CY:

This is about the level of absurdity I have come to expect from you.

The press, whether mainstream or alternative, are supposed to REPORT things, and to show both a basic level of “fairness” (i.e., equal time) and a modicum of journalistic integrity.  TruthDig has failed miserably in both of these regards.

How you get from that to Hitler and Stalin I cannot possibly fathom…

Peace.

A Kodak moment.

How can Hillary stand that close and not catch fire.

She made the comment on television out of her own mouth that she “voted for the bankruptcy bill.” Was there more than one? I’m reacting to what she said.

As for Obama’s Reagan comment, he was guilty of nothing except recognizing how Reagan became a popular figure—no judgment, no faux pas.  It’s like recognizing the popularity of Hitler: we know he sucked and was evil, and even so, cannot deny that his influence was wide. 

To read anything else into those two observations is to twist a person’s words into a lie that is WRONG. Watching her do so out of her own mouth at him personally has nothing to do with Hillary’s MLK/LBJ comment because there was to personal thing from him to her like the Reagan thing.

And like I need to care?!?  At this point, I’m voting for EDWARDS anyway—and pissed for her taking the debate to a dumb place anyway. But right is right.

The people who took issue with her MLK/LBJ comments were blacks who thought her tone dismissive and spoke up about it with no prompting from Obama’s campaign. Blacks started questioning her purpose for bringing that up and the media kept asked Obama for a response. It wasn’t his place to offer one at that time, nor did he—and still didn’t condemn her.  Plenty of others had done so and she handled herself poorly.  People were long upset before he said a word. 

Many were still voting for her until—instead of clarifying what she meant or asking the constituents why they were upset?  She goes and tried to blame another candidate. That—I understand—is what let those people down, not the comment itself. The comment was factual; her response was dismissive of the people.

I’m a longtime Edwards supporter and ran into plenty of whites and blacks who had nothing to do with Obama asking: Why are Bill and Hillary lying on that guy?  The Clintons shouldn’t have went all Rovian and attracted more attention to dude with those weird attacks.

As far as dynasties go?  No, I had no problem with them until Bill “what your definition of is, is” Clinton’s boorish behavior irritated me to no end these past couple of months—and I’m not the only one to see this.

I came to this conclusion just recently but Kennedy-wise?  (If all the Kennedys had endorse Hillary, her supporters would be raving about them…but that’s another story.) What we WOULD’VE had has little bearing on lots of people’s annoyance with what we’ve ACTUALLY had: Bush-Clinton-Bush…and now a 3rd unelected term up for loose-cannon Bill?  No way.  He is liability to an otherwise OK politician.

I voted for Bill twice, would’ve voted for Hillary, John or Barack until I saw her behavior and subsequent bald-face lies interviews—and I am officially sick of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Chelsea on the other hand?  Lovely girl.

Also, I might add this statement to my previous list. Progressives are very upset with her campaign, and the supporters of her campaign. Hillary, a woman with many merits, has decided to run a campaign of entitlement and talking points instead of on her achievements.

This article we are posting about, specifically, shows the shady campaign tactics she has used. I hear a lot about anti-hillaryisms. Still, the way her campaigners browbeat voters, ask loaded questions, work against voter groups unfavorable to their campaign and her husband’s awful remarks in regard to race turn off people (progressives mostly).

Even with Barack’s many shortcomings, progressives believe him to be the lesser of two evils. His campaign has not been about mudslinging, and he has defended himself well against all the nasty campaigning, which leads people to believe he is the stronger candidate.

When it comes down to it, all candidates running in this year’s election are on false platforms. McCain suddenly became the 9/11 warmonger, Hillary is the experience candidate and Barack Obama is the candidate of change. All of these platforms are of questionable validity. Barack is still going to win, though, so just accept Hillary’s failure to secure her entitlement campaign against a callow upstart of skeptically better worth.

Aegrus:

“I’m not saying Obama is more progressive in regards to these votes. The statement is purely about how leftists and progressives felt betrayed by Clinton for these specific votes. A request for examples was asked for, and I provided a list. This is all my post was meant for.”

I do realize that.  However, since some of those progressives may be “watching” here, I thought it would be instructive to provide responses.

Peace.

Goldstategirl:

You mentioned Hillary’s “vote to do away with bankruptcy as Americans have known it as a favor to credit card companies.”

