digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Carl Bernstein: Hillary’s difficult relationship with truth

huffingtonpost.com — Distinguished historian and journalist Carl Bernstein outlines compelling evidence that Hillary Clinton has trouble sticking to the truth. In his past book about her, he expressed hope that this might change. But he notes that current facts about her Bosnia narrative provide definitive evidence she still lies about important things.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • dsmyre, on 03/27/2008, -3/+84Hillary's top 10 lies: 1) 35 years of relevant experience. 2) Audio of her saying Michigan and Florida don't count then later saying they should be counted. 3) Playing a key part in Northern Ireland peace process when it was a cheer-leading role to encourage activism among women's groups. 4) Claimed to have negotiated with Macedonia to open up its border to refugees from Kosovo. However the Macedonian government opened its border to refugees the day before Clinton arrived. 5) She claimed to have advocated on behalf of a U.S. military intervention in Rwanda to stop genocide. However,key foreign policy officials say that a U.S. military intervention in Rwanda was never considered in the Clinton administration's policy deliberations. 6)She said words don't matter but then claims her speech in China as part of her foreign policy experience. 7) Sniper fire in Bosnia. 8) Her claim in getting SCHIP passed. In reality, the Clinton Administration fought the SCHIP effort which was being advocated by Senators Edward Kennedy and Orrin Hatch. 9) She claimed on Sept. 11 daughter Chelsea was jogging around the World Trade Center when she was at home sleeping. 10)She was named after Sir Edmund Hillary who climbed Mount Everest in 1953, but Hillary was born in 1947. ...And by the way, where are those tax returns?
    • buhbyebot, on 03/27/2008, -0/+21David letterman should get this in his top ten list...
    • dBass, on 03/27/2008, -0/+16Why stop at the "Top 10"?
    • rhabd0mancer, on 03/27/2008, -0/+16"And by the way, where are those tax returns?"

      They are in Sandy Berger's pants.
    • NSMike, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6"Audio of her saying Michigan and Florida don't count then later saying they should be counted."

      More damning than the audio are the papers she signed agreeing to the application of the rules to those two states. Which, by the way, stated that she was not to campaign there, which she did in Florida.
    • kynn, on 03/27/2008, -0/+5Thanks for this handy list! (It's hard to keep track of 'em all!)

      I find the "little lies" (e.g. the origin of her name, or Chelsea's jogging on 9/11) actually more important than the "big ones", because they are so unnecessary that one has to conclude that her lying is a matter of spontaneous habit, not one of calculation. She just like to embellish what he says in ways that (she believes) will make her look good.


