Democratic Convention Watch: Open Thread

Saturday, March 01, 2008

Open Thread

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com

Who's going to win, who has a better chance against McCain, or whatever else is on your mind.

Update: We have decided to stop allowing anonymous comments. Not because we don't like reading what people have to say but because Blogger has introduced a new "feature" that makes you go to a second page when the number of comments go over 200.

It's very easy to set up a Google account so that you can continue commenting.

Thanks!

We have started a new Open Thread here.

1036 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 1036 Newer› Newest»

protactinium said...: Yes Dwit. The democratic party decided that it should have the a good chunk of the say, and not the people. The superdelegates are very undemocratic and is used to keep political familys in power.

However when super delegates are put in to place. The are expected to use their best judgement.

The super delegates are going to use their best judgement, and the fact that they have already closed in Hillarys super delegate lead massively. They will put the winner in pledged delegates into power.; March 08, 2008 5:07 PM
protactinium said...: Did anyone else notice Hillary is practical begging Obama to let her have the nomination and she will give him the VP. I think Hillary knows its futile but can't blame her for trying.; March 08, 2008 5:08 PM
Anonymous said...: ** REZKOGATE **

** AUCHIGATE **

** AYERS-DORHN **

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56rTu_O_ACw; March 08, 2008 5:12 PM
dwit said...: Yeah,

Joint ticket is probably not doable. I don't think Hillary could accept VP. Could be wrong?; March 08, 2008 9:57 PM
dwit said...: Hate to break it to you folks, but for better or worse Obama will be the nominee. Hillary would have to take all of the delegates in Pennsylvania to come close enough in the delegate count.

Her only possible savior would be the "Super Delegates"

And frankly, I think we all know that aint going to happen. It would be too costly to those in office now and would throw the election in November in doubt because of those disenfranchised (especially African Americans and independents). The very rational fear is they just won't vote or throw their weight behind McCain out of spite.

None of them want to see a repeat of 1980.

Just sayin'....; March 08, 2008 10:42 PM
NO Obama said...: Well, if Obama wins the nomination, the folks in FL and MI and many others, including myself, will feel it is a stolen nomination, much like the stolen presidency of GWB.

The voters in FL and in MI should not be penalized by dumb party rules and state legislatures. They were/are caught between a rock and a hard place with their votes not counting!

Hillary technically is ahead if those votes are rightfully counted.; March 08, 2008 11:03 PM
NO Obama said...: Real Clear Politics:

Clinton +2
General Election: McCain vs. Clinton Newsweek McCain 46, Clinton 48 Clinton +2

Obama +1
General Election: McCain vs. Obama Newsweek McCain 45, Obama 46 Obama +1; March 08, 2008 11:08 PM
dwit said...: Couldn't agree more. It was dumb to unseat them anyway. Obama has already said he is game if they want a re-vote. of course that would be the only possible solution, because nether he and Edwards were even on the Michigan ballot and 40% still voted against Hillary "uncommitted".

Many voters didn't even show, knowing their vote wouldn't mean squat.

I say bring it. No vote should go uncounted.

I'm for democracy, unlike most of the big wheels in the party and clearly some of you folks. GET RID OF THE SUPERS! ONE PERSON=ONE VOTE!; March 09, 2008 12:09 AM
NO Obama said...: dwit,

Hey we sort of agree on a couple of things.

I think caucuses are undemocratic and that the states should all have primaries.

Also no super delegates.

Leave it to the dem. party to screw things up!; March 09, 2008 12:14 AM
NO Obama said...: Washington Post:

If Obama becomes the Democratic nominee but cannot win support from working-class whites and Hispanics, they argue, then Democrats will not retake the White House in November. "If you can't win in the Southwest, if you don't win Ohio, if you don't win Pennsylvania, you've got problems in November," said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), a Clinton supporter.

Even some Obama advisers see a real problem. "Ultimately, all that matters is how the nominee stacks up against John McCain," said one adviser who spoke on the condition of anonymity, referring to the senator from Arizona and presumptive GOP nominee. "Right now, Barack is not connecting with the children of the Reagan Democrats. That's a real concern."; March 09, 2008 12:18 AM
dwit said...: Honestly though, you think the poor are going to vote for a white republican who is already committed to keeping NAFTA and tax cuts for the wealthy?

That is spin. They are and will continue to vote for Obama. Latinos, including 99% of Cubans are Life long Republicans anyway. They aint goin nowhere.; March 09, 2008 12:27 AM
NO Obama said...: I don't think very many poor people vote. They have other things bogging them down, lack of transportation, etc.

The Republican machine is unfortunately very alive and well and can muster the vote needed a vst majority of the time AND they manage to swifboat the opposition.; March 09, 2008 12:38 AM
NO Obama said...: From About.com:

Cocaine is a powerfully addictive drug. Once having tried cocaine, an individual may have difficulty predicting or controlling the extent to which he or she will continue to use the drug. Cocaine's stimulant and addictive effects are thought to be primarily a result of its ability to inhibit the reabsorption of dopamine by nerve cells.; March 09, 2008 12:47 AM
dwit said...: Not sure where you are going with the coke thing. Rumors abound about Bill Clinton's former drug use, but what about alcohol. Talk about addictive! And accessible.

George Bush has been a teetotaler for nearly 20 years and he is still a douche bag.

That argument won't hold water with most mainstream voters, who have had at least some exposure to drugs in their lifetime.; March 09, 2008 1:01 AM
NO Obama said...: Well as I've said before, I have ZERO tolerance for drug use when it comes to someone being eligible for the presidency.

I personally have NEVER used any type of illegal drug.

My son who is mentally ill has. I don't judge him for it because he uses it at times to mask the symptoms the legal drugs don't.

However as much as I love him, I would hold him to the same standard when it comes to running for president. Even if he weren't mentally ill and had used drugs like Obama and others, I think they need to pass on running for the presidency.

I don't think they are the scum of the earth, etc., but the presidency is out as far as I'm concerned.

Rumors of drug use and admission of it are different also.; March 09, 2008 1:06 AM
protactinium said...: time said, "I think caucuses are undemocratic and that the states should all have primaries."

Actually caucuses are the way all of America used to do Democracy. So actually caucuses are the very democratic, considering everything we have today came from that style of democracy.

I do agree about Flordia. It was stupid for the DNC to do this. I would be happy to see a redo, however no one wants to pay for it. The states said they won't pay for it, and so did Howard Dean. Also FL said they needed so much advanced notice and time frame is about to pass.

I also think Hillary will not get that many delegates if any out of FL if they do a rerun.

I disagree that Flordia, and Michigan super delegate thing will hurt Obama in the generals. All Obama has after the nominee is "I agree with you the system is broken, and I am Mr. Fixit for America." Obama will just blame it on Howard Dean during the generals.; March 09, 2008 1:11 AM
dwit said...: Then Hillary and Bill would have been precluded in your mind? We know Bill smoked herb. Pretty sure Hillary joined him more than once. And how is booze any different. FDR and Truman liked to booze it up. Were they unfit too? How about pain killers when you have a broken limb or some teeth extracted? Where do we draw the line?

You are clearly misinformed about "drugs" if you think they melt your brain after one try. That episode of "Taxi" was funny, but hardly accurate.

Like I said, it doesn't appear to be playing with the voters.; March 09, 2008 1:59 AM
protactinium said...: I wonder how much longer before Hillary supporters try to claim Obama's a terriost because the money he spent on pot might have gone in to terriosts hands.

Its just a matter of time.; March 09, 2008 5:46 AM
NO Obama said...: dwit,

I said rumors and "pretty sure" are 2 different things.

Obama admitted to using drugs, period!

If someone has to try drugs, knowing they are illegal, they are breaking the law AND there must be something psychologically serious going on for them to do so.

Part of a personality that does means that person is a risk taker and it isn't the good kind of risk.

Another reason I don't trust Obama to do the right/legal thing.; March 09, 2008 8:21 AM
NO Obama said...: On the subject of booze. It is legal and I have now knowledge of FDR or anyone else's drinking habits. Was he supposed to be an alcoholic or something? I can't comment because I don't know.; March 09, 2008 8:23 AM
NO Obama said...: Registered by the RNC

2008
amateurobama.com
barackisliberal.com
barackiswrong.com
baracknotready.com
barackobamanotready.com
barackobamatheliberal.com
baracktheamateur.com
barackthebeginner.com
fauxbama.org
hesnotready.com
meetbarackobama.com
norealexperience.com
nowecannot.com
nowecannot.net
nowecannot.org
obamaisliberal.com
obamaiswrong.com
obamanotready.com
obamaspendometer.com
obamatheamateur.com
obamathebeginner.com
yeswecandowhat.com
yeswecanwhat.com; March 09, 2008 9:34 AM
NO Obama said...: Voting for Obama and jumping on his bandwagon is another event of American voter ignorance, as when George Bush was elected and the American public supported the war in Iraq in the beginning.

What most people don't know and are not talking about is the perception of Obama in the Muslin world is that he IS Muslim because he was born of a Muslim father.

It doesn't matter to them what religion he is now or says he is now.

This could be a can of worms that I personally don't want to open by voting for him.; March 09, 2008 10:09 AM
NO Obama said...: "There were no bold solutions; there were no creative approaches; there were no efforts to stand up to the establishment," said Cronin, a member of the Illinois General Assembly since 1990.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/...eck/index.html; March 09, 2008 10:35 AM
protactinium said...: time said, "What most people don't know and are not talking about is the perception of Obama in the Muslin world is that he IS Muslim because he was born of a Muslim father."

Hate and racist based politics. Your not democrat. Just a scorn women. Maybe you and Ny Repub can have a pity party together.; March 09, 2008 10:43 AM
NO Obama said...: Obama's pastor Jeremiah A. Wright told The New York Times in an interview, published March 6th: "When his (Obama's) enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli," with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan to visit Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, "a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell."

2007 On December 10th, Obama, speaking about his ability to handle international affairs, said, "If, as president, I travel to a poor country to talk to leaders there, they will know I have a grandmother in a small village in Africa without running water, devastated by malaria and AIDS."

"What that allows me to do is talk honestly not only about our need to help them, but about poor countries' obligation to help themselves. There are cousins of mine in Kenya who can't get a job without paying an exorbitant bribe (it's called baksheesh) to some midlevel functionary. I can talk about that."

What Obama is less likely you tell you is that his step-grandmother, Sarah Hussein Obama, is a lifelong Muslim. “I am a strong believer of the Islamic faith,” she says.

Talk, talk, talk ... one would think that Obama, a wealthy and powerful man, would have done something to directly help his poor relatives.

I've often wondered about this.

How can he help/change this country if he is unwilling or unable to change his own relatives' dire straits?; March 09, 2008 11:00 AM
NO Obama said...: The Obama camp complains that its candidate wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. Fair enough. But Obama was on the ballot in Florida, and he even ran TV ads there, in violation of his pledge not to campaign in the Sunshine State. Clinton won Florida going away, 50 percent to 33 percent.; March 09, 2008 11:34 AM
NO Obama said...: Why Hillary should be the nominee:

Obama's argument will be as follows: He garnered more pledged delegates and he does better in prospective polling matchups against John McCain.

Clinton's case is more complicated - but I think it has a better chance of working. She can argue that Obama's lead stands up only if you exclude the results of Michigan and Florida. These two states were stripped of their delegates by the national party after naughty state party officials decided to move the primaries up on the calendar. Clinton and Obama both promised not to campaign in either state. Clinton won both primaries handily.

The Obama camp insists that rules are rules and Florida and Michigan shouldn't count. But is that really a winning argument within the Democratic Party? About 2.3 million Democrats voted in those primaries. Remember that in 2000, Democrats fervently argued that Florida election law was less important than making sure "every vote counted." The party then claimed that holding to the strict letter of the law was tantamount to disenfranchisement.

