Obama: Hillary Will ‘Say Anything and Change Nothing’

Come on, Tapper. That’s not harsh. It’s totally the truth, delivered in a tone that is in keeping with Obama’s campaign.
GO Obama!

Well it’s true!!! She’s just one step above Mitt Romney. And her husband will say anything too.

“In fact, Obama’s led the fight to raise the minimum wage, close corporate tax loopholes and cut taxes for the middle class.”
That is a lie. The junior senator has led nothing.
That is called “say anything, and change nothing.”
I am surprised ABC didn’t point out this blatant lie.

In the long run Truth will prevail over lies. This right counter attack the lies with the truth. Go Obama!!!

Actually every Republican Strategist in the media has stated that they would rather to go against Hillary b/k they know they can beat her.
Obama is the ONLY Democratic candidate that has a chance in November b/k of his “crossover” appeal. Many Independents & moderate Republicans would vote for Obama, but they would never vote for another Clinton.

As a typical Southerner, born while England still had a king and Truman sat in the White House, I find the candidacy of Barack Obama to exemplify what I’ve spent the last fifty-plus years waiting for us, as a nation, to mature toward – responsible leadership with the courage and compassion to bring integrity and intelligence to the fore. I only hope that we’re smart enough to recognize true opportunity when it presents itself.

Personally, I look closely at each candidates campaign to weigh out who might be the best at moving this country forward.
The Clinton campaign started with fully half of Americans saying they would never vote for her….not good in a general election. Then they spent a lot of time firing campaign supporters for their behavior and apologizing. Then their surrogates spent time apologizing for insinuations they had made about Obama. Now they are willing to stretch the truth and use a divide and conquer methodology to win at all costs. After Iowa they slammed Iowans and their caucus. In Nevada their surrogates sued over the location of caucuses that they had no problem with until they didn’t get the union endorsement. Now, Hillary doesn’t bother being in S Carolina, she just leaves Bill there, who by the way, is not the candidate. On her website, her original video announcing her candidacy was about having a conversation yet her website does not allow real time posting of any comments or questions and therefore all postings are censored and only positive comments are allowed.
Obama started without a spouse as a former President and with significantly less name recognition. He as attracted many supporters by engaging young people, independents, and even Republicans. Without a long time machine like the Clintons have, he has raised similar financial support. His website is an open and active community that does not censor comments unless they have offensive language and even removes any offensive comments that appear related to Mrs Clinton. In every poll he is seen as the most honest candidate by significant margins.
He has run a campaign that is uplifting. No one can allow false ads and attacks to continue without responding to and correcting them. Other candidates have dealt with this in the past, including the Clintons, however the Clintons have carried the politics of personal destruction to a whole new level by being willing to utilize these methods against someone of their own party. This concerns me as I think it will come back to haunt the Democratic party in November if she is the nominee. Many independents and Republicans, as well as some long time Democrats who have supported Obama and his message of a real new direction will not vote for Mrs Clinton because of the way her campaign has been run. Her nomination would be very good news for the Republican nominee.

I absolutely agree there is nothing harsh about the ATTACK!! But it proves that Obama is a bigger liar than the Clintons! Hmmm….how many times will I find quotes from Obama about being above the dirty politics…and focusing on the issues and his commitment to change. You are the worst of all politicians because you mislead people into thinking your this great black hope when you are OREO through and through. Its okay we have all watched campaigns through out the years and candidates will attack each other, at least the Clintons never pretended to be above the dirt….Barack Hussein Obama is and always will mislead the American Public….

Obama somehow thinks he can run attack ads like this on Hillary and then retreat back behind a “holier-than-thou” shield when fire is returned. Any way you want to cut it, Obama praised Reagan and the Republicans while pandering to the GOP vote in the Nevada Caucus. That’s a fact. If he looks in the mirror he’ll see the candidate who will say anything to get elected.

Clintons:
Marc Rich pardons= Denise Rich donating 100,000k to the Clinton library
2. HRC’s campaign manager and her treasurer both indicted in 2005 for failing to disclose contributions
3. Norman Hsu
4. Monica Lewinsky
and more
Hillary voted for the war and now is against it. She supported NAFTA and is now against it. She endorsed open free trade with China and now she is against it.
Obama 08

I love this ad!
This ad dares to speak truth to power. It’s something we need a whole lot more of in our country. We need a lot more hard truth and a lot less political expediency and gamesmanship if we’re ever going to lower the cynicism level in the country. And we desperately need to lower the cynicism level if we’re ever going to be able to effectively work with one another again to improve all our lives. And less cynicism leads to more folks interested in public service and bettering their communities.
Ads like these are precisely what we need!!

The TRUTH can be harsh I suppose… I’ve voted Democratic since 1980 – holding my nose while filling in the oval for stinkers like Dukakis, Mondale and Kerry. But the shameless, blatant lying of The “Billary” is far too much for me. I have learned to despise them, and regret ever voting for ol’ Bill. I cannot and will not cast a voter for Hillary Clinton. She is little more than a lying, opportunist, nepotist wife of a lying second rate president. If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, I am out of here, and hoping Bloomberg runs.

We currently have a president who seems to exhibit the intelligence of a third grader, but apparently has the political conscience and connections of a Machiavelli. Why in the world would anyone want to trade that for someone with the political experience of a kindergartner in a sandbox, regardless of how intelligent or charismatic they are? By the time the Republicans got done with that sandbox it would take a CSI team to find Obama in it. If you’d really like Obama to be president, which I think would be a pretty good idea, we should at least let him get a few years of grade school before trying to place him in college. The last time Democrats put a near genius, morally upright, but politically unproven man in the White House, it quickly led to Ronald Reagan and ruin of the country. Wake up, people!!

I may not vote for Hillary in November if she gets the nomination. The “Obama supports Reagan” ad is an outright lie. She’s splitting the party with these destructive, negative tactics. I am increasingly ashamed of her and her husband and I used to be a big supporter. Very sad and troubling.

