"Selling drugs and using drugs no matter what age is a crime. Elect an addict - choose Barack Hussein Obama." - FOOTBALLFAN

Just found this quote of yours from a few days ago. If you want to talk smack about addiction from a few decades ago, be prepared to talk about it now, today.

The former President is a sex addict and his wife a co-addict showing all the typical pathologies of people NOT IN RECOVERY from their addictions.

Nor will Fox, CNN, nor MSNBC mention this.

From Opednews:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_...

Then there are Clinton's campaign donors. Any major candidate has some dubious supporters, but Clinton's gotten money from particularly noxious sources. Start with her donation from Rupert Murdoch, who's given to no other Democrat. Add in massive amounts of money from Washington lobbyists and from industries like defense, banking, health care, and oil and energy providers (though Obama's also gotten a lot from some of these industries). Then there's Norman Hsu, who brought in over $850,000 to Hillary's campaign after returning to the US following his flight to evade a fraud conviction (Hsu was subsequently rearrested, sentenced to three years, and is facing further federal charges, and the campaign eventually returned the money he'd raised). There's the Nebraska data processing company InfoUSA, whose CEO, Vin Gupta, used private corporate jets to fly the Clintons on business, personal, and campaign trips, gave Bill Clinton a $3.3 million consulting contract, and is now being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission for allegedly diverting company money to his own personal uses. Mississippi attorney Dickie Scruggs recently canceled a major December 15 Hillary fundraiser (with Bill Clinton headlining) after being indicted for trying to bribe a judge. Major international sweatshop owners, the Saipan-based Tan family, have given Clinton $26,000, complementing their previous massive support for Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay. That doesn't even count dubious supporters from the past, like Peter Paul, the convicted con-artist turned event producer who coordinated a massive Hollywood Clinton fundraiser during the 2,000 election. Taken together, it's a pretty tainted constellation of backers.

Once again HillaryNow you pulled ONE SENTENCE from the ENTIRE QUOTE and now have shown that you, like your candidate cannot acknowledge the truth of what Obama said in any way shape or form.

That is an issue of LACK OF CHARACTER reflecting on you and your candidate who did the same thing.

Hey HillaryNow

I love how you tout Bill Clinton's accomplishments. I need to point something out though: He isn't running. Hillary is.

So who is running Bill or Hillary?

Hillary said..

"My leading opponent the other day said he thought Republicans had the better ideas for the last 10 to 15 years,"

Is that a direct quote from your candidate, HillaryNow?

Because if it is it is a complete lie that Obama said Republicans had "better ideas". Below is the actual quote that Obama gave and it will give the quote something you and your candidate cannot do- provide context and accuracy in his statement.

“I think [John] Kennedy, twenty years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times. I think we’re in one of those times right now. Where people feel like things as they are going aren’t working. We’re bogged down in the same arguments that we’ve been having, and they’re not useful. And, you know, the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out. I think it’s fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you’ve heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they’re being debated among the Presidential candidates and it’s all tax cuts. Well, you know, we’ve done that, we tried it.”

Nowwhere does Obama say directly nor even imply that the reublicans had "better ideas".

It is exactly this kind of garbage that I see going on here and that went on in NH that I have changed my support from the Hillster to Obama.

Umm. Mr. Ralston what about Debbie Cahill plaintiff in the suit, Deputy Executive Director of the NSEA, Clinton supporter and member of the campaign's Nevada Women's Leadership Council?

No Clintonians involved "patently false"?

What about the law firm representing the plaitiffs with Clinton contributors and former Rep. Bilbray (a Clinton supporter) in it?

And that was just a quick google using the AP.

Some further explanation is needed Mr. Ralston but given the editorial board and publisher's leanings in this paper, I won't hold my breath.

"walden9 - you are so right on. These guys were in diapers when our people were working hard and fighting all the hard fights. Then Mister Wonderful just wants to float in and take everything over." -tim_japan

Wow. Talk about a sense of entitlement!

Speaking as someone who was not in diapers, who has never voted republican, and who voted for Bill in '92 and '96, if Ms. Clinton is nominated I will hold my nose and vote Republican. The Clinton's and Terry MacAuliffe and the rest of that crowd are corporatists and as a group are the single most divisive group after the Bushies.

And as for your kool-aid comment remember: projection is a horrible thing.

Oh, Please.

Three points:

1. The Clintons and MacAuliffe and Carville et al rightly or wrongly are the most polarizing group in U.S. politics prior to Bush the Younger. That in and of itself will lead to legislative gridlock.

2. Do your brother's hefty contributions to Ms. Clinton's warchest as an FOB (Friend of Bill) mean you will get free room and board in the Lincoln Room if Ms. Clinton is elected?

3. The title of you editiorial is really condescending to Mr. Obama who has done more to energize people to become involved in politics than your moribund "realism" as stated above could ever do.