Political Punch

CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT - - - IN 2024

It backfired: women are furious.... just plain furious.

CLINTON IS LIKE DOG FOOD FROM CHINA - TAKE HER OFF THE SHELF AND TOSS HER.

Seems that the party system isn't working very well. Maybe we've outgrown it? Maybe it's time to really have one person, one vote and get rid of the electoral college and this primary madness. Throw all candidates in the hopper and let the one with the most votes win. But anyone who thinks this is about the popular vote hasn't been watching general elections for the last 40 or so presidents. When we really get serious about our individual votes counting, we'll set about the process of getting rid of this outdated system. Until then, it's a "one with the most delegates" wins...primary or general election...all the same. So get on board with that constitutional amendment process. And yes, pretty much the delegate can do what they want when they get to the convention.

Re: Voting for the other candidate. I have to agree with all who think that voting for McCain or staying home is voting for Bush again. So, if M wins, please don't try and blame the Democrat who won because your candidate didn't. That's just childish and so is not voting against this war and a host of other reforms that both Clinton and Obama would try to make. Sportsmanship is not about winning, losing or how you play the game...it's about letting that stuff go when the game is over and seeing the big picture of life. So goes little league...so goes politics.

Finally, yeah...the Edwards announcement was a coup.

My prediction Edwards endorsement will not sway working class voters.
There are still many Edwards supporters but many of them will not vote for Obama.
Just like if DNC or he chooses Hillary becomes the VP, it doesn't mean Hillary supporters will vote for him.

Just wait and see

My emotions have been all over the map in this primary. I started off being excited that a woman, an African American and a hispanic, among other quality individuals, were in the offing.

I read hundreds of articles, blogs, opinions, editorials, etc., and decided to support Obama because 1) he spoke out against the war when it was not PC to do so and 2) for the most part he has run a positive campaign consistent with his message of change and unity.

I became disillusioned with Clinton because 1) she voted for the war, 2) she used 11th hour, fear-based ads prior to primaries in TX and PN, etc. and 3) she stooped to pandering about the tax cut "holiday", dismissing the very economists she 'd praised in the past and would need to work with in the future.

That said,

I truly believe that Clinton's actions stem from her conviction that she would be the best president for our country. It's as simple as that. She stays in because she cares and feels she can make a difference.

I am an "Obamamaniac" as one poster calls us. (an insulting label, btw, that he uses just a few sentences after he criticizes Obama supporters for being negative - but no matter) and I would vote for Hillary in a heartbeat if she got the nomination.

What has happened to us? If you are a staunch supporter of either Clinton or Obama, I have to believe it is because you want to get us out of Iraq, elevate our country's standing in the world, begin healthcare system reform, promote policies to seriously look at climate change issues and focus on our flailing economy.

Both candidates have made mistakes and have baggage of one kind or another. Each has strengths and weaknesses. But all of their mistakes and weaknesses taken together and held up to the sharp light of day PALE in comparison to Republicans sins. Whoever ascends to the presidency will inherit a HUGE mess brought upon us by the disastrous foreign and economic policies of the past eight years.

I honestly don’t understand this part. Why would we turn on one-another? Either candidate will be astronomically better than a continuation of the Bush/McCain era. We can’t AFFORD another four years of hawkish, corporate-owned, conservative republican rule!

dl,
unless you know the clintons personally
you do not know what their motive was in giving.
maybe you give to charity just for your own gain. it does not say everyone else including the clintons do it too.

dl and dis,
sorry been away,
so dl you deny what I have said about the good the clinton's have done?
the other part of my comments you failed to address,
all of the events i have mentioned happended within the last 10-12 years.
if obama has cared so much, where has he been.
obama did the communtiy help at a church to reg. people to vote when he was planning to run for office.
obama is the opportunist.
the thing about it is at least the clintons have something for people to look back on and praise or in your case deny-matters not if it is down in black and white.
it the clintons taxes had shown they had given nothing to charity, and found ways not to pay the 30 in taxes you and other clinton haters would have found something wrong with that.
but since they did give to charity and paid their taxes-you find fault with that.
and we know nothing of obama, they years he could have been doing a lot of good-builting up his political resume he was not. but you find an excuse for that. it is strange what hate will do to a persons judgement.

for you who hate the clintons you need therapy-anytime you are unable to think rationally about someone-therapy is in order.
for clinton haters
the clintons are damned if they do
and damned if they do not.

and what of obama-
well none of us really know...
even you clinton haters.

people think obama will be the next president,
we know very little of him. and you all will step in and say anything in defense of him

"when you believe in things (or persons)
that you don't understand, you suffer"

if obama gets into the white house
the poor and middle class will suffer.

