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 801 – 1000 of 1017 Newer› Newest»

NO Obama said...: Well, I'm not uniting behind any democratic party as an independent unless Hillary is the nominee.

I'm an independent and have been most of my voing life.

I voted republican in my early years, Nixon, Reagan, Bush the first one time, Carter, Clinton 2 times, Gore, Kerry.

But I will not vote for Obama. I don't trust him. The recent example of telling the Canadian legislature that his rhetoric in Ohion about NAFTA was just politics, don't worry, we won't do anything to harm Canada free trade shows what a snake he is.

He has also said the US isn't any better than any other country. WHAT?

He is dangerous and can't win in NOV. if the cadidate.; March 04, 2008 10:49 PM
dwit said...: Wow! I guess we cancel each other out. As a registered independent I can't vote for Clinton based on her weak foreign policy. Until we clean up our reputation on the world stage we can't concentrate on domestic issues.

Clinton and McCain are both going to keep us in Iraq for my lifetime at least and that means my children will have to worry about terrorism for much of their lives too.

With Obama/Edwards we will have a chance to mend relations and get this country off foreign oil.

Clinton and McCain both believe we can simply continue to conduct ourselves as we have for the past half century and somehow produce different results.

That, my friend, is one definition of insanity.; March 04, 2008 11:05 PM
NO Obama said...: dwit,

Where do you get the idea Hillary wants to stay in Iraq. She has repeatedly said she will being withdrawal within 30 days of taking office.

Obama is weak on National Security if anything and he is a liar about NAFTA.

Enough said about not trusting him and his being niave' about international relations and truthtelling.; March 04, 2008 11:09 PM
NO Obama said...: Maybe the dems are wising up about Obama and his sheep's clothing.; March 05, 2008 12:59 AM
NO Obama said...: It is becoming obvious FINALLY!

Andy Martin says Barack Obama failed the test of 'Michelle's Law' in supervising his campaign
Andy Martin on 'The Day the Music Died' for Barack Obama

Print article
Refer to a friend

Andy Martin
2008-03-04 23:44:13 - Chicago columnist Martin says Obama purchased his 'dream home' with financial aid from an Iraqi wheeler-dealer. Mr. Obama has a lot of explaining to do,' Andy says. 'The lies involving NAFTAgate are only a small part of the daily feed of distortions, half-truths and misrepresentations on which Obama has based his entire life.; March 05, 2008 1:30 AM
NO Obama said...: Tisk, tisk Obama lies and proves he can screw things up internationally:

Obama's Border Incident
March 4, 2008; Page A16
Barack Obama says he'll revive the art of American diplomacy, which sounds nice. We're not sure how this promise squares, however, with the diplomatic incident his campaign has caused in Canada, of all unlikely places.

Last week, Canada's CTV television network reported on a leaked memo from a Canadian diplomat casting doubt on Mr. Obama's sincerity. The memo reported that Mr. Obama's chief economic adviser, University of Chicago professor Austan Goolsbee, had told Canadian officials that Mr. Obama's vow to unilaterally withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement was simply campaign rhetoric aimed at Ohio primary voters. This week, Mr. Goolsbee said that's not what he meant at all when he attended a February 8 meeting at Chicago's Canadian consulate. Perhaps something got lost in translation.

LOL!!! At least something didn't get lost in translation over an international nuclear incident!; March 05, 2008 1:45 AM
dwit said...: Time,

Clinton has said A LOT OF THINGS that she apparently didn't mean, like her vote to authorize the war in Iraq.

She voted FOR Kyl-Lieberman which calls the Iranian military a "terrorist" organization. It also gives Bush the freedom to invade.

How about the about face she did on Palestine in the run up to her Senate run?

How about paling up with th insurance industry to force Americans to buy their products?

Is Hillary REALLY believable?

Talk about wolf in sheep's clothing.

You said you'd vote McCain if Hillary is not the nominee. I knew you were a Republican. No wonder you are pushing Hillary. You know she doesn't have a chance against McCain.

You, have been outed. I never did take you very seriously, but to respond to you NOW is just silly.

BYE-BYE!; March 05, 2008 1:47 AM
NO Obama said...: The Obama Craze: Count Me Out
by Matt Gonzalez‚ Feb. 27‚ 2008

Part of me shares the enthusiasm for Barack Obama. After all, how could someone calling themself a progressive not sense the importance of what it means to have an African-American so close to the presidency? But as his campaign has unfolded, and I heard that we are not red states or blue states for the 6th or 7th time, I realized I knew virtually nothing about him.

Like most, I know he gave a stirring speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. I know he defeated Alan Keyes in the Illinois Senate race; although it wasn’t much of a contest (Keyes was living in Maryland when he announced). Recently, I started looking into Obama’s voting record, and I’m afraid to say I’m not just uninspired: I’m downright fearful. Here's why:

This is a candidate who says he’s going to usher in change; that he is a different kind of politician who has the skills to get things done. He reminds us again and again that he had the foresight to oppose the war in Iraq. And he seems to have a genuine interest in lifting up the poor.

But his record suggests that he is incapable of ushering in any kind of change I’d like to see. It is one of accommodation and concession to the very political powers that we need to rein in and oppose if we are to make truly lasting advances.

More:

http://beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=5413#more; March 05, 2008 1:57 AM
NO Obama said...: dwit,

I'm not a republican. You must have missed my posts where I said I campaigned for Gore & Kerry, voted democratic more than republican (my republican votes were early in my voting life--Nixon, Regan, Bush I once and that is it for repulican voting.

I am an INDEPENDENT! Leaning more dem.; March 05, 2008 2:02 AM
protactinium said...: Obama will be fine in the generals. Clinton is already throwing everything at him. This is a good test for Obama and will show how quickly he can adapt to this type of attacks.

TimeforChange I guess your strat is working. Just throw everything you got at him true or false, and maybe 1 thing will stick. However I just think Clinton is doing the republicans work now.; March 05, 2008 4:02 AM
Carrie said...: Time -

Are you with me? I'm sending big kisses to Texas, OH, and RI!

I spent 8 days of the past 2 weeks in OH campaigning. I worried it would be my last chance.

NOPE! I'm already set to be in my old town Philadelphia just in time for the primary there...

Hang tough, sister! I may not agree with you on every point, but we definitely both have it right when it comes to picking a president!; March 05, 2008 5:42 AM
dwit said...: Yeah Pro,

I know Obama will do well in the general election. Its Clinton that wouldn't fair so well. She has way too many skeletons in the closet.

When the independents and core progressives are faced with a choice for change and a new direction vs. the same old tactics, they will go with Obama.

We can't say the same of a Clinton candidacy. She has proven time and again that she intends to continue sanctioning or bombing those who disagree with US hegemony.

Obama really is the clear choice for a fresh and unbiased perspective.; March 05, 2008 6:15 AM
dwit said...: That is if he can expose the underbelly of the Clinton monster. He has hesitated thus far, but then again he knows he can't come off as attacking a white female. That wouldn't play well with older white voters now would it.; March 05, 2008 6:30 AM
NO Obama said...: Carrie, good for you! I think that the super delgates would be foolish to vote for Obama since Hillary is the one who can carry the big states obviously with the most electoral votes.

What I heard tonight on CNN was really amazing. A commentator said that the super delegates shouldn't vote based on electablilty but rather on who the people voted for (the highest delegate count). Well, I guess the could go ahead and vote for the unelectable Obama.

Right now Hillary is 2pts. ahead in the Rasmussen poll for president over Obama and she runs better against Obama.

Nevertheless, what most Obama supporters don't realize is that Obama has not been tested in a national contest against McCain and that McCain will get many more republican votes than Obama will democratic most likely.

Also, it was reported on CNN that if Obama were to get the nomination, 25% of Hillary supporters say they well vote for McCain (and I may be one of them).

To Obama supporters, he is not "the clear choice for a fresh and unbiased perspective."

What does unbiased perspective mean?

He clearly has demonstrated in the last several days he doesn't want to talk about Rezko, that he says one thing in Ohio about NAFTA and another thing to Canada (don't worry, it's just rhetoric for political purposes).

Wolf in sheep's clothing.; March 05, 2008 6:40 AM
NO Obama said...: From the Star.com

"(the Canadian gov't)Telling the world that this country's industrial heartland is a lousy place to do business is roughly as irresponsible as meddling in America's presidential primaries. Yet this government is loudly doing the first while claiming less than persuasively that Stephen Harper's inner circle didn't do the other by leaking a story suggesting Barack Obama was blowing political smoke about renegotiating free trade."

Barack Obama is blowing political smoe about renegotiating free trade, huh? This admission from his own campaign.

What a sleaze liar he is. Beware of his spelll!; March 05, 2008 6:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Hillary Clinton is now ahead in the overall nationwide poular vote and has won 6 of 8 of the big "BLUE" states, all obama has to fall on is his slight delegate lead (which is NOT ENOUGH to win the nomination without superdelegates)

What is his rational for continuing to stay in this race?

Shouldn't Obama Drop Out Now?

Isn't He Hurting The Democratic Party By Staying in this?

Funny How These Questions Don't Look So Good To Obama Supporters When The Truth Is Against Them!

But I Am sure you can pull some garbage rational out of your hats, as to how i am SOOOO wrong, Even though Barack Lost NY, NJ, CA, MA, FL, AND NOW TX & OH, among others.

Time to give obama a hint, don't you think?; March 05, 2008 6:50 AM
NO Obama said...: Some here have accused Hillary of being schizophrenic or a mulitple personality but WOW, look at this about Obama:

from philly.com/inquirer

The Elephant in the Room: Obama: A harsh ideologue hidden by a feel-good image
By Rick Santorum

American voters will choose between two candidates this election year.
One inspires hope for a brighter, better tomorrow. His rhetoric makes us feel we are, indeed, one nation indivisible - indivisible by ideology or religion, indivisible by race or creed. It is rhetoric of hope and change and possibility. It's inspiring. This candidate can make you just plain feel good to be American.

The other candidate, by contrast, is one of the Senate's fiercest partisans. This senator reflexively sides with the party's extreme wing. There's no record of working with the other side of the aisle. None. It's basically been my way or the highway, combined with a sanctimoniousness that breeds contempt among those on the other side of any issue.

Which of these two candidates should be our next president? The choice is clear, right?

Wrong, because they're both the same man - Barack Obama.

Granted, the first-term Illinois senator's lofty rhetoric of bipartisanship, unity, hope and change makes everyone feel good. But it's becoming increasingly clear that his grand campaign rhetoric does not match his partisan, ideological record. The nonpartisan National Journal, for example, recently rated Obama the Senate's most liberal member. That's besting some tough competition from orthodox liberals such as Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer.; March 05, 2008 6:53 AM
NO Obama said...: From philly.com inquirer:

Who would oppose a bill that said you couldn't kill a baby who was born? Not Kennedy, Boxer or Hillary Rodham Clinton. Not even the hard-core National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Obama, however, is another story. The year after the Born Alive Infants Protection Act became federal law in 2002, identical language was considered in a committee of the Illinois Senate. It was defeated with the committee's chairman, Obama, leading the opposition.

Let's be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. He effectively voted for infanticide. He voted to allow doctors to deny medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a completely delivered living baby. Infanticide - I wonder if he'll add this to the list of changes in his next victory speech and if the crowd will roar: "Yes, we can."; March 05, 2008 6:56 AM
Anonymous said...: 8 Big "Blue" Democratic States

1.California
2.New York
3.New Jersey
4.Massachusettes
5.Illinois
6.Texas
7.Ohio
8.Pennsylvania

How Many Did Barack Obama Win?

How Many Did Hillary Win?

How Many Are Left?

Hmm, Yeah I'd Say Obama Is Finished He Can't PROVE His ELECTABILITY Anymore.

By the Way You Smucks Keep Talking About Electability Like It's Not Directly Related To Those 8 States, Yeah Like Democrats Win Big In Ida-freakin-ho Oh Wait Don't Count Obama Out Yet Wyoming Still Needs To Vote, Give Us All A Break, Nobody Should Be So Ignorant.; March 05, 2008 7:03 AM
NO Obama said...: First he denies, then he lies, then he admits there was a conversation with Canadians about NAFTA (btw, what business does his campaign have talking to other countries about such things?):

BY MICHAEL SAUL
DAILY NEWS POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT

Tuesday, March 4th 2008, 1:51 AM

SAN ANTONIO, Tex. - An exasperated Barack Obama scurried away Monday from the toughest news conference of his campaign, telling reporters who kept shouting questions that he'd spent enough time on the grill.

"Come on! I just answered, like, eight questions," Obama, looking surprised, told shouting reporters as he fled the room. "We're running late."

The Clinton campaign has long complained that Obama gets soft treatment from the press corps. But Monday's exchange was no pillow fight.

The first question was about a private talk an Obama economic adviser had with a Canadian official - reportedly saying that the harshness of Obama's criticisms of the North American Free Trade Agreement was for political show.

Last week, Obama denied an initial media report about the conversation. But after a Canadian government memo surfaced, he acknowledged yesterday there was a conversation.; March 05, 2008 7:04 AM
NO Obama said...: From the Chicago Tribune:

"Apparently, what seems to have occurred is that the Obama campaign had Sen. Obama in Ohio making speeches against NAFTA and having his chief economic adviser making it clear in Canada that he doesn't really mean it," she told an Ohio-market TV station. "I think that raises real questions of credibility."

Denfinite real questions of credibility.

On two fronts: judgment which Obama touts he is superior at and whether or not he can be believed by voters he is pandering to.

He does poorly on both.

Just say NOBAMA!!; March 05, 2008 7:25 AM
Anonymous said...: dwit,

"You have underestimated how many progressives don't like Hillary."

Apparently you have underestimated how many DEMOCRATS don't like Barack.

so when hillary is the nominee who will you be voting for, can't be McCain you keep bashing him, Maybe you will do us all favor and just stay home, good-riddance.; March 05, 2008 7:26 AM
NO Obama said...: On the one hand Obama says he has good judgment but in REALITY in many instances, he has demonstrated remarkably poor judgment:

From the Chicago Tribune:

And when Mr. Obama and his wife, Michelle, bought a house in 2005, Mr. Rezko stepped in again. Even though his finances were deteriorating, Mr. Rezko arranged for his wife to buy an adjacent lot, and she later sold the Obamas a 10-foot-wide strip of land that expanded their yard.

The land sale occurred after it had been reported that Mr. Rezko was under federal investigation. That awkward fact prompted Mr. Obama, who has cast himself as largely free from the normal influences of politics, to express regret over what he called his own bad judgment.; March 05, 2008 7:33 AM
NO Obama said...: Obama's questionable judgment and ethics:

From Chicago Tribune:

First, Obama’s dealings with Rezko reveal a politician oblivious to the expectations of at least the appearance of integrity for those in public office. At the time Obama entered into his dubious land deal, it was widely known that Rezko was the subject of a federal investigation for allegedly trying to collect nearly $6 million in kickbacks from government deals. Obama and Rezko have been “friends” since 1990. Obama knew about Rezko’s shady reputation and ought to have avoided the appearance of impropriety.

Second, Obama’s dealings with Rezko suggest, at least, that Obama might be the kind of politician willing to peddle his influence. The Chicago Tribune reported that Obama purchased his land for $300,000 less than the asking price, while Rezko’s wife paid full price for the adjoining lot from the same owner. Did Mrs. Rezko partially subsidize the purchase of Obama’s new home? And what of the subsequent sale of a section of the Rezko property to Obama shortly thereafter?

This was obviously a contrived "deal" to make Obama's property value increase after the lot purchase. Fishy!; March 05, 2008 7:39 AM
NO Obama said...: Obama is a false Messiah. He can no longer claim the high road of integrity, good judgment, being untouched by controversy or being the kind of politician who can reach across the isle:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/03/AR2008030302769.html?referrer=delicious; March 05, 2008 7:56 AM
NO Obama said...: Barack Obama chooses anit-Jewish ME advisor. Very odd and suspect of Obama's true views and statemetns about Israel:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/barack_obamas_middle_east_expe.html; March 05, 2008 12:16 PM
NO Obama said...: Obama ignores his senate oversight committee and now:

Yesterday the London Times reported central questions about Senator Obama's shocking dearth of international experience: "Fresh doubts over Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London - and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America." It also reported: "Mr. Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman."; March 05, 2008 12:20 PM
NO Obama said...: The REAL experience Hillary by Joe Wilson:

During my tenure as Senior Director for African Affairs in the Clinton Administration, I had the responsibility for helping to plan and execute President Clinton's historic trip to that continent. It was a trip that forever changed the way American administrations think about Africa. I spent eleven days with President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton traveling to six countries and meeting with leaders from many more. She was a full participant in all of our activities and a key adviser--and for good reason. Hillary had previously traveled to Africa, leading a prominent U.S. delegation to several countries. On her return she was instrumental in persuading the president that he should invest that most precious of presidential assets--time--in his own trip. People who are now senior advisers to Senator Obama were involved in both of those trips. So it is mystifying to me that they have allowed themselves to "forget" the key role Hillary played in such a major shift in approach to that part of the world and have participated in a negative campaign tactic on the part of the Obama campaign to demean her significant contributions to foreign policy of which they are well aware.; March 05, 2008 12:23 PM
Carrie said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 05, 2008 12:43 PM
Carrie said...: Wow...the Obama crew is really quiet right now...

Loved the Inquirer piece on the 2-candidates-in-1 angle. I'll be out in Philly in a few weeks, maybe multiple times (work, friends, family and the most exciting nomination of my voting career)!; March 05, 2008 12:45 PM
NO Obama said...: Flag Officers Make the Case for Hillary Clinton as Commander-in-Chief

"I support her because I trust her. ... I trust her judgment. ... .. She knows our reality. ... She'll give us missions that make sense." - Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy

During a conference call with the Clinton campaign just now, moderated by Clinton's National Security Director Lee Feinstein (with Howard Wolfson), flag officer after flag officer offered their unqualified endorsements of Hillary Clinton for Commander-in-Chief. It was one testimony after another from these fine career military men and women who know first hand what it takes to be the boss. I hope you take the time to listen to their informed views on the issue of national security, as they make their case for Hillary Clinton.