If "voter intent" was more important than the law in 2000, shouldn't it also trump mere party rules in 2008? Obama's argument about the paramount importance of rules might work with a Republican audience, but it runs counter to the ideological framework of the Democratic Party.

The Obama camp complains that its candidate wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. Fair enough. But Obama was on the ballot in Florida, and he even ran TV ads there, in violation of his pledge not to campaign in the Sunshine State. Clinton won Florida going away, 50 percent to 33 percent.

Come the convention, the inclusion of Florida alone will likely give Clinton the lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote. The inclusion of Michigan and Florida would almost certainly give her the lead in both.

In any case, Obama has a lead in pledged delegates only because he has been strong in caucus states. Obama can reasonably claim that caucuses are just as valid as primaries. But in truth, caucuses are not a particularly good indicator of electoral strength. Consider Texas: Obama won the Texas caucuses even as he lost the primary by a slim but hardly trivial margin (about 100,000 votes).; March 09, 2008 11:39 AM
Protactinium said...: Time said- ""What Obama is less likely you tell you is that his step-grandmother, Sarah Hussein Obama, is a lifelong Muslim. “I am a strong believer of the Islamic faith,” she says."

How are you using this as a negative. I am proud to elect a president from a multi-culture background. This is just racist hate.

I really thought you were a lonley, man hating women. But now I guess you were a racist.

I love to hear your whining.; March 09, 2008 4:33 PM
hank said...: I can see "anonymousnyrepublican" and "Timeforthesame" are still pluggin away.

Its over anyway guys. The party bosses will ultimately decide who THEIR next president is, while the rest of us try to eek out a living and watch our standard of living go down the tubes.

When are you going to wake up and see that these two candidates are not much different than the other party. They are all power hungry and there to serve themselves, not you and me.; March 09, 2008 5:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Obama Would Have Us All Believe These Is No Dirt The Republicans will us to stop his potential presidency, here is what i have learned just from the rezko trial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56rTu_O_ACw

rezkogate

auchigate

ayers - dohrn

the video is just a sample of what the news would look like before november if obama were named the nominee!; March 09, 2008 5:19 PM
NO Obama said...: For Hillary Supporters:

http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net/

I'm starting a write in campaign in case she isn't the nominee.

Also a press link thread so if you have any press contacts, please let me know.

I am timeforrealchange there.; March 09, 2008 5:48 PM
Anonymous said...: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56rTu_O_ACw

The Reasons Explained in the video will show you why a grassroots effort is being created to prevent the election of barack obama, should he gain the democratic nomination, we will fight you Barack Obama! This WILL NOT END, We WILL RIDE YOU FROM NOW UNTIL YOUR END!; March 09, 2008 6:36 PM
NO Obama said...: I just heard on CNN Ballot Bowl that she is voiting for Hillary! Poetic justice!

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2065; March 09, 2008 6:46 PM
Anonymous said...: I Encourage EVERYONE here to write your news NETWORKS and demand that they tell us who:

nadhmia auchi

antoin "tony" rezko

and

william ayers

ARE, And Why Barack Obama Associates With These People?

NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, FOX WHERE ARE YOU?

WRITETHE D.N.C. @
430 S Capitol St Se, #3, Washington, DC 20001

OR CALL (202)863-8000
TELL THEM YOU WILL NOT TOLERATE BARACK OBAMA!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56rTu_O_ACw; March 09, 2008 7:06 PM
protactinium said...: anonrepublican you need to lay off the crack. They had specials dedicated to this garbage. I am not sure what dilusional world you live to think they have not covered this. Turn on your TV.

However it is garbage to use this 100 degree of seperation bs.

Is it not ironic that Hillary is banking on the republican attack machine to save her?

Both Mccain and Clinton have lobbyist tied to each other running their campaigns.

Hillary is also trying to pave the way for Mccain if she loses.

Why don't you look that up you conspiracy nuts?; March 09, 2008 9:14 PM
NO Obama said...: Hillary far outshines Obama!!

http://www.diversityj.com/HillaryObamaComparison.html; March 09, 2008 9:20 PM
NO Obama said...: Clinton is ahead 55 to 44 in one of the latest straw poll! Yay!; March 09, 2008 9:39 PM
NO Obama said...: Part of Hillary's speech on the floor of the senate about her Iraq vote:

"My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world."; March 09, 2008 9:56 PM
NO Obama said...: More from Hillary on her Iraq vote:

"And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them."; March 09, 2008 9:57 PM
BarackObamaIzATerrorist said...: for your consideration

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP5iAvGR73g; March 09, 2008 10:32 PM
just_thinking said...: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82L6ljQXq58

cool vid; March 09, 2008 10:40 PM
protactinium said...: 100 delegates.; March 10, 2008 4:18 AM
protactinium said...: time "Clinton is ahead 55 to 44 in one of the latest straw poll! Yay"

What poll are you talking about?

RCP Average 02/28 to 03/08 46.8% 44.8% Obama +2.0%
Gallup Tracking 03/06 - 03/08 47% 45% Obama +2.0%
Rasmussen Tracking 03/05 - 03/08 45% 47% Clinton +2.0%
Newsweek 03/05 - 03/06 45% 44% Obama +1.0%
ABC/Wash Post 02/28 - 03/02 50% 43% Obama +7.0%

or are you refering to Penn. If so that is not good for Hillary. I would not be exicited that Hillary is only up by %11.

Because that would mean that Hillary has droped from a 30% lead to 11% in the last month. With 6 weeks of hard core campaigning to go, not such a good thing for Hillary.; March 10, 2008 4:28 AM
protactinium said...: for example. I will give you the same polling person, because that is most reliable.

Penn.

Quinnipiac 10/31 - 11/05 443 RV 48 15 Clinton +33.0

Quinnipiac 11/26 - 12/03 462 RV 43 15 Clinton +28.0

Quinnipiac 02/06 - 02/12 577 LV 52 36 Clinton +16.0

Quinnipiac 02/21 - 02/25 506 LV 49 43 Clinton +6.0

See a pattern?

I am intreasted in see the next quinnipac poll. Should be out fairly soon.; March 10, 2008 4:32 AM
Anonymous said...: I Encourage EVERYONE here to write your news NETWORKS and demand that they tell us who:

nadhmi auchi

antoin "tony" rezko

and

william ayers

ARE, And Why Barack Obama Associates With These People?

NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, FOX WHERE ARE YOU?
WRITETHE D.N.C. @
430 S Capitol St Se, #3, Washington, DC 20001

OR CALL (202)863-8000
TELL THEM YOU WILL NOT TOLERATE BARACK OBAMA!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56rTu_O_ACw; March 10, 2008 7:31 AM
just_thinking said...: wow check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iPWV4dAiKA; March 10, 2008 2:18 PM
NO Obama said...: "Just Words the Comparison"

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
Said by FDR after:
20 years in the NY Senate
7 years as Assistant Sec of the Navy
6 Years as Governor of NY
Nation in the Midst of a great Depression

Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country
Said by JFK after:
Joining the Navy in 1943 and Naval Officeer of the famed PT 109 (We all know that story)
6 years in the US House of Representitives
7 years in the US Senate
1956 almost won VP nod

Yes We can
Said by Barack Obama after:
7 years in Ill. State House
2000 failed bid for seat in the US House of Reps.
3 Years in the US Senate.

Seems like he falls well short of being able to compare himself to those other great quotes.; March 10, 2008 3:30 PM
NO Obama said...: How does one find this new March 1st thread?; March 10, 2008 3:34 PM
protactinium said...: Hillary experice.

Slept with the man who was in charge for 20 years.

8 years senate.

You made arguements for Mccain no Hillary.

Which is proof why we can not nomminate Hillary. She is the loser by her own arguements.

Obama can change the dynamic of the discussion making him a winner.; March 10, 2008 3:57 PM
protactinium said...: Im sorry. She slept with the man in charge of running everything for 40 years.

How can we trust the "experince" of Hillary when she did not even know what her husand was doing in office. How much could she have actually learned from her husband, when she was clueless of where he was?

Is this the experince we trust?

YES WE CAN; March 10, 2008 3:59 PM
protactinium said...: time said, "How does one find this new March 1st thread?"

Its ok. One day your will learn how to actually read other then cut and paste.; March 10, 2008 4:02 PM
NO Obama said...: Pro,

So nice to see how hateful and divisive Obama's supporters are--just like him.

I suppose it never occurred to you that my browser may not show all the information it does you.

Disgusting! But not surprising.; March 10, 2008 4:12 PM
NO Obama said...: -Missed Senate Votes ~ Obama 17%, Clinton 8%
-Senate Rating ~ Obama; Extremely Poor, Clinton; Average
-Barack Obama missed 207 of 1127 votes
-Hillary Clinton missed 181 of 2435 votes; March 10, 2008 4:17 PM
NO Obama said...: Obama's Lack of Voting History
Statistic: Barack Obama missed 207 of 1127 votes (18%) since Jan 6, 2005 (Exceedingly Poor relative to peers).

Below are Barack Obama's most recent votes.

Date Vote Vote Description
Mar 6, 2008 4:53 PM Absent H.R. 4040: Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act (On Passage of the Bill)
Bill Passed 79-13, 8 not voting
Mar 6, 2008 11:01 AM Absent On the Motion to Table (Motion To Table Vitter Amdt. No. 4097 )
Motion to Table Agreed to 56-39, 5 not voting
Mar 5, 2008 4:49 PM Absent On the Motion to Table (Motion To Table Cornyn Amdt. No. 4094 As Modified Further )
Motion to Table Agreed to 51-45, 4 not voting
Mar 5, 2008 2:05 PM Absent Klobuchar Amdt. No. 4105 As Modified, S. 2663: A bill to reform the Consumer Product Safety Commission to provide greater protection for children's products, to... (On the Amendment)
Amendment Agreed to 96-0, 4 not voting
Mar 4, 2008 5:30 PM Absent On the Motion to Table (Motion To Table DeMint Amdt. No. 4095 )
Motion to Table Agreed to 57-39, 4 not voting; March 10, 2008 4:21 PM
NO Obama said...: SurveyUSA reports Clinton's job approval rating at 60% as of 2007-11-20. The average approval rating among senators in states surveyed is 53%. See their survey details for more information.; March 10, 2008 4:29 PM
hank said...: If you want to see how things would go in the Middle East, if we don't hold these candidates accountable on their Middle East policy, read Robert Baer's "See No Evil". The movie "Syriana" was based on it. Good movie too!

Until we solve this problem and get a sustainable domestic energy program up and rolling, you can expect terror period.; March 10, 2008 4:46 PM
hank said...: NYrepublican,

Maybe you could stand in for Ken Starr on this Rezko thing?; March 10, 2008 4:50 PM
hank said...: I remember, very well, the desperation of Rove and the other behind the scenes Republicans who hired Ken Starr. Reminds me a lot of you Clinton folks.

If this is what we can expect from Hillary, and I know it is, I'm going with Obama.; March 10, 2008 4:56 PM
hank said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 10, 2008 6:14 PM
NO Obama said...: At lease we know with Hillary as president, she won't be thinking with another part of her body as it seems so many men do! Maybe she could really clean up Washington.; March 10, 2008 9:09 PM
dwit said...: That is a fantastic point. That's why Bill stepped out in the first place. She may have been the "first lady" but unfortunately she wasn't the last.; March 10, 2008 10:21 PM
dwit said...: Also, just listening that speech by Bill, where he says Hillary has the support of rural blue collar voters. Sorry bud, can't have it both ways. First you say she wins the big states (which means urban) then you say she has rural support too? Wow! Last I checked, you guys were blasting Mr. Obama for his 50 state strategy.

You guys said the rural "red" states wouldn't matter in November, yet, even in those states, democrats have turned out by near 2 to 1 margins compared to their republican counterparts.

Looks, to me, that Mr. Obama is winning over independents and traditional rural dems. THESE are the folks we need to reach in order call this thing a landslide.

With Clinton, we will continue to perpetuate this rural/urban divide.

