<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Clinton: Rahm vs. Ted</title><link>http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/12/1009379.aspx</link><description>The New York Times says that Rahm Emanuel “called to assail Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, for remarks he made when asked about the possibility of Senator Barack Obama of Illinois choosing Mrs. Clinton, of New York, as his running-mate.</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.0 (Build: 60608.1)</generator><item><title>Clinton: Rahm vs. Ted</title><link>http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/12/1009379.aspx#1009393</link><pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 13:13:43 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:1009393</guid><dc:creator>Bill, NY</dc:creator><description>Apparently the truth hurts, Rahm. &amp;nbsp;SNL, which will now be skewered by the very same Clinton loyalists who praised it as &amp;quot;telling it like it is&amp;quot; only 8 weeks ago, hit the nail on the head Saturday night. &amp;nbsp;It's a shame it's come to this. &amp;nbsp;If I were a feminist, I would be outraged at the way HIllary is acting. </description></item><item><title>Clinton: Rahm vs. Ted</title><link>http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/12/1009379.aspx#1009403</link><pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 13:16:28 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:1009403</guid><dc:creator>Steve. NewYork NY</dc:creator><description>Sen Obama should avoid putting Clinton on the ticket.&lt;br&gt;The republicans are relishing this chance.They spent the last 2 years doing opposotion research on her and this would allow them to dish out all the BAGGAGE that Obama avoided doing in the primary.</description></item><item><title>Clinton: Rahm vs. Ted</title><link>http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/12/1009379.aspx#1009430</link><pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 13:24:26 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:1009430</guid><dc:creator>Lisa, New Britain, CT  Enthusiastically for Obama</dc:creator><description>I suspect that, at this point, this stuff is just a distractor in the &amp;quot;race to the White House&amp;quot;.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I really think what we will see from this point forward, if much doesn't change, is the Clintons becoming very marginalized in the Dem. party. &amp;nbsp;It is just the way things are playing out. &amp;nbsp;And no, I don't think it had to be that way.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Obama for our best future.</description></item><item><title>Clinton: Rahm vs. Ted</title><link>http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/12/1009379.aspx#1009431</link><pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 13:24:27 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:1009431</guid><dc:creator>sotiredofignorance</dc:creator><description>Senator Kennedy spoke the truth. &amp;nbsp;Senator Clinton should not be on the ticket at all. &amp;nbsp;Her actions and the way she has campaigned would make it impossible for her to serve in that capacity. &amp;nbsp;I would actually like to see her replace Senator Reid as leadership in the Senate.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;The Clintons have a long history of some unsavory behavior, and it boggles the mind that the press has concentrated on Senator Obama's minister when there are real actual problems with the Clintons.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;And, one more time. &amp;nbsp;Morning Joe is almost watchable when Joe is gone. &amp;nbsp;I would like to see MSNBC allow some guest hosts with the goal of picking someone of some intelligence to host that show. &amp;nbsp;I like Rachel Maddow, but I am quite sure there are others.</description></item><item><title>Clinton: Rahm vs. Ted</title><link>http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/12/1009379.aspx#1009437</link><pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 13:27:13 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:1009437</guid><dc:creator>Pete - Albany, NY</dc:creator><description>In Pendleton, Clinton boasted of Joe Wilson’s and Valerie Plame's endorsement of his wife. &amp;quot;They're for Hillary for president, and they're on television saying, 'She's the best person to end this war.'&amp;quot; Clinton added, &amp;quot;Why? Number one, Joe Wilson knows that most of the Democrats that supported that resolution actually read it, and it said that force was authorized only if the inspections failed.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;---------------------------------------------------&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Uh...&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/28/clinton.iraq/index.html"&gt;http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/28/clinton.iraq/index.html&lt;/a&gt;</description></item><item><title>Clinton: Rahm vs. Ted</title><link>http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/12/1009379.aspx#1009448</link><pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 13:30:34 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:1009448</guid><dc:creator>donna</dc:creator><description>Emanuel needs to back out of Kennedy's face!&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;My G-D, does'nt Barack have enough to overcome, just by being the first African American candidate, without having to be saddled with EVERYBODY'S DAMN BAGGAGE???