There you go again, dl.

1. Obama hasn't won. In fact, his momentum has been down since February. NC is a blip. He has a big war chest and is buying SDs.

2. Go look at the ABC count. With properly counted votes, Hillary is ahead in the popular vote since the blow out of WV. If Kentucky and Puerto Rico go as projected, he falls much further behind. You wanted the popular vote to count, right?

3. You are as arrogant as your candidate. We all have to choose what is best for our country when we go to the voting booth. You will. I will. Pelosi will. And so on. The difference is Pelosi could use Silly Valley and the money machine to stack the flawed process that is the Dem nomination system in this cycle. She will change all of that before she runs for the White House except the money machine.

Obama is flawed in so many ways that I cannot in good conscience or bad vote for him. My choice is to vote Republican or stay home. I know McCain is not Bush, so I can do that but I'll likely stay home.

Since I live in the reddest of the red states, it's symbolic on my part, or frankly, I can save a gallon of gas and four dollars is four dollars. Seventy would be better but your candidate wants to keep that away from us too because it isn't long range enough.

I may be dumb but I'm ahead of you.

... if you're a "FORMER DEMOCRAT"
you wouldn't vote for him anyways!

But not to worry; hopefully she's smart enough to stay away from such a ticket!

She's much too accomplished and smart.... and SHE knows the exact number of states we have in this great nation.

dl:

You can check how much and to what charities the Clintons have contributed by going to "clintonfamilyfund.com".

They have been extremely generous and to say something negative in this regard shows of the derogatory nature of B O's supporters.

But it would certainly be interesting to show a comparision of B O's generousity compared to that of the Clintons..... percentage wise, even!

My vote is still with Clinton, who has taken crap from Obamaniacs for many months and STILL IS STANNDING!!

Should she not be the winner. I will either write in her name... or switch to MCcain who though not up to Hillary's calibre is not D O W N
to HIS!!!!

I will not vote for Obama even if Hillary is his VP.

Len

If you truly put country first... you wouldn't still be trying to trash Obama's victory

and the popular vote was NOT against him. That is absolutely not true... say what you will about Clinton getting votes where obama's name was not on the ballot...but to say that was a vote against him...does it not speak volumes that many did not vote because their candidate was not on the ballot...

that is just dumb...

Mr. Coffee

it is important to point out Hillary lost within an electorate that is supposed to be her strength. Her unelectables were lowest within this group...her likeables were just above 50% within this group.

Now she lost here but her supporters continue think she would have won outside of her weak but only base.

Clinton WV victory doesn't erase the arse whopping that obama gave her in 17 states by WHOPPING double digits from 24% to 65%. SO this 41 point victory is nothing. Obama has won this primary fair and squre and backward racists hillbillies from west virginia won't change that. That is why he is up by HIGH double digits in Oregon, South Dakota and Montana. We will give her kentucy and puerto rico who can't even vote in the national election.

disambiguates

you also failed to mention Clinton's charity has been sorely slow on giving out moneys...(in fact it wasn't until she ran for President that the pace picked up) and all his traveleing around the world was/is paid for by those charities... those are the trips where he seems to have raised support for his library and her campaign.

If that is not screwed up priorities under the guise of soemthing noble...

ugh...I am tirred of rehashing this stuff...

we have a war, an economy, a party being driven into the ground because of one woman's "right" to the nomination....over all the values and policies and changes we need.

what are people thinking?

Actually, it would be better if he could win the general election, politicjock. 2025 delegates isn't enough because you can't kick Florida and Michigan out of the country even to rig an election for your man. He can't govern given a situation where the popular vote was against him and a rigged delegate system was used to put him in office. See George W. Bush. How did that work out for you?

BTW: You are making up the bit about Rush Limbaugh. It's easy to check out that many of us are hardcore Democrats who value country over party, which is the most hardcore Democratic value of all. Only operatives such as yourself who depend on a candidate for a future put the candidate above the good of the nation.

jgaw

what we have learned is...it's about character...

