Atlanta Weather

Clear

39° F

Pollen 1

Air quality 28

| Traffic

Luckovich cartoon changes address!

Mike Luckovich’s cartoon has moved to a new ajc.com address. Click here to view and bookmark.

The new format features a larger version of Mike’s cartoon for the day and allow readers to vote. There are also links to recent Luckovich cartoons and special galleries.

Bloggers who want to comment on issues in the news are invited to blog at any of our four other Opinion blogs:

Thinking Right

Jay Bookman

OpinionTalk

Woman to Woman

Home > Opinion > Mike Luckovich > Archives > 2008 > January > 25 > Entry

Dream candidate

By Mike Luckovich | Friday, January 25, 2008, 09:11 PM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Permalink | Comments (214) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorial Cartoon

Comments

By Luckoduh

January 28, 2008 8:04 AM | Link to this

Alright, this one is funny, especially Hickabee’s eyes.

I didn’t think you had it in you cartoon boy.

~~~~~

{{{{Rejecting a personal entreaty from President Bill KKKlinton, Sen. Swimmer M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) plans to endorse Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for president in a joint appearance on Monday, Democratic sources said.}}}}

{{{{During his two terms in the White House, President KKKlinton made repeated overtures to the Kennedy family. So the senator’s rejection of his wife is at least as embarrassing as her 28-point loss in the South Carolina primary on Saturday.}}}}

Bwa.

~~~~~

{{{{Sen. Barack Obama may score big with Republican and independent voters in states such as California and Missouri, which allow voters from any party to choose a candidate on the Democratic ballot.}}}}

California is an open primary?

And all we have left to choose from our pinkos?

Ahahahaha.

~~~~~

{{{{The alleged problem is a recession. From the sounds of panic, you would assume we are already in a deep downturn. In fact, that does not appear to be the case, and many economists doubt we will have a recession (defined as two consecutive quarters in which total economic activity declines) at all.}}}}

{{{{The Congressional Budget Office, for example, predicts the economy will grow by 1.7 percent this year. A couple of weeks ago, The Wall Street Journal surveyed 54 economic forecasters, who on average put the chance of a recession at 42 percent and expected growth to approach 2 percent in the first half of this year.}}}}

$$$$Steven Wieting, an economist at Citigroup, predicts growth of 1.2 percent. But like our elected officials, he sees no point in getting hung up on technicalities. “Academic definitions aside, we’ll call that a recession,” he writes in a new report. We can call it a recession or we can call it a wirehair terrier, but that won’t change what it actually is: an expansion, albeit a modest one.-Steve Chapman, Chicago Tribune$$$$

By Luckoduh

January 28, 2008 8:06 AM | Link to this

Bill Klinton: ‘Screw It, I’m Running For President’

~~~~~

{{{{The latest example being the KKKlintons sudden, sociopathic emphasis on the importance of the Florida primary, a contest all three candidates had agreed to eschew at the behest of the Democatic National Committee.}}}}

~~~~~

{{{{Ed Morrissey —perhaps the most widely liked and respected center-right blogger— endorses Romney. A very interesting read because I suspect Ed’s analysis and decision is being replicated among Republicans across the country who are now obliged to get down off the fence and vote.}}}}

{{{{Republicans should also be watching to see if Teddy endorses Senator Obama, a potentially stunning development that, if it goes from strong rumor to fact, may shake up the Democratic race from top to bottom. If that comes to pass the GOP will have to understand that sending an aging John McCain and a divided base to do battle with a brand new, post-partisan Obama would probably lead to a far worse result than the ‘96 blowout which featured another GOP Beltway insider and war hero. The idea of three debates between Senators McCain and Obama is not a hopeful one for conservatives ho understand the stakes for the country.}}}}

~~~~~

{{{{Insensitivity was reflected in a recent issue of the New Yorker, when KKKlinton’s veteran Latino political operative Sergio Bendixen was quoted as saying, “The Hispanic voter — and I want to say this very carefully — has not shown a lot of willingness to support black candidates.”}}}}

{{{{That brief quote from an obscure politician has generated shock and awe in Democratic circles. It comes close to validating the concern that the Clinton campaign is not only relying on a brown firewall built on an anti-black base, but is reinforcing it. A prominent Democrat who has not picked a candidate this year told me, “In any campaign I have been involved in, Bendixen would have been gone.”}}}}

Bwa.

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 8:06 AM | Link to this

The Top 10 Conservative Idiots, No. 322

Counting above at 8:04 make that eleven.

By Luckoduh

January 28, 2008 8:09 AM | Link to this

Bill Klinton: ‘Screw It, I’m Running For President’

~~~~~

{{{{The latest example being the KKKlintons sudden, sociopathic emphasis on the importance of the Florida primary, a contest all three candidates had agreed to eschew at the behest of the Democatic National Committee.}}}}

~~~~~

{{{{Ed Morrissey —perhaps the most widely liked and respected center-right blogger— endorses Romney. A very interesting read because I suspect Ed’s analysis and decision is being replicated among Republicans across the country who are now obliged to get down off the fence and vote.}}}}

