« October 2007 | Main | December 2007 »

Some Tough Questions for Hillary Clinton

November 30, 2007 1:07 PM

As we mentioned earlier today, Senator Clinton faults Barack Obama's health care plan for not insuring "15 million people."

That's a disputed number, an estimate, but a component of it is the sizable population of illegal immigrants.

But hold on -- Clinton says her plan won't cover illegal immigrants either. Huh?

So she would leave out millions, too. Why is she claiming her plan will indeed provide universal coverage?  "His plan would leave 15 million Americans out," she said at the debate in Las Vegas. "I have a universal health care plan that covers everyone."

Everyone except for the 12-20 million illegal immigrants in the U.S....

But even that claim isn't necessarily accurate.

At another time Clinton's boast was more cautious: "I think we'll have a good chance to cover everyone as long as we make it clear that the insurance companies have to change the way they do business," she said in Canterbury, NH, last month.

"A good chance"?

Jonathan Gruber, a major Clinton health care advisers told the Washington Post's Fact Checker that the Clinton plan will NOT include everybody.

"Any system that does not have a single payer will not have 100 per cent coverage," he said, "but you can come very close."

Concludes the WP's Fact Checker: "Neither plan truly provides for 'universal' coverage, although Clinton's proposal probably comes somewhat closer to reaching this goal than Obama's. There are strengths, drawbacks, and loopholes to both plans. At this point, nobody knows how many uninsured they will include, but it will not 100 per cent. Much will depend on their ability to work with Congress once they are elected."

On the conference call just now where the Clintonistas called for Obama to pull his New Hampshire ad (see below), I asked what they say to the Obama argument that someone as polarizing as Sen. Clinton might not have the easiest time as president pushing a health insurance plan through Congress.

"What we need is somebody with the strength and experience to make change happen and there is nobody who has fought harder and longer than Senator Clinton on the issue of healthcare, there is no one in this race who knows more about it," Wolfson said.

"I think Americans are tired of politicians who are talk and no action. They are tired of politicians who say they have a universal plan, but really don’t. And we need someone who has the real depth and experience to take on this issue and take on the special interests to fight for it and make the change."

That didn't answer the question, of course. And it's not as if Clinton has a reputation for beating the special interests when it comes to health care reform.

Bottom line: lots of disingenuousness from both Clinton and Obama when it comes to their rhetoric on this issue.

-- jpt

November 30, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (14) | TrackBack (0)

Two Tough Timely Questions for Obama

November 30, 2007 11:43 AM

1) Just now the campaign manager for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, said that an Obama TV ad in New Hampshire "is demonstrably false and it should be taken off the air."

The ad (watch it HERE) says "I've got a plan to cut costs and cover everyone" on health insurance.

But Obama's plan does not quite do that. Since it doesn't include any mandates on individuals, anywhere from 3 to 6 percent of the population wouldn't be covered, according to various impartial health care experts. (Factcheck.org has a good take on this debate HERE).

Thus Clintonista Patty Solis-Doyle said the ad is "misleading voters in New Hampshire."

The Clinton-Obama fight over health insurance proposals comes down to the fact that Obama would not impose any mandates requiring individuals to purchase health insurance.

"He has called his plan universal, then he has called it 'virtually universal,' but it simply does not deserve that label," Clinton said on Wednesday. "When it comes to truth in labeling, his plan simply flunks the test."

Obama points out that Clinton refuses to say how she'll require individuals to purchase health insurance. 

"So until she clarifies what exactly she intends to do to enforce this mandate -- is she going to fine people, is she going to take other steps to enforce it -- this is more of a political point that she's trying to make than a real point," Obama said.

That's a fair point. But Senator Obama, don't they have a point about your ad? Your plan does not cover everyone. And while the "15 million uninsured" number they cite may be high, it is true that a plan without individuals mandates would seem to not be a plan to "cover everyone."

2)  In this day and age of terrorism, is it appropriate to sell tickets to hear Obama talk about national security and mingle with his security team and foreign policy experts?

In this invitation, Team Obama asks for co-hosts to raise $10,000 to join Obama this evening at "a reception and discussion of national security and foreign policy moderated by Richard Danzig, former Secretary of the Navy."

Doesn't that seem a bit unseemly for an idealistic soul such as yourself?

- jpt

November 30, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (42) | TrackBack (0)

Still unanswered

November 30, 2007 6:38 AM

Regarding the Rudy Giuliani billings controversy (World News video HERE, Good Morning America video HERE, and dot-com story HERE) ...

The New York Post says: RUDY PINS BLAME ON NYPD, since the Mayor is saying he charged his security detail's expenses to city agencies because the NYPD was so late in reimbursing his officers.

The New York Daily News, referring to a claim made then taken back by former deputy Mayor Joe Lhota, says: DOESN'T ADD UP.

(The claim was that this accounting practice, of billing security detail expenses to obscure city agencies and having the NYPD reimburse those agencies, was a longstanding practice that predated the Giuliani
administration. Both the Dinkins and Koch administrations disputed that and Lhota took it back.)

Here are some questions I still don't have the answers to, assuming that the Mayor's explanations are correct and righteous.

Why spread out the expenses among lots of city agencies instead of just one?

Why not tell this to Ben Smith and the Politico when he first called to ask about these records and the city comptroller's concern about them?

Why not share any information with the city comptroller when questions were first asked about this six years ago?

Did Bernie Kerik have anything to do with any of this?

-- jpt

November 30, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

Rudy and those billing records

November 29, 2007 11:21 PM

We took a look on World News tonight...take a look HERE or read our story HERE.

- jpt

November 29, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

The Plant

November 29, 2007 9:41 AM

I've heard many Republicans complain that last night's YouTube/CNN event featured "Democratic questions at a Republican debate." Though many of the "real people" questioners were obviously conservatives -- 2nd amendment enthusiasts, etc -- I can see the point of that argument.

The abortion question -- how much jail time should a young girl get for seeking an abortion -- was framed very NARALesquely.

But most shockingly was the audience participation that seemed to really indicate an agenda.

