Political Punch

Who cares if Clinton lies about her anecdote? I care because there is a double standard when the media is covering Clinton vs Obama. They want to scutinize every thing Senator Obama says on the trail but willing to give a free pass on Clinton. If thats not media bias I don't know what is. Not one news organization pushed her to apologized for her lies but will let the Clinton and McCain push them on the Obama camp to opologize for stating facts. The media does not want HRC to complain if they cover Senator Obama so they rather focus on her. They will cover Chelsea as long as they refrain from asking any questions - what kind of BS is that?

For all you Clinton supporters out there,
Have you ever wondered why so many people close to the Clintons during their time in the White House mysteriously died or was killed?
Do you know about the many lawsuits against them since leaving the White House? Consider these current questions:
Why is there such a high turnover of officials in her campaign? Why is there so much upheaval in the way she has handled her finances?
SENATOR OBAMA IS THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN DEFEAT SENATOR MCCAIN IN THE NOVEMBER!!
And for those of you who try to criticize Senator Obama's record, you are intentionally among the 'willfully ignorant' in this nation. Do your research. Visit websites that discuss and compare the two democratic candidates, their posistions and their voting records.
I can list for you at least 892 things Senator Obama has done that you are benefitting right now.
Can you tell me exactly what Senator Clinton has accomplished?
Did you realize that Senator Obama became a Senator in 1996 and Senator Clinton became the NY Senator in 2000?
Exercise your brain, before you run your mouth. You'll feel better
I don't dislike the Clintons, I just have had enough of her supporters not thinking for themselves and simple regurgitating the epitets of her well placed pundents.
Support whom ever you choose, but don't try to put down one candidate to make another look better.

Jackie, what brought down the Clintons was their constant lying. Doesn't it matter to you that the president of the US would lie UNDER OATH? He was the president and should have been held under a higher standard. They are liars and they will do anything/say anything for power. If you think the Clintons care about anyone other than themselves, then I have some swamp land to sell you. Read some books about the Clintons and then come back and post.

So he is saying he's losing Pennsylvania because the folks in small towns are gun totin', bible thumpin' xenophobic hillbillies?
What stupid and pathetic things for him to say. He's saying he's
losing Pennsylvania because of hillbillies?
Well look out Mr. Obama. Wait till you get to West Virginia and
Kentucky!

Doesn't anyone on here have anything better to do than obsess about the Clinton's sex life....yes they do love each other...Just like JFK loved Jackie...This was a personal problem and the only thing that the Republican's could use to bring down Clinton...

Regardless of personal failings the ex-president continues to raise billions for world wide charity and Katrina victims. He did wonderful things for our country during his term in office.

And Hillary has a lifetime of public service with an emphasis on children and education.

By the time they got to the Whitehouse Hillary had already worked for the Children's Defense League...Helped update and innovate the education system in Arkansas...worked on enviromental and civil rights issues and been an advocate for years.

They are sometimes controversial, but they are seasoned veterens...Obama on the other hand has used lawyers more than voters to win elections in IL...he has been cautious and careful. His record does not reflect action (he couldn't even leave a church he supposedly didn't agree with) His policies and positions were all taken from Edwards and Clinton. He has consistantly been the last to speak out on any issue.

This "small town" bashing is just another example of him not being in touch with the people. He's not even in touch with his biggest voting block....black people.

Obama skips the State of the Black Union. Hillary attends and answers questions.

Obama skips the Remembrance of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in Memphis. Hillary Clinton and even John McCain make time to attend.

Why is this man getting a majority of the black vote?

Jake, you're wrong on so many levels I don't even have the energy to respond. In this entry, you're re-Goring Gore, while pulling a full-on-Gore of Hillary. It's true, it did take several years to push this "serial exaggerator" meme on Gore. The RNC -- and their helpers in the mainstream press -- worked hard to do it. But as for Clinton being easier? Why do you think that is? Because the RNC -- and again, the press -- have been laying the groundwork for not 2 years, but 16 years!(And Obama, much to his discredit, has fed off it, and fostered it.)