{{{{Republicans should also be watching to see if Teddy endorses Senator Obama, a potentially stunning development that, if it goes from strong rumor to fact, may shake up the Democratic race from top to bottom. If that comes to pass the GOP will have to understand that sending an aging John McCain and a divided base to do battle with a brand new, post-partisan Obama would probably lead to a far worse result than the ‘96 blowout which featured another GOP Beltway insider and war hero. The idea of three debates between Senators McCain and Obama is not a hopeful one for conservatives ho understand the stakes for the country.}}}}

~~~~~

{{{{Insensitivity was reflected in a recent issue of the New Yorker, when KKKlinton’s veteran Latino political operative Sergio Bendixen was quoted as saying, “The Hispanic voter — and I want to say this very carefully — has not shown a lot of willingness to support black candidates.”}}}}

{{{{That brief quote from an obscure politician has generated shock and awe in Democratic circles. It comes close to validating the concern that the Clinton campaign is not only relying on a brown firewall built on an anti-black base, but is reinforcing it. A prominent Democrat who has not picked a candidate this year told me, “In any campaign I have been involved in, Bendixen would have been gone.”}}}}

Bwa.

By Luckoduh

January 28, 2008 8:09 AM | Link to this

{{{{For years Republicans have not had the backbone to fight the claims of racism made by the leftists in America. Conservatives didn’t want to be called racist. So when Cynthia Tucker, editorial page editor of the Atlanta Urinal and Constitution, wrote recent columns about the “R” in Republican stands for racism, there was a stunning silence.}}}}

Never mind that it was Democrats that wanted to keep slavery, Democrats that passed Jim Crow laws, Democrats that couldn’t be counted on to pass Civil Rights legislation and Democrat Bill Klinton, the “First Black President,” who appointed almost no black people to positions of responsibility in his administration. Klinton talks about his office in Harlem and all he’s done for black folks but his record is thin.

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 8:19 AM | Link to this

Last time it was scary speed-boats, this time it’s a bogus link to a bombing in Argentina — one by one, Iran hawks’ lies keep unraveling.](http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/74331/)

By Mike

January 28, 2008 8:22 AM | Link to this

At least the GOP isn’t in the middle of a race war.

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 8:25 AM | Link to this

The Real State of the Union

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 8:37 AM | Link to this

For Mike

It probably was inevitable that, with Sen. Barack Obama as a leading contender for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, race was somehow going to surface during the hard-fought primaries. That’s what happened earlier this month and PBS’s NewsHour with Jim Lehrer covered it, as did every other major news organization in the country….. But in the case of the “race issue” between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, I believe the political reporters and others are energetically widening a very slight rhetorical gap between the candidates. One result of this has been to force various civil rights leaders, who have previously announced support of either candidate (or neither), to be on one side of the artificial divide. This was only too apparent in the PBS NewsHour segment today (1/14) on “Politics and Race” featuring two very honorable black leaders, Rep. John Lewis and Rev. Joseph Lowery, forced by a story with inflammatory elements into a very silly argument. Which is to say, PBS helped generate more smoke from no real fire.

Republicans are making noises like the Democrats are involved in a race war. What else can they do - they are unable to come together behind any of their candidates.

If you can’t support your own candidates it appears all you can do is attack the others.

Mike, now, if you have the stones, who DO you support and why?

Or is throwing $hitballs all you are intellectually able to do?

By Luckoduh

January 28, 2008 8:45 AM | Link to this

{{{{By IN THE NEWS January 28, 2008 8:37 AM Mike, now, if you have the stones, who DO you support and why? Or is throwing $hitballs all you are intellectually able to do?}}}}

Geez, look at the race haters losing it this morning.

I guess the pressures getting to you, eh?

KKKlintoon is destroying the democrat party and her only chance at the presidency and now this punk thinks it is a “vast right wing conspiracy.”

What a moron paranoid mouth breather.

It’s your own hate that is ruining you.

Because you can’t control it.

Bwa.

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 8:51 AM | Link to this

DUH

You waste your time. You are the bigot. You are the hater. You are to be pitied.

You are to be kept away from our children.

You also are unable to back a GOP candidate at the moment.

Spend your days tossing $hitballs, DUH, the stink is all over you.

You have been and continue to be a ridiculous creature.

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 8:52 AM | Link to this

DUH,

Are you Mike too?

By Bosch

January 28, 2008 8:53 AM | Link to this

Huckabee’s eyes in this carton remind me of the imbred people from the movie “Deliverance.”

Scary stuff!

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 28, 2008 8:58 AM | Link to this

I suspect if Hillary’s last name wasn’t Clinton and she had external rather than internal gonads, the GOP would love her!

By rushncap

January 28, 2008 9:01 AM | Link to this

That’s true, Mike. When your party’s lily-white, the best you can hope for is a “farmer tan war”.

By RW-(the original)

January 28, 2008 9:50 AM | Link to this

ITFS wants you to check out the source for his spam at 8:10.

By all means check out his source

Idiot!

Later!

By getalife

January 28, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this

I find it very entertaining supporting the Clintons on progressive blogs.

Check it out, they have united with the RW and corporate media to attack the Clintons.

Is that the unity Obama is talking about? Well, w spewed the same unity crap and he divided and took the easy corporate way out.

I think Obama will do the same and these progressives are getting punked like cons with w.

By Chip Shirley

January 28, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this

McCain is McMean

Mitt Romney’s oldest son is named Tagg?

Don’ Giuliani is a mafioso.

Huckabee Wins Every Debate.

HUCKABEE FOR PRESIDENT! mikehuckabee.com

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this

Duh,

Are you RW too?

By Chip Shirley

January 28, 2008 10:01 AM | Link to this

McCain is McMean

Mitt Romney’s oldest son is named Tagg?

Don’ Giuliani is a mafioso.

Huckabee Wins Every Debate.

HUCKABEE FOR PRESIDENT! mikehuckabee.com

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this

New Personality splits off?

Chip Shirley another double poster.

Old con.

By Paul

January 28, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this

I think one of the more momentous stories of the weekend was the 60 Minutes interview with FBI agent George Piro, who spent months gaining information from Saddam. What appears to be a transcript of the 60 Minutes piece is here:

Link: Interrogator Shares Saddam’s Confessions

Freely plagiarizing from several sources, the interview revealed

he didn’t anticipate that the United States would invade Iraq over WMD, thought it would be another 4-day aerial campaign like Clinton’s, which he’d just ride out.

Hussein had the ability to restart the weapons program and professed to wanting to do that, Piro said.

“He wanted to pursue all of WMD … to reconstitute his entire WMD program”

“For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought that (faking having the weapons) would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq,” said Piro.”

So much for the “Bush Lied” mantra. I wonder what our political climate would have been if, instead of seeking to shuck off any responsibility, Dem leadership began a “we were all duped” campaign and then engaged the administration on specifics.

BTW - I checked one of the leftwing sites - democratic underground - and their emphasis was solely “Saddam didn’t trust fanatics like bin Laden.” True to ideological form, there.

A question: if Iraq’s leader faked WMDs to prevent an Iranian invasion, what is keeping Iranian leaders from following through, as they know Iraq doesn’t have that capability?

Later, all -

By rushncap

January 28, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this

Paul — your “logic” is amazing. Saddam “wanted to get WMDs”? Wow, I can name several dozen dictators who “want” to do the same thing. Should we invade those dozens of countries one after another, or simultaneously?

BTW, Paul, if Saddam had some WMDs, how’s that a threat to America?

By W stands for worst

January 28, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this

Paul says:

“So much for the “Bush Lied” mantra”

And just how many WMD’s have we discovered since 2003?

By Political Foreskin

January 28, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this

Paul, we knew all of this in 2003. No new info at all, except that americans are ignorant rubes with attention spans of 4 seconds, which you keep painfully remind us all of.

just kidding, you rock. Cheney classified any proof of the wmd lie, or he shredded it, or it’s in his man sized safe. We could use a man sized vice president, instead of the rat we got, knowwhatImean?

By luckovichisaheadcase

January 28, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this

Yes Hitlery is a polarizing figure, and that seems to go double for Demoncrats. It is quite ironic that the royal family of Democrat politics has decided to back Obama over the return of Juan and Evita (or George and Lurleen). These are mean people. Although I do not agree with Obama on any issue of consequence in this election, he is much better as a person than the Clintons could ever be.

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this

I’m always interested in reading Paul’s opinion of what “ideological form” DU takes.

Is there anybody more in tune with the left wing than Paul?

By Paul

January 28, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this

rushncap,

Did you read all six pages of the transcript?

UN destroyed most of Iraq’s WMDs in the 90s. Those they didn’t, Iraq did unilaterally. After the pressure was off, Saddam intended to reconstitute his entire program - chem, bio, nuke.

Issue is he waged a successful deception campaign, snookered us. And Iran. As I’ve said, I think Dem leadership began the “Bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq but he lied to us because he wanted war” as a means, largely, to separate themselves from any responsibility, once the war began going badly. It was a political calculation, not one based upon the reality of why the US, western (even Iranian) intelligence agencies thought he still had them.

Speculation, here, but if there had been no war, sanctions ended, UN gave clean bill of health - he would likely have began chem and bio production. Would that have been a problem? Well, just go back to the 90s and early 00s and read comments from leaders of both parties as to why the thought of a WMD-capable Iraq was as danger. And please don’t ask me to justify the Democratic leadership’s statements. Or the Republicans, either.

W stands for worst:

See above.

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this

The only other person as in tune with the left wing as Paul would be luckovichisaheadcase.

Do you think it supports a GOP candidate or is nothing more than another $hit pitcher?

Duh,

Are you luckovichisaheadcase too?

By Paul

January 28, 2008 10:37 AM | Link to this

ITN

Just saying the sole reference I saw was to buttress the argument Saddam wasn’t in operational planning with al Qaeda (true, in my opinion). But nothing on the other issues or their implications.

So it’s ideological, as new information is disregarded or bent to fit a viewpoint. Both sides do it.

The fact Saddam was wary of al Qaeda just demonstrates Saddam was familiar with their objectives. Which included the end of his regime.

PoliFore

:-)

By rushncap

January 28, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this

Paul — I’m still straining to see your point. So because maybe, possibly, at some future date Saddam might would have tried to reconstitute a WMD program that might, somehow in some indirect way be a hindrance to the U.S. we should have invaded at the cost of thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousand of Iraqi lives and trillions of U.S. dollars? That’s like saying that a guy on the street gave me the evil eye, so I went to his house, raped his wife, hacked up his children, hooked his cajones up to a car battery and then decapitated him. Hey, he MIGHT have eventually kicked my dog!

By getalife

January 28, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this

Saddam punked them about WMD’s to scare Iran from invading. He did not think w was stupid enough to occupy his country.

The FBI interrogations have come to this conclusion.

By Goldie

January 28, 2008 10:51 AM | Link to this

WOO-HOO! OBAMA ‘08!

By Paul

January 28, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this

rushncap,

Let me rephrase. My point was not the justification for war - and I’ve said in the past, I believe there were several factors at play.

My point was that after the war began going badly Dem leadership saw an opportunity so shift sole blame onto the Bush Administration and to say to their constituents “he LIED to us. He absolutely, positively knew one thing and said another. There was no room for disagreement, no differences of opinion. He LIED to us. So it isn’t our fault we went along with the case for war. Just disregard anything we said during the time.”

A bit heavy, there, but I’m trying to emphasize how, looking back, I see the tactics.

So now come the FBI interviews wherein Saddam said he maintained the fiction he had WMDs. Right up to the start of the war, which he didn’t think would happen.

So his effort at strategic deception of the US was successful. Our intel agencies, Administration and Congress were all fooled. Whether or not WMDs was a justification for war is a separate issue, which was not the point of the post.

We miscalculated. He miscalculated (he knew the stated rationale was WMD, he knew that was a false premise but did not reveal it because of machismo, fear of Iran and the thought a Bush response would be along the lines of the previous administration’s response). And that’s how many wars begin.

Being fooled is lot different than lying.

By Goldie

January 28, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this

Also, Paul— you forgot to mention that the FBI agent on “60 Minutes” last night stated that Saddam told him that our weapons inspectors had destroyed any remaining WMDs back in the 90’s… too bad that Dubya would not let the inspectors finish their jobs in ‘03, but instead told ‘em that they had to get out because he was invading regardless of THE FACTS they were telling him!!!

Can’t wait for those criminal Repugs to get dumped from the White House in ‘09!

By Paul

January 28, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this

Goldie 10:51

I heard that “WOO-HOO” when I went out to collect my paper at 5. It echoed across the atmosphere -

By Goldie

January 28, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this

{{Issue is he waged a successful deception campaign, snookered us. And Iran.}}

Paul @ 20:32 — no, he didn’t “snooker” us… there was plenty of intel stating that Saddam was bluffing, but Dubya pushed those reports aside. He decided that he was invading REGARDLESS of what the on-field inspectors’ reports revealed!

Face it, Paul — you’ve supported a corrupt regime in the White House for their war-mongering ways and you keep trying to make excuses for what they did!

By Copyleft

January 28, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this

Paul: The problem is, that wasn’t the lie. “Saddam is seeking/already has WMDs” was a deliberate exaggeration and overreaction to his posturing, of course…

But the LIE was the multiple attempts to connect Saddam to 9/11, to pretend that Iraq was somehow related to Al Qaeda. This, the administration knew to be false… but they kept repeating that claim, week after week, falling silent when asked to provide any evidence for such a connection, only to trot the lie out again the following week.

It was an obvious shell game, and it went on for months. That was, in fact, a lie. Deliberately exaggerating the threat Saddam posed may be viewed as deceptive or just paranoid… but trying to tie him to 9/11 was a deliberate lie.

By Paul

January 28, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this

Goldie 10:56

I think I mentioned in my first post that the UN destroyed the bulk of the WMDs in the 90s and what they didn’t, he did.

Interesting, though - even his generals thought they had WMDs. Debriefs showed that’s why they issued chem gear to the troops around Baghdad - and when they found there were no chem stores to load, no one wanted to tell Saddam they didn’t have any!

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this

“Being fooled is lot different than lying. “

No doubt!

Neither is real attractive in a President.

Again, it is entertaining to read Paul’s theories on Democrats.

By w00t

January 28, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this

60 minutes was really good last night. It’s what we’ve been saying for years as it is. It’s so funny to be proven right yet again. When do we get to send Bush&Co. to prison? Oh yeah, that’s right, he already pardoned himself.

By W stands for worst

January 28, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this

So because he says this to an FBI agent he is now somehow credible? Here is all you need to know that bush lied. There were 19 hijackers. None came from Iraq, none had ties to Iraq. So Dubya decided to use the WMD card, you remember all the speeches by his minions about the “Mushroom cloud”. Yet OBL and 13 of the hijackers were Saudi, yet Dubya decides to hold their leaders hand and not mention one word about Democracy when he is in Saudi.. That is the whole Iraq war framed for you right there….

By getalife

January 28, 2008 11:14 AM | Link to this

This toon would be accurate if the gop were spewing Go Obama!!!

Obama vs McCain and McCain will win.

Clinton vs McCain and Clinton wins in a landslide.

By Goldie

January 28, 2008 11:15 AM | Link to this

Did y’all catch Caroline Kennedy’s op-ed in Sunday’s NY Times?

A President Like My Father

By Paul

January 28, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this

Copyleft - Goldie

I don’t think that was a significant rationale.

My impression is that there were several low-to-mid-level contacts. Nothing approaching operational planning. I believe the 9-11 commission bears that out. But even that was pretty ho-hum. I think Bush detractors give far more weigh to it than anyone in the administration did.

In the News

It’s not real attractive in Congressional leaders, either.

Or in State Department careerists.

Or in military general officers.

Or in US intelligence agencies, especially among those for whom this sort of thing is their singular profession.

Lots of groups trooped through the mud. None emerged clean.

By Goldie

January 28, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this

Do Hillary’s supporters think that she and Bill will grow the Dem Party in order to get a majority in November? Who is actually growing the Party with new voters now — with new and excited voters??? Can Hillary do that, and if so, why has she not done it yet???

By Paul

January 28, 2008 11:25 AM | Link to this

W stands for worst

Let me see if I follow your reasoning:

al Qaeda attacks the US - the Twin Towers.

Seeking to use the attack as a reason to invade Iraq, Bush couldn’t when he found out the contingent was comprised primarily of Saudis. Which is somehow important in a nonstate, ideological entity.y So he made up stories about Iraq having WMDs.

o-kaaayyyyy…..

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 11:25 AM | Link to this

and Paul attempts deflection….

By Paul

January 28, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this

In The News

I’d be real interested in your support for the “deflection” comment. Follow the responses to the first post. Read the opposing comments. Note which directly stayed on the points I raised and which went down other paths (hijackers were Saudis) or had a version of “oh yeah? Bush lied because he wanted to invade.”

See when I raised a new issue not in response to a point someone else raised. Heck, I even tried rephrasing when rushncap said he didn’t see the points.

You can even diagram it - Point A, B- Response as R1, R2, direct link back to A, B or off on New Issue 1 (NI1).

I’m really interested.

BTW - no one tackled “A question: if Iraq’s leader faked WMDs to prevent an Iranian invasion, what is keeping Iranian leaders from following through, as they know Iraq doesn’t have that capability?”

By RB from Gwinnett

January 28, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this

It’s amazing to read this chain of posts and see Paul make genuine attempts to describe what really happened at the start of this war only to have the loony libs on here continually reply with the “Bush Lied” mantra while completely ignoring the comments and the votes of their own party leadership at the time. You can make all the claims about Bush you want to, but reality is your own damn leadership saw the same intel, made the same conclusions from it, made comments outlining the threat Saddam was, AND VOTED FOR IT!! What about that is so hard for you dimwits to get? How many times do we have to post for you the comments of both Clintons, Kennedy, Kerry and the crew and show you their votes in the matter before you get it through your head they’re as responsible for us being there as anybody?

Talk about being duped? How about all you dimwits who believe this garbage from your party leaders that they didn’t know what they were voting on, didn’t read the intel reports, etc. Are you really that stupid you can’t see through that political opportunist mentality? They’re lying to you sheep. Get a clue.

By getalife

January 28, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this

Funny how the Dems admit they were punked by Saddam but the gop just can’t admit it.

Hell, McInsane is running on getting punked.

Hilarious.

By Amazing

January 28, 2008 11:45 AM | Link to this

Being educated in GA or GaEducated sure leaves one naive if not outright dumb.

*I find myself being repeatedly drawn away from the “words” of the Republican party and toward those of Mr. Obama. WTF? “WORDS”?

*Unfortunately, I also find myself disappointed with more and more people in government — at all levels — who merely proclaim themselves to be conservative or compassionate (to name but a few descriptors) without actually providing physical evidence.

Please show the physical evidence Obama has provided.

I’ve got a nose for a rose, and this Obama guy stinks like all politicians.

By Paul

January 28, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this

getalife 11:14

Some thoughts from a columnist you might find worthy of consideration. May just be a real battle rather than a landslide.

“McCain is, of course, the Republican who, apart from Rudy, would have the best chance to defeat Hillary. She can’t pull the old experience gambit on this long term Senator and his record on everything from global warming to corporate reform to campaign finance to torture to tobacco regulation to immigration reform makes it very hard for Hillary to defeat him. And, because of his appeal to Hispanics left over from his battle for the McCain-Kennedy immigration plan, he is ideally suited to take minority voters, burned by Hillary’s scorched earth policy against Obama, away from the Democrats.”

By w00t

January 28, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this

RB, it’s because the so-called intelligence was fixed. The intelligence was made to fit in line with the Bush&Co. policy. The information is out there for everyone to see. It’s the same reason why Germany, France, and Russia, etc didn’t go along with us, because they KNEW that there were no WMD programs in Iraq. You were suckered, we were all suckered, and they’re laughing all the way to the bank.

By Luckoduh

January 28, 2008 11:53 AM | Link to this

{{{{By IN THE NEWS January 28, 2008 10:00 AM Duh, Are you RW too?}}}}

Spammie: Just because you post to the blog all freaking day long like some loser and sit around attacking other bloggers with all sorts of different names like “Hey Duh,” doesn’t mean everyone else does.

Some of us have a life.

If it wasn’t for the other AJC self appointed blog watch puppy Polly, you would be the only loser in here.

You should be mad at her for stealing your mindless spotlight.

