Minnesota Man Claims He Took Drugs & Had Sex with Barack Obama in 1999

Barack Obama now faces a new challenge - one that is sure to be much more scandalous than anything he's seen so far. If the allegations are to be believed, it's also a scandal that his campaign has tried to cover up. A Minnesota man has come forth, claiming that he took cocaine in 1999 with Obama, the then-Illinois legislator, and participated in homosexual acts with him.

Larry Sinclair, the man making the claims, said his story was ignored by the news media. Still not willing to let this one slip quietly under the rug, Sinclair made a YouTube video in which he made his case. It's had over half a million views already, but the story has still been largely ignored by the news media.

Sinclair's next step was to file a suit in Minnesota District Court, in which he alleges threats and intimidation by the Democratic presidential candidate's staff.

Still out to prove that he is telling the truth, Sinclair said he is willing to submit to a polygraph test. A website (WhiteHouse.com) has come forth offering him $10,000 for the right to record the polygraph test, and another $100,000 if he passes it.

Sinclair lives in Duluth, Minnesota, and in his filing, charges that his civil rights have been violated by Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. Obama, David Axelrod of AKP Message & Media in Chicago, and the Democratic National Committee have been named as defendants in the case.

Sinclair, who describes himself as gay, claims they met in an upscale Chicago lounge. They left in Sinclair's limo, where the drug use and sex allegedly took place for the first time. Sinclair says that Obama smoked crack cocaine, and that he snorted powder cocaine provided by Obama.

Sinclair, 46, says that he no longer uses drugs. He claims to be physically disabled, but says that he was not physically impaired in 1999 when they met.

Regarding the claims, Sinclair said:

"My motivation for making this public is my desire for a presidential candidate to be honest. I didn't want the sex thing to come out. But I think it is important for the candidate to be honest about his drug use as late as 1999."

Check out Larry Sinclair's YouTube Videos and his claims against Barack Obama:

There are several other videos he made in response to the first video, and other's inquiries. Check those out here.


March 2, 2008

Senator Barack Obama
713 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Senator Barack Obama
230 S. Dearborn Street, Ste. 3900
Chicago, IL 60604

Mr. David Axelrod
AKP Message & Media
730 N. Franklin Street, Ste. 404
Chicago, IL 60610

RE: Questions

Dear Senator Obama and Mr. Axelrod:

I am writing the two of you this letter because phone calls continue to be ignored. I feel it is only fair that I address the following questions to the two of you directly one last time.

1. Who is Ron Allen that claims to be with your Presidential camp, who is alleged to claim that someone claiming to represent me called asking for $100,000, to keep me from coming forward about our (Obama and I) November 1999 encounter of sex and cocaine use?

2. How can the two of you stand in front of this country talking about bring people together at the same time you both have engaged your supporters in a massive internet smear against me where you are providing knowing false information to your paid bloggers for the purpose trying to keep the truth about you Mr. Obama from coming out?

3. How can you claim to be a uniter at the same time you are encouraging your supporters to threaten to blow my head off, to cut my throat and to set me on fire if I do not recent my statements?

4. How can either of you gentleman claim to be concerned about truth when you and Mr. Axelrod engaged in a payoff deal with Dan Parisi of Whitehouse.com to the tune of $750,000, to arrange a rigged polygraph?

5. Do you truly believe (that after you two have gone to the extent that you have to have me smeared on the internet with outright false statements) I will go away? Because if you do, I want to tell you right now that the only thing you have done by having my life repeatedly threatened, and by repeatedly providing out right false information for your supporters to post about me on the web, is to make certain that I will not go away and I will not rest until the truth about you both is across every headline around the world.

6. If you claim that neither of you have had nothing to do with the internet attacks and false statements, then prove, post it on your web site and denounce any such attacks. I know you will not because a great deal of the false information has come directly from Mr. Axelrod and his associates.

7. If you claim you had no involvement in the Whitehouse.com scam, then prove it. Publicly denounce Dan Parisi’s getting me to agree to his scam and then stopping payment on his check.

8. If you and Mr. Axelrod claim you had no involvement with Dan Parisi open up your accounts and the accounts of AKP and David Axelrod for review to prove it.