I am a devoted democrat. I would consider voting for Obama in some future election after he proves himself with more experience. But not this time, and this is why:
Obama trys to play everything both ways, he is quite duplicitous, and
full of a lot eloquently hypocritical hot air.
He has been criticizing the Clintons relentlessly from the start, engaging in exactly the kind of politics he says he’s against. From the start!
When our country was in some of the best shape it ever has been in at the end of Bill’s two terms, he tries to make is sound like it would be going backwards, just to have some of our most qualified, competent leadership working for us again.
Gee, going back to competent leadership so we can Truly go forward…? After 7 years of disatrous incompetency when we need true experienced competency the most? Yeah, that sounds so bad, Barack. Why would we want to have some of the most experienced competent expert leaders available to us running our country?
When we could have a complete rookie like you who talks all the good talk, but has no real substantial governing experience? It’s so easy to run on no record, and have all the answers, isn’t it!
Barack Obama is being a hypocrite with self-serving double standards.
He always tries to play it both ways. Here is his quote about the Republicans:
“I think it’s fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10-15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom.”
Here, he seems to praise the Republicans during when? During the recent Bush years (including the last 7 years which have been so full of good ideas! Look what great shape we’re in!)
But also some? (but a vague amount – 3 to 8?) of the Clinton years before that. Nice and vague and double-meaning!
And apparently before that he said:
“I think we’re in one of those times right now, where people feel like things as they are going aren’t working,” he said. “That we’re bogged down in the same arguments that we’ve been having, and they’re not useful. And the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out.”
Talk about double-meanings! Talk about duplicity and trying to play it both ways! Talk about saying anything to win! Anything people want to hear! Anything that means nothing because it all cancels itself out!
He’s trying to have it both ways! And that is hypocritical, and duplicitous.
I’m not talking about his character, but I am talking about his tactics. And I’m not even saying that he’s being intentionally hypocritical or duplicitous, but that is the reality.
He has been dishing out criticism about the Clintons from the start. But when they return it, he says he’s above it. He is dishing it out, but saying he’s above it at the same time!
And he has been from the start!
Look at the truth people!
He is acting “Holier than Thou,” when he has not been from the start.
And it is more offensive to be so hypocritical, from the beginning.
You can’t have it both ways Barack. You’re not walking your talk. Your just talking, and talking, and talking about your your apparent “I’ll walk all the ways that sound good walk! But Hillary won’t!”
He has changed positions himself. He has not taken responsibility for many of his own votes or comments, and false implications and insults.
Democracy demands truth and accuracy.
And the Clintons truly deserve much more respect than you’ve given them from the start.

Isn’t this wonderful ? This is a good example of democracy at work. How else we can find out about the next person we elect to guide the country in the next four years. Can we trust the press to do the work alone ? Can we believe that the candidate will admit their shortcoming ?
I know this look like a circus. He said she said. But at the end , we the voters are benefit. We will make our inform decision base on what we know, we believe. Don’t let any one tell you what to chose, not the press, not spin doctor, and certainly not me.
Who said that democracy are gentile? It’s messy, but it work. We just need to endure the process and hope that in the end, the best candidate will be success. If the candidates can not survive the process, what make you think that he/she can be able to govern the country successfully. Winning is hard, manage it successfully even harder. We are all affected by his/her success or failure.

“Obama changing anything? Obama prodiving leadership?? Ha ha, thats not the Barack Obama we know here in Illinois! Obama exaggerate shis credential, his legislative achievements in Illinois and he has nothing to show as done in the US Senate, he joined Lugar on that Bill because he was running for the Presidency and can use it afterwards, in the same way he skipped the vote on Iran to use the Hillary’s vote against her! This guy is a real calculated, he was here in Illinois and has been in the Senate, now wonder Wall Street love him, the drugs companies love him, the oil companies love him and the media companies love him, all they know they are safe with the agent of change that will change nothing for them!”
Pete, I am from Illinois, Springfield to be exact, and I have a slightly different recollection of Barack Obama.
I remember him fighting for kidcare, which insures the children of Illinois, I remember his ethics reforms, and I remember every politician there hailing him as the uniter. I remember reading his life story and realizing that the BEST leader for America is someone who has lived the “American Dream”. Illinois has a history of introducing change, and standing firmly behind it. (see: abe lincoln)
He drew the largest crowd in history (as it was reported at the time) to an announcement of a candidacy, on the steps of the old state capital in Springfield Illinois. I will never EVER forget the inspiration I felt that day. EVERYONE was all smiles.
The fact of the matter is if he doesn’t fight back, he is weak, and if he DOES he is complaining? No. He is setting the record straight with the truth and not lies.
- A voting student for Obama, and the future of America, and I support that ad as well.

No, he’s implying that the Republican party was “the party of ideas”, and the Democratic party was not.
The Republican party was the party of bad short-sighted, focus-group framed, duplicitious, corporate and self-serving, environmentally destructive, rich get richer, poor get poorer, ideas!
The Democratic partie’s ideas were more diverse, but more honest, and full of integrity for all.

Well, he can drop that I am a uniter, bipartisan, change Washington mantra any time. Candidates who think they are worthy of the presidency don’t whine, don’t act petulant and don’t act as if they are hard done by. Those all show a sign of someone who knows nothing of what the real job entails or will be ready to handle it with that kind of attitude. I know the media treats him with kid gloves but will the republicans if he ever becomes the candidate? I think not!!!

Wow, that ad packs a punch! Well, she had it coming.
She’s lying about his record and he’s just stating the facts about hers. I don’t believe this ad would exist if the Clintons didn’t want to get down and dirty.
IMO, I would just run a 30-second ad repeating this Hillary Clinton quote over and over again:
“And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein – this is your last chance – disarm or be disarmed. Thank you, Mr. President.”
Someone couldn’t have been wronger about the Saddam and Iraq. It’s right there for them to use — use it!!

As an Australian watching this from afar I have to say The Clintons shamless action have not gone un noticed over here. We liked them when Bill was in office. We believed the right wing conspiracy was against them. Now we know we were taken for fools. We’ve seen the monster and it ugly!
Before this i had that Obama can wait four years thinking he is good, honest, has ideas and seems to have a wierd thing for a politician human decency now i feel sick think you could force four hell even eight years of the Clintons on the world.
What is wrong with your media ? Why do they let her get away with all these lies starting with 35 years experience. My girlfriends a doctor we have been together four five years! I can tell you I’m no doctor! You dont want me operating You!
We are laughing over here at your media can i say thanks JPT for actually being a journalist and not being a parrot with a mic or a pen. But honestly even you could do better.
But while we laugh, I’m reminded that a crapy media let/help/assisted George Bush and his war (again made of lies) in Iraq which led my country into the war in Iraq! Which thank god we will be out of in July. The fact that Hillary suported it is enough to say she not worthy for me.
Why does no media point to the fact that if Clinton gets in it will be BUSH,CLINTON,BUSH,ClINTON ? Weird are you sure you guys are a republic ? Maybe you are a Monachy and you guys just dont know it ! Lord knows none of these people are your best and brightest…well at least i hope not!
If you want to vote in a woman then find on thats worthy! that palosi she bright and not a monster ??
Of the choice avaliable I ask you to think about Obama…. and to think of the rest of the world ? If you guys vote wrong an let Hillary take our countriies again to war with who… maybe Iran next ? Ill be mad and if we have to hear about the right wing conspiracy and poor interns being sexualy harased all over again for the next four or eight years, I’ll be very mad with you all.
Cant you pass a referndum over there banning bush and clinton for holding office ? Whats next jeb and chelsea ? Please….