~~~~~

Does anybody else find it funny that Code Pinko practically created Swimmer Kennedy, who without their support would be just another fat drunk living under a bridge, and that they also made up all these politically correct rules for the rest of us, both of which are now biting them in their as-s?

Talk about embarrassing.

And hilarious too!

By Bosch

January 28, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this

Paul,

I think the answer to that question at 11:38 is:

because they know, like always, that they will have the fury of the civilized world to bear if they do.

What purpose would their be to simply go in and invade Iraq? They couldn’t get away with it and they know it.

By getalife

January 28, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

McInsane promised more wars Paul.

He got punked on Iraq and wants to bomb Iran because he got punked.

He is hilarious.

Taking McInsane seriously shows how dumbed downed this country really is.

By Bosch

January 28, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this

wOOt,

And others laughing all the way to the bank: military sub-contractors who’ve made a FORTUNE off this war.

By Bosch

January 28, 2008 12:00 PM | Link to this

But Paul,

I believe that the longer we stay in Iraq, looking like an aggressor, it gives more fuel for sympathy to Iran from others (like Russia).

By W stands for worst

January 28, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this

Paul,

I couldnt have said it better, if you remember on Sept 13th, 2001 Rummy was quoted as saying “How can we blame this on Iraq”. That started the wheels turning. If you remember in 1941 the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. A month later we declared war on Japan, not some other country with no ties to the attack

By Paul

January 28, 2008 12:12 PM | Link to this

getalife

I believe McCain said there would be more wars.

Not a politically safe statement, maybe, but seems to me it’s pretty accurate, if history is a guide.

What’s the flip side? Hillary saying there will be no more wars?

Bosch,

Their last set-to was an eight-year war, claimed millions of lives. The obvious point to the question is that now the US provides the deterrence. With a complete US withdrawal, what’s to stop a reprise? Frankly, I don’t think “the world” would do much. Absent US leadership. Same as with Kuwait.

Not saying it’s likely or probable. Just having a bit of fun to see if anyone had a thought on why that particular war has been on hold. Issues are still there.

And for the rest of you, please do not take that as I’m advocating that as a reason for a continued US presence in the region. I’m not. Even given Hillary’s plan for troops in the region.

But I do think there are more subtle ways for Iran to greatly influence Iraqi affairs.

w00t 11:52

Maybe the real reason was because France, Germany and Russia had millions and millions and millions of dollars of trade and contracts with Iraq? In spite of the embargo?

Dirty multinational corporate capitalists. Can’t trust’em.

By Luckoduh

January 28, 2008 12:15 PM | Link to this

It must be wonderful to be a lib, making things up as you go along in life, problem is, even though it makes you feel good about your wormy little existence, you aren’t fooling anybody but yourself:

{{{{By w00t January 28, 2008 11:52 AM It’s the same reason why Germany, France, and Russia, etc didn’t go along with us, because they KNEW that there were no WMD programs in Iraq.}}}}

Really?

{{{{In late 2002, Saddam still owed the Russians some $10 billion, mainly for illegal arms deals. France came next in the trade rankings.}}}}

Surely you remember “Oil for Food,” where France and Russia took food from the mouths of children in exchange for Saddam’s oil money?

Or are you just a dimwit?

By Paul

January 28, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this

W stands for worst

I think I see your point now. The statement you cited for R would be pretty irresponsible. If, however, it was to began preparation for action if Saddam was found to have been the cause - that’s a bit different.

Regarding not declaring war on a country with no ties to the Pearl Harbor attack…

Germany?

By Bosch

January 28, 2008 12:21 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Just got this in an email from John Kerry (we’re buds, you know :-) ) talking about Obama:

“Our bill calls for clear benchmarks, a clear timeline for redeployment and a strategic strike force to combat al Qaeda. Most importantly, this redeployment from Iraq will give our military the personnel and equipment it needs to redouble its efforts at destroying al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. We need Senator Obama’s comprehensive approach to foreign policy and we need to make sure that we are fighting on the right battlefields.

Barack Obama will bring a new approach to foreign policy, one that understands the world as it really is. He will restore our reputation around the globe and end the Bush vision of foreign policy as a political weapon. And when a Republican candidate tells us that we’ll be in Iraq for 100 years, we know that a change in foreign policy can’t wait one more day.”

Yes, this is what I want.

By Truthman

January 28, 2008 12:23 PM | Link to this

Just a guess here, Luch-o-less:

You’re not married, are you?

By Georgia 74

January 28, 2008 12:23 PM | Link to this

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but here goes, I have never voted for a Republican in my life,59 years, but if I have the strength to pull the lever, McCain will be the first.

By Goldie

January 28, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this

When John McCain states that “there will be other wars”, he just ceded the presidency to the next Dem candidate…

By Bosch

January 28, 2008 12:29 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Another thing - what incentive does Iran have to invade Iraq? Regional dominance? Yes, of course, but they would never get away with it. The UN would be on them in a second.

Of course the US is the reason they aren’t invading, like I said earlier, they are getting more world sympathy (which is to their benefit) with us looking the aggressor (not to our benefit).

By Paul

January 28, 2008 12:36 PM | Link to this

Bosch

Good point on how countries now are often adept at playing events for world sympathy. Is a scenario possible? Sure. Likely? Not for a while, I hope. UN? You have more faith in them then I do. Look at the dithering on Sudan.

Regarding Kerry’s statement, I’m still interested in where we’re going to put all these troops.

Think about this. I’ll bet if it was the plan of a Rep candidate there’d be all kinds of questions about the conditions under which we’d “reinvade” Iraq. Or any other country.

It’s a valid question. I’m just amazed at how questions don’t get asked based upon party affiliation.

By Paul

January 28, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this

Bosch

How’s your mother-in-law doing after her heart attack?

Is it open season yet on your effect on women?

By JohnSmithP

January 28, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this

A person’s character is shaped and tested by their experiences which is why our next President’s character should matter as much if not more than their experience.

1969 – While Barack Obama was being raised by a single mother and experiencing a life of racial and cultural diversity, Hillary Clinton was learning the art of triangulation and writing an admiring college thesis on Saul Alinsky whose fifth rule of political agitation was, “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

1979 – While Barack Obama was actively involved in the South African divestment movement to end apartheid, Hillary was reaping profits of almost 10,000% in the futures markets and leaving taxpayers with her real-estate losses in the Savings & Loan bailout.

1989 – While Barack Obama served as the Harvard Law Review’s first black president in its 104 year history, Hillary Clinton then wife of the Arkansas governor was receiving payments from a law firm that was doing the state’s business and receiving board of director payments from Wal-Mart where she remained silent about Wal-Mart’s anti-labor union practices.

1999 – While Barack Obama was securing bipartisan support for health-care reform and passage of low-income tax credits and child care subsidies in the Illinois legislature, Hillary Clinton was urging her husband to bomb Yugoslavia and supporting his Iraq “regime change” policy in order to divert public attention from the president’s marital, legal and ethical infidelities.

2007 – While Barack was promoting a restoration of balance between work and wealth and criticizing special interests for distorting U.S. tax codes, Hillary and her husband were liquidating their blind trust of the nearly $50 million amassed during their years in public office.

The U.S. needs a uniter not a divider for President as the global economy teeters on the brink of economic meltdown not unlike the Great Depression.

Afterall the Roaring Twenties decade that preceded the Great Depression, like the Irrational Nineties that preceded our current decade, were both a golden age for technology, scandal-plagued politicians, corporate greed, and unrestrained personal debt and speculation.

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 12:47 PM | Link to this

DUH?

You have a life? You’re kidding?

I guess you are blogging here on your lunch break. How much hate can you spill in 1/2 hour?

Paul,

Deflection: 11:16, now set to spinning

RB:

the dems saw the same intelligence as the President? Not True!

Georgia 74

If you are going to take a baby step and vote for a liberal, why not go all the way!

By Paul

January 28, 2008 12:53 PM | Link to this

In The News 12:47

You’re consistent, I’ll give you that.

Have you thought about embracing Obama’s concept of “change?”

:-)

By Goldie

January 28, 2008 12:57 PM | Link to this

{{but if I have the strength to pull the lever, McCain will be the first.}}

Sorry to read that Georgia 74 is succumbing to the WAR FIRST Party!

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this

Paul:

I have ALWAYS embraced change.

They must often change, who would be constant in happiness or wisdom. ~Confucius

If you would attain to what you are not yet, you must always be displeased by what you are. For where you are pleased with yourself there you have remained. Keep adding, keep walking, keep advancing. ~Saint Augustine

By W stands for worst

January 28, 2008 1:02 PM | Link to this

Paul,

That is the main ingredient everyone forgets in this whole mess. Cheney, and Rummy left over from Bush I still had i t in for Saddam and used this to go to war with Iraq and trample on the constitution at the same time. I have said on this blog many times, i had never felt so proud to be an American when Dubya had that bullhorn and declared that the people who caused this destruction would soon hear from us. Then to see 6 years later that he didnt care to find those responsible….

By RW-(the original)

January 28, 2008 1:03 PM | Link to this

I’m just passing through, but I sure am glad I didn’t have anything to drink right before I read this:

{{{{The UN would be on them in a second.}}}}}

Please tell me that was sarcasm and I’ll give you props for a great line, Bosch. If it was serious would you elaborate?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Serious question for you Obama supporters. How do you square the message of change with romping around with Ted Kennedy?

By Bosch

January 28, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this

Paul,

I think you’re right about party affiliation and questions, but aren’t most of the Republican candidates simply touting Bush’s plan? No timetable? No plan? Just stay the disastrous course?

It’s my opinion that wars are just not tolerated too much these days. That may sound a little simplistic and naive, and most people would reply to that with a big “DUH” but the world is a much smaller place than it was in the 80s (even the hair, thank god) during the Iran/Iraq war and the Afghanistan/Russian war. And, like I’ve said over and over, it is no longer a matter of who has the most guns wins, it’s who can break their enemies’ economy.

The Soviet Union fell apart, and we should take a big lesson from that.

Yes, my mother in law is better, well, still in the hospital, but thanks for asking. It turns out she has a blood clot, which is more dangerous than the heart “episode” she had. They don’t say heart attack anymore, it’s always an “episode.” More tests today to see for sure - it pretty much sucks to have a heart “episode” on Friday - not much gets done over the weekend.

You can tease me if you wish. :-)

Oh, BTW, I saw Sweeny Todd last night. I’m DEFINITELY giving up meat for Lent. That was the most macabre, disturbing movie I’ve ever seen. GREAT MOVIE, very disturbing - Tim Burton makes Edgar Allan Poe look like a Disney animator.

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this

RW

All I saw was an endorsement.

Didn’t see any romping around.

Are any of the GOP candidates romping around Bush or Cheney asking for an endorsement? How do we square GOP candidates calling for change but too attached to Bush to say why change is needed?

C’mon RW, let’s twist and shout!

