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 601 – 800 of 1036 Newer› Newest»

Carrie said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 14, 2008 4:16 PM
Independent Voter said...: LOL done with me....OOOOOO I'm hurt. NOT! I would do EVERYTHING and ANYTHING to protect my or anyone else's child, even if it meant SACRIFICING the "greater good".

I personally cannot believe that ANYONE would sacrifice a child, ANY child, so that they could start up a legal aid clinic.

As far as a defense, Clinton could have REFUSED that douchebag's case, but she didn't! Plain and simple. The woman is a hypocrite in the worst terms possible. As far as I'm concerned Clinton ranks right up there with Mark Foley and the Catholic Diocese who allowed their priests to continue molesting the kids. I have no use for her.; March 14, 2008 4:33 PM
shelby said...: Thank you Hillary!

It may well be too late to avoid the suicide mission that would come of an Obama nomination, but I want to thank you for laying down the cudgel that finally opened the media's eyes- opened them enough to do the minimal investigative reporting necessary to properly vet a candidate.

The vile rantings of Obama's minister, head of the church which Obama has chosen and attended for years, is more than enough to keep the average sane voter from pulling the lever for Obama in November. There is no "spinning" Obama's silence in the face of such disgusting rhetoric. It's over even before its begun.

It may well be too late to avoid the inevitability of an Obama nomination. But Hillary has done the country an enormous service in helping to expose sooner rather than later the inevitable disaster Obama's nomination will mean in November.; March 14, 2008 5:05 PM
Bill UK said...: Latest Rasmussen polls:

In Ohio McCain has a +6 point lead on both Clinton and Obama.

In California Clinton against McCain has a +7 point lead.

In California Obama against McCain has a +15 point lead!

So much for Clinton saying she has more Electoral College votes, this clearly shows that Obama will also collect the 55 Electoral College votes of California, in fact more sure of this than Clinton is!; March 14, 2008 6:02 PM
Siroco said...: You run for the police if you have a battery of Obama supporters chasing you after you have attempted massive voter fraud and you are fearful because of your consciousness of guilt. Better caught by the Police than a vengeful mob.

Of course, they wernt a mob. They were following her to learn what she was going to do with the voter sheets once she thought herself unobserved. No violence was threaten. But given her guilt, Im sure she projected plenty of negativity on her chasers.; March 14, 2008 6:18 PM
NO Obama said...: shelby, Apparently Obama has repudiated his minister's anti-American remarks today.

Too little too late...

He should have done it 20 years ago.

His 20 yr. association with this man has had to have some or a lot of influence on Obama.

You see a little of that influence eek out now and then and then he pulls it back.

His books are also full of shaded anti white feelings and agrandizement of blacks. (btw, he is only a little over 6% black--50%WHITE).

So he has misrepresented his true race to people and his true feelings and beliefs.

Repudiation 20 years too late!; March 14, 2008 7:14 PM
NO Obama said...: Bill, UK, Hillary didn't associate herslef with those criminals. Spitzer hasn't been convicted of anything yet.

As far as being glad about the things you mentioned, I'm not.

And I don't think Hillary did what you say.

I know I personally and many hundreds of members of a Hillary blog have been sending emails and other communications to the network asking them to cover Obama's minister, etc.

I think it's more likely that they got the idea to investigate from us and perhaps FOX news.; March 14, 2008 7:17 PM
shelby said...: Time-
I read Obama's statement. You would have to be extremely gullible to believe that Obama's minister suddenly began his racist rants when Obama began his presidential run. Or that Obama took no notice of his minister's
statements until recently.

Of course he has to repudiate the statements now. But as you say, he sat quietly by for 20 years. But that is his pattern- keep a low profile so nothing can stick to you. Any way you slice it, I think any chance he had of winning in November are effectively over.
Diehard Obamans notwithstanding.; March 14, 2008 7:28 PM
hank said...: “We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York, and we never batted an eye,” Wright says. “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is brought right back in our own front yards.”

-Rev. Wright

Bravo! Somebody has finally told the truth. Its too bad Obama has distanced himself from this guy. It would make me like him even more if he embraced this thinking.; March 14, 2008 7:43 PM
NO Obama said...: Shelby, I totally agree.

He stood by and received spiritual advice from this anti American for 20 years.

It is only for imibiciles to believe this trash wasn't embeded in Obama's psyche' and soul for 20 years.

His denouncing and repudiating NOW, as I said is too little too late.

He should be ashamed of having associated with, received ADVICE from, and listened to this man for 20 years.; March 14, 2008 7:44 PM
NO Obama said...: hank, you're kidding!!

You must be equally anti American.

Japan bommed Pearl Harbor and started the Pacific side of WWII.

Without provocation or reason.

Do you think Pearl Harbor was justified.

We used the atom bomb in Japan because Japan's navy and airforce were winning what with their crazy kamakazi pilots, etc.

Unfortunately we had to bomb them to bring them to their knees.

Otherwise, I think you would be speaking Japanese today. Would you like that?

Our bombing Japan was our only alternative. Surely had they gotten the bomb, based on the way they were behaving, they wouldn't have hesitated to use it on US!; March 14, 2008 7:48 PM
Bill UK said...: Time, Shelby,

No comment on Obama's poll lead over Clinton?

Oh, by the way, pleasekeep posting this obviously orchestrated dribble. CNN have just reported that Obama has opened up a 6% lead according to Gallup, and in reality we have the Clinton backroom boys and girls to thank for this. The public are sick of the negative, insulting, untruthful tirade that you Clintonites believe will win Clinton the nomination!

Keep it up please.; March 14, 2008 7:51 PM
NO Obama said...: Obama has been tutored by his anti-American minister for 20 years!

No way his anti American rhetoric hasn't been ingrained in Obama and the evolution of his political thinking.; March 14, 2008 7:55 PM
Bill UK said...: Time, still no comment on Obama's lead in the polls?; March 14, 2008 8:00 PM
NO Obama said...: Obama has lied about his race:

Obama would have to say to the world: "I am not what I've told you I am. I lied to you in my autobiography when I told you I am black. I lied to the Admission Committee at Harvard so I could get in. I lied to my constituents in Chicago so I could get elected to the State Senate. I lied to my constituents in Illinois so I could get elected to the US Senate. I lied to my supporters across America so I could be President.

"I have lied all during my life to play the race card, and use it, cynically, to advance myself by playing upon the racist presumption of Americans to accept, without question, that anyone of color is African-American. I lied to you, and you blindly accepted it, because of your own racist presumptions about color, and ethnic identity. I looked African-American, and your racist presumptions told you to believe it."

http://kennethelamb.blogspot.com/2008/02/barak-obama-questions-about-ethnic.html; March 14, 2008 8:15 PM
Siroco said...: Quote"We used the atom bomb in Japan because Japan's navy and airforce were winning what with their crazy kamakazi pilots, etc"

"Ignorance aint what you dont know, it's what you do know that aint so" --JWCjr; March 14, 2008 8:17 PM
NO Obama said...: Researching his roots reveal that on Obama's father's side, he is descended from Arab slave traders. They operated under an extended grant from Queen Victoria, who gave them the right to continue the slave trade in exchange for helping the British defeat the Madhi Army in southern Sudan and the Upper Nile region. Funny how circular is history; now the British again face the Madhi Army, albeit this time Shiite, not Sunni, as in nineteenth century Sudan.

But telling America's black community that while their ancestors were breaking the shackles of slavery, Mr. Obama's ancestors were placing those shackles upon their wrists would hardly play as an Oprah Winfrey best-seller.; March 14, 2008 8:18 PM
Siroco said...: "TIme" anyone so totally ignorant historically they can write the sentence " We used the atom bomb in Japan because Japan's navy and airforce were winning what with their crazy kamakazi pilots, etc" has no standing to say anything ..................about anything.; March 14, 2008 8:27 PM
NO Obama said...: I believe we are beginning to see the real Barrack Obama. He is a product, as he has said, of the Chicago 'rough' political school. It is a school versed in dirty politics and illegal tactics. I do not believe Senator Obama has done any thing illegal. Certainly not.

Yet repeatedly, since announcing his candidacy, he has struck out at specific people, usually HRC, using passive-aggressive language that is hard to pin down for rebuttal. It's a highly skilled language technique.

He is reportedly Tony Robbins trained, not a bad thing in itself, yet I personally believe he isn't using that training consistently as intended. It can be highly manipulative.

http://www.politicaldogfight.com/dogfight04/2008/01/the-real-obama.html; March 14, 2008 8:28 PM
Bill UK said...: Time,

Still no comment on Obama's poll lead?

Well let me help you a little.

Clinton drops 5 point of lead in Pennsylvania in one day, lead now down to 13 points!

Obama now has a pledged delegate lead of 161.

Clinton's super delegate lead cascading downwards:

Date..........Clinton SD lead
1/13...............96
1/20...............94
1/27...............96
2/3................93
2/10...............97
2/17...............77.5
2/24...............64
3/2................47
3/9................39
3/13...............37
Today..............36

The American public are not fooled by your unbased inuendos, instead they see a person who is the best character for the job. Clinton was found wanting, indeed as time goes on she is found wanting more and more.

But as I said above Time, you and the other Clintonites keep posting please, you just show the kind of people Clinton has as her supporters, it is a wonderous thing to watch.; March 14, 2008 8:31 PM
shelby said...: Oh please- the issue is no longer Hillary. The Obama campaign successfully kept the racist genie in the bottle long enough to ensure the nomination- but to what end? The American public will not elect a candidate whose pastor exhorts his flock to say God Damn America.

Obama's reply is ridiculous.
The YouTube films of Obama's fellow parishioners clearly show the flock rolling in the aisles with glee and agreement with the good minister's words. Are we to believe the Obamas were the last to know?

Obama says its a generational thing- the older generation being angrier than his. Really? How does this jibe with his pastor's September 11 statements? What does this have to do generational differences? BTW, I saw lots of young people hooting and hollering along with the pastor.

Evil prevails when good men sit around and do nothing. This is what Obama has spent his career doing. Avoiding votes on the hard issues. Pretending he doesn't hear the venom spewed by his own church. He has the blame America first crowd for sure, but is that enough to put him over the top? Ya think?

We Democrats can kiss the White House goodbye - again. We've blown it. Thank you Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Tom Daschle for encouraging Obama to run because he has no record to rail against -yes it got you so far - but like Teddy and Kerry there is no need to pack. The celebrating ends at the convention.; March 14, 2008 9:10 PM
Bill UK said...: Hi No.2, oh sorry, I mean Shelby,

Well again mothing but inuendo, perhaps he is this, perhaps he is that, who knows what he is, he could be anything! The Clintonites last straws of hope, throw mud and hope!

Oh Shelby, welcome to the 'Clintonite Horror Sorrow Show', the show where Clinton and her supporters can say anything they want but do not have to answer questions with facts.

So glad by the way that you recognise now that Clinton has lost, got to ask though are you going to vote for Obama or McCain in the General Election?; March 14, 2008 9:19 PM
NO Obama said...: Thanks, shelby for those astute and correct observations.; March 14, 2008 9:22 PM
Bill UK said...: Time,

Still no comment on the facts?

Amazing, you throw a lot of rubbish around but when the facts are placed for you to comment on you say absolutely nothing!; March 14, 2008 9:24 PM
hank said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 14, 2008 9:27 PM
hank said...: Time,

Do your homework. I have Masters in History. I know the history of American foreign policy very well. Since the beginning of the 20th century we have continually backed despots from Somoza-Garcia to Diem to Marcos to Suharto to Saddam Hussein to The House of Saud etc...

Rev. Wright was merely making the point that ESPECIALLY since WWII the US has used military power as the MAIN tool of foreign policy.

The "Industrial Military Complex", that Eisenhower warned us about has been setting the foreign policy agenda rather than the citizenry and the civilian leadership.

Their wedge is FEAR. Nobody advocates for this position more vehemently than the Republicans.

Apparently, Hillary and Bill have forgotten this. They seem to be siding more and more with the right on this as the years go on.

I just wish Obama was more influenced by Wright!; March 14, 2008 9:29 PM
NO Obama said...: Your facts? You never comment on mine.

You continue to back Obama who is obviously a dangerous candidate who you won't see as such.; March 14, 2008 9:29 PM
NO Obama said...: hank, BS!

If you don't like what this country has done to defend itself rightfully, then you are not someone I want to debate.; March 14, 2008 9:31 PM
hank said...: Time,

No, M.A.; March 14, 2008 9:35 PM
Bill UK said...: Time, you do not debate anyway!

