Obama “The Patriot” – Dishonors The United State Of America

In September during an Iowa Fry Steak, Omaba has hands crossed infront of his crotch during the National Anthem. Now some have argued that it was a matter of timing, that this picture was snapped just before the Anthem started or right after it ended. However video from the event shows that he was poised this way throughtout the Anthem.

Is this the man you want as our next President. He has already refused to wear the US Flag lapel pin because the thinks that it is too patriotic. Now the National Anthem is to too Patriotic for him. Even Hillary has the decency to follow protocol…

Can you picture what his Oath of Office will be like?

And for those confused on what the proper conduct for the National Anthem is, there is the Flag code:

(a) Designation.— The composition consisting of the words and music known as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.

(b) Conduct During Playing.— During a rendition of the national anthem—

(1) when the flag is displayed—

(A) all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart;

(B) men not in uniform should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold the headdress at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and

(C) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note; and

(2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.

Advertisements

American’s Want Change, Not Necessarily Democrats

This is a great Article. The only concern is that several people I have talked to think that the article means that the majority of the country is going to vote Democrat and that this article is saying that Republicans are going to vote Democrat in the 2008 Presidential Elections.

The article points out several important issues in the upcoming elections and does seem to prod the reader into thinking Republicans are bad…. However it is not that people necessarily support Democratic change in the election. I myself, support change from the current path the Bush Administration is taking. I would like to see the Bush Administration return to the path it was taking initially during his first term. He brought the country together, forced the Democrats to become bi-partisan for those four years, achieved economic improvements for us middle class folks. When he switched and caved into Democratic pressure, he faltered.

Read each of the stats and think about what they really mean. Yes change,  

By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen

Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, November 4, 2007; Page A01

One year out from the 2008 election, Americans are deeply pessimistic and eager for a change in direction from the agenda and priorities of President Bush, according to a new Washington PostABC News poll.

Concern about the economy, the war in Iraq and growing dissatisfaction with the political environment in Washington all contribute to the lowest public assessment of the direction of the country in more than a decade. Just 24 percent think the nation is on the right track, and three-quarters said they want the next president to chart a course that is different than that pursued by Bush.

Overwhelmingly, Democrats want a new direction, but so do three-quarters of independents and even half of Republicans. Sixty percent of all Americans said they feel strongly that such a change is needed after two terms of the Bush presidency.

Dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq remains a primary drag on public opinion, and Americans are increasingly downcast about the state of the economy. More than six in 10 called the war not worth fighting, and nearly two-thirds gave the national economy negative marks. The outlook going forward is also bleak: About seven in 10 see a recession as likely over the next year.

The overall landscape tilts in the direction of the Democrats, but there is evidence in the new poll — matched in conversations with political strategists in both parties and follow-up interviews with survey participants — that the coming battle for the White House is shaping up to be another hard-fought, highly negative and closely decided contest.

At this point, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the Democratic front-runner, holds the edge in hypothetical match-ups with four of the top contenders for the Republican nomination. But against the two best-known GOP candidates, former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), her margins are far from comfortable. Not one of the leading candidates in either party has a favorable rating above 51 percent in the new poll.

And while Clinton finds herself atop all candidates in terms of strong favorability — in the poll, 28 percent said they feel strongly favorable toward her — she also outpaces any other candidate on strong unfavorables. More than a third, 35 percent, have strongly negative views of her, more than 10 points higher than any other contender.

Overall, the public’s sour mood is evident not only in the desire for a change in direction but also in assessments of those who control the reins of power in Washington. For the fourth consecutive month, Bush’s approval rating remains at a career low. Thirty-three percent said they approve of the job he is doing, and 64 percent disapprove. Majorities have disapproved of Bush’s job performance for more than 2 1/2 years.

In follow-up interviews, people were quick to find fault with what they see in Washington and to express their desire for something different. “I think Bush has been extremely polarizing to the country,” said Amber Welsh, a full-time mother of three young children who lives in Davis, Calif. “While I think it started before Bush, I think Bush has pushed it even further. I think the next president needs to be one who brings us together as a country.”

Democrats can take little comfort in Bush’s numbers, however. A year after voters turned Republicans out of power in the House and the Senate, approval of the Democratic-controlled Congress’s performance is lower than the president’s rating, registering just 28 percent. That is the lowest since November 1995, when Republicans controlled Congress and the capital was paralyzed in a budgetary fight that shut down the government.

Congressional Democrats now fare just slightly better. Only 36 percent of those surveyed approve of the way they are handling their jobs, down sharply from April when, 100 days into the new Congress, 54 percent said they approved.

