Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
June 26, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

Mayors to Trump: Immigration Orders Meddle With Cities

What’s Next for the Bill Cosby Sex-Assault Case?

Truthdig Bazaar
Dostoevsky and Romantic Realism

Dostoevsky and Romantic Realism

Donald Fanger, Caryl Emerson

more items

A/V Booth
Email this item Print this item

Olbermann: Ferraro Sounds Like David Duke

Posted on Mar 13, 2008

Keith Olbermann usually reserves his scorn for the likes of George W. Bush, but, he says, “events insist” that he offer one of his “special comments” to Hillary Clinton over what he says appears to be a pattern of prejudice among her surrogates.

The “Countdown” host begins by offering a disclaimer: He owes his gratitude to the Clintons and this is not to be taken as an endorsement of Barack Obama. And then the gloves come off.

Even though Olbermann is a commentator by trade and Ferraro’s comments clearly struck a national nerve, it’s a bit surprising to see him speaking so frankly and so harshly about the Clinton campaign.

(h/t: The Largest Minority)

Watch it:


Square, Site wide, Desktop


Square, Site wide, Mobile

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By cyrena, March 19, 2008 at 5:41 am Link to this comment

Excellent observations Patrick Henry.

It’s kind of weird because Louise had just mentioned Rove in reference to something that George said or did lately, suggesting that with Rove gone, we couldn’t this last one, (whatever it is/was) on him, so maybe it had been GW himself all along.

Humm…I remember thinking that I was pretty sure Rove was still around and behind or under the scenes, working his concoction of slime/mud/feces/etc into grenades or other explosives of character/integrity/etc. The object is always to create chaos and instability. They couldn’t hope to win otherwise.

Anyway, my guess is that he’s working as his standard trained operative (commanding an entire team of similars) and that he’s working as you said, for BOTH Hillary and McCain.

Hillary has long ago said that she admired Rove’s tactics.

The ‘entrenched party’ is an excellent descriptor for them.

Report this

By jackpine savage, March 18, 2008 at 7:13 pm Link to this comment

I read the article elsewhere, and commented on it elsewhere.

But my comment is that anyone who would run for president is arrogant.

And citing after someone calls you out doesn’t cut it; furthermore, blogs have been sued for doing what you did…even when the poster cites the original.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, March 18, 2008 at 1:58 pm Link to this comment

It seems like Hillary, the MSM and McCain and his looney supporters are piling on this issue which doesn’t have anything to do with what Obama said and did, continuing to drum it over the radio and TV as if it was Obama who incited people to riot.  I guess its better to distract attention from their own piccadillos.

Sound bites are a remarkable thing in the hands of a trained operative like Rove, who no doubt is working behind the scenes for Hillary and McCain, or the entrenched party as I would like to call them..

Report this

By cyrena, March 18, 2008 at 12:04 pm Link to this comment

Here we go again Maani, with you use of flip-flopping opposites, and the refusal to acknowledge reality. Let’s face just a few of the basics in this election season, that you seem so anxious to ignore..

The Repugs have a hard fight on their hands, for what should be obvious reasons…their party, as represented by the current regime in office, is in deep shit. The repugs have done an overwhelming amount of destruction in the past 7+ years, and Americans are, by and large, SICK OF THEM!

As a result, the repugs need to play their hand very cautiously, because they’re basically very handicapped going into this election. John McCain is probably the best that was available of those they had to select from, and he isn’t anything better than what is already there.

The reality is that they have a couple of choices, and one of them is to set themselves up for a back-up, in the event that they LOOSE, because the reality is that they will. Americans are sick of repugs. But, they certainly aren’t gonna just roll over and acknowledge being dead in the water. Consequently, the very best strategy for the repugs is to FIRST, eliminate Obama from the competition, so that they can, in the general election, run against Hillary.

THIS is the first ‘prong’ of the strategy..get Hillary as the candidate to run against, because the chances of winning against Hillary are better for them, than they are against Obama. That’s just a fact. There is still FAR too many of the moderate to far right wing of that party who resent the Clinton Administration of the 1990’s, regardless of the reasons. It’s ideological, and that’s the way it is. Bottom line, they have a far better chance of winning against Hillary Clinton, than they do against Barack Obama, and the smart ones know that.

The 2nd, ‘prong’ or advantage for the repugs, is this, IF THEY DON’T WIN, HILLARY WOULD BE THE NEXT BEST THING, to their own candidate. Hillary shares nearly ALL of the repug political ideology. (no matter how much their radical right wing may hate her). They will at least accept her (if they have to) because she WILL continue to protect the elite/corp-ruling oligarchy. And, she will continue to advance their project/interests in the Middle East.

THAT is why we’ve seen all of this stuff that bert refers to as ‘cross over’ voting, and these plots/plans/schemes have been revealed at length. Republicans in Ohio, TX, and even some in MS, have voted for Hillary, specifically so that in the general election, their representative/party will have a better chance of winning. THAT is the repug mindset/strategy.

Your suggestion that the repugs have been ‘nice’ to Obama is just plain stupid. You seem to believe that because they haven’t (yet) resorted to the dirt throwing that Hillary has, that they’re being ‘nice’. PUHLEESE…To what advantage would it be for them to engage in such tactics at this point in the game? McCain and his campaign have already gone on record as saying that they would NOT engage in such tactics against Obama. And, in political reality, why SHOULD they, when the Clinton team is DOING IT FOR THEM?

Here’s the reality Maani, for the Democratic Party, and for the majority of Americans…PERIOD, Obama is the best chance we have. It’s a total guess as to whether or not Hillary could win against McCain, but even if she did, we wouldn’t have anything better or different than what we’ve had for the past 2 decades..Bush-Clinton-Bush. They are the SAME Maani, and between them, they have brought this country to it’s knees. Yes, I agree that the latest segment of them has done the worst of the worst damage. But the bottom line is, we get only more of the same with a Hillary or McCain presidency, and THEY know that, and that’s the way THEY want to keep it.

You know as well as most Americans do, that an Obama presidency would bust up that old status quo the keeps the elite in power at expense to the rest of us, and they know it too!

Report this

By Maani, March 18, 2008 at 8:17 am Link to this comment


I was with it until “Four million Angry White Men are members of the National Rifle Association.”

As a matter of record, both Hillary AND Obama have equally low ratings from the NRA: members are unlikely to support EITHER of them.

However, this still leaves milliions of other AWM who are NOT members of the NRA.  Still, I think Hubbell is overstating his case as to how large and powerful a “bloc” AWM represent.

In any case, if anything, these AWM are likely to vote for McCain.  Yikes.


Report this

By Maani, March 18, 2008 at 8:05 am Link to this comment


“Republicans do not want to go against Obama in the main election, because they know he will kick their ass.”

This flies in the face of the facts.  The GOP and conservative Republicans have been doing everything they possibly can to make sure that Obama is the Dem candidate.  They have been speaking nicely about him practically since he declared his candidacy.  The corporate-controlled MSM has treated him with kid gloves (especially compared to Hillary), if not openly fawned over him.  Reps are voting for him in those Democratic primaries that are open.  Some of the most conservative editorial pages endorsed him, including all of Rupert Murdoch’s rags.

So where on God’s great earth do you get the idea that that “do not want to go against” him?

They WANT to run against Obama because they know he is FAR more easily “swift-boated” than Hillary; that there is FAR more “cannon fodder” against him than against Hillary - and that it is fresher and newer and will thus have longer “legs” in the media.  Do you really believe that are not salivating - openly DROOLING - over Rezko and Wright (among other things)?  Do you really believe that they do not already have a well-developed “battle plan” for taking him on?

Open your eyes, man.


Report this

By Maani, March 18, 2008 at 7:56 am Link to this comment


As usual, you cannot refute my statement, you can only deflect legitimate criticism of or facts about Obama by bringing up “Clinton” (and not even HRC, but BC!) and suggest that I am “tit-for-tatting,” which is not the case.

This implies a tacit agreement with my post.


Report this

By cyrena, March 17, 2008 at 10:34 pm Link to this comment


On Afghanistan, I don’t know what Mike’s opinion is since it’s true that it doesn’t come up in the same terms. Most folks though, don’t have a problem with the fact that we went to Afghanistan, and Obama is obviously one of them.

The war in Afghanistan was legitimate in the eyes of most, (including international law) because according to sources that have apparently been reliable enough, (or have proved out) that’s where Osama bin Laden and his gang were, at least for a while. And it was they who had been blamed for 9/11. (though I’m still not convinced, because all the proof of what occurred that day has been destroyed).

So, if one accepts that al-Qaeda is responsible for 9/11, and it is true that OBL et all were in Afghanistan at some point, then going looking for him/them there was legit. So, most folks don’t have an issue with that.

Iraq is totally different because Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Saddam had NO connection to Osama bin Laden. They actually hated each other because Saddam was basically a secular dude, and of course OBL is allegedly a Wahabbist, (an extreme religious radical faction that even main-steam Muslims don’t like) So, OBL didn’t like that Saddam wasn’t ‘religious’ enough, and Saddam was a dictator, but a nationalist none-the-less, and he spent his energy keeping anybody (US or otherwise) out of his country, INCLUDING Osama and his al-Qaeda followers.

So, while it seemed legitimate to go after AQ in their ‘known’ area at the time, there was NEVER a reason to go into Iraq. When the Bush gang tried to get an authorization from the UN Security Council, in order to attack Iraq, (claiming that Saddam had WMD) the UN didn’t believe them, and China and Russia (possibly France as well – I can’t remember) weren’t going to approve it. (the UNSC has to approve unanimously to give the legal authority for a pre-emptive war). Article 51 of the Geneva Conventions only allows the use of force in the case of self-defense.

So, the UN wasn’t going to approve a resolution, since they suspected that the WMD claim was bogus. Or, I should say that the UN inspectors had been all over Iraq in the preceding 6 months, and they hadn’t found any evidence of any active WMD programs. And, it seems like Hans Blix (remember him?) was ready to sign off on that when George told them to get out of Iraq because it was too dangerous. Then GWB went ahead with the attack anyway, without the legal authority from the UNSC.

Since there never were any WMD discovered, and since Saddam had no connection to 9/11, and since the US did all of this in violation of international law, that’s why a lot of people, (Mike included I suppose) speak mostly in reference to the illegal war of aggression on Iraq. There were NEVER any ‘terrorists’ there, (unless you count Saddam, who HAD been their best buddy 2 decades ago) and even if it WAS acceptable to topple Saddam, (which isn’t legal either, based on state sovereignty obligations and the foundations of reciprocity) they didn’t have to destroy the nation and millions of it’s people, just to get rid of Saddam.

So, it was really only to steal the OIL, and of course millions of people have died for us trying to steal it. It would have been better to just BUY it from the Iraqis, and it would have remained at a decent price, and they could have maintained their own country. But then, all of the corps and transnationals and Cheneys sponsors, wouldn’t have made all of these trillions of dollars.

Meantime, the combat has resulted because at least some of the Iraqis have resisted the occupation and the theft of their resources. And, once we got there, the ‘terrorists’ followed us in. Now millions of innocent people have been killed/wounded/misplaced, INCLUDING 4,000 of our own. (and way more wounded among us).

That’s why MMC is pissed. Me too.

Report this

By cyrena, March 17, 2008 at 7:00 pm Link to this comment

It IS plagiarism.

And, it was the very thing that the kitchen sink crowd through at Obama when he used a two-sentence passage from an earlier speech by a close friend and associate, who’d TOLD him to use it.

But, he didn’t specifically cite those two sentences, (which may have been difficult in a speech delivered orally) and so he later acknowledged that he should have.

Now, this accusation was directed at Barack Obama, who’s already written two books, numerous journal articles, and writes most of his own campaign speeches.

So yeah Gomers, you really did a no-no here. If you were academically associated, or if this wasn’t a blog, you could face some rather serious penalties here.

Just reiterating what Jack Pine pointed out.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 17, 2008 at 6:58 pm Link to this comment

Republicans do not want to go against Obama in the main election, because they know he will kick their ass.

It will be much harder for Obama to take attacks from Hillary and Gomer’s Repubs working together the goons squad, but in the end the war may come back to haunt them, as it should.

You need to keep your finger on Wright, it is your only hope to defeat Obama, the bald naked truth is something Americans cannot and do not like to hear, but maybe that is changing.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 17, 2008 at 6:52 pm Link to this comment

Humility is something a Republican should not be talking about.  It borders on a bigot talking about racism.

Report this

By jackpine savage, March 17, 2008 at 6:21 pm Link to this comment

Gee, that story sounds awfully similiar to Bill Clinton’s promise not to place a toxic waste incinerator next to a school in Ohio.  And then appointing a friend to head the EPA; a friend with connections to the company that wanted to build the incinerator…and the permit was approved.

I’m not an Obamamaniac, but i’ve hated the Clintons since 1992.  If you want to go tit for tat with sleazy politics and broken promises…and lies, one candidate is going to have a much longer list than the other one.  I lived through two clusterfucking Clinton administrations…i’ll do whatever i can to prevent a third. (And if that congenitally lewd jackass could have kept his dick in his pants, we probably wouldn’t have had to live through two W. administrations.)

And the thing that most frightens me about Obama is that he’s going to be just like Bill Clinton in office…only really black instead of wishing he was black.

Report this

By jackpine savage, March 17, 2008 at 6:12 pm Link to this comment

If you’re going to lift whole passages straight out of Ron Furnier’s AP piece, you could at least cite him.

Even if i hadn’t read the article and commentary on it elsewhere, i would have known it wasn’t you Gomer…all the punctuation is correct.

The above is plagiarism.

Report this

By jackpine savage, March 17, 2008 at 6:09 pm Link to this comment

He’s also said that the proudest moment of his political career was when his constituents voted him OUT of office, because he voted for the AUMF in Iraq bill.

