PDA

View Full Version : Clinton-papers release blocked (not her tax filings)


pikesome
03-07-2008, 03:05 PM
Clinton-papers release blocked
By Peter Eisler, USA TODAY
LITTLE ROCK — Federal archivists at the Clinton Presidential Library are blocking the release of hundreds of pages of White House papers on pardons that the former president approved, including clemency for fugitive commodities trader Marc Rich.

The archivists' decision, based on guidance provided by Bill Clinton that restricts the disclosure of advice he received from aides, prevents public scrutiny of documents that would shed light on how he decided which pardons to approve from among hundreds of requests.

Clinton's legal agent declined the option of reviewing and releasing the documents that were withheld, said the archivists, who work for the federal government, not the Clintons.

The decision to withhold the records could provide fodder for critics who say that the former president and his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, now seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, have been unwilling to fully release documents to public scrutiny.

Officials with the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., criticized Hillary Clinton this week for not doing more to see that records from her husband's administration are made public. "She's been reluctant to disclose information," Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, told reporters in a conference call in which he specifically cited the slow release records from the Clinton library. "If she's not willing to be open with (voters) on these issues now, why would she be open as president?"

In January 2006, USA TODAY requested documents about the pardons under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The library made 4,000 pages available this week. However, 1,500 pages were either partially redacted or withheld entirely, including 300 pages covering internal White House communications on pardon decisions, such as memos to and from the president, and reports on which pardon requests the Justice Department opposed.

In a statement, the Clinton campaign said that "all of the redactions made to the pardon-related documents were made by (the National Archives)."

Former president Clinton issued 140 pardons on his last day in office, including several to controversial figures, such as commodities trader Rich, then a fugitive on tax evasion charges. Rich's ex-wife, Denise, contributed $2,000 in 1999 to Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign; $5,000 to a related political action committee; and $450,000 to a fund set up to build the Clinton library.

The president also pardoned two men who each paid Sen. Clinton's brother, Hugh Rodham, about $200,000 to lobby the White House for pardons — one for a drug conviction and one for mail fraud and perjury convictions, according to a 2002 report by the House committee on government reform. After the payments came to light, Bill Clinton issued a statement: "Neither Hillary nor I had any knowledge of such payments," the report said.

The pardon records released by the library divulge little that might settle debate about those and other pardons. But they do shed new light on the volume of clemency requests that former president Clinton received — and the pressures he and his staff faced as friends, advisers, political leaders and foreign heads of state weighed in to influence which petitions would be granted.

The files contain handwritten letters from several of the president's close associates. Former Democratic Party chairman Donald Fowler of South Carolina wrote a note seeking clemency for former congressman John Jenrette, D-S.C., who was convicted in the 1980 Abscam sting in which FBI agents, posing as Middle Eastern businessmen, offered lawmakers bribes for political favors. Clinton did not grant the pardon.

Most of the withheld documents, including dozens of clemency pleas sent to the president, were blocked from release under FOIA rules that protect personal privacy. The 300 pages of internal White House documents on pardon requests were blocked under the Presidential Records Act of 1978, which allows presidents to maintain the confidentiality of communications with their advisers for up to 12 years after they leave office.

In 2002, Clinton sent a guidance letter to his library that urged quick release of most White House records but retained the confidentiality prerogative covering advice from his staff. Still, Clinton said the restriction should be interpreted "narrowly" and allowed that certain records detailing internal communications could be made public if reviewed and approved for release by his designated legal agent.

Emily Robison, the library's deputy director, said Clinton's agent, former deputy White House counsel Bruce Lindsey, chose not to review the withheld documents.

Lindsey "was given the opportunity to look at what we withheld under the (president's) guidelines, and he chose not to. … Only Mr. Lindsey and the president have the authority to open those," she said.

The William J. Clinton Foundation, which Lindsey helps oversee, said in a written statement that the National Archives is responsible for deciding which records are withheld under the Presidential Records Act. Archivists were exclusively responsible for "determinations with respect to these materials," the statement said.

Clinton's guidance to the library goes beyond his predecessors, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, in urging that most of his presidential records be released quickly, according to Tom Blanton of the National Security Archive, a research institute at George Washington University that collects government records for public use.

