Christopher Hall

Obama ran an outstanding campaign and deserves the opportunity to staff the Cabinet and work to advance his political agenda with what should be a favorably inclined Congress. I have to particularly give credit to Obama and his campaign advisors for deftly playing political jujitsu with HRC and disposing of her in the primaries. How many of us assumed (and perhaps feared) this time last year that she would be President-elect today? Not only has Obama silenced the Clinton political machine, he has potentially relegated it to the bins of history - all of which is no small accomplishment from my perspective. And, to her credit, HRC was an indefatigable fighter. Her drive was incredible. She reminded me of a boxer who refused to quit fighting when getting pummeled by his opponent, even though by doing so he jeopardized his health. Obama now owns the Democratic Party. The Clintons may fit in the equation somewhere, but their clout and influence are vastly diminished. Don't be surprised, though, if the Democrats in the Senate replace Harry Reid with HRC. But, make no mistake, the most crestfallen person this election cycle is not John McCain, but William Jefferson Clinton. He was panting to get back to the Oval Office, but will have to settle for being a senior statesman (whatever that entails).

I disagree. About a third of the population was DISENFRANCHISED in this election by the TWO-PARTY SYSTEM. Many people I know voted AGAINST a party or candidate rather than FOR. There was NO candidate to vote FOR, so I abstained, as did many people I know. A viable third party would have made for a much different outcome. Remember Ross Perot got over 20 percent of the vote when he ran. Had RON PAUL been on the ballot, I know many people who would have voted for him instead of the candidate they voted AGAINST. I think he would have outpolled Perot. People of color predictably and blindly voted almost unanimously on the basis of race. This skewed the results wildly. So did the absence of a viable middle of the road candidate. Had people of color voted like the expected average voter, the results would have been different. Some reports I saw said blacks turned out in RECORD numbers and voted more than 90 percent for the "black candidate". David Rockefeller could not lose. He was behind BOTH candidates. The result was predetermined by the Bilderbergers. Jack I agree with you, Jack, and I admire you for declining to hold you nose and vote. I view alternate parties as the future salvation of our political system. I certainly felt disenfranchised. Everytime I saw McCain's face, Bob Dole immediately came to mind. And that's certainly not a good thing. Chris

This is a very astute observation, Jim, that is easy to forget.

Wim- Could you please tell us what the handwritten note says? I can't read it or blow the picture up to a legible degree. Thanks.

"things are at the brink.......the dumbing-down of the politcal IQ of America has fallen below '0'; political morality well below zero. Ethics even below political morality. Values below that........" Peter- Although we view the political landscape from different prisms, I couldn't agree more with the above assessment. For those of you who aren't here now, it feels like the country is engaging in a national-level American Idol contest. People seem to make their voting decisions based on soundbites and media spin. I think that Obama and McCain are the worst race (from a quality of candidate standpoint) since 1972 (for the record, I pulled for McGovern in that race). Obama and McCain showed who owns them when they dutifully embraced the $700 billion bailout/sellout. Don't think that the lobbyists and special interests who contributed $600 million to Obama aren't looking for something in return, as would be the case with McCain if he were to win. Obama pledged to take public campaing financing when he was running against HRC, but he repudiated that promise when he secured the nomination. The current political dynamic is repugnant. Everything is bought and paid for, and the voters are pawns.

Young man, you are confused. His Birth Certificate is Public Record, the official document that stands as FORMAL LEGAL PROOF that THE BOLD ONE was truly BORN IN THE USA. If an official record is challenged, the BURDEN OF PROOF is on the challenger. So it would be a mere TAUTOLOGY to PROVE that a birth certificate is real, since it is already a PROVEN FACT. If there was a real case against THE BOLD ONE's birth certificate, the Clinton's would have found it long, long ago, but trust old Magoo to be a year late and a couple of hundred million dollars short. Because I kinda like Magoo, I'm not going to mention the fact that Magoo was born in a foreign country, while Obama was BORN IN THE USA. Obama is more American than Magoo. Makes you want to eat your heart out, don't it? Confused, perhaps, but young, I don't think so. As I said, I don't know what the facts are and neither do you. And what precisely do you know about burdens of proof on qualification for Presidency? Is the burden on the proponent or on someone challenging his status? I don't see anything anything in the Constitution about presumptions as to qualification for the Presidency unless proven to the contrary by a preponderance of the evidence. Like I said, though, what I see is Obama fighting something that he would presumably be happy to easily dispell and the Governor of Hawaii anouncing last week that Obama's birth records would be sealed. When I see the government insist on secrecy, I get a little curious. And lighten up, he's going to win. I just want to know the truth.

