Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Tuesday, February 05, 2008

After vehement denials over the weekend, pro-Clinton push polling has been verified by a former news director of a television station in California. Someone who obviously favors Hillary Clinton is paying an unidentified company to spread this material phone call by phone call among independent voters, who can, according to California party rules, opt to vote in the Democratic but not the Republican primary on Feb. 5, when nearly two dozen states will choose a large chunk of the delegates to the parties' national conventions next summer.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

tonyroma

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Coghlan said he was offended by such underhanded tactics and knew he was going to get out a warning about this dirty trick, but he said he played along for the full 20-minute "poll."

"The guy was very slick, very personable," Coghlan told the Ticket. "He never fell out of character as a pollster the entire time. He seemed interested in my answers and just kept going through his list of questions as if he was noting my answers. He was very good, very smooth."


All Americans should be offended that some people continue to play on ignorance and prejudice instead of letting the electorate make informed choices based upon fact, not regurgitated innuendo and out-of-context propaganda.

Maybe thats how Corky spent his weekend, huh?

Nothing different here than the regular media.

Just watch all the networks and pay attention to exactly how they introduce and explain situations about each of the candidates and you'll find they do the same positive negative wording.

Accusations of push polling?

There is gambling in the back room? Shocked! I am shocked I tells ya!

What a joke.

I did not spend my weekend soaking in a tub of Obamaide, meditating on his pure JUDGEMENT and light.

Of course, the headline here is as cynically opportunistic as the candidate himself, considering that nowhere does the article show the, "Clintons Caught Push-Polling Calif.".

What has happened in Caif is that 527 PACs have been producing commercials for Obama, after Obama castigated Edwards in Iowa for the same thing.

Must be the new kind of politics.


That malicious political virus that is designed not to elicit answers but to spread positive information about one candidate and negative information about all others under the guise of an honest poll had arrived in Southern California within days of the important election.

Over eight hours and no denial from the Clinton camp. How surprising. The politics of the old facing the politics of unity and positive virtues. How's that daily Gallup poll today Corky? Care to report what the "new" one says?

What has happened in Caif is that 527 PACs have been producing commercials for Obama, after Obama castigated Edwards in Iowa for the same thing.

And just whom controls 527s, the candidates themselves? You forgot the most important fact regarding the Obama camp's problem with the earlier pro-Edwards 527: the head of the organization used to be a member of Edward's staff, and continued to communicate and coordinate personally with Edwards.

The same cannot be said about pro-Obama 527s, can it?

Everyone isn't as ignorant as you and Hillary assume, and tomorrow you're going to find out just how much this nation is tired of those willing to lie and trash others for the sake of getting elected. The more time goes on, the stronger Obama's support will become because being real trumps being plastic and calculating every single day. The only card left for Hillary to play is fear, and that puts her right along side the Republicans, doesn't it?

One shouldn't be surprised that someone who considers the above quote to somehow be "proof" that, "Clintons Caught Push-Polling Calif.", is a fair headline would be a fair person themselves.

Corky,

I understand, you are very smooth on the phone!

Do they pass out white robes for Obama cultists to wear while they drink their Obamaide?

would NOT be a fair person

LA Times Fabricates Clinton Push Poll Smear


mlr701.mydd.com

Daily Kos or the LA Times? Let me see, just which one has multiple Pulitzer Prizes in its trophy case and which one doesn't?

You're still a joke Corky, and yes, we're laughing at you, not with you!

No reply from the Clinton campaign in over 8 hours? What's wrong, did they lose the return number or can't they pay their phone bills?

Don't worry Corky, I'm sure Barack will offer to lend Hillary a quarter, after all, its the least he can do seeing as how he's a gentleman and all.

Fabricating headlines and laughing in the face of facts must be Obamism 101.


This race will be close enough to be decided by Super Delegates, whose job is to keep inexperienced American Idol celebrity candidates from winning a Dem nomination only to lose the general election.

Noting of course that John Kerry polled to beat Bush by 14 points in March before the election.

The reason Bush won was what I like to call the Dennis Miller Effect. Women and Latinos became pants-pissers after the 911 fear mongering of the Bush admin, as did Miller, and either didn't vote or voted Repub as did women, or voted 40 percent Repub as did Latinos.

Not going to happen in '08 against HRC, as she has strong support with both. A much larger factor than how Indies will break.

I have also checked the rather Orwellian named Clinton Fact Hub. This is a campaign site which is packed with false information to defend Clinton and attack her opponents. In terms of accuracy and honesty it is comparable to Fox News or Pravda. The site regularly issues protests when opposing candidates, newspapers, and even blogs post material which contradicts their claims. Just Friday they denied a different claim posted on a blog. There are several entries on a variety of topics today. Yet they have not denied a charge such as this posted by The Los Angeles Times. None of this is proof of guilt, but when accompanied by the several cases where dishonest tactics have already been verified I remain highly suspicious.
Written by Ron Chusid


liberalvaluesblog.com

You're so funny Corky, I'm going to have to get Depends if you insist on keeping it up! Now you're crowing about Superdelegates as though you're only now noticing the very anti-democratic role that they're allowed to play. But you keep forgetting that the SDs are moving in Obama's direction and away from Hillary because Iraq is again front and center in this campaign. Everyone knows that Obama is the only one who can obliterate John McCain over the war on every single front, while Hillary must answer for her initial support and subsequent silence as the situation was botched by Bushco.

And the contrast between McCain and Obama couldn't be more stark if Hollywood casted these roles instead of the electorate. Old versus new, right versus wrong, getting out versus a 100-year presence. Yeah, I'm sure the SDs want to refight the same battles from the 90s...NOT!

-Everyone knows that Obama is the only one who can obliterate John McCain over the war on every single front,

The contrast between McCain and Obama IS stark. One has decades of military experience in service and on the Armed Services committee, the other is a rookie Senator with no military experience at all.

Ask John McCain about Clinton's well-deserved reputation in the Senate and with the military as a seriously knowledgeable and respected military/defence expert.

