New Obama Scandal: Top Obama Adviser Could Face Legal Disbarment
By Larry Johnson on March 26, 2008 at 9:52 AM in Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, David Kendall, Greg Craig, Hillary Clinton, Williams and Connally
Greg Craig, Obama Hitman, May Have Violated Attorney-Client Privilege With Clintons
Is the Obama campaign violating the fundamental tenet of American jurisprudence, the sacred bond of trust between a lawyer and their client? Under the rules of every bar association, based on tradition going back centuries of Anglo-Saxon legal principles, a lawyer must never exploit the intimate relationship with a client for other purposes that might benefit the lawyer. For this breach of trust, lawyers have regularly been disbarred.
Who is the possible ethical pirate operating at the beck and call of the Obama campaign?
Greg Craig, top adviser to Obama, holding a rank equal to recently disgraced and resigned aide Samantha Power, is a longtime partner at the Washington law firm, Williams and Connally. Now he’s Obama’s designated hatchet man, sent out on cable TV to deliver negative attack lines against Hillary Clinton. Craig knows no limits in his frenzied assaults on a person he has known well since they attended Yale Law School together. Craig knows better. He knows Hillary is a person of values and integrity, even as he smears her.
[The NYT photo caption, above right: CANDIDATE CABINET Foreign-policy advisers of Senator Obama (at head of table) include, from left around table, Gregory Craig, Susan Rice, Anthony Lake, Maj. Gen. Scott Gration and Samantha Power.]
But as nasty as this picture is, it’s actually much worse–and potentially a legal problem for the high-flying Craig.
Attorney Craig is ethically challenged. He and his firm, Williams and Connally, have been the attorneys of record for Bill and Hillary Clinton for more than a decade.
In the law firm, he regularly consulted with the Clintons’ personal lawyer, David Kendall, on numerous occasions. But not only that, Craig himself was hired as the lead attorney, working on the White House legal staff, for the President during the impeachment trial. Over a two-year period, throughout 1998 and 1999, Craig, as an attorney, was privy to the private legal matters involving the president and his wife. (See the Washington Post article, “Crisis Quarterback: Gregory Craig Is Calling the Plays On Clinton’s Team,” November 19, 1998.) [PHOTO: Greg Craig speaking on the floor of Congress on behalf of President Clinton]
For his work, the president thanked him, and Craig’s business thrived. But he decided that his ambition dictated that he betray his old friends and clients to align himself with Obama, where he thinks he has a better chance of getting a big job. Bill Richardson has nothing on Greg Craig in the Judas Iscariot betrayal department.
But as unethical as rank betrayal is, the problem is graver.
Is Greg Craig exploiting the attorney-client privilege that he and his firm have had with the Clintons in order to advance his career position and the political fortunes of Obama?
Could he face a disbarment hearing over his exploitation of his attorney-client privilege for political purposes?
Will the supine mainstream media, slavishly following the Obama campaign’s barks and calls like one of Pavlov’s dogs, ever even ask about Greg Craig’s potential ethical conflict of interest and breach of trust?
Where is Obama’s promise to run an ethical campaign on positive issues when his attack dog has questionable ethics and using personal attacks on a former client?
Will Obama fire Greg Craig to uphold his pledge?
Once again, Obama, who has smeared the former president for “McCarthyism,” demonstrates that there is no bottom to his ethically challenged negative campaign.
To paraphrase Joseph Welch’s famous statement to Senator Joseph McCarthy: “You’ve done enough, Greg Craig and Barack Obama. Have you no sense of decency, sirs, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”
When I did research and assistance work for attorneys — for many years, off and on — every attorney I ever worked with (EVERY ONE OF THEM) carefully checked their records to make sure that any new client did not represent a CONFLICT with any current client of the firm. Not just the attorney, but of the entire firm.
This is Law Firm 101. The attorneys I knew were quite paranoid about it because of rules of the bar association. They knew they had to make sure that any new client did not represent any conflict with any current client. EVERY firm had a system for performing a detailed check to make sure there was never a conflict.
Then there was that their current client would feel violated if they took on any new client whose matters crossed over into the current client’s concerns. But the attorneys’ worries didn’t even have to go that far because the bar rules are SO strict and SO clear.
It is appalling that Greg Craig is betraying the trust of his clients, the Clintons. It is an even more grave matter that he is breaking bar rules.