It needs to be made clear that I will not be threatened nor will I allow you to feed completely false information about me to your bloggers and then just fade away into the sunset. Let me make it clear that your attacks against me have only hardened my resolve to see that this story gets out and you are exposed for what both of you truly are.


Larry Sinclair


Copy and paste entire link. It’s approx. 37 minutes.


This is proof that the official Obama campaign is behind the smear campaign of Larry Sinclair.


The Larry Sinclair story has caught the attention of Bill Cummingham, a controversial radio host who frequently appears on Sean Hannity’s TV and radio shows. Cunningham drew loads of media attention this past week when Sen. John McCain denounced his noting of Sen. Barack Obama’s middle name during a McCain campaign event.

Sinclair tells BigHeadDC.com he has been asked to tell his story to Cunningham’s large “Live On Sunday Night” radio audience. The appearance is scheduled for tonight (March 2) during prime time.

While the U.S. mainstream media has been slow to cover Sinclair’s allegations to date, the Canadian mainstream media is taking note. Sinclair is scheduled to record an appearance on the the popular “The Standard” interview program on Wednesday, which airs on TV stations throughout Canada. Hosted by journalist Andrew Dawson, recent guests on the program include Salman Rushdie, Clay Aiken and Anne Rice.

Thanks, for the Bill Cunningham, radio interview information.

If you become aware of the information, with regard to the Canadian interview with Andrew Dawson, please let us know if it is available (live or recorded,) via the internet!

Again, Thank You!

Obama's Hollow "Judgment" and Empty Record

Barack Obama argues that he deserves the Democratic nomination and Hillary Clinton doesn't because he possesses superior "judgment," as he calls it, on the key issues we face as a nation. As definitive proof he offers one speech he made in 2002 during a reelection campaign for an Illinois senate seat in the most liberal district in the state, so liberal that no other position would have been viable. When he made that speech, Obama was not privy to the briefings by, among others, Secretary of State Colin Powell, in support of the Authorization of Use of Military Force as a diplomatic tool to push the international community to impose intrusive inspections on Saddam Hussein.

Buzz up!on Yahoo!Would Obama have acted differently had he been in Washington or had he had the benefit of the arguments and the intelligence that the administration was offering to the Congress debating that resolution? During the 2002-2003 timeframe, he was a minor local official uninvolved in the national debate on the war so we can only judge from his own statements prior to the 2008 campaign. Obama repeated these points in a whole host of interviews prior to announcing his candidacy. On July 27, 2004, he told the Chicago Tribune on Iraq: "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." In his book, The Audacity of Hope, published in 2006, he wrote, "...on the merits I didn't consider the case against war to be cut-and- dried." And, in 2006, he clearly said, "I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of US intelligence. And for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices."

I was involved in that debate in every step of the effort to prevent this senseless war and I profoundly resent Obama's distortion of George Bush's folly into Hillary Clinton's responsibility. I was in the middle of the debate in Washington. Obama wasn't there. I remember what was said and done. In fact, the administration lied in order to secure support for its war of choice, including cooking the intelligence and misleading Congress about the intent of the authorization. Senator Clinton's position, stated in her floor speech, was in favor of allowing the United Nations weapons inspectors to complete their mission and to build a broad international coalition. Bush rejected her path. It was his war of choice.

There is no credible reason to conclude that Obama would have acted any differently in voting for the authorization had he been in the Senate at that time. Indeed, he has said as much. The supposed intuitive judgment he exercised in his 2002 speech was nothing more than the pander of a local election campaign, just as his current assertions of superior judgment and scurrilous attacks on Hillary Clinton are a pander to those who now retroactively think the war was a mistake without bothering to acknowledge Senator Clinton's actual position at the time and instead fantasizing that she was nothing but a Bush clone. Obama willfully encourages and plays off this falsehood.

What should we make of Obama's other judgments in foreign affairs? Take Afghanistan, for example. It has been evident for some time that our efforts there are going badly and that cooperation and support from our NATO allies would be helpful. As chairman of the subcommittee on Senate Foreign Relations responsible for NATO and Europe, Obama could have used his lofty position actually to engage the issue and pressure the administration to take some action to improve our chance of success in that conflict against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Of course, that would have involved holding hearings, questioning administration witnesses, and taking a position and offering alternatives. That is what we expect that from senators in a democracy. It is called oversight.