The Clintons did a lot for many when it helped them personally.

The question is when have they ever taken a hit for the good of anyone, anything or any principal that would put them back a few...and in the end wasn't tactical.

There is none...that's the problem. This is a time when we need someone who will say the hard thing...even if it hurts them. Not someone who only fights for things that have the tide and a current behind them.

The big chunk of money that the Clintons gave to charity was to their charity which they control. Why has big business given money to the Clinton library? How about Marc Rich, the felon, that they pardoned. The Clintons have done nothing substantive to help the American people. They have done plenty to tunr us into a thrid world country. No one wants to talk about NAFTA that Bill pushed through. He is more republican than Karl Rove - and half as smart.

you think they are movie stars,
I have seen the good work the clintons have done for this country.
where was obama when
tom joyner was trying to raise money for the HBCU?-a clinton was there

where was obama when
tom joyner was raising money for aids meds and needles for africa and poor blacks in america?-a clinton was there

who finally gave to con. medal of honor to a black soldier that was long over due- bill clinton.

the clinton' have tried to level the playing field for blacks and poor people and if your finances were not better in the nineties i am sorry, many people were beginning to have a little better quality of life.

now how the clintons made their 109mil is not my business any more than how michelle obama went for 95-110k sal to over 335k.

if you read how much the clinton made you also read how much they paid in taxes (many in the news media said they were suckers for paying that much-and they also gave 10mil in charity-the media and everyone else thought they had the "caught" the clintons again because all of their money must have been from shady people-no smoking gun-not much more media coverage.
you seem to be the only one still talking about their tax returns. but please if future when you talk about the clintons income-in some questionable manner-to remember the obamas, tony resko, and the house.
yes the clinton have tried to level the playing field, and no doubt when this is all over, will cont' to do good work.
obama has a speech

Edwards' endorsement only makes the race even bitter......

Hardcore Hillary supporters will even resist to vote for Dems in Nov...

All SD's should let race complete itself and let the final result speak itself not influenced by any so called "super" politician...

Clearly, there are a lot of racists still in America..

This was purposely done by Obama and Edwards to try and take the steam awqay from Hilary pouncing Obama in W VA!!
And of cause the 90% of the press that is campaigning for Obama went with it!!

Hey can i have a news broadcast on who I support!! Dont these politicians work for us!! oh thats right the libs are socialists!!

This talk of the Clintons being about a level playing field is delusional. That $109M that they made was from big business and a lot of it from places like Dubai. The Clintons think they are movie star royalty and have sold out America time and again. Look at NAFTA.

Do you really care about Democratic Party???

thoughts,
gore most likely will,
this is the "new politics" obama has promised us.
and the american people are the ones who will suffer.

Will Al Gore will endorse after Obama loses Kentucky (and wins Oregon)?

pol jock,

these truly are different times, do you agree?
obama and his groups phil. is not the level the playing field for the middle class.
sen. clinton's is.

i do not think it is a part of his politics or he and those surrounding him have the will to try to level the playing field. kerry, bradley, kennedy,
pelosi, dean and co. they will not offer solutions to help lift people out of poverty, they know how to just make poverty bearable. foodstamps, welfare,etc.
obama is the the one to lift the middle class up. and level the playing field.
we should have gone with sen. clintons plan for healthcare, and especially education.

Champions winn and lose. In a fight, the psychological aspect of it is very important.
HC does not declare lost until it's done, which is normal for a politician of her kind. And all that pressure to knock her down are but attempts to project at the same time the victory of OB.
The tactics of OB is projecting as many images of him as possible, a way of spreading himself all over.
This makes me think of the magician tactics. I don't like that. And producing at every victory of HC a string of Superdelegates endorsements is part of that tactics.
But if Hillary continues, which she does and thanks also to her supporters, the outcome might be something quite interesting. Because the real thing behind the scene, is how is he going to get the support of people who have been alienated so much by his reverend, his elitist approach of voters. Oh the billions he promises to workers, where is he going to produce them? So he has won the media support, pretty easy when all the medical, pharmaceutical lobbies want to prevent HC's health plan and injected much money into his campaign. Are these people going to inject all the money to help workers recover their jobs when they don't even want them to have universal health care plan.
But all of this victory is not very real yet, Let's wait and keep the spirits up. That will be at least the positive thing to experience when all of this is finished.
So talk about timing, that's nothing new. But HC supporters are not impressed by John Edwards. When reality is beyond the apparent surface, there might be some danger like what is underneath of the surface ice, how safe is it?

