I am a strong Obama supporter. However, I think we should not read too much meaning into Hillary's decision to suspend her campaign. When she didn't concede we complained. Now that she has conceded, we still say she didn't do enough.
I think it is time to let bygone be bygone. She lost; we won. Big deal. We are both democrats and we need her and her supporters to help us win in November, though it is unlikely she will be the VP.
Obama won't stumble. He will stay strong and positive. He will win the election and be sworn in in January 2009. Clinton will play a major role in healthcare and other similar issues she is known to be strong.

Mr. Morris needs to move on.

His assessments have always had a personal edge to them. Now Hillary has encouraged us all to move on. That should go for her detractors as well as her proponents. I've lost respect for Mr. Morris.

On Fox this week, Bill O'Reilly was shocked when Dick Morris said Joe Lieberman should be McCain's VP pick. That opinion is preposterous.

Well today's Rasmussen poll shows only 18% think the idea is good and over 40% think it stinks, with the rest unsure.

It would not help McCain get Democrats or show bipartisanship, since Democrats do not consider JL a Democrat.

Lieberman is schlubby and talks like Droopy the old school cartoon character.

Lieberman cost Gore the election in 2000, with antiSemitism probably costing Gore the up-to-then heavily Democratic state of West Virgina and maybe also costing Arkansas and Gore's home state of Tennessee. (No way to prove or disprove that with polling, of course.) If Gore had chosen Edwards as everyone among his advisors wanted him to except one of his daughters, he'd have been elected.

As for Hillary on Obama's ticket, it would help get him elected but make his presidency a nightmare for him and the country. As Peggy Noonan wrote in the WSJ yesterday, "she'd be plotting against him from day one. She'd put poison in his tea."

John Ryskamp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama will shortly be indicted under 18 USC 1346,
> which is the same provision under which Rezko was
> convicted.
>
> There will be MANY counts in Obama's indictment,
> more than there were in Rezko's. This will give
> you details about one of the indictments,
> concerning the board legislation which Obama
> sponsored as part of a criminal enterprise. Both
> Rezko and Obama are members of the Syrian Mafia,
> which trades--corporately--under the name General
> Mediterranean and is headed by NadhmiAuchi.
>
> I don't think I need to add that if Obama is
> elected, the Syrian mafia will be running the
> United States Government. Patrick Fitzgerald,
> hurry up.
>
> Below is a discussion of the board legislation by
> Evelyn Pringle, who published a very detailed
> series on Obama's crimes at opednews.com. These
> articles have been cited around the world.
>
> Following her discussion is a link to a
> discussion, also reproduced, of 18 USC 1346,
> which, again is the section under which Obama will
> be prosecuted.
>
> First, Evelyn's discussion:
>
>
> The evidence presented in "Tony Rezko's] trial
> focused on his influence over officials in getting
> members appointed to the Boards. Prosecutors did
> not discuss how the legislation got passed that
> enabled the Planning Board to be set up in a way
> that allowed for the appointment of members to rig
> the votes to begin with. That part of the scheme
> will likely be detailed in future indictments,
> probably starting with Blagojevich. Blagojevich
> signed the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Act
> with an effective date of June 27, 2003. However,
> before he could sign the act, a bill had to be
> passed by the Illinois House and Senate. As
> discussed fully in Curtain Time Part II, Obama was
> the inside guy in the senate who pushed through
> the legislation that resulted in the Act. Obama
> was appointed chairman of the Senate Health and
> Human Services Committee. The minute the bill was
> introduced, it was referred to his committee for
> review. The sponsors of the bill also served on
> this committee with Obama. Within a month,
> Chairman Obama sent word to the full senate that
> the legislation should be passed. On May 31,
> 2003, Senate Bill 1332 passed and specified that
> the “Board shall be appointed by the Governor,
> with the advice and consent of the Senate." The
> legislation reduced the number of members from 15
> to 9, paving the way for the appointment of a
> five-bloc majority to rig the votes. The corrupt
> members appointed included three doctors who
> contributed to Obama. Michel Malek gave Obama
> $10,000 on June 30, 2003 and donated $25,000 to
> Blagojevich on July 25, 2003. Malek also gave
> Obama another $500 in September 2003. Fortunee
> Massuda donated $25,000 to Blagojevich on July 25,
> 2003, and gave a total of $2,000 to Obama on
> different dates. After he was appointed, Dr Imad
> Almanaseer contributed a total of $3,000 to Obama.
> Almanaseer did not give money to Blagojevich.
> When the first pay-to-play scheme was put in play,
> and the application for approval of a new hospital
> was submitted, the Department of Human Services,
> along with four other Illinois agencies, sent
> recommendations that the project should be
> approved even though experts said the hospital was
> not needed. During the trial, Rezko’s attorney
> presented an email exchange to the jury that
> hinted at Obama's role in setting up the scheme.
> The exchange showed that Obama and seven other top
> Illinois politicians consulted on the legislation
> passed in 2003 and were involved in recommending
> the members for the board. Matthew Pickering
> wrote the memo to Blagojevich’s general counsel,
> Susan Lichtenstein, on behalf of David Wilhelm, a
> former chairman of the Democratic National
> Committee, who headed Blagojevich's 2002 campaign
> for governor. Pickering said he and Wilhelm had
> “worked closely” over six months with state
> legislators. The memo recommended the appointees
> listed above and stated, “our attached
> recommendations reflect that involvement” with the
> political leaders. The persons appointed to rig
> the votes, including those who contributed to
> Blagojevich and Obama, are cooperating in exchange
> for immunity or lighter prison sentences. Feds
> shut down pay-to-play schemes. Only two
> pay-to-play schemes succeeded before the Feds
> swooped in and shut them all down. Blagojevich did
> not receive the $1.5 million from the Planning
> Board deal because the hospital was never built.
> But Obama received $20,000 from the first kickback
> paid in the pension fund scheme and the straw
> donors used to funnel the $10,000 payments, Elie
> Maloof and Joseph Aramanda, also made $1,000
> contributions to Obama's failed run for Congress
> in 2000. In addition, Aramanda gave $500 to
> Obama's senate campaign on June 30, 2003. In the
> summer of 2005, Aramanda's son landed an intern
> position in Obama's Washington office. Obama also
> received contributions for his senate campaign
> from the two persons appointed to rig the vote on
> the pension fund board. On June 30, 2003, Jack
> Carriglio contributed $1,000, and the other
> appointee, Anthony Abboud, donated $500 on June
> 30, 2003, $250 on March 5, 2004, and $1,000 on
> June 25, 2004. The person chosen to funnel the
> kickback in a future scheme, Michael Winter,
> donated $3,000 to Obama on June 30, 2003. All
> these people are also cooperating in exchange for
> immunity or lesser prison sentences but
> prosecutors pointed out during closing arguments
> that people who entered into agreements with the
> government are required to tell the truth or all
> deals are off.
>
>
> And now the discussion of the law under which
> Obama will go to prison, 18 USC 1346:
>
>
> [www.groom.com]
> le-Feb2006.pdf.
>
> This article provides brief guidance as to the
> manner in which courts have interpreted 18 U.S.C.
> § 1346, which generally provides that for purposes
> of federal mail and wire fraud statutes (18 U.S.C.
> §§ 1341 and 1343, respectively), a "scheme or
> artifice to defraud" includes a "scheme or
> artifice to deprive another of the intangible
> right to honest services." Specifically, this
> article examines the manner in which courts have
> interpreted the broad language of § 1346 in
> circumstances that do not involve the explicit
> bribery of public officials.
> I.
> Background
> 18 U.S.C. § 1346 was enacted in 1988, for purposes
> of reversing the Supreme Court's decision in
> McNally v. U.S.,483 U.S. 350 (1987). In McNally,
> the Supreme Court overruled a long line of lower
> court decisions by holding that the federal mail
> and wire fraud statutes did not encompass schemes
> to defraud citizens of an intangible right to
> honest government service from pubic officers. Id.
> at 355. By enacting 18 U.S.C. § 1346, Congress
> restored "honest services" within the ambit of the
> federal mail and wire fraud statutes, meaning that
> a scheme to deprive the public of "honest
> services" by a public official could be punished
> as mail or wire fraud (assuming, of course, that
> such an instrumentality was used as part of the
> scheme or artifice).
> II.
> Judicial Interpretations of the "Honest Services"
> Fraud
> A.
> General Parameters of the Statute
> Not surprisingly, the majority of cases that have
> analyzed the "honest services" fraud set forth in
> 18 U.S.C. § 1346 have involved the bribery of
> public officials, where the charge under § 1346 is
> in addition to other charges. However, there have
> been numerous prosecutions under § 1346 against
> public officials (and those who have corrupted
> public officials) for transactions that do not
> involve outright bribery, but which nonetheless
> involve the provision of cash or gifts to a public
> official in exchange for the public official's
> exercise of power on behalf of the individual or
> entity providing the gratuity.
> Courts have recognized that the term "honest
> services," as used in § 1346, is incredibly broad,
> but the statute has survived repeated challenges
> asserting that it is unconstitutionally vague,
> with courts resorting to a "common sense" usage of
> the phrase "honest services." In rejecting a
> constitutional void-for-vagueness challenge to the
> statute's wording, one court opined that "oncrete
> parameters outlining the duty of honest services
> should not be necessary. . . . The concept of the
> duty of honest services sufficiently conveys
> warning of the proscribed conduct when measured in
> terms of common understanding and practice." U.S.
> v. ReBrook, 837 F. Supp. 162, 171 (S.D. W. Va.
> 1993), aff'd. 58 F.3d 961 (4 th Cir. 1995).
> Another court demonstrated little patience for the
> defendant's void-for-vagueness challenge in the
> context of a kickback scheme, holding that "t
> should be plain to ordinary people that offering
> and accepting large sums of money in exchange for
> a city councilman's vote is a type of conduct
> proscribed by the language of § 1346." U.S. v.
> Paradies, 98 F.3d 1266, 1283 (11 th Cir. 1996).
> Nonetheless, courts have refused to allow § 1346
> to be used as a "catch-all" that subjects every
> unethical or illegal act to federal mail and wire
> fraud prosecution. See, e.g., U.S. v. Bloom, 149
> F.3d 649, 654-56 (7 th
> Cir. 1998) (noting, inter alia, that "not every
> breach of fiduciary duty works a criminal fraud");
> U.S. v. Welch, 327 F.3d 1081, 1107 (10 th Cir.
> 2003) ("the right to honest services is not
> violated by every breach of contract, breach of
> duty, conflict of interest, or misstatement made
> in the course of dealing"). Recognizing the
> difficulty of interpreting the undefined phrase
> "honest services," courts have attempted to
> establish general criteria that must be satisfied
> to successfully assert an "honest services" fraud
> claim. One of the leading circuits interpreting
> the scope of the honest services fraud is the
> First Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that:
> First, . . . honest services convictions of public
> officials typically involve serious corruption,
> such as embezzlement of public funds, bribery of
> public officials, or the failure of public
> decision-makers to disclose conflicts of interest.
> Second, . . . the broad scope of the mail fraud
> statute . . . does not encompass every instance of
> official misconduct that results in the official's
> personal gain. Third, and most importantly, . . .
> the government must not merely indicate wrongdoing
> by a public official, but must also demonstrate
> that the wrongdoing at issue is intended to
> prevent or call into question the proper or
> impartial performance of the public servant's
> official duties. U.S. v. Czubinski, 106 F.3d 1069,
> 1076 (1 st Cir. 1997) (emphasis added) (internal
> citations and quotations omitted), (discussing the
> First Circuit's prior decision in U.S. v. Sawyer,
> 85 F.3d 713, 724 (1996). The Seventh Circuit has
> held that "isuse of office (more broadly, misuse
> of position) for private gain is the line that
> separates run of the mill violations of state law
> fiduciary duty . . . from federal crime." U.S. v.
> Bloom, 149 F.3d 649, 655 (7 th Cir. 1998). The
> court went on to note that "in almost all of the
> intangible rights cases decided . . . (before
> McNally or since § 1346), the defendant used his
> office for private gain, as by accepting a bribe
> in exchange for official action[,]" but also noted
> that "ecret conversion of information received in
> a fiduciary capacity is a form of fraud against
> the owner of that information." Id. Accordingly,
> the Seventh Circuit summarized its test for an
> honest services fraud as follows: "n employee
> deprives his employer of his honest services only
> if he misuses his position (or the information he
> obtained in it) for personal gain" (emphasis
> added). Id. at 656-57.

