Spin Cycle

To all, this is a signal on how Hillary will run a potential White House. Her push for secrecy resulted in the healthcare flop of the 1990's. Now she has decided she won't release information that should already be in the public record. If she supported the earmarks, why won't she release such information to the public? If these earmarks were truly warranted and important, let the voters see such and see your leadership Mrs. Clinton.

what does she have to hide? This type of action is just like the current administration,always an excuse for not telling the real facts.If she wins,will the public be dwaling with more parinoia?

Why is Hillary allowed to call out the shots; which states are important and which states are not, calling for the delegates in Florida and Michigan to be seated when she clearly broke her promise and not giving out info regarding earmarks and tax returns. I don't get it.

What Hillary has to hide is the Paul v Clinton fraud case this year in California, the Watergate for the Democrats.

It is obvious that the monster is at it again.
It is all about her. She considers herself above the law and the citizen (who pays for the earmarks) be damned.

The people of the United States of America pay for Hillary's earmark request. This should be public information. No earmarks, no taxes with schedules since they left the White house, no list of donors to the Clinton Library, none of the White House papers. I guess Hillary doe not have to show the public anything. Just like the good old days right.

Hillary's behavior gets more and more like Bush & Cheney every day.

It's unprecedented just how open Barack Obama is in his interviews with the two Chicago papers. Yet he remains open and approachable. And looking very Presidential over a few very difficult days. His Presidential campaign RETURNED Senatorial campaign money they could find at that time. Then said if they found more, they'd say so and make arrangements to return that.

Funny how when Obama does what he says, the other campaigns and much of the media has a problem with him doing just that. Hillary - she would never submit to this kind of direct, high heat, one-on-one vetting of her most troublesome dealings, such as Greenberg Traurig / Jack Abramoff / The Tan Family Scandal, or her ties to THIS Rezko scandal. She cannot match him on either the points of character or of integrity. One really has to ask this difficult question - Can I Trust Him. Then you look at the fact no one is making Hillary or John "Lobbyist King" do this in this way. And you realize the answer is Yes.

This lack of transparency with respect to earmarks and tax returns is troubling. It is in the interest of all Americans, regardless of political affiliation, to insist that Senator Clinton (and other politicians) release their records. If we do not hold our politicians to a high standard of open government, we lose.

This is clearly just another attempt to turn nothing into something. I am surprised that these candidates can eat without it be scrutinized. Maybe one of them is eating more American than the other????
It is ridiculous what they are doing. They are dividing a party which should be united.
Obama hides behind his "people" and "sources" allowing them to take the pot shots at Clinton and do all the dirty work. It is his campaign manager and others who are out there digging up these stories and making them larger than life. It is called political propaganda and it is doing exactly what he intends for it to do. It is dirty politics which he always says he is above. Just because the words and stories don't come directly from him it does not mean that his hands are clean. I am seeing this over and over again.
This is the slimiest type of politician there is. Hiding behind others and letting them take them blame while denying any knowledge of what is going on.Haven't we had enough of this behavior with Bush? If elected we are going to wake up in the morning thinking what the hell was I thinking.... he is nothing but a smooth talker who gives great speeches ( he gets paid to do this for those of you who don't know) However, in most instances when he comes under fire he crumbles and he deflects. He refuses to answer questions about the issues for which he is being questioned but instead he turns it around and starts talking about Clinton. I want him to answer the questions. Not rehearsed answers to the same old questions. I don't want rehearsed answers that I have heard over and over, I want answers to the questions that you are being asked and refuse to answer. When the story about the Reverend broke he said very little ( other than to bake the Reverend) and answered no questions. It was not until many days later when he realized the damage that was being done to him did he "denounce" the Reverend's comments and dismissed him. He claims he wasn't in the church during these kinds of sermons. The sermons in which the Reverend "damns" America and refers the USA as the KKK. He claims that he wasn't apart of these types of sermons? Did he just happen to pick the right days? How does that happen? I expected to believe that? Am I also suppose to believe that after all his years in this church in which he was married and his children were baptized he has never heard the type of politics the Reverend stands for? He is not only his so called "mentor" but also his "spiritual adviser." in his personal and political life.Am I to believe that he chose this man to hold all those very important positions in his life yet he never knew of his political and religious beliefs? Thus implying that you showed very poor judgment in doing so. Either way it is bad.
Just as he didn't have much to say about that issue, he has only one line when it comes to his former fund raiser who is being investigated. The one with whom he not only had a relationship with but had personal and political financial dealings with WHEN HE KNEW that he was being investigated by the FBI!. He refuses to answer all the questions. When he was questioned by reporters he stormed out refusing to answer their questions. Why? Is that the kind of leader we want?
Let's hear his answers..... in the face of such controversy I don't want to hear about earmarks for NY ( no offense to NY I love it there) I want to know the character of the person who may become commander and chief and what type of judgment he has. I think that is more important at this point. So far I see very poor judgment on the part of Obama on many instances. Let's talk about some of the real issues here! He will be dealing with many people in his potential position. If he can't do it in his personal life ( pick credible people) or with reporters, what makes anyone think he can do so as leader of this country? Earmarks? Please don't fall for the propaganda being sent out to deflect you from the questions you should really be asking!
Like why does he have a pastor that refers to America and the US as the KKK and that "Damns" America.
The stories like this one are only to deflect your attention. An attempt to sway the attention from the story that has been front page and deserve some real attention!
Please don't allow it to work.

Gallie:

You are either a plant or a troll. You cannot POSSIBLY be serious in trying to connect a politician who IS being transparent...who is making himself accountable to those who vote for him...to a slimy politician. Maybe YOU don't care about her connection to special interests, but the rest of us find it to be a strong indicator of her way of doing things...ESPECIALLY when she's walking around talking about transparency in government herself! Two people are talking about it...one is doing it. And you call HIM the slime?

You base your point around him "hiding behind his people". Can you blame him? HRC's camp has put out more negative campaigning than we've seen in some time. Would you expect the CEO to come out and just chat with the union workers striking in front of his company? No, you work THROUGH PEOPLE. This allows you to focus. And if you think for a minute that running a campaign for the biggest job in America involving tens hundreds of millions of dollars doesn't take focus, then you really are naive.

I fully support the way Obama has run his campaign. Clean, with low negativity, and with ideas we need in this country. Better than that, he ACTS like a president. No other candidate I've seen in my lifetime has given me the feeling of hope he promises. But if you want to troll around looking to trash something so many want, then maybe you need to check and see what your party affiliation really is. I'd suggest Republican as the affiliation you're looking for.

In her last debate with her opposing candidate she said she will DISCLOSE ALL her information from that era topresent, just as soon as Senator Obama and Senator McCain are ready to do so.

ItsUp2UAmerica,

Well, it looks like Obama has already disclosed all of his paperwork--all earmarks since in Congress and tax returns. Now, it is time for Hillary to do the same. What's the hold-up?

It takes no more than a day to cough up the previous tax returns. These are already completed and filed.

I don't want my President to be beholden by special interests, so if you've got nothing to hide, then its time to shell out the info.

Kaine, You state that "No other candidate I've seen in my lifetime has given me the feeling of hope he promises." What hope is it that he promises? Change? What kind of change? He won't define it, maybe his reverend's word's are the change he is referring to. It took him 5 days to renounce the man...seems like a problem.

btw...he did release his earmarks that he got for the hospital his wife worked for and she got a 2X pay increase. Nice.

