The Pennsylvania Progressive

Obama Campaign Plagiarizes Me

My.BarackObama.com, according to this authority, is an official website of Obama For America, Barack Obama's presidential campaign. This blog on My.BarackObama.com published, in its entirety, this article from The Pennsylvania Progressive.  The article neither links to my original nor attributes the opening paragraphs, my original work, to me or The Pennsylvania Progressive.  This is called plagiarism.  It also constitutes copyright infringement.  I gave no one permission to republish this article.  I thought the letter from Tammi Hetherington was significant and an important story amidst the discussion about the Bosnian sniper fire controversy.   If I'd known then what I know now I would not have published the letter.

I contacted the press office of the Obama campaign through my contact Matt Lehrich two days ago about this violation and the article still is posted on My.BarackObama.com. They are aware of the legal violation and have yet to respond in any way.

An intermediary contacted me with Tammi's letter and asked if I was interested in the story.  Reading her words I was immediately taken with the significance of offense taken by a soldier who was serving at Tuzla at the time.  I telephoned Tammi and interviewed her before writing my article.  I was told I was competing for the story with Politico.com.  I wrote my story about her letter in conjunction with a press call earlier that day with Major General Walter Stewart and wove his comments into the article as an explanation about valor theft.  Before publishing the article I sent it to Tammi's intermediary (who, aside from a supporter's blog at the Obama website which anyone can do), did not seem connected with the Obama campaign.

They liked my article and gave me the story.  I thought I had an exclusive.  I told them when it would publish and programmed my software to publish the article.  Now it seems they also gave MY article and MY words to other bloggers.  I have found my entire article on other blogs published without any attribution or permission.  Once Tammi gave this story to me and it was published on this blog it became my intellectual property.  This blog is clearly marked, on the masthead, as being copyrighted.

I began contacting some of these bloggers Wednesday now that I have more time on my hands and asking that they remove the article for copyright violations.  One such blogger took offense and emailed me that he published it with permission.  I gave no one permission.  I certainly would not have given anyone permission to use my very own words without attribution.  That constitutes plagiarism.  When bloggers do use other people's words as fair use, they are supposed to blockquote them so readers understand what words have been used from the copyrighted material.  Many of these bloggers failed to do this.

I was interested as to why and now I'm beginning to realize that Tammi, or someone close to her, gave my article to other bloggers.  They did not notify me they were giving my work to other writers to use without my permission or without attribution.  One such person is part of a network called Obama Rapid Response.

The fact the Obama campaign was notified that a violation was on their website and their refusal to deal with this matter seems to mean they are condoning this plagiarism.  Why would Obama For America condone copyright violation and plagiarism on their official campaign website?

Update:  Saturday:  I have now found another of my copyrighted articles published in full, without permission, on My.BarackObama.com.  The more time I spend searching for my copyrighted work on the official Obama websites the more violations I discover.  As of today they still reside, in violation of law, on these websites.  Looks like I need a copyright lawyer.  Anyone know of one?

The more I look the more I find.  What part of "copyright" and "all rights reserved" don't Obama bloggers comprehend?  My articles are all over this website in spite of the fact no one requested permission.  They are here, here, here, here, here, and heaven only knows how many more.  Basically four of my articles have been republished all over My.BarackObama.com and another is so heavily taken it goes well beyond "fair use."  It appears one Obama blogger took these four articles and copied and pasted them all to various sections of the Obama campaign website.  No one noticed this and called him on it until now?

Update:  Sunday, April 20:This is an issue because it goes to honor, a theme heavy in these articles and the message these Obama supporters are using to bash Hillary by stealing my work.  Doing this takes traffic from my website and, therefore, costs me income.  Advertising rates are based on historical traffic so these illegal actions stole site traffic that otherwise would have come here to read the full articles.  Because they were published in their entireties elsewhere readers didn't have to come to this blog and create our traffic and revenues.

My.BarackObama has no integrity.  Five days after the campaign was informed of these transgressions the articles remain on their website.

Hillary To Increase Breast Cancer Funding

In a conference call with the media this morning the Clinton campaign announced she will increase funding for breast cancer research and services by $300 million per year as President.  This would be the first real incremental increase in eight years and work toward a goal of increasing funding from the current $750 million per year to $1.5 billion.

According to Pat Halpin-Murphy of the Pennsylvania Breast Cancer Coalition in Ephrata, Pennsylvania is third in the nation in breast cancer mortality.  She said Pennsylvania "is especially hard hit by this disease."  Hillary wants to increase funding for services, be they mammograms and other treatments and preventive services in addition to research.