The facts speak for themselves.

1) Obama has more elected super delegates than Clinton.
2) Obama has more pledged delegates than Clinton.
3) Obama has a larger share of the popular vote than Clinton.
4) Obama is trusted more than Clinton.
5) Obama is in the lead in the polls over Clinton.
6) Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee for President.
7) Obama will be the 44th President of the USA.

Are you really going to vote for McCain? Mind you having backed one loser you may feel like it is habit forming.; March 14, 2008 9:38 PM
hank said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 14, 2008 9:41 PM
hank said...: How about The Iraq War? Where, exactly are the WMD?

How about those commies in Vietnam? As far as I can tell we haven't been overrun by them yet.

Face it, if you believe that war is the first tool in the foreign policy toolkit, then you are a REPUBLICAN.

I think most of us here have known that for some time. Just vote McCain and be done with it. He too seems to think hemorrhaging money on unprovoked wars is good foreign policy too.; March 14, 2008 9:42 PM
NO Obama said...: hank, I was against the Viet Nam war, Iraq war.

My husband served in Viet Nam.

None of this has anything to do Hillary and why I support her and think Obama is dangerous.; March 14, 2008 9:46 PM
hank said...: You are against the Iraq War? Hillary isn't. she voted FOR IT! In fact, with her support of Kyl-Lieberman, she has paved the way for Bush to invade Iran too.

How do you reconcile your support for her???

I think most Obama supporters are more inclined to follow foreign policy. I personally believe, that unless we can get our house in order around the world we will be diverted from taking care of OUR people here at home.

THAT is why I back Mr. Obama. I see that he has a fresh perspective. Hillary can't see the forest for the trees on this.

She and McCain seem to think we can continue to throw our money around to these hot-spots around the world AND still give our people decent health care and education here at home. You really should look at Dwit's blog. He spells it out very clearly.

Sorry, her math don't work! the deficit keeps going up and up under her leadership.; March 14, 2008 9:55 PM
Bill UK said...: Time,

You have said previously that you would vote for McCain rather than Obama. So you would vote for more wars over diplomacy through strength as advocated by Obama?; March 14, 2008 9:58 PM
Siroco said...: hank
The fire bombing of civilian housing in large cities of Japan actually caused more deaths (not to mention severe burn injury) than the two atomic bombs. Some elements of the American Military objected to this deliberate targeting of civilians as war crimes. The "excuse" offered was that "We arent really bombing civilians. We are just bombing their housing. They will have to move away and find somewhere else to live, thus reducing the labor force of the factories."

Of course, we bombed at night when the workers were in their (highly flamable) housing, and those who burned to death or lived but with horrible burn injuries might not have appreciated the difference.

Are such things "war crimes"? Undoubtably. Does that justify others committing crimes against us? Of course not. But I didnt understand Wright to mean that. I understood him to be saying "What goes around, comes around."

On the other hand , I completely reject the inflamatory language he uses.

Wright has been retired. I posted links to video of Trinitys new Pastor. No one has commented.; March 14, 2008 10:02 PM
hank said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 14, 2008 10:08 PM
hank said...: frstan,

Like I said, I am VERY well versed in the history. Its what I do. But yes, I agree on Wright's message of "what goes around, comes around" as you put it.

He is absolutely correct! That is what Hillary, McCain and Bush either don't get or simply ignore in the interest of $$$.; March 14, 2008 10:09 PM
Siroco said...: Hank
I was correcting you mate ;) I was just extending the point. But I should have begun with "As you , Im sure are quite famillar with, etc etc

Helping others to some understanding was what I was trying for....; March 14, 2008 10:19 PM
Siroco said...: ARRRRRGGGGHHHH

That last should have started "I was not correcting you ..."

sorry; March 14, 2008 10:21 PM
hank said...: Sometimes we need inflammatory language to light fires under people's ASSES!; March 14, 2008 10:21 PM
NO Obama said...: Hank, I support Hillary for a multitude of reasons and the Iraq war is about the only thing I disagree with her on.

I don't agree with any politician on everything as I am an independent and somewhat conservative on some issues and more liberal on others.; March 14, 2008 10:21 PM
hank said...: frstan,

Point taken!; March 14, 2008 10:22 PM
NO Obama said...: frstan, I commented that the new pastor looks reasonable and sounds that way.

But Obama didn't choose this new guy, etc.

He did choose to associate with the Rev. Wright for 20 years and his saying he never heard any of this incendary stuff either first hand or through the church grapevine, doesn't wash.

Ain't believeable.; March 14, 2008 10:24 PM
hank said...: Time,

I can say the same of Obama and I too am an independent. I just think he has a better chance at giving America the new start we so desperately need on an international level.

I guess we aren't that far apart. And think about it, on most issues they are nearly identical, but it is clear they are very different on foreign policy; March 14, 2008 10:25 PM
Bill UK said...: Time,

Association is guilt then is it?

Careful how you answer that one, remember your a supporter of Clinton!; March 14, 2008 10:34 PM
NO Obama said...: Time,

You have said previously that you would vote for McCain rather than Obama. So you would vote for more wars over diplomacy through strength as advocated by Obama?

I won't vote for Obama for many reasons period.

Depends on what the issue is that we might go to war over.

I would prefer not to have to go to war and to try means not to but wouldn't oppose it outright under certain reasonable circumstances.; March 14, 2008 10:38 PM
NO Obama said...: Bill that is a fallacious premiss!

I don't associate with people who use anti-American rhetoric and hate-filled sermons, racist (anti white) rhetoric.

Obama does.; March 14, 2008 10:42 PM
Siroco said...: news item:

By ROCCO LaDUCA
Observer-Dispatch
Posted Feb 29, 2008 @ 05:25 PM
Last update Feb 29, 2008 @ 05:27 PM
UTICA —
When the Rev. William Procanick put his hand on the Bible during his sex-abuse trial in Oneida County Court earlier this year, he swore to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

But as the former Clinton pastor was sentenced Friday to three years in prison for inappropriately touching a 7-year-old girl at his home last March, Judge Michael L. Dwyer said Procanick sacrificed his honesty the day he testified.

“As a minister of God, you got on the stand and you lied,” Dwyer told Procanick, the 54-year-old former pastor of Resurrection Assembly of God church on Kirkland Avenue.

A jury found Procanick guilty Jan. 22 of first-degree sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of a child.
======================
well, well, well.; March 14, 2008 10:45 PM
hank said...: Okay last one time,

Now I know why dwit and others have refused to even address you. Can't say I didn't try.

I guess we ARE WAY APART!

You are a piece of work. Looks like you will be going for McCain because Hillary don't have a chance.

That said, we have nothing to talk about. You are clearly not worth the "time". Pun intended. Good luck with that choice.

Obama/Edwards '08!; March 14, 2008 10:47 PM
NO Obama said...: frstan,

Too bad you can't see the difference. This pervert touched the girl in PRIVATE. Hillary couldn't have known.

Wright preached his sermons in PUBLIC and Obama had to know!

See the difference?

No, I suppose you can't.; March 14, 2008 11:19 PM
hank said...: did you guys notice time was the 666th post? Spoooky!; March 14, 2008 11:47 PM
Siroco said...: I think Dr. Karl Jung refers to that kind of thing asas a "synchronicity."; March 14, 2008 11:54 PM
protactinium said...: Hank - "Now I know why dwit and others have refused to even address you. Can't say I didn't try."

Hank you have to understand time is not for Hillary. She is an anti-Obama voter period. She only know how to vote on fear, hate, and racism. PERIOD.

Ignorant people blog for Hillary is the Moral of these blogs.; March 15, 2008 12:11 AM
hank said...: Pro,

That has come through loud and clear after her last few posts. Not sure what people like that are out to prove?; March 15, 2008 12:19 AM
NO Obama said...: Obama says "I believe that Americans will judge me not on the basis of what someone else said, but on the basis of who I am and what I believe in; on my values, judgment and experience to be President of the United States."

Who are you?

What are your values?

Are Michele's inflammatory comments about her shame about America indicative of your values?

Demonstrate other examples of your judgment that qualify you to be President.

List the experience and accomplishments that qualify you to take the central role on the world stage.

What is your experience in negotiating with foreign leaders?

What are you stands on economic and trade problems?

Where have you initiated proposals for change on a national or international problem that have been debated and decided on by a wide range of people?

Senator Obama, you have spoken in platitudes. Your spiritual mentor has spoken plainly, and frankly, obscenely, about a Democrat President "riding dirty" and has belittled and maligned his wife who is your principal opponent.

His angry and hate filled words are a serious setback to the efforts of many to right the wrongs of America's past. I was a young 13 year old white Southern boy when I heard Dr. King proclaim "I have a dream, that one day, my little children will be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin".

Dr. King's words that day changed my heart about how I should view all men and women, to reject bigotry and class consciousness. How will Dr. Wright's words affect 13 year old children today? Is this the "politics of change" that you so poetically chant about? "Mesmerizing" the naive and the uninitiated?

Time for you to leave Senator. You're unable, or unwilling, to exhibit the courage of a Dr. King and take a stand and be "for" tangible and concrete ideals. The empty air you give us is filled by the poison of your "spiritual leader".

Yeah, I went to church for many years and knew nothing of what my pastor said, preached or believed, right!!??? Believe that? When I wasn't in attendance, I received church bulletins, heard from other members what was preached, etc.

We are to believe you were oblivious? Does not pass credulity! Sorry!; March 15, 2008 12:59 AM
hank said...: Pro, frstan...

You guys have probably been to his issues page, but here is the link for anyone else who may be interested in what Obama stands for.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Here is an excerpt. Pretty clear to me on what he plans to do.

Iran

"The Problem: Iran has sought nuclear weapons, supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region, and its leaders threaten Israel and deny the Holocaust. But Obama believes that we have not exhausted our non-military options in confronting this threat; in many ways, we have yet to try them. "; March 15, 2008 1:07 AM
NO Obama said...: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/obamas-judgment-wright-or-wron.php

An Obama supporter wonders if he can continue to support Obama.

He makes some excellent points!; March 15, 2008 1:22 AM
NO Obama said...: More Obama lies:
Barack Obama on Friday acknowledged that he had substantially underrepresented the cash raised for his earlier campaigns by indicted businessman Antoin “Tony” Rezko.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9049.html

If dems are still stupid enough to nominate him, kiss his chances in November good bye!; March 15, 2008 1:49 AM
Siroco said...: a little fairer to quote more:

“We’ve given all of the money contributed to Barack Obama’s federal campaigns that could reasonably be credited to Mr. Rezko’s political support to charity
......

Obama, the junior senator from Illinois who’s seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, hasn’t been accused of any wrongdoing and is only a bit player in the Rezko corruption trial"; March 15, 2008 3:14 AM
Siroco said...: W00T!!! The cat is out of the bag!

"Timeouttolunch" wrote:; March 15, 2008 3:21 AM
Siroco said...: Time EXPOSED!
"Timeout" wrote :If dems are still stupid enough to nominate him, kiss his chances in November good bye!"

What's that you say? "If dems are still stupid enough...". if the DEMS!! THE DEMS! notice not "we".

THE ANSWER: "Time" is a REPUBLICAN, and has written NOTHING with sincerity. Just another "Russ Limbaugh Republican" intervention to support the weaker Democratic candidate (=HRC) in the Primary and hurt the Democrats!; March 15, 2008 3:24 AM
NO Obama said...: If repeatedly told you guys I'm an independent voter.

Therefore dems, repubs is how I refer to the parties.

Get a life and throw away the Kool-aide!

If you spent as much time and effort analyzing Obama and his lies as you do me, you'd be much better off.; March 15, 2008 3:30 AM
Siroco said...: (from my friend Jade)
She's at it again.

Check out the pathetic, transparent Hillary double-speak in the following article. Do you all remember when caucus-goers were "party activists" and hence "unrepresentative of the electorate"? Well, apparently, she sees the "party activist" superdelegates as being REPRESENTATIVE of the electorate!!! How does that WORK? Those people are mostly well-educated, in positions of power, and financially well-off, right? But they are more "representative"?

How come the only transparency we can get with HRC is in her transparent BS?!!!

Source: Link; March 15, 2008 5:02 AM
Bill UK said...: Obama's polling will go down for a few days whilst the CNN love Clinton crowd and the Clintonites have their little blowout on this about the Pastor.

But just like the 3a.m. call, it will come back to haunt Clinton and McCain like hells fury.

As I said above, keep posting Clintonites.

