Thanks for pointing this out Greg.
I know you and TPM have been getting some heat from readers lately, but I think you guys have been doing a good job of covering this increasingly hostile primary.

Obama did the right thing for the party nominee, and, of course, Bill distorts and exploits it. It's outrageous that Clinton would attack him for something that Obama did to help the party win the WH and get rid of Bush.

"Me vs. party loyalty....me vs. party loyalty...me vs. party loyalty..." We know how that conversation always ends with the Clintons.

TimBNyc: let's take your comment a bit further. It appears that since Obama was elected to the Senate, he has put party loyalty (or his own ambition) over ending the war. Obama doesn't deserve to get a pass on this issue.

I think very highly of Hillary. The more I get to know her, the more I admire her. I think she's one of the most disciplined people I know. She's one of the toughest. She's got an extraordinary intelligence, and she's somebody who's in this stuff for the right reasons. She's passionate about moving the country forward on issues like health care and children." -- Barack Obama
Obama has been friends Tony Rezko since 1990. Rezko has raised at least $60,000 for Obama's campaigns. In return, Barack arranged an internship in 2005 for John Aramanda, the son of a Rezko business associate Joseph Aramanda, who himself gave Barack $11,500. In June, 2005, Obama bought a house in Chicago for $1.65 million. The same day, Rezko bought the vacant lot next door for $625,00. Seven months later, Rezko sold Barack a slice (1/6th) of his lot so the Obamas could have a bigger yard. There's no evidence that Rezko bought the vacant land for any other reason than to do Obama a favor. Among other problems, Rezko is under indictment in a federal government corruption case for demanding kickbacks from companies wanting to do business with Illinois Governor Blagojevich, another politician that Rezko has befriended and donated to. (Rezko is also under indictment for shaking down a Hollywood producer for $1.5 million in campaign contributions for Blagojevich. The guy takes care of his friends.) In fact, Joseph Aramanda is an unindicted co-conspirator in one of the kickback cases.
Barack Obama's kind of change is where you sit down and you cut a deal with the corporate world." it's just a matter of time before St. Change Agent Obama will have to get a little more specific about his nebulous change agenda and expose his inexperience and decided liberal bend.
Obama is a major scam artist who has done nothing for his constituency.
I also really dislike the way this con man has unnecessarily brought race into this campaign. It was not long ago his wife Michelle was on national television spouting that blacks "will wake up and get it" and vote for Obama. She went on to suggest that it is unreasonable for blacks not to vote for Obama. But now he's saying that people should "look beyond race." I guess that line is for the mostly white audiences only.
So using his wife's disgraceful "vote your race" philosophy, I guess it's not reasonable for whites to vote for Obama either then. The Obama's have mistakenly brought race into this campaign in the oddest, and most arrogant, condescending and illogical ways possible.
Obama's divisiveness is NOT the direction we should be moving in this country.

Obama admits campaign/PAC donation linksBad news for the Barack Obama camp and his politics of hope clean-guy image.The Washington Post reveals today that there was, indeed, close coordination between the Illinois senator's presidential campaign and his leadership PAC, Hopefund, in deciding which local, state and federal politicians around the country were to receive thousands of dollars in contributions from Obama's PAC.Such coordination appears to be forbidden under Federal Election Commission rules because it, in effect, would give a candidate another, less regulated financial fund to influence the outcome of his own campaign. But Obama officials express confidence they violated no rules. The Post's John Solomon reported the other day that Obama's Hopefund had distributed money in the early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire to people like New Hampshire state Sen. Jacayln Cilley, who got $1,000 from Obama last summer. Six days later the Democrat in the nation's first primary state announced her endorsement of his candidacy because she said she believed in him.Likewise, Obama's PAC gave $9,000 to U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes, who was New Hampshire's first congressional member to endorse Obama. In the earlier story Obama spokesmen denied any connection between the PAC and Democratic presidential campaign.But today's piece alters that account and says the PAC has distributed $180,000 to groups and candidates in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Iowa and another $150,000 to similar destinations in states with primary balloting through mid-February.Bob Bauer, private counsel for both Obama's campaign and PAC, named names of those from the campaign who'd help select the PAC's recipients and professed confidence the Obama entities had met all FEC regulations.But Scott Thomas, a Democrat and former FEC chairman, says: "He is clearly pushing the envelope."

Greg, how about a more accurate headline?

It seems whenever the facts are in Obama's favor, Greg still manages to put enough pro-Hillary spin in the headline that the overall impression is neutral. Well, when you try to make a story that should be negative for the Clinton campaign neutral, you are in fact spinning FOR the Clinton campaign.

An accurate headline would be "2004 NYT Article Shows Clinton Campaign Distorting Obama on War Quotes"

I don't see how Obama correcting Bill's distortion in any way represents Obama "Duking it Out" with the Former President.

We need a President (and a First Spouse) who are part of the reality-based community. We've had 28 years of White House spin rather than the truth. If TPM considers itself a responsible press organization, it needs to report facts without partisan spin.

Congratulations to Greg on a fair post.

Bill and Barack each also failed to mention the fact that while Barack did not see the 2002 NIE because he was not a senator, Hillary didn't bother to read it even though she, of course, was a Senator at the time and one of Bush's key war supporters at the time, there being no do-overs in politics

Unless your name is Clinton

Obama was against the war before he was for funding the war.

Guess What, I just went to the gas station last week an filled up my tank. Then the clerk, later that day, was arrested for stealing. Although I did not personally know this clerk, I guess I was aiding and abetting a known theif, huh?

The whole Tony Rezko thing is a sham. There was a lot next to Obamas house for sale. If you know Chicago, you know the lots are pretty small. So he purchased the lot next to his house - he has 2 little kids you know - they like to have room.
Then Tony Rezko gets arrested and all of a sudden the Clintonites are associating Obama with aiding known criminals?

Boy I'd better turn myself in for the gas station purchase.

And yes, Bill and Hillary have been lying to the public about Obama's record left and right in order to sway voters and get ahead. They are just like Republicans, they will say anything and do anything to get back in power, even if they know damn well that it is false. Just like the ethics thing, they have a shitty record, so they try to attack other candidates who have better records, to try to make their opponents look more like them. No matter how much Bill lies, the fact is that Obama opposed the war from the beginning and ever since, and Hillary and Bill both supported it until it because unpopular.

