Hillary Clinton Campaign Launches Sleaze Attack on Barack Obama and Two Dedicated Child Advocates

The airways are publically owned. The media should not be presenting the debates as their creation or operation. The debates should be presented as a public service by the TV media without reporters asking questions. The candidates should be able to debate according to their agenda, without interference. A moderator would not ask questions. Instead, he/she would act as a parlimentarian to decide who has the floor. This public service would make it possible for the public to determine for themselves who was dodging issues, "truthiness", and not presenting logical reasoning. It would make it possible for the public to hear all the candidates rather than the media only selecting certain candidates to respond to questions the media "preselects" as being worthy contenders. Would Edwards, Kucnich, Dodd etc., benefit from such an arrangement? Yes, yes, yes! Would the people of this country? Yes! Yes! Yes! Will it ever happen? NO! NO! NO! Why not? Who owns this country and the media? Do they want candidates who might challenge their position of power and prominence?

"What is shameful is how buzzflash has bought into this intergenerational war that Senator Obama and his cult followers have waged against boomers." Barak Obama is a Boomer. He was born in 1961! I first saw this ridiculous claim on HuffPo and wanted to write then but can never remember my Huffpo password. Barak Obama was born in 1961. I was born in 1963. I am a Boomer and my parents were Boomers and I have to say their experience of growing up in the 1950s was wayyyyyy different than us later Boomers growing up in the 1970s. I have been waiting for a Presidential candidate that would represent my generation and Barak Obama is it. When this election season first started I was behind Hillary and I still think she would be a good president. I think she would bring the fiscal discipline we need after 8 years of our "CEO President" and was a deep bench to negotiate peace in the Middle East but I think Barak Obama will be a Transformative President, the FDR of our generation, someone who will lead this Country in a different direction, the direction I was promised as a child of the '60s and which has been so horrifically betrayed over the last 30 years. This is why this 44-year-old, white, college educated grandmother located in small town Indiana (population 2,508) will be voting for Barak Obama May 6th (and hopefully again in November) in solidarity with my voting age children and my spouse.

I notice a lot of people questioning B. Obama over perceived ties to Bill Ayers. B. Obama was 10 years old when Ayers was flouting his stuff. So he sits on a board meeting (helping poor children I might add) and Bill Ayers is there as well. How does that reflect on B. Obama. If all your thinking is that shallow, I would suggest that all and I mean all of you are guilty of killing, murdering, starving and torturing the people of Iraq. After all - you all sat back while George invaded Iraq to carry on his terrorist activities - is that not the same. Also, instead of picking on Buzzflash, have the decency to hang your own heads in shame - I distinctly remember reading thousands of articles from Buzzflash writers indicating that at NO TIME, NOT EVER would they vote for a candidate that supported the Iraq Invasion and wouldn't apologize for same and/or indicate that it was a very very major mistake. A lot of people and children are dead in that Country - there is blood on all your hands. Everytime you fill up at a gas pump, I sincerely hope you can envision some little 3 year old boy sobbing and holding up his hands like a criminal in front of an American soldier, or a little 2 year old baby blown to bits by the American air strikes. God help you people, get real and put a diplomat in power - someone who will think before he shoots.

When this election season started, I was supporting Dennis Kucinich. When he dropped out, I thought Edwards would be the best choice. Now that we are down to two, I've been watching carefully how Senator Clinton and Senator Obama handle themselves. It's my impression that Senator Clinton is scheming, lying, making nice with neocons behind the scene, and basically doing whatever she can to trash her Democratic opponent. Tipping off Drudge, for goodness sake! Getting schmoozie with Rupert Murdoch and Richard Mellon Scaife for crying out loud. Saying only she and John McCain had the experience to be President.

And then her husband has the idiocy to say his wife misspoke about dodging sniper fire on a trip to Bosnia once, late at night, because she was exhausted. Not only was that a lie (she appears to have "misspoken" multiple times, early morning to late afternoon), but did he totally forget the ridiculous TV ads with the phone ringing at 3AM? If Ms. Hillary can make such a misstatement about her past experience just because she's on the campaign trail, then how can we trust her to make an important decision in the middle of the night?