Hitlery is no different either...they both talk of change and promises they cannot keep. They complain about the national debt, yet only make promises to increase it...not decrease it( without taking more of our money).

Real change would be a government that was transparent and accountable and spent within its budgets...I have to!

Since these two are supposed to be leaders, can someone fill me on a couple of items? Can't ever seem to find someone that can give me 5 examples of bills/laws that either of these authored that was of any significance, so please post a couple, if you can.

Gailie,

I feel your pain, I too wanted the first female president to come before the first black one. But recently, I have realized that this is much deeper than that. Once I started to take a step back and compare Hillary as a person to Barack as a person... Once I took away the spin from the campaign... Once I gave myself the opportunity to be objective.. I realized that Obama is clearly better for America right now.

We need to hand the government back to the people. Hillary will only give populist speeches but her actions do not support the rhetoric. Obama has been much more open, transpenent and honest with the American people.

Emily in PA

What the heck is an earmark? And who the heck cares?

Bob,

This article by grassrootsmom entitled "I Refuse to Buy the Obama Hype" helped me cut through the campaign spin and focus on the issues and policy differences that are important to me.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633

Emily in PA

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/?page_id=237

NOW, MORE THAN EVER, YOU NEED TO KNOW THE FACTS ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON:

What is her program. What would she do as President?
How did she avoid indictment for her past scandals?
What did her brothers get in return for Bill’s pardons?
What did she really do to make $100,000 in the futures market?
How did she use campaign finance fraud to win election to the Senate?
What has she really done as Senator?

earmarking is when you set aside taxpayer money for projects that either scratch the backs of your donors or help people you know personally rather than focusing on the good of the public.

you should care because if the practice were put to rest, there would be more money to pay for projects and services that actually benefit a greater number of people... or we could reduce taxes and let people spend the money how we wish.

when a candidate is taking a lot of money from lobbyists, they usually end up paying back the favor by supporting laws that benefit the people who helped them get in power.

bush and the republicans have been notorious for this (halliburton, etc.) but the democrats have been getting involved in their share as well.

right now, the argument is that hillary has been talking a huge amount of money from lobbyists without disclosing her tax returns (how she has been getting money) or other records that show how money is being spent.

obama is very much against this practice and has fought for more government accountability. this is why he does not take any money from lobbyists or other people who have a vested interest in donating. he only takes money from people like you and me so all he needs to focus on is.. what's best for the american people.

What is she hiding? she doesn't want to reveal the Earmarks and is waiting one week before the next primary to release her Tax info. what are the clintons hiding, Obama has relieved everything so far. Hes not afraid of things he has asked for etc.

Go Obama

I find all of the remarks quite intersting and I do feel that Ms Clinton should reveal the earmarks to the American people since if she has her way we will be footing the bill.

I find this whole campaign to be rampant with secrey and what may be twisted comments on history. Please see below the item I received today. Is there any fact in this? I shall let you decide.

Obama Offers Wild Revision of His Own History

by Paul R. Hollrah

Posted: 03/27/2007

Tuning in to C-SPAN recently, I found myself listening to a speech by Illinois Democratic Sen. Barack Hussein Obama. He was standing at the pulpit of a black church in Selma, Ala., and as I studied the body language of the dozen or so black ministers standing behind the senator, I couldn't help but be reminded of the little head-bobbing dolls that people used to place in the rear windows of their 1957 Chevrolets. If their reactions are any indication, the new Schlickmeister of the Democratic Party is actually a pretty accomplished public speaker.

However, as he spoke, I found my B.S. alarm going off repeatedly. But I couldn't quite figure out why until I actually read excerpts of his speech several days later. Here's part of what he said:

"Something happened back here in Selma, Ala. Something happened in Birmingham that sent out what Bobby Kennedy called 'ripples of hope all around the world.' Something happened when a bunch of women decided they were going to walk instead of ride the bus after a long day of doing somebody else's laundry, looking after somebody else's children.

"When [black] men who had Ph.D.s decided 'that's enough' and 'we're going to stand up for our dignity,' that sent a shout across oceans so that my grandfather began to imagine something different for his son. His son, who grew up herding goats in a small village in Africa, could suddenly set his sights a little higher and believe that maybe a black man in this world had a chance. . .

"So the Kennedys decided we're going to do an air lift. We're going to go to Africa and start bringing young Africans over to this country and give them scholarships to study so they can learn what a wonderful country America is.

"This young man named Barack Obama got one of those tickets and came over to this country. He met this woman whose great-great-great-great-grandfather had owned slaves. But she had a good idea there was some craziness going on because they looked at each other and they decided that we know that, [in] the world as it has been, it might not be possible for us to get together and have a child. There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Ala., because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama, Jr., was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Ala. Don't tell me I'm not coming home to Selma, Ala."

Okay, so what's wrong with that? It all sounds good-but is it?

Obama told his audience that because some folks had the courage to "march across a bridge" in Selma, Ala., his mother, a white woman from Kansas, and his father, a black Muslim from Africa, took heart. It gave them the courage to get married and have a child. The problem with that characterization is that Barack Obama, Jr., was born Aug. 4, 1961, while the first of three marches across that bridge in Selma didn't occur until March 7, 1965, almost four years after Obama was born.

Obama went on to tell his audience that the Kennedys-Jack and Bobby-decided to do an airlift. They would bring some young Africans over so that they could be educated and learn all about America. His grandfather heard that call and sent his son, Barack Obama, Sr., to America.

The problem with that scenario is that, having been born in August 1961, the future senator was not conceived until sometime in November 1960. So, if his African grandfather heard words that "sent a shout across oceans," inspiring him to send his goat-herder son to America, it was not Democrat Jack Kennedy he heard, or his brother Bobby, it was Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Obama's speech is reminiscent of Al Gore's claim of having invented the Internet, Hillary Clinton's claim of having been named after the first man to climb Mt. Everest (even though she was born five years and seven months before Sir Edmund climbed the mountain), and John Kerry's imaginary trip to Cambodia.

As one of my black friends, Eddie Huff, has said, "We need to ask some very serious questions of the senator from Illinois. It's not enough to be black, it's not enough to be articulate, and it's not enough to be eloquent and a media darling. . . . The only question will be how deaf an ear, or how blind an eye, will people turn in order to turn a frog into a prince."

It appears that Sen. Barrack Hussein Obama is not the "fresh face" media sycophants like to describe him as. He's just another in a long line of Democratic snake-oil salesmen.

Thanks for your time! By the way if you found the remarks interesting about Sen Obama perhaps you may want to point them out to a few friends as apparently unless we can devote all of our time to this tangled mess of politics the only way to stay up to date is via email and internet info along with TV and newspapers etc.

I don't find earmarks all that bad...I would expect every Senator to try to get as much financial gains as they can for needed improvements in the State they represent. I also am not interested in the candiates tax returns along as they are okay with the IRS I am okay

I don't think it matters where the earmark goes to. America makes billions of dollars. Other people are probably worse and some people are probably not as bad with earmarks.

if it doesn't matter then what is she hiding?

i thought she was 'vetted'

what a bunch of BS.

she has been hiding so much and obama has been only been slightly nudging her about it. the rebuplicans will TEAR HER APART. not to mention that she will lose so much democratic support if she steals the nomination using super delegates. i sure as hell couldn't vote for her if i knew that all the votes that went in to selecting barack on the democratic side didn't count for sh*t and ultimately 900 people who are 'super' ended up choosing the establishment candidate.

i think she is trying to take the democratic party down with her huge ego. sometimes i get really pissed at her childish antics, but then i remind myself that she is stuck at the stage of a 6 yearold girl and i feel a lot better..

