Hillary Clinton was simply making a case for why she is remaining in the race for the nomination.
"During an interview with the editorial board of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader newspaper in South Dakota, Hillary discussed the calls for her to drop out of the race. She said, “My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it.”
That was her comment, pure and simple. Clearly, she was speaking in context about the length of both Bill Clinton and RFk's campaigns. So, I'm curious...how does the press come up with the consensus that she wants Obama assinated? When Mike Huckabee made the comment about Obama "ducking bullets" it did not get played out like this.
Clearly, this is an effort by the media and Obama surrogates (it is getting harder to distinguish which is which) to have her gone and to anoint Obama, the new wonder boy of politics. Obama's supporters and surrogates claim he has all these superdelegates wrapped, so why haven't they, as I have said weeks ago, come out and endorsed him and end this thing? There is one reason: Many superdelegates are not convinced he can win in November, and they are correct to have that concern based on the outcome in key states a Democrat needs to win. Obama can run around out West (New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Utah), trying to rewrite the Electoral College Map but that aint going to happen. MCCain is from out West (Arizona) and Westerners are going to take that into consideration when they vote.
Obama is not going to win Florida, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri so his strategy is to win in Western States. As Hillary's campaign has said, you can rewrite some of the rules...but you can't rewrite all the rules. The man is a walking disaster and will lose the GE but the Democratic Party will rather nominate him and shoot themselves in the foot than give Hillary Clinton the nomination. They simply do not want her to be President.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Friday, May 23, 2008
Latest Polls have Hillary Doing Better Than Obama
Latest Polls have Hillary doing better against McCain:
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 39, Clinton 50 Clinton +11.0
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 43, Obama 45 Obama +2.0
New Hampshire: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 41, Clinton 51 Clinton +10.0
New Hampshire: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 43, Obama 48 Obama +5.0
Yesterday's (5/22)Polls say she's beating Mccain in Nevada:
Nevada: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 41, Clinton 46 Clinton +5.0
Nevada: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 46, Obama 40 McCain +6.0
Elsewhere in PA, OH, and FL (5/22)
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Clinton Quinnipiac McCain 37, Clinton 50 Clinton +13.0
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac McCain 40, Obama 46 Obama +6.0
Ohio: McCain vs. Clinton Quinnipiac McCain 41, Clinton 48 Clinton +7.0
Ohio: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac McCain 44, Obama 40 McCain +4.0
Florida: McCain vs. Clinton Quinnipiac McCain 41, Clinton 48 Clinton +7.0
Florida: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac McCain 45, Obama 41 McCain +4.0
Gallup Tracking:
Barack Obama remains the leader in national Democratic voters' nomination preferences, 51% to 44%, over Hillary Clinton, but his lead has fallen below double digits for the first time in six days in Gallup Poll Daily tracking.
Obama did not poll as strongly in Gallup's Thursday night polling (May 22); the coming days will reveal whether that is the start of a new trend or a temporary blip.
Recently, Obama has held a slight advantage over John McCain in registered voters' preferences for the general election. The latest update, based on May 18-22 polling, finds the two tied at 46%.
In contrast, Clinton has a five-point lead over McCain, 49% to 44%.
Recently, Clinton has tended to fare slightly better in trial heats against McCain than Obama has, with the Democratic candidates doing equally well on a few occasions. Obama has not exceeded Clinton's performance versus McCain in Gallup Poll Daily tracking since the April 17-21 tracking period. -- Jeff Jones
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 39, Clinton 50 Clinton +11.0
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 43, Obama 45 Obama +2.0
New Hampshire: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 41, Clinton 51 Clinton +10.0
New Hampshire: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 43, Obama 48 Obama +5.0
Yesterday's (5/22)Polls say she's beating Mccain in Nevada:
Nevada: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 41, Clinton 46 Clinton +5.0
Nevada: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 46, Obama 40 McCain +6.0
Elsewhere in PA, OH, and FL (5/22)
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Clinton Quinnipiac McCain 37, Clinton 50 Clinton +13.0
Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac McCain 40, Obama 46 Obama +6.0
Ohio: McCain vs. Clinton Quinnipiac McCain 41, Clinton 48 Clinton +7.0
Ohio: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac McCain 44, Obama 40 McCain +4.0
Florida: McCain vs. Clinton Quinnipiac McCain 41, Clinton 48 Clinton +7.0
Florida: McCain vs. Obama Quinnipiac McCain 45, Obama 41 McCain +4.0
Gallup Tracking:
Barack Obama remains the leader in national Democratic voters' nomination preferences, 51% to 44%, over Hillary Clinton, but his lead has fallen below double digits for the first time in six days in Gallup Poll Daily tracking.
Obama did not poll as strongly in Gallup's Thursday night polling (May 22); the coming days will reveal whether that is the start of a new trend or a temporary blip.
Recently, Obama has held a slight advantage over John McCain in registered voters' preferences for the general election. The latest update, based on May 18-22 polling, finds the two tied at 46%.
In contrast, Clinton has a five-point lead over McCain, 49% to 44%.
Recently, Clinton has tended to fare slightly better in trial heats against McCain than Obama has, with the Democratic candidates doing equally well on a few occasions. Obama has not exceeded Clinton's performance versus McCain in Gallup Poll Daily tracking since the April 17-21 tracking period. -- Jeff Jones
Hillary Says She Might Take Fight To Convention
Hillary Clinton has suggested she might take her fight to eat Florida's Delegates to the Convention. Te Rules and Bylaws Commitee is slated to meet May 31, 2008 where is issue will be taken up.
Meanwhile, on she goes to Montana and South Dakota to Campaign. She is expected to trounce Obama in Puerto Rico but might lose both MT and SD.
She is showing no signs of quitting, much to the dismay of Obama, his supporters, and the DNC. They dare not call for her to drop out because that will infuriate her supporters.
Meanwhile, on she goes to Montana and South Dakota to Campaign. She is expected to trounce Obama in Puerto Rico but might lose both MT and SD.
She is showing no signs of quitting, much to the dismay of Obama, his supporters, and the DNC. They dare not call for her to drop out because that will infuriate her supporters.
Talks Of A Dream Ticket?
Reports are there is talk going on between the Clinton and Obama camps about a "dream ticket" with Clinton and Obama. Both camps are denying the reports but I have been reading reports like Bob Beckel's article that claims if Hillary wants to be on the ticket, she will not be denied, especially since the establishment, which had been for her, spurned her for Obama.
I personally do not like the ticket but she has to do what is best for her. I'll say this much; It would be the only way I would vote for Obama. Why might you ask? Well, she has devoted her entire life to the Party and here he comes after having done squat, and they make him the nominee? Not fair!
I think if Obama sees the writing on the wall, he'll have no choice. Will he like it? No, but he will live with it because he is that ambitious and if the only way he can win is with Hillary, he will run with Hillary. Besides, he will get Bill and Chelsea campaigning for him. what more can you ask for? Punditry about Bill Clinton running around in the White House is bunk. Last I heard, the Vice President live at the Lowell Observatory and he will not be there everyday looking over Obama's shoulder. So, whatever Hillary decides, I'll back her.
I personally do not like the ticket but she has to do what is best for her. I'll say this much; It would be the only way I would vote for Obama. Why might you ask? Well, she has devoted her entire life to the Party and here he comes after having done squat, and they make him the nominee? Not fair!
I think if Obama sees the writing on the wall, he'll have no choice. Will he like it? No, but he will live with it because he is that ambitious and if the only way he can win is with Hillary, he will run with Hillary. Besides, he will get Bill and Chelsea campaigning for him. what more can you ask for? Punditry about Bill Clinton running around in the White House is bunk. Last I heard, the Vice President live at the Lowell Observatory and he will not be there everyday looking over Obama's shoulder. So, whatever Hillary decides, I'll back her.
Bill Clinton Pushing For Hillary as VP
According to reports, Bill Clinton is pushing hard for Hillary to be on the ticket with Obama if Obama is the nominee, which appears likely, barring something miraculous.
Bill Clinton thinks Hillary has earned the VP spot and thinks she deserves it.
A lot of pundits and Clinton haters, including Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and others have spoken against the idea, as if they know definitively that he will never put her on the ticket.
Reports have surfaced that his wife, Michelle Obama has vetoed the idea, even thougn when asked on ABC, she denied she said anything of the kind. All I can say is this: If he and the Democratic party shun Hillary Clinton by giving Obama the nominee...then deny her the VP spot also, they can kiss the election goodbye. Women will be outraged if he picks a man, but if he picks another woman to get the women's vote, he will face a backlash he won't soon forget. If he's as smart as I think his ass is, or as ambitious as I know he is...he'll pick Hillary because if he does not...he will end his chance to be President.
Bill Clinton thinks Hillary has earned the VP spot and thinks she deserves it.
A lot of pundits and Clinton haters, including Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and others have spoken against the idea, as if they know definitively that he will never put her on the ticket.
Reports have surfaced that his wife, Michelle Obama has vetoed the idea, even thougn when asked on ABC, she denied she said anything of the kind. All I can say is this: If he and the Democratic party shun Hillary Clinton by giving Obama the nominee...then deny her the VP spot also, they can kiss the election goodbye. Women will be outraged if he picks a man, but if he picks another woman to get the women's vote, he will face a backlash he won't soon forget. If he's as smart as I think his ass is, or as ambitious as I know he is...he'll pick Hillary because if he does not...he will end his chance to be President.
