10:04 PM--IT'S A WRAP
Well, what we saw tonight was Hillary Clinton making a strong, last-ditch effort to pull her flagging campaign back from brink, get it back on track to victory on April 22 and make the superdelegates realize that she really is their last best chance to retake the White House.
She drummed on Obama not just for his remarks about small towns, guns and religion, but for his vast dearth of experience compared to hers--and that includes her experience of being ravaged by Republicans and living to see another day.
Obama, for his part, strove to defuse the negative ripples his aforementioned-ad-nauseum remarks might have engendered, not to mention the controversial comments of his former pastor--all of which appear not to have tarnished him much in polls.
Most importantly, he tried to get voters to imagine him as commander-in-chief, assigning "a mission" to his commanders--he's the decider--although consulting with them re: tactics.
And, in just a few days, we will see just what Keystone State voters really think of these two relentless rivals--and whether their decision might finally reduce the field to one.
Thank you so much for joining me this evening. .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9:53 PM--FRIENDLY PERSUASION
What if it all comes down to superdelegates: How will the candidates persuade them?
Clinton is "going to make everybody feel as if they're part of the American family again," and undo all the damage done by the current administration, she said. "I'm ready to be the commander in chief," she said, listing all the military types who support her.
...And, generally, she's going to make sure there's a chicken in every pot.
Obama is going to restore trust in government and get rid of the old crooked style of politics. And, he's going to enlist the American people in his campaign for change. "If we're going to deliver on health care for every American," not to mention a good education, he saiid, it's important that we should form a "new" political coalition. In other words, he's going to bring the country together...and, presumably, put a chicken in every pot.

Comments
This is the first thing Clinton should be asked about at the debate tonight!
Hillary Clinton On Working Class Whites In 1995: "Screw 'Em":
Yes that First Lady Hillary Clinton comments after congressional elections. Sounds a bit bitter to me and a bit elitist.
"In January 1995, as the Clintons were licking their wounds from the 1994 congressional elections, a debate emerged at a retreat at Camp David. Should the administration make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach".
"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html
Posted by: chauncy of suburbia | April 16, 2008 5:17 PM
Lisa--looks like 3 negatives for Obama and 1 sorta negative for HIlary.
But the polls the Swamp is using are dead wrong. Use the ones in the Philly Inquirer--I think they're more accurate.
Clinton's ahead 6 points, but that's before the whole 'typical white people bitter' snafu. (Just droppin' pearls outta his mouth, doncha know).
And the mainstream media is gonna fluff his pillow and powder his behind tonight as they want this thing to drag out so they can get more money and help the Dems lose in the Fall.
http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/New_Daily_News_poll_shows_Obama_closing_in_on_
Clinton.html
Chauncy--you work for Obama HQ, right?
Why would you try to destroy the person who's probably going to be the topof the ticket against McCain? Do you want us to lose to McCain at Obama HQ?
And, even if she had said that--it's not hurt her yet in southern states. The Repugs voted Obama to the top of the ticket there.
HIS PLACE IN THIS RACE IS FAKE. It's a FAIRY TALE, folks. Just like his 'war opposition' is a fairytale.
Obama needs to stop hurting America and become Hilary's veep.
Then he can donate all those campaign contributions to repair the Chicago housing his friend Rezko trshed in his own district while he was a state legislator.
Cover the blow by blow, Trib, but also do some real reporting now and then, please?
Posted by: Brenda Starr | April 16, 2008 5:37 PM
I do hope the time of the debate will not be wasted on non-issue dribble. We need to hear what and how the candidates are planning to put this country back on track. Enough time has been wasted talking about the things that don't matter to the election. We need to hear from both the candidates what their plans are. I hope Hillary gets the questions second so we can see how Obama does without her prompting.
Posted by: RFB | April 16, 2008 5:55 PM
Hillary Clinton On Working Class Whites In 1995: "Screw 'Em":
Clinton really stepped in it when she tried to make an issue over the "angry and bitter" comments and now, as is usual with her, it turns out that Hillary was not only saying the very same thing but much worse...
There Hillary was at Camp David, back behind......a little cottage her grandfather had built, using only his bare hands and a worn, patched loafer for tools.
Relaxing with Bill over some skeet shooting, a skill taught to her by her hard-working daddy back in Scranton, P-A.
"Screw 'em, Bill," she said, bitterly.
And, then, Bill did.
One working-class Southern white woman at a time.
Posted by: jilly | April 16, 2008 5:57 PM
Ask Hillary about her connection with the upcoming Peter Paul trial.
Posted by: Carol | April 16, 2008 6:07 PM
Is the debate televised, and on what channel?
Posted by: Carol Harvey | April 16, 2008 6:16 PM
"Is the debate televised, and on what channel?" - Carol Harvey
Ahh, I'm always amazed at people that comment on articles without reading them. Read the article and you will find you answer. Sorry, you will actually have to determine the channel number in your market all by yourself.
Posted by: Always amazed | April 16, 2008 6:39 PM
I hope Hillary can pull this out. She is the best candidate in the Dem party. Obama is a liar and a racist. He has ties to Rezko. He took money from the crook. He took land at a very cheap price from the man. Obama is slick. He wants us to believe that he will bring change to Washington. He has ties to corruption and racism. What in the world would he be changing. He would screw White people and push affirmative action programs and welfare programs for his black brothers. White People need to wake up. This man does not stand for you. He stands with rev Wright the racist, anti-white, anti-American idiot. Keep America Safe. Vote against Barrack Hussin Obama.
Posted by: Jerry | April 16, 2008 6:43 PM
It doesn't matter if Obama or goes first. In the end you will have the same outcome. Hillary will give what ever response that she thinks is suitable for the current audiance, regaurdless if she contradicts herself from a previously recorded statements. Obama will nail every question that is thrown at him. People may not like Obama's plan; however, given the current candidates he's more profitable for the country. If anyone does any emulation of candidates that would be Hillary. If anyone pays attention to her ads, they say that Hillary talks about more concerning issues. This would include the economy, health care ect. Hillary is the candidate that is persues debates over other candidates personal lives, Obama was strictly trying to keep the campaign on the road of what his organization has to offer. Obama also attacks every issue that concerns America. He then gives solutions to problems. Hillary can't compete against Obama. Her only line of defense is to scramble the meaning of his speaches. I think America know that Obama is going to be the nominee. To be honest Hillary is a tougher opponet than McCain. All I can say, which I've said time and time again, watch the debate, analyze each candidates response. Afterwards decide who the better candidate is. Understand how it will affect your life and the future of this country.
Posted by: Derrick Durroh | April 16, 2008 6:47 PM
This will be nothing but one non-issue jab after another. We're not going to get answers now just "You're a turd", "I know you are but what am I?" pee-wee level non-answers to questions. I for one blame Clinton and her clintonians for bringing the level of the campaigns to the lowest level in the first place. I'm not for Obama myself but he kept his head above the water for as long as he could without being dragged down by this bug-eyed power-mad-hungry queen.
