White House office wins ruling on e-mail records
updated 1:19 p.m. EDT, Mon June 16, 2008
From Terry FriedenCNN Justice Producer
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House Office of Administration is not required to turn over records about a trove of possibly missing e-mails, a federal judge ruled Monday.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly found the agency does not have "substantial independent authority" so it is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
The decision means the White House does not have to disclose documents relating to its troubled e-mail system. That system developed problems that may have caused millions of White House e-mails to be unaccounted for.
The watchdog organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington had sued under FOIA. The group expressed disappointment in the ruling and said it is appealing the decision.
"The Bush administration is using the legal system to prevent the American people from discovering the truth about the millions of missing White House e-mails," said Melanie Sloan, the organization's executive director.
In January, the White House said it cannot rule out that it may have lost certain e-mails.
The possibly lost e-mails are from a period in which the United States decided to go to war with Iraq, White House officials leaked the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame and the Justice Department started a criminal investigation into who leaked the information.
The White House has denied any evidence, including e-mails, have been destroyed.
Dr. UnSpin~
"...the White House said it cannot rule out that it may have lost certain e-mails" ... What kind of incompetent nincompoops do, WE THE PEOPLE, have in OUR Government? I know, a totally moot question.
What is the problem with America? The ASSHOLES that we have running it! The Government is trying to LOWER the American Dollar, so that other countries can afford our products... BUT WAIT! We don't have any industry anymore, do we? It has ALL been EXPORTED! WTF?
President G.W. Bush has totally trashed the American System of Justice! He has wiped his ass with the Constitution!
When are, WE THE PEOPLE, going to ask for "Accountability" from OUR President? And even if we do... "They" seem to find a legal loophole, except WE THE PEOPLE are expected to jump through it.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Dr. UnSpin Is Out, Will Be Back To Analyze This Later
Critics Study Possible Limits to Habeas Corpus Ruling
Affirming Right to Challenge Detention Is Considered by Some a Taking of Federal Power
By Michael AbramowitzWashington Post Staff Writer Saturday, June 14, 2008; Page A05
The White House and allies in Congress have begun exploring how to limit the scope of this week's Supreme Court ruling that says suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay have the right to challenge their detentions in federal court.
Administration lawyers were digesting the ramifications of a decision they condemned as an unjustified judicial usurpation of federal and congressional prerogatives in waging war. They said the court provided little guidance for the standards judges should use in evaluating the claims of detainees seeking release, and suggested that they might press Congress to spell out new rules.
"We're looking at all options," said a senior administration official who insisted on anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. "One of those options is to look and see if there is any way to legislatively contain the scope of the decision. The court's language is quite ambiguous. We need to make sure that we are anticipating the questions it raises, and that is what we are going to do in the next few days."
Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a key figure in detention policy on Capitol Hill, said he is concerned that detainees will shop for sympathetic judges while challenging issues including their treatment, food and lodging.
"I am hoping that there is some legislative enactments that we can pass that would protect our national security requirements," Graham said.
Some Democrats counseled patience. "There is no need for quick-fix legislation," said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). "No one is being released from custody. We need to study the opinion and consider next steps with great care."
Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said it "seems unlikely that anything will be resolved in the next seven months. It'll be something that the next administration will have to deal with."
Over the past six years, the administration has been riven with debate over what to do with suspected terrorists seized overseas, and it has been slapped down three times by the Supreme Court over its efforts to create a legal framework outside the regular criminal justice system.
Several lawyers inside and outside the government said the latest rebuff from the high court may well represent the tipping point in the debate over the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which many around the world regard as a symbol for U.S. lawlessness. President Bush has repeatedly stated he wants to close down the facility, but administration officials have been unable to determine how to do so.
Charles "Cully" D. Stimson, who oversaw detainee affairs for the Pentagon until early 2007, said that the Bush administration has several options on Guantanamo -- but that almost all of them end in the facility's closure. He said Bush could run out the clock and leave such decisions to the next president, or he could take the "bold move" of immediately ordering Guantanamo's safe and secure closure.
