Posts with the tag DLC

The Shifting Political Bandwidth of Democracy

Liz — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 10:22:23 EDT

The Shifting Political Bandwidth of Democracy

The diagram above is one that shows my viewpoint of where our two parties have been for the past 33 years. The conservatives have been in control exclusively since the end of Jimmy Carter’s term. Bill Clinton is a conservative Democrat, and has membership in the DLC to prove it. Throughout the last six years of his term, the Republicans were in control of both houses of Congress and all of the legislation passed during that time was conservative legislation. The shaded area represents the percentage of the conservative bloc that is in flux this election.

In spite of any illusions to the contrary, conservatives have been in control of our government for the past 33 years—and look what we the people have to show for it today as a nation. The only difference between a conservative Republican and a conservative Democrat is that the conservative Democrat would keep a little more government whereas the Conservative Republican would destroy it all except for the part that maintains the police and military—and even that they would privatize to be paid by the middle-class and poor taxpayers while continuing their tax breaks for the rich.

The Great Political Awakening of 2008 and why it has happened. . .

Now 4 months later, Hillary is putting her mouth where her money is and supporting Obama.

Liz — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 11:30:05 EDT

QUEEN’S COMMENTS ON Hillary’s New Enthusiasm for Obama

Of all places, I read in the Jarkarta Post last night that Clinton is recruiting her backers to help Obama. According to the Jarkata Post, Hillary Rodham Clinton is stepping up efforts to swing her supporters behind Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, her former rival for the nomination. In an outreach dubbed “Hillary Sent Me,” the New York senator was inviting her primary-season partisans Friday to get involved directly in Obama’s campaign and donate to it. As part of that, she was urging them to travel to a specific battleground state each weekend, beginning with New Hampshire on Sept. 27, when she will be campaigning for Obama in Michigan.

“This is a call to action. This is a must-do. We all have a role. And there is not a moment to lose.”

And why this Johnnie-come-lately enthusiasm for Obama?

The Queen's Comments on Lieberman--A conservative is a conservative

Liz — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 09:32:09 EDT

QUEEN’S COMMENTS ON JOE LIEBERMAN

I hope that Democratic voters have learned a good lesson about “Bipartisanship”. I hope that they have learned that a conservative is a conservative–whether it is in the Democratic Party or in the Republican Party. Conservatives are the same and they hold to similar philosophies–particular when it comes to supporting neo-liberal economics.

As many Americans, I watched about as much of Joe Lieberman’s speech last night as I could stomach. Judging from all the angry posts on the DNC about him this morning, I know that Democrats are mad as hell at Joe Lieberman. I’m glad. I hope that they all remember that conservative Democrats in the party supported Lieberman in his 2006 run as an independent against the Democratic candidate, Ned Lamont. Members of the Democratic Leaderhip Council actually worked in his campaign to get him elected. The founder of the DLC, Al From, was Lieberman’s campaign chairman.

And I hope that Joe Lieberman is a lesson for Democratic Conservatives who consider joining the Republican Party--you would always be an outsider, just like Joe. He has become a man without a Party.

Democracy was Designed for a Progressive, not Conservative Ideology

Liz — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 12:31:41 EDT

Political ideology, like class, are taboo topics among most Americans who are brave enough to discuss politics (another taboo topic). You won't hear either the topic of class or political ideology discussed on mainstream media above a whisper.

But both are topics which I think should be discussed among Democrats. Part of the historical significance of Obama winning the nomination was the triumph of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party over the conservative wing.

Many of you old enough to remember may have noticed that the Democratic Party since the mid 1980's is not the same Democratic Party it was prior to that time. You are correct in that assessment and there is a reason why.

What This Election Is Really About: Conservatives vs. Progressives

Liz — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:20:30 EDT

The following post discusses what I think is the REAL elephant in our living room that no one is discussing:

In my opinion, and I'm sure others may disagree as well as agree since this is after all a democracy, I think that the bottom line for this election is really about wrestling our government out of the hands of conservatives and into the hands of progressives--and that includes conservative Democrats as well as conservative Republicans.

