Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton Raises $26 Million in First Quarter

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) raised $26 million over the first three months of her presidential campaign, far eclipsing the fundraising totals of Democrats in past presidential elections. Clinton also transferred $10 million from her Senate campaign account to her presidential campaign.

Clinton finance chairman Terry McAuliffe called the haul "truly extraordinary", adding that it was the most successful quarter he has ever been involved in. In the first quarter of 2003, former Sen. John Edwards led the Democratic field by taking in $7.4 million. Clinton's campaign had set a goal of raising $15 million in the first quarter of 2007.

Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson said the campaign would not have a breakdown of how much money was raised in the first quarter for the primary campaign and how much was collected for the general election. "We will have considerably more money for the primary than the general," he predicted.

The campaign collected $4.2 million via its online operation, including $600,000 raised on the Internet in the final 36 hours before the quarter ended yesterday. (Read the Clinton press release here.)

No cash-on-hand figure for Clinton was available. Wolfson said that number would not be made available until closer to April 15 -- the date financial filings with the Federal Election Commission will be released to the public.

Clinton is the first candidate to release fundraising data for the quarter. Her number had been heavily anticipated both within her own party and among Republicans. Clinton is widely expected to set the fundraising pace for the entirety of the race, and her first quarter total is a step in that direction.

The focus will now turn to Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and how close he can come to Clinton's number. The Clinton team were in full spin mode during a conference call today to announce the numbers, with McAulliffe insisting, "I would expect Senator Obama is going to have a comparable amount of money to what we have."

The Fix will update regularly as more numbers trickle in.

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 1, 2007; 4:00 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Creator of Hillary Attack Ad Speaks
Next: Dems Unveil Fundraising Totals


US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

Posted by: anonymous | April 3, 2007 9:23 PM | Report abuse

Way to go,Hillary! She made more money than any other candidate...Republican or Democrat.There is ALOT of enthusiasm for her to win.She has a major advantage over most of the other candidates: she's married to Bill Clinton,a popular ex-president.

Posted by: JohnnyM | April 3, 2007 6:12 AM | Report abuse

Hillary's fund raising, if they were a stock on Wall Street would create a small drift downward. She did what was expected and nothing more from the low hanging fruit. She brought in Bill to even make it to that amount. Her online raise was hardly strong. I would be in worry mode with that amount, with that momentum going in and from the people who are raising the $s. They are not blowing out the field as they thought, which is good for the party.

Speaking of "Party."
As quick note on my old friend Terry McAuliffe. I've known him for almost 20 years and worked with him often. In his recent book he only briefly mentions Sen. Tom Harkin. Your readers should know that Terry was the finance chair of the 1992 Harkin Presidential campaign and he only weaseled into the Clinton campaign when Tom dropped out of the race and even then he was really just getting coffee for the real cash folk.,,Or buying steaks at the Palm...It took him a bit of time to get in the inner circle of the fund raising group and he really never did until the PIK in 1993 and then he went over to the DNC to run a second tier fund raising group..It took him until mid 1994 to gain the stature at the White House he seems to talk about..As a note as well we all shared office space and desks over there on F street during the 92 race and he now he acts like he invented the Bill and Hillary show. That book Terry, is the most BS I have seen, and only by the luck of the court, Ron Carey's memory and Laura Hartigan's loyality Terry is not joining others making rocks smaller. Terry, you are not telling the truth in that book both from a personal and professional point of view. Fess up!

Now back to the show.

Romney's raise as Obama's (as predicted by the people in the know) are very impressive by any accounts. They are starting from scratch nationally and Obama should start building on that list for Q2. Keep it going.. I also beleive Edwards did very well and should be happy about where he is.. But like..Bill Richardson also did quite well, which was very solid and shows he may get into the high second tier by the summer...Chris Dodd..not so bad for a great guy and are looking old and it is not going to happen

As for you Chris...stop drinking the kool-aid from the Clinton campaign and act like a top political writer for the Washington Post.

Posted by: Larry Frogg | April 2, 2007 11:22 PM | Report abuse

We should take the money from Hillary Clinton's record-setting $26 million fundraising quarter and put it into alternative energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy alternatives that will actually begin to move us toward the direction of independence.

Posted by: J. Thomas | April 2, 2007 9:04 PM | Report abuse

Hilarious! KOZ mocks my support for FISA, then tries to prove his point by citing a report that unequivocally affirms the FISA procedures and exhorts the agencies to properly implement them. Priceless. In fairness it was a long report, with big words.

Posted by: CJVA | April 2, 2007 8:55 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk--"News flash - Senate committee finds that FISA doesn't work properly. Needs modification.

so much for your coy and worthless responses. consider yourself marginalized."

Did you actually READ that report (from 2003?) It, mostly, addresses FBI's problems implementing FISA.

That is, if even FISA were relevant. Unfortunately the Bush administration has decided to ignore the FISA.

A lot of people would be agreeable with a FISA revision, probably.

Posted by: roo | April 2, 2007 6:50 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk--"Can you tell me without equivication, exactly which right and/or freedom you personally have lost? how has this harmed you. compare it to the harm inflicted when jumping from the 110th floor."

These, at least, have been compromised or limited:

Right to privacy. Right to a timely and fair trial. Right to peaceably assemble. Right to leave the country. Right to freely move within the country. Freedom from unreasonable searches.

I would say just those are a bit more important than your imaginary subway death.

Posted by: roo | April 2, 2007 6:40 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk--"and as far as abu graib goes, I had worse treatment at summer camp."

Well, that explains how you grew up to be a violent sociopath.

In all seriousness, though, you clearly have no understanding of modern torture techniques and as such should probabaly shut the hell up.

Posted by: roo | April 2, 2007 6:14 PM | Report abuse

"it is certainly possible in hindsight to say that the FBI, and therefore the Nation, would have benefitted from earlier close scrutiny by this Committee of the problems the agency faced, particularly as those problems affected the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA") process.

News flash - Senate committee finds that FISA doesn't work properly. Needs modification.

so much for your coy and worthless responses. consider yourself marginalized.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 2, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

alan - you got that right.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 2, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

With the front loading of several state presidential primaries next year, I fear that the early money raisers may have too big an advantage. The time seems past when a candidate with not as much money could score big in the small states of Iowa and New Hampshire and gain fund-raising power as a proven winner.

Posted by: Alan in Missoula | April 2, 2007 5:41 PM | Report abuse

No, the point is that you'll have to Google it yourself. You might even find an article written by me.

Posted by: CJVA | April 2, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Facts demanded from Libs - result:

crickets chirping.

Watch the torrent if you ask for opinions or feelings.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 2, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

I guess you UN guys are too lazy to do any actual research or find a legal parking space when you can just run your mouth instead.

I have clearly stated that I don't value terrorists rights as you do. I value US citizens rights followed by allies. I think anyone who is caught in an area of dispute with a gun trying to kill people should be turned over to the natives for punishment or kept if they won't do it. I don't fall for your false claims that interrogation, regardless of how measured, is fruitless. you never did supply any evidence of that, just mealy mouthed-diplo-speak. you probably don't think that states that allow guns are safer either. but you strike me as someone with thier nose in the air and no feet on the ground. you quote facts that you must have stumbled upon once in a NYT editorial but offer no scientific support. I bet anything you voted for al gore and beleive strongly in his global warming hype. you are just that kind of guy.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 2, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Really, you can't figure out what I'm saying? Because I haven't delved all that deeply into abstract philosophy. So, pigeon-hole me all you want as obscure or dense, but you look all the more foolish for it.

Also, didn't mention "secret" once.

But I know CVJA's earlier post about the administration arguing for sending suspects abroad (to Saudi Arabia in particular) was a pretty significant news story, so I'm not sure how you missed it or why me doing an archival search would be necessarry.

If you don't believe what was a widely reported news story, then the honus is yours to prove it wrong or false.

Posted by: jaa3 | April 2, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Still waiting for any reponse on material harm or rights lost. It is always so quiet when Dems are asked for facts.

Response so far - I FEEL violated. compare to potential for actual death on subway.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 2, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

"it is official US policy not to condone torture and to punish anyone who does it."

Except of course for renditions. We don't get the goal, just an assist.

"If you have any proof otherwise,I would like to see it and I suggest you forward it to the DOJ." The same agency headed by the person who basically said that torture is okay?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

JAA - do you work for the UN, you seem to have the forked tongue thing down cold. More nuance and subtlety is what you call for? We already can't figure out what you are saying. Is this one of those "I voted for it before I voted against it" deals. I must admit, the nuance of that position escapes me. but then I can't figure out how to get shot three times without going to the medic either.

you shouldn't keep referring to "secret" programs that you don't substantiate. since you are so familiar with this stuff, provide the facts or citations.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 2, 2007 4:50 PM | Report abuse

"You will just have to take my word for it that I am very smart and know a lot. I have sufficient time to bloviate all day but can't seem to find a single citation to support my view, even with google."

I see.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 2, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

"If FISA is so good at providing retroactive warrants, why do they want to change it?" That is indeed the question. FISA seems adequate, and the administration has not provided much in the way of explaining why it should be changed. I understand FISA fully, have in fact written articles about elements of it. Sorry, I'm not here to teach the remedial class, so if you are strongly supporting a law about which you know very little then it is up to you to learn more. We absolutely should not wait to be attacked again, we should aggressively and ruthlessly go after those who would attack us. Nothing in FISA prevents us from doing so.

Posted by: CJVA | April 2, 2007 4:37 PM | Report abuse


You can't keep reciting the "official US policy" canard without looking at the US Department of State reports I urged you review. China for instance, is a state that condones torture, and the US has thus far not made any interactions with China contingent on the cessation of such practices.

So, repeat the rhetoric ad nauseaum, but all it reflects is your inability to properly interrogate the terminology you employ. "Condone" is a loaded and innacurate term at best, as is "official".

And really, my responses were directed at your Irag and Iran comments which I noticed you didn't really respond to.

And what about the "material rights being lost" bit? No response here either?

All I'm urging for is a bit more subtlety and a lot less melodrama in all of this.

Posted by: jaa3 | April 2, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Actually, I don't call myself a Republican - it is clear you are not. and I don't believe I will take your word for what reagan or goldwater would have thought about anything. but why does that matter?

If FISA is so good at providing retroactive warrants, why do they want to change it? Accusing me of knowing nothing seems like an attempt to cover your own ignorance.

It sounds like you prefer the clinton method of waiting around to be attacked and then assigning barney fife the case to investigate. then you can get your trial for all the bad guys. meanwhile, you will avoid the funerals of all the US citizens. Once again you refuse to compare consequences to actions. Just consider the actions and none of the consequences. you aiming for secretary of the department of FEELINGS?

why don't you educate us all on your knowledge of FISA warrants? It would be helpful if you could back it up. I suspect your education runs as deep as watching too many talk shows like chris mathews. no wonder.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 2, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Re torture, you also miss some obvious and basic facts here. The administration has argued that sending prisoners to countries that conduct torture is acceptable, which renders meaningless our statement that we would not do it ourselves. No need to send this info to the DOJ, the guy who made the argument is now running the DOJ.

Posted by: CJVA | April 2, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Proactive is better, and your implication that FISA would prevent this shows that you do not undertand the law. It provides for retroactive warrants. Why is this insufficient? By the way, Reagan and Goldwater just rolled in their graves at the suggestion that government surveillance is OK so long as it is not used in court. And you call yourself a Republican?

Posted by: CJVA | April 2, 2007 4:00 PM | Report abuse

I salute all you educated folks, I only have a HS GED, and it is easy to see that most of you cannot understand what you are reading. Just maybe, it seems, I could be the one that is educated in the field of common sense.