The women on the call, Fran Visco, President of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, Rep. Donna Christian-Christensen M.D., and Catherine Brown Domestic Policy Adviser for Hillary, in addition to Ms. Halpin-Murphy, recollected Hillary's long involvement and support for breast cancer research, services and legislation while serving both as First lady and United States Senator.  They reiterated her long standing support for these issues and saluted her for her unwavering support for their efforts.

The Congresswoman lamented the fact that women of color are often omitted from research studies about the disease.  They mentioned that not enough is known yet about the environmental causes of breast cancer and how more needs to be done in this area.

Much of the discussion was devoted to the problems of the uninsured and underinsured in receiving care, both preventive and treatment related.  I wanted to ask if the fact Hillary isn't supporting HR 676, a single payer, truly universal health care plan or the Pennsylvania version, the Family and Business Healthcare Security Act, would go much further in eliminating these problems.  I didn't get that chance before the call ended so I'll ask it here.  Wouldn't Hillary's support for real healthcare reform where all women would have access to true wellness care, preventive medicine and full treatment with no copays or deductibles go further towards providing the needs expressed by the women on this call do more to solve these issues than her plan?  Obviously it would.  It would solve every one of the concerns expressed on the call.

I also wanted to ask Pat Halpin-Murphy why Pennsylvania ranks so dismally high in terms of breast cancer mortality?  Does she have any idea or theory as to why we're afflicted with such a high mortality rate?  Is it lack of access to medical care, lack of insurance, environmental factors, or some other reason?

Regardless I salute Hillary's strong support for this issue and recognize her efforts to bring this issue into the campaign.  Neither of the other candidates has yet to do so.

Casey to Endorse Obama

CNN is reporting that Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey Jr. is set to endorse Senator Barack Obama today and join him on his bus tour.

Update:  I say more about how this affects the race in the comment thread.  This is the official statement from the Obama campaign:

PITTSBURGH, PA—U.S. Senator Bob Casey announced today his endorsement of Barack Obama for President of the United States. Senator Casey joined Obama in Pittsburgh today for the opening of Obama’s “Road to Change” Tour, a six-day bus tour through the Keystone State. 

“In a time of danger around the world and division here at home, I believe Barack Obama can lead us, heal us, and help us rebuild America,” Senator Casey said.

Casey defeated a Republican incumbent with 58 percent of the vote in 2006, and in his work in the Senate has been heavily involved in both domestic and foreign policymaking. He has made bipartisanship a priority in service on the  Foreign Relations, Agriculture, Banking, Aging, and Joint Economic Committees. In his 10 years in statewide office, first as Auditor General and then as State Treasurer, Casey worked to fight waste and abuse and make government accountable to Pennsylvanians.

“Bob Casey understands the challenges facing Pennsylvania families, and he’s shown what happens when you put partisanship aside and focus on solutions,” Senator Obama said. “Folks in Pennsylvania understand that if we’re going to tackle the challenges we face, from keeping good jobs here in America to providing quality health care to every American, we’re going to have to come together to take on the special interests and change Washington. Senator Casey has been a leader in that fight, and I’m thrilled to have his support as we campaign across the state.”

 

Bosnian Vet Accuses Hillary of Valor Theft

A veteran of Bosnia who was at the event in Tuzla where Hillary Clinton falsely claimed to have landed under sniper fire is accusing the Senator of theft of valor.  As General Walter L. Stewart Jr. of the Pennsylvania National Guard said earlier today on a conference call, soldiers who actually have been in war zones and performed under fire deeply despise those who falsely claim such valor.  They feel this way because it attempts to cheapen or make less, their real and actual valor.

The General pointed out "this wasn't an emergency resupply mission to the Alamo.  If there had been any danger that mission wouldn't have landed." 

Common sense tells us the First Lady and Chelsea would never have been put in harms way by our military.  Hillary's tale of bravery and valor, because it was false, is finding resentment among those who actually did serve and Tammi K. (nee Jann) Hertherington who was at Tuzla when Senator Clinton landed is one.  Here is her story.

Dear Sir,

 
I feel compelled to write to you in regards to Senator Clinton’s remarks regarding her visit to Bosnia.

 
I was present at the base in question when the First Lady visited and am intimately familiar with the situation on the ground at the time. It strikes me as beyond misstatement or clarity of memory for Senator Clinton to suggest that this visit in any way compares with the reality of those of us serving in theater experienced or presented a threat to her or her daughter.

