I'm sure John kerry's guru was pretty happy the day before the general election as well back in 2004.

Obama had the perfect line last night on the tonight show;

her campaign is not the first people in washington to say "Mission Accomplished"........

I am not surprised Mark Penn says these ridiculous things and gets away with them. It is because journalists lob-ball these silly questions and don't follow up with questions even we non-journalists know need to be asked.

".....As for previewing the general, Penn did make some interesting predictions, including claiming that Clinton could peal away as much as 24% of Republican women......."


They should point out to him that his talk was premature and Hillary needs to win the primary first. And if the general election comes Obama will get not only women votes but a largER percentage of republican and independent voters and 99% of the black vote. Many democrats like myself will sit out rather than vote for Hillary while many republicans who would have been discouraged by their choices and were planning to sit out will come out in full force to prevent a Hillary presidency.

By the way you should also ask him to disclose to the unknowing public that the widely publicized "Rasmussen poll" an off shoot of his company run by his partner and people need to put things into context when they hear those numbers.
....

This dude is talking out of the side of his neck. TRUE General election polls havent even begin to surface. If I took a poll of only Democrats, of course they are going to lean Demcrat..DUH.

They let this idiot get away with anything. When the media asks republicans questions, how come they are grilled?

So 24%, a number based on speculation and supposition entirely is going to become conventional wisdom on the beltway?  No wonder people are turning from the MSM.  Further evidence of them eager to jump on the Clinton Machine.

Hillary could have Arizona in a heartbeat.  We love Bill.  McCain is definately on the outs.  It is doubtful he could even be re-elected for the senate now.  All Hill has to do is pop into our state, in particular, near the border and in Tucson.  The Phoenix metro area is probably still a Repub enclave but the rest of the state is leaning Democratic.

Here's a great article about how Hillary feels concerning the law.  And just how far she will go to get what she wants.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/sandy_berger_and_the_real_hill.html

Now is the time to think people.

and chocolate rations will be increased to 20 grams per week

24% of republican women?.....

We don't have that many republican woman living in trailer parks....

You love Bill, so Hillary could win Arizona in a heartbeat? So is Tipper going to win the Nobel Peace Prize next year since Al won it this year?

Perhaps Clinton would win Arizona, but to form a causal connection with the fact that you love Bill is a good reason why you shouldn't vote. It sounds like all that summer heat got to your head.

And then we will at some point be told that chocolate rations have always been at least 20 grams per week.

Here's a great article about how Hillary feels concerning the law.  And just how far she will go to get what she wants.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/sandy_berger_and_the_real_hill.html

Now is the time to think people.

Jessica, Wisconsin (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 11:31 AM)

Actually, here's yet the THIRD right-wing hack job that Obama supporters here have tossed out there like they're the RNC this week, proving that when you don't have anything positive on your side, attack, attack, attack.

My reply to the Hack author of the lie;

"According to reports in Newsweek, The Washington Post, and other liberal news media not commonly associated with a "vast right wing conspiracy," Hillary Clinton has selected a team of national security advisers led by the "triumvirate" of Madeline Albright, Richard Holbrooke, and Sandy Berger."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/sandy_berger_and_the_real_hill.html

"WASHINGTON —  Hillary Clinton claims Sandy Berger has "no official role" in her campaign after Republican lawmakers blasted her Monday upon learning that Clinton's campaign is taking advice from the former top aide to President Bill Clinton who admitted stealing classified documents and disposing them."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300005,00.html

At the end of an interview with Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton a short while ago, USA TODAY's Susan Page inquired about reports that former Clinton administration national security adviser Sandy Berger is advising her.

Susan asked whether Clinton has any qualms about having Berger as an unofficial adviser to her campaign, given his mishandling of sensitive, classified intelligence documents in 2003?

"He has no official role in my campaign. He's been a friend for more than 30 years. But he doesn't have any official role," Clinton said."