By Bosch

January 28, 2008 1:14 PM | Link to this

RW,

Yes, I guess my faith in the UN is a little naive, to say the least, but I’ve elaborated a bit in other posts.

Paul, The situation in Sudan is inexcusable, but I don’t think they would be so laissez faire if it were somewhere in the Middle East.

By getalife

January 28, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this

Damn Ted is blowhard.

Give it a rest Ted and let Obama speak.

Geez.

By RW-(the original)

January 28, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this

ITFS,

Try turning on a television,

Later!

By w00t

January 28, 2008 1:19 PM | Link to this

Oh, it’s so funny that even you crazed neocons want to throw mud in the eyes of the FBI.

You’re still playing the card of “if it doesn’t fit the policy then it must be a lie.”

It’s no different than Bush spiting on our intelligence agencies when he disowned the Iran NIE report.

You can’t decide what evidence gets to be used and when to use it. Everything has to be taken in to account for context, or you get a false sense of the world.

We’re been saying this for almost seven years now, and you can’t even see it when the FBI tells you how it is.

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this

RW Do you spend much time in front of the TV machine?

Didn’t yo’mama tell you what it would to do your brains?

Do you ever “romp” RW? With the kids? the wife? the dog?

I am SOOOO waiting to see Romney and McCain romp….

By Dubya

January 28, 2008 1:24 PM | Link to this

The Repunk choice shall be McCain. Another crazed cretin who believes in “winning” in Iraq. Perhaps this fraud will take us on another fraudulent shopping trip in downtown Bagdaddy - or have you already forgotten that scam? Never be surprised at the gross ignorance that is the rancid masses of the Repug party and the excrement they always bring forth. Tonight will be another delivery from Drunken Bush, my favorite reminder of Repug intellectualism. Observe him carefully. The words written for him. His pitiful delivery. The mindless little smirk. His look of bewilderment. His alcoholic body language. Yapping about “9/11” and “War On Terror” and “Fight Them Here At Home,” etc. Always a fun evening in which to examine the Repugs’ very best. Be proud in knowing that the rest of the World watches too. These are our finest moments. God bless Murcuh! Allah Akbar!

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 1:29 PM | Link to this

State of the Union Drinking Game 2008

By RB from Gwinnett

January 28, 2008 1:33 PM | Link to this

By w00t 11:52 AM

Woot, I’ve been asking you for weeks who’s been accused or convicted of lying to congress (the sen. intel committee) leading up to Iraq. You keep making these stupid statements about the intel being made up, but that’s a federal offense and you can damn well be sure if they’ll convict Jackie Joyner and send her to jail for 6 months for lying about steriod use, they’d have a field day with some slimy intel guy lying to them leading up to the war. Put up the evidence to support your stupid claims. You’ve been asked repeatedly. Put up or shut up.

ITN, who decides what intel the intel committe sees? Does Bush make that call? I don’t think so. Our government is constructed the way it is to keep things like that from happening. Use your brain for a change and think.

By RB from Gwinnett

January 28, 2008 1:36 PM | Link to this

By w00t 11:52 AM

Woot, I’ve been asking you for weeks who’s been accused or convicted of lying to congress (the sen. intel committee) leading up to Iraq. You keep making these stupid statements about the intel being made up, but that’s a federal offense and you can damn well be sure if they’ll convict Jackie Joyner and send her to jail for 6 months for lying about steriod use, they’d have a field day with some slimy intel guy lying to them leading up to the war. Put up the evidence to support your stupid claims. You’ve been asked repeatedly. Put up or shut up.

ITN, who decides what intel the intel committe sees? Does Bush make that call? I don’t think so. Our government is constructed the way it is to keep things like that from happening. Use your brain for a change and think.

By rushncap

January 28, 2008 1:41 PM | Link to this

Paul, here is my take on what happened. This is supported by my general understanding of human nature, politics, and what I’ve read about the whole issue.

Bush wanted to invade Iraq from before he even took office. He just needed an excuse. When 9/11 happened he got the excuse. He (and I mean Cheney et al) knew that Iraq was no threat, but there was enough ambiguity that they were able to present some sort of a shoddy case. I think Democrats knew full well that Iraq was no threat as well, but in the aftermath of 9/11 stating so or even contradicting Bush publicly would be total political suicide. They were not willing to fall on that sword, so they went along with it, in some cases trying to position themselves as supporters (see Hillary), again for political considerations. Are they partially to blame? Sure. But they are not the ones who dreamt up this stupid war and it was Rove etc. who used Bush’s political clout and our national tragedy to back Democrats into a no-win corner. So you can trudge out all the “Democrats said so too” but they are not the ones who pushed the damn thing. Without Shrub and his cabal there would be no war. It’s HIS fault. The Democrats failed to be patriotically heroic, granted, but that’s a long way from sharing the blame.

By Paul

January 28, 2008 1:43 PM | Link to this

ITN 1:01

Excellent thoughts. Thank you.

W for worst 1:02

That’s one of the more fascinating things. Cheney was quite constrained in dealing with Saddam during Desert Storm - stuck right to the UN mandate. He had the power and position to advocate for a stronger push then, but did not. So I don’t think it was an “unfinished business” thing with him.

I think Pres Bush and company have been pursuing the al Qaeda organization - and other elements of jihadism - successfully, on many levels, worldwide. One of the points that baffles me is how quiet they’ve been on many of these successes. Disruption of financial networks, assistance to other countries - well, I suppose much is still classified. Years ago when I met my very first “Bush Lied” zealot I made what I thought was a mildly soft observation that the Iraq war was (at that time) a sideshow to the war on terror. The person never got it. Just took a the comment as unabashed, full, overthetop support for Bush and the War so I was a righwingapologistneocon… That was pretty fascinating, too.

Bosch,

I’ve not meant many people who could enunciate, specifically, Bush’s plan for Iraq. Because much has been left unsaid. But there are some differences. Heck, I suppose I could say the difference between Hillary’s plan and the “Republican” plan is the Reps would keep troops in-country while Hillary would keep them out of country. I suppose I could say that -

I think those who say the surge failed because the gov’t is dysfunctional missed the point of the surge. Reading through the plan I believe the objective was to reduce the violence to provide an environment for the gov’t to “succeed.” Paraphrasing, there. Because the gov’t is dysfunctional does not mean they did not have the environment for success.

I’ll hazard a guess that the situation will evolve towards what Biden recommended - more of a federation. If the environment continues somewhat stable. So if Hillary wants to keep troops in the region for years, and the Reps do, too, than doesn’t it make sense to keep them where they’ll have the greatest impact? Just wondering out loud.

I’ll pass on Sweeney Todd, thank you.

By @@

January 28, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this

This is just too convenient ml.

The Huckabee resemblance!

Huckabee Gored.

By W stands for worst

January 28, 2008 1:45 PM | Link to this

I guess most on this blog forget Iraq and Iran have been at war since the late 70’s. That is how we got in bed with Sadaam. And after Iran overthrew our embassy and took our people hostage, we gave them arms and never punished them. These and other great foriegn policy disasters brought to you courtesy of the GOP…

By Tonito

January 28, 2008 1:48 PM | Link to this

homoDUH. 11:53. “Some of us have a life.” Who would that be? Up all night, waiting to be first to post here daily. Spending the entire day here. Ignorant of all subjects. Wrapped in 4-letter insults and potty talk. Childish crap ozzing constantly. Do tell the world about your “life,” Brokeback Boy.” (The latter just upsets you sooo much, Man of God.)Tellus! Tell us!! About the pathetic wife and unfortunate kids too.

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this

RB FROM GWINNETT

{{{ITN, who decides what intel the intel committe sees? Does Bush make that call? I don’t think so. Our government is constructed the way it is to keep things like that from happening. Use your brain for a change and think. }}}

Bush doesn’t make that call? Are you sure? Can you prove that?

Anyway, that does not in any way refute the truth, that BUSH and the intel comm DID NOT see the same info.

So now you can try and defend your ignorant statement again.

It’s so sad that you cannot understand that which you write.

Please try and not be a lemming. It’s why the Republican party is falling aprt!

By Paul

January 28, 2008 1:56 PM | Link to this

Bosch

Regarding Sudan, you may find this interesting. The perpetuation of warfare. China’s role. Money and power, again.

Link: China’s Genocide Olympics

rushncap

I can go along with elements of that, but rather than Bush/Cheny I much more tend towards the Perle/Wolfowitz/Feith view.

Were Dems pushed into a no-win corner? Well, that’s where on finds oneself when one chooses personal interest over principle.

Sometimes, when one is pushed, one pushes back. Even when the outcome is predetermined. “300” is a great movie.

I think there’s plenty of sharing to go around. My earlier point was, many Dem politicians paint themselves as innocent victims with absolutely no responsibility who were duped by a malevolent administration. That is not statesmanship.

By RB from Gwinnett

January 28, 2008 2:09 PM | Link to this

By IN THE NEWS 1:51 PM

So you want us to believe the intel community withheld critical information from the senate intel committee that may have kept us out of this war and NOBODY HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF MISLEADING CONGRESS??? If evidence exists to show Bush was shown 1 set of intel and congress was shown something else, as you claim, somebody is going to jail. Who? In this partisan political climate, there is no way those misleading congress into a war would be allowed a free pass for that. Nobody on either side of the aisle would support that. Does that really make rational sense to you? I don’t give a crap what stupid links you can find to some partisan left wing hack, look at what’s happened in congress with the people you claim were lied to. NOTHING! They’ve accused and tried NOBODY. Why is that?

By rushncap

January 28, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this

Paul - you are probably right about the engine being Perle/Wolfowitz/Feith. I was simply using Bush as the catch-all for the actual real forces behind his administration. I agree that it’s not fair to lay all the blame at the feet of a figurehead dunce, but that’s not my main point.

I agree, the Dems are not “innocent bystanders”. But neither are they equally culpable for the disaster. They were enablers, although I’m sure they were also lied to. I’m not excusing them, I’m mad as hell that almost no one in power had the balls to stand up to Bush’s junta. But let’s face it, we’re in a 2 party system, and if the choice is between a party that’s 80% responsible for the war and one that is 20% (percentages are simply guesstimates, please don’t ask for source data), I have no choice but to select the 20%s. Yes, both sides are playing politics with the situation. But the final choice comes down to this: who is worse — a murderer who shoots someone in the face, or a coward bystander who does nothing about it? You may feel disgusted with the gutless bystander, but he’s not the worse of the 2 evils.

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 2:22 PM | Link to this

RB from Gwinnett says:

“They’ve accused and tried NOBODY. Why is that?”

IS THERE ANYBODY LEFT HERE THAT HAS THE PATIENCE TO GIVE THIS MAN A CIVICS LESSON?

Dumb as a box of rocks, I swear! And proud of it!

By Apocalypse

January 28, 2008 2:23 PM | Link to this

Monday, January 28, 2008

Toni Morrisons Endorsement Letter

Here is Morrison’s endorsement letter…

Dear Senator Obama,

This letter represents a first for me—a public endorsement of a Presidential candidate. I feel driven to let you know why I am writing it. One reason is it may help gather other supporters; another is that this is one of those singular moments that nations ignore at their peril. I will not rehearse the multiple crises facing us, but of one thing I am certain: this opportunity for a national evolution (even revolution) will not come again soon, and I am convinced you are the person to capture it.

May I describe to you my thoughts?

I have admired Senator Clinton for years. Her knowledge always seemed to me exhaustive; her negotiation of politics expert. However I am more compelled by the quality of mind (as far as I can measure it) of a candidate. I cared little for her gender as a source of my admiration, and the little I did care was based on the fact that no liberal woman has ever ruled in America. Only conservative or “new-centrist” ones are allowed into that realm. Nor do I care very much for your race[s]. I would not support you if that was all you had to offer or because it might make me “proud.”

