Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

No Mea Culpa From Bill Clinton

UPDATE, 4:30 p.m. ET: It looks like former president Bill Clinton will not have to make an apology to the congregations of black churches in South Central Los Angeles after all. At least not in writing.

Our posting on Bill Clinton's "mea culpa" tour (as we worded it) to African Americans in L.A. this weekend (ahead of Tuesday's hotly contested California primary) apparently caused much consternation inside the Clinton campaign. Campaign officials scrambled Saturday to dispel the notion that the former president will be making any form of an apology.

The Clinton camp asked Rep. Diane Watson (D-Calif.) to clarify remarks she made in an interview with The Sleuth on Friday evening in which she said Clinton needed to "renew his relationship with the South Central community" after turning off voters in her district with his racially tinged comments during the South Carolina primary campaign.

To achieve that, Watson said she had asked the former president to write a letter "explaining his commitment to civil rights and equal rights."

"He knows what needs to be in it: He needs to renew his relationship with the South Central community," Watson said Friday evening.

But on Saturday, things changed after the Clinton campaign called Watson who then told The Sleuth there will be no letter after all. She had mistakenly thought, she said, that Clinton would not be able to speak inside the churches on Sunday and, therefore, had asked him to put his thoughts in writing.

"I just learned he will be able to speak," Watson said. "So there will be no need for any kind of letter."

But what about mending fences with voters who felt Clinton had unfairly injected race into the campaign? "He can do that now in person in true Bill Clinton fashion -- personally and verbally," Watson said.

Luis Vizcaino, a spokesman for Clinton's California campaign, objected to The Sleuth's use of the phrase "mea culpa" to describe what Clinton planned to say on Sunday. (Clinton campaign aides especially objected to our original headline "Bill Clinton Prepares Mea Culpa," which we have changed.) Vizcaino said there's no need for an apology because he "has tremendous support here in the state" and is "the most popular Democrat in the country."

Bill Clinton's spokesman, Matt McKenna, said, "The president is there [in South Central Los Angeles] because Congresswoman Watson invited him to join her at church and he's looking forward to going."

----------

ORIGINAL POST FROM EARLY THIS MORNING:

Once again, Bill Clinton is ready to repent.

On Sunday the former president is scheduled to visit black churches in South Central Los Angeles, where he's expected to offer a mea culpa to those who "dearly loved him" when he was their president, Rep. Diane Watson (D-Calif.) says.

Watson, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus who has endorsed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), tells us she'll usher the former president to more than half a dozen churches in her district where she says he needs to "renew his relationship" with congregants who were turned off by his racially tinged comments in the days leading up to and following the South Carolina primary. (Such as when Clinton compared Sen. Barack Obama's landslide victory to Jesse Jackson's wins in 1984 and 1988.)

The four-term congresswoman said she asked Clinton to write a letter to each congregation they'll visit on Sunday "explaining his commitment to civil rights and equal rights." She says the letter "is in development" but that "he knows what needs to be in it: He needs to renew his relationship with the South Central community."

Watson is among the half of the divided black caucus supporting Hillary Clinton instead of Obama for president. She remains loyal to the Clintons, she says, despite her own uneasy feelings over Bill injecting race into the primary campaign.

She says she warned Sen. Clinton that the acrimony in South Carolina could have a backlash in California, one of 24 states voting on Super Tuesday. "I said, 'Hillary, you have enough you can be proud of. This is not the first time they have seen or heard of you. Your husband was in our community, they love you, we must recapture that passion. Do not get involved in the immature squabbles.'"

She says while Clinton will probably not be allowed to speak at the churches, he will at least be introduced and his presence made known by a publicly elected official from their own community "who they have known for decades."

"I'll certainly help remove some of the reaction that took place as a result of his actions in South Carolina," she added.

Watson predicts Clinton's visit to churches in her district and his letter of apology will be enough to mend fences with those who once considered him one of their own. "I think it will be a good day," she says.

By Mary Ann Akers  |  February 2, 2008; 4:40 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Giants vs. Patriots, Clinton vs. Obama
Next: A Clue to How Hillary Clinton Found Her Voice

Comments

This makes no sense. Clinton showed his true colors, and it is obvious that he only and contiues to only use his words and black people to acheive his goals. This amazes me "She remains loyal to the Clintons, she says, despite her own uneasy feelings over Bill injecting race into the primary campaign." Watson even knows, is aware of and admits that Clinton tried to use Obama's race against him -- and this is who is chosen to represent black people? Give me a break. Dont be fooled people, and I dont believe anyone is choosing to be a fool any longer. Stand up for what is right, and not for what is politically correct.

Obama '08.

Posted by: N.K. | February 2, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Hill and Bill Clinton ran the most corrupt and morally bankrupt White House since Nixon. Google "Clinton convicts" and see the results, that is the legacy of the Clintons.

If you care about ethics, morals, integrity, then you must vote to reject the Clinton Dynasty. America Deserves better. Al Gore lost because of the scandals of the Clintons. remember George W ran on restoring "honor" and dignity to WH. Vote McCain, Vote Romney, Vote Obama.. God bless our country

Posted by: Jimmy O | February 2, 2008 9:32 AM | Report abuse

More corrupt camp donations for Obama! WHERES THE MEDIA??? NON-BLACK VOTERS ARE SICK OF THE BIASD MEDIA OUSHING OBAMA DOWN OUR THROATS!
But back on Oct. 5, in the aftermath of federal bribery/extortion/conspiracy/other miscellaneous badness indictments of former Dallas Mayor Pro Tem Don Hill Presidential candidate Barrack Obama desperately wants campaign cash senator Obama campaign already has its hands full with other indicted bankrollers Rezko. Now Mr. Hill's campaign finance report shows donations to on April 28, and federal campaign finance reports indicate Mr. Obama received Mr. Hill's donation June 22 as well. The Obama camp couldn't immediately be reached for comment Friday about Mr. Hill's
Obama's Relationship With Rezko Goes Back 17 Years. Obama Kept Contributions From Accused Fixer's (REZKO)Wife And Others ABCNews.com Analysis Shows the Campaign Still Hasn't Returned More Than $100,000 in Obama is referred to in document which outlines case against Rezko As Barack Obama is finding out, it's not as easy to dump politically toxic campaign donations as it might seem. For the third time in more than a year, Obama's presidential campaign announced this week it was shedding more donations tied to indicted fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko. Calculations by the media and Obama's own staff of Rezko's financial impact on his past political campaigns have been all over the map and shifting. In the case of Obama, public records don't make clear every Rezko connection. The records show that since 1995, $74,500 came from Rezko, his relatives or contributors listed on official disclosure forms as employees of one of his businesses. Rezko has not raised money for Obama's presidential campaign.

Various media outlets have reported much larger numbers, though they haven't clearly explained their methodology. The New York Times has pegged Rezko political cash for Obama at $150,000, the Sun-Times at $168,000 and the Los Angeles Times at $200,000. Last weekend, a report by ABCNews.com suggested more than $185,000. The event at Rezko's home resembled a posh dinner party, complete with valet parking and catered dinner. Obama spoke after the meal, and told the crowd about how when he was still in Harvard law school Rezko, a developer, had tried to hire him. Obama staffers set up shop around the kitchen table, where they collected checks.

One donor at the event was Michael Sreenan, a former attorney for a Rezko company. Sreenan gave Obama $2,000 that night, but hasn't heard if the campaign now plans to give it away.

Still, Sreenan said he was baffled by the notion of giving money raised at Rezko's home to charity. "If [Obama] wants to give my donation back to me or let me give it to a charity, I'm fine with that," he said. "But I don't see how this makes a difference now -- the money still got him elected. And how do I know it's not going to a charity that's offensive to me?"
Barack Obama has surfaced in the federal corrupton case against his longtime campaign fund-raiser, Tony Rezko Obama's relationship with Rezko came under greater scrutiny this week after prosecutors disclosed Rezko received $3.5 million from an Iraqi billionaire while claiming to be broke.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 2, 2008 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Obama criticized again for going negative and misleading on Clinton
Does Sen. Obama think that using divisive GOP tactics is the way to bring the country together? Len Nichols of the New America Foundation said he is "personally outraged at Obama camps recent mailer attacking Clinton! Obama trying to stop health care for everyone! Once again He's caught in lies from the debate. Obama showed vindictiveness and lack of magnanimity after his victory SC. The first part of his victory speech was deeply unpleasant attack on the Clintons. No graciousness there. And how did he handle defeat in New Hampshire and Nevada? With a combination of denial, petulance and the launching of a successful campaign to persuade the American media that the Clintons were engaged in a campaign of lies about him and, even worse, in a campaign of surreptitious racism. Clinton pointed out, it's not enough to hope and demand change; you had to be able to define what change you want and had to be able to deliver it. It was Obama who introduced King into the debate. Hillarys words were being construed not just as disrespect but as hidden racism. Obama's people was briefing the media to create this impression. The consequence has been exactly what you would expect. In the Nevada caucus, blacks voted overwhelmingly for Obama and non-blacks voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. In South Carolina, the black vote was 53 per cent of the total. Obama secured 80 per cent of it. That's the reason for his overwhelming victory there. He won only 23 per cent of the non-black vote. Contrast this to Iowa, where he won a large proportion of the white vote. It's a tragedy for Obama and entirely his own fault that this has happened. he became "the black candidate
Obama's most effective criticisms of Clinton, she voted for authorising the war, he opposed it from the start but (and this is crucially important) he had consistently opposed the war ever since. This story of consistent opposition over years was a "fairytale" the media had bought into.Obama has managed to persuade the media that this was a lie that he would correct. He hasn't corrected it, because he can't. He has not been consistent in the terms he set himself.
Obama supported Kerry for president, Kerry voted for war and continued to justify his support. Obama said that he did not want to cause Kerry embarrassment so he said that he, Obama, did not know how he would have voted. Isn't this the candidate who's about change, whose whole candidacy is based on a "different kind of politics"? Isn't this the candidate who says the country can no longer tolerate political spin, that lying in the name of political advantage is what's destroying the country? Yet on the very issue he identifies as the biggest moral issue facing America Obama effectively states that he was lying for political advantage.
Obama's calls for hope, for change. but hope to do what, to change to what? He hasn't said yet. He doesn't seem to know. He says that one of the high qualities of leadership is the ability to inspire by words, and he is right. It's a rare ability. But inspire to what end? It's a pity. He promised so much.

Posted by: Obama criticized again | February 2, 2008 9:38 AM | Report abuse

"Watson predicts Clinton's visit to churches in her district and his letter of apology will be enough to mend fences with those who once considered him one of their own."

"one of their own"? What can that possibly mean?

Posted by: Fred | February 2, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

"Watson predicts Clinton's visit to churches in her district and his letter of apology will be enough to mend fences with those who once considered him one of their own."

"one of their own"? What can that possibly mean?

Posted by: Fred | February 2, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

go hillary. i dont think bill needs to go to church, but go hillary

Posted by: tony | February 2, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse

So is it now the accepted media story that Bill Clinton is a racist and needs to apologize? If Obama is defeated by the GOP does this imply Americans are racists?

Posted by: Roseann | February 2, 2008 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Good! I love to see Slick Willie squirm and pander. He's had plenty of practice apologizing to his wife.

Posted by: JElaine | February 2, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

"Watson predicts Clinton's visit to churches in her district and his letter of apology will be enough to mend fences with those who once considered him one of their own."

"one of their own" What can this possibly mean??

Posted by: Fred | February 2, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Do anything, say anything...

Posted by: bart | February 2, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

It is not a surprise that Ann Coulter is suporting Hillary. Ann Coulter is right. Both the Clintons are centrists and are moving more towards the right. Clinton's policies during his presidency are more conservative than liberal. In fact, the Clintons are wolves in sheep's clothing. They are cold and calculating Republicans disguised as Democrats. McCain on the other hand is more a liberal than a conservative. He is certainly more liberal than Hillary. The McCain-Feingold, McCain-Liberman and McCain-Kennedy bills are excellent indications of why McCain is more liberal than Hillary. Ann Coulter's support for Hillary is refreshing for the Republicans who needed a voice. After examining the Clintons legacy and the prospect of a Clinton co-presidency, it sends shivers through my spine. The thought of mandated health insurance plan by Clinton for the poor like many of us is just beyond belief. Forcing us to buy health insurance at inflated prices is morally wrong, obnoxious and reprehensible. She does not understand the ground realities of poor America because she had not been there. She criticized Obama for raising the issue of mandated health insurance. Is she going to fine us or send us to prison for not buying health insurance we cannot afford.

By the way, the sleazy and shady dealings surrounding the Clintons did not come up in the discussions. We need to look more into her integrity. Nothing was raised regarding the New York Times article on the Canadian businessmen who donated $30 millions to the Clintons for political patronage. Doesn't the press and the media, consider that such shady business dealings relevant to the discourse or has truth become irrelevant with the media? The question is, can we trust the Clinton co-presidency who has repeatedly shown a lack of moral integrity and a deficit of truthfulness?

Posted by: sbgamatt | February 2, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

The Clinton who needs to apologize is Hillary, for her Iraq war vote. Sad how the mainstream media finds more interest in real or imagined racial slights than a U.S. made disaster that has claimed a million lives worldwide.

Hear that, Hillary? No apology, no vote. We already know what it looks like when a president thinks he has done no wrong. Not a good role model.

Note to Jimmy O: (1) Hill and Bill were beaten out over twenty time over in corruption by co-presidents Cheney and Rove, and (2) Al Gore actually won but was prevented from taking office by the Reagan-Bush court.

Posted by: Raymond T. Anderson | February 2, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Is this a real apology? Seems totally political and obviously so.

Why is it two days before Super Tuesday? The Black churches should stop being Bill's lapdogs and go tell him to come grovel when he doesn't profit from it.

The Clintons are so sleazy, dishonest and transparent!

Posted by: J.R. | February 2, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

As a Hillary supporter, I'm proud of who my enemies are - and I'm sure Hillary is too, since most of the people calling her corrupt and sleazy are the Republicans who have run this country into the ground over the past eight years.

Obama has neither the gravitas nor the experience to run the country, and to reverse the damage the Republicans have inflicted.

I live in Tennessee, where Hillary is expected to rock and roll on Tuesday. I'll be there till the last dog dies to help her.

Posted by: 4WheelinzFunz | February 2, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Well, I think that Bill and Hillay are NOT racist. Bill was not completely proper in talking, and I think that media was the guilty one who took his comments out of context. I think that it is wonderful that they try to reach out to the African-Amercian community. Have not we heard about forgiveness? Does it may us human after all?

Hillay 08!

Posted by: Meg | February 2, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

If people think barack Obama can stand up to Republican easily, think again.

Check the report below. I wonder why US news doesn't report at all.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_amer icas/us_elections/article3284825.ece

Posted by: Trust | February 2, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

How ridiculous. Bill C doesn't have to send letters of apology out... His record stands for itself... He's overall been a friend to Blacks. But wait, Bill's not running. It's his wife who is... So if she wants to send out a letter of apology, go right ahead. She's more important than Bill right now... let's not lose sight of this election... Hillary and not Bill is running... D.

Posted by: David G. | February 2, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Obviously Bill Clinton still thinks he can say and do anything and African Americans will forgive and forget.

Posted by: zzishate | February 2, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

As a constituent in Diane Watson's district, I must say I wish she would have supported Obama.

Posted by: Bruce M. | February 2, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

zzzzzzzzzzzzz

Obama should be playing the clip of Bill sleeping during the MLK tribute. If that isnt telling as to how much he REALLY cares, then I dont know what is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMXt4o826ZY

Posted by: Nick | February 2, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

....look once you play the old racial group grudge card of the white man is being mean to the black man, black man is being disrespectful to the white women thus we hold out her chair for her, it works two ways, it stirs distrust on both sides and galvanizes groups against each other which is what it is intended to do, you just can switch it off or out when the audience changes so while it works in one setting SC it wont were demographics are different unless new strings are pulled like Catholics being trotted out ala Kennedys.

This is not code that is wielded it is Psycho Politics and Sociology 101, this type of politics while very ugly and effective to control group behavior is also not victimless politics and can create danger in our communities as it elevates anger not just inflames passion we all need to be careful of the Masterful Puppet Pullers...................


This is dangerous stuff ...and it alarms me that would pull these levers

Posted by: Peep | February 2, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

The bottom line is I do not want 8 more years of both Clinton's in the White House. I will not vote for a woman who has not stood on her own, rather she rides the coat tails of her husband, while she develops an outsized ambition to become President and plays the card, "You owe me Bill for humiliating me with your most famous indiscretion, Monica."

Electing both Clinton's is looking in the rear view mirror. A vote for both Clinton's is not a vote for change and this country needs change in the worst way.

Posted by: spinzone | February 2, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

On the race issue, I think that the "conversation was all started by Mr. Obama during his "Yes we can" speech at the end of the New Hampshire Primary. I think he was a little shocked at the outcome and that he used very strong images in his speech in New Hampshire to the fire hoses, the police dogs and the long Selma March. All images of the Civil Rights Movement in a clear play to the Black Voters in South Carolina and across the South. So Obama made the first pitch to domesticate the Civil Rights Movement as a part and parcel, owned by the Obama Campaign.

As you can imagine, Bill Clinton has been tilling that field for longer that Obama has been in politics. White Democrats in the South have paid the price for listening to the call that came up from Martin Luther King for civil rights legislation and the result was the decimation of the Democratic Party in the South and the rise of the South as Red Republican territory.

Bill Clinton himself is hated in the South by White Southerners because of his advocacy for civil rights.

So when Obama came in and tried to take a proprietary interest in the Cause, sure, it got next to Clinton and he went after it.

Clinton does not need to apologise to anyone for his civil rights record. In fact, those who have questioned his commitment to civil rights in this country and human rights around the world, particularly in Africa where his foundation is finding ways to bring simple things like potable water to African tribes, they owe an apology to this man to think that he would engage in Race Baiting.

This is as wrong and as distorted as the Swift Boating of John Kerry to say that Bill Clinton was not really for civil rights. Obama was the author of this slander on Clinton as Bush was the author of the slander on Kerry.

Such is the new politics. It looks more like the old politics of destroy your enemies to me and Obama is playing it.

Posted by: Beiruti | February 2, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

I think Bill's comments were a cynical political calculation. He is not racist but, he is smarmy. Either way, he destroyed his bond with african americans.
I am sure most blacks know he is not really a racist but, they also know he betrayed them.
He lightly threw blacks under bus. He used them as a weapon and thought that it was okay because he would just apologize later.
I'm sure tomorrow he will use that hangdog poor me sheepish look and try to charm them.
It will be up to the african americans to decide if they will easily forgive this or trust the Clintons again or give their support.
This primary has proven the sheer callousness of many black leaders, who have allowed themselves to be a party to it and condoned the Clintons behavior for their own personal gain. They, too, have betrayed african americans.

Posted by: vwcat | February 2, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

I call BS.

Posted by: Goldie | February 2, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Just one more example of the fact that the Clintons will do or say anything in their relentless pursuit of power. If Hillary wins the Democratic nomination all the diviseness that was the halllmark of the Clinton presidency will come flooding back and the country will never rise above the partisanship in which we have been mired for the past 30 years. Its time to turn the page on the old politics and elect someone who inspires, and brings hope, vision and character to the White House.

Posted by: Gorby1 | February 2, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

The true political genius of this campaign is Obama, who managed to inject race into the campaign--Oprah in SC? Dissing MLK?--and get the media to blame the Clintons for it. Brilliant!

Posted by: ohplease | February 2, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

That hate email that said Obama is a "mus" - has hit the hearts of the white-boys around the place - oil companys pushing it now with there workers .......

..

Posted by: ~WARRIOR~ | February 2, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Well it worked for Bill in Arkansas when he apologized to teachers after he was defeated for governor. Say anything. Do anything. Apologize when the heat's too hot.

Posted by: Balzac | February 2, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton said I'm sorry in apologies to the nation more than all presidents put together. Remember the feeling, oh here we go again the feeling of being taken for a ride. Yes, we have to accept and forgive him, but lets help him be good by eliminating future opportunities for screwing up.
The clinitons can be pro-black but that doen's mean we owe them our souls. They were only doing their duty.
Vote Obama. This golden opportunity may never come again. At least in our life times.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 2, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

I don't think Bill Clinton needs to apologize, but apparently he does, and if part of the reason is to help his wife's campaign, that's fine too.
However, when viewed/listened to in context, his comments re: fairy tale and Jesse Jackson's victory do not seem to me to be race baiting. I guess that makes me racist, irresepctive of my real life history.

