Political Punch

Speaking of republican dirt, Hannity will have a special on Sunday night with an indepth look at Obamas associations including the weather underground who bombed the pentagon, the associations of the reverend Wright and other interesting facts.

You Americans are really funny. Your country is in the dumps and you all are going off the deep end. Hill is associated with the past she has no knew ideas that she will use if she becomes predident. She is not trust worthy she has too many faces. Which face is gonna answer the red phone? Obama is fresh smart and if you all don't have hope for your country you have nothing. In these times Americans needs to speak to everyone and then do what is in the best interests of its people. Speaking as a Non Amerian I can testify that American foreign policy is crap. I wish Obama all the best and look forward to seeing American return to a country that outsiders praise rather than cuss

Speaking of Michelle, early on she made a comment that they would do a white house run once. Does that mean in 4 years we'll be looking for a new president if he's elected? Go HRC!

Boy people have a way of ignoring history. Clinton's were found not guilty of everything except Bill's affair.

IRS only requires you keep your records for 7 years. Frankly, I wouldn't have 20 years of records to release. Too many things happen in 20 years.

I'm sure Bill and Hillary had 3:00 a.m. phone calls when they lived in the white house, and I'm sure he shared information with her.

She has the experience to do the job. Let her do it.

Obama is whining now. Wait until the republicans get him. He'll be in a world of hurt then, and there will be no holding back when we're voting for president.

If he's on the ballot, expect McCain to win.

I like the way the Media is covering this primary election. They are actually trying to pick a candidate for us, Democrats. Too bad for Clinton's campaing it's not Hillary they're nominating. GO MEDIA! DO YOU'RE PAID TO DO!

ken: Read the article!
Obama's advisor is Sandra Rice Not
Condi Rice!

Mississippi voters - please tell me you can see through this ridiculous disingenuous claim that a vote for Clinton is somehow a vote for Obama via a possible joint ticket. The only time she says anything nice about Obama is when she needs some votes on Obama turf.

If we are blind enough to elect this liar, we deserve what we get.

So, Dubya comes out in support of McCain.

Now, Condi is coming out to support Obama instead of her boss.

So, does this mean Obama is leaning towards Bush policy?

Or, does Condi anticipate future employment in an Obama administration?

Six years after the vote to use force,and invade Iraq.Barack Obama has come forward to announce that he was against the war in Iraq and always has been.I ask one question of Mr. Obama if you knew this why did you not appear on all the major media and news outlets at the start of this war?

why do everone run with bad things about barack obama; but if something comes up about hillary the reporter dont say nothing about her;like when one of her aid was takeing voteing papers from the polls and she want show her taxs papers and she cant take it but barack obama is the one.if hillary cant take it she needs to get out

Iraq war In October, 2002, a few days before the U.S. Senate voted on the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, about 75 senators were told in closed session that Saddam Hussein had the means of attacking the eastern seaboard of the U.S. with biological or chemical weapons delivered by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).In September 2002, the Bush administration said attempts by Iraq to acquire thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes pointed to a clandestine program to make enriched uranium for nuclear bombs. Iraq was not permitted to import such tubes under the U.N. monitoring plan. -wikipedia- 88 senators voted yea to the use of force in Iraq,the age old adage hind sight is 20/20 is true.At the time of the vote 90% of America was behind the plan to use force if needed.

The Clintons were cleared of all wrong-doing in the scandals they were associated with.

She has won the popular vote in most all of the big states, he has won mostly only in smaller states, and with caucuses, which aren't really representative of most people anyway.

He only has 3 years national experience, no international experience, and knows virtually nothing about helping the economy.

He has hardly any proof to back up most of what he says.

Swing voters won't want to chance it on him when there is so little proof.

He would never win against McCain.

She won because she is the most qualified candidate.

And truth be told, Hillary is in even less of a posistion to handle a call b/c she didn't even bother to read the NIE report. Instead she relied on her staff to tell he what was in the reports. How can she claim she is ready?

Man, I know the Obama camp doesn't want to go negative but if it were me, forget the kitchen sink, I would throw the entire house at her campaign. Wolfson had the nerd to bring up Rezko,, what an idiot. I don't know why the Obama camp didn't respond with the long list of campagin scandals of the Clintons, including leasing the Lincold bedroom! The bottom line is, everything she can say about him, he can turn around and nail on her it. He better forget the angelic image and get down and dirty with her.