You need a shovel to dig this hole any deeper?

John McCain need only remind people that the most Liberal Senator in the Senate, someone with exactly zilch for military knowledge or experience, voting against a war, any war at all, isn't a surprise of any sort.

And I think Obama would be more likely than HRC to hesitate too long even when force is required...... you know, being vested as the genius anti-war candidate and all.

- the very anti-democratic role

The rules aren't fair! WAAAAAGH!!

The contrast between McCain and Obama IS stark. One has decades of military experience in service and on the Armed Services committee, the other is a rookie Senator with no military experience at all.

And one wants the US to remain in Iraq for the next century and the other wants to stop wasting $10 billion per month that can be better spent on Americans, especially since the economy is in a recession.

McCain has been wrong since day one, and if you've followed the pronouncements of Sen. Webb, he criticizes McCain because John never spent a minute on the ground as the infantry did. His views are of someone looking at the battlefield from 10 thousand feet. Sen. Hagel disagrees vehemently with McCain as well. Sort of undercuts your erroneous premise, doesn't it? I'll take Webb and Hagel over McCain anyday.

Funny, how are you going to win by championing the Republican's position, which is precisely what Hillary did up until 2006?

- championing the Republican's position

You mean like you are on health care?

-Sort of undercuts your erroneous premise, doesn't it?

Not at all. One Dem candidate has zero, zilch, nada, for military experience and one Dem candidate is well-respected in the area.

That the most Liberal Sen in the Senate would claim that he would vote something other than "Present", had he been experienced enough to vote at the time, and that he would have voted anti-war no matter the war, is not too far fetched, however, for McCain to point out.


On the betting markets, Obama has jumped 10 points in the past twelve hours, up to 47%. Either the bettors have suddenly decided to pay attention to all the good news since the Ted Kennedy endorsement, or somebody knows something that hasn't hit the ticker yet.

I guess Intrade doesn't share your fears Corky. Yeah, Hillary's vast military "experience" helped bring about the worst foreign policy disaster in US history. Some record to run on, isn't it?

And we're back on the "present votes"? How thoroughly disingenuous of you Corky especially since this issue has been explained and doesn't stand for what you Hillary shills keep trying to conflate it into.

Can't win on virtue, can you, you keep throwing as much mud and dreck as you can find. Hillary can't win on the issues or her personality. All she has left is to debase Obama and here's a clue: It isn't working! Take a look at the polls as you've repeatedly cried for months and months until Hillary was caught by Obama. Maybe just maybe the people are smarter than you and Hillary have given them credit for. You can't beat something with nothing no matter how hard you try to multiply it.

Clinton's '35 years of change' omits most of her career

www.mcclatchydc.com
Whoops!

-you keep throwing as much mud and dreck as you can find

You mean like the false headline on this thread? roflmfao!!


Changing the subject isn't going to give Obama any experience with military matters.

-helped bring about the worst foreign policy disaster in US history.

Trying to blame Bush's War on someone else isn't going to fly, Einstein.

At worst, HRC's vote could be irrationally convoluted into having some impact on originating the initial battles which were over quickly.

The entire preemptive war and the gross mis-management of the aftermath isn't hers or anyone else's but Bush.

Changing the subject isn't going to give Obama any experience with military matters.

And it isn't going to change the fact that Hillary supported the greatest foreign policy disaster in US history!

Gee, I wonder which one is more important, or more deleterious to our economic and strategic interests?

But wait, if Bush is an idiot for botching the war, why did Hillary follow his lead? Couldn't she discern that he was tragically wrong? Funny, Obama didn't have any problem seeing this from Illinois, but Hillary and the other lemmings couldn't see it from Capitol Hill? Doesn't that bring into question her judgment under pressure?

Of course it does, thats the point. Her own words stand as example of just how wrong she could be when other people's lives were at stake. America can't afford that type of judgment especially when it has another choice who nailed it perfectly for the cluster-fuck it was and would become, not to mention Iraq being the money-pit that helped double the deficit in just seven years.

-Obama didn't have any problem seeing this from Illinois,

It is easy for Obama to have an anti-war stance when he had such an insignificant political position and no National Security responsibility.

Most Dem's voted the same as the Sen from 911 NY.

You and Obama should really TRY to get over yourselves.

Not that that would be easy.

Playing upon people's fears won't work Corky. Its sooooo Republican:

View From The Battlefield: Why American Veterans Are Voting Obama

Vietnam veterans are printing literature, "slim jims," at their expense, highlighting Barack Obama's support of veterans. An Iraq war vet, a merchant marine, and the daughter of a Vietnam vet are reaching into their pockets to buy "Veterans for Obama" signs.

Republican veterans -- from a 30-plus year career Marine in Beaufort, South Carolina, to a lifelong Republican who served three Republican presidents in the White House and the Pentagon - are turning out for Barack Obama, urging fellow veterans to support and vote for him. Retired Marine Corps Command Sergeant Major John L. Estrada, only the 15th Command Sergeant Major in the history of the Corps, has gone on the campaign trail and joined the chorus of veteran voices actively, passionately supporting Barack Obama.

From flag rank officers to grunts, veterans of every era and rank are turning out for Barack Obama.

Why? Where is this passion and commitment for a non-veteran coming from?

The answer is simple. It is because Barack Obama, the grandson of a World War II vet who fought in Patton's army, is passionate and committed to the issues that affect veterans and their families.


www.huffingtonpost.com

You're on the wrong side of history Corky. Stop fighting the rising tide, you're going to drown.

Anecdotal cut n' pastes are no subject changers either. And rather weak, impotent retorts in lieu of substance.

Most Dem's voted the same as the Sen from 911 NY.

You and Obama should really TRY to get over yourselves.


And thats why those that did and refuse to take responsibility for being played like fools need to look for different employment.

Tell that to the families dealing with the unnecessary death and injury of their loved ones. Its you who needs to get over your self-serving drivel and look around this globe and see the damage done because of those you now want sympathy for.

