<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments for SC Yellow Dog Dems Blog</title>
	<link>http://www.scyellowdogs.com</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 13:02:26 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>Comment on What is a super delegate? by ff49f6e04a90</title>
		<link>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/02/15/what-is-a-super-delegate/#comment-1056</link>
		<author>ff49f6e04a90</author>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 May 2008 12:41:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/02/15/what-is-a-super-delegate/#comment-1056</guid>
					<description>&lt;strong&gt;ff49f6e04a90...&lt;/strong&gt;

ff49f6e04a908f4e7836...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>ff49f6e04a90&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>ff49f6e04a908f4e7836&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Democrats want to go to church, too by Gene</title>
		<link>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/04/01/democrats-want-to-go-to-church-too/#comment-1047</link>
		<author>Gene</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Apr 2008 02:28:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/04/01/democrats-want-to-go-to-church-too/#comment-1047</guid>
					<description>My "argument" isn't to debate the ins-and-outs of what dates fall on Sundays and how other government organizations handle it.  My point is specifically to ask that we leave religion out of our democracy all together.  The religious connotations to Sundays are relative to your particular religion and therefore doesn't hold merit to those of us who don't share the same beliefs.  

If you want to argue not having a government filing date fall on a weekend due to it not being a business day go for it, but again I plead to all, please leave your religion out of my government...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My &#8220;argument&#8221; isn&#8217;t to debate the ins-and-outs of what dates fall on Sundays and how other government organizations handle it.  My point is specifically to ask that we leave religion out of our democracy all together.  The religious connotations to Sundays are relative to your particular religion and therefore doesn&#8217;t hold merit to those of us who don&#8217;t share the same beliefs.  </p>
<p>If you want to argue not having a government filing date fall on a weekend due to it not being a business day go for it, but again I plead to all, please leave your religion out of my government&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Democrats want to go to church, too by Mimi</title>
		<link>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/04/01/democrats-want-to-go-to-church-too/#comment-1043</link>
		<author>Mimi</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:26:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/04/01/democrats-want-to-go-to-church-too/#comment-1043</guid>
					<description>Gene's argument (posted 4/9) is not helped by his reference to taxes being due on Sunday, since even the IRS allows the last day of filing to float when April 15th falls on a Saturday or a Sunday: in either of those instances the due date changes to the Monday immediately following. Since the South Carolina Department of Revenue follows suit, it should be easy enough for the Legislature to borrow the wording of the governing statute for this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gene&#8217;s argument (posted 4/9) is not helped by his reference to taxes being due on Sunday, since even the IRS allows the last day of filing to float when April 15th falls on a Saturday or a Sunday: in either of those instances the due date changes to the Monday immediately following. Since the South Carolina Department of Revenue follows suit, it should be easy enough for the Legislature to borrow the wording of the governing statute for this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Democrats want to go to church, too by Gene</title>
		<link>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/04/01/democrats-want-to-go-to-church-too/#comment-1039</link>
		<author>Gene</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:05:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/04/01/democrats-want-to-go-to-church-too/#comment-1039</guid>
					<description>I think this is absurd.  Being South Carolina aside, who cares what day a particular date falls on.  The fact that at some point that date will fall on a Sunday or "heaven" forbid Easter Sunday is inconsequential, what about if it falls on a Saturday?  Saturday is Sabbath some people...

There' always a chance that your taxes will be due on a Sunday too, should we change that as well?