But, instead, Obama, by his own admission, offers the excuse that he has been too busy running for president to do anything substantive, such as direct his staff to organize a single hearing. "Well, first of all," Obama was forced to confess in the Democratic debate in Ohio on February 26, "I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we haven't had oversight hearings on Afghanistan." To date, his subcommittee has held no policy hearings at all -- none. At the same time that Obama claimed he was too busy campaigning to do anything substantive, racking up one of the worst attendance records in the Senate, Senator Clinton chaired extensive hearings of the Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health and attended many others as a member of the Armed Service Committee.

As a consequence of Obama's dereliction of duty on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a feckless administration has had absolutely no oversight as it careens from disaster to disaster in Afghanistan, including the central governments loss of control over 70 percent of the country and yet another bumper crop of opium to fuel the efforts of the Taliban and their terrorist allies. Of course, if you don't hold hearings, conduct oversight, make recommendations or sponsor legislation, then you have no record to explain or defend and you are free to take whatever position is convenient when attacking those who actually did address issues. Meanwhile, on the campaign trail, Obama holds forth on Afghanistan, chiding the administration and our allies as though he's a profile in courage and not someone who has abandoned his post in establishing accountability.

On Iran and the question of designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, the junior senator from Illinois was not quite so clever at avoiding taking a position. He first co-sponsored the "Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007," which contained explicit language identifying the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. He subsequently claimed to oppose the Kyl-Lieberman sense of the Senate resolution proposing the same thing. Obama's accountability problem here is that he didn't show up for the vote on that resolution -- a vote that would have put him on record. Then he declined to sign on to a letter put forward by Senator Clinton making explicit that the resolution could not be used as authority to take military action. All we have is Obama's rhetoric juxtaposed with his co-sponsorship of a piece of legislation that proposed what he says he opposed.

Obama's gyrations on Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran are not the actions of one imbued with superior intuitive judgment, but rather the machinations of a political opportunist looking to avoid having his fingerprints on any issue that might be controversial, and require real judgment, while preserving his freedom to bludgeon his adversary for actually taking positions as elected office demands. It is hard to discern whether Senator Obama is a man of principle, but it is clear that he is not a man of substance. And that judgment, based on his hollow record, is inescapable.

Barack Obama: A Thin Record For a Bridge Builder

By David Ignatius
Sunday, March 2, 2008; Page B07

Hillary Clinton has been trying to make a point about Barack Obama that deserves one last careful look before Tuesday's probably decisive Democratic primaries: If Obama truly intends to unite America across party lines and break the Washington logjam, then why has he shown so little interest or aptitude for the hard work of bipartisan government?

This is the real "Where's the beef?" about Obama, and it still doesn't have a good answer. He gives a great speech, and he promises that he can heal the terrible partisan divisions that have enfeebled American politics over the past decade. This is a message of hope that the country clearly wants to hear.

But can he do it? The record is mixed, but it's fair to say that Obama has not shown much willingness to take risks or make enemies to try to restore a working center in Washington. Clinton, for all her reputation as a divisive figure, has a much stronger record of bipartisan achievement. And the likely Republican nominee, John McCain, has a better record still.

Obama's argument is that he can mobilize a new coalition that will embrace his proclamation that "yes, we can" break out of the straitjacket. But for voters to feel confident that he can achieve this transformation should he become president, they would need evidence that he has fought and won similar battles. The record here, to put it mildly, is thin.

What I hear from politicians who have worked with Obama, both in Illinois state politics and here in Washington, gives me pause. They describe someone with an extraordinary ability to work across racial lines but not someone who has earned any profiles in courage for standing up to special interests or divisive party activists. Indeed, the trait people remember best about Obama, in addition to his intellect, is his ambition.

Obama worked on some bipartisan issues, such as a state version of the earned-income tax credit, after he was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996. But he also gained a reputation for skipping tough votes. The most famous example was a key gun control vote that he missed in December 1999 because he was vacationing in Hawaii. The Chicago Tribune blasted him and several other vote-skippers as "gutless." One Chicago pol says that "the myth developed that when there was a tough vote, he was gone."

