All I see after watching that is a Prime Minister caught in an uncomfortable position between two political adverseries and and been quite successfull at been diplomatically polite.

Even Hillary, now that the White House papers have been released has had to back peddal on her original claim in the peace deal in Ireland.

From the New York Times:

Earlier this month, Mrs. Clinton pointed to her work behind the scenes in Northern Ireland, which she visited five times as first lady, as instrumental in helping Mr. Clinton forge a peace treaty there. Her campaign has argued that her lobbying efforts “at the grass roots and behind-the-scenes helped cultivate the conditions necessary for the peace to take hold and last,” according to a memo from her press office.
On her first trip, on Nov. 30 and Dec. 1, 1995, Mrs. Clinton attended a Christmas tree lighting ceremony, a rededication of a World War II stone and a reception. On two occasions, her calendar indicates that Mr. Clinton was holding private talks after Mrs. Clinton departed and returned to a local hotel.
Two weeks ago, on the campaign trail, Mrs. Clinton acknowledged that she was not directly involved in peace negotiations, but she emphasized the importance of her behind-the-scenes role."



This is what she claimed in March on the stump.

“I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland,” she told CNN in early March.



Look, no matter from what perspective you look at her claims, one cannot deny that she is very flippant with the truth.

You can't graduate from Politician school without getting at least an A- in manipulating the truth.
I don't know anything about Hillary and these things she's supposedly had a hand in but what I've heard more then a few times is that in politics the work is done out of the conference room over dinners and parties. Going into the conference room just finalizes and makes it official. It sounds logical to me as a way to work out the kinks without being official. So in that regards she very well might have had a hand in making agreements. Even in the army it's you and your spouse that make a complete team. A good means of back door information and influence.

Most of what you've described was done by George Mitchell, rather than Hillary or even Bill Clinton.

Ahearn, Mitchell, and Holbrook all said that Hillary helped.

Hillary said she helped.

What Hillary did not say was I alone did it.

Obama:

Ribbon cutting in Chicago.

Ok you are qualified.:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Of course she helped. But it's not the kind of helping that should be argued as competence for the Presidency. See what David Trimble has to say on the matter.

I agree with you on Obama. I mean, what's the point in having a Senate if all they do is cut ribbons and bake cookies?

We live in a society where most people can name the contestants on American Idiol, but they don't know who their State Representatives are. Barack Obama will flourish in such an environment.

Currently he has 1,622 pledged delegates and Hillary has 1,485, giving him a 137 delegate advantage. Michigan and Florida are now almost certainly out of the picture. Looking at what's left, Hillary will win PA comfortably. Some people mistakenly belevie that Puerto Rico is a winner take all deal. It is only that if one candidate polls less than 15 percent of the total vote. That's not going to happen and Hillary will win by something like a 60 to 40 percent margin. The remaining States are either Obama States or too close to call.

The end result of all this will be Obama having a delegate lead of over 100 at the point where the super Delegates get involved. Regarding the SDs, bear in mind that whatever they say for public consumption, these men and women are elected officials and politicians whose primary goal is to get re-elected. Most of them will therefore vote the same way as the pledged delegates in their State. A classic example of that was Representative John Lewis from Georgia. He publicly endosed Hillary at the start of the campaign, and then announced that he would vote for Obama once the Georgia Democrats voted heavily for Obama in their primary.

A handful of brave souls will vote against their pledged Delegates because of genuine concerns regarding a candidate, but in the end, Obama will win and either he or John McCain will be the next President.

I always thought this bickering would end in Senator John McCain's favor ...

Democrats voting for McCain

You'll hear a lot of Democrats proclaiming that they either won't vote at all or will vote Republican if 'their guy' doesn't win the Democratic nomination, and you'll hear some conservative Republicans saying that they won't vote at all rather than vote for McCain.

The reality is that such comments are usually a lot of hot air. The Presidential election will be a hard fought contest between McCain and Obama in my view.

Another interesting factor will be those voting who never voted before ( sorry if this has been said already ), I am speaking more about the younger population, I would think youth would identify with Obama much more than McCain, for obvious reasons.

Edit:Oops, wrong thread :oops::oops::damn:


RDP

Obama isn't on the ticket yet, but John McCain is ... if Hillary a contoversial candidate as she is can run a close race against Obama what can McCain do?

More from the link above: Democrats voting for McCain

This probably will happen, however McCain will have his own issues to deal with, things that may not directly be his, however he now inherits them, the economy, IRAQ, etc.....in other words the Bush baggage.


RDP

And now we have Tuzla-gate.

Hillary Clinton explains:
"Now let me tell you what I can remember, OK -- because what I was told was that we had to land a certain way and move quickly because of the threat of sniper fire. So I misspoke -- I didn't say that in my book or other times but if I said something that made it seem as though there was actual fire -- that's not what I was told. I was told we had to land a certain way, we had to have our bulletproof stuff on because of the threat of sniper fire. I was also told that the greeting ceremony had been moved away from the tarmac but that there was this 8-year-old girl and, I can't, I can't rush by her, I've got to at least greet her -- so I made a -- I took her stuff and then I left, Now that's my memory of it."

Misspoke, misspeak is defined as pronouncing a word or phrase incorrectly. Not creating an imaginery scene or situation. Watching the rerun of her standing at the podium telling her story I listened carefully to hear if any word or phrase fitted that definition. No, "sniper fire" was pronounced correctly, so was "running with our heads down" an acceptable phrase. She even affirmed her account of the event not once but twice at the end.

Not even her most ardent supporter can defend the claim that her original speech at the podium was a calculated and deliberate lie to support her inflated claim at been the most qualified to be commander in chief from day one.

This is an insult not only to the intelligence of every American but a slight on McCain and all who have served their country in conflict. McCain is a man who has been in an ACTUAL war zone, had his arms brocken repeatedly in interrogation while holding onto his sanity and silence in defence of his country and this woman, in her greed for power, tries to lie her way into that sacred sanctity of brave men and women who have and still do, live under hostile fire in defence of their country. I wonder how all those war vets who recently supported her feel now. Cheated I would think.

And what does this say about those senior superdelegates such as Dean, Edwards, Al Gore et al. They could come out in mass and put an end to this tomorrow. Their silence is becoming deafining.

In the exit polls in Missisisippi on the question: Is Clinton honest and trustworthy 52% said yes and 48% said no. On the 18th March in a gallup poll the same question was put. 44% yes and 56% said no. After this lie this figure will drop even further which begs these two questions.

1) Can the Democratic Party continue to sit on the side lines while this woman loses credibility among the American people?
2) Can they argue that the perception of honesty and trustworthyness do not count for squat in electing a candidate, be it a nominee or president?

If not, then for the love of God dump this woman now before this contest becomes more farcial than it already is.

Both Clintons seem to have a problem defining simple words in the English language. I find it amusing that one denies having had a sexual relationship with a Whitehouse intern, and struggles to define the word 'alone', while the other one is busy dodging imaginary sniper fire.

They should write a joint memoirs book called 'Incoming'.