*** The next hearing date is April 24, just TWO DAYS AFTER the Pennsylvaia Primary, to SET A TRIAL DATE!

ELECTION 2008
Clintons to face fraud trial
February 19, 2008

linked text

While Hillary Clinton battles Barack Obama on the campaign trail, a judge in Los Angeles is quietly preparing to set a trial date in a $17 million fraud suit that aims to expose an alleged culture of widespread corruption by the Clintons and the Democratic Party.

At the conclusion of a hearing tomorrow morning before California Superior Court Judge Aurelio N. Munoz, lawyers for Hollywood mogul Peter F. Paul will begin seeking sworn testimony from all three Clintons – Bill, Hillary and Chelsea – along with top Democratic Party leaders and A-list celebrities, including Barbra Streisand, John Travolta, Brad Pitt and Cher.

Paul's team hopes for a trial in October. The Clintons' longtime lawyer David Kendall, who will attend the hearing, has declined comment on the suit.

The Clintons have tried to dismiss the case, but the California Supreme Court, in 2004, upheld a lower-court decision to deny the motion.

Bill Clinton, according to the complaint, promised to promote Paul's Internet entertainment company, Stan Lee Media, in exchange for stock, cash options and massive contributions to his wife's 2000 Senate campaign. Paul contends he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic Party leaders to produce, pay for and then join them in lying about footing the bill for a Hollywood gala and fundraiser.

The Clintons' legal counsel has denied the former president made any deal with Paul. But Paul attorney Colette Wilson told WND there are witnesses who say it was common knowledge at Stan Lee Media that Bill Clinton was preparing to be a rainmaker for the company after he left office.

Paul claims former Vice President Al Gore, former Democratic Party chairman Ed Rendell and Clinton presidential campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe also are among the people who can confirm Paul engaged in the deal.

Paul claims Rendell directed various illegal contributions to the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign and failed to report to the Federal Election Commission more than $100,000 given for a Hollywood event for Gore's campaign and the Democratic National Committee in 2000. McAuliffe, Paul says, counseled him in two separate meetings to become a major donor to Hillary Clinton to pave the way to hire her husband. Paul asserts top Clinton adviser Harold Ickes also directed him to give money to the Senate campaign but hid that fact in "perjured testimony" during the trial of campaign finance director David Rosen.

Rosen was acquitted in 2005 for filing false campaign reports that later were charged by the FEC to treasurer Andrew Grossman, who accepted responsibility in a conciliation agreement that fined the campaign 35,000. Paul points out the Rosen trial established his contention that he personally gave more than $1.2 million to Clinton's campaign and that his contributions intentionally were hidden from the public and the Federal Election Commission.

Rosen, accused of concealing Paul's in-kind contribution of more than $1 million, was acquitted, but Paul contends the Clinton staffer was a scapegoat. Paul points out chief Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson told the Washington Post he was aware of the donation, yet he never was called as a witness in the Rosen trial.

Paul contends his case will expose "the institutional culture of corruption embraced by the Clinton leadership of the Democratic Party," which seeks to attain "unaccountable power for the Clintons at the expense of the rule of law and respect for the constitutional processes of government."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Our two party system is a mess. The democrats have proven to be a bunch of "do nothings" - like they have been in the past.. same for the republicans..

Are we to believe there is no one capable of turning this country around?

McCain, Hillary or Obama? please..Again, America has no choice!

I was and probably still am, for Obama..but as time goes on he's losing his luster.. There seems to be an anti American history there. I'd hate to find that out AFTER he's elected.

Both parties should be outlawed!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here for your convenience are the transcripts of the two media creeps in charge of this farce:

MR. GIBSON: Thank you both. And with that as preamble, we will take a very short commercial break. And we will come back and begin 90 minutes of debate. The Pennsylvania Democratic Debate continues after just one minute.

MR. GIBSON: We'll begin each of the segments of this debate with short quotes from the Constitution that are apropos to what we're going to talk about. And it is good to be back here at the National Constitution Center. So let's start. And I'm going to give a general question, before we get to the issues, to both of you on politics. There have already been many votes in many states, and you have each, as you analyze the vote, appealed disproportionately to different constituencies in the party, and that dismays many in the party. Governor Cuomo, an elder statesman in your party, has come forward with a suggestion. He has said, look, fight it to the end. Let every vote be counted. You contest every delegate. Go at each other to the -- right till the end. Don't give an inch to one another. But pledge now that whichever one of you wins this contest, you'll take the other as your running mate, and that the other will agree if they lose, to take second place on the ticket. So I put the question to both of you: Why not?

MR. GIBSON: But Senator Clinton, Governor Cuomo made that suggestion because he's not so sure. And other Democrats are not so sure. Just to quote from the Constitution again, "In every case," Article Two, Section One, "after the choice of the president, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the vice president." If it was good enough in colonial times, why not in these times.