Flag officers endorsing Hillary Clinton for Commander-in-Chief
(AUDIO of conference call)
--Q & A session - audio--

Nobody on the call is thinking about anything but the love of their country in endorsing Senator Clinton, as one officer said at the end of the call.

"She has done her homework on national security. .. ... She has the big picture. ... .. She is the most qualified in the race to be Commander-in-Chief." - General Wesley Clark (retired)

"I think Hillary Clinton is the best person and the best prepared to be Commander-in-Chief." - Admiral William Owens

In the end, this is about who can beat John McCain in the general election. Clinton is the best positioned, especially when it comes to national security, to do just that.

UPDATE: The Clinton campaign just released a list of the flag officers who were on the call:

... .. They are among the nearly 30 general and flag officers who have endorsed Hillary Clinton to be the Nation’s next President. Senator Clinton has received five endorsements in recent days, including those of General Henry Hugh Shelton, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral William Owens, the former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Army Major General Antonio M. Taguba. Overall she has the endorsement of two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, five admirals and generals at the four-star rank. They are in addition to over 2,000 veterans and military retirees who are members of Senator Clinton’s national and state veterans’ steering committees.

The list of those taking part in today’s call is below.

General Wesley Clark
Admiral William Owens
General Johnnie E. Wilson
Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard
Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy
Vice Admiral Joseph A. Sestak
Lt. Gen. Frederick E. Vollrath
Major General George A. Buskirk, Jr.
Major General Paul D. Eaton
Rear Admiral Stuart Platt
Rear Admiral David Stone
Major General Antonio M. Taguba
Brigadier General Michael Dunn
Brigadier General Evelyn "Pat" Foote
Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr.
Brigadier General Jack Yeager
Former Secretary of the Army and Veterans Affairs Togo West
Former Secretary of the Navy, John Dalton; March 05, 2008 1:00 PM
NO Obama said...: From Taylor Marsh:

Reason #1 to support Hillary:
In Arkansas she was instrumental in straightening out their school system - taking it from one of the worst systems to a role model used by other troubled schools on how to improve public education.

Reason #2 to support Hillary:
In 2006, she led the fight to kill the anti-gay Republican constitutional amendment that for the first time would have added laws to the Constitution that would INCREASE discrimination.

Reason #3 to support Hillary:
After being pummeled by the public for trying to pass Universal Health care while she was First Lady, she dusted herself off and in 1997, led a federal effort that provided insurance support for children whose parents were unable to provide them with health coverage.

Reason #4 to Support Hillary:
She was able to secure a raise in research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health.

Reason #5 to Support Hillary:
She initiated the Adoption and Safe Families Act.

Reason #6 to Support Hillary:
She's authored a great deal of legislation during her years on the Armed Services Committee that has passed regarding increased and improved benefits for our returning Iraq veterans.

Reason #7 to Support Hillary:
She was one of the key Senators who fought to give our military badly needed raises and increase in benefits. For being such flag wavers, it was the Republicans and Bush who resisted these attempts to show our military how much we value and appreciate them.

Reason #8 to Support Hillary:
Since 1974 she has been fighting for a woman's right to choose.

Reason #9 to Support Hillary:
She is fighting to lift the ban on stem cell research to cure devastating diseases.

Reason #10 to Support Hillary:
Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)

You can read the other 90 reasons to support Hillary at:

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27120; March 05, 2008 1:22 PM
NO Obama said...: Obama was asked about experience and he sidestepped and said neither he nor Hillary has experience and that it's judgment that counts.

Well, his judgment has been poor regarding the Canadian NAFTA flap and his association with Rezko AFTER he knew he was being looked at for indictment.

On the other hand, Hillary listed dozens of things she has been involved in re: international affairs, doing some of the negotiating herself, etc.

And then there is the list of 100 reasons to support/vote for Hillary I posted earlier!; March 05, 2008 1:25 PM
dwit said...: Pro,

Good to see Obama is still ahead in the popular vote too (including Florida). That is where it really counts.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
epolls/2008/president/
democratic_vote_count.html

Get a kick out of all those who think we need to count Florida and Michigan even though all candidates agreed to not campaign there. Heck, Barack and Edwards weren't even on the Ballot in Michigan.

Not to mention the demographics way favor Obama in Michigan. 14% African American, 62% of all voters between the ages of 18 and 65.

Its time for party unity behind Obama. Rush and Rove are just licking their chops right now. November is beginning to look a little bleak.; March 05, 2008 2:54 PM
dwit said...: Just discovered Florida looks pretty good for Obama too: 16% African American and 60% of all voters are between 18 and 65 years of age.

But again I digress. Florida delivered for Bush in 2000 and 2004 anyway.; March 05, 2008 3:05 PM
dwit said...: I noticed that Obama's middle East advisor is Dennis Ross. That was Bill Clinton's ME negotiator. Can't say I have much confidence in him. He seemed to be pretty partial to Israel and take a hard line toward the Palestinians. In fact many of Obamas advisors are former Clinton people. That's a little interesting.

At least Clinton has one Arab American on her FP team. Silly me, I actually based my opinion of her on what she has said and not who she has chosen to do the footwork. I guess words are "just words". She can play that game with the best of 'em.

The scariest choices of all are McCain's. He has Dick Armitage on his team. You know. The one who outed Valerie Plame.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp-srv/opinions/documents/
the-war-over-the-wonks.html; March 05, 2008 3:24 PM
protactinium said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 05, 2008 3:25 PM
protactinium said...: 8 Big "Blue" Democratic States

1.California
2.New York
3.New Jersey
4.Massachusettes
5.Illinois
6.Texas
7.Ohio
8.Pennsylvania

Here are some falacys in your argument.

Obama will take, IL, NY, NJ, Mass almost no question in the generals.

As will Hillary. So this arguement of Hillary is better even though more people for the democratic party have voted for Obama is a bit over blown.

Texas has not been a big blue state for a long time, and cali is a swing state where any canidite can win.

However I was pushing for Hillary to drop out, and she should not. She proved that she may be able to make some gains. I doubt this will happen and Hillary is going turn into a nasty, ugly, Hukabee. She will keep losing grounds on all the smaller states.

But if you think Obama should drop out. Maybe you should lay off Clintons Kool-aid. He is still winning, according to all the scorecards. Good Luck there will be more people to make there voice heard soon.

I wonder if those 50 super delegates are still going to endorse Obama soon to pressure Clinton out of the election. She may have stalled his for the moment.; March 05, 2008 3:38 PM
dwit said...: Yeah Pro,

I agree that Hillary should stay in. May the best candidate win. Talk about vetting! When this thing is over we should have the best candidate to win in the general, whomever that might be.

I am actually very interested to see what happens. I am still troubled by Hill's characterization of McCain as better than Obama. That is clearly foolish talk. I would take either Hillary or Obama over that clown.

It really pays to look at the advisors of ALL the candidates. From those McCain has chosen it is pretty clear he is still living in the past. I gather he is still trying to fight Vietnam. Don't think I want someone with PTSD anywhere near the BUTTON.; March 05, 2008 4:32 PM
dwit said...: I'm still very skeptical of Clinton's past votes (Iraq, Iran, Israel etc.), but McCain has all of that and all the weirdo conservative stuff to boot. Not to mention he is hobnobbing with Bush. That brings his IQ down a few notches.; March 05, 2008 4:46 PM
Carrie said...: For what it's worth, I really don't think Clinton was trying to say McCain was better than Obama. I've followed her messaging pretty closely, and the impression I got is that she was trying to make the distinction that, in the general, she had a much better chance than Obama in rivaling McCain's claim to experience and wisdom. It's more a counter argument to the argument Obama makes in saying Clinton is just like McCain in a bad way (for their shared votes). I wouldn't worry - she doesn't want McCain in. His values are just too way off and conservative. On many other occasions and many other topics, she's made solid arguments for any democrat over McCain.

If it came down to it, both Clintons have made it clear they would back Obama.; March 05, 2008 6:40 PM
Carrie said...: Did anyone see the joing McCain/Bush endorsement press conference?

It was so painfully awkward. Bush kept stepping on McCain - interrupting and grandstanding. McCain was visibly uncomfortable and seemed only able to repeat the canned response about being happy to have Bush campaign for him within the limitations of Bush's "very busy schedule."

I got the impression there would be some difficulty on Bush's part letting go of the limelight.

That ought to be fun for all of us to watch!; March 05, 2008 6:43 PM
dwit said...: Carrie,

I've not heard Obama say Clinton is like McCain. She has questionable judgment on the war, but He never made any statement even close to what she said. She likened herself to McCain by saying THEY both have many years experience.

It was SHE who poisoned the well if Obama wins the nom. He has consistently taken the high road and even the pudits said that is what hurt him in Ohio and Texas.

Let's not forget, Obama has always been the underdog. For him to do as well as he did in those states, even with all of the lies hurled a him is just incredible to me.

I have always said the Republicans in open primary states would come out and vote for her to keep this thing going while McCain gains traction.; March 05, 2008 7:42 PM
NO Obama said...: From irishecho.com

"Anyone criticizing her foreign policy involvement should look at her very active and positive approach to Northern Ireland and speak with the people of Northern Ireland who have the highest regard for her and are very grateful for her very active support for our peace process," Hume concluded in his defense of Hillary's Irish legacy.

Not surprisingly, some of the senator's most vocal defenders have been women activists from Northern Ireland.

In a series of statements compiled by labor and fair employment advocate Inez McCormack, Clinton was lauded for her "decade-long support" of the peace process.

"We believe it is important for others to know the pivotal role Mrs. Clinton played in helping us in Northern Ireland at critical junctures in the peace process. She supported us over many years and we will always be grateful to her," said McCormack

"Hillary Clinton took risks for peace in asking me and others to bring women and communities from both traditions to affirm their capacity to work for common purpose," McCormack said.

"She used her immense influence to give women like me space to develop this work and validated it every step of the way. This approach is now taken for granted but it wasn't then. She told us that if we take risks for peace, she would stay with us on that journey. In my experience, it took hard work, attention to detail and a commitment of time and energy which she delivered steadily and where needed over the last decade," McCormack added.; March 05, 2008 8:24 PM
NO Obama said...: Obama has very right leaning economic advisors. Why? Maybe because he knows nothing about the economy and is listening to the wrong people or he is saying one thing and will do another?

From the Chicago Tribune:

Nation,Subprime Obama:

"There's been less emphasis from the Obama campaign on the really dysfunctional role of the financial industry in the subprime mess," says Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute. "Edwards and Clinton talk much more about regulation of the financial industry going forward, and to the extent that blame is placed, they tend to place it on the lenders for steering people into loans they couldn't afford."
Obama's disappointing foreclosure plan stems from the centrist politics of his three chief economic advisers and his campaign's ties to Wall Street institutions opposed to increased financial regulation. David Cutler and Jeffrey Liebman are both Harvard economists who served in the Clinton Administration, and they work on market-oriented solutions to social welfare issues. Cutler advocates improving healthcare through financial incentives; Liebman, the partial privatization of Social Security.

Austan Goolsbee, an economist at the University of Chicago who calls himself a "centrist market economist," has been most directly involved with crafting Obama's subprime agenda. In a column last March in the New York Times, Goolsbee disputed whether "subprime lending was the leading cause of foreclosure problems," touted its benefits for credit-poor minority borrowers and warned that "regulators should be mindful of the potential downside in tightening [the mortgage market] too much." In October, no less a conservative luminary than George Will devoted a whole column in the Washington Post to saluting Goolsbee's "nuanced understanding" of traditional Democratic issues like globalization and income inequality and concluded that he "seems to be the sort of fellow--amiable, empirical, and reasonable--you would want at the elbow of a Democratic president, if such there must be."

Robert Pollin, an economist at the University of Massachussets, believes "these three advisers generally reflect Obama's very moderate economic program, similar to Clintonism." Wall Street apparently has come to a similar conclusion. Obama had received nearly $10 million in contributions from the finance, insurance and real estate sector through October, and he's second among presidential candidates of either party in money raised from commercial banks, trailing only Clinton. Goldman Sachs, which made $6 billion from devalued mortgage securities in the first nine months of 2007, is Obama's top contributor. When asked if Obama would hold these financial institutions accountable for losses incurred by homeowners and investors, his campaign refused to comment.; March 05, 2008 8:35 PM
Carrie said...: dwit -

I wouldn't say he's always been the underdog. I think the media's recent turn on him is proof that he was no longer considered the underdog in this race.

What hurt him with the voters I talked to was taking the high road in his speeches, while behaving negatively in his print ads. His inaccurate attack ads in OH backfired on him. The paper his NAFTA ad quoted inappropriately (per them) called his mailer "the type of slim reeds tactics politicians use to be elected." Yet, he refused to back off from the mailer - I can't speak for all voters, but I can say that it helped to energize those of us who committed a lot of time to volunteering in OH. The NAFTA attack also drew attention to another problem. The misstep of his top economic adviser in his visit with the Canadian crew in Chicago didn't have to be problematic. However, the mailer primed the attention, and Obama's inconsistent and diversionary comments about the situation cast doubts on his commitment to transparency. Meanwhile he's been attacking Clinton, calling for tax returns that aren't due until April 15. My taxes aren't done, not because I'm hiding anything, but because I've been busy. The post office is typically pretty busy on 4/15. All of her records, and Bills, for her years in the senate are available online as they're required to report them for the senate. But I digress, the point of the taxes thing and the two highly negative, fear-invoking mailers was to point out that he hasn't, in action, taken the high road.

A couple other things pundits have said: 1) the media coverage has been biased, and journalists are now scrambling to redeem themselves (not Clinton's fault - blame SNL if you must blame someone); 2) Clinton did not attack Obama unfairly - despite popular perception. I know people who support Obama view the 3am ad as a "scare and smear". The images in the ad are of happy, sleeping children - secure and worry-free. The imagery on the NAFTA mailer was bleak and scary - the padlocked gate is a very real and present danger to people in our area.

I think arguing that her judgment is poor, which he's done for months and is up for debate, poisoned the well if she's nominated. I think his wife's very early attack that "if you can't keep your own house in order, how are you gonna keep the White House in order," and her statement that she would "really have to think about" voting for Clinton in the fall (conveniently timed to coincide with Barack's push on electability) were incredibly negative. Bill said a lot of stupid and negative garbage, but at least he repeatedly said he'd do everything he could to get Obama elected if Obama got the nomination. I know Michelle Obama's comments poisoned the well because I've seen Obama supporters site them as their reasons for not voting for Clinton in the fall.

I predict that Obama's message will grow increasingly negative between now and PA. It'll be viewed as an abandonment from his positive approach made out of necessity. What I think remains to be seen is the spin - I know my tendency (as an admittedly biased Clinton gal) will be to think he's resorting to it because the media's no longer doing it for him.

I get that Clinton's criticisms of Obama aren't endearing her to his supporters. I feel the same way about Obama's criticisms of Clinton. It's why for the time being, I think I'm going to have to really choke it down if I have to vote for him in the fall.

I will, though. I realize it's all politics as usual. I think either of these candidates will beat McCain if we stick together - or if we come together (which is really our responsibility, not theirs), and both of these candidates have the potential to be great presidents.; March 05, 2008 9:08 PM
Unknown said...: The Case Against Hillary Clinton
Why on earth would we choose to put the Clinton family drama at the center of our politics again?
By Christopher Hitchens

Seeing the name Hillary in a headline last week--a headline about a life that had involved real achievement--I felt a mouse stirring in the attic of my memory. Eventually, I was able to recall how the two Hillarys had once been mentionable in the same breath. On a first-lady goodwill tour of Asia in April 1995--the kind of banal trip that she now claims as part of her foreign-policy "experience"--Mrs. Clinton had been in Nepal and been briefly introduced to the late Sir Edmund Hillary, conqueror of Mount Everest. Ever ready to milk the moment, she announced that her mother had actually named her for this famous and intrepid explorer. The claim "worked" well enough to be repeated at other stops and even showed up in Bill Clinton's memoirs almost a decade later, as one more instance of the gutsy tradition that undergirds the junior senator from New York.

Sen. Clinton was born in 1947, and Sir Edmund Hillary and his partner Tenzing Norgay did not ascend Mount Everest until 1953, so the story was self-evidently untrue and eventually yielded to fact-checking. Indeed, a spokeswoman for Sen. Clinton named Jennifer Hanley phrased it like this in a statement in October 2006, conceding that the tale was untrue but nonetheless charming: "It was a sweet family story her mother shared to inspire greatness in her daughter, to great results I might add."

Perfect. It worked, in other words, having been coined long after Sir Edmund became a bankable celebrity, but now its usefulness is exhausted and its untruth can safely be blamed on Mummy. Yet isn't it all--all of it, every single episode and detail of the Clinton saga--exactly like that? And isn't some of it a little bit more serious? For Sen. Clinton, something is true if it validates the myth of her striving and her "greatness" (her overweening ambition in other words) and only ceases to be true when it no longer serves that limitless purpose. And we are all supposed to applaud the skill and the bare-faced bravado with which this is done. In the New Hampshire primary in 1992, she knowingly lied about her husband's uncontainable sex life and put him eternally in her debt. This is now thought of, and referred to in print, purely as a smart move on her part. In the Iowa caucuses of 2008, he returns the favor by telling a huge lie about his ow n record on the war in Iraq, falsely asserting that he was opposed to the intervention from the very start. This is thought of, and referred to in print, as purely a tactical mistake on his part: trying too hard to help the spouse. The happy couple has now united on an equally mendacious account of what they thought about Iraq and when they thought it. What would it take to break this cheap little spell and make us wake up and inquire what on earth we are doing when we make the Clinton family drama--yet again--a central part of our own politics?