"The legal rationale underlying the establishment of Guantanamo has been eviscerated by this decision," said Stimson, now at the Heritage Foundation. "The question is not if Guantanamo will close; it's when."
Stimson said the administration could "reluctantly embrace" the Supreme Court's decision and pull together the evidence to justify holding the detainees, then present it in hearings before judges in Washington. He said he believes most of the people held at Guantanamo would be considered enemy combatants, while a "small percentage" would have to be released. Currently, 270 detainees are held at Guantanamo.
Defense officials have not spoken publicly about Guantanamo since the Supreme Court decision, but officials said privately they are preparing for the possibility that the detention facility could close in the near future. Defense officials do not expect to take any newly captured terrorism suspects to the facility and have taken only six new detainees to Guantanamo since early 2007.
U.S. District Court officials said yesterday that they are still seeking to set up meetings with attorneys representing both the government and the detainees to work out legal and logistical issues. The District Court's judges will then discuss how to proceed with the habeas corpus reviews.
This week, lawyers representing several detainees filed motions to set scheduling conferences, and one asked a judge to force the government to treat his client as a prisoner of war entitled to the rights of the Geneva Conventions.
Staff writers Josh White, Joby Warrick and Del Quentin Wilber and staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
Affirming Right to Challenge Detention Is Considered by Some a Taking of Federal Power
By Michael AbramowitzWashington Post Staff Writer Saturday, June 14, 2008; Page A05
The White House and allies in Congress have begun exploring how to limit the scope of this week's Supreme Court ruling that says suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay have the right to challenge their detentions in federal court.
Administration lawyers were digesting the ramifications of a decision they condemned as an unjustified judicial usurpation of federal and congressional prerogatives in waging war. They said the court provided little guidance for the standards judges should use in evaluating the claims of detainees seeking release, and suggested that they might press Congress to spell out new rules.
"We're looking at all options," said a senior administration official who insisted on anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. "One of those options is to look and see if there is any way to legislatively contain the scope of the decision. The court's language is quite ambiguous. We need to make sure that we are anticipating the questions it raises, and that is what we are going to do in the next few days."
Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a key figure in detention policy on Capitol Hill, said he is concerned that detainees will shop for sympathetic judges while challenging issues including their treatment, food and lodging.
"I am hoping that there is some legislative enactments that we can pass that would protect our national security requirements," Graham said.
Some Democrats counseled patience. "There is no need for quick-fix legislation," said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). "No one is being released from custody. We need to study the opinion and consider next steps with great care."
Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said it "seems unlikely that anything will be resolved in the next seven months. It'll be something that the next administration will have to deal with."
Over the past six years, the administration has been riven with debate over what to do with suspected terrorists seized overseas, and it has been slapped down three times by the Supreme Court over its efforts to create a legal framework outside the regular criminal justice system.
Several lawyers inside and outside the government said the latest rebuff from the high court may well represent the tipping point in the debate over the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which many around the world regard as a symbol for U.S. lawlessness. President Bush has repeatedly stated he wants to close down the facility, but administration officials have been unable to determine how to do so.
Charles "Cully" D. Stimson, who oversaw detainee affairs for the Pentagon until early 2007, said that the Bush administration has several options on Guantanamo -- but that almost all of them end in the facility's closure. He said Bush could run out the clock and leave such decisions to the next president, or he could take the "bold move" of immediately ordering Guantanamo's safe and secure closure.
"The legal rationale underlying the establishment of Guantanamo has been eviscerated by this decision," said Stimson, now at the Heritage Foundation. "The question is not if Guantanamo will close; it's when."
Stimson said the administration could "reluctantly embrace" the Supreme Court's decision and pull together the evidence to justify holding the detainees, then present it in hearings before judges in Washington. He said he believes most of the people held at Guantanamo would be considered enemy combatants, while a "small percentage" would have to be released. Currently, 270 detainees are held at Guantanamo.
Defense officials have not spoken publicly about Guantanamo since the Supreme Court decision, but officials said privately they are preparing for the possibility that the detention facility could close in the near future. Defense officials do not expect to take any newly captured terrorism suspects to the facility and have taken only six new detainees to Guantanamo since early 2007.
