http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDV1jsPlKD8&feature=player_embedded

Bill O'Reilly takes Joan Walsh from Salon.com on about late term abortions and the brutal murder of Dr. George Tiller who was well known for providing those types of abortions that were LEGAL.

O'Reilly began his interview trying to convince his audience that Walsh should some how be demonized for her 'abortion beliefs'.  That was not the subject that O'Reilly supposedly had brought Mrs. Walsh onto his show discuss.  The reason was to discuss why she felt that Mr. O'Reilly had help to cause the death of Dr. Tiller by insighting violence on his nightly show by constantly accusing Dr. Tiller of being a "BABY KILLER".

Joan Walsh on Hardball with Chris Matthews on MSNBC June 10, 2009:

When Bill O'Reilly goes on TV every night and calls Dr. Tiller a baby killer and a Nazi and a Mengele, and shows where he works, why do we put up with that?  Why is that entertainment in our culture? It's demonizing a private citizen for doing a lawful job?  Why are people doing that? Why is that acceptable? I would like to see a debate about that.

Like I said, O'Reilly was trying to 'change the subject' into making Joan a demon for her beliefs.  Bill ignored the REAL question for the interview -- Is demonizing a private citizen for doing a lawful job -- for entertainment -- RIGHT?

There are people out there in the entertainment world, such as O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh that attack the man/woman personally instead of the issue at hand.  This should STOP!

Watch the video and see if you agree with my assessment.

First of all, let me set one thing straight.  I personally would never abort a fetus unless I felt it would be better off not coming to full term for either health reasons or for reasons to be experienced once born.  I'm pro-choice however.  I believe it is up to the woman carrying the fetus.  I don't believe it is up to the doctor or the father to decide.  It is the woman's body this embryonic stem cell is located in, not theirs. 

If the procedure is legal, than if the mother wants to abort the fetus -- before the third trimester -- then the doctor, he/she, should be forced to provide that procedure.

Just as if any man wanted to use Viagra, any person calling themselves a doctor or pharmacist, should be forced to provide that medicine.  I'd feel the same way if marijuana were ever made legal, any doctor or pharmacist should be forced to provide that medicine.

The current law allows for fetuses to be abort up to the third trimester:

Roe v. Wade held that a mother may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes viable.'" The Court defined viable as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.

While the law is clear, I personally wish it could be changed.

Why do I believe all abortions at the third month (12 weeks) or more should be regulated or controlled? Because of the following reasons - The fetus now looks like a human being and has almost developed into a viable human being:

At the end of 3 months:

• Fetus is 2 1/2 to 3 inches long
• Weight is about 1/2 to 1 ounce
• Nails start to develop and earlobes are formed
• Fetus develops recognizable form
• Arms, hands, fingers, legs, feet and toes are fully formed
• Eyes are almost fully developed
• By this stage, a fetus has developed most of his/her organs and tissues
• Fetal heart rate can be heard at 10 weeks with a special Doppler instrument

At the end of 4 months:

• Fetus is 6 1/2 to 7 inches long
• Weight is about 6 to 7 ounces
• Fetus is developing reflexes such as sucking and swallowing. Fetus may begin sucking his/her thumb
• Tooth buds are developing
• Sweat glands are forming on palms and soles
• Fingers and toes are well defined
• Sex is identifiable
• Skin is bright pink, transparent and covered with soft, downy hair
• Although recognizably human in appearance, the baby would not be able to survive outside the mother's body

At the end of 7 months:

• Fetus is 14 to 16 inches long
• Weight is about 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 pounds
• Taste buds have developed
• Fat layers are forming
• Organs are maturing
• Skin is still wrinkled and red
• If born at this time, he/she will be considered a premature baby and require special care

"The Daily Show" correspondent Jason Jones visited the New York Times offices on Wednesday night's show for a hysterical segment titled "End Times."

Jones got access to Executive Editor Bill Keller as well as Times Assistant Managing Editor Rick Berke and Communications Coordinator Kristin Mason...

The heart of Jones' mockery of the paper is that it publishes yesterday's news -- or, as he called it, "aged news."

 

I've often said if I had the money I'd invest in a company (old newspaper and its reporters) to convert them into something like reporting on News about Websites, Blogging and Bloggers. 

I'd have my reporters investigate various websites, who runs them, pros and cons of the site, what kind of blogger blogs there, is it safe and why, etc...