We also checked for witnesses who were former clients - we might have to challenge their credibility.
And when we hired a attorney, for business, say, we were told the same thing, ie “if we already represent, or represented, another whom you deal with as a subcontractor, we cannot represent you…”
Conflict of interest was the key phrase.
Given how Obama’s staff casually violated the privacy of Obama’s grandmother, in addition to the stench of Obama’s corrupt IL and Washington cronies, I can’t imagine this ethical conflict gave them, or gives them, a second thought.
even a copywright attorney won’t take a new client that has some business that competes with a previous client. I guess if he’d been able to close the deal and wasn’t in a protracted race where his method is to try to force her out this wouldn’t look so bad for Obama, but he is and this guy is riding shotgun, so it’s yet another sign that Obama has had to settle for ‘left-overs’ from Bill tenure. He won’t do a do-over with left-overs? Disgusting.
Susan
You are SO right about this. The FIRST thing one does before even considering taking on a new case is to do a conflict of interest check. This is of the UTMOST importance before anything else is ever done.
OBAMA is a lawyer (civil rights and voting rights) so he should know this and should never have hired him. Why is this a shock? OBAMA is a Chicago politician. I guarantee you he sought CRAIG out. The real question is how is CRAIG tied to REZKO?
I agree. That’s the first thought that occurred to me too. Obama is well-known for using marital court records against his opponents, and no one ever asks how the info got out. Twice now he’s done it. I fully expect him to go nuclear on Bill in the next few weeks. He’s been desperately trying to neutralize that strength for two months now.
The real question is how is CRAIG tied to REZKO?
answer is $, but who’s?
In my legal practice I wouldn’t touch anyone whose name was professionally familiar to me with a ten foot pole…even if my only connection might have been “hearing their name” through one of my files.
The state bar associations will also usually provide pre-retention counsel/advice if you suspect a possible conflict problem.
No wiggle-room on that one. I valued my practice - and my clients - too much.
Shainzona:
What might this Greg Craig be thinking then? Is there some strange loopehole that we are missing? I just don’t get it after reading all of this. Is this guy deluded?
The short answer is no. There are two codes typically. One is a national code referred to as the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.
The second is the individual Bar Association Ethics Rules.
The only person who can waive the conflict of interest is the client.
Disclosing confidential info. is a violation as is failing to safeguard info.
There are different amounts of time required for file retention; however, it is typically several years and the files must ultimately either be destroyed or returned to the client.
If there is one thing we may all be able to agree on, is the lack of shame in politics today. And the bar keeps getting lowered each day by the likes of Craig and Richardson.
Though they are by far tame considering the many politicians caught in far more serious and egregious acts. There was a time when someone arrested for soliciting sex from strangers in a bathroom would have simply faded out of the public eye in shame.
But we live in a day when the likes of Paris Hilton is made more famous by a video of her sexacapades. Where a son of a famous president gets to pass himself off as a Texas “dude” and even his parents go along with what would be, in any other sane family, grounds for a true life “intervention.”
But all of America participated in Bush’s delusions. How easy it was with the help of the media. And that was truly the lesson of the Bush regime. We focused (those of us plugging along after Bush was reelected) more on the electronic machines and the danger they posed.
We did not focus on the quality of our party. And we are seeing in this article the results of that. I believe Dean was/is a fine man with good goals, but his inexperience is showing. There has been little done toward cohesiveness one way or the other. But that reflects the raging political positioning that has been going on inside the Democratic Party for years. The Pelosi/Murtha divide should not be underestimated. Richardson was the most recent player in this behind the scenes drama that is truly fueling the Obama/Clinton debacle.
It is this lack of shame that gives us the type of candidate that Obama is. How else do you explain the arrogance, if not the chutzpah, to run for POTUS with so many skeletons in your closet? Mr. Obama?
Meanwhile, it’s raining rotten apples and the Democratic Party forgot to set up the “Big Tent” they are so famous for.
My god, what a bunch of hyperbole and specious name calling and innuendo. Larry - you’ve sunk to the level of and adopted the tactics of those who maligned Valerie Plame that you used to decry.
Sad
Gosh the truth always hurts Obama supporters. You people are completely brain washed. How scarry- remeniscent of early Hilter.
