comment #1

christian says ...

it's shocking to hear democracts slobber over hilary after she just gave bush even more permission to launch his coming iran war.

she's awful, and we need to end this reign of political dynasty in this once great democracy.

comment #2

Movie Watcher says ...

Good clip. Maher is right: If the republicans don't have anything on Bill/Hillary, they'll just make something up! This campaign will be bloody, nasty and the talking heads on tv/net/radio will be going crazy. I wouldn't be surprised if fox/cnn/msnbc, etc., have a war room, where they will turn on the spin machines. Of course, fox will have the biggest one. I believe Hillary will bring Bill on the campaign trail a lot. I think he can bring in a few million extra votes. He is still very popular. Of course, Rudy will trot out his familia, and he will see if the fake cell phone trick will work again. Isn't it interesting that today, the christain conservatives are threating to vote for a third party candidate if Rudy is the nominee? And how about that SNL opening sequence about Hillary? That was funny. So let the games/bullshit begin!

comment #3

Crow T Robot says ...

This Hillary thing baffles me. The Democrats want the French Revolution but they want Marie Antoinette to rule us after.

comment #4

Stephe96 says ...

It's hilarious to hear Maher whine that the Republicans will "make something up" about the Clintons. I guess Maher still believes in Dan Rather's "unimpeachable sources" on the Bush National Guard documents, huh?

Believe me, the Clintons have PLENTY in their closet...nobody needs to make anything up. Start with Hillary's close relationship jailed Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu...

comment #5

Arizona Joe says ...

I agree with Maher. I agree with Wells.

The conservative media will try to demonize Hillary Clinton, and the truth is, she is not a very liberal candidate. As Frank Rich said in an excellent column in yesterday's NY Times, she hedges her bets and is very much a centrist.

Some Hollywood people have recognized this, and backed Obama. He has not gained traction.

Mrs. Clinton has been slow to speak out against the war and other Bush abuses. She is also beholden to the big insurance companies. What kind of a Democratic candidate is that?

Bill Maher has called the Democrats' 'pussies' for letting the Republicans get away with things, e.g., the swift boat attack on Kerry. Well, the Democrats should get tough right now, and the other candidates should come out swinging against Hillary. Because as Mr. Rich points out, as it stands now, a Hillary Clinton presidency is almost inevitable.

comment #6

Bocephus says ...

Scary thought: In '08 there will be legal voters who have only lived under a Bush or Clinton administration.

I hate both Hillary and Giuliani. I don't think SNL has anyone who can play Rudy (although Hader is quite a talented impressionist and can probably pull it off), but Amy Poehler's Hillary Clinton is awesome, and I could definitely live with 4-8 more years of Amy on SNL. So I guess Hillary has my vote.

comment #7

christian says ...

"Start with Hillary's close relationship jailed Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu..."

that should stick as much as bush's friendship and support by one ken lay...

comment #8

George Prager says ...

If Norman Hsu is all you got Stephe96, then the Clintons are in good shape.

Anyway. I can't believe that Rudy is going to get the White Citizen's Council nod. He's pro-choice for crissake.
And if he does get the nomination, there will be a Christianist third party candidate:
read it and weep:

Christian leaders threaten to abandon Republicans
Dobson, others meet in Salt Lake City to plan options in presidential campaign
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57908

comment #9

Stephe96 says ...

I said "start with Norman Hsu." He's simply the latest Clinton scandal.

But I thought you libs wanted to end the war in Iraq. Why in the world would you want to elect a candidate who voted to authorize the war and won't promise to bring the troops IMMEDIATELY upon taking office? Hillary dodges the question by saying she "won't know the situation until she's in the Oval Office." Well, so what? What kind of "situation" might she possibly be facing that would prevent her from ending the war ASAP? I really wish someone would ask her that question.

comment #10

Stephe96 says ...

By the way, I notice that Hillary has adopted Tom Cruise's interview technique when it comes to answering potentially awkward questions: she simply cackles like an idiot for about a minute before smoothly dodging the topic.

I'm serious. Watch Hillary's Sunday AM performances this weekend and then compare them to Matt Lauer's interview with Cruise. It's unnerving, really.

comment #11

christian says ...

stephe96, you should be all over clinton -- to support. she voted for the war, loves wal-mart, the stock market, defends nuclear energy and just gave bush a permission slip to attack iran.

the media elite has anointed hillary because of her power and their desire to see a battle.

comment #12

George Prager says ...