Posted by: MikeF | February 2, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

It is distressing to see everyone desert the Clintons. Weren't the Clinton years a period when oil was below $25 a barrel and unemployment at its lowest. How many people felt good about being American at that time. Bill would have been elected to a third term if he could have stood again. Now everyone's abandoning Hillary because she is a Clinton. Come on people. You all are upset because of her vote on Iraq. What about all the other people who voted for Iraq? John Kerry voted for Iraq and yet his endorsement of Obama was well received. It IS possible that Hillary is privy to some information ( possibly through Bill) that made her vote the way she did. Ted Kennedy speaks of passing the mantle. Why does he not retire from the Senate and pass on the mantle himself. Did all these stalwarts really do anything to counter Bush over these past 7 years? The Dems have been in charge for over a year now and have they done anything concrete? Anecdotally: do you really want a President with a name that is similar to the names of two of hte greatest headaches of America in recent time: Obama similar to Osama & of course Hussein as in Saddam Hussein. By the way one of the Iraq radicals is known as Barrack.

Everyone seems to be endorsing Obama because he is fresh and they all feel like he would owe them some plum postings in his administration!! Perhaps Ted Kennedy & Kerry don't prefer the independence of the Clintons!!

And come on all you people! Don't you all have the affinity for BOGO - Buy One, Get One. Even though it is Hillary who will be president, everyone could benefit from a well experienced, seasoned leader like Bill as a spouse - or do we all prefer a school teacher!!!

It is true: Men don't like taking orders from women and women can't stand the thought of being subordinate to one of their own.

So stop burying your heads in the sand and pay back to the Clintons what you all received in the 90s.

Posted by: Ryan Lobo | February 2, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

I am so sick and tired of the media portraying Obama as some type of savior. For one, I was glad to hear Bill Clinton rip into Obama. I'd be happy for him to do it again. This is politics. It isn't for the faint of heart or the delicate and prim and proper. It's a heated and passionate battle between opposing viewpoints. That's how it should be. The Republicans ain't going quietly. It's going to be a nasty battle.

AND I NEED A FIGHTER TO REPRESENT MY VIEWS. Yes, I support Hillary Clinton because I know she's going to give them hell. Obama just doesn't cut it.

Posted by: David V | February 2, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

I can't believe people are even debating between Obama and Clinton. On one hand, we have a senator who voted for the authorization of force resolution which at the time EVERYONE knew meant was the authorization for war--common think back did you really think Bush was not marching to war. Realize when you defend Clinton voted for the resolution as a means to pressure Iraq, you are also defending the Bush administration. You can't have it both ways, if you thought that Bush was always going to go to war, and then you have to believe that Clinton also knew that right. Not only that, she never even read the National Intelligence Estimate, these are facts, they might be stubborn but facts nonetheless. So not only did she fail the "exam", she never opened the "book" to study for the "exam". And as if this was not enough, a couple of months back, she actually voted along with Bush on the Iran resolution. Again, she said this was to pressure Iran. So you failed once, maybe we forgive, failing twice, well that disqualifies you from consideration from being a senator let alone the presidency.

On the other hand, you have Obama who spoke out against the war when NOONE was brave enough to do so. Do you remember how EVERYONE who spoke up again the war was branded as a traitor? And keep in mind as well that he was an elected official at the time, he could have done the cravenly act and went along, but he spoke out. Hillary has tried to paint Obama as a man always driven to run for the presidency since he was in "kindergarten". So would it not have been the easy thing for Obama to go along--like Clinton did--and vote for a war that no one wanted to oppose?

Experience in failure is not what America needs; we have had 8 years of that. Additionally, ask yourself, do we really want 28 years (that's right 28 years) of a Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton presidency? Are we not a democracy?? Let's see, a dynastic "monarchy" where families with known names keep winning the presidency. That would put us in league with: 1) Egypt (Where Hosni Mubarak is going to hand the presidency to his son) 2) Syria (where Al-assad handed off the presidency to Bashar 3) North Korea (where "dear leader" handed off the leadership to his son Kim Ill Jong 4) Cuba (where Fidel Castro is handing off his presidency to his brother Raul 5) Saudi Arabia (Where King Fahd handed off his rule to his half brother Abdulla

I can go on and on with this. The point is that we are the United States of America; there is a reason why we have the 22nd amendment which limits the terms a president can serve. That is why our greatest Presidents (George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Thomas Jefferson) never served more than 2 terms. Only FDR served more than 2 terms, and that was during WWII, an existential threat to our nation where we needed a continuity of leadership desperately. And trust me; Bill and Hillary are no FDR.

My point is that we are a better country than to vote for someone based on a last name. Do we really want to go back to the divisiveness of the 90s? Do we want to go back to the endless investigations? And how long do you think it would be before we lose both houses of congress once America gets tired of the Clintons running the country ragged. We have a chance to elect a president who inspires 18,000 young and older Americans to attend a rally in the middle of the week. We need a president that gives us a fresh start and a clean break from the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton years.

For all those supporting Hillary....please please refute ANY of these facts I listed above...I'm waiting

Posted by: Jason | February 2, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse


Yet another Clinton bashing article by the Washington Post. I've scarcely seen this paper in specific -- and the mainstream media in general -- so hell bent on sinking a candidacy.

Oh right -- they did the same thing with Al Gore. Just read today's coverage on Obama vs. HRC. I've got nothing against Obama. I may even vote for him. But the way this paper incessantly trashes HRC and Bill Clinton.

All Bill Clinton did was usher in an unprecedented eight years of peace and prosperity. Contrast that with what Bush has done -- dare I run down the litany.

Just stop the clowning already. Please.

Posted by: Monk | February 2, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

God forbid - Bill Clinton is human and reacted to the neverending attacks on his wife. The press especially ignited the racial issue ON PURPOSE. The truth is Obama attacked first.

For those who go to church and believe in God - would be hypocrites if they don't believe in forgiveness and redemption. Any other response would prove them to be the hypocrites.

Posted by: Lynne | February 2, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

BS is right. This is designed by Billary to open up a black/white wedge. We whites are supposed to feel for "poor Bill" having to go apology in hand to black churches (whose idea really was it that he not speak? Probably Hillary's!) He's not trying to apologize for anything, he's trying to create an "us" vs "them" atmosphere, he's written off the black vote, he's just trying to get the bigger white vote to rally to their side. NOTHING DOING! Weasels! Have some respect for churches. They really think people are chumps. Like he'd really admit to wrongdoing of any kind. (Especially under oath!) This is a total con.

Posted by: vermontfudge | February 2, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

It's all politics, which means that all actions are calculated and revolve about the acquisition and retention of power.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Conservatism, liberalism, race, gender, marriage, sexual orientation, etc., are simply topics used to keep the public distracted and fighting while power is usurped.

After all, they all know that instead of using logic to assess politics, we will engage in emotionalism and righteousness.

And it always works because we fall for it every time.

Posted by: ceton | February 2, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

To see how brilliantly and maliciously Obama's camp played the race card and baited Bill Clinton into the mud just watch this video - Obama's own words from the pre-Nevada debate where he conceded pushing the race story. Don't believe me, watch for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQY_9ZcsjpQ&NR=1

What I most dislike about this malicious hypocrisy and what I object to is not that Obama's camp tried to secure the african-american vote. Fine. Clinton tried to secure the female vote too. However, Clinton has tried to do that without making Obama out to be a misogynist. What I find disgusting and reprehensible is that Obama played his cards in a way to not only secure his african-american vote but also to bait Bill Clinton and make him seem racist.

It was brilliant. Obama was colorless until he won Iowa. Then when he lost New Hampshire and Nevada, he was suddenly an african-american candidate.

If after watching the video you still want to go with Obama. It's your illusion, go for it. If you feel offended as I felt contribute towards Hillary's campaign:

https://contribute.hillaryclinton.com/form.html?sc=2337

Obama has raised $32 million, he is closing fast, it's now or never.

Posted by: Ansh Ammital | February 2, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Oh this is tooo funny! Slick Willie is being trotted out to undo the damage he has done. Did he actually think that his actions wouldn't have consequences?

Prove positive that they'll do and say anything to get elected.

Posted by: Briann | February 2, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Updated comments:

To see how brilliantly and maliciously Obama's camp played the race card and baited Bill Clinton into the mud just watch this video - Obama's own words from the pre-Nevada debate where he conceded pushing the race story. Don't believe me, watch for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQY_9ZcsjpQ&NR=1

What I most dislike about this malicious hypocrisy and what I object to is not that Obama's camp tried to secure the african-american vote. Fine. Clinton tried to secure the female vote too. However, Clinton has tried to do that without making Obama out to be a misogynist. What I find disgusting and reprehensible is that Obama played his cards in a way to not only secure his african-american vote but also to bait Bill Clinton and make him seem racist. Read for a play-by-play on how it was done:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23140008-7583,00.html

It was brilliant. Obama was colorless until he won Iowa. Then when he lost New Hampshire and Nevada, he was suddenly an african-american candidate.

If after watching the video and reading the article you still want to go with Obama, fine. It's your illusion, go for it. If you feel as offended as I felt, contribute towards Hillary's campaign:

https://contribute.hillaryclinton.com/form.html?sc=2337

Obama has raised $32 million, he is closing fast, it's now or never.

Posted by: Ansh Ammital | February 2, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Give me a break. Bill can visit all the Black churches he likes, but there's no undoing the fact that he was willing to race bait to achieve his & Hill's goals. He tried to divide & conquer between White/Black, Black/Latino...and it won't be forgotten at the voting booths. The damage is done & it's permanent.

Posted by: KC | February 2, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Supporters...I'm still waiting for any one to refute the following....

I can't believe people are even debating between Obama and Clinton. On one hand, we have a senator who voted for the authorization of force resolution which at the time EVERYONE knew meant was the authorization for war--common think back did you really think Bush was not marching to war. Realize when you defend Clinton voted for the resolution as a means to pressure Iraq, you are also defending the Bush administration. You can't have it both ways, if you thought that Bush was always going to go to war, and then you have to believe that Clinton also knew that right. Not only that, she never even read the National Intelligence Estimate, these are facts, they might be stubborn but facts nonetheless. So not only did she fail the "exam", she never opened the "book" to study for the "exam". And as if this was not enough, a couple of months back, she actually voted along with Bush on the Iran resolution. Again, she said this was to pressure Iran. So you failed once, maybe we forgive, failing twice, well that disqualifies you from consideration from being a senator let alone the presidency.

On the other hand, you have Obama who spoke out against the war when NOONE was brave enough to do so. Do you remember how EVERYONE who spoke up again the war was branded as a traitor? And keep in mind as well that he was an elected official at the time, he could have done the cravenly act and went along, but he spoke out. Hillary has tried to paint Obama as a man always driven to run for the presidency since he was in "kindergarten". So would it not have been the easy thing for Obama to go along--like Clinton did--and vote for a war that no one wanted to oppose?

Experience in failure is not what America needs; we have had 8 years of that. Additionally, ask yourself, do we really want 28 years (that's right 28 years) of a Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton presidency? Are we not a democracy?? Let's see, a dynastic "monarchy" where families with known names keep winning the presidency. That would put us in league with: 1) Egypt (Where Hosni Mubarak is going to hand the presidency to his son) 2) Syria (where Al-assad handed off the presidency to Bashar 3) North Korea (where "dear leader" handed off the leadership to his son Kim Ill Jong 4) Cuba (where Fidel Castro is handing off his presidency to his brother Raul 5) Saudi Arabia (Where King Fahd handed off his rule to his half brother Abdulla

I can go on and on with this. The point is that we are the United States of America; there is a reason why we have the 22nd amendment which limits the terms a president can serve. That is why our greatest Presidents (George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Thomas Jefferson) never served more than 2 terms. Only FDR served more than 2 terms, and that was during WWII, an existential threat to our nation where we needed a continuity of leadership desperately. And trust me; Bill and Hillary are no FDR.

My point is that we are a better country than to vote for someone based on a last name. Do we really want to go back to the divisiveness of the 90s? Do we want to go back to the endless investigations? And how long do you think it would be before we lose both houses of congress once America gets tired of the Clintons running the country ragged. We have a chance to elect a president who inspires 18,000 young and older Americans to attend a rally in the middle of the week. We need a president that gives us a fresh start and a clean break from the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton years.

For all those supporting Hillary....please please refute ANY of these facts I listed above...I'm waiting

Posted by: Jason | February 2, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

What baloney ansh, Obama wasn't supposed to respond to attacks from the Clintons? Why did you edit that video so that we couldn't even hear a whole sentence from Obama??? The rest of the SENTENCE didn't suit your purpose? Why on earth would you be citing an Australian newspaper for insight into our elections???? Can't find any US papers to support your view???? Talk about "malicious hypocrisy."

Posted by: vermontfudge | February 2, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Hate George W. Bush as president? Blame Bill Clinton. It is Clinton, not Bush, who will go down as one of our worst presidents. Why? Because Gore had to run away from him in 2000, which resulted in his defeat.

If Bill and/or Hillary were human beings instead of political machines, one of two events should have happened:

1) Bill would have had sex or whatever you want to call it with a 20-year-old intern. Clinton, a very popular president, would have campaigned with Gore, and Gore would have routed Bush.

2) When word got out about Monica, Hillary should have dumped him. Bill resigns, Gore becomes president, and he routs Bush in 2000.

Remember - Bill Clinton, the WORST president.

Posted by: ruby | February 2, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, I meant Bill would NOT HAVE had sex in the above post.

Posted by: ruby | February 2, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

@Jason
On the other hand, you have Obama who spoke out against the war when NOONE was brave enough to do so. Do you remember how EVERYONE who spoke up again the war was branded as a traitor?

My only point is that Obama was not in an office anywhere that mattered when this was happening. You should read Hillary's actual words from the Senate floor as she cast that vote; they are not quite as black and white as the public wants to believe.

I am an undecided voter, but I am sick of hearing about how Obama was against the war from the beginning. Guess what, I was against the war from the beginning too, but I was in college and no one gave a s***. We will never know how he would have voted if he would have been in the Senate/Congress then because he was NOT there. That's my only point.

Again, I'm not sure who I'm voting for, but as usual in politics, things are not so clear-cut.

Posted by: Normandie | February 2, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Lynne posts: "God forbid - Bill Clinton is human and reacted to the neverending attacks on his wife. The press especially ignited the racial issue ON PURPOSE. The truth is Obama attacked first.

For those who go to church and believe in God - would be hypocrites if they don't believe in forgiveness and redemption. Any other response would prove them to be the hypocrites."

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

If, as you say, the press ignited the racial issue, or if Obama raised the racial issue first, then Bill would not and should not apologize. The fact is that Bill and Hillary BOTH inserted race into the campaign (Bill more than Hillary). Now, they realize that they went too far, so they have concluded that an "apology tour" at this time will win them votes next Tuesday and beyond.

I'll accept Bill's and Hillary's apologies after they LOSE the nomination.

Vote FOR the fairy tale!

Posted by: MD | February 2, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

The former President needs to apologize to the nation if he thinks one is necessary. There were many Americans of all stripes who were repulsed by that kind of politics. To do it only at black churches at this time shows how hollow it is. Why not a week ago or during the many speeches he has made since the South Carolina primary? The bible says "You cannot get to heaven with a carnal mind." This man has demonstrated his penchant for this kind of stuff. Look, Kennedy endorsed Obama and he attacks him on "no child left behind" even though his wife voted for it. Read Andy's piece on the Huffington Post about the keying of Obama's car in New Hampshire followed by what happened in South Carolina. Can you imagine what vengeance this guy would wreak on those who opposed his wife in this election if he gets near to the levers of this government again? All black people on death row..prepare to meet your maker. Remember that death row inmate in Arkansas while he was govenor? Read Mr Krauthammer's piece in the Atlanta Journal 02/01/08. It's right on point. God Help us! One Love!!

Posted by: zarkon | February 2, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

LOL. A sign of your mental instability is believing you have "enemies." We know that Clinton believes it - it's the rationalization that allows her to get through her day ("all of these nasty things people say about Bill and me...they couldn't POSSIBLY be based on the facts...").

But why the hell would YOU believe it? Who cares enough about you to bother being "your enemy"?

Posted by: Anonymous | February 2, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

The whole race thing in SC was overplayed in the media. I think Bill Clinton was just saying that Hillary could not win SC because all of the black voters were going for Obama. Thats racist? Obama got over 82% of the black vote in SC, so what Bill Clinton was saying was basically true. I supported Obama to begin with but have since switched to HRC. I see a huge double standard on the media coverage of Obama and Clinton. Obama can get away with stuff like "Senator Punjab", the MLK/LBJ comments, telling Nevada Republicans to register as Democrats to beat Hillary, etc. Hillary fights back and the media says she is going negative. Bill Clinton points out the fact the black voters are supporting Obama unconditionally and he gets called a racist. Huge double standard here.

Posted by: hdimig | February 2, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

I wish every voter in the country could read the pro-Hillary comments here. The self-delusion, the desperation, the baseless justifications, the rank appeals to fear and the absurd claims of victimization. Unfortunately for all of you, the electorate appears to be paying attention this year.

So, by all means, continue to praise Hillary's record as Senator - we know better. Continue to defend Bill's dixiecrat southern strategy - we see it for what it is. Continue with the snide putdowns of this uppity negro - you've already lost the African-American community. Continue to drive those wedges, dividing brown against black, black against white, male against female - we recognize that despicable acts reflect a despicable morality. We see your hollow core of pure narcissism, ambition without empathy, triangulation without principle... in short, Clintonism.

So I urge you to keep airing your true colors, continue to reveal what a Clinton restoration would actually look like, and keep reminding us why we got so sick of you the first time around and why so many of us lamented our votes on your behalf. You're all doing so well here.

With the help of grace, a clear-eyed electorate, a recognition that the world needs something more of us than we've managed over the last 4 decades, we may all wake up to the possibility of true national and political reconciliation next November. And no one will call you out when you say "I supported him from the beginning". After all, in your heart of hearts, in that part of you that's still free of the grievances, the cynicism, the fears, the collection of old scores that must be settled... deep down, you know you already support him. Embrace hope. Embrace the future. Let's make a revolution.

Posted by: RicardoMalocchio | February 2, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

Some people can't see past race and all the things that divide us. I am White and resent the Clintons, it has nothing to do with race. With leadership comes responsibility, and the Clintons have shown over and over again, that they are incapable of being responsible. Also most of my adult life, we've had a Clinton or Bush in the White House, and I am so tired of both families. Who next after Hillary, Roger or Chelsea Clinton or Jeb Bush? We do not have a monarchy system of government.

I am not an Obama supporter, neither am I crazy about the McCain or Romney. My vote is to reject the Clintons. I was around in the 90s and I saw the damage of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the Marc Rich money for pardon scandal, Hugh Rodham money for pardon scandal, travelgate, Bill Clinton lying under oath. That's why the Clintons would never have my vote.

Posted by: Jimmy O | February 2, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

I don't know why people keep complaining about Obama shoving race down their throats. It seems that it should be blatently obvious he's been trying to downplay the whole situation. If anything the media and the Clintons have been playing it up and the majority of the semantic slants I've seen, read and heard on the news doesn't seem to be working in his favor. To be honest I thought Dennis was our best bet because I never was much of a Clinton fan during Bill's reign yet I hear people talk about the good economics when he was in but that whole process is cyclical. The reason Bill looked so good was because he was squeezed in between Reagan, H. W. Bush, and W right now. He, like every president that we've had before, has a track record they try to suppress and his tactics as of late seem to be petty "soapbox" styled politicking. If he's so in love with black people then why did Ruwanda happen? Affirmative action was killed when he was around also (246 years of slavery to 38 years of reconstruction aid/ affirmative action) and he didn't present any methods to try to co-opt the situation. He's just trying to benefit himself and Hilary.

"Just cos you have a sax and live Uptown, don't mean your down and your skin's brown"

Be sure to file Bill and Hill under O for Opportunists.

Posted by: dubbzz | February 2, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Wake up Americans! We need to end our co-dependent, love affair with this co-dependent couple. I want the first, female President to be real. Not a co-President. But, to have accomplished this on her own merits. The office of Presidency isn't a shared experience between married couples. I also do not want to go through four more years of hearing Bill apologize. After awhile, enough is enough. Let's move on. I believe Barack Obama will lead us in a new direction. After 8 years of George W., we need to go in a new direction. With Billary, I feel it will be more of the same-deceptions, apologies, and scandals.