Hanna, the word is scarey - secondly, please explain how the statement hurt or how it wasn’t hyperbolic speculation.
Kevin-
Your mother’s calling you!! And Hanna spells as well as you - it’s scary you jerk, not scarey!
Kevin:
I guess you have never worked in a law firm.
“Craig knows better. He knows Hillary is a person of values and integrity, even as he smears her.”
Actually, it would appear the opposite. I know it’s so hard to believe, but he might actually have come to know Hillary in a quite different light over the years than the one you’ve painted her in above. That would provide a rational explanation for his joining the campaign.
Or perhaps his reasons are as devilish and inexplicable as you’re making them out to be. After all, people usually don’t act out of a sense of right and wrong, or rational thinking–it’s usually out a devilish desire to enact grandiose schemes of depravity on a scale not seen since the Grand Evil Wizard Bill Richardson sold out Hillary for 30 pieces of silver.
You know, Will, Obama’s trolls are like smug Frenchmen without the intellect, or the talent, just the arrogance, self superiority and lack of personal insight.
Which puts a whole new spin on the term John “French” Kerry, and the swift boating of such.
Yeah, that goes along way to explain the juvenile name calling and inability to engage in direct discourse you continue to exhibit. Keep up the good work…
Kevin–do you have a life? All you do is visit Hillary sites and display what a child you are. I feel sorry for you–you must be lonely with nothing to do all day but type ignorant and obnoxious comments. Get some counseling.
Why do people here feel this strong need to resort to such petty name-calling? Can’t we just debate the merits?
So tell me Fran, how am I displaying how much of a child I am? You make inane statements and I challenge you on the validity or veracity of them. Seems pretty simple - if you’re correct, it would be easy enough to bat aside my doubts and demonstrate the truth of what’s said - funny how that never happens.
Instead I get accusations - g’head, ignorant comments… obnoxious ones, please demonstrate.
ROFLMAO
ps - I’m gainfully employed - sorry love, I’m able to engage in more than one activity at a time.
Aren’t you a typical Obama sexist pig?? Obama had better find a third sex somewhere because if he is the nominee, he’s going to have a hard time getting most of the women in America to vote for him. That is, if you discount children and the Obama girl forgets to vote again. And he owes it all to sycophants like you who have dirtied up the internet with your sexist crap. I just be you are one of those NIKEs (No Income Kids With Education-dumbed down education at that) who moved back home so you could sponge off your parents, spend their retirement money as your own personal supplement, and appear “upscale”.
good grief, first - I apologize since no offense was meant, had just gotten finished speaking w/ an english colleague and inadvertently repeated one of her phrases.
But give me a break. From that single statement, you go off on a completely unfounded rant speculating about my sexist ways…
way to go Molly.
by the way, I’m far from being a “Nike” (how long did it take for you to figure that one out, or did you steal it from someone else) and provide for my daughter as a single parent quite well thank you.
Kevin -
You’re Home Alone?! AHHHHHHHH!!!
Yes Molly. The Obama supporters are for the most part disgraceful in tone. Why do they think people want to vote for someone who brings this out in the male species? They are so threatened by women that they resort to the worst kind of bashing. Sorry fellows, we see right through that - women will tilt this election - if you guys could count you’d have realized that by now.
Molly -
Good Golly you’re sooo right on!
Will….you’re missing the point. EVEN IF, Craig learned to hate the Clintons after years of taking their money, he CAN’T/ISN’T ALLOWED/VIOLATES A CANON OF ETHICS to become intimately involved in any role where confidential information - direct or indirect - could be given out. Importantly, it doesn’t have to be a direct piece of information - but it can be hinted at, winked at, nodded at - that is a violation.
Hey, he can hate all he wants - but he should not put himself in a position to violate confidence, especially the ones upon which his hate is founded.
Period.
“Hey, he can hate all he wants - but he should not put himself in a position to violate confidence, especially the ones upon which his hate is founded.”
Fine, but this is still a highly technical legal issue that isn’t going to be answered by innuendo and ad hominem attacks from No Quarter. Seriously, proving this would be one of the more difficult things to pull off.