This month and next, the remaining Democrats have to choose a candidate for the Presidency. The most important question to me is, "Will a Democratic president take advantage of the unchallenged (so far) prerogatives that Bush has assumed under the theory of a "unitary executive?" I'm willing to bet dollars that Ms. Hillary would take advantage, and not reverse signing statements or executive orders. But I'm also willing to bet dollars that Mr. Obama would NOT permit this Constitution-shredding theory to continue. I think you can guess who I will choose.

I was a peaceful member of a very small chapter of SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) when I was a university student from a military family. I was also a member of the American Friends Service Committee and worked with the Brown Berets and Vietnam Vets Against the War. I never looked down on the soldiers but I sure as hell despised the people who blithely sent them off to die. I knew some people in the Weather Underground and I strongly disagreed with the violent tactics some of them espoused and the crappy treatment some gave to Vietnam vets. But some were brilliant, compassionate, dedicated human beings who, in many cases, lost a lot standing up for what they believed in. 34 years have passed since then and many SDS and Weathermen have become passionate, brilliant, productive members of our society who have dedicated their lives to medical, legal and educational causes and to raising families, "teaching our children well". However, the "establishment", which was waging unjust wars and indulging in economic repression 34 years ago is still doing the same thing. I think that we were right about what was happening then and we are right about what is happening now. I, for one, am proud of the stand I took then, and proud to stand for Obama now. Bringing up the history of people he knows and trying to hold it against him is a telling measure of how desperate the corporate-owned media and fat cats who have been in power far too long really are.

qaida is in Irac... Obama did not know this and then tried to clean it up with some stupid comment!! Poor guy..Oh no poor us that he might just be the president..Obama will only bring dispair..
Wake up America!! Wake Up America!!

Please do not vote for Obama, that would be like voting for Bush, The reason we are in trouble is becasue Bush did not have the experience. Please do not think that Obama is our salvation. He will bring dispair People!!!

If Obama should be nominated, we will not vote for him.. Obama will bring dispair!!

Just read the Dana Milbank column"Team Clinton: Down & Out of Touch" I was particularly interested in this passage,
"When Time's Jay Newton-Small inquired about the Obama photo on Drudge, Singer used the occasion to complain about the press's failure to examine Obama's ties to violent radicals who were part of the Weathermen of the 1960s. "As far as I can tell, there was absolutely no follow-up on the part of the Obama traveling press corps," he said. I did some follow-up and The Children & Family Justice Center worked on a project, The Children's Court Centennial Communication Project that produced a brochure "Second Chances". Ms. Dohrn authored a chapter and Marian Wright Edelman wrote the afterward. Sen. Clinton very proudly touts her work with Ms. Edelman and the Children's Defense Fund. I would like to know what Marian Wright Edelman thinks of these charges Mr. Singer is bringing against Sen. Obama and Ms. Dohrn. When I first read this editorial on Sunday I wondered if Hillary Clinton didn't also know Bernardine Dohrn, or at least be aware of her good works on behalf of children's legal rights. If so, why is she letting Singer run with this attack? She will dismiss the good work by Ms. Dohrn on a cause that is supposedly so close to her own heart in order to smear Sen. Obama?

ONCE AGAIN!
Great Article: by Joseph Wilson
With the emergence of Sen. John McCain as the presumptive Republican nominee, the choice for the Democrats in the 2008 presidential election now shifts to who is best positioned to beat him, in what promises to be a more hard-fought campaign -- and perhaps a nastier one -- than Democrats anticipated.

Sen. Barack Obama's promise of transformation and an end of partisan politics has its seductive appeal. The Bush-Cheney era, after all, has been punctuated by smear campaigns, character assassinations and ideological fervor.

Nobody dislikes such poisonous partisanship, especially in foreign policy, more than I do. I am one of very few Foreign Service officers who have served as ambassador in the administrations of both George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, yet I have spent the past four years fighting a concerted character assassination campaign orchestrated by the George W. Bush White House.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is one of the few who fully understood the stakes in that battle. Time and again, she reached out to my wife -- outed CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson -- and me to remind us that as painful as the attacks were, we simply could not allow ourselves to be driven from the public square by bullying. To do so would validate the radical right's thesis that the way to win debates is to demonize opponents, taking full advantage of the natural desire to avoid confrontation, even if it means yielding on substantive issues. Hillary knew this from experience, having spent the better part of the past 20 years fighting the Republican attack machine. She is a fighter.