Our Democratic Party has its own unofficial conservative wing--the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) of which both Clintons have been very active over the years. By my standards, based on much of the legislation that they have supported, neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton are "progressive democrats". I would categorize both of them as conservative Democrats.

I have a lifetime of experience in the financial industry and I can tell you for certain that bankers have no greater friend than Bill Clinton.

About the Politics of Opposing Lieberman

Liz — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:51:04 EDT

The cartoon below by John Klossner says it all for me about the way I feel regarding Lieberman. Let us also remember that Joe Lieberman would not be where he is today if it were not for some members of the DLC who supported his campaign for CT Senator against the Democrat, Ned Lamont. Al From, a Democrat and member of the DLC managed Lieberman's campaign. Bill Clinton, a member of the DLC is reported to having said that he didn't care who won--Lamont or Lieberman.

I detest Lieberman and the DLC who helped to put Lieberman in office. However, the fact is that Lieberman does tend to vote with the Democrats on every other issue than the war. And I believe that he makes up our majority count for 51% in the senate (since he bills himself as as a democrat leaning independent)

I think that is the only reason that our Democratic Senators have continued to play nice with him. If we sever all ties with him, he may come entirely out of the closet and burst forth in all the glory of who he really is, voting on ALL issues with Republicans.

Regarding FISA Vote: Two questions to ponder

Liz — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 23:19:09 EDT

First thing to remember is that on the positive side, almost half of the Democrats in the House did vote against FISA last Friday.

The count among Democrats was 128 for and 105 against. There was one lone dissentling Republican.

Does anyone know who the lone Republican was? (Not Ron Paul, I already checked that and he was not present. He who cares so much about the Constitution.)

As for the 128 who voted for FISA, how many of this bunch are also members of the Democratic Leadership Council? it would be interesting to know. In fairness, it would also be interesting to know how many of the ones who voted against it were DLC members.

NOTE: In case you never heard of the DLC. . . In spite of its official sounding name, the DLC is not an official organization of the Democratic Party. In my opinon, I see them more or less as being hand maidens for the corporate America and the neocons--those types of Democrats acting like watered down Republicans that Harry Truman often criticised.

Do you like and agree with Joe Lieberman?

Liz — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 10:05:30 EDT

NO?

Well I don't either and that is why I don't like the DLC either. The DLC (Democratic leadership council) who took it upon themselves to appear as an "official" Democratic party group when in fact they most certainly are not. They are self-annointed. At one time they comprised 33% of our Congress--not any more, thank God.

Al From one of the founders of the DLC was campaign chairman for Joe Lieberman. Bill Clinton is reported to have said that it didnt matter to him whether Lieberman running as an Independent, or Ned Lamont, the Democrtic choice for Senator in 2006 won the race.

Truman would have called the DLC what they are: "Watered down Republicans". These are the people who support trade agreements and legislation that benefits corporations over people. The vote for things like the war and the continuation of cluster bomb manufacture, etc.

Our Democratic nominee is not a member of the elitist club.

Republicans and the DLC should count their blessings

Liz — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 08:49:25 EDT

There is a lot of hand wringing going around this morning a lot of "woe are us" and dire predictions.

But the funniest among them all to me is the attempt to make Obama appear as a liberal. Obama is a centrist who stands perhaps one degree to the left of Hillary Clinton. Obama has crossed the aisle and worked with Republicans just as much as Clinton has.

The impending nomination of Barack Obama is a MILD backlash to the crap that has been allowed to go on in DC for the past 20 years. We are so accustomed to the right wing BS being churned out of DC that most Americans don't even remember what a liberal looks like. Well, I do and it sure the hell is not Barack Obama. Obama IS a moderate. Kucinich is a liberal. Gravel is a liberal.