Report this

By bert, March 17, 2008 at 4:49 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena Writes:    “It’s like OK, let me sell you something..BUT FIRST..let me call you a bunch of names, and tell you how you think now, and make it clear that however you think now is stupid. Then, I’ll tell you that you MUST think the way that I tell you to think, and if you resist, then, you’re just as evil as the person you think you support, and I will make sure that you suffer the same dirt that I’m dishing out to the rest of you…blah, blah, blah, (fill in whatever names we’re being called most recently).”

Do you have any appreciation of the fact that you have just described yourself and your actions on this web site to anyone you disagree with?  Talk about the pot callinbg the kettle black. And no that is not racist.

Report this

By cyrena, March 17, 2008 at 4:17 pm Link to this comment

No problem Gomerspile.

Happens to me as well. And, the only reason I wrote so extensively on it, is because I’ve had the same question myself, and needed to get a satisfactory answer.

Sometimes we get so jumbled up in the rhetoric, that we have to go back to the basics, and then it makes more sense.

In other words, sometimes we’re looking for a really complicated explanation to things, when the answer is actually pretty simple. And when there are limited, (or no options) that makes it pretty simple. wink

Report this

By bert, March 17, 2008 at 3:43 pm Link to this comment

So Cyrena:  “Half of the stuff doesn’t MATTER to the American population. Like, “What’s plagiarism”, or “Who’s Rev. Wright”, or “What’s Escalon, (not exactly the same as Enron) and who’s Rezko?”

Not according to polling done this weekend.

Pastor Jeremiah Wright, who has become part of the national political dialogue in recent days, is viewed favorably by 8% of voters nationwide.

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 58% have an unfavorable view of the Pastor.

Seventy-three percent (73%) of voters say that Wright’s comments are racially divisive. That opinion is held by 77% of White voters and 58% of African-American voters.

Most voters, 56%, said Wright’s comments made them less likely to vote for Obama. That figure includes 44% of Democrats. Just 11% of voters say they are more likely to vote for Obama because of Wright’s comment.

Obama’s negatives have also gone up, reports Rasmussen in another poll:

The Illinois Senator is viewed favorably today by just 47% of voters nationwide. That’s down five points since last Thursday.

And this is WITHOUT much of the media giving the story much air time. But I am 100% certain the republican smear machine will rectify that come this fall.

And what does Obama have to say regarding this controversy.  “In addressing the issue, Obama warned against injecting race into the campaign.”

That’s kind of hard considering your campaign has let that cat out of the bag a long time ago.

Report this

By bert, March 17, 2008 at 3:36 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena says:    “and then there’s the constant request to know why Obama ‘continues to fund the war’. (like he’s just doing that all by himself),”

Just like Hillary voted to authorize the use of force all by herself???????? Eh?

Report this

By bert, March 17, 2008 at 3:32 pm Link to this comment

Maani - you have your first response from an Obamamaniacs, and it is a doozy full of ranting, raving, denigration, insults, name calling, and dehumanizing. And they call US racist.

Report this

By bert, March 17, 2008 at 3:18 pm Link to this comment

Please don’t add any more fuel to the fire that is KO’s over infalted ego, Maani. He and his sexist friends over at the Mysogynist Sexist national Boys Club have fanned the flames of this.

Report this

By cyrena, March 17, 2008 at 2:15 pm Link to this comment


I almost hate to

But, what’s it mean to ‘corn-hole’ oneself?

Meantime, I’m not so sure that the repug trolls are necessarily polluting the idea pool..though I could be wrong.

What I’ve noticed more is the dogged insistence to just keep repeating the same shit over and over again, which DOES work in some cases, depending on the circumstances…

Like Maani’s bag of dirt that he systematically recycles, while in constant search of new stuff.

Now just in the past few months, we’ve heard the Escalon Rezko thing, and the alleged ‘plagiarisms’ and then of course the thing with Rev. Wright, which must seem like a really major accomplishment, because they’ve been working that up for a long time now.

Then, what else? Oh, the Muslim story, and then there’s the constant request to know why Obama ‘continues to fund the war’. (like he’s just doing that all by himself), and along the way we get more of the kitchen sink, which is actually the garbage can.

But, for everything that they come up with, the American puplic has a short attention span. Half of the stuff doesn’t MATTER to the American population. Like, “What’s plagiarism”, or “Who’s Rev. Wright”, or “What’s Escalon, (not exactly the same as Enron) and who’s Rezko?

And, even if they KNOW, people don’t necessarily CARE!! And, maybe more people WOULD, if they had the time, and weren’t distracted by far more urgent things, because..the average American these days…IS distracted by more urgent concerns, and that’s just the way it is.

The number of people visiting this or any other blog site may seem impressive, but only in relative terms.
That’s what Maani doesn’t get.

So, he keeps spinning his wheels, and they all get to discuss their favorite soap operas on this blog. And, some folks will be taken in for a moment, and then eventually, they go on about the more urgent, (at least in their own circumstances) issues of their daily lives.

For those who DO visit the site more frequently, and might be inclined to favor Obama in the election, but may still be open to, or vulnerable to changing their opinions, how likely is it that they will take kindly to being called Obamamaniacs, or accused of being part of a cult?

More simply, how likely is it that someone is going to reconsider their own positions to take ‘come over to the other side’ so to speak, after the ‘other side’ has completed a lengthy exercise in insulting them?!!

It’s like OK, let me sell you something..But FIRST..let me call you a bunch of names, and tell you how you think now, and make it clear that however you think now is stupid. Then, I’ll tell you that you MUST think the way that I tell you to think, and if you resist, then, you’re just as evil as the person you think you support, and I will make sure that you suffer the same dirt that I’m dishing out to the rest of you…blah, blah, blah, (fill in whatever names we’re being called most recently).

Now, how likely is it, that I’m gonna make the sale, and ESPECIALLY if what I’m trying to sell (or trade) isn’t what the customer wants, or isn’t as good as what they already have?

It WILL work for a few, (I mean, some people might like being called names and associated with cults), and are perfectly willing to trade their one $50 bill for 10 singles. (looks like more, eh?) Besides, that one $50 bill might be kind of old, and all of the 10 $1 bills are crisp and new. What a deal!

Now THOSE kinds of folks are a con artists dream.

But REALLY! Just how many people are gonna be so easily fooled?

The stats aren’t looking good for the con artists of the year 2008. Times are hard, if only because folks have been burned for too long, and have learned their lessons the really hard way.

Report this

By Maani, March 17, 2008 at 1:18 pm Link to this comment

You know, if Olbermann has visited this thread, he must be tickled that it has generated more responses than any other thread this year; the last thread to garner over 250 responses was “Common Enemy” (Feb. 7; 270 responses).

And it seems that race (this thread) and religion garner the most responses; the next two most-responded-to were Obama and the Jews (231 responses) and The War Against Intolerance (212 responses).

Hey, Keith - look what you started!  LOL.


Report this

By Maani, March 17, 2008 at 1:01 pm Link to this comment

Bert, Gomerspile:

Let’s look at another, even clearer issue.

In January 2006, one of Exelon’s nuclear power plants leaked tritium into the groundwater.  This was not the first such leak from its plants.

Obama’s constituents living in the area of the power plant bombarded his office with complaints about Exelon, and in response Obama went highly public with it, not only chastising Exelon for its poor performance, but scolding federal regulators for not taking more effective action after Exelon’s earlier leaks.

He also drafted very strong legislation that would have censured Exelon, caused it to pay large fines, added regulations, and put it under a court order to undertake a series of costly measures to increase quality control.

But when Illinois Senate Republicans caucused against the bill, Obama agreed to rewrite it, watering it down considerably in favor of Exelon.

As an aside, notre that even the final bill did not make it to a vote - DESPITE Obama continuing to call this “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.  I did it just last year.”  (Yet another Obama lie…)

But before one calls this a failed “David and Goliath” story (freshman Democrat vs. entrenched Republicans), consider that Obama almost immediately began accepting campaign donations from Exelon for his presidential run.  In fact, his donations from Exelon - some $195,000 - eclipse his donations from all but half a dozen other donors, in ANY industry.

As well, the man who became Obama’s biggest “bundler” - Frank Clark - is chairman of Commonwealth Edison, which is owned by Exelon.

All of this has been completely and throroughly documented by dozens of news organizations, both MSM and AM, as well as hundreds of websites.

Thus, here we have Obama (i) immediately putting his tail between his legs instead of standing his ground when confronted by opposition, thereby betraying his constituents, and (ii) accepting campaign contributions from a company that not only seriously impacted his constituents, but one which he himself excoriated publicly.

Now let’s see how the Obamamaniacs here “spin” this one…


Report this

By bert, March 17, 2008 at 12:35 pm Link to this comment

Thanks, Gomerspile. Yes, very interesting site.

It would have been even more interesting if it had listed the bills where he claimed he, “hit the wrong button.” I mean come on, how hard is it to learn that the big green button with YES on it and the big red one with NO on ot means yes or no. Maybe once, but 6 or 7 times. Does he tink we are stupid.

I don’t know about IL, but I now when I worked the Ohio State legislature an elected official could change there vote within some proscribed time frame for pretty much any reason.

So give me a break. Again, thanks so much for shating this. very enlightening.

Report this

By bert, March 17, 2008 at 10:48 am Link to this comment

You write:    “Re: the hospital
Cyrena might like this, Don’t know if OB was directly involved, but one of the problems face Reszco now was his lobbing to have a hospital built in the lily white area of round lake IL. he put his voters on the board, to make sure the well to do whites got their hospital, Mean while on the south side ,that happens to be predominantly black, the request for any kind of new medical center was turned down, because of no one seeing the need, the closest hospital is at least 15 to 20 minutes away with traffic. this will come back to haunt people.”

Now that you mention it I have heard about this. Thanks for reminding me.


.........I think the one that should haunt Obama is the millions (I am writing this off the top of my head so I cannot remember the exact amount of money involved - but the figure $3 million keeps coming to mind)of dollars Rezko got from the federal government to build and/or upgrade low income housing Rezko owned in south Chicago, Obama’s IL district, that has simply gone missing. No one can accocunt for it.

That’s right. Just gone. As IL state Senator, Senator Obama sent a letter to the federal government supporting Rezko’s request for this money and for thr need in his district. (and for those of you who like to read FAR way more into a comment - no - I am not saying Obama did anything wrong or illeagal. I AM JUST STATING FACT. HE WROTE THE LETTER.)

The money is gone and was not used to build new housing for the poor or upgrade the existing housing that Rezko owned. There are heart-rending stories of of poor people having no heat or water in these Rezko houses, especially one winter when it was freezing. One woman reported she had to keep a huge pot of water boiling on the stove to try and keep her children warm that winter.

One of the Chicago papers has pictures and videos of these houses.

If I was an IL Senator and had a $250,000 donor to my campaigns and I had dinner with them a few times a year, and I had daily talks by phone or in person during the periods I was fundraising, and I had written a letter to the federal government asking it to give money to improve hosing condition for the poor in MY district, I sure as hell would have asked Rezko where the hell that money was. In fact, as much as a bulldog I am, I would have hounded that sob till the housing money was used for its rightful purpose.

And I certainly would not then ask this same person to give me more money to run for President of the United States of America.

And I certainly would not have been silent about this matter then or now. I would have been out there working my tail off for my constituents. Obama has been silent.

“What so ever you do for these the least of my breathern, you do unto me.”

And last of all, this missing money is part of the indictment against Rezko.

Report this

By Maani, March 17, 2008 at 8:44 am Link to this comment


“THAT is why your efforts backfire!”

Really?  Is that why more and more people are seeing through your lies, bullying and denigration - and calling you on it?  And it is no longer just Doug, bert and myself.  Because others have now added their voices as well, including Gomerspile, MensaMember and others.

What has become apparent to an increasing number of us (those who are not supporting Obama, but may not be supporting Hillary either) is that you are your own worst enemy and possibly the biggest hypocrite on the site, that you are in a constant state of denial about how you act and how it comes off, and that your arguments and positions are seen as increasingly weak based on events as they are actually unfolding - even if you insist on spinning those events in order to protect your candidate.

Indeed, over the past few days, more and more posters have stated that they are not going to vote for Obama based on the Wright issue and/or other issues, the truth of which has finally been coming out.  And some of these posters were previously for Obama, so it is not just those who would not have voted for him anyway.

Are you suggesting that every one of these people are simply falling for MSM propaganda?  That none of them do their own homework and might know as much - or maybe even MORE - than you do?

No, the truth of the matter is that the Cassandras among us are now being vindicated - almost daily - in what we have been saying for weeks.  And, no, it is not “demonizing” Obama, but simply waking people up to things that they have persistently denied about their candidate.

In response to my comment, “Obama is just a man, a politician, and as given…to compromising principles, having character flaws (some arguably serious), and poor judgment in decision-making, to say nothing of political expediency, obfuscation, dissembling and spin,” you say, “THIS is pure demonization/defamation! It contains NO facts…the rest of this is gut-wrench SUBJECTIVE stuff for YOUR mission. You have NO GROUNDS for ANY of it, aside from your OWN intentionally twisted interpretation of every single thing that comes from him, or his wife, or his pastor, or any other person that you can connect to him.”

The FACTS have been given to you, but it is YOUR “intentionally twisted interpretation” of those facts that you have attempted to use to protect your candidate.  I think most people know (and, as noted, they are increasingly say so) between us who has been offering more “fact” and who has been offering more “spin” here.

Finally, re “you consider any discussion of any FACTS or TRUTH in respect to Hillary Clinton to be ‘Hillary-bashing,’” this is simply untrue.  There is a difference between “facts” and “truth” on the one hand, and visceral Hillary-bashing on the other.  Both are at play here, but it is only the latter to which I object.


Report this

By Maani, March 17, 2008 at 7:34 am Link to this comment


I just wanted to thank you for all the research you did here (and elsewhere).  Even if the Obamamaniacs here ARE in a state of fact-challenged denial, your efforts are appreciated.