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/10/sen-clinton-san.html



Your own publication can cite only a refutation;

http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-details/sen_clinton_sandy_berger_has_no_official_role_in_my_campaign/

Yet you take reports from legitimate news outlets denying any special status for Berger, and deliberately overlook the fact that there is no record anywhere of Berger being tapped by the Clinton camp for any position at all, let alone as one of her, "top three" advisors, except for an uncorroborated statement in a single magazine article. You then use this tissue-thin item and construct an entire analysis from it. I read somewhere that you're a lawyer, I hope you have a better grasp on the facts when your not swinging that partisan axe that you are so obviously grinding against the Clintons.

Even more despicable is that this item is almost TWO MONTHS OLD, has been refuted dozens of times, officially by the Clinton campaign, and has never been corroborated by any other source but the author, and you are still running with it like it's not just FACT, but Breaking news.

Richard Nixon spent the final years of his life as a free-lance foreign policy advisor, with several books on the topic to his credit, this despite his national disgrace. Henry Kissinger, he of the secret bombings and Vietnam era scandals, is now an ad hoc advisor to the Bush administration. These are true and verifiable facts.

Were the republican establishment and now the Bush administration, "guilty by association", because they were willing to seek the counsel of the disgraced?

It's a foolish premise, and a biased one at that. Even if the rumor of Berger's involvement was true, the conclusions you draw would still be highly questionable.

Would you go to equal lengths to leap to your conclusions based on such flimsy evidence if your target was a republican? I find your sloppy scholarship and seemingly deliberate and multiple blind spots to be the work of a partisan hack.




Van

Jerry, you probably have ZERO % republican women in your life with that attitude. Do you Ever reread before you hit the Submit button. Watch out for them Dinghy's coming ashore in the gulf close to Corpus christie, probably headed to Crawford.

People are fed up with George Dumya and the Republican party. It is that simple.

Here is why Obama will win this election.

Watch all Hillary people.

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

If you read his book "Microtrends" he makes a longer, more convincing argument about the swing of female voters. Bill Clinton won in 1996, Penn argues, for pandering to the "Soccer Moms".  

Yes, they like to feel secure (why most married, suburban women voted for Bush) but they also work and pump gas just as much as their husbands do. Hence why they now don't like Bush.  It's very likely many would vote for Sen. Clinton, whom many hold in high regard.

I believe that Hillary Clinton will win the nomination and Obama then will have to keep his mouth closed and call it a day.  He is not going to become prsident now or maybe at any other time. Edwards better retire with the rest of the rivals who think they are going to win. Sometimes people are apt to change their mind about if a candidate bashes another candidate several times like Obama and Edwards did to Hillary. Not only is it not in good taste it takes away what the candidate should be talking about and that is what they will do if they win the presidency. No matter what comments are made about Hillary she is going to win and Obama and Edwards are going nowhere and that's what they are doing now.  Face the facts as they are.

Notice:  I have never seen my messages displayed. Is there a reason why?

Here's how Hillary is whooing rural americans.  I bet this will go over well in Iowa.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/10/yee-haw.html

Van,

My point was not so much that Berger was an official member of her campaign.  My point was more about the group of people that the Clintons associate with - the type of person who will steal information that we can only assume is sensitive to our national security to protect either the Clintons or himself.  That is the kind of people they count as friends.  This I think says something about morals and judgement and not anything good.

Of course, Hillary would say that he has no official role in her campaign.  Just like she didn't know Norman Hu or Peter Paul.  We all know how she will respond to these kind of questions.  She always responds the same way to any opposition.

Hey Mike in Dallas - yeah - that's a REAL good attitude - to sit on the sidelines and NOT vote for Hillary just because she is the nominee - what a dope - do yourself a favor and go over to the Republican party - by not voting that's what you are doing.

Hillary has come a long way.  Don't let what you hear about her (tainted by the long attacks of the Republicans) influence you.  Take a listen to what she is saying - she WILL do us good.  I can't wait to hear the phrase "Madaam President" in 2009

Anybody ask Penn about his PR firm's work on repairing Blackwater's image? How's that going for him?

shouldn't mark penn be in jail?