Obama's Tries To Calm Jews' Fears
Yesterday, Obama spoke before Jews in a synagogue about his committment to the Jewish Cause. He has been trying to shoot down rumors of his faith, his associations with Wright, Farrakhan, and his statements about meeting with our enemies "without precondition."
appeared to have been given a warm welcome but during the questiona and answer phase, he was grilled about his asscoiations and his desire to meet with America's enemies.
appeared to have been given a warm welcome but during the questiona and answer phase, he was grilled about his asscoiations and his desire to meet with America's enemies.
Obama Tries To Convince Cubans He Will Meet With Preparation
Clearly, Obama and his camp realizes he has made a big mistake by claiming he would meet with the world's dictators and despots "without preconditions." That is why he has been backtracking his statements and only recently has tried to say he will meet with "preparation." He giving a speech today before Cuban Americans trying to reassure them he won't meet Castro (Raul) unless he "prepares." Maybe young Cubans are inclined to agree with him but I doubt the elders would back his "doctrine."
The Republicans will not let Obama wiggle out of this one because they have finally backed him into a corner on a position that is to their advantage: Foreign Policy. When Obama scoffs at the idea that we should have no fear of Iran and Cuba because they are "tiny countries" it show how ill-informed and naive he is about foreign policy. He does not seem to understand that it is not the size of the country (although Iran is a large country) but the size of the threat they possess. I am not sure America is going to trust the security of America to someone who has these pie-in-the-sky notions, like talking to these crazy people!
This election is not going to come down to domestic issues like the democrats think; it will be about National Security, as usual, and no amount of Economic gloom and doom can trump National Security because gues what...if you are dead, you won't need to eat.
Democrats still don't understand that they need to put up the strongest candidate against Republicans...not the ones the establishment favors, but the one that can go toe to toe against Republicans. It's a mistake they are about to repeat, to their detriment.
The Republicans will not let Obama wiggle out of this one because they have finally backed him into a corner on a position that is to their advantage: Foreign Policy. When Obama scoffs at the idea that we should have no fear of Iran and Cuba because they are "tiny countries" it show how ill-informed and naive he is about foreign policy. He does not seem to understand that it is not the size of the country (although Iran is a large country) but the size of the threat they possess. I am not sure America is going to trust the security of America to someone who has these pie-in-the-sky notions, like talking to these crazy people!
This election is not going to come down to domestic issues like the democrats think; it will be about National Security, as usual, and no amount of Economic gloom and doom can trump National Security because gues what...if you are dead, you won't need to eat.
Democrats still don't understand that they need to put up the strongest candidate against Republicans...not the ones the establishment favors, but the one that can go toe to toe against Republicans. It's a mistake they are about to repeat, to their detriment.
McCain is Fit To Be President
John McCain's Medical Records were released today in Fountain Hills AZ, just up the 101 Freeway from my residence. It appears to show that he is healthy, showing no lasting effects from his bout with melanoma (skin cancer). It is curious that his campaign released it on Memorial Day Weekend. Also, it is being done as he is meeting with Vice Presidential Candidates at his Ranch in Sedona, AZ.
The details of McCain's health are contained in 1,173 pages of medical documents spanning 2000 to 2008. His campaign made the documents available to the AP to make the case that he's healthy enough to serve as president, as well as to counter the notion that he's too old. The Arizona senator will turn 72 in August and would be the country's oldest President.
Democrats have been trying to use Mccain's age as a campaign issue. After weeks of listening to the media and late night comedians make fun of his age, McCain went on Saturday Night Live last Saturday to joke about it himself.
Intrestingly, Mayo internist Dr. John Eckstein, his longtime personal physician, lauded McCain's performance on a heart stress test -- sweating it out for 10 minutes when Eckstein routinely sees patients decades younger quit at five or seven minutes.
"I think physiologically he is considerably younger than his chronologic age based on his cardiovascular fitness," Eckstein said in an interview Thursday. "I got a call from the cardiologist who said that he had not seen anyone that age exercise for that long in a long time."
John MCCain's age is an issue but is not relevant because he has demonstrated by releasing his medical records, that he is not on death's door. Besides, his mother, Roberta McCain is 97 years old. Clearly, he can argue that he has longevity genes.
The details of McCain's health are contained in 1,173 pages of medical documents spanning 2000 to 2008. His campaign made the documents available to the AP to make the case that he's healthy enough to serve as president, as well as to counter the notion that he's too old. The Arizona senator will turn 72 in August and would be the country's oldest President.
Democrats have been trying to use Mccain's age as a campaign issue. After weeks of listening to the media and late night comedians make fun of his age, McCain went on Saturday Night Live last Saturday to joke about it himself.
Intrestingly, Mayo internist Dr. John Eckstein, his longtime personal physician, lauded McCain's performance on a heart stress test -- sweating it out for 10 minutes when Eckstein routinely sees patients decades younger quit at five or seven minutes.
"I think physiologically he is considerably younger than his chronologic age based on his cardiovascular fitness," Eckstein said in an interview Thursday. "I got a call from the cardiologist who said that he had not seen anyone that age exercise for that long in a long time."
John MCCain's age is an issue but is not relevant because he has demonstrated by releasing his medical records, that he is not on death's door. Besides, his mother, Roberta McCain is 97 years old. Clearly, he can argue that he has longevity genes.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Ted Kennedy Killed Hillary's Nomination Prospect
When Ted Kennedy used the bogus excuse that Bill Clinton was "ganging up" on Obama as a excuse to endorse Obama, that was the turning point, I think in the race. That gave other people who had pledged support for Hillary the tacit approval to stab Hillary in the back.
When I heard what happened to Kennedy over the weekend, as much as I wouldn't wish cancer on anybody...I thought...God don't like ugly. Ted Kennedy had given his word to remain neutral but he reneged on his promise. According to articles I've read, he was upset about Hillary giving credit to LBJ for passage of Civil Rights Legislation instead of JFK, and that is why he endorsed Obama. http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/by_frank_james_for_all.html
What is particularly odious and striking about the way the party has treated Hillary Clinton is if you can treat someone of her stature in this way, someone who has been First Lady twice, her husband is the only President the Party has had in the 25 yeras I've been in America...how would they treat others who aren't affiliated to their party? I t has revealed a side to the Democrats that I find particularly distasteful.
Recently, Ted Kennedy has been making really hurtful statements about Hillary's leadership and qualifications to be VP. These are Kennedy's exact words: Obama should choose a running mate who "is in tune with his appeal for the nobler aspirations of the American people," Kennedy said. "If we had real leadership - as we do with Barack Obama - in the No. 2 spot as well, it'd be enormously helpful."
Excuse me, but who the hell does Ted kennedy think he is? Just because the media treats his family like they are royalty and gives them a pass...it does not change the fact that he show poor judgement by allowing Mary Joe Kopeckne to drown. he also was 700+ vortes behind Jimmy Carter in 1980 and yet he took his fight to the Convention. He lost, refused to shake Carter's hand, and refused to "unify" the Party, contributing to the Dems loss.Was that leadership I ask? Was that nobler aspirations, I ask?
When I heard what happened to Kennedy over the weekend, as much as I wouldn't wish cancer on anybody...I thought...God don't like ugly. Ted Kennedy had given his word to remain neutral but he reneged on his promise. According to articles I've read, he was upset about Hillary giving credit to LBJ for passage of Civil Rights Legislation instead of JFK, and that is why he endorsed Obama. http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/by_frank_james_for_all.html
What is particularly odious and striking about the way the party has treated Hillary Clinton is if you can treat someone of her stature in this way, someone who has been First Lady twice, her husband is the only President the Party has had in the 25 yeras I've been in America...how would they treat others who aren't affiliated to their party? I t has revealed a side to the Democrats that I find particularly distasteful.
Recently, Ted Kennedy has been making really hurtful statements about Hillary's leadership and qualifications to be VP. These are Kennedy's exact words: Obama should choose a running mate who "is in tune with his appeal for the nobler aspirations of the American people," Kennedy said. "If we had real leadership - as we do with Barack Obama - in the No. 2 spot as well, it'd be enormously helpful."
Excuse me, but who the hell does Ted kennedy think he is? Just because the media treats his family like they are royalty and gives them a pass...it does not change the fact that he show poor judgement by allowing Mary Joe Kopeckne to drown. he also was 700+ vortes behind Jimmy Carter in 1980 and yet he took his fight to the Convention. He lost, refused to shake Carter's hand, and refused to "unify" the Party, contributing to the Dems loss.Was that leadership I ask? Was that nobler aspirations, I ask?
The Media and The Democratic Party Derailed Hillary's Camapign
I hear male, and... surprisingly...a lot of female journalists, say there has not been any favorable reporting for Obama or sexist statements about Hillary during the campaign. I cannot believe some of the things I have heard from people who were supposed to be "professionals."