MR. GIBSON: All right. I will let this go. I don't think Governor Cuomo has any takers yet. Let me start with a question to you, Senator Obama.

MR. GIBSON: Talking to a closed-door fundraiser in San Francisco 10 days ago, you got talking in California about small-town Pennsylvanians who have had tough economic times in recent years. And you said they get bitter, and they cling to guns or they cling to their religion or they cling to antipathy toward people who are not like them. Now, you've said you misspoke; you said you mangled what it was you wanted to say. But we've talked to a lot of voters. Do you understand that some people in this state find that patronizing and think that you said actually what you meant?

MR. GIBSON: Senator Clinton?

MR. GIBSON: We're going to have some other questions on the same theme, so you'll be able to get back that.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me pick up on this. When these comments from Senator Obama broke on Friday, Senator McCain's campaign immediately said that it was going to be a killer issue in November. Senator Clinton, when Bill Richardson called you to say he was endorsing Barack Obama, you told him that Senator Obama can't win. I'm not going to ask you about that conversation. I know you don't want to talk about it. But a simple yes-or-no question: Do you think Senator Obama can beat John McCain or not?

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: But the question is, do you think Senator Obama can do that? Can he win?

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Obama, do yo think Senator Clinton can win?

MR. GIBSON: Senator Clinton, before I move on, do you want to do a brief response?

MR. GIBSON: Senator Obama, since you last debated, you made a significant speech in this building on the subject of race and your former pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. And you said subsequent to giving that speech that you never heard him say from the pulpit the kinds of things that so have offended people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But more than a year ago, you rescinded the invitation to him to attend the event when you announced your candidacy. He was to give the invocation. And according to the reverend, I'm quoting him, you said to him, "You can get kind of rough in sermons. So what we've decided is that it's best for you not to be out there in public." I'm quoting the reverend. But what did you know about his statements that caused you to rescind that invitation?

MR. GIBSON: And if you knew he got rough in sermons, why did it take you more than a year to publicly disassociate yourself from his remarks?

MR. GIBSON: Senator Clinton, let me -- I'm sorry, go ahead. Senator Clinton, let me follow up, and let me add to that. You have said that he would not have been my pastor, and you said that you have to speak out against those kinds of remarks, and implicitly by getting up and moving, and I presume you mean out of the church.

There are 8,000 members of Senator Obama's church. And we have heard the inflammatory remarks of Reverend Wright, but so too have we heard testament to many great things that he did. Do you honestly believe that 8,000 people should have gotten up and walked out of that church?

MR. GIBSON: But you did rescind the invitation to him --

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator, two questions. Number one, do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do? And number two, if you get the nomination, what will you do when those sermons are played on television again and again and again?

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: You've disowned him?

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: But you do believe he's as patriotic as you are?

MR. GIBSON: I'm getting a little out of balance here. Do you want to take a few seconds, or do you want to go to the next question?

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, we also did a poll today, and there are also questions about you raised in this poll. About six in 10 voters that we talked to say they don't believe you're honest and trustworthy. And we also asked a lot of Pennsylvania voters for questions they had. A lot of them raised this honesty issue and your comments about being under sniper fire in Bosnia.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Obama, your campaign has sent out a cascade of e-mails, just about every day, questioning Senator Clinton's credibility. And you yourself have said she hasn't been fully truthful about what she would do as president.
Do you believe that Senator Clinton has been fully truthful about her past?

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Your campaign has.

MR. GIBSON: And Senator Obama, I want to do one more question, which goes to the basic issue of electability. And it is a question raised by a voter in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, a woman by the name of Nash McCabe. Take a look. (A “why no flag pin” question for Obama)

MR. GIBSON: Just to add to that, I noticed you put one on yesterday. But -- you've talked about this before, but it comes up again and again when we talk to voters. And as you may know, it is all over the Internet. And it's something of a theme that Senators Clinton and McCain's advisers agree could give you a major vulnerability if you're the candidate in November. How do you convince Democrats that this would not be a vulnerability?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

R. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator, if you get the nomination, you'll have to -- (applause) -- (inaudible).

I want to give Senator Clinton a chance to respond, but first a follow-up on this issue, the general theme of patriotism in your relationships. A gentleman named William Ayers, he was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other buildings. He's never apologized for that. And in fact, on 9/11 he was quoted in The New York Times saying, "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough."

An early organizing meeting for your state senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?

MR. GIBSON: Please.

MR. GIBSON: And Senator Clinton, I'm getting out of balance in terms of time.

MR. GIBSON: And you're getting shortchanged here. And so if you want to reply here, fine. If you want to wait, we'll do it in the next half hour.

