Obama's 'big tent' politics begins to look too much like a gospel tent at this point - trying to outreligion the hypocrites on the right is going to backfire on him....lots of voters want to see political candidates that don't resort to cloaking themselves in religious trappings while pandering to
to the all-too-pious 'bring back religion' crowd.
Bring it back??  It never went away that I can tell.

Apparently the days of separation of church and state are a thing of the past .....  yes Obama, give them what they crave - praise the Lord!!  

If the Libertarians weren't such a bunch of cutthroat hyper-capitalists they might be an alternative...but no, it's down with the IRS, down with Social Security, and down with Medicare -- privitize these entitlements and give Wall Street a license to steal your retirement benefits.  Yah, real good idea Mr. Paul.  Too bad John Edwards is such a wimp - guess Hillary's just gonna have to do for now.  

And of course - the GOP has got absolutely nothing constructive to offer, much less a viable candidate.
Bashing the democrats does not improve the quality of their non-candidates one iota.  But, that never stopped the slimy neocons before and it won't now.

Monica again? It seems Jerry aint getting any you know whats....what Mr Craig was getting in those bathrooms.

Crystal girl, you have a crack in your head a mile wide.

shouldn't obama do his job as senator even though he's runniing for president? really, missing the vote and then whinning aobut it is just so manly.....

the senate was in session... he should have been there..
anyone what to defend him for skipping ?
Tuck,Realityville, KS (Sent Tuesday, October 23, 2007 11:43 AM)



If you would read the transcripts during the day the Lieber-Kyl bill was up for vote, Obama WAS THERE for the vote, Sen. Harry Reid TABLED the vote for the day. Obama had a Fundraiser in NH that day and left to attend the fundraiser.  More than half-way enroute to NH, he gets a call from Sen. Reid saying the vote on the Lieber-Kyl Bill will be brought up to be voted on within the hour. Obama was too far away from DC to vote, He released a statement to the press saying he would have voted "no" to the Leiber-Kyl bill. Kinda Dirty don't you think? Sen. Reid and Sen. Clinton are best buds; hell, Sen. Reid's son works for the Clinton campaign. I smell dirty politics. And to top it off she STILL GOT THE VOTE WRONG.

In order to run a campaign, you need money. Hillary has had her "ducks-in-a-row" since she became the Senator of NY. She still hasn't released her earmarks (Obama has), She voted FOR the war in Iraq (Obama against it), She just voted for a bill that DOES give license for Bush to attack and escalate the war into Iran(Lieber-Kyl bill).  

Look at the wording of the bill carefully.  Connect the dots….."We will attack countries that support terrorist" + "Congress declaring Iranian Guard terrorist" = "Bush's blank check to attack and escalate the war into Iran".

Not bad for a "naive" and "irresponsible" candidate is it Sen. Clinton?

Hillary is not Teflon coated people need to realize she is wearing "Bush Armor" she will be the next President and I don't see anyone stopping this from happening.  Heaven help us all because she is "Bush Lite" in every sense of the word.  She has the total support of the Arms Industry, Banking, Big Business, Republican and Democratic parties, and our military.  Obama will not confront or go at her full tilt  because he is holding on to his spot as Vice President.  Some have said why would she pick him as her running mate?  Just do the math 32 million I raised to defeat Hillary, plus the 35 million she has, 67 million combined, no one can touch us.  It's amazing how much Obama has raised with the false promise of defeating Hillary.  If you doubt what I'm saying do a national poll Hillary and Obama against any other combination you can entertain in fact I don't even see why they are wasting the money to hold the primaries or the election.  Bought and paid for signed, sealed, and delivered.  As for me I'm still looking for that light in the darkness but it grows dimmer every day.  I still believe John Edwards could have took it all if he had turned conservative, I won't say republican, because there are conservatives in the Democratic party.  I'm a solid conservative but I wouldn't vote for "any" of the Republican candidates so I'm out of the primaries anyway.  I want to see the Government cut at least in half and spending to support that government cut in half.  Get the government out of our private lives and do the job they are suppose to do "SERVE the American People".  

I like Huckabee's positions...he sounds like a Democrat! Raise teacher pay, provide Universal Health Insurance, become  energy independent and insist the Saudis do their part in bringing peace to the Middle East since we made them rich. (Except he told the NRA there is duck hunting in heaven....poor ducks don't get a break even after death...what's up with that?)

Jerry:  Clinton wasn't the one with the PDB in his hands less than a month before warning of exactly the type of attacks that were carreid out on 9-11, now was he?

The argument that he let OBL get away is ridiculous.  He was criticized right and left anytime he made a military move because he was just trying to distract everyone from Monica.  

Now, even if I did accept your proposition that he is responsible for those who died on 9-11 and those who died in Somalia during the Black Hawk thing, that still is not "hundreds of thousands of lives" as Crystal claimed.  

So Crystal?  Do you have an explanation yet?