Congratulations for being the 29,800,643rd person to bring up this "cackling" thing. Very original. (Next you're going to tell us that Al Gore said that he invented the internet.) I saw the hosts of Good Morning America bring this up this morning and they were late to the party. Nice try, 96. I want Obama, BTW, but this Hillary hate never fails to amuse.

Here's Hillary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1c10kwZWL4

That fat fuck Russert really thought he had her for a second.

P.S. Hsu gave to several Democrats, not just Hillary. Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell called him one one of the best people he's ever met.

comment #13

christian says ...

nice spin, prager. but hillary's "fuck you" laugh has been around for a while before the media jumped. laughing at relevant questions you don't want to answer is a sign of the arrogance that floats around her like a bad odor.

it ain't presidential either. unless you're bush.

comment #14

Ogami Itto says ...

"it ain't presidential either. unless you're bush."

In Bush's defense, he doesn't cackle, he smirks.

comment #15

BNick says ...

For the sake of the country let it be McCain-Obama. In that campaign, principles will trump personality, and there is real substance and imagination on both sides, I think.

Don't know what Jeff with thinking about Fred Thompson. He's going to flame out. At least I hope so.

comment #16

T. S. Idiot says ...

Still say at least one nominee will be someone most of us have never heard of.

comment #17

BNick says ...

And holy crap, I agree with christian on something!

The Hillary laugh is her pre-programmed, focus-group tested way of responding to hostile questions while at the same time making her endearing and likeable. It would be really fun to see what her natural unguarded verbal and non-verbal response is, because it must be really bad if they've made her do this laugh thing.

Now that the media is onto it, though, they'll have to change it to something else. Yes, I sincerely believe that they really work this way in that campaign.

By the way, I thought that Chris Wallace interview on Foxnews was a giant waste of everyone's time. You get her to come on and then start with a question like "Why are you so partisan?" Really want their audience to learn something, don't they?

comment #18

dangovich says ...

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military/industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

Dwight Eisenhower, 1962.

Ah, the good old days, when there were intelligent conservatives.

Now all we've got are extras from the cast of Deliverance.

comment #19

christian says ...

and brain damaged faux-film critic michael medved just pronounced last week that slavery isn't inherently a bad thing:

6. THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT TODAY'S AFRICAN-AMERICANS WOULD BE BETTER OFF IF THEIR ANCESTORS HAD REMAINED BEHIND IN AFRICA.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/63858/

as wretched as the dems are, at least the repubs continue to deliver vast portions of bigoted religious stupidity.

comment #20

nemo says ...

"That fat fuck Russert really thought he had her for a second."

Please show some respect, and address Mr. Russert as Pumpkinhead.

comment #21

Ian Sinclair says ...

The more pressure is put on the woman, the cooler she gets. She is going to be one of America's great Presidents.

comment #22

nemo says ...

"she's awful, and we need to end this reign of political dynasty in this once great democracy."

"Scary thought: In '08 there will be legal voters who have only lived under a Bush or Clinton administration."

My wife's sister has two kids in college, neither of whom have lived under any president not named Bush or Clinton. If HRC gets in for two terms, those kids will be far into their late 20s before we're Bush- and Clinton-free. It's already like something out of the Roman Empire or some medieval European dynasty.

comment #23

nemo says ...

"By the way, I notice that Hillary has adopted Tom Cruise's interview technique when it comes to answering potentially awkward questions: she simply cackles like an idiot for about a minute before smoothly dodging the topic."

The cackling observation about HRC is not new, but linking it with Tom Cruise's similar evasion of awkward questions is new. And most people who comment on HRC's cackling miss why she does it. Pretty astute.

For both Cruise and HRC it takes the focus off the question, and puts the focus on what a loose and confident SOB you are, while giving you time to think over your smooth escape route. By the time you get around to answering (i.e., dodging) the question, most of the audience has forgotten the original question.

However, christian is right about Hsu and everything else the right is ever likely to dig up about HRC and Bill -- it won't stick. Whitewater might have stuck with the Beltway media insiders, but the rest of the country couldn't care less. The shit on GWB goes way beyond his friendship with Ken Lay as well, but none if it ever stuck either.

comment #24

christian says ...