What do you have to forget or overlook in order to desire that this dysfunctional clan once more occupies the White House and is again in a position to rent the Lincoln Bedroom to campaign donors and to employ the Oval Office as a massage parlor? You have to be able to forget, first, what happened to those who complained, or who told the truth, last time. It's often said, by people trying to show how grown-up and unshocked they are, that all Clinton did to get himself impeached was lie about sex. That's not really true. What he actually lied about, in the perjury that also got him disbarred, was the women. And what this involved was a steady campaign of defamation, backed up by private dicks (you should excuse the expression) and salaried government employees, against women who I believe were telling the truth. In my opinion, Gennifer Flowers was telling the truth; so was Monic a Lewinsky, and so was Kathleen Willey, and so, lest we forget, was Juanita Broaddrick, the woman who says she was raped by Bill Clinton. (For the full background on this, see the chapter "Is There a Rapist in the Oval Office?" in the paperback version of my book No One Left To Lie To. This essay, I may modestly say, has never been challenged by anybody in the fabled Clinton "rapid response" team.) Yet one constantly reads that both Clintons, including the female who helped intensify the slanders against her mistreated sisters, are excellent on women's "issues."
One also hears a great deal about how this awful joint tenure of the executive mansion was a good thing in that it conferred "experience" on the despised and much-deceived wife. Well, the main "experience" involved the comprehensive fouling-up of the nation's health-care arrangements, so as to make them considerably worse than they had been before and to create an opening for the worst-of-all-worlds option of the so-called HMO, combining as it did the maximum of capitalist gouging with the maximum of socialistic bureaucracy. This abysmal outcome, forgiven for no reason that I can perceive, was the individual responsibility of the woman who now seems to think it entitles her to the presidency. But there was another "experience," this time a collaborative one, that is even more significant.

During the Senate debate on the intervention in Iraq, Sen. Clinton made considerable use of her background and "experience" to argue that, yes, Saddam Hussein was indeed a threat. She did not argue so much from the position adopted by the Bush administration as she emphasized the stand taken, by both her husband and Al Gore, when they were in office, to the effect that another and final confrontation with the Baathist regime was more or less inevitable. Now, it does not especially matter whether you agree or agreed with her about this (as I, for once, do and did). What does matter is that she has since altered her position and attempted, with her husband's help, to make people forget that she ever held it. And this, on a grave matter of national honor and security, merely to influence her short-term standing in the Iowa caucuses. Surely that on its own should be sufficient to disqualify her from consideration? Indifferent to truth, willing to use police-state tactics and vulgar libels against inconvenient witnesses, hopeless on health care, and flippant and fast and loose with national security: The case against Hillary Clinton for president is open-and-shut. Of course, against all these considerations you might prefer the newly fashionable and more media-weighty notion that if you don't show her enough appreciation, and after all she's done for us, she may cry.; March 05, 2008 9:09 PM
Carrie said...: dwit -

Holy kittens that last post was long...sorry! My verbosity is surpassed only by my excitement about Clinton's potential nomination. (I'm hoping you can relate).

-c; March 05, 2008 9:10 PM
Unknown said...: Carrie-

Interesting observations. You were on the field, but your conclusion disputes the exit polling data. I believe it was about 55% of those polled said Clinton unfairly attacked Obama while like 33% said Obama unfairly attacked Clinton.

Not sure why this does not coincide with your experiences, but it obviously does. Either exit interviews were wrong, or you were only talking to the ones voting for Clinton-- who knows...

Those numbers may not be exact-- they are the best I recall, but I think they are within 5% even if my memory fails me.; March 05, 2008 9:14 PM
NO Obama said...: It was pointed out tonight on CNN that super delegates are under no obligation to vote "the will of the people". In my mind if they were, then what is the point of even having them?

They are there to vote however they like in the best interest of the party.

But many unknowing and people in the Obama campaign want people to think the super delegates are obligated to vote for the candidate with the most pleged delegates. Wrong!

I it is deemed that Hillary can carry most or all of the states with big electoral votes vs. the almost insignificant states he's won in mostly caucuses (if people actually vote, it could be much different in these states), then rightfully the maority or super delegates should go with Hillary who has the best chance of winning in the electoral college.

Simple.; March 05, 2008 9:17 PM
shelby said...: Joseph C. Wilson-

Obama's Hollow "Judgment" and Empty Record
Posted March 2, 2008 | 02:59 PM (EST)

Barack Obama argues that he deserves the Democratic nomination and Hillary Clinton doesn't because he possesses superior "judgment," as he calls it, on the key issues we face as a nation. As definitive proof he offers one speech he made in 2002 during a reelection campaign for an Illinois senate seat in the most liberal district in the state, so liberal that no other position would have been viable. When he made that speech, Obama was not privy to the briefings by, among others, Secretary of State Colin Powell, in support of the Authorization of Use of Military Force as a diplomatic tool to push the international community to impose intrusive inspections on Saddam Hussein.

Would Obama have acted differently had he been in Washington or had he had the benefit of the arguments and the intelligence that the administration was offering to the Congress debating that resolution? During the 2002-2003 timeframe, he was a minor local official uninvolved in the national debate on the war so we can only judge from his own statements prior to the 2008 campaign. Obama repeated these points in a whole host of interviews prior to announcing his candidacy. On July 27, 2004, he told the Chicago Tribune on Iraq: "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." In his book, The Audacity of Hope, published in 2006, he wrote, "...on the merits I didn't consider the case against war to be cut-and- dried." And, in 2006, he clearly said, "I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of US intelligence. And for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices."

I was involved in that debate in every step of the effort to prevent this senseless war and I profoundly resent Obama's distortion of George Bush's folly into Hillary Clinton's responsibility. I was in the middle of the debate in Washington. Obama wasn't there. I remember what was said and done. In fact, the administration lied in order to secure support for its war of choice, including cooking the intelligence and misleading Congress about the intent of the authorization. Senator Clinton's position, stated in her floor speech, was in favor of allowing the United Nations weapons inspectors to complete their mission and to build a broad international coalition. Bush rejected her path. It was his war of choice.

There is no credible reason to conclude that Obama would have acted any differently in voting for the authorization had he been in the Senate at that time. Indeed, he has said as much. The supposed intuitive judgment he exercised in his 2002 speech was nothing more than the pander of a local election campaign, just as his current assertions of superior judgment and scurrilous attacks on Hillary Clinton are a pander to those who now retroactively think the war was a mistake without bothering to acknowledge Senator Clinton's actual position at the time and instead fantasizing that she was nothing but a Bush clone. Obama willfully encourages and plays off this falsehood.

What should we make of Obama's other judgments in foreign affairs? Take Afghanistan, for example. It has been evident for some time that our efforts there are going badly and that cooperation and support from our NATO allies would be helpful. As chairman of the subcommittee on Senate Foreign Relations responsible for NATO and Europe, Obama could have used his lofty position actually to engage the issue and pressure the administration to take some action to improve our chance of success in that conflict against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Of course, that would have involved holding hearings, questioning administration witnesses, and taking a position and offering alternatives. That is what we expect that from senators in a democracy. It is called oversight.

But, instead, Obama, by his own admission, offers the excuse that he has been too busy running for president to do anything substantive, such as direct his staff to organize a single hearing. "Well, first of all," Obama was forced to confess in the Democratic debate in Ohio on February 26, "I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we haven't had oversight hearings on Afghanistan." To date, his subcommittee has held no policy hearings at all -- none. At the same time that Obama claimed he was too busy campaigning to do anything substantive, racking up one of the worst attendance records in the Senate, Senator Clinton chaired extensive hearings of the Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health and attended many others as a member of the Armed Service Committee.

As a consequence of Obama's dereliction of duty on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a feckless administration has had absolutely no oversight as it careens from disaster to disaster in Afghanistan, including the central governments loss of control over 70 percent of the country and yet another bumper crop of opium to fuel the efforts of the Taliban and their terrorist allies. Of course, if you don't hold hearings, conduct oversight, make recommendations or sponsor legislation, then you have no record to explain or defend and you are free to take whatever position is convenient when attacking those who actually did address issues. Meanwhile, on the campaign trail, Obama holds forth on Afghanistan, chiding the administration and our allies as though he's a profile in courage and not someone who has abandoned his post in establishing accountability.

On Iran and the question of designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, the junior senator from Illinois was not quite so clever at avoiding taking a position. He first co-sponsored the "Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007," which contained explicit language identifying the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. He subsequently claimed to oppose the Kyl-Lieberman sense of the Senate resolution proposing the same thing. Obama's accountability problem here is that he didn't show up for the vote on that resolution -- a vote that would have put him on record. Then he declined to sign on to a letter put forward by Senator Clinton making explicit that the resolution could not be used as authority to take military action. All we have is Obama's rhetoric juxtaposed with his co-sponsorship of a piece of legislation that proposed what he says he opposed.

Obama's gyrations on Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran are not the actions of one imbued with superior intuitive judgment, but rather the machinations of a political opportunist looking to avoid having his fingerprints on any issue that might be controversial, and require real judgment, while preserving his freedom to bludgeon his adversary for actually taking positions as elected office demands. It is hard to discern whether Senator Obama is a man of principle, but it is clear that he is not a man of substance. And that judgment, based on his hollow record, is inescapable.; March 05, 2008 9:23 PM
Protactinium said...: Now Clinton is pushing for Flordia, and Michigan real hard?

Talk about scammy politics. Clintons as usual. Win at all costs.

However this is good for Obama. Obama's retort have not been on mark. Hillary short of a miracle will lose this nommination. She is going to lose Wyoming, and North Carolina. Hillary would of won Ohio regardless. I am a bit suprised she won Texas but it was all a Republican conspircy! Oh wait i sound like a Clinton. Hillary won to right to continue to "throw the kitchen" at Obama, and for Obama to learn how to counter it.

This election is over, the media just wants the ratings, and Hillary wants to use her insider politics. However it is great experince for Obama. Hillary is getting him strong and battle ready for the Republicans. Also all news on Obama will be old news by the time Mccain comes around.; March 05, 2008 9:58 PM
Anonymous said...: dwit,
"I would take either Hillary or Obama over that clown." (in reference to mccain.

I and many Clinton Supporters Would NOT, Thats The electability Question, He FAILS.

As To California Being A "Swing" State, What World Are You Living In It only Goes Republican When The Candidate Is From California. (Texas was the only Swing State Listed)

which leads to a bigger question NY, Stating that Obama Could Definately Win NY Is Not a Given, This Is HILLARY's HOME STATE, where else do you think people would be more angry that an INEXPERIENCED candidate would be choosen Over HILLARY.

To Any Fool Who Believes 14% or 16% Black State Population Is Helpful To OBAMA, Thats Nuts, You Need AT LEAST 51% Of The Votes In November, Idiot Think Before You Speak. In Florida Obama WAS On The Ballot AND HE LOST, REGARDLESS OF BLACK POPULATION PERCENTAGES!

Obama Fools I Suggest You Study This Map Remember It Well It Is The Electorate IN NOVEMBER 270 Needed To Be President!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Electoral_map.svg; March 05, 2008 10:33 PM
NO Obama said...: NY dem,

Something that most of the Kool Aid Obama crowd don't think about is that the most likely cannot carry the big electoral states Hillary did.

They are ready to jump on his bandwagon but it has been proven that he has many flaws and inconsistencies in the last week or so.

What do these Obama supporters think will happen to him between now and the election? If he isn't already (and I think he is not electable in a general campaign), he will become unelectible after the republican swiftboat machine gets ahold of him.; March 05, 2008 10:46 PM
Anonymous said...: New York = 31
Massachusettes = 12
New Jersey = 15
Rhode Island = 4
New Hampshire = 4
Florida = 27
Ohio = 20
Michigan = 17
Tennessee = 11
Arkansas = 6
Oklahoma = 7
Texas = 34
New Mexico = 5
Nevada = 5
California = 55

Total 253 ELECTORATES (out of 270 Needed see nov. election)

These Are ALL States Hillary Not ONLY Beat Barack Obama, But She ALSO Beat John McCain!(not hillary COMPLETE win list)

Claiming Hillary Is Unelectable, Flys In The Face Of Logic
In Fact All She Needs Besides Those States Is Barack Obama's Home State Of Illinois For 21 Electorates Which Puts Her Over The Top.
But Lets ASSUME, For Arguement Illinois Goes To John McCain, Then ANY OTHER State(s) Adding To More Than 16 Electorates Seals HER Deal And Makes Her President.

I Know Looking At Things Logically Is NOT An OBAMA SUPPORTERS Way Of Doing Things, But Obama LOSES Most of the states He Won Against Hillary!
Also Her Losing Illinois(for arguements sake/lol) Is NOT As Serious As Him Losing NY (worth more electorates)

Choosing Our Nominee Means We MUST Consider What Happens To The Votes Cast For The Candidate We DO NOT CHOOSE, I Am A New Yorker, Who Understands MY STATE, And It WILL Fall To McCain, If Hillary Is Not The Nominee.(Florida would NEVER elect obama either, of that i am CERTAIN, yes they elected george bush, get it)

Look Closely At The States Obama Won, THINK, WILL HE ACTUALLY WIN THOSE STATES? no, lets be serious.

Just In Case You Decide To Smarten Up And Look Closer At The Facts Check It Out, Add It Up, Anything Less Than 270 Is A LOSER!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Electoral_map.svg; March 05, 2008 11:16 PM
protactinium said...: anon ny you have already proved your math skills are lacking many times before.

You are arguing apples vs oranges. Just because Clinton won those states in the primary does not mean it translates to general. For you to even try and say Obama will lose NY. Just because your a anti-Obama voter, does not mean most of NY is. NY will be carried by any democrat. Hillary had problems holding her state against Obama in the first place.; March 05, 2008 11:33 PM
Unknown said...: There is only one small problem with your claims of winning the big states.

Your statement: "I Know Looking At Things Logically Is NOT An OBAMA SUPPORTERS Way Of Doing Things..." has a small problem as well.

Hillary and all of her supporters have repeatedly stated that the democrat "has to win the big states like NY, CA, etc to become president. IT IS TIME FOR A REALITY AND FACT CHECK...

Did George Bush win NY???
How about CA???

So, it is in fact true that one ca become president without winning all the states which Hillary, etal has claimed are a prerequisite for the presidency. I believe this is what logicians term sufficient, but not necessary!!!; March 05, 2008 11:34 PM
protactinium said...: The election really is over. Hillary is going to lose Wyoming, and North Carolina, and start losing delegate ground once again.

However Hillary MUST win penn, to stay in. So we will see if she can win Penn, there is a good chance Obama can take it. However I am not sure if it matter at all if Clinton does not land slide him.; March 05, 2008 11:35 PM
Unknown said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; March 05, 2008 11:42 PM
Unknown said...: Anon Ny-

"Look Closely At The States Obama Won, THINK, WILL HE ACTUALLY WIN THOSE STATES? no, lets be serious."

For anyone, regardless of loyalty to attempt to predict who will win what is totally rediculous. If anything, this primary season has proven that historical patterns mean nothing. Furthermore, November is an eternity away. Anything can happen between now and then.

If your mystical powers of predicting the future are good, we should go play the lottery rather than debate this election-- we would be much richer and have much more fun!; March 05, 2008 11:43 PM
Unknown said...: Time-

From your favorite source, Huffington Post:

To be a winner you have to win. And Tuesday night Hillary Clinton unreservedly won three out of four states. Barack Obama, however, has won twice as many primary and caucus states overall, leads substantially in the popular vote and continues to hold a mathematically insurmountable lead in elected delegates.

Email
Print
Comments
For two or three days, the Clinton campaign will spin itself -and the media--silly, breathlessly celebrating her overwhelming victories in Rhode Island and Ohio and her squeaker in Texas.

After the confetti is swept and the champagne bottles are tossed a more sober reality will take hold. Not just that her net gain of delegates this week will be, at most, in the single digits. But worse. There is no plausible scenario in which Clinton can win the nomination. At least not democratically.

Seven more weeks of campaign slog through Wyoming, Mississippi and into Pennsylvania. And then maybe tack on six more weeks, if you can believe it, into Indiana , West Virginia, and a handful of other states and into Puerto Rico on the 7th of June, quite literally into D-Day. Whatever the outcome, even if Clinton wins all 16 remaining contests -and some of them by veritable landslides, she will still be dozens of elected delegates behind Barack Obama.

She will not be the winner because she will have not won the majority of elected Democratic delegates. Clinton will be exactly where she was the night before Ohio and Texas: in second place and with no way to become the nominee unless enough unelected Superdelegates defy the popular will of the electorate and throw her the nomination (or unless you somehow believe that she can every coming primary with a 20 point margin).

Indeed, as Jonathan Alter has pointed out, Clinton can't win an elected majority even if she triumphs in what are now likely to be re-scheduled primaries in the cranky states of Michigan and Florida. Again, we'd be back to the Superdelegates and, therefore, back to a dicey game of chicken by the Democratic Party elite. How many Superdelegates are willing to politically die, or willing to spark an intra-party party civil war, just to save Clinton's bacon?

"The 1968 Chicago convention would look like a picnic compared to what Denver would become," a long-time political biographer said on election eve, predicting a youth uprising at the site of this summer's Democratic Convention if the election is thrown to Clinton. "This isn't 40 years ago," he said. "Now, everyone's got a car. And everyone who believed in the change that Clinton scoffs at would wind up surrounding that convention."

Maybe. Maybe not. Who am I to predict that the Democrats are too smart to self-destruct in what should be, by all other measures, a watershed year? The more steely-eyed amongst us, then, would do well to psychologically prepare for the nomination going, somehow or another, to Hillary Clinton. Which means, in turn, that Democrats ought to simultaneously prepare to be beaten by John McCain.

Clinton regained her footing this past week primarily by running a classic, Republican-style campaign of negative, fear-based ads. She blanketed the airwaves with a detestable spot that, stripped to its core message, warned that if Obama were selected, your children could be murdered in their beds in the middle of the night. Somewhere up above (or more likely from down below), departed GOP mudmeister Lee Atwater is cracking a grin.

The spot worked so well - with exit polls showing that voters who made a last-minute decision went in droves for Clinton-- that she couldn't resist reprising the line during her Tuesday night victory speech delivered to a cheering throng in Columbus. "When that phone rings at 3 a.m. in the White House," she said. "There's no time for speeches or on on-the-job training."