Obama absolutely made the right decision to speak diplomatically when discussing the war vote and the democratic candidates' records. I would have said the exact same thing, because we didn't need to be attacking our own party. This wasn't shady on Obama's part at all, he continued his opposition to the war, and kept the pressure on the Republicans. Anyone who says otherwise are being disingenuous or frankly, naive and ignorant.

jack,

Amazing, here is a thread about the Clinton's using Rovian tactics of misrepresentatin to falsely attack Obama. So how do your respond?

With more Rovian smears. This approach to political discourse is fundamentally, intellectually dishonest.

You and your candidate are charlatans. We don't need this garbage in out party.

stateic,

I followed the link. To me it sounds like he is just being honest and self-effacing. Rather than chest thumping, he is acknowledging the reality that he and HRC were in different positions. This is not a flip-flop or a waffle on the war, it is a politician being unusually honest.

So now you want to use that honesty against him? You want to try to twist this to provide political cover for your candidate? Your approach seems far less honest than Obama's.

Mary

Do you consider lying to help Senator Obama your duty or are you just badly misinformed?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0611010273nov01,0,1188525.story?coll=chi_tab01_layout
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4111483&page=1

I'd like to thank TPM for offering an honest analysis of the situation.

I think people can draw their own conclusions about why these tactics are being used, but it's refreshing to read a story that doesn't just print statements from both camps and call that "balance."

So, thanks for that.

It's also perfectly clear that Hillary's vote for the war authorization was not a vote for diplomacy. She voted against the 02 Levin Amendment.

Can something be done by TPM to stop Hillary's haters from spamming these threads.

Pure Rovian tactics... As a former supporter of the Clintons, even when Bill betrayed us all with his zipper problem, I am floored and disgusted at his behavior and Hillary's in this campaign. This is just another example of distortion and lies about Obama's positions, their use of surrogates with "plausible deniability" using racial innuendo, in order to promote Clinton Dynasty 2.0. Bill Clinton brought about a Republican majority and his behavior damaged Al Gore's chances at election. I will be glad when we are rid of both of them and the Democratic party can cleanse itself of Clinton dominance.

Sure, Obama has changed his position on funding and withdrawal, but so has every other Senate Democrat who voted against the war plus some (like Hillary) who voted for it. I don't see how that's relevant to this issue unless you're somehow confusing the decision of whether to give the President the authority to go to war with the decision of how to get out.

Holy Roman Umpire said: No, I'm voting for Obama because he doesn't lie through his teeth for personal gain.

Yes, yes...good pure politician that Obama. No you're not too enamored! Completely rational and sober, you. Heh.

Tom,

There's no reasoning with Hillary's supporters. On every blog, they are the ones willing to purposefully mislead people and stretch the truth.

I guess they take their orders from the top down.

Thinking bill and hillary would run a fair and honest campaign?

Now THAT'S a FAIRY TALE!

What Obama said or didn't say way back then isn't important.

What's important is that once he was in the Senate, Senator Mahatm . . . uh . . . I mean . . . Obama has emerged as a powerful voice and leader through his actions in opposition to the war (like Dennis Kucinich) by voting against its funding and by clearly differentiating his from Senator Clinton's position - and especially when he actually showed up on the Senate floor.

RJ...your analysis is dead on. And don't forget the "Stop me before I vote again to fund the war I'm against!" part!

One exception though...your TPM part. I honestly don't see a free pass from TPM to either candidate.

Tom

I am not the one who is confused.

Senator Obama's changing position on funding, timelines and withdrawal are what President Clinton derided in the "fairytale" comment setting off this entire brouhaha.

OT

Hilarious!
Bill Maher’s first show back for 2008.

Tony Snow confuses “Voter Fraud”with “Election Fraud”

http://tinyurl.com/27zrol

static,

I have heard this line of reasoning many times in the past year, I find it far from compelling.

There have been two different issues on Iraq:

1) Whether or not to go in. HRC voted for the AUMF and against the amendment to require another vote before sending in the troops. Obama spoke out against the war. He admitted that his position was different, because he was a candidate rather than a member of the Senate.

2) The second issue was when when and how to get out of Iraq. Obama decided to vote "for" funding because he thought that an abrupt cut off of funding was not the right way to get out and because he realized that it would not a politically viable position. It was not until Bush had made it abundantly clear that cutting off funding was the only way to oppose the war that he changed his position to vote against further funding.

The fact that HRC and Obama have taken similar positions on the second issue does not negate the fact that they took very different positions on the first.
I find your and the Clinton's attempts to blur these two issues politically expedient and intellectually dishonest.

upper left. Note the important grammatical difference between "Hillary hater" and "Hillary's haters". The latter spammed the thread with the Rezko nonsense.

I became a political junkie at age 14 and basically took Bill Clinton's positions as my own. I idolized the guy. Since Iowa though, both Clinton's have disgusted me. If Hillary wins the primary, I'm writing in Obama in November or just won't bother voting. American politics cannot afford four more years of the same Cold War/Welfare State paradigm. Times have changed since the 40s, and we need a pivotal President in the mold of Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and both Roosevelts. If we're not to have one, I really don't give a damn if he or she is a Republican or Democrat. I know a Democrat would be better, but this a moment of real urgency and nothing will get done so long as Washington remains polarized, which it most definitely would in the Hillary era. If she wins, I just cannot afford to invest any emotion into American politics. I think I'll just become a hedonist in Europe.

hadenough, as it happens Clinton, who is already of questionable credibility, fibbed by exclusion on both quotes.

Jeremy,

You are too funny!

That should be "Clinton is misconstruing".

The point here is that Obama was agreeing that the US had to stabilize Iraq or the Pottery Barn theory. How this is evidence of his support of the war is beyond me, but I know that won't stop many of you from trying.

Have fun.

