Hillary Rodham Clinton’s options in the Democratic presidential race are dwindling down to winning ugly or losing pretty. Although nowhere close to a guarantee of success, going ugly against Barack Obama appears to be about the only option for her to stop his momentum. And word from Clinton camp today suggests that she will do just that – this time trying to portray him us unprepared to be commander in chief.
Losing pretty is Clinton’s other option. Stay focused on the positive. Talk only about her own agenda and step aside if Obama keeps the delegate lead. Under this scenario Clinton is positioned to pick up the pieces and rally the party if Obama loses the general election as the Democratic nominee. But Clinton could be sacrificing that chance if she fails to win the nomination after savaging Obama – in that case she would get the worst of both worlds, losing ugly.
Craig on "Live with Dan Abrams"
Wednesday (2/20) MSNBC 9:00 PM EST
Comments
Yorff
Posted by: sturgeone | February 20, 2008 7:42 PM
Last I saw from CBob was a post which read simply:
"Who loved ya, C-Listers?"
I took that to be a good-bye of sorts.....
Posted by: sturgeone | February 20, 2008 7:45 PM
OMG John McCain in a sex scandal!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 20, 2008 7:47 PM
damn...McCain appears to be quite the "horndog", no?
Posted by: LushIsLinda
| February 20, 2008 7:47 PM
Well I bet that HRC never expected this scenario- but that is what keeps life interesting, the events that are unexpected.
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 20, 2008 7:48 PM
Craig it's going to be ugly over the next two weeks, Clintons don't go gently into that night.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 20, 2008 7:48 PM
"And word from Clinton camp today suggests that she will do just that – this time trying to portray him us unprepared to be commander in chief. "
Why is that going ugly? Is he prepared?
Posted by: Patsi | February 20, 2008 7:48 PM
I think she should simply do her best to win......exactly as McCain and Obama and Huckabee are doing and will do every time they run for something.....
It's not like she's going to be thinking up things the republicans had not thought of.......
Posted by: sturgeone | February 20, 2008 7:52 PM
Isn't losing ugly what happened in WI? Nothing now but empty cheese curd sacks and empty Leinenkugal bottles.
I hope she stays positive. And if that gives her the nod, good for her.
Posted by: dnd | February 20, 2008 7:53 PM
Kerry and Gore both went gently into that good night......
I want someone who will rage, rage against the dying of the light........
Posted by: sturgeone | February 20, 2008 7:54 PM
" Already MSNBC has splashed a headline wondering if Michelle Obama is a "liability." The Teresa Heinz-Kerry treatment has begun and Mr. Obama isn't even the nominee yet. Some McCain 527 is likely readying a negative ad as we speak.
. If you don't understand how the GOP uses these things against Democrats then you didn't learn the lesson from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Oh, and by the way, they always end up working in the end."
http://www.taylormarsh.com/
Posted by: GORDO | February 20, 2008 7:57 PM
She not only has to think about her chances of running again, but she also needs to think whether or not she wants a place in the Obama Admin. but also her future role in the senate.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 20, 2008 7:58 PM
I vote for "lose ugly"...why not???
Why do all the candidates/media feel the need to tiptoe around Obama?
He's a grown a$$ man..he can fight his own battles!! He is not ready to be president...I say, "bring on the ugly"!!
Posted by: LushIsLinda
| February 20, 2008 7:58 PM
Has this turned into the Taylor Marsh blog and nobody told me?????
Posted by: tylenol
| February 20, 2008 8:00 PM
Who's Taylor Marsh?
Posted by: sturgeone | February 20, 2008 8:01 PM
Michelle Obama a liability?...uh...ya think???
Posted by: LushIsLinda
| February 20, 2008 8:01 PM
Now really Gordo who's spouse do you think is more vulnerable to attack, Barack's or Hillary's. We've already seen what an outstanding job Bill has done for Hillary. You Hillary Borg are growing increasingly desperate with each tick of the second hand, I expect by March 5 you'll all be ready for sedation and restraints.
Don't worry Patsi I'll make sure you're at the head of the medication list, after all the public must be protected..
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 20, 2008 8:03 PM
I gotta admit that it is really weird thing to say this will be the only time he gets to run.....I cant understand that one.......it's just kind of, uh......stupid.....what's the point?
Posted by: sturgeone | February 20, 2008 8:04 PM
I'm ready for the sedation now.......
Posted by: sturgeone | February 20, 2008 8:05 PM
Craig, or as we would say. Go home ugly early.
Posted by: FryDaddy
| February 20, 2008 8:06 PM
I hope her campaign doesnt... dont give reps tv-ad fodder in next round..
Posted by: tylenol
| February 20, 2008 8:07 PM
Negative Obama video circulating
http://www.taylormarsh.com/hot_topics.php#1515
Posted by: GORDO | February 20, 2008 8:07 PM
Tyl......but if Hillary wins the nom.....will they be using Obama in their (gop) ads?
Posted by: sturgeone | February 20, 2008 8:08 PM
hands sturge a scotch...
Posted by: tylenol
| February 20, 2008 8:08 PM
Steel Cage Death Match, Bring It on!!
She may as well go ugly, if it works more power to her, if not think of it as a vacination for Obama against the McCain Flu.
Posted by: Bowmanc | February 20, 2008 8:09 PM
Kate,
"Barack, wherever you are, talk to me about why you are comfortable with everyone identifying you as African American and not as Bi-Racial which is the truth about who you are!"
That is a very good observation, one you'll not hear any news reporter dare ask for fear of being called a racist, bigot, insensitive. So you are saying Barry Obama, his team, handlers etc, are capitalizing on the fact that he is allowing himself, with out saying so himself, to be portrayed as Afro-American, even though everyone knows his mother is white? But you have to admit that fact comes across as very acceptable. Can you image what would be going through the mind of voters if Obama was portrayed as Caucasian? That just would not work, would not be acceptable. I say that because if it would have worked, if they believed it was acceptable they, they being Obama's team, would have gone in that direction. Although race isn't suppose to be a factor in the selection process, it is apparently being marketed, in a not so slight of hand sort of way (wink & a nod), to appeal to the Afro-American voter. And there is nothing wrong with that, is there? Here is a hypothetical question. It has been reported that 90% of Afro-American voters have voted for Obama. Do you think Obama would still have obtained the 90% Afro-American vote, if he had been portrayed as white? I think the answer is a resounding NO. I believe that bit of news would have so demoralized the Afro-American voter they would have stayed home, or voted R. Can you image if you were Afro-American and your seeing someone who resembles more Afro-Americans you know than any white you know, and now this individual is running for POTUS, but is claiming he is white. That would be so very depressing, humiliating news to a people who have been very depressed for a very long period of time. Whites on the other hand would have though Obama a complete fool and would have dismissed him from the very start. So by allowing himself to be portrayed as Afro-American Obama has been elevated to the place he finds himself today. Some will see this as a Win-Win.
