Democratic Convention Watch: Open Thread

Monday, February 11, 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've opened a new Open Thread here

1017 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 800 of 1017 Newer› Newest»

NO Obama said...: Farrakhan endorses Obama and he obviously minimizes the importance of a WHITE woman. What fools Obama followers are. He has a cult following in many areas and once he occupies the highest office in this country, he will either be coerced by these types to do their bidding or if he refuses, there will be riots and all sorts of interesting things happening in the US.

"This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better," he said. "This young man is capturing audiences of black and brown and red and yellow. If you look at Barack Obama's audiences and look at the effect of his words, those people are being transformed."

Farrakhan compared Obama to the religion's founder, Fard Muhammad, who also had a white mother and black father.

"A black man with a white mother became a savior to us," he told the crowd of mostly followers. "A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall."

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/farrakhan_saviours_day/2008/02/24/75173.html?s=al&promo_code=45CE-1; February 25, 2008 12:03 PM
Independent Voter said...: WOOOOOO HOOOOOOO

Time for change is now stooping to right wing rags for HER news.

He has NOT marganlized white women, just THAT white woman!; February 25, 2008 1:44 PM
Independent Voter said...: mojo.....have you seen her more recent bull?

She goes into her screaming fit [FYI time, this time I AM being sexist (just to piss you off, because you are so easily offended) because she is deserving of it] regarding his mailer as if this were the first time she heard about it even though her and her campaign addressed it on February 15th. And then she goes on mocking him in her campaign stump.

The woman has absolutely LOST it! Someone should put a fork in her, she's done.....WELL DONE!

She obviously still doesn't get it, her NEGATIVITY hasn't worked in the past and still ISN'T working.; February 25, 2008 1:49 PM
MOJORISIN' said...: Time - "Farrakhan endorses Obama" - Right but Obama did not ask or campaign for his endorsement and has made it clear in MSM that they do not share the same beliefs. Do you ever do any follow up on what you hear?
Do some homework on these Hillary Clinton scandals:
- The disappearance of the Rose law firm billing records, later discovered in the White House and Hillary Clinton’s inability to explain how they got there.

- Her huge and inexplicable winnings in a cattle futures operation

- Her role in the Whitewater development which was - although the media refuses to admit it - simply a land resort scam and one that was particularly aimed at seniors.

- Her role in the White House travel office firings apparently aimed at favoring the travel firm that bankrolled Bill Clinton’s campaign by delayed billing.

- Her role in the use of FBI files on political opponents and the open question of what information from these files she still possesses.

- A case, still in court, involving the alleged failure to report over a million dollars in campaign contributions. Clinton’s Senate campaign has already been fined by the FEC for failing to accurately report $700,000 in contributions. Do a google search for the Clintons and Peter Paul.

- Her relationship with such indisputably dubious persons such as Johnny Chung, John Huang, Ng Lap Seng, Mochtar Riady, the McDougalds, Craig Livingstone, Webster Hubbell and Jorge Cabrera

Dave, you know, she's just a witch! I CANNOT WAIT TIL MARCH 5!!; February 25, 2008 6:36 PM
NO Obama said...: MOJO, You consistently miss the point! I don't care if Obama says he doesn't support or agree with Farrahkan. But we can only take his word for that, huh? He belongs to a church that supports Farrahkan.

But the point is that Obama attracts people like Farrahkan who think Obama is something other than just a man.

He does discount white women and if you knew anything about Farrahkan, you'd know that.

Since Obama attracts these radical, scary types who can mobilize Million Man Marches, etc. I cringe to think what might be organized if Obama doesn't do their bidding or he tells them to get lost.

Electing Obama president is opening a HUGE can of worms many people have not thought through!; February 25, 2008 6:59 PM
MOJORISIN' said...: Time - "Since Obama attracts these radical, scary types who can mobilize Million Man Marches, etc. I cringe to think what might be organized if Obama doesn't do their bidding or he tells them to get lost." - Your paranoia is so telling.

"But we can only take his word for that, huh? " - Yes, his actions to date in no way support your arguments. HE is not a known outright pathetic LIAR like Hillary and Bill are. Two people that outright lie and have lied to the American people over and over again.

However, Hillary's friends (mentioned in my previous post, did you read that one?) were carved out of her known and documented relationships with these individuals. How about defending your own candidate sometimes. I would really like to hear some excuses for Hillary. I really really would.; February 25, 2008 7:23 PM
shelby said...: All You Need Is Hate

Stanley Fish

February 3, 2008

I have been thinking about writing this column for some time, but I have hesitated because of a fear that it would advance the agenda that is its target. That is the agenda of Hillary Clinton-hating.

Its existence is hardly news — it is routinely referred to by commentators on the present campaign and it has been documented in essays and books — but the details of it can still startle when you encounter them up close. In the January issue of GQ, Jason Horowitz described the world of Hillary haters, many of whom he has interviewed. Horowitz finds that the hostile characterizations of Clinton do not add up to a coherent account of her hatefulness. She is vilified for being a feminist and for not being one, for being an extreme leftist and for being a “warmongering hawk,” for being godless and for being “frighteningly fundamentalist,” for being the victim of her husband’s peccadilloes and for enabling them. “She is,” Horowitz concludes, “an empty vessel into which [her detractors] can pour everything they detest.” (In this she is the counterpart of George W. Bush, who serves much the same function for many liberals.)

This is not to say that there are no rational, well-considered reasons for opposing Clinton’s candidacy. You may dislike her policies (which she has not been reluctant to explain in great detail). You may not be able to get past her vote to authorize the Iraq war. You may think her personality unsuited to the tasks of inspiring and uniting the American people. You may believe that if this is truly a change election, she is not the one to bring about real change.

But the people and groups Horowitz surveys have brought criticism of Clinton to what sportswriters call “the next level,” in this case to the level of personal vituperation unconnected to, and often unconcerned with, the facts. These people are obsessed with things like her hair styles, the “strangeness” of her eyes — “Analysis of Clinton’s eyes is a favorite motif among her most rabid adversaries” — and they retail and recycle items from what Horowitz calls “The Crazy Files”: she’s Osama bin Laden’s candidate; she kills cats; she’s a witch (this is not meant metaphorically).

But this list, however loony-tunes it may be, does not begin to touch the craziness of the hardcore members of this cult. Back in November, I wrote a column on Clinton’s response to a question about giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. My reward was to pick up an e-mail pal who has to date sent me 24 lengthy documents culled from what he calls his “Hillary File.” If you take that file on faith, Hillary Clinton is a murderer, a burglar, a destroyer of property, a blackmailer, a psychological rapist, a white-collar criminal, an adulteress, a blasphemer, a liar, the proprietor of a secret police, a predatory lender, a misogynist, a witness tamperer, a street criminal, a criminal intimidator, a harasser and a sociopath. These accusations are “supported” by innuendo, tortured logic, strained conclusions and photographs that are declared to tell their own story, but don’t.

Compared to this, the Swift Boat campaign against John Kerry was a model of objectivity. When the heading of a section of the “Hillary File” reads “Have the Clintons ever murdered anyone?” — and it turns out to be a rhetorical question like “Is the Pope Catholic?” — you know that you’ve entered cuckooland.

Horowitz warns that as the campaign heats up, this “type of discourse will likely not stay on the fringes for long,” and he predicts that some of it will be made use of by Republican operatives. But he is behind the curve, for the spirit informing it has already made its way into mainstream media. Respected political commentators devote precious network time to deep analyses of her laugh. Everyone blames her for what her husband does or for what he doesn’t do. (This is what the compound “Billary” is all about.) If she answers questions aggressively, she is shrill. If she moderates her tone, she’s just play-acting. If she cries, she’s faking. If she doesn’t, she’s too masculine. If she dresses conservatively, she’s dowdy. If she doesn’t, she’s inappropriately provocative.

None of those who say and write these things is an official Hillary Clinton-hater (some profess to like and admire her), but they are surely doing the group’s work.

One almost prefers an up-front hater (although he tells Horowitz that he doesn’t like the word) like Dick Morris, who writes in a recent New York Post op-ed of the Clintons’ “reprehensible politics of personal destruction” (does he think he’s throwing bouquets?), and accuses them of invading the privacy of opponents, of blackmailing and threatening women, and of “whatever slimy tactics they felt they needed.” Morris calls Harold Ickes, a Clinton aide, a “hit man” for the president, and he calls the president “Hillary’s hit man.”

This is exactly the language of the most vicious anti-Hillary Web sites, and here it is baptized by its appearance in a major newspaper.

Horowitz observes that there is an “inexhaustible fertile market of Clinton hostility,” but that “the search for a unifying theory of what drives Hillary’s most fanatical opponents is a futile one.” The reason is that nothing drives it; it is that most sought-after thing, a self-replenishing, perpetual-energy machine.

The closest analogy is to anti-Semitism. But before you hit the comment button, I don’t mean that the two are alike either in their significance or in the damage they do. It’s just that they both feed on air and flourish independently of anything external to their obsessions. Anti-Semitism doesn’t need Jews and anti-Hillaryism doesn’t need Hillary, except as a figment of its collective imagination. However this campaign turns out, Hillary-hating, like rock ‘n’ roll, is here to stay.; February 25, 2008 8:27 PM
shelby said...: The search for a unifying theory of what drives Hillary’s most fanatical opponents is a futile one. And the haters’ accusations, in the end, say more about themselves than the object of their ire.

“It is often as much about the beholder as Hillary,” says Bernstein. “Some of this stuff goes deep into some angry people’s psyche. It sets off the CRAZY BUTTON.”

- The Hillary Haters GQ Magazine.
Jason Horowitz

AMEN!; February 25, 2008 8:49 PM
MOJORISIN' said...: "This is not to say that there are no rational, well-considered reasons for opposing Clinton’s candidacy. You may dislike her policies (which she has not been reluctant to explain in great detail). You may not be able to get past her vote to authorize the Iraq war. You may think her personality unsuited to the tasks of inspiring and uniting the American people. You may believe that if this is truly a change election, she is not the one to bring about real change."

Hey Shelby - this one paragraph describes us 'Chosen Ones' to a tee! That is exactly why I hate her. Along with all the other stuff I've aready posted. That was really a stupid post if you're trying to defend her in some way. I just love all these quotes of her supporters but NO answers to any of the real issues. She is so proud of all of you.

Hahahahahaha!!!!; February 25, 2008 9:47 PM
Independent Voter said...: Well well Shelby. I'm glad to see that you have mastered the art of copy and paste.

I personally didn't say that her voice is shrill, I said she screeches. My mother says that she can't stand Hillary's shrill voice. (Is my mother a sexist?)

I didn't absolutely "hate" Hillary, at least not until this weekend when she made herself look like an even bigger fool that what she did before. This weekend was just the icing on the cake.

I don't hate her because she is a woman, I don't hate her because of her eyes. Nor have I EVER referred to her as any of the following: Hillary Clinton is a murderer, a burglar, a destroyer of property, a blackmailer, a psychological rapist, a white-collar criminal, an adulteress, a blasphemer, a liar, the proprietor of a secret police, a predatory lender, a misogynist, a witness tamperer, a street criminal, a criminal intimidator, a harasser and a sociopath." However I am beginning to believe that she is a sociopath or at the very least bi-polar.

I mean come on.....Thursday "I am SO proud to be sitting her with Barack Obama", and then on Friday "SHAME ON YOU Barack Obama" as if she were his mother, and then moments later "MEET ME IN OHIO".....as if she were a WWF Wrestler. And then she starts mocking him "Let’s just get everybody together. Let’s get unified...the skies will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect"....I mean come on ANY SANE person can she that she is losing it.

Let's top it all off with HER statements like these.. "everybody knew, you all knew, what the likely outcome of these recent contests were...These are caucus states by and large, or in the case of Louisiana, you know, a very strong and very proud African-American electorate."

Now onto the lack of judgment she shows.

1. Her vote in favor of the Iraq war, then back tracking saying "I didn't know President Bush would go to war in Iraq" even though the title of the Resolution was titled "Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq". (HELLO)

2. She voted AGAINST an amendment requiring the president to go back to Congress before attacking Iraq (yet still claims she didn't realize Bush would actually go to war?!? LOL)

3. She had well over $100 million to campaign, yet still ran out of money. How can someone so horribly MIS-manage a presidential primary campaign yet run a $3 trillion national budget? This to me shows LACK of leadership!

4. She has Sandy Berger, who DESTROYED critical intelligence documents surrounding the events leading up to 9/11, working on her campaign. By the way he is a CONVICTED criminal.

5. She still has an outstanding Fraud Lawsuit AGAINST her by Peter Paul.

John McCain is going to have a field day with all of her scandals.

By the way, she CANNOT claim the good things under her husbands administration without taking responsibility for the negatives like NAFTA, especially after she makes statements like the one in 2004 where she said "in balance, NAFTA has been good for New York and America".

All of these issues among MANY others are reasons I cannot nor will I ever be able to support her. Up until her most recent antics I was willing to hold my nose in November to vote for her, but she blew it over the weekend. I am 100% done with her.; February 25, 2008 10:16 PM
MOJORISIN' said...: I said the other day I would still vote for her but NOT anymore. Never after the last couple days. She is the delusional one. Seriously in need of meds.

The fat lady is warming up and I can't wait til it's over for her. I hope she can keep her cool tomorrow night but I have a feeling she is going to show her a$$, once again. Barack is going to make her show us sides we've never seen. Just wait and, remember, we'll all be laughing together!!; February 25, 2008 10:42 PM
Independent Voter said...: OMFG!!!!!! Even MORE dirt coming out regarding Clinton's campaign.

Mark Penn - Hillary's CHIEF STRATEGIST - is CEO of lobbying firm, Burson-Marsteller. No big deal right? WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Charlie Black - John McCain's top advisor - is chairman of BKSH. No big deal right? WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BKSH is a subsidiary of Burson-Marsteller.

This means EITHER WAY Mark Penn WINS! Does ANYONE else see this as a CONFLICT OF INTEREST or is it just me???????????????; February 25, 2008 10:47 PM
MOJORISIN' said...: "then she starts mocking him "Let’s just get everybody together. Let’s get unified...the skies will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect"....I mean come on ANY SANE person can she that she is losing it."

That's when I realized what a super dumb bitch she was. That's going to cost her more than any of the other crap she's done. I would love to be at the pearly gates when she tries to get though! DEVIL WITH THE RED DRESS ON.; February 25, 2008 10:48 PM
MOJORISIN' said...: "This means EITHER WAY Mark Penn WINS! Does ANYONE else see this as a CONFLICT OF INTEREST or is it just me???????????????" -

It means they are all in bed together. Don't you remember her talking about how good friends she and McCain were and how they would keep it a clean campaign. Well, that's because they both have LOTS of dirt on the other so they have no choice.

Mark Penn will not be missed either. He is such a wessel.; February 25, 2008 10:52 PM
Independent Voter said...: mojo, I really hope she turns into the ^%$^@#^$#!% we all know she is. I cannot vote for a vindictive ^%^$#@!%!# like her.; February 25, 2008 10:52 PM
MOJORISIN' said...: "I really hope she turns into the ^%$^@#^$#!% we all know she is."

dave - I know one thing, Barack has NEVER lost his composure like that and that will tick her off that much more. My prediction is that she'll get booed more than once. I would love it if she got so mad she walks off, but that's wishful thinking. :); February 25, 2008 11:00 PM
Independent Voter said...: That would be absolutely Hillaryous! (pun intended) I think you are probably right, she can absolutely kiss this nomination goodbye.

On top of it, she has divided this party beyond repair.

I have the feeling there are going to be several "new" parties branching off from the Democratic Party after this election season.; February 25, 2008 11:08 PM
NO Obama said...: shelby, most of the Obama supporters are Hillary Haters and therefore he has a lot of cuckoos in his camp according to Horowitz.

There is no reason to need to defend Hillary and a few ask why I don't.

She doesn't need defending. Basically I think she is a good, qualified person. It is easier in our society to dislike a female than a male, especially one running for office.

I used to belong to the Episcopal church and even though I am a staunch defender and supporter of women's rights, I just couldn't get used to the idea of a female priest. Not that I didn't support it on some level. It was just that I was uncomfortable with it.

I think that is part of the problem with the anti-Hillary army. She has 20 times the uphill battle being a woman as Obama has as a "black" man.

It's sad.; February 26, 2008 12:27 AM
Independent Voter said...: Someone just posted this on their Barack Obama blog....I laughed my ass off.

Debate Tomorrow.

Which Hillary will show up for the debate tomorrow? Will it be:

Tested and vetted Hillary?
Let's have a discussion Hillary?
Some of us work really really hard Hillary?
Ready from day one Hillary?
Most innocent Hillary?
Turn up the heat Hillary?
Get real Hillary?
I am honored, I am honored Hillary?
Shame on you Hillary?
Bat-shit crazy Hillary?

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

My guess is all of them, but hey, I'm just a sexist (at least according to timeforchange).

Quick get the prozac.; February 26, 2008 12:27 AM
Independent Voter said...: timeforchange....booo hooo. "I'm the victim" mentality. Get over yourself.

The reason you don't defend her is because you CAN'T!!!!!!!!!!!

There is NO defending someone that acts the way she has in this campaign. Prior to LOSING in Iowa she believed she had this thing wrapped up and that she was "entitled" to the nomination. Well guess what! The AMERICAN people don't think she is.

She is a FAILURE! She didn't even have a plan after February 5th, hence her having to "loan" (plus interest) her campaign her own money which she still hasn't paid back! Whose fault is that? Is that Obama's fault too? Is it Obama's fault that she has only won 11 contests vs his 26? Face it! SHE SCREWED UP!!!!!!!!!!!

I still can't believe I EVER considered voting for her. I really hope she shows her hysterical side tomorrow night. That would not only make my day but it would make my life!; February 26, 2008 12:34 AM
NO Obama said...: To all you Hillary haters.

Excuse me, but many women's voices will be come higher pitched when speaking loudly. Just a fact and not much one can do about it. But many people who are "sexist" or whatever they may be termed, use words like screech to describe her voice. Did you know that even men's voices become higher pitched when exited, raising, their voices, etc.? But it isn't referred to as shrill.