In thinking carefully about the strengths of the candidates, I stunned myself when I came to the following conclusion: that in addition to keen intelligence, integrity and a rare authenticity, you exhibit something that has nothing to do with age, experience, race or gender and something I don’t see in other candidates. That something is a creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom. It is too bad if we associate it only with gray hair and old age. Or if we call searing vision naivete. Or if we believe cunning is insight. Or if we settle for finessing cures tailored for each ravaged tree in the forest while ignoring the poisonous landscape that feeds and surrounds it. Wisdom is a gift; you can’t train for it, inherit it, learn it in a class, or earn it in the workplace—that access can foster the acquisition of knowledge, but not wisdom.

When, I wondered, was the last time this country was guided by such a leader? Someone whose moral center was un-embargoed? Someone with courage instead of mere ambition? Someone who truly thinks of his country’s citizens as “we,”

By getalife

January 28, 2008 2:24 PM | Link to this

Gaze upon your Senators today using unity to steal more of your freedom and give immunity for the corporates who have spied on you without a warrant.

Senator Clinton will vote no. The gop will all vote for immunity.

By W stands for worst

January 28, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this

Paul,

What has amazed me with Cheney is that he didnt want to go to Baghdad in 91 but did inn 01. Now it may not be finished business but his ex company sure has made out very well because of this. No the Bush lied mantra is a little over the top, I applaud the Congressmen and women and Senators who did not go for the lies in the first place and voted against this debacle in Iraq. But you have to admit the whole Bush admin was wrong whether intentional or not.

We may have made a dent in Al-Queda but we havent wiped them out. Dubya talks big about countries hiding terrorists but with Bin Laden being in Pakistan, we havent tried to bring him to justice or tried to withould any of the millions we give that country to find him.

By Paul

January 28, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this

rushncap

“the Dems are not “innocent bystanders”. But neither are they equally culpable for the disaster. They were enablers,”

I like the nuance.

Y’know, part of what I said was a broad paraphrase of some of what Obama’s said. I’ve been thinking of this in terms about being “right” but for the “wrong” reasons, though. I’ll have to see if I can find some original sources on his vote.

By Clemence

January 28, 2008 2:28 PM | Link to this

DYou don’t speak often, Dubya, but you always speak with extreme accuracy. Let’s not forget that Bushnut will be raving about the new tax rebate tonite as well. Americans will sell their souls for a few dollars in the hand. Stupid rebate will have no effect whatever on “the economy.” Me? Thanks to the Bush Gang, I’ll invest my rebate in a good foreign stock that will benefit someone somewhere.

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 2:30 PM | Link to this

RB FROM GWINNETT

I apologize for calling you dumb as a box of rocks.

let me give you a hint - The answer is not the same as why after spending $70,000,00.00 dollars investigating the Clintons no indictments were made.

By Apocalypse

January 28, 2008 2:31 PM | Link to this

Monday, January 28, 2008

Letter From Ted Kennedy

Dear Friend,

Barack Obama inspires me.

That’s why I’m about to take the stage with him here in Washington and endorse his campaign to become the next president of the United States.

It’s that simple. Through Barack, I believe we will move beyond the politics of fear and personal destruction and unite our country with the politics of common purpose.

All Democrats in this race have strong ideas to address the challenges before our country. But Barack is the candidate who can inspire Americans to act and bring us together to achieve those goals — an economy that works for everyone, health care for all, and at long last ending the war in Iraq and bringing our troops home.

Join me and become part of the Obama campaign today:

http://www.democraticmajority.com/obama

I remember another leader who inspired the nation, especially our youth, to fulfill a promise of change. Those inspired young people marched, sat in at lunch counters, protested the war in Vietnam and served honorably in that war even when they opposed it.

That leader challenged them to ask what they could do for their country and, together, they changed the world.

So in the words of that leader, John Kennedy: “The world is changing. The old ways will not do… It is time for a new generation of leadership.”

I have found that next generation of American leadership in Barack Obama.

Take a moment to join his campaign:

http://www.democraticmajority.com/obama

I respect the strength, the work and dedication of two other Democrats still in the race, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. They are my friends; they have been my colleagues in the Senate. Whoever is our nominee will have my enthusiastic support.

But I believe there is one candidate whose extraordinary gifts of leadership and character match the extraordinary demands of this moment in history.

Barack will be a president who refuses to be trapped in the patterns of the past. He sees the world clearly without being cynical. He fights for the causes he believes in — but refuses to demonize those who hold a different view. He’s tough-minded, but he also has an uncommon capacity to appeal to “the better an

By w00t

January 28, 2008 2:34 PM | Link to this

They have, in a since. When they exposed Valerie Plame as a CIA agent when her husband determined that the Nigeria Yellow cake sale was a sham.

That’s the M.O. of Bush&Co., to discredit their dissenters, and trash their reputations.

This information was also supposed to be taken out of Bush’s 2003 SoTU address, but was left in for “effect”. It is know as the “sixteen words”.

If the information that is known to be false is left intentionally in a SoTU speech as a push for war, what do you call it? To me it is a lie, plain and simple.

There is plenty of information here:

Previously, in February 2002, three different American officials had made efforts to verify the reports. The deputy commander of U.S. Armed Forces Europe, Marine General Carlton W. Fulford, Jr., went to Niger and met with the country’s president, Tandja Mamadou. He concluded that, given the controls on Niger’s uranium supply, there was little chance any of it could have been diverted to Iraq. His report was sent to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers. The U.S. Ambassador to Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, was also present at the meeting and sent similar conclusions to the State Department. CNN reported on 14 March 2003 {before invasion} that the International Atomic Energy Agency found the documents to be forged.

By rushncap

January 28, 2008 2:35 PM | Link to this

Paul — I think nuance is called for, sometimes. There is a laaaaaarge middle ground between “pure as driven snow” and “Bush administration”. Those are basically 2 polar extremes. Democrats, by and large, reside in-between.

By N-GA

January 28, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this

Paul,

While the PNAC “members” may have created the “philosophy” that had, as one of its tenets, the absolute requirement that a Middle East at war was good for Israel, I think that there were others in government who felt that Saddam needed to be overthrown.

There is much known about what occured then, and much that is unknown. But we do know what former Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O’Neill, had to say. He said that within 10 days of taking office, Bush and those close to him were calling for Saddam’s ouster. He said they were just looking for a reason. And that was 8 months before 9/11. We’ve also heard that one of Bush’s early responses to the 9/11 attack was “What did Iraq have to do with it?”.

Of course there is George Tenet who also suggests that there was insufficient evidence to state categorically that Saddam had WMD’s. And he got the Presidential Medal of Freedom, or some such “honor”. (aside - in recent years the words “honor” and “hero” have lost their meanings due to overuse)

I’ve said it before: If you are going to attack a country pre-emptively, you had better be right! I personally think that the World Court should bring this issue up for review and, perhaps, more.

To avoid accountability for being wrong, the administration keeps coming up with other reasons for the invasion: democracy, helping the Iraqi people, gassing the Kurds, etc. Of course there are many in the opposition who “authorized” the invasion…how stupid of them. Even then they were foolish to trust these people. And I hold them accountable…though not equally so.

It is not so much that “everyone is calling Bush a liar” for invading Iraq using scant evidence. It is simply that there are some who call him a liar…and they say it loudly and often. And the media reports it. But few are saying that we were wrong to invade, and should leave because we don’t belong there. But there are more saying it now than were saying it 6 months ago.

Sorry for the long post…

By W stands for worst

January 28, 2008 2:48 PM | Link to this

Dubyas 7 years:

George W. Bush inherited a country with a $236 billion surplus. He engaged in seven years of deficit spending that will leave America with more than $3.5 trillion in new debt.

Bush inherited a middle class whose incomes increased more than $6,000 between 1993 and 2001. Median household incomes have dropped over $1,000 since he took office. During his presidency, health-care premiums have doubled, from about $6,000 to $12,000 per family.

Bush inherited a military that had all active-duty Army divisions rated at the highest readiness levels and that was capable of fighting a two-front war. He will leave behind a military facing the worst readiness crisis in a generation, with not a single active-duty or reserve brigade “fully combat ready.”

Bush inherited a nation that was respected on the international stage; he will leave behind one reviled by many around the world. A Pew poll of 10 nations found that in 2001, 58 percent of respondents viewed America favorably; today, that number is 39 percent.

Yep real nice legacy there, If this was a Democrat the GOP moonbats on this blog would be salivating all over themselves to be the first to report how the Dems ruined our country…

By RB from Gwinnett

January 28, 2008 2:52 PM | Link to this

By IN THE NEWS 2:22

ITN, Can’t defend your comments so you change the subject and call people names. Typical liberal.

If you really believe the investigations of Clinton have anything to do with why people who misled congress to get this nation into a war not being charged with anything, you are a complete and total fool. Let me give you a clue, dimwit. I can’t speak for the R’s on the Sen Intel Comm, but I personally would support the prosecution of anyone who misled congress into a war. I susupect the R members of the committee would too. And you know damn well the D’s on the committee would have gone after them full bore. The fact is, this whole “lied to get us into the war” crap is nothing but a bunch of made up bush bashing garbage perpetuated by lemings like you and the rest of the libs on this site. It’s a lie, gang. If you’re intellectually honest, you know that.

By Paul

January 28, 2008 2:53 PM | Link to this

rushncap 2:35

And Republicans occupy the “pure as driven snow” space?

Sorry. Too good to pass up.

w00t

We had Arab countries fighting alongside us in Desert Storm. The mission was to expel Iraq from Kuwait. Going further would have led to real problems.

To me, one of the big lessons from this is - everyone is not “just the same.” People may love their spouses and kids and want a good life. But they may also hate anyone who isn’t from their tribe. Or whose fifth great-grandparents were victims of some slight. Or who doesn’t view a pious life and God as they do.

Surface may be similar, but boy, what’s underneath…

And we get mixed up with them at our peril.

“Defeating” an ideology like the jihadists is pretty much of a problem. I hope we get someone in office who will not concentrate just on military/clandestine. Or ignore military and go just clandestine. I wrote the other day - education of women could be a great factor. Goes counter to many tribal societies, but the changes that could result are something to ponder. Pressure on countries to use aid to provide free education for all their kids. Not just the males. Undermine the madrassas. For the billions Pakistan gets, we should be able to suggest how it gets spent. Saudis? Tough nut to crack. Wahabbists who love money. Go figure.

We have two strategic interests in the Middle East. One is oil, something whose effect is largely in our control. The other is radical Islam, which isn’t. We should make strong changes short-term to deal with the former and keep engaging, long-term, to deal with the latter.

By RB from Gwinnett

January 28, 2008 2:55 PM | Link to this

By IN THE NEWS 2:22

ITN, Can’t defend your comments so you change the subject and call people names. Typical liberal.

If you really believe the investigations of Clinton have anything to do with why people who misled congress to get this nation into a war not being charged with anything, you are a complete and total fool. Let me give you a clue, dimwit. I can’t speak for the R’s on the Sen Intel Comm, but I personally would support the prosecution of anyone who misled congress into a war. I susupect the R members of the committee would too. And you know damn well the D’s on the committee would have gone after them full bore. The fact is, this whole “lied to get us into the war” crap is nothing but a bunch of made up bush bashing garbage perpetuated by lemings like you and the rest of the libs on this site. It’s a lie, gang. If you’re intellectually honest, you know that.

By Apocalypse

January 28, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this

This campaign is about something more than politics.

You felt it, and like thousands of others across the country, you volunteered to get involved in your community.

With less than two weeks until the Georgia primary on Tuesday, February 5th, our moment is now.

I’m writing to ask you to join a special group of grassroots volunteers and activists who are going the extra mile to support Barack.

Join the Action Team and help bring change to Georgia:

http://my.barackobama.com/GAactionteam

As a team member, you will:

Receive updates on important Obama for America events

Learn how you can grow our movement in your area

Stay up to date on our GOTV efforts in your area There are less than two weeks left until our primary on Tuesday, Feb 5th. Now is the time to take action!

Join the Georgia Action Team now:

http://my.barackobama.com/GAactionteam

By Luckoduh

January 28, 2008 3:02 PM | Link to this

{{{{By Tonito January 28, 2008 1:48 PM homoDUH. 11:53. “Some of us have a life.” Who would that be? Up all night, waiting to be first to post here daily. Spending the entire day here.}}}}

Say, Chief, what do you think of “IN THE NEWS” the yapping idiot attack doggie that posts first thing and really does stay here all day long?