As for real progressive populists? Even though Hillary who is a corporate centrist tried like a fox near the end of her campaign to don the clothing of a populist in order to better appeal to the voters (and she did fool the less educated among us with her tricks), she is no populist and never has been one. A real populist would be look more like Edwards, Richardson or Howard Dean--not Hillary Clinton.

So count your blessings this morning you Republicans and DLC buddies.

AND FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT THE DLC, Hillary and Bill are both members in good standing.

Al From, the founder of the DLC was the campaign manager for Joe Lieberman. Bill Clinton said that it didn't matter to him if Joe Liebermann (running as an independent for Senator in CT in 2006) or if Ned Lamont, the Democrats choice won. That is the DLC's idea of "bipartisanship--to support Joe Lieberman instead of a real Democrat. As far as I'm concerned they can go on over and join the Republican party and stop polluting the Democrats.

If if looks like a Republican, passes legislature against the people like a republican and ratifies anti-labor, pro-corporate global trade agreement, then it IS a Republican and does not belong in our party. It is a disgrace to call people like that Democrats.

The Battle on Saturday is clear for Democrats

Liz — Tue, 27 May 2008 08:11:42 EDT

The decision to be made on Saturday determines whether the Democratic Party will throw its rules out the window to favor the candidate who has by all accounts lost by the rules which she signed a pledge and agreed to play by over a year ago.

The rule is that states who do not hold their primaries according to the Democratic Calendar will not have their votes counted nor will their delegates seated.

[There are all kinds of very good reasons for this rule that states follow the primary calendar—whether they like it or not. But the main reason is that it protects the democratic process for ALL democrats in ALL states. It is not just the voters of Florida and Michigan whose interest is at stake here. It is the democratic voters of ALL the other 48 states who are disenfranchised when states like Florida and Michigan hold their primary out of turn. And not only do they disenfranchise the voters, they also disenfranchise the candidates by doing this.]

A Call to Action for All Real Democrats--No Trolls Need Reply

Liz — Fri, 23 May 2008 07:27:29 EDT

TAKE A LOOK AT HILLARY'S CLUB--THE DLC

If you are a real Democrat, you seriously need to learn about the “Democratic Leadership Council” and what they are trying to turn our party into. Both the Clintons belong to it as did Joe Liebermann. [Liebermann may even still belong, I don’t know. This bunch is so Republican-friendly that they may still allow him to belong. I do know that many of the DLC supported Liebermann over Ned Lamont, the democratic nominee. Bill Clinton is reported to have said that it didn’t matter to him whether Ned Lamont or Liebermann (McCain-suck-up) won. Al From, one of the founders of the DLC was Liebermann’s campaign manager against the Democrat.]

DO YOU WANT A MEMBER OF A GROUP WHO GAVE STRONG SUPPORT FOR THE 2003 INVASION OF IRAQ AS OUR PRESIDENT? I DON’T.

The DLC gave strong support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. That was a smart decision now wasn’t it? That alone should tell anyone with and IQ over 60 what this bunch stand for. Prior to the war, Will Marshall co-signed a letter to President Bush from the Project for the New American Century endorsing military action against Saddam Hussein. [For those who may not know, Will Marshall is one of the founders of the New Democratic movement which aims to steer the Democratic Party to a centrist position. They are represented by organizations such as the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the New Democrat Network, and the Senate and House New Democrat Coalitions.]

Don't look now, Hillary, but your "Populist" Credibility Gap is Showing

Liz — Thu, 22 May 2008 07:34:31 EDT

Hillary, who throughout her entire career in the senate has been what many have labeled as a "hawkist corporate centrist who thinks that lobbyists are just dandy" has now in the last two months of this campaign emerged as a "populist" who is fighting for the people.

This might be laughable except for the fact that we are a nation who has shown our utter gullibility by voting for George Bush twice.