Posted by: Tony | April 16, 2008 6:51 PM
If Clinton has any sense, she won't bring up or allude to the Wright comments, or the "elitist" theory. Obama has proven many times he can talk his way out of just about anything relating to those and many other issues, things that would sink any other candidate and instead, he'll come out of it looking like a saint.
I hope that campaigns come up with something worth discussing. I'm still undecided and this Annie Oakley and elitist babble is just making McCain actually seem like a viable candidate to me.
The debate is on ABC, Channel 7.
Posted by: Dewy Cox | April 16, 2008 6:52 PM
No offense intended, but I hope people actually watch the debate, rather than blog their way through it. Blog your butts off afterward, though! I know I will!
I'm concerned the reason so many people support Hillary is because they don't take the time to actually watch her and listen to what she says. Take the time and actually pay attention to her body language - ask yourself if this is the person you want representing the United States. She is repellant.
This is a very important debate and I hope it will be the final nail in the Clinton Campaign Coffin.
Posted by: Chicagoan In PA | April 16, 2008 7:19 PM
Chauncy posted a very real comment from the past- kinda like blast from the past, only a sad one. I could never trust someone who has wily campaign managers, has boatloads of money but no concrete plan to bring affordable housing, gas price relief, and security to us all... and she points a finger at another democrat.
If only mcduggal (read McCain) was not 71, and would promise to bring troops home,... I'd go for him.
Get real both you dems, stop the silliness.
Help me vote the dems in the WH, both you senators.
Posted by: Joshi | April 16, 2008 7:27 PM
What did Obama's tax returns reveal?
Posted by: Typical White Girl | April 16, 2008 7:42 PM
"Packing a 6 shooter" what kind of language is that? Slang ghetto? Is Obama really a thug with a racist chip on his shoulder? I say maybe.
Posted by: Typical White Girl | April 16, 2008 7:46 PM
what i want to know is why did he deny he made these statements for almost a week. why did it take it being released to the airwaves before he admitted it.
is it because he considered them derogatory? and why did he lie and say he never said them?
Posted by: hire best resume | April 16, 2008 7:53 PM
Hey Jilly, tell Angellight and Julie Mack and the other kids travelin' with the messiah hoping to get a job in the white house that attacking HIlary right now is exactly what Howard Dean asked the campaigns not to do.
Hilary's been a class act.
Not so Obama. When he issues his W.O.R.M. statements (what i really meant) he ALWAYS blames Hilary for it making the news-- and it's always false! It is always a news story ahead of time.
rezko=Obama=Mccain.
He's a spoiler.
I think he's crooked and you don't wanna see it.
It would be a form of withdrawal from the messianic training the Obamas made you endure. (The campaign's looking more and more like a bad cult--the worse thing in the Mayhill Fowler piece was the bit where he said he wanted 'new people' to replace the party stalwarts. He doesn't mention anything about stolen elections. And he's a closet sexist who won't admit he likes his women a certain demure way).
Wake up.
Why you think he took that trip to the caribbean right about now--with all those secret service guys to hurry through the security? Taking cash? Documents about Rezko and god knows what?
Read a newspaper. Get off the blogs and live your life!
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-rezko-court-story,0,7957753.htmlstory
- - - -
- Witness tells of mysterious ‘consultant’
- Investment firm received contract from Caribbean.
-
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-rezko-court-story,0,7957753.htmlstory
- - - -
- Witness tells of mysterious ‘consultant’
- Investment firm received contract from Caribbean.
=======
Posted by: nonkoolaiddrinker | April 16, 2008 8:02 PM
Obama HQ---keep the kids off the koolaid. And off the blogs.
And if Howard Dean EVER finds that Obama campaign funds were spent to do blogging during this race---I hope he kicks Obama's snobby (not elitist--elitist is somethingyou earn)
butt.
Julie Mack or Chicago in PA or whatever your handle is-I hope obama gets asked about his convenient caribbean trip.
- - - -Hey Jilly, tell Angellight and Julie Mack and the other kids travelin' with the messiah hoping to get a job in the white house that attacking HIlary right now is exactly what Howard Dean asked the campaigns not to do.
Hilary's been a class act.
Not so Obama. When he issues his W.O.R.M. statements (what i really meant) he ALWAYS blames Hilary for it making the news-- and it's always false! It is always a news story ahead of time.
rezko=Obama=Mccain.
He's a spoiler.
I think he's crooked and you don't wanna see it.
It would be a form of withdrawal from the messianic training the Obamas made you endure. (The campaign's looking more and more like a bad cult--the worse thing in the Mayhill Fowler piece was the bit where he said he wanted 'new people' to replace the party stalwarts. He doesn't mention anything about stolen elections. And he's a closet sexist who won't admit he likes his women a certain demure way).
Wake up.
Why you think he took that trip to the caribbean right about now--with all those secret service guys to hurry through the security? Taking cash? Documents about Rezko and god knows what?
Read a newspaper. Get off the blogs and live your life!
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-rezko-court-story,0,7957753.htmlstory
- - - -
- Witness tells of mysterious ‘consultant’
- Investment firm received contract from Caribbean.
-
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-rezko-court-story,0,7957753.htmlstory
- - - -
- Witness tells of mysterious ‘consultant’
- Investment firm received contract from Caribbean.
=======
Posted by: Obama=Rezko | April 16, 2008 8:06 PM
The singlemost thing I am tired of hearing about at this point is that Barack is winning only because he is getting the "Black" vote... If it's truly the case that barack only won the majority of states, the majority of voters, the majority of delegates because the "Black" vote turned out, then maybe, just maybe the "Black" vote is no longer a marginalized minority. Maybe if he has garnered the numbers that he has, then may, just maybe the "Black" vote deserves just a touch more attention that it currently receives. Is there any chance that somehow, during the years of "Black" disenfranchisement, of "Black" disparagement, of the "Black" vote being ignored, the "Black" vote has surpassed the "White" vote in national importance?
It's possible that the "White" vote has become so used to being the clear majority that it somehow can't conceive that it could ever NOT be the deciding voice. Welcome to America, we are a diverse country, everyone has an equal voice, even the "minorities" can decide the future of this great nation.
Posted by: FatherStorm | April 16, 2008 8:17 PM
SUPERDELEGATES SHOULD REMAIN INDEPENDENT UNTILL THE CONVENTION.....
Superdelegates remaining undecided should be left alone and independent to decide which candidate to support.
They should take all the time they need ….
http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/04/superdelegates-independence-of-vote.html
Posted by: PacificGatePost | April 16, 2008 8:20 PM
This debate is short on policy and high on issue the press think are hot issues. Please get to the real issues in your questions.