{{{{Ignorant of all subjects.}}}}

Kinda sounds like w00sie to me.

{{{{Wrapped in 4-letter insults and potty talk. Childish crap ozzing constantly.}}}}

Huh.

{{{{By Dubya January 28, 2008 1:24 PM Never be surprised at the gross ignorance that is the rancid masses of the Repug party and the excrement they always bring forth. Tonight will be another delivery from Drunken Bush, my favorite reminder of Repug intellectualism.}}}}

{{{{Do tell the world about your “life,” Brokeback Boy.” (The latter just upsets you sooo much, Man of God.)Tellus! Tell us!!}}}}

Oh yeah, like I would even consider corn holing some other man, what do you think I am, some freak liberal?

Like you?

So what about the KKKlinton meltdown, pretty cool, eh?

By @@

January 28, 2008 3:06 PM | Link to this

Paul:

I loved the 60 Minutes link. Great reading. My favorite parts:

((“The secret war. What did he mean?” Pelley asks.))

((“Going from a conventional to an unconventional war,” Piro says.))

((“So the insurgency was part of his plan from the very beginning,” Pelley remarks.))

((“Well, —->he would like to take credit for the insurgency,<—-” Piro says.))

((Central to that insurgency were Saddam’s sons, that is, before they were killed by U.S. forces.))

((Asked how Saddam reacted to the deaths of his two sons, Uday and Qusay, Piro says, “I was surprised. He didn’t show any remorse. He told me that he was, of course, proud of his sons. They died believing, or fighting, for what they believed.”))

((Piro asked Saddam about his son Uday, a notorious rapist and murderer. He pressed him until Saddam didn’t want to hear anymore. “He tells me to stop. Basically stop asking these questions. You don’t get to pick your kids. You’re kind of stuck with what you get,” Piro recalls.))

((Among the most important questions for U.S. intelligence was whether Saddam was supporting al Qaeda, as had been claimed by some in the Bush administration.))

((What was Saddam’s opinion of Osama Bin Laden?))

((“He considered him to be a fanatic.))

Hmmmmmm, so was Uday (a fanatic) in his own right. Qusay had been handed the future reigns of Iraq.

We could get all speculative here and say Saddam, through his own admission, had no control over his sons, but he (Saddam) would like to take credit for the insurgency. Maybe Uday deserved the credit for linking up with Bin Laden.

Damn…..I’m creative or

Maybe not! (ISH)

Hope I haven’t been redundant. I stopped reading after the 60 Minutes link.

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this

OK, RB, I’ll take the apology back.

You are dumb as a box of rocks.

It was a hint you moron!

I suggest you start here!

By Bosch

January 28, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this

Paul,

“I’ve not meant many people who could enunciate, specifically, Bush’s plan for Iraq.”

Including Bush, I’m sure, which scares the s** out of me that we have a president who starts wars with no clear objective in mind.

I agree whole-heartedly with what N-GA and rushncap have posted today. Everything was left so open-ended with absolutely no accountability, leaving Bush to change the reasons we are there, and still there, as he wishes. It scares me just as equally that people are easily confused into believing this spin, they are ADD, and can’t keep up with the constant b****** coming from this administration.

You said earlier that Saddam expected us to be there a few days, well, so did Bush. He thought he’d go in, be the big giant hero, and leave. He wasn’t expecting all the other crap, that’s why there was no exit strategy. He didn’t think he’d need one.

N-GA:

Amen!

rushncap:

Amen to you too!

By Peter

January 28, 2008 3:12 PM | Link to this

My favorite ‘toon last year was “TROOP ROTATION” (Republicans were turning a soldier over a fire on a spit).

By Luckoduh

January 28, 2008 3:14 PM | Link to this

{{{{Bragging about millions of jobs his Administration created, he neglected to note that incomes stagnated for 80% of the workers in the country and ended in 2000, under the level of 1973, adjusted for inflation.}}}}

{{{{A brainy White House assistant to Mr. KKKlinton told me in 1997 that the only real achievement his boss could take credit for was passage of legislation allowing 12 weeks family leave, without pay.}}}}

{{{{There are changes both the KKKlinton Administration actively championed that further entrenched corporate power over our economy and government during the decade. He pushed through Congress the NAFTA and the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements that represented the greatest surrender in our history of local, state and national sovereignty to an autocratic, secretive system of transnational governance. This system subordinated workers, consumers and the environment to the supremacy of globalized commerce.}}}}

{{{{That was just for starters. Between 1996 and 2000, he drove legislation through Congress that concentrated more power in the hands of giant agribusiness, large telecommunications companies and the biggest jackpot - opening the doors to gigantic mergers in the financial industry. The latter so-called “financial modernization law” sowed the permissive seeds for taking vast financial risks with other peoples’ money (ie. pensioners and investors) that is now shaking the economy to recession.}}}}

{{{{The man who pulled off this demolition of regulatory experience from the lessons of the Great Depression was KKKlinton’s Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, who went to work for Citigroup - the main pusher of this oligopolistic coup—just before the bill passed and made himself $40 million for a few months of consulting in that same year.}}}}

Heh, Ralph Nader said all that^^.

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 3:16 PM | Link to this

RB,

You’re just mad that my dream of

marrying getalife will be fulfilled

with Clinton in the White House.

By getalife

January 28, 2008 3:18 PM | Link to this

On Morning Joe, Craig Crawford stated: “I really think the evidence-free bias against the Clintons in the media borders on mental illness.”

Yes, I have seen it on “progressive” blogs like dkos.

Don’t unite with the RW and corporate media, they are punking you again.

Hope in one hand and crap in the other.

Hopeful crap.

By @@

January 28, 2008 3:24 PM | Link to this

O-:MG Getalife ^^^ that was hilarious.

(((Hope in one hand and crap in the other.)))

(((Hopeful crap.)))

Are you calling the Clinton’s crap?

By getalife

January 28, 2008 3:24 PM | Link to this

Look at the Obama supporter gay wanking.

This is a classic example of uniting with the wingnuts.

By Paul

January 28, 2008 3:25 PM | Link to this

Bosch,

Rule of thumb: no military plan survives first contact.

And where one is rarely matches where one expected to be.

No exit strategy and failure to see the underlying tensions in one of the most educated, secular states in the Middle East: which is why I’ve been consisent in my criticism of State, Defense, and Intel agencies. Many of these people were around long before the Bush administration, recycling the same views.

N-GA

LOL! If you’re going to apologize for going long, man, then go long! That was just laying the foundation! LOL!

I think it’s without dispute many recycles from the first Bush Administration came it with an agenda on Iraq. But they did not have to prevail. This is one reason I think it imperative to see who candidates are selecting as advisors. If some who’ve served earlier, then the question is: what is different? Have their views changed in the interim? What have they learned?

Thinking Saddam could have been responsible for 9-11 as it happened demonstrates just what people had been conditioned to think of Saddam’s capabilities. And how little they still thought of an ideologue in a cave. More’s the pity.

By Apocalypse

January 28, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this

getalife, Hope must be working:

Clinton’s camp seeks gentler role for Bill Campaign tries to shift ex-president’s disposition after Obama’s latest win.

Is Bill helping Hillary? Jan. 27: TODAY’s Matt Lauer talks to Time magazine’s Joe Klein about whether the former president’s efforts are helping or hurting his wife’s campaign.

A political life From Watergate to Whitewater, politics has played a major role in Hillary Clinton’s life.

Kennedy Calls Obama ‘New Generation of Leadership’

Clinton’s Camp Seeks Gentler Role for Ex-President

Democrats inside and outside the Clinton campaign on Sunday debated and in some cases bemoaned the degree to which former President Bill Clinton ’s criticism of Senator Barack Obama last week had inflicted lasting damage on his wife’s presidential candidacy.

“I think his harsh style hurt Senator Clinton — it polarized the campaign and polarized the electorate, and it also made it harder for Senator Clinton’s positive message to break through,” said Celinda Lake, a Democratic strategist and pollster who is not affiliated with any of the candidates.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton ’s campaign team, seeking to readjust after her lopsided defeat in South Carolina and amid a sense among many Democrats that Mr. Clinton had injected himself clumsily into the race, will try to shift the former president back into the sunnier, supportive-spouse role that he played before Mrs. Clinton’s loss in the Iowa caucuses, Clinton advisers said.

By Willy

January 28, 2008 3:31 PM | Link to this

Just think: The famous “Bush Legacy” will consist of his “Rebate” rescue to the hordes of American people/suckers.

By getalife

January 28, 2008 3:31 PM | Link to this

And witness the “mental illness” Crawford is talking about with @@’s post.

We have name for it here and it is called CDS. It has been a virus on this blog since day one but now the Dems have caught it.

Unite with the RW and corporate media?

Hell freaking NO.

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 3:31 PM | Link to this

getalife,

I don’t support Obama baby. I’m a Clinton man.

You know I’ll support anyone you tell me too.

kisses.

By Dusty

January 28, 2008 3:35 PM | Link to this

Well, what do ya know? Bush bashers still going strong here. Same ol’ stuff though. Bush bad. Bush bungled. Bush thought….(as if they know). Bush belittlement. You poor weaklings wouldn’t have anything to say if it weren’t for Bush.

And of course you’ve got Peter, whose favorite is the ignominious traitorous cartoon of roasting American soldiers.(Liberal version of troop support!)

Thank goodness for the conservatives here who let you know that they are still Americans and NOT the liberal branch of alQaida. Conservatives are the only ones who save this blog from being total propaganda.

By rushncap

January 28, 2008 3:40 PM | Link to this

Did someone tarnish li’s Dusty’s Bush idol? Shame on you, lib’ruls! For shame! Who’s the poor woman gonna pray to?!

By Bosch

January 28, 2008 3:41 PM | Link to this

Paul,

I understand you have to be flexibile and adapt, but this is ridiculous.

By getalife

January 28, 2008 3:42 PM | Link to this

Yes wanker.

Her bashed a CNN reporter and Jack Cafferty read a gop hit piece on the air.

Lost all respect for CNN.

By Apocalypse

January 28, 2008 3:42 PM | Link to this

getalife,

You need to wake up dude. You act like Obama owes you money or something.

Since it appears that I’m the only one here who knew what you meant when you said “hopeful crap”, I should be the one who warns you:

Jump off the Clinton Titanic before its too late.

By @@

January 28, 2008 3:46 PM | Link to this

Now G-e-t-a-l-i-f-e, when have you ever heard me say the Clintons were racists?

I said that I came to view the Democratic Party at subversively racist.

It’s not my fault the Clintons are Democrats.

By Dusty

January 28, 2008 3:47 PM | Link to this

Poor lil rushncap,@3:40

Dear Sir, I won’t say what I think you polished. It is seems to be common knowledge here.

By rushncap

January 28, 2008 3:49 PM | Link to this

Did someone tarnish li’s Dusty’s Bush idol? Shame on you, lib’ruls! For shame! Who’s the poor woman gonna pray to?!

By Apocalypse

January 28, 2008 3:49 PM | Link to this

Jan 28, 2008 3:32 PM The Superdelegates are Adding Up! When it rains it POURS! The endorsements just keep rolling in!

Capuano endorses Obama for president

January 28, 2008

WASHINGTON—Massachusetts U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano is throwing his support behind Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama. more stories like this

The Somerville Democrat says Obama seems best able to deliver on promises of change and unity.

Capuano’s announcement Monday came as Sen. Edward Kennedy endorsed Obama in Washington and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton made a campaign stop in Springfield.

Sen. John Kerry and U.S. Rep. William Delahunt are also backing Obama. © Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 3:50 PM | Link to this

The Namejacker’s back

But he’s just a hack

Seems he get’s the blues

When he reads IN THE NEWS

So jack away troll

I know it’s your goal

You jack cuz you’re sick

Cuz’ you ain’t got no SENSE

(Thought I’d go for the dirty rhyme didn’t ya’)

LA LA LA

Let’s vote - is the Jackmeister

DUH or RB?

Or are they the same?

