With Barack Obama having the Democratic presidential nomination all but wrapped up, Hillary Clinton backers are hoping that a devastating revelation about Obama could derail his candidacy — and they’re desperately seeking to find it.
That’s the inside story from veteran newsman Carl Bernstein, who writes in his CNN column:
“The Clinton campaign’s search for damaging information and its hope that such information exists continues, according to knowledgeable sources.”
Top Clinton adviser Harold Ickes warned on the eve of the North Carolina and Indian primaries that Obama could be vulnerable to an “October surprise” by the John McCain campaign, notes Bernstein, whose latest book is “A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton.”
He adds: “Several Clinton associates say there is still a ray of hope among some in her campaign that a ‘catastrophic’ revelation about Obama might make it possible for her to win the presidential nomination.”
But there is also a strong chance that Clinton will try to maneuver her way into the vice presidential slot on the Obama ticket, according to Bernstein, even though Obama “won’t want to take her on the ticket.”
At a stop in rural Pennsylvania on Thursday, Bill told the gathering that McCain is a “moderate” who “has given all you can give for this country without dying for it.”
He said McCain is on the right side in opposing the torture of enemy combatants and on the global warming issue, which “just about crosses the bridge for [Republicans].”
Clinton also told the audience that the race should not about the past, but about who is going to do more for the country in the future, ABC News reported. That person, he said, is Hillary.
One week ago Clinton expressed similar sentiments at a gathering in North Carolina, calling McCain a war hero who had demonstrated his love for his country.
Clinton noted that McCain supported campaign finance reform and “he doesn’t think global warming is a myth … so it is not going to be all that easy to beat him.”
Bill is clearly setting up the stage for the inevitable democrat nominee to lose to John McCain. Bill knows that Hillary currently has a snowball’s chance in Hades, and Barack Obama will be McCain’s challenger. Bill also knows that if Obama manages to take the prize from McCain, Hillary will be shut out for 2012. BUT, if McCain wins in November, Hillary can take him on in four years, when he’ll be an even weaker opponent due to four years of media bashing by the democrat hand-holders (known as the MSM).
A State Department official in charge of the department during two of the three breaches into the passport files of Sen. Barack Obama has a direct tie to Bill and Hillary Clinton and department officials are investigating whether she furnished information to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Maura Harty was in charge of the Bureau Of Consular Affairs during the first two breaches of Obama’s passport. Former President Bill Clinton appointed her to an ambassadorship during his Presidency.
Harty retired last month from the State Department. She joined the State Department in 2002 after serving as ambassador to Paraguay for two years of Bill Clinton’s Presidential term. Sources within the State Department told Capitol Hill Blue this morning that revelations of the first two passport breaches surfaced only after Harty left her State Department job.
She claimed that she came under sniper fire when she visited in Bosnia in 1996, but was contradicted by videotape showing her sauntering off the plane and stopping on the tarmac to listen to a little girl read her a poem.
Similarly, John Kerry’s claim to heroism in Vietnam was contradicted by 264 Swift Boat Veterans who served with him. His claim to having been on a secret mission to Cambodia for President Nixon on Christmas 1968 was contradicted not only by all of his commanders — who said he would have been court-martialed if he had gone anywhere near Cambodia — but also the simple fact that Nixon wasn’t president on Christmas 1968.
In Hillary’s defense, she probably deserves a Purple Heart about as much as Kerry did for his service in Vietnam.
Also, unlike Kerry, Hillary acknowledged her error, telling the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: “I was sleep-deprived, and I misspoke.” (What if she’s sleep-deprived when she gets that call on the red phone at 3 a.m., imagines a Russian nuclear attack and responds with mutual assured destruction? Oops. “It proves I’m human.”)
The reason no one claims Hillary is being “swiftboated” is that the definition of “swiftboating” is: “producing irrefutable evidence that a Democrat is lying.” And for purposes of her race against matinee idol B. Hussein Obama, Hillary has become the media’s honorary Republican.
In liberal-speak, only a Democrat can be swiftboated. Democrats are “swiftboated”; Republicans are “guilty.” So as an honorary Republican, Hillary isn’t being swiftboated; she’s just lying.
Indeed, instead of attacking the people who produced a video of Hillary’s uneventful landing in Bosnia, the mainstream media are the people who discovered that video.
I’ve always wondered how a Democrat would fare being treated like a Republican by the media. Now we know.
Perhaps it’s not so baffling that the House of Clinton is eager to demonize Barack Obama as too inexperienced to be president, and that it slyly stokes suspicions about his patriotism and allegiance to the United States, belittles his uplifting speeches as hot air and continues the ugly, destructive fight for the Democratic nomination against steepening odds.
Indisputably, the Clinton machine is providing grist for Republican John McCain to use against Obama if he’s the Democratic presidential nominee—certified charges from no less than Democrats Hillary and Bill that Obama’s too inexperienced, lacking sufficient patriotism, a man of ready talk but no solutions.
Could this be the final Clinton strategy as her chances appear bleaker every day—helping McCain win the White House so Hilary could run for president in 2012? (McCain would be too old for a second term.)
This notion would be considered unthinkable, almost the delusions of a psychotic. Would any Democrat dare purposely sabotage another Democrat to pave the way for a Republican president?
The Clintons, mind you, are not ordinary or rational Democrats. The Clintons are megalomaniacal in their hunger for power. What has long been suspected has been confirmed by a few Clinton staffers bitter about Obama’s rise in popularity—they believe Hillary is “entitled” to be president. The nation owes her. The nation cannot survive without her.
Two facts support the notion of a self-destructive last stand by Hillary and Bill.
First, their tactics haven’t increased her lead over Obama or won any superdelegate support. She’s lost 60 superdelegates in the past month, according to Politico.com.
Second, Obama was leading McCain in double digits—and now McCain is leading and approved by 67 percent of Americans, since the Clintons unleashed their wreck-and-ruin tactics.
Experts in these matters calculate Hillary Clinton has a 10 percent or less chance of the nomination. That percentage is bound to shrivel as the self-destruction continues. Her claim of visiting Bosnia under sniper fire as proof of her “experience” has been exposed as fiction. Her believability is bound to suffer, increasing doubts about her character to be commander-in-chief.
Whatever else the Clinton legacy, their most outstanding feature is a proclivity for shaming themselves and their nation.
Bill did it with his cheap peccadillo with Monica Lewinsky in an anteroom just outside the Oval Office and his lies thereafter.
Now Hillary, overcome by peevishness, would destroy her party’s chances for the presidency by sabotaging her Democratic rival to aid the fortunes of a Republican. She seems indifferent to the personal cost of being banished to the political graveyard.
A little more than a week ago front pages across the country joined 24-hour news networks and the World Wide Web in declaring that Sen. Hillary Clinton had forged a dramatic comeback against Sen. Barack Obama in the race for the Democratic nomination.
But how could that be? Didn’t Clinton take three of the four states voting for nominees on March 4, including the two biggies, Texas and Ohio? Well, yes and no.
Clinton did win Ohio by a significant margin and as a result received 74 delegates to Obama’s 65. But in Texas, while Clinton did indeed win the primary, Obama handily won the caucuses which that state also uses to determine allocation of delegates. They finally ended up counting the caucus votes on Tuesday. When all was said and done, Obama had captured 99 delegates in Texas to Clinton’s 95. And, as the political analysts keep telling us, it’s all about the delegates.
In the other March 4 contests the pair split the small states, Obama taking Vermont. while Clinton won in Rhode Island. Add up all the delegates from the four races and Clinton walked away with 187 to Obama’s 181. That’s right, for all the hoopla and breathless talk of a Clinton revival, she gained only six delegates, according to figures compiled by CNN.
Since then Obama has won two more states — Wyoming and Mississippi — capturing 17 of the 28 delegates up for grabs. Put it all together and you find that since Clinton began her “comeback,” Obama has increased his committed delegate lead by two. There was no comeback.
“If you are a voter from Florida or Michigan, you know that we should count your vote,” Clinton said during a speech to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in Washington.
“The nearly 2.5 million Americans in those two states who participated in the primary elections are in danger of being excluded from our democratic process — and I think that’s wrong.”
Clinton repeated her campaign’s proposed solution: Either honor the votes as cast in the two states’ primaries, or hold new primaries.
Obama’s spokesperson was not immediately available to respond to Clinton’s remarks.
Clinton won the Michigan and Florida primaries, but the Democratic National Committee is not honoring the results because the states broke party rules and held their contests early. Neither candidate campaigned in the states and Obama took his name off the Michigan ballot.
Obama’s campaign has said that the states’ delegates should be evenly divided between the candidates because the states broke the rules.
Clinton herself declined to comment on the comparison, made by her chief spokesman in a conference call with reporters and also in a memo distributed by the campaign.
Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said Obama’s statement that he plans to be more critical of Clinton’s record is reminiscent of the attacks the Clintons endured during the investigations in the 1990s.”
The worst insult that a Democrat can lob against a fellow Democrat is to compare him to Ken Starr, the independent counsel who was obsessed with uncovering Bill Clinton’s sex life.
Obama has waged a tenacious but circumspect campaign that is beyond reproach. Hillary has more scandals than a dog has fleas, but Obama has refrained from using any of them against her. If Obama was a sex-obsessed misfit like Starr, he would have questioned Hillary’s sexual orientation. But Obama is a gentlemen, who would never play the gay card against his opponent.
Barack is not mining the mud that the Clinton’s wallow in, he is simply asking Hillary to release her tax records.
You would think that Hillary was a paragon of virtue, but she is the opposite: A politician who will do anything to gain power. In the last few weeks she has thrown everything, including the kitchen sink, at Barack Obama.
By comparing Obama to Starr Hillary is attempting to portray herself as a victim. A bully always paints himself as a victim: Everyone hates me, that’s why I took that kid’s lunch money.
Hillary is not a victim and Obama is not Ken Starr. Hillary’s machinations are so transparent; I hope voters are not deceived. A Hillary administration will plunge this country into scandals and malaise.
Back on public display are Hillary’s marvelous shape-shifting abilities. Since the beginning of the campaign, we have seen shifts from the Commander-in-Chief Hillary to the teary Victim Hillary. But in just the last ten days, we’ve watched:
Hillary gracious: “I am so honored to be sitting on this stage with Barack Obama.”
Hillary resigned: “And you know, whatever happens, we’ll be fine.”
Hillary school-marmish: “Shame on you, Barack Obama!”
Hillary feisty: “I am in the solution business, my opponent is in the promises business.”
And Hillary exultant: “We’re going on, we’re going strong, and we’re going all the way.”
So in just a couple of weeks she’s traversed, far and wide, the emotional and behavioral map — even flirting with the notion of a highly unlikely Clinton-Obama ticket. In her Mississippi speeches, even her accent seemed to change, as she morphed from the blue-collar Ohio worker to the wife of the kind of guy who can host a fish-fry in Tupelo. (Wonder if Big Bill did his Elvis imitation for the hometown folks.)
US presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s camp has called on his rival Hillary Clinton to fire history-blazing supporter Geraldine Ferraro, after she put the Illinois Senator’s stunning rise down to his race.
The latest controversy comes as primary voters in Mississippi cast their ballots in the latest instalment of the dramatic Democratic White House race, with Senator Obama tipped for another victory.
Ms Ferraro, who sits on Senator Clinton’s finance committee and has spoken at her rallies, sparked the firestorm when she was quoted by a California newspaper as saying:
“I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama’s campaign – to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against.
“For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It’s been a very sexist media. Some just don’t like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.
“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.
“And if he was a woman he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”
Clinton herself declined to comment on the comparison, made by her chief spokesman in a conference call with reporters and also in a memo distributed by the campaign.
Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said Obama’s statement that he plans to be more critical of Clinton’s record is reminiscent of the attacks the Clintons endured during the investigations in the 1990s.”
The worst insult that a Democrat can lob against a fellow Democrat is to compare him to Ken Starr, the independent counsel who was obsessed with uncovering Bill Clinton’s sex life.
Obama has waged a tenacious but circumspect campaign that is beyond reproach. Hillary has more scandals than a dog has fleas, but Obama has refrained from using any of them against her. If Obama was a sex-obsessed misfit like Starr, he would have questioned Hillary’s sexual orientation. But Obama is a gentlemen, who would never play the gay card against his opponent.
Barack is not mining the mud that the Clinton’s wallow in, he is simply asking Hillary to release her tax records.
You would think that Hillary was a paragon of virtue, but she is the opposite: A politician who will do anything to gain power. In the last few weeks she has thrown everything, including the kitchen sink, at Barack Obama.
By comparing Obama to Starr Hillary is attempting to portray herself as a victim. A bully always paints himself as a victim: Everyone hates me, that’s why I took that kid’s lunch money.
Hillary is not a victim and Obama is not Ken Starr. Hillary’s machinations are so transparent; I hope voters are not deceived. A Hillary administration will plunge this country into scandals and malaise.
“You won’t see me as a vice presidential candidate — you know, I’m running for president,” the Illinois Senator said in an interview with CBS. “We have won twice as many states as Senator Clinton, and have a higher popular vote, and I think we can maintain our delegate count.”
Former President Bill Clinton echoed his wife on Saturday in a campaign rally in Mississippi whose primary is set on Tuesday, saying a joint ticket pairing the two would be “almost unstoppable.”
“I know that she has always been open to it, because she believes that if you can unite the energy and the new people that he’s brought in and the people in these vast swaths of small town and rural America that she’s carried overwhelmingly, if had those two things together she thinks it’d be hard to beat,” he said.
So far, Obama has won 28 Democratic primaries and caucuses while Clinton won 17, including Florida and Michigan primaries that have been stripped all delegates who would vote at the nomination convention for violating the party’s rule.
Fortunately for the American people, Obama is smart enough to know that he can do much better for himself and our country than to drape around his neck the corrupt political machine of Hillary Clinton that is about to become a massive boat anchor.
On the heels of three victories in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., turned back a surging Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., who came into Tuesday with 11 straight victories and picked up another win in Vermont.
1. If Clinton and Obama basically tie in the remaining 12 contests, Obama would need 164 superdelegates to come his way to put him over the magic number of 2,024
2. Assuming no currently committed superdelegates switched and no uncommitted superdelegates jumped off the fence. . .
Clinton would need to win 59% of the delegates in the remaining 12 contests in order to overtake Sen. Obama’s delegate lede.
If the upcoming 611 delegates at stake split 59/41 for Clinton — 360 would go to Clinton and 251 would go to Obama — netting Sen. Clinton 109 delegates. . . which would be enough to overcome Obama’s current 106 delegate lead.
3. There are 611 delegates up for grabs in the remaining 12 contests.
ABC News’ current delegate estimate has Obama at 1,555.
That means he would need to win 77% of all the remaining pledged delegates to hit the magic number of 2,024 to secure the nomination. That is highly unlikely due to the proportional delegate allocation rules in the Democratic Party.
Clinton would need to win 94% of all the remaining pledged delegates to hit the magic number of 2,024. (ABC News currently has her at 1449.)
So, clearly they both are going to be relying on superdelegates to secure the nomination.
A few weeks ago, 21-year-old Wisconsin superdelegate Jason Rae was taken out to breakfast by Chelsea Clinton in the runup to that state’s Democratic primary.
Two days after the vote, the college junior – who will be the youngest superdelegate at this year’s Democratic National Convention — is undecided no longer: he’s backing Barack Obama.
And who can blame him when his supporters include Halle Berry. “I’ll do whatever he says to do,” actress Halle Berry said to the Philadelphia Daily News. “I’ll collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear.”
It’s a tough choice, and I only hope someday I am forced to decide.
Barack Obama’s primary-night results were strikingly under recorded in several congressional districts around the city – in some cases leaving him with zero votes when, in fact, he had pulled in hundreds, the Board of Elections said today.
Unofficial primary results gave Obama no votes in nearly 80 districts, including Harlem’s 94th and other historically black areas – but many of those initial tallies proved to be wildly off the mark, the Board of Elections confirmed.
Initial results in the 94th District, for example, showed a 141-0 sweep for the New York senator, but Board of Elections spokeswoman Valerie Vazquez said today that the ongoing recount had changed the tally to 261-136.
As yet, none of the results has been certified, Vazquez said, adding that the Board of Elections had begun a painstaking ballot-by-ballot canvassing of all voting machines four days after the Feb. 5 election.
“We are doing a recanvass, and we will be counting all paper ballots, including absentee ones,” Vazquez said.
“Some initial tallies had zeros, but it was most likely due to human error. Those were unofficial numbers, and no confirmed results have been released yet.”
In a predominantly black Brooklyn district for which Clinton was given credit for a 118-0 victory on Primary Night, the Board of Elections’ latest figures indicate that she may not even come out the winner – Obama currently has 116 votes to her 118.
“While it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials serving as superdelegates have received about $890,000 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years,” the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reported today.
About half the 800 superdelegates — elected officials, party leaders, and others — have committed to either Clinton or Obama, though they can change their minds until the convention.
Obama’s political action committee has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000.
Clinton’s political action committee has distributed about $195,000 to superdelegates, and only 13 of the 109 who had announced for her have received money, totaling about $95,000.
Clinton congratulated Obama and John Edwards after their first and second place finishes in the Iowa caucuses. Obama returned the favor in New Hampshire, saying Clinton “did an outstanding job.” That courtesy continued through the early states.
But as the race has shifted to a delegate chase with dozens of states in play around the country, the notion of congratulating one’s opponent seems, for Clinton, to have fallen by the wayside.
The real Hillary starts to become visible when things don’t go her way.
Sen. Barack Obama won the Virginia primary Tuesday night and reached out for victories in nearby Maryland and the District of Columbia, determined to erode or even erase Hillary Rodham Clinton’s delegate lead in the Democratic presidential race.
BC News’ Rick Klein and Sunlen Miller Report: Nobel Prize winner Toni Morrison — who famously declared Bill Clinton to be the nation’s “first black president” in a 1998 essay — today endorsed Barack Obama for president, via letter from Morrison to the Illinois senator.
In it she writes, “this opportunity for a national evolution (even revolution) will not come again soon, and I am convinced you are the person to capture it.”
Morrison writes of her admiration for Hillary Clinton but says she “cared little for her gender as a source of my admiration”.
“Nor do I care very much for your race[s],” Morrison continues to Obama, “I would not support you if that was all you had to offer or because it might make me ‘proud.’ ”
“In thinking carefully about the strengths of the candidates, I stunned myself when I came to the following conclusion: that in addition to keen intelligence, integrity and a rare authenticity, you exhibit something that has nothing to do with age, experience, race or gender and something I don’t see in other candidates. That something is a creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom.
“Our future is ripe, outrageously rich in its possibilities. Yet unleashing the glory of that future will require a difficult labor, and some may be so frightened of its birth they will refuse to abandon their nostalgia for the womb.
“There have been a few prescient leaders in our past, but you are the man for this time,” she concludes.
In an October 1998 essay in The New Yorker, Morrison wrote: “Years ago, in the middle of the Whitewater investigation, one heard the first murmurs: white skin notwithstanding, this is our first black president. Blacker than any actual person who could ever be elected in our children’s lifetime.”
Morrison’s endorsement letter to Obama comes as Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., also announces his support for Obama on Monday, at a rally in Washington.
Today Barack Obama earned the endorsement of MoveOn, one of the largest grassroots membership organizations in the United States, after clobbering Hillary Clinton by 40 percent in Internet balloting. Obama led the final tally 70.4% to 29.6%, clearing the supermajority required for the endorsement. MoveOn, which has never endorsed a presidential candidate before, boasts that it has 1.7 million members in Super Tuesday states. The group has over half a million members in California alone – roughly one out of ten primary voters in Tuesday’s largest state.
“We’ve learned that the key to achieving change in Washington without compromising core values is having a galvanized electorate to back you up,” said Executive Director Eli Pariser, “and Barack Obama has our members ‘fired up and ready to go’ on that front.”
Obama welcomed the endorsement on Friday. “In just a few years, the members of MoveOn have once again demonstrated that real change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up. From their principled opposition to the Iraq war – a war I also opposed from the start – to their strong support for a number of progressive causes, MoveOn shows what Americans can achieve when we come together in a grassroots movement for change,” he said in a statement. “I thank them for their support and look forward to working with their members in the weeks and months ahead,” he added.
Organizers said they would “immediately” begin mobilizing on behalf of Obama, leading turnout programs and phone-banking members of MoveOn in targeted states. The group made seven million “GOTV” calls for Democrats in the mid-term elections, and it has an extensive voter file database.
The decisive victory shows that Obama is consolidating support from the netroots in the wake of John Edwards’ withdrawal. Obama also won the Edwards vote in Thursday’s Daily Kos reader poll. He bounced 35 points to reach an all-time high of 71 percent, while Clinton held steady at 11 percent. If Super Tuesday is a tie and both campaigns brace for a protracted delegate hunt, Obama could draw fundraising, volunteers and advocacy from a united front of MoveOn, netroots activists and bloggers.
The loss of support from this organization could prove to be the chink in Clinton’s armor. If Edwards’s delegates move into Obama’s column, and all future MoveOn resources are allocated to him, watch for real tears in Clinton’s coffee.
Barack Obama’s campaign has dismissed as not believable a prominent Hillary Rodham Clinton backer’s “tortured explanation” for seeming to inject Obama’s youthful drug use into the 2008 presidential campaign, and called it “troubling” that Clinton has not done more to distance herself from the remark.
Former President Bill Clinton was drawn into the controversy on Monday in appearances on black radio talk shows. He told one host, Roland Martin, that impolitic remarks by supporters sometimes “just happen” in politics and said, “I think it’s important not to overreact to them.”
Obama has admitted in his memoir to using drugs as a young man, and Hillary Clinton has said personal attacks using that information are off-limits. Except they keep coming, in what are now at least three direct or indirect drug references from top Clinton surrogates in recent weeks.
I find it particularly noteworthy that Bill Clinton shows a great deal of restraint and patience when fielding questions raised about his own staff, and that of his wife. However, his view that it’s ‘just politics’ is forgotten when he and his own are the brunt of the rumors. The Bill Clinton temper tantrums are well known in media circles.
The year was 1992, and Bill Clinton had just received the Democratic nomination. The crowd was energized as Fleetwood Mac’s music flooded the convention center urging America, “Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow.”
Fleetwood Mac would roll over in their musical graves if they could hear how the Hillary campaign has gotten into a time warp, obsessing with the 90s while a new political generation demands a focus on tomorrow.
Suddenly, the Clintons have become old before our eyes. They are, as if by magic, now part of the past, no longer inevitable in the future. It took Obama and Huckabee to put them there, but they have become the couple that can’t stop thinking about yesterday.
According to the smartest woman in the world, college students who did not grow up in Iowa should not caucus there. The fact that it is perfectly legal and has always been that way has no relevance.
A top adviser to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign said Wednesday that Democrats should give more thought to Sen. Barack Obama’s admissions of illegal drug use before they pick a presidential candidate.
Bill Shaheen, a national co-chairman of Clinton’s front-runner campaign, raised the issue during an interview with The Washington Post, posted on washingtonpost.com.
Shaheen, an attorney and veteran organizer, said much of Obama’s background is unknown and could be a problem in November 2008 if he is the Democratic nominee. He said the Republicans would work hard to discover new aspects of Obama’s admittedly spotty youth.
Now let’s compare this to the earlier years in the Clinton household where Bill was (and most likely still is) a known cokehead.
According to biographer Roger Morris, a personal acquaintance of the Clintons, “The Clintons were close socially to Lasater and his wife and flew often on Lasater’s private Lear jet. They went to the Kentucky Derby. And these are flights that we later had testimony from state troopers and others that cocaine was available in ashtrays and literally at every seat on the private jet – as well as in the box at Churchill Downs.”
In her latest character assassination attempt targeting Barack, Hillary dug up dirt from Obama’s kindergarten teacher.
Next week, unnamed sources state that she plans to unleash another political knock-out, quoting his daycare provider who claims “When he was three, Obama often would spin in circles until he fell down laughing.”
“So you decide which makes more sense: Entrust our country to someone who is ready on day one … or to put America in the hands of someone with little national or international experience, who started running for president the day he arrived in the U.S. Senate,”Clinton said.
Now I’m sure we’re all waiting for Hillary to tell us about her national and international experience prior to arriving in the US Senate. Doesn’t her ‘experience’ mostly involve running for president?
Posted by hillaryclinton 
HILLARY CLINTON UNPLUGGED 