The Writers Strike is Over!

Today Hollywood writers have reached a tentative deal. The Oscars are on and some TV shows will be showing new episodes as soon as this spring!

Yes, Mercury is retrograde

Friday, February 08, 2008


Yes, Mercury is Retrograde

Mercury retrograde
January 28 - February 19, 2008

Here we go again... Mercury goes retrograde once again. It happens 3 times a year and it lasts for about 3 weeks. This time is from January 28 to February 19, 2008. Next, from May 27 to June 19, 2008. And then from September 24 to October 15, 2008.

Stationing degrees: 09Sco04 and 23Lib21. Watch carefully how the stationing of Mercury at these degrees influences your natal chart in order to understand the personalized impact on your life.

This is an important period, and we should be aware of the effects associated with this astrological influence. Since it is so often, we must learn what it means and how to take advantage of it.
Astronomical background

There is no real backwards movement of Mercury; it's just that we see it this way from Earth, because of the combined movement of the Earth and Mercury around the Sun. However, astrologically this is very relevant.
General influence of Mercury retrograde

Mercury rules over the mind's processes, studying, communication, businesses, travels and the like. When Mercury reverses its direction, all these areas are affected as well.

The mind turns naturally inwards and people tend to analyze more the own thoughts and follow the common thinking patterns, rather then be curious and eager of new intellectual experiences or challenges. This helps the meditation or the thorough lonely long-term study of a specific matter, but it affects the study of new subjects, the communication with the others, the attention oriented outwards.

Businesses, travels and communications tend to experience delays and different problems. Computers and other processes that work with information may experience crashes, unexpected failures.

Don't enroll to courses, don't buy expensive Mercurian items (books, cars, mobile phones etc.), don't sign important contracts and do not marry.
What is this Mercury retrograde period good for?

It is definitely a very good period for some actions. No time is completely bad for anything, there is a reason in everything happens.

The key is the reversed direction of movement: take any known Mercurian action, reverse its flow, consider the keywords "re-doing something", "double-checking", "finish the old projects" and there you are, you've found the good side of Mercury retrograde.

For instance, you may want to read again a book you particularly liked, a subject you studied before, meet and discuss with old friends you haven't met for a long time, travel to places you've already been to before.

This is an excellent time to work on old projects that never got to be finished. So, think about the things you started and never finalized.

Next, you might wish to prevent any bad things to happen to you: so double-check your agenda, call your business partners to confirm that everything goes as planned, have everything ready before the deadline and leave some extra time for unexpected events. Make copies of your important files and documents, save your work more often.

The other solution is to go on vacation or at least slow down the pace of your projects. You will find that going slowly during the Mercury retrograde period will spare you many efforts of redoing the same action that wasn't performed right the first time.

Above all, be generous and compassionate: you are already aware about the influence of this period, but the others aren't aware of it or there may be uncontrollable events. That's why you should have more diligence with the others and give them some more time. It'll be your mental health that you'll be sparing actually.
___

and from my fave Rx source:

At 20:32 UT (Universal Time), on Monday, January 28th, 2008, Mercury the cosmic trickster, turns retrograde in Aquarius, the sign of the Water-Bearer, sending communications, travel, appointments, mail and the www into a general snarlup! This awkward period begins a few days before the actual turning point (as Mercury slows) and lasts for three weeks or so, until February 19, when the Winged Messenger reaches his direct station. At this time he halts and begins his return to direct motion through the zodiac.

Everything finally straightens out on March 10, as he passes the point where he first turned retrograde. Mercury turns retrograde three times a year, as a rule, but the effects of each period differ, according to the sign in which it happens (see box for Retrograde Periods in 2008).

A planet is described as retrograde when it appears to be moving backwards through the zodiac. According to modern science, this traditional concept arises in the illusory planetary motion created by the orbital rotation of the earth, with relation to other planets in our solar system. Planets are never actually retrograde or stationary, they just seem that way, due to this cosmic shadow-play.

Retrograde periods, although often problematic for us earthlings, are not particularly uncommon. Each planet retrogrades, except the Sun and Moon. Although a powerful astrological influence, Mercury is quite a small planet that travels at a relatively fast speed through the zodiac. Despite being the closest planet in our solar system to the Sun, it is not always in the same sign as the Sun (for example, although this time Mercury turns retrograde in Aquarius, the same sign as the Sun, last time Mercury turned in Scorpio while the Sun was in Libra, but headed back into Libra just as the Sun strode into Scorpio).
Go to Top Fated Events

As a rule, retrograde planets presage a period of seemingly inevitable or fated events that relate to their sphere of influence. They present us with a series of events over which we seem to have little or no control, relating especially to the sign in which the retrogradation occurs. For example, Mercury retrograde in Scorpio (intensity; sexuality) presents quite different sets of circumstances from those generated when it retrogrades into Libra (relationships; harmony; æsthetics).

A retrograde period is best seen as a cycle, beginning when the planet begins to slow to a halt before travelling backwards through the zodiac and ending when the planet returns to the point where it first paused. However, during the cycle, the planet's energy is most powerful (and more likely to generate critical events of universal importance) when the planet makes a station: appearing motionless in the sky.

These stationary periods occur near the beginning of the cycle (when the planet first halts as it prepares to move backwards) and midway through the cycle when the retrograde planet slows to a stop before moving forward again. The "direct station" (when the planet halts before moving forward again) is the most powerful and can be used for maximum benefit.

Some astrologers consider that the "Mercury Shadow" begins some three weeks before the actual retro station (when Mercury passes the point of direct station for the first time). This has some justification, but I am more inclined to think that the really noticeable peculiarities begin when Mercury slows significantly, a few days before the retro station. This period of "Mercury Shadow" extends to the Return date, some three weeks after the direct station. Bear this in mind, because experience shows that the effects of the retro period are still marked during the "shadow" phase. Some of the most characteristic annoyances often occur just after Mercury makes the direct station, while he is crawling forward before picking up speed.
Go to Top What does Mercury affect?

In general, Mercury rules thinking and perception, processing and disseminating information and all means of communication, commerce, education and transportation. By extension, Mercury rules people who work in these areas, especially people who work with their minds or their wits: writers and orators, commentators and critics, gossips and spin doctors, teachers, travellers, tricksters and thieves.

Mercury retrograde gives rise to personal misunderstandings; flawed, disrupted, or delayed communications, negotiations and trade; glitches and breakdowns with phones, computers, cars, buses, and trains. And all of these problems usually arise because some crucial piece of information, or component, has gone astray, or awry.

It is therefore not wise to make important decisions while Mercury is retrograde, since it is very likely that these decisions will be clouded by misinformation, poor communication and careless thinking. Mercury is all about mental clarity and the power of the mind, so when Mercury is retrograde, these intellectual characteristics tend to be less acute than usual, as the critical faculties are dimmed. Make sure you pay attention to the small print!
Go to Top The Key Issue

The key issue here is one of focus. Mercury's retro phase tends to bring unforeseen changes and blockages, but the aggravation and frustration that many of us experience during these periods is often due to our own inability to roll with the punches. Is this due to our ego-fixation? Mercury sets out to restructure our thinking processes and for many of us this is painful and frustrating. Moreover, these experiences reveal flaws in our internal organisation as well as our external planning, which can make us feel foolish and inadequate.

Mercury retrograde, like any cosmic aspect, affects people differently, depending on where it hits their personal charts. Some people actually prosper under a retro Mercury, especially if Mercury is retrograde but otherwise well-aspected in their birth charts. It is also a time when matters begun under a previous retro period will come to fruition, or completion as the case may be. Firm decisions that have been previously made when Mercury is travelling normally through the zodiac may be implemented or finalised while Mercury is retrograde without too much worry, for experience shows that this can be done without undue problems arising.
.. ps_include file="tribal336fr.incl" -->..>..>
.. TF 336x280 JScript VAR NoAD code --> .. type="text/javascript"> e9 = new Object(); e9.size = "336x280,300x250"; e9.noAd = 1; ..> .. type="text/javascript" src="http://tags.expo9.exponential.com/tags/Astrology/ROS/tags.js">..> .. TF 336x280 JScript VAR NoAD code -->
.. /ps_include file="tribal336fr.incl" -->
Go to Top Mercury Retrograde in Aquarius
Aquarius, the Water-Bearer

When Mercury is retrograde, everyone's thinking is more introspective and we tend to think about issues and concerns which relate to the sign involved. With Mercury retrograde in Aquarius, people with this sign prominent in their charts will be especially prone to such introspection. There is little choice but to reconsider our personal views and opinions about life. We receive, however, an opportunity to gain insight into our own ego.

Mercury retro in Aquarius generates an undue focus on originality and independence, love of intellectual freedom and the inclination to repudiate social conventions. Idealistic concepts however, will be under pressure during this Fixed Sign phase, as people will be inclined to be very stubborn and opinionated, while at the same time attempting to pressure others into sharing their attitudes. Intellectual conflict is a sure thing with Mars retrograde as well, which may induce some disloyalty to friends, whom we may criticize or even slander if they cannot be used to further our own ends. Political persons take note! This position can indicate nerve-related ailments and muscle cramping.

