The Obama campaign is painting Clinton as a serial exaggerator after her Bosnian Sniper incident, helping bring peace to Northern Ireland, how she was instrumental in passing SCHIP and the Family and Medical Leave Act - while Obama is still trying to change the subject after his reversal on whether he knew about or heard any of his mentor's rants. Now the Washington Post reports (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/29/AR2008032902031.html?wpisrc=newsletter) Obama has exaggerated the Kennedys role in bringing his father to America.


Addressing civil rights activists in Selma, Ala. a year ago, Sen. Barack Obama traced his "very existence" to the generosity of the Kennedy family, which he said paid for his Kenyan father to travel to America on a student scholarship and thus meet his Kansan mother.

The Camelot connection has become part of the mythology surrounding Obama's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. After Caroline Kennedy endorsed his candidacy in January, Newsweek commentator Jonathan Alter reported that she had been struck by the extraordinary way in which "history replays itself" and by how "two generations of two families -- separated by distance, culture and wealth -- can intersect in strange and wonderful ways."

It is a touching story -- but the key details are either untrue or grossly oversimplified.

Contrary to Obama's claims in speeches in January at American University and in Selma last year, the Kennedy family did not provide the funding for a September 1959 airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the United States that included Obama's father. According to historical records and interviews with participants, the Kennedys were first approached for support for the program nearly a year later, in July 1960. The family responded with a $100,000 donation, most of which went to pay for a second airlift in September 1960.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton acknowledged yesterday that the senator from Illinois had erred in crediting the Kennedy family with a role in his father's arrival in the United States. He said the Kennedy involvement in the Kenya student program apparently "started 48 years ago, not 49 years ago as Obama has mistakenly suggested in the past."

Or in other words, "I owed my 'very existence' to the Kennedys before I didn't owe my 'very existence' to the Kennedys?

Today, my paper printed an article about Obama's bowling adventure on Saturday (he reportedly scored a 37) "as part of his new emphasis on low-key, face-to-face campaigning," in which he was quoted as saying he wanted to "take time for the retail politics that I enjoy and think helps people know me better.. . We'll probably save the rallies toward the end of the campaign (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004316083_apbowlingforvoters.html?syndication=rss )."

Immediately below that article was one entitled "Obama's Penn State Rally Draws 20000 (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isOFwdbq0tsqatW6vJpkDRTI1gMgD8VO36580)."

Well, Sunday is later than Saturday. Seriously folks... race, gender and party aside is this what you want in a president, someone who either can't tell the truth or can't distinguish fact from fantasy?

The better question is can ANY politician tell the truth! Frankly I don't think so. A politician tells you what he thinks you want to hear or what he thinks will get him votes.

Agreed Scott, but believe it or not I do think there are politicians of integrity on both sides... not that any really come to mind at the moment :D

Still, these two can't seem to get out of CYA mode lately and I don't see their opponent having to cover his tracks for making stuff up. True?

Not in Hillary's case: I watched on C-Span her speech in Constitution Hall, March 26, 2008. According to her, the voters are stupid victims, unable to afford food, gas, medical care, etc. but she going to fix that by raising taxes. Uh huh. The politics of fear and envy, Democrat style. I'm not ashamed to say she is not patriotic because she is no patriot. We are serfs; she's a queen, according to Hillary.

George, I question her experience, qualifications, judgment, character and her vision for this country - but I don't question her patriotism. Yet.

Factcheck.org supports Hillary's claim on SCHIP (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/giving_hillary_credit_for_schip.html) (see ex, when the facts changed... ). I did not however come across any support on her claims to be named after Sir Edmund Hillary, her soccer fantasy or Chelsea's jog around the World Trade Center on 9/11.

God these threads are getting tiresome.

God these threads are getting tiresome.

So are the liars running for office, NK. But, if they're too tiresome for you then don't bother. As an American looking ahead to the next American president after 8 years of hearing ad nauseum about "Bush's lies," I find it entirely relevant.

Steve-

Huh? Are you alluding to the standards set by the Grand Old "Illusion" Party? The fact you excluded the Republicans suggests you've been hugging the Mad Dog before noon. Just a little reminder! Dubya ran one of the nastiest campaigns (2000 Rep primaries) against his then rival, "John McCain." Why do you think John McCain was so tentative to shake hands with the lying rattlesnake? Currently the cleaner campaigns are ran by Obama and McCain, at least thus far. It's obvious the facts mean very little to the Clinton's that have been doing anything and everything to gain control of the nomination.

Obama has exaggerated the Kennedys role in bringing his father to America.


He misspoke .

For those who think he has shaken of the effect of the Rev Wright revelations they are wrong . This issue will resonate throughout the rest of the campaign. Obama's veneer has been pealed away. Just wait until reporters start digging into his past when he was a " community activist " .

Steve-

Huh? Are you alluding to the standards set by the Grand Old "Illusion" Party? The fact you excluded the Republicans suggests you've been hugging the Mad Dog before noon. Just a little reminder! Dubya ran one of the nastiest campaigns (2000 Rep primaries) against his then rival, "John McCain." Why do you think John McCain was so tentative to shake hands with the lying rattlesnake?

Um, no Bobby, I'm referring to the present campaign.


Currently the cleaner campaigns are ran by Obama and McCain, at least thus far.

Are you serious? Where is the sleaze factor from McCain? Have you read any of the DNC emails? Paid attention to the Democratic candidates?


It's obvious the facts mean very little to the Clinton's that have been doing anything and everything to gain control of the nomination.

True, and kind of discredits your previous remarks my friend. :)

is this what you want in a president, someone who either can't tell the truth or can't distinguish fact from fantasy?
No, after eight years of it, I'm definitely ready for a change.

Steve I have to say that I think this one is a little nit picky. They aren't flat out lies to your face bullsh1t. They may be a little exaggerated but honestly tell me a politician in history that hasn't exaggerated a little, especially during an election year.

Um, no Bobby, I'm referring to the present campaign.

You titled the post painting it with a broad stroke "Can the Democrats tell the truth." I know it hurts the GOP to be reminded of the previous Bush vs McCain death match, but I felt obligated to my country. It was my patriotic duty. :rolleyes:



Are you serious? Where is the sleaze factor from McCain? Have you read any of the DNC emails? Paid attention to the Democratic candidates?

And what part of "Currently the cleaner campaigns are ran by Obama and McCain, at least thus far," do you not understand? Steve, I gave your boy credit. John has to sit back and watch the Democrats for now, but don't think his negative tone doesn't resonate for pending dissension against Obama.

Per John McCain: "I will … make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change that promises no more than a holiday from history and a return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than the people."

It's coming Steve. Hillary started trying to go after Barack on relative issues and then had to resort to toilet tricks. John's only problem will be developing new negatives since Hillary's wearing the subject out. See what I know is that John really wants this presidency, every bit as much as Hillary. This is John McCain's last hurrah.


True, and kind of discredits your previous remarks my friend. :)

Not at all. The Obama campaign compared to the Clinton campaign is heavenly. Obama has not gone after McCain except for issues that McCain himself has brought up and then John pays, and pays dearly. ;)

Back to Hillary for a moment: "Is there no such thing as shame? Is there no decency at last?" The real harm Hillary Clinton inflicted on Bosnia. - By Christopher Hitchens - Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/id/2187780/pagenum/2)

As for Obama, I never really understood John Kerry's definition of 'nuance' until recently, which is, evidently, the willingness to lie with a straight face: Obama had greater role on liberal survey - Kenneth P. Vogel - Politico.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html)

Can the Democrats tell the truth? Hello Steve:

So, I'm willing to give your dufus in chief, the HEAD OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, a break in that he really thought Iraq had WMD's...

But, during the first 4 years of the war, he kept telling us there was progress, where there was none.

In my view, LYING about the war, where your sons and daughters are getting shot at, is a little worse than lying about your accomplishments...

