Bill Richardson Endorses... Barack Obama

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, the United States' only hispanic governor , who has served as a Congressman for 14 years, was an ambassador to the United Nations, was Secretary of the Energy Department during Bill Clinton's administration and watched the most recent Super Bowl with Bill Clinton, has endorsed Barack Obama as the nominee for the Democratic Party.

“I believe he is the kind of once-in-a-lifetime leader that can bring our nation together and restore America’s moral leadership in the world,” Mr. Richardson said in the statement, provided by the Obama campaign early Friday morning.

“As a presidential candidate, I know full well Senator Obama’s unique moral ability to inspire the American people to confront our urgent challenges at home and abroad in a spirit of bipartisanship and reconciliation.”

..."There is no doubt in my mind that Barack Obama has the judgment and courage we need in a commander in chief when our nation's security is on the line. He showed this judgment by opposing the Iraq war from the start, and he has show it during this campaign by standing up for a new era in American leadership internationally," Richardson said.

Obama Passport Breach: A High-Tech "Lynching"?

(UPDATED BELOW)

Submitted without comment (emphasis mine):

HuffPo: MSNBC reported that the State Department official in charge of the Bureau Of Consular Affairs during the first two breaches of Obama's passport has a connection to the Clinton administration. "Mora Hardy was a consular affairs chief until the end of last month when she retired from foreign service work. Before her stint as the assistant secretary of state of consular affairs, Hardy was an ambassador to Paraguay under President Bill Clinton. She was also an executive assistant to Warren Christopher."

The dates of the breaches were January 9, February 21, and March 14 -- last Friday. Those correspond, as TPM's Josh Marshall noted, to the New Hampshire primary, the Democratic debate in Texas, and the day the Reverend Jeremiah Wright story became major political news.

UPDATE: It seems that Obama's was not the only passport breached.

The passport files of the three major presidential candidates have all been breached, officials said Friday.

Way to go, Bush Administration! You'll stop at nothing. Looking for some dirt to cover your asses once you're out of office? Filthy pigs.

Quote of the Day

Former senator Bill Bradley, a leading supporter of Obama and who ran for president in 2000, accused the Clintons of "lying" in pursuit of victory.

"The bigger the lie, the better the chance they think they've got. That's been their whole approach," he said. "She's going to lose a whole generation of people who got involved in politics believing it could be something different."

RNCSucks.com

Another interesting ploy by the Republican National Committee.

New York Times: Cannotrustclinton.com? clintonisbad.com? At least 25 domain names related to Hillary Rodham Clinton have links to the Republican National Committee: the names were either registered by the R.N.C. last year or showed up on servers the committee uses.

...The day after Barack Obama won the Iowa caucuses, the R.N.C. snapped up at least 20 domains related to his candidacy. Some of them may signal the party’s future strategy: baracknotready.com and norealexperience.com. The party has also begun preemptively registering domains that could be used to attack John McCain, like mccainamigos.com, voteagainstmccain.com, flipflopmccain.com and hatemccain.com (ihatemccain.com was taken.)

There are plenty more domain names listed in the article.

Democratic Senate Caves Again!

MOTHERFUCKER!

The Senate rejected a series of amendments that would have restricted the government’s surveillance powers and eliminated immunity for the phone carriers, and it voted in convincing fashion — 69 to 29 — to end debate and bring the issue to a final vote. That vote is expected later this afternoon, with the result all but assured. On the vote to end debate, 28 Democrats and Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont, opposed the measure. Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Lindsey Graham did not vote.

...Beyond the immunity provision, the Senate measure would also widen the executive branch’s surveillance powers by allowing the National Security Agency and intelligence agencies to use broad orders — without getting court orders in advance — to eavesdrop on groups of overseas targets, rather than using individualized warrants.

Here are the 20, TWENTY! Democrats that voted for ending debate. I suggest you right this list down for future reference because these are the scumbags we don't want representing the Democratic party.

Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA),Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Johnson (D-SD),
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea - They still list this motherfucker as an Independent Democrat.
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea - Jim, what the fuck?!
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea

And our presidential candidates, how did they vote?

McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Nay
Clinton (D-NY), DID NOT VOTE.

Is Paul Krugman Watching A Different Election?

In Paul Krugman's latest column in the New York Times "Hate Springs Eternal," the journalist seems to be fretting about the "bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination" and wonders why "is there so much venom out there?"

Now, I've been watching a lot of the politics that have been going on this last year, more than I ever have in the past. And I've been keeping a closer eye on the Democratic side, and I have no idea where Krugman gets his feeling from. How many times does he have to hear the candidates say they like each other, they were friends before this campaign started and they'll be friends after?

Sure, he goes on to mention David Shuster and MSNBC, as if that's the first time that the network has said something negative against the Clinton camp, but he accuses not the media, but specifically Barack Obama of using "Clinton rules"... well not so much Obama but Obama supporters. Maybe he's been reading too many comments on the internet.

But the problem is that Krugman is using guilt by association and indirectly accusing Obama. I had to reread sections of the article for it to become clear to me that he was actually accusing supporters and not Obama, likening them to a cult.

I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality.

Unfortunately, Clinton fans will read this and assume it's Obama using harsh words and not the more than occasional rant in the comment sections of liberal blogs. And it's not like Clinton supporters haven't been just as vitiolic at those same sites.

What does Mr. Krugman have to say about Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" comment, or Mark Penn bringing up Obama's drug use when he was a teenager, which was already part of the public record? The Clinton's have not been playing with kid gloves through any of this campaign, they are in it to win, as well they should be; and if the public in general has a feeling or suspicion of the Clintons, it's only due to the fact that the media itself have been playing by Clinton rules for the last 15 years. Paul Krugman's own colleagues have been the ones aiming for the Clintons.

The funny thing is that I'm a Krugman fan, but he wears his heart of his sleeve with this opinion in defense of the Clintons.

Stop reading the blogs, Mr. Krugman. The comments you read are not what the mainstream voter feels. Instead, why not try watching and listening to the actual candidates and reading their words instead of biased opinions and acerbic critiques of anonymous commenters in a blog.

Obama's Already Been Tested By Clintons

Jumpypants brought this up regarding Obama's lack of experience and Hillary Clinton saying as much on 60 Minutes (only click on the link if you can stomach Katie Couric's softball interview and another "Day One" quote). Her argument is that he'll be unprepared to handle the Republican Smear Machine which she has experience in dealng with. The problem is that any vetting the Republicans do to Obama has already been done... by the Clintons.

Daily Kos' davefromqueens has a laundry list.

Obama Leading In Maine - Edwards Meets With Candidates

With 59% of the precincts reporting, Barack Obama is leading Hillary Clinton 57%-42%.

I think that'll seal it for Obama in Maine. Meanwhile, CNN reports that John Edwards met with Hillary Clinton Thursday, and is meeting with Barack Obama Monday, to discuss a possible primary endorsement.

Shuster Apologizes But Clinton Threatens MSNBC

Last night, David Shuster made an inappropriate comment while interviewing a couple of analysts regarding Chelsea Clinton's role in her mother's campaign and calling the hosts of The View as well as superdelegates trying to garner support for Hillary Clinton.

SHUSTER: ...there's just something a little bit unseemly to me that Chelsea is out there calling up celebrities saying, "Support my mom." And, apparently, she's also calling these super delegates... doesn't it seem like Chelsea's sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?

Now we all know what he meant by that comment and it was a definitely a slip of the tongue and inappropriate for Shuster to use that particular slang phrase. Had Shuster said Chelsea was "being used" instead of being "pimped out," there would be absolutely no story here. But apparently the public flipped out to the extent that MSNBC has suspended Shuster from all NBC broadcasting except to apologize for the remark, which he has done.

Story over, right? WRONG.

Now the Clinton campaign has threatened not to participate in any MSNBC sponsored debates.