Here's the entire scoop on "creating the internet" from The Daily Howler:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh120302.shtml

The press corps’ twenty-month War against Gore began on March 11, 1999. ... A year of impeachment had come to an end; Gore’s informal campaigning was about to begin. And a spin campaign from the Washington press corps would follow in extremely short order. This campaign would be built on a nasty charge—the charge that Candidate Gore was a liar. The theme would dominate campaign coverage for the entire twenty months of the race.

In the Late Edition interview, Blitzer asked Gore to explain what set him apart from Bill Bradley, his opponent for the Dem nomination. Somewhat clumsily, Gore offered a list of career accomplishments. One part of his answer drew more attention than any remark by any candidate in the entire 2000 campaign.

“During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet,” Gore said. “I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country’s economic growth, environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.” On the whole, this was the kind of chest-thumping statement which candidates routinely make on the stump. But as anyone who followed this election will know, Gore’s initial, sixteen-word comment was widely dissected for the next twenty months. Almost surely, Gore’s brief remark about the Net was the most widely-discussed statement of Campaign 2000. The spinning of this one remark drove a nasty War Against Gore—a spin campaign which almost surely decided the 2000 race.

Gore’s remark would be widely attacked. But surprise! At the time Gore made his statement, it received no attention whatever. ...

Why did Gore’s comment provoke no reaction? Perhaps because Blitzer and others knew that Gore had taken the leadership, within the Congress, in developing what we now call the Internet. Gore was explicitly discussing his achievements in Congress, and if “I took the initiative” meant “I took the leadership,” his statement was perfectly accurate. (Extemporaneous speech doesn’t always parse perfectly. Everyone in Washington knows this.) Indeed, as Gore’s remark began attracting wide scrutiny, some journalists reviewed his congressional record—and a wide array of Internet pioneers described his key role, within the Congress, in creating what we now call the Net. In the March 21 Washington Post, for example, Jason Schwartz quoted several Internet pioneers, including Vinton Cerf, the man often called “the father of the Internet.” Cerf praised Gore’s role in the Net’s development. “I think it is very fair to say that the Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the vice president,” he said. Meanwhile, Katie Hafner, author of a book on the Internet’s origins, penned a short piece in the New York Times, quoting experts who said that Gore “helped lift the Internet from relative obscurity and turn it into a widely accessible, commercial network.” On March 18, Gore tried to clarify his remark in an interview with USA Today. “I did take the lead in the Congress,” he told Chuck Raasch; he described his Internet work in detail. Raasch quoted Gore’s explanation—but it was mentioned in no other paper.

... According to Nexis, the Washington Post’s first reference to the Internet occurred in November 1988; a “virus” had attacked the little-known network, which connected some 50,000 computers, the Post said. But as journalists began to report on the Net, Gore’s key role in its development was clear. One month later, for example, Martin Walker wrote this in The Guardian:

WALKER (12/30/88): American computing scientists are campaigning for the creation of a “superhighway” which would revolutionise data transmission.

Legislation has already been laid before Congress by Senator Albert Gore of Tennessee, calling for government funds to help establish the new network, which scientists say they can have working within five years, at a cost of Dollars 400 million.

Nine months later, the Post reported that the Bush administration “plans to unveil tomorrow an ambitious plan to spend nearly $2 billion enhancing the nation’s technological know-how, including the creation of a high-speed data ‘superhighway’ that would link more than 1,000 research sites around the country.” This network was “comparable to an interstate highway system for electronic data,” the paper said—and it noted that “a similar plan has been proposed by Sen. Albert Gore (D-Tenn.), whose legislation also proposes creating a vast electronic library that could be accessed by users seeking federally gathered information.” Simply put, Gore’s leadership role had been widely reported—and was thoroughly understood in the press. How well known was Gore’s work in this area? Five years later, the Internet was becoming well known, and the Washingtonian’s Alison Schneider looked back on its years of development:

SCHNEIDER (12/94): Internet. There’s no escaping it. It seems like only yesterday that Al Gore was preaching the merits of the I-way to a nation that still thought the Net was something used only for catching butterflies.

