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 801 – 1000 of 1036 Newer› Newest»

Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 18, 2008 2:24 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 18, 2008 8:03 AM
hank said...: A New York Times article cited concerns "that donors could use presidential foundations to circumvent campaign finance laws intended to limit political influence" and noted that "the Saudi royal family, the king of Morocco, a foundation linked to the United Arab Emirates [UAE], and the governments of Kuwait and Qatar have made contributions of unknown amounts to the Clinton Foundation."; March 18, 2008 8:21 AM
hank said...: "According to news reports yesterday, they were reporting that her family owned a "vacation" home in Scranton, PA."

A vacation home in Scranton? Whoa!; March 18, 2008 8:24 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 18, 2008 10:41 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 18, 2008 11:27 AM
Anonymous said...: WATCH BARACK OBAMA LIE RIGHT BEFORE YOUR EYES!

WHY IS HE STILL AROUND?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOieokdORtU; March 18, 2008 12:07 PM
Siroco said...: Heart of the Speech:

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.”; March 18, 2008 12:13 PM
Bill UK said...: Bad news for Clinton!

I have posted in a reply in another thread on this forum the following information showing what Clinton would need to achieve in the last remaining 10 contests. Clinton would need to win by the following margins:

Primary.......Clinton/Obama

Pennsylvania.............101/57
Guam.......................3/1
Indiana...................46/26
North Carolina............73/42
West Virginia.............18/10
Kentucky..................32/19
Oregon....................33/19
Montana...................10/6
South Dakota..............10/5
Puerto Rico...............35/20

These are the results that would be needed to give Clinton a single pledged delegate lead.

I have just looked up the voting system in Pennsylvania and it seems that Clinton has an uphill struggle even to complete the first, and largest, win in Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania awards its pledged delegates as follows (taken from http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/PA-D.phtml):

"103 district delegates are to be allocated proportionally to presidential contenders based on the primary results in each of the State's 19 congressional districts.

CD 9: 3 delegates
CDs 5, 10, 16, 17, 19: 4 delegates each
CDs 3, 4, 11, 12, 15, 18: 5 delegates each
CDs 6: 6 delegates each
CDs 1, 7, 8, 13, 14: 7 delegates each
CD 2: 9 delegates

In addition, 55 delegates are to be allocated to presidential contenders based on the primary vote statewide.
35 at-large National Convention delegates
20 Pledged PLEOs"

Let us assume for fairness that Clinton wins in every Congressional District (CD).

CD...No. Delegates....Poss. Result
1.........7.......(C)4/3(O)
2.........9.......(C)6/3(O)
3.........5.......(C)3/2(O)
4.........5.......(C)3/2(O)
5.........4.......(C)2/2(O)
6.........6.......(C)3/3(O)
7.........7.......(C)4/3(O)
8.........7.......(C)4/3(O)
9.........3.......(C)2/1(O)
10........4.......(C)2/2(O)
11........5.......(C)3/2(O)
12........5.......(C)3/2(O)
13........7.......(C)4/3(O)
14........7.......(C)4/3(O)
15........5.......(C)3/2(O)
16........4.......(C)2/2(O)
17........4.......(C)2/2(O)
18........5.......(C)3/2(O)
19........4.......(C)2/2(O)

Totals....Clinton 59, Obama 44

Then if Clinton gets 65% of the vote the 'at-large'(35)and 'PLEO's'(20) would give Clinton
an extra 35 delegates and Obama an extra 20 delegates.

Final result would be:

Clinton....94 pledged delegates
Obama......64 pledged delegates

Clinton gaining 94 delegates in Pennsylvania would result in here being 7 delegates shoet of the target of 101 she requires from Pennsylvania.

The major crux is that as voting is restricted to Congressional Districts the Districts with more than 3 pledged delegates start working against her. For instance the likelyhood of a District with 4delegates splitting anything other than 2/2 is very unlikely, again a district with 5 delegates it is unlikely to split anything other than 3/2, etc.

So even under the above scenario where I have biased heavily in favour of Clinton she would pick up a net gain of 30 pledged delegates, and that would leave her worse of than when she started as there would be only 9 contests left with a total of 408 pledged delegates left. Obama would still maintain a 125 pledged delegate lead.

Prior to the Pennsylvania contest Clinton needed to outstrip Obama by slightly more than 1.75/1.00 pledged delegates, after the above possible best case scenario that ratio increases to just under 1.87/1.00 Clinton will need to outstrip Obama by to win the majority of the pledged delegates.

From here on the figures would actually be worse for Clinton as Pennsylvania is her best chance in the remaining contests.

Then there is more bad news for Clinton. In the popular vote (not actually an accurate guide because some States do not hold primaries and therefore are under represented) Obama holds a lead of 711,814 at present. To overcome this lead at a very, very generous ratio of 65%/35% to Clinton the turnout in the primary will have to exceed 2,033,754 votes, or approx. 24% of the voting population. This would require the highest turn-out yet by far in the primaries.

With Rep. Pelosi saying over the weekend that it is the candidate with the largest number of pledged delegates who should be considered the winner things just go from bad to worse for Clinton. It seems even if she won the Pennsylvania primary it only confirms she loses!; March 18, 2008 2:28 PM
Ferdinand Porsche said...: Bill, can you run a scenario that is realistic? Meaning the urban districts like Philadelphia going for Obama. What would likely be the delegate allocation?; March 18, 2008 3:41 PM
hank said...: "A New York Times article cited concerns "that donors could use presidential foundations to circumvent campaign finance laws intended to limit political influence" and noted that "the Saudi royal family, the king of Morocco, a foundation linked to the United Arab Emirates [UAE], and the governments of Kuwait and Qatar have made contributions of unknown amounts to the Clinton Foundation."; March 18, 2008 4:38 PM
hank said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 18, 2008 4:41 PM
hank said...: Did you guys know Kyl-lieberman, the amendment that authorizes war against Iran, was concocted entirely by REPUBLICANS? And Hillary voted with them! I guess she has learned nothing from her vote to go to war in Iraq.

Here is the list:

COSPONSORS(8):

Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] - 9/20/2007
Sen Coleman, Norm [MN] - 9/20/2007
Sen Alexander, Lamar [TN] - 9/24/2007
Sen Ensign, John [NV] - 9/25/2007
Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC] - 9/25/2007
Sen Corker, Bob [TN] - 9/26/2007
Sen Thune, John [SD] - 9/26/2007
Sen McCain, John [AZ] - 9/26/2007; March 18, 2008 4:42 PM
hank said...: Here is the full text of the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment. Tell me it doesn't authorize the use of force!

(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;

(2) that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;

(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;

(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;

(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and

(6) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.; March 18, 2008 4:53 PM
Bill UK said...: Ferdinand,

Taking Philadelphia area (CD 1,2,6,7,8,13) and Pittsburgh area (CD 11, 12) and splitting them roughly 50/50 at the moment instead of as in the above post would produce the following delegate counts for the Congressional Districts:

1.........7.......(C)4/3(O)
2.........9.......(C)4/5(O)
3.........5.......(C)3/2(O)
4.........5.......(C)3/2(O)
5.........4.......(C)2/2(O)
6.........6.......(C)3/3(O)
7.........7.......(C)4/3(O)
8.........7.......(C)3/4(O)
9.........3.......(C)2/1(O)
10........4.......(C)2/2(O)
11........5.......(C)3/2(O)
12........5.......(C)2/3(O)
13........7.......(C)4/3(O)
14........7.......(C)4/3(O)
15........5.......(C)3/2(O)
16........4.......(C)2/2(O)
17........4.......(C)2/2(O)
18........5.......(C)3/2(O)
19........4.......(C)2/2(O)

The above scenario gives alternating 50/50 to the candidates in the city areas and suburbs, recent results would indicate that the cities would likely go even heavier for Obama, but you would be looking at 55 for Clinton and 48 for Obama. This is a net gain of 4 for Obama on the above post.

Please note I am trying in all my calculations to give bias advantage to Clinton as I am an Obama supporter, to do otherwise would be wrong.

Having said the above it is worth noting that the State wide delegates and pledged PLEO's will split as follows on percentages of vote.

Percentage......Statewide..Spread
50.1%.............18/17.....0.001%
54.285%...........19/16.....8.570%
57.142%...........20/15....14.284%
60.000%...........21/14....20.000%
62.857%...........22/13....25.714%

Percentage......PLEO's..Spread
50.000%...........10/10....0.000%
52.500%...........11/9.....5.000%
57.500%...........12/8....15.000%
62.500%...........13/7....25.000%
67.500%...........14/6....35.000%

The above tables shows just how Obama by just picking up a couple of percentage points can make things nigh on impossible for Clinton.

If I were to be asked my present guess-timate on outcome at the present time with the polls as they are I would say that Clinton at present is looking to take Pennsylvania by about 86/72 if the primary was held tomorrow. That is only a gain of 14 delegates for Clinton and would only narrow Obama's lead from 155 to 141.

In 5 weeks time though I have a feeling that figure may well reduce significantly or even become positive for Obama.; March 18, 2008 5:44 PM
Bill UK said...: Hank,

It would seem that way. After all if it were only meant for inside Iraq why would such a motion be required?; March 18, 2008 5:51 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 18, 2008 6:17 PM
Bill UK said...: anan ny,

Hope you get plenty of pizzas while you write your posts!; March 18, 2008 7:53 PM
hank said...: Saw Obama's speech today. Very well put. It surpassed all of my expectations. I'm sure this will come back during the general, but It seems the politics of fear are losing their charm with the public.

They have backfired on the Clinton campaign time and again and I guess it will be about the same against McCain.; March 18, 2008 10:19 PM
protactinium said...: The speech was good today. It did what it was supposed to do. One to rassure reasonable Americans that he carse about America, and does believe in the Wrights racial charged comments. Two to get people talking about him giving a "historical" speech to reverse the media spin machines.

It seems to have work all but on fox. Fox smearing Obama, what a suprise. Maybe they can throw another fundrasier for Hillary also.

This was not meant to change the minds of the hate mongers, because he knows he will never be able to change the minds of radicals such as NY repug, and Timeforchange. However by not throwing his minster under the bus is actually appealing to republicans it appears. That he is loyal. Unlike the like long friendship of Ferraro, and Hillary that was thrown under the bus.; March 19, 2008 2:32 AM
Bill UK said...: I watched the speach last night in its entirety. It was one of those rare speaches that will grow in stature with time, it definately lays the foundations for hope for the future and yet recognised that all sections of society are products of their society, and yet change is occuring within society.

This speach will further alienate those who try to work the racial card. In this regarde if no other it was an absolute master stroke. It laid out the fact that the time is now, not in twenty years or some time in the future, but now.

If I was not an Obama supporter previously I definately would be now. Even Blitzer on CNN said that he succeeded. I support Obama because he is a better person than me, that one quality that I look for in a leader, and a quality that Clinton, either Clinton, I definately do not afford that credit too.; March 19, 2008 5:32 AM
protactinium said...: This speech sealed the nomination for Obama.

As for the general elections. The polls are showing Mccain doing better, because he has not been getting hammered.

However every time you turn around he makes a gaffe. If he keeps blundering like this is going to be hard for alot of American to vote for him. Obama speech is helping cover this one up for Mccain.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23697639/

Mr. McCain said several times in his visit to Jordan — in a news conference and in a radio interview — that he was concerned that Iran was training Al Qaeda in Iraq. The United States believes that Iran, a Shiite country, has been training and financing Shiite extremists in Iraq, but not Al Qaeda, which is a Sunni insurgent group.

Mr. McCain said at a news conference in Amman that he continued to be concerned about Iranians “taking Al Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.” Asked about that statement, Mr. McCain said: “Well, it’s common knowledge and has been reported in the media that Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran. That’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.”

It was not until he got a quiet word of correction in his ear from Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, that Mr. McCain corrected himself; March 19, 2008 7:11 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 19, 2008 7:41 AM
Bill UK said...: Anonymous NY,

Why is it you keep erasing your posts? You say to stop being accused of spamming the board, but this is blatently not the case as all your posts keep harking on about you 'being accused' of varying things by other posters, none of which is true!

The only thing you have been accused of is constantly using upper case (capitals) in your posts - this is internationally recognised a 'shouting'.

It is obvious that you are spamming the boards as your posts are constantly the same rubbish constantly, you therefore only erase your previous post so as to make it seem like you are saying something new, which you again are blatently not.

Annonymous NY, you undoubtedly have a problem with Obama, it is at the same time obvious that you cannot reason any argument not to support Obama, which is a pity as you obviously have some need to hate the candidate but are not able to put into words your thoughts.

Anyway, by the looks of it Clinton is about to play her last card, the Clintonite Super Delegate block may well be played today where she tries to persuade people that her lead in the super delegate race is substantial by getting a dozen or two so-far undeclared SD's to announce for her. This could be interesting to watch as it always is when a losing hand player at poker is trying to bluff their way to picking up the pot.

If too few SD's announce it is an irrelevence, if she plays all of them she is left with nothing else to play, and as it now looks likely that both Michigan and Florida have ruled themselves out, it will mean a clean sweep could be played by Obama by releasing his block vote of SD's and calling Clinton to respond.

Pennsylvania (with the addition Florida and Michigan) was Clintons last chance of winning the pledged vote and popular vote counts. Now I have showed in previous posts that indeed she cannot gain enough pledged delegates from Pennsylvania and with Florida and Michigan redo's now off the table by the looks of it, Clinton becomes desperate because she is trying to sway SD's before the Convention, because at the convention every Clinton supporting SD will be asked one simple question, why are you voting against the results of both the primaries/caucuses and against the popular vote?

On the convention floor there would be blood spilt (metaphorically of course).

Let us hear from the Clintonite SD's, the sooner the better!; March 19, 2008 12:07 PM
Unknown said...: Bill,

Glad to see there is someone else here who listens to facts and logic, rather than fears and smears.

I too find it absolutely hillarious that some here repeatedly post smears, lies, and other distortions, and never answer a question.

They are obviously here for one reason and one reason only-- propaganda. I am sure most of them could have been employed by the nazi propaganda machine, afterall, they seem to be really proficient in spreading their version of the truth (if you don't believe me, just ask them, they will tell you how proficient they are about spreading their perceived truths).

Even more hillarious is how they avoid the facts about their favored candidate. Not once have I seen anyone here deny any of Hillary's wrongdoings. I am not even taking into account Bill's record. Even though his record is loosely tied to his wife's, no one need to include it to see how corrupt and flawed Hillary is. She does enough on her own without help from anyone else to prove how fake and corrupt she is!

Again, great to see someone else here armed with facts, intelligence, and logic!!!; March 19, 2008 5:54 PM
hank said...: Bill,

Why do you even bother with Anon?; March 19, 2008 6:20 PM
Amot said...: I decided to use Open Thread to explore a problem no one was paying attention until few days ago – results from multi-tier caucuses. Iowa was a nice example to prove that nothing should be taken for granted! Lets start the list (I will be glad to get your help and comments):
Alaska: we have State Convention scheduled for 24th of May. 8 district delegates are chosen there, reflecting the support for the presidential contenders among the delegates from each Legislative District. These delegates go clearly 6:2 for Obama. But there are 5 more pledged delegates to be allocated – 2 PLEO and 3 at-large. And here we have a trap set for HRC – she is supposed to has 104 delegates at the convention, Obama – 306. If those number stand at-large delegates will be split 2:1. What about PLEOs? Imagine 2 of the 104 not coming. Probably one of them will get an alternate from the Obama camp – and we have 307 vs. 102 – both PLEOs go Obama!!! Very, very probable scenario and Alaska goes Obama 10, Clinton 3. Net gain 2 for Obama!
Colorado: nothing much to say here. Prediction based on numbers was 35:20 with a minor chance for Obama to steal one more (actually his site still projects 36:19). But at county conventions that did not happen (actually he lost ground in some counties and got a little bit in others). So we may say being 99% sure the outcome is 35:20.
Democrats Abroad: I am a little confused here. 9 delegates with 4 ½ votes have already been elected. 5 more (each with half vote) – 3 at-large and 2 PLEOs have to be chosen at DA Global convention – 12th of April. Obama has 6 delegates so far, Clinton has 3 and I can’t figure out why most sources project he will get another four, while she will get one only. It is ‘proportion rulez’ isn’t it?
Idaho: (I wonder why none has spotted this so far). She got lucky here, really lucky, but not lucky enough. In both CDs of Idaho she managed to get a little bit over 15% - the threshold required delegates to be assigned. Remember, those 15% were required at CD level, if they were required at county level she would be doomed. She lost Ada county, both portions of it, and she lost bad… Idaho has 12 delegates given at CD level and 6 more chosen at the State Convention middle June. Because HRC did not ménage to get 15% in both parts of Ada and several other small counties, she will not be viable at the State Convention. Why? One needs 15% at county level to get delegates out of that county at the State Convention! She did not manage to achieve that in Ada and the few more; hence she will have about 13% of the delegates at the State Convention! And that counts as ‘non viable’! Idaho goes 16:2 Obama!
Nevada: Guess who the winner is! Bet on him or her! Probably bets were taken who will win Nevada. So far Clinton is winning the popular vote; Obama is winning the more delegates. And remember it is three tiers caucus, delegates actually assigned at the last tier – the State Convention 17th-18th of May. Based on the county conventions results Obama is winning the single delegate from CD2 – Rural counties and 2 out of 3 delegates from CD2 – Washoe. But there are 12 more delegates at stake in Clark county – 6 in CD1, 2 in CD2 and 4 in CD3. Unless miracle happens all these will be evenly split. But the Clark County Convention was disassembled 3 weeks ago – mostly due to poor organization. Though it will be held again on 12th of April there are signs that many things can change there. During the first attempt some delegates were not let in the convention hall; some regular delegates were pronounced alternates due to missing data, some ballot boxes were not handled with the security needed, and so on … If we consider that will not happen again and all the ~7400 delegates (alternates not included) will be properly seated the outcome stays unclear. If the first tier results repeat at county level Clinton will win handily with 54% to 44% for Obama. But Obama has shown strength in the other county conventions. He has improved his precinct results with almost 10%, mostly due to Edwards supporters (he is winning them all over the country). His aim in Clark county is losing with less than 5%, that will give him at least 1170 out of 2463 delegates going to the state convention. Overall he will have the most delegates at the convention (he has 512 delegates from the other counties compared to 388 for Clinton). That means one more PLEO for him (the State convention will assign 6 at-large and 3 pledged PLEO delegates). At the first attempt to conduct a county convention, Obama supporters managed to cut HRC’s 11% lead to less than 5%. How? I don’t know! Edwards had less than 2% delegates at county level, so it is not only due to them. Maybe some delegates shifted, maybe some Clinton delegates did not appear, maybe some tricks were used… No matter what happened – if at the re-do convention the same things happen, Obama will win one more from Nevada. And since his supporters are younger and motivated I predict Nevada will go 14: 11 Obama!
Texas: Good news for Clinton camp here! Current projection is not valid! It happened that it somehow favors Obama due to predominately leaning Obama precincts reporting. Don’t think it is a big mistake – it is a small one. According to math models based on what came out so far county by county and district by district, Obama gets 55,4%! He needs 55,95% to receive 38 delegates out of 67, he needs 54% to secure 37 and 53,57% to secure 36 delegates. Those are the milestones and it seems that he is getting at least 37 so far… But there are the southern regions and there is real chance he doesn’t get 15% threshold in most of them, especially the small counties, losing delegates that otherwise would be seated for him. That means he can be very close to get under 54% and even under 53,57%. That is exactly what Hillary wants and why she is complaining about the results here and there. If the caucus delegates split 35 Obama, 32 Clinton, guess who is winning Texas overall? Correct, she is! Well that scenario will not happen due to several reasons. First, Clinton failed to get some results ignored or changed. Second – Obama is constantly improving his results at tier II and tier III – check Iowa and Nevada! Third – he gave yesterday the race speech and it will help him with Latino delegates at the next levels. Still, he will not get more than 37 delegates and will win Texas only by 3!!!
Washington: Well changes here are not expected. I mention the state because there are two projections for the results 52:26 and 53:25. Both of them agree on CD delegates numbers. The debate is about the at-large delegates. Since there is no county, legislative district or congressional district with even the slightest possibility one of the candidates will be non viable there, we can assume that State convention delegates will split as the popular vote is or shift a little bit toward Obama. That means 68-69% Obama and 31-32% Clinton. Unless something odd happens and HRC gets 32,353% of the delegates, the state delegates will split 53:25 in favor of Obama. CD and State Convention delegates are chosen at tier II conventions so no miracle is expected to happen.
Finally, Iowa… At CD conventions something can change from the predictions only in CD5. Edwards has just 2 delegates over the 15% threshold required there and if 2 out of his 55 delegates don’t appear the rest have to either join another group or stay non viable. Clinton can benefit from that scenario because most probably some will join her group and CD5 delegates will be split 2:2. Two option for Obama here – either convince all Edwards’ group to join him and get 3:1 (not very likely) or send some people (if needed) to join Edwards’ group just to save this delegates from being stolen by Hillary. The last will be helpful if at the state convention Edwards’ stays non viable – he is just 0.5% over the threshold on state level. That will benefit Obama with two more delegates and Clinton with one more… unless Edwards’ join overwhelmingly Obama’s (85% or more of the group). That means tree more Obama, zero – Clinton! Many options here actually. In my consideration the best option is Obama helping at both CD5 and state level the Edward group – will improve his image a lot if he still needs that because the State Convention is June 14th.
Summary: Alaska +1 Obama; Colorado 35:20 (no change in prediction); DA – still can’t get why it is 5:2 instead of 4½:2½; Idaho +1 Obama; Nevada +1 Obama; Texas +1 Clinton; Washington 53:25; Iowa no change! So after all caucuses are over prediction is 1419 pledged delegates for Obama and 1250 for Clinton! Not counting superdelegates and coming primaries. Lead of 169 pledged delegates! If we add for supers the numbers DCW have today the result will be 1628 Obama vs. 1496 Clinton. My guess is that without future endorsements Obama will have ~1900 delegates on his side at the end of the season. I am looking forward to see if Obama’s speech of race will influence polls in the weeks to come.
Conclusion: Clinton must get 2/3 of the supers left. Not impossible to do! She only needs big scandal involving Obama to make a case that such a steal is necessary for the good of the party and the nation!; March 19, 2008 6:53 PM
Bill UK said...: lectricgenius, thank you for the compliment, it is much appreciated.

