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.

Comments

Huh! How do Bush-lovers feel after 8 years of being duped?

This is so typical of the Republican sleaze machine. This creep is just desperate for his 15 minutes of fame. Either that or he's being paid some big money to say this crap. He needs to either PROVE that his scurrilous claims are true, or be sued for slander. He's making the claim, so the burden is on him to prove it!!

It is a shame and no coincidence that this is now getting press since Obama won 10 in a row, is ahead in delegates and is shattering all the predicted outcomes.

It’s also not a coincidence that the Ohio primary is coming up and look where this trash surfaces…
The man in this video and the other two I saw is a dirty looking, out of shape, toothless mess.

He has also been unclear on several key points in the story. And it would seem that he is seeking
a payday. And anyone can file a suit against someone in case you people didn’t know. It’s up to a judge to throw it out.

Sorry to let you know, it’s painfully obvious that the DC establishment fears something greater than themselves: Barack Obama.

This lunatic man even said he calls David Axelrod…c’mon, who would give him Axlerod’s number?

You are not correct, this story has been getting covered on Blogs, internet radio and press as far back as last November. It's not just because Obama is now ahead. But, now that he is ahead, he will be getting a lot vetting. When the republican are done with him... he will be vetted!

It's clear you are a Obama supporter... but please reframe from childlike name calling and judging someone you do not know. It does not make you are the candidate you service any good, when you personally attack someone appearance and reputation.

As for Axelrod's number, Mr.Sinclair stated he called David Axelrod office and left several message with his assistant Clive (think that was the name). Axelrod number are easy... Chicago- (312) 664-7500. New York (212) 529- 5775. Have a nice day!

HAHAHAHAHAAHA!

You believe a random lunatic on a youtube video! Man, the right-wing really has lost all credibility.

Tell you what - I'm going to make a video right now of myself claiming that John McCain raped my sister. I'll then file a lawsuit (which ANYONE can do) and say I've left messages on McCain's campaign manager's message machine (but provide no proof). I'll then take a lie detector test! And I'll pass! Because I'm a LUNATIC - only thing is? A polygraph isn't admissible unless admitted by a FEDERAL JUDGE - the Supreme Court ruled them UNRELIABLE as evidence. But then, just like Larry did, I'll go on the JEFF RENSE show - hosted by the rabid anti-semite UFO conspiracy theorist, Jeff Rense - that'll clinch it!

MUST BE TRUE, RIGHT?

IDIOT.

REVIEW TIME EVERYONE: MSM EXPOSED New York Times, Fox, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, ABC, NBC, CBS, Associated Press, Chicago Tribune, L.A. Times, Minneapolis Star, New Republic, National Review and everyone other than the Cleveland Leader. All of these MSM outlets all know why the New York Times ran the McCain non-story tonight--to provide cover for Obama against Larry Sinclair's allegations. That's the real story of shame and will be the biggest story in the history of politics.

I agree that the Mccain"s story is just to provide cover for the OBAMA exposed story.
I have friends who know this to be true and are waiting for this story to come out and then come out with their own gay relationships with Obama and drug use. Most are afraid to come out now. Oprah will be blown into another million pieces. To give Oprah so much power is wrong. down low or low down..this is an example..
We can't have him in the white house..PERIOD.

It is a shame since Obama won 10 in a row, is ahead in delegates and is shattering all the predicted outcomes.

It’s also not a coincidence that the Ohio primary is coming up and look where this trash surfaces…
The man in this video and the other two I saw is a dirty looking, out of shape, toothless mess.

He has also been unclear on several key points in the story. And it would seem that he is seeking
a payday. And anyone can file a suit against someone in case you people didn’t know. It’s up to a
judge to throw it out.

Sorry to let you know, it’s painfully obvious that the DC establishment fears something greater than themselves: Barack Obama. This lunatic man even said he calls David Axelrod…c’mon, who would give him Axlerod’s number?

You are not correct, this story has been getting covered on Blogs, internet radio and press as far back as last November. It's not just because Obama is now ahead. But, now that he is ahead, he will be getting a lot vetting. When the republican are done with him... he will be vetted!

It's clear you are a Obama supporter... but please reframe from childlike name calling and judging someone you do not know. It does not make you are the candidate you service any good, when you personally attack someone appearance and reputation.

