Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama: Of the two, who do you like?

[Enchanted_Stevi]

I like Hillary

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by Enchanted_Stevi

I like Hillary

Personalitywise I like John McCain but I could never vote for someone who is stupider about foreign policy than I am and that goes for the Iraqi invasion endorsing Hillary as well.

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

Personalitywise I like John McCain but I could never vote for someone who is stupider about foreign policy than I am and that goes for the Iraqi invasion endorsing Hillary as well.

As the old saying goes, hindsight is 20/20. Yes, it was a regrettable decision and it seems that buyers remorse had already set in even before the military occupation began. But I think Hillary had a number of issues to consider in her decision:

-It was 2002 and everyone was still jittery due to 9/11.

-There was "intelligence" at the time (that was later discredited) that indicated the presence of WMD. Additionally, the Iraqis were not really cooperating with NATO inspectors.

-As the senator for New York, Hillary's number one priority was to look out for the welfare of her constituents. And with NYC undoubtedly the prime target for any act of aggression, she did what she had to do to protect New Yorkers. Imagine what would have happened if an Iraqi-made nuclear weapon flattened NYC? She would have had the blood of millions of her constituents on her hands. And back when the U.S. still had some of that post-9/11 zeitgeist, Hillary would have been painted out as being "weak" and unwilling to take a stand for her people if she voted against the war. It was a no-win situation.

I think it is rather distasteful for anyone to paint her up to be some kind of warmongering tyrant with an itchy trigger finger. She was clearly between a rock and a hard place, and she had nothing but this fabricated intelligence to base her decision upon. John Kerry probably wrestled with the same issues, especially considering that Boston was also affected by 9/11 and is quite vulnerable to attack. So ultimately both of them voted for the war, as well as Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and John Edwards. If you're going to paint HRC with the stain or war, then you may as well do that with over half of the Democrats in the senate.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

As the old saying goes, hindsight is 20/20. Yes, it was a regrettable decision and it seems that buyers remorse had already set in even before the military occupation began. But I think Hillary had a number of issues to consider in her decision:

-It was 2002 and everyone was still jittery due to 9/11.

-There was "intelligence" at the time (that was later discredited) that indicated the presence of WMD. Additionally, the Iraqis were not really cooperating with NATO inspectors.

-As the senator for New York, Hillary's number one priority was to look out for the welfare of her constituents. And with NYC undoubtedly the prime target for any act of aggression, she did what she had to do to protect New Yorkers. Imagine what would have happened if an Iraqi-made nuclear weapon flattened NYC? She would have had the blood of millions of her constituents on her hands. And back when the U.S. still had some of that post-9/11 zeitgeist, Hillary would have been painted out as being "weak" and unwilling to take a stand for her people if she voted against the war. It was a no-win situation.

I think it is rather distasteful for anyone to paint her up to be some kind of warmongering tyrant with an itchy trigger finger. She was clearly between a rock and a hard place, and she had nothing but this fabricated intelligence to base her decision upon. John Kerry probably wrestled with the same issues, especially considering that Boston was also affected by 9/11 and is quite vulnerable to attack. So ultimately both of them voted for the war, as well as Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and John Edwards. If you're going to paint HRC with the stain or war, then you may as well do that with over half of the Democrats in the senate.

HejiraNYC, I like you - Go Hillary !!!!!!!!!!!

[strandinthewind]

and, let's not forget that Obama hardly is in a position to judge as he was not there

Moreover, the US and the UN (unanimously) had been killing in Iraq for a decade or so based almost entirely on the WMD intelligence. So, it is not like W and his cronies (who I despise mind you) just made all of it up one day.

To wit (generally):

Obama's Creative Clippings Part Deux
January 17, 2008
The ad may be new, but we've seen this tactic, from this candidate, before.
Summary

The Obama campaign's new ad uses an old trick and takes quotes from newspapers out of context.

Once again, the campaign uses a quote from a news story to say Obama's health plan would offer universal coverage. But the full article points out that his plan "does not guarantee" full coverage.


The ad also shows a clip saying that Obama has been against the war in Iraq since the beginning. True enough, but the story also chastises him for making too much of the boldness of his early stance.

Analysis

This is the second time in as many weeks that we've written about Democratic candidate Barack Obama's misleading use of quotes pulled from newspapers. This ad is running in Nevada in advance of Saturday's caucus.


