Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton further clarified her stance on torture today.  Mrs. Clinton, who last October endorsed the use of torture in “ticking timebomb” situation, yesterday contradicted herself and her husband at a Democratic debate by saying torture “cannot be American policy, period.” 

Her recent statement received wide applause from the left-leaning audience, until Tim Russert pointed out that she had expressly endorsed torture not less than a year ago.  Today, Mrs. Clinton clarified her policy, saying “My administration would support torture in narrow, limited circumstances.”  The “narrow, limited circumstances” include “when supporting torture is necessary to appear hawkish on terrorism, garner votes or otherwise rise in the polls.”  Mrs. Clinton added that she would “never, ever, support torture in front of a Democratic audience.” 

As for a Clinton presidency (God help us) actually torturing a terrorist in order to save thousands or even millions of lives, Mrs. Clinton was a bit more circumspect.  “As in my husband’s administration, I would maintain a level of plausible deniability, so that I could take credit if things went well, but avoid blame in the event of negative public reaction.”

Prominent Democrats have expressed outrage over the now public allegations involving snipers in Iraq.  The controversy surrounds U.S. Army Ranger Sniper Sgt. Evan Vela, who is accused of murdering Iraqis.  Sgt. Vela has claimed that his superior officers had ordered him to use bait to smoke out terrorists and then kill them.

“This is an outrage,” declared presidential hopeful Barrack Obama, “I had no idea that U.S. snipers were actually killing people!”  “These atrocities need to stop,” added Senate Majority Follower Harry Reid.  “It was the understanding of the senate that these snipers would be shouting insults and sarcastic remarks at the terorrists, not shooting them.” 

Several democrats nearly fainted at the news that the U.S. military would be killing enemy combatants.  “What about their constitutional rights,” asked Democratic eyeglass model and shift-with-the-wind pacifist Carl Levin.

The Democratic National Committee issued a statement condemning the use of snipers in Iraq: “We here at MoveOn.org supports the troops, but urges the U.S. military to lay down its weapons and surrender to their betters.” 

Gentlemen’s Quarterly has agreed not to publish an unflattering article about the Clinton campaign.  The article, scheduled to appear in the October edition of GQ, was to highlight the antagonistic and aggressive stance taken by the Clintons, as well as infighting among the staff. 

According to one source, the article was pulled after the Clinton’s threatened to deny the magazine access presumptive First Lady Killer™ Bill “I Banged ‘Er” Clinton.  Another source has claimed, however, that the Clinton’s made far more damaging threats.  “Apparently, Jay Carson, Bill’s PR guy, threatened to unleash Bill on GQ’s female interns.  That was a legal risk that [editor] Jim [Nelson] couldn’t take.”  The threat of sexual harrasment lawsuits are common in the men’s magazine world, but “sexual assault is something different. 

The magazine decided to pull the piece and will, apparently, “be doing a multi-page spread with Mrs. Clinton snuggling puppies instead.”  Bill is said to be “disappointed” that he would not get to meetthe “little honnies” who intern at GQ.  The former president and disbarred attorney remains at the Clinton homestead, drugged and caged until the 2008 election.

Editor Jim Nelson denied the recent allegations, and expressed the desire to focus on the relevant issues at hand.  “Whether or not the Clintons pressured us to pull the story is beside the point.  We have a duty as Democrat–the mainstream media, to fight against the Republicans who are constantly infringing on our civil liberties.”

Bill Belichick, coach of the New England Patriots and amateur video aficionado, has inked his first endorsement deal.  The promotional agreement, with “Barely Legal™ Performance Enhancement Supplements,” a “vitamin” distributor, as raised eyebrows around the league.

Mr. Belichick signed the deal shortly after beating up the hapless Buffalo Bills.  The Bills, stricken by injuries, were neck and neck with the undefeated Patriots at half time.  “Thankfully, we were able to review some tape during the half, and made some ‘adjustments’ in the second half.”  The Patriots won the game 38-7 on the strength of an offense that, somehow, always seemed to know what defense it was going to face.

The ’supplements’ endorsement will run in major markets, as well as in professional athletics periodicals.  The tagline is reported to be “With Bareley Legal™ supplements, you can interpret the rules your own way!”

NASA “scientist” and media darling James Hansen, outspoken critic of the Bush Administration (who signs his paycheck) Global Warming™ advocate and conspiracy theorist, has alleged that he, James Hansen, must be “a lackey for big oil.” 

Mr. Hansen made the claim after it was revealed that the earlier, younger, Mr. Hansen had assisted in a project that “found no need to worry about the carbon dioxide fuel-burning puts in the atmosphere,” and in fact concluded that global temperatures would decrease six degrees over the next 50 years.

The study, popularized by the Washington Post and other media outlets, came at a time when the Next Ice Age™ was the scare tactic used by lonely, needy scientists craving media attention and funding.  Mr. Hansen first dismissed the claims as “old news,” then said he “was young and needed the money.”  Today, however, in the face of mounting pressure by other Global Warm(onger)ing™ advocates, Mr. Hansen went straight to the GW Playbook™, a familiar old friend for Mr. Hansen, and denounced his former self as beholden to corporate interests.

Mr. Hansen had previously made news by claiming, in thousands of public speeches, interviews and editorials, that he had been silenced by the Bush administration.

The International Brotherhood of Satrists and Wiseasses announced a class action law suit against the Dean of Columbia University today.  The lawsuit centers around a statment made by John Coatsworth, dean of the School of International and Public Affairs, when speaking to FoxNews.  Dean Coatsworth claimed that “if Hitler wanted to debate and wanted to be challenged by Columbia students and faculty, we would certainly invite him.”