As for Axelrod's number, Mr.Sinclair stated he called David Axelrod office and left several message with his assistant Clive (think that was the name). Axelrod number are easy... Chicago- (312) 664-7500. New York (212) 529- 5775. Have a nice day!

JUDGMENT CALLS
Robert J. SamuelsonThe Obama Delusion
The gap between his rhetoric and the reality of his views.

Feb 20, 2008 | Updated: 9:44 a.m. ET Feb 20, 2008

It's hard not to be dazzled by Barack Obama. At the 2004 Democratic convention, he visited with Newsweek reporters and editors, including me. I came away deeply impressed by his intelligence, his forceful language and his apparent willingness to take positions that seemed to rise above narrow partisanship. Obama has become the Democratic presidential front-runner precisely because countless millions have formed a similar opinion. It is, I now think, mistaken.

As a journalist, I harbor serious doubt about each of the most likely nominees. But with Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain, I feel that I'm dealing with known quantities. They've been in the public arena for years; their views, values and temperaments have received enormous scrutiny. By contrast, newcomer Obama is largely a stage presence defined mostly by his powerful rhetoric. The trouble, at least for me, is the huge and deceptive gap between his captivating oratory and his actual views.

The subtext of Obama's campaign is that his own life narrative—to become the first African American president, a huge milestone in the nation's journey from slavery—can serve as a metaphor for other political stalemates. Great impasses can be broken with sufficient goodwill, intelligence and energy. "It's not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white," he says. Along with millions of others, I find this a powerful appeal.

But on inspection, the metaphor is a mirage. Repudiating racism is not a magic cure-all for the nation's ills. The task requires independent ideas, and Obama has few. If you examine his agenda, it is completely ordinary, highly partisan, not candid and mostly unresponsive to many pressing national problems.

By Obama's own moral standards, Obama fails. Americans "are tired of hearing promises made and 10-point plans proposed in the heat of a campaign only to have nothing change," he recently said. Shortly thereafter he outlined an economic plan of at least 12 points that, among other things, would:

* Provide a $1,000 tax cut for most two-earner families ($500 for singles).

* Create a $4,000 refundable tuition tax credit for every year of college.

* Expand the child-care tax credit for people earning less than $50,000 and "double spending on quality after-school programs."

* Enact an "energy plan" that would invest $150 billion in 10 years to create a "green energy sector."

Whatever one thinks of these ideas, they're standard goody-bag politics: something for everyone. They're so similar to many Clinton proposals that her campaign put out a news release accusing Obama of plagiarizing. With existing budget deficits and the costs of Obama's "universal health plan," the odds of enacting his full package are slim.

A favorite Obama line is that he will tell "the American people not just what they want to hear but what we need to know." Well, he hasn't so far. Consider the retiring baby boomers. A truth-telling Obama might say: "Spending for retirees—mainly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—is already nearly half the federal budget. Unless we curb these rising costs, we will crush our children with higher taxes. Reflecting longer life expectancies, we should gradually raise the eligibility ages for these programs and trim benefits for wealthier retirees. Both Democrats and Republicans are to blame for inaction. Waiting longer will only worsen the problem."

Instead, Obama pledges not to raise the retirement age and to "protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries." This isn't "change"; it's sanctification of the status quo. He would also exempt all retirees making less than $50,000 annually from income tax. By his math, that would provide average tax relief of $1,400 to 7 million retirees—shifting more of the tax burden onto younger workers. Obama's main proposal for Social Security is to raise the payroll tax beyond the present $102,000 ceiling.

Political candidates routinely indulge in exaggeration, pandering, inconsistency and self-serving obscuration. Clinton and McCain do. The reason for holding Obama to a higher standard is that it's his standard and also his campaign's central theme. He has run on the vague promise of "change," but on issue after issue—immigration, the economy, global warming—he has offered boilerplate policies that evade the underlying causes of the stalemates. These issues remain contentious because they involve real conflicts or differences of opinion.

The contrast between his broad rhetoric and his narrow agenda is stark, and yet the media—preoccupied with the political "horse race"—have treated his invocation of "change" as a serious idea rather than a shallow campaign slogan. He seems to have hypnotized much of the media and the public with his eloquence and the symbolism of his life story. The result is a mass delusion that Obama is forthrightly engaging the nation's major problems when, so far, he isn't.