Posted by: Anonymous | April 16, 2008 8:30 PM
This debate is short on policy and high on issues the press thinks are hot issues. Please get to the real issues in your questions.
Posted by: Anonymous | April 16, 2008 8:31 PM
Well, the debate is into the first half-hour and I still haven't heard one questions concerning the Iraqi occupation; healthcare; high gas and food prices; NAFTA; Iran; the economy. ABC, your questions are irrelevant and not what the average American wants to hear. All you want to do is stir up trouble with the candidates instead of informing the American people. Bring back the League of Women Voters to run the debates.
Posted by: Take Back Our Country | April 16, 2008 8:33 PM
Why is the media wasting our time with this stuff, why not ask them what their healthcare plans are?
What is their strategy for Iraq, and foreign policy?
What are their plans for trade with foreign governments who do not follow any human rights that we "supposedly" want to represent?
How are they going to educate our children so our economy can grow? How are they going to reskill our workforce for the future? How are they going to deal with energy policy which is rapidly becoming a crisis.....
Where the freaking heck are the real questions, to me the media is the most embarrassing part of this country by a long shot!!!!!!
Posted by: Brad Miller | April 16, 2008 8:38 PM
c'mon!
i'm trying to keep an open mind here but sen. clinton is getting away even more easily than i thought when i found out that the moderator was a clintonian for 15 years (cfr: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Stephanopoulos)!
they spent 10 minutes on the reverend wright comments!
and all she gets back is the "do you really think everybody should have gotten up and left the church?" question!! what challenge is that!
Posted by: federica | April 16, 2008 8:39 PM
Since Hillary no longer has a valid complaint to continue to bash Obama for his comments without the public looking back at Bill Clinton's statement while he was running for president, " The reason (George H. W. Bush's tactic) works so well now is that you have all these
economically insecure white people who are scared to death," Clinton was quoted saying by the Los Angeles Times in September 1991. I guess now she will accuse him of plagiarism, since her husband made a similar statement first. Read this article.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/13/bill-clinton-flashback-al_n_96433.html
She has never apologized for her repeated lies. If saying,"I misspoken" or "This proves I'm
human" is an apology.. then she has gotten by with another.
If Bill Clinton can make such a derogatory statement and not only be forgiven but elected
president, What's the big deal with Obama... Clinton should know, oh so well, He misspoke! It's proves he's human.
Posted by: Gwen | April 16, 2008 8:39 PM
Why are we asking about the lapel pin/ When are they going to start asking about real issues?
Posted by: Meg Krier | April 16, 2008 8:39 PM
I am completely outraged that when so many important issues confront this country that the questioners on the dabate have focused on he said, she said. What about people dying Iraq. Genocide in Darfur, global warming. How small and trivial can we be.
Posted by: tom Wojick | April 16, 2008 8:40 PM
c'mon!
i'm trying to keep an open mind here but sen. clinton is getting away even more easily than i thought when i found out that the moderator was a clintonian for 15 years (cfr: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Stephanopoulos)!
they spent 10 minutes on the reverend wright comments!
and all she gets back is the "do you really think everybody should have gotten up and left the church?" question!! what challenge is that!
Posted by: federica | April 16, 2008 8:41 PM
I would like to hear what the candidates intend to do about
medicaid cutback, and our small rural hospitals on the verge of closure.......
Posted by: Fannie | April 16, 2008 8:41 PM
I would like to hear what the candidates intend to do about
medicaid cutback, and our small rural hospitals on the verge of closure.......
Posted by: Fannie | April 16, 2008 8:41 PM
I would like to hear what the candidates intend to do about
medicaid cutback, and our small rural hospitals on the verge of closure.......
Posted by: Fannie | April 16, 2008 8:41 PM
Why is the media wasting our time with this stuff, why not ask them what their healthcare plans are?
What is their strategy for Iraq, and foreign policy?
What are their plans for trade with foreign governments who do not follow any human rights that we "supposedly" want to represent?
How are they going to educate our children so our economy can grow? How are they going to reskill our workforce for the future? How are they going to deal with energy policy which is rapidly becoming a crisis.....
Where the freaking heck are the real questions, to me the media is the most embarrassing part of this country by a long shot!!!!!!
Posted by: Brad Miller | April 16, 2008 8:44 PM
Is this a "debate"? or a tabloid headline review? What does asking one candidate (Barrack more than Hill) about such trivial matters (who said what and meant what) and then allowing the other to comment on what they really meant help me decide who will best serve me and my community in the office of President? I'm young and excited to participate in the electoral process, but this is the best the Democrats can provide to help lead my vote? Why Barrack doesn't wear a flag and allowing Hillary to respond? It's worse than the lunchtime dither over US Weekly and The Biggest Loser recaps! Why don't we get around to some issues and stop allowing these pathetic questions and long-winded, wandering, rhetoric-filled responses! This really reflects poorly on the Democratic party as a whole. Are these edgy, point-blank questions supposed to drum up tv ratings? Much more than that, they're not accomplishing much and I hope upon hope no ones vote is decided upon during this catty side-show!
Posted by: SadtobeDemocratic | April 16, 2008 8:45 PM
Anyone who has to bring up the color of Obama skin is the one who is racist. He's not racist, you are. I'm white and proudly was not raised to be racist by my parents. I am a democrat and at this point am LEANING towards Obama, but I'm still unsure. I want to know how both of them plan to get jobs back in America, my husband has been laid off for the last 3 years. We as American should care about that. Since, he's been laid off we have not had health insurance, and the only people who care about that are the one's who have lost their health insurance. I AM bitter about how the republican have ran this country for the last 8 years, and anyone in my shoes surely feels the same way. It isn't the 50's, 60's or 70's anymore, so people really need to stop acting like it is.
Posted by: aml | April 16, 2008 8:46 PM
Is this the Clinton-Stephanopolis debate?
Posted by: Meg Krier | April 16, 2008 8:46 PM
Anyone who has to bring up the color of Obama skin is the one who is racist. He's not racist, you are. I'm white and proudly was not raised to be racist by my parents. I am a democrat and at this point am LEANING towards Obama, but I'm still unsure. I want to know how both of them plan to get jobs back in America, my husband has been laid off for the last 3 years. We as American should care about that. Since, he's been laid off we have not had health insurance, and the only people who care about that are the one's who have lost their health insurance. I AM bitter about how the republican have ran this country for the last 8 years, and anyone in my shoes surely feels the same way. It isn't the 50's, 60's or 70's anymore, so people really need to stop acting like it is.
Posted by: aml | April 16, 2008 8:46 PM
Hillary has a few "friends" too:
Norman Hsu bundled more than $850,000 for Hillary's presidential campaign and $260,000 for Clinton's Senate races.