(Spelling fixed)
As an Australian watching this from afar I have to say, the Clinton’s are truely shamless there action have not gone unnoticed over here. To think we liked them when Bill was in office. We believed the right wing conspiracy was against them. Now we know we were taken for fools. We’ve seen the monster and it’s ugly! Truely UGLY
Before this i had thought that Obama can wait another four years thinking he is good, honest, has ideas and seems to have a wierd thing for a politician human decency. But now i feel sick think you could force four, hell even eight years of the Clinton’s on the world.
What is wrong with your media ? Why do they let her get away with all these lies, starting with 35 years experience. My girlfriend is a doctor, we have been together for five years! I can tell you now, I’m no doctor! You dont want me operating You!
We are laughing over here at your media. Can i say thanks JPT for actually being a journalist and not like it seem all the others acting like parrot’s with a mic or a pen. But honestly even you could do better. You know you can!
But while we laugh, I’m reminded that a crapy media let/help/assisted George Bush get his war (again made of lies) in Iraq which led my country into the war in Iraq! Which thank god we will be out of in July. The fact that Hillary suported it is enough to say she not worthy for me.
Why does no media points to the fact that if Clinton gets in it will be BUSH,CLINTON,BUSH,ClINTON ?
Weird are you sure you guys are a republic ? Maybe you are a Monachy and you guys just dont know it ! Lord knows none of these people are your best and brightest…well at least i hope not!
If you want to vote in a woman then find on thats worthy! that Palosi seems bright and not a monster ?
Of the choice avaliable I ask you to think about Obama…. and to think of the rest of the world ?
If you guys vote wrong an let Hillary take our countries again to war with who… maybe Iran next ? Ill be mad and if we have to hear about the right wing conspiracy and poor interns being sexualy harased all over again for the next four or eight years, I’ll be very mad with you all.
Can’t you hold and pass a referndum over there banning a Bush and Clinton form holding office ? Whats next Jeb and Chelsea ? Maybee socks ? Please….

Here here Shane!
I’m from New Zealand and I think the Clinton behavior is vile – reminds me of Bush lying to people to get what he wants.
Obama is right – the status quo needs to change if you really want to change course and that means you need to question people who try to divide and manipulate you through fear and tell you hope is false – cos unless you all start believing in your power as a people and stand up together, you’ll continue to be played by people who only care about their own interests.
The Clintons seem to come up with an endless array of statements they put forth as absolute truth but when fact checked are mountains out of molehills or just plain lies. It also seems like some in the establishment were helping them in both New Hampshire and Nevada to disenfranchise voters. How is that democratic? There is no ‘sleep at night’ justification for that sort of collusion.
Watching this from a distance – you see them continually presetting their positions to justify later behaviours. If Obama says nothing then their lies go unchallenged, if he does say something they say it is sour grapes or he is a sore loser. I think Obama has to stand up for himself and I think it is sad that these people that seem to lack a moral compass would try and pull a good man down.
I’m glad to see that a growing number of people are realizing that Obama is what America (and the rest of the world too) needs at this time. I don’t think any other candidate has developed a fan base overseas – just Obama. I think he will be remembered as a great President – one of your finest. Don’t let him slip away – that would be as mad as re-electing Bush. Obama is your man!

PS. To those dreamers thinking Obama will be VP to Hillary – dream on. He would instantly lose all of his credibility and support – he can’t be VP to that beast!!! You want to destroy the man? I’m figuring he is smarter than to commit political suicide doing that.
I think he thinks the time is now – so this might be a one shot offer. And if you can him in favor of slime then at least McCain seems like a decent guy, although I don’t know why anyone mentions the world ‘victory’ in connection to Iraq – that’s delusional – it’s not a lose win situation – just a mess.

Jo, Shane,
Welcome to America!
Kidding. If you’re curious about the Clinton, look up “Dick Morris” who worked with the Clintons from 1976 to 1996. You may be familiar with him. He has an interesting and insiders perspective on the Clintons. Probably more so than anyone to be found.
Google “Dick Morris” +Clinton.

I’m so sicked by the Clintons at this point — I now understand why Republicans hate them so bitterly, and why the US ultimately elected (or came close enough) Bush following Bill Clinton’s administration. As a party loyalist, I had just, well, turned a deaf ear to what my Republicans friends said about Bill during his administration as just being partisan, but now seeing their behavior now — repugnant. I had no idea they were such slime and conscienceless liars. I remember the prayer group etc. that Hillary had belonged to during Bill’s cheating years, and I now wonder, was that an act, too? How can anyone with a shred of conscience of behave the way that she and her husband are behaving? God save America.

I don’t pay much attention to radio ads, or any ads. There’s almost always misquoting going on. I like to read what each of them said and then come up with my own conclusions. Obama did sound like he was kissing Republican butt. In the end, the mud throwing does not matter. It happens in all elections. Obama is doing it just as much as Hillary. What I care about is the issues and their experience. We are voting for the next president of the united states, not on who is more likeable. Obama should try again in 15 years when he’s more experienced.

(Continues from last post)
It was around that time that I befriended a couple of buddies to talk politics with on the internet – they were both lawyers – one from San Fran and a Dem, and one from New York and a Republican. Well – as you can imagine – Lawyers are good at arguing and digging up stuff to counter each other with. I guess I must have been conversing with these guys for over two years now – and when they go at each other, they don’t take any prisoners. Anyway, in the course of the mud they were flinging at each other I discovered when it came to overseas policy and the ways corporations, banks, special interest lobby groups seemed to influence political decisions – well it didn’t matter if you were a Dem or a Rep – the system underneath it was corrupt – cared about profit – not about people – not even the American people. People were acceptable losses to sufficient profit margins, especially if they lived in countries rich in resources. There was no connection to these people as having families, children, hopes and dreams for their future – they were made into some sub-human other, expendable.
So when the 2006 house and senate selections came around I was filled with hope that maybe this madness would be curbed. But everytime people tried to do something, there was not enough of a working majority in the Government to make it happen – not enough people on the same page. And then something would pop up again – say a video from Bin Laden or new reports of terrorist threats afoot and people would fall back in line with the Bush Admin plans, afraid, impotent, led…To say these things seemed to consistently pop up opportune moments – well they did (continues)