MR. GIBSON: Another quote from the Constitution, apropos because we are here, as you heard just a moment ago, at the Constitution Center. Senator Clinton, a question for you. We talked about the military applications from the Constitution and this is a question that involves the war in Iraq. (a “will you get us out or not” question)

MR. GIBSON: Let me just add a little bit to that question, because your communications director in your campaign, Howard Wolfson on a conference call recently was asked, "Is Senator Clinton going to stick to her announced plan of bringing one or two brigades out of Iraq every month whatever the realities on the ground?" And Wolfson said, "I'm giving you a one-word answer so we can be clear about it, the answer is yes."

So if the military commanders in Iraq came to you on day one and said this kind of withdrawal would destabilize Iraq, it would set back all of the gains that we have made, no matter what, you're going to order those troops to come home?

MR. GIBSON: But Senator Clinton, aren't you saying -- I mean, General Petraeus was in Washington. You both were there when he testified, saying that the gains in Iraq are fragile and are reversible. Are you essentially saying, "I know better than the military commanders here"?

MR. GIBSON: And Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said, when he is -- this is talking about you -- when he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most; there should be no confusion about that.

So you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order: Bring them home.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Obama, let's stay in the region. Iran continues to pursue a nuclear option. Those weapons, if they got them, would probably pose the greatest threat to Israel. During the Cold War, it was the United States policy to extend deterrence to our NATO allies. An attack on Great Britain would be treated as if it were an attack on the United States. Should it be U.S. policy now to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the United States?

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: So you would extend our deterrent to Israel?

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, would you?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me turn to the economy. That is the number one issue on Americans' minds right now. Yesterday, Senator McCain singled that the number one issue, in the general election campaign on the economy, is going to be taxes. And he says that both of you are going to raise taxes, not just on the wealthy but on everyone. Here's what he said in his speech yesterday: (McCain says Democrats will raise taxes).

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, two-part question. Two-part question: Can you make an absolute, read-my-lips pledge that there will be no tax increases of any kind for anyone earning under $200,000 a year? And if the economy is as weak a year from now as it is today, will you -- will you persist in your plans to roll back President Bush's tax cuts for wealthier Americans?

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Even if the economy is weak?

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: An absolute commitment, no middle-class tax increases of any kind.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Would you take the same pledge?

MR. GIBSON: Senator Obama, you both have now just taken this pledge on people under $250,000 and 200-and-what, 250,000.

MR. GIBSON: All right. You have however said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent." It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

MR. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

MR. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

MR. GIBSON: Senator Clinton.

MR. GIBSON: I'm going to go to a commercial break. But I just want to come back to one thing you said, and I want to be clear. The question was about capital gains tax. Would you say, "No, I'm not going to raise capital gains taxes"?

MR. GIBSON: "If I raised it at all." Would you propose an increase in the capital gains tax?

MR. GIBSON: Very quickly, because I owe Senator Clinton time, but, yeah, you wanted to respond.

MR. GIBSON: But Senator, that's a tax. That's a tax on people under $250,000.

MR. GIBSON: But there's a heck of a lot of --

MR. GIBSON: Those are a heck of a lot of people between $97,000 and $200(,000) and $250,000. If you raise the payroll taxes, that's going to raise taxes on them.

MR. GIBSON: On that point, we're going to take a break, a commercial break. The Democratic debate from here in Philadelphia before the Pennsylvania primary will continue. Stay with us. We'll be back.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

MR. GIBSON: Back to the Philadelphia Debate, the Democratic Debate, just less than a week now before the Pennsylvania primary. And I would be remiss tonight if I didn't take note of the fact that today is the one-year anniversary of Virginia Tech. And I think it's fair to say that probably every American during this day, at one point or another, said a small prayer for the great people at that university and for those who died. It also, I suspect, makes this an appropriate time to talk about guns. And it has not been talked about much in this campaign and it's an important issue in the state of Pennsylvania.
Both of you, in the past, have supported strong gun control measures. But now when I listen to you on the campaign, I hear you emphasizing that you believe in an individual's right to bear arms. Both of you were strong advocates for licensing of guns. Both of you were strong advocates for the registration of guns. Why don't you emphasize that now, Senator Clinton?

MR. GIBSON: Senator Obama, the District of Columbia has a law, it's had a law since 1976, it's now before the United States Supreme Court, that prohibits ownership of handguns, a sawed-off shotgun, a machine gun or a short-barreled rifle. Is that law consistent with an individual's right to bear arms?

Mr. GIBSON: But do you still favor the registration of guns? Do you still favor the licensing of guns? And in 1996, your campaign issued a questionnaire, and your writing was on the questionnaire that said you favored a ban on handguns.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, you have a home in D.C. Do you support the D.C. ban?

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: But what do you think? Do you support it or not?

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Is the D.C. ban consistent with that right?

MR. GIBSON: Well, with all due respect, and I'm not sure I got an answer from Senator Obama. But do you still favor licensing and registration of handguns?