One thing I wish Hillary could explain better is her vote to authorize military force. She explained she was from the previous administration (and others before Clinton's were similar regarding Iraq and other problematic countries)and the mindset was to retaliate militarily against Iraq with the use of military force (no fly zone violations, etc.).

She said she interpreted this to mean (assuming you could trust Bush, which it turned out not) similar type force that had been taken in the past during the Clinton administration, not WAR!

I was against the war from the beginning and would have voted against it probably. But I don't hold that against her considering where she was coming from regarding the use of force.

She has since found out Bush cannot be trusted to be rational or prudent.; February 26, 2008 12:37 AM
NO Obama said...: I personally think when Hillary said she was proud to be on the stage with Obama, she was saying SHE was proud to be a presidential candidate--a woman nonetheless. Being on that stage was a requirement of her candidacy and being proud was of her own achievement.

I don't think it was so much a compliment to Obama who compliments himself plenty and shows how impressed he is with himself.; February 26, 2008 12:40 AM
NO Obama said...: sddave0 has left a new comment on the post "Open Thread":

That would be absolutely Hillaryous! (pun intended) I think you are probably right, she can absolutely kiss this nomination goodbye.

On top of it, she has divided this party beyond repair.

I have the feeling there are going to be several "new" parties branching off from the Democratic Party after

I certainly hope so! I wouldn't vote for &*$l!! Obama if he were the last candidate on earth.

If he gets the nomination, watch! McCain's #'s will go up and his will go down! Swiftboat time!; February 26, 2008 12:43 AM
MOJORISIN' said...: I personally would like to see the
'Alcoholic Hillary' show up!; February 26, 2008 12:55 AM
MOJORISIN' said...: The Somali dress he had on was adorable! Have you seen the whole picture? Just too cute! I'm so jealous.. Michelle is one lucky lady!

Yes, we will.... brick by brick, block by block, county by county, state by state.....; February 26, 2008 1:00 AM
NO Obama said...: I don't see anything wrong with the garb but apparently the Obama camp does when they refer to it as hate mongering. Hmmmmm?

But I read on another blog about it being a questional gesture of being a guest in this country since it is the slave hunting garb of the Somali tribe.

LOL! I thought the US abolished that AND invented it. Apparently not!; February 26, 2008 1:03 AM
NO Obama said...: CORPORATE CRIME REPORTER

Lobbyists, Law Firms and the Obama Money Cartel
22 Corporate Crime Reporter 8, February 21, 2008

This year, Barak Obama has repeated over and over again – I don't take federal lobbyists' money.

Is that a true statement?

Well, let’s take the law firm of Sidley & Austin.

Sidley & Austin is a registered federal lobbyist.

It cannot by law give money to federal candidates.

But the lawyers who control the firm and profit from the firm’s lobbying activities can give to Obama.

Some of those individual lawyers are registered lobbyists.

Some are not.

Guess who gives to Obama?

Right.

The ones who are not registered lobbyists.

But they still control and profit from the lobbying activities of the firm.

So, technically, Obama is not taking money from federal lobbyists.

But only in the narrowest sense.

Sidley Austin, Skadden, Arps, Jenner & Block, Kirkland & Ellis, and Wilmerhale are all registered lobbyists.

Obama--recenlty fitted for sheep's clothing.; February 26, 2008 1:10 AM
Independent Voter said...: WOW, something non-negative coming from time. I don't believe it.

Anyway, as far as the Somali-dress, I personally don't see anything wrong with it either. However it was attached by individuals in the Hillary Campaign with the header of...."Is he or isn't he a Muslim".

That is were the anger has come from within the Obama camp.

That is the fear mongering mentality we are begining to see from the Hillary camp.; February 26, 2008 1:10 AM
MOJORISIN' said...: I found the original source for the photo of Barack dressed as a Somali elder just for you timeforchange. How stupid. May I ask, just what book did you write?? It had to have been fiction!

The picture was taken in September 2006, when Senator Obama visited an area in Kenya, Somalia, and Ethiopia that had been devastated by flooding.
--------------------
US Senator visits flood displaced town of Dire dawa
Djibouti (HAN) September 1, 2006 - Sen. Barack Obama, visited a sprawling tent camp in eastern Ethiopia on Thursday for people displaced by devastating floods earlier this month, saying the U.S. military will continue to help the region.

U.S. Navy personnel began relief operations two weeks ago in the eastern town of Dire Dawa, where the first flash floods ripped through the town on Aug. 6. In eastern, southern and northeastern Ethiopia, flooding caused by the heavy rains has killed more than 600 people and displaced tens of thousands of people, according to U.N. officials.

"The next order of business is to make sure these families are taken care of," said Obama, who is on a five-country tour of Africa. "But this shows what kind of role the U.S. military can play."

U.S. naval engineers, who are part of the anti-terror Combined Joint Task Force Horn of Africa based in neighboring Djibouti, set up 60 enormous canvas tents that are housing 2,700 people. The tents are furnished with straw mats and basic necessities.

Sanitation facilities were built with the help of the Ethiopian Red Cross. Already, 150 people have died of waterborne diseases and 12,000 have been infected, according to relief organizations.

"This is a wonderful thing that the U.S. military has done," said Mohammed Noor, who is living in the tent city. "We lost everything by the waters that washed away our home." Dire Dawa is 310 miles east of Addis Ababa. LES NEUHAUS.; February 26, 2008 1:11 AM
Independent Voter said...: And then time comes back with the negative attack. But that is ok, I happen to agree with you on this one. I really hope that he will address this.

But then again, technically he still doesn't take money from the lobbyists themselves. Unfortunately it is a matter of "fine lines".

I have to say if this is one of the very FEW things I disagree with him on, I'm still on his side.

Compare that to Hillary and John. They both have lobbyists WORKING DIRECTLY on their campaigns and it turns out they are both lobbyists for the SAME lobbying group.; February 26, 2008 1:15 AM
MOJORISIN' said...: "That is the fear mongering mentality we are begining to see from the Hillary camp."

Exactly! The photo has been posted on his website for over a year. Billary just grasping at straws again! Hoping that the uninformed and less intelligent can't see through their slimy tactics. Thank God, most people know this and hey, everytime they do this, his numbers go up. Texas released their lasted poll numbers at 11:00 EST and Barack is now ahead of Billary by 4%. brick by brick...block by block...Obama will clean her clock.; February 26, 2008 1:19 AM
Independent Voter said...: You know what I would like to see. I would like to see ALL of the remaining candidates hooked up to a polygraph. What do you guys think?

I think it would be very interesting and would set alot of people's minds to rest.; February 26, 2008 1:22 AM
NO Obama said...: If you are asking me what book did I write, no it was not fiction.

I don't want to say who I am because I will probably get flaming bags of poop on my doorstep from Obama fanatics but let's just say it is on many college bookshelves along side "A Beautiful Mind" as recommended reading.

When I went to college, I took several courses in logic and made excellent grades. I saw many other people struggling with equations of logic both in the classroom and in their personal lives.

I tend to look at things more logically than emotionally and look beyond the rhetoric and words.

Many logical things and emotional things (maybe my gut) just won't let me support Obama!; February 26, 2008 1:23 AM
NO Obama said...: You know what I would like to see. I would like to see ALL of the remaining candidates hooked up to a polygraph. What do you guys think?

I think it would be very interesting and would set alot of people's minds to rest.

THAT WOULD BE GREAT!; February 26, 2008 1:25 AM
NO Obama said...: Referring to the shutdown of the Galesburg Maytag plant:

Beyond such talk (Obama's soaring rhetoric), there is little evidence that Obama went to any lengths to fight the Galesburg shutdown. Some analysts say his ties to the Crowns--Lester's son, James, is the Illinois finance chairman of Obama's presidential run--leave him open to criticism.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-galesburg_obama_webfeb01,1,6024020.story?ctrack=1&cset=true; February 26, 2008 1:30 AM
Independent Voter said...: Wow time, what a way to pick and chose which paragraph you are going to pull from an article. Did you read the part where it says,
-------------
"Obama's chief political strategist, David Axelrod, said late Thursday that the senator did not know Crown sat on Maytag's board until the Tribune noted it last September in a story about the closing of the Maytag headquarters in Newton, Iowa."

or the part where it says, "The Obama campaign said the Maytag workers' union never asked him to intervene with Crown and that he would have done so if they had. Union officials said they were unaware of the Crowns' ties to Maytag or to Obama."

or the part where it says, "Since his election, he has backed legislation to combat the overseas export of American jobs. In May 2006, Obama wrote to the Secretary of Labor asking for assistance for displaced Maytag workers."

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

Not only did he NOT know that Crown was on the board, but that Galesburg is nearly 200 miles AWAY from the area that he represented in the IL Legislature?

So not only did he not know about Crown being on the board, and the area that he was in the state senate to represent was not even a part of his district, but he even rallied WITH union employees, yet Crown stated that any attempt would have been futile anyway.

So my question to you is, what would you expect him to do with the knowledge that he had at that point?; February 26, 2008 1:56 AM
NO Obama said...: Why doesn't the Obama campaign want Michelle's thesis avaialble? I thought he was the candidate of tansparency....

During a presidential contest in which the term "transparency" has been frequently bandied about, candidates have buried a number of potentially revealing documents and papers. In Hillary Rodham Clinton's case, there's been a clamoring for tax records, White House memos and other material the candidate's team has chosen to keep from release. The 96-page Princeton thesis, restricted from release by the school's Mudd Library, has also been the subject of recent scrutiny.

Earlier this week, commentator Jonah Goldberg remarked on National Review Online, "A reader in the know informs me that Michelle Obama's thesis ... is unavailable until Nov. 5, 2008, at the Princeton library. I wonder why."

"Why a restricted thesis?" asked blogger-pastor Louis Lapides on his site Thinking Outside the Blog. "Is the concern based on what's in the thesis? Will Michelle Obama appear to be too black for white America or not black enough for black America?"

Attempts to retrieve the document through Princeton proved unsuccessful, with school librarians having been pestered so much for access to the thesis that they have resorted to reading from a script when callers inquire about it. Media officers at the prestigious university were similarly unhelpful, claiming it is "not unusual" for a thesis to be restricted and refusing to discuss "the academic work of alumni."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8642.html; February 26, 2008 1:56 AM
Independent Voter said...: I don't know why she hasn't released her thesis. I wonder why Hillary's hasn't been released.; February 26, 2008 2:01 AM
MOJORISIN' said...: time - You can read her entire thesis right here:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8642.html

You are not bright at all and I do not for a second believe you wrote anything that has be published by anyone.

So, what do you have to say now? What can we help you with now?
Give me a break, I can truly see why you are a Billary supporter!; February 26, 2008 2:51 AM
MOJORISIN' said...: You are truly pathetic. Your entire email regarding the thesis was a copy/paste directly below the thesis itself. Do you see where it says 'part 1,2,3,4'. You have to click on those to open the thesis.; February 26, 2008 2:56 AM
NO Obama said...: Mojo, the thesis was originally pulled (prob. at the request of the campaign) and maybe now they've had a change of heart (or campaing strategy)?

*sigh* You the Obama believer don't "believe" I wrote a book and got it published? (btw, I have 2 more in the works).

My book on one of the suggested reading lists along with "A Beautiful Mind".

http://www.amazon.com/Descent-Into-Madness-Jonell-Belke/dp/1930586124

http://www.kriso.ee/cgi-bin/shop/9781930586123.html; February 26, 2008 3:00 AM
MOJORISIN' said...: *sigh* - you're a waste of time.; February 26, 2008 3:03 AM
NO Obama said...: Mojo, you have egg on your face and when you don't know what to say, you say "you're a waste of time".

I wrote a book to help people with mental illness and to achieve specific goals in helping to combat the prejudices and lack of medical care in our system and you come back with "you're a waste of time?"

YOU are the waste of time!; February 26, 2008 3:07 AM
Carrie said...: Just stopped by to see if I was missing anything. Nothing new or enlightening that might help me feel better about voting for Obama in the fall if I must.

I'll just drop a couple nickels into the pot:

From Washington Post's "On the Trail"

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the candidate does not disqualify Washington lobbyists from from endorsing or advising him. "The way we address this issue is we don't take money from federal lobbyists," Burton said. "It's not a perfect symbol but it's his best effort to show the sort of administration he is going to have."

Names:
Jim Hodges
Daniel Shapiro
Moses Mercado
Buffy Wicks
Steve Hildebrand
Jim Demers (ok, so he's a state lobbyist, not federal)

_______
I'm so glad, was it mojo, that you're certain Obama will stick to the matching funds in the general. Not sure why he's seeming to back away from it. I would have expected him to say proudly, "YES! This is fantastic - with John McCain as my opponent, I'm actually going to be a real cog in the wheel for election finance reform! With John and I running, we can finally prove the value of campaign reform as we commit to the level playing field of matching funds." I'm just saying, I would have expected him to be brimming with pride over that.

From the other side of the fence, this is really casting doubts on his sincerity.

If you communicate with his campaign - I'm sure you're very active volunteers, given your level of passion and time - would you pass that along? Last time I sent a message about my disappointment with Obama's bitter tone toward MI/FL, I got a nastygram back, followed quickly by a request for money. I'd rather not put myself back on his mailing list.

______
I really hope Obama does try to push his NAFTA crap tonight. His scare and smear mailings are rediculous. The paper has apologized - the word boon was theirs, not hers, and they don't have any records of anything from her or her campaign to demonstrate how she felt one way or the other. Essentially, they made it up. Their position now is that, they should have been clearer, and that Obama's use of their article is misleading. Meanwhile, in 2006 when the article was published, she was voting against another free trade agreement, and introducing legislation to require 5-year reviews of each trade agreement - holding NAFTA up as an example of a flawed trade agreement that was not fulfilling its goals and promise. Go ahead. Bring it on.

Funny - was it Mojo? - you thought his live response was priceless. I did, too. However, I'm pretty sure it was for different reasons. He sounded like Bush to me - clumsy, struggling for words that might make him sound like he's saying something meaningful. Lame. Again, I suppose, a matter of perspective.

I thought her call-out on the topic was great - I don't care if she chose to wait until it would have impact. It would have been strategically stupid to bring it up too early before people had received it - before they knew what they should be ticked off about. Timing aside, the call was totally valid, given the facts of the two mailers. The design was very Carl Rove. He's really evil. (If we can't at least agree on that, I've gotta wonder where you've been for the past 8 or so years.)

____
OK, I'm off again.

Enjoy.; February 26, 2008 7:26 AM
Independent Voter said...: Carrie, first of all he NEVER pledged to use federal funding for the general election. He stated that it was an option that he would keep open and that he would aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican candidate.

Why with conditions you ask? Because of the 527 groups like "swiftboat veterans for truth" come to mind. Most of us knew that they were full of crap, yet they pumped more into advertising than Bush's campaign. This is the type of agreement that he would be seeking, to stop or at the very least limit the 527's spending limits. As it stands now they have no spending limits and currently qualify as 501(c)3 status. The same status as CHURCHES (which I don't think should receive 501(c)3 status either).; February 26, 2008 10:31 AM
Independent Voter said...: time....your book is on the "suggested reading list" by who?

I am pursuing my phd and have NEVER heard of this book let alone has it ever been suggested.

The book "A Beautiful Mind" that one I have heard of, yours not so much!

As a matter of fact, I just went onto San Diego State University's Libary catalog search and guess what, your book isn't there. So whose "recommended reading list" is your book on?; February 26, 2008 10:40 AM
MOJORISIN' said...: dave - her book is on a family member's mental illness and by all accounts looks like a good book. I would think with her first hand experience, she would be able to recognize HRC's mental illness but ....

HOWEVER, I googled her name and there are several blogs on Buzzwatch which she has posted and now I understand her HATRED toward Barack. All of her posts are on terrorists and the Middle East. ALL of them. She is so parnoid that Barack has muslim ties that she will never even try to understand where he is coming from. NEVER. I can guarantee you that she has NEVER read either of his books and has no desire to either. It's ones like these, the older crowd, that are so 'me, me, me' that they will never have any peace. It's one thing to have concern for your country's well being but another when you don't have compassion for the people in it. The middle name, African roots, Samoli dress, and whatever else they dig up is enough for her to throw her hands up and scream "NO".; February 26, 2008 10:56 AM
NO Obama said...: dave, if you look at the links I posted, it is one of those (rec. reading list).

But the point is that someone here was saying Hillary supporters are uneducated, stupid, etc.

That was the only reason I posted about my education, accomplishments, etc.

I think there is an equal mix of educated, not so educated, etc. among the candidates.

Generalizing that that poster did is not good or accurate.; February 26, 2008 11:49 AM
NO Obama said...: Mojo, provide links to what you say about me please.

I do believe you buzzed the wrong person!

First of all I don't post under my real name and secondly I have little insight into ME terrorists or terrorism specific enough to post about.

I do know Bush opened up a can of worms ie, terrorist havens in Iraq that didn't exist before.; February 26, 2008 11:57 AM
Unknown said...: Wow, it's getting awfully personal in here.

Here's a reality check for HRC supporters. Does anyone think she'll hold onto what is now her last hope, the eight point lead she has in Ohio? Unless Obama calls her a crazy white bitch in the debate tonight, it's over.; February 26, 2008 12:15 PM
Carrie said...: sdDave

Hillary's thesis was released - with much disappointment that there was nothing there. She had written about a radical socialist activist, but had concluded that his tactics were largely ineffective. Very uncontroversial. That said, I think it was very dumb for the Clintons to block its public availability back in the 90s - it only served to fuel skepticism around their ethics. DUMB! I'm not a fan of Michelle Obama's, but I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt on this and assume her thesis is also being withheld for stupid reasons we'll never quite understand.

On matching funds: I don't find your response re: the campaign financing message very compelling. I totally understand the issues around 527s - Obama has his own supporters of that type. It's tough to say who would end up with more $ diverted to that kind of "unofficial" campaigning. It is a major loophole. It's one the candidates must find a mixed blessing - thanks for the help, but GOD I wish I had more control over the message and delivery.
I still would have expected his response to be more along the lines of an enthusiastic welcome to going down that path with (I believe) the only republican who set out with the same reform message.