In a conference call with reporters, Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson on Friday excoriated MSNBC's David Shuster for suggesting the Clinton campaign had "pimped out" 27-year old Chelsea by having her place phone calls to celebrities and Democratic Party "superdelegates" on her mother's behalf.

Wolfson called Shuster's comment "beneath contempt" and disgusting.

"I, at this point, can't envision a scenario where we would continue to engage in debates on that network," he added.

I now call "BULLSHIT" on Wolfson. Who the fuck does he think he's kidding? If Hillary Clinton doesn't want to participate in the debates, then fine. We're done with it. They won't participate on MSNBC, but they're ready to debate on Fox News? Are they fucking insane?

Just last week, Clinton was begging for a chance at weekly debates as her funds were running low and the contests would provide free exposure, but now that she's gotten an influx of internet cash after revealing that she has signed a $5 million personal check to keep her campaign going, NOW the campaign is threatening MSNBC? Really?!

You know what, Hil? Go ahead. Shoot yourself in the foot, because that is exactly what you're going to do if you decide to renege on MSNBC. Obama will say no to Fox, and you'll be back at square one, with maybe one debate on CNN. All this after MSNBC has suspended Shuster from any NBC broadcast due to the comments for which he's already apologized.

You've had 18 fucking debates already! I'm sick of hearing "ready to lead on day one," and "35 years of experience," so unless you have a new talking point, I think I've heard your entire schtick multiple times. I don't need to hear it another five times before March 4th. Debate exposure at this point is only going to benefit you, so if you really want to pull the trigger before removing your gun for its holster, be my guest.

T Minus 367/366 Days

From the calendar: "The night before Bush's first inauguration, members of Clinton's staff reportedly removed the "W" key from White House keyboards in protest of his election."

Kinda pisses me off that they couldn't find a quote for this day, he's had so goddamn many gaffes, but because so many people still believe the vandalism story to be true, let's research this, shall we?

ARI FLEISCHER PURPOSELY DECEIVED HIS PRESS COLLEAGUES RE CLINTON WHITE HOUSE BEHAVIOR

"NOT LONG after George W. Bush was sworn in as president, many were aghast to read in newspapers and hear on television that in the final days of the Clinton administration, employees had trashed the White House. Democrats were embarrassed, and Republicans, stroking their wallets, gloated that they knew all along the Clintons were hillbillies. The story began as a gossip item in The Washington Post that the letter ''W,'' Bush's middle initial, had been removed from keyboards, and within days it had mushroomed to a scandal reported prominently on TV and the front page of the Post. The details were startling: Walls had been desecrated with obscene graffiti, file cabinets glued shut, telephone wires cut, presidential seals steamed off doors and pornography left on fax machines. So extensive was the damage that a communications worker was said to have been reduced to tears and a national magazine hinted that the White House was spending $10,000 a day to repair phone systems damaged by departing Democrats. Talk-show hosts from the nutty right, like Jay Severin in Boston and his audience of dumb and dumbest, all congratulated themselves on having been proved right that the Clintons were trailer-park trash.

"And what of the Globe? At a time when Bush aides were privately promoting the story, Anne E. Kornblut of the Globe's Washington Bureau was filing stories that were skeptical. For example, at a briefing Jan. 25, Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer deceptively encouraged reporters' suspicions while refusing to confirm or deny reports of damage. The next day, in a 620-word account, Kornblut wrote: ''No public evidence exists that Clinton and Gore staff members vandalized the White House or Old Executive Office Building.'' For that statement, she was denounced by some for political bias and for not reporting in greater detail what one reader said was further evidence that under Clinton, America had seen the greatest moral decay since the founding of the nation. ''Kornblut either knows the truth and she wrote a blatantly dishonest, biased story,'' wrote Lee Vincent of Groton, Conn., ''or she is incompetent or inexcusably clueless about a widely known set of facts.'' Now, three months later, buried in the national briefs column in the Globe a few days ago was an AP story four sentences long that said an investigation by the General Accounting Office found no evidence of vandalism, no evidence of wires slashed, no evidence of equipment damaged, and no evidence or anything to match the allegations.

