The Fact-Checker, by Michael Dobbs

Don't or hasn't lots of politicians had to quit for embellishing. A lie is a lie. So you are saying this is a little lie.Why are Obama's lies little lies and Hillary's are all whoppers?

Also didn't we spend $60 million on an investigation trying to decide what the definition of is, is?

Looks like we should spend more time learning the difference between Professor and professor.

Biden has to quit one campaign because he was accused for plagerism. Obama gets praise as a great orator when he xeroxes(love that word)

OBAMA THE GOD!

You cannot ask Obama to explain anything because he is exempt from all questions, explanations, background, experience, relationships, real estate, religious beliefs, religious relationships, his current/past religion. The lord Obama has risen, please go prone. Let the world stop for a minute's silence. Praise be Obama.

I would like to issue a warning to the Obama supporters, your pure hatred and divisiveness will cost your candidate the election should he win the nomination, first of all you are f following a man that has based his platform on being a uniter, yet you are so vicious, and hate filled in your criticism of Senator Clinton, it's one thing to pitch for your candidate, but it is another thing to just be plane out hateful, many see it and many are turned off by it and if you think that Obama can win the General election on is own without the Clinton Supporters you better think again, do the numbers and that should sober you up from the Kool-Aid that you have been drinking, if Obama supporters are so ready to turn a deaf ear to certain facts about their candidate and put him up on a pedestal as if he is some sort of Messiah, then they will not hold him accountable and that in itself is scary, watch what you say and how you say it because you are consistently alienating the Clinton Supporters and we do have options come November which consist of:
1. Start a write in Campaigned for Hillary
2. Stay at Home
3. Vote for Nader
4. Vote for McCain
All of which will cost your candidate the election, and when this occurs, I hope that you blame yourselves for your despicable behavior. It is evident to me that most of the individuals on this site are young disrespectful people, and if not, that is even more disgraceful, your have dragged Senator Clinton through the mud with you vicious accusations and lies, if your would do your research and look at her record objectively, you would see that the majority of the things that you accuse her of are simply media driven, Republican driven hate mongering. You take this woman who is a champion for children's rights, who was a key player in pushing for the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to protect the rights of women and families, who under the good old boy corporate America would loose their jobs if they had to go out on leave to have their children, or take care of their sick parents, a woman that went to China and stood in front one of the most hateful regimes and spoke out against the injustice and slaughter of thousands of female infants due to their Nazi mentality that one Gender is more worthy to live, a woman that yes sat on the board of Wal-Mart, which your candidate was quick to point out, but never pointed out that she was a throne in their sides because of her constant demand for equal pay and equal rights for women, a woman who started her political Career years ago, sitting on the Nixon impeachment panel and being a part of the American Political system. A woman who is so intelligent, that she could be at any large Corporate Firm making millions, but chose to be a champion for children and all people, a woman who had to publicly endure the type of deception that most women have in their lifetime, but not in the public eye and still was made out to be part of the problem instead of the victim, I guess that mean that every woman who has been cheated on, it is somehow their fault according to her critics, how truly disgusting, you chastise her for staying with her husband, but how many of you have stayed through worst, but no one in the world knows. Have you researched her, have you really taken a truly good look at her policies, as I have your candidate, because as an American you owe it to yourself and your fellow American to give each candidate a good hard look. Be careful what you hope for, because it just may come true, she may lose this thing but if you continue to viciously attack her, your candidate will be the biggest loser come November. A word to the wise.

OBAMA THE GOD!

You cannot ask Obama to explain anything because he is exempt from all questions, explanations, background, experience, relationships, real estate, religious beliefs, religious relationships, his current/past religion. The lord Obama has risen, please go prone. Let the world stop for a minute's silence. Praise be Obama.

I would like to issue a warning to the Obama supporters, your pure hatred and divisiveness will cost your candidate the election should he win the nomination, first of all you are f following a man that has based his platform on being a uniter, yet you are so vicious, and hate filled in your criticism of Senator Clinton, it's one thing to pitch for your candidate, but it is another thing to just be plane out hateful, many see it and many are turned off by it and if you think that Obama can win the General election on is own without the Clinton Supporters you better think again, do the numbers and that should sober you up from the Kool-Aid that you have been drinking, if Obama supporters are so ready to turn a deaf ear to certain facts about their candidate and put him up on a pedestal as if he is some sort of Messiah, then they will not hold him accountable and that in itself is scary, watch what you say and how you say it because you are consistently alienating the Clinton Supporters and we do have options come November which consist of:
1. Start a write in Campaigned for Hillary
2. Stay at Home
3. Vote for Nader
4. Vote for McCain
All of which will cost your candidate the election, and when this occurs, I hope that you blame yourselves for your despicable behavior. It is evident to me that most of the individuals on this site are young disrespectful people, and if not, that is even more disgraceful, your have dragged Senator Clinton through the mud with you vicious accusations and lies, if your would do your research and look at her record objectively, you would see that the majority of the things that you accuse her of are simply media driven, Republican driven hate mongering. You take this woman who is a champion for children's rights, who was a key player in pushing for the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to protect the rights of women and families, who under the good old boy corporate America would loose their jobs if they had to go out on leave to have their children, or take care of their sick parents, a woman that went to China and stood in front one of the most hateful regimes and spoke out against the injustice and slaughter of thousands of female infants due to their Nazi mentality that one Gender is more worthy to live, a woman that yes sat on the board of Wal-Mart, which your candidate was quick to point out, but never pointed out that she was a throne in their sides because of her constant demand for equal pay and equal rights for women, a woman who started her political Career years ago, sitting on the Nixon impeachment panel and being a part of the American Political system. A woman who is so intelligent, that she could be at any large Corporate Firm making millions, but chose to be a champion for children and all people, a woman who had to publicly endure the type of deception that most women have in their lifetime, but not in the public eye and still was made out to be part of the problem instead of the victim, I guess that mean that every woman who has been cheated on, it is somehow their fault according to her critics, how truly disgusting, you chastise her for staying with her husband, but how many of you have stayed through worst, but no one in the world knows. Have you researched her, have you really taken a truly good look at her policies, as I have your candidate, because as an American you owe it to yourself and your fellow American to give each candidate a good hard look. Be careful what you hope for, because it just may come true, she may lose this thing but if you continue to viciously attack her, your candidate will be the biggest loser come November. A word to the wise.

All these polls seem pretty meaningless. Chris Matthews was giving Hillary's obituary before New Hampshire voting even took place. There is something I find puzzling about Obama and FOX is probably the only network that will cover it. Obama votes present on 130 controversial votes, and he votes and says he made a mistake, but when it came to voting on allowing a doctor in the delivery room for partial birth abortions to treat the infant if it was born alive, he VOTED AGAINST ALLOWING A DOCTOR TO TREAT THE INFANT! For a man that's so wishy washy and flip floppy on his voting record, that is a pretty strong liberal vote. A disgusting one, but it shows his true colors. Pregnancy is punishment after all.

Obama always tells little lies, in your opinion, and Hillary always tells whoppers.

Didn't we spend $60 million investigating what is is and what sex is.

Looks like we could look at the difference between Professor and professor a little closer. I'm not recommending $60 million.

Didn't Joe Biden get forced out of an earlier campaign for xeroxing. Ole Obama got praised as a great orator for xeroxing.
Sounds like a double standard to me.

I would still like Mr. Fact Checher to check the little lies Obama told in his interviews before his speech, lies in his speech, and lies he told in his post interviews about when, where, and how he heard about his pastor comments.

On a lighter note, I still chuckle over a story that the late, great comedian Dennis Wolfberg like to tell. He taught English at a high school and was perturbed that in this informal, familiar, and sometimes class-less era, that his students would refer to him as Dennis or Denny. Finally, in response to one of his students who was one of the worst culprits in this regard, he exclaimed: "That's Mr. Wolfberg, to you!" The lad sputtered in reply, "I didn't know that you were married."

The blog is correct. In this instance the two titles reflect a distinction without a difference. If, on the other hand, Obama were to use the title of professor, say, after his signature on a letter, he would be overstepping.

Richard Cross
Professor of English
University of Maryland

On a lighter note, I still chuckle over a story that the late, great comedian Dennis Wolfberg like to tell. He taught English at a high school and was perturbed that in this informal, familiar, and sometimes class-less era, that his students would refer to him as Dennis or Denny. Finally, in response to one of his students who was one of the worst culprits in this regard, he exclaimed: "That's Mr. Wolfberg, to you!" The lad sputtered in reply, "I didn't know that you were married."

The blog is correct. In this instance the two titles reflect a distinction without a difference. If, on the other hand, Obama were to use the title of professor, say, after his signature on a letter, that would be Pinocchio in the other direction.

Richard Cross
Professor of English
University of Maryland

So, Professor Cross, you are saying that a signature on a LETTER is more important than lying to the American people?

Obama reported that he was a professor, and that's a lie.
just like he lied about being poor, lied about being raised by a single mom, lied about his grandmother being prejudice,lied about Rezko, lied about Wright.

he's a professional liar.

we all know this is the Obama is GOD column, but really, get over it.

Statement: Obama wasn't a law professor.

Fact: Obama WAS a law professor.

And only one Pinocchio? How much clearer does a Clinton campaign lie get than this one?

Come on. This whole "issue" is TOTAL BUNK! The UofC Law School has confirmed Obama is / was a professor.

Read, learn, live:
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html

"From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a PROFESSOR in the Law School."

Duh!

Case CLOSED!

The kitchen sink is worn mighty thin no?

1 Pinocchio is generous IMHO.

This deserves zero! University of Chicago press release said Obama was a professor, albeit not tenured. Taught 3 classes a year for 3 years straight (plus 3 years when he had adjunct status). How about at least printing the full response from University of Chicago? It's not like he gave a lecture or two - he taught classes for 3 years for Pete's sake. Is there anyone in the world who wouldn't consider that a 'professor.'!? The key point is that he understands the Constitution in detail, which is far better than any of the morons running our country right now.

Wow the Hillary supporters are really grasping at staws here. You should really drop it, it makes the Hillary campaign look petty and mean-spirited.

RE: Singer "Are we really making a mountain out of a mole hill? If so, why did Obama change his website to reflect his actual title?..."

Please. This is retarded.

Here's why he changed his website: Because he wants to be 100% accurate and isn't seeking to intentionally mislead people.

AND

Because no matter how silly or petty or inaccurate HRC's attacks are, they have an impact.

Remember how a significant of HRC's supporters believe Obama is a Muslim? Yeah, that's an example.

Does it matter that he actually isn't a Muslim? Does it matter that if he was a Muslim, it shouldn't matter (since when is it ok to discriminate based on religion)?

So congrats. You've got this whole "Politics" thing pretty wired team HRC.

But is this helping?

The large 'P', small 'p' distinction is a real one-- as the Fact Checker found for himself, anyone who teaches at a college or university is often called 'professor' even if that's not his or her title. The University of Chicago itself referred to Obama as 'professor.'

This is a silly dispute. And I write this as a tenured professor, myself, teaching political science at Cornell.

The University of Chicago alreadly issued a statement affirming Obama's title as Sr. Lecturer and Obama's status as professor. In fact, the University of Chicago offered him a position to become a tenured or full-time professor, but he declined.

So I don't see how a Pinnochio test is even warranted. At best he would have half a Pinnochio.

It is easy to see the jealousy and dare I say it, hate, in some of the responses of the Obama-haters.

Do you have a site where you total up the Pinocchios given to each candidate and what the cause was?

AJ:

I don't "hate" Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

BTW: I doubt that his spokesman PHIL Singer e-mailed that "UPDATE" above ; )

FactChecker is on Clinton payroll:

How does that explain the MULTIPLE threads (and maximum number of Pinocchios) on her Bosnia trip?

Anyone else:

Is there an April Fools' Day joke going on at the main thread (I can't access the comments)?

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/31/mccain_derides_obamas_national.html#comments

To "The Truth" and "Mike":

You've got it exactly. I worried for half a second when I heard about this Clinton-fabricated lie, but forgot completely about it when I read what UChicago Law School had to say about it. They should have the last word: it is, after all, their school and their faculty.

However, Singer and co. are definitely changing something about this campaign, for me at least. I used to say that I was for Obama but would be happy (more or less) if Clinton won the nomination. In the last several weeks that has changed for me. I am still for Obama, but would not vote at all if Hillary becomes my party's nominee. She and Bill and especially Chelsea exhibit an arrogance and disdain for, and dismiss out of hand, any thought or idea that differs from their own. Don't we already have a president like that?

Jake D:

Can't you find some other blog in which to exhibit your profound intelligence? Or do you frequent them all? I'm quite sure your depth of understanding would be put to better use somewhere else.

The Truth:

Would it matter to you if Obama were lying about not being Muslim?

janedoe:

No, to both questions.

First of all, the one Pinocchio is for Phil Singer, who works for Hillary Clinton.

Secondly, the University of Chicago Law School released this statement regarding this:

"The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined."

Obama was considered a professor by the University, and was offered a tenure-track professorship several times over the 12 years he spent teaching there.

All the trolling and ranting in the world won't change these facts a bit.

If anything, I think the "Fact-Checker" is going very easy on Phil Singer by issuing only one Pinocchio, probably because his job in the Clinton campaign is to "spin" anything he can to damage Obama and/or help Clinton.

JakeD:

I think Professor Cross' point was that if Obama had given himself the title of "Professor", then that would have been a lie. But all of our "Lecturers" are addressed as "professor" by the students.

I agree with mike that this is all very silly. If you teach in a university/college setting, who cares what label you're given? I certainly don't -- most times I'm addressed as "Dr." and not "Professor" anyways. The real distinction is having tenure (or being on the tenure track) or not.

Obviously, pagun, some of us think there's a difference between tenured professors and "Senior Lecturer" -- you, not so much -- I also think that Barack HUSSEIN Obama should get Pinnochios on this one, not Phil Singer.

Notwithstanding my forty plus years in the professorate,I regret the slime which the Clinton campaign insists on presenting as evidence. bruf

mnteng:

He (and his campaign) HAS referred to himself as "Professor" -- from Phil Singer above: "Senator Obama has often referred to himself as 'a constitutional law professor' out on the campaign trail." I think that's the rub.

Chalk up another Pinnochio for the Clinton campaign. Jeez, the sad thing is she doesn't need to engage in this kind of crap. I voted for her in 2000 because I thought she had what it takes to be a senator, and I found her a viable candidate for president based on her actual (not imaginary or trumped-up) experience. She didn't need to make up stuff about her own experience any more than she needed to attack Obama on false premises.

I'm kind of frustrated, because even a couple of months ago I was happy that the Democratic party had two excellent frontrunners, and now Clinton seems determined to drag it down into the mud.

The entire thread above asks the question: "But was Obama out of line when he called himself a "law professor"? You really need me to look for the exact speech / book that Obama made that claim himself?

You always seem ready to excuse Obama's exaggerations. Giving yourself the title, "constitutional law professor" when you've been a lecturer is a significant exaggeration. It is far different from being referred to as "professor" by students.
Obama's "overstating" the Kennedy family's role in the program that brought his father to study in the US was an outright lie. Surely Obama knew his father came the year before the Kennedy family became involved in the program. You didn't even give that falsehood a rating.
When it comes to Hillary Clinton, though, her exaggerations are blown up out of proportion. Today's New York Times has an op-ed explaining that what Clinton said about her Bosnia trip was based on the truth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/opinion/01muscatine.html?ref=opinion
Clinton's exaggeration wasn't as bad as you made it to be. It was always obvious that Clinton was told precautions were being taken because of the possibility of sniper fire.
You evidently base your judgments of the two candidates on different standards.

Good points, Carol.

The obvious response to JakeD's silly argument here:

"He (and his campaign) HAS referred to himself as "Professor" -- from Phil Singer above: "Senator Obama has often referred to himself as 'a constitutional law professor' out on the campaign trail." I think that's the rub."

The actual rub is this: SO HAS THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL. One would think that a Stanford Law grad like JakeD wouldn't have missed that point. ;-)

"The University of Chicago says that Obama "served as a professor in the Law School." "

mnteng:

Here's the quote: "Alongside my own deep personal faith, I am a follower, as well, of our civic religion," he says. "I am a big believer in the separation of church and state. I am a big believer in our constitutional structure. I mean, I'm a law professor at the University of Chicago teaching constitutional law.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/falsani/726619,obamafalsani040504.article

of course:

Again, some of us think there's a difference between tenured professors and "Senior Lecturer" -- you, and pagun, not so much -- I got that.

So, mnteng, if Obama had given himself the title of "Professor", then that would have been a lie, right?

"Senior Lecturer" Is a University of Chicago title which is meaningless anywhere else. The University regards it as equivalent to a professor (although part-time and non-tenurred).
The Clintonians chalenged it, and Obama switched to using the technically-correct but meaningless term. He wants to stay on the issues rather than quibbling about words.
Hillary supporters want to make this the equivalent of her lying about her stance on NAFTA and being under sniper fire. It's not.

Both were lies, Frank Palmer (and I am not a Clinton suppoerter ; )

The only difference, of course, is that when Hillary lies, she gets Pinnochios -- there were MULTIPLE threads on the Bosnia lies -- when Obama lies, she gets Pinnochios too.

I'm beginning to think that SNL skit was pretty close to the mark.

Let's turn it around: What if Obama denied that he had ever been a professor? Wouldn't he be excoriated for hiding the truth that he had taught in a law school for a number of years? If you asked him the question, yes or no, "Have you ever been a professor", which would be the more honest answer, yes or no?

There is no doubt that most people would feel that "yes" is the much more honest and accurate answer.

Clinton's people deserve more than a single P on this one. They deserve an additional "P" for "petty".

Duh.

If you teach in a college or university, you are referred to as a Professor. Period. Now, based on recent behavior, I'm not surprised the Clinton camp tried to spin this as some sort of embellishment, but I'm really surprised that once they were caught, they STILL keep pushing it. Didn't they learn from the Bosnia thing? The way in which they can never admit they were wrong or apologize reminds me of a certain sitting president. Even Hillary supporters are beginning to defect over these nonsensical but calculated attempts to inject distractions into this campaign.

Nonetheless, I'm glad the Fact Checker is also giving out pinocchios to the people who falsely accuse others of lying.

One of those SNL skits mocked a CNN debate with cast members parodying three reporters asked Clinton absurdly difficult questions while fawning over Obama.