Posted by: FryDaddy
| February 20, 2008 8:09 PM
They'll be using all of it, sturge.. just dont want ad after ad of candidates beating up on each other when they should both be beating up on McCain..
Posted by: tylenol
| February 20, 2008 8:09 PM
scotch and soda.....mud in your eye......
Posted by: sturgeone | February 20, 2008 8:10 PM
oh ..and racism wouldnt be a factor in republican voting, fry? just in how candidates present themselves?
Posted by: tylenol
| February 20, 2008 8:13 PM
Brian In NYC I am not out of touch, I was listening to Lou Dobbs tonight and they were discussing the Superdelgates and I was wondering what other people thought what the superdelegates should do if they get involved, vote their gut or vote based on the popular vote.
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 20, 2008 8:13 PM
cin-cin
Posted by: tylenol
| February 20, 2008 8:14 PM
MLRO seems to be wound pretty tight.
I would pay good money to watch her in a smack down, with a heckler, during one of her speeches.
Posted by: LushIsLinda
| February 20, 2008 8:15 PM
"OMG John McCain in a sex scandal!"
Well, the Vietnamese broke his arms, and a leg and a knee, but they didn't break his, um, um, SPIRIT! Yeah, that's it.
For those who want to see Bill Clinton back in the WH, maybe McCain's your man...
Posted by: dnd | February 20, 2008 8:16 PM
Re McCain: why this story, and why now?
Posted by: dog's eye view
| February 20, 2008 8:16 PM
I don't think it's going to get to the superdelegate level. It maybe over March 4th
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 20, 2008 8:17 PM
"I am not out of touch, I was listening to Lou Dobbs"
Now there's a contradiction in terms if I ever heard one.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 20, 2008 8:18 PM
why does being shot down, losing your plane to the enemy, and being held prisoner for 5 or 6 yrs translate into valued military "experience" ?
Posted by: sturgeone | February 20, 2008 8:19 PM
forget about who the host was, it was an interesting discussion on what their role would be. So I am asking you what would you do if you were a superdelegate, vote your gut or vote based on the popular vote.
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 20, 2008 8:19 PM
In the black community there is a huge issue about skin tone..."light-blacks" think they are better then the dark blacks. Blacks try to marry light to have lighter children.
So being a whole "black" is more accepted to the whole then being a half-black.
Posted by: shades of black | February 20, 2008 8:20 PM
I think that Brian as superdelegate would vote for Obama........ie vote first, rationalize later.....lol
Posted by: sturgeone | February 20, 2008 8:21 PM
then there is the highly touted "pastel black"
Posted by: sturgeone | February 20, 2008 8:23 PM
Tylenol,
As usual Tylenol you missed the point of my post. Did I mention political party in my post? No. I was responding to another post. Actually if you read my post closely enough you might have noticed that the Afro-American voter benefits from Obama being identified as black, even though he is only half black. That would not have translated well for Obama or the Afro-American voter if he had been portrayed as white. Which is his other half.
Posted by: FryDaddy
| February 20, 2008 8:23 PM
"(Hear Jamie applauding from the West Coast all the way here in Virginia.)"
You missed the jumping up and down while uttering shrieks of joy. :) Topped that off with the guest blogger on Sullivan having the temerity to ask MSNBC News to do their job. How novel.
Now on to the latest media violation of trust.
Why in the world is the NYTImes dredging up an 8 year old incident with no apparent ties to current history? If they can't prove they had an affair and if they don't have evidence that he did favors for her as a lobbyist., then it is a blatant attempt to interfere in an election.
Not media this time, but I did post on the last thread the recording of Michelle Obama speaking where they removed the word "really" which changed the whole meaning of what she said. Investigate possible favortism with her job and board positions. Those are fair game, but whether or not she is sufficiently proud of her birth nation is just plain silly and catering to that 25% who improperly display flags on their cars.
Posted by: jamie | February 20, 2008 8:23 PM
I would vote whoever I pledge to vote for, because to me, that is my word, and that is about all one has in politics.
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 20, 2008 8:24 PM
Don't use the current candidates in your decision on what way you would vote.
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 20, 2008 8:24 PM
Your word counts but would you listen to both sides and maybe change your mind
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 20, 2008 8:26 PM
"Don't worry Patsi I'll make sure you're at the head of the medication list, after all the public must be protected.. "
As usual, Brian makes no sense.
Posted by: Patsi | February 20, 2008 8:26 PM
Win ugly, just win. Obama is toast in the general - he'll cave with the first round of attacks against him, and he won't have uncle Teddy and company to make them stop pickin' on him.... believe it or not the republicans aren't going to believe in his magic wand that's going to create a new kind of politics, they're going to point out that the emperor has no clothes, and win.
Posted by: econsmed
| February 20, 2008 8:27 PM
damn...KO needs to calm down....he is way too excited by this McCain story...he seems to be getting that feeling going up his leg, like CM did the other night!!
LOLOLOLOL!!!
Posted by: LushIsLinda
| February 20, 2008 8:27 PM
I would always listen, but would have to consider what I had promised.
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 20, 2008 8:27 PM
What kind of super delegate would I be vada appointed or elected?
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 20, 2008 8:28 PM
what role should popular vote have or in this case no role
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 20, 2008 8:28 PM
go both ways
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 20, 2008 8:29 PM
what I object to, Fry, is expressions like "the Afro-American voter"... as if a group votes alike simply because of that... and "afro-american?" where did you fall asleep? at a Superfly movie???
Posted by: tylenol
| February 20, 2008 8:29 PM
Why should super delegates move to Hillary? To rescue the Obama supporters - they have been mesmerized. Victims of PSYOPS. Think of it as an intervention. It's for their own good, they need help.
Posted by: GORDO | February 20, 2008 8:33 PM
I think I would vote my gut no matter if I was appointed or elected. It would be hard if it went against the popular vote, but if my gut says it's the right decision then I would.
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 20, 2008 8:33 PM
The popular vote could be the entire popular vote or the popular vote for the state I am from. That could make it more interesting.
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 20, 2008 8:35 PM
Ideally every vote should count for something.
But again, if I had already pledged I would tend to stand behind my commitment, unless release by my candidate.
After all what is the purpose of giving someone your word if you are not going to fulfill that commitment.
