Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

As Palin Joins Planned Protest Against Iran, Clinton Cancels

Updated 12:43 p.m., 9/17/08
By Colum Lynch
NEW YORK -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton dropped out of a planned rally outside the United Nations next week after learning that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin would also be in the crowd protesting the appearance of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The rally -- which includes prominent political and religious leaders, including Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel -- is being organized by a coalition of American Jewish organizations, under the umbrella group the National Coalition to Stop Iran Now.

Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice president of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, said that Clinton accepted the invitation to the rally back in August, before Palin was part of the Republican presidential ticket. "We had approached Republican leaders because we wanted to have this event on a nonpartisan basis." The Republicans offered up Palin today, he said.

Hoenlein said that Clinton had been informed of Palin's plans to attend the Monday protest, adding that she had no intention of pulling out.

But Clinton aides told the Associated Press tonight that they learned of Palin's involvement only when informed by reporters.

"Her attendance was news to us, and this was never billed to us as a partisan political event," Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines told the AP. "Senator Clinton will therefore not be attending."

Hoenlein did not immediately return messages seeking comment about Clinton's dropping out. Nor did other organizers of the rally.

A GOP campaign official said only that Palin tentatively planned to attend the rally, but by Wednesday morning, the McCain-Palin campaign had pounced on Clinton's withdrawal and was using Palin's scheduled appearance to try to pressure Clinton to attend after all.

"Governor Palin believes that the danger of a nuclear Iran is greater than party or politics. She hopes that all parties can rally together in opposition to this grave threat," said McCain-Palin spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt.

By Web Politics Editor  |  September 16, 2008; 11:38 PM ET
Categories:  B_Blog , Hillary Rodham Clinton , Sarah Palin  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: New Studies Report Wide Disparity in Health Care Plans
Next: Palin Online: Staggering Numbers

Comments

Havent we all learned by now that elections are more important than issues to democrats? Hillary pulled out in fear that People might see them getting along in a bipartisan fashion which may look good for palin.

I think Palin is a great person for the job and this proves it. The dems are running scared.

Both tickets have been preaching change but change takes more than words. It takes balls. Obama has no experience in anything relating to fighting the power and bideness as ussual is nothing more than a desperate pick to make up for Obamas liack of experience.

McCain and Palin have proven they have the guts to go against the grain which is what REAL change is all about. Obama needs to put in a few years of work and prove his dedication to bipartisanship for his words to have any meaning. If he can do that in four years hell have another chance.

As for now talk is exciting but Americans know talk is cheap when it comes down to checking the box.

By the way I am a 25 year old lower class republican so any of you that think I have something to gain from McCain are dead wrong.

Obama will give me a thousand dollars but McCain will give my daughter a better future.

Posted by: victor gonzales | September 21, 2008 4:23 AM | Report abuse

Like the Clinton's never created campaign drama for their selfish political gain. Please! Bottom line it was a sefish political move by Hillary to pull out and undermine an opportunity to poke a very public finger in Ahmadinajad's eye. But the party comes first again with the dem's...Blah, blah, blah.

Posted by: John A. | September 20, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse

The rally with Hillary alone, in the state where she is Senator, would have been exactly what it was intended to be - a rally protesting the visit of the Iranian leader. The message generated by the organizers would have been picked up by the news media, and no individual's presence would have dominated or distracted coverage of the issue. Exactly as Hillary noted, Palin's presence would have derailed the whole event and turned it into an examination of her lack of foreign policy experience, blah, blah, blah. Few would pay any attention to the message of the rally - it would be another campaign drama. Hillary made the appropriate choice.

Posted by: BuffaloTeacher | September 20, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

To all the fear mongering liberals that support Hillary and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad you are the ones that scare us to death! You hate Sarah Palin because you are afraid she will spoil your party based on a superimposed self made reality. Ahmadinejad is the one that has publicly threatened both the U.S. and Israel. Ahmadinejad is the one that says Israel “will not survive”. Ahmadinejad is the one seeking to build a nuke and he is crazy enough to use it. Ahmadinejad is the one that is waiting for the Ant-Messiah to appear from a deep well in Iran. And it is the radical Islamic nuts that want to cut off your head and bring down our financial institutions. But from reading many of the blogs from Hillary supporters you would think that Sarah Palin is the one that threatens the world because she is willing to stand up to people like Ahmadinejad. It is time for liberals to get a dose of reality and to step away from the cool-aid that is being delivered by the warped media and the corrupted liberal academic elite. The American thing to do was for Hillary and her supporters to put aside their political paranoia and stand against Ahmadinejad while we can. The liberals are blind to those that really threaten the world and as such have proven once again that they can not be trusted to lead the world in a responsible and realistic way. The childish name calling which liberals have engaged in against Sarah Palin proves that liberals can not engage conservatives in the arena of ideas, so they instead try to destroy the messenger with their hate mongering baseless attacks. God saves us from the babes that seek to be our princes, read Isaiah chapter 3.

Posted by: John A. | September 20, 2008 2:29 AM | Report abuse

Please watch, it's relevant to the issue: http://www.payvand.com/news/08/sep/1217.html

Posted by: Former Jew7 | September 19, 2008 2:48 AM | Report abuse

American Jews should decide if they want to keep putting the interests of Israel's insatiable desires and confrontational approaches ahead of those of America's ideals.

Iranians had shown immense courtesy and friendliness towards Americans until 1979. For nearly 100 years, Iranians had befriended Americans at the expense of the British and the Russians. America(ns) benefited immensely from the goodwill of Iranians. What did they receive in return from the US? Dictatorship, CIA coup, and disservice (to put it politely.)

Time for all American people to decide their future relationship with a positive and growing force in the Middle-East. Time for the US to act in accordance with civilized norms and time for the Jews of America to disavow the confrontational acts of Israel.

Whichever way one looks at the issues, the benefits of rapprochement far outweigh the belligerency.

What in the world have Americans got support of the racist and expansionist policies of the Zionists? I would think bad reputation and shame for all those who consider themselves as champions of democracy.

Posted by: Former Jew7 | September 19, 2008 2:26 AM | Report abuse

Jews for Jesus founder David Brickner speaking at Palin's Wasilla Bible Church with the Governor in attendance at taxpayers expense probably made the organizers a little nervous.

As for Iran being so "evil."

That country, its leaders and its people do not have a problem with any state or country being "non muslim." They certainly do not have any differences with India which is non muslim.

The main objection Iran has with Israel pertains to the treatment- or mistreatment- of the Palestinian people. Five million of them are living in refugee camps, unemployment is at 50% and squalor is all around them. Most Palestinians are not terrorists in any way. They want the same things as other people around the world.

Remember, Iran elected a democratic government which was secularly lead in 1953. The United States sent in the CIA to promote a military coup and put the ruthless Shah in power. We only want democracy when we can control its leaders.

There are always at least two sides to any dispute. Bombing your opponents as John McCain likes to sing in his bomb,bomb,bomb Iran song is not the answer.

Iranians are not evil, just as Jews and Palestinians are not evil. The power interests that have thrived on hate and division must be exposed. That can only be done by open communication and negotiation.

War will never solve anything.John McCain should have learned that in Viet-Nam.

Posted by: Sarah- not Palin | September 19, 2008 12:20 AM | Report abuse

What does Palin have in common with Hillary Clinton? Absolutely NOTHING!!! Palin can't compete with her any time or any where. Wanting Hillary to be at the rally along with Palin's is just a ploy to boost Palin's status and make the female voters think that she is just like HILLARY.Forget it folks, THE MOOSE QUEEN nothing like Hillary, so don't confuse the two. Hello GOP you've been foiled again. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear!!!

Posted by: carver17 | September 18, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Watching the McCain Palin rallies it seems to me that she is the top of the ticket and John McCain is just there to introduce her.

Posted by: amercianmom | September 18, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

YE BAR DIGE MIGAM: KEERE KOLOFTAM TOU DAHANE KHAHAR KOSETOON :)

Posted by: KEERKOLOFT | September 18, 2008 6:44 AM | Report abuse

Why is there an assumption that having Clinton and Palin together at an event would automatically result in a catfight? The only way the media could paint it that way is if the two women present themselves that way. Pulling out and letting your aides show the media that they're "furious" over Palin's attendance lends more to the catfight idea than showing up and reaching across the aisle for a common cause. This was a poor decision on Clinton's part and just adds to the old stereotype of the jealous female who doesn't want to share the attention.

Just when I was starting to think Hillary might actually be the great woman the PUMAs so devoutly believe her to be. Sooner or later Hillary is going to have to be in the same room with Palin, especially if Palin becomes the president of the Senate. Why put it off?

Posted by: Disappointed | September 18, 2008 3:32 AM | Report abuse

Ok, here's a big one (if not the biggest):

My compliments to Senator Hillary Clinton. She refuses to be used by the GOP McPalin sideshow.

Hillary's got class. She will NOT be seen along side the type of lying, spinning campaign these GOP politicians are running. Nice try, Rove! Hillary will NEVER be exploitable by your team!

Posted by: Donny | September 17, 2008 8:56 AM

What's not appearant in Donny's post is that neither candidate nor party cares as much about spin and deceit as they care about what they believe in. Really, each side believes that they're founded in truth and what's right. I'm not naive. Either candidate or party can be doing what they do with full intent to deceive us and promote thier own goals. But it's quite difficult to become President of The United States of America without believing in something higher than Self.

It's a leap in faith to call it a side show when somebody's actually doing what she/he believes is right. Whether that leap in faith is to the right or to the wrong is a matter of fact, not emotion. Emotion is a result of fact(s).

These things only become "side shows" because emotional and foundationless fighters skip what's necessary to fight for my ability to sit here in my house, typing out these words to you, without fear of being robbed or killed.

That skipped item is working toward preventing bullies like Iran from conquering the world as the Muslim bible predicts. This is not to say that 99% of Muslims aren't peaceful folks who just love to come home from a hard day's work so they can hug their spouses and children. But Islam encompasses violent extremists who have made large marks on this world. The marks that Islamic extremists have made on this planet far outshadow the marks that have been made by them who bomb abortion clinics.

The focus of this event is that Hillary won't attend because her own personal agenda would be compromised by it. Does she really understand why you're sitting where you are, reading this without violent compromise?

Nuclear warheads are no joke. Just ask the Japanese. And, if you dare, ask the Iranis.

Sincerely,

An Ex-US Army Nuclear Missile Scientist

Posted by: MythBuster | September 18, 2008 2:35 AM | Report abuse

In the reasponse to Sara Flecther's comment.


