Battle-Tested
With the emergence of Sen. John McCain as the presumptive Republican nominee, the choice for the Democrats in the 2008 presidential election now shifts to who is best positioned to beat him, in what promises to be a more hard-fought campaign -- and perhaps a nastier one -- than Democrats anticipated.
Sen. Barack Obama's promise of transformation and an end of partisan politics has its seductive appeal. The Bush-Cheney era, after all, has been punctuated by smear campaigns, character assassinations and ideological fervor.
Nobody dislikes such poisonous partisanship, especially in foreign policy, more than I do. I am one of very few Foreign Service officers who have served as ambassador in the administrations of both George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, yet I have spent the past four years fighting a concerted character assassination campaign orchestrated by the George W. Bush White House.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is one of the few who fully understood the stakes in that battle. Time and again, she reached out to my wife -- outed CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson -- and me to remind us that as painful as the attacks were, we simply could not allow ourselves to be driven from the public square by bullying. To do so would validate the radical right's thesis that the way to win debates is to demonize opponents, taking full advantage of the natural desire to avoid confrontation, even if it means yielding on substantive issues. Hillary knew this from experience, having spent the better part of the past 20 years fighting the Republican attack machine. She is a fighter.
But will Mr. Obama fight? His brief time on the national scene gives little comfort. Consider a February 2006 exchange of letters with Mr. McCain on the subject of ethics reform. The wrathful Mr. McCain accused Mr. Obama of being "disingenuous," to which Mr. Obama meekly replied, "The fact that you have now questioned my sincerity and my desire to put aside politics for the public interest is regrettable but does not in any way diminish my deep respect for you." Then one of McCain's aides said of Obama, "Obama wouldn't know the difference between an RPG and a bong."
Mr. McCain was insultingly dismissive but successful in intimidating his inexperienced colleague. Thus, in his one face-to-face encounter with Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama failed to stand his ground.
What gives us confidence Mr. Obama will be stronger the next time he faces Mr. McCain, a seasoned political fighter with extensive national security credentials? Even more important, what special disadvantages does Mr. Obama carry into this contest on questions of national security?
How will Mr. Obama answer Mr. McCain about his careless remark about unilaterally bombing Pakistan -- perhaps blowing up an already difficult relationship with a nuclear state threatened by Islamic extremists? How will Mr. Obama respond to charges made by the Kenyan government that his campaigning activities in Kenya in support of his distant cousin running for president there made him "a stooge" and constituted interference in the politics of an important and besieged ally in the war on terror?
How will he answer charges that his desire for unstructured personal summits without preconditions with a host of America's adversaries, from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Kim Jong Il, would be little more than premature capitulation?
Senator Obama claims superior judgment on the war in Iraq based on one speech given as a state legislator representing the most liberal district in Illinois at an anti-war rally in Chicago, and in so doing impugns the integrity of those who were part of the debate on the national scene. In mischaracterizing the debate on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force as a declaration of war, he implicitly blames Democrats for George Bush's war of choice. Obama's negative attack line does not conform to the facts. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I should know. I was among the most prominent anti-war voices at the time -- and never heard about or from then Illinois State Senator Obama.
George Bush made it clear publicly when lobbying for the bill that he wanted it not to go to war but to give him the leverage he needed to go to the United Nations and secure intrusive inspections of Saddam's suspected Weapons of Mass Destruction sites. Who could argue with that goal? Colin Powell made the same case individually to Senators in the run up to the vote, including to Senator Clinton. It is not credible that Senator Obama would not have succumbed to Secretary Powell's arguments had he been in Washington at the time. Why not? Obama himself suggested so in 2004. "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,' Obama said. 'What would I have done? I don't know." He also told the Chicago Tribune in 2004: "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." According to press reports, Powell is now an informal adviser to Mr. Obama.
In his tendentious attack, Obama never mentions that Hans Blix, the chief United Nations weapons inspectors, declared that without the congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force the inspectors would never have been allowed into Iraq. Hillary's approach -- and that of the majority of Democrats in the Senate -- was to let the inspectors complete their work while building an international coalition. Hillary's was the road untaken. The betrayal of the American people, and of the Congress, came when President Bush refused to allow the inspections to succeed, and that betrayal is his and his party's, not the Democrats.