Hillary Clinton is no populist. Hillary Clinton has been for a number of years a member AND officer in the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). This is not an official DNC group. Here is an excerpt from its platform: ". . .argues that the United States Democratic Party should shift away from traditional populist positions."

Now how do you reconcile the fact that Hillary is not only a member but an officer in an organization that is anti-populist and her claims to be one? A true populist would have NOTHING to do with the DLC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_sub.cfm?kaid=86&subid=191

Another Truman Quote

Liz — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:34:15 EDT

Here is another famous Truman quote that both Hillary Clinton as well as members of the DLC should heed:

"If you give the people a choice between a Republican or a Democrat who is acting like a watered down Republican, they will choose the Republican every time."

Any Democrat who belongs to the DLC, who has supported NAFTA, who has served six years on the board of Wal-Mart (the largest union-busting corporation in the world), who rattles swords against Iran right alongside McCain and Bush, who has taken millions of dollars for her presidential campaign from Washington DC lobbyist, is by any definition of the word at least a "watered down Republican.

Getting to Know Rendell Another DLC Member

Liz — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 00:00:19 EDT

Many of us never heard of Rendell until this campaign. Here are a few facts surrounding this Governor of Pennsylvania that you may not know:

Like Joe Liebermann, Rendell did not have the blessings of the Democratic party when he ran either. When he announced his intent to run for the Democratic Nomination for Governor of Pennsylvania, he did so without the backing of the state party.

The Pennsylvania Democratic Party threw their support behind Bob Casey. However, unlike Lieberman, Rendell did wrangle the Democratic nomination. If you think that Rendell is not vindictive, guess again. Here are some remarks from the August 2006 Philadelphia Inquirer. At the time Bob Casey was running for Senator in Pennsylvania. Rendell, politician that he is, endorsed Casey openly.

However The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that Rendell told the Weekly Standard that Santorum "has proven that he gets the job done. Time and time again he has come through. How could I be tearing a new rear end for someone who worked effectively to get flood relief for Pennsylvania?" Santorum turned these comments into radio ads that the ran in Philadelphia.

If you google "Rick Santorum" you might wonder why Rendell was praising this Republican opponent of Bob Casey. You might even wonder what a Democrat is doing talking to someone from the Weekly Standard. But there are many reasons to question Rendell's judgment. He also went on Fox news to support Samuel Alito during the confirmation hearings. He repeated the Republican talking points on this show. Alito was one of only three judges in the history of this country that the ACLU ever opposed their nomination.

Rendell has the quality of character to tell you one thing to your face and another thing to your back. The fact that he is a member of the DLC tells me more than enough about what kind of a Democrat he is.

American Postal Workers Union Voted Unanimously To Endorse Sen.Obama

Progressive Democrat — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 23:38:48 EDT

The National Executive Board of the American Postal Workers Union has voted unanimously to endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president.

“Sen. Obama’s message is one of hope and change,” said union President William Burrus. “His message is special, and the timing is right.”

“We are most impressed by Sen. Obama’s commitment to eradicating the undue influence of special interests in the political process,” he said. “Our current political system does not allow for the voices of average citizens to be heard over the demands of lobbyists and big-money campaign contributors.

“Sen. Obama has vowed to change that, and his campaign has flourished through the participation of new voters and small contributors,” Burrus said. “We believe he will be a president who will strongly represent the interests of working Americans.”

“His ability to bring new participants into our nation’s democratic process â€" to get young people involved, and to persuade ordinary citizens that they have a real stake in politics â€" is an inspiration.”

“We are pleased to endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president of the United States, and we will commit our energy and efforts to help him win the White House.”
----------------------------------------------------------
Final Note on this.

Again the large Unions and their members want change and not lies .
The Unions make us strong and they will as American Workers bring him to victory.