If you would read the transcripts during the day the Lieber-Kyl bill was up for vote, Obama WAS THERE for the vote, Sen. Harry Reid TABLED the vote for the day. Obama had a Fundraiser in NH that day and left to attend the fundraiser.  More than half-way enroute to NH, he gets a call from Sen. Reid saying the vote on the Lieber-Kyl Bill will be brought up to be voted on within the hour. Obama was too far away from DC to vote, He released a statement to the press saying he would have voted "no" to the Leiber-Kyl bill. Kinda Dirty don't you think? Sen. Reid and Sen. Clinton are best buds; hell, Sen. Reid's son works for the Clinton campaign. I smell dirty politics. And to top it off she STILL GOT THE VOTE WRONG."
VL North Carolina (Sent Tuesday, October 23, 2007 12:42 PM)

A response;

NOT VOTING IS NOT THE SAME AS VOTING NO.

I read this Noam Scheiber item on The Plank with interest, as Noam's been on a bit of a roll lately with his campaign analysis, and earlier got the diagnosis of the problems with the Barack Obama and John Edwards campaign exactly right. But one thing that seriously undermines Obama's case for his judgment in the present debate over Hillary Clinton's yes vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Iran Resolution is that Obama himself failed to cast a vote on it. Nonetheless, here's the message the Obama campaign sent out to supporters today, urging them to march against the war in Iraq:

   Many Republicans and even a few Democrats refuse to admit the mistake they made five years ago. And now we're seeing history repeat itself as the drumbeat builds for a war with Iran.

   Once again, some politicians are more afraid of appearing weak than they are of being dragged into another war.

   It's going to take your personal involvement to stop the march to the next war...

(Italics added.)

It seems to me that if Obama thought the Kyl-Lieberman Iran Resolution vote was as important a line in the sand on a march to war with Iran as he is now making it out to be, he could have taken the time to come back to Washington, give a speech on the issue, and urge all his Democratic Senate colleagues to vote no, too. And then he could have cast a vote himself.

A speech of that sort would probably have been enough to get Clinton to alter her vote, because the evidence suggests that pressure from less high-profile presidential competitor Chris Dodd has already helped move her (as well as Obama) toward a more decisive position on withdrawing from Iraq. Obama could have tried to unite the Democratic caucus of the U.S. Senate on this issue, and urged them to present a united front on this foreign policy question. Instead, he managed to be out of town on the day of the vote, and then did not issue a statement on it until 10 p.m. that evening. So much for "personal involvement" in stopping the U.S. from "being dragged into another war"!

Indeed, Obama's track record on controversial votes is something I've been thinking a lot about over the past few days, ever since he appeared to call for new regulations on abortion in response to a question from an anti-choice listener in Iowa on Saturday. According The New York Times Obama said:

   there is a large agreement, for example, that late-term abortions are really problematic and there should be a regulation.

As there is no such movement toward a new late-term abortion regulation among any pro-choice group I am aware of, I asked Obama spokesman Bill Burton for elaboration on this over the weekend. He said:

   Obama did not suggest that new regulations were needed or appropriate. He simply stated the fact that there is agreement that late-term abortions should be limited to the rare instances where the life or health of a woman is at stake. And he has consistently made clear that abortion regulations, such as the Federal Abortion Ban, that lack exceptions for the life and health of women are unconstitutional and endanger women's health.

Both those statement suggest some comfort with banning second-term abortions, however, as most states already ban early third-trimester ones, as Roe permits them to do. And Obama is correct in that there is very little public support for keeping second-term abortions legal. Still, it would have been easier to interpret Obama's statement if he had a clear voting record on this topic. Instead, Obama managed to absent his opinion from the Illinois legislature twice during votes on a partial-birth ban in Illinois -- voting present rather than yes or no -- muddying the actual record about his beliefs. Clinton in 2000 said that she would be open to a ban on late-term abortions, as well, but when push came to shove in the U.S. Senate, she voted against the partial-birth abortion ban which Bush signed into law in 2003 and which the Supreme Court upheld earlier this year. So her record is clear.

A third example: Just a few weeks ago, Obama managed to be absent from the floor of the Senate when it came time to vote on a controversial resolution to condemn MoveOn's advertisement about Gen. Petraeus. Clinton and Dodd voted against the measure; Obama issued a statement condemning the entire exercise as distracting theatrics.

All told, these episodes have started to make me wonder if maybe Obama would have somehow managed to be absent from the Senate the day of the 2002 vote on authorizing the use of force in Iraq, as well. It is a harsh thing to suggest, but his own campaign is now arguing that "we're seeing history repeat itself" when it comes to the power of a vote he decided to skip, and his track record on missing controversial votes is increasingly disturbing. U.S. Senators have a rare power -- there are but 100 of them for a nation of 300 million -- and when they chose to use their voices but not their votes, they are abdicating their duties as elected officials. If Obama really thinks Clinton said just yes to war with Iran, he needs to explain why he couldn't be bothered to say no.