The only sympathetic characters are the ones dealing with the repercussions of incompetent leadership coming from BOTH parties! Sorry, death and destruction don't make a positive platform from which to run for the presidency. Being right matters as much as being wrong. Perhaps you should remember that little factoid for future reference as you stomp on the graves of those sacrificed due to those derelict in following Bush's series of lies.

Sorry that Obama saw right through them because he'd watched that movie before. It starred Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s. It was called "The Domino Theory", and proved more tragic than "Operation Whatever" Buscho named it.

Anecdotal cut n' pastes are no subject changers either. And rather weak, impotent retorts in lieu of substance.

You continue to mock the views and feelings of Americans that disagree with you. Why is that?

Is the reality Hillary isn't that beloved shocking to you? Try all you like, and you can't change the forces of momentum. America will make its choice, there is no need to denigrate those choosing differently than you, but thats all you've got to live for, isn't it sad little man?

Ah, from reason to rant in record time.

Bush's War is just that, Bush's War.

Obama's cynically opportunistic effort to make it his "friend" Hillary's war is only slightly less lucid a thought that is reflected in your average post.

It might work in the cultistic American Idol celebrity politics you prefer, but, as noted, that's why we have Super Delegates.


We could just start calling you "Ad Hominem Tony", and get it over with.

We could just start calling you "Ad Hominem Tony", and get it over with.

Ah, spoken by the person with the most derrogatory nicknames on the Retort!

We could just ignore you, since you haven't said a single word worthy of contemplation in months.

Just malign and misrepresent. What a legacy.

No, I've used facts and opinions from reliable sources. You just can't stand the facts.

I'm sure you won't want to miss this, however.

community.tvguide.com

What a surprise, Corky is defending Hillary Clinton. Has she ever done anything wrong?

She said that sleeping with your Mom was a mistake.

She said that sleeping with your Mom was a mistake.

Could we get some grits with that ad hominuem?

Nope, just hot air.

That was a joke. Kinda funny one, too.

Not like calling someone a, "sad little man", or anything truly mean-spirited like that in lieu of actual argument.

In my last post, I quoted part of the speech Obama gave opposed to invading Iraq. He gave it on October 2, 2002 in Chicago. (Unless he gave it on October 26, both dates come up when I search.)

October 2nd is when Congress voted to pass the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002." Hillary Clinton voted for that, and at the same time she voted against the Levin amendment which would have required Bush to come back to the Congress a second time, after he went to make his case to the United Nations, before he would have the authorization to use military force.

Bush and Cheney (and Rove and minions of the right) all claimed that that was intolerable, because then the U.N. would have veto power over our foreign policy.

Hillary says the same thing now to defend her vote against that amendment. Baloney.

It doesn't mean that at all. It means, watch out -- we're giving Bush a blank check to do what he wants militarily, let's put the brakes on, make him come back and discuss it before he takes that final step to war. Oh, and there's also that "Congress has the right to declare war" thing in the constitution too.

Bill Clinton a while ago claimed he was "always" against the invasion of Iraq, a ludicrous statement and not true. If he was, he kept quiet about it. (I'm finding the Clintons very annoying. Months ago, I thought it was a plus Bill would be around Hillary's presidency. Now I have much more mixed feelings about it.)

In any case, there were others who did speak out against the invasion at the time of that unfortunate (maybe cowardly, maybe confused) vote of the Congress. Al Gore was one, and gave a stirring and strong speech against the invasion. And so did Barack Obama.

He really hits every point correctly, while Hillary and so many others were busy saying to George W. Bush, "go do whatever you want, you've succeeded in frightening the American public, so we can't risk getting the public mad at us and thinking we're weak, so go to it, Dubya!" (And if they weren't scared of the public, or positioning themselves not to be "weak on terrorism," then they were in agreement -- and unwise.)


www.huffingtonpost.com

"We are a day away from Super Tuesday. If you are thinking about voting for Barack Obama, consider whether he is the best candidate to go toe to toe with John McCain in the Fall election. Let's look at the attack line that McCain would undoubtedly use against an Obama candidacy.


What is Senator Obama going to say when Senator McCain asks him why he is in favor of granting drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants as Obama has admitted at least twice in Democratic debates?

What will Senator Obama say when Senator McCain cites Obama's present position that undocumented workers will not be covered in his health care proposal, yet when he was running for the Senate he said that children of undocumented workers should get the same health care benefits that citizens get?

What is Senator Obama going to say when John McCain starts to ask people to compare Obama's qualifications to be president to McCain's experience? That his years on the Senate Armed Services Committee don't matter?

What is Senator Obama going to say when John McCain begins to ask him about negotiating in unstructured summits with the leaders of Iran, North Korea and Cuba without preconditions?

What will Senator Obama say when Senator McCain asks him why he said in 2004 that he did not know how he would have voted on the Iraq war authorization and that his view of the Iraq war was not different from President Bush's? What will Senator Obama say when Senator McCain compares Obama's votes to fully fund the Iraq War in the Senate to Obama's rhetorical opposition to that war?

What is Senator Obama going to say when Senator McCain questions Obama's claim to be "the most qualified person in America to conduct the foreign policy of the United States"? What is Senator Obama going to say when Senator McCain says that Obama is not one of the most qualified members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to lead this country in today's dangerous world but instead one of the most absent?

What is Senator Obama going to say when Senator McCain points out that Senator Obama has not conducted a single policy hearing as chairman of the subcommittee on European Affairs of the Foreign Relations Committee?

www.huffingtonpost.com

Cut 'n Paste from the Obamington Post?
Two can play.



Not like calling someone a, "sad little man", or anything truly mean-spirited like that in lieu of actual argument.

Its more mean-spirited to completely ignore the tremendous costs of Hillary's and Bush's mistake and to insult all those affected by them when insinuating that it shouldn't matter today.