Duh! Within the press corps, everyone knew that Gore was the leader, within the Congress, in creating what we now call the Net. Indeed, by the time of the 2000 election, even one of Gore’s long-standing foes was praising his work in this area. On September 1, 2000, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich addressed the American Political Science Association. His remarks were broadcast on C-SPAN:

GINGRICH: In all fairness, it’s something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet, and the truth is—and I worked with him starting in 1978 when I got [to Congress], we were both part of a “futures group”—the fact is, in the Clinton administration, the world we had talked about in the ’80s began to actually happen.

Gingrich knew what Gore had done. Indeed, Gore and Gingrich had almost been friendly rivals in these technological areas. Their leadership roles had long been clear. In 1995, for example, the New York Times’ Peter Lewis attended a national cyberspace conference, where he interviewed a group of Gingrich supporters. “A number of participants said Mr. Gingrich had effectively seized the mantel of top Government cyberspace visionary from Vice President Al Gore, who is credited with creating the phrase ‘information superhighway,’” Lewis wrote. Long before the press corps ginned up the Internet flap, Lewis’ statement reflected what everyone knew—that Gore had enjoyed a long-standing reign as the government’s King of the Net.

Had Gore misstated his role to Blitzer? This notion would be aggressively bruited throughout Campaign 2000, but you had to work very hard to tease a lie out of Gore’s statement. Gore had said this: During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. Gingrich said this: Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet. It’s hard to torture a difference from that pair of statements, and a Gore biographer, the Post’s David Maraniss, seemed to complete the Rule of Three. In August 2000, Maraniss said this on CNN’s Reliable Sources: “Gore really was instrumental in developing the Internet. He was the one congressman who understood the whole thing in the ’70s, when no other congressman gave a darn about it.” Had Gore misrepresented his leadership role? Only those determined to make him a liar would have drawn that tendentious conclusion. Unfortunately, many journalists were eager to do that—a fact which would become crystal clear.

Indeed, Gore’s remark about the Net would become a cause celebre. Completely ignored at the time it was made, it became an iconic example of an alleged character problem—Gore’s widely-flogged “problem with the truth.” For two years, Gore would be savaged as a liar—many pundits would call him “delusional”—and his Internet comment would be Exhibit A in their endless assault on his character and integrity. But look again at what three men said, and convince yourself that it really did happen. Convince yourself that, for two solid years, Gore was denounced by the press as a liar...

Go Hillary....I would rather have a candidate that exagerates an experience in a war zone than a candidate that thinks that a student trip to Palistan is foreign policy experience.

They are all human...but Obama is out of touch with reality.

Obama is a cold, calculating sweet talking politician!
To win the election for state senator of Illinois , he made sure that his opponents were handily eliminated... because he knew he'd never win otherwise.
To win the election for the US Senate, Obama played the same dirty game; only the names of the characters were changed in regard to the people "done in".
This is Not a "made up" story (though it certainly reads like one). Look it up in the Chicago Tribune if you dare.....in fact, you SHOULD!
The election of 2008 is NOT a GAME!
The United States is in the throes of a deep recession.
People cannot afford to pay their mortgages, and thousands of homes are lost every day.
People are losing their jobs and their medical benefits.... and their pride.
Fifty percent of our teen agers are leaving school before they graduate.
We are fighting a war that seems to have no end.

The ideas emanating from Baracka's mouth when viable... have already been offered by Hillary.
He has generated one of the dirtiest
campaigns I have every seen and is out once again to destroy his competition in any sneaky dirty underhanded way he can..but he's just the bandleader; the posters and trolls like you do mmost of the heavy lifting.
BUT

Do you really think that the masses of citizens in this country WANT to be led by a chief whose very patriotism is questionable?
Do you honestly feel that this newby can take on the tremendous burden of woes currently facing our nation... with Michelle at his side and Mr. Wright at his back, and with other, even more questionable characters at his table?
This is not about race, although he would like us to think that it is; we have already had a black president and didn't even realize it!
But Harding didn't play the race card.
In any case, it's your vote to make.
But when you do, be very very careful.

As for me, I'll take Clinton!

GIVE 'EM HELL, HILLARY

Is it a discovery; when jobs are gone, crime is raising?
Is it a discovery: when no money - crime is raising?

Let's fool yourself - we are becoming so much better, so much giving, so polite, when troubles are coming all together?