Obama for America Ad: "President"

Obama: I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message.

Obama: I'll be a president who finally makes health care affordable to every single American by bringing Democrats and Republicans together. I'll be a president who ends the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas and put a middle class tax cut into the pockets of working Americans. And I'll be a president who ends this war in Iraq and finally brings our troops home. We are one nation and our time for change has come.

Universally Wrong About
Health Care Plan

The ad flashes the quote "Obama offers universal health care plan." That was a headline on a May 29, 2007, Associated Press story.

Correction, Jan. 17: We originally reported that the AP story didn’t include the quote used in the ad. We were looking at the final version sent on the AP wire that day. But the Obama campaign contacted us to point out, correctly, that an earlier version of that story included those words as a headline.

However, the story merely reported that Obama said he would sign a universal health care plan. The article goes on to cast doubt on the universality of his own plan:

AP: Obama's first promise as a presidential candidate was that he would sign a universal health care plan into law by the end of his first term in the White House. But there is some dispute over whether his plan would provide universal care. It's aimed at lowering costs so all Americans can afford insurance, but does not guarantee everyone would buy it.

It's an important distinction we've raised a few times. Obama's plan wouldn't guarantee that every individual had health insurance, just that everyone would have the opportunity to obtain it. The AP story also includes a quote from a representative of Families USA, a liberal group that pushes for expanded government health coverage, who says, "It's not totally clear that it would result in universal coverage." The ad even shows video of Obama using more accurate language when he says he wants to make "health care affordable."


Cutting Out the Critique


The ad also shows a quote that says "Obama opposed Iraq war from the start." The AP analysis from Oct. 2, 2007, certainly did say that, but it also included some less-than-flattering words about Obama's stance on Iraq.
AP: Nobody can dispute that Barack Obama opposed the Iraq war from the start and, with striking prescience, predicted U.S. troops would be mired in a costly conflict that fanned "the flames of the Middle East." But nobody should accept at face value the Illinois senator's claim that he was a "courageous leader" who opposed the war at a great political risk. ... And once elected to the U.S. Senate two years later, Obama waited months to show national leadership on Iraq.

The article goes on to point out that Obama had been quite politically careful about how he approached the war.

We're used to seeing ads for movies that artfully clip fragments of reviews that may, in fact, pan the film in question. Candidates should know better. This might be a good time to remember an admonition we heard a few times when we were children: No running with scissors.

– by Justin Bank
Sources
Fournier, Ron. "Analysis: Obama prescient on Iraq, but 'courageous leader' tag may be a stretch." Associated Press, 2 Oct. 2007.

Glover, Mike. "Taxes on wealthy would rise to pay for health care under Obama plan." Associated Press, 29 May 2007.

Whitesides, John. "Obama calls for middle-class tax relief." Reuters, 19 Sept. 2007.
Related Articles
Stacking the Deck
Dems deal misleading statements in Vegas debate.
Sliming Obama
Dueling chain e-mails claim he's a radical Muslim or a 'racist' Christian. Both can't be right. We find both are false.
Obama's Creative Clippings
Selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers pump up Obama's health plan.


http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...part_deux.html

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

-


-As the senator for New York, Hillary's number one priority was to look out for the welfare of her constituents. And with NYC undoubtedly the prime target for any act of aggression, she did what she had to do to protect New Yorkers. Imagine what would have happened if an Iraqi-made nuclear weapon flattened NYC? She would have had the blood of millions of her constituents on her hands. And back when the U.S. still had some of that post-9/11 zeitgeist, Hillary would have been painted out as being "weak" and unwilling to take a stand for her people if she voted against the war. It was a no-win situation.

I think it is rather distasteful for anyone to paint her up to be some kind of warmongering tyrant with an itchy trigger finger. She was clearly between a rock and a hard place, and she had nothing but this fabricated intelligence to base her decision upon. John Kerry probably wrestled with the same issues, especially considering that Boston was also affected by 9/11 and is quite vulnerable to attack. So ultimately both of them voted for the war, as well as Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and John Edwards. If you're going to paint HRC with the stain or war, then you may as well do that with over half of the Democrats in the senate.