Whatever their dissatisfaction with the Democrats, however, a majority of Americans, 54 percent, said they want the party to emerge from the 2008 election in control of Congress; 40 percent would prefer the GOP to retake power. One reason is that 32 percent approve of congressional Republicans, and in a series of other measures it becomes clear that the eventual Republican nominee for president may be burdened by a tarnished party label in the general election.

Thirty-nine percent of Americans said they now have a favorable impression of the Republican Party, lower than at any point since December 1998, when Republicans were in the midst of impeachment proceedings against then-President Bill Clinton.

Among the GOP rank and file, Republican favorability has fallen 15 percentage points since March 2006 (from 93 percent to 78 percent). It has dropped 19 points among independents, whose support for Democratic candidates in last year’s midterm elections contributed significantly to GOP losses in the House and the Senate.

Only 23 percent of those surveyed said they want to keep going “in the direction Bush has been taking us,” and the appetite for change is as high as it was in the summer of 1992, in the lead-up to Bill Clinton’s defeat of President George H.W. Bush. It is significantly higher than it was in the summer of 2000 or the fall of 1988.

“We’re in a terrible mess,” said Jay Davis, who works on computers for an insurance company and lives in Portland, Maine. “The war is an incredible mistake, and it becomes more and more obvious. The economy is just being propped up with toothpicks.”

Jo Wright, a retired Episcopal priest from Vinita, Okla., said, “It just seems that after these eight years most people think there’s got to be a change, and I’m with them.”

Greg Coy, a 911 dispatcher who lives in Shippensburg, Pa., is less pessimistic about the overall state of the country than Davis or Wright, but he is unhappy with both the president and Congress. He voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, but he said: “If he came up again [for reelection], I wouldn’t vote for him. The last year I think he’s dropped something, and I’m not sure what it is.”

Coy also offered a broader indictment of a political system he sees as gridlocked by partisanship. “Here’s the problem with this country,” he said. “Just because it’s a Republican idea, Democrats don’t like it, and because it’s a Democratic idea, Republicans don’t like it. The Congress should go with what works for this country. We have gotten away from that.”

Justin Munro, a contractor from Reading, Pa., offered a less widely held view of Bush’s policies and the direction of the country. “I’m pretty confident that time will prove that maybe going into Iraq was the right thing to do,” he said. He also believes that Bush has not gotten enough credit on the economy: “I think we’ll look back on that, too, and see that the tax cuts were the right thing to do.”

At this stage, three issues dominate the electoral landscape, with the war in Iraq at the top of the list. Nearly half of all adults, 45 percent, cited Iraq as the most or second-most important issue in their choice for president. About three in 10 cited the economy and jobs (29 percent) or health care (27 percent). All other issues are in the single digits.

Iraq is tops across party lines, but Democrats are twice as likely as Republicans to highlight health care as one of the two most important issues for 2008 (34 percent to 16 percent). Health-care concerns peak among African Americans: Twenty percent called it the election’s most important issue, and 38 percent said it is one of the top two.

While 12 percent of Republicans and 10 percent of independents cited immigration as one of the top two issues, it was highlighted by 3 percent of Democrats. Terrorism is also a more prominent concern among Republicans; 17 percent put it in their top two, while 3 percent of Democrats did the same.

The Democratic Party holds double-digit leads over the GOP as the party most trusted to handle the three most frequently cited issues for 2008: Iraq, health care and the economy. The Democratic advantages on immigration and taxes are narrower, and the parties are at rough parity on terrorism, once a major Republican strong point.

There are other signs suggesting that the political landscape has become less favorable to Republicans than it was at the beginning of Bush’s presidency. By 50 percent to 44 percent, Americans said they favor smaller government with fewer services over bigger government with more services — long a key Republican argument. But support for smaller government is significantly lower than it was before both the 2000 and 2002 elections.

In the new poll, support for allowing same-sex civil unions is up significantly from 2004. A majority of respondents, 55 percent, now support giving homosexual couples some of the legal rights of married heterosexuals.

There is a more even divide on another hot-button issue: Fifty-one percent would support a program giving illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and meet other requirements; 44 percent would oppose that.

Strategists in both parties agree on the overall shape of the political landscape a year from the 2008 election, but they differ as to how voters will ultimately register their desire for change.

Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg said an electorate that took out its anger on Republicans a year ago remains mad, with the hostility still focused on the president’s party.