"The more pressure is put on the woman, the cooler she gets. She is going to be one of America's great Presidents."

this is the left's version of the right when they trumpet bush's inability to answer questions as a form of toughness -- when in fact it is simply failing to answer a valid question.

comment #25

Stephe96 says ...

Yeah, Tom Cruise is the master at that.

"So, tell me: how did you and Katie meet?"

Tom: "Ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! I''ll tell you, man. Really. It was...it was...she's really just the best, you know? It's really wonderful and it's just great right now. It really is."

The interviewer then has a rather awkward choice. Continue to grill Cruise about the question he absolutely failed to answer and risk coming off like a total jerk, or move on. Alas, most reporters sitting there with the biggest movie star on the planet opt for the latter.

I honestly think Hillary has studied that technique and thinks it will work for her.

comment #26

swordandpen says ...

If this election comes down to Clinton/Giuliani, this country hasn't learned anything in the last 7 years.

comment #27

BNick says ...

You got it, swordandpen.

And once again, christian, you're dead on. Anyone who thinks Hillary is cool under pressure should read what Bill Bradley had to say about her conduct during the Health Care initiative in 1993.

She appears cool because she is told to appear that way.

comment #28

alan says ...

If Giuliani is the Republican nominee, and a portion of the religious right choose to vote for a third-party candidate instead, wouldn't that all but seal the deal for a Democratic win? Traditional Republican voters will be split between two candidates, which means that Giuliani won't get enough votes to win, and the hardcore religious right by themselves won't generate enough votes to ensure a victory for the third party. Sounds good to me!

comment #29

bents75 says ...

"I guess Maher still believes in Dan Rather's "unimpeachable sources" on the Bush National Guard documents, huh?"

Stephe, Whether he believes in the sources or not doesn't change that fact that, forged documents or not forged documents (which hasn't really been proven either way) that still doesn't change the fact that Rather's story was still true - that Bush used his daddy's influence to dodge the war and then failed to even live up to his priviledged responsibilities after that. The documents are irrelevent in this case - that's just your smokescreen to overlook the bigger picture.

"(Next you're going to tell us that Al Gore said that he invented the internet.)"

Prager, I interpreted your point here as being that Stephe is unoriginal, but allow me also say that despite Gore being misquoted in that instance, he pretty much did invent the internet. Or at least deserves about as much credit for it as anyone else does.

comment #30

Stephe96 says ...

Bents,

If the story is so obviously true, why the need to forge phony documents to prove it? And why doesn't Rather simply tell us who his "unimpeachable sources" were so we can all know where the false documents came from? Really, there's no point in protecting a source that so completely burned you, is there?

Let me guess: you subscribe to the "fake but accurate" school of thought, right? But, hey,...if can prove your allegation is true, I think Dan Rather might just want to be your new best friend!

comment #31

bents75 says ...

Stephe,
I don't have time to plug in a bunch of links now - I will later maybe. But no one has proven without a doubt they were forged - and Rather certainly hasn't admitted it. There's plenty of other evidence to support Bush's shaky tenure of so-called service.
You just want to believe that you elected some great American patriot when all you got was a formerly alcoholic c-student failed businessman who accomplished absolutely nothing in his life before stealing a Presidential election.
Rather's a genius by bringing up a lawsuit, becuase he's going to provide for public record what CBS Corporate wouldn't allow their shallowly objective news to run with at the expense of their own political capital.

comment #32

Walter Sobchak says ...

Is it my imagination or does Larry King give an entire hour to that smug, self-important jackass about seven or eight times a month?

"TONIGHT! Bill Maher speaks out! We'll take your (carefully screened) calls!"

And christian christian christian..... did you actually HEAR what Medved was even talking about?... did you even read it? or did you just go by what your lefty web site writer was taking from it? How anyone with half a brain could hear/read that and take from it that Medved was saying slavery was good thing is nuts.

Saying that African-Americans are better off in the U.S. than in Africa is NOT saying that, in that case, it's a good thing they were hauled over here in slave ships... Irish-Americans are better off here than in Ireland...

nice reach

comment #33

Josh Massey says ...

Ah, Walter, you beat me to it.