Uh... let's see for the umpteenth time Iraqi had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.Is not that the same inane argument that the Chimp and his cohorts have been implying lo these many years ?and that none but the most fanatical neo-cons would buy into anymore and some of us (thank you Congressman Kucinich and Senator Kennedy ) never did.As for the Democrats in Congress that voted to invade Iraqi I am not terribly overjoyed with them either .I voted for John Kerry in 2004 only because of who he was running against.

[HejiraNYC]

I have finally found an essay that captures perfectly everything I have seen in this year's Democratic nomination campaign. It was published in last Thursday's "New Statesman" by Andrew Stephen, Editor. It's long, but illuminating.

http://www.newstatesman.com/north-am...vote-usa-media

Hating Hilary

Andrew Stephen

Gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear - will have to account for their sins

History, I suspect, will look back on the past six months as an example of America going through one of its collectively deranged episodes - rather like Prohibition from 1920-33, or McCarthyism some 30 years later. This time it is gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind. It has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear - will have to account for their sins. The chief victim has been Senator Hillary Clinton, but the ramifications could be hugely harmful for America and the world.

I am no particular fan of Clinton. Nor, I think, would friends and colleagues accuse me of being racist. But it is quite inconceivable that any leading male presidential candidate would be treated with such hatred and scorn as Clinton has been. What other senator and serious White House contender would be likened by National Public Radio's political editor, Ken Rudin, to the demoniac, knife-wielding stalker played by Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction? Or described as "a ****ing whore" by Randi Rhodes, one of the foremost personalities of the supposedly liberal Air America? Would Carl Bernstein (of Woodward and Bernstein fame) ever publicly declare his disgust about a male candidate's "thick ankles"? Could anybody have envisaged that a website set up specifically to oppose any other candidate would be called Citizens United Not Timid? (We do not need an acronym for that.)

I will come to the reasons why I fear such unabashed misogyny in the US media could lead, ironically, to dreadful racial unrest. "All men are created equal," Thomas Jefferson famously proclaimed in 1776. That equality, though, was not extended to women, who did not even get the vote until 1920, two years after (some) British women. The US still has less gender equality in politics than Britain, too. Just 16 of America's 100 US senators are women and the ratio in the House (71 out of 435) is much the same. It is nonetheless pointless to argue whether sexism or racism is the greater evil: America has a peculiarly wicked record of racist subjugation, which has resulted in its racism being driven deep underground. It festers there, ready to explode again in some unpredictable way.

To compensate meantime, I suspect, sexism has been allowed to take its place as a form of discrimination that is now openly acceptable. "How do we beat the bitch?" a woman asked Senator John McCain, this year's Republican presidential nominee, at a Republican rally last November. To his shame, McCain did not rebuke the questioner but joined in the laughter. Had his supporter asked "How do we beat the nigger?" and McCain reacted in the same way, however, his presidential hopes would deservedly have gone up in smoke. "Iron my shirt," is considered amusing heckling of Clinton. "Shine my shoes," rightly, would be hideously unacceptable if yelled at Obama.

Evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, American men like to delude themselves that they are the most macho in the world. It is simply unthinkable, therefore, for most of them to face the prospect of having a woman as their leader. The massed ranks of male pundits gleefully pronounced that Clinton had lost the battle with Obama immediately after the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, despite past precedents that strong second-place candidates (like Ronald Reagan in his first, ultimately unsuccessful campaign in 1976; like Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson and Jerry Brown) continue their campaigns until the end of the primary season and, in most cases, all the way to the party convention.

None of these male candidates had a premature political obituary written in the way that Hillary Clinton's has been, or was subjected to such righteous outrage over refusing to quiesce and withdraw obediently from what, in this case, has always been a knife-edge race. Nor was any of them anything like as close to his rivals as Clinton now is to Obama.

The media, of course, are just reflecting America's would-be macho culture. I cannot think of any television network or major newspaper that is not guilty of blatant sexism - the British media, naturally, reflexively follow their American counterparts - but probably the worst offender is the NBC/MSNBC network, which has what one prominent Clinton activist describes as "its nightly horror shows". Tim Russert, the network's chief political sage, was dancing on Clinton's political grave before the votes in North Carolina and Indiana had even been fully counted - let alone those of the six contests to come, the undeclared super-delegates, or the disputed states of Florida and Michigan.

The unashamed sexism of this giant network alone is stupendous. Its superstar commentator Chris Matthews referred to Clinton as a "she-devil". His colleague Tucker Carlson casually observed that Clinton "feels castrating, overbearing and scary . . . When she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs." This and similar abuse, I need hardly point out, says far more about the men involved than their target.