That's just me. I can tell the difference between a little lie, and A GREAT BIG WHOPPER!! You can't?? Dude!

excon

The better question is can ANY politician tell the truth! Frankly I don't think so. A politician tells you what he thinks you want to hear or what he thinks will get him votes.

LOL Scott, I said outloud the same words.

Why do they do that. It's almost insulting in a way to think we buy into it all. Actually, it is.

I bet the first one that stood up, spoke his or her mind, sharing his or her views and plans to keep America strong, I would bet they would win by a landslide.

But then again, we all have to do our part as well and not vote along party lines. Not all do, but some, I think would never "cross over", so to speak.

I bet the first one that stood up, spoke his or her mind, sharing his or her views and plans to keep America strong, I would bet they would win by a landslide. A lot of people thought that was Ron Paul. Rarely has a candidate received so much support from the regular joe.

NK ;why didn't they show up for him in the primaries and caucus' then ? He had his shot.

Don't know.

I do know. His support was actually limited and fringe. But they made a lot of noise ,were passionate ,and they are internet savy .

A lot of people thought that was Ron Paul. Rarely has a candidate received so much support from the regular joe.


So then why? Why isn't he still in the running? I guess financial backing, which only adds to the problems.

NK ;why didn't they show up for him in the primaries and caucus' then ? He had his shot.

Hi Tom,

I have to admit myself, that the media focused so much on Hillary and Obama so much, that everyone else was in the shadows, and hard to even to be seen or even heard.

I liked Edwards... a lot...

I just hope we are going to be okay and move forward, no matter who gets in.

I do know. His support was actually limited and fringe. But they made alot of noise ,were passionate ,and they are internet savy .Your country needs more people like that.

Allheart . Edwards had as much name recognition going in as anyone in the race. Perhaps the people are not as moved by his populist 2 Americas rhetoric as he thought.

Allheart . Edwards had as much name recognition going in as anyone in the race. Perhaps the people are not as moved by his populist 2 Americas rhetoric as he thought.


:) So what do you really think of Edwards Tom :) Just kidding.

But the spotlight seemed to be on Hillary and Obama. You have to admit it was huge.

You titled the post painting it with a broad stroke "Can the Democrats tell the truth." I know it hurts the GOP to be reminded of the previous Bush vs McCain death match, but I felt obligated to my country. It was my patriotic duty. :rolleyes:

Always helpful :)


And what part of "Currently the cleaner campaigns are ran by Obama and McCain, at least thus far," do you not understand? Steve, I gave your boy credit. John has to sit back and watch the Democrats for now, but don't think his negative tone doesn't resonate for pending dissension against Obama.

Sorry, you did - I need new glasses. Seriously, I can hardly see the screen any more, lol. That third glass of wine didn't help either :D


Per John McCain: "I will … make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change that promises no more than a holiday from history and a return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than the people."

It's coming Steve. Hillary started trying to go after Barack on relative issues and then had to resort to toilet tricks. John's only problem will be developing new negatives since Hillary's wearing the subject out. See what I know is that John really wants this presidency, every bit as much as Hillary. This is John McCain's last hurrah.

I have no doubt it's going to get uglier, I'm just baffled by all of these fantasies of Clinton and Obama. Do they really think we're that stupid?


Not at all. The Obama campaign compared to the Clinton campaign is heavenly. Obama has not gone after McCain except for issues that McCain himself has brought up and then John pays, and pays dearly. ;)

The only thing Obama seems to have on McCain is misrepresenting his "100 years" statement. Even the DNC has been howling for weeks about telling the 'truth' about the "real John McCain" and nothing has stuck. Not... one... thing.

Steve I have to say that I think this one is a little nit picky. They aren't flat out lies to your face bullsh1t. They may be a little exaggerated but honestly tell me a politician in history that hasn't exaggerated a little, especially during an election year.

Apparently you don't see the symbolism and emotions evoked in Obama relating his "very existence" to the Kennedys of Camelot while addressing civil rights activists in Selma and telling them:


"So the Kennedys decided 'we're going to do an airlift. We're going to go to Africa and start bringing young Africans over to this country and give them scholarships to study so they can learn what a wonderful country America is.' This young man named Barack Obama got one of those tickets and came over to this country. He met this woman whose great-great-great-great-grandfather had owned slaves. . . . So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born."

That's BS if ever I heard it. And you know, it wasn't me but the Washington Post, one of the most liberal papers in the country that broke this story. Apparently they thought it was worth mentioning.

Hello Steve:

So, I'm willing to give your dufus in chief, the HEAD OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, a break in that he really thought Iraq had WMD's...

Someone pick me up off the floor...


That's just me. I can tell the difference between a little lie, and A GREAT BIG WHOPPER!! You can't?? Dude!

Sure I can. I also know that while Bush claimed progress in Iraq he also acknowledged on many occasions there were setbacks, there was more work to do, that he knew the American people weren't satisfied with the situation and that he wasn't either. Nevertheless, I'm not happy with how things went in Iraq and have been critical of Bush... but he is the president we have now. You should know I'm not pleased with any of the choices, but I have to wonder why anyone should trust these two Democrats that can't seem to stop making stuff up all of a sudden as the NEXT president.

No, after eight years of it, I'm definitely ready for a change.

OK, I'll play along... in YOUR view do you want ANOTHER president that can't tell the difference between fact and fantasy. ;)

OK, I'll play along...in YOUR view do you want ANOTHER president that can't tell the difference between fact and fantasy. ;)Considering McCain is another Bush then the answer is a big NO!

I'm with Ordinary Guy - I'm ready for a change as well.

Not that I dislike President Bush, he's my President, and Commander in Chief at the moment, so I respect him as much.

I also think it takes more then one man to cause all of this upset and kind of feel bad that it all lays on his shoulders.

I do wonder in his personal private moments, how he feels about it all. It must get to him.
I just hope, that although, there are so many that may disagree with his choices, that he, feels he did his personal best. I am just grateful I am not in those shoes, that's for sure.

I just hope that the next President, can bring more harmony, both domestically and abroad.

Politics is definitely a 'grown-up's sport', especially for the participants. The office of President of the United States is no place for pathogenic liars or inexperienced wannabes with an identity crisis.
I recall just after 9/11, President Bush said that he was dedicating the remainder of his presidency to winning the war on terror. You might recall that the U.S. had done most nothing about terrorism during the Clinton years, other than create a firewall between intelligence sharing between CIA and FBI. That is when I first thought that Bush might be a little 'extreme'; now, it appears he was prophetic.
Lying seems to me endemic with Democrats: Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama. If I were a Democrat, I would say, 'Sure, all politicians lie.'
And, there are different kinds of lies, such as the lie Nixon got caught up in, in a cover-up of what happened on his watch. But I have no recollection of Reagan lying, though partisans will say he did; and I have no recollection of W lying, either as candidate or president.
excon wants to make an issue with Bush giving progress reports on the war in Iraq, as if they were lies. But isn't Bush the 'captain' of his team? Isn't the captain supposed to keep his team focused and involved? And playing to win? As for the progress reports being misleading or in error, did anyone anticipate the role played by Iran? What has Hillary or Obama or Pelosi or Reid had to say about Iran interfering in Iraq? What has the UN done about it?

George, I so agree that in the years prior to President Bush, there were areas, seriously lacking attention, to the point of almost disgrace.

One thing I do admire about him, he continued his path despite all the lashing, whether earned or not. No caving, nothing.

I honestly do thank him and am grateful to anyone that holds or has held that position.

Just wish all the mudsligging and falsehoods would be no longer. I live in a dream world, I know.

NK ;why didn't they show up for him in the primaries and caucus' then ? He had his shot.


I would had gone about managing Ron Paul's campaign differently. Some of it has to do with R. Paul being very good at getting his points across, one on one, which he didn't do enough of. The other problem is he ran into was that he simply was ostracized by other top candidates in the Republican party and not invited to some of the primary debates. I don't know what kind of budget R. Paul was working on, I'm sure smaller than others. But he needed more appearances in interview situations nationally and that could had helped. His fewer numbers in votes doesn't represent the man's ideas as bad. Bush was selected twice in charge of our country and yet now his ratings have plunged even among those that voted him.