 

It would still be a newspaper of sorts and a website of it's own of course.  Think of it as an Internet Consumer Reports Digest.

 

Anybody got a few million I can borrow?

BAGHDAD -- The Iraqi government is pressing ahead with plans to hold a national referendum on the Iraqi-American security agreement -- a measure likely to lose if put to a popular vote with the outcome that American troops could be forced to leave as early as next summer, nearly a year and half ahead of schedule.

 

Under the security plan agreed to by the two governments last year, American combat troops must withdraw from the cities by the end of this month and all American troops must be out of Iraq by Dec. 31, 2011.

 

 

Are you confused yet?  According to a Bush/Iraq deal, all combat troops out by Dec 31, 2011, and now, if this new referendum is passed our combat troops have to leave in the summer of 2010.

 

Excuse me?  I thought President Obama already declared August of 2010 as the date that ALL combat troops would be out of Iraq?

 

 

CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C. -- Before 2,000 Marines here on Friday, President Obama announced that the United States combat presence in Iraq will end in August 2010 after about 90,000 troops are withdrawn.

"Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31st, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end," Obama said to applause from the Marines.

The president said he plans to leave a force of 35,000 to 50,000 to advise Iraqi security forces, conduct counter-terrorism missions and protect U.S. personnel. The drawdown should signal to Iraqis that they are responsible for their country's future, he said.

 

So what are they saying here?  Are they saying that unless the referendum passes, our combat troops will have to stay till Dec 31, 2011 because the U.S. (Bush admin) signed off on that deal?

Republicans aren't sure who speaks for their party, a new Gallup poll found -- but opinion is split between three fairly old white men who hold no political office.

Asked to name the "main person who speaks for the Republican Party today," Republicans across the country were most likely to name three men: Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and Dick Cheney

 

Perhaps what's really going on in the Republican Party is - its rally your 'base' time.  Who would do the best job of cheer leading the Party's base voter's along; Rush, Cheney and Gingrich of course.  They are the ones that, if anyone can, 'stir the pot' sort of speak; get the money flowing again for the next election cycle.

 

There are a few others out there helping like Michael Steele, but for the most part, it's Rush, Cheney and Gingrich that are demonizing the Obama administration and pushing the praises like "making us less safe, socialism, weak on defense, importing terrorists and Obamacare - "It will lead to the gov't rationing care, making people stand in line and denying people treatment like they do elsewhere."

 

These oldies but goodies go out and rally the troops while others like Nevada Sen. John Ensign, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour either have been or will be going to Iowa to campaign.

 

I also expect to see Governor Perry of Texas, Governor Pawlenty of Minnesota, Gov. George Pataki, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and Gov. Crist of Florida visiting there as well.

 

Right now Gov. Crist isn't doing well in the polls in Florida but if the economy picks up before late 2010, he'll get credit for supporting President Obama's stimulus recovery package which could propel him into a presidential hopeful spot.

 

I'd be interested in seeing if Gov. John Huntsman of Utah goes for it in Iowa as well.  He did, after all; stand up to his own party with respects to Obama's stimulus package.  This could be please some Independents and some Democrats as well.

 

I know the media is pushing Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska but unless she does something spectacular in the next year or so, I don't expect the Party will allow her to run.  She blew it big time last time with her media interviews and has lost a lot of credibility in her own State because of it.  She fought the stimulus package which hurts her with Independents and Dems.  She's also being snubbed by some in her own party.

 

So my friends watch NOT what Rush, Cheney and Newt do; rather, you should be watching what the others (the ones the media ignores) do in the back channels of the political arena.

Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have threatened to halt all business in the Senate until Congress passes their legislation allowing President Barack Obama to suppress photos showing detainee abuse.

"We're not going to do any more business in the Senate," Graham said. "Nothing's going forward until we get this right."...

Some Democrats want hearings first; but it appears as though most would rather go along with this idea of HIDING the truth from the American people and ignoring war crimes committed.

I've made my decision.  I'm sure most of you don't care what I think; but unless President Obama and/or  Attorney General Holder start some actual investigations into possible war crimes and start prosecuting some people before the 2012 election cycle, I will not vote for another Democrat.  I will also not vote for any Republican.  They will have both proven to be nothing but liars.