Report this

By bert, March 16, 2008 at 8:46 pm Link to this comment

Sorry to hear about the flu Leefeller. I had it 4 weeks ago and it was the worst flu I have ever had. Glad to hear you are recuperating nad heading back off to work.

I have enjoyed sparring with you. You are a worthy “opponent” and realy kept me on my toes. smile

Please drop by as time permits. You are a good person. smile

Report this

By bert, March 16, 2008 at 8:43 pm Link to this comment


There are stark factual differences between Wright and Hagee.

It is true that John Hagee has made bigoted statements against the Catholic Church.

But, to imagine that the situations in which McCain and Obama find themselves are exactly the same shows that those who think this are either uninformed or disingenuous. The situations are not in any way comparable.

The following points mark a stark difference between McCain/Hagee and Obama/Wright:

1. In his book the Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama called Rev. Wright his “spiritual mentor.” McCain has not made any such statement of Hagee.

2. Obama had his children baptized by Rev. Wright. McCain’s kids never knew Hagee when they were small.

3. Rev.Wright performed Obama’s marriage ceremony.McCain had never even met Hagee until he became the frontrunner for the GOP nomination.

4. Obama chose Rev. Wright’s church and attended it for 20 years. McCain has never attended Hagee’s church.

These points mark a completely different relationship between Wright Obama and McCain and Hagee. It shows that Obama had many decades of intimacy with Rev. Wright leaving some to assume Wright’s hate speech could not possibly have bothered Obama very much much less have come as any surprise.

While John McCain had only just met John Hagee proving that his history of anti-Catholic statements is not something that McCain could have had long and intimate contact with.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 16, 2008 at 8:41 pm Link to this comment

Well Burt, thanks for the comments, I am throwing in the towel, no matter what I find out it seems to be trumped.  More Substance over more substance, over more.

Been sick with the flu these past two weeks, since I am returning to work I will not have time to follow the rest of the Truth Diggins So good luck and hope to see you around TD.

So long, it has been enlightening.

Report this

By bert, March 16, 2008 at 8:18 pm Link to this comment

2.) Senator Obama’s claim that his real estate transaction was unrelated to that of Mr. Rezko turned into an admission that Senator Obama and Tony Rezko did in fact jointly tour both properties together:

November 2006 - Obama vaguely describes Rezko’s purchase of adjacent lot as a coincidence. ‘I don’t recall exactly what our conversations were or where I first learned, and I am not clear what the circumstances were where he made a decision that he was interested in the property I may have mentioned to him the name of [a developer and] he may at that point have contacted that person. I’m not clear about that.’ [Chicago Tribune, 11/1/06]
Over a year later, Obama campaign admits that Obama and Rezko toured the property together. Before he bought his South Side mansion in 2005, Sen. Barack Obama took his friend and fundraiser Antoin “Tony” Rezko on a tour of the premises to make sure it was a good deal, Obama’s campaign revealed Monday [Chicago Tribune, 2/19/08]

3.) Senator Obama’s claim that “no one had an inkling” about Mr. Rezko’s legal problems at the time they purchased that land turned into an admission that he had in fact known about Mr. Rezko had legal problems at the time of the transactions:
January - Sen. Obama said ‘no one had an inkling he was involved in any problems’ at the time of his relationship with Rezko. Obama on Rezko: He was somebody who I knew and had been a supporter for many years. He was somebody who had supported a wide range of candidates all throughout Illinois. Nobody had an inkling that he was involved in any problems. [CBS, Chicago Sun-Times, 1/23/08]

Two months later, Obama admits he was aware of Rezko’s legal problems in 2005. After news reports of Rezko’s questionable political dealings first emerged in 2005, Obama said he asked his friend about them. Rezko assured him there was nothing wrong. “My instinct was to believe him,” he said. [Chicago Sun-Times, 3/15/08]

4.) The Obama campaign’s regular claims that Mr. Rezko only raised $150,000 turned into an admission reported that he in fact had raised at least $100,000 more than had previously been disclosed:

January - Obama campaign says donation of $149,985 to charity encompasses ‘any and all funds that could be reasonably credited to Mr. Rezko.’ Campaign Spokesperson Bill Burton said, “By refunding these donations, the campaign has returned any and all funds that could be reasonably credited to Mr. Rezko’s political support.” With the latest donations, Obama has returned a total of $149,985 in contributions from Rezko and his associates since Rezko was indicted on federal fraud charges in the fall of 2006. [ABC, 1/30/08]

Two months later, Obama admits that Rezko raised $250,000. In a 90-minute interview with Tribune reporters and editors, Obama disclosed that Rezko had raised more for Obama’s earlier political campaigns than previously known, gathering as much as $250,000 for the first three offices he sought. [Chicago Tribune, 3/15/08]

Report this

By bert, March 16, 2008 at 8:16 pm Link to this comment

No, Leefeller, this will not be ignored.

Yes, you posted the statement that the Chicago Tribine released after Obama’s meeting with them last Friday 3/15/08.

But you OMIT the most important and salient points of that meeting. You conveniently omitted that, yet again, Obama’s story on several key statements he has made in the past were inaccurate. Now we learn the truth.

My source for this is a web site called Fact Hub. If you look at the dates at the end of some citations you will often see 3/15/08. THOSE REVELATIONS WERE MADE WITH THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE ONLY LAST FRIDAY.


As I have said before, this seems to be a pattern….he denied the NAFTA-Canada story until the AP got hold of the memo; he denied the Rev. Wright story till the videos were shown on TV. He has denied many of the Rezko facts until last Friday.

Here is what Fact Hub has say:

“Sen. Obama’s campaign is based on words and he is asking the public to base their votes for him on those words. But what we’ve been seeing over the last few weeks, as the media starts looking at Senator Obama’s record more closely, is that those words often seem to change. The latest example of this trend involves Tony Rezko.

Throughout this campaign, we’ve heard Senator Obama routinely downplay his relationship with Mr. Rezko even though news accounts make it clear that Senator Obama hasn’t been straightforward when it comes to their relationship.” - Campaign Spokesperson Phil Singer

1.) Senator Obama’s insistence that Mr. Rezko was simply one of “thousands of donors” turned into an admission that this indicted political fixer was someone Senator Obama spoke to on the phone everyday:

April - Obama insists that Rezko is just one of ‘thousands of donors” Moderator: You’ve promised in your campaign a new kind of politics, but just this week the Chicago Sun-Times reported on questionable ties you have with a donor who was charged last year for demanding kickbacks on Illinois business deals. Aren’t you practicing the very same kind of politics that many of the others on this stage have engaged in?

Obama: Well, not all, we have thousands of donors. This donor engaged in some ethical (sic) behavior and I have denounced it. [SC Democratic Debate, 4/26/07]

11 months later, Obama admits he talked daily with Rezko when helping to raise money for Obama’s Campaigns. “Obama said he and Rezko used to meet for breakfast or lunch a few times each year, but they might talk daily when Rezko was helping raise money for Obama’s campaigns.” [Chicago Sun Times, 3/15/08]

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 16, 2008 at 8:02 pm Link to this comment

It is interesting everyone is chastising Obama for his connection to Wright, but not McCains connection to his supporter pastor, of course color has nothing to do with it. 

It remains to be seen if Obama’s Wright controversy is the campaign’s key point of change.  Obama needs to change his voice and emerge the stronger candidate in the remaining primaries and the general election. Otherwise he will not make it.

Obama has made it clear that Wright is his past not his future.  Obama rejects black power, if he has the wit not to be boxed in, (which I see being attempted here against Obama supporters) to false comments created by opponents, their dups and minions, time will tell.

It will bode well for the nation to have Obama as president, because he is a unifier not a divider like what we have now with Bush.  It is my opinion Washington Hillary is not much different than Bush, her divisive techniques are well known.  It would be very pleasant not to see anymore of Hillary and Bill they have become quite stale.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 16, 2008 at 7:33 pm Link to this comment

Me thinks this guy is on the Hillary payroll, his arguments seem to always be the same and on the attack, actually I have not heard him say anything about Hillary in days.

Report this

By cyrena, March 16, 2008 at 7:27 pm Link to this comment

No gomerspile,

This is where I disagree.

•  “...Why is it your opinion only,is no one else allowed to have an opinion? what you accuse maani of doing with OB, you do the same with Hillary. what nothing negitive about me,I feel left out.”..

I have indicated before, that this is exactly my beef with Maani. I have never suggested that I am the only person allowed to ‘have an opinion’. And, you KNOW that. I’ve said it too many times.

As for me ‘doing the same thing with Hillary’, that too is actually INACCURATE! Most of the complaints that I get from the fanatics here, are that I have (they think) REFUSED TO CRITICIZE OBAMA! That too, is incorrect, because I HAVE criticized him, in the form of a PERSONAL OPINION. The trouble is that I won’t dog him out, or criticize him in a comparison chart with Hillary, (and find her superior), or on emotionally based subjective terms.

In other words, I make a clear distinction between what I’m putting out there as an observation, combined with my own opinion on the observation, or what is actually FACT (when it can be confirmed as such) and I generally support whatever it is with the source.

The important thing is that there IS a difference between fact and opinion, and everyone here can and does express their opinions, and many folks will also source what they put forth as facts.

If you were to really check though these blogs, you would be able to tell the difference.  I don’t indulge in much emotional bad mouthing of Hillary. In the comments that I DO make, the average reader can tell the difference between what is my opinion, and what is a matter of fact.

It isn’t even close to the stuff that Maani engages in.

In fact, long before Maani arrived on the scene, other bloggers have known me to actually defend some ugly comments about Hillary that were nothing more than slander and her sleeping with black women, or an alleged comment from Bill that Hillary has slept with more women than he has.

Now that’s the sort of thing that I find despicable, because there’s no way that any of these people actually KNOW this stuff. And..EVEN IF THEY DID, it would simply not be relevant to the issues. So, it’s just INTENDED to be dirt and nasty slurs, with no basis for truth.

And, while I cannot go so far as to say that I ‘admire’ Hillary, I never had anything specifically against her, and there was a time, that I would have even voted for her, had she run.

That is NOT because there weren’t some things about her that I didn’t particularly like, but in political choices, that’s always going to be the case. I thought she did a good job as a first lady, being far more involved than most presidential wives, though nobody has touched Eleanor Roosevelt in that respect. So I certainly appreciated that much about her.

I also believe even now, that she DID get an unfair rap from the far right when she was the 1st lady.

THAT SAID…I know far more about Hillary now, and she has ESPECIALLY ruined ANY respect I might ever have had for her, during the course of this campaign. As my grandma would have said, “She has definitely SHOWN HER ASS!

Now that is my opinion, and while I don’t indulge in a whole lot of bad-mouthing about her, I WILL call things as I see them. And, times DO change, and we DO have better choices than Hillary now.

I also happen to believe very strongly that it is the corporate take-over of this country that has ruined us, as well as this aggressive militarism. I KNOW that Hillary Clinton is a corporatist to the core, because the proof is there in her history. I know that she is also a war monger, and I OPPOSE wars of aggression.

So, I have perfectly valid reasons for my choices, and I’m not apologizing for them. But if others want to express their opinions differently,  I can’t stop them.

Hillary isn’t helping herself, and neither are most of her supporters on this website.

She’s running a sleazy operation, and it’s hurting us all.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 16, 2008 at 7:26 pm Link to this comment

Of course this will be ignored and twisted to meet the agenda of Hillary supporters every where.

“The plan seems to be yielding dividends, if the Tribune is to be believed. After sitting with the papers editorial board to answer every question asked about his relationship with Tony Rezko, the Chicago Tribune had this to say:

When we endorsed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination Jan. 27, we said we had formed our opinions of him during 12 years of scrutiny. We concluded that the professional judgment and personal decency with which he has managed himself and his ambition distinguish him.

Nothing Obama said in our editorial board room Friday diminishes that verdict.

We said in that same editorial that Obama had been too self-exculpatory in explaining away his ties to Tony Rezko. And we’ve been saying since Nov. 3, 2006—shortly after the Tribune broke the story of Obama’s house purchase—that Obama needed to fully explain his Rezko connection. He also needed to realize how susceptible he had been to someone who wanted a piece of him—and how his skill at recognizing that covetousness needed to rise to the same stature as his popular appeal.

Friday’s session evidently fulfills both obligations. Might we all be surprised by some future disclosure? Obama’s critics have waited 16 months for some new and cataclysmic Rezko moment to implicate and doom Obama. It hasn’t happened….

...Barack Obama now has spoken about his ties to Tony Rezko in uncommon detail. That’s a standard for candor by which other presidential candidates facing serious inquiries now can be judged.”

Not good enough for the good ship Hillary minions and their Republican brethren.

Report this

By cyrena, March 16, 2008 at 6:30 pm Link to this comment


•  “….after all, facts and truth are NOT defamation and slander (or libel).”

This is EXACTLY the point. Facts and truth about Hillary aren’t either. But, more to the point, you’ve just exposed yourself again.

“…Rather, my intent has always been to “level the playing field” with regard to the insistent Hillary-bashing that I noticed from the first day I got here….”

In other words Maani, you consider any discussion of any FACTS or TRUTH in respect to Hillary Clinton, to be ‘Hillary-bashing”, because FACTS and TRUTH cannot be presented in a positive light, if they are NOT POSITIVE!! So if someone, anyone, makes an observation, (which may or may not be a ‘fact’ since opinion isn’t always fact, but certainly CAN be) and if it is a fact or truth about your candidate that is not positive, then you go into your “field-leveling mission.”

In order to control the outcome and accomplish the results that you require for your “mission”, you have to CREATE new or different statistics, and you have to attempt to COVER UP the less attractive aspects of the truth and the facts. At the same time, (all part of the ‘leveling of the field’) you have to CREATE some facts about the other side of the field, which in this case is Obama, and of course to do the leveling, they have to be negative, to somehow ‘match’ these negative facts and truth about Hillary.