Rejoin reality, John: it's very nice down here.

Dick,

I'm so glad to be hearing the end of your Hillary bashing. What a joke you have been throughout this campaign - not even veiled contempt for the candidate.

In any event, Hillary won those delegates and it is completely her right to decide how to proceed. So just shut up already.

Sounds good, Ryskamp. But don't wake me up until the soup's hot enough to eat.

Sylvia Jackson wrote:

"Obama behaved badly in this campaign, he disrespected Hillary"

Save it Sylvia Jackson, we know you are a Republican troll trying to spread discord, no one believes that Barack mistreated Hillary during the campaign, if anything he treated her with kid gloves, knowing that as a relatively young Black man or a man period - he could not be seen mistreating the elderly ex-first lady - so save that crap.

DontscaremewithRoe wrote:

"Roe vs. Wade scare is silly. Even if it is abolished, you still will be able to get an abortion at another state, since it will be left to the states."

No genius - if a federal ban is instituted, abortion could be made illegal in all fifty states.

OK, so Hillary is out. I thought she did a great job of signing off, and there is no doubt that she made it perfectly clear she wanted all of her supporters to now switch candidates and support Obama. She is a classy lady and she gave to the party what she owed to the party. Great job Hillary!!

As the campaign progresses, there are now two candidates, and despite what Hillary has said, Obama will have to EARN my vote. I am definitely leaning toward McCain.

Diego Arciniegas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Morris needs to move on.
>
> His assessments have always had a personal edge to
> them. Now Hillary has encouraged us all to move
> on. That should go for her detractors as well as
> her proponents. I've lost respect for Mr. Morris.


Personal edge! Dick Morris is a disgruntled old advisor to the Clintons. Not of sterling character or behavior. He has been out to cause as much grief for the Clintons as possible. I think the descriptive words President Clinton used to describe another writer fits my opinion of Dick Morris.

Dick Morris, the dick, weighs in again with his BS diatribe. Go seek psychiatric help you pathetic remnant of what used to be a human being.

Dick Morriss? Yuck factor X 1000. This guy is sleaze, dishonest, opportunistic, and crass. Why does he take the low road now? Because it's good copy and he's a media flack. Yuck on anything he says. Get rid of him.

Whatever her ultimate motives for doing so, today Hillary Clinton directed her supporters to back Barack Obama. It now falls to them to either do so or not. If they do, Barack Obama will win in November, and the Clintons will be largely forgiven for what transpired in the primary season. If he loses, they won't be.

In November, if I vote for Barack Obama, it is not because I
believe in his message, it will be because I have a thoery that
when Barack Obama took the national stage at the DNC convention
in 2004, that Karl Rove and company took notice and began a
quest to divide and conquer the Democratic Party, influencing
the 2004 Illinois senate race in having Alan Keyes, an arch
conservative african-american from Maryland, running against
Obama to ensure his victory and thus his ascension into the open
arms of the Democratic establishment.

They had to have known about his controversial connections in 06, and they
know that they just need to infleunce a few thousand swing voters in
just a few states to ensure a republican victory in Nov. IF they could help Obama
win the nomination, they would rid themselves of the real threat another
Clinton administration would be to them. And divide the democratic party.

Even at this moment, the Hillary bashing, the Obama bashing continues.
Democrats........ we need a miracle to win!!!!!

Morris forgot one section...
"How stupid Am I to wind up a FoxNews pundit?"
I, Dick Morris, was a major playing in politics, atone time...a very, very long time ago.
What the hell happened to me? I used to be credible, now I'm reduced to the lowest form of political death. FoxNews pundit.
I haven't worked on a real campaign in 15 years! Nobody calls me for work, except two-bit third world facists!
What have I done with my life? Christ I can't even find a date in an airport men's rooms.
My career is over and my jaw, dislocated from bashing my face against the teleprompter.
Why is my house full of bedbugs! Why is my column printed in the classifieds or Sunday funnies?
"How stupid am I, to have bought into that whole Ken Starr, BJ?"
"I did it for a meager paycheck from Murdoch, and now I'm locking into a 30 year contract with Fox".

"Why did I become such a whiny, weasel?"
"Oh well, I can die knowing I did nothing with my life, that I never made my mark on the world, and that my name, along with the thousands of other former disgraced traitors, will at least get invited to Murdochs annual picnic. I do so love hot dogs."

It is unclear whether Obama saw the speech live. He was seen shortly before the speech leaving his home in Chicago with golf clubs

CNN

John Ryskamp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama will shortly be indicted under 18 USC 1346,
> which is the same provision under which Rezko was
> convicted.
>
> There will be MANY counts in Obama's indictment,
> more than there were in Rezko's. This will give
> you details about one of the indictments,
> concerning the board legislation which Obama
> sponsored as part of a criminal enterprise.

This was terrific. But then you went off into derangement land with Dick (who will soon be out of work since his lunch ticket bowed out of the race).

Both
> Rezko and Obama are members of the Syrian Mafia,
> which trades--corporately--under the name General
> Mediterranean and is headed by NadhmiAuchi.


hahahah!

America's choice...(to all the insomniacs)


I write this not in jest, but in true respect towards John McCain. I have battled with insomnia over the past 4-5 years. I wake up after 4 hours of sleep and cannot fall back into sleep. Then I sometimes go to bed, hoping that I will fall asleep, but lay there for hours tossing and turning with no hope whatsoever. But all this changed on that beautiful Tuesday, June 3rd. As I watched John McCain speak, I began to relax. I felt bored. Lethargic. Nothing really mattered in this world. I did not understand a word he was saying...but slowly...ever so slowly...he put me to sleep. For the first time in about 5 years, I fell asleep with no problem whatsoever. And when I did wake up 4 hours after...like I usually do...I just turned on MSNBC and watched John McCain speak...and I fell asleep again. Now that is what they mean when they say "We will look after you and make sure you can sleep with no worry in the world"

Fellow Americans, especially insomniacs...think of the great power this man has. Instead of going to war, he can put Ahmadinejad to sleep by just talking to him. Actually if we can infitrate the radio systems of Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Al Qaeda we can let John McCain speak and then just carry the sleeping beauties and put them in jail. We will just win every war! I dont think America will ever again have an opportunity to pick a president with so much power.