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 20, 2008 8:36 PM
If I was an elected SP I would the way my constituency voted, if I was appointed I would go with the national popular vote.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 20, 2008 8:37 PM
If I gave my word then that's the way I would vote too. I don't think a candidate would ever release you unless they dropped out of the race.
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 20, 2008 8:39 PM
LushIsLinda,
I remember the WP reporting about four to six weeks back that McCain himself was alternating between pleading with the NYT and hiring lawyers to sue them over the suggestion that they were researching and possibly drafting this piece.
Posted by: 9/11 survivor (sort of)
| February 20, 2008 8:39 PM
President bush scores LOWEST approval rating in the history of approval ratings.......lower than carter, lower than nixon.......
http://www.attytood.com/2008/02/worse_than_watergate_bush_scor_1.html
Posted by: sturgeone | February 20, 2008 8:41 PM
Then I guess in the current case if it came down to the Supers you would vote for Hillary if you were and elected SP from NYC, otherwise as of now going the other way you would vote for BO.
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 20, 2008 8:41 PM
In my case based in VA I would be voting for BO in both cases.
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 20, 2008 8:43 PM
"..."light-blacks" think they are better then the dark blacks"
I read a book many years ago written by an AA about the whole subject of status within the black community and the class divisions. If I can remember the title I'll pass it on. One chapter specifically dealt with color and using a brown paper bag to measure who was lighter and who was darker and the black country clubs and summer camps the majority of which no longer exist.
There are so many twists and turns on this one I'll let someone who has lived with it discuss it, but I can remember back in the fifties a cover of Ebony with the young black girls in their white gowns posed on the stairs in an almost identical version of the rather famous Jackie Bouvier debutante Life cover.
There was one Oprah show where she discussed it as part of the promotion of her appearance in The Color Purple and recited the old saying of "The blacker the berry, the sweeter the fruit" and "passing" where you could have two halves of a family in the same town who never acknowledged each other because one was accepted as white and the other wasn't.
I think Malcolm X (who was light complected with reddish hair) , MLK, the whole "black & proud" movement is changing this, but those attitudes still exist among some.
Posted by: jamie | February 20, 2008 8:44 PM
Going with my gut, I maybe voting a different way.
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 20, 2008 8:45 PM
Obama can thank the news media for his popularity.
The news media gave us GWB, they gave us the Iraq war. People are so easy to manipulate.
God help us.
Posted by: CT | February 20, 2008 8:48 PM
Oh yeah, McCain is having some hot love affair...please erase that image!!! Maybe they are trying to boost his "youthful" 71 years.....or maybe it's a glimpse into future product endorsements.
In ohio it's not over here yet.
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 20, 2008 8:49 PM
vada Obama has more delegate totals including SPs than Hillary, what point do yuo think you're making? This is one of the most stupid conversations I've had all day.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 20, 2008 8:52 PM
Burrito,
That little Blue Pills sure has made a mess of a lot of lives..... :0)
Posted by: Sheila The Chef Nun | February 20, 2008 8:54 PM
lol
coming from a nun no less
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 20, 2008 8:56 PM
"boost his "youthful" 71 years"
If it happened at all it was 8 - 10 years ago when he was a frisky 60
Posted by: jamie | February 20, 2008 8:58 PM
Well you know what they say, 50 and 60 is the new middle age!
Posted by: Sheila The Chef Nun | February 20, 2008 8:59 PM
BTW,
he left his wife for this one. They were having an affair. just reporting the facts.
Posted by: Sheila The Chef Nun | February 20, 2008 9:00 PM
For some interesting insight into the black community, listen to the Debra Dickerson interview on today's Imus:
http://www.wabcradio.com/Article.asp?id=591054
It made me think that Obama isn't a member of the "black" community, nor is he an African-American. He's a Kenyan-American. In the same way that those who identify themselves as, say, Irish-Americans are not European-Americans.
Posted by: dnd | February 20, 2008 9:00 PM
There are 1,025 delegates left, no one is going to take them all so no one will have enough to win after all the primaries. Yes Obama is in the lead and it appears he will continue to lead after all the primaries are done unless Hillary blows him away and we know that is not going to happen. So based on the rules FL and MI will not play any role. So it will be down to the Supers unless Hillary calls it quits and I don't think that will happen, and I don't think anybody else would either if they still had a chance to win. Then anything goes. Both sides will be pleading their cases to the Supers. It will get ugly. Popular vote maybe thrown right out the window. Maybe a rule change and get the voters in FL and MI back in play with some kind of revote process so the American public has some say, but if it's tied again then let the Supers play a role.
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 20, 2008 9:04 PM
Wow, dnd,
Great point! I would not have considered that. Kenyan-American has so much integrity connected to the name. Very cool.
Posted by: Sheila The Chef Nun | February 20, 2008 9:04 PM
Letterman punches the McCain bag a time or two :
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/20/david-letterman-makes-fun_n_87574.html
Posted by: sturgeone | February 20, 2008 9:05 PM
how can it be stupid if I am asking you what way you would vote?
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 20, 2008 9:05 PM
isn't it fun to get other peoples point of views and have discussions about them
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 20, 2008 9:06 PM
no one is right or wrong
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 20, 2008 9:07 PM
Cause you seemed to be engaged in some wish thinking that will make it possible for Hillary to get the nomination without winning it. It's not going to happen.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 20, 2008 9:07 PM
next week we may have a different point of view
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 20, 2008 9:08 PM
The New York Times and McCain --didn't they according to Tweety unfairly cause the demise of The Ghoul by publishing false accusations.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 20, 2008 9:08 PM
blue pill
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf7b2lqJzow
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 20, 2008 9:08 PM
I never said Hillary was going to win, you are right I want Hillary to win.
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 20, 2008 9:09 PM
Hilarious burrito!
I hate the "Viva Viagra" commercial.....
Posted by: Sheila The Chef Nun | February 20, 2008 9:12 PM
If you want to go down that path then why did BO put his name on the FL ballot and leave it off MI. You know if FL counted it would be a lot closer. If BO had won that state you know he would be doing whatever it took for those votes to count. If you lived in FL and would also want your votes to count.
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 20, 2008 9:13 PM
Seeing the partial eclipse now. It is kind of eerie looking.
Posted by: dog's eye view
| February 20, 2008 9:14 PM
You know?
NYT doesn't have an MO of surreptiously thumping down Tabloid on their front page unless they have something.....
Posted by: Sheila The Chef Nun | February 20, 2008 9:19 PM
Florida will be counted, Obama has no reason to prevent it from being counted.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 20, 2008 9:23 PM
poor old McCain.....come to think of it.....where did he stand on the impeachment?
yessssss........