Posted by: lylepink | April 2, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

still talking to yourself, i see...i hope hillary has a good time laughing at your phone calls.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Once and for all - it is official US policy not to condone torture and to punish anyone who does it. If you have any proof otherwise,I would like to see it and I suggest you forward it to the DOJ. Otherwise, stop selling lies to the public who may be more gullible than I. we also have not short-circuited any justice, these issues are in the courts for review. If you want a demonstration of circumvented justice, why not become a prisoner of your allies - the taliban or the quadists.

did you miss this part jaa? you always know so much but have such a hard time saying it. Have you ever heard of a citation for all your claimed facts or are these facts generally known there on the upper east side. after ll the NYT never prints any lies, at least that they'll retract.

CJVA - looking into my email or phone calls is not going to net them anything they are interested in. they will then move on. If they are building a case against me for something, they will not be able to use what they found in court. If they are trying to stop me from blowing up a building, they won't need to go to court.

there is a difference between proactively stopping an attack and reactively responding to a crime. In the case of mass transit attakcs, which do you prefer?

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 2, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

KOZ, the loss of right to privacy is a right lost. You missed that easy point. You may disagree that it is worth keeping as a preference to increased security, but it is still a lost right.

Now, you have asked several questions and I have been willing to respond despite ridicule from you. Let me ask one: this administration has claimed the right to review your phone, email, and mail without court supervision. You say that you support this because it increases security. Do you still feel this way if Hillary Clinton becomes president, and her administration will have the right to observe you without court supervision?

Posted by: CJVA | April 2, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse


What does the question of material rights being lost have to do with whether or not we support specific military/interrogation tactics?

That's a totally irrelevant question. If the US was committing genocide abroad, or ordering soldiers to rape women, or enslaving the entire population of Africa, I, as an American citizen wouldn't lose any material rights, but I don't think you'd be supporting those policies with the same glib line of questioning.

Its not that "liberals" won't answer your questions because they lack facts, its that your questions are founded upon fallacious premises and false logic. It's really not that hard to see. Just takes a bit of analytical thinking.

Posted by: jaa3 | April 2, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

"Iran and Iraq and the others are not going to respect us, much less idolize us for granting them appeasement. that culture seems to respect power and violence."

This infers that the so-called "liberal" position on torture is somehow reflective of the express desires of Iraq or Iran and, even more troubling, that you think torturing SUSPECTED terrorists will garner the respect, nay idolization, of these nations. Also, it seems as though you are suggesting that torturing terrorists will induce a response from the governments/citizens of Iran or Iraq. So now we've moved beyond retribution (cf. KoZ's fallacious 9.11 argument) to a system of torture intended to influence the affairs and opinions of nation-states.

The logic here is so porous as to be unbelievable.

And I think if you start sifting through the Department of State Country Reports, you'll find numerous instances of other nations, nations that the US actively aligns with, condoning torture, and if you search even deeper through UN reports and those of leading NGOs, you'll find instances of the US itself either torturing enemy combatants or flying them to places to be tortured.

Posted by: jaa3 | April 2, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

CJVA - Can you document that there were no atrocities in WW2? Is firebombing cities part of your values? Is locking up Asians part of your values?

so you admit you have heard explantions but didn't like them. that is different from your original point.

Still waiting for any reponse on material harm or rights lost. It is always so quiet when Dems are asked for facts.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 2, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

OK, it is agreed, that Team Billary has raised the most amount of money for a primary campaign ever. Since money has been the main issue--as opposed to something trivial like character, leadership, experience, ideas, etc.--since the "season" opened, therefore shouldn't we just give the Democratic nomination to her (and Bill, of course)?

Is it really the case that the American voter is so retarded that he or she can simply be mentally bought by whoever has the greatest amount of money? I'm beginning to think so. Let's just anoint, I mean appoint, her/them as the winner now, and then we could give the remaining millions to charity.

Several of you in this ongoing chaotic dialogue seem to have a mind of your own, and see through all the crass phoniness of both Hillary and her campaign. In the name of America first, and then the Democratic Party, I salute you all. Go forth and multiple--before next February!

Posted by: Paul Pellikka | April 2, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Wow, did you miss some easy points. My point was that in WWII we could have said that anything goes, but we did not. We held to our values.

Regarding admin explanations, I have heard them but am not particularly gullible so I found them unconvincing.

To call Al Qaeda my allies because I disagree on this point is typical of you; I suppose I might resort to that if I were limited to your intellectual capacity.

The "philosophical BS" to which you refer - rights of the individual over an all-powerful government - was the bedrock of the conservative movement (see Reagan, Ronald). Your suggestion that this is a liberal position further demonstrates your knowledge in these areas: sparse.

Posted by: CJVA | April 2, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

CJVA - "While I would gladly give up this right if it would prevent the loss of life of the type you reference, I have seen no evidence that it will"

How about the fact that there has been no repeat attack. sometimes the lack of evidence is indeed very strong evidence. there are also many plots busted up that are generally not reported since it would reflect well on the Admin.

"The administration has simply failed to explain " - actually they have expounded on this ad infinitum. Perhaps you were not interested in hearing.

"we could have justified things like detainee torture and disregard for international laws" - so your view is that WW2 warranted anything goes, but the GWOT doesn't. how did you arrive at this conclusion?

Iran and Iraq and the others are not going to respect us, much less idolize us for granting them appeasement. that culture seems to respect power and violence.

Once and for all - it is official US policy not to condone torture and to punish anyone who does it. If you have any proof otherwise,I would like to see it and I suggest you forward it to the DOJ. Otherwise, stop selling lies to the public who may be more gullible than I. we also have not short-circuited any justice, these issues are in the courts for review. If you want a demonstration of circumvented justice, why not become a prisoner of your allies - the taliban or the quadists.

but basically, you admit you have not suffered any harm or injustice or loss of rights that you can specifically point to, just philosophical BS. you may retain your membership in the society of Liberals.

"my life is sacrosanct from government intrusion" - in this one statement I can smell your hypocrisy - how about retirement savings, health care, wages, environmental issues, etc. Is this devoid of government intrusion. But the safety and survival of our nation is clearly less important to your values.

I am getting too dizzy to continue. how about you come up with a philosophy which isn't situationally dependent (OK to lie if its a Lib) or even a practical solution that isn't tainted with gimickery.

PS - you dodged the question. I suggest you fall back on the clinton defense - at least you tried but failed.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 2, 2007 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Nice avoidance of the topic, KOZ. I didn't think you had the capacity for an intelligent response, and now I know for certain. By the way, I'm not a Dem, and would likely agree with your position on most of the items you mention.

Posted by: CJVA | April 2, 2007 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Tarheel - I have found blarg to be generally approachable and reasonable. do not confuse intransiance with contrariness. drindl is another story.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 2, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Zzzz - OMG - a Dem talking about consequences. Mark this date on your calendar as a first. now tell me the consequences of surrender in Iraq? you may feel free to compare it to the result in vietnam since you love that loss so much. then if you are feeling frisky, let's talk about the consequences of raising taxes, min wage, ignoring SS, bloated medicare/medicaid, one size health care (extra large), sucking up to syria, etc.

I bet you will want to crawl back into your fetal position and ignore consequences again after reasoning through those Lib positions.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 2, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

KOZ, I'll take the bait and answer your question to drindl even though you ignored mine to you. I will acknowledge that I think drindl goes overboard once in a while, but no more so than you do on the other side.

What I have lost personally is the belief that my life is sacrosanct from government intrusion. This administration has maintained the right to spy on citizen and non-citizen alike without warrant or administrative oversight. While I would gladly give up this right if it would prevent the loss of life of the type you reference, I have seen no evidence that it will. The administration has simply failed to explain why oversight such as warrants or FISA court review will impede its ability to protect our citizens.

More important than what I have lost personally is what we have lost as a nation. There was a time when our integrity was unquestioned because even in environments (e.g. WWII) when we could have justified things like detainee torture and disregard for international laws, we did not do so. Part of our post-WWII global respect came not from what we did for our friends but for how we treated our enemies; Japan and Germany nearly idolized us for this for many years. Withdrawing the writ from non-citizens, justifying torture, circumventing our own legal procedures & etc. has eroded our moral standing and has gained us nothing.

Posted by: CJVA | April 2, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Tarheel, if it's so obvious that's what I believe, give me a quote. Show me any place where I said anything even slightly resembling that gross slander you just posted about me.

But that might be too much effort for you. Maybe you should just stick with your ongoing campaign to pretend that all corrupt politicians are Democrats. Stories of shady campaign donations are a lot more interesting than the erosion of Constitutional rights anyway.

Posted by: Blarg | April 2, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Tarheel: In case you haven't picked-up on this, there's a real ethical problem here.

The ground has shifted under our feet (who's a soldier and who isn't?). The "other side" changed the playing field, but there's been no overall public debate on how to adjust on our side. Just limited specific debates about torture, trials, etc.; where everybody speaks past each other.

The Administration typically went headlong into this with a "It's my way or your unpatriotic!" approach. Which guaranteed a reaction as predictable as sunrise.

We need to figure out what's acceptable to the general population (the extremes will always go to the extreme) on how we act in the "New World Disorder." Actually, all signatories to the Geneva Conventions should be concerned with this.

Our soldiers deserve better, because they are the ones who have to live and work with it every day.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | April 2, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Can you tell me without equivication, exactly which right and/or freedom you personally have lost? how has this harmed you. compare it to the harm inflicted when jumping from the 110th floor.

still waiting.

the silence is always telling when confronted with actual non-hysterical points. But the Libs base all their views on FEELINGS. Maybe you can create a cabinet position in hillary's admin - the department of feelings. they can fund all sorts of studies which "prove" all your soap-opera stances.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 2, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

"This is one Ind that will vote Liberterian or Green before voting for Hillary." Posted by: Fred Evil | April 2, 2007 04:05 AM

Fred, if this was what you did in 2000, you deserve what you got for the last 6+ years. So before you do it again in 2008, try to think about the consequence (intended or unintended) and do not waste your vote (or worse).

Posted by: Zzzzzzzzz | April 2, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

drindl, calm down:

1) I have no problem with American, British, Dutch etc oil companies working in Iraq. It's called the free market, and it's a good thing, despite what socialists say. What's your problem with it?

2) I have no earthly idea what you're talking about wrt Cheney's 'war profiteering' - cite a source please. (note to rest of blog: she will cite nothing, just my prediction).

drindl, seriously: you hurt your own credibility with emotional bush-bashing. Argue if you want, fine, but argue based on facts, not pithy one-liners you just saw on Colbert or read in Mother Jones. Just a suggestion.

Posted by: JD | April 2, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

'JD,KOZ, et al, don't bother arguing with Blarg and Drindl, et'

That's right. Don't bother to listen to anyone who disagrees with you.

'enemy soldiers or combatants shooting at Americans and American soldiers have a right to a trial because they are justified in attacking us.'

hese people actually think America is in the wrong and that 9/11 was justified and on and on.'

What a disgusting slimeball you are -- but typical. We try to have a rational discussion of whether we still live in a democracy and whether we still care about the Consitution and all you can do is spew this mindless filth and garbage, this crap that you hear on rush limbaugh and other poisoned wells. Not a bit surprising however. You don't think and you can't think and so all you can do is parrot filthy lies.

You are right,, it IT is impossible to have a discussion with you.

Posted by: dridnl | April 2, 2007 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Blarg. The issue is that "enemy combatant" traditionally referred to a uniformed member of enemy armed services, who could be detained until the end of the conflict. However, the administration has declared, for example, Jose Padilla an enemy combatant even though he was a US citizen captured far from any battle zone.

Those detained in Afghanistan, who are more apparently enemy combatants (though not part of a uniformed national military), should under most international laws have been released when the conflict ended. This is why the administration refers to them as "detainees" rather than enemy combatants - because the administration does not want to be subject to the laws that apply to enemy combatants.

Posted by: CJVA | April 2, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Wow, I am starting to like this Huckabee guy! Maybe there is something special about Hope, AR.

'Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee: "If Republicans in this election vote in such a way as to say a candidate's personal life and personal conduct in office doesn't matter, then a lot of Christian evangelical leaders owe Bill Clinton a public apology."

Posted by: hilarious | April 2, 2007 09:39 AM

Posted by: TZ | April 2, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

zouk just drools and foams, drools and foams.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

JD,KOZ, et al, don't bother arguing with Blarg and Drindl, etc. It's being blatantly stated in their posts what they believe. They will deny it, but their statements belie that fact that they think enemy soldiers or combatants shooting at Americans and American soldiers have a right to a trial because they are justified in attacking us. According to them we need to hear their side of the story so they can justify their actions. It's not even written between the lines. These people actually think America is in the wrong and that 9/11 was justified and on and on. They are prisoners of war, not someone being accused of shoplifting. Stop trying to use our justice system to support the terrorists and enemy armies.

Posted by: tarheel | April 2, 2007 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Drindl - The North Viet Namese wore uniforms. The Viet Cong did also. The "black pajamas" were enough to qualify.

Those captured not wearing the uniforms could be considered spies and subject to summary execution. The classic graphic example is the picture of the Viet Cong officer in civilian clothes being shot in the head by the South Viet Namese police chief. The soldier was out of uniform, therefore a spy and according to the rules of war was summarily executed.

Wearing a uniform, or even the semblance of a uniform, makes a huge difference.

One of the purposes for having "rules of war" is to protect civilian populations as much as possible, limiting the bad stuff to the actual combatants.

You seem to be saying that it's okay for these combatants to use the guise of civilians, thereby increasing the risks to civilian populations, and then be provided with even more rights than standard POW's.

The current enemy combatants could have been executed as spies if we chose to follow that rule of war.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | April 2, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Excuse, that should have been $80 billion that disappeared... Sorry.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

drindl, you seem to fear bush more than the jihadists. Can you tell me without equivication, exactly which right and/or freedom you personally have lost?

didn't think so. all blather, no substance.

I can list 3000 civilians who lost the right to breath on 9/11. that adds up to a lot more than your hysterical pronouncements.

I bet if a boy scout tried to help you across the street you'd run him in for assault or sexual misogyny. why do you always assume the worst of america and the best of our enemies? you and your fellow bush haters are immoral and would sacrifice anything for political power. shame.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 2, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Related to torture, etc..., as this seems to be the topic of the day:

KoZ, JD, et al: Enough with the gross characterization of one policy towards torture or another as either "cowardly" or "courageous". Such adjectives simply have no relevance to this discussion - all of these discussions are taking place in the removed spaces of Congressional offices or on blogs like these. To assign adjectives to any of these discussions that connect them to the human will/ability to carry out torture is false and intellectually disingenuous, which I think you know.

Secondly: All this discussion of torture from a philosophical standpoint, about whether its necessarry to ensure American security or whether it fundamentally erodes the value of our Democracy (my stance, as you well know) misses a fundamental point: torture has been shown again and again not to work. There is endless peer reviewed literature on this subject.

So what are we really debating here?

It seems to me to be a discussion of whether or not certain rights should be suspending in the case of war, and how we should extend rights granted to US citizens to non-US entities during such times of war.

In this case, any reference to the violence done to US citizens on September 11, is heinously misappropriated towards very dangerous ideological ends. Talk about using emotion to edify a strategic stance.

In no way does an attack on Americans/America allow for retribution in which American values are suspended. Sorry, but if you're making that case, you're also logically making the case that American democracy is no longer functional in today's world.

That is, the stance you take is: if not torture, then new system of government.

That's a fairly bold claim, and I'm not sure one anyone would want to endorse, especially given my first point, that torture is just fundamentally ineffectual.

So, really, enough of the mindless vitriol and lets get down to a discussion of where our Democracy stands and what our democratic values necessitate.

Posted by: jaa3 | April 2, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

'And I've been called many things, but 'naive' has never been one of them, LOL. If anything, I'm too realistic/cynical.'

Well then, I don't understand how you can believe what the adminstration says about why we are in Iraq -- it changes constantly. The one thing that doesn't change is the fact that we are building permanent bases and that US and British companies have a 30 year contract to operate there and take oil profits out of their country, whether the Iraqis like it or not.

You know, when some people, before the war, suggested that US oil compnaies would be operatingt in Iraq, we were jeered at as consipiracy theorists.

Now that has actually happened, doesn't it make you just a tiny bit suspicious? Does it bother you at all tht Dick Cheney has made over $90 million dollars in war profiteering? That Hallbirton's stock price has quintupled since the war began? That $90 billion dollars of US taxpayer money has simply disappeared? That a number of republican contractors [like Rudy Guiliani} are doing shoddy jobs with no oversight, and still reaping billions?

Yeah, you're cynical alright. As a child.

Posted by: drindl | April 2, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Mountain man - - you wish. The Obama campaign is just getting starting. There is never be a running out of money because it's a grassroots campaign and the people will not let him run out of money. The people will find more money for the Obama campaign that would not have ever been imagined. You know if someone would donate that is unemployed - - not just one donation but several then that is committment beyond what Hillary can inspire.

Posted by: dd | April 2, 2007 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Are you sure of that, CJVA? I've heard Bush refer to everyone at Guantanamo and similar facilities as "enemy combatants". If the debate is over whether these people really are enemy combatants, then what's the general term used for them?

Posted by: Blarg | April 2, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

William - - you need to stop reading that trash. Obama has had the best week of the campaign. You are reading a website that is delusional and afraid of Obama.

Posted by: dd | April 2, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

BAGHDAD, April 1 -- Mortar attacks, suicide car bombs, roadside bombs, ambushes and gun battles killed at least two dozen people on Sunday, including four American soldiers, the authorities said.

Posted by: mccain cites progress | April 2, 2007 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Why don't you go live in a fascist or communisst state, zouk? you'd be so much happier. You love your authoritarians, lick those black boots.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Isaiah - - that is precisely why Hillary doesn't have a prayer in winning anything other than what she has already - - Sen NY and native New Yorkers can't wait to run her out of there. Barack is challenging her from with more than just money power, he is challenging her with people power. The campaigns are totally different. The donations for the Barack campaign is coming from "The People" not big business. He has far more people - - that translate into votes supporting him. You can give $5.00 to the Barack Obama campaign and be counted. Of course, many are giving far more. The unemployed are giving to Barack Obama's campaign. That should tell you something.

Posted by: dd | April 2, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Blarg - "enemy combatants" are precisely those protected by the laws you reference, and that is the term used in many of the treaties, etc. that govern this area of law. The current debate has to do with who is defined as an enemy combatant.

Posted by: CJVA | April 2, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

thank you for being kind drindl.

Since you asked, I'm a 40 year old man, married with kids, professional, and live in suburban Va.

And I've been called many things, but 'naive' has never been one of them, LOL. If anything, I'm too realistic/cynical.

Posted by: JD | April 2, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

'these are people dedicated to eliminating our way of life'

You mean like trashing the Consitution and taking away our rights and freedoms?

Actually, that's what bin Ladin said would happen after 9/11. And he was right. Cheney and Bush responded precisely the way he said they would. Does that mean the terorrists won?

That's what is said is every war, by every side, 'dedicated to eliminating our way of life'

and blarg is right -- an enemy combatant is no different than a POW and should be treated as such. What difference does it make whether they wear a uniform or not? Neither did the Vietnamese, and they were still granted POW sstatus. Of course, that we back then, when we had laws.

Posted by: drindl | April 2, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

the geneva agreement pertains to uniformed soldiers of a particular country fighting other soldiers. Additionally, they are not allowed to kill civilians, not allowed to hide among civilians. the general definition of "spy" applies. we used to just shoot spies before we got so chicken-hearted - coincides with an increase in Dem and media influence and cowardice.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 2, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Saudi Arabia's peace plan for the Middle East was long considered stillborn by the West. Now the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is lauding it as "revolutionary." Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah is fast emerging as a key player in current moves to end the conflict.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

When I heard John Waterbury was stepping down as president of the American University of Beirut, I phoned him to ask how his 10-year tenure had gone. I was slightly taken aback by Waterbury's gloom when I asked him how he saw things generally in the Middle East. He offered a long-term view that was disturbing but certainly thought-provoking.

"I have been working and living in the Middle East since 1959-1960," he said, "and I have never seen a period in which U.S.-Arab or U.S.-Middle Eastern relations have been at a lower ebb. What really has discouraged me and depressed me in this situation is that anything that the U.S. advocates, even policies that I think in other times would have been listened to seriously if not respected, are now denounced simply because they emanate from Washington. Ther have just been too many lies. The whole democracy agenda is simply identified with the Bush administration and distrusted.

Democracy advocates can't hold their heads up. They are immediately accused of trying to carry out the Bush agenda in the Middle East and somehow being complicit in all aspects of U.S. policy. Liberalism has kind of disappeared as a force. It is very hard for a liberal or a democrat to advocate their agenda without being tarred with the brush of being a lackey of the Bush administration. The ground is shaking under their feet.

"Why I think relations are so bad, unprecedented in my experience," he added, "is that we have managed to alienate our friends. Over the decades, even in the police states of the Middle East, a rather large middle class has built up alienated from their own regimes. They were fairly well disposed towards the West and towards the United States. We have lost them. Either they are scared to speak up. Or they are flat out outraged."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

General question to everyone: There are laws for how we treat POWs. Those laws give various rights, including rights guaranteed under international and US military laws. Is there any reason why those laws shouldn't apply to "enemy combatants" too?

Posted by: Blarg | April 2, 2007 1:18 PM | Report abuse

I agree with drindl - kill them all, let god sort them out. Saves the cost of a trial and incarceration.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 2, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Drindl: First understand that I consider an enemy combatant to be the equivalent of a uniformed soldier.

Why would we give enemy combatants trials?

If uniformed POWs are held "for the duration," how are those who fight but don't wear uniforms any different?

Because they consider the fight against the West to be a never-ending struggle can we consider letting them go any time before there is a change in philosophy on their side?

If we do let the enemy combatant go, do they not just get re-trained and pick up another gun to use against us?

These enemy combatants are not conscripts who would rather be some place else; these are people dedicated to eliminating our way of life.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | April 2, 2007 1:13 PM | Report abuse

'drindl et al would have the Military conduct public show trials, with the American taxpayer funding the defense counsel I'm sure, every time we capture someone trying to shoot our guys.'

Since when is a trial a 'show trial'? What on earth are you talking about? We pay for these military tribunals, too. And we pay big time for keeping people locked up for years. What is the difference?

Did you object to Nuremberg, for insstance?

'Our mission is to free the oppressed peoples of those countries'

JD -- Let me put this kindly. Are you very young? Or are you just terribly, terribly naive?

Posted by: drindl | April 2, 2007 1:11 PM | Report abuse

'The U.S. Supreme Court today ordered the federal government to take a fresh look at regulating carbon dioxide emissions from cars, a rebuke to Bush administration policy on global warming. In a 5-4 decision, the court said the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from cars.'

Posted by: how long before coulter issues a fatwa? | April 2, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

AGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Last week's suicide truck bombing in the northern city of Tal Afar is the deadliest single attack since the beginning of the Iraq war in 2003, a high-ranking Iraqi Interior Ministry official said Monday as a new death toll for the blast surfaced.

The Wednesday attack -- in which a truck packed with 4,000 pounds (1,814 kilograms) of explosives detonated in a Shiite area of the city -- was initially blamed for 85 deaths, according to an Iraqi army officer in Tal Afar who estimated the death toll Thursday. Hundreds of others were wounded.

But the Interior Ministry official said Monday that the death toll was 152, making it the war's deadliest single attack.

In a separate and apparently retaliatory attack, gunmen stormed homes in a Sunni area of the city, killing 70 people and wounding 30, according to the army officer. Forty others were kidnapped.

Before last week's attack, police said a November 23 string of car bombs in Sadr City, a Shiite slum of Baghdad, was the war's deadliest single attack.