When it comes to the economy and the hardships we face...he can put OPEC to sleep and then make them increase the supply of oil and thus decrease oil prices. Better yet, when our people are fighting hard to get the next meal and earn the next dollar...he can put them to sleep and then they wont feel that hunger or will forget their worries. Not to be cavalier about it, but another solution would be to put the workers in China, Korea and the rest of the world to sleep and then export American goods and give our people a chance to compete in a global economy. Brilliant!

Finally, with all the sleeping, we will not have to worry about climate control. There will be no pollutants because obviously everyone would be asleep and then global warming will disappear. And lest we forget...we will be a united nation...a nation united in our sleep.

So Americans...as you think about your choices for this upcoming election. Think about this...who would you rather have? The man who can inspire you to become better and make this country stronger and better within as well as with the rest of the world. Or the man who can put you and all our compatriots and enemies to sleep and thus make the world a better place!!!

The answer is obvious...

Now I am gonna go get some sleep.......MOM...can you play that replay of McCains speech. It does not matter which one...any of them! Bye bye

Good analysis from Dick Morris. I thought from the title that we might be in for another Clinton derrangement syndrome rant, but Dick seems to have settled down a little now that she's lost. Hillary is doing exactly what any smart ambitious politician would do at this point, keeping her options as open as possible. She would be stupid do to otherwise. And she certainly doesn't owe Obama, his surrogates, or the liberal estabilishment media anything after they way they have all treated her this primary season. I'm glad to see she is one woman who isn't meekly going back to the kitchen.........even if that's where the Good Ol boy Network supporting Obama is trying to send her!

OregonVoter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Even at this moment, the Hillary bashing, the
> Obama bashing continues.
> Democrats........ we need a miracle to win!!!!!

Did you really think it would end...today?

and is true, Hillary is done, but people continue to bash her, so why we have to stop hating Obama and his bots! There is no way you're winning without the Clintonites, some can turn Obama, but not me and many many more.

And Dick, you still sore and you always will be bias, and with you sidekick Eileen.
Get a life!

Sylvia Johnsen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That may be Clinton's game, and she has no reason
> not to play it. Obama behaved badly in this
> campaign, he disrespected her and to explain those
> huge win she had in the end, instead of admitting
> they ran a terrible campaign, Obama's people
> labelled most of West Virginia racists. Good luck
> going back there to win in November. Where's the
> candidate to bridge the divide, he can't even
> offer Clinton a VP slot and bridge the Dems. How
> can USA give Obama a mandate to negotiate with
> Iran, when he's not even able to negotiate with
> Clinton?

Sylvia, you don't know what you are talking about. No matter what campaign someone supports, no one in their right mind - including HRC - can accuse the Obama team of running "a terrible campaign." The Obama campaign has surpassed the fundraising of the other candidates by a landslide. The Obama campaign has also ended the primary season with money to spare, while the competition ended with millions of dollars in debt. The Obama campaign out-organized its competition and inspired millions of people, not just in America but around the world, to pay attention. Get your facts straight and stop spouting ire just because you're disappointed.

I do not believe the the Clintons think Hillary has any shot in 2012 or 2016. This is it for her. So she will go to the convention and raise hell no matter how well Obama does until the convention. Dick, you are right and then some. Hillary is hoping for something evil (assasination) but knows he will not look even as good as he does now. Look what has happened since Super Tuesday!!! Obama is only a great man in June and not the SECOND COMING of JESUS that he was back in March. The press will not get by slipping a radical leftie in on us like they did in 1992. FOX NEWS alone, means Obama will not get a totally free ride. It took the press and Perot and still Bubba only got 43% of the vote. Hillary played the "feminist" card harder than ever in her concession speech. This thing is on and the Clintons are never going away.

Paranoid much? I would hate to inhabit your mindset. It was a beautiful speech, you nitwits. And it perusaded me, provided Obama supporters don't convince me to change my mind.

With Hillary Clinton's graceful and forceful endorsement of Barrack Obama, the general election has offically begun. Starting Monday,all of the negative/demeaning/sexist remarks towards HRC and racist comments towards Obama will come from Republican TROLLS trying to shake things up. DON'T FALL FOR THE TRICKS!

Democrats, Independents (like me), and disaffected Republicans, let's turn the page and defeat John McSame - NO THIRD BUSH TERM!!

My comment has to do with the comments, not the story...

Once again I can't stop thinking about why some of Senator Clinton's supporters are so vehemently against voting for Senator Obama in the fall. Did he commit some kind of crime against these people? He did not. All he did was win. And since when is it so utterly despicable to win a contest fairly, squarely, and with great amounts of support and goodwill, in this country? The more likely answer seems to be far more insidious: these folks are, sadly, not ready for a person of color to lead our nation, but even worse, they're masking that sentiment with an attitude that cryptically indicates that Mr. Obama has wronged them somehow by winning the nomination.

Supporters of Mrs. Clinton who say "I will NOT vote for Barack Obama," ask yourselves why. Really, why? It's hard to believe that this hardline stance is about policy or the issues; Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are nearly identical there (except that HRC supported the war in Iraq and Obama did not). So unless your reason is that you're for the war in Iraq and he didn't support it, or you are fully versed on the minor differences in the two candidates' healthcare plans, dig deep and be honest with yourself. And if you find even the slightest hint of fear or bias or prejudice against people who are different from you, let some light in.

This is our moment. This is our chance of a lifetime to declare our independence from old rifts and from divisiveness. This is our opportunity to live what the Declaration of Independence, penned so many years ago by our forefathers, expressed, with the passion of a group of forward-thinking leaders who shaped the very foundation of our nation: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

What an amazing, historic time. Those of us who have supported either of these pioneering candidates should be so proud to be part of this moment. Let's move forward together, in the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness for all who call America home.

nothing, she has done nothing wrong, and her holding on to her Delegates is her right. There is no big conspiracy here. There is a pretty good chance that something could happen in the next three months that will make Hillary look a lot more appealing. In the mean time she can raise some money to pay off her campaigns debt. She has every right to do all of these.

OMG!!


Posted by: RJII
Comment: #39
Jun 07, 01:58 PM

I hope this puts and end to all the race/gender, blue vs. white collar, etc. divisiveness.

I pray Obama goes with his own choice for VP. I want to give him a real chance at changing the evil empire. He's going to need someone he trust and can blindly depend on. No Billary VPs.

The focus now should be on Obama vs McSame. Either you're with us Dems or you ain't. It's your decision-- and I respect that. Now let's kick butt.
=======================================================

Evil Empire.....

Why don't you take your bomb clinching cowardly friends and get the hell out of America.... You sound so remarkably stupid, with your "evil empire" comment.... You can take the rest of your American haters of South side Chicago, with you. You will not be missed. That is exactly why we have to vote you ignorant @#$%& out. If you ever stop sucking your mother's tit long enough to get out in the world, and if you live long enough there.... (that comment will get you killed in certain places outside of this country hot shot). Sometimes the shear stupidity and immaturity of what some Obama supporters, say reminds of (all) of the stupidity and immaturity of Obama's choice of William Ayers house as the launching place of his political career.....

Evil Empire, stuff it suck nuts. Get a life beyond comic books and Kool-Aid.


Anti Reaganess, MEGA MOUTHED TALKERS.

"Shame on all of you who have made it your raison d'ętre to destroy one of the most dynamic women in American politics. "


dynamic is not quite the word most people use when they think of hillary.

she ran lousy campaign and ran up a big debt and was a sore loser and blamed everyone but herself and made a big freudian slip with the kenndy june statement and tried to swift boat obama; need I go on.

she thought she was entitled to be pres.

she at least proved one thing the myths about her were true.

oh the satisfaction of being an independent voter and watch these corrupt politicans go at it.

I am a Hillary Supporter and will not, under any circumstances, be voting for Barack. Even if he promises me a shady Tony Rezko style land deal I won't vote for him. Vote for Barry. N E V E R!!!

Read up on Jim McDougal in Wickipedia. That's all you need to know about Hillary. There is no reasoning with people who will not inform themselves about Hillary's past or who are informed and don't care. However, such people can be made to fear.

Mike: Hillary got a lot of support from Independents in New York state to have become its Senator without roots in that State... Be reminded she's from Arkansas....Oh. PA... Oh Chicago, but not a native New Yorker.

She has a political stance because a lot of people who didnot know much about her.. gave her a position of power outside of the White House.

If you go for absolutes you will never. ever, vote for Obama, some New Yorkers could be making that decision right now with regard to her ambition to continue in politics. That sentiment cuts across the grain. Hillary did not come to power on your vote alone..... we all know how to play!! And what's good for goose, is also good for gander!

angelita Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DICK!!
>
> What do you think will happen when Rezo appeals?
>
> Do you think the real can of worms will be opened
> on Obama then?
>
> There is a rumor about a Michelle Obama tape out
> there, and you know what they say, "there is
> always some truth to the rumor." So I hope you
> have your alert button ready.
>
> I also think you need to go to Confessions, or
> seek therapy for all those anger issues you have
> about the Clinton's.
>
> NB: Because you hate the Clinton's so much, be
> careful you don't burst a blood vessel.