I have been blogging about the gang over at MSNBC and CNN for months. Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, and David Shuster have been particularly venomous and have used their positions to promote Obama as the nominee. The recent interview of Obama was an example of Reporter going easy on Obama. Where was the tough question of which Tim Russert is so legendary after Obama finally denounced Wright? I saw no no evidence of it in the Meet The Press interview. There has not been any opposing view by any journalist on either channel during the campaign. One reporter in particular who tried to make the point that the media was "deciding" the election was Craig Crawford. He was summarily barred from appearing on CNN and MSNBC because he spoke in favorable terms about Hillary.
I switched to watching Fox several months ago and to my surprise, I agree with them about the Liberal Media...I never thought that was possible! I find that Fox has been the only network that has been fair to Hillary...tough, but fair. Lately I have watched less and less of MSNBC and even NBC. I watch CNN only when I believe that they will be non-biased, for example, Lou Dobbs. Once I hear the Obama chorus, I'm gone.
Due to my disgust with the Democratic Party and it refusal to show leadership regarding Florida and Michigan, I switched to Independent a day after the Indiana result when the media declared "it was over." It was hard, but I have not regretted my decision.
I have been blogging about the gang over at MSNBC and CNN for months. Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, and David Shuster have been particularly venomous and have used their positions to promote Obama as the nominee. The recent interview of Obama was an example of Reporter going easy on Obama. Where was the tough question of which Tim Russert is so legendary after Obama finally denounced Wright? I saw no no evidence of it in the Meet The Press interview. There has not been any opposing view by any journalist on either channel during the campaign. One reporter in particular who tried to make the point that the media was "deciding" the election was Craig Crawford. He was summarily barred from appearing on CNN and MSNBC because he spoke in favorable terms about Hillary.
I switched to watching Fox several months ago and to my surprise, I agree with them about the Liberal Media...I never thought that was possible! I find that Fox has been the only network that has been fair to Hillary...tough, but fair. Lately I have watched less and less of MSNBC and even NBC. I watch CNN only when I believe that they will be non-biased, for example, Lou Dobbs. Once I hear the Obama chorus, I'm gone.
Due to my disgust with the Democratic Party and it refusal to show leadership regarding Florida and Michigan, I switched to Independent a day after the Indiana result when the media declared "it was over." It was hard, but I have not regretted my decision.
Don't Quit Hillary!
I never thought I would see the day when the Democratic Party disenfranchises voters after what happened in Florida in 2000 and the criticism they leveled at the Republicans. That single incident, with The Supreme Court stopping the count, coronating Bush to the Presidency motivated me to seek U.S. Citizenship. Prior to that, I wanted to remain a citizen of my country of birth due to what I considered unfair treatment and inconsistent application of laws in America. I became a U.S. Citizen after 911 because I wanted to have a voice in American politics. Taking the oath was one of the most emotional days of my life.
I donated money and volunteered for Kerry/Edwards in 2004: made 100's of phone calls and canvassed. I was very devastated and depressed when they lost. To make matters worse, I was angry when it was reported that Kerry did not spend the $Millions he had raised, but kept it, including the database of names for a 2008 run.
Forward to 2008. I am very upset with the Democratic Party, and Ted Kennedy in particular, that they have "decided" that Obama will be the nominee, passing Hillary Clinton over, after she has spent "years" working for this Party. It's almost as if they are saying no woman will be "allowed" to be President. I think there has been an orchestrated effort on the part of the media and the Democratic Party to keep Hillary from getting the nomination. There has been no scrutiny of Obama, his resume is thin, he has changed his position on many issues, and he's going to weaken America by talking to these crazy people like the Iranian leader and others. It bothers me that Hamas "approves" of him as the nominee. I am bothered by the "associations" he's had, despite the media "giving him a pass."
Another thing that bothers me is the biased way the media has covered the campaign, the sexist comments journalists and others have spoken of Hillary. I don't like the "racism" tag they have put on Bill Clinton, statement from Prominent blacks referencing "impeachment" and dissing Bill Clinton's Presidency. I think a lot of people have been disloyal and have stabbed the Clinton's in the back, including Ted Kennedy.
Hillary should stay in the race and fight for what she believes in. If that means taking it to the convention... so be it. Women deserve the respect of the Democratic Party for their loyalty in the lean times, and now they seem to be saying well...you don't matter now, we have "young voters and African Americans. Well, I tell you what, no one has proven to me yet that the Democratic Party can win ANY general election without women. Let's see if Obama can win with the coalition he has created...he seems to think he can do without the blue collar vote.
http://www.kansascity.com/278/story/628778.html#recent_comm
I donated money and volunteered for Kerry/Edwards in 2004: made 100's of phone calls and canvassed. I was very devastated and depressed when they lost. To make matters worse, I was angry when it was reported that Kerry did not spend the $Millions he had raised, but kept it, including the database of names for a 2008 run.
Forward to 2008. I am very upset with the Democratic Party, and Ted Kennedy in particular, that they have "decided" that Obama will be the nominee, passing Hillary Clinton over, after she has spent "years" working for this Party. It's almost as if they are saying no woman will be "allowed" to be President. I think there has been an orchestrated effort on the part of the media and the Democratic Party to keep Hillary from getting the nomination. There has been no scrutiny of Obama, his resume is thin, he has changed his position on many issues, and he's going to weaken America by talking to these crazy people like the Iranian leader and others. It bothers me that Hamas "approves" of him as the nominee. I am bothered by the "associations" he's had, despite the media "giving him a pass."
Another thing that bothers me is the biased way the media has covered the campaign, the sexist comments journalists and others have spoken of Hillary. I don't like the "racism" tag they have put on Bill Clinton, statement from Prominent blacks referencing "impeachment" and dissing Bill Clinton's Presidency. I think a lot of people have been disloyal and have stabbed the Clinton's in the back, including Ted Kennedy.
Hillary should stay in the race and fight for what she believes in. If that means taking it to the convention... so be it. Women deserve the respect of the Democratic Party for their loyalty in the lean times, and now they seem to be saying well...you don't matter now, we have "young voters and African Americans. Well, I tell you what, no one has proven to me yet that the Democratic Party can win ANY general election without women. Let's see if Obama can win with the coalition he has created...he seems to think he can do without the blue collar vote.
http://www.kansascity.com/278/story/628778.html#recent_comm
Monday, May 19, 2008
My Letter to HCFPinOH
I saw you ladies on The O'Reilley Factor on Thursday and I agree with your position 100%. The media coverage has been anti-Hillary, especially on MSNBC, the entire campaign season. The biased treatment and the caricature of Hillary has also been perpetrated by women on the network. Most notably, Nora O'Donnell, Mika Brzezinski (whose brother works for the Obama Campaign and whose father advises the Obama campaign), Rachel Maddow, and most surprisingly, Andrea Mitchell, whose husband, Alan Greenspan encouraged people to take out sub-prime mortgages. Other culprits include Tamron Hall and others.
I was a Democrat up until the Indiana Primary. I switched to Independent the day following but agonized for a day before finally mailing in the form. I feel empowered now that I've done so. I will no long vote down the ballot for anyone with a (DO) beside their name because of party affiliation. Anyone who gets my vote will have to earn it.
The primary reasons for the switch:
--Florida and Michigan were not "allowed" to re-vote
--Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi showed no leadership when they did not insist on a re-vote
--Obama's lawyers prevented re-vote in Florida and Michigan
--The Democrats are phonies. They only care about votes counting if it favors them or their favorite candidate
--The disloyalty being shown to Hillary by people who were "friends" and supporters
--The fact that "the men" in the party and Nancy Pelosi have "decided" that Obama is the nominee
--The media has been aiding Obama and "decided" the nomination
--The false and undeserved portrayal of Bill and Hillary as racists
--The fact that Obama has been forced down our throats even after recent revelations
--I don't believe Obama is truthful
--I think he is naive, inexperienced, and dangerous in his thinking (meeting with Iran and others)
--Super delegate system and the way delegates awarded is undemocratic
--"Math" and "rock star" status should not be the determining factors to choose nominee
--Ted Kennedy particularly has peed me off, declaring Hillary does not have kind of leadership to bring country together. Take a look at his history! He's a fine one to talk!
--Hillary is more electable than Obama yet they will still give him the nomination
--The Obama Campaign and supporters speaks disparagingly of Hillary and her supporters
--Obama has been talking victory laps and said he would declare victory on May 20th. They have since revised that statement.
--I will not vote for Obama and would only do so IF Hillary were on the ticket. However, I believe Hillary should be at the top of the ticket
--How can they give this nobody with no experience with questionable characters in his background the nomination? This is on the same level as Bush becoming President
--The Dems are choosing based on personality, not electability, and certainly not experience
--I would vote for McCain based on experience. I also have contact with him. He is my Senator and he has helped me with Immigration and Student Loan issues.
I was a Democrat up until the Indiana Primary. I switched to Independent the day following but agonized for a day before finally mailing in the form. I feel empowered now that I've done so. I will no long vote down the ballot for anyone with a (DO) beside their name because of party affiliation. Anyone who gets my vote will have to earn it.
