A time of change.

[vote4gravel]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ga0yvasaJg"]YouTube - Keith Olbermann Special Comment *First one of 2008*[/ame]

Bush bashing well deserved!

[vote4gravel]

It saddened me greatly to hear yesterday that John Edwards had decided to drop out of the race. We may have had our differences on some issues, such as supporting gay marriage and ending the war on drugs, but clearly he was a better choice for America than the two remaining so-called top-tier Democratic candidates, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Edwards and I agreed more than we disagreed on many vital issues, such as ending the war in Iraq, cutting the military budget and fighting the culture of corruption in Washington.

To his credit, Edwards has shown great moral strength and integrity by admitting that his original support for the war in 2002 was ?a mistake.? Now, he advocates ending the war in its entirety, something that Clinton and Obama have not done. Clinton and Obama have the power to stop the violence, but neither one has stepped forward to show true leadership in the Senate by confronting Bush and the military-industrial complex on Iraq and the widening war on terror.

And when the mainstream media and the Democratic Party leadership conspired to drop me from the national debates, it was Edwards who kept the pressure on Clinton for her vote in favor of war with Iran.

Let?s not forget that Clinton has raised more money from the military-industrial complex than any other candidate ? including even the Republicans! Her ties to corporations like WalMart, her legislation that benefits defense firms like Northrop Grumman and her pro-war voting record ? let?s just say we shouldn?t be expecting her to cut the military budget and reinvest the money domestically where it is needed most.

As for Obama, where?s the change? He votes like Clinton, and his endorsement of military spending increases and his Wall Street backing make him yet another corporate-backed Establishment candidate.

Every day now, we hear pundits speculating on who is going to drop out of the race next. In their myopic view, however, they do not understand what we do. Winning the nomination isn?t the only reason some of us run for the highest office in the country. We persevere because we care deeply for our country, and we subject ourselves to the grueling schedule and the often unflattering media spotlight because we believe in the importance of the issues that we bring to the table.

It is these issues where John and I agree that I hope will bring us all together in support of real change ? not the safe, focus-group-tested solutions proffered by media-friendly candidates.

[vote4gravel]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki3a17eF6qA"]YouTube - STATE OF THE UNION- IMPEACH/REMOVE/ JAIL[/ame]

[vote4gravel]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL7Z7EyTqqU"]YouTube - HILLARY CLINTON: STEALING THE ELECTION[/ame]

[SouthwestRanger]

Hillaryland Is **** , Staffers Say

Friday, January 25, 2008 12:44 PM

By: Newsmax Staff



Despite Hillary Clinton?s surprising win in the New Hampshire primary, discontent remains the order of the day in ?Hillaryland,? according to an article in the liberal New Republic.

?For all of Team Hillary?s gifts, it is not known as a happy group,? Michelle Cottle writes in the magazine.

??I?ve never seen a campaign where everyone feels so bad about themselves,? says one campaign staffer, echoing others.?

That feeling was palpable the morning after Clinton?s defeat in the Iowa caucuses, when a ?sad and sorry Team Hillary? gathered for a conference call with the candidate, Cottle relates.

After Hillary came on the line, message guru Mandy Grunwald tried to spur conversation by asking staffers if they had any thoughts. No one spoke. After a pregnant pause, Hillary began talking for a few minutes about the campaign. Again, silence.

An angry Hillary finally snarled: ?This has been very helpful talking to myself? ? and hung up.

Following Iowa, rumors began circulating that there would be a major shakeup in the Clinton campaign staff. Then came the New Hampshire win. But discord remains in Hillaryland, the New Republic article disclosed.

The unease has been spurred in large part by the ?fear-inducing, high-handed? leadership of the advisors known as ?the Five? ? Grunwald, campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle, top strategist Mark Penn, policy chief Neera Tanden, and communications director Howard Wolfson.

The five, called by Cottle the ?devout members of Hillaryland,? have kept ?an iron grip on everything from ideas to access.?

The staffer deemed most likely to be replaced after Iowa was Penn, according to Cottle.

?The reasons are legion: his high profile; his right-of-center politics; his myopic focus on issues; his dismissal of the need for Hillary to get personal and address her likability problem; his unusual dual role as top strategist and pollster; and, of course, his famously rough manner.?

New Hampshire brought Penn a reprieve ? and not everyone in the Clinton campaign was happy about that.

?So strong was the desire for change,? Cottle writes, ?that the Granite State miracle, while obviously a godsend, left some staffers deflated as it became clear that the planned overhaul had been derailed.?

? 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

[gus danger]

Don't get me started!
[img]graemlins/smarty.gif[/img]
GD

[gus danger]

Can't you confine this nonsense to the Bush Topic?

The man is trying to discuss Mike Gravel on this one!

Sorry Vote4Gravel!
[img]graemlins/guy.gif[/img]
GD

[SouthwestRanger]

Obama should read the Hillary files
By Kathy Miller | The Hillary Project




By: Byron York

On Thursday night, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will square off in a debate in California.

If it gets testy, Obama will need some better zingers than his rather weak shot at Sen. Clinton in the last debate, when he told her that ?you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wal-Mart? when he was working the streets of Chicago as a community organizer.

As I watched, I thought it?s too bad Democrats spent so much time trashing Kenneth Starr, the Clinton-era Whitewater independent counsel, because Starr?s investigators gathered a vast trove of material that today would be a great source of opposition research on the Clintons.