Posted by: sturgeone | February 20, 2008 9:23 PM
I hate the "Viva Viagra" commercial.....
And what's with the couple in the side by side bathtubs?
Posted by: jamie | February 20, 2008 9:24 PM
two tubs and no one has to sit at the tap end......kind of defeats the purpose tho.......
Posted by: sturgeone | February 20, 2008 9:25 PM
LOL no its with a bunch of men jaming in a band, singing Viva Viagra to the tune of "Viva LaVegas"
Want to slap all of them ;0)
Posted by: Sheila The Chef Nun | February 20, 2008 9:26 PM
What? He has no reason to prevent it from being counted. He lost the state. I thought he was saying Hillary was trying to change the rules and get it counted since she won. Was it the media that was jumping all over her for that
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 20, 2008 9:27 PM
The New York Times also unleashed a torrent of negative stories about everything from Bernard Kerik to Giuliani's family. Some were founded, but some were not. A pivotal, front-page article alleging that Giuliani hid money for the police guards who participated in his trysts turned out to be incorrect. The subsequent correction was banished to Page 35 of the Dec. 20 national edition of the Times.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 20, 2008 9:27 PM
I have never understood those side by side bathtubs myself. Latest ad has bathtubs and they've got a rain umbrella up behind their heads. What's the deal?
If they were in coffins, that would be understandable. (For men who are not dead yet....)
But bathtubs?
Posted by: dog's eye view
| February 20, 2008 9:29 PM
sturgeone ,
why does being shot down, losing your plane to the enemy, and being held prisoner for 5 or 6 yrs translate into valued military "experience" ?
Well for starters he was in the military flying Navy fighter over hostel country north of the DMZ close to Hanoi when his US Navy A-4 Skyhawk. McCain was on board the USS Forrestal in July 1967 when she caught fire and resulting in over 100 hundred deaths, and damn near killed McCain. The Forrestal was ordered back for repairs, but McCain requested duty on board the USS Oriskany. It was while on board the Oriskany that his A-4 was shot down in Oct. 1967. McCain had been in the Navy at this time since 1958, not counting the 4 years at Annapolis. Now I know of no administration D or R that would not count the years kept prisoner as a POW as part of your military service. McCain's father at the was CINCPAC. In short for all you non-military types, for us polliwogs in the US Navy that translate into, God Almighty Pacific Fleet,Neptunus Rex serves at his pleasure, King Head Knocker of that part of the world. So because of McCain's father the North Vietnam government offered to release John McCain, but John McCain refused, would only accept if every man before him was freed first. In August of 1968 the torture began, after 4 straight day of real physical torture broken bones, teeth, arms pulled out of socket he gave his host a confession. McCain was released in March 1973. After a rehabilitating process McCain went back flying Navy jets, and retired in April 1981 as a 4 striper, Captain. McCain at that time had spent a total of 27 years in the US Navy. 5 1/2 years as a POW. So if you don't want to count the 5 1/2 years he spent as the guest of the NV government 't, he still has 22 years military experience, most of those as a command officer. That is why they count it as experience.
Posted by: FryDaddy
| February 20, 2008 9:29 PM
I want to slap them because that Darn Song got lodged in my head. "Viva Viagra!"
Posted by: Sheila The Chef Nun | February 20, 2008 9:30 PM
Even with Florida counted Obama is still ahead, he's winning, accept it.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 20, 2008 9:30 PM
Sheila,
I was describing another horror. On the Viva one, how many man gather in the local country store around the pot belly stove to talk about needing a pill for their love life? Surrrrrrrrrre they will while having visions of Ann Margaret.
Cringe everytime I hear it.
Posted by: jamie | February 20, 2008 9:31 PM
Men plural
Posted by: jamie | February 20, 2008 9:31 PM
well.......sounds like experience to me.......thanks for the rundown.......
Posted by: sturgeone | February 20, 2008 9:33 PM
I accept he is winning big, until she quits or he gets the magic number It's not over. Would you call it quits if you were in the same position she is in. I agree it does not look good. Now on the other side I would agree with you it's over. Huckie should quit.
Posted by: vadaryl
| February 20, 2008 9:34 PM
Fry Daddy
That was an excellent run down on McCain's military service. Of course I did get a bit of giggle out of those quaint little inns harboring tourists on the DMZ
"hostel country "
Posted by: jamie | February 20, 2008 9:35 PM
Wow Fry - that was really interesting
I think of my friends, and my daughter's friend who is ( like a daughter to me) in the Navy, they have to respect a record like that. It will be interesting to see what they think of the candidates.
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 20, 2008 9:38 PM
I think HRC must feel like she has been hit by a Mac truck. This has got to be getting old for her and her staff.
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 20, 2008 9:40 PM
Wow Shipmate......
what are you doing up so late?
Posted by: Sheila The Chef Nun | February 20, 2008 9:41 PM
I had wrongly assumed he got out after he returned stateside.......merry culper.........
Posted by: sturgeone | February 20, 2008 9:42 PM
john mccain once a adulterer always a adulterer.... this is just the beginning and it wont come from the left it will come from the conservative right, there is more to come about this woman and other women who will come forward!
and for u billiary lovers the same was gonna happen to bill but obama have saved us from the embarrassment....go obama!
Posted by: John R, | February 20, 2008 9:43 PM
Hmmm........I'd wager Larry Flynt's fingerprints are on that story somewhere..........lol
Posted by: sturgeone | February 20, 2008 9:46 PM
John R,
Where a man stick his "you know what" is not a reflection of his spouse but rather of himself and his own issues.
Posted by: unlikely_burrito | February 20, 2008 9:46 PM
John R-
A favor to ask- you constantly write to "Kathy" when I think you may be referring to Katherine Graham Cracker-
It is confusing- I go by "Kathy" here and do not think your comments are directed at me-
Could you please not include my name in your posts? Thank you.
Posted by: Kathy | February 20, 2008 5:53 PM
I think she likes you and feels left out.
Posted by: Another Kathy | February 20, 2008 9:50 PM
John R,
Kathy live in NH and your Kathring Graham Cracker AKA KGC lives in SanFran.
Posted by: Sheila The Chef Nun | February 20, 2008 9:54 PM
my apology Kathy, i will start referring to her as Kcracker lol, :)
Posted by: John R, | February 20, 2008 9:55 PM
The New York Times recently broke a sex story on McCain where neither person allegedly involved admitted to having sex.
Why isn’t the media covering the sex scandal on Barack Obama?
