Thank God! Someone who can state the OBVIOUS! The Press has a responsibility here, the Clinton Machine seems like it is turning the US into the Soviet Union. Where is Clark Kent when you need him!

I don't see those words...
but then I ask what the heck this means:
I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it.

They need to stop fighting so much. One will have to support the other.

Off Subject; But important.

There is no way we can allow this Femme Fatal' Fascist to become President of the United States.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/us/politics/22giuliani.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

They aren't riding your coat tails. The Republicans were speaking of change all along (while proposing nothing new). They had to distance themselves from Bubba. They couldn't get elected if they didn't. It was ALWAYS I am not like Bush but I support the President. Kinda like Obama I will move out of Iraq, but can't promise anyhting closer than 2012. It's "change."

Hill
My leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last 10 to 15 years.

Obama
I think it’s fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom.

She said what he said. No amount of going back and interpreting the quote will change that. The quote is close. She quoted him correctly. But, keep looking, maybe if you look hard enough you'll go blind and see something new. Quotes are quotes. Interpreting quotes is a different story. People can take the same quote and derive at different interpretations.

Senator Obama can be our FDR and Lincoln--both true progressives for their time, or any time, whom Reagan was trying to emulate. People tend to forget that. Obama isn't trying to be the next Reagan. His model is a lot close to these two men. Reagan succeeded in emulating them--superficially, among some people--but not substantively. Obama has the potential to do both. He's clearly already got the style. And there are signs that the substance is there as well.

People forget that politics is about more than just being there or roiling against the powers that be. It's also, duh, about politics, and I think that Obama just knows how to play it better than the other two. That might upset the idealists who are into shows of purity, but getting things done is a lot harder and more complex than some realize. All the principle in the world isn't much jack if you don't have the political skills to make it happen. What he did with video interrogations in Chicago said a lot about his political skills.

FDR and Lincoln didn't just have fundamentally good and principled policies. Nor did they just make great speeches and inspire the country when it needed inspiration. They also understood, and were masters of, the nuts and bolts of making things happen in politics. I think that Obama has, or has the potential to have, all three, in abundance. Reagan could only have dreamed of having such a hat trick of political assets. His policies sucked, his political skills were so-so, and all that he ever really had was his PR, which I admit was superb. But Obama runs cicles around Reagan.

Still, he realizes that to undo the damage of 30 years of conservative rule, he has to undermine Reagan's legacy. And to do that, he has to first co-opt him, which is what I think he's doing. There's a lot more going on here that most people do not see--or want to see. This guy is generational smart, and realizes that winning the battles that we have ahead of us will involve a lot more than empty talk about experience or angry speeches about the entitled elites. It will require political smarts and skills, which I believe Obama has, but that neither Hillary nor Edwards do--in such abundance at least.

And I think that even Bill, Hill and John know it.

And Obama calling Clinton a racist for having praised LBJ is "distorting" and "simply lying".

Which lie is worse? I'd say wrongfully accusing somebody of racism.

And to the Obamabots who rush to point out that it was the Blessed Obama's surrogates who did the race baiting -- Obama never denounced it or refuted it.

His campaign speaks for him. They operate by the instructions from HC. Since he approved it, by any and every moral and ethical standard the slander may as well have come right out of his own lie hole.

And of course Shameless Shill Frank James desperately tries to paint Obama as the victim.

Bill R,
I agree. What the heck does it mean?
A rare rhetorical misstep by 'Bama IMO.

I certainly don't want praise for Reagan coming from the 'Change Candie'.

We are still living under the Reagan sweat shop economy; That's one of the things that needs changing. If that's what B.Ob meant he should have said it.

Of course the Clintons lie about everything.

But perhaps Mr. Zorn should address the whoppers Barack Obama told. For example, the Jan. 22, 2006 Swamp (which I assume Frank James and Eric Zorn read) shows how Obama pledged on national tv that he would serve out his full senate term, and would not run for president in 2008:

"Finally, Russert tried to pin down Obama on his political future.

....

"I will serve out my full six-year term," Obama said, trying to explain his varying responses. "If you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary."

So Russert tried one more time.

Obama finally declared: "I will not run for president or vice president."

Well, Eric? Going pause in your Obama cheerleading to headline this Obama whopper in your column?

And of course Shameless Shill Frank James desperately tries to paint Obama as the victim.