P.S. You shot far too early this time, with five and a half weeks to go to Pennsylvania. But wht else can we expect from the gun-ho, go to war, bomb-bomb-bomb brigade. After all there are now thousands of Americans who now cannot vote because of the war Clinton and McCain with Bush took us into.; March 15, 2008 5:23 AM
Bill UK said...: timeforchange said...
Bill, UK, Hillary didn't associate herslef with those criminals. Spitzer hasn't been convicted of anything yet.

As far as being glad about the things you mentioned, I'm not.

And I don't think Hillary did what you say.

I know I personally and many hundreds of members of a Hillary blog have been sending emails and other communications to the network asking them to cover Obama's minister, etc.

I think it's more likely that they got the idea to investigate from us and perhaps FOX news.

March 14, 2008 7:17 PM
.................................

Now that I find interesting, that you and several hundred others all belonging to a Clinton blog 'have been sending emails and other communications to the network'.

SO you admit that this is an orchestrated campaign from a Clinton blog!

That makes you part of an organised spam ring, which is exactly what one would expect of Clinton.

I wonder who else might belong to this organised Clintonite ring who posts here?; March 15, 2008 6:28 AM
Anonymous said...: THE BARACK OBAMA FILES HAVE BEEN UPDATED!

CHECK IT OUT:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6191C4oK6s0; March 15, 2008 6:36 AM
hank said...: yeah bill,

When Hillary endorsed McCain over Obama I knew that November was very much in doubt. The numbers are putting McCain ahead of BOTH now. This is pathetic!

Nice work Hillary! 4 more years of Bush on the way.; March 15, 2008 6:39 AM
protactinium said...: Of course they are apart of a Hillary Spam Ring. Hillary campaign has been trying to shut down the blogs because Hillary was getting killed on them. Its apart of thier stratagy to keep people from focusing on Hillary.

However you hate mongers, I would just leave up to Hannity. He is much better then Hillary is at it.

It had nothing to do with your letter to cover this story. It has everything to do with the republcian attack machine is starting to rev up, because they are so afraid of facing Obama.

Hannity is banking alot of his carrer that Obama will win, and he will be the next Rush Limbaugh. Crying every day along with the rest of the hate monger about how bad Obama is.; March 15, 2008 6:51 AM
protactinium said...: The elections are also very much for grabs. Not only did Hillary essential line up the democrats into a circular firing squad, because she does not want to me a loser so bad. She will destroy the party to say "See I told you So" All she cares about is herself.

The repugs are also talking about running a women if Hillary loses, and a Black man if Obama loses as VP. The repugs plan on taking advantage of all this idenity voting, and steal all of the democrats hard work right out of under them, while they are to busy screeching, and crying.; March 15, 2008 6:54 AM
protactinium said...: Time and Nydem will take another Bush over any black man. Because to them there is nothing worse then a black man with power over them.

They do not care about our country. They simply care about the hatred the burns deep inside them. Sad but they are a relic of the past. If you listen to time reference her age she is like 60 or so.; March 15, 2008 6:57 AM
protactinium said...: Back to the truth about Hillary.

Yet more questionable donors from Clinton. Are we seeing a pattern yet? Is she a really a fighter for womens rights? Or will she just do anything to get in power?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/29/clinton-accepts-donations_n_89306.html

Sen. Hillary Clinton has declined to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at a company accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record, federal campaign records show.; March 15, 2008 7:11 AM
protactinium said...: A drug smuggler convicted after giving the maximum amount to Hillary. Will she just take money from anyone? Why do all the crooks donate to her?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/clinton-donor-tied-mexican-drug-trade

An influential Democratic donor who has given Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign the federal limit and has been indicted for illegally practicing law, had his offices raided by authorities who say he launders money for Mexican drug cartels.; March 15, 2008 7:17 AM
protactinium said...: Yet another crook who commited illegal campaign contributions.

How many do you have to see before you ask questions? Who is your canidite really?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-jinnah29feb29,1,7846201.story

Southern California businessman Abdul Rehman Jinnah pleaded guilty this week in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles to directing illegal campaign contributions to Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton; March 15, 2008 7:21 AM
Bill UK said...: I wonder why no one has laid any of the following complaints against Clinton.

1) She publicly endorsed the candidate from another party for President. I would think this bars her from standing for the Democratic nomination?
2) Why is it that the press refuse to speak about Clinton and her dealings with 'fund raisers' when on tape (physical proof) that she deliberately broke the law, and indeed enticed another person to do so!

Also the fact that this orchestrated campaign is directly linked to a Clinton blog site. (Thank you 'Time' that admition is worth more than gold.)

So Clinton wants to take the gloves off and fight dirty, so be it. But remember from here on in every other sound you hear Senator Clinton will now ask you to answer the questions DIRECTLY relating to you and your past.

There is also one very important question to be asked here. Can a person who suffers severe memory loss as that displayed by Senator Clinton be mentally fit to hold the office of President of the United States of America?; March 15, 2008 7:31 AM
protactinium said...: Bill - "I wonder why no one has laid any of the following complaints against Clinton."

It is because they have nothing to say. This is why Hillary is trying to turn all the attention to Obama, because she can not have the spot light on her. She has to many flaws.

Hench why they are trying to spam blogs. To much free information are passed through them, and most are against Hillary.; March 15, 2008 7:43 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 15, 2008 7:51 AM
protactinium said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 15, 2008 8:00 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 15, 2008 8:01 AM
protactinium said...: Hillary a fighter for healthcare?

Or just a master at spin?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,338070,00.html

"Congressional lawmakers, staffers and health care advocates are accusing Hillary Clinton of exaggerating her role in developing the children's health insurance plan known as SCHIP.

The program started during her husband's presidency. Sen. Clinton frequently refers to the program as something "I helped start."

But the Boston Globe reports the senators who spearheaded the initiative apparently do not remember it that way. Co-sponsor Orrin Hatch said, "the White House wasn't for it... she may have done some advocacy over at the White House, but I'm not aware of it... Does she deserve credit for SCHIP? No — Teddy (Kennedy) does, but she doesn't."

Sen. Kennedy when asked about Clinton's role — shrugged and said, "Facts are stubborn things. I think we ought to stay with the facts."

Also causing hard feelings: The fact that Clinton skipped a Senate vote to extend the SCHIP program last November."

Kennedy said it best. Facts are stubborn things.; March 15, 2008 8:08 AM
protactinium said...: Here is a good video. It was made by the Citizens for honest goverment. A non-partistan group made to stop corruption in politics.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Mnq5U9ovtaE

It links to Clintons to many terrible things that acutally happened. Not just what a minster at the church said. But things they were directly linked to.; March 15, 2008 8:09 AM
protactinium said...: nydem-
Pro-"The only time that talk came up is when someone who was a homosexual said they will vote for Mccain over Obama. All I responded with was you would rather vote for a man who will destroy your gay rights over Obama."

Nydem -"SURE SOUNDS TO ME LIKE HE WAS ACCUSING PEOPLE OF BEING SLANDEROUS THING JUST BECAUSE OF THEIR WISH TO VOTE McCAIN OVER OBAMA TO ME, SOUNDS LIKE HE WANTED TO MAKE IT ABOUT A PERSONAL "HOMOSEXUAL" BELIEF TO ME !"

Learn to read.; March 15, 2008 8:11 AM
Bill UK said...: So Anonymous Ny Democrat,

I am glad you agree that Senator Hillary Clinton endorsed a candidate from another political party!

Does that bar her from running for the nomination?

Also the question of Senator Hillary Clinton's mental stability has to be investigated. This is a prime security risk. As an unstable person she will not acquire the security clearance to hold the Presidency!

She has displayed numerous psychological flaws that brings into question her mental stability and her readiness to hold the most powerful position in the free world. Indeed, it would seem that her psychological flaws could well be based in a psychiatric disorder.

It is well known that she has an extremely bad memory retention. Now she is showing signs of megalomaniacal behaviour.

By the way why do you have caps on when you post, could it be that your unfounded and spurious comments would be totally ignored if you acted like a rational human being and typed normally?

To defend Protactinium. I have seen no posts where he accuses you of any of the charges you lay against him. Indeed your actions are just like Clintons, smear, smear, smear.

I will go further and unless you can post 'proofs' of your accusations I will say that you are not telling the truth.; March 15, 2008 8:13 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 15, 2008 8:25 AM
protactinium said...: Did the Clitons sell out Urinium reseveres for donations?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?_r=1&ei=5065&en=6a843530898e147a&ex=1202446800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

Mr. Nazarbayev walked away from the table with a propaganda coup, after Mr. Clinton expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader’s bid to head an international organization that monitors elections and supports democracy. Mr. Clinton’s public declaration undercut both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, Mr. Clinton’s wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

The monster deal stunned the mining industry, turning an unknown shell company into one of the world’s largest uranium producers in a transaction ultimately worth tens of millions of dollars to Mr. Giustra, analysts said.

As Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign has intensified, Mr. Clinton has begun severing financial ties with Ronald W. Burkle, the supermarket magnate, and Vinod Gupta, the chairman of InfoUSA, to avoid any conflicts of interest. Those two men have harnessed the former president’s clout to expand their businesses while making the Clintons rich through partnership and consulting arrangements.

Records show that Mr. Giustra donated the $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation in the months that followed in 2006, but neither he nor a spokesman for Mr. Clinton would say exactly when.; March 15, 2008 8:26 AM
protactinium said...: Yet another Scandle of linking Clintons to selling secrets to China.

Whos is the real threat to national security? China might have the missle the have today because of the Clintons.

http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/clintons-china-scandals/

Clinton administration's willingness to permit two U.S. aerospace corporations to transfer sensitive missile technology to the Chinese. The CEO of one of the corporations, Loral, had pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars of campaign contributions into the Democratic National Committee. In return, the Clinton administration waived controls on Loral's export of these technologies to the Chinese aerospace industry.; March 15, 2008 8:32 AM
Bill UK said...: P,

Great links.

I am now setting up a site that will list all these 'associations' of the Clintons. Also I am now contacting numerous foreign news papers (ones that are not silenced by threats or fear), let us see how the US press handles this when all the accusations are reported throughout the world?

The US press holds itself up to the world as being impartial, bearers of the truth, staunch in defiance of pressure. Well let us see how CNN, ABC, NBC, Fox, etc., will defend their refusals to out the Clinton history.

Oh, and by the way, remember according to the press the simple act of association is guilt.

Hell, Clinton may have fired the first shot, but now she will be destroyed by volley after volley after volley!; March 15, 2008 8:53 AM
protactinium said...: Awesome!! Post the link when its ready. Would save alot of time on these blogs.

Do not forget the Number of people close to the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 44

Never mind all the donors.

Bill You amaze me that you living in UK care so much about American politics that you go to these great lengths for our canidite. Thank you for caring about our future.; March 15, 2008 9:21 AM
Bill UK said...: P,

I am British and proud of it.

The US is the leader of the free world, and rightly so. I have no say in who Americans elect as their president, but I can make sure that the truth is told, whether that be the truth here in the UK, in the US, in Germany, Australia, Russia or Chad!

The truth is the truth is the truth.

To many around the world now we see America with the chance of being the leader that we would follow led by an extraordinary man, an America that we would be proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with in the troubled times we are in, one that leads us not through fear and lies but through reason and hope.

The choice of Clinton, who by the way the only European country that wants her elected is Russia (wonder why), leaves us cold in our hearts. We 'do know' of her character, we 'do know' of her husband, and quite frankly we live in fear of another Clinton in the White House.

We cannot vote, and rightly so, but we can stand and tell the truth, and as an urstwhile friend make sure that you hear the truth, not to do so would prove us to be no friend at all.

To that end I will use all; March 15, 2008 9:50 AM
Bill UK said...: P,

The new site is now propogating through the internet. Only a small site at the moment but soon to contian a lot more. I have used a couple of your links in the initial site, thank you for posting them.

The site may look a little amateurish at the moment but I will work on it over the next day or so.

By the way the sites name?

www.TruthAndClinton.com

By the way; March 15, 2008 11:25 AM
NO Obama said...: Yes, Bill...we are a totally independent group of Hillary supporters not affiliated with her offical campaign.

There are similar groups who do the same for Obama.

There is nothing wrong with it. It is part of the freedom of speech concept related specifically to the presidential campaigns.; March 15, 2008 1:03 PM
NO Obama said...: hank, Hillary didn't endorse McCain.

She said she and McCain were experienced in Nat. Security.

Meaning that Obama would do poorly against McCain on that issue and she would do better.