________

BTW - Anyone else think the garb discussion around Obama's Africa trip is the stupidest controversy yet? I'm far more interested in the results of his speech in Kenya, the conflict that arose with the Kenyan government, and how it might relate to the current problems there (actual death, destruction and displacement). Any takers?; February 26, 2008 1:21 PM
shelby said...: timeforchange-

Please don't justify yourself to these morons. Especially the one that claims to be female but clearly is not. His language gives him away every time. Of course he will come on and tell us how he is a female- blah, blah, hahaha - You know the drill.

Basically, we are dealing here with
pathetic losers who were probably passed over for jobs by females. So, to satisfy their rage they keep a file under their unmade beds about Hillary and all her misdeeds. They are ready at the drop of a hat to pull out their boring old litany - (yawn). They really can't help themselves. Part of the disease is a complete inability to see what is obvious to everyone else.; February 26, 2008 3:49 PM
MOJORISIN' said...: time- "I do believe you buzzed the wrong person!
First of all I don't post under my real name and secondly I have little insight into ME terrorists or terrorism specific enough to post about."

You KNOW I didn't 'buzz' the wrong person. And you did post with your own name. And you're exactly right, you do have little insight. I'm no longer doing homework for you, you can go goggle yourself. The posts I read went all the way back to Kerry & Bush and your paranoia showed even then. Just give up and vote for McCain. I personally think you'd be much better off than spending time on a wasted effort that is HRC.

HaHaHa ! Too funny -
shelby, shelby, shelby, how sad. I can tell you this - I'm positive that I'm more woman than you will ever be! :) I don't let others led my life and sit idly by!
Ha! Ha! Ha!

Have fun tonight!; February 26, 2008 6:46 PM
MOJORISIN' said...: For time - a post from another blog on your man McCain:

"Was anybody watching the McCain town hall meeting live on CNN just a second ago, when McCain called children with autism "cursed?"

NICE HUH??; February 26, 2008 7:01 PM
Independent Voter said...: Carrie,

My apologies, it does appear that Hillary's thesis has finally been released. (See I can admit when I am wrong.) And you're right, it really doesn't say much, at least from what I have read about it.

As far as the Somalian garb, I have to agree with you on this one too. The only problem that I had with is the headline that went out on some of the e-mails that contained the picture, for example one headline that came through my e-mail was "Is he or isn't he a Muslim?" If this is sent to Republicans, it is plain and simple classic Republican fear-mongering. That is the objection that I have.; February 26, 2008 10:24 PM
Carrie said...: SD Dave

Thanks. I should have been clearer - I do think the accompanying headlines questioning his religion are disturbing & clearly smears. I saw it come across my blog on HillaryClinton.com - posted by some jerk, not the campaign. I moderate my blog and deleted the comment. Argh. I'm kind of wishing I'd have made a grander statement, but I just thought it was stupid and didn't warrant attention.

I'm actually pretty proud of us as a country for being smart enough to ignore the coincidence of his middle name - particularly since our current administration has been all but creating internment camps - yuck. Just five years ago, a classmate of my husband's felt he needed to legally change his name from Ali to Alex.

I'm not a fan of Obama's these days, but I'm pretty pleased to say that the Clinton supporters I run with have better reasons for the choices we make.; February 26, 2008 10:58 PM
NO Obama said...: I googled myself and don't see any of the posts you refer to.

I was on John Kerry's campaign staff when I lived in NM and was an avid support of his.

I was also an avid supporter of Al Gore, Bill Clinton.....

But now that I've lived through some horrendous elections that I was sooooooo disappointed about, esp. Bush stealing the Presidency.

Now that I see some of the same BS happening again around of all things a dem candidate Hillary Clinton (being swiftboated).

I have reached the point, selfishly I admit, where I am going to have fun this time around rather than the extreme grief and letdown I felt after the last 3 Presidential elections.

So, since Barack Obama has done this to Clinton (along with a lot of help from the press), I am going to be a thorn in his side and do everything I can to debunk him and probably support John McCain. Not sure about that part yet, but it'll be fun going after Obama.; February 26, 2008 10:59 PM
Independent Voter said...: Ok time, I am pasting the part of your post that I am addressing here:

You say you took several logic classes while you were in college. I'm not sure if you are talking Philosophy Logic or Mathematical Logic....yes they are different.

If you are discussing Philosophy Logic then your logic is flawed.

Here are the facts.
October 18th, less than one week after she authorized the use of force we had 60,000 troops READY to invade Iraq. (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1723655.html)

Do you really believe we had the capabilities to transport 60,000 people over to Iraq in 1 week? No, not even close. It took us 6 months in order get 30,000 people over there. So it means that it took quite some time to get that kind of troop build-up over there. Therefore, Obama was absolutely correct in his assesment (I'm paraphrashing) "I don't think there was any doubt in anyone's mind that we were going to go to war after that resolution titled 'Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq.' was passed."

She didn't read the intelligence report and voted in favor of the resolution.

The simple fact is that she cannot explain her vote. Whether she trusted the president or not, she still voted against a measure that would require the president to return to Congress before using force....that is another vote she cannot explain away. She has been painting President Bush (accurately if I might add) as a dope. So she was duped by a dope!

I'm not going to address the whole "screech"/"shrill" comment issue again. We've been over that one. I don't consider it as sexist you do. I have referred to the Dean Scream as a prime example of a man screeching.

See I can be civil, when I don't have someone trying to make light of my support for my candidate. I still won't vote for her if she is the nominee in November especially because of the recent tactics she used over this past weekend (you have to admit, she seemed to be a bit bi-polar to say the least). I wouldn't accept that from ANY candidate. If Obama acted the way she did this past weekend, I would drop my support for him in a heartbeat. But it still would NOT make me vote for her. I didn't really care for her husband too much, which stems from his first term when he sold my community out when he signed the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy into law. (Yes, I was one of those who were kicked out of the military simply due to this policy.) I had served 3 years in active duty (I was planning on serving 20) as an openly gay service-member (all of my unit members knew as did my commanding office), but was kicked out within 6 months because they had no choice. Under the DADT policy, they were REQUIRED to kick us out, under the OLD policy, it was at their discretion. But this is another policy that Clinton says she would reverse it, however the damage is done, just like NAFTA. She wants to take credit for all the good during her co-presidency with her husband, but refuses to take any responsibility for the negatives.

Speaking of NAFTA, it took me (what seemed to be) forever to find a decent paying job after the military (because it isn't simply a discharge for DADT violatins, it is a "dishonorable" discharge - at least it was back then), but I finally did find a good paying job, but then 3 years later I saw that job go overseas. That is when I went back to school and got my BA in Political Science. (No, I don't work for the Obama campaign.) I am a freelance policy analyst (granted my work is mainly dealing with local and state issues and not on the federal level). Therefore I have had a chance to examine both Hillary and Obama's "blueprints" and I honestly believe that Obama's policies are better.

Like I said before, I do not like her apparant bi-polar or multiple personalities, especially if we don't know which one we are going to get when she controls the nuclear button.

I'll address the debate in my next post.

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

One thing I wish Hillary could explain better is her vote to authorize military force. She explained she was from the previous administration (and others before Clinton's were similar regarding Iraq and other problematic countries)and the mindset was to retaliate militarily against Iraq with the use of military force (no fly zone violations, etc.).

She said she interpreted this to mean (assuming you could trust Bush, which it turned out not) similar type force that had been taken in the past during the Clinton administration, not WAR!

I was against the war from the beginning and would have voted against it probably. But I don't hold that against her considering where she was coming from regarding the use of force.

She has since found out Bush cannot be trusted to be rational or prudent.; February 26, 2008 11:31 PM
NO Obama said...: Well dave, I'm sorry about all that but I pretty much feel the same way you do about Hillary about Barack Obama.

There are too many unknowns and just a gut feeling I have about him making me not want to support or vote for him.

If he were the VP on a Clinton ticket and I could see him perform and how he is, what his issues and policies are over 8 years, I would certainly give him my vote after those 8 years if my impressions were favorable.; February 26, 2008 11:40 PM
MOJORISIN' said...: Well, what a lovely time tonight!Barack is the dem nominee, no question any longer. He had so many chances to nail her and once again took the high road. How presidential is that? His best stance tonight was on foreign policy so I see NO problems with McCain at all. None.

dave- man, sorry you had to go through all that with DADT. That is just NOT right. I wish you all the best with your endeavers now.
PEACE!; February 26, 2008 11:47 PM
Independent Voter said...: Ok tonight's debate. So, none of the predicted negative personalities of Clinton came out tonight (upped her dosage?) but once again, I think he did a much better job overall. I liked tonight's debate MUCH better than CNN's where it seemed like the 2002 State of the Union Address when every other line (regardless of who said it) people were standing up and clapping. This one the audience was much more subdued so they could concentrate more on the positions.

Now Obama did get in a good jab on her Iraq war vote (by saying her vote drove us into the ditch - come on admit it, it was a good line). Hillary got a few good jabs in there too. But overall, I don't think she did what she needed to do in order to win Tuesday's contests by the landslides that she needs.

I think they both did a great job and were pretty civil and respectful throughout the debate, but like I said, for her to remain competitive in this campaign she would have needed a "Total Knockout" (TKO) in order to stay above float on Tuesday and that just didn't happen.

What do you guys think?; February 26, 2008 11:54 PM
Independent Voter said...: Mojo and time. Thank you for the support, I have made a great life for myself. And yes time I have MANY straight female and lesbian friends, (I do have to admit though that I like my straight female friends better).

Anyway with that said. time, do you realize what the role of VP is? They are only there as a "supporting" role, they don't really have any legislative imput, except deciding a tie-breaker (with the exception of Cheney of course). Al Gore, in my opinion, lost (not only due to the "alleged" Clinton's scandals during the 90's or the Supreme Court's intervening) but because he really didn't have any true experience experience on his own. He was President of the Senate (as well as a former Senator). That was it. That might was the same amount of experience as Obama (ALL legislative experience - no executive experience). NONE of the front-runners have ANY executive experience, so as far as the experience issue, none of them can claim it. And if Hillary is claiming the co-presidency, then she cannot cherry-pick what she is going to stake claim to, it's all or nothing.

-----------------------------------
timeforchange said...
Well dave, I'm sorry about all that but I pretty much feel the same way you do about Hillary about Barack Obama.

There are too many unknowns and just a gut feeling I have about him making me not want to support or vote for him.

If he were the VP on a Clinton ticket and I could see him perform and how he is, what his issues and policies are over 8 years, I would certainly give him my vote after those 8 years if my impressions were favorable.; February 27, 2008 12:04 AM
MOJORISIN' said...: Yes, the bus in the ditch comment, no question, was superb! The poll on MSNBC asking 'who won' is showing (with approx. 43,000 votes) 65% Obama, 23% HRC, and 12% tied. Glad she FINALLY admitted her vote on Iraq was a mistake. And very glad the Farrahkan statements were thrown out there. Although, she, once again, showed her butt with the denounce vs reject comment. He was right though, he was not offered anything to be rejected but, hey, if it kept her from going bonkers, then fine, he rejected. And I hope they make her stick to releasing her tax statements and white house logs. I mean, her answer that it takes time to get those things together was LAME! In fact, alot of what she said was lame. I missed the first 30 min so I'm watching it again right now. Will post more here in a bit.; February 27, 2008 12:04 AM
MOJORISIN' said...: (I do have to admit though that I like my straight female friends better).

You know I have a gay brother and I like his guy friends better than my straight male friends by far!!! :) ANYDAY!; February 27, 2008 12:08 AM
MOJORISIN' said...: I do notice she had her hair foiled in last day or two and he has really shiny ears.; February 27, 2008 12:12 AM
MOJORISIN' said...: Pat Buchanan just said that Obama won the debate. And in related news - hell has frozen over!; February 27, 2008 12:23 AM
Independent Voter said...: LOL mojo, they must have fogotten to powder his ears...LOL.

Although it was very CLOSE to an admission of her Iraq vote being a mistake, it still wansn't an admission. She said that she would like to take that back...I know semantics, but ya, it is the closest admission to it being a mistake that we are going to get.

I too am glad that the Farrakhan issue has been addressed in a public forum.

I don't necessarilly think that Obama won the debate, although I think he did a great job, especially the first half of the debate, but I don't think she won either.

She really needed him to screw up and screw up bad, or she would have had to have an absolute over-the-top extraordinary showing to salvage her campaign. He obviously didn't screw up, he pretty much had her on foreign policy, and I can definitely say that she didn't have any TKO or out of the ballpark hits on this one.

I have a question because I don't know if it is my perception or did she try playing the whoa is me victim card when she confronted the moderator on asking her the questions first? The question that was asked right before she responded the way that she did, Tim Russert was looking back and forth allowing either one of them to answer, and she jumped in first (this came out in the after debate analysis).

I have no doubt that the healthcare issue is her passion, and I have no doubt that she has the best of intentions in this area, I personally just don't believe that mandates are the right approach.

During the section of the healthcare portion of the debate she also said that there is going to be a "hidden tax" that would cover those who don't have insurance when they do go to the hospital. I found this somewhat confusing. First, we should not have ANY hidden taxes, second I thought it was a mandate which means that you MUST purchase coverage. I don't think this "hidden tax" was a good talking point for her.

I do have to admit, she has regained a little of my respect back for her tonight. I still don't know if it was enough to get my vote in November if she is the nominee (mainly due to her behavior over the past week).

I think he won the NAFTA issue as well as the foreign policy issue.

What do you think?; February 27, 2008 1:25 AM
Independent Voter said...: OUCH! I'm replaying the debate, and Tim just nailed Hillary on her vow to create 200,000 new jobs in New York and they have had a net loss of 30,000. That had to hurt. Her answer was I thought Al Gore was going to be the president. HUH? Is it now Al Gore's fault?; February 27, 2008 1:36 AM
NO Obama said...: dave...If you listen to what she said, you would hear that she though Al Gore would be president and was basing the assessment of being able to create that many new jobs on cooperation and initiatives from a democratic White House.

I thought the debate was good and that Hillary won on details and command of the issues. Barak Obama seemed to be amused at times which feeds into my feelings about his being arrogant and entitled.

BTW, I heard an interview with him just before he took the oath for the US Senate in which he said he would not consider a fun for the presidency in 2008 because he did not feel comfortable due to his inexperience.

He's already broken one "promise".; February 27, 2008 1:45 AM
MOJORISIN' said...: Ok, we disagree. See, I think he did best in the second half! After the second break, she came back looking totally defeated. She was even slouching, maybe she's just tired.
The point of being whinny in the beginning with the 'I always get the first questions' would have been said either way because that was a planned response already. The comment about the pillow and SNL just made her look childish. I mean, really, you quote SNL to prove your point. Then when Russet posed one of the last questions, I don't remember, but the one you referenced, he purposely left it open to either one to answer and she jumps right in first. HUH? In the last 10 debates, she was asked the first question 6 times, so again 'mountain out of molehill'. As far a her health care plan, I see very specific differences between the two of them, but she clearly tries to close that gap. Yes, she wants mandated coverage and you know some people out there think that government mandate means it will be provided for you which is not true. It means YOU will be required by LAW or be subject to penalties, ie. garnishments. I wish he had brought up the garnishments again. His plan is much better in truly getting it implemented in the long run.
Well dave, I'm glad you gained a little more respect for her tonight, however, I still feel the exact same way. :)) She's not done with the mudslinging, after all,

Tomorrow is another day...; February 27, 2008 1:56 AM
MOJORISIN' said...: "BTW, I heard an interview with him just before he took the oath for the US Senate in which he said he would not consider a fun for the presidency in 2008 because he did not feel comfortable due to his inexperience.

He's already broken one "promise".

ONCE AGAIN: In this interview he said he did not believe at that time he had the experience, at that time (I never heard 2008 mentioned) needed to run and he would not run until he felt he was ready. However, after his years in the senate, his collegues were the ones to persuade him to take a closer look and he decided to run based on his backing. You know, sometimes, you just don't realize how good you are until others point it out to you and support you. With that said, no promise was broken, look were he is. They were right!; February 27, 2008 2:05 AM
Independent Voter said...: "Well dave, I'm glad you gained a little more respect for her tonight, however, I still feel the exact same way. :)) She's not done with the mudslinging, after all,

Tomorrow is another day..."

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

Ya I know. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. I really hope she doesn't do the Dr. Jekyl and Mrs. Hyde routine again. The Democratic Party is already split enough as it is. A Hillary supporters and his brother-in-law got into a heated debate today in which the Hillary supporter stabbed his brother-in-law.

----

time....I did listen to it in its entirety (twice now LOL), but one of the arguments that I keep hearing from Hillary supporters is that Obama and his supporters shouldn't count their chickens before they are hatched. Well shouldn't that have applied to her in the 2000 race as well when making the claim that she would create 200,000 new jobs?

As far as him going back on his "promise" of not running for president. He did say that, however the majority of the individuals urging him to make a presidential bid were his constituents. They wanted him to run. They even said they wanted him to run while he was running for the Senate seat so to me, that really isn't a big deal. If you do, that's fine, you're entitled to that opinion, but I was pushing for him to run when he made his speech in 2002. I was there protesting in Chicago when he gave that speech. It was an awesome experience. I had never in my life (and still haven't) seen an experience where so many people of all backgrounds responded the way they did toward him.

I don't think it is a bad thing, because once he got to Washington he observed how broken Washington really is. And I don't see the necessary repairs in our government taking place under another Clinton administration. She has alienated people on the other side of the aisle. We have to remember her flare up on the Senate floor. And then she showed that flare up again this past weekend. Is that the type of person you really want running this country?

Suppose she was yelling and threatening President Putin instead of Obama? I would much rather have someone that keeps their cool rather than blowing their lid. This is where judgment and collectiveness is needed. If JFK blew his lid during the Cuban Missle Crisis none of us would be here right now. But he stayed calm and collected and brought the crisis to an end.

That is the type of leader I am looking for. These among other reasons is why I never really held him to the idea of not seeking the office this year.