First of all, she IS NOT "self-centered" NOR "immature".

How dare you say that!!!!!

She knew for a FACT that this event would have turned into a political media-plot.


If she would of showed up to that event, it would of NOT been about the people suffering in the middle east.


Instead the media would of made up rumors about Hillary Clinton and Sarah palin "fight".

And instead of the topic being about protecting Isreal, it would of caused a MEDIA-FRENZY!


She knew what she was doing.

And if you people would get your head out of your asses you would see that!


All yall don't understand that this would have turned into something OTHER then the MAIN subject, which is STOPPING Iran.


It would of UP-STAGED the ENTIRE reason of the event!

And I don't even understand why yall should be mad at her.

She did'nt do anything wrong.


If anything yall she take it out on the MCAIN camp.

Their the ones that invited Sarah, that made Hillary pull out to in the first place.

I don't see why yall aren't taking it out on THEM!!!!

Leave Hillary ALONE!!!!!

I don't see why yall fools can't understand that.


Let it go!!!!

Posted by: jasmine | September 18, 2008 2:15 AM | Report abuse

Here's another post from earlier this morning:

When the Democratic leadership ( Hillary, Bill, Obama, Pelosi, & Reid) realized that Florida was not going to vote democratic, they made a decision to pull the plug on the Jewish vote and instead go after the Muslim vote in Michigan hoping to hold that state. Recent polls have shown Michigan to be in a virtual tie between Obama and McCain, with one poll showing McCain up by 1%. The Muslim vote there could swing the entire state. If Obama loses Michigan, he loses the entire election. Polls in Florida have consistently show McCain leading Obama by 4 to 8 points.

Posted by: GeraldD | September 17, 2008 9:17 AM

I just love the way that somebody who's onto the truth of things has (tacitly) expressed that Joe Biden is not a member of Democrat Leadership. Look at Gerald D's list.

This could be construed as evidence to Sarah Palin being a member of Republican Leadership.

Posted by: MythBuster | September 18, 2008 1:57 AM | Report abuse

Ok, here's one of the earliest comments in this thread:

Hillary is a smart cookie. She knew that the event would have been SPUN...

Smart smart woman..

Posted by: Vance C. McDaniel | September 17, 2008 9:31 AM

My concern with Mr. McDaniel's point of view is that he might not realize that spin can come in the form of.... truth.

Posted by: MythBuster | September 18, 2008 1:44 AM | Report abuse

There's a thing called fad, which is what Palin is. Not even a fashion.

As for the Ahmadinejad factor, people across the world are eager to listen to him which is what the US is so terrified about. It seems the brilliant minds of the Empire are not able to engage him in a civilized debate, thus they are once again resorting to the Bollinger sham. Those who are the cause of oppression of Palestinians and other oppressed people, are dead scared of Ahmadinejad's speeches. Go on Nejad, expose the real culprits once again at the heart of the expiring Empire - more nails to the coffin for good measure.

Posted by: Stephen O'Conole | September 18, 2008 1:12 AM | Report abuse

KEERAM TOU KOONO-KOSE HAMATOON. ASHGHALE KESAFATHA. AHMAQHA IRAN BE KOSE SHE'RE SHOMA CHE. BERID GOMSHID. KHAHAR KOSA. DAR ZEMN KEERE KOLOFTE IRANI KOONE HAMATOONO PAARE MIKONE.

Posted by: KEERKOLOFT | September 18, 2008 12:58 AM | Report abuse

Palin is not Pilate she is satan incarnate, the true anti-christ. She wants to wage a final holy war agains Islam. She is part of the third wave movement. She has ties to Senior Pastor Mike Rose, Juneau Christian Church, Joel’s army, and Army of God, and Eric Rudoph,Lou Engle, Paster Hagee.

She tried to have books banned when she was a council woman.

Sara Palin believes that following the Rapture, those remaining will suffer through the horrors of the Tribulation, reign of the Antichrist, and the wars of Apocalypse until the return of Jesus.

Trig: n. 1. A political prop often used by the republican Christian radical right. The governor used a trig to deflect scrutiny of the Christian theocratic aspirations to raise an army and start the final crusade cleans the world of all other religions.

3. sean hannity: n. 1. The act of inserting ones fist into the rectum of a fox viewer without the benefit of Crisco. Sean hannity has wet dreams of being sean hannitied by Keith Olbermann.

Posted by: POPE SERGIUS V | September 17, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse

In response to the previous comment made:

It is not that Hillary clinton was an idiot, that is not why people, including my self, are angry with her.

The majority of the reason is that when she pulled out of the protest, she seems to say that fighting against Iran and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is less important than being in the same photograph as Sarah Palin.

She may be smart and know what she is doing, but she was immature for being very self-centered and focusing on American Politics than lives of people in danger in the Middle East.

Posted by: Sara Fletcher | September 17, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

How dare yall critisize Hillary for not wanting to show up.


She is a very smart women.


And unlike you idiots, she SAW the trap the Mcain camp. had for her.


If Hillary were to show up to that event with that, "pit bull with lipstick", they would have gone out of their way to continue to compair her with Hillary.

And it would only bring more attention to the "Sarah effect" that is happening now.

She knew what she was doing!

She's not stupid.

And why are people sayin that Barack is not for jews???


That's a LIE!

*smdh* Barack was once even accused of being for the jewish too much.


So to say he will not be for Isreal when he becomes president is a straight up LIE!!!!


I wish you people will leave HILLARY ALONE!!

She knows what she's doing!

Geze all yall idiots make me sick!


Besides what defference will it make???


Barack Obama is still gonna be president.


So you might as well get used to it!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: jasmine | September 17, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Inviting Sarah Palin to speak at a rally about Iran and Israel is a stunt.

In this context, Hillary dropping out makes sense. Both for Hillary and for the cause the rally promotes!

The headlines would be about a supposed Hillary/Palin catfight rather than about the serious issues of Iran and Israel.

Unfortunately, it is Hoenlein and the rally organizers who show they're not serious by inviting this sideshow. Not Hillary Clinton. Or, does Palin have something to contribute to the dialogue on Iran and Israel, from her study sessions of the past two weeks?

I like Sarah Palin as a colorful character, a powerful woman. But, she has zero qualifications to speak at this rally. And, it's political hooey to pretend otherwise.

Unless, of course, her contribution will be on the role of Israel and the Jews in Armagaeddon and the Rapture.

Posted by: Jan Oxenberg | September 17, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

you blew this one Hilary...who the hell do you think you are not going to iran demonstration because sarah will be there...how ridiculous..what grade are you in

Posted by: vicky | September 17, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Is Iran a country you can see from Alaska? Hmm, I bet Sarah is studying up on that silly country and especially memorizing all those witty lines about that man with the awful long name that's so hard to pronounce (oh dear!!)

Palin as a serious contender in anything? Thanks, but no thanks.

Posted by: Paul | September 17, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Is Iran a country you can see from Alaska? Hmm, I bet Sarah is studying up on that silly country and especially memorizing all those witty lines about that man with the awful long name that so hard to pronounce (oh dear!!)

Palin as a serious contender in anything? Thanks, but no thanks.

Posted by: Paul | September 17, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Is Iran a country you can see from Alaska? Hmm, I bet Sarah is studying up on that silly country and especially memorizing all those witty lines about that man with the awful long name that so hard to pronounce (oh dear!!)

Palin as a serious contender in anything? Thanks, but no thanks.

Posted by: Paul | September 17, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

"Her attendance was news to us, and this was never billed to us as a partisan political event," Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines told the AP. "Senator Clinton will therefore not be attending."

Um, it looks like Ms Clinton is the one making this a partisan event by choosing not to attend.

She hates Ahmadinejad, but apparently hates Palin more.

Thank you for showing us your true colors, Ms Clinton, and good luck in the 2012 election.

Posted by: jeffberman | September 17, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

In reading the blogs, I keep seeing a reference to Sarah Palin's church and an alleged statement by a Jew for Jesus in a sermon given there. Please view for yourselves the transcript of the sermon, or listen to the audio archive, at wasillabible.org click on sermons. Please go to first hand resources before passing on judgements. BTW reference like... Luke was a doctor, so who knows [if he was a Jew]... and Jesus was a Jew before he became a Catholic... are just jokes! Please, also let us have civil discourse; when this election is over we will be in this together no matter who wins. Let us not hate one another.

Posted by: maryb | September 17, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Come on Hillary. You are a beautiful women with Knowledge. Get back out there. Cheslea would, and she is wonderful as you. From a good looking 50's Canadian. I feel that way and that's all that counts. You are needed.

Posted by: justada55+ | September 17, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Having occasion to do business in Alasks I am forever being confronted by anti-semitism and smug or sneering comments. Sara Palin is an anti-semite and her philosophy to bring Jews back to Jesus is widely spouted by her church. Her appearance along with Jews in protesting Iran is pure hypocrisy and her knowledge of the Middle East conflict would rate her a D minus in the study of International Affairs. Hillary's presence is legitimate,Sara's is political. She is a fraud.

Posted by: Aaron Goldberg | September 17, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

"As a Jew, I cannot tell you how scare I am of an Obama presidency."

As a fellow Jew, you should be terribly afraid of a John McCain who only knows one type of diplomacy- and that is to bomb anyone you have differences with.

You want nuclear war in Israel's part of the world? Vote McCain.

He is reckless and unstable.

Read the Jerusalem Post interview with both Senator Obama and the "maverick." McCain here.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1215331099249

Stop the madness

Posted by: David | September 17, 2008 2:21 AM
___________________________________________

I am not Jewish, but I will add that Sarah Palin's church endorses a group called "Jew's for Jesus" who believes that Jews are misguided Christians in need of conversion and also believe that the violence in the Middle East is due to the Jew's failure to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

Don't take my word for it, check it out for yourself.

Read: At Palin Church, Jews For Jesus Head Says Terrorism vs Israel Is God`s Punishment at Israel News

http://www.israelenews.com/view.asp?ID=3026

THAT is what you should be afraid of.

Posted by: Ward6ForNow | September 17, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Yes, protesting "against those who caused the economic disaster, in our country" makes much better sense.

Posted by: matty | September 17, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Tell you what, let's have a protest against those who caused the economic disaster, in our country, now marauding as potential saviors.

John McCain can try and distract us with "The Iranian Threat". But, we'll borrow the words of another Clinton, "It's the economy, S-T-U-P-I-D"....