Posted by: MJ | January 22, 2008 1:51 PM

I think most of the people on here get it that you hate Senator Obama, you seem to have an obsessive problem even going so far as to post under other names as to smear Senator Obama.

I want everyone on here to see this because I want you all to know that almost 3/4 of the anti-Obama posts are coming from this one obsessive poster "MJ" under different post names.

Thankyou...

This is so much like all the articles detailing the lies by President Bush and his cronies. Oh that's right, the media chose to ignore all of those lies.

Some people are so deeply rooted in their bias, bigotry, or stupidity that they wouldn't accept the truth even if God posted it in His blogosphere.

I discovered I was an Obama supporter within the last 60 days. A large part of me wanted to support Hillary--she's a woman who can win; many of my friends are active on her behalf and, I confess, I was nostalgic for the days when Bill Clinton was President. But at the end of the day I couldn't support her--there are lots of reasons but the deal breaker was the war. I was hysterically, frantically opposed to the Iraq war from the moment it was whispered. How did she not see what a disaster this war was going to be? Obama stands in sharp contrast on this topic.

Further, I must say that I am seduced by the hope that President Barack Obama brings to young African-Americans. Despite the courageous societal and economic gains made by African-Americans all over this country, sizable segments of that community are in desperate--calamitous--conditions. And, because that group is poor they have suffered even more under George Bush. My Irish Catholic parents stood a little taller after John F. Kennedy was elected President. It is my fervent hope that young African-Americans get to witness the inauguration of President Barack Obama.

*salamander's rule*,

Where did he say they had "Better" ideas? Still looking for that in his quote.

Where is the lie? That is what he said. OH you want to twist it or spin it just like the fairy tail spin the media did. Just like trying to say the Clinton injected race into the debate. Clearly Michael Eric Dyson an Obama surrogate injected it on CNN minuets after the Clinton win in NH. Please Obama fancies himself Martin Luther King Jr. Thomas Jefferson and now Ronald Reagan. WOW WHAT A SUPERMAN! PLEASE spare me and the rest of the world who don't live in RiverCity Iowa.

OH MJ DONT GET MADD BECAUSE IT WAS PROVED YOUR BELOVED CLINTON'S ARE LIARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And of course Shameless Shill Frank James desperately tries to paint Obama as the victim.

Posted by: MJ | January 22, 2008 1:51 PM

You really need to shut it down for awhile and go sit in the corner and take a time out, young man.
You're hurting your anti-Obama crusade with all your anger.

OBAMA 08!

Hill
My leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last 10 to 15 years.

Obama
I think it’s fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom.

She said what he said.
Posted by: *salamander's rule* | January 22, 2008 1:50 PM

That's not what I see. Obama said "party of ideas", not "better ideas" as Clinton states. Two totally separate statements, so James is correct. I don't think there's anything wrong with bringing up good things the other party has done. The Republican Party has had some good times, but don't forget that Obama was speaking in past tense.

MJ,
Show us where Obama called the Clintons racist? Show us?...didn't think you could. Go away liar.

MJ,
Show us where Obama called the Clintons racist Show us...didn't think you could. Go away liar.

I don't care what anybody says, the lies, on the Clintons part, had to stop- and they had to be addressed. They've received more than their fair share of air time, and they've taken advantage of America's trusting nature for far too long. Bill's behavior has been especially heinous, for a former president. Bill should be on the side of the facts, on the side of America- not on the side of his wife's campaign! Who's side is he on? It just goes to show the American people what the Clintons are willing to do, to get back into power- and America is too deep in dire straights to worry about power struggles right now. You represent America, Barack. Thank you for standing up for us, and for not remaining a silent by-stander to pandering, manipulations, and lies. If you came across as "rehearsed," that's only because you HAD to COMB THROUGH so many distortions and flat out LIES perpetuated BY the Clintons themselves for months. Of COURSE that's "frustrating," as well as time consuming, I'm sure. America deserves to know the truth. The record has been set straight, and now the playing field has been leveled, finally.

Thank you.

The sad thing is these Clinton lies do work with their base, which tends to be the less educated. Barack is leading among those with a college degree or higher.

Has anyone seem the movie
"THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE"
well my friend if not,you
better take another look!

Oh, the Clintons never lie. It's the right-wing conspiracy. Or the left-wing conspiracy. Or the American conspiracy. Or it depends what the meaning of "is" is.

any vote for hillary is a hate crime against your own country

With Bill Clinton and Eric Zorn in the conversation we've already got two gigantic egos in the room without even accounting for Hillary.