© 2008 Newsweek, Inc.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/113672/page/1

NEWSWEEK'S EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Alter on Clinton:

'One of the Worst Run Campaigns in Modern Political History' - Magazine's senior editor says being uninformed is your own fault.

By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
2/20/2008 6:20:19 PM

On the heels of Clinton’s losses in Wisconsin, Washington State and Hawaii on February 19 to Barack Obama, Alter said her campaign had been terribly managed when asked.

“Terribly,” Alter said. “I’d say it’s one of the worst run campaigns in modern political history, and she is one of the better candidates. That’s the irony – that she turned out to be a pretty darn good candidate.”

Alter told the audience gathered at Nathan’s in the heart of the Georgetown neighborhood in Washington, D.C. on February 20 he thought many of the people running Clinton’s campaign took her nomination for granted. Obama’s campaign, he said, had more people on the ground.

He predicted Obama to win and admitted to saying earlier in the day on the Ed Shultz radio show that Hillary Clinton “could go out classy or could go out ugly.”

According to Alter, the business of media has changed, so much in fact he said there is no excuse for not be informed with the wide array of choices – regular television, cable and the Internet. However, even if you don’t think very highly of American media, Alter said there are other options.

“[S]o now if you’re not getting what you feel like you need to be an informed citizen – I don’t mean to be harsh about it, but it’s your own fault, because the information is there. You can read the Guardian if you feel the American press is no good. You can read, you know, a take from the British press. Or you can sample from the local press. You can time shift if you happen to miss it.”

Thank you Mr. Samuelson for being honest with your opinion. I have been saying all along that Obama has spoken about change, but, has not given any realistic examples of said change. I am supporting Clinton because she has a proven record and more experience navigating the rough waters known as Washington D.C. As for foreign policy, she is,also, better equiped in that area.
Whether or not he did drugs in 1999 we will, probably, never know because the majority of the media refuses to really investigate him.
They hold him and his family to a different standard than Hillary and that is truly a shame.
If what this person is stating as fact is indeed a figment of his imagination then let's prove it and have it end.

Shame??? It's shamesful this has not been in the light before now! That's the shame! Barrack better get use to this now! What the republican have got coming for him is alot worst than this! Wait until he meets up with 'SMACK DOWN DADDY RAPPER MC' Karl Rover!

You people are missing the point, this is not about a gay one night stand. Who cares if he is gay, this is about DRUGS USAGE IN 1999! No his childhood as he claims.

The Cleveland Leader is not a newspaper folks. It is a blog. You are probably just helping some web guru get some advertising dollars. This story has been floating around the web for a couple of months now.

I've seen responses on several of the main stream media blogs asking why they are not reporting this. The answer is obvious. It's just not true. Please go back to your lives.

I guess we'll know after Sinclair takes the lie detector test next Tuesday.

I guess we will!

I hope the Cleveland Leader has the balls to print a retraction and an apology.

It's unfortunate that there is so much hatred in this country. I hope that those of you who wanted this story to be true will look into your souls and try to figure out why. Life is short, why waste it on this kind of ugliness.

Time to own up Cleveland Leader. You've done a great disservice to the people of this country.

Do you mean the main stream media that reported the "fact" that there "Weapons Of Mass Destruction?"

Wake up and smell the ignorance. Obama Bin Laden is going to ruin this nation you freakin lefty scums. If the MSM is going to bring out the alleged affair info about John McCain, then bring out the alleged homo affair and snort party Obama may have had. You pissants on the left have ruined a once great nation with your liberal, anything goes wickedness. If this nation is headed to hell, you on the left are the gatekeepers. Pissants!

Bill O'Reily is close to breaking this story.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KjPuVJwWg-Q

Why is it a shame? If it turns out to be true then where is the real shame? obama is a candidate for president so he has submitted his self for public scrutiny. This guy, who I agree looks like a pretty weird dude says he has proof he also has filed a civil suit in order to challenge obama to take a lie detector test and he will do the same. I say let it happen. If this guy is this passionate to risk all this ridicule and even go to court to file a civil suit there is more to this than meets the eye.

This is insane and I cannot believe anyone would print such garbage. IF it were true and this man were at all capable of basic human thought he would have come forth when he had proof this actually happened. Anyone that believes this is just as idiotic as the man who made it and I hope this does not harm Obama's campaign whatsoever. I could not even believe the headline I hope this gets taken care of as soon as possible. I am incredibly disappointed in the Cleveland Leader and will not look to them for accurate news reporting.