One thing that has struck me on this forum, as on others, is that the Clinton supporters basically fall into two groups. Those who are willing to discuss points openly and those who are smear and fear mungers. Although the second group is more vociferous and numerous in their postings they are actually smaller in number.

Political discourse in a modern democracy relies on those with different opinions to converse openly with each other, each trying to persuad the other of the merits of their case. I would argue that this is one of the major qualities of Obama, this allows for the basis of sound judgements.

Over on the Kos forum at the moment another member has just posted a well researched and unbiased apraisal of Clinton's ability to win the 'popular vote' and his opinion, having given biased advantage to Clinton, is the same as mine. Perhaps that is why the C,inton camp has suddenly stopped mentioning the popular vote. (I am in fact damn sure it is the reason in all honesty, for they would have worked the figures until their fingers dropped off and they would have come up with exactly the same conclusion.)

Clinton made two major errors when going into the nomination race. Firstly, Clinton assumed she would win because of her name and it was 'her right to win'. Secondly, and perhaps more tellingly, she thought this nomination race was going to be run in the old style politics style. This meant that only the 'Big States' would be worth fighting in. Clinton did not realise that the difference was that one opponent would canvas America and not just the 'Big States'.

These initial mistakes by Clinton have then been compounded by more mistakes again and again. Infered slurs on the character of her oponent, implied her oponent was unready for office but indicating that she would offer him the Vice Presidency (contradictory statements to say the least), whinning about press bias when her and her husband have repeatedly bullied the press to keep quiet about the skeletons in her own cupboard, saying she was leading in the popular vote but then not mentioning as she fell further behind. But her biggest mistake was underestimating her oponent in the nomination race. And her underestimation of her oponent is exemplified when she (or her surrogates) played the race card. Instead of trying to duck the accusations levelled against him Obama gave the best speach of the whole campaign, he demolished Clinton (and McCain and the Republicans) in one fell swoop.

The one thing that Clinton has done has sown a seed in some peoples minds and made the job of the Republicans not to sow the seed but to just nurture it. This is the epitaph of Clinton, and with Obama now all but the Democratic nominee she continues to fight using the same standards of yester-year.

Does Clinton care about the Democrats winning the General Election? The answer is clear to the vast majority, only if she is the nominee, otherwise she could not care, otherwise being the Stateswoman she professes herself to be she would step down now.

One major point of worry though is the lack of backbone shown by many party heavyweights, they can see the damage being done, McCain gathering a lead in opinion polls, internal strife within the party, yet they sit on their hands and pretend they 'are doing the right thing'. Well one thing is for sure they are in the minority within the party in this opinion. Rep. Pelosi over the weekend at least has come out and publicly declared her opinion how super delegates should vote, all Democrats should offer thanks and give her the respect she is due for such clear and unbiased leadership. But this only more reinforces the question 'where are the other leaders and party heavyweights on this issue?'

The Democratic Party has now the greatest groundswell of public backing in recent decades and yet the silence from the party heavyweights is deafening and could result in the Democratic Party grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory.; March 19, 2008 6:59 PM
Siroco said...: Amot
Interesting analysis. Based on some background stuff I heard HRC also expected:
1. Those "kids" would be unreliable, not show up for caucus, and more especially the later stages.
2. Consequently if we do happen to loose at caucus we'll just steal the delegates back at later stages.
3. After all the "pros" are almost all on our side, it will be easy.

They were still in a thieving frame of mind in Texas. Copies of HRC instructions for Precinct workers said
1. Do not let the opponents have ANY caucus office.
2. If lack of numbers prevent step # 1 then DEMAND the Secretaryship in simple FAIRNESS.
(emphasis added)

I think the HRC folks were dumbfounded when the Obama side showed up with a Precinct Captain for each of the 8300 Texas caucuses -- btw I should say "TRAINED" Precinct Captains who knew the Rules. oppppppppps :); March 19, 2008 7:21 PM
Siroco said...: 2/16/08 New York Times:Unofficial Tallies in City Understated Obama Vote

Black voters are heavily represented in the 94th Election District in Harlem’s 70th Assembly District. Yet according to the unofficial results from the New York Democratic primary last week, not a single vote in the district was cast for Senator Barack Obama.

That anomaly was not unique. In fact, a review by The New York Times of the unofficial results reported on primary night found about 80 election districts among the city’s 6,106 where Mr. Obama supposedly did not receive even one vote, including cases where he ran a respectable race in a nearby district.; March 19, 2008 7:26 PM
Ferdinand Porsche said...: Does anybody else think that Clinton is fighting so hard to win because she thinks that if Obama wins the Whitehouse that the traditional democratic party is over? Obama is a different politician. He takes on issues with a smart level head. He does not look through a liberal lens, or a conservative lens, he looks through an American lens. He gets opinions from all sides of the fence, and makes the best possible rational choice. He's a blender of ideas. He has showed this, and talked about this time and time again. He's a member of the "smart" party.

As for Hillary, she is the traditional liberal democrat, and 4-8 years of Obama as president means that the next batch of democrats will be more like him. She knows if he wins then her chances are over. Forever.; March 19, 2008 7:47 PM
Bill UK said...: Hank,

I guess I still think that people should debate the issues, I guess I show my nievity by still hoping that people like Anon. NY would even consider debating issues!

Amot,

A great post, well reasoned and logical, what this debate needs, facts and reasoned arguments. I enjoyed reading and thinking about your points (which may I say I find very persuasive and reasonable).

frstan,

This needs to be definately looked into. May I ask is election fraud a STate crime or a Federal crime in the US. Either way, anybody (and I mean for any candidate or from any party) who purposefully misrepresents the results of an election or in any other criminal way interferes with the smooth honest running of an election should face time in prison, they by their actions try to take away peoples right to have their voices heard. Any democracy must protect itself from such people.

Ferdinand,

There has been talk of Clinton running hard to spoil the chance of Obama in the general election so that she could get the nomination in 2012. However I am of the belief that Clinton knows this is her last chance ever of obtaining the keys to the White House. As time has progressed she has had to mark off one hope after another for obtaining those keys. First States, then pledged delegates, then popular vote, and even as we speak she has only super delegates left.

The most unfortunate thing is not that she does not retire from the race gracefully knowing this was her last chance and accepting she has lost, no, the most unfortunate thing is that heavyweight SD's like Al Gore and Bill Richardson remain on the fence. They know that the present battle is just a side show now and the real battle is against McCain and the Republicans, yet they sit and dither, all the time by their inaction helping McCain.

The old fashioned Democratic Party is already gone, and with Obama as President it should never appear again. What the Democratic Party has evolved into is the only party to offer Americans a future for the simple reason it now speaks of the future but recognises and learns from the past.; March 19, 2008 9:22 PM
NO Obama said...: THE RADICAL COMPANY OBAMA KEEPS!!!

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/19/obama-web-site-still-carries-new-black-panther-party-endorsement/

The controversy is his association with another black "pastor" Meeks who is equally as radical as Wright.

It seems he has associated himself with radical, hate America people.

So this brings into serious question his true patriotism and allegiance to this country.

Not wearing a flag lapel pin becomes more and more telling!

Being endorsed by the Black Panters is not Obama's doing BUT when these types of groups and people support him, I think it tells us something about the types he attracts and the perception people have of his politics.

What if he were president and he actually acted on any of this radical stuff????

Obama is just plain dangerous for this country!; March 19, 2008 9:45 PM
Ferdinand Porsche said...: Bill, I have heard rumors that Obama has a big block of super-delegates that he will roll out when he so choses. Do you think that Richardson, Edwards and Gore could be part of that list? It seems reasonable that such heavy-weights would call Obama first to tell him that they support him because of the implications of their endorsement, and ask what they can do to support him, or when he would like them to come out. Unlike these light-weights that just come out without talking to the candidate they support beforehand.; March 19, 2008 9:56 PM
Bill UK said...: Ferdinand,

One of my hobbies is tabletop wargaming, and one of the first things I learnt was that you do not underestimate your opponent!

At the moment Clinton knows that every realistic possibility is slipping away from her, hence the reason that her campaign starts these rumours of this super delegate or that super delegate will endorse. However, as you rightly point out Obama does have the ace in that he does seem to be holding a 'block' (Bill Richardson have already gone on record saying that the candidate with the most delegates after the Texas and Ohio primaries should be considered the nominee).

It could well be that Obama is holding these super delegates to reply to Clinton when she announces her block super delegaate vote. However, there is a time when you have to stop your opponent dictating the terms and events of the battle, and I would suggest that the time has now come. I also agree that the heavyweights should inform 'both' candidates before going public with their endorsements, this would only be professional curtousy. I also agree that the heavyweights may be awaiting the nod from Obama as to when to go public. I may well therefore be premature in asking for the heavyweights to declare, but I am of the opinion that now is the time to do so. This race needs to be brought to a conclusion as soon as possible, the main battle lies ahead, the sooner it is joined the more relevent can Obama be against McCain.; March 20, 2008 7:16 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 20, 2008 7:19 AM
protactinium said...: yes mccain is leading in the polls today. However it is worthless. There is a long time to go, for the two canidite to compare and contrast. Lets see how those indepedent voters feel after a few debates, and the campaigns hitting each other hard.

The media is concentrating on Obama, and Hillary because they are still fighting will Mccain is ok easy streak.

Lets never forget that we are heading into a ressecion, and Mccain is hugging the failed war policys of Bush. Including an invasion of Iran.

We will see how these voter feel after a few debates, and a month or two of campaigning head to head.

The polls are worthless for the generals. It is way to far away.; March 20, 2008 8:29 AM
Amot said...: Polls today have not yet shown the results of the race speech Obama gave, so let's wait a little bit. meanwhile instead of fighting who will be the nominee, let's pick him a VP :) I propose Obama/Pelosi ticket. Is that a winner? And can that beat McCain/Rice ticket?; March 20, 2008 10:12 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 20, 2008 11:21 AM
Bill UK said...: Anon NY.......Are you a Democrat?; March 20, 2008 11:31 AM
NO Obama said...: Hillary has HUGE lead in WV:

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/west_virginia/west_virginia_democratic_presidential_primary

Hillary has 7pt. lead in Gallup poll.

Anti-American Obama is sinking fast!!; March 20, 2008 11:41 AM
Bill UK said...: West Virginia may well go to Clinton, that has been forecast by everyone, however, according to TimeIAmNotADemocrat this means Obama 'is sinking fast'!

Reminds me of those WWII German propogandists who repeatedly told the world that such and such a ship had been sunk, time and time and time again the same ship got reported as sunk! But of course Clinton needs her spammers now more than ever, for how else are they going to hoodwink people into ignoring the fact that Clinton has lost the nomination race on both pledged delegates and popular vote.

Of course great song and dance will occur in the Clinton camp if she does pick up even 5 of the last remaining 10 conntests, but hang on that means she would have only won what 18 contests against Senator Obama's 35 or so.

But let us assume she does win 5 out of the 10 remaining contests, can she win the pledged delegate vote? NO.

Let us assume she does win 5 of the 10 remaining contests, can she win the popular vote? NO.

Would the seating of the delegates from Florida and Michigan with 0.5 votes mean she will win either the pledged delegates or popular vote? NO.

Then why is it that a somewhat questionable poster claims Obama 'is sinking fast'?

The answer is simple, when you have no other cards left to play you must try bluffing to win the hand, or as Clinton has repeatedly done, try changing the rules.

As Clinton gets more and more desperate she, and her venimous supporters (those who will refuse to vote for the Democratic nominee
because it is not their nominee) will try everything and anything. Unfortunately for them Obama has this week transcended the debate to a higher political debating plain than they could ever aspire to reach.; March 20, 2008 12:07 PM
Ferdinand Porsche said...: According to that poll 18% are undecided. Thats a lot. Neither Obama or Clinton has campaigned in West Virginia. I wonder what the African American population is...; March 20, 2008 1:21 PM
Bill UK said...: Ferdinand, the Black population is only 3.49% in West Virginia.

However, this poll was carried out supposedly on the 13th of this month, the day the Pastor Wright spin from the Clinton camp hit the major news sources, so it will be interesting to see what the outcome will be in polls following Obam's speach.; March 20, 2008 2:17 PM
Amot said...: Obama and the race issue!

Maybe it sounds crazy, but I dare to say that Obama camp used the race issue to profit! Bill Clinton stared it, Geraldine Ferraro went on and the moment was fine for the Clintons. No more primaries left with major Afro-American population to vote… Clintons made the calculation that if they scare the whites, lose the blacks and get some Republicans to vote for them, they can win with 15-20% gap in most of the stated left (and draw in NC). And they still hoped to get FL and MI vote again. In that case they would almost tie at delegates count and win big the popular vote. I guess Clinton was ready to loan money from her own of her campaign to FL to re-do. And Pastor Wright’s sermons looked like a bonus. If things had not changed Obama would lose big in PA and the states to come. I think and I hope I am wrong, that Obama knew the problem with his pastor will take place in the race, now or later. I dare to say he let the problem go out at the open last week to make sure he has enough time to make a profit of it. There was a week bad for him, he had to wait in order to look hurt, than he gave the great speech and in the days to come no one will dare to make a case about his gender, his color or his religion. He had six weeks break to run the scandal, to kill it and to rise as a winner out of it. He will keep his lead with the Afro-Americans and will return on good position among the whites. 33 more days to come and it looks like he is already back. Next polls will show him cutting her lead and making new inroads. He will lose with less than 12% in PA. Believe or not that will give her net gain of only 10 delegates. She can actually profit more from WV. As general she will erase less than 20 delegates from his lead, that due to WV and PR. But he will end up with 150 more pledged delegates. He can even be generous and allow her to seat FL with ½ vote each…; March 20, 2008 5:07 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 20, 2008 6:13 PM
Unknown said...: ANON

OH YEAH, WE'LL I'LL SEE YOUR OBAMA VIDEO AND RAISE YOU THE ALL-IMPORTANT HILLARY CLINTON MOVIE!!!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8464923602139974671; March 20, 2008 6:47 PM
Ferdinand Porsche said...: What does everybody think of Obama's passport security being breached? It seems that at best this is just a example of gross incompetence, at worse this could turn out to be a pretty wild conspiracy. As much as I love a good conspiracy, I have a hunch that this is nothing more than cat-killing curiosity, gross incompetence coupled with self interest protectionism by low level managers.; March 20, 2008 10:27 PM
Fulcanelli said...: For a summary of the current state of polling in potential swing states (ie. hypothetical match-ups with McCain), see the table at http://quipu-knot.blogspot.com/2008/03/swing-state-opinion-polling-state-votes.html.; March 20, 2008 10:36 PM
NO Obama said...: No big deal with the "security breach" except that Obama's campaign released this to try to change the subject and gain sympathy.

Something similar happed to Bill Clinton in 1992 when he was running for the presidency.; March 20, 2008 10:36 PM
protactinium said...: These polls mean nothing. I do find it ironic however that Obama did better then Hillary. So either way Obama is the better canidite.

First the polls all came in previous to Obamas speech. That has not been polled yet. Second the polls mean NOTHING!

Has no one learned anything in this election? First the polls are having problems gauging all the new voters voting for Obama. Obama has had more vote then any democratic nominee in Histroy.

There is alot of campaigned ahead and we will see many more swings in the polls between Obama and Mccain.

Hillawho? Hillary is now Huckabee. The media is not even giving her any play. Hillary should just drop out gracefully so we can get the general election going.; March 21, 2008 12:14 AM
protactinium said...: timeforignorance -"No big deal with the "security breach" except that Obama's campaign released this to try to change the subject and gain sympathy.

Something similar happed to Bill Clinton in 1992 when he was running for the presidency."

Yes and when Bill ran for presideny there was a huge investigation going all the way to the top. So the same should be done for Obama.

Also you are the one to mention it. You are just mad because the media would rather cover a Obama secuirity breech, then let you canidite talk.; March 21, 2008 12:16 AM
Bill UK said...: Bill Richardson's endorsement now shows that the heavyweights are at last coming to the fore. This single endorsement wipes out the few SD endorsements Clinton has got this week. (That is not to say that his SD vote is worth more than any other SD vote directly but that Bill Richardson's influence outways ten times the influence of those who have endorsed Clinton.)

I would like to thank Bill Richardson for making his decision public and thus hopefully help end the Clinton civil war that is tearing the Democratic party apart.

Bill Richardson has had a difficult decision to make in deciding when to announce his support, as one of the most highly respected members of the Democratic Party he needed to balance his support for Obama personally with his duty to the Democratic Party as a whole. At this time when the party was being harmed by the actions of one candidate to refuse to accept that she is not the choice of the people Bill Richardson acted in a timely manner, accepting that the time for fence sitting had passed he (Bill Richardson) declared his support for the next President of the United States of America,
President Obama.; March 21, 2008 4:59 AM
protactinium said...: Obama is already bouncing back in the polls. Not to say this Wright issue is over, but this has gone a long way to vet Obama.

National Polls

Rasmussen Tracking 03/16 - 03/19 900 LV 46 43 Obama +3.0

Obama vs Mccain

Reuters/Zogby 03/13 - 03/14 1004 LV 40 46 -- McCain +6.0

CBS News 03/15 - 03/18 RV 48 43 6 Obama +5.0

FOX News 03/18 - 03/19 900 RV 43 44 13 McCain +1.0

I know all the polls fluxuate massively. However this theory that Obama is collapsing in the polls just is not happening.

Looks like the heavy weights wanted to see Obama weather the storm before comming out. Now they are more satisifed they are comming to the forfront.; March 21, 2008 5:14 AM
Bill UK said...: My compliments to John McCain, a staffer who distributed a video on YouTube questioning Barack Obama's patriotism has been suspended from the Republican campaign team. The announcement made it clear that McCain will not tolerate such actions.

This is not to say that under the 504 tax codes neoconservatives will not launch such attacks, which apart from condeming McCain will actually have little influence over. But it does go a long way to show that the two candidates for President are both honourable men and having watched and listened to both I think they have a high regard for each other.

It is though now that the real campaigning by the Democrats starts, for this is the start of the General Election.

You may think why am I talking as if the Democratic nomination has been decided, no winner has yet been officaially announced?

Well the fact is simple, the decision was made over the past 8-9days. The Clinton camp pushed and finally got the Pastor Wright issue onto the mainstream news, this was the Clinton camps last desperate last ditch attempt to overtake Barack Obama in the nomination race. As I have posted previously this was an ill-timed attempt, it was way too early before the Pennsylvania primary, this would allow Obama time to respond. All expectations would have been that Obama's support among the electorate would have nose-dived, as it happens it didn't. Yes Obama took a knock in opinion polls, but nothing like the implosion that Clinton was counting on. And yes, Obama responded.

Barack Obama though did not just respond, he took the attack and responded with the greatest speach given in an election cycle by any candidate I can ever remember. He addressed an issue so fraught with danger that he could have fallen off the tightrope at any time, but being the man he is he decided to speak from both his heart and his mind. He reasoned every statement with irrefutable truths, he spoke to America of every color, creed and age. Bluntly he discussed with America what its past was, what its future could and should be, and he showed his reasoning and understanding was solid.

This week saw the culmination of the Democratic nomination process, the winner is Obama and America. Now Gov. Bill Richardson, a close friend and political ally of the Clintons has announced his endorsement for Obama saying that he (Obama) "is the kind of once-in-a-lifetime leader that can bring our nation together and restore America's moral leadership in the world".