'okay hillary, florida and michigan won't count because they broke the rules...'

hillary - 'no! i don't care about the rules, all the votes need to be counted.'

'okay hillary, all the votes have been counted with FL and MI and barack is still the winner'

hillary - 'no! i've got superdelegates who can overturn all the people's votes'

....you get the picture.

- a clinton supporter until a month ago.

the more secretive a government becomes.. the less it serves the people.

bush et al. are a great example of this concept.

putting another clinton in the whitehouse will not only continue the trend of the past 28 years of having a bush or clinton in power (don't forget bush the first was VP from 80-88).. but it will continue the secrecy and backroom deals that have made our country fall apart..

i am so bummed out when people don't care about how their government uses their money. the american people have been lulled to sleep as corporate fascism reigns supreme.

carol - your article is filled with errors.

I love watching you Democrats cannabalize yourselves..... thanks for doing us Republicans a big favor & for saving us money when it comes time to run adds!!!

The denial (or double speak) to release her earmarks is simply the latest in an ongoing pattern by she and her husband of thinking that THEY are above being answerable to the American public (and I actually like some of what Bill accomplished while in the White House). After all, don't you get the feeling that we saw the real Hillary, after her South Carolina loss when she began to fear that her entitlement to inherit the thrown looked in jeopardy and the gloves came off. Beneath the smile was a thinly veiled venemous spirit. She is capable of stooping to even lower levels, mind you.

To the gentleman who asked the salient question - of why is she calling all the shots, while I agree that even CNN of late seems to be playing to her conductor's wand lately, I have been quite concerned by the Obama campaign's inability to control the public discourse and stay on message (they too often appear to be on the ropes). When was the last time you heard/saw some of Obama's soaring/inspirational oratory that set him apart from the rest and sparked a movement!?!?

Is anyone listening?!?! Relatedly, he seems to also disappear for the weekend as if there is no news cycle and she has capitalized on this fact by making headlines the last few weekends.

Please someone help this campaign and hold Hillary accountable!!

Matt Clune
Allentown, PA

Carol - That's the most retarded article I've seen...

Listening to Hillary say the word "transparency" is like hearing Bush say the word "nucular". It sets my teeth on edge. Hillary has never been transparent. Her Wellesely senior thesis, tax records, now as before Bill's first campaign, her White House schedules, and now earmarks...all sealed at one time or another.
She had her miraculous investment dividends to hide in the past - only discovered after the election when they finally released prior returns - and so it's not unreasonable to believe that it's not a matter of if she's hiding something, it's a matter of what she's hiding.

Censor this you pricks

Can I have an earmark for "Kristin" ?? That does fall under New York - she sounds kind of fun - and expensive - hence the earmark. As far as this article goes - please no Bush -Clinton - Bush - Clinton. It has to end - she is going to run things like they have been done for the past 30 years - it's time for a real change. I would rather have Obama screw up then deal with the same old snails pace of reforms and action over the past 40 years.

Amen, Jolly Roger...

All this coming from the party that is ALL-Inclusive-No-Matter-Your-Skin-Color-Sex-Belief-Politicalaffiliation-Just-As-You-Think-Like-Me....

Talk about being cannibals....

Oh,,, and one other thing,,,,

Just remember that almost all politicians are lawyers... and that means that the lying gene is turned on...

This goes for both parties.... is any of them pure as the driven snow???? How about living in glass houses... who wants to throw the first stone.....

hillary is awesome
obama is blank and he is playing the race card again.....how desparate

Damn it's great to live in the US and have the right to dissent. Quit all the ragging, learn the facts, and make your voice heard by voting. And remember, we are a democracy, so the majority rules. ( except with them dang hanging chads)

Change. Sound familiar? Why are the 2 Dem candidates resorting to the same old tired nasty tactics of ripping and shredding opponents when their rhetoric is all about "change?" Which one of these two Senators have the courage to REALLY change the system and begin showing just what type of changes they would bring to this country? With the bashing of the Democratic candidates by the Democratic candidates we may as well resign ourselves to another 8 years of GOP admiistration. If Senator Clinton wants change let her show us that change. If Senator Obama wants change, let him show us that change. Now. We can only hope the Democratic candidates won't self-destruct in their passion for holding onto the reprehensible tactics of all previous campaigns and leave the American people out in the cold. We can only pray that one of these candidates comes to the realization that this campaign for the President of the United States is about the American people and not about the agenda of the individual candidates. We all have our preference - Hillary or Barack. Let your candidate know that you want them to demonstrate the kind of change they speak about. We, the voting public, will change the way we elect our representatives - by NOT voting for those who promulgate the old political ways.

Earmark reform is something that I'm a big fan of...that's one of the many reasons I'm voting John McCain.

Add 3 potential candidates are starting to say the right thing, but it's all for the political race.

Who knows what Obama really thinks about earmarks...the short history is not good.

Everyone knows what Hillary thinks about earmarks...the long history is awful.

Everyone knows what McCain thinks about earmarks...the long history is superb.

Aren't these earmark requests in public records somewhere?

Beautiful!!!!! The welfare mongers once again show their hypocracy in public.

This is exactly why we need (at LEAST) a third party. I'm so sick of this Republican v. Democrat BS. They're all corrupt! Could you imagine only being able to choose between spaghetti and pizza each and every friggin' day? You get the picture. In a nearly 300-million country, which houses dozens of cultures, ethnicities, and religions, we really only get to hear two sides - those who believe religion should be part of the government, and those who don't. And, interestingly enough, you'll hear a religious right-wing Bible-belt dweller blurt out, all in the same sentence, that it's their God-given right to carry a gun, but homosexuality is an abomination, according to the Bible, and the union between two people should be strictly verboten. So, what's it gonna' be, pal? You want MORE or LESS government...? Just asking... Now, when there's a third party to vote for, I'll become a citizen and go out and vote. Till then, I'm just watching it all unfold...

Bravo to anonymous who wrote this:

"It's unprecedented just how open Barack Obama is in his interviews with the two Chicago papers. Yet he remains open and approachable. And looking very Presidential over a few very difficult days. His Presidential campaign RETURNED Senatorial campaign money they could find at that time. Then said if they found more, they'd say so and make arrangements to return that."

Clearly, Hillary is still trying to cover her tracks. With so many secrets, how could she ever be trusted. We would be no better off with her then with Bush. Haven't the people of this country suffered enough? Personally, I've had it with all the corruption.

Any reasonable person would come to the obvious conclusion that if any senator balked at providing disclosure of how he or she attempted to spend tax dollars (your money), that senator had done something that he or she does not want you to know about. The people who provide the income (the tax dollars) not only have a right to know how their money is being spent; they are entitled to know. If any senator withholds disclosure, he or she is being insubordinate in my opinion and the boss (the tax payers) need to hold him or her accountable.