By which I'm referring to Brigadier Gen. Keith Kerr (Ret.), an "openly gay man" who asked on YouTube and from the audience "why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians."

I didn't stop-watch it, but Kerr and the exchange he prompted seemed to get more time than the war in Iraq. And to be charitable, let's just say gays in the military is not exactly ranked high when it comes to issues of importance to Republican primary voters.

It's odd. Not just because Kerr has been on CNN twice advocating his position against the ban on gays and lesbians serving in the military but because Kerr is a member of "LGBT Americans for Hillary," a national steering committee of over 65 leaders in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community, the Clinton for president website says. 

Can you imagine if a Youtuber whose parents had been killed in a crime turned out to be a member of the Romney campaign's "Hunters for Mitt" steering committee? Or an audience questioner whose child had been killed by terrorists grilled Democrats on being "weak" on national security -- and then it turned out she was a Giuliani campaign "9/11 Widows for Rudy" group member?

Outrageous.

I think Kerr, who has served his country honorably, can advocate for whatever he wants. But many Republicans are complaining today that the orchestration of it all -- the video, Kerr's presence in the audience, the time given to the question -- really seemed agenda-driven more than just sloppiness. And they're faulting CNN.

And there's more … Michelle Malkin points out that the abortion questioner appears to be, according to her YouTube profile, a John Edwards supporter.

And Brian McMurphy at SixMeatBuffet finds that the Youtuber who asked, "Hi, my name is David Cercone. I'd like to ask all the candidates if they accept the support of the Log Cabin Republicans, and why should the Log Cabin Republicans support their candidacy?" is on the Barack Obama website as one of their supporters!

What say you?

-- jpt

November 29, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (41) | TrackBack (0)

American Airlines, Tampa to New York

November 29, 2007 8:48 AM

Packed in like veal here in seat 24-D, on my way to ABC News HQ after the totally interesting and very contentious GOP debate last night in St. Pete.

We covered the debate for Nightline, GMA, and on dot-com.

You can watch our GMA spot HERE.

What did you make of it all?

-- jpt

November 29, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

US Airways, DC to Tampa

November 28, 2007 10:23 AM

This flight is packed with GOP debate attendees, media and political both.

In First Class: former House GOP honchos Dick Armey and Bill Paxon, the latter of whom is now a well-heeled lobbyist backing Rudy Giuliani.

In coach with me and the rest of the great media unwashed: former Gov. and Sen. George Allen, R-Virginia, a supporter of Fred Thompson, who tells me he will be live-blogging the debate for Fred.

A colleague points out that 18 months ago, Mr. Allen seemed headed to this debate as a candidate, a strong one, likely on a corporate jet or campaign charter. America is a fickle one.

- jt

November 28, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Re-writing Herstory?

November 28, 2007 8:59 AM

Senator Hillary Clinton heads to Iowa today to talk about health care reform.

But she may find herself overshadowed by comments made by her husband, former President Bill Clinton, who is now saying that he opposed the war in Iraq from the very beginning, a war that his wife voted to authorize and that he did not exactly seem to be protesting at the time.

The former president was talking to Iowans about military families and then made a startling claim, saying he "opposed Iraq from the beginning."

Really?

At the time, the former president said United Nations inspectors should be given more time to look for weapons of mass destruction. But he was hardly, at least publicly, an opponent of going to war against Saddam Hussein. He talked up the threat posed by Saddam's WMDs.

On his own foundation's Web site, a 2003 speech where Clinton said, "I supported the president when he asked the Congress for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

"Clinton defends successor's push for war," says a CNN story. "Says Bush 'couldn't responsibly ignore' chance Iraq had WMDs."

This headline based on Clinton's assertion that because of any president should have a post-9/11 focus on ensuring terrorists cannot get "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material ... That's why I supported the Iraq thing."

The former president was also doing his best -- HERE and elsewhere -- to argue to Britons that they "Trust Tony's Judgment" as he led that nation to war against Iraq.

All of this refocuses attention where his wife does not want it, on her 2002 vote to authorize the president to go to war.

As she said in October 2002, as she cast that vote, "Perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania avenue, in the White House, watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation."

It refocuses attention specifically in Iowa on this vote, Iowa, a state where anti-war liberals are an important constituency, and where Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, leads in polls. Obama, whose 2002 opposition to the war manifested itself in a notable anti-war rally.

Watch our GMA report on this HERE.

What say you?

- jpt

November 28, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (24) | TrackBack (0)

The Rudy-Mitt Smackdown

November 27, 2007 2:56 PM

All the energy on the GOP side right now appears to be in the boxing ring where Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani have been squaring off.

As with all decent fighters -- and both men are agile pols who can give as well as take a punch -- they are both going after each other's perceived glass jaws.

Achilles Heels, for those of you who prefer Greek mythology.

Or if you prefer Karate Kid references: "Sweep the leg."

Romney wants to paint Giuliani as liberal. Giuliani wants to paint Romney as an ineffective leader.

Hence the slaps, the latest round of which began in earnest this weekend with Giuliani in New Hampshire, continuing through today.

There have been a few issues they've gone back and forth on.

1) HILLARY CARE

JAB -- "When Hillary's plan first came out, Rudy Giuliani had nothing but praise for Hillary's plan," Romney said, citing a recent New York Times story. "Why the change? Why the change in attitude? When it first came out, he was all roses and petals for Hillary's plan. All full of praise. Now I'm running for president, he's decided it's not such a good idea."

UPPERCUT -- Giuliani campaign communications director Katie Levinson: "Romney is once again standing in a glass house with a bunch of stones in his hand. Governor Mitt Romney passed a mandate and tax hike laden health care plan in Massachusetts which Hillary Clinton's own legislative director said was just like HillaryCare."

2) CRIME

JAB -- After a Romney judicial appointee , Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Kathe Tuttman, approved the early release of Daniel T. Tavares Jr., who killed his mother in 1991 -- and who now stands accused of killing a couple in Washington state -- Giuliani said "the governor is going to have to explain his appointment and the judge is going to have to explain her decision, but it's not an isolated situation. Governor Romney did not have a good record in dealing with violent crime."