But will Mr. Obama fight? His brief time on the national scene gives little comfort. Consider a February 2006 exchange of letters with Mr. McCain on the subject of ethics reform. The wrathful Mr. McCain accused Mr. Obama of being "disingenuous," to which Mr. Obama meekly replied, "The fact that you have now questioned my sincerity and my desire to put aside politics for the public interest is regrettable but does not in any way diminish my deep respect for you." Then one of McCain's aides said of Obama, "Obama wouldn't know the difference between an RPG and a bong."

Mr. McCain was insultingly dismissive but successful in intimidating his inexperienced colleague. Thus, in his one face-to-face encounter with Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama failed to stand his ground.

What gives us confidence Mr. Obama will be stronger the next time he faces Mr. McCain, a seasoned political fighter with extensive national security credentials? Even more important, what special disadvantages does Mr. Obama carry into this contest on questions of national security?

How will Mr. Obama answer Mr. McCain about his careless remark about unilaterally bombing Pakistan -- perhaps blowing up an already difficult relationship with a nuclear state threatened by Islamic extremists? How will Mr. Obama respond to charges made by the Kenyan government that his campaigning activities in Kenya in support of his distant cousin running for president there made him "a stooge" and constituted interference in the politics of an important and besieged ally in the war on terror?

How will he answer charges that his desire for unstructured personal summits without preconditions with a host of America's adversaries, from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Kim Jong Il, would be little more than premature capitulation?

Senator Obama claims superior judgment on the war in Iraq based on one speech given as a state legislator representing the most liberal district in Illinois at an anti-war rally in Chicago, and in so doing impugns the integrity of those who were part of the debate on the national scene. In mischaracterizing the debate on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force as a declaration of war, he implicitly blames Democrats for George Bush's war of choice. Obama's negative attack line does not conform to the facts. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I should know. I was among the most prominent anti-war voices at the time -- and never heard about or from then Illinois State Senator Obama.

Email
Print
Comment
George Bush made it clear publicly when lobbying for the bill that he wanted it not to go to war but to give him the leverage he needed to go to the United Nations and secure intrusive inspections of Saddam's suspected Weapons of Mass Destruction sites. Who could argue with that goal? Colin Powell made the same case individually to Senators in the run up to the vote, including to Senator Clinton. It is not credible that Senator Obama would not have succumbed to Secretary Powell's arguments had he been in Washington at the time. Why not? Obama himself suggested so in 2004. "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,' Obama said. 'What would I have done? I don't know." He also told the Chicago Tribune in 2004: "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." According to press reports, Powell is now an informal adviser to Mr. Obama.

In his tendentious attack, Obama never mentions that Hans Blix, the chief United Nations weapons inspectors, declared that without the congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force the inspectors would never have been allowed into Iraq. Hillary's approach -- and that of the majority of Democrats in the Senate -- was to let the inspectors complete their work while building an international coalition. Hillary's was the road untaken. The betrayal of the American people, and of the Congress, came when President Bush refused to allow the inspections to succeed, and that betrayal is his and his party's, not the Democrats.

Contrary to the myth of his campaign, 2008 is not the year for transcendental transformation. The task for the next administration will be to repair the damage done by eight years of radical rule. And the choice for Americans is clear: four more years of corrupt Republican rule, senseless wars, evisceration of the Constitution, emptying of the national treasury -- or rebuilding our government and our national reputation, piece by piece. Obama's overtures to Republicans, or "Obamacans" as the Senator calls them, is a substitute for true national unity based on a substantive program. His marginal appeals have marginally helped him in caucuses in Republican states that Democrats won't win in the general election. But his vapid rhetoric will not withstand the winds of November. His efforts will be correctly seen by the Republican leadership as a sign of weakness to be exploited. While disaffected Democrats may long for comity in our politics after years of being harangued and belittled by the right wing echo chamber, the Rovians currently promoting Obama are looking to destroy him should he become the nominee. Obama's claim to float uniquely above the fray and avoid polarization will be short-lived. He is no less mortal than any other Democrat -- Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry -- all untouched at the beginning of their campaigns and all mauled by the end. We should never forget recent history.