I'm really sorry that many people can't extrapolate the thought or message into what she meant.

Too bad she didn't finish the thought and draw a diagram for those who can't reason very well.

As dem candidate she is not going to ENDORSE McCain!; March 15, 2008 1:07 PM
NO Obama said...: pro, Obama shot himself in the foot by associating with Chicago's crooks and this anti-American preacher.

I hope McCain does win if Obama is the nominee. They will swiftboat him into the ground.

THAT is why I want to see Hillary the nominee. She stands a much better chance to win when the campaign kicks into high gear between the repub & dem candidates.

Obama will lose.; March 15, 2008 1:18 PM
NO Obama said...: pro,

Obama isn't black. I dislike him for who he is and not what he is.

He is 50% white (his mother), 44% ARAB African & 6% black.

Not only is his percentage of black very low but legally he is not black per the US Constitution.; March 15, 2008 1:20 PM
NO Obama said...: Just heard on CNN many black ministers are coming out and denouncing Obama for denouncing his so-called Pastor.

LOL!

I'm loving it!

A great example of why our forefathers wisely separated religion and government.

Too bad politicians these days are not that wise.; March 15, 2008 1:24 PM
Bill UK said...: Oh hello Spam, sorry I men Time,

If Obama shot himself in the foot where did Clinton shoot herself?

Let's see, where do we start.

Marrying a man who claimed to be a Rhodes scholar, but isn't?

Working for a law firm who were involved in laundering money from drug trafficking?

Associating with known felons?

Extorting campaign funds from known felons?

Organizing the fraudulent accounting of donations?

Links to the Chinese intelligence service?

Threatening her husbands lovers?

Theft of Government property?

A husband who lies under oath?

Falsly accusing Government employees of fraud so as to manouver her own relatives into Government positions?

Lying about the whereabouts of papers required by investigators?

Receiving campaign funds from a company accused of so much sexual harrasment it can only be termed corporate policy?

Associating with those who drugged girls so that they could have sex with them?

Where do you want to start Time?

Remember it was Clinton and you Clintonites that want to throw mud. Well you throw as much mud as you like, we will just let you dig your political graves.

As I have now writen elsewhere, 'asye sow so shall ye reep'.; March 15, 2008 1:42 PM
NO Obama said...: If you believe Obama didn't know about Wright, then if you really believe that then ask your self this: do you really want a person in the White House for the next four years, that doesn't even know what has been going on around him for the last twenty years?

Think about it.

I've also gone through several church bulletins which had excerpts from Wright's hate-filled speeches and it doesn't pass the smell test that Obama didn't read these bulletins if he didn't hear this Anti-American, racist tripe in person.

Liar!; March 15, 2008 1:59 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 15, 2008 2:06 PM
Siroco said...: Why I support Barack Obama: We need to change not change back. Who is best qualified? Consider the evidence supplied by the two campaigns:
1. How well have they been organized?
2. Does either shows signs of having made a bad strategy and then refused to change until it failed? 3. Does either show signs that major posts were filled on the basis of loyalty to the candidate with competence ignored?
4. Which campaign has been more able to attract and wisely use (often with long lead times) volunteers?
5. Which campaign shows strong management and administrative skills in its leadership?
6 Which campaign shows strong financial management skills?
7. Which campaign shows signs of having foresight?
8. Has either candidate made a major blunder in the past and still remain unable to say "I was wrong."
9. Has either of the candidates been so unwilling to face reality that when faced with a major loss they have instead of conceding and congratulating their opponent rather gone off to a rally in another state so as to surround them selves with a cheering throng?

Point # 3 is of course already familiar to us: its SOP with Prez bush (e.g.. Gonzalez).

Please carefully consider the questions I have asked. Reach your own conclusions about what your own answers reveal about the prospective abilities of both candidates to manage the government and its finances. I'd like very much to hear what you think.; March 15, 2008 2:15 PM
NO Obama said...: Bit of trivia,

Obama's Arab/African ancestors were slave traders.

The garb he is pictured as wearing that was all over the internet was traditional slave hunting garb.

Any self respecting person of any color would have shunned wearing that outfit.; March 15, 2008 2:37 PM
Anonymous said...: FOR THE PLAIN AND SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT BARACK OBAMA:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6191C4oK6s0; March 15, 2008 2:43 PM
NO Obama said...: Saturday, March 15
Race Poll Results Spread
General Election: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen Tracking Clinton 42, McCain 46, Und 10 McCain +4
General Election: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen Tracking McCain 47, Obama 42, Und 11 McCain +5
Democratic Presidential Nomination Rasmussen Tracking Obama 46, Clinton 45 Obama +1

Obama is losing ground against McCain.; March 15, 2008 2:49 PM
Bill UK said...: Time,

Yes a drop in the polls was to be expected after the smear campaign, but surprising that Clinton didn't jump ahead, just shows how badly people think of Clinton already. But that is before I start!

Now where were we, oh yes, you never answer questions (proves that you do not have the answers).

Here again please comment on the following facts about the Clintons.

Marrying a man who claimed to be a Rhodes scholar, but isn't?

Working for a law firm who were involved in laundering money from drug trafficking?

Associating with known felons?

Extorting campaign funds from known felons?

Organizing the fraudulent accounting of donations?

Links to the Chinese intelligence service?

Threatening her husbands lovers?

Theft of Government property?

A husband who lies under oath?

Falsly accusing Government employees of fraud so as to manouver her own relatives into Government positions?

Lying about the whereabouts of papers required by investigators?

Receiving campaign funds from a company accused of so much sexual harrasment it can only be termed corporate policy?

Associating with those who drugged under aged girls (reports as young as 14) so that they could have sex with them?

Your answers would be much appreciated. Remember all of the above is a matter of public record, just that the public have been kept away from it by the press being too scared to take the Clintons on.

Which would be worse, having a pastor who occassionally used ill chosen phrases to bait the establishment or committing crimes, numerous crimes, numerous times!

Also is Clinton fit to serve in the White House? Obviously not, she suffers bouts of tremendous memory loss.

As I quoted earlier, 'as ye sow so shall ye reep'. But I guess the Clintons thought they were immune. Well I have news for them, Richard Nixon thought he was immune too!; March 15, 2008 3:22 PM
NO Obama said...: Bill, I'm not answering your quiz. The answers are already determined in your head and to try to refute your opinions is futile!

Also, how is it that you were able to get one of the URL/domain names that the RNC purchased for your anti-Hillary website?

And you are supposedly in the UK (which I don't believe).

And you speak for all people in the UK "we" regarding Obama?

I don't think so.; March 15, 2008 3:55 PM
hank said...: Looks like they are finally getting it Bill. To refute FACTS is futile.; March 15, 2008 4:46 PM
hank said...: Piece of trivia:

The Rodham's and Clinton's were slaveholders.; March 15, 2008 4:48 PM
Bill UK said...: Time, good attempt at a smear, but please show us where the Republicans are meant to have registered the name?

I went online today and checked availability of domain names, several of my first choices were already registered, but not 'TruthAndClinton.com'! So I registered it. Go to Who.is and run a check on the registration date, you will find it is today!

Learn about domain names before you try smearing people with inuendo and slighted accusations. I will stand up in any court of law here in the UK or in the US and swear under oath the truth. Mind you was it you who said that the Japanese Navy and Airforce were winning with their kamakazi attacks? Perhaps you did not know that they sent the Battleship Yamato on a suicide mission to attack the fleet landing on Okinawa, problem is it was literally blown apart by the US Navy airforce before it could get anywhere near Okinawa let alone the fleet.

If it was not you who made this erronous statement my apologies but it just goes to show that the Clintonites are so wound up that they think they can say anything.

You will not answer any questions but I thought this was a debate. I started my last post by commenting on the latest polls that you had posted. But I guess that is the difference between Obama and Clinton, Obama will answer questions whereas all Clinton does is duck and dive them and say she cannot remember.

Clinton will not sweep this under the carpet, Bill Clintons best friend giving drugs to an under aged girl so that he can have sex with her? PUBLIC RECORD!

Money laundering, fraud, theft, false accounting, and you will not answer any of the questions!

Clinton has trained you well.

Time, go back to your mentors and find someone who knows what they are talking about for a change and then come and post back here.; March 15, 2008 5:02 PM
Bill UK said...: Hank,

They will be back, but by just sticking with the truth it is possible to absolutely destroy them. (Ah doesn't my heart bleed for them. NOT!)

It is the truth that will win the nomination, it is the truth that will win the General Election, and the truth is obviously something neither Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton would know if it came up and bit them.

'Guilt by association', why is the US press not taking the Clintons to hell over this? That is something the US press will have to resolve very quickly. I already have one newspaper and one magazine now researching the 'History of the Clintons' and 'Guilt by association', when they publish the American people will wonder why companies like CNN, Fox, ABC, NBC, etc., and all the major papers did not disclose these facts in full. But that will be another story I am sure.

No as I say the Clintonites will be back.

Oh, by the way, just for full disclosure amoungst the domain names I own are www.PresidentOba.ma, www.JesusChri.st, and about a 1,000 more (the above two I am actually developing at the moment).; March 15, 2008 5:14 PM
hank said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 15, 2008 5:15 PM
hank said...: Check out Hillary's donors. The Saudis, AIPAC etc...

This is old news. You guys have probably seen it. Clinton sheltering campaign money in the "Clinton Foundation". No wonder she could afford to "loan" her campaign money.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200712210001; March 15, 2008 5:16 PM
hank said...: Clinton duplicity is what I'm voting against. They talk a good game, but in the end its whatever profits them that is the goal.

Marc Rich ring any bells?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Rich
http://www.time.com/time/2007/presidential_pardons/10.html

Bet he was a donor to the Clinton Foundation.; March 15, 2008 5:20 PM
Bill UK said...: Hank,

It is new to me so keep those links coming and I will get them publicised.; March 15, 2008 5:20 PM
Siroco said...: Add this link please:
http://mp3.christianity.com/mp3/mp3repos32/MMYSEES/317_60682_JeremiahWright__TheAudacitytoHope82A.32.mp3

Its another sermon by Dr. Wright when he was in his Wright mind.; March 15, 2008 5:46 PM
Bill UK said...: frstan,

I cannot open the link you posted.

If you can find another link I would appreciate it.; March 15, 2008 6:02 PM
NO Obama said...: Proof that Obama WAS in attendance during one of his "pastors" anti-American speeches--nodding his head in approval:

Obama says (lies) that he never heard in of this garbage over 20 years. BUSTED!!

WAS OBAMA IN THE CHURCH OR NOT?
Well lets see now, Obama says he was never there when things like that were said. I think Jim Davis of NewsMax.com would argue that with him.........

Obama's Church: Cauldron of Division

Jim Davis
Thursday, Aug. 9, 2007

Presidential candidate Barack Obama preaches on the campaign trail that America needs a new consensus based on faith and bipartisanship, yet he continues to attend a controversial Chicago church whose pastor routinely refers to "white arrogance" and "the United States of White America."

In fact, Obama was in attendance at the church when these statements were made on July 22.

Obama has spoken and written of his special relationship with that pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.

Bush's Bulls--t

Wright's strong sentiments were echoed in the Sunday morning service attended by NewsMax.

Wright laced into America's establishment, blaming the "white arrogance" of America's Caucasian majority for the woes of the world, especially the oppression suffered by blacks. To underscore the point he refers to the country as the "United States of White America."

Many in the congregation, including Obama, nodded in apparent agreement as these statements were made.
http://mccaindemocrats.blogspot.com/; March 15, 2008 6:39 PM
Carrie said...: according to the Rhodes Scholar alumni site, Bill's one of 'em.

bye, all.; March 15, 2008 7:04 PM
Bill UK said...: Follow this one single link to see in 10 minutes why the Clintons can not ever again be given the keys to the White House.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaSV2jcopsA&feature=related

There are a total of 11 videos all of about 10 minutes in length each, I would urge all to watch them, but please just view this one if no other. A son accuses Bill Clinton of the most heinous crime.

For more indepth explanations of the Clintons view my website listed in the posts above.

I do not care if Clinton is a Democrat or Republican, Black or White, all I care about is that people realise who the Clintons are.; March 15, 2008 7:16 PM
protactinium said...: carrie- "according to the Rhodes Scholar alumni site, Bill's one of 'em.

bye, all."

Yeah I am preety sure Carrie is right on this one.

However Carrie comeone now. We have more pressing issues at hand with the Clintons, then this.