The campaign of Hillary Clinton should end today, but I doubt it will, she will probably try carrying on, her campaign using tactics that even the Republican nominee John McCain has publicly denounced. Now it is time for other super delegates to follow the lead, from the most junior to the most senior, please bring this strife to an end and let the real campaign be fought from here.; March 21, 2008 6:39 AM
Amot said...: Bill_UK, I am not always agree with you, but it seems it is the end now. I have to apologize I falsely blamed Obama that maybe he ctreated Wright's affair to profit from it. And that was due to timing... The timing of that affair was the best possible for Obama and the worst for Hillary. And I would never believe she put it out at the open last week instead of the week before PA primary. Now I know why she did it at that time. Several reasons there...
First, she lost March 4th. She actually won but with only handfull delegates.
Second, she was no successfull playing the Clinton/Obama ticket card. MSM did not go with her on that dream ticket.
Third, she needed a major scandal to help her get a revote in MI and FL and she needed that last week when revotes were decided.
Fourth and most important - she is broke! And she needs money. That was only possible if people started to distrust Obama fast and big and started donating to her campaign. No matter the scandal would harm Obama seriously if run middle April, it would be too late. She would be outscored in money in such numbers that nothing would help her...
Now, she has only $12M cash and $9M of that is a loan, not counting the $5M she lent the caimpaign herself. No way to beat him in advertising! PA holds closed primary and she will get no help from Republicans, while he will get boost of at least 150 000 Republicans, Independents and new voters registered as Democrats. and if he wins the debate in pA, he can even win the state! Actually he can lose by 2-3% and still win the most delegates. But before that happens, lets see what big supers will do the coming weekend :); March 21, 2008 10:42 AM
Unknown said...: Bill,

It speaks volumes that the republican nominee is acting more civilized than Hillary, the alleged democratic opponent.; March 21, 2008 10:46 AM
Siroco said...: Amot
interesting post
what was your source for the financial data?; March 21, 2008 11:05 AM
Amot said...: Frstan, check cnn.com, they have all the numbers for the three pretenders, actually it is much worse for Clinton than it appears from my numbers here...; March 21, 2008 11:31 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 21, 2008 11:42 AM
NO Obama said...: Everytime Obama speaks, he changes his story. He can't tell the truth.

First he's known Wright for 20+ years. Then in this video he says 17.

He says in the beginning his church isn't particularly controversial (some time back he said this).

But he's been proven to be a liar!

He said he won't wear THAT pink on his lapel (as if American Flag is a dirty word).

Those who follow him are either very ignorant or feel that they want an Anti-American in the WH for their own similar reasons.

I get that feeling from most Obama supporters who post here.

http://election.newsmax.com/mccain_aide/?s=al&promo_code=47A6-1; March 21, 2008 11:53 AM
Bill UK said...: Time and Anon NY,

Your gravy train is about to leave the rails. No doubt you will find some other avenue to vent your bile on.; March 21, 2008 12:15 PM
NO Obama said...: Here is a very good story to read.
Obama's Shallow Credentials on National Security Are Dangerous for the Country
Expert Guest Post by Joseph C. Wilson Former Ambassador

in it the author says....

As the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee subcommittee on Europe, he has not chaired a single substantive oversight hearing, even though the breakdown in our relations with Europe and NATO is harming our operations in Afghanistan. Nor did he take a single official trip to Europe as chairman. This is the sum total of his actions in the most important responsibility he has had in the Senate. What are his actual experiences that reassure us that when the phone rings at 3 a.m. he will know what to do, which levers of power to pull, or which world leaders he can count on?

Read it all here
http://taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27272; March 21, 2008 12:33 PM
NO Obama said...: So many other examples could be provided where Obama says one thing and does another. Here is a small list of many examples which can be identified:

* Obama was anti-union in Iowa, and pro-union in Nevada.

* Obama basically accused the Clintons of being racist in South Carolina and yet it was his own campaign that sent out a 4 page memo to media trying to drum up hysteria about "race". He knew he would lose without the support of African-Americans and did whatever he had to do in order to turn them against the Clintons.

* Obama was okay with homophobic clergy when he was trying to win South Carolina. He was pro-gay when he was trying to win California.

* Obama thought Ted Kennedy was part of the Washington "establishment" before Obama ran for president. He thinks Ted Kennedy is the best thing since sliced bread since he lost New Hampshire.

* Obama ran TV ads before the Florida primary spending up to one million dollars, even though doing so was against the rules. And then when he didn't win Florida referred to that primary as a "beauty contest".

* Obama claims to want to "unify" America, but that offer does not extend to Michigan and Florida. He refuses to accept that he lost those states fairly and squarely.

* Obama was against the war when his left-wing congressional district demanded it and when he had nothing to do with the US Senate who actually had to vote on the matter. Once a member of the Senate, he voted for every war funding in congress. He thought it was reasonable for John Kerry to vote for the war when he was supporting Kerry/Edwards at the 2004 convention. He thinks the same vote from Hillary shows she doesn't have the judgment to be president.

* Obama is pro-choice when it's not on the agenda. He votes present when it is on the agenda.

* Obama thinks superdelegates should vote with the popular votes in their states unless their names are Kennedy and Kerry...

* Obama has made intense stands against Washington politics and lobbyists but he's participating in them and acting as a lobbyist himself. He says he takes no money from lobbyists, but ten of his biggest fundraisers are lobbyists. He constantly talks about his dislike for lobbyists when he acts as a lobbyist himself by trying to buy over superdelegates.

* Obama said he only lifted words twice and they were from Deval Patrick, but he has also lifted lines from John Edwards and Spike Lee. Apparently for Obama, cheating and plagiarism is okay, as long as your mates approve of it.

* Obama was against negative attacks during the "silly season" in response to the plagiarism issue discussed at the Texas debate. Right after the debate, his camp goes negative and sends out an e-mail claiming that Hillary was plagiarizing Edwards.

* Obama said in the Ohio debate that if Canada didn't agree to certain changes in NAFTA, the US would be pulling out of the agreement. Prior to the debate he had one of his staffers tell Canadian officials not to be concerned about this public statement about NAFTA as it was just political posturing.

* Obama claims to be above dirty politics and het his campaign has engaged in an endless list of dirty tricks in order to defeat Clinton. They are are still trying.

* Prior to the election Obama advocated for public financing for presidential campaigns. Now that he is bringing in millions of dollars he doesn't wish to discuss the matter.

* Obama claims to be a uniter, but has tried to systematically divide the country along racial and gender lines and has divided the support base of the Democratic Party in two.

* Obama claims to represent the Democratic Party which stands for social justice and equality. And yet he has spent the last 20 years alligned with a pastor who despises seemingly everything America represents.

* Obama argues for racial equality and then accuses his own grandmother of being racist and refers to her as the "typical white person" when discussing his speech later on Pennsylvania radio. So apparently the "typical white person" is racist according to Obama. Well, thanks for the insult.

And this is just an initial list.

Yes, Obama is a complete SHAM.; March 21, 2008 12:35 PM
Bill UK said...: Time, you are such a hoot!

You must really be worried now that there will be no more pizza's!

Your posts are worthless, all you do is misrepresent the truth, take fractions of statements and interpret them out of context and then try spinning your rubbish to those that read this and other forums.

Go back to writing your second book (by the way you never did tell me the title of your first published book, all you said was that you had posted it a couple of weeks previously, I can find no reference to it so please tell us all again the title. I am sure many here will buy it for a laugh and that will help now Clintons pizzas will stop comming.)

By the way Obama did not insult you, you are most definately not the average white person! Those of us who know you are not.; March 21, 2008 12:50 PM
NO Obama said...: Bill, I suppose you will find a way to ridicule anyone who doesn't agree with your extreme views.

My book was written to help others fight the system who are mentally ill and cannot get medical care.; March 21, 2008 1:07 PM
Siroco said...: Bill Richardson's (Superdelegate) endorsement of Barack Obama is probably the best answer to the vast amount of garbage, nonsense, distortions, and out right lies that have been posted on this subject.

Richardson is an important and highly qualified figure in the Democratic Party -- one who has served Bill Clinton and knows H. Clinton very well.

Of course one could always take the position, that if only he had come here and read X's and/or Y's posts then he would have known better.......

:D; March 21, 2008 2:59 PM
Bill UK said...: timeforchange said...
Bill, I suppose you will find a way to ridicule anyone who doesn't agree with your extreme views.

My book was written to help others fight the system who are mentally ill and cannot get medical care.

March 21, 2008 1:07 PM

Time,
I have 'extreme views' according to you?

You mean I support the truth, yes I guess that is 'extreme' to someone who doesn't like the truth.

But anyway, anyone who wants to see how extreme my views are please look up my posts, I have not erased any of them. Then decide whether my views are extrem as 'Time' says they are!; March 21, 2008 3:34 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 21, 2008 8:07 PM
protactinium said...: Newest polls. You guys are simply lieing, and saying Obama is broken. Its a misrepenstiation of facts that Hillary is praying for.

Obama vs Hillary

Gallup Tracking 03/18 - 03/20 45% 47% Clinton +2.0%
Rasmussen Tracking 03/17 - 03/20 45% 44% Obama +1.0%

Hillary vs Mccain

RCP Average 03/13 to 03/20 45.4% 46.7% 6.0% McCain +1.3%
Rasmussen Tracking 03/17 - 03/20 41% 51% 8% McCain +10.0%

Mccain vs Obama

Gallup Tracking 03/16 - 03/20 44% 47% 4% McCain +3.0%

So Congrats Hillary. You hurt Obama, and yourself all at once. Way to try and destroy the democratic party. Poor Bill, and Ferraro. Thanks to Hillary there reputation is ruined.

However 50-50 going into the general election is ok for Obama. Obama will kill Mccain head to head once the camapagining starts.

This is all starting to bounce off Obama.; March 21, 2008 9:18 PM
Siroco said...: it's amazing
H. Clinton has lost by delegate votes
H. Clinton has lost by States
H. Clinton has lost by popular vote
H. Clinton once had a SD lead of 97, now its down to 35 and falling

and yet Im supposed to believe H. Clinton will be the better campaigner in November.

Anyone who believes that please email me. Ive got a bridge in Brooklyn I want to talk to you about! ;); March 21, 2008 9:27 PM
Siroco said...: Thanks Matt, Ill do that; March 21, 2008 9:29 PM
protactinium said...: Now the Obama machine is trying to finish Hillary off. His campaign is finally hitting her on her #1 flaw. Everyone knows she is a snake.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/obama-camp-says-clinton-deeply-flawed/

Referencing a new Gallup Poll suggesting 53 percent of Americans don't view Clinton as trustworthy, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said Clinton would be a "deeply flawed nominee," and suggested it would be "nearly impossible" for her to win a general election; March 21, 2008 9:58 PM
NO Obama said...: Obama's Lies

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

http://www.bufford.politicalgateway....d.html?col=737

If you have other links to lies you can add, please do so.

Snippet:

Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times, who is an unabashed Obama-lover, is also an honest journalist. She too, way back in 2004, questioned Obama's use of fiction as fact, and stated, "It is impossible to know who is real and who is not." (Sun-Times, 2/20/07, see

CST-NWS-sweet20.article). Indeed, Ms. Sweet, it is not impossible at all. "Obama" is not real. Mr. Obama is a fictional creation of a very talented and very intelligent bunkum artist, Barry (Barack) Obama. From end to end, from start to finish, Barack Obama is an imaginative self-invention.

I especially like the photo of Obama at this link:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/a...lies-agai.html

Mr. Obama went on to explain Mr. Wright's anti-Zionist statements as being rooted in his anger over the Jewish state's support for South Africa under its previous policy of apartheid. As with his previous claim that his church gave the award to Mr. Farrakhan because of his work with ex-offenders, Mr. Obama appears to have made that up.

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/...tches_oba.html

On June 13, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), while serving as an Illinois state senator in 1998, "did a political favor" for Chicago Democratic fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko by writing letters to state and local government officials in support of a Chicago housing project proposed by Rezko’s company, New Kenwood LLC. The Sun-Times asserted that the "letters appear to contradict a statement last December from Obama, who told the Chicago Tribunethat, in all the years he’s known Rezko, ‘I’ve never done any favors for him.’ ”

http://hennessysview.com/2008/03/01/so-obama-lies/

"...an investigation by The Mail on Sunday has revealed that, for all Mr Obama's reputation for straight talking and the compelling narrative of his recollections, they are largely myth.

"We have discovered that his father was not just a deeply flawed individual but an abusive bigamist and an egomaniac, whose life was ruined not by racism or corruption but his own weaknesses. And, devastatingly, the testimony has come from Mr Obama's own relatives and family friends...

http://shaidle.blogmatrix.com/:entry...07-01-29-0000/

Another example of Obama's poor judgment regarding Social Security....

"All of which makes it just incredible that Barack Obama would make obeisance to fashionable but misguided Social Security crisis-mongering a centerpiece of his campaign..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-j...o_b_72148.html

In his memoir, Obama writes of one of the watershed moments of his racial awareness -- time and again in remarkable detail. It is a story about a Life magazine article that influenced him. The report was about a black man who tried to bleach his skin white. When Obama was told no such article could be found in Life, he says "it might have been Ebony.

He is 9 years old, living in Indonesia, where he and his mother moved with her new husband, Lolo Soetoro, a few years earlier. One day while visiting his mother, who was working at the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Obama passed time by looking through several issues of Life magazine. He came across an article that he later would describe as feeling like an "ambush attack."

The article included photos of a black man who had destroyed his skin with powerful chemical lighteners that promised to make him white. Instead, the chemicals had peeled off much of his skin, leaving him sad and scarred, Obama recalled.

"I imagine other black children, then and now, undergoing similar moments of revelation," Obama wrote of the magazine photos in "Dreams."

Yet no such photo exists, according to historians at the magazine. No such photos, no such article. When asked about the discrepancy, Obama said in a recent interview, "It might have been an Ebony or it might have been ... who knows what it was?" (At the request of the Tribune, archivists at Ebony searched their catalogue of past articles, none of which matched what Obama recalled.)

In fact, it is surprising, based on interviews with more than two dozen people who knew Obama during his nearly four years in Indonesia, that it would take a photograph in a magazine to make him conscious of the fact that some people might treat him differently in part because of the color of his skin.

http://www.freedomsenemies.com/_Obama/ObamaLies.htm

Obama, whose ears apparently grow larger with each lie he tells, has boasted during the campaign how he stood up to the Exelon Corporation in his home state of Illinois when it was learned it failed to tell the public about radioactive leaks at one of the nuclear power plants it owns.

Obama claimed, according to records unearthed by the Times, that he introduced and helped get passed legislation to make it mandatory for even small leaks to be reported quickly to state and local authorities.

“…the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed,” Obama told voters in Iowa,according to the Times.

The problem is, it happens not to be true!

In fact, according to the Times account, Obama eventually caved to special interest groups and Republicans in Congress and signed off on legislation much ,much weaker than what he says he got passed–legislation favored by Exelon and the nuclear industry.

http://thefeldmanblog.com/2008/02/03...aims-he-didnt/

The Chicago Tribune writes:

"Several of his oft-recited stories may not have happened in the way he has recounted them. Some seem to make Obama look better in the retelling, others appear to exaggerate his outward struggles over issues of race, or simply skim over some of the most painful, private moments of his life."

In Barack's speech in Selma Alabama, he claimed that his parents were motivated to get married and have Barack "because some folks are willing to march across a bridge." The thing is, Barack was born four years before the incident at Selma occurred. Barack later said he was talking about the whole civil rights movement. Just because he mentioned Selma, while talking at Selma, apparently doesn't mean he meant Selma.
Barack also told people that his father came to America when Barack's grandfather heard John and Bobby Kennedy, who “sent a shout across oceans” for Africans to come to America and learn. Barack Sr. was then sent to America. There's a problem there also:

...having been born in August 1961, the future senator was not conceived until sometime in November 1960. So, if his African grandfather heard words that “sent a shout across oceans,” inspiring him to send his goat-herder son to America, it was not Democrat Jack Kennedy he heard, or his brother Bobby, it was Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
It would be easy to dismiss this as a simple mistake, if it were not for all the comparisons of Barack to John Kennedy.

http://purelypolitical.newsvine.com/...-outright-lies; March 22, 2008 2:24 AM
NO Obama said...: Obama's Lies

The list keeps growing and growing and growing...

http://www.bufford.politicalgateway....d.html?col=737

If you have other links to lies you can add, please do so.

Snippet:

Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times, who is an unabashed Obama-lover, is also an honest journalist. She too, way back in 2004, questioned Obama's use of fiction as fact, and stated, "It is impossible to know who is real and who is not." (Sun-Times, 2/20/07, see

CST-NWS-sweet20.article). Indeed, Ms. Sweet, it is not impossible at all. "Obama" is not real. Mr. Obama is a fictional creation of a very talented and very intelligent bunkum artist, Barry (Barack) Obama. From end to end, from start to finish, Barack Obama is an imaginative self-invention.

I especially like the photo of Obama at this link:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/a...lies-agai.html

Mr. Obama went on to explain Mr. Wright's anti-Zionist statements as being rooted in his anger over the Jewish state's support for South Africa under its previous policy of apartheid. As with his previous claim that his church gave the award to Mr. Farrakhan because of his work with ex-offenders, Mr. Obama appears to have made that up.

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/...tches_oba.html

On June 13, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), while serving as an Illinois state senator in 1998, "did a political favor" for Chicago Democratic fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko by writing letters to state and local government officials in support of a Chicago housing project proposed by Rezko’s company, New Kenwood LLC. The Sun-Times asserted that the "letters appear to contradict a statement last December from Obama, who told the Chicago Tribunethat, in all the years he’s known Rezko, ‘I’ve never done any favors for him.’ ”

http://hennessysview.com/2008/03/01/so-obama-lies/

"...an investigation by The Mail on Sunday has revealed that, for all Mr Obama's reputation for straight talking and the compelling narrative of his recollections, they are largely myth.

"We have discovered that his father was not just a deeply flawed individual but an abusive bigamist and an egomaniac, whose life was ruined not by racism or corruption but his own weaknesses. And, devastatingly, the testimony has come from Mr Obama's own relatives and family friends...

http://shaidle.blogmatrix.com/:entry...07-01-29-0000/

Another example of Obama's poor judgment regarding Social Security....

"All of which makes it just incredible that Barack Obama would make obeisance to fashionable but misguided Social Security crisis-mongering a centerpiece of his campaign..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-j...o_b_72148.html

In his memoir, Obama writes of one of the watershed moments of his racial awareness -- time and again in remarkable detail. It is a story about a Life magazine article that influenced him. The report was about a black man who tried to bleach his skin white. When Obama was told no such article could be found in Life, he says "it might have been Ebony.

He is 9 years old, living in Indonesia, where he and his mother moved with her new husband, Lolo Soetoro, a few years earlier. One day while visiting his mother, who was working at the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Obama passed time by looking through several issues of Life magazine. He came across an article that he later would describe as feeling like an "ambush attack."

The article included photos of a black man who had destroyed his skin with powerful chemical lighteners that promised to make him white. Instead, the chemicals had peeled off much of his skin, leaving him sad and scarred, Obama recalled.

"I imagine other black children, then and now, undergoing similar moments of revelation," Obama wrote of the magazine photos in "Dreams."

Yet no such photo exists, according to historians at the magazine. No such photos, no such article. When asked about the discrepancy, Obama said in a recent interview, "It might have been an Ebony or it might have been ... who knows what it was?" (At the request of the Tribune, archivists at Ebony searched their catalogue of past articles, none of which matched what Obama recalled.)

In fact, it is surprising, based on interviews with more than two dozen people who knew Obama during his nearly four years in Indonesia, that it would take a photograph in a magazine to make him conscious of the fact that some people might treat him differently in part because of the color of his skin.

http://www.freedomsenemies.com/_Obama/ObamaLies.htm

Obama, whose ears apparently grow larger with each lie he tells, has boasted during the campaign how he stood up to the Exelon Corporation in his home state of Illinois when it was learned it failed to tell the public about radioactive leaks at one of the nuclear power plants it owns.

Obama claimed, according to records unearthed by the Times, that he introduced and helped get passed legislation to make it mandatory for even small leaks to be reported quickly to state and local authorities.

“…the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed,” Obama told voters in Iowa,according to the Times.

The problem is, it happens not to be true!

In fact, according to the Times account, Obama eventually caved to special interest groups and Republicans in Congress and signed off on legislation much ,much weaker than what he says he got passed–legislation favored by Exelon and the nuclear industry.

http://thefeldmanblog.com/2008/02/03...aims-he-didnt/

The Chicago Tribune writes:

"Several of his oft-recited stories may not have happened in the way he has recounted them. Some seem to make Obama look better in the retelling, others appear to exaggerate his outward struggles over issues of race, or simply skim over some of the most painful, private moments of his life."