  • diggeradoo, on 03/27/2008, -2/+48One in a Series on Hillary's Habitual, Pathological Problem with the Truth.
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hillary_Lie_145_ ...
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hillary_Lie_144_ ...
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hillary_Lie_143_ ...
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hillary_Lie_142_ ...
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hillary_Lie_141_ ...
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hillary_Lie_140_ ...
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hillary_Lie_139_ ...
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hillary_Lie_138_ ...
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hillary_Lie_137_ ...
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hillary_Lie_136_ ...
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hillary_Lie_135_ ...
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hillary_Lie_134_ ...
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hillary_Lie_133_ ...
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hillary_Lie_132_ ...
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hillary_Lie_131_ ...
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hillary_Lie_130_ ...
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hillary_Lie_129_ ...
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hillary_Lie_128_ ...
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hillary_Lie_127_ ...
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hillary_Lie_126_ ...
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hillary_Lie_125_ ...
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hillary_Lie_124_ ...
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hillary_Lie_123_ ...
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hillary_Lie_122_ ...
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hillary_Lie_121_ ...
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hillary_Lie_120_ ...
    • monkeyvoodoo, on 03/27/2008, -0/+11Holy *****.
    • Charlotte_Web, on 03/27/2008, -2/+6The sad thing is, Conservatives have been documenting for the better part of two decades how corrupt the Clintons are, but liberals didn't want to hear any of it. Until now, that is...
    • snotrokit, on 03/27/2008, -0/+7not to repeat ol monkeyvoodoo up there, but HOLY *****
    • boogie606, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3"...she did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky..."
    • OaklandNative, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Thanks for the taking the time to do that, diggeradoo. Great job!
  • speedwank, on 03/27/2008, -18/+7One word: *****
  • mrshickadance9, on 03/27/2008, -1/+28Does this country really need another liar in office?
  • openj, on 03/27/2008, -0/+23The mark of a person who should not be President is that they refuse to step aside when the clear will of the People is urging them to do just that. This is why George Bush has been such a failure, and it is why Hillary would be in the same league in terms of disaster for your nation. Their own opinion is more important than the will of the majority of ~300 million Americans, and they're willing to ignore you completely to prove it.
    • juanchopanza, on 03/27/2008, -2/+0Specious logic. Using this thinking Washington should have stepped down as Continental Army Commander, Lincoln shouldn't have allowed the Civil War to begin, Wilson was mistaken to enter World War I and FDR should not have extended lend lease to Britain at the beginning of WWII. The Constitution explicitly ensures that the short-term and self-centered "will of the people" is not going to push our national policy around willy-nilly like it did the French (post-Revolution and ever since). The Electoral College, as an artifact of the Constitutional debate on this issue, ensures that there is not direct popular control of the government. This has been a seminal key to the success of this nation. First Amendment rights ensure that everyone is heard, but that doesn't mean the people are always right or that government should bend to their will for short term expediency.
      • PhilLesh69, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1Well said, Mr. Cheney!

        Care to explain how Washington should have stepped down as Continental Army Commander?

        The government should not do anything for short term expediency. It should always choose what is right for the continuing good of the nation. That, actually, includes being absolutely responsive to the will of the majority.

        It sounds to me like you don't believe that "the people" are smart enough or sophisticated enough to know what is good for them. Yet, you seem to be supportive of a system where, instead of the will of the people, our government obeys the will of think tanks, political action committees, parties and corporate lobbyists.

        So, do we live in a nation governed by a government "of the people, by the people and for the people" or do we live in a nation governed by a government "of the think tanks , by the corporations and for the special interests"?
    • casuallyevil, on 03/27/2008, -0/+0So you mean the clear will of the people that has Hillary and Barack tied in the latest WSJ/NBC poll? Or the one that had Hillary leading last week? The true mark of somebody who shouldn't be commenting is that they refuse to let facts get in the way of their opinion... I dislike Hillary at LEAST as much as the next guy, but you're retarded.
  • mainely, on 03/27/2008, -0/+7Just another example of Clintonian triangulation. This time between truth and falsehood. What is amazing that Hillary still has the support that she has. I wonder what will it take to for her support to erode?
    • Langford, on 03/27/2008, -0/+5Her aggressive behavior is polarizing. It will chase people away, but it will also tighten her grip on existing supporters. The tactic is only good for holding onto an existing vast majority for a short amount of time, but she has neither an existing vast majority or a short campaign ahead of her.

      When she eventually looses the nomination, and even if she concedes and endorses Obama, there is a chance she may have already ruined the Democrat's chances in this election.
    • Gerz1219, on 03/27/2008, -0/+8Hillary is hiding comfortably behind a firewall which, I'm fairly confident in saying, will not erode barring a major, irrefutable, hand-in-the-cookie-jar scandal. You have to understand that white women over 40 are absolutely convinced that there will never be another woman with a shot at the presidency in their lifetimes, and they feel it's their duty as white women to support her *no matter what*. Most older white women, especially career women, have come up against the glass ceiling over and over again, always getting passed over by a smooth-talking handsome young guy with less experience, and always getting a litany of overblown rational justifications for why they didn't get the promotion. They project this victim status and resentment onto Hillary. They *feel* that they were unfairly scrutinized at work because of their gender, so they just make that assumption about the media's coverage of Hillary. It doesn't matter if she gets caught lying about the Bosnian trip. Most Hillary supporters can justify it, because a woman candidate has to shore up her military credentials in a male-dominated society, and if it means lying -- well, Obama must be lying too, the sexist media just doesn't cover it. You see? No matter what Obama does, Hillary supporters will read his public support as the male citizenry and the media just clutching at a reason, any reason, not to elect a woman. They've given up so many times in their careers, slinking out of the meeting room with a smaller bonus, that they're emboldened when Hillary refuses to put up with the Man's *****, regardless of any objective rational examination of the merits of the arguments against her.