(Continues from last post 2)
Then came preparation for the primaries – of course this was what all the world had been waiting for. At first I was behind Hillary getting the nod – thought it would be cool for the States to have a female president. Anyway – back in July, I happened to read an article on Hillary’s plans/policies – particularly how she was going to deal with the Iraq situation – it was from a talk she gave in Iowa – in the Des Moines Register. I didn’t know anything about the American primaries then – didn’t know the relevance of Iowa – assumed it was some critical swing state. So I left a message and I said that the policies seemed sound but that I wanted to know 2 things:
1/ How was she going to reduce the influence of big money corporations and interest groups that shaped America’s foreign policy, and…
2/ How was she going to improve America’s relationship with the rest of the world.
Well I might have checked back the following night on the message board, but then forgot about it. It wasn’t until some months later when someone in Iowa asked Obama what he would do about foreign relations and Hillary called his response naive that I actually looked back into it. These two issues had been of high concern to people in Iowa (not suggesting I triggered it – I think people in America had been asking this for some time from what I could tell on the net) and Edwards and Obama had risen to the challenge of tackling those issues but Hillary did not – choosing to call Obama naive instead.
And of course, even now she’s quite happy to take that money from the Corporations but still say she can stand up to them. Where was her guts to actually challenge the status quo? I could only conclude that she had no interest in challenging the status quo – that the way things were suited her just fine. Suddenly having a female president of the USA was irrelevant.
As time went past things developed, it took Obama a while to rebound from Hillary treating him like a child – labeling him as inexperienced – but he didn’t back down from that message, he stuck with it, he defended it and then people started listening (me included).
And what’s more he recognized that to overcome the ineffectiveness of the government because of its partisan positions, a working majority had to be created – where people pulled together.
He recognized that a people ruled so long by fear, who had become passive, helpless and cynical – they needed to be reminded that change is not impossible, that this didn’t have to be the way of things, that if you join together in a common purpose to make things better, fix the boat and get it back on the river – then that unity was stronger than ANYTHING people with billions of dollars – paper – could bring against you. If you wanted to take your country back – you had to stand together and most importantly – you had to believe you could do it.
When Hillary said that she would be better able to handle a terrorist attack that ‘was likely to happen once the new President was elected’ I shuddered. She was using Bush’s language. When I witnessed the diviseness of her comments and actions and her trying to tear this good man down, I felt fearful for the American people.
In Obama – you have a man with the sense to know what you need the most – to keep you strong and focused in the aftermath of the Bush Admin and to inspire not just Americans but people around the world – to give us all hope – because unity is the message that we need at this time in our history.
This world, the factions and fights within it, you go back in time and then come forward slowly and you will see that it is a family feud. Brother fighting against brother, dividing, moving to different areas, fighting and dividing again, till we are so alienated from each other that we forget we are family and our home is the planet earth.

You would see, if Barack got elected, he’d have to make the same sort of compromises too, and then you’ll be all disappointed in him; and he’ll say: we have to compromise, that’s what uniting and not dividing is all about.
The Clintons are the most respected around the world because they have proved themselves, and the world loved us when they were governing.
I hear it all the time from people abroad on other international message boards.

And so, to conclude. About a month before I actually really heard what Obama had to say – back in the beginning of December, for some reason I was driven to find out more about the history of our world, the ancient beliefs, the beliefs of today and how they have been shaped. And what I found said to me ‘we are all one family’. And I saw all of the many divisions that had been tearing us apart, both within ourselves and without. And I came to a conclusion – we need reconciliation, we need unity or we’re just not going to get through this time – this now. And it was a sense of the choice is now, a sense of urgency. And when I saw what Obama had to say and his explanations of why he was saying it and I recognized it – I knew I had to support him in every way I could, and that is what I have been doing. And it’s just something I have to do – and its coming from my whole being – I couldn’t deny it.

Were the Clintons perfect? No
Did they learn an incredible amount?
Yes
Would Barack be perfect? No
Does he have an incredible amount to learn? Yes
Should Hillary be our President in 2008, to help our country with proven competence and experience? Yes
Should Barack be President in the future after he’s had more real experience? Yes
That way we get to have both an incredibly competent First woman President, and later, an incredibly competent first African-American President.
Then we have a win-win, and that my friends represents true hope and change.

Lauren,
I live in Australia and Jo in New Zealand we’d both rather you vote Obama over the Clinton’s. I once thought the Clinton’s were good, Once… now I see them for what they are liars and cheats they and the Bush’s are the same monster just with different corporations pulling there strings.
I agree with Jo voting Clinton is just as bad as voting for Bush again ! My friends in Japan, England, France, Brazil and my new friend Jo from NZ want Obama.
Another Clinton is not change! Just like putting a new sheet on your bed doesn’t make it a new bed.
I hope you really think about your vote! Do some research on Hillary’s votes and the bush agenda… Don’t believe the media that Obama and Hillary’s vote are pretty much the same they are not. If I can take the time to check it out you can.
If you want the Clinton that’s your choice but most people here and in other people hope you will see the light you have a chance to change things for the better but given past history you guys will make the wrong choice and the rest of the world will pay for it.
PS Lauren your wrong when you say Hillary Clinton has nothing but the most profound respect for Martin Luther King Jr that whole story of her and the church minister taking her to see or hear MLk is a lie its been on the news over here and is even in her book. At the time she was a Goldwater girl as in Barry Morris Goldwater (January 2, 1909 – May 29, 1998) who ran as a pro segragtion platform he was against the civil right act. She was a Republian then did you know that ? Can you say flip floper. Please check your facts.

Hey Shane – I hear what you are saying about 72% of Australians being against the war. Apparently the Australian Government wasn’t interested in getting involved in the war, but they had a massive wheat export deal to Iraq. They thought that America going in there would mean America would take the wheat deal for themselves, and so said they would support the war but pleaded for them to leave the wheat deal with Australia intact. After the invasion, the American Wheat Board secured exclusive rights to provide wheat to Iraq, shutting the Australians out (Howard was such a pandering dummy).
Sidenote about wheat: Iraq had grown sufficient wheat to feed it’s own people, at a time when people were starving, still recovering from the destroyed infrastructure of the first gulf war, but nothing to process it with and wanted to be able to get the infrastructure to mill it via Syria, most UN countries were sympathetic to that, but it was vetoed by the US and UK as outside the parameters of ‘Oil for Food’, which required Iraqis to import food in exchange for oil.

I can tell you that myself, some friends and family have gotten turned off by the Clinton’s behaviour to do anything to win and will not vote for her if she gets the Democratic nomimnee. Their behavior and distortions like at Meet the Press in which Hilalry said: “Sen. Obama’s chief strategist accuses me of playing a role in Benazir Bhutto’s assassination.” When in actuality David Axelrod never made such an accusation. He said former Prime Minister Bhutto’s death will ”call into issue the judgment” of ”taking the eye off the ball and making the wrong judgment in going into Iraq.” and their recent attempt in voter suppresion in Nevada has shown a lot of people another side to them we did not know existed and it does not look pretty. They seem more like Republicans than Democrats it is a shame to see their moral demise!

So true bacalove but there is hope if people choose obama!