I say, as a Democrat living in South Carolina, can we please keep religious randomness out of our Democracy?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think this is absurd.  Being South Carolina aside, who cares what day a particular date falls on.  The fact that at some point that date will fall on a Sunday or &#8220;heaven&#8221; forbid Easter Sunday is inconsequential, what about if it falls on a Saturday?  Saturday is Sabbath some people&#8230;</p>
<p>There&#8217; always a chance that your taxes will be due on a Sunday too, should we change that as well?</p>
<p>I say, as a Democrat living in South Carolina, can we please keep religious randomness out of our Democracy?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Jaime Harrison:A Long Way From Orangeburg by DON YONCE</title>
		<link>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/04/03/jaime-harrisona-long-way-from-orangeburg/#comment-1038</link>
		<author>DON YONCE</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Apr 2008 01:36:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/04/03/jaime-harrisona-long-way-from-orangeburg/#comment-1038</guid>
					<description>Jaime's story is what keeps America alive...hope
mixed with potential to prevail ,in spite of the odds.
He is the epitome of that which is good about this
land.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jaime&#8217;s story is what keeps America alive&#8230;hope<br />
mixed with potential to prevail ,in spite of the odds.<br />
He is the epitome of that which is good about this<br />
land.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Clyburn: What do Republicans have against volunteerism? by Kelli Johnson</title>
		<link>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/03/13/clyburn-what-do-republicans-have-against-volunteerism/#comment-1036</link>
		<author>Kelli Johnson</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Mar 2008 16:27:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/03/13/clyburn-what-do-republicans-have-against-volunteerism/#comment-1036</guid>
					<description>We need a  federal program to accomplish these goals.  Clinton said "build the American community" and "reward individual responsibility"</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We need a  federal program to accomplish these goals.  Clinton said &#8220;build the American community&#8221; and &#8220;reward individual responsibility&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on SCDP Chair Remembers Tunky Riley by Adam Bourne</title>
		<link>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/03/07/scdp-chair-remembers-tunky-riley/#comment-754</link>
		<author>Adam Bourne</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2008 01:52:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/03/07/scdp-chair-remembers-tunky-riley/#comment-754</guid>
					<description>My prayers are with Governor Richard W. Riley and his family.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My prayers are with Governor Richard W. Riley and his family.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Mandy Powers-Norrell has a blog too! by Murray White</title>
		<link>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/02/01/mandy-powers-norrell-has-a-blog-too/#comment-683</link>
		<author>Murray White</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:42:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/02/01/mandy-powers-norrell-has-a-blog-too/#comment-683</guid>
					<description>Thank you for running for office.  It is good for someone of your caliber to take this important step.  Murray</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for running for office.  It is good for someone of your caliber to take this important step.  Murray</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on All eyes on South Carolina as Primary returns come in by admin</title>
		<link>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/01/26/all-eyes-on-south-carolina-at-primary-returns-come-in/#comment-601</link>
		<author>admin</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jan 2008 01:44:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/01/26/all-eyes-on-south-carolina-at-primary-returns-come-in/#comment-601</guid>
					<description>Yeah.  At 7:01 I was waiting for results and having a glass of wine.  Looked up at the TV and it had already declared Obama the winner without a single precinct reporting.  I never did like exit polls.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah.  At 7:01 I was waiting for results and having a glass of wine.  Looked up at the TV and it had already declared Obama the winner without a single precinct reporting.  I never did like exit polls.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on All eyes on South Carolina as Primary returns come in by Gene</title>
		<link>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/01/26/all-eyes-on-south-carolina-at-primary-returns-come-in/#comment-600</link>
		<author>Gene</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jan 2008 01:30:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/01/26/all-eyes-on-south-carolina-at-primary-returns-come-in/#comment-600</guid>
					<description>It's amazing how fast CNN called this one... they've kind of stolen the fun out of it for me, thanks CNN.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s amazing how fast CNN called this one&#8230; they&#8217;ve kind of stolen the fun out of it for me, thanks CNN.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on All eyes on South Carolina as Primary returns come in by DJMartin</title>
		<link>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/01/26/all-eyes-on-south-carolina-at-primary-returns-come-in/#comment-598</link>
		<author>DJMartin</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jan 2008 00:00:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/01/26/all-eyes-on-south-carolina-at-primary-returns-come-in/#comment-598</guid>
					<description>When I voted at 11 today, the poll manager told me the turnout was nearly double that of the Republican Primary last week.  Fingers crossed that this is good news for a future win in November for the Democrats.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When I voted at 11 today, the poll manager told me the turnout was nearly double that of the Republican Primary last week.  Fingers crossed that this is good news for a future win in November for the Democrats.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on January Yellow Dog Chat Transcript Now Available! by NEW YORK TIMES</title>
		<link>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/01/10/january-yellow-dog-chat-transcript-now-availabile/#comment-597</link>
		<author>NEW YORK TIMES</author>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jan 2008 21:38:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/01/10/january-yellow-dog-chat-transcript-now-availabile/#comment-597</guid>
					<description>Op-Ed Contributor
Two Presidents Are Worse Than One 
Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Share
Del.icio.usDiggFacebookNewsvinePermalink
 
By GARRY WILLS
Published: January 26, 2008
Evanston, Ill. 

Skip to next paragraph 
Enlarge This Image
 
Chris Sharp
SENATOR Hillary Clinton has based her campaign on experience — 35 years of it by her count. That must include her eight years in the White House. 

Some may debate whether those years count as executive experience. But there can be no doubt that her husband had the presidential experience, fully. He has shown during his wife’s campaign that he is a person of initiative and energy. Does anyone expect him not to use his experience in an energetic way if he re-enters the White House as the first spouse? 