Obama's brash self-confidence led him into his only big political blunder. Prodded by the Daley machine, he challenged Bobby Rush, an incumbent Democratic congressman and former Black Panther, in 2000. Rush pounded Obama by more than 2 to 1 in the primary. "He was blinded by his ambition," Rush told the New York Times last year.

Obama has been running for president almost since he arrived in the U.S. Senate in 2005, so his Senate colleagues say it's hard to evaluate his record. But what stands out in his brief Senate career is his liberal voting record, not a history of fighting across party lines to get legislation passed. He wasn't part of the 2005 Gang of 14 bipartisan coalition that sought to break the logjam on judicial nominations, but neither were Clinton or other prominent Democrats. He did support the bipartisan effort to get an immigration bill last year, winning a plaudit from McCain. But he didn't work closely with the White House, as did Sen. Edward Kennedy.

The Obama campaign sent me an eight-page summary of his "bipartisan accomplishments," and it includes some encouraging examples of working across the aisle on issues such as nuclear proliferation, energy, veterans affairs, budget earmarks and ethics reforms. So the cupboard isn't bare. It's just that, unlike McCain, Obama bears no obvious political scars for fighting bipartisan battles that were unpopular with his party's base.

"The authentic Barack Obama? We just don't know. The level of uncertainty is too high," one Democratic senator told me last week. He noted that Obama hasn't been involved in any "transformative battles" where he might anger any of the party's interest groups. "If his voting record in the past is the real Barack Obama, then there isn't going to be any bipartisanship," this senator cautioned.

Voting for a candidate is always an act of faith -- a belief that the politician will win a mandate that allows him to transcend his own past limitations and those of his party. Ronald Reagan taught the country something about the ability of a world-class communicator to create such a new political space that defies the previous categories.

No one who has watched Obama's sweep toward the nomination would say it's impossible that he can be the great uniter. I just wish we had more evidence.

Congresswoman stephanie tubbs jones said: and I quote “Obama needs to realize that he cannot live through Martin Luther King” after the Ohio debate, on the air with Chris Matthews.

For The Record: Barack Obama
A Closer Look At The Candidate's Background - From Local Church To State Senate To Capitol Hill.

CHICAGO, Feb. 28, 2008

(CBS) When talking to reporters, Sen. Barack Obama used to have to spell his name.

Now he doesn't have to spell that out anymore - but he does have to spell out his record.

In the CNN debate Jan. 21, he said: "On issue after issue that is important to the American people, I haven't simply followed, I have led."

From votes for abortion rights to lessening penalties for marijuana use to raising doubts about capital punishment, Obama is a traditional liberal, CBS News correspondent Dean Reynolds reports.

"I can't think of a tax increase that he didn't embrace," said state Sen. Bill Brady, R-Ill.

Still, Brady considers Obama a friend who was able to work effectively with both parties in Springfield, pushing social welfare and justice legislation.

"Republican, Independent or Democrat, he was very willing to ask anyone for help on an initiative he may be pursuing," Brady said.

That includes a bill requiring police to videotape interrogations. Obama overcame opposition from the governor, the police and members of both parties to pass the bill.

But there was something else about his time in Springfield.

In more than 4,000 votes, Obama voted "present" - that's the yellow button on the right of a state Senate voting apparatus - some 129 times.

That's a cop-out, say his critics.

"That's not 'yes,' that's not 'no,'" said Sen. Hillary Clinton while debating Obama. "That's 'maybe.'"

Obama even voted "present" on a bill involving sexual abuse that he had sponsored himself - saying he discovered legal questions after its introduction.

And yet voting "present" in Illinois can be used to avoid making a choice.

"It's not that unusual for this to occur," said Chris Mooney, a political scientist at the University of Illinois.

His rise in the current campaign is consistent with what has to be considered a charmed political life.

"The hopes of a skinny kid with a funny name that America had a place for him too," Obama said in his speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004.

That speech brought even Hillary Clinton out of her seat. And his Senate race took off just as his Republican opponent fell apart.

"The Obama phenomenon. A wave that just can't be stopped … it just continues to crest," said David Mendell of the Chicago Tribune and author of the book, "Obama: From Promise to Power."

Once in Washington, Obama fought to cut dependence on foreign oil, provide relief for wounded soldiers and he led a successfull fight to limit the influence of lobbyists.

