Yep, that's what I did (after repeated tries). Next time, though, I won't put the entire URL within the text - I'll just call it "ABC News Story" or whatever it is.

I'm a programmer - you'd think I could figure this out LOL! I feel like a dunce but I'm sure I'll get the hang of it soon enough! :)

Thanks for the kind words!

Carol

Something I don't understand about Clinton's attacks on Obama is the way (and the article you linked provided one of a couple parallels here) that she keeps attacking him on issues where she isn't clean herself, much like the way she tried to criticize his legislative record as being less than substantial.

There's been a question in my mind all day long with regard to Hillary and McCain: Why do they do this? Why do they try to claim superiority on issues where they're vulnerable? Do they just not think anyone will challenge them on it?

With Clinton v. Obama it kind of makes sense to me because she really doesn't outclass him on much. She tried to tout experience, but that didn't seem to make a dent. She tried to criticize his rhetorical prowess, but the fact is that he's really just better at this than her and she's really only drawn attention to this.

With McCain I guess it makes sense to keep selling himself as a champion of ethical behavior because he never gets called on it.. or didn't get called on it until this week.

Even so, you see politicians do this all the time and it's one of those behaviors that I just don't understand. Glass houses, etc.

DF: Why did Obama promise to forego private election financing if his opponent did, but is now waffling? Why did Obama say that the Super Delegates should just follow the will of the voters, but then has paid them almost $1 million to secure their votes? Why has Obama attacked the pro-Clinton 527, when a similar group supported his cause in California? Why did Obama claim that he would not touch the retirement age for social security or the benefits level, but then said that every issue, including these remain on the table? Why did Obama attack Clinton for her clear waffle on the immigrant license issue, when he himself gave an incoherent answer on the issue himself? Why did Obama trash a labor union that supported Edwards' campaign in Iowa as a "special interest" but has now negotiated and secured an endorsement from the same group. Why does Obama base his entire campaign on "hope" and "change" but is using former Clinton staff in his team of advisors AND trotted out the Kennedys -- especially Ted Kennedy -- as his key endorsements (Kennedy -- who is only outranked in the Senate by Robert Byrd, whom Obama has paid to get his Super Delegate vote).

Why is Obama perceived in such innocent terms despite these contradictions? Why are failings in Clinton a sign of some horrible personality flaw, usually assigned to women of power?

Carol: I am trying to find information linking Clinton to the "terrorist" story. According to the NY Sun, they have not commented on the mattter.

Obama does not have to bring up Clinton baggage in specific terms because all he has to do is refer to it in broad language: "more of the same," "need a fresh face," "dumptruck of dirt," "politics as usual," and "divisive" are all ways of referencing the Republican attacks on the Clintons.

Also -- I would love to see one of Obama's fans comment on the list of contradictions I posted about Obama's "ethics." I continue to see comments saying that Clinton (and now McCain) call others on ethics when they are unethical. But no one has responded to the Obama contradictions. Why is he teflon don? He does get a free pass.

darren12000 -- Here are some observations on you list of 'contradictions', with the note that my knowledge/best guesses come only from what I have read in news accounts.
>>>Why did Obama promise to forego private election financing if his opponent did, but is now waffling?
He is not waffling now. He is saying the same thing now that he did in response to the questionnaire (late 2007, I think?). He said then, and is saying now, that if and when he becomes the nominee he will meet with (or have his people with the people of) the Rep. nominee to see if they reach agreement on some ground rules (things like use of free TV time, spending by 3rd parties on the candidates' behalf, adjusting for when primary spending ends and general election spending begins, etc.) with his goal to be taking public financing if possible. He recently repeated that same position when McCain started raising the issue -- pointing out that he, Obama, is not yet the nominee. I'm amazed that someone as superstitious as McCain doesn't accept that it is premature to beging those discussions now. (And I believe I read that neither McCain nor Clinton even responded to the questionnaire. Only Obama, Edwards and maybe one other did.)

>>>Why did Obama say that the Super Delegates should just follow the will of the voters, but then has paid them almost $1 million to secure their votes?
Setting aside your interpretation of **why** his fund (can't remember its name) made donations to other candidates, he is simply stating his opinion that superdelegates should follow the will of the voters and support WHICHEVER candidate has the most 1) votes, 2) states, and 3)pledged delegates. He is not proposing that his opinion be enforced in some formal way (in contrast to Sen. Clinton's opinion that fixed rules should be changed to seat the MI and FL delegates.) and his proposed resolution would work against his interests (and against those expenditures you say he made for a purpose) if Sen. Clinton should turn out to be the candidate with the most votes, states and pleged delegates. Note: at the time he voiced this opinion, by the way, he didn't have a lead in the popular vote (I don't think), he had only a thin margin in pleged delegates, and he did not have the plurality of states that he has now. The implication of his opinion (I'm assuming - haven't heard any statements on this part) is that if the two candidates split those indicators of the voters' will (votes, states, pledged delegates) then his proposed course of action for superdelegates not hold. ---- It's actually a pretty reasonable proposal when you think about it. I believe (not sure) that the only nomination that depended on superdelegate intervention (Hart-Mondale), Mondale was ahead in all 3 categories and the superdelegates added enough to make it official (Don't hold me to that however; haven't researched it.)