Blanton noted that Lindsey's refusal to review the withheld documents could be viewed as an effort to ensure the archivists' independence. "He's saying the professional archivists get to make this determination; it's not a political determination."

The archivists' decision to withhold records that could be construed as confidential communications between Clinton and his advisers is more consistent with the Bush administration's hard line on the release of White House records, Blanton said.

President Bush signed an order in November 2001 that broadened former presidents' prerogative to block the release of internal White House records. That order, which Bill Clinton opposed, also allows a president's immediate family to assert the privilege.

In 2004, Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest group, went to court to force the Bush administration to release Justice Department records on Clinton's pardons, and a federal judge ordered that the records be opened. But the administration, which argued that such releases would undermine a president's ability to get confidential advice, blacked out most of the documents it made public.

Christopher Farrell, a Judicial Watch director, noted that the pardon records blocked by the library also included all Justice Department reports that were sent to Clinton with recommendations on which clemency requests he should deny. He said it was "ridiculous" to withhold clemency petitions over privacy concerns. "These are people who were convicted in a court, and those cases are a matter of public record."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-03-06-clinton-library-foia_N.htm?csp=34

Amnorix
03-07-2008, 03:08 PM
Note well that the decision is being made by federal archivists, not the Clintons.

pikesome
03-07-2008, 03:13 PM
Note well that the decision is being made by federal archivists, not the Clintons.

The archivists' decision, based on guidance provided by Bill Clinton that restricts the disclosure of advice he received from aides, prevents public scrutiny of documents that would shed light on how he decided which pardons to approve from among hundreds of requests.

Because he told them not to release it.

Clinton's legal agent declined the option of reviewing and releasing the documents that were withheld, said the archivists, who work for the federal government, not the Clintons.

And then his legal agent wouldn't review the stuff and change the instructions.


Are we reading the same article?

Cave Johnson
03-07-2008, 03:21 PM
Beat me to it, pike.

pikesome
03-07-2008, 03:29 PM
I'd like to point out I wouldn't say he has to release this info. But when Hillary's running on her time as First Lady (to varying degrees), papers like this become more interesting. And failure to let people read them makes people suspicious.

Amnorix
03-07-2008, 03:40 PM
Because he told them not to release it.



And then his legal agent wouldn't review the stuff and change the instructions.


Are we reading the same article?

Yes, but we're applying our own prejudices to it.

The way I read it, waaay back whenever, Clinton (contrary to Reagan and Bush 1) told archivists to quickly release nearly everythign, but to generally keep confidential recommendations from assistants from being released, which was entirely legal. This could be overruled by Clinton's attorney or whoever it was.

Now, fast-forward several years later, and people are complaining that they aren't getting these confidential records. The archivists are saying it's standard operating procedure, and Clinton's attorney is basically not going to get involved and overrule the standard procedure.

So I dont' see any of this as a big deal, especially as nobody would care except to use it against the guys' wife.

Cochise
03-07-2008, 03:41 PM
One observation I've been meaning to make is that all the baarack people seem to be spending 100% of their time lately firing salvo after salvo at Clinton. I haven't heard a word about him seemingly in weeks.

It gives the candidacy a "ABH" feel, if it ever was anything else. Probably not that wise.

Amnorix
03-07-2008, 03:41 PM
I'd like to point out I wouldn't say he has to release this info. But when Hillary's running on her time as First Lady (to varying degrees), papers like this become more interesting. And failure to let people read them makes people suspicious.

In fact, he clearly does NOT have to release this info. Further, he has clearly released MORE info MORE quicly than Reagan or Bush 1.

Or than Bush 2 will, because Bush 2 is nearly Hitler-like in his paranoid need for secrecy and loyalty.

And what hubby's decisions have to do with Hillary, I have no idea really, though it's equally clear that that is the ONLY reason why anyone cares about this stuff in 2008.

Amnorix
03-07-2008, 03:42 PM
One observation I've been meaning to make is that all the baarack people seem to be spending 100% of their time lately firing salvo after salvo at Clinton. I haven't heard a word about him seemingly in weeks.

It gives the candidacy a "ABH" feel, if it ever was anything else. Probably not that wise.


"ABH"?

Cochise
03-07-2008, 03:42 PM
anybody but Hillary.

mikey23545
03-07-2008, 03:47 PM
Yes, but we're applying our own prejudices to it.