      All of this guarantees that in the remaining contests, Hillary will get *just enough* votes to justify staying in. The media should really be covering every race as a 20+ point must-win for Hillary, but instead they're portraying any wins as evidence she should keep going. As a result, her support will not erode, and her pathetic shrieking and clawing will only further harden her base. I fear the only way out of this mess is going to be offering her the VP slot, but that brings a whole slew of other problems.
      • mainely, on 03/27/2008, -0/+5Very perceptive analysis of gender politics in action. I certainly hope that the next time a woman with a shot at the presidency runs for the office, the sexist angle will be a side show. Such a woman will not be running on her spouse's track record, and not have a track record of polarization. I think a competent female governor will become the President in not too distant future.
      • PhilLesh69, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1You forget to include the fact that women are more competitive amongst themselves than they are against "boys". They generally hate to see another woman succeed if they feel that it exposes their flaws or presumed inadequacies.

        For the very reason of "glass ceilings" and gender inequality, most women will vote for a man before they let some priviliged woman get ahead of them.

        By the way, "The Man" is a trademarked and patented concept of black people. They are the one's who will not allow "The Man" to keep them down.
    • Anzat, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3Where's the triangulation? For once, she squarely picked a side... falsehood.
      • mainely, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Truth: CBS video ... Falsehood: She was issued an M16, which she used to repel attacks on the base:-) No matter how you parse it, you are right. Her version is indeed falsehood.
  • meese, on 03/27/2008, -1/+36Apparently this article caused this:

    " My sister in law just called with news- she's going to vote for Obama in PA. This is huge news. She's a maxed donor to Hillary and she's been fighting about the primary with family since last January. Why the change?

    "I just read Carl Bernstein's blog on Huffington Post. And the first sentence stunned me. He's absolutely right. Hillary has never demonstrated a commitment to the facts. I love her, I know she's tough, she's smart. But sticking to the facts has never been her strong suit."

    "Imagine," she went on, "if we had yet another president who was not committed to the facts. Not being committed to the cold, hard, facts is what got us into a war of choice that will cost us trillions. Imagine what would be different if all of our elected senators and representatives, or even just our Democrats, had had a firm commitment to the facts. Maybe they would have read the NIE.

    "The list of issues that would have benefited, over the last seven years, from the attentions of a president with a commitment to the facts is a long one. We can't afford another president who is willing to cherry pick or play with or embellish or self-interpret the facts."

    She finished with "I feel like a traitor, I feel guilty. But I know in my heart that we need an honest president next time around, and I just don't think an honest approach to leadership is part of Hillary's platform."

    Thank you, Mr. Bernstein!!! A commitment to the facts is indeed a very important quality in a president."
    • PhilLesh69, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Bingo. Hillary is as politically ideoligical as Bush and his li' cronies.

      Once she chooses a position, there is nothing, no information, no new facts, no intelligence, no change in the situation that could shake her commitment to the "reality" she created for herself on that issue.

      Just go back and look at her health care plan.