Yes I know there are other important issues out there but this issue is top on my list at the moment because I care about how America is seen around the world.  I'll feel this way until I see somebody go to jail for their crimes in the last eight years, preferably President George W Bush and Dick Cheney; but at least those that said the torture was legal and some that used that torture capability.

Remember the famous words of John F. Kennedy on January 20, 1961,

"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man."

While the President was speaking to the world with this speech; I believe those same words could also be used by anyone seeking to gain the ears of today's voters. 

Polls show that Americans want government to get involved during the current crisis with the economy and our health care and war.

So, for you Republicans out there trying to get heard, since you believe the market (free enterprise) can solve all our problems; why not ask your friends in that same market to -- ASK WHAT CAN YOU DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY? 

To that corporation that is making billions of dollars over the past decade, WHAT CAN YOU DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY?  Could you hire more workers?  Can you lower your cost of goods at least temporarily, while the worst of recessions since the great depression, dissipates?  Could you give all your customers a zero dollar payment month?

To that insurance company, WHAT CAN YOU DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY in this crisis?  Can you lower the cost of insurance for a year or two to help those in need?  Could you give them a zero dollar month off their yearly premium?

To you doctors and hospitals, WHAT CAN YOU DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY during this crisis?  How about writing off some of that bill the customer owes or how about offering a free week of CBC's, blood sugar and blood pressure testing for those uninsured in your town?

To your restaurant owners, WHAT CAN YOU DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY?  Could you maybe have a free dinners for kids under 16 that are with their parents?  Could you provide  coupons for a free sandwich for a week?  Imagine if each restaurant did this in just one city?  Each would do it on a different week.    Parents could feed their kids a meal for free for a month or two.

To you local businesses, like Walmart, Kmart, Sears, JC Penneys, WHAT CAN YOU DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY?  How about offering free jeans, shoes or shirts to kids under 10 one day a year.  You could send out notices to 100 random civilians in your town or city.  Have a drawing or something like that.  How about hiring one person part time, even if all they do is sweep floors or wash windows.  You don't have to offer benefits.  Give them a job.

While I agree that the market must play a huge roll when it comes to getting people back to work; at this time, even companies are hurting because of banks and loan companies going belly up.  We (the people who voted for those in charge) screwed up royally.  We allowed monopolies to be created, such as GM, AIG and Enron, and now thousands will lose their jobs because the companies either are or have gone bankrupt. 

Even with the help of the government (the people of this nation - it's not a company like Republicans would have you believe), thousands will walk away without their jobs and pensions.

It's time for those companies that have profited from some of this mess we're in, like KBR (Halliburton), Boeing, BP and Exxon Mobile to fess up some of those profits to help their nation in need.

I think the first Republican that has the guts to ask their friends in the market the following question, "WHAT CAN YOU DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY?", just might have an edge in the 2012 election.

President Obama and the Democratic Party are already doing that and Republicans are acting like a bunch of kids being asked to give away their candy to others.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- This is one Christmas gift U.S. taxpayers don't need.

Construction of a $30 million dining facility at a U.S. base in Iraq is scheduled to be completed Dec. 25. But the decision to build it was based on bad planning and botched paperwork. The project is too far along to stop, making the mess hall a future monument to the waste and inefficiency plaguing the war effort, according to an independent panel investigating contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In its first report to Congress, the Wartime Contracting Commission presents a bleak assessment of how tens of billions of dollars have been spent since 2001....

KBR is also linked to the dining hall construction snafu, although the commission faults the military's planning and not the contractor. With American forces scheduled to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011, the U.S. will use the new facility for two years at most.

In July 2008, the Army said a new dining facility was badly needed at the Camp Delta forward operating base because the existing one was too small, had a saggy ceiling, poor lighting and an unsanitary wooden floor.

KBR was awarded a contract in September. Work began in late October as American and Iraqi officials were negotiating the agreement setting the dates for the U.S. troop withdrawal

Here's the kicker of this story....

But during an April visit to Camp Delta, the commission learned that the existing mess hall had just been renovated. The $3.36 million job was done by KBR and completed in June 2008. Commission staff toured the renovated hall "without seeing or hearing of any problems or shortfalls," the report says.

The decision to push ahead with the new hall was based on paperwork that was never updated and a failure to review the need for the project after the security agreement was signed. Most of the materials have been ordered and construction is well under way. That means canceling the project would save little money because KBR would have a legitimate claim for payment based on the investment it has already made.