The sad thing is these Clinton lies do work with their base, which tends to be the less educated. Barack is leading among those with a college degree or higher.

Posted by: Meursault | January 22, 2008 2:22 PM

Oh, yes, everyone that doesn't vote for Obama is just dumb, that's it.

'I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it.' What does it mean? It means what it says. Ronald Reagan changed American Politics. It does not say good or better, or praise anything. Actually what Obama said here is something that has been said many times in analysis of Reagan's presidency. The Clintons are just looking for anything they can find to attack on. And yes, lying. The frightening thing is that they have now shown that they are willing to do anything, even destroy the Democratic party, to get what they want. They are beginning to scare alot of top party officials. But still, Bill especially, seems almost emotionally unhung in his need to go after Obama. Hillary just looks smug, superior, and arrogant. They disgust me and scare the hell out of me.

I think the swamp has an agenda to push Obama to the presidency.

Now I just called the swamp biased. Please read the above statement and tell me where the word biased is.

Whatsup Mark.

Party of ideas.

Challenging conventional wisdom.

Like I said a quote is a quote. However, two people can take the same quote and derive at different interpretations. That does not mean a person lied or misrepresented. That means the originator of the comment left loop holes by using broad words which can take the meaning one way or the other.

It's true what Obama says: sometimes good ideas fail to produce good results, and therefore it's time for new ideas. Reagan had new ideas. They weren't good ideas, but they were obviously better (for that time) than the ideas they replaced.

That's all he was trying to say. Why do the Clintons have to lie in such boldface type about it?

Semantics, people, simply semanitcs.

I think most of the people on here get it that you hate Senator Obama, you seem to have an obsessive problem even going so far as to post under other names as to smear Senator Obama.

I want everyone on here to see this because I want you all to know that almost 3/4 of the anti-Obama posts are coming from this one obsessive poster "MJ" under different post names.

Thankyou...

Posted by: Obamabot | January 22, 2008 1:59 PM

I think most of the people here know what you standard attack looks like. Pretend you are in the know, know something you possibly can't, and pretend you speak for everyone. That's how the Obama bots try to sweep everyone up in the hype.

Nice try.

MJ post as MJ. But keep the conspiracy alive!

Isn't it obvious from Obama's statement that he was praising the Republican's ideas? Why else would he even bring it up?
Come on you guys, it is pretty clear that the Clintons called him out CORRECTLY on this one. Don't just blindly defend everything that Obama says. I am an Obama supporter but even I was surprised why he was pandering so much to the Republicans.

It's fun watching the liberal MJ and the lefty loons fight amongst each other!

Now, it's amazing the media is just discovering that the Clintoons are chronic liars. My folks with a clue knew that 15 years ago!

"Better ideas?" It sounded to me like Obama, in referencing Kennedy, was clearly under the impression that ideas are what, if not makes government work, wins elections. It certainly seems like he's not running on a "government should get out of your life and not do anything" platform. He seems to fully be in favor of "ideas" in the way that Reagan and Kennedy brought them to government.

OBAMA NEVER LIES? I'm still waiting for a clear answer for that credit card question from last night debate.

I like everything about Obama except: he is arrogant, he is pompous, he has no record, he obv has thin skin. But he can sell snowballs to eskimos

I like everything about Obama except: he is arrogant, he is pompous, he has no record, he obv has thin skin. But he can sell snowballs to eskimos

I have seen some reaches in my day but Eric Zorn is really reaching here. Get a grip Eric, your chosen one is being exposed and you can not handle it.

Isn't it sort of a lie to promise "change" to Illinois voters in 2004 and then do nothing but endorse hacks like Toddler Stroger and Alexi Giannoulos in between photo ops in Africa and presidential campaign stops?

I am sadden to see two finest Democrat politicians going against at each other over the Presidency position. I've seen all Politicians are LIARS and they are TYWO-FACE people. They are a bunch of LIARS and that makes America weak and weaker each day. Why could they not unite and do something better for this country???

What are the excesses is he talking about? Womens rights, civil rights, union rights, stricter labor standards, overtime pay. What are the excesses he thought needed Republican Ronald Reagan? If he wasn't trying to pander to the Republican base and the Independents what the hell was he talking about.

Obama/Edwards 08!