"Knowing how difficult it is to write against the current and risk the wrath of readers, not to mention the censure of editors, I called Kornblut to congratulate her for having covered the story with temperance and, above all, for having gotten it right. 'Just basic reporting,' she said. 'What made me suspicious was the fact that the White House wouldn't give specific examples and wouldn't say, on the record, that this happened here or that happened there. I made phone calls to people who told me it just wasn't true. Also, there were no pictures, and they never seemed to be able to say on the record, in public or at a press conference, here is what happened.'" --Boston Globe, 5/28/01

The General Services Administration has found that the White House vandalism flap earlier this year was a flop. The agency concluded that departing members of the Clinton administration had not trashed the place during the presidential transition, as unidentified aides to President Bush and other critics had insisted. Responding to a request from Rep. Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican, who asked for an investigation, the GSA found that nothing out of the ordinary had occurred. "The condition of the real property was consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy," according to a GSA statement. No wholesale slashing of cords to computers, copiers and telephones, no evidence of lewd graffiti or pornographic images. GSA didn't bother to nail down reports of pranks, which were more puckish than destructive. Among those pranks was the apparent removal, by aides to former President Bill Clinton, of the "w" key from some computer keyboards and the placing of official-looking signs on doors, saying things like "Office of Strategery," after a popular "Saturday Night Live" spoof on Bush. But the vandal scandal, tales of torn up offices and items stolen from the presidential jet, was the hottest story in town during the early days of the Bush administration until White House furniture and last-minute pardons pushed it off the front page. "I think it was this calculated effort to plant a damaging story," said Alex S. Jones, director of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University. "There was a sort of fertile ground for believing anything bad." Typical was Tony Snow, a syndicated columnist and former presidential speech writer for President Bush's father, who wrote that the White House "was a wreck." He also said that Air Force One, after taking Clinton and some aides to New York following the inauguration, "looked as if it had been stripped by a skilled band of thieves -- or perhaps wrecked by a trailer park twister." He went on to list all manner of missing items, including silverware, porcelain dishes with the presidential seal and even candy. "It makes one feel grateful that the seats and carpets are bolted down," Snow fumed. Except none of it happened. An official at Andrews Air Force Base, which maintains the presidential jets, told The Kansas City Star at the height of the controversy that nothing was missing. Bush himself acknowledged the same a few days later. And now GSA has made it official. --Kansas City Star, 5/17/01

Even back then, with the Clintons on their way out the door, these bastards had the nerve to kick them one last time, in true Rovian fashion, with lies about vandalism. And after they had handed the election on a silver platter by the Supreme Court. This is just another of many reasons why I hate these fucks. Looking at it in hindsight, it shows just how diabolical their thinking has been from the very beginning. It's not bad enough that they stole the election to begin with, they started spinning and mudslinging the very second they stepped in the White House.

The mentality on this one was, 'This has to be true. Why would anyone make up something this outrageous if they couldn't prove it?'. And they couldn't, but it didn't matter. It was the first of now hundreds of times the press became repeaters, not reporters. This was the turning point of where true journalism fell. Perhaps it was a test by then Press Secretary Fleischer to gauge the press corps he had to deal with, to see just how far he could get away with what would become the norm in the Bush White House. If they investigated, then he would know he'd have to be careful. If they just became human mimeograph machines, then all bets were off. Lie, lie, and lie became the status quo for the Bush Administration.

Kucinich Should Be Allowed to Debate, Judge Rules

NY Times: A Nevada judge has ordered MSNBC to include Representative Dennis Kucinich, a Democratic presidential candidate, in Tuesday night’s debate in Nevada, the Associated Press reports.

Of course, MSNBC has filed an appeal. But here is another example of the mainstream media trying to force feed the public into what candidates are viable and what candidates aren't. Including someone like Kucinich would raise the level of debate discourse, unless Russert and Brian Williams ask inane questions.

Executive Orders to the Nth Degree

This past week, George W. Bush made it absolutely clear what he thinks of the US Constitution and the "separate but equal" branches of government.

As reported in the Washington Post, Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday [July 19, 2007] in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.