All areas of communication are affected, especially in matters related to the family, business, particularly home business, travel, domestic relationships and real estate purchases in general. This period brings travel snafus and missed appointments of all kinds. Documents can go astray. Be sure to carry a diary and refer to it often.

We Support Hillary Clinton!!!

Not that our opinion matters (any more than yours). Nor do we expect that we will influence your vote in any way, but….

Today is Super Tuesday and we feel it is our duty to publicly endorse Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic candidate that will be the next President of the United States.

As we have previously stated, Hillary wasn't our fist choice. We were initially swayed by the promise of change and the inspiring messages of Barack Obama.

But that's not enough!

After careful consideration and much research, we have come to the informed decision that Hillary is the right candidate for us.

We feel more confident with Hillary's abilities to lead and her proven track record of experience. But, more so than that, HER plans for universal healthcare, education reform and emphasis on equality for all are more aligned with what we want in the next President.

We watched the debates and Clinton just won us over.

Barack is great. But Hillary is the better leader, for us.

However, Obama MUST stay in the picture. This country needs him, just as we need Clinton.

It's been a great and heated campaign thus far, but we sincerely hope when it comes time for the Democratic convention that the Clinton/Obama dream ticket will be a reality!

Whether you agree with us or not, please go out and vote today.

Rock it!

[Image via WENN.]
Posted: February 5, 2008 at 4:00 am

....SWEEEEET!

....I love you Perez :-)

<3333

Super Tuesday: Obama Wins Georgia

MSNBC has already projected that Obama has won Georgia. Being a proportional primary for democrats, we don't know exactly what share of the delegates go to Obama yet, as they are clearly not through counting. Georgia closed its polls 18 minutes ago.

Angry Women Back Clinton

Found here:

As much as it made me laugh (especially the headline), it's true. Women don't stand aside when we're challenged like that... or at least we don't want to. We operate with silent resilience when our equality to men is challenged. We often don't see it as discrimination but we understand it and feel it to be something else: 'I am a woman so I will have to prove myself. I will show them.' And we do. By winning.

Now Hillary won't win the popularity contest... ever. But she may win the primary ... and it would shock the nation. Women: get your vagina to the polls on Tuesday!!!

Read this - it rules... mainly cause a dude wrote it. HA!


"Angry Women Back Clinton
| posted by Jeff Fecke | Wednesday, January 09, 2008 | permalink |

So why did Hillary Clinton win tonight? That’s gonna be the question, and it’s a good one. One can cite the “Bradley Effect,” and that was perhaps part of the answer. But not all of it, nor even most of it.

No, Clinton won tonight because in the last few days, the level of misogyny directed toward her had reached a fever pitch, and the women of New Hampshire decided that they’d had enough of it.

Clinton has, of course, faced coded attacks on her gender throughout the campaign, just as Obama has faced attacks on his race. This is nothing new for Hillary, of course; she’s been facing attacks for being too self-actualized since 1992. But starting with Saturday night’s debate, those attacks became less coded and more overt. I’m not sure exactly why; maybe, with Clinton in dire straits, the media and her opponents decided to play the woman card, and bury her. Maybe with her campaign apparently winding down, misogyny that had been buried beneath the surface bubbled up in the gleeful, premature burial of her campaign. Maybe it’s always been at this level, but we’re all paying better attention now.

Regardless of the reason, the misogyny spewed forth, thick and bilious. Going into the weekend, Fox News put Marc Rudov, author of Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables on the air to discuss the election. Why? God only knows. But Rudov was, for some reason, asked why men seemed to prefer Obama to Clinton. Rudov’s answer set the stage for the next four days:

“When Barack Obama speaks, men hear, ‘Take off for the future.’ And when Hillary Clinton speaks, men hear, ‘Take out the garbage.’ […] I get into lots of taxicabs and I tell the drivers this whole thing about Hillary being shrill, and they say, ‘That’s right. That’s right. You’re exactly right.’ ” Later in the exchange, Rudov asserted that Clinton “does register with married men, like a small worm boring through the brain.”

Subtle as a sledgehammer, but it carried through to Saturday’s debate, where Clinton was pilloried as “angry” for sternly defending her record, and for taking some shots at Obama. The spin got so furious that Margaret O’Brien Steinfels, writing at dotCommonweal, felt compelled to say, “Just watched Meet the Press. Tim Russert and two political consultant, McMahon and Murphy were spinning like mad against Hillary. Do I detect a woman-can’t-really be president message here?” At The Moderate Voice, blogger Holly in Cincinnati added, “Anger is often perceived differently in men and women. The same anger seen as an asset in a male candidate may be seen as a liability in a female candidate. I know this because I have often been perceived as an angry woman (and therefore dangerous and unstable) rather than a rightfully angry person.”

By Monday, the vultures were circling, and when Hillary Clinton showed a trace of emotion, her voice choking up for a second, the media pounced, declaring that she had “cried” during a campaign stop.

Now, before we go on, let’s take a look at that breakdown, shall we?



You may notice something when you watch that: Clinton doesn’t cry. Yes, she chokes up for a moment, shows a bit of emotion, but she doesn’t break down in tears, she doesn’t even stop talking.That didn’t stop the media from piling on. Melissa did a great job documenting the pile-on, and I think it bears repeating:

Reuters: An emotional Clinton vows to fight on

CNN: Clinton gets emotional at New Hampshire stop

The Politico: Clinton fights back tears: ‘It’s not easy’

ABC News: Clinton Gets Emotional on Campaign Trail

ABC News: Rivals Reacts to Teary Clinton

ABC News: Can Clinton’s Emotions Get the Best of Her?

MSNBC/AP: Clinton’s voice catches on eve of N.H. primary

AP: Emotions run high on eve of NH primary

AFP: Emotions run high on eve of New Hampshire primary

Yahoo Play of the Day/AP: Clinton chokes up

Bloomberg: Clinton Says ‘It’s Not Easy’ Dealing With Strain of Campaign

Yes, this brief moment, this brief flicker of emotion from a woman who’d been accused of lacking emotion throughout the campaign, led to story after story about her emotionalism. And John Edwards, of all people, made the point explicit in a truly depressing pander:

Edwards offered little sympathy and pounced on the opportunity to question Clinton’s ability to endure the stresses of the presidency.

“I think what we need in a commander-in-chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are tough business, but being president of the United States is also tough business,” Edwards told reporters Laconia, New Hampshire.

You see, presidents have to be tough. And women who cry? They aren’t tough. And given that everyone, man and woman alike, cries…well, it turns out women just aren’t up to the rigors of the presidency.

It didn’t take the morons with the “Iron My Shirt” sign for women to get the message. This was a boys club. No girls allowed.

To be fair to Obama, he didn’t join in the pile-on (though he did nothing to defuse it, either). But women (and their allies) could read the narrative nonetheless. Petulant stated the clear message:

Hillary got teary. Yes, she did. The Ice Queen almost broke down and now her campaign is over. She is a WOMAN, you know, and women are weak, overly emotional, uterine-lining-shedding creatures that can never, repeat, never be allowed in such a prominent role leading our country as all that emotion and weakness will destroy the country. That seems to be the underlying sentiments in the press and on the teevee. She showed actual “human emotion”—excuse me—”womanly emotion,” and she must call it quits.

Amanda Marcotte blasted Edwards for taking the media’s bait.

It’s bad enough that the media plays the game with Clinton where if she shows any emotion, she’s too feminine or too scary, but if she’s more stoic, she’s a scary ballbuster, but to have her own party members (if political rivals) play that cheap sexist card is too much.

Zuzu at Feministe concurred:

Perhaps, John, when the press comes sniffing around looking for a quote from you about how one of your rivals — you know, the girl — had an “emotional outburst” and What It All Means, you might want to think about the message your response will send to female voters[.]

Over at Feministing, Jessica Valenti said:

The last few days have really brought out some sexist assholery concerning Sen. Hillary Clinton. In the past, we’ve ran a post series called Hillary Sexism Watch, but given just how many different sexist things have happened recently, one post isn’t enough.

In short, women had eyes, and they knew what they were being told. And while neither Melissa nor Amanda nor Jessica were exactly Clinton supporters, all of them moved to defend Clinton from attacks against her, not as a candidate, but as a woman.

Some will criticize this as misguided identity politics, but they’re wrong. Oh, it’s identity politics — women in New Hampshire and throughout the country recognized that Clinton was being attacked as a woman, and came to her defense. But it’s far from misguided.

Clinton may win the nomination, or she may lose; right now she’s probably the front-runner, but that could change tomorrow. Either way, she’s blazing a trail that more women will follow. When the media and her opponents ramped up hatred against her because of her gender, women recognized that the trail she was cutting would be filled with pitfalls and mineshafts if the bile was not addressed. And so they addressed it. Women who could write, wrote. Women who could speak out to friends, spoke out to friends. And in New Hampshire, women who could vote, voted for Hillary Clinton.

And that’s why she won tonight; because women recognized that, at least for tonight, their future was inextricably bound up with Hillary’s, and that, at least for tonight, they needed to send a clear message that misogyny and sexism just won’t work anymore. Clinton may yet lose — there are plenty of legitimate reasons to oppose her. But if she loses, it won’t be because she was too emotional, or because she reminds someone of their ex-wife. It will be because she loses on her merits as a candidate. That’s as it should be, and it’s why our country should be grateful to the angry women who rallied to her, angry women who were angry for a righteous reason, angry women who accomplished something grand.