Republican pollster Neil Newhouse said, “It is a political environment pretty heavily tilted toward the Democrats.” One hope, he added, is that an early end to the GOP nominating battle will allow the winner time “to put the current administration in the rearview mirror, placing the focus on the nominee’s candidacy and agenda.”

Still, strategists on both sides foresee another close election. “The biggest dynamic is that people want change from the policies of the Bush administration,” said Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist. But he added that “it’s not a clear path” to victory for the Democrats, noting that no Democratic nominee has won 50 percent of the general-election vote since Jimmy Carter in 1976.

Stuart Stevens, a media adviser to former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, said no Republican candidate will argue next year that the country is in great shape, but he discounted the effectiveness of running against Bush in the fall of 2008. “A year from now, it’s not going to be a referendum on President Bush, it’s going to be a choice between two candidates,” he said.

Much will happen in the coming months that could reshape the political climate. But at this point, in a matchup of current front-runners, Clinton and Giuliani are tightly paired: 50 percent of respondents would support Clinton, 46 percent Giuliani. Against McCain, Clinton has a clearer edge, 52 percent to 43 percent. She has even larger advantages over former senator Fred D. Thompson of Tennessee (16 points) and Romney (18 points), both of whom remain undefined in the eyes of many voters.

In each of these potential contests, Clinton has a big edge among women. In a head-to-head with Giuliani, 56 percent of women would back Clinton, and 40 percent would vote for Giuliani. By contrast, men would tilt toward Giuliani 51 percent to 44 percent.

Independents, who fueled the Democratic takeover of Congress last November, are evenly divided, 47 percent for Clinton, 46 percent for Giuliani. The split is one indicator that, despite current Democratic advantages and an electorate strongly oriented toward change, the 2008 election is likely to be closely and hotly contested.

The Post-ABC poll was conducted by telephone Oct. 29 to Nov. 1 among a random sample of 1,131 adults, and includes additional interviews with randomly selected African Americans for a total of 203 black respondents. The results from the full poll have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.

The Hillary Gang Bang

What exactly does Hillary think will happen if she is elected President of the United States and her agenda differs from other politicians or world leaders?

It is amazing that one person can divide the democratic party. I thought the theme of the progressive democrats was to unite Americans…

Maybe Hillary is to blind to see, but it has nothing to do with her gender, it has to do with the vast lead she holds over her fellow democrats. Obama and Edwards are desparate, they have no chance of winning the primary as it stands, so they are launching everything they have.

Stop trying to divide the country’s votes based on gender, this is politics Hillary, get use to it if you want to be President. It has nothing to do with your womanhood.

Can you imagine how much she will whine if she has to confront Iran, N. Korea, Syria and Venezuela… wait, mabye she won’t  as she will give them what they want because she agrees with them…

This outlines the key piece in what makes a great President, does the person have what it takes to make decisions that are not the popular choice and stick to them because they know it is the right thing to do.

Another thing Hillary, try giving some answers to the questions posed to you, so the people know what you actually stand for. Stop with the democratic handbook, and open up.

In the famous words from History of the World Part I, King Louis XVI, “Knight jumps queen! Bishop jumps queen! Pawns jump queen! *Gangbang*!  It’s good to be the King”

After Democratic debate, an argument about gender and ‘piling on’

By Adam Nagourney and Patrick Healy

updated 1:28 a.m. ET, Mon., Nov. 5, 2007 function UpdateTimeStamp(pdt) { var n = document.getElementById(“udtD”); if(pdt != ” && n && window.DateTime) { var dt = new DateTime(); pdt = dt.T2D(pdt); if(dt.GetTZ(pdt)) {n.innerHTML = dt.D2S(pdt,((”.toLowerCase()==’false’)?false:true));} } } UpdateTimeStamp(‘633298409061900000’);

DES MONIES, Nov. 4 – A critical question in this campaign — how to run against a female presidential candidate, or as one — has burst into the foreground in the aftermath of a Democratic debate last week at which Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was repeatedly challenged by her rivals and the event’s questioners.

Some of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters are accusing rival candidates and the questioners of “piling on,” to use the words of the Clinton campaign, at the debate, which rattled the Clinton camp. They noted that John Edwards had been especially critical of Mrs. Clinton.

“John Edwards, specifically, as well as the press, would never attack Barack Obama for two hours they way they attacked her,” said Geraldine A. Ferraro, the 1984 vice presidential candidate who supports Mrs. Clinton. “It’s O.K. in this country to be sexist,” Ms. Ferraro said.