Like the cloud of scandles that follow her around, and always will.; March 15, 2008 8:20 PM
hank said...: here's the presidential pardon article from Time Magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/2007/
presidential_pardons/10.html; March 15, 2008 8:27 PM
protactinium said...: Not sure if we got this article posted yet.

Hillary a fighter for Children rights? Or just more spin?

http://tsfiles.wordpress.com/2008/02/24/hillary-clintons-attorney-years-defending-a-rapist-attacking-a-childs-credibility/

Hillary Rodham Clinton often invokes her “35 years of experience making change” on the campaign trail, recounting her work in the 1970s on behalf of battered and neglected children and impoverished legal-aid clients.

But there is a little-known episode Clinton doesn’t mention in her standard campaign speech in which those two principles collided. In 1975, a 27-year-old Hillary Rodham, acting as a court-appointed attorney, attacked the credibility of a 12-year-old girl in mounting an aggressive defense for an indigent client accused of rape in Arkansas - using her child development background to help the defendant.

I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing,” wrote Rodham, without referring to the source of that allegation. “I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body.”; March 15, 2008 8:32 PM
hank said...: You do realize the only person being served by this long nomination process is John McCain and the evangelical wackos? If these Florida and Michigan votes are to be counted, it can't wait until June 3.

They have to get it done by the time Pennsylvania goes to the polls, at least.; March 15, 2008 8:38 PM
protactinium said...: Iowa's second cacuses for the delegates of the droped out canidites.

Obama will gain around +7 more delegates.

It is going to get harder and harder for Hillary to convience enough super delegates.; March 15, 2008 8:39 PM
Bill UK said...: Hank and Pro, thanks for the links I will add them first thing in the morning. I have been busy around other sites as well making people aware of exactly what is in the public record about the Clintons.

Hank I have to agree with you about the only advantage being to McCain at the moment. But of course the great news is those extra delegates in Iowa.

What is needed now is for some super delegates to stop sitting on the fence, for example a certain Governor who said that after Ohio and Texas the delegate with the most delegates should be considered the winner (or words to that effect - sorry not looking up for the quote exactly, but its gone 1.30 AM here and it has been a long day).

Seriously though it is time that the heavy weights got involved and brought this to an end. A redo in Michigan will provide a close call finish, a redo in Florida would give Obama more delegates than he presently is alloted. Obama is beating Clinton in getting endorsements from super delegates (he actually leads in super delegates who are State elected officials). Every delegate that Obama gets makes the maths harder and harder for Clinton.

Clinton has said she would win more of the popular vote, she is behind. Clinton said she would win more pledged delegates, she is behind and falling further behind. Clinton said only she could carry the 'Big States' that she won in the primaries, she is behind Obama in California all ready in the polls (the largest Electoral College with 55).

If the senior members do not act swiftly the battle will all the harder against McCain, who by the way has his own troubles at the moment in his party, especially with the right.; March 15, 2008 9:48 PM
Bill UK said...: Sorry just realised I said Obama was ahead in 'State elected officials', that is wrong, what I meant to say was Obama is ahead in 'State elected Government representatives (Governors, Senators, Representatives)'.

My apologies for the mistake; March 15, 2008 9:52 PM
Siroco said...: http://mp3.christianity.com/mp3/mp3repos32/MMYSEES/317_60682_JeremiahWright__TheAudacitytoHope82A.32.mp3

try this one

Wright sermon (audio only mp3 format); March 15, 2008 10:20 PM
Siroco said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 15, 2008 10:22 PM
Siroco said...: timeforchange said...
frstan, I commented that the new pastor looks reasonable and sounds that way.

But Obama didn't choose this new guy, etc.

HOW DO YOU THINK YOU KNOW THAT? This Church is "Congregational" in its polity. That means the congregation chooses its own Pastors. So yes, Barack Obama did (along with the rest of the members) choose him.

see http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hqblog
for a video of another of Trinity's Ministers -- this one is a white woman.; March 15, 2008 10:56 PM
Siroco said...: http://mp3.christianity.com/mp3/mp3repos32/
MMYSEES/317_60682_JeremiahWright__
TheAudacitytoHope82A.32.mp3

one line no trailing spaces

Wright Sermon; March 15, 2008 11:19 PM
Siroco said...: a post included these lines:

Many in the congregation, including Obama, nodded in apparent agreement as these statements were made.
http://mccaindemocrats.blogspot.com/

but no that person isnt a McCain supporter masquerading as an HRC supporter -- oh no, that couldnt be could it?

hahahahahhahahhahahhahhah

Btw way: this happened in July? What happened in September? What has already happened a year before?; March 15, 2008 11:26 PM
Siroco said...: Rezko dealt with

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/15/203514/051/358/477634; March 16, 2008 6:12 AM
Siroco said...: here we go again
after the 051 it continues
/358/477634; March 16, 2008 6:15 AM
protactinium said...: Why won't Hillary answer these questions? Whos is Hillary really looking for? America or the lobbists?

1. Taxpayers For Common Sense has estimated that Senator Clinton has received $2.2 billion in earmarks over her Senate career. What earmarks has she requested during that time period and for what programs?

2.Since Clinton now says she plans to release her requests for FY 09, why isn’t she releasing them for previous years?

3. We know that Clinton has requested at least two earmarks linked to top fundraisers and donors – GM lobbyist Steve Ricchetti and billionaire Alan Gerry. Will her campaign release the other earmark requests she has made that are linked to fundraisers, campaign donors, or donors to the Clinton Library?

3. Last year, Senator Clinton voted against an amendment sponsored by Senator Durbin and supported by Senator Obama to require public disclosure of earmark requests. If that amendment were to be offered again, would she support it?; March 16, 2008 7:16 AM
protactinium said...: Anyone else find it ironc that Mccaindemocrats, is just an anti-Obama site? Nothing about Mccain.

Funny, republican getting to vote on fear and hate? Nothing new.

However the republicans had nothing to with it this time. We can thank Hillary. She trying to destory the party? History will tell.

No worries, for every 1 "mccainocrat" or whatever their is going to be atleast 1 new voter, or Regan Republicans.

Obama appeals to alot of the same people Regan appeals to. And Hillary/Mccain appeals to the fears of Obama.; March 16, 2008 8:14 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 16, 2008 10:26 AM
protactinium said...: Holy crap he is trying to run a smear camapaing against me now.

I guess if you can not win an arguement you smear them. This Hillary way. However truth will always shine. Facts are stubborn things.

Good videos. Made by Citzens for Honest Goverment. They are a non-partisan group trying to weed out corruption in goverment.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Mnq5U9ovtaE

Ignore the Clinton spambots, and smear machines. Vote for a canadite that is actually running for president. Not the canditite running against Obama. Slander does not work well in real world policy.; March 16, 2008 10:39 AM
protactinium said...: That rapist Hillary got off. Here read what happen. Then tell me how Hillary is a defender of Children, or Women.

Sometime around midnight, the girl was sleeping over at a friend's house in Springdale when Taylor and his 20-year-old cousin walked in, asking if anyone wanted to take a drive. The sixth-grader, who says she was bored and wanted to buy a soda, jumped into Taylor's beat-up red 1963 Chevrolet pickup truck.

Soon after, they picked up the 15-year-old boy and drove to a liquor store, where Taylor bought a pint of Old Grand-Dad whiskey, which he mixed for the girl in a cup of Coca-Cola, according to the boy, now a 48-year-old Army veteran. (Newsday is withholding the boy's name because he was charged in the case as a juvenile offender.)

Allegedly drove to weedy ravine

After a few hours at a local bowling alley, the foursome crammed into Taylor's truck and drove to a weedy ravine off a busy two-lane highway connecting the sister cities of Fayetteville and Springdale, according the sheriff's department account.

Taylor and the older man went off for a walk, leaving the 12-year-old and the teenager alone in the cab. In a statement to police, the 15-year-old said he removed his pants and admitted to having sex, revealing the encounter only after being pressed by investigators.

Moments later, he said he left and Taylor approached the truck, climbing on top of the girl. The girl let out a scream, according to the police report, and he claims to have seen Taylor hitching up his pants.

The victim, the boy reported, turned to both of them and yelled, "You all planned this, didn't you?"

At 4:50 a.m., the girl walked into a local emergency room, badly shaken. The doctor's report noted that she had injuries consistent with rape. Sgt. Dale Gibson, the department's lead investigator in the case, interviewed her as she huddled with her mother. She offered a chilling detail - a threat from Taylor and his friends. "If I did say anything about it, they would catch me out later," she told the investigator.

So what did Hillary do?

Hillary Rodham, acting as a court-appointed attorney, attacked the credibility of a 12-year-old girl in mounting an aggressive defense for an indigent client accused of rape in Arkansas - using her child development background to help the defendant.

I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing,” wrote Rodham, without referring to the source of that allegation. “I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body"

Hillary defended a clint that did such haneous things? What will she justify as preisdent?; March 16, 2008 10:55 AM
Siroco said...: Good questions: just what is HRC hidding in those missing Income Tax Returns. What sordid connection to her campaign doners will her earmarks lists reveal?

Why is she being so secretive? Obama released his long ago.; March 16, 2008 11:51 AM
Siroco said...: John McCain defends Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3-WQ1vX3PE; March 16, 2008 12:19 PM
NO Obama said...: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/15/hillary-won-44

Why Hillary is the only candidate on the dem side who can win in November.; March 16, 2008 2:24 PM
NO Obama said...: 1) Obama is not a Muslim. But he continues to insist he never was. This is a plain lie. Why he makes it, remains beyond us.

2) He claims no relationship to Islam. Utter lie. A majority of his brothers and sisters, and other relatives are Muslim.

3) Obama’s opposition to the Iraq war, while laudable in hindsight made little sense in 2002, except when his family, ethnic, and religious identity enter the equation.

5) Obama consistently downplays his relationship with Jeremiah Wright.

6) Lies about Wright’s personal influence.

7) Lies about his involvement with Wright’s politics, and the politics of Wright’s Church.

Obama forces Jeremiah Wright to dissimulate about the nature of his church, his and their views, opinions, and achievements.

9) Obama dissimulates on Wright’s past association with Farrakhan.

10) Obama employs Nation of Islam, in the past and present.Lets them go untouched, which

11) Raises concerns about Obama’s own stance on the Nation of Islam.

12) Obama dissimulates about his former take on Israel, and the Palestinians, putting in question his present stance.

13) Obama misrepresents his background, and the context from which he hails, for political purposes, and

14) his books are fraught with lies about himself and who he i.

15) Obama’s campaign deliberately exploits his racial identity, to shield their candidate from regular media grilling.

16) Obama has chosen a deliberate strategy of evasion and vagueness in tackling tough issues. He does not take a stand, and he wont.

17) Obama’s rise to prominence, in Chicago, is fraught with deus ex machine events, and strange circumstances.

18) Why Obama’s record in Chicago, has not received a proper vetting or review by the national media, is puzzling.

19) Obama entered Havard because his father was an Alumnus.

20) It is not clear when changed his name from Barry Soetoro, and why.

21) The Media refuse to ask him questions about all of the above. Why?

22) Obama is a pathological liar, hence so are the media. He is a phony, and the media are complicit in foisting him on the Democratic party; March 16, 2008 2:55 PM
NO Obama said...: Our denomination has led the fight for divestment from Israel. [Wright]

These are the words of Obama’s source of spiritual guidance and inspiration, whose influence on his life Obama readily acknowledges. It is the man who transformed a small black church in Chicago into the mega-church Oprah once attended, and where Obama converted to Christianity, married, and regularly takes his children. It is also the church of which Obama is the single largest benefactor and donor (source), and the church which on July 5th, 2005 divested from Israel.

Jewish organizations took note. The ADL (Anti-Defamation League), was particularly swift:

Despite months of discussions with Jewish leaders concerned about the implications of any divestment vote against Israel, the Church’s General Synod nevertheless adopted resolutions yesterday in Atlanta to support such action. [press release]
What the ADL didn’t know, and doesn’t know till this day, is Wright’s central role in supporting the divestment movement of his Church. Wright pushed for divestment as far back as the 1980s, with South Africa. It was a way of ending apartheid. Wright began pushing for divestment from Israel, because he equates Zionism with apartheid, and considers divestment a legitimate strategy of ending Zionism.

Divesting dollars from businesses
and banks that do business with Israel is the new strategy being proposed to wake the world up concerning the racism of Zionism. [Wright]
Only six years ago, Obama would have shared similar views, and his support of Wright during the 2005 divestment campaign is something that needs to be investigated.