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: But Senator, you were for that when you ran for Senate in New York.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Obama, last May we talked about affirmative action, ad you said at the time that affluent African Americans like your daughters should probably be treated as pretty advantaged when they apply to college, and that poor white children -- kids -- should get special consideration, affirmative action. So, as president, how specifically would you recommend changing affirmative action policies so that affluent African Americans are not given advantages, and poor, less affluent whites are?

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Even if they're wealthy?

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, would you agree to that kind of change?

MR. GIBSON: We're running short on time. Let me just give some quick questions here, and let me give you a minute each to answer. What are you going to do about gas prices? It's getting to $4 a gallon. It is killing truckers.

MR. GIBSON: Like John McCain.

MR. GIBSON: Very quickly, Senator Obama, I -- the same thing. But we've heard from politicians for a long time we're going to end dependence on foreign oil. I just have a quote: "The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks right now." That was Jimmy Carter in 1979. And it's gotten a whole lot worse since then.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: We're running out of time for this segment. Very quickly, for each of you, 30 seconds. Senator Clinton, you've said that you believe in using former presidents. How would you use George W. Bush if you were president?

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Obama.

MR. GIBSON: All right. We're going to take one more commercial break, come back with a final question for both of you in just a moment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

MR. GIBSON: Final question, now, to finish what I think has been a fascinating debate, and I appreciate both of you being here -- thanking you in advance. I -- it is hard to see how either one of you win this nomination on the basis of pledged delegates in primaries. And it could well come down to superdelegates. And I know you've been talking to them all along. But let's say you're at the convention in Denver, and you're talking to a group of 20 undecided superdelegates. How are you going to make the case to them why you're the better candidate and more electable in November? What do you say to them -- minute-and-a-half each. And by a flip of the coin, Senator Clinton goes first.

MR. GIBSON: Senator Obama.

MR. GIBSON: The audience has been very good in restraining themselves. I think a round of applause for Senators Obama and Clinton. And that concludes tonight's Pennsylvania debate. We appreciate both of you and wish you both the best. Thank you very much.

So, that's a pile of bullshit of truly epic proportions. There is a simple fix for the debates: let each campaign come up with a list of questions for the other candidate, and then let the moderators ask those questions, alternating down the list.

But then, corporate media couldn't spin the debates to their liking, could they?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

cannibalize a journalist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ABC's comment inbox is taking a beating.

jdfu!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

that the moderators did exactly the right thing, since the debate wasn't really for the benefit of the Democratic electorate, but for the super-delegates.

At this point even the most fanatic Clinton supporter must admit that she is not likely to pass Obama in pledged delegates. If you follow that line of thought and believe the super-delegates will ultimately choose the nominee, then a debate on the issues is worthless - the super delegates are well aware of the issues and stance of each candidate.

However, slinging mud and talking guns and taxes goes to electibility against McCain, and that is very important for super-delegates to see. At the end of the day if the super-delegates are doing the job they were created for, they will choose the candidate who they think has the best chance of winning the general election, full stop.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

> Yet David Brooks' review
> at The New York Times concluded:
> "I thought the questions were
> excellent." He gave ABC an "A."

David Brooks is the problem with American politics today. Every other problem can be traced to his doorstep.

I had said in the comment boards here that we need to tone down the divisive rhetoric, and that if Hillary ends up as the candidate I would hope progressives could rally behind her. To hell with that. She sickens me. If Obama were to drop out of the race today and endorse Clinton, I would not vote for her. I am voting for Obama or a third party in November, yesterday finalized that decision.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Americans are facing some serious problems:

Economy facing recession
Losing jobs
Climbing gas prices
Climbing food prices (food riots in other countries)
Two wars with no end in sight
Veterans not getting proper care or help with housing.
Civil rights and constitutional rights being eroded by the war on Terror
Torture being permitted by US Government

The moderators wanted to talk more about:
Lapel pins
Pastor Wright comments
Gaffs and misstatements by Clinton and Obama
Questionable people the candidates know.
Capital gains taxes for people making over 200k.
Could the other person win against McCain?
Would the other person be a good VP for you?

