shipped off by NAFTA. Fade to black: Voice asks, can we afford to have Hillary Clinton "fight" for us again? Remember the last time she "fought" for you? Zoom in on husband with worried look looking at insurance bills.

Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 26, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

The debate is a must for Hillary because it gives her free media when she is broke.

Debate is always a win for her because debate performance is adjudged by many by the amount of talking you do not by how much sense you make.

With the advantage that she need not be consistent (because when nailed down she can always say simply I misspoke), she can make economic and foreign policies (e.g. attacking Iraq) on the fly. The educated won't accept those, but anyway they are't for her. Her main constituencies understand those policies little, but nevertheless be impressed with her ready made (though awfully wrong) solutions.

It is no wonder that knowledgeable foreign policy experts like Lee Hamilton (chair of 911 commission) support OBAMA for his sound vision, but Hillary does not have to impress such experts, but impress those who have little knowledge about those policies, let alone the ability to judge them. Same is the case with the economic/health-care policies she keeps unveiling every split second.

By blabbering in a debate, she projects an image of the omniscient. If you ask her a question on science, she will be readily giving an answer using all the scientific jargon (such as space-time continuum, etc.) Obama will feel bit shy to go that way. If shooting is a popular sport, she will come up with a story on how her father taught duck shooting. If swimming is a sport popular in a locality, she will readily come up with a story of her father cultivating her interest in swimming by buying a red swim suit. Bosnia sniper fire incident could be verified, but these ones no one can verify. Even if some one shows some proof to the contrary, she can always say I misspoke.

Hence, DEBATE IS HER ONLY OPTION TO SPREAD MORE LIES, and DO MORE NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING WITHOUT SPENDING A DIME ON ADVERTISING. IN A DEBATE WITHOUT A MODERATOR, SHE WILL SPEAK ON AND ON WITHOUT GIVING POLITE OBAMA ANY CHANCE TO SPEAK. INTELLECTUALS UNDERSTAND HER FOLLIES, BUT SHE SAYS "SCREW THEM."

Posted by: TwentyFirstCentury American | April 26, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Picture thousands of flag draped coffins. Voice says we Americans dont get to see the consequences of our action. The media are not allowed. Who did this? What brilliant mind after 911 would risk more lives? Worse who would do it and not apologize? That person, is not the so called elitist Al Gore, Jonathan Edwards, John Kerry and certainly not Barack Obama. The Senator who compounded 911 so she could maneuver to the middle of then American thought is none other than Hillary Clinton. To this day she has never apologized. Announcer says: Is this the type of person we want to have with the finger on the button. If she were president in 1962 would she have pushed it with Nakita Kruschef? She now wants to nuke Iran for Israel. Is this a sign of judgment your children can live with? Fade to black.

Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 26, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton was Bush's poodle on Iraq and national security until it became unfashionable to do so. Now she pretends to be a doberman. Perhaps best viewed as a chameleon, she started as a Republican at Wellesley and she may well end up one out of disappointment.

Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 26, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

What is the point about debating when the debate only begins 45 minutes after start time talking about stuff that don't matter,stuff that won't change the price of gasoline?
More time should be spent on building the party instead of tearing it down.More time should be spent on mending the fences and building the bridges.All these negative tele ads and debate "Tripping and Trapping" is sickening.WWF wrestling summerslam is much more fun and has a higher prime time rating.
Barak should not allow Hillary to get prime time on tv to showcase herself. She can pay prime tv to say what she wants in her own time if people want to hear more bedtime sniper stories and 3.00am telephone calls!They can always change the channel and watch cartoons than listen to her sniper talk. Errol Smythe.