***

Imagine you finance a firm which equates caricatures of Mohammed with Islamophobia and decides to divest from Denmark. If you are opposed, you will go on record. You are likely to participate in debates, to try to influence the decision. If that doesn’t work, you’ll pull out your money and quit.

Not Obama. He will hang around.

For most of his life, Obama’s take on Israel differed little from that of Wright. When time came to divest, although already posing as pro-Israel in the US Senate, Obama did not dare lift a finger, nor make a single public statement, against his church’s agenda. For a man of considerable influence in the church, this is more than telling. It is foreboding.

Anti-Zionist, and Anti-Israel sentiment is germane to Obama’s church. Just take a look at the kind of material congregants like Obama, his family, and children, are brainwashed with. It is called the Iraq IQ test, personally written by Jeremiah Wright.

Its portrayal of Israel is entirely negative, one-sided, and unbalanced. Even those wary of the Arab-Israeli conflict, can see this.; March 16, 2008 3:13 PM
NO Obama said...: from NYT:

In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.

''But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,'' Mr. Obama said. ''What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.''

But Mr. Obama said he did fault Democratic leaders for failing to ask enough tough questions of the Bush administration to force it to prove its case for war. ''What I don't think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this,'' he said.; March 16, 2008 3:17 PM
NO Obama said...: Obama lies when he says he is not influenced by or did not know of Wright's radical views!

Before Obama had gone off to Harvard, he met Wright, and feel under his spell. this was in 1985, three years before he joined Trinity.

Originally, Obama was wary of religion, and had no intention of becoming a Christian. Wright warned Obama that Trinity had a radical reputation:

In his 1993 memoir “Dreams from My Father,” Obama recounts in vivid detail his first meeting with Wright in 1985. The pastor warned the community activist that getting involved with Trinity might turn off other black clergy because of the church’s radical reputation[Brachear]
Oh, what’s a warning or two, especially if you can just be “my role-model” and come occasionally,

Obama, was not a churchgoer at the time, but he found himself returning to the sanctuary of Trinity United. In Wright he had found both a spiritual mentor and a role model. [Brachear]; March 16, 2008 3:34 PM
protactinium said...: Hillary claims to care about the women, and children of the world. Does she really?

Then why would she vote YES to using Cluster Bombs in Civilian areas.

Now remember Princess Diana was against these weapons. So why did Hillary vote yes to using them on civilian targets.

http://www.atlargely.com/2008/02/clinton-vs-obam.html

"[Cluster bombs are] the single greatest risk civilians face with regard to a current weapon that is in use." -Marc Garlasco, senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch

But in the autumn of 2006, there was a chance to take a step in the right direction: Senate Amendment No. 4882, an amendment to a Pentagon appropriations bill that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.

Senator Obama of Illinois voted IN FAVOR of the ban.

Senator Clinton of New York voted AGAINST the ban.

Who does Hillary really care about?; March 16, 2008 3:42 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 16, 2008 4:01 PM
protactinium said...: I guess if you can not win an arguement you smear them. This Hillary way. However truth will always shine. Facts are stubborn things.

Good videos. Made by Citzens for Honest Goverment. They are a non-partisan group trying to weed out corruption in goverment.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Mnq5U9ovtaE

Ignore the Clinton spambots, and smear machines. Vote for a canadite that is actually running for president. Not the canditite running against Obama. Slander does not work well in real world policy.; March 16, 2008 4:04 PM
protactinium said...: Time and NyRepug do not stop now. You are vetting Obama. This will be old news soon. People are already starting to get sick of it.

Keep up the good work. You are helping Obama. His minster is the only argument you have against him, and you blew it was to early.

:-) Thank you for your service to Obama.

Do not believe me? Look up rating that cover this. It is already starting to drop. People are already starting to get sick of it, and not going to be a voting issue.; March 16, 2008 4:19 PM
NO Obama said...: Pro, blew it? Too early?

Yes, this is what you and other Obamanation supporters are all about.

It is a game and all about tactics, not about truth and the fact that Obamanation is not fit to be president since he has many of the same anti-American and radical views as his pastor.

That you would want a man like this as president of this great country is very telling and disturbing.; March 16, 2008 4:30 PM
protactinium said...: "It is a game and all about tactics, not about truth and the fact that Obamanation is not fit to be president since he has many of the same anti-American and radical views as his pastor."

Oh please. Say what you wish, but everyone knows Hillary is way dirtier then Obama is. This is not a game. This is about the next great leader of America. Obama is that man.

Also America knows better then this junk. Keep it up. People will be so sick of it soon, and it could blow up in Hillarys face.

Also Mccain even said He knows Obama does not have these views. Mccain said he knows Obama personally, and that Obama does not believe these views.

So people that actually know him, including oppentants say this is not Obama. Yet you who knows nothing about him swears by it.

Keep up the good work! You are doing Obama a favor.; March 16, 2008 4:47 PM
Siroco said...: March 16 (Bloomberg) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the Democratic Party might be hurt if leaders fail to nominate the U.S. presidential candidate preferred by voters in primaries and caucuses.

``If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic Party,'' Pelosi said in an interview taped two days ago and aired today on ABC's ``This Week'' program.; March 16, 2008 5:01 PM
Siroco said...: Please do not feed the troll.; March 16, 2008 5:13 PM
Siroco said...: Unanswered Questions:
Short of actually releasing the information that Senator Obama has already released, she should answer the following the questions to shed some light on the projects that she has requested:

Taxpayers For Common Sense has estimated that Senator Clinton has received $2.2 billion in earmarks over her Senate career. What earmarks has she requested during that time period and for what programs?
Since Clinton now says she plans to release her requests for FY 09, why isn’t she releasing them for previous years?
We know that Clinton has requested at least two earmarks linked to top fundraisers and donors – GM lobbyist Steve Ricchetti and billionaire Alan Gerry. Will her campaign release the other earmark requests she has made that are linked to fundraisers, campaign donors, or donors to the Clinton Library?
Has Senator Clinton proposed any earmarks that Bill Clinton has personally advocated for?
Last year, Senator Clinton voted against an amendment sponsored by Senator Durbin and supported by Senator Obama to require public disclosure of earmark requests. If that amendment were to be offered again, would she support it?; March 16, 2008 5:16 PM
Siroco said...: "If you see one candidate trying to sell you fear, and the other candidate is trying to get you to think and hope, you had better vote for the one who want you to think and hope."

--Bill Clinton

sage advice, which all should follow.; March 16, 2008 5:17 PM
protactinium said...: Hillary was on the board of wal-mart and did nothing. She allowed wal-mart to destroy the unions, commited sexism and allowed it to happen, even thought she was supposed to be a fighter of the people.

She did not fight for women, or unions.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4218509&page=1

In six years as a member of the Wal-Mart board of directors, between 1986 and 1992, Hillary Clinton remained silent as the world's largest retailer waged a major campaign against labor unions seeking to represent store workers.

The tapes show Clinton in the role of a loyal company woman. "I'm always proud of Wal-Mart and what we do and the way we do it better than anybody else," she said at a June 1990 stockholders meeting.

Critics say Clinton's efforts produced few tangible results, and Wal-Mart is now defending itself in a lawsuit brought by 16 current and former female employees.

We've got a very strong-willed young woman on our board now; her name is Hillary," said Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton at a 1987 stockholders meeting in describing Clinton's role in pushing for more women to be hired in management positions

Critics say Clinton's efforts produced few tangible results, and Wal-Mart is now defending itself in a lawsuit brought by 16 current and former female employees.; March 16, 2008 5:17 PM
protactinium said...: Then what Happens after she Lied and was proven wrong?

She votes for war again!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/hillary-clinton-votes-for_b_66174.html

by a vote of 76-22, the Senate passed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment in support of military actions against Iran.

Hillary Clinton voted in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment to press the army toward war with Iran. This was an important step, for her, and a vote as closely considered as her vote to authorize the bombing and occupation of Iraq.

BOMB BOMB BOMB Hillary. Who does she really care about?; March 16, 2008 5:33 PM
protactinium said...: Ever wonder why Fox is smashing Obama for Hillary?

How can Hillary cry about a media Bias? Here is a media Bias.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/18/politics/main1816866.shtml

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., attended a fundraiser Monday for her Senate re-election campaign hosted by conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch. (Fox for those that do not know)

There was shock and upset when the Clinton-Murdoch fundraiser was initially announced and the two have tried to downplay the event ever since, reported the New York Daily News. Even when Clinton left the News Corp. Manhattan offices, she exited by a side door.

A staunch converstive supporting Clinton, and Blasting Obama on newscorp. What does Hillary really believe in?; March 16, 2008 5:38 PM
Siroco said...: A poster on another blog watched the Services at Trinity UCC today via the internet and wrote this:

This was the sermon from Obamas church today, and what a fitting message it was. I have not been to church in years and I sat in my living room crying like a baby because of the love that I felt from the message and the church.

We must show that we are bigger. I feel much better today. I started a fundraising campaign and would appreciate any help. I am even more committed to help Obama take the white house. I will be going to pennsylvania to volunteer. I will be speaking up telling people about Obamas position on the issue.

This is a campaign about unity and we have to reflect that. Thanks to the media for bringing Rev Wright and this church to my attention. I appreciate it.

Onward in 08---Obama...Yes we can!!; March 16, 2008 5:50 PM
NO Obama said...: A staunch converstive supporting Clinton, and Blasting Obama on newscorp. What does Hillary really believe in?

Fundraising.; March 16, 2008 6:03 PM
politicalanimal said...: I don’t know if anyone has been keeping track of the disenfranchisement trends with the superdelegates, but here goes just a few of the disturbing things I’ve noticed:

1) Hillary Clinton makes a lot of hay about not wanting to disenfranchise the voters of this country (read her comments made about the caucus system of voting for a candidate and her statements to a Florida contingent about wanting to make their votes count after her “victory”), but it would be interesting to hear her comments about how democracy-embracing the superdelegates are.

If you count the number of superdelegates who have gone against the will of the electorate, HRC has a total of 75 while Obama has only 41. This represents 30.7% of her total superdelegate votes, whereas Obama’s wayward superD’s only represent 19.7% of his total. If you were to switch out these voters to more properly represent the votes of their districts, the total number of delegates (based on those provided by Democratic Convention Watch) would be:

Obama 1632
Clinton 1458

This represents a swing of 68 total votes, and makes Obama’s lead even more insurmountable.

2) When you factor in the amount of elected officials that have officially gone against the will of the people within their voting area, HRC has 36 superD’s that have thwarted the will of their citizens by endorsing her over Obama. This comprises about 13.8% of her total. Obama has only 23 such turncoats, making up 11.1% of his total SuperD’s.

If anyone is interested in getting a list of the superD public officials that have thwarted the will of their respective voters, please let me know and I can send you the list, complete with the voting results from their districts. I am only hoping that those public officials face stiff challenges upon re-election efforts.

3) As for those mysterious people that are appointed as superdelegates that no one has ever heard of, and who can probably best be referred to as party hacks, HRC has 34 of these DNC-appointed hacks who have thwarted the voting trends of their home areas, whereas Obama has only 21 such DNC appointees that have gone against the voting tide. This group is probably even more troubling, because this group is not really accountable to anybody.

Once again, I have a list of these folks, but you might have to hunt to find information on them.

4) If you want to talk about the number of superD’s that have defied the voters in a big way, let’s talk about those superD’s that have voted for a candidate despite a voting trend of over 2 to 1 for their opponents. From my analysis, I have found that HRC has 29 such superD’s that have given the voters the big middle finger. Obama has only 2 such supermajority-defying superD’s. Again, I will provide you with a list if you would like to know more.

5) Probably the worst of the worst, however, are those who have endorsed the losing candidate AFTER their states and districts have already voted against the candidate of their choice, also known as the “double middle-finger” salute to the voters. All told, both campaigns have these turncoats – with Clinton showing 11 of these delusional power-trippers, and the Obama camp having 9 total. Not surprisingly, all of these 20 clueless endorsers are DNC-appointed lackeys, who apparently have no accountability to voters, and thus have the most naked aggression when yielding such power.

Still, two endorsers deserve special mention, because they cover so many of the above categories, namely that they have endorsed a candidate despite more than 2/3 of the local electorate voting for the opposite candidate, and somehow withholding their endorsement until after the landslide losses. Both have endorsed Hillary Clinton, both are state legislators…and surprisingly, both are African American:

Yvonne Kennedy, State Rep., Mobile, AL (Obama won 65%-32% in her district)
Lionel Spruill, Jr., State House of Delegates, Chesapeake and Suffolk Co., VA (Obama won nearly 3-1 in his district)

If you are someone who believes in democracy within this selection process, please feel free to be outraged!