Perfect. Clinton's done McCain the favor of cutting his best general election campaign spot for him. All he has to do is cut her answering the phone out of the last 5 seconds of the ad and splice his own mug in there instead. If Clinton succeeds in making what's politely called the "national security issue" the center of the campaign by arguing she's a safer choice than Obama, then why wouldn't McCain argue that he's even better than she? McCain's already begun that effort. If Hillary's nominated, he'll most likely succeed.; March 06, 2008 1:05 AM
Anonymous said...: "has to win the big states like NY, CA, etc to become president. IT IS TIME FOR A REALITY AND FACT CHECK...

Did George Bush win NY???
How about CA???"

FACT CHECK, Bush Is A White Republican Who ACTUALLY WON IDAHO AND KANSAS, Moron
Democrats NEED to win the BIG states YES They DO!

"Hillary had problems holding her state against Obama in the first place."

Whatever Drugs Your On, Share!
Your Comment is in NO Need of rebutal because it's insanity.

Hillary Supporters In UPSTATE NY WILL NOT vote for Obama, these Voters are reliable and vote often, they will vote in november, BUT NOT FOR BARACK, i love how you think you know more about my state and yet i was BORN and RAISED here, Hint i think i know my neighborhood better than you.

"However Hillary MUST win penn, to stay in. So we will see if she can win Penn"

Northeast Voters are nothing if not predictable, Pennsylvania Belongs to hillary.

"Hillary is going to lose Wyoming, and North Carolina"

of course you have to stretch out wyoming and north carolina to give barack a meaningful win, but hmm when did a democrat last win those states?
answer:
1976 southern Jimmy Carter wins North Carolina Loses Wyoming

1964 Lyndon Johnson Won Both Again WHITE southern Democrat

Since Then Not ONE DEMOCRATIC win in either of those states.
Great example by the way of what a loser Barack Obama Is.

"If anything, this primary season has proven that historical patterns mean nothing. Furthermore, November is an eternity away. Anything can happen between now and then"

Plenty Of Time Between Now And November For Tony Rezko To Get CONVICTED and sent to prison, for stealing money from low income housing projects in chicago to give to obama's campaign.

Plenty of time for Obama's Connection To TERRORIST William Ayers To become CENTER STORY.

History Is What We Learn From FOOL, not to be ignored, that's how we end up supporting a candidate named Obama With LESS experience than GEORGE Bush Had, go figure what morons.; March 06, 2008 2:36 AM
Anonymous said...: by the way after Hillary Proves Herself In Pennsylvania You Can Safely Predict She Has 274 Electorates Under Her Belt (4 more than needed), and thats even if she LOST Illinois To John McCain

notice pennsylvania was excluded from the states above only because it has yet to occur!

(you cracked me up with that george bush didn't win ny or ca thing, that was great i am still laughing at you for believing barack obama would win BUSH states, heck he couldn't Carry Florida, and if you disagree think of all the racist retirees in florida, i bet they'll embrace your obama right lololololol@you); March 06, 2008 2:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Barack Obama had a good February. Trying to craft the idea of momentum Obama pranced, yelling about his 11 victories - all in a row - of small states - with few Democrats - many of which will be RED states in November.

And yet, with all those victories, with Big Media princes and Big Blog boobs repeatedly printing Hillary death notices, with Big Unions spending Big Dollars to build up Obama, with 527’s spending Big Dollars to defeat Hillary, with Democratic has-beens and never-will-be “leaders” endorsing Obama, with all the chanting and incense burning and lying and chicanery by Obama staff and supporters - Hillary raised $35 million in February.

That $35 million vote of confidence by the grassroots of the Democratic Party made a lie of the Obama/Big Media/Big Blog attempts to force Hillary from the race. Hillary’s $35 million was raised from the working class. Obama’s support, from the comfortable who are able to provide their children with money to also donate to Obama, was wasted.

Hillary, armed with the $35 million from the grassroots, fought back.

And what a fight it was. Hillary did not pull punches. Hillary made an issue of trust. Obama is not to be trusted.

The wonderful “3:00 a.m.” advertisement was about experience but also had a subtext of trust.

We all know that in a crisis at whatever hour of the day, President Hillary will know the players and the situation and grasp all the subtleties and nuances of the situation. Hillary would know who is pushing for what action and what their ulterior motives would be. Hillary has the experience to know how to act in a crisis. Obama would be fumbling for the light switch and a cigarette.

Obama cannot be trusted in a crisis to know what to do.

On NAFTA-gate, Obama lied repeatedly. Hillary called Obama on his lies. Obama cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

In Chicago, the Rezko trial began. A ticking, ticking time bomb that will demonstrate for all his flowery talk about ethics Obama cannot be trusted when offered a house.

The lesson for the Hillary campaign is: fight, without fear, fight.

For too long Obama has deceived voters, especially young voters and idealistic voters. The voters are not to blame. The voters have not been informed of Obama’s real history and treacheries. Big Media has failed to do its job. The Hillary campaign will have to do the job Big Media and Big Blogs won’t do.

For the next 6 weeks while we prepare for the Pennsylvania primary Obama will face the daily news from the Rezko trial. Big Media, mocked on Saturday Night Live, might continue the one day miracle of calling Obama on his lies. It will be a tough six weeks for Obama if Big Media continues to ask the questions the American people need answered.

Superdelegates will be watching closely as Obama stumbles.

The fight for Rhode Island, Texas and Ohio provided a valuable template on how to counter Obama. On NAFTA and trust issues Hillary now has a ready made answer: the NAFTA-gate memo. Keep hitting Obama hard and every day on these issues.

Any question on any issue Hillary should respond with: REZKO. Discuss the African-American tenants in Obama’s state senate district tormented by slumlord Rezko. Any request for documents, respond with Rezko. On Iraq, respond with Rezko/Auchi. On judgment, respond with Rezko.

Obama will sell out anybody to be elected. Let’s have Big Media ask Obama if he would pardon slumlord Rezko if ever Obama became president.

* * *

Last night Hillary repeated what Americans know: As Ohio goes, so goes the nation.

Wisely, Governor Strickland and Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs-Jones raised the issue of Florida and Michigan too. Let’s be clear: there will be no disenfranchisement of millions of Florida and Michigan Democrats. The delegates from Florida and Michigan will be seated at the Democratic convention. There will be no revote as mischief making Republican Governor Crist goads. Idiots at the Democratic National Committee’s Rules Committee and other Washington insiders made a stupid decision and want to punish Florida and Michigan voters for their own (DNC) stupidity.

Let Obama spend the next several months arguing against voter rights. Let Obama paint himself into a box on the Florida and Michigan issue. The more Obama argues against seating Florida and Michigan delegates the more he argues against his own candidacy. Politically, Obama arguing against seating Florida/Michigan delegates makes it less likely he will win those states in a general election. Obama is arguing against himself. Let Obama twist slowly in the wind.

Superdelegates saw, last night, in Rhode Island, Patrick Kennedy humiliated. Earlier, in the campaign season, Superdelegates saw Ted Kennedy and John Kerry humiliated in home state Massatootsetts. Superdelegates now know that Hillary does not give up. Superdelegates now know that Hillary fights back and wins. Isn’t that what Democrats want in November?; March 06, 2008 3:19 AM
dwit said...: Alright, well good luck with McCain you closet conservatives. Of course you want Hillary, so do Rush, Coulter and Bill C. Why waste your breath here? Just get on with the McCain team. Should be easy, he has no money and he has taken to licking Georges boots for funds. I'm sure if you offer your services he might lick something of yours too.; March 06, 2008 3:33 AM
Anonymous said...: dwit, i am going to have fun with:

HILLARY as PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

Deal With It, Kid!; March 06, 2008 3:36 AM
Anonymous said...: YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL,YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL, YES SHE WILL!; March 06, 2008 3:39 AM
Carrie said...: lectric -

No, I think you're right about the % that felt she attacked unfairly. What I was saying was that pundits had said she hadn't.

That particular sentiment wasn't something I picked up from the field.

The interesting things from the field, which weren't proven or disputed in the polls, were the messages I heard about what hurt Obama.

It was quite the experience! My daughter got quite comfortable with the campaign staff there. I was surrounded by Clinton supporters as I called, and had them nearby when I canvassed, but the calls and the door knocking involved talking to a lot of undecideds (not many committed Obama supporters - they didn't usually want to spend a whole lot of time talking to me :P).; March 06, 2008 4:13 AM
protactinium said...: Hillary got a couple of good zingers on Obama in Ohio, and Texas. She made people question his trust, and he did not fight back.

We will see Obama brining up some trust issues the next couple of weeks. Hillary's #1 weakness is people have problems trusting her.
Atleast according to the republicans.

Hillary would of won Ohio regardless of when in the election order it was. Hillary got Obama on trust in Texas.

However Hillary will not catch up in delegates, and unless Obama totally collapses the super delegates will not take it away from Obama. Hillary is just making Obama a stronger canidite in the generals. All the news the republicans have will be old news.; March 06, 2008 4:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Get a hold of yourself there is nothing to take from Obama!

He is not the ELECTABLE candidate, that is ALL that is going to matter to superdelegates who want a DEMOCRAT in the white house.; March 06, 2008 4:29 AM
Anonymous said...: dwit said:
"Alright, well good luck with McCain you closet conservatives. Of course you want Hillary, so do Rush, Coulter and Bill C."

protactinum said:
"Hillary's #1 weakness is people have problems trusting her.
Atleast according to the republicans."

make up your minds will you, do the republicans WANT hillary or not?

at least get on the same page, good grief; March 06, 2008 4:34 AM
BarackObamaIzATerrorist said...: Obama Wants To Cause War With Pakistan a Nucleur Armed Nation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw2XTC1V4fk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UodaKiSp9xc

Obama On Rezko (rezko's trial begins next week):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxyPBmZE69s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VKuV9pc6Cg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGnTWMPSyXg

Michelle Is Not The Only Unpatriotic Obama:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8QCkgg5Kjo

Obama Bamboozling:

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

What Are Obama's Accomplishments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m01NyUlyjfE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o

Barack Obama Plays The Race Card to DIVIDE AMERICA:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHv2LgnqCCI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDaO7N-JujU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnWQ3zSZg24

Obama Linked To Terrorist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eOuXlVr5DE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZDS3MrMQ9s&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpjWAzqAwcw; March 06, 2008 4:53 AM
protactinium said...: Anon my comment was not trying to say she was an easier canidite. There is actually a study done by republicans that shows people have huge issues with trusting Hillary, and thats how she should be attacked.

This prolonged fight is good for Obama, it makes him face the hate mongering early. He still has to learn how to combat these type of attacks. He will need to learn very quickly.

Wow NY Dem, someone actually that may be more of a bigot then you just showed up. Obamazaterroist? I guess they feel vindicated because the hate mongering had some sort of effect last election. These type of tatics work against the uneducated.; March 06, 2008 5:18 AM
protactinium said...: Clinton smear videos. Does make you ask real questions, not just fear.

Independent Invesitgation into there terms in AK.

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

Questionable Fundraising, and Hillary caught lieing on tape.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw; March 06, 2008 5:21 AM
dwit said...: This idea of Hillary's electability is moot. She can't get the delegates needed without the super delegates. And as most of them are elected officials they will pay at the polls unless they go with the state delegates. Not to mention African Americans simply won't show up. Can you imagine the acrimony it would create for years to come?
Just like the Carter/Kennedy feud that led to Republicans in the White House for twelve years.

Hillary doesn't have a chance without the super delegates. And that aint gonna happen folks. So, I guess you'll have to take your chances with McCain.

But, I guess that's what you republicans have wanted all along. 100 years in Iraq! VIVA TERROR!!!; March 06, 2008 5:24 AM
dwit said...: I'm more amenable to the idea of an Obama/Clinton ticket than I was before, but I just can't see that working after all the mean spirited attacks. Could be wrong?; March 06, 2008 5:30 AM
Anonymous said...: "This prolonged fight is good for Obama, it makes him face the hate mongering early. He still has to learn how to combat these type of attacks. He will need to learn very quickly."

yes because we NEED a president who has a lot to learn lol.

so do you because calling me a bigot is exactly whats wrong with the obama campaign go ahead keep that crap up because it's only gunna lose more votes for your buddy.

oh and as for hillary having people TRUST her, compared to obama she is VERY trustworthy, so keep telling yourself that too if you wish, but losing TEXAS because of a 3am Phone call Is What You Call REAL UNTRUSTWORTHYNESS.

Having A Candidate who actually has been around long enough to produce studies, is why she WILL BE ELECTED, WHY OBAMA WILL LOSE, and i won't blame her a bit if she denies the v.p. position to yer buddy either after all the Crap he has done.

Keep Playing That Boo-Hoo Bigot Card, I Told Ya Weeks Ago Thats A Loser For Your Buddy And You, It Only Pisses White people off, and assures they won't vote for Obama EVER!; March 06, 2008 5:33 AM
Anonymous said...: dwit just stupid, just clearly stupid, obama is going no where!

Hillary WILL be the nominee, and then you can just stay home that'll be okay hillary can win without ya, the big difference is I WON'T STAY HOME EITHER WAY, so my opinion IS Going to Matter!; March 06, 2008 5:37 AM
Anonymous said...: I am not a racist, or a republican.
I am a life long registered Democrat, who has never voted Republican.

But since you think your more democratic than me or that i am racist, because I WILL NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA, consider the democratic party, does it NEED to win the votes of those like me to get a democrat into the White House?

And if a NY democrat WON'T vote for Obama, What Chance Does He REALLY Have in those states he claims as victories (which have plenty of conservatives, republicans, racists, whatever you OBAMAMANIACs ARE CALLING PEOPLE THESE DAYS, IN A PATHETIC ATTEMPT TO WIN)?

Ask Yourself Which Is More IMPORTANT To You A Democrat Becoming President Or HOPING OBAMA can Sneak Through?

Maybe Those Racists In Ohio Will Change Their Minds If Obama Is Nominated Right?
Pathetic, Pathetic, Pathetic; March 06, 2008 5:51 AM
Anonymous said...: BTW Clinton Will Be Awarded 178 Delegates After Michigan And Florida Come Back In So Your Buddies Delegate Lead Is A Fairy-Tale Too he actually Is Behind By 22 As Of Now (when the right thing is done and the florida and michigan delegates are seated)

so keep up that delegate talk too but watch as his future ends!; March 06, 2008 6:04 AM
Anonymous said...: the news just reported a bomb exploded in time square, New York this morning.

Thank God Obama IS NOT the President!

But Too Bad Hillary Is Not YET Our President.; March 06, 2008 6:21 AM
Carrie said...: For better or worse, it's unlikely either candidate can do it without the super delegates. He's ahead - it's true. If his lead widens between now and August (after all states have voted), I think the

If the popular vote remains as close as it is, the super delegates will be in a very tough spot:

Should they follow the will of all the people - including independents and republicans who came out? Hillary is much more popular among the democratic core. To ignore that fact would alienate a lot of us loyal democrats. We're the ones they'll need in the future - we're the ones who have canvassed and called for them already, and who contribute what we can financially.

On the other hand, if they follow the will of the democratic core, they risk alienating the independents who might be important in the general. But you're right - the bigger risk is alienating demographics.

The first demographic is the young voter. My first voying experience saw the election of a most vile repub governor (ewwww), and I still get out there and do public service, get active fot my candidates and VOTE.

The issue of alienating a race is much harder. Either way, it's a risk - alienate black voters, alienate latino voters. I don't know how to feel about this issue. On one hand, it tickles my gag reflex to think that through my support of Clinton, I'd be part of process that deepened racial divides in this country. On the other hand, the threat feels a little like extortion. I feel like either way we lose.

Given how strong and similar the candidates are in terms of platforms and policies, this should be viewed as a no-lose situation.

Woe.; March 06, 2008 7:30 AM
protactinium said...: Carrie you are right. One of that canidites are going to need super delegates. However everyone seems to think super delegates are all going to vote one way. I do expect that superdelegates are going to vote dividedly.

I honstly think this "loss" of demographics because a canidite is a little over blown. The only way I see real backlash against the Democrats is if they are seen stealing the election, or doing some other scammy deal.

The alienation of core democrats, would mean they have to hold their nose and vote for Obama. I would highly doubt that they could every stomach voting for a republican. If they could they are not really core democrats.

Obama has already found a sound method that has out fundrasied Hillary, so I am not sure if core dems did not donate to Obama would matter as much.

I am not so sure why these supposed dems, hate Obama so much. Its fairly obvious that if a true democrat threatens to vote for Mccain if Hillary loses, they do not care about the democratic principals at all, and is voting on emotion. He stands for all the democratic platforms.; March 06, 2008 7:54 AM
NO Obama said...: Pro, et al Obama supporters...

You guys aren't voting on emotion and rhetoric?

It has been proven over the last several days that Obama is just another political hack out to bloviate his so-called "positions" which turn out to be "wink, wink" more political positioning than actual policy changes on NAFTA.

Keep deluding yourself.

At least with John McCain, what you see is what you get.

(And I SWORE after GWB, I would NEVER vote republican again!!)

That is how much I totally dislike and distrust Obama.; March 06, 2008 8:02 AM
Anonymous said...: Carrie I agree with most of your comments except

"Given how strong and similar the candidates are in terms of platforms and policies, this should be viewed as a no-lose situation."

I Do Not see a winning situation for Obama, You Would Alienate CORE Democratic Voters Supporting Hillary, WHO WILL NOT STAY HOME, OR SIT IDLE, They will Have To Make A Choice Between Obama And McCain, For Me THAT CHOICE IS EASY I WOULD VOTE McCAIN.

But If Hillary Is Nominated, Whats The Worst That Happens OBAMA Supporters STAY HOME?

The Lesser of 2 evils is really the point Here, Do You Want A SIGNIFICANT Number Of Democrats To VOTE AGAINST OBAMA, and for McCain?
Or Do You Sacrifice Obama Voters Who Would Then JUST NOT VOTE, in order to SECURE CORE DEMOCRATIC VOTERS.

Hmm Stay Home Or Vote McCain, Which Demographic Is Satisfied?