"slavery isn't inherently a bad thing"

I can usually see where people are coming from, but I have no idea how you can take that out of what Medved said.

Christian: tell us what Medved said that was incorrect.

comment #34

Stephe96 says ...

"But no one has proven without a doubt they were forged - and Rather certainly hasn't admitted it. There's plenty of other evidence to support Bush's shaky tenure of so-called service."

Sorry, but the burden of proof lies with those making the accusation. It's not for me to prove the documents are fake...I know they are....it's up to you or CBS or Dan Rather to prove that what you're saying is true. (By the way, I'm guessing that CBS has already decided they were fake....do you think they fire producers like Mary Mapes and 3 others over ACCURATE stories?) As for the "plenty of other evidence," where is it? Why didn't CBS use it? Why the need to forge documents. And why, for that matter, was Mapes in contact with Joe Lockhart of the Kerry campaign days before they ran with the Bush AWOL story? Gee, do you think maybe Kerry played some part in forging those documents? I suppose I could simply make up some phone records that would indicate this and call them 'fake but accurate,' but that wouldn't be good journalism. But it's obvious that Kerry had SOMETHING to do with the phony documents. Everyone knows that. Otherwise, why wouldn't CBS just tell us where they came from? Who are they protecting?

comment #35

christian says ...

walterjoshwalterjoshwalterjosh...

i've been a regular listener to medved for years. in fact, i was quite a regular caller to his show so as fans, you've probably heard me on there easily smacking down his intellectual fallacies (and i give him much credit for making it a point to only have disagreeing callers on his show -- unlike cowardly rush, he who must not be challenged.)

i know what kind of a self-loathing pathological liar medved is and it's been documented by others. my favorite medved insight is that there was no genocide of native americans, that it was just a small group of injuns maligned. that's a whopper lie and the kind medved loves to pimp. as is his claim that bush jr. will go down in history as one of our greatest presidents.

so yes, i read all of medved's "reasons" why slavery was not such a bad thing -- his ultimate point being again that america is never wrong, simply part of history's flux and thus hysteria over slavery is just that -- and they're simply false premises designed to revise history as medved often does. to launch into a series of bullet points trying to recast slavery in a relativist light is morally revolting. but aptly right wing.

do you actually listen to him or have you taken up his cause because a righty blog told you so?

comment #36

Ray says ...

We need RON PAUL.

www.therecshow.com

comment #37

bents75 says ...

I realize living under a Republican twisted judicial system for so long has skewed your interpretation of who needs to prove what - but those documents are the "proof". All you have are theories as to where it came from.

I show you the documents and tell you what they are, and then you just say they are "bullshit" and I have to come to you with more evidence?

They are my evidence. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it's a fucking duck.

If you can't prove otherwise then you no longer have an argument.

And if one of Bush's crony's calls up CBS and says they're not going to make it any easier for the corporation to line their coffers with more and more gold unless....then yes, I do think they would fire people. As they clearly did.

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200709250005?f=h_top

You're taking a position that was launched by the same cabal that organized the "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth" smear...and then when the other side comes out with some factual claims for the opposite you cry and moan about it being unfair.

comment #38

christian says ...

of course, it's okay for the party mascot rush limbaugh to infer that the clintons had people murdered.

comment #39

Stephe96 says ...

Bents,

Dan Rather said his sources were "unimpeachable." Then he said he could no longer vouch for their authenticity. CBS fired 4 producers and quietly pushed Rather out to pasture over those documents. Yet you still cling to the belief that maybe...just maybe...they're still accurate? Wow. Prove they are genuine and I'm sure Dan Rather or CBS will fork over some cash to you.

By the way, I love your logic. Now that I think about it...nobody has yet proven that Bill Clinton didn't rape Juanita Broaddrick. Can you prove he didn't?

comment #40

christian says ...

stephe96, does it make any sense for rather to launch a 70 milion dollar lawsuit and drag himself back into the legal ring where apparently he'll be instantly destroyed by the TRUTH?

comment #41

MAGGA says ...

"Irish-Americans are better off here than in Ireland... "

Why?

Anyway, Maher is an astute political observer as well as a very funny man. My favourite line of his was before the invasion of Iraq, after someone had been on his show explaining the usual "they have WMDs blah-blah" conspiracy theories, to wich he replied: So you lost your keys in the garage but you are looking for them in the living romm because there is better light?" Brilliant!

comment #42

bents75 says ...