I'm with Ordinary Guy - I'm ready for a change as well.

Not that I dislike President Bush, he's my President, and Commander in Chief at the moment, so I respect him as much.

I also think it takes more then one man to cause all of this upset and kinda feel bad that it all lays on his shoulders.

I do wonder in his personal private moments, how he feels about it all. It must get to him.
I just hope, that although, there are so many that may disagree with his choices, that he, feels he did his personal best. I am just grateful I am not in those shoes, that's for sure.

I just hope that the next President, can bring more harmony, both domestically and abroad.

Allheart, I think we're all ready for change. But contrary to what the left is saying we're going to get change whether we like it or not. McCain is NOT going to offer a "third Bush term" like Howard Dean and Obama keep saying.

Considering McCain is another Bush then the answer is a big NO!

Been listening to Obama and Howard Dean have you? Fortunately for us NK, it's not your choice to make :D

I'll do my part to counter your constant negative posts and mudslinging... when I have the time (it's not my life's ambition as it is yours) :D

I don't know what kind of budget R. Paul was working on, I'm sure smaller than others.

He led in fund raising by a long shot. Just another example that money can't buy the Presidency.

He was only excluded in later debates after it was clear that he was marginal and only taking time away from serious contenders. Since the networks for right or wrong host the debates they are played under their game rules.

Again ;I don't think that was decisive because his campaign was just not resonating with the majority of the Republican voters. As for his exposure ;he was a frequent guest on the various FOX broadcasts . Not sure about the other networks ;but the only Republican it seems who are welcome there are John McCain and any other Republican who opposes various aspects of the Bush Presidency .

Allheart, I think we're all ready for change. But contrary to what the left is saying we're going to get change whether we like it or not. McCain is NOT going to offer a "third Bush term" like Howard Dean and Obama keep saying.


No, I definitely don't think having McCain is a third term Bush... at all. And they are just saying that to put off/scare those voters who really are unhappy with the current Bush Administration.

There may be some similarities, but I seriously doubt a rubber stamp term with Sen. McCain. He seems the type that drives his own ship ( boy, did I leave myself open for that one).

I'll do my part to counter your constant negative posts and mudslinging....when I have the time (it's not my life's ambition as it is yours) :D

LOL, I'm more interested in making music but some of you can't seem to get the rhythm right :D

LOL, I'm more interested in making music but some of you can't seem to get the rhythm right But yet you never seem to answer any music posts.

But yet you never seem to answer any music posts.

And you never seem to have much of anything positive to say either, or acknowledge when I do say something positive - such as the numerous times I've reminded you and the board about my defense of Obama's patriotism and said I liked the guy.

By the way, I said I like to "make" music, not answer posts like "I really need ideas on rap songs." Also, I don't see a "music" category here either.

And you never seem to have much of anything positive to say eitherOne can simply look at all my posts to see how false that is.


such as the numerous times I've reminded you and the board about my defense of Obama's patriotism and said I liked the guy. Yet you start a thread titled "Can Democrats tell the truth?" and end your "question" that ends with "..is this what you want in a president, someone who either can't tell the truth or can't distinguish fact from fantasy" Yep, that really sounds like you like the guy. :rolleyes:


Also, I don't see a "music" category here either.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/music/

Does anyone know the potential running mates for either side?

I was just wondering.

All speculation

Obama may go for an ex military type and centrist like Jim Webb or Wesely Clark ;or he may try to balance the ticket with a Southerner like John Edwards (although I doubt he is inclined to run as 2nd fiddle again) .I think Bill Richardson set himself up nicely for a nod at Veep also.

Hillary really likes Evan Bayh of Indiana .Also Chris Dodd is a possibility and so is Jim Webb . He is a choice for both so the Dems can continue their Trojan Horse strategy . Her best choice would probably be Obama if she gets the nomination .

I have already floated some names for McCain. I still think Chris Cox would satisfy many Republican fence sitters. Bobby Jindal is less likey . I will also float the names Colin Powell;Fla Gov Charles Crist who pretty much sealed the nomination for McCain . Haley Barbor Gov of Mississippi who did the Katrina job that the La. Governor failed to do. He should not pick the Huckster or Romney . He is also very friendly with Lindsey Graham but I think the Republicans should keep whoever they can in the Senate and House .I am also notthrilled about these Rick Perry rumors. An intriguing selection would be Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska but she does not advance the electoral count so she is not likely .

The only thing Obama seems to have on McCain is misrepresenting his "100 years" statement. Even the DNC has been howling for weeks about telling the 'truth' about the "real John McCain" and nothing has stuck. Not...one...thing.

There was the Al Qaeda in Iraq backlash that McCain had to eat from a few weeks ago and the more recent tip of the iceberg economic ping ponging. Something stuck all right and it has to do with John McCain's head being in a place that I didn't think was anatomically possible. Provided Obama gets the nomination, I can't wait for his campaign focus to be on McCain rather than Clinton. ;)

One can simply look at all my posts to see how false that is.

I don't look at all your posts an apparently you don't look at all of mine either. These ARE the posts of yours I see:


I'll do my part to counter your constant negative posts and mudslinging... when I have the time (it's not my life's ambition as it is yours) :D


Considering McCain is another Bush then the answer is a big NO!


God these threads are getting tiresome.


You have a problem, seek help.


It has become apparent to me that America's school system is a pit of despair by reading these threads. Let's be glad we are where we are.


Holy crap, is there anything that the US does well? 'Cause it seems there's massive problems with taxation, the public school system, corrupt administrators, illegal immigrants, etc. Is there anything going well there??


Maybe because this is what some parents are teachin (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/what-would-albert-einstein-do-198405-post952655.html#post952655)g


http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/SherfJ/2008/SherfJ20080320_low.jpg


Cheney On 4,000 Dead Americans: They Volunteered


You're funny tom but not when you try to pass off the bullcrap.


Another example of american divisiveness.


Warning: persecution complex.

Not much positive there as far as I can tell.


Yet you start a thread titled "Can Democrats tell the truth?" and end your "question" that ends with "..is this what you want in a president, someone who either can't tell the truth or can't distinguish fact from fantasy" Yep, that really sounds like you like the guy. :rolleyes:

Even in this post of mine, which would have been more appropriately titled 'can "these" Democrats tell the truth,' I did say I don't question Hillary's patriotism, I do think there are politicians of integrity on both sides, and prior to your first post exonerated Hillary on one of the claims, "Factcheck.org supports Hillary's claim on SCHIP." Nevertheless the facts show the Democratic candidates have a problem with reality lately and I think that matters when selecting the next president. It always seemed to matter when Bush allegedly lied, we're supposed to overlook it in the next president?


https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/music/

Thanks, I guess you have to dig deeper because it isn't listed on the home page (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/). I'd still rather make music than spend time here. That's positive ;)

Does anyone know the potential running mates for either side?

I was just wondering.

I think Bill Richardson is the practical choice on an Obama ticket.

Hillary will probably choose someone in Bosnia, around 3 a.m..

McCain needs to find someone who's stronger suit is economics. But they can't stand in for him at the national debates. John's going to have hope to skew the questions on economics towards Iraq, which is not a winner for him either. Another problem is finding someone willing to take criticism from his own Republican party in following McCain's lead.

all speculation

Obama may go for an ex military type and centrist like Jim Webb or Wesely Clark ;or he may try to balance the ticket with a Southerner like John Edwards (although I doubt he is inclined to run as 2nd fiddle again) .I think Bill Richardson set himself up nicely for a nod at Veep also.

Hillary really likes Evan Bayh of Indiana .Also Chris Dodd is a possibility and so is Jim Webb . He is a choice for both so the Dems can continue their Trojan Horse strategy . Her best choice would probably be Obama if she gets the nomination .