Story continues below ↓


advertisement

ad_dap(‘250′,’300′,’&PG=NBCPOB&AP=1089’);


“It’s certainly not O.K. to be racist. I think if Barack Obama had been attacked for two hours — well, I don’t think Barack Obama would have been attacked for two hours.”

Mrs. Clinton’s opponents, and some prominent women, countered that Mrs. Clinton was resorting to using her sex as a shield against substantive criticism in a hard-fought race.

getCSS(“3053751”)

  More from NYTimes.com

Click links below:

Clinton rebuts accusations of secrecy
New life for initiative to apportion electoral vote
In pledge, Edwards reflects on wife’s cancer fight

External links

“It’s outrageous to suggest that it’s sexist for the other candidates to ask her tough questions or criticize her,” said Kate Michelman, a women’s leader and a supporter of Mr. Edwards. “To call it sexist is to play the gender card. Any claim of sexism is just a distraction from the fact that she did not do well in the debate, that she did not answer important questions on Iraq and Iran.”

In a campaign in which a woman is leading the Democratic field, it was perhaps inevitable that the question would arise: would or should she be treated any differently from her rivals? The situation is that much more complicated given that second place in most polls goes to Mr. Obama, who is black. It means that both race and sex have been added to the mix of substance and imagery that makes up presidential politics.

But more than anything, the fallout from the debate underlined just how uncertain Mrs. Clinton and her opponents are in trying to figure out what kind of role gender will play in this campaign.

The tentativeness reflects the memory of Mrs. Clinton’s first Senate campaign, when her Republican opponent marched across the stage during a debate and demanded she sign a pledge renouncing her use of soft money in the campaign, a maneuver that Mrs. Clinton’s aides quickly highlighted and said produced a flood of support among women.

Mrs. Clinton denies playing the gender card — at least in the sense of saying that as a woman she should be exempt from the traditional rough-and-tumble of campaigns — and her remarks on the subject have certainly been oblique.

From the start of this campaign, Mrs. Clinton has embraced the idea that she might be the first woman elected president, and has celebrated her candidacy in historic terms — young girls at her rallies are regularly seen wearing “I can be president” buttons provided by the campaign.

Whatever her personal feelings, it is a central part of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign strategy. In Iowa, she has set out to energize women young and old who have never participated in the caucuses.

Why Mrs. Clinton’s supporters have invoked her sex so specifically is a matter of dispute. Her critics, including some of her opponents, suggested it was a cynical maneuver designed to compensate for what even Mrs. Clinton’s supporters acknowledged was a poor performance.

  Click for related content

But aides to Mrs. Clinton suggested that by highlighting this episode — a statement by the campaign called her a “strong woman” as it denounced the “politics of piling on” — they were taking a lesson from what happened in the 2000 Senate race, suggesting that once again women would rally around Mrs. Clinton for showing strength in the face of attack.

For all that, Mrs. Clinton has taken pains not to come across as complaining or suggesting that she felt victimized. She told reporters she thought the criticism of her occurred not because she was a woman, but because she was the front-runner, even as she used language that invoked feminist imagery.

“If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen,” Mrs. Clinton said at an event in Indianola, Iowa. “Well, I’m really comfortable in the kitchen, and I’m going to stay in there and absorb the heat.”

Still, her campaign responded, characteristically, on a less obvious and more forceful track that at least initially used an online “piling on” video to encourage a simple story line for the debate: Seven men versus one woman.

Lashing back, her critics have denounced what they say was a political maneuver to force Mrs. Clinton’s opponents to treat the woman in the race more gingerly.

In an interview on Sunday, Mr. Edwards, the former Democratic senator from North Carolina, dismissed suggestions that the male candidates were ganging up on Mrs. Clinton.

“The standard should be exactly the same,” Mr. Edwards said. “I think she’s entitled to be treated like every other candidate is treated, and that’s exactly what I’ll do.”

In his criticism of Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, a senator from Illinois, said he had not referred to his race when he was challenged at the debate.

Ms. Ferraro said that she thought the debate and its fallout would rally support to Mrs. Clinton. (“I am not kidding,” Ms. Ferraro said. “I have been bombarded by e-mail.”)

“We can’t let them do this in a presidential race,” she said. “They say we’re playing the gender card. We are not. We are not. We have got to stand up. It’s discrimination against her as a candidate because she is a woman.”