THAT is how you ‘level the playing field’ and it is such a twisted and demented way of approaching things that you can’t even see what you’re doing.

•  “But neither will I stand by silently as the Hillary-bashers here attempt to keep control over the site and the conversation, and to engage in the very sort of intolerance, demonization and, yes, hatred that YOUR candidate has repeatedly said is wrong.

Maani, Obama has indeed said that this sort of thing is WRONG, because it is. But you automatically want to call it demonization, even when it happens to be the truth, or even when it is simply the opinion of another person, who has just as much a right to their opinion as you do.

You have consistently accused people of trying to ‘stifle the debate’ or shut you up, (as if we could). Because you are SO DETERMINED, with every ounce of your will, to DEMONIZE Barack Obama, by consistently repeating ALL of the accusations that you’ve just repeated again:

•  “Obama is just a man, a politician, and as given …to compromising principles, having character flaws (some arguably serious), and poor judgment in decision-making, to say nothing of political expediency, obfuscation, dissembling and spin.”

THIS is pure demonization/defamation! It contains NO facts, aside from the observation that Obama is a man and a politician, which we already know. All the rest of this is gut-wrench SUBJECTIVE stuff for YOUR mission. You have NO GROUNDS for ANY of it, aside from your OWN intentionally twisted interpretation of every single thing that comes from him, or his wife, or his pastor, or any other person that you can connect to him.

ALL of this stuff is you own OPINION, and you are determined to make them FACTS and truth in the minds of others. All that does is piss people off.

THAT is why your efforts backfire! You ACCUSE grown people, (whom you don’t even know) of claiming that Barack is some sort of god. That is a false accusation! You have the unmitigated ARROGANCE and gall, to actually try to TELL other people, (again STRANGERS) WHAT THEY THINK! Then, after you TELL us what we DO think, you proceed to tell us how we MUST think!!

There have been no claims that Barack is ‘perfect’. And yet, you consistently whine that he has all of these bad character traits and personal weaknesses, and then whine that he’s somehow ‘getting away’ with this.

What you fail to “get”, is that while you can give every ounce of your energy to making up all of these things about Barack Obama, (to level the field) you CANNOT MAKE THEM TRUE, if they ARE NOT!! (Or… FORCE people to believe it).


Report this

By cyrena, March 16, 2008 at 5:08 pm Link to this comment


You’re really hurting my feelings here, and causing me a great deal of frustration.

Here’s why…You have asked this question about Obama allegedly continuing to fund the war, that I honestly thought that maybe you really wanted an answer.

So, I wrote one for you. I’m pretty sure it’s on this thread, though admittedly, it all runs together, so it could be on another. When time permits, I’ll look. But, I’m almost certain that it was in the 3-part post that I wrote, especially for you.

So please humor me gomerspile, and at least read the thing. It actually DOES answer your question, and in detail. That is..IF you really do want to know.

Now if you’re just sort of being here to agitate and annoy, then that’s another thing, and at some point, you will have worn folks down, to the point where they just ignore you. (because your intent to just stir shit up will be obvious).

But you CLAIM at least, to want to find these things out. So, if anyone takes you at your word, and gives you the benefit of the doubt in that respect, you would prove your sincerity by actually reading the responses to your questions.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 16, 2008 at 2:48 pm Link to this comment

Those monsters.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 16, 2008 at 2:46 pm Link to this comment

Now that I know Hillary is a favorite of the Republicans, I may vote for her. Her lack of integrity is most appreciated by those who do not know what integrity means, of course Republicans and Hillary supporters.

On top of that, I am looking forward to Bill Clinton’s dalliance of flurry indiscretions, we should be taking bets and one may even get odds on them in Las Vegas.

We get a twofer with the Clintons, so the slime will be deeper and very exciting.

Viva Hillary

Report this

By Maani, March 16, 2008 at 1:38 pm Link to this comment


“But it’s like you’re a broken record with the most trivial of stupid things, that are generally the same LIES, over and over again.”

And now you take a page from Leefeller’s book: continuing to claim something without providing evidence.  The things I have brought up are not “lies,” they are substantiated facts.  and you have yet to provide evidence to support your contention that they are lies.

The reason you don’t like Doug, bert and myself (among others) is because we see through your tactics and your constant bullying - and we are not cowed or intimidated by them.


Report this

By bert, March 16, 2008 at 1:37 pm Link to this comment

There are so mnay denials they all won’t fit on one post.

2/28/08 - Rice: “The Canadian ambassador issued a statement that was absolutely false. There had been no contact. There had been no discussions on NAFTA. So we take the Canadians at their word…period.” [MSNBC, 2/28/08]

2/29/08: Sen. Obama: “Our office has said the story is not true. It’s important for viewers to understand that it was not true.” Anchor: “So, completely inaccurate, did not happen, end of discussion.” Sen. Obama: “It did not happen.” [WKYC TV, 2/29/08]

2/29/08 - Goolsbee: “It is a totally inaccurate story…I did not call these people and I direct you to the press office.” [New York Observer, 2/29/08]

2/29/08 – Burton: ‘This story is not true. There was no one at any level of our campaign, at any point, anywhere, who said or otherwise implied Obama was backing away from his consistent position on trade.’ [Greg Sargent, 2/29/08]

2/29/08 – Plouffe: “The story’s just not true…. No one in our campaign has said or otherwise implied that he would back away from his position on NAFTA.” [The Page, 2/29/08]

2/29/08 – Burton: “There was no one at any level of our campaign, at any point, anywhere, who said or otherwise implied Obama was backing away from his consistent position on trade.” [Politico, 2/29/08]

Report this

By bert, March 16, 2008 at 1:36 pm Link to this comment

Following is a timeline of all the Obama campaign denials:

2/26/08 – CTV reported that a senior member of Obama’s campaign called the Canadian embassy within the last month — saying that when Senator Obama talks about opting out of the free trade deal, the Canadian government shouldn’t worry. The operative said it was just campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously. [CTV, 2/27/08]

2/26/08 – “Late Wednesday, Obama campaign said the staff member’s warning to Wilson sounded implausible, but did not deny that contact had been made. ‘Senator Obama does not make promises he doesn’t intend to keep,’ the spokesperson said.” [CTV, 2/27/08]

2/27/08 – “Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue.” [CTV, 2/29/08]

2/27/08 – Goolsbee: Canada’s consul general in Chicago contacted him ‘at one point to say ‘hello’ because their office is around the corner.’ [ABC, 2/29/08]

2/27/08 – Goolsbee: “I am not confirming or denying any meetings with anyone,’ Goolsbee told ABC News, directing queries to Bill Burton, Obama’s campaign spokesperson.” [ABC News, 2/29/08]

2/27/08 – “ABC News spoke to Goolsbee, Thursday, and who denied calling the Canadian embassy in Washington, or calling Rioux, but would “neither confirm nor deny” whether he had spoke to Rioux about Obama’s NAFTA rhetoric.” [ABC News, 2/29/08]

2/27/08 – CTV: “On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any questions to the campaign headquarters.” [CTV, 2/29/08]

2/27/08 – CTV: “The Obama campaign told CTV late Thursday night that no message was passed to the Canadian government that suggests that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated.” [CTV, 2/29/08]

2/28/08 – Burton: ‘The news reports on Obama’s position on NAFTA are inaccurate and in no way represent Senator Obama’s consistent position on trade. When Senator Obama says that he will forcefully act to make NAFTA a better deal for American workers, he means it. Both Canada and Mexico should know that, as president, Barack Obama will do what it takes to create and protect American jobs and strengthen the American economy — that includes amending NAFTA to include labor and environmental standards. We are currently reaching out to the Canadian embassy to correct this inaccuracy.” [TPM, 2/28/08]

2/28/08 – Burton: “It’s telling that the Clinton campaign’s closing argument is based on a story run on a Canadian television station that’s already been debunked by the Canadian Embassy.” [ABC, 2/29/08]

2/28/08 – Burton: “Again, this story is not true. There was no one at any level of our campaign, at any point, anywhere, who said or otherwise implied Obama was backing away from his consistent position on trade. The only flip-flopping on NAFTA has come from Sen. Clinton, who talked about how good it was for America until she started running for President,” [ABC, 2/29/08]

2/28/08 – Sen. Obama: “The Canadian government put out a statement saying that this was just not true, so I don’t know who the sources were.” [CTV news, 2/29/08]

Report this

By bert, March 16, 2008 at 1:34 pm Link to this comment

From the NYT
Via AP
March 3, 2008

“Barack Obama said Monday that his campaign never gave Canada back-channel assurances that his harsh words about the North American Free Trade Agreement were for political show—despite the disclosure of a Canadian memo indicating otherwise.

According to the memo obtained by The Associated Press, Obama’s senior economic adviser told Canadian officials in Chicago that the debate over free trade in the Democratic presidential primary campaign was ‘‘political positioning’’ and that Obama was not really protectionist.”


In Carrollton, Texas, Obama told reporters: ‘‘Nobody reached out to the Canadians to try to assure them of anything.’‘

Asked why he had appeared to deny a report last week that such a meeting had taken place, Obama said: ‘‘That was the information I had at the time.’‘

Obama continued to deny any meeting took place for days until there was actual documented proof (much like he says he never heard Wright make outrageous statements until there was documented proof——do I detect a pattern here?)

The emergence of the Canadian diplomats’ memorandum distributed widely to Canadian officials — and now in the hands not only of the A.P. but CNN’s John Roberts, who waved a copy as he reported the story on CNN’s American Morning.

I have reead 3 different possible sources for the ‘leaked’ info: Bush/Canadian PM, Canadian Television, and Hillary. Who knows who did it. That is not the point. When it came out Obama and his entire campaign apperatus denied it for days and then only fessed up to it when there was actual documented proof.

In my next post I will submit the timeline of thedenials.

Report this

By cyrena, March 16, 2008 at 1:11 pm Link to this comment


Quit repeating yourself and the name-calling accusations, because ‘name calling’ isn’t MY THING!!

I don’t do the name calling on any regular basis…the occassional moron…yes. So I’ve been known to indulge in that.

But it’s like you’re a broken record with the most trivial of stupid things, that are generally the same LIES, over and over again.

It might be worth indulging in, if any of it were more than just the most petty of things.

So, leave me out of your kindergaarten games. If I was gonna call you some names, you can rest assured that you would KNOW it.

Seriously..I really do have work to do Maani. I don’t know what world you live in, but there’s no time for your petty whines in mine, and you can’t even appreciate the fact when I DO extend the energy.

You’re just more collateral damage.

Report this

By Maani, March 16, 2008 at 12:57 pm Link to this comment


Once again, alot of wind and bluster, more name-calling and denigration, but very little substance.

“That said, the REAL TRUTH of the Canada/NAFTA story has proved that it was the campaign/supporters of Hillary Clinton who started THAT piece of dirt as well!”

Actually, this is only half true.  It HAS been suggested that Hillary’s camp leaked that story (though not all sources, either MSM or AM, agree). HOWEVER, the story ITSELF is TRUE.  That is, Goolsbee DID contact the Canadian government, and Obama DID deny that he had done so - before changing his story and admitting that, yes, Goolsbee DID contact them, but only (according to Obama) “as a courtesy.”  So once gain, we see that it is YOU who is trying to “spin” this into a non-issue when it remains a matter of easily substantiated fact that (i) Obama denied that “anyone” in his campaign had contacted the Canadian goverment, (ii) Goolsbee did, in fact, contact the Canadian goverment, and (iii) Obama then reversed himself and admitted that it had happened.

Nice try.

As for the rest of your diatribe, you continue to make false accusations because you are apparently incapable of comprehending that I can criticize Obama without hating him.  From the very first post I placed on LieDig, my intention has never been to “defame” or “slander” Obama (I think you mean libel, since slander is verbal; but, then, you’re a smart woman, so you must have known this, of course); after all, facts and truth are NOT defamation and slander (or libel).

Rather, my intent has always been to “level the playing field” with regard to the insistent Hillary-bashing that I noticed from the first day I got here.  I have simply been trying to get through all of your apparently hypnotized brains that, despite his (and your) protestations to the contrary re “principle,” “character” and “judgment,” Obama is just a man, just a politician, and as given as any other politician to compromising principles, having character flaws (some arguably serious), and poor judgment in decision-making, to say nothing of political expediency, obfuscation, dissembling and spin.

To suggest that I “hate” Obama is simply absurd.  I do not, and never have.  I actually kinda like the guy.  And as I have stated, I will support him if he is the Democratic nominee.

But neither will I stand by silently as the Hillary-bashers here attempt to keep control over the site and the conversation, and to engage in the very sort of intolerance, demonization and, yes, hatred that YOUR candidate has repeatedly said is wrong.

Peace.  (If you even know what that means…)

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 16, 2008 at 12:55 pm Link to this comment

Well I am disqualifying myself from the Obama supporter camp, because I said Hillary is as smart as a weasel, this is almost like calling her a monster.  Shame on me. Darn, that name calling.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, March 16, 2008 at 12:50 pm Link to this comment

Also, bert:-

Asked in February 2008 whether she would support Hillary Clinton if she got the nomination, Michelle said “I’d have to think about that. I’d have to think about policies, her approach, her tone.” When questioned about this by the interviewer, however, she stated “You know, everyone in this party is going to work hard for whoever the nominee is.”[29]

Best to check the links while they are still ther too:-

Ref. 29: Michelle Obama On Hillary “Controlling” Bill: “That Is A Foreign Concept To Me” with VIDEO

Ref. 30: First Lady in Waiting

But then there is the politically-correct minefield again with:-

Ref. 37: Obama’s Chief Strategist David Axelrod on Michelle Obama’s Remarks:

“Anyone who heard her remarks…would understand that she was commenting on our politics” — not on America itself…. He said that anyone who watched the Obamas over time would not say “These folks are not proud Americans. These folks are not patriotic Americans.”’s-chief-strategist-david-axelrod-on-michelle-obama’s-remarks/

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, March 16, 2008 at 12:39 pm Link to this comment

Amazing how you have suddenly (along with MMC) become the expert on HRC, Leefeller…...

