This is interesting news. 

HNN Poll: How Historians Rank the Presidency of George W. Bush (2008)

In an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted over a three-week period through the History News Network,  98.2 percent assessed the presidency of Mr. Bush to be a failure while 1.8 percent classified it as a success.

Of 415 historians who expressed a view of President Bush’s administration to this point as a success or failure, 338 classified it as a failure and 77 as a success.

The United Church of Christ and NCC leadership called for a Sacred Conversation of Race, and a national "Preach-In" on May 18th.

Why are they waiting almost 2 months away to have this Preach-In?

Why in May of all months, soon after the primaries of Indiana, N. Carolina, Newbraska and W. Virginia and just before the primaries in Kentucky, Oregon and Idaho?

I sure would like to know whose really behind this idea. 

Seems like it's been timed to have the Rev. Wright story PICKED UP AGAIN just in time for Supers to have to decide who they'll vote for.

Who will benefit by having the Wright story and those videos of the Reverand preaching repeated over the internet and our televisions the most?  Take one guess.

Hillary's on Jay Leno tonight making light of her 'misspoken' words about being UNDER SNIPER FIRE when she arrived in Bosnia as First Lady.

Excuse me, but this is like Bush making light of his Mission Accomplished sign on the USS ship after invading Iraq.

If she's willing to MAKE UP THINGS about this story, what else will she MAKE UP as President?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Stops by Sen. John McCain at U.S. Navy bases this week prompted internal Navy and Pentagon discussions, according to a military official with direct knowledge of the discussions.

The official said the discussions regarding the McCain appearances, including Wednesday's speech and private meetings at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, where his son is midshipman, "were not contentious" and there is no allegation of any wrongdoing.

The staff discussions came as the Pentagon recently updated a military directive spelling out restrictions on the U.S. military during political campaigning.

Candidates for office have long been prohibited from engaging in political activities at U.S. military installations or using U.S. military personnel in their political appearances. Presidential campaign staffs generally are very familiar with these military rules.

The stops were part of McCain's "Service to America" tour, which kicked off on Monday and were approved by the Pentagon office of general counsel

With Department of Defense rules prohibiting political campaigning on military bases, it was determined that in some cases McCain could visit the installations as a senator but could not engage in any political activity or have news media present.

McCain campaign officials said Thursday they intentionally did not campaign on military property.

"We follow the rules," said senior McCain adviser Steve Schmidt.......

If you give a speech on a Navy Base about "Service To America", that sure seems like it's at the very least BENDING THE RULES a bit, does it not?

Here are parts of his speech while at the Navy Base:

Never in my wildest flights of youthful fancy did I imagine I would one day be honored to give the commencement address at the Academy as I was some years ago. And, certainly, no matter how inflated was my self-regard as a midshipman, it could never have admitted the prospect that I would someday return to the banks of the Severn as a candidate for President of the United States. ......

I'm a conservative, and I believe it is a very healthy thing for Americans to be skeptical about the purposes and practices of public officials. We shouldn't expect too much from government...

While I admit these statements are short and sweet, the whole speech is about telling soldiers about what McCain stands for and where's he's been.  I call that a campaign speech.

Shouldn't somebody demand equal time?

Hillary Clinton said today that there was, “no such thing as a pledged delegate”.
 
For over a month now we’ve heard stories that the Clinton camp was not only going after Super delegates but would also go after pledged delegates as well.  Those are the ones you and I vote for.  Up until today, the Clinton’s have denied those rumors.

Last year when the DNC had the Democratic candidates sign a pledge not to campaign in Michigan and Florida, Hillary was ‘all for’ disenfranchising those voters back then when it was assumed she would win the Democratic nomination easily against that inexperienced young man, Barack Obama.

As soon as it became clear, before South Carolina, that Hillary faced an actual fight for delegates, she began to demand that the rules be changed in the middle of the game.

On January 25th, Hillary’s camp asked the DNC that, "Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan.  I hear all the time from people in Florida and Michigan that they want their voices heard in selecting the Democratic nominee.”

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe sent this response:

“No one is more disappointed that Florida Democrats will have no role in selecting delegates for the nomination of the party’s standard bearer than Senator Obama.

“When Senator Clinton was campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire, she made it clear that states like Michigan and Florida that wouldn’t produce any delegates, ‘don’t count for anything.’ Now that Senator Clinton’s worried about losing the first Southern primary, she’s using Florida for her own political gain by trying to assign meaning to a contest that awards zero delegates and where no campaigning has occurred. Senator Clinton’s own campaign has repeatedly said that this is a ‘contest for delegates’, and Florida is a contest that offers zero."
http://www.observer.com/2008/clinton-wants-florida-and-michigan-delegates-seated-convention

On March 12th, Sen. Hillary Clinton warned that millions of people in Florida and Michigan "are in danger of being excluded from our democratic process" if their votes are not counted.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/12/florida.michigan/
On March 25th, Clinton said, "I do not see how two of our largest and most significant states can be disenfranchised and left out of the process of picking our nominee without raising serious questions about the legitimacy of that nominee."
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1724512,00.html

Hillary and her supporters now seem to think that State caucuses are un-Democratic; they fail to point out the fact that Bill Clinton wouldn’t have won his nomination without them - back in 1991.  But since Hillary’s lost most of them this time around, now they don’t ‘count’.
 