Can you believe this?  Even after all the press coverage that money was being wasted or abused in the past 5 or so years, we still find errors like this one?

You'd THINK that KBR would love it's country enough to point out that they had just renovated the old facility so why would the government want a new one built?  It's all about making money.  How is this any different than committing fraud?  KBR knew what they had done and not done but refused to tell the military the truth.

Geez!!!

JFK Speech on Secret Societies and Freedom of the Press

The man says it on in one speech!

Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C. are holding the War supplemental hostage in the name of torture photos:

"We strongly believe that the first responsibilities of government are the nation's security and the protection of those brave Americans who go into harm's way to defend it.

"The President has said that the release of the photos of detainees in US custody would 'put our troops and civilians serving our nation abroad in greater danger.' We agree with the Commander in Chief.

"We will employ all the legislative means available to us including opposing the supplemental war spending bill and attaching this amendment, which was unanimously adopted by the Senate, to every piece of legislation the Senate considers, to be sure the President has the authority he needs not to release these photos and any others that would jeopardize the safety and security of our troops.

"The release of the photos will serve as propaganda and recruiting tool for terrorists who seek to attack American citizens at home and abroad. We should strive to have as open a government as possible, but the behavior depicted in the photos has been prohibited and is being investigated. The photos do not depict anything that is not already known. Transparency, and in this case needless transparency, should not be paid for with the lives of American citizens, let alone the lives of our men and women in uniform fighting on our behalf in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

"Let it clearly be understood that without this legislation the photos in question are likely to be released. Such a release would be tantamount to a death sentence to some who are serving our nation in the most dangerous and difficult spots like Iraq and Afghanistan. It is this certain knowledge of these consequences of having the photos released that will cause us to vote against the supplemental and continue our push to turn our important amendment into law."

I say let them try.  How many times did the Democratic Party threaten to stop the War Funding over the past 8 years and how many times did the Republican Party take the issue to the American people claiming that Democrats were WEAK on defense or they were harming our troops at war by denying the funds they need to conduct that war?

It's time Democrats to give the Republicans a little taste of their own medicine.

If this resolution had any teeth to it, it would be voted on as a bill of it's own accord.

Americans know this is just a way to HIDE the TRUTH once again.  Our troops were put in danger the MINUTE it was REPORTED that torturing was being done and the MINUTE the Bush administration released the Abu Ghraib photos.

President Obama stated this past week that no more TORTURE would happen under his watch.  He also said he would tell the TRUTH to all.

The citizens of the Middle East said they liked what they heard by President Obama; but that he must now PROVE his words.

Giving out the photos and investigating any war crimes and prosecuting them --would do the opposite of what Lieberman and Graham claim --- they'd PROVE that Obama meant what he said and that he could be TRUSTED to do what he says.

We MUST stand up against this supplemental and stop them from once again pushing the TRUTH into the future.

A former prisoner held at Guantanamo Bay says he was never interrogated about the reason the US said they'd arrested him for -- even after seven years in captivity.

The former detainee, Lakhdar Boumediene, is now in France with his family. 

Boumediene said the interrogations began within one week of his arrival at the facility in Cuba. But he thought that his cooperation, and trust in the United States, would serve him well and quicken his release.

"I thought America, the big country, they have CIA, FBI. Maybe one week, two weeks, they know I am innocent. I can go back to my home, to my home," he said.

But instead, Boumediene said he endured harsh treatment for more than seven years. He said he was kept awake for 16 days straight, and physically abused repeatedly.

Asked if he thought he was tortured, Boumediene was unequivocal.

"I don't think. I'm sure," he replied.

"Boumediene described being pulled up from under his arms while sitting in a chair with his legs shackled, stretching him," an ABC News interview account Monday reported. "He said that he was forced to run with the camp's guards and if he could not keep up, he was dragged, bloody and bruised.

"He described what he called the 'games' the guards would play after he began a hunger strike, putting his food IV up his nose and poking the hypodermic needle in the wrong part of his arm.

"You think that's not torture?" he quipped. "What's this? What can you call this? Torture or what?" he said, indicating the scars he bears from tight shackles. 'I'm an animal? I'm not a human?'"

Boumediene was first captured and accused of being part of a plot to bomb the US embassy in Sarajevo. But charges against him were dropped by the Bosnian government. Subsequently, however, they turned him over to the US military.