Mrs. Clinton claims that her time in that role was an active one. He can hardly be expected to show less involvement when he returns to the scene of his time in power as the resident expert. He is not the kind to be a potted plant in the White House.

Which raises an important matter. Do we really want a plural presidency?

This is not a new question. It was intensely debated in the convention that formulated our Constitution. The Virginia Plan for the new document submitted by Edmund Randolph and the New Jersey Plan submitted by William Paterson left open the number of officers to hold the executive power.

Some (like Hugh Williamson of North Carolina) argued for a three-person executive, each member coming from a different region of the country. More people argued (like George Mason of Virginia) for a multiple-member executive council.

The objection to giving executive power to a single person came from the framers’ experience with the British monarchy and the royal governors of the colonies. They did not want another monarch. 

But as the debate went forward a consensus formed that republican rule would check the single initiative of a president. In fact, accountability to the legislature demanded that responsibility be lodged where it could be called to account. A plural presidency would leave it uncertain whom to check. How, for instance, would Congress decide which part of the executive should be impeached in case of high crimes and misdemeanors? One member of the plural executive could hide behind the other members. 

James Wilson of Pennsylvania made the argument for a single officeholder with typical depth and precision: “To control the executive, you must unite it. One man will be more responsible than three. Three will contend among themselves till one becomes the master of his colleagues. In the triumvirates of Rome, first Caesar, then Augustus, are witnesses of this truth. The kings of Sparta and the consuls of Rome prove also the factious consequences of dividing the executive magistracy.”

Wilson and his allies carried the day; and their argument is as good now as when they embedded it in the Constitution.

One problem with the George W. Bush administration is that it has brought a kind of plural presidency in through the back door. Vice President Dick Cheney has run his own executive department, with its own intelligence and military operations, not open to scrutiny, as he hides behind the putative president. 

No other vice president in our history has taken on so many presidential prerogatives, with so few checks. He is an example of the very thing James Wilson was trying to prevent by having one locus of authority in the executive. The attempt to escape single responsibility was perfectly exemplified when his counsel argued that Mr. Cheney was not subject to executive rules because he was also part of the legislature.

We have seen in this campaign how former President Clinton rushes to the defense of presidential candidate Clinton. Will that pattern of protection be continued into the new presidency, with not only his defending her but also her defending whatever he might do in his energetic way while she’s in office? It seems likely. And at a time when we should be trying to return to the single-executive system the Constitution prescribes, it does not seem to be a good idea to put another co-president in the White House.

Garry Wills, a professor emeritus of history at Northwestern, is the author, most recently, of “Head and Heart: American Christianities.”