I have already floated some names for McCain. I still think Chris Cox would satisfy many Republican fence sitters. Bobby Jindal is less likey . I will also float the names Colin Powell;Fla Gov Charles Crist who pretty much sealed the nomination for McCain . Haley Barbor Gov of Mississippi who did the Katrina job that the La. governor failed to do. He should not pick the Huckster or Romney . He is also very friendly with Lindsey Graham but I think the Republicans should keep whoever they can in the Senate and House .I am also notthrilled about these Rick Perry rumors. An intriguing selection would be Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska but she does not advance the electoral count so she is not likely .

Thanks Tom - Man Colin Powel, now that would be a great ticket. Has his name been floated about? I would just love that and it for sure would be my choice! I think it would be strong and rock solid, with great name recognition for both. And who could not possibly help but respect Colin Powel. I'd be thaaarilled :).

There was the Al Qaeda in Iraq backlash that McCain had to eat from a few weeks ago and the more recent tip of the iceberg economic ping ponging. Something stuck alright and it has to do with John McCain's head being in a place that I didn't think was anatomically possible. Provided Obama gets the nomination, I can't wait for his campaign focus to be on McCain rather than Clinton. ;)

People are still talking about the al-Qaeda thing? Or dropping out of public financing? Or his alleged affair? All I'm hearing over and over is the "100 year war" claim, which as I understand it, Obama got hammered by the media over that a little bit today. He's not emerging from this race unbruised any more ;)

I am also notthrilled about these Rick Perry rumors. An intriguing selection would be Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska but she does not advance the electoral count so she is not likely .

Perish the Rick Perry thoughts, even though it would get him out of our hair in Texas.

Thanks Tom - Man Colin Powel, now that would be a great ticket. Has his name been floated about? I would just love that and it for sure would be my choice! I think it would be strong and rock solid, with great name recognition for both. And who could not possibly help but respect Colin Powel. I'd be thaaarilled :).

His name has actually surfaced the black communities on the Obama ticket, but it's really not plausible to either party. Republicans all but ostracized him (or viceversa) under the Bush admin, and Powell has stated that he doesn't want to be in the political fray.

I think Bill Richardson is the practical choice on an Obama ticket.

Hillary will probably choose someone in Bosnia, around 3 a.m..

McCain needs to find someone who's stronger suit is economics. But they can't stand in for him at the national debates. John's going to have hope to skew the questions on economics towards Iraq, which is not a winner for him either. Another problem is finding someone willing to take criticism from his own Republican party in following McCain's lead.

Richardson would be a good choice for Obama. McCain's problem in the debates is going to be restraining himself from calling whoever his opponent is an a**hole. Then again, maybe that would work in his favor :D

People are still talking about the al-Qaeda thing? Or dropping out of public financing? Or his alleged affair? All I'm hearing over and over is the "100 year war" claim, which as I understand it, Obama got hammered by the media over that a little bit today. He's not emerging from this race unbruised any more ;)

Did you think Al Qaeda was not an issue? Wow! Steve! Wow! As for that Obama not emerging from the race "unbruised anymore" comment, you should have a gig on the Comedy channel. Obama thrives on adversity. We rather speak on meaningful issues, but we welcome anything. In fact I spent days, perhaps weeks, tackling silly arguments about retired pastors and campaign funds. Again, provided Obama gets the nomination, I can't wait for his campaign focus to be on McCain, rather than Clinton.

Richardson would be a good choice for Obama. McCain's problem in the debates is going to be restraining himself from calling whoever his opponent is an a**hole. Then again, maybe that would work in his favor :D


I agree. McCain's temperament reflects poorly for leadership of this country, and the same goes for Hillary. I've heard Republican commentators openly criticize McCain for his anger management problem.

I agree. McCain's temperament reflects poorly for leadership of this country and the same goes for Hillary. I've heard Republican commentators openly criticize McCain for his anger management problem.

Yeah, but I like a guy who doesn't back down from an a**hole. Of course a big question if it is Obama and McCain is who will be able to sound intelligent without a teleprompter. :D

McCain's problem in the debates is going to be restraining himself from calling whoever his opponent is an a**hole. Then again, maybe that would work in his favor :D
It could happen. GWB called a reporter an as$hole, and he got elected.

Yeah, but I like a guy who doesn't back down from an a**hole. Of course a big question if it is Obama and McCain is who will be able to sound intelligent without a teleprompter. :D

Perfect! McCain gets his oxygen bottle line wrapped up with the extension cord going to the teleprompter, spits his false teeth, and starts yelling explicits at the debate moderator for asking him how he's going to repair a failing economy. ;)

It could happen. GWB called a reporter an as$hole, and he got elected.

And that's the kind of leadership that some McCain supporters have come to admire. But in the soon to be ex-president's defense, perhaps Dubya acquired his superb recognition skills from personal experience? :)

Hate to tell you but McCain was correct about Iran training and supplying both Shia and al-Qaeda "insurgents " . Those IEDs that kill our troops are made in Iran ;those mortars attacking the green zone are made in Iran.

McCain should've stuck to his guns on that comment because he was right.

Perfect! McCain gets his oxygen bottle line wrapped up with the extension cord going to the teleprompter, spits his false teeth, and starts yelling explicits at the debate moderator for asking him how he's going to repair a failing economy. ;)

Obama mistakes the moderator asking "how is your wife" for "what about Wright" and Obama launches into a G.D. America speech. :D

Did you see McCain and Letterman trading jabs last night?

0_I3Gr-O2Ak

I'm sure Obama missed his teleprompter for this one...


"Speaking about sex education at an event in Pennsylvania Saturday, Obama said, according to the Christian Broadcasting Network, that he will educate his young daughters but ‘if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/01/846360.aspx) I don’t want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.’

Obama mistakes the moderator asking "how is your wife" for "what about Wright" and Obama launches into a G.D. America speech. :D

Did you see McCain and Letterman trading jabs last night?

0_I3Gr-O2Ak


Steve, I LOVED that. Thanks for sharing... good funny stuff... "You look like the guy"... :)

Can Obama tell the truth ?

Obama had greater role on liberal survey - Kenneth P. Vogel - Politico.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html)

Seems Obama changes his views to fit his particular audience. And when he gets caught at it... no problem... blame a staffer! The list is beginning to become impressive.


He never saw a survey that he says misrepresents his views, despite the fact that his handwriting is on the survey.

He didn't realize Rezko was under investigation when he entered into the shady house deal, even though it was well established in the local Chicago press.

He didn't know about the 11 low-income housing units going under in his state senate district that were owned by Rezko even as he asked for funds for these buildings.

He didn't know the difference between a yea vote and a nay vote, so he "pressed the wrong button" six times... at least two times in close votes .

He didn't know the Kyl-Lieberman vote was taking place, but somehow every other candidate knew about it.

He didn't realize that his spiritual mentor and pastor of 20 years was saying very controversial things in church (er.. but now maybe he says he did know... ). By the way Wright's retirement home is in a gated community on a golf course that is 98% white. Glad to see he has foresaken "middleclassness".

He didn't know his top economic adviser, Austin Goolsbee, met with the Canadian government and suggested that his position on NAFTA was just political posturing.

He was for the decriminalization of pot before he was against it because he did not know what decriminalization meant (strange admission from a Harvard graduate lawyer ) .

can Obama tell the truth ?

Seems Obama changes his views to fit his particular audience. And when he gets caught at it... no problem... blame a staffer! The list is beginning to become impressive.

What's really sad to me tom is that I think he WAS telling the truth when he said he didn't want his daughters "punished with a baby." That is a classic argument by the abortion crowd and Obama "had a 100 percent rating (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml) from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council."

Not only that, but Obama voted "present" in the Illinois Senate on several abortion votes with Planned Parenthood's blessing (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/obama-abortion-.html) so he couldn't be "pigeonholed" in elections. Nothing like having the character to stand for what you believe in instead of covering your a$$ to get elected. That's leadership isn't it?