UPPERCUT --  Romney: "It's strange to have him bringing forward my selection of individuals to serve, judges and so forth, when he's got Bernie Kerik all over him these days," Romney said on CNN Monday. "When someone he knew was under investigation, he recommended to the president to be secretary of Homeland Security? ... Throwing stones from a glass house is never a wise thing to do."

3) TAXING AND SPENDING

JAB - Romney said, "I know he did a good job as the mayor of New York City but on spending and fiscal matters, they left a bit of a problem there because when he came in there was a budget gap, but when he left, he left a budget gap twice as big as the one he inherited: over three billion dollars."

UPPERCUT - Giuliani brought out a Romney predecessor, former Massachusetts Gov. Paul Cellucci, to assail Romney's inability to cut the state income tax from 5.3 percent to 5 percent. "He said one thing and did not get it done," said Cellucci. "Rudy Giuliani got results as mayor."

4) CHARACTER

JAB -- Giuliani on Romney: "He throws stones at people. And then on that issue he usually has a worse record than whoever he's throwing stones at."

JAB - Romney on Giuliani: "I think he's found himself having to stand up and explain why it is that we ought to make him the nominee when he's very much like Hillary Clinton. He's pro-choice like Hillary Clinton. He's pro-gay civil union like Hillary Clinton. He's pro-sanctuary cities like she is, and the record of ethical conduct, particularly with someone like Bernie Kerik in the administration, reminds us of the Hillary Clinton era."

JAB - Giuliani on Romney: "The fact is, Mitt is in no position to be doing that. He really is in a glass house. Everything he attacks somebody else for, he usually has a much worse record."

JAB -- Romney spox Kevin Madden: "What you're seeing is the emergence of a very nasty tone from Mayor Giuliani."

… and it will indubitably continue tomorrow evening at the YouTube debate in St. Pete, Florida!

-- jpt

November 27, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

As The World Turns

November 27, 2007 10:58 AM

A surprising claim yesterday from Democratic presidential frontrunner (except in Iowa) Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, who said that she was "the face" of US foreign policy during her husband's presidential reign.

Clinton didn't just mention the one time she was indisputably the face of US foreign policy -- her Fall 1995 trip to China for the Fourth World Conference on Women.

She took it to a new level, raising some eyebrows among former Clinton administration officials.

"Well, you know, what I did during those eight years -- in partnership with obviously my husband and people like (then-Secretary of State) Madeline Albright -- was to try to be the face of American policy in a lot of different places," Clinton said.

She added that she had been "deeply involved in the Irish peace process."

It is true that if you go back and read up on that process, she was involved. Read about it HERE.

But when Albright, who has endorsed Clinton, was asked for comment, she didn't go as far as her former boss's wife did.

"Hillary Clinton represented American interests and values during her visits to more than 80 countries and her meetings with presidents, prime ministers and leaders of civil society," Albright said. "She has been a dynamic representative even standing up to China by pointing out that women's rights are human rights. Her seven years as a U.S. Senator, including her service on the Armed Services Committee, has further deepened her experience as a dynamic and effective leader for our country. She will be ready from the very first day to lead our nation in a dangerous and complicated world, which is why I am supporting her candidacy."

That statement is notable for what it doesn't say -- which is, that Hillary Clinton was "the face of American policy."

Anyway, it would seem we're approaching something of a decision here. Either one can derided Clinton's achievements, as Obama did after she took credit for economic good times in the 1990s, saying, "My understanding was that she wasn't treasury secretary in the Clinton administration."

Or one can accept her as an equal faux-Cabinet-level official, a la Al Gore.

If one does, then, is it fair for Clinton to claim credit for the successes of her husband's administration but none of the failures?

Should we hold her responsible in any way for inaction in Rwanda? For the failure of the last previous attempt at peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians? What about how long it took for the US to get involved in the former Yugoslavia?

Or does her unique status mean she can claim the good stuff and not the bad stuff?

What say you, vox populi?

- jt

November 27, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (8) | TrackBack (0)

You Get a Car! You Get a Car! You Get a Car!

November 26, 2007 10:16 AM

The email from the Obama campaign arrived in my inbox at the crack of dawn.

"OPRAH WINFREY TO TOUR EARLY STATES WITH BARACK OBAMA," screamed the headline.

And yes, goddess Oprah Winfrey will try to do for Barack Obama what she did for Wally Lamb.

I know this much is true: on December 8th and 9th, O will join Obama at events in Iowa,  South Carolina, and New Hampshire.  All events will be free and open to the public, the campaign says.

While in general I remain skeptical of the power of endorsements (Gore, Bradley and Harkin for Howard Dean, anyone?), especially regarding celebs (Robert Duval for Rudy? Chuck Norris for Huckabee?), O is to millions of American women more akin to the leader of a movement than "just" a talk show host a la Ellen, Rosie, Jay and Dave.

Why is that?

Will O make a difference for Obama?

- jt

UPDATE: My brilliant wife -- who also happens to be a junior clergywoman at the Church of Oprah -- says that if the Obama campaign was really wise, they might have Oprah also come to Iowa the day after the Iowa Caucus -- for an event only Caucus-goers would be able to get into. That would increase turnout at the Caucuses for Obama, she suggests. How would you best use the star-power of O?

November 26, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (41) | TrackBack (0)

On the Bus, Under the Bus

November 25, 2007 11:00 AM

How important is it that a politician be loyal to his underlings, protégés, and associates?

I ask because ABC News' Matt Stuart, traveling with Mitt Romney, reports that the former Massachusetts Governor has called for Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Kathe Tuttman to resign. (READ MORE HERE).

Tuttman, as you may know, approved the early release of Daniel T. Tavares Jr., who killed his mother in 1991. Tavares is accused of killing a couple in Washington state.

"I think that the judge showed an inexplicable lack of good judgment ... to put somebody on the street who had not only in the past been convicted of manslaughter, but had threatened the lives of other individuals and was a flight risk," Romney said in Derry, NH. "And I think on that basis, that despite her record as being a law-and-order prosecutor, her lack of judgment suggests, she needs to resign from that position."