C'mon, Chris, you're a lawyer. Don't pretend you don't know that the GREAT ONE is doing exactly what we all have to do when confronted with a lawsuit that is frivolous and vexatious. We get the courts to toss out the case, which is exactly what Obama did. Since his own time is much too valuable (he's now raising $150 Million per month, remeber) to waste on a piece of crap litigation, he hires some flunky to take care of it. Next case please, the courts are busy deciding REAL cases. No, Raymond, he is spending money to avoid having to prove something that is painfully easy to prove.

I bought (for $5.95) and read the e-book. I enjoyed it a lot, and I think that Saint John Hunt makes a compelling case for how (and by whom) the JFK assassination was undertaken. I would be interested in hearing some of your input about the e-book. Hunt places a lot of the blame on Bill Harvey, whom I think gets forgotten a good bit since he was stationed in Rome at the time of the assassination. Harvey had been unceremoniously dumped by RFK as the leader of the CIA Castro assassination team and deposed to the Rome station.

Jim is right that the fact that James Rosen works for Fox should be irrelevant. Unfortunately, very few researchers can be that objective. This problem has plagued all attempts to understand political conspiracies such as Watergate and the assassination of JFK. The traditional account of Watergate has been accepted because of its portrayal of Nixon as a corrupt politician. This appeals to Democrats and it has been used to bash the Republicans. Nixon was impossible to defend and the Republicans understandably have attempted to distance themselves from the man as a “one off”. In reality, Nixon was no more corrupt than Reagan or George H. W. Bush. The story that Nixon was a corrupt politician who was finally exposed as a result of Watergate is unconvincing. If you look at all the available evidence, Nixon was set-up, most probably by the CIA. The fact that this theory might be supported by right-wing Republicans does not make it wrong. The same thing is true of the assassination of JFK. Most researchers in this field tend to take a very pro-Kennedy approach to the subject. He is portrayed as a principled politician who was about to bring an end to the Cold War and was determined to promote civil rights in the United States. Therefore, he was killed by people who did not share this political ideology. In reality, Kennedy career shows that he was a traditional Cold War politician who did not hold strong views on civil rights (as Robert Kennedy admitted in 1965, given their privileged background, they had no real understanding or interest in the needs of Afro-Americans). It is true that after the Cuban Missile Crisis JFK showed signs of becoming more liberal about foreign policy and this may have caused him to be assassinated. However, it is also possible that JFK was not being genuine with his use of people like Lisa Howard to open negotiations with Castro. Nor was JFK willing to take on the Democrats in the Deep South in order to get civil rights legislation passed. Maybe, he would have acted differently after being elected in 1964, but there is no way of knowing this. This theory is not supported by the behaviour of Robert Kennedy after the assassination. He was keen to accept the view that his brother had been killed by a lone-nut. If he had been ideologically committed to JFK’s supposed change of direction, he should have put forward the view that his brother was a victim of a CIA/right wing conspiracy. However, RFK decided to put his long-term political future first. His view was that his best chance of becoming president was to portray his brother as an idealistic politician who would have made the world a better place. The fact that the brothers had been involved in assassination plots against Castro did not fit into this scenario. This is something that would have clearly come out if RFK had put forward the possibility of a CIA/right wing conspiracy. Democrats, but not Republicans, have been reluctant to accept the LBJ had anything to do with the assassination. The reverse is true of those who favour the idea that right-wing elements in the Republican Party were involved. Jim is of course right to argue that the political views of the investigator should be irrelevant. However, is that possible? As the historian, W. H. B. Court pointed out: “History free of all values cannot be written. Indeed, it is a concept almost impossible to understand, for men will scarcely take the trouble to inquire laboriously into something which they set no value upon.” Or in the words of Thomas Buckle: “There will always be a connection between the way in which men contemplate the past and the way in which they contemplate the present.” However, I would not go as far as Henry Adams who argued: “The historian must not try to know what is truth, if he values his honesty; for, if he cares for his truths, he is certain to falsify his facts.” This is very well put. I am not a historian, but I try to learn facts. Once I learn the facts, I can then explore the political dynamic surrounding them; but facts are of primary importance. Trying to learn facts by viewing the world through one's own narrow political prism can blind us to the actual facts. If you don't believe me, note how many of the threads under this JFK Assassination forum (which is a historical one) degenerate into useless political debates, name-calling, etc. Whoever killed JFK did so irrespective of how any of us may view the world as it existed at such time or currently. What happened happened, and our job is to learn it.