Contrary to the myth of his campaign, 2008 is not the year for transcendental transformation. The task for the next administration will be to repair the damage done by eight years of radical rule. And the choice for Americans is clear: four more years of corrupt Republican rule, senseless wars, evisceration of the Constitution, emptying of the national treasury -- or rebuilding our government and our national reputation, piece by piece. Obama's overtures to Republicans, or "Obamacans" as the Senator calls them, is a substitute for true national unity based on a substantive program. His marginal appeals have marginally helped him in caucuses in Republican states that Democrats won't win in the general election. But his vapid rhetoric will not withstand the winds of November. His efforts will be correctly seen by the Republican leadership as a sign of weakness to be exploited. While disaffected Democrats may long for comity in our politics after years of being harangued and belittled by the right wing echo chamber, the Rovians currently promoting Obama are looking to destroy him should he become the nominee. Obama's claim to float uniquely above the fray and avoid polarization will be short-lived. He is no less mortal than any other Democrat -- Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry -- all untouched at the beginning of their campaigns and all mauled by the end. We should never forget recent history.
In order to effect practical change against a determined adversary, we do not need a would-be philosopher-king but a seasoned gladiator who understands the fight Democrats will face in the fall campaign and in governing.
Theodore Roosevelt once commented, "It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly."
If he were around today, TR might be speaking of the woman in the arena. Hillary Clinton has been in that arena for a generation. She is one of the few to have defeated the attack machine that is today's Republican Party and to have emerged stronger. She is deeply knowledgeable about governing; she made herself into a power in the Senate; she is respected by our military; and she never flinches. She has never been intimidated, not by any Republican -- not even John McCain.
Barack Obama claims to represent the future, but it should be increasingly evident that he is not the man for this moment, especially with Mr. McCain's arrival. We've seen a preview of that contest already. It was a TKO.
This article is adapted from a piece published in the Baltimore Sun on February 12, 2008
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Dear Joe,
To date, you have written the most compelling argument to nominate Hillary for president I have read. You are an American hero with genuine courage! I admire and respect you and your wife and am sorry for all you have been put through by our corrupt leadership. Your arguments about Hillary being better equipped to handle the battle with the Republican propganda machine doesn't hold enough water for me. I waited and watched with my California absentee ballot before finally choosing Obama. I have no regrets and strongly believe that Obama will be a more effective leader. People tend to love or hate the Clinton team and I can only see more gridlock and divisiveness should they prevail. After all, the unintended consequences of Bill's infidelity and attempted cover up led to an impassioned evangelical community which are largely responsible for Republican domination in 2000 and 2004, especially Bush's two term election. I find many Republicans and independents either neutral or ready to vote for Obama. Choosing a leader is always a gamble, no doubt. I believe that Obama will be able to finesse McCain with ease and beat back the Republican propaganda machine. He is already impacting how the world views us positively and is bringing hope and courage to the many disenfranchised within the USA. Time for a big CHANGE, and time to take the chance!!! May god bless Barack Obama!
It's nice to read a respectful pro-Obama point of view. I disagree with your choice of nominee, but I appreciate the lack of smearing against Hillary that has been so evident in many other pro-Obama stances noted here.I have been afraid, after months of reading posts in blogs sites such as Huff-Po that no matter who recieves the eventual nomination, that our party is too fractured to be ever unified again.
To be right about a variety of very important foreign policy issues, such as Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, and Pakistan, and then be PROVEN to be objectively right about all of them over time, is not that difficult, and something any novice, like Obama, could do.
To be unequivocally and disastrously WRONG about all of those subjects and MORE (including Health care as fisrt lady)like Hillary has been, but still be able to convince people that you should be taken seriously on ANY level, THAT takes REAL experience, the same type of experience that has made our CURRENT administration so loved by all Americans.
Go Hillary, Go Bush!!!
I understand reticence about buying into Obama's vision of a new kind of politics. He's proposing a landscape in which Clinton tactics and strategies would be outdated (note that this is not the same as saying he would lead with NO tactics and strategies). Some of us have believed in his general perspective (as well as specific ideas) for quite awhile. But this argument that, on the ground, and against people like McCain, he would flounder, or is unproven, is getting increasingly difficult to sustain.
For all the 35 years of nuts-and-bolts experience Hillary offers, just look at her campaign -- constantly flailing, re-tooling, re-messaging, distorting, self-pitying, etc -- if you want to get a taste of her leadership qualities. You may mock Barack's golden tongue, but, while his soaring rhetoric is certainly an important aspect of his success, he has also proven himself to be a superb strategist, organizer, executive, and, generally, a consistently effective "pugilist," while maintaining coherence, dignity, and thoughtfulness.