Wow, just wow. Is this really how bad our news has gotten? Or did ABC News honestly think this debate addressed issues critical to voters' and the challenges they face today?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's up with all this Spam..?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Massive swing to Obama, partly due to revulsion at this farce, causes him to win PA primary and put Clinton's campaign out of our misery.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I never watch prime time television my cable is preset on IFC, Sundance, HBO and Showtime-movies only kind of boob tuber. Escaping reality on one hand and documentary inquisitive on the other.But I confess,I was channel surfing when I saw The Democratic Debate and was curiously attracted. I am a committed Obama voter already. I have seen Obama publically speak, read his memoirs. Perversely, I wanted to reaffirm my decision to witness a knock down fight between the two-desiring a brutal beating of the prior First Lady who was feigning her proper Irish, coal mining daughter image.
Ok..so I got comfortable on my couch and decided that I would just drink more to fore go the constant commercial interruptions.
EEk I saw Georgie Boy, the Clinton's prior and current servant and errand boy running the circus, with his hideous Good Morning America side kick. I have pleasantly dismissed these low quality anchorman types from my memories over a decade ago. Then I realized that they still are employed..I was expecting professional debate moderating and clear policy questions. What I received was gossip mongering,guilt by association type interrogations. What the heck??#!! My 11 year daughter could have come up with more intelligent questions. Some of the worst being a question from a woman(prerecorded)who asked Obama why he doesn't where the American flag pin on his lapel? Is this a requirement listed in the Constitution?..I was wondering why she wasn't wearing her pin during her prime time political interview!
Talk about guilt through association, Obama was practically tarred and feathered for his church and board room affiliations(again) when will this stuff die? At one point Clinton even pulled the Fruedian slip game and mentioned Obama and Osama bin Laden in the same sentence in an effort to squeeze in some last minute deaf retirees to vote her way.
The coal miner's granddaughter showed she is a home town girl after all, lying when she has to, to make her image appear virginal. If you want the facts you gotta get em, "in my book" dummy!
With integrity Obama withstood a mi rad of bad referee calls, and really just took a lot of illegal shots to the groin--without going down and resorting to illegal punches back at The Irish Princess. Whether the New York Times rates this as an "A" debate-we should have known with ABC that the fight would have been fixed from the start! I did get a giggle when the crowd started booing and chanting "OBAMA" at the end..secretly I wanted see George run for cover as the popcorn and beer was thrown at him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When America had some claims to greatness its news was presented by real reporters like Chet Huntley and David Brinkley. Now that America has become the world's pariah it looks to the likes of Gibson and Stephanopoulus: How very appropriate and how very sad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Perhaps ABC could have asked each candidate to sing followed by phone-in voting by the public and a winner would be declared at the end of the show.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is there a more shallow measure of patriotism?

How about a yellow magnetic ribbon..I guess that fits the bill.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

. . . once said, brilliantly:

"Patriotism is your devout belief that one country is superior to another strictly because you were born there."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh brother, this election process is soooo overly long. That we have to endure 6 more months of this badmitten game, woe are we. At least it gives McCain enough opportunities to have complete PTS breakdown when his dreamtime can no longer contain his torturous hypocrisy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who needs it if it's going to be like this.

Let's just cut to the psycho-social exam. High scorer in personality integration vis-a-vis humanity, world-centricity, person-to-person parity and group cohesiveness gets the nomination.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They showed just how corrupt and petty they are ...

Vote with your feet, watch only PBS ... if you must know what is happening on the MSM then visit Media Matters, they watch it so you don't have to. Why give them your rating?

Boycott the MSM NOW!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The country is stumbling around like a drunken elephant about to collapse on itself, and the debate is about flag pins? Clinton wasn't wearing one, and the last time I saw McCain he didn't have one on either. Where's the question about their patriotism? What's wrong with this picture? The ABC moderators, one who used to work for Clinton, were simply dreadful, and wasted nearly an hour on tabloid screed. Even a squeaky-clean decorated Marine would have been labeled a traitor under these bludgeoning Abu Graib style questions. Waterboarding would have been more pleasant. And to what purpose? Vetting isn't about knee-capping, it's about intelligently allowing people to tell us the truth about who and what they are, bereft of any spin, manipulation or political agenda laid onto them by the media or each other. It serves no one to take a mote of dust and create a mountain out of it just to win a primary. By the time its over, the Democrats will stagger into the election, wounded and bloodied, and will be lucky to have enough in the end to win. What a travesty. The whole process leaves a "bitter" taste in one's mouth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Did anyone else notice/agree that Hillary barely inhaled before each perfectly executed response? Makes you wonder if she had some preknowledge about the nature of this 'debate'. Maybe there's some whistleblower out there who isn't too pleased with this turn of events. Flag pins? Did Hillary inhale or exhale about that one? Hopefully, voters will stop this stupid slime machine and boycott any and all offenders. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize a set-up and this time ABC really overplayed their hand. What a disgrace to think that these hacks think they can determine who we vote for based on smears, lies, and underhanded tactics. And obviously, they could care less about anyone who is in foreclosure, has lost employment, is without health insurance, or anyone who is trapped or disabled from this illegal war. ABC News demonstrated in living color what yellow journalism smells like, and during a critical election, these rats aren't patriots - they are just the opposite.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's the politics of distraction pure and simple and it caters to the same group of folks who eat up everything the right-wing media spits out. They need an excuse to vote against their best interests (again) and to drag this country down even further than it is now.