Michele Obama would at least have met her personally.

Report this

By Maani, March 16, 2008 at 12:32 pm Link to this comment


“You have in your own words substantiated your self as the most trusted and knowledgeable poster on Truth Dig.”

Nope.  That is not what I said.  First, I said that my “stuffy little closet world” is specifically “broader” than YOURS.

I then said, “I do more research than almost anyone else here, and I actually PROVIDE most, if not all, of that research.”

Get that: “almost.”  So I never suggested that I am “the most trusted and knowledgeable” poster here - only that I do my homework before I make claims.

And you talk about ME engaging in “spin!”


Report this

By bert, March 16, 2008 at 12:25 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena writes about Maani that he can’t “…attempt to win confidence in your OWN candidate, by putting something positive out there about her, and why you believe that she would be a better candidate.”

Well I am not positive about Maaani, but I know I have put it out there why I think Hillary is a better candidate————————BECAUSE SHE CAN F-ING WIN IN NOVEMEBR. 

Hell, I don’t always agree with Hillary and I don’t agree with some of her votes either. But I want to take back the White House in November and I want a Democrat naming the next 2 or 3 Supremes. So I want a winner. I think the person who has the best chance of winning in Novmeber, especially after this Wright controversy, is Hillary.

Is that plain enough, simple enough, and clear enough Cyrena “…why I [you] believe that she would be a better candidate” ?

Now will you please get off your high horse?

P.S. REBert:  “…..or manage to spell them properly.” 

I spell just fine. I just can’t type.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 16, 2008 at 12:08 pm Link to this comment

Well their is a difference in when one is admired as a mother and who should be elected as president.  Hillary is smart as a weasel, but gracious, Michelle Obama was hallucinating.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 16, 2008 at 12:04 pm Link to this comment


“I have said many times on this blog that I want to win in Nov. All of my comments should be taken in that light.”

It is for the same reason that people like Kucinich and Gravel have not made it to the finals.  Most of the public is indoctrinated by mass media and will vote as they are directed.

Must say the infighting is getting old.  I respect your quote above.

Report this

By bert, March 16, 2008 at 12:02 pm Link to this comment

Quick before someone edits it out.

From the Wikipedia entry on Michelle Obama.

“....when asked in 2004 which political spouse she admired, Obama cited Hillary Clinton, stating, “She is smart and gracious and everything she appears to be in public-someone who’s managed to raise what appears to be a solid, grounded child.”[30]”

My, my how the times they are a changing.

Report this

By cyrena, March 16, 2008 at 11:39 am Link to this comment

•  You also have not addressed the Canada/NAFTA lie, because, again, there is NOTHING you can say, since his comments and the dates on which he made them are easily found, and clearly show that his first comment was a lie.

Maani, one of the reasons this hasn’t been addressed, (at least by me) is because I’d rather depart from this really abominable slurring/defamation/slander that you are so heartfelt to continue, because it’s all so nefarious, and is causing HUGE problems for the democrats in general, even though I’m not personally that big into party loyalty per se.

That said, the REAL TRUTH of the Canada/NAFTA story has proved that it was the campaign/supporters of Hillary Clinton who started THAT piece of dirt as well!!
Now I’ve held my own tongue on it, rather than to repeat the facts of the ‘perfidy as usual’ which puts it all right in Hillary’s camp, whether she herself was behind it or not.

So, let me say this to you Maani, as well as your partners in spin-crime, defamation, slander, and general residence at the bottom of the sewer…be careful what you wish for.

You, Chalmers, and this bert character may believe yourselves to be having a high old time, encouraged by each other to engage in these despicable childish type games. But others reading CAN figure that out, and quickly enough. Especially when you just continue to repeat the same shit, over and over.

Smarter trolls throw their dirt and then crawl back under their rocks. For whatever the reason, you, bert, Chalmers, and Gomerspile are emboldened by your ability to publish sometime on these sites, probably because no one in your physical environments takes you seriously.

It is apparent that logic cannot and will not prevail with any of you, and so it only serves to increase the ridiculous irrationality of it all, to bother with any serious response. We’ve all tried it before Maani. At least I have, preferring to give the respect to the benefit of the doubt, until you prove that you aren’t capable of indulging or otherwise engaging in objective discourse.

Overall, I have discovered that there is little value in respectfully addressing your questions, because you’re of the mind that it is NEVER enough. One cannot respond to your accusations with any forthright responses, without you taking it yet another step.

You criticize Barack Obama at every turn, and when your criticisms are addressed, it’s never enough.

It would be so much easier, and far more indicative of some measure of personal integrity, if you just said, “I don’t like the guy.” I hate him for my own PERSONAL reasons, and let it be. But, you aren’t satisfied with that, because you’re real goal is to defame, slander, and thereby influence others into hating him as much as you do.

That’s why you can’t just say you don’t like him, and then attempt to win confidence in your OWN candidate, by putting something positive out there about her, and why you believe that she would be a better candidate.

We’ve talked about this before Maani, and far too many times. Your objective is NOT to put forth Hillary as the better candidate, but rather to look for whatever you possibly can, to negatively affect public opinion (or at least the opinions of the readers on this blog) against Obama.

Chalmers is even worse, because he does the modern day equivalent of calling fire in a crowded theater, and he’s not even located in the US. And, while it’s not unseemly for citizens of other nations to follow US politics, it’s perfidy at it’s worse to read so much of Chalmers’ insidious comments when it’s highly unlikely that he can even participate in the US elections. He may have resided in the US at some point, but he doesn’t now.

Meantime, Bert is some old bitter woman with nothing in her life, so she doesn’t even mind embarrassing herself on a public forum. She can’t even keep the details straight in her own attacks, or manage to spell them properly.

Personally, I can’t continue to feed the insanity.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 16, 2008 at 11:11 am Link to this comment

Bush has caused the Republican party to go down the sheeter (I feel uncomfortable saying shiter) and Hillary has done the same for the Democrats.

Now if both parties go down the toilet, maybe we could have some real peoples parties surface, instead of the same old Washington crowd.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 16, 2008 at 11:05 am Link to this comment

Of course I am the weakest of posters, because I do not play your game of tit for tat, according to the Maani rules of proteolytic hazing. 

Enjoy your muckraking Maani, as I stated you wallow in it.  You have in your own words substantiated your self as the most trusted and knowledgeable poster on Truth Dig,  with this over whelming evidence, I am at a lose of words.

You have succeeded in filling me with guilt,  your many self platitudes have forcibly caused me to succumb to your wisdom.

Go Hillary, Maani and Hillry supporter everywhere.

Report this

By Maani, March 16, 2008 at 11:04 am Link to this comment


“I feel he is more real than we imagine, his direct connection to the downtrodden connects him with the classic failings of your rosy glasses America.”

Let me ask you something.

Would that be the “downtrodden” in Hawaii, where his parents were both attending the University of Hawaii and he lived in a middle class neighborhood? (Ages birth to 6)

Would that be the “downtrodden” in Indonesia, where he was in a Catholic school (and then a goverment-run school) with other “middle class” children? (Ages 6-11)

Would that be the “downtrodden” back in Hawaii, where he attended good schools and continued to grow up “middle class?”  (Ages 12-17)

Would that be the “downtrodden” of Los Angeles, where he attended Occidental College?  (Ages 18-20)

Would that be the “downtrodden” of NYC, where he studied at Columbia University, and then worked briefly for NYPIRG - where he certainly would have learned some important aspects of “pro-people” law, but would not likely have actually interacted with the “downtrodden”?  (Ages 20-22)

It could legitimately have been the “downtrodden” of Chicago, where Obama worked as a community organizer for four years.  (Ages 23-27)

But it probably wasn’t the “downtrodden” of Boston, where Obama went to Harvard.  (Ages 27-30)

Though it could have continued when he returned to Chicago, where he did some more community organizing (Ages 30-32) and then went to work for a law firm that specialized in “people-related” work.  (Ages 30-33)

What I am getting at is that his “connection” to the “downtrodden” was NOT a “personal” one (i.e., as a result of his upbringing, childhood, etc.), but one that he took up as an adult.  And while it is certainly a good and noble choice to have made, it is a significantly different - and not nearly as “direct” - “connection” than one created as a result of an “emotional” bond created during one’s upbringing.


Report this

By bert, March 16, 2008 at 10:52 am Link to this comment

Leefeller:  The hard and unconfortable truths I have no problem with and do not necessarily disagree with. I have seldom disclosed my belief system amd beliefs and philosophies on issues talked about here. I am not thinking about just me and my beliefs, nor am I thinking of just the here and now.

I am looking long term - to Nov. 2008. I am thinking of how this will play with most of the electorate who are often not as forgiving and are quick to make assumptions and jump to wrong conclussions.

I have said many times on this blog that I want to win in Nov. All of my comments should be taken in that light.

How will this play on Main Street America? Not well I fear, especially as magnified in the huge and loud and well financed mega microphone of the Republican smear machine and 527 swifters.

Report this

By Maani, March 16, 2008 at 10:29 am Link to this comment


“Wasting time to explain the already explained is something you feel the need to do, so that you can do your normal ignoring is not in the cards for me. Obama has exhausted and explained every one or your so called lies, he has cleared the air, except, in your stuffy little closet world…”

This is a standard tactic of the fact-challenged, one that you have engaged in repeatedly and consistently: CLAIM that the facts are there and that others simply haven’t seen then, but make NO attempt to ever PROVIDE any of these claimed facts.

My “stuffy little closet world” is so far broader than yours that it is truly laughable.  I do more research than almost anyone else here, and I actually PROVIDE most, if not all, of that research.  And my research is not “prejudiced” by my support for Hillary: typing “Obama” and “Wright” or “Obama” and “Rezko” into Google is not “prejudiced,” any more than it would be if you typed “Hillary” and “lobbyist” or “Hillary” and “Ferraro” or anything else.

And what Google provides is not “prejudiced” either; search engines indiscriminately provide any and every reference containing the two or three key words one chooses.

In this regard, I have found ZERO evidence to support your claim that “Obama has exhausted and explained every one or your so called lies” - BECAUSE I HAVE ACTUALLY LOOKED FOR IT.

Re the lie he told during the debate, his initial comment two days later was: “He was somebody who I knew and had been a supporter for many years…I also purchased a piece of land from him…Nobody had an inkling that he was involved in any problems.”

Note that simply making this comment proved that his comment during the debate was a lie - or at VERY LEAST obfuscation and dissembling: to refer to Rezko as “that man” - when Obama had known him closely for almost two decades - was CLEARLY dissembling.  As well, the last part of his initial comment (re “problems”) is also a lie.  See:

As for NAFTA/Canada and Wright, the “explanations” he HAS given certainly read at very least like the same type of obfuscation, dissembling and spin that Hillary is so often accused of, if not like outright lies.

Of all the posters here, you are by far the weakest.  At least Cyrena, Louise, CY and some others actually take the time to provide SOME (and sometimes alot of) evidence in support of their positions.  I have RARELY if ever seen you do the same.  Instead, you continue to hide behind CLAIMS that “it is there.”

Try learning how to engage in REAL discussion and debate instead of simply engaging in ad hominem attack and denigration of others.


Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 16, 2008 at 10:21 am Link to this comment

You should know that when I heard Write, I found his sermon to be dynamics of uncomfortable truth. I did not see hate, instead punishingly hard truth. 

Accepting real truth is very hard to accept indeed. Judging others by your own standards can be a real handicap. 

So, do not vote for Obama, I feel he is more real than we imagine, his direct connection to the downtrodden connects him with the classic failings of your rosy glasses America.  A feet of clay America. Brought to us by Washington politics.

Now, I would never say “God Damn America”, because I do not believe in god.

Report this

By bert, March 16, 2008 at 10:04 am Link to this comment

In your response to Maani’s post you state:   

“For example, you’re certain that there’s no way that Barack could have NOT ‘been aware’ of every single word that’s ever come out of Rev Wright’s mouth over the past 20 years.”

Maani did not say that. Neither do I. I am not holding Obama accountable for anything some one else said.  No, I hold him responsible FOR CONTINUING TO ATTEND AND FINACIALLY SUPPORT THIS CHURCH FOR 20 YEARS.

The thing that makes your argument weak Cryena is this: You aren’t running for president. I’m not running for president. I haven’t been running around the country sanctimoniously portraying myself as above the fray, even as a sort of quasi-messiah.

Obama has placed himself on such a high pedestal, and is so self-righteous about his superior “judgment”, and his political cleanliness and in his finger-pointing at opponents, and so deft at deflecting any examination and/or censure, that it only made this revelations much worse than it needed to be.

And, no, I do not believe him when he says he never heard these types of statements from his pastor, spiritual mentor/advisor, and friend. After all, he attended there 20 years…not 20 minutes.

I’m sorry, but it doesn’t matter if I’m black white or purple. If I was sitting in church and heard my pastor say “God Damn America,” I would find somewhere else to be next Sunday, and I CERTAINLY wouldn’t continue to expose children to this message.

This is our COUNTRY that we are considering putting in the hands of a man who sits through this kind of rhetoric for 20 years and says nothing until it’s on TV. The fact that he was a member of this pastor’s church for 20 YEARS — a completely voluntary association and Mr. Obama’s CHOICE — says a lot.

Even of I take Sen. Obama at his word, a Presidential candidate incapable of observing the dynamics of hate being spewed forth from his own church should be described as clueless.

Old proverb –
“Who keeps company with wolves will learn to howl”

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 16, 2008 at 9:40 am Link to this comment


Always wanted to write in all caps.