I know, it sounds like I'm just giving him a free pass on this one, and I guess in this particular case you are right. But that doesn't resonate as negatively with me as someone who may or may not blow their cool in the time of crisis.; February 27, 2008 2:40 AM
Independent Voter said...: mojo, as much as I hate to admit it, Obama did say he would not run in 2008.; February 27, 2008 2:47 AM
MOJORISIN' said...: My favorite lines from the new Maureen Daud (didn't she used to be pro-HRC?) Op-Ed:

"The fact that Obama is exceptionally easy in his skin has made Hillary almost jump out of hers. She can’t turn on her own charm and wit because she can’t get beyond what she sees as the deep injustice of Obama not waiting his turn. Her sunshine-colored jackets on the trail hardly disguise the fact that she’s pea-green with envy."

And

"By threatening to throw the kitchen sink at Obama, the Clinton campaign simply confirmed the fact that they might be going down the drain."

-----------------------------
How about those apples?? ;)

brick by brick, block by block...

Good night!; February 27, 2008 2:49 AM
MOJORISIN' said...: I guess I heard a different interview! It was on his biography they ran last week. Either that or I was drinking the K-Aid that night! HaHa!; February 27, 2008 2:51 AM
Independent Voter said...: mojo, that is hilarious. (Yes I avoided the name play); February 27, 2008 2:51 AM
Independent Voter said...: Here is the exact quote:

"I have never set foot in the U.S. Senate. I've never worked in Washington. And the notion that somehow I'm immediately going to start running for higher office just doesn't make sense.

"So look, I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years, and my entire focus is making sure that I'm the best possible senator on behalf of the people of Illinois."

"I am not running for president in 2008," Obama said. "I mean, come on guys. The only reason I'm being definitive is because until I'm definitive you will keep asking me this question, but it's a silly question."; February 27, 2008 2:52 AM
Unknown said...: I have been reading this blog since its inception. I am very troubled by many of the misconceptions and misstatements which I continue to read. I had originally thought that these untrue statements and assertions would eventually be properly debunked. To my surprise they do not seem to have been!

Don't take any of these personally, but here are my observations:

Carrie-- More than once you have seemingly alluded to Obama's campaign somehow opressign women in this country. I just cannot understand the logic here. I understand that you and a lot of other women would like to see a woman president. However, to suggest that people are simply voting for Obama because of gender is absurd to me. Perhaps my vision is myopic, but I have never and will never base my voting preference on gender. To stereotype the public and suggest that they are is simply rediculous to me.

Time-- You have recently attempted to state that you are relying on logic to base your decisions. However, you have repeatedly stated "...my gut feeling..." I do not hold a PhD in philosopgy, but this souncs more to me like a logical fallacy than a logically proven statement-- it is based upon emotion rather than facts. You claim that if he were vice president you could see how he handles himself then make a decision. This baffles me. It is as if you are attempting to say he lacks experience. Why is it that so many people keep perpetuating this myth? Do you not realize that Obama has spent more years as an elected official than Hillary? This is a fact-- a quantifiable value which cannot be disputed.

Furthermore, to suggest that Hillary has been "swiftboated" is totally proposterous. When did this take place? Who did the swiftboating?

The only thing which has happened to Hillary is that she was out-maneuvered. She underestimated her opponent's abilities. Even more amazing is that both Bill and Hillary seem completely lost in that they do not underatand what has happened.

The fact is that Hillary had a flawed strategy. She planned on winning the big states fast and ending the primary. If you do not believe me, just go back to her interview last summer on "Meet the Press" where she told Tim Russert this thing would be over by February 5th. In a way, it is sad what has happened to her. But, fact is that such a strategy was doomed for ultimate failure anyway. During the past two general elctions the democrat party thought they could win the presidency by relyin on the big states plus one or two more (We all know how that turned out.) Fact is, i Al Gore would have concentrated on some small states there would have never been the Florida debacle (which Time cites as her source of cynicism for the system). Likewise, if Kerry had won a few more small rural states, we would not have had te tainted results from Ohio in 2004.

The Clintons are very successful politicians and strategists. However, it seems to me that this time they merely made a huge miscalculation. Yes, Obama's personality and his speeches did not hurt him. But, if the Clintons would have had a different approach the playing field might not look like it presently does.

I know that everyone will now paint me as a die-hard Obama supporter and most likely a Hillary hater. Fact is I voted for Bill Clinton in the 90's. My sole biggest reason for not wanting another Clinton is that his trade policies hurt my job and many others like me. I was actually glad to see NAFTA discussed as of late because it is the sole reason I cannot support Hillary. I am not a Hillary hater, but when you take money out of my pocket and food off my table, I am not likely to support you. You know the saying "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

I would just hope that is this discussion continues that we can steer away from the attacks, misconceptions, and assertions which are based on appeals to emotions, instead sticking with some facts.; February 27, 2008 3:37 AM
math 101 said...: i figured my first post should be simple
THANKS(for the site work)!!!!!!; February 27, 2008 4:11 AM
Carrie said...: lectric -

Not sure where you're getting your sense that I "would like to see a woman president" rather than having personal and political reasons for my vote, or the notion that I think Obama's campaign is opressing women. I do think a lot of the original hate - the source of the comments that Clinton is "evil", that in the states she won there had to be fraud, the general electability garbage re: too many republicans hating her - got its legs from sexism. I think it was lame for Obama to take up electability as one of his big talking points after 2/5. It did bother me that, as another blogger put it, he was seeking to be the beneficiary of that hate. I have far higher priorities on my list of reasons I dislike him, and even higher priorities on my list of reasons I support Clinton.

So, let me be clear: I don't care if she's a woman. I don't believe people are voting for him because he's a man.

If you want to latch onto something that's stuck in my craw, address the issue of his speech in Kenya. A brilliant answer to that question is what I'm hoping for.; February 27, 2008 7:18 AM
Unknown said...: Carrie-

Even if I were to address the Kenya speech, how likely is it to change your mind? From what I have seen, no amount of information is likely to affect the opinions of most people on this blog. So, is it really worth my time to address this non-issue, other than to give you more fodder to rant about?; February 27, 2008 10:34 AM
MOJORISIN' said...: Hey Lectric -
Excellent insight. Excellent first post! And you're correct that no matter what is said to debunk issues, HRC supporters just jump right on to the next topic, which by the way, has already been covered at least 3-4 times on here alone. Are you sure you're ready to board the 'CAN I MAKE IT ANY CLEARER?' train?

It can totally boggle your mind!!

PEACE!; February 27, 2008 10:51 AM
Carrie said...: lectric -
If you've really followed my posts - beginning weeks before the inception of the open thread (much on the MI/FL delegate threads), you should have seen that I've softened a lot on Obama.

I certainly don't come here to hear Clinton's praises sung. I don't come here to sling muck. When I see people regurgitating silly or unfair statements from either campaign, I try to speak up. I've even stood up for Michelle Obama a couple times, and I think she's been a major jerk on more than one occasion. I'm not sure why the woman/man thing stuck out for you more than the "don't lump all supporters of either camp together" thing. So, I'd love to continue debate if we can agree to this: I won't lump you in with "Hillary Haters", and you don't lump me in with whatever looniness you want to characterize Clinton supporters by.

When I first came to the site, I had such serious concerns about Obama's committment and ability to generate unity through diplomacy. I've softened.

More importantly, I've said that in the general election I'll canvass, call, do whatever I must to see a democrat elected - whichever democrat it turned out to be. It's up to you whether it's worth your time to help me get more comfortable with Obama's very likely, basically imminent nomination (because, I agree, he's run a great, highly effective campaign, and her campaign's been a mess).

You don't know me. For whatever reason, it's clear you weren't hearing what I was trying to say about issues of sexism during the campaign (conflicting perspectives lend themselves well to misunderstandings). It should be clear to you now that your initial impression of me was inaccurate.

On Kenya, it is an issue. The situation in Kenya is an enormous issue that will in all likelihood be a dire one by next January. The fall of Kenya from its former position as a beacon of hope for democracy in Africa, I believe, could have broad implications in Africa. If I'm supposed to put my all into campaigning for Obama in November, hell yes I want my fears allayed. Wouldn't you? Might I still argue some if you respond? Sure, if I don't think the topic has been born out. The only posts I've seen have been mine, one from someone comparing Kenya to Darfur & the fall of communism (to which I responded and heard nothing), and a few sincere posts from Protactinium (doesn't look like he's out here anymore). He never came to a conclusion, but acknowledged he could see where my question/concern would come from.

As for ranting, I don't call names, I don't refer to Obama as "that boy" or try to malign both Obama and the mentally ill by lumping them together. I acknowledge the good points Obama supporters make, and call out Clinton supporters when I think they're being ridiculous.

So, maybe Mojo is right - maybe her posts demonstrate the kind of accurate, fair, and even minded view and tone I should strive for. Maybe she can point me to the 3-4 places my worries have been addressed so that your mind won't be boggled, and you don't have to "board the 'CAN I MAKE IT ANY CLEARER?' train." I just don't think her approach suits me, though. And, I'm going give you the benefit of the doubt and assume she can't speak for you, either.

The one negative impression I am beginning to get of you is that, while you're not sure it's worth your time to open yourself to discussion on a topic that is obviously an issue for me, you seem to think it's worth your time to take negative jabs at me - the bit on sexism, which I hadn't discussed in a long time, now the "rant" on "non-issue" comment. This feels to me like you're more interested in personal attacks, and more focused on looking for negatives. I'm hoping this is just due to only having an n of 2. I'd love to be proven wrong.; February 27, 2008 12:09 PM
NO Obama said...: Regarding Barack Obama and my reasons for not liking him and not voting for him.

Many of them are logical and I cannot debate his supporters who come back with illogical responses based on personal jabs and loss for words thus things like "You're a waste of time."

I also have gut feelings about him that aren't quantifiable but they are logical.

Since we don't know a lot about him, since he doesn't have as much of a history as Hillary Clinto for us to say, "OK, he is a pretty responsible person, he doesn't have a chip on his shoulder about being an "African" American (he really isn't but I suppose that's neither here nor there in most instances), he is definitely completely PRO USA and has no ties or allegiances to Farrakhan, etc.

I am still perplexed about his membership in a church (Christian?), that aligns itself with Farrakhan, a Muslim (another reason for my gut feeling).

He goes back on his promises, votes present in IL senate to preseve HIS political standing rather than trying to go on record as opposing a bill in it's final form or better yet, CHANGE IT! WORK TO CHANGE IT! THIS CANDIDATE OF CHANGE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS IN IL VERY EFFECTIVELY!

He said he would not run for president in 2008. Then he said it was due to wanting more experience, etc. OK, so according to some of his supporters here, he was told what a wonderful candidate he would be.

This just proves that what he says today in his campaining can DEFINITELY be manipulated and changed by OTHERS. He can be made to change HIS mind and go against his own promises and visions.

So that among many other things makes me wonder what changes we can believe in today which he will go back on tomorrow.

He is too raw, new, inexperienced and flaky to have my vote.; February 27, 2008 1:01 PM
Unknown said...: Time-

Another thing....

You stated "He goes back on his promises, votes present in IL senate to preseve HIS political standing rather than trying to go on record as opposing a bill in it's final form or better yet, CHANGE IT! WORK TO CHANGE IT! THIS CANDIDATE OF CHANGE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS IN IL VERY EFFECTIVELY!"

Do you know anything about how Illinois politics works? First, this is an overall strategy used by Illinois' legislatures to signal that they have a problem with that particular piece of legislation. Second, as a constitutional law scholar, many of his present votes were based on the fact he saw constitutional problems with them. It is something that nearly every member does at one time or another.

You can inspect all of his present votes and discover the logic involved in his decision. I will do so for the two bills which have been given the most coverage in the press: Women's right of choice and rights and privacy for victims of sex crimes...

With respect to the present vote of women's right to choose, have you not seen the statements of Illinois NOW who stated this was part of their strategy? He voted exactly the way they asked him to. Furthermore, he voted for their causes 100% of the time.

As for the legislation about protecting victims of sex crimes, the bill was not complete. The leadership of the legislature called a vote on an incomplete bill. He voted "present" on this measure, stating at the time that he had serious problems on voting on an incomplete measure.

These are only two examples. The information about his present votes can easily be located, as well as the use of this type of vote in the Illinois legislature.; February 27, 2008 4:50 PM
shelby said...: Independents Go Home: Open Primaries Are Killing Democracy
2008 Elections
by Ted Rall | January 30, 2008 -

Liberals, a.k.a. the Democratic base, are angry. They're so angry that they tried to unseat senior senator and former vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman in 2006, who had become synonymous with bipartisanship. Bipartisanship, hell. They're in the mood for payback.

So why is Barack Obama, a bipartisan accommodationist who promises to appoint Republicans to his cabinet and praises Ronald Reagan, the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination? Why is Hillary Clinton, militant centrist of the DLC, running a close second?

Mystery #2: Liberal primary voters are obsessed with choosing a nominee who can win the general election in November. And yet, according to a hypothetical head-to-head match-up, neither Obama nor Clinton qualifies. The most electable Democrat, found the most recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. match-up poll, is John Edwards.

"Edwards is the only Democrat who beats all four Republicans, and McCain is the only Republican who beats any of the three Democrats [in November 2008]," says Keating Holland, CNN's polling director. But Edwards hasn't won a single primary.

What's going on? Why are angry, electability-oriented Democrats voting for the two candidates least likely to win--candidates who want to sing Kumbaya with the Republicans?

As we discussed last week, the media has frozen out Edwards because their corporate owners are scared of him. But there's a second reason that the Democratic primaries have "gotten terribly off track," in the words of The New York Times' Paul Krugman.

A lot of non-Democrats are voting in Democratic primaries.

As you might expect, candidates whose appeal crosses party lines have benefited from these open primaries. "Obama is winning independents, McCain is winning independents," says Professor Fiorina.

Political scientists differ over the moderating effect of open primaries, but history paints a clear picture. There hasn't been a left-wing Democratic nominee since George McGovern in 1972, or an overtly right-wing Republican one since Barry Goldwater in 1964. (Though they governed differently, Reagan and Bush II campaigned as uniters, not dividinators.) Both parties see open primaries as part of a "big tent" strategy--people who vote for party X in the primaries are said to be likelier to vote for Party X's nominee in the fall. Open primaries are also supposed to winnow out "extreme" candidates (see McGovern and Goldwater, above) while selecting for those with broad appeal to the overall electorate. But the advantages of open primaries--which have yet to be statistically proven--come at a steep price.

As Larry Gerston writes in the San Jose Mercury-News, "people who identify as Democrats or Republicans operate with different opinions than independents. Partisans tend to have stronger opinions on leading issues, are more aware of current events, have well-developed political value sets and tend to be more involved politically on an ongoing basis. For most independents, politics is much more a spectator sport. These folks are more amused than committed, tend to know less about the leading issues and candidates, and commonly operate with a less defined set of political values."

Independents complain that "closed primaries"--Democratic primaries are only open to Democrats, Republican primaries to Republicans--deny them a voice. In truth, registered independents choose not to vote in primaries. There is no practical reason to register as an independent. If you want to switch from one party's primaries to the other's, all you have to do is fill out a form. And, in the general election, you can vote for any party regardless of party affiliation.

The potential for mischief, on the other hand, is enormous in open primaries: conservatives voting for the worst Democrat, liberals for the worst Republican. Even "honest" independents queer the process by reducing the chances of a hardcore liberal or conservative winning their party's nomination. This year, they're boosting Obama and McCain, neither of whom have generated much enthusiasm from their party's bases. (If these two men face off in November 2008, McCain will enjoy an edge since the GOP tends to better coalesce behind its nominees. Republican party loyalists will also find McCain's right-wing voting record to their liking. Obama, on the other hand, repeatedly voted to fund the Iraq War.)

Polarization is good for democracy. Voters may claim not to like mudslinging campaign battles, but they turn out in greater numbers when the parties nominate candidates whose views are significantly different. In 2000, Gore and Bush were seen as so ideologically indistinct that many liberals cast protest votes for Ralph Nader. (Little did we know!) Turnout was 51.3 percent. It went up to 55.3 percent in 2004, high water mark of the red-blue divide.

Moderate nominees, er, moderate the enthusiasm of the liberals and conservatives who make up the two major parties' bases. When your party's standardbearer doesn't promise much, there isn't a lot to win. Nor is there much to lose if the enemy party's nominee seems relatively reasonable. The Democratic and Republican parties, already so similar on issues like trade, immigration and abortion, become more broadly indistinguishable. Elections offer fewer, less relevant options. Citizens tune out. Over time, some will start to yearn for another, less free but more effective form of government.

Open primaries, wrote Gerston, are "akin to casual sports fans having a voice in the selection of college playoff schedules or newly arrived residents of a town affecting the decision of a long-disputed, festering public policy issue." If we want to get rid of the two-party system, great. Until then, let Democrats pick the Democratic nominee and Republicans choose the Republican nominee. If independents want to play too, let them fill out a form.
_______; February 27, 2008 5:02 PM
Carrie said...: lectric -

you said: "As for me "ranting" or launching personal attacks-- proposterous....I am not saying (or accusing) that either of you have been engaged in this activity, except for being the recipients of such. I just do not believe it serves a purpose to engage in this type of behavior.

But I do believe it is important to state the facts and dispell the myths."

I'm not sure I understand. Your posts have focused on negatives around two of us - both Clinton supporters. Given that you focused on the two of us, it really does appear to me that your complaints are with us and not with any of the Obama supporters. You began with "don't take this personally" (which often suggests something likely to be taken personally is coming). When I clarified my position and stated that I agreed with you both on the topic of gender-based voting, and on the topic of campaign strategies, you never even acknowledged it. You focused on the question I posed at the end and, rather than being respectful toward me, asked, "So, is it really worth my time to address this non-issue, other than to give you more fodder to rant about?"

That statement seems sharply pointed and personal - fodder for me specifically to rant about - and pointless, unless the point was to accuse me of ranting. If your follow up to this was meant to be an apology or clarification, it's not coming across. If I'm misinterpreting, please show me rather than exclaiming that my perspective is proposterous. At least acknowledge the earnest answers I've given to your questions.