“This is a clear case of tortious interference,” noted plaintiff’s lead counsel, Sue Demahl.  “Our clients, as a class, were set to run a series of parodies around Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia.  There were going to be pieces about Hitler speaking in 1944; about Columbia students kidnapping the Iranian delegation as Iranian helicopters got bogged down in Ontario.  Even a ‘Pol Pot Luck Lunch’ piece.  Hillarity would have ensued.” 

But, claims Ms. Demahl, “John Coatsworth has made those parodies unfunny.  His admission that Columbia would have actually invited Hitler to speak, steals the wind from my clients sails.  He should pay for that tortious conduct.”

Several high-ranking Republicans questioned Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton (D-Your State Here) budget calculations regarding her recently announced $110 billion healthcare “choices” plan.  Under the plan, employers could opt to provide insurance to employees as they currently do, or “choose” to opt out and pay an additional federal tax.

“First of all, that’s not much of a choice.  The average cost of healthcare premiums to employers is about $9,000 per year,” notes Republican Congressman Dunn D. Maath.   And those healthcare premiums have been “skyrocketing at nearly double-digit rates, year over year.  It would take an enormous federal tax (not that such a thing is beyond Hillary) or an incredibly inept businessman to choose to pay healthcare premiums over taxes.”  Congressman Maath notes that “this is probably Hillary’s secret little plan - start a ’small’ government program and provide enough perverse incentives so it’s forced to grow into an all-encompassing federal bureaucracy.  If anyone knows about morale hazards, it’s her and her husband.”

Freshman Independent Congressman Dunn Evan Mooremath agrees.  “The average total cost of insurance is $12,000 per year.  Hillary proposes a plan to insure all 300 million Americans for $366.67 per year each?  Her numbers are ridiculously wrong.  I can’t wait to see her educational plan - she needs to go back and learn some basic math.”

Economics are also clearly not her forte, notes Republican leader Arthur A. Neighleft.  “First of all, Hillary claims that by insuring more people the average cost will go down.  Her tiny little brain seems to miss the point that, for the most part, the people who are not insured are the ones who are high-risk!  You don’t increase profitability by taking on more losses.”

Second, notes Mr. Neighleft, she has failed to account for lost tax revenues as a result of the plan.  “What about all those insurance companies that her ‘accept all applicants’ policy will bankrupt?  Or all the doctors who decide to be garbage collectors ’cause the pay is better?  Not to mention all the individuals who won’t be paying taxes because she’s killed them with the shabby excuse for medical services she’ll be inflicting on the American people?”

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton (D-Your State Here) announced her plan for mandatory healthcare.  Mrs. Clinton, who has dismissed allegations that her plan is a form of socialism, defended the plan as necessary.  “This plan provides 3 healthcare options: you can keep what plan you have, you can opt into the congressional health plan or you can be arrested for failing to have health coverage.  It’s really that simple,” noted Mrs. Clinton.

The plan would mandate that employers who already provide insurance continue to do so, in addition to paying additional taxes to offset the cost of coverage for those who don’t have insurance.  “We will take insurance premiums from those according to their ability to pay and give insurance to those who cannot, according to their needs.” 

In addition, insurance companies will be required to provide insurance, regardless of risk.  “Insurance companies will now be told, by your kind and benevolent leaders, whom they must insure and what their profits will be.  We will create a demand economy for insurance and provide health coverage to those who really need it,” screeched Clinton at a fund raiser sponsored by the law firm of Hahmer & Cickle. 

Clinton also plans to unveil a mandatory prescription plan, the Mandatory Available Rx or “MARX” program.  “Those who oppose these programs, or denounce them as a form of socialism,” warned Mrs. Clinton, “are enemies of the state and shall be rooted out of their bourgeoisie homes and shot in the streets!”

In the wake of another finance scandal, the Clinton campaign has done some house cleaning and hired several new senior staffers.  The staff shake up comes as Mrs. Clinton tries to exorcise demons conjured by her husband’s tenure in office.  “The name Clinton is not exactly synonymous with ‘integrity,’” notes one commentator.  “This restaffing is Mrs. Clinton’s attempt to avoid any doubts about her integrity.”

The new senior staff will include a “Head of Campaign Integrity,” who will be responsible for interpreting and enforcing campaign rules, local laws as well as drafting and enforcing Clinton’s ethical guidelines.  The position will be filled by New England Patriots Coach Bill Belichick.  In introducing Mr. Belichick, Mrs. Clinton noted that “Bill provides the kind of leadership and winning spirit that has gotten me where I am today.”  Under Mr. Belichick, specifically charged with rules enforcement, will be form NBA referee Tim Donaghy, whose “experiences on and off the courts make him an ideal candidate for our team.”

In addition, the campaign will be adding several new roles under the finance branch.  The role of “Head of Appropriations” will be filled by O.J. Simpson.  Campaign Security will be lead by Adam “Pacman” Jones.

Presidential hopeful John Edwards has purchased ad time following the President’s 9:00 p.m. address to the Nation.  The President’s speech regarding Iraq has not yet been released, prompting Edwards’s opponents to wonder how the candidate intends to pre-record a rebuttal. 

“We thought of that,” responds Edwards campaign advisor Chan Jing-Winns.  “We have recorded multiple spots and will air the spot that most closely rebuts the President.  If, for example, Mr. Bush says he intends to withdraw from Iraq, John will advocate staying the course.  It’s really quite simple.”

Republicans have cried foul, noting that simply saying “na-uh” to the President’s policies is not a platform.  In response, Mr. Chan Jing-Winns notes that “this has long been Mr. Edwards’s platform, even dating back to 2004.  It’s bedrock Democratic politics.”