Maybe we the stupid groups, find the uncomfortable truth of Olberman refreshing, we have no control over our fate, for our government is controlled by the wealthy elite, seems most people do not want to believe this.

Report this

By bert, March 16, 2008 at 9:10 am Link to this comment

I have been thinking the same thing. Obama’s supporter’s didn’t care one iota if THEY were tearing apart the Democratic Party by calling Hillary and hre supporters racist and a whole host of other things. But now….now with the shoe on the other foot, and when it looks like the candidate they support might go up in flames….well now all of a sudden we better unite and be careful what we say becasue we have to think about Nov.

Yes, some of us were saying that all along, but all Mike Mid City would respond with is she voted for an immoral war. Talk about your blinders.

Now…........NOW I finally understand Obama’s message of hope. He and his supporters were hoping that Americans would not discover Obama’s true nature.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 16, 2008 at 9:01 am Link to this comment


Addressing your lie comments here.  You have a perchance to spend your time muckraking and seem to enjoy it with the vive of a fanatic,  every issue you have been harping on about Obama, of which you have termed lies, has been explained and re-explained ad nausea,  on other websites, why do you not get the fact that some of us may be more enlightened than you may know or want to know, yours is a simpleton tactic, one Hillary uses in the same way.  Wasting time to explain the already explained is something you feel the need to do, so that you can do your normal ignoring is not in the cards for me. 

Obama has exhausted and explained every one or your so called lies, he has cleared the air, except,  in your stuffy little closet world, were the same stale air permeates beyond reality, this negative fantasy world of Washington Hilary’s. 

My feelings toward Hillary are negative, but more for the huge bag of garbage she brings to the table and the simple fact I would prefer not to see more of this garbage again heaped in our Whitehouse.  Hillary offers old Washington politics, Obama offers a slight change, and I must say a refreshing change at that. 

Talking to many people who feel as I do about Hillary, some of them will hold their noises and vote for McCain, but I will either not vote at all or vote for Hillary.  Let’s face it, in the long run their will be little change.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, March 16, 2008 at 8:57 am Link to this comment

Peace, brother…... or just go back wherever you acme from, uhh!

Report this

By bert, March 16, 2008 at 8:54 am Link to this comment

To Douglas C. again.


Report this

By bert, March 16, 2008 at 8:53 am Link to this comment

Thanks for the good advice and background. Now I will have to try and control myself. Always difficult thing for me, especially when I feel strongly about something. Blessings.  smile

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, March 16, 2008 at 8:49 am Link to this comment

See what I mean, uhh…....

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 16, 2008 at 8:24 am Link to this comment

Brutal truth the real truth, has always been ignored, is being ignored and will continue being ignored,  our selected choices will not prove different, for the elite will make sure of protecting their interests.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 16, 2008 at 8:15 am Link to this comment

Very interesting Doug, you are like a serial insulter who wants to get caught, but unable to change.

If everyone agreed with you even more than the 5 percent of time that I do,  this would be a boring world.

Maybe you do not want to get caught, and this post is about Maani? Of course not, it must be someone who does not worship Washington Hillary, wonder who that would be?

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, March 16, 2008 at 7:34 am Link to this comment

By bert, March 15: “Have You Gone Mental Cyrena? Don’t patronize Hillary supporters or denigrate our intelligence. That statement is psychological projection and nothing more…”

There are a couple or three people blogging here regularly who have “issues”, bert. There’s no use getting heated with them. For one reason or another, they are unable to change…...

Apart from that, Truthdig has made little effort to control persistent “internet trolls”. Some even cut + paste the same drivel over and over. It was much worse a year ago, though, uhh.

Report this

By kevin99999, March 16, 2008 at 7:30 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Oberman and the bloggers on site like HuffPost are sounding more and more like deranged lunatics. Given Clintons’ record on black issues race relations, it is only utterly unfair, which I have come to expect from these studpid groups of which Obernam is fast becoming part, perhaps because of his emerging Napoleonic complex, but intellectually dishonest.

Report this

By cyrena, March 16, 2008 at 7:17 am Link to this comment

An excellent piece from Robert Parry speaks to my own, (and I realize many others’) concerns. These connections are very ominous, and there is no way to ignore this very precarious set of circumstances unless one insists on embracing denial.

  Suddenly, a Dangerous Turn
  By Robert Parry
  Consortium News
  Friday 14 March 2008

  “Two seemingly disconnected events have created a suddenly dangerous turn regarding the future of US wars in the Middle East.

  One was the abrupt resignation of the person who has been the biggest obstacle to a U.S. military strike against Iran, Admiral William Fallon, the chief of Central Command which oversees U.S. military operations in the volatile region.

  The second is the ugly direction that the Democratic presidential competition has taken, with Hillary Clinton’s campaign intensifying its harsh rhetoric against Barack Obama, reducing the likelihood that he can win the presidency - and thus raising the odds that the next president will be either John McCain or Sen. Clinton, both hawks on Iran.

  Throughout the campaign, Clinton has mocked Obama as inexperienced for his desire to engage in presidential-level diplomacy with Iran and other adversarial states. And she recently judged him as unqualified to serve as Commander in Chief, while declaring that both she and Sen. McCain have crossed that “threshold.”

  The cumulative effect of Clinton’s attacks on Obama’s qualifications - combined with her campaign’s efforts to turn many white voters against him as the “black candidate” - has buoyed Republican hopes for November.

  By simultaneously marginalizing and dirtying up Obama, the Clinton campaign also has tamped down the excitement of many Democrats, especially the young, for a candidate that they see as offering a refreshing message of hope and change.”

More from the same article:

  Into the Abyss

  “ If followed to its logical - yet crazed - conclusion, the madness also might be leading the United States into the ever deepening abyss of Middle East wars.

  After all, both McCain and Clinton were staunch supporters of the Iraq War, now nearing its fifth anniversary with no end in sight.

  McCain remains an Iraq War advocate, even he says if the U.S. occupation must last a century or more. Clinton only reversed herself on the war as she prepared to run for the Democratic nomination, realigning herself with the anti-war views of most Democrats, but she refused to admit that her 2002 war-authorization vote was a mistake.

  Both McCain and Clinton also favor a hard line toward Iran.”

Link for entire piece is below

The reminder here..from my point of view. Clinton is now, and always has been a war hawk, at least in reference to the wars of plunder and aggression in the Middle East.

Reminder..McCain has ALWAYS been this hawk, and we know that.

Reminder..Hillary Clinton has ONLY “appeared” to change her position, (re Iraq ONLY) since she initiated her presidential bid.

Those are just reminders.

Personally speaking, I have NEVER believed in her alleged change of positions, even on Iraq. For the Corporatist Clinton, the US military will remain in the Middle East as long as there are resources to be plundered, and hegemony to enforce.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, March 16, 2008 at 7:16 am Link to this comment

“You all have a scary ability to ignore facts…... your inability to provide support for your retorts, but only to engage in ad hominem attacks…”

Ha ha, Maani, the Democrats Party is now realized to be in danger of failure and subsequent disintegration as a result of The Ring and Obama supporters wildly opposing anyone in their own party who doesn’t align with them.

They then so pretentiously assume that Hillary supporters are not aware of that. Of course, in their own minds, only they could ever know, uhh…....

Report this

By Expat, March 16, 2008 at 7:14 am Link to this comment

^ Yup!

Report this

By Expat, March 16, 2008 at 7:10 am Link to this comment

^ a disqualification for a presidential candidate.  Having watched Obama disavow (flame/with a wink I’m sure) a twenty year relationship with his pastor who sometimes says the brutal truth; he has shown himself to be of the same cloth as Hillary.  Re: my previous post; this is why I say the dems are in a controlled demolition.  McCain doesn’t have to do anything but just sit back and watch the stupid dems blow each other to hell.  Of course you’re right, but these things can’t be said publicly……, shhhhhhhhhh.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, March 16, 2008 at 7:06 am Link to this comment

“In defense of the charge that we are racist, we have discovered an excellent way to introduce racism into the campaign without sounding racist.”

Obama compared (Reverend) Wright to an “old uncle” who said disagreeable things. He went on to add: “I suspect there are some of the people in this room who have heard relatives say some things that they don’t agree with, including, on occasion, directed at African Americans.”

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, March 16, 2008 at 6:59 am Link to this comment

“It is not in the stars to hold our destiny, but in ourselves….” and what the USA as a nation has destined for itself was utterly predictable quite a long time back, uhh. Astrologer Richard Nolle at and click “Futures” then scroll down to “Long range forcasts 2007” and read the first half….... don’t forget to read 2008 while you’re at it:-

Quote Richard Nolle’s 2007 forecast: “The arc of civilization has turned, humanity has altered course: it has begun. The changes in momentum and direction are relatively subtle and small at first, just as they were at this point in the similar cycle in the year 536. But they’ll accelerate with each passing moment of 2007…... This is no mere blip in the signal: it’s a turning point in civilization. The American Century is past….....

At its most fundamental level, it’s an alignment that points to a time when people, both individually and collectively, are experiencing a crisis of confidence. What was once apparently so solid and real that you could build a life, a financial system, a global trade network, even a civilization on it: that’s just what has been dissolving under the aegis of Saturn’s opposition to Neptune in combination with the T-square from Jupiter…..

The nub of it is that the credibility of the social, political, economic and cultural edifice that underpins the dominant civilization of this planet is going Cheshire cat on us: disappearing in fits and starts before our eyes…... this isn’t some 1929-style crash. It’s a new kind of crash, a settling of the soufflé that takes years.) Think “how the mighty hath fallen”......

Jupiter-Uranus squares herald a point in time when an original intellectual/cultural impulse (an idea, whether individual or collective) comes to a point where significant revisions are necessary to keep it alive. Sometimes this entails a scheme that’s too clever by half starting to go off the tracks…......

......the euro is essentially dollar-backed itself; and the dollar is only a shadow of its former stature. Which makes the world financial system a house of cards - and that’s just the kind of structure that’s critically vulnerable under the aegis of a Saturn-Neptune opposition coupled with a Jupiter-Uranus square. That’s 2007 in a nutshell…”

Report this

By Maani, March 16, 2008 at 6:44 am Link to this comment

Cyrena, Leefeller, MMC et al:

In all your bluster and continued name-calling, what you DON’T say is even more revealing than what you do.

You address ONLY my comments about Wright - but do NOT address the other three lies I mention.  Indeed, to this day, despite my bringing it up at least a dozen times or more, not ONE of you has addressed the most outrageous and blatant of these lies - the one Obama told in front of a television audience of over 10 million people.  And you have not addressed it because there is NOTHING you can say: you all know VERY well what he said (the transcript is available on line), and also what was actually true at the time he said it.

You also have not addressed the Canada/NAFTA lie, because, again, there is NOTHING you can say, since his comments and the dates on which he made them are easily found, and clearly show that his first comment was a lie.

You also have not addressed the lies about how much money he received from Rezko (either personally or bundled) because, AGAIN, there is NOTHING you can say, because AGAIN the statements he made, and the dates of them, are easily found, and show that he has told ONGOING lies about the amounts.

As for Cyrena’s comments to me re black churches, or churches in general, they would be amusing if they were not so hopelessly arrogant, condescending and presumptive.  I HAVE attended black churches (I gave my first sermon in a black church in Nashville), including black “mega-churches.”  I know how they operate, I know that not every member attends every service, and that more than one pastor may be leading services.

Yet even given this, the idea that Obama and Wright did not “cross paths” both in church and otherwise MANY times within a 20-YEAR PERIOD flies in the face of logic and common sense.  And, again, since Wright was, if nothing else, Obama’s “spiritual advisor” for all that time, if Obama WAS unaware of Wright’s comments and beliefs, then it does not say much for Obama’s intelligence or perception.  And if he DID know of Wright’s comments and beliefs - which I maintain is the case - then it does not say much for his vaunted judgment.

You all have a scary ability to ignore facts. Sadly, this does not surprise some of us here (and yes, I am speaking for more than myself, since others have made that comment), since it is of a piece with your inability to provide support for your retorts, but only to engage in ad hominem attacks and name-calling.


Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, March 16, 2008 at 6:34 am Link to this comment

A “reasonable mind” never holds fear, Expat. Frightening as things may seem, it is merely the potential for negativity. There is still time to change although for the lemmings that might not be possible. But, as you say, things are not headed in any redemptive direction. On and on, back and forth, the dream team that once could have been now merely rearranges the deckchairs on their last voyage…....

The Demolition Party once known as the Democrats has gone full circle from Bill clinton’s over-reaching and over-weaning outbursts to a point where Michelle Obama may also be cordoned off from the media and further public comments to justify BO’s pathetic denunciations of anything and anyone “...that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies….”.

But, while all this slice and dice is detracting from real domestic issues, John McCain has avoided the stale air and has gone on to the ultimate avoidance of reality in “assessing” the fake war in Iraq. And, as the ultimate fake war hero, it has now become   his   very own war, uhh. Thus he is preparing for the big sideshow to distract voters when the reality of the economic recession hits - just in time for the election!

Report this

By cyrena, March 16, 2008 at 6:19 am Link to this comment

“Have You Gone Mental Cyrena?”

Well, bert, let’s have a look at the first four sentences of your post, to answer your question regarding mentality. I haven’t changed a single thing, other than to isolate each sentence in order to attempt to answer your question.

•  “You cannot really believe that there has been voter fraud in this election.”

My answer: Yes. I do believe there is the POSSIBILITY of voter fraud in the campaign, which is why I posted the information from the web sites that I did. It is up to the reader to determine how they choose to interpret this information.

•  “ I have heard of crazy things going on at cauceses from BOTH sides.”

My response: The information that I posted referenced ‘crazy things’ in the efforts of the Clinton camp. If there are other INCIDENTS, (affecting any other candidate) I’ve not been made aware of them. The information I posted regarded incidents involving the Clinton campaign. Period. There is nothing on the site (the ‘vote fraud’ section of the site, that has indicated any similar incidents from any other campaign. Just the Clinton campaign. It is specific to the contests held between Mar 4th and Mar 7th.