Can the rest of the thinking population seceed from the brainless zombies?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

He was Gov. Bill Clinton's senior political adviser in the 1992 campaign and President Bill Clinton's communications director.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Shortly after 9/11, like many Americans, I began wearing a flag pin on my clothing. And why not? I was, after all, a patriotic citizen proud of his county.

Then I noticed that everyone in the Bush administration, unlike before 9/11, wore a flag pin, too. That's when it hit me.

The sudden Stars & Stripes popularity wasn't about patriotism. It was about sheep-herding politicians using a national symbol to control public opinion. The way Hitler did before WWII with the Nazi swastika.

Following my sudden cathartic realization, I stopped wearing the flag pin. I also felt good again about being an American -- the way I did before 9/11.

Hugh E. Scott, Vietnam vet, ex-USAF pilot, lifelong registered Republican, Obama supporter and the editor of www.PhonyFighterPilot.com, the only website about George W. Bush that presents irrefutable, smoking-gun proof of White House corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have the feeling that Shamrock Co, the holding company for Disney Corp. and thus of ABC TV, has an extreme interest in having Hillary become the next pres, and that Mr. Stephanopolous feels indebted to the Clintons for having put him on the map 15 years ago.
I thought his bias was almost palpable even if he was mostly trivial, except when interrupting Obama in the middle of an elaborate answer, when he was just, well..., rude! Didn't noticed that treatment for Clinton, though.

Viacom, Shamrock, Vivendi, Time/Warner, News Corp., and others, both natn'l and foreign, are just doing their job in helping control the 1.2 (one point two) percent or so of the world poulation who will actually vote for who will become the commander-in-chief of the more than 50 percent of world's deadliest weapons, so if you want to use your brain before you put the ballot in the box, turn off your TVs and read books, or surf the web while it's not owned by them... yet!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dear Sirs and Madams,

I'm writing to express my absolute disgust with last night's debate, hosted by ABC. The entire first half of that debate showed that George S. and Charlie G. had no idea whatsoever what a debate is actually about. I was ready to hear the candidates tell me where they stand on the ISSUES. Instead, what did millions of Americans and viewers abroad hear?

Accusations of association with the WeatherUnderground from the SIXTIES.
Personal views on manufactured issues generated by right wing talk show hosts.
Attempts to conflate a pastor with a Presidential candidate's personal views.
Flagpins! Flagpins? What does this have to do with the housing crisis or how we're going to get out of Iraq?

How dare George and Charlie line up question after question about tabloid news. PA voters are going to the polls in a few days and they heard pablum questions tossed about as if they were terribly important. They were NOT. They were inane questions about nonsense.

Do not ever let George and Charlie facilitate another debate. They have no viable credentials for doing so. They are a disgrace to journalism and provided me with nothing but shame for a solid hour and a half.

Please, do NOT foist something like this on the public ever again.

Sincerely,
..LeaderofMen..
Chicago

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"It's easy to make a buck. It's a lot tougher to make a difference."

Tom Brokaw


Right after saying that his tongue caught fire, dropped out of his mouth and flopped around on the floor like a trout.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Because it's happened how many times now? Four? Seven?

So they have another debate last night, and Obama comes out on top in spite of barely being able to keep from rolling his eyes at the absurdity of the questions and nearly being turned to stone looking at Hillary's face, the expression of which is designed and hoping to turn him to stone as a last resort, and then the post-mortem begins:

The Scarborough types come out and vapor on the subject of how Hillary was wonderful and Obama sucked and lost it, and from somewhere a lone voice cries, saying but....but.....if the polls say it didn't negatively affect him, and she doesn't woo about nineteen hundred more delegates tomorrow......

And the polls show he's up, and her negatives grow, and the delegates turn away.

How long is this going to take?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This was an attack on the democratic party designed to make both candidates look bad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In "The Gulag Archipelago" Solzhenitsyn writes of a Communist Party speech where the first of two party bosses who stops clapping first would be liquidated. They both clapped for a minute solid, then two, then ten. After 15 minutes one of the two thought the clapping praise of Stalin had gotten to the point of farce, and so not to embarrass the leader he stopped. So he disappeared the next day and was killed.