Angelita! I am officially starting a rumor that you eat live kittens for breakfast.

And we ALL know that there's "always some truth to a rumor".

LOL.....

Dick, you are truly worthy of your name. Your predictions are about as good as your analysis. In case you can't figure that out, Dick, and you seem to be of limited intelligence, they both stink. So, Dick, go back to practicing Popeye the Sailor Man. I think that's what you are best cut out to do.

No question in my mind, Hillary wants to be vice president, and then fervently hope that "something" happens to Obama during his 4/8 years in the presidential office. Remember what happened to RFK in June of that awful year?

"No question in my mind, Hillary wants to be vice president, and then fervently hope that "something" happens to Obama during his 4/8 years in the presidential office. Remember what happened to RFK in June of that awful year?"

Quite right, Gene 4655. All Obama needs to do is take a look back over the past 25 years and make a list of how many political enemies or politically embarassing friends of the Clintons have ended up dead. Take a look at this link:

[www.slate.com]

When it comes to getting and holding power, I don't think anything is beneath the Clintons.

"""""""""""3. The I Told You So Option

By remaining viable and keeping her delegates, Hillary stays in play through the convention. Her aides and associates can be counted on to dump on Obama subtly and, often, anonymously, as he moves forward. If Obama loses the election, and did not take her on his ticket, she can run as the “I told you so” candidate in 2012, much as Ronald Reagan capitalized on Gerald Ford’s defeat in 1976, after Reagan had unsuccessfully sought the nomination, to bolster his credentials in 1980."""""


Most likely.

My name is Dick Moriss, I hate the Clintons and would write anything to discredit them. I was caught sucking the toe of a prostitute and if my face seems bloated on tv its because I have become fat. Most of what I write turns out to be bunk. But people still give me a column in a newspaper because their idiots too. Please make me seem relevant, even though I haven't been in years. love Dick "toe sucking" Moriss.

DLR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
1) keep her
> presidential hopes alive for 2016 and

Hillary knows that Dick Cheneys are rare (fortunately for us all!) and that, therefore, whomever the VP choice is will be in the pole position to succeed Barack Obama in 2016. She wants to be that VP, but if not, she certainly doesn't want a rival female to be chosen.

Thing is, that isn't her decision to make.

OMG!!


Posted by: Sue Mieh
Comment: #73
Jun 07, 05:34 PM

Endorse? I believe the word is "denounce," in the context of which you speak. And bombs? Bombs? What are you talking about? Seems you're crossing a line with that accusation.
=====================================================
Dear Sue Mieh,

Are you from Lebanon? Not that it matters, but I can say (all) my Muslim friends, are almost rabid supporters of BHO. They are in the medical community. About the bombs, google it. As to radical web sites, I spend no time there, none....

The bombs of William Ayers, the man who owned the home of which Obama launched his political career out of.... BTY it's rare I over reach.... If I can't substantiate what I say I'm not going to say it.... unless it's an honest mistake. I won't write things down for pure propaganda reasons, I don't respect or support that stuff. If I see something that is an outright lie written about Obama, I don't like to see it either. The things I am telling you about Obama and the South Side of Chicago, are all well documented.... You can google them too.

Anti Reaganess.

Obviously this is wishful thinking on the part of a still, very angry, Clinton supporter.

It's time for you to get over it. If you are not a rabid Clinton supporter, then you are a very desparate Republican.

It's sad really, but garbage like this is not going to save your RNC, and McSame this year. Time to face the facts....

IT"S OVER!

John Ryskamp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama will shortly be indicted under 18 USC 1346,
> which is the same provision under which Rezko was
> convicted.
>
> There will be MANY counts in Obama's indictment,
> more than there were in Rezko's. This will give
> you details about one of the indictments,
> concerning the board legislation which Obama
> sponsored as part of a criminal enterprise. Both
> Rezko and Obama are members of the Syrian Mafia,
> which trades--corporately--under the name General
> Mediterranean and is headed by NadhmiAuchi.
>
> I don't think I need to add that if Obama is
> elected, the Syrian mafia will be running the
> United States Government. Patrick Fitzgerald,
> hurry up.
>
> Below is a discussion of the board legislation by
> Evelyn Pringle, who published a very detailed
> series on Obama's crimes at opednews.com. These
> articles have been cited around the world.
>
> Following her discussion is a link to a
> discussion, also reproduced, of 18 USC 1346,
> which, again is the section under which Obama will
> be prosecuted.
>
> First, Evelyn's discussion:
>
>
> The evidence presented in "Tony Rezko's] trial
> focused on his influence over officials in getting
> members appointed to the Boards. Prosecutors did
> not discuss how the legislation got passed that
> enabled the Planning Board to be set up in a way
> that allowed for the appointment of members to rig
> the votes to begin with. That part of the scheme
> will likely be detailed in future indictments,
> probably starting with Blagojevich. Blagojevich
> signed the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Act
> with an effective date of June 27, 2003. However,
> before he could sign the act, a bill had to be
> passed by the Illinois House and Senate. As
> discussed fully in Curtain Time Part II, Obama was
> the inside guy in the senate who pushed through
> the legislation that resulted in the Act. Obama
> was appointed chairman of the Senate Health and
> Human Services Committee. The minute the bill was
> introduced, it was referred to his committee for
> review. The sponsors of the bill also served on
> this committee with Obama. Within a month,
> Chairman Obama sent word to the full senate that
> the legislation should be passed. On May 31,
> 2003, Senate Bill 1332 passed and specified that
> the “Board shall be appointed by the Governor,
> with the advice and consent of the Senate." The
> legislation reduced the number of members from 15
> to 9, paving the way for the appointment of a
> five-bloc majority to rig the votes. The corrupt
> members appointed included three doctors who
> contributed to Obama. Michel Malek gave Obama
> $10,000 on June 30, 2003 and donated $25,000 to
> Blagojevich on July 25, 2003. Malek also gave
> Obama another $500 in September 2003. Fortunee
> Massuda donated $25,000 to Blagojevich on July 25,
> 2003, and gave a total of $2,000 to Obama on
> different dates. After he was appointed, Dr Imad
> Almanaseer contributed a total of $3,000 to Obama.
> Almanaseer did not give money to Blagojevich.
> When the first pay-to-play scheme was put in play,
> and the application for approval of a new hospital
> was submitted, the Department of Human Services,
> along with four other Illinois agencies, sent
> recommendations that the project should be
> approved even though experts said the hospital was
> not needed. During the trial, Rezko’s attorney
> presented an email exchange to the jury that
> hinted at Obama's role in setting up the scheme.
> The exchange showed that Obama and seven other top
> Illinois politicians consulted on the legislation
> passed in 2003 and were involved in recommending
> the members for the board. Matthew Pickering
> wrote the memo to Blagojevich’s general counsel,
> Susan Lichtenstein, on behalf of David Wilhelm, a
> former chairman of the Democratic National
> Committee, who headed Blagojevich's 2002 campaign
> for governor. Pickering said he and Wilhelm had
> “worked closely” over six months with state
> legislators. The memo recommended the appointees
> listed above and stated, “our attached
> recommendations reflect that involvement” with the
> political leaders. The persons appointed to rig
> the votes, including those who contributed to
> Blagojevich and Obama, are cooperating in exchange
> for immunity or lighter prison sentences. Feds
> shut down pay-to-play schemes. Only two
> pay-to-play schemes succeeded before the Feds
> swooped in and shut them all down. Blagojevich did
> not receive the $1.5 million from the Planning
> Board deal because the hospital was never built.
> But Obama received $20,000 from the first kickback
> paid in the pension fund scheme and the straw
> donors used to funnel the $10,000 payments, Elie
> Maloof and Joseph Aramanda, also made $1,000
> contributions to Obama's failed run for Congress
> in 2000. In addition, Aramanda gave $500 to
> Obama's senate campaign on June 30, 2003. In the
> summer of 2005, Aramanda's son landed an intern
> position in Obama's Washington office. Obama also
> received contributions for his senate campaign
> from the two persons appointed to rig the vote on
> the pension fund board. On June 30, 2003, Jack
> Carriglio contributed $1,000, and the other
> appointee, Anthony Abboud, donated $500 on June
> 30, 2003, $250 on March 5, 2004, and $1,000 on
> June 25, 2004. The person chosen to funnel the
> kickback in a future scheme, Michael Winter,
> donated $3,000 to Obama on June 30, 2003. All
> these people are also cooperating in exchange for
> immunity or lesser prison sentences but
> prosecutors pointed out during closing arguments
> that people who entered into agreements with the
> government are required to tell the truth or all
> deals are off.
>
>
> And now the discussion of the law under which
> Obama will go to prison, 18 USC 1346:
>
>
> [www.groom.com]
> le-Feb2006.pdf.
>
> This article provides brief guidance as to the
> manner in which courts have interpreted 18 U.S.C.
> § 1346, which generally provides that for purposes
> of federal mail and wire fraud statutes (18 U.S.C.
> §§ 1341 and 1343, respectively), a "scheme or
> artifice to defraud" includes a "scheme or
> artifice to deprive another of the intangible
> right to honest services." Specifically, this
> article examines the manner in which courts have
> interpreted the broad language of § 1346 in
> circumstances that do not involve the explicit
> bribery of public officials.
> I.
> Background
> 18 U.S.C. § 1346 was enacted in 1988, for purposes
> of reversing the Supreme Court's decision in
> McNally v. U.S.,483 U.S. 350 (1987). In McNally,
> the Supreme Court overruled a long line of lower
> court decisions by holding that the federal mail
> and wire fraud statutes did not encompass schemes
> to defraud citizens of an intangible right to
> honest government service from pubic officers. Id.
> at 355. By enacting 18 U.S.C. § 1346, Congress
> restored "honest services" within the ambit of the
> federal mail and wire fraud statutes, meaning that
> a scheme to deprive the public of "honest
> services" by a public official could be punished
> as mail or wire fraud (assuming, of course, that
> such an instrumentality was used as part of the
> scheme or artifice).
> II.
> Judicial Interpretations of the "Honest Services"
> Fraud
> A.
> General Parameters of the Statute
> Not surprisingly, the majority of cases that have
> analyzed the "honest services" fraud set forth in
> 18 U.S.C. § 1346 have involved the bribery of
> public officials, where the charge under § 1346 is
> in addition to other charges. However, there have
> been numerous prosecutions under § 1346 against
> public officials (and those who have corrupted
> public officials) for transactions that do not
> involve outright bribery, but which nonetheless
> involve the provision of cash or gifts to a public
> official in exchange for the public official's
> exercise of power on behalf of the individual or
> entity providing the gratuity.
> Courts have recognized that the term "honest
> services," as used in § 1346, is incredibly broad,
> but the statute has survived repeated challenges
> asserting that it is unconstitutionally vague,
> with courts resorting to a "common sense" usage of
> the phrase "honest services." In rejecting a
> constitutional void-for-vagueness challenge to the
> statute's wording, one court opined that "oncrete
> parameters outlining the duty of honest services
> should not be necessary. . . . The concept of the
> duty of honest services sufficiently conveys
> warning of the proscribed conduct when measured in
> terms of common understanding and practice." U.S.
> v. ReBrook, 837 F. Supp. 162, 171 (S.D. W. Va.
> 1993), aff'd. 58 F.3d 961 (4 th Cir. 1995).
> Another court demonstrated little patience for the
> defendant's void-for-vagueness challenge in the
> context of a kickback scheme, holding that "t
> should be plain to ordinary people that offering
> and accepting large sums of money in exchange for
> a city councilman's vote is a type of conduct
> proscribed by the language of § 1346." U.S. v.
> Paradies, 98 F.3d 1266, 1283 (11 th Cir. 1996).
> Nonetheless, courts have refused to allow § 1346
> to be used as a "catch-all" that subjects every
> unethical or illegal act to federal mail and wire
> fraud prosecution. See, e.g., U.S. v. Bloom, 149
> F.3d 649, 654-56 (7 th
> Cir. 1998) (noting, inter alia, that "not every
> breach of fiduciary duty works a criminal fraud");
> U.S. v. Welch, 327 F.3d 1081, 1107 (10 th Cir.
> 2003) ("the right to honest services is not
> violated by every breach of contract, breach of
> duty, conflict of interest, or misstatement made
> in the course of dealing"). Recognizing the
> difficulty of interpreting the undefined phrase
> "honest services," courts have attempted to
> establish general criteria that must be satisfied
> to successfully assert an "honest services" fraud
> claim. One of the leading circuits interpreting
> the scope of the honest services fraud is the
> First Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that:
> First, . . . honest services convictions of public
> officials typically involve serious corruption,
> such as embezzlement of public funds, bribery of
> public officials, or the failure of public
> decision-makers to disclose conflicts of interest.
> Second, . . . the broad scope of the mail fraud
> statute . . . does not encompass every instance of
> official misconduct that results in the official's
> personal gain. Third, and most importantly, . . .
> the government must not merely indicate wrongdoing
> by a public official, but must also demonstrate
> that the wrongdoing at issue is intended to
> prevent or call into question the proper or
> impartial performance of the public servant's
> official duties. U.S. v. Czubinski, 106 F.3d 1069,
> 1076 (1 st Cir. 1997) (emphasis added) (internal
> citations and quotations omitted), (discussing the
> First Circuit's prior decision in U.S. v. Sawyer,
> 85 F.3d 713, 724 (1996). The Seventh Circuit has
> held that "isuse of office (more broadly, misuse
> of position) for private gain is the line that
> separates run of the mill violations of state law
> fiduciary duty . . . from federal crime." U.S. v.
> Bloom, 149 F.3d 649, 655 (7 th Cir. 1998). The
> court went on to note that "in almost all of the
> intangible rights cases decided . . . (before
> McNally or since § 1346), the defendant used his
> office for private gain, as by accepting a bribe
> in exchange for official action[,]" but also noted
> that "ecret conversion of information received in
> a fiduciary capacity is a form of fraud against
> the owner of that information." Id. Accordingly,
> the Seventh Circuit summarized its test for an
> honest services fraud as follows: "n employee
> deprives his employer of his honest services only
> if he misuses his position (or the information he
> obtained in it) for personal gain" (emphasis
> added). Id. at 656-57.