Van,

My point was not so much that Berger was an official member of her campaign.  My point was more about the group of people that the Clintons associate with...
...Of course, Hillary would say that he has no official role in her campaign.  Just like she didn't know Norman Hu or Peter Paul.  We all know how she will respond to these kind of questions.  She always responds the same way to any opposition."

Jessica, Wisconsin (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 1:01 PM)
"


You are using right-wing propaganda to smear Clinton.
Do you ever see a Clinton supporter cast the kind of crap (and it's out there) at him?

If you think you support Obama by slandering Clinton, you're not, you're just slandering Clinton.
You also managed to misrepresent the Hsu and Peter Paul slanders too.

Here's yesterday's slander from (spelling)Bee;

I wonder what Carie and Van has to say to new Clinton scandal. The video is all over the web.

http://www.hillcap.org/default.php?page_id=2
Bee (Sent Wednesday, October 17, 2007 2:23 PM)

What do I have to say...

Congratulations...you've hit BOTTOM.

There are many anti-Clinton sites to choose from, all run by right-wing extremists and some (directly, or by proxy) by the RNC, and in your desperation you have chosen to publicize one on this board.

Yesterday it was the stale hatchet-job bio revelations and today it's the pathetic Peter Paul case. If you're a democrat what you're doing is despicable, even if you are mentally deficient or deranged, if you're a republican, well when you've got nothing good to say for yourself, you look for bad things (truth or no) about the other guy. Having abandoned hope that the masses will flock to, "the man who will bring us all together", that they will heed his message and proposals and find them superior to his opponents, you've chosen to slander and demonize them instead.
So desperate and so disillusioned that you seek out hate sites and post the link a dozen times.

" The Hillary Clinton Accountability Project is a project of the United States Justice Foundation intended to educate the public about the largest federal election campaign fraud ever reported. Through its representation of whistleblower Peter Paul in his ongoing landmark court case, Paul vs. Hillary Rodham Clinton, William Jefferson Clinton, et al., the USJF will uncover in court and expose evidence linking Senator Hillary Clinton and then-President Bill Clinton with orchestrating a multi-million-dollar fraud against Paul, the Federal Election Commission and other Federal agencies, as well as the voters of New York, in connection with her 2000 election to the U.S. Senate."
http://www.hillcap.org/default.php?page_id=8

This is utter right-wing crap, and you've swallowed it whole because you're desperate, How hard would it be to find out the truth? Who is Peter Paul?
The Cuban coffee caper
Peter Paul was a lawyer in Miami, Florida, representing foreign governments and political leaders in South America and the Caribbean. He also served as President of the Miami World Trade Center[3] and was the original owner and operator of the largest[citation needed] Foreign Trade Zone in the U.S., Miami Free Zone Inc.[2] As a result of what Paul described as anti-Communist and anti-Castro political activities,[4] he directed a fraud on the Cuban government of $8.75 million dollars by selling agents of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro nonexistent coffee. The plan apparently also involved sinking the ship that was to deliver the nonexistent coffee to hide the fraud from Castro and, according to TIME Magazine, to defraud its insurer, but the ship was abandoned in Costa Rica and never sunk.[2][5]

Paul pled guilty to conspiring to defraud the Cuban government. When his home was raided by the police in connection with this crime, they found cocaine in his garage, and Paul pled guilty to possessing cocaine with intent to distribute.[2] He was sentenced to eight years in prison for the cocaine charge, and a concurrent three years for fraud; he was paroled after three years. His license to practice law was suspended as a result of the convictions,[6][7] and he claims to have been sued by the Cuban government as well.[4]

In 1983, Paul was caught traveling to Canada under a false identity and pled guilty to federal charges of making false statements to customs inspectors. This was a violation of his parole terms from the 1979 felonies, and he went back to jail."

So he's a drug-dealing, Parole violating CRIMINAL. But you didn't take the 30 seconds needed to check facts. What about his case and his contentions?

