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.