--Garance Franke-Ruta

Posted by Garance Franke-Ruta on October 11, 2007 3:23 PM

Oh I am sorry obviously alot of you don't read, but about the Van, Carrie, Susan, Ms. Lieometer and all you others I think I deserve an apology, just because you are unaware of something doesn't mean it is an lie!! Sheesh!!


In his autobiography, My Life, published in June, Clinton revisited his role in the Rwanda genocide. He again publicly flagellated himself for the apathy and indifference that insured the slaughter. Three months before My Life came out the National Security Archive, a Washington D.C. non-government research institute sued in court and got hold of classified intelligence reports. The most damning were the eyes-only national intelligence daily reports that the CIA supplied to Clinton, Vice President Al Gore and other top administration officials on the Rwanda massacres. In the reports, diplomats, military and UN officials, aid workers, and intelligence operatives on the scene gave first hand accounts of the holocaust, and told of boasts that Hutu leaders made to wipe all Tutsis out.

The documents are smoking gun proof that Clinton knew from the moment that Hutu thugs hacked to death the first innocents that the slaughter was in full swing. Barely two weeks after the carnage started, Clinton officials privately called the killings genocide. Yet, Clinton, Gore, and Secretary of State Madeline Albright would not publicly use the word. A chilling eyes-only Defense Department memorandum advised Clinton administration officials that if they used the word genocide to describe the carnage it would compel the government "to do something." They followed the script to the letter.

It took more than a month before the word "genocide" on the killings seeped into the Clinton administration's vocabulary. But administration officials watered it down by blandly calling it "acts of genocide."

Even after the UN shook off its see-no-evil slumber, and authorized troops to intervene, Clinton tried to stonewall the deployment of forces, drug his feet on providing funds for the deployment, and reneged on the U.S.'s promise to provide military vehicles to transport troops and refugees from the killing fields. In 2000, Foreign Affairs Magazine assessed the UN and the U.S.'s Ostrich act on Rwanda. It concluded that prompt action could have saved more than 100,000 lives.
The intervention would not have required one American soldier, or lengthy debate in Congress. It could have been accomplished for the relative paltry sum of $15 million.

No dumb dumbs, The Clintons are NOT Bush lite or anywhere close. The Clintons are LEFT of center and enjoy it there. They get my vote. Bush lite argument is just plain stupid.

Right Paw Paw, and welcome to politics. So pick one or don't vote.

Paw Paw, NC,

Your arguement doesn't have a loci standi. Obama doesn't need to attack Hillary but he need to distinguish himself on substance like foreign policy and energy policy.

I don't think Hillary is going to win the primary despite what the national polls sugest. The primary strategy is simple, "He who wins in IOWA, SC, NV and NH will win the democratic ticket".

We don't need personal attack in the primary but we need seperation on substance ( Iraq War, Kyl-Liberman vote, Diplomacy, Transparency in government,  Health Care, Energy policy and most importantly someone that can bring people together).

If personal attack is used like the republican we know Hillary Clinton can't survive the primary. We don't want to alienate the independent voters in the democratic party but we can still disagree on substance.

I personally does not support singing kumbaye in the primary process. I want candidate to disagree on substance.

The big news today in this article is the five man race, possibly six with ron paul. the other news is not real news. Most of you who are talking about the teflon thing are arguing about someones opinion. Please opining about another persons opinion is a waste of good air. Take a deep breath and re-read this article. You will find that you are being used to create more garbage. Get over yourselves. Jerry do you have any facts ever in your messages, no, you have angry diatribes about personality and assumptions, that is a good example how your people are running this nation, group think is a disease that your party needs to fix to ever be a viable party again.

Clinton's vote will become a huge issue if Bush uses that resolution to start the Iran war before the primaries start. Almost no Democratic voters are going to support another war started by Bush, even those that believe that Iran has always been a way bigger threat then Iraq was. If this war is not started or imminent at the start of the primaries, this issue will not hurt her much. From a political standpoint, Bush will probably wait until the general election is near before he starts bombing Tehran.

"Bill Clinton's judgement during his years of office caused HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of civilians their lives,"
Crystal (Time for change) (Sent Tuesday, October 23, 2007 10:34 AM)

"Oh I am sorry obviously alot of you don't read, but about the Van, Carrie, Susan, Ms. Lieometer and all you others I think I deserve an apology, just because you are unaware of something doesn't mean it is an lie!! Sheesh!!"

"In 2000, Foreign Affairs Magazine assessed the UN and the U.S.'s Ostrich act on Rwanda. It concluded that prompt action COULD have saved MORE THAN 100,000 lives."

No, it's simply a misrepresentation of the facts, stretched to the point of incredulity a la "If she floats, she's made of wood and wood burns, so she must be a WITCH!" like the,"Logic", in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail."