Here is the scoop: a man named Larry Sinclair has said that he had gay sex with Obama while both used drugs. Obama bought the drugs for the guy. Watch the YouTube video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY
When Obama set his sights on the presidency, Sinclair asked Obama to make this information public. Obama, of course, refused.
Since then, Obama and his campaign have tried to pressure him using a variety of methods.
As a result, Sinclair has recently filed a lawsuit against Obama and David Axelrod. See the filed papers here. http://bigheaddc.com/2008/02/14/larry-sinclair-v-barack-obama/
Ok.. here is the bottom line. These allegations need to be addressed so that Dems can make a choice that is based on the facts. This may all be BS, but if this gets out there in the general, the Dems are screwed even if the facts are not true.
The media needs to stop being a gatekeeper for Obama.
If they can accuse McCain of an affair when neither he or the alleged woman admit to it, then they sure as hell should bring this out when there is a man who openly accuses this and files a lawsuit!
Posted by: Sex and Drugs | February 20, 2008 9:56 PM
jamie,
Not a big John Doyle lover, Miss Birdies and I turned off his Company production after half an hour.
Necessity was the mother of his invention with cast members playing instrument back when he was directing small regional productions in the U.K.
This one's a failure... not an interesting one... a horrible one.
It only makes the Sam Buntrock Sunday's humane brilliance all the stronger.
Posted by: 9/11 survivor (sort of)
| February 20, 2008 9:56 PM
NASH! OH NASH!
Olie Olie Oxen Free!!!!
Where are you!!!
chefstonesheilaatgeemaildotcom ;0)
Come out!
Posted by: Sheila The Chef Nun | February 20, 2008 9:56 PM
sex and drugs, the only thing that looks it would have sex with sinclair is a nasty cow on a farm he prob visits frequently. if u want that sinclair video to get some air time, why not the video about hilliary and the late Vince Foster sexual relationship or the numerous lesbians affairs she is suppose to have had? lets get it all out, would u like that?
Posted by: John R, | February 20, 2008 10:03 PM
Craig,
I was very pleased to watch you on MSNBC tonight.
Now regarding Obama's race..... He should be honest about being bi-racial. I can't help but think he doesn't discuss this issue for voting reasons.....Kind of seems as though he has this as maybe a TRUMP card.
Posted by: Tan | February 20, 2008 10:03 PM
what I object to, Fry, is expressions like "the Afro-American voter"... as if a group votes alike simply because of that... and "afro-american?" where did you fall asleep? at a Superfly movie???
90%. You forgot to mention the 90% factor.
BTW Afro-American is a proper noun, so it is capitalized. You demean a whole race of people by using lower case letters. Is that how you think of them, as something lower. I find it odd how the only thing you as a flaming Liberal could come up with is , Superfly. LMAO. That certainly speaks volumes of where you are coming from. Guess you don't get to see many Afro-American movies up in canada now do you. To bad.
Posted by: FryDaddy
| February 20, 2008 10:03 PM
John R-
Why are you so threatened? If Obama is innocent, then he should proudly declare it.
Dems deserve to hear something on this now and NOT after the primary.
Posted by: Sex and Drugs | February 20, 2008 10:06 PM
sex and drugs, hmmmm ive never heard hilliary deny the vince foster and lesbian allegations, have u? so i would suggest he deny his and hilliary deny hers, or do u just want obama to deny his...are u threaten if hilliary has to answer questions about the supposed sexual relations with vince foster and lesbian affairs?
Posted by: John R, | February 20, 2008 10:09 PM
I think Senator Clinton has made it clear that Vince Foster was not her lesbian lover
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 20, 2008 10:10 PM
John R
"billiary lovers" You do realize that is rather classless and extremely rude. I don't call your candidate by two initials that make it sound as if he needs to bathe more often.
Posted by: jamie | February 20, 2008 10:11 PM
John
They both should. The difference is that Obama's is new informaiton.
Hell, the guy is so adament that he has sued him! Dems deserve to know if there is any truth bc we do not need this to explode in the general.
Sorry, but gay sex combned with drugs will not win indies!
Posted by: Sex and Drugs | February 20, 2008 10:13 PM
hey Kcracker u are out late tonight ;) u looking for me, i was asked to distinguish what Kathy i was referring to, cuz Kcracker has a crush on me, wow im gonna be able to sleep tonight like a baby and with a smile on my face :) we are so close, me and u working together to bring about real change in america, so what u say Kcracker u ready to come on board for obama?
Posted by: John R, | February 20, 2008 10:15 PM
I just caught your Abrams report. You cannot be serious on Clinton being viable because she will or can win "7 of 8" of the largest states. I am fan of yours from Imus, but either you are carrying the water for Clinton or you are intellectually dishonest (one in the same?). I assume your 8 states are CA, NY, NJ, MI, FL, OH, TX, IL. You CANNOT include MI and FL as Clinton wins because Obama did not campain there. You CANNOT include IL and NY because these are the candidates home states. You CANNOT include states not voted yet, OH and TX. So you are left with CA and NJ, which both would vote for the democrat (as with all the other states except Texas and possibly Florida) regardless of the nominee. The reality is that Obama can draw such turnout to win all these states, plus other red states. Let us know when you come back to reality. Leave your anger and bitterness you are venting regarding the Clinton demise to the pros...like Imus
Posted by: mainereason | February 20, 2008 10:16 PM
Here's a report of the Obama/Sinclair story from a
Cleveland paper as always the comments are the best part.
http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/4766
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 20, 2008 10:17 PM
jamie why is that rude? billiary is a term that refes to the two-head monster bill and hilliary. and thats exactly what they are a two-head monster that will embarrass the democratic party because of scandals. they had their turn in the 90s its time to turn the page jamie.
Posted by: John R, | February 20, 2008 10:19 PM
John R
Certainly NOT looking for you. I read the comment differently. I think Kathy has a crush on you and wishes you would direct your comments to her.
I wish you would too. I think she would love a job with the Obama campaign.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 20, 2008 10:21 PM
Wow Shipmate......
what are you doing up so late?
Actually I was heading off to be when I noticed sturgeone's remarks on McCain. Then before I could sign off that Liberal canadian flame tylenol started with his(?) simple minded nick picking BS. Just can't read I guess. Blame it on poor canadian education, or the cold weather, or drinking to much beer in the cold weather, cause brain freeze? He(?) needs to go find a mate. Anything will do you, are after we are talking about canadians. {:-D
I had wrongly assumed he got out after he returned stateside.......merry culper.........
I accept your wrongly assumed assumption. ;-)
Jamie i was getting tired and word check let it pass through. lol, and so did I.