I really would like Edwards, but I don't think has a snowballs chance right now of being top of the Ticket, but he has already pushed the debate and policy on the Democratic side. His stimulus package actually predated the recent "R" warnings.

I think people should vote for Edwards if they believe his platform and message at all...he is clearly willing to cutting a deal with Obama and could be Deal Maker.

So why is the Analogy Correct?

Well Obama is much more center or to the right of Edwards or Clinton....much more of a Centrist at least in current policies and platform. He's the pragmatist and deal maker...as was JFK.

Edwards is the shit disturber and RFK type of class fighter for all demographics except the top 1%. He can be the bulldog to throw at the Drug/Insurance/HMOs who like RFK and the Mob...he will walk into fire...then Obama can come in and compromise after they had the shit scared out of them.

I don't think US is ready for Edwards major change yet and would like some stabilization and competency from...well anyone. In 8-years Edwards can take the reins for 8-more years of progressive change after Obama has softened them up.

Edwards can also help bring in votes in the South and balances the image of the ticket for the majority of the gut voters. Republican voters think he is more moderate than Clinton or Obama (isn't image amazing)

This is the super change ticket and they can both claim to not be old school politics. People seem really sick of that on all sides. Edwards may want to break harder than Obama, but they both agree the system is broken.

Posted by: John D | January 22, 2008 3:03 PM

Why am I not surprised the boy who cries "conspiracy" on a daily basis can not help but believe "MJ is in a fight" with other liberals. Like a moth to a flame.....

John,
Obama has made several positive comments regarding Reagan over the last week or so. With no obvious Republican front-runner, perhaps Obama sees a chance to pick up a few votes from right-leaning undecided voters, particularly in the Ca primary.
Paying homage to Reagan may have the same positive effect at the polls that Clintons well-up in Nh did.

This election the Republicans are going to be grabbing onto Reagan as a lifeline. They will be distancing themselves from Bush. Bush is already being called a big government liberal by these people. Why in hell would we build up their one and only lifeline.

Better strategy. Tie those Republicans directly to Bush with their own words and actions. Then tie Reagan to Bush with their own words and actions. After all Reagan was the foundation for the Bush years. Bush is all the nastiness of the Reagan years brought out into the open.

Why in hell would we admire someone like Reagan?

Obama doesn't admire him, he's holding him out as the owner of idea's on the GOP side...crappy idea's.

OBAMA 08!

Eric makes a very good point in his post, and I agree with what Obama said about Reagan. President Reagan had ideas that everyone was ready for. He also used the right combination of force and diplomacy to make them work, which our current President wouldn't understand if someone hit him over the head with a book on diplomacy. I think, though, that President Clinton did some impressive things as well, and of course Obama isn't going to emphasize those while running against his wife.

But this is now, not then, and I'm very confused as to exactly what this Clinton or Obama plans to do for the country. Now they're flinging insults about who supports which evil, big-money scheme or influence, while I understand that both have taken a lot of corporate donations, so either one using that argument is hypocritical, IMO.

Meanwhile Dennis Kucinich has refused to take corporate donations and wants to take personhood rights from corporations, which is why we don't see him in corporate mainstream media news or debates anymore. Yeah, it's convenient to say he doesn't have enough share of the vote to be debate-worthy, but isn't this a little early in the game for that to matter? He's a valid candidate, actively seeking election, yet is being shut out in Texas by his own party. It's also very convenient for Obama and Clinton that neither now has to worry in the debates about Kucinich's pesky record of voting consistently against the Iraq War and the funding of the Iraq War, which I think most Americans would support -- not funding the war, that is. Nancy Pelosi says that everywhere she goes, Americans are telling her they want Cheney/Bush impeached, which Kucinich has taken action to do and she has blocked, even though that's one of the reasons voters have handed her a Democratic majority in Congress. They wanted to end the Iraq War and hold the administration accountable for torture and the outing of Plame, for lying about WMDs, and so forth. So much for that.

Since being excluded from the debates, Kucinich is losing his place in the polls, which had been steadily increasing earlier. Huh. Go figure. Does anyone have any doubt that Americans still get most of their election information from TV networks? That once they stop hearing a name in the news or seeing a candidate in the TV debates, they forget he exists?

The challenge for every voter is to make our votes count for what we believe in, to have as much voting integrity as Dennis Kucinich, and to use our votes to nominate the candidate who most represents what we want, not just the one most likely to win but who is still fuzzy on what they'll actually do once they win, or doesn't have a track record to back up their claims.