BTW-Where did you copy that from?  There is a huge difference between your statement and the unattributed cut and paste you use to support it.
It is ironic that many of your posts question the intelligence and scholarship of those who do not share your views.



Van

I am sorry Van I was being generous by just giving you the blueprint of what happened hoping that you would go and read. The Foreign Affairs Magazine thoughts on how many lives would have been lost is underestmated? But what point are you trying to make, that "100,000" lives are not enough? Sheesh!! Why don't you google it or something "Rwanda genocide"? You search about everything else, become informed. IT HAPPENED IN 1994, Clinton knew about it, he screwed up and 800,000 people lost their lives. The events that led up to the violence happened a year in advance, the Clinton administration was well aware of it at the time.

Between April and June 1994, an estimated 800,000 Rwandans were killed in the space of 100 days.

I personally believe Bill Clinton is better than Georger Bush but i don't like his capital gain tax. I also believe Hillary Clinton is no Bill Clinton.

I believe her stance on foreign policy is bogus and her Iraq vote is a big concern for me.

Although Bill CLinton made a terrible foreign policy mistake (Allowing Rwanda Genocide to Happen), comparing BUSH and CLinton mistakes make Bill clinton looks like an hero. Clinton did stop genocide in Bosnia after learning from is failure in Rwanda but George Bush hasn't leaned from his mistake. The same way Hillary Clinton hasn't learned from his mistake.

George Bush foreign policy mistake is a disaster and Hillary Clinton must take part of the blame for authorizing the war.

Oh, and Van when you get a chance why don't you add up the deaths in Somalia and Haiti as well, that should keep you busy!!!

what I find interesting is where was all the so called outrage when "this" happened:

Hillary celebrates endorsement of anti-gay Reverend who compared homosexuality to thievery
Edited on Mon Oct-22-07 06:51 PM by jefferson_dem
Rev. Harold R. Mayberry, senior pastor at First African Methodist Episcopal Church in Oakland...

***

Religious groups on common ground
Many faiths oppose same-sex marriages
Don Lattin, Tyche Hendricks, Cicero Estrella, Vanessa Hua, Chronicle Staff Writers
Sunday, March 14, 2004

Like most religious opponents of same-sex marriage, the Rev. Harold Mayberry, pastor of the First African Methodist Church in Oakland, has preached against homosexuality to his congregation of 2,800.


Link article.cgi?file=/c/a/200...

I think this outrage is selective and manufactured.... BTW members of the Gay community let's underscore the words CELEBRATES THE ENDORSEMENT

No arguments there Bee, I do believe that Bill Clinton is better than Bush but I think their are current candidates that will be better than both, I don't simply want who is better at it, but who would be the Best!!

Van, Susan, HP Boston, csh IL and other Hillo-philes are TROLLS.  They are paid by the Clinton campaign to post on various websites.  It's better to ignore them than engage them in dialogue...since they have nothing intelligent to say.  Hillary could be charged with armed robbery- and they would still proclaim her innocence.  Don't feed the TROLLS!
FYI, it's not just "right-wing" Republicans that are anti-Hillary.  It's also the Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, Green Party, etc.  The vast right- wing conspiracy theory is not going to fly anymore.

Between April and June 1994, an estimated 800,000 Rwandans were killed in the space of 100 days.

Crystal (Time for change) (Sent Tuesday, October 23, 2007 1:49 PM)

Your statement BLAMING the democratic president of the United States, for HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of deaths is just not TRUE. You copied something that you didn't cite until called on it.

This new last-ditch strategy of bashing DEMOCRATS in support of your guy is an equivalent variation of the VietNam era oxymoron,  
"We have to destroy this party to save it."

What kind of traction or support do you expect to engender from your fellow Democrats by falsely accusing President Clinton of GENOCIDE?

It isn't that we don't know about Rwanda, it's your blaming President Clinton that is the issue. That and the honesty of attribution that you seem to care as much about as you do the veracity of your claim.


Van

Crystal-

When you make BEE sound rational, you should maybe ask yourself if you aren't getting a little out there...


Van

While Billy was busy with the interns, Osama was busy with his planning.  If Billy wasn't so concerned about chasing tail while in office, maybe he could have paid a little bit more attention to what was going on in the world.

And, illegal war my a**.  Who voted for the war?  Lets see, Clinton, Dodd, Biden, Edwards.  Oh, the next moronic excuse the Dems give is "We were fooled".  Fine, then what a bunch of fools you have running for President.  Grow up.

Carrie:

Considering that there is tape that Bill Clinton said he had Osama Bin Laden and begged the Saudi's to take him instead of having the manhood to take him, shows he did not care about Al Queda.  There is also audio of him admitting as soon as he heard the towers went down, he knew it was Bin Laden.  What ever evidence of Bill Clinton and 9-11 disappeared in Sandy Burger's pants.