We live in a society where many of the utterly false wave the flag and many of the true question the fraud at the top.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I saw a portion of that CNN Life issues forum where Obama took some hard questions and answered them honestly and candidly and I was very impressed with the way he disarmed people with his inclusiveness and candor. I'm glad now I didn't watch this "debate", because the unwillingness of the corporate elite and their lackeys to examine real issues is something I don't like to tune into to see.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let me see if I understand this correctly. Everyone's pissed off because Obama and Clinton weren't asked questions that they've already written, practiced, and polished their answers for. Is this correct? Am I the only person who is tired of seeing Obama come out with his practiced, polished responces to explain away yet another question of his character. I personally am glad to see these questions come out? I want Hear him explain why he refused to wear the flagpin. some may see it as nothing Important. I feel that alone should prevent him from being elected. He doesn't love this country enough to do something as easy as wear a little flagpin. Hell, even his wife is proud of this country,"for the first time. Now he comdemns wright, twenty years of sitting in that church, and now,after it is brought to the public eye, he sees a problem. I can't believethere are so many people so blinded by their hatred of bush, and clinton, they can't see this guy isn't what he portrays. The new kind of candidate. this man feels that the rules shouldn't apply to him. everything he is so quick to blame everyone else of, he is even more guilty of. Call him on his b.s. watch him get pissed off, think about it, and then you all fall for the lame spin he puts on it. Do you all really think what he said about the "bitter people in pen?" his lame excuse, was an insult to everyons intellegence. And you fell for it

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Roger Waters recently called Hillary "ghastly" and declared his love for all things Obama, and as far as I'm concerned that's all that needs to be said about that.

I mean, come on...it's Roger Waters. He wrote The Dark Side of the Moon, people.

What more do you really need to know about who you should support in this ridonkulous farce of a presidential "campaign?" We have lunatic against lunatic against lunatic, and nobody knows lunatics like Roger Waters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The past debates have been mindless love-ins. Finally someone asked questions and didn't let the candidates side step them. Finally we see that The Golden Child of Change is not so smart as we were led to believe. The media has given Obama a pass for the last several months. It was so bad, even Saturday Night Live made fun of them for it. Now he got some solid questions and he was not prepared. Don't like the lapel questions... OK... How come he doesn't understand that raising capitol gains taxes reduces overall revenue. Hillary explained she would raise them back to 20% if at all. A good answer. Does he understand that every tax he said he would raise would negate his promise to not raise taxes on folks making less than 200-250K? He did not, according to his own answers. All we ever heard from Obama was "Change". No one has known what his policies were before. Now we see why... He doesn't know them either. Very poor preparation on his and his staff's part. I still hope he beats Hillary. If you can't look at your mistakes, you won't fix them. If Obama sits back and blames his performance on ABC, he will not improve. If I were him, I'd want to learn this lesson now instead of later. If you think he will beat McCain with a performance like that, then you are still pushing for a recount in Florida.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You guys are just pissed because Obama wasn't asked if he was comfortable, nor was he given cookies and milk.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well, what could anyone expect? Take a look at the two moderators. George Stephanopolis owes his entire very highly compensated career to the Clintons. How could anyone suspect him of bias? I have no doubt he learned how to manage conflict-of-interest situations from his mentors, the Clintons. And then there is the super lightweight, flyweight actually, Charles Gibson, who learned his chops on the Good Morning America show. Gibson is a pompous idiot and a blowhard. Stephanopolis is sharp and knows this stuff inside and out. His blathering resulted for a reason. You can guess what it might be.

Personally, I thought the CNN-Wolf Blitzer debates were absurd-damn sure Wolfie, former PR guy for AIPAC, wasn't about to ask any questions of America's strategic relationships vis a vis Israel. Nor was he about to ask dozens of other pertinent questions. As bad as CNN was, ABC surpassed them by leaps and bounds.

Why should political debates be any different from newstainment? Do you think the American public wants to listen to a lot of policy shit? These are, at least 51.5% of them, the people who elected Bush to the Presidency after he obviously cheated and stole the election of 2000, the people who believed the Swift Boat ads, the people who were so afraid of terrorists they were quite willing to elect a man who had invaded the wrong country. With their money!

Substance! Goddam, that would be so boring. Much more fun would be rehashing what Obama meant by the word "bitter." Or whether Obama's minister loves America. And, of course, "loving" America has everything to do with wearing a goddam pin. George Bush never took his off, the same George Bush who made damn sure he didn't go to Vietnam for the war he fully supported for the country he loved. But a flag pin does separate the patriotic men from the boys, doesn't it?

I guess these flag pins mean so much to the insider Washington war hawks and their lackeys in the media like Limbaugh and Hannerty, Brooks and Goldberg, et al (the list is way too long to include all of the guilty), is because they don't have any medals from their military service. I realize Rush had hemorrhoids or some such thing-he hadn't become a dope fiend yet-and Cheney was busy doing "other things", likely dreaming up how to get his next deferment, and they must feel kind of inadequate, so they have come up with wearing the flag as well as wrapping themselves in it.

The politicos themselves, I am sure, would rather not get into a policy discussion and have little or no wiggle room on these issues if they are elected. Substantial debates can come back to haunt.