Clinton will collect any word and twist in her favor. His word, Your word - she is DONE to twist around to get Whitehouse for her favor. Phony angry Monster.
Is it what you want?

#1) maggie 4:06:10pm. You might want to read today's article in the Washington Post. "Big Donors Among Obama's Grass Roots"'Bundlers' Have A Voice in Campaign by Matthew Mosk and Alec MacGillis. washingtonpost.com. #2) maureen 3:49:42pm. Are you a fly on the wall? Do you look in people's windows? #3) Joanna 3:47:12pm I think both of the above should apply to you.

Obama - what an elitist - check out how he feels about Pennsylvania voters - in his remarks in California. Doesn't he realize that we live in an age of high tech communication?

Obama in 2008-
The GREAT 'DISS'-UNITER !!!!!!!!

Obama - what an elitist - check out how he feels about Pennsylvania voters - in his remarks in California. Doesn't he realize that we live in an age of high tech communication?

Obama in 2008-
The GREAT 'DISS'-UNITER !!!!!!!!

Obama Explains Why Some Small Town Pennsylvanians Are "Bitter".

Afterward, it seemed that his comments could be interpreted fairly easily as: “dismissing people who hold views on guns, or religion, or immigration, or trade” because they believe in those views --- and not because they're "bitter" or lashing back at a system that has discarded them.

If Obama thinks this about “working class people”, then what does he think about a man who was born in a manger, who had no formal education, was basically homeless and wondered around speaking to strangers?

NO OBAMA!

It isn't that I'm an ardent Clinton supporter that allows me to get past these non-issues about Bosnia, it's that Clinton stepped outside her comfort zone - and most people's - to travel around the world advancing The Clinton agenda. Even if people don't agree with every position taken by Hillary Clinton, at least she HAS A RECORD TO DEFEND!

In 2000, voters took a chance on another unknown, inexperiened, likable guy - look where it's gotten us.

Wake up people. We just don't know enough about Obama.

Just how does this work? Obama is in PA for less than a month and he has already figured out the psyche of working class people.

He spent 20+years in his church but he had no idea that Pastor Wright held the beliefs that he espoused!

When OBAMA figures out his CHURCH --- then he can give us his opinion about working class people in Pennsylvania and other states!

I guess he thinks the people of PA are so stupid and slow they can't remember they had a job during the Clinton administration.

I thought this was her strenght, her experience at the dark arts of politics.

Hillary repeated the story 8 times according to another article on this web site. So, it seems to me more of a case of Clinton distorting the truth than mis-speaking....Wouldn't be a big deal except it is a pattern with the Clintons...

Hey Joanna
the republicans checked all those things out to the tune of 70 million dollars in the 90's. If you are old enough to remember all that stuff you should be old enough to remember Ken Starr and his minions.

Who cares if Clinton exaggerated some anecdote? Do you really really think that Obama was unaware of the depth of Wright's hatred and radicalism? Please. Obama is not a perfect person-- like any politician he lies occasionally, as does Clinton. The point is, the media selectively seizes on the Clinton statements to caricature her as hopelessly deceptive, just as it did with Gore. This at a time when the country desperately needs to be rescued from the Republicans. Compare the state of the Union in 1999 and how it is today. Republican policies are destroying this country, and so long as the media continues to focus on personalities over policies, we are doomed to continue on a downward spiral. The media chose Bush as their golden boy in 2000, because Gore happened to be less convincing at presenting a false face. The media is as much of a problem as Bush himself.

JC

If we counted up all the lies that Obama has told, it would take pages to cover, and we don't have that much time. How ridiculous to pick one item, such as Bosnia, and say she lied. You are an idiot if you would decide anything about this election on such a small matter. What you should be concerned about is Mr. Obama's lack of experience, lack of expertise, lack of good judgement (Wright), and lack of a strong resume. This man is not ready to be President of the United States. He will not do well in the general election if he is the nominee. Thank God there are people out there who still have their thinking caps on. Hillary 08.

Amen Vickie
if the hope guy makes it to the GE he will be demolished by the Right wing 527's.

One of the HRC campaign's lies (Rendell...) is that Hillary ALREADY has been vetted, while Obama hasn't been.

What we have seen during the primaries is that she is BEING vetted, just like other candidates, and that she has suffered most in the process.