Only small people, obsessed with their small concerns (refusal to take personal responsibility nor even apologize to those negatively effected) are so openly scornful of those who view the same facts differently when said judgment has left so much devastation in its wake while the other viewpoint would have spared everyone this reality. When the shoe fits, quit trying to say you're more comfortable barefoot just because the pain is excruiating. No one told you to put the shoe on or believe the shoe salesman in the first place.

"Mrs. Clinton's capture of the Democratic Presidential nomination could unite conservatives, generate an avalanche of cash for the Republican nominee, and produce a record-breaking turnout of Republican voters on election day. Obama's nomination would bring none of these benefits. Indeed, his presence at the top of the Democratic ticket could mean a Democrat victory in November."

www.spectator.org

Since there are good answers to most of the "oh no's, nobody but Hillary could answer these questions and not look like a fool!" questions Mr. Schlesinger posits, I'll address only one, the "experience" questions. There's a pretty simple answer:

"All that experience didn't seem to keep you from enthusiastically supporting the most disastrous foreign policy decision of our times, and continuing to support it with adamant refusal to deal with the facts. If that's the kind of experience you mean, Senator McCain, I'm glad I don't have it."


www.huffingtonpost.com

- believe the shoe salesman

seattlepi.nwsource.com

Pots/Kettles?


What is truly small-minded, along with being cynically opportunistic and historically laughable, is blaming anyone besides George Bush for the mess that is Iraq today.

But then, it is something a typical politician would do.

LA Times Accuses Hillary Clinton Campaign of Push Polling
By: Nicole Belle on Monday, February 4th, 2008 at 11:02 AM - PST

"The only problem is, by the description in the article, it doesn't look like push polling at all"

Excerpted...

"That last bit of information tells me that this call was almost certainly a message testing survey, and not a so-called "push poll." California has over 15 million registered voters, and roughly three million of those are independents. If "someone" was paying "to spread this material phone call by phone call among independent voters," would they really spend 20 minutes on the telephone with each one?

Not likely.

The call that Coghlan describes sounds more like a message testing survey that included many negative messages about Clinton's opponents. In other words, someone called a random sample of voters with the intent to "elicit answers," or more specifically reactions, to negative messages that the Clinton campaign or an allied group considered airing in California.

But wait, there's more. Ed Coghlan, the helpful citizen that alerted Andrew Malcolm of this supposed push polling is described as a former news director. But a simple Google search tells you that Ed is the former news director of KCOP, LA's FOX affiliate. And writer Andrew Malcolm? Why, he's the former Press Secretary for Laura Bush. Perhaps you can infer motives from them from that information as easily as Malcolm implies in his final paragraph:

Phil Singer, the spokesman for the Clinton campaign. was contacted by e-mail last night. He answered that he was there. He was asked if the Clinton campaign was behind the push-poll, knew who was behind it or had any other information on it. That was at 5:27 p.m. Pacific time Saturday. As of this item's posting time, exactly eight hours later, no reply had been received.

Wow. Right before Super Tuesday with campaigning in high gear and a Saturday evening to boot, the spokesman didn't get back to Malcolm. What a shocker. Don't get me wrong, I have had a lot of problems with Clinton's tactical approach throughout this campaign, but I don't like dishonesty and what looks like a perfectly Rovian hit piece in the Times right before the primary either."

www.crooksandliars.com


I am sure you will want to change your misleading headline now, Tony.

Corky is dizzy from all the spinning.

Apparently Hillary's military experience will carry the day for her. Authorizing military force in Iraq while claiming to believe (or actually believing) that she was authorizing only inspectors seems a sorry excuse for "experience".

Or is it her health care platform of mandating poor people to pay for insurance they can't afford? Didn't we already put a giant red "reject" stamp on that back in '93? But her and her industry friends promise when they meet in secret again to devise policy, they will take take our concerns into consideration. I'm sure they have our best interests at heart.

Or is it her immigration platform? LOL.

Or her plan to bail out all the idiots who took money from lenders to buy houses they couldn't afford without reading the terms? It's at the expense of those who knew better. Careful people subsidizing idiots to be idiots. How very socialist.

Or is it her plan to promote energy independence via government funding? Take the subsidies away from the actual industries who are currently pioneers in that market, and create a government run system. Heaven forbid you let research go on without controlling and stifling it...politicizing something always makes it better, right? It's the Clinton/Bush doctrine.

Or is it her plan to promote "free trade" by giving companies an incentive to leave? Farm subsidies? Corporate welfare that dwarfs the social kind?

Or her plan to exit Iraq without actually ending combat operations or demanding any political action?

Her platform sounds really well thought out...finger to the wind politics at its best giving us the worst of both worlds.

But according to Corky, the republicans are licking their chops over Obama. They'll bash his inexperience (wait, Clinton already tried). They'll bash his race and religion (wait, Clinton already tried). They'll bash his optimism (wait, Clinton already tried). They'll start making stuff up or try to otherwise manipulate the electorate (wait, Clinton already tried).

So either Corkwad is saying that Hillary is vastly inferior tactically to her republican attack-dog counter-parts (defeating the argument of her being better suited to fight that fight in the gen election), or that she is intentionally taking it easy on him despite using identical tactics. Honing her skills, maybe? If that's true, I'm sure we're all excited for what lies ahead...maybe the lowest voter turnout in history? Good news for McCain.

Convoluted logic and irrationality aside, Lil' Kevie's lucidity-proof screed neglects to mention that HRC hasn't gone after his church or his race or anything else the way the GOP will.

But them, thinking isn't required until 4th grade, eh?


For the rest of it, I'm sure Lil' Kevie will want to give up Social Security and insurance for drivers as those are also mandated.

"Twit" is appropriate, but doesn't quite cover it.

is blaming anyone besides George Bush for the mess that is Iraq today.

Excuse me? I guess you view the Constitution just like your buddy W does! Congress had to vote to give numbnutz the authority to invade Iraq, and Hillary went right along with the other brain-dead lemmings who should have known better.

In my book its worse to follow the improper lead of an idiot than it is to stand strong and correctly assess what is in this nation's best interests. If someone is incapable of doing this on their own, then how are they competent to become President?