This is a great example of how even one word added or left out of a quote can be so misunderstood and used to effect the quote. The addition of the word "Good" by the Clintons was flat out wrong, and I happen to be a strong supporter of Hillary.

Bill Clinton lied to the american people and under oath to congress. They are liars, there's no way around it.

The Clintons used the same old strategy. They lie. They are not honest. The will say anything to win the nomination. They have no ethical value. Things that Bill Clinton did in the white house as president that has lead to the prelude of his impeachment, was so bad, I do not even know how to explain it to my 6 year old. They used all kinds of tricks, tears and pretense of anger to manipulate the media and scare up votes. This is disgraceful. I know that Bill wants to finish his legacy, but he needs to conduct the campaign in a way that is conducive to respect and civility.

Here is the current strategy -- Bill goes loose and says anything that he wants including lying to derail Obama off his message. In the meantime, Hillary will have more time to talk about the economy and her mandating health care system, similar to the ones implemented by governor Mitt Romney in Massachusetts before his departure. People in Massachusetts, who cannot pay for their heating bill, would rather pay the current fine because it is less than buying a health insurance premium. Forcing people to pay a fine and yet calling the plan, universal heath insurance, sounds more like a great euphemism to me. This sounds just like as a real fairy tale to me; give me a break. Our problem will not be solved until we remove the lobbyists in Washington. The previous attempt to solve the healthcare crisis was done behind closed doors. The second attempt will be mandating a health care plan to force people who can’t afford it to pay additional fees. She may as well choose the previous governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, as a running mate, for they have the same health care plan.

The strategy outlined above may win the nomination, but it will lose the election.
1. The Clintons are working vigorously to put a wall – calling Obama “young African American.
2. This morning, she called him a frustrated young man
3. The Clinton purposely lied to provoke Obama and to derail him off his message.
Please Obama do no let this only hope dies.
Without you, there is no more interest in politic. Without you, there is no surge in voting registration. Without you, there is no full auditorium with thousand and thousands followers. Without you, there is no more reason to believe in again. Without you, The Tiger Woods analogy ceases to exist – he made golf interested to young people as you make politic interested to college kids across the country. Without you, citizens would stop changing party affiliation from republican and independent to democrats for the coming 08 election. Without you, we are back to the same food fight – red and blue state again -- Red for republican and blue for democrats.
Please don’t let the status quo blocks the change movement and derail Obama off the message to unite the America.
“There is not a liberal America and a conservative America - there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America - there's the United States of America.”

MJ,
Show us where Obama called the Clintons racist? Show us?...didn't think you could. Go away liar.

Posted by: jethro | January 22, 2008 2:19 PM

Jethro,
Read my earlier post.
If Obama approved his surrogates' lie -- and he did -- then he lied, by any moral and legal definitions of "lie"

Really tho, my point is that it's disingenuous for the Obama camp to instigate this type of campaign and then whine about poor barack being picked on

John E Obomabot JM,

I'm curious, why haven't you mentioned Leo Juanito today?

I got news for you, buddy, Mr. Two Americas is NEVER going to take the reins, specifically because he lives in one America and preaches to the chorus of the other one.

Clintons liars? He did not have sexual relations with that woman. Oh wait...

I am blown away that people trust the Clintons.

Eric is right on the mark. Unfortunately the big lie technique is effective.

The Clintons have rewritten history and played fast and loose with the truth since they were in college. They see the Presidency as their birthright and they fume and pout and screech when anyone questions them about anything. On the other hand, Barack is VERY cosy with the Chicago machine and some very unsavory characters, like Tony Rezko, who "helped" Barack and Michelle buy the mansion they now live in. I don't see him giving THAT to charity anytime soon. I am not a big fan of Obama's -- he is to much of a socialist for my taste, but please, God -- ANYONE but Hillary Clinton!

MJ, give John E some time. He'll trot out his usual drunken nonsense, which is particularly funny for a guy who posts under seveal names, as well as posting as other posters, to point a finger at anyone he suspects of posting under another name.

I got news for you, buddy, Mr. Two Americas is NEVER going to take the reins, specifically because he lives in one America and preaches to the chorus of the other one.