Next Article in Opinion (7 of 19) »</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Op-Ed Contributor<br />
Two Presidents Are Worse Than One<br />
Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Share<br />
Del.icio.usDiggFacebookNewsvinePermalink</p>
<p>By GARRY WILLS<br />
Published: January 26, 2008<br />
Evanston, Ill. </p>
<p>Skip to next paragraph<br />
Enlarge This Image</p>
<p>Chris Sharp<br />
SENATOR Hillary Clinton has based her campaign on experience — 35 years of it by her count. That must include her eight years in the White House. </p>
<p>Some may debate whether those years count as executive experience. But there can be no doubt that her husband had the presidential experience, fully. He has shown during his wife’s campaign that he is a person of initiative and energy. Does anyone expect him not to use his experience in an energetic way if he re-enters the White House as the first spouse? </p>
<p>Mrs. Clinton claims that her time in that role was an active one. He can hardly be expected to show less involvement when he returns to the scene of his time in power as the resident expert. He is not the kind to be a potted plant in the White House.</p>
<p>Which raises an important matter. Do we really want a plural presidency?</p>
<p>This is not a new question. It was intensely debated in the convention that formulated our Constitution. The Virginia Plan for the new document submitted by Edmund Randolph and the New Jersey Plan submitted by William Paterson left open the number of officers to hold the executive power.</p>
<p>Some (like Hugh Williamson of North Carolina) argued for a three-person executive, each member coming from a different region of the country. More people argued (like George Mason of Virginia) for a multiple-member executive council.</p>
<p>The objection to giving executive power to a single person came from the framers’ experience with the British monarchy and the royal governors of the colonies. They did not want another monarch. </p>
<p>But as the debate went forward a consensus formed that republican rule would check the single initiative of a president. In fact, accountability to the legislature demanded that responsibility be lodged where it could be called to account. A plural presidency would leave it uncertain whom to check. How, for instance, would Congress decide which part of the executive should be impeached in case of high crimes and misdemeanors? One member of the plural executive could hide behind the other members. </p>
<p>James Wilson of Pennsylvania made the argument for a single officeholder with typical depth and precision: “To control the executive, you must unite it. One man will be more responsible than three. Three will contend among themselves till one becomes the master of his colleagues. In the triumvirates of Rome, first Caesar, then Augustus, are witnesses of this truth. The kings of Sparta and the consuls of Rome prove also the factious consequences of dividing the executive magistracy.”</p>
<p>Wilson and his allies carried the day; and their argument is as good now as when they embedded it in the Constitution.</p>
<p>One problem with the George W. Bush administration is that it has brought a kind of plural presidency in through the back door. Vice President Dick Cheney has run his own executive department, with its own intelligence and military operations, not open to scrutiny, as he hides behind the putative president. </p>
<p>No other vice president in our history has taken on so many presidential prerogatives, with so few checks. He is an example of the very thing James Wilson was trying to prevent by having one locus of authority in the executive. The attempt to escape single responsibility was perfectly exemplified when his counsel argued that Mr. Cheney was not subject to executive rules because he was also part of the legislature.</p>
<p>We have seen in this campaign how former President Clinton rushes to the defense of presidential candidate Clinton. Will that pattern of protection be continued into the new presidency, with not only his defending her but also her defending whatever he might do in his energetic way while she’s in office? It seems likely. And at a time when we should be trying to return to the single-executive system the Constitution prescribes, it does not seem to be a good idea to put another co-president in the White House.</p>
<p>Garry Wills, a professor emeritus of history at Northwestern, is the author, most recently, of “Head and Heart: American Christianities.”</p>
<p>Next Article in Opinion (7 of 19) »</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on January Yellow Dog Chat Transcript Now Available! by CONCERNED AMERICANS</title>
		<link>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/01/10/january-yellow-dog-chat-transcript-now-availabile/#comment-595</link>
		<author>CONCERNED AMERICANS</author>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jan 2008 21:34:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/01/10/january-yellow-dog-chat-transcript-now-availabile/#comment-595</guid>
					<description>FELLOW AMERICANS! Educate Yourselves! Know Who You’re Voting For!

WE ARE NOT PART OF ANY CAMPAIGN. WE ARE NOT PROMOTING ANY CANDIDATE. WE ARE NOT TELLING YOU WHO TO VOTE FOR. 
BUT YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS:

#1-- Did you know that Bill Clinton sexually assaulted many many women, including an alleged brutal rape and got away with it through Hillary's divisive Clinton Attack Machine Tactics of intimidation and silencing people? 
#2-- Did you know the Clintons are criminals? Thieves who habitually lie and scheme to get what they want? And who have covered up a multitude of financial, criminal and political security scandals? 
#3-- Did you know they are called "The Ruthless Political Tagteam" by those who know them? And feel they are above the law? And that they do not have to abide by the rules as we do? And that the past Clinton Administration was one of the most corrupt in history with Hillary directing scandal cover-ups &#38; blatant misuse of power?
#4-- Did you know that the Clinton's extreme egos and desire for power has driven them to plan, for years, to take over the Whitehouse and govern America together with a form of absolute power? And that they wear “masks” to fool the American people to achieve their agenda?
#5-- Did you know that they have ways of manipulating the media and muzzling people who oppose them? Through bribery, blackmail &#38; destroying innocent peoples’ careers? And there is lots more..... 

EDUCATE YOURSELF &#38; READ THESE BOOKS ON 
HILLARY &#38; THE CLINTON MACHINE BEFORE YOU VOTE: 
"Takeover" by Charles Savage (Pulitzer Prize Winning Book) 
"Target" by Kathleen Willey (One of the Victims of Bill Clinton) 
“The Truth About Hillary" by Edward Klein 
"Unlimited Access: An FBI Agent Inside The Clinton Whitehouse" 
	by Gary Aldrich (New York Times Bestseller) 
"Hillary's Scheme" by Carl Limbacher (New York Times Best Seller) 
"Hell To Pay" by Barbara Olsen (now deceased... New York Times Best Seller) 
"Can She Be Stopped?" by John Podhoretz (Best Selling Author) 
"Whitewash" by L.Brent Bozell III 
"The Extreme Makeover of Hillary (Rodham) Clinton" by Bay Buchanan 

and / or
GOOGLE THESE NAMES: 
Juanita Broaddrick 
Kathleen Willey 
Ed Willey 
Elizabeth Ward Gracn 
Gennifer Flowers 
Paula Corbin Jones 
Vince Foster 
Mark Rich 
James Riady 
Slick Willie (Bill Clinton) 
ALSO: 
Travelgate 
Filegate 
Chinagate 
Nannygate 
Sexgate 
Whitewater 
Raft of IRS Audits Launched Against Political Opponents and others... 
Monica Lewinsky was scared for her life. 
As was Linda Tripp, who has since moved away and changed her identity. 