sen. clinton has had the deck stacked against her from the start.
many in the msm now-cut their reporting teeth on running down a clinton. that is all they know. and right while the media steals the election for obama,
many of them are gearing up for book deals to show how, who, and why sen. clinton lost.
it matters not to the media people who is in office. but it is the middleclass who will hurt.
i grew up with the far left dem party.
did any of you hear the talk of how much the food stamps are a part of the farm bill.
we are headed back to foodstamps and welfare lines.
the clintons have tried to level the playing field for all poor people.
obama and co. are for helping the poor cont. with the hand out programs. while they get richer and richers.
it was always in the seventies, so many programs and the people managing the programs got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. we are headed for that again.

I will not support obama no matter what.

if obama had won this thing fair and square-i would be with him
but he has not-the msm, the dnc, and black people voting blindly for him have helped him and all he has had to do is make speeches.
if the role of sen. clinton and obama had been reversed i would still feel the same way.
if the roles had been reversed everyone and his brother would be calling foul.

the possible obama presidency is getting off on the wrong foot. i will not support. it is not in my interest to support what has happened. and the way sen. clinton has lost.
if there is no other way to vote for sen. clinton-i will take my chances and vote for mccain.
obama should not be president
obama his not qualified to be president
obama' handlers, msm, and the dnc,
have cheated the american people out of the most qualifed person to run this country.
sen. clinton can talk about the issues one on one with anyone.
obama has more people making excuses for him.
he is no uniter, and he has caused a riff in the black community that will take a long time to heal.

If the Clintons (plural) don't get the nomination, I'm voting for McCain because I feel so deeply about the "issues."

Hillary was a terrible candidate. She had no business in this race. If she was an honorable person she would have gotten out when she knew she had lost - she is whining for a better position in the DNC.

jy2008,

It's the rule of the pendulum. The more the Bush, McCain and the Republican party try to move the agenda to the far right, the more the people will react with an equal force in the opposite direction.

Don't care if Clinton wants Dems to vote for Obama if he is the candidate. We will either write in for her, stay home, or vote for McCain. By that time we should know how the politics have played out and just who and why Obama, the most worthless candidate in memory, has for supporters. Exon comes to mind already as do several of the big pharma and industrial agriculture businesses.

politicjock...hehe...really a jock? If Hillary loses, yes I will put her in with that company as well...but sadly. I would feel much better about her if she were run as an Independent.

len,

The one critical test Obama has to pass is to win 2,025 delegates. It's just a matter of time at this point.

Why is everyone so excited about John Edwards endorsement? He lost in 2004, and he dropped out early in 2008, are there really that many poor-middle class "white" voters paying any attention to him? I don't see it, but I guess I am not as smart as the news outlets. I am astounded by how many losers in the democratic party are endorsing Obama...Brady..Kerry..Kennedy..etc. Its like watching "dad's" at a little league game, living there dreams thru someone else....really twisted...

Edwards truly is a joke. Do we really think he believes Obama is the best candidate when he waited months to endorse? What a loser! In fact, Obama's has all the losers endorsing him: Kerry, McGovern, Bradley, Richardson, and now Edwards. What a bunch of losers!

Bob,

YOu are wrong on the "appointment" to the Harvard Law Review. The system had been revamped a few years prior because of the paucity of minorities in their membership. Some students graded on and some were "chosen" for other reasons.

"That is the reason why the 50-state voter drive, to replace them in the Democratic rolls."

So true. Why are we intentionally alienating our base??? Donna Brazile's fantasy about the 'new coalition' is nuts! There aren't enough AA and intellectuals to get us over the hump every time, plain and simple.

DJShay,

I understand your feelings but this is politics. It's not personal. Clinton was just trying to fight against Obama's tidal wave which took many people by surprise. She's a fine politician and even though she's made mistakes, she is a tremendous asset. Yesterday, she apologized for her comments about "white americans".

DJShay,

It is a campaign; it is a contest. Obama threw the working class "bitter" voters under the bus. BC came from those "bitter" people. They are his people; they are my people also. They have always been the core of the Democratic Party. And, what did you expect the Clintons to do? Not respond, in kind? Heck, Obama barely set foot in WV. Those people were not even on his radar. That is the reason why the 50-state voter drive, to replace them in the Democratic rolls.