Hsu parlayed his charming, obsequious personality into a spot as one of the top twenty Democratic fund-raisers nationwide. Problem is, he turned out to be a convicted felon, on the lam since 1992 due to a grand theft conviction. Then, this December, Hsu was indicted for running a pyramid scheme that defrauded investors out of at least $20 million and that made $25,000 a year in fraudulent political donations.
Marc Rich, fugitive American businessman; Denise Rich, songwriter and socialite.
Denise Rich contributed $70,000 to Hillary's Senate campaign and $450,000 to the Clinton presidential library fund.
Over seventeen years after Marc Rich fled to Switzerland to avoid charges of racketeering, illegal trading, and tax evasion (he owed $48 million), Bill Clinton pardoned Rich during his last moments in the White House. His ex-wife Denise's generous donations and Friend of Bill status gave the pardon a particularly rotten stench.
Aaron Tonken, former Hollywood fund-raiser, current federal penitentiary inmate in California.
In 2000 he hosted a fund-raiser that took in more than $1 million for Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign.
Tonken originally drew interest from the FBI for failing to report some donations from the event to the FEC. Although he was never charged for election-law violations, in 2003 he pleaded guilty to stealing from charities, including, according to an ABC News report, the Betty Ford clinic. He is currently serving a five-year sentence for mail and wire fraud.
Peter F. Paul, renaissance man, jack of all trades co-hosted the 2000 fund-raiser with Tonken.
How did Paul underwrite the gala? According to The Washington Post, by improperly borrowing more than $4 million from Merrill Lynch. Shortly after that was discovered, Paul hopped a plane to Brazil and spent years waging a two-front war: fighting extradition and trying to sue Hillary for underreporting the value of the event. In 2003, Paul was extradited to the U.S., and Clinton agreed to pay a $35,000 fine to the Federal Election Commission.
Sant S. Chatwal, founder of Bombay Palace restaurants.
In 2000, Chatwal hosted a half-million dollar fund-raiser for Clinton in New York. In 2007, he declared his intentions to raise $5 million for Hillary's presidential campaign.
According to The Washington Post, as of September 2007, The IRS was pursuing him for $4 million in back taxes, the State of New York for another $5 million, and the FDIC is suing himin connection with a failed bank venture. The Post wrote, "Yet none of the legal and financial woes--occasionally touched on in American or Indian newspapers or highlighted by political opponents--raised red flags inside Hillary Clinton's fund-raising operation."
International Profit Associates (IPA), an Illinois-based management consulting and business development company.
Bill Clinton pocketed $125,000 for addressing IPA workers in December 2001. The Chicago Sun-Times reported that firm employees have forked over nearly $130,000 in contributions to Hillary's Senate campaigns since 2000.
IPA has faced a string of scandals--most notably, a widely reported sexual harassment suit involving 113 former female employees. Two of them told their stories on a 2005 episode of "Oprah Winfrey Show."
Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie, Taiwanese-Arkansan restaurateur-turned-fund-raiser.
Trie funnelled more than $2.2 million, much of it from foreign corporate donors, to the DNC from 1994-1996 and helped pay $460,000 of the Clintons' legal bills between 1994-1997.
Trie, who knew Clinton from his days as the owner of the Fu Lin restaurant in Little Rock, moved to Washington in 1994 and began donating to the Clintons and the DNC through various shady channels, including through "straw donors," typically poor legal immigrants who stand in for foreign businesspeople.
John Huang, businessman and Commerce Department official under the Clinton administration from 1993 to 1995.
He raised $3.4 million for the DNC in 1996. Most of it has since been returned.
In 1996 Huang solicited an illegal donation of $250,000 from a company in South Korea, as well as $425,000 from donors whose U.S. citizenship was an issue of contention. He also co-organized a 1996 fund-raising event at the Hsi Lai Temple in Southern California, where monks and nuns under an oath of poverty mysteriously contributed large sums of money to the DNC. It was later revealed that they were reimbursed for their donations by the church, and the money had to be returned.
James Riady, Indonesian banking magnate.
Riady and his business associates gave more than $700,000 to the Democratic Party between 1991 and 1997. They also paid $100,000 to Clinton friend Webster L. Hubbell, who resigned from his job as associate attorney general after being charged with tax evasion and mail fraud.
Riady, a regular visitor to the Clinton White House, was busted by the Justice Department in 2001 for funneling foreign corporate money into Clinton's 1992 election effort. (He had to pay out $8.6 million to the DOJ--the largest campaign finance settlement in history.) In 1997, the Thompson-led committee accused Riady of maintaining "a long-term relationship with a Chinese intelligence agency."
Jeffrey Epstein: In 2002, the wealthy money-manager and Friend of Bill flew the former president in his private jet to Africa to discuss AIDS policy. He was recently indicted on charges of soliciting prostitution from underage girls. The Smoking Gun has the gruesome details. (Warning: Link is disgusting.)
John K.H. Lee: The South Korean businessman scored a meeting with President Clinton in 1996 after making a $250,000 donation to the DNC. Under U.S. federal election law, foreign companies and individuals are not permitted to make donations, but Lee tried to skirt the restriction by donating via a U.S. subsidiary of his company, which, problematically, didn't really exist. When it was discovered in September 1996 that the money had originated from Lee's South Korea-based parent company, the DNC returned the contribution.
Pauline Kanchanalak: Kanchanalak, a business executive and Democratic fund-raiser who met frequently with President Clinton, was sentenced to six months of house arrest in 1996 for funneling $690,000 of foreign contributions to the DNC. She claimed the money came from her in-laws.
Ng Lap Seng: The businessman and owner of Macau's Fortuna Hotel (per The Washington Post, "known as much for its prostitutes working the lobby as for its floor show of whip-wielding, leather-clad dancers upstairs") wired more than one million dollars to convicted Clinton donor Charlie Trie between 1994 and 1996 through a company the two co-owned--nearly a quarter of that money ended up in the DNC's hands. Ng attended DNC events and met with the Clintons at the White House.
Abdul Rehman Jinnah: According to the Los Angeles Times, this Pakistani immigrant raised more than $45,000 for Hillary Clinton's HillPac, allegedly reimbursing employees who contributed to Democratic causes, including Clinton's political action committee, which is illegal. He fled to Pakistan after a grand jury indicted him for violations of election law in 2006, and was placed on the FBI "featured fugitives" list. He returned to the U.S. last year.