OMG!!


Posted by: Sue Mieh
Comment: #73
Jun 07, 05:34 PM
===================================================
Dear Sue Mieh, about Bob Marley....

Bob Marley died from Melanoma cancer, it started on his big toe and when it was first diagnosed there was time to treat it, Bob said no. I guess he though he was Bob Marley and cancer didn't apply. About a year later when he was very symptomatic he decided it was time to get it cured. But it was too late.... The problem with people as such, they believe in their own words and invisibility. Sadly this cost him his life. Songs and music are beautiful, but they have little to do with real life. I play guitar, and I am well affiliated with Bob Marley's work.


Anti Reaganess, Big Talkers.

Well, let me answer point by point:

1) Politicians all over the world wait for failure of leader of the pack. As long as she does not attacks him, why do you complain? What do you think about Ted Kennedy's attack on Jimmy Carter 1980? That was far more extreme then sitting and waiting. Besides it was party leadership who selected him, with unison cheer from liberal press. Replacing Obama with anyone else means all of them would have to "eat humble pie". Nah, they support him even if it is clear by July he will loose election.

2) Well, it wasn't quite decisive win in primary, wasn't it? If Obama is really "great uniter" he should start with own party. Of course, it would be more like coalition government then "I am the boss presidency". Under such arrangement she could achieve more as VP then as Senator. Say, pass Universal Health Care? Is that so evil?

3) She does not need delegates for "Told you so" option. That might come only if he loses GE. And frankly, in year like this, with so big money advantage, he would be joke if he loses. Particularly if he shuns half of party in attempt to create absolute control.

4) Yes, that is something to take in account. Though, considering Mark Penn's performance, he should be last (if ever) paid.

Finally, if she is not on the ticket, her fortunes are not so tied to Obama's in any way. It is unlikely she will run again, but when time comes, she will replace Ted Kennedy as best known Democratic Senator. Count on lots of legislation with her name on it.

Dick Morris has tried to make a career clinging to Hillary's ankle. He is the most pathetic being when he badgers through his precious minutes on O'Reilly. Time for Dick, the convicted sex perv, to slink back into his degenerate hole and mull over what he can do with the rest of his life.

That was indeed the best line of her speech, and I so want to believe that she means it.




08voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The best part of Hillary's concession speech:
>
> ".......So I want to say to my supporters, when
> you hear people saying – or think to yourself –
> “if only” or “what if,” I say, “please don’t go
> there.” Every moment wasted looking back keeps us
> from moving forward.
>
> Life is too short, time is too precious, and the
> stakes are too high to dwell on what might have
> been. We have to work together for what still can
> be. And that is why I will work my heart out to
> make sure that Senator Obama is our next President
> and I hope and pray that all of you will join me
> in that effort. "

HRC was about as nasty as a person can get towards another human being in regards to her treatment of BHO. She pretty stopped short of using the "N" word, but that's about the limit of what she would say or do in order to win (although she clearly suggested it when using "white working class" won't vote for him).

In contrast, BHO ran a positive campain and resisted most of her attempts to drag him into a fight. He was classy and focused on the MATH, the DELEGATE and WON THE NOMINATION FAIR AND SQARE.

HRC was nothing but bitter and acted like a spoiled child. And after finally recieving a rebuke from her most stanch supporters, was FORCED to finally conceed. Had they not, I imagine HRC would have taken this all the way to the convention and completely destroyed the party for her own personal gain.

Get a grip.

Sylvia Johnsen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That may be Clinton's game, and she has no reason
> not to play it. Obama behaved badly in this
> campaign, he disrespected her and to explain those
> huge win she had in the end, instead of admitting
> they ran a terrible campaign, Obama's people
> labelled most of West Virginia racists. Good luck
> going back there to win in November. Where's the
> candidate to bridge the divide, he can't even
> offer Clinton a VP slot and bridge the Dems. How
> can USA give Obama a mandate to negotiate with
> Iran, when he's not even able to negotiate with
> Clinton?