>>>Why has Obama attacked the pro-Clinton 527, when a similar group supported his cause in California?
Because the 527 (read somewhere there were 2 actually) that have supported his cause were pre-existing organizations with a distinct purpose of their own and he is the candidate that best promoted those purposes. (And for the record, the Obama campaign has protested and ask that the organizations NOT put out ads on his behalf, but there is not a great deal that a candidate can legally do .. unfortunately.) That's what 527s are supposed to be: particular interest groups that may support candidates who, they feel, advance those interests. (E.g., MoveOn.org has the goal of greater grassroots public participation in government.) The new 527 - ALP -that will be running ads to support Clinton is being created only now and although it states a 'neutral' purpose (supporting interests of the middle class or some such), it intends to be active only in only 2 states - OH and TX (with a third - PA - if there is enough money left over) and only during a specified period of time: the weeks before the Dem. primaries in those states. That, the argument goes, takes it OUT of the category of 'legitimate' 527s and reveals it as simply a method to get around the problem being faced by the Clinton campaign: wealthy donors who are prepared to give more money but who have already donated the maximum allowed by election law. That's the difference: a legitimate 527 v. a sham designed to get around election law contribution limits. The Obama campaign has warned the 527's organizers (not Clinton herself) that they consider it to be illegal and will take steps to challenge its legitimacy. Perfectly reasonable and, in my opinion, smart. Clinton is quite free to challenge any 527 supporting Obama on the same grounds ... and they *should* if the facts are there.

>>>Why did Obama claim that he would not touch the retirement age for social security or the benefits level, but then said that every issue, including these remain on the table?
I'm not as familiar with this area but as I understand it his current proposal, which emphasizes lifting the contributions cap, does not include lifting the age or the benefits level but he declined to say they would never be touched if different arrangements had to be considered. All of this, by the way, is a great deal more substantive and specific than Sen. Clinton's proposal re: Social Security .... which is consists of 4 words only: "form a bipartisan commission."

>> Why did Obama attack Clinton for her clear waffle on the immigrant license issue, when he himself gave an incoherent answer on the issue himself?
Maybe I missed something but I never heard an incoherent answer from him on this issue. In the same debate where she wound up waffling, he said quite clearly "I support issuing licenses to illegals because it is a matter of security" (my memory, perhaps not the exact words but close enough). At a later debate Sen. Clinton SAID he had been incoherent on the issue and he did not get into a "Was so!" - "Was not!" - "Was so!" dispute with her. Maybe that means he made an incoherent response sometime that I never heard, or maybe he simply didn't want to descend to that level... (sort of a joke)

>>> Why did Obama trash a labor union that supported Edwards' campaign in Iowa as a "special interest" but has now negotiated and secured an endorsement from the same group.
I don't think he 'trashed' a union or any regular union endorsement for Edwards or anyone else. He was negative (in Iowa? - can't recall) about a 527 that a union had created that was going to be buying ads on Edwards' behalf. Actually, I disagreed with Sen. Obama on that criticism, because he was assuming without proof that the ads were going to be unfair along the lines of Swift Boaters. But 527s are legal and, as noted above, it is difficult/impossible for a candidate to stop their actions. So I thought at the time that Obama should have waited until the ads came out and then complain if they were unfair. (As it turned out, when the pro-Edwards ads were run they were very straightforward and unlike the Swiftboat ads.) So, see, his supporters don't think he's all perfect and walks on water...

>>>Why does Obama base his entire campaign on "hope" and "change" but is using former Clinton staff in his team of advisors AND trotted out the Kennedys -- especially Ted Kennedy -- as his key endorsements (Kennedy -- who is only outranked in the Senate by Robert Byrd, whom Obama has paid to get his Super Delegate vote)
Well, I really don't know if having been in government for many years means that someone, such as Kennedy or Pres. Clinton's staffers, doesn't support and hope for change! I certainly hope not. And, seriously, I don't think that at this point in his life and career, Robert Byrd's vote can be "bought" by anyone! -- More seriously, I'd be rather alarmed if Obama didn't have strong support from experienced Senators like Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, etc. (and Representatives and experienced advisors), because if he wants to truly bring about change, he's going to have to have co-workers within and who understand the various governing instiutions. In fact, the absense of such connections and staff has seriously hampered other 'change' Presidents or candidates from Presidents. It's one of the things that we admire about him.