The way I read it, waaay back whenever, Clinton (contrary to Reagan and Bush 1) told archivists to quickly release nearly everythign, but to generally keep confidential recommendations from assistants from being released, which was entirely legal. This could be overruled by Clinton's attorney or whoever it was.

Now, fast-forward several years later, and people are complaining that they aren't getting these confidential records. The archivists are saying it's standard operating procedure, and Clinton's attorney is basically not going to get involved and overrule the standard procedure.

So I dont' see any of this as a big deal, especially as nobody would care except to use it against the guys' wife.

Wow, one snake lawyer defending another....A real shocker.

pikesome
03-07-2008, 03:48 PM
Yes, but we're applying our own prejudices to it.

The way I read it, waaay back whenever, Clinton (contrary to Reagan and Bush 1) told archivists to quickly release nearly everythign, but to generally keep confidential recommendations from assistants from being released, which was entirely legal. This could be overruled by Clinton's attorney or whoever it was.

Now, fast-forward several years later, and people are complaining that they aren't getting these confidential records. The archivists are saying it's standard operating procedure, and Clinton's attorney is basically not going to get involved and overrule the standard procedure.

So I dont' see any of this as a big deal, especially as nobody would care except to use it against the guys' wife.

The fight over the pardon info has been going on since he did it 8+ years ago. Barack and Co are just the latest and the loudest.

I am a bit biased, I'm 100% sure Bill did sell those pardons. Which, AFAIK, isn't illegal but pretty damn scummy.

And of course it's going to be used against Hillary, even if she hadn't tried to run on her WH time (which she has), being tied to that kind of backroom dealing, even by innuendo, ties perfectly with Obama's talk of being different and better because he's above all that crap. Which he probably isn't but...

Carlota69
03-07-2008, 03:51 PM
One observation I've been meaning to make is that all the baarack people seem to be spending 100% of their time lately firing salvo after salvo at Clinton. I haven't heard a word about him seemingly in weeks.

It gives the candidacy a "ABH" feel, if it ever was anything else. Probably not that wise.

Yep. what I would like to see more of is the BO campaign is a more aggressive approach regarding stances and policies.

For instance, they screamed about what 'foreign policy experience?", then the HRC camp fired back with Kosovo, Ireland, China blah blah...they never fired back with the weakness of those arguements. They just responded with "Well, what about your tax records?" Sort of weak.

I want BO to show some BAAAWWWLLLLSSS!

pikesome
03-07-2008, 03:53 PM
In fact, he clearly does NOT have to release this info. Further, he has clearly released MORE info MORE quicly than Reagan or Bush 1.

Or than Bush 2 will, because Bush 2 is nearly Hitler-like in his paranoid need for secrecy and loyalty.

And what hubby's decisions have to do with Hillary, I have no idea really, though it's equally clear that that is the ONLY reason why anyone cares about this stuff in 2008.

Do you have some support for this? My understanding is that Bill's been very cagy with his administration's records.

And yes, Bush Jr isn't really doing a good job either. His behavior is unsupportable on this.

Cochise
03-07-2008, 03:59 PM
Yep. what I would like to see more of is the BO campaign is a more aggressive approach regarding stances and policies.

For instance, they screamed about what 'foreign policy experience?", then the HRC camp fired back with Kosovo, Ireland, China blah blah...they never fired back with the weakness of those arguements. They just responded with "Well, what about your tax records?" Sort of weak.

I want BO to show some BAAAWWWLLLLSSS!

he's not as strong in a campaign as in a beauty contest, that's why they stay away from it. certainly no one is going to choose Hillary just because they like her.

a1na2
03-07-2008, 04:06 PM
Seems like the libs went ballistic when this was posted a few days ago, where is the outrage now?

Presidential Records Reform Act of 2007

In November 2001, President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13233, which gave current and former presidents and vice presidents broad authority to withhold presidential records or delay their release indefinitely. “The Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007″ (H.R. 1255) would nullify the Bush executive order and establish procedures to ensure the timely release of presidential records.

STATUS:
On January 22, 2008, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) brought the “Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007″ (H.R. 1255) to the floor under the Senate’s unanimous consent rule that allows non-controversial bills to be considered on an expedited basis. However, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) became the latest Republican senator to publicly put a hold on the bill and blocked floor consideration.