-Political Freak; March 16, 2008 6:51 PM
Siroco said...: HILLARY DODGING COURT PROCESSOR SERVICE TO AVOID TRIAL IN APRIL 2008 FOR PERJURY CHARGES, ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND FILING FALSE PAPERWORK TO THE FEC.

Why is the media downplaying the situation that is still going on with Senator Hillary Clinton and President Bill Clinton concerning the Peter Paul controversy. Senator Clinton is refusing subpoenas for court and using the secret service to dodge service for the trial that begins in April 2008. What's up with this? Senator Clinton must answer to felony campaign contributions, felony filings to the FEC omitting contributions by Peter Paul and perjury charges. The part of the trial that includes President Bill Clinton is scheduled for November 2008. Where is the coverage? Will she join the list of politicians in scandal this year?

Link: www.peterfpaul.com; March 16, 2008 7:04 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 16, 2008 7:09 PM
NO Obama said...: Retired General Hugh Shelton endorses Hillary:

http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=288737; March 16, 2008 7:09 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 16, 2008 7:30 PM
NO Obama said...: See these and more @ http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...14/771502.aspx

" Obama will NEVER get my vote!! He's only denouncing the Pastor because he has to! You don't attend a church for 20 years if you don't agree with the message that is being taught! The Obama's are a disgrace!"

Todd, Vicksburg, Mich. (Sent Friday, March 14, 2008 7:57 PM)

"uh huh...the thin veneer of respectability is starting to wear off saint obama.Father shiftless, mother flaky, sleazy fundraisers, radical religious view, anti american roots at church.
Can the illegitimate kids be far behind?

Jerry/Corpus Christi (Sent Friday, March 14, 2008 7:57

" Obama, those stories have legs and sticking power. Lets just see if your Teflon armor can keep up or your legs can keep running from stories like these."

Lisa Pittsburgh, PA (Sent Friday, March 14, 2008 8:00 PM)

Our church is where we form our attitudes about life. Has everyone forgotten that Michelle Obama said that she was ashamed to be an American. It is more than a sermon or two. It is about an attitude.
White people cannot say anything sincerely without it being turned into "racists" comments even though they are not. This preacher damns America and hates rich white people and it will be apologized for and put aside. This is unthinkable behavior and should not be swept under the rug. This is serious. It is not about "catching" someone in something unpopular politically. It is a dangerous , dangerous situation. The enthusiasm of the congregation spoke of the impact of such anti-American behavior.

Carol Myers, Chillicothe, Ohio (Sent Friday, March 14, 2008 8:15 PM)
Well, this has come to a suprise ending, I never thought when I joined onto this movement that it would end this way. I am deeply saddened and dissapointed in this ending, but it is what it is.

I hereby reject and renounce my support of Barack Obama. I cannot, without a violation of my own moral character, patriotism, and dedication to my family, cast my vote for a man who has attended for 20 years, a church where a man, was spewing such racial hatred and such inhuman rhetoric. The sermons of Jeremiah Wright have left me with a strong taste of bile in my mouth. I feel betrayed, violated and BAMBOOZLED.

Some of you may say that I cannot hold Senator Obama responsible for the words and actions of such a man. That it is wrong to assume "guilt by association". These arguments, while valid in most cases, are not valid in this case. This is a church where Wright was the guiding light of Obama's search for Christ. This man was the single reason Senator Obama joined this church. He was married by this man, his children were baptized by this man. He has been described as a "sounding board" for Obama's thoughts and actions.

Although I do understand the man's hatred for the white man, I cannot support such hatred and contempt for my country. I am a Marine who served his country with honor and pride and I will not allow this man (Mr. Wright) to denegrate this country. We are all entitled to Freedom of Speech in this great land, but when such words infringe upon anothers rights to live in peace, I feel this right has been violated. This man, Jeremiah Wright stirs that cauldron of racial hatred and discord, pontificates on his pulpit, then attempts to be a man of GOD? God did not teach us such hatred, the truth revealed to Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed did not contain such thoughts, and such anger. If he does not like this country so much, he can leave it as far as I am concerned.

I do understand the tragedies, the persuecution and the servitude that was indentured on the African-Americans in this countries history, I do agree that injustices that still remain. But I felt we as a country was starting to live this terrible stain down. I thought for once a new generation of Americans would carry that torch of freedom, with Senator Obama being that torchbearer. I thought that maybe, just maybe, I was allowed to HOPE once again.

But just as generations past, that hope has been snuffed out, that hope has been proven to be false, jaded by just another glimpse of our soiled past.

I will be joining other Republicans and casting my vote for John McCain in the fall.

Chris, Maine (Sent Friday, March 14, 2008 8:19 PM); March 16, 2008 7:31 PM
Ferdinand Porsche said...: If only the majority was as intellectual and thoughtful as the minority when it came to the issues. If you are well educated in history, then the argument that Obama's pastor was making is something worth considering, and nothing worth such outrage.

I wish Obama, and Clinton as well, could let there Harvard education truly shine. But because we have a tendency to fear what we can not understand, they have to dummy down there words. Its truly a tragedy when such terrific educations and terrific minds have to be simplified, because in the simplification meaning is lost.

BTW, I left out details to avoid the kind of confrontation that has taken place over the last 750+ posts or so. But, I assume that because of such obscurity some confrontation will be unavoidable. Let it be, I hardly ever post, and any kind of follow up is a rarity.; March 16, 2008 7:56 PM
NO Obama said...: From The Audacity of Hope:

"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction," says Obama.

Ted Belman of Israpundant predicts: “Obama will win the nomination but lose the election.” You can go read the entire article, but here is the finale:

... we can’t forget this quote from Obama’s book Audacity of Hope

“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”

Whatever did he mean by that?

Obama is not legally African-American as he claims but Arab-American and Islam still considers him to be a Muslim. Surely Americans are entitled to take this into account when they are voting for the next President of America.

And lets forget Debbie Schlussel’s exclusive Obama’s Nation of Islam Staffers, Edward Said & “Inflexible Jews” Causing Mid-East Conflict: An Obama Insider Reveals the Real Barack

No, Obama is going down and rightly so.

Was that sentence taken out of context? What was the context? Does it need a context, or does it speak for itself? I report, you decide.

UPDATE: I challenge you to read "The Chicago Delusion" at The Strategic Failure. Here's a taste:

For these reasons, Barack Obama is a perfect symbol of Chicago. Arrogant and motivated, he is a natural self-promoter. A practicing Christian, he bears a Muslim name. Identifying himself as an African-American, Obama is the offspring of a man from Kenya and a woman from Kansas. A self-proclaimed son of Chicago, he attended school overseas and spent most of his childhood in Hawaii, the last state, the state that doesn't appear on most maps. Obama, like Chicago, is from everywhere, and he is from nowhere. And he promises great, ambiguous things: change, hope, unity. His critics call him messianic, and there is no doubt that he is peddling his own religion. Five days before the Texas and Ohio primaries, the questions about Obama do not concern his intelligence, his judgment, his oratory, or his political acumen. No, the questions are more basic: Who is he? Where did he come from? What does he believe in? What does he want?; March 17, 2008 12:46 AM
hank said...: "NY Times reported on Saudi donations to Clinton foundation, ignored Sen. Clinton's criticisms of Saudi government"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200712210001; March 17, 2008 2:14 AM
hank said...: "The Times reported that "federal election law prohibits foreign donations to presidential campaigns and limits Americans to $2,300 per election" in order "[t]o limit the influence of any single donor," in contrast to the "unlimited and anonymous contributions" to the Clinton Foundation by "foreigners and foreign governments,""; March 17, 2008 2:16 AM
hank said...: "If Hillary Clinton can be taken at her words (and if those words are quoted correctly, which many websites are not doing), it sounds like Clinton expects to share the White House with John McCain."; March 17, 2008 2:18 AM
hank said...: "Or maybe she really wants and intends to be McCain's Vice President and that's why she's apparently working so hard to destroy her fellow Democrat, Barack Obama. Maybe this is also the goal of McCain and the militaristic, neocon-friendly elites who support both Clinton and McCain.

CLINTON, MCCAIN, AND SAUDI ARABIA'S P.R. FIRM

After all, both the Clinton and McCain campaigns are intimately tied to a single, elite public relations firm, Burson-Marsteller (B-M)."; March 17, 2008 2:19 AM
hank said...: "In the Clintons' pursuit of power, there is no such thing as a strange bedfellow. One recently exposed inamorata was Norman Hsu, the mysterious businessman from Hong Kong who brought in $850,000 to Hillary Clinton's campaign before being unmasked as a fugitive. Her campaign dismissed Hsu as someone who'd slipped through the cracks of an otherwise unimpeachable system for vetting donors, and perhaps he was. The same cannot be said for the notorious financier Alan Quasha, whose involvement with Clinton is at least as substantial--and still under wraps."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071105/baker_federman; March 17, 2008 2:43 AM
Siroco said...: Time wrote:

"Was that sentence taken out of context? What was the context? Does it need a context, or does it speak for itself? I report, you decide."

If you were reporting you would have given a page number. go away little "Limbaugh Republican troll"

:); March 17, 2008 2:50 AM
hank said...: "In the face of her unwillingness to release her tax returns, Hillary Clinton has made the false case in this campaign that she is more electable because she has been fully vetted."

"For example, here are eight pieces of information that could be learned from her tax returns, the accompanying schedules, and attachments:

*Effective tax rate – including whether or not any tax shelters were used to reduce it

*Amount of income for spouses by source

*Amount of stock gains and losses

*Gross income for the couple

*Amount earned from stock dividends

*Amount of household employment taxes paid

*Personal exemptions taken

*Charitable contributions made"

Obama has released his. What is she hiding?; March 17, 2008 3:07 AM
hank said...: http://thepage.time.com/obama-memo-on-clinton-tax-returns/

Source for above; March 17, 2008 3:09 AM
hank said...: "Past Democratic presidential candidates have set a precedent for releasing their tax returns before or during the primary season. Sen. John Kerry released his in December of 2003, and former Vice President Al Gore's were in the public domain while he was in office. Clinton's opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, released his 2006 return last April.

"This is a level of disclosure the American people have come to expect and deserve from those in the White House, or those who aspire to the White House," said Mary Boyle of Common Cause, a government reform advocacy group."

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4421457; March 17, 2008 3:11 AM
protactinium said...: Hank-"In the face of her unwillingness to release her tax returns, Hillary Clinton has made the false case in this campaign that she is more electable because she has been fully vetted."

Funny thing is Obama is taking this 6 week gap to fully vet himself. All the smear against Obama is out of the bag. While Hillary is hiding alot of stuff that will haunt her in the generals.

Obama is going to be more vetted then Hillary now. Thanks to all the trolls, and Fox News. Who is in Hillary's pocket.

America is above these politics of old. Tearing everyone down for personal gain and doing nothing for the people of America. SHAME ON YOU for using these hate tatics. SHAME ON YOU for trying to push for another 4 years of the same old crap of putting money in politican pockets, and that do not care about the people of America. SHAME ON YOU for caring more about your hate then your children.

YES WE CAN! Obama is going to be the next preisdent.; March 17, 2008 4:40 AM
protactinium said...: It also seems that Wright comment are mostly only in play for Anti-Obama Supporters. It is just reinforcing the hate certian people have for him. They finally have to stop grasping for total lies and calling him a Muslim.

However it does not seem to be peeling away Obama supporters, or independants from him. It appears Hate politics soley to feed hate mongers own ego appear to be the case here. Not a real campaign issue. And now Obama can not be Swift Boated by this.

VOTE FOR THE PERSON RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. NOT THE PERSON WHO IS RUNNING AGAINST ANOTHER. SLANDER, AND HATE POLITICS DOES NOT WORK WELL IN THE REAL WORLD.; March 17, 2008 4:47 AM
protactinium said...: Polls before and after the wright scandle.

Rasmussen 02/05 - 02/08 900 LV 42 48 Clinton +6.0

Rasmussen 02/28 - 03/02 900 LV 44 45 Clinton +1.0

Rasmussen Tracking 03/12 - 03/15 900 LV 47 44 Obama +3.0

However last penn poll was on the 12th. So a bit early for this smear tatics to show.; March 17, 2008 5:13 AM
hank said...: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/17/many_voting_for_clinton_to_boost_gop/

"Since Senator John McCain effectively sewed up the GOP nomination last month, Republicans have begun participating in Democratic primaries specifically to vote for Clinton, a tactic that some voters and local Republican activists think will help their party in November. With every delegate important in the tight Democratic race, this trend could help shape the outcome if it continues in the remaining Democratic primaries open to all voters."

