April 9, 2008 -- the Paul v Clinton web site is launched to expose the public to the landmark civil fraud suit pending in California against Hillary and Bill Clinton and their associates.

The first lawsuit to haul a President and a Senator into Court for defrauding the Senator's largest donor as part of a conspiracy to illegally win and keep a US Senate seat will begin discovery in May, 2008 as it proceeds to trial as confirmed by the California Supreme Court.

The discovery will expose an ongoing cover-up of the campaign finance crimes and the obstructions of justice directed by Hillary Clinton with the help of Bill Clinton and former DNC Chair Ed Rendell. The cover-up rivals Watergate in its corruption of each branch of government and the media.

Posted at April 30, 2008 9:08 PM in response to Poll: Obama Edges Into National Lead; Voters Concerned About Wright, Hillary On NAFTA

I think this term "threw under bus" is a bit overused. Nowadays, anytime you change your opinion of someone you used to be more agreeable to, you threw them under a bus. Did Hillary throw Penn under a bus? Did Bush throw Rumsfeld or Gonzalez under a bus? Often, using that expression is simply to demonize someone, in this case, Obama. Wright does not work for Obama (obviously!). Obama stood by him until Wright made it impossible for him to do so any longer. Who threw who?

Posted at April 29, 2008 8:52 PM in response to Obama Hits North Carolina Airwaves With Two More Ads

Shouldn't she, instead of thew Whitehouse, be going to jail?

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/breaking-news-hillary-clinton.php

Posted at April 29, 2008 9:53 AM in response to Pro-Hillary Group Spending $700,000 On New Indiana Ad Targeting Obama On Economy

Is Huma Abedin Hillary's lover?

Who knows - yet. But, there are only 4 possibilities:

1: Hillary has no romantic life and is sexless.

2: Hillary does it with Bill.

3: Hillary has a guy on the side.

4: Hillary has a woman on the side.

Posted at April 25, 2008 1:19 PM in response to Senior Obama Adviser: Obama Will "Take Fox On" In Appearance This Sunday

I think what she was saying was EASY and EMPTY.

Question: What if Portugal developed nuclear weapons and fired them at Israel?

Answer: We would obliterate them off the map!

Stupid question, stupid answer.

Last I checked, Iran has no nukes. Last I heard, they won't be "allowed" to have them.

Posted at April 22, 2008 11:48 AM in response to Well, she said it

I knew Bush was lying. I new that this was fear-mongering. I knew that every dem that voted for it was either blind, or politically posturing. That anyone voted for it without reading the NIE - that anyone approved an act of war for political reasons - that anyone believed Bush - a proven liar with his Iraq plan on the table before he even took office, is inexcusable. At least some have had the decency to apologize. Not Hillary.

Americans were behind it because of the propaganda. Americans wanted to believe in this non-existant threat, because the whole Bush crime family was promoting it night and day and trying to scare the crap out of everyone. But, senators are supposed to be more educated than that - they at least could have read the NIE!

Therefore, the signers were all complicit and responsible for what has happened. Guilty is the right word. Some have been repentant (for whatever reason) but Hillary has not. Obama spoke out against it - even though it was not a popular thing to do. True, he couldn't vote, but he was jeapordizing public opinion of him. Feingold was against it. Hagel was against it. Anyone who took their job, instead of the politics of theior job, seriously was against it.

I understand why folks would like to let the perpetual liar Hillary off the hook, but she is guilty, as any accessory to crime is. Now, close to a million people are needlessly dead. Many more are needlessly injured. She has yet to at least repent.

Instead, she and her team spend days and nights trying to come up with more falsehoods and falacious arguments to smear Obama with.

Posted at April 22, 2008 11:37 AM in response to LATEST: Obama blames Clinton, Biden, Kerry, Edwards and others for letting Bin Laden escape!