•  “But om promaries you cannot believe this crap.”

My response: Bert, for the past decade at least, there are lots of politically related incidents that I might not have previously ‘believed’. I WILL however, ‘believe’ something, if and WHEN it has been researched and investigated to provide the truth of the circumstances. So yes. If and when something can be proved or otherwise verified, (including the previously ‘unbelievable’ ) I will accept the knowledge as such. I’ve mentioned before that my ideology is reality based. Facts first….even if they happen to be distasteful.

•  “The Conneticut fraud charge by Kuchnich has been proven false.”

Despite the so far 5 misspelled words in these 4 sentences, I was able to make out what you were trying to say.

HOWEVER, there has NOT been, (to my knowledge at least) any fraud changes made by Dennis Kucinich in reference to CONNECTICUT! As far as I am personally aware, the only state result challenged by Dennis Kucinich was the New Hampshire Primary.

So bert..Have you gone mental, or have you ALWAYS been mental, or maybe just a few too many cocktails on a Saturday night?

Happens to the best of us bert. So, I wouldn’t feel too badly if I were you, about all of these mistakes. I mean, it’s just a blog.

On the other hand, I’ve learned over the years that it’s generally not a good practice to level accusations at someone about anything, when one is engaged in the same behavior or activity that reeks of that very accusation.

So, no. I don’t think I’ve ‘gone mental’ but then, who’s to say? I HAVE been overworking my brain the past several days. Lots of academic work going on. I expect a break soon, and then maybe I can afford to ‘go mental’ for a while.

But, don’t let that stop YOU from going just as mental as you wanna go!

Report this

By jackpine savage, March 16, 2008 at 6:14 am Link to this comment

You said it, man.

And while the petty bickering over the costume designs for the blood and circuses rages on unabated, the real issues that will bring us down go unnoticed.

The racists, commies, feminazis, bigots, et al will be united in the lines to try and draw their worthless savings from failed banks.  They’ll all need the same sized wheel barrow to pile their worthless bits of green paper in for the purchase of a loaf of bread.

Me of reasonable mind has been very afraid for a long time.  I’m only sustained by historical curiosity.  In the mid-nineties i told anyone who would listen that my lifetime would see the fall of the United States…i always hoped that i was wrong, but it sure looks like i wasn’t.

Report this

By cyrena, March 16, 2008 at 5:33 am Link to this comment

Excellent post!!

As much as it pains me, this is the truth. Like so much else, the feminist movement (if it can be called that, and I’m not sure that it can or even should be) has gone backwards.

In the larger picture however, so has democracy itself.

Report this

By reason, March 16, 2008 at 4:45 am Link to this comment

Manni, You without a doubt, are a “Numb Scull”.......... I am sorry to be so blunt but apparently nothing else will register with you.

Report this

By Expat, March 16, 2008 at 3:42 am Link to this comment

^ I just went through and reread 90% of the posts here and I think it’s pretty interesting, but, also frightening.  This comment is directed at the Clinton and Obama campaigns, not the posters here.  The posts are very good and even mostly civil; but, big but, it’s also a 72 hour history lesson.  It is now apparent no human now living could possibly be president except John McCain.  Once again, with almost no help from the republicans, the democrats are looking like a bunch of crazies whose friends are all commie, racist, bigoted, femonazi, un-American, soft on terror, assholes.  The dems are looking like a controlled demolition; the structure is falling in very slow motion.  By the time this process is over it will be DOA.  We of reasonable mind should be afraid, very afraid.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 16, 2008 at 3:17 am Link to this comment

Great post, sometimes we need to see behind the curtain.

Report this
Purple Girl's avatar

By Purple Girl, March 16, 2008 at 2:59 am Link to this comment

As a Life long Dem - who’s first Pres. Election was ‘84. I was a major supporter of the Mondale/Ferraro ticket - mostly because of Her - also a Feminist.I was thrilled tath a woman would be considered for 2nd in command.
But I knew really nothing about her. When the investigations into her husbands dealings began fill the news- I thought SExism is still alive & well. The Ticket failed and we were stuck with Ronny &HW;for another 4 yrs.WE had been Robbed of our chance.
I held that belief until last week, when Ger decide to crawl out from under the rock she’d been under and begin talking again. Hindsight is now 20/20.We were stuck with Ronny ,then HW thanks to th ecrappy ticket put up in ‘84. And I hold the fact that Ger was on it as a major reason why.I must give my Republican Mother the respect for knowing the difference between Feminsim and Equal Rights- Geraldine was a Token, not a qualified candiate.
I have come to resent the ‘Feminist Movement’ of late- as blind & ignorant as I when I was 21. Hillary,Geraldine adn NOW have proven they are not defenders of Equal Rights for ALL, but Chicks with Chips on their shoulders seeking retribution, regardless of the consequences. Hillary is not even honorable enough to be considered a Republican, or a Neo Con. She is in the same Party as Cheney,W. and Mac- A Corporationist.
As woman we wanted a equal shot toprove ourselves- not be given Token status. We wanted to prove we had what it took to do the job- not jus tbump a male out.
Reverse sexism is still Sexism. And Favoring gender over Race is still Racism.
I’m disgusted and Appaulded by the ‘Good Ol’ Boy’ tactics used by Hillary’s campaign (the buck stops with her)as much as I have been disgusted and Appaulded by her consistent compliance with the wishes of this Administration.
Regrettably - during th e7 yrs I lived in CA- I also voted for Feinstein- another example of Blind Allegience.Thank Goodness I wasn’t there to take responsiblity for Pelosi- but none the less feel Betrayed and embarassed fro the Unqualified representation by these ‘Feminist’ Tokens. They ahve proven them selves to be nothing more than agreeable 50’s housewives. they might as well all been barefoot & Pregnant in the kitchen- our country would have been better off. they have not jus tcaved for this admin- they have cleaned and Paved the way for their men. thanks alot you have undermined the women of this country’s future. Now should a real female contender come up - it will appear as though we are only supporting her becasue she has a vagina, not the abilities.

Report this

By bert, March 15, 2008 at 10:27 pm Link to this comment

You cannot really believe that there has been voter fraud in this election. I have heard of crazy things going on at cauceses from BOTH sides. But om promaries you cannot believe this crap. The Conneticut fraud charge by Kuchnich has been proven false. (And before you think I hate Kuchnich, I do not. I know him amd lobbied him for years in Ohio. He is a wonderful man.)And I do not believe your two sources from You Tube unless they can provide documentation of their charges. Other wise rhey are just red herrings and ad hominium attacks.

You write:  “Of course that’s true, and I’m not at all certain that Hillary supporters are aware of that.”

Don’t patronize Hillary supporters or denigrate our intelligence. That statement is psychological projection and nothing more.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 15, 2008 at 9:34 pm Link to this comment

It is a simple fact for me that I prefer to see Obama in the Whitehouse rather than Washington Hillary,  my simple preference, may be purely selfish, especially to some of the Hillary supporter’s. It is simple, I just do not want to see any more of the yesterday Washington politics, status quo the Clinton manginess and divisive crap going on in our government, I find it is getting old. .  Hillary has paid her dues,, this inane elite antiquated pecking system of paid dues, offered by status quo Clinton’s does not sell me on anything except on her self feeling of entitlement.

Obama has some dues to pay, but I know without a doubt he does not have the sinking garbage scow of baggage the Clinton’s have.

Hillary’s vast experience an argument that implodes when you use use the married to the an ex-president line, this is not experience in any way shape or form, if that was true,  maybe we should be voting for Lara Bush. this nitwit cogent argument with its angle of preferred ignorance, dangles no carrot in front of my noise, it is nothing but an empty argument.

My dislike for Hillary has nothing to do with her sex or gender, though some Hillary supporter’s love to tout that is so. Hillary is divisive and non polarizing, to even suggest Hillary has an ounce of compassion or integrity is insane.  Obama, does not carry divisiveness on his shirt sleeves like Hillary. 

As for the war, Hillary really blew it on that one, others have touched on her lack of forethought and decision making, so I will not got there.

For the Hillary minions, the main reason I will not vote for Washington Hillary, she is faux pas and, I just cannot plain stand her. If she was a man, if she was a dyke, if she was a guy and gay, if she was a donkey, if she was a Methodist,  it just does not matter, I cannot stand her. If she was anything but Hillary, I might consider thinking about it.

Report this

By cyrena, March 15, 2008 at 9:07 pm Link to this comment

Louise, this ties in with that other most important comment..

” Underlining “supporters” who are doing more damage than they can even begin to realize. If we don’t get a handle on it the only thing that will come out of the next general election is a president McCain!..”

You mentioned the man who leaned forward and said…

“This is hurting the Democratic Party.”

Of course that’s true, and I’m not at all certain that Hillary supporters are aware of that.

And then there’s this, which seems to be becoming a trend. From the looks of things, some of the most dangerous supporters are appearing to be far more professional’ than just a bunch of folks hyped up on media inspired racism.

Check out this video. It’s troubling.

March 15, 2008
Hillary Clinton Poll Loading Cheaters
Votenicâ catches poll loading cheaters red-handed.

The early incidents of the same are at this site:

This is very scary, because of the literal TRAUMA
Americans have suffered as a result of the stolen election of 2000.

Bottom line, WHOMEVER wins this nomination, and the general election, Americans need to be certain -in our own minds- that it was not yet ANOTHER stolen/manipulated vote count election!!

I’m serious. We can’t take another hit like that. And, these incidents are becoming far too familiar.

So in reality, as much damage as all of this race talk stuff is doing, it could be more than just the ‘race’ issue to throw the thing into an unstoppable spin, if the Hillary camp is going to do the dirty deeds with the fraudulent vote counts the same way Bush did in Florida!

I think it goes without saying that we were SO traumatized by 2000 and Diebold, that so many states, and for so many months, have gone through countless and very exhausting measures to make sure that doesn’t happen the degree of double and triple checking and certifying these machines, or even going back to the old paper trail ballot.

Still, there was caucus glitch with the presumably forged or fake names in the same handwriting. Hillary.

So, yeah…it’s important to get a handle on the damage from the media, but if we’re gonna have to worry about fraud at the voting booth as well, what the hell is gonna happen to us?

Sure this is all bad for the Democratic Party, but I’m starting to be convinced that HILLARY is bad for the Democratic Party!!

Aside from the health care thing, which we know the repugs want no parts of, I don’t see any difference. Maybe we wouldn’t be subjected to a theocracy in place of what used to be a democracy. But, that’s it.

I don’t see any difference on a single thing else, INCLUDING the war. She’s not gonna give up those bucks that the military complex depends on, no matter how many of us are homeless and hungry.

She’s DEFINITELY not gonna do anything else that could hurt the corporate bottom line, and that includes the trade thing as well.

And no, I’ve not ever suggested that Hillary herself is a racist either. I DO believe that many of her supporters are motivated by racism however, in that they are more engaged in ‘defeating’ Obama than they necessarily are in ‘supporting’ her.

Still, while she herself may not be a racist, and I certainly never thought that her husband was, they DO want to win at any and all costs! For the moment, I just don’t see Hillary as a win for the democratic party OR our country.

And, that scares me.

If she gets it by cheating, and it’s obvious that she has, that scares me even more. That would be the same as handing it to McCain as well.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 15, 2008 at 9:05 pm Link to this comment

Responding to Maani is a waste of time. He twist the truth, takes it out of context and than says what he wants. 

Thanks Cyerna for following up on Maani’s, selective memory.  He must be on the Hillary payroll, I find his information twisted beyond reality.  This is what the Clintons do quite well.

Report this

By Louise, March 15, 2008 at 7:33 pm Link to this comment

bert, cyrena, et all;

I apologize for saying Hillary said thank you to Olbermann. I meant that figuratively and should have put it in quotes. Her “repudiation and apology” followed directly on the heels of Olbermanns “special comment” calling on her to “repudiate and apologize.” So figuratively she was acknowledging and saying [thank you.] Face it, she did need direction and she certainly wasn’t getting it from her staff!

Olbermann attacked the “tone deaf’’ and “arrogant’’ advisers of the Clinton campaign. [And that I agree with. She needs to tell her advisers to get lost and just be herself.] And he called on Clinton to “reject and denounce Geraldine Ferraro.” Which she did.

Prior to that night, as Olbermann pointed out, Clinton had “missed a critical opportunity to do what was right,” and her response to the Ferraro “because he is black” analysis was “tepid.”

I guess I made a leap of faith, because this racist crap has got to stop! My goof. I should have made that clear, or at least put the “thank you” in quotation marks!

I think the important thing we all need to focus on is moving beyond this, because as Olbermann pointed out:

“They [her misguided advisors] are killing your chances of becoming president ... (while) slowly killing the chances for any Democrat to become president ...”

I think that’s the bottom line. People who want to keep elevating the “value” of this “racist” incident are people who cant wait to start on whichever one of these candidates wins the nomination!

I also don’t believe when Hillary repudiated and apologized it was just to blacks voters.

That was the Headline on the article reporting Her comments, which really points out almost everything that feeds into political frenzy initiates with mainstreammedia. [You’d think we’d know better by now]

She spoke to a group of black publishers, but I’m sure that meeting was scheduled long before the blowup coming on the heels of Ferraro’s blunder.

I don’t believe Ferraro is a racist, anymore than I believe Hillary is a racist. I think Ferraro thinks speaking frankly about race is seen as realistic. It’s the WAY she did it that got her in trouble. She cant understand why she should apologize, because she really does not understand racial issues. That’s not prejudice, that’s ignorance.

The “repudiation and apology” can be found on FOX and CNN and probably the others, I haven’t looked.


“WASHINGTON — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton did something Wednesday night that she almost never does. She apologized. And once she started, she didn’t seem able to stop.”