Ron Burkle: He's never been accused of any crimes, but Ron Burkle lies at the center of any innuendo about Bill Clinton's post-presidential life. A much-commented-upon May 2006 New York Times article stated, "Mr. Clinton is rarely without company in public, yet the company he keeps rarely includes his wife. Nights out find him zipping around Los Angeles with his bachelor buddy, Ronald W. Burkle." The zippy Burkle, friends with Bill since 1992, often flies the former president in his private Boeing 575, described by Clinton as "Ron Air" and "Air Force Two." Burkle, also reportedly a "longtime friend" of Michael Jackson, has thrown lavish fund-raisers for Hillary at Green Acres, his Hollywood estate. Rumors abound about the supermarket billionaire's private life. "Page Six" covered Bill's bachelor buddy unfavorably, writing that he used the jet to entertain young models--and that he was dating Gisele Bundchen. Burkle then made headlines by secretly recording an alleged extortion attempt by a reporter for the gossip column. He has also been accused of using his influence as a Democratic donor to speed a law through the California legislature that would have kept the records of his messy divorce proceedings sealed.
Bill Clinton has been a senior advisor to Burkle's Yucaipa Cos. since early 2002. Clinton is only now trying to untangle himself from the company, a move that will simultaneously free him from questions about Yucaipa's ties to Dubai, while also netting a reported $20 million payday. One particularly shady deal Clinton's scheduler helped Yucaipa arrange was its investment in Catholic Church properties at the urging of a young Italian businessman named Raffaello Follieri. As The Wall Street Journal reported last fall, in 2005, Follieri intimated to Clinton aide Douglas Band that Yucaipa could make a killing on the deal--and that his ties to the Vatican would smooth the transaction. Yucaipa plowed as much as $100 million into the venture, and Band was paid a $400,000 "finder's fee" by Follieri. The Italian then spent Yucaipa's cash on an apartment in New York, private jets, and gifts for himself and his girlfriend, The Devil Wears Prada star Anne Hathaway. Burkle is currently suing Follieri for misappropriating at least $1.3 million.
Posted by: FatherStorm | April 16, 2008 8:51 PM
I notice that the closeup shots are of Chelsy or other Clinton supporters only?
Why only focus on the gaffs and not the issues. It seem to be more Sling the Dirt Washington reporting
Posted by: Ron Fafard | April 16, 2008 8:51 PM
I thought this was going to be a debate on issues. The moderators are attacking the candidates, and on non-issues. If this pattern continues then we will see questions on this pole and that, and on demographic appeal and no questions on any issue that really is presidential. At least Obama has been trying to bring them back on issue. I think these moderators need to be fired.
Posted by: John Putnam | April 16, 2008 8:52 PM
Once again we are listening to who did or said what. OK no one is perfect. My interest is how a single mom can afford to pay for a college education for her child when tuition continues to go up and federal funds continue to charge 8% interest on 10 - 20 years student/ parent federal loans? How can we continue to pay the high gas prices to get work where no raises are in sight? How can my son who is soon to graduate afford to pay for health care when he enters the workforce? Can we please stop the noise about their statements, thier associations and FOCUS on the real issues? Unbelievable.
Posted by: Shirley Dogan | April 16, 2008 8:52 PM
Forty-nine minutes into the debate and we haven't made it pass the stupid nonsense to the canidates' actual views. This wastes the time of everyone truly wanting a change in the country. Thanks for nothing ABC.
Posted by: Paul Lawton | April 16, 2008 8:52 PM
Where is Hillary's flag pin? No one is questioning her patriatism. Also, her diamonds are a little distracting.
Posted by: Nora | April 16, 2008 8:53 PM
Where is Hillary's flag pin? No one is questioning her patriatism. Also, her diamonds are a little distracting.
Posted by: Nora | April 16, 2008 8:53 PM
This entire debate has no focus on any key important issues. This is the same old garbage that the media has covered throughout this campaign. Where are the real questions for the canditates to address what they will do? Let hear more of what their plans for the future will be.
Posted by: garbage can | April 16, 2008 8:53 PM
And we wonder why no good people run for president. Exhibit A:You will be secretly taped by an internet "reporter" where you think comments are off the record.
Posted by: mark | April 16, 2008 8:53 PM
About 6 months ago I registered as a Democrat looking for someone to lead us out of the mess we have been led into by President Bush. I would appreciate it if you would allow Senators Obama and Clinton to discuss the issues and how they will get the US back on track. Please drop asking them all of the "garbage" questions that you have harped on for almost an hour.
Posted by: Dr. Nelson Neal | April 16, 2008 8:54 PM
Any one who has to raise the issue of Obama's skin color is the one who is racist. I am white and proudly raise not to be racist by great parents. Stop being so narrow minded that the only thing to complain about is the color of someone's skin. This isn't the 50's, 60's or 70's anymore!! I am LEANING towards Obama at this point but still keeping an open mind. I want to know how both of them plan to get jobs here in America. My husband was laid off 3 years ago. We lost our health insurance and the only people who really care about that issue are the people who unfortunately lost it due to job loss. Can't afford health insurance on unemployment!! I AM bitter about how our government has let the American people down during the last 8 years, which seems to be dragging out. We need to come together to get the republican out!! I am asking the racist americans to come out of the past and into the present. Your arguments make no sense anymore and you all just sound like narrowminded idiots!!
Posted by: aml | April 16, 2008 8:57 PM
Will either of the candidates raise taxes? If they do, the tax revenue will likely go down. What is the proactive stimulus option?
Posted by: Steve Strom | April 16, 2008 8:58 PM
Watch the Obamamania black list this debate and the debate monitors now. You want to blame Hillary for her "mis-speaking," Obama can't even answer a question straight. So I see, disowning Wright is like disowning his racist grandmother,not possible, but there he was saying "that is why I disowned him" before having the monitor repeat the word to him. (And so did I with a question mark.) He's asked about the "CASCADES" of emails being sent out from HIS CAMP questioning Hillary's credibility over her "misspeaking," to which he answers about the ridiculousness of focusing on these gaffes he has also made and will make (including in this debate just before). Hypocrite.
Posted by: me2 | April 16, 2008 9:01 PM
I guess that lack of ties between Obama and lobbyists is just another myth about Senator Boy Wonder
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-15-obama_N.htm
Posted by: Terry | April 16, 2008 9:02 PM
We are now an hour into this 'debate' and so far we have heard nothing but ridiculous, time wasting rhetoric about NOTHING. If our country has been reduced to electing a president based on whether or not he wears a flag pin, we have a serious problem. I hope that something of substance will be asked in this next hour. I'm disappointed that this is the best two commentators of the quality of Charles Hume and George Stephanopoulos can come up with.
Posted by: Faye | April 16, 2008 9:02 PM
I hope this comes up in the debate tonight!
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton offered a new explanation on Wednesday for what occurred during her visit to Tuzla, Bosnia in 1996. It turns out that she's a U.S. Navy-certified expert sharpshooter, and the news of her armed arrival in Tuzla caused a rebel retreat.
Courtesy of MrSensible.com
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton offered a new explanation on Wednesday for what occurred during her visit to Tuzla, Bosnia in 1996.
