Fact checker

***WARNING: The end of this post contains a very disturbing link. I'd like to find a way to verify, and those who know me know that I don't let things like this die without digging into it.


Yesterday I erroneously posted a slam against Senator Clinton's statements concerning winning Ohio. I removed it. I watched more clips of her making assertions about winning Ohio, and she was referring to the primaries. And so now I can continue with my fact checking ways.



1.) Ohio is so far down the line during primaries that the nominee is usually already decided by the time they vote.

2.) She's still wrong. Maybe she meant as far as she can remember. Ohio primaries picked the loser in 1912, 1932, 1952, 1960, 1964, and 1968.


Other errors [lies?]



The Canadian Government now says that it was the Clinton campaign who contacted them to downplay NAFTA shootout. Whatever. Let's not turn this into a we said/they said debate between two governments.


Big questions on both sides


Hillary made a huge deal out of her 2000 New York opponent to release his tax returns. She hasn't released any of her own since. After going bankrupt during the Whitewater trial, people want to know where all of this money has come from to grant loans to her campaign.

What happened during travelgate? Google it. Hillary seems to have had a key figure and 7 staff fired in the White House travel office, bringing in the FBI and attempting to have a man who headed up the office for 7 presidents jailed. [He was aquitted by a jury in under 2 hours]. She replaced the folks who were given an hour notice to clear their desks with her own people.

Why, oh why did she bring up Rezko? Must we re-live the Whitewater mini series? Well, yes. Obama billed the non-profit 5-7 hours to file papers, but not for Rezko. Conversely, Clinton billed the Rose Law firm 60 hours and had significant input on the land deal that sent the McDougald's to jail, [James McDougald died in jail a few weeks before he was to be released]. It seems as if the kitchen sinks that she's chosen to throw at Obama ARE FULL OF HER OWN DIRTY DISHES.

As far as Obama goes, it seems as if both sides have talked to the Canadians about NAFTA. So what? Maybe.

Granted, I am currently a die-hard Obama supporter, and I love to know the truth. I want people to be who they say they are. I think that uniting the American people is a tougher job than getting our enemies to the bargaining table. There's probably a variety of reasons why masses of people are behind this man. To read and hear insipid remarks about why we support him is condenscending. I admire his stand on maintaining his integrity and never stooping to the low levels of traditional politicking. The big question I have is how will he get her off of him and still maintain his position without a serious counter-attack. How can he do it without crossing that fine line of not hitting a woman? I cannot figure this one out and I pose this question to the other smart people like Barack. In the meantime, those of lower intelligence like myself will continue to write scathing anti-Hillary blogs.



Downright disturbing


The Clintons seem to have a certain affinity to use the "N" word and negative references to Jews. See interview from a long-time personal bodyguard. Cut and paste until i figure out how to make this a clickable link.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/821899/posts?page=1