Not difficult at all. Some conflicts are apparent to just about anyone, except perhaps Senator Obama’s fan club. In my experience, Attorney disciplinary commissions and judges will throw an attorney off a case or issue sanctions for even a hint of conflict of interest. Once the allegations are made, the attorney seeking to prove that there was no conflict or violation of confidentiality has the more difficult task of proving innocence.
this is still a highly technical legal issue
Since when are Ethics a “highly technical legal issue”?
This is just another example of Senator Obama’s poor judgement and lack of basic awareness of the issues that surround him.
For someone with a degree in “Constitutional Law” he exhibits a total lack of understanding in this disipline, and is making Harvard look bad.
This a VERY serious matter and I thank Mr Johnson for pointing it out.
Teak:
I think it is called Convolutional Law.
Rob Gard -
There you go again! Talking about experience when the Oblamers just want to pull shit out of their asses!
How’s Oblamer going to win when every friggin time he does a hatchet job on Hillary or any time he starts spewing his Rev. Wrong Hate America First Campaign -
some intelligent guy like you brings up EXPERIENCE?
If Greg Craig did come to loath or distrust Hillary after working in the White House for the Clintons, then he is not only a bad judge of character, but a fool as well, for trading on any such knowledge or contacts, even if he weren’t paid by the Obama campaign. He must figure that it is time to find another line of work, but it would take a complaint to the applicable State Supreme Court or other attorney regulatory body in the state where he is licensed (or a referral from a judge) to start an investigation (which could lead to disciplinary proceedings), and I don’t think that Hillary would want to take time for this distraction, at this time (maybe later).
Will, I think Richardson is banking on his career, worth millions if played right.
But why do we insist that one politician is somehow of a different species than another?
Having said that Will, you strike me as intellectually gifted enough individual to meet me halfway. It is so fascinating to me, as I see it is to you, how often our hearts will fool our brains into believing what we love is actually good for us. You know like being a Miami Dolfan (snick).
I could be wrong about Hillary. You could be wrong about your candidate. Who is to say? Me? You?
Let’s pretend for a moment that instead of it being Richardson betraying Clinton, it is Kerry betraying John Edwards by coming out and endorsing Obama right before the New Hampshire primary.
Do you feel the same way? I do. I thought that was a real low down classless act on Kerry’s part. It made me actually think for the first time, that he really wasn’t the man of character to be POTUS (Edwards would have been better me thinks).
And there is nothing that Mr. Kerry can do to restore my confidence in him again as a result of that. It is no wonder to me that Edwards has kept quiet and not endorsed anyone yet. It seems Mr. Edwards does put his honor and love of country over a clever political move. So far.
Richardson’s timing says more about him than it does about the Clintons. The fact that the state he represents voted for Hillary further illustrates my point
Don’t forget: Richardson was part of the Obama scheme to remove their names from the Michigan ballot to suck up to Iowa and New Hampshire and diminish Hillary’s win.
Also part of the Obama scheme to deny Florida and Michigan revotes even though the DNC approved both revotes.
And then he has the gall to on national TV and say he doesn’t want to get into the “gutter,” and wants us all to unite.
I don’t think so, Mr. Richardson.
You’re part of the problem now.
Carville’s right.
“Let’s pretend for a moment that instead of it being Richardson betraying Clinton, it is Kerry betraying John Edwards by coming out and endorsing Obama right before the New Hampshire primary.”
I think there is too much stock placed in the concept of “loyalty” as far as endorsements are concerned in politics. They are pragmatic decisions on almost every occasion, made by career politicians who have spent their lives developing highly calibrated relationships with so-called “allies” who they will dump the minute it’s politicall expedient. The higher profile the politician, the more this truth bears out.
John Kerry and John Edwards went separate ways long before Kerry endorsed Obama before S.C. They were clearly uncomfortable bedfellows as running mates, and were regularly out-of-sync and off-message w/one another. After the campaign ended, both sides’ surrogates trashed the other.
So I wasn’t the least surprised that Kerry didn’t endorse Edwards. Also, apparently Kerry was put off by Clinton’s criticizing his soldier gaffe prior to the midterm elections, so she didn’t get his endorsement, either. Apparently, memories are long in this game. That’s just how it goes.
I’ve long respected and admired Ed Rendell, and didn’t lose respect for him when he endorsed Hillary. It’s smart politics, that’s how this works. It’s about Rendell’s political survival–cleary, the demographics of PA support this endorsement over an Obama one.
