Hillary's disappearing Obama criticism

Less obvious? Are you joking? The Google management, staff, after-hours cleaning crew and pet canary are so in the tank for Obama it is neauseating. Shmidt and his crew don't even TRY to mask their bias.

It isn't "less" obvious, it is WHOLLY obvious. It is TRANSPARENT.

Less obvious? Are you joking? The Google management, staff, after-hours cleaning crew and pet canary are so in the tank for Obama it is neauseating. Schmidt and his crew don't even TRY to mask their bias.

It isn't "less" obvious, it is WHOLLY obvious. It is TRANSPARENT.

"why Google has dumped them from their cache is less obvious."
Only slightly less obvious. I suppose a chimp might have a hard time figuring that one out.

A few years ago, Google was my homepage. Now I only use it as a last resort.

Hullary?

Actually, it's quite obvious. The actual motto of Google isn't "Don't be evil", it's "Don't be conservative".

Never in my wildest, most bizarre, dreams (nor drunken stupor) could I have imagined I'd prefer Hillary Clinton for president over anybody.

Lordy, Lordy, was I mistaken. Gimme Hillary any day over that baffoon O.B.

We're in trouble deep.

Those Google guys are so stuffed with money that they're bored. So why not play a little mischief with the political process and redirect history for some kicks. Just type in "George W. Bush Presidency" and almost right off the top the words 'failure' appear. Type in "Bill Clinton Presidency Failure" and almost right off the top the word 'failure' is qualified by 'was not'. It's pretty obvious, at least to me, why Google dumped the cache in their pants.

Perhaps the Google people are innocent of deceit. Maybe in order to keep his legacy as statesman of the Democratic party, one of the Clintons' sent their loyal information snatcher to the Google archives. Anyone seen Sandy Berger with a computer hard drive shaped lump in his pants near Silicon Valley?

I'm not sure why the author of this article says it's not on Hillary's website and that it's not cached on Google. I found it at her website here:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=6318

It never ceases to amaze me just how
little these wealthy nerds know about the
world. They are so into the details of
tecky stuff the can't seem to see the big
picture. Obama is a rookie and wrong most
of the time...not a Great choice for
president...he is so off the wall he makes
Hillary seem like Thomas Jefferson...

virbots--try hitting the link to the video--I did and it's not there.

Based on the fact that for the first time Obama has spent a few hours in Afghanistan, while being in charge of the oversight committee for more than a year without hearings, is it reasonable to put some blame on him for the recent resurgence of Taliban and al Qaeda attacks?

It is my understanding that the principle problems in Afghanistan are political in nature. U.S. troops are carrying the whole load. NATO troops (Brits excepted) are capable, but are politically being kept back from the real action of pursuit in their sectors. Beyond that Pakistan is a safe haven for the terrorists and our policy has been to give both the Pakistan Army and their civilian population advantages in trade and armaments.

Had Obama been doing his job pressure could have been forth coming to our allies to step up their actions and Pakistan to either get with the program or get out of the way. Congress still hold the purse-strings.

I'm not sure why we even still have troops in Germany or why NATO has any validity since the end of the Cold War. I'm not even sure I would give a damn if Russia still posed a threat to them.