By rushncap

January 28, 2008 3:52 PM | Link to this

There there Dusters, you’ll make @@ all jealous. Apparently I’m very popular with the dried-up old prunes here, we may have a cat fight. I’d be careful though, @@ fights dirty, I’m sure. Remember, she’s smarter and more tricky than you.

By @@

January 28, 2008 3:57 PM | Link to this

Getalife:

but since you brought it up…

Some democrats do have this innate ability.

It’s their enlightened political birthright.

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 4:06 PM | Link to this

Namejacker,

You jack my name more than I jack getalife’s c@ck!

I win!!!!

By getalife

January 28, 2008 4:08 PM | Link to this

He got there by taking a $300,000 bribe on his house with Rezko who got locked up today.

Then he called the President a Lee Atwater hit man.

Never trust a politician who spews unity.

w did that.

By Dusty

January 28, 2008 4:09 PM | Link to this

rushncap@3:52

Dear heart, don’t flatter yourself. Even an old prune would not look at roadkill like you.

Glad you mentioned @@. She’s a class act and most enjoyable. She’s one of the sound voice crying in the liberal wilderness here.

By getalife

January 28, 2008 4:12 PM | Link to this

The name jacker supports Obama.

crap in one hand wanking in the other.

Crappy wanking.

By Apocalypse

January 28, 2008 4:13 PM | Link to this

getalife,

You can’t be this dumb. Maybe just blind.

I don’t always agree with @@, but if she can see what’s been happening, then you’re obviously smokin some serious dope.

Your Clintons did exactly what @@ and not to mention the rest of the world has said they’ve done against Obama.

Don’t be mad because it didn’t work.

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 4:14 PM | Link to this

No you don’t win Namejacker.

Cheaters never do.

You can’t control yourself.

I win.

La la la

By Apocalypse

January 28, 2008 4:17 PM | Link to this

getalife,

I think your namejacker is GOP.

I got jacked last week with the same garbage when I criticized Romney and MCcain.

By W stands for worst

January 28, 2008 4:19 PM | Link to this

RB:

If Dubya and Cheney were so confident in their preparations for war in Iraq then where are the Emails the Waxman wants? Thats why there is no prosecution of any players because they got rid of all the evidence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/01/18/BL2008011801660.html?sub=AR

By W stands for worst

January 28, 2008 4:21 PM | Link to this

Oh i see they let Dusty out after her family had her Baker acted. So Dusty since Dubya is so great in your eyes, do you enjoy the 3.00 a gallon for gasoline? In Jan 2001 we paid 1.29….

By Luckoduh

January 28, 2008 4:24 PM | Link to this

{{{{“I think it’s time for him to just be quiet,” said Sharpton, who was a Democratic presidential candidate in 2004. “I think it’s time for him to stop. As one of the most outspoken people in America, there’s a time to shut up, and I think that time has come.”}}}}

Yeah, that’s what I said 17 years ago, STFU.

Now the libs finally come around.

Geez, now even the racists are ragging on Billy Klux:

{{{{Don Imus got into an animated discussion this morning about former President Bill Clinton’s comparison of Obama’s South Carolina primary victory over Senator Clinton to Jesse Jackson. ”If I had made that comparison to Jesse Jackson,” I have a feeling that I’d be talking to Al Sharpton again,” Imus told Michael Graham of Boston’s WTKK.}}}}

Bwa.

{{{{

By Bill

January 28, 2008 4:29 PM | Link to this

Oh my Gawd! DUSTMITE has returned! Our mens’room medical expert. And Apococrap is here too. Yeah, “Dude” and “bro.” Let us pray: One day soon you 2 frogs will awaken to the results of your favorite words and actions; you’ll look in the mirror and you’ll be…BLACK! Woopie!!!

By Paul

January 28, 2008 4:29 PM | Link to this

Bosch 3:41

This is a good day for laughs. Those two sayings were in a novel I read this weekend. In the novel, the illustrations of the sayings were sublime.

Seriously, one has to give Gen Petraeus credit for the way he adapted tactics. It seems like it took a long time. Nothing new, there, either. I’m still looking for the results of the Army’s one-star general board to see if they rewarded some of the new thinkers over the, oh, let’s keep parachutin’ with the heavy artillery guys.

getalife 3:42

“Lost all respect for CNN.”

Better late than never!

I wanted to remind you of Two and a Half Men on CBS. It may get preempted by the State of the Union address - haven’t checked. If not, there may be a rerun somewhere. It’ll cheer you up.

Apocalypse

If the media’s lighting up for Obama, and Obama is more liberal than Hillary, is this proof that the media is really liberal?

By IN THE NEWS

January 28, 2008 4:32 PM | Link to this

DUH

How do you ever find the time to post here?

Didn’t you blah blah blah earlier today about having a life?

By Dusty

January 28, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this

W stands for worst @4:21

You’ll have to use something other than street slang when you write insults. “Baker acted”?? What??

I get a lot of mileage on my $2.86/gal because I bought a good ol’ American made car that hums along with great economy. Jan 2001, wasn’t that the year you were “incarcerated”? I bet you didn’t use much gasoline then.

By getalife

January 28, 2008 4:35 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Two and half men?

Sounds like gay porn.

No thanks but ask the wanker.

By Bill

January 28, 2008 4:40 PM | Link to this

IN THE NEWS. Quoting a line from Plato that shrinks frequently use re DUH and his ilk. “Most people live in rooms which you and I would never wish to enter.”

By w00t

January 28, 2008 4:45 PM | Link to this

Dusty, there’s no one more blind and stupid that a nationalistic hack. Goebbels would be proud of you.

By Sid

January 28, 2008 4:52 PM | Link to this

Dustbrain is supposed to be our medical expet, i hear. Doesn’t know re The Baker Act tho. How telling. Good luck with your fab American car. You’re gonna need it. Which is your model, Crap or Scrap? Oh, don’t bother. I won’t be here to see your lil retort.

By Paul

January 28, 2008 4:53 PM | Link to this

getalife

Charlie Sheen plays a rich guy with a beach house in Santa Monica. Quite the lothario, lots of cute girlfriends. His brother and his nephew live with him. Brother’s kind of geeky. The kid’s a great wiseass. Good writing, funny.

C’mon, libs are supposed to go for new, progressive stuff!

By Luckoduh

January 28, 2008 4:59 PM | Link to this

{{{{I never quite understand how the Clintons’ initial exploitation of racism was overlooked the first time around and has been airbrushed from the record since. After falling behind in the New Hampshire primary in 1992, and after being caught lying about the affair with Gennifer Flowers to which he later confessed under oath, Clinton left the campaign trail and flew home to Arkansas to give the maximum publicity to his decision to sign a death warrant for Ricky Ray Rector. Rector was a black inmate on death row who had shot himself in the head after committing a double murder and, instead of dying as a result, had achieved the same effect as a lobotomy would have done. He never understood the charge against him or the sentence. After being served his last meal, he left the pecan pie on the side of the tray, as he told the guards who came to take him to the execution chamber, “for later.” Several police and prison-officer witnesses expressed extreme queasiness at this execution of a gravely impaired man, and the prison chaplain, Dennis Pigman, later resigned from the prison service. The whole dismal and cruel and pathetic story was told by Marshall Frady in a long essay in The New Yorker in 1993 and is also recounted in a chapter titled “Chameleon in Black and White” by your humble servant in his book No One Left To Lie To. For now, I just ask you to imagine what would have been said if a Republican governor, falling in the polls, had gone out of his way to execute a mentally incompetent African-American prisoner.}}}}

It was “overlooked” because the rest of the pinko media and goon democrats are racists too.

Duh.

By W stands for worst

January 28, 2008 5:00 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

You just proved to be a bigger idiot than i thought you were. So you enjoy paying 2.76 a gallon.?Moron……

By Jesus

January 28, 2008 5:01 PM | Link to this

IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!!

By W stands for worst

January 28, 2008 5:04 PM | Link to this

So Dusty you enjoy paying 2.76 while the big oil companies have made hundreds of billions while we are at war. Your a bigger moron than i thought. Nope wasnt in jail then, daddy Bush pardoned me in 91 because he loved the way we ran drugs to the contras, and had a little left over for his son.

By @@

January 28, 2008 5:04 PM | Link to this

Holy crap! Talk about gathering “on the border”….

((Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit said Jan. 28 that he wants the Palestinian National Authority to take control of the Egyptian-Gaza Strip border, rather than the Hamas Islamists who have been controlling the area since June 2007.))

((With the help of Hamas security personnel, Egyptian border guards began building a chain-linked fence topped with barbed wire at the Rafah crossing on the Egyptian-Gaza Strip border Jan. 28, repairing the breaches made in the last few days, GEO TV reported.))

((Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told his Palestinian counterpart Mahmoud Abbas during their Jan. 27 meeting that Israel will not allow a humanitarian crisis to develop in the Gaza Strip, Haaretz reported Jan. 28, citing Palestinian sources who attended meeting. Olmert instead is seeking to transfer the responsibility for humanitarian problems in Gaza to Egypt, the sources said. The two leaders also agreed that Egypt should be responsible for closing the breached fence between Gaza and Egypt. Abbas is scheduled to meet with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to discuss the demand Jan. 30.))

((Iran and Egypt are in talks to keep the Egypt-Gaza border crossing open for medical and food supplies to the Palestinians, who are suffering under the Israeli blockade, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Jan. 28, IRNA reported. Referring to recent talks between the two countries’ presidents, Mottaki also said Iran and Egypt are on the verge of establishing official relations.))

((The European Union is considering sending its monitors back to the Rafah border crossing between Egypt and the Gaza Strip, but wants assurances from Hamas that the monitors will not be at risk, Reuters reported Jan. 28, citing officials involved in the talks.))

Issa block party!

By Political Foreskin

January 28, 2008 5:11 PM | Link to this

Must C tv: W’s state of the union address tonite.

Maybe we love this man, but as the nation ages, we see his flaws too clearly, and think each one of us could have done better. This war will ruin us yet, and war should be a last resort. Everyone agrees.

We went in as casually as Bush Sr. went into panama.

By rushncap

January 28, 2008 5:23 PM | Link to this

Dusty dusty… as much as we all love the strategy “oh, I really wasn’t coming on to you…” after getting rejected, it’ll hardly work past 6th grade. So while your mental development ended somewhere in the neighborhood of the 4th, don’t assume that the rest of us are similarly stuck. Body of a old harpy, mind of a little child… I think Discovery Health needs to do a special on you, babe. You’ll be famous!

By getalife

January 28, 2008 5:27 PM | Link to this

OMG, The Dem Senators finally blocked w’s FISA bill with immunity.

By Dusty

January 28, 2008 5:30 PM | Link to this

@@ 5:04

This Gaza thing is crazy. Israel turns over Gaza to Palestinians who let Hamas run it. Hamas then starts to bomb Israel with rockets. Israel sets up a blockade (instead of blowing them to bits.) Palestinians in Gaza get hungry and desperate. They break down the fence between Gaza and Egypt. At one time, leaders wanted Israel to rebuild the wrecked fence.(Kinda like us asking Canada to fix the fence between USA & Mexico.) Now it sounds like Egypt is going to be responsible for the fence on its borders with the help of Palestinians. Hamas helping? The Palestinian Authority coming from the West Bank to help? Israel offers humanitarian help?

Did I get this straight? There is one thing for which I am sure. I am so glad I live in America.

By Dusty

January 28, 2008 5:39 PM | Link to this

rushncap 5:23

Whew, your imagination runs wild even for a college kid. Let’s hope you are good at physics ‘cause you don’t have anything else going.

By rushncap

January 28, 2008 5:51 PM | Link to this

That’s right Dusty. As opposed to you who have oh so much couch-sitting and hip-breaking to do in that busy-busy go-go life of yours.