I Do DEFINATELY AGREE THAT THIS FEELS LIKE EXTORTION FROM OBAMA SUPPORTERS CALLING ANYONE RACIST WHO VOTES AGAINST OBAMA!; March 06, 2008 8:03 AM
protactinium said...: Also for all your Obama non-believers. How do you expect Hillary to get nominatted when the actual outcome is less delegate gain for Hillary from tuesday then Obama won for Idaho?

Obama did what he had to do to win. Hillary did what she had to do to stay in the race. Obama stoped her from getting any delegate traction, and he will gain a few more delegates from Wyoming, and Mississippi.

Then even if Hillary wins Penn. She is saying its going to be the end of her campign. Then Obama wins most of the rest of the nation. It will be a very hard case for Hillary to get the nod.; March 06, 2008 8:08 AM
NO Obama said...: From Yahoo news:

What exactly is this foreign policy experience?" Obama asked mockingly. "Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no."

Clinton, who was asked in TV interviews Wednesday about her national security qualifications, ticked off a series events in which she played a role, including peace talks in Northern Ireland, the Kosovo refugee crisis and standing up for women's rights in China. She also cited her work on the Senate Armed Services Committee.; March 06, 2008 8:10 AM
Anonymous said...: ALSO CARRIE I FIND IT UNUSUAL TO BE CALLED A REPUBLICAN AS WELL AS RACIST, FOR ANYONE TO BELITTLE THE SECURITY CONCERNS CORE DEMOCRATS HAVE ABOUT OBAMA, DOES NOT MAKE THOSE CONCERNS DISAPPEAR, AT THE END OF THE DAY IF YOU HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT OBAMA AND YOU VOTE FOR MCCAIN BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE HE IS A BETTER CANDIDATE THAN OBAMA, IT DOES NOT MAKE YOU REPUBLICAN OR RACIST, JUST CONCERNED.

BUT THESE OBAMA EXTORTIONIST CALL EVERYONE RACIST OR REPUBLICAN WHO DISAGREE, JUST REFLECT ON THIS MESSAGE BOARD FOR PROOF OF THAT!; March 06, 2008 8:15 AM
protactinium said...: anon Ny said, " Do DEFINATELY AGREE THAT THIS FEELS LIKE EXTORTION FROM OBAMA SUPPORTERS CALLING ANYONE RACIST WHO VOTES AGAINST OBAMA!"

Well the only problem with this arguement, is that your actually a racist. You have made many racist arguments on this blog. Go vote for Mccain. I am sure you will relize that your vote did not matter when Obama carries NY. No question.

Timeforchange- You not really worth arguing. Your just a hate mongering, for the canditite that is a master at hate campigning.
However Obama supporters are voting for him over Hillary mostly because they feel they can trust Obama more then Hillary. I know what evils Hillary has done, and I know what Obama has stood for as do many Obama supporters.

Actually it seems to me, you know more about what Obama stands for then your own canidite. You seem to be no more then a cut and paste monkey.; March 06, 2008 8:16 AM
NO Obama said...: from FactCheck:

Now for the bad news. Although Mr. Obama says he has a plan for universal health care, he actually doesn't -- a point Mr. Edwards made in last night's debate. The Obama plan doesn't mandate insurance for adults. So some people would take their chances -- and then end up receiving treatment at other people's expense when they ended up in emergency rooms. In that regard it's actually weaker than the Schwarzenegger plan.

I asked David Cutler, a Harvard economist who helped put together the Obama plan, about this omission. His answer was that Mr. Obama is reluctant to impose a mandate that might not be enforceable, and that he hopes -- based, to be fair, on some estimates by Mr. Cutler and others -- that a combination of subsidies and outreach can get all but a tiny fraction of the population insured without a mandate. Call it the timidity of hope. ... ..

Wake up everyone! Obama is all smoke and mirrors!

He sounds good but beyond that, there is no substance, no ethic and no change.; March 06, 2008 8:19 AM
Anonymous said...: don't forget time for change she also took on china directly over their killing of female babies, she addressed the chinese government in person and in china over that.

she also CREATED the domestic violence committee in the white house, and the teen issues committe too.

she's done so much i have forgotten more things hillary has done than barack obama ACTUALLY has done!; March 06, 2008 8:21 AM
NO Obama said...: Barak Obama is the one who is not trustworthy. He has already proven he lies (ie. NAFTA Canadian flap).

If he becomes the nominee, he can kiss the presidency goodbye!

With the core republican voters, independents, those who cannot hold their noses and vote for him, he doesn't stand a chance!; March 06, 2008 8:24 AM
protactinium said...: timeforchange you will litterly put anything up.

First how old is that? You are referring to Edwards in a debate. Second it is true that Obama does not support mandates. Now what does this prove?

"that a combination of subsidies and outreach can get all but a tiny fraction of the population insured"

So from your article, it says Obama will get almost everyone insured. Do you actually know how to read these articles?

This hold nothing of the smoke and mirrors you talk about, and makes you look just crazy.; March 06, 2008 8:25 AM
NO Obama said...: 3-5-08Rassmusen:

Looking to the general election, John McCain has a slight lead over both Democrats. McCain now leads Obama 48% to 43% and Clinton 46% to 45% (see recent daily results). Hillary has also inched ahead in the national polls over Obama.

__________

So for those of you who think that Obama would be the better dem presidential candidate, think again!; March 06, 2008 8:35 AM
NO Obama said...: For you Obama supporters who think Obama can win over McCain, here is but ONE example of why it will not be possible:

Nationally, McCain is viewed favorably by 52% and unfavorably by 45%. Obama’s numbers have slipped a bit recently and he is now viewed favorably by 50% of likely voters nationwide, unfavorably by 48%.

That was from Rassmusen. So, McCain isn't starting from a deficit and if Hillary doesn't get the nomination, McCain's numbers will go up due to voters defecting from the dem nominee.; March 06, 2008 8:40 AM
Unknown said...: It is increasingly clear that the path to the nomination will require the superdelegates to put each over the top. Part of Hillary's argument to them has been that the pledged delegate math is so close, she usually says 1%, that it is a virtual tie. She is playing loose and fast with the facts, which are that Obama's pledged delegate lead is a substantial 5.6% (147 delegate lead of 2,642 possible) in the contests held so far. Of course she never mentions her numbers include MI and FL!

On another subject, I find it interesting how the media treats each primary election night like it was the general election. Specifically, they "call" each state based on popular vote, even thought they know the game is based on delegates, not votes. However, because they are really in the entertainment business, they insist on this farce of counting votes and states because they can't deal with the mess and uncertainty of delegate allocations (what good are their fancy charts and white boards?). This has led to three cases (NH, NV, TX) where Hillary was declared the "winner" of a state when she did not receive the majority of delegates.; March 06, 2008 9:11 AM
Anonymous said...: wow thinking the popular vote is not a signal of how voters will turn out in november, and acting as if it's some huge media conspiracy against obama, did you take your depakote today?

uhm by the way people voted in florida and michigan, just because they did not vote for obama does not give you, or the republicans in florida who engineered this delegate suspension in the first place, any right to silence them!
THEY DO GET TO VOTE IN NOVEMBER IN CASE YOU FORGOT!

MICHIGAN IS ARGUABLE ONLY BECAUSE BARACK OBAMA WITHDREW HIS OWN NAME FROM THE BALLOT, SO HE COULD LATER WHINE ABOUT UNFAIRNESS, IF THIS IS THE BEST YOU OBAMA PEOPLE CAN DO, THEN WE ARE IN REAL TROUBLE WHEN THE REPUBLICAN ATTACK MACHINE GETS FIRED UP!

THANK GOD THE SUPERDELEGATES CAN STILL CHOOSE HILLARY CLINTON, WE COULD STILL ELECT A DEMOCRAT YET.; March 06, 2008 9:28 AM
Anonymous said...: ONE MORE POINT TO CONSIDER THERE ARE NO CAUCUSES IN THE GENERAL ELECTION, BARACK WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO STAND ON ACTUAL VOTES; March 06, 2008 9:32 AM
protactinium said...: anon ny said, "acting as if it's some huge media conspiracy against obama, did you take your depakote today?"

"the republicans in florida who engineered this delegate suspension in the first place"

Did you take your depakote today?

The media gets more ratings by prolonging these elections. They love the fact we all watch the news everytime there is a primary.

Hillary is going to keep losing ground. Hillary can win penn, and will still be down more delegates then before the Texas, and Ohio elections when this is all said and done.

Hillary is done. As for the Rameseen polls. Have you guys relized how dramtic swings the poll takes on a daily basis?

Its really unreliable in my opinon. No worries though in another bit it will show Mccain winning, then Obama; March 06, 2008 9:44 AM
protactinium said...: Oh and Dwit I almost forgot to congratulate you. You where right about Texas, I really did under estamite the power of the hate politics of the republican side in Texas to cause mischief.

Texas was a good call. Happened the way you said.; March 06, 2008 9:48 AM
Oreo said...: We've started a new Open Thread here; March 06, 2008 9:59 AM
protactinium said...: I personally do not know who the blame for this Flordia and Michigan. However I do know its not any of the canidites fault. They should have letted flordia, and Michigans votes count, but the DNC choose not to. All many voter ask is that the canidites play by the set rules, and not try to cheat their way to a victory.

If you honstly believe Obama is going to lose democratic states, you my frind are the retard. Just because you are an Anti-Obama voter, does not mean most DEMOCRATIC core base will not vote democratic.

So your childish name calling does name change the facts. Your canidite has already lost, but her supporters are living in a fairytale and want to keep the hope alive.

I am glad Hillary is staying in it personally, because I think Obama needs the practice.; March 06, 2008 10:06 AM
Carrie said...: I think you're right - most Clinton voters are democrats, are likely to hold their noses and vote for him if their states are on the line.

I can say that if MI is not in play, I'd either stay home or make a futile write-in for Clinton just because it'll probably be the only chance I get to vote for her.

I want to provide some insight into why some of us dislike Obama so much, and why some might be protesting so loudly and saying they won't vote for him. One reason is that it was really aggravating to hear him saying he could get her voters, but she couldn't his. I know I had an "oh, really?" reaction to that. It ticked me off that he seemed to be saying that his supporters were loyal only to him, while her supporters weren't loyal. I'm more loyal to the platform than I am to her, but I hated to admit that publicly.; March 06, 2008 10:13 AM
Anonymous said...: NAME CALLING IS THE LANGUAGE YOU ARE MOST FAMILIAR WITH PROTACTINIUM

RACIST
REPUBLICAN
CONSERVATIVE
ETC. ETC.

YOU LIVE IN A GLAS HOUSE, YOU NEED TO GET OUT AND SEE REALITY FOOL THERE ARE HILLARY SUPPORTERS IN NEW YORK THAT WILL BE VERY ANGRY WITH AN OBAMA PRESIDENCY, THEN THERE IS FLORIDA WHICH OBAMA HAS BEEN TRYING TO KEEP OUT, BECAUSE HE LOST, AND REALLY HAS NO HOPE OF WINNING IN NOVEMBER (FLORIDA IS A SWING STATE BTW)

NEW YORK AND FLORIDA ARE WHAT I BELIEVE ARE LOST TO OBAMA, FOR GOOD. GET IT STRAIGHT I DID NOT SAY ALL DEMOCRATIC STATES, BUT TOGETHER THEY ARE 58 ELECTORATES ALMOST 20% OF THE NEEDED ELECTORATES TO WIN; March 06, 2008 10:20 AM
Anonymous said...: THROW IN TEXAS AGAINST OBAMA TOO another 34 electorates in another SWING state; March 06, 2008 10:26 AM
Anonymous said...: add 22 for arkansas, tennessee and oklahoma which hillary won by huge margins DEFINATELY NOT OBAMA STATES, but red states that she PROVES she brings blue, unlike his wins in other red states, just compare vote totals for proof of that

thats 104 electorates for mccain after just those 6 states hey mccain is almost 50% there, sure hope the dems are smart enough to see it and nominate a winner instead.; March 06, 2008 10:32 AM
protactinium said...: Carrie you are right. It is normal during a tuff faught race to turn off the other canidites people. I initally was the same way, and said I would vote for Mccain if Clinton was the nominee. However when I took a step back, and look at issues I realized that there was no way in hell I could vote for Mccain.

I think once this is primarys are over, many democrats and independents will go through this process. They will see Mccain and Obama debate, and they will realize, there is no way in hell they can vote for Mccain.

Mccain is already trying to steal the "angry" democrat supporters with this "independlty thinking democrats" talk.

Mccain is endorsing alot of the very unpopular Bush policys. It should be easy pickens for any Democrat. Obama really is strong on national security, and it will show up in the heads up debates against Mccain.; March 06, 2008 10:37 AM
protactinium said...: wait, so you argue that Obama should not be the nominee because he won red states.

Then you brag about how Hillary can turn her red states blue.

Well then with that logic should not Obama turn his red states blue? This would make Obama even a better canidite, because the base would still vote for Obama. Then Obama may be able to turn a bunch of his "red" states blue.

The republicans, may have problems against Obama well run campaign in a wide assault on many republican states. While Hillary will soley focus on the "Big" states, such as she has in the primarys. Obama offers a higher possible delegate count to start with.; March 06, 2008 10:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Carrie do you think obama's voters will realize That Because Hillary Clinton Is The Democratic Nominee They Will, Hold their noses, and vote for hillary?

because i am one of the 25% of hillary voters who have thus far, (and growing every day) committed to vote mccain if she fails to be nominated, i have to wonder if Hillary Would Lose States In November After The Debates With McCain.; March 06, 2008 10:47 AM
Unknown said...: First of all, Dean did not make an autocratic decision which enalized MI and FL. The committee voted on it. The core of the democratic party which you have claimed to be a part of, and which Clinton has the overwhelming support of are the ones who voted on penalizing these states.

The problem is that the Clintons ad their surrogates within the DNC did not think she would have any trouble sailing to the nomination. Accordingly, they thought they could ban FL & MI, secure the nomination before Feb 5, and none of this would matter.

Problem is that now it matters. How do you resolve the problem? There is no perfect soultion. All options have pros and cons. It is a catch 22 situation and no matter which option is exercised, there will be people who are not happy with the outcome.; March 06, 2008 10:48 AM
Anonymous said...: slow down i understand you have thinking troubles so read again!

"add 22 for arkansas, tennessee and oklahoma which hillary won by huge margins DEFINATELY NOT OBAMA STATES, but red states that she PROVES she brings blue, unlike his wins in other red states, just compare vote totals for proof of that"; March 06, 2008 10:48 AM
Anonymous said...: lectricgenius, both candidates have supporters at the dnc who voted for that, NOT JUST CLINTON, they also did so at the suggestion of howard dean, but the larger point is that this is a republican created problem, that the democrats in the dnc foolishly responded to by penalizing them, with LEADERSHIP from dean!; March 06, 2008 10:52 AM
Unknown said...: You cannot claim AR that way. That is like touting IL or HI with Obama, or Arizona with McCain. Arkansas is out of that general argument of pulling traditionally republican states.

As for Oklahoma, if you know your demographics, I believe it is a proven fact that the military personnel and the defense industry folks pulled Hillary to a win there.

Does this mean she will win these states? I would say there is a good chance she will win AR. After all, the Clintons were Arkansas for many years. Oklahoma, who knows. But, I am sure it is not a shoe in for Clinton.

As I stated before (and you missed the entire point, choosing only to sling mud about Obama) anything can happen between now and November. Accordingly, it is impossible to predict the outcome of most of the states.

The only thing that is guaranteed is that no matter who the candidate is that the Republican smear machine is gearing up for post-nomination poaching season! They will go after the nominee, whoever it is. They will go after Hillary or Barack with the same fervor equally.; March 06, 2008 10:58 AM
protactinium said...: Howard Dean was put in place by the Clintons.

This is crazy to try and blame Obama for the delegate issue in Florida, and Michigan.

It is true that Clintons assumed the would have the nominee all locked up on super tuesday. Hillary made many comments to donors, and appear campign was caught flat footed when she did not end it on super tuesday.

The fact is FL and MI is a serious issue, and what is going to happen is the democratic party is going to keep putting it off hoping Hillary loses penn. They where going to ignore it in hopes she lost Texas, so it would not matter.

However at the end of the day I am not sure if the FL or MI delegates are even going to be worth it. They are at the very least are going to have to have a new election.(if they can convince someone to pay) Hillary may lose enough delegate ground where it would take not only FL, and MI(Where Obama will likly split FL), but also a huge super delegate swing. The party will not go that far for Hillary.; March 06, 2008 10:59 AM
Anonymous said...: in fairness Obama Brings 15 electorates for georgia into blue, IF HE KEEPS ALL OF HILLARY'S VOTES TOO!

YOU HAVE TO COMPARE REP. VS. DEM. #'S NOT DEM VS. DEM, AND THE CAUCUS NUMBERS ARE NOT EQUAL EITHER THEY HAVE DIFFERENT SYSTEMS SO TO CALCULATE THEM YOU MUST MULTIPLY THE REPUBLICANS CAUCUS TOTALS BY 2 TO 4 TIMES TO MAKE THEM EQUATE TO ACTUAL POPULAR VOTE REPRESENTATION, SO ALL THINGS CONSIDERED YEAH HE LOSES ALL BUT GEORGIA (OF THOSE RED STATE WINS); March 06, 2008 11:00 AM
Unknown said...: Anon Ny-

"lectricgenius, both candidates have supporters at the dnc who voted for that, NOT JUST CLINTON, they also did so at the suggestion of howard dean, but the larger point is that this is a republican created problem, that the democrats in the dnc foolishly responded to by penalizing them, with LEADERSHIP from dean!"

Obama may have a few supporters at the DNC. He has more now than he did when this decision was made. In fact, at the time made, Hillary had the overwhelming support of most of the DNC. All you have to do is look at the superdelegates by position and see the Hillary's support of supers has always been more solid among the DNC members.; March 06, 2008 11:01 AM
Anonymous said...: who is blamingobama for florida or michigan, only beef i have with obama is his CHOICE to remove his name from the michigan ballot, which he did on his own, no in fact i blame HOWARD DEAN

howard dean was NOT installed by the clintons any more than by obama stop your rumor mongering; March 06, 2008 11:03 AM
Unknown said...: Pro-

"It is true that Clintons assumed the would have the nominee all locked up on super tuesday. Hillary made many comments to donors, and appear campign was caught flat footed when she did not end it on super tuesday."