Posted by: Robin Laurain | February 2, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

If WheelinzFunz |believes that Mrs. Clinton has "gravitas," so does Bill Clinton. The glib couple can talk the bark off a tree, but they never delivered on any promise that the Clintons made when they were in the White House. Little wonder that after he fooled the voters, Bill Clinton fooled his wife; and now that she has him chastened, after saving him from impeachment, she's got him under her thumb, until she gets in the White House again and is faced with her first crisis in the Islamic world (Muslim leaders will try to avoid shaking her hand in a photo op). Then we'll hear her screaming "Bill!" And he'll have her back where he wants her, dependent and submissive, ready for the fun to begin ("Now if you want me to help you, Hill, you'll have to stop checking my emails, getting the Secret Service to report who I see, and my Blackberry calls.") "Gravitas!" you say! Yeah, right!!ROFLMAO

Posted by: thedefendant | February 2, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

First, there is no need for President Bill Clinton to apologize. I really think that Rev. Jesse Jackson's victory was much more impressive due to following reasons: first, in 1984 Reagan was riding so high in popularity, nobody even imagined that any democrat could defeat him and second, unlike Mr. Obama-- who is hiding behind the skirts of Ms. Oprah and thus avoiding the media completely while getting a free pass from the same media like the current occupant of the White House-- Rev. Jackson was hated by then media (similar to the treatment President Clinton and Ms. Clinton are getting from the press) and hounded him with criticisms everywhere! Unlike Mr.Obama, Rev. Jackson did not go about telling African Americans in South Carolina "see my opponent is saying this and that about you". He talked about issues such as affirmative action and the government's role in removing povery that Mr. Obama would not even think about saying for fear of offending his white base. I am sure that Rev. Jackson would not have referred to the ethnic cleansing of New Orleans as colorblind inefficiency or something in anticipation of his entering the presidential race! There was no way Rev. Jackson with the powerful media and white people opposed to him could have won in South Carolina with just two ethnic groups, but for majority of African-Americans voting for him in a state. In fact, President Clinton, in my opinion, insulted Rev. Jackson by comparing him with Mr. Obama!

Posted by: Rabiti | February 2, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

I'll believe it when I see and hear it. The Clintons, like the Bushes, don't apologize. That's why we need to turn the page on these American dynasties and elect a leader with vision and integrity - Barack Obama.

Posted by: grejambri | February 2, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

I am so sick of the Clinton pattern--do/say whatever you want, apologize later (but only if you really have to). Do people think there's anything sincere about this? Can't we move on?

Posted by: listenhere | February 2, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton lied to the country, cheated on his wife, and lost his license to practice law. Why are we even listening to this guy?

Posted by: Daniel | February 2, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Come on...aren't there more important issues that face us, that we should be puting our energy into debating/defeating than this drivel? Arianna and the bloggers here seem to me will post anything to get a charge out of the Clinton "haters", and anything to get a charge out of...geeze who knows who gets a charge out of "I'm F&$kIN# Matt Damon"? What the hell does that have to do with informed political conversation and/or debate, or the future and welfare of our country? Used to come to HuffPo for discourse above the sort of discourse you can find at any supermarket check-out stand. And now we get, ""I'm F&$kIN# Matt Damon"?

Posted by: RJ | February 2, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

By the way, most people that are screaming about race. All the African American leaders in SC endorsed Hillary. In NYC, Congressman Rangel is endorsing Hillary. Most of the African American politicians cannot stand Obama. They see him as an someone that would diminish their relevance. Bob Johnson (Founder of BET) went on National TV whilst introducing Hillary and mentioned that Obama experimented with drug as teenager. Bill and Hillary Clinton have a long-standing political relationship with many African American Politicians and continue to do so. So let's stop this nonsense about race and focus on the future of our country. I strongly believe our country will be better of without the Clintons. The Clintons bring back terrible memories of the 90s, it is time to turn a new page. Vote McCain, or Romney or Obama. Reject the Clinton dynasty

Posted by: Jim | February 2, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

As an African-American I must say that the damage has already been done. African-Americans are now FULLY in Barack Obama's camp. The "Jesse Jackson" comment was the last straw. An apology will not matter and will just remind everyone about the stupid comment.

If HRC wins the primary and does NOT appoint Obama as her Vice President than I predict that the African-American voters will stay home for the most part in the general election.

Posted by: maritza1 | February 2, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

How can these churches allow something so political to go on and not lose their tax exempt status? Isn't there a community center that he could appear? I really don't get it. My pastor is extremely careful to not inject political discourse into the service to not jeopardize the tax exempt status.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 2, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

A person who has integrity, ethics, and honesty....and who cares about his fellow man....should act/behave in a way that he never creates a situation in which he would have to apologize. Say what you mean...and mean what you say. It should be about "how you play the game"....not merely "who wins". The way you play the game shows your character...or your lack of character. Wake up, people. Don't be twisted around any more. Enough of the Clintons....both of them.

Posted by: Mazie Purtle | February 2, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

In response to an above comment: In New York, Congressman Rangel's wife endorsed Obama.

Posted by: Mazie Purtle | February 2, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

I wonder how much money those preachers will get from Bill

Posted by: larry | February 2, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

enuff! after losing NH & NA, obama injected race in to the campaign by misrepresenting clinton's comments into racially tinged sound bites. the tactic worked and black pride won him SC.

but america is not a black majority country. sen. clinton's coalition of supporters of various race & creed will have a chance to voice their support on super tuesday.

we support clinton because of her lifetime work on issues important to working americans and the underserved. we will vote for her because of her intelligence, guts and YES, experience!

we will nominate sen. clinton and vote her president!

end of story.

Posted by: mikel | February 2, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

it will be a shame if Obama is on the same ticket with the Clintons. That would destroy his platform and his appeal. He is against everything the Clintons stand for. That ticket would be defeated by the Republicans. Obama-Clinton, Clinton-Obama ticket would be a disaster for the Democrats. McCain would trounce them big time. Reject the Clinton dynasty.

Posted by: Jim | February 2, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

So typical Clintons. Slam them and when it's over apoligize. Use them when you need them and then move on with your agenda.

How I hope the black's don't fall for the Clinton line this time....both Bill and Hillary are "users" and "abusers"....it's ALL about Clintons, d&mn the country and the black community.

Posted by: Mary | February 2, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Raymond T. Anderson:
"The Clinton who needs to apologize is Hillary, for her Iraq war vote. Sad how the mainstream media finds more interest in real or imagined racial slights than a U.S. made disaster that has claimed a million lives worldwide.
Hear that, Hillary? No apology, no vote."

Well said. You speak for me too.

Posted by: bourassa | February 2, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

I'll take the candidate with the best judgement and the courage to speak to our enemies as well as our friends. That person is Barack Obama, who had this to say in 2002 "I thought our priority had to be finishing the fight in Afghanistan. I spoke out against what I called "a rash war' in Iraq. I worried about, 'an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.'"
Meanwhile Hillary Clinton voted FOR the Iraq invasion. She now says she hadn't read the resolution, but was fully briefed and was assured that it didn't mean war. Apparently she hadn't even read the title, which was "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002."
Ryan is right. The Clintons should be apologizing for her vote and for Bill claiming Obama's judgement on Iraq is a "fairytale." Hillary's weasling on this important issue is a fairy tale.

Posted by: JElaine | February 2, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

All of you people who seem to insist that Hillary Clinton is the Devil Incarnate while Barack Obama is some sort of saint need to grow up. They are people, period. Complex, interesting, intelligent people. They are also politicians.


So, Clinton will "say anything, do anything" to get elected? You think Obama won't? Keep smoking whatever is comforting you, then, since you're not interested in reality. You probably voted for Nader, thinking it wouldn't matter whether Bush or Gore won the presidency. Happy now?


Obama's thin skin and easily bruised feelings have turned this lifelong Democrat off completely. What is the poor boy going to do when the Republicans start sliming him (and they will; it's what they do best...)? Cry? Run home to Michelle? What? He already looks like he's going to throw a tantrum any time anyone asks him a question he doesn't like. His petulance and arrogance are extremely disturbing - he acts as though the presidency is his due. It's not. And haven't we had quite enough of Mr. Petulant, "It's all about me, the Decider" for the last eight years?


He supposedly stands for unity. Do you nutjobs really believe that, if Obama is the nominee, all of the Republicans are going to suddenly take their meds, and come sit around the campfire & sing a few choruses of Kumbaya? Not happening, people. To me, Obama sounds a little too much like Republican-lite. Sure, it's necessary to work with people, but you also have to pick your fights. I see Obama caving to everything the Republicans want - after all, isn't anything else "divisive" and "partisan"?


What's Obama going to do the first time one of his proposals is opposed by the Republican bloc in Congress (and let's face it, the Republicans will oppose *any* proposal of *any* Democratic president, just on what passes for their "principles")? Pitch a fit? Preach at them about how they're not "uniting"? Think they're going to care? Whine about how they're being unfair or racist? Or are you betting on a veto-proof Congress? There's no guarantee; some people would vote for a dead chicken if it had a R after its name.


So no wonder so many Republicans supposedly love Obama - they see him as their best chance of getting everything they want from a nominally Democratic president. Clinton has been there, seen that, and she's not falling for it. She knows how to pick her battles; when to compromise and when to fight.


As for those who think people who know they have enemies are delusional, check out any of the right-wing blogs where Senator Clinton is regularly referred to as "Hitlery." What, you think these people are her friends or something?


So grow up, already. Senator Clinton has the best chance of taking on the Republicans and repairing the damage they've done to this country. She's got my vote.

Posted by: slavicdiva | February 2, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

The more Bill Clinton apologizes, the more voters will remember what he is apologizing for - playing the race card. And once you've played that card, if you fall for the apology and vote for Hillary, then you've got no one but yourself to blame when Bill finds himself having to issue apologies on numerous other matters.

Bill, for all his intellect and political instincts, has become a liability. And he's a liability more for the general election than in the primary season. We all know that the general election will be a tarring of the Clinton marriage, Bill's presidency, and his business dealings. He'll be an albatross, not just around Hillary's neck, but around the nation's collective neck. We'll never get the robust policy debate we'd get if Obama were to face off against the GOP nominee. We'd be in scandal city all over again, and I personally won't vote for Hillary in the nominating process to spare us all that fate.

Posted by: pkohan | February 2, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

You only have to look at some of these posts to see that the main thing Clintons inspire is hatred. Some against them and some from their backers. It's time to turn the page on BUSH/CLINTON/BUSH.

GO OBAMA '08

Posted by: Anonymous | February 2, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

If you care about honesty, ethics and morals, then you must reject the Clintons. Google "Clinton Convicts", and see the results. That is the legacy of the Clintons. Reject the Clinton dynasty.

Posted by: Jimmy | February 2, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

This is the full text of Obama's speech against the idiocy of the Iraq War, which Hillary Clinton voted for...

I Don't Oppose All Wars

I don't oppose all wars. My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil.

I don't oppose all wars. After September 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.

Opposed to Dumb, Rash Wars

I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

On Saddam Hussein

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.

You Want a Fight, President Bush?

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that...we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair."


If this man is not our President, it is a loss for our country. We have a chance to vote for a man who was so precient on the most important matter of our time, versus a Senator from New York who voted for this insane war without ever reading the National Intelligence Estimate....the choice is stark, and the choice is clear.

Posted by: Response to Normandie | February 2, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

>> He is against everything the Clintons stand for.

The liberal wing of the Democratic party deludes itself by thinking anyone who has not actually held national office is a saint (See Howard Dean, Ralph Nader, etc.). Obama is not as liberal or apolitical as you folks are making him out to be. I support HRC because she is tough, prepared, and professional.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 2, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

"Hill and Bill Clinton ran the most corrupt and morally bankrupt White House since Nixon. Google "Clinton convicts" and see the results, that is the legacy of the Clintons."

Where has this person been for the last seven years? Please Bush-Cheney win this contest hands down!

Posted by: Anonymous | February 2, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

The blacks are falling for it AGAIN!

Posted by: Marty | February 2, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

During Kodak theater debate, Hillary mentioned one person per by name. In fact, she sat next to her daughter during this debate. Congresswoman Maxine Walters's endorsement to Hillary did not get much attention by media outlets. She is the biggest jackpot for Hillary. She can deliver votes in this area. Many insiders are predicting they will split african votes between Obama and Clinton. That will just prove to the rest of the country, Los Angeles is NOT South Carolina. That's also very good news for both candidates.

Posted by: Paul | February 2, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

And to think I actually voted for this man...and thought about doing the same for Hillary until their disgusting campaign...think about the following...

Monica, Kazikstan, Whitewater, FBI Files, Wiley, Lincoln bedroom, $400,000 for pardons, Marc Rich, Chinese contributions, Vince Foster, Nannygate, Travel Gate, Paula Jones, Definition of the word "is" is, Juanita Broadrick, I did not have sex with that woman, disbarment, the republican revolution, contract with America, impeachment...and on and on...

Hillary supporters, is this really the change that you want?? Nominating Hillary is a death pact for the Democratic party, I will gladly vote for McCain before ever voting for Clinton. Not only that, with both Clinton and McCain hated by a significant segment of their own party, Bloomberg will run and capture disaffected Rs and Ds. Why do you think he keeps floating the idea every couple of week. Hillary could not get over 60% in Michigan running unopposed..when the typical number for people that run unopposed is over 90%. We need real change, we don't need to change back the hands of time...

Posted by: Anonymous | February 2, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

I do not think that Bill Clinton is a racist.
What I do find him to be is a cynical politician who will play any card in the deck in order to gain advantage. He always has been willing to set whites against blacks when he saw that was to his advantage. He wants whites to see Obama as only a candidate of black Americans. Guess who gets to draw from the huge non black majority.
This is not the first time Bill Clinton has played that card.
Go back and read about how he played the Sistah Soljah card against Jesse Jackson, in order to make sure that white voters stayed away from him.
Bill Clinton loves blacks when he needs their support, and he will throw them to the dogs if he thinks that will gain him an advantage. Racists are too full of hate to ever play that game.
In some ways the Bill Clintons of the world are worse than racists. At least with racists, the targets of their hatred always know where they stand. It is far worse when someone who has befriended you, turn around and feeds you the wolves.

Posted by: mageduley | February 2, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Slick Willy visits african-american churchs to say, "I'm sorry, I made mistake." This old school narcissist sex addict is so manipulative it is astounding! How could anyone have a relationship with him? Throw Billary out! We need honesty. Wake up America!

Posted by: Lazrus123 | February 2, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

just one question: would bill clinton be apologizing if california wasn't just a three point race?

i highly doubt it.

and that just goes to show the political phoniness of the clintons. They say or do anything to get elected.

Posted by: jn | February 2, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

I think someof us are relying to heavily on too few media sources for the FACTS. As a presidential candidate, Bill Clinton once desperately courted the African American vote on the premise he brought about change (ie. Bush Senior), and that he was the guy with the judgment (vs. Bush Seniors' experience), so its hypocritical and offensive to many African Americans that Clinton would use words like "fairytale," and untruthful to describe the Obama campaign.

Further, I find it disturbing that Senator Clinton seems have relied on her husbands' cache to such a degree she lost her voice (again). As a self-proclaimed feminist, how ironic that a viable female candidate for president is allowing her husband to go and be her voice. It's one thing for Bill to speak to his wofe's accomplishments, its quite another for the spouse to jump into the fray. I wonder if this is the start to a trend when all spouses will feel obliged to go on the attack.

Finally, I think as voters we all need to be honest about who and why we support candidates for public office. I advocate to all to be investigative and seek out news, information, position statements, etc. that will give you an in-depth perspective. We owe it to the country and the world to make INFORMED choices. These televised debates are not enough and if you ONLY rely on them to give you a sense of the candidate, their values, their moral center, etc. You will be left uninformed.

Posted by: NYCGuy1972 | February 2, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Some of you need to wake up and see what is going on. George W. Bush is the worst thing that has ever happened in the US in politics. He has ruined the economy, the army, the justice dept, the reputation of the US in the world with his torture of prisoners. Also has left us so far in debt that it will take no telling how many years to get over. And Bill Clinton is the best president that we have had in many, many, long years. So support Hillary because she can call upon all of the experience that he has and all of the good smart people of the US that will not give George W. Bush the time of the day!!!

Posted by: kmdala | February 2, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Speaking as a black woman, the Clinton's behavior in this campaign has been deeply painful for me. The Clinton's are the reason why I began following politics in the first place. Bill Clinton was the first president I have ever voted for. If anybody would ever say anything negative about the Clintons, I would fiercly argue in their behalf. I even named my 5 year-old son William Thomas after Bill Clinton. I couldn't have never imagine a time in which I would never support the Clintons.

Unfortuantely, that time has come. I can no longer support anything the Clinton's ever do. I do not believe the Clinton's are racists, but I believe they would do anything to get elected. It is astounshing to see the Clintons jeopardize their close relationship with the African-American community to win an election. How can you do something so vile to a people who had your back when you was going through the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal? We loved you dearly.

I wish the Hillary supporters would stop bashing us when this is very painful for the African-American community. We do not easily turn our backs on someone we deeply adore.

Posted by: Lisa Hampton | February 2, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

The S.C. actions of Bill and Hillary Clinton showed me what they really stand for: POWER. Politically inspired apologies cannot restore neither my trust in them or respect for them. I hope many other African-Americans will stand with me in this sentiment.

Posted by: DrumMajorForJustice | February 2, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

>>Unfortuantely, that time has come. I can no longer support
>>anything the Clinton's ever do.

I guess I can understand this. What turned me away from Obama was the way he was hammering Hillary on stuff like "Senator Punjab", the Walmart comment, MLK/LBJ out of context, Nevada Republicans register as Democrats to defeat Hillary, ... As a father of two daughters it torqued me off that he could get away with that without getting any heat in the media. To paraphrase though: "Let me be perfectly clear", I will gladly take Obama over any Republican come general election time.

Posted by: hdimig | February 2, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

What a jerk. Play the race card, because you think it'll get you votes, and then come back on your hands and knees and say you didn't mean it. Really despicable.

Posted by: LARichardson73 | February 2, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

The War Vote: Does anyone else remember how GWB had the country over a barrel at the time of that vote? After 9/11 and the Anthrax scare and all, people wanted their senators to give the President what ever leeway he needed to get the job done. In retrospect it was foolish and I remember those votes being very pained and conflicted. I too was against the war from the beginning, but I can understand how a Senator would vote that way. At that time there was hope that any foolishness by Bush would be countered by Colin Powell (again a faulty assumption).

Posted by: hdimig | February 2, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

I don't know whether Ms. Diane Watson plays politics though she knows who really the Clintons are.

If she believes Bill Clinton is so-called "first black president crap," she has a long way to go. She seems still in survival mode coming from the toxic environment.

Posted by: sukkee | February 2, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

The war is right and important. We are fighting folks out there who would destroy western civilization and winning. They are playing hard ball the democrats are playing politics. The media drones on and a thousand times tells those with a 5th grade mentality that "he lied". Then they take a poll. If the democrats prevail, we will pay the price down the road. It will be harder to defeat them then. Meanwhile, Obama would sell our security for a vote and Hillary would sell anything for a vote. And fools support them.

Posted by: V RAcer | February 2, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

More Clinton tactic. How disgusting that he will even use a church for his 'flame, blame, then feign remorse' campaign.

Posted by: katharine | February 2, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Well, I understand that Obama is going to be watching the superbowl Sunday while his racist wife and African Oprah and wild eyed liberal Caroline Kennedy are out campaigning in California. Once again the women are having to get the job done. I am really glad that Moveon.com and Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama. Now we know how to the left Obama is. We don't need liberal left or conservative right, we need moderate. I will vote for Hillary first and Mccain second. Never Obama or Romney. Moderates seem to be in the middle which is were the middle class live. I loved President Kennedy but I realize we will never know what kind of President he would have actually have been since he wasn't there to prove himself. It is easy to idolize him because of his death regardless of what kind of 4 year president he would have been. But we do all know about his brother that drowned the lady and about his voting record. Go moderates.

Posted by: Speedo | February 2, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

take it easy,people. white man, black man, who did this, who did that, yada yada yada... all these post only shows how you people are. don't blame MSM for the ugliness, just listen to you, you are all became what MSM wants you to be. shame shame shame. we have a bigger fight ahead. just take a deep breath,get on these two candidates web sites and read through them one more time-and please take your time- then make up your mind for once and for all. REPUBLICANS are watching and getting ready. only way we can go through it is by UNITED. let's stop this 'school yard spit ball fight', all the spit balls will end up on your faces, no one else.

Posted by: sashimi | February 2, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

As an independent who voted for Bill Clinton twice, and defended him during the impeachment crisis, I've come to realize the true nature of the Clinton (Billary?) political machine. They care nothing about this country, or the status of their party. Its all about THEM.