Uh, excuse me? Well I guess I didn't realize the Justice Department worked for the White House... oh wait, IT DOESN'T. But Gonzo does.

...Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration's stance "astonishing."
"That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell said. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."

This comes on the heels of the latest executive orders, which state that the government can seize your assets and block "property of certain persons who threaten stabilization efforts in Iraq" without prior notice.

What does that mean? And who gets to decide what the definition of "threatening stabilization efforts" is? Is it protest? Does it mean dissent of White House policies? Can Hillary Clinton's or Barack Obama's assets be seized for vocalizing anti-Iraq war sentiments while they campaign? And the topper is that anyone who attempts to aid someone who is in this situation can have their assets frozen as well. So if I am deemed a threat to stabilization efforts in Iraq due to this blog, I can have my assets frozen. If my friend lends me money to pay my mortgage so I don't default on my loan, he can have his assets seized as well.

In his latest speech on July 24th in South Carolina, W. mentions "Osama bin Laden" 23 times and "terror" or "terrorists" 39 times in a twenty-nine minute speech. This from a man who admitted he didn't "spend that much time on [bin Laden]" only 6 months after the 9/11 attack. It seems the only time he mentions Osama bin Laden is at a local Bush supporter rally to further his ill-fated ideological cause. Bin Laden is not important to W. unless his name can be used to frighten the public at hand.

Bush Commutes Libby's Jail Time

I knew this was going to happen, but I am stunned it happened so soon.

George W. Bush, a pathetic sociopath of a president, has commuted the sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former Chief of Staff to Vice President Cheney. And why shouldn't he? This is a clown of a man who claimed after the stolen 2004 election that had political capital: "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style."

Well, Chimpy, your wallet is empty. It's been empty for a long time. Now you are using credit from the Republican Party - credit that will have to be repaid in November of 2008. And the interest rate is a bitch.

On September 30, 2003 Bush said, "There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of." I suppose by "taken care of'" he meant since they do his dirty work for him, he'll take care of any trouble they get into with a flick of a bic.

In July of 2005 Bush said, "If somebody committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration." But Scooter Libby continued to work in the White House until he was indicted. Yet another lie in the long list of the Bush legacy. And now he plays judge, jury and excuser, reversing a decision handed down by the courts just hours after learning that Libby would not be freed on bail while pending an appeal.

Bush, July 2, 2007: "I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison."

You respect the jury's verdict? You respect the jury's verdict?! You just spat in the face of the judicial system, commuted the sentence of a man who committed perjury at the very least, something a former president was impeached for. You commuted the sentence of a man who possibly got people killed by helping to leak the name of a CIA operative, we'll never really know because he also obstructed an FBI investigation into the matter, and you dare say you "respect the jury''s verdict"? There's a special place in hell for people like you.

And let's not forget our upcoming presidential candidates' reactions to Chimp-Man's decision:

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois
“This decision to commute the sentence of a man who compromised our national security cements the legacy of an Administration characterized by a politics of cynicism and division, one that has consistently placed itself and its ideology above the law..."

Sen. Joe Biden, D-Delaware
“...It is time for the American people to be heard — I call for all Americans to flood the White House with phone calls tomorrow expressing their outrage over this blatant disregard for the rule of law.”

Former Sen. John Edwards
“Only a president clinically incapable of understanding that mistakes have consequences could take the action he did today ... George Bush and his cronies think they are above the law and the rest of us live with the consequences. The cause of equal justice in America took a serious blow today.”

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York
“Today’s decision is yet another example that this Administration simply considers itself above the law... This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice.”

But let's not stop there. What do you think the Republican candidates have to say about Bush's decision? I think you can guess where this is headed.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani
“After evaluating the facts, the President came to a reasonable decision and I believe the decision was correct.”

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney
“I believe that the circumstances of this case, where the prosecutor knew that there had not been a crime committed, created a setting where a decision of this nature was reasonable.”