And Susan in Miami:

Considering you are backing a criminal gang running for president makes me wonder sometimes.  I'm still waiting for the proof of starting a war under false pretenses; neither your party or any of the media has come out with clear, concise evidence this war was started on false pretenses.  Everybody knows (as you have stated) that you are only backing Hillary just because she is a woman, without giving any proof (real or imagined) of whatever she has done to prove she has the experience to be a President of the United States, that has been proven in the liberal media, on here and on the street.  Just because she had to move to New York is no reason to vote for her for President.

My god, so it has come down to this?.......

Tuesday, October 23, 2007 10:37:21 AM


Clinton Talks of Bill's Romantic Gifts

Hillary Rodham Clinton says husband Bill often brings her romantic gifts: a giant wooden giraffe from an African trip, for example, and a Chanel watch that reminded him of teeth.

"Oh he's so romantic," the former first lady said in an interview for the November issue of Essence magazine. "He's always bringing me back things from his trips."

The watch had a bracelet made of white cubes. "I had dental surgery, and he said it reminded him of teeth," she said.

The New York senator, now a presidential candidate, said she is satisfied with the decisions she has made in her marriage.

"Now obviously we've had challenges as everybody in the world knows," she said. "But I never doubted that it was a marriage worth investing in even in the midst of those challenges, and I'm really happy that I made that decision."

In 1998, news unfolded about her husband's affair with Monica Lewinsky.

While sticking it out might not be for everyone, Mrs. Clinton said women should support each other in the choices they make in their marriages.

"I think it's so important for women to stand up for the right of women to make a decision that is best for them," she said.

Hillary celebrates endorsement of anti-gay Reverend who compared homosexuality to thievery
Edited on Mon Oct-22-07 06:51 PM by jefferson_dem
Rev. Harold R. Mayberry, senior pastor at First African Methodist Episcopal Church in Oakland...

So Hillary really is Anti-gay?
Better find another candidate guys and gals.

Van I refuse to discuss this with you. Your judgememt is clearly clouded by your loyalty to the Clinton campaign. I mean really

"It isn't that we don't know about Rwanda, it's your blaming President Clinton that is the issue. That and the honesty of attribution that you seem to care as much about as you do the veracity of your claim. "

How is me placing blame on Clinton an issue? He did nothing to stop it and he was the one in a position to do so!!! They were told not to use the word "genocide" b/c it would mean they would have to do something about it. I mean really, you can support Clinton but for you to not acknowledge that this is a mistake on his part, is mind boggling. Your clear indifference to human lives is unspeakable. And you continue to speak about where this post came from and where this fact came from but the truth is the truth, they are FACTS!! You don't have to look far to find anything about the Clinton administration and the Rwandan genocide, it is right at the tips of your fingertips!!! I am not discounting any good things that he did but I am just speaking for ME and ME ONLY. I can't get past the fact that so many people died and nothing was done about it and to know that it could have been prevented!! I couldn't fathom any human making the decision to do nothing in that situation!! And people bring up him making up with Bosnia, well all I have to say that the different coordinates of the locations speaks for itself!!

Crystal-

When you make BEE sound rational, you should maybe ask yourself if you aren't getting a little out there...

Van
-----------------------------------------------------

Obviously, you believe I can't think for myself. Your comment is misguided as usual.

Here is the fact, Bill Clinton blew it when it comes to Rwanda. It happen on his watch and he need to take responsibility for it. However, he corrected his mistake by acting quickly in Bosnia. It is like once beaten twice shy. Bush hasn't learn from his mistake and the same goes to Hillary Clinton. Remenber Bill is not equivalent to Hillary.

So don't put label on my opinion. My job is not to bash Bill Clinton but to point out what he did right and what he did wrong.

Among the candidates that are running, i like Obama, Biden, Richarson foreign policy views. Get it?

Van must obviously expect us to be all brain wash. Sorry, we are not all on cool aid.

"Oh he's so romantic," the former first lady said in an interview for the November issue of Essence magazine. "He's always bringing me back things from his trips."


Yeah, like hard to cure diseases.

Real Democrat, CA - Van, Susan, HP Boston, csh IL and other Hillo-philes are TROLLS.  They are paid by the Clinton campaign to post on various websites.


Doubtful they are paid.  They don't appear smart enough to be paid.

If Hilary showed more femininity, maybe she would have less trouble running for the presidency.  She reminds me of a man.  And she's very unattractive.  I am a woman, and if I am going to vote for a woman president, I at least want her to look like a woman.  I mean, Condi Rice shows us that you don't have to look like a pre-op transvestite to be a hard-core woman in office.  I do not want to see her face on the television more than I have to...it gives me the creeps.  (Does she wear makeup?)  Some of you will be upset at this comment, but it is true that sex appeal is part of a woman's invisible power.  And since she doesn't use any of it, she is not tapping into her full potential.  Sorry Hillary.  You're not a woman to me.

jerry, once again you have given me an opening to point out that Bill Clinton rained cruise missiles on Osama's training camps and warned that the combination of al Qaeda and the Taliban were at the time the greatest terrorist threat in the world.  Republicans took to the floors of Congress and the airwaves to accuse Clinton of creating a crisis where none existed to divert attention away from Ken Starr's $50M investigation.  Way to go Republicans, thanks for setting our priorities on finding out whether Bill had an affair when we could have crushed a terrorist organization in it's infancy.