"Like nearly everyone in the news media, the three of us are totally in the tank for Senator Obama," said a faux Campbell Brown, introducing the debate.

"I myself have been clinically diagnosed as an Obamaniac while my associate John King just last week suffered his third Barack attack," she added.

Later, a cast member playing Univision anchor Jorge Ramos asked Obama, "Are you mad at me?" When Obama answered in the negative, Ramos said he was relieved because "all the shilling for you in my campaign coverage has been so obvious and because I spend every night sitting in front of your house in a parked car."

The sketch also featured a question from "an ordinary citizen chosen completely at random from the audience." The questioner turned out to be a lip-synched Obama Girl singing "I've Got a Crush on Obama." When Hillary pointed out that was not a question, Campbell Brown slapped her down.

As someone who teaches at the University of Chicago and does not have an axe to grind (I cannot even vote, as I am not yet a citizen of the US), I can vouch for the veracity of this blog. It is simply not true that only tenured professors have the right to be called professors. I am an Associate Professor, without tenure (but on tenure track), and am perfectly entitled to call myself a professor. However, I cannot call myself a Professor, which is a title that comes with tenure. JakeD cites Obama's statement - "I'm a law professor at the University of Chicago teaching constitutional law". This is a valid statement. If Obama had said that he is a Professor of Law, he would be guilty of embellishment. Small distinction, but important.

Another SNL skit had (Darrell Hammond?) Tim Russert asking Hillary all the tough questions first, telling her she was wrong and then giving the correct answer. Russert would then say: "Senator Obama, same question?" I forget which actor was playing Brian Williams, but at the end of the skit, he declares Obama the winner.

Funny stuff -- almost as good as The Colbert Report.

Jake D: Dude. You've posted 15 times already.

We get it. You are really worked up about this non-issue. Get over it. He's a professor. Accept it and move on.

Oh and nice trick using Obama's middle name in all caps. Very clever. What are you trying to imply? That you are a bigot?

You've got me convinced.

Oh, please, surpass! The University of Chicago has every reason to cover for him -- even if it is true that no one from the campaign was in contact with them regarding that statement -- I suppose you think it's O.K. if a non-lawyer calls himself an "attorney" just not an "Attorney at Law" too? Thank God you can't vote!

JakeD - is fourteen, cut him some slack.

The Truth:

I am trying to imply that his middle name means "blessed". Now, can you answer my question to you: "Would it matter to you if Obama were lying about not being Muslim?"

J_thinks:

I'm actually 76 years old. How old are you?

I find it amusing that certain posters would attempt to justify the idea that Hillary Clinton's "sniper fire" account is the same as Barack Obama's claim to being a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.

The only similarity is that both repeated their positions several times publicly.

There are numerous differences, however.

(1) Sen. Clinton vividly described a corkscrew landing, being in the immediate presence of sniper fire, a cancelled welcoming ceremony on the tarmac and running to an armored vehicle.

The pilot of her plane flatly contradicted the account of the landing, saying that the only reason it was steep at all was due to hilly terrain, NOT snipers. The CBS News video (not to mention numerous on-site accounts) flatly contradicted the rest of Sen. Clinton's recollection.

Sen. Obama described himself as a constitutional law professor. His actual title was Senior Lecturer (notice the capitalization).

The University of Chicago Law School says that they distinguish between the titles of "Lecturer" and "Senior Lecturer". The school goes further to say that Senior Lecturers are treated as non-tenure-track professors.

So, since the insititution at which he taught says that he's at least semantically correct, I'm confused as to how this is an issue.

I agree with Fact Checker's analysis on both statements. Clinton's Bosnia fabrication is a flat-out lie, that she not only repeated, but enhanced as time went on. Hers is made worse by the fact that she's repeatedly used the Bosnia trip as a cornerstone of her foreign policy "experience". Obama can't get the Geppetto check mark, but his claim is at worst a one-Pinocchio statement.

Obama's black - he'll never be pres.

JakeD:

If Obama had said he was a Professor of Constitutional Law, then that's a lie. Calling himself "a constitutional law professor", not a lie. Semantics, maybe, but an important distinction in academia.

Don't lecture me on the difference between tenured professors and senior lecturers. I'm a tenure-track assistant professor. I don't co around prefacing my "title" as an untenured assistant professor. I'm a professor, when I care enough to make that known. But when I go to teach, there's no distinction in my academic standing from that of one of our tenured professors or our senior lecturers.

Zzzzz..... *koff*, eh?

Oh, sorry, dozed off. Were we talking about something important?

No? Man, some people just have way too much time on their hands.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

Happy April Fool's Day!

I'll answer the Muslim question, JakeD.

Yes, it would matter - NOT because, in that hypothetical, he's Muslim, but rather because he felt the need to lie about it.

This is, in fact, much the same reason why Hillary Clinton's Bosnia lies matter. Except, in her case, this particular lie not only goes straight to the heart of her "35 years of experience" argument, it also brings up some ugly reminders of the Clintons' "difficult relationship with the truth" (Carl Bernstein).

That relationship includes her self-inflation of her involvement with the Belfast agreement, her involvement with opening the Macedonian borders, her criticism of NAFTA, and her role with SCHIP and FMLA.

The sad part of this is, she didn't have to conflate ANY of these experiences. She could have told the complete truth and still painted herself as "more experienced" without calling attention to her baggage. Now, she's crapped all over any credibility she had on those issues.

By the way, can you be honest enough to admit that your emphasizing Obama's middle name had NOTHING to do with the meaning of the name "Hussein"?

BMR:

I noticed the "capitalization" in the newspaper article too -- how do you think Obama signifies said "capitalization" during his speeches -- you think he holds up two fingers on both hands, winks, and makes the international "quotation mark" sign?

mnteng:

I am certainly not lecturing you, as I simply quoted you and asked some questions. Here's another question: Do you think it's O.K. if a non-lawyer calls himself an "attorney" and only crosses the line if he capitalizes it as "Attorney at Law"?

Actually, this is a grievous mis-statement by Senator Obama. It probably ranks right up there with Hillary's little lies such as:

"This is the woman who insisted for more than a decade that she was named after the late, great mountain-climber Sir Edmund Hillary -- never mind that she was born six years before he scaled Mt. Everest in 1953." or

"This is the woman who told "Dateline NBC" that daughter Chelsea was on a jog in New York City when the jihadists struck on Sept. 11, 2001 -- never mind that Chelsea later wrote a magazine essay revealing that she watched the attacks on television from a friend's apartment."

I think if Mr. Singer has time to spend on this, then he is clearly getting paid too much. I can see now why Team Hillary is in serious trouble.

I have to agree that the Clinton campaign is picking the flycrap out of the pepper on this one.

It's not like there aren't legitimate concerns about Mr. Obama's background, experience, political views, associates, etc. to focus on.

Seems pretty desperate.

P.S. thanks for answering that question -- our posts crossed in the night -- to answer your latest question: I am being honest.

rvloser and jblog:

It certainly is not as significant as when Obama admitted he didn't know how he would have voted on Iraq had he been a Senator at the time. Even the Great Pyramids were built one brick at a time though.

jakeD,

mnteng has it absolutely right. Your distinction between a non-lawyer and an attorney is specious. Obama has exactly the same qualifications as any tenured professor - he has a law degree and in fact graduated magna cum laude from Harvard. That was enough to get him a tenure track position at any law school, if he so chose.
I will not respond to your ad hominem attack on my ability to vote. Unlike you, I have no inclination or desire to engage in vituperative talk. Let me just say that when I do get a chance to vote, I will do so without consulting you.

JakeD: The question of capitalization during a speech is "a wee bit silly", to quote Lord Trimble on Clinton's claims to have "helped bring peace to Northern Ireland.

Academically, this is a non-issue - and if this is all Phil Singer has to do, I would suggest the Sen. Clinton pink-slip him and save the wasted salary for more ad buys.

I have to agree that the Clinton campaign is picking the flycrap out of the pepper on this one.

It's not like there aren't legitimate concerns about Mr. Obama's background, experience, political views, associates, etc. to focus on.

Seems pretty desperate.

mnteng (April 1, 2008 11:55 AM):

"I think Professor Cross' point was that if Obama had given himself the title of 'Professor', then that would have been a lie ... The real distinction is having tenure (or being on the tenure track) or not."

Your words, not mine.

surpass:

I made no "ad hominem attack" on your ability to vote -- but here in America, we pray to the One True God and thank Him for everything, big and small -- BTW: I also agree that mnteng had it absolutely right (in the FIRST post, above, see excerpt).

Who cares if husienn is a professor. Being a professor of anything does not make him any better than anyone else.I doubt he is qualified to teach law any way, because he doesn't comply with laws unless it serves his purpose. The rest of the time he talks in riddles, which no one knows what he is talking about but him.The Mesia has come, but he is in the costume of the Devil.

elmerick:

I don't care if he was a Professor or just professor -- it's just one more lie he's been caught in -- they all add up.

JakeD,
I don't get it. Where's the lie? Did he state that he was a Professor, or that he taught and was thus, a professor?

Clintons logic split hairs about the formal academic definition of professor as the fact checker notes
"The University of Chicago says that Obama "served as a professor in the Law School." "

From the crew that had no problem with Hillary Bosnia adventure.

I think most are tired of this kind of petty attack.As they are the Bush- Clinton -Rove style of politics.

BMR, the Pinocchio is for Singer and the Clinton campaign, not for Obama. Just clarifying.

cjohnson:

Per the linked article, above, he indeed stated: "... I'm a law PROFESSOR at the University of Chicago teaching constitutional law." (Emphasis Added)

As for other Obama lies, start here:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/03/obamas_camelot_connection.html

Also, try "flip-flops" here:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/dem_flipflops.html

Vince:

I will agree it is not Obama's most significant "lie" but Rome was not built in a day either. We are slowly meaning the Case Against Obama for November 4th.

B.S. Part-time instructors are NOT referred to as professors. Some students might call them that, but the field and the profession do NOT consider part-time Adjunct faculty to be PROFESSORS.

That honorific is reserved for tenured, and tenure-track full-time faculty. And everyone in academia knows. it.

It was a bald-faced resume enhancement. Just part of a pattern.

meaning = mounting

JakeD:

The distinction between tenure/tenure-track and non-tenure track, which I was referring to, is the stability of your job. Once you have tenure, it's hard to get fired. Otherwise, you can be terminated relatively easily. It has nothing to do with whether you are a professor or not.

Your example of a non-lawyer calling himself an "attorney" does not parallel Obama's "professor". If I called myself an "attorney", that would be a lie because I have none of the qualifications for being an attorney (graduate law school, pass the bar, etc.). But if I had all the qualifications and performed "attorney-like" functions without being part of a practice, then I wouldn't have a problem calling myself an "attorney". I don't know the distinction between that and an "Attorney at Law" though.

JakeD,
Sounds like you're intentionally trying to antagonize Obama supporters. You're not suggesting that lies and flip-flops don't abound from both Clinton and Obama, are you? Seems like the biggest gaffe so far was Clinton's Bosnia mis-remembering (thanks Rocket). As for this professor argument, it's weak. The University said he was a professor, which supports his usage of the term. By the way, since you're not a Clinton supporter (I think you wrote that above). How are you not all over her Bosnia problems?

Instructor not Professor:

It seems as if Dobbs (temporary "professor of journalism"), Cross (Professor of English, no less), mike (tenured professor teaching political science at Cornell), Bruce Fetter (with forty plus years in the professorate), and mnteng (assistant tenure-track assistant professor) disagree with us ...

chjohnson:

I am not suggesting that Hillary DIANE Clinton is as pure as the driven snow -- that link to flip flops includes her's as well -- at least you "get it" now, right?

mnteng:

Depending on the jurisdiction you live in, calling yourself an attorney or Attorney at Law (no distinction -- I just capitalized it to make my point above) to commit fraud or actually practice law WITHOUT A LICENSE can indeed get you jail time.

I read in Slate and elsewhere that Obama's father was actually born and raised in San Francisco?

What about that? Is that fact or fiction? Why did slate print it if it's not true? If it is true, why hasn't there been more about it?

That certainly seems worthy of a Fact-Check inquiry.

You people are nuts -- go back and read the last 50-60 posts on this thread.... What a waste of time.

For Gods sake -- get a life.

And, Jake... if you are really 76 years old --

which I doubt --

Your life is almost finished --

Why don't you go out and do something kind for someone else rather than passing on to the rest of us the evidence that you are a miserable old fossil with some sort of unfilled psychological Ebenezer Scrooge thing going on.

You really must be lonely -- 76 years old and all you have left is to spew venom out at the world through these useless little blogs.

Go outside -- get some sun -- take a walk talk to some kids...smile...

Life is too short, Jake, for all the vile nonsense you try to imagine is a contribution to an intellectual discourse.

GandalftheGrey:

"Venom" and "vile nonsense"? Let me guess: "HUSSEIN"?

My husband has often taught at many colleges and universities to supplement our income. His degree is MSEE (Masters in Electrical Engineering) he also has his PE (engineering equivalent to JD).

When he teaches, he is referred to as prof but when I tell our children that their dad is a professor, he gets embarrassed and replies,"That is what they call me but I am really an adjunct. I would have to receive my PhD. and tenure to be a professor. It is just an honorary title."

I guess that is the difference between an honest, humble man and an arrogant one.

I have become a FOX News watcher because they are the only station not willing to annoint Obama king.

I hope that Hillary stays the course because I am sure that, although you will be the last to know, the American people won't stand for another 4-8 years of arrogance and disdain.

Why don't you refer to the fact that Obama had to hire someone to teach him how to behave less arrogant in order to win a Senate seat? He was taught to BEHAVE less arrogant, that didn't change his arrogance, just shrouded it.

GandalftheGrey: JakeD has no life other than pushing McCain.

This topic never even rose to a level worthy of discussion. He was a professor. He taught three classes a week.

The motives of anyone stating that they actually believe otherwise are clear.

That's right, CDC -- not sure why my motives are relevant -- we never caught Obama at this particular lie until recently.

JakeD:

So, if you have all the qualifications of being an attorney, including licensure, you can call yourself an attorney and it would not be a lie even if you aren't associated with a law practice? You've said before that you're retired, but you should still have all the qualifications, right? Would you call yourself an attorney (if you have a license)?

I guess the "motives" of anyone stating that they actually believe his middle name is not HUSSEIN are "clear" as well?

mnteng:

Are you asking about a sole practitioner? Even if sole practitioners are not associated with other attorneys in a formal "law practice", they can practice law, hold themselves out as attorneys, etc. I am retired (my license is not current, however, and I don't practice law any more, but my technical status with the State Bar is "inactive, but is eligible to become active" -- if I paid my bar dues today, I could practice law again -- why do that when I'm having so much fun here for free?). Without the current license, I would not call myself a attorney.

"Inactive members have chosen this status voluntarily and may transfer to active at any time upon request."

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_generic.jsp?cid=12532&id=6962

JakeD:

OK. So, given that professors (or Professors) don't have to have a license to teach, the University of Chicago deemed that Obama was qualified to "serve as a professor" in the U of C Law School, though in an adjunct (or "sole practitioner") capacity. In what way does that not make him a law professor?

I've got office hours now, but I'll check back later.

Okay - Jake -- after that explanation about being a "recovering" attorney - I do believe that you ARE likely 76 years-old.

Now -- someone else posted that you are a McCain guy (although I would have guessed Ron Paul) so instead of ranting about what's wrong with Obama -- why not take a shot at telling us what is right (no pun intended) about McCain.

Do you have an opinion about McCain?

In the way that Abby and "Instructor not Professor" pointed out above -- bottom line, no tenure.

P.S. to GandalftheGrey -- I would be happy to give you my opinions on John SIDNEY McCain: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/01/mccains_unruly_passions_1.html#comments

The only party who can affirm Obama's claim that his position was as a professor in all substantial aspects of the job he had at the University of Chicaco, is not surprisingly the University itself, and they have indeed come out to verify Obama's claim 100 % recently. That should be the end of the affair.

And, Jake -- you are wrong about the distinction between Senior Lecturer and identifying oneself as a law professor.

In fact, like most of the Ph.D.'s (or those holding a terminal degree - i.e., JD, MD, MFA, etc) posting herein - I can tell you that the authority on the subject is the institution who bestows the title and/or the position.

Obama represented himself as holding a position. To my knowledge he NEVER referred to himself as Professor of Law.

He was Senior Lecturer of Law who was a law professor.

If you had ever labored in the halls of academe as some of us may have done for a lifetime, you would know the difference -- the term is not a legal one but rather a means of identifying what one has done to earn(?) compensation within the misty realm of a profession - so called.

In my case, the term "emeritus" applies.

That term cannot be self-proclaimed if official - but must be awarded by the institution in which it might still matter. And, it carries with it certain rights, privileges and responsibilities.

In my case, free parking - not an inconsequential asset on a University campus.

As to the term "profesor" -- it applies to anyone who professes -- it is not a title but a job description.

The "Fact Checker" in this paper does not have his/her facts straight. Big surprise.

By the way, I certainly do not believe that Hillary Clinton is qualfied to accuse Obama of distorting facts regarding his credentials in any way, because many billions in the world now know, that is exactly what she does best herself. She should really look at her own self before finger-pointing at a speck of dust on Obama's collar.

Abby, just wanted to point out that your husband's situation is not the same. In disciplines other than law, professors usually tend to have PhDs. That's not true of the law. The only degree you need to be a tenure-track professor at a law school is a JD. In your husband's field, he is not academically-credentialed to be a professor. Obama is credentialed to be a tenure-track professor.

Also, just to be clear, Obama was not an adjunct. As a graduate of the University of Chicago Law School, I am very familiar with what the titles mean. An adjunct or a lecturer is not the same thing as a senior lecturer or tenure-track professor. Adjuncts and lecturers do not teach the same types of courses or have the same responsibilities to the law school that senior lecturers and tenure-track professors do/have. The only distinction between senior lecturer and tenure-track professor is that, in order to be the latter, you have to dedicate a significant portion of your career to researching and writing academic articles. Senior lecturers teach the same courses as tenure-track professors and have the same responsibilities to the school and the student body but do not have the research and writing requirements.