Stop allowing the media to sell you hip on a candidate
that has not be vetted. Being president is not a easy job. The next
president of the United States will have a work load larger than any
other in history... we need someone who is strong with experience!
This is not a game! Look at the situation this country is in today...
from the past eight year of having someone who was going to "change"
Washington. He too, had no experience... look what a huge mess that
turned out to be. To truly "change" Washington, all the current
elected people need to be voted out! Now that's real change, not just
a preaching words!

What do YOU mean by using the word vetted?

Broadly, vetting is a process of examination and evaluation. Specifically, vetting often refers to performing a background check on someone before offering them employment. Barrack Obama has not been totally vetted. Like say, Hillary Clinton has been. This is why the Sinclair, Rezko stories are important. To learn the truth about the candidate and not the spin from thier campaigns or media. There will be others issues to come out if Obama is the Dems choice.

You can not believe anyone would print this garbage??
Sinclair has had this out for some time now, calling all major news medias. No one touches it because Obama is Black. It is unbelievable in this time when we claim to be fair that the media is protecting Obama. John McCain story came out, let this one come out. Fair is fair! Sinclair has Limo driver, Hotel room, paper trails as well as witnesses. I really do not know what it is in the kool-aid everyone is drinking that allows you to follow some one who does nothing but inspirational speaking. His speach was word for word from Deval. And everyone says "oh its ok, his friend said it was ok to use his words" WHAT?? listen to yourselfs people? His whole campaign is change, yet he uses most of Clinton's advisors, Uses someone else's speaches, Says he was against the war to start but continued funding it>

Hillary 08
01-20-09 THE END OF AN ERROR, DON'T LET ANOTHER ERROR BEGIN BY VOTING FOR OBAMA

Shame to other MSM outlets for keeping this quiet and sweeping it under the rug. I have been keeping close tabs on this story for about 10 days, but not a whisper from MSM. Thank you Clevland Leader for being honest and informative. After all, if we can't depend on the media for ALL of the info about our candidates, than why bother giving any info at all. It seems that is MSM way of deciding our candidates for us.

Look at these poor kids. They worked so hard for Obama only for him to get outed and to learn he has a crack problem.

As smooth a talker as Obama is he could confess that Mr. Sinclair is telling the truth and no one will even bat an eye-lid.

I will announce my cocaine-fueled gay sex romp with John McCain on my next radio show (see link above). Unlike this guy, mine wasn't completely consensual!! An EXPLOSIVE and EXCLUSIVE revelation!!

old news!

I am glad that finally there has been a Media organization that has shown the backbone to get this information out about Sinclair. Ironically, these same Obama Fanatics who are upset about this will stand back in awe when the rest of the Media picks it up if Sinclair does pass the polygraph test. The truth has many forms, and no medium should fear it. If the story is proven to be a fabrication, the press will report it. If this is in fact TRUE, then it is the DUTY of the press to let us know of it's existence.

Good job and God help this Country if we allow a bunch of brainwashed lunatics to intimidate our freedom of speech, because it in some way tarnishes the reputation of a politician.

thank you once more,

JC

I agree with you totally on this - I even sent 2 emails to MSNBC regarding this. This ugy is not lying - the story he tells is too factual - about his baseball hat flying out of the sunroof, and asked the drive to stop , so he culd retreive it - this is noT a lie people! WAKE UP!!
yOU GOING TO DISREGARD THE POLYGRAPH TOO!

The press is afraid to publish what this man has to say. All I have to say is shame on the press for not publishing the story about him and Obama if it would have been about President Bush it would of been al publish the story.

I totally again with you, the mainstream media is afraid of this story.

Right now, I am watching MSNBC... they are having a conversation about the John McCain issue. Tucker said, if the press printed a scandal about Barrack Obama, like this, "the mass would burn down building and rots!"

What is going on here... no man is a GOD! This is very concerning and scary, what the media has done for Obama.

I am a lifelong Democrat and I am so angry about all the media bias against Hillary Clinton that I am planning to vote for John McCain if Barrack Obama is the Democratic nominee. THAT'S WHAT'S SHAMEFUL! There are lots of Clinton supporters who feel the same way. Barrack Obama is a talented motivational speaker without experience. Because of a great media support and spinn he has been turned into a icon. He's not capable of leading this nation, now more than ever in the history of the united states we need a leader who is experienced. If Senator Clinton is not the nominee, I have already started building a network of supporter called: Democrates for John McCain in 2008! That's how angry I am at the DNC!