By Greg Sargent - January 12, 2008, 9:40AM

Yesterday, as part of his racial damage control tour, Bill Clinton took a shot at Obama that he's frequently taken during the campaign, charging that the Illinois Senator's criticism of Hillary's support of the war is disingenuous in light of something Obama said back in 2004.
[....]
As it happens, Obama is right.
[....]
So, clearly, Obama was pointing to the fact that he wasn't in the Senate at the time as a way of tactfully avoiding criticizing his party's presidential and vice-presidential nominees.

Hadenough January 12, 2008 12:15 PM: Good post but I think that you are too subtle so I have to ask Greg Sargent explicitly if he did not do "selective editing" in making an issue out of what Bill Clinton had actually said, which was [full quote thanks to 'hadenough' above]:

Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break.

Dear Mr. Greg Sargent:/b>
Do you see why it looks like the media is working overtime to manufacture controversies just for their amusement, while ignoring their civic (heck, make that "constitutional") duty to try to educate the voters about issues that actually matter?

Also, I have gone several times over the Clintons' so-called 'racist' statements and found those to be just as taken out of context as the ones posted atop of this thread.

Now, can someone tell us about the status of the debate about the relative merits of "mandates" in ensuring universal health care...or is that too boring to be of interest to voters?

Greg,

Your comment is a good one.

I think perhaps the HRC supporters take their dogmatic line in order to quiet what must be the loud cognitive dissonance in their heads. They must on some level be deeply troubled by the Rovian tactics of their candidate. In order to quiet those doubts that have to engage in spewing a constant stream of self justification.

"Lying is bad. Believing your own lies is dangerous!"

What's the matter, Greg, can't stand the heat anymore from the Obama mob, and you gotta give them a call?

Obama is distorting what Bill actually said, and Greg is just backing him up.

Look, the bolded sentence below appears to be the only relevant portion of what Clinton said in the context of the "fairy tale" comment:

Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break.

Now is Bill's assertion that Obama said he "didn't know how [he] would have voted on the resolution" a fair one, given Obama's assertion? I certainly don't see how you could claim it wasn't. Clearly, Obama in his original statement is saying precisely that, if he knew what those in the Senate knew, he himself might have voted in favor of the resolution. That is essentially equivalent to saying that had he actually been in the Senate, rather than on the outside, he might have voted in favor of the resolution. I don't know how you can get around that clear logical entailment. Whether he was being "polite" is irrelevant here: it's what he's saying, whatever his motivation might be. (And how does it excuse things if it's politeness that was the motivation? Where is the courage in that, the ability to speak hard truths he and his followers fancy as one of his great virtues? Doesn't it sound a little more like cowardice to know something crucial about a matter of life and death and keep your mouth shut out of politeness of all things?)

In any case, Greg, your inability to see the correctness of Bill's claim, as he stated it, is duly noted. I don't expect much out of the Obama's slathering horde around here, but I do expect more out of you. What's the matter, Greg, can't stand the heat anymore from the Obama mob, and you gotta give them a call?

Obama is distorting what Bill actually said, and Greg is just backing him up.

Look, the bolded sentence below appears to be the only relevant portion of what Clinton said in the context of the "fairy tale" comment:

Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break.

Now is Bill's assertion that Obama said he "didn't know how [he] would have voted on the resolution" a fair one, given Obama's assertion? I certainly don't see how you could claim it wasn't. Clearly, Obama in his original statement is saying precisely that, if he knew what those in the Senate knew, he himself might have voted in favor of the resolution. That is essentially equivalent to saying that had he actually been in the Senate, rather than on the outside, he might have voted in favor of the resolution. I don't know how you can get around that clear logical entailment. Whether he was being "polite" is irrelevant here: it's what he's saying, whatever his motivation might be. (And how does it excuse things if it's politeness that was the motivation? Where is the courage in that? Where is the ability to speak hard truths he and his followers fancy as one of his great virtues? Doesn't it sound a little more like cowardice to know something crucial about a matter of life and death and keep your mouth shut out of politeness of all things?) And isn't Bill's basic complaint a fair one -- that, at minimum, it was inexcusable of the media not to have pressed Obama in the debates to explain his comment?

In any case, Greg, your inability to understand and observe the correctness of Bill's claim, as he stated it, is duly noted, nor is your inability to detect and state that Obama tried to turn Bill's comment into meaning something else. I don't expect much out of Obama's slathering horde around here, but I do expect more out of you.

Oh, it pains me to be reminded of the Clinton rhetoric - we had almost forgotten how they "play" it, during these awful last 7 years. but they are back at it... From "rolling the dice" (in my opinion, HRC's vote for the war without reading the supporting 200-something pages (which should the 'certified genius" not have taken too long) while knowing that no one on her staff had the clearance to do so, is the Ultimate Dice Roll. And I hope the Obama campaign is armed for the attacks from someone who dares to state that the 'truth" depends on how you define "IS"?! I am cheering for HRC to become an effective and very senior senate leader - we clearly need that one - but my main reason for opposing her is 3-fold 1) she is a true uniter - but of the rep. party - the down-ticket harm for the house and senate can effective lame the next congress, no matter who is 'ready to lead from day 1" 2) she has a definite ceiling in her own party, NO cross-over appeal, and very limited independent support, so she could actually lose the general election, which is unthinkable and 3) should she be able to eke out a close win, the country will be even more divided than it is now, and with a possibly weakend legislature, the inflamed GOP will be able to block any initiative. She cannot heal, and it's always and ever CLINTON FIRST, no matter the cost, even for the party. Plus, another selfish motive: I really want my children to grow up under a president they can admire for his character, without distractions of Lincoln or other bedroom or office desk stories. BTW, Chertoff has a complete record of all of Bill's doing of the last 7 years - and this can leak out, one drop at a time....
Can we move on, and vote for someone with personal judgement and integrity, who "wants to put and end to the tactics of swiftboating, and not perfect them". Kerry's best line! Thanks for thinking about these things....

he wants us all to believe that he would not have voted for the war by referring to something that he said in 2004,

actually, obama quite vociferously opposed the war before it began. it's not obama who would like history to begin in 2004.

if obama has, as some posters suggest, become more supportive of the war as it has become less popular, and was only really opposed to it before it started (when it was popular), well that's twice a profile in courage, innit?

you might say he is loath to start a war, but loath to stop one as well. unlike hillary, who would do either at the drop of a hat, depending on the prevailing winds.