With Obama we stand to bring in a whole group of people left to rot after Truman's last run.; March 10, 2008 11:17 PM
NO Obama said...: There is a new Rasmussen poll out ( few hours ago)

McCain leads Obama 45% to 44% while Clinton leads McCain 46% to 45%

A more important finding is that OHIO has been switched from "leans democrat" to "toss up". That should be good for Hillary's argument that she gets the mainstream democrats and has a better chance to win Ohio than Obama, particularly if it is now a "toss up" state.

The poll also found that Hillary is viewed favorably by 73% of likely democratic voters, compared to Obama's 69%; March 11, 2008 12:25 AM
NO Obama said...: With the general election campaign season coming soon, voters currently trust John McCain more than Barack Obama on issues of National Security, the War in Iraq, the Economy, and Taxes. Obama is trusted more when it comes to Reducing Government Corruption. The Republican hopeful has a slight lead over the Democratic frontrunner in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.; March 11, 2008 12:29 AM
NO Obama said...: Here are the things that will play against Obama for a high security clearance:

His drug use. That is question #1 on the form. But if George W. could get one, and we know he used cocaine, then I guess it doesn't rank that high on the list.
Where he lived outside the US for a % of his life. I had a friend who lived in Turkey for a few years when she was 9 or 10. She is a white female, born in Boston. It took a long time before she got hers because of the length of time she lived abroad.
Who he associates with. They interview neighbors, old professors, co-workers, etc. to see what type of activities he participates in and who he associates himself with. They do look for financial transactions, money changing hands, or things being bought for or with someone with a criminal background.; March 11, 2008 12:52 AM
NO Obama said...: Hillary is ahead in the Popular Votes with Florida & Michigan being counted. She also leads in the Total Delegate count also.

A good, independent source of Delegate information is GreenPapers.com. They even show the math! Please don't rely on the numbers the news agencies spout and force into people's brains.

There are still ballots being counted in earlier elections. Since I'm retired and have the time, my spreadsheet is updated as of last Friday, so my numbers are slightly higher than GreenPapers.

Total Popular Votes:
Clinton - 13,633,271 / 1407.5 Pledged + 261 Super Delegates = 1668.5 Total Delegates
Obama - 13,612,088 / 1438.5 Pledged + 212 Super Delegates = 1650.5 Total Delegates

Clinton has +21,183 more Popular Votes with FL & MI
Clinton has 18 more total Delegates
-----

Total Votes by disenfranchising FL & MI:
Clinton 12,433,976 / 1229.5 Pledged +246 Supers = 1475.5 Total Delegates
Obama - 13,035,874 / 1371.5 Pledged + 207 Supers = 1578.5 Total Delegates

Obama has 601,898 more votes by snubbing FL & MI
Obama has 103 more total Delegates without FL & MI
(there's still 27 Colorado Delegates to eventually be figured in, and the Texas Caucus ones were estimated as the results aren't in yet)

If Obama doesn't want the votes counted, reminds you of George Bush, huh?

Hillary didn't campaign in FL and at least one Obama ad ran there.

If Obama removed his name in MI, it was a stupd move. Too bad for him!; March 11, 2008 1:30 AM
dwit said...: Even with Florida and Michigan, where many people didn't even bother to vote, here are the numbers in the popular vote:

Obama-13,601,217 (47.3%)
Clinton-13,620,611 (47.4%)

Let's also not forget that Obama and Edwards weren't even on the ballot in Michigan.

And please, cite your sources.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
epolls/2008/president/
democratic_vote_count.html; March 11, 2008 3:59 AM
dwit said...: Hey Time,

The drug thing aint playin'. He has come clean on that one and nobody, but you and John Hagee cares.

Oddly enough, pretty sure Hagee is always high. I'm sure his gay porn crack scandal will break any day now.

BTW, Bill already admitted to smoking pot after being called out, remember?

Who would have thought Spitzer would be pattin' down prostitutes either? I will never understand that one. His wife is hot and smart.

Be careful which stones you throw. That sort of thing usually comes back to bite you in the arse.; March 11, 2008 4:10 AM
NO Obama said...: I did cite my sources. Read again.; March 11, 2008 4:12 AM
dwit said...: "If Obama doesn't want the votes counted, reminds you of George Bush, huh?"

I think you forgot to mention that it was AL GORE who didn't want to do a full recount. He just wanted a few counties that he knew would play well for him. Turns out they didn't anyway.

It seems that Clinton and YOU would like to see the votes stand as they are. Of course that would be very convenient, considering nobody campaigned there and as I stated above, Obama and Edwards weren't even on the Michigan ballot.

Obama has consistently said that he would be for a re-vote in Florida and Michigan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount; March 11, 2008 4:24 AM
NO Obama said...: States - Electoral Votes:

Red States
Obama - 12 - 69
Clinton - 2 - 41

Leaning Red States
Obama - 2 - 24
Clinton -2 - 37

Blue States
Obama - 9 - 73
Clinton - 6 - 149

Leaning Blue States
Obama - 1 - 7
Clinton - 2 - 9

Swing States
Obama - 2 - 20
Clinton - 4 - 45

Total Electoral Votes
Obama 193
Clinton 281

States carried by Republicans in 1992, 1996, 2000 & 2004
States carried by Democrats in 1992, 1996, 2000 & 2004
States carried by Republicans in 3 of the 4 elections
States carried by Democrats in 3 of the 4 elections
Swing States - carried twice by Democrats and twice by Republicans

This provides evidence to support the theory that only Hillary will be able to win in the general election.

compiled from various sources:
Rasmussen
Free Republic and others; March 11, 2008 4:26 AM
NO Obama said...: Too bad Obama and Edwards took their names off the ballot. That didn't mean Hillary was required to.

As far as I know people could have written their names in so the voters shouldn't be penalized.; March 11, 2008 4:28 AM
dwit said...: Time,

We've seen Rendell's electoral college argument, but what he fails to take into account is that Obama leads in the popular and delegate count.

If super delegates thwart the will of the people you can rest assured that African Americans and independents will more than likely not show or vote for McCain.

Remember, a lot of people are a little tired of the Bush/Clinton dynasties. That is how a certain African American man has become so popular.; March 11, 2008 4:35 AM
dwit said...: Think about it. Even if we have a re-vote in the two states in question, they will cancel each other out. Most of the Great Lake states have already gone for Obama and the demographics of Michigan look VERY good for him.

Florida actually looks pretty darn good too. I think you will find Hillary's dirty campaign is beginning to tarnish her image, especially among African Americans and independents.; March 11, 2008 4:39 AM
dwit said...: Can't even make heads or tails of your numbers above. Can you just give me the links?; March 11, 2008 4:42 AM
dwit said...: Nope. People tried to write in Obama and it DID spoil the ballots.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/
2008/01/09/voters
_face_confusion_in_michi.html; March 11, 2008 4:47 AM
NO Obama said...: dwit has left a new comment on the post "Open Thread":

Nope. People tried to write in Obama and it DID spoil the ballots.

Well too bad for them as would have been said in FL in 2000!; March 11, 2008 4:53 AM
dwit said...: So, I take it you stand by the Supreme Court's ruling in Bush v. Gore?; March 11, 2008 4:56 AM
dwit said...: Yeah, your right. Screw 'em if they don't know the rules! I guess if you want to play by the rules we'll just leave Florida add Michigan out too.; March 11, 2008 4:59 AM
NO Obama said...: As it says in my post this is where I get most of my data from and I compile it myself:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/tally.phtml; March 11, 2008 5:08 AM
NO Obama said...: dwit has left a new comment on the post "Open Thread":

So, I take it you stand by the Supreme Court's ruling in Bush v. Gore?

No, and that has nothing to do with this. If the Supreme Court gets involved in this though, I think there will be a revolt.

This situation is a simple matter or letting the votes count. The Supreme Court stopped the vote count.; March 11, 2008 5:10 AM
Carrie said...: dwit - Michigan looks very good for Clinton, actually. It looks a lot like OH, which Clinton won soundly.

Also, the story you posted about Clinton being the original NAFTA-gate candidate has been debunked. This should not surprise anyone, given that the source refused to be named yet was supposed to be one of a room full of journalists who heard a public statement by an official who was speaking to the press.; March 11, 2008 5:16 AM
Anonymous said...: I Encourage EVERYONE here to write your news NETWORKS and demand that they tell us who:

nadhmi auchi

antoin "tony" rezko

and

william ayers
ARE, And Why Barack Obama Associates With These People?

NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, FOX WHERE ARE YOU?
WRITETHE D.N.C. @
430 S Capitol St Se, #3, Washington, DC 20001

OR CALL (202)863-8000
TELL THEM YOU WILL NOT TOLERATE BARACK OBAMA!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56rTu_O_ACw; March 11, 2008 5:19 AM
Carrie said...: For anyone interested, here's my perspective on Obama and the MI situation. The anger and distrust I'm feeling over this might give some insight into why so many people who don't feel strongly about the social views of the candidates will vote for McCain rather than support Obama.
____________

I'm a Michigan voter and Hillary supporter. I want to start out by accepting my share of the responsibility for the mess we're all in. However, I believe we democrats are all in this together. It's breaking my heart to see so many people focusing their response to our situation on rules - not acknowledging how desperate Michigan is or how correct we were in our reasons for peaceful protest.

Michigan engaged in naughty, but very democratic behavior in moving its primary: civil disobedience. This is what's being lost.

Michigan was looking at the early four states and thinking, "Hey! None of those guys look like me!" And they didn't. IA, NH, NV, SC - none of those states looked anything like a big industrial state. The priorities of those states are very different from ours.

We were thinking, "Those early states will set the tone, identify who has "momentum" and determine who gets the money!" This is true - keeping in mind that after IA, everyone was saying that if Senator Obama won NH, he could clinch the nomination.

We were thinking about our homes and our kids. Michigan needs a strong democrat in the white house, arguably more than any other state. Unemployment here is by far higher than anywhere else. We were the only state with statistically significant job losses last year - 78k jobs - while 22 states had statistically significant increases. And the news keeps coming - we're constantly hearing about jobs that will be leaving in a year or two. In my Dearborn neighborhood, I see so many stickered doors and for sale signs - new ones every day.

This is what we were thinking about in our "race to be first". It wasn't about vanity. It wasn't about attention...wait - yes it was. It was an absolutely desperate plea for some attention. Michigan was naughty. We were also right. Most importantly, though, we were and are in need.

I mentioned I'm a Hillary supporter, ironically because of a speech she gave that inspired me when I was a young voter. However, on January 1, Obama did seem like a mighty fine second. Unfortunately, his language around the topic of MI & FL has me so angry. I was so dismayed to hear him use this topic to bash Hillary for "saying and doing anything to get elected," rather than to acknowledge the struggles that drove our act of desperation.

I understand why the consequences were developed, and the concerns about any message disregarding them might send. However, I taught for a while, and I learned quickly that consequences dealt with empathy are the most effective. They allow people to feel OK about taking responsibility for their actions - they increase the likelihood of future compliance while building trust & community. Consequences dealt with indifference or spite result in the kind of mess we're in now. Anger, anger, and a bit more anger - with a lot of talk about things not being fair.

It might be true that neither candidate is to blame, but both candidates are running to be our leaders. I don't think either candidate can be trusted to lead if they don't take a leadership role in resolving this issue. Leaving it up to the DNC and states, who clearly haven't been able to solve it, shows at best a lack of leadership, and at worst an attempt to dismiss voters for political gain.