"We at Planned Parenthood view those as leadership votes," Pam Sutherland, the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, told ABC News. "We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on 'partial birth' and 'born alive'. They put these bills out all the time.. . Because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats."

Speaking to ABC News as Obama was preparing to join Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and the wife of Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., in addressing Planned Parenthood’s national conference in Washington, D.C., Sutherland said Obama approached her in the late 1990s and worked with her and others in crafting the strategy of voting "present." She remembers meeting with Obama outside of the Illinois Senate chambers on the Democratic side of the aisle. She and Obama finished their conversation in his office.

"He came to me and said: 'My members are being attacked. We need to figure out a way to protect members and to protect women,'" said Sutherland in recounting her conversation with Obama. "A 'present' vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted."

"What it did," she continued, "was give cover to moderate Democrats who wanted to vote with us but were afraid to do so" because of how their votes would be used against them electorally. "A 'present' vote would protect them. Your senator voted 'present.' Most of the electorate is not going to know what that means."

While Sutherland was happy to give Obama latitude in voting "present," rather than "no," she was quick to note that "it’s also not a 'yes' vote."

As reported by The Wall Street Journal, some of the specific abortion votes in question include two occasions in 1997 (HB 382 and SB 230) when he voted "present" on bills which would have prohibited a procedure referred to by its critics as "partial-birth abortion." In 2001, he voted "present" on two parental notification abortion bills (HB 1900 and SB 562), and he voted "present" on a series of bills (SB 1093, 1094, 1095) that sought to protect a child if he or she survived a failed abortion.

If Obama makes it to the general election, he can expect the Republican National Committee to use his "present" votes on abortion -- and other controversial issues -- to paint him as “A Leader Who Has Never Led.”

"Nothing quite says principled and strong leadership like a 'present' vote on a controversial issue," RNC spokesman Dan Ronayne told ABC News. "Apparently the rookie didn't take all his at bats in the minors."

So a "leadership vote" is not taking a position at all?


He didn't know the difference between a yea vote and a nay vote, so he "pressed the wrong button" six times... at least two times in close votes .

On a vote that angered fellow Illinois Sen. Rickey Hendon, Hendon acknowledged on pressing the wrong button "it happens," but added "I've never done it." Maybe he really is "color blind." ;)


He was for the decriminalization of pot before he was against it because he did not know what decriminalization meant (strange admission from a Harvard graduate lawyer ) .

LOL, somebody must have left that out of his script so he was wingin' it.

hate to tell you but McCain was correct about Iran training and supplying both Shia and al-Qaeda "insurgents " . Those IEDs that kill our troops are made in Iran ;those mortars attacking the green zone are made in Iran.

McCain should've stuck to his guns on that comment because he was right.

I don't know if you are addressing me, but I was speaking of the situation in Iraq before the proverbial drek hit the fan. If there is one thing that's certain, it is that once you stir the ant-bed with as much anti-American sentiment that's out there, others will certainly pour gas on the fire. Having said that Al-Qaeda became part of the insurgency in the Iraqi grab bag after the war began along with extremist from Syria, Palestinian, and Iranians among others in an already civil war torn country with it's factions. Those idiots are pouring gas on he fire and McCain's willing to pour my money down the drain in Iraq; both are wrong.

Obama mistakes the moderator asking "how is your wife" for "what about Wright" and Obama launches into a G.D. America speech.
Did you see McCain and Letterman trading jabs last night.

Fortunately for our nation Obama's the even temperament candidate of the bunch. McCain's shtick is better suited for Letterman's scripted softballs. Last night I was watching Larry King's interview with Jesse Ventura. If you like Ron Paul or are tired of both Republicans and Democrats, business as usual, you'll enjoy this: YouTube - Jesse Ventura Discusses Politics Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRjmwKnz1G4)

Bobby ; McCain has been mocked because he said Iran was training al Qaeda and Joe Leiberman whispered into his ear a correction. My point was that McCain need not have corrected himself because clearly Iran is training and supplying al Qaeda fighters in Iraq.

There is this silly notion that I have heard since the war began that there is such a divide between Sunni and Shia that there could be no possibility of cooperation between them . The other correlary was that Iraq was a secular state and Saddam would never have coordinated and cooperated with jihadists .

Both assertions have been proven incorrect.

Tom-

I wasn't referencing Lieberman. I think we were on two different issues that were brought up in the past month or so on the campaign trail. I'll leave it at that. I'm going to the store and stock up on family groceries. Catch everyone later. :)

More bad news for Hillary according to columnist Dan Calabrese.


March 31, 2008
Watergate-Era Judiciary Chief of Staff: Hillary Clinton Fired For Lies, Unethical Behavior (http://www.northstarwriters.com/dc163.htm)

As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.

The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquid affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals – including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation.

Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach – including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.

The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel. Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.

The brief involved precedent for representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. When Hillary endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding, Zeifman says, he told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970.

“As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer,” Zeifman said.

The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public files. So what did Hillary do?

“Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,” Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred.

The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.

Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.

Of course, Nixon’s resignation rendered the entire issue moot, ending Hillary’s career on the Judiciary Committee staff in a most undistinguished manner. Zeifman says he was urged by top committee members to keep a diary of everything that was happening. He did so, and still has the diary if anyone wants to check the veracity of his story. Certainly, he could not have known in 1974 that diary entries about a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham would be of interest to anyone 34 years later.

But they show that the pattern of lies, deceit, fabrications and unethical behavior was established long ago – long before the Bosnia lie, and indeed, even before cattle futures, Travelgate and Whitewater – for the woman who is still asking us to make her president of the United States.

I'm so fed-up with the Clintons (and the Bush clans, for that matter). I went to school with a Calabrese... hmm could it be? Anyway I hope the televised heads of news commentary blast this one to the satellites and through our nation's rooftops.

I'm so fed-up with the Clintons (and the Bush clans, for that matter). I went to school with a Calabrese...hmm could it be?! Anyway I hope the televised heads of news commentary blast this one to the satellites and through our nation's rooftops.

I'm not holding my breath on that one, but who knows?

More of her vaunted smoke and mirrors 'experience '.Evidently the Watergate experience set such new high standards for our public servants.

Notice how she was protected by the MSM all this time . Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame wrote a glowing tribute to Evita last year called "A Women in Charge " . This after he had clearly must have uncovered that her narrative did not match the facts . He had almost unlimited access and since he was so intimately involved in the Watergate episode it is had to believe that these facts escaped him.

The hits just keep coming...


Possibly to avoid being one-upped on Indiana national security politics, former President Bill Clinton told a crowd in Columbus, Indiana, today that his wife had tried to join the Army (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/bill-clinton-sa.html).

Listen to an excerpt HERE (http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=4576203).

"I remember when we were young, right out of law school, she went down and tried to join the Army and they said 'Your eyes are so bad, nobody will take you,'" he said, after heralding her record on issues of concern to the military, such as body armor and access to health care.

I assume this is a version of the "Hillary Clinton tried to join the Marines" anecdote that then-First Lady Clinton told in 1994 that we wondered about since it's a story she never seems to have told again.

The original story was that in Fayetteville, Arkansas, in 1975, Hillary walked into a local Marines recruiting office. The Marine recruiter looked at her, she recalled, and asked how old she was. Twenty-seven, she said.

"He looked at me, and in those days that was before I learned how to wear contact lenses," Sen. Clinton told a crowd of women veterans in 1994. "I had these really thick glasses on. He said, ‘How bad's your eyesight?' I said, ‘It's pretty bad.' …Finally said to me, he said, 'You're too old. You can't see. And you're a woman.…But maybe the dogs would take you.'"

("Dogs" being a reference to the Army.)

Perhaps she did so -- and hence Bill Clinton's Army story today?

Or maybe he's conflating the two stories?

(Add that Bosnian sniper fire, and you might have something there that Julia Roberts would want to option.)