Posted by: errol smythe | April 26, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse


. ............_. ,-´``;
. . . . . . . . . .,`. . .`-----´..
. . . . . . . . . .,. . . . . .~ .`- .
. . . . . . . . . ,´. . . . . . . .o. .o__
. . . . . . . . _|. . . . . . . . . . . . (#)
. . . . . . . _. ´`~-.. . . . . . . . . .,´
. . . . . . .,. .,.-~-.´ -.,. . . ..´--~` OBAMA 2008
. . . . . . /. ./. . . . .}. .` -..,/
. . . . . /. ,´___. . :/. . . . . .
. . . . /´`-.|. . . `´-..´........ . .
. . . ;. . . . . . . . . . . . .)-.....|
. . .|. . . . .´ ---........-´. . . ,´
. . .´,. . ,....... . . . . . . . . .,´
. . . .´ ,/. . . . `,. . . . . . . ,´
. . . . .. . . . . .. . . .,.- ´
. . . . . ´,. . . . . ´,-~´`. ;. . . . . ..,=======,
. . . . . .|. . . . . ;. . . /__. . . . . . .......... . . /
. . . . . /. . . . . /__. . . . .). . . . . . . ..... . . /
. . . . . ´-.. . . . . . .)----~´. . .. . .\______/
. . . . . . .´ - .......-`

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

A one on one debate could be fun. However the old PR adage never pick a fight with a girl if you are a boy holds true here.

Obama can win because he will be seen as a meany if he really takes the gloves off and punches a women HRC, figuratively speaking, in the nose.

Thus no one on one debates are advisable or likely.

Posted by: Mike in NV | April 26, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Picture this. Its 1992, Reagan has postponed for 8 years Ted Kennedy's hope of a universal health insurance plan. Hillary Clinton becomes the spokesperson for the new administration's health plan legislation. She sets up a closely held group of elite individuals to offer advice. She shuts out Congressional Republicans from the process. The Health Insurance Association of America starts to televise advertisements of a normal American couple talking about Hillary Clinton's plan will take away their right to choose the doctor of their choice and get the government in their health care decisions. This ad takes hold, and while the entire Democratic party and the rest of the country waits for Hillary Clinton's response it never comes. Consumed by White Water, the suicide of her legal counsel, what does Hillary choose to fight? Who does Hillary fight for? She fights to save the Clinton administration. Fade to white laid off factory worker in Pennsylvania whose wife with breast cancer is hospitalized and cant afford to pay the bill. His job has been shipped off by NAFTA. Fade to black: Voice asks, can we afford to have Hillary Clinton "fight" for us again? Remember the last time she "fought" for you? Zoom in on husband with worried look looking at insurance bills.

Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 26, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Would you debate with a snake telling you "Fairly, no moderators, we'll find some rules".
Well, I would not.

Posted by: Gio | April 26, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Just vote. I have heard them both enough.

Posted by: Paul Nolan | April 26, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

.


" Hillary wants a free media because she is bankrupt "

$

Posted by: - $ $ $ $ - | April 26, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

This has been a very productive blog. Thank you all so very much for the informed discussion, and to the secret GOP bloggers; "Good Job!".

Posted by: Beau Bhiep | April 26, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA doesn't want a one on one because he is a rookie, the well prepared, intellectual, non-ELITIST Hillary will eat this "typical", "bitter", GUTTER-BALL politician alive.

Obama is only good at GUTTER-BALL politics, promulgating mentors like IMPASTOR-WRIGHT, who along with his Obama-Maniac supporters have helped him promote the reverse discriminating NEW JEREMIAH CROW LAWS.

Jeremiah Crow laws have prevented a re-vote in Michigan and Florida and continue the DIS-ENFRACHISEMENT of over 2.3 MILLION VOTERS.

Let's hear it OBAMA-BOTS, go ahead, chant: "YES WE FARRA-KHAN!"

Posted by: cheersdk | April 26, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a stupid head and should get out now.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

You all give the Clintons WAY too much credibility. Why not spin this for what it is - a double-team PR job intended to leave the impression that Obama is afraid to do what he has done 21 times.

Why not devote at least one paragraph to the REASON the Clintons want this? Why not articulate that they want a debate because they are desperate and behind?

Why make it sound as though it is anything other than this?

Posted by: mike k | April 26, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Hillary seems to believe that she has a upper-hand when it comes to debate. The fact of the matter is she is a good talker, not a good debater. Debating is good for TV because people love to see two people ripping each other out.

Posted by: silverspring | April 26, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Iowatreasures posted:

"Obama will now and forever go down in the anals of history as Barack "the finger" Obama."

I'm no Obama fan, but even I would not consign him to the "anals" of history!