Connections to Hillary Clinton's senatorial campaign
Paul emerged in 2000 as the largest contributor to Senatorial candidate Hillary Clinton. Paul and his attorneys have at various times offered two explanations for this. First, that he was trying to attract her husband, then-President Bill Clinton, to serve on the board of Stan Lee Media after leaving office. Second, that he hoped to negotiate a pardon for his previous criminal convictions.[21][22] Paul produced and underwrote what he described as the largest fund raising event ever held for a federal candidate [23], in Los Angeles, days before the 2000 Democratic Convention began. The Hollywood Farewell Gala Salute to President William Jefferson Clinton featured prominent entertainers singing for the President, while raising over $1 million for Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign.[24] The event cost over $2 million to organize, much of it borrowed fraudulently by Paul from Merrill Lynch. Later indictments would state that Merrill Lynch lost about $5 million it had lent to Paul.[22]

Two days after the gala, the Washington Post publicized Paul's criminal record, and Hillary Clinton denied knowing Paul and "vowed not to take any contributions from him". Through her official spokesman, Howard Wolfson, Hillary stated on August 16, 2000 that she would return $2,000 she reported receiving from Paul in June 2000,[22] and would not have anything further to do with him.

Paul alleged that Clinton was deceitful in this,[25] and retained public interest law firm, and frequent Clinton opponent, Judicial Watch to represent him in a series of civil and criminal lawsuits against the Clintons, the Clinton campaign, and ultimately the Federal Election Commission (which he charged was negligent in failing to convict Mrs. Clinton).[26][27][28][29] These charges were delayed, as courts held that Paul could not bring charges against the Clintons as he fought extradition from Brazil,[30] but proceeded once he was returned to the States.[31]

The Clinton campaign was ultimately asked to pay $35,000 in fines for having underreported the cost of the gala.[32] Paul's suit against the FEC was thrown out; his attempt to bring ethics charges against Clinton were rejected,[33] and his fraud charges against Senator Clinton were tossed out in April 2006.[34] As of April 2007[35], Paul's civil charges against Senator Clinton and former President Clinton for "looting"[36] his business remained outstanding."

So, he's had his DAYS in court, the charges were, " tossed out in April 2006", and he is still trying to wheedle some money out of the Clintons in a civil suit, represented by RIGHT WING anti-democrat Judicial Watch. Read about all of the other anti-democrat causes they are and have been involved in. Proud of yourself?



Here's more on your, "Hero";

Civil Suits and Recent Guilty Plea for SEC Violation
On June 12. 2001, Paul was indicted on one count of violating SEC Reg. 10(b)5, for manipulating the price of the stock in Stan Lee Media. On August 3, 2001 Paul was arrested in Brazil and jailed, pending the outcome of extradition proceedings.[1] Paul failed in his efforts to avoid extradition and, in September 2003, he was delivered to the Metropolitan Detention Facility in Brooklyn, New York for arraignment and trial.[37][38]

In August 2004, the SEC formally filed its complaint against Paul for the manipulation of Stan Lee Media's stock in violation of the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5.[39]

In March of 2005, Paul had a falling out with his advocates at Judicial Watch. He accused them of using his name to raise more than $15 million from people who disliked the Clintons, while doing little to advance his case. He announced his plan to replace them with a "dream team" of Republican lawyers,[40] and in February 2007, he filed suit against them, saying that they had taken advantage of him and that he was "not a big fan of their behavior."[41]

Paul pled guilty to the securities fraud charge for he had been indicted in 2001. The government characterized his conduct as causing "losses to the investing public and financial institutions of approximately $25 million".[1] As of February 2007, he had not been sentenced.[41]

In July 2005, he settled related civil charges, consenting to a permanent injunction against ever serving as an officer or director of any reporting company. He pled poverty and, as a result, was not asked to pay any fine."

What a guy!

His whole bio can be found on wikipedia;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_F._Paul



What did the court say?