Besides, she only won Tx. by a few points. And everyone knows, were it not for voting problems, it would have been a much smaller margin. Anyway, eventhough she did win, he still won more delegates. In the end sympathy is why she won - sympathy and lies.

They have nothing to hide - the government sees it all.

They just have the right to disclose it when they want to - instead of when the other campaign 'tells them to.' They're not children.

Mr. Clinton has allowed donors to use his influence to advance their business interests. That was the case with Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining financier, who won a huge mining concession in Kazakhstan after Mr. Clinton flew all the way to Almaty to introduce him to President Nursultan Nazarbayev. Bloomberg reported this week that Mr. Clinton has also been a frequent flyer on Mr. Giustra's corporate jet.

Mr. Giustra later donated $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation and has pledged $100 million more. As the New York Times has reported, Mr. Clinton used his trip to praise Mr. Nazarbayev's bid to head the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, even as Senator Clinton was slamming the country's record on corruption and elections. If Mr. Clinton's personal business is going to affect U.S. foreign policy, he ought to tell the world who his benefactors are.

We've seen this nondisclosure before. During the 1992 campaign, the Clintons claimed to be coming clean by releasing their tax returns from 1980 forward. But they steadfastly refused to release their returns for prior years, and only later did we learn that 1978 and 1979 were the tax years when Mrs. Clinton reported her 10,000% cattle-futures trading profit. Remember Red Bone and Jim Blair, and how she claimed she had made the investment on her own after reading the Wall Street Journal? For that matter, remember the other characters who provided cash for the Clintons in return for nights in the Lincoln Bedroom, among other things?

"If the Clintons continue to keep his and her finances under wraps, the public would be wise, given their history, to assume they have something to hide."

writes THE WALL STREET JOURNAL today...

That is part of the right wing attack legacy, that they are full of lies.

The first Clinton Administration was one of the most socio-economically successful we've ever had.

Only shallow people focus on their personal relationship issues.

That was a personal marital issue that never should have become public business, wasting millions of tax dollars and time.

Kennedy had many more affairs while he was in the White House, but luckily for him and his family that was before the time of scandalizing personal marital affairs.

If David Geffen got into politics, he would find out how hard it is. Then again - his own record and history would probably make it impossible, and I don't think he would want to.

But I wouldn't be surprised if David Geffen is a better liar than the Clintons.

The mere fact that they (Clinton's campaing) are holding her tax returns back, is evidence that they will use it to lay the final blow to the Obama campaign.

Just wait and see!

No, Rezko did do Obama favors.

He helped him buy his house.

While Rezko was under investigation for fraud, Obama had Rezko's wife buy the land next to his house because it was a package deal he otherwise couldn't afford.

If that is not a favor, I don't know what is.

And if that is not a violation of the public trust that he took favors from a major donor who was under investigation for fraud at the time, I don't know what is.

That does not say much for Obama's claims to judgement, integrity, transparency, or the public trust.

He has no right to claim he can run on judgement, and he is not being transparent, and he has no right to demand the Clintons be transparent when he is not.

He may not have broken the law, but he did take favors from a donor who he knew was under investigation for fraud.

And I will not "move on," especially so long as his camp is asking for the Clinton's tax returns.

There is nothing illegal in the Clinton's tax returns or the presidential pardons or the notes - the government sees them.

What voters care about the most is who is most qualified candidate to help our country, and that is Hillary.

Now Barack is getting desperate, and it looks bad.

VOTE DOOM

clinton 08

To quote David Geffen on the Clintons yet again:
"Everyone in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it's troubling."

Chan,

Sorry to hear that but if you can not hear any name with Clinton (lots in US)
I suggest you to go away far far away from US.

O RLY Hillary , Hillary doesn't serve on the Foreign Affairs Committee; it is Obama who is serving there. You should perhaps give him a credit for this one.

Obama was endorsed by his colleagues on the FA Committee. Who is in the better position to judge about the candidate's readiness in the field of foreign affairs than Senators who work closely with him/her? Besides the Democrats like John Kerry, Obama has been recently endorsed by the former Republican member of the Committee Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island.