You're on the losing side of history and so cavalierly dismiss all the death this decision wrought. What was wrong in 2002 stands even more wrong today. America cannot afford this type of judgment whether it comes from George Bush or Hillary Clinton. They both made the same call on Iraq, as did John McCain, so what's the difference? Obama didn't and you can't stand this fact.

But then,

I am sure you will want to change your misleading headline now, Tony.

Obama was a nobody from nowhere responsible for nothing, and no one cared what he thought.

Corky-

Thanks for proving yet again that all you know how to do is attack. And not very well I might add. Kinda reminds me a lot of my 3 year old daughter. Although my daughter saves face in her delivery.

Try a little substance some time. Wait, I almost forgot who I was addressing. Good luck with your smear campaign. The polls indicate you've got your work cut out for you.

Obama was a nobody from nowhere responsible for nothing, and no one cared what he thought.

Considering more people have cast votes for Obama during this primary season than any other candidate from either party, I think you should reassess your faulty logic, but that would take common sense, wouldn't it? Your humor is as enlightening as it is morose.

Oh, I forgot. That type of thinking got this nation mired in Iraq and cost us untold lives and trillions of dollars. We all should take your advice...IF we want to bankrupt America and turn the world against us! Too late, we've already accomplished that haven't we? Congratulations, mock the ones who got it right and toast those that got it wrong. Great way to run a country. Terrible way to respect intellect and prescience. They are still more important virtues than being unable to change one's mind even after having been proven one's decision unleashed disasterous consequences and unaccountable misery.

-Obama was a nobody from nowhere responsible for nothing, and no one cared what he thought.

When he gave the speech, obviously. Oops, one wasted rant.

btw- I am sure you will want to change your misleading headline now, Tony.

Corky, headlines (or any editing) can't be changed by users, only by RCade. I wish you'd stop baggering me about something I have no control over.

For those in the process of deciding between them for super Tuesday and beyond, they should be urged to consider this question very seriously. Those who decided to grant George W. Bush virtually unilateral authority to invade Iraq now must accept responsibility for its consequences. Votes have consequences. The consequences in Iraq are well over 30,000 American casualties [casualty: killed and wounded], possibly one million Iraqi deaths, and at least a trillion American tax dollars spent on restructuring (much wasteful and corrupted) and not spent on U.S. schools, hospitals, and infrastructure.

On issues such as this, it is not enough to say, We all make mistakes. One of the remaining candidates cannot even bring herself to say that. Why not, at least, say, "The president misled me"? Given how tragically wrong that vote was, such an admission would be at the very least a signal of humility, responsibility, wisdom, and character.

Consider these two questions when deciding how to vote on Tuesday and beyond: Why did Senator Clinton give George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq; and why can she not bring herself to admit she was wrong? Regarding the first, she now says that she was only authorizing war as a last resort. Others who voted as she did and now admit error, including Senators Biden, Dodd, and Edwards, do not make that argument. They admit they were wrong. As to the second question, the plausible excuses are few: she still thinks it was right; she thinks the operation was mismanaged; she clings to the hope that this vote and continued support for it will serve her well with conservatives in a general election; she believes it is a symbol of "strength."

Sorting through a great deal of obfuscation, Senator Clinton still seems to cling to the argument that Bush mismanaged the whole project, that it was worth doing but it was done badly. Thus, she seems to accept unilateral invasion as a first resort, even when intelligence, as it was in this case, is less than clear. She seems to be willing to follow policy makers, in this case neocons, who had a publicly announced imperial agenda in the Middle East. And she permits the impression to grow that "triangulation," in matters of war, requires placing protection of political career over protection of the national interest.

Throughout my life I have tried consistently to avoid being judgmental regarding the motives of others. But, like Senator Obama, even on the sidelines, even without access to classified briefings, even under the war drum beat of the right, and even with a compliant mainstream media, I knew both in my mind and deep in my soul that invasion of Iraq was wrong, that it would lead to semi-permanent occupation, that the war would only just begin when Baghdad fell, and that we were pouring blood and treasure into the sand.

This nation needs a president who will question the conventional wisdom, who will exercise skepticism concerning foreign entanglements, who will have the courage to resist pressure from the narrow-minded bellicose right, who will admit to error when major mistakes are made, and who can look farther over the horizon than most of us. Most of all, we need a president who can restore America's honor, respect, and moral authority in the world.


That president is not Senator Clinton. That president is Barack Obama.---Gary Hart


www.huffingtonpost.com

-I wish you'd stop baggering (sic) me about something I have no control over.

Like your misleading headlines?

Gary Hart is shooting for Sec of Defense. Perhaps that article will help him.

Hillary Clinton has done everything right. She stood by her husband and endured the ridicule of Republican bullies like Newt Gingrich during what must have been the worst time of her life. She rewrote her own epitaph by crawling out from under the rubble of her marital troubles and became a Senator in a state where the egos in the political arena are as oversized as New York's skyline. She studied hard, as she always has, and she won. Twice. She became a role model for all other women in politics. She is smart. She is tough. And most people agree that she will probably run a better White House than any other candidate that has taken the field.

But Hillary Clinton is wrong on the war in Iraq and that should matter a lot in this race. Critics of Hillary Clinton who are leaders in the Democratic Party that I have spoken to privately believe that she is too much like McCain to offer voters a meaningful choice. "Voters will choose a real Republican over a fake Republican every time," one politico said to me, slashing at Clinton for her tilt toward the right on the war.


www.huffingtonpost.com

What's been interesting since Rudy left the race is how much more obvious it is that the only thing Obama has to say is, "Iraq vote, Iraq vote", much like Rudy's incessant use of "911".

Talk about your single issue candidates.

At least Rudy actually did DO something, while Obama only complains about what others in national positions did while he was a nobody from nowhere doing nothing.


Why do you continue to personally insult Obama Corky? Do you really think you are influencing people by your personal attacks and factual insults?