At least 138 people were killed and more than 200 were wounded when six car bombs detonated there, Health Minister Ali Shammari said in November.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 1:05 PM | Report abuse

let me see if I get this straight:

drindl et al would have the Military conduct public show trials, with the American taxpayer funding the defense counsel I'm sure, every time we capture someone trying to shoot our guys.

Our mission is to free the oppressed peoples of those countries. Your question implies that we were wrong to go into Aghanistan as well - do you really think that? Even your guys Gore and Edwards, Reed and Pelosi, think that was a 'just' war.

Posted by: JD | April 2, 2007 1:02 PM | Report abuse

3000 dead in NYC on 9/11 - no big deal? consider the torture of deciding to jump instead of burn. I think that is right up there with panties on the head allright - only a lib could deduce this equivalance.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 2, 2007 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Truth Hunter, it's still the Constitution. That's just the first amendment I looked at which describes specifically what can be done to citizens vs. what can be done to everyone.

You're right that the 14th Amendment talks about the limits of state government, not federal. But the Constitution in general talks about the limits of government. That's how rights of individuals are stated: by preventing the government from abridging those rights. And those rights apply to everyone in the US, not just citizens.

Posted by: Blarg | April 2, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

rindl, I actually do not hate Dems -

utter BS

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Specifically, why is it OK for the subhumans to cut off the heads of civilians,

A. Who said it was OK? Ridiculous.

but we can't take measures to try to find out Al Quaida plans for killing more Americans?

B.--five YEARS, JD? what do you think is gained by taking 5 years of someone's life? you said the kid held a gun for about 2 hours---and then ran away. and they tortured him for 5 years for that?

If he is dangerous, he should be locked up. If he's not, he should not have been held for 5 years.

Posted by: drindl | April 2, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

KOZ, are you genuinely ignorant about this or are you being coy? The answer to your question is that, while the text explicitly applies only to citizens, these rights have always been granted to non-citizens. You can certainly make an argument that these rights should not be granted to non-citizens (hmm ... unintended consequences?), but your expression of surprise and your reference to the text indicate that you may know little about the more than two centuries of unambiguous precedent on this point. This has been a major change, and a potentially dangerous one.

Posted by: CJVA | April 2, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

"monicagate", "Filegate", all of that stuff doesn't matter. What matters is jobs! Under the Clinton Administration 40% of our "trade" was between multinational corporations. Under Bush it is 60%! And Hillary proposses to increase it further still. That, and the manipulation of unemployment statistics and economic data, is the big scandle...for both the Clintons and Bush.
Corporations producing goods and services offshore and passing the cost or profit off between one subsidiary or another so as to pay lower taxes and bring those goods and services into the U.S. without paying one cent of taxes or duties; all the while replacing Amercian workers with cheap foreign workers. This policies is flat out insane and NO ONE wanting to be President of this country ought to receive one vote for continue.

Posted by: MikeB | April 2, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

'OK drindl, let me answer your question.

I don't know if Hicks was a terrorist, but he certainly was an enemy combatant, at least for awhile.'

Wouldn't you have liked to have found out? Like we used to, with a public trial? So we could know whether our government is about to set free a dangerous man, for political reasons?

Of course we have a right to interrogate. But 5 years? I mean, jesus christ. he's either guilty or he isn't, That why we have the right to a *speedy* trial guaranteed in the consitution, so this country will not be a tyranny. But that's exactly what you want...monarchial powers for the president.

and what IS our mission in Iraq and Afghanistan this week? It changes a lot. Is it "Operation Oil Company Contracts'? Well, haul out that mission accompllished banner then.

Posted by: drindl | April 2, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, You are wrong, totally wrong.

The 14th amendment is talking about State rights.... the Federal government upholds the Constitution.

This doesn't describe rights of those who aren't U.S. citizens, it describes the limits of state governments and their jurisdiction.

Posted by: Truth Hunter | April 2, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

monicagate. now there was a big deal. two people had sex. wow...

but 3000 dead americans in iraq, no big deal... what's a few dead americans.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

the prisoners are in cuba. which one of the fifty states is that? I can't find it in my atlas. they are federal prisoners of war.
"abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

Are we now discussing citizens or not?

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 2, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Who tarnished our values, truthhunter? Does Monicagate ring a bell? The Clintons are the poster child for fallen values. And Hillary's past scandals will always haunt her candidacy. How can she escape the pardon scandals involving payoffs to her brothers that are in court right now? Her illegal campaign contributions scandal involving Peter Paul from 2000 just ended up back in court, again, too.

Maybe the most disturbing pardon was the pardon of Clinton supporter and Democratic Congressman Mel Reynolds. Reynolds was convicted on August 22, 1995, on 12 counts of sexual assault of a 16-year-old girl, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography. Later he was convicted on 15 counts of bank fraud and lying to the FEC and SEC. This was a child rapist involved in child pornography. Why let him go free?

Tony Rodham, who acknowledged approaching the president about a pardon for the couple, was the second of Hillary Clinton's brothers to receive money from people who were eventually pardoned by President Clinton. Hugh Rodham received $400,000 from two people, one of whom was pardoned and one whose sentence was commuted.

Also receiving a pardon was commodities trader Marc Rich. Rich fled to Switzerland after he was prosecuted for tax evasion and illegal trading with Iran by then-US Attorney Rudolph Giuliani. Before Rich received the pardon in January 2001, his former wife, Denise Rich, contributed $70,000 to a fund supporting Hillary Clinton's Senate bid, and also made a large contribution to the Clinton presidential library.

Lists of the drug dealers, kidnappers, child molesters and others that Clinton pardoned can be found at: And you know every one of them was reviewed and approved by Hillary, or as Bill himself put it, the co-president at the time.

Posted by: tarheel | April 2, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

"drindl - only US citizens are entitled to us constitutional rights. Is that too much for you to swallow?"

Wrong. Completely and totally wrong. Certain rights in the Constitution, such as voting rights, only apply to US citizens. But the Constitution in general describes how the government is supposed to act towards everyone in the US, not just citizens.

For instance, here's an excerpt from the 14th Amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Note that the first clause says what the government can do to citizens. The other two clauses describe what can be done to any PERSON, not any citizen. Constitutional rights apply to everyone under the aegis of the US government.

Posted by: Blarg | April 2, 2007 12:38 PM | Report abuse

OK drindl, let me answer your question.

I don't know if Hicks was a terrorist, but he certainly was an enemy combatant, at least for awhile. He had a gun, and joined a group that is at war with the US.

That means that once we capture him, we get to interrogate him to find out more about the enemy's plans...and if we can prevent some soldiers from dying in the process, so much the better.

Now YOU answer MY question: And you have a problem with this want US soldiers to die? You want our mission in Iraq and Afghanistan to fail?

Specifically, why is it OK for the subhumans to cut off the heads of civilians, but we can't take measures to try to find out Al Quaida plans for killing more Americans?

Posted by: JD | April 2, 2007 12:33 PM | Report abuse

drindl, I actually do not hate Dems - the persons. I dislike the policies. Readers will notice that it is drindl, truthavoider, nonamecoward and the rest who regularly insult (only) and defame anyone who tows any position counter to the most liberal of world views. I very often do find fault with Republican views. I sometimes agree with Lib posters. Is there anything nice you can say about bush or gops. not one thing? I think that demonstrates my point. It is called bush derangement syndrome and you are the classic case.

If you really want to see snarling and foaming guess where you can find it - daily Kos and here, under drindle et al's monikers.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 2, 2007 12:30 PM | Report abuse

The Supremes, you mean the Bush-stacked legal system of which the Supremes are a part. Please.

Ask the two border guards serving long prison sentences while the drug smuggler they were after was protected about Bush's legal system.

The Supremes sold out in 2000 by appointing Bush president. They lost their moral authority for most thinking Americans then.

When it comes to American values, Bush has tarnished everything he touches. What a joke on the American public, conservatives as the purveyors of values. For them, and Bush, the ends justify the means. That is worthy of our disgust.

Posted by: Truth Hunter | April 2, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

JD- answer the question? Is Hicks a terrorst? Why is he walking, then?

Or is he not? Then why was he held without charges for 5 years?

Where is the Iranian maritime border? If Iranians appeared in British waters, would the Brits arrest them?


Posted by: drindl | April 2, 2007 12:25 PM | Report abuse

hey zouk, you're the one with the tremendous capacity for 'swallowing' -- you just choke it down whole. their isn't anything this administration says that you won't believe. you were created for barnum and bailey and every huckster and snake oil salesman who ever lived. simpleton.

i don't have to try to make bush and the US look bad. that seems to be the one thing they are very good at -- dragging down and destroying this great country.

but your snarling and foaming hatred of democrats keeps you from thinking straight -- or at all.

Posted by: drindl | April 2, 2007 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Take this Chris.. Romney raised $23 million. It seems to me Clinton is all hype. What happened to Clinton machine? I was still thinking may be they were playing April Fools joke. Every body was saying she will raise $40 or $50 million. When every thing said and done, Romney might be the best fund raiser for this quarter (just primaries, no general money).

Posted by: Kandi | April 2, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Israel's chief of military intelligence warned on Sunday that Hezbollah, Syria and Iran were preparing for an attack on Teheran by Israel's main ally the United States as early as this summer.

Amos Yadlin told the weekly cabinet meeting that Israel's three principal foes were steeling their defences because they feared a US attack on Iran, a senior official who attended the meeting told AFP.

'Their preparation is defensive ahead of war,' the official quoted Yadlin as saying on condition of anonymity. 'They fear a war initiated by the Americans because they understand that there might be an attack against Iran over the summer, but not by Israel.'

Yadlin insisted Israel had no intention of becoming embroiled in such a conflict.

Posted by: we'll just do their dirty work for them | April 2, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

drindl - only US citizens are entitled to us constitutional rights. Is that too much for you to swallow?

the rule of law which you seem to worship suddenly, states that you must not kill civilians in a war. that you must wear a uniform. that you must avoid targets of no military importance. you seem prepared to ignore this rule while trying to enforce rules meant only for us citizens. how very convenient if you want to make bush and the US look bad. someday the Dems will find their sense of shame I hope.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 2, 2007 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Iran crisis: UK backtracks on unsustainable border claims

"But the Ministry of Defence hinted for the first time it may have made mistakes surrounding the incident. An inquiry has been commissioned to explore 'navigational' issues around the kidnapping and aspects of maritime law."

Posted by: suckers | April 2, 2007 12:15 PM | Report abuse

'Just try to find a single fact with citation to a non-biased source. ' LOL -- the guy who quotes from Town Hall. Howler.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Well, JD, since you fail to address any fact I put up, I say that like zouk you are driven so insanity by your hatred of Democrats that you don't care about this country any more. You don't care about the Constitution, you don't care about maintaining habeas corpus -- the most basic civil right we have, which is that when we are in legal custody, we know the charges against us and the basis on which we are being held.

You don't care about the rule of law, you don't care about anything that this country has ever stood for, that thousands have given their lives for.

and talk about emotional drivel, that's exactly what you and your fellow 30%ers do everytime you're faced with a fact.

Is Hicks a terrorist or not? Answer the question.

Posted by: drindl | April 2, 2007 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Give me a break, I have common sense and use logic. Real theorists and scientists look at different types of data, not only one kind. Mountain Man mentioned one datapoint. Blarg, I and others mentioned additional datapoints that shed extra light on the Dean comparison. Nothing illogical about that. You mentioned an additional datapoint yourself, Tarheel, about Hillary haters not being a factor in Dean's campaign. Nothing illogical about your observation, nothing illogical about Blarg's or meuphys's or mine.