My prediction: The Republican candidate will be John McCain. The Democratic candidate will be Hillary Clinton. McCain will win the presidency, as 1) he CAN attract the independent vote, and 2) Hillary's negatives (i.e. her HUSBAND?) are much too high.

And to think we could have had a true "leader" and not a politician with Senator Obama.

Posted by: Disgusted Independent | February 2, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Briann wrote:

"Oh this is tooo funny! Slick Willie is being trotted out to undo the damage he has done. Did he actually think that his actions wouldn't have consequences?"
-----------------------------------

I'm sure he knew exactly what the consequences would be. Bill Clinton is only happy when the story is about him, which does not bode well for a Hillary presidency.

Posted by: SC | February 2, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

I only hope the AA community will chose to vote this woman out of office. Clearly, her loyalty to Clinton money rises above concern for constituents.

Posted by: jim | February 2, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

And speedo you are clearly a moron. Is it dark in there?

Posted by: jim | February 2, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Lisa. The Clintons are not racists. They hate everyone equally that opposes their absolute power grab and will do anything to destroy that opponent. I would rather have McCain, the lesser of two evils. At least he believes in what he is doing and is not ashamed of his position. Billary does the everything for personal gain. Slick Hilly is absolutely unelectable.

Posted by: jim | February 2, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Jim, it maybe dark in here but it sure is not black.

Posted by: Speedo | February 2, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Another African American politician endorses Billary - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/02/AR2008020201003.html?hpid=topnews

People should do what they believe is in the best interest of the country. Race baiters, pls stop it. This is not about race, gender or social status, it is about the future of our country.

The Clintons will do anything to return to the White House. if you care about ethics, integrity, selfless service to mankind, then you must vote to reject the Clinton dynasty. We are a country of 350 million people, there is no reason why we should continue to be ruled by 2 families. We do not run a monarchy system of government. Do you remember Monica Lewinsky? Marc Rich Money for Pardon Scandal? Hugh Rodham Money for Pardon Scandal? Google "Clinton Convicts" and see the results. That is the legacy of the Clintons. It is time for a new beginning, reject the Clintons. Our country deserves better.

Posted by: Jimmy | February 2, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

The choice is easy: Lenin or Marx for president.

Posted by: clyde | February 2, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

How long are blacks going to keep being fooled by this shameless race-baiter? And all the rest of the shameless race-baiters in the Democrat Party?

Posted by: JB | February 2, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Too little, too late, and so patently insincere.

Its Clinton drama pathology at work again in its mind-numbing repetitive pattern: 1. mess up
2. blame the target of the attack / and or deny
3. public outcry
4. have to apologize.

Now think back...how many times has this scenario played out with Bill and Hillary Clinton? How many times have we seen them on 60 minutes apologizing or rationalizing? How many times have we been subjected to the painful and emotionally awkward sight of Bill holding Chelsea's hand who's holding Hillary's hand as they walk to the helicopter on the White House lawn?

Well, I for one NEVER want to see them that forced photo op again.

And Senator Obama cannot agree to be her possible VP because then the Clinton scandals will stick to him. You think the Clintons wouldn't relish blaming their VP Obama for some future drama down the road? Believe it.

The only way out of this Clinton family drama pathology is for America to ignore the Billary team and its repetitive antics and to vote for Senator Obama.

Posted by: New England Voter | February 2, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

This is not about Bill Clinton. Hillary has said she should be judged on her on merits, yet even on this post, people are fondly remembering prosperity during the Clinton years. Does this automatically translate that the economy will be great with her as President? One of the reasons why the economy was good during the Clinton years was the ramping up we did for Y2K. This Country spent more money on preparing for Y2K than any other country. The jobs and prosperity were not being created by Bill Clinton, they were being automatically created by the turn of the century and he got to cash in on it.

Immediately following Y2K, the jobs started disappearing in this country and more and more Americans have either lost their jobs or are fearful of losing them, especially our high technology jobs. Hillary Clinton has supported outsourcing and the free trade global economy at least as far back as 2002. As Senator, she welcomed the biggest Indian outsourcing firm to Buffalo, NY. She has been on the Board of Directors of WalMart, the biggest importer of goods made in Communist China.

Obama is not in favor of special interests groups running this country. Are you? WalMart is one of the biggest special interest groups there is and we cannot turn a blind eye to Hillary's former bed partners.

Obama wants to meet with the enemies of the U.S. and Hillary does not. That also bothers me. How can she say she will pull out of Iraq if she will not meet with those we are protecting Iraq from. We need to improve our likability factor throughout the world. This may prevent us from being such targets of hatred. I believe Obama can deliver that factor that is missing in Hillary. Obama has that ability to provoke people to want to make changes and I believe that would apply to foreign leaders as well.

Some forums claim that if we pull out of Iraq then 9/11 will happen all over again. It might be worth mentioning that terrorists are determined to terrorize. Do you honestly think our occupation of Iraq prevents terrorism? What is the indication that we have won this war and its safe to pull out? Or will this turn into another View Nam. We have been there 5 years and have not stamped out terrorism nor have we put a dent in terrorism. Once you get rid of one cell another forms to take its place. You have children joining these terrorists groups at very young ages. You have suicide bombers. They are willing to die for their cause and we should be ready to die for ours. Nobody ever accomplished anything by being fearful. While we are busy fighting terrorism in Iraq, who says terrorists cells are not forming right here under our noses. The terrorists from 9/11 were based in the United States, not Iraq.

One last thing there may be a Clinton-Clinton ticket. It is not unconstitutional for Bill Clinton to be elected Vice-President. The only rules are he cannot be elected President for a 3rd term. Should something happen to Hillary he would seve as President until the next election at which time he could not run for re-election.

Lets not go for the third decade of either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. Lets vote for real change. Vote Obama. The time of now.

Posted by: Scollins | February 2, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

That whole "ghettoization" ploy was so egregious even conservative commentator Pat Buchanan was shocked.

This character deficit thing with both Clintons has always bugged me. I mean, I don't care if they share my policy views or not, I just can't vote for someone whose ethics are less than pretty darned good. Hey, one or two lapses I can deal with. But here are some more of Hillary's inconvenient behavior patterns I came up with in just 5 hours of research.

No wonder the Republicans have calluses on their knees praying for Hillary to win the nomination.

- In 1988, Bill and Hillary jerry rigged Arkansas' first piece of ethics legislation to exempt Hillary and her law firm from conflict of issues in representing clients before her husband. (NYT Mar 27, 2992)

- Hillary cooked up a plan during her husband's first Presidential administration to "sell" taxpayer paid for "trade missions" in exchange for campaign contributions.

- According to Independent Counsel Robert Ray, Hillary gave "factually false" testimony under oath in connection with the Travelgate investigation. I think that lying under oath is called perjury, isn't it?

- Prevailed upon her husband to grant pardons to convicted Puerto Rican terrorists (and that includes murderers) in a craven bid to ingratiate themselves to Hispanic voters in the run-up to Hillary's first Senate campaign. Nicely done Hillary.

- Allowed her brothers Anthony and Hugh Rodham to "broker" huge cash deals to obtain Presidential pardons from Bill Clinton for Marc Rich and others. In a Democratic debate during the last month Hillary hilariously denied that she knew anything about these pardons. Even Hillary's slimeball/ racist in chief strategist Mark Penn must have laughed over that one.

- Hired a private detective to illegally obtain the FBI files of former Reagan and H.W. Bush staffers.

- Hired multiple detectives to track down the small army of Bill's Bimbos and intimidated or blackmailed them into silence, engaging in ". . . a systematic campaign to intimidate, frighten, threaten, discredit and punish innocent Americans whose only misdeed is their desire to tell the truth in public." Former Hillary strategist / confidant Dick Morris quoted in the NY Post Oct 1, 1998.

- Invested $1,000 in cattle futures via the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and with insider advice turn it into a $100,000 in ten (10) months. A 1995 study by economists from Auburn University and University of North Florida concluded in an article published in the Journal of Economics and Statistics that there was only a 1 in 250 million chance that Rodham could have made the profits she did legitimately.

- Echoing the 18 minute Nixon tapes gap, denied any knowledge of how her Whitewater billing records mysteriously disappeared from the office of Vince Foster, the former Rose Law Firm partner and Clinton White House Counsel. Yet after the heat went way, way up, those records mysteriously reappeared in the Whitehouse book room bearing Hillary's fingerprints (and I mean, her actual fingerprints as determined by the FBI lab). Laughably, she still denies knowing anything about them.

- And revealing that down and dirty 'sleazeball' behavior that comes to the fore with desperate politicians, Hillary totted out so-called "liberal" Bob Kerrey - a former Senator - to go on and on and on about Obama's wonderful Muslim heritage and how great it was that Obama attended a "secular" madrassa. Pretty lame ploy. (And a secular madrassa? I can't believe this idiot is the President of the New School.)

But you know what, in this age of hyper-partisan, societal segmenting and downright tribalization of politics, making character and integrity the foremost considerations of the nation's leader is soooo old school.

Hillary will get the Dem nomination and John McCain will easily win the Whitehouse.

Posted by: xanpar | February 2, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

To the poster who claimed McCain is more "liberal" than the Clintons....that's got to be the joke of the month, believe me. The Coulter remarks are all part of the new RNC/Karl Rove strategy:
make McCain appear to be "non-threatening" to independents. But wait till the orchestrated Limbaugh-Hannity phoney indignation subsides, and we'll all see that McCain is basically another NeoCon running on the Fear Factor, and perhaps even worse he'll just be
another advocate of Reagonomics. Savvy independents know that
the last thing we need now are fiscal policies echoing those of Ronald Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. McCain's alleged "maverick, RINO" identification is a sham and a fraud. And independents will figure that out by election day, I guarantee it.

Posted by: dnegri | February 2, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton continues to fight a war that he has long lost. His recent behavor is nothing short of disgusting.
This is a man who was clearly gone after by a number of zealots from the other side. Bill Clinton, pushed into a corner since his presidency because of scandals, some real & some imagine, has decided for good or ill, that in future at least during this season, he will always be on the attack if necessary, and would never allow any attacks or criticism against him or his wife him to go unanswered, no matter how true, relevant or deserving these criticisms are.
The problem is, Clinton's legacy is already sealed. He will always be remembered by reference to female names, e.g. Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones etc. It is therefore pointless now for the former president to be angry at those who politically disgree with him, or anyone who fails to buy this notion that he and his wife were ordained by God to assume the highest office in the land. Bill Clinton squandered his chance to be remembered as a good president, and no attacks against political foes, no matter how nasty and vitriolic, would make the general public garner any pleasant memories Clinton's presidency.
The sad fact is that Bill Clinton's actions and words are beginning to make him look petty, vindictive, frustrated and downright nasty. The most recent evidence coming within the last few days: no sooner than Ted Kennedy offered his support to Obama, Bill Clinton was appearing on television casting blame on Kennedy for backing 'No Child Left Behind.' He is asking the public to believe that he suddenly discovered the most grevious fault of Kennedy.

Unfortunately, many of the the voting public is well aware, that Clinton did everything in his power to prevent the Kennedy endorsement of Obam.

Clinton is a man who has clearly lost all sense of moral equilibrium. His motto, seems to be 'Anything that can be done will be done to destroy the perceived enemy'.
For my money, the nasty racist reference to Jesse Jackson following Obama's win in South Carolina, now leads me to question the extent to which Bill Clinton ever believed in the equality of blacks in this country. If Clinton's belief was sincere to begin with, I find it difficult to understand how he could have disavowed it so easily for the political gain of his wife.
It is sad to see a former president, warts and all, bring himself down to the level of a common street fighter whose main and only rule is, anything to win.

Our presidency deserves much better.

Posted by: Carl Reed | February 2, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

I forgot to mention in that last posting Bubba's latest ethical outrage - hot off the press!!

The New York Time's reports on Bill's "philanthropic" trip to Kazakhstan - a country probably know to you, dear reader, for their little problem of torturing people.

It seems that Kazakhstan's president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, an international pariah and tyrant of the first order was thrilled to have Billy Clinton honor him with his attendance at a banquet. The Times reports:

"Mr. Nazarbayev walked away from the table with a propaganda coup, after Mr. Clinton expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader's bid to head an international organization that monitors elections and supports democracy."
See: "After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton" New York Times, Politics Section, January 31, 2008

Mr. Clinton was paid off handsomely: i) Bill's heretofore unknown mining 'client' obytained the right to buy into three uranium projects controlled by Kazakhstan's state-owned uranium agency, Kazatomprom "stunning the [international] mining industry".

And Mr. Clinton "received its own windfall: a $31.3 million donation from Mr. Giustra that had remained a secret until he acknowledged it last month. The gift, combined with Mr. Giustra's more recent and public pledge to give the William J. Clinton Foundation an additional $100 million, secured Mr. Giustra a place in Mr. Clinton's inner circle, an exclusive club of wealthy entrepreneurs in which friendship with the former president has its privileges."

Perhaps Bubba can vist the Program for Torture Victims (www.ptvla.org) and apologize to the hundreds of Kazakh and internationally "rendered" torture victims for legitimizing this monster Nazarbayev. Good work Bill. There really is nothing you won't do, is there?

Posted by: xanpar | February 2, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse


The Clinton Legacy

RECORDS SET

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

"The Clintons, to adapt a line from Dr. Johnson, were not only corrupt, they were the cause of corruption in others. Yet seldom in America have so many come to excuse so much mendacity and malfeasance as during the Clinton years. Here are some of the facts that have been buried."

http://prorev.com/legacy.htm

Posted by: Anonymous | February 2, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Vote for Hillary at your own peril... doing so only improves the chance of President McCain...

Who really wants the Clinton-slime-machine installed back at the White House. Definitely not me!

Posted by: Clinton Sycophants | February 2, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Hilarious. Bill Clinton falls asleep at MLK celebration

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/01/clinton_gets_sleepy_at_mlk_day.php

CLINTON SAYS WE HAVE THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT BECAUSE LYNDON JOHNSON SIGNED IT.

GOLDWATER RAN A CAMPAIGN AGAINST JOHNSON...
SO WHY WAS SHE CAMPAIGNING FOR BARRY GOLDWATER WHO WAS AGAINST THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT???

BY THE WAY CHECK OUT BILL CLINTON'S RACIST POSTCARD HE SENT TO HIS GRANDMA IN 1966 DURING THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT.

http://serr8d.blogspot.com/2007/10/bill-clinton-racist-postcard-buy-it-now.html

Posted by: Anonymous | February 2, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

This is so sad, so sick. Bill Clinton offends the leading black candidate and with it the black race and then gets begged by the stupid black people who say he was always loved in the black community, to write letters of apology so that the blacks can feel better about him now and vote for Hillary. Give me a break!! It gets me sick in my stomach to even think of Bill Clinton making purposeful visits exclusively to the black churches 'to repent' for the vote(repent what? He spoke like he wanted to) because these shuffling black people want to kiss up to the Clintons, for whatever reason. They want to ignore his comments beyond all measure. That is what's sick. He said what he said and continues to say what he says, and that is the real Bill Clinton, not the black mask these stupid black people want to put on him. Another thing: Nobody MAKES anybody vote for them. I believe black people like all people have seen what Obama is all about and therefore have seen he is the best candidate between him and Hillary and that is why blacks voted for him and will continue to vote for him. How anyone, especially blacks, can vote for Hillary and vote for Hillary over Obama is absolutely beyond me. There's something in their water. OBAMA '08!!!

Posted by: RuthieM | February 2, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

I hope the members of the black church community don't fall for the pandering and lying ways of Bill Clinton. If the church members really thought that about it, they would never accept Bill Clinton of being a leader in their own church community. Not with the trust, infidelity, and lack of faith issues that Bill possesses.

Posted by: AJ | February 2, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Hillary will consider appointing Marc Rich as Attorney General in the (unlikely) event she were to be elected President.

Posted by: Corrupt Clintons | February 2, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Those who claim that Hilary is riding Bill's coat tail obviously have not watched the debates. If they had, they would know that Hilary has a well-informed grasp of the problems and her solutions are to the point, fully scoped. Unlike
Obama, whose answers were replete with generalities, she is articulate and clear
and without hedging. We the electorate
would do well to take advice from Obama.
In The Audacity of Hope, he urges us to
comport ourselves (paraphrasing) with
reason and not passion.

It seems that the media, a number of the
academics and politicians and some sector
of the electorate all subscribe to the
"herd mentality". Yes, Obama is a good
speaker, but it takes more to be the president of the U.S. After all this is
NOT a popularity contest!

One more point, he keeps pointing out Hilary's pro-Bush vote on Iraq as a mistake. Well, his own rash answer on taking out bin Laden in Pakistan (a powder keg, more dangerous than Iran) if Musharraf having received intel info
as to bL's whereabout would not act. Do we want a reckless leader like that! The media
and his supporters seem satisfied to let
it slide by.

Use your head!

Posted by: YL | February 2, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Maybe he could squeeze out a couple of tears and that should seal the deal.

Posted by: RL | February 2, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

I am for Obama because I have hope. He is tabula rasa. No record to attack. I have a hunch that if he is president the terrorists will stop attacking the USA.

Posted by: GeneWells | February 2, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Oh boy! When the republican nut jobs get on here the conversation goes bad in a hurry! They truly believe that if you repeat a lie/half-truth often enough it becomes a fact. America has had enough of that already. We ain't buying. It shows that as bad as the Clinton/Obama rivalry may seem, it is really all good fun. We will be ready in November!

Posted by: hdimig | February 2, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

My god. This is what I was afraid of. Here it comes. The bill clinton black booty kissing tour.

Please voters, please, vote for Obama so I don't have to listen to this liar peddle his political porn any more. If not for me, think of the children who may be drowned in a tidal wave of calculated pandering.

I promised myself that i would not beg this election year but this is bringing me to my knees. If you were undecided please vote Obama.

I am officially begging.

Posted by: Will | February 2, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Wow! Amazing the turn-around of Diane Watson's sentiments! Not too long ago---

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-diane-watson/la-comes-to-obama_b_41936.html


And then her sentiments of racial tension----
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-diane-watson/william-bennett_b_8504.html

Posted by: Jennifer | February 2, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Slavicdiva: "I see Obama caving to everything the Republicans want."

Why do you see that? When has he done it before?

When Republicans wanted to invade Iraq, Hillary caved, Obama didn't.

When the Democrat Levin introduced an amendment that would have given the inspectors more time, the Republicans voted against it...and Hillary helped them. This whole time Obama was speaking out against the war - during his own Senate campaign.

Last year, the Republicans introduced a bill to put the Iranian Revolutionary Guard on the terror list. Since Congress has already given Bush carte blanche to attack anyone on this list, that is effectively YET ANOTHER vote by Hillary Clinton that will let George Bush start a war.

How can she claim she would have voted differently in 2002 if she'd known more? She knew Bush well enough by 2007, but was STILL voting to give him war powers. She's learned nothing and is a menace to the peace of the world.

This line that Obama is Republican-lite is total BS. Obama's supporters are to the LEFT of Clinton's. Clinton is the one who rolls over like a puppy dog at every GOP command.

Posted by: bourassa | February 2, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

What this country needs is not just change but a dose of honesty and it is sure as hell is not coming from the Obama camp or his followers. It is hard to stomach the baseless BS posted by hateful Obama supporters that rewrite the truth as though lying were a virtue. I know that politics is a sleazy business but if the Obama supporters are a reflection on his character then he has none. Why do so many people think that if they put down totally false statements in order to get their candidate elected that it does not reflect on him as well as themselves?

If I were running for the most important and prestigious job in the world it would be reprehensible to find that my base of supporters were 80% liars. If a candidate cannot win on the merits of his beliefs based on an honest assessment of those beliefs, without spending the majority of his time debasing his opponent, or in this case also allowing his surrogates to do the dirty work for him without speaking out for truth, he is not fit to lead our country. We have just undergone seven years of such a person, completely void of any semblance of character or honesty and the results have done irreparable damage to the entire world.

Anyone that allows hate to be the defining element of their campaign while preaching hope and change knowing that his supporters will resort to lying in order to gain him an advantage is pathetically corrupt.

If you post lies or debasing slurs at the opposing candidate you are in fact insulting and dishonoring all who have given their lives in the defense of freedom. Please do not allow yourselves to be drawn into the depths of the lowest elements of our society. Champion your candidate but do it in a manner that shows respect for the heroes that American values have produced...