Posted by: WylieD | April 26, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Please don't ever again use Obama's or Hillary's name in the same sentence with Lincoln. He is the real Republican Party and miles above any Democrat, past or present.

Posted by: robtay | April 26, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

We are mad and not going to take it anymore.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kcdnlNZg2iM

HILLARY 2008

Posted by: max | April 26, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

YOU are an idiot.
"husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history."

Enron, WorldCom, Tyco... Can you say FALSE ECONOMY?


Posted by: 2JackSmith | April 26, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Why not have Bill Clinton represent Barack's side in a debate with Hillary?

Posted by: Kacoo | April 26, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Whatever shortcomings Sen. Obama might have, at the very least, he is a real person. How anyone could be fooled by the Phony Queen is beyond me.

Posted by: ericmiami | April 26, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Per Joan the Baptist: "Barack Obama can't win any debate against Hillary.
He says he won't debate because of unfair moderator questions.
-----------------------------------------
Isn't this quite unusual - a candidate for the highest, most powerful office in the world, the President of the United States of America, and he doesn't have the moxy to stand up to moderators asking him why he doesn't like to wear a flag pin, or why he didn't put his hand over his heart at the J. J. dinner in Iowa, or where he goes to church, or how long he has known Rezko, or Auchi, or Ayers or Ayer's wife, Dohrn, or why he let Emil Jones put his (Barack's) name on bills that belonged to other legislators, to "enhance his political resume," or questions about where he was born, or where he went to school, and who his friends, neighbors, room mates, class mates, teachers were while in college?

Doesn't Obama realize that those are tepid, docile questions - nothing like what he will have to answer in press conferences, or is he going to have press conferences.

I would bet a million to one that if Obama got in the White House, he would be the most secretive, reclusive president we have ever had. The only time we will hear from him is when he figures out some of the "paybacks" that Rev. Wright rants about.

If Obama was the man he portrayed himself to be - and he was honest and not deceitful, and, perhaps even a pathological liar, I would vote for him.

Bad as McCain sounds, with all his many flaws, McCain would be a better president than Obama. At least McCain will be making judgment calls because he believes in stupid ideas, whereas Obama will make judgement calls on who he needs to pander to most at the moment, the AA's, or the Rev. Wright crowd, or the Rezko crowd, or the Ayer's crowd, etc.

We need a president with a backbone who doesn't resort to giving Hillary and a reporter, on two different occasions in the past 2 or 3 days, the "finger.

Obama will now and forever go down in the anals of history as Barack "the finger" Obama. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures@Hotmail.com | April 26, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

NO MORE DEBATES!


OBAMA NOT LINCOLN

HILLARY NOT DOUGLAS

NO LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE

Barack & Hillary already had their GREAT DEBATE, when Mr. Obama had to answer question re: flag pins, and who loved America more: he, or his pastor.

(all questions deemed fitting and "tough" by the Clinton campaign and the Republican party (is there really any difference between the two when it comes to their attacks against only Obama.

No, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama have already had their great debate;

& it stunk

Posted by: maa | April 26, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

To Hollyinla: Thanks for the your comments.

Haven't we had enough lies for the last 8 years to last a lifetime. I am a veteran. I sat in fear for our soldiers as they televised the initial phases of the Iraq war. Waiting for the troops to be attacked by chemical weapons. Knowing what they must do to survive if they are attacked with these weapons. Knowing how devastating they are. Knowing how many must have felt on the way to Bagdad. We found no weapons. We risked our soldier's lives for a lie.

I don't want another POTUS that will lie to our faces again.

Those that practice lying enough are very convincing. The Clintons are experts. They believe their own lies.

Obama has demonstrated that he can think on his feet on countless occasions. Far better than the current occupant of our White House or McSame.

Let's end this race and get on with fixing the mess that the Republicans have made of our country.

Posted by: NotSuprised | April 26, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Four words: Commander in Chief McCain

Posted by: 4McCain | April 26, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Tune in next week for the newest episode of "Silly Season" . . .

Posted by: JP2 | April 26, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

He is a phony, end of the story. When without a prepared speech in hand, he's a wreck.

Imagine George Clooney or Will Smith as a candidate, and you'll see a better and more elequent Democratic presidential hopeful.