I hate to keeping coming back this way, but if we're talking about PROOF - I do have to admit the Administration really did a bang up job presenting it to the United Nations and the world before invading a country. Other than that whole part about it not being true.

I mean, hey, if Dan Rather is wrong, if I'm wrong, and Bush really did complete all of his service requirements - then nothing will have happened except I'll look less credible for it and Dan Rather would have wasted everyone's time.

The agenda here is meaningless unless you view it as indicitive of the greater stupidity - and it's more likely to save lies and less likely to cost so many of them... unlike other recent "certainties".

Amen.

comment #43

Bocephus says ...

I prefer the Rumsfeld approach to tough questions:

Ask a completely different question aloud to yourself, then answer that one.

comment #44

christian says ...

"I hate to keeping coming back this way, but if we're talking about PROOF - I do have to admit the Administration really did a bang up job presenting it to the United Nations and the world before invading a country. Other than that whole part about it not being true."

and the outrage on the right about forged info leading the nation to war was...missing.

comment #45

Walter Sobchak says ...

christian.... where would you be without your lefty blogs?

I listen to him quite a bit... do you use your real name when you call? You must be that guy that always won all the arguments with him.... riiiiiight.

"self-loathing pathological liar"? Well, at least you haven't been reduced to name-calling, like those mean old Republicans

hate! hate! hate! hate! hate! hate! hate! hate! hate! hate!

"Denis Miller's an enjoyable, funny guy.... what's that? He's leaning conservative now? He supports the President?.... why he's a fucking dumb-ass, stupid shit head who should be thrown off a cliff!!! He's the LEAST funniest person EVER! I always thought he sucked!"

hate! hate! hate! hate! hate! hate!

comment #46

SpinDozer says ...

'Saying that African-Americans are better off in the U.S. than in Africa is NOT saying that, in that case, it's a good thing they were hauled over here in slave ships'

Medved was specifically addressing slaves, slavery, and how unnecessary reparations are to compensate the descendents of slaves, one of *his arguements is that the descendents of slaves have it better than those who remained in africa, so not a good thing, but, without a doubt, Medved is saying it is a better thing to have slave ancestors than not.

*Medved wrote this article, but the proposals he makes, the distortions of the historical record, etc. were old when I was born (pre-Civil-Rights Act, wisenheimers!); slavery apologetics have a long tradition among racist groups, it's elementary Public Relations.

comment #47

SpinDozer says ...

Power Line's Johnson falsely claimed CBS panel found Bush Air National Guard documents were forged

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511140013?f=h_popular

Johnson appeared on Reliable Sources opposite Eric Boehlert, a former senior writer at the online magazine Salon and a contributor to The Huffington Post website. During the segment, Boehlert asked rhetorically, "[I]f the documents [upon which the 60 Minutes Wednesday segment was based] were forgery [sic], why didn't Republican Richard Thornburgh [co-chairman of the panel investigating the 60 Minutes Wednesday segment] make that conclusion in his report? He couldn't. And he wouldn't." Johnson responded, "It's on Page 175 [of the report]."

In fact, Page 175 of the independent panel report contains no conclusions about the authenticity of the documents. Page 175 contains the panel's assessment of testimony provided by typography expert Peter Tytell (whose testimony Johnson cited during the Reliable Sources segment). The report states that the panel "found [Tytell's] analysis sound in terms of why he believed the documents were not authentic," but adds, "[t]he [p]anel reaches no conclusion as to whether Tytell was correct in all respects." Moreover, in its executive summary, the report states that although the panel "identified a number of issues that raise serious questions about the authenticity of the documents and their content," it "has not been able to conclude with absolute certainty whether the ... documents are authentic or forgeries."

From the last thread about this subject.

'the burden of proof lies with those making the accusation. It's not for me to prove the documents are fake...I know they are'

Your 1st sentence is accurate. It has not been proven that they are fake. CBS has only admitted that they cannot prove thay are genuine, that was the reason for the disciplinary actions. I suspect the "knowledge" you claim to have is actually only opinion peacocking as fact because you so desperately want it to be true, if not, of course, you should have brought your knowledge before Thornburg's investigatory body, you could've really nailed Rather/Mapes, all the 'pajamahadeen' fantacist theories and evidence was well known at the time of Thornburg's inquiry, so a reasonable & rational evaluation is that that 'evidence' isn't all that compelling.

comment #48

transmogrifier says ...