Posted by: Golgi | April 2, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

JD, you will never see a realization of any facts from noname ignorant coward or drindl. it is much easier on the limited intellect to simply cut and paste. the "bush lied" mantra works for all encounters in their lives. the facts don't matter in the least. they assume that since they create "facts" everyone does. how else could you stand al gore? Instead you will see "nazi", "rush", abu graib, katrina, etc. chanted over and over. these clowns are fed a steady diet of daily Kos and are true believers. Just try to find a single fact with citation to a non-biased source. Of course any source you cite is considered biased if it goes against their worldview. Lylepink won't cite sources at all because there are no such things as facts in her view. As a hillary voter, I can see why she thinks that.

It is pointless to argue with someone who knows it all yet understands nothing. If you doubt me, watch the response to this post.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 2, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

You guys are really giving hillary a pass and, in so doing, are missing the real story. Since the beginning, she has been the one candidate going heavy for general election money and accepting PAC contributions. She is also the one candidate who refuses to proivide a breakout of her general and primary receipts. based on the hard pressing i have been receiving and hearing about from friends, i bet 40% of her money is general money. This would put her primary raise at about the same level as edwards. Even more interesting, she has been running like crazy in the last week with her husband to pull in buck, she claims to have raised $10mm in the last 10 day. Using the same 40% for genral rule, this would suggest that she was probably actually behind edwards and obama and ran really scared of losing the first money primary (which would have been a disaster for her). where does she go next quarter now that her PACs have been mined and fat cats maxed out?

The other piece of the puzzle is spending. Hillary spent almost $40million to beat a nobody in new york. her flower bill alone was over $1million. she has a monster paid staff now.

look for her surrogates to ratchet up the threats to stop others from gaining on her. it already has started in nyc with john catsimidies basically telling cranes business that the clintonistas will "remember democrats who were against them in the Big Apple".

aint politics fun?

Posted by: Mr t | April 2, 2007 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Bushies think if we don't rubberstamp everything The Decider wants we're unAmerican.

Actually, it is the Bushies who have trashed America.... trampled our moral high-ground, perverted the rule-of-law for their own political agenda, sold our trade-deficit soul to the Chinese and let their corporate buddies handle the rudder.

Supporting Bush is UnAmerican!

Posted by: Truth Hunter | April 2, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

In claiming HMS Cornwall was within Iraqi territorial waters, the British government and the media have covered-up the fact there is no agreed upon Iraqi-Iranian maritime border, as other bizarre coincidences and dubious circumstances surrounding the hostage crisis begin to emerge.

Former British Ambassador Craig Murray and others are highlighting the fact that the maritime border between Iraq and Iran is contested, and the British have essentially manufactured a border to make it appear as if HMS Cornwall was within Iraqi territorial waters. The mainstream media has uniformly failed to address this issue.

"The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force," claims Murray.

"Accepting the British coordinates for the position of both HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. Go on, print out the map and measure it. Which underlines the point that the British produced border is not a reliable one."

As illustrated in the Encarta encyclopedia territorial map above, the position of the ship denoted by the red circle is nearer the Iranian border than the Iraq border. The blue circumference touches the edge of the Iranian border.

--what if it had been iranians in british waters? do you think the british gov't wuold have arrested them? hmm?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Good for you Mountain Man. Using the Dean example as as a legitimate related precedent is sound thinking. It's the way logical theorists predict the future by relying on past experiences. It involves science and some common sense. Something your detractors are obviously lacking. They're basically saying don't use logic when talking about their man. Their candidates situation will always be different, no matter how many similarities are pointed out. The one valid difference from 2004 to now is the dislike for Hillary, even within her own party. That could play in Obama's favor more than anything else.

Posted by: Tarheel | April 2, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

JD, it IS the same thing to put panties on a head as to cut off a head. According to liberals - no difference.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 2, 2007 12:00 PM | Report abuse

drindl, the info on Hicks was a direct clip from MSNBC's website.

your responses are just more emotional drivel, which is par for the course for you I guess. I give you facts, or at least what's being reported, and you fall back on "Bush is a liar, I don't trust your facts" with no other backup.

OK. Great basis for a debate.

Posted by: JD | April 2, 2007 12:00 PM | Report abuse

' and as far as abu graib goes, I had worse treatment at summer camp.

LOL -- zoukie parrots his big brother rush, who tells him what to think. and makes h imself into a clown.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Government watchdog groups want more answers as to why Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) stepped down from a military appropriations subcommittee at a time questions were being asked billions of dollars in federal defense contracts going to her husband's companies. Feinstein resigned her post as chairwoman of the Senate Subcommittee on Military Construction Appropriations last week.

Stinkin Dems lining their pockets again - just like dirty harry reid

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 2, 2007 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Well 'truth' hunter, I'm pretty sure that Abu Graib wasn't official US policy. Or did they send those soldiers to jail for following orders?

As for holding captives without trial, the Supreme Court says that OK.

I believe your blind hatred for Bush and co. has completely thrown off any perspective and sense of fairness. When you compare US policies wrt enemy captives, with what the Taliban and insurgents do, you look foolish. No offense.

Posted by: JD | April 2, 2007 11:56 AM | Report abuse

WaPo... Don't like your new home page format either. Harder to use, not as interesting.

Posted by: Truth Hunter | April 2, 2007 11:55 AM | Report abuse

'o drindl, you believe Hicks was tortured for 5 years? Your evidence, please?'

Because he has to keep silent about what happened to him as part of his plea bargain. Why? What is there to hid? And anyway, this administration has openly admitted what it does to prisoners -- Cheney says they can do anything they want.

'If you think sleep deprivation and loud music is torture, go tell that to the family of Nick Berg and the widow of Daniel Pearl.;

What makes you think you have any idea what goes on in a secret prison? WE've seen the pictures. We know what they do.

'By the way, Hicks is a joke:

Hicks, who was captured in Afghanistan in December 2001, acknowledged that he trained with al Qaeda, fought against U.S. allies in Afghanistan in late 2001 for two hours, and then sold his gun to raise cab fare and tried to flee by taxi to Pakistan.'

Uh, huh. Sounds very scary. And how do you know any of it is true, and not coerced? Nbody in the world but a few hardcore [less thna 30%] at this point -- believe anything this administration says. They have no credibility. Neither do these faked up kangaroo courts. What happened with Hicks is just an example of the politicization of the legal system. If he is a terrorist, he should not be getting off. Which is it? Is he isn't, he shouldn't have been held without charged for five years.

Aamerica used to stand for justice and fairness in the world. Now it stands for nothing.

Posted by: drindl | April 2, 2007 11:55 AM | Report abuse

the geneva agreement pertains to uniformed soldiers of a particular country fighting other soldiers. this is not our foe. and as far as abu graib goes, I had worse treatment at summer camp. It is clear you libs have no stomach for a fight, except to bring our own country down. what is wrong with you?

I see ignorant noname coward is as spiteful and moronic as always.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 2, 2007 11:54 AM | Report abuse

the image of judith nathan stapling puppies and then killing them is memorable too.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Hellllooooo JD, The Bush administration trashed the Geneva Convention and holds whomever they want for however long they want and have expanded the guidelines for the use of torture.... remember Abu Graib.... where have you been.

Meuphy, good points about Romney. I think he's the poster boy for "it isn't just the money."

Hillary's "inevitable" approach to the candidacy helps her raise money, but it's about much more than that, at least in Iowa. In fact, her obscene buying of the presidency trumpeting won't sell here.

Posted by: Truth Hunter | April 2, 2007 11:47 AM | Report abuse

townhalll... what a joke. the neo-nazi round table is more like it.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 11:47 AM | Report abuse

That moment when, at ground zero, Giuliani said no thanks to the $10 million disaster relief check from the Saudi prince who criticized our country, makes for a powerful picture and memory. It works a lot more for me than the memory snapshot of Hillary embracing Yasser Arafat's wife.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 2, 2007 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Yet more responses to Mountain Man:

1. It's true that Dean lost the nomination. But because of his early success, he brought the Iraq war to a prominent place in the Democratic debates. By getting that early money, Dean forced the other candidates to adopt positions closer to his.
1.5. And look where Dean is now. He's head of the DNC, and his strategies helped the Democrats win big in the last election. He's still influencing the party. Compare that to other failed candidates from previous elections, most of whom just disappear after they lose the primary.
2. What's your obsession with Obama? We get it. You don't like him. Every post you make is some snide criticism of Obama. Did he run over your dog or something?

Posted by: Blarg | April 2, 2007 11:37 AM | Report abuse

so drindl, you believe Hicks was tortured for 5 years? Your evidence, please?

If you think sleep deprivation and loud music is torture, go tell that to the family of Nick Berg and the widow of Daniel Pearl.

By the way, Hicks is a joke:

Hicks, who was captured in Afghanistan in December 2001, acknowledged that he trained with al Qaeda, fought against U.S. allies in Afghanistan in late 2001 for two hours, and then sold his gun to raise cab fare and tried to flee by taxi to Pakistan.

Posted by: JD | April 2, 2007 11:37 AM | Report abuse

anon poster, I agree with you. I think Iran's nonsense by holding the British soldiers hostages is another example, breaking GC rules of warfare.

It's a fine line, what's allowed under warfare's 'rules' and what's not (like WMD, actual torture, parading captives on videotape, purposely targeting civilians). Pretty clear to me that only one side has been breaking these rules, and it isn't us.

BTW, I've never seen '24', although I'm getting ready to Netflix it - I want to start at day 1 or whatever, not come into it in the middle. I've heard it's good.

Posted by: JD | April 2, 2007 11:26 AM | Report abuse

george, as a resident of massachusetts, the state until recently afflicted with a romney governorship, i would urge you not to conflate fundraising results with political ability. romney was and is a successful businessman, hence his ability to hit up old wealthy republican cronies for cashola. however, he was a failure as massachusetts governor. i know what you're going to say - "balanced the MA budget without raising taxes," "universal health care," and "salt lake olympics."

to which i say: 1 - he raised fees substantially, which disproportionately affect less affluent taxpayers but are not referred to as "taxes," 2 - the universal health care was a product of the democratic leglislature, and he initially vetoed it because he didn't want to mandate contributions from employers not currently offering health care, and 3 - so what.

Posted by: meuphys | April 2, 2007 11:21 AM | Report abuse

JD - this country needs to have a major debate about what is and is not acceptable for our troops, the CIA and others actively involved in conflicts.

War isn't fought by the Marquess of Queensberry Rules. The bad guys now are becoming less and less identifiable than they have ever been before. Plus their rules are different from our rules (anything goes v. the Geneva Convention).

Unfortunately this Administration's approach is that they can do whatever they want to combat these guys. Life isn't "24" and what works for Jack Bauer on TV is simply Hollywood's formula for capturing an audience.

We have to give our troops clearer guidance on how to deal with combatants who want to appear like ordinary citizens.

Neither side in the debate will be pleased with the end result, but it will be more workable than sending out people with no guidance, but an inference that they can do anything they want.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Romney 23 million

Giuliani 17 million

New front runner?

Posted by: George | April 2, 2007 11:07 AM | Report abuse

mountain man - I never gave anything to Dean, but I did give a small donation to Obama. Dean never impressed me but Obama does.
Consider that not all populations of small donors are composed of the exact same voters. Also, even if you are going to compare to Dean, how much of that 40 million did he have in March 2003?? Not much....

Posted by: Golgi | April 2, 2007 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Oh Hillary, oh Hillary
We fund you as you run -
your loyal, sycophantic slaves
who know you are The One
We stagger, slack-jawed, toward the screen
We love your nasal whine
The platitudes, the attitudes
you think, "It must be mine!"
Your ideas may not be your own
Emotion may be canned
But your ambition, naked, real
With that we make our stand

Posted by: lylepinkie | April 2, 2007 11:01 AM | Report abuse

'All I'm saying is, there is the perception out there that the American left (and even moreso, Europe) is so in the bag for the terrorists that they don't even know who the bad guys are anymore.'