Last September, Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) blocked a vote in the Senate on the bill, preventing floor action throughout the fall. However, on December 18, 2007, without explanation, Senator Bunning suddenly lifted his hold. The next day, Senator Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT) requested that the bill be passed. However, an anonymous Senator placed a secret hold on the bill.

Since the White House has not rescinded its threat to veto the bill, it is reasonable to assume that Senator Sessions is holding up the bill at the behest of the Administration. Senator Sessions gave no explanation on the floor as to why he was blocking the consideration of the presidential records bill.

Passage of the bill is even more important given the on-going controversy over the extent of missing e-mails from White House servers from 2003-2005. In response to questions in a federal court case, the White House recently admitted it had recycled its e-mail back-up tapes before October 2003 and only began retaining the back-ups starting at that point. The White House also admitted that “at this stage, this office does not know if any emails were not properly preserved in the archiving process,” in the period 2003-2005.

On October 1, a federal district court judge gave historians and researchers a partial, but significant victory in a lawsuit questioning the legality of Executive Order (EO) 13233. The judge struck down the section of the EO that allows a former president to indefinitely delay the release of records. In November, the Administration declined to appeal the judge’s decision.

On March 14, 2007, by a vote of 333-93, the U.S. House of Representatives approved H.R. 1255, the “Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007.” (H. Rept. 110-44)

BACKGROUND:
Under the Presidential Records Act, presidential records are supposed to be released to historians and the public 12 years after the end of a presidential administration. In November 2001, President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13233 that overturned an executive order issued by President Reagan and gave current and former presidents and vice presidents broad authority to withhold presidential records or delay their release indefinitely. The “Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2007” establishes procedures to ensure access to presidential records in the following way:

1.) Establish a Deadline for Review of Records. Under the Bush executive order, the Archivist must wait for both the current and former president to approve the release of presidential records, a review process that can continue indefinitely. Under the bill, the current and former president would have a set time period of no longer than 40 business days to raise objections to the release of these records by the Archivist.

2.) Limit the Authority of Former Presidents to Withhold Presidential Records. Under the Reagan executive order, a former president could request that the incumbent president assert a claim of executive privilege and thereby stop the release of the records. If the incumbent president decided not to assert executive privilege, however, the records would be released unless the former president could persuade a court to uphold the former president’s assertion of the privilege.

The Bush executive order reversed this process and required the incumbent president to sustain the executive privilege claim of the former president unless a person seeking access could persuade a court to reject the claim. In effect, the Bush order gave former presidents virtually unlimited authority to withhold presidential records through assertions of executive privilege. The legislation would restore the Reagan approach, giving the incumbent president the discretion to reject ill-founded assertions of executive privilege by former presidents.

3.) Require the President to Make Privilege Claims Personally. Under the Bush executive order, designees of the former president could assert privilege claims after the death of the president, in effect making the right to assert executive privilege an asset of the former president’s estate. The bill would make clear that the right to claim executive privilege is personal to current and former presidents and cannot be bequeathed to assistants, relatives, or descendants.

4.) Eliminate Executive Privilege Claims for Vice Presidents. In an unprecedented step, the Bush executive order authorized former vice presidents to assert executive privilege claims over vice presidential records. The bill restores the long-standing understanding that the right to assert executive privilege over presidential records is a right held only by presidents.

Carlota69
03-07-2008, 04:09 PM
he's not as strong in a campaign as in a beauty contest, that's why they stay away from it. certainly no one is going to choose Hillary just because they like her.

Agreed. I just hate the fact that she is showing/acting stronger than he is. She is suppose to be the one with a vagina, but I'm beginning to wonder.

a1na2
03-07-2008, 04:10 PM
Agreed. I just hate the fact that she is showing/acting stronger than he is. She is suppose to be the one with a vagina, but I'm beginning to wonder.

He doesn't have one, traditionally, but he knows where to get all he wants.

Carlota69
03-07-2008, 04:12 PM
He doesn't have one, traditionally, but he knows where to get all he wants.

All the fainting groupies at his rallys? I imagine so.

Cave Johnson
03-07-2008, 04:13 PM
Yep. what I would like to see more of is the BO campaign is a more aggressive approach regarding stances and policies.