If you add the caucus and the primary in Texas together, it’s been verified, Barack Obama won Texas.  He ended up with the most delegates even though Hillary won the popular vote.

It seems to be ‘Win at any cost’ with the Hillary camp, even if it means changing the rules at the end of the game.  That’s like saying that last 3pt basket doesn’t count because it was within the 10 second range of the game.

Tonight on Road to the White House with David Gregory, Harold Ford Jr. said that if Hillary could ‘flip’ some of the ‘pledged’ delegates, she could win this thing.

Excuse me?  What happen to those famous words, “Voters want their voices heard” and, "It would be a great disservice to the voters to adopt any process that would disenfranchise anyone,"?

It’s the VOTERS that pick those ‘pledged’ delegates.  I don’t care if it’s not in the DNC rules specifically stating they must stick to whom they SAY they would.  It’s just a ‘given’ that they will, ask any voter.

Hillary wants to ignore the WILL of the people by having ‘pledged’ and ‘super’ delegates vote for her even though the same book of rules she points to about delegates, says the winner of the nomination, is the person that gets the most Delegates --- not the person with the popular Vote as she is currently pushing for.

With this camp, they want others to obey the rules for one thing, but ignore them in another; Sounds a hell of lot like the current administration in the White House.  That’s just what we need another group that uses the rules ‘only’ when they are convenient.

By the way, the idea that if you win the big states during a primary, that means, you'll also win them in the General is plain silly.  History proves Hillary wrong on that one.

P.S.
Sorry for duplicate entry - messed up

Hillary Clinton said today that there was,

“no such thing as a pledged delegate”. 

These polls that supposedly show proof (according to Hillary supporters – that have a memory loss whenever they see FACTS like - Obama’s won more States, more delegates, gained more Supers 53 to her negative 5 since Super Tues) that Hillary can win the Big States – don’t really tell us anything:

FLORIDA: Clinton 44 - McCain 42
McCain 46 - Obama 37

Email Share var addthis_pub = 'abcnews';

April 02, 2008 7:39 PM

ABC News' George Stephanopoulos Reports: Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and former President Bill Clinton are making very direct arguments to Democratic superdelegates, starkly insisting Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., cannot win a general election against presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Sources with direct knowledge of the conversation between Sen. Clinton and Governer Bill Richardson, D-N.M., prior to the Governor's endorsement of Obama say she told him flatly, "He cannot win, Bill. He cannot win."

Richardson, who served in President Clinton's cabinet, disagreed.

This is a pure example of why Hillary Clinton SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION. 

She knows the things she says will eventually get out to the public domain.  She has once again harmed Barack Obama's chances, if he should become the nominee, in the general election against Sen. John McCain.

Hillary started out the campaign saying that she and McCain met the standards of commander-n-chief but that Obama did not.  She's done nothing but HELP John McCain during his whole campaign by personally attacking Obama. 

This is the last straw.  If voters allow this person to continue bashing her own PARTY'S candidates to the point of no return -- they deserve to lose in November.

As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.

The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said......

Is this true?  Has anybody heard this story before or is it another April fools joke?  My GOD!  If it's true -- why isn't it being told all over the internet and cable stations?

Somebody enlighten me -- please.

BAGHDAD: The Iraqi prime minister says the military operation to clear the southern city of Basra of Shiite militia violence has been a "success."
 
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says in Tuesday's statement that his office will recruit 10,000 more police and army forces and will move to enhance public services in Iraq's second city.

I’m sorry but why is he just now recruiting more police and soldiers and why only 10,000?

The U.S. has over 158,000 troops over there now; combine that with other nation’s troops, there’s something like 200,000 foreign nation troops available in Iraq, yet the violence continues.

Why isn’t al-Maliki calling up another 50,000 or 100,000 troops?

SIMPLE ANSWER -- WHY SHOULD THEY - WE'RE THERE.

KOS of DailyKos is discussing whether or not Hillary is broke or not and whether or not Obama is continuing to bring in the dough or not.

A thought occurred to me.  What happens if voters are in limbo?  What happens if Hillary supporters are starting to worry about her actual chances of winning seeing as how Obama has more elected delegates, twice as many States won and thousands more in popular vote?  What happens if they decide to hold their money because their not sure where the Bosnia and NAFTA stories will lead her?

What happens if Obama supporters decide to hold their donations till they see where the Reverend Wright story might lead?  What happens if they’re worried that Hillary will end up stealing the nomination by having Super delegates override the elected delegates and the will of the people?

What happens if voters go into limbo and all the money stops flowing in?  What would the candidates do then?  Neither one would be able to advertise or travel as much.  Both would lose staff because they couldn’t pay them. 

Would the DNC and the Super delegates have to step in and make the decision for the rest of us?  Would they?  Who would they vote for based on current conditions, delegate counts, popular votes, States won?

They’d be force to make the decision – wouldn’t they?

Perhaps both candidates’ voters should immediately stop sending in money?  At least we’d get this thing over with before June.

Lesley Stahl’s interview of Al Gore:

Democratic Presidential Nomination
Gallup Tracking

Obama 52, Clinton 42

Looks like Hillary's been hurt by her Bosnia sniper story lie or 'mistake'.

Realpolitics.com