C.A. Upholds Ruling That Suit Against Sen. Clinton Was SLAPP

From Staff and Wire Service Reports

Claims that Democratic presidential frontrunner Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., tried to subvert campaign fundraising laws were properly thrown out under the anti-SLAPP statute, the Court of Appeal for this district ruled yesterday.

Peter F. Paul’s contention that the senator was engaged in a conspiracy to avoid reporting nearly $2 million to Clinton’s successful 2000 campaign in New York, as part of which he was induced to make the donations by promises of a future business relationship with former President Bill Clinton, which never materialized, was supported by “insufficient circumstantial evidence for Paul to carry even the minimal burden on a special motion to strike,” Presiding Justice Dennis Perluss wrote in an unpublished opinion. "

http://www.metnews.com/articles/2007/hill101707.htm

Who is behind these sites?;

NEW YORK —  The Web is proving to be fertile ground for efforts to try to derail Sen. Hillary Clinton's (search) future political ambitions.

A Web site that will feature documents alleging the New York senator knew about illegal activities surrounding certain campaign contributions was launched Tuesday night.

Clinton's camp claims the efforts are just a small example of how Republicans are going to use the former first lady as a whipping post in 2006 and possibly beyond.

"We know one thing for sure, the Republicans and their right-wing allies are going to be hitting us hard with false charges," Clinton wrote to potential donors, according to The Associated Press, calling herself "the Republicans' number one target in 2006."

The Web site launched Tuesday night, www. Hillcap.org, is a joint effort between former Clinton fund-raiser Peter Paul (search) and the self-confessed conservative group U.S. Justice Foundation, who are calling it the Hillary Clinton Accountability Project."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155425,00.html

So, a drug-dealing, parole violating FELON, along with right wing anti-democrat extremists, and this is who you cite against not just Hillary, but President Clinton too.

If it was a Hillary supporter posting an anti-Obama site, and there are more than a few (Created by the same people as the anti-Hillary sites) you would be among the first to attack the culprit, and you'd be in the right to do so, yet you spew the kind of filth that is the province of the republican slime machine, and claim it as your own.

Desperation and demonization. If you can't support Obama without demonizing Clinton, you've got nothing to support.





Van

Hmmmmmm, months before any ballot is cast and already the MSM and the two parties are telling us who it is we will vote for and why.  Maybe we should see how the voting actually goes in the primaries before we get too busy deciding who the election will be between.  And after that, maybe we should see how the campaigns are really run before we start singing the praises of one candidate vs. the other.  You know something about putting the cart before the horse.  

Listen to all you clinton haters, Are you scared that she is a real threat or are you ignorant enough to think another Bush like president would be in our best interest, what a joke, but im not surprised the last presidential election half the country voted while on drugs.

Van,

Thank you for finally responding to the allegation. I guess i expect your answer to be "right wing conspiracy".

You still haven't answer the questions on wht the clinton are associated with a drug dealing felon.

Why would you associate your self with a questionable character in the first place? I guess the relationship is good when they are throwing a concert for the clintons but when things go aweful with the law then the guy is a bad guy.


First, it was Hsu and Peter Paul. Even if the right wing are behind it, why is that they have all the evidence on tape?

Why is Clinton name is the suit if he knows nothing about the guy? These are the questions that will keep coming up in the general election if we elect Clinton.  

Another partisian battle that looks like 1996-98. How could she get things done in this fashinon when her hands are not clean?

Finally, if you think this is going to go away. Think again, this story got some leg. Another weapon for karl Rove to use against the Clinton in the general election. In the '90s, it was Bill Clinton infedility and questionable campaign finance with China, in 2000s it was Hillary Clinton's campaign finance problem.

Now i know what Republican means when they talk about Clinton's has a flaw candidate. Too many skeleton in Clinton's cupboard.

Ah Van,

I did not in any way say that Peter Paul was my hero, or Berger, or Hsu, or any of the other corrupt characters that the Clintons budddy up with.  Once again, my point is that these are the type of people that the Clintons hang with.  Period.  I am not saying that they are good people.