Barack Obama was campaigning for the US Senate seat in Illinois at the time he made his speech in Illinois in 2002. Obviously, he staked his entire political future upon his judgment that to follow Bush's plans were suicidal for this nation and our interests. Had history proven him wrong, undoubtably no one would have heard his name and Hillary's coronation would be steaming on track unimpeded. Six years later, its patently obvious that he indeed was correct, and many view his wisdom as being more important than any experience Hillary touts while she didn't have the foresight to see a disaster before she voted to allow it to happen.

There is no single issue of more importance to the majority of American people because the tremendous expenditure of valuable revenue in Iraq lies at the foundation of our economic problems today. Barack understood this in 2002 while Hillary was pontificating on her belief that Saddam harbored WMDs and/or nukes when nothing was further from the truth.

It matters to some that our leaders not commit our volunteer forces into guerilla warfare in a nation we have no legal right to occupy. That a person who claims to be working toward what's best for this nation to mock and categorize one of the few voices that could discern the fiction from reality won't ever never negate the importance of being right on this cataclysmic decision, who's eventual costs even now aren't fully known. To denigrate such vision is akin to championing ignorance and demagougery for the sake of political expediency, something you seem to do on a consistent basis though no one can figure out why.

In 2004 Obama would not condem Jk & JE vote but has no problem going after HC vote. When asked in the same interview how he wold have voted he said (in my words sorry no quote) he did not know how he would have voted because he was not there (to see the NIE) >I think that BO has voted for every bill funding the war that HC has. If you are against something you are against it all the time ei; Dennis K

Mike

"I knew Dennis Kucinich. And Senator Obama is no Dennis Kucinich!"


== Six years later, its patently obvious that he indeed was correct,

As were about 40 percent of the Dems who voted against it. So what?

He had, and has, no special insight. Are you returning into an atheistic mystic?

Hey, I like that! The Atheistic Mystic.
Got a ring to it.

I'm just surprised that you support anyone who talks to an, "invisible man in the sky".


== To denigrate such vision is akin to

Is akin to not agreeing with YOU on who can win in the fall, as has been my objection all along, which means I am, "championing ignorance and demagoguery for the sake of political expediency,".

Which is the kind of demogogery that one expects from "true believers".

Only today I heard this line: "If Barack Obama were a state, he would be California." and "Obama is so... so... cosmic!", that from a grandmother.

Patrick Buchanan said today that, "Obama will be fresh meat thrown on the GOP table like they haven't seen since George McGovern. He might lose 40 or more states. The GOP smear machine OPs Research with 7 mos work will eat him alive."

I point out the fact that Obama sounds like Rudy in his frequency and urgency of answering any question asked him with " Iraq vote! Iraq vote", like a cynically opportunistic parrot.... and you just can't handle it.



HA!

Just saw the new McCain commercial.

"Ready to be CinC on Day One!"

Outright theft is SO refreshing!

I do not support DK Just making the point that
the difference between BO & HC is that she had a vote and he did not and when asked how he would have voted he stated he did not know how he would have voted. Should he have just said NO

I do not support DK Just making the point that
the difference between BO & HC is that she had a vote and he did not and when asked how he would have voted he stated he did not know how he would have voted. Should he have just said NO

Corky I call your pro Hillary bile and hatred and venom and raise you

this

uk.youtube.com

There is nothing false about hope.

YES WE CAN!

-when asked how he would have voted he stated he did not know how he would have voted.

A moment of unguarded honesty that he later said was done as a political consideration.... which is rather odd for someone who supposedly doesn't say things for their "political consideration".


I thought you were under observation, Brit-ney.

Do stay away from sharp objects, dear, 'K?


I have a question though. How many cycles do you think it will be before America even has the chance to elect another woman to the Presidency, to break the ultimate glass ceiling, considering the current lack of candidates?

8? 16? 20 years? How long are you as a woman willing to wait? How long are you willing for your daughters to have to wait?

I have a question though. How many cycles do you think it will be before America even has the chance to elect another woman to the Presidency, to break the ultimate glass ceiling, considering the current lack of candidates?

I don't give a shit how long, I don't elect by sex and the fact you show here that your suggesting such a thing gives your creditability a real eye opening. You have none.

But I do here you are smooth on the phone.

Hope and "political considerations" do they make you ready on day one

Money wouldn't know a glass ceiling if it fell in on his head. Prolly wouldn't even feel it.

But then, we haven't the bandwidth for all the things that he wouldn't recognize.

Corky - keep calling me Britney, if it makes you feel good, I would vote for a woman for president in a heart beat, tomorrow in fact, but I would vote for a large turnip with a "I heart organic" badge on his suit as opposed to vote for Hillary Clinton, Obama has truth, Obama has strength, Obama has hope, YES WE CAN, you can't do it Corky, you cannot stop the momentum that is Obama, YES WE CAN, you can't stop the fact that millions of Americans are now on board and are committed, YES WE CAN, you can sit there and get your daily talking points from the Hil campaign and post them daily here but you will not be able to overcome the fact that Obama is the key, YES WE CAN! And WE WILL!

What? A Clinton do something underhanded? I don't believe it for a minute. Obviously part of vast left wing conspiracy

? 16? 20 years? How long are you as a woman willing to wait? How long are you willing for your daughters to have to wait?


What difference does it make? I'm more worried about how many years we have to wait for a good president, not a female one.

"I'm more worried about how many years we have to wait for a good president"


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA


Forget it.

FF for Goatman (how ya doing pal?)

(how ya doing pal?)

Hungry for a beef stew. *grin*

Clinton Caught Push-Polling Calif.

First time I read that it said "poll-pushing" and I thought to myself...Damn! somethings never change...

Forget it.



Posted by Zatoichi


Agreed....

On C-SPAN this morning the latest poll in Claifornia was showing Obama well in the lead. Billary may be pushing but Obama's pulling away.

Listen up again....

The author of the blog that "revealed" the Clinton push-polls is Andrew Malcolm. Sound familiar? He's a professional Republican mouthpiece and the former official spokesman for Laura Bush.