U.S. District Court officials said yesterday that they are still seeking to set up meetings with attorneys representing both the government and the detainees to work out legal and logistical issues. The District Court's judges will then discuss how to proceed with the habeas corpus reviews.
This week, lawyers representing several detainees filed motions to set scheduling conferences, and one asked a judge to force the government to treat his client as a prisoner of war entitled to the rights of the Geneva Conventions.
Staff writers Josh White, Joby Warrick and Del Quentin Wilber and staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Oklahoma Rep. Dan Boren~ Lone Ranger
Okla. Dem calls Obama liberal, declines to endorse~
By TIM TALLEY
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Democratic Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma said Tuesday Barack Obama is "the most liberal senator" in Congress and he has no intention of endorsing him for the White House.
However, Boren will vote for Obama at the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August and will vote Democratic on Nov. 4.
"I think this is an important time for our country," Boren said in a telephone interview. "We're facing a terrible economic downturn. We have high gasoline prices. We have problems in our foreign policy. That's why I think it's important."
Boren, the lone Democrat in Oklahoma's congressional delegation, said that while Obama has talked about working with Republicans, "unfortunately, his record does not reflect working in a bipartisan fashion." ...
...Boren said his endorsement became a moot point when Clinton suspended her campaign, making Obama the presumed nominee.
"That process is really over with," he said. "Our nominee is not my first choice." [1]
Dr. UnSpin~
It took a set of "brass balls" for Oklahoma Representative Dan Boren to stand up for, his personal opinion of Borack Obama. In Boren's own words that reflect the voice of, WE THE PEOPLE, in his district~
"We're much more conservative," Boren said of district. "I've got to reflect my district. No one means more to me than the people who elected me. I have to listen them."
~Well not everybody is going to vote for Obama, so Obama can claim that, "there will always be the disgruntled, but they didn't vote for me anyway." Obama will surely follow basic Political Strategy Rules, which is:
1) Tell the People exactly what they want to hear.
2) Once elected do as you want.
3) If questioned as to why deviated from your promised intentions, see rule #1.
"unfortunately, his record does not reflect working in a bipartisan fashion.", states Rep. Dan Boren about Borack Hussein Obama's relationship on working with Republicans. This coming from someone who, as part of the American Government system of Politics, works with him.
For having stood up for the reflective voice of, WE THE PEOPLE, of your district, Rep. Dan Boren... it's, What I Like About You!
By TIM TALLEY
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Democratic Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma said Tuesday Barack Obama is "the most liberal senator" in Congress and he has no intention of endorsing him for the White House.
However, Boren will vote for Obama at the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August and will vote Democratic on Nov. 4.
"I think this is an important time for our country," Boren said in a telephone interview. "We're facing a terrible economic downturn. We have high gasoline prices. We have problems in our foreign policy. That's why I think it's important."
Boren, the lone Democrat in Oklahoma's congressional delegation, said that while Obama has talked about working with Republicans, "unfortunately, his record does not reflect working in a bipartisan fashion." ...
...Boren said his endorsement became a moot point when Clinton suspended her campaign, making Obama the presumed nominee.
"That process is really over with," he said. "Our nominee is not my first choice." [1]
Dr. UnSpin~
It took a set of "brass balls" for Oklahoma Representative Dan Boren to stand up for, his personal opinion of Borack Obama. In Boren's own words that reflect the voice of, WE THE PEOPLE, in his district~
"We're much more conservative," Boren said of district. "I've got to reflect my district. No one means more to me than the people who elected me. I have to listen them."
~Well not everybody is going to vote for Obama, so Obama can claim that, "there will always be the disgruntled, but they didn't vote for me anyway." Obama will surely follow basic Political Strategy Rules, which is:
1) Tell the People exactly what they want to hear.
2) Once elected do as you want.
3) If questioned as to why deviated from your promised intentions, see rule #1.
"unfortunately, his record does not reflect working in a bipartisan fashion.", states Rep. Dan Boren about Borack Hussein Obama's relationship on working with Republicans. This coming from someone who, as part of the American Government system of Politics, works with him.
For having stood up for the reflective voice of, WE THE PEOPLE, of your district, Rep. Dan Boren... it's, What I Like About You!
[1] Source
Friday, June 6, 2008
A Scene From Chicken Little: "The Sky Is Falling, The Sky Is Falling"!
Oil surges $11 to record $138
Crude skyrockets on a sliding dollar, geopolitics and a Wall Street report predicting $150-a-barrel oil.
By Catherine Clifford and Ben Rooney, CNNMoney.com staff writers
Last Updated: June 6, 2008: 4:41 PM EDT
...NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Oil prices shot up nearly $11 a barrel and settled Friday at a record $138.54 on geopolitical jitters, a dollar decline and a forecast that oil would hit $150 by July 4.
Friday's spike in the July contract for light crude on the New York Mercantile Exchange marks the largest singe-day increase in oil prices on record. The contract hit an intraday record of $139.12, breaking the previous trading record of $135.09.
"The bulls are running rampant and the bears have panicked," said oil industry analyst Stephen Schork, editor of the Schork Report. "It's pure hysteria, absolute panic," he added. [1]
Dr. UnSpin~
"It's pure hysteria..." ? brought on by whom? The SPIN DOCTORS?
"Hysteria..."
Source Link:
[1] full article
Crude skyrockets on a sliding dollar, geopolitics and a Wall Street report predicting $150-a-barrel oil.
By Catherine Clifford and Ben Rooney, CNNMoney.com staff writers
Last Updated: June 6, 2008: 4:41 PM EDT
...NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Oil prices shot up nearly $11 a barrel and settled Friday at a record $138.54 on geopolitical jitters, a dollar decline and a forecast that oil would hit $150 by July 4.
Friday's spike in the July contract for light crude on the New York Mercantile Exchange marks the largest singe-day increase in oil prices on record. The contract hit an intraday record of $139.12, breaking the previous trading record of $135.09.
"The bulls are running rampant and the bears have panicked," said oil industry analyst Stephen Schork, editor of the Schork Report. "It's pure hysteria, absolute panic," he added. [1]
Dr. UnSpin~
"It's pure hysteria..." ? brought on by whom? The SPIN DOCTORS?
"Hysteria..."
Source Link:
[1] full article
Let Them Eat Cake: Obama and Hillary's Attitude Towards Americans!
About that Clinton-Obama Meeting
Updated 11:40 a.m. (June 6, 2008) By Paul Kane
With nothing but a couple glasses of water and two plush chairs to sit in, Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton sat privately for an hour last night in Sen. Dianne Feinstein's living room trying to come to grips with their historic and contentious 17-month battle for the Democratic presidential nomination. [...and how to SCREW, WE THE PEOPLE?]
"They just wanted the opportunity to meet together alone. ..." [Let us not forget that Obama and Hillary C. met with AIPAC (Israeli's) just a few hours beforehand!]
Sadly, for history's sake, Feinstein did not attend the meeting, nor did staff for either senator, so only Sens. Clinton (N.Y.) and Obama (Ill.) themselves know precisely what was said. [1]
Dr. UnSpin~
"Sadly, for history's sake" ... How about sadly for, WE THE PEOPLE! ?
But, I will still hold to my belief in AMERICAN values and a system of justice, that people like my father fought for... starting with, FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
Maybe Americans Citizens will unite, before the politicians can... Use Me Up!
Source:
[1] full article
Updated 11:40 a.m. (June 6, 2008) By Paul Kane
With nothing but a couple glasses of water and two plush chairs to sit in, Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton sat privately for an hour last night in Sen. Dianne Feinstein's living room trying to come to grips with their historic and contentious 17-month battle for the Democratic presidential nomination. [...and how to SCREW, WE THE PEOPLE?]
"They just wanted the opportunity to meet together alone. ..." [Let us not forget that Obama and Hillary C. met with AIPAC (Israeli's) just a few hours beforehand!]
Sadly, for history's sake, Feinstein did not attend the meeting, nor did staff for either senator, so only Sens. Clinton (N.Y.) and Obama (Ill.) themselves know precisely what was said. [1]
Dr. UnSpin~
"Sadly, for history's sake" ... How about sadly for, WE THE PEOPLE! ?
But, I will still hold to my belief in AMERICAN values and a system of justice, that people like my father fought for... starting with, FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
Maybe Americans Citizens will unite, before the politicians can... Use Me Up!
Source:
[1] full article
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Nip and Tuck: Remove the Curios Mind Please
(approx: 10:42 pm central time US)
WASHINGTON (Reuters)~ Obama meets privately with Clinton
--Likely U.S. Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama met privately with former rival Hillary Clinton on Thursday night, an Obama campaign spokesman said.
"They did meet tonight," Robert Gibbs, Obama's communications director, told reporters in response to media reports about the session.
Gibbs said reports they met at Clinton's home in Washington were incorrect. He declined to disclose the location or details of what they discussed. ... [1]
Dr. UnSpin's Observations~
"He declined to disclose the location or details of what they discussed." ... Well, as my patients that had read the previous post know... that the two Democratic politicians mentioned in the article had previously met with AIPAC. Was this meeting the one, "where they met"?... obviously, there is already deceit spewing forth from the Democrat Party presidential candidate, and the possible V.P., as well as isolation towards, WE THE PEOPLE.
At least this is the observation of, Dr. UnSpin-Opthamologist to the Spin Doctors.
It's TIME to awake People!
Before there is a Reprise in Political history... what period, remains to be determined.
Source:
[1]
WASHINGTON (Reuters)~ Obama meets privately with Clinton
--Likely U.S. Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama met privately with former rival Hillary Clinton on Thursday night, an Obama campaign spokesman said.
"They did meet tonight," Robert Gibbs, Obama's communications director, told reporters in response to media reports about the session.
Gibbs said reports they met at Clinton's home in Washington were incorrect. He declined to disclose the location or details of what they discussed. ... [1]
Dr. UnSpin's Observations~
"He declined to disclose the location or details of what they discussed." ... Well, as my patients that had read the previous post know... that the two Democratic politicians mentioned in the article had previously met with AIPAC. Was this meeting the one, "where they met"?... obviously, there is already deceit spewing forth from the Democrat Party presidential candidate, and the possible V.P., as well as isolation towards, WE THE PEOPLE.
At least this is the observation of, Dr. UnSpin-Opthamologist to the Spin Doctors.
It's TIME to awake People!
Before there is a Reprise in Political history... what period, remains to be determined.
Source:
[1]
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Wait A Minute! I Thought They Were For The American Votes!?
updated 9:30 p.m. EDT, Wed June 4, 2008
From: WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton on Saturday will officially suspend her campaign for the presidency and "express her support for Senator Obama and party unity," her campaign said Wednesday. ...
... Obama and Clinton were in Washington on Wednesday to each address the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The candidates ran into each other at the AIPAC conference and had a brief chat, Obama spokeswoman Linda Douglass said. [1]
Dr. UnSpin~
I don't know, maybe it is just me... BUT, after 16 months of "hard battle" for the AMERICAN vote, once the issue had been solved, and the ass-kissers that would not commit their, SUPER DELEGATE VOTE, until a clear leader for the Democrats was foreseeable, Obama and Clinton go meet with WHO? THE ISRAELIES? What the fuck is going on here? I could have understood a "meeting of the minds", say at the, Washington Memorial, or even the Vietnam War Memorial... imagine that for a publicity shot, the two combatants shaking hands with one of the memorials in the background, a symbol of unifying America... But meeting with AIPAC?
It just doesn't look good to me. I didn't notice any content in the article that said what the meeting was about? That BOTH, Winner AND Loser, should be attending a meeting, about what? Price of gas? Peace? Negotiating the sell-out of America, Wholesale?
Remember folks... it's, WE THE PEOPLE ... not We The Government.
Which may be the direction I will take this blog. Using "Keyword" assessment of media articles, and looking out how THEY, tell the TRUTH. ... and in the name of American Freedom, WE THE PEOPLE, the Bloggers, will... SHOUT! our interpretations of what THEY say!
Source Link:
[1]
From: WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton on Saturday will officially suspend her campaign for the presidency and "express her support for Senator Obama and party unity," her campaign said Wednesday. ...
... Obama and Clinton were in Washington on Wednesday to each address the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The candidates ran into each other at the AIPAC conference and had a brief chat, Obama spokeswoman Linda Douglass said. [1]
Dr. UnSpin~
I don't know, maybe it is just me... BUT, after 16 months of "hard battle" for the AMERICAN vote, once the issue had been solved, and the ass-kissers that would not commit their, SUPER DELEGATE VOTE, until a clear leader for the Democrats was foreseeable, Obama and Clinton go meet with WHO? THE ISRAELIES? What the fuck is going on here? I could have understood a "meeting of the minds", say at the, Washington Memorial, or even the Vietnam War Memorial... imagine that for a publicity shot, the two combatants shaking hands with one of the memorials in the background, a symbol of unifying America... But meeting with AIPAC?
It just doesn't look good to me. I didn't notice any content in the article that said what the meeting was about? That BOTH, Winner AND Loser, should be attending a meeting, about what? Price of gas? Peace? Negotiating the sell-out of America, Wholesale?
Remember folks... it's, WE THE PEOPLE ... not We The Government.
Which may be the direction I will take this blog. Using "Keyword" assessment of media articles, and looking out how THEY, tell the TRUTH. ... and in the name of American Freedom, WE THE PEOPLE, the Bloggers, will... SHOUT! our interpretations of what THEY say!
Source Link:
[1]
Mrs. Clinton vs. Barack Hussein Obama: Either Way, The Time Are a'Changin'
Clinton Washed Away in Trickle of Delegates to Obama, read the, Top Stories of Today, widget on my igoogle home page, linking to the Washington Post article at around 9pm central time (USA).
In the article, it quoted Matt Laurer of the CBS Today Show, asking a question, later answered by the very person referrenced too by Matt: "What does Hillary Clinton get for her 17 million-plus votes?" Lauer asked. "She gets a party that is very grateful to her.", was the answer to his query.
Using e-mail services, tactical propoganda was sent to their "camps"[1]
Within a few hours, new headlines graced the TOP STORIES gadget and it read:
Clinton plays Rocky Balboa to the end
"I want every child to live up to his or her God-given potential, and I want the nearly 18 million Americans who voted for me to be respected, to be heard and no longer to be invisible."
... was the answer to Matt Laurer's quesiton, answered by Mrs.Clinton herself, not by an "Obamite", as the darker side of the media may call the supporters that blindly follow Senator Barrack Hussein Obama.
By reading the most current articles available, regardless of the source, a clear picture is being painted that, Clinton's assets are undeniable:
Sources:
[1]
[2]
Maybe, The Times Are a'Changin'?
In the article, it quoted Matt Laurer of the CBS Today Show, asking a question, later answered by the very person referrenced too by Matt: "What does Hillary Clinton get for her 17 million-plus votes?" Lauer asked. "She gets a party that is very grateful to her.", was the answer to his query.
Using e-mail services, tactical propoganda was sent to their "camps"[1]
Within a few hours, new headlines graced the TOP STORIES gadget and it read:
Clinton plays Rocky Balboa to the end
"I want every child to live up to his or her God-given potential, and I want the nearly 18 million Americans who voted for me to be respected, to be heard and no longer to be invisible."
... was the answer to Matt Laurer's quesiton, answered by Mrs.Clinton herself, not by an "Obamite", as the darker side of the media may call the supporters that blindly follow Senator Barrack Hussein Obama.
By reading the most current articles available, regardless of the source, a clear picture is being painted that, Clinton's assets are undeniable:
- She won nearly 18 million votes - by her count more than any Democratic candidate in history.
- Her campaign raised more than $214 million, a record but for Obama's breathtaking Internet money machine.
- Clinton won key late contests that left Obama crawling across the finish line and demonstrated her lock on core voting blocs - older women, seniors, Hispanics and blue-collar workers.
- Obama spent two months barnstorming Ohio and Pennsylvania trying to win the white working class, but lost to Clinton.
Sources:
[1]
[2]
Maybe, The Times Are a'Changin'?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