Prosecutors never charged Mrs. Clinton with breaking any laws, but their work left no doubt that she sometimes had a shaky relationship with the truth, even when testifying under oath.

Exhibit A ? still available on the Web ? is the independent counsel?s report on the White House Travel Office firings.

In 1993, the new first lady pushed hard for mass firings in the office, getting rid of longtime employees so Clinton buddies could get a piece of the White House press corps travel business.

She told David Watkins, the aide whose job it was to actually lower the boom on the workers, ?Well, you know we need to have our people in there,? according to Watkins?s testimony.

She pressured then-chief of staff Mack McLarty to fire the workers, and together, Watkins and McLarty felt Mrs. Clinton breathing down their necks. Watkins wrote, but did not send, a memo to McLarty saying they both ?knew that there would be **** to pay if ? we failed to take swift and decisive action in conformity with the first lady?s wishes.?

All that is pretty clear. But in 1995, when Mrs. Clinton was questioned under oath about the matter, she told a different story.

?Who ultimately made the decision, to the extent that you know, to fire the employees from the Travel Office?? investigators asked.

?Well, the best I know is David Watkins and Mack McLarty, I assume, based on what I have learned since and read in the newspapers,? Mrs. Clinton answered.

?Did you have any role in it??

?No, I did not.?

?Did you have any input with either Mr. McLarty or Mr. Watkins as to that decision??

?I don?t believe I did, no.?

That testimony was not true by any stretch of the imagination. ?The evidence is sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt,? the independent counsel concluded, ?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.?

In the end, prosecutors decided they might not be able to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. Clinton knew her answers were false.

That?s hard to believe if you?ve read the report, but prosecutors had to operate under a pretty high standard of proof, especially considering they were dealing with a first lady.

Now, however, we?re in the rough-and-tumble of a political campaign.

Barack Obama doesn?t have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt ? especially if there is overwhelming evidence to support his charges.

It?s too bad such topics seem off-limits in Democratic circles, because the next time Sen. Clinton talks about her White House experience, it would be nice to hear what she has to say about this.

SOURCE: The Hill

/www.hillaryproject.com

[SouthwestRanger]

Originally posted by gus danger:
Can't you confine this nonsense to the Bush Topic?

The man is trying to discuss Mike Gravel on this one!

Sorry Vote4Gravel!
[img]graemlins/guy.gif[/img]
GD

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

GUS: YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH !!!!


Bill Clinton: Rogue Co-President In Waiting

By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Townhall.com

[Excerpted]
Make no mistake about it: If Hillary Clinton is elected president, her husband will be her rogue co-president, causing constant chaos, crises and conflicts for her new administration.

And sometimes, that will be exactly what Hillary wants.

Chaos is Bill Clinton?s signature style and he?s not about to suddenly change. No way.

Nor does Hillary necessarily want him to be a new Bill. In many ways, his divisive role in her campaign has been carefully crafted by Hillary and her team. It might come in useful in the White House, too.

Throughout Hillary?s campaign, Bill has given us an unfortunate preview of what we can expect of him in the White House. And, it?s not a pretty picture.

Forget about the elder statesman, the international philanthropist, the charming idealist. Those veneers, carefully created and promoted in the past eight years, were washed away by the race-baiting, snarling, finger-waving, press-bashing partisan who talks about himself for hours at a time. And because of YouTube, voters have had the novel experience of personally witnessing the Clinton meltdowns on video without the sometimes cleansing intermediaries of the national press. It is one thing to read that Bill Clinton confronted a reporter; it is quite another thing to see the red-faced former president angrily pointing his finger in the face of a journalist who dared to ask him a legitimate question. For the first time, the public is seeing the Bill Clinton known to anyone who has ever worked for him.

But don?t think that Bill wasn?t working from a carefully plotted script, personally approved by Hillary. He was. He was the designated hit man. And Hillary and her aides didn?t even bother to hide their glee at his escalating personal attacks on Obama. Gravely misunderstanding the mood of the electorate, they believed it was a great strategy, and patted themselves on the back as they leaked the story of their own brilliance. As the New York Times reported:

"Advisers to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton say they have concluded that Bill Clinton?s aggressive politicking against Senator Barack Obama is resonating with voters, and they intend to keep him on the campaign trail in a major role after the South Carolina primary.?

So we can assume that Hillary approved the use of the race card and thought that it would work. She was wrong. Very wrong. After universal condemnation (well, almost universal ? Hillary has never criticized him) for his antics in New Hampshire and South Carolina, Clinton has now quieted down. The Obama endorsements by Caroline and Ted Kennedy dramatically stunned the Clintons. They had no idea of what was coming, but immediately understand the enormity of the defection. So, they?ve retooled and Bill is now earnestly playing the supportive spouse who stays on message. But that?s just an act. His shelf life in that role is extremely limited. And when Hillary wants another attack dog, she?ll call on Bill ? whether it?s in the campaign or the White House, if she gets there.

But there?s more to worry about with Bill. His temper has always been there, even if it was carefully hidden from the public. But his thirst for big bucks that has le d him to dubious new endeavors is a new development that can cause trouble for Hillary.

At the core of Bill Clinton is a bold recklessness that cannot be harnessed. That inherent quality about him, combined with his arrogance and certitude leads him to test all boundaries. As a result, he involves himself in questionable financial deals, partners with inappropriate businesses and ignores blatant conflicts of interest. These arrangements will cause serious problems for a Hillary Clinton presidency.

[vote4gravel]

Well put.