Posted by: Jeff | January 22, 2008 4:11 PM

What, Edwards has to live in a Yurt and eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches to be a sincere and credible spokesman for the disadvantaged? How many politicians live in the same socio-economic strata as most Americans?

The 90's seem, after the BushCo years, about a century ago. But think back, and one thing is clear-- the Clinton's have always had a dysfunctional relationship with the truth. They are slicksters, scammers and class A BS'ers. Even for politicians. Once, just once, I'd love it for Bill "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" Clinton dare God to strike him dead if he's lying. Just once.

The Clintons are liars and degenerates, who'll stop at nothing to get back to the WH.Don't think they'll hesitate to alienate one of the pillars of the democratic party, the black vote, to get their way. Shameless as they are, they will come back to pander to blacks to vote for them in the general election.How insane would they be to vote for such crooks?

I don't think people realize how many voters are republican in name only. There are so many people out there that want healthcare reform, that hate the war, that hate bush, but would never think of voting for any of the democrats that have run for president in the last 30 years. If you really want change you have to get those people on board. This voter can best be described as:

Loved Reagan, hated Clinton, hates Bush II

These voters are very different people than they were when they voted for Reagan, but they are never going to think Reagan was bad. Obama is politically deft by invoking Reagan and dismissing Clinton. It's a way of letting these people know that it's OK to vote for him.

I think Obama can help solve the conundrum of What's the Matter with Kansas. He can help turn the country to the left the same way Reagan turned it to the right.

OBAMA 08!

MJ

Who is Leo Juanito?

Obama repeatedly said he was going to finish his senate term and not run for president in 2008. Was Obama lying?

Obama consistently denied that he had done any favors for Rezko. Until the media unearthed two letters Obama wrote to state officials urging them to grant extra funds for Rezko's project. Was Obama lying?

Obama says he is a "uniter" and his campaign had nothing to do with attacking Bill Clinton over use of "fairy tale" as supposedly being racist. That is, until a four-page memo outlining Obama's racial strategy was leaked by his campaign and held up by Tim Russert during the SC debate. Was Obama lying?

Obama promised us "change" also, but has done precious little since becoming our U.S. senator but posture and campaign for the presidency and cut deals to enrich himself and his wife. Was Obama lying?

Senator Obama will cleanse our country of Reaganism. Just today, my husband was talking to a friend of his who's husband is a cop, a typical white, rural, blue-collar, independent-but-leans-republican voter. To my husband's great surprise, this woman and her husband were enthusiastic supporters of Sen. Obama. They liked that he was against the war, but mostly they just like him. It is really that simple. Thank God Obama is a progressive Democrat and not a Republican.

If Hillary poses a question about Obama's record it's a female dog but then if Edwards - its newsworthy YOU MAKE THE CALL
this is an anti-female country that make .76 for every male in the work place.

The Clintons are very talented word-smithing attorneys who can push the meaning of statements to the edge of truthfulness and to their own advantage. Past evidence: President Clinton's linguistic defense during the Monica Lewinsky mess.

They are talented politicans with good intentions and for their own advantage.

But "trustworthy"...?...In a word: "No."

Check out this video that shows Bill Clinton dozes off at a MLK event:

http://www.wxii12.com/video/15108887/index.html

So much for the "first black president" !!

MJ = Leo Juanito?

I knew it all along....

The Clinton's have a history of "stretching the truth," "turning the facts," "misrepresentation," -- call it what you want it is lying, plain and simple. People, who habitually lie - and, quite frankly, are good at it, don't change. Do we want habitual liars running our country? More importantly than the obvious spin she put on her interpretation to attack Obama (because she can't find real issues and facts to use), is the fact that she worked on the corporate board of Wal-Mart (and got paid for it very handsomely I am sure). She CHOSE, elected out of her free will to work for and represent a company with a long and undisputed history of being anti-union (they close stores that unionize); yet she courts unions to support her. Additionally, Wal-Mart is known to have an excessively poor record on offering affordable healthcare benefits to its employees, most of who are part time and earn less than the national poverty level. In fact, significantly less than half of all Wal-Mart employees are covered by the offered healthcare plans - 43 percent - versus 66 percent nationally for companies their size. And, the waiting period is more than 2x the national average for retail employees. And the CEO said publicly that public health care in many of the states Wal-Mart does business is a better value than the paltry plan they offer. They created a terrible plan and are leaving it to the states they do business in to take care of their corporate responsibility. The points on this go on and on. Isn't that an atrocity for a candidate that has healthcare at the top of her agenda? If she was so concerned about it why did she work for one of the worst companies in terms of employee benefits? And, if that was a mistaken career step in her past, why does she not admit it? Is she afraid the trail of money will dry up??????? She does what she needs to move ahead politically and that is dangerous for our country.