Sheila I'm off to bed. 6 bells
Posted by: FryDaddy
| February 20, 2008 10:21 PM
Kcracker or should i say Kathy :) are u ignoring me again....
Posted by: John R, | February 20, 2008 10:22 PM
McCain couldn't have made it without his wife's fortune,as all TrailMixers know.
He denies a romantic liason with the lobbyist, the lobbyist denies, and staff members say it happened.
Like Craig said on Abrams, the rest of The Times story holds plenty of dirt past any sex stuff. Take ten and read it at The Times site.
Here is a blurb and the source of that blurb about what kind of character this McCain asshole really is:
John McCain's political allegiances to liquor purveyors and his father-in-law's interests are subtle. That narrative is marked by a pattern of patronage.
The Hensley saga, meanwhile, swirls with bygone accounts of illicit booze, gambling, horse racing, deceit and crime. James Hensley embarked on his road to riches as a bootlegger.
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2000-02-17/news/haunted-by-spirits/full
Posted by: Dexter
| February 20, 2008 10:22 PM
Dex
The Hensleys sound like the Kennedys
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 20, 2008 10:24 PM
Well I guess that story makes us see just how desperate Hillary and her supporters have become, shameful indeed.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 20, 2008 10:26 PM
Why do you assume that story is from the Clinton campaign there is no evidence of that at all.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 20, 2008 10:27 PM
sex and drugs, have u seen the sinclair video? i mean sheesh the guys looks like a walking pile of caca. too many pretty women (like kcracker) in chicago for him to get involved with a scumbag like sinclair. also im sure his hands are pretty full trying to handle that sista he is married to.
Posted by: John R, | February 20, 2008 10:28 PM
Yeah cause Michelle aint no tammy wynette character sitting at home baking cookies for her man.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 20, 2008 10:30 PM
ok Kcracker u playing hard to get, oh well, i understand, sooner or later u will come around for good and help bring change to america ;)
Posted by: John R, | February 20, 2008 10:32 PM
Sounds like the Rev Ted Haggard story and that turned out to be true. Looks like the candidates with the scandals in the closet are the current front runners.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 20, 2008 10:35 PM
Some people are stuck in time. In the 1960's,even, Nigra was an acceptable term for a Southern white to call an African American, while Negro was used in the North.
Negro fell from grace and Afro-American became the proper term.
As the Black Power movement fell out of the news, the term Black stuck...the proper way to refer to African Americans was to call them Blacks, for many years. Most folks, African Americans as well as whites, write blacks, or black people. I always wrote Blacks , or Black people, taking my cue from journals I read.
In later years , the respectful term has indeed become African Americans, but if Fry writes Afro-Americans not as a historical reference, but in good faith that he is using the vernacular of the day, I guess we ain't gon' stop him!
Posted by: Dexter
| February 20, 2008 10:36 PM
kathy cracker u are just plain besides urself tonight, u mad about something, now u accusing obama of being like ted haggert. u are in a bad mood tonight... trust me kathy that sista is keeping him very busy lol :)
Posted by: John R, | February 20, 2008 10:39 PM
Oh please KC, you know better than that, shame on you, really. Is that what are now, a slinger of mud?
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 20, 2008 10:41 PM
Brian
I didn't bring it up. But there it is. You believed it about Ted Haggard didn't you. And the Times ran this story today. So why isn't the Sinclair story worthwhile.
If it were about Bill Clinton you would be typing in caps.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 20, 2008 10:43 PM
Kcracker u sure u are not ann coulter?
Posted by: John R, | February 20, 2008 10:44 PM
KC I thought you were a person of integrity, I'm truly saddened to be proved so wrong.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 20, 2008 10:47 PM
Brian
what a load of crap. The story is out there and being talked about. It;s your candidate so you will hear nothing. But if it were about Clinton it would be all you could talk about.
Did you believe the Ted Haggard story.
Did you beleive the Larry Craig story
why is this different.
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 20, 2008 10:49 PM
Craig why didn't you give us a heads up that you were getting extra air time tonight?
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 20, 2008 10:50 PM
This a link to get a 38 minute audio interview of Larry Sinclair. He sounds believable to me.
http://rense.gsradio.net:8080/rense/special/rense_Larry_Sinclair_012308.mp3
Posted by: GORDO | February 20, 2008 10:51 PM
Woah! What a story about Obama and sex/drugs!
As always, Brian is in complete Denial! I looked at this video and listened to an interview posted to YouTube. He sounds credible. He certainly sounds as credible as Gennifer Flowers.
Posted by: Jan | February 20, 2008 10:55 PM
KC shouldn't you get busy emailing that link to a 1000 of your nearest and dearest?
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 20, 2008 10:56 PM
Brian
what a good idea
thanks for thinking of it
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 20, 2008 10:57 PM
Link to site that has lots of references to Larry Sinclair- many that lead one to believe this is an extortion scheme
http://dearmurray.com/larry-sinclair-welfare-recipient/
Posted by: Kathy | February 20, 2008 11:04 PM
The Superdelegate debate is valid. For instance, my representative Tammy Baldwin, is apparantly pledged to Clinton. Obama won Wisconsin by a long shot and won Madison and the surrounding area (Baldwin's constituency) by even more. I love Tammy but she is flat out wrong if she votes for Hillary at the convention when those that have voted her into office swung for Obama by 20 points.
Posted by: JPark | February 20, 2008 11:05 PM
Ditto Gordo and KC-
If Obama believes in trasparancy, then he should have no problems answering these allegations.
Brian, what bothers you more? The fact that Obama may have engaged in gay sex or that he did drugs?
Personally, I do not care about his sex life with the exception that it will kills Dems chances in NOv.
With respect to drugs, this is a BIG deal. He claims in his book that he was almost a junkie!
You know, when people have an addiction, they need help to get off of it. Noone has asked him how he got off the drugs.
My guess is that he did not.
We deserve answers!
Posted by: Jan | February 20, 2008 11:07 PM
KO breaks NYT's researched article on McCain's ties with 40 year old female lobbyist and spends most of the hour on it. Just like the Conservatives beat a story to death! THUMBS UP, babe!
"The Long Run
For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk "
(And he has that pristine wife...just goes to show ya.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?bl&ex=1203656400&en=d0734db651c10475&ei=5087%0A
Lots of Craig and Craig clips on Obama bio. Nice.
tt
Posted by: tiptoe
| February 20, 2008 11:08 PM
Kathy,
He admits that he is disabled. That certainly does not make Sinclair a welfare recepient.
Why are Obama fans always so worried about asking questions of their candidate? Do you guys ever hold him accountable?