Good points. I am sure Ronald Reagan also did similar things in his last 12 weeks. John- I don't remember what Reagan did, so I wouldn't hazard a guess. But, I remember Clinton's last antics pretty well. I expect chicanery from W, though, before his term ends. Time will tell.

Has Obama already indicated this or is this an educated guess? Obama hasn't said that Holder will be his appointee, but I would put good money on it. I was quite surprised that Obama put Holder on his VP search committee, along with Caroline (whom I thought was a good selection) and Fannie Mae CEP James Johnson (who quit when it was disclosed that he got a sweetheart loan from Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozillo).

The bombing of Syria was clearly an act of war. Americans should ask themselves how they would react if any country bombed their territory. Lucky for the world (and Obama) the Syria did not declare war on the United States. What else can Bush try to get the Republicans elected? He probably realised it is too late to do anything to help McCain now. However, Bush will remain president for 12 more weeks. He is no longer accountabe to American electors and he can do what he likes. Some presidents have used this time wisely. For example, Ronald Reagan in January 1989, upset the Jewish lobby by recognizing the PLO as the representatives of the Palestinian people. In the dying days of his administration, George Bush put US forces in Somalia and gave pardons to his mates involved in the Iran-Contra conspiracy. Clinton spent the final weeks of his time as president to get a peace deal with Israel and Palestine. What will George Bush do? Probably, he will do the same as his father. Whereas he left Clinton to deal with the foreign policy disaster of Somalia, he will probably cause Obama problems in Iran. As Jonathan Freedland recently pointed out: "Bush may be thinking of a parting gift more in keeping with the record of the last eight years. He and Cheney might decide, what the hell, we have one last chance to whack Iran - and let the new guy clear up the mess." John- Clinton spent his final weeks handing out pardons, including pardons to his brother, to a billionaire tax evader and to people represented by his wife's relatives. How can you fail to mention Clinton's deplorable last minute pardons while talking about Clinton's final days? And, make no mistake, that Obama's nominee for Attorney General will be Eric Holder, from the Clinton Adm. Justice Department, and Holder is the person who helped facilitate the pardon of Mark Rich. Why would a prosecutor try to facilitate the pardon of a fugitive from justice that his office had prosecuted?

Jack, you should be ashamed of yourself for posting such nonsense. This is also nonsense but it is funny nonsense. http://www.cnnbcvideo.com/index.html?nid=4...2231354-mA3uTix John- Why is Obama spending money contesting the lawsuit if it is nonsense? It should be quite simple for Obama and his attorneys to debunk if everything is as he claims. I don't know the truth about Obama's birthplace, but seeing him so vigorously resist the lawsuit and discovery efforts is quite interesting. Chris

Don't you think that the title to this is misleading? The article doesn't say anything about the FBI and has no apparent relation to the JFK researcher or her status as a researcher, but instead refers to the researcher's spouse.

Al Gore lost Tennessee in 2000, even though Clinton carried it in 1992 and 1996. Gore even failed to carry his old Congressional district.

I don't think that these 2 clowns could pull off an assassination of a feral dog. I think that the penal system is pretty much made for them and vice-versa. Maybe they will get a little diversity sensitivity training in the joint.

The video is much more impactful than the audio tape of the interview. I also encourage everyone to take the time to listen to the interview with George Butler (Radio du Jour) linked in the site which contains the video. It is quite revealing. I have just purchased Saint John's book, Bond of Secrecy, online and I am starting to read it. I think that the EHH interview/confession is the most significant JFK assassination-related development in many years.

Well if you asked me to name a politician who sold out, Nader is the first name that comes to mind. Imagine running as the Green candidate arguing that Gore is not green enough. Nader is a smart guy, therefore he knew exactly what his candidacy would accomplish -- siphon votes away from Gore. He also knew that his candidacy would serve NO OTHeR PRACTICAL FUNCTION. They say that Nader enjoyed a burst of prosperity around that time, supposedly a result of some unexpected success in the stock market, but his personal finances, offshore accounts, etc., might be worth investigating. I disagree, Raymond. I think that Nader played to a substantial constituency which probably felt disenfranchised from the centrist Democratic Party which prevailed at that time. I know how you feel, because I think that Ross Perot helped facilitate Clinton's 43% landslide win over GHWB. Christopher - I think you are wrong about both elections. You brought up Perot before and I cited exit surveys which indicated that Perot voters said they would have voted for Clinton or Bush in almost equal numbers if he wasn't a candidate Which made sense since he was a centrist candidate. Nadar's vote was several times Bush's margin of victory in enough states to have shifted the election. Thus even if only a fracton of his voters would have voted for Gore instead of staying at home or voting for another candidate, the world we a re living in would be a very different place I don't believe the polls to which you refer, Len. I believe that GHWB would have won if Perot wasn't in the race in 1992. More importantly, though, GHWB would have won if he had been a better President. It's Gore's fault that he let the Nader voters get away from him. I applaud independents and third party candidates. I hope that their existence starts to influence more races.