I haven't seen any flailing though one staffer did step down - big deal. I'll take Clinton's flow, and experience over Obama's divisiveness, corruption and insubstantiality any day of the week.
It's a question at this point in time, whether voters in essential blue states who supported Clinton, will actually show up to vote for Obama. He's been so dishonest, so inflammatory and so divisive that I don't that that he can get Democrats to the polls. I won't vote for a Republican, but I won't vote for Obama and I know I'm not alone. I won't help put a misogynist who moves our party to the right on critical issues like universal healthcare in office. He wants to do the bidding of the health insurance industry, he can do it without my help.
Lorelynn, I'm sure you're not alone, but I seriously doubt there are enough people out there who think Barack is a misogynist, dishonest, divider (!) to throw the election to McCain. I'm not worried. On the other hand, it's pretty well documented that the number of people who wouldn't vote for Hillary if hell froze over is quite high.
I still remember Sen. Byrd w/ a blank check urging the US Senate not to give Bush the blank check. Even I knew that Iraq did not pose an imminent threat to our security at that time. Clinton and the others that went along with it did so for political purposes. It is ironic that now she is going to pay the price for her blind political ambition.
So does this mean that you would make a good Presidential candidate? Or is it more complicated than that?
REH
Dear Joe Wilson,
You are one of my favorites but I think you are dead wrong on Obama.
I heard you speak at the World Affairs Conference in Boulder in 2007 and I heard you speak after Vallerie at the Lensic Theatre in Santa Fe. In both cases you showed passion for the issues of our time and real intelligence. But, for me, your concern about Barack Obama stands in sharp contrast.
I’d like to make an analogy. Consider this to be like the world heavy weight championship. I don’t know if you are old enough to remember when Cassius Clay defeated Sonny Liston. The fact is that Clay was the underdog yet the strength of his youth and intelligence dominated the power of age and experience.
How and why did Cassius Clay become Ali? He moved past stereotypes and faced down critics and opponents with poetry. He used intelligence in the form of the “rope-a-dope” to confound aggressors and change the name of the game. He did “float like a butterfly and sting like a bee”. Consider how that sounded as a plan to defend a “fighter's” title.
Isn’t it just possible that Obama may be smarter than the muscle bound elites and quicker to understand the aggressors? Why did Ali become the best known person on the planet? Consider that the public’s enthusiasm for what Obama brings to the party is a form of recognition that this man may also change the world!
I knew Muhammad Ali, I worked with Muhammad Ali and sir, Barack Obama is no Muhammad Ali.
Thank god Obama isn't! Back in the '70's, I used to be a neighbor of Ali's in Cherry Hill, NJ. Ali was a great fighter, but not the most intelligent when it came to his personal life.
arizonawonder, that is so corny! Go get a life!
No disrespect to your analogy, but exacly when did Clay or Ali run for president? I cant see the comparison. Barack is NOT an underdog; he is in a dead heat with another, equally talented opponent. And my view is that he has NEVER been as much an underdog as the media originally portrayed him, that was just a campaign ploy.
"George Bush made it clear publicly when lobbying for the bill that he wanted it not to go to war but to give him the leverage he needed to go to the United Nations and secure intrusive inspections of Saddam's suspected Weapons of Mass Destruction sites."
Bullshit. Anybody with an ounce of sense knew Bush was intent on invading Iraq and effecting "regime change". As far as the 2002 NIE is concerned, the classified version (to which Clinton was privy) contained reservations that were omitted from the unclassified version. Ie, it provided LESS support for Bush than the public version. Does nobody remember the hysteria gripping the public and the media? A solid majority of Americans supported the attack at the time. Obama courageously spoke out against it. He got it right the first time. As Mike Gravel said in the debates, anybody who voted for the AUMF lacks the judgement to be President.
I didn't bother reading the rest. I respect Ambassador Wilson for the courage he showed in 2003, but he's totally wrong on this debate.
You claim that, “Barack Obama claims to represent the future, but it should be increasingly evident that he is not the man for this moment.” It is clear that you are defining the moment in terms relating to your bias based on your notions of foreign policy. Judging by Obama’s affect on journalists (both here and abroad), his momentum and the large voter turnout you have clearly missed the people’s bias. Furthermore, it is ironic that Bill Clinton had no foreign policy record when he won the White House, but rather won on a platform of change fueled by domestic discontent.