In order to effect practical change against a determined adversary, we do not need a would-be philosopher-king but a seasoned gladiator who understands the fight Democrats will face in the fall campaign and in governing.

Theodore Roosevelt once commented, "It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly."

If he were around today, TR might be speaking of the woman in the arena. Hillary Clinton has been in that arena for a generation. She is one of the few to have defeated the attack machine that is today's Republican Party and to have emerged stronger. She is deeply knowledgeable about governing; she made herself into a power in the Senate; she is respected by our military; and she never flinches. She has never been intimidated, not by any Republican -- not even John McCain.

Barack Obama claims to represent the future, but it should be increasingly evident that he is not the man for this moment, especially with Mr. McCain's arrival. We've seen a preview of that contest already. It was a TKO.

This article is adapted from a piece published in the Baltimore Sun on February 12, 2008

What is shameful is how buzzflash has bought into this intergenerational war that Senator Obama and his cult followers have waged against boomers. And where have I come up with this theory about Senator Obama's fanning the flames of boomer bashing? Listen to his words which he tells us is somehow bringing this country together at a Toldedo college campus: he said he is tired of hearing the same thing from the SAME 'OLD' People and expecting a different result. This was a 60s phrase borrowed from Ben Franklin and AA by boomers.. Senator obama is the candidate that will say anything and do anything to divide generations to win, and that is deplorable. Senator Obama is a bright guy and he knows exactly what this coded message communicates: hate Hillary and hate your boomer parents and their friends. It is the refrain the same OLD PEOPLE by Senator Obama and reading his bloggers talk about hating Hillary and how eveil she and her boomer followers are that is flaming a generational war. We were told that his raison de e'tre was that he was 'bringinging the country together'. The only thing that Senator Obama and Mr. Karlin are bringing together is to hate Hillary, her followers and parents many of whom are boomers who truly resent this generational war being waged by Senator Obama. This is dispicable and has encourages me to unsubscribe to buzzflash, a progressive site that I have generously contributed to since its inception.

This is the height of an election season and you're struggling to make a shoestring budget?

And then you tell a good chunk of your supporters to take a hike?

You're a little big for your britches, Mark. Leaner times are coming.

Hillary will either leave scorched earth or she will leave the landscape intact for Obama to use in the campaign against McCain and Nader. It's a complicated and difficult choice in light of the expectation that a woman would choose the latter, thereby proving the belief that women aren't ruthless enough to be president. I argue against scorched earth because ruthlessness has been a hallmark of the Bushies with its war and fascist policies. We all know that promoting cruelty only leads to more cruelty and finally to unbearable atrocities buried in the past. If we are ready for a woman president, then we should be ready to give up cruelty. I hope Hillary will not scorch the earth.

"She or he has to be someone who upon taking office is going to declare the Iraq war null and void plus turning things around here at home."

"And why is that?"

"We either end the Iraq war or it'll be the end of us."

The Master starts his "swiftboating" on OBama. Smooth velvet words won't stop this guy.
He works for Fox news now, so he has his own TV station.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120355939956381797.html?mod=fpa_mostpop

heyro (if you haven't left yet...) i think you missed Mark's point;
to say you haven't researched enough to decide yet, implies you didn't read this editorial of his.
it's factual and persuasive.

>>"If you can support dragging down Bernardine Dohrn and Wiliam Ayers, through the gutter just so Senator Clinton’s staff can try to drag down Obama with slur..."

Who in their right mind could support doing that?

>>"then we invite you not to read BuzzFlash again. We don’t want you in our community."

I don't interpret that as "If you're voting for Hillary, go away."
To me it means "If you call yourself an advocate for women's and children's causes, and you can read these facts and still support Hillary, then you are supporting her for the wrong reasons (purely because of her gender perhaps) and in addition you have no idea how hypocritical is your thinking. Given that, you'll probably have a problem with our other writing too."

Mark, I'm sorry if I've offered unsolicited exposition on your already clearly written piece. It just seemed necessary to respond to someone's post that way.

"If you can support dragging down Bernardine Dohrn and Wiliam Ayers, through the gutter just so Senator Clinton’s staff can try to drag down Obama with slurs, then we invite you not to read BuzzFlash again. We don’t want you in our community."

