KentNewsNet.com

Originally posted by

Robin Anderson

Excuse me?

Senator Clintons "qualifications" are anything but "rock solid"! She's backed a lop-sided NAFTA Treaty and Kyoto accord! As Senator Obama has asked, "Just what are her qualifications as far as foreingn policy are concerned." She's alwasy been a shark (lawyer) for big business, whether it was when she was on the Board of Directors for Walmart or, more importantly, an ardent front-person for the health insurance industry!

Governor Carter, Reagan, Bush, et al were all "outsiders" to the Washington establishment to some extent. As far as a political background goes, does it really matter if one was a state Governor or a state Legislator?

Senator Clinton is, indeed, loosing the pr campaign and you don't like it. Well, why don't you demand they debate under the auspices and guidance of the League of Women Voters and we'll get rid of this tv commercial/pr-style campainging, eh?

Originally posted by

Robin Anderson

Excuse me?

Senator Clintons "qualifications" are anything but "rock solid"! She's backed a lop-sided NAFTA Treaty and Kyoto accord! As Senator Obama has asked, "Just what are her qualifications as far as foreingn policy are concerned." She's alwasy been a shark (lawyer) for big business, whether it was when she was on the Board of Directors for Walmart or, more importantly, an ardent front-person for the health insurance industry!

Governor Carter, Reagan, Bush, et al were all "outsiders" to the Washington establishment to some extent. As far as a political background goes, does it really matter if one was a state Governor or a state Legislator?

Senator Clinton is, indeed, loosing the pr campaign and you don't like it. Well, why don't you demand they debate under the auspices and guidance of the League of Women Voters and we'll get rid of this tv commercial/pr-style campainging, eh?

Originally posted by

Robin Anderson

Excuse me?

Senator Clintons "qualifications" are anything but "rock solid"! She's backed a lop-sided NAFTA Treaty and Kyoto accord! As Senator Obama has asked, "Just what are her qualifications as far as foreingn policy are concerned." She's alwasy been a shark (lawyer) for big business, whether it was when she was on the Board of Directors for Walmart or, more importantly, an ardent front-person for the health insurance industry!

Governor Carter, Reagan, Bush, et al were all "outsiders" to the Washington establishment to some extent. As far as a political background goes, does it really matter if one was a state Governor or a state Legislator?

Senator Clinton is, indeed, loosing the pr campaign and you don't like it. Well, why don't you demand they debate under the auspices and guidance of the League of Women Voters and we'll get rid of this tv commercial/pr-style campainging, eh?

Originally posted by

Robin Anderson

Excuse me?

Senator Clintons "qualifications" are anything but "rock solid"! She's backed a lop-sided NAFTA Treaty and Kyoto accord! As Senator Obama has asked, "Just what are her qualifications as far as foreingn policy are concerned." She's alwasy been a shark (lawyer) for big business, whether it was when she was on the Board of Directors for Walmart or, more importantly, an ardent front-person for the health insurance industry!

Governor Carter, Reagan, Bush, et al were all "outsiders" to the Washington establishment to some extent. As far as a political background goes, does it really matter if one was a state Governor or a state Legislator?

Senator Clinton is, indeed, loosing the pr campaign and you don't like it. Well, why don't you demand they debate under the auspices and guidance of the League of Women Voters and we'll get rid of this tv commercial/pr-style campainging, eh?

Originally posted by

Robin Anderson

Excuse me?

Senator Clintons "qualifications" are anything but "rock solid"! She's backed a lop-sided NAFTA Treaty and Kyoto accord! As Senator Obama has asked, "Just what are her qualifications as far as foreingn policy are concerned." She's alwasy been a shark (lawyer) for big business, whether it was when she was on the Board of Directors for Walmart or, more importantly, an ardent front-person for the health insurance industry!

Governor Carter, Reagan, Bush, et al were all "outsiders" to the Washington establishment to some extent. As far as a political background goes, does it really matter if one was a state Governor or a state Legislator?