&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;It is Hillary, and Bill's fault that the 'chains they forged in life', should not have to be carried by Barack, and those of us who support his bid for the Presidency.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;The Clinton scandals will forever haunt them. That is their burden, not ours.</description></item><item><title>Clinton: Rahm vs. Ted</title><link>http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/12/1009379.aspx#1009460</link><pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 13:33:19 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:1009460</guid><dc:creator>Paul Williams, Boston MA</dc:creator><description>Ted eats people like Emanuel for lunch, and drowns &amp;nbsp;them after dinner. Emanuel is getting a little out of his league tangling with The Great Kennedy!</description></item><item><title>Clinton: Rahm vs. Ted</title><link>http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/12/1009379.aspx#1009478</link><pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 13:40:04 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:1009478</guid><dc:creator>Cherie KC MO</dc:creator><description>Too little, to late. &amp;nbsp;It is time for Hillary to bow out on an up note. &amp;nbsp;She has fought hard and I will give her that but reality is reality. &amp;nbsp;Time to take on Republicans.&lt;br&gt;Obama 08</description></item><item><title>Clinton: Rahm vs. Ted</title><link>http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/12/1009379.aspx#1009479</link><pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 13:40:20 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:1009479</guid><dc:creator>Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY</dc:creator><description>Sorry Bill, that explanation of Hillary's vote for the war, just doesn't hold water. &amp;nbsp;Firstly, most Americans at the time knew that GWB was going to use that resolution to go to war. &amp;nbsp;The 21 Democrats who voted against the resolution (and 1 independent - Jeffers and one Republican - Chaffee also knew that this resolution would be used to go to war, no matter what). Secondly, the NIE, which Hillary admits to not reading, cast serious doubt on the idea that there were any weapons of mass destruction. &amp;nbsp;Finally, it doesn't explain why Hillary voted against the Levin/Reid amendment which would have required Congress to give the final authority to go to war if the U.N. did not support us in this effort. &amp;nbsp;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Sorry, Bill, this is the age of the internet. &amp;nbsp;It's all available to the public to read and not only was it shameful that Hillary used these votes to position herself for a run for the presidency, but the fact that you now are re-writing history with your revisionist interpretation, speaks to the deception which is a prelude to the type of administration that we could expect from a Clinton third term. &amp;nbsp;You not only disrespect us by trying to reshape our memories but you tarnish your own reputation by stating such nonsense. &amp;nbsp;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Thank G-d this primary is over and that you Clintons will be out of the picture. &amp;nbsp;This is as much as about you lying as it is about your wife's numerous lies. I mean sniper fire in Bosnia, reported to us by her on at least three separate occassions. &amp;nbsp;As James Geffin once said, 'It is amazing, the ease with which the Clintons are able to lie.'&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Bill, Obama's Hide Park speech on the Iraq war is brilliant and maybe you should read it. &amp;nbsp;It was made by a guy in 2002, running for the Senate. &amp;nbsp;It was made at a time when the sentiment for war ran high. &amp;nbsp;And he still made the speech because he spoke about what mattered to him, no matter what the political cost. That's judgment and integrity. &amp;nbsp;You two just don't have it and it is why Hillary lost my support back in 2002.&lt;br&gt;Obama '08 </description></item><item><title>Clinton: Rahm vs. Ted</title><link>http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/12/1009379.aspx#1009482</link><pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 13:40:27 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:1009482</guid><dc:creator>Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY</dc:creator><description>Sorry Bill, that explanation of Hillary's vote for the war, just doesn't hold water. &amp;nbsp;Firstly, most Americans at the time knew that GWB was going to use that resolution to go to war. &amp;nbsp;The 21 Democrats who voted against the resolution (and 1 independent - Jeffers and one Republican - Chaffee also knew that this resolution would be used to go to war, no matter what). Secondly, the NIE, which Hillary admits to not reading, cast serious doubt on the idea that there were any weapons of mass destruction. &amp;nbsp;Finally, it doesn't explain why Hillary voted against the Levin/Reid amendment which would have required Congress to give the final authority to go to war if the U.N. did not support us in this effort. &amp;nbsp;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Sorry, Bill, this is the age of the internet. &amp;nbsp;It's all available to the public to read and not only was it shameful that Hillary used these votes to position herself for a run for the presidency, but the fact that you now are re-writing history with your revisionist interpretation, speaks to the deception which is a prelude to the type of administration that we could expect from a Clinton third term. &amp;nbsp;You not only disrespect us by trying to reshape our memories but you tarnish your own reputation by stating such nonsense. &amp;nbsp;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Thank G-d this primary is over and that you Clintons will be out of the picture. &amp;nbsp;This is as much as about you lying as it is about your wife's numerous lies. I mean sniper fire in Bosnia, reported to us by her on at least three separate occassions. &amp;nbsp;As James Geffin once said, 'It is amazing, the ease with which the Clintons are able to lie.'