This is incorrect.  Hillary’s vote on the Bankruptcy Reform Bill of 2005 was “NV,” meaning she was either absent or was present and did not vote.  Thus, while her “NV” vote may not exactly show a great deal of “principle,” she did NOT vote FOR the bill.

Re her and Bill’s response to Obama’s Reagan comments, at very best Obama was guilty of a faux pas by saying what he said, since Reagan was the “enemy” of the Democrats for a lot of VERY good reasons, and thus speaking well of him (as noble as that might be) was not a particularly good idea - unless Obama was pandering to Republicans, which is almost certainly what was going on, and makes him snarky in a way that his supporters would rather ignore.

As well, this incident was no different than Obama (via his “team”) “twisting” Hillary’s words re MLK and LBJ.  So in this regard, either we accept that both were wrong, or we allow them to cancel each other out.

Finally, re “dynasties,” two members of a family separated by time does not a dynasty make.  I also find the whole discussion of dynasties fairly ironic, given Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama, which has gotten many people all misty-eyed again over the Kennedy name.  Yet if “Camelot” had come to pass, we would have had eight years of JFK, eight years of RFK, eight years of Ted Kennedy - with more Kennedys in the wings.  Yet I don’t hear anyone complaining about THAT possibility.  Indeed, I doubt we would even be having this discussion if JFK had not been assassinated and Bobby had run for president after him.

Peace.

I’m not saying Obama is more progressive in regards to these votes. The statement is purely about how leftists and progressives felt betrayed by Clinton for these specific votes. A request for examples was asked for, and I provided a list. This is all my post was meant for.

Aegrus:

1.  True.

2.  True.  However, Obama’s vote was “NV,” meaning he either didn’t show up to vote or refused to take a stand.  Given that he has positioned himself as the “principled” candidate, I fail to see how his NV vote makes him “principled.”  This is “words” versus “actions”: he ARGUED against the bill, but failed to VOTE against it.

3.  Not true.  He supports the economic embargo against Cuba; he has only spoken about easing travel restrictions.

4.  Not true.  Unless you have something more recent than mid-2007, Hillary made it clear that she would not support the Patriot Act next time around and SPECIFICALLY mentioned the wiretap provisions.

5.  Obama was not in the Senate when the Patriot Act was enacted, so it is difficult to assess whether the incredible pressures that were brought to bear here (provided only five weeks after 9/11, altered between Friday and Monday, etc.) would not have led Obama to vote FOR it.  However, given that he DID vote to re-authorize the Patriot Act BOTH times it came up, this would seem to be an indication that he would have voted for it in the first place.

6.  Both Hillary and Obama voted “Yes” on the original Secure Fence Act of 2006.  On both the 7/26/07 and 10/03/07 fence bills, Hillary did vote “Yes.”  However, again, Obama’s votes on both were “NV” - not exactly “principled” in my opinion.

7.  Again, Obama was not in the Senate at the time, so we realy have no way of knowing how he might have voted.

Re #6, it is particularly galling that Obama did not show up for the 7/26/07 vote, since four MAJOR bills were voted on: DHS appropriations, implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations, Border Fence appropriations, and Real ID funding.  Again, given his alleged support of civil liberties and his vaunted “principle,” his absence from this vote is inexcusable.

Yes, Hillary can certainly be faulted for her votes on many of these.  However, to suggest that Obama is therefore more “progressive” is questionable, if part of being “progressive” is taking a stand - and voting that stand.  Actions speak louder than words, and given the above, it it clear that Obama offers more words than actions.

Peace.

AGREED. I liked Hillary learning of these things below. My disappointment and disdain for Hillary Clinton is HER doing and no one else’s:

1) her vote to do away with bankruptcy as Americans have known it as a favor to credit card companies and

2) having kept up with most major interviews of ALL candidates to that point? I was startled at her disgusting attempt during that last 3-person debate to twist Obama’s Reagan comment around—revealing her not only to be a sociopathic liar like Bill has proven to be, but laughably petty.  She benefits that enough people believe anything she says without question, including lies and distortions about Barack Obama.  I’d been an EDWARDS supporter, but saw the interview online Hillary was referring and KNEW SHE WAS LYING AND TWISTING words around. So condescending. 

I questioned and researched finding Obama and Edwards most qualified and the best ticket for internal and global restoration, or Obama with Edwards as AG. 

If Hillary’s on the ticket, I will vote for my next best choice. 

No more Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-type dynasty families.  They may start off with good intentions but the power makes them all corrupt at some point.

Term limits should extend to spouses and immediate fam from now on.