Well if you asked me to name a politician who sold out, Nader is the first name that comes to mind. Imagine running as the Green candidate arguing that Gore is not green enough. Nader is a smart guy, therefore he knew exactly what his candidacy would accomplish -- siphon votes away from Gore. He also knew that his candidacy would serve NO OTHeR PRACTICAL FUNCTION. They say that Nader enjoyed a burst of prosperity around that time, supposedly a result of some unexpected success in the stock market, but his personal finances, offshore accounts, etc., might be worth investigating. I disagree, Raymond. I think that Nader played to a substantial constituency which probably felt disenfranchised from the centrist Democratic Party which prevailed at that time. I know how you feel, because I think that Ross Perot helped facilitate Clinton's 43% landslide win over GHWB. It's Gore's fault that he didn't carry the Nader votes and it's GWHB's fault that he didn't carry the Perot votes. But Nader's candidacy is all for naught this year, though, because Obama should win handily without the Nader votes. As the Republican Party continues to drift in whatever rudderless direction it takes, I find the notion of a third party to be more appealing - for many of the same reasons that Peter articulates better than myself. But, let's face it, both parties sold us out on the bailout, and I am confident that there will be more to follow.

I have just ordered Havana Nocturne and am looking forward to reading it. As a Hemingway afficionado, I am anxious to learn about whether (or the extent to which) he, the Mob and the Mob's emissaries in Cuba interracted during the 1940s and 1950s when he lived in Cuba. I think that he throw most of his prodigious drinking business to the Floridita, which I believe was a popular bar for American tourists and ex-pats.

I have now heard the grandest of all conspiracy theories - that John Simkin is right wing. Welcome, amigo.

I saw Sarazen take his last public swing (at Augusta National, to formally start the Masters Tournament the year he died).

It seems that George Bush has been very good at spending your money (and those who come after you). http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1016/p01s05-usec.html The US government's extraordinary effort to rescue the banking system may have pulled America's economy back from the brink, but it comes at a cost – helping to push an already bloated deficit up to an estimated $1 trillion for this fiscal year. That would be a record in today's dollars – and would represent the highest level of federal red ink as a share of the overall economy of any US budget since the 1940s. For each household, this year's deficit would pile on an extra $8,620 of federal debt. As a result, future presidents may have to rein in spending and raise taxes to pay down that debt. If they don't, foreign lenders at some point could scale back their purchases of US debt, sending interest rates soaring. John- I opposed the bailout/sellout, but, since the title of this thread is "Barack Obama or John McCain", it would be nice if either of them had voted against the bailout and lent his strong verbal opposition to it. But they both fell in (the Goldman Sachs) line and supported this terrible piece of legislation. Ironically, McCain had the chance to be a Maverick on this one, and he may be ahead in the polls if he had been. And if that's not bad enough, now the Fed is pumping $5 Billion into heretofore private banks.

To supplement my earlier post, CSN & Y cut and released "Ohio" a few weeks after the May 4, 1970 shootings, even though it had just released "Deja Vu" in March, 1979. "Ohio" and "Deja Vu" should be on all of your Ipods. I was 13 at the time of the shootings, and the whole thing was rather surreal to me. From my perspective, this all came on the heels of the RFK and MLK assinations. Because I lived in Memphis, I was at ground zero of the MLK assassination and the resulting riots. Like I said, it was all rather surreal to me.

This is an interesting topic, Stephen. What is the source of your info? I would like to read more about Kent State. I remember when it happened. A friend of mine walked across the yard, where the shooting took place, an hour before it happened. I think that he was returning to his dorm from classes. As an aside, I believe that CSN & Y rushed out the album that contained "Ohio" even though it had recently released another album. "Ohio" was truly an anthem of the times, from the Viet Nam war protest standpoint, much the same way that "White Rabbit" by the Jefferson Airplane was with respect to the drug culture.