Senator Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraqi War in 2002. Senator Clinton joined the minority of Congressional Democrats in 2002 when she voted for this resolution--the majority of the Democratic Party voted against it.

Senator Clinton had the opportunity to read the 92-page NIE (National INTELLIGENCE Estimate) in 2002 before this crucial vote. Senator Graham (now retired) insisted that this NIE be made available to Congress. Only members of Congress had clearance and were allowed in the room--staff could not read the NIE. Few read the entire NIE. Senator Clinton was not one of them; she is on record of being asked if she read it and answering "no".

Did Senator Clinton then have access to the Senate intelligence that Obama refers to? Yes. Did she take advantage of that opportunity to read the material? No.

When asked early last year after her announcement for the reasons she would not apologize for her Iraq War vote, she was caught on video and widely quoted with her response. If you don't like my position in 2002, find another candidate. A whole lot of us stampeded from her campaign--to her apparent chagrin--and found our place in the Obama campaign where we found superior judgment on the Iraq War issue.

This is what we can expect if Hclinton wins the Presidency,Bclinton going on a rampage against anyone who questions the Commander-in-Chief ?Is this what we want to have BClinton wagging his finger again at the media for another 4 yrs ?As if they did not damage the Dem party enough.It will be the 90 all over again if HClinton gets in ,so much for change & moving forward.

There's a lot a rancor on these boards b/w Obama and Clinton supports. Trust me, if it were Obama v. anyone else, no matter how close you wouldn't be reading about this kind of sniping. And from my view (a blue state right of center republican, btw), most of this is generated by the Clinton camp. It's how they operated eight years ago, and with a Clinton restoration, its how the next four years will go. Good for Chris Matthews and MoDo, I guess. Bad for the country.

Republicans seem to be thinking somewhat straight and it looks good, for now, for McCain, despite some positions he holds, like immigration, that make the wingiest of the wing-nut element of my party go into seizures. Why? Because he looks like the best candidate in the general election. They know the evangelicals will stay home if a Mormon is nominated, they understand that Rudy too much of a one-note candidate, and they see that no one who lives outside the Deep South would ever consider voting for Huckabee.

Hey Dems, please understand this (and I say this with affection, since the love of my life is a true blue Democrat): If Clinton is nominated she will, whether she wins the general election or not, most definitely hurt her Party Down ticket. Red States that are slowly turning pink or purple, like Arizona, Colorado, Virginia and Ohio will turn beet red again. Despite all her "experience" nothing will be accomplished in Congress because of an energized opposition. All the gains you made in 2006 will be wiped out, and then some.

You want a Clinton Restoration? You'll get a Rove Restoration instead (if it's not already in place. Awesome use of surrogates to slowly chip away that one of the brightest stars in you're Party. Karl is proud, judging from the WSJ editorial.

Obama and Edwards people, for the most part, seem to understand this. Clinton supporters, at least from the comment boards, seem to relish to a return of the Clinton Wars. It's almost as if Sidney Blumenthal writes all of the Clinton supporting comments on the liberal blogs. They seem to want four more years of sniper fire. Okay, fine, but note that we are much more accurate in our aim than you.

American voters are not going return to four more years of Clinton craziness, not after eight years of Bush incompetence. Maybe Hillary is disciplined and intelligent and deliberate and all that. But blame her husband for the rap she gets.

Please also remember that over 50 million people voted for the Republican nominee in 2004. Those people are not going to vote for a Clinton. They probably aren't going to vote for an Obama either, but only a Clinton can energize them. Nominate Clinton and you hand the Republican Party the greatest gift ever since, well, ever.

The Clintons are a disease which may prove fatal to the Democratic Party unless the primary electorate has the wisdom to cure it. Despite my support for Edwards and my gratitude for the service he has done in forcing the other candidates to address some of the major issues, I'm about ready to conclude that he needs to drop out so the anti-Clinton vote can unite.

Today's Must-Read: Hillary and Racism

The following excerpted TNR piece might be a bit too erudite for most in this forum but please take a look anyway. Hillary's LBJ/MLK/JFK comment could not possibly be interpreted by anyone with any gray matter between the ears as a racist remark. Hillary is no racist, and nor is Bill. The remark refers to the fact that great ideas/proposals/policies (e.g., civil rights act of 1964) need their champions within the government in order to ensure their passage into law - a truism that only a racist would think is a racist remark, and I mean that. I provide just the end of the piece but it is worth reading in its entirety -- if it is the only thing that you read today, make that piece be it.

The New Republic

The Power and the Inspiration

by Sean Wilentz

To understand Hillary Clinton's "race problem," we must better understand the history of civil rights.
Post Date Saturday, January 12, 2008

[...] Martin Luther King led the movement; Lyndon B. Johnson supported that movement, played the politics, guided the legislation, and signed it into law. Both were indispensable to the civil rights successes of the 1960s. To acknowledge both denigrates neither man. Describing such an acknowledgment as a denigration of Dr. King is, at best, bad history. At worst, it is a manipulative and inflammatory racial appeal concerning a crucial era in American history--an era that needs very, very careful consideration indeed. Either way, the current heated rhetoric demonstrates that the utopia of post-racial politics has hardly arrived.

Q: What has Obama done to end the war?

More than Senator Clinton who voted to authorize the war without reading the NIE.

I'd like to point out that Obama isn't president yet, so obviously he can't single handedly end the war yet. Quit being a dumbass, seriously, it is embarrassing. What has Hillary done to end the war? What has any candidate done to end the war? Nothing more than support withdrawal resolutions because thats all they can do at this point. At least Obama had the good judgment to oppose the war from the beginning and not give Bush the "benefit of the doubt". No amount of lying on the part of the Clintons is going to change the fact that Obama was right and she was wrong. Obama has better judgment and that is that. Her hyped up experience hasn't done her a damn bit of good, and that is that.

I think Al Franken needs to write an updated version of Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, and this time he can include a special Democrats chapter highlighting the Clintons, because they are starting to put the GOP to shame with their lies and dirty campaign tactics.