Real Democrat:

You nailed it. Some don't like all the "pot-stirring" of the last few days and I am one of them.

Yet leaving the board to troll-goths like van goes against my nature.  They have an insult ready to throw at anything other than their own babble.

Just listen today.  Though I was cast as van's villain because I get to him, some think this is just a two man pissing match. So far, none of this toxic spill this morning and early afternoon has anything to do with me and yet it goes on unabated.

Almost everything out of van's mouth is foul and rude.  Dozens despise him, but he continues, blind to his own pathos.

I say, anyone who discounts this behavior has a serious problem.  With an edge like that, how do they expect to win friends and influence people in an election?

Thus, I suspect that van and others are actually Republican plants.  The only people I have encountered with so little brains and such sleazy ethics have been Republicans.

HP: I have always respected you, but if you are suckered by van you deserve what is coming.  Get off or get real while you still can.

Real Democrat: You have done our party and this board a service.  Thank you.


Just the facts

John B: You forget that this ''factchecking''cuts both ways. It was conservatives who revealed the 2004 Bush TANG documents to be forgeries.[assisted in great measure by the liberal Washington Post,whose handwriting experts came to the same conclusion,also finding that the paper used as well as the print ink originated from a printshop,perfomed recently [a KINKOS,in this case,in Texas,as it was later revealed].
             Then there was the exposure of several photoshopped pictures printed by the AP and major newspapers and networks including the New York Times,Washington Post,NEWSWEEK,and NBC,by conservative internet websites during the 2006 Lebanese War which showed that these photographs were altered,or even staged,in much the same way as the New York Times performed journalistic surgery on a ''soldiers letter from Iraq'' in 2005 in which it altered and deleted and inserted portions that were not a part of the original letter. In the Times it was to cast aspersions on Bush,as well as the IDF in the case of the phony pictures.
          There was Wolf Blitzer on CNN asserting that the US used ''poison gas''in Vietnam.[not the herbicide ''Agent Orange''[a progenitor of Monsantos ROUNDUP weedkiller],but an inhalative harrassing gas,of phosgene or mustard quality].
          NPR,which asserted that the 2001-02 Anthrax letter mailings originated with a conservative family values organization.
          NEWSWEEK,which maintained that QTMO prisoners Korans were ''being flushed down toilets by guards''.
           The NEW YORKER,which asserted that the president had plans to invade Iran by ''September''OF 2006,when it was found that no such plans existed.
            The NEW REPUBLIC,which printed phony Iraq ''atrocity''stories which it attributed to a Mr.''Beauchamp''.
             The Associated Press,which garnered information on the so-called ''Haditha Massacre'' from a press stringer known as ''Captain[Iraqi Police] Jamal Hussein''who never existed.[Rep.Murtha[D-Pa] would use the AP reportage to slander the USMC].
           All were exposed by conservative or milblog websites on the Internet as false or dishonest reporting by MSM or leftwinged Internet websites. All were either later retracted,[NPR actually issued a public apology],or allowed to die,but whose veracity was never again utilized as a source by any of these media outlets.            

John B:


jerry, once again you have given me an opening to point out that Bill Clinton rained cruise missiles on Osama's training camps and warned that the combination of al Qaeda and the Taliban were at the time the greatest terrorist threat in the world.

Ok.........
He warned the world.......
didn't do a very good job........
he had Osama Bin laden dead to center in Sudan....
Sudan offered him to the US
CLinton begged the saudi's to take him.......
Saudi's refused, Clinton didn't want to have a mark on his presidency, so he let him go........
Little did we know Monica would be the stain on his presidency........

So in other words John, you know CLinton had him but he refused to take him (as in not on my watch).

He left him for President Bush......

Would have been more worse for him If Al Gore had won and 9-11 happened on his watch........

But Sandy Burger did his dirty work for him, stuffing papers in his underwear.....

jerry, "Considering that there is tape that Bill Clinton said he had Osama Bin Laden and begged the Saudi's to take him instead of having the manhood to take him, shows he did not care about Al Queda." According to the findings of the 9/11 Commission the Clinton administration never had intelligence that was reliable enough to pinpoint his position in Saudi Arabia so we couldn't go grab him, but the administration did as the Saudis (Bush family friends) to do something about him and they did not.
"There is also audio of him admitting as soon as he heard the towers went down, he knew it was Bin Laden." Yes, because the outgoing Clinton administration warned the incoming Bushies that bin Laden would strike in the near future and were ignored.
"What ever evidence of Bill Clinton and 9-11 disappeared in Sandy Burger's pants."  Whatever Berger did has already been dealt with in a way that was acceptable to the Bush Justice Dept and at no time did he have custody of original documents, only copies.  If you're going to throw around baseless allegations at least learn to spell his name.
"I'm still waiting for the proof of starting a war under false pretenses" How about a White House office that was assembled for the express purpose of cherry picking intelligence that backed a case for war and hid intelligence that worked against war.