Posted by: Jan | February 20, 2008 11:09 PM
If you want to crawl in mud leave me out of it, thanks. KC you are a major disappointment.
Posted by: Brian In NYC
| February 20, 2008 11:20 PM
Wow, Hillary backers are ok with some whack-job, claiming to be from Minnesota but actually resides in South Texas and is a hardcore Paulite, making scurrilous claims about Obama? New low...really.
Posted by: JPark | February 20, 2008 11:23 PM
Jan- I did not write anything about SInclair being a welfare recipient, but he does live in public housing due to his disability.
From going to the Smoking Gun website and reading Sinclair's pleadings (including a reference to "Obam", the guy seems to be seeing money for whoever he can- Alexrod, Dean, and Obama. Any crackpot can ,make claims and Clinton supporters know that better than anyone- I still hear people accusing them of murdering Foster among others- there are nuts who believe that crap.
I do not speak for others only myself, and I believe Obama welcomes questions from what I have seen. Not sure what you are alleging otherwise.
Andrew Sullivan has a good compilation of Senator Obama's achievements:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/dear-chris-matt.html
Posted by: Kathy | February 20, 2008 11:26 PM
Excuses, Excuses Brian....
Any other time, you have no problems slinging mud and making things personal with members on here. In fact, you are a downright bully at times.
The point about this scandal is that it will come out. If Obama is the nominee, Rush and Co. will make sure it gets on the airwaves. Then, all the mainstream will pick it up.
Then, BAM! Hello Pres. McCain!
Posted by: Jan | February 20, 2008 11:27 PM
Kathy,
Do you or don;t you support Obama answering these allegations before the convention?
It is as simple as that. It does not matter if Sinclair is truthful or not.
Posted by: Jan | February 20, 2008 11:29 PM
Jan there is no scandal here, except for attempted smears you idiot.
Posted by: Brian In NYC | February 20, 2008 11:30 PM
Jan, go back to worldnutdaily, I am sure you can find more "dirt" on Obama. Ridiculous.
Posted by: JPark | February 20, 2008 11:34 PM
Kathy,
I went to that website that you recommended.
You do realize the the ethics bill that he worked on now is being criticized for its loopholes. This was discussed by the moderator at a debate when Obama claimed this as his best accomplishment.
According to the moderator, the bill prevents lobbyists for paying for a sit down dinner. Now, however, they can pay for catering with finger food.
If Obama is such as transofrmational leader who is changing the page on pols, why won;t he firmly agree to keep his word on public financing.
He is clearly going on his word.
Posted by: Jan | February 20, 2008 11:34 PM
Gentlemen (and I use that sarcastically), you have proven my point with your comments.
Think with your brains for once. I know that your egos are tied into supporting Obama. You cannot admit that you may have made a mistake in supporting him.
Sheesh.... there should be no harm in asking questions!
Posted by: Jan | February 20, 2008 11:36 PM
this disabled guy has to come up with facts and leads for people who sold drugs. If there is anything, the press will be all over it.
Until the evidence is found, Clinton Campaign won't touch this one with a 10 foot poll. Neither will McCain.
just too whack Job. If there had been anything, you can be sure that press has been digging since Obama and clinton announced.
So Jan, good luck. If Obama DID do this, you don't have long to wait.
From the NUN and Obama supporter
Posted by: Sheila The Chef Nun | February 20, 2008 11:37 PM
More lying Jan? Lanny Davis is a huge liar and does a disservice to Clinton.
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/02/17/fact_check_on_clinton_surrogat.php
"REALITY: IDEA THAT ETHICS BILLS ALLOWS LAWMAKERS TO EAT WITH LOBBYISTS STANDING UP IS AN "URBAN MYTH"
Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute: Idea That Ethics Bill Allows Lawmakers to Eat With Lobbyists Standing Up in An "Urban Myth". "The notion that the ethics bill only allows lawmakers to eat with lobbyists while standing up is an urban myth -- as is the idea that the ethics and lobbying reform bill was more of the same. It was a tough and meaningful reform, the most meaningful in a generation." [Statement, 1/13/08]
JAN 2007: Clinton Praised Gift Ban For Including "Not Just Meals But Also Gifts Of Travel And Lodging, Areas That Have Been The Subject Of Notorious Abuse." "Both the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 and the Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 enact long overdue ethics and lobbying reforms that will hold our elected officials to the highest possible standards...Earning back the confidence and trust of the American people will require greater transparency and stronger laws. The American public deserves to be certain that their elected officials are not being swayed by lavish gifts offered as quid pro quo for promoting special agendas. To that end, gifts from registered lobbyists have no place in our legislative process. For that reason, I support the sweeping ban on lobbyist-paid gifts in the Senate bill. This ban includes not just meals but also gifts of travel and lodging, areas that have been the subject of notorious abuse." [Congressional Record: 1/18/07]
NYT: 2007 Ethics Reform Bill "Quickly Sent A Ripple Of Fear Through K Street" And Was "Already Changing The Culture Of Washington" Before It Was Signed Into Law, Beginning With "More Dutch Treats And Fewer Steak Dinners." "The new law has quickly sent a ripple of fear through K Street...Stanley Brand, a longtime Washington defense lawyer who usually represents Democrats, said the law was a sea change. ''It should send shivers down lobbyists' spines,'' Mr. Brand said. ‘It is a minefield now...President Bush has not said whether he would sign the bill, but it is already changing the culture of Capitol Hill in myriad ways, beginning with more Dutch treats and fewer steak dinners...One lobbyist, who would speak only anonymously to avoid attracting the attention of prosecutors or rivals, said he had started sending himself date-stamped e-mail to create a record of every phone conversation he had with a lawmaker. Then he stopped making campaign contributions...For lobbyists -- who live at the nexus of contributions and favors -- it is an alarming trend. ''They might as well just pull up the paddy wagon outside the Capital Grille,'' one lobbyist said, referring to a clubby steakhouse near the Capitol that is a well-known K Street hangout. [New York Times, 8/7/07]"
Posted by: JPark | February 20, 2008 11:42 PM
"Gentlemen (and I use that sarcastically), you have proven my point with your comments.
Think with your brains for once. I know that your egos are tied into supporting Obama. You cannot admit that you may have made a mistake in supporting him.
Sheesh.... there should be no harm in asking questions!
Posted by: Jan | February 20, 2008 11:36 PM"
No harm in posting asking questions? The answers are within typing distance. You are doing nothing but using Rovian tactics of smear and division.
Posted by: JPark | February 20, 2008 11:43 PM
I'm outta here for the night, the stink of desperation and the rotting corpse of Hillary's candidacy is making me wretch.