Copyright © 2007 The New York Times

Hillary Upset Over Analogy Comparing Bin Laden to Hitler & Lenin

Hillary seems a bit confused these days. She is upset because of an “analogy” made by President Bush comparing Democrats to Hitler. Sorry Hillary, it is not an analogy to the Democrats, but rather a recall of history and posing a question of if we learned from History. The an analogy is the comparison of Osama Bin Laden to Hitler and Lenin in terms for his declaration of intent. Now if we are going to ignore the threat and wait until a high price is paid, then there is an additional analogy, but it was posed as a question not a statement of fact.

It seems Hillary is more concerned about politicizing the terrorist escapades of enemy than protecting our country. Hillary, listen and learn, there is an enemy knocking on our doorstep, they have invaded our country and they want to kill as many of us as possible. Now what are you going to do about it if you are elected President?

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton sharply criticized President Bush Thursday for comparing Democrats opposed to his terrorist-surveillance program to those who ignored the rise of Hitler and Lenin.

“George Bush’s faulty and offensive historical analogies aren’t going to end the war in Iraq, make America safer or bring our troops home,” the New York senator said Thursday in a statement. “Americans are tired of the president’s efforts to play politics with national security and practice the politics of division.

Speaking before the Heritage Foundation Thursday, Bush criticized Congress for failing to act on intelligence legislation that is “vital to protect the American people in this war on terror,” and suggested Democrats are underestimating the terrorist threat.

“History teaches that underestimating the words of evil, ambitious men is a terrible mistake,” Bush said. “In the early 1900s, the world ignored the words of Lenin, as he laid out his plans to launch a Communist revolution in Russia — and the world paid a terrible price.

“In the 1920s, the world ignored the words of Hitler, as he explained his intention to build an Aryan super-state in Germany, take revenge on Europe, and eradicate the Jews — and the world paid a terrible price,” Bush continued. “Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. And the question is: Will we listen?”

In the same speech, Bush also linked Congressional Democrats to the liberal group MoveOn.org and the anti-war group Code Pink.

“When it comes to funding our troops, some in Washington should spend more time responding to the warnings of terrorists like Osama bin Laden and the requests of our commanders on the ground,” Bush said, “and less time responding to the demands of MoveOn.org bloggers and Code Pink protesters.”

Dem On Dem Attacks – With Friends Like This Who Needs Republicans

Hillary’s camp crying over Democrat on Democrat attacks. During the latest Democratic Debate, Hillary avoided answering questions, with coaching from Bill she does a wonderful job at dodgeball, flip flopped on issues during the debate and made herself look like a complete asshat. Her opponents, dug in deep and would not back off. Now that the debate is over, she is answering those questions, the ones she could not answer while under fire. Hmmm… Imaging if there was a real crisis she had to respond to with limited time to make a decision. No Imagine if she were President of the United States and we were under attack from Terrorists, maybe terrorists flying planes into buildings. Now Imagine her response. Is this what you want to lead our country? I hope your answer is no.

Hillary, take a bit of advise, take a position on the various issues you are confronted with, support those positions and act upon them. The people will have more respect for you than if you whine about how the “boys” picked on you…

Hillary Clinton’s campaign made a new fundraising pitch on Thursday, looking to somehow capitalize on the flak she’s taking from her Democratic opponents over her performance at a debate Tuesday night in Philadelphia.

In a letter circulated by Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle, the campaign announced that the presidential race has “entered a new phase.”

“On that stage in Philadelphia, we saw six against one. Candidates who had pledged the politics of hope practiced the politics of pile on instead. Her opponents tried a whole host of attacks on Hillary,” the letter said. It then asked readers for a campaign contribution.

The missive came as Clinton’s opponents continued to take shots at the frontrunner over her seeming double talk at the debate. Most of the criticism has come in response to Clinton’s confusing answer regarding her position on New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s plan to give illegal immigrants driver’s licenses, a stance she has since tried to clarify. That issue is not necessarily a divisive topic for Democrats, but rather the response is indicative of what opponents say is Clinton’s fatal flaw.

The campaign for John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator who was especially critical Tuesday night, released a statement Thursday saying Clinton is engaging in the “politics of parsing.”

“All the distractions in the world won’t undo the fact that on Tuesday night millions of Americans saw John Edwards speak honesty and directly while Senator Clinton once again took multiple positions on multiple issues,” the statement said. “We understand that the Clinton campaign isn’t happy about that, but instead of smoke and mirrors, how about some truth-telling?”

Clinton has tried to clear the air of confusion, saying late Wednesday that she supports Spitzer’s plan.