Personality change? I don't see any. Very kind of you to offer these assumptions as possible excuses for what I'm not sure. These nasty politics, constantly casting suspicion, constantly putting out falacious arguments and false accusations, has helped Hillary in certain areas (Pennsylvania and Ohio for example). I think they know what they are doing. The are playing to folks who are both lazy and uneducated. I heard Rendell tell bald-faced lies to a college group yesterday. Why do they do that? Because it works. Memos? What memos? Why do they tell these lies? Because folks will write about it, and in some peoples mind it will be true, just because they heard it. Now, we are supposed to believe Obama is a communist - have you heard? Last it was Islam. Then it was unpatriotic because of a pin. Then it was a complete fabrication regarding Rev. Wright that is still geting air play, even though Wright has (had) a positive reputatio0n all over the country. Then its associating Obama with other people as if he thinks like these other people. These are all lies, falacious arguments ans tricks - why? Because often they work.

The MSM keeps pretending lately that Obama is as negative as Hillary. Not. Put out the message that perhaps Obama is all talk, as if the MSM id incapable of comparing their senate records. Your average voter isn't comparing the records either! The idea that Hillary sponsoring a bill is more action than Obama authoring 800 bills.

Bill is acurately guessing, like the MSM and the neocon propaganda machine, that the average intellect in this country will but into all these lies. Why? Because they do!

If folks bothered doing the real work to educate themselves and make an informed decision, the race would have been over a long time ago. Obama is clearly the better candidate - which is why he appeals more to the educated and intelligencia. Bill knows how to win elections - and it has nothing to do with telling the truth.

So, personality change? Nah.

Posted at April 22, 2008 10:29 AM in response to Bill Clinton: Obama Camp Memos Reveal Plan To Play The Race Card On Me

Here is a different concept. Folks within a party could disagree. Folks within a movement could disagree. Activists could disagree. That is how individuals are. For example, if you are a democrat, do you agree with all other democrats?

Meanwhile, if you are a candidate for the democratic party, is it not better to find a way to be more inclusive, to hear more voices, to not perceive opposing opinion as a threat within your own (supposed) party? Wouldn't it be better to find ways to include everyone?

I am against Clinton as president. Shouldn't she still want my vote? If not for activism, even activism I disagree with, not much would be done. Ultimately we would still be under British rule.

There is a spectrum of democratic opinion. From the far left to the more libertarian, we need to take the Whitehouse away from these insane neocon, new world order war mongers. They have all but destroyed this country and are working on the rest of the world. That will take all of us. It would be better to find ways to persuade folks to join the team, than discard out of hand anyone who disagrees with you.

Case in point: There are Hillary supporters who were are part of moveon. Some of them, after hearing this news, are no longer Hillary supporters. So was it good to be, once again, divisive?

Posted at April 19, 2008 10:02 AM in response to Audio: Hillary Privately Blasted "The Activist Base Of The Democratic Party" For Caucus Defeats

It is fine to speculate about what someone might have done, but that does not provide a sound argument. I know what I would have done - not might. I would have read the NIE before giving Bush the keys to war. I knew it was wrong. My kids knew it was wrong. Also, given Bush's history, Cheney, etc, it was obvious what these folks were capable of.

War is the worst possible thing. Before approving war powers, you should have a certainty. It is not the presidents job to declare war. It is congress' job.

Hillary was obviously making a political move. She, like a wave of other cowardly democrats, was trying to play both sides at once, out of fear - fear of being perceived as unpatriotic, fear of being perceived as weak, fear of losing the next election. I would rather go to war based on facts than fear.

She can claim she was against it. She approved it. Those are the facts. Actions speak much louder than words.

Do you no who was really against it? Those who voted against it. Feingold, for example, was against it.

Posted at April 19, 2008 9:51 AM in response to Audio: Hillary Privately Blasted "The Activist Base Of The Democratic Party" For Caucus Defeats

He didn't oppose it. He was in favor of exhausting other possibilities before going to war. So am I. So are most people.

Posted at April 19, 2008 9:44 AM in response to Audio: Hillary Privately Blasted "The Activist Base Of The Democratic Party" For Caucus Defeats