In Barack's speech in Selma Alabama, he claimed that his parents were motivated to get married and have Barack "because some folks are willing to march across a bridge." The thing is, Barack was born four years before the incident at Selma occurred. Barack later said he was talking about the whole civil rights movement. Just because he mentioned Selma, while talking at Selma, apparently doesn't mean he meant Selma.
Barack also told people that his father came to America when Barack's grandfather heard John and Bobby Kennedy, who “sent a shout across oceans” for Africans to come to America and learn. Barack Sr. was then sent to America. There's a problem there also:

...having been born in August 1961, the future senator was not conceived until sometime in November 1960. So, if his African grandfather heard words that “sent a shout across oceans,” inspiring him to send his goat-herder son to America, it was not Democrat Jack Kennedy he heard, or his brother Bobby, it was Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
It would be easy to dismiss this as a simple mistake, if it were not for all the comparisons of Barack to John Kennedy.

http://purelypolitical.newsvine.com/...-outright-lies

*Barack Obama, Sr. attended the East-West Center, set up in 1960 by the U. S. Congress and President Eisenhower.

*Selma happened in 1965, when Barack Obama was four, and after the death of John F. Kennedy.

*The 16th Street Baptist Church bombing happened in 1963, when Barack Obama was two.

*Barack Obama, Jr. was born in August 1961.

So basically Barack Obama was born in 1961 because his father got to go to school in 1960, due to a program approved of by "President Kennedy", in response to Selma, which happened in 1965.

In other words, Barack Obama has lied about his personal history, has probably lied about his personal history numerous times, and he is a serial panderer.

I don't doubt that Obama faced tough times while going to the wealthiest schools in Indonesia and Hawaii, and while attending Columbia and Harvard Law School. After all, attending leftist ivy league schools is something that we all can relate to, right?

If Barack Obama would lie about the reason why his father came to America, and what caused his parents to meet, it must make you ask "How many Lies has he told so far?"

Barack Harvard Obama is a paper lion. Plain and simple. The idiot media of Joe Biden-esque figures annoited Barack Obama because they just fawned over his Harvard-bred oration.

http://www.crosstabs.org/blogs/rc/20...s_selma_speech

Something that Obama won't discuss is how the Muslim world perceives him and what impact it might have on our country and world affairs. It doesn't matter that he is Christain. They say he is a Muslim..... Another example of how Obama does not use good judgment in considering this very obvious and true Muslim law.

Obama's father abandoned him and his mother when he was just a kid (he used Islam's Sharia Law and its tenets about divorce), yet he feels compelled to follow his father's roots while totally neglecting his white mother's heritage and religion. His mother was responsible for who he is today, yet not a peep about her.

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archi...k_hussein.html

16 months ago, the New York Times reported that:

In a recent interview, he [Obama] 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.”

When a journalist pointed out that such statements raised flags about Obama’s anti-war spin, Obama informed the public that he only did it once, to

avoid putting down John Kerry and John Edwards, two senators who had voted to authorize the war and were about to become their party’s presidential ticket. “The only time when I said I’m not sure what I would do if I were in the Senate was right before the Democratic convention, when we had two nominees that obviously I did not want to be criticizing right before they got up and received the nomination,” [CNN, October 02, 2007

Obama admitted to having lied, when asked whether his words at the time were honest :

“But you didn’t mean it?”
-So — well, no.

As if one lie wasn’t enough, he emphasized the singular nature of this dissimulation :

Obama told Candy Crowley that was the only time he ever said anything like that.

Could Obama have forgotten that only a year earlier, in reference to Hillary Clinton’s war vote, which he refused to judge, he stated quite emphatically

I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although I’m always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn’t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence. And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices. So that might be something that sort of is obvious. But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test.
How would one run against Hillary Clinton, in that sense?
-Oh, I don’t know.
You never gave it any thought?
-I haven’t.
You sure?
-Positive.

http://www.stop-obama.org/?p=70

Well, there is a lot more but this is getting rather lengthy so I'll stop for now!; March 22, 2008 2:48 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 22, 2008 8:09 AM
protactinium said...: I know alot of you Hillarites are very disappointed to see your canidite is out.

I know alot of hate mongers, and smears want you to believe that it is a vote for yes or no for Obama.

However it is a vote for who would be a better leader Mccain or Obama. Not if you like Obama or not.

A vote for Mccain is a vote to go in to Iran.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg

A vote for Mccain is to spend 100 years in Iraq.

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

Mccain has flip floped on Iraq, and is either to old to remember or a liar.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI; March 22, 2008 8:15 AM
protactinium said...: Well if Iraq is not your #1 issue. How is Mccain on economy?

He admits himself he does not know alot about it.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=RqsH7dkFGTo

Then he lies about it at the debate.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bogh_sp5SE0

What about lobbyists? Mccain claims to tout how he will get rid of Lobbyists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gEROVh8zK4

How can we trust him? He is not only politics as usual. We will be looking at 100 years of war if we elect him. Not just in Iraq but also Iran. Atleast until our economy fails. No worries the lobbists will make sure to get there cut as the economy fails.

Can we really trust him?; March 22, 2008 8:26 AM
NO Obama said...: Obama's Big Lie (Theory)

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Big_lie

All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.; March 22, 2008 1:28 PM
NO Obama said...: Would the real Obama please stand up?

Never underestimate the influence of a wife who bitch-slaps her husband in public. Early in Obama's campaign, Michelle Obama could not restrain herself from belittling the senator. "I have some difficulty reconciling the two images I have of Barack Obama. There's Barack Obama the phenomenon. He's an amazing orator, Harvard Law Review, or whatever it was, law professor, best-selling author, Grammy winner. Pretty amazing, right? And then there's the Barack Obama that lives with me in my house, and that guy's a little less impressive," she told a fundraiser in February 2007.; March 22, 2008 1:47 PM
protactinium said...: so hes got a strong wife. What is your point? A femanist like you should love that.

With your theroys you should not support Hillary or Bill.

Or do you perfer a wife that is a ex-drug addict? Remember you are the one that said you had 0 tolerance for drug use.

Hippocrit as usual.; March 22, 2008 2:22 PM
NO Obama said...: Pro--you as usual don't repeat what I said accurately.

I said ILLEGAL drug use is what I have 0 tolerance for.

You missed the whole point about Michelle Obama so there is not any way to debate you on it.

But let me say that there are 2 ways you can be a strong woman, either in a positive sense or a negative one and Michelle Obama is very negative about this country and even to some extent her husband.

She opens her big mouth and lets some of the truth slip out!

Too bad it's not the WHOLE truth!; March 22, 2008 2:27 PM
Siroco said...: Bill RIchardson's endorsement of Barack Obama is perhaps the best answer to the distortions, half-truths, and outright lies being foisted on us currently.

It is so passing strange that it is being claimed that H. Clinton is "the more electable candidate" when she has lost more delegates, lost more states, lost more votes, and is rapidly losing the lead in superdelegates as well.; March 22, 2008 2:40 PM
protactinium said...: "I said ILLEGAL drug use is what I have 0 tolerance for."

Stealing drugs from a hospital that you are doing charity work for is Illegal. Taking prescription drugs with out a script is illegal.

Hippocrit as usual.

But yes you are right there is no reason to argue with you. You vote on HATE. You know nothing of the issues as fair as i can tell. Just a talking Hillary peice.

To bad Hillary is done. Let's start talking about Mccain.

Ok I am done feeding the trolls.

Explain this one Mccain. How is Bush economy plans that you are endorsing work?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/recession_38_say_depression_somewhat_likely

Forty-eight percent (48%) of Democrats fear a Depression is somewhat likely along with 41% of unaffiliated voters and 26% of Republicans. Younger voters are more concerned than their elders. Forty-four percent (44%) of those under 30 fear a Depression might be coming while just 29% of senior citizens say such a calamity is even somewhat likely to unfold.; March 22, 2008 2:42 PM
Unknown said...: Oh yeah Time, way to be a flip-flopper. You claim Obama is inconsistent, but you are the epitome of inconsistencies. To try to qualify your statement to "illegal drug use" is absurd. With your logic, it is then "OK" for people to steal prescription drugs (which is only a major federal offense, usually punishable with prison time).

You tolerate illegal activities, but only with certain people. Surely there is no hypocrisy there!

Again, you have done an excellent job of proving just how illogical you are!!!; March 22, 2008 2:45 PM
Unknown said...: Pro-

You hit the nail on the head. You just typed faster than I.

It is hillarious that they are so desparate now that they are showing their own weaknesses, inconsistencies, and lies.

I love it!; March 22, 2008 2:50 PM
Siroco said...: Florida is ,today, holding caucuses to select delegates to the Democratic Convention. The number of delegates for each side has been fixed in advanced to conform with the Jan invalid straw vote, and only the identity of the specific delegates will be determined at the Caucuses.

QUESTION: If the Florida Democratic Party has the time, money, and logistical ability to hold 150 caucuses Statewide today, why didn't they let the caucus results also determine the number of delegates each side would get? If they has done this, the DNC would have had to SEAT these delegates by its on rules, since they would have been chosen by a party-rule valid way.

Answer: H. Clinton who the Florida Party honchos support might not have done so well. (parenthetically I might ask: if someone lacks the skill to organize wining caucuses, why do they think they can organize the Government of the United States?)

I no longer have ANY sympathy for the Florida Democratic Party's self-imposed problems.; March 22, 2008 2:51 PM
protactinium said...: Lectric-"Pro-

You hit the nail on the head. You just typed faster than I."

Yeah but your typing has less typos then mine.

Mccains Economy Platform

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120451614688707083.html?mod=blog

Behind the scenes, his campaign is searching for ways to pay for Sen. McCain's tax proposals. In addition to extending the Bush tax cuts, the 71-year-old candidate would slash the corporate income-tax rate from 35% to 25% at a cost to the Treasury of $100 billion a year, estimates Mr. Holtz-Eakin.

Among the candidates for elimination are a 2004 break for manufacturers -- written so broadly that it includes computer software makers, construction firms and architects -- a low-income housing credit, and tax breaks for life-insurance companies, credit unions and exporters. Undoing those breaks would raise a maximum of around $45 billion a year, still leaving a big hole.

Yes Mccain wants to give money to the rich corperations, and take it way from life-insurance, low-income housing breaks, credit unions. You know anything that the rich does not want can go.; March 22, 2008 3:07 PM
NO Obama said...: No wonder you follow Obama. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Is Cindy McCain running for president?; March 22, 2008 6:57 PM
Siroco said...: I appear to have been mislead by an out of date article on the FA Democratic Party Web site. (surprise)

Does anyone in FA have accurate info?; March 22, 2008 7:00 PM
Unknown said...: Oh Time, you are truly so intelligent. You were the one attacking a woman who is not running for president. But, now, you do not want to face the facts about the wife of the person who you claim to support now that Hillary has totally botched her bid.

Again, you brain-washed Billary lovers are hillarious. I am waiting to run across a Clinton supporter who can think for themslves and not just spew the hatred from Billary's daily talking points and the "unofficial" website which you obviously visit regularly.

I am sorry that your candidate has totally screwed her campaign up-- from underestimating her opponent, mismanaging money, and thinking than half a dozen states could seal her fate. If you cannot see the irony here (how she so cleverly accuses others of not being prepared, but in reality it is herself), then there is no hpe for you and you ilk. Furthermore, if you knew anything at all, you would know that this "finger pointing" that Billary does is something they are very proficient at. They have been doing it for decades. They commit something unforgiveable, but accuse their opponents of doing what they themselves have done. They handily manage to frame the debates and direct the press on to anyone but themsevles.

Just keep on believing, drinking your kool aid, and spreading your lies and misinformation. At this point, nobody is listening to this garbage anyway.

Oh, thanks for "vetting" Obama with your vile lies. I am sure he appreciates you and your ilk doing this for him before the general.; March 22, 2008 7:08 PM
Bill UK said...: lectricgenius,

Do not hold your breath whilst waiting for a Clintonite who can think, it will take a long time!; March 22, 2008 7:14 PM
NO Obama said...: Analysis of Automatic Delegates (Superdelegates)
One of Obama's favorite things to say is that Automatic Delegates (which Obama calls Superdelegates) need to vote how their state constituents voted. Bill Richardson endorsed Obama, even though his state, New Mexico, voted for Hillary Clinton. The same is true for Devel Patrick, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry in Massachusetts (although personally, HillBuzz would not want John Kerry anywhere near a presidential campaign, thank you very much).

HillBuzz was curious and sat down this Saturday to determine what the numbers would look like if ALL Automatic Delegates endorsed the candidate who won their state. The result: Hillary Clinton wins the Automatic Delegates decidedly.

Here's the Automatic Delegate breakdown:
* States and territories voting so far (as of 3/22/08) = Clinton 346, Obama 309

Clinton States:

AR = 12
AS = 6
AZ = 10
CA = 65
FL = 23
MA = 26
MI = 27
NH = 7
NJ = 18
NM = 11
NV = 8
NY = 45
OH = 19
OK = 10
RI = 11
TN = 17
TX = 31

Obama States:
AL = 8
AK = 4
CO = 14
CT = 11
DE = 7
GA = 13
HI = 8
ID = 4
IL = 27
IA = 11
KS = 8
LA = 9
ME = 7
MD = 27
MN = 14
MS = 6
MO = 14
NE = 6
SC = 8
UT = 5
VA = 16
VT = 7
WA = 17
DC = 23
WI = 16
WY = 5
Dems Abroad = 8
VI = 6

Here's what it looks like if you include the upcoming states (based on current polls):
Clinton 408, Obama 365

IN = 12
KY = 7
MT = 8
ND = 7
NC = 17
OR = 12
PA = 26
SD = 7
WV = 10
Guam = 5
PR = 7
from hillbuzz.com; March 23, 2008 1:58 AM
protactinium said...: Ok time you just proved Obama is the nominee. Thank you.

First I question you upcomming state math, however needless to say it does not matter.

Lets say the rest of the voting delegates is a wash. Which is very possible.

Obama is winning by 171 pledged delegates.

And if the super delegates break down that way. Obama would still win by over 100 delegates.

So you just proved the only way for Hillary to win is to steal the election

Surly you must have known that. right? Surly Hillary must know that.

Hillary is done. You gravy train is over. Which I am glad for. I can not believe they pay so many hateful people to smear Obama.; March 23, 2008 4:16 AM
protactinium said...: Also this Hillbuzz site that you tout so much about.

Actually says not 1 postive thing about Hillary. It is entirly about Obama.

Why does Hillary not want us to vote on who is better Her or Obama?
She only want us to NOT vote for Obama. Why?

Is it because when people voted for Hillary or Obama she lost? So the only thing left is to smear him?

I think its a distrubing trend that Hillarites do build up Hillary. But instead tear Obama down.

However I did hear an interview today were it was stated Hillary cares nothing about the democratic party, and only about winning. Sounds right.

Who are Hillary loyalty to? The democratic party, and the America people? Or her own self serving purpose of win at all cost. It is quite distrubing.

Also anyone see that Fox New is losing alot of the "prize" demographic to MSNBC, and CNN People are getting sick of them just running the same story all day to tear down Obama.

Hillary's campaign is costing everyone around her.; March 23, 2008 4:34 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 23, 2008 6:35 AM
Siroco said...: How is it that H. Clinton is supposed to be the more electable candidate when she has lost more delegates, lost more States, lost more contests, lost more votes, and is slowly losing her once mighty Superdelegate lead -- once nearly 100 and now down to 35.

How is it that Governor Bill Richardson, who certainly knows the Clintons very well, has endorsed Obama. If H. Clinton is the more electable why are the "Limbaugh Republicans" straining every nerve and sinew to "help" her win the nomination. (And indeed certainly are responsible for her pop vote lead in TX.)

In short, if H. Clinton is so electable why isn't she winning elections? Where did the massive nationwide lead she enjoyed when this campaign began -- 40% or more -- go to if she is so "electable"?; March 23, 2008 7:34 AM
protactinium said...: Oh really Hillary is the better canidite. Obama should just bow out because Hillary broke him right?

Lets go ask the polls.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history

03/21/08 Clinton 44% Obama 45%

03/20/08 Clinton 43% Obama 46%

3/19/08 Clinton 42% Obama 47%

3/18/08 Clinton 44% Obama 45%

3/17/08 Clinton 44% Obama 46%

3/16/08 Clinton 44% Obama 47%

The race politics has failed Hillary. John Mccain is trying to stay as far away as possible from this, because he knows its a failed card.

Please do not spread lies, Obama is still beating Hillary by all scorecards, including polls.

Hillary is done. That is why she got mad when Richardson called her to tell her he as endorsing Obama. Then they said it did not matter. However Carvel then turns around and calls Richardson a traitor. Hey campaign is unraviling fast. The media is only asking when she will drop out. Not what she is doing.

I would say their needs to be a call for Hillary to drop out. But we all know that will never happen. Though the democratic party is starting to rachet up the pressure.; March 23, 2008 8:41 AM
protactinium said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 23, 2008 8:58 AM
NO Obama said...: Obama is a pathalogical liar or has really terribl memory problems. Either way, he is not fit to be CIC.

Within a space of just a few days last week, he contradicted (lied) himself about whether or not he had hear Wright's vitriolic speeches, anti-American, racial spews.

Instead of the Aucacity of Hope, it should be the Audacity of Obama to preach to us about race relations and to try to change the subject with his recent speech.

Obama is a flim flam artist, snake oil salesman and community agitator rolled up into one.

He leared early on how to manipulate people, how to whip them into a frenzy of false hope and then proceeded to take advantage of them.

I "disowned" his white mother and hadn't seen her for many years. TODAY he said he wished he had been at her bedside when she died.

Isn't NOT being at this white woman's beside when she died quite telling? He makes it quite clear in his books, through pastor Wright, etc. that WHITE PEOPLE ARE TO BE HATED.

THAT is why he wasn't at her bedside. He hated his white mother.

NOW he is changing his tune a little about her simple because he realizes the way he behaved towards her for so long is damaging to him.

Where is his WHITE grandmother who he says he couldn't disown? How come he never talks fondly about her or shows pictures or movie clips of her?

And all this white hate is very ironic because he is 50% white from his mother, barely black 6% from his great grandmother and 44% ARAB African from his father.

Bottom line is the man cannot be trusted in the Oval Office!; March 23, 2008 3:16 PM
NO Obama said...: Obama has the Wright stuff!

He has the bigotry, hate for whites, smooth talk and hate for his country that all of his supporters should be very proud of.; March 23, 2008 3:20 PM
protactinium said...: Yes he must hate that 50% of himself. He must hate all those people that raised him.

Remember his black dad left him at two. He was taken care of by his WHITE family.

I bet you were bashing Kennedy for being a Chaothlic when he ran.

Go get a clue.; March 23, 2008 3:31 PM
NO Obama said...: Obama's white grandmother, according to the account in "Dreams from My Father," had once flinched before a black man on a public bus — hoping that her husband would drive her to work the following day so that she could avoid him. On other occasions, he recounts, she had uttered "racial or ethnic stereotypes" that made Obama "cringe."

This is a false equivalence. In the first place, what pastor or congregational leader does not minister to the poor and unfortunate? Pastoral work in the community is the norm, not the exception. One can say the same of Louis Farrakhan and Hamas for that matter. It doesn't begin to excuse or justify stoking the flames of hatred and bitterness that Wright so flagrantly fired.

And wasn't it a bit of a cheap shot to take public aim at grandmother, who sacrificed so much for Obama, who served as his surrogate mother during his high school years? If she used racial and ethnic stereotypes, that was wrong. But the episode about the bus, as related in his book, is hardly a damning indictment of a secret racist. After Obama's grandmother confessed to having been harassed by an aggressive panhandler, Obama writes:

"He (Obama's grandfather) turned around and I saw now that he was shaking. 'It is a big deal. It's a big deal to me. She's been bothered by men before. You know why she's so scared this time? I'll tell you why. Before you came in she told me the fella was black.' He whispered the word. 'That's the real reason she's bothered. And I just don't think that's right.'

"It was like a fist to my stomach, and I wobbled to maintain my composure."

I don't claim to know Obama's grandmother and am in no position to judge her racial sentiments. But it does seem to an outsider that Obama's judgment upon his grandmother is as harsh as his tolerance of Wright is benign.

His grandmother was afraid of this specific panhandler who happened to be black.

She did not say she was fearful of all blacks who passed her on the street as Obama said in his recent speech.

He lies and contradicts himself to prove a point when it is convenient to him!!; March 23, 2008 3:37 PM
NO Obama said...: Why is Obama hiding his white grandmother and only mentioned her recently while throwing her under the bus to try to compare her to Wright.

Wright is not a blood relative so disowning him for his anti-American, white hate spew should come easily if Obama doesn't subscribe to that hate.

He does, though and that is why he can't disown him.

He lies when he says he couldn't disown his grandmother.

He already had, many years ago.

He panders to black voters and whites who are guilt ridden for the way blacks have been treated in the US.

So, Obama plays off of these people to make himself into something he isn't and to get them to support him.