But let me add that I appreciate that you didn’t toss in some bomb at the end of your post about what an idiot I am, or something similar. Most people here for some reason cannot restrain themselves from the personal attacks, and for that, I appreciate that you kept the discussion on the issues. Thanks.
Will,
Thank you for the thoughtful response.
Your reply clarifies that we do start off from very different core beliefs. No wonder we arrive at different conclusions!
My personal belief is that without some measure of “loyalty” our society would collapse. Hillary could not be challenging Obama to this degree if she did not enjoy a very large number of established as well as neo-political junkies. It is hard to appreciate the positives of an opponent because it requires you to give them credit. I suggest that the more vulnerable our preferred candidate, the less willing we are to examine the truth and realities of our opponent. I certainly confess to suffering from this very human behavioral response.
We can look to Obama and also see that he enjoys some very loyal support. I think this loyalty was severely tested recently. Without loyalty, Obama would be dead in the water by now.
As a member of a military family, loyalty is pretty big in our lives. My immediate family agrees that a person who does not show loyalty in public cannot be trusted to be loyal in private.
But that’s my view. I understand what you are saying and it is where my thoughts turns to next.
Not all politicians are “loyal” and loyalty does not a good politician make. I agree!
My point really is that loyalty is a criteria for me when judging others. A lack of loyalty in my personal life is a deal breaker. A lack of loyalty from my attorney would be grounds for a law suit followed by a hearty “word of mouth” referral to all my friends to avoid such attorney.
I’m not sure why I would expect any less from Craig due to the fact his clients are political figures.
And that, Will, merely proves Larry’s point, and why it is possible grounds for disbarment. The “Guild” (the Bar) does not look kindly on actions that threaten it.
Once again, Team Obama’s sense of ethics have stuck to the bottom of the Called One’s shoe.
I think the picture of Hillary sitting down with Richard Mellon Scaife in an editorial meeting at his vanity rag to answer questions about side issues such as “what my preacher said” really says a lot. Richard ‘fucking’ Mellon Scaife. The #1 funder of the Arkansas project. Is that Stockholm syndrome or what?
Both Democratic candidates should be daily pointing out the debacle in Iraq…Warmonger Cheney stirring up death and destruction with his war hardon for Iran and so on…meanwhile the circular firing squad is still trying to elect high school class pres..
“Waiting for Troll”
Three anti-Clinton French sockpuppets with pretensions toward intellectualism sit under a tree, discussing various aspects of a swift boat attack on Hillary.
It writes itself.
Simon,
Is it just me or is every comment about Obama is met with “but, but Clinton” just like the Republicans always do when you mention Bush?
And also could you explain to me why so many Obamatrons, who have a plethora of Pro-Obama sites to go to just can’t stay away from NQ which is an unabashedly pro-Hillary blog? One of the few I might add. Evidently we are not allowed to have our own opinions or support our own candidates.
I used to wonder what went on in the pointy little heads of Republican Trolls that hung around liberal blogs just to insult people with whom they differed. How very sad it is that some so-called libs do the same thing.
Please tell me I’m wrong for thinking that the Democratic Party is broken beyond repair.
“And also could you explain to me why so many Obamatrons, who have a plethora of Pro-Obama sites to go to just can’t stay away from NQ which is an unabashedly pro-Hillary blog?”
Insecurity. At some level the Obamatrons are worried that not enough people are believing that tin plated con-man they are pushing as the messiah.
Though I am still amazed at how rapidly and thoroughly the progressive blogosphere turned into pro-Obama sites. Its like someone gave them all a cash infusion.
I wouldn’t put it past Obama.
Well it is apparently an infusion many of us are immune to.
I think this election is heading for a cliff for the Democrats. I think that most Obama supporters and most Hillary supporters loathe each other more than they loathe the conservative/Republicans.
I just wish there was some place, any place that was Obamatron free.
Swiftboating, marge, it’s guerrilla marketing, 101.
And this is what you’re seeing today.
And what are guerrilla marketers, or David Axelrod, or Karl Rove, or even Obama, for that matter, but characters from a parody of a Beckett, or David Mamet play?
They’re attempting to swift boat, to cause chaos, in an attempt to scatter, and gain the upper hand, “destroying Clinton.”
But if you look at the roster, well, it won’t happen.