The primary reasons for the switch:
--Florida and Michigan were not "allowed" to re-vote
--Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi showed no leadership when they did not insist on a re-vote
--Obama's lawyers prevented re-vote in Florida and Michigan
--The Democrats are phonies. They only care about votes counting if it favors them or their favorite candidate
--The disloyalty being shown to Hillary by people who were "friends" and supporters
--The fact that "the men" in the party and Nancy Pelosi have "decided" that Obama is the nominee
--The media has been aiding Obama and "decided" the nomination
--The false and undeserved portrayal of Bill and Hillary as racists
--The fact that Obama has been forced down our throats even after recent revelations
--I don't believe Obama is truthful
--I think he is naive, inexperienced, and dangerous in his thinking (meeting with Iran and others)
--Super delegate system and the way delegates awarded is undemocratic
--"Math" and "rock star" status should not be the determining factors to choose nominee
--Ted Kennedy particularly has peed me off, declaring Hillary does not have kind of leadership to bring country together. Take a look at his history! He's a fine one to talk!
--Hillary is more electable than Obama yet they will still give him the nomination
--The Obama Campaign and supporters speaks disparagingly of Hillary and her supporters
--Obama has been talking victory laps and said he would declare victory on May 20th. They have since revised that statement.
--I will not vote for Obama and would only do so IF Hillary were on the ticket. However, I believe Hillary should be at the top of the ticket
--How can they give this nobody with no experience with questionable characters in his background the nomination? This is on the same level as Bush becoming President
--The Dems are choosing based on personality, not electability, and certainly not experience
--I would vote for McCain based on experience. I also have contact with him. He is my Senator and he has helped me with Immigration and Student Loan issues.
Obama Has some Gall
Obama says Americans should:
1) Stop driving SUVS
2) Stop eating a lot of food
3) Stop setting our thermosstats at 72 degrees
Because the world does not like it.
Excuse the hell out of me, but since when does the world dictate how we as Americans should live our lives? I don't own an SUV because I can't afford one....but if I could....no one could tell me if and when I should drive it.
I happen to have an support three children, and believe me, when they want to eat....I can't tell them they are eating too much! Now, we are all struggling to feed our families, who the f----is Obama to tell us we can't eat what we want?! This from a man and his wife who whines about prices in Whole Foods! This is the sort of thing that reinforces the Elitist label that has been placed on him. Why don't he forego Arugula and eat lettuce instead, like everyone else?
Obama says our air condidtioners should not be set to 72 degrees. I've lived in Arizona, in the Desert Southwest for 24 years. I've had to turn my air conditioning on in May because we are going through a heat wave. We were above 100 degrees yesterday and will see triple digit temperatures till Thursday! So, again, excuse the f--- out of me but Obama does not know what the hell he is talking about. I have a suggestion for him....Why don't he stop flying around on planes and polluting if he is so concerned about the environment and stop telling us what we should do. Does he keep his mansion freezing in the winter in Chicago? I doubt it. I am tired of these self-righteous assholes and celebreties who flya round in their chartered planes and private jets yet want us to make sacrifices. Why don't they practice what they preach?
1) Stop driving SUVS
2) Stop eating a lot of food
3) Stop setting our thermosstats at 72 degrees
Because the world does not like it.
Excuse the hell out of me, but since when does the world dictate how we as Americans should live our lives? I don't own an SUV because I can't afford one....but if I could....no one could tell me if and when I should drive it.
I happen to have an support three children, and believe me, when they want to eat....I can't tell them they are eating too much! Now, we are all struggling to feed our families, who the f----is Obama to tell us we can't eat what we want?! This from a man and his wife who whines about prices in Whole Foods! This is the sort of thing that reinforces the Elitist label that has been placed on him. Why don't he forego Arugula and eat lettuce instead, like everyone else?
Obama says our air condidtioners should not be set to 72 degrees. I've lived in Arizona, in the Desert Southwest for 24 years. I've had to turn my air conditioning on in May because we are going through a heat wave. We were above 100 degrees yesterday and will see triple digit temperatures till Thursday! So, again, excuse the f--- out of me but Obama does not know what the hell he is talking about. I have a suggestion for him....Why don't he stop flying around on planes and polluting if he is so concerned about the environment and stop telling us what we should do. Does he keep his mansion freezing in the winter in Chicago? I doubt it. I am tired of these self-righteous assholes and celebreties who flya round in their chartered planes and private jets yet want us to make sacrifices. Why don't they practice what they preach?
Friday, May 16, 2008
A Slim Hope For Hillary?
Despite Tim Russert declaration that: "We now know who the Democratic Nominee is, and no one is going to dispute it. "Those closest to her will give her a hardheaded analysis, and if they lay it all out, they’ll say: "What is the rationale? What do we say to the undeclared Superdelegates tomorrow? Why do we tell them you’re staying in the race?’ And tonight, there’s no good answer for that." And, the suggestion by Anrea Mitchell that Hillary Clinton was staying in the race so she can "go out on a high note" after her West Virginia win has not materialized. Ever since the previous week's primary returns, in which Hillary lost North Carolina big to Barack Obama, and squeaked out a win in Indiana, the assumption was, and the Media has been saying that the race was over, it is just a manner in which she would make her exit.
I have a sense that Hillary intends to be in it to the end, and that she has a strategy to wrest the nomination away from Obama. It will make for exciting media coverage, if that happens.
Time Magazine, among others, has jumped into the fray: It declared Obama the nominee with a cover story that said, "And the nominee is..." with a picture of Obama. On "The Early Show" on CBS, Bob Schieffer said, "Basically...this race is over." On ABC, George Stephanopoulos said, "This nomination fight is over." And Chris Wallace of Fox News Channel said that "I think the Clinton people know the game is almost up."
Earlier today, Andrea Mitchell is reporting that, "for the first time now, her [Hillary] people, her closest aides, are saying, "she knows the reality, we know the reality." They’re acknowledging that she’s not going to win this―that she is really just going through the motions. And that’s a big change." But there is little indication that Hillary has accepted this notion.
I was somewhat surprised myself when I heard this, as nothing Hillary's campaign has said indicates that she is dropping out. It would come as a complete shock if she did not continue through Puerto Rico.
Clinton Campaign Chair Terry McAulife challenged Russert Sunday about his conclusion that the race was over: "Did it become an avalanche after Tuesday, when you and others were all on the air saying it was over?" Russert got defensive and said that he was only quoting others. "The Clinton campaign says it’s the media. What we did," said Russert, "is add up the delegates, call Clinton supporters and say, "Is the math there?" Clinton supporters said "No."
The race is still very fluid. It has been, and the networks’ graphic still says, that the total needed is 2026 delegates. But over the last couple of weeks, Hillary’s team has abandoned that number. The new number is 2209, or 2210, which is one more than half the delegates, if Florida and Michigan get to seat all of their delegates. This is supposed to be decided at a May 31 Rules Committee meeting, but up to now, Howard Dean has shown no leadership as Party Chairman to be able to engineer a compromise that would satisfy both Obama and Clinton.
Tim Russert erroneously said on Tuesday night during coverage of the West Virginia Primary that "48 hours ago on Meet the Press, Terry McAuliffe said he was willing to seat half of the delegations of Michigan and Florida." But in fact, McAuliffe didn’t say that. When Russert asked him on Meet the Press if he would accept that compromise, McAuliffe said, "We certainly might, you bet. But in fairness, the Rules and Bylaws Committee will meet on, on the 31st to make that decision." When pressed on the issue again by Russert, he again deferred to the Rules and Bylaws Committee and said, "it’s up to them to make that decision." That is a distinction with a significant difference.
I watched the Meet The Press coverage last Sunday and Terry McAuliffe NEVER said he would accept half the delegates.
Unfortunately for the Democrats and the media, Hillary has emerged as the stronger candidate with wider appeal, but only after the media turned a blind eye to Obama's problems and "associations" and abandoned her for the "Rock Star" Obama. It is now apparent to everyone that Obama has serious weaknesses on policy matters, like the reason for and effect of raising capital gains taxes, and his willingness to meet unconditionally at the presidential level with terrorists and dictators.
Perhaps more serious, his links to and handling of the situations with his controversial former minister Jeremiah Wright, his characterization of small town voters as "bitter and clinging to religion and guns" and the unrepentant terrorist and former Weatherman William Ayers. These issues have no doubt hurt him with White voters. The exit polls in West Virginia showed that 50% of the voters believe that Obama shares Jeremiah Wright’s views to some degree, and nearly half of those who voted for Hillary said that if Obama is their party’s nominee, they won’t vote for him. His radical ties are showing, and his efforts to distance himself without seeming to repudiate his past smacks of disengenuousness.
If (and when) Hillary loses the nomination it will be beacuse of several reasons: At one point, immediately after Super Tuesday on February 5, Obama won 10 straight primaries and caucuses, by an average of about 30 points each. Hillary's Campaign did not have a strategy to contest the Caucus states and her most importantly, her supporters and the Democratic Party Elite abandoned her in favor of Obama.
Hillary has become a formidable candidate but her campaign made a series of mistakes. Earlier misspoke about Bosnia, or as Larry King called it, a "mistruth." More recently, she has been brutally criticized for her comment to USA Today, in which she referenced an Associated Press story that talked about an exit poll that "found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me." Hillary had a valid point, but it was maybe politically incorrect to refer to "white" voters.
The comment sure caused a ruckus: Bob Herbert, the black columnist for the New York Times said that those comments were the equivalent of saying, "He can’t win! Don’t you understand? He’s black! He’s black!" he copntinued, "The Clintons have been trying to embed that gruesomely destructive message in the brains of white voters and Superdelegates for the longest time. It’s a grotesque insult to African-Americans, who have given so much support to both Bill and Hillary over the years."