Truth is Finally out on DLC's Choice Lieberman

Liz — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 23:22:30 EDT

Lieberman won by a lie. Yes, that same DLC darling who recently endorsed John McCain. He and his campaign repeatedly told voters that Ned Lamont's campaign (the Democratic opponent), or someone who supported Lamont was responsible for crashing the Lieberman website before the 2006 election.

Now we find out that Joe Lieberman, the darling of the DLC who was supported by DLC members like Bill Clinton and Ed Rendell and even endorsed by Al From over the DEMOCRATIC nominee in 2006 got elected in great part by a HUGE lie that he knowingly repeated again and again. He was also assisted by the Attorney General of Conn.

Lieberman and the Attorney General of Conn were told after an FBI investigation a WEEK BEFORE the election that it was the fault of the configuration of the configuration itself, the poor design, that crashed the site. They knew a week before the election and never corrected their accusation. In fact there is a video on the Internet of one of the spokespeople from the Lieberman campaign.

THEY KNEW A WEEK BEFORE THE ELECTION AND THE NEWS HAS JUST RECENTLY BEEN RELEASED DUE TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT.

Here are more of Lieberman's lies that he used to get elected. I wonder if Mark Penn was his campaign manager?

http://newhavenindependent.org/archives/2006/06/lieberman_lies.php

Latest Polls Show Senator Hillary Clinton in Trouble Now in Pennsylvania

Progressive Democrat — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 22:24:11 EDT

The Lates Polls seem to agree with each other even if they are a few points off from one another Senator Hillary Clinton who says she needs a big win in Pennsylvania in high double digits now looks like she could very well lose Pennsylvania if the polls are accurate and are truely getting the pluse of what Pennsylvanians are really feeling now.
Lets look at the latest Polls which indicate Hillary has big problems coming her way on April 22nd.
With all the Big Party Bosses supporting Hillary in Pennsylvania it seems these polls show people want change and the polls after this will tighten even more against Clinton .

These are the latest Pennsylvia Polls taken by various polling groups. You will see Clintons lead shrinking since the last two weeks and this trend will continue.Gallup has her at 10% but I believe even that will go into the single numbers soon.The Plus lead over Obama shows how low her numbers are getting now.Nolonger having 18 plus points over Senator Obama.Some of those numbers I believe will go into the minus mode before April 22nd just watch.
Wednesday, April 09
Race Poll Results Spread
Pennsylvania Democratic Primary PPP (D) Clinton 46, Obama 43 Clinton +3
Democratic Presidential Nomination Gallup Tracking Obama 51, Clinton 41 Obama +10
Pennsylvania Democratic Primary Strategic Vision (R) Clinton 47, Obama 42 Clinton +5
Pennsylvania Democratic Primary Quinnipiac Clinton 50, Obama 44 Clinton +6
Pennsylvania Democratic Primary ARG* Clinton 45, Obama 45 Tie

Again when your looking at Clinton in the plus realize that that has shrunk and her lead is going lower and lower .

Clinton makes false comments about Obama and The War In Iraq

Progressive Democrat — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 21:43:03 EDT

Senator Hillary Clinton goes on the Kitchen Sink mode again attack McCain but really attacking Senator Obama.
She again in her attacks does not mention the fact that she voted to go and allow President Bush authority to attack 1raq .

She is taking a long shot here on Obama and also lying about her real feeling and positions on Iraq.

Here was a great newstory that explains how she is lying about what she said to a group in oregon a few days ago.

----------------------------------------------------------
In Oregon, Clinton Makes False Claim About Her Iraq Record Vs. Obama's
April 06, 2008 9:49 AM

In Eugene, Ore., Saturday. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., attempted to change the measure by which anyone might assess who criticized the Iraq war first, her or Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., by saying those keeping records should start in January 2005, when Obama joined the Senate. (A measure that conveniently avoids her October 2002 vote to authorize use of force against Iraq at a time that Obama was speaking out against the war.) She claimed that using that measure, she criticized the war in Iraq before Obama did.