We must elect someone who can DO, not someone who can SHOW like a star.

Posted by: Obama's supporter in Illinois | April 26, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

We've heard enough Liberal claptrap from both of these candidates to last us a hundred years. No more debates needed, thanks.

Posted by: robtay | April 26, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

RFLOL should have been Senator Obama's response. April Fool's day is over but the fool is still trying to play tricks. If she thinks she can manipulate Obama into having another debate she is crazier than I thought. How many plays does she have drawn up to steal the nomination? She must have thought of that at 3:00 A.M. while wondering where Bill was.

Posted by: Lois | April 26, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Dear Jeff M.,
Have fun alone at your home election day. I don't care about you, and please stop citing your dog as a "dependent" when filing your taxes.

Sincerely,
USA

Posted by: Andrew , NOLA | April 26, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Please, no more debates....pleeze!!!

Posted by: alba | April 26, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Steel cage death match.

Maybe Obama can ask Michelle to fight for him.

Posted by: WylieD | April 26, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Pathetic. Obamaphiles continue to delude themselves that by repeating phrases on message boards telling Hillary Clinton to drop out of the race and let their pied piper have the Democratic nomination, they'll soon wrap it up for BO, the one they've been waiting for.

They can't quite get it through their heads that they are not in control of the race. The voters are. And the voters have not all had the opportunity to be heard.

Obamaphiles need a course in Democracy 101 and a follow-up in citizenship in a democracy. That way they'll know how things work after Obama loses this time and comes back in 2012 for a second try.

Posted by: ichief | April 26, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Nobama isn't a a good speaker unless he has a script to read from.Sort of like george bush

Posted by: casey monfils | April 26, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

"That woman" has become a disruptive force; she's evil, and the eiptome of pure selfishness.

Put her out of her misery. And shut him up at last, too.

Posted by: Perry | April 26, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

What does she have to lose? She has already lost the nomination.
What does Obama have to gain? He has the nomination in the bag.
If I were him, I would not again give her a stage for her grandstanding.

Posted by: Arjuna9 | April 26, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Clinton gets the nomination and i stay home in November and I know that I am not alone.

Posted by: Jeff M. | April 26, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

298 OBAMA
436 CLINTON
706 LEFT 300 SUPERS

IF SPLIT IN NC DELEGATES 94 TO 93

214 TO VICTORY WITH 519 DELEGATES LEFT

WITH CLINTON NEEDING 342 OF 519 DELEGATES

TO PARAPHASE JAMES CARVILLE

ITS THE DELEGATES STUPID

AND POPULAR VOTE AND BILL DOUNT COUNT FOR JACK
ASK AL GORE

Posted by: DELGATE MATH | April 26, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

New tact by Mr. Obamba. Lets not talk about how we will govern in a debate. I just want to give sound bites because I lost badly last time. Hey, I am a moderate Democrat and will have no trouble not voting for these Democrats this fall...as bad as the alternative is.

Posted by: Robinhood | April 26, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Clinton can be Douglas.

Posted by: Steve Charb | April 26, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA has misrepresented/lied at least 52 times, and growing. Don't believe that Hillary is the liar in this race.

We are mad and not going to take it anymore.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kcdnlNZg2iM

Posted by: max | April 26, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Obama and his supporters are the most infantile group of losers in US Political history.

They seem to sincerely believe that neither the Republicans nor America's enemies would every require Obama to think on his feet.

It will be a genuine pleasure to vote for McCain if Democrats nominate Obama.

Posted by: Obama's supporters believe in "Peter Pan" | April 26, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

To: NotSuprised@ 5:30 PM

I posted similar sentiments..but I have to tell you. You said it much better that I could. Kudos to you, my fellow American. I admire your eloquence. It's good to know that the Clinton Lie Machine is not fooling everyone out there.

Posted by: Hollyinla | April 26, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse


just tired of these debates..Barack is decent, Hillary is too demonising...no more debates, Hillary keeps on telling lies and right now she wants TV exposure ,m because she is almost broke

Posted by: rajah kahn | April 26, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Why wouldn't Clinton push to debate AGAIN? She has no money to push her 'message' and she knows that people often come to the circus to view the freaks. I can't think of a better freak show than Hillary and Bill. But really, didn't we get enough of that 'reality' show during Bill's reign?

No more circus side shows and no free ride to the queen of mismanaged and bankrupted presidential campaigns.

Posted by: Debra | April 26, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

If I have to listen to Hillary Clinton speak for 90 minutes would be worse than a root canal.

"You know" Hillary, there is no chance you are getting this nomination. Face it and move on.

Posted by: jacksmith has no life, obviously | April 26, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Hillary, I am not running for anything ! Why don't you debate me first to see what you know about the world and the mess this country is.

Posted by: winemaster2 | April 26, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

He's not ducking debates. He is using an excellent strategy and will hopefully wrap up the nomination soon. HRC wants debates because she is low on money due to her own mismanagement and it is free coverage. Obama can run TV ads and get his message out at will. Plus, she knows that she will likely get more help from biased moderators who continue to perpetuate the lies and misrepresentations about him that have been in the media based on selective editing of comments made by Rev Wright. See the comments made by Rev. Wright's sermon IN CONTEXT on Bill Moyers interview. You will find, as usual, we the American public are being made fools of by a media that does not bother to tell us the whole truth and others that just want to win any cost. We are not stupid, we can handle the truth about our country. The good and the bad. We don't need the continuing series of lies and out of context misquotations. Even with all the negative attacks on Obama and the fact that he is running against 3 politicians at this point (HRC, BC and McSame), he has still won. He has the most pledged delegates and they can't change that. Odds are almost zero that she can catch up. She can use what ever math she wants, she will not win if the DNC follow the rules. The only way for HRC to win is to steal it in the back room. If the voters allow this to happen then we get what we deserve, more of the same (McSame).

Posted by: NotSuprised | April 26, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

What would be fair is a debate in which critics of Clinton get to cross-examine her and ditto for Obama.

Posted by: mnjam | April 26, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

I think it is highly likely that the anti-Hillary and anti-Obama comments above are coming from the GOP machine, and have nothing to do with Clinton or Obama supporters. They certainly don't represent my concerns as a Democrat.

Posted by: John from NC | April 26, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Hilarious!

Posted by: Iheanacho | April 26, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Shirley at 5:07PM. I didn't know about that and wish more people did. The MSM certainly doesn't give us that kind of information.

Posted by: Denni | April 26, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Dear Hillary,

A Lincoln-Douglas style debate sounds great, but where will I find someone to play Douglas?

Regards,

Barack

Posted by: Andrew B | April 26, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama can't win any debate against Hillary.
He says he won't debate because of unfair moderator questions, well how about a Lincoln/Douglas debate????
No moderator, just one on one?
Obama won't accept this, because if he does, he will look like an idiot with no clue, once again, and if he refuses he will look like a wuss, who really doesn't have a plan.
He can only operate with a teleprompter and David Axelrod.
And people really need to question a person like this, and find out who he really is, before giving him the keys to the White House!

Posted by: joanthebaptist | April 26, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Jack Smith: a Harvard Law degree is not a education Do your homework.
If Hillary wins in 2008 and Bill is 'appointed' to fill her Senate
seat and either live to retire 'they' (together or alone) would get
two US Presidential retirement checks, two US Senate retirement
checks, and a retirement check from the State of Arkansas .
About the only thing they MIGHT NOT get is a Social Security
check....but I wouldn't bet on it....

I understand ole Bill has earned $40,000,000 in the past six years.
What a guy!

AND THE REST OF THE STORY... Hilarious Rotten Clinton, as a New York State Senator, now comes under the 'Congressional Retirement and Staffing Plan,' which means that even if she never gets reelected, she STILL receives her Congressional salary until she dies. (Would it not be nice if all Americans were pension eligible after only 4 years?)

If Bill outlives her, he then inherits HER salary until HE dies. He is already getting his Presidential salary until he dies. If Hillary outlives Bill, she also gets HIS salary until she dies. Guess who pays for that?
It's common knowledge that in order for her to establish NY residency, they purchased a million dollar-plus house in upscale Chappaqua, New York. Makes sense. They are entitled to Secret Service protection for life. Still makes sense.

Here is where it becomes interesting. Their mortgage payments hover at around $10,000 per month. BUT, an extra residence 'had' to be built within the acreage to house the Secret Service agents.

The Clintons charge the Federal government $10,000 monthly rent for the use of that extra residence, which is about equal to their mortgage payment. This means that we, the taxpayers, are paying the Clinton's salary, mortgage, transportation, safety and security, as well as the salaries for their 12 man staff -- and, this is all perfectly legal!

Posted by: Shirley Pettaway | April 26, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Obama is like a balloon with a hole in it.

The Washington Post has to keep blowing in hot air to keep him inflated.

Posted by: Obama's like a balloon with a hole in it | April 26, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Seems like Sen. Clinton is more interested in talking about a "debate" than in explaining just how she would get us out of Iraq. (And keep us out of war with Iran after she voted to let President Bush attack the Iranians in a country we could "obliterate.")

Maybe she is looking for a way to land another sucker punch like hooking Farrakhan to her opponent (but of course not Farrakhan to Rendell!).

This monolog about a debate is coming on like another way to change the subject when you aren't winning on the issues.

Posted by: Old White Guy | April 26, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Hillary wants a free media because she is bankrupt. She is a liar, a witch and a race, christian faith divider. Now she is a thief! These debates are all money making for the media; they are running short of substance. HIILARY AND BILL SHUT YOUR UNCIRCUMCISED LIPS AND ROLL OUT. I AM WHITE AND I CAN TELL YOU, I AM SICK OF THESE LUNATICS AND JOKES(BILL AND HILLARY) WHO CONTINUE TO ENRICH THEMSELVES THROUGH THESE ELECTIONS. THEY PAY THEMSELVES THROUGHOUT THIS ELECTION FROM DONORS' CONTRIBUTIONS. ENOUGH OF THAT, I\'M GONNA GIVE MY CASH TO OBAMA AS FROM TODAY! VOTE OBAMA

Posted by: GAL | April 26, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

To: Maggie Williams
Campaign Manager
Hillary for President

From: David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

Dear Maggie:

No, thank you.

Sincerely,

DP

Posted by: Jade7243 Hussein | April 26, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

IT'S TIME AMERICA:

It's time for everyone to face the truth. Barack Obama has no real chance of winning the national election in November at this time. His crushing defeat in Pennsylvania makes that fact crystal clear. His best, and only real chance of winning in November is on a ticket with Hillary Clinton as her VP.

Hillary Clinton seemed almost somber at her victory speech. As if part of her was hoping Obama could have defeated her. And proved he had some chance of winning against the republican attack machine, and their unlimited money, and resources. In all honesty. I felt some of that too.

But it is absolutely essential that the democrats take back the Whitehouse in November. America, and the American people are in a very desperate condition now. And the whole World has been doing all that they can to help keep us propped up.

Hillary Clinton say's that the heat, and decisions in the Whitehouse are much tougher than the ones on the campaign trail. But I think Mr. Obama faces a test of whether he has what it takes to be a commander and chief by facing the difficult facts, and the truth before him. And by doing what is best for the American people by dropping out of the race, and offering his whole hearted assistance to Hillary Clinton to help her take back the Whitehouse for the American people, and the World.

Mr. Obama is a great speaker. And I am confident he can explain to the American people the need, and wisdom of such a personal sacrifice for them. It should be clear to everyone by now that Hillary Clinton is fighting her heart out for the American people. She has known for a long time that Mr. Obama can not win this November. You have to remember that the Clinton's have won the Whitehouse twice before. They know what it takes.

If Mr. Obama fails his test of commander and chief we can only hope that Hillary Clinton can continue her heroic fight for the American people. And that she prevails. She will need all the continual support and help we can give her. She may fight like a superhuman. But she is only human.

Sen. Hillary Clinton: "You know, more people have now voted for me than have voted for my opponent. In fact, I now have more votes than anybody has ever had in a primary contest for a nomination. And it's also clear that we've got nine more important contests to go."