Here's the rub: Romney is the one who appointed Tuttman to the court.

Also campaigning in the Granite State, Rudy Giuliani assailed Romney's gubernatorial record on crime.

"So it's not so much the isolated situation which he and the judge will have to explain — he's kind of thrown her under the bus, so it's hard to know how this is all going to come out," the former New York Mayor told the AP. "But the reality is, he did not have a record of reducing violent crime."

It's interesting that Giuliani says Romney has thrown Tuttman "under the bus." Because earlier this year, Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, accused Romney of doing the same thing to him.

Hours after the Craig scandal broke, Romney went on CNBC and called Craig's behavior "disgusting" and "disappointing."

"He's no longer associated with my campaign, as you can imagine," Romney said.

Craig later griped that he had been "very proud of my association with Mitt Romney. I'd worked hard for him here in the state. I was a co-chair of his campaign on Capitol Hill. And he not only threw me under his campaign bus, he backed up and ran over me again."

Giuliani, on the other hand, has shown real loyalty to friends and associates under fire for everything from alleged corruption to accusations (denied) of child molestation.

It is a real difference between the two men, the two leaders.

What do you think? Is Romney too quick to throw a troublesome associate under the proverbial bus? Does Giuliani not do it enough?

-- jpt

November 25, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (26) | TrackBack (0)

Redford vs. Gore

November 24, 2007 1:29 PM

Speaking to the New Statesman, a British magazine, longtime actor/environmentalist Robert Redford makes some snarky comments about former Vice President Al Gore, his Nobel Peace Prize notwithstanding.

"It was not a happy, easy time," Redford says of being an eco-warrior in 1969, "because those were the days that the oil and gas companies pretty much controlled the show on propaganda. Anyone speaking about solar energy would be smashed down as being a radical, a tree-hugger and granola-cruncher, or what have you."

The story says Redford is "notably cynical" about Gore's Nobel Peace Prize.

"He's making a lot of money, he's having a belle époque, a heroic moment," says Redford. "It must have been really hard for Gore to suffer all that [losing the presidential election], so he found another thing to come back with: the environment. He had a lot of money behind him, because in Clinton's administration there was a lot of money. With that he was able to build himself a new campaign and pick an issue. And he picked an issue that just happened to arrive at its moment in time."

Writes the author: "The less-than-subtle subtext is that Gore is an arriviste, while Redford has been out there, a grizzled loner, bearing the jibes and right-wing clobbering before the environmental cause was fashionable."

Read more HERE.

I await the Gore partisans explaining how Robert Redford is a tool of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.

-- jpt

November 24, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (84) | TrackBack (0)

1 in 20 DC Residents is HIV positive

November 23, 2007 8:11 PM

Tonight on Nightline we look into that staggering statistic -- the worst rate of HIV infection is in your nation's capital.

Read more HERE or watch an excerpt on the Nightline Webcast HERE.

Question for debate (it's an opinion expressed by some of those we spoke to in the story): would more be done about this crisis if it were a predominantly white city so infected? Discuss. Politely, please.

- jpt

November 23, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

Immigration Hangover?

November 23, 2007 10:49 AM

In his Times column today, our friend and fellow Philly-boy David Brooks takes a look at a speech Rudy Giuliani gave as Mayor in 1996 on the subject of illegal immigration.

It was an interesting speech. Giuliani argued as to why city services should be available to those in the country illegally.

"(S)ome of these children are citizens -- born in the U.S. -- even though their parents were not," he said. "If their parents take them out of school, not only will these children suffer irreversible damage, they will most likely end up doing damage to the rest of society. Similarly, illegal and undocumented immigrants should be able to seek medical help without the threat of being reported. When these people are sick, they're just as sick and just as contagious as citizens ... and could possibly become a danger to public health.

"And everyone should understand the practicality of wanting undocumented immigrants to feel comfortable reporting criminals to the police. Reporting criminals protects all people, citizens and non-citizens alike. It makes absolutely no sense to create a dis-incentive for immigrants to report crimes. Muggers don't ask for a green card. the Federal Government should not mandate State and City policies that have the effect of reducing the number of undocumented immigrants reporting crimes."

To those citizens who ask, "Why should we pay to provide services for illegal immigrants?" Giuliani said, "It's not only to protect them, but to protect rest of society, as well."

This was a Giuliani whom Brooks liked. "This is why Giuliani won 43 percent of the Hispanic vote in the mayoral race of 1997. This is why his candidacy once had the potential to renovate the G.O.P.

"Of course it hasn’t turned out that way. At the moment, Giuliani and fellow moderate Mitt Romney are attacking each other for being insufficiently Tancredo-esque. They are not renouncing the policies they championed as city and state officials, but the emphasis as they run for federal office is all in the other direction. In effect, they are competing to drive away Hispanic votes and make the party unelectable in New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Florida and the nation at large."

Brooks calls this "the greatest blown opportunity in recent political history."

We've covered a lot of this back-and-forth since Romney first sized upon this "sanctuary city" issue back in August and Giuliani began hitting back.

What's been interesting to me more recently is how another candidate -- former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee -- responds to hits from Romney on this.

Check out this excerpt from our interview.

TAPPER:  Another issue that's going to come up, of course, is an issue that's very important to Iowa Republicans, and that's immigration.  As governor, you supported the children of illegal immigrants being eligible for scholarships, and you also supported free prenatal care for those pregnant illegal immigrants who needed it. How do you make the argument to Iowans that those were the right decisions, when they're so mad about illegal immigration?

HUCKABEE:  Well, people are mad about illegal immigration because it's illegal.  They're made because the federal government has shown just how dysfunctional it is.

TAPPER:  But weren't you enabling it? 

HUCKABEE:  The issue that we've got to deal with is that, if you have a federal government that never deals with a secure border and then fails to do anything about dealing with people when they get employed and they can get employed with false documents, the question is, why don't you secure the border, end the sanctuary cities and amnesty, which I would do?  But I wouldn't punish the children who didn't commit a crime.  You don't do that in this country.  We have a long history of -- we penalize law-breakers.  We don't penalize their children for something they can't help.