I appreciated your perspective on the Illinois senate votes. I had heard the bit about NOW on NPR, so knew not to latch on to that, but it was definitely a fact-filled post. It would be great to have a debate with you, not to change my mind because my position is moot (I'm a Michigan voter, so not only did I vote a long time ago, but my vote never counted), but because I have a sincere interest in learning - hence my tendency to give nods to the positive points people make.

Unfortunately, it still seems like the interest isn't mutual.; February 27, 2008 5:56 PM
Unknown said...: I just cannot alllow continual misstatement of facts. The two of you are not the only ones I have seen here doing that, but the others seem to have faded.

We have lived in the politics of fears and smears under Bush and his braintrust, Rove too long. I will not stand for anyone attempting to do the same to Obama (fear and smear). I am just baffled that the information exists as well as the facts, but they continue to be misrepresented. I think I have offered several facts. If I need to offer more, just let me know, and I will be sure to do that.

As for me not addressing the Kenya issue, I simply feel correcting the facts more important than engaging in a policy debate.

If people (and I do not mean only you) continue to misrepresent the facts about Obama, how will they twist his policy stances? If people cannot understand he has held elected office longer than Hillary, how could they ever listen to his positions in earnest?

If they dismiss him as an "opportunist" becuase of some votes which made according to a specific set of principles with a specific purpose, how can they believe he indeed wants to make a difference?

If you take my posts in a fashion other than they were intended, well that is just par for the course for me-- people alwasy take my statements in the worst possible way.

Would it make you feel better if I told you that I do not subscribe to, nor appreciate many of the personal attacks I have seen here? I have tried to avoid such. I have not used personally offensive language (which others have used here) because I do not appreciate it, nor do I believe it serves any purpose.; February 27, 2008 10:05 PM
Unknown said...: Carrie-

What exactly do you want to know about Kenya? Are you referring to the speech he gave in2006 when he was there, or something since?; February 27, 2008 10:16 PM
Carrie said...: lectric -

If people are constantly taking your statements the wrong way, you might want to take a look at how you're making them. You've provided no new or useful information for me. You've not corrected any information I've given. You're either incredibly short-sighted and biased, or simply disinterested in calling out the specific Obama supporters who have been far more uncivil and inaccurate. You don't have an interest in having a substantive debate. You won't acknowledge any of my conciliatory comments, which really serves to discredit you as a truth seeker. You're being divisive and spiteful.

Fortunately for Obama and his supporters, I know better than to blame behavior like yours on them.

As an aside, I somehow think that if you knew enough about Kenya to comment factually, you would.

Alright, now that that's off my chest, I'm done. No need to repeat yourself again redundantly. You're opinion of me is clear, and it's also clear you have no interest in reassessing.; February 27, 2008 10:36 PM
Carrie said...: lectric -

I'm apparently slow to type. When I began the last post, you hadn't asked about Kenya. I considered deleting the post, and probably still will if you're asking sincerely. In the meantime, I'm not quite ready to let go of my frustration with our exchanges thus far. I'd still appreciate some acknowledgment for the attempts I've made to reach across the aisle, so to speak.

On Kenya - yes. The speech in 2006 is what I'm asking about. I raised the question a while back. Did you see those posts? If not, I can go back and find them.; February 27, 2008 10:42 PM
NO Obama said...: lectricgenius

Therein lies the problem/quandry.

Obama goes along with the program in the IL legislature rather than trying to CHANGE it.

He says he is the candidate of change and will change DC.

BS. He did nothing to change things in IL and jumped ship to the US Senate for his own self agrandizement.

If he cared about IL and his constituents, he would have stayed there long enough to make significant changes in the way things are done.

THEN, he might be able to leitimately say he is the candidate of change who will make changes in DC.

He won't be able to BTW. Nice rhetoric, great speaker, empty suit.; February 27, 2008 11:16 PM
Unknown said...: Time-

Here once again you have shown your ignorance. You say he changed nothing in IL. Go tell that to all the innocent death row inmates who are alive today because of him!

Please, get your facts before you attempt to slander Obama.; February 27, 2008 11:35 PM
NO Obama said...: lectricgenius has left a new comment on the post "Open Thread":

Time-

Here once again you have shown your ignorance. You say he changed nothing in IL. Go tell that to all the innocent death row inmates who are alive today because of him!

Please, get your facts before you attempt to slander Obama.

_______________________

If Obama is going to change things in DC, he is going to have to do more than just vote present.

My point, which you missed is that he made no difference in the rules or the way things were done in IL.

Instead he copped out and voted "present".

That isn't someone who can change the rules or the way things are done in DC.

Slander? You need to look up the definition. I'm merely stating my opinion of a public official based on the facts of his actions or inactions in Illinois (land of my birth).; February 27, 2008 11:44 PM
Unknown said...: Time-

If you are native to Illinois, you should know the facts which I have set forth. Furthermore, you should be aware of how Illinois politics operates. It is one of the most corrupt governments in the nation.

If you call the following "going with the flow", then you need to re-analyze your logic:

1) Reforming death penalty, eventually achieving a moratorium of the death penalty in IL

2) Sweeping ethics reforms in IL (if you know IL, this was desperately needed)

3) Running not once, but twice against the Chicago political machine (Bobby Rush for congress and Dan Hynes in 2004 for US senate)

I could literally fill this entire page with similiar examples. All would be examples of how he has not settled for the status quo, and made sweeping changes that forever changed people's lives for the better.; February 28, 2008 12:05 AM
NO Obama said...: Born in IL, haven't lived there since age 5. Visited often when relatives were still alive but haven't been back in years.; February 28, 2008 12:08 AM
Unknown said...: Carrie-

I will have to re-read both your posts and his Kenya speech. It has been a long time since I saw the Kenya speech, but I do not remember anything which stuck out to me.

It may take me a while to get back with you on these due to this.; February 28, 2008 12:09 AM
MOJORISIN' said...: ROFLMAO !!!

WHEW! Glad to see I didn't miss anything today!!

And I'm being dead serious. Just more and more of the SSDD!; February 28, 2008 12:10 AM
Unknown said...: Time-

Is that to concede that you have no knowledge of these facts?

Your responses show how weak your argument is. You claim he would not take a stance on an issue. He did take stances, according to the prescribed method in IL. When confronted with those facts, you change it to a yet anothe ad hominem attack, this time saying he will change nothing.; February 28, 2008 12:46 AM
Unknown said...: FYI-- I just learned that President Bush has the IRS investigating the UCC because they let him speak at their annual conference. He did not speak on politics, only his faith.; February 28, 2008 12:47 AM
Unknown said...: Mojo-

That is one hell of a chip you have on your shoulder!; February 28, 2008 12:48 AM
NO Obama said...: lectricgenius has left a new comment on the post "Open Thread":

Time-

Is that to concede that you have no knowledge of these facts?

NO; February 28, 2008 1:06 AM
MOJORISIN' said...: ROFLMAO!!

Ok, now, where did I put that darn copy of his Kenya speech...hummm...; February 28, 2008 1:08 AM
NO Obama said...: OOPS! The all knowing Obama might have made a boo boo!

IRS Investigates Obama's Denomination

Tuesday, February 26, 2008 8:00 PM

Article Font Size

The IRS is investigating the United Church of Christ over a speech Barack Obama gave to its national meeting last year after he became a candidate for president.

Obama is a member of the church.

A spokesman for the denomination says it received notice of the inquiry on Monday.

The IRS says there is reason to believe the speech violated restrictions on political activity for nonprofit groups. The denomination denies any wrongdoing.

Church officials say they had consulted with lawyers before the Democrat's June 2007 speech and made clear before Obama's address that he was speaking as a church member, not a political candidate.

© 2008 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.; February 28, 2008 1:32 AM
Carrie said...: lectric -

Thanks. Actually, I'd like to make a deal with you. I'm willing to let you off the hook on Kenya, if you can list some more specifics on Obama's good work in IL. Seems like that's a good use of your time and knowledge, and it might serve the same purpose (to help me get more comfortable with Obama). One thing you pointed to was reform around the death penalty. I had read (I think it was on procon.org) that both Obama and Clinton were pro death penalty, which bothered me. I'm going to read up on his work on the topic. That's a fine start.

If you could point me to some examples where he was able to bridge gaps, I'd appreciate it. I've been concerned that, when faced with dissent, he has sounded a bit Bush-like (I'm right, so screw you). I've felt this acutely as a Michigan dem. Not sure which posts you've seen from me on this. Basically, I agree that our primary shouldn't count. I can't back a redo because we can't afford it here - we're too broke and need to focus on protecting the 12 dems in MI legislature + our wonderful governor who are under recall petition (very ugly over here). So, I don't disagree with Obama on principle. What bothers me is how he chose to make his argument. When Clinton broached the subject of seating MI and FL delegates, I cringed because, while I appreciated the sentiment, I knew she was just going to alienate the states that had waited. Anyway, I was really disappointed with Obama's response. I see a couple of ways to say that MI and FL shouldn't count.

The approach I wish he'd taken is this: Give a nod to the fact that MI acted out of desperation - as it has arguably the bleakest economic outlook in the country - and that Florida faced an uphill battle in getting a date set on or after 2/5 due to conflicts with the republican held legislature there. Then, say that, unfortunately, the race to be first in the primaries had spiraled out of control and the party had to do something. The consequence might not have been the only, or even the best solution, but it was what was agreed to. It's very reasonable to say that, out of fairness to the 44 states that waited, he must stand by the consequences.

The message he sent instead focused on knocking Clinton for leaving her name on the MI ballot and seeking to have the delegates seated. The language felt pretty harsh to me as one of those voters who was represented by zero delegates.

Anyway, that's where my love affair with Obama began to crumble. The Kenya speech & subsequent letter reinforced my impression that he lacks sensitivity when he's right - a quality I think would be dangerous in a president. So, now I'm looking to be reassured that these two examples aren't characteristic. Given your longer history and deeper knowledge of his time in IL, I'm betting you could cite some more positive examples of his diplomacy in the face of conflict (specifically when he's right - I want to know he can handle being right without being self righteous).

What do you think?; February 28, 2008 1:33 AM
Unknown said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; February 28, 2008 1:44 AM
Carrie said...: Howdy all -

On the topic of Obama's church, there was a nice piece on NPR on both candidates, "Obama, Clinton Found Faith in Land of Lincoln." Most of the piece is dedicated to interviews with a reverend who's worshiped with Obama, and Clinton's youth pastor. It's worth a listen.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18619707; February 28, 2008 1:45 AM
Unknown said...: Carrie-

I will see what I can find for you.

But, I should first tell you that why he worked on the death penalty in IL was because of the high number of innocent people who were on death row. There was so much corruption in the legal justice system it was sickening. DNA had cleared a few individuals and they began questioning how many there were. A task force was formed and Obama was a member of that (most likely because of his legal expertise in constitutional law). They found gestappo tactics were used too often by the police and prosecutors. This lead to several pardons, etc and eventually the commission on which he sat recommended that the death penalty be abolished.; February 28, 2008 1:48 AM
Unknown said...: Time-

Guess you missed my earlier post about the IRS going after his church. He was not campaigning and they broke no laws. If you are going to support this move my
Bush, you will have to go after a plethora of churches that both the Clintons, and others have spoken at and not this one denomination. FYI- The last president to direct the IRS to go after a church was Nixon!; February 28, 2008 1:52 AM
MOJORISIN' said...: No way I took the time to do this but I found it fascinating that someone actually did so I thought I would post for those on here that love statistics:

This is all over already. Just look at the math.

Obama is up by 152 pledged delegates. Best case scenario for her in March: She wins Ohio by 15 picking up +25 delegates, wins Texas by 3 points, loses the Texas Caucus by 8 points and nets 3 delegates out of Tx. Wins Rhode Island big (say, by 15), but loses Vermont by 25, for a total out of Tx, RI, and VT combined of net 0 delegates. We'll give her +2 just to be nice about it. So she comes out of 3/4 down 125 pledged delegates. Then, on 3/8, she loses the Wyoming Caucus at least 60/40, and on 3/11 she loses Mississippi by 62/38. Net for these two contests, a minimum of +7 for Obama. So, at the end of March, the score is Obama +132 pledged delegates. During this brief break we can hook her up to a polygragh and have fun watching it do the hokey-pokey.

In April, let's say she wins HUGE in Pennsylvania, say +32 delegates (just to make the math easy). That puts her down 100 pledged delegates with just 9 contests left to go. Of those, 4 favor Obama heavily. South Dakota and Montana are caucuses in Montain west states- he should beat her easily there, let's say + 6 net delegates from the pair. Oregon is a crunchy progressive state (the Vermont of the west). He will win there by 5 more delegates. And North Carolina, the biggest state left after Penn, with over 100 delegates. He leads currently by 18 in Survey USA's poll. Let's give him a 10 point win there, good for +10 more delegates.

That means that, in order to catch up on pledged delegates, she would have to win the remaining 5 contests by 121 delegates. Those 5 are: Indiana (blue coller, but borders Illinois and has lots of blacks in Indianapolis and Gary), Kentucky (leans her direction, but blacks make up a large portion of the Dem electorate), West Virginia (leans her way), Puerto Rico, and Guam with 3 delegates.

The math is impossible unless he says or does something to TOTALLY fracture his original base coalition of the young, high-income progressive whites (who have never liked Hillary), and blacks.

Note: This is the BEST scenario I can see for her barring a singularly stupid collapse-inducing moment for Obama. And under the BEST CASE scenario I could imagine, she ends up trailing in pledged delegates by about 80-100. That means she's got to get roughly 450 out of 800 Superdelegates to overturn the will of the people. Or, in other words, Obama (who already has more than 180 committed Superdelegates) would only need a bit more than 350 total to win.

The math is impossible without a blowout win in Texas. Which (speaking as a Texan) ain't going to happen. One big, unreported reason: All projections on the black vote down here are based on the '00 census or the '04 primary. Those were Pre-Katrina events. We have a lot more blacks in Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio than we used to just 4 years ago.

Comparison info: At my polling place in Dallas (area is 50% black, 30% hispanic, 20% white), during the 12 days of early voting in the '04 presidential primary there were a total of 520 or so Democratic ballots cast during 13 days of early voting. Through the first 7 days this time around the number is about 1600, with 5 days remaining (and the polls are open much longer hours the last 5 days). We're talking about a 5-fold increase in early votes, when all is said and done, in a heavily pro-Obama area.

And the Caucus is shaping up like a slaughter for Obama as well.

Kiss Hillary good night. She's about to be put to bed.; February 28, 2008 1:55 AM
Carrie said...: Lectric -

Thanks! I have to say, you just chipped a big chunk out of my bitterness wall toward Obama. This is the type of exchange I keep coming back for. I've had some very cathartic rants (mostly prior to the open thread), but I've really tried to remain open and to avoid pigeon holing Obama supporters or blaming him for the comments made by some.

Hopefully my eagerness to learn and appreciate your point of view can restore some of your faith in Clinton supporters.

Ultimately, I really believe these two are on the same side in terms of goals, that at their cores they're both good people, and that most of us are supporting our first choice for many of the same reasons.; February 28, 2008 2:06 AM
Unknown said...: rheaCarrie-

Perhaps I should tell you that I am from Illinois. I grew up in democrat politics. My father was a county chairman and the day I was born, he was campaigning for Jimmy Carter. When I was younger, I enjoyed the political scene, but as I got old enough to realize what was going on, I abandoned the system. Obama is the only candidate I have ever supported (financially or otherwise in my adult life). My father was against him in his primary bid for the senate and he sure emberassed my dad in that election. That was when I became convinced of him. Thsi was before his notorious 2004 convention speech. Since that time, I have had a lot of time to investigate his accomplishments to see if he does add up to what he professes.

For the most part, he does. I assume you have seen the interviews of his fellow students at Harvard? If not, the only reason he was elected president of the Harvard review was that everyone thought he listened to their opinoins even if he disagreed with them.

I know where you are coming from. Sometimes he seems too cocky or overly confident. In fact, when he was running for senate he told my father he would defeat the Dailey machine and my father told him he was nuts. He seemed very arrogant with that statement. He has made similiar statements throughout this campaign which could be construed the same. His "your likeable enough" is just one of them. He had a few in this last debate as well, though not as sharp. The thing is, Hillary has done the same. I personally believe that this only serves to remind us that they are both human and make mistakes. It is when someone is unwilling to admit those mistakes (such as George Bush) that really worries me.

I was actually in Springfield IL when he announced his candidacy. I did not expect what I saw when I got there. I never expected that many people. I was interviewed by the Washington post that day and gave them a litany of reasons I supported Obama and why I believed he could win. Unfortunately, I did not give them the "he inspires me to get off my butt and do something" answer that they were looking for. I gave them logical and educated reasoning, but they decided to only print people's emotions. In fact, that is just about the only facet of his campaign the press has focused on and is most likely why most people are not aware of his record and many of the facts I have offered here.

I have to say one thing, you do have conviction. You have definitely taken a lot of abuse. Honestly, I am surprised you have endured this long waiting for someone to have a rational conversation.; February 28, 2008 2:27 AM
Unknown said...: Carrie-

Here is a short list of some of his accomplishments in IL. I realize the last couple are of the US Senate, but this should give you an idea of some of the things he worked for. You should realize that when he was first elected in IL he was in the minority and proposed several laws, but it was tough to get them to a vote. He did manage some, but not as many as after leadership changed.

http://neworleans.craigslist.org/pol/572145133.html

Here is a Washington Post article on the death penalty subject.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html

You need to keep in mind with a lot of these things, many of the online news stories no longer exist because they are dated. Therefore, I have to rely on newer stories written about those old stories.

There is an AP reporter in Springfield IL, Chris Wills who covered Obama for over a decade. He has written many good articles about him, and criticized him when appropriate.