Mr. Morris I have never seen a person so full of hatred toward a specific family, a family who many people like you owe their political and so-called analysis position to them. Evey time I hear you commenting on the Foxnews or write some articles which can not be farther from the truth, I tell myself what Clintons have done to this guy who is so much so full of hatred?
Aside from people like you who are clearly cynnical, the fact is that Clinton family is the most misundertood family in the world. All their benevalent motives are interepreted as demonic, self-serving, power-mongering,....
I can't see how those analysts like you who during these 5 days have accused Hillary of any possible monsterity, have the guts to go on the air and write stuff in the papers again.
Mr. Morris I want people like you to have the courage to go on airways and apologize to Hillary and her supporters for saying her staying in the race was self-serving. As you should know by now, she did that to set a record for women movement in this country . or for any other mud-throwing you and people like you did agianst this family. I know you say these stuff and write these stuff to gain some money, but those who sell their souls for some money and some positions are nothing but some stupid losers.

Dick Morris is certifiable and I'm beginning to think he and the other Hillary-haters want Obama to lose. If all you Obama partisans really want Hillary's 17 million voters why don't you just keep venting your spleen. Call her every sexist word you can think of, accuse her of murder, assassination, cannibalism or whatever else you can dredge up. That's definitely the way to go about uniting the party, and I for one hope you do.

The worse part of all is that, in her pursuit of the nomination, Hillary opened up a Pandora's Box of hostility, which she then served to nurture and feed, and it grew into something you can now almost cut with a knife, and now that her campaign has concluded, it has grown so large that even Hillary herself doesn't have the power to close the box again.





Geddy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HRC was about as nasty as a person can get towards
> another human being in regards to her treatment of
> BHO. She pretty stopped short of using the "N"
> word, but that's about the limit of what she would
> say or do in order to win (although she clearly
> suggested it when using "white working class"
> won't vote for him).
>
> In contrast, BHO ran a positive campain and
> resisted most of her attempts to drag him into a
> fight. He was classy and focused on the MATH, the
> DELEGATE and WON THE NOMINATION FAIR AND SQARE.
>
> HRC was nothing but bitter and acted like a
> spoiled child. And after finally recieving a
> rebuke from her most stanch supporters, was FORCED
> to finally conceed. Had they not, I imagine HRC
> would have taken this all the way to the
> convention and completely destroyed the party for
> her own personal gain.
>
> Get a grip.
>
> Sylvia Johnsen Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That may be Clinton's game, and she has no
> reason
> > not to play it. Obama behaved badly in this
> > campaign, he disrespected her and to explain
> those
> > huge win she had in the end, instead of
> admitting
> > they ran a terrible campaign, Obama's people
> > labelled most of West Virginia racists. Good
> luck
> > going back there to win in November. Where's
> the
> > candidate to bridge the divide, he can't even
> > offer Clinton a VP slot and bridge the Dems.
> How
> > can USA give Obama a mandate to negotiate with
> > Iran, when he's not even able to negotiate with
> > Clinton?

The only reason HRC didn't win was the dims' stupid primary system based on 'fairness'- a system where winning means little, losers are rewarded and at the end, party bureaucrats decide what's best. Actually, the dim plan for government as well.

Dear Order...

It is hate-filled morons like you who will keep sufficient Clinton supporters away from Obama's campaign to lead to his defeat in November. Then, your ilk will most certainly blame her for even that. You will have yourselves to blame.

Order Of The Obama Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ding dong, the Wicked Witch of the West Wing is
> dead. Barack has liquidated her.
>
> But as I have predicted for weeks, Hillary has
> only "suspended" her campaign so her delegates are
> not released and she can still get the nomination
> if some "mishap" befalls Obama like an "accident"
> or a "sudden illness." Watch your back, Obama.
>
> Dick makes an error when he says she'd be content
> to be Obaam's VP for two full terms and then run
> herself in 2016. She'd be 68 years old then and
> plastic surgery could not make her viable -- look
> how hard it is for a man that old to win.
>
> So if she became VP, Hillary would have to count
> on Barack's dying in office like 7 previous
> Presidents. Michelle knows what that means for
> her husband's life expectancy and she will never
> let Barack put the malevolent, pantsuited liar on
> the ticket.

Did any of you who are bashing Dick Morris read the article?

While Dick Morris obviously believes anything or any thought out of the Clintons has some sort of sinister intent, I agree with what he wrote in the article, and I want Hillary Cliinton to to be president, still.

Point 1 ...Obama stumbles. A very good possibility More hate speech or terrorist connections come to light, some buyers remorse, and a cascade of superdelegates coming to save the day.

Point 2... hillary for VP. If nearing the convention, it becomes obvious that Obama can not win the electoral map, and Hillary is as popular with democrats as she is today, she could again, save the day, by being on the ticket

Point 3.. the " I told you so" option. I myself have decided that when Obama loses in November, i am not going to say those words to the few people I am close to, who have yelled at and insulted me.
They will just blame Clinton anyway.

Point 4.. and obvious, she needs to remain a candidate to pay off her debts. And why shouldn't she. As Dick Morris states again, in this process, if Obama falters, she is still there.

Of ocurse, Dick Morris always has to put multiple digs in towards the Clintons, even if he makes a valid point.


I had hoped today, on a day she has conceded that Obama has clinched the nomination and she is going to support him, that some of this anti-Clinton spewing would ease up a bit, at least for today, but I was wrong. I do not know if I will vote for Obama, McCain, Nader, myself, do a write in, or leave it blank. Not a clue, and the first time this has ever occured for me. As you faceless and anonoymous people blog, some thoughtful and open minded, others smug and insulting, I learn a little bit out of every post. No one on a blog will convince me to vote FOR and SUPPORT Obama, that will be up to Obama himself, his campaign, his tone, his supporters, and whether he will come out and level with the American people about the things that so many of us are concerned with. None of the Obama people in this blog have answered me when i ask about the effect of the preacher and the priest on the small subset of swing voters that make or break the electoral map. I just get excuses, accusations, and talking points. Hillary Clinton has achieved extrordinary accomplishments in her lifetime, I will respect her to the end of time for her ambition. I wish I had one tenth of it. Have a good day folks!!!!!

Audacity of Hype Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HRC suffered far worse abuse for being a woman
> than O ever did for being black.


At whose hand?

Upper,

at the hands of the O campaign. Eg, "periodically, when H gets down, she throws the kitchen sink at me." Why didn't O just say, "when she has a hot flash" or 'I know she is too old, but it's like she is still on the rag."

For those who do not know, Dick Morris is a former employee of Bill Clinton's. He was fired when it was discovered that he was engaged in sexual relations with a prostitute. Not only was he availing himself of traditional services, but was taking sexual favors from the prostitute in exchange for leaking vital strategy documents from the Democratic party.

He is a small-minded man who has chosen to devote the remainder of his life to bitterness and anger. Instead of recognize his own serious misconduct by looking in the mirror, he is obsessed with a desire to enact some sort of vengence through his writing.

He should not be taken seriously, except in the context of feeling pity for him, and perhaps viewing his public life as an example of the pitfalls of surrendering to one's anger and pride.

"Obama's people labelled most of West Virginia racists. Good luck going back there to win in November. "

Yes.. because lord knows when polls show that 22% of voters based on race, and with the Bradley effect consideration - racism, in fact, WAS the point of difference.

And... are you aware of any Dem candidates who were considering going to West Virginia for the general? Do you really believe they were going to take money from OH, PA, FL, MO, IA, CO, IN - in order to "go back there and win" in one of the most Republcian states in the union?

Oye.

"HRC suffered far worse abuse for being a woman than O ever did for being black."

Great point. 6% average said that gender was a negative factor in their vote. 11% average said that race was a negative factor.

Wait.. hold on. Forget those stats. Let's try something different. Um... Okay -

Hillary was supported by the majority of white and hispanic males! @#$%&... hold on. That didn't work either. Um....

Hillary, the female, was up by more than 50% in polls in November, over a black guy who... God damnit! I just can't seem to make this argument work.

Thanks Tricky Dick - The only thing she will have up her sleeve are your shriveled little pair of balls. You are a pathetic little man.

JWilson post 112 wrote:

Yes.. because lord knows when polls show that 22% of voters based on race, and with the Bradley effect consideration - racism, in fact, WAS the point of difference.
----------------------------------

Wilson, 24% of the black vote that voted for Obama in NC said race was a factor.

Don'tScaremewithRoe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am still voting for McCain.
>
> Roe vs. Wade scare is silly. Even if it is
> abolished, you still will be able to get an
> abortion at another state, since it will be left
> to the states. I actually think it may be better
> because we would stop discussing it, some state
> want it, some don't. I also don't think they will
> actually abolish is simply because men would have
> to be paying child support for kids they wouldn't
> want to have, so I am pretty sure men would not go
> for it. I am raging feminist in my early 30's
> PhD, East Coast latte liberal, but I think that 4
> years of McCain are worth another shot for Clinton
> in 2012. Otherwise we will never have woman as
> president in our lifetime. I rather have 4 years
> of McCain, then 8 years of Clinton, rather than, 4
> years of Obama, then 8 years of Romney and 8 years
> of Jeb Bush. Sorry....

** I couldn't agree more with this post. Roe V Wade will not 'scare' us into voting for Obama. I am a woman who had an abortion, and doing so has nearly ruined my life. I am a Democratic woman, I don't believe in abortion, and I don't believe in Obama.

Audacity of Hype Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HRC suffered far worse abuse for being a woman
> than O ever did for being black.


Perhaps, but she has never been at much risk of being shot for being a woman

hugh graham Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Audacity of Hype Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > HRC suffered far worse abuse for being a woman
> > than O ever did for being black.
>
>
> Perhaps, but she has never been at much risk of
> being shot for being a woman

There is also the historically rooted stigma in this country of a black man attacking a white woman and what happens to him if he does.

If the Democrats were gullible enough to fall for Karl Rove's divide and conquer strategies, then they are unfit to rule this country through having a majority of Congress, appointing justices and controlling the executive branch of government. Can you imagine the chaos? Democratic party leaders were complicit in this strategy for their own selfish reasons (money and votes - politics.) Obama is arrogant enough to buy his own hype. He participated in this sham of democracy for his own reasons, maybe he actually believes he can win. However, being a puppet of the Republicans does not make him an effective leader, and the presidency is not just some door prize for a political party.

OregonVoter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In November, if I vote for Barack Obama, it is not
> because I believe in his message, it will be because I have
> a thoery that when Barack Obama took the national stage at the
> DNC convention in 2004, that Karl Rove and company took notice
> and began a quest to divide and conquer the Democratic Party,
> influencing the 2004 Illinois senate race in having Alan
> Keyes, an arch conservative african-american from Maryland,
> running against Obama to ensure his victory and thus his ascension
> into the open arms of the Democratic establishment.
>
> They had to have known about his controversial
> connections in 06, and they
> know that they just need to infleunce a few
> thousand swing voters in
> just a few states to ensure a republican victory
> in Nov. IF they could help Obama
> win the nomination, they would rid themselves of
> the real threat another
> Clinton administration would be to them. And
> divide the democratic party.
>
> Even at this moment, the Hillary bashing, the
> Obama bashing continues.
> Democrats........ we need a miracle to win!!!!!

There's an easy explanation for Hillary Clinton's turnaround: The Bilderberg Group. That meeting that Clinton and Obama had at Feinstein's house was a farce; they really were meeting with The Bilderberg Group at the Marriott near the airport. Go to infowars.com for live video on this meeting.

I'm sure that James Johnson -- who is the "leader" of the VP Search Committee -- demanded that they attend a "come to Jesus" meeting -- where The Bilderberg Group demanded that the two put the squabbling aside and get down to business. Of course, most of this was aimed at Hillary Clinton since Obama has been following the script exactly. Does anyone really think that a bunch of representatives and Senators could force Clinton's hand? No, it took the power of the Bilderberg Group to put Hillary Clinton in her place. They probably told her that if she didn't start acting right, there wouldn't be any chance at at VP slot. Clinton's no fool -- she knows her best chance of becoming President is if she's the VP and Obama is assassinated. And there's ample evidence that Obama will be assassinated -- there are even Bible Codes predicting the assassination, but you don't need Bible Codes to know that Obama is making way too many changes for the old guard in Washington, especially those within the military industrial complex.

And the Bilderberg Group isn't a bunch of fools, either. They could see that Hillary Clinton was creating a perfect storm that was going to give the election to McCain -- and the Bilderberg Group knows that the US must have a Democratic President elected in 2008. They probably didn't care whether it was Clinton or Obama, but once it became evident that it was going to be Obama, then they moved swiftly to put Hillary Clinton in her place. Who knows what pressure they laid to bear: maybe threatening her political future, maybe threatening to release incriminating information about Bill Clinton's business dealings, probably both.

You see, the Bilderberg Group knows that the American body politic is a tender box right now. Americans' desire for change (so underestimated by the Clintons and the entire Democratic Party establishment) was made clear by the Obama campaign. And the Bilderberg Group understands that in order to prevent MASSIVE and REAL change in America, there have to be "orchestrated" changes in Washington -- kind of like a steam vent. And this means that McCain can't be elected because at least half of the American electorate would see this as a third Bush term and, as the economy continues to sink, would create an incredibly dangerous situation in America in terms of Americans' desire for change that could lead to a return to the civil unrest of the 1960's. And, in fact, if Obama is assassinated early in his administration, there may be such unrest -- but at least it can be explained. What can't be explained is the civil unrest of half of the country under a McCain administration. I think that's why McCain was allowed (and yes, I mean "allowed") to be Republican nominee: (a) it didn't matter who was the nominee, this election has to be won by a Democrat and (b) McCain doesn't plain by the rules, so setting him up for a real fall in the November election would diminish him and silence him forever.

So, you see, it was the Bilderberg Group that met with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and it was the Bilderberg Group that pulled rank on Clinton and got her to be so conciliatory today. Her desire for "unity" had nothing to do with it. That much was clear from her body language and her tone of voice, where she smiled and was emphatic when speaking of her own campaign and her own supporters, and where she was grim and not-quite-as-enthusiastic-as-she-could-be when she was talking about Obama.

You gotta be shitting me. Race-baiting is Obama politics 101. It is a sad day for America, if he gets elected.

RJII Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hope this puts and end to all the race/gender,
> blue vs. white collar, etc. divisiveness.
>
> I pray Obama goes with his own choice for VP. I
> want to give him a real chance at changing the
> evil empire. He's going to need someone he trust
> and can blindly depend on. No Billary VPs.
>
> The focus now should be on Obama vs McSame.
> Either you're with us Dems or you ain't. It's
> your decision-- and I respect that. Now let's
> kick butt.

Posted by: Not So Fast
Comment: #128

"the American body politic is a tender box right now."

You probably meant they're a "tinder box," but I think the American electorate are a bunch of @#$%&.

Somebody needs to expose Dick Morris for the "dick" he is.

Everybody should know that his rabid hatred of the Clintons had it's genesis when Dick was fired because he let the prostitute he was with listen in on a conversation he was having with then President Bill Clinton.

Come on!! What could Bill do but fire him.

What was remarkable was that the Clintons didn't broadcast his atrocious behavior but kept his secret.

Then when Dick Morris started smearing Bill and Hillary, even Jim Lehrer asked President Clinton why he didn't let the press know why Morris was so angry and virulent.

Why Fox news and any other news outlet should want to hear from him has always been a puzzle to me.

Certainly, what he says is based on his anger and resentment and NOTHING else.

I remember him predicting Hillary's loss, in no uncertain terms, in her bid for the Senate. He is a joke and we should ignore the comments of this twisted, angry loser.

Dick I hear your door bell ringing Oh I see it is the paramedics coming to take you back to the psycho ward. They say this is the third time you have escaped from there.

Many Hillary supporters will rally to Obama. Some will not. Both candidates had strengths & weaknesses. Obama has a light resume, with few really major legislative accomplishments. He has worked across the aisle at times, but in general has a very liberal voting record. He voted present in the Illinois General Assembly over 100 times. Republicans will highlight this. (I voted for Obama, btw, over the carpetbagger Alan Keyes, for Senator)

He has never held executive office. He came out of the Chicago & Cook County political world. He knocked a long time activist off the ballot by questioning her nominating petition signatures in his first race. He backed a handpicked Cook County Board President candidate (saying he thought Todd Stroger would be a reformer) & Stroger has raised sales taxes & decreased the service points for the health care system in Cook County, besides hiring friends, the connected & relatives. He has had ties to Tony Rezko - just indicted, Ayers, Rev. Wright, Father Pfleger & others for 20 years. Despite Obama's efforts of 20 years, South Chicago is no garden of Eden. Change is incremental and I fear expectations are far too high. I just wish he would acknowledge his past errors. I fear more controversial comments form Michelle Obama coming to light. I fear a lot of Obama supporters will be sorely disappointed by more scandals. I question if all his young supporters will turn out in November.

I will still consider Obama strongly in November, on policy issues & fear of more conservative federal court appointments by McCain, who is fairly conservative. But Obama's nomination troubles me a lot.

To all Obama supporter
I am waiting to see Obama's contribution records and attendance records at Rev. Wright's church in the 20 years when Mr. Wright was his mentor. A wonderful speech by a great lady. She would have made a terrific President , if one had given her the opportunity. As of today I have left the Democratic Party and gone Independent. There was nothing democratic about this election process and I am utterly disgusted the way the DNC and leadership treated Clinton. Obama is an empty suit and with his thin resume and his rather questionable association with a radical church , plus the disgusting people he calls his friends and mentors , he should never be considered for the presidency. He severed his ties with them for political expedience and that makes him a real gutless weasel.
A wonderful speech by a great lady. She would have made a terrific President , if one had given her the opportunity. As of today I have left the Democratic Party and gone Independent. There was nothing democratic about this election process and I am utterly disgusted the way the DNC and leadership treated Clinton. Obama is an empty suit and with his thin resume and his rather questionable association with a radical church , plus the disgusting people he calls his friends and mentors , he should never be considered for the presidency. He severed his ties with them for political expedience and that makes him a real gutless weasel.

#93, your list pales in comparison with just one item - Rev. Wright. Good luck! Hillary was nice. The Republicans won't be.