Even the Bush/Cheney campaign against Kerry/Edwards wasn't as dirty and full of lies as this...I'm appalled at the Clintons. Appalled.

upper left

Are you a simpleton, a cog in the Obama campaign or a person with such a crush on the man that you feel compelled to spin for him?

Your disingenuous misrepresentation of what I wrote and Rovian doublespeak do no credit to Obama. Throughout this entire thread you have been fundamentally intellectually dishonest. How do you justify posting this continuous stream of misinformation. You are nothing more than a charlatan.

Q: How many Iraq War funding resolutions has Obama opposed?

Q: Who voted to authorize the war without reading the NIE, but claimed she had studied the matter closely? And didn't oppose the war until it became politically necessary to do so? Who now claims that she was against the war from the beginning?

This is fun.

As a former president and the most prominent and popular statesman of the Democratic Party by far, Bill Clinton should not be in the business of criticizing, and in many casing parsing and misrepresenting, the record of one of the party's brightest and most talented stars. If he wants to champion Hillary's record and her agenda, that's fine, and if somebody else in the Clinton wants to parse and criticize Obama's record, that it also fine. But it is unbecoming, indeed revolting and embarassing, the way he whined to the media and trashed Obama in the weeks leading up to Iowa and New Hampshire.

He should realize that as a former president and the most prominent party elder statesman, he commands a degree of respect from the common voters and a bullhorn to the media that nobody else in the Democratic Party enjoys. It is unfair and beneath him (not that he ever did have much class), to use that status to trash Obama and divide the party.

It really doesn't matter. Obama said Hussein wasn't a threat at all, which was factually untrue - and certainly not knowable by state senator. The nuclear part of the NIE was overblown. The chemical & biological less so. But much of the NIE was guess without our people in Iraq (not Curveball). The vote in October 2002 wasn't to go to war, it was to allow enough real military pressure to force Hussein to allow inspectors to return and to prove that all was in order since 1998, based on fears from 9/11 that we could be hit hard even by poorly funded terrorists. It was 5 months from vote to war, including more info from inspectors on the ground. Even after invasion, it was recognized that Hussein could have and would have quickly rebuilt his programs had sanctions been dropped. The reason Hillary is stronger nationally is because she takes the terrorist threat more seriously than Obama, and that's still very important in the general election. She didn't apologize - she'd seen her husband play the same drawn-out game with Hussein, and while she didn't trust Bush, she had to balance our national security with her distrust for the President. That's one of the reasons why her being US Senator 4 years longer is more important than Obama's less critical decisions as Illinois Senator. He can talk all he wants about how he "would have voted", but it's irrelevant - he might as well have been a kindergartner in Indonesia at the time - the effect of his opinions would be about as powerful.

Just so everyone knows what Desider is talking about, here's a quote from the 2002 Speech.

"[snip] Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So there you have it. Desider says Obama says Sadaam was no threat. And the 2002 AUMF was not to authorize the use of military force against Iraq. Don't read the title or the resolution, read Senator Clinton's floor speech. She explains it all there. Apparently, her speech is binding law....

Here's an exercise for the Clinton folks. Let's say for the sake of argument that you've effetively dirtied up Obama, taken two things (Rezko and the half-quote about how he would have voted on AUMF) and made us all decide that those TWO things mean he is too dishonest and untrustworthy to be President.

Now, build me a case on how the Clintons ARE honest and trustworthy, unlike that scoundrel Obama. It seems to me that by eliminating Obama over a little (your little, not mine), you are eliminating the Clintons over a whole fucking lot.

Do you not agree? Use this opportunity to build the case about how honest, forthright and trustworthy are the Clintons.

Jane:

Obama backed the sitting Democrat during the primary. So more evidence that Obama is supportive of his fellow Democrats.

Who did Obama back in the General?

Jane:

Ned Lamont endorsed Obama.

Of course, that doesn't stop you from trying to use him against Obama. That's no surprise given the precedent set by Hillary's campaign. They used that waitress from Iowa in speeches without finding out who she actually supported. Now they's running around talking about how after 35 years Hillary has finally "found her voice" in a conversation with a woman who ultimately supported Obama. You know why? Because after finding her voice for about half a second and choking up a bit she lost it again and went into her same old phony attacks on Obama. Not unlike Bill "I opposed the war from the start" Clinton's phony attacks.

Probably the reason Obama has not been asked about this in any debate, is that the plain meaning of his words are clear. It is only when you are actively trying to misread his words that there is even the hint of backpedaling.

Look, let's even grant that Obama's explanation that it was because he didn't want to say something offensive to the Democrats running for President that he made his statement, and refused to contradict them directly on their vote.

Don't you think that the American people deserve to have him come out and make that very argument, in the context of a debate for our Presidential nominee?

After all, if Obama "really" knew better about the Iraq war, and "really" knew it would very likely end terribly, don't you think that politeness is hardly a good reason to refuse to oppose those supposedly enabling that very war? How on earth does Obama's behavior here exhibit anything but the most cynical of political expediency? How is his act one of courage, and not, as it would seem, of abject cowardice, given that the lives of thousands of Americans and perhaps 100s of thousands of Iraqis might be at stake?

Now maybe Obama has an answer for that (though I seriously doubt it). But I should think that the American people deserve to hear that answer, and his opponents deserve an opportunity to challenge any spin Obama may seek to put upon it.

My guess is Jane won't be responding to any of you folks.

Obamaniacs have taken up the Bush mantra.
ANY criticism is seen as "hatred" and "attack". Of course Obama adds "racism" to his all purpose mud throwing.
And while Obama has what? an organization? HRC has a "Machine"! Well it could be worse, they could call it her death star.
My point is not that Hillary is a saint and Obama not.
My deep contempt for Hillary's politics is based on her politics, not on the Obamaniacs brand of snarky misogynist mud slinging.
And sorry, Obama is no saint. His record is replete with horrendous choices and corrupt, dishonest actions. He has certainly not led an opposition to the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan nor to the Bushit war on civil liberties and rule of law here.
Does this make him evil? Hell no!
But he has size 16 feet of clay folks.
Can we at least postpone the hagiography until after his loss?
And get back to discussing policy...