 
As a service person in the US Army, I was deployed to Bosnia immediately after the Peace Accord was signed and served there for eleven months in 1996. I was there at Tuzla Air base when the First Lady visited, and there was no sniper fire or anyone running under cover.  I saw both the First Lady and her daughter in our headquarters building (we called it the 'White House'). When I saw them in the lobby of our Headquarters neither her or her daughter had on the "Flak" vests which even we were required to wear at all times when not inside a building.

 
It was my fortune to be working in the Headquarter building as a Communications Specialist, and while I did go out to the ZOS (Zone of Separation) once and lived under "Full battle rattle" rules, I would never in any way compare my experience with those who daily risked their lives. That was the M.P.'s who went on daily missions trying to round up weapons and militant individuals who opposed the Peace Accord and the contract workers who aided the Multi-National forces in trying to rebuild the infrastructure (bridges, communication, water) that had been blown up. If, as I believe, it is improper for me to compare my involvement with those who took the bulk of the real risks it is even more improper for any visiting dignitary to compare their own for any reason, let alone for personal gain.

 
I am quite angry that what I and my fellow soldiers worked to achieve should be used as a playing card to build up a political nominee and tear down another.  This is not what those of us who actually risked our lives were working for, we were trying to maintain a Peace Keeping mission in a country that had  been ravaged by ethnic cleansing.  To trivialize the atrocities suffered by the real people I met in that country for political gain is beyond my ability to comprehend.  I met mothers who had lost their children and children who had lost their parents. The sheer leap of credibility that the First Lady would have brought her daughter into an active war zone is an insult to the people there who suffered more than real risk, they suffered real loss.

 
I did have contact with some of the general population on a daily basis. Many came to work for the Military in custodial capacities. Many carried all that they possessed in plastic bags every day. They brought their own food and cooked daily on little burner plates. I was constantly amazed at how upbeat and optimistic some of the people were in spite of things. It still is hard for me to think of Srebenica and all of the women who lost husbands, sons, and fathers because of religion and nationalistic fervor.

 
My father still works as a Civil Servant at WOMAK on Ft. Bragg, NC and a couple of years ago he met a Bosnian woman and her daughter, who had lived through the worst of it. They got to talking and found out that I had been over there and told him to tell me 'thank you' for what we had done. It still humbles me and chokes me up a little to know that even after all of these years there is appreciation for our past efforts.

 
I was simply a soldier doing my job in Bosnia and I believe in what we accomplished there.  I do not either want to make of my service more than it was nor to denigrate those who served with me and those who lived through more than any of us.  It seems to me that if I simply stand by while others “spin” their involvement for their own personal or political ambitions that I would be contributing to the slander of my fellows in arms and the people we were working to help in Bosnia, so I offer you my personal experience of the reality of the situation. 

 
To verify my story I have included a copy of an commendation I received for service in the Bosnian theater during that period. It would be my honor to provide you more of my perspective if it would serve to deliver the truth to the American people.

 
Best Regards,

 

Tammi K  Hetherington (nee Jann)

(formerly)

SPC

141 Signal Battalion, 22^nd Signal Brigade, 1^st Armored Division, US Army

Task Force Eagle

Update:  General Walter Stewart sent me this statement to clarify his role in Europe and his feelings about the race.

Dear Mr. Morgan,

 

Thank you for providing a forum that is generating such meaningful discussion on the topic of Senator Clinton’s “valor theft.” I am particularly impressed with the letter sent to you by Bosnia veteran, Tammi K. Hetherington, a former specialist with the 22^nd Signal Brigade, 1^st Armored Division, United States Army. I commend Tammi for her service to the nation – service that continues in her courageous willingness to speak truth to power. I commanded thousands of fine soldiers during my almost four decades of active and reserve service, and I would have been honored to have had Tammi among them.

 

Before I go on, I want to correct misreporting about my service as a Guardsman and as an Army major general in Europe. I was never “leader” or “commander” of the Pennsylvania National Guard because that authority belongs to the Adjutant General. I did hold the same military rank as an adjutant general – major general – but did so as commander, 28^th Infantry Division, and as the deputy commander of the State Area Readiness Command (figure that one out). In Europe, my service was at Headquarters, United States European Command (HQUSEUCOM), not at the Army command (USAREUR). EUCOM is the superior headquarters and USAREUR reported to us.