California Democratic Debate a Tie or Slight Edge to Obama?

From:

" California Democratic Debate a Tie or Slight Edge to Obama?
January 31st 2008 Posted to 2008 Election, Politics

I am no political expert but I will say tonight’s Democratic debate was one hell of an event. Obama came out struggling with his points as health care took the stage front and center. Hillary has been pushing for the same plan for something like 15 years and I think that really helped her get her point across in a much more fluid and easy to understand way. I personally think Hillary dominated the opening rounds of the debate, but once we got beyond health care I think Obama came out ahead.

Hillary’s best quote was when she was asked a rather tough question (I thought) why we should put a Clinton back in office when we have had decades of the Bush and Clinton families in the White House. She said, “It did take a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush and I think it might take another one to clean up after the second Bush.” The place erupted.

The Obama quote that I loved and really smacks down any argument citing progress in Iraq was when they approached him with the idea that things are improving and fewer U.S. soldiers are dying. On the idea we are succeeding based on that analysis he said “we have set the bar so low, it’s buried in the sand at this point.” Killer comment and further proof that Obama would dominate the Republicans on the issue of Iraq and this really is pushing his agenda of being right from the start and having better judgment.

I will admit one thing though, Hillary grew on me tonight. She didn’t seem to be the evil shrew she has appeared to be up to this point. She seemed level headed, even if she struggled on a few later points.

Probably the most noticeable thing tonight was the good natured conversation that went on. It was as if both candidates decided to say, “Screw it, we don’t want a Republican to win. Let’s be cordial and talk about the issues and put the personal trash aside.” After all, these two are very similar on a lot of points and by putting the politics of it all behind benefits them both.

Did either one win? Hillary dominated the opening like I said, but I think the lasting impression of the Iraq conversation outweighs the discussion of health care giving Obama a slight (miniscule) edge. I think Obama needed a bigger win than he got tonight, but polls show him closing. He has to hope his stock continues to rise and Hillary’s stays the same.

The final question on whether they would consider an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket didn’t hit with a thud as I think it would have a week ago. Today it all seemed possible.

Super Tuesday is going to be close."

Democratic Showdown in Cali at the Kodak Theater

Here's my initial analysis from tonight...

Psychological: There is something to be said about the silent unity of women. I saw middle-aged women's eyes smiling when Hillary said in;

"Well, It DID take a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush and it's certainly gonna take a Clinton to clean up after the second!"

I believe in the silent unity of women - look at NH.

Edwards has not decided who to endorse yet

I'm watching CNN. Edwards will speak with both Obama and Clinton about who to endorse. I respect him because he has fought hard about lobbyists and corporations corrupting the way our gov't does business... and that may be my biggest problem with politics.

This race keeps getting more and more exciting.

Edwards out, no endorsement

From:

"Edwards out, no endorsement

Former Sen. John Edwards is expected to bow out of the Democratic presidential race today. His campaign will end at 1 p.m. in the same place it began: New Orleans, a city that Edwards used to encapsulate his message that Washington has turned a blind eye to the needy.

Edwards, with his populist focus, bested Hillary Clinton in Iowa but couldn’t keep himself afloat for the next three contests. At the same time, Edwards’ second-place Iowa finish meant that he couldn’t even win a state in which he had a top-notch ground organization and a long presence, raising questions about his ability to win in any state. But a tireless Edwards continued on to New Hampshire with a 36-hour campaigning marathon that sought to show presidential stamina.

Politico’s Mike Allen takes stock of Edwards’ woes:

Besides the media fascination with the other candidates, Edwards suffered from image problems, including owning a mansion that conflicted with his “Two Americas” message about the struggles of the underclass. He became wealthy as a trial lawyer, and his casual-Friday-style attire on the campaign trail was not enough to erase perceptions of him as something of a Southern dandy.

The Republican National Committee, and even some of his Democratic critics, constantly invoked the mantra of “house, hedge fund and haircut” to remind people of his grand tastes and lucrative business dealings.

Edwards’ exit makes tomorrow night’s debate in Los Angeles the first one-on-one between Clinton and Barack Obama. He is not expected to immediately endorse either candidate."

Undecided ’08 - Your Guide to Hillary or Obama

So, as you may know, yesterday Senator Ted Kennedy endorsed Barack Obama. Being a Hillary hopeful this caused me some anxiety. I wanted to know why.. and more so... what to do now..?

By talking with friends, listening to Keith Olberman/NPR, and ultimately deciding for myself: I was able to make up my mind quickly.

All of this talk made me realize: that this was just as shocking to many as it was to me. I won't speculate on why but what I did hear that was helpful in bringing me to my resolution was the following:

Barack Obama's ideals do match the Kennedys' while the Clinton democratic ideals vary in small and specific ways. It is also true that we (all democrats) want the same thing - something that works and something that is right.

The Clintons would say "what WORKS is RIGHT"

The Kennedys/Obama would say "what is RIGHT, WORKS"



Now it will be our own struggle between pragmatism and idealism to decide which candidate we support. I had to ask myself which mode is more important for me at this point in time.


By the way - I feel good that this is my "oh woe is me" right now as an American Democrat.

DEMOCRATIC TAKEOVER 2008 !!! <3333

Love.

This one's about love.

Is it safe to love someone who knows you so well... that he knows your dark side?

Imagine you are a sweater. Someone is able to look at you and identify your 3 weakest threads in a glance. If he pulls them; you will unravel.

I already know the answer... it's a question. Trust.

Obama Linked To Federal Corruption Trial

Let's be clear - Obama is not perfect. No politician is. In fact, no human is perfect but I'll cut the philosophy and just let you read, k?

This from:

"Obama Linked To Federal Corruption Trial
Wed, 01/23/2008 - 12:52 — Judicial Watch Blog

The upcoming federal corruption trial of presidential candidate Barack Obama’s longtime friend and financial supporter is sure to undermine the Illinois senator’s self-promoted, squeaky-clean image of exceptionally high ethical standards and claims of never being influenced by special interests.

In fact, timing couldn’t be worst for the Democratic presidential candidate who has repeatedly downplayed his ties to the renowned Chicago businessman (Antoin Rezko) scheduled to be tried February 25 on federal charges of extortion, influence peddling and conspiracy.

Rezko has been indicted with plotting to squeeze millions of dollars in kickbacks out of investment firms seeking state business and for obtaining $10.5 million from a large company through fraud and swindling a group of investors. Prosecutors also say Rezko provided hefty donations to Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich in exchange for appointments to state boards and commissions.

No wonder Obama would rather erase his lengthy relationship with Rezko, a longtime loyal supporter. In fact, the senator recently returned $85,000 in contributions. Problem is Obama’s close ties to Rezko have been clearly documented over the years, including the fact that Rezko has basically bankrolled Obama’s political career from the day he first sought public office in 1995.

This week a major newspaper analyzed the powerful Obama-Rezko connection that the presidential candidate and his staff have worked so diligently to minimize, documenting how the indicted businessman, his employees and business associates have fueled Obama’s rapid ascent in Illinois and national politics.

Rezko and his clan have given Obama more than $200,000 in donations and Rezko even hosted a lavish fundraiser at his mansion, featuring an open sushi bar, in 2003 when Obama launched his bid for the U.S. Senate. A few years later the men entered into a controversial real estate deal that Obama later admitted was a regrettable mistake.

The senator paid Rezko for a portion of a lot adjacent to a $1.65 million home he purchased in 2005 for $300,000 below the asking price. The idea, according to Obama, was to create more space between the house and other lot, which happened to be owned by Rezko and his wife. Good friends and neighbors, how cozy.

Yet, Obama continues to pretend that he hardly knows the crooked businessman that has proven to be his most loyal and generous supporter. Somehow, the act itself is what takes away from the senator’s imaginary squeaky clean portrait."

Judicial Watch Announces List of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” for 2007

This one is great!n

From

Judicial Watch at judicialwatch.org

"Judicial Watch Announces List of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” for 2007

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2007 list of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.” The list, in alphabetical order, includes:

1. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY): In addition to her long and sordid ethics record, Senator Hillary Clinton took a lot of heat in 2007 – and rightly so – for blocking the release her official White House records. Many suspect these records contain a treasure trove of information related to her role in a number of serious Clinton-era scandals. Moreover, in March 2007, Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint against Senator Clinton for filing false financial disclosure forms with the U.S. Senate (again). And Hillary’s top campaign contributor, Norman Hsu, was exposed as a felon and a fugitive from justice in 2007. Hsu pleaded guilt to one count of grand theft for defrauding investors as part of a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme.

2. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI): Conyers reportedly repeatedly violated the law and House ethics rules, forcing his staff to serve as his personal servants, babysitters, valets and campaign workers while on the government payroll. While the House Ethics Committee investigated these allegations in 2006, and substantiated a number of the accusations against Conyers, the committee blamed the staff and required additional administrative record-keeping and employee training. Judicial Watch obtained documentation in 2007 from a former Conyers staffer that sheds new light on the activities and conduct on the part of the Michigan congressman, which appear to be at a minimum inappropriate and likely unlawful. Judicial Watch called on the Attorney General in 2007 to investigate the matter.