Senator Obama taught courses at the law school that a tenure-track professor would teach (when I was there, it was one of the constitutional law courses and a course on voting rights). Other similarly titled (senior lecturer) professors were Judges Posner, Wood, and Easterbrook. Like Senator Obama, those three had activities outside the law school that at least nominally prevented them from engaging in the kind of research and writing required to be a tenure-track professor (I say "nominally" because, in practice, Posner is quite prolific). And, like with Senator Obama, it would be perfectly legitimate for them to refer to themselves as professors.

For those who have decided to dislike Obama no matter what, I doubt that this will change your opinion. I just hate it when people keep throwing around so much misinformation.

So, if I can find even ONE instance of Obama saying / writing "as a Professor of Constitutional Law ..." then you will finally agree with me? What's more interesting is that if I claim to be a (lowercase) "professor" that's fine with you, even though I've never taught anything at college, simply because I profess, in general? I mean, just above, I professed my willingness to discuss McCain. Very interesting. I thought the Clinton supporters were twisting themselves re: "under sniper fire" -- they've got nothing on you -- either candidate is back to what the meaning of "is" is.

First off, there is more than one way to skin a cat, urrrm, professor. Many universities have research faculty. In some places, that's called a research professor and the title is used appropriately. Furthermore, faculty members at colleges without graduate programs are still called professors, even though they're often not engaged in research and have nearly the same duties lecturers have at universities.

Please note. It's not being TENURED that's important. It's TENURE TRACK. An assistant professor is still called professor, but isn't tenured.

Teaching at a university does not make you a professor. Talk to any random grad students teaching discussion sections. I lectured my own courses as a post-doc, but did not consider or call myself a professor.

Where it gets really interesting is when you start going transnational. In the U.K., lecturers are the equivalent of assistant professors here. The path there is lecturer, senior lecturer, reader, professor. A department will typically only have a few professors and it's a mark of distinction. They also don't have tenure. Thus, an English lecturer can be the equivalent of a tenured U.S. professor even though he or she is neither a professor nor tenured.

This is actually a murky area and making definite claims about character is foolish. Singer deserves his pinnochio. He's stretching a short-hand description into telling tall tales.

BB

Hey, Jake, I've just noticed you started referring to Hillary as H DIANE Clinton. Ah, a silly consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind.

BB

BB:

I "started" when I started referring to ALL the candidates by their full, given names.

The last thing I want to be accused of is playing favorites (see SNL skits, above ; )

OMG - One for this one - yes it is not that important but most of your crap is not - see Bosnia.

I am a random grad student - Calling yourself Prof if you are not one is just not done these days. We live in these days!

If you are adjunct then you say that because you are not on the 'Staff' that gets to vote on important decision (like being a Partner in the Law firm sort of). Go look at book covers and this distinction is always made. It is not the rank so much - it is if you are part of the 'Department' that makes hires ect. Research, adjunct, lecturer do not do these things - that is a distinction in the University World.

"Sen. Obama has often referred to himself as 'a constitutional law professor' out on the campaign trail. He never held any such title. And I think anyone, if you ask anyone in academia the distinction between a professor who has tenure and an instructor that does not...you'll get quite an emotional response."
--Clinton spokesman Phil Singer.

Phil Singer is a hack. His own statement shows his foolishness. Singer doesn't claim that Obama referred to himself as tenured law professor. His argument is so much hot air. Sadly this is becoming the norm for the Clinton campaign.

"Adjuncts and lecturers do not teach the same types of courses or have the same responsibilities to the law school that senior lecturers and tenure-track professors do/have. The only distinction between senior lecturer and tenure-track professor is that, in order to be the latter, you have to dedicate a significant portion of your career to researching and writing academic articles. Senior lecturers teach the same courses as tenure-track professors and have the same responsibilities to the school and the student body but do not have the research and writing requirements."

Man crush - Do not lie to protect your Man crush. I to went the the UofC (not the law school). Lecturers can not vote on important matters that is a fact - go join the GOP.

"Professor" is a commonly understood term to all lay people...those who are outside of academe. It is a fair term to use and avoids one questioning distinctions - it is a fair generic term to use to convey meaning. So, if an impeached president like Bill Clinton, took a position teaching at a law school...he would be referred to as "Professor" although certainly past the point to be interested in being tenured or acquiring some other unnecessary official title or status. Many professors are not credentialed with doctorates but with practitioner experience or other combinations of credentials that warrants at least being considered "professor" to most of the world. Singer really ought to get five pinnochio's...chances are Obama changed web site just to avoid a silly technical argument and Clinton Team of course relishes in absurd details no one else cares much about.

this article make no sense. if Obama is normal academic people, can he claim he is a professor in his cv/resume? no way. The pro-obama basis on this blog just get disgusting

Phil Singer is a hack. His own statement shows his foolishness. Singer doesn't claim that Obama referred to himself as tenured law professor. His argument is so much hot air. Sadly this is becoming the norm for the Clinton campaign.

Posted by: strawman | April 1, 2008 03:33 PM

He got Obama did to rights - and he is a hack. Just like every one on the Team Obama and yourself.

What we also know is that Obama was not what he says. The Media will not pick up on this so not to worry. FC has a Man chush on Obama too.

It is VERY unusual at our local university of 25000 to see a tenured professor without a PhD. I only know of one.

Also, instructors who are not tenured have the title adjunct or asst professor, lecturer or sr lecturer, etc. and they are VERY title conscious. Students just address everyone as 'Professor'. The culture at Univ of Chicago may be different. It's a nit to people not in academia, I'd imagine.

No lie here. The University of Chicago Law School has provided this statement:

The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

That is to say, no lie by Obama.

jcmdstep:

It seems that "professors" who are Obama supporters (above) disagree. If you or I simply "profess" anything, that makes us full-fledged Professors.

FYI: back in 2007, Obama gave "60 Minutes" a tour of the old Illinois capitol building and never corrected the mis-impression:

"At age 45, he is one of only three black senators since Reconstruction, the first African-American President of the Harvard Law Review, a PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW at the University of Chicago, and the author of two best selling books." (Emphasis Added)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/09/60minutes/main2456335.shtml

I don't understand the fuss. The University of Chicago said "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School." If his employer isn't qualified to say that he was a professor, who is?

Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

Posted by: Mary | April 1, 2008 03:53 PM

Same Lie - The point is not that he was an Adjunct - The point is that he was not a Prof. Did you read the post at the top.

Say that (B not A) does not mean B = C. You dig. B does not = C. Job security and ability to make department decisions are the main differences. Stop the lies we have pols for that like Obama.

I don't know if he was offered a position - He probably was but again may or may not be true - he is smart - no one questions that.

Asked about any mistakes (either statements or votes) Obama would like to take back, during the Cleveland debate:

OBAMA: Well, you know, when I first arrived in the Senate that first year, we had a situation surrounding Terri Schiavo. And I remember how we adjourned with a unanimous agreement that eventually allowed Congress to interject itself into that decisionmaking process of the families.

It wasn't something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped. And I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that that was a mistake. And as a CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR, I knew better.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/politics/26text-debate.html?pagewanted=all

Obama is a fake, and a douche bag.

Well, if this is not a "lie" then neither is Hillary's "we landed under sniper fire" ...

Its a huge difference.

Tenure track vs non tenture track is like the difference between having an MD and not having one.

Your comment about "Herr Doktor Professor" is funny, because there was a recent story that in Germany, there's a lawt that only people with Ph.D's from German universities are allowed to call themselves "Doktor" over there.

I've got a Ph.D and it was a real pain to earn it.

Back at Berkeley, if a lecturer dared to call himself Professor on his resume, or to say he had been a "Professor", he'd be called a liar and would never hear the end of it.

Remember, its not just Professor, its the fact that you have to be an assistant professor, then get tenure, become an associate professor, and finally you become a full professor.

Each step requires a ton of publications.

Obama has none.

Lecturers aren't even on the tenure track at all.

Obama deserves four noses, not one.

svreader:

Look again -- Obama didn't get "one nose" -- it was CLINTON's campaign spokesperson who got the Pinnochio for daring to point out his lie. Good luck!

The Clinton supporters are missing the point here. The "little lie" earning a single Pinocchio was the lie by Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer who falsely accused Obama of inappropriately calling himself a "law professor." I happen to be a law professor at a major American law school. I also happen to be a Professor of Law at that same law school. There's a difference between those two statements. "Professor of Law" is my job title; it means I hold a tenured, full-time position on the law faculty, at the most senior level. (Some Associate Professors are also tenured at this school). But the generic term "law professor," as it is used in my law school and every other law school with which I am familiar, refers not only to tenured Professors of Law and tenured Associate Professors of Law but also to a variety of other job categories, including untenured Associate and Assistant Professors, Visiting Professors, Visiting Assistant Professors, Senior Lecturers, Lecturers, Clinical Professors, Adjunct Professors, and on down the line---"law professors" one and all. There is nothing the least bit dishonest or misleading in Obama, who variously held the title Lecturer and later Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, calling himself a "law professor," using the generic term as do thousands of academic appointees of all stripes. He never once claimed that he was a "Professor of Law"---that would have been a lie. But the only lie here is the lie being told repeatedly by the Clinton campaign and its supporters, who falsely accuse Obama of misrepresenting himself.

JakeD --

From this point on, why don't we just call him "felon Obama", since he admits to commiting mutiple felonies, by buying and using cocaine multiple times.

While its true he was never caught, the world would be a far better place if he had been.

He's a jerk.

Jaked is an silly provocateur who just likes to stir the pot. He probably was a passenger on the Swift boats last election.

JakeD would find fault with Moses if he were running against his horse McCain. Please crawl back under your rock JakeD unless you have something to say about your candidate.

Your lies and distortions will only harm your credibility when you advocate for your candidate. Negatives tend to cave in on their spreaders. You simply sound like a very cranky, grouchy, stubborn, crotchety, ill willed old man. Give it up. It's not going to work this time.

Brad K --

Nice try. No Cigar.

Word order doesn't matter.

Intention does.

His intention is clear, and would be to any reasonable man.

Or does he get a "free pass" from that standard too?

Why did the Obama people change the description? Probably to shut up nitpicking whiners like Phil Singer.

(Was he the Klintonite who got an "aggravated" DUI, or am I thinking of someone else?)

Steve,

You must be confusing that with Obama repeated use of "hard drugs"

Sombody should interview his dealer.

That would make a great story.

"He's a jerk."
Posted by: svreader

No, I think that it is you,"svreader," who is the "jerk."
You also sound like a extremely mean spirited person who is willing to say anything to smear your political opponent. It's not going to work this time.

If you are honest, please tell us who your candidate is and why you think she/he would make a good President.

Drug and alcohol use in the distant past is probably a common activity of most young people- including George, John, Bill, Hillary, and Barack. Don't be so self righteous.

Oh, I forgot. Bill didn't inhale ( I'll bet Hillary did, though.) Still a felony in Arkansas, I believe.

A few comments:

1) Though a Clinton supporter, I agree that this was a ridiculous attack from her campaign. It's trivial -- professor is a common term for the public, so it was probably used so people knew what he meant.

At the same time:

1) The title does matter in most universities, and -- having been a "lecturer" -- lecturers are typically careful not to overstep that bound. Again, I think Obama is just using the term because it's well-known, not because he means it as a title.

2) The U of C (where I did grad school) has a vested interest in keeping Obama happy, given that he is their Senator and can get them money. Of course they aren't disagreeing with him. Don't treat all non-campaign sources as unbiased.

luke2 --

I hate Obama because he shafted the poorest of the poor who trusted him in Chicago and you guys paint him as a saint and refuse to look at the facts.

Who do I support?

Pretty much anybody but him.

Hillary Clinton would be a far better President than Barry Obama, as would John McCain.

Clinton is my first choice. McCain is my second one.

I wouldn't vote for Barry Obama for dog catcher.

Hillary never used drugs of any kind.

Obama used hard drugs repeatedly.

That's not the main reason I'm so strongly against him.

The fact the he let the people who voted him into office in Chicago FREEZE in unheated slums that his buddy Rezko got $100M to repair or replace but didn't bother to do, and that Barry Obama never checked up on, is enough to make me hate the guy for being both a jerk and a fraud.

Here's the simple question that proves his intent was to mislead ---

Why didn't he just say "when I taught law"?

Why did he throw in "law professor" if his intent wasn't to get the status of being a "professor"?

oBAMA IS A LIER. hOW DARE HE CALL HIMSELF A LAW PROF.. HE IS NOT AND DOES NOT HAVE THE CREDENTIALS TO BACK UP THESE FALSE STATEMENT.

OBAMA HAS STATED THAT MC CAIN SAID HE WILL HAVE MILITARY TROOPS IN IRAQ FOR 100YEARS. IF THIS IS NOT A TRUE STATEMENT, IT IS 'SLANDER' AND SLANDER IS UNLAWFUL.

HOW DO THE POOR AND DOWN TRODDEN LIKE HUSSEIN AND HIS DIRTY VILE MONEY PEOPLE SPENDING $1MILLION per DAY FOR HIS CAMPAIGN
AND THE POOR WHICH HE CLAIMS HE IS GOING TO MAKE A CHANGE FOR, ARE DEPRIVED OF A DECENT AMOUNT OF MONEY TO BARELY STAY ALIVE. THIS GUY IS ROTTEN TO THE CORE.

JakeD:

Well, since you seem to have made up your mind that there is no difference in calling yourself a "law professor" in an interview/debate or putting "Professor of Law" on a CV/resume, nothing I can say will add to what Lawdem and BradK (among others) have already written. Actually, I think skeptic421 pretty much nailed the explanation.

I would never disrespect our non-tenure track instructional faculty ("Senior Lecturers") by insisting that they not be addressed colloquially as "professor".

Of course, by your definition, I'm not a professor either since I don't have tenure yet.

By the way, you can go ahead and try to lump me in with the Obama supporters, but the truth is that you have no idea whom I've decided to support.

THERE IS A VERY PROMINENT BLACK AUTHOR WHO WROTE IN HER BOOK 'THEIR EYES WERE LOOKING UP TO GOD' WISELY SAID; THE HIGHER THE MONKEY CLIMBS, THE MORE OF ITS BARE BACKSIDE SHOWS' OBAMA YOU ARE IN BAD TROUBLE. bETTER GET YOUR WIFE TO COVER UP YOUR BARE A**. YOUR SHOW3ING THE WORLD JUST WHO YOU ARE! IF i WERE A BLACK PERSON, i WOULD BE ASHAMED TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH A PERSON WHO CANNOT BE HONEST WITH ALL PEOPLE AND ESPECIALLY THOSE WHICH HE CLAIMS TO BE OF THE SAME RACE. thank goodness he never MENTIONS HIS VERY LONG WHITE HERITAGE, WHO WOULD WANT HIM !!!!!!!!!!!!

Another Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School is Richard Posner, formerly a full-time Professor of Law at that august institution and for many years now a distinguished federal appellate judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. Although no longer a full-time Professor of Law, Posner continues to teach courses at the University of Chicago and to participate in the intellectual life of the institution. Indeed, he remains one of the most influential and esteemed legal academics in the nation. There is not a single legal academic in this country who would say Judge Posner isn't entitled to call himself a "law professor," though of course it would be dishonest for him to call himself "Professor of Law" since his title at the law school is presently "Senior Lecturer."

Stop the lies, Clintonites! You're just embarrassing yourselves with your ignorance and mean-spiritedness.

OBAMA LIES AGAIN AND MAINSTREAM MEDIA LIKE CNN HIDES IT!

Sen. Obama referres to himself as 'a constitutional law professor on the campaign trail. TRUTH: He never held any such title! Obama changed website bio to reflect that he was a 'lecturer' rather than 'professor. Chicago Daily Herald

MSNBC-OBAMA: ANOTHER SUPER, EXAGGERATION
Washington Post caught Obama in a lie about the Kennedy family role.
The WashigntonPost Fact Check

Senator Obama CAUGHT LYING about Kennedy Role in Helping His Father
Contrary to Obama's claims in speeches Kennedy family did not provide the funding for a September 1959 airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the United States that included Obama's father. According to historical records and interviews with participants, the Kennedys were approached for support for the program a year later, July 1960. family responded with a $100,000 donation, which went to pay for a second airlift in September 1960.

Politico reports, "During his first run for elected office, Barack Obama played a greater role than he acknowledges in crafting liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion- positions that appear at odds with the more moderate image he's projected during his presidential campaign. The evidence comes from an amended version of an Illinois voter group's detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his bid for a state Senate. In response to a Politico story, Obama's answers he never saw questioaire?

Obama said he goofed on votes angered fellow Democrats in the Senate when he voted to strip millions of dollars from a child welfare office on Chicago's West Side. But Obama had a ready explanation: He goofed! Also announced he had fumbled an election-reform vote the day before, on a measure that passed 51 to 6. The next day, he acknowledged voting "present" on a key telecommunications vote. He stood on March 11, 1999, to take back his vote against legislation to end good-behavior credits for certain felons in county jails. "I pressed the wrong button on that," he said. Obama was the lone dissenter on Feb. 24, 2000, against 57 yeas for a ban on human cloning. "I pressed the wrong button by accident," he said. But two of Obama's bumbles came on more-sensitive topics, he backed legislation to permit riverboat casinos to operate even when the boats were dockside. The measure, pushed by the gambling industry and fought by church groups whose support Obama was seeking, passed with two "yeas" to spare -- including Obama's. Moments after its passage he rose to say, explaining that he had mistakenly voted for it.

Obama would later develop a reputation as a critic of the gambling industry, and he voted against a similar measure two years later. But he was clearly confused about how to handle the issue at the time of his first vote, telling a church group that he was "undecided" about whether he backed an expansion of riverboat gambling. And, months earlier, he had voted in favor of a version of the bill.

NBC- Aswini Anburajan
GREENBURG, Pa
OBAMA LIES IN PENNSYLVANIA AD
It's unfortunate that Senator Obama is using false advertising to explain why he can be trusted to do something about energy prices. In his ad, Obama says, I'm Barack Obama, and I don't take money from oil companies or lobbyists, and I won't let them block change any more. Obama has been the recipient of more than $220,000 from the oil and gas industry just since as of Feb/08. Two of Obama's campaign bundlers are also CEOs for oil and gas companies, per his campaign Web site? Obama needs to answer to VOTERS about his dealings with one of his largest contributors Exelon, a big nuclear power company that he cut deals behind closed doors protecting them from full disclosure in the nuclear industry. Exxon, Shell, and others are among his biggest donors

Judicial Watch:
By Klaus Marre
Obama 'intended to leave no paper trail' OBAMA REFUSES to cooperate in releasing 8 years of his state senate records. One main reason REZKO!