 

I know this minutia seems irrelevant, but in the military accurate representation of titles and performance are at the core of ethics. This is why fabrication of service or battle credentials – what we call “valor theft” - is so offensive to service members and veterans (or should be). Be you soldier or civilian, if you didn’t “earn it” in service to your country, for shame that you might be wearing it or talking about it - and it is equally shameful for those who have served with honor to defend the dishonor of others. Valor theft degrades every service member and veteran, and, as a point of honor, I call on the former admirals, generals, and service veterans who are publicly in support of Senator Clinton to renounce that support. Continue it, and her dishonor is your dishonor.

 

I proudly acknowledge that I changed voter registration so I could vote for Senator Obama in Pennsylvania’s presidential primary. With 4000 dead in the supra-strategic national tragedy that is Iraq I could not but do otherwise. As a leader of soldiers I had one rule for advocating others to higher rank: would I want that person commanding my children in combat. For me, Senator Obama - a rational thinker not dumbed-down by “years in Washington” - is the person for elevation to commander-in-chief. And as to Senator Clinton, were she a sergeant seeking promotion, her known fabrication of battle facts would disqualify her. I have been under fire many times, so much so that the incidents run together, but you can bet I remember the first time.

 

And let me put to rest the security situation at the Tuzla Airport during the March 1996 FLOTUS (first lady of the United States) visit. In the video clip, as she bends to caress the small girl, movement among those behind her reveals a stocky officer wearing four stars on a fatigue cap. I am certain that officer is Admiral “Snuffy” Smith, the senior commander of forces in the Bosnia operation. But Admiral Smith or no, top ranking officers in a war zone don’t wear soft caps unless the security situation warrants it.

 

Senator Clinton’s recollection of being under fire at Tuzla is an unarguable fabrication – a reprehensible act of valor theft, no ifs, ands, or buts.

 

Sincerely,

 

Major General (Retired) Walter L. Stewart, Jr.

Former commander, 28^th Infantry Division, Pennsylvania Army National Guard

Former Director for Reserve Affairs (ECRA), HQUSEUCOM, Stuttgart, Germany

 

Ps. Tammi, this one is for you, and for all those who served with you.

Update II:  Tammi did an interview with her local CBS affiliate you can watch here.

Clinton Campaign Responds To Obama Attack

Following today's attack on Hillary Clinton's integrity they have responded by questioning Barack Obama's claims to be running a "clean" campaign on CNN last week:  "  Well, look, Wolf, I think if you watch how we have conducted our campaign, we've been very measured in terms of how we talk about Senator Clinton. ... I have been careful to say, that I think that Senator Clinton is a capable person and that should she win the nomination, obviously, I would support her. You know, I'm not sure that we have been getting that same approach from the Clinton campaign."

The Clinton campaign is countering that statement with this:

"The facts of this election stand in stark contrast to that statement. Senator Obama and his senior campaign officials have engaged in a systematic effort to question Hillary's integrity, credibility, and character. They have portrayed her as someone who would put her personal gain ahead of the lives of our troops, someone who would say or do anything to win an election, someone who is dishonest, divisive and disingenuous. They have adopted shop-worn anti-Clinton talking points, dusted them off and unleashed a torrent of unfounded character attacks against her. Among other things, they have described Hillary - and her campaign - as:

"Disingenuous"

"Too polarizing to win"

'Divisive'

"Untruthful"

"Dishonest"

'Calculating'

"Saying and doing whatever it takes to win"

"Attempting to deceive the American people"

"One of the most secretive politicians in America" 

"Literally willing to do anything to win"

"Playing politics with war"

This is a hard-fought campaign - as it should be. Like any candidate for elected office, Hillary has made clear why she thinks she would do a better job than her opponent. She has laid out comprehensive policy proposals, put forth her 35-year record of accomplishment, and spent countless days introducing herself to voters across the country. She has said that she is far better prepared to take on John McCain on national security. She has contended that she is the candidate with the experience to confront the GOP attack machine. She has argued that she is more electable. She has said that Senator Obama's words are not matched by actions. And she has challenged him to live up to core Democratic values and goals such as universal health care.

Both candidates are running a vigorous campaign. Both have had surrogates or supporters who have crossed the line and made offensive statements that they rejected. And these offensive statements are an unfortunate part of a long and close campaign. Those who make a habit of automatically assuming and ascribing to only one candidate the worst motives, ignoring more reasonable and benign explanations, who substitute conjecture for fact and then use those assumed 'facts' as a foundation on which to pile more conjecture about only one candidate's intentions, who express anger at negative campaigning and perceived dirty tricks but focus on only one candidate's words and actions, risk losing credibility. And those who conclude from that one-sided reasoning that Hillary ought to stop seeking victory, should ask themselves if quitting in the middle of a hard-fought – and winnable – contest is a desirable attribute in a future president.