I think it is a real test of the candidates' commitment to working people - most of whom had no idea what was going on with the state and national parties until it was too late. By choosing to repeatedly site the rules and defer to the DNC, rather than using his incredible fund raising skills to help cover the cost of the re-vote, Senator Obama seems to be failing that test.; March 11, 2008 5:22 AM
Anonymous said...: dwit hank, protactinium, and mojo Here's one just for you !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iPWV4dAiKA; March 11, 2008 5:53 AM
just_thinking said...: I don't think the genie is going back in the bottle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cINPxQOWO-c; March 11, 2008 6:12 AM
Anonymous said...: No, it's not, the files has been shared for upload worldwide!; March 11, 2008 6:16 AM
Anonymous said...: and you can thank the name calling experts mojo, protactinium, and dwit who inspired it all!; March 11, 2008 6:18 AM
just_thinking said...: bye - bye bama, lol; March 11, 2008 6:20 AM
Bill UK said...: So Florida and Michigan are what some people see as the crux of this whole nomination process.

What actually happened is clear, Florida and Michigan broke the rules, were punished for so doing, and this punishment was agreed to by both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. Both these candidates agreed that neither State should count towards the nomination process. Was this the right punishment? Most people think not.

What is clear is that the primaries that took place earlier cannot now be reinstated as if they were legitimate primaries, to do so would forever mean that any State can do as it wishes and ignor the rules that govern the nomination process, for any such State could always use Florida and Michigan as precidents and claim immunity to punishment.

There are three clear scenarios that must therefore be chosen from.

1) The States remain barred from seating delegates at the national convention and the punishment stands.
2) The States are given a revised punishment that is agreeable to both candidates.
3) The States hold redo primaries, this would allow all who have voted in the barred primaries to vote again and allow those who did not vote because they were told the vote would be pointless to vote in the primary.

If the present ruling remains in place then this would seem harsh on the citizens of Florida and Michigan, both sides agree on this point and indeed that seems to be the consensus of the national opinion.

The Clinton camp is diametrically opposed to any reduction in punishment which would leave her with less delegates (she is already losing and any loss is another body blow to her chances of recovery). For exactly the same reason Clinton does not want the primaries to be redone, for she knows that the polls in those States show that the gap at best for her would be much narrower in delegates than the barred primary results.

Obama does not want the barred primary results to be made to stand because he feels that they disadvantage him. Likewise he also does not want a reduced punishment because again he would still lose out as he feels they again disadvantage him.

It therefore holds that the most likely outcome is redo primaries. It has been States that to redo these two primaries would cost approx. $30-$35 million. The national Democratic party does not have the money to finance such redo primaries as does neither of the two States. But the money could be found in my opinion, and is likely to be found, and the primaries being re-run.

I would urge supporters of both candidates not to take their anger out on either candidate but instead look to your State Democratic officials who knew from the start that that they were breaking the rules and went ahead needlessly creating this entire problem, they are the ones who should hold absolute responsibility for this entire mess. One way that they could show remorse is to start paying towards the re-run primaries.; March 11, 2008 6:21 AM
dwit said...: Of course it has been debunked, Hillary's husband was the one behind the original NAFTA agreement.

Canada has nothing to worry about with a Hillary nomination. It will be business as usual.; March 11, 2008 6:30 AM
Anonymous said...: "What is clear is that the primaries that took place earlier cannot now be reinstated as if they were legitimate primaries, to do so would forever mean that any State can do as it wishes and ignor the rules that govern the nomination process, for any such State could always use Florida and Michigan as precidents and claim immunity to punishment."

#1 the florida and michigan circumstances are different!

#2 the florida primary should be reinstated in whole because all candidates were on the ballot!

#3 to ignor the votes cast by so many millions of voters in just 2 of our 50 states sounds like punishment of the voters, and NOT the punishment of the state dnc chairs and legislature, as HOWARD DEAN foolishly dreamed up!

#4 Primary Are the ONLY fair System in our country, caucuses can and HAVE been rigged, mail in votes? (what a freakin joke)

#5 a REVOTE in this state CAUSES MORE CONTROVERSY than it puts to rest.

conclusion HOWARD DEAN SHOULD BE FIRED FOR THE GOOD OF THE PARTY, AND THE COMMITTEE SHOULD IMMEDIATELY REINSTATE ALL OF FLORIDAS DELEGATES AS THEY WOULD STAND WITH THE FLORIDA VOTE AS IT WAS!

MICHIGAN IS DEBATEABLE BUT ONLY A PRIMARY WOULD SOLVE ISSUES HERE NOT CAUCUS OR MAIL IN, BOTH OF WHICH ARE QUESTIONABLY, EVEN THOUGH CHEAPER!

BUT TO THINK YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH PUNISHING MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA, THEN COUNT ON THEM FOR VOTES IN NOVEMBER COME ON FOLKS?; March 11, 2008 6:32 AM
dwit said...: Sorry, bill UK. We have a pesky fly from New York in this chat room.

Everyone else, including both candidates, agree with you.; March 11, 2008 6:40 AM
Anonymous said...: dwit i know you "HATE" anyone who does not share your opinion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iPWV4dAiKA; March 11, 2008 6:47 AM
dwit said...: Carrie,

Only a re-vote will tell. I'm all for it. Like I said, Hillary's tactics are not looking good.

Her comment in support of McCain over Obama was way over the top and roundly criticized by most in the party.

She is her own worst enemy. Her anger is really getting the best of her. I and many others are now worried about how she might behave when confronted with an actual national crisis.; March 11, 2008 6:51 AM
Bill UK said...: Annonymous, in a court of law is a murder charge different because one murderer bludgeoned a victim to death with a tyre iron and another murderer stabbed their victim?

It really simply comes down to the fact that both States broke the rules, have been punished, and now both States must either redo the primaries or accept the punishment as already given.

Unfortunately the Clinton supporters are the only ones who seem to find this difficult to accept. What harm would a redo primary do? After all Clinton and Clintonites are saying that she has the 'Big Mo', so surely now it would be beneficial to her as she has the 'Big Mo'?

Again logic seems to be alien to Clinton supporters. If she has the momentum and brags about this so called momentum then surely she should win even more delegates in Florida and Michigan!; March 11, 2008 7:34 AM
hank said...: Bill,

I suggest you read few of anon's posts before you try to engage in "debate". The all caps and insistence that you watch youtube videos should clue you into the fact the she isn't even of voting age yet.; March 11, 2008 7:43 AM
Bill UK said...: Hank,

You are right of course. It is just annoying that here is an important thread where people should be able to debate points, and put forward ideas for debate on such an important issue. Unfortunately, like on other forums, opinion sections of news sites, etc., we have those whom wish the last thing to do is partake in a debate, instead they wish only to bully.

I hope others, of both camps, debate points openly and fairly, that is after all what the next President of the USA is there to defend. If a candidates supporters take part in threats and smears what does that indicate about the person they support?; March 11, 2008 8:36 AM
just_thinking said...: hey ny dem
look what else i just found out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muJyPEOsCDw; March 11, 2008 8:55 AM
just_thinking said...: are you guys kidding?

no one has been debating anything except who is racist or gay or anti semetic, i thought this was the democratic party, until i realized you people are all sexist and so narrow-minded you don't wanna accept obama's faults you wanna deny or ignor them!

these things are anything but debate!; March 11, 2008 8:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Thanx just There Too Many Now For Me To Keep Up!; March 11, 2008 9:33 AM
Carrie said...: dwit & UK -
Clinton's camp has offered to split the cost of a traditional primary revote with Obama. Obama's surrogates are stating that they're "not ready to go there." They are leaving it all to the DNC.

I agree that only a redo has a shot of appearing fair come the convention. Clinton agrees. Obama may agree, but he/they aren't willing to do anything to help move it forward. Given the buckets of money he brings in so readily, that seems a little greedy.; March 11, 2008 10:17 AM
Carrie said...: bill -

Yes, the means of murder is often considered when determining the degree of murder & the consequence.

I'm a MI voter, and I see a very clear distinction between MI & FL. Their move was driven by the republican-held legislature & governor. Ours was done out of protest. We were naughtier. In your analogy, one could argue that Michigan's was 1st degree premeditated while Florida's was involuntary manslaughter.

That aside, my auto worker neighbors who are working hard, if they can find work, and are still losing their homes & retirement security won't care a lick about such nuances come November.; March 11, 2008 10:21 AM
Annette M said...: What Hillary Said THEN Regarding Original Michigan Primary

Clinton Defends Michigan Ballot Stand

The Associated Press
Thursday, October 11, 2007; 4:21 PM

CONCORD, N.H. --

[end of third paragraph]

"It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything," Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program, "The Exchange." ...

LINK: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101100859_pf.html; March 11, 2008 10:29 AM
Anonymous said...: i do not mind spreading the word about barack obamas connection to weapons dealer nadhmi auchi through his good friend tony rezko, i wouldn't expect you to understand that this is the president of the united states we are voting on here not american idol!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muJyPEOsCDw

YOU JUST CAN'T TOLERATE IT BECAUSE IT'S TRUE!

SORRY YOUR BUBBLE IS BURSTING!; March 11, 2008 11:06 AM
Bill UK said...: So now both broke the rules, that is agreed, but according to your wording I take it you think Florida's result should stand and the Michigan vote shouldn't? If this is the correct interpretation (and I await to be corrected) it would seem you are saying that Florida should not be punished as you offer no suggestion of another kind of punishment.

As for the Clinton camp saying they will meet half the cost is very generous of them, but I doubt if they will be able to fund it from money donated to the primary campaign, and the same would apply to Obama (this is definately one for the legal eagles). However, having said that it is only correct that it is up to DNC to work out the solution, indeed that is what is happening, and I am sure the DNC will be only too pleased if the Clinton camp stomp up $15 million as their contribution, perhaps they should make the unequivocable announcement today in a press release and transfer the money immediately to the DNC.

However, in the meantime please could anyone post a reliable link to where Clintons camp said they would pay 50% of the costs of redo primaries.; March 11, 2008 11:07 AM
NO Obama said...: dwit

Hillary didn't say she supports McCain.

She SAID she and McCain cross the national secturity threshold (have experience). Obama has a speech he made in 2002.

What she didn't add was that if Obama runs against McCain, he will be at a distinct disadvantage with no national security experience.

While she won't be at a disadvantage because she has a great deal of national security experince and can go head to head with him on it.

Unfortunately, she didn't finish the thought and most dimwits can't fill in the blanks.

She has said many times she will support a democratic ticket, whomever that might be.; March 11, 2008 11:39 AM
NO Obama said...: Bill UK

Are you in the UK? If so, your opinion doesn't count.

The Clinton campaign (James Carville) says he has donors lined up to pay half of the cost of the redo.

The problem with the votes not counting is that the VOTERS are in the middle and being punished for dumb ideas and rules. That cannot stand.

As far as MI goes, the others took their names off the ballot voluntarily so the voters or the candidate shouldn't be punished because they removed their names.

It was a dumb move.

Obama ran some ads that were shown in FL against the no campaign rules. Hillary did not.

Seat the delegates as is and fire Howard Dean!; March 11, 2008 11:50 AM
Anonymous said...: sacrifice barack obama for the security of our nation!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56rTu_O_ACw&feature=related; March 11, 2008 11:50 AM
Carrie said...: bill -

Michigan 'firehouse primary' nixed by Obama camp
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/michigan_firehouse_primary_nix.html

Another Michigan primary in the works?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23563338/; March 11, 2008 12:03 PM
Carrie said...: I am not arguing FL should count as is. I know that, even though the results were probably pretty accurate, they can't be taken as is - nobody can trust them now. I am suggesting that FL has a valid argument about the consequences being inappropriate from the get-go than we have here in MI.

It really strikes me that you're still entirely hung up on the rules and negatives - not one single little nod to my explanation of how we ended up here. Kind of reinforces my negative feelings.; March 11, 2008 12:08 PM
Carrie said...: I've read several references to the fact that the Obama campaign rejected Michigan's proposal for a "firehouse primary" - the way MI did it for many years. However, I can't find a quote from the Obama campaign (only the head of the MI Dem Party - who supported neither as of last week).