I'm with you, it is shameful! Obama's campaign reminds me of Howard Dean's. Dean went after the young vote, got the crowds, etc., yet, no one is talking about a President Dean! I also want to add, I am a man, but, I think it's shameful how a very qualified woman candidate has been treated in the media, as opposed to the man candidate. If Obama wins the nonimation, he will not have earned it, the media gave it to him!

Last night was the final and last draw for me, with the way CNN repeatedly bashes Clinton. Then during her live speech, CNN rudely interrupted the Clinton speech to cover Obama's speech live. Is that fair game? I am totally done watching CNN! I have been watching them for years! No more! I cannot talorant the sexism any more. CNN agenda is clearly play up the strenghts of Obama and play down the strenghts pointing out the weakness of Clinton's campaign. Yes, it's was a great move by the Obama camp! Which refects what kind of change Obama is going to bring. Smoke and Mirrors!

I switch over to MSNBC! Chris Matthew was having a debate between two surrogates of Clinton and Obama. Our own, Representive Stephanie Tubbs was the surrogate for Clinton. Chris Matthew's asked both: To list one accomplishment of thier candidate. Stephanie named a long list of things. The Obama surrogate was humiliated, he couldn't list one of Obama's accomplishments. For me, that the real story here - The HEADLINE! Here is the link: be sure to watch the video! Rep Tubbs was fantastic as always!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/19/chris-matthews-humiliates_n_87493.html

Hillary took to the stage 60 minutes later than she was scheduled to. Was the Obama campaign supposed to wait for another hour for her to show up before addressing the nearly 20,000 people who were waiting for Hillary to show up???

Naturally, the networks wanted to hear the concession speech (which Hillary did not give--she ignored her Wisconsin supporters and made no single reference to WI) and the victory speech. But they can't simply wait around for Clinton either.

I'd agree there's a lot of media coverage of Obama, but then again, that's what happens when you win 10 contests in a row. He hasn't lost a primary or caucus since Feb 5th and his smallest margin was last night in WI: 17 percentage points.

Clinton's campaign is moving into desperation mode, as witnessed by her WI campaign which blasted Obama for ignoring issues, and then proceeded to hammer the WI electorate with negative hot air about not BO debating her in WI; BO borrowing language from a speech given by a friend and supporter; Michelle Obama's patriotism; the BO "cult"; his lack of experience; etc.

You can't win an election solely by smearing your opponent. At some point you need to make the case for why people should vote for you. And Hillary has failed to make that case.

And don't forget: THE LARGEST EXECUTIVE ORGANIZATION THAT EITHER HILLARY OR BARACK HAVE EVER MANAGED BEFORE ARE THEIR CAMPAIGNS! So far, Hillary has driven hers into debt, failed to strategize beyond Feb 5, failed to control her message and operatives, and failed to energize voters. Meanwhile, Obama's campaign has overcome the "insurmountable" Clinton machine. So, I ask, who's the better executive?

You are an Obama follower and can't see the truth. Obama has had more than 80% favorable Mainstream Media (MSM) positive coverage and Clinton has received about 40% positive coverage. The so-called left leaning bloggers (mostly male) have been all Obama all the time and Hillary haters. It is laughable that you talk about the Clinton machine, Obama has more of the establishment backing with Wolfe and Soros funding him as well as Wall Street and Kennedy, Kerry etal. They think that he will be controllable; unfortunately, McCain and the well oiled slime machine (which will actually work with truth) will prevail again as the Democratic Party goes over the cliff like rats and lemmings following the Pied Piper, Obama.

The misognony and sexism is rampant in the blogosphere and MSM and Obama with his "periodically", "claws" and "you're likeable enough" comments are inexcusable. As a lifetime Democrat, if Obama is the nominee, I will not be voting for him, but writing in Clinton. It won't matter, Senator McCain will wipe Obama off the map and this may even be worse than McGovern for the Democrats.

Campaigns have no relationship to governing. If so, George W Bush would have been a great President. And there is no Clinton machine. To overcome unduly negative MSM and blogosphere propoganda (Obama over 80% favorable MSM and nearer 100% blogger, rampant sexism and misogony and establishment backing(Wall Street, Wolfe, Soros, Kennedy, Kerry, and a host of others) and to still be essentially tied, is quite remarkable.