If a child is gasping for air, asthmatic, and he's on the hospital steps, what do the other candidates suggest we do, let him sit there and gasp until he doesn't have any air left and he dies?  If a child comes to our school -- and our law, by the way, in most of our states, mine certainly says you've got to educate a child if he's of child age -- what do you, break your own law and say, "No, you can't come in the schoolhouse door"?

No, you don't do that.  What you do is you elect a president who will fix the problem where it needs to be fixed:  at the border.  But if your government at the federal government is so incompetent that it fails to secure the border, you don't then grind your heel into the face of a 6-year-old child over it.  That's not what this country does.  We're a better country than that.

Now, if that causes people to say, 'Well, I'm not going to vote for him,' fine.  There are plenty of candidates out there who I guess would grind their heel in the face of a 6-year-old child.  Not me.

What do you think?

-- jpt

November 23, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (51) | TrackBack (0)

Thanksgiving stuffing

November 22, 2007 12:52 PM

Happy T-day, folks. Interesting poll out of New Hampshire from CNN/WMUR/UNH.

It shows Hillary Clinton's numbers sinking from 43% support from Democrats in September to 36% now -- a bad trend line.

Barack Obama and John Edwards aren't necessarily gaining from her loss, though. They've both basically flatlined around 22% for Obama and 13% for Edwards. Bill Richardson's up from 6% to 12%.

But even more interesting are the attributes voters ascribe to the candidates.

Clinton is seen as inevitable -- 69% say she's most likely to get the nomination. Obama is second -- with 10%. She's also far and away seen as the most tough, regarding pending Republican attacks. She's seen as best to handle health care (far and away), the economy (by a lot), Iraq, and terrorism. Obama rates as best to handle Edwards' signature issue -- poverty.

But here's the rub. Clinton comes in 4th on which Democrat is most "honest and trustworthy" -- 27% Obama, 18% Edwards, 14% Richardson, 13% Clinton.

And that’s why you will continue to hear Obama and Edwards hit her on that subject.

For those readers who share the general views of these polled Granite Staters -- can you tell me why you would want your nominee, and your president, to be someone whom you don't seem to regard as particularly honest and trustworthy?

-- jpt

November 22, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (30) | TrackBack (0)

Sitting down with Mike Huckabee

November 21, 2007 7:17 PM

Check out our World News Webcast piece HERE.

Happy Thanksgiving!

- jpt

November 21, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Hillary and Manhunt 2

November 21, 2007 4:43 PM

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, has joined with Sens. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., in asking the Entertainment Software Rating Board, which assigns ratings to videogames, to review its entire ratings sysem, given the "M" rating it assigned the graphically violent game "Manhunt 2."

As you may recall from our coverage HERE and HERE, "Manhunt 2" -- which is so unrepretantly violent it has been banned in the UK -- was originally given an ESRB rating of "Adults Only" (players 18 and older) -- meaning many large retailers would not carry it.

Rockstar Games made some minor edits -- removing a castration scene, for instance -- and the game was given a new rating of M, for "Mature," players 17 and older.

Clinton, Bayh, Lieberman and Brownback point out that Manhunt 2 is available for the Wii game system, which allows players to act out the murders more directly than a joystick might simulate, and ask that the ESRB take that into account. They also ask for more information on how Rockstar Games managed to change its rating, and suggest more transparency in the ratings process.

The ratings system is entirely voluntary and has no legal weight.

A copy of the letter is below:

November 19, 2007

Patricia Vance

President Entertainment Software Rating Board

Entertainment Software Rating Board

317 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor

New York, NY 10017

Dear Ms. Vance, We are writing to suggest that it may be desirable to revise or enhance the current ESRB rating system. We continue to believe that the ESRB takes seriously its responsibility with respect to the ratings and their enforcement. However, we believe that a number of issues have been raised regarding the release of Manhunt 2.

As you know, in June 2007 the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) refused to rate Rockstar's Manhunt 2 video game, effectively banning its sale in British stores, stating that it contains "unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone... which constantly encourages visceral killing with exceptionally little alleviation or distancing." The BBFC Director concluded that any other action "would involve a range of unjustifiable harm risks, to both adults and minors.” Consistent with your British counterpart, this version received an “Adults Only” (AO) rating from your Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB).

In October 2007 the BBFC again refused to rate a revised Manhunt 2 stating that "[t]he impact of the revisions on the bleakness and callousness of tone, or the essential nature of the gameplay, is clearly insufficient. There has been a reduction in the visual detail in some of the 'execution kills', but in others they retain their original visceral and casually sadistic nature." Other countries agreed and have also banned the game.

Unlike the British Board, the ESRB reduced the revised version's rating to "Mature" (M) effectively opening the door to its widespread distribution and its licensing approval by game system manufacturers Sony and Nintendo. And, while significant progress has been made, the FTC reports that 42 percent of unaccompanied children 13 to 16 years of age can still successfully purchase M-rated games meaning that the practical difference between an AO and M rating affects more than simply 17-year-olds.

Manhunt 2 was sanctioned by Nintendo for its Wii system. That system permits children to act out each of the many graphic torture scenes and murders in Manhunt 2 rather than simply manipulating a game pad. This led one clinical psychologist to state that the realistic motions used with the Wii mean that "you're basically teaching a child the behavioral sequencing of killing." While this was not cited as the reason for the BBFC decision, we do believe that the ESRB should take the Wii remote controller, and future advances in game controllers, which create more realistic gaming environments, into consideration. Another disturbing aspect of this saga is that the AO version ended up being leaked on the Internet thereby circumventing the rating restrictions. News reports state that the leak came from a Sony employee, who was reportedly fired, rather than the game manufacturer. Nevertheless, the possible use of the internet to circumvent the ESRB and permit broad access to kids is another concern.