Maybe your right and and the Clintons just have bad luck with their big supporters.  And people who work with or worked for them lie and steal to protect them without their knowledge.

what about the fact that she is a women will bring 35% of dem MALES to guiliani?

Sandy Berger works for the Clinton. They can't deny it, he does all Clinton's dirty deal for them. We know what happen when a man has the gut to steal all Classified document that incriminate Clinton.

The rest of the story is an history when it comes to the Clinton. American can't tolerate another Clinton.

", he's had his DAYS in court, the charges were, " tossed out in April 2006", and he is still trying to wheedle some money out of the Clintons in a civil suit, represented by RIGHT WING anti-democrat Judicial Watch. Read about all of the other anti-democrat causes they are and have been involved in. Proud of yourself?"

He had is days in court but the suit was thrown out because the Judge that threw it out was apointed by the CLinton's administration.

Whatever happen to conflict of intrest in Clinton's book is a myth.

For even Clinton to associate herself with this guy showed her lack of judgement on both ethics and leadership.

I realized there is one common theme that sourand the Clintons - "Ethical Problem".

Like it or not, this story will keeps showing up until the Clinton gets their art together.

Peter Paul - A convicted felon yet had association with the Clinton

Hsu - Another Convicted Felon had association with the Clinton

Sandy Berger - Convicted felon had association with the Clinton


Where is her credibility?

Great post Van! I doubt if the haters of Hillary will even read your great rebuttal.
I get so confused as to who are the Dem's on this blog. I support Senator Clinton but I never, ever, slam any Dem candidate, EVER!
If only the real Dem's would spend the time to PRAISE and SUPPORT their choice for President instead of tearing up Hillary ..oh well they are just not Democrats.
Are they? I can not tell any more.
Must all like jerry too much to dis the repukes.
I like my pets too but jerry is the mascot of the blog.. take your rants out on him!
H P

Ah yea bee...and shes gonna win. Hillary will be our next president. Get over it now, and prepare yourself.

Bee are you a democrat??  Just wondering, seems as if you are you working for the RNC?
Do you live in this country?

Bee are you a democrat??  Just wondering, seems as if you are you working for the RNC?
Do you live in this country?

After watching the video, i must say this both Hillary Clinton and Paul cannot be trusted at this point. They both have questionable character when it comes to money; however, the fact that Clinton associate herself with him underscore the need for Clinton to take an ethics class.

I thought Edward and Obama were been self righteous about taking money from lobbyst; however, they seems to be making sense day by day.

Hillary Clinton has been hanging too much with people of questionable characters e.g. The lobbyst, HSU

Based on this reason alone and the rebuttal from Van, my judgement is to witheld my support for Senator Clinton at this point. Perhaps, i Should spend more time with other candidates to see what they have to offer.

There are many of us in the Democratic Party that feel that a Hillary nomination would be bad not only for the Democratic Party but for the country as a whole.  That does not mean that we hate the Clintons.  I for one defended Bill during the whole Monica mess.  Would Hillary be better than Bush?  Of course!  But that does not mean she is the best of the candidates we have to choose from.  I think it's better that all of these issues with the Clintons comes out now, during the primary, rather than during the general election.  Even Hillary supporters have to admit that there are some real ethics issues.

Also,  I support the candidate I support because I think he would be best for this country - not because I am against Hillary.

This election I want to vote for someone, not against someone.  If Hillary is the nominee I am not sure I could stomach voting for her.  I never thought I would be someone who would not vote but that is a real possibility.

CLINTON-OBAMA 2008!

Unstoppable!

CLINTON-OBAMA 2008!

Unstoppable!

Bee - Clinton's name is in the suit because Paul sued the Clintons.  See, that's how litigation works.  The plaintiff (Paul) files a lawsuit against someone he claims has done something wrong to him.  The alleged wrong-doers are called defendants.  So the case is called Paul vs. (that stands for versus) Clinton because Paul is the plaintiff (the one who brought the suit) and Clinton is the defendant (the one against whom the suit was brought).  All caught up now?