Obama is The Great Manipulator!!; March 23, 2008 3:48 PM
NO Obama said...: This minister is reasonable and astute! He'd make a better president than Obama would.

http://www.atlah.org/broadcast/ndnr02-05-08.html

Watch his video!; March 23, 2008 4:51 PM
Siroco said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 23, 2008 4:55 PM
Siroco said...: Endorsing Obama -- Doug Kmiec [A very conservative Catholic Republican]

Today I endorse Barack Obama for president of the United States. I believe him to be a person of integrity, intelligence and genuine good will. I take him at his word that he wants to move the nation beyond its religious and racial divides and to return United States to that company of nations committed to human rights. I do not know if his earlier life experience is sufficient for the challenges of the presidency that lie ahead. I doubt we know this about any of the men or women we might select. It likely depends upon the serendipity of the events that cannot be foreseen. I do have confidence that the Senator will cast his net widely in search of men and women of diverse, open-minded views and of superior intellectual qualities to assist him in the wide range of responsibilities that he must superintend.

This endorsement may be of little note or consequence, except perhaps that it comes from an unlikely source: namely, a former constitutional legal counsel to two Republican presidents. The endorsement will likely supply no strategic advantage equivalent to that represented by the very helpful accolades the Senator has received from many of high stature and accomplishment, including most recently, from Governor Bill Richardson. Nevertheless, it is important to be said publicly in a public forum in order that it be understood. It is not arrived at without careful thought and some difficulty.

As a Republican, I strongly wish to preserve traditional marriage not as a suspicion or denigration of my homosexual friends, but as recognition of the significance of the procreative family as a building block of society. As a Republican, and as a Catholic, I believe life begins at conception, and it is important for every life to be given sustenance and encouragement. As a Republican, I strongly believe that the Supreme Court of the United States must be fully dedicated to the rule of law, and to the employ of a consistent method of interpretation that keeps the Court within its limited judicial role. As a Republican, I believe problems are best resolved closest to their source and that we should never arrogate to a higher level of government that which can be more effectively and efficiently resolved below. As a Republican, and the constitutional lawyer, I believe religious freedom does not mean religious separation or mindless exclusion from the public square.

In various ways, Senator Barack Obama and I may disagree on aspects of these important fundamentals, but I am convinced based upon his public pronouncements and his personal writing that on each of these questions he is not closed to understanding opposing points of view, and as best as it is humanly possible, he will respect and accommodate them.

No doubt some of my friends will see this as a matter of party or intellectual treachery. I regret that and I respect their disagreement. But they will readily agree that as Republicans, we are first Americans. As Americans, we must voice our concerns for the well-being of our nation without partisanship when decisions that have been made endanger the body politic. Our president has involved our nation in a military engagement without sufficient justification or clear objective. In so doing, he has incurred both tragic loss of life and extraordinary debt jeopardizing the economy and the well-being of the average American citizen. In pursuit of these fatally flawed purposes, the office of the presidency, which it was once my privilege to defend in public office formally, has been distorted beyond its constitutional assignment. Today, I do no more than raise the defense of that important office anew, but as private citizen.

9/11 and the radical Islamic ideology that it represents is a continuing threat to our safety and the next president must have the honesty to recognize that it, as author Paul Berman has written, "draws on totalitarian inspirations from 20th-century Europe and with its double roots, religious and modern, perversely intertwined. . . .wields a lot more power, intellectually speaking, then naïve observers might suppose." Senator Obama needs to address this extremist movement with the same clarity and honesty with which he has addressed the topic of race in America. Effective criticism of the incumbent for diverting us from this task is a good start, but it is incomplete without a forthright outline of a commitment to undertake, with international partners, the formation of a world-wide entity that will track, detain, prosecute, convict, punish, and thereby, stem radical Islam's threat to civil order. I await Senator Obama's more extended thinking upon this vital subject, as he accepts the nomination of his party and engages Senator McCain in the general campaign discussion to come.

Published Sunday, March 23, 2008 9:18 AM by Doug Kmiec; March 23, 2008 4:57 PM
Bill UK said...: I think it is time that all Obama supporters thanked 'Time', 'Anon. NY', and other Clinton supporters who have posted so widely (I nearly said 'spammed' - but I thought it best not to insult spammers).

Having the superior candidate in Obama may not have been enough to convince people to register and vote for Obama, what the Clintonites have so spectacularly done is shown voters who they could have ended up with as an alternative. That alternative, 'Sniper in my dreams' Clinton has acted like a conduit funneling voters to the Obama camp.

What is more the vitriolic postings of the Clintonites has allowed Obama supporters to speak clearly and concisely about the future under an America with President Obama leading it. The most telling part is that the Clintonites unmittigated hatred has all been a marvelous bonus and has actually gone a long way to focus peoples minds on the question, 'If this is what Clinton's supporters are like then what does that say about 'Use an 8 year old girl as body armour' Clinton?'

Remember all those deleted posts by Clinton supporters? All the name calling of those who vote for Obama, it is the same acid-laced bile that we can all hear 'I am a hero snipers have shot at me' Clinton shouting down the phone to Gov. Bill Richardson, we don't need to be told exactly what 'Run for cover' Clinton said, we just know. What is worse for 'Is that a sniper' Clinton is the fact that so do the electorate.

So here from one Obama supporter is thanks to all the Clintonites who have helped get Barack Obama the Democratic Party nomination for President of the USA.; March 23, 2008 5:29 PM
protactinium said...: Would you trust her with our Economy?

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iNxTApa2sQRu0Xx99P3jt2bEXw7gD8VI2R2G0

"Obama outspends and outraises Clinton

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton upped the tempo of her fundraising and her spending last month, only to be eclipsed by rival Barack Obama. At month's end, with debts of nearly $9 million, her money was nearly spent and he was sitting atop $30 million in available cash.

Obama's campaign spent at a rate of nearly $1.5 million a day in February — a crucial month that began with the Feb. 5 Super Tuesday and ended with both candidates marching to a showdown March 4 in Texas and Ohio. Clinton, riding her best fundraising period yet, spent about $1 million a day on average.

But reports filed with the Federal Election commission late Thursday showed that Obama set a single month fundraising record, with more than $55 million in contributions.

Both Democrats ended up with more than $30 million in the bank, but Clinton can't use two thirds of her cash on hand because it's only for the general election. That and her debt left her with less than $3 million in the black. The debt doesn't include the $5 million she lent her campaign in January."

Her campaign is in major debt, and her website is desprate to raise cash, just to match Obamas new set of ads in Penn.

Even after loaning her campaign money, and after that huge fundraising drive she still can not balance her own budget. The type of debt she is occuring is Bush like.; March 23, 2008 5:34 PM
protactinium said...: Bill UK you forgot to Thank them for properly vetting Obama, proving Obama can stand up in the face of adversitiy and take the situation head on.

Thank you for your service to Obama.; March 23, 2008 5:39 PM
NO Obama said...: Does this guy have an original thought?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5GMmynh4ac&eurl=http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net/discussion/showthread.php?t=2965

He is a sponge which absorbs others' statements and ideas.

A copy cat of the worst order!!; March 23, 2008 7:13 PM
NO Obama said...: Northern Ireland Nobel Peace Prize Winner Endorses Hillary!!

http://www.primenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=138711; March 23, 2008 7:36 PM
Ferdinand Porsche said...: I think I now know what projection looks like....

Although this may be for another debate, but I remember reading a quote--not sure by who though-- that nobody has a truly original thought. As soon as you think you have an original thought, chances are that somebody else has already thought of it.; March 23, 2008 8:02 PM
NO Obama said...: Copying someone almost word for word is different than finding out someone else had an original thought similar to yours.

If you notice, when he speaks extemporaneously, he stumbles, hems and haws, etc.; March 23, 2008 10:25 PM
Siroco said...: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It6JN7ALF7Y; March 23, 2008 10:47 PM
Siroco said...: Barack

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrp-v2tHaDo; March 23, 2008 10:49 PM
NO Obama said...: Obama has no original words or thoughts of his own. Copycat!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuB_W8o_UsU&feature=related

Obama is bamboozling you!!!; March 24, 2008 12:00 AM
NO Obama said...: Why Hillary will win over Obama in the GE:

http://www.diversityj.com/Statistics2008Primary.html; March 24, 2008 2:41 AM
Ferdinand Porsche said...: As I said it was probably for a different debate, and I figured that you would something along those lines. That there is a difference between copying words and having an original thought.

As for the "stumbling" while speaking, I think it shows that he is actually thinking as he goes along. I know that when I know what I am going to say I don't stumble at all, but when ever asked a question that I had not given much for-thought to I tend to stumble, or add "filler" in the form of pauses, umm's, and hum's. Its not proper public speaking, but most public speaking is rehearsed and has no thinking going into it.

I actually like the fact that he is thinking while he goes along, shows originality, not rehearsed 30-second sound bytes.; March 24, 2008 7:21 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 24, 2008 7:41 AM
Bill UK said...: Annonymous asks 'why is Obama not resigning his campaign?'

The answer is simple:

The Democratic nominee is

Barack Obama; March 24, 2008 9:56 AM
Independent Voter said...: Time, you are pathetic. You ask, why is he hiding his white grandmother? HELLO, THAT IS A STUPID QUESTION (notice I didn't call you stupid, but I am getting close) you do realize that he is 46, right? His grandmother is more than likely in her EIGHTIES if not her NINETIES!

Perhaps he doesn't want to expose her to the political scrutiny that ANY presidential candidate goes through? A better question would be, why is Chelsea campaigning for her, but is NOT "allowed" to speak to the press? That would be a MUCH better question!

If his grandmother was actively campaigning for him, I could understand, but she's not. The simple fact is SHE IS OLD!!!!!!!!! Have you thought it possible that she may be in full-time medical care? Or that she may have medical condidtions that keep her from participating? Your question merits absolutely no answer, but I have nonetheless answered it.

Get over yourself.; March 24, 2008 3:24 PM
protactinium said...: Attacking a 90 year old lady is just proof that Hillary's people will say or do anything to win.

Pitiful.

Hillary is a deeply flawed canidite. If they nominate Hillary the democratic party knows they will lose. They are just letting this play out so they disenfranchise as few of her intellegent supporters as possible.; March 24, 2008 4:24 PM
NO Obama said...: Obama's mother is 86. McCain's mother who has campaigned with him is 93 or thereabouts.

Obama hides his grandmother because he wants to play to black voters who don't like whites and therefore he doesn't want to show his white grandmother.

He's only mentioned her briefly for his own selfish reasons to try to compare her to a "typical white person".

Had Hillary said something about a typical black person, World War III whould have broken out!; March 24, 2008 4:45 PM
Independent Voter said...: Time your ignorance is really showing through. So what if Obama's grandmother is 86 and McCain's is 93. Simply because McCain's mother is old does NOT mean that she would be in worse health than Obama's grandmother. The fact is his grandmother could be ill and he doesn't want to expose her to the BS that takes place in presidential campaigns.

By your logic, Obama's mother should be out campaigning for him because she is younger than McCain. There's only ONE problem with that, Obama's MOTHER is DEAD!

By comparing two peoples ages as to whether or not they should be campaigning for someone makes absolutely ZERO sense when you are talking about people who are in their 80's and 90's.; March 24, 2008 4:58 PM
Independent Voter said...: Pro you wrote, "Hillary is a deeply flawed canidite. If they nominate Hillary the democratic party knows they will lose. They are just letting this play out so they disenfranchise as few of her intellegent supporters as possible."

I know she is deeply flawed as do 2/3 of the people in this country.....I'm still looking for those "few intelligent supporters" you refer to.; March 24, 2008 5:01 PM
Unknown said...: Pro-

Why wouldn't Billary alienate a whole block of voters? They are well known for mastering this approach. This time, they have just done it with the "black vote". Politics is nothing more than a numbers game to the Clintons, and they have made it abundantly clear that they believe they can win without a single black vote.

They had obviously planned to count on all the "Bubbas" of the world to vote for her just as they did Bill and G.W.

Wake up America! You can either be led by a continual group of Washington elitists, or an outsider who is not engrained in this highly flawed system. If you go for the elitists, you get what you deserve. Plus, you are what is known as a "Torrie", because you are obviously more allegiant to the crown than you are a democracy!; March 24, 2008 5:24 PM
NO Obama said...: At first he didn't mention his white mother and grandmother.

NOW he mentions them to suit his needs in bailing himself out of a tight spot.

THAT is also what I'm referring to about hiding them!; March 24, 2008 5:39 PM
NO Obama said...: Pro, you are a cretin! Name calling is your strong suit.

I don't read what you post when you start out with name calling so don't bother.; March 24, 2008 5:42 PM
Unknown said...: Senator Clinton has taken more special interest money than any candidate in the race of either party, including:

$56,250 to date from finance industry PACs
Nearly $750,000 total to date from PACs
$72,747.91 to date from insurance industry lobbyists
$919,000 total to date from lobbyists
And Clinton has taken nearly $22,000 this cycle form lobbyists for the sub-prime lending industry [Center for Responsive Politics, accessed: 8/6/07]:

Clinton took $2,300 from Countrywide Financial lobbyist Jennifer Bendall
Clinton took $3,600 from Countrywide Financial lobbyist Stephanie Markiewicz
Clinton took $1,250 from Countrywide Financial lobbyist Maria Cardona
Clinton took $4,600 from Countrywide Financial lobbyist Charles Campion
Clinton took $4,600 from Washington Mutual lobbyist James Free
Clinton took $1,000 from Washington Mutual lobbyist Robert Hickmott.
Clinton took $4,600 from Washington Mutual lobbyist Cantwell F. Muckenfuss
In addition, her campaign activities show close ties to special interests:

12 Of Clinton’s $100,000+ Bundlers Are Federal Lobbyists. 12 of the “HillRaisers” listed on Clinton’s web site were federally registered lobbyists in 2007 or 2008. “HillRaisers” are defined as anyone who raises more than $100,000 for Clinton’s campaign. [http://www.hillaryclinton.com/Q1/HillRaisers/; Senate Office of Public Records]

Clinton Held an “Issues Breakout” Fundraiser With Lobbyists. Clinton’s campaign is hosting lobbyist donors for an “issues breakout session” on the morning of June 6. For $500, attendees can choose briefings on education, energy and the environment, health care, and telecommunications and technology, among others, according to a copy of the invite. An extra $500 allows donors to stick around for breakfast with the candidate. “It’s somewhat unusual, but it’s appreciated,” one lobbyist, a Clinton supporter, said of the fundraiser. Roll Call described the event as being for “Democratic lobbyists eager to hear the particulars of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s policy positions.” [Roll Call, 5/9/07; Hillary Clinton for President Event Invitation]; March 24, 2008 6:13 PM
Unknown said...: Clinton Planned To Hold A “Rural Americans For Hillary” Lunch At Monsanto Lobbying Firm. Clinton planned to hold a “Rural Americans for Hillary” lunch and campaign briefing at the end of this month at lobbying firm Troutman Sanders Public Affairs which lobbies for the “controversial multinational agri-biotech Monsanto. You read that right: Monsanto, about which there are serious questions about its culpability regarding 56 Superfund Sites, wanton and ‘outrageous’ pollution, and the decidedly unkosher (and quite metaphoric) genetically-bred ‘Superpig.’ A company that the website ‘Ethical Investing’ labels ‘the world’s most unethical and harmful investment.’” [ABC, 10/18/07]; March 24, 2008 6:14 PM
Unknown said...: Look who is copying someone else's ideas now (Hillary is!!!)...

ONE YEAR AGO: Obama proposed the summit Clinton is offering today

Almost one year ago to the day, Barack Obama sent a letter (below) to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson urging them to convene a homeownership preservation summit. Today, Clinton is proposing essentially the same thing.

One key difference, however, is the diversity and representation that Obama called for – not just some of the same people who helped to create these problems or have a direct financial industry stake in the outcome: “I urge you immediately to convene a homeownership preservation summit with leading mortgage lenders, investors, loan servicing organizations, consumer advocates, federal regulators and housing-related agencies to assess options for private sector responses to the challenge.”; March 24, 2008 6:16 PM
Unknown said...: I thought Hillary wanted more debates.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/no-response-from-clinton/; March 24, 2008 6:46 PM
Independent Voter said...: lec...

"I thought Hillary wanted more debates."

It's called playbook 101. When you are out of cash (like she was in February) and all but done (as she still is today but won't admit it) and then when you don't get your way you smear the opposition (like she did in Wisconsin) because they won't give into your BS politics. And then you try to change the rules in the middle of the game (MI & FL, caucus' don't count, only "big" states count, only the states I win count....etc.) and that doesn't work, you smear your opposition some more. And then you end up losing anyway, but you still continue to smear your opposition and leave nothing else but for the opposition to push and smear back so you cry sexism (seems to be her tactic). And we learn recently that she is back down to only having about $3 million left that she can use toward the primaries because she's not getting the small donations that Obama has been getting (he still has $30 million or so to spend in the primary season), you would think with her being broke again that she would be demanding more and more debates. I heard recently that she is trying to pull out the "electoral" vote argument based on the states that she has won thusfar, trying to discount that CA and NY would go to Obama. I find it absolutely amusing that this woman is in the biggest state of denial (I have the feeling she must think denial is a river). We all know the first step to recovery is to admit that you have a problem but she is so determined that if she isn't the nominee that NO Democrat will be president.

I have the feeling that although she knows there is NO chance of her getting the nomination that she is going to destroy ANY chance Obama has at winning the general so she can have another shot in 2012, but WE will ALL remember how she destroyed the Democratic Party and possibly the entire country with her reckless disregard for anyone who is beating her. I'm still trying to figure out how New Yorkers gave her a free pass and reelected her in 2006. She did after all promise to bring 200,000 new jobs to New York, but ended up with a net loss of 30,000.

I always thought New Yorkers were smarter than that. Sigh, I digress.; March 25, 2008 3:18 AM
protactinium said...: lectric I was wondering that myself.

I have no idea why she is ducking the debates, unless she has a fear of some question. However I think I did hear ABC is having one. So we will see how that goes. Maybe she thinks the smear campaign is working well enough on Obama, so debate would be bad for her.

Hillary is hurting herself with this electorate college garbage. This is being viewed as very shady. If she keeps fighting about Michigan and FL, and keeps changing the arguements she is going to fall apart.

However I think we may be seeing the beginings of a real Hillary campaign meltdown. The only news about Hillary is bad news. The sniperfire thing. Bills "McCarthism". Calling Richardson a Judas. Running out of cash.

We will see soon, but good chance Hillary is starting to fall apart. Hillary sees the writing on the wall.; March 25, 2008 5:16 AM
Anonymous said...: 3/25/2008
BARACK OBAMA CONTINUES ON TEARING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY APART, EVEN THOUGH IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS HIS SCANDALS HAVE TAINTED HIM FAR TOO BADLY TO EVER WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION, HIS PASTOR SPEWS HATRED FOR AMERICA, OFFERS NO COMFORT OR AID TO THE GRIEVING JUST 5 DAYS AFTER THE TRAJIC EVENTS OF 911, IN A LOW CLASS AND ACCUSATORY TONE HIS CHURCH DAMNS AMERICA, THE VERY NATION BARACK OBAMA SEEKS TO RULE, SOME MAY SAY WE CANNOT JUDGE HIM BY HIS PASTOR, I SAY TO THEM, IF WE MAKE A CONSCIOUS CHOICE TO ATTEND A CHURCH, MAKE THE PASTOR OUR FRIEND AND MENTOR FOR 20 YEARS, AND FURTHER CHOOSE HIM TO ADVISE A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, WHAT DOES IT SAY OF JUDGEMENT?

WOULD ANY AMERICAN EVER WANT TO TAKE THE CHANCE THAT REVEREND WRIGHT COULD BE APPOINTED TO AN OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE ADMINISTRATION POSITION?

HOW ABOUT REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT VILIFIER OF AMERICA, BECOMING THIS NATIONS "SPIRITUAL" ADVISOR?

I ASK YOU TO CONSIDER WHAT KIND OF AMERICA WE WANT OUR CHILDREN TO GROW UP IN, SHOULD IT BE A NATION WHICH SIMPLY SURRENDERS TO TERROR, SIMPLY IGNOR HOW MANY ALQUEDA ARE ACTUALLY IN IRAQ KILLING OUR SOLDIERS, SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF AMERICA, THE SAME AMERICA "DAMNED" BY THE SPIRITUAL LEADER OF BARACK OBAMA?

ASK YOURSELF IS A VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA A RISKY VOTE, A WALK INTO THE UNKNOWN WORLD OF REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT, BILL AYERS, BERNARDINE DOHRN, NADHMI AUCHI, ETC. ETC.?

PLEASE HELP AMERICA TELL BARACK OBAMA RADICAL EXTREMIST VIEWS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE, PLEASE HELP US TELL HIM THAT HIS FRIENDS ARE SIMPLY TOOO DANGEROUS TO THE FABRIC OF OUR NATION, DEMOCRATS ALL ACROSS AMERICA ARE RETHINKING THE POSITION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, IF SUCH A DIRTY CANDIDATE AS OBAMA CAN RUN IN THIS PARTY, PERHAPS WE ARE BETTER OFF BECOMING INDEPENDANTS!