"If I tell my interrogator, I am from Al Qaeda, I saw Osama bin Laden, he was my boss, I help him, they will tell me, 'Oh you are a good man,'" he said. "But if I refuse ? I tell them I'm innocent, never was I terrorist, never never, they tell me. 'You are, you are not cooperating, I have to punch you.'"

"Every day, I think about my wife and my daughters," he said.

Vice President Cheney is running around and visiting each and every television and radio station that he likes talking how his and Bush's administration never tortured prisoners.  Perhaps one of these media outlets, (maybe ABC and Jake Tapper, Karen Travers and Stephanie Z. Smith since they interviewed Boumediene) should ask for an interview with VP Cheney sitting across from Mr Boumediene?  Now that would be a show to watch.  Heck, they may as well add Cheney's daughter too since she's out there defending her dad's actions during the past either years.

The White House has just released more details about those 600,000 jobs that the president wants to create this summer:

--Expanded service for approximately 300,000 patients at 1,129 health centers in 50 states and 8 territories;

--Improvement projects in 107 national parks;

--Rehabilitation or improvements at 98 airports and more than 1,500 highway locations;

--Pay for 135,000 teachers, principals and other school support staff;

--Improvements at 90 Veterans medical centers in 38 states;

--Funding to hire or keep on the job approximately 5,000 law enforcement officers;

--Construction of 200 new waste and water systems in rural communities;

--New or accelerated cleanup projects at 20 Superfund sites;

--Creation of 125,000 summer jobs for young people;

--Construction and rehabilitation projects at 359 military facilities.

Go Here to see map of where stimulus money is going.

I sure hope somebody goes around before the end of the year and evaluates each and every company or organization that got stimulus money and asks them how many people they've hired AND how many people would have lost their jobs if not for the stimulus package.  Those statistics would be very interesting to know about.

NY Times:  U.S.-Backed Alliance Appears to Win in Lebanon

An American-backed alliance appeared to retain control of the Lebanese Parliament on Sunday in a hotly contested election that had been billed as a showdown between Tehran and Washington for influence in the Middle East.

Preliminary results reported on Lebanese television showed the alliance, known as the March 14 coalition, had managed to preserve its majority in Parliament. If those results are confirmed, they would represent a significant and unexpected defeat for Hezbollah and its allies, Iran and Syria. Most polls had showed a tight race, but one in which the Hezbollah-led group would win.

It appears that President Obama's speech in Cairo last week may have influenced some voters in the Middle East.

Looks like it may have also helped in Iran:

The presidential campaign, now in its final week, has reached a level of passion and acrimony almost unheard-of in Iran.

In part, that appears to be because of a surge of energy in the campaign of Mir Hussein Moussavi, a reformist who is the leading contender to defeat Mr. Ahmadinejad in the election, set for Friday. Rallies for Mr. Moussavi have drawn tens of thousands of people in recent days, and a new unofficial poll suggests his support has markedly increased, with 54 percent of respondents saying they would vote for him compared with 39 percent for Mr. Ahmadinejad.

But many Iranians say the campaign's raucous tone is due largely to Mr. Ahmadinejad's unexpectedly fierce rhetorical attacks, which have infuriated his rivals and their supporters, and drawn some blistering ripostes.

"This campaign is a watershed in the history of Iran," Sadegh Zibakalam, a political analyst at Tehran University, said. "We've had debates before, but nothing like this. Ahmadinejad is accusing everybody of corruption -- he is basically saying the same thing the counterrevolutionaries have been saying all along."

So much for the right wingers claiming Obama made America less safe with his speech.

The Democratic Party cares about the human being that is suffering, whether it be from being poor or being abused.  The Republican Party worries about the security of the nation to the extent that the 'end justifies the means'.

 

They both have guts, but what seems to be missing from both sides; Empathy and the ability to realize that every human being needs to have self respect. 

 

Yes they 'both' lack the ability to understand another person's situation, feelings, and/or motives.  They both lack the understanding that we all need to be respected for our feelings.

 

The Democrats worry about the human being's plight.  They are concerned about every man, woman and child having health insurance or not, they worry whether a woman has a choice or whether someone's civil rights are being abused.  They want to keep people safe so they demand regulations.