Senator Clinton is, indeed, loosing the pr campaign and you don't like it. Well, why don't you demand they debate under the auspices and guidance of the League of Women Voters and we'll get rid of this tv commercial/pr-style campainging, eh?

Originally posted by

Robin Anderson

Excuse me?

Senator Clintons "qualifications" are anything but "rock solid"! She's backed a lop-sided NAFTA Treaty and Kyoto accord! As Senator Obama has asked, "Just what are her qualifications as far as foreingn policy are concerned." She's alwasy been a shark (lawyer) for big business, whether it was when she was on the Board of Directors for Walmart or, more importantly, an ardent front-person for the health insurance industry!

Governor Carter, Reagan, Bush, et al were all "outsiders" to the Washington establishment to some extent. As far as a political background goes, does it really matter if one was a state Governor or a state Legislator?

Senator Clinton is, indeed, loosing the pr campaign and you don't like it. Well, why don't you demand they debate under the auspices and guidance of the League of Women Voters and we'll get rid of this tv commercial/pr-style campainging, eh?

Originally posted by

Shouldn't past associations with radical leftists cost something?

"Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon."

This excerpt from William Ayers' memoir appeared in the New York Times on Sept. 11, 2001 -- the day al-Qaeda terrorists crashed hijacked planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Ayers, once a leader in the Weather Underground -- the group that declared "war" on the U.S. government in 1970 -- told the Times, "I don't regret setting bombs," and, "I feel we didn't do enough."

Ayers recently reappeared in the news because Politico.com reported Friday that Barack Obama has loose ties to him. Ayers, now a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, is apparently a left-wing institution in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood, and Obama visited Ayers' home as a rite of passage when launching his political career in the mid-1990s. The two also served on the board of the charitable Woods Fund of Chicago, which gave money to Northwestern University Law School's Children and Family Justice Center, where Ayers' wife (and former Weather Underground compatriot who glorified violence) Bernardine Dohrn is the director.

I don't think Obama supports domestic terrorism, and I'm sure he can offer eloquent explanations for why he shouldn't suffer any guilt by association. The Hillary Clinton campaign, however, did try to score a few political points, meekly linking to the Politico story on the campaign website's blog. The campaign probably couldn't be more aggressive without calling attention to how Bill Clinton pardoned Puerto Rican separatist terrorists -- perceived to be a way to gain support for Hillary's Senate bid from left-wing Puerto Ricans in New York.

What fascinates me is how light the baggage is when one travels from violent radicalism to liberalism.

I don't think such associations should necessarily cost people their careers or place in polite society, particularly if some sort of contrition is involved. But shouldn't this baggage cost something?

Originally posted by

Shouldn't past associations with radical leftists cost something?

Marxist spat: "All The Needless Deaths In Northern Ireland!!!"

Originally posted by

Shouldn't past associations with radical leftists cost something?

Robin sneered: "I assume that both Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn have paid their debt to society, n'est pas??"

Originally posted by

Shouldn't past associations with radical leftists cost something?

"Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon."

This excerpt from William Ayers' memoir appeared in the New York Times on Sept. 11, 2001 -- the day al-Qaeda terrorists crashed hijacked planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Ayers, once a leader in the Weather Underground -- the group that declared "war" on the U.S. government in 1970 -- told the Times, "I don't regret setting bombs," and, "I feel we didn't do enough."

Ayers recently reappeared in the news because Politico.com reported Friday that Barack Obama has loose ties to him. Ayers, now a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, is apparently a left-wing institution in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood, and Obama visited Ayers' home as a rite of passage when launching his political career in the mid-1990s. The two also served on the board of the charitable Woods Fund of Chicago, which gave money to Northwestern University Law School's Children and Family Justice Center, where Ayers' wife (and former Weather Underground compatriot who glorified violence) Bernardine Dohrn is the director.

