What the hell are you talking about? Unblind support? Bill you really need a break. Glad you are in the last THROES!

I might ask you what has Hillary done to cause you to turn a blind eye as to how the Clinton's have abused the public trust? I gave President Clinton 8 years of the benefit of the doubt. I finally saw the light.

"On a clear day, you can see forever."

Not blind support. Many of us have read his books, studied his voting record and policy proposals, followed his campaign and his responses to the various challenges he's faced. We've also had quite a long time to get to know the Clintons, and observe how HRC has run her campaign. We see quite clearly.

Maybe you see clearly too. While we all may see clearly, what we see and how we perceive it will be different based on our own personal perspective or point of view. One need not be blind to have a different opinion, or different priorities.

I'm not sure if you support Clinton, McCain, or even Nader. But you're welcome to have your point of view and share it. Who do you like and why? Maybe you can post a blog of your own and change a few minds with a persuasive, logical presentation. But, it surely won't happen by hurling insults.

This is why. He is the only honest man in Washington.

Check out his Senate Ethics page.
http://obama.senate.gov/issues/ethics_and_lobbying_reform/

The best disinfectant is sunshine.l

Unblind?

HMMM, he fights for those who otherwise would not have a chance. He is honest and hard working. He will listen to all sides before making a decision on an issue.

What has Hill done? Oh I know, she dodged bullets in Bosnia, oh no that was a lie that she told on SEVERAL occasions. Oh she hated NAFTA from the start... no, she actually campaigned in favor of it and lied to us about it. Oh she opposed the war, oh yeah only after she decided to run for President.

But most importantly, why should she be excused from testifying in a criminal case just because she is running for a public office? This baffles me. So if your Uncle Harry commits a crime, he can run for president and he won't have to stand trial? REALLY? Is this how our legal system works?

Well then, Obama will have to fix that when he takes office in Jan.

See, for wrath-blinded Hillary haters, Paul's credibility is irrelevant. Everything anti-Hillary deserves immediate media attention. If the papers do not shout it from the headlines, they're obviously biased.

Fortunately, this thread is lucky enough to have Aimey May's delightful contribution. Rather than rightfully attack Paul's motives and credibility (not to mention the motives and credibility of those who promote this story at TPM), she goes after Obama in a particularly profound, well-researched, and not-at-all-hypocritical way way:

You Obama supporters are really stupid! Think for a minute. What the man has done in his life that deserves your unblind support?

Obviously, Aimey has thought for well more than a minute about her "unblind" support for her candidate. (Did she perhaps mean simply "blind"?)

So it's the trolls vs. the trolls. Another pathetic failure of intelligent dialog in a race that has gone on too long. And yet still the readers relentlessly recommend.

Not to get too tin-foil hatty, but the relative silence of NewsMax, Drudge and the McCain campaign on this, the tax returns, Ron Burkle, Kazakhstan, etc is, to me, more evidence of who the preferred candidate of the GOP is.

Hey, thanks. I knew this story was BS.

They'd probably try, but there's just not a lot of there there. No sex. No private trips to the tropics. No money in the freezer. And no credibility to boot.

Besides which, I reject (and denounce) Clinton's tactic of arguing that that Wright and Ayers are significant issues because those dirty Republicans will use them against against Obama, so I reject the same tactic applied against Clinton.

Allsburg, please continue.

I have not looked into a lot, but not a little either. Paul surely is doing anything he can to avoid conviction.

However, I don't see how this is "just" all it is. The evidence I have seen appears convincing and extremely damning for Senator Clinton.

At the risk of drawing the ire of Billy Glad for echo-chambering, I'm reposting the YouTube link:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bIf84llCRPc

Advance thanks for your insights.

I hear what you and Genghis are saying.

I too am skeptical of Paul's claims. Skepticism is good.

But I guess where I am is that arguing that someone is a pinhead, or biased, or has base motivations, does not make the accuser 100% incorrect in all cases.

One of the things I did not enjoy about the 1990s, and which I washed my hands of when Bill was proved to have perjured, was the idea that because the Clintons inspire irrational, hysterical excesses of accusation, that I must reject as 100% incorrect everything that is thrown up against them based upon credibility or motivation issues.

This is my problem when I mention Whitewater and Billy Glad says "oh, you're one of those," as if there is no need to answer a certain class of criticism with facts or justification. Bullshit, I think.

Intellectually, it's kind of like the OJ defense -- Mark Fuhrman is a pig, we can't take someone down based on statements from such a person. The problem was, OJ was guilty, though accused by rotten people.

I don't really care whether Paul is out to get Hillary, or out for publicity, or crosslinks to objectionable sites on his site. I'm interested in whether there are viable fraud claims. I don't feel edified either by the original post, or the reaction that Paul is necessarily a vengeful media whore.

Can someone explain why his claim necessarily lacks merit, putting aside all these the-other-guy's-perspective-makes-them-impossible-to-listen-to arguments the internet is overfull with?

Now that would be a post or comment worth typing.