Oh, I don't think so. This was one of the times in the past couple of months that a planned event worked so well:

One of the great untold stories of this campaign has been the extent to which the Obama campaign (an experienced bunch, but not as experienced as the Clinton campaign) has mastered the round-the-clock news cycle, often outflanking the Clinton folks.

politicjock,

The London Times is a reputable news source. Read their coverage. Do I know what is definitively true and accurate? No. The Times coverage is very detailed and they have invested huge resources in this coverage. I read everything. I am not a drone. This really worries me. All I am saying is read their coverage.

I am a life long Democrat. I am an informed voter. There is no way the Republican Party is not going to roll this out if Obama is the nominee. Read the coverage, that is all I am saying. If then you still support Obama and honestly feel he is the best candidate, I respect your position.

I understand what your saying and i dont want McCain to win. In a perfect world they would have Obama and Clinton on the same ticket that way they could really do wonderful work. Obama should consider that because then Clinton would probably concede the race and we all will be happy. The president is really only a mouth piece anyways, congress pretty much runs the show.

DJShay,

This is not Obama's message. We must vote Democrat in November no matter who the nominee is. It help to know that it will be Obama. Please don't fall for this divisive trap that Limbaugh is promoting.

If Clinton somehow manages to steal this nomination, I will sit out this election. I'm a lifelong democrat, but Clinton no longer embodies the values I hold dear. Honesty, integrity, and respect for your opponent. She's thrown all of it out the window. I'm beginning to think the Republicans were right about her and Bill the whole time. I sincerely hope this ends both of their political careers.

len,

You're going to have to do a lot better than that if you think the people will hand the White House to another Republican after the nightmare of eight years of Bush.

kito, this is for you.
All the Hillary supporters who are thinking of voting for mc-more-war need to listen to what Hillary is saying. She says it would be a MAJOR mistake to vote for mccain in the fall since his policies would only harm the country more. Obama & Hillary's policies are very close, so when she finally bows out I hope that all the voters pay attention to what she says about Obama. Obama 2008!!!

Marty,

The Republican attack machine went full steam against Obama in the three special congressional races and look what happened. They lost!

I can tell you that I'm a white single mother who works very hard for everything we have. I can also tell you that if Obama gets the nominee then I will vote for McCain, so if that makes me a racist, then so be it.

Edwards endorsement comes at a time when the appeal of Mr. Obama appears to be lagging among white, blue-collar voters, a group to which Mr. Edwards openly appealed.

len,

McCain isn't Bush. He's just running for Bush's third term.

I'm trying to understand how the MSM is in Obama's pocket when it spent weeks hammering on non-issues like Rev.Wright and Bill Ayers. It just goes to show that everyone looks through their own prism.

They used to say that George W was born on 3rd base and thought he'd hit a triple. You could say something similar about BHO. He went to Harvard and actually thinks he got there on academic merit rather than on affirmative action. His comment about transferring arabic translators from Iraq to Afghanistan shows clearly that he's not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer. (Thought for the day: I wonder if he'd ever release his SAT score?).
And we can expect a continuance of the gaffe of the week (remember the 'bitter' stuff?). The latest is addressing a TV reporter as 'sweetie'. Of course, ABC, CBS and NBC will be too busy criticizing Hillary for talking about hard-working whites-how dare she?-to notice. Meantime, you can forget any serious examination of the Rezko tie-in.Let's hope the Republican attack machine isn't so lax in the Fall.
Oh, and by the way, since he flip flopped again and actually did throw Rev. Wright under the bus,did he ever un-trash his grandmother? Maybe a 'typical white person' is not worth the bother.

The media butt kissing of Obama has no limits. Real voters are not impressed, Edwards is a loser who could not even deliever NC in 2004. He leaves his ill wife at home.

Daily reporting on how great Obama is is not brillant. The voters are not listening to the media -it only backfires on Obama

len,

If you really want to impeach Obama, you should get in line. George W Bush, Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condoleeza Rice are already on the docket.

Edwards endorsement hasn't wiped the smile from my face-Hillary kicked Obama's butt in West Virginia!

Obama is all about images-large rallies,Oprah,fainting,swooning,telling America he never knew about his racist pastor (with 10 flags behind him).