"and that Barry Obama never checked up on, is enough to make me hate the guy for being both a jerk and a fraud." svreader.

Where are you getting your "facts" from svreader?
There are plenty of sleaze sites that perpetuate outright lies about every political candidate. Check out this one on the Clintons that make Barack Obama look like a choir boy.

http://prorev.com/connex.htm

and another one describing the Clinton's "summer of love" 1971 in Berkeley California

The Clinton staff member
received a rocket via telephone from Hillary herself. She wants no discussion of youthful drug experiments. And with reason. Reasons that go back to the Clintons' Berkeley Summer of Love in 1971 -- if not before.

Reasons that I know well because I was in Berkeley in that summer of 1971. I was living about four blocks away from where Bill and Hillary were, in the parlance of the time, "shacked up." These were my not-so-mean streets. I know what went down. And I am here to tell you that there was no such thing as an unstoned student activist/hippy living in that neighborhood at that time. It was non-stop sex, drugs, rock and roll, and activism. I know. I was there. And while I don't remember everything, I remember a lot. More than I should given the quantity, quality, and diversity of the drugs that were on the scene, on the street, and in the bodies of all of us at the time in that place. Read the rest here:

http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/006949.php

includes a great picture of Bill and Hillary as "Hippies."

The facts are that if Barack Obama wanted to have money and power, he could have gained them much more easily in a prestigious private law firm after being selected by his peers to be Editor of the Harvard Law Review. Instead he took a job offered by local churches at $12,000 a year.

Why don't you question where the $500,000,000 came from for the Clinton Library? It wasn't Bill's tooth fairy- that's for sure.

Barack Obama is a decent, hard working good man- and that's what scares you. He really will bring needed change to our country. My feeling is that you are either a bigot or just a very mean spirited person who will say anything to get your candidate elected. I don't believe for a minute anything that you have said. Prove me wrong with legitimate sources. Thanks in advance

luke2

From NBC News and the Chicago Sun Times.

Obama Supporters --

How you support Obama when he let the people who elected him in Chicago freeze in slums in his district his friend and campaign contributor Rezok got $100M to repair or replace?

Before you send any more of your, or your parent's, hard earned money to Barry Obama --

Please Watch this report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100M of wasted taxpayer money, from NBC news, Chicago's most respected TV news program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

How do you explain away the fact that Barry Obama never followed up on the 11 slums that his friend Rezko was supposed to repair in Obama's district in Chicago, and continued to do nothing about the 40 slums that Rezko was supposed to repair or replace in Chicago, even after Obama joined the US Senate?

From the Chicago Sun Times:

For more than five weeks during the brutal winter of 1997, tenants shivered without heat in a government-subsidized apartment building on Chicago's South Side.

It was just four years after the landlords -- Antoin "Tony'' Rezko and his partner Daniel Mahru -- had rehabbed the 31-unit building in Englewood with a loan from Chicago taxpayers.

Rezko and Mahru couldn't find money to get the heat back on.

But their company, Rezmar Corp., did come up with $1,000 to give to the political campaign fund of Barack Obama, the newly elected state senator whose district included the unheated building....

The building in Englewood was one of 30 Rezmar rehabbed in a series of troubled deals largely financed by taxpayers. Every project ran into financial difficulty. More than half went into foreclosure, a Chicago Sun-Times investigation has found.

"Their buildings were falling apart,'' said a former city official. "They just didn't pay attention to the condition of these buildings.''

Eleven of Rezko's buildings were in Obama's state Senate district....

Rezko and Mahru had no construction experience when they created Rezmar in 1989 to rehabilitate apartments for the poor under the Daley administration. Between 1989 and 1998, Rezmar made deals to rehab 30 buildings, a total of 1,025 apartments. The last 15 buildings involved Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland during Obama's time with the firm.

Rezko and Mahru also managed the buildings, which were supposed to provide homes for poor people for 30 years. Every one of the projects ran into trouble:

* Seventeen buildings -- many beset with code violations, including a lack of heat -- ended up in foreclosure.

* Six buildings are currently boarded up.

* Hundreds of the apartments are vacant, in need of major repairs.

* Taxpayers have been stuck with millions in unpaid loans.

* At least a dozen times, the city of Chicago sued Rezmar for failure to heat buildings.

Luke2 --

Obama supporters will do anything to supress the truth about him.

Its not going to work.

Obama's guaranteed to lose the national electon.

It would be nuts for Democrats to nominate him, regardless of what the current vote totals are.

The more we find out about Obama, the more we find that his "accomplishments" aren't his at all, but that he was given credit for the work done by others to make him look far more impressive than he actually is.

Obama is like a "Potemkin Village"

He looks good on the surface, but there's nothing behind it.

He's spent his entire political career running for office, and strong-arming people into putting his name on bills he never even did any work on.

The WP says so themselves in their recent article.

The NYT says "big image, little results"

All this will come out before the general election.

As will the truth about how his negligence led to people who voted for him freezing in slums in his district that Rezko, and in the rest of Chicago, that Rezko got $100M to repair, but never touched.

He can't win the general election.

But he can cause Democrats to lose it.

Everyone interested in the Presidential election should read the article that there's a link to at the bottom of this message.

Its from a Chicago reporter who's known Obama since the beginning of his career and has followed Obama's career ever since then.

The take-home message is that Obama is a total fraud, a manufactured product of the chicago politicial machine.

It tells about him stealing credit for bills he never worked when he was in Chicago, just like he did in Washington.

It talks about "Obama's Slums" and fact that Barry didn't care one bit about the people who elected him.

Its about the fact that Chicago Barry Obama is the one of the most clever con-men in the world and the biggest fraud that's been put over on the American public since Bush.

Its filled with facts about Obama from someone who has known him for years.

The title's cute. Obama isn't. He's a fraud.

http://news.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/

Don't you people have anything better to do with your time? Why argue over mere semantics? It's springtime, take a walk, count the crocuses, breathe in the sun.

As someone who has worked for many years at a university, I can attest to the fact that the title of professor is often used, quite appropriately, by senior lecturers and many non-tenured faculty with very little "emotional response". Mr. Singer seems to be trying, rather desperately, to take the focus off Mrs. Clinton's difficulties with the truth.

Svreader,

you are a fraud. The people who lived in the south side of Chicago, and knew Barack Obama very well, all supported him in the election for Illinois Senator. After all, he won by the largest majority in State Senate history. Go to south Chicago and you won't hear those kinds of lies that are being fostered by people like you.

Did you read the Clinton links? Sort of sound the same, don't they?- only the Clinton ones deal with things on a much larger scale than some slums that have been in Chicago since before Barack was born.

The issue is that Obama called himself a "law professor" when he was only a senior lecturer.

That's completely different than a student calling him "professor" when they address him.

He intentionally mislead people to think he had reached a level of achievement he never had.

Look at the article in the WP about him taking credit for bills he was never involved in, and the articles about how he did the same thing when he was a state senator.

Its all part of the same pattern.

He lies as easily as he breathes.

Mr Dobbs: I have to say that I am somewhat influenced by the Daily Howler's take on you. I find your report on Sen Obama"s professorship a pretty mindless piece of rubbish. A Professor of Constitutional Law suggests an established scholar with a strong resume of publications. But American academia is pretty downmarket when it comes top standards so any fool can call himself a professor. In Sen Obama's case we have a talented legal scholar who does not have enough on his record to claim being a top notch Professor of Constitutional Law. His is an effort to puff up a resume. When Clinton does it its a crime, when Obama does it is a minor gaffe. When McCain does it: hey the guy is joshing, don't take him seriously, he is really a fun guy.

Such are the "standards" that prevail at the WashPost and other places.

I'm as real as a heart attack.

Barry Obama is a total fraud.

Are you calling NBC a fraud?

They did the news report.

Are you calling the Chicago Sun Times a fraud?

They wrote the article.

Here's another example of how low Obama supporters will go to push their fraud.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/129976

I'm waiting for you to call newsweek a fraud too.

You're a fraud.

I'm tell the painfull truth about a guy who's a total fraud.

Chicago Barry Obama.

He's sure ain't no saint!!!!

luke2 --

I'm as real as a heart attack.

Barry Obama is a total fraud.

Are you calling NBC a fraud?

They did the news report.

Are you calling the Chicago Sun Times a fraud?

They wrote the article.

Here's another example of how low Obama supporters will go to push their fraud.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/129976

I'm waiting for you to call newsweek a fraud too.

You're a fraud.

I'm telling the painful truth about a guy who's a total fraud.

Chicago Barry Obama.

He's sure ain't no saint!!!!

Has everyone seen the email from Obama supporers that claims he's done more in the senate than Hillary.

According to newsweek, the email is a bunch of BS.

Hillary's passed twice the amount of legislation, and we know from the wasington post article that most of what Obama's been given credit for was stuff he was never even involved in.

Obama takes credit for stuff he never did, and never did the stuff he should have done.

He had a lot of good people fooled.

I hope this finally wakes them up.

Here's another example of how Obama's supporters lie to puff up their candidate.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/129976

I guess most of you missed the point. Whether Obama was a professor or Professor it should be obvious to all his INTENTION was to make himself sound better than he really is. All Con-men use the same trick. After all how many of his listeners knew the difference. He counts on most of his followers using their 12 year old mentality to assume he really was a PROFESSOR, without realizing it was another of his 'little' lies. Why would he even mention the Professor bit. He could have easily said he was a Teacher in a University or College for a time and probably have more of an impact on his deluded followers and perhaps also those of us who are really wise to him. If you Obammers would face the truth you would think back and know the man never had an original thought in his head. He is absolutely great in taking someone's idea, putting his own twist on it, and thereby pretending he has just invented a solution for the world to admire. That's also a common trick of a Con-Man. Don't misunderstand, he is no dummy. Smart as a whip and knows how to turn the heads of the real dummies. Many great Orators started out as Con-Men. Some of them even became great leaders for a short while. Think Castro, think Mussolini or most Televangelists who have the ability to wring tremendous sums of money from their Congregations. I hesitate to use the name of some famous Orators who became Dictators, because I don't for one minute believe Bracky's that type of person. All I'm trying to point out is being a fabulous Speaker is an important talent in itself. BUT THAT'S ALL. By no means is that man capable of being a Leader. A leader needs Maturity and Stature, which he most certainly lacks. "Never trust a Con-Man for he will take you for all you got."
I guess I can call my self a professor because I used to Lecture about Antiques in a College. I was first an Antique
dealer for many years and was asked by a Real Professor to take over when he wanted to add information to his Class. Big Deal!!

It's interesting that the dimmer Hillary's prospects of winning the Democratic nomination become, the more shrill and vehement become the attacks on Obama by her supporters. It's just not credible. Hillary's campaign is going down in flames. You people don't know anything about legal academia and here you are making the most outlandish claims, bringing discredit upon yourself and your candidate. Pathetic.

How can you tell a politician is lying? Their lips are moving and words are coming out.

Here is another fact. Sen. Obama taught law as a Lawyer, doesn't make you an expert, it makes you a teacher!

I have had many a Professor who were not experts, but they were teachers.

Hillary Clinton is also a licensed Lawyer. And her resume includes several clients, just like Sen. Obama's that have been indicted and/or found guilty of many federal crimes. Guess what that's what lawyers do, represent people who need them!

A simply suggestion use your own brain, take what you hear with a little salt, and THINK for yourself.

This does not seem to be a lie....it is very common for many academics to be referred to as Professors. It is however a big lie if you say that you had to run to your car because of sniper fire in Bosnia, and in fact there is no evidence of such (too bad the videos showed up). The Clintons' lies started with Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky (Hillary was not involved in this one), Dennis Rich pardoning, "experience"in negotiating peace deals, etc. John Mccain will any day be a better candidate than Hillary, if she gets nominated...

Svreader: yes, you really are a total fraud.

The Sun-Times had an indepth interview with Barack Obama in which they said that he had answeredtheir questions about Rezko and his slums to their satisfaction. I guess, in your zeal, that you missed it.

Here it is:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/844597,transcript031508.article

Give it up and go back to your swift boat.

On lies- and "truths"

Carl Bernstein: from "Woman in Charge"

"Since her Arkansas years Hillary Rodham Clinton has always had a difficult relationship with the truth... judged against the facts, she has often chosen to obfuscate, omit, and avoid. It is an understatement by now that she has been known to apprehend truths about herself and the events of her life that others do not exactly share."

"Almost always, something holds her back from telling the whole story, as if she doesn't trust the reader, listener, friend, interviewer, constituent--or perhaps herself--to understand the true significance of events..."

I prefer "professor" Obama to the combat tested wife of Bill, the draft dodger, anytime.

I'm still trying to figure out how he was able to get out of his military obligation so be able to hang out as a hippy in Berkeley during the summer of love in 1971. Maybe a student can ask Chelsea about that.

More bias? You work to find some truth in every Obama claim or misspeak, so you can justify using words like OVERSTATES in headlines for him. When it's about Hillary, you people work to find everything that could possibly prove it to be a lie so that you can use the word LIES in your headlines.

If Obama supporters don't shut up, women will revolt. I'm seeing more and more angry women.

http://ownwoman.typepad.com/viewpoints/2008/04/would-you-tell.html

Did someone say LIES?

From DD --

Just Embellished Words: Senator Obama's Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements

Once again, the Obama campaign is getting caught saying one thing while doing another. They are personally attacking Hillary even though Sen. Obama has been found mispeaking and embellishing facts about himself more than ten times in recent months. Senator Obama's campaign is based on words -not a record of deeds - and if those words aren't backed up by facts, there's not much else left.

"Senator Obama has called himself a constitutional professor, claimed credit for passing legislation that never left committee, and apparently inflated his role as a community organizer among other issues. When it comes to his record, just words won't do. Senator Obama will have to use facts as well," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said.

Sen. Obama consistently and falsely claims that he was a law professor. The Sun-Times reported that, "Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." In academia, there's a significant difference: professors have tenure while lecturers do not. [Hotline Blog, 4/9/07; Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/04]

Obama claimed credit for nuclear leak legislation that never passed. "Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was 'the only nuclear legislation that I've passed.' 'I just did that last year,' he said, to murmurs of approval. A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks. Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama's comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate." [New York Times, 2/2/08]

Obama misspoke about his being conceived because of Selma. "Mr. Obama relayed a story of how his Kenyan father and his Kansan mother fell in love because of the tumult of Selma, but he was born in 1961, four years before the confrontation at Selma took place. When asked later, Mr. Obama clarified himself, saying: 'I meant the whole civil rights movement.'" [New York Times, 3/5/07]

LA Times: Fellow organizers say Sen. Obama took too much credit for his community organizing efforts. "As the 24-year-old mentor to public housing residents, Obama says he initiated and led efforts that thrust Altgeld's asbestos problem into the headlines, pushing city officials to call hearings and a reluctant housing authority to start a cleanup. But others tell the story much differently. They say Obama did not play the singular role in the asbestos episode that he portrays in the best-selling memoir 'Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.' Credit for pushing officials to deal with the cancer-causing substance, according to interviews and news accounts from that period, also goes to a well-known preexisting group at Altgeld Gardens and to a local newspaper called the Chicago Reporter. Obama does not mention either one in his book." [Los Angeles Times, 2/19/07]

Chicago Tribune: Obama's assertion that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing 'strains credulity.' "...Obama has been too self-exculpatory. His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004 -- more than a year before the adjacent home and property purchases by the Obamas and the Rezkos." [Chicago Tribune editorial, 1/27/08]

Obama was forced to revise his assertion that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House.' "White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was forced to revise a critical stump line of his on Saturday -- a flat declaration that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House' after it turned out his own written plan says they could, with some restrictions... After being challenged on the accuracy of what he has been saying -- in contrast to his written pledge -- at a news conference Saturday in Waterloo, Obama immediately softened what had been his hard line in his next stump speech." [Chicago Sun-Times, 12/16/07]

FactCheck.org: 'Selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers pump up Obama's health plan.' "Obama's ad touting his health care plan quotes phrases from newspaper articles and an editorial, but makes them sound more laudatory and authoritative than they actually are. It attributes to The Washington Post a line saying Obama's plan would save families about $2,500. But the Post was citing the estimate of the Obama campaign and didn't analyze the purported savings independently. It claims that "experts" say Obama's plan is "the best." "Experts" turn out to be editorial writers at the Iowa City Press-Citizen - who, for all their talents, aren't actual experts in the field. It quotes yet another newspaper saying Obama's plan "guarantees coverage for all Americans," neglecting to mention that, as the article makes clear, it's only Clinton's and Edwards' plans that would require coverage for everyone, while Obama's would allow individuals to buy in if they wanted to." [FactCheck.org, 1/3/08]

Sen. Obama said 'I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage,' but Obama health care legislation merely set up a task force. "As a state senator, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to pass legislation insuring 20,000 more children. And 65,000 more adults received health care...And I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage." The State Journal-Register reported in 2004 that "The [Illinois State] Senate squeaked out a controversial bill along party lines Wednesday to create a task force to study health-care reform in Illinois. [...] In its original form, the bill required the state to offer universal health care by 2007. That put a 'cloud' over the legislation, said Sen. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon. Under the latest version, the 29-member task force would hold at least five public hearings next year." [Obama Health Care speech, 5/29/07; State Journal-Register, 5/20/04]

ABC News: 'Obama...seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he made' on ethics reform. "ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: During Monday's Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he has made on disclosure of "bundlers," those individuals who aggregate their influence with the candidate they support by collecting $2,300 checks from a wide network of wealthy friends and associates. When former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel alleged that Obama had 134 bundlers, Obama responded by telling Gravel that the reason he knows how many bundlers he has raising money for him is "because I helped push through a law this past session to disclose that." Earlier this year, Obama sponsored an amendment [sic] in the Senate requiring lobbyists to disclose the candidates for whom they bundle. Obama's amendment would not, however, require candidates to release the names of their bundlers. What's more, although Obama's amendment was agreed to in the Senate by unanimous consent, the measure never became law as Obama seemed to suggest. Gravel and the rest of the public know how many bundlers Obama has not because of a 'law' that the Illinois Democrat has 'pushed through' but because Obama voluntarily discloses that information." [ABC News, 7/23/07]

Obama drastically overstated Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance. "When Sen. Barack Obama exaggerated the death toll of the tornado in Greensburg, Kan, during his visit to Richmond yesterday, The Associated Press headline rapidly evolved from 'Obama visits former Confederate capital for fundraiser' to `Obama rips Bush on Iraq war at Richmond fundraiser' to 'Weary Obama criticizes Bush on Iraq, drastically overstates Kansas tornado death toll' to 'Obama drastically overstates Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance.' Drudge made it a banner, ensuring no reporter would miss it." [politico.com, 5/9/07]

Want to see how St Obama "won" his first election?

http://news.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me

Think he's a "new kind of politician?"