WE DO NOT WANT THE SAME CORRUPT STATUS QUO RUNNING THE WHITEHOUSE, THAT ALREADY DESPERATELY NEEDS CLEANING UP! 

WE WANT TO MOVE THE COUNTRY FORWARD!!! 

THE CLINTONS ARE NOT WHO YOU THINK THEY ARE.
PLEASE VOTE FOR ANYBODY ---ANYBODY--- BUT THE CLINTONS!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>FELLOW AMERICANS! Educate Yourselves! Know Who You’re Voting For!</p>
<p>WE ARE NOT PART OF ANY CAMPAIGN. WE ARE NOT PROMOTING ANY CANDIDATE. WE ARE NOT TELLING YOU WHO TO VOTE FOR.<br />
BUT YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS:</p>
<p>#1&#8211; Did you know that Bill Clinton sexually assaulted many many women, including an alleged brutal rape and got away with it through Hillary&#8217;s divisive Clinton Attack Machine Tactics of intimidation and silencing people?<br />
#2&#8211; Did you know the Clintons are criminals? Thieves who habitually lie and scheme to get what they want? And who have covered up a multitude of financial, criminal and political security scandals?<br />
#3&#8211; Did you know they are called &#8220;The Ruthless Political Tagteam&#8221; by those who know them? And feel they are above the law? And that they do not have to abide by the rules as we do? And that the past Clinton Administration was one of the most corrupt in history with Hillary directing scandal cover-ups &amp; blatant misuse of power?<br />
#4&#8211; Did you know that the Clinton&#8217;s extreme egos and desire for power has driven them to plan, for years, to take over the Whitehouse and govern America together with a form of absolute power? And that they wear “masks” to fool the American people to achieve their agenda?<br />
#5&#8211; Did you know that they have ways of manipulating the media and muzzling people who oppose them? Through bribery, blackmail &amp; destroying innocent peoples’ careers? And there is lots more&#8230;.. </p>
<p>EDUCATE YOURSELF &amp; READ THESE BOOKS ON<br />
HILLARY &amp; THE CLINTON MACHINE BEFORE YOU VOTE:<br />
&#8220;Takeover&#8221; by Charles Savage (Pulitzer Prize Winning Book)<br />
&#8220;Target&#8221; by Kathleen Willey (One of the Victims of Bill Clinton)<br />
“The Truth About Hillary&#8221; by Edward Klein<br />
&#8220;Unlimited Access: An FBI Agent Inside The Clinton Whitehouse&#8221;<br />
	by Gary Aldrich (New York Times Bestseller)<br />
&#8220;Hillary&#8217;s Scheme&#8221; by Carl Limbacher (New York Times Best Seller)<br />
&#8220;Hell To Pay&#8221; by Barbara Olsen (now deceased&#8230; New York Times Best Seller)<br />
&#8220;Can She Be Stopped?&#8221; by John Podhoretz (Best Selling Author)<br />
&#8220;Whitewash&#8221; by L.Brent Bozell III<br />
&#8220;The Extreme Makeover of Hillary (Rodham) Clinton&#8221; by Bay Buchanan </p>
<p>and / or<br />
GOOGLE THESE NAMES:<br />
Juanita Broaddrick<br />
Kathleen Willey<br />
Ed Willey<br />
Elizabeth Ward Gracn<br />
Gennifer Flowers<br />
Paula Corbin Jones<br />
Vince Foster<br />
Mark Rich<br />
James Riady<br />
Slick Willie (Bill Clinton)<br />
ALSO:<br />
Travelgate<br />
Filegate<br />
Chinagate<br />
Nannygate<br />
Sexgate<br />
Whitewater<br />
Raft of IRS Audits Launched Against Political Opponents and others&#8230;<br />
Monica Lewinsky was scared for her life.<br />
As was Linda Tripp, who has since moved away and changed her identity. </p>
<p>WE DO NOT WANT THE SAME CORRUPT STATUS QUO RUNNING THE WHITEHOUSE, THAT ALREADY DESPERATELY NEEDS CLEANING UP! </p>
<p>WE WANT TO MOVE THE COUNTRY FORWARD!!! </p>
<p>THE CLINTONS ARE NOT WHO YOU THINK THEY ARE.<br />
PLEASE VOTE FOR ANYBODY &#8212;ANYBODY&#8212; BUT THE CLINTONS!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Blogging the Democratic Debate by Chris</title>
		<link>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/01/21/blogging-the-democratic-debate/#comment-581</link>
		<author>Chris</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:23:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/01/21/blogging-the-democratic-debate/#comment-581</guid>
					<description>please stop yelling...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>please stop yelling&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Blogging the Democratic Debate by LYNN LEE</title>