Just don’t bite, if it feels you’re bickering with an aged, alcoholic, out of work, French has been, marginally talented, embittered Joan Crawford-Bill Kristol type, ostensibly male, it’s a troll.
You write
“They’re attempting to swift boat, to cause chaos, in an attempt to scatter, and gain the upper hand, “destroying Clinton.”
I don’t know…I am new on this site, and not too keen on all the insults, andsoon, and don’t know exactly who the ‘trolls’ supposed to be, but I sense that if there were any attempts to destroy anybody, you seem to go after Obama.
Correct me if I am wrong, plese
First off, you should read before you attempt, as a troll to distract.
Secondly, giving you the benefit of the doubt, which I don’t, Obama accepted money from Saddam’s ex bag man.
What do you think about that?
If you think it’s OK, you’re the problem, too.
I men, really, doo, what are the implications for American foreign policy, Obama accepting money from Nadhmi Auchi?
Do you even know?
Four sockpuppets sitting under a tree, desperately trying to analyze “waiting for godot” within the context of their troll.
Being marketing and science guys, they can’t.
IMO, Obama’s lack of judgement, again, was trusting the apparatus of national security wouldn’t hold him, and his crew, responsible for their transactions.
You know? doo?
Of course you don’t.
I guess the point I’m trying to make is imagine throwing your political lot in with Hamas, per the good reverend, versus the NSA.
What a shithead, eh?
Sorry, Susan, I’m trying to be civil.
“Its like someone gave them all a cash infusion. I wouldn’t put it past Obama.”
Again, completely absurd. The only campaign that would ever consider wasting money like that would be the Clinton campaign.
Will,
Sometimes we can follow an argument right off the the short end of the pier.
I find generally there are two types of Hillary detractors; true Obama supporters and true Hillary haters.
But they both share one thing in common. They exhibit fixated thinking.
Yes! There are similar Clinton supporters. But in general, I find true Clintonistas (raising hand proudly) a more open minded and logical bunch.
“Evidently we are not allowed to have our own opinions or support our own candidates.”
That is ridiculous. No one has said you “are not allowed to have” your own opinions, or support the candidate of your choice. My mere presence here as an Obama supporter does nothing to keep you from supporting Clinton. My challenging the basis of your Clinton support factually also compels you to do nothing.
What’s funny is that prObama sites instantly ban Hillary supporters from their sites. They won’t even tolerate a post that disputes Obama.
This is why I don’t support Obama. They don’t believe in the basic tenets of Democracy: freedom to vote for the candidate of your choice in an election and freedom of speech.
And yes, kenoshamarge, the Democratic Party, as far as I’m concerned is broken beyond repair.
Certainly Barack Obama won’t be the one uniting it, or our nation as he has claimed.
Mimi,
thanks for your input. I guess I am just really depressed this morning. I see and hear smears and attacks on Clinton(s) everywhere while his royal phoniness gets a pass.
I don’t think the pundits realize just how angry many, many older women are. We have been insulted, dismissed and taken for granted.(Just like being married) Sure, we’ll just toddle off and vote for whoever the media and pundits decide will be our candidate. We are a “reliable” vote.
I don’t think so. And that is why I believe the party is broken beyond repair. I don’t believe the older woman vote is a reliable vote for the Democrats any more. At least this old woman’s vote isn’t. I plan on writing in Hillary if Obama is the candidate and then voting for the down ticket Dems I think worth voting for. And that doesn’t mean all of them by any means.
But a lot of the women I’ve talked to, old bats like me, are planning on voting for McCain if Hillary is not the candidate. They loathe Obama. And they do not despise McCain like they did Bush. And the more they get called “racist” and other names, the more they loathe him. This is a train wreck waiting to happen IMO.
IMHO, the Dems will lose the ‘middling’ womens vote too Mimi
Im 38 and I wont under any circumstances vote for Obama either
most of the Dem base appears to be moving away from the ‘party’ platform as led by Pelosi, Dean et al and they dont appear to know it, they are standing in quicksand with their Golden Boy….
Let’s see how PA and the remaining states play out, maybe they will get a clue….
Mimi
what are the Obama sites? I have never visited one
Don’t go unless you are prepared to be lambasted over the coals for speaking freely. I swear they all act like Scientologist with their attack dogs.