Read; "If you are a Hilary supporter, we don't want you here.",(or, perhaps more accurately, if you are NOT an Obama supporter.)
How sad. If that is what you meant, all I can say is,...wow, y'all had me fooled. If that isn't what you meant, you can duck and weave all you want to, but bottom line is, that's how it comes off. Personally, I still haven't done enough research, or learned enough about either candidate to make a choice, but this editorial, this statement in particular, seriously offends me. It also really really disappoints me so much I can't put into words how sad it makes me. To have this message directed at ME, if I choose to support Clinton. I may not be as well informed as you, my views may not be as strong as yours, but wow. I mean, come on, man. What are you doing!? This is not any way to educate. It IS a VERY good way to disenfranchise-(this word sound familiar?) This divisive speech is SO SO SO SO REALLY REALLY WRONG!! What are you thinking? Stupid.

Hey, if u donated money to Mark with the idea that he would just totally support your point of view then u r in the wrong party. It's a give and take process. I was totally for Sen. Clinton until I quit looking out my bellybutton and saw that the only real answer to what we have suffered thru the last 20 years ( 41,42, and 43) is Mr. Obama. Nobody is calling Sen. Clinton anything other than "NOT MY CHOICE". Sen Clinton thought it was over after super Tuesday. She miscalculated. That's politics. Now let's see if all this devisiveness can get enough votes for Ralph Nader to make sure Straight BS'n John Mcain gets elected.

Now we're getting that old style politics. My opponent is evil. Perhaps he's the devil. Here is some slime for distribution; may some stick on him. We knew it was coming. Hillary had just pretended for a little second that she was nice. (As another John might have said about that: that'll be the day!)

What's she so mad about? Well , she's losing. She needs to hope we are still silly enough to care about her sliming. Hill, sweetie, some is sticking to your hands when you throw it.
You're not very good at the game in spite of all your practice. Look how you tried to lie about who was responsible for putting out the plagiarism complaint. But then somebody pointed at the source. And someone else told us your fingerprints were all overe it.
Did that embasrass you? Gosh no! You tried it once more, got booed as a result. Did that get to you? Seems so for a second or so. Now you're back. First you rant about his mailer which only told the truth about you.
But you might as well go back to your old political games and slime asway. There is no honest way to defend your contradictions. So keep stirring slime and maybe nobody will look.

By the way, did Bill ever thank Daddy Bush for giving him NAFTA to push through Congress? Or did Daddy thank you and Bill for selling it since he couldn't?
And, Hilly Baby, we know that you are experienced. But we don't know the name of the union that WalMart workers were in when you were on the WalMart board of directors.
Caught your act at the Austin debate, loved the JohnEdwards line! Did he give permission? Also almost cried at your account of meeting with the soldiers wounded in Iraq. Wondered if anyone thought of your approval of that unnecessary war?
say, when we do the movie of the Clintons, who do you think should play you? My first thought was Madonna, but you might prefer Joan Collins.
Maybe they're too pretty.

BigDaddy

What exactly has Barack Obama done to get treated as if he is the reincarnation of Mahatma Gandhi?

Why is it so bad to criticize Obama?

-

At a time like this, sites like BuzzFlash should be showing leadership and promoting unity. Instead, you decide to slap Clinton supporters in the face. Over and over.

Tell you what, you have taken my money under false pretenses. Past statements indicated you didn't take sides in primaries. Now you have, and you're using those funds to promote Obama. That's called fraud. This is legal talk, I know, but you'll be learing more about it soon.

I am sending you, by snail mail, a written detail of past contributions with a demand they be refunded. If they aren't refunded within 30 days, you can look forward to my Clinton-supporting sister (who happens to be an attorney) to be doing a little pro-bono and initiating action against you. Plan on some of your 25k going for legal fees.

I urge other Clinton supporters whom you've defrauded to do the same.

Yes, it's a great resource. Thanks for mentioning it.