Several times during the campaign, Clinton said she "remembered landing under sniper fire" in Tuzla. When footage of the landing showed that not to be the case, Clinton said the remarks were "misstatements."
But at a speech in Pittsburgh, Pa., Clinton said the tranquility in Tuzla was due to intimidation. Accordingly to Clinton, her reputation as a marksman had preceded her.
"I�ve let the secret out in the few days," Clinton said, "but before that it wasn�t widely known that I�m quite a good shot. Maybe I�m being too modest here... I�m actually a great shot. In fact, the U.S. Navy has awarded me with a metal as a certified expert sharpshooter.
"That actually puts me in a very, very elite group. So when we sent word to the rebel factions that I was flying over and I had this distinction and I was armed, they immediately vacated the area surrounding the airfield. That�s why I was able to spend all that time with the little girl in the video."
Clinton said she misspoke about landing under sniper fire because she prefers to be modest about her skills as a marksman.
"I know that people will find this hard to believe. In fact, my opponent has made some rather disparaging comments recently about me thinking I�m Annie Oakley. Obviously he didn�t take my marksmanship seriously. That�s why I am challenging him to a duck hunt for the nomination. If he kills one duck for every three of mine, I�ll declare him the winner. I couldn�t possibly expect such a condescending elitist to be my peer in duck hunting."
Please note that in reality, a duck hunt for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination is highly unlikely. This story is fiction. For more satirical takes on the election, visit MrSensible.com
Posted by: KatherineforObama | April 16, 2008 9:04 PM
Re: The Weather Underground. Another misstatement by Clinton. In NO instances did people die due to bombs set off by The Weathermen, save for one of the members when a bomb in the making went off prematurely in NYC. They were actually opposed to killing (at least at the time that they were known as The Weather Underground, however in one case an ex- member was implicated in the killing of a police officer and is currently serving life in prison). They did extensive recon to avoid injury to persons and rather targeted "institutions and ideas". Their motto "bring the war home" put into action was an attempt to increase awareness in America of the War in Vietnam.
Source: The Weather Underground. A Documentary Film
Posted by: matias | April 16, 2008 9:04 PM
A short note on the "Racist" issue. I am a partner at a Media boutique in the Midwest. At the last big advertising awards show, (800+ attendees), there were (not counting the people on the convention center staff,) a total of 4 African Americans, Myself, a local photographer, a young intern, and the hired female awards presenter. Racism is most certainly still an issue in real-world America, unless you can somehow tell me that in a city with a sizable African-American population, the advertising industry has a African American employment of .03% Maybe it's just a matter that African Americans just don't have a natural ability to draw, or design, or code.
Posted by: FatherStorm | April 16, 2008 9:08 PM
Nora---nobody raised the question of the pin because Hilary wasn't STUPID enough to not put her hand over her heart, and didn't make STUPID statements about the pins!
I'll vote for Obama if he continues getting his butt faked up our ticket by all the Repugs who will vote R in the fall.
Why is this happening?
Where's the media been?
Didn't anybody else wonder what he was hustling out of the country on that Caribbean vacation normal americans take 50 weeks a year (not elitist--snobbery, kids--there's a difference, one is earned, the other is Obama-esque).
- - --
Hey Jilly, tell Angellight and Julie Mack and the other kids travelin' with the messiah hoping to get a job in the white house that attacking HIlary right now is exactly what Howard Dean asked the campaigns not to do.
Hilary's been a class act.
Not so Obama. When he issues his W.O.R.M. statements (what i really meant) he ALWAYS blames Hilary for it making the news-- and it's always false! It is always a news story ahead of time.
rezko=Obama=Mccain.
He's a spoiler.
I think he's crooked and you don't wanna see it.
It would be a form of withdrawal from the messianic training the Obamas made you endure. (The campaign's looking more and more like a bad cult--the worse thing in the Mayhill Fowler piece was the bit where he said he wanted 'new people' to replace the party stalwarts. He doesn't mention anything about stolen elections. And he's a closet sexist who won't admit he likes his women a certain demure way).
Wake up.
Why you think he took that trip to the caribbean right about now--with all those secret service guys to hurry through the security? Taking cash? Documents about Rezko and god knows what?
Read a newspaper. Get off the blogs and live your life!
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-rezko-court-story,0,7957753.htmlstory
- - - -
- Witness tells of mysterious ‘consultant’
- Investment firm received contract from Caribbean.
-
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-rezko-court-story,0,7957753.htmlstory
- - - -
- Witness tells of mysterious ‘consultant’
- Investment firm received contract from Caribbean.
=======
Posted by: Henrik Ibsen | April 16, 2008 9:09 PM
this "debate" is unfair...no equal time for each candidate!!!!! ABC sux!!!
Posted by: paulette | April 16, 2008 9:11 PM
correction: 0.3%
Posted by: FatherStorm | April 16, 2008 9:12 PM
What are the Candidates proposals for increasing the AMT? AMT was calculated based on 1960's income. It has not been adjusted for inflation. Will they raise the AMT limit?
Posted by: Donna Bank-Hoglen | April 16, 2008 9:14 PM
H. Clinton is another George Bush - she is incredibly power hungry and will say whatever she thinks the crowds want to hear in order to gain their votes - therefore it is impossible to understand who she is and what she stands for. At least Barrack is consistent in his message as to what he represents and his plans for our country's problems. I laugh at those who think Hillary is some angle - hello Whitewater???? She was the ring-leader and people committed suicide over it! Hello Bosnia - she is a LIAR!! Also, how is she "in touch" with the middle class when she and her husband made $50 Million? I'm so glad people brought up her "Screw 'em" comment. If she runs our country like she runs her campaign she's right - we will be screwed!
Posted by: Lin | April 16, 2008 9:18 PM
Two comments: How can Hillary Clinton bring people together, when she has made blatent racist remarks about Indians, and joked about Ghandi? If this kind of remark was made publicly, what does she say privately (about e.g., blacks and Jews)? Also, how dare she critize Mr. Obama's serving on a board with a '70s Weatherman, when her husband pardoned militant Puerto Ricans who killed U. S. citizens via bombings in New York City because it would help her Hispan ic votes when she ran for the Senate? This pardon was done with her approval.
Posted by: Pamela Greenberg | April 16, 2008 9:22 PM
what are both planning on doing about illegal immigration? the job shortage that is allowing our counry to be over ran with illegals is a fraud and it has to stop. I also think something has to be done that will not allow someone to break into our country and get free stuff, THEY ARE CRIMINALS and I want to know what they are going to do to stop this.
Posted by: Mark | April 16, 2008 9:24 PM
During this long primary campaign, Hillary Clinton has always been penned-in (no pun intended) by her own history. Years of being a target by media sources and Republicans raised her unfavorability numbers to near 50%, usually hovering around 45%-48%. This history makes it difficult for her to go on the attack because to do so plays directly into her unfavorables.