Spitzer’s plan, which he has retooled in the face of heavy criticism, would grant identification on a three-tier basis, decreasing with the level of proper documentation. Undocumented, illegal immigrants would receive a license only to be used for driving, and be inscribed “not for federal purposes,” meaning it couldn’t be used to board flights or cross borders.

“Senator Clinton broadly supports measures like the ones being advocated by Governor Spitzer, but there are details that still need to be worked out,” Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said Wednesday.

“Senator Clinton supports governors like Governor Spitzer who believe they need such a measure to deal with the crisis caused by this administrations failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform,” he added.

During the debate Tuesday night, Clinton offered support for Spitzer, saying he was trying to “fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform,” and noted millions of illegal immigrants are in New York at any one time. They should be able to have identification if they’re in an auto accident, for instance, she said.

When all seven of the candidates were asked whether they agree that illegal aliens should have driver’s licenses, only Sen. Christopher Dodd said he disagreed. He then pressed Clinton on the issue and argued against the plan, saying: “A license is a privilege, and that ought not to be extended, in my view.”

Clinton responded: “Well, I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do.”

Dodd then quickly interrupted Clinton before she could finish, seizing on the apparent discrepancy. Moderator Tim Russert then tried to elicit an answer on whether she supported the plan or not, but she avoided offering specific support for the plan.

Then Edwards and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, both attorneys like Clinton, took turns dicing her statement.

“Unless I missed something, Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes just a few minutes ago,” Edwards said.

“I was confused on Senator Clinton’s answer. I can’t tell whether she was for it or against it,” Obama said.

Clinton’s apparent indecision also made fodder for Republicans on the campaign trail.

Speaking to reporters in Nashua, N.H., former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani took a page out of President Bush’s campaign playbook, playing on a phrase used against Democratic candidate John Kerry in 2004.

Hillary Clinton was for it, she was against it, and she wasn’t sure if she was for it or against it, in the space of one answer,” Giuliani said. “She is known for taking one position with one audience and another position with another audience. … What they didn’t know is she can actually take two different positions in front of the same audience.”

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney likened her support for driver’s licenses to tolerance of illegals in the workforce and those who benefit from city services.

“What that does is it communicates to people coming to the country illegally that with a wink and a nod it is alright. This sanctuary state of mind seems to permeate many liberals that they are going to have sanctuary cities, we are going to have sanctuary driver’s licenses, sanctuary tuition discounts for children of illegal aliens, and that sanctuary state of mind has contributed to millions of people coming here illegally, and it has to stop,” Romney said.

Former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson said Clinton’s response was “another example of (her) dodging hard issues.” He later suggested that Clinton’s lack of clarity in her debate answers raises questions about her ability to handle diplomacy and foreign policy.

“When our worst enemy sits down at the negotiating table and looks across the table … how much can they get away with, how much of what they’re hearing is really true? Are they going to mean what is said on the other side of the table? The question is, ‘Who do we want on the other side of that table facing them?”‘ he told a crowd of GOP donors in Las Vegas.

And the Republican National Committee issued its own talking points memo, pointing to statements it said show that “Hillary’s stance on illegal immigration reforms remains vague and undefined.”

Meanwhile, the controversy over Spitzer’s plan is not going away any time soon. On Thursday, 32 Republican New York Assembly members filed a lawsuit against Spitzer, seeking to quash the license plan.

The suit states the plan violates the section of New York law that says the Department of Motor Vehicles must require a Social Security number before issuing a driver’s license. Among the concerns about the plan is that it will giving illegal immigrants the right to get ID that they could use to vote, to support terror activities or buy weapons.

“The basis of the suit is the governor’s proposal is unlawful,” said Josh Fitzpatrick, spokesman for New York Assembly Republican Leader James Tedisco, who is leading the effort against Spitzer.

Fitzpatrick said the assembly members resorted to court action after a move to amend the governor’s plan failed in special session. He said Clinton’s response to Spitzer’s plan during the debate Tuesday “raised awareness” about the issue but did not by itself prompt the lawsuit.

“It’s a battle that’s been raging for about six weeks now,” he said.

Nonetheless, Tedisco bashed Clinton in a statement Wednesday, calling her a flip-flopper and comparing her to 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, whose positions were mocked by opponents as malleable.

Amid the renewed national attention, Spitzer stood by his plan Thursday.

“I have a very serious obligation. That’s to improve the security of the state, and that’s what we’re doing,” the governor said.

FOX News’ Judson Berger contributed to this report.

Wicked Witch of the West Wing

Just in time for Halloween

Happy Halloween!!!