I have checked all my facts!
Hillary was born into a Republican family, and because of that when she was younger she was a Goldwater girl at one point, but as she became an adult, she chose to be a Democrat.
See? She’s a uniter, not a divider!
Don’t apply double standards of praising Obama for unifying, and criticizing Hillary for being centrist.
If Obama truly unifies, he will have to act as a centrist too.
He will have to make a lot of centrist votes and decisions that you won’t like. He wil have to change his mind and position sometimes. He will make mistakes. He will have to learn.
And some people will attack him for it.
He and Hillary have the same basic ideals, just different ways of talking about them. His is largely rhetoric at this time; hers is practical experience.
Hillary has the competence and experience.
It will take Barack forever just to get anything done. “Unifying” and governing a country as complex as ours is very hard, complicated work that he has never done.

Since he’s been in the Senate, he’s voted yes on almost all the bills to fund the War in Iraq. He has supported the war by doing that.
He said that Hillary’s comment about Lyndon Johnson’s role was “ill-advised” and “unfortunate” implying that there was something wrong with it, when there’s nothing wrong with such a practical remark.
She had said before herself, that MLK was one of her “greatest heroes.”
He has stated outright that Hillary wouldn’t change anything now – which is ludicrous and ridiculous in itself. Of course her Presidency would change a lot of things quite substantially for the better.
He has implied that somehow voting for Hillary would not be moving “forward”, just because her husband has been one of the best Presidents we have ever had in the past. It is also ludicrous and ridiculous, to suggest that as a country we would not move forward with her proven experience and competency, and it is nothing but rhetoric.
Most of his policies are more similar than dissimilar to her policies.
He has said that the Clintons have said things that were wrong, but he won’t clear them up.
It is not enough to just say that they said things that were wrong. He needs to prove them.
If he doesn’t he is being hypocritical and not coming clean about the changes and inconsistencies in his own positions and record.
There are more details but I have not slept, and now need to…

“Oh Lauren – come on you’re walking these – it will take ages for Obama to get anything done – the man credited by both Reps and Dems at being able to get them to work together to get laws pushed through?
How successful has the house and senate been since 2006 in getting things pushed through because you are too divided?”
He has been in the Senate since 2006, how come he hasn’t been able to fix it all? If he’s so good at getting Republicans and Democrats to work together and “push things through.”
Your own comments contradict each other.

Ok – one last comment, because as your saw from my last post, I can barely type a sentence anymore zzzzzzzzz. The first sentence was meant to be ‘you’re walking into it here’.
1. Saying a war is dumb (in 2002) before it happens is one thing – remembering he wasn’t yet elected to the Senate when he spoke out against it.
2. Not providing sufficient financial support/equipment to troops that had already been sent into harms way, or reacting to an obligation to help Iraqi people get into a stable place before stuffing off, is a different matter entirely.
He opposed them getting into that war when there was still a chance to avoid this whole mess. Other people made the decision for it to go ahead. You walk into a situation that has already happened, you vote with whatever way you think prioritizes people’s safety, their lives – and that is the appropriate judgment. See, this is just another example of twisting things.

night jo : )

RE:
“He has been in the Senate since 2006, how come he hasn’t been able to fix it all?”
Has Hillary been able to fix it all since she got in the Senate? You don’t suppose a little iddy biddy detail like Bush and Cheney might be a factor?
So to prove he can be president he had to go into the Senate and fix everything? That’s a little bit of a ridiculous statement don’t you think?
All he has to do is demonstrate that there have been laws that he has played an instrumental role in bringing Reps and Dems together on.
Obama doesn’t strike me as a person who would say something that could not be substantiated – he’s not that reckless to put himself in that position – unlike someone else we won’t mention.

Obama has been in the senate since 2004. and he spent 10 years in the illinois senate. he’s got more public service experience than hillary clinton. and unlike her, he has a positive, optimistic vision.

The facts are certainly beyond debate. She did vote for the Iraq War, she did champion NAFTA and she did praise Reagan. Although I think the tag line is a bit tough, the ad itself is certainly substantive.

Bill Clinton – lost the Democrats the House, groped numerous women, carried Republican water with DOMA, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, cost the US economy jobs with NAFTA, ran away from Somalia. Pardoned crooks. What an amazing President!
Hillary – screwed up healthcare, hired corrupt lawyers, kissed up to Norman Hsu for cash, enabled Bill Clinton to abuse women by pandering to his perversions and then lying about them consistently in public. Yes, just the sort of experience and moral integrity that all future presidents require.

Rezko one not proven to be anything question ! Google CLINTON SCANDALS 191,000
Black is the new Black
Clinton is the new Bush !
Same monster different masters.

I have to say I am a registered Republican, but at this time, if Obama gets the ticket, I WILL VOTE FOR HIM. If it comes down to Hillary and a Rupublican…any republican~doesn’t matter who, I would vote for them above Hillary any day. I think that will be the consensus of many Americans.
The Clinton’s are nothing but a pair of LIARS. They have brought nothing but scandal and embarrassment to our country when they were in the white house. Even today they continue to lie. And Bill says he will be Hillary’s right hand man? God, we do NOT need him back there.
And as far as Senator Clinton, she is the NY senator, where I live and she hasn’t done spit for us! She keeps harping on the health care thing and didn’t do a thing. She only came here to be a senator because NY is a known Democratic state. It was nothing but a stepping stone for her career.
Her tears are fake and her statements are lies. And now she has the guts to let Bill speak for her? The man who not once, but MANY times has publically lied to our nation?
I think it is SOOOO sad that women are taking the stand to vote for her just because she is a woman and want to make history. She keeps going on about the health care stuff, which is a known problem, but if you put her in the white house, you won’t have to worry about the health care when the other enemy countries blow up the US and we are dead!
And as far as Regan…he WAS a good president. He did what he said he was going to do. He kicked butt. It’s the liberals that have the biggest problem with his term.

Yeah, hillary has done mothing for mew york as senator. I suspect she will do nothing as president, except for raking in a presidential salary.

Has anyone caught on to this: Obama slams Hillary for working for Walmart as a lawyer while his wife works for a company whose largest customer – IS WALMART. There is a deliberate effort here to distract with pretty words, and deflect all criticism as old politics. The Chicago Tribune knows Obama well and they have tracked his excuses on votes and they have proved his excuse is bogus. He just didn’t have the guts to vote up or down 130 times. He didn’t do a 5 hour billing job for Rezko. He has known him for ****15 years****. They bought property together, saving $300K on the house and NOT having to buy the lot saved Obama another $625K. Pretending to be disadvantaged, marching, changing your accent into MLK in front of crowds of poor black folks in S.C. if that isn’t pandering and dishonesty I don’t know what else is. The republicans want this guy. They are hungry to run against him. His rejection of late term abortion will make for horrific commercials that will get all the evangelicals out in droves. He doesn’t stand a chance and they know it. That is why they want him. They don’t want Hillary. They have already used every bomb and bullet they have to get her and there’s nothing new to use. They don’t want to run against her cause they tried to stop her for 16 years and its failed.

Hillary Clinton is running purely on ego. If she didn’t deal with corruption within her very own marriage – for years!- then it’s safe to say she won’t deal with it within her own government. Both the Clintons just cannot seem to refrain from disingenuous, smear campaign politics, because they are blinded by a quest for power. They change nothing, while Barack Obama has the integrity, and the character to change everything. And America needs this change, immediately. Vote Obama!

Welcome to big time politics Mr. Obama. You invoke Reagan and GOP ideas in the midst of a heated campaign in a blatant attempt to get GOP cross over votes in a close Nevada caucus and you get called on it. Grow up and deal with it. Bill Clinton is very right about at least one thing: the press picks up and runs hard with every line of attack made by Obama and they have given him virtually a free ride when return fire comes back.

Bush is better than Bill as per honesty…
Bush likes Obama so as many Republicans.. Obama does like some republicans let it be Regan… … its fair…
kill Bill-hill …
this is a real battle btween age-group than race … age > 50 vote liar Bill
age < 50 vote for 'Change' "OBAMA' and future for America..

Older people unlikely would go for change …
where as youth sees opportunities in adopting changes.
As a individual if you fail to adopt chnages in ur life you wud strubble to live….
and siniors of this country are keen to live the life the way it is with a better Healtcare … they will vote Bill knowing he was a liar ..
Youth – actually unlike most of the countries in the world in USA siniors otnumber the youth… …
so I’m sure if siniors tend resist change .Bill-hill win WH and continue to dominate family dynasty ..
my advise to all youth let us out numbers siniors this time and vote for Change … I wud go for Obama …. he represents fundamental change.. If u dont like Obama vote Ron Paul

Here again everyone acts like there are only 2 people on the democratic ticket. Perhaps it is time for those that are disgusted with these two to look at Edwards again.

It’s getting ugly between Obama and Hillary. I don’t like it and I don’t like the way both campaigns are playing in the hands of the Republicans. I will vote for Edwards!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MY VOTE IS FOR EDWARDS 2008!

There’s nothing wrong with saying the truth, and I believe Obama has done so with this ad.

So we sit here and complain about being lied to by our politicians… and when we find one that is willing to stand up to those lies and speak the truth, many of you are against him for doing it.
If one doesn’t support the truth– and speak up loudly and firmly when it is not being told– then we will never have the change we all say we want.
Thank goodness Obama is speaking the truth (and with a little research you’ll find it IS the truth) now. Now more than ever we need a president we can TRUST!

Hillary has brought this on herself. If McCain is the Republican nominee and she’s the Democratic nominee, he’ll definitely win: he appeals to independents, and Republicans who might not otherwise vote because of McCain’s so-called maverick tendencies will turn out en masse to keep Hillary (and Bill) out of the White House. Only Obama or Edwards have a chance of beating McCain.

If Obama’s and Edwards positions were reversed, I would expect Edwards would do the very same thing – call out the Clinton lies for what they are. I would be very disappointed if Obama didn’t do this after the damage the Swiftboaters did to Kerry. I personally would love to see Obama as president and Edwards as Attorney General. Then you’d really see some things get done and investigated.

It’s real easy to spout that Hillary is lying and Bill is being a toughie etc.. But I do wish you all would take a real look at what Hillary and Bill are saying and you’ll recognize there is much truth to the allegations they are making. Furthermore – it was Obama who started the petty attacks in the latest debate and whined like a pouty baby that he didn’t know who he was running against! My goodness, he knew very well who he was running against when he entered the race. But it looks like he can’t stand the hear and so is complaining that Bill is campaigning for his wife! Excuse me!! What kind of a President will Obama be when it comes to dealing with the trails and tribulations of running the country? Is he going to say, that’s not fair – and I’m not playing – because it’s too hard. ??
That’s scary.
America was the leader of the world during Clinton’s presidency.. what is your problem with that? You prefer its position today? If so keep the blinders on and do like the Republicans did and blame everything on the Clintons. You’re falling right into their hands once again. The Republicans WANT Obama.

Go Barack! Save us from the Clintons once and for all! w00t!

Hills big problem is Bill. Too many interns in the White House with Bill hanging around and nothing to do.
The Repubs can’t wait for the general election with Hill on top of the ballot,
presenting titlating senarios of Bill to the voting masses

I’ve decided that I won’t be voting if Hillary grabs the democratic nomination. I can’t stomach 4 more years of this partisan non-sense.

Scott says “If Obama’s and Edwards positions were reversed,..”.
Well, they can’t. Edwards is a clean and honest politician. Obama is a dirty politician. For details, I refer you to Jake’s other post: Rezko-a-rama.

The very fact that one of the commentors here brought up the Rezko issue shows that the Obama campaign needs to refute the lies the Clintons have been spreading. Hillary’s statement about Barack representing Rezko has been proved repeatedly to be an out right lie. Yet we still have people here mentioning it.
Obama needs to somehow balance his time optimally between refuting Hillary’s slander and of course addressing key national issues (which her tactic has been to try and distract him and potential voters from).
He has a really difficult task before him and it may seem as one commentor said a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation…but he can pull it off. He and his campaign staff seem to be dynamic enough

and by the way…
digging up dirt on someone is a different ethical issue altogether from telling lies and distorting the truth in order to win. the former is harsh the latter is dirty.
when obama said that hillary was on the board of walmart while he was busy doing community service…that was harsh, not dirty. in response, when hillary claimed that obama represented rezko that was dirty.
and yes, it is very harsh, and probably not fair ground, to bring up bill’s infidelity…however obama has never commented on that during his campaign.
to be quite honest though, i find it hard to ignore Bill’s remarkable ability to lie so convincingly…even convinced his wife twice throughout their marriage that he wasnt unfaithful (Gennifer Flowers, and Monica Lewinsky).
i also find it hard to ignore that hillary has been lied to and cheated on twice by him, but still seems to want to be seen as some kind of feminist or beacon of issues, like respect, particulary relevant to women.

