Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
All the king's horses and all the king's men... Give it up. It's time for Hillary Clinton to have her day in the sun.
Give what up Kate?
Your candidate is losing. Don't take it personally. She has had a days in the sun. But after Tuesday, if she loses, do you think that she should duke it out some more?
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-campaign2mar02,0,1785725.story
Actually, there is nothing in the NYT article that contradicts anything that Obama has said about his relationship with Rezko. I did a little (and by little, I mean typing "Obama + Rezko" into Google and clicking on one of the first links) digging and this article from the Chicago Sun Times in 2006 came up:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article
In this article, Obama answers a lot of questions. He clearly states that he has known Rezko since Obama was elected the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. He explains that he regrets any suggestion of impropriety in his involvement with Rezko in the purchasing of his house and the adjacent lot, but that there was nothing illegal in the transaction or in their relationship. He's given all of the money that Rezko raised for him back to charity. Until there is actual evidence of a crime or of unethical behavior on Obama's part, what more can he be expected to do?
And again, you are completely missing the point of why Obama is so popular if you believe that his entire campaign is about representing a new kind of politics. It is much more sophisticated and intelligent than that. I still don't understand how if you are comfortable give the Clintons a pass for all of their double dealings, shady-ness and questionable ethical decisions, why can't Obama be given at least some of the same benefit of the doubt?
Geraldo Rivera unearths Barack Obama's dirty laundry in Al Capone's safe!
Ladies, you both tell me to read your posts carefully, yet both of you misunderstand or deliberately misstate the things I've said that you are now so tediously trying to answer.
Iit is not true that I said chhabili gave no reasons for oppposing Clinton; I said precisely that that is ALL she gives us--no real reasons for supporting Obama, just negative reasons for opposing Clinton. You CAN read, right? Here; try again.
"There are only negative reasons--reasons she has stated as to why she now hates Clinton."
Further, I never say anywhere that she was once a strong Clinton supporter. You find it, and show me. It's not there.
I said that she was a vehement and "unseemly" attacker of Obama who in a period of a day or two suddenly became a virulent attacker of Clinton instead. I read all the posts and see the earlier discomfort with Clinton, but in every one of them--up to 1/26--the point is that Obama is SO MUCH WORSE!
It's easy to read accurately, my friends. It just takes a little care and a little time, before going off misinformed and making a fool of oneself over it.
As to gratuitous advice, I have no idea what point you make by cut and pasting the very paragraph that I had obviously read or could not have attached the term to your present "advice."
When chhabili ever gets around to actually telling us why she likes Obama and why all the things she said about him suddenly have become falsehoods, let me know. I can get all the Hillary-hate I need from the dozens of other posters here and elsewhere; none of it is new. What would be new is seeing you cut and paste some of your own remarkably mean claims about Senator Obama and an explanation as to why they no longer apply and why you now believe he is the best candidate. Anything positive at ALL you can say about your guy?
Your entire posts smack of poisonous patronizing and a deliberate distortion of what I can or cannot say of which you will or will not approve. If you are trying to run me off this forum for switching my vote, nice try.
what a strange comment. are you well?
Stay with a candidate you can trust. Adlai Stevenson in 2008! Good luck doc, the modern world beackons me back.
I am very well, thank you. No need to patronize - again.
first post all evening that made me smile. very cute.
I aims ta pleeze.
Just reflecting a bit, after your witty comment. We were college kids then--1956--and believed Adlai would change the politics of the time. He was probably the best and brightest orator of either party's candidates post-FDr, and that includes JFK, and...er, other more modern ones. He appealed to the youth of the day, and we knew he would move from Illinois to Washington and save our nation with his common sense and wit and intelligence and across-the-aisle willingness to work together for the common good.
He lost, badly, to a war hero.
We were crushed. But at least our party was together and never tore our competing politicians apart. There was something nice about that.
Yeah, Adlai in 08! That's the ticket.
I'll stay with Obama, seeing as he's alive and walking above ground. Cheers! Go Adlai!
Okay, let me preface my posting of this link with the following: I have been deeply concerned all along about the implications of Obama/Rezko vis a vis the Democrats fielding a viable candidate for the November election. Rezko is definitely in the Achilles heel category. His relationship with Obama, oddly enough never explored in the MSM, is about to become very public, just in time for this Tuesday's perhaps decisive primaries. It's clear that Obama has grossly misrepresented his dealings with Rezko. It should also be very clear that this would (and should) considerably weaken his viability as the Democratic candidate. Here's the link to a Jan. 27 Chicago Sun-Times story which makes it clear that Obama, questioned about Rezko following Clinton's mention of the latter in the previous debate, lied about the nature and length of his dealings with Rezko (the most pertinent paragraphs come near the end):
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/762031,CST-NWS-rezko27.article
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