You're really getting incoherent. 'Who the bad guys are'? Is this a Western movie? They're the ones wearring the black hats, dude. Or I guess the turbans in this case. I guess I should just arrest my neighbor, the Pakistani engineer.

The fact is, we don't know who the 'bad guys' are. Are they the Sunni [after all, al-queda is Sunni]-- no they are supposedly our allies, you see. Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia. So they must be the Shia [after all the Shia are linked to Iran]. But no, we are trying to protect the Shia from the Sunni Ba'athists.

And of course, both of them are murdered our troops. but wait, we're there to give them 'freedom' --the 'freedom' to allow American and Brijtish oil companies to take all their oil. And by the way, a lot of them sure are getting killed getting 'freed.'

It's all politicsm, it's all a hoax. We took out Saddam for the Israelis and the Saudis and we'll take out Iran for them, too. Then the Sunnis [with Israel as their partner, which is already happening] will have complete control of the middle east. And then they will control ALL the oil.

what dupes we are.

Posted by: drindl | April 2, 2007 10:57 AM | Report abuse

btw, i wonder how much money and man hours were wasted imprisoning and interrogating david hicks for years - with what result? a 7 month sentence? what if we had applied that money to the national debt?

Posted by: meuphys | April 2, 2007 10:55 AM | Report abuse

The lies, the lies, one thing which you left out was the challenge to Andrea Mitchell by Joe Klein, that Petraeus actually met with the Republican caucus.

Klein says that Petraeus did not meet with the caucus.

Mitchell and Klein got into a back and forth which was at the point of getting nasty, but the topic hadn't moved on. Too bad. Both of them can't be correct.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | April 2, 2007 10:53 AM | Report abuse

mountain man, 2 things: 1, the mood in the country today is dramatically different from what it was in 2004. 2, obama has not yet, nor is he likely to "scream."

Posted by: meuphys | April 2, 2007 10:53 AM | Report abuse

the amount of money one is able to raise has little if any relationship to the quality of his / her ideas. it has a lot to do with connections - for example, those one has when one's spouse used to be the most powerful man in the world. take away the donors, and the husband, and hillary is a big nothin'. there is no 'there' there.

Posted by: meuphys | April 2, 2007 10:51 AM | Report abuse

To all the Obama fans who think that because of his young people's support, small donors and the power of the internet that he is sure to win I'd like to remind you of Howard Dean's impressive 40 million dollars he raised in small donor money and the interent and where Dean ended up.

Posted by: mountain man | April 2, 2007 10:50 AM | Report abuse

'If the situation were reversed, and an American soldier was captured by Taliban or insurgent forces while engaged in armed combat, do you think they would have been given a trial and/or opportunity to plea bargain?''

What has that got to do with the story? This Hicks guy was tortured for five years becauuse he's so 'dangerous' -- and now they're essentially just letting him off, becuase of Australlian politics.

If he's a dangerous terrorist, why is he going free? Which is it? And why is he not allowed to talk about what happened to him?

It's all so phony. It's all politics.

Posted by: drindl | April 2, 2007 10:48 AM | Report abuse

For those who have trouble finding the other blogs, there is a pop-up window which lists all of the blogs, about a third of the way down on the left side of the homepage under Opinions. It's actually been there for a long time.

For those who don't like the new homepage, the Post has a thread explaining it and for comments on it at:

My feeling is as one of the other blog's posters characterized it, the homepage has been "Dumbed down." Change does not necessarily equal good.

One reason for the change was that it was suggested to the editors that there needed to be more white space; too much clutter.

If the suggestion was that there needs to be more white space in the print edition, would the editors actually consider it?

What if it was that "There is too much clutter with the entries on the left side of the page opposite the Op-Ed page?"

Posted by: Nor'Easter | April 2, 2007 10:47 AM | Report abuse

anon poster, I hear you and agree, to some extent. But who was it who said the Constitution is not a suicide pact?

All I'm saying is, there is the perception out there that the American left (and even moreso, Europe) is so in the bag for the terrorists that they don't even know who the bad guys are anymore.

The comments by the other anon poster (or you? Come on, just put some initials up there please) about Hicks reinforces this.

I'm not saying that we should stoop to their level by cutting off heads on tape, etc., but a little perspective is in order I think.

Posted by: JD | April 2, 2007 10:44 AM | Report abuse

This morning on the Chris Matthews Show, NBC News' Andrea Mitchell revealed that Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, met "very recently" with the Senate Republican caucus to discuss their strategy on Iraq legislation.

"Petraeus went to the Republican caucus and told them, I will have real progress to you by August," Mitchell said. The Republicans claim they told him that after August, they will end their support for the war. "They have told him at a caucus meeting as very, very recently, that if there isn't progress by August -- and real progress means not a day of violence and a day of sanity -- that they will pull the plug."

Stunningly, Mitchell said that "moderate Republican" senators had told her that they didn't believe the escalation would work but voted for it anyway. "They really are not in favor of the surge. They don't believe it's going to work. But they basically said the president has until August, until Labor Day. After that, if it doesn't work, they're running."

Posted by: The lies, the lies | April 2, 2007 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Maybe the Post is trying to hide The Fix from the anonymous posters, to eliminate several dozen useless news posts every day. I come here often enough that it's saved in my Firefox address bar, so I don't click through the links.

I'd say something on-topic, but the topic is boring. There are so many better uses of $26 million than running a presidential primary campaign.

Posted by: Blarg | April 2, 2007 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Iraq's remaining doctors face a lack of basic medical equipment
The ordeal continues for victims of Iraq's violence when they are taken to hospital.

Most of the best medical staff have left after being targeted by insurgents. Many have fled the country just in the last few months.

Drugs and equipment are almost non-existent. The notorious militias target patients inside hospitals, and doctors inside the health ministry.

All this in a country that used to pride itself on the best medical services in the Middle East.

Many of the doctors have gone to neighbouring Jordan. There seem to be many thousands here, all with graphic tales of the horrors they have witnessed.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 10:32 AM | Report abuse

If the situation were reversed, and an American soldier was captured by Taliban or insurgent forces while engaged in armed combat, do you think they would have been given a trial and/or opportunity to plea bargain? - JD

JD, if we don't have some sort of moral base for ourselves, then why are we fighting these people? To do exactly as they do makes us no different from them. Are we fighting for our values, or to just wipe out any perceived threat?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 10:31 AM | Report abuse

A suicide bomber has blown up a truck near a police station and a school in the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk, killing at least 12 people.
More than 130 were injured in the blast, police said.

In other violence, the handcuffed bodies of 19 workers kidnapped north of Baghdad have been found.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 10:30 AM | Report abuse

agree about difficult new wp format.

Another solution would be to have a direct link on the front page to the list of ALL the wp blogs at

Then Fixers could get to their destination via two simple clicks, no ungainly menus.

Posted by: Golgi | April 2, 2007 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Experts estimate that up to 50,000 people worldwide suffer ciguatera poisoning each year, with more than 90 percent of cases unreported. Scientists say the risks are getting worse, because of damage that pollution and global warming are inflicting on the coral reefs where many fish species feed.

Dozens of popular fish types, including grouper and barracuda, live near reefs. They accumulate the toxic chemical in their bodies from eating smaller fish that graze on the poisonous algae. When oceans are warmed by the greenhouse effect and fouled by toxic runoff, coral reefs are damaged and poison algae thrives, scientists say.

"Worldwide, we have a much bigger problem with toxins from algae in seafood than we had 20 or 30 years ago," said Donald M. Anderson, director of the Coastal Ocean Institute at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts.

"We have more toxins, more species of algae producing the toxins and more areas affected around the world," he said.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 10:25 AM | Report abuse

pr 2, 2007 -- BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The bodies of 19 civilians kidnapped by gunmen at a fake checkpoint north of Baghdad were found on Monday, Iraqi police and hospital sources said.

They said all had been shot in the head and chest in one of the biggest mass kidnappings in months.

Gunmen kidnapped the civilians, men from a Shi'ite village near the city of Baquba, after stopping cars at a fake checkpoint on Sunday. The bodies were found not far from Baquba, which lies 65 km (40 miles) north of Baghdad.

Gunmen also kidnapped 14 policemen near Baquba, the provincial capital of Diyala province, a month ago. They were later found dead. Diyala is home to Shi'ites, Sunni Arabs and Kurds and has been the scene of relentless bloodshed.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 10:22 AM | Report abuse

AGHDAD, April 1 â€" Mortar attacks, suicide car bombs, roadside bombs, ambushes and gun battles killed at least two dozen people on Sunday, including four American soldiers, the authorities said.

The American military command said the soldiers were killed southwest of Baghdad just after midnight as they responded to an earlier bombing that had killed two other American soldiers. The insurgents have frequently tried to reap greater death tolls by carrying out attacks against rescue crews rushing to bomb sites.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 10:19 AM | Report abuse

A large part of the answer can be found in a BBC documentary titled Digging the Dirt, which was filmed during the 2000 campaign and never aired in the United States. The film centers on a team of Republican opposition researchers --a species that has existed in politics for eons but had recently undergone an evolutionary leap. From deep within the Republican National Committee headquarters the BBC tracked the efforts of this team, whose job it was to discredit and destroy Al Gore.

Political campaigns always attempt to diminish their opponents, of course. What was remarkable about the 2000 effort was the degree to which the process advanced beyond what Barbara Comstock, who headed the RNC research team, calls "votes and quotes"--the standard campaign practice of leaving the job of scouting the target to very junior staff members, who tend to dig up little more than a rival's legislative record and public statements. Comstock's taking over the research team marked a significant change. She was a lawyer and a ten-year veteran of Capitol Hill who had been one of Representative Dan Burton's top congressional investigators during the Clinton scandals that dominated the 1990s: Filegate, Travelgate, assorted campaign-finance imbroglios, and Whitewater. Rather than amass the usual bunch of college kids, Comstock put together a group of seasoned attorneys and former colleagues from the Burton Committee, including her deputy, Tim Griffin. "The team we had from 2000," she told me recently, to show the degree of ratcheted-up professionalism, "were veteran investigators from the Clinton years. We had a core group of people, and that core was attorneys."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 10:15 AM | Report abuse

You can understand why the Republican dirty tricksters seemed so confident about their ability to get members of the press corps to do their bidding. They had the same agenda. This November 2000 review of the film by Martin Lewis in TIME magazine shows the media were all too eager to help the Republicans advance their campaign narrative --- a narrative that I believe was at least partially devised because they knew the media's pre-existing loathing of Gore would make it irresistable. A loathing, by the way, that could be traced to the far too cozy relationships the press developed with the rightwing character assassins during the Lewinsky scandal when they were among that small minority of Americans who believed that Clinton should be driven from office over that ridiculous, trumped up sideshow:

The Bush campaign's brilliant intuition was that if this unattractive trait [embellishing his accomplishments] could be vulcanized as being the CORE of Gore rather than just one of the many aspects - good and bad of a man - then they were made. How to do this? Simple. Establish a massive database of every utterance in Gore's 26 years in public service - and then pounce on any and every discrepancy - like a bulldog lawyer seeking to impeach a witness. It wouldn't matter how tiny the variance. Any deviation could be characterized as an embellishment... an exaggeration... an untruth... a dishonesty... and then finally the word that would superglue Gore to Clinton. A lie.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Here's an interesting excerpt, featuring both Tim Griffin, the recently installed US Attorney in Arkansas and Mark Corallo the spokesman who replaced Barbara Comstock at the DOJ. (Monica Goodling is in the film but doesn't speak):

Tim Griffin and his colleagues do oppo - opposition research. It means they look for any slip by the enemy - Al Gore.

Research is a fundamental point. We think of ourselves as the creators of the ammunition in a war. Research digs up the ammunition.

You make the bullets.

That's right, we make the bullets.

I'm ready to just respond to anything that Gore says.

And they feed their anti-Gore research to the American press and TV.

It's an amazing thing when you have top line producers and reporters calling you and saying "We trust you, we need your stuff."