Obama is going down because he is totally not ready to be President. And the Democrats are going over the cliff like rats and lemmings, following the Pied Piper Obama.

For those who think Senator Obama did a great Economic speech………may I please refer you to Senator Clintons Economic package proposals of August 2007 and December 2007 - eeeccckkksss and 'opps, Obama did it again'……… took the stuff right from Senator Clinton! Playing 'follow the leader' gain…… Senator Clinton is the leader! Anyone who does not believe me - go read it for yourselfs! Get informed -
not just one sided! One sided always means that everyone has actually missed the other side points. One sided means that no one has any basis to compare. One sided means that the choice to remain one sided is just plain dumb! Get smart…vote smart…vote on issues not hollow words! Vote on the ISSUES!

There are another big difference between the two campaigns. Obama recieved more media coverage way before he ever started winning. THE FACT HERE IS THIS, THE MEDIA DOESN'T LIKE HILLARY! 1. Because of her last name. 2. The media = money and power, that's control by mostly men. There is a glass ceiling that is hard to crack if you are a women. Any women who has been in the corporate world knows this to be the truth! Like it our not, that's fact is what's wrong with this picture. So, Male Mark of WI, she cannot change the fact she is a white woman! Now, if Hillary was a black woman, like Obama, you would not see her getting treated in this manner. If Hillary was a black women, she would be the front runner, based on issues and agenda! 3. I am a black woman, I myself had got all wrapped in the black hip around Obama. In the black community here in OH, I am sure in other states, based on polls, all I hear, "you have to vote for Obama because he is black!" Oprah came out and said, "he's the one", Oprah knew what she was doing! But, let me point out here, Oprah has gotten rich off beating down men. In my book, she has sold women out and betrayed all women. 4. I've went to a Obama rally, his message was delivered well. yes it was! But, I felt like I was at Church on Sunday, being preeched to, not being given answers. I went to Clinton's rally, where she addressed the issues and gave a plan to get me and my family back on the road to a better future. Seeing Rep Stephanie Tubbs with Clinton, reminded me that not all black people were betraying the Clintons for Obama. My family was just starting when Bill Clinton was in office. Those where good years for my family. We are not doing as good years after alot of hard work. I went back to both websites and studied their agenda plans. Hillary Clinton will be getting my BLACK voted on March 4th!

Finally, Male Mark from WI, Hillary Clinton personally called Barrack Obama to send her congratulation before she went on stage to give that speech you referenced. Obama knew she was going to be late, if what you said about her being late is true. But, if she was late, Sh@t HAPPEN! Obama should of been a better sport and waited for air time. I have never seen that done before, where one candidates speech was interrupted for anothers on TV. The campaigns do schedule air time with each others camps. Besides, at Obama rally, I attented, Obama was VERY late, my time is valuable too!

I know your feelings exactly, But if Hillary is the Democratic nominee. I will vote for McCain. One main reason for my decision is Hillary is not Strong enough to be my President. Another reason is that I have seen her True Colors in this race. So McCain will make out like a Bandit either way.....And yes, I am angry.

LOL... this is the funniest posting I have seen all day on here! Hillary Clinton is not strong enough???!!!!!LOL!!!!!!! Look at the woman history! She has been fighting for the people with no voice and equality rights all of her life! I am not a democrat.. but, I think your arguement is founded on your anger and not FACTS! NOT being strong enough is something you could never use in the same sentence with Hillary Clinton. You gotta be fair to her!

Last Monday night at dinner with friends, 21 republican white men, asked the question: If the race was decided by a wrestling match between John McCain and Hillary Clinton who would win?? 20 white republican men voted for Hillary Clinton. 1 man voted for McCain, but only is he had a weapon!

Who ever posted this, I think you have a double standard, hold a women to a higher standard than men! Or many you have issues with women in power. However, we welcome your vote for our candidate John McCain!

John McCain and Condi Rice 2008!!! Vote republican!

Dear Senator Obama: Before releasing your surrogates out there be sure they have their talking points. Letting someone go on air to represent you without knowing any of your accomplishments really shows your lack of experience. Don't make those mistakes when you run against the Republican machine. They will chew you up and spit you out. Better take a quick course in experience! Good luck, you are
going to need it! As I am a lifelong democrat who will not only vote republican, but actively campaign for McCain. America doesn't need another Jimmy Carter!