Not only did Hillary make comments to supporters, but she stated "this will be over February 5" last summer to Russert on meet the press.; March 06, 2008 11:05 AM
Anonymous said...: lectricgenius,

the DNC rules committee made this decision NOT the FULL superdelegates, more rumors; March 06, 2008 11:06 AM
Unknown said...: Anon-

"who is blamingobama for florida or michigan, only beef i have with obama is his CHOICE to remove his name from the michigan ballot, which he did on his own, no in fact i blame HOWARD DEAN"

Actually, all the candidates agreed among hemselves to remove their names from the ballot. Hillary was the only frontrunner to remain on the ballot. I think either Kucinich or Gravel (or maybe even both) did not agree to this.; March 06, 2008 11:07 AM
Anonymous said...: "Not only did Hillary make comments to supporters, but she stated "this will be over February 5" last summer to Russert on meet the press."

Historically Super Tuesday DOES produce the nominee in MOST cases; March 06, 2008 11:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Everyone EXCEPT hillary removed their names (perhaps gravel too)
but if they had NOT, then any talk of REVOTE would be unnessecary, we could just ACCEPT the votes as they stand which is what i believe appropriate for florida, where they were all on that ballot.; March 06, 2008 11:10 AM
Unknown said...: Anon-

"the DNC rules committee made this decision NOT the FULL superdelegates, more rumors"

I know this full well and am no saying that is the case. But, fact is that the DNC rules committee was overwhelmingly more in support of Clinton than Obama. To suggest otherwise is actually "more rumors" than anything else is.

My pointing out the superdelegates was just an example of how much support Clinton has within the DNC. Anyone who thinks Clinton did not have more support within the DNC is delusional. This support advantage in tghe DNC as a whole spills over into the rules committee. In fact, before January of this year, I only know of a handful of DNC members who were supporting Obama.; March 06, 2008 11:11 AM
Anonymous said...: To Suggest Clinton Masterminded this florida chaos is ludacris, that falls on the REPUBLICAN controlled legislature, and an overbearing rules committe at the DNC motivated by howard Dean to Punish them, without thinking through what it would do to the voters, NEITHER CANDIDATE WOULD HAVE WANTED THIS PERSONALLY, THEY JUST AGREED TO FOLLOW THE RULES SET BY THE DNC RULES COMMITTEE.
BUT IT IS NEITHER CANDIDATES INTERESTS TO DISENFRANCHISE THE VOTERS OF FLORIDA OR MICHIGAN, NO MATTER WHO YOU SUPPORT IN THIS NOMINATION, YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT.; March 06, 2008 11:17 AM
protactinium said...: anon ny said , "Historically Super Tuesday DOES produce the nominee in MOST cases"

Historically Super Tuesday does not exsist.

Super Tuesday is actually a fairly new phenomenon.

Im not sure what all your fuzzy math with multiple 2 to 4 times more for actual voters. If this was true Hillary would lose NY, NJ, AND CA. Well Ny is around 3.33 most other states are around 2 times more the Mccain.; March 06, 2008 11:17 AM
Unknown said...: ""Not only did Hillary make comments to supporters, but she stated "this will be over February 5" last summer to Russert on meet the press."

Historically Super Tuesday DOES produce the nominee in MOST cases"

That argument may be convenient for you to say now. Fact is Hillary was VERY infatic that she would be the nominee, no matter what. Her interview with CBS Katie Couric only furthers this.

For those of you who claim you hate Obama so much because of statements he made which seemed cocky, you forget about the cockiness of Hillary. She thought she would be the nominee without a fight. There is a mountain of evidence, both is her spoken words and actions which prove this fact, and it is not arguable.; March 06, 2008 11:17 AM
Unknown said...: "To Suggest Clinton Masterminded this florida chaos is ludacris, that falls on the REPUBLICAN controlled legislature, and an overbearing rules committe at the DNC motivated by howard Dean to Punish them, without thinking through what it would do to the voters, NEITHER CANDIDATE WOULD HAVE WANTED THIS PERSONALLY, THEY JUST AGREED TO FOLLOW THE RULES SET BY THE DNC RULES COMMITTEE.
BUT IT IS NEITHER CANDIDATES INTERESTS TO DISENFRANCHISE THE VOTERS OF FLORIDA OR MICHIGAN, NO MATTER WHO YOU SUPPORT IN THIS NOMINATION, YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT."

YEAH, AND THAT WAS AN OVERBEARING COMMITTEE CHOCKED FULL OF HILLARY SUPPORTERS AND BILL CLINTON FAITHFULS WHO THOUGHT HILLARY WOULD SAIL TO THE NOMINATION!

That is not blaming it on Hillary, it is merely stating the facts and the mindset which went into their decision.; March 06, 2008 11:20 AM
Anonymous said...: PROTACTINIUM,
YOUR EITHER DENSE OR HAVE TROUBLE READING TOO, THAT MATH YOU ARE REFERING TO RELATES TO THE CAUCUS SYSTEM NOT PRIMARYS (VOTES), THEY ARE NOT EQUAL BETWEEN THE DEMS AND THE REPUBLICANS, THE REPUBLICANS USE LESS REPRESENTATIVES IN THEIR CAUCUSES, SO YES 2-4 TIMES LESS DEPENDING ON THE PARTICULAR STATE!

TO MAKE THEM EQUAL YOU MUST MULTIPLY THE REPUBLICAN NUMBERS, EVER WONDER WHY MCCAIN NEEDS ONLY 1191 YET THE DEMS NEED 2025 (DUE TO FL,MI DISQUAL.); March 06, 2008 11:25 AM
protactinium said...: Is it not ironic that Mccain is getting hit with the campaign reform rules he put in place.

That Hillary lost delegates in FL, and MI because her people figured it did not matter.; March 06, 2008 11:26 AM
Anonymous said...: YOUR RULES COMMITTEE ARGUEMENT WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE RULES COMMITTEE WOULD SIMPLY MAKE HER THE NOMINEE THEN, SO BY YOUR LOGIC WE CAN ALL ASSUME HILLARY WILL BECOME THE NOMINEE AND THAT OBAMA HAS NO CHANCE AT ALL (A THEORY I DO NOT BELIEVE); March 06, 2008 11:29 AM
protactinium said...: Hey I acklowged I had no idea what your fuzzy math was all about. You seem to have poor math skill for the most part. Just read your previous math posts.; March 06, 2008 11:30 AM
protactinium said...: The committee arguement says that they never imagined a canidite that could compete with Hillary emerging. When Hillary started losing the super delegates just want to do whats best for the party. They to are also sick of Clintons bullying tatics. When this desision was made no one would dare question the Clintons power.; March 06, 2008 11:33 AM
Anonymous said...: YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE IS SHADY ABOUT YOUR DNC ARGUEMENT IS HOWARD DEAN WAS ON TELEVISION THIS MORNING, HE WENT ON AND ON ABOUT HOW HE MADE SURE AFRICAN AMERICAN VOTERS WERE MORE HEAVILY REPRESENTED IN THIS NOMINATION UNLIKE ANY BEFORE, TALK ABOUT RIGGING FOR ONE CANDIDATE OVER THE OTHER; March 06, 2008 11:34 AM
Unknown said...: You have missed my point. Let's try this again. Forget who supported who and who had allegiace to who. When these rules were crafted by the committee, the overwhelming belief was that Hillary would be the nominee. She had overwhelming support of the DNC and a huge lead in all the polls. The committee thought she would be the nominee, and would secure the nomination quickly. With that mindset, it would not matter what they did to FL & MI. The penalty would appear as a deterrent to other states looking to do the same, but in the end, it would not matter.

Just think about it. Until Iowa, no really believed Obama had a chance. No one outside of his campaing would have ever believed he would have made it this far, let alone be where he is.; March 06, 2008 11:37 AM
Anonymous said...: NEVER FEAR PROTACTINIUM YOU WILL ALWAYS HAVE YOUR RACE CARD TO THROW DOWN WHEN YOU LOSE ON LOGIC, BUT I HAVE CONFIDENCE IN MY MATH SKILLS THANK YOU, BUT YOUR ACCUSSATIONS ARE ABOUT AS FOUNDED AS ME BEING RACIST AGAINST MY WIFE; March 06, 2008 11:37 AM
protactinium said...: ny dem said, "YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE IS SHADY ABOUT YOUR DNC ARGUEMENT IS HOWARD DEAN WAS ON TELEVISION THIS MORNING, HE WENT ON AND ON ABOUT HOW HE MADE SURE AFRICAN AMERICAN VOTERS WERE MORE HEAVILY REPRESENTED IN THIS NOMINATION UNLIKE ANY BEFORE, TALK ABOUT RIGGING FOR ONE CANDIDATE OVER THE OTHER"

Go take a depakote. The reason they did this was because Clinton was supposed to be the Black canidite. Also the Black voting block has been turning out more in recent elections for democrats so more delegates were awarded to them.; March 06, 2008 11:38 AM
Anonymous said...: "Just think about it. Until Iowa, no really believed Obama had a chance. "

WASN'T IOWA FIRST?; March 06, 2008 11:39 AM
Unknown said...: "PROTACTINIUM,
YOUR EITHER DENSE OR HAVE TROUBLE READING TOO, THAT MATH YOU ARE REFERING TO RELATES TO THE CAUCUS SYSTEM NOT PRIMARYS (VOTES), THEY ARE NOT EQUAL BETWEEN THE DEMS AND THE REPUBLICANS, THE REPUBLICANS USE LESS REPRESENTATIVES IN THEIR CAUCUSES, SO YES 2-4 TIMES LESS DEPENDING ON THE PARTICULAR STATE!

TO MAKE THEM EQUAL YOU MUST MULTIPLY THE REPUBLICAN NUMBERS, EVER WONDER WHY MCCAIN NEEDS ONLY 1191 YET THE DEMS NEED 2025 (DUE TO FL,MI DISQUAL.)

One point needs to be made here. You are correct in the assertion about the repuglican cuacuses. However, I think in every caucus and primary there have been about twice as many democrat ballots cast than repugs.; March 06, 2008 11:40 AM
Anonymous said...: "Also the Black voting block has been turning out more in recent elections for democrats so more delegates were awarded to them."

THIS IS JUST A NOMINATION REWARD NOT APPLICABLE TO THE GENERAL ELECTION, I THINK HOWARD DEAN AND THE DNC WAS AWARE BARACK OBAMA WAS BLACK WHEN THEY MADE THIS DECISION, MAYBE THEY WERE MAKING THE FLORIDA DECISION KNOWING IT WOULD HELP OBAMA FURTHER; March 06, 2008 11:42 AM
Unknown said...: Anon-

""Just think about it. Until Iowa, no really believed Obama had a chance. "

WASN'T IOWA FIRST?"

Surely you cannot be that dense. He was not projected to win Iowa. He was behind in every poll in existence (except for one). No one thought he had a chance. Most news outlets were betting on either Hillary or Edwards to win there. Edwards because he had been campaigning there since 04, and Hillary based on her brand name.

Your point is pointless, because the facts and historical data prove what I am saying here.; March 06, 2008 11:42 AM
Anonymous said...: "One point needs to be made here. You are correct in the assertion about the repuglican cuacuses. However, I think in every caucus and primary there have been about twice as many democrat ballots cast than repugs."

THIS IS SOMETHING NO-ONE COULD PROVE DEFINATIVELY WITHOUT HARD "VOTE" NUMBERS; March 06, 2008 11:44 AM
Unknown said...: ""Also the Black voting block has been turning out more in recent elections for democrats so more delegates were awarded to them."

THIS IS JUST A NOMINATION REWARD NOT APPLICABLE TO THE GENERAL ELECTION, I THINK HOWARD DEAN AND THE DNC WAS AWARE BARACK OBAMA WAS BLACK WHEN THEY MADE THIS DECISION, MAYBE THEY WERE MAKING THE FLORIDA DECISION KNOWING IT WOULD HELP OBAMA FURTHER"

Do you know anything how the DNC rules work? Do you even know what Dean is referring to about making sure there were more black delegates? (Hint: It has nothing to do with the numbers of delegates per district, apportionment, etc, or stacking the deck for one candidate or another); March 06, 2008 11:45 AM
Anonymous said...: "because the facts and historical data prove what I am saying here."

WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU ATTEMPTING TO SAY; March 06, 2008 11:45 AM
Unknown said...: ""Also the Black voting block has been turning out more in recent elections for democrats so more delegates were awarded to them."

THIS IS JUST A NOMINATION REWARD NOT APPLICABLE TO THE GENERAL ELECTION, I THINK HOWARD DEAN AND THE DNC WAS AWARE BARACK OBAMA WAS BLACK WHEN THEY MADE THIS DECISION, MAYBE THEY WERE MAKING THE FLORIDA DECISION KNOWING IT WOULD HELP OBAMA FURTHER"

Do you know anything how the DNC rules work? Do you even know what Dean is referring to about making sure there were more black delegates? (Hint: It has nothing to do with the numbers of delegates per district, apportionment, etc, or stacking the deck for one candidate or another); March 06, 2008 11:45 AM
protactinium said...: let-
"Your point is pointless, because the facts and historical data prove what I am saying here"

Logic, reasoning, and critical thinking seem to be to skills that NY dem is missing. There is no point argueing with him. He lives in a fairytale of his own making.

I mean after all before it was a right wing conspiracy, and now its a democratic conspiracy against her. Right Anon NY?; March 06, 2008 11:46 AM
Anonymous said...: "(Hint: It has nothing to do with the numbers of delegates per district, apportionment, etc, or stacking the deck for one candidate or another)"

HINT IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH APPROPRIATING MORE DELEGATES TO "BLACK" DISTRICTS, THATS EXACTLY WHAT HOWARD DEAN SAID THIS MORNING DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT OR ARE YOU JUST GUESSING?; March 06, 2008 11:48 AM
Unknown said...: Anon-

""because the facts and historical data prove what I am saying here."

WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU ATTEMPTING TO SAY"

At this point, you have proved that you are nothing more than a pompous ass which has no desire to look at facts or reason. You are ony here because you want to argue and get the last word.; March 06, 2008 11:49 AM
Anonymous said...: "I mean after all before it was a right wing conspiracy, and now its a democratic conspiracy against her. Right Anon NY?"

ONCE AGAIN YOU HAVE PROVEN YOU INABILITY TO READ, I PUT BLAME ON HOWARD DEAN FOR BUYING INTO THE REPUBLICAN LEGISLATURE'S ATTEMPT TO CAUSE CHAOS IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND I DO NOT RELATE THAT DECISION TO EITHER CANDIDATE, PLEASE TELL YOUR CARE GIVER TO HELP YOU READ THE COMMENTS FULLY BEFORE YOU RESPOND!; March 06, 2008 11:51 AM
Anonymous said...: "At this point, you have proved that you are nothing more than a pompous ass which has no desire to look at facts or reason. You are ony here because you want to argue and get the last word."

YOU ARE UNINFORMED AND YET YOU WISH TO MAKE CLAIMS THAT SIMPLY ARE UNTRUE OR UNSUBSTANTIATED(I.E. YOUR CLINTON RULES COMMITTEE CONSPIRACY THEORY, AND HOWARD DEAN HAS BEEN APPEARING ON TV SINCE 7 AM TODAY FULLY DISPUTING YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT THE DELEGATES IN BLACK DISTRICTS SO PERHAPS YOU NEED TO LOOK IN A MIRROR TO FIND A POMPOUS ASS WHO WANTS A LAST WORD EVEN IF IT'S WRONG!
YOU AND PROCTINIUM HAVE MUCH IN COMMON, EXCEPT YOU HAVE YET TO MAKE RACISM ACCUSATION SO PERHAPS YOU HAVE SOME SENSE ABOUT YOU, NAH PROBABLY NOT!; March 06, 2008 11:56 AM
Anonymous said...: I WOULD LOVE TO CHAT WITH YOU ALL DAY BUT UNFORTUNATELY I HAVE WORK TO DO, PERHAPS I WILL READ YOUR RESPONSES LATER.

HAVE FUN EVERYBODY; March 06, 2008 12:00 PM
shelby said...: Carrie said...

I want to provide some insight into why some of us dislike Obama so much, and why some might be protesting so loudly and saying they won't vote for him. One reason is that it was really aggravating to hear him saying he could get her voters, but she couldn't his. I know I had an "oh, really?" reaction to that. It ticked me off that he seemed to be saying that his supporters were loyal only to him, while her supporters weren't loyal. I'm more loyal to the platform than I am to her, but I hated to admit that publicly.

Carrie- your point is well taken. This was surely the point at which Obama revealed that his priority is not a DEMOCRATIC win in November but an OBAMA win. His arrogant statement showed his utter disregard for Hillary supporters as well as the democratic party. His statement signals to everyone that he and his supporters are in this for HIM, not the good of the country.

Michelle Obama's statement when asked if she would support Hillary sealed the deal. The Obama campaign officially "went negative" with these comments.

These proclamations by Obama, more than all his speeches and rhetoric, revealed his campaign for what it is. He doesn't care if the Democrats lose in November if he is not the candidate. Some of us do.

I'm starting to realize why Obama promises no future runs if he doesn't win. This was never about the good of the people. He can make alot more money writing books and giving speeches. Since Michelle Obama's salary in her "diversity" position mysteriously tripled after her hubby became Senator, I'm sure they will cash in big time after his run. Why should they run again?; March 06, 2008 1:12 PM
NO Obama said...: Many Hillary supporters like me (I'm an independent) just cannot support Obama for all the reasons mentioned.

Early on posting here, I said I had a gut feeling about Obama and now revelations about his "wink wink" NAFTA policy and other fibs and lies he's told have confirmed this feeling.