Hillary has rightfully stated that as Democrats we should be proud of our field of candidates. And it is truly inspiring to see the level of enthusiasm among voters this cycle. We should encourage as many people as possible to become part of this process and to forcefully advocate for their candidate of choice. But there is a sharp line between supporting a candidate (and excusing their faults, which all supporters do to some degree) and conducting a "full assault" on an opponent's integrity and character. The Obama campaign's unabashed attacks on Hillary's honesty and trustworthiness should give every Democrat pause."

I haven't been on a lot of the media conference calls as yet, I've either been away from home traveling to events or working and missed a few, but when I have both campaigns were vigorously attacking each other, trying to define the media coverage in their favor.  This is politics.  This is politics at the highest level with the highest stakes and nothing is held back.

The Obama campaign has a legitimate argument about the Clinton tax returns, voters are entitled to know where they earn their money.  With serious questions about the sources of money for his Foundation, Bill needs to disclose that as well.  Conversely the Obama campaign is guilty of violating their credibility on this issue the Clinton people raise.  He promised to run a different kind of campaign and he said he would keep it positive.

Of course that was either naive or simply for public consumption.  Politics is a bloodsport and a battle for the White House is always going to be cut throat.  Obama has left himself open to this sort of attack because he has accused Hillary in a negative fashion after promising not to do so.  It would be nice to think this could be a nice, warmhearted congenial campaign but that will never happen at this level. 

Obama Campaign Levels Integrity Charge at Clinton

On this afternoon's Obama campaign conference call with the media David Axelrod leveled this bomb :  "You get the sense they're willing to do anything to overturn the will of the voters and that isn't healthy for the country."  Are they challenging Hillary Clinton's integrity?

Questions arose on the conference call about the Florida and Michigan revotes.  "They like to designate their states (big state wins) as the important ones, they see only 7 states when they look at the flag we see 50."   David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs were on the call for the Obama campaign and they went aggressively after Sen. Clinton on the disclosure issues:  requested earmarks, tax returns, and donors to the Clinton Foundation and Presidential Library.  The press wanted to discuss Rev. Wright and the Florida and Michigan primaries.

As the conversation went to the issue of the primaries they claimed that if they had run a vigorous campaign in Florida the result would have been different.  They claim they have followed the rules but Hillary's campaign wants to change them to overturn the will of the primary voters.  They say they will support a reasonable, fair and feasible process to revote but they won't allow the Clintons "to rewrite the rules to their advantage."

As for questions whether they are conceding Pennsylvania to Hillary they deny that assertion and pledged "we'll be running a full campaign."  They say Pennsylvania is important but in the next breath downplayed our importance " it's not the only state."

The integrity issue was also leveled regarding her failure to release tax returns and disclose their library and Foundation donors.  "What are they trying to hide" was said, which, along with the accusation about changing the rules for their benefit is a serious charge against Hillary's integrity?

I'm sure we'll hear their response to this soon.

Clinton Accepts ABC's Debate Invitation

From the Clinton campaign (this is why it's important to have press relations, you get your stuff out):

"The Clinton campaign today announced that Hillary has accepted an invitation to participate in a primetime debate hosted by ABC. The debate will be held in Philadelphia, PA in advance of the April 22nd Pennsylvania primary. The debate will be broadcast statewide and nationally."

Clinton v. Obama Debate V

Another coal commercial.  Still nothing about climate change.

King brings up the misuse of secrecy and presidential power.  He goes to the subject of earmarks and accuses Obama of not disclosing his earmarks.  Obama counters that this isn't true and mentions the searchable database proposal he has sponsored.  He says he has favored more openness in government.

Hillary:  Does McCain have a better position on earmarks?  She says no because he has supported the irresponsible Bush tax cuts.  Actually he voted against them.  He is only supporting them now (flip flop!).  She nailed him on deficit spending but again ignored the actual question because she is failing to mention that McCain did sponsor earmarks for Arizona.  It's also a chance to bring up the Keating Five scandal.

Super delegates comes up next.  Clinton says she isn't worried about them.  He says he thinks these primaries and caucuses should count for something.  That got a good hand.

One final question:  something more philosophical...what was the moment of crisis that tested you most.

Obama:  no one moment, it was more the trajectory of my life.  I made mistakes and was off course.  Learning to take responsibility for my own actions and then how I could take action to help people.  The cumulative experience and the choice I made to reject a job on Wall Street to organize on the streets.