Army, Marines - whatever. No word on whether she was interested in sniper training.

Ooops: another one? I heard her spin this and got neauseated while listening; just another Clintontoid, I suppose: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/politics/05woman.html?_r=1&ei=5090&en=7824b4f8ea3b363d&ex=1365134400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

Ooops: another one? I heard her spin this and got neauseated while listening; just another Clintontoid, I suppose: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/politics/05woman.html?_r=1&ei=5090&en=7824b4f8ea3b363d&ex=1365134400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

Oops, she did it again. I'm really wondering what we CAN believe out of Hillary.

Oops, she did it again. I'm really wondering what we CAN believe out of Hillary.
Sad thing is, without an Obama, this is overlooked: "Oh, she means well."

How about this! Hillary's going to be grilled (deservedly so) over the story she's been using about a woman and child that she (Hillary) says died because a hospital turned down the mother for lack of coverage. Hillary apparently wanted to embellish it into a tale to promote her universal health-care proposal. According to the bit of news that's starting to come out, the hospital is setting the story straight and have asked Hilary to stop falsifying the facts. According the hospital they never turned the woman down due to lack of insurance. Eventually we may find out the woman did indeed have insurance. This is adding up to another ducking bullets in Bosnia type campaign farce that Hillary's going to eat. How much did Hillary and Billy-boy make over the past six years according to tax their statements? Better yet, why are people still paying the Clinton's for speaking engagements when they lie habitually? Oh! Wait a minute she "misspoke," again.

The problem with both Democrat candidates is that so long as the MSM was willing to overlook their problems without investigation then they were safe (Obama 's was Rev Wright and although the press gave him cover ;the new media wasn't about to) ).

Hillary traces the origin of her tales to a story told by a deputy sheriff at a meeting. She did not bother to fact check because she figured that the MSM would giver her cover. But she was outed by the NY Slimes because their affection has swung to the candidate furthest to the left.

The fact that Hillary did not fact check the story is indicative of how she would perform in office. I keep on looking for compelling reasons for voting for either Democrat candidate and I can't find any beyond the " first " premise.

Can the Democrats tell the truth?
Can the Democrat, Conservative and/or any other presidential contender tell the truth?

You have insincere people, you have liars, you have chronic liars, you have car sales men and insurance sales people, you have lawyers, and you have politicians...
No need for "party colored" glasses!

'nough said!
;)

The fact that Hillary did not fact check the story is indicative of how she would perform in office.

In other words, she launched the offensive even though there were no health care weapons of mass destruction? :D

The problem with both Democrat candidates is that so long as the MSM was willing to overlook their problems without investigation then they were safe (Obama 's was Rev Wright and although the press gave him cover ;the new media wasn't about to) ).

Hillary traces the origin of her tales to a story told by a deputy sheriff at a meeting. She did not bother to fact check because she figured that the MSM would giver her cover. But she was outed by the NY Slimes because their affection has swung to the candidate furthest to the left.

The fact that Hillary did not fact check the story is indicative of how she would perform in office. I keep on looking for compelling reasons for voting for either Democrat candidate and I can't find any beyond the " first " premise.


A bigger problem looms for McCain when the focus shifts back to general election coverage. So far he's been able to keep low with bland speeches, while the Democrats go at it. And since there isn't any compelling reason to vote McCain, I take it your voting a write-in candidate?

I keep on looking for compelling reasons for voting for either Democrat candidate
I don't believe you.

In other words, she launched the offensive even though there were no health care weapons of mass destruction? :D
Good one. McCain can portray her as offering a "third Bush term".

So where will Obama come down on the right to keep and bear arms? Get ready for a whopper:
"Ted Kennedy's Poodle is all for gun control. He wants to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. Others who have done this in history have been labeled Fascists. One person who did this was named Adolf. His last name started with an "H"...it's on the top of my tongue but I can't think of it...maybe it will come to me.

Obama is against law-abiding citizens without any criminal record or history being able to defend themselves. Townhall:

Barack Obama is embracing anti-gun policies in the run-up to a Democratic presidential debate scheduled on the one-year anniversary of the Virginia Tech shootings.

“I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” Obama told the Pittsburgh Tribune. "I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations." [Yes, it would have been just terrible had a law-abiding citizen been carrying a concealed weapon to defend and protect him or herself - let alone others - at V-Tech, wouldn't it? - Drake]

These remarks break from Obama's previous moderate rhetoric on gun control.

While campaigning in Idaho in February, Obama promised, “I have no intention of taking away folks' guns.”

Why - is The Poodle flip-flopping on his words? It sure seems so.

Again from the above Townhall story:

[Obama said], "a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families."

I'm really sick and tired of Democrats using hunting and sportsmanship as their faux argument in pretending and posturing to be pro-Second Amendment. Hunting and sportsmanship have nothing to do with the Second Amendment."
David Drake: Obama Is All Pro Gun Control (http://mrssatan.blogspot.com/2008/04/o.html)

From the past, talking about Democrat fibs being whoppers and the MSM never covering them: "Mr. Clinton introduced the promise of a tax cut for the middle class in a speech in November 1991 at Georgetown University. "I will offer middle-income tax cuts," he said. "The average working family's tax bill will go down about 10 percent, a savings of about $300 a year, and I won't finance it with increasing the deficit."

As late as 10 days before the election, Mr. Clinton was still promising a tax cut for families making less than $80,000. On Oct. 24, a reporter asked him if it was true, as advisers were saying, that he might postpone the middle-class tax cut for a year if elected, in the light of gloomy economic projections. "Absolutely not," Mr. Clinton said. "I make the economic decisions in this Administration." CLINTON'S ECONOMIC PLAN: The Campaign; Gambling That a Tax-Cut Promise Was Not Taken Seriously - New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE4D9103CF93BA25751C0A9659582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all)
I recall Clinton at a news conference after the 'Economic Summit' (go back and see all the corporate and oil bigwigs that attended) saying, "I've worked harder on this than anything in my life and we just can't find a way...." blah, blah, blah. Oh the lies of Democrats, that never get covered. But this year, Hillary is Obama's shield.

Hello again,

I don't know why you righty's want to call the other guys liars, when the head of YOUR party, is the liar in chief - the MOTHER of all liars! To wit:

There are WMD'S - not

We're making progress - not

America has prevailed - not

We don't torture - not

We don't spy on Americans - not

And, these ain't teeny little lies, like I didn't have sex with that woman, or I changed my mind about tax cuts... Nooooo, these are really BIG WHOPPERS where people DIE because of them.

I DO understand, however, that these are distinctions that you, somehow, CANNOT make. I don't know why. You think lying about a blow job is just like lying about WMD's...

excon

As long as we're remembering Republican lies, let's not forget Reagan's denial that he sold arms to the Iranians and gave the money to the Contras. I'm still pissed that he got away with that.

As long as we're remembering Republican lies, let's not forget Reagan's denial that he sold arms to the Iranians and gave the money to the Contras. I'm still pissed that he got away with that.
Yeah, fighting for freedom in your own backyard antagonizes liberals. :D

Yeah, fighting for freedom in your own backyard antagonizes liberals. :D
Yes it does. The reason is that "fighting for freedom" by secret and illegal means has a way of not staying in the backyard, but coming right into the house.

Obama has a fairly common standard view: that is that we have right to bear arms as individuals.

Most recent article I could find with his position on the issue.

Obama Supports Individual Gun Rights (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UQTAS80&show_article=1)

The senator, a former constitutional law instructor, said some scholars argue the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees gun ownerships only to militias, but he believes it grants individual gun rights.

"I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation" like background checks, he said during a news conference.


I did a little more digging and found his senate record which indicates back in 1998he opposed semi-automatic weapon sales. But for all the false hoopla about losing your fire-arms rights or missing out on that annual hunting trip into the brush thickets of backwoods USA, that's just nonsense.