      Congress was willing to negotiate with her, to make adjustments to it in order to pass it, yet she held firm, decrying, "It either passes as is, or it dies". She was not willing to budge, not one inch, it had to be HER WAY, or NO WAY.
  • CYR1X, on 03/27/2008, -1/+9While I am an independent I like all of the anti-Clinton and pro-Obama stuff here on digg :P
  • soot, on 03/27/2008, -0/+20Bernstein makes a good case, it doesn't -- OH ***** SNIPERS EVERYONE DUCK
  • ripstuntz, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6Hillary sucks.
    It's not even fun to make her look bad.
  • gypsi, on 03/27/2008, -0/+10no one in their right mind would accept this kind of "i misspoke" in a job interview - this should be the end of the line
  • PopcornDave, on 03/27/2008, -1/+9The latest ***** out of her mouth, in her interview with Greta Van Sustern played tonight, is that since she's visited 80 countries she's more qualified than Obama in foreign policy experience. That just makes her a taxpayer payed travel agent, not a foreign policy expert. Hell my father has been to about 56 countries at the very least, so does that qualify him as a vice president of foreign policy?
  • papipablo, on 03/27/2008, -6/+5Hillary would probably be a lot better person if she got her vaj pounded more regularly.
  • jp12380, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6We think Bush is bad about lying about WMD's. For this countries sake please do not vote for her, just think about all the lies she will tell to get whatever she wants accomplished in office. I have to believe anyone that would vote for her is an idiot and/or is just ignorant about her character.
  • wipis, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3Just so you know they all lie and they all will. Every President has some skeletons before, during and/or after serving their term. I support Obama but I'm sure there are things that if I really wanted to could show to be a lie or flip flop. It doesn't matter who takes office. They will lie. They will be involved in a scandal about sharing FBI info with the wrong people or pardoning some old business buddy. I'm not saying it is right but I'm just reminding people to look at this with a historical perspective. Some lie more then others. Some lie to cover their ass (Bill Clinton getting a BJ) some lie to forward a war (Thats obvious).
    • Anzat, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6Everyone tells little white lies, slight exaggerations, or simply says something inconsistent with something else they said a few years earlier. It happens. The real question is whether somebody is trying to be an honest, honorable person, or whether they're comfortable with frequently, blatantly, and deliberately lying. Obama's a good, honest guy. Hillary's a calculating, deceitful bitch.
  • hollyminkowski, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Even some really really good people have a tendency to lie...it's not as bad as many other personal failings.
    But it is a worrisome flaw for a president to have...so I would have to say that having this problem makes her unfit for the office.
    • JackWOrf, on 03/27/2008, -1/+0Yeah, not like Professor Oblablablabla.
  • Anzat, on 03/27/2008, -0/+8It's interesting how everyone is catching on to Hillary's lying now. What's sad is that nobody in the media has been able to call her out for lying constantly about what she thinks. The level of spin coming out of her is unreal... she says things you KNOW she doesn't really believe, almost every time she opens her mouth, because they're advantageous to her campaign at the time. But there's no way to objectively verify that she realizes she's *****, even though everybody knows it, so the media can't really comment on it. It's great that there's finally an outlet for all that pent-up frustration in a big, sexy lie so fortified with evidence that nobody can claim they're being unfair.
  • aaroh, on 03/27/2008, -3/+1Hilliary
  • jimbo92107, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Why buy Bernstein's book when you can spend a few minutes on Google and YouTube and find out the same crap?
  • hittnrun, on 03/27/2008, -5/+2You people are sad. Turning on your own creation????
  • JackWOrf, on 03/27/2008, -8/+1Just words? We hold these truths to be self evident? I have a dream?

    Hmmmm. Which LIAR plagiarized THAT?

    So Hillary told a white lie. Whoppee dooo. The whole male chauvinist media goes ***** proving that they can beat up on a woman. What a collection of GUTLESS *****.

    The more I see of this campaign, the more convinced I am that the media just can't stand the idea of a strong woman as President.