As mentioned already, he is pompous, self serving, not all that patriotic, a plagiarizer (using others' words without attribution), and unsettling. His wife is much the same. It is obvious they are racists in sheep's clothing.

On the other hand Hillary is a proven entity who has worked hard most of her adult life for children, better education in AR, health care and much more.

Something about her being so solid and Obama being so nebulous makes me support her much more.

Obama is described in an article I posted as unbending, stubborn and not wanting to reach across the isle about many things.

In other words, HE IS NOT WHAT HE APPEARS TO BE!!; March 06, 2008 1:25 PM
protactinium said...: Shelby Said, "I'm starting to realize why Obama promises no future runs if he doesn't win. This was never about the good of the people. He can make alot more money writing books and giving speeches. Since Michelle Obama's salary in her "diversity" position mysteriously tripled after her hubby became Senator, I'm sure they will cash in big time after his run. Why should they run again?"

Clintons have not only made more money of speechs, and books. They choose to try and run again. These critisims about Obama are a bit hippocritical considering you candities has dont and said all those things herself. Hillary says she will not run again either.; March 06, 2008 3:37 PM
protactinium said...: It is also hard to you Hillary supporters to fram this arguement about Hillary being a winner and Obama not caring about the democratic party.

The same could be said about Hillary. That she would rather slander her running mate, then drop out. She will most likly not get the nomination simple because Obama out organized her, our campigned her, and got the majority of the delegates to date. Yet she still going to force the democrat spend 50 million more dollars of Obama money to finsh watching her lose.

Obama has more votes. Obama is more popular. Maybe the Hillary supporters can't see outside the box, and relize Hillarys run is over and the democrats really do want change.

YES WE CAN!; March 06, 2008 3:41 PM
dwit said...: Come on now. No self respecting straight man would post a picture of his cat.

We all know you made up your identity. Its okay if your a woman supporting Hillary. You don't have to make up a fake bio to convince us that Hillary is the candidate for ALL Americans.

Her record should be enough to do that.; March 06, 2008 3:50 PM
shelby said...: Protact-
There is no hypocrisy- it is Obama who is marketing himself as a new kind of politician, not Hillary. Whenever these unpleasant facts come out about Obama, the only thing the Obamacans can do is say that Hillary does it too. Isn't it Obama who is the change candidate?

Mrs. Obama is going around exhorting others not to go into corporate jobs but instead go into the helping professions. Talk about hypocrisy. She is in the diversity "business" -one of the few who is racking in big bucks under the guise of "helping". In excess of 300K for being in the "helping professions"?

Most people don't have good friends like Resko help them buy million dollars homes -so they have to work for corporate America.
She is a hypocrite and so is he. Its pathetic that we may be stuck with this second rate candidate with a slick bulls--t ticket because it took so long to shine a light on this guy.; March 06, 2008 4:11 PM
protactinium said...: Shelby-
"Most people don't have good friends like Resko help them buy million dollars homes -so they have to work for corporate America."

Have we all forgotten about white water? White Water makes rezko scandle look fincially insignicant.

"She is a hypocrite and so is he. Its pathetic that we may be stuck with this second rate candidate with a slick bulls--t ticket because it took so long to shine a light on this guy."

Just because Hillary admits to being a poltical hack that makes her better? Also if Obama where second rate then why did Hillary simply get out campaigned by him?; March 06, 2008 4:42 PM
shelby said...: Protact-
THERE YOU GO AGAIN!! You make my point! You cannot dispute that Obama is a hypocrite and no different than most politicians- you can only point the finger back at Hillary.

The main difference between the Obamas and Clintons are age and race. The Obamas are young black Clintons!

Obama's whole campaign is predicated on "I'm not Hillary, so vote for me". Sorry, not enough to take a chance on a newbie whose track record is one of not rocking the boat.

Obama is complaining about the press already because he has had a tiny nibble of what Hillary has endured for decades. Yes, its a "learning experience" for him. No thanks- learn on your own watch-Maybe stay in the Senate awhile- you know, like maybe one whole full term??; March 06, 2008 5:02 PM
Unknown said...: Anon-

""At this point, you have proved that you are nothing more than a pompous ass which has no desire to look at facts or reason. You are ony here because you want to argue and get the last word."

YOU ARE UNINFORMED AND YET YOU WISH TO MAKE CLAIMS THAT SIMPLY ARE UNTRUE OR UNSUBSTANTIATED(I.E. YOUR CLINTON RULES COMMITTEE CONSPIRACY THEORY, AND HOWARD DEAN HAS BEEN APPEARING ON TV SINCE 7 AM TODAY FULLY DISPUTING YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT THE DELEGATES IN BLACK DISTRICTS SO PERHAPS YOU NEED TO LOOK IN A MIRROR TO FIND A POMPOUS ASS WHO WANTS A LAST WORD EVEN IF IT'S WRONG!
YOU AND PROCTINIUM HAVE MUCH IN COMMON, EXCEPT YOU HAVE YET TO MAKE RACISM ACCUSATION SO PERHAPS YOU HAVE SOME SENSE ABOUT YOU, NAH PROBABLY NOT!"

I WILL RESTATE AGAIN BECAUSE YOU OBVIOUSLY MISSED IT THE FIRST TWO TIMES. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHO THE RULES COMMITTEE SUPPORTED. UNDISPUTABLE FACT IS THAT THE ENTIRE COUNTRY THOUGHT HILLARY HAD IT SOWN UP.

Had EVERYONE (not only ppl within the DNC) had not thought this, they would been less likely to take the steps they did.

As for the facts, you are the one attempting to distort them and have not payed any attention to my original point. You are so bitter about this whole process that you don't pay any attention to the details!; March 06, 2008 6:05 PM
Unknown said...: Time-

"For you Obama supporters who think Obama can win over McCain, here is but ONE example of why it will not be possible:

Nationally, McCain is viewed favorably by 52% and unfavorably by 45%. Obama’s numbers have slipped a bit recently and he is now viewed favorably by 50% of likely voters nationwide, unfavorably by 48%.

That was from Rassmusen. So, McCain isn't starting from a deficit and if Hillary doesn't get the nomination, McCain's numbers will go up due to voters defecting from the dem nominee."

Yes time, that is what the poll says today. Last week, Rasmussen said Obama was ahead. A month ago, it was Hillary. What will it be next week?

Anyone who counts on these polls for anything this year has seriosu problems.; March 06, 2008 6:14 PM
Unknown said...: Anon-

You have proven how ignorant of the rules you are!

""(Hint: It has nothing to do with the numbers of delegates per district, apportionment, etc, or stacking the deck for one candidate or another)"

HINT IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH APPROPRIATING MORE DELEGATES TO "BLACK" DISTRICTS, THATS EXACTLY WHAT HOWARD DEAN SAID THIS MORNING DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT OR ARE YOU JUST GUESSING?"

You obviously did not go research things before shooting off your unfactual statements. They did not award more black delegates per district. The democratic rules state (and have for many years) that there will be fair representation of minorities on the ballot for delegates. This includes ALL minorities, such as women, blacks, and even people with disabilities.

Have you ever ran as a delegate? The way the process works is that the candidate has to want you on the ballot. They must prove to the DNC that they meet the DNC's requirements for minority representation on the ballot.

THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NUMBER OF DELEGATES PER DISTRICT!!!

Furthermore, these rules have been in existence for many years. Use your google, go to wikipedia, and you might learn a thing or two. Alternatively, you can go read them at the DNC as well. These rules have nothing to do with who is or is not running this time, because they have been in existence for several decades.

You claim everyone except you ignores the facts. However, you have proven by your incorrect and slanted interpretation of Dean's statements. And again, this proves how bitter and ignorant you are.; March 06, 2008 6:25 PM
dwit said...: By the way guys, nobody reads these huge articles you post. Just give a link and cut to the chase with your comments. They are all partisan anyway.

The one thing that made me soften on Hillary wasn't some huge bombastic article, but the comment one of you made about looking into both candidate's advisors.; March 06, 2008 7:28 PM
NO Obama said...: JP Morgan Chase & Co - $282,387
Goldman Sachs - $474,428
Lehman Brothers - $274,147
UBS (ag) - $298,180
Citigroup - $247,436
Google - $192,808
Time Warner - $190,091
etc….

And who says he’s “not in their pockets”?; March 06, 2008 7:35 PM
just_thinking said...: Tony Rezko is going on Trial this week, WTF?

Why should it be Illegal to steal Money from Low-Income housing projects to give Money to Barack Obama?

Shouldn't Barack Obama, being the Messiah, be able to have his friends steal from the poor and allow them to Shiver without Heat in the Chicago winter?

Come on People Vote Obama so more poor people will get whats coming to them!!!

the poor do not need all that food or healthcare either, they should send their grocery money to barack obama so he can come to power and deny EVERYONE of those poor freeloaders their healthcare!

screw hillary she wants to save babies lives and help poor people, she evn tried to bring more equal rights for gays and blacks during her husbands terms, until the HONEST REPUBLICANS STOPPED THAT, by distracting us with her husbands affairs, screw hillary she CARES TOO MUCH, about ALL Americans Especially Those FREELOADING BABIES; March 06, 2008 8:10 PM
NO Obama said...: NO SB 230 (1997)
To prohibit partial-birth abortion unless necessary to save
the life of a mother and makes performance of the procedure
a Class 4 felony for the physician.
NO HB 709 (2000)
To prohibit state funding of abortion and induced miscarriages
except when necessary to save the life of the mother.
Excludes premature births from funding except to produce
a viable child when necessary to save the life of a
mother. Would permit funding in cases of rape or incest
when payment is authorized under federal law.
NO SB 1661 (2002)
A part of the Born Alive Infant Protection Package. Would
create a cause of action if a child is born alive after an abortion
and the child is then neglected through failure to provide
medial care after birth.
CRIME
NO SB 381 (1997)
To require prisoners to pay court costs for frivolous lawsuits
against the state.
NO SB 485 (1999)
To give no offer of “good time” for sex offenders sentenced
to the County Jail.
*Obama was the only vote against this measure
UNIONS
YES HB 3396 (2003)
To make unionization easier by not requiring a secret ballot
to organize if 50% of the eligible workers publicly sign a
card of support for unionization.
YES SB 230 (2003)
Entitles a teacher who is elected as an officer of the state or
national teacher’s union to be granted a leave of absence for
up to six years, or the period of time the teacher is serving.
YES SB 1070 (2003)
Allows college graduate assistants who teach college
courses be eligible to join a union.
CHILD PROTECTION
PRESENT SB 609 (2001)
To restrict the location of buildings with “adult” uses
(meaning pornographic video stores, strip clubs, etc.) within
1,000 feet of any public or private elementary or second

9
ary school, public park, place or worship, preschool, daycare
facility, mobile park or residential area.
NO HB 1812 (1999)
To require school boards to install software on public computers
accessible to minors to block sexually explicit material.
TAXES
NO SB 1075 (1999)
To create an income tax credit for all full-time K-12 pupils in
an amount equal to 25% of qualified education expenses up
to a maximum of $500 per family.
YES SB 1725 (2003)
To restore the Illinois Estate Tax.
YES SB 1733 (2003)
To impose a Gas Use Tax on the purchase of natural gas
from outside the state of Illinois for use or consumption in
Illinois. Forces the delivering supplier to pay 2.4 cents per
therm of gas, or the customer can elect to become a “selfassessing”
purchaser and pay 5% of the purchase price or
2.4 cents per therm.
ELECTIONS
YES SB 1415 (2003)
To create public funding for supreme court races.
GAY RIGHTS
NOT VOTING HB 581 (2003)
Allows domestic partners to be allowed to assume the
rights of a spouse or survivor with regards to pension benefits
under the Chicago Teacher’s pension system.
NO SB 228 (1997)
Changes the “Illinois Equal Opportunity Act of 1997” to stipulate,
notwithstanding any law to the contrary, any unit of
government or school district that gives benefits to samesex
couples under any criteria must give equal benefits to
heterosexual couples.
DRUGS
YES SB 880 (2003)
To allow the purchase of 10 hypodermic needles from a
pharmacy without a prescription.
PRESENT HB 2000 (4659)
To establish a zero-tolerance drug-testing policy for
Department of Corrections Employees
BUSINESS
NO SB 777 (1999)
To end the unemployment insurance fund building tax.
NO SB 879 (1999)
To end the minimum contribution tax rate for the unemployment
system.
NO SB 795 (2001)
To reduce employers’ minimum contribution insurance rate.
YES SB 796 (2003)
To increase the Illinois minimum wage from $5.15 per hour
to $6.50 per hour.; March 06, 2008 8:17 PM
NO Obama said...: Since persons attempting to join the military are not allowed to do so due to past drug use, how can Obama possibly be Commander in Chief of a military who disallows members who have done so?

Substance misuse
The causes for rejection for appointment, enlistment, and induction are:
"(3) The repeated self-procurement and self-administration of any drug or chemical substance, including cannabinoids or anabolic steroids, with such frequency that it appears that the applicant has accepted the use of or reliance on these substances as part of his or her pattern of behavior."
http://www.military.com/Recruiting/Conte...g,,00.html

This rule would disqualify him from joining the military.

This added information changes the circumstances quite a bit. How could you be allowed to command the military, if the same military wouldn't accept you because of frequent marijuana and cocaine use? Now, this is in fact a true case of being a double standard.; March 06, 2008 8:25 PM
Unknown said...: Time-

You just proved how informed you were. Just last week you claimed Obama "had no record because he was a coward and would not take a stand on issues". Now, when it is convenient for you, you post his record. Which is it? Does he have a record or not? In your own words he has no record. Does that mean that everything you just posted is fake then? It must be, becuase surely you would not have been lying last week!; March 06, 2008 10:01 PM
shelby said...: Time- Re Obama's drug problems

Let me save the Obama apologists the trouble - I will respond for them.

1. First- throw it back at the Clintons. Hey, what about Bill and his "not inhaling". Yeah- how about that! Oh wait, that's Bill not Hillary. Oh never mind, its in the playbook

2. Obama's coke use was merely youthful folly - a small glitch in his romantic quest to find his identity after growing up on the "mean streets" of Hawaii.

3. Obama wrote about it himself in "the book" so that innoculates him. He was refreshingly and charmingly honest about something that sends mere mortals to prison, not the White House.

Did I miss anything?; March 06, 2008 10:25 PM
dwit said...: Shelby,

I'm sure you are well used to answering for your husband, but why don't you leave the reasoned responses to the ACTUAL Obama supporters.

You can answer for the AIPAC and JDL apologists. How does that sound?; March 06, 2008 10:44 PM
Anonymous said...: *******************************************

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHOX3BNW5kA

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

Youthful drug use is irrelevant to me i personally find connections to william ayers, and rezko much more definable as his most serious character flaw

I am definately not the morals police i just want someone with proven and sound reasoning who i believe is capable of making tough decisions to keep america safe!

this 3am issue cuts straight to the heart, plus his dealing with rezko are so perverted by the fact that poor black folks in chicago had to go without heat in the winter because obama and rezko found it more practical to spend the heating bill on obama's campaign, and when he feel short he had money from Terrorist William Ayers Donate too!

he needs to answer this or he can NEVER become president.

those are my reasons for what i consider my "nucleur" option in voting for mccain, this and the fact i believe him and his supporters frivilously throw down the race card

those reasons above are why his campaign can't fool quite enough people in the big states heck here in NY my PRIMARY concern is PREVENTION of another 9/11 but these obama supporters say i am racist when i disagree he is capable of doing this, I seriously think they are all gonna cry if obama wins the nom. and then loses ny, fl, and tx. over SECURITY, they will prolly cry foul racism then too!

and how do you "UNITE" with someone after you pick a fight with them and call them racist?; March 07, 2008 1:03 AM
Unknown said...: Well, lookie here...

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=294631

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/181749.php

http://wonkette.com/364608/nafta-talk-started-with-hillary

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/report_naftagate_leaker_said_h.php; March 07, 2008 1:04 AM
Anonymous said...: can anyone here explain why barack obama's foreign policy advisor saying in her own words obama "is not ready for that 3am phone call"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHOX3BNW5kA

how is this guy gonna win an election?; March 07, 2008 1:19 AM
Anonymous said...: Let’s not forget yesterday was the first day of opening arguments with jury, of the REZKO trial.

In his opening statement Thursday, Rezko’s lead defense attorney, Joseph Duffy, mentioned Obama and five other politicians in explaining Rezko’s motivation for political involvement.

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

And Barack Obama being firmly In the Dirt:

In the last few days, Obama and his senior staff have been open about their intention to raise all sorts of personal issues against the Clintons. They have even started that process by, for instance, calling for the Clintons to release their tax returns immediately, before the April 15 date Clinton’s campaign has promised.

* * * * * * * * And the most recent "Backfired" Comments Of his Foreign policy advisor Susan Rice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymmkze5-bdA

It is understandable why the Obama team wants to go negative, even while such a tactic conflicts with the senator’s frequent statements that he planned to run a different kind of campaign. Clinton’s recent hammering of Obama’s personal missteps and professional weaknesses (national security readiness, the flap over Obama’s top economic adviser talking to Canadian officials about NAFTA, the criminal trial of former Obama fundraiser Tony Rezko) seems to have helped her win primaries in Ohio and Texas. Those victories have at least temporarily staunched the tide of Obama Inevitability, much to the dismay of his staff and supporters, who have become cozily accustomed to success.

Team Obama wants to react quickly and with maximum force: his top political and communications advisers are from the you-pull-a-knife-I’ll-pull-a-gun school of campaign response. Furthermore, based on watching Obama interact with New York Times’ columnist Maureen Dowd on his campaign plane last week, he did not appreciate her once famously calling him “Obambi.”

After this truly bad week, the first since January (Clinton’s New Hampshire win notwithstanding), Obama has fretted that the press has decided to be tougher on him — and perhaps softer on Clinton. This might bode ill for a significant change in strategy and tone, even though in the past, many in the media cheered when Obama took steps to go negative against his New York rival. His campaign already has produced plenty of disparaging material about Clinton (radio ads, voter phone calls, e-mails, direct mail) without reproach.