What part of "obstruction of justice" and "perjury" doesn't ring in Romney's head? It drives me to the brink of insanity when these jokers claim that a crime wasn't committed because the initial investigation was about finding out who leaked a CIA operative's name to the press. Am I wrong, or didn't the investigation hit a wall with Libby's lies? Hey Mitt, lying to FBI investigators and a Grand Jury ARE CRIMES!

And what does Golden Boy Fred Thompson have to say about commuting the sentence of someone who committed perjury? The same Thompson that voted for the impeachment of Bill Clinton for... wait for it... perjury!

Former GOP Sen. Fred Thompson, likely presidential
candidate
"I am very happy for Scooter Libby. I know that this is a great relief to him, his wife and children. While for a long time I have urged a pardon for Scooter, I respect the President’s decision. This will allow a good American, who has done a lot for his country, to resume his life."

Does it surprise you that a possible Republican presidential candidate who voted to impeach a Democratic president for perjury in the case of an extramarital affair would then urge for a pardon of a Republican aide to the White House for the same offense when it comes to matters of national security?

It doesn't surprise me either.

Also read: Jeralyn Merritt: Hyposcrisy, Thy Name is Bush

Edwards Against South Korea Trade Deal

This is directly from David Sirota's blog.

On Saturday, April 21st, 2007, Senator John Edwards will deliver the keynote address at the Michigan Democratic Party's Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner and will announce his opposition to the South Korea trade deal. The Bush administration is finalizing details of the agreement and is expected to submit it to Congress for approval later this spring...[Edwards said trade deals] "must include strong labor and environmental standards and lift up workers in both countries...Congress should make it clear to the President that it will override any agreement that does not protect American jobs and American interests."

Big question: Will the other Democratic candidates join Edwards' call, or will they stay silent in deference to K Street and Wall Street?

Definitely a wedge issue for Democratic candidates who are receiving campaign contributions from K Street. It'll be interesting to see how Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will react.

The Woman Who Wouldn't Talk

Why I Refused to Testify Against the Clintons & What I Learned in Jail

When Susan McDougal refused to implicate the Clintons in the Whitewater fiasco, she was thrown in prison, left alone with murderers and her own stubborn dignity. Savaged by Republicans and abandoned by Democrats, she would emerge from that dark chapter of American history a hero.

I came across this at TruthDig.com. McDougal tells her story of trying to be coerced by federal prosecutor Ken Starr in the smearing of Bill Clinton during the Whitewater scandal. It takes about 45 minutes to get through her video interview with Robert Scheer, but it is well worth it.

You can purchase the book by clicking on the photo.

Also check out: The Hunting of the President

Name the Orator

On a recommendation, I recently came across this in part of a speech.

Read these statements and try to name the person associated with making these comments:

U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. And in dealing with this threat as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table.

But Iran is a threat not only because of the hateful rhetoric spewed by its president, not only because of its nuclear ambitions, but because it uses its influence and its revenues in the region to support terrorist elements that are attacking innocent Israelis; and now we believe attacking American soldiers. Hezbollah's attacks on Israel this summer using Iranian weapons clearly demonstrate Iran's malevolent influence even beyond its borders.

...It is not enough for us to say the right things; we've got to be smart and tough enough to do the right things that will protect American and Israeli interests now and forever.


Hmmm... George Bush? No. Dick Cheney? No. Condoleeza Rice? ...No.

It was Hillary Clinton speaking at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on February 1, 2007.

It gives one pause, doesn't it?

Sen. Biden's Gaffe

So, how is it possible that you can step in it this early? Senator Joe Biden, on the day he announces his run for the Presidency in 2008 starts lobbing grenades in a New York Observer interview.

On Hillary Clinton's Iraq plan:
"From the part of Hillary's proposal, the part that really baffles me is, ‘We’re going to teach the Iraqis a lesson.’" Biden said. "We're not going to equip them? OK. Cap our troops and withdraw support from the Iraqis? That's a real good idea," he added sarcastically.