Here's how he's actually run his campaign.

http://www.attacktimeline.com/

He's even worse than Bush.

Did you know he worked to block Bush's impeachment?

http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/The_Obama_Craze_Count_Me_Out_5413.html

What do you call a ship load of JakeDs at the bottom of the ocean? uh huh

Svreader:

Just so you will know, the Houston Press (which you sent me the link to) is the New Times weekly give-away with the 30 pages of ads for titty-bars and massage parlors in the back--not that there's anything wrong with that! Not to be confused with the daily broadsheet, the Houston Chronicle.

This is an article written eight years ago by a wannabe.

Pretty tame stuff compared to my Clinton site:

http://prorev.com/connex.htm

How about newsweek?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/129976

From Newsweek --

A misleading e-mail has been making the rounds, alleging that Clinton has fewer legislative accomplishments than Obama, and that they are less substantive. We've had questions about it from a number of readers, and blogs have jumped into the fray. So what's the real story on the Senate careers of the Democratic presidential candidates?

We find that the e-mail is false in almost every particular:

It sets up a face-off between apples and, well, broccoli, comparing only the Clinton-sponsored bills that became law with all bills sponsored or cosponsored by Obama, whether they were signed into law or not.

It includes legislation Obama sponsored in the Illinois state Senate, a very different legislative body.

It tells us that Obama has sponsored more legislation than Clinton, when in fact he has sponsored less.

It implies that Obama has passed more bills into law than Clinton, when the opposite is true.
Contrary to the e-mail's assertions, Clinton's and Obama's contributions are not qualitatively different, and quantitatively, Clinton has the edge.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/129976

"What do you call a ship load of JakeDs at the bottom of the ocean? uh huh."

Please add svreader to that ship's manifest.

He/she is a relentless hater for sure. I'm still waiting for whatever he/she is to address the issues. I wonder if he/she would talk like this to Senator Obama in person. I doubt it. Certainly the people who Barack has studied with, and worked with don't share the opinion of the hateful "svreader."

I'm sure that if Google had been around in 1860, the svreaders of the day would have attacked Abraham Lincoln for living in an unheated log cabin, and not using deodorant.

Good catch, svreader. How can America elect a man who doesn't think the pastor at his church is particularly controversial, yet voted against calling the Iranian Guards a "terror group"? He also voted against Roberts and Alito as too radical and supports stripping workers of the secret ballot in union elections.

Give me McCain any day over Obama.

For the record, by 1860, Abe Lincoln no longer lived in a log cabin and his wealth was higher than average, gained as an influential attorney for the railroad companies.

luke2 --

I've addressed the issues.

Why don't you try actually reading my posts?

Are you afraid of what you'd learn?

Its better to know the truth.

Its a lot better to know it before choosing the wrong candidate and seeing him get crushed in November.

Obama can't win.

Hillary will win.

I'm tired of seeing Democrats lose.

Republicans can't win against Clintons.

It takes a Clinton to fix what a Bush broke.

Lincoln was living in Springfield when he was elected President -- this is the only home that Lincoln ever owned, living there from 1844 until 1861 -- not as large as Washington's plantation on the Potomac or Jefferson's mountain retreat, Lincoln's home in downtown Springfield has proved irresistible to visitors since it opened to the public. Beautifully restored to its 1860 appearance, the Greek Revival house was purchased for $1,200 (quite a sum back then).

http://www.nps.gov/liho/

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/gallery/pict.htm

Of course, svreader, Clinton voted against calling the Iranian Guards a "terror group" too -- she also voted against Roberts and Alito as too radical -- not sure if she supports stripping workers of the secret ballot in union elections though.

Unfotunately,svreader, Mrs. Clinton's important act in the Senate was to authorize
George Bush to go to war in Iraq because the pollsters told her that she would appear weak on national security issues if she voted against the bill. She admits that she didn't bother to read the National Intelligence Estimate that carried many doubts about the presence of weapons of mass destruction.

She accuses Obama of just giving a speech in 2002. Well, if she had had the guts to stand up on the Senate floor and give that speech, quite possibly, we would not have lost 4000 lives in a civil war in Iraq

P.S. Happy Birthday to Justice Alito -- born April 1, 1950 (age 58 today).

Luke2:

You are aware that, in 2004, Obama admitted he doesn't know how he would have voted on Iraq had he been a U.S. Senator at the time?

Please note that there is significant salary difference between a lecturer and a professor. Also, the salary of a state senator is quite moderate, much lower than that in U.S. Congress.
By boasting his rank from lecturer to professor, Sen. Obama and his followers intended to show that he had high earning capacity and he is justified to live in a 1.6 million dollar mansion which he bought from the notorious Chicago developer Tony Rezko with a big bargain.

Why dose Obama get the support form Political Opportunist , Obama has Plagiarized many times and people support him, all universities Plagiarism is taken very seriously and some of them will be debarred from school and not even allowed to complete the degree or given a chance. I am very surprised that people support Obama for president of American, what kind of precedent is this. Vote for HCR, who is more honest, will be great president, than the Obama who is manipulative and the same with his Wife who benefited with the American system of education and became lawyers. Voting Obama is dragging the country into another disaster.

Previous "Fact Checker":

July 26, 2004 -- in an interview with the New York Times, prior to his speech at the Democratic Party convention, Obama declines to criticize presidential nominee John Kerry for his 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq war. Says he was "not privy to Senate intelligence reports." He then continued: "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/clinton_vs_obama_on_iraq.html

That was before the "Fact Checker" was in the tank for Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

Good point, austin, about Rezko.

"How about newsweek?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/129976

I have read all your links, dear svreader, and am still voting for the best person- Barack Obama

The article speaks about an email. Barack Obama has never made those claims. Hillary has made many claims about her fake experiences while First Lady. This is substantially different. Obama did not make the claims that newsweek is talking about.

Go ahead and vote for a former member of the Wal-Mart Board of Directors. In my mind, Hillary, the former Barry Goldwater girl and president of the Young Republicans will do anything,say anything to get her way.

Not this time.

Yes, Luke2, it's much easier to just ignore facts, isn't it?

JakeD, you talk out of both sides of your mouth at the same time.

Your man McCain thinks that we can "win" in Iraq when he doesn't even know the difference between shia and sunni and thinks that Iran is training al qaeda.I think McCain might even have the middle east confused with Viet-Nam. Seems he never did very well in geography.

Keep up your irrational attacks. Each time I read one of your incredibly stupid blogs I go to www.barackobama.com and send in another $100. No wonder Obama is doing so well. Keep up the good work.

I think we have taken our eye off the ball. Is the fact whether or not Senator Obama was a Professor, professor, or Senior Lecturer going to get us Americans affordable health care, end the war in Iraq, fix our ailing economy, I think all of us with half a brain would say "no" no more than whether Senator Clinton was or wasnt shot at in Bosina...who cares. What we as Americans should be thinking about is who is best suited to lead this country for the next four years and stop talking about these side bar issues which are meaningless.

For those who suggested they would vote for McCain, Nadar, or stay at home because Senator Obama may have used professor instead of Senior Lecturer or something insignificant Senator Clinton may have or not have done, deserve four more years of what we have had over the last 8 years. And no it will not be opposite side's fault, each of us are responsible for our vote but we all are going to live with the results. These are serious times and it calls for some careful thought, we are not electing Class President of our local high school, we are electing the leader of the free world and his or her decisions over the next four years will impact all of our lives for the next generation, we had better take it seriously.

JakeD is a McCain front man. Just ignore him/her.

I'm voting for Hillary, obama just wont win against McCain. Do we really need another John Kerry? That's what we get with obama excluding the senate, and war time experience. I for one and there are many more like me will Vote for McCain if obama steals the nomination.

The point the Clinton people appear to have been trying to make is that Obama is not a Professor of Law but that by continually referring to him as a law professor leaves most people who could care less about academe and its hierarchies with the impression that Obama is more accomplished than he actually is.

Titles do matter -- a real professor, even an untenured one, has done research and published in scholarly or professional journals, advised students, served on committees, and, so on. In short, he has worked full time at mastering the subjects he teaches. Has Obama done that? Or has he spent his time building a political resume?

Is he a master, a journeyman, or an apprentice? The distinction matters, if you are trying to gauge his degree of expertise. Teaching alone will not tell you that; it is commonplace for faculty to teach courses in which they are one page ahead of their students, especially if they are introductory or required courses. Expertise is less important than having a warm body in front of the class. Some professors teach their research areas as general courses, but a significant number teach them to grad students in seminars because they are so specialized.

Law school, of course, is a professional school, a rather special animal, so the rules are different. But splitting hairs over a law professor and a Professor Law is a bit disingenuous, as is the statement that everybody who teaches is simply a "professor" because the impact that the use of "law professor" has on the general public, particularly on key segments of Obama's base (students and professionals) is important. "Lecturer" has the connotation of "adjunct," not full-time faculty (and Obama was indeed not full-time faculty), but styling him a law professor gives the impression that he was a fully fledged member of the U of C law faculty and therefore has an impressive grasp of constitutional law. But is this indeed the case? I would be curious to know what he has written on the subject and what courses he taught, information that seems not to be on the U of C website.

Many of these comments suggest that anyone who teaches is a professor, including journalists doing a one-time gig and grad students earning tuition money. But this is about as accurate as claiming that junior and senior managers are the same and all managers are managers, including CEOs, or that all doctors are doctors. But would you really go to a GP to have a tumor removed?

If it does not matter whether Obama refers to himself as a Lecturer or Senior Lecturer (if we are to be precise), as opposed to a law professor or a professor of constitutional law, then why refer to himself as the latter? Usually, people use titles for a reason. What is his?

The point the Clinton people appear to have been trying to make is that Obama is not a Professor of Law but that by continually referring to him as a law professor leaves most people who could care less about academe and its hierarchies with the impression that Obama is more accomplished than he actually is.

Titles do matter -- a real professor, even an untenured one, has done research and published in scholarly or professional journals, advised students, served on committees, and, so on. In short, he has worked full time at mastering the subjects he teaches. Has Obama done that? Or has he spent his time building a political resume?

Is he a master, a journeyman, or an apprentice? The distinction matters, if you are trying to gauge his degree of expertise. Teaching alone will not tell you that; it is commonplace for faculty to teach courses in which they are one page ahead of their students, especially if they are introductory or required courses. Expertise is less important than having a warm body in front of the class. Some professors teach their research areas as general courses, but a significant number teach them to grad students in seminars because they are so specialized.

Law school, of course, is a professional school, a rather special animal, so the rules are different. But splitting hairs over a law professor and a Professor Law is a bit disingenuous, as is the statement that everybody who teaches is simply a "professor" because the impact that the use of "law professor" has on the general public, particularly on key segments of Obama's base (students and professionals) is important. "Lecturer" has the connotation of "adjunct," not full-time faculty (and Obama was indeed not full-time faculty), but styling him a law professor gives the impression that he was a fully fledged member of the U of C law faculty and therefore has an impressive grasp of constitutional law. But is this indeed the case? I would be curious to know what he has written on the subject and what courses he taught, information that seems not to be on the U of C website.

Many of these comments suggest that anyone who teaches is a professor, including journalists doing a one-time gig and grad students earning tuition money. But this is about as accurate as claiming that junior and senior managers are the same and all managers are managers, including CEOs, or that all doctors are doctors. But would you really go to a GP to have a tumor removed?

If it does not matter whether Obama refers to himself as a Lecturer or Senior Lecturer (if we are to be precise), as opposed to a law professor or a professor of constitutional law, then why refer to himself as the latter? Usually, people use titles for a reason. What is his?

Austin you are an idiot.

Barack Obama bought his house from the Wondisfords with no help from Tony Rezko. He used the royalties from his book "the Audacity of Hope," to pay for the house. Read the facts here if you dare.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/844597,transcript031508.article

At any rate- stop the lies. You are not helping your candidate.

I'm bored with this lecturer/professor flap. Lets do something fun like go back and look at videos of Hillary avoiding sniper fire in Bosnia. Now thats fun.

"I'm bored with this lecturer/professor flap. Lets do something fun like go back and look at videos of Hillary avoiding sniper fire in Bosnia. Now thats fun." Huma Huma

I'd rather watch her in action on the Wal-Mart Board of Directors from 1986-1992. Watch it here.So much for women's rights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuZhwV24PmM

I think it is a sign of how stupid this campaign has become that we have comment after comment discussing whether it matters that Obama was a "Senior Lecturer" or a "professor." Who cares.

Please ban SvReader and JakeD from making comments and let's have more thoughtful and serious comments on the post.

In my opinion Sen. Obama is highly qualified person and we should giving him credit for giving his time for such a noble cause as teaching.

The attempts by JakeD and his ilk is petty partisanship they are nitpicking on small things but ignoring big picture.

Please ban SvReader and JakeD from making comments and let's have more thoughtful and serious discussion

In my opinion, Sen. Obama is highly qualified person and we should be giving him credit for giving his time for such a noble cause.

The attempts by JakeD and his ilk are petty partisanship, they are nitpicking on small things but ignoring big picture.

This makes Obama's so called "scandals" indeed look like a fairy tale. Sorry Bill.

Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sBL-sqe6zk&feature=related

From the Newsweek April 1, 2008 web article "Substance Abuse" on Hillary's Senate record, this is a listing of her Senate accomplishments.
-------------------------------------------

"Here's our list of bills solely sponsored by Clinton that became law (descriptions of each are verbatim from THOMAS.gov, the Library of Congress' database of legislative information):

110th Congress:
S. 694, A bill to direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations to reduce the incidence of child injury and death occurring inside or outside of light motor vehicles, and for other purposes.

109th Congress:
S. 272, A bill to designate certain National Forest System land in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System.
S. 1283, A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a program to assist family caregivers in accessing affordable and high-quality respite care, and for other purposes.
S. 2376, A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 80 Killian Road in Massapequa, New York, as the "Gerard A. Fiorenza Post Office Building."
S. 2722, A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 170 East Main Street in Patchogue, New York, as the "Lieutenant Michael P. Murphy Post Office Building."
S. 3613, A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2951 New York Highway 43 in Averill Park, New York, as the "Major George Quamo Post Office Building."
S. 3716, A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 100 Pitcher Street in Utica, New York, as the "Captain George A. Wood Post Office Building."
S. 3910, A bill to direct the Joint Committee on the Library to accept the donation of a bust depicting Sojourner Truth and to display the bust in a suitable location in the Capitol.

108th Congress:
S. 1241, A bill to establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site in the State of New York, and for other purposes.
S. 1266, A bill to award a congressional gold medal to Dr. Dorothy Height, in recognition of her many contributions to the Nation.
S. 1425, A bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to reauthorize the New York City Watershed Protection Program.
S. 2838, A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 10 West Prospect Street in Nanuet, New York, as the "Anthony I. Lombardi Memorial Post Office Building."
S. 2839, A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 555 West 180th Street in New York, New York, as the "Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda Post Office."

107th Congress:
S. 584, A bill to designate the United States courthouse located at 40 Centre Street in New York, New York, as the "Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse."
S. 1422, A bill to provide for the expedited payment of certain benefits for a public safety officer who was killed or suffered a catastrophic injury as a direct and proximate result of a personal injury sustained in the line of duty in connection with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
S. 1622, A bill to extend the period of availability of unemployment assistance under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act in the case of victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
S. 1892, A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 375 Carlls Path in Deer Park, New York, as the "Raymond M. Downey Post Office Building."
S. 2496, A bill to provide for the establishment of investigative teams to assess building performance and emergency response and evacuation procedures in the wake of any building failure that has resulted in substantial loss of life or that posed significant potential of substantial loss of life, and for other purposes.
S. 2918, A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 380 Main Street in Farmingdale, New York, as the "Peter J. Ganci, Jr. Post Office Building."
-------------------------------------------

I am, in fact, a Professor of English at an accredited college. I am not, however, tenured. My college, like many others, does not do tenure any more. When I was hired as an instructor twenty years ago, my dean introduced me as "professor." My students called me "professor." I don't refer to my colleagues who are assistant or associate professors as "Assistant Professor Smith" or "Associate Professor Jones." They are simply professors. And I wouldn't refer to an adjunct faculty member as anything but "Professor." It would be disrespectful in my mind and could lead students to imagine a distinction that would be inappropriate in a student/teacher relationship.
By the way, a lawyer who wants to puff up can always use "Esq." A lawyer who holds a Juris Doctor degree--which is what a lot of law schools confer--could rightfully insist on being addressed as "doctor." Some academics (and I am one) prefer "Doctor" to "Professor"; as I once explained this, "'Doctor' belongs to me; 'Professor' belongs to my institution" and Obama's institution refers to him as "Professor."
What I want to know is why the Clintons' surrogates are making a big deal about an academic title held in the past. Why don't they want to talk about issues? Why have the Clintons, supposedly at the head of an unbeatable machine, slipped from awaiting coronation to grasping at straws? Why have they run the most unfocused, disorganized campaign I can recall in my 48 years of following presidential elections?
And why would any Democrat choose to vote for a supposedly Democratic candidate who effectively endorsed the Republican who will be her opponent in the unlikely event that she gets the nomination?

svreader, go f*** yourself. You make no effort to be fair or honest. You single-handedly ruin my day every time I read the comments sections of articles, because you make me so damn mad.

From Newsweek --

A misleading e-mail has been making the rounds, alleging that Clinton has fewer legislative accomplishments than Obama, and that they are less substantive. We've had questions about it from a number of readers, and blogs have jumped into the fray. So what's the real story on the Senate careers of the Democratic presidential candidates?

We find that the e-mail is false in almost every particular:

It sets up a face-off between apples and, well, broccoli, comparing only the Clinton-sponsored bills that became law with all bills sponsored or cosponsored by Obama, whether they were signed into law or not.

It includes legislation Obama sponsored in the Illinois state Senate, a very different legislative body.

It tells us that Obama has sponsored more legislation than Clinton, when in fact he has sponsored less.