3. Senator Larry Craig (R-ID): In one of the most shocking scandals of 2007, Senator Craig was caught by police attempting to solicit sex in a Minneapolis International Airport men’s bathroom during the summer. Senator Craig reportedly “sent signals” to a police officer in an adjacent stall that he wanted to engage in sexual activity. When the police officer showed Craig his police identification under the bathroom stall divider and pointed toward the exit, the senator reportedly exclaimed 'No!'” When asked to produce identification, Craig presented police his U.S. Senate business card and said, “What do you think of that?” The power play didn’t work. Craig was arrested, charged and entered a guilty plea. Despite enormous pressure from his Republican colleagues to resign from the Senate, Craig refused.

4. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA): As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee's subcommittee on military construction, Feinstein reviewed military construction government contracts, some of which were ultimately awarded to URS Corporation and Perini, companies then owned by Feinstein's husband, Richard Blum. While the Pentagon ultimately awards military contracts, there is a reason for the review process. The Senate's subcommittee on Military Construction's approval carries weight. Sen. Feinstein, therefore, likely had influence over the decision making process. Senator Feinstein also attempted to undermine ethics reform in 2007, arguing in favor of a perk that allows members of Congress to book multiple airline flights and then cancel them without financial penalty. Judicial Watch’s investigation into this matter is ongoing.

5. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY): Giuliani came under fire in late 2007 after it was discovered the former New York mayor’s office “billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons…” ABC News also reported that Giuliani provided Nathan with a police vehicle and a city driver at taxpayer expense. All of this news came on the heels of the federal indictment on corruption charges of Giuliani’s former Police Chief and business partner Bernard Kerik, who pleaded guilty in 2006 to accepting a $165,000 bribe in the form of renovations to his Bronx apartment from a construction company attempting to land city contracts.

6. Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR): Governor Huckabee enjoyed a meteoric rise in the polls in December 2007, which prompted a more thorough review of his ethics record. According to The Associated Press: “[Huckabee’s] career has also been colored by 14 ethics complaints and a volley of questions about his integrity, ranging from his management of campaign cash to his use of a nonprofit organization to subsidize his income to his destruction of state computer files on his way out of the governor’s office.” And what was Governor Huckabee’s response to these ethics allegations? Rather than cooperating with investigators, Huckabee sued the state ethics commission twice and attempted to shut the ethics process down.

7. I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby: Libby, former Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was sentenced to 30 months in prison and fined $250,000 for lying and obstructing the Valerie Plame CIA leak investigation. Libby was found guilty of four felonies -- two counts of perjury, one count of making false statements to the FBI and one count of obstructing justice – all serious crimes. Unfortunately, Libby was largely let off the hook. In an appalling lack of judgment, President Bush issued “Executive Clemency” to Libby and commuted the sentence.

8. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL): A “Dishonorable Mention” last year, Senator Obama moves onto the “ten most wanted” list in 2007. In 2006, it was discovered that Obama was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin “Tony” Rezko. In 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the company’s shares. Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law.

9. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who promised a new era of ethics enforcement in the House of Representatives, snuck a $25 million gift to her husband, Paul Pelosi, in a $15 billion Water Resources Development Act recently passed by Congress. The pet project involved renovating ports in Speaker Pelosi's home base of San Francisco. Pelosi just happens to own apartment buildings near the areas targeted for improvement, and will almost certainly experience a significant boost in property value as a result of Pelosi's earmark. Earlier in the year, Pelosi found herself in hot water for demanding access to a luxury Air Force jet to ferry the Speaker and her entourage back and forth from San Francisco non-stop, in unprecedented request which was wisely rejected by the Pentagon. And under Pelosi’s leadership, the House ethics process remains essentially shut down – which protects members in both parties from accountability.

10. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV): Over the last few years, Reid has been embroiled in a series of scandals that cast serious doubt on his credibility as a self-professed champion of government ethics, and 2007 was no different. According to The Los Angeles Times, over the last four years, Reid has used his influence in Washington to help a developer, Havey Whittemore, clear obstacles for a profitable real estate deal. As the project advanced, the Times reported, “Reid received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Whittemore.” Whittemore also hired one of Reid’s sons (Leif) as his personal lawyer and then promptly handed the junior Reid the responsibility of negotiating the real estate deal with federal officials. Leif Reid even called his father’s office to talk about how to obtain the proper EPA permits, a clear conflict of interest.

Judicial Watch is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Judicial Watch neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office. For more information, visit www.judicialwatch.org.

December 19, 2007"

NYT Op-Ed: The Billary Road to.... (I can't honestly make this my blog title... read on)

From:


This piece was merely interesting... although I hate the headline I think it is a sensationalist headline - however... I did read it... didn't I?

:-/


"January 27, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist, New York Times
The Billary Road to Republican Victory
By FRANK RICH

IN the wake of George W. Bush, even a miracle might not be enough for the Republicans to hold on to the White House in 2008. But what about two miracles? The new year’s twin resurrections of Bill Clinton and John McCain, should they not evaporate, at last give the G.O.P. a highly plausible route to victory.

Amazingly, neither party seems to fully recognize the contours of the road map. In the Democrats’ case, the full-throttle emergence of Billary, the joint Clinton candidacy, is measured mainly within the narrow confines of the short-term horse race: Do Bill Clinton’s red-faced eruptions and fact-challenged rants enhance or diminish his wife as a woman and a candidate?

Absent from this debate is any sober recognition that a Hillary Clinton nomination, if it happens, will send the Democrats into the general election with a new and huge peril that may well dwarf the current wars over race, gender and who said what about Ronald Reagan.

What has gone unspoken is this: Up until this moment, Hillary has successfully deflected rough questions about Bill by saying, “I’m running on my own” or, as she snapped at Barack Obama in the last debate, “Well, I’m here; he’s not.” This sleight of hand became officially inoperative once her husband became a co-candidate, even to the point of taking over entirely when she vacated South Carolina last week. With “two for the price of one” back as the unabashed modus operandi, both Clintons are in play.

For the Republicans, that means not just a double dose of the one steroid, Clinton hatred, that might yet restore their party’s unity but also two fat targets. Mrs. Clinton repeatedly talks of how she’s been “vetted” and that “there are no surprises” left to be mined by her opponents. On the “Today” show Friday, she joked that the Republican attacks “are just so old.” So far. Now that Mr. Clinton is ubiquitous, not only is his past back on the table but his post-presidency must be vetted as well. To get a taste of what surprises may be in store, you need merely revisit the Bill Clinton questions that Hillary Clinton has avoided to date.

Asked by Tim Russert at a September debate whether the Clinton presidential library and foundation would disclose the identities of its donors during the campaign, Mrs. Clinton said it wasn’t up to her. “What’s your recommendation?” Mr. Russert countered. Mrs. Clinton replied: “Well, I don’t talk about my private conversations with my husband, but I’m sure he’d be happy to consider that.”

Not so happy, as it turns out. The names still have not been made public.

Just before the holidays, investigative reporters at both The Washington Post and The New York Times tried to find out why, with no help from the Clintons. The Post uncovered a plethora of foreign contributors, led by Saudi Arabia. The Times found an overlap between library benefactors and Hillary Clinton campaign donors, some of whom might have an agenda with a new Clinton administration. (Much as one early library supporter, Marc Rich’s ex-wife, Denise, had an agenda with the last one.) “The vast scale of these secret fund-raising operations presents enormous opportunities for abuse,” said Representative Henry Waxman, the California Democrat whose legislation to force disclosure passed overwhelmingly in the House but remains stalled in the Senate.

The Post and Times reporters couldn’t unlock all the secrets. The unanswered questions could keep them and their competitors busy until Nov. 4. Mr. Clinton’s increased centrality to the campaign will also give The Wall Street Journal a greater news peg to continue its reportorial forays into the unraveling financial partnership between Mr. Clinton and the swashbuckling billionaire Ron Burkle.

At “Little Rock’s Fort Knox,” as the Clinton library has been nicknamed by frustrated researchers, it’s not merely the heavy-hitting contributors who are under wraps. Even by the glacial processing standards of the National Archives, the Clintons’ White House papers have emerged slowly, in part because Bill Clinton exercised his right to insist that all communications between him and his wife be “considered for withholding” until 2012.

When Mrs. Clinton was asked by Mr. Russert at an October debate if she would lift that restriction, she again escaped by passing the buck to her husband: “Well, that’s not my decision to make.” Well, if her candidacy is to be as completely vetted as she guarantees, the time for the other half of Billary to make that decision is here.

The credibility of a major Clinton campaign plank, health care, depends on it. In that same debate, Mrs. Clinton told Mr. Russert that “all of the records, as far as I know, about what we did with health care” are “already available.” As Michael Isikoff of Newsweek reported weeks later, this is a bit off; he found that 3,022,030 health care documents were still held hostage. Whatever the pace of the processing, the gatekeeper charged with approving each document’s release is the longtime Clinton loyalist Bruce Lindsey.

People don’t change. Bill Clinton, having always lived on the edge, is back on the precipice. When he repeatedly complains that the press has given Mr. Obama a free ride and over-investigated the Clintons, he seems to be tempting the fates, given all the reporting still to be done on his post-presidential business. When he says, as he did on Monday, that “whatever I do should be totally transparent,” it’s almost as if he’s setting himself up for a fall. There’s little more transparency at “Little Rock’s Fort Knox” than there is at Giuliani Partners.

“The Republicans are not going to have any compunctions about asking anybody anything,” Mrs. Clinton lectured Mr. Obama. Maybe so, but Republicans are smart enough not to start asking until after she has secured the nomination.

Not all Republicans are smart enough, however, to recognize the value of John McCain should Mrs. Clinton emerge as the nominee. He’s a bazooka aimed at most every rationale she’s offered for her candidacy.

In a McCain vs. Billary race, the Democrats will sacrifice the most highly desired commodity by the entire electorate, change; the party will be mired in déjà 1990s all over again. Mrs. Clinton’s spiel about being “tested” by her “35 years of experience” won’t fly either. The moment she attempts it, Mr. McCain will run an ad about how he was being tested when those 35 years began, in 1973. It was that spring when he emerged from five-plus years of incarceration at the Hanoi Hilton while Billary was still bivouacked at Yale Law School. And can Mrs. Clinton presume to sell herself as best equipped to be commander in chief “on Day One” when opposing an actual commander and war hero? I don’t think so.

Foreign policy issue No. 1, withdrawal from Iraq, should be a slam-dunk for any Democrat. Even the audience at Thursday’s G.O.P. debate in Boca Raton cheered Ron Paul’s antiwar sentiments. But Mrs. Clinton’s case is undermined by her record. She voted for the war, just as Mr. McCain did, in 2002 and was still defending it in February 2005, when she announced from the Green Zone that much of Iraq was “functioning quite well. ” Only in November 2005 did she express the serious misgivings long pervasive in her own party. When Mr. McCain accuses her of now advocating “surrender” out of political expediency, her flip-flopping will back him up.

Billary can’t even run against the vast right-wing conspiracy if Mr. McCain is the opponent. Rush Limbaugh and Tom DeLay hate Mr. McCain as much as they hate the Clintons. And they hate him for the same reasons Mr. McCain wins over independents and occasional Democrats: his sporadic (and often mild) departures from conservative orthodoxy on immigration and campaign finance reform, torture, tax cuts, climate change and the godliness of Pat Robertson. Since Mr. McCain doesn’t kick reporters like dogs, as the Clintons do, he will no doubt continue to enjoy an advantage, however unfair, with the press pack on the Straight Talk Express.

Even so, Mr. McCain hasn’t yet won a clear majority of Republican voters in any G.O.P. contest. He’s depended on the kindness of independent voters. Tuesday’s Florida primary, which is open exclusively to Republicans, is his crucial test. If he fails, his party remains in chaos and Mitt Romney could still inherit the earth.

That would be a miracle for the Democrats, but they can hardly count on it. If Mr. Obama has not met an unexpected Waterloo in South Carolina — this column went to press before Saturday’s vote — the party needs him to stop whining about the Clintons’ attacks, regain his wit and return to playing offense. Unlike Mrs. Clinton, he would unambiguously represent change in a race with any Republican. If he vanquishes Billary, he’ll have an even stronger argument to take into battle against a warrior like Mr. McCain.

If Mr. Obama doesn’t fight, no one else will. Few national Democratic leaders have the courage to stand up to the Clintons. Even in defeat, Mr. Obama may at least help wake up a party slipping into denial. Any Democrat who seriously thinks that Bill will fade away if Hillary wins the nomination — let alone that the Clintons will escape being fully vetted — is a Democrat who, as the man said, believes in fairy tales."

Bobby Kennedy, Jr and Sister Endorse Hillary Clinton

From:

"Bobby Kennedy, Jr and Sister Endorse Hillary Clinton
By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 07:20:00 AM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton (all tags)
Share This: StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Kennedy family is not united in its support for Barack Obama. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend issued a statement today:

"I respect Caroline and Teddy's decision but I have made a different choice. While I admire Senator Obama greatly, I have known Hillary Clinton for over 25 years and have seen first hand how she gets results. As a woman, leader, and person of deep convictions, I believe Hillary Clinton would make the best possible choice for president.

She shares so many of the concerns of my father. Hillary has spent a lifetime speaking out on behalf of the powerless and working to alleviate poverty, in our country and around the world. I have seen her work up close and know she will be a great President. At this moment when so much is at stake at home and overseas, I urge our fellow Americans to support Hillary Clinton. That is why my brother Bobby, my sister Kerry, and I are supporting Hillary Clinton."

Ted Kennedy to Endorse Obama

Found here:

"Sunday, January 27, 2008
Ted Kennedy to Endorse Obama

After a much needed win in South Carolina, Barack Obama will get the coveted endorsement from Ted Kennedy. Kennedy brings with him strong Democratic appeal, which Clinton is strong with in the primaries, and an establishment political machine.

To demonstrate how important this endorsement is, the Clinton campaign fought hard in the last few days to prevent Kennedy from making an endorsement, with Bill Clinton making personal calls to the Senator.

In terms of monetary support, Hillary Clinton has received $15,000 from the Kennedy family, while Obama has received $9,000.

Clinton aides responded to the endorsement:

“She has a great deal of respect for Sen. Kennedy and is very proud of all the endorsements she's received from her Senate colleagues,” said Doug Hattaway, a Clinton spokesman. “At the end of the day, the voters are going to choose a candidate on their merits, not on their endorsements.”



While this endorsement is a blow to Clinton, it is hardly the end of her campaign. Clinton still leads is mostly every poll for Super Tuesday states and her large organization may trump Obama's high profile endorsements. We will have to wait and see.

Posted by Rick Evans at 4:30 PM"

Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama

From Boston.com

I feel so lost at this moment...

"Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama
Posted by James F. Smith January 27, 2008 12:29 PM

By Susan Milligan
Globe staff

WASHINGTON -- Senator Edward M. Kennedy will endorse Barack Obama for president tomorrow, breaking his year-long neutrality to send a powerful signal of where the legendary Massachusetts Democrat sees the party going -- and who he thinks is best to lead it.

Kennedy confidantes told the Globe today that the Bay State's senior senator will appear with Obama and Kennedy's niece, Caroline Kennedy, at a morning rally at American University in Washington tomorrow to announce his support.

That will be a potentially significant boost for Obama as he heads into a series of critical primaries on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5.

Kennedy believes Obama can ``transcend race'' and bring unity to the country, a Kennedy associate told the Globe. Kennedy was also impressed by Obama's deep involvement last year in the bipartisan effort to craft legislation on immigration reform, a politically touchy subject the other presidential candidates avoided, the associate said.

The coveted endorsement is a huge blow to New York Senator Hillary Clinton, who is both a senatorial colleague and a friend of the Kennedy family. In a campaign where Clinton has trumpeted her experience over Obama's call for hope and change, the endorsement by one of the most experienced and respected Democrats in the Senate is a particularly dramatic coup for Obama.

"The America of Jack and Bobby Kennedy touched all of us. Through all of these decades, the one who kept that flame alive was Ted Kennedy,'' said Representative Bill Delahunt, A Quincy Democrat who is also backing Obama. ``So having him pass on the torch [to Obama] is of incredible significance. It's historic.''

Obama's landslide win in South Carolina yesterday gives Obama and Clinton two wins each in the primary campaign, and puts the two senators in a fierce battle for delegates on Feb. 5, when 22 states will hold Democratic primaries and caucuses.

While polls show Clinton ahead in some large states, including her home state of New York and delegate-rich California, the Kennedy endorsement gives Obama a stamp of approval among key constituencies in the Democratic party that could make Super Tuesday more competitive.

Kennedy plans to campaign actively for Obama, an aide said, and will focus particularly among Hispanics and labor union members, who are important voting blocks in several Feb. 5 states, including California, New York, New Jersey, Arizona and New Mexico.

The Massachusetts senator was key in helping his colleague, Senator John F. Kerry, score a comeback win in Iowa in 2004, sending Kerry on a path to the nomination. Kennedy campaigned on his own and released several senior members of his staff to work for Kerry."

How about a break from Politics... Take an IQ Test!

Powered by AllTheTests.com

....I scored a 144. I've taken these before but I scored the highest on this one because it is not timed.

Campaign Finances 2008

Wall Street Journal Article:


"BUSINESS

Executives Display Diverse Electoral Loyalties
By GEORGE ANDERS
January 16, 2008; Page A2

Political-campaign financing is supposed to pit rival interest groups against one another. But in this year's wide-open presidential race, some interesting tugs-of-war are going on within individual companies.

Consider Time Warner Inc., whose chairman, Richard Parsons, has sent money to Republican Sen. John McCain's campaign, while Chief Executive Jeffrey Bewkes last year helped fund Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd, who has since dropped out of the race. At the same time, other top officials at the media conglomerate's cable-television units have been backing Democratic contenders Sen. Hillary Clinton or former Sen. John Edwards.

Is there a discernable Time Warner point of view on the election? No way.

Playing the field even more broadly is Goldman Sachs Group Inc., the former employer of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson as well as other major figures in both political parties. The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics in Washington has tallied campaign donations as of Oct. 31, the most recent data available, and has posted the results on its Web site, www.opensecrets.org.
DISCUSS

[Go to forum]
Share your thoughts about how much clout corporate bosses can -- or should -- have in the political arena.

With individual donations limited to $2,300 a candidate for the primaries and another $2,300 for the general election, it would be tough for a few executives to play kingmaker. But Goldman's investment bankers have been hard at work, giving a total of more than $1 million to various candidates, according to the center. Goldman employees rank among the top five funding sources for all three of the leading Democratic candidates: Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama.

This generosity extends to Republicans, too. Goldman employees show up as top-five donors for two Republican contenders: Mr. McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

One Goldman managing director, Dean Backer, has written checks for Mrs. Clinton, Messrs. Obama, Edwards and Dodd, and another Democratic contender: Sen. Joseph Biden, who also has dropped out of the race. That's the political equivalent of investing in a Democratic Party index fund. Even if some commitments fizzle, the overall portfolio will participate in whatever happens next. Mr. Backer didn't return calls seeking comment; a Goldman spokesman declined to comment.

At Comcast Corp., the diversified approach has its appeal, too. Company founder Ralph Roberts, still a director at age 87, has donated to the campaigns of Mr. McCain, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Biden. His wife Suzanne, who hosts "Seeking Solutions With Suzanne," a Comcast show aimed at older viewers, has funded Mr. Biden and Mr. Obama. Their son Brian, Comcast's CEO, has backed Mrs. Clinton.

"We give to both sides," says Comcast spokeswoman D'Arcy Rudnay. "You have to. There are lots of people here behind different candidates." Ms. Rudnay sees that as a sign of Comcast's diverse culture.

So what's going on? A jaded interpretation would be that many corporate executives aren't deeply committed to any candidate. Instead, they just want to befriend or mollify whoever wins the presidency in November's election.

Larry Sabato, head of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, has been making that argument for years. "The ideology of business is pragmatism," he says. "Executives wouldn't be successful people if they didn't function that way."

Mr. Sabato notes the biggest presidential fund-raisers so far have been two Democrats: Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. Business backers may think of themselves as siding with Republicans most of the time, he says. But if executives think a Democratic victory is likely in 2008, he adds, they have started writing checks accordingly.

A different interpretation comes from executives and spokesmen at companies that have long been politically active. Both parties' political races are surprisingly up for grabs, they say. Donations by big companies' employees, even at the highest levels, simply reflect the same divided loyalties of the general public, they add.

At Cisco Systems Inc., for example, CEO John Chambers has supported Mr. McCain. Cisco's former chairman, John Morgridge, has given money to Mr. Obama's campaign. Executive Vice President Susan Bostrom is a Clinton backer. And Charles Giancarlo, who recently departed as executive vice president of the computer-networking company, helped fund the campaigns of Mrs. Clinton and Republican Rudy Giuliani.

Cisco employees privately say the scattershot political giving of their bosses is a lively topic of conversation within the company. A Cisco spokeswoman says the company regards employees' political contributions as a personal matter and can't comment further about them. Similarly, Time Warner spokesman Ed Adler says employees' political choices are their own business. "I don't think this is a culture where people discuss who they support. Most meetings here are simply about business."

Half a century ago, big companies like DuPont set a pattern of giving to both political parties. Some called it a way to promote democracy; others saw it as a way to gain influence no matter who won. Either analysis made it seem as if big business played a powerful, well-thought-out role in politics, behind the scenes.

It's possible that corporate executives' donations this year will assume a more coordinated role in shaping events. But so far, it looks as though business leaders -- like other American voters -- are still in the early stages of figuring out how they feel about this year's candidates.

Write to George Anders at george.anders@wsj.com"

New Hampshire Recount Results Are In...

How to read these results:
These results are from the DEMOCRATIC recount only. The towns listed below are the towns where the recount is complete. The set of numbers under the candidate(s) name reflect the number of votes reported to the Secretary of State's office after the January 8, 2008 Presidential Primary Election. The number to the right (under the column marked "recount") is the number of votes the candidate(s) received after the recount of votes in that town.

The republican candidates listed at the end of this tally (indicated by the r next to their name) are candidates who received WRITE-IN votes on democratic ballots. PLEASE NOTE: The tally for WEARE is not done!!




From:

Am I allowed to flip flop?

Ok... Hill's fighting dirty.

It's not very becoming on her.

Here is what I need to know before I cast my vote:

1. Hillary, can I trust you?

2. Barack Obama, what are your long term plans for economy? Are you a fast learner? Do you give in to bribes and threats easily? Are you ready to change the course of history? Do you have what it takes to completely reform the way our country handles its finances by pulling out of globalized economy or reforming it so it actually does benefit us - the bottom 99% of income earners in America? Are you willing to ignore lobbyists and close legislation loopholes that are making the rich richer?

That is all.

Candidates on the issues...

Same as previous post - thank you to rgj.com... (image larger)



and for this quick-sheet thank you to http://www.2decide.com/table.htm

Candidates on the issues

I think we need this:

Two Quick-Sheets. I did your homework for you!

Thanks for this information go to:

http://rgj.com for Quicksheet 1 and

http://www.2decide.com/table.htm for Quicksheet 2

Quicksheet 1:



Quicksheet 2:

Barack Obama is not an Operations Officer - Admittedly

But what Barack Obama will say about himself is that he is a motivational speaker!

During tonights democratic debate in Nevada, the candidates were asked; "What are your strengths and weaknesses?" Obama was specifically asked to comment on a comment he made about himself not being an operations officer. Obama reaffirmed this statement and noted that a president's job is not to oversee operations... it is to appoint the overseers of operations... but provide America with a vision - inspire a vision, talk about the vision, talk about the American Dream...

His idealistic chatter was so void of those tangible rocks of foundation that it failed to stay in place for very long... if at all. The "hope" his talk was inspiring was as fleeting as a message written written in the sand at the shore of a beach - gone just as soon as the next wave came crashing gently over it. The wave would be reality. The reality would be the grim look at the crumbs that remain in the plate that was called the American Pie. The reality would be the teeny size of my bank account, the astronomical cost of a new home, and the formidable cost of investing in my future - which I will need another degree for....

Obama - PLEASE - give me something to grab onto. Hope is always high when my pockets are full.

Obama continues to point out the "why" things are as bad as they are; wow he sounds dumb. Every "why" is because of a misguided "vision" a misguided "American Dream" - and the answer will be to instill a new sense of accountability, a new sense of hope a new sense of... huh?

Whatever, sounds awesome - I completely agree! And thank you, by the way, for pointing out the literary themes in the history we just created/are in the process of creating.

Now WHAT THE F*$% DO YOU PLAN TO DO ABOUT IT? THINGS!!! PLANS!!! NOT HOPES - NOT DREAMS - NOT INSTILLING THEM - TELL ME TELL ME TELL ME - WHAT IS YOUR PLAN??????????????????

Please note - his "uh, um" factor when asked specifics on these plans is extremely high.... then he draws us back to the broader shifts and themes and... whatever...

If I needed a life coach, I would get one!!

grrr

Hillary in 2008! Shit, Edwards and/or McCain too - just not Obama! He isn't even clear on the job description!!

By the way, I was very pro-Obama a year ago - before I started to listen to these guys speak. I had that anti-Hillary sentiment as well. I think the sensationalism of having a black President truly guided me when I was for Obama as president. When it comes down to it this guy just isn't qualified.... or at least the way he talks doesn't seem like someone who has a plan.... you know, the ladder to the dream... that dream we are all unifying and agreeing upon... according to Obama.

Global Opinions on the New Hampshire Primary

More truth about what happened in New Hampshire. Original blog found here:

What I see is that the only level-headed blog responses I find on this event come from articulate and calm-minded objective bloggers who blog from outside of the US. This one is from Malaysia. The last I posted came from Nigeria.

America is so wound up in the media hype it is hard to take a step back. Most people are not looking at the most important issues. They are highlighted in this wonderful Blog by Dan-Yel:

"Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Hillary won New Hampshire

Having just read an article comparing Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan with Obama's and Edward's, I'm relieved that she won the New Hampshire primary. International Herald Tribune report here.




Why Hillary, and not Obama? I think she has the experience and that of her husband's (remember the Oslo Accords?). Obama has the charisma and drive, but politics in Washington needs more than a heart and soul. In Washington, where it's hard to tell which is which, where clouds of gray enshrouds the usually-clean-clear city, sometimes simply what you believe and your heavily-driven persistence might work against you.

Politics works better in striking a deal with the devil, not launching a fiery crusade against it, but at the same time not compromising principles. It is here where being driven by the right goal and being realistic play central role, but it's not the sole prerequisite. Politics is an art, you cannot get to hard in the head or you end up like George W Bush with his Axis of Evil and War on Terror labelling. It's an art of brokering and consensus-reaching, as well as numbers that works, not just words.

Looking beyond rhetorics, Obama's strategy seems more like "gather the votes first, work out a way later". Comparing their healthcare plans best explains what I mean, both their plans aim for universal coverage, but Obama avoided compelling all individuals to buy insurance cover, only the children so he won't displease the middle-class. She had to work out the nmaths, making sure the plan is most likely to succeed and not creating paralyzing cost burden on the nation by compelling all to purchase insurance, with subsidies for the poor of course. That, together with plans to compel small firms to offer insurance coverage (with subsidies) appears to me more workable (though not popular), contrary to the more likable Obama's exclusion of these firms.

Her healthcare plan has been praised by many expertss as politically clever and substantively good. Edward's and Obama's, on the other hand, may serve only well to please more voters, aware of how unpopular the reform could be like what happened to Democrats losing both the Senate and the Congress after a spoiled attempt by Hillary in 1993."

Telecoms stop surveillance when FBI doesn't pay the bill

Important news about our privacy... I found it here:

"Jan. 10, 2008, 11:51PM
Telecoms stop surveillance when FBI doesn't pay the bill
Agency program aimed at terrorists and spies halted as phone lines are cut

By LARA JAKES JORDAN
Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The FBI has hit a major hang-up in its wiretapping surveillance program: failing to pay its phone bills on time.

Facing tens of thousands of dollars in unpaid bills, telephone companies have cut off FBI wiretaps used to eavesdrop on suspected criminals, a Justice Department audit released Thursday shows.

In one office alone, unpaid costs for wiretaps from one phone company totaled $66,000.

And in at least one case, a wiretap used in a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act investigation "was halted due to untimely payment," the audit found. FISA wiretaps are used in the government's most sensitive and secretive criminal and intelligence investigations, and allow eavesdropping on suspected terrorists or spies.

"We also found that late payments have resulted in telecommunications carriers actually disconnecting phone lines established to deliver surveillance results to the FBI, resulting in lost evidence," according to the audit by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine.

More than half of 990 bills to pay for telecommunication surveillance in five unidentified FBI field offices were not paid on time, the report shows.

The audit blamed the lost connections on the FBI's lax oversight of money used in undercover investigations, which it also said allowed one employee to steal $25,000.

Assistant FBI Director John Miller said the bureau is working to fix the problems "to ensure appropriate oversight."

The report released Thursday was a highly edited version of Fine's 87-page audit that the FBI deemed too sensitive to be viewed publicly.

It focused on what the bureau admitted was an "antiquated" system to track money sent to its 56 field offices nationwide for undercover work. Generally, the money pays for rental cars, leases and surveillance, the audit noted.

The American Civil Liberties Union called on the FBI to release the entire, unedited audit. The group also took a swipe at telecommunication companies that allowed the eavesdropping — as long as they are getting paid.

"It seems the telecoms, who are claiming they were just being 'good patriots' when they allowed the government to spy on us without warrants, are more than willing to pull the plug on national security investigations when the government falls behind on its bills," said former FBI agent Michael German, the ACLU's national security policy counsel. "To put it bluntly, it sounds as though the telecoms believe it when FBI says warrant is in the mail but not when they say the check is in the mail."

The audit also found that some field offices paid for expenses on undercover cases that should have been financed by FBI headquarters. Out of 130 undercover payments examined, auditors found 14 cases of at least $6,000 each where field offices dipped into their own budgets to pay for work that should have been picked up by headquarters."

Interesting Opinions about The Exit Polls from the NH Primaries

Found here:

"She’s Back… Why Hillary Won in New Hampshire and Lost in Iowa
Posted on January 9th, 2008 in Election 2008, Hillary, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton by liberalcollegekid

Well the vote is in, and once again I got it wrong… Congratulations Hillary.
However, for those that think of the 2008 Presidential election as the Ballot Bowl, the results in New Hampshire should certainly make for an interesting run up to the next Democratic primary in South Carolina. As of this writing, Hillary leads there by 8 points.



The 2008 race is forcing Democrats to make uncomfortable decisions. In the caucus state of Iowa I think two things combined to boost Obama over Hillary that didn’t exist in New Hampshire.

First, the caucus creates a different kind of vote. That is, the caucus is a public vote, where everyone present gets to see who you are voting for. Democratic voters this year have their choice of a woman, an African American, a Latino, and a few white guys. One can easily imagine how this could become the oppression Olympics in terms of what group is most deserving of a vote based on their minority’s past experiences. In essence, voters are being asked if they would rather have the first female president or the first black president, not an easy choice. It is especially a difficult decision when everyone else around you gets to see who you are voting for. We have to ask the question, how much of Obama’s vote in Iowa came from people who wanted to be for a black candidate in front of others? While this question and others like it make me extremely uncomfortable I think there may be something to this theory. South Carolina is another primary state and Nevada is another caucus state. If the results of those two follow New Hampshire and Iowa we will certainly have to give this theory some serious consideration.

Next, the caucus rules in Iowa require that people casting their vote for candidates who receive less than 15% of the vote switch to another candidate or not vote. This means that lower tier candidates, which for the Democrats in Iowa included Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson, and Mike Gravel all had to find others to vote for (except in just a few places where Biden and Richardson received more than 15% of the vote of those present). We have to ask the question of who did the best when these candidates’ voters had to switch to candidates with more votes. Kucinich was fairly outspoken in asking his voters to go for Obama as a second choice. The rest of the candidates had to choose between Edwards, Clinton and Obama. This election season both sides are talking about the need for change. Clinton, clearly, represents not change but a return to the prosperous 90’s. So, many voters likely moved to Edwards because of his emphasis on the middle class and to Obama based on their desire for change in Washington.

These two factors had no bearing in New Hampshire, though. Women turned out in record numbers, but something else existed in New Hampshire that was missing in Iowa. The New Hampshire vote was a primary, done in private. No one to try and convince voters to change their vote, no one there to see who they were voting for. This helped Hillary, more so than anyone else could have predicted. Obama came into today projected to win New Hampshire by double digits, and left 3 points behind Clinton. The exit polling didn’t show it though, early exit polls and even those later into the evening were showing Obama in the lead. However, as the votes were counted it became clear that Hillary had won.

So why were the exit polls wrong? If my theory holds true its the same thing that happened in Iowa: people want to be seen as voting for the African American. Now its on to South Carolina for the Democrats where the African American vote is around half of the Democratic electorate. Don’t think race will be a factor in this election? Think again."

NPR Profiles New Hampshire's Hillary Voters

Mellissa Block Interviews NH women voters to dig deeper into the NH primary results... here is analysis from a Tim Graham blog found here:

"Tears Worked? NPR Profiles Happy New Hampshire Hillary Voters
Photo of Tim Graham.
By Tim Graham | January 11, 2008 - 16:20 ET

Did Hillary’s misty talk of how much she loved America and wanted to reverse the Bush administration help her win in New Hampshire? NPR’s All Things Considered on Wednesday night went looking for women voters who were moved. Co-anchor Melissa Block interviewed three Hillary voters in Manchester: "Do you think that the polls underestimated women here?" One said: "I think they really, really did. I think that people hadn't really looked at Hillary as a woman." Another story by Tovia Smith interviewed both a Hillary voter swayed by that "famous Oprah-esque moment" ("She just seemed to come across softer, I always thought of her as very -- I don't know, not that lovable") and an angry, racism-suspecting Obama voter, plus a professor who says her research shows even Obama supporters have an "unconscious" bias against him.

Melissa Block’s report didn't focus on issues (or God forbid, Hillary scandals), just the tears and the shared womanhood:

BLOCK: That Portsmouth moment has a lot of women talking here in New Hampshire. Today in Manchester, I got together with three women who voted for Hillary Clinton to find out why. They're between 29 and 36. All of them work outside the home. All are married. Two of them have children. They are Jillian Call(ph), Jessica Fay(ph) and Christina Anderson(ph) who begins. She was torn between Edwards, Obama and McCain. Then she saw the video of Clinton at the Portsmouth cafe.

CHRISTINA ANDERSON: When I saw what I saw, I didn't see an emotional woman. What I saw was a woman who was speaking from her heart, trying to convey why she truly was doing this. There is real passion, real conviction, determination and a sense of real obligation to her country. I really was touched by that absolutely. And I hate to be cliched, but it really actually - it resonated with me very strongly to see her boldly stating her purpose.

BLOCK: Jillian, did you see the video from that moment?

JILLIAN CALL: I saw it, but...

BLOCK: What’d you think?

CALL: It made you feel comfort, I think, because she was saying that she knows she can do that in the White House. She wants to do it and it would a shame to have her not in the White House to do it. And I think that that's - I don’t know, it's just - it did, like Christina said, it touched something. And I think she's absolutely what we need.

BLOCK: Let me ask you all to play pundit here, what do you think happened in New Hampshire? Jillian, what do you think happened?

CALL: I think a lot of people, like Christina, saw her talk in Portsmouth, and I really think that had an impact and people changed their vote.

BLOCK: You do? Christina, do you think that the polls underestimated women here?

ANDERSON: I think they did. I think they really, really did. I think that people hadn't really looked at Hillary as a woman. Maybe, it's just my personal opinion. I don't think that people looked at women connecting with Hillary for the opportunity for women to speak to the idea of having our first female president.

BLOCK: Jessica, let me turn to you. Does it mean something to you as a woman that you're voting for a woman candidate?

JESSICA FAY: Oh, absolutely. Yes. That is a big thing, too, that she's a woman, for sure.

BLOCK: Why is that?

FAY: I think the United States should have a woman president. I think it's about time, you know, to meet our needs and listen to us and get a woman in there to clean up all the men's messes that they've made over the years. And I think it's about time.

BLOCK: You have kids.

FAY: Yes, two.

BLOCK: How old are they?

FAY: I have a 4-year-old daughter, Charis(ph), 9-year-old son Chase. And my son Chase actually has special needs. He has Down syndrome. So, you know, the whole education and heath care is very important to me.

BLOCK: Do you think about the message to them that this would send to have a woman president?

FAY: It's funny you would say that, because we were watching last night and my daughter was, like, what are you watching? And we said, you know, we're watching the primary and we wanted – she went with me to vote -- so I explained it to her. And I said, you know, we want Hillary to win. You know, she's a woman, and we want -- we believe in her ideas, and we want her to win.

So when Charis when to bed last night, she said, ‘I hope Hillary wins.’ And then this morning, when she woke up, the first thing she said to me was, ‘Mommy, did Hillary win?’ And I said, yeah, she won. And she said, 'yay, Hillary won!' So she was excited was and she was telling everybody in the day care that Hillary won. [Laughter] They're like, are you brain washing her already? And I was like, ‘sure am.’ So it was pretty fun.

BLOCK: Jessica Fay, Christina Anderson and Jillian Call. Three voters who helped put Hillary Clinton over the top.

NPR reporter Tovia Smith found a woman swayed by Hillary's "famous Oprah-esque moment," and then followed up with Obama's scowlers:

TOVIA SMITH: Peggy Kelly is one of the nearly 20 percent of voters who woke up on primary day undecided. She had never really considered Clinton.

Ms. KELLY: I never was a fan of hers, really.

SMITH: But Kelly, a waitress in Manchester, says she started thinking about it after she saw Clinton's now famous Oprah-esque moment when the candidate seemed to let her guard down at a local diner and reveal a more vulnerable side.

Senator HILLARY CLINTON (Democrat, presidential candidate): This is very personal for me. It's not just political. It's not just public. I see what's happening.

Ms. KELLY: She just seemed to come across -- softer. I always thought of her as very -- I don't know, not that lovable. [Laughs] Stern-like, you know, but you'd like to know that there's a gentle side to her, too.

SMITH: For Kelly, the moment was as pivotal as it was poignant. She says she actually started to feel sorry for Clinton.

Ms. KELLY: I did feel bad for her, to be honest with you. Because being a woman, it's kind of hard, because you're going to get --you're always going to have these guys who are not going to vote for a woman no matter how good she is.

SMITH: So Kelly figured she would. And so, apparently, did many other women.

CELINDA LAKE: Well, women always make up their minds later than men. What was unique here was that they were back and forth, and so many of them describe themselves as making last-minute snap decisions.

SMITH: Democratic pollster Celinda Lake attributes most of yesterday's shift to women. In Iowa, Obama won among women narrowly. In New Hampshire, as late as Sunday night, he was leading among women by four points. But the teary moment came after the last tracking poll. By the time votes were counted Tuesday night, Clinton was ahead with women by 12 points. In part, it was her well-tuned get out the vote machine. But, Lake says, it was also her retuned, softer, gentler pitch.

LAKE: I think what happened in New Hampshire is that Hillary Clinton became very comfortable with both a tough side and the soft side. She found comfort with the gender aspect of her campaign. And I think that appealed very much to women voters.

SMITH: Some voters here in the very white and Yankee state of New Hampshire think there may be a racial element at work as well. Karen Danchick(ph) voted for Obama, but she suspects many others who claim to support him didn't really.

KAREN DANCHICK: Maybe they would like to feel that they're more willing to be accepting of all people than they really are. When it comes time to fill in the bubble, they're not quite as ready to be as color-blind as they might think that they are.

Dr. BETHANY ALBERTSON (Political Psychologist, University of Washington): I do think it's a problem.

SMITH: Political psychologist Bethany Albertson from the University of Washington predicted a month ago that support for Obama was being overstated. Her research found that voters' stated preferences didn't seem to match up with what she measured as their unconscious feelings.

DR. ALBERTSON: Even people who said that they supported Obama showed that they had an unconscious preference for Clinton or a bias against Obama.

SMITH: There has been a lot of academic debate about the role of race in political polling. But Albertson says in a presidential contest, in particular, race may still be one of the many dynamics that conspired to foil the pollsters trying to track yesterday's vote.

Precisely how reliable Dr. Albertson's study results were is a question mark. Here's one report on the findings, which seem odd:

In the research, when people were asked whom they planned to vote for, Obama had a 42 percent to 34 percent margin over Clinton with Edwards in third place with 12 percent. But, when the same people took an Implicit Association Test that measures their unconscious or automatic preferences, Clinton won with 48 percent of the voters, Edwards was second with 27 percent and Obama fell to third with 25 percent.

However, the research was not randomly conducted, the 926 people age 18 and over who took the online experimental test between Oct. 16 and Nov. 5, were self-selected volunteers.

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center"

The Political Hypocrisy of Barack Hussein Obama’s Demagogy in His Desperation to Win South Carolina Democratic Primary

A wonderful blog found here:


"The Political Hypocrisy of Barack Hussein Obama’s Demagogy in His Desperation to Win South Carolina Democratic Primary


Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

The Political Hypocrisy of Barack Hussein Obama’s Demagogy in His Desperation to Win South Carolina Democratic Primary

I have been seeing and reading reports of the misguided insinuations of the Barack Obama camp on the remarks of the Clintons on Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr and the history of the Civil Rights Movement. I am not surprised, because I know the hypocritical political tactics of Senator Barack Hussein Obama and how he is going to manipulate racial sentiments among the African Americans in South Carolina and other states to turn them away from voting for Senator Hillary Clinton.

The American news media and the Barack Obama camp are raising dust over nothing. They have become hysterical since contrary to their expectations, Hillary Clinton defeated them in New Hampshire, and they are scared of losing again in South Carolina. They are now either misquoting the Clintons or quoting them out of context to turn the African American voters against them.


Senator Barack Hussein Obama

Senator Barack Obama and his anti-Clinton surrogates should discuss the important and significant issues bothering Americans, the looming economic recession, and the early withdrawal of American Troops from Iraq, the housing crisis, health care and the problems of illegal immigrants. They should stop all their petty sentimental outbursts and hypocritical demagogy on race.

The political pettiness of the American news media is an embarrassment to those who believe in the ethics of modern journalism. They have been fixing the presidential polls to cause controversial debates to generate sensational news headlines to sell their newspapers offline and attract more readers to their news websites.
Grow up boys.
A good shepherd should know how to separate the sheep from the goats.

This is malicious. This is nothing short of political blackmail to discourage African American voters from voting for Hillary Clinton in South Carolina.
Why is Barack Obama desperate?

I hope he will not have a heart attack before the end of his make or break presidential campaign and his desperation to become the first black president of America.

He is afraid of being disgraced after all the hullabaloo of the Oprah Winfrey Road Show for him in South Carolina. He was shocked by his defeat in New Hampshire.
He concentrated all his energies on winning Iowa and when he saw the polls giving him a double-digit lead before the New Hampshire primary, he was already over hyped that he would beat Hillary Clinton. He was over confident and boastful, but God intervened and gave Hillary Clinton victory. New Hampshire has a remarkable history of supporting political Amazons and the people are more intellectually enlightened than the Iowans.

His Kenyan grandmother recently called Barack Hussein Obama, “a good Muslim” in a CNN interview with her at the Obama homestead in Kenya. So, he became a Christian in America, because of his presidential ambition? Americans will never vote for a Muslim presidential candidate in America.

After name-dropping Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, they are now name dropping Pa Nelson Mandela to campaign against Hillary Clinton, by their deliberate distortions of Bill Clinton’s remarks and statements. They want the African Americans to think that the Clintons are disrespecting Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, and Pa Nelson Mandela.

They are trying all the tricks of their political tactics to swing African American voters away from Hillary Clinton by political misinformation.

He won Iowa and he turned his victory speech into a parody of the Civil Rights Movement, as if he is now the symbol of the African American struggle to elect the first black president of America, with rephrased clichés.

Hello Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, Shirley St. Hill Chisholm, was 100% bona fide Africaan American woman who was a presidential candidate in 1972. Then in 1984, Rev. Jesse Jackson became the second African American to mount a nationwide campaign for President of the United States, running as a Democrat. He won five primaries and caucuses. He also contested in 1988. So, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama you are nothing new in America.

Senator Barack Obama is not the first non-white presidential candidate in America and he won’t be the last.

Barack Hussein Obama is the one politicizing race and not the Clintons. He wants to turn the Democratic primary in South Carolina into a black versus white presidential election power struggle.


"Our lives are a mixture of different roles. Most of us are doing the best we can to find whatever the right balance is . . . For me, that balance is family, work, and service."
~ Hillary Rodham Clinton, 1992."