MY VOTE IS FOR NATIONAL SECURITY, UNITY, AND PEACE!

NOT DIVISION, SEPERATISM, AND HATE AS IS FOUND IN THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN, PLEASE JOIN ME AND HELP STOP OBAMAS CAMPAIGN OF HATE!
DON'T LET THE "TYPICAL WHITE PERSON" ACCUSATION YOU WILL RECEIVE HALT YOUR CONVICTIONS!

PLEASE HELP STOP OBAMA FOR OUR NATION!

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

Barack Obama CANNOT Win the GENERAL ELECTION-- TAKE NOTICE!

**********************************
3/22/2008
IT IS NOT TOO LATE FOR ALL DEMOCRATS TO UNITE BEHIND HILLARY CLINTON AND PUT A DEMOCRAT INTO THE WHITE HOUSE -- OTHERWISE JOHN MCCAIN IS THE NEXT PRESIDENT, WE ALL KNOW ANYONE WHO HASN'T MORONICALLY ALREADY FORGIVEN OBAMA'S RADICAL FRIENDS AND HIS AMERICA HATING PASTOR (WHO HAS OBAMA'S EAR), IS NOT GOING TO FORGIVE IT, AND THE REPUBLICANS ARE NOT GOING TO LET IT GO AWAY!

For perspective on race, religion, and politics i offer you this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fC3Kv6w6dg

Barack Obama Has Again *(3/21/2008)* Choosen to speak About Reverend Wright And Deny Knowledge Of "SPECIFC" Comments Made By His Pastor, Of 20 Years, And SPIRITUAL Advisor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYYYv8NiPig

DOES ANYONE STILL BELIEVE THIS STUFF HE IS SHOVELING?

SEE BARACK OBAMA THROW HIS "TYPICAL WHITE PERSON" GRANDMOTHER UNDER HIS CAMPAIGN BUS TO TRY AND UPLIFT HIS 20 YEAR RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS FOUL AMERICA HATING PASTOR.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkAI5YNrVvc

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

ANOTHER BARACK OBAMA VIDEO HERE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKE_Adprdz4

3/20/2008
NEWSFLASH BARACK OBAMA IS NOW LOSING TO JOHN McCAIN IN THE POLLS AND CONTINUING TO FALL, HIS ****"INDEPENDANT"**** SUPPORT IS RUNNING LIKE CATTLE FROM HIS FEET, HAVING REALIZED HE IS NOT THE MESSIAH!

AMERICANS WOULD HAVE WAR FOR 100 YEARS BEFORE WE SURRENDER IT TO RADICAL EXTREMISTS!

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

to any obama supporter who is trying to communicate with me i want you to know i am no longer reading your postings UNTIL YOU BEGIN THINKING LOGICALLY, here's why:

********************************
WHILE READING THIS AND THE DENIAL RESPONSES CONSIDER THE FACT THAT POSTINGS CAN BE ERASED AS I HAVE ERASED MINE ABOVE TO BE CONSIDERATE OF SPAMMING THE BOARD, CLAIMS HAVE BEEN MADE THAT I AM ALL SORTS OF DEROGATORY THINGS MEANT TO DISPARAGE MY SUPPORT OF MY CANDIDATE, AND MY CONCERNS OF NATIONAL SECURITY, BUT TO MAKE A CLAIM I HAVE NOT BEEN ACCUSED MULTIPLE TIMES OF BEING HOMOSEXUAL, RACIST, OR REPUBLICAN MAKES YOU EITHER A LIAR OR A LATE COMER(NOT HAVING SEEN THE POSTS) IN PROCTACTINIUMS POSTS, DWITS POSTS, OR MOJORISIN, YOU WILL FIND ALL SORTS OF LACED COMMENTARY WHICH IS SUGGESTIVE OF HATRED BETWEEN THESE OBAMA SUPPORTERS, WHICH IS COMPLETELY TYPICAL OF BARACK OBAMA, HIS ASSOCIATES AND SUPPORTERS

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

protactinium said...
"Anon you are insane. Tell me I have ever called you a homosexual. Go find the a quote."

"The only time that talk came up is when someone who was a homosexual said they will vote for Mccain over Obama."

SURE SOUNDS TO ME LIKE HE WAS ACCUSING SOMEONE?
JUST BECAUSE OF THEIR WISH TO VOTE McCAIN OVER OBAMA, SOUNDS LIKE HE WANTED TO MAKE IT ABOUT A PERSONAL "HOMOSEXUAL" BELIEF TO ME !

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

SURE HE AND THE OBAMA MINIONS WILL DEFEND IT AND CLAIM I AM SOME OTHER SLANDEROUS THING, OR SIMPLY DENY IT BUT HERE'S NEWS YOU CAN USE FOLKS
*********************************

"She publicly endorsed the candidate from another party for President."

BECAUSE BARACK OBAMA ASSOCIATES WITH RADICALS

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

SEE WHAT OBAMA, AN HIS SUPPORTERS DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW!

** Auchigate **

** Ayers-Dohrn **

** Rezkogate **

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

..................................

IF YOU ARE UNDECIDED ABOUT WHO WOULD BE THE BETTER NOMINEE PLEASE WATCH THIS VIDEO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6191C4oK6s0

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

.................................

ANOTHER VIDEO OF INTEREST:

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

PLEASE HELP STOP OBAMA'S DIVISIVE TACTICS!
.................................

SEE THE LATEST BAD DECISION BARACK OBAMA HAS MADE IN HIS CHOICE OF FRIENDS AND ASSOCIATES, HIS PASTOR BLAMES THE UNITED STATES FOR 9/11

Barack Obama has said the Reverend JerEmiah Wright Inspired HIS Christianity, the Reverend served as Barack Obama's Spiritual ADVISOR for about 20 years, at the beginning of Barack Obamas' presidential Candidacy he was appointed by Obama to serve his campaign in an OFFICIAL capacity, SEVRAL OF Barack Obama's Associates have come under scrutiny i.e. Tony Rezko, Nadhmi Auchi, Bill Ayers, And Bernardine Dorhn (many others i have not listed)

Now exactly what kind of spiritual advice did Barack Obama gain from his pastor?

Listen to this Reverend speak, Perhaps he taught him this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW3-seOp1rg

I wonder if this guy would get a White House appointment, since he and Obama are so VERY close?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

AND HERE IS ONE OF BARACK OBAMA'S EXCUSES FOR HIS RACIST PASTOR AND SPIRITUAL ADVISOR

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kP2K4Lhas2o

THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE FOLKS, NOT HERE WITH THE OBAMA SUPPORTERS, THEIR INTERESTS ARE TO HIDE THIS HATE, AND TERRORISM POSSESED BY OBAMA, HIS ASSOCIATES AND TO SOME DEGREE HIS SUPPORTER!

$$$$$$ DID YOU KNOW THERE IS A CAMPAIGN WITH OVER 1 MILLION ONLINE VOLUNTEERS MEANT TO PERSUADE YOU TO VOTE OBAMA OR ELSE, THOUGH OBAMA CLAIMS NO AFFILIATION!

******************************
FELLOW DEMOCRAT WRITES;

"If the media doesn't do it first we need to call for Obama to suspend his campaign for the presidency. If this was Hillary or McCain going to David Dukes church, they wouldn't have lasted through the weekend. Pass this idea around because the media has shown itself to be biased for Obama and I don't trust them to handle this. Obama must step out of the way so a Democrat can take the white house. This is more important than his ambitions and after this there is no way he wins a General Election"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ_-xx-64GY

ANOTHER USERS INFORMATIVE CREATION:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5N-1-g90bW0

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

FOR BARACK OBAMA NEWS, CHECK OUT THESE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnYV7nB2m9s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeDd2EPpRjs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIFkpzLAde0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkF6ayXkq2w

***************************************************************
3/19/2008

CHECK OUT THE FIRST RESPONSE FROM OBAMA ABOUT HIS HATE FILLED PREACHER!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EIQqMR4z8A

WHY IS BARACK OBAMA NOT RESIGNING HIS CAMPAIGN, HE CANNOT RECOVER?

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????; March 25, 2008 9:06 AM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 25, 2008 9:08 PM
NO Obama said...: Proof Obama can't answer that 3am phone call!

http://hubpages.com/u/255670_f520.jpg; March 25, 2008 9:39 PM
protactinium said...: Howard Dean is in the process of meeting with all the high level Democratic Party people to solve this. Hillary may have forced the democratic party to respond sooner then they would have liked. Between her own lieing, and trying the Tanya Harding Strategy on Obama.

Hillary has hurt Obama a bit, but shes hurt herself as a nominee even more. Her polls are taking a beating against Mccain.

I can only see 1 possible solution if they plan on ending it soon. Obama will be the nominee.; March 26, 2008 5:22 AM
Anonymous said...: MY THOUGHTS TODAY ON BARACK OBAMA:

as for acceptance of our own responsibilties, i ask you first to please brother pull the stick from your eye, perhaps then you can help me remove the speck from mine.

patriotism is just an example of peoples expression for the greater good in their society which allows them to take pride in themselves their community and their nation.

the desire to protect the nation and defend it comes from the need to survive.

while america is not perfect she is our home she should be defended against foreign invasion and her constitution should be defended, while it is conveniently your right to gripe about how things get done, and injustices that are commited, you cannot allow this anger or rage or vengance you feel cloud the reality that the enemy is not sleeping.

remember also as i remind you freedom is not free it is because lives are taken innocent and guilty in war, this is a trajic fact, i am actually a liberal democrat, but i cannot support radical extremist behaviours, to me it is extremely important people should know who HAS THE PRESIDENTS EAR, I DO NOT WANT REZKO PARDONED, THATS MORE OF THE SAME, BUT MAYBE WORSE, NADHMI AUCHI'S ASSOCIATION IS TROUBLING GIVEN HIS HISTORY, HE INVOLVES HIMSELF WITH POLITICAL IF NOT VIOLENT MOVEMENTS OF GOVERNMENTS, TO GAIN AND USE POWER OVER IT'S PEOPLE, JUST AS WAS HIS JOB IN IRAQ, I DO NOT SUGGEST NADHMI AUCHI IS THE TERRORIST, INSTEAD I TELL YOU SURELY HE SUPPLYS THE WEAPONS TO THEM, CONSIDER FOR A MOMENT WHAT IMPACT A MAN LIKE THIS COULD HAVE ON AMERICA IF BARACK OBAMA WERE PRESIDENT AND OWED HIM A BIG FAVOR, WE KNOW THAT BARACK GOT MONEY FROM REZKO, WE KNOW THAT REZKO GOT MONEY FROM NADHMI AUCHI, WE KNOW THAT AUCHI IS BARRED FROM ENTERING THE UNITED STATES FOR HIS PREVIOUS CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS, IF YOU ADD IT ALL UP IT DOESN'T BECOME HARD TO SEE WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING HERE, AND AS AMERICANS WE HAVE A DUTY TO OURSELVES TO WAKE UP THE PATRIOTIC SPIRIT IN US ALL!

if you can't easily search out this mans name and see how he is a threat to the U.S., well then i could not get you to understand. (hint try to search the chicago sun times website or other chicago and european newspapers)

if you doubt that Barack Obama owes favor to this man, i urge you to reconsider.

I would ask you to decide for yourself are the view expressed by Barack Obama's spiritual advisor, pastor, mentor, and friend of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright, views of a "Liberal" or a "Radical", the line between both is one of COMMON SENSE, this is the issue at hand!

Also out of "Common Sense" i ask you to consider, should americans be OFFENDED, if obama were to be elected and then appoint this reverend to an official position in the administration?

The choice betwwen Obama and McCain is one of simplicity for a MAJORITY of americans.

The choice the D.N.C. has to make is simply, DO THEY WANT TO WIN OR LOSE?

nominating Obama is a CERTAIN loss to McCain's win!

this opinion is based on statistics, not racism, just an educated estimate of the reality we are facing, america is overwhelmingly OFFENDED by Reverend Wright, and by association of 20 YEARS, offended by Obama's Choice, this goes DIRECTLY to his JUDGEMENT, not just Religion, or as has been stated "someone elses words".

the problem lies very much in domestic race relations, i believe very strongly that mccain would not only win in that match up but that it would cause rioting, and unnessecary violence, as a person proud of his country i would think Obama should realize what exactly he is up against, and find a way to help the situation, i don't see any way for him to recover, but he could potentially take the whole party down with him, he has the potential of throwing this country into another race war, one which is certainly not healthy for either race, or our nation for that matter, but since i suspect Barack Obama has ulterior motives (see nadhmi auchi, tony rezko), the decision to step down probably isn't even his anymore, it's just sad.

to be quite honest my original support was for OBAMA.

now i am ANTI-OBAMA, i now realize having done a bit of looking around at his history, that he CANNOT WIN, and america CAN'T afford him to.

Having heard Michael Eric Dyson (Obama Surrogate) not only suggest that New Hampshire voters were racist and only voted for Hillary because of that, but then suggested bill clinton was racist on jan. 9, i opened my eyes, i knew something wasn't right, i began to look around at obama instead of blindly supporting him, now i am glad i did, because even before jeremiah wright came about, i found several "AMERICA HATERS" in his past and present, ask yourself, how can you be friends with a person who plants bombs in government buildings, assasinates people, sells weapons to the enemy's killing our troops? well Obama is friends with and sympathizes with those people, jeremiah wright only reinforces my understanding of this anti-american behaviour, i find it unacceptable, i know the republicans WILL use every bit of it against him, and if these anti-american sentiments are allowed to root in our soceity, it would threaten the american values and freedom of every american; white, black, or other.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKE_Adprdz4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9HUdF9OZa8; March 26, 2008 12:18 PM
protactinium said...: Hillary has hurt herself more then Obama. Looks at the numbers.

Sorry but your race politics failed.

Obama may have had a questionable friend. While Hillary got caught bold face lieing.

Anyone who has every been in the line of fire knows that you will never forget it. You do not forget if you were underfire.

Hillary has only the democratic party left to destroy. She already has destroyed her own campaign.

YES WE CAN; March 27, 2008 4:43 AM
protactinium said...: and here are the supposed polls, and stats you talk about.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

Clinton Vs Obama

RCP Average 03/13 to 03/25 46.3% 43.6% Obama +2.7%

Clinton Vs Mccain

RCP Average 03/13 to 03/25 45.7% 46.4% 5.8% McCain +0.7%

Obama Vs Mccain

RCP Average 03/13 to 03/25 44.6% 46.1% 6.0% McCain +1.5%

Looks like a tie to me no matter what way you cut it.

Well a tie except for the fact that Obama is winning by all score cards such as total votes, and pledged delegates.

You have proven as well as Hillary has that you will twist the facts. But facts are stubborn things. No matter how much Hillary wishs they were not.; March 27, 2008 4:48 AM
protactinium said...: Or even better yet. A poll saying the excat opposite of your supposed "satistics"

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/26/821438.aspx

When asked if the three presidential candidates could be successful in uniting the country if they were elected president, 60 percent of all voters believed Obama could be successful at doing this, 58 percent of all voters said McCain could unite the country while only 46 percent of voters said the same about Clinton

Interestingly, of those voters who said they saw the speech, 47 percent said Obama sufficiently addressed the Wright issue while 37 percent said he needs to address it further. Among whites, 45 percent were satisfied with Obama's explanation, 38 percent were not. Among blacks, 67 percent said the speech was sufficient, while 25 percent want him to address it further.

In the head-to-head matchups, there weren't huge shifts in the numbers, with Obama and Clinton dead even at 45 percent in the national Democratic primary matchup (a slight increase for Obama from early March). In the general-election matchups, Obama led McCain by 2 points, and McCain led Clinton by 2 points; all margin of error results and nothing to get too excited over.

Please dont just spew a page full of questionable facts, and lies. Why don't you try to show facts next time to prove yourself right.; March 27, 2008 5:13 AM
NO Obama said...: BOSNIA LOVES THE CLINTONS:

The people in BiH respect (and love if you will) the Clintons enormously. We believe that only thanks to US and especially President Clinton the war in BiH was finally stopped. In terms of Hillary, she is remembered still today for visiting our country at a time following the peace accords when it was still too dangerous for many international visitors. Hillary also was responsible for the AIHA (American International Health Alliance) partnership between Tuzla hospital and a Buffalo, New York hospital. This partnership was made at the direct personal request from Hillary to USAID (United States Agency for International Development). The First Lady will be remembered in BiH for her noble actions.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/26/12370/4839; March 27, 2008 8:48 AM
Siroco said...: How cute! H. Clinton is caught (on film no less) in a series of self-inflating lies, and "Time"s response is "But people in Bosnia luv [her]"

hahahhahahahahhahahahh :D; March 27, 2008 11:41 AM
NO Obama said...: The point of the Bosnia post is that she was instrumental in helping there. You are too hateful and clueless to realize that.

Also Togo West said they were told that they might come under fire and if so to duck and run to the vehicles. So she remembered that apparently and embellished it.

Compared to Obama's lies about just about everything, she is much less unbelievable than she is.

He lies about associations with his pastor who is anti American and racist and about who he associates with like Rezko and Ayers.

Obama has been found to have lied in his books also and when called on it, he can't remember, can't remember names, etc.

What a loser!; March 27, 2008 1:10 PM
NO Obama said...: This was the point of the Bosnia post:

Hillary also was responsible for the AIHA (American International Health Alliance) partnership between Tuzla hospital and a Buffalo, New York hospital. This partnership was made at the direct personal request from Hillary to USAID (United States Agency for International Development). The First Lady will be remembered in BiH for her noble actions.

Whereas, Obama earmarked money for his wife's hospital--sort of a conflict of interest.

He also tolerated abhorrant living conditions for Rezko's tenants for years!; March 27, 2008 1:14 PM
Siroco said...: from MSNBC First Read:

*** Not the one you’d think: But the poll didn’t indicate the past couple of weeks’ news hurt Obama the most; it was Clinton (sniper fire?). She’s sporting the lowest personal ratings of the campaign. Her 37% positive rating is the lowest the NBC/WSJ poll has recorded since March 2001, two months after she was elected to the U.S. Senate from New York. As for the damage this controversy did or didn't do to Obama, it's a mixed bag. Yes, Obama saw some of his numbers go down slightly among certain voting groups, most notably Republicans. But he's still much more competitive with independent voters when matched up against John McCain than Hillary Clinton is. And he still sports a net-positive personal rating of 49-32, which is down only slightly from two weeks ago, when it was 51-28. Again, the biggest shift in those negative numbers was among Republicans.
============================

seems her negative campaigning has hurt H. Clinton far worst that it hurt Obama. My, my who could have forseen that? At 37% H. Clinton is fast approaching Bush in her rating.; March 27, 2008 3:40 PM
Siroco said...: from the AP (1 hr ago)

THE RACE: The presidential race for Democrats nationally
___
THE NUMBERS
Barack Obama, 49 percent
Hillary Rodham Clinton, 39 percent; March 27, 2008 4:04 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 27, 2008 8:56 PM
Anonymous said...: OMG, WTF Barack Obama's Church Now Supports Hamas!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl3buikzyoM

Barack Obama You Can't Keep Hillary Clinton Down !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92rTbqZtxKM; March 27, 2008 8:58 PM
protactinium said...: Frstan - "How cute! H. Clinton is caught (on film no less) in a series of self-inflating lies, and "Time"s response is "But people in Bosnia luv [her]"

Of couse that is all they can say. She lied. What can be said?

This is not the first time she lied, will be far from the last. However for some reason lieing about being underfire resinates with people.

If fact is appear to be a bigger issue that Hillary lied, then Obama's precher atleast according to lead Obama is starting to amass in the polls. This must because we would rather some one be honest about tuff situations, then a liar. Hillary is not trusted by most Americans and rightfully so. The only question is how many more times will she be caught lieing?; March 28, 2008 3:17 AM
protactinium said...: Wow the letter from Hillary's rich friend to Nancy Pelosi is a slap to the face of democratic ideals.

The letter basically stated that if you do not help our canidite to win, we will pull all our money out and try to destroy the democratic party. That the voters do not count, and the only thing that should count is how big their wallets are.

Clinton stop throwing your fit and get back in line with American Values. The only person your a hurting is yourself. History will remember you for what you did to the democratic party.

The truth is the rich donors are scared. They are losing there power. Before they could by both the republican and democratic canidite and if you did not get in line you had no chance of winning.

However Obama new fundraising methods have proven that the masses can overthrow the rule of the rich donors. They know if Obama wins their day is done. Obama will get rid of lobbists. The root of alot of poor American policys.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080327.htm

"The New York Times adds that the letter, "which carried threatening overtones in noting that many signatories were major Democratic donors, highlighted the deepening rift inside the party among supporters for Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama." Roll Call reports the "donors also pointedly noted their own contributions to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. 'We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August.'"; March 28, 2008 3:27 AM
NO Obama said...: It's Anti-Americanism, Stupid!