It implies that Obama has passed more bills into law than Clinton, when the opposite is true.
Contrary to the e-mail's assertions, Clinton's and Obama's contributions are not qualitatively different, and quantitatively, Clinton has the edge.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/129976

Here's the simple question that proves his intent was to mislead ---

Why didn't he just say "when I taught law"?

Why did he throw in "law professor" if his intent wasn't to get the status of being a "professor"?

Obama supporters want to ban anyone who dares to post negative information about their leader.

What does that say about the kind of people he attracts?

Sorry, fellas.

This is America, not the Soviet Union.

Your emperor has no clothes.

He's not going to be elected to anything.

Thank God!!!!

"It implies that Obama has passed more bills into law than Clinton, when the opposite is true." svreader

It still remains that on the one vote that really mattered most was the authorization for George Bush to go to war in Iraq and Mrs Clinton voted yea without reading the national intelligence estimate. She chose to read the polls instead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ls9yD4ZC6tA&NR=1

You've got a new boyfriend, but still give the same empty lip-service.

Barry's not worth your "attention"

The truth is coming out about what he did in Chicago.

The truth willl be the end of Barry Obama.

By the way, "Monica" those aren't my words, they're Newsweeks.

Hillary supporters want to ban anyone who dares to post negative information about their leader.

Without negative information, there would be nothing to say about Hillary.

What does that say about the kind of people she attracts?

Sorry, children.

This is America, where I can drive my Prius.

Your emperess has no pantsuits.

She's not going to be elected to anything.

Thanks be to Allah.

If title makes little difference, then why not just refer to himself as president now?

Check this out:

www.northstarwriters.com/dc163.htm

I wonder how much truth there is to this. It does fit a pattern.

Humma Mumma --

Stop giving Barry a Humma.

None of us want to watch.

Like Barry, you steal other people's words, put another name in, and publish them as your own.

Your own post discredits you more than anything I could post in response.

Your post shows that you, like Barry, aren't half as clever as you think you are.

More on the Clinton crime family

'Bill and Hillary Clinton: Their secret life" parts 1-12

http://www.youtube.com/user/TMWKK

"The truth willl be the end of Barry Obama."

No, it will the beginning of change that we can believe in. Actually the "truth" will be the end of the Clintons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9szhm3JzJvA&NR=1

Monica --

I'll see you and raise you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAYe7MT5BxM

Here's the simple question for Hillary that proves her intent was to lie:

Why didn't she just say that when she landed in Bosnia, she was scared sh_tless and had no idea where she was.

Why did she throw in "sniper fire" and "bullet proof vests" if her goal wasn't to lie.

But Hillary got caught telling the big lie 12 years later through videos.

Now there will be no White House for Hillary.

The Clinton Campaign is as disgusting as Monica's dress.

JUANITA'S LETTER TO HILLARY --- Full Text

News/Current Events Miscellaneous Keywords: JUANITA; RAPIST
Source: DRUDGE
Published: 10-15-00 Author: Juanita Broaddrick
Posted on 10/15/2000 22:20:33 PDT by doug from upland
AN OPEN LETTER TO HILLARY CLINTON
BY JUANITA BROADDRICK
'DO YOU REMEMBER?'
SUNDAY OCT 15, 2000

As I watched Rick Lazio's interview on Fox News this morning, I felt compelled to write this open letter to you, Mrs. Clinton. Brit Hume asked Mr. Lazio's views regarding you as a person and how he perceived you as a candidate. Rick Lazio did not answer the question, but I know that I can. You know it, too.

I have no doubt that you are the same conniving, self-serving person you were twenty-two years ago when I had the misfortune to meet you. When I see you on television, campaigning for the New York senate race, I can see the same hypocrisy in your face that you displayed to me one evening in 1978. You have not changed.

I remember it as though it was yesterday. I only wish that it were yesterday and maybe there would still be time to do something about what your husband, Bill Clinton, did to me. There was a political rally for Mr. Clinton's bid for governor of Arkansas. I had obligated myself to be at this rally prior to my being assaulted by your husband in April, 1978. I had made up my mind to make an appearance and then leave as soon as the two of you arrived. This was a big mistake, but I was still in a state of shock and denial. You had questioned the gentleman who drove you and Mr. Clinton from the airport. You asked him about me and if I would be at the gathering. Do you remember? You told the driver, "Bill has talked so much about Juanita", and that you were so anxious to meet me. Well, you wasted no time. As soon as you entered the room, you came directly to me and grabbed my hand. Do you remember how you thanked me, saying "we want to thank you for everything that you do for Bill". At that point, I was pretty shaken and started to walk off. Remember how you kept a tight grip on my hand and drew closer to me? You repeated your statement, but this time with a coldness and look that I have seen many times on television in the last eight years. You said, "Everything you do for Bill". You then released your grip and I said nothing and left the gathering.

What did you mean, Hillary? Were you referring to my keeping quiet about the assault I had suffered at the hands of your husband only two weeks before? Were you warning me to continue to keep quiet? We both know the answer to that question.

Yes, I can answer Brit Hume's question. You are the same Hillary that you were twenty years ago. You are cold, calculating and self-serving. You cannot tolerate the thought that you will soon be without the power you have wielded for the last eight years. Your effort to stay in power will be at the expense of the state of New York. I only hope the voters of New York will wake up in time and realize that Hillary Clinton is not an honorable or an honest person.

I will end by asking if you believe the statements I made on NBC Dateline when Lisa Myers asked if I had been assaulted and raped by your husband? Or perhaps, you are like Vice-President Gore and did not see the interview.

Juanita Broaddrick
Arkansas

Well, if Obama wasn't fudging the issue at all, why the hell did he change his website to read "lecturer" and not "professor" huh? But only after he was caught out? SOMEONE CATCHES HIM IN HIS WEB OF LIES! OF COURSE HE WAS FUDGING, HE'S DONE THAT HIS WHOLE LIFE! BECAUSE HE'S NEVER DONE ANYTHING EXCEPT NURSE HIS "POOR ME" AND RACIST WHITE WORLD FEELINGS, HE'S HAD TO EMBELLISH, HE'S NEEDED A CRUTCH-SOMETHING TO MAKE HIM LARGER AND BETTER THAN WHAT HE REALLY IS; HE NEEDED TO SNORT COCAINE AND SELL IT, NEEDED TO LIE ABOUT HIS 20 YEAR RELATIONSHIP WITH A RANTING RACIST HATEMONGER, NEEDED TO MAKE HIS WHITE GRANDMOTHER OUT TO BE A RACIST TO GET VOTES WHEN SHE CLEARLY WASN'T, NEEDED TO LIE THAT HE OWED HIS EXISTENCE TO THE KENNEDYS, TO SHOW THAT HE TOO WAS PART OF CAMELOT

-BUT WHAT HE DOESN'T NEED, NAY, SHOULD NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT, IS BEING PRESIDENT-IT'S ABSURD-THIS MESSED UP HEAD TRIP OF A CANDIDATE NEEDS TO GO BACK HOME AND DO WHAT HE DOES BEST-GIVE SPEECHES OR DO "LECTURES" BUT STAY THE HELL OUT OF PUBLIC OFFICE-HE IS UNFIT IN ANY WAY TO LEAD, HE IS NOT A LEADER-HE'S A FOLLOWER- HE HAS NO IDEA HOW TO ENGAGE IN POLITICAL DEAL-MAKING TO MAKE TOUGH DECISIONS- HE'S DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HIS WHOLE LIFE EXCEPT WRITE A FEW BRIEFS, LECTURE AND DO SOME "COMMUNITY ORGANIZING" HELL-MY MOTHER DOES COMMUNITY ORGANIZING-BFD!

HOW ANYONE COULD THINK THIS MAN IS FIT AND PREPARED TO LEAD THE WORLD'S ONLY SUPERPOWER ASTONISHES ME EVERY SINGLE DAY OF THIS CAMPAIGN. IT'S LIKE WE'RE LIVING IN SOME PARALLEL UNIVERSE-EVERYTHING TURNED UPSIDE DOWN!

svreader,

I'll cover your ante and raise you with this: Be sure and watch all 12 episodes- The Clintons are unique. Barack is an angel compared to the "monsters" from Arkansas.

http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=TMWKK&p=r

LOL! The Hillary Clinton Campaign is obsessed with Obama. What a bunch of losers?!?!

Look Phil leave Mike alone! Mike didn't tell the lie about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia. Hillary did! Obama didnt tell the lie about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia. Hillary did!

If you want people to stop thinking that Hillary is a liar, why not just tell Hillary to stop lying. I know! Its impossible.

Look I'm sure you've badgered Mike to death to get him to fact check Obama for two days in a row. The fact is unless Obama gets up in front of the world and tells a HUGE lie or three like Hillary did you are not going to be able to get people to believe that he is as dishonest as Hillary is.

At least 15 other people caught her in this lie, and she kept it up with a straight face, even demeaning innocent comedians in the process. If it were not for the video, just think how long that would have went on. She blew it and wants to take it out on someone else because she got caught.

Just drop it Phil because the longer you push this, the longer people will keep the the Bosnia footage in their short term memory.

More on the Clintons:

http://video.gogle.pl/videoplay?docid=-6470450895164255089

Barack Obama graduated from Harvard Law School in the top 1% of his class (Hillary graduated in the middle of her class at Yale).

Barack Obama's major concentration at Harvard Law School was Constitutional Law.

Barack Obama was elected President of the Harvard Law Review - a very great honor.

Hillary had no such honors at Yale. And she FLUNKED HER LAW EXAM TWICE in Washington DC. She finally passed the exam after she moved to Arkansas where the pass rate was considerably higher than in Washington.

Obama was a Senior Lecturer on Constitutional Law at the Law School of the prestigious University of Chicago. He was invited SEVERAL TIMES by the Univ. of Chicago, to work there full time as a full professor, but he declined these invitations because of his full-time job as a Civil Rights lawyer.

Just a few facts to consider.

PS - Hillary worked her entire career in Arkansas as a CORPORATE LAWYER, defending large corporations such as WalMart and Tyson, in lawsuits against them.

Barack Obama graduated from Harvard Law School in the top 1% of his class (Hillary graduated in the middle of her class at Yale).

Barack Obama's major concentration at Harvard Law School was Constitutional Law.

Barack Obama was elected President of the Harvard Law Review - a very great honor.

Hillary had no such honors at Yale. And she FLUNKED HER LAW EXAM TWICE in Washington DC. She finally passed the exam after she moved to Arkansas where the pass rate was considerably higher than in Washington.

Obama was a Senior Lecturer on Constitutional Law at the Law School of the prestigious University of Chicago. He was invited SEVERAL TIMES by the Univ. of Chicago, to work there full time as a full professor, but he declined these invitations because of his full-time job as a Civil Rights lawyer.

Just a few facts to consider.

PS - Hillary worked her entire career in Arkansas as a CORPORATE LAWYER, defending large corporations such as WalMart and Tyson, in lawsuits against them.

Barack Obama graduated from Harvard Law School in the top 1% of his class (Hillary graduated in the middle of her class at Yale).

Barack Obama's major concentration at Harvard Law School was Constitutional Law.

Barack Obama was elected President of the Harvard Law Review - a very great honor.

Hillary had no such honors at Yale. And she FLUNKED HER LAW EXAM TWICE in Washington DC. She finally passed the exam after she moved to Arkansas where the pass rate was considerably higher than in Washington.

Obama was a Senior Lecturer on Constitutional Law at the Law School of the prestigious University of Chicago. He was invited SEVERAL TIMES by the Univ. of Chicago, to work there full time as a full professor, but he declined these invitations because of his full-time job as a Civil Rights lawyer.

Just a few facts to consider.

PS - Hillary worked her entire career in Arkansas as a CORPORATE LAWYER, defending large corporations such as WalMart and Tyson, in lawsuits against them.

Does anyone know if this is true?
http://kennethelamb.blogspot.com/2008/02/barak-obama-questions-about-ethnic.html

Does anyone know if this is true?
http://kennethelamb.blogspot.com/2008/02/barak-obama-questions-about-ethnic.html

By Ruth Marcus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 4, 1999; Page A1

After President Clinton and fund-raiser extraordinaire Terry McAuliffe played a round of golf in upstate New York on Tuesday, the president made an unscheduled visit to St. Camillus Nursing Home to visit McAuliffe's ailing 79-year-old mother, Millie, who recently had hip replacement surgery.
Later in the week, McAuliffe returned the favor - and then some. When former White House chief of staff Erskine B. Bowles at the last minute balked at guaranteeing a $1.35 million mortgage for the Clintons' new house in Chappaqua, N.Y., McAuliffe rode to the president's rescue.

In a move that enables the Clintons to buy the house - and Hillary Rodham Clinton to have a base for her New York Senate run - the 42-year-old real estate developer and dealmaker pledged to put up $1.35 million in cash to secure a mortgage for the Clintons. Otherwise, swamped by more than $5 million in legal debts, the Clintons might have had difficulty obtaining the loan for the five-bedroom, century-old house.

Ethics law experts said yesterday that there is no legal difficulty with the Clintons' accepting McAuliffe's help, but some questioned the propriety of the president's accepting such a benefit from a private citizen.

"It's just plain wrong. It's dangerous. It's inappropriate," said Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21. "This is a financial favor worth over a million dollars to the president."

McAuliffe is not actually giving any money to the Clintons. Rather, he will deposit $1.35 million in cash - the full amount of their mortgage - with Bankers Trust; the only risk to McAuliffe's money is in the unlikely event that the Clintons default.

The Clintons will put up $350,000 and pay an adjustable-rate mortgage set at one point over the London Interbank Offered Rate, a bank lending rate that is now 5.52 percent. The loan is "interest-only," meaning the Clintons pay only interest on the loan but do not reduce the principal during the five-year term.

Some mortgage bankers said McAuliffe's intervention either allowed the Clintons to obtain what might appear to be an otherwise risky loan or to secure a lower interest rate because the mortgage is fully backed by collateral. "They would definitely be in a better position to get a better rate with that deal," said Crestar Mortgage Corp. senior vice president Patrick Casey, incoming president of the Mortgage Bankers Association of Metropolitan Washington.

White House spokesman Jim Kennedy said the arrangement was "deemed to be the most sensible mortgage, given their situation."

Neither Bankers Trust nor the White House would provide details yesterday about what interest McAuliffe would earn. Financial experts said that it was likely to be well below what he could reap in the stock market or from his investments, but that there would be little inconvenience for McAuliffe if he keeps a significant amount of his wealth in cash.

A source close to McAuliffe described the transaction as "risk-free." McAuliffe's business has included such enterprises as developing real estate in Florida, selling title insurance, marketing credit cards to unions and running a bank.

"It's not a legal issue, it's a perception issue," said Charles R. Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity. "I am always uncomfortable when people who give money or raise money are personally involved with a public official financially. . . . It's worrisome for a sitting president to be this dependent on any one person financially."

The White House said it was going beyond legal requirements in revealing McAuliffe's role, noting that the Office of Government Ethics had advised it that McAuliffe's guarantee of the loan was not a "gift" that must be reported on the Clintons' annual financial disclosure form. The ethics office reasoned that, because the guarantee is only a promise for the future, it does not have current cash benefit that has to be included on the forms, a government official said.

"Even though we have no obligation to do so, we decided to make public the details about the mortgage in an effort to be as transparent as we can," Kennedy said.

"We believe the public does have a right to know about this and people are free to make their own judgments about it," Kennedy added. "Terry McAuliffe is a close friend of the president and he's happy to be of some help here, but since this is Washington, it's not surprising that some people can find a way to be critical."

However, some ethics experts said that other executive and legislative branch officials might be prohibited from accepting such help. Although federal employees are prohibited from taking most gifts, the rules make an exception for the president and vice president - a difference originally intended to allow them to accept gifts from foreign dignitaries but that has since been invoked in permitting Clinton, for example, to accept contributions to his legal defense fund.

Even if a mortgage guarantee is not considered a gift for the purposes of the disclosure form, a government official said, it could be deemed a gift - and prohibited to other government employees - under the rules restricting acceptance of such benefits.

"It's hard to imagine how it isn't a gift," said one private lawyer who specializes in government ethics. "It's not that he wrote him a letter commending his character. He's put $1.3 million in cash out and doesn't have the use of that for the period of the balloon clause. . . . There's no way of seeing it as something not of value to the Clintons."

The Clintons are not the first presidential family to have friends come to their aid in buying a house. In 1986, 18 friends contributed $2.5 million to buy Ronald and Nancy Reagan a retirement home in Bel Air when a house Nancy Reagan liked went on the market. The Reagans eventually bought the property.

This is far from the first time McAuliffe has come to the aid of the Clintons. He headed fund-raising for the president's 1996 reelection campaign, devising the strategy that included wooing big donors with such benefits as overnight stays in the Lincoln Bedroom. Now, McAuliffe has taken on an array of tasks for the first family: spearheading efforts to help the Clintons dig themselves out of their legal debt, overseeing fund-raising for Clinton's presidential library and helping raise money for Hillary Clinton's campaign.

Indeed, McAuliffe is so instrumental to Clinton's financial future that the president has resisted efforts to lure McAuliffe to return to the Democratic National Committee, where McAuliffe was finance chairman during Clinton's first term.

McAuliffe is one of the small circle of friends who are the recipients of late-night phone calls from Clinton. Last February, as the Senate debated the articles of impeachment against the president, Clinton invited McAuliffe to the White House to celebrate McAuliffe's 42nd birthday with Dom Perignon and an overnight stay in the Lincoln Bedroom.

Known universally around Washington as "the Macker," McAuliffe first made his mark in national fund-raising when he worked for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee under California Rep. Tony Coelho. By 1988, McAuliffe was the chief fund-raiser for Missouri Rep. Richard A. Gephardt's presidential campaign. In 1992, when Clinton was making his first run for the presidency, McAuliffe was the chief fund-raiser for one of his Democratic rivals, Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin.

Since then, things have changed. "I can tell you this," McAuliffe said Thursday night at a Syracuse fund-raiser that one of his kindergarten friends was hosting for Hillary Clinton. "I have no closer friends than the president and first lady."

Staff writers Jennifer Frey in Skaneateles, N.Y., and Susan B. Glasser and researcher Madonna Lebling in Washington contributed to this report.

© 1999 The Washington Post Company

"The University of Chicago said "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School." If his employer isn't qualified to say that he was a professor, who is?"