Posted by: whycare73 | February 2, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Sometimes it takes awhile for the truth to come out, like I tell my kids you can hide, and turn it around, but eventually the truth has a way of coming out. Obama has lot of baggage. I hope the endorsement from the Kennedy's doesnt come out to haunt them. To think of Obama as the next JFK is disgusting

Posted by: judy | February 2, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

if bill didn't do anything wrong, why is he apologizing? white/black folk wake up. he lied to the american people about monica,,,,,,,,'i never had sexual relations with that woman'. where was the apology than??? the ONLY reason he is apologizing now is to get votes for his wife. he's playing you and assuming you aren't smart enough to know better. the clintons are famous for saying and doing absolutely anything to get elected, and when they get caught, they simply say, whoops we got caught, sorry about that. the only ones they care about are themselves, and i'm beginning to wonder if they even care about each other. wouldn't it be ironic, if she lost the nomination because of bill's campaigning tactics in south carolina? remember how she tossed lamps in the white house when she found about bill's girlfriends,,,,,,,just wait if bill blows the nomination for her. ha, you get what you deserve.

Posted by: richard | February 2, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

I love how all these neocons rant about the Clintons' moral issues...these are the same people who voted in the Idiot Bush and his sidekick Darth Cheney. And yet they have concerns about Hillary & Bill's scruples? What a joke.

Posted by: nighthawksoars | February 2, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Not that I think there is any media bias on the part of Akers or anyone else in the media when writing about Obama (cough,cough) but I couldnt help but notice how she referred to Obama's win in predominantly African-American SC as a "landslide win" while Hillarys landslide win in Florida which dwarfed Obama's in every way hardly got mentioned as an event that even ocurred. Too bad Clinton is apologizing when he has nothing to apologize for but thats politics.

Posted by: MDR | February 2, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

About Hillary's vote on the Iraq war resolution - How could she NOT have thought it was a go-ahead for Bush to invade Iraq?

1. The Title - "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" - should have tipped her off.

2. She's admitted that she didn't read the full resolution, but was fully briefed and assumed it was an authorization for Bush to go to the U.N.

3. Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney and other neo-cons were trying to get her husband Bill to invade Iraq all through his presidency. You'd think that would have set off some red lights.

I think she was just afraid to look unpatriotic and weak on defense. Exactly what the Bushies were accusing their opponents. And this woman has the nerve to call Obama "naive." SHEESH!

Posted by: JElaine | February 2, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Reading this blog is like reading People, or the Enquirer.

Posted by: I Vote Present | February 2, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY): In addition to her long and sordid ethics record, Senator Hillary Clinton took a lot of heat in 2007 - and rightly so - for blocking the release her official White House records. Many suspect these records contain a treasure trove of information related to her role in a number of serious Clinton-era scandals. Moreover, in March 2007, Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint against Senator Clinton for filing false financial disclosure forms with the U.S. Senate (again). And Hillary's top campaign contributor, Norman Hsu, was exposed as a felon and a fugitive from justice in 2007. Hsu pleaded guilt to one count of grand theft for defrauding investors as part of a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme.

Posted by: msyoung | February 2, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

MDR...
You do realize that the primaries in Michigan and Florida don't count because they were held against the DNC rules, don't you? All the candidates, including Hillary, agreed to this decision BEFORE THE PRIMARIES.
So, Obama won in Iowa and South Carolina. And Hillary won New Hampshire and Nevada. Period.

Posted by: JElaine | February 2, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

this is silly. Clinton is not a racist. Face it and quit trying to paint him as such. Grow up American media/people and quit finetooth-combing everything and cherry-picking to find things to bash the Clintons with. This is simply silly and is splitting the party. DROP IT.

Posted by: realworld | February 2, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Clinton won the Florida primaries...

On a related note, the Giants today held a scrimage game in which the offense was playing unopposed. The Giants won by 17 points. The giants have subsequently decided that tomorrow's game is meaningless and are having a super bowl victory party as we speak.

On a related note, I had a race today at the local track against no one, and I WON!!! :)

On a related note, I played chess today against no one, and I beat the pants off no on...

Get the message here....

P.S.
Obama won South Carolina by 27 points in a race Clinton fiercly competed in (and tried her hardest to interject race as a Rovian tactic) while Obama--while not competing in Florida--was 17 points behind. You mentioned that Clinton's victory dwarfed Obama's...what type of enron math do you practice???

Posted by: LOL at MDR | February 2, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Obama 08: "Oh, Here Comes that Dreamer!"

"Now then...let us see what will become of his dreams!"
Genesis 37:20
New American Standard Bible

As had "change-agents" and "audacity-of-hope mongers" before him...John, Bobby, Martin, and Mahatma, American presidential contender Sen. Barack Obama symbolizes the rise of a new generation imbued with both optimism and youth...once again inspired to dream of new frontiers, and not resign to the past. Sen. Obama's continuing...sincere, daily-cadence trumpeting change, hope, unity, faith, and self-determination...from a mere grass-roots level, appear to have had a domino-effect across not only America, but the world.
African-American establishment-elites... as well the entire nation, would be wise to revisit these the words of our beloved...one not dissimilar then either in youth or the altruistic zeal of Sen. Obama, 35th American President, John Fitzgerald Kennedy: 1.) "The Chinese use two brush strokes to write the word 'crisis.' One brush stroke stands for danger; the other for opportunity. In a crisis, be aware of the danger - but recognize the opportunity." 2.) "Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future."
And perhaps I'm being somewhat Pollyannaish, but I find it insulting that year-after-year on either occasion of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.' nationally-celebrated birthday, many of America's establishment African-American elites...legislators, black caucus-leaders, NAACP, Urban League, clergy, multi-national corporations CEO's, entertainers, athletes, and "60's-era" veteran civil rights activists...all yet jockeying and positioning themselves as the sole legitimate heirs to Dr. King's "I have a dream legacy, "...now in mass are apparently opposing the ascendancy to our nations highest office by one woven from their own diverse racial and political heritage.
Who among you...lacking a personal profit-motive from behind your gated-communities, has purely the self-interest of urban Americans at heart? You of all people...those "once-upon-a-time," are well-versed in the narrative among the powers-that-be that for centuries has relegated your ambitions for racial-neutrality to "the back of the bus" politically, legally, and corporately. So many...even today, yet deem you unfit philosophically, socially, politically, financially, and ethnically to aspire to the Oval Office. Now that's only...of course, least one is either a media-darling or one of thousands of African-American profiteering, pilfering, prosperity-preaching, bible and poverty pimps!"
For this reason, isn't it ironic that so many of you who profess Dr. King's legacy could so cavalierly throw one of the beneficiaries of his "self-less" civil rights campaign ..."his Dream," under the bus to endorse his chief rival: Sen. Hillary Clinton.
Not that Sen. Clinton...neither to "now a lesser extinct" her husband former President Bill Clinton, is yet not a revered and Herculean-figure within the African-American community. But for that matter, one might make the same argument for our reigning 43rd American President George W. Bush: "Gen. Colin Powell and Sec. Condoleezza Rice?"
Dr. King, in a spirit more closely resembling Sen. Obama, worked tirelessly to uplift those then being brutalized by "Jim Crow" laws. Tactics...one rationally thinking, might believe African-Americans might be diabolically predisposed against following eight-years of today's bankrupt Bush administration-gone-amuck.
Dr. King's "Dream" ushered in an even playing-field across the board...buffered by our now recognized American constitutionally-granted civil and humanitarian rights, so that some day one in the image of a Dr. King...as well many African-American such as yourselves, might-just barely...avail a Sen. Barack Obama an opportunity to aspire to forge a multi-cultural alliance of all Americans. One not of bitter partisanship, but a campaign void the spectra of our nations past, contentious, vitriolic, and historical racial and moral divide.
However, now more than ever before I'm convinced...rather mentally filtering through a more realistic prism of the so-called mainstream African-American leadership, a Sen. Obama presidential candidacy poses a greave and looming threat to the Washington status-quo.
A failed system so many establishment African-American career-politicos and clergymen have grown obese on: "Anglo guilt and religious-field earmarks and entitlements that have lead to nowhere. All the while they themselves, family members, and campaign-cronies have financially benefited handsomely over the past fifty-years gorging down the American tax-payers hard-hard-earned and...today, striking cash reserves!"
But of these, all of whom are swift to showcase scions which have miraculously...given most are merely career-politicians, attended Ivy League schools such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Duke, Berkley, Stanford and Brown. But for their captive-audience...constituencies, who are the very "least of these"...often yet residing amid economic-squalor within inner-city and rural wastelands, and whose populace is a composition of mostly financially-struggling white, black, Asian, or Latino youths, why have you...elected to remedy such maladies, failed so successfully? Are should we believe New Orleans black mayor and city council persons didn't know the wards there existed?
So many are now left hung-out-to-dry within the very same urban districts and states both Black and Anglo political-elites have sworn to protect, yet instead only those of your most generous benefactors' commercial-wealth has benefited from your efforts...not to mention much of their wealth is yet today being derived.
Yes, it's has long been time for a "change we...the X/Next-generation, can believe in." We've reached a saturation point-of-no-return...critical mass, and it's now time for a new generation to remedy the failures of Baby-boomers such as yourselves, those of you who've so easily sacrificed your constituency's well-fare before the dual-alters of capitalism and globalization.
All while supposedly under both your judiciary and fiduciary-watch, while you're soliciting favors owed by "deep-pocketed" lobbyist who routinely underwrite campaigns that ultimately perpetuate "more-of-the-same, such as has eight years of "Bush-whacking" thrust America. Utterly...the whole lot of you, your net-success-ratios has been negligent...to say the least.
And no doubt...as had occurred under the "90's" Bill Clinton presidency, the same "ole" black-establishment elites and "players" are salivating at the thought ravishing the coffers the average taxpayer...pursuing "more-of-the-same," within now a "Clinton Co-Presidency?"
All the millions for museums, parks, government and federal office buildings, schools, pointless-entitlement programs, under-the-table dirty-tricks, and lobbyist deals all invariably bearing your namesake, those already in-progress...all lacking congressional-oversight and underwritten on the backs of an already impoverished poor and middle-class...both expanding within the American populace.
Unbelievably, merely by virtue of Sen. Obama... during an interview delivered very presidential, eloquent and honest, and only briefly evoking Republican President-Ronald W. Reagan...one for whom I twice voted for before becoming a staunch Regan-Democrat, apparently drove a stake through the hearts of Washington career-politicos who for too long have over-compensated themselves lavishly at the expense of both their constituency...as well all American tax-payers.
President Reagan...as has Sen. Obama, merely inspired a nation then wounded to once again believe and hope for change. And if we are smart, come January 20th, 2009...during the inauguration as America' 44th President, indeed a new and more progressive day would have dawned within the annals of our storied American history." Old things would have...rightfully so, passed away.
Perhaps...even if supporting Sen. Clinton understandably out of loyalty, African-American elites might have appeared far less disingenuous had they traveled the high-road of public-neutrality?
If you're not going to support one whose both a product of black and white America...as well one oratorical gifted, intellectual-credible, a proven-leadership, affable, and possessing a sterling academic pedigree, perhaps our nation would be better served if similar career-politicos such as Waters act in a more politically-responsible fashion.
As have two other Civil Rights Icons, both of whom have selected to ride the peripheral-sideline: Rev. Al Sharpton and House Majority Whip Rep. James E. Clyburn. Each of whom professionally merely selected a position any respectable...sitting politician, not with their hands out, might have chosen to exercise "endorsement-neutrality."
As an African-American male..."Post-sixties X-Generation," I find it offensive that America' African-American establishment-elites have shown such ill-will and political-discourtesy for an Obama 08' campaign.
You're but further proof of both the distortions and disservice long perpetrated in the name of Black History... to say the least, and at worse a slap in the face of Dr. King and his "I have a dream" legacy.
Shame on you Magic Johnson... Rep. Charles Rangel, Quincy Jones, Rev. Calvin Butts, Rep. John Lewis, Vernon Jordon, Bob "BET" Johnson, Rep. Maxine Waters, Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, Dr. Maya Angelou, Andrew Young, Rev. William Gray, Willie Gary, and Vernon Jordan. Please, along with Bill Clinton, you guys ought also to "chill" and conduct yourselves with a least a grain of integrity.
Support for Sen. Obama ought not to be construed as anti-Hilary Clinton ...neither "a roll-of-the-dice." Many will agree, Sen. Clinton is very nice, intellectually-sharp, and whose experience fits many of the challenges our next president will face...apparently on day one.
Yet given Sen. Obama' youth and abilities to energize generations which had politically never really engaged..., those of whom invariably will be the beneficiaries of the future, I personally feel are amply-qualified to lead the charge onward toward the second-half of the 21st Century.
And if...based on voter sentiment, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton ultimately becomes the legitimate heir to the Democratic Presidential nomination...fairly and without her "Husband" resuming his dirty-tricks, I shall support also a Clinton/Obama cadency vigorously.
Notwithstanding, the baton must now be placed firmly within the hands of a new generation to race towards the second-half of the 21st Century...those who will not only be the beneficiaries of the future, but most affected by both its challenges and rewards-all due respects to the now retiring...in droves, Baby-boomers."
And so, goodbye, God Bless both Barack and Hillary, and God Bless the United States of America!

CBW
Houston, Texas

Posted by: CBW | February 2, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

CBW,

Talking a good game does not mean one is smart. Cramming policies does not mean you are smart. Hillary and Bill ran one the most corrupt administrations since Nixon. Obama would completely loose his appeal were he to have anything to do with the Clintons now or in the future.

Google "Clinton convicts" and you will see why some of us don't want the Clintons back in the White House. If ethics, integrity, honesty matters to you, then you will agree that we need to turn a new leaf and reject the Clintons. America needs a new beginning, Reject the Clinton dynasty. America deserves better

Posted by: Jimmy | February 2, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

I voted for Bill Clinton twice in the '90s but will not be voting for Hillary. I see no leadership abilities exemplified when she gives her stump speech. As an AA and an Obama supporter, I don't buy the "35 years" thing nor do I buy the notion that her stump speeches provide substantive proposals as compared to Obama's stump speeches. The bottom line for me is Obama inspires, she does not.

Posted by: AtlBill | February 2, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

OK, well the following really needs an apology, but I wont hold my breath. Why is no one at the Post writing about this rather than sneering at the best president we've had since FDR?


I'll assume you all know of Obama's mailer attack on Clinton's health care plan, where a penniless couple are sitting in the kitchen deeply worried about a government demand for payment of compulsory insurance coverage. The line is this is what Clinton will do to you. Pretty dirty.


Then today came this hate-speech from a senior advisor and spokesman for Obama. Funny how the only media outlet that seemed to carry it was the LA Times. Now what does that say about the press? Can you imagine what they'd have done had a Clinton advisor made similar statements about Obama's color or ethnicity?


OBAMA CAMPAIGN SAVAGES CLINTON OVER CRYING AND HER AGE


"(OBAMA) DOESN'T GO ON TELEVISION AND HAVE CRYING FITS. HE ISN'T DISCOVERING HIS VOICE AT THE AGE OF 60."

For today's Los Angeles Times . . . . .


The Times' Peter Wallsten has the details on the pointed remarks made by the Obama counselor, retired Air Force Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak.


"(Obama) doesn't go on television and have crying fits. He isn't discovering his voice at the age of 60." ****


McPeak had more to say in a similarly dismissive tone . .

.................................................................

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/02/obama-clinton-b.html#more


Posted by: Anonymous | February 2, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

I'll assume you all know of Obama's mailer attack on Clinton's health care plan, where a penniless couple are sitting in the kitchen deeply worried about a government demand for payment of compulsory insurance coverage. The line is this is what Clinton will do to you. Pretty dirty.

Then today came this hate-speech from a senior advisor and spokesman for Obama. Funny how the only media outlet that seemed to carry it was the LA Times. Now what does that say about the press? Can you imagine what they'd have done had a Clinton advisor made similar statements about Obama's color or ethnicity?


OBAMA CAMPAIGN SAVAGES CLINTON OVER CRYING AND HER AGE


"(OBAMA) DOESN'T GO ON TELEVISION AND HAVE CRYING FITS. HE ISN'T DISCOVERING HIS VOICE AT THE AGE OF 60."

For today's Los Angeles Times . . . . .


The Times' Peter Wallsten has the details on the pointed remarks made by the Obama counselor, retired Air Force Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak.


"(Obama) doesn't go on television and have crying fits. He isn't discovering his voice at the age of 60." ****


McPeak had more to say in a similarly dismissive tone . .

.................................................................

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/02/obama-clinton-b.html#more


Posted by: J.D. Winterbottom | February 2, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

oops, sorry about the double post.

Posted by: J.D. Winterbottom | February 2, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Bush restored Honor and Dignity to the White House????? Which White House on Which Planet in Which Star System in the Universe????

Posted by: BillFromSyarcuse | February 2, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Yea, I'll play some sax and ask the good folks for forgiveness...so I can be "one of their own". Say, does anybody know what that means? E-mail me or Hill, we really don't know what the hell that means. Oh, and Hill will be in her Ebonics Vernacular if she happens to be with me in South LA. Man I can't play the sax that well, but Hill and I know how to play the people...hahahahahahahahhahahahah!!

Posted by: Slick Willy | February 2, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

What a piece of slime. First he tries the race card in SC, then tries to manipulate the blacks in Cali by "apologizing" What bullcrap. The both of them are slime. And old.

Posted by: aviatriz | February 2, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

"Weren't the Clinton years a period when oil was below $25 a barrel and unemployment at its lowest. How many people felt good about being American at that time."

On average, the weather was better too.

Posted by: fzdybel | February 2, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

If Bill apologizes (which I don't expect) that still should not be enough.

This is the question that church goers listening to consider:

Why is Bill using 2 days before Super Tuesday to give it. Why didn't he do it right after SC when the media was all over him about his remarks?

Because he want your vote on Tuesday. Don't be fooled. I know he talks good and some of you think he was the first black president............BUT THINK AND USE YOUR VOICE TO LET HIM KNOW THAT THE AFRICAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY CANNOT BE USED AS A POLITICAL TOOL.

Posted by: Phyllis, Dallas, TX | February 2, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton, under fire about her commitment to civil rights for her race coding campaign, has lately been loudly proclaiming her fealty to the Democratic Party's best traditions on human rights.

However, just two years ago, Hillary--the purported "expert" on international relations--said there should be "lawful authority" for torture in some cases. (See, for example, www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0907/Hillary_and_torture_audio_version.html )

Her stand was opposite to that of every other major Democratic presidential candidate in 2007-2008, and the heat she took for it caused her to make one of her famous "flip flops."

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 2, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

For me, the point at which a challenge or accusation becomes gutter politics is when either an intentionally false or exaggerated charge is made, or an inference or attack of a personal nature is levied. I think, if addressed accurately, every statement or political position during a campaign is certainly open to challenge and discussion. Given that Senator Clinton had proudly referred to herself as the "Senator from Punjab", during fundraisers thrown by Indian outsourcing companies (from which the Clintons have received millions in donations and payments over the years).. and was even introduced as that by one of her Indian hosts, the hubbub generated over this, particularly among Indians in this country or elsewhere, seems most disingenuous, to say the least. Her comment that (because TEN jobs had been created by outsourcers in New York, while thousands have gone off-shore) "outsourcing works both ways", was outrageous and elitist. I think that it can be safely said that, those who whined the loudest about the Punjab remark, were in fact the ones who were benefiting the most from that outsourcing! Sure wasn't most of us, here! Nevertheless, Obama rejected the memo, even though it said nothing that hadn't been publicly available before. As to the "Walmart comment", well..she was on their board, so what's anyone's objection to that? If you don't think that's something to be ashamed of, then where's the beef? Ridiculous. I would even give the Clintons a pass on their absurd comments that Obama "liked" or "admired" Reagan's ideas, given that we are all human and can jump to unjustified conclusions. Well, I would, except that we all know they are both too intelligent to be so sloppy as to take the word of aides as to what had been said, when the full 49 minute interview (showing Obama had never used such words) was out there for one and all to watch. What got real sleazy were comments from Bob Kerrey, needlessly carrying on about Obama's middle name and falsely alleged Moslem association, clearly pandering to and reminding everyone (in case they'd forgotten) of the sleazy email going around, trying to tie him by inference, to Middle Eastern terrorists! In the same vein, Bob Johnson of BET fame, comes out with snarky comments about Obama using coccaine (and isn't HE the one to talk)! There is no excuse for such garbage, and no way seventeen apologies can take it back. Oddly enough, Obama had brought all that out to make a point about how a kid can "get there", as well as get out of it. No one could have been angrier than I, over the sick, perverse, and downright voyeuristic machine run by Ken Starr and those other garbage pickers, for the entire time the Clintons were in office. There were a lot of good things they accomplished, or tried to. God knows I'd happily choose either of them over another Bush-clone. But there was much I didn't care for, too. If Hillary has 35 years experience, Obama has 21. If we count elected office time, she has 7 years, he has 10. No, I do not count her husband's presidency. She was not the "decider"..period. As to Obama being "thin-skinned"..well, I saw his disgust, but he didn't seem phased by it all. Seems more like Hillary and Bill were, though. As to getting shredded by the GOP, I think anyone who's come from the street, or done street-level organizing in some of the toughest neighborhoods, knows it can be pretty dangerous if you don't know what you're doing. Sometimes, if you're not careful, you can even get yourself quickly dead. Makes the swiftboaters look like third-graders on a playground. Lastly, the real pity here is that people are not thinking much about the fact that the soundbites are coming from the MegaSyndicatedMedia, owned and controlled by all those card-carrying, Ranger-level GOP supporters. Shouldn't we all know enough by now, to take everything that's put out there with a grain of salt, look before leaping and check your facts?