Posted by: Brian In NYC | February 20, 2008 11:45 PM
Oh..... there is more.
In addition to Sinclair's allegations and, of course, Rezko, there is the little problem of William Ayer, a self-proclaimed bomber.
This man has ties to Obama. Ayers has thrown Obama a major fundraising event. They also served on a board togeher.
This guy has compared Marines to terrorists.
You may want to read this from Huff Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-c-johnson/no-he-cant-because-yes_b_87036.html
This is the kind of crap that he needs to be vetted on.
When will Obama fans wake up and ask hard questions?
Posted by: Jan | February 20, 2008 11:45 PM
Jan- here is an article that answers some of your questions:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-ap-obama-community-organizer,0,6728925.story
Posted by: Kathy | February 20, 2008 11:46 PM
Good night Brian. I guess all the rational Clinton backers already went to bed and only the crazies are left.
Posted by: JPark | February 20, 2008 11:46 PM
See ya tomorrow Brian! I look forward to enlightening you. Hopefully, I can help you may an informed choice.
Posted by: Jan | February 20, 2008 11:47 PM
Kathy,
I read the article and I have heard this story about Obama from his own mouth.
Nooone is saying that he is not a nice guy. I am sure he is.
The issue here is his drug use and whether he has lied about it.
This election is and should not be a polularity contest. There is too much at stake for that.
We need to pick a leader who has proven that they can get things done and they he or she understands how Washington works.
When the next pres. is elected, there will not be time to figure out how things work.
No, I do not buy into this whole thing about Obama may have great advisors. We have seen how that is an errroneous arguement with Bush.
What is so wrong with asking questions?
I think we should do that with ALL of the candidates.
Posted by: Jan | February 20, 2008 11:53 PM
Don't bother Kathy, she doesn't want facts. If she did she would "vet" her information better.
Posted by: JPark | February 20, 2008 11:53 PM
Well... as I recall... there was a self-styled dominatrix who swore she had video of Duhya doin' blow and blowin' dudes.
I couldn't think less of any leader than I do of Duhya. And I never gave a hemisemidemi bit of credence to her claim.
Craig was the object of a year long investigation by a leading Idaho paper.
Haggard was surrounded by rumors and off the record comments for several years.
But a lawsuit? In federal court? Based on a loss of right to free speech?
Larry, baby -- sue Harvey of TMZ and Perez Hilton -- they are your MSM and they don't even know who you are.
Posted by: 9/11 survivor (sort of)
| February 20, 2008 11:55 PM
JPark
Your dismissal of this information makes me laugh! Let me gues, you voted for Bush?
Respond when you have something to add to the conversation. Or better yet, why don't you answer some of these questions about Obama.
Posted by: Jan | February 20, 2008 11:56 PM
Yeah, because I am disgusted with Rovian tactics like yours I voted for Bush...right? I voted for Gore (Edwards originally), Kerry (Edwards originally) and I get to vote for Russ Feingold every year. My credentials are fine. I am wondering about yours though.
Posted by: JPark | February 20, 2008 11:58 PM
...every six years...
Posted by: JPark | February 20, 2008 11:59 PM
If the Times story kills the McCain campaign
Will Bloomberg make the run
Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | February 21, 2008 12:01 AM
JPark-
Testy, testy... do not take things so personally.
I am just asking you to use critical thinking skills such as asking questions. What is wrong with that.
That is the problem that I have with the Obama "movement." To his disciples, he is like the Messiah.
If I want Jesus, I will go to church!
I do not choose my politics based on Faith, but based on reasoning and logic.
Posted by: Jan | February 21, 2008 12:01 AM
So, did you read the debunking of your ridiculous claim that lobbyists could still woo lawmakers over dinner if they were standing up? Are you going to say you were wrong?
Posted by: JPark | February 21, 2008 12:02 AM
Hmm, atheists, the very definition of free-thinking, are voting for Obama as well. Along with most other people, of course.
Posted by: JPark | February 21, 2008 12:03 AM
JPark-
Which article are you referring to?
My knowledge on this is based on Charlie Gibbons, a reporter who moderated the debate.
Posted by: Jan | February 21, 2008 12:04 AM
JPark-
Clearly, you do not understand my comparison of the Messiah to Obama. It was a metaphor.
The point is that people treat Obama as if he can SAVE them. He can't. Indeed, most of his plans are the same tired, worn out proposals that all the candidates espouse.
He is a just a regular politician. It is time that people treat him that way.
Posted by: Jan | February 21, 2008 12:07 AM
Obama campaign: Mum's the word!
Refuses to respond to drug accusations
"For the second day in a row, the Barack Obama campaign has refused to respond to requests for comment on a Minnesota man's allegations he shared cocaine with Obama in 1999, when the man who now is a contender for the Democratic nomination for president was a state lawmaker in Illinois."
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56754
Posted by: GORDO | February 21, 2008 12:09 AM
Gordo-
I saw that. The Obama campaign is doing this because of they respond in any way even "No Comment," then the media can run with the story.
They are ducking this!
Posted by: Jan | February 21, 2008 12:11 AM
You know why I like Obama a whole lot more than Clinton (I will vote for whoever gets the nomination, though)? He actually seems to want to be president to make a difference. It is kind of refreshing. You cannot say that about Hillary. She seems to love power and will do anything to get it. Her dirty, negative politics really turned Wisconsinites off this past week. And it will turn off other states in the future.
Posted by: JPark | February 21, 2008 12:11 AM
Yes, they are ducking a youtube attack by some nut that is his own freaking attorney. I can't believe you guys would believe it. With that, I am going to bed.
Posted by: JPark | February 21, 2008 12:14 AM
JPark-
Funny... you sound just like that state senator on Hardball last night who could not name any legislative accomplishments on the part of Obama.
Tell me about accomplishment that Obama has done that have significant value.
Prove to me that you are not like every other Obama fan.
Posted by: Jan | February 21, 2008 12:17 AM
go to bed Gordo u up past ur bed time and dont forget to take ur medication because u acting really weird tonight... hilliary whiner
Posted by: John R, | February 21, 2008 12:20 AM
Now, now, John... play nice. Gordo is only speaking his mind, which is something we should respect. I certainly do not agree with you, but I have not denigrated your character.
Posted by: Jan | February 21, 2008 12:24 AM
Adious Amigos!
It's been great chatting!
Posted by: Jan | February 21, 2008 12:31 AM
"In the black community there is a huge issue about skin tone..."light-blacks" think they are better then the dark blacks. Blacks try to marry light to have lighter children.
So being a whole "black" is more accepted to the whole then being a half-black."