The only person Malcolm quotes who claims to have received the push-poll call is Ed Coghlan. Sound familiar? Coghlan is not a regular guy on the street, he's a right-wing political pundit and PR man! According to one of the companies he works for, Ready for Media

I have been reading the arguments from both Corky and Tonyrama. I have to admit that you are both very convincing.
In fact you have convinced me that BOTH of you are right. Therefore I have decided not to vote for either Obama or Clinton.
Thank you for helping me make my decision. I am sure you are doing the same for other readers of this blog.

-when asked how he would have voted he stated he did not know how he would have voted.

Yet again, complete dishonesty from someone who KNOWS the truth but still chooses to market the falsehoods instead.

Obama was the keynote speaker at the Democratic convention when asked this question. Both John Kerry and John Edwards voted for the 2002 AUMF although both then regretted their decisions. Obama wasn't going to trash the Democratic nominee for the sake of saying "I was right and these guys were wrong."

What continues to be left out of the discussion is the REST OF OBAMA'S STATEMENT after he said he didn't know how he might have voted, and this makes all the difference in the world:

"But to me, the case was never made for going to war."

This unequivocably points to the consistency of his stance. People who conflate the initial vote with the subsequent votes to fund the troops need to stop and ask themselves a simple question:

Does anyone think its responsible to cut off funding for our military when its deployed on the battlefield when the current CIC will not agree to any calls of withdrawal and would no doubt beat any dissenters over the head with standing "against the troops in the field"?

How could Obama or Clinton stand in front of any Republican today with any credibility in the eyes of the military and the families of those affected by Bush's policies?

Its apples and oranges, and only the misinformed seem unable to make this simple, rational connection between two completely different subjects.

"and if you've followed the pronouncements of Sen. Webb, he criticizes McCain because John never spent a minute on the ground as the infantry did. His views are of someone looking at the battlefield from 10 thousand feet."
--TONYROMA


Was he looking down on the battlefield from 10 thourand feet when his plane was shot down and he was brutally beaten, tortured, and imprisoned for years after?

Yeah, what a lack of perspective.

Was he looking down on the battlefield from 10 thourand feet when his plane was shot down and he was brutally beaten, tortured, and imprisoned for years after?

Yeah, what a lack of perspective.


You see what you want to see. No one was denigrating John McCain's service and sacrifices for this nation. The point was that he has no infantry experience whatsoever, and both Webb and Hagel pointed this out as criticism of his open-ended committment to guerilla warfare and its affects on the troops, the controlled population, and the moral and wellbeing of both.

You took offense where none was projected.

"You took offense where none was projected."
--TONYROMA


I wasn't pissed about it.

None of the candidates have infantry experience. But one at least knows first hand the perils someone on the ground can face.

But one at least knows first hand the perils someone on the ground can face.

That is the point. Both Hagel and Webb were on the ground in Vietnam under fire, so their experience trumps that of McCain as it regards infantry. Hence, the criticism of McCain is based on this reality, not on other frivolous issues.

"Both Hagel and Webb were on the ground in Vietnam under fire, so their experience trumps that of McCain as it regards infantry."
--TONYROMA


The comparison was originally between presidential candidates. So unless Hagel or Webb start running or become a VP pick, their experience is irrelevant in regards to comparing presidential candidates.

If you're suggesting that a lack of infantry experience on McCain's part equates to a lack of valuable military experience, then it applies even moreso to the other presidential candidates, and this is still valid:

"The contrast between McCain and Obama IS stark. One has decades of military experience in service and on the Armed Services committee, the other is a rookie Senator with no military experience at all."
--CORKY

If you're suggesting that a lack of infantry experience on McCain's part equates to a lack of valuable military experience, then it applies even moreso to the other presidential candidates, and this is still valid:

It only "valid" if you think that McCain's judgment on Iraq was the right thing for America, which fully 3/4 of Ameicans do not. Obama saw Iraq for what it was: a disaster for US foreign policy and stability in the region. McCain's experience is precisely what this nation can no longer afford, particularly a 100 year occupation of Iraq by US forces.

"It only "valid" if you think that McCain's judgment on Iraq was the right thing for America, which fully 3/4 of Ameicans do not. Obama saw Iraq for what it was: a disaster for US foreign policy and stability in the region. McCain's experience is precisely what this nation can no longer afford, particularly a 100 year occupation of Iraq by US forces."
--TONYROMA


I'm not making the case for a McCain presidency (I caucused for Paul in Iowa). The only thing I'm arguing against is the Democrat inspired notion that somehow he doesn't have a solid military perspective that would be useful as CiC because he wasn't infantry. It would be just as big a load of bullshit if the roles were reversed and Obama was the former pilot and POW.

Though I detest much of his policy, I don't think McCain would have ignored the advice of generals, gone in with too few troops, failed to understand the divisions within Iraq, and used questionable interrogation techniques to get intel. Because he has a solid military perspective. Iraq might have looked a lot different today had someone like him lead the country through it from the start, when a majority of Americans supported the war, including many of the same 3/4 that now oppose it (and would probably still support it had Bush not screwed it up so royally).

But back to the point, his military experience is solid, infantry or not.

Sorry all pushed the wrong key still new to this..
Tony
when asked how he would have voted he stated he did not know how he would have voted.

Yet again, complete dishonesty from someone who KNOWS the truth but still chooses to market the falsehoods instead.

Tony, no dishonesty here when I made the post I stated I did not have the quote, here it is

When asked how he would have voted on the resolution BO said.. I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,' Mr. Obama said. 'What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."
Nothing wrong here an honest answer seems to me.

Here is your apples and oranges Tony,1. recorded vote in the US Senate based in gov. intell(false/missleading/real) or 2.a speech at an anti war protest, facts based on I assume what was known in the public media.. Big difference, and BO has tried to equate the two.

To be fair from HC floor speech the day before the Senate vote

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

MMike...

The only problem with Hillary's pronouncements were that they were disputed by actual inspectors who had been in Iraq such as Scott Ritter.