 

The Republicans worry about losing control of the 'super power' or 'leader of the free world' status that the United States has in the world.  They don't approve of communism or dictatorships.  And they don't want anybody else to have what they have -- power.  They also think their beliefs are the only 'true' beliefs to have.

 

Democrats have the guts to march to the death for a man's freedom to walk into a store; but when it comes to standing up for their nation, how and why she was created, they tend to cover their eyes in hopes that the problem will fade away.

 

Republicans have the guts to march to the death in the name of their country but when it comes to standing up for the civil or human rights of a fellow American, they too, tend to cover their eyes in hopes that the problems will fade away.

 

Democrats will spend money and time they haven't got in order to feed the hungry, nurse the sick or free an innocent man or woman from imprisonment.

 

Republicans will spend money they haven't got to fight a war of choice, they'll travel miles to protest something they don't believe in and they'll spend hours lecturing others on how they should or should not live their lives.

 

Republicans by ignoring human being's civil/human rights and health issues, ignore some of the very reasons our nation was created; having empathy for your fellow man/woman.  The Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

 

Democrats by ignoring our torturing of prisoners during wars of our recent past, have no empathy for those of us that truly believe our nation would be better served if it realized it's own evils. The Declaration of Independence says, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."  It also says, "A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people".

 

While I don't agree with the use of the word MEN in most of the Declaration of Independence; both parties seem to read between the lines of our Declaration, ignoring what they care less about.

 

A Party that is finally prepared to read the whole declaration and act upon it --- just might become America's, and the world's, new leader.

Speaking to ABC's "This Week," Clinton also said the president has answered the central question she raised about him when she was his chief rival for the Democratic nomination last year.

In her famous "3 a.m." ad, she questioned whether Obama was the right candidate to handle a middle-of-the-night international crisis.

"Has the president answered it for you?" host George Stephanopoulos asked.

"Absolutely," Clinton replied. "And, you know, the president, in his public actions and demeanor, and certainly in private with me and with the national security team, has been strong, thoughtful, decisive, I think he is doing a terrific job. And it's an honor to serve with him."

Well I am glad to see her finally admit that the man can do his job.  By saying this live on television, she can never claim she never thought he was ready to be president if something ever does happen under his watch.

"I never had any dream, let alone inkling, that I would end up in President Obama's cabinet," she said. "When I left the presidential race after getting some sleep and taking some deep breaths, I immediately went to work for him in the general election. ... And I was looking forward to going back to the Senate and, frankly, going back to my life and representing New York, which I love. And I had no idea that he had a different plan in mind."...

When her name was mentioned in the media as a possible member of Obama's cabinet, Clinton said, she found the idea "absurd."

"And then when he called and asked me to come see him, and we had our first conversation, I said, 'You know, I really don't think I'm the person to do this, I want to go back to my life. I really feel like I owe it to the people of New York.' And I gave him a bunch of other names of people who I thought would be great secretaries of state."

But Obama "was quite persistent and very persuasive," Clinton said.

She added, "Ultimately, it came down to my feeling that, number one, when your president asks you to do something for your country, you really need a good reason not to do it. Number two, if I had won and I had asked him to please help me serve our country, I would have hoped he would say yes. And finally, I looked around our world and I thought, you know, we are in just so many deep holes that everybody had better grab a shovel and start digging out."

Sorry Hillary but your comment, "I never had any dream, let alone inkling, that I would end up in President Obama's cabinet," she said." is so unbelievable it's patheic.  You MADE the man pick you and someday we'll hear the proof of that.  The other comment, "when your president asks you to do something...." is also a pathetic lie.

I would imagine that after the book "Renegade" came out by Richard Wolffe telling how Obama said that Bill Clinton had flat out lied during the campaign, that she's decided to make a statement to IMPLY that Obama had to PLEAD with her to join his team, when in reality it was, YOU EITHER GIVE ME THE POSITION OR I TAKE MY VOTERS ELSE WHERE.  She was NOT going down in history as just an ex-first lady and senator.

But hey, probably the only thing Hillary said that was true was, "you know, we are in just so many deep holes that everybody had better grab a shovel and start digging out."

Even after all these corrections I've made to Hillary's statement, I want to personally thank her for telling the world that President Obama has passed that 3am test.

Obama and his TEAM were handed a huge mess.  If they are lucky to just get us out of one or two of them, within 3 years, it will be a miracle.