And let's not forget that Obama and McCain haven't been tough on her at all so far. What did Obama do with the gross Tuzla lie? He just left it for what it was and had the media play it out.

The GOP, during the GE, would destroy Clinton as a pathological liar and a hysterical woman, no doubt about it. They got all the audio and video material to back their attacks up. The hysteria, they''ll say, is in Clinton's cackle in response to tough questions, in her 'multiple personality' disorder, her fits of anger, her tearing up... These GOP attacks would be horrible, I'm sure.

I think Hillary should be glad that she will not have to go through all that. She has NOT been vetted yet. The process has only just begun.

Obama is so entrenched in lies, how can anyone trust him?

Rezko-I hardly know the man... well that's pretty sad considering the man donated over $250,000.00 to his campaign.

Wright-I never heard him talk like that... but then I did hear him, and then I didn't hear him. Make up your mind Obama. You can't tell me you sat in that church for over 20 years and never heard anything like that?

Oil-I have never taken money from the Oil Companies, JUST THEIR CEO'S AND WIVES. Enough said.

NAFTA- we didn't talk to Canada, and then oh yea, we did, but they missinterpreted what we said. You talked to Canada about NAFTA.

Public Financing- It was a great idea, until he found out he could raise so much money-definitely went back on his word on that one.

My legislation was passed on Nuclear Energy (the bill died in the Senate)

I want all the votes to count: Why didn't you want a revote in Michigan and Florida.

I'm the uniter, I want to bring everybody together.

Hell of a job so far!!!

With such a thin resume, and an inability to tell the truth, why is this man still in the race?

Outspending your opponent by 5-1 and you can't close the deal. But that's okay-keep giving away those Dave Matthews tickets, so they will vote for you. Maybe, like Oprah, you can give everyone a new car.

My vote cannot be bought. I look at resumes, and yours Mr. Obama is sorely lacking.

Obama needs to drop out!. He is making
a fool of himself!

This issue WestCoast Messanger is a killer assumption for any political campaign. Gore said he invited the internet and he is gone, Hill has to face the same destiny. God bless America and God bless bama.OBAMA08.

See, even I'm doing it. Can you imagine if Hillary bowled 37 like Obama? (Hey, where did I put my coolaid?)

Gore didn't lose in 2000 - the Supreme Court stole the election from him.

and, if Nader supporters and independents could take back their votes, it would be a different world today.

I strongly supported Gore in 2000 - his hyperbole didn't bother me at all. By the way, one of the big reasons for supporting him was his association with the Clinton administration. - Remember that time, people felt good about the country and life was good!

Bayh is absolutely correct.

For example, can you imagine if Hillary bowled 37 like Hillary? We would be seeing clips of it every night on the nightly news, and all the comedy channels. It would be used as her "jumped the shark" legacy. Every little nit is magnified by 10,000.

Obama, on the other hand, gets a complete pass on all matters because the press has granted him the golden ticket. There will be no vetting of Obama until the general election if he gets the nomination.

In that scenario, he and his band of Obama zombies will be crushed like cockroaches once the press opens Pandora box. They will show no mercy at that time. It's all about selling ads which is what buys the tickets from the press for these dogfights.

By the way, I heard that Obama disclosed today that he attended shool in Pakistan. Oh wait, I forgot for a moment, he has a goldent ticket.
========================================
Hillary stands up for all voters!
========================================

If Bill Clinton and Evan Bayh ant this issue to go away why don't they just shut up. Neither one of them said anything helpful. Heck, at this point Hillary should just send Bill and all here surrogates home, clean out her bloated campaign headquarters and just speak for herself. Who knows, it might actually work. And if not, she will at least go out with some class instead if totally wretched spectacle her campaign has become.

I am sorry but saying she misspoke, I am just not buying. If I had flown into Bosnia, I would remember if someone had been shooting at me, misspoke my @$$.
No I am not 20 something or even 30 something, I am 5 years younger then she is.
Bottomline, she lied (again)

Hillary claims she's against the Colombian Trade Deal, but the $800,000 the Colombians gave to Bill actually went into a JOINT account for Bill and Hillary....and Hillary has never denounced and rejected that money.