Let us not forget it was this echelon of the press, big time broadcast and print news organizations, that fully supported, if not colluded in, Bush's Folly. These are the same assholes that broadcast or published Administration handouts as hard news, the same assholes who never saw a "terrorist threat" story they didn't like, no matter how ridiculous or inconsequential it might really be. These same networks are the folks who decided that television news should be a profit making enterprise as opposed to the public service it had traditionally been, a kind of thank you for the use of public air waves for free. That is why we have a Katie Couric instead of a John Chancelor or a Charles Gibson instead of a Howard K. Smith.

Unlike beer, it could get a lot better than this, but I am afraid it won't. In fact, in all probability major network news will continue to degrade to the point of meaninglessness, which will be a good thing. Citizens who are aware and involved don't pay any attention to it now. All it does presently is poison that segment of the population that is less than enthusiastic about politics and current events. The sooner that ends, the better.

Satan's Neutral Corner

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is NO way in HELL that Obama can win. We will all lose if this guy is nominated. The Republicians will rip this guy apart... Please everyone wake up!.
A Democat from Hawaii.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

After the smoke has cleared on ABC's botched debate, did anyone notice the gift left on your doorsteps: the glimpse of Obama's exceptional character? When offered an open door to pounce on Clinton for the Bosnia episode -- which he could easily and profitably have done -- HE DECLINED!! He even chided ABC for dwelling on such issues. Did his opponent do as much?

Folks, please note this, because it's worth something! It's generally agreed that the contest between the Democratic candidates does not turn on any substantial differences in their positions on issues. But there is a chasm of difference in character, and it's character we really need in our next president.

Clinton falls back on "experience." Aside from the fact that she has yet to say what this "experience" is and how it supposedly qualifies her, our government personnel are loaded with "experience" that we definitely do not want! It's called "politics as usual."

Be reminded: Lincoln, the president most generally acknowledged to be our greatest ever, came to office with little experience. What he did bring to the office is precisely what we need now: new blood, and a higher vision.

"Experience" is the fall-back of the paranoid. Please, American voters, shed your shell of paranoia, recover your American spirit of vision and hope, and vote for the candidate that truly embodies taht vision and hope!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think when all the bull settles, the result is that nobody has moved an inch because of this so called debate. George Stupidopolis, a former Clinton insider smeared Obama with statements that ended with something resembling a question. Idiots like him shouldn't even be reporting news yet alone hosting a debate. Is anyone in public office clean? I don't think so, and I'm not either.

What I'd really like to hear is somebody challenging Clinton's claim that she met Martin Luther King Jr. I don't believe it. And then she talked about how she felt when she learned of his death - what a crock. As president of the young republicans, she probably jumped for joy. Who's going to research and ask the questions? Obviously I'm still supporting Obama (not my first choice) and I don't care if he wears a flag on his suit. I don't care if he knows a crazy preacher either, I know a few of them too.

For the repugnantcan trolls, I'd certainly vote for Bills mistress before I'd vote for the hundred-year-war man or even FOUR more years of Bush. The Keating scandal was supposed to be a democratic party mess but McCain couldn't even get that right. And who the hell says that McCain is a maverick? Anyone who does needs to explain their definition of a maverick. He only differs from the party-line in that he believes in global warming. He must have spoken out on the subject before he read the party script on that one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I loved the "Beavis & Butt-Head" quote at the end of the article – pretty much sums up the state of "news" these days.

As for George Stephanopolous? After cashing in his political capital as Clinton-the-First's campaign Wünderkinde, he became a talk show pundit with a decidedly right-wing bias –– in other words, a turncoat to what we believed him to be.

I didn't buy it. Thirty minutes into his first show, the cut to starboard of his jib was revealed to all the world. So, the inane questions he asked in this last debate, questions allegedly fed to him by Shaun Hannity (Shaun "F-ing" Hannity,for God's sakes!!), came as no surprise. Standard Operating Procedure for closet-neocon George, and certainly S.O.P. for the "news" media, which, these days, resembles the birdcage-liner tabloids far more than it resembles anything even remotely associated with actual news. Or intelligence.

My question is: why do we put up with this crap; and why does ANYONE at this point watch Twerp Stehpanolopous' shows?

Step one in your recovery: stop watching, kill his ratings, and retire the little jerk.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Chin up OBAMASOLES! Obama lost, and your fan-boy ways lost, and your Obama Kool Aid lost.

When Obama teamed up with Edwards, it was OK. When MSNBC was unfair to Clinton, it was OK. But no, don't touch our pretty boy now???

Whiners!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

on the Titanic? They'll never get rearranged....only the arguments of the new arrangement will go on, and on, and on. Not even the window dressing gets finished.

And this thread is guilty of it. They got what they wanted....and this thread is an example of it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Patriotism is the first refuge of a scoundrel. or as the Chris Rock satire had it God Bless America and Nobody Else.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

that due to botched hatchet job at ABC Obama will actually win Pennsylvania, that Clinton will withdraw and suggest Richardson for VP and the Democrats can stop squabbling and start focussing on beating Mccain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]