Posted by: janbana | February 2, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Ugh..what is all this about Bill Clinton needing to apologize? For what? This is Hillary's race. She is the one up for election. And let's face it, while we are on the "race card," Bill and Hillary didn't inject race into this "race." Obama did. He is clearly a wonderful orator -- and seems to have an idea or two on leadership -- but he doesn't consistently demonstrate that he can be a great leader. Leaders are generally willing to be accountable. Obama doesn't come across as wholly sincere, yet, and has a real good dose of "not me, I didn't say that" in the accountability department. Not to mention, he often looks smug when he is on the debates. Maybe, given a few more years... he might accummulate the humility and the experience necessary to run this country. But we need someone who can help us get the country on the right path...and right the wrongs that have been done to it by a totally inept administration in place for 8 years. We need humility. We need intelligence. We need experience. This is supposed to be a race on issues -- not the color of one's skin. That race ended many years ago. I wish that Edwards was still running...he clearly defined the issues -- which really drove the agendas for all the front-running Dems. He was the real candidate for change...and the media decided they wanted someone (first female prez or first black prez) with the "wow" factor...and ignored him. So, faced with "who now" I will choose Hillary...who does have the experience, and the humility...and the intelligence to run -- to help -- this country. As far as truthfulness, and all that...let's face it..this is politics -- and in politics, honesty comes in many subtle shades. There's enough color in politics alone - considering the many shades of truth out there...so let's leave it out of this race and focus on the issues and experience.

Posted by: Karen | February 2, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

"A BLAST FROM THE PAST!!!!!!!"

BILL CLINTON'S CONTROVERSIAL POSTCARD!!!

Bill Clinton sent his "Mammaw" a racially insensitive postcard!

VIEW IMAGES- http://serr8d.blogspot.com/2007/10/bill-clinton-racist-postcard-buy-it-now.html

I don't think this has hit MSM yet. I can't wait to hear Bill's response for this one. He'll just blame Obama of course. Bill was a college student at Georgetown at this time. This was during the height of the civil rights movement. It's really disturbing.

"The Swamp is my world: It is who I am; It is what I am. I was once a man; I know the evil men do. Do not bring your evil here, I warn you! Beware the wrath of... Swamp Thing."

Posted by: John Lewis-Dickerson, Atlanta, GA | February 2, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

I think this is insane. Apologize for what. There is no need to apologize. This election should not be about race, gender or social status. We know the Clintons very well. Monica Lewinsky Sex Scandal, Marc Rich Money for Pardon Scandal, Hugh Rodham Money for Pardon Scandal, Travelgate, Lying under oath, Bill's Law license suspended for unethical behavior. Google "Clinton Convicts" and see the results. That is the Clinton legacy. We are a country of 350 million people, why should we continue to be ruled by 2 families. Reject the Clinton dynasty, America deserves better.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 2, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

janbana,

You got that wrong. Obama called Hillary the "Senator from Punjab". He said something like "I don't know where she is from, she is like the Senator from Punjab" in reference to her donors from India.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 2, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Obama never called Clinton "Senator from Punjab". An Obama staff member did. This is Senator Clinton making a stereotypical racial joke about Indians:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1Mq8kOXV_E

How does that compare?

Posted by: Timmy | February 2, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Bill has to wake out of his dream and realize that he is not going to be the president. Bill's name is not on the ballot. Most of my friends who wanted to vote for Hillary, are pissed off that they still has to listen to Bill;s talk. Once she is in the white house, Bill will take over the controls at the sterns. Hillary will be just a marionette under the strings held by Bill.

We can all ditch Hillry and vote for

Posted by: Simon Spasky | February 2, 2008 8:28 PM | Report abuse

I have been through this blog and find it a facinating discussion. I suppose that the Republicans have not yet weighed in on the Democratic Primary so that all of the Hate Clinton posts are coming from Obama supporters. How sad that they have reached into the Ken Starr, Karl Rove bag of old news to engage in Clinton Bashing.

As I live in a Super Tuesday State, I have had the opportunity to see both campaigns up close. Obama last Sunday and I went to see Bill Clinton today. Obama has the young folks all worked up and excited about change and hope and all. I didn't hear many specifics, just that he is a young man out to change the world.

From Bill Clinton, he spoke for about an hour and gave very detailed answers to all of the problems that have come up in the last 7 years. It was like listening to a mechanic explain how to get a knock out of your engine. He was like a government mechanic going over the nuts and bolts of how policy is formed up, put before Congress and enacted. His talk was very much a How It is Done story.

There were Obama people there to see the president. I am in a state with a large African American population that will probably go 80% to Obama and give him a win in our State. But Bill came here anyway to campaign for his wife.

When I left to go to my car, there were Obama flyers on the windshields of all of the cars of the people who had been inside listening to Bill. Sort of a cheap shot I'd think.

Just now, the Obama people are more on the attack than the Clinton people. After South Carolina, not a negative word, but now Obama's people have gone hog wild with the negative stuff. His organization, if not Obama himself seems imbued with this anti-Clinton mentality.

On the race business, Obama did start this in New Hampshire and he plays it quite subtly. Before African American audiences, he sure as hell wants the folks to engage in identity politics and vote for him because of his race. But before White audiences, he says, imagine I have polka dot skin, but you like what I say and what I will do, can you look past my polka dots. There he asks the voters to judge him on the merits of his candidacy, not the accident of birth. I would feel better about Obama if he gave the same message to White and Black. If he told the African American audiences, not to vote for him for his race but for the quality of his candidacy.

On the Iraq Vote, Obama was not in the Senate to cast the vote in 2002. And anyone who thinks that if the Levin Amendment had been adopted that Bush would not have gone to war in Iraq, has to be on something. Just read Paul Oneil's book and you will see that as of February 2001, Bush was looking for a way to invade Iraq. 9/11 gave him the excuse and he was hell bent on going, Senate Resolution or not, UN Resolution or not. Had no resolution been adopted in the Senate, Bush would have gone any way. They were all trying to rein in a runaway President.

Even before the UN, Bush violated the resolution by not waiting for the inspectors to finish before invading. The UN Security Council has since stated that the invasion was illegal. But the UN adopted a resolution sanctioning the presence of the US forces, it is the resolution under which we are now there "legally". The UN also had to adopt a resolution allowing the Iraqi Constitution to be amended and changed while the country is under US occupation as the Laws of War do not allow the occupying force to change the laws of the occupied state. Does this mean that the UN now supports the war? No it just means that these institutions are trying to deal with a US President that neither respects nor acknowledges the authority of anyone but himself in the role of President.

Looking in hindsight, sure opposing the Joint Resolution of October 2002 looks brilliant, but we should not judge in hindsight. No one then had the benefit of hindsight. One can only judge a person's actions in real time, knowing what they knew at the time the decision was made.

To say that Bush without the Joint Resolution would not have gone to war, now there's a fairy tale.

And about the Fairy Tale remark. No one said that the Obama candidacy was a fairy tale. The story morphed into that, mainly pushed along by Obama.

What Bill Clinton said was that the idea that Obama had consistently opposed the war from start to the present was a fairy tale. Sure Obama made a speech against the war before he got to the Senate, but since he has been in the Senate, on record and voting, his votes and Hillary's have been the same. This is what Clinton was referring and responding to and that is the claim that Obama had "consistently" opposed the war.

And the Martin Luther King remark. Again that was something taken as wildly out of context as the remarks of Obama about Ronald Reagan. Clinton did distort the Obama remark. Obama didn't say that Reagan and the Republicans had the best ideas over the past 15 years, but that they had all of the ideas and the Reagan was a transforming figure in politics. Reagan was transformational, for sure, but with time, we can see that the Reagan Revolution did not have nearly the legs as the FDR New Deal. And about the new ideas, the fact that Obama put the time frame at 15 years, meant that he was hitting on the Clinton years and Clinton went to defend his record and ideas, but did so in a poor way by distorting what Obama said.

That being said, the remark about Martin Luther King, Jr., no one could deny. The fact is that King gave voice to a Movement, but it was the footsoldiers of the movement that gave life to the Movement. King's voice and vision and charisma made the movement national, and a force that could not be ignored or you couldn't pretend that it did not exist. But a voice and a movement alone are not enough. Some one with the power to change things must hear the voice and respond to it.

This is what Hillary was referring to with her remark about Lyndon Johnson. He was President then. He could have pretended not to hear and by so pretending could have preserved his Democratic base in the South. But he said that he could not pretend not to hear. King was right and there was a moral basis to what King was saying that applied not just to African Americans, but to all Americans and if we were to be in this struggle against Communism, then we'd better get our own hous in order.

So Johnson and the Democratic Party in the House and Senate responded. Johnson was warned by Senator Richard Russell of Georgia that if he passed Civil Rights in 1964 he could kiss the South goodbye for the Democratic Party. Johnson, knowing this would happen went forward and he listened and acted on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968.

The point Hillary was making was the King had the dream, the vision and the charisma to give voice to a movement, but at the end of the day, a practical political leader had to hear the voice and push and pull the levers of government to act in response to this movement.

Both are right, Hillary and Obama. Neither should be branded as racist for pointing up that the Civil Rights movement cannot be claimed by any political campaign because it's ownership is to broadly spread and it is particularly owned by the Foot Soldiers, the Marchers and the Four Little Girls of the Sixteenth Street Baptish Church in Birmingham whose death in the September 1963 bombing helped spark the movement toward passage of the 1964 Act. The assassination of JFK did not hurt the cause either and in a way, his being gunned down in a southern city where he was hated for his support of civil rights helped the movement along tremendously.

So for Obama to come up and claim not just to be an heir of the Civil Rights movement but the SOLE heir gets next to all of the other owners of the Movement. Obama was born in 1961, long after the Movement was started and lived in Hawaii and Indonesia during the hottest part of the effort in the South. No doubt he is a beneficiary of all that was done by others, but the SOLE heir to the Movement, no I do not think so. No more than the American Flag lapel pins that Bush and his cabinet all wear should become the Logo of Bush, Inc. The flag belongs to us all. The Movement belongs to us all as all of us, all Americans living in the year 2008 are its legatees.

So for me, from Clinton I am hearing how things get fixed. From Obama I am hearing soaring inspirational rhetoric, but I am reading the flyers that get put under my windshield wiper too and am starting to see who is for real and who is not.

Posted by: Beiruti | February 2, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Willy needs not feign an apology for another gain that is forgotton in his next breath. And that BOTOX second fiddle of his is just an excuse for him to get back into the white house and begin where he left off. making friends with his big money operations like the mining Co. trade agreements anywhere he can sell off the American dream. I can,t stand to look at the either of them and if they win you can bet its because the Corporations and all the Big money interests he's had his hands in secretly.. will back him up where it counts ,MONEY.

Posted by: grdn_nell | February 2, 2008 9:04 PM | Report abuse

"There's no need for an apology, because he has tremendous support throughout the state." Well guess what: I'm a California Democrat who believes I deserve an apology. But I'm not holding my breath. Hillary has yet to apologize for her calculated decision to vote to authorize the war in Iraq (going so far in the debates as to claim she didn't think W would reallllly use the authorization, omg) and the Clintons are notoriously short on humility and selflessness. So it's not surprising that Bill doesn't believe he owes an apology for his role as an attack dog. But I hope that on Tuesday that they'll be sorry for that and much more .... really sorry! Go Obama!

Posted by: Bette | February 2, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

Clinton/Obama is much stronger than any ticket with Obama at the head.

Obama's ego is way too fragile for him to nominate Hillary as VP. He's afraid she'd overshadow him. If Obama is at the top of the ticket Democrats have a BIG problem.

Whoever Obama chooses as VP will have to be a very weak, very minor player, to not overshadow him. That puts Obama at a big disadvantage in a national election.

Vote for Hillary, get both.
Vote for Obama, get nothing.

The choice is yours.

Posted by: svreader | February 2, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

Anyone want to imagine a formidable Obama ticket? Try pairing him with Pennsylvania Governor Edward G. Rendell. (Probably enough to deliver Ohio along with PA, in which case we needn't concern ourselves with offending Florida by not counting their delegates.)

Posted by: Franklin Michaels | February 2, 2008 9:33 PM | Report abuse

Timmy,

you're a liar!

the YouTube video was "made out of context". anybody can tell.

Is this the Obama camp's tactic? unleashing a lot of people out in the media to make attack on Hillary in Republican's fashion?


I don't deny the Clintons are calculating. Just which politician is not?

In Selma Alabama in March 2007 on the the 42nd anniversary of the 1965 Selma voting rights march, both Obama and Clinton attended. Both addressed the crowd in southern accent. Neither of them grew up in the south. Tell me that's not calculation? Obama went farther to say that event inspired his parents' "getting together". Obama is 46 now.

In December 2007, while campaigning in Iowa, Obama told the crowd that he passed a nuclear legislation on an Illinois nuclear leaking event. The fact is that he initialized a bi-partisan effort for the bill, but on the way through the Senate the bill was getting weakened and finally Obama was forced to remove the language for mandatory leak reporting all together. In other word, the bill failed, or at best, the bill is not what Obama told the crowd is.

Wasn't Obama calculating? Further more, is this the way that he's been talking about getting the two parties working together?

Posted by: b. wu | February 2, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

Hey SVREADER, Did you sit at home and come up with that logic all by yourself? LOL. What you should have said is that Hillary NEEDS Obama to win but Obama does not NEED Hillary to win. There are about 10 different choices Obama could pick as his VP running mate several of them are women who would be much stronger than Hillary without 35 years of baggage and scandal wrapped around her. Have you ever hear of Senator Jim Webb from Virginia? Look him up and check his credentials! He would make a great choice for VP with Obama. And he will be endorsing Obama very shortly. Obama 08!!!!

Posted by: TR | February 2, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

There is no way Obama can be blamed for the campaign turning ugly in South Carolina. He went out of his way to run a colorblind campaign. Wisely so, since the first two MUST WIN primaries were in predominantly white states. But that approach was consistant with the message he's been projecting for as long as he's been in the national spotlight. He won Iowa handily, came very close in New Hampshire and this sent a signal to blacks in South Carolina that he really had a chance and that voting for him would not be in vain. The Clintons saw this coming and injected race (1) to discredit the inevitable victory and (2) to shore up their support among white voters.

Meanwhile, Hillary doesn't hesitate to play the gender card, and rarely is it mentioned that in every state that has held a caucus, females have made up 50+ to 60+ % of the electorate and still Obama has won or come close.

Obama's victory in South Carolina was massive. So much so that his "only" getting 25% of the white vote is seen as a weakness. Hillary "only" got 29% of the vote in all-white Iowa. So what is so bad about a black candidate getting nearly that much against two popular white progressive candidates, especially when one of them went out of his way to polarize the races there.

Posted by: seth Berkowitz | February 2, 2008 9:49 PM | Report abuse

Beiruti,

The attacks of Obama's supporters on the Clintons have been like that for several months now. At first, I thought they were Republicans under disguise. But now I wonder it might have been Obama camp's tactics all along.

Bill's Clinton's presidency might have been what the best the Democrats have since FDR; JFK didn't get the chance to finish his and he left Vietnam war to LBJ, and LBJ didn't even get to run for a 2nd term; J Carter only got 1 term; Clinton's left the oval office with a national surplus that reversed the post-war trend. Now, Obama's words effortlessly eliminated Bill Clinton's legacy. I just wonder, people are not thinking!

Posted by: b. wu | February 2, 2008 9:50 PM | Report abuse

and now this low life sleaze bag is attacking and distorting Kennedy.

enough of the corrupt, deceiptful clintons

the last thing this country needs is more of bill clinton.

mccain will win if she gets the nomination.

Posted by: jim | February 2, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

Gee, I guess Diane Watson will now forever be in Maxine Waters' DOGHOUSE for using the term, "SOUTH CENTRAL COMMUNITY."

It was Waters who BEGGED the L.A media to not use that term; instead refer to it as "South Los Angeles."

Some things have not changed for those of us who are natives of L.A and watched Watson help screw up the LAUSD (L.A Unified School District) and Waters screwing up the State (Assembly).

Posted by: Trojan | February 2, 2008 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for sharing

Posted by: Doodee | February 2, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for sharing

Posted by: Doodee | February 2, 2008 10:18 PM | Report abuse

The hatred and venom spewed out towards the Clinton's by most of Obama's supporters, shows me that Obama's movement to inspire a new direction is a farce.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 2, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for sharing

Posted by: Doodee | February 2, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse

The postings here remind me of the story of king solomon.

Clinton supporters are like the true mother.

Obama supporters are like the maid that wants to hurt the mother and win at any cost.

Clinton supporters want Democrats to win and are glad to share the credit and the ticket.

Obama supporers want to win at any cost and are more than glad to drag down the Democratic Party to do it.

Which group are true Democrats?

The answer is clear.

Posted by: svreader | February 2, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Where is the sleuth's mea culpa?

Or is the sleuth going to deny that the original article misrepresented the truth?

The apology/mea culpa angle - which was a stretching of the truth - was out on the blogs all day long and is still a headline on the post's web front page.

Posted by: Greenley Greene | February 2, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

What will the Post do if Hillary Wins?

How will they explain some the most slanted reporting in the history of the printed page?

Posted by: svreader | February 2, 2008 10:37 PM | Report abuse

Bill does not need to apologize Obama does.

Posted by: Notsofast | February 2, 2008 10:39 PM | Report abuse

"Obama supporters want to win at any cost and are more than glad to drag down the Democratic Party to do it."

Has svreader been awake during the last month? Please remember that the whole race baiting thing started when Tim Russert went after her on Meet the Press for the whole LBJ/MLK thing - which Maureen Dowd had already skewered her on without ONE WORD one coming from the Obama camp - and the next thing that happened was that Robert Johnson of BET attacked Obama for race baiting!

(A little fact checking please.)

Posted by: Franklin Michaels | February 2, 2008 10:42 PM | Report abuse

Frankin --

You're the one that needs to do the fact checking.

Neither Bill nor Hillary used the race card.

Look at "A daily show" from two weeks ago on your Tivo.

Jon Stewart totally nailed it.

He showed that the Obama people had completely misrepresented things.

Obama lost a lot of people.

He didn't need to play the race card.

He should sink or swim on his merits.

Posted by: svreader | February 2, 2008 10:45 PM | Report abuse

You are quite a funny one...

Lets see, the Clinton(s) were willing to split the baby (democratic party) in half in South Carolina (by dividing the AA vote from white votes) and are doing the same in CA (AA votes and youth vote from Latino and Senior votes). Next time you start quoting the bible, just remember Bill in the White house taking advantage of a 20 year old intern....

P.S.
Those that have immoral should not preach to the moral....

Posted by: Response @ svreader | February 2, 2008 10:50 PM | Report abuse

Clintons don't need to play the race card. Hillary's health care plan works, Obama's doesn't. Hillary's economic plan works, Obama's doesn't. Paul Krugman, the famous economist, has written in detail about both as have many, many, other experts.

Obama is attractive, charming, and incompetent.

Posted by: sveader | February 2, 2008 10:53 PM | Report abuse

The world and neighborhoods are changing as is the new majority. Is the black community going to saddle our country with the sins of fathers not our own? Seems that way. What utter hypocrisy. Who in the black community steps up to apologize when Black youth spit on INNOCENT white and Latino youth that have the decency to accompany or befriend a black youth.

If the Black community wnats respect, then it needs to earn it at the street level. Obama is exploiting the guilt that liberal whites feel for the sins of the past. Bill Clinton did nothing wrong and the Black community needs to "change".

Posted by: GetOverIt | February 2, 2008 11:01 PM | Report abuse

we are smarter then billy and hilly think. take mclame and go to china. we don't want nor need either of the 3 of you. you have already screwed the USA enough.