Amen. Lots of irate comments from people who obviously never went to college, let alone served on the faculty of one. I've been doing that since 1965, in one capacity or another, in various disciplines. Though academic pay grades and status of tenure [Adjunct Professor/Instructor/Lecturer, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Full Professor, Distinguished Chair, etc.] are important within the academy, since they reflect hierarchical position and status of tenure, the general term "professor" usually suffices for the Great Unwashed. I'm currently an Adjunct Professor [really, a part-time instructor] in a law school. My students address me as "Professor." So do the Deans in their letters to me.

Clearly, Obama didn't exaggerate: if the University of Chicago [one of the top ten law schools in the country] calls him a "Professor," then he IS a "Professor." End of debate. His "correcting" the record on his website was not necessary, for those of us who know what the term means in the first place. But it gives the howling dogs something to howl about.

"The University of Chicago said "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School." If his employer isn't qualified to say that he was a professor, who is?"

Amen. Lots of irate comments from people who obviously never went to college, let alone served on the faculty of one. I've been doing that since 1965, in one capacity or another, in various disciplines. Though academic pay grades and status of tenure [Adjunct Professor/Instructor/Lecturer, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Full Professor, Distinguished Chair, etc.] are important within the academy, since they reflect hierarchical position and status of tenure, the general term "professor" usually suffices for the Great Unwashed. I'm currently an Adjunct Professor [really, a part-time instructor] in a law school. My students address me as "Professor." So do the Deans in their letters to me.

Clearly, Obama didn't exaggerate: if the University of Chicago [one of the top ten law schools in the country] calls him a "Professor," then he IS a "Professor." End of debate. His "correcting" the record on his website was not necessary, for those of us who know what the term means in the first place. But it gives the howling dogs something to howl about.

"The University of Chicago said "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School." If his employer isn't qualified to say that he was a professor, who is?"

Amen. Lots of irate comments from people who obviously never went to college, let alone served on the faculty of one. I've been doing that since 1965, in one capacity or another, in various disciplines. Though academic pay grades and status of tenure [Adjunct Professor/Instructor/Lecturer, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Full Professor, Distinguished Chair, etc.] are important within the academy, since they reflect hierarchical position and status of tenure, the general term "professor" usually suffices for the Great Unwashed. I'm currently an Adjunct Professor [really, a part-time instructor] in a law school. My students address me as "Professor." So do the Deans in their letters to me.

Clearly, Obama didn't exaggerate: if the University of Chicago [one of the top ten law schools in the country] calls him a "Professor," then he IS a "Professor." End of debate. His "correcting" the record on his website was not necessary, for those of us who know what the term means in the first place. But it gives the howling dogs something to howl about.

"The University of Chicago said "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School." If his employer isn't qualified to say that he was a professor, who is?"

Amen. Lots of irate comments from people who obviously never went to college, let alone served on the faculty of one. I've been doing that since 1965, in one capacity or another, in various disciplines. Though academic pay grades and status of tenure [Adjunct Professor/Instructor/Lecturer, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Full Professor, Distinguished Chair, etc.] are important within the academy, since they reflect hierarchical position and status of tenure, the general term "professor" usually suffices for the Great Unwashed. I'm currently an Adjunct Professor [really, a part-time instructor] in a law school. My students address me as "Professor." So do the Deans in their letters to me.

Clearly, Obama didn't exaggerate: if the University of Chicago [one of the top ten law schools in the country] calls him a "Professor," then he IS a "Professor." End of debate. His "correcting" the record on his website was not necessary, for those of us who know what the term means in the first place. But it gives the howling dogs something to howl about.

"The University of Chicago said "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School." If his employer isn't qualified to say that he was a professor, who is?"

Amen. Lots of irate comments from people who obviously never went to college, let alone served on the faculty of one. I've been doing that since 1965, in one capacity or another, in various disciplines. Though academic pay grades and status of tenure [Adjunct Professor/Instructor/Lecturer, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Full Professor, Distinguished Chair, etc.] are important within the academy, since they reflect hierarchical position and status of tenure, the general term "professor" usually suffices for the Great Unwashed. I'm currently an Adjunct Professor [really, a part-time instructor] in a law school. My students address me as "Professor." So do the Deans in their letters to me.

Another point, while we're at it. Certain Hillarious posters ["Iowatreasures" comes to mind] claim that Obama got to be President of the Harvard Law Review through Affirmative Action. Believe me, it isn't possible. I graduated from Harvard Law School four years before Obama [we didn't overlap, it being a three-year program, though I was slightly acquainted with Michelle, who was a couple of years behind me]. The Law School takes the Law Review assignments very seriously, since they are probably the most powerful positions in the American Legal Establishment [for better or worse...]. So appointment to Law Review is based upon two factors:

(1) First year grades, which are totally anonymous. First year grades [like most grades at HLS] are based upon one or two examinations, in which the students are assigned random numbers for their answer sheets. The Professor [of whatever academic level] reading the tests has no idea who the student submitting the test is.

(2) An anonymous writing competition. The students are given a problem to resolve in a written essay. The students are all given a random number that "identifies" them only to those who compile the results; the Professors who read the essays don't have any way of finding out who the author of the essay is.

A very small percentage of HLS students make Law Review. I didn't. Barack did. It has nothing to do with Affirmative Action; it's entirely based upon merit.

As for becoming President of the Law Review; that is a matter of election by those who made Law Review. Lots of schmoozing is,in fact, involved. But you're schmoozing among the top 5% or so of the students at the most elite Law School in the world....

Another point, while we're at it. Certain Hillarious posters ["Iowatreasures" comes to mind] claim that Obama got to be President of the Harvard Law Review through Affirmative Action. Believe me, it isn't possible. I graduated from Harvard Law School four years before Obama [we didn't overlap, it being a three-year program, though I was slightly acquainted with Michelle, who was a couple of years behind me]. The Law School takes the Law Review assignments very seriously, since they are probably the most powerful positions in the American Legal Establishment [for better or worse...]. So appointment to Law Review is based upon two factors:

(1) First year grades, which are totally anonymous. First year grades [like most grades at HLS] are based upon one or two examinations, in which the students are assigned random numbers for their answer sheets. The Professor [of whatever academic level] reading the tests has no idea who the student submitting the test is.

(2) An anonymous writing competition. The students are given a problem to resolve in a written essay. The students are all given a random number that "identifies" them only to those who compile the results; the Professors who read the essays don't have any way of finding out who the author of the essay is.

A very small percentage of HLS students make Law Review. I didn't. Barack did. It has nothing to do with Affirmative Action; it's entirely based upon merit.

As for becoming President of the Law Review; that is a matter of election by those who made Law Review. Lots of schmoozing is,in fact, involved. But you're schoozing among the top 5% or so of the students at the most elite Law School in the world....

"B.S. Part-time instructors are NOT referred to as professors. Some students might call them that, but the field and the profession do NOT consider part-time Adjunct faculty to be PROFESSORS."

You probably should tell the Deans at my Law School that. Or look for a better job!

Point is, on academic credentials, Hillary doesn't even come close. Back to the 35 years!

"Obama reported that he was a professor, and that's a lie.
just like he lied about being poor, lied about being raised by a single mom, lied about his grandmother being prejudice,"

Got any facts to back you up, Trey [TREY??!!} or just drooling?

"I hope that Hillary stays the course because I am sure that, although you will be the last to know, the American people won't stand for another 4-8 years of arrogance and disdain."

WOW! AN OXYMORON!

"I hope that Hillary stays the course because I am sure that, although you will be the last to know, the American people won't stand for another 4-8 years of arrogance and disdain."

WOW! AN OXYMORON!

"Arrogance and disdain" is what the Clinton campaign is all about!

While we're checking facts, how about a piece on Hillary's relations to Terry McAuliffe?

While we're checking facts, how about a piece on Hillary's relations to Terry McAuliffe?

Hey JakeD--

Were you bullied? Ridiculed by the popular kids? What exactly happened to you that made you so ugly inside?

Or is it simply the anonymity of the blogosphere that gives free rein to your baser impulses?

The obfuscation and specious arguments in your numerous posts detract from meaningful exchange and poison the atmosphere.

I'm sure you'll be able to riposte with a too-clever-by-half remark, but please know this: you are not serving your candidate, McCain, well. I can't imagine that his camp would willingly claim you, with your brand of commentary, as one of their own.

I suggest you sign off and go do something nice for someone; it might make you feel better.

BTW, I've chastised you because it's clear you're aware of your duplicity. I haven't addressed svreader because he/she seems too ignorant to bother with.

**The Conservative Times: Exclusive: Obama Connection to Terrorists Revealed
March 22, 2008 by Jim Kouri, CPP vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/31408.html

**al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden is praying for an Obama victory because it would help the militants win in Iraq**

OBAMA LIES AGAIN AND MAINSTREAM MEDIA LIKE CNN HIDES IT!

Sen. Obama referres to himself as 'a constitutional law professor on the campaign trail. TRUTH: He never held any such title! Obama changed website bio to reflect that he was a 'lecturer' rather than 'professor. Chicago Daily Herald

MSNBC-OBAMA: ANOTHER SUPER, EXAGGERATION
Washington Post caught Obama in a lie about the Kennedy family role.
The WashigntonPost Fact Check- Senator Obama CAUGHT LYING about Kennedy Role in Helping His Father Contrary to Obama's claims in speeches Kennedy family did not provide the funding for a September 1959 airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the United States that included Obama's father. According to historical records and interviews with participants, the Kennedys were approached for support for the program a year later, July 1960. family responded with a $100,000 donation, which went to pay for a second airlift in September 1960.

Judicial Watch:
By Klaus Marre-Obama 'intended to leave no paper trail' OBAMA REFUSES to cooperate in releasing 8 years of his state senate records. One main reason REZKO!

Politico reports, "During his first run for elected office, Barack Obama played a greater role than he acknowledges in crafting liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion- positions that appear at odds with the more moderate image he's projected during his presidential campaign. The evidence comes from an amended version of an Illinois voter group's detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his bid for a state Senate. In response to a Politico story, Obama's answers he never saw questioaire?

NBC- Aswini Anburajan
GREENBURG, Pa
OBAMA LIES IN PENNSYLVANIA AD
It's unfortunate that Senator Obama is using false advertising to explain why he can be trusted to do something about energy prices. In his ad, Obama says, I'm Barack Obama, and I don't take money from oil companies or lobbyists, and I won't let them block change any more. Obama has been the recipient of more than $220,000 from the oil and gas industry just since as of Feb/08. Two of Obama's campaign bundlers are also CEOs for oil and gas companies, per his campaign Web site? Obama needs to answer to VOTERS about his dealings with one of his largest contributors Exelon, a big nuclear power company that he cut deals behind closed doors protecting them from full disclosure in the nuclear industry. Exxon, Shell, and others are among his biggest donors

Four Pinocchios!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2Z9o37FQI4&feature=user

Mr. Singer - yes, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. I'm not an Obama fan either, but this is just trying to rouse the rabble without any substance. As a voter, I feel insulted that you think I'd fall for it.

This is like giving the first officer of an airliner a hard time because he accepts being called a "pilot". Technically that isn't his proper rank, but functionally he does pilot the aircraft, and the passengers couldn't care less about what he's called so long as the plane lands in one piece.

If Obama were applying for a job in academia this *would* be a big deal. But the people in charge of hiring for this job (i.e. voters) don't care about the distinction between a lecturer and a tenured professor.

That Mr. Singer is still trying to push this anyway fits the definition of two Pinnochios - "a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to ordinary people".

eustasy (and Yawn and Luke2):

Consider me "chastised" then -- I was not bullied or ridiculed by the popular kids -- neither do I think that pointing out every candidates' middle name reflects anything "ugly inside". For the last time, McCain is NOT my candidate (as I've said before, he is not even my 101st choice). I will stick around for a bit longer though.

Whatever embellishments were made nothing is way out of line than Clinton's Bosnia statement saying she had been met by Sniper Fire! That's the biggest whopper of All Times! Especially, since she repeated it three times and Very Slowly!

For info on Hillary's termination from the Watergate hearings because of legal problems, check this site. There is a real problem with Hillary's understanding of constitutional rights.

http://www.northstarwriters.com/dc163.htm

I have been a college lecturer, but had I on any application, resume, or CV put down that I was a "professor", my employers would have had cause to dismiss me for making false statements.

I don't know how big of a deal it is, but this is a very big lie.

bkp:

Thank you for your comment. Apart from writing it down on any application, resume, or CV -- would you ever call yourself a "professor"? That's what I was asking initially to Professor Cross, who seemed to be saying that a signature on a LETTER was more important than lying VERBALLY to the American people.

Hey Leslie, hon, while you're spitting all over yourself about your boy, the fraud Obama, I think you forgot some key points:

While your boy was snorting and selling cocaine in the late 70's early 80's, Hillary Rodham Clinton was a respected lawyer on the Hill, working for child welfare reform, She was a HUGELY respected trial lawyer as well, and in fact WAS ELECTED FOR SEVERAL YEARS AS ONE OF THE "100 MOST INFLUENTIAL LAWYERS IN AMERICA"

Considering how many lawyers there are in the US, that is a CONSIDERABLE honor!

Obama, on the other hand, besides scoring some "blow" was doing what? Oh yeah, he worked in a CORPORATE LAW FIRM WHO DEFENDED BIG CORPORATE CLIENTS TOO-BUT HE WASN'T A TRIAL LAWYER, BECAUSE THAT INVOLVES A CAMPAIGN-OF NEGOTIATION, COMPROMISE, AND PERSUASIAN ON THE FACTS- THINGS OBAMA IS NOT GOOD ON-HE JUST WROTE BRIEFS-AND HE ADMITS THAT TOO.

But what else was Obama doing while Hillary was working as a very influential lawyer? WHY, HE WAS LISTENING PASSIVELY, HIS ENTIRE ADULT LIFE TO A FILTHY RACIST HATEMONGER, AND GIVING 20,000 OF HIS OWN MONEY, TO LISTEN AND ABSORB THIS S--T!

Oh, and Obama was a "community organizer" as well! Ha Ha ! BIG DEAL! My momma was a community organizer as well, but that doesn't mean she's qualified to be the leader of the world's only superpower!

After reading through these comments, I've come to two conclusions:

1. Phil Singer has entirely too much time on his hands. The Clinton ship is tanking, and Phil's out there rearranging the deck chairs.

2. JakeD is a pinhead -- and an obstinate pinhead, at that. In the face of reasonable and attributable explanations as to the legitimacy of Obama's claim that he's been a professor -- a claim that the University of Chicago, a respected institution, and countless other academics support -- ol' Jake keeps grinding the tiny little wheels in his tiny little brain, trying desperately to create a scandal where none exists. Is this what we have to look forward to in the coming months? It puts me in mind of Shakespeare's King Henry VI: "Good Lord, what madness rules in brainsick men, when for so slight and frivolous a cause such factious emulations shall arise!"

Yes, SwingsetAbby, that's all you have to look forward to until November 4th -- SEVEN long and tedious months away -- of course, since you seem to focus in on just me (ignoring the "countless other academics" who agree with me that Obama crossed the line in referring to himself as a CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR), I will happily suffer your slings and arrows ...

I'm not a tenured anything I'm just a dumb security guard. But I can tell you this; If someone who taught constitutional law for twelve years calls himself a "professor" even though he was really only a "lecturer" it doesn't mean squat to me. But when someone hallucinates sniper fire, we watch them real close.

Lets spend some time now finding out about Hillary Clinton's relationship with Huma Abedin. That should keep us all busy for a while.

Hillary and Bill are a pack of liars and fact twisters that try to twist the truth until there is one little iota of fact left in it, but the net effect when they get done is one big lie and then they tell it over and over and over. They have a bunch of people working for them that are just like them===Paul Begala , Howard Wolfson, Phil Singer, James Carville, Anne Lewis and the man who never had one truthful word come out his mouth, Terry Mc Auliffe, among others.

F'gods sake. It is even unclear whether your Pinocchios are aimed at the Obama 'claim' to being a professor or the Clinton 'claim' that he is lying. As the University of Chicago Law School statement makes perfectly clear, Obama IS ENTITLED TO BE CALLED A PROFESSOR. This makes Obama's 'claim' a maximum of zero Pinocchios because it is true. It also makes Singer's 1 April statement, appearing after the UofC statement was public information a minimum of four Pinocchios.

I find it MOST laughable that Singer, after making the mountain out of the mole hill, gets back up on the mole hill and shouts down that he was only reporting the facts.

Please tell Singer he has more problems with NAFTA , Bosnia, tax returns and off shore accounts, and mainly with a candidate whose only skill seems to be to deflect criticisms by pointing fingers at others instead of answering the questions. And this is a woman for solutions. she sounds more like a vindictive wench.

If you have ever been on the faculty of a university (and I have done that twice) you would know it is a big difference. How about reporter and copy person (if they still have them)? Editor and secretary?

Come on, folks, we all know
what this entire charade is,
it is called "MIS-DIRECTION"

the real lies that matter,
(and apparently this is not even
a lie), but the real lies
that matter are, you know,
things that BREAK THE LAW,
or are substantive in nature
and are DIRECTLY relevant and
are DIRECTLY RELATED to one's much
touted experience and worthiness
as a Presidential Candidate,
or, dare i suggest, ABUSE OF POWER ...

you know, folks, like ....
--- TAX RETURNS/CAMPAIGN FINANCE
--- OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS TO SUBSTANTIATE EXPERIENCE
--- NAFTA
--- VOTING FOR THE WAR
--- TRAVEL-GATE
--- the REAL "Tale of Tuzla"
http://www.slate.com/id/2187780/

the mere existence of this story is evidence of
the completely absurd and utterly desperate lengths
(ie, "grasping for straws", as they say) ... that the
Clinton campaign is using in order to sidetrack
the media from the pertinent, critical, relevant,
and salient issues of the day ......

let's keep our eye on the ball, shall we folks,

Senator Clinton has NEVER been vetted, and we
all know it, ... her Husband has, but she has
not, not ever .... we all seem to mistakenly
believe she has, simply because she was the
President's wife, ... but if you think about
it for just one minute, you will realize that
she, herself, has never been vetted,

we don't really know much about her,

(not the general voting public at
large, that is,)

i mean, PILLOW TALK simply does not constitute
experience in the White House, if it did,
well, good ol' Monica might just give it go, eh?