This happened just a few days ago. Anyone else seen anything?; March 11, 2008 12:11 PM
Carrie said...: bill -

Did you see my comment under the WY/MS delegate thread about the republicans & the TX primary?; March 11, 2008 12:13 PM
NO Obama said...: Obama missed 80% of Senat vote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmnWJaFz6lw

He is not a leader or anyone who can live up to his promises (in this case to his constituents).

What will he run for if he is president that gives him an excuse to be derelict in his duties?; March 11, 2008 12:13 PM
NO Obama said...: http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27197

Obama panders and changes his language and speech cadence from state to state.

How disengenuous!; March 11, 2008 12:18 PM
NO Obama said...: The problem with having revotes is that the moment has passed. Things are different now than when those votes in MI & FL were cast.

So, I feel the only fair way is to count/seat the delegates as is.

The votes in all other states have counted during their moment in time and during the Obama surge and Hillary surge, etc. so the only fair way is to count them as they were at that moment in time.; March 11, 2008 12:22 PM
Carrie said...: time -

I want Clinton to win, but I don't want her to win by counting MI & FL as is. Yes, things look very different now. Had MI & FL gone early and done it legitimately, the early momentum would have been hers. Therein lies the consequence - MI & FL were denied that early influence.

What I'm interested in now is a fairly handled do-over that's acceptable to both candidates. I believe we can win Michigan for Hillary - much like we won in OH. If we don't win, I'll be able to live with that. If we count the votes as is, and Hillary is nominated, people who do not support Clinton will justifiably reject the outcome. Fortunately, Hillary supports a do over.; March 11, 2008 12:39 PM
NO Obama said...: Carrie, I understand and respect your points on a re-do.

I am still standing by my idea that the moment in time is gone and a do over will reflect what is in the present moment. Not sure if it would favor Hillary or Obama but I don't feel comfortable with its possibilities.; March 11, 2008 12:43 PM
Carrie said...: Oh, I hear you. I think Obama has a better shot now in MI than he had back in January. I think Hillary would have seen a bigger win in January had the contest brought out all voters.

That's why states want to be first. The early states build some up and knock others out.

The thing is - while I seriously believe we need to reform the process, and take some of the power away from IA & NH, I also think that some consequences are called for (at least for MI). I think having to redo our primary is fair.; March 11, 2008 12:52 PM
NO Obama said...: Very true:

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=50370823&blogID=360631962

My response:

Yes, it is too bad. I've heard reporters and pundits exclaim how much "fun" this is, etc. Very unprofessional.

Today on MSNBC I could have thrown a rock thru the TV. These so-called experts can't even see beyond their noses or don't want to.

It was said that Hillary says Obama is not ready to be president but apparently the Clinton campaign thinks he would be in November as a VP candidate. In other words, they are hypocrites.

Well, if you carry the thinking a little further, which most reporters and pundits can't do, you could argue that Obama would get on the job training for the presidency as VP and then be a lot more qualified to be president if need be or if he runs in 8 years.

The liklihood that he'd be called upon to be pres. immediately if something should happen to Hillary is VERY remote.

The news media and pundits just totally drive me crazy because they make it look like Hillary thinks he's going to be qualified (as vp should something happen to her as president) in 5-6 months! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.....; March 11, 2008 1:15 PM
Carrie said...: That's been my thinking exactly...what better place to gain White House experience than being inside the White House. VP would be a great place for Obama to learn.

The president will have a lot in place on day 1 - all solid safety nets. The most important thing is to have the most able person in the first seat.

A little sick, but funny given the cult/messiah memes - can't you see the bumper stickers...Clinton '08: Obama is my copilot; March 11, 2008 1:45 PM
NO Obama said...: Health care
1. According to a economist and influential health care expert Jonathan Gruber, Obama's plan cover only 22 million people (only half of Clinton's) at a similar cost. Obama's plan would cost $4400 per newly insured person, while Clinton is $2700.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/op...04krugman.html

Women rights:
1."IllonisNOW" , women rights group in Obama's state refused to endorse him in 2004 congress race and 2008 presidential bid, condemning his inability to stand up for a woman’s right to choose and repeatedly voted ‘present’ on important legislation.

2.Obama was the only Illonis legislator who did not vote for a bill on protection sexual crime victims's privacy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tV-e...eature=related

Veteran rights
1.Obama failed to protect welfare of veterans. Illonis ranked almost the last in disability awards
2.Obama is again the second who missed most Veteran Affairs meeting among Democrats, missing most VA votes including general welfare, compensation for wound veterans, aids for disabled veterans and annual budgets
3.On July 12, for example Clinton cut short a trip to return to D.C. to vote on an amendment boosting aid for wounded veterans, while Obama missed the vote

Public safety
1. NBS revealed Obama gave up a bill requring mandatory leakage notice from Nuclear plant after consulting with Exelon and rewrote the bill requring only "shall consider notifying...." Exelon and its staff are major supporters of Obama; March 11, 2008 1:52 PM
dwit said...: Guys, I thought we were over this experience thing? Obama has been in the legislature since 1996, Hillary has only served since 2000.

HE has more experience. Sorry, but "First Lady" ain't gonna cut it with most voters.; March 11, 2008 4:34 PM
dwit said...: "The problem with having revotes is that the moment has passed. "

Your right, the moment has passed. Since then voters have had a chance to see the ugly side of Hillary. The sneaky Hillary; the petty Hillary; the hysterical Hillary.

All traits not becoming a President. Remember LBJ? He was kind of like this by all accounts and he is the one, who despite the advice of his advisors, escalated the war in Vietnam.; March 11, 2008 4:59 PM
NO Obama said...: Hillary's Experience As First Lady MATTERS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why? Because she didn't just sit around doing nothing, she was ACTIVE in political and administrative fields. There's no doubt that she's learned a A LOT from eight years of that. She also demonstrates her energy, productivity and big heart. She is a proven leader.

Some highlights:

--Hillary Clinton was the only First Lady to keep an office in the West Wing

--The First Lady was also one of the few international figures at the time who spoke out against the treatment of Afghani women by Islamist fundamentalist Taliban that had seized control of Afghanistan

--One of the programs she helped create was Vital Voices, a U.S.-sponsored initiative to promote the participation of international women in their nation's political process. One result of the group's meetings, in Northern Ireland , was drawing together women leaders of various political factions that supported the Good Friday peace agreement that brought peace to that nation long at civil war.

Read more about her biography as first lady at

http://www.firstladies.org/biographies/firstladies.aspx?biography=43; March 11, 2008 5:30 PM
Carrie said...: On experience - Madeleine Albright has a lot to say about the contributions Hillary Clinton made while first lady. You may not like her policies, but she's certainly an authority on foreign affairs. Part of the pathological hate for Hillary came from the fact that she was an untraditional first lady. According to the 30 generals/flag officers - including two former chairs of the joint chiefs, Hillary is the best prepared of all three candidates. They most frequently site their experiences briefing her as a member of the armed services committee, and traveling with her to Iraq and Afghanistan.

For some insight into my perspective on Obama's lack of experience/record, see the NY Times -
Obama in Senate: Star power, minor role
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23540579/page/4/

Obama seems to have experienced a lot of frustration...couldn't accomplish what he wanted to as a community organizer, so he ran for a state seat. Couldn't do what he wanted to do as a state legislator, so he ran for US legislative office. Can't seem to do much there, so he'll run for president.

Clinton's accomplished a whole lot more good for people as a civilian "wifey" than Obama's done in his oh-so-lengthy tenure as a community organizer and legislator.

She did the community organizing stuff - she spent time registering voters, she was a pioneer in the areas of children's rights, she launched a successful legal aid clinic. She was also involved with politics at a national level early - served on the Watergate inquiry at 27. Jimmy Carter appointed her to the board of his legal aid organization when she was a young lawyer.

Even when she was doing corporate work, she used her powers for big good...Look at what she accomplished at WalMart! WalMart! (Remember when, way back when, Obama tried to attack her on that - well, would you not call it an attack since it was before OH so when he wasn't attacking...?) The conservative bunch on that board chided her and labeled the expensive green store "Hillary's Store", but that green store not only proved good for the environment, but good for the bottom line. It's now a model for other super stores.

The reasons she has so many big bad buddies for you to point out is because she's held a lot of power for a long time. What's really worth a closer look with respect to her friends in high places is all the good she's accomplished by wielding that power. Good for the environment, good for women, good for children, good for workers. It's THAT experience I consider valuable because it reinforces her record and proves where her heart and priorities lie.; March 11, 2008 5:35 PM
dwit said...: I might add that years in Washington is exactly NOT what voters are looking for. Why do you think Senator Obama has risen so rapidly?

That is the phenomenon, you guys aren't grasping. Neither democrat has more experience in Washington than Dick Cheney or John McCain.

I think we can all agree these guys have been a complete disaster.; March 11, 2008 5:43 PM
NO Obama said...: dwit, I would agree with you on your comparison of Cheney and McCain re: experience in Washington and being disasters.

However, HILLARY is NOT McCain or Cheney. That is the difference and why her experience is relevant.

She is a conscientious representative of the PEOPL and she takes her job very seriously.

She's a fierce advocate for the underprivileged and a very caring individual.

Her particular character (FAR BETTER than those 2) COMBINED with experience make her the better candidate and the more deserving.; March 11, 2008 5:49 PM
NO Obama said...: dwit, I would agree with you on your comparison of Cheney and McCain re: experience in Washington and being disasters.

However, HILLARY is NOT McCain or Cheney. That is the difference and why her experience is relevant.

She is a conscientious representative of the PEOPL and she takes her job very seriously.

She's a fierce advocate for the underprivileged and a very caring individual.

Her particular character (FAR BETTER than those 2) COMBINED with experience make her the better candidate and the more deserving.; March 11, 2008 5:49 PM
NO Obama said...: Oh, WOW! More scary stuff about Obama!

Council on foreign relations, seems to be a Illuminti type group that wants to have a one world government.

It's also well known that Michelle Obama, his wife, is on the Board of Directors in the Chicago branch of the CFR. http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/chi..._directors.php

Quote:
The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence in to an all powerful, one world government.

Rear Admiral Chester Ward
Rear Admiral US Navy (retired), CFR member for 16 years, Judge Advocate General of the Navy 1956-60

What kind of lunatic would want Obama as President!; March 11, 2008 6:00 PM
Bill UK said...: TimeofChange,

Because I am in the UK my opinion doesn't count?

Then so be it. But considering I am not a US citizen and have posted regularly that I am not isn't it surprising that only those who dislike the truth object to my comments. But you are entirely free to ignor them.

I would remind you that I do not discuss the politics but the merits of argument put forward. I point out facts, no matter which side they benefit, I tell the truth and debunk falsehoods. But I never tell people who to vote for, I do not insult people, I do not attack people for supporting one candidate over another, indeed perhaps my opinion doesn't count, but you will not silence me, and I will continue to have the truth told and tell it.

Remember the old saying TimeOfChange 'Only those afraid of the truth try to silence the witness.'; March 11, 2008 6:06 PM
Bill UK said...: Clinton ducks another own goal by one of her advisers and then goes on to score another own goal herself!

...........................
Geraldine Ferraro said today (taken from CNN)

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept," Ferraro told the newspaper.

Ferraro said Clinton had suffered because the press "has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign."

Axelrod called on the New York senator to drop Ferraro from her finance committee.

"When you wink and nod at offensive statements, you're really sending a signal to your supporters that anything goes," Axelrod said.

Ferraro could not be reached for comment.

Clinton told The Associated Press that she did not agree with Ferraro's comments.

"It is regrettable that any of our supporters on both sides, because we've both had that experience, say things that kind of veer off into the personal," she told the AP. "We ought to keep this on the issues. There are differences between us. There are differences between our approaches on health care, on energy, on our experience, on our results that we've produced for people. That's what this campaign should be about."

The former congresswoman is the latest Clinton surrogate to launch a firestorm with comments that related to Obama's heritage or ethnicity.
.................................