You also leave out the fact that Hillary could have read the classified NIE, which point by point listed why the Bush intel wasn't supported by their sources and known facts at that time.
www.huffingtonpost.com

Read Obama's speech and tell me that he didn't understand what was at stake and pointedly predicted every pratfall that became us after the invasion. Sending other's children to war is the most important decision our leaders have to make. Hillary, among many others, didn't do due diligence in separating the facts from the fiction even though she was privvy to intelligence that no one outside of government was at that time.

Even with this advantage, she made the wrong choice, and now millions are dealing with the aftermath of such a diasterously inept decision to which she still doesn't feel a need of apologizing to the American families dealing with the repercussions of her's and other's votes.

Judgment is important BEFORE tragedies are created, not just afterward. Obama showed his to be spot-on and Hillary whiffed. Nothing can change these basic facts.

Tony
I have read the speech it was very good, as to the classified NIE I did not know she was among 94 who did not read it. To bad if she did this might not be an issue . Thanks for the update

A friend of mine just called me and said she got two push poll calls from Camp Clinton last night. Said she hung up on them. She's a die hard Dem but doesn't like Hillary.

Obama's church will not allow white robes, only black. As their only allegiance is to Africa, and they don't appreciate white visitors in their church.

TONYRAMA, why do you use only sources that hate Bush and America?

"As their only allegiance is to Africa, and they don't appreciate white visitors in their church."

Horseshit.

Accusations of push polling?

There is gambling in the back room? Shocked! I am shocked I tells ya!

What a joke.

I did not spend my weekend soaking in a tub of Obamaide, meditating on his pure JUDGEMENT and light.

Posted by Corky

ditto.. the obamaites are so full of shit it is pathetic.

Hillary Clinton has been telling America that she is the most qualified candidate for president based on her 'record,' which she says includes her eight years in the White House as First Lady - or 'co-president' - and her seven years in the Senate.

Here is a reminder of what that record includes:

- As First Lady, Hillary assumed authority over Health Care Reform, a process that cost the taxpayers over $13 million. She told both Bill Bradley and Patrick Moynihan, key votes needed to pass her legislation, that she would 'demonize' anyone who opposed it. But it was opposed; she couldn't even get it to a vote in a Congress controlled by her own party. (And in the next election, her party lost control of both the House and Senate.)

- Hillary assumed authority over selecting a female Attorney General. Her first two recommendations, Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. She then chose Janet Reno. Janet Reno has since been described by Bill himself as 'my worst mistake.'

- Hillary recommended Lani Guanier for head of the Civil Rights Commission. When Guanier's radical views became known, her name had to be withdrawn.

- Hillary recommended her former law partners, Web Hubbell, Vince Foster, and William Kennedy for positions in the Justice Department, White House staff, and the Treasury, respectively. Hubbell was later imprisoned, Foster committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.

- Hillary also recommended a close friend of the Clintons, Craig Livingstone, for the position of director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of up to 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies ("Filegate") and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, both Hillary and her husband denied knowing him. FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene confirmed in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 1996, both the drug use and Hillary's involvement in hiring Livingstone. After that, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office, after serving seven presidents for over thirty years.

- In order to open "slots" in the White House for her friends the Thomasons (to whom millions of dollars in travel contracts could be awarded), Hillary had the entire staff of the White House Travel Office fired; they were reported to the FBI for 'gross mismanagement' and their reputations ruined. After a thirty-month investigation, only one, Billy Dale, was charged with a crime - mixing personal money with White House funds when he cashed checks. The jury acquitted him in less than two hours.

- Another of Hillary's assumed duties was directing the 'bimbo eruption squad' and scandal defense:

---- She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit.

---- She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.

---- Then they had to settle with Paula Jones after all.

---- And Bill lost his law license for lying to the grand jury

---- And Bill was impeached by the House.

---- And Hillary almost got herself indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice (she avoided it mostly because she repeated, 'I do not recall,' 'I have no recollection,' and 'I don't know' 56 times under oath).

- Hillary wrote 'It Takes a Village,' demonstrating her Socialist viewpoint.

- Hillary decided to seek election to the Senate in a state she had never lived in. Her husband pardoned FALN terrorists in order to get Latino support and the New Square Hassidim to get Jewish support. Hillary also had Bill pardon her brother's clients, for a small fee, to get financial support.

- Then Hillary left the White House, but later had to return $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork she had stolen.

- In the campaign for the Senate, Hillary played the 'woman card' by portraying her opponent (Lazio) as a bully picking on her.

- Hillary's husband further protected her by asking the National Archives to withhold from the public until 2012 many records of their time in the White House, including much of Hillary's correspondence and her calendars. (There are ongoing lawsuits to force the release of those records.)

- As the junior Senator from New York, Hillary has passed no major legislation. She has deferred to the senior Senator (Schumer) to tend to the needs of New Yorkers, even on the hot issue of medical problems of workers involved in the cleanup of Ground Zero after 9/11.

- Hillary's one notable vote; supporting the plan to invade Iraq, she has since disavowed.

Quite a resume'. Sounds more like an organized crime family's rap sheet.

And SHE wants to be The President of the United States........

KC101

Then Hillary left the White House, but later had to return $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork she had stolen.

Can't let this one go it's a false charge along with the Clintons trashing the WH & AF One when they left the White house.

Former President Bill Clinton and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday returned 11 sets of gifts to the White House because the White House usher's office could not determine whether the gifts were the Clintons' personal property or belonged to the permanent White House collection,

Gary Walters, the White House chief usher, said, ''There was some confusion because of incomplete information as to who these items actually belonged to, and to avoid any impropriety, the Clintons have decided to return them to the White House.''

Mr. Walters added that he did not think the Clintons had acted improperly in removing the items.

I believe Mr Barr wasted congreese time holind hearings on the theft/thrashing of the WH nothig there.

Clintons were gone but repub. still could not give a parting false shot.

Time for a third party candidate to emerge --

Before it's too late --

LOU DOBBS FOR PRESIDENT 2008!

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable