Hey, Hullo...anybody notice the calender today?

Today, I posted a live link to a live Survey Usa electoral map calculator that I saw that had Obama losing to McCain by 500 electoral votes.

Even though I know the actual numbers, I still did go "oh my" inside when I saw it.

Obviously, those numbers were wrong (as are 98.2 percent of poll numbers imho) and at a glance you could see they were from before the campaign even began. But since the electoral map was still live...and it being April 1, I thought it looked like fun for a prank, hoax and learning lesson all in one.

So I posted the numbers and the link to the SUSA electoral map with no commentary about it whatsoever.

(But I did go on with my friendly pitch for a Unity ticket)

I came back after a spell to see the response to my April fools hoax bit and to fess up and admit to it... and so I wrote that yes, they were old, old  numbers - but because they still made one wonder - if only for a second - that this  was my entire point!!!

My goodness...then the diary was deleted for having "old poll numbers".

REALLY!?

I thought maybe the 60 different candidate head to head match ups at the electoral map I sent people to might have been a clue...huh, ya think, maybe? (for the math challenged, there now are only 2) So no, there is no longer a chance to make the big dough betting on Intrade on how Barbra  Boxer will do competing against Condoleeza Rice this fall for the White House.

But ....the point of the jest was that in the back of our minds...those kind of electoral landslide numbers, 510 to 28.....sound...eh...plausible...

Folks, i's quite simple....

We cant win with a nominee who won't be sure to WIN 2 out of these 3...OH,PA and FL. It Cant be done...

We cant win with a nominee who has NO chance to win in WV, KY, TN, AR...

We cant win with a nominee who may lose NJ. NEW JERSEY!!

The idea that bragging about OR, or high hopes for AK....and maybe, maybe, maybe that VA may go blue ....AINT GONNA DO IT.
-
People are FOOLing themselves...especially the type who seemingly cant even get THE joke on April 1.

If THE MEDIA along with red state open voting primaries and caucuses and these kind of math/irony challenged people do get their way, and make him the nominee, the joke will be on all of us and that won't be one bit funny.

IN SUNDAY'S PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER.

THIS WILL BE HUGELY READ IN THE SUBURBS AND THE ENTIRE EASTERN PART OF PA.

Obama was the first to play the race card

Sean Wilentz

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/2 0080330_Obama_was_the_first_to_play_the_ race_card.html

Wilentz is the Sidney and Ruth Lapidus professor of history at Princeton University

Quietly, the storm over the hateful views expressed by Sen. Barack Obama's pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, has blown away the most insidious myth of the Democratic primary campaign. Obama and his surrogates have charged that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has deliberately and cleverly played the race card in order to label Obama the "black" candidate.

Having injected racial posturing into the contest, Obama's "post-racial" campaign finally seems to be all about race and sensational charges about white racism. But the mean-spirited strategy started even before the primaries began, when Obama's operatives began playing the race card - and blamed Hillary Clinton.

Had she truly conspired to inflame racial animosities in January and February, her campaign would have brought up the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his incendiary sermons. But the Clinton campaign did not. And when the Wright stories and videos finally did break through in the mass media, they came not from Clinton's supporters but from Fox News Network.

Although Wright had until recently been obscure to the American public, political insiders and reporters have long known about him. On March 6, 2007, the New York Times reported that Obama had disinvited Wright from speaking at his announcement because, as Wright said Obama told him, "You can get kind of rough in the sermons." By then, conservative commentators had widely denounced Wright. His performances in the pulpit were easily accessible on DVD, direct from his church. But Clinton, despite her travails, elected to remain silent.

Instead, she had to fight back against a deliberately contrived strategy to make her and her husband look like race-baiters. Obama's supporters and operatives, including his chief campaign strategist David Axelrod, seized on accurate and historically noncontroversial statements and supplied a supposedly covert racist subtext that they then claimed the calculating Clinton campaign had inserted.

In December, Bill Shaheen, a Clinton campaign co-chair in New Hampshire, wondered aloud whether Obama's admitted youthful abuse of cocaine might hurt him in the general election. Obama's strategists insisted that Shaheen's mere mention of cocaine was suggestive and inappropriate - even though the scourge of cocaine abuse has long cut across both racial and class lines. Pro-Obama press commentators, including New York Times columnist Frank Rich, then whipped the story into a full racial subtext, charging that the Clintons had, in Rich's words, "ghettoized" Obama "into a cocaine user."

The Obama campaign and its supporters pressed this strategy after Clinton's unexpected win in New Hampshire. Pundits partial to Obama, including Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post and John Nichols of the Nation, instantly mused that their candidate lost because of supposedly bigoted New Hampshire whites who had lied to pre-primary pollsters - an easily disproven falsehood that nevertheless gained currency in the media.

Next morning, Obama's national co-chair, Jesse Jackson Jr., cast false and vicious aspersions about Hillary Clinton's famous emotional moment in New Hampshire as a measure of her deep racial insensitivity. "Her appearance brought her to tears," said Jackson, "not Hurricane Katrina."

Obama's backers, including members of his official campaign staff, then played what might be called "the race-baiter card." Hillary Clinton, in crediting both Lyndon Johnson as well as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. for the Civil Rights Act in 1964, had supposedly denigrated King, and by extension Obama. Allegedly, Bill Clinton had dismissed Obama's victory in South Carolina by comparing it to those of the Rev. Jesse Jackson in the 1980s. (In fact, their electoral totals were comparable - and in the interview at issue, Clinton complimented Obama on his performance "everywhere" - a line the media usually omitted.)

Thereafter, Obama's high command billowed further race-baiter allegations into the media. Pointing to the notoriously right-wing Drudge Report, Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe accused the Clinton campaign of deliberately leaking a supposedly racist photograph of Obama in African garb, which actually originated on still another right-wing Web site. Finally, David Axelrod trumpeted Geraldine Ferraro's awkward remarks in an obscure California newspaper as part of the Clinton campaign's "insidious pattern" of divisiveness.

One pro-Obama television pundit, Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, fulminated that the Clinton campaign had descended into the vocabulary of David Duke, former grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan.

(In his Philadelphia speech on race, Obama pressed the attack by three times likening Ferraro to Rev. Wright.)

Since the Philadelphia speech, the candidate and his surrogates have sounded tone-deaf on the subject of race. On March 20, Obama described his Kansas grandmother to a Philadelphia radio interviewer as "a typical white person." The same day, Sen. John Kerry said that Obama would help U.S. relations with Muslim nations "because he's a black man." Another Obama supporter, Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, called him the first black leader "to come to the American people not as a victim but as a leader." Her history excluded and conceivably denigrated countless black leaders, from Frederick Douglass to Rep. John Lewis. Obama remained silent, refusing to take Kerry and McCaskill to task for their racially charged remarks.

Neither candidate can win sufficient elected delegates in the remaining primaries to secure the nomination, and so the battle has moved to winning over the superdelegates. Obama's bogus "race-baiter" strategy is one of the main reasons he has come this far, and it is affecting the process now. But by deliberately inflaming the most destructive passions in American politics, the strategy has badly divided and confused Democrats, at least for the moment. And having done so, it may well doom the Democrats in the general election.

As a long time Clintonista who knows the Senator and her family and their never quit spirit from close up, I've been telling everyone here that Jerome caught the big news in Hillary's interview with Greta Van Sustern the other day when just about EVERYBODY else in the world completely missed it.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/27/1949 47/250

The lifeline strategy by Jerome Armstrong,

Clinton sounds ready to throw down over MI and FL, all the way to the convention. The thing is, she may have an opening to go there.

Consider this, with the FL and MI delegates counted... Including MI & FL, Clinton is only behind in pledged-delegates by 46-56 delegates, which could be halved in Pennsylvania alone. It also should be noted that there are, in addition, 55 uncommitted delegates from MI, and 31 delegates still aligned with Edwards.

However, he(obama) may have left an opening to Clinton by not fully cooperating with Clinton and the DNC to find a way to let MI and FL re-vote. They don't want to chance Clinton winning two more big states, but by not going along with it, they give Clinton a lifeline via her ability to count those states as they stand, and possibly, if Clinton manages to pick up enough pledged delegates, counting the FL and MI results from January, to claim she has the lead in pledged delegates.

(I later did a google news search and read all the coverage of the interview.  Only Jerome really understood Hillary's meaning and the interviews import.  Now, its page  A1 news in the Washington Post.  Good eye Jerome!)

Hillary is going on to Denver. No Ifs or Maybes.  And since Obama shut down the MI and FL re-votes, she's going to demand they be seated as voted.

Scream and yell and say how you just KNOW what the rules committee will NEVER EVER DO....It doesn't matter what you, or the Obama campaign, or the media says or how the pundits cry on MSNBC....this fight will take place in DENVER!

And let the best WOMAN win!

Carville considers loyalty a lost virtue.

"Nowhere in the entire world is disloyalty more rewarded and rewarded well than in Washington."

According to Polonius, the highest loyalty is to oneself, but it helps to remember that Polonius was an idiot.

It's been said that if you want a friend in Washington, you should buy a dog. Unfortunately, there's some truth to that: there are few places in the world where the turncoats and careerists are so highly rewarded and where loyalty is equated with stupidity. Luckily, another bit of wisdom about the Beltway is also true: the people in Washington aren't like the ones in the rest of the country. The American people treasure loyalty. They stick by a friend when he needs them. They forgive him when he's wrong. They understand the difference between politics and friendship. They are true to their ideals and their schools, loyal to their families.

Some may even share EM Forster's preference:

If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country.

I have always suspected that a bank with "Fidelity" in its title was going to lose my money. The mere assertion of loyalty is often enough to signal betrayal. One of the weaknesses of loyalty is that unlike friendship, it requires some outward demonstration or declaration, and so invites insincerity. It is also, by implication, unconditional, and suggests that though you do not agree with the person or institution to which you are expected to stick, you will do so anyway. In certain types of people, this practically guarantees treason.

Disloyalty That Merits An Insult

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/03/28/AR2008032802826. html

Last Friday the New York Times asked me to comment on New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama for president. For 15 years, Richardson served with no small measure of distinction as the representative of New Mexico's 3rd Congressional District. But he gained national stature -- and his career took off -- when President Bill Clinton appointed him U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and later made him energy secretary.

So, when asked on Good Friday about Richardson's rejection of the Clintons, the metaphor was too good to pass by. I compared Richardson to Judas Iscariot. (And Matthew Dowd is right: Had it been the Fourth of July, I probably would have called him Benedict Arnold.)

I believed that Richardson's appointments in Bill Clinton's administration and his longtime personal relationship with both Clintons, combined with his numerous assurances to the Clintons and their supporters that he would never endorse any of Sen. Hillary Clinton's opponents, merited a strong response.

I was fully aware of what kind of response calling someone a Judas would evoke.

Certainly, it didn't take long for the resign-renounce-denounce complex to kick into high gear.

In a bit of bloviation that brought joy to my heart, Bill O'Reilly pronounced himself "appalled."

Keith Olbermann, about two degrees shy of the temperature necessary for self-combustion, quipped, "So if he's Judas in this analogy, who's Jesus?"

Even Diane Sawyer took the analogy to the extreme, questioning, "Are you saying that he made a deal of some kind when you talk about 30 shekels?"

Others opined that my remark was "tactless" and "ugly."

Heck, I give myself some credit for managing to get the Clinton and Obama campaigns to agree on something -- that neither wanted to be associated with my remarks.

I know enough to know that comparing a former Cabinet secretary and sitting governor to Judas is inflammatory and provocative. I expected the coverage that it evoked.
Was it a desperate gambit for attention? Was I just trying to prove my point that both Samantha Power's resignation from the Obama campaign for calling Sen. Clinton a monster and the Obama campaign hysterically promoting Geraldine Ferraro's misguided statements were equally silly and superficial?

Not really. I was saying what I felt as an individual who -- with no encouragement from the Clintons but as someone who is proud to consider himself a friend of theirs -- thought that Richardson had done something deeply disloyal.

Earlier this month I decried the political environment in which, by whining about every little barb, candidates seem to be trying to win the election through a war of staff-resignation attrition. Politics is a messy business, but campaigning prepares you for governing. It prepares you to get hit, stand strong and, if necessary, hit back. I've worked on enough campaigns to know that the most aggrieved candidate rarely emerges victorious. And for all of the hypersensitivity we're seeing this cycle, this campaign has not been particularly negative or nasty compared with previous elections.

Fully aware of this supercharged environment in which the slightest slight is elevated to the most egregious insult, I waded in -- okay, dove in -- by demonstrating what constitutes a real insult.

I believe that loyalty is a cardinal virtue. Nowhere in the world is loyalty so little revered and tittle-tattle so greatly venerated as in Washington. I was a little-known political consultant until Bill Clinton made me. When he came upon hard times, I felt it my duty -- whatever my personal misgivings -- to stick by him. At the very least, I would have stayed silent. And maybe that's my problem with what Bill Richardson did. Silence on his part would have spoken loudly enough.

Most of the stuff I've ever said is pretty insignificant and by in large has been said off the cuff and without much thought to the potential consequences. That was not the case in this instance. Bill Richardson's response was that the Clinton people felt they were entitled to the presidency. In my mind, that is a debatable hypothesis. But, even more than that, I know that a former president of the United States who appointed someone to two Senate-confirmed positions is entitled to have his phone calls returned.

If Richardson was going to turn on the Clintons the way he did, I see no problem in saying what I said. Because if loyalty is one virtue, another is straight talk. And if Democrats can't handle that, they're going to have a hard time handling a Republican nominee who is seeking the presidency with that as his slogan.

John Adams said that facts are stubborn things...

Picking on the energy industry is a standard part of Obama's stump speech, where he harshly criticizes the 2005 energy bill and the Vice President Dick Cheney's efforts in passing it.

"Exxon Mobil reported more than $10 billion in quarterly profits," Obama told a town hall in Greenburg, Pa. today. And then referring to Cheney, he added, "He met with the oil and gas companies 40 times. So is it any wonder than that the energy laws that were written were good for Exxon-Mobil but they are not good for you?"

The Problem...in 2005, Sen. Obama voted for the very same Dick Cheney energy bill, written in secret with the oil industry.

DOH!!!

------

Factheck via the pittsburghchannel.com:

"It is true that President George W. Bush and Cheney supported the bill. It's also true that Clinton opposed it and Obama voted for it.

When grateful oil company CEOs start twisting the arms of their employees to bundle campaign contributions for Obama you can bet the farm that the CEOs will be knocking on Obama's door for more political favors if he is elected..

A new memo out from the Clinton campaign:

False Advertising: New Obama Ad Falsely Claims He Does Not Accept Money From Oil Companies
Phil Singer: "It's unfortunate that Senator Obama is using false advertising to explain why he can be trusted to do something about energy prices. Senator Obama says he doesn't take campaign contributions from oil companies but the reality is that Exxon, Shell, and others are among his donors. I wonder if they'll fix the ad."

A new ad by Sen. Obama running in Pennsylvania falsely claims that Sen. Obama does not accept money from the oil industry. In the ad, Sen. Obama says "I'm Barack Obama and I don't take money from oil companies or lobbyists and I won't let them block change anymore."

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Sen. Obama has received over $160,000 from the oil and gas companies. Two major bundlers for his campaign -- George Kaiser and Robert Cavnar - are oil company CEOs. Sen. Obama has accepted money from Exxon, Shell, BP, Chevron and just about every other major oil company. Just last month, Sen. Obama accepted another $8,400 from ExxonMobil, $12,370 from Chevron and $6,500 from British Petroleum.

In 2005, Sen. Obama voted for the Dick Cheney energy bill, which was written in secret with the oil industry. Hillary Clinton opposed Cheney's energy bill, has a plan to eliminate oil industry tax breaks, and would require oil companies to contribute to a $50 billion strategic energy fund to jumpstart research and investment in clean energy technologies.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/03/casey_snubs_cli.html

PITTSBURGH -- Senator Bob Casey,  bypassed Clinton to endorse Barack Obama today, the latest swipe between two warring dynasties whose battles have defined the Democratic party's search for a modern identity.

"This is about all of us, of all ages, across this state and across America," Casey said at a rally at an auditorium here, where he attributed his endorsement to the enthusiasm Obama's candidacy has generated among Casey's four daughters.

Casey's endorsement not only assuaged his children but avenged slights against his father -- a popular two-term governor Pennsylvania -- at the hands of Bill Clinton, with whom he feuded throughout the 1990s as the two emerged as figureheads for competing wings of a party in transition.

The father, also Bob Casey, a pro-life Catholic elected in 1986, rallied the blue-collar white ethnic voters -- socially conservative, New Deal economic liberals -- who became known as "Casey Democrats" to back him when he pursued new limits on abortion.

In 1992, as Clinton was coasting to the party's nomination, Casey encouraged his party to dump the Arkansas governor and use the convention to pick a new nominee, citing "the character issue" around Clinton and his "tiny, fly speck of support." Casey, who had enacted a tough state-level anti-abortion laws then under review by the U.S. Supreme Court, suggested that Clinton could have trouble winning the presidency due to his pro-choice views.

When Pennsylvania held its primary days later, Clinton lost only two counties in the state: Casey's home of Lackawanna and neighboring Luzerne, both carried by former California governor Jerry Brown, who barely campaigned in the state.

Their fight continued through the party's nominating convention that year, when Clinton kept Casey from addressing the party about abortion and banished the governor's contingent to the rafters of Madison Square Garden.

After leaving office in 1995, Casey set out immediately to run in the following year's Democratic primaries as a challenger to Clinton, who Casey wrote in his memoir had failed to "identify with the basic values and economic interests of ordinary Americans." Casey launched an exploratory committee for a campaign designed largely to legitimize a pro-life agenda within the party, but abandoned the challenge after being rediagnosed with a genetic condition that had forced him to earlier undergo a heart-liver transplant.

.

Robert P. Casey from Wikipedia

Casey first sought the office of Governor of Pennsylvania in 1966, losing the Democratic Party primary. He tried on two other occasions without success, in 1970 and again in 1978.

Dubbed "the three-time loss from Holy Cross" by detractors, Casey hired James Carville and Paul Begala to his campaign staff, two then-generally unknown political strategists.

Unlike his three previous tries, Casey won the Democratic primary, defeating Philadelphia district attorney (and future governor) Ed Rendell.

In 1989 Casey pushed through the legislature the "Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act," which placed limitations on abortion, including the notification of parents of minors, a twenty-four-hour waiting period, and a ban on partial-birth procedures except in cases of risk to the mother's life.

Because he considered abortion a key social issue for the 1992 presidential election, Casey sought a speaking slot to give a minority plank on the topic at the 1992 Democratic National Convention. He was not given a speaking spot and in a series of news conferences he said the party was censoring his pro-life views since he agreed with the party on nearly all other issues. Convention organizers said that Casey was not denied a spot because of his views on abortion, but because they wanted speakers to have endorsed Bill Clinton ahead of time, which Casey had not done. After the convention, Casey went on vacation rather than campaign for Clinton in Pennsylvania, which was a key swing state.

Casey and Wofford came into conflict during the early Clinton administration, when Wofford refused a personal plea by Casey to support an amendment similar to a provision in Casey's Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act. Casey made it very clear that if Wofford opposed the amendment, the Governor would withhold his support in Wofford's next Senate election. Wofford supported the amendment, and was defeated in the 1994 election by upstart conservative Congressman Rick Santorum.

In 2002, Bob Casey, Jr., followed in his father's footsteps and sought the Governor's office, but was soundly defeated in the Democratic primary by Ed Rendell.

In 2008, Rendell supports Hillary and Casey Jr. continues his Dad's bitter war on the Clintons.

---

In 1996, Bob Casey Sr told conservatve reporter Nat Hentoff that he believed he should have been made the keynote speaker as the 92 Dem convention and expected the offer.

But according to those who actually doled out the 1992 convention speaking slots, Bob Casey Sr (aka Zell Miller Jr.) was denied a turn for one simple reason: his refusal to endorse the Clinton-Gore ticket. "It's just not factual!" said James Carville, over Casey's claims. "You'd have to be idiotic to give a speaking role to a person who hadn't even endorsed you."

The man best able to explain the decision was the late Ron Brown. He addressed the topic during a roundtable discussion of Clinton campaign veterans (published as Campaign for President: The Managers Look at '92). He explained:

We decided the convention would be totally geared towards the general election campaign, towards promoting our nominee and that everybody who had the microphone would have endorsed our nominee. That was a rule, everybody understood it, from Jesse Jackson to Jerry Brown.... The press reported incorrectly that Casey was denied access to the microphone because he was not pro-choice. He was denied access to the microphone because he had not endorsed Bill Clinton. I believe that Governor Casey knew that. I had made it clear to everybody. And yet it still got played as if it had to do with some ideological split. It had nothing to do with that.

Furthermore, a slew of pro-life Democrats, including Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley Jr., Senators John Breaux and Howell Heflin, and five governors, did address the delegates in 1992. Though the speakers didn't dwell on abortion, party officials say they weren't barred from mentioning the issue.

Casey, for his part, offered little evidence for his version beyond his unswayable conviction that the party was out to get him. "I'm sure they were chagrined that I didn't endorse the ticket," he says. "But the overriding reason was that I was going to go up there and make the pro-life case." As he tells it, on July 2, 1992, he wrote to Ron Brown, then the party chairman, and on July 13 to Ann Richards, the chairwoman of the delegation, asking to give a pro-life speech at the convention. He never heard from either one.

Casey also sought to speak against the platform when it was presented for a vote. This wouldn't have entailed a prime-time speech. But in response all he received was a copy of a letter sent by the convention's general counsel to its parliamentarian, explaining that, according to platform committee rules, his request was "out of order." Casey found the perfunctory dismissal demeaning. He called it "the kind of letter they might have sent Lyndon LaRouche."

Now Casey Jr, is getting payback for his Pa.

In Time, Mark Halperin provides a list of “Painful Things Hillary Clinton Knows—Or Should Know.”

No. 7:“The Rev. Wright story notwithstanding, the media still wants Obama to be the nominee—and that has an impact every day.”

We’ve come full circle. From destroying Gore in 2000, then demanding that he withdraw during the Florida recount, so confident have the Beltway media courtiers grown in their social and political status that what once was furiously denied is now boasted about. Politicians may come and go, but Chris Matthews, Howard Fineman, Tim Russert and Maureen Dowd preside over a permanent House of Lords. Remember, its the same media who attack Hillary now, attacked Gore in the same way then. The same media who now say Hillry must get out of this race for "the good of the Party", said in 2000 that Gore must quit and give he White House to Bush "for the good of the Nation".

And some foolish Democrats are listening to these fools. Why?

HAVE OBAMA PEOPLE BECOME THE SAME AS THE 2000 CLINTON/GORE HATING MEDIA. TOO ME, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'VE BEEN CLONED.

Same attacks, same fake charges, same fake outrage, same motives...

----

Fox calls it "snipergate". It's all over the media. What began with a few bloggers, pushing a questionable youtube video with silly juxtapositions, made it into Fox, ABC, and now every major daily throughout the country. Obama's gangster's couldn't help themselves and are now dowsing the fire with propane.

As the major media outlets fall head-over-heals to slaughter Clinton fatale, not one is reporting the story correctly. It's the story of the century. "Hillary a Liar" "Hillary Caught" "Hillary Gaffe".

Welcome back to Hillary Season - we're back from our Spring break, back hunting Clintons - 2008 is Hillary season.

All the noise over another DailyKos orchestrated wave of propaganda: Hillary the Anti-Christ.

The entire media hoop-la over Clinton's "misstatement" is fabricated. What started with an inane video-posting, has been taken up by a vehemently anti-Hillary media, and when Wolfson mentioned "misstatement" in a daily conference call, bang- plastered all over the place.

That's fabrication, from start to finish, and with clear malicious intent. Just like when the Obama team dug up Ferraro's race statement in some far away local newspaper, and then pushed it into the airwaves. Fabricated from start to finish .

Any clearheaded reading of the Clinton camps statement on Bosnia, is pretty relaxing:

Clinton said I remember landing under sniper fire and that the welcoming ceremony had to be moved inside because of sniper fire.

All evidence from the time, as Wolfson made clear, documented sniper fire in the hills. How does that make "landing under sniper fire" a misstatement?

Is our national media seriously considering we take the words of Sinbad more seriously than Clinton, Wolfson, and contemporaneous reports all put together?

When the character of a Democratic candidate is held in lower regard than the mutterings of a flaky comedian gone AWOL in his military duty, you don't need do second-guess yourself- you are seeing bias at work.

*

The issue about the duration of the ceremony on the tarmac, is a non-issue. The YouTube video provides no evidence that the ceremony wasn`t in fact shorter than planned, nor does it devote any attention to the subject of whether and where such a ceremony continued during the day. It is a crappy internet video, with no relevant information, and open only to speculative conjectural interpretation by the types who believe in UFOs. To present their amateurish misinterpretations as proof of lying, misleading, and or exaggeration on Hillary's part, is daft. To do so at the national broadcasting level, is more than daft, or irresponsible, it is propaganda in its most brutal form.

The intent is all too clear- to not only provide Obama with the wherewithal of destroying Hillary's character, a wherewithal only the media posses, but to destroy Hillary's ability to make experience relevant to this Democratic Primary.

The media has already achieved a similar objective with "issues." When health care and NAFTA began to cause its dear wonderboy so much Obama anxiety, when it became painfully clear that "issues" were not his forte, suddenly coverage shifted to race-baiting. Who cares whether Obama lied on Goldsby and NAFTA, or Powers and Iraq?

I sincerely wish Obama's media whores and populous sheep, applied the same standards of integrity and honesty to Obama- that they've been applying to Hillary from about 2004.

Or wait, they can't do that- because unlike Hillary Obama has no experience of which to speak, hence nothing to ridicule? Passed 2 bills, did not convene a single meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on NATO and Afghanistan and lost all his Chicago Senate papers? Attaboy.

Well, we know what they media said about those 11,000 pages of Hillary experience. Stained Blue Dress day anyone?

How is that for media objectivity? Hillary releases documents of her policy experience and the media bring up Lewinsky. Hillary talks about traveling to foreign countries, and the only thing making headlines is one misstatement distorted by the media into some kind of denunciation of Hillary's entire character.

And just in time to coincide with Obama's declared attack on Hillary's character?  Coincidence?

Newsflash! People and politicans exaggerate.

Lets all faint together in feigned shock!

Hell, Obama's lied a slew of times so far in this race, big deal, so what? (not that I care, but some are listed below to show how it is)

Whats shocking is one dem's campaign callng another dem a liar in the media.

Only one other Dem has ever done that before this.

That selfish fool bradley did this in 2000 and he set up the entire Gore is a liar media campaign.

Reemember, the same exact media players who did this to Gore are now doing this to Hillary.

WAY TO GO OBAMAITES!

You are becoming exactly what weve been fighting against since 2000.

From the moment the story broke about Obama's passport file being breached on Thursday March 20, 2007, MSNBC covered extensively and at length the breach of Obama's passport file day and night until about 2 PM on Saturday March 22.  

THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN PUSHED THIS STORY HARD

THAT IT WAS A CLINTON SUPPORTER BEHIND THIS,

DEMANDED CONGRESSIOAL HEARINGS,

THEY THOUGHT THEYD DESTROY EVIL HILLARY WITH THIS ONE......

Then oops!

cue the CRICKETS...

2 PM on Saturday happened to be the time that CNN started reporting about the employees who had breached Obama's passport file and the fact that the CEO of the company that they worked for is an advisor to Barack Obama.

John O. Brennan who is the President and CEO of Analysis Corp is also a former senior CIA official and former interim director of the National Counterterrorism Center and advises Barack Obama on foreign policy and intelligence issues.   He has also personally contributed $2,300 to the Obama campaign.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/22/p assport.files/

On Friday March 21, 2007, Sen. Obama called for an investigation into how his security of the passport file was breached.  "One of the things that the American people count on in their interactions with any level of government is that if they have to disclose personal information, that it stay personal and stay private," Obama said in Portland, Oregon on Friday March 21, 2007.

"And when you have not just one but a series of attempts to tap into people's personal records, that's a problem not just for me but for how our government is functioning," he said.

Obama said he expected "a full and thorough investigation" by the administration in conjunction with congressional oversight committees.

From the moment that the passport file breach story broke until the story about O.Brennan broke, Barack Obama, his campaign and his supporters demanded that heads roll and that investigations that would lead to the prosecution of anyone involved be conducted immediately.

We now know (not as a result of NBC, MSNBC, CBS, or ABC), but thanks to CNN and FOX that Obama and his campaign are directly linked to the CEO of the very company that employed the individuals that breached Obama's passport file.

Barack Obama and his entire campaign owe the American people, Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, even the Bush administration, and the State Department an immediate explanation and more importantly an apology concerning his relationship with John O. Brennan.

But I guess we won't see or hear NBC/MSNBC giving this story the attention it deserves and giving it the amount of attention that was given to Barack Obama's file being breached given their sickening affection for Obama.  

The story immdiately disapeared from MSNBC when it became obvious that it had nothing to do with the obama campaign pushed idea that it was a Clinton supporteer spying on obama, but rather the facts themselves were an embarrsment for Obama.

If Senator Clinton had a Sr. Advisor that was the CEO of the very company that employed the contractors that had breached Obama's passport file, Obama, his supporters, and the media would be screaming bloody murder and demanding that Senator Clinton drop out of the race, not to mention the fact that the Obama Campaign would certainly look to have someone prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for such a breach.

No wonder MSNBC's ratings are in 3rd place behind FOX and CNN.  It serves MSNBC right.  

It has been documend that GE/MSNBC actiively worked in 2000 to destroy Gore and elect Bush and they are working now to destroy Hillary. Twice they have been forced to publiclly apologize to her and they truly HATE HER for it.

Obama has always argued that experience is not, and should not be the most primary qualification for a Presidential candidate.  Obama has always maintained that if he surrounds himself with the right ADVISORS, then his personal experience should be at best, a secondary qualification.  He maintains that the advice he receives from others and his judgment alone should be the Primary Qualification for any Presidential candidate.

Well it's obvious that Obama doesn't have the necessary experience and little by little we are seeing that he is being advised by very questionable people.

The very people that are advising Obama, the ones who pushed the idea that it was a Clinton supporteer spying on Obama, should cause people in this country to call into question his judgment, and his judgment should be called into question at this point considering he claims that judgment is really the only necessary requirement for anyone to be President of the United States of America.