Tapper:

Your meds are on the table. Please, for your and our sake, take them.

Thanks Publicus,

Just to be clear, I in part agreed with Obama's statement - Hussein was not a military threat that could defeat his neighbors. Sanctions had done their work. But hijacking planes into buildings and the anthrax mailings (would be nice to know who was behind those) of 2001 upped the importance of non-military threats much more than the Cole bombing of the previous year. We invaded Afghanistan not because Afghanistan was a military threat to its neighbors, but because it was giving refuge to terrorists and used as a launching pad for attacks. We were less than clear what Hussein was capable of in October 2002, despite the deception of Bush.

4 Reasons why Hillary should NOT be the democratic nominee:

Hillary Clinton might win the nomination, but there are a number of problems with selecting her:

(1)Recent polls have shown that 50% of the country won’t vote for her in the general election under ANY circumstances, so she’s already playing on a really short field. It’s tough to win if half the country has turned its back on your candidacy and you don’t know for sure if you have the full support of the other half.

(2)The republicans want to run against her because they have 20 years’ worth of dirt against the Clintons to regurgitate in swiftboat ads during the general election.

(3)She needs independents to win, and Obama polls better than her with independents in general election match-ups.

(4)Bloomberg’s group, Unity08, has made it very clear that unless the parties nominate candidates that are NOT polarizing, they will place a very well-funded independent candidate (i.e. Bloomberg – who has up to $1 BILLION to spend) into the race. In other words they will throw in a SPOILER. Bloomberg is Ralph Nader X100. Hillary is the most polarizing candidate in either race, and she’s the one who 50% of the country won’t vote for in the general election, and who has a greater problem attracting independents – and the polls show this is in a two-party race WITHOUT a spoiler. So, the presence of a spoiler in the race is going to hurt Hillary (i.e. democrats) the most. Given these facts, I think Unity08 has been formed to stop Hillary from becoming president.

I think if democrats insist on nominating Hillary, we will for sure be in for 8 more years of republican rule.

Frankly0:

If the meaning of his words are not plain, then why does President Clinton drop the last sentence or fail to acknowledge the context? They should support your and President Clinton's contention. So, again, why does he drop the last sentence and ignore the context?

I have no problem dealing with the statement or the article in which it occurs. If this is the vetting process, so be it, but it says a helluva lot more about the Clintons (and their supporters) than it does about Senator Obama.

Reading comprehension is key.

Desider:

So you supported Bush's rationale for going into Iraq? That's the impression I get from your response, but I don't want to attribute that view to you if it's not true.

Hmmm. Sounds like Senator Obama's 2004 position on the AUMF Iraq is pretty much identical to my own in 2002. I opposed its passage myself and I was happy that none of my congress-critters voted for it, even recognizing then that my own opposition had a lot to do with reflexive partisan distrust of George W. Bush that did not yet have the large body of empirical evidence we now have to support it.

But I also had to admit in fairness at the time, that I understood how a reasonable person in a position of great responsibility could in good conscience arrive at the opposite conclusion. You had to dig pretty deeply back then and rely on some fairly questionable sources by comparison, to find any sort of refutation of the propaganda that Ahmed "the Thief" Chalabi and his INC were pipelining, unfiltered, directly onto the front pages of the New York Times by way of Judith Miller. And of course the white paper that the CIA prepared for congress in advance of the vote, entitled Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs amounted to a sales brochure for the neocon position.

It also wouldn't surprise me if Senator Obama is as capable as I am of understanding that the AUMF Iraq and the Iraq war are two different things, and that there is in all honesty, no real contradiction whatsoever implied in the notion that someone could support one and oppose the other. As for Mr. Obama's apparent willingness to exploit whatever confusion and conflation of those two things that there may still be in the minds of some, for whatever political advantage he may be able to get from it, that's just politics. And Barack Obama is, after all, a politician. It's their nature. I am fairly confident that Hillary Clinton would be just as willing to do the same to him if the shoe were on the other foot.

Keith,

And where, in the relevant statement from Clinton do you find him "dropping the second sentence", as you claim? Nowhere. That too is a fabrication.

Let's return once more to the very quote from Clinton that Obama and you are complaining about, bolded as I have done before:

Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break.

Clinton has quite aptly and succinctly expressed what's problematic in what Obama said, and you are simply trying a way to divert people's attention from what Obama is clearly admitting here.

Why, I wonder, might you and Obama want to do that?

All this focus on Iraq is missing the bigger foreign policy differences (or similarities between the candidates).

Bill Clinton supports Colombia's right wing president Alvaro Uribe, and Hillary Clinton has demonstrated her hostility to the entire Latin American Left. Coupled with her throw away remarks about Putin having no soul, you have a very dangerous hawkish candidate in Hillary.

Obama is more of a wild card, but his adamant statements about closing down Guantanamo and talking without any preconditions with other world leaders, including that of Syria and Iran, does show he is just enough different to be a far superior candidate to Hillary.

However, they are all (HRC, BHO, and JRE) still beholden to a militaristic and interventionist forward policy for the US, as exemplified by all of them stating that "all options remain on the table" when dealing with Iran.

Bill Clinton is sounding more and more like George Bush everyday. These are mistakes he is making, they are cynical, calculated LIES.

This is a former president of the United States, attacking a fellow Democrat for the unpardonable sin of opposing the dishonest, unqualified, mean-spirited, strident femminist Mrs. Hillary Clinton.

It is amusing but also alarming that women would muster to support another woman who has ridden her husband's coattails to power and allowed herself to be publicly and repeatedly humiliated, calculating that it is her in her best interest to accommodate his abuse. This is clinical stuff. If Hillary is nominated, history to be accurate will need to show that in 2008 Mrs. Bill Clinton stood for election in place of her husband, helping him seek an unConstitutional third term. We must hope with all our might that history will also record thinking voters rejected the Clintons and their fundamental dishonesty, preventing their return to the White House and constant tabloid headlines.

Annonymous said: "This is a former president of the United States, attacking a fellow Democrat for the unpardonable sin of opposing [his unqualified wife].