Clinton is hiing her earmarks because they were ridiculous, never acted upon and always approved....Husama, well he has skeletons too, an is so eloquent in his speeches an so full of BS he REALLY scares me...Why is everyone so blind to Shamnesty, NAFTA, the FDA asleep at thier desks while our school children are being fed tortured cows and sold poisonous toys, all the americans losing thier houses to so much fraud going on, Governor's spending more money on one night stands than I can make in 2 yrs salary...BEWARE....our Flag is tattered..and will soon be replaced because it will be unsatisfactory to the majority

How can anyone running for President and embrace a position that says, "We are now going above and beyond....the common practice on Capitol Hill and releasing all of our requests going forward."? One of Hillary's opponents would do well to run an add that lets everyone know that her campaign/office finally sees the need to go "above and beyond". Why didn't they see it before? That doesn't much sound like a candidate that we can expect much change out of, does it? What else doesn't Hillary's people see the need to go "above and beyond" about? Do we need to make a list of common sense things that we might need to go "above and beyond" on? Do we need to tell the Clinton campaign that the direction of the economy is not looking good and it's time to go "above and beyond"? If we don't and she is elected to the office of President, is she just going to do what everyone else has been doing or will she see the need to go "above and beyond"? Think about it. I know it sounds like a stab at Hillary, but did you ever think she would balk at telling you how she wanted to spend your money?

Ask her to reveal her college thesis. It's the only one I know to be kept secret.

hillary or obama as a native with little education actions speak louder then words so far obama is coming through loud an clear as for (hiLIEry) hillary I CAN HARDLY HEAR HER NATIVES FOR OBAMA

The clintons have always been shady... why do you think they call Bill "Slick Willy"? No not becasue of that, get your mind out of the gutter! This should surprise nobody. She has been and always will be sneaky, shady and slimey.

Nobody should let her get away with this. She should be pressed and pressed until the earmark requests are released. What is she hiding? How stupid does she think that we are?

Ask Bush who was at his first round of energy meetings.See if you get a different answer.

Democrats piss me off!

If you TRULY want transparency in Government, take a look at Ron Paul's record.

Many of his policies will be too far "right" for most Democrat voters. But if transparency is your "hot button," you won't find a better candidate than Paul

He didn't earn the name "Dr No" for nothing.

Carol you have misunderstood the basis of Obama's Selma speech. Do a little research before you speak

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/saywhat.asp

Though I am not an Obama supporter, anyone would be better than Billary

I intend to vote none of the above

To Gallie:

You are CLEARLY PRO-HILLARY! The fact still remain in reference to her character and the politcal propaganda she displays.

Period. Point. Blank.

Let not get lost in past lets look at the country and all the issues that we are facing .Take moment ,Lets just beware one thing if somebody have there feet in the water dos not mean they can swim in the ocean .In this time we need somebody that can face all the challenges .I am sure she can ,Lets pick the one lived in this Ocean for so long that she can smell the shark from far away ,Lets put our hand together and save the country ,In my country we did not do it ,Media got emotin for something new? Ye right see what happen to the country and the life style ,At list with Hillary we know were we going .. ,lets not forget when Clinton was in office we really had good life . I am praying that you do not make mistake they way we did.Use your wisdom not emotion ,not he said she said.Good luck with this country it is a beauty ,do not lose it.

@ LILA SADAFI

What country?

Clinton trying to manipulate the system again? Are you really surprised? Lets see...

- In Iowa, the Clinton campaign tried to tell Iowa College Students, who heavily favored Barack Obama, that if they did not “grow up in Iowa” that they “should not caucus”. “It’s terrible to have candidates making misleading statements about whether or not students can caucus,” said Alexandra Acker, executive director of the Young Democrats of America.

New Hampshire, 7 different polls, including those within the Clinton campaign, showed Obama over Clinton 39% to 30%. The paper ballots in NH (20% of total) showed Obama over Clinton 39% to 30%, but the Electronic machines oddly had Clinton 39% to Obama 30%. I'm sure that's just a coincidence....

- Nevada... law suits on Las Vegas caucus sites. Then numerous Clinton precinct captains shutting the doors to the caucus sites at 11:30am, even tho state law said noon, refusing to allow anyone else in.

- New York Mayor Bloomberg charged that "fraud" was behind the unofficial results in the New York Democratic presidential primary that produced zero votes for Barack Obama in some districts. In 80 districts, many headed by Clinton supporters, Barack Obama received ZERO votes.

- California, hundreds of thousands of Independants, heavily supporting Obama, had their ballots tossed out due to "issues". Some counties tossed out ALL of the Independant ballots.

- New Mexico, 3 ballot boxes were taking to the HOME of an election official, who was the husband of a elected official in NM that had publically endorced Clinton. Clinton barely won NM after a long count of those ballots.

You can find these stories all over from credible sources. Clinton's will stop at nothing to gain power.

Her refusal to release her earmark, and tax returns almost certainly is an attempt to hide some damning information.

LILA SADAFI lets not forget when Clinton was in office we really had good life.

Are you kidding me Billy did nothing when the WTC got bombed in 1993 and taxes see below ,.and do you wish a list of all the other things they did wile in the WH ?

Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008

Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K - tax $4,500

Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500

Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750

Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax $9,000

Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750

Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250

Vicky, under bush my tuition has tripled, my healthcare has doubled, and now gas and groceries are starting to get out of control. all the while, oil profits are soaring.

i do not mind paying tax if that means that i won't get gutted elsewhere. besides, obama does not want to raise tax on people making less than $75,000 and actually wants to eliminate taxes for most of the elderly.

Vicky, you are quoting from an erroneous e-mail that has been passed around - actually by Republicans to show how much better it is with the Bush tax cuts. The only problem is that the numbers are incorrect. Here is a link to the correct information - http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/22958.html

By the way, both Clinton and Bush benefited from "bubble economies". Clinton from the "irrational exuberance" of the dot com stock market (which dropped at the end of his term and caused the recession of 2001 - 2002). And the Bush economy has benefited from the unsustainable rise in real estate / housing prices, along with the exploding of the national debt (living off of a credit card.) But that is in the process of crashing and burning as we speak. Whoever "wins" is going to have a major economic disaster on their hands.

I am ready to "roll the dice" on Obama. Let's try something really different this tim.

Dump the Clinton’s-- NOW!

Every Democratic Party platform embraces tolerance and embraces diversity and eschews racism and bigotry. Senator Barack Obama has been the victim of vicious, hateful, racist, religiously bigoted email and whisper campaigns. Senator Clinton’s campaign has on multiple occasions aided and abetted this attack. Several Clinton campaign officials, including Bill Clinton, have attempted to malign Obama’s reputation. When given a chance to ‘denounce and reject’ the hateful email campaign, Senator Clinton qualified her response (“not that I know of”) just enough to stoke the suspicions of those who stand gullibly ready to believe the email slander.
Senator Clinton compounded the insult and injury by effectively endorsing John McCain over Barack Obama. Beyond making a great attack ad for the GOP, she has eliminated her own ability to campaign for Senator Obama when he becomes the Democratic nominee.
So, is there any principle the Democratic Party loves more than it loves the Clintons? What does the Democratic Party stand for?

Decision time Democrats: Hope for Change with Obama or keep rolling in the mud with the Clintons.

In the wake of her comments of the last week, Senator Hillary Clinton should abandon her Presidential Campaign. In fact she should probably resign her Senate seat. Endorsing the Republican candidate over Senator Obama and casting aspersions on Senator Obama's patriotism and religion are tactics we expect from certain Republican political advisers. We do not expect them someone who would ask us to vote for her for President.

A petition made by Obama supporters to be sent to the DNC
stating that if Senator Clinton becomes the Democratic Nominee for
the presidential election, you will either:
a) abstain from voting in the general election
or
b) a third-party-candidate during the general election.
Here's the link: http://www.petitiononline.com/obama725/petition.html

20 Years of the Bushes and Clintons is Enough!!!!!
I believe that you reap what you sow. The condition that the United States is in today also reflects this. The shape that this country is in today is a result of the seeds that the Bushes and Clintons have planted for the last 20 years.
When Bush leaves office...the United States would have been under the rule of the Bushes and Clintons for 20 years....They trashed this country...they are bullies and liars. Some of our citizens have lost big time (property and lives) based on the decisions made by the Bushes and Clintons. These people have taken us from SCANDAL to WARS to SHAME & BLAME.