For instance, they screamed about what 'foreign policy experience?", then the HRC camp fired back with Kosovo, Ireland, China blah blah...they never fired back with the weakness of those arguements. They just responded with "Well, what about your tax records?" Sort of weak.

I want BO to show some BAAAWWWLLLLSSS!

He should rip off her head and shit down her neck. That would show some balls.

Excuse my ignorance on her role in the IRA peace process or China, but Kosovo is hardly something to hold up as a foreign policy success. They cleaned up the tail end of a genocide/war after ignoring others on their watch (i.e. Rwanda, Bosnia). The problem is that the response is nuianced and doesn't sell newspapers.

http://www.alternet.org/audits/77546/?page=entire

Amnorix
03-07-2008, 04:14 PM
anybody but Hillary.

ah. thanks.

Amnorix
03-07-2008, 04:15 PM
Wow, one snake lawyer defending another....A real shocker.


Like you know anything about me except a bit of my politics and football loyalties. Piss off and stop deluding yourself.

Amnorix
03-07-2008, 04:17 PM
Do you have some support for this? My understanding is that Bill's been very cagy with his administration's records.

And yes, Bush Jr isn't really doing a good job either. His behavior is unsupportable on this.


Just from the article:

In 2002, Clinton sent a guidance letter to his library that urged quick release of most White House records but retained the confidentiality prerogative covering advice from his staff. Still, Clinton said the restriction should be interpreted "narrowly" and allowed that certain records detailing internal communications could be made public if reviewed and approved for release by his designated legal agent.

Clinton's guidance to the library goes beyond his predecessors, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, in urging that most of his presidential records be released quickly, according to Tom Blanton of the National Security Archive, a research institute at George Washington University that collects government records for public use.

Carlota69
03-07-2008, 04:17 PM
He should rip off her head and shit down her neck. That would show some balls.

Excuse my ignorance on her role in the IRA peace process or China, but Kosovo is hardly something to hold up as a foreign policy success. They cleaned up the tail end of a genocide/war after ignoring others on their watch (i.e. Rwanda, Bosnia). The problem is that the response is nuianced and doesn't sell newspapers.

http://www.alternet.org/audits/77546/?page=entire

Exactly my point. I'm sure there are many arguements against Kososvo, China etc...But after Clintons' peeps spouted that off, BO's camp replied with, "Well what your taxes?" What? No follow up to what she said? Why not? Weak--very weak.

Amnorix
03-07-2008, 04:19 PM
Seems like the libs went ballistic when this was posted a few days ago, where is the outrage now?

Don't confused limited confidential treatment with the broad-brush approach Bush 2 uses. That guy is Hitler-like in his paranoid zeal for secrecy and loyalty. Seriously, it's Nixonian-level disturbing.

Cave Johnson
03-07-2008, 04:31 PM
Exactly my point. I'm sure there are many arguements against Kososvo, China etc...But after Clintons' peeps spouted that off, BO's camp replied with, "Well what your taxes?" What? No follow up to what she said? Why not? Weak--very weak.

I'm sure it's coming, if it hasn't already. But he has to tread carefully, because only the Clintons (and their archivists) have access to their notes which show her involvement or lack thereof. It's entirely possible that she's sandbagging them.
____________________________________________

With a debate raging over which presidential candidate has the most experience and best judgment on world affairs, the Chicago Tribune examines Sen. Hillary Clinton's record:

Pressed in a CNN interview this week for specific examples of foreign policy experience that has prepared her for an international crisis, Clinton claimed that she "helped to bring peace" to Northern Ireland and negotiated with Macedonia to open up its border to refugees from Kosovo. She also cited "standing up" to the Chinese government on women's rights and a one-day visit she made to Bosnia following the Dayton peace accords.
Earlier in the campaign, she and her husband claimed that she had advocated on behalf of a U.S. military intervention in Rwanda to stop the genocide there.

But her involvement in the Northern Ireland peace process was primarily to encourage activism among women's groups there, a contribution that the lead U.S. negotiator described as "helpful" but that an Irish historian who has written extensively about the conflict dismissed as "ancillary" to the peace process.

The Macedonian government opened its border to refugees the day before Clinton arrived to meet with government leaders. And her mission to Bosnia was a one-day visit in which she was accompanied by performers Sheryl Crow and Sinbad, as well as her daughter, Chelsea, according to the commanding general who hosted her.