Posted by: bobo | February 2, 2008 11:05 PM | Report abuse

We owe the Clintons nothing.... They owe us. Everyone wants to look back and remember the "good ole days." Those days are long gone and looking back is like putting your head in the sand. We need to look forward and diligently apply new ideas to deal with the unfortunate hand we will be dealt once that idiot is finally gone. Nostalgia has its place...on the shelf. The Clintons time has come and gone. The future is now. Barack is now. We are now. Let's move ahead together and deal with the future for our children's sake.

Posted by: Darrell | February 2, 2008 11:12 PM | Report abuse

We Democrats have a gift for tearing each other to shreds. I think that has contributed to the Republicans holding the White House for thirty-six of the past fifty-six years. It is interesting to me that Kennedy defeated Nixon by a fairly narrow margin. Johnson had a landslide with Goldwater. Carter was elected in reaction to Nixon and Watergate. And Clinton was elected with less than half of the popular vote courtesy of Ross Perot. We did win in 2000 but that's another story. I guess my point is that we don't have a history (in my lifetime) of winning by vast pluralities. It looked like we had a "done deal" for the White House after the elections of 2006. I'm not so certain that we will win in 2008. I am certain that we have quit the in-fighting fairly soon before Democrats become disillusioned and don't vote (or vote Republican out of spite). Someone will say, "If you don't like the heat then leave the kitchen." Most voters don't like the "heat" and they will "leave the kitchen."

Posted by: Craig | February 2, 2008 11:15 PM | Report abuse

Would you want to fly in an Airplane with an inexperienced pilot?

How about being the first patient of a heart surgeon in training?

Or having a shiny new law student defend you in a life or death case?

If you like that, then vote for Obama.

If you want the experienced pilot, the surgeon who knows what their doing and the lawyer that can beat the crap out of anyone, then vote for Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton is the best candidate running for President.

Even if she is a Girl!!!

Posted by: svreader | February 2, 2008 11:15 PM | Report abuse

FROM ABC NEWS: JAKE TAPPER: January 26, 2008 8:18 PM

"Said Bill Clinton today in Columbia, SC: "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."

This was in response to a question from ABC News' David Wright about it taking "two Clintons to beat" Obama. Jackson had not been mentioned.

Boy, I can't understand why anyone would think the Clintons are running a race-baiting campaign to paint Obama as "the black candidate."
I have no idea what Bill Clinton's motives were on this remark. It looks like, at a bare minimum, he stated the truth, in context with how Jackson and Obama both won in South Carolina. As far as I can tell, it was THE MEDIA WHICH FAILED TO SHOW THE TOTAL QUOTE BILL CLINTON MADE.
If the media was set up by Obamistas, then I would have to call into question why they notified the media, when the media were there and apparently decided to show only one PART of the statement. His voice is clearly in a tone which said: "Jesse Jackson 'ran a good campaign ... and so did Obama here." How the f... is that race-baiting? I think that's about as sorry a statement as I've heard ... those who now resort to ... well, what Clinton REALLY meant by that was a put down ... ought to contact the ex President on this matter.
Take that, plus the MLK remark, and suddenly, the Clintons are racists?
It would appear to me that the first side in this matter to bring up race was Obama. He said and still says, he's a great hope for the future; the man with the dreams and hope; the guy who knows a creative administration when he sees one, and Bill Clinton's was NOT one of them. Unfortunately, Bill Clinton let that hook get in his mouth, and he stepped into a cow pie by calling the press's attention to some of the incredible b.s. Obama has spoken.
If Obama was the guy who made the right decision on the war the first time, then how come he kept voting to renew funding?
Russ Feingold didn't. The point is: Obama is almost required to do well in states where there is a significant African-American vote.
Demographics, for better or worse, have already passed the African-American community by. In four years, a Latino/Latina may run for President, as the Hispanic population of the United States may have zoomed completely by the African-American community. The Hispanic ethnic group is already the largest minority group, and there's not much of anything African-Americans can do to stop that.
In other words, Obama may have his best shot for the Presidency now. In four more years there may be as many as 10 million more Hispanics, if a Comprehensive Immigration Bill is passed. McCain will now be hard pressed to do anything but what he and Kennedy proposed if he wants to not be crushed by a massive Democrat win.
The Clintons managed to hold Barack Obama down to South Carolina for a week. While he and Michelle were BOTH there, Bill and a few others were in SC but Hillary was out all over the country, stepping into Super Tuesday states the entire time, as well as working magic on Florida. Obama lost in Florida by 17% points.
Obama is right now slogging in states with large African-American groups, and some Hispanic numbers as well. Bill will be seen everywhere on Super Bowl Sunday watching the game with Bill Richardson. His endorsement will affirm Hispanic pride and well should. He's a darned good governor, and has worked hard to improve life in this very poor state. Bill Richardson should be on the very short list for VP, and with his serious background, if he were nominated as VP, that would be an extraordinarily strong ticket.
It would put a Hispanic American in line for the Presidency, if anything should happen to Hillary. Once that happens, it will be hard(er) for an Obama to crack that first. The Clintons are masterful strategic and tactical thinkes. You gotta hand it to them on that.
Sorry, but I don't believe Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are racists. If Obamistas really believe, they're naive and gullible.
But, I hope Clinton does speak about it, and remind the country that reporters decided to cut that otherwise complimentary statement into an example of race-baiting.


Posted by: Anonymous | February 2, 2008 11:20 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for sharing

Posted by: Doodee | February 2, 2008 11:34 PM | Report abuse

To the prevous comment. I don't agree that supporting Obama is like being the patient of an inexperienced heart sdurgeon. If anyone has fake experience it's HRC. Her claim is that being married to a heart surgeon is the same as having experience performing surgery. With all due respect, would you be comfortable having the untrained spouse of a heart surgeon operating on you? Most HRC supporters will probably answer yes to this question, just shows how disengenuous they are.

Posted by: Constantine | February 2, 2008 11:35 PM | Report abuse

As they do with health care, Obama supporters miss my central point.

Hillary Clinton has far more experience in economics, geo-politics, the senate, you name it, than Obama does.

Don't get me wrong.

Obama is a very attractive and charming fellow who speaks well.

That doesn't make him Presidential material.

Hillary knows her stuff a lot better.

The only negative she has is that she's a woman.

If people can see past that, she'll get elected.

She's also willing to share the ticket.

See my earlier post Re: King Solomon.

Hillary is the true Democratic Candidate.

Posted by: svreader | February 2, 2008 11:40 PM | Report abuse

Obama might be a great president. i don't know. what i can't stand are many of his supporters.

besides, regardless NPR's report today about him being the most liberal senator (that standard used by Carl ROve speaks its credential), he appears to be conservative to me. him and his wife has been preaching in a very conservative tone AND he appears to be embracing neo-liberalism of free market. it's no coincident that he praised Reagan's economy and his healthcare coverage plan is not universal (to keep the government small). i just happen to be very sensitive to this kind of things.

Posted by: b. wu | February 2, 2008 11:42 PM | Report abuse

The reason that comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson is race baiting is because Clinton was trying to paint Obama as the "black candidate" and thus scare whites against voting for him. I'm not surprised that you can't see the race baiting, given that your whole post is laced with references to blacks and Latinos. I've never seen a single Obama poster raise the issues of race or gender, and it seems that every other post from Clinton supporters is about that.

Posted by: Bill | February 2, 2008 11:44 PM | Report abuse

Two words.

Health Care.

Hillary gets it.

Obama doesn't.

Elect Hillary Clinton.

Get Universal Health Care.

Posted by: svreader | February 2, 2008 11:56 PM | Report abuse

Bill,

"I've never seen a single Obama poster raise the issues of race or gender,..."

that's easy. the bait is for the voting-goers to take. and those kind of voters only go to vote (didn't you see the turn out). they don't talk about it. i came from a country where politicians often play race card (this is one of the things I don't believe in democracy much. it's so flawed). i understand how sensitive the minorities (sometimes the majority, too) are.

plus, if you don't want to count some of them, count yourself, that'd be at least one.

Posted by: b wu | February 2, 2008 11:57 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for sharing

Posted by: Doodee | February 3, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

The Clintonistas are going wild. Obama must be winning!!!

Posted by: Lilly1 | February 3, 2008 12:21 AM | Report abuse

Obama is the future! http://www.dipdive.com/

Posted by: HopesMom | February 3, 2008 12:22 AM | Report abuse

Is past, prologue?

Please see the article in the liberal Nation magazine by feminist writer Katha Pollitt on Bill Clinton's alleged involvement in the Juanita Broaddrick sexual assault scandal (http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990322/pollitt).

Also, the original Washington Post story on the same subject written by Washington Post mega-star Howard Kurtz(www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/broaddrick022599.htm).

The Juanita Broaddrick interview in which she talks of her personal experiences with the Clintons can be seen at. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KZ8ICvutc0)

As George Santayana noted: "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Posted by: MARTIN EDWIN ANDERSEN | February 3, 2008 12:57 AM | Report abuse

In 2004, Governor Howard Dean said that his supporters won't vote for other candidates if he lost. He was roundly criticized for the arrogance.

The other day, Senator Obama said that he can get Senator Clinton's supporters but his supporters won't vote for her. He alone owns them. However, there was no beep about that narcissistic mindset. I am not criticizing him though. People can't criticize Mr. Obama. Look, what happened to President Clinton, the renowned first black president, who will have to go apologize to African American people from L.A. for his sins of criticizing Mr. Obama. He can't even speak at the meetings.

Senator Clinton should be concerned of her opponent's warnings. He owns a lot of supporters who won't vote for her in case she wins the nomination.

To name a few of Obama supporters whom he owns......
Senator Ted Kennedy, Sen. Patrick Leahy, Sen. John Kerry, Sen. Richard Durbin, Sen. Claire McCaskill, Gov. Kathleen Sebulius, Gov. Janet Napolitano, and and. Pathetic Democrats.

BTW, New York Times reported that Senator Obama has conveniently twisted his legislative success in IOWA campaign trail.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?hp

Posted by: ing1 | February 3, 2008 1:03 AM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton has uttered more lies to the
American people than he will ever have to answer for to the press or to any of us.
That finger-waving, in-your-face, cock-
rooster is scratching for a chance to
return to his old Whitehouse chicken coop
to once again crow "My people love me!"
In his mind, that means "Everyone loves me!
...and they're screaming for me and Hill
to set up our 90's barnyard again with me
as the king of the henhouse! They love
me so much they're willing to wallow in the
chickens***t that I'm famous for.....
and we got the blacks to shovel it for
us again!"
P.T. Barnum was a piker compared to this
monomaniac.

Posted by: interferon | February 3, 2008 1:09 AM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton has uttered more lies to the
American people than he will ever have to answer for to the press or to any of us.
That finger-waving, in-your-face, cock-
rooster is scratching for a chance to
return to his old Whitehouse chicken coop
to once again crow "My people love me!"
In his mind, that means "Everyone loves me!
...and they're screaming for me and Hill
to set up our 90's barnyard again with me
as the king of the henhouse! They love
me so much they're willing to wallow in the
chickens***t that I'm famous for.....
and we got the blacks to shovel it for
us again!"
P.T. Barnum was a piker compared to this
monomaniac.

Posted by: interferon | February 3, 2008 1:14 AM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton has uttered more lies to the
American people than he will ever have to answer for to the press or to any of us.
That finger-waving, in-your-face, cock-
rooster is scratching for a chance to
return to his old Whitehouse chicken coop
to once again crow "My people love me!"
In his mind, that means "Everyone loves me!
...and they're screaming for me and Hill
to set up our 90's barnyard again with me
as the king of the henhouse! They love
me so much they're willing to wallow in the
chickens***t that I'm famous for.....
and we got the blacks to shovel it for
us again!"
P.T. Barnum was a piker compared to this
monomaniac.

Posted by: interferon | February 3, 2008 1:14 AM | Report abuse

Why is Hillary working so hard on the campaign to re-elect her husband?! Didn't
she suffer enough during his first two terms? Is she the ultimate masochist(a)?
Everyone tells me how smart she is. How
dumb are they?!!!

Posted by: magnum cum loudy | February 3, 2008 1:32 AM | Report abuse

My my, how Mary Ann Akers' hypocritical heart bleeds for the imagined "agony" caused to blacks by Bill Clinton even when she admits it was this newspaper that called for a "mea culpa" from Bill Clinton. The left liberal journos like Akers detest the Clintons for their centrist stance on all issues (such "take people along" pragmatic strategy is today pejoratively termed "triangulation" by big media and Republicans). Bill Clinton has done more for blacks in practical terms than Obama has done, notwithstanding his bombast about being the black who made it against great odds. Every statement of Bill Clinton is examined under a microscope to detect "anti black" "self serving" and "anti Democrat party unity" sentiments!! No such caveats apply for Obama who can indulge in any sort of name calling or sponsor despicable anti Hillary advertisements and calmly deny responsibility, to the approbation of big media.

Americans when they vote for Hillary on 5th February will also cut big media to size for their visceral hatred of the Clintons who despite all the calumny heaped on them remain the most popular politicians in the US. Eat your heart out Akers! We will sing Obama's political obituary soon!

Posted by: Espi | February 3, 2008 1:57 AM | Report abuse

It is very sad what took place in SC, where 80% plus fellow African-American voted for Obama. The population of the African-American is approx. 13%. Let see if each race support their race, what then?

Let be real. Who is this man?

All you politically correct pundits, should please report the facts. Oh I forgot. You are the experts.

I have my faith in the Americans, they will do the right thing. I trust their judgement.

Posted by: Ugo | February 3, 2008 3:28 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Jimmy,

Wow! Sorry! You've thoroughly chastised me, and perhaps rightfully so. Even though my narrative was verbose and lengthy, my intent was not to be interpreted as one attempting to be arrogant. However, let me make clear one point: I rarely attempt to exude a false-character; it just within my "authentic-character" to either perpetrates some hoax of an existential presumptive-intellectualism. More importantly, for certain it is not my intent to dialogue within a "comfort-zone," in hopes of gaining or soliciting kudos for appearing as one slovenly stupid here within the Blogosphere...even topped-off about my head with a straw-hat, wearing overalls-replete with cowboy boots, and a tooth-pick betwixt my teeth. I do agree with you...; perhaps the "Clinton/Obama" reference was both premature and misguided. Your arguments are...regrettably, on-point. Keep filtering out those you deem smart-asses. I've had the charge thrown at me on a few occasions. Please charge my delusional... "As well poorly spellchecked and edited," narrative to sleeplessness. Lately I've been pushing the conversational-limits throughout Houston soliciting endorsement from the peripheral Independents, Republicans, and Clinton-Democrats before Texas' March 4th primary. Any advice from a fellow Obama-supporter is always welcomed, particularly from one clearly equally passionate for a "Change we can believe in!" Well, hell that's worth eating a little black-crow...even ala mode! Keep keeping it "4-real."

CBW
Houston, Texas

Posted by: CBW | February 3, 2008 3:38 AM | Report abuse

Thanks for sharing

Posted by: Doodee | February 3, 2008 7:00 AM | Report abuse

bourassa asked:

'Slavicdiva: "I see Obama caving to everything the Republicans want."'

"Why do you see that? When has he done it before?"

How about in today's New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?hp

There's your hero, big as brass, watering down legislation intended to require nuclear plants to notify local authorities in the event of leaks, "to reflect changes sought by senate Republicans."

And then he lied about it. The legislation he claims to have passed did not pass. I am no GW Bush supporter, but I'm willing to bet that if Bush had done that, you'd all be shrieking for his blood (and rightly so). Come on, we've all shrieked for Georgy-boy's blood when he's done exactly this; why exempt Obama? Because he's a Democrat? Because he's "charming"?

We have sneered for years (and rightly so) at the Bushian notion that industries can voluntarily comply with various reporting requirements, and we don't need no steenkin' regulations. Now it's supposed to be OK because Obama said so? It is not OK. If my groundwater is contaminated by radiation, I want to know - regardless of whether the industry thinks I need to know!

Why cave to the Republicans? Could it be because the Good Folks at Exelon are among Obama's largest financial supporters? And why lie about it afterward? To try and make yourself look good on the campaign trail? My goodness, Obama really will say anything, do anything to get elected - even lie about something as easy to expose as legislation that did not pass!

Those of you who criticize Senator Clinton for her Iraq vote should note that Obama was not in the Senate at the time. He did not vote against the Iraq resolution, nor could he - so easy to condemn someone else's vote when nobody can really know what you would have done at the time. Afterward, you can always say how you would have voted, but nobody knows for sure.

This stinks to high heaven. The caving was bad enough; the lying and spinning is worse. The outright stupidity is the worst of all. So much for the candidate of "honesty and integrity."

Posted by: slavicdiva | February 3, 2008 7:57 AM | Report abuse

Thanks for sharing

Posted by: Doodee | February 3, 2008 8:17 AM | Report abuse

Thanks for sharing

Posted by: Doodee | February 3, 2008 8:40 AM | Report abuse

Thanks for sharing

Posted by: Doodee | February 3, 2008 8:42 AM | Report abuse

Thanks for sharing

Posted by: Doodee | February 3, 2008 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Thanks for sharing

Posted by: Doodee | February 3, 2008 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Thanks for sharing

Posted by: Doodee | February 3, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Thanks for sharing

Posted by: Doodee | February 3, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Hey guys
Just curious.... where will all of you be watching the super bowl??
I made an online poll... if you want you can [url=http://tinyurl.com/3bblch]VOTE HERE[/url]
and please enter your email so you can see the results!
If not, just post here!!
also.. im having trouble deciding if i should get BUDWEIRSER or COORS???
lol help me decide pleaseeeeeee. [url=http://tinyurl.com/2j9sb6]VOTE HERE[/url]

THANKS!!



PS.. LETS GO GIANTS BABYY

Posted by: giantsboy | February 3, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Thanks for sharing

Posted by: Doodee | February 3, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for sharing

Posted by: Doodee | February 3, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for sharing

Posted by: Doodee | February 3, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

I sure would like to know what it was that Bill Clinton said that is claimed was racially insensitive. All that opponents or the media have to do is claim that something racist aas said (without any substance to it), and the claim takes on a life of its own. I keep reading over and over that Bill Clinton made racist remarks, but no one bothers to quote what they were!

Posted by: EmKay | February 3, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for sharing

Posted by: Doodee | February 3, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for sharing

Posted by: Doodee | February 3, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

THERE WILL NEVER BE A BLACK PRESIDENT. IT JUST WON'T HAPPEN. There is too much hatred . Its a shame, but its a fact.

Posted by: Little Red | February 3, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for sharing

Posted by: Doodee | February 3, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for sharing

Posted by: Doodee | February 3, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for sharing

Posted by: Doodee | February 3, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Only God does not apologise. The Clintons don't too for they make no mistake. Every thing they have done in this Primary race has been perfect but hey never expected to SWEAT because the inconsequential OBAMA coming from no where, with no experience has put them on the ropes. Change is the Clintons apologising as initially planned by their leg person. Change is not requesting for a change of title by Sleuth. Change is accepting when you are wrong. Change is in respecting that your opponent can better you. Change is giving back some respect to the Black Community for their support for all of 35 years of the Clintons ascendancy from Little Rock to Washington DC. Change is Hillary not Bill apologising, you will lose nothing in doing so. Yes you can for this is the CHANGE we BELIEVE in. OBAMA 08.

Posted by: tzinc2002 | February 4, 2008 12:10 AM | Report abuse

"Obama criticized again"

Whoever the hell the "Obama criticized again" is, you are a damned coward! You insinuate the lies and spread the malicious rumors against Sen. Obama, and you do not have the guts to own up to them, instead you go by some foolish pseudo name.

If you think, what you have posted on this site is accurate and true, well, step up like me and identify yourself, do not hide behind some pseudo name. Only bloody cowards do that. Step up and back what you have written.

Posted by: Ignatius Anyanwu | February 4, 2008 1:10 AM | Report abuse

The "Washington Post" appears to have joined the smear campaign and conspiracy against Sen. Obama's candidacy, by publishing articles with no authors' names. How did these two blog articles get published without the authors' names?