Hillary Clinton is one of the most corrupt politicians in American history. Earmarks are just a tip of the iceberg....this woman is hiding the unbelievable. Her behavior just tells us how she would operate in the White House. By the way.......
1. Why is Hillary's role in the Civil Fraud Case in Los Angeles not being discussed?
2. When are you going to start talking about Bill Clinton's Civil Fraud Trial? Hillary is deeply involved in yet another scandal.
3. Where is Hillary’s first lady resume? The records will tell what she was doing while in the White House.
4. Where are the Clintons income tax returns? We need to see the sources of their income. I believe that she has sold us out...

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/?page_id=237

NOW, MORE THAN EVER, YOU NEED TO KNOW THE FACTS ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON:

What is her program. What would she do as President?
How did she avoid indictment for her past scandals?
What did her brothers get in return for Bill’s pardons?
What did she really do to make $100,000 in the futures market?
How did she use campaign finance fraud to win election to the Senate?
What has she really done as Senator?

How come other news casts are not telling us about this news !!!

By MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press Writer

DES MOINES, Iowa - Democrat Barack Obama expanded his fragile lead in delegates over rival Hillary Rodham Clinton on Saturday, picking up nine delegates as Iowa activists took the next step in picking delegates to the national convention.

Also Saturday, California's Democratic Party finalized the delegate counts from its Feb. 5 primary. Clinton picked up two more pledged delegates, raising her state total to 204; Obama gained five, raising his figure to 166.

Counting Saturday's new figures from Iowa and California, an Associated Press delegate tally showed Obama with 1,617 delegates and Clinton with 1,498.

Although it won't happen, I really wish Hillary would go crawl under a rock somewhere where slimy creatures live, and just stay there. She and Bill will stop at nothing to get superdelegates. This bulldozer approach is exactly what we've been living with for the last eight years - who needs more of the same?

Another tiny but telling detail about her is that, on several occasions, she hasn't bothered to congratulate Obama on his wins, when good manners and good sportsmanship would dictate that she do so. Instead, she splits. It's disrespectful and speaks volumes about her character. Obama doesn't do that.

I fear we are in for many rude surprises (and regrets!) if Hillary wins.

what's she got to hide?

WashPost 3/15/08..."Other earmarks, like Sen. Ted Stevens' “bridge to nowhere” and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s so-called “hippie museum” in Bethel, N.Y., have been shamed into oblivion."

Also, ask HRC supporter Bob Kerry about Hill's earmarks to his New School

To "Jolly Roger" | March 15, 2008 18:16
Who said this:
I love watching you Democrats cannabalize yourselves..... thanks for doing us Republicans a big favor & for saving us money when it comes time to run adds!!!

I say: At least Democrats care about little things like the Constitution, personal rights, and that things like elections are run fairly, even when it's not to the benefit of our own candidate. I would rather be a questioning group than a bunch of hypocritical, sheep following anyone with an (R) after his/her name. "Whatever our party does or says must be right." That's the Republican mindset. If you speak out on anything, you MUST not be patriotic. Like YOU people have some sort of lock on patriotism by wearing your little $4.95 flag lapel pins and supporting no-bid contracts for Bush and Co. businesses. Well, "Jolly," while you are congratulating yourself on making fun of us for actually discussing matters of importance and respecting each other's right to disagree, why don't you brush up on your spelling: "adds" as in "advertisements" only has one "s" and "cannabalize" is spelled cannibalize. Wow, I even went to public school!

P.S. Anyone that makes his or her choice for President of the United States based on a 30-second television ad is an idiot anyway. Wake up, people.

One simple reason it's important to release this information asap is that McCain is strongly against Earmarks. Once people learn what earmarks are, it will be a strong weapon for McCain on economic issues.

It is an issue of electability in November.
If Hillary wins the nomination only to have a real earmark / tax scandal blow up in the general election, she will have knowingly sacrificed the democratic party to fulfill her own megalomaniacal desires.

Seeing how her campaign is short-sighted enough to praise McCain while bashing Obama, she may just be winging this one too.

Who cares...the general public does not care about Hillary's taxes and releasing of ear marks from 2001. Obama is just hoping to get something to go negative on. Let's focus on what the people want to hear about !
1.The economy
2.Healthcare
3.Home Foreclosures
4.Iraq
5.A president that can offer a plan for a better future !

**Hillary is the only answer !

Obama is not getting my support because of where he stands on two top issues. Ending The Iraq War and Universal Healthcare.

Obama's top foreign affairs advisor, Samantha Power said that his 16 month withdrawl plan was just a "best case scenario" and that it's just something he's saying as candidate for president. What? That sounds more like McCain's plan. We could still be in Iraq for years if Obama gets in office. I think she was fired for telling us what they discuss in private about Iraq and not the "monster" comment. Listen for yourself what they are planning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yzy3lObigF0

In regards to Heathcare, Obama has plenty of negatives to tell you about Clinton's plan to distract you from the fact that there is "No Chance" we will see Universal Heathcare under his plan.

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/04/krugman-if-obama-is-president-theres-no-chance-for-universal-health-care/

Obama is not the agent of change for the Democratic Party. He never was. Hating on Hillary doesn't change that fact one bit.

Kevin,

My god why don't you actually look at what Obama's team said about Iraq in full context! Stop this spin.

He said the situation at the time will matter. If Iraq becomes worse or if something changes on the ground, it may impact his ability to fully pull out. HOWEVER, based on today, he still fully supports getting out of Iraq as soon as possible.

on Healthcare ... DO YOU ACTUALLY THINK EITHER PLAN will make it through the divided congress?

Johnny Chung Fundraising Scandal
Level of Scandal: 2
Hillary Clinton's Involvement: 9

Johnny Chung gave $366,000 to the Democratic National Committee, and Hillary Clinton's office was his strongest defender under Hillary's chief of staff Maggie Williams. Williams declared, "This is the one office where I can run it the way I want to," and she gave Chung remarkable privileges during Chung's 51 visits to the White House, including signed photographs with the first lady and the privilege to eat on her tab at the White House Mess. Williams testified, A prime example of his ... misguided behavior was his persistent request to give money directly to Mrs. Clinton. On more than one occasion, I told Mr. Chung this was not possible, although his offer was much appreciated. However, Williams' aide Evan Ryan directly told Chung that the DNC owed the White House $80,000 for a Christmas party and asked for a donation to help pay off the debt. Chung personally gave Williams inside the White House a $50,000 check for the DNC. Two days later, Chung brought in a group of Chinese businessmen into the Oval Office to watch Bill Clinton deliver his radio address, and have their picture taken with him. Chung pled guilty to election law violations for his illegal fund-raising.

Conclusion: The announcement on February 10, 2008 that Maggie Williams would become the new campaign manager for Hillary Clinton was a particularly shocking example of the influence-peddling that Hillary is willing to tolerate. Maggie Williams was Hillary's chief of staff as First Lady, and in that role Williams was deeply involved in an especially sleazy aspect of the Clinton Administration. Chung summarized his view of the Clinton Administration this way: The White House is like a subway -- you have to put in coins to open the gates.