To me, this is an important point. If Bill Clinton wants to break from tradition as a former president and support a presidential candidate in the Democratic primary, it is his choice. No laws restrict him. Although nepotism is not consistent with true democracy.

There is however a MAJOR DIFFERENCE between supporting Mrs. Bill Clinton because she is your wife, and unfairly, dishonestly attacking her opponents because you want her to win.

As a former president of the United States, Bill Clinton should refrain from any comment on other Democratic candidates. He should campaign for Hillary on her merits alone with ethusiasm and respect for the democratic process.

But that is the catch. Bill cannot be positive in this campaign, because Hillary's "merits" are very shallow and voters are rejecting her. So he must attack and try to tear down other Democrats, providing fuel for those who will oppose the Democratic nominee.

Democrats need to hold Bill Clinton accountable for the damage he is doing to the party, the democratic process and the nation in the self-interested pursuit of getting his questionably qualified wife nominated for president.

I totally agree with the other posters who are questioning Bill Clinton's negative tactics. As Hillary's husband, he has every right to campaign FOR her. As a former, Democratic President of the United States, he should not be negative campaigning AGAINST other Democratic candidates and certainly not attacking them unfairly and dishonestly.

But honestly, do you really expect high ethical standards from Bill Clinton?

Duane - great work on challenging the Clinton supporters to make the (positive) case why we should trust the both of them

I'm just trying to understand the logic that uses a half-quote and one case of unsupported innuendo to reject Obama for the Clintons.

I want to specifically hear how if such a thing excludes Obama, how does it not doubly exclude the Clintons?

The knife appears to me to cut both ways.

I'm just hoping to get into the mind of a Clinton supporter to understand how, if ethics and rhetorical consistency are so important to them, how they can support the Clintons.

Pretty much NO ONE gets a pass here. These poorly gamed defenses regarding support for the invasion of Iraq are just that, no matter who makes the claim. My chosen candidate—Senator Edwards—was just as wrong to vote in the affirmative to support this foolhardy adventures as any other member of Congress who did so at the time. But, is acknowledgment of this error in judgement is worth considering.

Senator Clinton offers no such acknowledgment, and refuses to apologize for the decision. Blunder compounded by blunder.

Senator Obama did not have to make a tough choice at the time. Instead, he got to sit on the fence with and claim that he wished to avoid criticism of Senators Kerry and Edwards during the 2004 campaign. Who but an entirely self-involved individual would offer such an excuse—and that's exactly what it was and is—as if any criticism he offered might have had any measurable impact on the outcome. Whatever.

People have such incredibly short-term memories. There was a publicly accessible unclassified National Intelligence estimate available at the time that undercut every premise for invasion offered by the Bush administration. Every one. Yet, the public and major news organizations supported the run-up to the conflict, both overtly and covertly. Bush enjoyed overwhelming support at the time, from the vast majority of Americans. And, virtually no one else. Or long time allies where termed 'enemies' by previously responsible public commentators.

It is only with the passage of time that the public has become sufficiently fatigued by the invasion and occupation of Iraq, that public opinion has essentially inverted the original measures of support.

As a fifteen year veteran of the US Army, including its National Guard and Army Reserve components, I always opposed this policy. As a former military police and military intelligence officer, I recognized just who wrong-headed and foolish this effort was, and how it surely would 'end' in disaster.

I can forgive those without the experience and judgement to see the issue as I did at the time, so long as they have actually acknowledged their errors, as Senator Edwards has done.

While I appreciate that education and experience can shift opinion, I am sufficiently frustrated by the short and long term impacts of this issue that I am rather tempted to say that I truly value the opinions of those who have always opposed it and, to a somewhat lesser degree, those who have shifted their viewpoint over time AND publicly acknowledged that their initial points of view were ill considered and costly. Senator Edwards has earned that degree of respect by his public statements.

Refusing to acknowledge her vote as a mistake and equivocating about the issue earn no respect for those like Senator Clinton.

Pretty much everyone else apparently sitting between these two positions, including those like Senator Obama—who did not have to make the tough choice or instead chose not to speak up back then—can pretty much 'shut the hell up' about the historical policies of the Bush administration with regard to Iraq. Because he and others chose not to be a part of the solution at the time, the remain a part of the problem. As, I might remind you, he has clearly demonstrated during his term as a Senator in Congress.

Publicus,

First, Bush gave so many rationales for going to war in Iraq, it's hard to keep them all straight.

Second, I'm referring to the time of the vote, October 2002, before inspectors returned. There was no good way to be truly sure what Hussein was up to without inspectors on the ground, and after 9/11 the national mood shifted away from accepting risk.

Third, even with Kay's point about Hussein being able to rebuild if sanctions were dropped, there are other ways to deal with this than occupying the country. You'll notice that Bush has completely ignored the example of Milosevic, who resigned and went to the Hague under his watch. Of course this was a Clinton initiative - slow and without the ah-ha moment of a Mission Accomplished, but gets the job done, unlike the Bush approach.

Fourth, it's still possible to separate the invasion of Iraq from the occupation of Iraq, and it's possible to separate the concept from "carried out by the competent" to "carried out by the incompetent".

I'm specifically being a bit vague on what I support, since I, like Obama, did not have the pertinent information, and hindsight is worse than 20/20 - it's gladiolas and hydrengias. But I still don't buy the October 2002 vote as a no-strings attached vote to go to war as done 5 months later. The AUMF was given based on specific assurances from the White House. And more than Congress in this case I blame the American people for at least not punishing Bush and the Republicans in 2004 if this bothered them. Obviously it didn't, and if the American people abandon their own responsibilities and the Constitution, there's little a few Senators are going to do to fix it. The War on Iraq had broad popular vote in March 2003, not just getting the inspectors in in late 2002. Going against the will of the people is not the prime job of our politicians, even though the occasional suicidal task of scolding your constituency for being irrational would be appreciated. At least now Dodd can get support for filibustering FISA.

Duane, I did answer your question - it's irrelevant. Obama's opinion in 2002 was as irrelevant as his kindergarten essay. He had no power to influence anything and no background information with which to judge. But he still has no problem covering for other candidates in 2004, supposedly distorting his strong 2002 position for the sake of the party, but now can come out swinging as "right all along". Hillary covered for Spitzer's immigrant driver's license plan and got splattered all over the stage by Obama and others for the effort. Square that one.