What's more, she used it to put into her campaign! WINK WINK!

Hillary can fight McCain much easier than she can Mr. Hope. If she says one thing bad about Mr. Hope, the MSM and his campaign spin it into something "racial." Just yesterday a talking head tried to make an "issue" out of Bill Clinton's "stealing cars" comment, but decided it really wasn't meant that way (NO KIDDING!)....like only black people steal cars? WTH?

I've never seen anything like this. Mr. Hope can say and do anything...Racist Rev. Wright, connections to Farrakan, questionable loan from Rezko, William Ayers, Michelle hates America, "America is mean", Michelle won't support Hillary if she wins, they called Bill and Hill racists (2 people who have spent their lives fighting for Civil Rights) and on and on and on it goes. The MSM won't touch him, yet everything that comes out of Hillary's and Bill's mouth is scrutinized with a microscope and spun into something it's not. It's crap. PURE CRAP.

She can easily fight the Bush supporting McCain, but she can't fight Mr. Hope and HIS MSM because she'll be called a racist. They/you want Mr. Hope to be the candidate so they/you can throw out all the garbage they/you have on him and get their guy McCain elected.

RF-

I totally agree with you...it's clear that McCain is gaining strength. Hillary needs to end this. Only problem is, she's not thinking about anyone but herself.

Today she went even further and accused the Republican Party of being better than her own party.

Did you guys read about how Hillary attacked the Democratic Party?

This woman destroys everything she touches! Why would we ever want her to get her hands on our future?

The more crap that comes from the Clinton camp and the longer this goes on, the harder it is going to be to defeat McCain. Seriously. We all need to get on the same page like yesterday.

The story might sound familiar to you but Hillary and Gore couldn't be less alike..

The exaggerating Gore meme was developed by the media and soon everybody believed it.

Hillary's problem with telling the truth has been set in our minds for a while now, and only recently has the media actually dared to point it out.

When the Clintons stand on a foundation built out of lies...eventually the lies begins to crack the foundation and the truth seeps through and rises!

The Clintons existance is a lie at its foundation.

Their marriage is based on a lie for pure political gain...that is why Hillary couldn't leave him...she wanted to remain First Lady and eventually become President. Everything these two have done is based on a lie!

This is not about the American People, it's about the monarchy called the CLINTONS!

I guess the worst thing he has done is used AA .

The Clintons are so entrenched in lies...how can anyone trust them?

1. Library Donors
2. Colombia Trade Deal
3. NAFTA
4. Monica Lewinsky
5. White Water
6. Shady dealings with foreign middle-eastern governments.
7. Oil Stocks
8. Outsourcing
9. Shady dealing with Billion-aires
10. Refusal to release 2007 tax returns.

I mean, com'on! What the hell is so great about two people that lie about everything including their own marriage?

Obama needs to drop out thier using everything they can think of in Pa. he should win it by thirty points by the money he has poured into it and still trying to say he is not known is bs so what lies is axelrod going to come up with better go ask the latte rich bundlers he has working for him some kind of new bs little people own his camp.And in the end he can only win by not seating FL. and MI. he has used money race and lies to get where he is.

When the former-president defends his wife's lie with another lie...pretty much confirms that lying runs in the family!

tapper is correct:
I remember the gore deal
everyone knew al gore was the most qualifed and smartest to be president.
so he had to dummydown to compete with you know wwwwho.
everyone said gore is going to cream w
in the debates-and he did
but the media-just as they are doing today with hillary.
didn't stick with the issues-because evereyone knew w didn't know the issues.
they started focusing on the trivial stuff
who do you want to have a beer with?
etc.
it is a shame.
but the all of the people you see on tv and reporters-these people make good money
it matters not to them who is in the white house-they get paid right on no matter what they feed the rest of us.
if the media was doing its job this time around-everyone would know hillary plan for universal healthcare is better that obama-and they would know why it is better.
but no-keep talking about bosnia-and everything else from the 1990-while the country goes down the tube-the media just sat and watched.(some of them got big advances to write books about it later)

HILLARY HAS A BETTER CHANGE IN NOVEMBER.

Has Obama dropped out of primary? I don't see you give him any coverage any more.