His voting record in the Senate, 1998

Gun Issues

Indicate which principles you support (if any) concerning gun issues.
X a) Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
X b) Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
c) Maintain state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
d) Ease state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
e) Repeal state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens.
f) Favor allowing citizens to carry concealed firearms.
X g) Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
h) Other

“I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” Obama told the Pittsburgh Tribune. "I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."

There are 288,909 concealed weapons permit holders in Texas and it doesn't bother me a bit. Of the 1379 aggravated assault with a deadly weapon convictions in Texas in the last year statistics are available (2005), 4 were permit holders. Of 63 manslaughter convictions, 1 was a permit holder. Of the 175 murder convictions, 1 was a permit holder. Of the 34,791 listed convictions, 0.3708% (129) were permit holders.


The number of homicides in Texas has decreased almost every year (http://www.kdhnews.com/news/story.aspx?s=24400) since recording 2,022 homicides in 1994 to 1,407 in 2005, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report data. During the same time span, Texas' population has risen from 18.3 million to about 23 million residents.

The article claims a spike in homicides in Texas although 2006, the last year available, 1,384 were reported. Texas' population has increased 26 percent since the concealed weapons law went into effect and yet homicides have decreased by a third. Mr. Obama should not worry about maybes so much.

Steve,

Here in Vegas, like in LA, NYC, Philly, Chi-Town, and some other large cities, we have many concealed weapon carriers that are known as: citizens with permits, police department, federal agents, Bloods, M13's, numerous biker gangs and of course the mob. Down your way in Texas (Houston, Big D, Austin and SA) add others in the mix such as: the Texas Syndicate, Mexican mafia, Skin heads, and numerous other smaller links in the food chain.

Obama advocates individual rights to own fire-arms. But I take this in a broader scope than Obama and disagree with him in part. His view against concealed weapons would be nearly impossible for him to overturn because he's not going to get enough support on this particular issue to change it later. At least I'm doubtful of that occurring. And even if he could accomplish this feat it would not effect the vast majority of the nation since most don't have the permit in the first place. Besides you would still have that sawed off shotgun in the closet and our police forces would be excluded because they carry off duty anyway.

Personally I would make it where nobody even had to have a concealed weapons permit to carry a fire-arm and I'm not even sure registration warrants that much value either. The Brady law was enacted after the fact, only delays, and never will stop bullets from leaving the chamber. There are numerous ways to elude laws if anyone has the will to perpetrate homicide. On this issue my ideal candidate would make it mandatory to take a standardized class to respect the responsibility of ownership. Easy enough and no hassle. My plan is that you buy a fire-arm, no registration, you take the class certification for "responsibility of ownership," and you can leave free to carry your fire-arm, concealed or not, everywhere accept when private property posts otherwise, or in city, state, or federal government buildings.

Another inexcusable law is the length of knives that can be carried. You can cut several vital places on the body with less than a two inch blade that could take a life. When I was younger and into martial arts, I took Kali (Filipino style). Part of the classes focused on anatomy of the body. The gun/knife weapon issues is just something that most politicians don't fair well with me. I don't agree with either Republicans or Democrats on the subject.

Yeah the guns are really making you safer!

List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate)

http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html

But I understand it is a different set of social circumstances over there and you value highly the right to own guns. If only you could see the damage it is doing.

Obama is also self-triangulating on the issue of gun control. In 1996, he said in response to a questionnaire that he favored banning the manufacture, sale, and possession of hand guns. For several years thereafter, he was on the board of a Chicago-based foundation that takes aggressive gun control positions. Lately, though, his views have become more nuanced. Parting company with hard-line gun control advocates, Obama contends that the Second Amendment's right to bear arms applies not just to militias but to individuals as well. However, he also insists that this constitutional guarantee does not preclude local “common sense” restrictions on firearms. But when asked several times by Novak how he applies this set of principles to the District of Columbia's gun law, the constitutionality of which the Supreme Court is now considering, Obama declines to answer. Perhaps he feels the District has the better arguments, but would vote with the Court's conservatives if it were close. It's overwhelmingly likely that deep-down Obama is a solid leftist. That's how he was raised and educated, and that's where he started on the war, gun control, and a host of other issues.
Power Line (http://www.powerlineblog.com/)

Yeah the guns are really making you safer!

Skell, I noticed in today's paper you guys had some kids with baseball bats and machetes rampaging through a school. I hope school violence isn't becoming a trend down there for you guys, it seems to just get uglier. We just had a bunch of 3rd Graders plotting to attack their teacher.

Anyway, on your statistics, I found a WHO report (http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/summary_en.pdf) (pdf) that shows the homicide rate is greatest in the African region, the suicide rate was greatest in the Western Pacific region. The suicide rate in the European region was on par with the homicide rate in the Americas, and the European homicide rate was roughly the same as the suicide rate in the Americas.

According to Nationmaster, the US is 24th in murders per capita (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita) and 8th in murders with firearms (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita)per capita:

#1 South Africa: 0.719782 per 1,000 people
#2 Colombia: 0.509801 per 1,000 people
#3 Thailand: 0.312093 per 1,000 people
#4 Zimbabwe: 0.0491736 per 1,000 people
#5 Mexico: 0.0337938 per 1,000 people
#6 Belarus: 0.0321359 per 1,000 people
#7 Costa Rica: 0.0313745 per 1,000 people
#8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people

Violence is a problem everywhere Skell, and while people like to focus on firearms in America, I wonder why suicide rates are highest in the western pacific and Europe.

Skell, I noticed in today's paper you guys had some kids with baseball bats and machetes rampaging through a school. I hope school violence isn't becoming a trend down there for you guys, it seems to just get uglier. We just had a bunch of 3rd Graders plotting to attack their teacher.

Violence is a problem everywhere Skell, and while people like to focus on firearms in America, I wonder why suicide rates are highest in the western pacific and Europe.

Yes that story you mention is just horrible and something we are unfamiliar with down here. I also hope it isn't a trend we see develop down here. We have problems with ciolence but generally schools are a place of learning. A safe haven for children to enjoy.

Interestingly enough the gang that did this has named themselves after famous american street gangs and it is there 'ambition' to bring the american gang culture to the streets of Sydney. They are of Pacific Islander decent and appear to idolise the american gangsta life. It is very scary and one our government needs to really act on swiftly.

The difference as I see it Steve is that because guns are harder to obtain here than the US, those punks were 'only' carrying machetes and bats. Sure they may have access to guns, but in this instance they weren't carrying them. No one was killed. Some people suffered non life threatening injuries. In the US we see a different outcome. We see mass shootings of innocent kids going about there schooling each week (or so it seems). The argument that bearing arms protects you just doesn't sit with me. The statistics say otherwise.

And I agree Steve that violence is a problem everywhere, not just in the US. No doubt. But for a developed nation. A great and intelligent nation to just sit by and watch 1000's of innocent people slaughtered each year by guns and simply trot out the old "guns dont kill people, people do" line simply astounds me. Just cause its in your constitution doesn't make it right. Especially in the world we live in today.

But I have had my say on this before (particualry with Elliot) and I have come to the conclusion to simply leave it as a clash of cultures and attitudes. We are just poles apart on this issue. Perhaps you guys are too far down the gun culture path to ever safely go back.

Skell-

I remember the debates over the gun ownership issue with Elliot. I think both sides of the argument was in-depth and presented very well. You're correct in that ideally the removal of all guns would solve a lot of the violence. However it is not practical for the US. At this point and time of our country's history asking people to turn over their guns would never would be enough. Perhaps a very small percentage under a "pay for voluntary giving up fire-arms" using a tax deduction after appraisal, but nothing near enough. Even if the government ordered the military to help out the local police forces in trying to remove fire-arms that would only cause a civil disaster, numerous funerals, initiated both by citizens otherwise fit for society, and those gang or mafia ilk. It's just not practical here in the States. The government similarly once tried the same with the prohibition of alcohol and it just produced more body bags and underground speakeasies.