... lol ... come on you Journalists, do your job,

... VET THE LADY ... don't go easy on her because
you feel sorry for her because she is the former
First Lady, and don't go easy on her because she
is the house-wife who was cheated on,

have a field day, and not because of Obama,
but because you are doing our nation a
disservice if you do not,

and we all know that if a miracle swings her
way and Obama suddenly withdraws, the dogs of
war of the "great republican right wing
conspiracy" will NOT be nice, they will
destroy her,

she HAS not EVER suffered their wrath,

not really, not even close,

she has been largely left alone because
everyone felt sorry, but those days will
end with this presidential election,

even if McCain is honorable, he cannot
control the Religious Right who are
currently SUPPORTING her because they
deathly fear Obama, ... lol ... even
RUSH is pushing for her ....

this would be laughable if it were not
so very sad .....

DO YOUR JOB
VET THE LADY

everything else, is noise ~

~

luke2 ... the REZKO video you posted
is over year old, do you honestly think
ANYBODY on this forum has not seen it
several times already, and do you honestly
believe there is a single thing in there
that we do not already know,

that is old news, and we have already
vetted that story, and Obama has admitted
his mistakes, which are NOT what you
are claiming and NOT what that video
is implying ....

please, folks, i repeat, let's keep our
eye on the ball .......

**** VET THE LADY ****
**** VET THE LADY'S TAX RETURNS ****
**** VET THE LADY'S ALLEGED "EXPERIENCE" ****

and .... dare I suggest ....
**** VET THE LADY'S REAL EXPERIENCE ****

whether or not Obama was a "Professor"
or a "professor" is meaningless,

but, a felony on her tax returns or the
breaking of a campaign finance law,

or that muck with travel-gate ....

or the real story with Tusla ....

or her experience .....

now, these are stories that matter
to the well-being of our nation and
whether a person is qualified to
be our leader ....

... all of this childish nonsense is noise ...

and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU KNOWS IT !!!

End the chatter.

Do your job.

VET THE LADY !

I tire of these high school antics.

I am an Obama supporter but if Hillary gets the nomination I will fight tooth and nail to help her WIN in November.

Who are you people? Are you democrats? Politics is ugly but I have to believe that once a nominee has been selected the second place finisher will pledge to support him or her.

We all need to quit being so petty and agree that both candidates have redeeming qualities and that undoing the damage that eight years of Republican dictatorship has wrought is more important than this crazy infighting.

By the way, the U of C does say Obama was a law professor and that they offered him a tenure track position numerous times which he declined.

By the way, if the U of C does says that Barack HUSSEIN Obama was President of the United States, does that make it true too?

JakeD, Ah! Standford, that the problem, the land of the fruit and nuts.

Neil, you got it in a nutshell:

I'm not a tenured anything I'm just a dumb security guard. But I can tell you this; If someone who taught constitutional law for twelve years calls himself a "professor" even though he was really only a "lecturer" it doesn't mean squat to me. But when someone hallucinates sniper fire, we watch them real close.

Thanks!

Why I will not vote for Obama:

1. Are we likely to get GOOD CHANGES in Energy policy from an Obama administration?

Answer: NO. Why Not?

Because: Obama voted FOR the Cheney Energy Bill (H.R. 6) in 2005.

(which enabled the nuke industry to begin planning to build 29 new nukes (one of them in North Carolina)
- after 30 years of no new nukes being built because the banks wouldn't loan the money - too risky.

The Cheney Energy Bill solved that problem for the nuke industry by guaranteeing taxpayer payback of any of the nuke loans that default ... (with the risk of default rated by the Congressional Budget Office at 50% or greater).

Because: Obama has been IN with the nuke industry for decades. Excelon Corp. of Illinois is the largest nuke operator on earth - ( they own the nuclear power plants in Illinois and they own Con-Ed in NY state). Excelon has been one of Obama's largest contributors since his earliest days in politics.

Because: Obama would not even be IN the race for president IF he was not HEAVILY SUPPORTED by the nuke industry. GE (2nd largest corporation on the planet) & Westinghouse are planning to build many of those nukes.

GE owns NBC & MSNBC. Westinghouse owns CBS. That's the reason "the Mainstreams Media" are PUSHING Obama for President/ slamming & smearing the Clintons. ABSENT BILLIONS of dollars worth of FREE Pro-Obama Advertising/Propaganda provided by NBC/MSNBC/and CBS Obama would not have gotten past the New Hampshire primary.

2. Are we likely to get GOOD CHANGES in the ECONOMY?

Answer: It doesn't look good. Obama's financial advisors include the followng people:

JEFFREY LIEBMAN: SOCIAL SECURITY: In a 2005 policy paper Liebman advocated a mix of benefit cuts, tax increases and mandatory personal accounts.

DAVID CUTLER: HEALTHCARE: He Says High Health Care Costs are Good.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: RICH GETTING RICHER, EVERYBODY ELSE GETTING POORER:
The stagnation of middle- and working-class incomes, and the anxiety this has generated, is, he says, a most pressing problem, but policymakers must be mindful about trying to address its root cause, which Goolsbee says is "radically increased returns to skill." ( i.e. College degrees are paying off more & more --- which is true, BUT Certainly DOES NOT account for the rise of the super rich, nor the increasing poverty of everyone else.)

(Evidently, Goolsbee's not old enough to remember the beginning of that Income Inequality, or to recognize THE CAUSE. It began in 1981. THE CAUSE of it was and is that Reagan cut the top tax rate DOWN from 70% to the low 30% s, AND Corporations all over America BEGAN instituting "THE TWO-TIER WAGE STRUCTURE'. i.e. Pay the people at the top a LOT MORE, Pay Everybody Else a LOT LESS. (If you searched old newspaper archives from the early 1980s you would find newspaper articles about the sudden appearance of the Two-Tier Wage Structure.)

3. Are we likely to get GOOD CHANGES in Foreign Policy?

Answer: Not Likely.

Among a dozen or so Foreign Policy Advisors the most "senior" advisor is:

Zbigniew Brzezinski. Former National Security Advixor to President Carter. Using the CIA & Billions of dollars, he ginned up a War in Afghanistan .... seeking as he said to "give the Soviet Union its own Vietnam.".

He Created the Taliban and Al Queda/ JIHAD/madrassa brainwashing schools for that purpose. Supported the dictator Pol Pol who massacred millions of Cambodian villagers. When asked, if in hindsight, considering that Al Queda eventually attacked America, and Pol Pot slaughtered millions - IF he would change anything he had done .... Zbig answered NO, he was satisfied with the results.

Electing Obama President is not likely to reassure the rest of the world that the U.S. is going to cease having an insane foreign policy; is likely to put Russia on an even more nervous hair trigger than they are now.

The major problem with Obama and his advisiors is they are ACADEMICS who have lived the life of privilege out of touch with the real world --- Better educated and smarter than Bush's gang --- they are still likely to do just as badly at running the government --- for the same reason: OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY ... i.e. insane....people doing insane things.

4. Are we likely to get GOOD CHANGES in: appointing competent qualified people to run the government; instead of cronyism, or good changes that get rid of fraud, payoffs, and corruption in government?
Answer: No.

Because: Obama's friend Rezko was part and parcel of the mafia connected, corrupt, Daley Chicago political machine. Rezko was Obama's chief fundraiser from the beginning of his career in Illinois politics to his election to the U.S. Senate. There is very little coverage of the Obama Rezko/Daley corruption connections on National TV, but the local Chicago papers have a lot of info going back several years ... & it don't look good for Obama.

For example, Obama wanted to buy a Chicago mansion that, as he says, he couldn't afford. The asking price was about $2.5 million. Wouldn't you expect rational people with GOOD Judgment to decide they could just "make do" with a $1 million mansion? (Obam's decision to buy the mansion he could not afford - smacks of greed.)

Obama did not decide to just "make do" with a $1 million mansion. As he says, he called up four or five friends, one of them being Rezko.

And then, Rezko's wife purchased a portion of the property ... the side yard ... of the property .... thus "facilitating" and making possible, but only coincidentally according to Obama, -his purchase of the house at a price he could afford.

Bright people with good judgment, since Rezko was at the time KNOWN to be under investigation by the FBI, would avoid having any financial dealings or entanglements with Rezko. Obama's house purchase, facilitated by money from Rezko's wife, did unquestionably create an appearance of CASH Benefit/PayOff from Rezko to Obama for Political Favors done.

Further questions are raised by the fact that Rezko reveived $3.5 million from Iraqi billionaire Auichi about 3 weeks before Obama/Rezko's wife made the purchases of the mansion and side yard. Auichi, Rezko, and Alasammarae, the Iraqi electricity minister, were engaged in a partnership to build a power plant in Iraq.

Auichi had already been convicted of fraud in France; & subsequent to the formation of the current government of Iraq - Alasammarare was convicted in an Iraqi court of plotting to loot Iraq's Electricity Ministry during his tenure as electricity minister when the Bush-appointed Coalition Provisional Authority presided over the wholesale looting of Iraq. Rezko is also accused of being Alasammarae's partner in the looting of the Iraq Electricity Ministry.

Obama admits that he ... happened to be in the hotel ... when Rezko met with Auichi but doesn't remember individual people ... he may have met.

Much of the above is speculation. What I KNOW Obama HAS ALREADY DONE makes all the above doubts and questions irrelevant in answering the question:

Is Obama qualified to be, or likely to be, a GOOD President?

Answer: NO. He has already done something so unconscionable, so dirty, so dangerous that no sane American would even consider voting for him. HE played the race card.

Those accusations of racism against the Clintons did not come from any public "Outcry" on the part of black people all over the country - those accusations of racism came solely from the Obama Campaign. Obama was caught red-handed pushing those accusations to the press - in a 4-page Internal Campaign Memo - Listing those accusations & directing them to the press. The Huffington Post obtained a copy & published it on the web.

Shortly thereafter, during one of the debates, Tim Russert (MSNBC) ..... while rustling a copy of the 4-page Memo in his hand .... asked Obama .... your campaign has been pushing accusations of racism to the press (rusltles pages) .... in a 4-page campaign memo .... what do you have to say about that?

Obama mumbled a few sentences ....( people in both campaigns get carried away and say things they shouldn't have said) .... and .... then MSNBC/ the mainstream media .... never mentioned it again.

Instead, MSNBC/NBC/CBS and all the rest of the mainstream CORPORATE-CONTROLLED media just went right on endlessly REPEATING the SAME totally ridiculous false accusations of "racism" against the Clintons.

Obama made those accusations of racism .... in order to win the South Carolina primary. Obama has continued to make accusations of racism ... every time .... he falls behind in the polls. The question is: What USE of RACISM / inter-racial strife would he NOT stoop to IF elected President.

Which brings us to the Question: Is it likely Obama will TRANSCEND race; Get Past the Politics of DIVISION; Unite the Country?

Given the DIVISION he has already created by making false accusations of racism - the answer is a resounding:
HELL NO!

Obama is the CORPORATE-CONTROLLED candidate being PUSHED by the CORPORATE-CONTROLLED Media.

Same Media that sold TOO MANY AMERICANS on Bush/Cheney. Same Media that SOLD U.S. a War.

Why I will Vote for Hillary Clinton:

1. ENERGY: We know we need to change to Cheaper, Cleaner, DE-Centralized/NOT Monopoly controlled Energy.

Clinton states that her Energy Plan does not include nuclear; nuclear can be considered ... in the future .... IF and when they find a way to MAKE IT CHEAPER and Find a way to safely dispose of nuclear waste.

(Obama and McCain have said they are Pro-Nuclear).

2. ECONOMY: The Clintons are the only candidates with ANY experience in TURNING an ECONOMY around before it slides into economic meltdown .... engendering unprecedented economic growth .... during the 1990's ...following Reagan/Bush 1's wholesale looting of the majority of the public and the public treasury.

3. FOREIGN POLICY: Returning the Clintons to the White House will Return the Rest of The World's Governments and Peoples to the SAME unprecedented High Level of Goodwill, RESPECT, and TRUST for the U.S. Government as they had during Bill Clinton's administration.

4. COMPETENT QUALIFED PEOPLE RUNNING THE GOVERNMENT:

Same as during Bill Clinton's administration.

5. REAL PUBLIC SERVANTS instead of cronyism, payoffs, corruption in Government.

The Clinton administration was investigated far more than any other entity in the history of the world.
Investigated by people who hated them AND desperately wanted to find a way to find them guilty of payoffs, corruption, SOMETHING, anything ..... Following 8 years and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of investigations the Clintons were not found guilty of ANY KIND of political corruption --- (which practically makes them eligible for political Sainthood).

As best I can see the Clintons are the candidates being backed by the GOOD wealthy people. Bill Clinton has spent the past eight years .... promoting and expanding Charity - particularly among the rich.

When Clinton was president what kind of legislation did he manage to get passed- despite a Republican Controlled Congress?

Two Examples: The Family and Medical Leave Act .... for ordinary American working class people, and the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.

Put the Clintons back in the White House WITH a Democrat-Controlled Congress AND the REAL CHANGES We the People Need CAN get made.

Take it from me, I work in the web of academia every single day, and even as mere grad students, the lowest of the low, algae at the bottom of the academic swimming pool etc., we are called professors and when our students or anyone else look us up on the school's website for whatever reason, our names show up with the word 'professor' in front of it. A lecturer is much higher up than a grad student. People who are trying to make something of this have been watching too much television and are operating off the very flawed notion that professors sit around all day thinking about who's encroaching on what title. They've got better things to do than that; that's why they're full-time professors. More importantly, when you are working on the academic level, you and everyone around you quickly realize that titles mean very little when it comes to the quality of the person's intellect and style. I think it's worth remembering that Jacques Derrida, one of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century, only had a master's degree. Because of that, the French university system refused to let him teach there, and so he came to the U.S., where we gladly gave him a job. Trust me, nobody minded calling him 'professor'. I imagine nobody minds calling George Tenet 'professor'. Or Al Gore.

And finally, to talk down his brief career teaching law by saying, 'Well, actually, he was only a lecturer,' is absolutely absurd when you consider that he was 'only' a lecturer at University of Chicago, one of the best law schools in the country. Most people who have the degree that would allow them to go by the official title of law professor would have a better chance at having sex with Paris Hilton in the dry, gray dust of a moon crater than they would getting a job teaching law at the U of C. Give me a break, Clinton Inc.

Take it from me, I work in the web of academia every single day, and even as mere grad students, the lowest of the low, algae at the bottom of the academic swimming pool etc., we are called professors and when our students or anyone else look us up on the school's website for whatever reason, our names show up with the word 'professor' in front of it. A lecturer is much higher up than a grad student. People who are trying to make something of this have been watching too much television and are operating off the very flawed notion that professors sit around all day thinking about who's encroaching on what title. They've got better things to do than that; that's why they're full-time professors. More importantly, when you are working on the academic level, you and everyone around you quickly realize that titles mean very little when it comes to the quality of the person's intellect and style. I think it's worth remembering that Jacques Derrida, one of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century, only had a master's degree. Because of that, the French university system refused to let him teach there, and so he came to the U.S., where we gladly gave him a job. Trust me, nobody minded calling him 'professor'. I imagine nobody minds calling George Tenet 'professor'. Or Al Gore.

And finally, to talk down his brief career teaching law by saying, 'Well, actually, he was only a lecturer,' is absolutely absurd when you consider that he was 'only' a lecturer at University of Chicago, one of the best law schools in the country. Most people who have the degree that would allow them to go by the official title of law professor would have a better chance at having sex with Paris Hilton in the dry, gray dust of a moon crater than they would getting a job teaching law at the U of C. Give me a break, Clinton Inc.

"why did Obama change his website to reflect his actual title?" Singer

Maybe he's tired of the Clinton camp whining about petty crap like lecturer vs professor and what crayons he used in pre-school and would like to discuss the real issues that the Clinton campaign can't seem to distinguish and discuss with integrity.

Even Obama's employer says he was a professor.

Just another example of Obama exaggerating his resume and the MSM letting it go, just like he uses his position on the Foreign Relations committee that he was only placed on at the start of the campaign. He never even held one meeting regarding Afghanistan. The MSM asks Obama questions and then never follows up on his answers or statements when they contradict something he has said in the past. Free ride for Obama is going to cost the Dems the election when they finally figure out that making a rock star out of him was not the smartest thing to do for our country.

I attended and graduated law school. Adjunct professors were people who practiced and taught at the law school part-time. Part of their appeal is their real-world experience. Everyone considered them "Professors" from the standpoint of, this is the person teaching the class. You would not call such a person "adjunct professor" (boy, that rolls off the tongue) but "Professor". I can certainly tell you that none of the adjunct faculty was thought of any less than members of the full-time faculty. But you certainly knew that an adjunct professor was not a full-time faculty member; they were out there earning money! (At my school, we didn't have faculty with the designation "lecturer". We had "instructors", and they were essentially post-grads teaching Legal Research or some such.)

Lecturer -- let alone senior lecturer -- is the equivalent of adjunct professor at UofC Law. See http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html

When Obama referred to himself as a "constitutional law professor", I take that in the generic sense, and consider that statement accurate (but then, I've always known he was a tenure track faculty member, because he was working for a firm, so he HAD to be adjunct faculty). He DID teach Con Law. He didn't "lecture" in Con Law, because "lecturer" does not imply being responsible for an entire course. Had he said, I was Professor of Constitutional Law, that would implied a tenured position, and would have been inaccurate.

In any event, the bigger point, which is undeniably true, is that he is only much more solid ground when it comes to what how the Constitution is interpreted and applied today than Pres. Bush (or, presumably, HRC).

And Hillary Clinton was the senior negotiator of several peace treaties during Bill Clinton's presidency. Because we know that the first lady having dinner with another dignitary's wife is considered "senior negotiations".

She is such a hypocrite. She wants to tout her own trumped up experience but is willing to deny others their LEGITIMATE experience. Haven't we had enough Republicans in the White House these past 7 years??

http://www.cafepress.com/wetnoodle

Well, just read for yourself. Directly from The University of Chicago News Office, before Obama became a presidential candidate.
Dated Nov 3, 2004.
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml

fact checker please check if the clinton are member of a group the bilderberg.and committee 300. are they globalist.

So just what country did Kindergarten Obama want to be president of?

Honestly, whoever allowed that bit of silliness on Hillary's campaign site ought to be let go. It's a total embarrassment.