&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Bill, Obama's Hide Park speech on the Iraq war is brilliant and maybe you should read it. &amp;nbsp;It was made by a guy in 2002, running for the Senate. &amp;nbsp;It was made at a time when the sentiment for war ran high. &amp;nbsp;And he still made the speech because he spoke about what mattered to him, no matter what the political cost. That's judgment and integrity. &amp;nbsp;You two just don't have it and it is why Hillary lost my support back in 2002.&lt;br&gt;Obama '08 </description></item><item><title>Clinton: Rahm vs. Ted</title><link>http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/12/1009379.aspx#1009524</link><pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 13:50:30 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:1009524</guid><dc:creator>Obama/Casey</dc:creator><description>I second Senator Kennedy's statements and sediments.</description></item><item><title>Clinton: Rahm vs. Ted</title><link>http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/12/1009379.aspx#1009554</link><pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 13:57:36 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:1009554</guid><dc:creator>Eric, Salinas, CA</dc:creator><description>The surest way for Barack Obama to lose the general election would be to pick Hillary &amp;quot;Republican&amp;quot; Clinton as his running mate. &amp;nbsp;After her constant back stabbing of the past two months she deserves the honor of being Obama's running mate.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Go Obama 08/12!</description></item><item><title>Clinton: Rahm vs. Ted</title><link>http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/12/1009379.aspx#1009557</link><pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 13:58:14 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:1009557</guid><dc:creator>BJ, CA</dc:creator><description>Looks like the Dem's are still biting at the bit...when they should decreasing the fuel the GOP can put sand into their gears....What happens when sand is put into the gears?...dust blows in your face and eyes...McCain's powder puff football...&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Tell the Dem's to line up NOW!!! or McClinton ticket will steal the ball...</description></item><item><title>Clinton: Rahm vs. Ted</title><link>http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/12/1009379.aspx#1009575</link><pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 14:02:45 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:1009575</guid><dc:creator>J. Richter</dc:creator><description>The Clinton scandals are not new. Some are so bad that we've become apathetic to them. They've included impeachments of presidents (2nd ever in history), death of associates, pardons of criminals, and dubious donations.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;What is new is how the media has avoided covering any Clinton scandals over the primaries.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Women deserve better representation than this.</description></item><item><title>Clinton: Rahm vs. Ted</title><link>http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/12/1009379.aspx#1009587</link><pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 14:06:59 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:1009587</guid><dc:creator>Pam OC,CA</dc:creator><description>I have always felt that Hillary needed Obama on her ticket more than he needs her. &amp;nbsp;Although he will lose a certain percentage of staunch Clinton supporters, he has more crossover appeal and fewer negatives. &amp;nbsp;He needs someone with experience and a strong military-Jim Webb is mentioned frequently, and I have always liked Joe Biden, both of whom would have great crossover appeal.. </description></item><item><title>Clinton: Rahm vs. Ted</title><link>http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/12/1009379.aspx#1009615</link><pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 14:13:12 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:1009615</guid><dc:creator>just say not to Obama--he is unelectable in Nov.</dc:creator><description>Who cares what Senator Kennedy thinks??? &amp;nbsp;Not I.&lt;br&gt;He is just another Obama sucka!!!</description></item><item><title>Clinton: Rahm vs. Ted</title><link>http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/12/1009379.aspx#1009627</link><pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 14:15:34 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:1009627</guid><dc:creator>Mox</dc:creator><description>Kennedy got mad at Hillary cause she wouldnt be beholding to him and let him run her campaign so he endorsed Obama to slap her and dug her good doing it. There that showed her but it is Obama will ans to him now if he gets the white house.Dont think there isnt a long line waiting for this new kind of politican(gagging saying it even)to do there bidding. These young kids think they will have a say. What a surprise they have if he gets it.He has got caught laughing at&amp;quot; these whites&amp;quot; before.Darn those mikes that are still on.</description></item></channel></rss>