		<link>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/01/21/blogging-the-democratic-debate/#comment-580</link>
		<author>LYNN LEE</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/01/21/blogging-the-democratic-debate/#comment-580</guid>
					<description>HILLARY WAS SO JEALOUS AFTER SHE LOST IN IOWA THAT HER AND BILL ARE TRYING TO FIND ANYTHING TO TURN PEOPLE OFF TO OBAMA, AS YOU SEE BEFORE HE BEAT HER SHE WASNT SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT HIM AND WHEN SHE LOST TO HIM THEY START PLANTING ALL THESE SLICK LIES AND HALF-TRUTHS TO MAKE PEOPLE TURN ON HIM, SHE EVEN "CRIED" OUT OF ANGER AND HOPLESSNESS AND I THINK ITS SAD THAT HILLARY AND BILL ARE PLAYING DIRTY POLITICS KNOWING THAT BILL WENT THROUGH THE SAME CRITICISM AS OBAMA WHEN HE WAS BEING ELECTED AND WAS SAID TO BE TOO INEXPERIENCED AND THEY KNOW THAT OBAMA IS HONEST AND MORALISTIC AND ALL THE THINGS THEY ARE SAYING ARE NOT TRUE.  YOU DONT ALWAYS KNOW THE TOTAL BACKGROUND OF CONTRIBUTORS ALL THE TIME AND IM SURE SOME OF HER CONTRIBUORS HAVE SURLY BACKGROUNDS AND HE PROBABLY HAD NO IDEA THAT THE PERSON HE WAS REPRESENTING  WAS A "SLUMLORD", WE ALL KNOW PEOPLE HIDE THINGS LIKE THAT BUT OBAMA DIDNT GO DIGGING IN HER PAST TO TRY TO SABOTAGE HER AND PICK ON EVERY LITTLE THING THEY THINK MIGHT TURN PEOPLE OFF TO HIM BUT THE CLINTONS WILL DO ANYTHING TO WIN, EVEN TRYING TO TARNISH A GOOD MANS IMAGE.  BILL CLINTON KNOWS OBAMA IS HIS RIGHTFUL HEIR TO THE WHITE HOUSE BUT HE WONT FACE THE TRUTH BECAUSE OF JEALOUSY AND GREEDINESS.  ALL THE CLINTONS CARE ABOUT IS POWER AND THEY WILL FAKE THEIR WAY TO THE TOP.  ANYTIME YOU HAVE TO TRY TO "MAKE" SOMEONE "LIKEABLE" (HILLARY) YOU'RE STARTING OFF WRONG.  GO OBAMA, SHOW EM WHAT YA GOT!!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>HILLARY WAS SO JEALOUS AFTER SHE LOST IN IOWA THAT HER AND BILL ARE TRYING TO FIND ANYTHING TO TURN PEOPLE OFF TO OBAMA, AS YOU SEE BEFORE HE BEAT HER SHE WASNT SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT HIM AND WHEN SHE LOST TO HIM THEY START PLANTING ALL THESE SLICK LIES AND HALF-TRUTHS TO MAKE PEOPLE TURN ON HIM, SHE EVEN &#8220;CRIED&#8221; OUT OF ANGER AND HOPLESSNESS AND I THINK ITS SAD THAT HILLARY AND BILL ARE PLAYING DIRTY POLITICS KNOWING THAT BILL WENT THROUGH THE SAME CRITICISM AS OBAMA WHEN HE WAS BEING ELECTED AND WAS SAID TO BE TOO INEXPERIENCED AND THEY KNOW THAT OBAMA IS HONEST AND MORALISTIC AND ALL THE THINGS THEY ARE SAYING ARE NOT TRUE.  YOU DONT ALWAYS KNOW THE TOTAL BACKGROUND OF CONTRIBUTORS ALL THE TIME AND IM SURE SOME OF HER CONTRIBUORS HAVE SURLY BACKGROUNDS AND HE PROBABLY HAD NO IDEA THAT THE PERSON HE WAS REPRESENTING  WAS A &#8220;SLUMLORD&#8221;, WE ALL KNOW PEOPLE HIDE THINGS LIKE THAT BUT OBAMA DIDNT GO DIGGING IN HER PAST TO TRY TO SABOTAGE HER AND PICK ON EVERY LITTLE THING THEY THINK MIGHT TURN PEOPLE OFF TO HIM BUT THE CLINTONS WILL DO ANYTHING TO WIN, EVEN TRYING TO TARNISH A GOOD MANS IMAGE.  BILL CLINTON KNOWS OBAMA IS HIS RIGHTFUL HEIR TO THE WHITE HOUSE BUT HE WONT FACE THE TRUTH BECAUSE OF JEALOUSY AND GREEDINESS.  ALL THE CLINTONS CARE ABOUT IS POWER AND THEY WILL FAKE THEIR WAY TO THE TOP.  ANYTIME YOU HAVE TO TRY TO &#8220;MAKE&#8221; SOMEONE &#8220;LIKEABLE&#8221; (HILLARY) YOU&#8217;RE STARTING OFF WRONG.  GO OBAMA, SHOW EM WHAT YA GOT!!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Blogging the Democratic Debate by George Vreeland Hill</title>
		<link>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/01/21/blogging-the-democratic-debate/#comment-578</link>
		<author>George Vreeland Hill</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 05:42:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/01/21/blogging-the-democratic-debate/#comment-578</guid>
					<description>Obama is trying to hurt Hillary, and is losing focus on the key issues because of it. 
If this is what he does, then I do not want him in the White House. 
I want a candidate who will tell me what he or she will do to make this country better, and not play dirty for his own cause. 
Red flags go up around Obama every time he speaks. 
He needs to stop this garbage fast. 
Better Hillary than him. 