Cattle Futures Trading
Level of Scandal: 2 (5 for cover-up)
Hillary's involvement: 10

Wikipedia summary: "In 1978 and 1979, lawyer and First Lady of Arkansas Hillary Rodham engaged in a series of trades of cattle futures contracts. Her initial $1,000 investment generated nearly $100,000 when she stopped trading after ten months....At one point she owed in excess of $100,000 to Refco as part of covering losses, but no margin calls were made by Refco against her.....In 1995, economists from Auburn University and University of North Florida ran a statistical computer model against a record of Rodham's trades, factoring in Wall Street Journal market data from the time, and concluded in an article published in the Journal of Economics and Statistics that there was only a 1 in 250 million chance that Rodham could have made the profits she did legitimately."

Conclusion: There's no evidence that Hillary Clinton realized that she must have been getting some preferential treatment in order to benefit her and her husband financially. But she's not dumb enough to think that people make free money like this without risk. That's why she tried to conceal these facts. In 1992, Hillary personally warned staffers not to talk about the tax returns showing her profits, and the Clintons tax returns were only revealed up to 1980. The campaign successfully created a fake cover story to explain the jump in net worth, falsely telling reporters that it was a gift from Hillary's parents.(Gerth and Van Natta, p. 114-5) The fact that the Clintons currently refuse to reveal their tax returns strongly suggests they have something to hide, considering that their history of selective concealment of tax information to prevent scandalous information from coming out.

Travelgate
Level of Scandal: 1 for scandal (7 for cover-up)
Hillary Clinton's Involvement: 9

In 1993: "May 19: The White House fires seven employees of its Travel Office, following a review by Associate Counsel William Kennedy III, a former member of the Rose Law Firm. Mr. Kennedy's actions, which included attempts to involve the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service in a criminal investigation of the Travel Office, are sharply criticized."

Conclusion: The Travel Office firings were inept and misguided, but never a huge scandal. Hillary actually wanted to show her good government credentials by cleaning up the questionable activities of the White House Travel Office, never realizing that the workers had close relations to the media. I believe Hillary had only good intentions, even though the fact that Arkansas buddies taking over the office made it seem like a patronage issue. But the key fact is that Hillary lied under oath (or came perilously close) in denying any involvement in the firings. The independent counsel concluded, "The evidence is sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. Clinton had a 'role' in the Travel Office firings and that she had 'input' into that decision. Her testimony to the contrary was factually false." Hillary could have easily been charged with perjury and obstruction of justice, but proving that she knowingly lied was difficult, and Hillary was never the main target of the investigations, so they gave her a break. Still, the scandal shows Hillary's managerial ineptitude and her propensity to deny responsibility.

Pardongate
Level of Scandal: 5
Hillary Clinton's Involvement: 1

From wikipedia: "In March 2000, Bill Clinton pardoned Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, owners of the carnival company United Shows International, for charges of bank fraud from a 1982 conviction (the couple were already out of jail, but the prior conviction prevented them from doing business transactions in certain states). First Lady Hillary Clinton's youngest brother, Tony Rodham, was an acquaintance of the Gregorys, and had lobbied Clinton on their behalf. In October 2006, the group Judicial Watch filed a request with the U.S. Justice Department for an investigation, alleging that Rodham had received $107,000 from the Gregorys for the pardons, in the form of loans that were never repaid, as part of a quid pro quo scheme....Almon Glenn Braswell was pardoned of his mail fraud and perjury convictions, even while a federal investigation was underway regarding additional money laundering and tax evasion charges. Braswell and Carlos Vignali each paid approximately $200,000 to Hillary Clinton's brother, Hugh Rodham, to represent their respective cases for clemency. Hugh Rodham returned the payments after they were disclosed to the public."
"Marc Rich, a fugitive, was pardoned of tax evasion....Critics complained that Denise Rich, his former wife, had made substantial donations to the Clinton library and to Mrs. Clinton's senate campaign....According to Paul Volcker's independent investigation of Iraqi Oil-for-Food kickback schemes, Marc Rich was a middleman for several suspect Iraqi oil deals involving over 4 million barrels of oil."

Conclusion: Bill Clinton's abuse of his pardon power disgusted nearly everyone, but there's no clear evidence of Hillary Clinton's involvement. Still, it's hard to believe that she knew absolutely nothing about what her husband was doing on behalf of her brother and one of her major donors.

Whitewater
Level of Scandal: 1
Hillary Clinton's Involvement: 5

According to Wikipedia: "The Whitewater controversy was the focus of media attention from the publication of a New York Times report during the 1992 presidential campaign, and throughout her time as First Lady. The Clintons had lost their late-1970s investment in the Whitewater Development Corporation; at the same time, their partners in that investment, Jim and Susan McDougal, operated Madison Guaranty, a savings and loan institution that retained the legal services of Rose Law Firm, and may have been improperly subsidizing Whitewater losses. Madison Guaranty later failed, and Clinton's work at Rose was scrutinized for a possible conflict of interest in representing the bank before state regulators that her husband had appointed; she claimed she had done minimal work for the bank. Independent counsels Robert Fiske and Kenneth Starr subpoenaed Clinton's legal billing records; she claimed to be unable to produce these records. The records were found in the First Lady's White House book room after a two-year search, and delivered to investigators in early 1996."

Conclusion: Ultimately, the Whitewater scandal is not about a failed investment; it's about McDougal using his influence with the Clintons to get preferential treatment for a failing bank. It's possible (but ultimately unproven) that Hillary did try to cover up billing records that embarrassed her. They showed that either she was lying about her involvement in the legal work that included the Castle Grande transaction which "were quickly found to be a sham meant to hide from bank examiners that Madison was breaking federal lending rules"(p. 161), or (the most likely case) she was padding her billing on the case in order to make more money for work she didn't do. As Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta conclude, "her invoices were undocumented, inaccurate, or padded."(p. 162)

Hillarycare
Level of Scandal: 1
Hillary's Involvement: 10

Wikipedia summary: "In 1993, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, along with several other groups, filed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and Donna Shalala over closed-door meetings related to the health care plan. The AAPS sued to gain access to the list of members of the task force. Judge Royce C. Lamberth found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded $285,864 to the AAPS for legal costs; Lamberth also harshly criticized the Clinton administration and Clinton aide Ira Magaziner in his ruling. Subsequently, a federal appeals court overturned the award and the initial findings on the basis that Magaziner and the administration had not acted in bad faith."

Conclusion: Hillary Clinton's secrecy about her health-care plan reflects a troubling tendency to avoid public disclosure. It probably wasn't illegal, but it hurt the effort to pass health care reform.

Rose Law Firm
Level of Scandal: 1
Hillary Clinton's Involvement: 10

Wikipedia summary: "Clinton continued to practice law with the Rose Law Firm while she was First Lady of Arkansas. She earned less than all the other partners, due to fewer hours being billed, but still made over $200,000 in her final year there. She continued to rarely do trial work, but was considered a rainmaker at the firm for bringing in clients, partly due to the prestige she lent the firm and to her corporate board connections. She was also very influential in the appointment of state judges. Bill Clinton's Republican opponent in his 1986 gubernatorial re-election campaign accused the Clintons of conflict of interest, because Rose Law did state business; the Clintons deflected the charge by saying that state fees were walled off by the firm before her profits were calculated."