Once again Clinton and her aides show there true colours.; March 11, 2008 6:10 PM
dwit said...: Wow! Now you have taken to quoting crackpot cold war conservatives to support Hillary?

I guess you are not old enough to remember that Republicans accused Bill Clinton of advocating "one world government" because he supported the mission of the UN.

By the way, Hillary has spoken at the Council on Foreign Relations meetings several times. SHE IS A SUPPORTER!

http://www.cfr.org/publication/6600/
remarks_by_senator_hillary_rodham_clinton_transcript.html

Nice try Timeforthesame or Anonnydemocrat or whatever you are calling yourself these days. We're on to you.; March 11, 2008 6:13 PM
NO Obama said...: Oh, so now your tactics are to try to say NYdem and Timeforchange (me) are the same person.

Pitiful.

I then think you and the other Obamanuts are one in the same too!

LOL!; March 11, 2008 6:15 PM
dwit said...: Yeah Bill,

But did she fire her like Obama did after Sam Power made the "monster" comment?

Nope. One of her closest advisors makes a racist comment and she still keeps her on.

That says it all to me. She is desperate and keeps digging herself in deeper as the days go by.; March 11, 2008 6:19 PM
NO Obama said...: What if Ferraro had said the word white referring to Hillary?

Would that be racist?

Obama IS running on his race afterall. Otherwise why would 90% of blacks be voting for him?

This is another advantage Obama has--being black and obviously so, allows him to run on the basis of race but GOD FORBID, anyone actually MENTION it!!

Very sad!; March 11, 2008 6:32 PM
dwit said...: Here is a wonderful quote from one of Hillary's speeches given at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, 2003.

"I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote."

That, my friends, shows her poor judgment and her propensity to shoot first and ask questions later.

Let's not forget, she voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment that essentially gives the President authority to use force against Iran. That was just last September folks.

Kyl and Lieberman are two chickenhawk Republicans to boot!

Read the entire article. Its a hoot!

http://www.cfr.org/publication/6600/
remarks_by_senator_hillary_rodham_
clinton_transcript.html; March 11, 2008 6:34 PM
dwit said...: Right, like Hillary running as a "woman". Gotcha!; March 11, 2008 6:39 PM
NO Obama said...: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3451323.ece

Quote:
One of Britain’s most influential black figures today accused Barack Obama of cynically exploiting America’s racial divide and gave warning that he could prolong, rather than heal the rift. Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, claimed that the Democratic front-runner would ultimately disappoint the African-American community and dismissed the notion that he would be "the harbinger of a post-racial America" if he becomes the country’s first black President. Writing in Prospect, the monthly current affairs magazine, Mr Phillips suggested that guilt over transatlantic slavery was behind Mr Obama’s support from middle class whites.
-------------------------->>

Yep, Obama knows he is exploting racisim in this country and to be able to mention his name as "the first black president" seems to be okay but if you say he is a black man, it's not.

This country is so concerned with political correctness that it can't even rationally or deservedly discuss this campaign in terms of race.

No one is saying there is anything inferior about being black.

They are just equating the fact that he IS black to his momentum and ability to hide behind that factor.

He is the ultimate example of affirmative action!; March 11, 2008 6:43 PM
dwit said...: And thanks for coming to the conversation Bill!

We Obama supporters are glad to have input from abroad. Our candidate has publicly committed himself to dialogue between all countries, friendly or not.

That, my friends is the recipe for success against terror, not more war.; March 11, 2008 6:49 PM
NO Obama said...: Yeah, dwit we certainly don't want to go to war with the UK!

LOL!

I like to hear their opinions but it doesn't count.

I'm all for good foreing relations too and so if you are you should take stock in the negatives about Obama coming out of Britain and other overseas media.; March 11, 2008 6:54 PM
dwit said...: I think Hillary would make a great Vice President. She could concentrate on domestic issues like health care, while Obama plays to his strengths in foreign policy.; March 11, 2008 6:54 PM
NO Obama said...: This article excerpt is from today's New York Times

CHICAGO - An e-mail message made public on Monday in the fraud trial of Antoin Rezko, a businessman and political contributor, brought attention to Senator Barack Obama’s role in discussions involving a state health planning board that Mr. Rezko is accused of improperly influencing.

The message indicated that Mr. Obama, now a Democratic presidential candidate, and other top Illinois politicians consulted in 2003 on legislation to keep the board, which approved the construction of health facilities, from expiring under sunset provisions in state law.

The vaguely worded message also seemed to raise the possibility that Mr. Obama, who at the time was chairman of the Illinois Senate’s health committee, had been involved in recommending candidates for the board.

Ahhh, parting is such sweet sorrow, okay, mostly sweet in this case.; March 11, 2008 7:01 PM
dwit said...: Ferarro says:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept," Ferraro told the newspaper."

Doesn't get any dirtier than that.; March 11, 2008 7:04 PM
NO Obama said...: What Ferraro says is true and it is most unfortunate that we have to jump on the racist bandwagon to be politically correct instead of seeking the truth. *sigh*; March 11, 2008 7:06 PM
dwit said...: Nuff said. I guess we really know what kind of people we are dealing with now.; March 11, 2008 7:29 PM
Carrie said...: I still think Hillary has it over Obama on foreign policy.

I do think she'd be a great vice president, so we can agree there.

I think the president should focus on domestic issues as well as foreign policy. That's why I'm a democrat.; March 11, 2008 7:43 PM
Carrie said...: Bill -

You can't seriously be trying to position yourself as an unbiased truth baron?!?

The facts you present on this page of this thread:

1. ...Clinton does not want the primaries to be redone, for she knows that the polls in those States show that the gap at best for her would be much narrower in delegates than the barred primary results.
not true - she's for a redo...her surrogates have offered to raise 1/2 the funds. Obama's the holdout

2. "Again logic seems to be alien to Clinton supporters."
Seriously - just presenting facts? You think this does not insult people, or amount to an attack on people for supporting one candidate over another?

My first impression of you was formed when you made the comment about Clinton's big republican win last Tuesday...hardly. I responded to that in the WY/MS thread. Your facts are lacking, and your bias betrays you.; March 11, 2008 8:01 PM
dwit said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 11, 2008 8:22 PM
dwit said...: Have you guys noticed Obama is also holding his own with women and Latinos as well?

Looks like a pretty strong argument for him to take the nomination.; March 11, 2008 8:24 PM
Carrie said...: dwit -

I suspect you're responding to the deleted comment, so I'll ask - where are you seeing him holding his own with latino voters?; March 11, 2008 8:28 PM
NO Obama said...: Obama Long on Ambition, Short on Most Other Things

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...?nav=emailpage

Excerpts:

"What I hear from politicians who have worked with Obama, both in Illinois state politics and here in Washington, gives me pause. They describe someone with an extraordinary ability to work across racial lines but not someone who has earned any profiles in courage for standing up to special interests or divisive party activists. Indeed, the trait people remember best about Obama, in addition to his intellect, is his ambition.

"The authentic Barack Obama? We just don't know. The level of uncertainty is too high," one Democratic senator told me last week. He noted that Obama hasn't been involved in any "transformative battles" where he might anger any of the party's interest groups. "If his voting record in the past is the real Barack Obama, then there isn't going to be any bipartisanship," this senator cautioned."

--------------------------------------

My thoughts:

If Obama is long on ambition and short on other things like uniting, what does that say about him?

Ambition is more about oneself than it is about others. Usually in the case of Obama, HE comes first.

This is evidenced in his trying to spoil Clinton's chances and being very self righteous and scuzzy about it.

What astounds me is the impact his candidacy will forever hold. He has caused not only fractures in this country about race and politics but he has caused fractures in the political social hierarcy of DC and the rest of this country where loyalties don't matter.

Look at the blacks and other political allies of Hillary's who are deserting her in favor of the Obama candidacy.

Some might say that the political cronisim of the past should be shattered and that Obama will make change this way.

It is probably so, but I think the change will be chaotic, untested and dangerous.

Change needs to be made slowly, with deliberation and caution.

If politicians can't count on building bridges and loyalties, then what can they count on and what can we?

Obama has done much more than people think to cause problems and fractures in the very fabric of politics and our lives. I think they are not for the better.; March 12, 2008 12:01 AM
protactinium said...: Wow this blog is becomming active again.

First this FL, and MI thing. The only reason Hillary wants it to count has nothing to do with the voters. It has everything to do with the 30 super delegates she will gain out of it. Obama will play well in MI, and FL now that those states have gotten a good look at both canidites Hillary looks alot weaker.

The old votes will not count. They can not most in the democratic party acknowledges it. There can only be a revote, and why should Obama support this? He loses not matter what if they count super delegates. They should not count FL and MI super delegates for punishment, and have a redo.

Also Hillary lost alot of ground today. Obama was awarded delegates from Cali, and Texas today putting him even further in the lead. Then add Mississippi into it.

Hillary is also down 600k voters in the popular vote. It is almost impossible for Hillary to close this gap.

Hillary is down 130 delegates and Penn. Hillary blowout 60 - 40 will only net her 32 delegates

So basically Hillary will be down delegates, and popular vote. Hard case for her.

This election is over. Hillary people are just so good at spinning it the media will watch it go on for a while; March 12, 2008 3:30 AM
dwit said...: Carrie,

Here are some exit poll results from a few states:

(Texas)"Obama did win six in ten voters age 29 and under, including Hispanics. But more seniors voted than youth. And elderly voters backed Clinton by a two-to-one ratio."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/8848.html

(Wisconsin)"He won more than half of all voters without a college degree - about 60% of the Democratic electorate. He won more than half of those with family incomes under $50,000. He dominated among white men - 63% to 34%. He won union households by 9 percentage points." And he battled Clinton to a draw among women."

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=719960

http://www.nmfbihop.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=706
In New Mexico his Latino vote is much higher than expected. What blew me away in all of these states is how well he did among women.; March 12, 2008 3:31 AM
Carrie said...: Even if both candidates want MI/FL to count for self-serving reasons...Wanting to give a few million voters a second shot at democracy for self-serving reasons is firmer moral ground than wanting to squish a few million voters for self-serving reasons.

Both candidates thought/hoped that the January votes would count initially - they each hoped they would be able to seat the delegates quiet after they had clinched the nomination. Now, they can't.; March 12, 2008 5:27 AM
NO Obama said...: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=6467

The TRUTH about Hillary's experience and accomplishments.

Another of the many things I don't like about Obama is that he shows no respect for what has come before him to allow him to be running in the first place.

Hillary Clinton spent a lot of time and effort with the civil rights movement and has always advocated for blacks and minorities.

She was one of the leaders who has made it possible for Obama to run and for blacks to vote for him.

So, I guess a big part of what I don't like or trust about him is his arrogance, lack of perspective and thankless pandering.

In many ways in this society of ours, it is a "wait your turn" philosophy, esp. in politics.

Experience and paying your dues should have a lot of relevance, esp. if the person is someone like Hillary who helped enable Obama to be where he is today.

Instead of her being a stepping stone for him, he is stepping all over her.

And if he had had a much tougher opponent for the US senate race, he'd probably still be in the IL legislature voting present.; March 12, 2008 11:23 AM
NO Obama said...: Below is another reason that Obama supporters should take pause and reassess their blind allegiance to him.

I have been researching what he has specifically done for blacks and have come up with mostly negative things. Yet they follow him blindly off the political cliff.

Barack Obama challenged over 'slumlord' ties
By Philip Sherwell in Chicago
Last Updated: 1:12am GMT 27/01/2008

Barack Obama and Joann Larkins live less than a mile apart in Chicago's predominantly black South Side, but they inhabit very different worlds.

What connects her squalid flat and his colonnaded mansion is Antoin "Tony" Rezko, the former Obama donor and friend, who goes on trial for corruption next month - and was denounced as a "slum landlord" by Hillary Clinton in a dramatic and bitter exchange during last week's Democratic presidential debate.

Mr Obama’s past ties to the Syrian-born property developer, a well-known figure in Chicago politics for his financial largesse, have prompted new questions about the sound political judgement and clean ethics that he touts in his run for the White House.

The charges against Mr Rezko include one that he donated $10,000 (£5,050) to an unnamed political candidate from kickbacks allegedly taken from state contracts. The recipient is reported by Chicago media to have been an unknowing Mr Obama.

Separately, in 2005, Mr Obama, 46, struck a property deal with Mr Rezko's wife, Rita, despite the fact that her husband was already under criminal investigation. Mrs Rezko bought an empty plot next to the Obamas' $1.65 million home in the affluent enclave of Hyde Park, and later sold the Obamas some of the land so that they could enlarge their plot - a deal that the Illinois senator has since admitted was "bone-headed".

Mrs Larkins, 51, lives just seven city blocks away, in a district where posters advertise "dirt cheap properties" and "foreclosure advice". She moved there almost a decade ago, taking a subsidised apartment with her 20-year-old daughter and one-year-old grandson in a building that had fallen into neglect when run by Mr Rezko.

The family boiled water on the stove and draped plastic sheeting across the windows in an effort to keep warm during the city's bitter winters, as the heating was not working. Rubbish piled up uncollected and repeated requests for basic repairs were ignored.

"It was a terrible place to live: there were a lot of drug dealers and people fighting and getting shot," Mrs Larkins, a widow who receives invalidity benefit, told The Sunday Telegraph.

"The owners never took any interest in the place; they just wanted the rent money. We had to call the city just to get the garbage collected."

The 44-apartment complex was one of 30 low-income housing projects run by Mr Rezko and his partners with funds from the city during the 1990s. By early this decade, many were boarded up as bills and mortgage payments went unpaid, but Mr Rezko moved into the fast-food business, while tenants like the Larkins struggled with the legacy of his poor management; March 12, 2008 12:05 PM
NO Obama said...: Especially among African Americans, there is a virtual refusal to allow issues to intrude on Obama's parade.

Blacks and progressives have neutered themselves. They have dropped out of struggle, and made themselves irrelevant by refusing to make Obama accountable for his own policy positions and statements. It will be a very, very long journey back home.

For Black Agenda Radio, I'm Glen Ford.; March 12, 2008 12:13 PM
Bill UK said...: timeforchange,

Keep posting please, we all wish to see what other propaganda you can come up with?

Strange isn't it, people say they are democratic and non-prejudiced and yet they bring forward a tirade of propaganda when they are not winning the debate. Well Clinton and Ferraro are well matched as a pair, and it would seem that some of their supporters are of the same orientation.

And just for the record, bad luck about the fact you are about to lose the nomination. :); March 12, 2008 2:23 PM
math 101 said...: the CNN delegate counter game shouldn't have a single super-delegate assigned yet allow us the full 795 or however many there are at any time
even better break it up by category ie sen, rep, dpl, add-on's ect. more work for them but they have a staff. lets send some e-mails to help them change there minds. they should also give some acknowledgments to the unassigned delegates it is misleading.; March 12, 2008 2:32 PM
Carrie said...: I'm surprised the CNN delegate counter doesn't have an option for fiddling with MI/FL...that seems like it would be a popular feature. Given the talk, it also seems like a reasonable point to play on.; March 12, 2008 3:28 PM
Subodh said...: The GAMES are now over. The election in November is the real thing .The winner takes all the electoral votes in any state even though he wins by only one vote in that state. No more Caucuses and no more 4 to 1 money advantage to one candidate over the other. Hillary Clinton, has already won all the big states . Obama's inexperience clearly shows here but it is too late for him. Hillary has 267 electoral votes from all the states she has won. Obama has 202 electoral vote including Wyoming & Missisipi. If we give Pennsylvania to Clinton and all the remaining states to Obama , Clinton will have 288 electoral votes while Obama will have 254. You tell me now who should be on top of the ticket?; March 12, 2008 3:32 PM
Subodh said...: DNC ‘s Chairman Dean & Speaker Pelosi and some others, unknowingly devised the most ridiculous method for allocation of delegates rather than using a simple method where WINNER TAKES ALL the delegates in a state . That is the method which was used by the Republicans and they have a winner. Democrats need to use the same method for picking our winner and that is NO ROCKET SCIENCE to understand. The general Election in November will be run like that. The General Election is the Super Bowl and current primaries are the Playoffs. Have you ever heard that the rules for the Playoffs should be different from the rules for the Super Bowl? So let us take the count with WINNER TAKE ALL method. Hillary has already 1741 delegates from the states she has won and Obama has 1218 delegates . If she wins only Pennsylvania out of the remaining states, she will have 1892 delegates and Obama will have 1580. Now tell me who should be on top of the ticket?; March 12, 2008 3:32 PM
Siroco said...: mmmmm lots of loose talk. How about some facts for a change?

Let's take a closer look at who's really qualified and or who's really
working for the good of all of us in the Senate. Obama or Clinton.

Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term - 6yrs. - and another
year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law - 20 - twenty
pieces of legislation in her first six years.

These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress
www.thomas.loc.gov , but to save you
trouble, I'll post them here for you.

1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.

2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.

3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.

4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.

5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.

6. Name post office after Jon A. O'Shea.

7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.

8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition
Day.

9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial
of his death.

10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on
winning the championship.

11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on
winning the championship.

12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution
Commemorative Program.

13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.

14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express
condolences on her death.

15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who
lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton 's bills are, more
substantive.
16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.

17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11

18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.

19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.

20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as
protected in the wilderness preservation system.

There you have it, the fact's straight from the Senate Record.

Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize.

During the first - 8 - eight years of his elected service he sponsored
over 820 bills. He introduced

233 regarding healthcare reform,

125 on poverty and public assistance,

112 crime fighting bills,

97 economic bills,
Re: Comparison of Accopmlishments Obama Vs. Clinton | Report to Admin Reply
By Alex Today at 1:40 pm EST
continued....

60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,

21 ethics reform bills,

15 gun control,

6 veterans affairs and many others.

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and
co-sponsored another 427. These inculded **the Coburn-Obama Government
Transparency Act of 2006 - became law, **The Lugar-Obama Nuclear
Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, -
became law, **The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the
Senate, **The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, - became law, **The
Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, In committee,
and many more.

In all, since entering the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890
bills and co-sponsored another 1096.

An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no record according
to some who would prefer that this comparison not be made public.

He's not just a talker.
He's a doer.

Pass it on....It's impressive; March 12, 2008 3:47 PM
Subodh said...: It’s a shame that American political decisions are so subjective and emotional—because by any objective, logical standard, Clinton is far more qualified to be President than Barack Obama. Clinton is superior to Obama in terms of experience and intellect; she will be a Commander-in-Chief who commands immediate respect, something that is difficult to the point of impossibility to say about Obama.Dennis Kucinich is more qualified to be President than Obama. There’s no need to take shots at Obama’s middle name in order to defeat him: all one has to do is look at his limited accomplishments in the Senate, his undistinguished track record in the Illinois Legislature, his connection to a radical, race-baiting church and his link to scandal-scarred financier Antoin Rezko. Some politicians make good Presidents in theory. Obama doesn’t even pass that threshold. Obaman has skillfully exploited anti-Bush sentiment to become a political rock star—but has yet to truly appeal to those who will make their electoral decisions based on something besides Bush-loathing.; March 12, 2008 4:11 PM
Subodh said...: Response to frstn
You forgot to mention that he got only two bills passed and those also totally useless. Hillary has 86 months experience in the Senate & Obama has 14 months.

It’s a shame that American political decisions are so subjective and emotional—because by any objective, logical standard, Clinton is far more qualified to be President than Barack Obama. Clinton is superior to Obama in terms of experience and intellect; she will be a Commander-in-Chief who commands immediate respect, something that is difficult to the point of impossibility to say about Obama.Dennis Kucinich is more qualified to be President than Obama. There’s no need to take shots at Obama’s middle name in order to defeat him: all one has to do is look at his limited accomplishments in the Senate, his undistinguished track record in the Illinois Legislature, his connection to a radical, race-baiting church and his link to scandal-scarred financier Antoin Rezko. Some politicians make good Presidents in theory. Obama doesn’t even pass that threshold. Obaman has skillfully exploited anti-Bush sentiment to become a political rock star—but has yet to truly appeal to those who will make their electoral decisions based on something besides Bush-loathing.; March 12, 2008 4:14 PM
Subodh said...: see that the TV media finally has started thinking that Clinton is the better candidate than Obama after bashing her since Jan 1. Also notice that all the Afro American commentators side with Obama all the time. How racist can you get ?CNN specially is anti Clinton. Donna Brazille, Kelli Goff , Roland Martin, Dan Lothian and Amy Holmes ( who is supposed to be representing the Republicans) always talk against Clinton. Similarly Gwen Ifill ( another Afro American) on PBS and Meet The Press always talks against Clinton. Shame on you all. 50% of the commentators on CNN are Afro Americans and are 100% of the time talking against Clinton.These are the same commentators who would not have any jobs if they were not Afro Americans. Obama should not be made President because he has only 14 months experience in US senate out of which he spent 14 months running for presidencyExecutive Level experience is what is needed. and to be president national level experience is what is important.. Obama has none.. Hillary was Governor’s wife in Arkansas for 8 years and later for 8 years’ President’s wife. She was not just a housewife. Being an attorney herself and a smart politician she was constantly advising Clinton and was his right hand person. Bill was named the best Governor and he was the best President with no deficits and strong economy under his administration and you have to give a lot of credit to her as well.; March 12, 2008 4:15 PM
dwit said...: subodh said...

"Clinton is superior to Obama in terms of experience and intellect; she will be a Commander-in-Chief who commands immediate respect, something that is difficult to the point of impossibility to say about Obama"

Are you kidding? She has based most of her senate career on bashing the cause Arab Palestinians. Frankly, after all of her actions and statements on behalf of Israel, she doesn't stand a chance on the ME issue.

She CONTINUES to vote for war!(Kyl-Lieberman)

Not sure where you are going with the intellect thing???

The bottom line is this: People are tired of Washington insiders who continue to do the SAME THINGS and expect DIFFERENT results!

DUH!; March 12, 2008 4:42 PM
Siroco said...: sudoth: I have to ask -- can you read ? Did you read the careful documentation I just posted?? oh well, silly question.

On another line daily kos has just published some statistics showing clearly that having gotten McCains nomination secured Limbaugh Republicans are voting in the Democratic Primaries in ever increasing numbers. I've been looking too. There are heavy Republican Counties in Texas (Big Bush 2004 votes) with virtually NO Republican votes, but large majorities for HRC in the just held Primary.

Same in Ohio. Same in Mississippi. This isn't racism btw. Its old style Republican political maneuvering : Republicans once their own candidate is clear, go vote in the Democratic Primary for the WEAKER candidate to divide and hurt the Democrats.; March 12, 2008 4:46 PM
Siroco said...: I cant resist: re rezko (whatever)

NEWS FLASH: HRC linked to Mafia prostitution ring!!
Thats right: HRC is known close friend of Gov Spitzer who FBI investigations have linked to Mafia Prostituion Ring....blah, blah, blah.

unfair you say? non-sequtuer? illogical?

Well yes, but its how you are reasoning about rezko...; March 12, 2008 4:58 PM
dwit said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 12, 2008 5:24 PM
dwit said...: bravo frstan!

I understand Hillary and Spitzer were very close. What have you heard?

You get the picture. Its smear anyway you cut it. If Rezko were on his finance committee, I might be more concerned.; March 12, 2008 5:25 PM
dwit said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 12, 2008 5:30 PM
dwit said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 12, 2008 5:54 PM
dwit said...: "Its old style Republican political maneuvering : Republicans once their own candidate is clear, go vote in the Democratic Primary for the WEAKER candidate to divide and hurt the Democrats."

BINGO! I've been saying that since McCain clinched the nomination. Hell, Rush was openly telling his callers to get out vote for Hillary.

The sooner we get through this primary the sooner we can expose McCain for the Bush lackey he is.; March 12, 2008 5:55 PM
Anonymous said...: ** Auchigate **

** Ayers-Dohrn **

** Rezkogate **

Barack Obama Attempts To Intimidate with accusations of RACISM meant to divide our country, call the D.N.C. tell them YOU WILL NOT TOLERATE BARACK OBAMA OR HIS INTIMIDATION TACTICS, OR HIS TERRORIST CONNECTIONS!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cINPxQOWO-c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suxll18ygi8; March 12, 2008 6:06 PM
dwit said...: Yeah, a prostitution ring! I couldn't believe it myself. What exactly was her role? Did she set up the meetings? She must be involved. THEY KNEW EACH OTHER!; March 12, 2008 6:43 PM
Anonymous said...: It should be obvious where the Obama Supporters heads are at, just look at how they are trying to link her to spitzer, and his issues, which again are morals police issues(who sleeps with who, etc.,etc.) the videos in the links below show how obama supporters have obscured the truth making claims that hillary had something to do with calling canada about nafta when it was in FACT obama who did this check out the second link for that, but if your interested in the SECURITY of our nation and don't wanna hear this ignorant inspiration message which is somehow supposed to PROTECT US FROM HARM? experience is what matters, here are some reasons NOT to vote for barack obama, why I (even though a life-long democrat) WILL NOT VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA, WHY I WOULD CHOOSE JOHN MCCAIN OVER BARACK OBAMA!
IF YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING I ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONTACT THE DNC IN WASHINGTON TO TELL THEM WE WILL NOT LET BARACK OBAMA INTIMIDATE AMERICA OR IT'S REPRESENTATIVES!
JUST BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE WITH HIM!

** Auchigate **

** Ayers-Dohrn **

** Rezkogate **

Barack Obama Attempts To Intimidate with accusations of RACISM meant to divide our country, call the D.N.C. tell them YOU WILL NOT TOLERATE BARACK OBAMA OR HIS INTIMIDATION TACTICS, OR HIS TERRORIST CONNECTIONS!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cINPxQOWO-c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suxll18ygi8; March 12, 2008 6:45 PM
dwit said...: Wow! Hillary just can't keep herself away from a juicy sex scandal. I wonder when she will make a statement. My god! They are from the same state. This is just inexcusable.; March 12, 2008 6:49 PM
dwit said...: Come on guys, I need a little help with the name on this one. Hillary-gate might be a bit cliche'.; March 12, 2008 6:57 PM
protactinium said...: How is Hillary supposed to protect us from harms way when she allows these type of things to go on in Her home state. I mean after all where ya she to make sure these operations are put in place.

Hillary obviously did not pass enough legislation to stop this type of womenizing behavior.

How could Hillary allow the governer of her state do this for so long? People had to of known.

Also I am intreasted in the rest of the names in the investigation. They seem only to care about spitzer and not really revealing the rest of the investigation.

5 buck says Bill used the prosituion ring before! Probley how Spitzer found out about it.; March 12, 2008 7:13 PM
protactinium said...: Btw you Hillaryites seem to be mixing up the words of experince, and judgement.

Just because someone has done a job for 20 years, they still could be dumb as a box of rocks.

Is this Hillarys judgement? To surrounding herself by racists, and womenizers?

Is the "experince" you tout around so much?

Obama will make the right Judgement on day 1!; March 12, 2008 7:17 PM
protactinium said...: Spitzer and Hillary have Alot of the same donors. What one you think is the head of the prostitution ring?

Hillary may be taking donations from hooker money! This is the women right leader you want running our country?; March 12, 2008 7:22 PM
protactinium said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 12, 2008 7:32 PM
protactinium said...: 24% of Hillarys voter is Mississippi were republican.

This race would already be over if it was not for meddling republicans.

However now that Hillary take endorsements for womenizers, including her husband. America will see the true face of Hillary.

How can you say your a fighter for women rights. When you say it is ok for your man to sleep around on you constantly.; March 12, 2008 7:34 PM
NO Obama said...: subodh, Yes and the Obamalites can't see this or compute it. Obama will carry few states actually because of what he has carried so far (which will mostly if not all go to republicans).

That coupled with the fact that those of us who adamantly support Hillary are going to either write her name in, encourage her to run as an independent OR vote for McCain. The decision will depend of course on who is nominated.

I think it will be Hillary but this country has made some recent very serious political mistakes so I don't trust sensibility and the wise consensus of the majority any longer like I used to many years back.; March 12, 2008 7:39 PM
protactinium said...: time - "Yes and the Obamalites can't see this or compute it. Obama will carry few states actually because of what he has carried so far (which will mostly if not all go to republicans)."

You are dillusional. He will carry all the blue states as well compete in some red states.

What I can compute as a Obama supporter is. Obama is WINNING in POPULAR VOTE, and DELEGATES.

So Obama is beating Hillary. More people support him then her. That is fact.

Also you scorn women will come back to the fold with your holyer then now queen, Hillary, will tells you to.; March 12, 2008 7:42 PM
protactinium said...: and hell. If you femanist want to sell out on everything you believe and vote for Mccain that is fine by me. I think it is funny. That you will forget everything you faught for and against in the moment of anger.

Hey I have said it a 100 times. A scorn women has no boundries.

Vote for Mccain, vote against everything Clintons has fought for.; March 12, 2008 7:43 PM
Siroco said...: folks, its called "sarcasm". look it up.

My point was to high-light the method of reasoning being used to attack Senator Obama.

Hillary wasn't really participating in a Prostitute Ring....that is, not as far as I know.

;); March 12, 2008 7:45 PM
Anonymous said...: IF YOU BELIEVE HILLARY CLINTON WOULD MAKE A BETTER PRESIDENT OR IF YOU ARE UNDECIDED PLEASE WATCH THIS VIDEO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cINPxQOWO-c

PLEASE PASS THIS LINK ON TO YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY THROUGH EMAILS INSTANT MESSAGE OR BLOG POSTS WE MUST GET THE MESSAGE OUT, WE MUST FIGHT THIS WEDGE BARACK OBAMA AND HIS "YOU'RE A RACIST" CAMPAIGN TACTICS!

ANOTHER VIDEO OF INTEREST:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suxll18ygi8

PLEASE STOP OBAMA'S DIVISIVE TACTICS!; March 12, 2008 7:46 PM
protactinium said...: lol frstan it only seems fair. :-) Using the same logic that these Hillarites use against Obama. I am happy enough to spam the blog with the same useless non sense they do.:-) Pay backs a Hillary.

Hillary support womenizing!!!; March 12, 2008 7:47 PM
NO Obama said...: frstan, nice try but no go...

Hillary has not has business dealings with Spitzer and Spitzer is not a slumlord.

Obama and Rezko allowed poor blacks and other to live in slum tenaments owned by Rezko.; March 12, 2008 7:47 PM
protactinium said...: Time Hillary does not have buisness dealing with spitzer. However her and spitzer have a launrdy list of the same donors.

Now we have to ask, why are these people donating to both these canidites. I am sure people are already pouring over all and good chance may find some link to Hillary.

Just because Spitzer did not directly give money to Hillary does not mean deals have been made by both Hillary and Spitzer for poltical favors.

Its is also Hillarys fault. This is a women who claims to fight for women right.

Well why has she done nothing to combat this, or prevent these type of rings in NY. They are saying Spitzer may have been doing it for 5 to 10 years.

A fighter for women rights? Or just another politicion who uses women in order to gain power?

After all what type of role model was she when she allowed her husband to cheat on her not once, but many times.

You femanists have been bamboozled.; March 12, 2008 7:52 PM
protactinium said...: You Hillarites cry about not being recaists but then you say things like this.

"allowed poor blacks and other to live in slum"

Fact was it was alot more then African American people.

But if you do not care about race why does it matter the race of the slums?

Your fears of a black people are constanly showing on this blog.; March 12, 2008 7:56 PM
NO Obama said...: Pro, I think I said OTHERS lived there too.

Also, this is an election about race because Obama is half black and blacks are voting for him 90+%.

If it weren't about him being black, then why are so many blacks voting for him?

When blacks supported Hillary, it was about how she had helped them and been an advocate for them (not due to the color of her skin or her gender).

So, since they have switched their loyalties so unquestioningly, it is obvious it is about race.

Like Ferraro said, if Hillary's opponent were white, she'd get the majority of their votes still.; March 12, 2008 8:01 PM
protactinium said...: "Like Ferraro said, if Hillary's opponent were white, she'd get the majority of their votes still."

and Hillary, her surragotes, and supporters seem to keep making racist arguements. You wonder why black people will not vote for your canadite. Because Hillary people are filled with bigots.; March 12, 2008 8:10 PM
dwit said...: frstan said...

"folks, its called "sarcasm". look it up."

We got it! We're just trying to prove a point to a certain clueless individual who insists on CREATING dirt in the Obama campaign where there is none (i.e rezko).; March 12, 2008 8:36 PM
Siroco said...: HRC was getting a goodly share of black votes, that is until the SC Primary when Bill Clinton said the black community was voting for Barack Obama only because he was black -- just like Jesse Jackson, Obama was merely the "Black" candidate. This infuriated many blacks and even some of the Black Politicians who had previously supported HRC and they began to support Obama in ever increasing numbers. But it is the Clinton camp that caused this to be the case, and I think they fully deserve to inherit the consequences of their own actions.; March 12, 2008 8:37 PM
NO Obama said...: What Bill Clinton REALLY said:

What has Bill Clinton said that is not true, in regards to South Carolina and Obama’s victory? When did black folks start having a problem with truth as our history in this nation has never required skirting or embellishing truth in regards to race, to have the moral high ground. So now why is a racial truth so controversial with many black folks? Like always, truth is controversial when people don’t want to accept it! It is what it is. There is a competition going on for the Democratic nomination and Bill Clinton exercised a truth in this competition. Racial truths are not playing the race card; they are simply observations of reality.

Bill Clinton did not play the reace card. When Clinton made the statement about Jesse Jackson, it was in the context of what he had stated earlier about how he understood the excitement that blacks have, due to history, of electing a qualified black candidate.

But it's easy to pin the racist card on people falsely.

Is it racist for networks to do polling on X # of black people who vote for Obama?

Is it racist to make observations like this and like Bill Clinton and others have made?

If we can't make statements and observations using the words black, white, Asian, the this country is in for more years of racial strife.

We should then abolish polls, affirmative action, all references to race in any shape or form so we can talk without being called racist.

"Well these guys over here (can't say what color they are) voted for this candidate (no reference to color) because he is.... or this group voted for this guy 81% to 29%for the other candidate (can't mention her gender or race)."

See how ludicrous it is to not allow observations based on race?; March 12, 2008 8:51 PM
Anonymous said...: time check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcyuCpQ42tM

******************************

IF YOU BELIEVE HILLARY CLINTON WOULD MAKE A BETTER PRESIDENT OR IF YOU ARE UNDECIDED PLEASE WATCH THIS VIDEO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cINPxQOWO-c

PLEASE PASS THIS LINK ON TO YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY THROUGH EMAILS INSTANT MESSAGE OR BLOG POSTS WE MUST GET THE MESSAGE OUT, WE MUST FIGHT THIS WEDGE BARACK OBAMA AND HIS "YOU'RE A RACIST" CAMPAIGN TACTICS!

ANOTHER VIDEO OF INTEREST:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Suxll18ygi8

PLEASE STOP OBAMA'S DIVISIVE TACTICS!; March 12, 2008 9:27 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 1036 Newer› Newest»

Welcome to Democratic Convention Watch

Blog Archive

Democratic Convention 2008

Democratic National Convention History

Denver & Colorado Democrats

DCW in the News

Friends of DCW

2008 Republican National Convention

Saturday, March 01, 2008

Open Thread

1036 comments:

Tags