Peter, Paul & Hillary

In the 2008 run-up the Hillary camp has twice been tied to questionable fund raisers. Bill’s last act as President was to pardon a man who had contributed to him. Hillary is back in the spot light on her 60th birthday, for unethical fundraising practices. Now the allegations are the same, however the evidence is new. In light of recent revelations about the Hillary camp’s financing mechanics, I think this bares more scrutiney by the voting public and is another strong argument for campaign finance reform, which the liberals promised to bring about last year if they took the House and Senate, another empty promise.

 One gift that Hillary Clinton is unlikely to enjoy on her 60th birthday Friday is the premiere of “Hillary Uncensored,” a scathing documentary whose 13-minute trailer has been No. 1 on Google Video since Oct. 10, with more than 1.1 million views to date.

The film’s first full-length showing is scheduled for Friday night at Harvard University, followed by viewings at universities through the weekend and a wrap Tuesday at the Metropolitan Club in New York City.

Among the allegations summarized in the documentary:

— Bill and Hillary Clinton solicited cash from Peter F. Paul, an international lawyer and businessman, even after Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager told The Washington Post she would not take money from him;

— FBI agents and U.S. attorneys colluded with the Clintons to keep Paul, who was convicted of cocaine possession and fraud, tangled up in the criminal courts for years;

— The Clintons later made sure Paul was kept in a Brazilian prison for 25 months, including 58 days in a maximum security cellblock nicknamed the “Corridor of Death,” while the Justice Department waited to extradite him;

— Hillary Clinton still hasn’t filed reports to the FEC enumerating Paul’s excessive contributions to her 2000 Senate campaign.

Click here to see the trailer video posted on YouTube (part 1).

Click here to see the trailer video posted on YouTube (part 2)

Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign spares no kindness about its view of Paul, whose long arrest record, officials say, demonstrates his inherent deceit.

“Peter Paul is a professional liar who has four separate criminal convictions, two for fraud. His video repackages a series of seven-year-old false claims about Senator Clinton that have already been rejected by the California state courts, the Justice Department, the Federal Election Commission and the Senate Ethics Committee,” Clinton’s campaign said in a statement to FOXNews.com.

While it’s a coincidence that the film about the New York senator and Democratic presidential candidate is being released on her birthday, the movie’s producers say it is no accident the film’s trailer is getting such attention.

Douglas Cogan, a businessman-turned-associate producer and researcher for the film, said he’s made it his mission to expose what he calls “the greatest campaign finance fraud that ever has been committed.”

The Clintons think “they are truly above the law,” Cogan said. “My country has never seen anyone like Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

The allegations in the film are not new, although much of the video is. The film resurrects claims made by the thrice-convicted Paul that he unwittingly agreed to violate election-funding laws in exchange for a pledge from Bill Clinton to work with him in his new venture, Stan Lee Media, after Clinton left the presidency.

The documentary revisits Paul’s claim that, in exchange for Bill Clinton’s promise to promote Stan Lee Media overseas, for which Paul said he was willing to pay $17 million, he also agreed to produce an August 2000 fundraising gala in Hollywood for Hillary Clinton’s 2000 New York Senate campaign.

My interest in supporting Hillary Clinton was specifically to hire Bill Clinton,” Paul told FOXNews.com in a telephone interview, noting that Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign “concocted” the whole idea of the fundraiser.

Paul said he believed that in exchange for organizing the gala, “I had accomplished the hiring of the president of the United States to work with me when he left the White House.”

The gala cost $1.2 million, which was under-reported to the Federal Election Commission and led to the arrest of Clinton’s then-Senate campaign fundraising chief, David Rosen.

Rosen was found not guilty; a co-host of the gala, Aaron Tonken, was sentenced in a separate case to more than five years in prison for misappropriating funds for charity to pay for fundraisers featuring Hollywood celebrities.

Paul never got to work with Bill Clinton. Stan Lee Media filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in February 2001, long after it became apparent to Paul that Clinton wasn’t going to join the company and, Paul alleges, had stolen one of Stan Lee Media’s chief investors.

Paul writes off his convictions in the 1970s for cocaine possession and defrauding Fidel Castro of $8.7 million as part of an international anti-Castro effort gone wrong. He adds that the securities fraud plea that he agreed to cop in March 2005 was to get out of jail after 43 months in Brazilian and New York prisons. He still is awaiting sentencing on that plea despite being under house arrest since then.

As for the Rosen case, he calls that a farce aimed at getting a Clinton crony off the hook. The accompanying civil case, he said, also set a legal precedent Hillary Clinton later used to get out of being a defendant in his case against her and her husband.