Clinton:  "everyone knows I've faced some crises and challenging moments in my life."  She said people ask her how she does it, how she keeps going and says what she faces has no comparison to what ordinary Americans face every day and mentions the veterans and what they face after losing limbs and have other wounds from war.

This is a good moment for Hillary.  It shows a human side and compassion.  A sneak glimpse past the robotic Hillary.  This got a hearty and warm response from the audience.  Coming at the end of the debate her comments about unity got a standing ovation and leaves a definite positive impression.

Clinton v. Obama Debate III

New question:  Bilingual nation status. 

Clinton:  Americans should try to be bilingual.  "English should remain our common unifying language."  She is against attempts to make English the "official" language.  She calls this discriminatory which it is because it excludes people from the courts and voting.

Obama:  "Everyone should learn English.  I also think every student should be learning a second language."  Part of the part of the process of our continued leadership in the world will depend on our people knowing other languages.  He used this to attack NCLB because it removes foreign language from the core curriculum.  Since the entire emphasis is on only a few subjects the others are being ignored.

A station break where the coal industry was mentioned as a sponsor.  The next commercial was for the dirty, climate changing coal industry.  I suppose this insures we won't have a serious debate about carbon dioxide emissions?

We're almost 50 minutes into the debate and Hillary hasn't landed a punch.  Barack Obama is holding his own and that means he wins.  We'll see if she can dent him in the remainder of the debate.

John King of CNN is next and he brought up the issue of the ways each candidate is accusing the other.  He asks Clinton is she thinks her opponent is all hat and no cattle.

Hillary:  "I think our next president needs to be a lot less hat and a lot more cattle."  She also calle dher constant attacks friendly and civil.  Huh???
"I offer solutions because it's been part of my life over the last 35 years."  Hmm, including those years she spent at the Rose Law Firm?
"i do think words matter but actions speak louder than words."

Obama:  "I do think actions speak louder than words which is why I've spent 20 years"  he then reviewed an entire laundry list of accomplishments.  He mentioned his work helping veterans:  "I think they'd say I engaged not only in talk but in action."  He then landed a direct punch at Hillary's position.  Quite an effective counterpunch.  The crowd loved it.  Hillary looks uncomfortable, I think she understands he just landed some punches.

Clinton v. Obama Debate II

The second question is about the economy.  How would you differ from your opponent on economic policy?

Obama:  we must stop giving tax breaks to companies outsourcing jobs and end the Bush tax cuts to the rich.  End income taxes on Social Security and insure our trade policies insure we don't have toys shipped here with lead paint.  He also called for a "green economy" which would create new jobs.

He didn't mention affordable housing, predatory lending, regulation of the banking and mortgage industry, minimum wage or other economic proposals.  He also mentioned, again, the influence of special interests in Washington.

Clinton:  What would you do differently on day one from Obama?  She also mentioned outsourcing and taxes.  "We will have a different policy on trade."  She means Bush though and not Obama.  Has she forgotten the question?

She did mention the foreclosure crisis which he forgot.  I'm still not hearing an answer to the question, what you do differently since you say you're ready on day one and he isn't?  She's reviewing her policy but she's completely forgotten the question or she's deliberately ignoring it.  This is interesting since this is her justification for continuing her campaign.

Next topic:  immigration.   Would you consider stopping raids on families where children are citizens whose parents are arrested?  Clinton:  'We've seen instances where parents are detained and deported and their babies are left alone at home and uncared for.  This isn't the America I know.'  She called for comprehensive immigration reform.

Obama:  "because it was used as a political football the bill didn't go anywhere."  He then condemned the racist tone of the immigration debate.  Kudos for that.  He then attacked the companies exploiting the employers and called for a crackdown.  He also said we need to fix the legal immigration system because it is also broken.   Obama also brought up another key factor:  we must work with Mexico so they can create jobs there lessening the pressure on illegal immigration here.

Next question:  the border fence.

Clinton:  Both Sen. Obama and I voted for that as part of the immigration debate.  She is now calling this "a dumb way to protect our borders."  She mentioned that the Univ. of Brownsville would have part of its campus cut off.  We need to review this."  Can you say flip flop?  She didn't know any of this before she voted for this monstrosity?

Of course they're both guilty on this issue.  It was too hot an issue at the time for the candidates to vote NO.

Obama:  "This is an area where we agree.  I will reverse this policy."  Then, "I think the idea that we're going to deport 12 million people is ridiculous."