You title your piece, “Battle Tested,” unfortunately you are referring to a battle the most Americans are sick and tired of hearing about. We Americans are sick and tired of using our tax dollars so people can have a better life in Iraq and Afghanistan. Me and my all friends would much rather see our tax dollars reinvested in America and not on ideological schemes contrived by people that never had to work for anything and grew up in country clubs.
We Americans are sick of the Bushokleptocracy. We are sick of watching our elected officials fly around in corporate jets, be courted by lobbyists, and then when it comes time to vote, they vote for their lobbyist backers and not their constituents. When was the last time Mrs. Clinton had to make a choice between paying $3.50 for gas and buying milk? Last time I checked, folks that have 5 million to spend on anything have little chance of really understanding the challenges facing ordinary Americans. Unfortunately the Clintons bought into the same country club as the Bushes and they have been there for the last 25 years. You could call is guilty by association or just bad timing and they may try to hide it with a liberal agenda but make no mistake about it, the Clintons are VIP in the Bushokleptocracy.
Enter Barack Obama stage left. Maybe me and all my friends won’t be misunderstood anymore. Maybe the world will change. Sincerely, Joe Calderon
Dear Joseph C. Wilson IV,
What you fail to address is the fact that there are other considerations on the minds of the American public. Domestic concerns are more pressing for most of us. The Clintons are transparent to those of us who are sick of a failed political system in Washington D.C. Our money goes to rebuild other countries while the US infrastructure continues to deteriorate. Our time is not spent with our children; we have been forced to keep both parents at work while our children wander around. Our determining factors chosen to indicate greatness continue to slip year after year so much that it has become laughable e.g. health care, education, life expectancy, etc. Folks in America just accept that we are becoming a third world country-I hear it all the time. All the while, we watch Mr. Clinton become wealthy participating in international deals that appear to be scandalous, we watch Mrs. Clinton donate 5 million dollars of her own money to her campaign (where did she get 5 million dollars to throw away? Isn’t she a life long public servant?), we watch them fly around in corporate jets, eat at expensive dinners, party at galas with felons, deny and lie. At this point maybe it’s just the blacks that previously voted for Jesse Jackson and those pesky little democratic activists in the caucus states that believe in Obamatism but I don’t believe it to be true. We have waited for the world to change and it looks like it is about to happen. That is why we see a tidal wave of new participants. Folks who have never participated in the system are showing up in droves.
continued...
So well written...You state quite clearly the problems missed overall in this particular blog that deal with the state of our country and the Clintons as your evidence supports. We intelligent people have seen through the Clinton mystique and have realized underneath the surface there is a whole lot of shadiness, slickness, inconsistencies, "mistruths". We are sick of what has become of our system and our country overall and elevating HRC (another senator, along with McCain, I might add to all of you "senators do not make good presidents" commenters) would just perpetuate the "cancer" that is ruining this once great nation.
Well said! You have verbalized what I have been thinking for quite some time now.
For all the Obamamania, you would think his inspired followers would want to know about his record, what he has done and hasn't done. You would think they would want to know what they are talking about instead of regurgitating talking points and venom. From reading these comments, a lot of the folks don't know what they are talking about.
McCain and the Repubs won't be overlooking the inconsistencies, half truths and total falsehoods such as:
NYT
"Obama told Iowa voters earlier in the campaign that ''I've passed'' a bill requiring nuclear power companies to disclose leaks from their plants.
The bill did not pass the Senate. It merely survived committee scrutiny, in weakened form, without coming to a Senate vote."
Obamamania will give us President McCain.
"Obamamania will give us President McCain." Oh how you are so in the "Kool-Aid" haze - why do you think McCain is already attacking Obama? Why do you think every neo-con is speaking up about supporting HRC? They want HRC to win, because they know they stand a chance of winning the Presidency again if they run against her! They are looking at a legacy of HRC inconsistencies, half truths, and total falsehoods and are salivating at the prospects of using them to their advantage when running against her. Obama scares them - there is no such record and even the one you state is more a question of semantics than a real bonafide issue.
It's all such fatuous self-delusion, really.