Conclusion: It's not reasonable to expect the governor's wife to give up her law practice to avoid contact with anyone doing state business. Still, Hillary clearly had some questionable dealings, and falsely promoted the idea that her profits were walled off from the start. Also, the disappearance of Rose Law records about her legal work (the surface a few days after the statute of limitations on fraud expired) raises serious questions.

Vince Foster Records
Level of Scandal: 1
Hillary Clinton's Involvement: 8

In 1993, "July 20: The Little Rock FBI obtains a warrant to search the office of David Hale as part of its investigation into Capital Management Services. In Washington, Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster drives to Ft. Marcy Park and commits suicide. That evening, White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, Clinton aide Patsy Thomasson, and Mrs. Clinton's chief of staff Maggie Williams visit Mr. Foster's office. According to testimony by a uniformed Secret Service officer, Ms. Williams exits the counsel's suite with an armful of folders."

Conclusion: Obviously, the conspiracy nuts who think Vince Foster was murdered are idiots, but Hillary did try to block investigators from seeing all the records in Foster's office, and there is evidence that her current campaign manager, Maggie Williams, removed records from his office.

Summary: I don't consider any of these Clinton scandals, alone or taken together, to be a disqualifying scandal that should prevent her from becoming president. I don't even think these scandals are the primary reasons why people shouldn't vote for Clinton in the 2008 primaries. However, many of these scandals do include real components that show very bad judgment on the part of Hillary Clinton. They are, at the very least, relevant information that the public deserves to know about before they cast a vote.

Thanks for a great post Judgement and Experience. Although I disagree with your determination that none of this would be enough to keep her from the presidency. While Dems might not bring it up in the primary season, the Reps will go wild with it....

Short of actually releasing the information that Senator Obama has already released, she should answer the following the questions to shed some light on the projects that she has requested:

Taxpayers For Common Sense has estimated that Senator Clinton has received $2.2 billion in earmarks over her Senate career. What earmarks has she requested during that time period and for what programs?
Since Clinton now says she plans to release her requests for FY 09, why isn’t she releasing them for previous years?
We know that Clinton has requested at least two earmarks linked to top fundraisers and donors – GM lobbyist Steve Ricchetti and billionaire Alan Gerry. Will her campaign release the other earmark requests she has made that are linked to fundraisers, campaign donors, or donors to the Clinton Library?
Has Senator Clinton proposed any earmarks that Bill Clinton has personally advocated for?
Last year, Senator Clinton voted against an amendment sponsored by Senator Durbin and supported by Senator Obama to require public disclosure of earmark requests. If that amendment were to be offered again, would she support it?

Pay no attention to the She Weasel Behind the Curtain!
Woe unto any mortal who dares to pierce the veil of secrecy surrounding the Clintons! (Just ask Vince foster's Widow).
The junior senator and/or her disbarred scuzball semi-spouse will most likely be indicted for fraud, income tax evasion, civil rights violations and/or obstruction of justice before 2012. Only a forgiving Pres. Obama or McCain will stand between the Clinton's and the prison gate.

The coverup (and the perception of covering up) are always worse than what is covered up. If she is no worse than the rest of Congress, they are not running for President. She is. If Obama could release his, why can't she release hers?

I really think she has been a terrific Senator for New York (I live here) and if she has brought projects that advance our state, she should not hide them. She should wrap them in neon and flash them.

Why the secrecy? I have become very uncomfortable with her and I have chosen to back Obama because he seems to be rather more forthcoming. He distanced himself from Farrakhan and now from the minister who married the couple and baptized his children. He has laid out his relationships with a controversial figure to the Chicago papers and furnished documentation. He has owned up to his mistakes and learned from them. Has she learned from hers?

She is running on experience in the White House and will not share with the world her impact on the Rwandan genocide, if any. If she had influence, what was it. If she didn't have influence, how can she say she had experience dealing with one of the worst moral catastrophes this country ever committed.

She needs to be open and honest with us.

So team. This lack of transparency should send up red flags.

The tax retruns are not public record but the "earmarks" are. Get on it.

And as for the tax returns--follow the money. The campaign contributions will lead to the reason they are not forth coming.

And let the Clinton campaign know you are digging "because of the lack of transparency". With statements like "where there is smoke there is fire." The more articles you get out there hinting there may be something here or there like the "Peter Paul law suite".

If you focus on the smoke enough Senator Clinton will feel the heat.

One day soon I will stop being surprised at people's ability to get it wrong.

Above someone posted the following:

The problem with that scenario is that, having been born in August 1961, the future senator was not conceived until sometime in November 1960. So, if his African grandfather heard words that "sent a shout across oceans," inspiring him to send his goat-herder son to America, it was not Democrat Jack Kennedy he heard, or his brother Bobby, it was Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Maybe next time before you savage someone, you should check out the facts. At the time of the "air lift" Senator Obama referred to, it was "Senator" Kennedy (not President Kennedy) who did the assist that bought Barack Obama Sr. to America where he met Barack Obama's mother, Stanley Ann. The President at that time was President David Dwight Eisenhower. (Everybody seems to invert that one, but check it out because this was his name).
So, the entire post is false and a calumny on Senator Obama, but what the heck! Why do any research before you start typing? I guess I will get used to this soon, but I still find it surprising that people will continue to post falsehood. Is your candidate worth the lie? Or have you simply failed to do the research? Whichever it is, I wish it would stop.

I noticed a lot comparisons between Bush and Clinton. George Bush is not running for President and neither is Bill Clinton. If you're going to make an argument for Hillary, the comparision should be based on her and her opponents... McCain and Obama. In any event, comparing Hillary to other people does not excuse the arrogant position she and or her office has taken on this issue. She is wrong and no matter what good she can do or has done, it does not grant her immunity from being held to a standard of accountability.

One Clinton earmark that I know of was for $800,000 that went to (I believe) her supporter in Harlem - who, coincidentally came out and endorsed her after receiving the funds...this was all over the news a few months ago.

Know this - Clinton will NOT provide her tax returns before April 22nd (at least I do not believe she will), she will NOT provide the list of Library donors, she will NOT provide the White House papers from Bill's Presidency. On that you can rely. She has stated previously that she would provide these things ONLY if she is the nominee...and, if she were to be the nominee, then she would state that she will provide them if she is elected. Clinton will not provide anything - take that one to the bank!

Clinton is one of the most secretive politicians there is! Yet she wants everyone ELSE to disclose - she has even pointed out that the Superdelegates need to look into the situation of Obama/his pastor - an attempt to sway them in HER direction. However, that then begs the question: just who brought the Wright video's existence to the attention of the media? Want to venture a guess? Seems reminiscent to me of Clinton hiring Craig Livingstone to get dirt on the women accusing Bill of improprieties with the sole intent of destroying the character of those women (this from the woman that puts herself out there as a 'champion of women's causes'!)! Why hasn't someone in the media reported who brought this to the media attention?

Clinton keeps pushing the media to 'vet' Obama - well, the media should be fair - and report on the Paul/Clinton Senate Campaign Contribution Fraud Case going on in L.A. right now. It has already been reported in the papers that Clinton herself tried to have the court case dropped - but the Supreme Court over-ruled her...the case is going forward in the fall. Which leads one to consider this - why would the Supreme Court continue a case unless it felt the case had merit??? Think, people! What kind of President do you want? One who has honor and integrity and who meets issues head on? Or one who hides her head in the sand and hopes that 'you and your pesky questions' will go away so she doesn't have to answer ANYTHING!

After all, as soon as you have the ‘nerve’ to ask Clinton ANYTHING on the issues, you are 'going negative' on her! Do YOU want that logic in the White House?