“I am not the one-dimensional villain that I am portrayed to be, but I am the victim not only of the Clintons” but of their associates, who Paul says tried to steal his assets and wrap him up in a corrupt court system.

Not only was the indictment and the trial (of Rosen) a scam, the judge … turned it into a referendum on the credibility of Peter Paul,” Paul said, also faulting the prosecutor for not objecting to Judge Howard Matz’s characterization of Paul as a con man during his instructions to the jury.

“You conclude either that the prosecutor is incompetent or, worse, that the prosecutor is dogging the case.”

Paul claims that while he has been prosecuted and marginalized by the Clintons, his video evidence proves his case against them — that the power couple defrauded him by falsely pledging the former president’s post-White House services in exchange for footing the bill for all the gala’s expenses.

That video documentation, however, may be worth only the revenue from copies sold. The California Court of Appeals last week upheld, 3-0, a lower court’s ruling to excuse Hillary Clinton as a defendant in that suit. The court also noted that the new video isn’t new evidence.

“In his motion to admit new evidence, Paul also seeks to admit the videotaped recording of the July 17, 2000, telephone call to demonstrate Senator Clinton had sufficient knowledge of Paul’s business enterprises and the president’s involvement with Paul such that it would not have been a ‘fishing expedition’ to depose her. While the recording itself may have only been recently obtained by Paul, the substance of the conference call is not new evidence,” reads the ruling written by Judge P.J. Perluss.

Nonetheless, the conference call with then-first lady Clinton is among the most compelling moments in the new documentary. The video, taken in Paul’s Beverly Hills office a month before the gala, shows on one end of a teleconference, Paul, Tonken and their business partner Alana Stewart, Rod Stewart’s ex-wife. On the other end is Hillary Clinton.

Clinton can be heard saying: “Whatever it is you’re doing, is it OK if I thank you? … I am very appreciative and it sounds fabulous. I got a full report from Kelly (White House adviser Kelly Craighead) today when she got back and told me everything that you’re doing and it just sounds like it’s going to be a great event. But I just wanted to call and personally thank all of you. I’m glad you’re all together so I could tell you how much this means to me, and it’s going to mean a lot to the president, too.”

Paul’s attorney, Colette Wilson, argues that Clinton’s conversation proves she was in violation of campaign finance rules preventing candidates from personally having a hand in coordinating fundraising events in excess of $25,000.

The appeals court’s ruling to dismiss Hillary Clinton as a defendant is flawed because “my evidence showed that this gala was coordinated between the candidate and Peter Paul,” Wilson said. “The whole basis of (Clinton’s motion to dismiss) was her right to solicit campaign contributions, so she admitted” she knew about the gala planning.

Wilson said that the appeals court also erred when it cited the lower court’s claim that they were on a “fishing expedition” by demanding to depose Clinton about her knowledge of the gala.

“I would attack that by saying that the case is defined as too broad [when it] is asking to take a lot of people’s depositions. A fishing expedition means you don’t have a clue whether the person has any evidence or not,” she said.

But Wilson acknowledged that it’s the court’s discretion to admit new evidence or not.

“They don’t have to allow it in. The cutoff is what was available during the lower court submission,” she said.

Wilson contends that several of the videotapes, including the would-be smoking gun, weren’t available to Paul because they were confiscated by the FBI when the securities fraud investigation began in 2001 and were withheld from Paul until April of this year, long after the lower court heard the case.

“They still have the originals,” she noted, adding that the FBI sent the videos to a vendor to be copied and sent to Paul.

Wilson said she’s not certain she wants to appeal for an en banc hearing of the entire appeals court or to ask the California Supreme Court to take the case because it could mean a delay of two years before they can return to the underlying case — the alleged fraud committed by the Clintons in pledging that Bill Clinton would work for Stan Lee Media.

Of that, Wilson and Paul claim to have plenty of evidence and still are able to depose Hillary Clinton as a material witness.

Paul said he also is prepared to keep open the case against the Clintons through other means. He is filing a new complaint with the FEC and is requesting that when Michael Mukasey is confirmed as U.S. attorney general, he investigate how the government could have prosecuted Rosen when authorities knew he did not commit a crime.

Cogan said he hopes the film also shines light on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

“Hillary can no longer feign ignorance in what went on here,” he said. “I think she is absolutely an unthinkable commander in chief.”

Click here to view more information on the allegations made in the film.

Click here to learn more about Peter F. Paul.