"It's as simple as, I don't think McCain can beat Obama if Obama is the Democratic choice," said Kyle Britt, 49, a Republican-leaning independent from Huntsville, Texas, who voted for Clinton in the March 4 primary. "I do believe Hillary can mobilize enough [anti-Clinton] people to keep her out of office."; March 17, 2008 6:08 AM
hank said...: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles
/2008/03/17/many_voting_for_clinton_to_boost_gop/; March 17, 2008 6:09 AM
Bill UK said...: Sorry, not on yesterday, commitments took me elsewhere. However I have just updated

TruthAndClinton.com

with loads of links supplied and will be working on the site today.

Great news from Iowa and California. I mean not only does Clinton lose her memory quite often but now she even loses onr of her delegates in Iowa!

Clinton sure seems to lose a lot of things, thankfully including the nomination.

Other great news is that Rep. Nancy Pelosi (CA) has said that the candidate with the most delegates should be classed as the winner.
The link to the story is:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/16/pelosis-delegate-stance-_n_91751.html

Although she did not state any outright support for either candidate I wonder who she looks upon as being the candidate with the most delegates?

I do not think that is a tough one that to interpret.

As far as the Pastor Wright controversy is concerned, there was a dip in Obama support but now that looks like being negated only a couple of days after the furor. One thing that does seem to be coming out is that people are fed up of the Clinton and Clintonite 'dirty tricks' campaigning.

With Obama extending his lead over Clinton almost daily now one has to wonder how long the remaining unpledged super delegates are going to sit on the fence instead of acting and giving the democratic nominee a chance of fighting back against McCain? One also has to wonder how long it will be before those SD's pledged to Clinton will remain loyal considering she is falling further and further behind and their support for Clinton is damiging the party as a whole.; March 17, 2008 6:29 AM
protactinium said...: Nancy Pelosi is making if fairly clear she will do everything she can to prevent Clinton from stealing the nomination. She is a real heavy weight, and hold her fair share of loyalty. Her and her daughter are unendorsed superdelegates, along with most of her "loyal" superdelegates.

Hillary now has to not only over come the peoples will, but also many democratic heavy weights.
Hillary is done, She is just working for Mccain now.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080315/ap_on_el_pr/pelosi_delegates

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says it would be damaging to the Democratic party for its leaders to buck the will of national convention delegates picked in primaries and caucuses, a declaration that gives a boost to Sen. Barack Obama.

The California Democrat did not mention either Obama or his rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, by name. But her remarks seemed to suggest she was prepared to cast her ballot at the convention in favor of the candidate who emerges from the primary season with the most pledged delegates.; March 17, 2008 6:30 AM
protactinium said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 17, 2008 6:31 AM
Bill UK said...: Obama now leads Clinton by +1 in New York

In New York Clinton has even lost the lead in polls against McCain, the State where she is one of the Senators.

The Rassmusen poll published yesterday (Sunday 16th March) show a disasterous result for Clinton in the Presidential race.

McCain 30, Clinton 50

McCain 30, Obama 51

In what can only be described as devastating news for Clinton it would seem that her propaganda machine has totally become derailed. The negative press aimed at Obama is now being seen as press bias orchestrated by the Clinton camp by the electorate. Of course this is not surprising when the history of how the Clintons operate smear campaigns is looked at.

Perhaps people just do not want crooked people in the White House, those tied to drug trafficking, money laundering, embesslement, fraud, a substantial number of so-called 'suicides', etc., et., etc..

The American press may decide to overlook the character flaws of Clinton and her husband but the foreign press is under no such corruption to declare the truth. What is more, the internet is a fantastic weapon against corruption as each individual can relay information to the public at large.

The American press will have to explain WHY they attaked Obama and supported Clinton, when she and her husband are so blatently corrupt!

Oh, and as for anti-American sentiment, guess who it was who in the 1960's was chanting anti-American slogans? I will give you a clue, he was doing it in Arkansas and was dating a candidate for the nomination President of the Democratic Party.

What greater association is there than husband and wife?; March 17, 2008 9:41 AM
Bill UK said...: Correction the Rassmusen results should read

McCain 38, Clinton 50

McCain 38, Obama 51; March 17, 2008 9:44 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 17, 2008 1:03 PM
NO Obama said...: Barack Obamanation is not who he says (or thinks he is):

He lies about the influence of his Anti-American pastor but refuses to wear an American flag lapel pin.

He says he is the first black man to possibly be president.

Another lie:

He is 50% white (his mother), 44% ARAB African (his father), 6% black (his father). Not legally per US Constitution truly black.

So, in many ways--these and others--he passes himself off as something he is not.

He lies and obfuscates.

How do we know he won't have Wright in a back room somewhere still mentoring and influencing him.

How can we trust him to have patriotic friends and advisors rather than anti-American?

If he cannot vet Wright any better than he did, how can we trust him to vet others if he becomes president?

How can we trust him at all?; March 17, 2008 1:21 PM
Bill UK said...: Oh, here we go again, Tima and Anon back at whinging and false accusations, what can be there problem?

Perhaps the fact that people are recognizing their ploys somewhat infuriates them?

Perhaps the fact that Clinton is losing infuriates them?

Perhaps because Clinton actually lost a pledged delegate in Iowa infuriates them?

Perhaps because Clinton is losing her lead in Special Delegates infuriates them?

Perhaps the Speaker saying it should be the nominee with the most pledged delegates infuriates them?

Perhaps because people are saying look at Clitons and their links to drug trafficking and money laundering infuriates them?

Perhaps it is the polls showing even in New York that Obama leads Clinton infuriates them?

You know we should feel sorry for the Clintonites, thsy have had a terrible couple of months, all the news has been basically bad for them.

Remember Texas, where Clinton had a 29% lead, she could only scrape home after Republicans came out to vote for her.

Remember that 97 super delegate lead, yes I know Clinton didn't hold it for long, but that is now down to a Super delegate lead of only 35, and that looks set to continue tumbling!

Remember that Clinton was going to draw even after Texas and Ohio and win it from there, well she has actually fallen further behind.

Oh and by the 'Annon' the only reason you are deleating your posts is because they are so full of rubbish! When you post something there is no need to delete it unless it is a double post. Spamming is posting 17 times out of 22 like Time does and not answering one question asked!

Yes we feel sorry for you Clintonites, but let me assure you, NOT THAT SORRY!

People realise that the Clintons are crooks and pardon their friends when they have been convicted by a court of law. Well this time the Clintons are losing more and more because people are simply sick of their crooked, corrupt, and criminal ways.; March 17, 2008 2:02 PM
NO Obama said...: I have to assume that those of you who attack the messenger rather than listen to the message also are Anti-American like Barack Obamanation.

I get that distinct impression because you guys keep posting about Hiroshima and other things saying the US kills people, etc.

I actully post here to reasonable people who are very worried about Obama's true agenda and what things he might do when in the WH (if he is) that are anti-American or at least clouded by his poor judgment.; March 17, 2008 2:06 PM
Bill UK said...: Time, that last post is absolutely hillarious!

Anti-American, oh hell, that is a good one coming from a supporter of Clinton whose husband is on record as leading anti-American demonstrations!

you use the term 'real agenda', then let us look at the Clintons 'real agenda'?

1) Pardon friends who are convicted by US courts.
2) Falsely accuse government employees of fraud so as to manouver relatives into those jobs.
3) Employ corrupt and inept officials as long as they say kids died naturally and not from having their heads bashed in, or stabbed, or even saying that a person who was decapitated died of 'natural causes'.
4) Removing law enforcers who report that drugs are being smuggled in Arkansas by the Clintons closest friends and donors.
5) Having reporters suspended who write the truth about the Clintons.
6) Not returning and disclosing full details on Tax Returns.
7) The little matter of lying to the nation.
8) Having a man castrated on a trumpt up charge of rape, the castration taking place AFTER the man had been proved innocent and Bill Clinton refusing to let him go.
9) Having contacts with Chinese intelligence agents and accepting funds from them.
10) The little matter of threatening State troopers, police officers, lovers, government officials, reporters, children, etc..
11) Being linked with those supplying cocaine to minors as young as 14 so as to have sex with them.

Perhaps we should indeed look at the 'real agenda', it would serve the American people well to see the Clintons real agenda and what their real agenda has been in the past, present and indeed future!; March 17, 2008 2:21 PM
Bill UK said...: Time, previously you tried smearing me by implying I was a Republican, an argument I totally demolished by facts.

Now according to you I am Anti-American! Well if that were the case I would be supporting the Clintons. It is Bill Clinton where the public record shows that he took part in and indeed led Anti-American protests. Considering he was with Hillary Clinton at the time would indicate that she too is of the same opinion.

But apart from you being totally wrong, I am not Anti-American, you again fail to be able to answer facts with counter argument, instead you rely on the Clintons one tried and tested method, slander your opponent! Well keep on trying, but I will not support ever a candidate like Clinton whose sole aim is to discredit America and the American constitution.

But what next will you come out with, truth would be a wonderful change! But as you do not answer points of truth I somehow doubt it. You, and it would seem a lot of Clintonites on this and other such boards are allergic to the truth, you are indeed a well versed Clintonite who will never let a little thing like truth or justice get in your way. If I am wrong then refute my postings with 'verifiable facts'!; March 17, 2008 2:36 PM
NO Obama said...: http://www.ssb3.net/users/26641/dsp_obama_avatar_4_1205782141.jpg; March 17, 2008 3:36 PM
Bill UK said...: Boston Globe report shows how the Republicans and GOP are backing Clinton!

Not only have Republicans altered the results and gained Clinton an estimated 2/3 delegates in Ohio and probably 2 in Mississippi, the worst of it is that they reversed the reult in Texas!

This past weekend has shown that the over-riding feeling of support is for Obama and against Clinton.

Now is the time for super delegates to act to save GOP activities and Clintons self obsessed mission giving the Republicans an advantage they do not deserve.; March 17, 2008 4:03 PM
Bill UK said...: Boston Globe link is:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/
articles/2008/03/17/many_voting_for_clinton_to_boost_
gop/; March 17, 2008 4:05 PM
hank said...: Just listening to Ed Schultz and he had campaign staffer Elizabeth Bagley on the show and she said that Hillary is from Scranton Penn.

I understood that she is a native of Illinois. Which one is it? She has claimed to be a New Yorker too. Her bio on Wikipedia says she was born and raised in Illinois.

Man they are desperate! Which one is it Hillary?; March 17, 2008 4:22 PM
Bill UK said...: Hank,

Does it surprise you that she claims to be from different places?

Remember she keeps forgetting things, so just like everything else she forgets where she is from.

But seriously, she is trying to be all things to all people, a ploy that does occasionally work to some extent, untill people find out what she is like and disown her.

After all would you be bragging about it if she was born in your town?

Bill Clinton has said it will be up to a few super delegates to decide. Yes probably so, we just all wish they would hurry up now and put Clinton out of her misery. It is not kind to torment someone thus, tell her she has lost and let the general election begin.; March 17, 2008 6:44 PM
Independent Voter said...: hank,

I know what you mean. First she's from Illinois, then her homestate is Arkansas, then her homestate is considered New York, and now she refers to Scranton as her hometown. I find it a little odd, I only have ONE home town or state, but she has four home states?

According to news reports yesterday, they were reporting that her family owned a "vacation" home in Scranton, PA.; March 17, 2008 7:49 PM
Bill UK said...: Clinton is taking a hammering on Daily Kos.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/
2008/3/17/12417/1285/527/478498; March 17, 2008 9:41 PM
protactinium said...: Time said, "Bill, I now know why you support Obamanation.

You are anti-American and you want him in office because he is also."

You win the most desprate post award!!

Keep it up allows the world of bloggers to relize you are the radical.; March 17, 2008 9:47 PM
protactinium said...: Now the only way Hillary can win flordia delegates is by trying to force them delegates to be seats. Which Howard Dean and many other democrats said this will not happen. However never count out Hillary to try and do anything to win.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/17/florida.primary.decision/index.html

We researched every potential alternative process -- from caucuses to county conventions to mail-in elections -- but no plan could come anywhere close to being viable in Florida," said state party chairwoman Karen Thurman in an e-mail sent to Florida Democrats late Monday afternoon.; March 17, 2008 10:33 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 800 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