    Obama has told just as many white lies as Hillary: He's a Professor of Constitutional Law. *****. He wrote that brilliant "just words" speech. *****. Jeremiah Wright has only said bad things in his sermons 3 or 4 times. *****.

    Eat ***** and die.

    The Huffington Post also gets my award for the Blog Most Worthy of Being Used as Toiletpaper. Nothing but jaggering ObaMoron Fascists.

    Obama is a stupid loser. I can't wait until that little FASCIST DISENFRANCHISER loses! Filthy little rat.

    Eat ***** and die, ObaFascists. You are the SCUM of the earth.
    • HellDonut, on 03/27/2008, -0/+5Well, aren't you special. You're really a good example of Hillary Clinton supporters. I can't see why you wouldn't care for a big lie or two as long as it benefits your candidate.
      • JackWOrf, on 03/27/2008, -4/+1No, Obama is the one who does the BIG LIE. For example, the BIG LIE that those big blue states are unimportant because we (Obama) are going to win all of the red states by "reaching out" and embracing Republicans. HAhahahahaha. Obama came up with that BIG LIE because he has LOST all of the IMPORTANT states: CA, NY, TX, FL, MI. He even lost MASSACHUSETTS when BOTH the Senators endorsed the ObaIdiot. That shows the power of Fat Ted and The Amazing Waffler.

        They're BOTH liars and embellishers. I have no problem with criticizing her for telling a lie. But all of these blathering ObaMorons go on about it like Hillary just murdered 15 babies.

        So Hillary told a white lie. Big *****. Obama has told just as many.

        In fact, BOTH of those a-holes got CAUGHT by videos. Obama got CAUGHT when a video appeared of the real "just words" speech. Hillary got caught when a video appeared of her visit to Bosnia. So they're both Democratic Party liars. Whoppee dooo. Screw yoooo.

        And it wasn't a lie that it WAS a war zone. You ObaMonkeys DID notice all of those TROOPS in full battle gear, didn't you? It wasn't a trip to Disneyland.

        Sure, its a lie. Big *****. Is it really necessary to have 45 front page stories about it.

        And where are the front page stories about admitting to getting money from Rezko? None of those GUTLESS media FAGGOTS say anything about THAT. All the media faggots are probably just afraid that one of Obama's N-words will come around and beat them up.

        What a collection of gutless faggots.
    • VoodooPunk, on 03/27/2008, -2/+3I love watching you libs turn on each other.
    • TheInformer, on 03/27/2008, -3/+1They're not "ObaFascists". They're Obama lemmings. They're the ones that faint when his holiness appears. The ones that accept he will "bring change", just like Jimmy Carter did in 1976.
      I'll pay more attention to Obama when he has concrete solutions and not just fantasy "I'll change it" speeches. You know, as a child I wanted to have the monorail from the local amusement park moved beside the highway to help reduce the traffic congestion. That was a fantasy because there were no hard discussions of how, when, where, how to pay, etc to go along with the wish. Obama at this point is just fantasy, someone trying to portray an image of "change" but with no hard solutions on how to do it. Sounds like an advertising slogan.
      • JackWOrf, on 03/27/2008, -3/+0Yeah, his slogan should be "Change we CAN'T believe in"!
  • faskippy, on 03/27/2008, -9/+2Subject: Fw: What a Black Columnist has to say about Obama.



    Ken Blackwell - Columnist for the New York Sun



    It's an amazing time to be alive in America . We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first frontrunning freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first. We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender. Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.



    The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him. Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts, because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.



    Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant. Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America . But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial 'beauty.'



    Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.
    Next, consider economic policy For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on 'the rich.' How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.
    Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, 'All praise and glory to God!' but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have 'hijacked' - hijacked - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois , he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood , and San Francisco values, not Middle America values.
    The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of 'bringing America together' means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.

    But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and - yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.



    It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    • DDayDawg, on 03/27/2008, -0/+5The inaccuracy of this article is simply astounding. I'm a Independent who will either vote for Obama or McCain, I haven't decided yet, which means I have been paying attention to policies and what has been said. The article above is so short sided and simple minded that I find it hard to believe anyone who made it through even the worst journalism school would put this on paper for people to see. Is Obama Liberal? Of course, he's a Democrat! But the assertion that he is "the most Liberal Democrat in congress" makes me wonder just how that designation is derived. When I looked it up it's funny to see that the bulk of his "liberal" score comes from the fact that he has ALWAYS apposed the war in Iraq. So in truth he is less of a flaming liberal and more that Hillary is willing to sell out the ideals of the Democratic party to pander to the Republicans if she feels that it will help her at that time.

      The Pakistan comment is both absurd and wrong. Obama did not say he would invade Pakistan. What he said is that if he knew where Bin Laden was in Pakistan he would send in a team to take him out. That is not invasion, he has no interest in taking down the government of Pakistan, we will simply not allow a imaginary line on a map stop us from bringing the worlds worst terrorist to justice. The comments about nuclear weapons is just funny, it's throw in to add the weight of danger, or impending doom, where none exists.

      I am particularly put off by anyone being against meeting with our enemies without preconditions. This is one of the things I hate about the Bush administration. Of course you should talk to your enemies! Why would you not talk to them? I would guess that in almost all cases nothing will come out of it but just the willingness to talk will more often than not prevents countries from taking up arms against one another. There is absolutely no harm in sitting at a table with someone, even your enemy, and having a conversation. To not have a conversation that might prevent the deaths of American servicemen and women is criminal in my mind.

      I'm not going to touch too much on free trade because anyone who really feels that the US has benefited from free trade is simply stupid. Go talk to people in the heartland who lost their jobs to Mexico or even Canada. See how happy they are that the clothes they used to get paid to make are now ten cents cheaper at Wal-Mart than they were a few years ago. Wealth is not built by lowering the prices of common goods at the expense of workers.

      I'm going to leave it at that. This article is so inaccurate and foolish that I could go on all day. It's sad to see something like this come out of a 'journalist" but I guess we need stupid people in every profession in order to make the good ones stand out.
    • cnoteworthy, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Is this the same Ken Blackwell who was the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio during the 2004 election?
  • JackWOrf, on 03/27/2008, -5/+1I've finally figured out why The Screamer has gone so ballistic on Florida and Michigan. He has electoral college VOTE ENVY.

    Dean comes from Vermont, about the smallest state in the USA. Vermont has 3 electoral votes. Florida has 27 and Michigan has 17.

    So now How Weird Dean, UberFuhrer of the Democratzia Partichekzee Nationalistamo Committee, can now say "Zee JUDENRATS of Florida CAN NOT VOTE! Nor can any of the other inferior races in Florida! By order of the EMPEROR of VERMONT!!! The most high and exalted, UberFuhrer How Weird Dean. Arggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

    ZEIG HOW WEIRD! ZEIG HOW WEIRD! ZEIG HOW WEIRD!!!

    Now you would think that Senator Oblablablabla might object to the fact that 3 MILLION BLACKS in Florida are being disenfranchised, thanks to him and the UberFuhrer. But now.

    There is NO NEED for 3 MILLION Florida blacks to vote. We all KNOW that they will all vote for Obama. So what need is there for them to vote? And we all KNOW that the 3.5 MILLION latinos in Florida will all vote for Obama, because Judas Richardson told us so.

    Never mind that Oblablablabla LOST Florida by 17 percentage points and 300,000 votes.

    The vote in Florida was ILLEGAL by order of the UBER FUHRER HOW WEIRD DEAN!! The vote in Florida was ILLEGAL by order of the SUPREME EMPEROR of the Great State of Vermont, tree sap milking capitol of the world.

    And then all of those Jews in Florida. Why should THEY have any right to vote! The UberFuhrer How Weird Dean knows how they will vote, and he and Oblablablabla will place those votes for them.

    And all of those OLD people in Florida. They have no right to vote. They are too old and dumb.

    And all of those UNION WORKERS in Michigan. They have no right to vote. They are just STUPID WORKERS. They are not FULL PROFESSORS OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, like Oblablablabla! Who do they think they are? Having the AUDACITY to want to vote?! The UberFuhrer How Weird Dean and His Royal Highness Oblablablabla will vote FOR them. And he will do it RIGHT. He will place their votes for Oblablablabla, just in case they were too stupid to know how to that themselves.

    But really, why should it be necessary that ANYBODY votes before the Convention of the Democratzia Partichekezee. The Supreme Infallible Emperor and UberFuhrer of the MIGHTY state of Vermont has the situation FIRMLY IN HAND.

    He says: "HA! That's the last time those big states with 44 electoral votes will SNUB me! Now I am the UBER FUHRER and SUPREME EMPEROR of the Democratizia Partichekeezee, SLAVES BOW DOWN BEFORE ME!!!!!! Filthy low-life Democratizia voters! What makes you think that you have any importance?
    • DDayDawg, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3The idiocy of your comments make you look like a buffoon. You strike me as someone more suited to trolling gaming boards or slapping your wife around your trailer home then commenting on politics. Now you go on to bed and leave the Presidential commentary to the adults, mmmkay!
      • JackWOrf, on 03/27/2008, -1/+0Yes, I can see that you are an older chimp.
        • RonBurgundy76, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Older, wiser, and bringing a lot more to the table. This was the first post that I have seen from you that actually made sense and was punctuated correctly. The lack of all-caps was a refreshing change of pace, as well. *golf clap*
    • aikidozen, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Yeah, because moving your state's primary ahead - knowing full well the consequences of that decision - and losing your delegates in return is the exactly like the Nazi's treatment of Jews. While you are at it, why don't you liken it to the Rwandan genocide, the Stalinist purges, the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, slavery, and the clubbing of baby seals.

      I live in Michigan, didn't support Hillary, and decided not to vote at all in the primary because I figured it wouldn't count (the first election of any sort that I haven't voted in since I turned 18). I would only feel disenfranchised if they decided to seat the delegates according to Hillary's sham of a "victory" here. Otherwise, I just blame the moronic Democratic officials in Michigan (and Florida) who decided to play chicken with the national committee and lost.
      • JackWOrf, on 03/27/2008, -2/+0You don't live in Michigan, liar. Typical lying Oblablablabla lackey. Spew out the party line, slave.
        • aikidozen, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2I really do live in Michigan. But I don't expect someone who clearly went off their meds to believe me. And you are calling me a liar and a lackey? You are the one who has his nose stuck so far up Hillary's fat ass that you can smell what she ate for dinner last night. Actually, I take back my comment about you going off your meds. I think instead that you've clearly guzzled the Hillary kool-aid. I guess you think you brought peace to Ireland too. Maybe you were shot at while in Bosnia? What does unquestioning and blind allegiance to a clear liar and megalomaniac make you? Wait, isn't that what the Nazis did with Hitler....?
          • PopcornDave, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Actually his nose seems to be so far up her ass that he can tell what brand of toothpaste she uses.
    • Nevuk, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Hahah, holy *****, what the *****.
    • RandyF, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Dugg for because I laughed out loud.
  • diggthisman, on 03/27/2008, -5/+1It's easily explained why she lies so much... SHE'S A WOMAN!
  • bshock, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4Hillary's relationship with truth isn't difficult -- it's nonexistent.
  • misterwriter, on 03/27/2008, -1/+0Oh excuse me... I MISSPOKE...um... I mean.... I LIED.

    www.misterwriter.com
  • darthom, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1It has been said that Hillary's maxim, borrowed from Gene Kranz, is 'Failure is not an option.' However, truth is...optional, that is.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.