Anyway, I'm certainly not a spokesperson for the Obama campaign (unless a few small donations and a day or two of making phone calls qualifies one) but those are answers that are available to anyone who simply pays attention and follows, factually, what is happening. Hope it helped clarify some things.

And, for the record, I agree with Carol Soprano that there has been a vast distinction between the dirty tricks, attacks and distortions made by the Clinton campaign and Obama campaigns. He has **responded** to attacks in ways that I'm quite sure have smarted and been unpleasant for the Clintons. He should - wanting to get away from 'politics as usual' doesn't mean he's supposed to lay down like a doormat and get run over. But, aside from defending himself and fighting fire with fire, he has not proactively concentrated on attacking -- as Clinton has -- but has concentrated on getting his positive message to the voters.

I've also, sadly, reached the same conclusion as Carol: that because of the way Clinton has carried out this campaign, I cannot vote for her (although as a NY resident and woman around her age, I'd previously proudly supported her in both Senate campaigns.) -------- I do, however, still hold out a perhaps forlorn and wistful hope that she will manage a graceful exit. I think she has the capacity to do that and, if she can be so "un-Clintonian" as to do so, that she would have a very grand future in the Senate and perhaps in other, grander capacities. I still hope.

This whole (insert enemy)-media line kills me.

Depending on who you ask - the MSM is owned by the Liberals, The Right Wingers, The Clinton Machine, and now Obama.

Not sure which one I should hate the most. Might just be easier to default back to blaming the Jews.

Amazing, it's still up on Hillary's site:

http://blog.hillaryclinton.com/blog/main/2008/02/22/143137

In Case You Missed It: “Obama once visited '60s ‘terrorists’.”

You'd think they'd at least take down the offending sentence and the link to that stupid Politico hit piece.

Unbelievable.

"At no point has Obama brought up any of her dirty laundry"

Excuse me? Did you not watch any of the debates, where Sen. Obama says stuff like:

"Hillary, you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart!"

"Hillary, the reason you were lonely is because you didn't listen to anybody!"

"Hillary, you provided much more fulsome praise of Ronald Reagan."

"8 years of the Clintons, major losses for Democrats across the nation"

Sorry I missed this yesterday. I guess this is the "21st Century Solutions Business"

The old Clinton Rules (i.e., what we all hated about our MSM back when we felt motivated to defend our Clintons):

1. If any part of an alleged scandal turns out to be true, the media behaves as though the entire story is true.

2. Media parse every statement by progressives in response to controversy, looking for something to ridicule -- whether the ridicule is fair or not.

3. Allegations that turn out to be unproven, or even false, are used by the media as evidence in support of future allegations.

The new Clinton Rule (i.e., the game-changing new tack adopted by the HRC campaign):

1. The GOP was gonna do it anyway.

Thanks again, Carol. This latest smear needs to stay front-and-center until someone/anyone from the HRC campaign makes that slanderous line disappear from their campaign website.

Taylor Marsh I can understand (she's already checked out of the Democratic party), but the HRC campaign itself?

It's our friggin' primary. We don't expect to be called terrorists until after our nomination process is complete.

Hillary is obviously going to a scorched earth finish to this failed campaign. This will ensure the Clinton's legacy in the party is finished and over. I believe that will be a good thing. Hillary and Bill Clinton are bad for the party, and bad for the country. From the beginning people people of integrity like Paul Tsongas have said they had a character problem. And Paul Tsongas was right. They don't have any character. Labelling Sen. Obama as a terrorist is pretty good evidence, especially after trying to marginalize him as a black candidate, and all the other trash that's been thrown and doesn't stick.

Hey, end of story on who the media is controlled by,....

The answer IS... US!!!!

All of us... it's because we all watch it and talk about it no matter how despicable and untrue it may be. The more we watch and talk, the more money they make from advertisers. They rarely attack Obama because it never sticks and it dosen't garner ratings.

pretty simple huh? People love Clinton trash, people love republican trash (because they act all high and mighty Moral majority), and people will love Obama trash if they can dig up something that can actually take him off his high horse that the public has put him on.

All this crap is trivial and the media knows it's going to roll off his back and the mass public won't care. Now if they dig up some affair or some real betrayal of the American people then he will fall prey to them like any other candidate.

I have learned to be very happy to hear these accusations from Hillary! You know why? Every time she does it, she DROPS another point in the polls!

Obama has made the biggest breakthrough of all - his professional attitude is now being compared with Hillary's by millions of people, and many are realizing for the first time Hillary is nothing more than a dishonest frustrated woman who simply wants power and does not care in the slightest on how she gets it.

The result: the first national-polling organization polls that show Obama LEADING in both Texas and Ohio came out today!