But now it appears the campaign wants to make negative attacks, including those launched directly from the candidate himself, a more central part of its message.

Early on, Obama pledged to fire anyone on his staff who engaged in the kind of personal attacks his senior advisers, and himself are now openly launching on a daily basis.

By attacking Clinton during a period when he is particularly vulnerable on the Tony Rezko case, NAFTA, and other unseemly matters, Obama risks more unfavorable scrutiny directed at him (especially during a period when Clinton is on a roll, given her charming appearances on late-night comedy shows, her comeback kid excitement, and her refreshed media confidence).

It could look and feel desperate — already Obama’s affronted reaction to those newly tough, “like, eight questions” last week made him seem rather naive and peevish; add cutthroat to that image, and Obama could have a bigger problem than he is trying to solve by changing strategies.

Bring it on Barack. We dare you. We double dare you; March 07, 2008 5:49 AM
Unknown said...: How convenient you ignore that Hillary has more ties to this case than Obama. Why does that not surprise me?

Hillary has ties to Rezko, plus five more defendants-- five more defendants with no ties to Obama whatsoever.

Why does it not surprise me that you will not report the whole truth? Perhaps the same reason why you insisted Obama lied about Nafta, when it is now proven it was Hillary and not Obama. Hillary vehimently denied contacting them.

Look who is a proven liar yet another time!!!

Go ahead, support and vote for the liars and crooks because that is what the Clintons are.; March 07, 2008 6:10 AM
shelby said...: nitwit-
What is your reasoned response to an admitted coke user becoming commander-in-chief?

The silence is deafening as usual when it comes to answering questions about Obama. Do you honestly think this won't be an issue in the general campaign?

The silence is probably a good thing- the best thing the Obama supporters can do at this point is shut up because their responses only reveal the weakness of their candidate.; March 07, 2008 12:31 PM
shelby said...: March 06, 2008 10:25 PM
dwit said...
Shelby,

"I'm sure you are well used to answering for your husband, but why don't you leave the reasoned responses to the ACTUAL Obama supporters.

You can answer for the AIPAC and JDL apologists. How does that sound?"

Dwit- Oh I am sorry - I really shouldn't expect you to give us a reasoned reply today. You're probably too busy partying with Hamas over the slaughter of Israeli students.; March 07, 2008 1:27 PM
dwit said...: I am very sad for the loss of life at the seminary in Israel, but that kind of thing happens almost every week here in the states. What does that say about OUR culture?

Bottom line is we should open our doors to all Israelis (Jewish and Palestinian) who'd like to emigrate to the states. Truman should have done this during and post WWII and we wouldn't have this problem today.

There is no country in history that has been as safe and prosperous for Jews than the USA. Heck, New York and Connecticut have more Jews than the entire state of Israel!

Israel is not a viable state economically and her people have no security. Its time we pay attention to the "reality on the ground" as they say and get out.

US taxpayers simply can't afford to continue hemorrhaging money in the ME. We now give Israel $10 billion a year. An excerpt from my blog illustrates what that money could do HERE in this country:

"With that money we could send 1,713,502 college age students to a public university for an entire year. With that same money we could provide 909,090 American families with health insurance for a year."; March 07, 2008 6:31 PM
dwit said...: and Shelby,

They all grew up in the sixties and seventies...YEAH they did drugs! That includes Bill and your beloved Hillary. Frankly, I don't trust people who haven't lived a little.

Bottom line is, at least HE is honest about it. That's almost enough to give him my vote.

I'm no christian, but I like this line from old JC, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", or something to that affect.; March 07, 2008 6:39 PM
Anonymous said...: "For an ambitious and savvy politician, Barack Obama has not picked his friends wisely. They include an assortment of influence-peddlers, terrorists and Iraqi billionaires.

The jury has been selected and opening arguments were heard Thursday in the corruption trial of Antonin "Tony" Rezko. If the name doesn't ring a bell, it's because the press hasn't shown much interest in what has been considered a local Chicago story. But it has international and disturbing implications.

Hillary Clinton may have been casting the first stone in a recent debate when she blasted Obama's cozy relationship with Syrian immigrant and "slumlord" Rezko, who rose to become a player in Chicago and Illinois politics. But she was right on target.

Rezko was among Obama's earliest supporters. In 1995, when Obama ran for a seat in the Illinois Senate, Rezko, through two of his companies, gave Obama $2,000. Obama won election in 1996 in a district that coincidentally included 11 of Rezko's 30 low-income housing projects.

Rezko is known by the Chicago press as a "fixer" who can make things happen for a price. Little is done out of the goodness of his heart. He's on trial for bilking up to $6 million from the people of Illinois through kickbacks while working for the administration of current Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Did Rezko find jobs for Obama supporters? That is one of the questions the Chicago press wanted to ask before Obama cut short a recent press conference.

Rezko and Obama would do business yet again. In 2005, when Rezko was under federal investigation for influence peddling in Blagojevich's administration, Obama and Rezko's wife, Rita, bought adjacent pieces of property from a Chicago doctor.

The doctor sold one parcel to Obama for $1.65 million, $300,000 below the asking price, while Rezko's wife paid full price, $625,000, for the adjacent vacant lot. Six months later, Obama paid Rezko's wife $104,500 for a 10-foot-wide strip of her land, allegedly so that he could have a bigger yard.

The deal rendered the Rezko parcel too small to build on, thereby increasing the value of Obama's property. What was Rezko expecting in return for this favor to Obama that made Rezko's parcel almost worthless?

An interesting sidebar to the deal was that just weeks before, an Iraqi billionaire by the name of Nadhmi Auchi, who has a French conviction for corruption to his credit, had loaned Rezko $3.5 million through the Panamanian company Fintrade Services FA.

A 2004 Pentagon report obtained by the Washington Times identified Auchi as a global arms dealer and Iraqi billionaire "who, behind the facade of legitimate business, served as Saddam Hussein's principle international financial manipulator and bag man."

The report states that "significant and credible evidence has been developed that Nadhmi Auchi has engaged in unlawful activities" such as bribing "foreign governments and individuals prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom to turn opinion against the American-led mission to remove Saddam Hussein." He also helped "arrange for significant theft from the U.N. Oil-for-Food Program to smuggle weapons and dual-use technology into Iraq."

Yet Auchi, despite his French conviction and other activities, was somehow able to get permission to come to Chicago in 2004. John Batchelor of Human Events says that in April 2004 Auchi met with Rezko, Gov. Blagojevich, State Senate President Emil Jones Jr. and reportedly then-state Sen. Obama, who'd just won the Democratic U.S. Senate nomination.

So this, er, businessman meets Obama and friends at the Four Seasons hotel in downtown Chicago. Obama acknowledges attending an event there where Rezko was present but doesn't recall meeting Auchi. "He shook a lot of hands and met a lot of people," an Obama aide told the London Times.

Did he shake Auchi's? The newspaper said the timing of the loan to Rezko and the Obama property purchase, along with the purchase of land next door by Rezko's wife from the same seller, raise questions about whether Auchi helped buy the house. It raises a lot of questions.

Why would an Iraqi billionaire, a "fixer" like Rezko and a Saddam protege, be interested in a rising U.S. politician who was also opposed to the ousting of Hussein by U.S. forces? Why would that billionaire lend that much money to Obama's fundraiser, Rezko, with the two buying adjacent properties from the same seller on the same day?

Rezko has told a court that Auchi is a "close friend." Obviously. Aside from the $3.5 million loan, Auchi and Rezko became partners in a Midwest pizzeria business. Through various dealings, Rezko wound up owing Auchi more than $27 million. What did Auchi want in return? Perhaps a friend in the White House? Both Rezko and Auchi were, and are, in the business of buying influence.

Among Obama's circle of friends is William C. Ayers, currently a professor of education at the University of Chicago and a former aide to Chicago's current mayor, Richard M. Daley. He served with Obama on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago.

Back in the 1970s he was known simply as Bill Ayers, a terrorist with the Weathermen who was quoted in the New York Times as finding "a certain eloquence in bombs." Married to fellow Weathermen terrorist Bernadine Dohrn, he writes openly about his role in the 1974 bombing of the U.S. Capitol Building.

His memoirs appeared in the New York Times, oddly enough, on Sept. 11, 2001. In them, he wrote: "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." Does Barack Obama agree? Or will he denounce these words of his friend as he did with Louis Farrakhan after Farrakhan's endorsement of Obama?

The trial of an Illinois influence-peddler may answer the many questions that surround the past and future of Barack Obama. Clearly, the friends he has chosen are not friends of honest, clean government or of the United States."; March 08, 2008 5:55 AM
dwit said...: White Water.; March 08, 2008 6:06 AM
Anonymous said...: ** AUCHIGATE ** REZKOGATE ** AYERS-DORHN **

ALL TERRORISM RELATED!

KINDA MAKES WHITEWATER(REAL ESTATE) LOOK LIKE CAKE!; March 08, 2008 6:19 AM
Anonymous said...: "An interesting sidebar to the deal was that just weeks before, an Iraqi billionaire by the name of Nadhmi Auchi, who has a French conviction for corruption to his credit, had loaned Rezko $3.5 million through the Panamanian company Fintrade Services FA. "

So this, er, businessman meets Obama and friends at the Four Seasons hotel in downtown Chicago. Obama acknowledges attending an event there where Rezko was present but doesn't recall meeting Auchi. "He shook a lot of hands and met a lot of people," an Obama aide told the London Times.

Did he shake Auchi's? The newspaper said the timing of the loan to Rezko and the Obama property purchase, along with the purchase of land next door by Rezko's wife from the same seller, raise questions about whether Auchi helped buy the house. It raises a lot of questions."; March 08, 2008 6:23 AM
Anonymous said...: "A 2004 Pentagon report obtained by the Washington Times identified Auchi as a global arms dealer and Iraqi billionaire "who, behind the facade of legitimate business, served as Saddam Hussein's principle international financial manipulator and bag man."; March 08, 2008 6:24 AM
Anonymous said...: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xqu3u9ISctA; March 08, 2008 6:27 AM
Anonymous said...: "Nadhmi Auchi was charged along with Saddam Hussein for conspiring to assassinate Iraqi President Abdul-Karim Qasim in 1959. Qasim was injured while his bodyguard was killed; Saddam managed to flee the country. Auchi was arrested for delivering weapons to the assassins but was later pardoned by President Qasim."; March 08, 2008 6:31 AM
Anonymous said...: "Several US political fundraisers are currently on trial for corruption in connection with loans received from Auchi. Auchi is currently barred from entering the US by the state department as an undesirable alien.

Nadhmi Auchi was viewed with a lot of suspicion by the Iraqi opposition to Saddam Hussein's regime, regarding him as a front-man for Saddam's intelligence service. Auchi was involved in several multi-billion business deals in the post-Saddam era too, such as the Orascom mobile phone network (IraqNa), and at least one power generation contract involving Chicago-based tycoon Antoin Rezko and Iraq's former Minister of Electricity, Aiham Alsamarrae, who has been convicted over corruption charges in Iraq and is now living in Chicago."; March 08, 2008 6:34 AM
Anonymous said...: "In the fall of 2006, William Ayers was disinvited to a conference for progressive educators on the grounds that his position supporting political terrorism would tarnish the reputation and standing of the progressive education movement"; March 08, 2008 6:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Ayers was a 1960s-era political activist and Weather Underground member. He grew up in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago in a highly privileged family (his father, Thomas Ayers, was Chairman and CEO of Commonwealth Edison) and attended Lake Forest Academy. According to Ayers' memoir Fugitive Days, he became radicalized at the University of Michigan. During his years there, he became involved in the New Left and the SDS.

Ayers went underground with several comrades including Brandy Diekman, after their co-conspirators' bomb accidentally exploded on March 6, 1970, destroying a Greenwich Village townhouse and killing three members of the Weather Underground (Ted Gold, Terry Robbins, and Diana Oughton, who was Ayers' girlfriend at the time). He and his colleagues invented identities and traveled continuously. They avoided the police and FBI, while bombing high-profile government buildings including the United States Capitol, The Pentagon, and the Harry S Truman Building housing the State Department. Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn raised two children, Zayd and Malik, underground before turning themselves in in 1981, when most charges were dropped because of prosecutorial misconduct during the long search for the fugitives. They also adopted a son, Chesa Boudin, who is the biological son of former Weathermen David Gilbert and Kathy Boudin.

Ayers published his memoirs in 2001 with the book Fugitive Days. His interview with the New York Times to promote his book was published on September 11, 2001, and includes his reaction to Emile De Antonio's 1976 documentary film about the Weathermen: "He was 'embarrassed by the arrogance, the solipsism, the absolute certainty that we and we alone knew the way,' he writes. 'The rigidity and the narcissism.'" In this interview, he also was quoted as saying, "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough."

Ayers has also edited and written nearly a dozen books on education theory, policy and practice.; March 08, 2008 6:39 AM
Anonymous said...: "'Antoin "Tony" Rezko (born 1955 in Aleppo, Syria) is a restaurateur and real estate developer in Chicago, Illinois. Rezko is currently facing federal charges of attempted extortion, money laundering, and fraud. He is receiving media attention due to his association with presidential hopeful Barack Obama. On January 28, 2008, Rezko was arrested at his Wilmette, Illinois home for an alleged bond violation."

Rezko has raised funds for many politicians, both Democrats and Republicans. These include prominent Democrats, such as Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, U.S. Senator and Presidential candidate Barack Obama, Comptroller Dan Hynes, former Cook County Board President John Stroger, and Cook County Board President Todd Stroger. Rezko has also raised money for former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar, a Republican, and he co-chaired a megamillion-dollar fund-raiser for President George W. Bush in 2003.

The indictment of Rezko on federal charges has drawn attention to his relationship with Illinois Senator Barack Obama.

In November 2006, Obama drew media scrutiny when it came to light that in 2005, he had purchased his house on the South Side of Chicago for $300,000 below the asking price on the same day that Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for the full asking price. The lots had originally been a single lot, but the previous owners decided to sell the land as two separate lots and, according to Obama, the owners required that the sale of both lots be closed on the same date. Obama subsequently bought a 10 foot (3.0 m) wide strip of Rita's property for $104,500, $60,000 above the assessed value. According to Chicago Sun-Times columnist, Mark Brown, "Rezko definitely did Obama a favor by selling him the 10-foot strip of land, making his own parcel less attractive for development." Obama acknowledges that the exchange may have created the appearance of impropriety, and stated "I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it." On December 28, 2006, Rita sold the property to a company owned by her husband's former business attorney for $575,000, netting a profit of $54,500 prior to expenses and property taxes. In October 2007, the new owners put the still vacant land up for sale again, this time for $1.5 million.

In June 2007, the Sun-Times published a story about letters Obama had written in 1997 to city and state officials in support of a low-income senior citizen development project headed by Rezko and partner Allison Davis. The project received more than $14 million in taxpayer funds, including $885,000 in development fees for Rezko and Davis. Of Obama's letters in support of the Cottage View Terrace apartments development, Obama spokesman Bill Burton said "This wasn't done as a favor for anyone, it was done in the interests of the people in the community who have benefited from the project. I don't know that anyone specifically asked him to write this letter nine years ago. There was a consensus in the community about the positive impact the project would make and Obama supported it because it was going to help people in his district." Rezko's attorney responded that "Mr. Rezko never spoke with, nor sought a letter from, Senator Obama in connection with that project. Obama had told the Sun-Times that Rezko raised "between $50,000 and $60,000" during Obama's political career, although the New York Times reports a total of about $150,000. Since then, Obama has returned or donated to charity more than $84,000 of funds linked to Rezko.

In the South Carolina Democratic Party presidential debate on January 21, 2008, Senator Hillary Clinton said that Obama had represented Rezko, who she referred to as a slum landlord. Obama responded that he had never represented Rezko and had done work indirectly for Rezko's firm for an estimated five hours, Things That Make You Go Hmm?; March 08, 2008 6:49 AM
dwit said...: WHITE WATER; March 08, 2008 7:15 AM
protactinium said...: You are trying to use issue so radical Hillary won't dare touch.
And She will use anything right now.

You are one of those conspiracy nuts.

Dwit is right. White Water.; March 08, 2008 3:14 PM
Anonymous said...: THIS IS WORTH THE TIME:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56rTu_O_ACw; March 08, 2008 3:45 PM
dwit said...: wHiTe WaTeR; March 08, 2008 4:18 PM
Anonymous said...: ** REZKOGATE **

** AUCHIGATE **

** AYERS-DORHN **

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56rTu_O_ACw; March 08, 2008 5:11 PM
dwit said...: KEATING 5?; March 08, 2008 9:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Obama Would Have Us All Believe These Is No Dirt The Republicans will us to stop his potential presidency, here is what i have learned just from the rezko trial:

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

** rezkogate

** auchigate

** ayers - dohrn

the video is just a sample of what the news would look like before november if obama were named the nominee!; March 09, 2008 5:20 PM
Anonymous said...: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56rTu_O_ACw

The Reasons Explained in the video will show you why a grassroots effort is being created to prevent the election of barack obama, should he gain the democratic nomination, we will fight you Barack Obama! This WILL NOT END, We WILL RIDE YOU FROM NOW UNTIL YOUR END!

Our Voices Are GROWING Every Day!; March 09, 2008 6:38 PM
Anonymous said...: I Encourage EVERYONE here to write your news NETWORKS and demand that they tell us who:

nadhmi auchi

antoin "tony" rezko

and

william ayers

ARE, And Why Barack Obama Associates With These People?

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

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

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56rTu_O_ACw; March 09, 2008 7:07 PM
MOJORISIN' said...: dwit: "Come on now. No self respecting straight man would post a picture of his cat."

After being in Europe for over a week, I couldn't wait to get home to catch up here! Nothing new, however, the post of the month goes to dwit for the above.

I see AnonNy has now progressed to ALL CAPS. I guess his little nub is smaller than I thought! Ha!Ha!Ha!; March 09, 2008 9:30 PM
math 101 said...: hey matt can there be a link to the open thread in the march area or even a new open thread; March 10, 2008 12:19 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 801 – 1000 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