But Clinton's claim was false.

Clinton on Saturday told Oregonians, "when Sen. Obama came to the Senate he and I have voted exactly the same except for one vote. And that happens to be the facts. We both voted against early deadlines. I actually starting criticizing the war in Iraq before he did."

It's an odd way to measure opposition to the war -- comparing who gave the first criticism of the war in Iraq starting in January 2005, ignoring Obama's opposition to the war throughout 2003 and 2004. (And Clinton's vote for it.)

But even if one were to employ this "Start Counting in January 2005" measurement, Clinton did not criticize the war in Iraq first.

Scrambling to support their boss's claim, Clinton campaign officials pointed to a paper statement Clinton issued on Jan. 26, 2005, explaining her vote to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State.

"The Administration and Defense Department's Iraq policy has been, by any reasonable measure, riddled with errors, misstatements and misjudgments," the January 2005 Clinton statement said. "From the beginning of the Iraqi war, we were inadequately prepared for the aftermath of the invasion with too few troops and an inadequate plan to stabilize Iraq."

But Obama offered criticisms of the war in Iraq eight days before that, directly to Rice, in his very first meeting as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Jan. 18.

Obama pushed Rice on her answers to previous questioners regarding the effectiveness of Iraqi troops, and he criticized the administration for conveying a never-ending commitment to a US troop presence in Iraq.

"I am concerned about this notion that was pursued by Senator Biden and others that we've made significant progress in training troops," Obama told Rice "Because it seems to me that in your response to Senator Alexander that we will not be able to get our troops out absent the Iraqi forces being able to secure their own country, or at least this administration would not be willing to define success in the absence of such security. I never got quite a clear answer to Senator Biden's question as to how many troops -- Iraqi troops -- don't just have a uniform and aren't just drawing a paycheck, but are effective enough and committed enough that we would willingly have our own troops fighting side-by- side with them. The number of 120,000 you gave, I suspect, does not meet those fairly stringent criteria that Senator Biden was alluding to. I just want to make sure, on the record, that you give me some sense of where we're at now."

Obama concluded his brief q&a by saying "if our measure is bring our troops home and success is measured by whether Iraqis can secure their own circumstances, and if our best troops in the world are having trouble controlling the situation with 150,000 or so, it sounds like we've got a long way to go. And I think part of what the American people are going to need is some certainty, not an absolute timetable, but a little more certainty than is being provided, because right now, it appears to be an entirely open-ended commitment."

**

The misrepresentation of the record is symbolic of the re-writing of history Clinton has attempted on her record regarding the war in Iraq.

Because the larger context is more important. And Clinton's written criticism of the war in a press statement in January 2005 received little attention compared to the press surrounding her trip to Iraq the next month, in February 2005.

Upon returning she argued that setting a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops would aid the enemy.

“I don’t think it’s useful to set a deadline because I think it sends a signal to the terrorists and the insurgents that they just have to wait us out,” she said.

Describing her trip to Iraq, she said, "It’s regrettable that the security needs have increased so much. On the other hand, I think you can look at the country as a whole and see that there are many parts of Iraq that are functioning quite well."

She also interpreted a series of suicide bomb attacks as an indication that the insurgency was failing.

“The concerted effort to disrupt the elections was an abject failure," she said. "Not one polling place was shut down or overrun. The fact that you have these suicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure.”

In an interview with NBC's Meet the Press on Feb. 20, 2005, Clinton said that withdrawing some troops or setting a date for withdrawal would be a "mistake."

"I don't believe we should tie our hands or the hands of the new Iraqi government," Clinton said. "We don't want to send a signal to the insurgents, to the terrorists that we are going to be out of here at some, you know, date certain."