Thieme,
great post.  too many of us have faded away because of van.  you know who you are.
thanks for staying.  I will if you will.

My apologies to all. This is totally stupid and self-absorbed and I know I'm boring you and I'm demeaning myself every time I participate. I advise everyone who isn't mark to scroll past this post after reading to this point. Thank you.



I'm sick of this pompous ass and his rhetoric. He left, he's back, but the high-school rivalry, personal vendetta goes on. It's boring to everyone but HIM and annoying to everyone, including me. I will continue in my policy of ignoring him unless he initiates contact
Find the apology to me;
Van:
All I want is an apology (sound familiar?).
A.  I am not a campaign manager and never said I was, but you have repeated that until I think it probably does require a response, in spite of my desire to move on.
I said (you can look it up) that I was the "decider" in our campaign in terms of what blogs we read fordaily research.  That was said, I admit, slightly tongue in cheek, and you being the only one who went off about it, I felt it needed no response.
If you can find where I said I was a campaign manager, I will apologize.  If not, as you are wont to require from others: and apology sir.

B. Yes, I am Mrs. van.  A 7th grade joke as you put it. Come to think of it, I have never seen any evidence of any sense of humor or self-effacement in your posts.  
I never said anywhere that I would not stoop to making up a name, and ye without sin cast the first aspersion.
I have said and stand by this, that I have never hijacked another poster's monicker.  I believe some of the Mark Thieme signed posts show evidence of a humorless New York hand.
If you can find a place where I said I have never used a completely made up alias, well, you'll get an apology.  And if you can't, you know what to do.

I do apologize to the rest here for this ridiculous interchange and the part I have played in it.  When the posts are bigger than my screen, I feel I may have struck a deep nerve and for that, I also apologize.  


Mark Thieme (Sent Monday, October 22, 2007 3:26 PM)"

Where is his apology TO ME?. He MUST have struck a deep nerve. This defines what a, "self-serving" apology is.

This guy pretended to be involved at a high level in one of the campaigns, never revealing which one. The question is whether or not he was telling the truth, but he'd like it to be about WHICH position he CLAIMED to hold.

I never initiated contact with this guy. I challenge anyone here to find any example of me initiating a pissing contest with anyone.

Here is the injured party, throwing himself on the mercy of the court of public opinion; "Look at how I am the good one." he cries.  lol

Try to keep in mind that this is a (self-proclaimed) grown man.

There were two of us in this silly, absurd, dust-up.  One apologized sincerely and publicly; the other mocked him.

One asked for an apology for misrepresentation and the other laughed in his face.

This other one repeatedly requires people to respond to his facts and demands that folks apologize to him when they are wrong.  This one never apologizes.  This other one is never wrong.

What is wrong with this picture?

Both have showed true colors.


Watch for him tomorrow.  He'll come charging on the board.  Rude, arrogant and self-obsessed.  No shame.  He just doesn't get it.  I doubt he is able to process what it takes to truly see himself as others. Sad.

Van has lost any character cred he had left here.  Let him twist, ever so slowly, in the wind..

Just the facts."

Mark Thieme (Sent Monday, October 22, 2007 5:23 PM)

It would be funny, even if it wasn't about me if it wasn't so adolescent. This is I repeat, a grown man. He still see himself as some kind of arbiter. He's still looking for a constituency and using his attacks on me as a prop, just like his farewell letter.


Mark Thieme, I never initiated contact with you. I haven't cyber-stalked and  taunted you. I haven't posted an endless number of character assassinations directed at you. You have had a problem of unknown origin with me that made you write and post embarrassingly immature taunts and melodramatically pen a farewell to the board, only to return (arrogantly? self-obsessed?) a week later. I find it hard to believe that you are really an adult, based on your output here.

I think you are a self-important ass pretending to be many things you are not. The smart money says I have you pinned a lot closer than you could ever hope to assess my character..

This stuff isn't about me it's about your problem with me. Again,  please get over yourself, ignore me, post the nebulous fluff that you did before and pretend I don't exist.

I won't let you get in the self-aggrandizing last word you so long for. I will post your silly farewell every and any time you address or ALLUDE to me or my posts (under your screen name and any other that you may use and/or hijack), and reiterate my contention that you are a phony and a poseur. Cut me a wide berth and we'll be fine. Cross me again and you'll be drafting your valedictory redux.









Van

Thieme,
great post.  too many of us have faded away because of van.  you know who you are.
thanks for staying.  I will if you will.