Posted by: the press sabotaged gore | April 2, 2007 10:06 AM | Report abuse

If the situation were reversed, and an American soldier was captured by Taliban or insurgent forces while engaged in armed combat, do you think they would have been given a trial and/or opportunity to plea bargain?

Your lack of perspective is almost comical.

Posted by: JD | April 2, 2007 10:03 AM | Report abuse

The recent cabinet agreement in Baghdad on the new draft oil law was hailed as a landmark deal bringing together the warring factions in the allocation of the country's oil wealth. What was concealed was that this is being forced through by relentless pressure from the US and will sow the seeds of intense future conflict, with serious knock-on impacts on the world economy.

The draft law, now before the Iraqi parliament, sets up "production sharing partnerships" to allow the US and British oil majors to extract Iraqi oil for up to 30 years. While Iraq would retain legal ownership of its oil, companies like Exxon, Chevron, Shell and BP that invest in the infrastructure and refineries would get a large share of the profits.

No other Middle Eastern oil producer has ever offered such a hugely lucrative concession to the big oil companies, since Opec has always run its oil business through tightly-controlled state companies. Only Iraq in its present dire condition, dependent on US troops for the survival of the government, lacks the bargaining capacity to resist.

This is not a new plan. According to documents obtained from the US State Department by BBC Newsnight under the US Freedom of Information Act, the US oil industry plan drafted early in 2001 for takeover of the Iraqi oilfields (after the removal of Saddam) was pushed aside by a secret plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, calling for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oilfields.

This secret plan was crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec cartel through massive increases in production above Opec quotas. However, Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA, who took control of Iraq's oil production for the US government a month after the invasion, stalled the sell-off scheme. As Ariel Cohen of the neo-conservative Heritage Foundation later told Newsnight, an opportunity had been missed to privatise Iraq's oilfields.

Now the plan is being revisited, or as much of it as can be salvaged after the fading of American power on the battlefield made enforced sell-off impossible. This revision of the original plan has been drafted by BearingPoint, a US consultancy firm, at the request of the US government. Significantly, it was checked first with Big Oil and the IMF and is only now being presented to the Iraqi parliament. But if accepted by the Iraqis under intense pressure, it will lock the country into weakness and dependence for decades. The neo-cons may have lost the war, but they are still manipulating to win the most substantial chunk of the peace when and if it ever comes.

Posted by: Why we're in Iraq | April 2, 2007 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Could the outcome of the Hicks case be any less legitimate?

On the one hand, you have Hicks being held for five years without trial amidst allegations of torture and other mistreatment, fighting simply to get a fair hearing. His case has become an internationally known example of the Bush Administration's blatant disregard for basic human rights.

On the other hand, you have the outcome of the case determined not by conventional Anglo-American standards of due process, including evidence presented to an impartial fact-finder, but by the political considerations of the Bush Administration and its ally Howard.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 9:42 AM | Report abuse

'We learn more of the sordid details of the plea agreement of Australian David Hicks, whose five-year detention by the U.S., mostly at Guantanamo Bay among the purportedly most dangerous of the dangerous, ended in a nine-month prison sentence.

The plea agreement, which includes a one-year gag order on Hicks, was not negotiated by the military tribunal's prosecutors but by the official overseeing the tribunals, reports the Post this morning. In fact, the agreement was reached without the knowledge of the prosecutors, who favored a much stiffer penalty.

In what became a highly politicized situation involving the Australian government, Crawford allowed Hicks a short sentence in exchange for a year-long gag order, a guarantee that he will not allege illegal treatment at the hands of his U.S. captors, and a waiver of any right to appeal or sue.
Though Australian officials have said they were not directly involved in plea negotiations, Mori declined to answer questions about what, if any, influence they had. Australian Prime Minister John Howard, up for reelection this year, has been under public pressure to bring Hicks home. He turned to Vice President Cheney to implore that the case be resolved. Crawford was the Defense Department's inspector general from 1989 to 1991, when Cheney was defense secretary.

"What an amazing coincidence that, with an election in Australia by the end of the year, he gets nine months and he is gagged for 12 months from talking about it," said Australian lawyer Lex Lasry, who was in Cuba to monitor the case over the past week.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 9:40 AM | Report abuse

'Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee: "If Republicans in this election vote in such a way as to say a candidate's personal life and personal conduct in office doesn't matter, then a lot of Christian evangelical leaders owe Bill Clinton a public apology."

Posted by: hilarious | April 2, 2007 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Two of the three leading Republican candidates for President either embrace or are open to embracing the idea that the President can imprison Americans without any review, based solely on the unchecked decree of the President. And, of course, that is nothing new, since the current Republican President not only believes he has that power but has exercised it against U.S. citizens and legal residents in the U.S. -- including those arrested not on the "battlefield," but on American soil.

What kind of American isn't just instinctively repulsed by the notion that the President has the power to imprison Americans with no charges? And what does it say about the current state of our political culture that one of the two political parties has all but adopted as a plank in its platform a view of presidential powers and the federal government that is -- literally -- the exact opposite of what this country is?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 9:37 AM | Report abuse

McCain declared earlier this week on CNN that the media was distorting the conditions on the ground in Iraq and that in fact you could stroll through many Baghdad neighborhoods, a rose-colored account that drew a quick rebuke from CNN's Michael Ware.

Aspell reports that McCain's "stroll" today through a Baghdad market was guarded by 100 American soldiers, three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships.

In his Dukakis-in-a-tank moment, McCain himself wore a bulletproof vest on his stroll.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 9:34 AM | Report abuse

What's with this ridiculous WaPo headline -- Dems to ignite conflict with bush'?

When he's the one that's going to veto anything they try to pass... why isn't it, 'bush ignite conflict with dems?'

Try a little harder okay? Don't be so conspiculously biased.

Posted by: Nat | April 2, 2007 9:32 AM | Report abuse

'Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA): "The Democrats' honeymoon is fixing to end. It's going to explode like an IED."

Maybe he can go try that one out on some of the kids over at Walter Reed.'

Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2007 9:29 AM | Report abuse

McCain tries to make the case that there has been modest improvement in Iraq, but the headline on the AP story is: "Truck Bomb Kills 13 in Northern Iraq."

Correspondents across Iraq are challenging McCain's earlier statement that there are parts of Baghdad where westerners can safely walk unarmed. The latest is CBS's Allen Pizzey:

"If the senator decides to hang out with the troops, he might take note of the signs and regulations that govern their conduct and provide a good indication as to how things are going here. Before leaving the sprawling U.S. base known as Camp Victory, which is adjacent to the Baghdad International Airport, there is a special place for weapons to be loaded, and anti-IED devices known as 'Warlocks' switched on. At every exit from the camps around the airport and the Green Zone there is a sign which reads: 'All Weapons Red. Lock and Load.' No one in their right mind goes on the streets here without security."

Well, everyone says there's a vacuum in the GOP field, so . . .

"Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson today joined the crowded field of Republicans running for the White House in 2008 and proclaimed himself the 'reliable conservative' in the race. Thompson, who was health and human services secretary during President Bush's first term, also said he is the only GOP candidate who has helped assemble both a state and federal budget."

Oh look, Tommy Thompson, -- the guy who cashed in big time on Medicare part D, wanting to be president so he can loot the rest of the Treasury. You know, after he set up the sweetest deal in hisstory for the big pharma companies, funneling piles of taxpayer money into their big, fat pockets, he takes a major job with them -- for about a 1000% raise. And a signing bonus.

You want to elect him after he's already sodomized you?

Posted by: Neville | April 2, 2007 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Wow, Judith Nathan sounds like Cruella De Ville. Nasty piece of business. Steals another woman's husband, alienates his children, murders puppies.

Typical gop I guess.

Posted by: Laredo | April 2, 2007 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Well, Rudy is already backing off what he told Barbara Walters:

"The Giuliani campaign issued a statement in which the former New York City mayor suggested that would not be the case.

" 'Obviously, she will not be a Cabinet member or attend most Cabinet meetings -- if any. But she will pursue a campaign to educate Americans on preventing illness and promoting overall health.' "

"Judith Giuliani once demonstrated surgical products for a controversial medical-supply company that used dogs - which were later killed - in operations whose only purpose was to sell equipment to doctors, The New York Post has learned.

" 'It was a horribly cruel, outrageous program'

Posted by: first lady dog killer | April 2, 2007 9:08 AM | Report abuse

Yawn. money money money. It would be nice if there were just one thing in this country that was about something besides money. You people don't seem to talk or think about anything else.

I don't like the new WaPo design either. HEy CC, tell them to unbury you.

Posted by: expat | April 2, 2007 9:06 AM | Report abuse

In my circle of friends and acquaintances, many self-identified democratic women are strong supporters of Sen. Clinton. However, no self-identified male democrats claim her as a first or second choice. There is a striking gender difference.

I ask: does anyone else notice this among their acquaintances, or is my anecdotal evidence truly local?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | April 2, 2007 7:59 AM | Report abuse

Not that big a deal if Obama raised 21 or 22 or more. Why? Because Hillary had Bill helping her. An expresident with numerous contacts and the strong arm mafia tactics they used should have squeezed out more concidering that Obama is somewhere in the Ballpark and did it by himself. No expresident and no strong arming or threats. And a relative newcomer. Hm. Wonder how much OLD Hillary would have raised by herself?

Posted by: vwcat | April 2, 2007 7:54 AM | Report abuse

Karen's implication is right:

Hillary may have raised marginally more money, but she's also spending a lot as well. She has a big staff, has been running for a long time (paying for infrastructures), and somehow I doubt her people stay at Motel 6's when travelling.

Dick Morris nailed this last week - he said that if the gap is a few million, it's nothing. If she were to raise double, then that would be something.

Posted by: JD | April 2, 2007 7:47 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is disliked by people who aren't part of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy." In fact, thats part of the dislike: there is no vast right wing conspiracy and Bill really was having sex with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office and Hillary Clinton is a liar.

Hard to know whats going on with these people giving her all these millions. Are they Democratic "lemmings" - because she is a bad bet for the general election with over 20% of self-identified Democrats saying they won't vote for her under any circumstances. Who are the Republicans going to pick that is so bad those people will change their minds, which have been made up about Hillary Clinton for many years?

Posted by: Leah | April 2, 2007 7:07 AM | Report abuse

One thing we need to remember - she is including her primary and general election contributions. Most candidates are only raising for the primary election (FEC rules).

Her actual fundraising number is probably half of the $36 million. She can not use the other half until she wins the primary.

Just wonder why it hasn't been reported?

Posted by: private please | April 2, 2007 5:56 AM | Report abuse

One thing we need to remember - this is a lot of money - but she is also including her primary and general contributions. Most candidates are only raising for the primary election (FEC rules).

Her actual fundraising number is probably half of the $36 million. She can not use the other half until she wins the primary.

Just wonder why it hasn't been reported?

Posted by: private please | April 2, 2007 5:55 AM | Report abuse

Kandi: Those numbers are quite good, once we get the total $$ from Obama, we'll have an idea of how the younger folk are involved. Thanks.

Posted by: lylepink | April 2, 2007 5:36 AM | Report abuse

To be honest with you, I'm disappointed. While I personally wish Hillary no ill will, and feel she would probably do a respectable job in the WH **Certainly more so than the present occupant**, but I believe she carries too much negative baggage for the US to have her as president at this time. We truly need a Uniter right now, not our Divider-in-Chief, and not someone who the vast right-wing conspiracy truly hates with a passion. Whether there's a good reason for the animosity towards her or not, it's well entrenched, and virtually impossible to change someone's opinion on Hillary. Best she can do is the Dems, and a portion of Independents. This is one Ind that will vote Liberterian or Green before voting for Hillary. I'm so sad that Mark Warner from Virginia bailed so early, he did tremendous good for VA, was fiscally and socially responsible, and relatively moderate.