Whatever her private conversations with the president may have been, key foreign policy officials say that a U.S. military intervention in Rwanda was never considered in the Clinton administration's policy deliberations. Despite lengthy memoirs by both Clintons and former Secretary of State and UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright, any advice she gave on Rwanda had not been mentioned until her presidential campaign.

CNN, meanwhile, examined her statements case-by-case:

Northern Ireland
"I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland," Clinton said on CNN's American Morning on Wednesday. Video Watch more of Clinton's comments on the race »

A Washington Post blogger accused Clinton in January of exaggerating her involvement in Northern Ireland.

But former Democratic Senate majority leader George Mitchell, who was a U.S. special envoy to Northern Ireland, told CNN that while Clinton was not directly involved in negotiations, she did play a helpful role in bringing in women's groups that made a difference.

Mitchell is a Democratic superdelegate and has not publicly endorsed Clinton or Obama.

Rep. Peter King, a Republican from New York, was also involved in the process. He recalls one late-night meeting with former President Bill Clinton, Sen. Clinton and Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams.

"There was a discussion of how the IRA would decommission its weapons. And I know that Sen. Clinton was part of that meeting," King said.

Kosovo

"I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo," she said on CNN's American Morning.

In May of 1999, she was in Macedonia visiting refugee camps near the Kosovo border and meeting with Macedonia's president and prime minister.

Sources with knowledge of her visit say she discussed the refugees' plight with those leaders. It's not clear how much she helped since CNN reported at the time that Macedonia reopened its border to Kosovar refugees before Clinton's visit.

China

"I've been standing up against, you know, the Chinese government over women's rights and standing up for human rights in many different places," she said on CNN's American Morning.

During a 1995 visit to Beijing, at a time when her husband's administration was trying to press China on human rights, Sen. Clinton made a speech condemning abuses.
advertisement

"No one should be forced to remain silent for fear of religious or political persecution, arrest, abuse or torture," she said.

But a former National Security Council official in the Clinton administration says Clinton didn't attend NSC meetings. So while her experience is extensive, she rarely carried an official portfolio.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/07/clintons-experience-on-w_n_90398.html

a1na2
03-07-2008, 04:33 PM
[/color]

Don't confused limited confidential treatment with the broad-brush approach Bush 2 uses. That guy is Hitler-like in his paranoid zeal for secrecy and loyalty. Seriously, it's Nixonian-level disturbing.

I see that as a paranoid look at the situation coming from someone that hates Bush with every ounce of his being.

I feel much the same about Clinton, but I'm not as vocal about condeming what he did as you are about what you think Bush has done.

a1na2
03-07-2008, 04:35 PM
Like you know anything about me except a bit of my politics and football loyalties. Piss off and stop deluding yourself.

We know enough to see that you are as one sided as they come! Not much different from the rest of the posters, but still ... What more do we need to know?

Amnorix
03-08-2008, 01:17 AM
I see that as a paranoid look at the situation coming from someone that hates Bush with every ounce of his being.

I feel much the same about Clinton, but I'm not as vocal about condeming what he did as you are about what you think Bush has done.

You're the calm, cool voice of reason then? Thanks for the tip.

Amnorix
03-08-2008, 01:18 AM
We know enough to see that you are as one sided as they come! Not much different from the rest of the posters, but still ... What more do we need to know?

He wasn't denigrating my politics, but rather my profession and personality, as if I was the worst kind of ambulance chaser or whatever. Kindly follow the bouncing ball.

BucEyedPea
03-08-2008, 08:15 AM
There isn't that much difference between them on issues. What else is there to fight about?
Barak is more likable and less corrupt, imo.

pikesome
03-08-2008, 09:57 AM
There isn't that much difference between them on issues. What else is there to fight about?
Barak is more likable

Yes, even though that's not a difficult accomplishment.

and less corrupt, imo.

Probably.

unlurking
03-08-2008, 10:57 AM
With people like Mikey and Tom Gash, how the f*ck can people stand this forum?

a1na2
03-08-2008, 11:29 AM
He wasn't denigrating my politics, but rather my profession and personality, as if I was the worst kind of ambulance chaser or whatever. Kindly follow the bouncing ball.

We all knew better than that, our resident ambulance chaser is banyon.