Clintons are documented scumbags...wake up america!!!
there are no one who can compare with the clintons' lying, cheating and stealing...they are crooked and corrupt to the core. truth and facts documented their corrupt practices from their larval stages as sleazy communist sympathizers, drug lifestyle, war protestors, to bribery, illegal political contributions, slandering, libeling, unauthorized use of public resources for personal use, unlawful coercion of witnesses to their illegal behavior....
can the american ppl smell the stench of clintorious and kick those 2 clinton sleaseballs out of politics for good????
tune in later this year for it....
I absolutely agree with you that we should have seriously punished Iran in 1983, after we knew that Hizbollah had killed our Marines in Beirut!
We did down an Iranian airliner, some years later, by an "accidental missile shot", from a U.S Naval ship. I only hope that it was not accidental, and that some major Hizbollah leaders were on that plane. It will be many years, until the book on that one is written, if ever!
Getting back to Al Qaeda, read O'Neil's book about the Cole. It is a fact that the Cole perpetrators came out of Yemen!
From the Virginia exit polls.
Obama carried white men with 55%.
He carried Latinos with 55%.
He carried Catholics with 52%.
He carried voters with incomes under $50,000 with 59%.
He carried independents with 62% - and far more independents voted in the Democratic primary, for Obama, than in the GOP primary, for McCain.
And he carried Republicans who chose to vote in the Democratic primary (they constituted 7% of the vote) with 70%.
And, lest the Clinton campaign try to say that Obama's win was the result of his popularity among said independents and Republicans? Obama carried Democrats with 59%.
Clinton held on to win whites overall, but by a whisker: 51 to 48%.
These numbers constitute arguments that Obama can carry into Wisconsin's primary next Tuesday and beyond.
Suddenly, he can say that he's got juice with Latino voters, that he can win white votes in large numbers and that he can win among middle to lower income voters. Additionally, there's just the question of winning. Virginia and Maryland are large or at least large-ish states with primaries, not caucuses (some Clinton partisans have tried to devalue Obama's string of caucus wins on the basis that they draw a more elitist voter).
They are important in November, especially Virginia, where Democrats smell the possibility of general-election victory for the first time since the distant civil right era in 1964. They are what we might call "evidence states": states in which a candidate can use the primary to amass evidence that he or she can go the distance in November.
Which brings us back to Clinton's strategy with regard to these states. The fact is, you can't say, "Well, we never expected to win there," and hope the results somehow won't count. A Democrat can get away with that with regard to some of the smaller caucus states Obama won on Super Tuesday: Idaho, Utah and so forth. But you can't say it about states like Virginia and Maryland.
This may turn into a huge mess for Democrats if Hillary stays true to form. The Clintons have always been for themselves first and the Party last.
Most Democrats don't agree with Julian Bond at NAACP. Al Sharpton for one. His letter to Howard Dean is right on.
Dear Governor Dean:
I write this letter as a former Democratic candidate for President of the United States and a civil rights leader who has fought his entire life for fairness and justice for all people regardless of the color of their skin. I firmly believe that changing the rules now, and seating delegates from Florida and Michigan at this point would not only violate the Democratic party's rules of fairness, but also would be a grave injustice.
As former Presidential candidates we both know that, whether we liked them or not, we adhered to the rules set forth by the Democratic party to select its nominee for president. For example, I would have much preferred starting the nominating process with caucuses and primaries in South Carolina and Washington D.C. than Iowa and New Hampshire. Nonetheless, I knew the rules, abided by them, and ultimately accepted the consequences. Changing the rules in the middle of a presidential contest is patently unfair both to the candidates (including Senator Edwards) and to Democratic voters everywhere.
Some have said that not seating delegations from Florida and Michigan disenfranchises Democratic voters -- especially African American voters -- from those two states. That claim, if true, should have been made many months ago before the decision was made to strip these states of their delegates, and, once the decision was made, it should have been vigorously objected to and contested by those who felt it disenfranchised voters. To raise that claim now smacks of politics in its form most raw and undercuts the moral authority behind such an argument.
As a civil rights leader who is neutral in this presidential primary season and who highly respects both remaining Democratic candidates, I think we have a responsibility to protect both candidates from charges that the process was tainted so that our eventual nominee does not start the general election campaign under a cloud. Clearly, the justifiably proud and intense passions of each candidate's supporters will be on full display in the months leading up to the convention. However, the Democratic Party and independent voices within must temper over enthusiasm by either side and the party must be resolute in ensuring that there is one set of rules by which we select our nominee.
Reverend Al Sharpton, President of National Action Network
Democrat voices are speaking out against the Clintons.
WASHINGTON - For years, Bill and Hillary Clinton treated the Democratic National Committee and party activists as extensions of their White House ambitions, pawns in a game of success and survival. She may pay a high price for their selfishness soon.
Top Democrats, including some inside Hillary Clinton's campaign, say many party leaders — the so-called superdelegates — won't hesitate to ditch the former New York senator for Barack Obama if her political problems persist. Their loyalty to the first couple is built on shaky ground.
"If (Barack) Obama continues to win .... the whole raison d'etre for her campaign falls apart and we'll see people running from her campaign like rats on a ship," said Democratic strategist Jim Duffy, who is not aligned with either campaign.
"Superdelegates" are not all super fans of the Clintons.
Some are labor leaders still angry that Bill Clinton championed the North American Free Trade Agreement as part of his centrist agenda.
Some are social activists who lobbied unsuccessfully to get him to veto welfare reform legislation, a talking point for his 1996 re-election campaign.
Some served in Congress when the Clintons dismissed their advice on health care reform in 1993. Some called her a bully at the time.
Some are DNC members who saw the party committee weakened under the Clintons and watched President Bush use the White House to build up the Republican National Committee.
Some are senators who had to defend Clinton for lying to the country about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
Some are allies of former Vice President Al Gore who still believe the Lewinsky scandal cost him the presidency in 2000.
Some are House members (or former House members) who still blame Clinton for Republicans seizing control of the House in 1994.
Some are donors who paid for the Clintons' campaigns and his presidential library.
Some are folks who owe the Clintons a favor but still feel betrayed or taken for granted. Could that be why Bill Richardson, a former U.N. secretary and energy secretary in the Clinton administration, refused to endorse her even after an angry call from the former president? "What," Bill Clinton reportedly asked Richardson, "isn't two Cabinet posts enough?"
And some just want something new. They never loved the Clintons as much as they feared them.
You know that I am advocating carrot and stick! As any sleazy politician does, you insert words, that have not been used.
It is a fact that that the perpetrators of the Cole Incident were in Yemen!
People like you who advocate peace at all costs, have been responsible for many more deaths in history, than those of who will fight, with just cause. Your hero Neville Chamberlain is a prime example! He enabled Hitler. Obama and Clinton will enable the Sunni Al Qaeda, and the Shia Hizbollah. You are very wrong. You don't understand history, or human behavior.
Your acolytes, the dumb youngsters on this board, are even more dangerous. They don't even have a clue, that they don't know.
This all a product of dumbed down liberal schools, and a third grade mentality media!
An aide to Barack Obama says the man who led former President Clinton's 1992 bid plans to endorse the Illinois senator.
Obama's campaign plans a 1 p.m. conference call Wednesday to announce the endorsement by David Wilhelm, Bill Clinton's campaign manager in 1992, who later became chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
Wilhelm plans to tell reporters that Obama can build a coalition of Democrats, independents and Republicans needed to win the general election. He also says Obama can bring the change he promises—improving the economy and ending the war in Iraq.
Wilhelm is a superdelegate from Illinois who was previously uncommitted in the race.