@Maani,

Most of the progressives in the Democratic Party do not want Hillary because they view her as a Hawk with questionable ties to Rupert Murdoch and her defense of PACs as organizations who “represent real people.”

1)Voted Yes to authorize military action against Iraq.
2)Voted Yes on the Kyle-Lieberman resolution.
3)Wants to keep the embargo with Cuba
4)Supports warrantless wiretapping in “certain circumstances”
5)Voted Yes on the Patriot Act I and Reauthorization.
6)Voted Yes on erecting a fence on the Mexican boarder.
7)Voted Yes to create the department of Homeland Security

You point being, Hillary has many favorable things to offer, like experience, opportunism, good old boys and the like. 
Maybe TD cannot find anything favorable to say about Hillary or as I guess you are saying they do not want to.
If their is something favorable to say about Hillary, I am sure you will make it a point to tell us about it.

Look the good old boys love Hillary, she is a shoe in, so you can quit the worry wart program. 

Since I prefer Obama, I have resolved to take the worst of the best again.

JS:

Thank you for both this and your response to my other comment below.  I’m not so certain you are right that Hillary will win the nomination (at least not without a brokered convention), but…

Re the Phoenix Group, I have know of its existence for some time.  But even though I have some respect for Soros (who, by the way, is a large investor with The Carlyle Group - a MAJOR strike against him), and while I have always been all for centrist and left-leaning think tanks (I am a member of one in its fledgling stages) to balance those on the right, I am not sure that an organization founded by millionaires and billionaires is going to lead us to fundamental changes in the political system and structure.  Certainly the ideas generated by these new think tanks will be more centrist and left-leaning than the Heritage Foundation, Cato, etc.  But will they not ultimately “serve the masters” who created them?  This remains to be seen.

As for my “digging” into LieDig, it was as much out of pure curiosity as out of a sense of duty (LOL).

Aegrus:

Because I am sincerely interested, what “issues” are you referring to re not liking Hillary?

Peace.

Agreed.  A lot of it stems from seeing what they thought would be a coronation process become something else entirely.

But there are deeper things going on.  Further down the thread, i made a reply to Maani that you might find interesting.

The other thing to note is that by and large (though not completely), the Clinton supporters are of a different age.  They have been in a defensive crouch since the early 90’s.  Those who survive the battles have scars that serve as constant reminders.  But be wary of excessive pride in those scars, because they often indicate a strong desire for revenge and a fascination with the idea of battle.

I suggest you scroll down, Maani, and read my reply to another of your comments.

But beyond that, there is no such thing as ‘objective’ media because there is no such thing as an objective person.  Along those lines, should we consider your rating system to be objective?  Seriously, you’ve gotten to the point where you’re cutting and pasting the same post on every thread that might have some relevance. 

And like i’ve told you before.  Relax, your candidate will win the nomination.

Maani, progressives don’t like Hillary based on several issues. I don’t know why you haven’t gotten used to this fact. There really isn’t any evidence provided to change our minds to vote for Hillary Clinton. These articles are only “negative” because they have valid critique, which people cannot argue against without stretching the truth.

JS, this is exactly why I am ultra-skeptical of most Hillary supporters. There is a sense about their virulence regarding her nomination which strikes of fascist movements of the brown shirts and Republican strong arms during 2004 and 2000 elections.

As much as there is no reason for people to hate Hillary Clinton, the response to ANY criticism of Hillary or her campaign is always so far out of the realms of appropriateness. A voracious and angry rebuttal is always given, of which no mentioning of an issue or contrary evidence is given!

Talking points fly from the mouths of Hill’s campaign. Points about Republicans stealing the election from divided Democrats (like she’s doing anything to unite the party). The BS about being “battle-tested” as if negative ads wouldn’t effect either campaign. Nonsense about experience flies around. Diverting attention from the issues by arguing both Barack and Hillary are the same, and justifying their same identities as a reason to vote Hillary!

When do they talk about Health Care? When do they talk about her yes votes on the Iraq war and the Kyle-Lieberman bills? Who speaks of her immigration stance? What about economic policy? No, those are real issues, and Hillary supporters destroy their candidate’s campaign by appealing to base talking points.

I like Hillary, but her supporters snub her victory with all their ignorant blathering about non-issues and trying to inflict invalid wounds on Obama in the most angry and desperate way possible. Don’t blame Obama for being a better candidate, Hill just doesn’t have what it takes.

There has been some question about LieDig’s lack of neutrality in reporting on Hillary and Obama.  One person actually suggested that LieDig “might as well be on Obama’s payroll,” or similar comment.

I just did some “hard” research; I checked EVERY SINGLE ITEM that has appeared with regard to Obama and/or Hillary over the past few months (i.e., not including items on the GOP candidates or specifically on Edwards, Kucinich et al).  Here is what I found in the six categories:

Audio/Visual: 10 items favorable to Obama, none favorable to Hillary.

Arts/Culture: 3 items favorable to Obama, 1 item favorable to Hillary.

Interviews: 1 item favorable to Obama, none favorable to Hillary.

Reports: 11 items favorable to Obama, none favorable to Hillary.

Ear to the Ground: 5 items favorable to Obama, none favorable to Hillary, 2 items neutral

Cartoons: 5 items favorable to Obama, none favorable to Hillary.

In each case, note that by “favorable” I mean that the text of the item (and, in some cases, the photo that accompanies it) were either directly favorable to Obama and/or directly or indirectly critical of Hillary.

So much for journalistic integrity, even in the alternative media…

Peace.

Did anybody read the WaPo link in this story?  Here’s a tidbit:

~Bill Clinton pulled Rove aside at the dedication of the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Arkansas. “Hey, you did a marvelous job, it was just marvelous what you did,” Clinton told Rove, according to the book, ““The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008,” by our former colleague, John F. Harris and his co-author, Mark Halperin. “I want to get you down to the library. I want to talk politics with you. You just did an incredible job and I’d like to really get together with you and I think we could have a great conversation.”

So now tell me, Sen Obama gets taking to task for saying something positive about Ronald Reagan.  Ok.  But Bill Clinton tells Karl Rove that he did a “marvelous job” - and its printed in a book written by/for the Clintons - and that gets nothing.

I suppose a few here will tell us why this proves that Sen. Clinton is the best/only choice for President.  But the question becomes, do you hate the tactics of the Republican Party…or only that they’re used against you.

Friends with Bush, chummy with Karl; i don’t expect to see a whole lot of “cleaning up”.  Then again, i didn’t see a whole lot of cleaning up during the 90’s either.  But i know, i’m wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong…i just don’t have the wisdom, knowledge, or understanding to comprehend the greatness in all of this.  Silly little me.

I didn’t say that i “bought” it, i said that it wouldn’t surprise me one bit.

Quit worrying so much, Maani, your candidate will win the nomination…she might even win the general election.

Her ability to turn the dissatisfaction that the majority of Americans feel about the Bush years into a long-term dominance of the Democratic Party is a different matter.  But to tell you the truth, i don’t think she’s concerned about that at all.

You might want to do some research on the battle below the surface of the Democratic Party.  Look around, ask around, for Rob Stein’s powerpoint presentation.  Dig around for what is called “The Phoenix Group”.  What you’re seeing is about a lot more than the candidates.  You might even be surprised to find out how the web-sites like TruthDig came into being.

There is a vast left-wing “conspiracy” afoot, and the more i learn about it, the more i’m all for it.  There is a war going on for the future of the Democratic Party that you’ll never see if you keep watching the horse race so breathlessly.  And as any strategist knows, winning a battle at all costs often leads to losing the war.

Finally!  A voice of reason.  From Stanley Fish:

“In the January issue of GQ, Jason Horowitz describes the world of Hillary haters, many of whom he has interviewed. Horowitz finds that the hostile characterizations of Clinton do not add up to a coherent account of her hatefulness. She is vilified for being a feminist and for not being one, for being an extreme leftist and for being a “warmongering hawk,” for being godless and for being “frighteningly fundamentalist,” for being the victim of her husband’s peccadilloes and for enabling them. “She is,” Horowitz concludes, “an empty vessel into which [her detractors] can pour everything they detest.”...This is not to say that there are no rational, well-considered reasons for opposing Clinton’s candidacy. You may dislike her policies…You may not be able to get past her vote to authorize the Iraq war. You may think her personality unsuited to the tasks of inspiring and uniting the American people. You may believe that if this is truly a change election, she is not the one to bring about real change…But the people and groups Horowitz surveys have brought criticism of Clinton to what sportswriters call “the next level,” in this case to the level of personal vituperation unconnected to, and often unconcerned with, the facts…Everyone blames her for what her husband does or for what he doesn’t do…If she answers questions aggressively, she is shrill. If she moderates her tone, she’s just play-acting. If she cries, she’s faking. If she doesn’t, she’s too masculine. If she dresses conservatively, she’s dowdy. If she doesn’t, she’s inappropriately provocative…Horowitz observes that there is an “inexhaustible fertile market of Clinton hostility,” but that “the search for a unifying theory of what drives Hillary’s most fanatical opponents is a futile one.” The reason is that nothing drives it; it is that most sought-after thing, a self-replenishing, perpetual-energy machine…Compared to this, the Swift Boat campaign against John Kerry was a model of objectivity.”
 
Amen!

RL:

Yup, McCain gives the “air” of honesty.  He will honestly remain in Iraq for 100 years, allowing for the deaths of additional U.S. soldiers, Iraqi sldiers and Iraqi civilians.  He will honestly start other wars.  He will honestly permanentize the Bush tax cuts - and add more (for the rich).  He will honestly destroy the economy even further (if that’s possible) by re-instituting Reaganomics.  He will honestly run an autocratic White House.  He will honestly continue eroding your freedoms and civil liberties in the name of “safety and security.”  Etc.

Yup, he certainly is honest!

Peace.

I love how anything unflattering said about Hillary is an Obama conspiracy campaign smear. More to the point, it speaks to how people run to Hillary’s aid and swat at flies when people have reservations about her, which they are apparently blind to.

This smear was debunked almost as fast as it appeared. Nice smear job because as everyone knows once something is put into the mix it can NEVER be completely eliminated.

Guess that Obama higher ground wasn’t quite as high as we were led to believe. Oh, that’s right, he didn’t say it. Just like George Bush never said all those vile things about McCain. It sure worked well for Bush and he didn’t have to dirty his own hands. Will probably work well for Obama just as his surrogates and supporters have managed to portray the Clinton’s as racists amongst the dimwitted and committed. This crap is despicable!

I’m glad you were never fooled, JS. It’s something very unfortunate for people who don’t see Clintonian tactics for what they are. I’m convinced the voters who support HIllary’s campaign are nothing more than injured, jaded Americans who cannot hope anymore and have grown cold to the political process. This would explain their over aggressive behavior and dehumanizing of fellow democrats who actually want a candidate who doesn’t mold their campaign around what the other candidates said first.

Read the damn blog post next time.  There’s no proof that there’s even push polling being done (20 minutes?!) and it’s just one random guy, “Ed,” so you can’t prove even his story is true, let alone tying it to the Clinton camp.  Read and question next time before just believing anything they throw at you.

Here are links I already posted (READ!):
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/176792.php
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/3/193310/5243

There’s NO PROOF whatsoever that there was push polling let alone that it was done by the Clinton camp!  Jesus.  Even Josh Marshall was skeptical—at best.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/176792.php
Marshall: “A closer review suggests some skepticism about this story. The ‘push-poll’ reportedly was 20 minutes long, which is much longer than is ever cost-effective for a push-poll. And the Times seemed to go with this with a single person who claimed to have gotten the call. I should have scrutinized the LAT post more closely.”

What the hell is going on?  Stop lying about Democrats.  I don’t care if it’s the Washington Post and their “reporting” of gossip on Obama or this site and Clinton.  Stop.  Lying.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/3/193310/5243

If asked a question like Karl Rove’s, Californians would think it must be some sort of a con.

The editorial staff at the LA Times might be said to be more than a little biased in this respect given that they had just come out and blatantly endorsed Barack Obama a couple of days back. Thus, the real “push polling” or anything like it which has erupted in California can be traced right back to the LA Times itself.

While we are at it, one could include Truthdig in that accusation as well as they are again, as always,  so keen to hype up any story against Hillary Clinton. So much for a blog run by a professor of journalism from the University of Southern Californa, Annenberg School for Communication for being independent. Its bad enough that the newspapers are lacking independence these days, uhh.

Really, has anyone phoned you and asked whether you would be would be more likely or less likely to vote for Barack Obama if Hillary Clinton was the mother of “an illegitimate black child”? I think that the person here who really had “admired Rove’s strategies in the past” is Robert Scheer. But then maybe he really does want John McCain for president after all?

Quote Truthdig: “It is increasingly difficult for people seeking to understand the world to find stories in depth, told by those who know their topic best….... The lesson was that if you respect the story and present it in a clear way, it will find an audience.  There have always been and will always be people digging for the truth, rather than simply accepting the conventional wisdom of the day. It is these people we hope to reach with our Web magazine, Truthdig.”  http://www.truthdig.com/about/?bn

Alex:

To your three I would add the sordid truth about Obama’s relationship with Tony Rezko.

Obama claimed during a debate that the ONLY thing he EVER did for Rezko was “5 hours as an associate attorney” on one particular case.  However, this was an outright lie.

Obama also purchased a house on the lot directly next to a house owned by Rezko.  When asked about this, Obama claimed that the two lots were “required to be sold cojointly” so hi did not really have a choice.  But even THIS proves that his prior claim of ONLY knowing Rezko vis-a-vis the “5 hours” he spent on the claimed case is a lie.

But then it turns out that Obama and Rezko have had ongoing ties for OVER 17 YEARS, and that Rezko donated tens of thousands of dollars to Obama’s campaign.  And although Obama has properly offloaded that money, it proves that he is a bald-faced liar!

Peace.

You have to be naive at best, and sophomoric at worst, not to tie political dirty tricks back to the side they benefit.  Come on now, these are professional politicians… they aren’t ever going to leave direct connections, their fingerprints. 

That said, I have voted exclusively Democratic for the thirty years since I turned 18.  I am active locally and nationally.  I am so fed up with Hillary’s Rovian dirty tricks and slash-and-burn tactics that I will never vote for her now, even if that means—in the aggregate—getting McCain for president.  Yesterday’s Warrior and a know-nothing about economics in the face of our current recession are criticisms which do not override his attribute of honesty.  Mrs. Clinton runs her own campaign and I have run enough of them to know that the candidate always knows what’s going on, if only nodding yes or implying no. 
In fact, I will start a drive to defeat her if she gets the nomination now.

Technically this article is a push poll? Suppose the difference being a cold phone call vs a written article.  Well if the Clintons like Rove I like rove, and screw the Constitution.

Not sure, but when it comes to the Constitution, is Hillary going to get us our rights back, maybe she can get rove right on it.

Cyrena/JP:

What surprises me is that you are buying into this story in the first place.  It is intersting how you will lambaste the MSM for its complicity in the political process - including propaganda on both sides.  Yet when it serves your purpose, you are ready to believe nothing more than an unsupported CLAIM.  Even setting that aside, it clearly says “Clinton campaign or some ally.”  How do you know it’s not an “ally” whom the campaign does not know is doing it, and might otherwise repuiate it?

Cyrena indicated three times in the past couple of weeks that she “tries to be open-minded” about ALL candidates, and the news reports about them.

Where is that fairness now?  Where is even a modicum of skepticism about the MSM on a story that may or may not be true?

Note that I am NOT suggesting that the Clinton campaign might NOT be involved, or at least open to this type of questionable tactic.  But to simply buy the story lock, stock and barrel seems awfully one-sided and closed-minded of you.

Peace.

Shh, Cyrena, Mr. Chalmers can hear you.  And you know how gets when someone says something less than positive about the Clintons.

I hear you though.  I’m beginning to let myself hope, but with that hope comes a knot of fear in my gut that the Clintons won’t let this happen because they can’t let this happen.  I mean, if she loses the nomination, that’s it.  Sure, she could go back to being the Senator from NY, but they don’t handle losing well.

You know, i’ve never been fooled by them.  Bill has always given me that standing hair on the back of my neck feeling.  But this year, they’re proving most of the terrible things people have said about them true.

Ya know what I think? (if anybody cares).

I think the sleazier the Clinton’s get, the worse it’s gonna be for them. Is this any lower to the slimy tactics that Slick Willy used in S.C.? Nope, not at all.

So, it’s really gone beyond the pale, when they can manage to top (or bottom) the last sleazy act. Pulling out the Rove tactics is really sick and pathetic. This gives me a deja vu of November, 2000. The sickest of sick feelings in my gut, knowing that we’re again dealing with a mob who will do absolutely ANYTHING - to WIN!!

It proves again, that there is absolutely no integrity, nor is there any real desire to actually ‘do good’ for the people of the United States. It’s only about power…power…and more power…

Every time I think that they couldn’t stoop lower, (and for the past 7 years, it’s been in reference to the bushies) something else happens to floor me. No, I really never expected the Clintons to stoop this low. The bushies, yes. The clintons…close. But no..never this low.

I guess that means I can still be shocked. Not sure why…

The Clintons would never do anything like that.  It must be a sleazy attack by the Obama campaign…