Obama is their religion. And you know how people react when you challenge their religion (no matter how foolish it might appear to others) …
Well she had to sit down with Mellon. After all CNN is too busy to bother. Most of their time is taken up having news-sex with the Baby Jesus Obama.
I am reading that 1998 WaPo article that Larry linked to. Look at this:
Guess not.
Obama’s a lawyer; he should know better than to put Clinton’s former lawyer into a position where he would be called upon to breach client confidentiality.
“Obama’s a lawyer; he should know better than to put Clinton’s former lawyer into a position where he would be called upon to breach client confidentiality.”
Maybe’s because he’s “a lawyer”, Obama knows that he has in no way done that.
So, handling a swift boater, or his lawyer, and their attacks, their “logic,” is analogous to handling an intellectually pretentious, no talent Frenchman.
The English have a lot of experience with that…
What brand of cigarette does Obama smoke, again?
Gitanes?
AH NO. I can’t let that one go by. Obama, the lawyer, knows what he’s doing and he doesn’t mind “serving up” another lawyer for disbarrment to acheive his goals. It’s all about Obama, all the time.
All Obama All the Time
hey isnt that the new CNN catchphrase?
What breach are you talking about? You see a buzzword, an accusation, and you are off.
Craig was one of Bill Clinton’s impeachment attorneys. Did he reveal anything about Bill Clinton’s nasty conduct?
He owes no loyalty to the relatives of any defendants he represents.
What he said about Hillary Clinton are verifiable facts. It is the Clinton camp that needs factcheck.
Hillerys pitt bulls and thugs who are trying to win this thing for her, (NO MATTER WHAT IT TAKES) are making Obama look better, and better EVERY DAY. LOL
This site has “gone into the bit tent) with the GOP. Have a nice day. LOL
Wait! Take Will and Kevin with you!
And you too John!
“I told you he wouldn’t go.”
He doesn’t get it, not being familiar with self irony, and Beckett.
Pseudo intellectualism, indeed.
Remember the quote “irony is dead?”
That was wrong, it simply morphed into self parody, men with no insight into their own behavior, at all, American political consultants as no talent obtuse Euro trash.
LOOK at the republicans, look at Obama’s camp, even throwing GRANDMA under the train, not even recognizing, oh, the audacity.
They don’t get it.
They really don’t.
It’s just business.
To everyone else, it’s parody.
You’re seeking or engaged in therapy right?
“He doesn’t get it, not being familiar with self irony, and Beckett.”
Beckett references? Whoa, boy!
Translation of Will: Who’s Beckett?
“Translation of Will: Who’s Beckett?”
I have a B.F.A. in theatre, so I’m well aware of Samuel Beckett’s work. I was almost cast as Hamm in Endgame, but got lucky with Arturo Ui instead, which any warm-blooded actor would be thrilled with. If you know the play I’m referencing, you’ll understand why. If you haven’t read The Resistable Rise of Arturo Ui, you should.
I was only surprised to see Beckett brought up in a political chat room regarding Obama and Clinton. It’s not every day!
Once again, I don’t understand why everything boils down to an insult or a personal attack on this site.
Uh, no.
The Gallup Poll shows that if Obama gets the nomination against McCain in the fall,
28% of Democrats will vote for McCain.
So it appears, dear, that your premise is the EXACT opposit of the truth.
Obama’s reputation has DIMINISHED because of the Wright fiasco, and all the hysterical attacks on Hillary won’t change that.
Obama can’t win in November if 28% of Democrats desert him.
FACTS
So the Hillary 2012 plan is working. She’ll take the party down in the hope that she can come back later.
I won’t vote for her than either.
NOt the Hillary plan, dear.
It’s the ANTI-MEDIA plan.
Ironic, isn’t it, that after their continued trashing of Clinton after the New Hampshire win, claiming that it was only because of the Bradley Effect (ie, NH voters were all racists)…..
that the hidden Wright information may very well bring down Obama BECAUSE of the Bradley Effect.
Obama is dividing the party, darlin. And he’s playing the race-baiting card to do it.
And THAT is why Democrats are moving AWAY from his bamboozling bullsh*t EN MASSE.
He’s a fake. A fraud. A liar.
“And THAT is why Democrats are moving AWAY from his bamboozling bullsh*t EN MASSE.”
Why is he closing in PA, then?
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/pennsylvania_democratic_presidential_primary