The treatment of Hillary and her supporters by Obama supporters has also infuriated me. If Obama is the Democratic candidate, I will vote for McCain due to this treatment. I am also a lifelong Democrat and have never been treated so rudely by supporters of an opposing Democratic candidate.

There are many Hillary supporters I know who will also vote for McCain due to the rudeness of Obama supporters. Please let us know when the network is organized.

Where do I sign up for Democrats 2008 for McCain. I PERSONALLY HAVE SENT approximately 20+ emails to different news stations and even sent a couple to the NYT regarding why no one will report on this issue??NOT ONE SINGLE REPLY. I have sent to Bill O'Reilly more than once, Anderson Cooper, MSN, CNN, FOX, etc. and none have replied at all! WHAT DOES THAT SAY TO AMERICA. I AM NOT A MCCAIN SUPPORTER. But, I think that the news should report ALL the news good or bad about ALL of the candidates. A lawsuit against a major candidate, and his campaign manager and the DNC is NEWS! So if the news continues to sweep this under the rug! Count me in on MCCAIN........there is a REASON the news wont report it? They reported on MCCain? THINK ABOUT IT. FOOD FOR THOUGHT!

the truth hurts doesn't it - go ahead and put a another coke addict into office just like bush - what does it take to WAKE YOU PEOPLE UP! Your gonnna usher the maniac Mccain right into office - you know that?, because of your unrealistic hate for Senator Clinton. Unbelievable, your so brain-washed. Hillary Clinton is the only chance we have for this country.

Obama's New Vulnerability
By KARL ROVE
February 21, 2008; Page A17

In campaigns, there are sometimes moments when candidates shift ground, causing the race to change dramatically. Tuesday night was one of those moments.

Hammered for the 10th contest in a row, Hillary Clinton toughened her attacks on Barack Obama, saying he was unready to be commander in chief and unable to back his inspiring words with a record of action and leadership.

John McCain also took on Mr. Obama, with the Arizona senator declaring he would oppose "eloquent but empty calls for change that promises no more than a holiday from history and a return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than people."

Mr. McCain, too, raised questions about Mr. Obama's fitness to be commander in chief. Mr. McCain pointed to Mr. Obama's unnecessary sabre-rattling at an ally (Pakistan) while appeasing our adversaries (Iran and Syria). Mr. McCain also made it clear that reining in spending, which is a McCain strength and an Obama weakness, would be a key issue.

Mr. Obama had not been so effectively criticized before. In the Democratic contest, John Edwards and Mrs. Clinton were unwilling to confront him directly or in a manner that hurt him. Mr. McCain was rightly preoccupied by his own primary. On Tuesday night, things changed.

Perhaps in response to criticisms that have been building in recent days, Mr. Obama pivoted Tuesday from his usual incantations. He dropped the pretense of being a candidate of inspiring but undescribed "post-partisan" change. Until now, Mr. Obama has been making appeals to the center, saying, for example, that we are not red or blue states, but the United States. But in his Houston speech, he used the opportunity of 45 (long) minutes on national TV to advocate a distinctly non-centrist, even proudly left-wing, agenda. By doing so, he opened himself to new and damaging contrasts and lines of criticism.

Mr. McCain can now question Mr. Obama's promise to change Washington by working across party lines. Mr. Obama hasn't worked across party lines since coming to town. Was he a member of the "Gang of 14" that tried to find common ground between the parties on judicial nominations? Was Mr. Obama part of the bipartisan leadership that tackled other thorny issues like energy, immigration or terrorist surveillance legislation? No. Mr. Obama has been one of the most dependably partisan votes in the Senate.

Mrs. Clinton can do much more to draw attention to Mr. Obama's lack of achievements. She can agree with Mr. Obama's statement Tuesday night that change is difficult to achieve on health care, energy, poverty, schools and immigration -- and then question his failure to provide any leadership on these or other major issues since his arrival in the Senate. His failure to act, advocate or lead on what he now claims are his priorities may be her last chance to make a winning argument.