The Wright, Rezko, Ayers associations/controversies are not just about racism and poor judgment. They are also about anti-Americanism!

http://obamanation.homestead.com/index.html

Also at the link below are just a few of Obama's documented lies and deceptions:

http://nocache.homestead.com/obamalies/index.html

Please report these things also. Obama should drop out of the presidential race. He has too many questionable "friends" and confidante's.

If he were president, he would have to swear to protect and defend the constitution which he cannot do with associates and possible beliefs like Wright and others present.; March 28, 2008 3:42 AM
Unknown said...: Is it just me, or do all the accusations by Hillary's supporters sound identical to all the smears that "right wing conspiracy" launched against the clintons. All the accusations of corruption, inexperience, and lying are nearly identical to what Bill Clinton had thrown at him in 1992 & 1996.

The irony about the approach these ardent supporters have taken is the attacks in 92&96 did not work. They clearly fail to see this.; March 28, 2008 3:49 AM
protactinium said...: If you wish to read the entire letter to Nancy Pelosi, See how much the people have donated to Democratic Party, and who they are check out my blog.

http://endthecorruption08.blogspot.com/; March 28, 2008 6:24 AM
protactinium said...: Here is one of my favorites.

Bernard Leon Schwartz was the Chairman of the board and the CEO of Loral Space & Communications.
During his time at Loral, he was instrumental in helping the Chinese military to acquire weapons techonology.

In 1997 he celebrated his 71st birthday with Bill and Hillary Clinton at the White House. Schwartz became embroiled in a controversial transfer of missile technology to the People's Republic of China.

These are the people telling Pelosi our votes don't count?

Who won't Hillary sell us out to?; March 28, 2008 6:48 AM
Bill UK said...: Well folks, been a few days, sorry but had to work elsewhere on some related projects.

The GREAT NEWS is that Clinton's campaign is apparently broke! It would seem that over the past few days people have stopped donating to her campaign fund.

Strange isn't it that big money talks from those that are major backers of the Clinton campaign but when all chance of victory has gone so have they and their wallets!

In the meantime of course people have been made aware of the 'attachments' these Clinton donors put on their donations to the DCCC. Well tough friggin luck, money does not buy you the power you thought it did in the Democratic Party. Rep Pelosi has now made it clear that to vote against the legitmate democratic results would be harmful to the party (that is basically two fingers up in the air to the Clinton donors).; March 28, 2008 8:38 AM
Independent Voter said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 28, 2008 11:30 AM
Independent Voter said...: time, you call us Obama supporters as hateful, without seeing your own BLIND hate. I will full-on admit, I HATE THE CLINTONS!!!!! I have no problem with saying it. I am NOT beholden to ANY party.

You accept HILLARY'S lies and point the finger back at Obama and blame HER lies on Obama. She didn't embellish, SHE LIED!!!!! Plain and simple!

Obama NEVER lied about his association with his pastor. He said he was not present when his minister said GD America, the chickens have come home to roost (which by the way, the Rev. was QUOTING former Ambasador Peck, and by the way, you are ready to jump on Obama for what his minister says but give Hillary a free pass for belonging to "The Family" which is MUCH scarier than Rev. Wright) and because he said that "Hillary doesn't know what it's like to be called a 'nigger'", how is that racist? Tell me when she was called that?

The fact is, his Rev. very well may be racist, however Obama is NOT and that is apparent, but you just see and hear what you want to see and hear. That goes for you too anon. Besides, I'm not voting for Wright to be president, I'm voting for Obama.

As far as the Rezko thing, Obama has been charged with nothing, he has admitted his mistake (as a boneheaded idea doing a land deal with the man, but what is done is done....shall we bring up whitewater?) he has been FULLY vetted on this issue and sat down with reporters answered ALL of their outstanding question candidly. Rezko is a non-issue.

He has not only had the kitchen sink thrown at him, he's had the entire house thrown at him and has come through nearly unscathed, unlike Hillary who has been termed as the most secretive candidate in public view.; March 28, 2008 11:31 AM
protactinium said...: Hey lets talk about terroists. The thing you accuss Obama of being linked to.

On August 11, 1999, Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group that set off 120 bombs in the United States mostly in New York City and Chicago, convicted for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well as for firearms and explosives violations] None of the 16 were convicted of bombings or any crime which injured another person, though they were sentenced with terms ranging from 35 to 105 years in prison for the conviction of conspiracy and sedition. Congress, however, recognizes that the FALN is responsible for "6 deaths and the permanent maiming of dozens of others, including law enforcement officials." All of the 16 had served 19 years or longer in prison, which was a longer sentence than such crimes typically received, according to the White House. Clinton offered clemency, on condition that the prisoners renounce violence, at the appeal of 10 Nobel Peace Prize laureates, President Jimmy Carter, the cardinal of New York, and the archbishop of Puerto Rico. The commutation was opposed by U.S. Attorney's Office, the FBI, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons and criticized by many including former victims of FALN terrorist activities, the Fraternal Order of Police, members of Congress. Hillary Clinton, then campaigning for her first term in the Senate, initially supported the commutation, but later withdrew her support when the prisoners had refused to renounce violence more than three weeks after clemency was offered.Congress condemned the action, with a vote of 95-2 in the Senate and 311-41 in the House. The U.S. House Committee on Government Reform held an investigation on the matter, but the Justice Department prevented FBI officials from testifying. President Clinton cited executive privilege for his refusal to turn over some documents to Congress related to his decision to offer clemency to members of the FALN terrorist group.; March 28, 2008 11:37 AM
NO Obama said...: Lec, in the case of Hillary the things she was accused of are either not true or profen not true.

On the other hand, Obama has many serious question marks associated with him. Read my articles. Things about him are documented.

It's Anti-Americanism, Stupid!

The Wright, Rezko, Ayers associations/controversies are not just about racism and poor judgment. They are also about anti-Americanism!

http://obamanation.homestead.com/index.html

Also at the link below are just a few of Obama's documented lies and deceptions:

http://nocache.homestead.com/obamalies/index.html

Obama should drop out of the presidential race. He has too many questionable "friends" and confidante's.

If he were president, he would have to swear to protect and defend the constitution which he cannot do with associates and possible beliefs like Wright and others present.; March 28, 2008 1:07 PM
Siroco said...: Obama vindicated on law-school title

As the first in a bill of particulars titled "Just Embellished Words: Senator Obama’s Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements," the Clinton campaign charged earlier this week: "Sen. Obama consistently and falsely claims that he was a law professor. The Sun-Times reported that, 'Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter.' In academia, there's a significant difference: professors have tenure while lecturers do not. [Hotline Blog, 4/9/07; Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/04]."

But the University of Chicago Law School has now posted a statement declaring his claims semantically sound: "The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as 'Senior Lecturer.' From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined."; March 28, 2008 1:07 PM
NO Obama said...: Obama has to be racist and anti-American also if he listened to that trash from Wright. A NORMAL person would have left long ago.

He stayed for 2 reasons--he needed the church for political purposes and he believed that stuff.

He associated with communist sympathizers in Hawaii, low lifes in Chicago and that church.

That puts his true agenda and beliefs into question and there is NO room for doubt about patriotism and racism in the White House. George Bush is bad enough but Obama would be much WORSE!; March 28, 2008 1:23 PM
Siroco said...: someone didnt like my quoting a tracking poll yesterday. Well you can dislike this one even more:
Gallop:
OBAMA 50%
HRC 42%

ut-oh!; March 28, 2008 1:23 PM
protactinium said...: Oh Time, you have not learned yet? You still got complaining on and on about Wright. Yet ignore all the Hillary stuff. She is fading in the polls and this wright tatic has not worked.

Take your Anti-American Bullshit some place else. Your canidite has lost. You complain about Bush but you will vote for Mccain? The man who is hugging Bush policys, being a good little Republican lacky.

Hippocrit as usual. Also calling other people stupid will not help your case. Everyone here knows who the stupid one is.; March 28, 2008 1:35 PM
NO Obama said...: McCain is a patriot--Obama is NOT!

McCain has stated how he is distancing himself from Bush policies. I think he is moderate enough to be a pretty good president.

And I will campaign for him if Obama is the nominee.

Obama has too many questionalbe cohorts that he would drag with him to the WH.; March 28, 2008 1:39 PM
Siroco said...: Given Barack Obama’s lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote, Senator Clinton’s only path to the nomination is to somehow convince uncommitted superdelegates to overturn the will of the voters—and her attacks on Senator Obama in recent weeks appear designed to do just that.

But there is mounting evidence that superdelegates are rejecting the Clinton tactics even more resoundingly than rank-and-file Democratic voters. A new report from NBC shows increasing concern among superdelegates that Clinton’s desperate attacks “are hurting the party and its chances in November, and also say it is showing a calculated, desperate-to-win side of Clinton that they dislike.” [NBC, 3/26/08] One uncommitted superdelegate put it this way:

“A full and fair debate about issues and differences and even fights is good. Mud slinging, personal attacks and lying is never good for any political fight or party. And I see a lot of that coming from one side more than the other.” [NBC, 3/26/08]
Even Paul Begala, one of Senator Clinton’s most public supporters, is critical of the depths to which Clinton has sunk. As he told CNN on Wednesday:

“I criticize Hillary, too. She shouldn’t be saying [Obama’s] not qualified to be commander in chief. Of course he is.” [CNN, 3/26/08]; March 28, 2008 1:43 PM
Siroco said...: "timefornochange" says she will campaign for McCain.

Of course! Naturlich! could it have been otherwise?

:D; March 28, 2008 1:46 PM
protactinium said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 28, 2008 1:53 PM
protactinium said...: time "Obama has too many questionalbe cohorts that he would drag with him to the WH."

You support clinton right? Lets look at what happened last time Clintons were in office.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/08/wanted-major-hillary-campaign.html

* Number close to the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 44
* Number of convictions during his administration: 33
* Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
* Number of imprisonments: 14
* Number of presidential impeachments: 1
* Number of independent counsel investigations: 7

Number of congressional witnesses pleading the 5th Amendment: 72
* Number of witnesses fleeing the country to avoid testifying: 17
* Number of foreign witnesses who have declined interviews by investigative bodies: 19; March 28, 2008 1:54 PM
protactinium said...: "timefornochange" says she will campaign for McCain.

It's fine. She would rather sell out all her morals that is fine with me. I think it is ironic that these Hillary supporter would rather support a man has entirly diffrent stances then Obama who is almost the same on most positions.

Prove one thing and one thing only. She is not an educated voter and voting on emoition, not on issues.

Maybe if she actually stoped to read an article for once instead of just cut and pasting for Hillary's site she would learn something.

Its honesty stupid! Something Hillary has none of.; March 28, 2008 1:57 PM
NO Obama said...: Breaking News! Howard Stupid Dean says the MI & FL delegates will be seated at the convention.

No mention yet if there will be punishment (hmmmmm....punishing voters for the DNC draconian rules and state legislatures do out of voter control). Figures.

So, then Hillary will either be ahead a little or very close.

Hopefully the truth and patriotism will prevail.; March 28, 2008 2:00 PM
NO Obama said...: Caucuses have been underscrutinized in this years democratic political process. It's pretty obvious that bullying and other tactics that favored the younger crowd went on in many if not all of the caucuses. The News Media's failure to investigate and expose this travesty of the voting process has just been one more hurdle Hillary Clinton has had to unfairly face.

The biggest problem with the caucuses is that they require voters to be at a certain place and time to have their voice possibly heard, assuming the voter isn't being harrassed or misinformed by someone "in charge". This voting method, called caucusing, (or caca cussing), is not used in November to elect our president, and therein lies my concern.

In the actual presidential election, a voter has all day to vote, a full 12 hour period if I am not mistaken. When I tabulate the delegate counts in all states that allowed their citizens a full day to vote, aka primaries instead of caucuses, Hillary Clinton has 1,325 delegates, Barrack Obama has 1,305.

This is not counting MICHIGAN or FLORIDA!

The lead in the electoral college vote among states that actually allow their constituents all day to vote is close to a hundred Electoral College votes in favor of Hillary Clinton, 219 to 128, and this again is without counting Florida, Michigan or Pennsylvania! This is a landslide of epic porportions that NOBODY in the media will address.

If Hillary Clinton makes this fact known, that she is clobbering Barrack Obama when a state's constituents actually get all day to vote, the media will once again accuse Hillary Clinton of trying to change how the votes are counted even though this is the exact method that will be used in November to elect our president! So how come the media can't do a better job of analyzing what really matters? How come the news media has done next to nothing reporting about the inequities that go along with caca cussing?
Chris Matthews, care to address this?; March 28, 2008 2:03 PM
Siroco said...: and your source is?; March 28, 2008 2:05 PM
NO Obama said...: This is my analysis! I know what goes on inside caucuses. I have attended several as an observer.

I can also do math and figure what Hillary would have if voting rather than caucuses took place.

These are "theories" but pretty close to what would probably be the case.; March 28, 2008 2:09 PM
NO Obama said...: http://blog.hillaryclinton.com/

Pundits Vs. Reality a must read.

Quote:
THE PUNDITS
Hillary Clinton will lose New Hampshire and the race will be over
THE REALITY
Hillary Clinton wins New Hampshire, defying the predictions and the polls

THE PUNDITS
Hillary Clinton will lose the big states on Super Tuesday and the race will be over
THE REALITY
Hillary Clinton wins the big states on Super Tuesday – and wins them by double digits

THE PUNDITS
Hillary Clinton will lose Texas and possibly Ohio on March 4th and the race will be over
THE REALITY
Hillary Clinton wins both Texas and Ohio on March 4th – and she wins Ohio by double digits

THE PUNDITS
Despite Hillary Clinton's big victories on March 4th, "the math" works decisively against her and the race is essentially over
THE REALITY
The math is simple: neither candidate has reached the number of delegates required to
secure the nomination and either candidate can win

THE PUNDITS
Barack Obama is substantially ahead in the pledged delegate count; pledged delegates are the only measure of success; therefore the race is essentially over
THE REALITY
The candidates are within fractions of one another on delegates; Barack Obama needs super delegates to win; and a marginal pledged delegate lead does not determine the outcome

THE PUNDITS
Barack Obama is substantially ahead in the popular vote; Florida and Michigan don’t count; therefore the race is essentially over
THE REALITY
The popular vote is virtually tied; half of Barack Obama's narrow vote advantage is from his home state; and his lead excludes Florida and Michigan

THE PUNDITS
Once the remaining states vote, Barack Obama will be substantially ahead in delegates and votes and the race will be over
THE REALITY
The race is a dead heat now and no one knows where things will end up after millions of remaining voters in the upcoming states make their choice

THE PUNDITS
Hillary Clinton's situation is dire; her campaign is struggling; her supporters are disillusioned and desperate
THE REALITY
Hillary Clinton and her supporters are calm, confident, and focused heading into the key
state of PA, where she is running strong

THE PUNDITS
Hillary Clinton’s campaign lacks significant grassroots energy; only one candidate has mobilized supporters to take action for the campaign
THE REALITY
Hillary Clinton’s supporters across America have written letters, blogged, donated tens of millions of dollars, volunteered millions of hours and made millions of calls

THE PUNDITS
There is a loud and growing chorus of voices asking Hillary Clinton to withdraw from the race
THE REALITY
Precisely the same number of voters (22%) think Barack Obama should drop out of the
race as Hillary Clinton

THE PUNDITS
Hillary Clinton is the candidate running a negative, divisive campaign; she is throwing the "kitchen sink" at Barack Obama
THE REALITY
Barack Obama has been throwing the sink, the stove, the plates and the garbage can at Hillary Clinton, attacking her integrity and character every day

THE PUNDITS
For Hillary to win the nomination, super delegates will have to "overturn the will of the
people"
THE REALITY
The will of the people is split and both candidates need - and are making their case to -
super delegates

THE PUNDITS
Hillary Clinton is threatening to poach pledged delegates from Barack Obama
THE REALITY
Barack Obama is reportedly already trying to poach pledged delegates from Hillary Clinton

THE PUNDITS
Florida and Michigan’s voters won't be heard and their delegates won’t be seated all
because of complicated procedural roadblocks
THE REALITY
Barack Obama is intentionally disenfranchising voters in two critical states for purely political reasons, namely, that he'll lose his small advantage if they count

THE PUNDITS
Every single word or action from Hillary Clinton, her campaign, her surrogates and her supporters is part of a calculated and cynical political strategy
THE REALITY
Hillary Clinton is a loyal Democrat, a lifelong public servant, a tireless and
tenacious candidate, and is fighting hard - and fair - to win with the help of millions of dedicated supporters; March 28, 2008 2:22 PM
Siroco said...: Someone who is unable to organize a caucus is unable to organize the Presidency of the United States, and is therefore unqualified.

H. Clinton is making a decided effort to steal 2ed level caucus votes in TX however. Interesting that she seems better at stealing.......

Dont think she will succeed, but tomorrow will tell.; March 28, 2008 2:23 PM
Siroco said...: RE: "fighting fair"
FUD in Texas, courtesy of Camp Clinton
by kos

Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:08:28 AM PDT

While the Clinton campaign steps up its efforts to ratify the sham elections in Michigan and Florida -- their lone lifeline in a campaign they have otherwise thoroughly lost on the merits -- they seek to disenfranchise actual voters in a real contest -- that in Texas.

On Wednesday:

Garry Mauro, Clinton's state campaign chairman, said Wednesday he is satisfied that the process is working well. Mauro said Clinton is planning no challenge to the process.

Birnberg said he is not expecting many challenges to convention delegates because too many delegates would have to be rejected to change the mix for either Obama or Clinton.

"If you're talking about Senate District 13, which has 4,000 delegates, you cannot imagine how many credential disputes you'd have to have to change" the outcome, he said. "That probably takes 1,000 successful challenges mathematically."

Then on Thursday:

Hillary Rodham Clinton's Texas campaign is challenging the seating of delegates from numerous precincts for Saturday’s Democratic county conventions, particularly in Barack Obama's strongholds.

State Senate District 23, which includes much of southern Dallas County, was a central target of the Clinton campaign.

Just before Wednesday’s deadline to file complaints before the county convention credentials committee, Clinton campaign officials delivered a large packet of challenges.

"There are numerous challenges," said Dallas County District Clerk Gary Fitzsimmons, who is temporary chairman of the District 23 credentials committee. The district went solidly for Mr. Obama in the primary, and there’s a question over whether Mrs. Clinton will reach the 15 percent threshold needed to receive delegates.

The committee meets Thursday night to deal with minor challenges. The rest will be handled on Saturday, the day of the county conventions.

On a conference call Wednesday, Clinton campaign officials said they would not try to influence the county conventions with mass challenges before the credentials committee [...]

"Apparently the promise that the Clinton campaign made less than 24 hours ago not to challenge the seating of delegates at Saturday's district conventions was just another made-up story," [Obama spokesperson Josh] Earnest said. "The Clinton campaign's politically-motivated outrage over disenfranchising voters apparently doesn't extend to the 1.1 million Texans who participated in the precinct conventions earlier this month."

Of course it doesn't. Clinton originally agreed to the sanctions against Michigan and Florida. Yet now, even after the states have admitted they don't have the money, time, or political will to get new sanctioned contests, the Clinton campaign clings to the states in an effort to spread enough uncertainty to keep her failed campaign alive.

Note that in Texas, SD-23 in Dallas is little different than SD-13 in Houston -- Clinton got only about 27 percent of the vote, and only about 18 percent in the caucus. She's in danger of failing to reach viability there and in Houston's SD-13, and those are huge districts. Note also that the district, which the Clinton campaign is trying to disenfranchise, is essentially half African American, half Latino. But every delegate counts, and SD-23 has six of them. They'll fight for every single one of them no matter how many people and communities they disenfranchise.

There are also reports that several south Texas counties, Clinton territory, are refusing to publish the location of the conventions. In the old day, no one showed up to these things, delegate slates were just filled in without hassle by some local party honcho. These people would like nothing else than to fill in a full slate of Clinton delegates without the hassles of "democracy" and all. So between credential challenges and other subterfuge designed to depress Obama's performance and cast the caucus results in doubt, we'll see that once again, Camp Clinton will do and say anything in its mad pursuit of power.; March 28, 2008 2:30 PM
Unknown said...: Time-

Your vision is so myopic, your memory too short, and ability to reason is non-existent.

First of all, you keep citing that Obama has "qestionable" ties. How easily you forget and/or neglect the plethora of questionable allies Billary has. Last time I checked, Billary had more "cohorts" in prison, indicted, pardoned, ad just about anything else you can think of. Every single one of these have a clear and proven tie to the Billary. Thee are not accusations, but rather cold, hard facts. How many of Obama's "friends" have been indicted, imprisoned, or pardoned? There is no comparison, but you choose to ignore that. Furthermore, even when it is brought to your attention, you always attempt to divert the facts to some other smear, slur, or flat out lie. You are truly pathetic.

Furthermore, you are going against the wishes of the queen you worship. She stated quite forcefully that if you vote for McCain, you are not doing what is best for the party and need to seriously re-consider the damage you would do. Hillarious as hell to me that both the candidates support this viewpoint. It is only deeply troubled persons such as yourself who believe otherwise.