9. As for Obama being a fighter...
1. If he can continue to build this coalition, he may not have to fight as much
2. Pick your battles
3. Your example of this so called fight over email is a rediculous example. Please!
4. Clinton has come after Obama but he's still standing
5. While Clinton may be more vetted, I do not buy the arguement that she has beaten the GOP. The NY senate race was always going to go democratic and no way can you say she was going to loose that race. She (not Bill, but Hillary) has faced the GOP in the court of public opinion, but not in a campaign. If she can't even have the foresight to have alternative strategies in this campaign, and good away Obama, what chance does she have against the GOP.
6. Clinton tried to fight, fight, fight against the GOP for health care in Bill's first term. What did that give us? A GOP congress for the first time in years.
7. I'd rather get something done w.r.t. health care, social security, disparity between rich and poor, and other issues, then nothing done. There are times to fight, and times to compromise for the common good to move forward. Your married - do you always get your way 100% of the time? Stand for what you believe in, but you can't fight and refuse to compromise at times. That leads to divorce!
Back to Obama vs. Clinton. Clinton is knowledgable of the issues and a bright lady. Obama is also very bright and has had great success in his other positions. Why I support Obama and not Clinton:
1. I don't buy into the Clinton experience arguement. Obama actually has more experience as an elected official (state & US senate), but has just not been on the national scene as long as Clinton.
2. For all of Clinton's experience, she has run a poor campaign for someone with the brand name she has and the 'inevitable' arguement that she had behind the scenes
3. Her tight control of the campaign, positions based on loyality vs. experience, the group of "the five" ( http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=75e41edb-784d-4f9a-ba6e-08cab93d09ae ), and lack of a campaign plan beyond super tuesday - does not inspire confidence in her leadership ability and smells somewhat of the loyalty vs. competence problems in the Bush administration.
4. Obama's accomplishments, leadership, and management skills are evident by the campaign he has run, the people he is bringing together, and the excitement that he has helped generate.
5. I've been disapointed with the lack of Hillary's openness - ranging from refusal to release tax return to her website's control over comments in the blog.
6. Clinton's team mismanaged money. She raised more than Obama in 2007, yet had to loan her campaign $5M before Super Tuesday?
7. Clinton's team's refusal to improve her image problem puts her at 47% of the country already against her. Unfortunate and I do not agree, but this seems apparent.
8. Clinton's *tone* in the dismissal of Caucus states Obama has won is troublesome and presents a feeling of 'those states and those that came out to vote are not as important as the big states'. So what is the excuse in VA now? That was a primary and was suppose to be close, but Obama won by 19 points.
Good list, JP12. I have not been a huge "Bama-maniac" but I am delighted that _SOMEONE_ has stepped up and exposed the rotten DLC big-biz, we-love-lobbyists, cozy-with-credit-extortionists, we-support-the-war-lobby, Dianne Feinstein/Joe Lieberman/Zell Miller wing of the "Democratic" Party.
And ONLY because of the Obama campaign's success have we learned that... for a half a dozen years, HILLARY WAS A DUTIFULLY QUIET WalMart BOARD MEMBER... at a time when WalMart WAS ENERGETICALLY BUSTING UNIONS!
If that was the ONLY thing we learned from the Obama campaign, I would be grateful.
How about Hillary's handling of the "FILE-GATE" so-called scandal the Republicans used against her in 1993? Given that Bush & Cheney have been spying on any and all Americans they choose to - since, we now know, the day they were inaugurated - the fact that Repubs made Hillary's alledged looking at files of Republicans possibly involved in giving Bill's passport history to the Bush Sr. campaign in 1992 was a tempest-in-a-teapot. But Hillary NEVER diffused that faux-scandal, leading even supporters such as myself and others, all through the 1990s, with a bad taste in our mouths.
And now, as Robert Parry ConsortiumNews.comm) points out, Bill Clinton's many trips abroad with Bush Sr., while ostensibly for charity work & disaster relief, undoubtebly signal that a (Hillary) Clinton restoration will mean a QUASHING of any and all future criminal probes into Bush-Cheney's many past abuses. Thanks! to the Obama campaign, for spelling out what we all knew all along, but were afraid to mention (since we so desperately wanted a viable Democratic candidate): that while Bill Clinton is playing footsie with Bush Sr., and while Hillary is playing footsie with RUPERT MURDOCH and the Joe Lieberman wing of the "Democratic" Party, they sound like they believe they are just as entitled as Bush Jr.
I like the part where Obama reaches out to voters, tells us we need to work together, where Michelle tells us Barack is not going to let us sit uninvolved for four years, eight years. I am so longing for someone to stand up and say what the fun of being an American was. Can do was fun. We could take on any challenge and show the world our answers. We were proud of what a free people dedicated to each other could do. Something like the energy crisis should be a national hot dog delight.
So different than "go shopping."
So different than Hillary promising to do everything for us, deliver everything to us.
Joe - I appreciate all that you and Valerie have been through and the service, insight, and judgement you've provided to the country. And I do agree that it is possible and perhaps even likely that Obama would have been persuaded by Powell, and the intelligence reports. In my opinion, this debate is one of the reasons Senators typically do not make for good Presidential candidates. In fact, in the age of TV debates and now new media, many Senators have tried and failed. Why one thinks the Senate is a good breading ground for Presidential wanna-bees, is beyond me.
We have only had one president in the last century who was a senator and that was Kennedy. And we will never know if in the end he would have truly been a great President or not. But there is absolutely nothing about the Senate that makes one a great President. The fact of the matter is that our great Presidents generally come from diverse backgrounds with a wide variety of experience and are generally marked as people of character and wisdom. Hillary does not have a good character nor is she truly wise. She may be smart and clever, but she doesn't have a wise bone in her body.
Barack is clearly wise. He sees things as they should be and is clearly able to effectuate things into action- look at how he's run his campaign, organized, managed his money and kept a consistent message. He's beat the heck out of the Clinton machine. And he'll do the same with McCain who is nothing more than a nothing failed presidential candidate from Arizona.
McCain = the Barry Goldwater of the 21st Century.
When you describe your candidate, you sound more like a lover than a voter. You say your guy beat the heck out of the Clinton machine. How come, then, they are nearly tied ? Is this some kind of affirmative action argument ?
Yes Hillary is tough. She's had to be to
survive all the MISTAKES AND MONEY GRUBBING ESCAPDES she's foisted upon herself. And us!
Not sure we need someone who climbs out of
perfidy over and over. HOW ABOUT someone who
goes on the smoother path of right and reason
and getting it done right the first time. Good judgement, follow through.
Less time cosuming, less ego grabbing, more time for governing and diplomacy OUTWARD.
More drama from the crummy, dishonest Clintons?
Please, no.
The Clintons have never had much money and by the time this campaign is over they probably will be as broke as the rest of us. Money has never been the end all be all for the Clintons. I'm not sure that they even owned much more than a modest home prior to their New York home. If it was about money for them, they could have made a killing being trial lawyers, or lobbiest. The Clintons actually give a damn about good governance, and about the future of this country.
Ummm...EXCUSE ME? They are BOTH multi-millionaires.
I don't know what planet you are living on, but I'm glad I'm not there.
Great work Mr. Wilson.
I am so tired of all the crap that Hillry has to put up with. It ia absolutely mind boggling.
It is good to see someone also show us some of the bad side of Obama.
We don't seem to hear much about his dealings with a person of questionable character in Illinois do we ----I wonder why.
Please try to get your story to many of the papers in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania so that the other side of Obama can be considered.
Again, thanks to you and your wife for all you done for our country.
Joe Wilson and his wife, Valery Plame Wilson, have shown their character, grit and determination through some extraordinary political circumstances. It is interesting that Hillary Clinton reached out to them many times while they were being put through a ghastly ordeal. Where was Obama? Joe Wilson's piece is a thorough debunking of the Obama myth and of Obama's record. Thank you, Ambassador Wilson, for your courage to once again speak the truth!
It's absurd that we don't hear about the so called questionable person. I wonder how long the list would be if we did the same thing with Hillary and Bill. Get real, between the Keating mess and Monica Hillary and John McCain are clearly not being straight with the american people. YOU KNOW THEY ARE THE ONLY ONE'S THAT WON'T RELEASE THEIR TAX RETURNS! I WONDER WHY?
And where did you read that they were the only ones who haven't released their tax returns, or did you just make that up in order to have something to say ?
Yeah, where do these people get off...QUESTIONING her...asking her to...TAKE COHERENT STANDS ON THE ISSUES...all this crap she has to put up with about antiquated notions like "integrity" and- snicker- "HONESTY."
I mean, come ON, weren't people paying attention when Bill was president? Don't they know those ideas don't apply anymore? It's all about who can cynically manipulate the system.
Including you, right ?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