Here are the two malicious and libelous articles which the Washingtob Post has published, with no names:

"More corrupt camp donations for Obama! WHERES THE MEDIA??? NON-BLACK VOTERS ARE SICK OF THE BIASD MEDIA OUSHING OBAMA DOWN OUR THROATS!
But back on Oct. 5, in the aftermath of federal bribery/extortion/conspiracy/other miscellaneous badness indictments of former Dallas Mayor Pro Tem Don Hill Presidential candidate Barrack Obama desperately wants campaign cash senator Obama campaign already has its hands full with other indicted bankrollers Rezko. Now Mr. Hill's campaign finance report shows donations to on April 28, and federal campaign finance reports indicate Mr. Obama received Mr. Hill's donation June 22 as well. The Obama camp couldn't immediately be reached for comment Friday about Mr. Hill's
Obama's Relationship With Rezko Goes Back 17 Years. Obama Kept Contributions From Accused Fixer's (REZKO)Wife And Others ABCNews.com Analysis Shows the Campaign Still Hasn't Returned More Than $100,000 in Obama is referred to in document which outlines case against Rezko As Barack Obama is finding out, it's not as easy to dump politically toxic campaign donations as it might seem. For the third time in more than a year, Obama's presidential campaign announced this week it was shedding more donations tied to indicted fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko. Calculations by the media and Obama's own staff of Rezko's financial impact on his past political campaigns have been all over the map and shifting. In the case of Obama, public records don't make clear every Rezko connection. The records show that since 1995, $74,500 came from Rezko, his relatives or contributors listed on official disclosure forms as employees of one of his businesses. Rezko has not raised money for Obama's presidential campaign.

Various media outlets have reported much larger numbers, though they haven't clearly explained their methodology. The New York Times has pegged Rezko political cash for Obama at $150,000, the Sun-Times at $168,000 and the Los Angeles Times at $200,000. Last weekend, a report by ABCNews.com suggested more than $185,000. The event at Rezko's home resembled a posh dinner party, complete with valet parking and catered dinner. Obama spoke after the meal, and told the crowd about how when he was still in Harvard law school Rezko, a developer, had tried to hire him. Obama staffers set up shop around the kitchen table, where they collected checks.

One donor at the event was Michael Sreenan, a former attorney for a Rezko company. Sreenan gave Obama $2,000 that night, but hasn't heard if the campaign now plans to give it away.

Still, Sreenan said he was baffled by the notion of giving money raised at Rezko's home to charity. "If [Obama] wants to give my donation back to me or let me give it to a charity, I'm fine with that," he said. "But I don't see how this makes a difference now -- the money still got him elected. And how do I know it's not going to a charity that's offensive to me?"
Barack Obama has surfaced in the federal corrupton case against his longtime campaign fund-raiser, Tony Rezko Obama's relationship with Rezko came under greater scrutiny this week after prosecutors disclosed Rezko received $3.5 million from an Iraqi billionaire while claiming to be broke."


Posted by: | February 2, 2008 09:32 AM

"Obama criticized again for going negative and misleading on Clinton
Does Sen. Obama think that using divisive GOP tactics is the way to bring the country together? Len Nichols of the New America Foundation said he is "personally outraged at Obama camps recent mailer attacking Clinton! Obama trying to stop health care for everyone! Once again He's caught in lies from the debate. Obama showed vindictiveness and lack of magnanimity after his victory SC. The first part of his victory speech was deeply unpleasant attack on the Clintons. No graciousness there. And how did he handle defeat in New Hampshire and Nevada? With a combination of denial, petulance and the launching of a successful campaign to persuade the American media that the Clintons were engaged in a campaign of lies about him and, even worse, in a campaign of surreptitious racism. Clinton pointed out, it's not enough to hope and demand change; you had to be able to define what change you want and had to be able to deliver it. It was Obama who introduced King into the debate. Hillarys words were being construed not just as disrespect but as hidden racism. Obama's people was briefing the media to create this impression. The consequence has been exactly what you would expect. In the Nevada caucus, blacks voted overwhelmingly for Obama and non-blacks voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. In South Carolina, the black vote was 53 per cent of the total. Obama secured 80 per cent of it. That's the reason for his overwhelming victory there. He won only 23 per cent of the non-black vote. Contrast this to Iowa, where he won a large proportion of the white vote. It's a tragedy for Obama and entirely his own fault that this has happened. he became "the black candidate
Obama's most effective criticisms of Clinton, she voted for authorising the war, he opposed it from the start but (and this is crucially important) he had consistently opposed the war ever since. This story of consistent opposition over years was a "fairytale" the media had bought into.Obama has managed to persuade the media that this was a lie that he would correct. He hasn't corrected it, because he can't. He has not been consistent in the terms he set himself.
Obama supported Kerry for president, Kerry voted for war and continued to justify his support. Obama said that he did not want to cause Kerry embarrassment so he said that he, Obama, did not know how he would have voted. Isn't this the candidate who's about change, whose whole candidacy is based on a "different kind of politics"? Isn't this the candidate who says the country can no longer tolerate political spin, that lying in the name of political advantage is what's destroying the country? Yet on the very issue he identifies as the biggest moral issue facing America Obama effectively states that he was lying for political advantage.
Obama's calls for hope, for change. but hope to do what, to change to what? He hasn't said yet. He doesn't seem to know. He says that one of the high qualities of leadership is the ability to inspire by words, and he is right. It's a rare ability. But inspire to what end? It's a pity. He promised so much."

Posted by: Obama criticized again | February 2, 2008 09:38 AM

Posted by: Ignatius Anyanwu | February 4, 2008 1:17 AM | Report abuse

More corrupt camp donations for Obama! WHERES THE MEDIA??? NON-BLACK VOTERS ARE SICK OF THE BIASD MEDIA OUSHING OBAMA DOWN OUR THROATS!
But back on Oct. 5, in the aftermath of federal bribery/extortion/conspiracy/other miscellaneous badness indictments of former Dallas Mayor Pro Tem Don Hill Presidential candidate Barrack Obama desperately wants campaign cash senator Obama campaign already has its hands full with other indicted bankrollers Rezko. Now Mr. Hill's campaign finance report shows donations to on April 28, and federal campaign finance reports indicate Mr. Obama received Mr. Hill's donation June 22 as well. The Obama camp couldn't immediately be reached for comment Friday about Mr. Hill's
Obama's Relationship With Rezko Goes Back 17 Years. Obama Kept Contributions From Accused Fixer's (REZKO)Wife And Others ABCNews.com Analysis Shows the Campaign Still Hasn't Returned More Than $100,000 in Obama is referred to in document which outlines case against Rezko As Barack Obama is finding out, it's not as easy to dump politically toxic campaign donations as it might seem. For the third time in more than a year, Obama's presidential campaign announced this week it was shedding more donations tied to indicted fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko. Calculations by the media and Obama's own staff of Rezko's financial impact on his past political campaigns have been all over the map and shifting. In the case of Obama, public records don't make clear every Rezko connection. The records show that since 1995, $74,500 came from Rezko, his relatives or contributors listed on official disclosure forms as employees of one of his businesses. Rezko has not raised money for Obama's presidential campaign.

Various media outlets have reported much larger numbers, though they haven't clearly explained their methodology. The New York Times has pegged Rezko political cash for Obama at $150,000, the Sun-Times at $168,000 and the Los Angeles Times at $200,000. Last weekend, a report by ABCNews.com suggested more than $185,000. The event at Rezko's home resembled a posh dinner party, complete with valet parking and catered dinner. Obama spoke after the meal, and told the crowd about how when he was still in Harvard law school Rezko, a developer, had tried to hire him. Obama staffers set up shop around the kitchen table, where they collected checks.

One donor at the event was Michael Sreenan, a former attorney for a Rezko company. Sreenan gave Obama $2,000 that night, but hasn't heard if the campaign now plans to give it away.

Still, Sreenan said he was baffled by the notion of giving money raised at Rezko's home to charity. "If [Obama] wants to give my donation back to me or let me give it to a charity, I'm fine with that," he said. "But I don't see how this makes a difference now -- the money still got him elected. And how do I know it's not going to a charity that's offensive to me?"
Barack Obama has surfaced in the federal corrupton case against his longtime campaign fund-raiser, Tony Rezko Obama's relationship with Rezko came under greater scrutiny this week after prosecutors disclosed Rezko received $3.5 million from an Iraqi billionaire while claiming to be broke.


Posted by: | February 2, 2008 09:32 AM

Obama criticized again for going negative and misleading on Clinton
Does Sen. Obama think that using divisive GOP tactics is the way to bring the country together? Len Nichols of the New America Foundation said he is "personally outraged at Obama camps recent mailer attacking Clinton! Obama trying to stop health care for everyone! Once again He's caught in lies from the debate. Obama showed vindictiveness and lack of magnanimity after his victory SC. The first part of his victory speech was deeply unpleasant attack on the Clintons. No graciousness there. And how did he handle defeat in New Hampshire and Nevada? With a combination of denial, petulance and the launching of a successful campaign to persuade the American media that the Clintons were engaged in a campaign of lies about him and, even worse, in a campaign of surreptitious racism. Clinton pointed out, it's not enough to hope and demand change; you had to be able to define what change you want and had to be able to deliver it. It was Obama who introduced King into the debate. Hillarys words were being construed not just as disrespect but as hidden racism. Obama's people was briefing the media to create this impression. The consequence has been exactly what you would expect. In the Nevada caucus, blacks voted overwhelmingly for Obama and non-blacks voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. In South Carolina, the black vote was 53 per cent of the total. Obama secured 80 per cent of it. That's the reason for his overwhelming victory there. He won only 23 per cent of the non-black vote. Contrast this to Iowa, where he won a large proportion of the white vote. It's a tragedy for Obama and entirely his own fault that this has happened. he became "the black candidate
Obama's most effective criticisms of Clinton, she voted for authorising the war, he opposed it from the start but (and this is crucially important) he had consistently opposed the war ever since. This story of consistent opposition over years was a "fairytale" the media had bought into.Obama has managed to persuade the media that this was a lie that he would correct. He hasn't corrected it, because he can't. He has not been consistent in the terms he set himself.
Obama supported Kerry for president, Kerry voted for war and continued to justify his support. Obama said that he did not want to cause Kerry embarrassment so he said that he, Obama, did not know how he would have voted. Isn't this the candidate who's about change, whose whole candidacy is based on a "different kind of politics"? Isn't this the candidate who says the country can no longer tolerate political spin, that lying in the name of political advantage is what's destroying the country? Yet on the very issue he identifies as the biggest moral issue facing America Obama effectively states that he was lying for political advantage.
Obama's calls for hope, for change. but hope to do what, to change to what? He hasn't said yet. He doesn't seem to know. He says that one of the high qualities of leadership is the ability to inspire by words, and he is right. It's a rare ability. But inspire to what end? It's a pity. He promised so much.

Posted by: Obama criticized again | February 2, 2008 09:38 AM

Posted by: Kiss maass | February 4, 2008 1:20 AM | Report abuse

To Ignatius Anyanwu:
I salute your courage.
No amount of planted smear campaign will remove the fact that people are prepared for CHANGE and OBAMA is prefered over Hillary and Bill Clinton. The smear campaign is at best acts of desperation and Washington Post should distance itself from such cyber maniacs like hotnuke2008 whose is an expert in Gutter language and a bad PR for the Clintons.
Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton will never apologise, even when caught in the act, they'll rationalise it as they will try to diminish Obama's showings after Super Tuesday. Watch out.

Posted by: tzinc2002 | February 4, 2008 2:20 AM | Report abuse

CLINTON= NAFTA = Loss of Jobs to other countries.

Posted by: ds_cenpak@comcast.net | February 4, 2008 2:55 AM | Report abuse

I'm more than a little tired of the 'lovefest' over Barack Hussein Obama. I'm no fan of the problems and issues that plaqued the Clinton presidency...but this free ride that the press has given BHO is so obviously lopsided as to be contemptable - and nearly criminal. Where is the fair and balanced approach (not just FOX, but all the journalists) that these so-called unbiased pundits, anchors and reporters are supposed to represent and instill in the performance of their profession? No one asks BHO the hard questions....no one challenges his "pied piper" role with the newly-motivated youth who are mindlessly responding in mass as though they were hypnotized. BHO has set the stage for his so-called campaign of hope and change with very few details of what changes he wants to make and what it is that his blind followers should be hopeful for...other than his inevitable ascendancy to the presidency. And now, after channeling MLK for the last couple of months, he smiles as he accepts the passing of the torch from the Kennedys.
... In the words of the late Lloyd Bentsen, "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy!"
I do not believe for one minute that BHO will bring this country together, if elected. In fact, I can see many ways in which a divide such as we have not seen in decades could rip through this nation if he is sworn in as president. He is untried, untested, unchallenged, and has many things to answer for which have not even been raised by the media...WHY are they taking it so easy on this man? He deserves every bit of scrutiny that any other candidate for the nation's highest office should receive...and yet he gets a free pass. I don't think the Republicans will take it so easy on him, and I hope not, because I would rather see a John McCain in the White House than this novice with a silver tongue.

Posted by: rhewitt | February 4, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Hey guys,
Was wondering if any of you are part of any free dating sites?
Ive been researching and looking around for all the best free dating sites to join.
A lot of free dating sites are free, but you need to verify your age with your credit card which a lot
of people aren't comfortable with.
Ive found a site that lists all the free dating sites where you dont need credit card at all.
Just simply your name.. age.. email.. and your good to go!
The site is BELOW

[url=http://technorati.com/blogs/freedating-sites.blogspot.com]free dating sites[/url]

Posted by: samanthababy | February 4, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Go Sluethy!

Posted by: Larry | February 4, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

It's amazing that some citizens still buy into the Clintons' disingenuous attacks that it is Senator Obama who is injecting race into the race. WHO uses coded racist language (e.g. "shucking and jiving") and overt gender card (change--put a woman in the WH) in their campaign? Who sends out false allegations attacking Obama's Christian faith? Senator Obama has been running a transparent and decent race. Bill's vicious lies have repelled so many of us who now believe either Hillary approves and is complicit with her co-president's distortions of Obama's record or that she is unable to control Bill, as she was unable to control his sex addiction through decades of marriage. Either way, such evidence shows the Clintons will be unable to bring our nation back to global esteem and to heal the divisions that they so enjoy provoking, for their own power gains. The lying under oath when Bill was president, the hidden monies that have filled and continue to fill the Clintons' bank accounts all offer more of the same old dirty game of politics that has brought our nation almost as if down to the last days of the Roman Empire: decadence, character assassination, corruption, lust for power, etc. Our republic must turn the page in these perilous times and reject dynastic hegemony, the Clinton machine.

Posted by: shirlin | February 4, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Why is it considered a racial insult to state the obvious? Black voters in South Carolina supported a black candidate like they have in the past. Bill Clinton saying this was not a slight against black voters, it was to downplay any perceived weakness that Hillary might have. I think that the media and black leaders a black/white race so that it make more interesting news and the leaders can feel relevant. A candidate like Obama doesn't need black leaders to win and Hillary can appeal directly to the people who supported Bill in the past.

Posted by: jmp1024 | February 5, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Would ANYONE expect Monica's Boyfriend to APOLOGIZE or Recant his rant? Are you kidding!? Bill is invincible. This IMPEACHED former president is determined to get his 3rd term, and his "experienced" partner to whom he owes big political favors (for staying with him thru the Monica stage and for keeping mum while he abosed countless women) is bound to deliver that 3rd term, so she can destroy our nation for good this time.

Prepare to be forever beholden to fundamentalist Muslim terrorists while Hillary has a good cry. Prepare to Pay $40/gal. for your gas as we exit our strategic command position in the critical Middle East while she waves the white flag of surrender! Expect your tax bill to double or triple as she builds a welfare state of a scope to match the failing ones in Europe.

If you could get a glimpse of their SECRET White House papers that Bill and Hill have ordered the National Archives NOT to release to you until AFTER the election, you could see this all clearly. But the wool has been pulled squarely over the nation's eyes -- AGAIN.

Whitewater, Vince Foster, Jennifer Flowers, my lost legal papers turn up in clear view on the table!, Monica-gate, etc., etc. You ain't seen nothin' yet! Bill Clinton loose in the Lincoln Bedroom with nothing but time and interns on his hands! Oh my goodness. Hang on tight. here we go. The ENTIRE world will be so amused with another Clinton White House.

Posted by: Gerald G | February 5, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Another example of Hillary having poor judgment was sending Bill out to pull the race card, attack Obama's record and look ridiculous in front of media cameras. It all backfired.But wait, I bet she didn't even know he was behaving like that.
We,who are old enough, have seen this reckless behavior before. It led to impeachment for lying to congress and cost Al Gore the Presidency. When a George Bush has to restore "honor" to the WH, it shows how low the Clintons will go.

Posted by: Frankie Hodge | February 6, 2008 11:09 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 7:15 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 7:16 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 7:18 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 7:42 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 7:43 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 7:44 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 8:51 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 8:52 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 8:52 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 8:53 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 8:54 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 8:55 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 9:10 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 9:11 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 9:12 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 9:13 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 9:15 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 9:15 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 9:40 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 9:57 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 10:00 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 7, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 2:37 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 2:58 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 2:59 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 3:00 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 3:01 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 3:03 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 3:04 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 3:05 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 3:06 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 3:06 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 3:07 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 3:19 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 3:32 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 3:33 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 3:34 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 3:35 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 3:36 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 3:37 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 3:38 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 3:45 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 3:46 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 3:47 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 3:47 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 3:49 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 3:52 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 3:52 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 3:53 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 3:54 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 3:55 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 3:55 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 4:03 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 4:04 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 4:04 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 4:05 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 4:06 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 4:07 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 4:08 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 10:22 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 8, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 9, 2008 8:51 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 9, 2008 8:55 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 9, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 9, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 9, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 9, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 9, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 9, 2008 9:49 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 9, 2008 9:55 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 9, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 9, 2008 10:42 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 10, 2008 5:22 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 10, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 10, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 10, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 10, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 10, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 10, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 15, 2008 3:06 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 15, 2008 3:07 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 15, 2008 3:07 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 15, 2008 3:08 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 15, 2008 3:09 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 15, 2008 3:10 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 15, 2008 3:11 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | February 15, 2008 3:12 AM | Report abuse

Great work!
[url=http://zeicfaia.com/escp/kqiq.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://lrvacuhf.com/ifwt/jhrv.html]Cool site[/url]

Posted by: Jody | February 25, 2008 4:32 AM | Report abuse

Great work!
[url=http://zxvnuyxx.com/mcuv/gpib.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://rmphuimg.com/ztxa/losi.html]Cool site[/url]

Posted by: Tonya | February 25, 2008 4:33 AM | Report abuse

Well done!
[url=http://ucuqryfg.com/cels/jlxo.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://ywhdmogj.com/iumc/djkb.html]Cool site[/url]

Posted by: Ethan | February 25, 2008 4:39 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Jill | February 25, 2008 4:40 AM | Report abuse

Well done!
[url=http://svphjxim.com/xedp/wceb.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://ljgoroql.com/xstw/qdxn.html]Cool site[/url]

Posted by: Joy | February 25, 2008 4:45 AM | Report abuse

Great work!
[url=http://hzkzjsyg.com/xrjm/haix.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://htocodlq.com/vhix/jevn.html]Cool site[/url]

Posted by: Zane | February 25, 2008 4:47 AM | Report abuse

Nice site!
My homepage | Please visit

Posted by: Joan | February 25, 2008 4:47 AM | Report abuse

Great work!
My homepage | Please visit

Posted by: Adam | February 25, 2008 4:47 AM | Report abuse

Well done!
[url=http://faujytie.com/fnly/dzcu.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://vqsjineb.com/ixpi/spdf.html]Cool site[/url]

Posted by: Joan | February 25, 2008 4:49 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Candice | February 25, 2008 4:49 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Greg | February 25, 2008 4:51 AM | Report abuse

MESSAGE

Posted by: ISHMAel back | March 5, 2008 7:46 AM | Report abuse

MESSAGE

Posted by: ISHMAel back | March 5, 2008 7:46 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 9, 2008 6:51 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 9, 2008 7:07 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 9, 2008 7:14 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 9, 2008 9:13 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 9, 2008 9:24 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 9, 2008 9:29 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 9, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 9, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 9, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 9, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 9, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 9, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 9, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 9, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 9, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 9, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 9, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 9, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 9, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 9, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 9, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 9, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 9, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 9, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 9, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 10, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 10, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 10, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 10, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 10, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 10, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 10, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 10, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 10, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 10, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 10, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 10, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 11, 2008 8:28 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 11, 2008 8:29 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 11, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 11, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 11, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 12, 2008 4:58 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 12, 2008 6:26 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 12, 2008 8:52 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 12, 2008 9:07 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well.

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 24, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well.

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 24, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well.

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 24, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well.

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 24, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well.

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 24, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well.

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 24, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well.

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 24, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well.

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 24, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well.

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 24, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well.

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 24, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well.

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 24, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 24, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 24, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 24, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | March 24, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

there is the professional world of warcraft power leveling here. welcome.

Posted by: jimelyyes | May 7, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company