Sunyata (Sent Tuesday, October 23, 2007 3:59 PM)


Van has more integrity in his little finger than all of you combined. You attack him but I never saw him attack you. You seem like a a high-school kid who's mad because someone stole your girlfriend or something. Plus Who are these people? Sunyaya? it means NOTHING literally. It is obviously this guy supporting himself.
Leave us alone with this bull! From what I can see, you decided to start your stupid pissing contest again today. Van doesn't even seem to care if you exist. Hang it up Mark Theime, and go and complain to someone who cares.

Please don't run away from this blog because of Clinton machine. I am ready to express my view against the so called clinton's agent that are splashing us with poll numbers.

My strategy is simple, ignore the poll numbers.

Freedom of speech must prevail.

Just listen today.  Though I was cast as van's villain because I get to him, some think this is just a two man pissing match. So far, none of this toxic spill this morning and early afternoon has anything to do with me and yet it goes on unabated.

Almost everything out of van's mouth is foul and rude.  Dozens despise him, but he continues, blind to his own pathos.


"We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others."

This guy Theime is ruining the board

Lee, the TANG memos have never been proven to be forgeries, it's only been proven that they can't be authenticated.  In any case no one has debated the case laid out in the memos.  GW walked away from his Air Guard service, plain and simple.   A few pictures of the Lebanese war were enhanced with additional smoke.  Certainly a journalistic misstep although the Bush administration urging a war in Isreal that they consequently lost was a bigger misstep.  I'm not familiar with the "soldier's letter", although there have been lots of letters and editorials by current and ex military that have been critical of the war.  There has been a lot of speculation on the origins of the anthrax letters.  To this date no one knows and it doesn't seem to be a priority of the Administration.  As for Korans being flushed, who knows?  Everything that happens at Gitmo is classified.  Nothing will be proven until historians get their hands on the documentation many years from now.  Why are the Bushies so afraid of having people know what they're doing?  As far as we can tell GWB still has plans to invade Iran.  Just because it didn't happen in 2006 doesn't mean it won't happen, in fact they give every indication of trying to make a case for that.  Beauchamp is real.  He still maintains his stories are accurate.  The Army won't allow it to be investigated.  Why not?  Jamal Hussein is also real, although conservative blogs continue to pretend he isn't.  

Actually, George, Sunyata does have a meaning that millions of people recognize.  And George, you sound a lot like van to me.  Integrity in his little finger?  Good one.  Why don't you cry to someone on your intelligence level?  Maybe van, for instance.

Obama forgot to mention that Biden and Dodd voted against the Kyl-Lieberman amendment.  He now says he would have voted against it, BUT he favors its most dangerous provision:  making one-third of the Iranian military a "terrorist organization."  

Shorter Barack:
"I was against it, before I was for part of it, but I didn't show up for any of it."

Hillary thought those Iowans wouldn't care whether she opened the door to war with Iran, but her polling must be telling her not to make the mistake of underestimating them again.  Why else would you spend money to do a mailing on a Senate vote to amend a funding bill?

I am confused is George and Van the same person? And what ever happend to Susan and Carrie, I received no response after my posts about Rwanda? Are you guys doing research?

Sunyata:

Thanks for your interest.  And please do not leave the board on my account.  

But this guy van is determined to blow it up and I am not going to be party to that.

This has been a great board and in spite of my natural instincts to confront bullies, there are enough of those who are in position to do serious harm to our nation and world.

If van and his cheerleaders want to trash this board and MSNBC doesn't care, then why should anyone else care?

So... my advice is, if van is ruining your blogging experience, just make him go away.  There are several ways to effect this, the easiest being to blog in another neighborhood.

If MSNBC is making money on this stuff, why should we help them?  

The great irony is that nobody pays any attention to van who hasn't been slimed by him...  

as Bill Murray was wont to say, "It just doesn't matter."

It doesn't, and neither does van, except to those who have been offended by him.  

As "George" advises, we should tell that story to somebody who cares!

Let him twist for awhile.  Read, but do not comment.  



Watch.

George = Van. Thank you for expressing your opinion lets get back to the main issue. Why should we vote for Hillary Clinton?

Does her experience as a wife of a sitting president count?

What is Hillary's opinion regarding capital gain tax? Are we going to go back to 28% CG tax? How does she intend to pay for $5,000 baby bond.

What is Clinton response to Mitt's comment regarding internship not counting as experience?

Why should we trust her to be the commander in chief when her judgement is questionable?

What is her position regarding foreign policy and diplomacy? Does she believe in talking? Will she use nuclear weapon on Osama bin laden?

Lets get back to the issues. Please convince me why i should vote for Clinton. I don't want to see poll numbers. Make a sale.

Bee and Van and Mark and George and now the sunyata........WOW we are more than 10 sybil's now...
I am not going any where, I will continue to read and post.  I will of course take it all with a grain of salt (is salt bad for you ?) and we who respect Senator Clinton will prevail.
Okay you silly guys I do not take any of you seriously, on with the SHOW!

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