I don't think Obama supports domestic terrorism, and I'm sure he can offer eloquent explanations for why he shouldn't suffer any guilt by association. The Hillary Clinton campaign, however, did try to score a few political points, meekly linking to the Politico story on the campaign website's blog. The campaign probably couldn't be more aggressive without calling attention to how Bill Clinton pardoned Puerto Rican separatist terrorists -- perceived to be a way to gain support for Hillary's Senate bid from left-wing Puerto Ricans in New York.

What fascinates me is how light the baggage is when one travels from violent radicalism to liberalism.

I don't think such associations should necessarily cost people their careers or place in polite society, particularly if some sort of contrition is involved. But shouldn't this baggage cost something?

Originally posted by

Shouldn't past associations with radical leftists cost something?

"Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon."

This excerpt from William Ayers' memoir appeared in the New York Times on Sept. 11, 2001 -- the day al-Qaeda terrorists crashed hijacked planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Ayers, once a leader in the Weather Underground -- the group that declared "war" on the U.S. government in 1970 -- told the Times, "I don't regret setting bombs," and, "I feel we didn't do enough."

Ayers recently reappeared in the news because Politico.com reported Friday that Barack Obama has loose ties to him. Ayers, now a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, is apparently a left-wing institution in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood, and Obama visited Ayers' home as a rite of passage when launching his political career in the mid-1990s. The two also served on the board of the charitable Woods Fund of Chicago, which gave money to Northwestern University Law School's Children and Family Justice Center, where Ayers' wife (and former Weather Underground compatriot who glorified violence) Bernardine Dohrn is the director.

I don't think Obama supports domestic terrorism, and I'm sure he can offer eloquent explanations for why he shouldn't suffer any guilt by association. The Hillary Clinton campaign, however, did try to score a few political points, meekly linking to the Politico story on the campaign website's blog. The campaign probably couldn't be more aggressive without calling attention to how Bill Clinton pardoned Puerto Rican separatist terrorists -- perceived to be a way to gain support for Hillary's Senate bid from left-wing Puerto Ricans in New York.

What fascinates me is how light the baggage is when one travels from violent radicalism to liberalism.

I don't think such associations should necessarily cost people their careers or place in polite society, particularly if some sort of contrition is involved. But shouldn't this baggage cost something?

Originally posted by

Shouldn't past associations with radical leftists cost something?

Robin spat: "If I gotta go to hell-in-a-hand-basket it's certainly not going to be following some bible-verse spuing puke like you!"

Originally posted by

Shouldn't past associations with radical leftists cost something?

Robin whined: "Senator Obama did not know these individuals in their 'outlaw' years."

Originally posted by

Shouldn't past associations with radical leftists cost something?

"Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon."

This excerpt from William Ayers' memoir appeared in the New York Times on Sept. 11, 2001 -- the day al-Qaeda terrorists crashed hijacked planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Ayers, once a leader in the Weather Underground -- the group that declared "war" on the U.S. government in 1970 -- told the Times, "I don't regret setting bombs," and, "I feel we didn't do enough."

Ayers recently reappeared in the news because Politico.com reported Friday that Barack Obama has loose ties to him. Ayers, now a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, is apparently a left-wing institution in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood, and Obama visited Ayers' home as a rite of passage when launching his political career in the mid-1990s. The two also served on the board of the charitable Woods Fund of Chicago, which gave money to Northwestern University Law School's Children and Family Justice Center, where Ayers' wife (and former Weather Underground compatriot who glorified violence) Bernardine Dohrn is the director.

I don't think Obama supports domestic terrorism, and I'm sure he can offer eloquent explanations for why he shouldn't suffer any guilt by association. The Hillary Clinton campaign, however, did try to score a few political points, meekly linking to the Politico story on the campaign website's blog. The campaign probably couldn't be more aggressive without calling attention to how Bill Clinton pardoned Puerto Rican separatist terrorists -- perceived to be a way to gain support for Hillary's Senate bid from left-wing Puerto Ricans in New York.

What fascinates me is how light the baggage is when one travels from violent radicalism to liberalism.

I don't think such associations should necessarily cost people their careers or place in polite society, particularly if some sort of contrition is involved. But shouldn't this baggage cost something?

Originally posted by

Shouldn't past associations with radical leftists cost something?

Robin muttered: "I got no use for any butchers of women and children, whether they claim to be Irish, English, Catholic, Moslem, Protestant, atheist, Stalinist, Maoist, KKK...you name em! Red Brigade, Badder Meinhoff Gang, SDS...they're all just a bunch of center-mass target silhouettes to me.

Originally posted by

Shouldn't past associations with radical leftists cost something?

"Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon."

This excerpt from William Ayers' memoir appeared in the New York Times on Sept. 11, 2001 -- the day al-Qaeda terrorists crashed hijacked planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Ayers, once a leader in the Weather Underground -- the group that declared "war" on the U.S. government in 1970 -- told the Times, "I don't regret setting bombs," and, "I feel we didn't do enough."

Ayers recently reappeared in the news because Politico.com reported Friday that Barack Obama has loose ties to him. Ayers, now a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, is apparently a left-wing institution in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood, and Obama visited Ayers' home as a rite of passage when launching his political career in the mid-1990s. The two also served on the board of the charitable Woods Fund of Chicago, which gave money to Northwestern University Law School's Children and Family Justice Center, where Ayers' wife (and former Weather Underground compatriot who glorified violence) Bernardine Dohrn is the director.

I don't think Obama supports domestic terrorism, and I'm sure he can offer eloquent explanations for why he shouldn't suffer any guilt by association. The Hillary Clinton campaign, however, did try to score a few political points, meekly linking to the Politico story on the campaign website's blog. The campaign probably couldn't be more aggressive without calling attention to how Bill Clinton pardoned Puerto Rican separatist terrorists -- perceived to be a way to gain support for Hillary's Senate bid from left-wing Puerto Ricans in New York.

What fascinates me is how light the baggage is when one travels from violent radicalism to liberalism.

I don't think such associations should necessarily cost people their careers or place in polite society, particularly if some sort of contrition is involved. But shouldn't this baggage cost something?

Originally posted by

Shouldn't past associations with radical leftists cost something?

"Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon."

This excerpt from William Ayers' memoir appeared in the New York Times on Sept. 11, 2001 -- the day al-Qaeda terrorists crashed hijacked planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Ayers, once a leader in the Weather Underground -- the group that declared "war" on the U.S. government in 1970 -- told the Times, "I don't regret setting bombs," and, "I feel we didn't do enough."

Ayers recently reappeared in the news because Politico.com reported Friday that Barack Obama has loose ties to him. Ayers, now a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, is apparently a left-wing institution in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood, and Obama visited Ayers' home as a rite of passage when launching his political career in the mid-1990s. The two also served on the board of the charitable Woods Fund of Chicago, which gave money to Northwestern University Law School's Children and Family Justice Center, where Ayers' wife (and former Weather Underground compatriot who glorified violence) Bernardine Dohrn is the director.

I don't think Obama supports domestic terrorism, and I'm sure he can offer eloquent explanations for why he shouldn't suffer any guilt by association. The Hillary Clinton campaign, however, did try to score a few political points, meekly linking to the Politico story on the campaign website's blog. The campaign probably couldn't be more aggressive without calling attention to how Bill Clinton pardoned Puerto Rican separatist terrorists -- perceived to be a way to gain support for Hillary's Senate bid from left-wing Puerto Ricans in New York.

What fascinates me is how light the baggage is when one travels from violent radicalism to liberalism.

I don't think such associations should necessarily cost people their careers or place in polite society, particularly if some sort of contrition is involved. But shouldn't this baggage cost something?

Originally posted by

Shouldn't past associations with radical leftists cost something?

"Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon."

This excerpt from William Ayers' memoir appeared in the New York Times on Sept. 11, 2001 -- the day al-Qaeda terrorists crashed hijacked planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Ayers, once a leader in the Weather Underground -- the group that declared "war" on the U.S. government in 1970 -- told the Times, "I don't regret setting bombs," and, "I feel we didn't do enough."

Ayers recently reappeared in the news because Politico.com reported Friday that Barack Obama has loose ties to him. Ayers, now a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, is apparently a left-wing institution in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood, and Obama visited Ayers' home as a rite of passage when launching his political career in the mid-1990s. The two also served on the board of the charitable Woods Fund of Chicago, which gave money to Northwestern University Law School's Children and Family Justice Center, where Ayers' wife (and former Weather Underground compatriot who glorified violence) Bernardine Dohrn is the director.

I don't think Obama supports domestic terrorism, and I'm sure he can offer eloquent explanations for why he shouldn't suffer any guilt by association. The Hillary Clinton campaign, however, did try to score a few political points, meekly linking to the Politico story on the campaign website's blog. The campaign probably couldn't be more aggressive without calling attention to how Bill Clinton pardoned Puerto Rican separatist terrorists -- perceived to be a way to gain support for Hillary's Senate bid from left-wing Puerto Ricans in New York.

What fascinates me is how light the baggage is when one travels from violent radicalism to liberalism.

I don't think such associations should necessarily cost people their careers or place in polite society, particularly if some sort of contrition is involved. But shouldn't this baggage cost something?

Originally posted by

Trisha

I have to say that there is also quite a bit of 'Clinton-Mania' going on. Obama certainly isn't the only one blowing sunshine up our hooies, either.

Originally posted by

Trisha

I have to say that there is also quite a bit of 'Clinton-Mania' going on. Obama certainly isn't the only one blowing sunshine up our hooies, either.

Originally posted by

Peter Scarpira

"She's backed a lop-sided NAFTA Treaty and Kyoto accord!"
Yes- But she has also spoken out against it.

This was a wonderful letter!

Trisha: A reporter on MSNBC stated... Wow, after listening to that speech I don't know how someone could vote for anyone else.
That was in regards to Obama. JOURNALISTS are supposed to remain nonpartisan. How Horrible...
Obama Mania is real, and its very, very scary!!

Originally posted by

Peter Scarpira

"She's backed a lop-sided NAFTA Treaty and Kyoto accord!"
Yes- But she has also spoken out against it.

This was a wonderful letter!

Trisha: A reporter on MSNBC stated... Wow, after listening to that speech I don't know how someone could vote for anyone else.
That was in regards to Obama. JOURNALISTS are supposed to remain nonpartisan. How Horrible...
Obama Mania is real, and its very, very scary!!

Originally posted by

Peter Scarpira

"She's backed a lop-sided NAFTA Treaty and Kyoto accord!"
Yes- But she has also spoken out against it.

This was a wonderful letter!

Trisha: A reporter on MSNBC stated... Wow, after listening to that speech I don't know how someone could vote for anyone else.
That was in regards to Obama. JOURNALISTS are supposed to remain nonpartisan. How Horrible...
Obama Mania is real, and its very, very scary!!

Originally posted by

Peter Scarpira

Senator Clinton never voted for or against NAFTA (point blank). She has said NAFTA has done good things for certain area's of this country, but says it needs revised.

Senator OBAMA has only spoke out against the Iraq War but has voted for its FUNDING. So please, check HIS and HER voting record before telling me that I am distorting her voting record. I've checked my facts.

Originally posted by

M. A.

Suzanne L. Holt: I totally agree with your analysis of what has been going on in this election. I have been hoping that Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania can put a "pause" to this Obamania, but I know that is a pipe dream. The other day I heard someone say that whoever has the most money wins the election. I hate to think that is a true statement.

I have a few comments that I would like to post, and I'll do it in pieces.

The first piece is: Even though Ted Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller, and John Kerry voted for the Iraq resolution, Obama happily accepted their endorsements, and he continues to attack Hillary who voted the same way they did.

The following is from an article dated 3/2/08 written by Ben Smith, titled Dwelling on Iraq. It's on politico.com

"Earlier today, Sen. Obama attacked Hillary on Iraq by invoking Sen. Rockefeller and incorrectly saying that the WVA Senator opposed the 2002 Iraq vote. The truth is that Sen. Rockefeller voted for the war resolution - not against it as Sen. Obama suggested to the people of Ohio. This seems to be an Obama campaign talking point since its top strategist also claimed that Sen. Rockefeller voted against the war resolution when he was on national television this morning."

Regarding Obama calling Hillary's ad fear mongering:

Fear mongering?

"...don't think that I care any less than Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney about making sure that my daughters don't get blown up."

"I live in Chicago. It's a much more likely target than Grundy County for the next terrorist attack."

..."this attitude that all Muslims are out to get us, and our only job is to think militarily and we can't find ways of creating an understanding with these countries, then we are destined to have an ongoing war, and we might as well sign up our young people now because it won't stop. It won't stop with Iran. We'll just keep on going and our country will be less safe over the long..."

These are some of Obama's comments made to an elderly woman in Iowa who asked, "I want to know specifically what you would do to protect this country from terrorism, and are we going to close the borders, and are we going to get rid of the illegal immigrants? He did not answer the rest of her questions.

Obama has been dismissing Clinton's recent ad as fear-mongering. Some people may not think what he said s fear mongering. I do. People in Chicago and parents of our college graduates and non-college young people may be fearful because of what he said.

I saw this video on Morning Joe and YouTube and never saw it anywhere else. It is on YouTube under the heading Barack Obama Answers National Security Questions.

Originally posted by

suzanne holt

M.A.,
thank you for your very cogent installments.
it is especially worth noting how it's become
a liability to be a hard-working senator who
actually HAD the courage to take stands and
acquire a voting record ....

Originally posted by

MikeK

Today is the day that Hillary's Campaign dies! Good riddance

Obama 08!

Originally posted by

MikeK

Today is the day that Hillary's Campaign dies! Good riddance

Obama 08!

Originally posted by

MikeK

Robin bloviated: "I suggest you read your history books and learn the true meaning of the "Nazis" philosophy, eh young lady?"

Originally posted by

MikeK

Today is the day that Hillary's Campaign dies! Good riddance

Obama 08!

Originally posted by

suzanne holt

thank you, mike, for getting beneath all pleasantry to
the real true tone of the obama campaign.
and - since you're such a prophet, mike -
perhaps you can tell us what will happen in our next four years

also, for the record, jules lee:
I do hope the children [younger than mike - who
clearly feels like a man] who
"saw it all" will remember --
'cuz if this election's any indication,
the future belongs to the best "propagandists"~
btw, your analogy rocks!

Originally posted by

suzanne holt

nazi? piss-poor historical reference?
I'm guessing jules lee was simply using the
word the way thousands of people use the word daily -
the way the merriam-webster dictionary does:
to mean a domineering and intolerant person.
however, I do agree that we should ALL go read our history books!
and, really, the sooner the better.

Originally posted by

suzanne holt

nazi? piss-poor historical reference?
I'm guessing jules lee was simply using the
word the way thousands of people use the word daily -
the way the merriam-webster dictionary does:
to mean a domineering and intolerant person.
however, I do agree that we should ALL go read our history books!
and, really, the sooner the better.

Originally posted by

suzanne holt

nazi? piss-poor historical reference?
I'm guessing jules lee was simply using the
word the way thousands of people use the word daily -
the way the merriam-webster dictionary does:
to mean a domineering and intolerant person.
however, I do agree that we should ALL go read our history books!
and, really, the sooner the better.