One Clinton earmark that I know of was for $800,000 that went to (I believe) her supporter in Harlem - who, coincidentally came out and endorsed her after receiving the funds...this was all over the news a few months ago.

Know this - Clinton will NOT provide her tax returns before April 22nd (at least I do not believe she will), she will NOT provide the list of Library donors, she will NOT provide the White House papers from Bill's Presidency. On that you can rely. She has stated previously that she would provide these things ONLY if she is the nominee...and, if she were to be the nominee, then she would state that she will provide them if she is elected. Clinton will not provide anything - take that one to the bank!

Clinton is one of the most secretive politicians there is! Yet she wants everyone ELSE to disclose - she has even pointed out that the Superdelegates need to look into the situation of Obama/his pastor - an attempt to sway them in HER direction. However, that then begs the question: just who brought the Wright video's existence to the attention of the media? Want to venture a guess? Seems reminiscent to me of Clinton hiring Craig Livingstone to get dirt on the women accusing Bill of improprieties with the sole intent of destroying the character of those women (this from the woman that puts herself out there as a 'champion of women's causes'!)! Why hasn't someone in the media reported who brought this to the media attention?

Clinton keeps pushing the media to 'vet' Obama - well, the media should be fair - and report on the Paul/Clinton Senate Campaign Contribution Fraud Case going on in L.A. right now. It has already been reported in the papers that Clinton herself tried to have the court case dropped - but the Supreme Court over-ruled her...the case is going forward in the fall. Which leads one to consider this - why would the Supreme Court continue a case unless it felt the case had merit??? Think, people! What kind of President do you want? One who has honor and integrity and who meets issues head on? Or one who hides her head in the sand and hopes that 'you and your pesky questions' will go away so she doesn't have to answer ANYTHING!

After all, as soon as you have the ‘nerve’ to ask Clinton ANYTHING on the issues, you are 'going negative' on her! Do YOU want that logic in the White House?

"What kind of change? He won't define it, .."
Bob - I support Obama specifically on the basis that he appears to offering a "bottoms up" approach to governing. For example, he states that he will pursue helathcare by doing much of the crafting/negotiating in a public forum such as c-span. I suppose the thing that matters to me most is that he appears to raise most of his campaign funds from small contributors. To me that's important - enough of the bought and paid for politicians that come to washington. He makes available his tax returns to show the source of his income. Compare his openess to Hillary and Bill. I beleive Bill has raised more than $500M for philanthropic purposes but has not identified any sources. You want to begin an 8-year rein with that for starters?

Clinton's library has $500 million (that's million). We know $500K came from Denise Rich for the pardon of her husband Marc Rich. What other favors have been paid in advance? What HRC earmarks were paid for by donations to the library?

Democrats need to know BEFORE a candidate is chosen. I've lived through Bill's Impeachment proceedings and I want the next Democratic White House to accomplish something, not get mired in scandal.

Hillary and Bill Clinton have a lot to hide. It seems they never learn. Secrecy and scandals have dogged them since they first entered the political arena. This is no different and tomorrow won't be either.

Hillary's triple speak indicates that she's been a thief in the night.

So, Hill, whose eggs have you been stealing?

Cough up the data, tax returns, earmarks, library donors, c'mon, what is this, The Fox Wants to Care for the Hens Day or sumpin?

If you want to see some what the Republicans have in store for Hillary, go to YouTube and view "Hillary:The Movie" which has been put together by one of the 527 groups. There are 9 segments running 10 min. each. It's long but well worth the view.

For the Hillary supporters; if you watch all nine segments and can still honestly say that Hillary should be the president, and will win the election (should she become the dem nominee) please forward to me the name of your drug dealers. I gotta get me some of that stuff you're taking.

Go to http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/favorfactory for info on earmarks. Watch Bill Moyers and you would know this info.

No doubt Hillary has plenty to hide. Obama may have less to hide, after all his political career is shorter and less distinguished than the Clintons. (Give him time.)

What I find unnerving about the Obama is that he has cast a spell over certain types of Democrats, making them believe that he is not a typical politician. His message is an old one-- change is a perennial trope. The ways he frames his arguments and deals with tough issues is no less political (in the Machiavellian sense of the word) than any other politician. He does a fair share of posturing and shifting in light of specific political (electoral) contexts. His concerted efforts to rattle the bones in Hillary's closet for all to hear is ironically reminiscent of the years and years of REPUBLICAN attacks on Hillary. While one might argue that she herself is at fault for being so secretive it is clear that Obama's camp is using years of Republican abuse of the Clintons for his own purposes.

So he is taking a play from the supposed enemy. Fair enough, but not becoming of a supposedly new sort of candidate.

So what happens when/if Obama and McCain face off? No doubt politics as usual. It will be a bloody war between the left and the right? Last time I checked is that wars don't mend fences. A new president will emerge in a country still divided by stale ideological debates between two artificial political parties. ( I like the spaghetti and pizza reference in an earlier post)

Contrary to what many seem to think Obama is so embedded in a broken system that he cannot break through its confines. Moreover, he has expressed little interest in remolding the system itself.

I don't particularly like Obama, Clinton, or McCain. I trust them in equal measure-- not at all.

Do you remember how you felt when Cheney wouldn't release any information about his energy commission. That is about how I'm feeling right now.

The Seattle Times has published a database of earmarks on their website: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/favorfactory/
Senator Clinton's earmarks are heavily in favor of defense contractors. This should raise questions regarding her commitment to ending the U.S. occupation in Iraq. These companies benefit enormously from the occupation. Compare Senator Clinton's with Senator McCain's, and then to Senator Obama's.

"Another Hillary SECRETHere's an update on the Peter Paul vs. Clintons lawsuit:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56868
DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT. Go to www.lasuperiorcourt.org (Los Angeles Superior Court) and look in the CIVIL Column, then Click on CASE SUMMARIES then enter these numbers in the box BC304174. It is an active case and has been since January. Sen. Clinton he has not disclosed it. Even after bringing up Rezko and calling Sen. Obama "Ken Starr". I think, before we go any further, she needs to disclose this.

Watch the spoof Hillary DOESN'T WANT YOU TO SEE!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGMgxFE6bms

Or search HILLARY TERMINATE on You Tube!

This is just another indication that a Clinton Administration would give us another 4 years (thats right, I don't think Clinton would get elected to a 2nd term) of the secrecy and rhetoric that we have had to endure from the Bush Administration.

Well your at it Hillary - we must have your tax statements released now - we must have you release your 'secrect' papers from your White House years - we must have the list of donors to the Clinton Library released immediately. Hillary, if you have any slim chance of stealing this nomination - you will have to react immediately to these demands or all is lost.

A review of history will reveal the truth regarding comparisons between Bush and Cheney and Hillary and Bill Clinton. George Bush was not impeached. Bill Clinton was impeached... he lied to congress, remember? George Bush and the Republican congress have worked to rebuild the military. Bill Clinton and the Democratic congress depleted out military. That is the real reason our troops did not have adequate protective clothing and protective transportation! Hillary Clinton is secretive. That is one of the reasons her health care plan failed. Both the Clintons are compulsive liars. A review of history will verify that. There is no excuse for naivete and ignorance where the Clintons are concerned. Don't think for a moment that it all a smear campaign against Hillary. The facts are there for the public to see. Do your history research and ask yourself why the major news media haven't been diligent in reminding the public of the Clinton's history. Find out who owns the news media and what their connection is to the Clintons.