The hypocritical and moronic stances of the Billary supporters continues. Of course, to expect anymore from them would be deemed insanity!; March 28, 2008 3:54 PM
Bill UK said...: News doing the rounds here in the UK is that Clinton is going to have to lend her campaign more money or cancel plans for TV ads scheduled. Now that is a sign of really too many pizza orders or bad money management or both!; March 28, 2008 4:02 PM
Unknown said...: Only one problem with Billary and time's indictment of the caucuses. Simple fact is Billary did not perform well there because she discounted them. It was her ego that got her beat in caucus states, not a flawed system. Hillary did not have a problem with caucuses until after she lost them. This is similiar to her stance on MI & FL. Until Billary realized they were not going to win they began claiming disenfranchisement, but that is in stark contrast to her public statements when she was "inevitable", where she stated (verbatim) "these votes will not count".

How can one person say votes will not count, then months later attack the democratic party for not counting them? She now says every vote should count, but months ago when she thought she had the nomination in the bag, she had absolutely no problem with not counting them.

BTW, is this termed hypocritical, or flip-flopping. Just what we need, another flip-flopper candidate, that worked out so well for the democrats 4 years ago.; March 28, 2008 4:02 PM
Bill UK said...: Everyone should read this article from WSJ.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120666021737570123.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Now let us see what the Clintons' (yes plural) would rather not have the American people read. And as the article says it was all of her own making.; March 28, 2008 4:34 PM
page in Jax said...: billuk,
That wsjonline article is hooey--some third-rate pundit tryin' to get noticed.
read this: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/25/803808.aspx

and then view this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fThso6A1J1E

Do you believe Togo West? I do.

You typical Obamabots can enjoy the little lead while it lasts. If Obama is not out of the race by the end of June (middle of May IMO), he'll be out of it in November--If Clinton is not the nominee, it will be President McCain next year. :(; March 28, 2008 5:24 PM
Independent Voter said...: page......and the Clinton's have made sure of that! It really sucks, because for the FIRST time in my adult life I could have FINALLY voted for someone that I really liked - Obama - in the general election....I will still be voting for him, but the CLINTON'S destroyed any chance a Democrat has in this race. She has a huge deficit against her....she only has the Democratic base...that's it, Independents such as myself and Republicans absolutely DESPISE her! She can't do it with just Democrats alone! Obama has most Dems and has a large appeal to Independents as well as many Republicans.

Your argument page is nothing but BUNK!; March 28, 2008 5:33 PM
NO Obama said...: Those of us who say we will vote for McCain are principled people. Many of us are independents and being independent means someone could vote for either party.

Get it?

Obama is not a choice for us because of his associations and questionable patriotism and racism.

McCain is further to the left than George Bush and most of his platform is acceptable to me as well as his being a great patriot!!; March 28, 2008 7:10 PM
Siroco said...: Actually TOC I dont think McCain would care for you.....he's to honest. good old boy Russ Limbaugh certainly will find work for you to do though. heck! he already has!!; March 28, 2008 7:28 PM
Siroco said...: March 11, 2007
Jodi Kantor
The New York Times
9 West 43rd Street
New York,
New York 10036-3959

Dear Jodi:

Thank you for engaging in one of the biggest misrepresentations of the
truth I have ever seen in sixty-five years. You sat and shared with me
for two hours. You told me you were doing a "Spiritual Biography" of
Senator Barack Obama. For two hours, I shared with you how I thought he
was the most principled individual in public service that I have ever met.

For two hours, I talked with you about how idealistic he was. For two
hours I shared with you what a genuine human being he was. I told you
how incredible he was as a man who was an African American in public
service, and as a man who refused to announce his candidacy for
President until Carol Moseley Braun indicated one way or the other
whether or not she was going to run.

I told you what a dreamer he was. I told you how idealistic he was. We
talked about how refreshing it would be for someone who knew about Islam
to be in the Oval Office. Your own question to me was, Didn’t I think it
would be incredible to have somebody in the Oval Office who not only
knew about Muslims, but had living and breathing Muslims in his own
family? I told you how important it would be to have a man who not only
knew the difference between Shiites and Sunnis prior to 9/11/01 in the
Oval Office, but also how important it would be to have a man who knew
what Sufism was; a man who understood that there were different branches
of Judaism; a man who knew the difference between Hasidic Jews, Orthodox
Jews, Conservative Jews and Reformed Jews; and a man who was a devout
Christian, but who did not prejudge others because they believed
something other than what he believed.

I talked about how rare it was to meet a man whose Christianity was not
just "in word only." I talked about Barack being a person who lived his
faith and did not argue his faith. I talked about Barack as a person
who did not draw doctrinal lines in the sand nor consign other people to
hell if they did not believe what he believed.

Out of a two-hour conversation with you about Barack’s spiritual journey
and my protesting to you that I had not shaped him nor formed him, that I
had not mentored him or made him the man he was, even though I would
love to take that credit, you did not print any of that. When I told
you, using one of your own Jewish stories from the Hebrew Bible as to
how God asked Moses, "What is that in your hand?," that Barack was like
that when I met him. Barack had it "in his hand." Barack had in his
grasp a uniqueness in terms of his spiritual development that one is
hard put to find in the 21st century, and you did not print that.

As I was just starting to say a moment ago, Jodi, out of two hours of
conversation I spent approximately five to seven minutes on Barack’s
taking advice from one of his trusted campaign people and deeming it
unwise to make me the media spotlight on the day of his announcing his
candidacy for the Presidency and what do you print? You and your editor
proceeded to present to the general public a snippet, a printed "sound
byte" and a titillating and tantalizing article about his disinviting me
to the Invocation on the day of his announcing his candidacy.

I have never been exposed to that kind of duplicitous behavior before,
and I want to write you publicly to let you know that I do not approve
of it and
will not be party to any further smearing of the name, the reputation, the
integrity or the character of perhaps this nation’s first (and maybe even
only) honest candidate offering himself for public service as the person to
occupy the Oval Office.

Your editor is a sensationalist. For you to even mention that makes me
doubt your credibility, and I am looking forward to see how you are
going to butcher what else I had to say concerning Senator Obama’s
"Spiritual Biography." Our Conference Minister, the Reverend Jane Fisler
Hoffman, a white woman who belongs to a Black church that Hannity of
"Hannity and Colmes" is trying to trash, set the record straight for you
in terms of who I am and in terms of who we are as the church to which
Barack has belonged for over twenty years.

The president of our denomination, the Reverend John Thomas, has offered
to try to help you clarify in your confused head what Trinity Church is
even though you spent the entire weekend with us setting me up to
interview me for what turned out to be a smear of the Senator; and yet
The New York Times continues to roll on making the truth what it wants
to be the truth. I do not remember reading in your article that Barack
had apologized for listening to that bad information and bad advice. Did
I miss it? Or did your editor cut it out? Either way, you do not have to
worry about hearing anything else from me for you to edit or "spin"
because you are more interested in journalism than in truth.

Forgive me for having a momentary lapse. I forgot that The New York
Times was leading the bandwagon in trumpeting why it is we should have
gone into an illegal war. The New York Times became George Bush and the
Republican Party’s national "blog." The New York Times played a role in
the outing of Valerie Plame. I do not know why I thought The New
York Times had actually repented
and was going to exhibit a different kind of behavior.

Maybe it was my faith in the Jewish Holy Day of Roshashana. Maybe it was
my being caught up in the euphoria of the Season of Lent; but whatever
it is or was, I was sadly mistaken. There is no repentance on the part
of The New York Times. There is no integrity when it comes to The Times.
You should do well with that paper, Jodi. You looked me straight in my
face and told me a lie!

Sincerely and respectfully yours,
Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.
Senior Pastor [now retired]
Trinity United Church of Christ; March 28, 2008 7:31 PM
NO Obama said...: The point of the letter?

Wright is really good at lying and obfsucating too it looks like.

I guess that he taught that to Obama also.

Did you know that Obama's mother was an athiest and that she influenced him in many negative ways. Gave him ideas about communism and so forth?

It's kind of bred into him!!; March 28, 2008 7:39 PM
Siroco said...: oh TIMECANTCHANGE my my
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah :)

go back to Rush.; March 28, 2008 8:00 PM
NO Obama said...: I hate Rush.

You guys who support Obama use dis-mis-information all the time.

Assuming or insinuating that I listen to Rush or even like him is one example.

It gives you ZERO credibility!; March 28, 2008 8:02 PM
NO Obama said...: Obama Chooses His Runningmate:

His background has not prepared him for the presidency of the United States. In short, he would be a bigger disaster for this country than Jimmy Carter was. And that was before we knew about the theology of his church.

What else does he believe? Reparations for slavery? More billions for communist governments in Africa? Radical global warming initiatives? Given his penchant for crushing taxes, there is no end to the radical, left-wing programs, foreign and domestic, he might unleash on this country.

What we do know is that despite his protestations to the contrary, Barack Obama subscribes to the same outof- the-mainstream views as Rev. Wright. Otherwise, he would not have subjected his family to Wright’s hatred and bigotry for 20 years.

Barack Obama has chosen his running mate, and he will be with him through the remainder of this campaign. His name is Jeremiah Wright.

http://www.swdtimes.com/view.php?I=824; March 28, 2008 8:19 PM
Bill UK said...: Time that gives us a thousand times more respectability than you!

Latest news is Clinton hass had to 'postpone' TV ads in NC as no m,oney is available to pay for them. (This may be due to the fact that the Party hierarchy has contacted certain 'donors' and advised it would be ill-advised to make more contributions to the Clinton campaign.)

Other breaking news is that the Clinton camp made advances to Obama that she would accept the VP slot, Obama turned it down flat.

I can also give you a snippet that one Clinton aide has said he has seen Clintons lead drop to single digits in private Clinton campaign polls in PA and that now fewer volunteers are turning up day after day to help with the Clinton campaign in PA.

Life just gets better and better.; March 28, 2008 8:30 PM
Siroco said...: "If one candidate is trying to make you afraid, and the other is trying to make you think and hope, then you had better go with the one who is trying to make you think and hope."

--Bill Clinton

sage advise!
:); March 28, 2008 11:33 PM
Unknown said...: HILLARY CLINTON & THE FELLOWSHIP

BARBARA EHRENREICH, THE NATION - There's a reason Hillary Clinton has remained relatively silent during the flap over intemperate remarks by Barack Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. When it comes to unsavory religious affiliations, she's a lot more vulnerable than Obama.

You can find all about it in a widely under-read article in the September 2007 issue of Mother Jones, in which Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet reported that "through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as "The "Fellowship," also known as The Family. But it won't be a secret much longer. Jeff Sharlet's shocking exposæcopy; The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power will be published in May.

Sean Hannity has called Obama's church a "cult," but that term applies far more aptly to Clinton's "Family," which is organized into "cells"--their term--and operates sex-segregated group homes for young people in northern Virginia. In 2002, Sharlet joined The Family's home for young men, forswearing sex, drugs and alcohol, and participating in endless discussions of Jesus and power. He wasn't undercover; he used his own name and admitted to being a writer. But he wasn't completely out of danger either. When he went outdoors one night to make a cell phone call, he was followed. He still gets calls from Family associates asking him to meet them in diners--alone.

The Family's most visible activity is its blandly innocuous National Prayer Breakfast, held every February in Washington. But almost all its real work goes on behind the scenes--knitting together international networks of right-wing leaders, most of them ostensibly Christian. In the 1940s, The Family reached out to former and not-so-former Nazis, and its fascination with that exemplary leader, Adolf Hitler, has continued, along with ties to a whole bestiary of murderous thugs.

As Sharlet reported in Harper's in 2003:

During the 1960s the Family forged relationships between the U.S. government and some of the most anti-Communist (and dictatorial) elements within Africa's postcolonial leadership. The Brazilian dictator General Costa e Silva, with Family support, was overseeing regular fellowship groups for Latin American leaders, while, in Indonesia, General Suharto (whose tally of several hundred thousand "Communists" killed marks him as one of the century's most murderous dictators) was presiding over a group of fifty Indonesian legislators. During the Reagan Administration the Family helped build friendships between the U.S. government and men such as Salvadoran general Carlos Eugenios Vides Casanova, convicted by a Florida jury of the torture of thousands, and Honduran general Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, himself an evangelical minister, who was linked to both the CIA and death squads before his own demise. . .

Clinton fell in with The Family in 1993, when she joined a Bible study group composed of wives of conservative leaders like Jack Kemp and James Baker. When she ascended to the Senate, she was promoted to what Sharlet calls the Family's "most elite cell," the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast, which included, until his downfall, Virginia's notoriously racist Senator George Allen. This has not been a casual connection for Clinton. She has written of Doug Coe, The Family's publicity-averse leader, that he is "a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God."

PROGRESSIVE REVIEW, APRIL 2003 We recently reported that six members of Congress live in a $1.1 million Capitol Hill town house that is subsidized by a secretive religious organization alternately known as the "Fellowship" and the "Foundation." The outfit is even stranger than we thought, as we learn from journalist Jeffrey Sharlet, who infiltrated it and wrote an article about his experiences in the March Harper's: "Jesus Plus Nothing: Undercover Among America's Secret Theocrats"; March 29, 2008 12:26 AM
Unknown said...: JEFFREY SHARLET, HARPER'S, 2003 - At Ivanwald, men learn to be leaders by loving their leaders. "They're so busy loving us," a brother once explained to me, "but who's loving them?" We were. The brothers each paid $400 per month for room and board, but we were also the caretakers of The Cedars, cleaning its gutters, mowing its lawns, whacking weeds and blowing leaves and sanding. And we were called to serve on Tuesday mornings, when The Cedars hosted a regular prayer breakfast typically presided over by Ed Meese, the former attorney general. Each week the breakfast brought together a rotating group of ambassadors, businessmen, and American politicians. Three of Ivanwald's brothers also attended, wearing crisp shirts starched just for the occasion; one would sit at the table while the other two poured coffee. . .

The brothers also served at the Family's four-story, redbrick Washington town house, a former convent at 133 C Street S.E. complete with stained-glass windows. Eight congressmen - including Senator Ensign and seven representatives - lived there, brothers in Christ just like us, only more powerful. We scrubbed their toilets, hoovered their carpets, polished their silver. The day I worked at C Street I ran into Doug Coe, who was tutoring Todd Tiahrt, a Republican congressman from Kansas. A friendly, plainspoken man with a bright, lazy smile, Coe has worked for the Family since 1959, soon after he graduated from college, and has led it since 1969. Tiahrt was a short shot glass of a man, two parts flawless hair and one part teeth. He wanted to know the best way "for the Christian to win the race with the Muslim." The Muslim, he said, has too many babies, while Americans kill too many of theirs. . .

In a document entitled "Our Common Agreement as a Core Group," members of the Family are instructed to form a "core group," or a "cell," which is defined as "a publicly invisible but privately identifiable group of companions." A document called "Thoughts on a Core Group" explains that "Communists use cells as their basic structure. The mafia operates like this, and the basic unit of the Marine Corps is the four man squad. Hitler, Lenin, and many others understood the power of a small core of people."

Another document, "Thoughts and Principles of the Family," sets forth political guidelines, such as

21. We recognize the place and responsibility of national secular leaders in the work of advancing His kingdom.

23. To the world in general we will say that we are "in Christ" rather than "Christian" - "Christian" having become a political term in most of the world and in the United States a meaningless term.

24. We desire to see a leadership led by God - leaders of all levels of society who direct projects as they are led by the spirit. . .

When the group is ready, "Thoughts on a Core Group" explains, it can set to work: "After being together for a while, in this closer relationship, God will give you more insight into your own geographical area and your sphere of influence-make your opportunities a matter of prayer. . . The primary purpose of a core group is not to become an "action group," but an invisible "believing group." However, activity normally grows out of agreements reached in faith and in prayer around the person of Jesus Christ.". . .

The Family's only publicized gathering is the National Prayer Breakfast, which it established in 1953 and which, with congressional sponsorship, it continues to organize every February in Washington, D.C. Each year 3,000 dignitaries, representing scores of nations, pay $425 each to attend. Steadfastly ecumenical, too bland most years to merit much press, the breakfast is regarded by the Family as merely a tool in a larger purpose: to recruit the powerful attendees into smaller, more frequent prayer meetings, where they can "meet Jesus man to man."; March 29, 2008 12:29 AM
Unknown said...: JOSHUA GREEN, ATLANTIC, 2006 - Of the many realms of power on Capitol Hill, the least understood may be the lawmakers' prayer group. The tradition of private worship in small, informal gatherings is one that stretches back for generations, as does a genuine tendency within them to transcend partisanship, though as with so much that is religiously oriented in Washington, the chief adherents are the more conservative Republicans.

Most of the prayer groups are informally affiliated with a secretive Christian organization called the Fellowship, established in the 1930s by a Methodist evangelist named Abraham Vereide, whose great hope was to preach the word of Jesus to political and business leaders throughout the world. Vereide believed that the best way to change the powerful was through discreet personal ministry, and over his lifetime he succeeded to a remarkable degree. The first Senate prayer group met over breakfast in 1943; a decade later one of its members, Senator Frank Carlson, persuaded Dwight Eisenhower to host a Presidential Prayer Breakfast, which has become a tradition. . .

Hillary Clinton's proficiency in this innermost sanctum has unnerved some of the capital's most exalted religious conservatives. "You're not talking about some tree-hugging, Jesus-is-my-Buddha sort of stuff," says David Kuo, a former Bush official in the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, who worked with Clinton to promote joint legislation and who, like Brownback, has apologized to her for past misdeeds. "These are powerful evangelicals she's meeting with." Like many conservatives, they are caught between warring dictates of their faith: the religious one, which requires them to embrace a fellow Christian, and the political one, more powerful in some, which causes them to instinctively distrust the motives of a Clinton. Everyone in Washington experiences their dilemma at one time or another-the lack of an Archimedean point from which to judge Hillary Clinton.; March 29, 2008 12:29 AM
Unknown said...: MOTHER JONES, 2007 - When Clinton first came to Washington in 1993, one of her first steps was to join a Bible study group. For the next eight years, she regularly met with a Christian "cell" whose members included Susan Baker, wife of Bush consigliere James Baker; Joanne Kemp, wife of conservative icon Jack Kemp; Eileen Bakke, wife of Dennis Bakke, a leader in the anti-union Christian management movement; and Grace Nelson, the wife of Senator Bill Nelson, a conservative Florida Democrat. . .

Clinton declined our requests for an interview about her faith, but in Living History, she describes her first encounter with Fellowship leader Doug Coe at a 1993 lunch with her prayer cell at the Cedars, the Fellowship's majestic estate on the Potomac. Coe, she writes, "is a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God."

The Fellowship's ideas are essentially a blend of Calvinism and Norman Vincent Peale, the 1960s preacher of positive thinking. It's a cheery faith in the "elect" chosen by a single voter-God-and a devotion to Romans 13:1: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers....The powers that be are ordained of God." Or, as Coe has put it, "we work with power where we can, build new power where we can't.". . .

Coe's friends include former Attorney General John Ashcroft, Reaganite Edwin Meese III, and ultraconservative Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.). Under Coe's guidance, Meese has hosted weekly prayer breakfasts for politicians, businesspeople, and diplomats, and Pitts rose from obscurity to head the House Values Action Team, an off-the-record network of religious right groups and members of Congress created by Tom DeLay. The corresponding Senate Values Action Team is guided by another Coe protæcopy;gæcopy;, Brownback, who also claims to have recruited King Abdullah of Jordan into a regular study of Jesus' teachings.; March 29, 2008 12:32 AM
NO Obama said...: Are these people anti-American, racists?; March 29, 2008 12:41 AM
Unknown said...: JOHN MCCAIN AND REV JOHN HAGEE

THINK PROGRESS, 2008 - Yesterday, hard-line conservative Pastor John Hagee, founder of Christians United for Israel, endorsed John McCain. Hagee said that McCain "is a man of principle, [who] does not stand boldly on both sides of any issue." McCain, who had been courting the endorsement for over a year, said that he was "very honored by Pastor John Hagee's endorsement."

Demonstrating how wildly out of the American religious and political mainstream Hagee's views are, McCain's acceptance of Hagee's endorsement was condemned today by conservative William Donohue, president of the Catholic League. Calling Hagee a "bigot," Donahue said the right-wing pastor has waged "an unrelenting war against the Catholic Church" by "calling it ‘The Great Whore,' an ‘apostate church,' the ‘anti-Christ,' and a ‘false cult system.'"

Hagee holds many other radical beliefs. In a 2006 address to CUFI, Hagee declared:

The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both Israel and the West... a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ.

Speaking to the 2007 AIPAC conference, Hagee compared supporters of a two-state solution in the Middle East to Nazis. Hagee also echoed right-wing Israeli politician Binyamin Netanyahu, telling the audience that "Iran is Germany and Ahmadinejad is the new Hitler."; March 29, 2008 12:47 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 801 – 1000 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