You have to laugh at the way the liberals and MSM ate this speech up as genuine.Pure 100% posturing which the Clintons are known for. They'll take Obama's money to retire the debt then work to undermine him behind his back. It's amazing that so many Dems see no evil when it comes to the Clintons. They are devious people.

Dick Morris is a vile piece of trash.

Is it just me or are Obama supporters always angry and vicious? All I get from this story is that Clinton is a @#$%& good POLITICIAN. Nothing more, nothing less. Good politicians keep their options open. To expect Clinton to concede when it was so close is, for lack of a better word, naive. Obamas supporters remind me of school kids. Win,lose or draw one thing is certain every time.. they are poor winners, poor losers and very naively they just don't believe in a draw.

Order Of The Obama Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ding dong, the Wicked Witch of the West Wing is
> dead. Barack has liquidated her.
>
> But as I have predicted for weeks, Hillary has
> only "suspended" her campaign so her delegates are
> not released and she can still get the nomination
> if some "mishap" befalls Obama like an "accident"
> or a "sudden illness." Watch your back, Obama.
>
> Dick makes an error when he says she'd be content
> to be Obaam's VP for two full terms and then run
> herself in 2016. She'd be 68 years old then and
> plastic surgery could not make her viable -- look
> how hard it is for a man that old to win.
>
> So if she became VP, Hillary would have to count
> on Barack's dying in office like 7 previous
> Presidents. Michelle knows what that means for
> her husband's life expectancy and she will never
> let Barack put the malevolent, pantsuited liar on
> the ticket.

In politics it is like a football game in that it is not over under the final whistle. That final whistle comes at the end of the convention when the Head of the DNC states this is our candidate for becoming President. Hillary knows this full well. As I have read all the international papers it appears that the entire world wants Obama to be the next President regardless of what Americans want. However, to the other side of that equation is that the Western world governments are extremely cautious about having Obama as the next President. Remember that Kennedy gave us the Berlin Wall in Germany, the Cuban nuclear missile crisis and then Vietnam. President Clinton then gave us terrorism full scale and refused to stand up to it. The Democrat Party has been trying for ages to get an elite elected as President as it fits their notions of a rosey peaceful world. They will never learn that evil does exist on this planet and it has to be stood up too or else.
Obama has already stated many things in his speaches which I fear the people did not take to heart about his change - get use to doing with less, no SUV's as we have to worry about the world not just Americans. Taxes have to be raised for the larger government, more government control over everything. Capitalism does not equate with the Marxist and Socialism world and American must accept these changes. In his speach to the graduating class when he filled in for Kennedy he makeit clear that capitalism does not work as the graduates should be looking to serve the government and help poorer countries. Clinton knows also that things can happen overnight in politics and she is smart to suspend her campaign. Who knows what dirt will wash out to hit the press in the next couple of months. The DNC has already put a noose around Michelle Obama where she can only use prewritten speaches and take no questions. They are afraid that her racist views will be out in the open.

Hillary should not completely concede because she's being PUSHED out by a bunch of top Dem men. That's b.s....and she, and her supporters know it! Her speech was not the real Hillary! [www.hellnobama.com]

Molly Pitcher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trust me, Sharpton. There will be no federal ban
> on abortion. Murder is (for lack of a better
> word) regulated by the states. The most that
> Congress could do (and very unlikely at that)
> would be to deny federal funds to agencies
> performing them.

There has never been a federal law PERMITTING abortion, either. It was a decision made by the SCOTUS. That was a mistake. It should be up to the states.

Sharpton Keepin it Real Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sylvia Jackson wrote:
>
> "Obama behaved badly in this campaign, he
> disrespected Hillary"
>
> Save it Sylvia Jackson, we know you are a
> Republican troll trying to spread discord, no one
> believes that Barack mistreated Hillary during the
> campaign, if anything he treated her with kid
> gloves, knowing that as a relatively young Black
> man or a man period - he could not be seen
> mistreating the elderly ex-first lady - so save
> that crap.

One more flat out LIE from an Obama supporter. You can argue that he didn't treat her unfairly - though you would be wrong it is a judgement call - but you can not claim any credibility whatsoever when you choose to assert that "no one believes that barack mistreated Hillary". Millions of us do. Millions of us former Democrats do.

And calling anyone who disagrees with you a 'troll' is just one more example of the ugliness coming from Obama supporters. That you guys claim to like his message of hope and unity while calling anyone who disagrees with you any name you can think of is scary - it's certain proof to me that you guys aren't about unity or hope at all.

First, she won by more than 22 pts, so even if there was a poll citing 22% of people voting against him because he was black, that still wouldn't have made up the difference.

Second, there was no poll that said that 22% of the voters voted based on race.

Third, of the ones who said race was a factor, a significant chunk, both white and black voted FOR Obama. Race is a factor for me - it gives Obama bonus points in my book because like MOST American's I would love to see our first Black President, (even if I think Obama is not qualified to be that man).

Fourth, in every single primary exit poll, MORE democrats said the nation was ready for a Black President than a female President. Of course there are some idiots who won't vote for a black man but there are MORE that won't vote for a woman. Every single poll said the same thing. So whatever discrimination there was against Obama, it was probably outweighed by discrimination against her.

Sorry the black population wasn't large enough to cary the state for him with their understandable but mindless passion for him, (to be clear I do not assert that black people are mindless in general, just that thier passion for Obama is rooted in their pride at seeing a black man who can win for the first time, not any of his policies, experience or actual message), but don't blame racism for his defeats.


poppycock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JWilson post 112 wrote:
>
> Yes.. because lord knows when polls show that 22%
> of voters based on race, and with the Bradley
> effect consideration - racism, in fact, WAS the
> point of difference.
> ----------------------------------
>
> Wilson, 24% of the black vote that voted for
> Obama in NC said race was a factor.

Sue Mieh Wrote:

Doing so will help you to realize that we are all one
> people in this world, connected by humanity and
> the basic needs for love and survival.
>
> In the words of Bob Marley:
>
> "One love, one heart
> Let's get together and feel all right
> Hear the children crying (One love)
> Hear the children crying (One heart)
> Sayin', "Give thanks and praise to the Lord and I
> will feel all right."
> Sayin', "Let's get together and feel all right."
_________________________________

Sue Mieh, why don't you run on over to Trinity Church in Chicago, take to the pulpit, and sing this Marley song loud & clear to the hate-filled, white-hating congregants there?

To you and all Obama-bots, all I can say is:

"Let there be peace on earth,
and let it begin with me..."

EVERYBODY: please, stop bashing Hillary. You are all only hardening the resolve of her supporters to NOT support Obama!

Most of the stuff detractors have said about the Clintons have originated with the right-wing Republican smear machine, which plagued the Clintons all during their administration. Read Hillary's book: "Living History." All of the awful things of which they've been accused are just plain LIES. There is NO TRUTH to any of this stuff. They have never been convicted of ANYTHING. Report after report came out saying there was no wrong doing, after nearly $10 million spent by Ken Starr & others to drag them through the mud. It is just plain immoral to falsely accuse people of things. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Words to live by...

And, Dick Morris, why don't you fold up your slime machine & go back under that ugly, black rock you live under?

What makes you think that Hillary will be a viable candidate in 2012? We already know about her from her husband's presidency, and what we see we really don't like. I think that by 2012 or 2016, Hillary will be less popular than she is now. Maybe the best thing the Clintons can do is to go back to being public servants and not try to make a comeback.

caryn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To those of you that feel Hillary was disrespected
> by the Obama campaign, look at the list of issues
> he could have brought up and didn't. The GOP
> would have loved running against her.
> 1. Juanita Broderick
> 2. Hugh Rodham
> 3. Impeachment
> 4. Sandy Berger
> 5. 30% decline in governorships while Clinton was
> in office
> 6. Lost control in Congress during the Clinton
> years
> 7. Frank Guistra
> 8. Rose Law Firm
> 9. Somalia
> 10. Webb Hubbell
> 11. Doug Coe
> 12. Bill Clintons foreign business dealings
> 13. Tyson chicken
> 14. Norman Hsu
> 15. Peter Paul
> 16. Whitewater
> 17. Mark Rich
> 18. Vince Foster
> 19. The millons of dollars in speaking fees Bill
> Clinton earned from Saudi Arabia
> 20. Donors to the Clinton Foundation
> 21. Donors to the Clinton Library
> 22. Monica Lewinsky
> 23. Gennifer Flowers
> 24. Kathleen Willey
> 25. Susan Coleman
> 26. Voting for the Iraq War!!!!
>
> Hillary and in general the Clintons could have
> been dragged in the mud. Obama did not touch any
> of these isssues. Had the shoe been on the other
> foot, you know Hillary and Bill would have been
> attacking Obama 24/7.
>
> Obama played by the rules. Hillary signed the
> DNC's agreement concerning Michigan and Florida
> and insisted on changing the rules when it was
> obvious she needed their support to have a chance.
>
>
> The Obama campaign has taken anything and
> everything that both the Clintons and the GOP have
> thrown at him and held his own fairly well. The
> Obama campaign has treated the Clintons with kid
> gloves. OBAMA '08


the problem with your list is 74 % are just plain lies. The rest everyone knows about. If obummer tried to say anything, he would come across too bitter.

azgregg