Posted by: Hank Wilfong | September 17, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

In recent weeks, John McCain and the Republican Party have blatantly and without any shame adopted the Democratic campaign theme of “change”. It should be evident to an objective observer that Bush 43 and now McCain and Pailin are mere puppets to the true Republican national party leaders who control their strings. Cheney is one of the few of that inner cabal that have been calling the shots since the Nixon administration. They are in fact a continuation of the Nixon and Ford presidencies with only a disruption during the Carter and Clinton years. Bush 41( Head of the RNC during Nixon, former head of the CIA,VP to Reagan, and president is probably the real leader of this political Cosa Nostra if not a equal partner of this power sharing musical chairs game. His right and left hands have been Dick Cheney(former Sec.of Defense of Bush 41, former White House Chief of staff for Ford) and the other is Donald Rumsfeld(former Sec. of Defense for Ford and Bush 43,former special envoy to the Middle East during Reagan). Another member of this group, more likely a captain if not a full blown boss himself is James Baker (former C.O.S of Reagan, former Under Sec. of Commerce for Ford, former C.O.S and Sec of State for Bush 41, former Sec. of Treasury for Reagan, former chief legal advisor to Bush 43). Another captain or free lance enforcer is Karl Rove a college drop out and campaign manager for both Bush 41 and 43, also for Phil Gram who is McCain’s economic advisor.
Lets look at McCain’s staff of change.
On July 2, 2008, Steve Schmidt was given "full operational control" of McCain's campaign. Steve Schmidt prior to this was a top aide to Dick Cheney and a protégé to Karl Rove. Another advisor is Charles R. Black worked for Ronald Reagan's two Presidential campaigns in 1976 and 1980 and he was a senior political adviser to the 1992 re-election campaign of George H.W. Bush. Another advisor is Randy Scheunemann. He was project director for the Project for the New American Century. A neo-conservative think tank founded by non other than Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Bill Kristol and others in 1996. Other signatories to this group reads like a who’s who of the last 8 years of the republican administration.
These people have never cared about small town america or “values” All they care about is war profiteering. Many of the signatories have never served in the military. Cheney and Rove both dodged the draft. Look at the statement of principles by the PNAC. Rumsfeld was a good friend of Saddam Huessin in the 80’s Cheney didn’t want Nelson Mandela free. These are the real puppet masters, they throw out the talking points about the left of being elitist and not caring about middle america and these same guys other than Rove have advanced degrees and are worth no less than 10 million dollars. People who support them need to extricate their heads out of Limbaugh and Hannity’s asses and see what is really happening to them. McCain is not his own man he confuses stories of his real life with a book he read “The Gulag Archipelago", in which a fellow prisoner - not a guard - silently drew a cross in the dirt with a stick.” An ironic twist to all this is Eliot A. Cohen, a signatory to the PNAC "Statement of Principles", responded in The Washington Post: "There is no evidence that generals as a class make wiser national security policymakers than civilians. George C. Marshall, our greatest soldier statesman after George Washington, opposed shipping arms to Britain in 1940. His boss, Franklin D. Roosevelt, with nary a day in uniform, thought otherwise. Whose judgment looks better?"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/2581086/John-McCain-accused-of-plagiarising-Wikipedia-for-speeches.html. Even if you don’t like Obama there is no-way a sane person can want this continued blatant fleecing of our Nation.
Thes are all verifiable facts and can be found just with a google searches.
Other than the ultra affluent, how can anyone support the Republican Party? When will small town America realize that they are being duped into supporting the ultra-affluent agenda? The talking points of the right are so hypocritical that it becomes laughable. The red meat of the right is the so called Main stream Media as if Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. are not part of it. They demean celebrity status, however they tout one of their greatest presidents(Reagan) was an actor. They say they are the party of patriotism, yet many of the upper echelon of the party have never served, i.e. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Baker, Reagan. They say that they care about "Main Street" USA but only bail out the Whales of Wall Street. Yet small town America eat this tripe every year. They don't care about religion unless it can be used to stir up the base, nor science or technology unless there is a buck to be made. Small town America takes pride on its freedom but yet don't realize that over time we are becoming less free, ie wire tapping and other forms of domestic surveillance. They demean people of intelligence because they know many people of small town America don't have degrees and use it at a fake issue and call people who spent time in academia as elitist when many on the right serve on university boards and have part-time professorships. They say they are against affirmitive action but yet celebrate mediocrity, Bush43 and McCain graduating at the bottom of their classes. Who both came from already well established families and had all the opportunities and connections to excel. Why does small town America believes this is the party for them? Christian conservatives seem to the be the first ones who want to go to war and bomb someone before any diplomacy is tried. Why can't small town America and Christian conservatives realize they are being used as pawns just as much the Islamic fundamentalist are. Islamic fundamentalist come from small town Middle East and given the same kind of talking points as the evangelicals. They want prayer in school, no choice available to women, and believe to the core that their ideas about worship and country are the best. Wake up small town America you are being duped.
Talking about who is more patriotic, symbols, lipstick and wearing pins are nothing more than distractions to the real issue of how a few select group of people have held power almost continuously for over 30 years. Yes the left has their own political power groups but none have been so effective at pushing forward an agenda that is fundamentally bad for the U.S. and in a larger view the entire world. I stress again the now defunct PNAC and the AIPAC have been slowly pushing us closer to another World War. Bush41 and et al have been doing this and no one calls them on it. Every Republican administration has basically the same people recycled since Nixon. Just do a little research and you will see that these people are just pushing this agenda of some kind of Pax Americana and not taking into account that maybe other nations of the world might not like that and if not bomb them.
Many people who support the Republican party, really need to read "1984" by George Orwell and see how we as nation have been inching closer to that type of society. People think this story is about a communist society, but it is more about how a society is kept in a constant state of fear in order for the ruling class to stay in control. Doublespeak, patriotism to the point of frenzy, censorship, erosion of civil liberties (not respecting the Constitution) is happening right in front of us. The consolidation of government (the executive branch has never been more powerful than ever, gridlocked legislature with only two parties for representation, a judiciary that just kowtows to the executive branch). No real independent journalism. Cameras placed on every street corner. This may sound like delusional conspiracy stuff, but I implore people to research for themselves to really see what is happening to them. People think this could never happen here in the U.S. but it is already happening, slowly, incrementally all under the guise of "keeping America safe"

Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is doing exactly as she is told to do by Obama's campaign. The whole thing probably annoys her no end but they do not want her engaging Palin for obvious reasons. Now the ball is in Obama's court to promote a bipartisan effort. Let's see how he does.

Posted by: Indie | September 17, 2008 2:24 PM

___________________________________________

Whenever you decide to come out of the bubble that you have been in since the 90's, the Clinton's are not the type to take orders from ANYONE.

Bill Clinton was the President of the United States and Hillary was the First Lady.

She is not taking orders from a candidate.

If she is not attending it is because she doesn't WANT to attend. There is nothing that the Obama campaign can do to force her hand one way or the other.

Get a Grip!!!! Okay?

Posted by: Ward6ForNow | September 17, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

You got it all wrong.
Hillary is much closer to being a Red Republican than a Red Democrat.
When Sarah and Hillary sit down to talk, they will find much in common.
Wouldn't a Palin/Clinton ticket be something!!
Bush - Nobel Peace Prize - 2030

Posted by: canamdutch | September 16, 2008 8:08 PM
___________________________________________

It is so funny. Republican's, not six months ago, considered the Clinton's the anti-Christ's of American government.

Now she is their darling child.

The GOP is so damn transparent.

So damn opportunistic.

They hate Hillary but are willing to USE her.

Posted by: Ward6ForNow | September 17, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is doing exactly as she is told to do by Obama's campaign. The whole thing probably annoys her no end but they do not want her engaging Palin for obvious reasons. Now the ball is in Obama's court to promote a bipartisan effort. Let's see how he does.

Posted by: Indie | September 17, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Scott wrote about a CNN today new: "...Lynn Forester de Rotschild: "I think he (Obama) is a elitist..."
Mr. Scott: Do you know the Rotschilds are? The Rotschilds are an old, rich and elitist family of Europe - FOR CENTURIES. They are bankers - FOR CENTURIES - and big wine producers. Do you have heard about the "Mouton Rotschild" wine, maybe the most expensive wine of all? So, Obama - a man of a Kansas'middle class family, born in Hawai, half black - is he the elitist? Give me a break.
Mr. Scott: the Bush family, John and Cindy McCain, Cheney Haliburton, Rumsfeld are they lower class?
Why are you (Republicans) so selfish and hateful?

Posted by: brazilianRio | September 17, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

So! In this political-foreign-policy-hodge-podge, these two ladies are unmasking each
others'poreign policy? . . . The same
Potitical Football: kicking Iran and its
people for 30 years should NOT be surpristng to no one! . . .
Mali Mostoufi - N.Y. 9/17/2008

Posted by: MaliMostoufi@aol.com | September 17, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Get life! I would be protesting on the Wall Street while Palin would logically protest the Iranians on the South of Manhattan. After all Iranians, Palin, and the Republican party have one issue to get straight with: OIL.

My suggestion: stick to your life and vital interests for the nation is being sacked by DC, interest groups, and lobbies.

May God Save American.

Posted by: Matty, California | September 17, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse


The ignorance of the people who have written to criticize Hillary is just mind-boggling. This protest is nothing but a pro-war/hate Iran rally. It's clown show that is being organized by people who don't have the interests of America in mind in any shape or form. Of course, fear-mongering is the most effective tool to rule an ignorant population; one that the republicans and America's enemies have learned to use effectively.

Posted by: sam | September 17, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Sorry for the double post. I have no excuse, I admit it, Charlie.

Posted by: J Lauber | September 17, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

My how easy it is to get off topic. I am guilty of the same but not this time. A rally against Iran at the U.N. should remain bi-partisan and unified. Clinton's attendance alongside Palin would only serve the Republicans another chance to try and portray Palin as a substitute for Hillary. Maybe they keep trying this stratagey because of Hillary's positions on the issues? Anyway, our system of government allows for folks with differing views to work together for common goals. This working together has been stiffled by the Bush administration. My biggest fear is that McCain intends to do the same.

Posted by: J Lauber | September 17, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

I love the way everyone gets off topic and I admit I can bre guilty of the same thing. The truth is, the rally against Iran should remain a bi-partisan
unified event. The appearance of Clinton alongside Palin would only be seen as an op by the republicans to again try and paint Palin as a substitute for Hillary. People who disagree politically, can work together for the good of America. The Bush administration has put that cooperation on hold and it looks like McCain intends to do the same.

Posted by: J Lauber | September 17, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Mccain has gone through great limits to seal his military history and the details of his tenure as a POW. Even at the expense of 2000 other missing soldiers.

How much to you know about him?

Posted by: In the middle | September 17, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Kiss Florida goodbye Obama! FL, OH and PA will go McCain/Palin

Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

September 16, 2008
Prominent Clinton backer and DNC member to endorse McCain
Posted: 10:07 PM ET

From CNN Political Editor Mark Preston, Extra


A prominent backer of Hillary Clinton is endorsing McCain.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a prominent Hillary Clinton supporter and member of the Democratic National Committee’s Platform Committee, will endorse John McCain for president on Wednesday, her spokesman tells CNN.

The announcement will take place at a news conference on Capitol Hill, just blocks away from the DNC headquarters. Forester will “campaign and help him through the election,” the spokesman said of her plans to help the Republican presidential nominee.

Forester was a major donor for Clinton earning her the title as a Hillraiser for helping to raise at least $100,000 for the New York Democratic senator’s failed presidential bid.

In an interview with CNN this summer, Forester did not hide her distaste for eventual Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

“This is a hard decision for me personally because frankly I don't like him,” she said of Obama in an interview with CNN’s Joe Johns. “I feel like he is an elitist. I feel like he has not given me reason to trust him.”

Posted by: Scott | September 17, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

September 16, 2008
Prominent Clinton backer and DNC member to endorse McCain
Posted: 10:07 PM ET

From CNN Political Editor Mark Preston, Extra


A prominent backer of Hillary Clinton is endorsing McCain.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a prominent Hillary Clinton supporter and member of the Democratic National Committee’s Platform Committee, will endorse John McCain for president on Wednesday, her spokesman tells CNN.

The announcement will take place at a news conference on Capitol Hill, just blocks away from the DNC headquarters. Forester will “campaign and help him through the election,” the spokesman said of her plans to help the Republican presidential nominee.

Forester was a major donor for Clinton earning her the title as a Hillraiser for helping to raise at least $100,000 for the New York Democratic senator’s failed presidential bid.

In an interview with CNN this summer, Forester did not hide her distaste for eventual Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

“This is a hard decision for me personally because frankly I don't like him,” she said of Obama in an interview with CNN’s Joe Johns. “I feel like he is an elitist. I feel like he has not given me reason to trust him.”

Posted by: Scott | September 17, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

From Obama's Hometown Paper-

"Obama Sidesteps Reform in Illinois
By Dennis Byrne

For those of you who still cling to the fantasy that Barack Obama is "about change," you should note how he, or his minions, want nothing to do with reforming politics in Illinois, perhaps the most corrupt state in the Union.

"Throughout his political career, Barack Obama has fought for open and honest government," proclaims his campaign Web site. Apparently, no longer. When the Democratic presidential candidate--now his party's industrial-strength voice for our deliverance from political corruption everywhere--was asked by a reformer if he would help get his political mentor back home to get off the dime and move the most minimal of state ethics legislation toward passage, the Obama campaign sent word back that amounted to a "no."

State Sen. Emil Jones (D-Chicago) is the Chicago machine politician who might have been most instrumental in jump-starting Obama's political career. Now, as Illinois Senate president, Jones is the one sitting on the reform legislation, refusing to call it for an expected favorable vote before it officially dies of neglect.

Jones is the pal of Gov. Rod Blagojevich, no friend of reform, who used his amendatory veto power to change the legislation after it passed both houses so that Jones would get another chance to kill it.

If all that's confusing, welcome to Illinois politics, where intricacy is the best camouflage for chicanery. Suffice to say, neither Blagojevich nor Jones is working for reform.

So, along comes Cindi Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform, thinking that now might be a good time for Obama to parlay his friendship with Jones to do a good deed: Won't you intervene with Jones and try to get him to call the Senate back into session to get this law passed? "[T]his is a place [Obama] could come in and quickly clean up some of the damage and serve his state," she told the Chicago Sun-Times. After all, her group and Obama worked together during those halcyon days when he actually supported reform in Illinois, so maybe he'll be receptive to a plea to intervene on behalf of Illinois folks who have been getting gouged for years by the likes of Jones. "A 30-second phone call to the Illinois Senate president could yield huge dividends to this state," she said.

In response, Obama's campaign issued an oozy statement reaffirming Obama's alleged commitment to reform, while getting no more specific than urging everyone to get together and love one another right now. What Canary was asking Obama for wasn't all that much. Maybe a 30-second phone call to back up his usual pap of, "Look, ah, I've, ah, always been for, ah, reform." For most people, the reform that we're talking about is so basic that they might ask, "You mean it's not illegal already?"

The legislation would make illegal the widespread abuse called pay-to-play politics, by which companies doing business with the state contribute to the state official in charge of ladling out contracts. The new law wouldn't let you do it if you have more than $50,000 in state contracts, which, even at that, leaves open a nice loophole. In Illinois, this is a huge leap forward from how things are done. Blagojevich, who has reaped bundles of cash from state contractors, could be one of the pols most jolted by the prohibition. That explains why he rewrote the legislation in a way that would make it ineffective and why the House overwhelmingly rejected his changes.

Jones now is the only one standing in the way of the reform, with Obama abetting.

Here's another example of how Obama has revealed himself to be a creature of the Chicago machine. Who can forget his silence when he could have affirmed his reformer credentials by endorsing Democrat Forrest Claypool over machine creature Todd Stroger as Cook County Board president? When things got too hot, Obama severed his ties from his racially inflammatory pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. That's not too hard; you can always find another pastor.

But betraying your political godfather(s) in Chicago and Illinois is an entirely different matter. Especially if you lose the presidential election and return to being just another senator from Illinois. Cutting his ties with the corrupt Chicago machine is one bridge you will not see Obama burn. Not now, not ever.

Agent of change, my foot."

Dennis Byrne is a Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist. dennis@dennisbyrne.net

Posted by: Scott | September 17, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

I have to laugh at all you people that say Hillary is out to get Obama and she is for Palin.

Hillary is doing exactly what the Obama Campaign tells her to do. He and his cohorts have said they don't want Hillary to go after Palin because it will become a sideshow and they want her to stay focused on McCain. She is being a good Democrat.

Posted by: Blue Heron | September 17, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Blogging allows TRUE RACISM to flourish!!!

Posted by: SWatkins | September 17, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Fascinating! So let me get this straight. If Hillary shows up at the same anti-Iran rally as Palin, it transfers Hillarys credibility to Palin. But if Barack Obama meets with the leader of Iran face to face it does NOT lend him U.S. credibility?
Or try it this way. Hillary will not cross the aisle to support Israel, but Barack Obama will cross the globe to meet with Israels sworn enemy? HMMMM

Posted by: mark | September 17, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

Palin's Favorability Rating expected to be More Negative than Positive by Tomorrow - she's a Boat Anchor now:

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/16/palin-s-favorability-ratings-begin-to-falter.aspx

Her behavior in Troopergate just screams, "I'm hiding something!"

Anyone who cares to 'look' won't trust her.

Posted by: radiofreewill | September 17, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is a smart cookie. She knew that the event would have been SPUN...

Smart smart woman..

Posted by: Vance C. McDaniel | September 17, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Poor Hillary has been out of the spotlight too long - look now she's back. Everyone can see this is her way of putting the screws to Obama. Take your toys and go home - that's how mature bipartisan adults handle things.

Posted by: Dee | September 17, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

When the Democratic leadership ( Hillary, Bill, Obama, Pelosi, & Reid) realized that Florida was not going to vote democratic, they made a decision to pull the plug on the Jewish vote and instead go after the Muslim vote in Michigan hoping to hold that state. Recent polls have shown Michigan to be in a virtual tie between Obama and McCain, with one poll showing McCain up by 1%. The Muslim vote there could swing the entire state. If Obama loses Michigan, he loses the entire election. Polls in Florida have consistently show McCain leading Obama by 4 to 8 points.

Posted by: GeraldD | September 17, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

My senator belongs at that event. Shame on you, Hillary.

Posted by: evelyn | September 17, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

My senator belongs at that event. Shame on you, Hillary.

Posted by: evelyn | September 17, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

My senator belongs at that event. Shame on you, Hillary.

Posted by: evelyn | September 17, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

As an avid Hillary supporter, I am embarrassed and disappointed with her actions regarding this issue.

The Democrats just simply refuse to work as a team with other politicians. It is their way or the highway and that just does not get things done i.e. why we are in the crisis we are in now.

And people wonder why I and others swtiched to the Republican ticket!

Posted by: Ginny | September 17, 2008 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Ok, you libs support Hillary cancelling her appearance which is politicizing this protest against Iran, but her politicizing is ok. This is why the rest of "thinking" Americans pity your ignorance

Posted by: Pat | September 17, 2008 9:06 AM | Report abuse

My compliments to Senator Hillary Clinton. She refuses to be used by the GOP McPalin sideshow.

Hillary's got class. She will NOT be seen along side the type of lying, spinning campaign these GOP politicians are running. Nice try, Rove! Hillary will NEVER be exploitable by your team!

Posted by: Donny | September 17, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Clinton pulls out, why am I not suprised. It once again shows the inability of some to put aside partisanship, and stand for something right if it doesn't benefit them.

Posted by: Truth | September 17, 2008 8:51 AM | Report abuse

Is there no cause or issue the GOP won't politicize?

Sen McCain obviously has no shame.

Posted by: zukermand | September 17, 2008 8:26 AM | Report abuse

Palin is pandering to Jewish voters.

After sitting in a pew at her church in July, and listening to the leader of Jews for Jesus explain that Islamic terrorism aimed at Israel, was a result of Jews not accepting Christ as thier savior, her handlers in the McCain camp obviously thinks she has some fences to mend.

A politcal pander that will no doubt include flourishes of Plain lambasting the Iranian leader at a campaign stop after the protest.


Posted by: MA | September 17, 2008 8:03 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2008 8:01 AM | Report abuse

بابا شماها چقدر بیکارید دیگه!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2008 7:30 AM | Report abuse

Alice Wrote:
To even suggest that Senator Obama is in any way like Hitler...

Actually Hitler was a far right winger. Obama wouldn't even come close to being like him. Based on Senator Obama's communist beliefs, he is much closer to Mao Sae Tung than Hitler.

Posted by: LeeHInAlexandria | September 17, 2008 6:51 AM | Report abuse

Alice Wrote:
To even suggest that Senator Obama is in any way like Hitler...

Actually Hitler was a far right winger. Obama wouldn't even come close to being like him. Based on Senator Obama's communist beliefs, he is much closer to Mao Sae Tung than Hitler.

Posted by: LeeHInAlexandria | September 17, 2008 6:51 AM | Report abuse

Alice Wrote:
To even suggest that Senator Obama is in any way like Hitler...

Actually Hitler was a far right winger. Obama wouldn't even come close to being like him. Based on Senator Obama's communist beliefs, he is much closer to Mao Sae Tung than Hitler.

Posted by: LeeHInAlexandria | September 17, 2008 6:51 AM | Report abuse

I would like one of the leftists making comments here to tell me what exactly Stanley Kurtz is saying to be untrue? NOBODY from the left can denie that what he is saying is untrue.

The fact remains that Obama has close ties to the Chicago based ACORN. ACORN is one of the most radical groups in the US. ACORN is a group that believes in 'anti-capitalism'.

Kurtz has been at the forefront probing Obama’s relationships with left-wing ideologues. It was his public information request and public call for help that led to the University of Illinois - Chicago finally releasing tons of files that shed light on the Obama/Ayers working relationship. The Obama camp is condemning Kurtz in harsher terms than it ever condemned the terrorist Ayers.

FACT: Senator Obama has tried unsuccessfully to limit free speech by prohibiting certain commercials about him to air on TV.

Do you know enough about Barack Obama to elect him?

Posted by: LeeHInAlexandria | September 17, 2008 6:27 AM | Report abuse

lol, dont get me wrong, im in no ways endorsing what they say, "but i will defend to the death his right to say it"

people like kurtz must face the same ends as the kkk, to reach a point where they are found so idiotic in their logic that their own conscientious nature wont allow them to speak, but we cannot put our caption on them.

Posted by: dale | September 17, 2008 6:18 AM | Report abuse

From the article:
"Her attendance was news to us, and this was never billed to us as a partisan political event," Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines told the AP. "Senator Clinton will therefore not be attending."

If it is a 'nonpartisan' event, then why is Senator Clinton making it out to be a partisan event?

Posted by: LeeHInAlexandria | September 17, 2008 5:59 AM | Report abuse

Dale,

I’m amused that anyone to the left of Genghis Kahn takes Stanley Kurtz seriously. He is with the Hudson Institute, a far right wing operation that is funded largely by the Scaifes, the Bradley Foundation and the Olin Foundation, all of which are known for their far right wing leanings. Kurtz’s blatherings are generally published in the likes of National Review.

Kurtz has been on the rampage against gay marriage for quite some time. In a piece in National Review last spring, Kurtz argued that gays should not be permitted to marry because straight boys don’t want to watch movies in which out gay men play leading roles. What the latter has to do with the former is anyone’s guess, but it had more than a few of us rolling on the floor laughing. His latest rampage, the Weakly Standard article, is just more of the same. I wonder when he’s going to start blaming the hole in the ozone layer on gay marriage.

Posted by: Reuben | September 17, 2008 5:52 AM | Report abuse

Dale,

How dare you spread this type of fascist lie anywhere in America?

To even suggest that Senator Obama is in any way like Hitler is scurrilous, hateful, and beneath the pale of contempt. You are either an insane or criminally sociopathic person.

Senator Obama taught Constitutional Law at the very conservative University of Chicago Law School for many years. His views are on record, and many of the Republican professors at that school are voting for him.

It is ironic that George Bush and Dick Cheney are the ones who subverted our Constitution, and scum like you try to slime a honest, loyal, and caring American citizen.

You are the type of person who would have probably been the first to sign up in one of Hitler's gangs. You are using the same type of tactics.

Stop the lies.

Posted by: Alice | September 17, 2008 5:24 AM | Report abuse

this is a short excerpt from a history on Adolph Hitler...

"Using demagogic oratory, Hitler spoke to scores of mass audiences, calling for the German people to resist the yoke of Jews and Communists, and to create a new empire which would rule the world for 1,000 years."

Hitler as many know was a seemingly upstanding citizen by the time he ran and won in Germany. However, he had a historical tradition of overpowering people who did not support him through intimidation tactics. During his first real campaign he did a great deal to enforce positive propaganda in his favor.

He then took Germany and the world on a ride that will not be forgotten.

Why am i telling you this? Because it was preventable to those who stood up and saw the initial signs.

Because Barack Obama is assaulting our free speech. From the Pennsylvania gazette to Michelle Malkin to Stanley Kurtz, anyone who voices negative comments about Barack Obama's history or questions it at all is being attacked.

In a recent article on Michelle Malkin's website Obama sought out a help from the Department of Justice, asking the GOVERNMENT to pick his battles for him. They obviously refused as no one has convincingly been able to prove true or false on either side. However, it is necessary to understand that Obama is not even in power yet, and is already seeking the oppression of conservative talk radio, and private funded organizations with the aid of government agencies.

No matter how much you may dislike republicans, this cannot be allowed.

Don't put Hitler in power again, not when we can clearly see his intentions.

"Those who forget history, are doomed to repeat it."

Posted by: dale | September 17, 2008 4:26 AM | Report abuse

TARGETING OF U.S. CITIZENS BY GOV'T AGENCIES: A ROOT CAUSE OF WALL STREET FINANCIAL CRISIS?

Could government "targeting" of American citizens outside the bounds of the judicial system be one of the root causes of the Wall Street financial meltdown that threatens to devastate the global economy?

Victims of so-called "organized gang stalking" claim that federal and local government agencies involved in intelligence, law enforcement, and revenue collection have established a network of secret programs aimed at destroying the financial well-being of "targeted" individuals -- who are denied due process of law as their financial resources are systematically expropriated.

These programs allegedly involve the interception of mail; surveillance, interception and alteration of telecommunications, including telephone and internet communications; fabrication of bank, credit card, mortgage and billing statements; surreptitious manipulation of personal and business bank and mortgage accounts.

Victims theorize that these "programs of personal destruction" are a derivative of past controversial government programs such as Cointelpro and Total Information Awareness. They maintain that the enactment of sweeping laws such as the USA Patriot Act, passed by Congress in the wake of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, have emboldened those who would use the powers of the state to restrict civil liberties as a tool of social control.

In effect, victims say, a secret parallel system of transaction processing has been established for persons targeted by government agencies. Victims allege that the goal is to destroy their capacity to earn a living and to support themselves and their families. They maintain that these "mechanics of personal destruction" closely resemble the tactics employed by pre-war Nazi Germany in its campaign against the Jews and other targeted groups, such as those deemed to be political "dissenters."

Victims charge that these programs also are designed to degrade their physical health, with health care professionals sometimes pressured to cooperate. Citizen vigilantes affiliated with government-funded community policing and "watch" groups are employed to harass and intimidate those targeted by these government programs, victims charge. These civilian vigilantes are believed to be equipped with high-tech instruments such as radiation-emitting"directed energy" weapons capable of causing serious adverse health effects -- what some describe as a "slow genocide."

Officials in the private sector are believed to have knowledge of some of these programs, since their cooperation is key to the functioning of the system. Victims charge that the government is using national security and the "war on terror" as a pretext to secure the cooperation of corporations and businesses. But they say it's also possible that the civilian overseers of these agencies, as well as civilian operatives, have been kept in the dark about the most nefarious aspects of these programs.

It's feared that the government takeover of more than half of the nation's mortgage market, and government bailouts and supervision of failed and financially troubled investment houses and insurers such as Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Bros. and AIG could help effectuate these programs.

Those who say they have been victimized by these programs are calling upon Congress to immediately convene hearings on unconstitutional, extra-legal abuses of power carried out under the direction of government agencies -- what they see as an unraveling of the American constitutional democracy and a descent into a corporate-fascist police state.


FOR MORE ON STATE-SUPPORTED DOMESTIC TERRORISM:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/government-agencies-support-domestic-torture-and-gang-stalking-says-noted-nowpublic-com-columnist

Posted by: scrivener | September 17, 2008 3:04 AM | Report abuse

Maybe Sarah Palin is going to bring David Brickner, the founder of "Jews for Jesus," with her to the rally.

"Two weeks ago, with Sarah Palin in attendance her church, the Wasilla Bible Church, gave its pulpit over to a figure viewed with deep hostility by many Jewish organizations: David Brickner, the executive director of Jews for Jesus.

Palin’s pastor, Larry Kroon, introduced Brickner on Aug. 17, according to a transcript of the sermon on the church’s website.

“He’s a leader of Jews for Jesus, a ministry that is out on the leading edge in a pressing, demanding area of witnessing and evangelism,” Kroon said.

Brickner then explained that Jesus and his disciples were themselves Jewish.

“The Jewish community, in particular, has a difficult time understanding this reality,” he said.
Brickner’s mission has drawn wide criticism from the organized Jewish community, and the Anti-Defamation League accused them in a report of “targeting Jews for conversion with subterfuge and deception.”

Brickner also described terrorist attacks on Israelis as God's "judgment of unbelief" of Jews who haven't embraced Christianity.

"Judgment is very real and we see it played out on the pages of the newspapers and on the television. It's very real. When [Brickner's son] was in Jerusalem he was there to witness some of that judgment, some of that conflict, when a Palestinian from East Jerusalem took a bulldozer and went plowing through a score of cars, killing numbers of people. Judgment — you can't miss it."

Palin was in church that day, Kroon said, though he cautioned against attributing Brickner’s views to her.

The executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, Ira Forman, cited the “cultural distance” between Palin and almost all American Jews.

“She’s totally out of step with the American Jewish community,” he said. “She is against reproductive freedom – even against abortion in the case of rape and incest. She has said that climate change is not man-made. She has said that she would favor teaching creationism in the schools. These are all way, way, way outside the mainstream.”

Posted by: Rachel | September 17, 2008 2:31 AM | Report abuse

"As a Jew, I cannot tell you how scare I am of an Obama presidency."

As a fellow Jew, you should be terribly afraid of a John McCain who only knows one type of diplomacy- and that is to bomb anyone you have differences with.

You want nuclear war in Israel's part of the world? Vote McCain.

He is reckless and unstable.

Read the Jerusalem Post interview with both Senator Obama and the "maverick." McCain here.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1215331099249

Stop the madness

Posted by: David | September 17, 2008 2:21 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: ziadora | September 17, 2008 1:16 AM

I think Hillary would be fine protesting with Palin. The political ramifications would be to much for the Obama camp to handle. These are both strong women, with different views. I can respect both of them. I can't believe the HATE from posters here. Where is the Unity to fight for the greater cause.
========
here here!! - why can't people just grow up!

Posted by: ozzi | September 17, 2008 2:16 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: ziadora | September 17, 2008 1:16 AM

I think Hillary would be fine protesting with Palin. The political ramifications would be to much for the Obama camp to handle. These are both strong women, with different views. I can respect both of them. I can't believe the HATE from posters here. Where is the Unity to fight for the greater cause.
========
here here!! - why can't people just grow up!

Posted by: ozzi | September 17, 2008 2:16 AM | Report abuse

It's because she doesn't want to be seen standing next to her.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2008 2:01 AM | Report abuse

Jewish-Americans are generally bright, moral, pleasant, non-violent, family oriented and tirelessly hard working people. In Israel, Jews got a small, distustingly harsh piece of desert for their homeland and through hard work and foresight they learned to adapt to the land and turn it into a flourishing, productive, functioning mecca... much to the chagrin and hatred of their neighbors. They have been harrassed and antigonized by people that can't hold a candle to them for their resolve to live happy productive lives. They make their neighbors look bad. I can tell by some comments here that the Jews in America have that same scenario playing out for them here in the U.S. It seems to me many negative comments towards Jews are based in jealousy, envy and hatred toward these genuinely great people. While I know that irresponsible, immature, insecure people often resent responsible, mature, secure people, I can't help but notice the malice and hatred is coming from Democrats. Suprisingly, Jews traditionally vote Democrat. I think Jews want to assume all people are inherently good; just that some are emotionally crippled by jealousy, envy and false-pride. The Jews have been victimized for years but refuse to be victims. Many Americans have never been victims yet perpetuate an attitude of victimization as a veil for their own lack of resolve to work hard and succeed in life. These people generally vote Democrat too. Once again the Jews make their neighbors here in America look bad. Not all Jews are wonderful, honest, hardworking people...but almost all are. I have the utmost respect and admiration for the Jewish people I know. I don't think they should vote Democrat, but other than that I like their attitude and outlook upon life. As an aside, not all people vote the way I think they should. I was raised Catholic and I vote Republican.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2008 1:55 AM | Report abuse

Pandering Palin. That's all it is, she's going there because they are telling her to.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2008 1:55 AM | Report abuse

Palin is not qualified to be vp or president. Everyone with knows it, even conservative pundits who hold America before their allegiance to a political party are speaking out against her.

Quit defending your own ignorance, you are doing a disservice to the country. When I travel I don't want to be mocked by people from other countries anymore and I believe Obama and Biden will provide that.

I never thought I would say this but congratulations conservative pundits.

Palin is no Hillary and not someone that should be a stand in for the president.

Vote Obama/Biden 08

Posted by: Sally | September 17, 2008 1:36 AM | Report abuse

NEWS>>Read Sen. John McCain's statement
addressing the senate on May 25, 2006..He asked for the passage of HIS Bill into the oversight of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and told of," the enormous risk Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole." The Democrats voted no, Why?? Sen. Obama gets the largest amount of money from both Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac. TRUE FACTS...

Posted by: Johnny be quick... | September 17, 2008 1:16 AM | Report abuse

This is just disgusting. Sarah Palin should not be representing our country. She's not only not qualified to be veep, but is a real nut.

Posted by: ziadora | September 17, 2008 1:16 AM | Report abuse

I think Hillary would be fine protesting with Palin. The political ramifications would be to much for the Obama camp to handle. These are both strong women, with different views. I can respect both of them. I can't believe the HATE from posters here. Where is the Unity to fight for the greater cause?

Posted by: Don | September 17, 2008 1:00 AM | Report abuse

To the workers at the Hormel pig factory....plz take your rods and practice your task on Sarah Palin, the pig with the lipstick.

Posted by: the racist mccains | September 17, 2008 12:34 AM | Report abuse

A small win for Palestine and a major defeat for the jewish bloodsuckers who control our government. America First.

Obama/Biden '08

Posted by: jakeD | September 17, 2008 12:30 AM | Report abuse

I distaste Hillary's political ambition and behavior during the Primary but boy oh boy does she look like God compare to this scary inexperienced I see Russia from my backyard religious fanatic. I am a believer in God but when you say something or preach something and are fulltime liar then you are a worthless human being. Bill Maher from HBO said it right there are just 'stupid' people out there who these Republicans are aiming for with all these negativity!

Posted by: Juan from L.A. | September 17, 2008 12:26 AM | Report abuse

I love it! Watching you Libs meltdown while Pennsylvania quietly turns red in November.

What is really sad is that this shows the true face of you Dem's and your anti-Israeli mindset. Iranians won't compete against Israeli's in the Olympics, and now Clinton won't joing Palin to condem the leader of Iran who is on our soil.

Rock on. As a Jew, I cannot tell you how scare I am of an Obama presidency.

Posted by: Liberals Melting Down! | September 17, 2008 12:23 AM | Report abuse

clinton who has addressed many of these types of rallies in the past has withdrawn from speaking due to the politicizations that was to obviously come from both her and palins presences at what should have been an apolotical event
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jVDdTXyizJSZq-zJ6D2Az16gjBiQD9387F000

Posted by: not anymore | September 17, 2008 12:22 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: clinton withdraws due to politcization of event | September 17, 2008 12:21 AM | Report abuse

Way to go Hillary. She can't hold a candle to you and everyone knows it.

I liked your interview with Diane Sawyer.

Posted by: Go Hillary | September 17, 2008 12:21 AM | Report abuse

Note that the Washington Post is DECIDING FOR HILLARY what she is doing.

I think Lynn de Rothschild and Hillary BOTH are fed up with empty suit Obama.

Posted by: philly | September 17, 2008 12:03 AM | Report abuse

It seems to me that the media has become so enamored with Sarah Palin that they have forgotten to cover an important aspect of the campaign: the candidates’ stance on issues, specifically foreign policy.
It’s true that the media has covered this in the past. However, it has been at a broad level. I think the candidates need to be asked specific questions about their foreign policy beliefs. Both candidates have gotten away with talking in generalities. Obama has talked about what he will change when he gets to the White House, but he doesn’t say how he will do it. McCain began to do the same thing at the convention. Change was the buzzword but he didn’t give much information as to how he would go about changing Washington.
The focus on Sarah Palin has taken away from this. The news media is doing its job as it examines her credentials and gives the American public her background information. I get that. At the same time, it has gone too far in some cases. But that’s a topic for another day.
As the media have focused their attention on Palin and the positive bump that she has given McCain, most other issues have been ignored. At least over the past few days the economy has become the big issue that everyone is talking about. It took a major financial disaster for that to happen, though.
I did some quick research and I noticed a somewhat disturbing thing. Many of the blogs I visited had discussed foreign policy in February. That’s seven months between entries.
I realize that foreign policy is not as sexy a subject when you compare it to digging up dirt on the new GOP Vice Presidential pick. But it is still one of the most important issues in the election, probably only behind the economy, so it should be covered with more care than it has received in the past few months.

Posted by: Stephen | September 16, 2008 11:53 PM | Report abuse

What about the mafioso-fascist kippah-heads ruling over Palestine?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 11:48 PM | Report abuse

Way to go Hillary! Don't let the Republicans "PUNK YOU" by having "nobody" Palin show up!

Didn't Palin attend a church that believes Jews will find redemption by converting to Christianity?! Palin will probably be there trying to convert Jews. LMAO!

Posted by: AJ | September 16, 2008 11:46 PM | Report abuse

That's part of the problem with America to much Jewish influence, from Iraq to Palistine to Iran, America is too much involved with Jewish lobbyists!

Posted by: AJ | September 16, 2008 11:43 PM | Report abuse

As a recovering Democrat and Iranian American woman, I am delighted that these two strong woman politicians are coming together to protest the open arms policy of the UN towards the islamist thug-o-chief/spokesman of the mafioso-fascist turbanheads ruling over Iran.

What a contrast that two popular American woman politicians would protest the arrival of ahmadinejad at UN and one obama plans to have pow-wow with him and his bosses whose only result is to legitimize the mullahs' illegitimate rule.

Here's praying that obama NEVER gets the opportunity.

Posted by: zardoshti | September 16, 2008 11:25 PM | Report abuse

What's Hillary have to share with Sarah, foreign policy-wise? How she dodged that barrage of sniper bullets--grin--in Bosnia?


Posted by: Phronsie | September 16, 2008 11:17 PM | Report abuse


My, oh my,oh well, I tought that saying things like "Stop Iran Now," meant far more than just stopping Iran's much maligned president from visiting the UN. I somehow thought that that was supposedly the place where nations, regardless of the quality of their relationships were to meet, and stop conflicts from boiling over into WAR.

It is absolutely absurd that the US Jewish community would stage a protest with the use of such a slogan. The US, afterall, first Bush, then Colin Powell, stood before the UN in full session and LIED about WMDs that Saddam was supposed to have possessed.

Now, with all of the fear-mongering by the Bush administration, leading to Bush's build-up of US forces in the Persian Gulf region, that has led Iran to increase it's efforts to build weapons with which to defend itself against OIL predator nations like the US and Britain, complains because Iran has stated that if IT IS ATTACKED, IT Will ATTACK ISRAEL.

In other words, Bush, Cheney, and if not them, then they hope McCain will attack Iran with no more evidence than the non-existent "evidence" that Bush used against Iraq.

Posted by: RonTruth | September 16, 2008 11:09 PM | Report abuse

Let me guess, Caribou Barbie - the Greedy Oil Party VP nominee, is a "foreign policy expert" because from her back porch in Alaska she can see Russia and from her front porch in Alaska she can see...Iran?


HAHAHA!

Posted by: Worse than Dan Quayle | September 16, 2008 10:48 PM | Report abuse


TARGETING OF U.S. CITIZENS BY GOV'T AGENCIES:

A ROOT CAUSE OF WALL STREET FINANCIAL MELTDOWN?

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/targeting-u-s-citizens-govt-agencies-root-cause-wall-street-financial-crisis

Posted by: scrivener | September 16, 2008 10:37 PM | Report abuse

What's the big deal? They already appeared together on Saturday Night Live, right?

Posted by: Marvel Goose | September 16, 2008 10:33 PM | Report abuse

I knew it!!! Clinton in cahoots with Sarah Palin. Clinton will never miss an opportunity to damage Obama. Then she questions why the democratic grassroots wouldn't support her.

Posted by: the racist mccains | September 16, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

This is self-parody -- the Palin/McCain camp will go to any length to try to get some reflected glow off of Sen. Clinton. Hilarious if it weren't so sad ...
OH, and by the way, did you hear that one of Palin's supporters is hypothesizing that she installed her tanning bed to fight depression from Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD)? Really? With friends like that ... and if you want a laugh ... check out this video of McCain's economic outlook.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAMDeGdOkZg

Posted by: Did I mention I'm a Tanner? | September 16, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

The Bush administration sold out to Iran in late June to create the appearance that the "surge" was working. Debka.com reports that we promised not to invade Iran; they stopped sending suicide bombers and IED's against American troops in Iraq.

Bush promised not to create the G8 blockade of Iran that would starve their economy of deisel fuel and gasoline. Iran helped lower oil prices.

Bush encouraged Georgia to take on South Ossetia and low-and-behold new international sanctions against Iran's nuclear weapons programs have vanished. Russia now will finish Iran's nuclear reactor.

With Russia's occupation of Georgia Bush delivers to Iran the promise to make it difficult for Israel to attack Iran's nuclear program - no Georgian airfields to fly from and now the Russian fleet stationed in the Mediterranean.

Protest Ahmadinejad if you like but the deal has been done.

Ahmadinejad remembers the secret payoff to keep the American embassy hostages till after the Carter re-election campaign failed. The owners of the networks loved announcing how many days the hostages were held- showing Carter to be the weakened leader.

Protest if you like but it was the Bush administration that refused to stop Syria and Hezbollah from taking over Lebanon, and installing tens of thousands of new missiles pointed at Israel.

Make an issue if you like but remember - creating an atmosphere for war feeds the appetite for a military leader.

Better to ask Ahmadinejad what cooperation he has given to the "war on terror" that he is now criticized by Al Queda.

Better to ask Ahmadinejad what cooperation Iran is giving to stabilize the global economy with oil production.

Better to ask him what relationship with the United States might be possible once the sovereign rights of Iran are respected and the issue of nuclear power goes away.

Then ask him whether the United States has sent him "feelers" to begin a negotiation process to solve mutual problems such as economic development and mutual security.

He is proud enough, and quick enough, he might spill the beans on Condaleeza Rice.

Posted by: daniel Kerlinsky | September 16, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

What's wrong with the two parties comming together for a good cause. Seems to me if the Democrats and Republicans would work together more often, instead of fighting all the time, more things would get done. Different political views should not cause so much anger between the American people or the politicians running for office.

Posted by: Sully | September 16, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Hillary should not dignify that fraudulent person in any way. I hope she realizes that if she gets gulled, she loses a huge swath of the female electorate -- permanently.

Posted by: Helen | September 16, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

Obama's Double-Dealing Diplomacy
1 hour, 52 minutes ago (9-16-08)
Investor's Business Daily


Election '08: Barack Obama premised his campaign on calling for a speedy withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. But now he's been quietly telling Iraq "not so fast." It's part of a deceptive pattern.


Election: Barack Obama, who premised his campaign on calling for a speedy withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, has now been quietly telling Iraq "not so fast." It's part of a deceptive pattern.Iraq's Foreign Minister Moshyar Zebari told the New York Post's Amir Taheri that Obama made delaying the troops' return a key theme of his talks with Iraqi leaders during his campaign stop in Baghdad last July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the U.S. elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari told Teheri, on the record.

Funny, that's not what Obama told voters. He has made an immediate pullout the cornerstone of his campaign. Taheri's report signals the Democratic standard-bearer would manipulate the war's end for political advantage and is willing to deceive voters to do it.

This in itself is reprehensible. But his secret calls also leave U.S. troops unnecessarily in harm's way. It's the kind of foreign policy meddling that serves Obama's interests over the national interest.

"Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn't want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America," Taheri reported. "To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years."

Can Obama be trusted? We ask because he's shown a pattern of secretive double-dealing with voters, not just in his talking about small town voters one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco, as Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin pointed out, but particularly in foreign affairs.

It dates back to at least February, when Obama's economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, secretly told the Canadian embassy that Obama's demagoguery against NAFTA in the primaries was just a Styrofoam-pillar bid to win the Ohio vote.

Obama's pattern of deception continued. In March, Colombian troops raided a FARC terrorist camp in Ecuador and recovered a terrorist computer belonging to a top FARC warlord, Raul Reyes.

Computer e-mails revealed that someone who knew Obama's positions had secretly met with the terrorists and assured them Obama would cut U.S. military aid under Plan Colombia and veto its free trade pact. Both are major goals of the Marxist terrorists aligned with America's enemies.

Subsequent events confirmed this. Obama did come out in favor of shutting Colombia out of free trade. More disturbingly, Obama adviser Daniel Restrepo last week told Colombia's Radio Caracol that Obama planned to convert the military aid Colombia needs to crush terrorists into social aid programs that don't.

That's not the end of it. Now Obama is double-dealing with Iraqi officials to leave American troops in harm's way and prolong the appearance of war long enough to call it a failure and win votes.

The astonishing thing about Obama's deals is they're the very thing Democrats accused Republicans of without a shred of proof.

They accused Richard Nixon of making a secret deal with the North Vietnamese to prolong the Vietnam war enough to presumably win election in 1968.

Years later, in 1980, they accused Ronald Reagan of making a secret deal with Iranian terrorists holding U.S. diplomats hostage to win election over incumbent Jimmy Carter.

Neither of these claims, often repeated by leftist historians, has ever been proven. But the statement of Iraq's foreign minister, speaking to a leading writer on foreign policy, is considerably stronger as evidence. It signals that Obama places politics over the national interest to the extent that he would work against his own public positions to gull voters into electing him.

It's the absolute opposite of John McCain's courageous position supporting the surge in Iraq, even as politicos were warning him he'd lose the election for it. "I'd rather lose an election than lose a war," McCain said.

With Obama's promises to sit down with dictators in Venezuela, Cuba, Syria and Iran, voters have a right to ask if he's made any deals at odds with his public condemnations of them, too. Before he starts acting like president, he needs to come clean to voters and reveal his true positions. Whatever they are, voters have a right to know.


Posted by: Scott | September 16, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Clinton absolutely needs to attend this event! Sen. Clinton has been around the international and national scene for years; Sen. Clinton's position on international matters--including the Middle East--is long established. Sen. Clinton knows a considerable number of world leaders. Sen. Clinton is well respected around the world.

Never mind that Gov. Palin hasn't a clue as to what is going on outside her backyard. Never mind that Gov. Palin doesn't have any positions on international matters. Never mind that Gov. Palin has never met a world leader. Never mind that Gov. Palin is not known--let alone respected--by any worlds leader.

Rather, take note that Gov. Palin, like President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has been connected to ultra-radical extremists who believe crazy notions like terrorist attacks against Israel are god's punishment of the Jewish people. Gov. Palin sat in her church while such crazy--and dangerous--anti-Semitic positions were preached in her church. In addition, Gov. Palin quoted Westbrook Pegler--an anti-Semite--in her convention speech!

Sen. Clinton's appearance is needed and is meaningful as Sen. Clinton represents the rational American majority.

Posted by: socalgal59 | September 16, 2008 8:43 PM | Report abuse


NEWSWEEK, Palin goes from most popular to least popular in three days. It looks like the novelty is waring off already. This may be one of the fastest "Flash in the pans in history"
Move over Taylor Hicks.

The polls reflected the early success of her strategy. In the three days after Palin joined Team McCain--Aug. 29-31--32 percent of voters told the pollsters at Diageo/Hotline that they had a favorable opinion of her; most (48 percent) didn't know enough to say. By Sept. 4, however, 43 percent of Diageo/Hotline respondents approved of Palin with only 25 percent disapproving--an 18-point split. Apparently, voters were liking what they were hearing. Four days later, Palin's approval rating had climbed to 47 percent (+17), and by Sept. 13 it had hit 52 percent. The gap at that point between her favorable and unfavorable numbers--22 percent--was larger than either McCain's (+20) or Obama's (+13).

But then a funny thing happened: Palin lost some of her luster. Since Sept. 13, Palin's unfavorables have climbed from 30 percent to 36 percent. Meanwhile, her favorables have slipped from 52 percent to 48 percent. That's a three-day net swing of -10 points, and it leaves her in the Sept. 15 Diageo/Hotline tracking poll tied for the smallest favorability split (+12) of any of the Final Four. Over the course of a single weekend, in other words, Palin went from being the most popular White House hopeful to the least.

What happened? I'd argue that Palin's considerable novelty is starting to wear off. In part it's the result of a steady stream of unhelpful stories: her unfamiliarity with the Bush Doctrine during last Thursday's interview with Charles Gibson (video above); her refusal to cooperate with the Troopergate investigation; her repeated stretching of the truth on everything from earmarks to the Bridge to Nowhere to the amount of energy her state produces. That stuff has a way of inspiring disapproval and eroding one's support. (Interestingly, Palin's preparedness numbers--about 50 percent yes, 45 percent no--haven't budged.) But mostly it's the start of an inevitable process. Between now and Nov. 4, voters will stop seeing Palin as a fascinating story and starting taking her measure as an actual candidate for office. Some will approve; some won't. It remains to be seen whether Palin's recent slide will continue, or hurt John McCain in the polls. But it's hard to argue that the journey from intriguing new superstar to earthbound politician--a necessary part of the process--doesn't involve a loss of altitude.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse


NEWSWEEK, Palin goes from most popular to least popular in three days. It looks like the novelty is waring off already. This may be one of the fastest "Flash in the pans in history"
Move over Taylor Hicks.

The polls reflected the early success of her strategy. In the three days after Palin joined Team McCain--Aug. 29-31--32 percent of voters told the pollsters at Diageo/Hotline that they had a favorable opinion of her; most (48 percent) didn't know enough to say. By Sept. 4, however, 43 percent of Diageo/Hotline respondents approved of Palin with only 25 percent disapproving--an 18-point split. Apparently, voters were liking what they were hearing. Four days later, Palin's approval rating had climbed to 47 percent (+17), and by Sept. 13 it had hit 52 percent. The gap at that point between her favorable and unfavorable numbers--22 percent--was larger than either McCain's (+20) or Obama's (+13).

But then a funny thing happened: Palin lost some of her luster. Since Sept. 13, Palin's unfavorables have climbed from 30 percent to 36 percent. Meanwhile, her favorables have slipped from 52 percent to 48 percent. That's a three-day net swing of -10 points, and it leaves her in the Sept. 15 Diageo/Hotline tracking poll tied for the smallest favorability split (+12) of any of the Final Four. Over the course of a single weekend, in other words, Palin went from being the most popular White House hopeful to the least.

What happened? I'd argue that Palin's considerable novelty is starting to wear off. In part it's the result of a steady stream of unhelpful stories: her unfamiliarity with the Bush Doctrine during last Thursday's interview with Charles Gibson (video above); her refusal to cooperate with the Troopergate investigation; her repeated stretching of the truth on everything from earmarks to the Bridge to Nowhere to the amount of energy her state produces. That stuff has a way of inspiring disapproval and eroding one's support. (Interestingly, Palin's preparedness numbers--about 50 percent yes, 45 percent no--haven't budged.) But mostly it's the start of an inevitable process. Between now and Nov. 4, voters will stop seeing Palin as a fascinating story and starting taking her measure as an actual candidate for office. Some will approve; some won't. It remains to be seen whether Palin's recent slide will continue, or hurt John McCain in the polls. But it's hard to argue that the journey from intriguing new superstar to earthbound politician--a necessary part of the process--doesn't involve a loss of altitude.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse


NEWSWEEK, Palin goes from most popular to least popular in three days. It looks like the novelty is waring off already. This may be one of the fastest "Flash in the pans in history"
Move over Taylor Hicks.

The polls reflected the early success of her strategy. In the three days after Palin joined Team McCain--Aug. 29-31--32 percent of voters told the pollsters at Diageo/Hotline that they had a favorable opinion of her; most (48 percent) didn't know enough to say. By Sept. 4, however, 43 percent of Diageo/Hotline respondents approved of Palin with only 25 percent disapproving--an 18-point split. Apparently, voters were liking what they were hearing. Four days later, Palin's approval rating had climbed to 47 percent (+17), and by Sept. 13 it had hit 52 percent. The gap at that point between her favorable and unfavorable numbers--22 percent--was larger than either McCain's (+20) or Obama's (+13).

But then a funny thing happened: Palin lost some of her luster. Since Sept. 13, Palin's unfavorables have climbed from 30 percent to 36 percent. Meanwhile, her favorables have slipped from 52 percent to 48 percent. That's a three-day net swing of -10 points, and it leaves her in the Sept. 15 Diageo/Hotline tracking poll tied for the smallest favorability split (+12) of any of the Final Four. Over the course of a single weekend, in other words, Palin went from being the most popular White House hopeful to the least.

What happened? I'd argue that Palin's considerable novelty is starting to wear off. In part it's the result of a steady stream of unhelpful stories: her unfamiliarity with the Bush Doctrine during last Thursday's interview with Charles Gibson (video above); her refusal to cooperate with the Troopergate investigation; her repeated stretching of the truth on everything from earmarks to the Bridge to Nowhere to the amount of energy her state produces. That stuff has a way of inspiring disapproval and eroding one's support. (Interestingly, Palin's preparedness numbers--about 50 percent yes, 45 percent no--haven't budged.) But mostly it's the start of an inevitable process. Between now and Nov. 4, voters will stop seeing Palin as a fascinating story and starting taking her measure as an actual candidate for office. Some will approve; some won't. It remains to be seen whether Palin's recent slide will continue, or hurt John McCain in the polls. But it's hard to argue that the journey from intriguing new superstar to earthbound politician--a necessary part of the process--doesn't involve a loss of altitude.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse


NEWSWEEK, Palin goes from most popular to least popular in three days. It looks like the novelty is waring off already. This may be one of the fastest "Flash in the pans in history"
Move over Taylor Hicks.

The polls reflected the early success of her strategy. In the three days after Palin joined Team McCain--Aug. 29-31--32 percent of voters told the pollsters at Diageo/Hotline that they had a favorable opinion of her; most (48 percent) didn't know enough to say. By Sept. 4, however, 43 percent of Diageo/Hotline respondents approved of Palin with only 25 percent disapproving--an 18-point split. Apparently, voters were liking what they were hearing. Four days later, Palin's approval rating had climbed to 47 percent (+17), and by Sept. 13 it had hit 52 percent. The gap at that point between her favorable and unfavorable numbers--22 percent--was larger than either McCain's (+20) or Obama's (+13).

But then a funny thing happened: Palin lost some of her luster. Since Sept. 13, Palin's unfavorables have climbed from 30 percent to 36 percent. Meanwhile, her favorables have slipped from 52 percent to 48 percent. That's a three-day net swing of -10 points, and it leaves her in the Sept. 15 Diageo/Hotline tracking poll tied for the smallest favorability split (+12) of any of the Final Four. Over the course of a single weekend, in other words, Palin went from being the most popular White House hopeful to the least.

What happened? I'd argue that Palin's considerable novelty is starting to wear off. In part it's the result of a steady stream of unhelpful stories: her unfamiliarity with the Bush Doctrine during last Thursday's interview with Charles Gibson (video above); her refusal to cooperate with the Troopergate investigation; her repeated stretching of the truth on everything from earmarks to the Bridge to Nowhere to the amount of energy her state produces. That stuff has a way of inspiring disapproval and eroding one's support. (Interestingly, Palin's preparedness numbers--about 50 percent yes, 45 percent no--haven't budged.) But mostly it's the start of an inevitable process. Between now and Nov. 4, voters will stop seeing Palin as a fascinating story and starting taking her measure as an actual candidate for office. Some will approve; some won't. It remains to be seen whether Palin's recent slide will continue, or hurt John McCain in the polls. But it's hard to argue that the journey from intriguing new superstar to earthbound politician--a necessary part of the process--doesn't involve a loss of altitude.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Clinton absolutely needs to attend this event! Sen. Clinton has been around the international and national scene for years; Sen. Clinton's position on international matters--including the Middle East--is long established. Sen. Clinton knows a considerable number of world leaders. Sen. Clinton is well respected around the world.

Never mind that Gov. Palin hasn't a clue as to what is going on outside her backyard. Never mind that Gov. Palin doesn't have any positions on international matters. Never mind that Gov. Palin has never met a world leader. Never mind that Gov. Palin is not known--let alone respected--by any worlds leader.

Rather, take note that Gov. Palin, like President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has been connected to ultra-radical extremists who believe crazy notions like terrorist attacks against Israel are god's punishment of the Jewish people. Gov. Palin sat in her church while such crazy--and dangerous--anti-Semitic positions were preached in her church. In addition, Gov. Palin quoted Westbrook Pegler--an anti-Semite--in her convention speech!

Sen. Clinton's appearance is needed and is meaningful as Sen. Clinton represents the rational American majority.

Posted by: socalgal59 | September 16, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Clinton absolutely needs to attend this event! Sen. Clinton has been around the international and national scene for years; Sen. Clinton's position on international matters--including the Middle East--is long established. Sen. Clinton knows a considerable number of world leaders. Sen. Clinton is well respected around the world.

Never mind that Gov. Palin hasn't a clue as to what is going on outside her backyard. Never mind that Gov. Palin doesn't have any positions on international matters. Never mind that Gov. Palin has never met a world leader. Never mind that Gov. Palin is not known--let alone respected--by any worlds leader.

Rather, take note that Gov. Palin, like President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has been connected to ultra-radical extremists who believe crazy notions like terrorist attacks against Israel are god's punishment of the Jewish people. Gov. Palin sat in her church while such crazy--and dangerous--anti-Semitic positions were preached in her church. In addition, Gov. Palin quoted Westbrook Pegler--an anti-Semite--in her convention speech!

Sen. Clinton's appearance is needed and is meaningful as Sen. Clinton represents the rational American majority.


Posted by: socalgal59 | September 16, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

Do you think Hilary is covering all her bases her to get some kind of appointment no matter who wins in November???

Posted by: Dee K | September 16, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

Israeli Lobby organizations are good at inciting fear, stirring up false hysteria. They used the same techniques prior to inciting Bush Administration to attack Iraq. They are using the same technique once more to create the illusion of fear from Iran.

As an American, I don't find Iran to be the issue at this time. The issues for USA are poor economy, broken infrastructure, exported professional jobs, lack of medical insurance for many Americans, homelessness, and over burdened borrowing from other nations.

Why Israeli Lobby would not worry about USA? Did we not sacrifice enough American lives in Iraq? Did we not spend enough borrowed money from other nations to destroy Iraq? We could have used the money to upgrade the entire USA rail system, plus rebuild many of our old school systems? Enough is enough.

Mrs. Clinton, please don’t repeat your earlier mistake in regard to Iraq. Let Iran be.

Posted by: Saint Michael Traveler | September 16, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

What NO Obotomy Victims leaving post?!?!

I'm speechless...

Posted by: Not a Pawn to ObamaCON! | September 16, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

You got it all wrong.
Hillary is much closer to being a Red Republican than a Red Democrat.
When Sarah and Hillary sit down to talk, they will find much in common.
Wouldn't a Palin/Clinton ticket be something!!
Bush - Nobel Peace Prize - 2030

Posted by: canamdutch | September 16, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Now, wouldn't it be something if Senator Clinton actually defused Sarah Palin by forcefully coming out against her nomintion. Not because she is a woman, but because Palin makes a mockery of true sexist attitudes and is 180 degress apart from everything Clinton stands for.

I have more on this, along with the Saturday Night Live Clinton/Palin parody, for those who missed it, at:
http://scootmandubious.blogspot.com/2008/09/wherefore-art-thou-hillary.html

Posted by: scootmandubious | September 16, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

pathetic. For Clinton to appear (regardless of when she was invited) is an implicit endorsement of Palin's foreign policy approach - which is zip.

Posted by: corstr | September 16, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, that was vague -- as I understand the article, Hillary DIANE Clinton has no intention of pulling out (even if Obama asked her to?).

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Phil:

"Clinton has been informed of Palin's plans to attend the event and that she has no intention of pulling out."

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Did the first two commentators even read the article?

"Clinton accepted the invitation to the rally back in August, before Palin was part of the Republican presidential ticket."

Posted by: Phil | September 16, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, so much for those Democrats trying to downplay "PUMA" movement -- there was a news story from a former Hillary pollster predicting this kind of backlash -- I've noticed that Hillary herself has been curiously silent.

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

This is too much. So much for Democratic unity. Hillary was the best choice for VP. No wonder she goes Poof! at http://wwww.boppoll.com. She probably was the better choice.

Posted by: Where in the world is Bill? | September 16, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Another SNL skit, here we come!!!

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company