All I can say is: where is the outrage when Blacks have been voting for Obama by 90+% matgins, given all the Clintons have done for Blacks and Civil rights? Why is this not racial voting? At least Obama has been getting 30-40% of the White vote? Hillary is not getting even 10%! Why is it racial pride when blacks vote 90+% for someone who's done NOTHING for them, but demogogue someone who has?
Hillary says she will continue and I believe she will. She told the crowd in West Virginia Tuesday night that "...I never give up. I'll keep coming back, and I'll stand with you as long as you stand with me." Or as James Carville puts it..."until the last dog dies." Obama and the media has probably succeeded in drying up her money but I have no doubt they will find the dough, somehow. On that, Andra Mitchell was again suspicious: She questioned the Clintons’ trustworthiness on money matters, saying on MSNBC’s Morning Joe that "We don’t know and won’t know whether their claims of having enough money (to continue on with the campaign) are accurate and truthful."
Don't ever count out the Clintons.
"Regardless of what happens with Michigan and Florida, or even if Superdelegates appear on paper to give Obama the number of delegates he needs to win, Hillary still won’t get out. As Politico has reported, there is little agreement among the various news agencies about exactly how many Superdelegates are committed to whom, and how many remain uncommitted. They point to the argument that counting Superdelegates is an art, not a science. Hillary could go to the convention in Denver the last week of August, where the delegates actually vote, and count on their ultimate support. If she can somehow get enough delegates to switch to her side, or hold back support from Obama, she might make it through the first ballot without Obama securing the nomination. Then all delegates are free, and this is where the Clintons may see their opening and chance for victory."
I know "people" think Clintons have lost their magic and the fear and respect they used to have in the party but they still might be able to pull off the upset. However, It would not be pretty and would shatter any hope of party unity. Any illusion that if Obama gets the nomination that Hillary will want him to win is just that, an illusion. If she loses, the Democrats will be split and will lose the White House. Count on it. That is, unless she gets on the ticket.
Despite their pretense that the race has gone on too long and that Obma is the nominee, the LWM love the high ratings and constant coverage. On the night of the West Virginia primary, Chris Matthews told Terry McAuliffe, who earlier in the day had called Matthews the "unofficial chairman of the Obama campaign," that he, as a reporter and political junkie, wants more than anything to see this race go down to midnight on the last night of the Denver convention. Yet, Matthews had said that morning, "I think most people...understand that the fight is over for the nomination."
Hillary was perceived to be the early favorite by the media. However, as Obama gained strength, (with their help), and the Clintons were accused of using race (this was a bogus charge), and Obama's links to the far-left of the Democratic Party to try to stop his momentum, his popularity grew in the media. Chris Matthews talked about how after being in the presence of an Obama speech, he "felt this thrill going up my leg," and he compared Obama’s message to the New Testament. The "rock star" treatment was obvious for all to see. There is scarcely any pretense of objectivity by any of the networks.If any journalist defends Clinton, he/she is not asked back on the network (Craig Crawford).
In a column on The Politico titled, "Obama’s Secret Weapon, The Media," Jim VandeHei and John Harris argued that "Many journalists are not merely observers but participants in the Obama phenomenon." Well said. Beware, John McCain. If tthey crucify a Democrat, just imagine what they'll do to you?
The Big question is: will Hillary bow out of the race gracefully, as Andrea Mitchell is reporting? I don't think so! She has made her position clear. Back in February, she made it clear that she looks at the letter rather than the spirit of the pledged delegate rules, which is that even they don’t have to vote on the first or any ballot for whom their state’s primary or caucus sent them to Denver to vote for. So until the delegates have a chance to actually vote, they are just stating a temporary preference. That is how the Clintons are looking at this process.
The drama for the nomination continues: With the Democrats badly divided, it is possible that McCain could win a big victory in November. That depends on him attracting the votes of pissed off Democrats who are angry that the party has passed Hillary over for the no name, no resume, no accomplishment, flawed candidate in Obama. McCain appears to be reaching out to the left, especially with his support for global warming treaties and legislation. In his recent speech on the need for conservative judges, he defended his vote for Clinton’s nomination of ACLU general counsel Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court.
The Republicans have their own set of problems.
The Republican Party is also in turmoil but it hasn’t gotten as much coverage as the problems in the Democratic Party. About a quarter of Republicans in recent primaries have refused to vote for McCain, and Rep. Ron Paul, the most popular Republican presidential candidate on the college campuses, says he won’t endorse the Arizona senator for president. While Ralph Nader is threatening to siphon votes away from the Democratic nominee, third party candidates such as Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party and Bob Barr, the likely candidate of the Libertarian Party, could take some conservative votes away from McCain.
How will this crazy, emotional campaign end? Who knows. We're all just have to go along for the wild exciting and yes...maddeningly complicated ride.
I have a sense that Hillary intends to be in it to the end, and that she has a strategy to wrest the nomination away from Obama. It will make for exciting media coverage, if that happens.
Time Magazine, among others, has jumped into the fray: It declared Obama the nominee with a cover story that said, "And the nominee is..." with a picture of Obama. On "The Early Show" on CBS, Bob Schieffer said, "Basically...this race is over." On ABC, George Stephanopoulos said, "This nomination fight is over." And Chris Wallace of Fox News Channel said that "I think the Clinton people know the game is almost up."
Earlier today, Andrea Mitchell is reporting that, "for the first time now, her [Hillary] people, her closest aides, are saying, "she knows the reality, we know the reality." They’re acknowledging that she’s not going to win this―that she is really just going through the motions. And that’s a big change." But there is little indication that Hillary has accepted this notion.
I was somewhat surprised myself when I heard this, as nothing Hillary's campaign has said indicates that she is dropping out. It would come as a complete shock if she did not continue through Puerto Rico.
Clinton Campaign Chair Terry McAulife challenged Russert Sunday about his conclusion that the race was over: "Did it become an avalanche after Tuesday, when you and others were all on the air saying it was over?" Russert got defensive and said that he was only quoting others. "The Clinton campaign says it’s the media. What we did," said Russert, "is add up the delegates, call Clinton supporters and say, "Is the math there?" Clinton supporters said "No."
The race is still very fluid. It has been, and the networks’ graphic still says, that the total needed is 2026 delegates. But over the last couple of weeks, Hillary’s team has abandoned that number. The new number is 2209, or 2210, which is one more than half the delegates, if Florida and Michigan get to seat all of their delegates. This is supposed to be decided at a May 31 Rules Committee meeting, but up to now, Howard Dean has shown no leadership as Party Chairman to be able to engineer a compromise that would satisfy both Obama and Clinton.
Tim Russert erroneously said on Tuesday night during coverage of the West Virginia Primary that "48 hours ago on Meet the Press, Terry McAuliffe said he was willing to seat half of the delegations of Michigan and Florida." But in fact, McAuliffe didn’t say that. When Russert asked him on Meet the Press if he would accept that compromise, McAuliffe said, "We certainly might, you bet. But in fairness, the Rules and Bylaws Committee will meet on, on the 31st to make that decision." When pressed on the issue again by Russert, he again deferred to the Rules and Bylaws Committee and said, "it’s up to them to make that decision." That is a distinction with a significant difference.
I watched the Meet The Press coverage last Sunday and Terry McAuliffe NEVER said he would accept half the delegates.
Unfortunately for the Democrats and the media, Hillary has emerged as the stronger candidate with wider appeal, but only after the media turned a blind eye to Obama's problems and "associations" and abandoned her for the "Rock Star" Obama. It is now apparent to everyone that Obama has serious weaknesses on policy matters, like the reason for and effect of raising capital gains taxes, and his willingness to meet unconditionally at the presidential level with terrorists and dictators.
Perhaps more serious, his links to and handling of the situations with his controversial former minister Jeremiah Wright, his characterization of small town voters as "bitter and clinging to religion and guns" and the unrepentant terrorist and former Weatherman William Ayers. These issues have no doubt hurt him with White voters. The exit polls in West Virginia showed that 50% of the voters believe that Obama shares Jeremiah Wright’s views to some degree, and nearly half of those who voted for Hillary said that if Obama is their party’s nominee, they won’t vote for him. His radical ties are showing, and his efforts to distance himself without seeming to repudiate his past smacks of disengenuousness.
If (and when) Hillary loses the nomination it will be beacuse of several reasons: At one point, immediately after Super Tuesday on February 5, Obama won 10 straight primaries and caucuses, by an average of about 30 points each. Hillary's Campaign did not have a strategy to contest the Caucus states and her most importantly, her supporters and the Democratic Party Elite abandoned her in favor of Obama.
Hillary has become a formidable candidate but her campaign made a series of mistakes. Earlier misspoke about Bosnia, or as Larry King called it, a "mistruth." More recently, she has been brutally criticized for her comment to USA Today, in which she referenced an Associated Press story that talked about an exit poll that "found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me." Hillary had a valid point, but it was maybe politically incorrect to refer to "white" voters.
The comment sure caused a ruckus: Bob Herbert, the black columnist for the New York Times said that those comments were the equivalent of saying, "He can’t win! Don’t you understand? He’s black! He’s black!" he copntinued, "The Clintons have been trying to embed that gruesomely destructive message in the brains of white voters and Superdelegates for the longest time. It’s a grotesque insult to African-Americans, who have given so much support to both Bill and Hillary over the years."
