Not a single news organization is reporting such a story (at least not a current one)...Fox News doesn't even have it on their website. I don't think this is going to happen.

According to the letter of the Constitution, its not possible. The twelfth amendment comes into effect on this because of the twenty-second amendment...at least in my reading of it. I'm no Constitutional scholar, mind you.

According to the letter of the Constitution, its not possible. The twelfth amendment comes into effect on this because of the twenty-second amendment...at least in my reading of it. I'm no Constitutional scholar, mind you.

Meh, Bill Clinton hasn't exactly been an asset to Hillary's campaign thus far.

Have you guys seen Hillary's latest attack ad? It really strikes me as more desperate than anything else.

"It's 3am and your children are safe and asleep. But there's a phone in the White House and it's ringing. Something's happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call. Whether it's someone who already knows the world's leaders, knows the military; someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world. It's 3am and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone? *Hillary answers phone*"

The Obama campaign's response: she already answered the phone in 2002, it was George Bush calling and he wanted to know if he could invade Iraq.

Wow...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/030...t_his_word.html

SCANDALOUS!

Or not, really. A winking rejection of something questionable about an opponent she's locked into a statistical dead-heat with in key states that could save her campaign? The gall of her--or anyone--resorting to politics!

The cosmic ballet goes on.

But it's not really questionable. It's verifiable that it's false. I mean, sure, none of us can truly know the mind of Obama, and he could be involved in some super intense hoax on the American people - but it's as much fact as anything she's ever said about herself can be to the rest of us.

She would have earned a lot of respect from me if she'd said something more like, "He's not, but so what if he was? Get a life, jerk off." But I get that that would've been campaign suicide.

So, as morally shaky as it is, how is it not par for the course? I know the Obama love/Clinton hate thing is predominant here, but there's a damn good reason the Obama campaign fails to ever mention Barack's middle name, and Clinton ran with it. By saying all she has to go on is what Obama has claimed, she isn't lying, but she's planted that kernel of doubt using well-placed inflection that will maybe, just maybe, tip some folks over the edge. Well played, Clinton.

That is the one thing that's gone unmentioned in all of this...What exactly WOULD be wrong with someone being a Muslim?That's the most insidious aspect of this whole thing IMO. And while I'm not surprised when I see such xenophobic attitudes from the right, it's downright shocking to me to see it from the left. Clinton didn't do herself any favors at all with that comment, assuming that she intended nothing by it... assuming that she didn't deliberately phrase her comments in such a way as to invite doubt.This is worth reading:http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

So you've got no problem with her (potentially -- benefit of the doubt here) throwing the entire Muslim population of the world under a bus, not to mention playing to one of the most scurrilous and UNTRUE rumors that is circulating only among people who either a) are ignorant or b) have an agenda, just for the sake of pulling her own political ass out of the fire when she can't win on issues?

Pie in the sky is fine and dandy, but I've got a feeling I'll be getting my universal health care ID card in the mail the same day the political climate in this country becomes something I can actually be proud of and not someting I scoff at due to the sheer damage every aspect of it does, from top to bottom. Which, I'm guessing, will be the fourth of never.

But seriously, I'd love to be proven wrong on both fronts.

Man.. you guys read waaaay more into her words and intentions than is credible. The issue would not be about whether being a Muslim is wrong or not but whether he's intentionally covering something up that the public is afraid of (whether that fear is appropriate or not).

"I think there's just a lot more tea-leaf reading going on here than I think people are suggesting." -- Barack Obama.
Listen to the man. It doesn't just apply in one direction.

Yeah, but it's the rest of the American public who need to read the snopes article, seeing as their the doofs with the issues in the first place. But I don't see anything Clinton said as "playing off it".

Not familiar with the issue about Farrakhan, but while he doesn't seem like someone to buddy up with, calling on Obama to denounce and reject him probably isn't necessary either. One of many reasons I'd prefer to see Obama win this ticket.

My point is that "I take him at his word" and "as far as I know" are traditional "non-denial denial" political phrases. She knows perfectly well (as does anyone else who bothers to watch / read the news) that Obama has never been Muslim, so there's no need at all for her to equivocate on it. Now, as I said above, I can give her the benefit of the doubt -- maybe she just kept talking when she should have STFU'D and ran out of ways to say it. But I have a hard time believing that it was completely unintentional.

*voted*

*plans to caucus tonight*

*gets angry at Hillary when she contests Texas's "complex primary system"*

(CNN) – As Hillary Clinton battles to keep her presidential bid alive, she may be getting help from an unlikely source: conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh.

Limbaugh has been actively urging his Texas listeners to cross over and vote for Clinton in that state's open primary Tuesday, arguing it helps the Republicans if the Democratic race remains unsettled for weeks to come.

"I want Hillary to stay in this…this is too good a soap opera," Limbaugh told fellow conservative talk-show host Laura Ingraham on Fox News Friday. He reiterated the comments on his Monday show and replayed the exchange with Ingram.

He also said Clinton is more willing than the Republican National Committee and John McCain's campaign to criticize Barack Obama.

"We need Barack Obama bloodied up politically. It's obvious that the Republicans are not going to do it, they don't have the stomach for it," Limbaugh continued. "As you probably know we're getting all kinds of memos from the RNC saying we're not going to be critical. Mark McKinnon of McCain's campaign said he'll quit if they get critical over Obama. This is the presidency of the United States we're talking about. I want our party to win I want the Democrats to lose.”

Help her win now so we can beat her later.

On the local conservative radio stations, many Republicans are calling and complaining about feeling “disenfranchised”.

Apparently, they didn’t realize that by implementing Rush Limbaugh’s strategy of voting for Hillary in the Primaries to prolong the Democrats fist-fight, they would not be allowed to vote for any of the Republicans on the rest of the ballot.

D'oh!

Source.