“Once one of us has the nomination there will be a great effort to unify the Democratic party and we will do so, because, remember I have a lot of supporters who have voted for me in very large numbers and I would expect them to support Senator Obama if he were the nominee,” she said.”

[Yes, she DID say that]

“Of Ferraro’s comment, Hillary Clinton told her audience: “I certainly do repudiate it and I regret deeply that it was said. Obviously she doesn’t speak for the campaign, she doesn’t speak for any of my positions, and she has resigned from being a member of my very large finance committee.”


Even in the midst of her heartfelt repudiation and apology, she just couldn’t resist getting out that “very large” comment. Made me chuckle.

Anyhow, last night while waiting for NOW to start I caught the tail-end of a group of pundits “pundificating” over the fall-out from this racial dust-up. The Obama side gloated about how it was hurting Hillary and the Hillary side gloated about how it was hurting Obama and I’m thinking how much pundit “pundificating” is hurting everybody, when this quiet man sitting in the corner leans forward and says, “This is hurting the Democratic Party. Perhaps more than either candidate can afford right now.” And then he sat back, while everyone else fell silent. It was a nice way for that program to end.

Report this

By Louise, March 15, 2008 at 7:03 pm Link to this comment

PatrickHenry, March 15 at 10:00 am

I could give a shit what Ferraro or Wright has to say, they’re inconsequential.  Its the media driven bullshit that makes these losers words divisive.


Amen to that!


bert, March 15 at 12:26 pm

Re: The List

Thanks for posting that list. I’m kinda proud of my folks who saw the light when everyone else was studying the burned out bulb in Bushes brain.


Gomerspile, March 15 at 12:20 pm

Re: Lets giggle a little

Gomer! I had no idea you could make me chuckle!
Been hiding that talent under a bush?

Maybe you WOULD recognize a bucketful of information!

Speaking of smelly people, sometimes when I’m weary of watching the candidates pace back and forth I wonder if that isn’t to keep the gas moving. After all, it can’t be easy eating and sleeping and speechifying on the run, day and night, like they do.


bert,  Douglas Chalmers

The words “black” ...  “a black kettle” (or pot) ... “African” ... etc. don’t bother me at all. Duh, words. You guys are a hoot!

I repeat, seems to me Hillary supporters should thank Olbermann. Unless of course you fall into that group of so-called Hillary supporters who see this as a negative opportunity:

“In defense of the charge that we are racist, we have discovered an excellent way to introduce racism into the campaign without sounding racist.” smile

Underlining “supporters” who are doing more damage than they can even begin to realize. If we don’t get a handle on it the only thing that will come out of the next general election is a president McCain!

Report this

By cyrena, March 15, 2008 at 6:11 pm Link to this comment


I know for a fact that we can count the count on all of the ‘lies’.

The only thing is this…

Your math (is it 3, 4, or 5 lies now?) is dependent upon what YOU call a ‘lie’, since we are supposed to go by how you record it in ‘your book’.

Now, being a Hillary supporter, we don’t know which set of ‘books’ you might be working from, when you calculate the lies.

For example, you’re certain that there’s no way that Barack could have NOT ‘been aware’ of every single word that’s ever come out of Rev Wright’s mouth over the past 20 years.

Well Maani, in all honesty, I can’t remember a single solitary word of the last sermon I heard from ANY pastor. Sometimes folks just don’t pay attention when preachers talk. Just like some folks don’t pay attention to YOU!! People fall asleep in church. Their minds wander. (although admittedly, that seems like it would be kind of difficult with the Rev Wright, since he’s pretty dynamic).

Still, are you suggesting that in the past 20 years, Wright has never missed a single Sunday sermon, and neither has Obama?

Maani, are you even a tiny bit familiar with the types of churches that typically service mostly black congregations? I suspect that you don’t have clue.

I’ll give you a few. It’s a huge congregation. (at least in my book). I’ve read 6,000 members and I’ve read 12,000. Anything over 500 is huge to me.

Now I also don’t know if you’re aware of the fact that large congregations have a tendency to have more than ONE cleric on the church staff. Sometimes as many as 4, 5 or 6 pastors. There’s generally a senior dude, (like Wright would be) and then they’ve got assorted others.

I also don’t know if you’re aware that these churches almost ALWAYS have more than one service on Sundays. The larger ones may have as many as 4. 2 or 3 in the morning, and another one in the evening.

So, when you’re setting up your books there, to keep track of how many sermons Barack has attended over the past 20 years, you’ll need to factor these things in:

What was the actual day and time of the service that Barack attended. (past 20 years now). THEN, was Wright the pastor that delivered the sermon. Then, what was the CONTENT of the sermon. (Now Barak might not remember back 20 years, but I’m sure you can use your ace interrogation skills to remind him).

When you get all of that assembled..the sermon, the time, and confirmation that Obama was in attendance, THEN we’ll give Barack a lie detector test, to see what he remembers. (or put him under hypnosis or something)

Once we’ve figured out how many times he’s lied, then we’ll put him on punishment. For each lie he’s told regarding not remembering what Wright said…we’ll put him on a countable punishment regime. For every time that he said he didn’t remember, or was unaware, and you found out that he really DID remember, then for EACH time, he’s gonna have to MISS sUNDAY WORSHIP/CHURCH SERVICE!! 

Yes. I know it seems harsh, but he’ll just have to stay home, or go play pool, or hang out at the barber shop or something, and THAT will teach him to pay more attention when the Pastor is delivering his sermons. He should have known 20 years ago to be paying close attention, because he should have known then, that he was gonna run for President, and that YOU were gonna grill him about what the Pastor had said. So, it’s all his fault Maani, and he’s just gonna have to take the punishment.

And, he REALLY screwed up by failing to take MY advice, because I told him a long time ago, that he’d get a whole lot more votes if he just told the electorate that he was an ATHEIST!! I know a whole bunch of folks that would vote for him based on that alone.

Then we wouldn’t be having to jack around with all of this BS.

Ok..get to your research. Let us know when to set up the lie-detector exam.

Report this

By Maani, March 15, 2008 at 5:10 pm Link to this comment


“Obama has lied and Obfuscated, be more specific please, because the lies from the Hillary side are so far ahead of Obama, he has one hell of a lot of catching up to do in order to pass the garbage scow of excess baggage the Clintons throw at the world.”

You know very well that I do not believe that Hillary has not lied, quite a bit.  But I did not bring it up in “tit for tat” fashion: I brought it up because the majority of Obama’s supporters, both here and those I have spoken with (and yes, Cyrena, I have spoken with MANY, at LEAST dozens, here on the streets of NYC), seem to believe that Obama IS an “angel” - or, at very least, that he is not guilty of the selfsame things of which he accuses Hillary.

Obama has lied.  The first one I caught was his statement during the South Carolina debate that his “only” connection to Rezko was “5 hours” as a “junior attorney” on a “single case.”  He made that statement to an audience of over 10 million people DESPITE the fact that he had (i) worked closely with Rezko for at least five months on the purchase of contiguous real estate lots, (ii) had taken campaign contributions from him, and (iii) had actually known him - closely - for almost two decades.

In my book, that is called a “lie.”

He then lied again when he was asked if any of his advisors had spoken with the Canadian government about NAFTA.  At first, he gave an unequivocal “no.”  Yet less than 48 hours later, he admitted that, yes, Goolsbee HAD spoken with the Canadian government, but Obama tried to cover his butt by saying it was a “courtesy” call.  Even if it was (and I seriously doubt it), this makes his first response a “lie” - because Obama WAS aware that Goolsbee had done so.

He has now lied about Wright, claiming that he was “unaware” of the many outrageous things Wright had said.  By his own admission, Obama has been a member of Trinity for over 20 years.  And Wright is only NOW retiring.  Obama has further stated that Wright has been a “spiritual advisor” all this time, and was important enough an advisor to place on his African American Religious Leadership Committee.

As I noted, given these three facts - and even if Obama JUST coincidentally “happened” NOT to be in the pews for JUST those sermons and comments - it stretches credibility WAY beyond the breaking point to suggest that Obama was “unaware” of Wright’s comments, or at very LEAST SOME of them.

Thus, his claim that he was “unaware” of ALL of Wright’s outrageous comments - DESPITE being a member of the church for 20 years, DESPITE Wright’s presence in the church until just recently, and DESPITE having Wright as a spiritual advisor - is yet another lie.

He also lied about how much money he got from Rezko (either personally or “bundled”).  At first, he claimed it was around “$80,000.”  Then he said it was around “$150,000.”  Now he is admitting that it is closer to “$250,000.”  And don’t try to tell me that Obama was “unaware” of how much Rezko was raising for him: Rezko was one of his earliest political patrons, and Obama knew where his money was coming from.

So there are just four lies.  Let’s wait to see how much more lying and obfuscation Obama does (i) as the Rezko trial proceeds, and (ii) when the Exelon matter arises - which it will.  And it is likely that other matters will arise as well.

Again, this is not a “who lied more” matter.  It is a matter of attempting to bring some of Obama’s supporters back down to earth from the “celestial” perch from which they make their blind, arrogant and demonizing proclamations, and to get them to realize that, for all his inspirational rhetoric, Obama is just a man, just a politician, and no less given to political expediency, bad judgment, obfuscation and lies than any other politician.


Report this

By cyrena, March 15, 2008 at 4:51 pm Link to this comment

That’s for the list bert. Just goes to show how forgiving you are of my APPALLING stupidity.

Another thing I’m wondering about, because of my stupidity I suppose, would be the EXACT authorization that this list attaches to. Do you have that? Just a document title/number would be good.

I guess I’m trying to narrow this stuff down for my own information. It’s been a while of course, and the lead up to Iraq was so long. So, my memory or my thoughts, as appalling stupid as they are, seem to recall that there might have been more than one conversation about the Iraq war that took place in the Congress.

Now of course I could be stupidly wrong, and I’m not denying that. But, surely they did do a bit more than this one poll, don’t cha think?

And I keep telling you bert, because you keep saying that my stupidity prevents you from believing anything I say…You don’t HAVE to believe me!!

HONESTLY bert…you really, really, don’t. If you were paying me to write, then that would be an issue. If you were somehow advising me on my scholastic endeavors, that would be important.

But bert, I don’t GIVE a rats ass whether you ‘believe’ me or not. There are enough other readers here who are smart enough to know whether or not I know what I’m talking about, and I’ve never claimed to know something that I didn’t. I think I made that really clear in the post that initiated your latest claim to my stupidity. I SAID I wasn’t sure, and that someone could certainly check it for accuracy.

Now of course you’re not likely to come back and tell me exactly what this particular authorization was, or if it was the exact same one that the Senate signed off on, but that’s OK. I’m really glad to know that there were lots of others in Congress, (who haven’t since been booted out) who voted against this criminal endeavor.

As for me looking though the Internet to find all of Rev. Wright’s sermons, you can’t possibly be serious. He isn’t MY Pastor, and I wouldn’t know who he was myself, if it wasn’t for all of the hoopla created by the fact that he’s Obama’s pastor!

But, I don’t have a pastor, because I don’t attend church other than at the occasional request of my parents or a family member. And, I don’t listen to sermons on God or religion, unless they happen to be lectures in a religious studies course.

I DID have the pleasure of hearing Dr. King preach.  I still read some of his sermons as well. But the only ‘theology’ that I have a passing interest in, is Liberation Theology, and that’s not a particularly safe religious ideology for the practitioner. Matter of fact, it frequently gets clerics assassinated.

Oh, I like Bishop Tutu as well. Same with my late cousin. He was with the Franciscan order. Been dead a long time now though.

Still, I don’t much care what Rev. Wright has said over the years. I saw the few things that got the white folks all hot and bothered and riled up, once he could be used to accuse Obama of something else by association. And, while I wouldn’t have phrased it the way he did, I’m not in disagreement on many of the issues that he addresses.

Personally, I’m not convinced that al-Qaeda was singularly responsible for the attacks of 9/11, but the more important question there, which is what has gotten Wright into so much trouble. That is, IF Arab foreigners attacked the US on 9/11, WHY? WHY did they do it? And please don’t tell me that it’s because ‘they hate our freedoms’.

Not buying that one. not unless you’re talking about the ‘freedoms’ that the US takes all over the globe, using their geopolitical power and the force of the military industrial complex to batter and subdue the rest of the world into accepting US global hegemony. Now that’s what Wright claims might be the reason. Simple blowback.

On that, Rev. Wright might be right. No pun intended.

I don’t care about the rest of the stuff you’re claiming he said. I ESPECIALLY don’t hold Obama liable for whatever Wright has said.

Report this

By Maani, March 15, 2008 at 4:44 pm Link to this comment


“It’s the war stupid.  The war.”

It is FOR YOU.  And, yes, for many people.  But NOT for ALL.  YOUR obsession is NOT EVERYONE’s obsession.  It does not mean that we (i.e., the “others”) don’t care about the war, or do not lament Hillary’s vote for its authorization.  But we (and I speak for myself and only those others here who have made similar comments) do not see “the war” as the be-all and end-all of supporting a particular candidate.

If you, and others, choose to do so, that is your prerogative.


Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 15, 2008 at 3:34 pm Link to this comment

Your Washington White Hillary embossed shorts have made you blind to reality, racism and sexism.  Obama has lied and Obfuscated, be more specific please, because the lies from the Hillary side are so far ahead of Obama, he has one hell of a lot of catching up to do in order to pass the garbage scow of excess baggage the Clintons throw at the world. Not slowing down and the way they operate twisting and lieing about everything, no one not even Bush can pass them. 

Actually Wright has not said anything that was not true.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 15, 2008 at 3:25 pm Link to this comment

You take the cake in both categories Chalmers and you do it so well. As usual twist and out of context. Sometimes you ignorance precedes you.

Very seldom do you have anything of substance, though occasionally I have been surprised. 

Your head up your ass humor, is in very poor taste. But could be considered standard for Hillary supporters.

Report this

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >

Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook