Another Notch On Hillary's Belt of Lies & Deception

Once again, Hillary Clinton demonstrates she is a stranger to truth.



If Hillary Clinton believes that hers is an honest representation and assessment, her fitness for the job of President of the U.S. needs to be questioned.

Kathy Kiely and Jill Lawrence interviewed Hillary Clinton for USA Today:

Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed Wednesday to continue her quest for the Democratic nomination, arguing she would be the stronger nominee because she appeals to a wider coalition of voters — including whites who have not supported Barack Obama in recent contests.

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

Clinton's blunt remarks about race came a day after primaries in Indiana and North Carolina dealt symbolic and mathematical blows to her White House ambitions.

The Obama campaign, looking toward locking up the nomination, stepped up pressure on superdelegates who have the decisive votes in their race.

In both states, Clinton won six of 10 white voters, according to surveys of people as they left polling places.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said that in Indiana, Obama split working-class voters with Clinton and won a higher percentage of white voters than in Ohio in March. He said Obama will be the strongest nominee because he appeals "to Americans from every background and all walks of life. These statements from Sen. Clinton are not true and frankly disappointing."

Clinton rejected any idea that her emphasis on white voters could be interpreted as racially divisive. "These are the people you have to win if you're a Democrat in sufficient numbers to actually win the election. Everybody knows that."

Larry Sabato, head of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, said Clinton's comment was a "poorly worded" variation on the way analysts have been "slicing and dicing the vote in racial terms."

However, he said her primary support doesn't prove she's more electable. Either Democrat will get "the vast majority" of the other's primary election votes in a general election, he said.

Clinton lost North Carolina by 14 percentage points and won Indiana by 2 points after competing full-out in both states. She had loaned the campaign $6.4 million in the past month. She said she might lend more.

"We should finish the contests we have and see where we stand after they're over," she said, referring to the six remaining primaries that will end June 3.

There were signs of unrest Wednesday, even among Clinton allies. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein wondered to The Hill, a Capitol Hill newspaper, "whether she can get the delegates that she needs." Former South Dakota senator George McGovern, whose 1972 presidential bid gave Clinton her first political experience, switched his support from Clinton to Obama.

Can you spot Hillary Clinton's deception in the May 4, 2008 AP article she was citing?:

Barack Obama's problem winning votes from working-class whites is showing no sign of going away, and their impression of him is getting worse.

Those are ominous signals as he hopes for strong performances in the coming week in Indiana and North Carolina primaries that would derail the candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton, his rival for the Democratic presidential nomination. Those contests come as his candidacy has been rocked by renewed attention to his volatile former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and by his defeat in last month's Pennsylvania primary.

In an Associated Press-Yahoo News poll in April, 53 percent of whites who have not completed college viewed Obama unfavorably, up a dozen percentage points from November. During that period, the numbers viewing Clinton and Republican candidate John McCain negatively have stayed about even.

Huge preference for Clinton

The April poll — conducted before the Pennsylvania contest — also showed an overwhelming preference for Clinton over Obama among working-class whites. They favored her over him by 39 percentage points, compared to a 10-point Obama lead among white college graduates. Obama also did worse than Clinton among those less-educated voters when matched up against Republican candidate John McCain.

"It's the stuff about his preacher ... and the thing he said about Pennsylvania towns, how they turn to religion," Keith Wolfe, 41, a supermarket food stocker from Parkville, Md., said in a follow-up interview. "I don't think he'd be a really good leader."

Just before the Pennsylvania primary, Obama said many small-town residents are bitter about their lives and turn for solace to religion and guns.

Recent voting patterns underscore Obama's continued poor performance with these voters, who are often pivotal in general election swing states like Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

In Democratic primaries held on or before Super Tuesday, Feb. 5, whites who have not finished college favored the New York senator by a cumulative 59 percent to 32 percent, according to exit polls of voters conducted for The Associated Press and the television networks.

In primaries since Feb. 5, that group has favored Clinton by 64 percent to 34 percent. That includes Ohio and Pennsylvania, in which working-class whites have favored Clinton by 44 and 41 percentage points respectively.

The AP-Yahoo poll shows less educated whites present a problem to Obama in part because of who they are. Besides being poorer, they tend to be older than white college graduates — and Clinton has done strongly with older white voters.

'Lacks content'

Yet political professionals and analysts say more is at play. They blame Obama's problems with blue-collar whites on their greater reluctance to embrace his bid to become the first black president, and his failure to address their concerns about job losses and the battered economy specifically enough.

Terry Madonna, a political science professor at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa., said Obama lost among working-class whites in the state because his message of how this generation's time has come did not address their economic needs.

"While it's incredibly motivating and passionate and compelling, it lacks content," Madonna said. "Hillary would come in and relate to them, talk about the specifics of her policy."

Pennsylvania also illustrated the problems racial attitudes among less educated whites are causing Obama.

In exit polls, one in five of the state's white voters who haven't completed college said race was an important factor in choosing a candidate, about double the number of white college graduates who said so. Eight in 10 of them voted for Clinton over Obama, and only about half said they would vote for Obama over McCain in November.

"The scab is peeled back off," Democratic pollster John Anzalone, not working for either presidential candidate, said of the latest attention focused on Wright and Obama's denunciations of him. In video clips of past sermons, Wright has damned the United States for its history of racism and accused the government of spreading the HIV virus to harm blacks.

Obama pollster Cornell Belcher said that while working-class whites have favored Clinton, the fact that huge numbers of them and other voters have participated in Democratic contests boded well for the November election.

"I don't think there's going to be erosion in the fall of a core group of Democratic voters," Belcher said.

While less educated whites tend to vote less frequently than better educated voters, they are important because of their sheer number.

Exit polls show they have comprised three in 10 voters in Democratic contests so far, a group that cannot be ignored in a contest that has seen Obama maintain a slim lead. They made up 43 percent of all voters in the 2004 presidential contest, when they heavily favored President Bush over Democrat John Kerry.

Underlining his need to connect with these voters, Obama has geared some television ads in Indiana toward economic issues. In recent days he has turned to small events, rather than his trademark huge rallies, concentrating on the economy, including lunching with a blue-collar Indiana family while discussing their problems.

He has let cameras record him playing basketball in hopes of connecting with the passionate fans of the sport who populate Indiana and North Carolina.

The findings from the AP-Yahoo News poll are from interviews with 863 Democrats on a panel of adults questioned in November and April. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.3 percentage points.

The poll was conducted over the Internet by Knowledge Networks, which initially contacted people using traditional telephone polling methods and followed with online interviews. People chosen for the study who had no Internet access were given it free.

The exit poll is based on in-person interviews with more than 36,000 voters in 28 states that have held primaries this year in which both candidates actively competed. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 1 percentage point, larger for some subgroups.

Setting aside some serious reservations about the methodology of this poll, it's more than a month old, and it was done before the Pennsylvania primary. Hillary Clinton makes these remarks citing this poll weeks after the Pennsylvania poll, after the Indiana and N. Carolina primaries which she lost.

Crazy? Or Crazy Like A Fox?

What Bill Clinton's Odd Denial of Previous Day's Comment ("They Played the Race Card On Me") May Be About....Because He Surely Did Say It

Here are Chris Matthews and Chuck Todd talking about on Pennsylvania primary day:



MSNBC's pundits have a habit of bending over backwards to give the Clintons every benefit of doubt (or ignore the obvious entirely), and Chuck Todd doesn't break with that tradition.

Let's look at the story as it unfolded on Monday.



CNN reports:

Former President Bill Clinton denied Tuesday he had accused Senator Barack Obama's campaign of "playing the race card" during an interview Monday.

Bill Clinton is facing tough questions Tuesday over an interview with a Delaware radio station.

A recording of the former president making the comment is posted on the WHYY Web site.

It says he made the comment in a telephone interview with the Philadelphia public radio station Monday night.

Clinton was asked whether his remarks comparing Obama's strong showing in South Carolina to that of Jesse Jackson in 1988 had been a mistake given their impact on his wife Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign.

"No, I think that they played the race card on me," said Clinton, "and we now know from memos from the campaign and everything that they planned to do it all along."

"We were talking about South Carolina political history and this was used out of context and twisted for political purposes by the Obama campaign to try to breed resentment elsewhere. And you know, do I regret saying it? No. Do I regret that it was used that way? I certainly do. But you really got to go some to try to portray me as a racist."

After the phone interview, a stray comment of his on the issue was also recorded before he hung up: "I don't think I should take any s*** from anybody on that, do you?"

But outside a Pittsburgh campaign event Tuesday, a reporter asked Clinton what he had meant "when you said the Obama campaign was playing the race card on you?"

Clinton responded: "When did I say that and to whom did I say that?"



"You have mischaracterized it to get another cheap story to divert the American people from the real urgent issues before us, and I choose not to play your games today," Clinton added.

"I said what I said -- you can go back and look at the interview, and if you will be real honest you will also report what the question was and what the answer was. But I'm not helping you."

Clinton did not respond when asked what he meant when he charged that the Obama campaign had a memo in which they said they had planned to play the race card.

Meanwhile, at a Pittsburgh press availability on Tuesday, Obama was asked about Clinton's charge that his campaign had drawn up plans to use "the race card."

"Hold on a second,'' he said. "So former President Clinton dismissed my victory in South Carolina as being similar to Jesse Jackson and he is suggesting that somehow I had something to do with it?"



"You better ask him what he meant by that. I have no idea what he meant. These were words that came out of his mouth. Not words that came out of mine.''

Clinton commented just before the South Carolina primary that "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."

Question for Bill Clinton: Is your knowledge of these memos (the "memos from the campaign and everything" that you spoke about with Susan Phillips in the WHYY interview that you claim "show that they planned to do it all along") connected to the break-in of Obama campaign offices in Allentown on April 19, 2008, where laptops and cell phones were stolen?

The memo on the subject of race from Amaya Smith, S. Carolina press secretary for Obama for America lists news accounts of events during the campaign, and nothing else.

The GOP 'Silly Season' of "A Elephant Sat On It"-Excuses

Remember Post-Election Florida & Bush's TANG Memos? GOP Consultant Alleged To Have Been Involved in GOP Dirty Tricks Ousted, Tied To Threatening Call



The TimesUnion.com reports:

Senate Republicans ousted controversial political consultant Roger Stone on Wednesday, following allegations he left an obscene, threatening phone message for the elderly father of Gov. Eliot Spitzer.

Democrats want an apology and called for an investigation by a Senate panel, but no apology was offered by Senate Republicans or Stone, who continued to deny any involvement in the message left Aug. 6 for Bernard Spitzer at his office.

Senate Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno said the Senate Republican Campaign Committee, which Bruno controls, was paying Stone $20,000 monthly. He said Stone resigned at Bruno's request.

Bruno said he would not let the episode deter Republicans in their push to find out whether the Democratic governor and his chief of staff knew of efforts to gather damaging information about Bruno's use of state aircraft and State Police drivers.

Political sources said some advisers wanted to keep Stone, and he may end up working for individual senators in the coming months.

But Bruno abruptly cut Stone free after discussions with advisers, and amid calls from Democratic leaders for Stone's ouster.

Since late June, Stone has been advising the Senate majority, conducting conferences with Republican members and campaign committee chairmen and offering ideas on how to attack Spitzer and retain control of the Senate next year. Republicans hold a two-seat majority.

In an interview Tuesday and in a statement released Wednesday, Stone, 55, a veteran of 35 years of political operations, denied wrongdoing for alleged misdeeds and stayed on the offensive.

"The guy who makes threatening phone calls to people is Eliot Spitzer, not Roger Stone," the Miami-based consultant said.

Stone claimed he was at the theater that night, but New York magazine reported that the play he claimed to have attended, Frost/Nixon, was closed that evening.
Bruno said he is unsure if Stone made the threatening call to the governor's father.
Bruno told reporters at an event at Saratoga Race Course that Stone "agreed to resign and end his relationship with us at our request. We are not going to allow this incident to become a distraction or to be used as an excuse to hamper people from getting at the truth."

Bruno, however, did not confirm or dispute Stone's account of the matter.

Someone left an obscenity-laced message for Bernard Spitzer, 83, telling him he would be forced to testify before the Senate Investigations committee, and possibly arrested, in connection with his financial help in his son's 1998 campaign for attorney general.

"I'm not second-guessing anybody," Bruno said. "Roger says he didn't do it; he says somebody got into his apartment ... I did everything in my power I have control of. We asked him to resign."

Bruno called the allegations "serious" and "despicable," but said he doesn't think it's important whether he believes Stone's story -- that someone, likely Spitzer allies, got into his Manhattan apartment and placed the call, somehow imitating his voice.

What's important, Bruno said, is figuring out if Spitzer and his secretary, Richard Baum, abused executive power to go after Bruno. He said the two issues are "totally unrelated."

However, Democratic leaders sought to link the two. Earlier in the day, state Democratic Party Chairwoman June O'Neill and Co-chairman Dave Pollak called on Senate Republicans to fire Stone and apologize for his alleged actions.

And Sen. William Stachowski, D-Buffalo, a member of the Senate Investigations Committee, wrote to Bruno demanding an investigation into the Stone affair. Stachowski said the public should learn who in the Senate majority knew about Stone's actions.

Stone worked most closely with Bruno and key central staff members such as Ed Lurie, executive director of the Senate Republican Campaign Committee, and Senate communications director John McArdle, according to a person apprised of his business dealings.

Stachowski was later backed by Senate Minority Leader Malcolm Smith, D-Queens, who called for an inquiry into how much Stone was involved in the Senate majority's government business.

Senate Investigations Committee Chairman George Winner said an investigation by his panel is highly unlikely.

"If this wasn't the silliest thing I ever heard of. To what advantage would someone have to harass an 83-year-old man?" said Winner. He said he can't consider Stachowski's letter and Smith's news release on the matter "serious."

"It's a complete smoke screen," he said. "What possible offense was committed here? The only offense was the making of a call."

He said he has no idea if Stone made the call and said he does not know Stone and has never talked with him.

Some former colleagues of Stone say they have little doubt that he made the call.
"If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck," said John Zogby, a Utica-based polling company operator who worked with Stone on the 2002 gubernatorial campaign of Tom Golisano.

"I was told from the beginning to watch out for Roger Stone, and while I felt that I worked well with him, I did come to see that he would favor tactics that I considered to be problematic," Zogby said. "I don't think I would work with him again."
Stone has worked on dozens of campaigns and public affairs jobs since the 1970s. Republicans have been his speciality, including Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Ronald Reagan, and Connecticut Gov. John Rowland. He was part of George W. Bush's team in Florida in 2000.

He has served wealthy political aspirants like Donald Trump and B. Thomas Golisano.
He's no stranger to controversy. In 1996, news reports highlighted ads for mate-swapping that featured Stone and his wife. He claimed a "sick and disgruntled" person must have posted his picture and ad on Internet sites, even though his credit card was used to pay for the spots.

More recently, he was found by the Temporary State Commission on Lobbying to be part of a conspiracy behind an ad campaign to smear the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, using a front group to place ads portraying the tribe as criminals. An investigation in 2000 ended with $250,000 in civil penalties against various parties including Trump Hotel and Casino Resorts. His penalty was $100,000.

Stone was also alleged to have the person who gave Bill Burkett the TANG memos.

The GOP's Electoral College Power Grab In California

At Huffington Post, Senator Barbara Boxer writes:

Just when you thought it was safe to start thinking about having a Democrat in the White House, along comes a cynical power grab by Republican operatives. And unfortunately, it's happening right here in my own state of California.

If you haven't heard already, Republican strategists recently announced plans to begin raising money for a dangerous initiative that would radically change the way California apportions our electoral votes in presidential elections. Rather than awarding all of California's electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote -- the way it works in every single state except the small states of Maine and Nebraska -- their scheme would divvy up California's electoral votes based on the number of Congressional districts each candidate wins.

What does this mean? Well, if the last few elections are any guide, rather than the Democratic nominee winning all 55 of California's electoral votes in 2008, this new partisan scheme could hand 20 of California's electoral votes to the Republican candidate and only 35 to the Democrat.

Don't get me wrong: After the 2000 and 2004 election debacles, I'm a strong advocate for election reform. But it's absolutely wrong for California to go it alone. It's just patently unfair for a large "blue" state like California to change our system for awarding electoral votes while other large states which trend "red" like Texas and Florida don't change their system at the same time.

This isn't reform -- this is a partisan power grab by Republican operatives in the Karl Rove tradition.

The initiative's sponsors claim that their plan will make the presidential candidates spend more time campaigning in California. That's nonsense. Their scheme won't make candidates come to California during a general election any more than they do now -- which is rarely, and only to raise money.

Just look at the 2006 election. In 2006, only 2 of California's 53 Congressional districts were truly in play. In the remaining 51 districts, the margin of victory for the winning Republican or Democratic House candidate was always more than 6% -- and in most cases, the difference was 20 or 30 percentage points or more. The number of competitive districts in the 2008 election will not be much different than what we saw in 2006 -- so apportioning our electoral votes based on the winner of each Congressional district would clearly do nothing to bring the presidential candidates to California more often.

If America wants real election reform -- and I know I do -- we need to elect our President directly by the national popular vote, plain and simple. Then the candidate who receives the most votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia would be elected President. That's the fair thing to do.

If you're interested in joining the fight against this power grab by Republican operatives, I hope you'll check out www.FairElectionReform.com. You don't have to live in California to get involved, because by skewing the results of the 2008 presidential election, this initiative clearly will affect all Americans.

Please join me in fighting for real, fair election reform -- and rejecting this cynical partisan power grab.

While I don't support this naked power grab by Republicans, if Californians did pass the initiative to split up electoral votes, we wouldn't be going it alone:

Maine and Nebraska both use an alternative method of distributing their electoral votes, called the Congressional District Method. Currently, these two states are the only two in the union that diverge from the traditional winner-take-all method of electoral vote allocation.

With the district method, a state divides itself into a number of districts, allocating one of its state-wide electoral votes to each district. The winner of each district is awarded that district’s electoral vote, and the winner of the state-wide vote is then awarded the state’s remaining two electoral votes.

This method has been used in Maine since 1972 and Nebraska since 1996, though since both states have adopted this modification, the statewide winners have consistently swept all of the state’s districts as well. Consequently, neither state has ever split its electoral votes.

Although this method still fails to reach the full ideal of one-man one-vote, it has been proposed as a nationwide reform for the way in which Electoral votes are distributed.

See our page on Reform Options for the Electoral College to find more information.