There are many questions that are raised because of the above cited issues regarding the process, robustness and repeatability of the ratings provided by the ESRB system. First, there appears to be a lack of information, to the public and developers, regarding why a particular rating is given or changed. What information is provided back to developers after receiving a rating? Why is information regarding rating changes or reasons for decisions unavailable, except for content descriptors, to the public? We understand to some extent the concerns regarding the confidentiality of pre-released materials however that argument is no longer compelling after the product is released. Some speculate that the ESRB could be used to provide attention to increase sales of future games. Under this scenario, a game like Manhunt 2 would first be produced to ensure receipt of an AO rating and thereafter tweaked to get the reduced M rating. A more transparent process might protect the ESRB from being used in this manner.

Further, do the same reviewers view the original and the revised version of a game after an AO rating is received? How frequently do you use more than your minimum of three reviewers when evaluating a game? Are three reviewers adequate for the more violent games? How often do your reviewers disagree in their initial ratings and how frequently is the final rating a majority opinion rather than a consensus?

In sum, we ask your consideration of whether it is time to review the robustness, reliability and repeatability of your ratings process, particularly for this genre of "ultra-violent" video games and the advances in game controllers. We have consistently urged parents to pay attention to the ESRB rating system. We must ensure that parents can rely on the consistency and accuracy of those ratings.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Joseph I. Lieberman
Sam Brownback
Evan Bayh
Hillary Rodham Clinton

*

What do you think?

-- jt

November 21, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (21) | TrackBack (0)

Crazy Talk Award Nominee, 11/21

November 21, 2007 12:18 PM

"There is no question she was the face of the (Bill Clinton) administration in foreign affairs."

-- former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, seemingly trying to secure his place as Sen. Hillary Clinton's VP pick while ironically showing her team that he has bigger mouth-control issues than Biden and Richardson put together

Any other nominees?

-- jpt

November 21, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

What You Don't See

November 21, 2007 10:11 AM

Disclosure, disclosure. So powerful a position is the presidency, so little do many of those pursuing the office want to share.

Rudy Giuliani's successful consultancy, Giuliani Partners and its affiliates, and its work for a Singapore gambling interest gets some attention from the Chicago Tribune.

Specifically, "a complex partnership with the family of a controversial Hong Kong billionaire who has ties to the regime of North Korea's Kim Jong Il and has been linked to international organized crime by the U.S. government."

In his candid-seeming (though not always forthcoming) style, Giuliani will not say what he did for these clients, and he sidestepped questions of disclosure yesterday, saying "all of Giuliani Partners' clients, maybe with one or two exceptions, I'm not even sure that's right, are public ... At least the ones that I was familiar with." He added that confidentiality agreements prohibit complete disclosure "but somehow I think you -- you meaning the press in general -- have been successful in discovering. I'd have to check if it's every client. But just about every single client of Giuliani Partners. You'll have to check with them."

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, claims to have no idea what happened to his records from his years in the Illinois legislature, even though he's hammered Democratic frontrunner Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, for not enabling the quicker release of the records of her First Lady days.

But the big question on the blog today has to do with Clinton.

Last we checked, the National Archives was proceeding at a snail's pace with its release of her records from her days as First Lady -- which just yesterday she was holding up as evidence of her experience, while mocking Obama's claim that living abroad as a child brought him some perspective on international affairs.

We also had been asking about research done by late Clinton friend and professor Diane Blair (READ MORE HERE), papers that seemed a few years ago to have been nearing release from the University of Arkansas Library, but now ... aren't.

And now we learn from the AP (READ HERE) that 34 files of papers from her days as First Lady of Arkansas won't be available any time soon either.

According to Bobby Roberts -- director of the Central Arkansas Library System where the papers are stored -- those papers will not likely be released before the 2008 election.

Roberts says the problem is that the library is short-staffed, and delays in processing the documents because of delays in renovations for the archives.

''They're really files from the point of view of the governor's staff rather than from her point of view,'' Roberts told the AP.

This would be the same Bobby Roberts whom President Clinton in 1993 appointed to the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science …

And the same Bobby Roberts who donated $1,000 to Hillary Clinton's campaign earlier this year.

-- jpt

November 21, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Huck Rising

November 21, 2007 9:23 AM

On Good Morning America this morning (WATCH HERE) we took a look at the surge in Iowa of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who is now tied for first there with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

READ MORE HERE … more later on World News with Charles Gibson.

One other note: in the spirit of the Thanksgiving Holiday I asked the once obese Huck -- who went through a memorable weight-loss of about 110 pounds a few years ago -- whether Turkey Day posed a temptation. "I'm just not as, I guess, maybe focused on wanting to overeat," he sad. "And, you know, some of the things that I used to just couldn't stop eating, I don't have the desire for them now.

So it's not as difficult as it would have been years ago." Huck said he'll "have a nice meal on Thanksgiving, but I probably won't just gorge myself, and I won't eat sugar desserts, and I won't eat anything fried.

" No unbuckling the belt, post-feast, in a food coma? "Oh, my gosh, I hope not," he said. "I'm actually hoping to go out and get a nice, long run in Thanksgiving Day and try to make up for whatever I do eat."

Now that is dedication.

-- jt

November 21, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

When Senators attack

November 20, 2007 3:30 PM

The second sign Hillary's Iowa numbers must really be tanking?  She just went way negative on Barack Obama's experience ... And in case anyone missed it, the campaign sent it out.

Via speakerphone, Clinton assailed Obama's claim that living abroad brought him insights to the world, telling voters in Shenandoah, Iowa, "Now voters will judge whether living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next President will face. I think we need a President with more experience than that. "

And who might that be? Clinton noted she has "traveled the world on behalf of our country -- first in the White House with my husband and now as a Senator" and "met with countless world leaders and know many of them personally."

"I believe I have the right kind of experience to be the next President. With a war and a tough economy, we need a President ready on Day One to bring our troops home from Iraq and to handle all of our other tough challenges."

Smart? Accurate? Desperate? Pathetic?

You be the judge.