Senator Obama did not have to make a tough choice at the time.

Michael, it wasn't a tough choice at the time. The public was overwhelmingly for dropping the hammer on some brown folks. Anyone who dared dissent was smeared, marginalized.

Obama could have done the easy and cynical thing and just kept his head down, but he didn't. He took a stand, called it out as a stupid war and his judgment was extraordinary in hindsight.

Your candidate has been revealed to have cyncically played politics with war and given that Hillary, as the popular junior senator of a solidly blue state, could have probably easily voted against AUMF with no political repercussions, she was either for war as she now claims she wasn't or she was even more cynical than Edwards.

We tried running hawkish candidates who made all the same mistakes as Republicans in 2004 and lost. One of the losers was Edwards. As much as I like Edwards, we have a clear better choice.

I'm up for trying something new. I supported Edwards in 2004. I hope you can see your way clear to supporting Obama in 2008.

Duane, I did answer your question - it's irrelevant.

Desider, you may have answered a question but it wasn't mine. I've accepted for the sake of argument that you've made the case that Obama is untrustworthy and dishonest.

What I am asking is doesn't that then doubly exclude the Clintons? If not, build the case for me about how upstanding, honest and trustworthy the Clintons are.

static,

Gotta give credit were credit is due, your snark is clever. However, cleverness is not a substitute for accurate, honest analysis.

The basic truth is pretty simple. The Clintons have a well deserved reputation for "playing hardball." BC's comments clearly take partial quotes from Obama out of context. He then uses these quotes to try to misrepresent Obama's basic position.

You can rhetorically tap dance around these basic facts all you want. I may admire your footwork but not your lack of honesty.

My point stands: Lying is bad. Believing your own lies is dangerous.

Note to stlounick:

I did say that I presume Barack Obama is as capable as I am of understanding that the AUMF Iraq and the Iraq war are two different things. Is your name Barack Obama?

Regarding the authorization vs. funding issue:

If your kid knocks down a glass and makes a broken mess on the floor, as an adult you need to ensure the mess gets cleaned up. But you do not just dive in there and sweep the class off with your bare hands. You do it safely and responsibly.

...

I am as disappointed in the Democrats as most of you here (amazingly enough there are people here who either think the war is good or pretend so for expediency) but the rightful ire needs to be mainly towards the "leadership," not the rank members. I do not hold funding authorization directly against Clinton, Obama or any other member.

Even if you want to believe the Fairy Tale quote as being against his entire candidacy the truth is he wasn't asked to place a vote he WAS NOT IN THE GAME! That is why he should not be President> He has been compared to JFK, Martin Luther King Jr. and Most recently by John Kerry to Frickin Thomas Jefferson. PLEASE GIVE ME A BREAK!!!

JFK the only thing in common with JFK is his youth and some oratory skills.JFK was a war vet seansoned groomed politician.
The ONLY think he has in common with MLK is he is black. PLEASE MLK was a tough jailed hardened civil rights activist during one of the most tumultuous times in our history. This isn't that time!

CalD,

Perhaps you read my post too swiftly. I will not, however, expect you to actually attempt to answer substantively instead of ducking and weaving distractingly based on our previous encounters.

Regretfully I must also decline your most courteous offer to aid me in scheduling my day. I feel that I must continue to determine what does and does not concern me myself. U.S. foreign policy in the future definitely goes in the "does concern me" column.

"Hillary Clinton, by her own admission, was too stupid or naive to understand this extremely clear course of events."

Sorry, I disagree. She coldly and cynically endorsed the destruction of a country, the death, mutilation and displacement of millions of innocent Iraqis, and the tens of thousands of American military casualties, all in order to make sure she couldn't be pegged as "soft" when she ran for President in 2008.

Bill Clinton can try to put lipstick on their Iraq pig, but it's still a pig. It won't go away, and just like Bush, she'll never apologize.

With all of the smearing Michael Moore has gotten by Fox, Karl Rove, and the wing-nuts with big help from the gullible MSM, he has redeemed himself by being correct. (watch "Fahrenheit 911" and see just how much more relevant it is today). He made a great case after the Obama/Edward Iowa blowout that pro-war Hillary.

"Over 70% of Iowan Democrats voted for candidates who either never voted for the invasion of Iraq (Obama, Richardson, Kucinich) or who have since admitted their mistake (Edwards, Biden, Dodd). I can't tell you how bad I feel for Senator Clinton tonight. I don't believe she was ever really for this war. But she did -- and continued to do -- what she thought was the politically expedient thing to eventually get elected. And she was wrong. And tonight she must go to sleep wondering what would have happened if she had voted her conscience instead of her calculator."

As president she will continue to triangulate. She has been molded into a Washinton robot. Thankfully, post-2000 Al Gore broke out of that mold when he tossed away the advisors and became his own man. Only Gore, Obama and a few bold visionaries with conscience and forsight spoke out full-throated against the war at a time when the country needed leaders to take a stand. We still do and Hillary continues to stay in the safe center.

Hillary will never break out of being a robot, manufactured without true conviction: she's the 'Clinton Machine.' Hillary Clinton will never be president.

Read Michael Moore's letter:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=221

Well, considering the percentage of Dems who voted against the war was tiny, I can't see any reason why I should believe that Obama would be in that percentage. He's done nothing, so far, to indicate that he will act without political calculation.

The justifications of the Obama camp-followers sound hollow to me. He is the least experienced of the top three candidates in every respect. He's never been tested under fire, neither in political office nor in real life. Both Edwards and Clinton have withstood the heat.

If being an effective speaker made a good President, George Bush would be at the top of the form instead of at the bottom.

I think some people should wake up. We should require our candidate to have demonstrated abilities other than a rousing stump speech.

Thanks.

mp

pvlb,

We can reasonably assume Obama would do about the same as all the other Senators did, because that's the way he's behaved to date. People have been trying to point out to Obama supporters that his votes on Iraq are very similar to Hillary's and others.

Barack should challenge Bill to a debate. Settle this once and for all.