Hillary on the other hand is serving on the Arm Services Committee. Senator Jay Rockefeller, chair of this committee recently endorsed Obama, not Mrs Clinton. Why senators working closely with Hillary don't praise her foreign affairs knowledge let alone endorse her? I think this speaks volumes about what her real skills are opposite to what she want us to believe they are.
Her claims to be better prepared for the job are largely unsubstantiated and only show how phony and manipulative a president we might elect if we are not vigilant and take her words at face value.

Federal archivists at the Clinton Presidential Library are blocking the release of hundreds of pages of White House papers on pardons that the former president approved, including clemency for fugitive commodities trader Marc Rich.

The archivists' decision, based on guidance provided by Bill Clinton that restricts the disclosure of advice he received from aides, prevents public scrutiny of documents that would shed light on how he decided which pardons to approve from among hundreds of requests.

Clinton's legal agent declined the option of reviewing and releasing the documents that were withheld, said the archivists, who work for the federal government, not the Clintons.

The decision to withhold the records could provide fodder for critics who say that the former president and his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, now seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, have been unwilling to fully release documents to public scrutiny.

more in USA Today online!

Let's stick to the known facts:

1) Rezko did not do any favors for Obama.

2) Obama has never done any favors for Rezko.

3) Rezko has helped raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for dozens of politicians, including the RNC, the DNC, President Bush, President Clinton.

4) Rezko did not help Obama buy his house. He offered real estate advice. There had been other offers to buy the house; the Obamas made the best offer.

The reason there hasn't been a lot of media attention on this? Because there's nothing else to say. Illinois reporters have already investigated it inside and out -- it's already been vetted -- bottom line: "there's no there there."

Move on.

CORRECTION: Obama camp did not approach Canadians. The Canadians have already admitted that assertion was invented by someone in the PM's office:

1) News report from Canadian Broadcasting Company / CTV
http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/vsu/wmv-hi/macdonald-obama-memo080303.wmv

Of note:

"The Canadian Embassy here is mortified. The Obama campaign is enraged. And Ottawa is now trying to repair the damage."

Turns out, a few weeks earlier, "Canadian diplomats in Chicago had pleaded for a meeting with Obama's economics advisor, Austan Goolsbee."

"After the Ohio debate ... someone in Stephen Harper's government decided to leak their own version of Obama's views."

"Within hours, CTV news was reporting Obama's people had phoned the Canadian government, not the other way around. Their report also said - incorrectly - that an Obama "operative" had directly warned Michael Wilson, the Canadian Ambassador in Washington, telling him not to take Obama's NAFTA rhetoric seriously, effectively, the story suggested, Obama was lying to the Ohio voters."

"Obama's rivals pounced and they've been pouncing ever since."

"Meanwhile the Canadian Embassy reviewed the diplomatic cable, acknowledged it may have misrepresented the Obama advisor, apologized to Obama and issued a blanket denial. But too late."

From a senior Obama campaign advisor: "Why is Canada meddling in the internal affairs of the United States? To provide such a false account at this juncture, on the eve of a crucial election, is not an accident. And it is really, really stupid."

2) The Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wnafta06/BNStory/National

PM's top aide set off storm with Obama NAFTA leak
Source of initial tip revealed after Harper vows to investigate 'unacceptable' act

CAMPBELL CLARK

March 5, 2008 at 10:38 PM EST

OTTAWA — The leak of a confidential diplomatic discussion that rocked the U.S. presidential campaign began with an offhand remark to journalists from the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Ian Brodie.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper vowed yesterday to use whatever investigative means necessary to find the source of leaks that, he said, were "unfair" to U.S. Democratic candidate Barack Obama and may have been illegal — although opposition leaders insisted the Conservatives cannot be trusted to investigate political players on their own team.

But the story that reverberated through the U.S. presidential campaign began as a terse, almost throwaway remark that Mr. Brodie made to journalists from CTV, according to people familiar with the events.

Mr. Brodie, during the media lockup for the Feb. 26 budget, stopped to chat with several journalists, and was surrounded by a group from CTV.

The conversation turned to the pledges to renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement made by the two Democratic contenders, Mr. Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing.

The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark.

The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign called and was "telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt."

The story was followed by CTV's Washington bureau chief, Tom Clark, who reported that the Obama campaign, not the Clinton's, had reassured Canadian diplomats.

Mr. Clark cited unnamed Canadian sources in his initial report.