I repeat, two blind, drunk, semi-retarded opposition sports fans arguing about who has the better uniform.

This is American political debate in a nutshell, HE boards in particular.

comment #49

Stephe96 says ...

SpinDozer,

So where did the documents come from? Dan Rather certainly knows. He said his sources were "unimpeachable" at first. All he has to do is give us the name of the person who supplied him with those docs and we can all take it from there. If they're genuine, you're all vindicated and Rather is vindicated and Bush was really AWOL and you'll all be happy. So I ask again: who provided CBS with those documents? Was it someone in the Kerry camp? That's really the only logical explanation as to Rather's deafening silence on where they came from...

comment #50

SpinDozer says ...

So where did the documents come from?

Try this on...

Bush/Rove campaign 'plumber' removes legit docs from Bush's sealed file (a la sandy berger) and replaces with docs faithful-contentwise as a plant. These docs are then picked up by Mape's 'unimpeachable' source along with other legit docs. Mapes and Rather are discredited even though they did everything right accept trust Bush's file to be clean.

Somehow, I'm not thinking the Kerry camp was really ruthless enough to even call Mapes on the subject...again, easy enough to imagine a Bush campaign operative leaking to the Kerry campaign under guise of disgruntled bushie.

it ain't real complicated to think of a number of scenario's which yield the results before us...what you see above is one which most closely resembles the character of the Bush/Rove machine in action, it's masterful, really.

comment #51

Stephe96 says ...

SpinDozer,

Ha ha ha! I forgot about Karl Rove. Of COURSE it was him!

Thanks for the laugh...

comment #52

christian says ...

walter, i don't hate mike medved. he introduced me to SKIDOO. but i hate the idea of him spreading lies and the kind of hate the right practices with regularity.

i'm glad you mentioned hate. here's today's prime example from america's prime right wing site:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2007/09/30/liberals_and_the_woman_who_hates_them

comment #53

SpinDozer says ...

'Ha ha ha! I forgot about Karl Rove. Of COURSE it was him!

Thanks for the laugh...'

I'm used to so-called conservatives missing the point. Your scenario whereby the Evil kerry created a forgery and manipulated the gullible journalists is not the only one which fits the known facts, there are many others. The Bush/Rove play is only one possibility (and it is far more likely than the one which has Kerry falsifying documents), there are many other possible explanations.

comment #54

BNick says ...

Neither theory is all that credible.

The most likely scenario is that some enthusiastic supporter of Kerry doctored these and fed them to CBS News, probably without Kerry's knowledge. I don't think either campaign would be so diabolical, nor would they want to take the risk that someone would figure out what they did.

comment #55

SpinDozer says ...

'I don't think either campaign would be so diabolical'

Haw Haw, you don't follow politics that much do you? Might want to read up on the Canuck letter or LBJ's musings on Beastiality. Or watch clips of Bush as he sits stoically behind a Rove-employed stooge as he slanders McCain's service.

By the by, your version of the theory is exactly what you dismissed in the previous sentence.

comment #56

SpinDozer says ...

Sorry BNick, I see now you are letting Kerry personally off the hook.

comment #57

BNick says ...

OK, but even if they could be that diabolical, they'd be stupid to doctor these documents (especially if it was Rove/Bush in some sort of double-cross set up) because the risks are so much worse than the rewards.

And no, I don't think Kerry would have ever personally greenlit that kind of an operation, either. So if I'm being naive, at least I'm being bipartisan about it.

comment #58

SpinDozer says ...

'OK, but even if they could be that diabolical, they'd be stupid to doctor these documents (especially if it was Rove/Bush in some sort of double-cross set up) because the risks are so much worse than the rewards.'

& the risks of your hypothetical Kerry staffer? Appreciably less? Bear in mind that if it was a Bush/Rove Op, there would certainly be a scapegoat to be commuted and pardoned later (Scooter).

comment #59

Jay T. says ...

Hillary will beat Guliani in New York... major 9/11 backlash.