- jt

UPDATE: Obama spox Bill Burton reacts: "Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld have spent time in the White House and travelled to many countries as well, but along with Hillary Clinton they led us into the worst foreign policy disaster in a generation and are now giving George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran. The real choice in this election is between conventional Washington thinking that prizes posture and positioning, or real change that puts judgment and honesty first."

UPDATE: Now the Edwards campaign is getting into the act, issuing this statement from campaign communications director Chris Kofinis:

"mudslinging |məd sli ng i ng | (also mud-slinging)noun informal the use of insults and accusations, esp. unjust ones, with the aim of damaging the reputation of an opponent. As in: Hillary Clinton said about Barack Obama, 'Now voters will judge whether living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next president will face.'

"Now we know what Senator Clinton meant when she talked about 'throwing mud' in the last debate. Like so many other things, when it comes to mud, Hillary Clinton says one thing and throws another."

November 20, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (16) | TrackBack (0)

You Gotta Want It

November 20, 2007 8:33 AM

In case you missed it, a new ABC News poll shows that Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, has pulled ahead in Iowa (LINK) aided in part by voter doubts about the honesty and forthrightness of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY.

On the GOP side, supporters of the man who was to be the conservative savior of his party have a little buyer's remorse. CQ reports that House Republicans who endorsed former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., are regretting it.

"I think he's kind of done a belly flop," said one. "We'll just wait till after Feb. 5 because I think he's going to get beat."

"He seems to be perpetuating it instead of defeating it," added another. "I can’t see me bailing on him, but there’s some frustration."

Congress overall isn't faring too well in the public mind, Gallup reports, with "only one in five Americans approving of the job Congress is doing at this time...among the lowest (rating) that Gallup has ever measured dating back to 1974."

Obama v Clinton…Thompson's energy….your view of Congress…SHARE!

-- jt

November 20, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (26) | TrackBack (0)

What's the dirt?

November 19, 2007 9:11 AM

Over the weekend, conservative columnist Robert Novak reported  that "Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party's presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it. The nature of the alleged scandal was not disclosed."

Obama hit back hard. Clinton denied the charges.

On GMA this a.m., we took a look at that and other dirty tricks on the trail. Watch it HERE.

Or read about it HERE.

What do you think?

-- jpt

November 19, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (47) | TrackBack (0)

Stephen King - Extras

November 17, 2007 10:15 AM

Hope you got to see our Nightline profile of Stephen King last night.

Here are some extra goodies...the FREE VIDEO of King talking about some of the criticism that came his way in 2003 when he received the National Book Foundation's Medal for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters.

HERE he talks about his high school years.

HERE he talks about his mom.

On the Nightline Webcast he talked about how the ending of the film The Mist is different from the ending of the novella that he wrote; watch that HERE.

And HERE'S THE FULL TRANSCRIPT of our interview.

Enjoy!

-- jt

November 17, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Kerry takes a Swift Boater up on a bet

November 16, 2007 4:00 PM

Earlier this month, according to some accounts, at the conservative American Spectator magazine's Robert L. Bartley Dinner & 40th Anniversary Gala, billionaire businessman T. Boone Pickens -- who gave $3 million to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004 -- offered a million dollars for anyone who could disprove any of the charges made by the organization against Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

Today Kerry took Pickens up on the offer, with the money designated for the Paralyzed Veterans of America.

"While I am prepared to show they lied on allegation after allegation, you have generously offered to pay one million dollars for just one thing that can be proven false," Kerry wrote, in a letter he distributed to the media. "I am prepared to prove the lie beyond any reasonable doubt."

Kerry wrote that he "would be more than happy to travel to Dallas to meet with you in a mutually agreed upon public forum, or would invite you to join me in Massachusetts for a public dialogue."

No word yet from Pickens.

Kerry was not so willing three years ago to attempt to discredit the charges made by the group, refusing to release his military records and leaving his staff unprepared to answer media questions about the group's charges.

What say you? Atta boy? Too little too late? Or shut up?

-- jpt

November 16, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (30) | TrackBack (0)

Stephen King tonight on Nightline

November 16, 2007 9:34 AM

Tivo alert -- we have a rare profile interview with master storyteller Stephen King on Nightline this evening. Worth a watch -- he was truly fascinating.

-- jt

November 16, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Vegas, baby

November 16, 2007 8:23 AM

After a weak, waffling performance in the last debate, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, came to the debate in Vegas last night to win.

Her opponents came at her early in the evening.

"What the American people are looking for right now is straight answers to tough questions," said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, "and that is not what we've seen out of Senator Clinton on a host of issues."

Said John Edwards, "She said she will bring change to Washington while she continues to defend a system that does not work, that is broken, that is rigged and is corrupt."

But in a change in strategy, Clinton engaged with her opponents and brought it.

"The most important thing here is to level with the American people," she said during an exchange about health care with Obama. "Senator Obama's health care plan does not cover everyone."

Her voice was angrier, more combative as she took on Edwards. "When Senator Edwards ran in 2004, he wasn't for universal health care," she said, her voice rising. "I'm glad he is now."

While Clinton hemmed and hawed in the last debate about whether illegal immigrants should be given drivers' license, tonight her answer was clear: "No."

And it was Obama who'd seem to have brought with him a sack of nuance and explication on the issue.

After losing these few early hands, Edwards and Obama seemed to cash out early.

Then, like a card counter sidling up to a blackjack table with a slow-witted dealer, Clinton played the gender card deftly without anyone ever seeming to notice. She first said she understood "very well that people are not attacking me because I am a woman, they are attacking me because I'm ahead."

But when pressed as to what she'd mean when describing "the all boy's club of presidential politics" during an address two weeks ago at Wellesley, Clinton shot her questioner, CNN's Campbell Brown, a knowing look.

"Campbell," she said, a note of "girlfriend, you gotta be kidding me" in her voice.

Then, in a response that no doubt had women across the country nodding their heads, Clinton said, "I think it's clear from most women's experiences that from time to time there may be some impediments."

(What possible impediments based on her gender has this former First Lady, not a New York resident until 2000, faced in either her Senate or presidential run?)

She had a good night.

Did you see it? What did you think?