On John Edwards:
“I don’t think John Edwards knows what the heck he is talking about,” Mr. Biden said, when asked about Mr. Edwards’ advocacy of the immediate withdrawal of about 40,000 American troops from Iraq.
“John Edwards wants you and all the Democrats to think, ‘I want us out of there,’ but when you come back and you say, ‘O.K., John’”—here, the word “John” became an accusatory, mocking refrain—“‘what about the chaos that will ensue? Do we have any interest, John, left in the region?’ Well, John will have to answer yes or no."

And the most damaging comments, on Barack Obama:
“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
But—and the “but” was clearly inevitable—he doubts whether American voters are going to elect “a one-term, a guy who has served for four years in the Senate,” and added: “I don’t recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic.”

Oooooh... yeah, that would do it. In fairness to Biden, he did say this was meant as a compliment and has apologized to Obama. And Obama did understand that it wasn't meant as it sounded.

But he did add this:
"I didn't take Sen. Biden's comments personally, but obviously they were historically inaccurate," Obama said. "African-American presidential candidates like Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chisholm, Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton gave a voice to many important issues through their campaigns, and no one would call them inarticulate."

So it wasn't the "clean" comment that bothered Obama, but the "articulate" remark is what he focused on. If you watch these people on a regular basis (as I find myself doing watching more and more C-Span and news programs), I find that the majority of their comments are taken out of context. Unfortunately, this is usually their demise. Biden will now be remembered as the guy who described an African-American candidate as "clean". I happen to think Joe Biden's an "alright" guy. Presidential material? I don't know. I would have to say yes considering what we have now. But that's setting the bar extremely low.

Here's Joe Biden on the Daily Show the same day these comments were reported.

Let the Smearing Begin

It's incredible, isn't it? The candidates are barely out of the gate, some of them haven't even announced they are running yet, and already the rumors are flying. I'm not even going to dignify calling them rumors, they are smears. Dirty, disgusting lies aimed to cast doubt toward anyone credible. Do you think these lies would start if the candidates had little to no chance of succeeding? If so, then where are the Dennis Kucinich smear campaigns? No offense to Dennis, I like him, but we all know he has very little chance of making it in his presidential bid.

Here's Barack Obama, defending where he went to school when he was six year old... SIX!... and no, he's not Muslim and no, he didn't go to a madrassa. Unbelieveable!
And where did we first hear the smear? From a right wing web based magazine Insight. And how did it initially spread? The female Rush Limbaugh, Melanie Morgan on KSFO in San Francisco. And who picked up the story? John Gibson on FOX NEWS, another right wing freak.

But let's not stop there. Why not kill two birds with one stone? Not only can they spread the smear that Obama is Muslim and was taught at a madrassa, but they can also say that the Hillary Clinton Campaign is where they got the info from. These people have no morals, they are no worse than the scum on the bottom of my shoes.
Oh, Melanie Morgan then says she got the story wrong, it wasn't the Clinton Camp that started the smear, it was the JOHN EDWARDS Camp. TRIFECTA! Boy, these people are rotten to the core.
From the minute this story came out, it was debunked; ABC and CNN even sent producers and crews out to INDONESIA to check out the school, and found what they'd find in a "normal" school: kids learning math, science and English. Spongebob on the walls.

Has no one learned from the John Kerry swiftboating smear? Does no one remember that John McCain's own party smeared him in calling his adopted Bangladeshi daughter his own "illegitimate black child" when he was running against George the Liar in the Republican Primaries? Doesn't that disgust you? Don't you remember decorated war veteran Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam, being linked to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin laden in TV smear ads by Saxby Chambliss? Isn't that vile to you?

Wake up sheeple! This kind of crap CAN'T work anymore. We must not allow ourselves to fall into the pit with these snakes.

By the way, fair warning to all: usually, I try not to use foul language on this site (although I have a sailor's mouth), but I find I've been censoring myself more and more these days. Well, NO MORE! If I think it, I'm going to post it, so I apologize in advance for offending anyone with future racy language. And boy, is it going to be racy! I'm going to call these people what they are and I'm not holding back. So hold on to your keyboards, its going to be a foul mouthed ride!