Clinton supporters have told me, over and over, that Clinton is a "known quantity," and, therefore, voters who don't like her already don't like her. In other words, her negative numbers were topped out.
Frankly, I never bought that argument. Her numbers could always go higher. And they have.
Which brings us to Obama's "bitter" comment..
As I wrote in a number of early posts by Hillary loyalists pumping Obama's "bitter" comment:
We'll see how it plays out. But I'm wondering if Hillary's fierce and repeated denunciations play into negative perceptions of her already held by many voters.
... on this subject, regardless of what one thinks of what Obama said, Hillary and her surrogates, particularly a hack like Vilsack who is counting desperately on a Hillary win so he can be the next Secretary of Education (or, who knows, maybe even VP pick), are at risk of overplaying their hand on this.
Hillary has high negatives for a reason. If voters don't think this as serious as Hillary and company continue to claim it is, this may come back to bite her.
We'll see. Judging by the Sunday morning shows and today's PA newspaper endorsements, Clinton and her pals may be in danger of simply looking desperate.
As I noted, the next few days will tell...
I have no control over what anyone says. It appears Hillary thinks she's onto something big. I am not convinced, judging by reactions in PA.
"Mountain" and "molehill" come to mind. Maybe this will really be Obama's undoing. Who knows?
Still, I think Hillary runs the risk of:
Appearing desperate, and
Playing into her negatives.
A look at the Rasmussen rolling favorable/unfavorable numbers show that Clinton's unfavorable number has dipped below 50% only eight days since February 11. And, in fact, her unfavorables have gone from 51% on April 13, the day Obama's comments broke, to 56% today.
Couple that with all of the latest Pennsylvania polls showing little or no movement among the electorate (and, yes, Clinton is headed for a win with only the margin to be determined), and Obama's continued strength in the Gallup, Rasmussen, Reuters and ABC/WaPo national Dem nomination polls, and the conclusion is that Hillary going on the attack drives up her unfavorables.
The boomerang effect that is unique to Clinton because of her history appears to be in full effect.
Out of the three news stories that have dominated the primary campaign over the last several weeks -- Wright, Tuzla and "bitter" -- it appears that Tuzla has had the biggest impact on the electorate. Today's ABC/Washington Post poll includes this paragraph:
Clinton is viewed as "honest and trustworthy" by just 39 percent of Americans, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, compared with 52 percent in May 2006. Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy. And now, compared with Obama, Clinton has a deep trust deficit among Democrats, trailing him by 23 points as the more honest, an area on which she once led both Obama and John Edwards.
The Tuzla fable played to Hillary's biggest weakness among voters: the belief that she is not honest/can't be trusted.
I know Clinton backers will tell me that Michelle Obama's comments, the Wright story and "bitter" will doom Obama in the general, but that is a hypothetical. He may be doomed, he may not be doomed. But he has shown an ability to respond to these crises which inevitably arise in a campaign.
What is a fact are Clinton's rock-solid negatives. And, yes, they can go up. Because voters have preconceived notions about her and every time she attacks or gets caught in even the mildest inaccuracy, all of these doubts about her bubble to the surface again.
Now, I think McCain is an eminently beatable candidate. Regardless of what polls show today, McCain has yet to be tested. (We've been too busy in the primary.) Frankly, he is a lousy candidate and a lousy campaigner in a very, very bad year for Republicans. The economy is not going to be improving before the general. We know Iraq will be the same, or, more likely, worse. McCain is the second coming of Bob Dole and he will meet the same fate as Dole, regardless of who the Democrats nominate.
But Clinton is hamstrung by her past. Would Hillary beat McCain? Of course! Even with her high negatives. But for her campaign to be making the argument that Obama is unelectable is laughable in light of her own problems. And saying that Obama is not electable, doe not, conversely, mean that she's more electable.
The flip side every superdelegate should be asking her/himself when Camp Clinton makes this argument in private conversations is, "But what are Hillary's chances versus Obama's?"
Given the last six weeks, I'd say Obama's chances are better than Clinton's. And both of their chances of becoming president are better than McCain's.
Posted by: EasyRider | April 16, 2008 9:24 PM
Hillary is doing great in this debate.
Posted by: Bill West | April 16, 2008 9:30 PM
as a 56 yo "boomer" i have seen my social security benefits assessments go from approx $1500 per month to approx $600 per month since 2000. i have worked since i was 15 yo until 2001 when i was injured. i have been unable to find reemployment due to those injuries. fortunately, for now anyway, i have someone who is paying my bills. i know that won't last forever. i am single and have no savings...i earned a meager income. i am very unimpressed with the current administration!!! IT IS TIME FOR A CHANGE!!!
Posted by: paula | April 16, 2008 9:32 PM
as a 56 yo "boomer" i have seen my social security benefits assessments go from approx $1500 per month to approx $600 per month since 2000. i have worked since i was 15 yo until 2001 when i was injured. i have been unable to find reemployment due to those injuries. fortunately, for now anyway, i have someone who is paying my bills. i know that won't last forever. i am single and have no savings...i earned a meager income. i am very unimpressed with the current administration!!! IT IS TIME FOR A CHANGE!!!
Posted by: paula | April 16, 2008 9:32 PM
Matias is full of it.
Listen to stupid Bill Ayers' comments.
I have FRIENDS who were frightened out of their skins by those numbskulls.
and Obama...he's a thug. Plain and simple.
Posted by: avidreader | April 16, 2008 9:32 PM
What the heck are George and especially Charlie Gibson thinking?? This is not a debate.....It is a set-up for Hillary Clinton........All of the hard questions for Barack and the fluff for Hillary........Abc should be ashamed!
Posted by: Roseanne Betlej | April 16, 2008 9:37 PM
Ask them questions that matter, not whether they are in love with the flag. I had a son in Iraq, thank god he came home alive. Let them tell us how they can make America a better place for all of us. It is an embarrassment to say the Pennsylvania is the debate sight. We need to know the answers to real questions not waste our time like this.
Posted by: Totally disgusted | April 16, 2008 9:38 PM
Ask them questions that matter, not whether they are in love with the flag. I had a son in Iraq, thank god he came home alive. Let them tell us how they can make America a better place for all of us. It is an embarrassment to say the Pennsylvania is the debate sight. We need to know the answers to real questions not waste our time like this.
Posted by: Totally disgusted | April 16, 2008 9:38 PM
Hillary has got the plans, Obama's got hope, hope that he doesn't get further exposed.
Posted by: Dwayne | April 16, 2008 9:38 PM
SILLY SEASON IN POLITICS... BARACK IS CLEARLY THE BETTER CHOICE FOR PRESIDENT. HILLARY IS POWER HUNGRY AND WILL DO OR SAY ANYTHING TO GET THE PRESIDENCY. I WILL VOTE FOR MCCAIN BEFORE I VOTE FOR HER, EVEN THOUGH IM A STAUNCH DEMOCRAT.