"A lot of the detail in terms of the disclosure provisions for lobbying really came from Obama," said Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute.

But there are some questions.

In a February debate, he said: "I said very early on I would not take PAC money. I would not take money from federal-registered lobbyists."

Not now - but he did accept at least $1.2 million from special interest political action committees for his U.S. Senate campaign. And that helped elect him.

He takes credit for battling the nuclear industry, but a plan to improve reporting of radiation leaks was watered down - by him - partly due to industry opposition. And it never passed.

Employees and officials of Exelon - one of the companies involved - contributed almost $270,000 to his presidential and Senate campaigns.

Obama is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - and but he's been absent a lot. He has yet to meet British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, for example, or the leaders of Germany, Russia or even Canada, according to his staff.

Because he is so new to the national scene, questions persist about Obama's identity - who he really is; questions that political opponents will be only too happy to answer in the fall.

No flag pin on his lapel? No hand on his heart that once? Opponents call it unpatriotic. Is he a Muslim? The whispering persists no matter how often Obama responds.

"I've been going to the same church for 20 years, praising Jesus," Obama said.

That church is the Trinity United Church of Christ. Self-described as "unashamedly black," with an emphasis on African culture, the church has been targeted by critics who call it separatist, racist and anti-Israel.

Obama has been a member for 20 years.

"I consistently have not only befriended the Jewish community, not only have I been strong on Israel, but, more importantly, I've been willing to speak out even when it is not comfortable," Obama said.

Obama has said the church's former pastor - and his spiritual mentor - Jeremiah Wright, is "like an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don't agree with."

Among Wright's pronouncements: that "racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run."

A church-related publication saluted Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan - a well-known anti-Semite, who in turn has praised Obama's candidacy as recently as last Sunday.

It's a gesture Obama rejected Tuesday night, after some prodding.

"There's no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it," he said. "But if the word 'reject' Sen. Clinton feels is stronger than the word 'denounce,' then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce."

Obama's long association with a now-indicted developer named Tony Rezko could also be a liability. An Obama fundraiser from the early '90s, Rezko goes on trial fraud next week. But his unsavory reputation was well known for years.

And it raised eyebrows when Obama and Rezko's wife, Rita, bought property next to each other on Chicago's south side on the very same day in 2005 - even though by then, Tony Rezko was under federal investigation.

No one has charged Obama with wrongdoing, something he has been quick to point out.

"Nobody has indicated that in any way ... was I connected with any of the things that he did," Obama said.

For good measure, Obama has given some $150,000 in Rezko-related campaign contributions to charity. But government watchdogs scratch their heads.

"So, what we're left with is a question of, you know, really, what was he thinking? The warning signs to stay away were very clear," said Cindy Canary of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform.

And Obama didn't heed them?

"Sen. Obama was very slow to walk away from Tony Rezko," she said.

Could it come back to haunt him?

"If we have problems in this campaign, I suspect it's not going to be because of mistakes I've made in the past. I think it's going to be the mistakes that I make in the future," Obama said on 60 Minutes.

His opponents will be waiting.

© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.


Associated Press Writer

DALLAS (AP) -- The founder of a prestigious institute on media and politics added his voice Saturday to the chorus of complaint over perceived press bias in favor of Democrat Barack Obama.

Walter Shorenstein, a prominent San Francisco-based real estate developer, Democratic fundraiser and longtime supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, penned a memo to Democratic party "superdelegates" and other activists criticizing media coverage of the presidential campaign.

Shorenstein is the founder of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University. His memo came days before Tuesday's key primaries in Ohio and Texas, which Clinton must win to save her waning candidacy.

The former first lady and her advisers have lashed out at the press in recent days, suggesting unfair coverage of the campaign has in part led to Obama's victories in the last 11 voting contests. They've encouraged supporters and voters to watch a "Saturday Night Live" skit that aired last weekend, depicting a group of journalists fawning over Obama.

Clinton appeared on this week's "SNL" to praise a similar sketch that parodied the media's treatment of her and her rival.

In his memo, Shorenstein concurred with the Clinton campaign's assessment.