Comments below talk about "Democrats cannibalizing their own" and other such rot. We had a primary season which included a host of candidates from the Democratic Party running for president including such esteemed members of the party as Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Richardson and others. They did not act like cannibals, nor did they beat the American public about the ears with sleazy charges against their opponents. That distinction (one of the few) is held by the Klinton Kamp. The Klintons are permitted to say ANYTHING about their opponents, no matter how inaccurate or hateful or snide or racially-tinged or simply mean-spirited. When someone points out the facts concerning their record, all hell breaks loose. That, my friends, is a sign of a tyrannical mentality. They desperately need to have the facts of their record suppressed because it is a loser. More and more people are waking up from the Klinton nightmare and realizing that there are viable options, that our political life does not need to be dominated by this vicious ethos, that we can rescue our humanity from their over-weening ambition. Is it sleazy on my part to play with the alphabet? Kompared to the Clinton sleaze, it is child's play (am giving you a hook for your response).

Democrats seem to find it necessary go through a process of eating their own before settling on a candidate. But frankly I am so tired of the bias of progressive talk show hosts...my former favorites, Stephanie Miller and Ed Schultz...and liberal blogs such as BuzzFlash. I can appreciate the passion of the various people attempting to support their candidate but maybe we should adopt the only Reagan principle worth remembering and that is not to attack people of your own party. You are truly saving the Republican party millions by doing their job for them. I think you can have debate within the party without public slaughter. Mr. Karlin, your comment today regarding some supposed slur against Obama by his association with two old time extremists (there are as many who will take that as a good association as not): "We don’t want you in our community." elicits merely a "Huh?" from me. You are operating in an "either/or" mind set. One could hope that this would be a place where that would not be promoted. It makes me wonder if liberal and conservative tags really need to represent "extremist"? I don't think so.

I am a life long Democrat; not a feminist (although who would not support equal pay?) and don't go along with the party line on illegal (please note that is not the same as legal) immigration. And, as you mature, you do see nuances in the abortion debate. After all, pro-choice should not automatically mean abortion. Why it's any of the government's business is still a mystery to me. As far as the religious ramifications then make your peace with your minister or priest then take the path you can live with. That doesn't mean I should to be forced to live by your particular moral code. I have my own spiritual context with which to live my life.

I am like most people though in that I cannot completely avoid being influenced by media bias even while I do my best to think for myself. I do believe though that often people are more comfortable being sheep. I agree with you that Obama is not Saint Barack. I am very uncomfortable with the idea of an Obama presidency. And, I do flinch each time I hear a tired old gender attack against Ms. Clinton. Every woman I know has had to (depending on the circumstances) endure or fight all of those. I have the same response to the ageist remarks directed against John McCain. I would have to lose my mind before voting for him but on the other hand I'd like Bill Maher, who tries to offend more than half of the population with misogynist, ageist attitudes, to take his crude, cruel comments out of his dialog. It's a really lazy way to get laughs. It make me wonder if all the 40-50 year old latte-liberals really need to relate to the Obama youth to keep their sense of purpose? Or maybe they need to feel "hip" and "in".

Well, I was part of Gene McCarthy's "Children's Crusade"...a grassroots worker for the first time so I do know the feeling. We jumped ship when Bobby came into the campaign as he recognized his potential for success. We knew he could win; we had watched his transformation from his brother's AG to the humbled people's candidate for President. We trusted the change that we could see. In contrast I see Obama's message almost as change for the sake of change rather than anything terribly meaningful. 1968 was a pretty exciting year and it became the saddest year of my life. I still tear up (weak, weak, manipulative woman that I am) when I see his picture and am reminded of all the lost opportunities. In our cynicism and immaturity, after the fiasco of the convention in Chicago and the reactive tactics of Mayor Daly and the old guard, we took our marbles (we'll fix you!) and walked away. It's pretty hard to justify clearing the way for Nixon. I'll never make that mistake again. Another lesson I learned is that the left wing will never be elected to run the country. Whomever we choose for the general election, we need a middle of the road candidate who can put their ear to the ground to hear the will of the majority of the country. We need a President who keeps the priority of defending the Constitution of the United States and appoints trustworthy people in the cabinet to defend the country. I still don't know who will get my vote. I may have to turn off the TV news, talk-show hosts, and stop reading blogs and just read the candidate's positions and policies then vote for the person who most closely supports my issues. So far no perfect candidate. What a surprise! I'll keep watching, hoping for one to emerge who has ideas which most support my life and interests.