I'll keep digging...; February 28, 2008 2:37 AM
Unknown said...: Obama's effort to reform ehtics in Illinois government which I alluded to earlier:

Obama Passed Illinois Campaign Finance Reform, "Heralded As the Most Sweeping Good-Government Legislation in Decades." In 1998, Obama passed the Illinois Gift Ban that prohibited legislators, state officers and employees, and judges from soliciting or receiving gifts from a person or entity with interests affected by government. The bill required that statements of economic interest be made publicly available. The bill required public disclosure of any campaign funds received over $50, including the employer and occupation for donations over $500. The bill required non-profits and those registered under the Lobbyist Registration Act, and who give or accept more than $5,000 annually to register which the State Board of Election. The bill proscribed how campaign funds could be used, including ending the practice of allowing politicians to use campaign funds for personal use. The bill banned a political committee from receiving funds on government property and prohibited fundraisers held in Springfield while the legislature was in session. The bill required "Paid For" language to be printed on campaign literature. The bill required electronic filing of campaign disclosure as soon as technologically possible. Obama said, "'I have seen a general cynicism from taxpayers about government. They believe they have no influence on the process since they don't have the money of special interest groups. With the gift ban and the ban on Springfield fund-raisers that are contained in this legislation, I think at least some of this confidence will be restored,' the senator added." The Chicago Tribune reported, "Gov. Jim Edgar signed into law Wednesday an ethics and campaign finance package heralded as the most sweeping good-government legislation in decades. The law also required greater campaign finance disclosure and limited the uses for which raised money could be spent." [HB672, 3R P 52-4-1, 5/22/98; PA 90-0737, 8/12/98; Chicago Independent Bulletin, 6/4/98; Chicago Tribune, 8/13/98]

Illinois Campaign for Political Reform: Sponsors Of Ethics Legislation "To Be Strongly Commended" For "Landmark Legislation." The leaders of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform wrote, "The Illinois Campaign for Political Reform applauds the Illinois legislature for passing the bipartisan campaign finance and ethics package. The bill currently awaits Gov. Jim Edgar's signature. Shepherded by former U.S. Sen. Paul Simon (D-Ill.) and Mike Lawrence of Southern Illinois University's Institute for Public Policy, the bill's sponsors, state Sens. Kirk Dillard (R-Hinsdale) and Barack Obama (D-Chicago), and state Reps. Gary Hannig (D-Litchfield) and Jack Kubik (R-La Grange Park), made campaign finance reform in Illinois a reality by forging areas of common ground. With the support of legislative leaders, both parties and houses moved beyond their differences to pass this landmark legislation. All are to be strongly commended." [Chicago Tribune, 6/20/98]; February 28, 2008 2:42 AM
Unknown said...: Obama's healthcare accomplishments in Illinois:

Obama Passed Bipartisan Legislation That Expanded Health Care Coverage To 154,000 Residents, Including 70,000 Children. In 2004, Obama sponsored and helped pass legislation that expanded and made permanent Illinois' KidCare program by raising eligibility from 185% to 200% of the federal poverty level. The legislation provided coverage for an additional 20,000 children and 65,000 more Illinois adults in the first year, and by 2007 had expanded health care to 70,000 kids and 84,000 adults. In its endorsement for his Senate race, the State Journal-Register wrote, "Obama brings similar common-sense views to improving health care in America - for example, as a state senator he championed the successful KidCare program that assists thousands of children of the working poor." [93rd GA, SB 130, 3R P 42-13-2; Signed into law 6/30/03, PA 93-0063; Chicago Daily Herald, 7/2/03; Blagojevich release, 1/9/07; Blagojevich release, 4/13/07; Kaiser family report, 5/07; State Journal-Register, 10/29/04]

Obama Passed A Bill To Create Hospital Report Cards To Assist Consumers; The Bill Was Sponsored By Members Of Both Parties. Obama was the chief sponsor of Hospital Report Card Act, a bill that provides specific requirements for staffing levels for nurses to ensure that the number of nurses is consistent with the types of nursing care needed by the patients and the capabilities of the staff. The bill also provides requirements for orientation, training of hospital staff, whistleblower protection and requires hospitals to prepare a quarterly report detailing specified information as a condition of licensure. Obama said that the Hospital Report Card would present information to consumers to inform their choices on health care decisions. Obama said, "If I want to go eat out in a restaurant, I can go online and find out details about the number and type of health code violations a restaurant has been cited for...But if I need to go into a hospital for open-heart surgery, I can't find out what the surgical infection rate has been for heart surgeries in that hospital. I'd say a lot more is at stake when I go in for surgery than when I go out to dinner...I think it's going to be very hard to argue against this Bill...Because, essentially, at this stage, all we are saying is that we need a consumer report for hospitals in this state." [93rd GA; SB 0059, 2003; 3/19/03, 3R P 55-0-1; Signed into law 8/20/03, PA 93-0563; Pantagraph, 1/10/03]; February 28, 2008 2:45 AM
NO Obama said...: Obama has still gone back on his statement not to run in 2008 and he should have stuck by that no matter how much is suppporters convinced him to do otherwise.

If he can't stick to his convictionsa and tell people, "Look I know how you feel but I said I would or wouldn't do such and such and I'm sticking to my statement/promise".

He will get to DC (if elected and I don't think he will be if the nominee) and find major hurdles to overcome, beauracracy of monumental proportions and will be forced to go back on many of this promises. He is Pollyanna but in reality, his glad tidings will not win out!; February 28, 2008 2:49 AM
Unknown said...: Obama's accomplishments for children and families:

Obama Passed Law Creating $100 Million Earned Income Tax Credit, Formed A Political Alliance Of Republicans And Democrats To Pass The EITC. Obama sponsored and passed a bill that amended the Illinois Income Tax Act to create the earned income tax credit. The bill provided that each individual taxpayer is entitled to a credit against the tax imposed by the Act in an amount equal to 5% of the federal earned income tax credit allowed. The credit applied to taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2000 and ending on or before December 31, 2002. The credit may not reduce the taxpayer's liability to less than zero. The original legislation repealed the credit on June 1, 2003. Obama later passed legislation eliminating the sunset. The Chicago Tribune reported that the EITC was a bipartisan effort. "An unlikely political alliance has developed behind proposals to adjust the tax burden for working poor families. It includes politicians as far apart on the political map as Republicans Bill Black of Danville and Carole Pankau of Roselle and Democrats Currie and Coy Pugh of Chicago. 'The main political dynamic is simply that it costs money, and it's hard to mobilize support for programs that cost money but benefit low-income folks,' said Sen. Barack Obama (D-Chicago), lead sponsor of a bill that would make Illinois the 11th state to adopt an earned income-tax credit." [91st GA, HB 3939; 4/14/00, 3R P; 59-0-0; P.A. 91-0700, 5/11/00; Chicago Tribune, 4/10/99]

Obama Passed Law Creating The Illinois Temporary Assistance For Needy Families Program. Obama was a chief co-sponsor of the bill to create the state of Illinois' Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. The bill created flexibility for victims of domestic violence, set a five-year limit for receiving public assistance, banned anyone convicted of a serious drug-related Class X or Class 1 felony from ever receiving assistance, required that all recipients develop a personal plan for self-sufficiency, listing the steps they will take to move from welfare to work, exempted those over 60 and adults with children younger than 1. According to the State Journal-Register, "The bill pours more money into day-care spending...as a result, an estimated 90,000 families would be able to take advantage of the child care benefit, subject to legislative appropriation of necessary funds. That represents a six-fold increase from the current number... State Sen. Barack Obama, D-Chicago, called the bill a good start but urged members not to rule out future changes to the system. He said there is a need for a commission to oversee the changes and ensure the system is working properly. '(Welfare recipients) generally are not represented down here in Springfield. They don't have powerful lobbies. They do not contribute to our political candidates,' he said. Consequently, Obama said, if there are problems with this bill, it is not clear they will be addressed. [90th GA, HB 204, 3R P 56-1-1, 5/31/97, PA 90-0017, 6/19/97; State Journal Register, 6/1/97]; February 28, 2008 2:50 AM
Unknown said...: Time-

May I point out that you are making the same fatal mistake that Hillary has. You are attempting to use circular logic here. As I said earlier, when confronted with a set of truths, you attempt to twist those facts into another attack. Hillary has done this many times in this campaign and it has not worked well for her. In fact, I truly believe that if she had stuck with a consistent message and counter to Obama she would be in much better shape.; February 28, 2008 2:54 AM
NO Obama said...: Circular logic? Hmmmmmm.

I don't like the fact that Obama said one thing and did another. One of many examples/reasons I don't trust his word(s). Some of the way I feel about him has no basis in debate because it is my personal opinion--just like millions of other personal opinions. Nothing is going to make me change my mind. Just like nothing will change yours or others who support him.

lectricgenius has left a new comment on the post "Open Thread":

Time-

May I point out that you are making the same fatal mistake that Hillary has. You are attempting to use circular logic here. As I said earlier, when confronted with a set of truths, you attempt to twist those facts into another attack. Hillary has done this many times in this campaign and it has not worked well for her. In fact, I truly believe that if she had stuck with a consistent message and counter to Obama she would be in much better shape.; February 28, 2008 2:57 AM
Unknown said...: Carrie-

I have posted a lot of information on his accomplishments in IL.

With respect to the death penalty issue: I do not want to be making policy statements for Barack, but I do not think he is anti-death penalty. I think you are correct when you stated that both he and Hillary are pro. As I said earlier, the system in IL was so flawed it was sickening-- police beatings, etc. It is my understanding that he has said he does not oppose the death penalty but the way it is administered in this country is unfair. It is my understanding the reason he co-sponsored the legislation ending it was the system was too flawed to correct effectively. Again, I am not a spokesman for him, so do not take this as the gospel, it is my understanding of where he stands.; February 28, 2008 2:59 AM
Unknown said...: Time-

Then I guess you definitely cannot support Hillary. She has changed her mind, her strategy, her campaign slogans, and staff more than anyone in this race.

I believe the reason he changed his mind about running for president was due to the response he got from the people. And, I mean average everyday ordinary people. They appealed to him to run and make a difference. For him to have ignored the sentiments of the people would have been even more foolish than changing his mind.; February 28, 2008 3:04 AM
NO Obama said...: Obama hasn't held oversight meetings (inaction in the senate)on Iraq. Says he's too busy campaigning.

Tisk, tisk! Another baddie!!; February 28, 2008 4:05 AM
NO Obama said...: I agree with this about Obama:

That is his appeal; he is an actor, a performer, a cinematic presence that stirs simple emotions, emotions that have little grounding in truth. His speeches are the inane lyrics to a popular song that endures only because it has a great beat. One must not think too deeply on what Obama says, for it turns to smoke and disappears in the light of day. Ezra Klein is correct, Obama's speeches do not inform, they pander, they propagandize, they harmonize with the mythology of despair and the chimera of entitlement. As his hagiographies proclaim, he represents a new Camelot, but one that does not hold America quite so precious, a Camelot of globalists, moral relativists and communitarians.

February 25, 2008
The Fierce Urgency of Lies
By Lance Fairchok; February 28, 2008 4:53 AM
NO Obama said...: Agreed.....

"Obama has an astonishingly empty paper trail. He's going around issuing promissory notes on the future that he can't possibly redeem.

Promises to heal the world with negotiations with the likes of Iran's President Ahmadinejad. Promises to transcend the conundrums of entitlement reform that require real and painful trade-offs and that have eluded solution for a generation. Promises to fund his other promises by a rapid withdrawal from an unpopular war -- with the hope, I suppose, that the (presumed) resulting increase in American prestige would compensate for the chaos to follow."

by Charles Krauthammer; February 28, 2008 5:06 AM
Carrie said...: lectric -

Thanks so much for all of the info. I'll look for stories about his interactions on the floor, particularly on the EITC, which sounds like a real accomplishment in building bipartisan unity.

Thanks also for your honesty on Obama's position on the death penalty. It's only a little disappointing that he doesn't oppose the death penalty morally, as long as he acts to prevent it from being applied, or appoints judges who will prevent it from being applied, given the major issues with our justice system. In other words, I'm still happy with the conclusion the panel came to. I'll take it.

I'll spend some time reading (read your posts, but still need to check out the other articles). I sincerely appreciate the work you've done.

_______

sdDave -

You had a good post about the debate. I want to get back to it, but I got distracted and for now I'm short on time. I just wanted to acknowledge that you seemed to give a fair assessment of their performances. As someone who admittedly views Obama's responses with skepticism, I wanted to give him a lot of credit on a couple points: he did a great job with the foreign policy questions, far better than I'd seen. By doing so, he's shown a great capacity to learn. A staunch republican coworker pointed out that he came across as a person who, unlike Bush, wouldd be likely to recognize and abandon failed policy. I thought that was a really good point.; February 28, 2008 8:38 AM
dwit said...: PREDICTION:

Hillary will take Ohio and Texas because both have open primaries. Repubs will poison the well by voting for Hillary. They know Hillary doesn't stand a chance against McCain in a general because both have similar records (Iraq, Israel, campaign finance, immigration).

McCain will have the sympathies of independents because of the smear job he endured in 2000 and his stance on tax cuts.; February 28, 2008 3:12 PM
dwit said...: Not to mention. They vote for Hillary and the democratic feud goes on forever!; February 28, 2008 3:13 PM
Unknown said...: Time-

I thought the oversite committee was for Afghanistan and not Iraq...; February 28, 2008 3:20 PM
dwit said...: McCain will win in November if Hillary is the candidate. Bottom line is that most voters are simply tired of the Bush/Clinton dynasties.

Most independents will vote McCain just for a change.; February 28, 2008 4:46 PM
protactinium said...: Dwit Said "Hillary will take Ohio and Texas because both have open primaries. Repubs will poison the well by voting for Hillary."

This will not happen. The open primary is very bad for Hillary. She is going to lose to indpendents, and republicans. Alot of republicans in Texas hate Hillary and will do anything to get rid of her.

Obama will lose ohio. He will win Texas, and Penn. Hillary may drop out after the next set of races.

So I see this blog is all venom now, no issues. We are going to need to stop fighting soon, Hillary supporters have a few months to go through there greaving, and hold there noses, and vote Obama. Any democrat will be better then Mccain.

Hillary people go actually look up Obama after Hillary drops out, and it will be hard not to vote for him over Mccain.; February 29, 2008 9:05 PM
protactinium said...: Also when a cult over takes the masses it is called a movement.

The Obama movement has come. The movement to make goverment look out for the people, and not to be used as a battle ground.

Yes We Can! The Obama mandate for reform will be here soon.; February 29, 2008 9:13 PM
Independent Voter said...: anon-you are clearly an IDIOT!!!!!!!!!

I'll address each claim directly
"Obama Wants To Cause War With Pakistan a Nucleur Armed Nation:"

-As stated in the first video and MISREPRESENTED by a right-wing talk show host was, "If we had concrete evidence of Al Queda in Pakistan and Musharaff refused to do anything about it, then we would". That does NOT mean war. Ask GWB about this one, he just did it within the last couple weeks and got the #3 guy in Pakistan. So answer me this...are we at war with Pakistan now? NO!

Obama and Rezko. This has already been addressed and you are obviously too STUPID to open your damn eyes to your OWN candidate. Which by the way is in the middle of her OWN lawsuit. She is being sued by Peter Paul....google it! On top of that she is doing business with an organization known mostly for its history of sexual harassment... http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/29/718285.aspx

You know people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks, or in your and Clinton's case, rocks in the shape of a boomerang.

As far as the whole National Anthem crap, guess what go to ANY ballgame and look at the lack of individuals who put their hand over their hearts, it is in the THOUSANDS!!!!!!!!! By the way, did you even look at Hillary in that video that you posted? She kept turning and scanning the audience. That was funny, since Obama had his eye on the flag the whole time, and Hillary couldn't even LOOK at the flag! Again, people in glass houses should throw rocks (especially if they are in the shape of a boomerang).

Your "bamboozling" thing....that just shows how pathetic and insignificant YOU really are.

Obama's accomplishments: ethics reform in in a BIPARTISAN fashion in IL legislature as well as in the US Senate. Expanded HEALTHCARE coverage in a BIPARTISAN fashion in IL. Reformed death-penalty in IL in a BIPARTISAN fashion. These are only THREE examples of the HUNDREDS of accomplishments on his record but you don't want to do any research on your own. I'm not going to do ALL of your homework for you. And as far as the Congressman not being able to name it right there on the spot, he wasn't invited there to be a candidates policy analyst, he was invited to do ELECTION coverage, not name off Obama's accomplishments.

As far as the race card? Hey your boy and girl started that one. He NEVER attacked her on gender and her husband attacked him on his race. As far as I was and am still concerned, the Clinton's screwed up. They made the bed, they can lie in it. As far as the Louis Farrakahn statement he HAD denounced him MULTIPLE times and he was correct in saying denounce. It is MUCH harsher language to denounce than it is to reject...look it up.

Your "terrorist link" - that's F'ing hillaryous! You are now calling "anti-war" and peace groups terrorists? That's funny! Files that were taken from this group in your second video contained files from The Black Panthers - a group that Hillary DEFENDED - is she now linked to a terrorist organization?

I love the double-standard you like to apply to one candidate and NOT the other.

Anon - you are not only a waste of time, but you are obviously a waste of flesh!; March 01, 2008 2:01 AM
Independent Voter said...: Carrie,

thank you for your comment in regards to my assesment of the debate.

Like I said before, she had gained back some of my respect, but she has once again lost it with the new ad she put out today. Fortunately we have a candidate that simply takes her ad and can turn it right back around and use it against her. She still has seemed to learn that people are TIRED of old-style negative attack and fear ads that we have become accustomed to by the Republicans.

It comes as no surprise to me that she is using Karl Rove tactics. I WAS willing to give her another chance after the debate. I have given this woman so many chances it is pathetic, and EVERY single time she has turned negative. I no longer see her as a "strong" woman, I see her as a desperate woman. And if that makes me sexist so be it. I really don't want another Republican in the Whitehouse come November. But after the nicey nice Hillary that we got in the CNN debate, followed by the shame on you - mother lecture Hillary - then the meet me in ohio - WWE Wrestler Hillary - then the "skies will open" - mocking Hillary - and then back to the nicey nice Hillary in the Debate (which shows she can only talk tough when he's not around) and then today drops her tv ad which has the implication of playing to people's fears, I just find it disgusting politics on her part.