George Vreeland Hill</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Obama is trying to hurt Hillary, and is losing focus on the key issues because of it.<br />
If this is what he does, then I do not want him in the White House.<br />
I want a candidate who will tell me what he or she will do to make this country better, and not play dirty for his own cause.<br />
Red flags go up around Obama every time he speaks.<br />
He needs to stop this garbage fast.<br />
Better Hillary than him. </p>
<p>George Vreeland Hill</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Blogging the Democratic Debate by NFL</title>
		<link>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/01/21/blogging-the-democratic-debate/#comment-577</link>
		<author>NFL</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 05:11:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/01/21/blogging-the-democratic-debate/#comment-577</guid>
					<description>I'm more disheartened than ever, having watched this 'debate', although I'm glad I did. Came into it an Obama supporter, and am leaving an Edwards supporter. How DARE Obama respond to a question about Bill Clinton being black with a joke about Clinton's dancing abilities?! What the f**k?! Imagine if Edwards had said the same thing - or H. Clinton. This isn't a time for jokes, and certainly not ones that perpetuate racist stereotypes. Granted, it was a stupid, disrespectful question to begin with, and I can scarcely believe it was even permitted, but when will a candidate get the courage to stand up and give the TRUTHFUL answer, that there is NO SUCH THING as DIFFERENT RACES, when it comes to humans - it's all ONE race, as DNA research has conclusively proven. How demeaning can a debate get? The media IS responsible for the inane b-s, but shame on Obama for jumping right in with them. He looked weak in his presentation, and perhaps he hoped to curry some favor from the audience with a joke he figured they'd all appreciate - how very 'shuck &#38; grin' of him - despicable. If he'll go along to get along on a ridiculous question like that, and on the Dr. King holiday, to boot - ?! I'd sooner vote for McCain before supporting an Obama candidacy after witnessing this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m more disheartened than ever, having watched this &#8216;debate&#8217;, although I&#8217;m glad I did. Came into it an Obama supporter, and am leaving an Edwards supporter. How DARE Obama respond to a question about Bill Clinton being black with a joke about Clinton&#8217;s dancing abilities?! What the f**k?! Imagine if Edwards had said the same thing - or H. Clinton. This isn&#8217;t a time for jokes, and certainly not ones that perpetuate racist stereotypes. Granted, it was a stupid, disrespectful question to begin with, and I can scarcely believe it was even permitted, but when will a candidate get the courage to stand up and give the TRUTHFUL answer, that there is NO SUCH THING as DIFFERENT RACES, when it comes to humans - it&#8217;s all ONE race, as DNA research has conclusively proven. How demeaning can a debate get? The media IS responsible for the inane b-s, but shame on Obama for jumping right in with them. He looked weak in his presentation, and perhaps he hoped to curry some favor from the audience with a joke he figured they&#8217;d all appreciate - how very &#8217;shuck &amp; grin&#8217; of him - despicable. If he&#8217;ll go along to get along on a ridiculous question like that, and on the Dr. King holiday, to boot - ?! I&#8217;d sooner vote for McCain before supporting an Obama candidacy after witnessing this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Blogging the Democratic Debate by jOSH</title>
		<link>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/01/21/blogging-the-democratic-debate/#comment-576</link>
		<author>jOSH</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 05:07:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/01/21/blogging-the-democratic-debate/#comment-576</guid>
					<description>HILLARY QUESTIONED BARACK'S INTEFRITY THEY CAN DISAGREE ON ISSUES BUT THIS WAS TOO MUCH.I WAS GOING TO FORGET JOHNNY CHUNG AND CHARLIE TREE AND PARDONS TO DRUG DEALERS AND EMBEZZLERS, BUT I WILL NOW SWITCH MY VOTE TO OBAMA</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>HILLARY QUESTIONED BARACK&#8217;S INTEFRITY THEY CAN DISAGREE ON ISSUES BUT THIS WAS TOO MUCH.I WAS GOING TO FORGET JOHNNY CHUNG AND CHARLIE TREE AND PARDONS TO DRUG DEALERS AND EMBEZZLERS, BUT I WILL NOW SWITCH MY VOTE TO OBAMA</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Blogging the Democratic Debate by Jay</title>
		<link>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/01/21/blogging-the-democratic-debate/#comment-574</link>
		<author>Jay</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 03:11:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/01/21/blogging-the-democratic-debate/#comment-574</guid>
					<description>Anderson Cooper: "Rough and Tumble"</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Anderson Cooper: &#8220;Rough and Tumble&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Blogging the Democratic Debate by Gene</title>
		<link>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/01/21/blogging-the-democratic-debate/#comment-573</link>
		<author>Gene</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 03:09:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/01/21/blogging-the-democratic-debate/#comment-573</guid>
					<description>And the media spin -- petty squabbling... that's going to hurt all the Dems...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And the media spin &#8212; petty squabbling&#8230; that&#8217;s going to hurt all the Dems&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Blogging the Democratic Debate by MaryA</title>
		<link>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/01/21/blogging-the-democratic-debate/#comment-572</link>
		<author>MaryA</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 03:07:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/01/21/blogging-the-democratic-debate/#comment-572</guid>
					<description>Have a wonderful night.  Off to watch Anderson and do my dishes...