By Democrat National Kommittee

January 28, 2008 5:59 PM | Link to this

Uh, we have a very important announcement from a very honorable and distinguished guest speaker, please give a warm round of applause to the great Grand Kleagle, Robert Byrd:

“Welcome fellow Klanners. Tonight marks a very somber chapter in our great White Kampaign as the blacks in South Carolina have once again become uppity. What is it with those people, we have given them so much, all those nice housing projects and those fat 300 hunnard dollar a month welfare checks, why do they always want more? And I shudder to even think that they are craving like wild beasts to be in the White House. Why, the very thought makes me queasy. Please, someone give me a glass of water. Can you imagine what kind of country this would be if one of those people should ever get into the White House? Have you heard the music they listen to? Do you good folks want the national anthem to be sung by some thug? This is where we need you good Klanners more than ever. Remember in 1984 when that Jesse Jackson boy did the same thing and won South Carolina? It took lots of work from you to put him in his proper place, all those promises you gave him if he would just cease and desist? And tell me, did he not turn out to be one of our best token blacks, has he not? So let’s get to work on this Obama boy, tell him that you’ll be sure to look into racial inequality just as soon as you get a chance, promise him you’ll give him and his whole campaign a nice job in some tollbooth out on the turnpike. But most important, we need to get behind Misses Ku Klux Rodham Klinton, she faces a very tough battle in Florida against that upstart Un Committed, whoever the hell he thinks he is. We can’t have another lame showing against him like we did in blasted Michigan. I like that Klintoon woman and I know you do too. She just released 100 million in federal tax dollars to build a 400 foot tall statue of me by the Stuckees just outside Charleston, bless her heart. So saddle up and let’s ride for the Amerikkka that we know and love. And don’t forget, we like the Hispanic people. Just for a couple more months anyway.”

You heard the man, get on your horsie.

Seig Heil!

By @@

January 28, 2008 6:06 PM | Link to this

Dusty:

I’ve been reading a lot of Arab journalists who are blaming Hamas for the plight of the Palestinians.

Ding ding ding!!!!!

Condoleeza Rice is saying that the PNA should patrol the border. Egypt would like to avoid the situation altogether, but they may not be able to.

I found Iran’s pleas for aid to the Palestinians rather odd. Ahmadenijad won’t even help his own people.

All the bad guys are trying to look like the good guys.

We shall see.

What’s that song? Craaaazeee…they’re crazy for being so craazee. Peggy something or other. My Dad loved her.

By W stands for worst

January 28, 2008 6:10 PM | Link to this

DNK,

Sounds exactly like the speach Trent “Grand Wizard” Lott used when he was at Strom Thrurmands b-day klan rally…

By Bosch

January 28, 2008 6:10 PM | Link to this

Oh I forgot the State of the Union speech was tonight.

Let’s see, I can probably already paraphrase it:

The economy is great, the war is great, Republicans will win the presidency in November, and everything else is hunky dory.

Yeap, I’ll think I’ll do laundry tonight.

By Bosch

January 28, 2008 6:13 PM | Link to this

@@,

You’re thinking of Patsy Cline maybe?

By @@

January 28, 2008 6:27 PM | Link to this

That’s it Bosch—Patsy Cline. My Dad loved Patsy Cline and somebody named Peggy (You Give Me Fever) something or other.

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 28, 2008 6:27 PM | Link to this

Paul,

I have to agree with you on 2 1/2 men. Very funny stuff. Sometimes Sheen’s character gets my estrogen up, but I look at Mr.G and he’s laughing and nodding his head and I want to whack both of them.

Aren’t Sheen’s liberal by birth?

By Auntie Kepila

January 28, 2008 6:30 PM | Link to this

Patsy’s hit. Willie’s song.

We love our Haoulie music.

Would you Mainlanders please get behind this “stimulus” thing before what is happening in Michigan happens in our Islands?

Give the man a chance. He is not running for anything, and if he’s so good that you good people believe he and the Vice President do it all for big business and can even name the price of oil, then he and Congress can set this wobbly economy to dancing Hula once again.

Maybe Willie will provide the music.

By @@

January 28, 2008 6:31 PM | Link to this

Apocalypse:

Would you please ask Senator Obama to get his Grandma out of Kenya. It’s starting to hit the fan over there.

By RW-(the original)

January 28, 2008 6:32 PM | Link to this

ITFS,

I know I’ve told you this before, but I feel compelled to repeat. Please stick to spamming the board so you don’t look like such an incredible imbecile.

So according to spammie here there were zip zero nada indictments that came out of the Whitewater investigation.

Here’s 14 convictions and that’s before the President was even impeached

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 28, 2008 6:32 PM | Link to this

Peggy Lee

By Bosch

January 28, 2008 6:36 PM | Link to this

Hey Mrs. G!

I’m very excited about Lost coming back Thursday I love the Sawyerisms on that show. I’m afraid that it is going to come on during the Office, which is my other favorite show. I don’t have TIVO either!

Having a good evening?

@@,

Peggy Lee.

By Copyleft

January 28, 2008 6:39 PM | Link to this

Or else “Crazy” by Peggy Lee?

By Bosch

January 28, 2008 6:42 PM | Link to this

Mrs. G!

Ha! Great minds think alike. I can’t remember if it was 2000 or 2004, but I actually gave a great deal of consideration to write in Martin Sheen for president.

If Hillary wins the nomination, I’m going to have to find someone else to write in this time. After the past couple of weeks, I just don’t think I can vote for her. I’m hoping for an Edwards miracle or for Obama to start kicking some serious a$$.

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 28, 2008 6:44 PM | Link to this

Bosch,

Evening to you too!

Never watched Lost, but I might take a look. My kids tell me I am hopelessly out of it. 30 years later I still listen to Prairie Home Companion.

Please explain Sawyerisms?

By @@

January 28, 2008 6:46 PM | Link to this

Well thanks to both of you—Bosch & Mrs. G.

I can now sing both songs knowing the whos that sing them better than me.

Craaazeee…I’m crazy with fever, I’m craazee.

I’m crazy for fryin’ and crazy for dying…and you’re crazy for giving me the flu.

Something like that.

By Copyleft

January 28, 2008 6:47 PM | Link to this

Same here, Bosch. I agree with Edwards’ platform, and I can accept Obama’s… but Hillary is way too right-wing for me. I won’t be voting for her, regardless of any other considerations.

By Ace Mulholland

January 28, 2008 6:47 PM | Link to this

“We like the Hispanic people”? Like them? Goodness, the Democrats love them! There isn’t a Democratic politician above Councilmember, including any Latino Democrat, who doesn’t think that Latinos are the best thing since tortillas; as far as those cats are concerned, Latinos breed like ferrets in heat, squeezing out robovoters by the campaign busload. Papered or not, they vote how they’re told. The Democrat Party thinks Latinos are their perfect proxies. One word from one Dem operative, a hundred votes, easy. Viva Mexico! Viva La Revolucion! Viva El Metodo Ritmo!

LIKE Hispanics?

By Bosch

January 28, 2008 6:50 PM | Link to this

Mrs. G., I am a faithful Prairie Home Companion listener myself. That doesn’t mean you’re out of touch. Nothing better than sitting on the porch on Saturday evening with the other Bosch, a brew, and Prairie Home Companion playing. Aw, the good life.

Sawyer is a character on Lost and he has the absolute best one-liners (Sawyerisms). He’s a bad a$$ outlaw kind of guy. You can rent the first three seasons to catch up. I’m telling you, you will get seriously hooked.

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 28, 2008 6:51 PM | Link to this

Bosch,

Keep the faith.

If a GOP candidate would stand up and talk honestly about the current administration, and I mean HONESTLY, I might consider a ……NO STOP I JUST CAN’T DO IT!…..

To me Hillary is Bush-Lite, but that will always be better than what the GOP offers this year.

I just can’t trust the Republicans this year.

By W stands for worst

January 28, 2008 6:53 PM | Link to this

RW;

That list is small compared to the number of Reagan administration officials that were convicted from 81-89

A total of 225 people who served in the Reagan administration either quit, were fired, arrested, indicted, or convicted for either breaking the law or violating the Ethics Code; Edwin Meese alone, the Attorney General, was investigated by three separate Special Prosecutors.[

By Bosch

January 28, 2008 6:54 PM | Link to this

@@,

Have you been sitting on the porch with Semper drinking some brews or just high on life?

By Political Foreskin

January 28, 2008 6:54 PM | Link to this

On second thought, maybe the war won’t ruin us. Maybe we did it to enrich ourselves, whether we know it or not. It couldn’t have been for the coffee. Coffee’s awful over there. Troops drink the instant crap that comes in their MRE’s. Oh well. If a seriously big and bloody and authentically multinational war in Korea failed to ruin us, I guess we can mete out a living while garrisoning Iraq till the sheep come home. Or rams. Or whatever.

‘Muff said.

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 28, 2008 6:55 PM | Link to this

Bee bop a ree bop rhubarb pie!

I saw it at Chastain….the loud drunks in the $$$$ tables behaved badly.

How about a little River Walk?

By Bosch

January 28, 2008 6:57 PM | Link to this

Mrs. G.,

I didn’t say I’d vote for a Republican. I think I’ll write in Sam Nunn.

By W stands for worst

January 28, 2008 6:57 PM | Link to this

Yep RW Clintons folks have nothing on Reagans guys:

Elliott Abrams agreed to cooperate with investigators and in return was allowed to plead guilty to two misdemeanor charges instead of facing possible felony indictments.

National Security Advisor Robert C. McFarlane, pled guilty to four misdemeanors and was sentenced to two years probation

Alan D. Fiers was the Chief of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Central American Task Force. He pled guilty in 1991 to two counts of withholding information from Congress and was sentenced to one year of probation and one hundred hours of community service. Clair George was Chief of the CIA’s Division of Covert Operations under President Reagan. George was convicted of lying to two congressional committees in 1986. John Poindexter, Reagan’s national security advisor, was found guilty of five criminal accounts including lying to Congress, conspiracy and obstruction of justice.

James Watt, Reagan’s Secretary of the Interior was indicted on 24 felony counts and pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor. Philip Winn - Assistant HUD Secretary. Pleaded guilty to one count of scheming to give illegal gratuities.[22] Thomas Demery - Assistant HUD Secretary - pleaded guilty to steering HUD subsidies to politically connected donors

There are to many more to copy, yep the GOP sure has alot of fine Americans…..

By Ace Mulholland

January 28, 2008 6:59 PM | Link to this

You might as well say, “either quit, were fire, arrested, indicted, convicted, reprimanded, disapproved of, or discouraged” in the Reagan administration. That should take in more people than Watergate, which resulted in more than 240 convictions. Most of them were attorneys, and most did prison time.

Chalk up another couple hundred for us oppo people!

By w00t

January 28, 2008 7:01 PM | Link to this

If you believe in Bush, then surely you’ll believe in this..

http://www.scientology.org/

By @@

January 28, 2008 7:02 PM | Link to this

High on life Bosch….always high on life. Later tonight I’ll be sitting with Semper telling him how HOT Sawyer is.

He give me fever.

dum dum dum

dum dee dum dum

dum dee dum dee dum dum dum dum

FEVER!!!!

dum dee dum dum

FEVER comes on tonight.

Something like that.

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 28, 2008 7:07 PM | Link to this

I trust that you will make the best choice Bosch.

By RW-(the original)

January 28, 2008 7:09 PM | Link to this

Wsfw,

What does your list have to do with ITFS making the claim that not a single solitary indictment came out of the Whitewater investigation and my pointing out that that was wrong?

Obfuscate much?

Kerist what a bunch of d*******.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That Kennedy endorsement didn’t go over so well in all quarters

This identity politics you moonbat(ic)s® have been playing all these years is biting you hard on the backside and I couldn’t be enjoying it more.

By ISHMAel back

February 8, 2008 9:02 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

February 8, 2008 9:02 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

February 8, 2008 9:02 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

February 8, 2008 9:02 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

February 8, 2008 9:02 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

By ISHMAel back

February 8, 2008 9:02 AM | Link to this

MESSAGE

Commenting is open from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. M-F

Post a comment



Remember me?

You may use the following formatting:
Bold: **this text will be bolded** = this text will be bolded
Italic: *this text will be italic* = this text will be italic
Link: [text to be linked](http://www.ajc.com) = text to be linked



There will be a delay of up to 5 minutes before your comment appears.


*HTML not allowed in comments. Your e-mail address is required.

 

Do Good Locally » Find nonprofit causes near you

Find more causes » List your nonprofit

Kudzu Services » Find the right people for the job