"I am absolutely outraged with the media coverage of the presidential campaign," Shorenstein wrote in the memo, which was obtained by The Associated Press. "This is the most important election in my long lifetime, and to quote one of my favorite movies, 'I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!'"

He was quoting the 1976 movie "Network," in which a mentally disturbed television news anchor played by Peter Finch went on the air and implored viewers to rebel against gimmicks staged by network news executives.

"There is too much on the line for the media to ignore important issues while they obsess about Hillary's hairdo or Barack's baritone," Shorenstein continued. "Is it in the country's best interest that voters received far more information about Hillary's laugh than Obama's legislative record? Is it good for our nation that more attention is paid to the differences in their speaking style than their health care plans?"

Shorenstein attached several studies to the memo indicating the press had given more favorable coverage to Obama than to Clinton, and urged activists to forward the material to friends and voters and to complain to reporters.

"Our democracy depends upon the fourth estate to fulfill the uniquely critical role of informing voters about the important issues facing our nation," Shorenstein wrote. "Yet far too often, the campaign coverage has been biased, blase, or baseless."

Just look at that "THING"! One would NEED to be on Crack to touch him!

I am no supporter of Obama, but this story is so ridiculous that even the National Enquirer couldn't be bothered.

Poor folks in Cleveland...

The National Enquirer and the Globe both carried thes story. So has newspapers in China, Europe, Canada. Interesting, how this story has been suppressed in america. Kind of like the John Mccain story, only printed after he got nod for the nomination, after super tuesday. I read about this months ago, in a respected business newspaper in China.

It's good to know that Barack Obama, and his advisers do not control the international media, as well!

I, live in a suburb of Cleveland, and tonight, on the nightly news, I saw the news report with respect to NAFTA and Canada!

I, hope that on Tuesday...Ohio, sends a clear message to Barack Obama, and his advisers.

I, would like nothing more than to see him lose, by double digits!!!

Later in life, however, he was drawn to the writings of an influential American Muslim who served as the spokesman for the militant Nation of Islam.

“Malcolm X’s autobiography seemed to offer something different,” Obama wrote. “His repeated acts of self-creation spoke to me; the blunt poetry of his words, his unadorned insistence on respect, promised a new and uncompromising order, martial in its discipline, forged through sheer force of will.”

He added: “Malcolm’s discovery toward the end of his life, that some whites might live beside him as brothers in Islam, seemed to offer some hope of eventual reconciliation.”

Cleveland Leader, please research this story further. It appears that Whitehouse.com played dirty with Mr. Axelrod in their polygraph challenge. Take a look at at how serious the Obama camp is about trying to discredit Larry.


This is the registered info. for that website.

Obama for America
233 N. Michigan Ave
Suite 1100
Chicago, Illinois 60601
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Created on: 28-Dec-04
Expires on: 28-Dec-15
Last Updated on: 16-Oct-07

Administrative Contact:
Admin, Admin
Obama for America
233 N. Michigan Ave
Suite 1100
Chicago, Illinois 60601
United States
3128192008 Fax --

Technical Contact:
Admin, Admin
Obama for America
233 N. Michigan Ave
Suite 1100
Chicago, Illinois 60601
United States
3128192008 Fax --

Domain servers in listed order:

You would think that in this day and time Americans would focus on the issues that America is facing not alot bull that doesn't amount to anything. The bottom line is this, when Bill Clinton and Hillary were in the White House, his presidency was riddled with all kinds of scandal. Remember white water? Make no mistake, Hillary Clinton's hands are not clean. Lately, she has sunk real low by throughing all kinds of bullshit in the game to deflect from her support of NAFTA and the war. Poor Hillary; she says that she tough but when she's losing, she whines about how she's not getting enough press and that Barrack has gotten a free ride; but she's tough and she can take it. Hear this Hillary, you have never answered the phone in the middle of the night and when you were asked about the war, you voted for it; when you were asked about NAFTA, you thought that it was great. In the meantime, Barrack is focusing as usual on the issues; he knows that he doesn't have to lower his standards to sling mud at her; I promise you this, she will find that her tactics will not get her in the White House. I for one and I know others who will not vote for her if she wins the nomination. I live in a state where over half a million people voted for Barrack. So Hillary, give it up and turn it loose! The days of playing dirty politics is over. We're not buying it.