Sincerely

Jacksmith... Working Class :-)

Posted by: jacksmith | April 26, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Hillary wants a free media because she is bankrupt. She is a liar, a witch and a race, christian faith divider. Now she is a thief! These debates are all money making for the media; they are running short of substance. HIILARY AND BILL SHUT YOUR UNCIRCUMCISED LIPS AND ROLL OUT. I AM WHITE AND I CAN TELL YOU, I AM SICK OF THESE LUNATICS AND JOKES(BILL AND HILLARY) WHO CONTINUE TO ENRICH THEMSELVES THROUGH THESE ELECTIONS. THEY PAY THEMSELVES THROUGHOUT THIS ELECTION FROM DONORS' CONTRIBUTIONS. ENOUGH OF THAT, I\'M GONNA GIVE MY CASH TO OBAMA AS FROM TODAY! VOTE OBAMA

Posted by: GAL | April 26, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

MY FELLOW "BITTER", STUPID, WORKING CLASS PEOPLE :-)

If you think like Barack Obama, that WORKING CLASS PEOPLE are just a bunch of "BITTER"!, STUPID, PEASANTS, Cash COWS!, and CANNON FODDER. :-(

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jacksmith... Working Class :-)

p.s. You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

If you don't know that the huge amounts of money funding the Obama campaign to try and defeat Hillary Clinton is coming in from the insurance, and medical industry, that has been ripping you off, and killing you and your children. And denying you, and your loved ones the life saving medical care you needed. All just so they can make more huge immoral profits for them-selves off of your suffering...

You see, back in 1993 Hillary Clinton had the audacity, and nerve to try and get quality, affordable universal health care for everyone to prevent the suffering and needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of you each year. :-)

Approx. 100,000 of you die each year from medical accidents from a rush to profit by the insurance, and medical industry. Another 120,000 of you die each year from treatable illness that people in other developed countries don't die from. And I could go on, and on...

OBAMA AIDE: "WORKING-CLASS VOTERS NOT KEY FOR DEMOCRATS" :o

Posted by: jacksmith | April 26, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

TOP TEN REASONS HILLARY SHOULD BE PRESIDENT

10. SO SHE CAN SIGN AN EXECUTIVE ORDER OUTLAWING MOVEON.ORG

9. RUSH LIMBO SEC. OF EDUCATION

8. SHE WILL RAISE McCAIN A NUKE ATTACK TO HIS BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN SONG

7. SO BILL CAN FIND THOSE EARINGS HIS FRIEND LOST ON AIRFORCE ONE

6. HILLARY CLINTON CURED DISCO FEVER

5. THE CLOSETS IN THE WHITE HOUSE ARE LIKE TOTALY CLUTTERED

4. SHE BELIEVES IN CHANGE - OF THE NOMINATION RULES AND HAS CREATED NEW MATH

3. ONE WORD, PANTSUITS

2. SHE WILL END THE WAR BY FALLOUT FROM NUKING IRAN

THE NUMBER ONE REASON HILLARY SHOULD BE PRESIDENT;

1. TO PISS OFF DICK MORRIS

HE HAS NO TIME TO DEBATE EVERY DAY IN INDIANA AND NC MEAN MORE VOTES

HE SHOULD PARAPHRASE AN OLD JAMES CARVILE QUOTE: USING

ITS THE DELEGATES STUPID

298 TO GO OBAMA
436 CLINTON
706 LEFT 300 SUPERS

Posted by: Anonymous | April 26, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: greenfun | April 26, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

One day, a girl awakened fatherless, her home destroyed -- even its barn that bore a target her dad had painted to teach her to shoot.

Disguised as a boy, she trekked the Himalayas & Antarctica & the shores of Lake Erie & the deserts of Nevada & California & Washington DC & the cobbled ways of Ulster & Manhattan's canyoned streets. Even did she brave a strafing of a Bosnian airport.

Then in a real folk's tavern, she downed a whiskey & a beer -- and wept: "Where's father? Where's home?" She fainted on the sawdust-covered floor & awoke above the clouds before a great white gate.

Inside stood a gaunt & bearded, loincloth-wearing man. She put her nose between two bars. "Father?" she begged.

"Pinocchio?" the gaunt & bearded, loincloth-wearing man inquired with a whisper.

Posted by: a carpenter's apprentice | April 26, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company