All I can say is: where is the outrage when Blacks have been voting for Obama by 90+% matgins, given all the Clintons have done for Blacks and Civil rights? Why is this not racial voting? At least Obama has been getting 30-40% of the White vote? Hillary is not getting even 10%! Why is it racial pride when blacks vote 90+% for someone who's done NOTHING for them, but demogogue someone who has?
Hillary says she will continue and I believe she will. She told the crowd in West Virginia Tuesday night that "...I never give up. I'll keep coming back, and I'll stand with you as long as you stand with me." Or as James Carville puts it..."until the last dog dies." Obama and the media has probably succeeded in drying up her money but I have no doubt they will find the dough, somehow. On that, Andra Mitchell was again suspicious: She questioned the Clintons’ trustworthiness on money matters, saying on MSNBC’s Morning Joe that "We don’t know and won’t know whether their claims of having enough money (to continue on with the campaign) are accurate and truthful."
Don't ever count out the Clintons.
"Regardless of what happens with Michigan and Florida, or even if Superdelegates appear on paper to give Obama the number of delegates he needs to win, Hillary still won’t get out. As Politico has reported, there is little agreement among the various news agencies about exactly how many Superdelegates are committed to whom, and how many remain uncommitted. They point to the argument that counting Superdelegates is an art, not a science. Hillary could go to the convention in Denver the last week of August, where the delegates actually vote, and count on their ultimate support. If she can somehow get enough delegates to switch to her side, or hold back support from Obama, she might make it through the first ballot without Obama securing the nomination. Then all delegates are free, and this is where the Clintons may see their opening and chance for victory."
I know "people" think Clintons have lost their magic and the fear and respect they used to have in the party but they still might be able to pull off the upset. However, It would not be pretty and would shatter any hope of party unity. Any illusion that if Obama gets the nomination that Hillary will want him to win is just that, an illusion. If she loses, the Democrats will be split and will lose the White House. Count on it. That is, unless she gets on the ticket.
Despite their pretense that the race has gone on too long and that Obma is the nominee, the LWM love the high ratings and constant coverage. On the night of the West Virginia primary, Chris Matthews told Terry McAuliffe, who earlier in the day had called Matthews the "unofficial chairman of the Obama campaign," that he, as a reporter and political junkie, wants more than anything to see this race go down to midnight on the last night of the Denver convention. Yet, Matthews had said that morning, "I think most people...understand that the fight is over for the nomination."
Hillary was perceived to be the early favorite by the media. However, as Obama gained strength, (with their help), and the Clintons were accused of using race (this was a bogus charge), and Obama's links to the far-left of the Democratic Party to try to stop his momentum, his popularity grew in the media. Chris Matthews talked about how after being in the presence of an Obama speech, he "felt this thrill going up my leg," and he compared Obama’s message to the New Testament. The "rock star" treatment was obvious for all to see. There is scarcely any pretense of objectivity by any of the networks.If any journalist defends Clinton, he/she is not asked back on the network (Craig Crawford).
In a column on The Politico titled, "Obama’s Secret Weapon, The Media," Jim VandeHei and John Harris argued that "Many journalists are not merely observers but participants in the Obama phenomenon." Well said. Beware, John McCain. If tthey crucify a Democrat, just imagine what they'll do to you?
The Big question is: will Hillary bow out of the race gracefully, as Andrea Mitchell is reporting? I don't think so! She has made her position clear. Back in February, she made it clear that she looks at the letter rather than the spirit of the pledged delegate rules, which is that even they don’t have to vote on the first or any ballot for whom their state’s primary or caucus sent them to Denver to vote for. So until the delegates have a chance to actually vote, they are just stating a temporary preference. That is how the Clintons are looking at this process.
The drama for the nomination continues: With the Democrats badly divided, it is possible that McCain could win a big victory in November. That depends on him attracting the votes of pissed off Democrats who are angry that the party has passed Hillary over for the no name, no resume, no accomplishment, flawed candidate in Obama. McCain appears to be reaching out to the left, especially with his support for global warming treaties and legislation. In his recent speech on the need for conservative judges, he defended his vote for Clinton’s nomination of ACLU general counsel Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court.
The Republicans have their own set of problems.
The Republican Party is also in turmoil but it hasn’t gotten as much coverage as the problems in the Democratic Party. About a quarter of Republicans in recent primaries have refused to vote for McCain, and Rep. Ron Paul, the most popular Republican presidential candidate on the college campuses, says he won’t endorse the Arizona senator for president. While Ralph Nader is threatening to siphon votes away from the Democratic nominee, third party candidates such as Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party and Bob Barr, the likely candidate of the Libertarian Party, could take some conservative votes away from McCain.
How will this crazy, emotional campaign end? Who knows. We're all just have to go along for the wild exciting and yes...maddeningly complicated ride.
Senate Minority Leader Slams Obama
In a speech before the NRA, Mitch McConnell slammed Obam's "bitter" comments. McConnell said of Obama's words: Occasionally those opinions slip out, at cocktail parties in San Francisco and New York. Reporters usually refer to these slips as gaffes or blunders. Maybe I’m old fashioned, but it seems to me a better word for it would be honesty. Someone who says that Americans cling to guns and religion because they’re bitter doesn’t say it because he misspoke. He says it because that’s what he really thinks. And here’s what I think: he’s dead wrong.
Hewent on to say: When I hear that most of the families in this country say grace before meals, I think it’s a tribute to America’s greatness, not a sign of its weakness. And when I hear that about nine out of ten NRA members show up to the polls on Election Day, I don’t think it means that gun owners are bitter. I think it shows that the spirit of freedom is alive among the millions of members of the NRA.
The full text of his statement can be found at http://thepage.time.com/sen-mcconnells-remarks-to-the-nra/
Hewent on to say: When I hear that most of the families in this country say grace before meals, I think it’s a tribute to America’s greatness, not a sign of its weakness. And when I hear that about nine out of ten NRA members show up to the polls on Election Day, I don’t think it means that gun owners are bitter. I think it shows that the spirit of freedom is alive among the millions of members of the NRA.
The full text of his statement can be found at http://thepage.time.com/sen-mcconnells-remarks-to-the-nra/
Obama Response To Bush's "Appeasement" Statement
Barack Obama supposedly "aggressively" responded to Bush's "appeasement" statement regarding "some" people's approach to dealing with terrorists. Bush cites a "senator" who commented that he wished he could have "talked" to Hitler, that maybe he (the senator) could have averted The Holocaust.
"We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
Obama's response: calling it "sad" that Bush used the speech to take a partisan shot. "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel," he said in a statement.
Today, Obama said: "They're trying to scare you and trying to keep you from seeing the truth," Obama told a cheering crowd, "and the reason is they can't win a foreign policy argument on the merits."
The Republican resounse: "These are serious issues that deserve a serious debate, not the same tired partisan rants we heard today from Sen. Obama. Sen. Obama has pledged to unconditionally meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- who pledges to wipe Israel off the map, denies the Holocaust, sponsors terrorists, arms America's enemies in Iraq and pursues nuclear weapons. What would Sen. Obama talk about with such a man? It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don't have enemies. But that is not the world we live in, and until Sen. Obama understands that, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe."
Obama said during The Democratic Debate in Los Angeles that he planned on meeting within his first year, with our enemies, without pre-conditions. Hillary Clinton clled his position naive and dangerous.
McCain campaign spokesman Bounds said McCain has long said he would impose preconditions before meeting with Hamas. "John McCain has always believed that serious engagement would require mandatory conditions and Hamas must change itself fundamentally, renounce violence, abandon its goal of eradicating Israel and accept a two-state solution," Bounds said in a statement.
"We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
Obama's response: calling it "sad" that Bush used the speech to take a partisan shot. "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel," he said in a statement.
Today, Obama said: "They're trying to scare you and trying to keep you from seeing the truth," Obama told a cheering crowd, "and the reason is they can't win a foreign policy argument on the merits."
The Republican resounse: "These are serious issues that deserve a serious debate, not the same tired partisan rants we heard today from Sen. Obama. Sen. Obama has pledged to unconditionally meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- who pledges to wipe Israel off the map, denies the Holocaust, sponsors terrorists, arms America's enemies in Iraq and pursues nuclear weapons. What would Sen. Obama talk about with such a man? It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don't have enemies. But that is not the world we live in, and until Sen. Obama understands that, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe."
Obama said during The Democratic Debate in Los Angeles that he planned on meeting within his first year, with our enemies, without pre-conditions. Hillary Clinton clled his position naive and dangerous.
McCain campaign spokesman Bounds said McCain has long said he would impose preconditions before meeting with Hamas. "John McCain has always believed that serious engagement would require mandatory conditions and Hamas must change itself fundamentally, renounce violence, abandon its goal of eradicating Israel and accept a two-state solution," Bounds said in a statement.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Richardson Is Pleased as Punch
Bill Richardson is pleased as punch that Edwards' endorsement seems to be placing Hillary cmpaign on the fast track to defeat. Why, he was beaming at the possiblity of being Vice President. Of course, when asked he played it off at first, then said he wouldn't turnit down.