Good night!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Have a wonderful night.  Off to watch Anderson and do my dishes&#8230;</p>
<p>Good night!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Blogging the Democratic Debate by Gene</title>
		<link>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/01/21/blogging-the-democratic-debate/#comment-571</link>
		<author>Gene</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 03:07:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/01/21/blogging-the-democratic-debate/#comment-571</guid>
					<description>Yeah and Obama is really inspiring when he speaks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah and Obama is really inspiring when he speaks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Blogging the Democratic Debate by Jay</title>
		<link>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/01/21/blogging-the-democratic-debate/#comment-570</link>
		<author>Jay</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 03:06:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/01/21/blogging-the-democratic-debate/#comment-570</guid>
					<description>Hopefully I'm not underestimating people's willingness to vote for a black candidate, but I think both Edwards and Hillary are easier for Republicans to get things to stick to them. Edwards = Haircut. Hillary = Cold, Calculating and the Bill Clinton thing. They have much less on Obama, and if they get dirty with racial stuff, it won't play well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hopefully I&#8217;m not underestimating people&#8217;s willingness to vote for a black candidate, but I think both Edwards and Hillary are easier for Republicans to get things to stick to them. Edwards = Haircut. Hillary = Cold, Calculating and the Bill Clinton thing. They have much less on Obama, and if they get dirty with racial stuff, it won&#8217;t play well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Blogging the Democratic Debate by Ty</title>
		<link>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/01/21/blogging-the-democratic-debate/#comment-569</link>
		<author>Ty</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 03:06:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/01/21/blogging-the-democratic-debate/#comment-569</guid>
					<description>Be sure to watch anderson Cooper</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Be sure to watch anderson Cooper</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Blogging the Democratic Debate by Lilly</title>
		<link>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/01/21/blogging-the-democratic-debate/#comment-568</link>
		<author>Lilly</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 03:05:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.scyellowdogs.com/2008/01/21/blogging-the-democratic-debate/#comment-568</guid>
					<description>We  need to do this again some time!  Adios for now.  Vote Democratic.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We  need to do this again some time!  Adios for now.  Vote Democratic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