I mean come one, "At 3:00 am and the narator asking who do you want answering the phone when your kids are asleep in a time of crisis". (Which by the way, the phone rang SIX times - which indicates NOBODY is answering).

I personally thought Obama's response was dead on....She had her red phone moment and she answered it wrong as did George Bush and Senator McCain.

Every time she goes negative she opens herself up for her biggest blunder on foreign policy.

I don't know if she can do anything between now and November to earn my respect again, or at least enough to get me to vote for her. I can't say that I would vote for McCain, but all I can say is that if she does somehow pull out the nomination (WITHOUT COURT INTERFERENCE - yes that is a pre-condition) she will have a lot of work to do to get me to vote for her.; March 01, 2008 2:36 AM
NO Obama said...: The excerpt from the article below by Sean Wilentz is just part of the reason I cannot support Barack Obama. He is a very clever manipulator and Pied Piper! He's like a slick used car salesman with his smooth talk and wit. He is also a good candidate for people to rally around who hate everthing and everyone else in politics.

"More than any other maneuver, this one has brought Clinton into disrepute with important portions of the Democratic Party. A review of what actually happened shows that the charges that the Clintons played the "race card" were not simply false; they were deliberately manufactured by the Obama camp and trumpeted by a credulous and/or compliant press corps in order to strip away her once formidable majority among black voters and to outrage affluent, college-educated white liberals as well as college students. The Clinton campaign, in fact, has not racialized the campaign, and never had any reason to do so. Rather the Obama campaign and its supporters, well-prepared to play the "race-baiter card" before the primaries began, launched it with a vengeance when Obama ran into dire straits after his losses in New Hampshire and Nevada--and thereby created a campaign myth that has turned into an incontrovertible truth among political pundits, reporters, and various Obama supporters. This development is the latest sad commentary on the malign power of the press, hyping its own favorites and tearing down those it dislikes, to create pseudo-scandals of the sort that hounded Al Gore during the 2000 campaign. It is also a commentary on how race can make American politics go haywire. Above all, it is a commentary on the cutthroat, fraudulent politics that lie at the foundation of Obama's supposedly uplifting campaign."; March 01, 2008 6:37 AM
dwit said...: protactinium,

We shall see. My read is that Obama's rise is the result of the publics disgust with insider politics. I think independents might vote McCain if Hillary is the nominee. While both are insiders McCain might be more attractive simply because many are tired of the Bush/Clinton dynasties.

Most republican strategists and pundits are well aware of this sentiment. Why do you think Rush and Cunningham are urging Texas and Ohio Republicans to vote Hillary?

They know Obama would be a much more attractive candidate than either of the insiders.; March 01, 2008 6:38 AM
NO Obama said...: The swiftboating of Hillary Clinton by democrats, particularly the Obama campaign (which has a lot of OLD Washington politicos working behind the scenes, btw), you know for the guy who is going to CHANGE Washington?

It is sad that in one fell swoop the Clintons can be made out to be racist after all the years of working for civil rights, etc. Very SAD!

[S]aid Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, “All of the world knows the commitment of President Clinton and Sen. Clinton to civil rights issues — and not only the commitment in terms of words but in terms of deeds.”; March 01, 2008 6:43 AM
NO Obama said...: Sean Wilentz further says (my opinion below this excerpt):

"While promoting Obama as a "post-racial" figure, his campaign has purposefully polluted the contest with a new strain of what historically has been the most toxic poison in American politics. . . More than any other maneuver, this one has brought Clinton into disrepute with important portions of the Democratic Party. A review of what actually happened shows that the charges that the Clintons played the “race card” were not simply false; they were deliberately manufactured by the Obama camp and trumpeted by a credulous and/or compliant press corps in order to strip away her once formidable majority among black voters and to outrage affluent, college-educated white liberals as well as college students."

This is so obvious it hurts. But most blind Obama supporters can't see beyond his rhetoric and charisma.

One big difference between Hillary (proven and vetted) and Obama (not so proven and not vetted) is that he touts change we can believe in and she touts change/solutions that are realistic based on her proven track record.

Well, in a country that has a definite proclivity towards star struck pack mentality, these types of manipulations by a smooth talking orator are no surprise. The allure of the cult mentality is very difficult to challenge.

Change we can BELIEVE in? Obama has a religious following in the sense that one has to take his word for it. Just like the definition of "believe".

to have a firm religious faith b: to accept as true, genuine, or real (ideals we believe in) (believes in ghosts)

I might ad with no basis in reality or fact.; March 01, 2008 6:54 AM
dwit said...: Time,

This is not swift boating. Hillary and Bill are simply career politicians and most citizens are over it.

They and McCain are far too beholden to the special interests. We need real campaign finance reform to eliminate this problem.

If Hillary had worked as hard on this issue as she has at raising money, perhaps she wouldn't be in trouble right now.; March 01, 2008 6:59 AM
NO Obama said...: Oooooh....high rise on Michigan Avenue for Obama's headquarters. Can you say $$$$$$$$$$$?

From the Messaih of truth, justice and the American way!!!

From the Chicago Tribune:

"From his campaign headquarters in a high-rise on Michigan Avenue, Obama's political warriors range from a research director with extensive experience in throwing darts from Democratic National Committee's offices to a communications director who once worked for a group that ran a controversial ad that used an image of Osama bin Laden to attack Howard Dean."; March 01, 2008 6:59 AM
dwit said...: Also Time. Obama actually has more experience as a legislator. He was elected to office in 1996, while Hillary has only been a lawmaker since 2000.

Now tell me who is doing the swift boating?; March 01, 2008 7:03 AM
NO Obama said...: dwit, I have never said the Clintons are perfect. No one is.

But Obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing and he has a lot more tod do with the politics of personal destruction behind the scenes in his campaign than he does with really changing (or being able to) Washington.

Hilliary has listed in great detail the changes she will try very hard to make.

Obama has made lofty (and unfulfillable) promises that are generally vague and unrealistic.

Hillary knows how to chip away at the system and get a lot of things done.

I saw Hillary's foreign policy advisor Jamie Ruben yesterday point out how she threaded the needle when she went to China for the World Women's Conference.

He said that how to handle China diplomatically had perplexed many for a long time and so when it was decided to send Hillary, people put a lot on her shoulders to be able to do what was needed.

If she did or said the wrong thing, it could cause many problems with our relations with China.

She did the right thing under a lot of stress and returned victorious in her mission.

She is a great diplomat and would make a great president!; March 01, 2008 7:09 AM
NO Obama said...: dwit, Hillary Clinton has great and vast political experience beyond the state legislature of IL. Her senate, first lady and other experiences far outweigh Obama being "present" in the IL state legislature.

If he weren't charismatic, a slick talker, etc. he wouldn't be given a 2nd look with the little bit of experience he has. And STATE legislature? Most state legislators are not considered presidential material by any stretch.; March 01, 2008 7:13 AM
NO Obama said...: By the Numbers: A new Latino Decisions poll has Hillary up by 41 points over Sen. Obama among registered Latino voters in Texas (62-21).; March 01, 2008 7:19 AM
NO Obama said...: In Case You Missed It: During Tuesday's debate, Sen. Obama said he was too busy running for President to hold a single substantive hearing of the national security subcommittee he chairs in the Senate.

He also goes on to say he would not be comfortable running for president now.

Can't keep his commitments or promises.

He should have not taken his eye off the ball like he says we did in Afghanistan. In his case the ball is his committee. He diverted his attention from his committee (Afghanistan) to run for president (Iraq).

So he leaves the committee in the lurch on very important issues he says he will tackle as president.

If he can't keep commitments as he says (not running for president yet) and working with his committee, how can we expect him to do an effective job as president.

Being able to multi task would be good, but apparently he has to drop one ball to run with another.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIfYkmieurw; March 01, 2008 7:25 AM
NO Obama said...: This is racist:

Black delegates under pressure to switch to Obama
With the Democratic race extremely tight, the party's superdelegates -- the 800 or so unpledged elected officials and party members -- are facing growing racial pressure, and even threats, to back Sen. Barack Obama; March 01, 2008 7:35 AM
NO Obama said...: This is something I have thought about and not really expressed.

If you can't depend on people and loyalties due to past relationships, doing good for each other and the people, etc. then what can you depend on?

Also, in my mind superdelegates should not have to vote the way the people do. If so, then there is really no need for them. Just eliminate the super delegates altogether.

But other African-American politicians find the shifting loyalties disturbing. Watch how race may be a factor in this year's election »

"With all due respect to my colleagues, whoever you are, I firmly believe if you don't have loyalty and integrity, what do you have? ... I am a woman of my word. I will not leave her," said Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones.; March 01, 2008 7:40 AM
dwit said...: Time,

China happens to be a subject near to my heart. I got my undergraduate degree in East Asian Studies and Chinese language and lived in the country for more than two years.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CEFDF133DF935A3575AC0A963958260

If the above is the address you are talking about it couldn't be more offensive and naive.

From her remarks it is clear she was referring to a different China than I knew.

There are no more loving and sacrificing parents than those in China.

What Mrs. Clinton said was far from accurate. Most Chinese women I know willingly use birth control (usually IUD) because they simply can't afford to have more than one child.

What she said was simply meant for American ears. It was a speech made with her future political career in mind.; March 01, 2008 7:41 AM
NO Obama said...: dwit, What does her speech on women's rights and abuse have to do with women voluntarily taking birth control in China (if it is true)?

Whether or not they do, has nothing to do with the abuses and lack of freedom for women that she describes.; March 01, 2008 7:47 AM
dwit said...: Come on now. Since when is being the Presidents spouse considered "experience" in policy making?

She had no security clearance. She was a great cheerleader I will agree, but calling that policy experience is a bit of a stretch.; March 01, 2008 7:50 AM
NO Obama said...: Well, now, maybe I didn't really mean that.....
BARACK OBAMA

Public financing: Obama replied "yes" in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP opponent did the same. Obama has now attached several conditions to such an agreement, including regulating spending by outside groups. His spokesman says he never committed himself on the matter.; March 01, 2008 7:53 AM
dwit said...: I have to hit the hay, but your anger is palpable. No wonder people are so turned off by Senator Clinton's rhetoric.

Don't worry Hillary will live to fight another day. Most Texas and Ohio Republicans will vote for her knowing she is the weaker general election candidate.; March 01, 2008 7:55 AM
NO Obama said...: Obama the flip flopper:

Cuba embargo: In January 2004, Obama said it was time "to end the embargo with Cuba," because it had "utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro."

Speaking to a Cuban-American audience in Miami in August 2007, he said he would not "take off the embargo" as president because it was "an important inducement for change."

YEP, CHANGE we can believe in!! He'll change his mind at every opportunity!!; March 01, 2008 7:56 AM
NO Obama said...: dwit, MY anger? What about leaving that stuff out of things and focusing on the facts.

Trying to label someone as angry, crazy, etc. is just a cop out when someone has no comeback.

And you aren't serious when you say that Hillary's experiences as first lady don't count?

She visited 80 countries, did a lot of diplomatic persuading and talking, etc.

She was certainly exposed in the WH to how decisions were made and the mechanics of being president.

Easy to discount her but very FOOLISH!; March 01, 2008 8:03 AM
NO Obama said...: I heard this earlier, but didn’t put much on it, but reading over the article on CNN, Clinton put Obama in his place. While he was trying to take the heat off of the situation with the Denounce vs Reject, he kept avoiding rejecting. After much pressuring from Clinton, Obama finally backed down and both denounced and rejected the endorsement from Minister Farrakhan’s endorsement.

I think this is a good indication of why Clinton would make a much better president than Obama.

If she can in a debate put Obama in his place, and get exactly what she wants out of him then this has to make you think, how will he react in more difficult situations in office, will he back down so easily?

Also this says something about her, how easily she was able to get it done.

As witnessed by his 100+ "present" votes, Obama doesn't stay and fight or make changes.

He cuts and runs.; March 01, 2008 8:30 AM
NO Obama said...: http://www.hillaryspeaksforme.com/; March 01, 2008 8:38 AM
Protactinium said...: wow this blog is getting very emotional I see. It also seems when people start arguing with emotion, they lose a touch on reality.

First this talk about all Obama being bad on all this countries is kind of crazy. Hillary wants to FORCE other countrys in order to make changes we as Americans feel as right. I personally agree with Civil rights, Women Rights Etc. However just because I personally believe in them does not mean I have the right to force China to believe in them

China is a goverment doing right by its people. The #1 degree of a American politicion is lawyer. The #1 degree for a leader China is engineer. They really do care about thier people, however they are a much more lets get it done as quickly, even if it make a few peoples live uncomfortable. Hell they excuted one of thier top people for stealing. They said he was stealing from the people. So we can not say they are not fair.

Also remember Palastine elected the Hamas back into power in there own elections. Cuba did not turn out to a blood thirsty, or violent at all. Look at Vitnam. How bad have they turned out?

Hillary's scare tactics are over. American people as a whole are becomming to educated to fall for them. Mccain will use the same scare tatics also.

We need to stop trying to force other countries to change it "Americas" way. We need a president that will talk to the other leaders and find out what is really the issue.

We are Americans, and live in the greatest country in the world. However we do not have to right to force our beliefs on to other people. Obama will talk to other cultures. Hillary will try and bully them.; March 01, 2008 11:56 AM
Protactinium said...: time said "dwit, I have never said the Clintons are perfect. No one is.

But Obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing and he has a lot more tod do with the politics of personal destruction behind the scenes"

This just shows you have some crazy conspiracy fear of Obama. You fear him winning for some reason. Why? Afraid he is a muslim? Or is because he is black?

Hmm. Just saying you seem to say anything to smear him. You seem filled with hate, and not arguing rationally. Just keep saying whatever make you feel better. However it makes you, and Hillary look radical. Those type of tatics only hurt these days.; March 01, 2008 11:59 AM
Unknown said...: Time-

First and foremost, you continue to make claims that are just not true. The worst of which is your claim that "...Hillary has made detailed proposals and Obama has not..." Fact is that Obama has made very specific proposals. You are just unaware of them (most likely because you have not researched them and the press has not reported them).

To everyone else:

Hey folks, this thing is not over! Now that Hillary has raised a considerable amoutn of cash, I believe that she will be more competitive than she would have otherwise. Without the money, her campaign was dead. Now that she has some, I am not so certai.; March 01, 2008 12:10 PM
Unknown said...: Time-

You said "I heard this earlier, but didn’t put much on it, but reading over the article on CNN, Clinton put Obama in his place. While he was trying to take the heat off of the situation with the Denounce vs Reject, he kept avoiding rejecting. After much pressuring from Clinton, Obama finally backed down and both denounced and rejected the endorsement from Minister Farrakhan’s endorsement.
"

Now, the problem with this argument is that the facts do not support it. In fact, "denounce" is, by definition, harsher language than "reject". Don't take my word for it:

http://www.google.com/search?complete=1&hl=en&safe=off&defl=en&q=define:denounce&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

http://www.google.com/search?complete=1&hl=en&safe=off&defl=en&q=define:denounce&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title; March 01, 2008 12:18 PM
Unknown said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 01, 2008 12:22 PM
Unknown said...: Time-

In light of your repeated, baseless claim that Obama is "just words", here is an article from the Huffigton Post:

Lately we have been hearing that Barak Obama lacks substance. Sure, he is a great speaker. He inspires people and makes then believe. But what has he done? The message is that words are nice, but what really counts is what you do. Words are fluff; actions have substance. McCain and Clinton may not speak as well as Obama but they understand the world and can get things done or so they tell us. Pretty speeches won't get us anywhere. Even Obama seems to have bought into this as he is trying to stress the things he has done and can do. He even overtly agreed that acts are more important than words. He is "dialing it back" in his speeches.

Buzz up!on Yahoo!But is this assumption true? It sounds sensible but let's look at the evidence. Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence more than 200 years ago. Its words still resonate and inspire. As far as I know, he did not physically fight in the Revolutionary War or "act" in any way to win it. But where would we be without the Declaration? An even more extreme example is Thomas Paine's "Common Sense." Paine did not act at all. He died a penniless drunkard and was not a particularly likable person. But his pamphlet inspired our soldiers and revolutionaries. What is one of the most powerful memories of the Civil War? The Gettysburg Address. A bunch of words. These words resonate through history as much as the epic battle they commemorate. Teddy Roosevelt, one of our most action-oriented presidents saw the presidency as a "bully pulpit." Franklin Roosevelt's "Fireside Chats" kept our country together through some of its most difficult times. And the soaring rhetoric of Winston Churchill is as responsible for winning the war as his generals' tactics.

The Good Book is a bunch of words. Our civilization is based on these words and hundreds of millions of people if not billions live their lives based on them. What action is more important than these words? Creation began with words ("Let there be light!"), action followed ("And there was light"). The Ten Commandments are words. The Pharaoh of Egypt with all of his soldiers and chariots could not stand against these words. Who was more powerful, the kingdoms of the ancient world or a bunch of nomads wandering in the desert with their words? The pagan rulers of the ancient world and their armies ultimately lost to these words. They are gone; the words are just as powerful today as they were then. The Sermon on the Mount is words. The rulers of Rome were men of action. What was ultimately more important and powerful, the words spoken by an itinerant, unarmed preacher, or the legions of Rome? Rome and its empire are gone; the words spoken two thousand years ago are still here and still powerful. Which is more important? Which has more substance?

And, in case you still doubt that words are more important than actions, let me close with the beginning of one of our great books (a bunch of words), the Gospel of John. "In the Beginning was the Word."

Why is this so? Shouldn't action take precedence over words? The answer lies in the emotional impact. Direct action that affects us individually and powerfully is more effective than words. A punch in the mouth is more effective than the threat of one. Sticks and stones... However an abstract action like the passage of a bill or an executive order, no matter how important is not as powerful as the words that accompany them. The words reach us directly and emotionally; the bill or order reaches us indirectly and abstractly.

Not only does this article illustrate just how important words are, it also demonstrates how you only post articles to supposrt your radical, illogical, and baseless viewpoints.; March 01, 2008 12:27 PM
Independent Voter said...: prot....