-- jpt

November 16, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (43) | TrackBack (0)

Pardon?

November 15, 2007 9:52 AM

We take a look this morning at the campaign cash the Hillary Clinton campaign has been given by three recipients of her husband's controversial 11th hour pardons.

It's not illegal," Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told ABC News. "But, of course, it's inappropriate and she should return the money. It does raise the appearance that this is payback."

Read more HERE.

- jt

November 15, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (8) | TrackBack (0)

"How do we beat the b----?"

November 14, 2007 9:27 AM

That was the question posed to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the other night in South Carolina.

An older woman stood and asked him, "how do we beat the bitch?"

Groans and applause followed. (Watch it HERE).

"May I give the translation?" McCain asked.

"I thought she was talking about my ex-wife," joked a man in the audience.

"But that's an excellent question," McCain said. "You might know that there was a poll yesterday, a Rasmussen poll, identified, that shows me three points ahead of Senator Clinton in a head-to-head matchup."

Applause.

"I respect Senator Clinton, I respect anyone who gets the nomination of the Democrat party," McCain continued.

On CNN, Rick Sanchez was offended by McCain's response.

"'That's an excellent question,' he says," Sanchez said, outraged. "This is a fellow senator he's talking about, no matter what you think of Hillary Clinton."

McCain's South Carolina campaign manager Buzz Jacobs this morning tried to turn it around on Sanchez.

"It is disappointing that Mr. Sanchez would choose to engage in sensationalism in the hopes of generating a story," Jacobs said.

"It not only reflects poorly on him, but on CNN. If Mr. Sanchez had even the faintest perspective on the race for the White House, he would know that Senator McCain has expressed his utmost respect for Senator Clinton numerous times on the campaign trail as he did at Monday's event in Hilton Head."

What do you think of it all?

-- jt

November 14, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (62) | TrackBack (0)

Dirty Tricks Watch

November 13, 2007 7:01 PM

(No. 1 in what will be a series)….

The John Edwards-supporting blogger "DesMoinesDem," writing at the liberal website MyDD.com WRITES that a woman identifying herself as an employee "Central Research" called this morning with some pointed questions.

The questions seemed to imply messages being tested to use against Edwards and Hillary Clinton.

Which is the most important reason to oppose Clinton? Taking lobbyist money? That she would be a weak general election candidate? Or that she won't bring the change the US needs?

What about Edwards? That he's too liberal to win a general election? That he chose to continue his campaign instead of staying home with his wife who has cancer?

DesMoinesDem refused to answer that question and asked who was paying for the survey. No information beyond "Central Research" was forthcoming.

Another Edwards supporter - DoriDC - writes on the Edwards blog (HERE) that she received the same questions from "Central Research."

Both pseudonymous Edwards supporters say they suspect the Obama campaign.

But the Obama campaign denies that it has anything to do with Central Research or the questions being asked.

"No, and we think that line of questioning is abhorrent," says spokesman Bill Burton.

So…who's behind the calls?

Is it message-testing or "push polls" -- a slimy political technique to spread, rather than gather, information?

Iowa and New Hampshire readers -- what are you hearing?

-- jt

November 13, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (13) | TrackBack (0)

The Clinton-Edwards two step

November 13, 2007 3:09 PM

FIRST ...  John Edwards introduced a TV ad in Iowa, threatening Congress to take away health insurance from Members of Congress if they haven't passed universal health care by July 2009.

"When I'm president, I'm gonna to say to members of Congress, and members of my administration, including my Cabinet, 'I'm glad that you have health care coverage and your family has health care coverage. But if you don't pass universal health care by July of 2009, in six months, I'm gonna to use my power as president to take your health care away from you.'" Edwards says to applause. "There's no excuse for politicians in Washington having health care when you don't have health care."

Watch the ad HERE.

THEN Clinton spokesman Phil Singer took a whack at the ad.

"In 2004, John Edwards was critical of other Democrats for proposing universal health care," Singer said. "Now he says he'll get it done by employing an unconstitutional tactic. That's not the way we're going to get universal health care in America. We'll get universal health care by electing someone who has the strength and experience to actually get it done -- Hillary Clinton."

NOW Edwards spox Chris Kofinis is hammering Clinton for Singer's comment.

"Today, Senator Clinton made it crystal clear where she stands: she defends health care for politicians while millions of Americans and their families go without care," Kofinis says. "Voters have a clear choice between John Edwards, who will fight to finally pass universal health care, and Senator Clinton, who seems intent on defending the Washington establishment."

This is a silly debate on one level -- I don't actually think there's any way a president can take Congress's health insurance away. (His Cabinet's may be another matter.)

And even if he could, the move might seem awfully cruel for those members of Congress with bad health (or relatives in bad health) who depend upon health insurance.

That said, it's political bait and the Clinton folks just tried to snack on it.

Why take the bait?

Unless … you're worried ….

-- jt

UPDATE: Our homies at FactCheck call foul on Edwards' ad, calling its threat "misleading and empty."

November 13, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (23) | TrackBack (0)

The Anti-Hillary Facebook Group

November 13, 2007 9:31 AM

Senior Clinton campaign advisers Mandy Grunwald and Mark Penn were not impressed with the young Iowans who turned out for Barack Obama at Saturday night's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner.

"Our people look like caucus-goers," Grunwald told Roger Simon of the Politico, "and his people look like they are 18. Penn said they look like Facebook."

Added Penn: "Only a few of their people look like they could vote in any state."

Kind of weird to dis 18-year-olds. But hey, certainly the Clinton campaign and its all-knowing ways must have a reason to insult young Democrats trying to engage in the political process.

Either way, umbrage has been taken. And now on Facebook -- the Official Petition Against Hillary Clinton "They Look Like Facebook" Insult.

"That's it: Hillary's entire strategy for winning the White House is to make sure young people on Facebook don't vote," the group's manifesto states. "Facebook voters aren't 18 year old slackers. We are engaged. And we vote. Let's get as many Democrats, Republicans, and Independents to join this group to send a message that stereotypes like this abou