Skell-

I remember the debates over the gun ownership issue with Elliot. I think both sides of he argument was in-depth and presented very well. You're correct in that ideally the removal of all guns would solve a lot of the violence. However it is not practical for the US. At this point and time of our country's history asking people to turn over their guns would never would be enough. Perhaps a small percentage under a pay for fire-arms tax deduction after appraisal, but nothing near enough. Even if the government ordered the military to help out the local police forces in trying to remove fire-arms that would only cause a civil disaster, numerous funeral, initiated both by citizens otherwise fit for society, and those gang or mafia ilk. It's just not practical here in the States. The government similarly once tried the same with the prohibition of alcohol and it just produced more body bags and underground speakeasies.

Thinking about it more and more I tend to agree, hence my final comment in the previous post regarding being too far down the gun path. It would appear that the practicalities of removing guns from the streets make it simply impossible. Indeed it was impossible here. However there is statistical evidence also down under here that shows a sharp reduction in gun violence since the inception of strict guns laws.

I would just like to see something more done over there to prevent the alarming rate of mass shootings and other gun related deaths. It is just so sad and from the outside looking in it appears that nothing proactive is being done.

And its funny Bobby you should mention alcohol. There is a bit of problem down under here at present with alcohol fuelled violence amongst youth. Reports suggest it is linked to binge drinking culture among young people. The local council where I am from has recently tightened licour licencing laws and are enforcing a 3am lock out of all inner city drinking premises. It has caused some heated debate. It will be interesting to see if it works. But at least something is being tried.

Almost all our convenient stores nationwide now ID you if you appear to be under the age of forty. It seems a bit extreme, but I'm sure it has saved some lives. Also having curfews especially in the larger cities is a step in the right direction. Where I live, in Las Vegas, we have a juvenile curfew ordinance.

Could this be a three way race -- Most people don't like Mc Cain

Most people don't like Obama -- Most people don't like Clinton's

I don't think any of them can fix the problems of this country

Could this be a three way race -- Most people don't like Mc Cain

Most people don't like Obama -- Most people don't like Clinton's

I don't think any of them can fix the problems of this country
I like this answer because it exposes a problem, sort of: this country wasn't created so that someone or anyone could come along and fix it; but just the opposite. We are so far down the road of socialism/fascism that we need some kind of overhaul, a diminution, of government. But what we have are the Dem/fascist candidates that promise 'more, more, more'; and the GOP candidate who may be sleepwalking and whose party has become effete. We are needing a return to first principles: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; not cradle to grave security.

I like this answer because it exposes a problem, sort of: this country wasn't created so that someone or anyone could come along and fix it; but just the opposite.
What do you mean, "just the opposite"? Why do you think it was created?

We are so far down the road of socialism/fascism that we need some kind of overhaul, a diminution, of government.
Battle cry of the Reagan Revolution: "The Government can't solve the problem, the Government IS the problem." The present Administration is the bitter harvest of that "revolution".


But what we have are the Dem/fascist candidates that promise 'more, more, more';
Your use of the "/fascist" formulation is brilliant, rhetorically speaking.


and the GOP candidate who may be sleepwalking and whose party has become effete.
Effete Republicans? Surely you jest.

We are needing a return to first principles: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; not cradle to grave security.
After enumerating the rights mentioned, the Preamble goes on to say:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men
This is the proper and necessary function of Government, the standard against which every political party doctrine or Executive Branch policy should be measured. By that standard, this Administration has been an abject failure, in my estimation.

The real issue here is what do we owe each other as members of a collective--a Nation, a People? Saying that the answer is "Nothing" simply won't do. Individuals DO benefit from collective action, and DO owe the body politic something in exchange for those benefits, starting with respect for the rights of others. There IS such a thing as GOOD government--one that is really delivers on the promise to "secure" those rights for every citizen.

I would just like to see something more done over there to prevent the alarming rate of mass shootings and other gun related deaths. It is just so sad and from the outside looking in it appears that nothing proactive is being done.

Skell, I don't see it as a gun problem, I see it as a cultural problem - but that's another discussion. ;)

ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper counts 8 "misremberings" by Bill Clinton on Evita's Bosnia trip:


From the Fact Check Desk: Former President Bill Clinton's Defense of His Wife's Bosnia Sniper-Fire Story (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/from-the-fact-c.html)

April 10, 2008 9:35 PM

Former President Bill Clinton offered this bit of revisionist history of his wife's Bosnia story in Jasper, Ind. today, one riddled with a veritable sniper fire of errors -- ones necessitating footnotes.

Watch the former President's misstatement-riddled explanation for his wife HERE (http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4633162).

"She took a terrible beating in the press for a few days," he said, per ABC News' Sarah Amos, "because she was exhausted at 11 o'clock at night (1) and she started talking about Bosnia and she misstated the circumstances under which she landed in Bosnia. (2)

"Did you all see all that? And oh, they acted like she was practically Mata Hari," he said -- referring to the Dutch exotic dancer accused by the French of spying for the Germans and executed by a firing squad during World War I -- "like she was making up all this stuff.

"And then the president of Bosnia said, 'Well, it was quite dangerous when she came, there were snipers in the hills all around,' (3) And then Gen. Wes Clarke, who was there trying to make the peace among the Bosnians, said 'Yeah, it was dangerous, let me remind you three of the Americans who were on my peace-keeping team were killed because they had to take a dangerous road 'cause they couldn't go the regular way.'

"And she had to go up into the cockpit with our daughter, in a bullet-proof area, and all the other people had to sit on their bullet-proof flak jackets (4) because it was dangerous. So she immediately (5) said 'OK, I misremembered that, they didn't cancel the welcoming ceremony, but it was pretty dangerous.' "

In Boonville, Ind. also today, he told a different version, saying his wife, "one time late at night (1) when she was exhausted, she misstated and immediately (5) apologized (6) for it, what happened to her in Bosnia in 1995. (7) Did y'all see all that? Oh, they blew it up. Let me just tell you.

"The president of Bosnia and Gen. Wesley Clark -- who was there making peace where we'd lost three peacekeepers who had to ride on a dangerous mountain road because it was too dangerous to go the regular, safe way -- both defended her because they pointed out that when her plane landed in Bosnia, she had to go up to the bulletproof part of the plane, in the front. Everybody else had to put their flak jackets underneath the seat (4) in case they got shot at. And everywhere they went they were covered by Apache helicopters.

"So they just abbreviated the arrival ceremony. Now I say that because what really has mattered is that even then she was interested in our troops. And I think she was the first First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt to go into a combat zone. (8) And you woulda thought, you know, that she'd robbed a bank the way they carried on about this."

(1) Her most glaringly wrong telling of the tale, on March 17, 2008, was in the morning.

(2) She actually told versions of the story several times. (And none was at night.)

(3) In an e-mail to journalist Eric Jansson, former acting Bosnian president Ejup Ganic said "we didn't expect snipers," though, "we still believed that some positions on the hills were occupied by radical Serbs, so I was worried about the overall safety."

(4) Not according to the pilot Colonel William "Goose" Changose (Ret.), who said, "nobody under my watch has ever directed anyone to sit on their flak jackets. ... We do not direct people to sit on their flak jackets."

(5) It wasn't immediate at all -- it was 11 days later, first in an editorial board meeting with the Philadelphia Inquirer/Philadelphia Daily News, then later in a press availability.

(6) She never apologized.

(7) It was 1996, not 1995.

(8) He qualified it with "I think," but then-first lady Pat Nixon went to a combat zone in Saigon, Vietnam, in July

LOL, I wonder when Hillary is going to fire Bill from her campaign.

All I can say is, no matter what country you're in, no political human can ever tell the truth! That's how they all get into power! They lie like crazy, they tell you what you want to hear, then when you vote them there, they do what they always wanted to.
I always think any human who believes a political person will never know the difference between the truth and a lie.

How do you know when a polition is telling a lie??

Their lips move.