This is why I have been absent over the past few days. time..is not capabale of logical thinking, SHE likes to take 1/2 sentences from someone to twist it into what they are looking for. Prime example: "He also goes on to say he would not be comfortable running for president now." When in REALITY he said, he would not be running IF he was not comfortable or IF he was not confident in his ability to be president.

By the way time, you seem to like to give credit to Senator Clinton for all the good stuff out of the Clinton administration but DON'T hold her responsible for the negatives. Why is that? It seems to me that YOU are the one using the double standard.

Now Carrie on the other hand, is TRULY seeking answers. She is very respectful (and Carrie, I know that I had offended you at times and for that I am truly sorry.) I just hate when people like time (which I owe NO apology), come across as the "jackass" (the Democratic Party's symbol - meaning stubborn) side of the party, it is extremely irritating.

When time is slapped with facts, she simply discounts them and says things to the effect of "those facts don't matter".

Many Senator Clinton scandals have already begun to surface over the past week. One is the rapist that she defended, early on in her career as a defense attorney, based on attacking the victim who was a 12-year-old girl! http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark245589997feb24,0,2670956.story

This story to me shows that she was a hypocrite back then too. There is of course the Peter Paul lawsuit that she is involved with. And now of course there is the questionable campaign funds (refusing to reject those contributions) from a firm that is well-known for its sexual harassment. http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/29/718285.aspx

This story tells me that she is STILL a hypocrite. She says she is a "fighter" for women's rights however she is willing to take money from a firm that apparently believes it is ok sexually harass women in the workplace.

"timeforchange", I can't believe you are STILL trying to use the "denounce" vs "rejecting" argument regarding Farrahkan. You claim to be a published author, which I don't doubt, and if you are as much of an academic as you have so framed yourself to be, then you SHOULD have already known that DENOUCE is much stronger language than reject. If you don't believe me, I suggest you go buy a dictionary and look it up.; March 01, 2008 1:00 PM
NO Obama said...: FYI Obamatites, He did not vote AGAINST the Iraq war. As Hillary Clinton said today, it is one thing to take a stance for or against something but when it ocmes time to actually vote, often it is different (as in "present" and so forth).

He did vote for the Patriot Act and the same as Hillary on everything else.

Wake up! Obama, the press and his duped supporters are fooling many voters!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdJk-EKudS4; March 01, 2008 2:15 PM
NO Obama said...: This just shows you have some crazy conspiracy fear of Obama. You fear him winning for some reason. Why? Afraid he is a muslim? Or is because he is black?

No, it means he is an unknown--untested, not vetted and it means he is a liar.

He has said many things that aren't true (gone back on promises, commitments, etc.)

He has a major commitment on the Senate Oversight committee (chairman) and cannot do that important and necessary job because he is running for president.

This is the exact same thing as he accuses Bush of doing (and I agree Bush is a retard)--dropping the ball in Afghanistan to go to Iraq.

Obama dropped the ball to serve in the Senate for at least 6 years (Hillary said she'd do at least that) representing the people of IL and chairing his oversight committee.

He is a man of great self importance and it took very little to make him go back on his statement that he would not run in 2008--wouldn't feel comfortable.

He can't be trusted to stick to his word and he is apparently easily manipulated (like Bush).; March 01, 2008 2:26 PM
Protactinium said...: You are right. He did not vote against the war. Why? Because he was still a state sentor. He could not actually vote against it because he was not a US senator yet.

However he did go to anti-war rallys, and publicly said the war was wrong. Even though some of his top advisors urged him not to because it was so popular, and his relection was soon.

Keep twisting the facts.; March 01, 2008 2:29 PM
NO Obama said...: lec, I wasn't parsing the def. of those 2 words. The point is that Hillary was able to make Barack back down and both denounce and reject. He showed another example of not standing his ground and Hillary was able to get what she wanted out of him--a sign of a good leader and negotiator.

You took the whole quote and point out of context.; March 01, 2008 2:29 PM
Protactinium said...: Timeforchange said, "not vetted and it means he is a liar."

Look in the mirror. You might want to really look into Hillarys past. She live in a glass house. I believe Hillary has been the definiation of a Liar.; March 01, 2008 2:33 PM
NO Obama said...: lec, Oh yes, I agree that words delivered by a great speaker have HUGE impact and importance.

But that is where I draw the line.

Do they have importance in leading people off the cliff or in actually making change?

As I've said numerous times before, Obama has proven he can't stand his ground and change much of anything.

He voted "present" in the IL state legislature instead of trying to make changes to the way things are done there. He went along with the program. This is just one of many examples I've cited where he has backed down or just gone along to get along.

He is no more an agent of change than I am Queen of England.; March 01, 2008 2:35 PM
Protactinium said...: LoL you simply are crazy.

If Obama would not have renounced and reject you would be on here saying see look theres proof he is a muslim.

He did not "stand his ground" on this issue, because there was nothing to stand against. He agrees with Hillary on this one.

However this is a fine example of Hillary bullying around other people.

Time you honstly look desprate. I have no need to argue with you. The truly ignorant are typically on the losing side. Enjoy voting for Mccain.; March 01, 2008 2:37 PM
NO Obama said...: sddave0

You must have missed my posts where I said Hillary isn't perfect.

My quotes and statements are parsed, taken out of context, etc. to let someone TRY to prove a point and you accuse me of this?

Ha!; March 01, 2008 2:38 PM
NO Obama said...: Pro! Why? Because he was still a state sentor.

Bingo!

He has led many lemmings to beleive he voted AGAINST the war. As I pointed out, had he actually had to vote, it is possible it would not have been Nay.

This because he has voted exactly the same way as Hillary since her vote.

If he really wanted us out of Iraq, he would have voted not to fund.

Point is, talk is cheap when you don't have a stake or a vote to worry about.; March 01, 2008 2:43 PM
Protactinium said...: well goodluck. I will be back after the elections. Enjoy your hate mongering. I just want to see your posts about Obama after Hillary loses. I can see the crying now. Its all a evil plot out to get Hillary. Enjoy.; March 01, 2008 2:52 PM
NO Obama said...: Hate Mongering??? LOL! And you don't hate monger about Hillary? The pititful lack of being able to think and reason well and to have to call people names and then disappear is typical of Obama supporters and I might add Bush supporters when I was campaigning for Gore.

I won't be crying. I will be happ to see the Republican smear machine go after Obama and reveal some truths perhaps.

Protactinium has left a new comment on the post "Open Thread":

well goodluck. I will be back after the elections. Enjoy your hate mongering. I just want to see your posts about Obama after Hillary loses. I can see the crying now. Its all a evil plot out to get Hillary. Enjoy.; March 01, 2008 3:20 PM
Unknown said...: Time-

Obama has changed a number of things. Your refusal to acknowledge them only exemplifies your irrationality.; March 01, 2008 3:35 PM
Unknown said...: Time-

You said:
"Hate Mongering??? LOL! And you don't hate monger about Hillary? The pititful lack of being able to think and reason well and to have to call people names and then disappear is typical of Obama supporters and I might add Bush supporters when I was campaigning for Gore."

Yet, in the last 24 hours of posts by you, there is not one statement in any of them that include either reason or thinking. Every single misstatement (and 99% of yur posts were misstatements) is a recapitulation of conspiracies, fear-mongering, and utter misrepresentation of fact-- which by the way have been thoroughly vetted (you seem to love the word vetted as much as Hillary does) in both the press and the court of public opinion. If you were using reason, orcritical thinking perhaps you would post something other than merely regurgitating others' smears which have not yet worked.

Speaking of lying-- one of my first posts to you was to debunk your claim that you were "using logic" to determine who was the better candidate. There is no doubt that since then, you have proven this to be a lie on your part, as you have posted nothing other than appeals to emotion ever since. Perhaps you should go back to school and take an arguments class and re-learn those logical fallacies. Ever argument you have made have been logical fallacies, have no substance, and no facts upon which to stand. They would no last two seconds with someone who knows the truth or anything about logical fallacies.; March 01, 2008 3:48 PM
NO Obama said...: Obama has not changed the way things are done in the IL state legislature or in DC.

Hasn't he been there 3 years? What has he CHANGED? You know in the way they do business there?

Campaign finance reform? And now he is waffling on his committment there?; March 01, 2008 4:03 PM
NO Obama said...: *sigh*

It is obvious the Obama lemmings have been throughly brain washed.

No one is going to change anyone's mind here. It is just back and forth.

And I've said several time, that some of my feelings about Obama are based on a gut feeling but that gut feeling is based in logic. The logic of distrust, not knowing enough about him since there isn't really much to know, watching him go back on pledges/promises, etc.; March 01, 2008 4:08 PM
Unknown said...: Time-

You must be really good at reading the bullet points over there at Clinton central. But, I do wish you would get your facts straight.

"Obama has not changed the way things are done in the IL state legislature or in DC."

This is a blatant lie. I posted tons of changes he made while in IL. You are either too lazy to read or do not care about the truth.

"Hasn't he been there 3 years? What has he CHANGED? You know in the way they do business there?"

Hmmm, let's see. He changed the way lobbyists do business. He changed the way the VA awards its benefits as well as made them review their payments to thousands of veterans-- to be certain they are receiving the benefits to which they are entitles. He sponsored to transparency in government initiative. Again, this claim is merely another lie attempted to be perpetrated by you. By the way, what has Hillary done to change the way things operate in Washington?

"Campaign finance reform? And now he is waffling on his committment there?"

Again, just another lie. Perhaps you should go back and read about what he said when he began his campaign. He said he would seek an agreement with the republican nominee to use public financing. However, he stated then as he does now, that there needed to be language allowing either candidate to withdraw if the 527s get out of control.; March 01, 2008 4:16 PM
Unknown said...: "And I've said several time, that some of my feelings about Obama are based on a gut feeling but that gut feeling is based in logic. The logic of distrust, not knowing enough about him since there isn't really much to know, watching him go back on pledges/promises, etc."

And that, by definition, is not logic at all, but emotions. Therein lies the problem with your claim(s).

The only "promise" you can even come close to making a case against him for breaking is his stating that he would not run for president. All of your other claims have been thoroughly "vetted", debunked, or otherwise proved patently false. You just refuse to accept the truth.; March 01, 2008 4:28 PM
Unknown said...: Time-

And anothe thing--

"It is obvious the Obama lemmings have been throughly brain washed.
"

I am nowhere a "lemming". In fact, my family and I both personally know the Clitons and the Obamas. My father has known the Clintons since before he ran in 1992. I believe that by personally knowing both of the people in question, I am uniquely qualified to make a judgement on the character of each-- much more qualified than someone who merely reads the bulletpoints of one campaign or the other or the spin doctors in the MSM.

How long have you known either of these individuals? How many times have you personally spoken to them face-to-face? And, if you have even done this once, has it ever been done outside the context of a campaign or political stop?; March 01, 2008 4:33 PM
dwit said...: Time,

"Obama finally backed down and both denounced and rejected the endorsement from Minister Farrakhan’s endorsement."

First of all, is that all Hillary's got? Making Obama use a variant of "denounce"?

Not sure where this "skill" fits in with getting our troops out of Iraq or initiating a domestic sustainable fuels program?

Second, what about her endorsement by Bill Cunningham? Talk about hate mongers! I don't see Obama blasting her on that one.; March 01, 2008 5:21 PM
Unknown said...: dwit-

Excellent points! You better add Ann Coulter to Hillary's list of hate monger endorsements. She said if McCain was the repug nominee she would campaign for Hillary. McCain has that nomination wrapped up.; March 01, 2008 5:28 PM
shelby said...: "... my family and I both personally know the Clitons and the Obamas. My father has known the Clintons since before he ran in 1992. I believe that by personally knowing both of the people in question, I am uniquely qualified to make a judgement on the character of each-- much more qualified than someone who merely reads the bulletpoints of one campaign or the other or the spin doctors in the MSM."

OHHH! You are UNIQUELY QUALIFED- how desperate. Even assuming you have had personal dealings with the candidates (which is doubtful but irrelevant) not only does it not make you uniquely qualifed, it makes you uniquely biased and tainted. I would put no more weight on your endorsement than I would Bebe Rebozo's of Richard Nixon.

Perhaps you could have some personal dealings with McCain soon so you can tell the country about ALL the candidates. Hey, why even have an election- let's just all take an anonymous blogger's judgements as gospel.

This board has really strayed from somewhat intelligent debate to a forum for pathetic losers looking to elevate themselves behind the cover of cyberspace. How pitiful.; March 01, 2008 8:27 PM
Unknown said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 01, 2008 8:34 PM
Unknown said...: Shelby-

BTW, no such luck with McCain. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact he does not live in the midwest. Or, even better yet, it has something to do with the fact he is republican. If you read a little bit, you might learn that my family has been involved in democrat party politics for as long as the Clintons have! Anything I might know about McCain would be third hand at best.; March 01, 2008 8:38 PM
Protactinium said...: Ok. Maybe to break up some of the venom I saw an intreasting poll.

82% of Americans will use their rebate to pay down debt, or save it.

So Ironically this rebate might actually work but not for the reasons Bush hoped for.Bush assumed people were to stupid and would just buy useless consumer goods. While it will cause little stimulus for the economy it will act as a flexable debt control to keep families going for a few months. IE. Mortage referendum for a some people. It may actually have a very good thing for american middle class.

I also would like to point out Obama wanted rebates similar to Bush's in his package. Which at the time I did not support. However getting down debt in America is going to be a must.; March 01, 2008 11:00 PM
dwit said...: Time,

We are well aware you think Hillary is the "tested" candidate.

I couldn't agree more. She was tested on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment where she voted with two chikenhawk Republicans to start another war in Iran.

Maybe we'll see a McCain/Clinton ticket? Seems they both want to see us at war in the ME for a long, long time to come.; March 03, 2008 6:33 PM
NO Obama said...: dwit has left a new comment on the post "Open Thread":

Time,

Maybe we'll see a McCain/Clinton ticket? Seems they both want to see us at war in the ME for a long, long time to come.

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

REALLY??? Hmmmmmm.....I guess you haven't heard her say she wants to start withdrawing the troops within 60 days of taking office?

Barak Obama has been tested to a point wherein he has voted "present" over 100 times in the IL legislature.

He has proven he cannot stand up and make changes and do what it takes to get things done.

Rezko--what kind of judgment does he have associating himself with this guy?

And so on...; March 03, 2008 6:39 PM
dwit said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 03, 2008 6:47 PM
dwit said...: Lieberman? what kind of judgment does she have associating herself with this guy?; March 03, 2008 6:51 PM
protactinium said...: Lieberman endorsed Mccain.

We may have a Mccain/Lieberman ticket.

However we should not be suprised to see Clinton dealing with these people. She is apart of the same regime of goverment that Mccain, Lieberman are from. They all believe in alot of the same things.; March 03, 2008 9:15 PM
dwit said...: McCain/Lieberman vs. Obama/ Edwards?

BRING IT!; March 04, 2008 12:46 AM
Carrie said...: On the rebates & repaying debt...paying down debt is exactly what people did the last time. Within 6 months, though, people had wracked it back up, so the net effect was the same. It still got spent.; March 04, 2008 4:08 PM
dwit said...: I will add that Lieberman is what cost Gore the Presidency in 2000. I called this when He took Jump Ship Joe on as his running mate.

He was and is a Republican. Who didn't know that? His votes have always been with AIPAC and the Chickenhawks.

It looks like the dems in Connecticut have finally awakened to this fact. I hope they finally get rid of this clown. Maybe if he joins the McCain ticket they will be rid of him once and for all.; March 04, 2008 5:02 PM
dwit said...: Hillary has endorsed McCain. Wow! What an immature response to the pressure. She says she supports McCain over Obama. Sounds a lot like Jump Ship Joe Lieberman to me.

Hillary should be ashamed. What a sad, sad person. If this doesn't show her "primary colors" I don't know what does.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/03/01/politics/fromtheroad/entry3896372.shtml

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hillary_McCain_would_be_better_than_Obama

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/03/hillary-endorses-mccain-over-obama/; March 04, 2008 5:28 PM
dwit said...: It appears power is her goal, not party unity and progressive ideals. By most world political standards Hillary would be considered a CONSERVATIVE.

Why do you think Rush, Cunningham and Coulter are now in her camp? They see an opportunity to corner the market on "more of the same".

She will simply be a continuation of their wars abroad in the interest of lining some very serious lobby pockets.; March 04, 2008 5:44 PM
protactinium said...: Look like the delegate diffrence in Ohio, is going to be equal to the delegate diffrence in Vermont.

Obama will take Texas atleast in delegate count, due to its two step process.

I did expect national security to be more important then it was. Bad for Obama.; March 04, 2008 8:03 PM
dwit said...: It is going just how I predicted. Republicans are voting for Hillary in significant numbers.

And Hillary has behaved just as they were hoping. She slanders the other Democratic candidate and McCain can use it against him in a general.

She has poisoned the well now and our chances in November have diminished greatly. Limbaugh and company must be very satisfied.

Nice work Hillary! Another 8 years of Republicans. Whoohoo!; March 04, 2008 10:12 PM
NO Obama said...: One of the comentators on CNN said that Obama has been saying he is a black slate upon which people can project their needs/wants....

She added it was beginning to look like Obama is a more of an etch a sketch. Turn it over and you get a different perspective.

If Obama does get the nomination, he is headed for a very difficult time and a swiftboating by the repubs.

His telling the Canada legislature via a surrogate not to worry, that NAFTA rhetoric was just that -- rhetoric. Not to worry. So his promises about NAFTA in Ohio are just rhetoric and he doesn't intend to follow through. Shame, shame!!

As I said before he is a wolf in sheep's clothing.; March 04, 2008 10:20 PM
dwit said...: Yeah Time, They'll go easy on Hillary? Whatever. Just like Hillary you are DREAMING. Time for us to get back to reality as a party and rally around the candidate with the best chance to beat McCain and bring our party back to its progressive roots.

Face it, Hillary IS A REPUBLICAN just like her good buddy Jump Ship Joe.

Voters who see very little difference between she and McCain will simply vote McCain for a change in name if nothing else. You have underestimated how many progressives don't like Hillary.; March 04, 2008 10:44 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 800 of 1017 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

Monday, February 11, 2008

Open Thread

1017 comments:

Tags