I could file a suit against Bill Gates if I wanted to, but that doesn't mean that I know him and it doesn't mean I have a legal leg to stand on.  

I don't know what the association between the Clintons and this guy is or was, but I'm certainly not going to accept everything said by a right-wing non-profit legal foundation that is soliciting donations to defeat Hillary.  

I know i am not a Republican, nonetheless, being a non-republican doesn't mean i should keep silent when things are not right.

The question is simple, how could the democratic party claim they have beeter ethical standard when infact, they are worse.

We all know how hypocritical the Republican can be but we should demand better from the Democratic party if they want to be an alternative party.

I don't want to be choosing lesser of the two evils anymore. I want to choose the best of the two. We don't choose the lesser of the two evils when you go shoping. I know i don't, why should the next election be lesser of the two evil.

Whenever we choose lesser of the two evils, things doesn't get done in Washington. The democratic congress is a testament to this philosophy.

"the fact that Clinton associate herself with him underscore the need for Clinton to take an ethics class."

May be this will help Madame Hillary Clinton.  

Great post Van! I doubt if the haters of Hillary will even read your great rebuttal.
I get so confused as to who are the Dem's on this blog. I support Senator Clinton but I never, ever, slam any Dem candidate, EVER!
If only the real Dem's would spend the time to PRAISE and SUPPORT their choice for President instead of tearing up Hillary ..oh well they are just not Democrats.
Are they? I can not tell any more.
Must all like jerry too much to dis the repukes.
I like my pets too but jerry is the mascot of the blog.. take your rants out on him!
H P

Carrie,

If you took the time to actually view the video tha Bee has linked you would see some things that cannot be disputed.  

I agree that all of the allegations may not be true but video doesn't lie.  There is video of Hillary thanking Peter Paul.  So she clearly knew him and knew he did something for her.

Carie,

I don't have to accept every thing thrown at me from the republican ideologue but when it comes to Republican rasing question about Democratic ethics, you know there is a problem waiting to explode.

I know this is just a tip of the iceberg. We better wake up now before it is too late.

you people slaving away trying to justify hillary being a criminal, surrounding herself with criminals, taking criminals money, are pathetic.

if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. quack

Can someone tell me when Biden, Dodd and Richardson are coming to Concord or manchester, NH ?

Bee and Jessica you both go and vote for whomever you feel is the best person for the job.
Vote or not we do not need a constant barrage on one candidate.  I have no idea who your choice is?  Do tell us who in the great field of Dem's you will vote for.  Tell us why.  Tell us who you think will be a good VP.  Tell us how you do not like lies and innuendo cast on your choices.  Tell us!
I still can not believe you are democrats!

Mark from Seattle,

I don't "hear about her", I KNOW about her. I have never voted for a republican. When I was a college student in the 90's I was a fan of Bill. As I read more and matured politically my priorities have changed. It is now more important to me that people are HONEST and STRAIGHT. I want them to be in office so that they can offer something new not because they assure me they know "how to play the game" well. I dont appreciate POLL-iticians like Hillary whose stand is POLL tested and POLL driven and don't possess any conviction on any major issue and change their stand with the direction of the wind. I didn't care nor voted for Bush but I was never deceieved by Bush. With all the commotion in early 2003 I and the country knew he was going to war, He said he was going to war, only Hillary didn't hear that and she "thought" (really?) he was going for inspections. If a republican wins I know what I am getting; as much as I don't agree with their ideology they are not lying to me and I know what they will do. I don't want to be lied to in to voting for someone who is driven clearly by thirst for power and at the end of the day who is going to go back to business as usual and BTW who is enthusiastically supported bt the DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX and the NEOCONS.

But thanks for your advice

Peace!

Mallony, Manchester NH  (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:35 PM)

Is this also BEE? The grammar is IDENTICAL. We have people here with more handles than SYBIL had personalities!


Van

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):