Obama models campaign on Reagan revolt
By: David Paul Kuhn
Jul 24, 2007 06:16 PM EST
Awash in money and publicity but behind in the polls, Barack Obama, advisers say, is planning a classic insurgent’s campaign to wrest the Democratic nomination from Hillary Rodham Clinton — one that relies on a surge of momentum from early-state victories and faces a make-or-break test in the South Carolina primary.
Obama is touting a new and unconventional brand of grass-roots politics, but his strategy borrows from precedents set by a previous generation of Democrats such as Jimmy Carter and Gary Hart. His advisers also invoke as inspiration a surprising Republican: Ronald Reagan.
“Now, it is blasphemy for Democrats,” Obama pollster Cornell Belcher said of Reagan, “but that hope and optimism that was Ronald Reagan” allowed him to “transcend” ideological divisions within his own party and the general electorate.
The upbeat message, Obama advisers say, won’t prevent the candidate from stepping up both veiled and explicit contrasts with Clinton, who he hopes to portray as an old-hat conventional politician whose varied positions on the Iraq war reflect calculation rather than leadership.
Obama’s need to transcend conventional politics is evident by looking at the practical hurdles to his nomination. He boasts best-selling books and magazine cover spreads and — most relevant to his 2008 ambitions — is winning the fundraising race in both total dollars and with a record number of contributors.
But bundles of cash and good buzz have not eroded what most national polls show as a durable double-digit lead for Clinton, built largely around her nearly two-to-one advantage with Democratic women.
This has Obama relying on a carom-shot candidacy, in which, come January, he will need to exploit Clinton’s weakness in the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses, then have nearly all the bounces go his way in other early contests if he hopes to compete credibly once the race goes national with voting in half the states on Feb. 5.
Obama strategists say for now they are not running a national campaign but are depending on what senior adviser David Axelrod calls “a sequential series” of victories.
This is why Obama is already on the air with television ads in Iowa and New Hampshire and so far is out-spending Clinton in every early state.
The trend includes more than twice as much spending in Iowa ($1.6 million to Clinton’s $839,000) and nearly three times as much in South Carolina ($350,000 to $120,000) in the first half of this year.
The South Carolina Democratic primary electorate is usually more than half African-American, and Obama advisers predict these voters will back one of their own to give him an essential victory a week before Super Tuesday.
History suggests the hazards of this momentum-based approach. Nearly every Democratic nominating contest for the past 40 years has featured some variation on the same script: reform candidates trying to use grass-roots energy and media momentum to beat rivals with more traditional profiles and, usually, more support from the party establishment.
Occasionally it works, as when George McGovern won the Democratic nomination on an anti-war message in 1972 or when Jimmy Carter bounced off an Iowa victory to become unstoppable in 1976.
Usually it doesn’t work, as reflected in the experiences of candidates such as Eugene McCarthy, Jerry Brown, Bill Bradley or, most recently, Howard Dean, who in 2003 was riding a wave that looked much like the one Obama is trying to surf now, before wiping out once voting actually began.
A close parallel to the strategy Obama is trying to execute (with a different conclusion) is the one that took Gary Hart to the brink of a major upset of Walter Mondale in 1984.
Hart stunned the party establishment when his future-oriented “new ideas” message led to a big victory in the New Hampshire primary. Mondale soon rallied by saying Hart’s supposed new ideas reminded him of a fast-food hamburger commercial: “Where’s the beef?”
Obama’s hope is to answer that question most fervently by emphasizing that he opposed the war in Iraq from the outset.
Hart, who in addition to his own insurgent campaign also managed McGovern’s in 1972, sees new vitality in the old strategic model, questioning Clinton as he once did Mondale.
“There still is an enormous number of people in the party who are unhappy with [Clinton] for what they perceive to be her vacillation on the war and her reluctance to confess error,” he said in an interview. “People who care about these things remember when, remember how, remember who took leadership.
“She’s one of the best-known women in the world,” Hart added. “She’s been in the White House for eight years. She’s a senator from one of the largest states. And 60-plus percent of the Democratic Party wants somebody else.”

There’s another thing to be considered if you want to get a woman elected as president of the United States. If Hillary wins while standing in the shadow of her husband, letting him take all the political hits, making all the speeches on her behalf while cutting into her opponent, is this really a win for women? Do the men hide behind the skirts of their wives? If the men win, could it ever be construed that they only got it because of their wife’s intervention? With so many capable women to choose from, who could step into the presidency in a minute, and do it on their OWN, why do we women stand by and let this happen? I think it’s degrading…that’s why I’m going for Obama….

I am stunned….. the Clintons were the LAST people on earth who could resort to the lies and distortions that have been used against them by republicans for years and years. We’re all exhausted defending them…. and the MOMENT they get the chance, they prove they’ve been exactly as the republicans claim all along.
I am incredulous to see Hillary allow Bill to go out and sling the mud for her…the manly male getting the little lady the job she wants…not at all concerned that she is not, after all, the whole woman running on her own record and merit, after all.
Finally, this nation has been injured.
We have a LOT of work to do. We need leadership that can get republicans and democrats to agree to the sacrifices necessary to get our financial house in order, get us weened from mid-east oil… we needed an Elder statesman, we need a trustworthy leader…. Bill and Hillary have forfeited both.

I watched the taped interview Obama gave to the Reno Gazette. I would like to know how anyone could draw from it that Obama insinuated the Republicans had better ideas.
If i say that someone is wealthy, but i don’t agree with how they acquired that wealth or how they spent it, is that a compliment? Absolutely not. It’s a statement highlighting some strengths and suggesting weaknesses.
If he says that on average the republicans/reagan had more ideas than democrats in the past, does that mean he liked those ideas? no, it does not…it means he acknowledges they had more ideas, but the statement makes no comment on whether Obama LIKED the ideas. It’s more like saying “…at least they were trying”.
Even though he thought the Republicans were trying to come up with new ideas, he clearly didn’t like them…since he opposed all the [republican] votes that the Clinton campaign suggested he voted for in the ad they just lanched. The Clintons associated him with voting against minimum wage increases and increasing tax cuts for Wall Street. All UNTRUE.
…then Willy has the audacity to tell CNN that Obama is trying to funnel mud through the media. what a freaking joke. Then why is it Willy that Senators and leading democrats in Massachusettes, Vermont, Illinois and South Carolina have all said that your behaviour has been inappropriate, and blame you of playing dirty politics?

Yawn!!! Actually, double Yawn!!!
I have never seen a shred of evidence that Barak Obama can bring about change, and Hillary Clinton is, of course, a dyed in the wool centirst politician, so we can expect basically more of the same from her. Obama’s campaign seems to be based pretty much on the fact that he can, on occasion, give a good speech (I’ve heard him several times and he can also be flat as a pancake). Politicians like Obama and Clinton are a dime a dozen. Ones like John Edwards don’t come along very often. If you want change, he is the one to support. If you don’t want change, either Obama or Clinton will do just fine.

Let me make that more clear:
Obama is the one demonstrating his double-speaking lawyer abilities, and how he will “Say Anything” to win, and then later not take responsiblity for, or explain what he said, and why he said it.
He is demonstrating that he is being very seriously hypocritical and duplicitous.