Mr. McCain gets a chance to question Mr. Obama's declaration he won't be beholden to lobbyists and special interests. After Mr. Obama's laundry list of agenda items on Tuesday night, Mr. McCain can ask why, if Mr. Obama rejects the influence of lobbyists, has he not broken with any lobbyists from the left fringe of the Democratic Party? Why is he doing their bidding on a range of issues? Perhaps because he occupies the same liberal territory as they do.

The truth is that Mr. Obama is unwilling to challenge special interests if they represent the financial and political muscle of the Democratic left. He says yes to the lobbyists of the AFL-CIO when they demand card-check legislation to take away the right of workers to have a secret ballot in unionization efforts, or when they oppose trade deals. He won't break with trial lawyers, even when they demand the ability to sue telecom companies that make it possible for intelligence agencies to intercept communications between terrorists abroad. And he is now going out of his way to proclaim fidelity to the educational unions. This is a disappointment since he'd earlier indicated an openness to education reform. Mr. Obama backs their agenda down the line, even calling for an end to testing, which is the only way parents can know with confidence whether their children are learning and their schools working.

These stands represent not just policy vulnerabilities, but also a real danger to Mr. Obama's credibility and authenticity. He cannot proclaim his goal is the end of influence for lobbies if the only influences he seeks to end are lobbies of the center and the right.

Unlike Bill Clinton in 1992, Mr. Obama is completely unwilling to confront the left wing of the Democratic Party, no matter how outrageous its demands, no matter how out of touch it might be with the American people. And Tuesday night, in a key moment in this race, he dropped the pretense that his was a centrist agenda. His agenda is the agenda of the Democratic left.

In recent days, courtesy of Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Mr. Obama has invoked the Declaration of Independence, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Franklin Roosevelt to show the power of words. But there is a critical difference between Mr. Obama's rhetoric and that of Jefferson, King and FDR. In each instance, their words were used to advance large, specific purposes -- establishing a new nation based on inalienable rights; achieving equal rights and a color-blind society; giving people confidence to endure a Great Depression. For Mr. Obama, words are merely a means to hide a left-leaning agenda behind the cloak of centrist rhetoric. That garment has now been torn. As voters see what his agenda is, his opponents can now far more effectively question his authenticity, credibility, record and fitness to be leader of the free world.

The road to the presidency just got steeper for Barack Obama, and all because he pivoted on Tuesday night.

Thank you for standing up to all the negative comments. Your job is to report the news in an unbiased and objective manner, which you have done in this story. You accurately stated it is a "claim" being made. It is interesting that you are the only major news company willing to tell the story that has been surpressed for a long time. The media has been looking the other way when it comes to Obama. Many americans have noticed that the media spins everything positively for Obama and negatively for all the other candidates. There is a bias towards Obama and we have not been getting the whole truth. I look forward to finding out the results of the polygraph test next week.

Yes, thank you Cleveland Leader for being a true leader. The choices in this race come down to ONE single thing.... THE ISSUES! Which have has been totally over looked in the media, with all the spin. Our own, Rep. Stephanie Tubbs so pointed out last night on MSNBC..... Exellent job Rep. Tubbs!

Here is a link to the video for all who missed it.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ixc2IHum2hg

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23261748#23261748

Cleveland Leader, please take the lead again and break down the two candidates agenda!

I'm not sure why people think this is such an outrageous claim. Look at the recent case of Senator Larry Craig from Idaho and the homosexual bathroom sting scandal. I'll bet people were shocked and disbelieving about that initially too.

While I agree that this could just be a far-fetched story or one man's claim to his 15 minutes of fame, I wonder why the Obama camp has not bothered to comment. If this is a false rumor then why don't they just issue a statement saying, "Of course these allegations are totally unfounded."

Instead, we hear nothing from them.

Are people, including America's journalists afraid that by questioning Obama they will appear racist? We should not be afraid to question our leaders, especially those who seek out the highest, most powerful offices in our government, not to mention the world.

Questioning Citizen,

The main stream media network and journalists are afraid to question Obama on the tough issues, his campaign attacks against Clinton. Yes, it is for fear of appear to be a racist, is why they are not doing it. Notice the media, Clinton gets hard blows. negative piece done. Obama is always favored, it's all the time. That's simply is not fair. Why more women are not speaking out is beyond me! But, I am a republican, so when you guys toss us Obama, rest assured we will not be afraid to play hardball! We have the highest, most powerful offices in our government, not to mention the world, we are going to keep it in republican control. :-)