MJ

Who is Leo Juanito?

Posted by: Kathleen | January 22, 2008 5:16 PM

I don't know. John E has been calling me (and occasionally other people) "Leo Juanito" for quite a while now. The common patterni s that all of his LJs are people he disagrees with or doesn't understand.

My guess is that the real Leo Juanito was somebody who gave John E daily swirlies and stole his lunch money in middle school.

Thank you for the exact words, I hope this gets to as many people as possible.

please it wasnt plan to mention nixon and clinton in the same breath. excuse even the black caucus members said they felt he was praising the gop ideas...then as always he says well i meant to say they were bad as he meant to vote over 130 times. last he did not pass or vote on 4ooo bills, thus he lied last night

Come on people! Think back - too busy to bake cookies! definition of "is"
what more do you want -
they are hitting you over the head with lie loaded bats! Hill-Bill are the Spinmeisters! Sure, Barack is no saint - but he has a long way to go to come even close to spinning like Hill-Bill

I don't know. John E has been calling me (and occasionally other people) "Leo Juanito" for quite a while now

Posted by: MJ | January 22, 2008 5:46 PM

You're lying again, girlfriend, and your constant sob story isn't swaying anyone.

Humorous, dt. He doesn't need to live in a yurt. He needs to abstain from $300 haircuts and not live extravagantly. Until then he'll just turn off the people he claims he's representing. There's a reason he's polling in the single digits and Obama and Hillary are getting all the union votes he's been pandering for.

If you have a major sincerity problem then your candidacy stands on brittle glass. But don't take that from me. Just look at where he's finishing in the primaries.

Mrs Obama and WalMart.

"Michelle Obama resigned her position as a director of Treehouse Foods today, ending the relationship with the Wal-Mart supplier that had threatened to become a problem for her husband, Barack Obama, in his bid for the Democratic nomination for president."

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/05/michelle_obama_resigns_positio.html

Daddy's little girl,

If you like Reagan than you have to like Bush II.

People who idolized Reagan in foreign relations brought you Bush II.

Big surprise.

The Clintons are lying dirtbags.

The country discovered that years ago.

How do you know when the Clinton's are lying? Their lips are moving!!!!!

The Clintons are liars. They've always been liars. "I did not have sex with that woman". Which woman was that? Hillary had known for years that Bill cheated on her and she put up with it. When the whole world found out about Monica, Hillary played the victim. And it goes on and on and on.

Dear all Clinton supporters,

It's like this: There may be enough of you to eek-out a win for Hillary in the Democratic primary, but the way in which she and Bill have campaigned has totally alienated most all other democrats who now commonly say they will NEVER VOTE for her. This also goes for independents and (needless to say) ALL republicans. Obama could build a real, broad majority to win in '08 but the dem establishment is displaying again its love of losing. For all your passion, you are still short-sighted idiots. Thanks for nothin'

Sincerely,

Pretty Much Everybody Else

Isn't it sort of a lie to promise "change" to Illinois voters in 2004 and then do nothing but endorse hacks like Toddler Stroger and Alexi Giannoulos in between photo ops in Africa and presidential campaign stops?

Posted by: Jeff | January 22, 2008 3:13 PM

Yep.

Isn't it sort of a lie to promise "change" to Illinois voters in 2004 and then do nothing but endorse hacks like Toddler Stroger and Alexi Giannoulos in between photo ops in Africa and presidential campaign stops?

Posted by: Jeff | January 22, 2008 3:13 PM

Yep.

THANK YOU! I was beginning to think many journalist and readers had never learned basic reading comprehension! As an educated woman, I am happy to read an article that truly analyzes the statements factually. Kudos.

Dear michael J W,

Dear all Obama supporters,

It's like this: There may be enough of you to eek-out a win for Obama in the Democratic primary, but the way in which he and his campaign have campaigned has totally alienated other democrats who now commonly say they will still vote for him becuse they, unlike you, show some class and know this isn't a personality contest. For all your passion, you are still short-sighted idiots. Thanks for nothin'.

Sincerely,

Pretty Much Everybody Else