Edwards endorsement won't change my opinion of Obama. Unfortunately it has made me see Edwards as another opportunist.

Hard-working Americans can always spot a phony. It's called common sense.

Go Hillary or McCain

This was not a big "coup" as some may think. Everyone knew this was going to happen especially when Edwards said on Sunday that Hillary better not say or do anything to hurt the Party. The Edwards appear to be divided because Elizabeth said herself they might not even endorse the same candidate.

John Edwards was a losing vp candidate in 2004. He didn't even carry his home state. Really, who cares?

MayBee,
AMEN!! Couldn't have said it better myself. Obama has proven that he is a great politician just like the rest of them. When you take a play out of Rove's playbook, you have to stop pointing the finger at other's dirty politics and look at the man in the mirror. Remove the plank from your own eye before you can see the speck in your brother's eye.

midwestgirl, I'm a Southern woman who calls everybody (men and women) sweetie, honey and sugar. We consider it affectionate and complimentary. Aren't there a few more important issues to discuss? Like what kind of socks he wears?

rockthebleachers,

And note, Elizabeth Edwards was nowhere to be found.

Maybee,

Great post. It is not about the "brilliance" of the Obama campaign at all. It is all about the complicity of the MSM. Very sad times when I have to read the London Times to get US news.

Edwards is not a Super-D

midwestgirl, the MSM won't report the "sweetie" incident or the PA incident where he got down on his knees and condescendingly kissed a woman's hand to win her vote because they see nothing wrong with it. If you say "black" or "white" they yell racism, but they wouldn't know sexism if it bit them on the behind.

By the way, "sweetie" was a reporter in Detroit who asked Obama how he would help the autoworkers and he put her off by saying, "Just a minute, sweetie, we'll get to that." But of course he never did. He just put her off to avoid answering the question - apparently he hadn't been instructed yet on what the answer was and heaven forbid he be expected to think for himself.

As the last three special congressional election show, and as Newt Gringrich pointed out, the politics of smear that Fox News and their brainwashed viewers are so fond of won't work this time around. The American people have had enough of the Republican party.

Obama has mastered the news cycle, but only with the complicity of the news networks.
Perhaps the networks could ask themselves if John Edwards endorsing Obama was truly the leading news of the day. Why?
Most analysts seem to agree that the only important thing Edwards did for Obama was to give him the news cycle. He really can't give Obama anything else.
If the networks instead would have led with Hillary, or China, or Burma, the Obama/Edwards story would have been made unimportant.

The Obama campaign needed the networks to run with this to *make* it an important story. The networks complied. The Obama campaign didn't master the news cycle, the networks ceded it.

This is pure genius strategy on the part of the Obama campaign!

Obama08

Obama is a deft politician. He's as sly as they come. Nothing wrong with that. But those who think he's a new kind of politician who will change Washington should be taking note. The change he brings will not be for the better.

Absolutely right on. While I was watching the Tuesday night polling results rolling in, signaling a big loss for Obama, I was secretly hoping that Edwards would finally step out the next day to lend his help, at least to distract the innevitable analysis and conclusion of "inelectability" of a black presidential candidate. Then it happened, at the right moment. You can't help to admire the timing and most of all, the discipline this campaign exerts. If Obama has such excellent people surround him as a president, we are fine as a country. In comparison, Clinton has demonstrated that she can't even run a successful campaign - not on message, can't balance the budget. One can't help but ask - how is she ever going to run a country?!

It's amazing how some people keep trying this guilt by association. If the Obama-Rezko allegations could have any traction, Clinton surrogates would have been all over it already.

The pocketing of the SD's was discussed thoroughly by Karl Rove on FOX many many weeks ago. This was his recommendation, you know. Do you ever listen to him? He turned out to be a good commentator.

While the endorsement by Edwards plays well nationally, not sure what, if any, effect it will have on the remaining primaries. I think none. The effect is to bait and control the MSM.

NO need for Obama camp really to so that, since the MSM has been in the tank for Obama for the most part throughout the campaign.

MSM should be taking heed of the London Times articles on the Rezko/Obama/Auchi connection. Follow the money. No doubt this is part of the dossier the Republicans will roll out for the GE against Obama.

DO YOUR JOB, MSM. I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO READ A LONDON PAPER TO GET THE COVERAGE.