There was no explanation last night for why Mr. Brodie was said to have referred to the Clinton campaign but the news report was about the Obama campaign. Robert Hurst, president of CTV News, declined to comment.

It is interesting to see how so many people have no idea what she has actually done or experienced.

How many hours she has spent thinking about and working on policy issues and decisions, whether it's been during her time in the Senate, or during her time by her husband's side in the White House.

People have no idea what the actual reality of her work and life have been.

But it should be evidenced by the debates, and how well she answers questions. She is so knowledgeable, she knows what she is talking about.

Her husband's administration was one of the most successful we have ever had because they are both so intelligent.

I am getting really tired of these attacks on Hillary from Barack's campaign.

They are offering a candidate who has done nearly nothing nationally, and they are dismissive of her, who truly has had experience for 35, and nationally for over 20 years. (See CBS's "On the Record.")

She is our most qualified candidate. She worked closely with and consulted with her husband during his administration, and it was one of the most socio-economically successful we have ever had.

She is a good woman. She got started to organize for children of migrant families when she was a teenager, and has been working to help people ever since.

She and Bill entered politics as compassionate intelligent, young people, too. And they have both proven how capable they are at helping this country if you look at their actual record. That's why she's our most qualified candidate.

Interesting observation by Josh Marshall:

"I think Hillary Clinton is definitely qualified to be commender-in-chief of the US military. In fact, I think she'd make a strong one. She had a successful legal career. She participated in key decisions during the Clinton administration. And she's beginning her second term in the US senate. Her husband was qualified to be commander-in-chief too -- at 46 and having spent his whole political career in Little Rock.

But just what on earth is Hillary Clinton talking about when she says she's crossed the "commander in chief threshold" which John McCain has also crossed but Barack Obama hasn't?

There are two ways of looking at what's required for this aspect of the president's job. One school of thought has it that a potential president needn't be an expert on military affairs or foreign relations any more than he or she needs to be an experts in economics. They need to be informed and knowledgeable. But what's most needed is temperament, maturity and judgment. Detailed expertise can come from advisors.

Others think it's precisely the expertise that's needed. So someone like a Joe Biden is the kind of person you want -- someone who's deeply schooled in every aspect of foreign relations and has been at it for literally decades. John McCain has some of that and he was also career military which gives him, at least arguably, some special grasp of the military components of the job. Bill Richardson had at least some cred on that scale based on his time in the Congress, UN Ambassador and general ad hoc rogue regime diplomacy.

Hillary Clinton seems to think she's a strong contender in this latter category. But that's a joke. She's starting her second term in the US senate, where, yes, she serves on the Armed Services committee. Beside that she's never held elective office and she has little executive experience. I think she can argue that she'd make and would make a strong commander-in-chief. But she's pushing a metric by which she's little distinguishable from Barack Obama. I'm honestly surprised she's not drawing chuckles on this one.

A lot of people are seeing red that Hillary's so aggressively pushing the Republican nominee's credentials to be president. And I can see their point. But I'm more surprised that she's pushing an argument she doesn't need to make and frankly can't make credibly."

The Clinton campaign didn't lie, or manipulate the truth.

Rice herself said that Barack was not ready.

Her opinion is that Hillary is not ready either, but she is working for Barack's campaign.

Hillary was in the White House with Bill when he got all those 3 am calls, and they do consult each other.

She was on the foreign affairs committee.

She has been involved in national politics for over 20 years and Barack only has for 3.

All of that speaks much louder than Susan Rice's opinion about her own candidate not being ready.

most of the ugly remarks on this blog come from Obama supporters. why Is it that you sound like x-Republicans mean mean mean

Barack will not be able to run on his "judgement."

He has had far too few experiences to exercise it, and many that he had, he just chose to vote "present."

If he tried to run on his judgement, the Republicans will exploit the way he had Rezko do him favors and help him by his house after it was well known Rezko was under invesigation for fraud.

You can bet there will be a 527 attack about that. And he called it "bone-headed" - that is far worse than bone-headed.

The Republicans will laugh at him and his inexperience. They will portray him as the "inexperienced anti-war liberal" and nothing will scare and rally their party and others more than that.

People will not vote for him because he has not been tested, he does not have enough national experience, or real proof.

eliot - correction on that it was both Obama and Clinton that went to the Canadians!

The problem with Hillary Clinton is that she is two-faced; she is untrustworthy; and she lacks the integrity and political dexterity necessary to be the President.

After having skewered Obama over NAFTA-gate, we find out from the Canadian PM's senior aide that it was actually the Clinton campaign making assurances that the anti-NAFTA talk was all "political posturing" for the campaign. The Canadians have apologized to Obama - why hasn't Hillary?

Hillary told us how "honored" she is to be in the campaign with Obama, knowing full well that within 48 hours, she would take center stage in the national arena to "shame" him for raising questions about her health care plan in a piece of literature in a way she didn't like.

Ask Sam Pratt about how she "helped" the Friends of Hudson stop the St. Lawrence Cement Plant proposal.
http://hudson.typepad.com/us/2008/02/why-i-wont-vote.html

In 2000, special prosecutor Ray issued the "Travelgate" investigation report, which concluded that Hillary Clinton had given false testimony when she had denied a role in the firing of the Travel Office employees, but Ray declined to prosecute, citing "insufficient proof ... to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Clinton ... knowingly gave false material testimony." (Hardly an exoneration)

In 1992, Congressman Jim Cooper came up with a health care reform plan that had wide, bipartisan support. Did Mrs. Clinton work with Cooper to get healthcare done? No. She said his plan was "dangerous and threatening" and then proceeded to set up a war room to crush it - and him. (The memos produced during this period, by the way, are still archived. Maybe ABC could ask her why she won't let the public see them.)
see http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200611/green-hillary
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/001600.html

See the pattern?

Not only does Hillary Clinton lack the judgment to be President, she lacks the proper temprament.

Clinton is a treacherous liar and it will soon be revealed. She cant go on like this much longer. She cant win...but will tear down all others in the process. Yes...I'd say that is the definition of a monster.

Rice is trying to save her job now. Regrettably the only way she knows how is to attack Clinton. Clinton, McCain and everyone who read or saw the show knows what she said. I quote "Obama is not ready for that 3 a.m. phone call." Sometimes you are your own worst enemy.

What do we know about this woman Clinton? Something of an activist resume, but always playing it safe. Clearly on the side of corporations when the cards are down. A second term senator in a state where she never resided prior to running for her first public office. Philandering impeached for lying under oath and on TV ex President husband. Claims 8 years of foreign policy experience but refuses to release any relevant documentation of same. Claims she was an advisor to the President on '3 a.m.' phone calls, documentation of this has been redacted. Loaned her campaign $5 million dollars, but refuses to account for where those funds came from. Has not released her tax documents since being elected to the senate, the last time that this happened it was shown to have been a cover for various financial shenanigans. Demands the Obama campaign distance themselves from an unpaid advisor who called names but will not do the same on her own staff. Hmm. I guess we know enough.

Colin Powell was on Meet the Press a couple of weeks ago, praising Barack Obama's vision on National Security affairs. Makes me wonder if this is why he hasn't endorsed McCain. Wow, to have Powell's silent endorsement like that...to me that makes Obama a stronger candidate than Hillary and even McCain to be commander in chief.

Maybe Hillary Clinton is not a "monster", but she is a professional liar and a treacherous politician. She claims 35 years of experience but refuses to release her records in the White House. She claims to be financially transparent, but refuses to release her tax returns, etc.

hillary is not good for america!

Come on now lets get real!Do you really
want a CANDIDATE with three(3) years
experiance in WASHINGTON(who never pass
any LEGISLATION and voted PRESENT 100
TIMES)to the one to answer the phone at
3:00 A.M. knowing your life,your children life,and my life in the hands
of a person who voted( like I said 100
times PRESENT)to be PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES of AMERICA. WAKE UP
AMERICA and THINK!

hillary supporters need to ask her what the clinton adm did about Samolia and Rwanda crisis. where did her foreign policy experience come in then

It was Hillary who made "Mr. Lazio release his tax returns" a key part of her 2000 Senator campaign. Clinton said it was "frankly distrubing" that a candidate would waffle over when they were going to release their returns. Now the tables have turned and Obama is accused of being Ken Starr. He hasn't been nearly as focused on the tax thing as she was back then.
That is how she works, always has and always will, dirty politics at any costs. Alot of people see through her and at the truth, however, some do not.
Don't forget that she is being accused of saying the same things to Canada that she hammered Obama for, again, it is differnt because now it is Hillary being accused. Do you see Obama cutting her head off during this? He is trying to run a clean campaign, with her in it that becomes very hard to do.
Look at the people, their charactoer and how often they are playing dirty before making up your mind.
Thank you for posting an honest post.

Obama didn't exercise any judgment on the Iran - he skipped the vote, as is his practice on controversial issues

I AM INDEPENDENT, OBAMA IS ANICE GUY BUT IT IS SO DANGEROUS TO ELECT AN INEXPERIENCED PERSON LIKE HIM FOR PRESIDENT. McCAIN WILL USE HIM TO WIPE THE FLOOR IN THE GENERAL ELECTION IF WINS THE NOMINATION.

Barack Obama did not make a judgement about the war in Iraq, he made a speech. Its all he has to work with, so he's working it to death, but wouldn't he serve himself and the country better by exercising better judgement in the office he now holds? His answer on why he has not held hearings re Afghanistan as senate committee chair (he is too busy running for president)does not reflect good judgment. If the situation in Afghanistan deteriorates further, Obama's neglect will prove to be a serious liability to his first priority--his personal ambition.

Chan, sounds like you need solution focused brief therapy to re-train your mind with healthier, more accurate associations to the word "clinton". Good luck with that.

Does Rice and the rest of the Obama campaign get that there are high level endorsers of Obama who did not read the NIE and voted for the war as well? There are also supporters of his who did read the NIE and supported the war regardless. The Clinton people should jump all over this...do you hear me Senator Kerry?

I get difficulties to understand where Hillary stands. One day attacking, the other one let us be on a joint ticket.

Twisting all the times, is making a lot of people have a second thought about her.

Winning a nomination at the cost of losing the election to Republicans, must make Hillary think twice on the game she is playing.

When I hear the name Clinton, all is see is deception. I feel sorry for America if she becomes the President. Sen. Clinton is no good.

Um, Ms Rice, your comments can be seen by everyone during the interview. You clearly said that neither of them, (Sen Obama, nor Sen Clinton) was prepared for that call.

Coming from the Obama campaign, one can understand your assertion about Sen Clinton. However for the Obama campaign (and you are a part of that) to say that Obama is not prepared for the phone call is quite astounding.

I'm sure the Clinton campaign thinks she is ready and prepared for that phone call.

Susan seems as confused as Obama she claims to advise. I followed her comments that day and was taking aback because I thought she was supporting the fact that Obama is so inexperience in a dangerous world. She may be saying just what everybody knows, namely Obama is inexperienced for the job of president, but that should not come from her. Obama's weaknesses on foreign policies seems to be surfacing everyday. For example, he shifted from meeting with all foreign leaders without any pre-condition to meeting them only with "preparation" to saying he cannot meet with the prime minister of Palestine-the leader of Hamas. I like him, but I think he is not qualified to serve as well now as president.

Let us add Michelle Obama to this list and we now have Obama supporters telling the rest of the world that there is nothing great about America except Barack! What a great message to tell our friends around the world.

It is clear that Hillary Clinton will invent everything to destroy obama. She is using the tactic of Republicans in 2004 to plant the fear in the mind of women in OH and PA. It is a shame to run as Democrat candidate and use Republicans ideologies. she should switch and become a republican candidate. Her campaign is full of deception, lies. she is hiding a lot. why can't she release her tax return and why her husband is blocking archives in the white house? the clinton family cannot be trusted.

You tell it as it is lady...Some one has to try to get the truth out there......Time people saw her for what she is a LAIR>>>>>>>>>

Wow, Senator Clinton did not read the National Intelligence Estimate before her Iraq vote. That's quite shocking for a candidate who claims to be so experienced.

It is clear that Hillary Clinton will invent everything to destroy obama. She is using the tactic of Republicans in 2004 to plant the fear in the mind of women in OH and PA. It is a shame to run as Democrat candidate and use Republicans ideologies. she should switch and become a republican candidate. Her campaign is full of deception, lies. she is hiding a lot. why can't she release her tax return and why her husband is blocking archives in the white house? the clinton family cannot be trusted.

You go girl. Tell it like it is. She is not telling the truth and the lies are starting to pile up. The Canadian deal was hers all along.