"We have just finished meeting with the current prime minister, the deputy prime minister and the finance minister, and in our meetings, we posed the question to each of them as to whether they believed that we should set a firm deadline for the withdrawal of American troops," Clinton said. "To a person, and they are of different political parties in this election, but each of them said that would be a big mistake, that we needed to make clear that there is a transition now going on to the Iraqi government. When it is formed, which we hope will be shortly, it will assume responsibility for much of the security, with the assistance and cooperation of the coalition forces, primarily U.S. forces."

Clinton said that "what the American people need to know is, number one, we are very proud of our young men and women who are here," and second, "there can be no doubt that it is not in America's interests for the Iraqi government, the experiment in freedom and democracy, to fail. So I hope that Americans understand that and that we will have as united a front as is possible in our country at this time to keep our troops safe, make sure they have everything they need and try to support this new Iraqi government."

She soon told New York Daily News editors and reporters that it was important for Democrats to combat the idea that they're soft on national security issues like Iraq.

"If you can't persuade a majority of people that you're going to be strong and tough where we need to protect America and our [national] interests, you can't cross the [electoral] threshold," she said.

**

That same month, while Clinton was talking up the need for Democrats to project strength, and claiming a withdrawal deadline would be sending a signal to the terrorists, Obama was meeting with his constituents, sounding quite skeptical about the war and reiterating his opposition to the decision to go to war to begin with.

The Bloomington, Ill., Pantagraph reported that during a town hall meeting, asked about the Iraq war, "Obama said poor planning by the Bush administration has left Iraq woefully incapable of handling its own security. He expressed hope that more intensive training will be provided for Iraqi forces, saying such measures could allow most American troops to return home next year. While Obama said the recent Iraqi election is an encouraging sign for democracy, he questioned Bush’s rationale for the Iraq invasion. ’I didn’t see the weapons of mass destruction at the time, I didn’t think there was an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein.'"

Clinton made this latest questionable claim the same day that she came under fire for repeatedly telling a story that turned out not to be true about a poor pregnant woman losing her baby and her own life after being denied hospital treatment because she couldn't afford a $100 fee. The New York Times discovered that the woman in question was never denied treatment, and that she did have insurance. “We implore the Clinton campaign to immediately desist from repeating this story,” said a representative of the hospital.

The Clinton campaign said that the senator had been told the story by a sheriff's deputy, and had not been able to fully check its accuracy. "We did try but were not able to fully vet it,” Clinton campaign spokesman Mo Elleithee said. “If the hospital claims it did not happen that way, we respect that."

This latest incident also comes less than two weeks after Clinton had to back off a description of a plane landing during a 1996 trip to Bosnia that she had claimed was under sniper fire. Video evidence surfaced proving that claim false and Clinton admitted that she "misspoke."

Afternoon Giggles

Diana M. Painter — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:57:43 EDT

This story is just so funny, you all must read it.
DLC Underfire From IRS

What? The D doesn't stand for Democrat anymore?

And on the other topic of funny, this article is fitting for the ONION You'll laugh your photo-copied ass off. But don't do it at work. Indiana: Obama is using Purdue Students to Break Law This article is still making me giggle too much this afternoon. It might even make a good episode of "The Office" called The Audacity of Note.

REMEMBERING BILL THE WAY HE REALLY WAS

Liz — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 10:48:22 EDT

A lot of people like to remember Bill Clinton as a Democratic President. That he was, but more than once he acted like he was not as has his wife.

Ned Lamont, Lieberman's Democratic opponent in 2006 was very antiwar. Lamont won, inspite of Clinton's endoresement of his DLC Bud, Lieberman. After Lamont won the nomination, Clinton was reported to have said that he didn't have any problem with either candidate winning.

Here is a direct quote from Bill Clinton and his support of Lieberman:

""Joe Lieberman was wrong on the bankruptcy bill, wrong on not filibustering Alito, and wrong on Terri Schiavo. But his position on the war is pretty similar to Hillary's and that's good enough for me."

And you think the Clintons are anit war--either one of them? I doubt it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/bill-clinton-endorses-joe_b_25706.html