Posted by: LUCY JACKSON | April 16, 2008 9:42 PM
I was realling hoping to hear questions like...
If NAFTA is renegotiated what details would change that would make a difference to an out of work auto worker?
An anti-biotic can succesfully treat many ailments; but it still usually gets worse before they get better. So what do the candidates think, honestly, will get worse for the country aafter they take office before they get better?
What do they expect citizens to do for their country to help them make the USA as strong as it was once was?
I am so disappointed to see so much time given to lapel pins, inlfammatory comments made by people who are not running, sniper fire, etc...
What a let down.
Posted by: Amber Rodriguez | April 16, 2008 9:53 PM
Please don't "share" my little prosperity Hillary. I work harder than most for it. Please let me keep it. Don't take my money to buy votes to win you an election. Because once you're in you'll just take more from me to stay there. Who won the cold war anyway? I guess the commies did.
Posted by: mark | April 16, 2008 9:58 PM
Here’s a good summary of some reasons to consider supporting Obama. Share it with friends in Pennsylvania.
http://acropolisreview.com/2008/04/top-reasons-to-give-barack-obama-your.html
Posted by: Tina | April 16, 2008 9:59 PM
Looks like Clintons "Annie Oakley" act in Pa has "backfired" on her:
"Today, the President of the
American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA), announced the endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. Because the gun issue has recently become a factor in the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania, I want to share the remarks they made today:
"As a gun rights organization we have not come to this decision lightly. We were formed two years ago because our research shows that millions of gun owners wanted a change. They not only wanted an organization that would protect their gun rights but an organization that was also committed to the protection of their communities as well as the protection of our lands".
"We reached out to the Obama campaign several weeks ago to offer our support and approval as was reported by Paul Bedard of US News and World Report".
"We believe recent attacks on Senator Obama's stand on the 2nd Amendment and his commitment to our hunting and shooting heritage are unfair and American Hunters and Shooters Association is stepping up to set the record straight".
"Senator Obama has clearly demonstrated his commitment to the 2nd Amendment by his vote in support of the Vitter amendment to HR 5441, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill of 2007. This amendment prevents the Government from confiscating guns in a time of crisis or emergency".
"Imagine how the citizens felt during Hurricane Katrina when government agents kicked in doors to confiscate law abiding citizens' guns at a time when they needed them the most. We know Senator Obama "gets it." To say that he is an elitist is patently ridiculous".
"To hunters and shooters everywhere, Senator Obama's vote demonstrated a fundamental understanding of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment which means he recognizes the individual right of all citizens to keep and bear arms. Senator Clinton, on the hand, failed to grasp the importance of this critical issue to hunters and shooters and voted against this Amendment. She turned her back on America's gun owners".
"In addition, Senator Obama's commitment to conservation and protection of our natural resources and access to public lands demonstrates to us his commitment to America's hunting and shooting heritage".
"Senator Obama will be a strong and authentic voice for America's hunters and shooters and it is with great pleasure that we endorse his candidacy".
http://www.huntersandshooters.com
Posted by: Annie Oakley | April 16, 2008 9:59 PM
Saw the documentary. How nice of young don Cheadle to introduce it.
This is the problem with the loss of journalists under the Reagan (Obama loves him). we LOST depth and a memory in the newsroom.
Cointelpro tactics put fake activists into the peace movement.
When I see a former weathermen who didn't get prosecuted and yet gets a cushy gig at a conservative organization--it sends my B.S. detectors into full alert.
Darn near everyone of statute associated with the Obama campaign makes my B.S. detector scream "Spoiler!"
Sorry. I think Obama needs to learn a LOT about how to 'do' statesmanship. And the Clintons can help.
We need to reform our finance system for candidates.
That was the first bill Bill Clinton took into Congress and lost.
Everyone forgets what Bill Clinton was up against--and I'm thinking that the "Gingrich revolution" involved stolen votes at the state level--we just didn't know what to watch for then.
The clintons are NOT the enemy. The non-violent peace movement the Weathermen ruined (like SDS) were NOT the enemy. I really gotta wonder about FBI plants from cointelpro that we don't know about and yeah, the weathermen make me suspicious.
I think Obama has as good judgment as he can have about people who say they wanna help his career. I do think he meant well. Too bad he started out in Chicago. He learned some bad habits and hung out with bad guys.
I don't knwo if he can weather this.
But is it WORTH risking our chances to get the Repugs outta the white house?
Posted by: WeathermenruinedSDS | April 16, 2008 10:05 PM
I wish the gobamas (or is it Obama HQ) would pick their own handles. Or maybe it's just more McCarthyistic tactics of Marxists (they tend to be really rich, by the way) who want to destroy anyone who disagrees with them in the slightest.
If Hilary had ridiculed Obama's secrecy re: his basketball workouts by labeling him Dennis Rodman, Obama woulda brought Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton outta hibernation--and Tawana Brawley with them.
Use your own handles, kids.
Don't try libeling me as some gun nut.
How thuggish.
Is this Obama time tactics?
Hope not.
Posted by: The Real Annie Oakley | April 16, 2008 10:10 PM
THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN IS ALREADY BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY THE EXACT SAME SOURCES THAT PUT CHENEY IN POWER - NOT OPINION - JUST FACT -CHECK OUT THE DONORS IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME -BUT DO NOT BE SO STUPID AS TO USE THE LYING CLINTONS AS YOUR REFERENCE SOURCE (THE FACT THAT THE CLINTONS LIE OFTEN IS ALSO NOT SUBJECT TO DEBATE - AGAIN, IT IS FACT, NOT OPINION)
Posted by: time for change -GET THE FACTS | April 16, 2008 10:16 PM
AHSA seems like some Manchurian Candidate group put together by some well-meaning libs.
and they no doubt cautioned a young Obama in the IL House to back off and merely vote present after all that TALK all those WORDS about gun control.
Obama coulda learned from BIll Clinton that it's better to lose a race over PRINCIPLE than to strive for the career, the Rezko mansion for it ALL too soon.
Sorry. B.S. detector going full blast again.
Obama HQ--when you shoot emails to media organizations like it's a dang t-shirt gun at a basketball game--somebody's gonna get hurt---like your CANDIIDATE and the PARTY.
All that money to blog? You shoulda got the ground game going--and not use some fake John Kerry style gun group.
Gimme a break.
Posted by: Frank Sinatra | April 16, 2008 10:18 PM
Hillary was wonderful tonight. She did answer questions regarding the price of gas, how to get money for college loans, social security, Iran and so much more. People need to start listening to the debates with open ears. So many