Asked if he had spoken to Bill Clinton, he said no. he repeated that phony regard he had for the Clintons, but make no mistake folds, loyalty means squat.
Asked if he had spoken to Bill Clinton, he said no. he repeated that phony regard he had for the Clintons, but make no mistake folds, loyalty means squat.
This Is Just The beginning Michelle
Did you think it was going to be a walk in the park to the White House Michelle? Think again!
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/15/michelle-obama-takes-heat-from-tennessee-republicans/
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/15/michelle-obama-takes-heat-from-tennessee-republicans/
Here We Go! Bush Smacks Obama!
President George Bush made a statement to the Israel Knesset this morning, where he pointed out the dangers of appeasing terrorists and compared it to 1939 when an American Senator thought if he had spoken to Hitler the war would have been avoided.
Although President George Bush did not mention and party or politician by name, it is being reported it was a direct "sharp but veiled attack" on Barack Obama and the Democratic party.
Bush's statement regarding appeasement, which was part of a longer speech made in Jerusalem, included the following comment:
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history. (Applause.)
Although no specific names were mentioned by Bush, Barack Obama immediately lashed out in statement to CNN, saying:
"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack," Obama said in a statement released to CNN by his campaign. "It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel…."
"George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel," Obama's statement said.
Obama asserts that he he has never supported "engagement with terrorists" but according to his own website on the Foriegn Policy page, it states, "Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions...."
On that same page, under the "talk to friends and foes" category, it states, "Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe."
Enter Joseph Lieberman, Independent Democratic Senator for Connecticut who has endorsed Republican presidential candidate John McCain and in his statement he asserts that president Bush is "exactly right".
"President Bush got it exactly right today when he warned about the threat of Iran and its terrorist proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah. It is imperative that we reject the flawed and naïve thinking that denies or dismisses the words of extremists and terrorists when they shout “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” and that holds that—if only we were to sit down and negotiate with these killers—they would cease to threaten us. It is critical to our national security that our commander-in-chief is able to distinguish between America’s friends and America’s enemies, and not confuse the two.”
This war of words between Bush, Obama and Lieberman is starting to create even more controversy with the Democratic bloggers thinking it was a direct political attack aimed at Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and other Democratic leaders as well as the continuing of the hard feelings that Democratic supporters feel about Joseph Lieberman, especially since he announced his support for John McCain.
Obama has often suggested that he would speak with leaders of countries that are listed as terrorist states and as his own website says, he is prepared to do without "preconditions", so his protests now in saying that he has "never supported engagement with terrorists" is directly contradictory from his previous words and statements on his website.
[Update] John McCain weighs in on this newest controversy saying, "Yes, there have been appeasers in the past, and the president is exactly right, and one of them is Neville Chamberlain. I believe that it’s not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn’t sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.'’
Asked if he thought Mr. Obama was an appeaser — the Democratic candidate has said he would be willing to meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran — Mr. McCain sidestepped and said, “I think that Barack Obama needs to explain why he wants to sit down and talk with a man who is the head of a government that is a state sponsor of terrorism, that is responsible for the killing of brave young Americans, that wants to wipe Israel off the map, who denies the Holocaust. That’s what I think Senator Obama ought to explain to the American people.'’
Joe Biden (D-Delaware) who is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee called Bush's statement "bullsh*t".
[Update #2] Pelosi's response.
The American Spectator nailed her right to the wall with this:
But I thought the most ironic criticism of the speech came from Nancy Pelosi, who called it "beneath the dignity of the office" for President Bush to visit our staunch ally and make the case against appeasement. This is the same Pelosi, you may recall, who visited the terror state of Syria amid State Department protest and told President Bashar Assad that Israel was ready for peace talks with its longtime enemy, when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert denied saying anything of the sort.
GAME.SET.MATCH.
What is that old expression about not learning the lessons that history teaches?
Although President George Bush did not mention and party or politician by name, it is being reported it was a direct "sharp but veiled attack" on Barack Obama and the Democratic party.
Bush's statement regarding appeasement, which was part of a longer speech made in Jerusalem, included the following comment:
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history. (Applause.)
Although no specific names were mentioned by Bush, Barack Obama immediately lashed out in statement to CNN, saying:
"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack," Obama said in a statement released to CNN by his campaign. "It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel…."
"George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel," Obama's statement said.
Obama asserts that he he has never supported "engagement with terrorists" but according to his own website on the Foriegn Policy page, it states, "Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions...."
On that same page, under the "talk to friends and foes" category, it states, "Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe."
Enter Joseph Lieberman, Independent Democratic Senator for Connecticut who has endorsed Republican presidential candidate John McCain and in his statement he asserts that president Bush is "exactly right".
"President Bush got it exactly right today when he warned about the threat of Iran and its terrorist proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah. It is imperative that we reject the flawed and naïve thinking that denies or dismisses the words of extremists and terrorists when they shout “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” and that holds that—if only we were to sit down and negotiate with these killers—they would cease to threaten us. It is critical to our national security that our commander-in-chief is able to distinguish between America’s friends and America’s enemies, and not confuse the two.”
This war of words between Bush, Obama and Lieberman is starting to create even more controversy with the Democratic bloggers thinking it was a direct political attack aimed at Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and other Democratic leaders as well as the continuing of the hard feelings that Democratic supporters feel about Joseph Lieberman, especially since he announced his support for John McCain.
Obama has often suggested that he would speak with leaders of countries that are listed as terrorist states and as his own website says, he is prepared to do without "preconditions", so his protests now in saying that he has "never supported engagement with terrorists" is directly contradictory from his previous words and statements on his website.
[Update] John McCain weighs in on this newest controversy saying, "Yes, there have been appeasers in the past, and the president is exactly right, and one of them is Neville Chamberlain. I believe that it’s not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn’t sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.'’
Asked if he thought Mr. Obama was an appeaser — the Democratic candidate has said he would be willing to meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran — Mr. McCain sidestepped and said, “I think that Barack Obama needs to explain why he wants to sit down and talk with a man who is the head of a government that is a state sponsor of terrorism, that is responsible for the killing of brave young Americans, that wants to wipe Israel off the map, who denies the Holocaust. That’s what I think Senator Obama ought to explain to the American people.'’
Joe Biden (D-Delaware) who is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee called Bush's statement "bullsh*t".
[Update #2] Pelosi's response.
The American Spectator nailed her right to the wall with this:
But I thought the most ironic criticism of the speech came from Nancy Pelosi, who called it "beneath the dignity of the office" for President Bush to visit our staunch ally and make the case against appeasement. This is the same Pelosi, you may recall, who visited the terror state of Syria amid State Department protest and told President Bashar Assad that Israel was ready for peace talks with its longtime enemy, when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert denied saying anything of the sort.
GAME.SET.MATCH.
What is that old expression about not learning the lessons that history teaches?
McCain's Speech Is Democrats Worse Nightmare
I watched John McCain's speech today and thought it was very inclusive and bi-partisan. He promises bipartisanship, putting democrats on his administration, weekly press conferences, and briefing congress, much like the British House of Parliament.
Text:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/15/text_of_mccains_vision_of_2013.html
Text:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/15/text_of_mccains_vision_of_2013.html
Obama The Ruthless
Showing his bare knuckles
In first campaign, Obama revealed hard-edged, uncompromising side in eliminating party rivals
By David Jackson and Ray Long
Tribune staff reporters
April 4, 2007
Some Parts have Been Removed
The day after New Year’s 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.
There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city’s South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama’s four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.
Fresh from his work as a civil rights lawyer and head of a voter registration project that expanded access to the ballot box, Obama launched his first campaign for the Illinois Senate saying he wanted to empower disenfranchised citizens.
But in that initial bid for political office, Obama quickly mastered the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like Palmer.
A close examination of Obama’s first campaign puts a hard edge on the image he has honed throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.
One of the candidates he eliminated, long-shot contender Gha-is Askia, now says that Obama’s petition challenges belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights.
“Why say you’re for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?” Askia said. “He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?”
In a recent interview, Obama granted that “there’s a legitimate argument to be made that you shouldn’t create barriers to people getting on the ballot.”
But the unsparing legal tactics were justified, he said, by obvious flaws in his opponents’ signature sheets. “To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had been set up,” Obama recalled.
“I gave some thought to … should people be on the ballot even if they didn’t meet the requirements,” he said. “My conclusion was that if you couldn’t run a successful petition drive, then that raised questions in terms of how effective a representative you were going to be.”
Asked whether the district’s primary voters were well-served by having only one candidate, Obama smiled and said: “I think they ended up with a very good state senator.”
Obama behind challenges
America has been defined in part by civil rights and good government battles fought out in Chicago’s 13th District, which in 1996 spanned Hyde Park mansions, South Shore bungalows and poverty-bitten precincts of Englewood.
It was in this part of the city that an eager reform Democrat by the name of Abner Mikva first entered elected office in the 1950s. And here a young, brash minister named Jesse Jackson ran Operation Breadbasket, leading marchers who sought to pressure grocery chains to hire minorities.
Palmer served the district in the Illinois Senate for much of the 1990s. Decades earlier, she was working as a community organizer in the area when Obama was growing up in Hawaii and Indonesia. She risked her safe seat to run for Congress and touted Obama as a suitable successor, according to news accounts and interviews.