Knives out

But never before have the US media taken it upon themselves to proclaim the victor before the primary contests are over or the choice of all the super-delegates is known, and the result was that the media's tidal wave of sexism became self-fulfilling: Americans like to back winners, and polls immediately showed dramatic surges of support for Obama. A few brave souls had foreseen the merciless media campaign: "The press will savage her no matter what," predicted the Washington Post's national political correspondent, Dana Milbank, last December. "They really have their knives out for her, there's no question about it."

Polling organisations such as Gallup told us months ago that Americans will more readily accept a black male president than a female one, and a more recent CNN/Essence magazine/ Opinion Research poll found last month that 76 per cent think America is ready for a black man as president, but only 63 per cent believe the same of a woman.

"The image of charismatic leadership at the top has been and continues to be a man," says Ruth Mandel of Rutgers University. "We don't have an image, we don't have a historical memory of a woman who has achieved that feat."

Studies here have repeatedly shown that women are seen as ambitious and capable, or likeable - but rarely both. "Gender stereotypes trump race stereotypes in every social science test," says Alice Eagley, a psychology professor at Northwestern University. A distinguished academic undertaking a major study of coverage of the 2008 election, Professor Marion Just of Wellesley College - one of the "seven sisters" colleges founded because women were barred from the Ivy Leagues and which, coincidentally, Hillary Clinton herself attended - tells me that what is most striking to her is that the most repeated description of Senator Clinton is "cool and calculating".

This, she says, would never be said of a male candidate - because any politician making a serious bid for the White House has, by definition, to be cool and calculating. Hillary Clinton, a successful senator for New York who was re-elected for a second term by a wide margin in 2006 - and who has been a political activist since she campaigned against the Vietnam War and served as a lawyer on the congressional staff seeking to impeach President Nixon - has been treated throughout the 2008 campaign as a mere appendage of her husband, never as a heavyweight politician whose career trajectory (as an accomplished lawyer and professional advocate for equality among children, for example) is markedly more impressive than those of the typical middle-aged male senator.

Rarely is she depicted as an intellectually formidable politician in her own right (is that what terrifies oafs like Matthews and Carlson?). Rather, she is the junior member of "Billary", the derisive nickname coined by the media for herself and her husband. Obama's opponent is thus not one of the two US senators for New York, but some amorphous creature called "the Clintons", an aphorism that stands for amorality and sleaze. Open season has been declared on Bill Clinton, who is now reviled by the media every bit as much as Nixon ever was.

Here we come to the crunch. Hillary Clinton (along with her husband) is being universally depicted as a loathsome racist and negative campaigner, not so much because of anything she has said or done, but because the overwhelmingly pro-Obama media - consciously or unconsciously - are following the agenda of Senator Barack Obama and his chief strategist, David Axelrod, to tear to pieces the first serious female US presidential candidate in history.

"What's particularly saddening," says Paul Krugman, professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton and a rare dissenting voice from the left as a columnist in the New York Times, "is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the . . . way pundits and some news organisations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent." Despite widespread reporting to the contrary, Krugman believes that most of the "venom" in the campaign "is coming from supporters of Obama".

But Obama himself prepared the ground by making the first gratuitous personal attack of the campaign during the televised Congressional Black Caucus Institute debate in South Carolina on 21 January, although virtually every follower of the media coverage now assumes that it was Clinton who started the negative attacks. Following routine political sniping from her about supposedly admiring comments Obama had made about Ronald Reagan, Obama suddenly turned on Clinton and stared intimidatingly at her. "While I was working in the streets," he scolded her, ". . . you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wal-Mart." Then, cleverly linking her inextricably in the public consciousness with her husband, he added: "I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes."

One of his female staff then distributed a confidential memo to carefully selected journalists which alleged that a vaguely clumsy comment Hillary Clinton had made about Martin Luther King ("Dr King's dream began to be realised when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964") and a reference her husband had made in passing to Nelson Mandela ("I've been blessed in my life to know some of the greatest figures of the last hundred years . . . but if I had to pick one person whom I know would never blink, who would never turn back, who would make great decisions . . . I would pick Hillary") were deliberate racial taunts.