Posted by: Fred Evil | April 2, 2007 4:05 AM | Report abuse

The writings on the wall...She's out front.

Posted by: eNews Reference | April 2, 2007 1:35 AM | Report abuse

I have looked at the number of people donated to the three candidates of the democratic party.
Obama -- 85,000
Clinton -- 50,000
Edwards -- 37,000
These numbers are quite interesting. Spin the numbers as much as you want.

Posted by: Kandi | April 2, 2007 1:24 AM | Report abuse

I think the raised moey has to be reported to the FEC, but I am not sure if all names and amounts are available to the public. Seems as if it should be, but I just don't know. Maybe a good measure would be an average, but then the problem is with the donors that max out in each cycle, so I would like to hear from someone that knows how it works.

Posted by: lylepink | April 2, 2007 12:49 AM | Report abuse

I don't know if the press is again lax toward a candidate because the candidate seems to be hot. But it seems to me that contributions could be a sign of popular support or corruption. The number of contributors is meaningless unless the contributions are bracketd. In other words, of the total amount of contributions how many sources gave within these brackets: 1 million or more, 500,000, 250,000, 100,000, 50,000, 25,000, 10,000, 5,000, 1,000, 500, 100, 50, 25, 10, 5, 1. If this data was provided, that would tell the demographics story. It would also tell how many big money contributors she has and how beholden she is. Disclosure should also show what percentage of money is coming from what percentage of sources: for examople 90% of the money was given by xx% of the contributors; 80% by xx%, etc, that tells the real story. Instead, only two metrics are given: the total amount and the total number of sources; with this data, its an easy task of creating window dressing to cover up the number of large contributors to whom she's beholden and give the impression of broad support.

Posted by: robert | April 1, 2007 11:30 PM | Report abuse

The polls are all over the place. I have maintained all along there is a hidden vote for Hillary and I get calls from time to time and the folks are telling me the sae thing. My crystal ball still tells me Hillary is the one to beat, and I do not think she will be.

Posted by: lylepink | April 1, 2007 11:02 PM | Report abuse

Specifically, Hillary's campaign noted several key numbers demonstrating the overwhelming depth and breadth of Clinton's support:

- $26 million raised in new receipts since launching her campaign on January 20

-80 percent of the contributions were $100 or less.

-$4.2 million raised on the internet (including $1 million in a week during the One Week, One Million campaign, and nearly $600,000 online in the 36 hours preceding the deadline)

-$6 million in total grassroots donations (internet plus direct mail and telemarketing receipts)

-50,000 donors (tens of thousands of them new donors)

-Contributions received from residents of all 50 states (plus Washington, DC)

Posted by: Great Success For Hillary | April 1, 2007 10:59 PM | Report abuse

How much did they spend? That's the real question. Obama's bad week continues on

Posted by: William | April 1, 2007 10:01 PM | Report abuse

Money is important, but I think the 2004 primary prove that is how much you have, but rather if you have enough to get through Iowa and the following month. Couple that with a resonating message and your in good standing. Dean had money gallore, but once Kerry and Edwards got next to him in debates and forums, they smoked him with ease. Clinton is the money maker, not Hilary. Get It?

Posted by: Mingo | April 1, 2007 9:58 PM | Report abuse

A break down needs to be done on this money.Some people think that it is from big business.I think that there is a very good chance that it is jewish/AIPAC money.People taking this kind of money have to have suspect loyalties.We are in a war in Iraq because of this kind of money.This kind of money is a direct threat to our Republic.

Posted by: Ricardo | April 1, 2007 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton's Lawyers Seek to Halt Fraud Suit, by Fred Lucas, Staff Writer, March 27, 2007

Attorneys for Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) are trying to keep her out of a lawsuit that may ultimately force her to testify under oath about an alleged violation of campaign finance laws. Peter Paul, the Hollywood businessman who is suing both Bill and Hillary Clinton and others, alleges that fraudulent actions by the Clintons and others cost him his multi-million dollar Internet venture.

Paul claims to have been the largest contributor to Sen. Clinton's U.S. Senate campaign, spending $1.9 million to hold a 2000 fundraising gala attended by Hollywood celebrities including Whoopi Goldberg, John Travolta and Brad Pitt.

After investigating the matter, the FEC ruled that Sen. Clinton's 2000 campaign committee underreported cash it received at the fundraising event Paul sponsored and slapped the campaign committee with a $35,000 fine. The Clinton campaign committee also amended financial reports to show Paul's share of the production costs were understated by $721,000. The legal limit for an individual to contribute was $2,000 at the time.

"She really doesn't want to go on the stand," Paul's attorney said, adding the senator's delay tactics could drag the case right into the 2008 election cycle. "The timing could end up particularly disastrous for Hillary."

Hillary will never have a problem getting money. She somehow managed to get someone to spend $1.9 million on a fundraiser when the max you could contribute was $2,000. Then she only got fined $35,000. So essentially she got to keep $1.865 million after paying her fine. How's that for a loophole in the campaign finance laws? And Hillary, and Bill, know every loophole.

Posted by: tarheel | April 1, 2007 9:36 PM | Report abuse

4.2M online is OKAY .. over a month ago Obama had about 8M from online donors.

Posted by: sjxylib | April 1, 2007 8:09 PM | Report abuse

I saw on the NY Times Caucus blog that Dodd raised $4 million and Edwards raised $14 million and the Clinton campaign isn't releasing cash on hand. She spent about $36 million on a non-race for reelection last year so it would be interesting to see how she's burning the money.

Edwards campaign must go through a lot of money, too. He's always putting out press releases on hiring new staff.

I'm for Obama and contributed $85 this quarter plus got 3 relatives to make $10 contributions each so I feel very excited that the Obama fundraising is supposed to have gone very well.

Posted by: Karen | April 1, 2007 8:04 PM | Report abuse


I also hate the new wp format. Politics and metro should have headlines on the front page. I don't want to have to click to another page just to read some headlines.

Posted by: mountain man | April 1, 2007 8:03 PM | Report abuse


When are you going to turn to policy issues instead of platitudes?

Posted by: roo | April 1, 2007 8:02 PM | Report abuse

If Obama did raise 22 million good for him, but I think he is going to run into real problems in the next few quarters. Obama's polling numbers have been up and down and a lot of his eary small donor money will dry up once he is no longer the shiney and new candidate. He's made some big mistakes latly and once people realize that he isn't perfect Obama's numbers will fall.

On another note I have to say I was surprised and impressed that Bill Richardson raised 6 million. He could be the real dark horse candidate to watch.

Posted by: mountain man | April 1, 2007 7:58 PM | Report abuse

The US could save a fortune running elections if it cancelled them and put up a For Sale sign. It could turn the race into a Tender Process with the highest office going to the highest bidder. What could be fairer than that? Then you wouldn't have to worry about policies just as you didn't when Dubya The Decider bought his victories.

Posted by: Robert James | April 1, 2007 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Hillary raised $4.2 million on the Internet. Hope you folks will get in on the winning team.

Posted by: lylepink | April 1, 2007 7:15 PM | Report abuse

So what? There are a finite number of fire breathing radical feminists and she has already tapped them. Once the genral public becomes aware of her ties to big corporations and her anti-worker activities, she is toast. Other than her feminist blatherings she is no different than Bush - outsource jobs, increase H1B, L1 and other guest worker visas, etc. She is a necon and therfore the enemy of every thinking man and woman.

Posted by: MikeB | April 1, 2007 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Worse than expected for Hillary. If she really does have only a $4 million gap, it's maybe half of what was expected. It's not clear she has as much big donor money to tap as Obama has small donor money. And if she gets behind in fundraising, it's probably all over since she's running as the inevitability candidate.

Posted by: Nissl | April 1, 2007 6:58 PM | Report abuse

The Fix: That is all you need in your favorites and it goes right to Tha Fix. The money is no suprise, Hillary will continue raising more money than anyone else for the simple reason the dems expect her to be the next POTUS, and they are betting on a winner.

Posted by: lylepink | April 1, 2007 6:56 PM | Report abuse

As a Hillary supporter (and online contributor), many congratulations to our fundraising team for a job well done. I doubt that the junior senator from Illinois has raised more than $26 million, which means that we will hold the record for first quarter fundraising!

Now we can turn our foucus to Q2 fundraising, which we will win as well.

Great job Hillary!

Posted by: Isaiah | April 1, 2007 6:46 PM | Report abuse

So how much did all those GOPee'rs raise?

Posted by: goofticket | April 1, 2007 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Hill's cash ain't nuthin' but trash. Unless she masters the art of faking sincerity, she will be rejected as a phony by too many voters to win.

Posted by: JTSpangler | April 1, 2007 6:12 PM | Report abuse

So Hillary raised $20 million from big donors? I think her campaign is in trouble. Typically, big donors tend to max out their contributions with $2,300 donations. They can't give more than that. And it looks like the gave the max to Hillary in the first quarter.

What sustains any campaign in the long run are small donors.

Posted by: Karen | April 1, 2007 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is raising the most money, so far. Yet over 45 percent of the voters say they will not vote for her, and most of the rest are behind one of the other 20 or so candidates.

That could only mean one thing about her donation base. Clinton is getting most of her money from big business.

No wonder so many people will not vote for her, she is not beholden to them.

Posted by: KEVIN SCHMIDT, STERLING VA | April 1, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

she claims 50,000 donors. Edwards has 35,000 ONLINE donors, and Obama has over 80,000 donors. She might have set a record, but she might find it tough to match those two in the second and third quarters.

Posted by: will c | April 1, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

just another comment on the wpost site re-design. It's harder to find the fix than it should be.

Posted by: chris camp | April 1, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

This isn't news unless there are opponents to compare it with. Hopefully they wont be far behind. If Obama has 22 million, I'd wonder how much Dodd has. Hell I'm more interested in seeing how Dodd does period, because he's supposed to be raking it in.

Posted by: Justin Perez | April 1, 2007 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Terry McAwful raised millions in those illegal White House coffee klatches, and Charlie Trie, John Hang, and so on were being indicted for illegal donations and links to foreign nations. Hey, Wash Post, do some homework and find all that data about those illegal fundraising efforts back in 1994.

Yes, the Democrats got clobbered in 1994, and that was based on the Hillarycare scam, and OLD BILL's crusade for gays in the military.

Barack Obama will give OLD Hillary a run for her money, and maybe Edwards will race past them all when the votes get cast.
Remember this, 50% of the nation already knows Hillary and would not vote for her.
She is Lady MacBeth, a powerhungry witch.
We had the 2 for the price of 1 thing, and she got to run the White House for 8 years. She was Co-President and we don't want her or her husband back.

Posted by: Joe | April 1, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

And Hillary will need every dollar of it to explain her Iraq War vote. The problem is all her opponents are ignoring her, so that should make it easier for her.

Posted by: Justin Perez | April 1, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

I concur - I can barely find the Fix these days on the WP site. I don't think there was even a link up to it yesterday. Would have sent in a comment - but couldn't figure out how to do that either!

Luckily Iowa and New Hampshire are known for retail politics. Hillary Clinton's financial advantage will mean little here, where voters will meet most candidates personally. Unfortunately, if Hillary Clinton fares poorly in Iowa, she can still blanket the February 5th states with ads.

Posted by: Jeff | April 1, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Um, last time McAuliffe raised a lot as chairman of something , the Dems got wiped out (2004 election). Let's remember that money doesn't but elections

Posted by: freeDom | April 1, 2007 3:32 PM | Report abuse

And I agree with D, this current setup on the post home page is terrible. I cant read any of the things I like without clicking a million links.

Posted by: George | April 1, 2007 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Im hearing Obama raised a little over 22 million. We'll see though

Posted by: George | April 1, 2007 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Why is your blog so hard to link to from the Post's homepage now? I hope someone is working out the kinks in the latest redesign.

Posted by: D | April 1, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company