Heartlander, maybe you haven’t seen a shread of the change that Obama can bring about because you don’t do your research on the candidates.
Obama was an illinois senator from 1997 – 2004 and a US Senator since that.
During his political career in illinois he has worked to improve living conditions of socio-economically depressed residents,getting the state to pay attention to the fact that these residents were living in conditions hazardous to their health and change that. He got residents, who didn’t know how to improve their situation, to organize, rally around the cause and bring about change. He personally went and meant with these people to pull them out and fight for their own cause.
He also worked to improve the school system in poor neighbourhoods.
In addition to this, during his time as a senator, he has voted to increase minimum wage, has voted to increase tax cuts on the middle class and decrease tax cuts for Wall Street.
He has had a record of being a consciencious non-partisan member of congress by not simply voting to oppose issues that republicans have voted for, but by refusing to vote unless the alternative was something he believed in (hence his ‘present’ votes).
Let’s also remember he voted against the war in Iraq before it started unlike many people who were voting for it. Once the troops were in Iraq and were stuck in a dire situation with waining supplies and a president that had no intentions of pulling them out he voted to support the troops financially.
He’s obviously not afraid to put his ego aside and to go for what he believes is right, even in the midst of pressure from some of his peers.

Here’s just a little more of the New York Times Editorial Board’s endorsement:
We know that she is capable of both uniting and leading. We saw her going town by town through New York in 2000, including places where Clinton-bashing was a popular sport. She won over skeptical voters and then delivered on her promises and handily won re-election in 2006.
Mrs. Clinton must now do the same job with a broad range of Americaâ’s voters. She will have to let Americans see her power to listen and lead, but she won’t be able to do it town by town.
When we endorsed Mrs. Clinton in 2006, we were certain she would continue to be a great senator, but since her higher ambitions were evident, we wondered if she could present herself as a leader to the nation.
Her ideas, her comeback in New Hampshire and strong showing in Nevada, her new openness to explaining herself and not just her programs, and her abiding, powerful intellect show she is fully capable of doing just that. She is the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House.
*Cheers*

Look up the “Trinity United Church of Christ” website. Scary! I,m not sure how that will play a part in the White House. Any thoughts?

If you listened to the SC democratic debate, he did explain himself– but incidentally was cut short by Hillary who spoke over his voice as he tried to elaborate.

What happened at that particular point in the SC debate:
Hillary said that he [Obama] is the one who claimed he likes policies of the republicans.
Obama responded that he did not say he liked Reagan’s policies.
Then Hillary raised her voice to cut off any further elaboration.
Now, why on earth would he continue to use precious public time to try and convince people who vote strictly among partisan lines not to punish him for mentioning some appicable strength in an opposition?
Furthermore, he’s aired advertisements to counteract those same claims that Hillary and her supporters have made in regard to his Reagan comment….Hillary then pulled her ad, at which point the Obama campaign also pulled their ad (since there was no further need to explain or defend himself along those lines).
And let’s not forget if you listen to the Obama interview he stresses “were” when he states that the republicans WERE the party of ideas…that Reagan had the ability to centralise people around a common issue.
All in all, you’re free, as Hillary has also done, to feel/portray that Obama meant something that he absolutely did not say.

Intially I respected him.
But because of his great and unadmitted hypocrisy (because he has been attacking the Clintons since the beginning of his campaign, saying that they are part of what’s broken in Washington, when Bill’s administration was one of the most competent, effective for both hope and change, and accomplished we’ve ever had. I lived through it all. )
And the divisiveness of the country has been caused by the Republican attack machine against liberals and against the Clintons because they were the Democrats in power.
But until Obama becomes more honest himself, until he proves that he truly can deliver more than all his glorious speeches, I have lost virtually all my respect for him.
Sad, but very, very true.
And now if people are going to call me racist (like they’re calling the Clintons) due to the fact that I have a lot of serious concerns about him, and his true competency to run our country at this time – you should’ve heard what I think, and thought from the beginning – about Bush.
If there’s anything we should have learned these last disatrous 7 years, it’s that freshness, rheotoric, and likeability are not at all as important as experience and competency.

Socio-economically and around the world, this country thrived and prospered during the Clinton Administration.
Outside of poiltics and Republican attacks, there was a great amount of real – actualized, hope, change, unity, and growth!
Sure, they made mistakes. Every Administration does. An Obama Administration would make mistakes too.
But the Clintons learned from their mistakes (unlike Bush), figured out what the necessary changes were, and made them better as soon as they could, when they were in office. By their second term they were extemely efficient and succesful, even with a difficult Congress.
Clinton had exceptionally high approval ratings as President overall!
That is partly why he has been upset. He worked so incredibly, incredibly hard, and truly accomplished so much for the good and success of this country.
And now it’s all being dismissed as “part of the problem” by Barack, when it wasn’t/isn’t part of the problem, at all.
The real problem has been the Republican “ideas of the last 10-15 years or so.” And the Republican attack machine which brought us all the partisanship, division in the country, Iraq, the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer, and the bad economy. That is what is broken in Washington.
Not the Clintons, but the Republican “ideas of the last 10-15 years or so!”
It’s all just so backwards! And wrong!
He blames the Clintons, and not the Republicans when it’s the other way around. All so he can look like a unifer?
Is he unifying very well with the Clintons? He’s been blaming them from the beginning, when it’s not true.
It just couldn’t be more wrong.

And I find it funny that you call my arguments juvenile, when I am actually an award winning scholar.
And I never said anyone called me racist – I only mentioned it because that’s what some people have been insinuating about the Clintons if they call anything into question about Barack. And it is profoundly ridiculous because they have always been tremendous race advocates.
It just shows how much information can be twisted and warped at times like these.
It’s very sad.

I have read, re-read the transcripts, and heard the audio numerous times – he’s just pandering and trying to play it both ways; it’s very political,
and hypocritical, and he’s not owning up to it.
He could have just explained it – he could have insisted on explaining it. It wouldn’t have taken much time. But he delayed, and hesitated because he had to come up with some kind of “tricky” answer that he didn’t have ready. So instead he came out with a much broader and even more ridiculous attack ad against Hillary. One that is even more hypocritical – more of a departure than what he says he represents.
You are very, very wrong about the Clintons.
Why do you think Bill was called “the first black president?” Because he’s so racist?
African-Americans loved the Clintons because of all the Clintons did for them.
Now sadly, in this race, everything that’s said is being insanely distorted.
It’s really gotten to the point where Barack can say whatever critical things he wants to say about them, but they can’t say anything about him, without being accused of playing the race card, and more…
It’s just a complete double-standard.
You could not be more wrong in thinking that the Clintons are racist, or are trying to make this about race.
I have heard many African-American political leaders in South Carolina testify that they know the truth – that the Clintons would never, never, ever, do that – that the Clintons have worked so hard for, and been dedicated to the African-American community for more than 20 years.
But the media will hype it, because the media thrives on sensation and hype. With truth and accuracy lost – for the sake of ratings. And many uninformed people will think whateve they want to think, and project things.
It’s just the difference between people who believe most anything they hear or read, and people who have a longer term, more comprehensive, accurate knowledge of the truth.
These are dangerous times for truth.
It’s like a rare gem that gets trampled and buried beneath the rocks…
*Cheers*