Another female staffer, Candice Tolliver - whose job it is to promote Obama to African Americans - then weighed in publicly, claiming that "a cross-section of voters are alarmed at the tenor of some of these statements" and saying: "Folks are beginning to wonder: Is this an isolated situation, or is there something bigger behind all of this?" That was game, set and match: the Clintons were racists, an impression sealed when Bill Clinton later compared Obama's victory in South Carolina to those of Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988 (even though Jackson himself, an Obama supporter, subsequently declared Clinton's remarks to be entirely inoffensive).

The pincer movement, in fact, could have come straight from a textbook on how to wreck a woman's presi dential election campaign: smear her whole persona first, and then link her with her angry, red-faced husband. The public Obama, characteristically, pronounced himself "unhappy" with the vilification carried out so methodically by his staff, but it worked like magic: Hillary Clinton's approval ratings among African Americans plummeted from above 80 per cent to barely 7 per cent in a matter of days, and have hovered there since.

I suspect that, as a result, she will never be able entirely to shake off the "racist" tag. "African-American super-delegates [who are supporting Clinton] are being targeted, harassed and threatened," says one of them, Representative Emanuel Cleaver. "This is the politics of the 1950s." Obama and Axelrod have achieved their objectives: to belittle Hillary Clinton and to manoeuvre the ever-pliant media into depicting every political criticism she makes against Obama as racist in intent.

The danger is that, in their headlong rush to stop the first major female candidate (aka "Hildebeast" and "Hitlery") from becoming president, the punditocracy may have landed the Democrats with perhaps the least qualified presidential nominee ever. But that creeping realisation has probably come too late, and many of the Democratic super-delegates now fear there would be widespread outrage and increased racial tension if they thwart the first biracial presidential hopeful in US history.

But will Obama live up to the hype? That, I fear, may not happen: he is a deeply flawed candidate. Rampant sexism may have triumphed only to make way for racism to rear its gruesome head in America yet again. By election day on 4 November, I suspect, the US media and their would-be-macho commentators may have a lot of soul-searching to do.

[seeker007nmss]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

Hating Hilary

People hate Hilary?



And for eqal time....

[vermicious knid]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3U0df0qGoA

This Democrat will not vote for Barack Obama in November. He and his supporters sunk to a new low when they inserted Obama in something that had nothing to do with him. They want everyone to believe that Hillary is waiting and hoping for Obama to be SHOT DEAD. Disgusting. Her comments didn't have anything to do with him, yet he comes out feigning indignity like they did. She was arguing that it is not unprecedented for primary races to go this far, and she gave examples from the past. Granted, it would have been better if she had said "In 1968 there were not two but three candidates still fighting for the nomination in June". But if any apology were owed, it would be to Robert Kennedy's children, and they know she wasn't saying anything sinister.

This man came to prominence promising unity and hope and all that poppycock, but he can't even unite his own party. I am not alone in my disenchantment with the Democratic party. Maybe the choice is tougher for people in swing states, but living in Texas which is sure to vote Republican, I won't even consider voting for him.

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by vermicious knid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3U0df0qGoA

This Democrat will not vote for Barack Obama in November. He and his supporters sunk to a new low when they inserted Obama in something that had nothing to do with him. They want everyone to believe that Hillary is waiting and hoping for Obama to be SHOT DEAD. Disgusting. Her comments didn't have anything to do with him, yet he comes out feigning indignity like they did. She was arguing that it is not unprecedented for primary races to go this far, and she gave examples from the past. Granted, it would have been better if she had said "In 1968 there were not two but three candidates still fighting for the nomination in June". But if any apology were owed, it would be to Robert Kennedy's children, and they know she wasn't saying anything sinister.

This man came to prominence promising unity and hope and all that poppycock, but he can't even unite his own party. I am not alone in my disenchantment with the Democratic party. Maybe the choice is tougher for people in swing states, but living in Texas which is sure to vote Republican, I won't even consider voting for him.

Can you post proof that anyone in Obama's campaign or Barack himself tried to imply that Hillary was referring to a hope that Obama would be shot by mentioning Robert Kennedy's assasination in the June primaries in L.A.?I have seen nothing .I'm an Obama supporter and don't think there was anything wrong with Hillary referencing that and although I'm no fan of hers I don't think she meant that at all..This contest has just gotten so silly and we are not even in the general election yet.

[gldstwmn]

Obama Staffer's Lobbying Work Runs Counter to Candidate's Guidelines, Ethics Watchdogs Say

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 28, 2008; 6:55 PM

The co-director of Barack Obama's presidential campaign in Puerto Rico is a Washington-based federal lobbyist for the government of Puerto Rico.

Ethics watchdogs said that the high-profile role of Francisco J. Pavía appears to contradict the Obama campaign's ethics guidelines, which forbid federal lobbyists from working on staff. But Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Pavía is an "active volunteer" -- not a paid staffer -- and can hold the job without running afoul of the campaign's rules.

Obama and Arizona Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, have been trying to outdo each other in their repudiation of lobbyists and the "special interests" they represent.

Obama has criticized McCain for enlisting "some of the biggest lobbyists in Washington" to run his presidential campaign. McCain has instituted tough new rules against lobbyists working for his campaign, which recently led to the resignation of five senior McCain advisers, including his top fundraiser, Tom Loeffler.

Obama also has tried to impose high ethical standards by refusing to take contributions from federal lobbyists and by not allowing lobbyists on his payroll.

But Obama's rules also have been somewhat ambiguous. Some of his campaign's volunteer policy advisers are lobbyists. And at least one lobbyist said he was asked to take a leave of absence from his firm before he volunteered for the campaign.

Moses Mercado, a lobbyist for Ogilvy Government Relations in Washington, said in an interview that he was told by the Obama campaign that he must take an unpaid leave from his firm before working as a get-out-the-vote volunteer earlier this year.

"It was pretty clear," Mercado said. "It was so clear that I made sure I wrote a letter to our office manager saying that on these days I'm taking a leave of absence."

Later, after he said he received a call from Burton, Mercado said he had not been asked to take a leave.

Pavía is not on leave from his law firm, Winston & Strawn, according to the managing partner of its Washington office, Thomas L. Mills.

But he has been an important part of the Obama campaign in Puerto Rico, which holds its Democratic primary Sunday. Obama wrote to Puerto Rico's State Elections Commission in March to designate Pavía and Andres Lopez as "our local representatives" to the commission. In May, Pavía and Lopez signed a posting on Obama's campaign Web site that identified them as co-directors of the Puerto Rico effort and solicited volunteers.

Pavía has been a registered lobbyist for various arms of the Puerto Rican government since 2001, according to disclosure reports filed with the U.S. Senate. His firm's total compensation for lobbying for the commonwealth over that period was more than $3 million.

For the first three months of this year alone, Winston & Strawn was paid $110,000 by the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration, which is the government's primary lobbying entity in Washington. Pavía is listed as the firm's primary contact.

Pavía did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

"It sounds like a conflict with Obama's policy," said Melanie Sloan of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "They need to provide an explanation."

Burton said that Pavía's role with the campaign was permissible but that the rules were not airtight. "This is not a perfect solution to the influence of special interests in Washington," he said. "But it is a symbol of the effort that Senator Obama is going to make to decrease the influence that the special interests do have."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

[vermicious knid]

His campaign saw an opportunity in her words and quickly said it had "no place in this campaign". Then they sent to members of the press Keith Olbarmann's rant against her, in which he falsely interprets her as using possible assassinations as a reason for her to stay in the campaign. According to him, she was calling for a "dark curse upon the land" (Obama's killing) and that her soul was "frightening". They try to ensure that everyone interprets her like this:




And then after all the damage has been done, Obama absolves himself of any involvement, saying "I don't think that Senator Clinton intended anything by it," and that "we should put it behind us."

[David]

I hate all these politicians. They're all liars & charlatans. Give me a tender pot roast with potatoes, onions, & rich gravy & I'll give you back the politicians every time.

[HejiraNYC]

The internets are ablaze over the "nuclear bomb" that Hillary was (probably) waiting for: the Michelle Obama "whitey" tape. Supposedly it will surface on Monday, June 2.

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06...-has-the-tape/

Say hello to our new Madame President.

[henryscutter]

Im sure Obama would love to be the president of the "57" united states (and you thought Dan Quayle was stupid) but even with the media drooling all over him he is showing that the more you know about him the more you want to tell him to keep the change.
Hillary would be a more viable candidate if she can draw people more to the middle. Appeal to undecided voters and non far left wing dems. Im sure some repubs would probably vote for her over McCain too.
So I guess I would go Hilton, but 6 billion people on the planet and these are our choices?