But when Palmer got clobbered in that November 1995 special congressional race, her supporters asked Obama to fold his campaign so she could easily retain her state Senate seat.
Obama not only refused to step aside, he filed challenges that nullified Palmer’s hastily gathered nominating petitions, forcing her to withdraw.
“I liked Alice Palmer a lot. I thought she was a good public servant,” Obama said. “It was very awkward. That part of it I wish had played out entirely differently.”
His choice divided veteran Chicago political activists.
“There was friction about the decision he made,” said City Colleges of Chicago professor emeritus Timuel Black, who tried to negotiate with Obama on Palmer’s behalf. “There were deep disagreements.”
Had Palmer survived the petition challenge, Obama would have faced the daunting task of taking on an incumbent senator. Palmer’s elimination marked the first of several fortuitous political moments in Obama’s electoral success: He won the 2004 primary and general elections for U.S. Senate after tough challengers imploded when their messy divorce files were unsealed.
Obama contended that in the case of the 1996 race, in which he routed token opposition in the general election, he was ready to compete in the primary if necessary.
“We actually ran a terrific campaign up until the point we knew that we weren’t going to have to appear on the ballot with anybody,” Obama said. “I mean, we had prepared for it. We had raised money. We had tons of volunteers. There was enormous enthusiasm.”
And he defended his use of ballot maneuvers: “If you can win, you should win and get to work doing the people’s business.”
At the time, though, Obama seemed less at ease with the decision, according to aides. They said the first-time candidate initially expressed reservations about using challenges to eliminate all his fellow Democrats.
“He wondered if we should knock everybody off the ballot. How would that look?” said Ronald Davis, the paid Obama campaign consultant whom Obama referred to as his “guru of petitions.”
In the end, Davis filed objections to all four of Obama’s Democratic rivals at the candidate’s behest.
While Obama didn’t attend the hearings, “he wanted us to call him every night and let him know what we were doing,” Davis said, noting that Palmer and the others seemed unprepared for the challenges.
But Obama didn’t gloat over the victories. “I don’t think he thought it was, you know, sporting,” said Will Burns, a 1996 Obama campaign volunteer who assisted with the petition challenges. “He wasn’t very proud of it.”
Endorsement or informal nod?
By the summer of 1995, Obama, 34, had completed his globe-trotting education and settled deep into Chicago’s South Side.
He had gone to Harvard Law School with private ambitions of someday following Harold Washington as mayor of Chicago. At Harvard, where Obama was celebrated as the first black president of the Law Review, classmate Gina Torielli remembers him “saying that governor of Illinois would be his dream job.”
Back in Chicago after graduation, Obama won respect for running Project Vote, which registered tens of thousands of black Chicagoans. “It’s a power thing,” the volunteers’ T-shirts said.
Community organizers packed his wedding to Michelle Robinson, a South Shore resident and fellow Harvard Law graduate. The newlyweds bought a Hyde Park condo.
His memoir, “Dreams from My Father,” was published that summer to warm reviews. He was working at a small but influential legal firm, teaching constitutional law as a University of Chicago adjunct professor and sitting on the boards of charities.
At the same time, the South Side’s political map was thrown up for grabs when then-U.S. Rep. Mel Reynolds was convicted of sex crimes and a special election was called to fill his congressional seat.
Palmer joined the race and, according to multiple accounts, introduced Obama as the successor for her Illinois Senate seat.
“She said, ‘I found this wonderful person, this fine young man, so we needn’t worry that we’d have a good state senator,’” said former 5th Ward Democratic committeeman Alan Dobry, who volunteered to help both Palmer and Obama that year.
In recent interviews, Obama and Palmer agreed that he asked her whether she wanted to keep her options open and file to run for her state Senate seat as a fallback in case her congressional bid failed.
Obama says he told her: “We haven’t started the campaign yet.”
“I hadn’t publicly announced,” he said. “But what I said was that once I announce, and I have started to raise money, and gather supporters, hire staff and opened up an office, signed a lease, then it’s going to be very difficult for me to step down. And she gave me repeated assurances that she was in [the congressional race] to stay.”
Obama “did say that to me,” Palmer says now. “And I certainly did say that I wasn’t going to run. There’s no question about that.”
But beyond that, the private discussions they held in 1995 are shrouded today in disputed and hazy memories.
Obama said Palmer gave him her formal endorsement. “I’m absolutely certain she … publicly spoke and sort of designated me,” he recalled.
Palmer disputes that. “I don’t know that I like the word ‘endorsement,’” she said. “An endorsement to me, having been in legislative politics … that’s a very formal kind of thing. I don’t think that describes this. An ‘informal nod’ is how to characterize it.”
In July 1995, Obama announced he was planning to run for Palmer’s seat. He filed papers creating his fundraising committee a month later and officially announced his candidacy in September.
He emerged that winter as a gifted campaigner who after finishing hectic workdays would layer on thermal underwear to knock on South Side doors.
In impromptu street-corner conversations and media interviews, he disparaged local pols for putting self-preservation ahead of public service. At the last house on a dark block, “he would start a discussion that should have taken five minutes and pretty soon someone was cooking him dinner,” said paid campaign consultant Carol Anne Harwell.
Then Palmer’s congressional bid collapsed. On Nov. 28, 1995, she placed a distant third behind political powerhouses Jesse Jackson Jr., who holds that congressional seat today, and current state Senate President Emil Jones Jr.
Palmer didn’t fade quietly away. Citing an “outpouring” of support, she upended the political landscape by switching gears and deciding to run in the March 1996 primary for her state Senate seat.
But she had two big problems. To get on the ballot, Palmer needed to file nominating petitions signed by at least 757 district voters — and the Dec. 18 deadline was just days away.
And then there was Obama, the bright up-and-comer she had all but anointed.
Obama’s aides said he seemed anguished over the prospect of defying Palmer. “I really saw turmoil in his face,” Harwell said.
Obama sought advice from political veterans such as 4th Ward Ald. Toni Preckwinkle and then-15th Ward Ald. Virgil Jones, who say they urged him to hold his course.
“I thought the world of Alice Palmer,” said state Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie (D-Chicago), now the House majority leader. But “at that point she had pulled her own plug.”
According to Palmer, it was without her knowledge that her supporters initiated discussions to persuade Obama to step aside. They invited him to the home of state Rep. Lovana “Lou” Jones, now deceased. Obama arrived alone.
“It was a brief meeting,” said Black, a Palmer friend who had advised Obama when he was a young community organizer in the mid-1980s.
Obama didn’t try to justify his decision to reject Palmer’s plea, Black said.
“He did not put it in inflammatory terms, he just did not back away. It was not arguments, it was stubbornness,” Black said. “Barack had by then gone ahead in putting together his own campaign, and he just didn’t want to stop.”
‘If you can get ‘em, get ‘em’
Just in time for the Dec. 18, 1995, filing deadline, Palmer submitted 1,580 signatures — about twice the minimum required. That day, Obama lashed out at her, telling the Tribune she had pressured him to withdraw.
“I am disappointed that she’s decided to go back on her word to me,” he said.
Obama campaign aides also responded that day — but quietly, and out of the limelight.
Davis and Dobry marshaled volunteers and began poring through the nominating petitions of Palmer and the three lesser-known Democrats, according to interviews.
“We looked at those petitions and found that none of them met the requirements of the law,” Dobry said. “Alice’s people, they’d done it in a great hurry. Almost all her petitions were signed a day or so before the deadline.”
According to Davis, Palmer “had kids gathering the names. I remember two of her circulators, Pookie and Squirt.”
Davis and others urged Obama to file legal challenges.
Such tactics are legal and frequently used in Chicago. Ballot challenges eliminated 67 of the 245 declared aldermanic candidates in Chicago before this past February’s elections, an election board spokesman said.
Davis recalled telling Obama: “If you can get ‘em, get ‘em. Why give ‘em a break?
“I said, ‘Barack, I’m going to knock them all off.’
“He said, ‘What do you need?’
“I said, ‘I need an attorney.’
“He said, ‘Who is the best?’
“I said, ‘Tom Johnson.’”
Obama already knew civil rights attorney and fellow Harvard Law graduate Thomas Johnson, who had waged election cases for the late Mayor Washington and had offered Obama informal legal advice since the days of Project Vote.
With Johnson’s legal help, Obama’s team was confident. They piled binders of polling sheets in the election board office on the second floor of City Hall, and on Jan. 2, 1996, began the days-long hearings that would eliminate the other Democrats.
Little-known candidate Marc Ewell filed 1,286 names, but Obama’s objections left him 86 short of the minimum, and election officials struck him from the ballot, records show. Ewell filed a federal lawsuit contesting the board’s decision, but Johnson intervened on Obama’s behalf and prevailed when Ewell’s case was dismissed days later.
Ewell could not be reached for comment, but the federal judge’s decision showed how he was tripped up by complexities in the election procedures.
City authorities had just completed a massive, routine purge of unqualified names that eliminated 15,871 people from the 13th District rolls, court records show.
Ewell and other Obama rivals had relied on early 1995 polling sheets to verify the signatures of registered voters — but Obama’s challenges were decided at least in part using the most recent, accurate list, records show.
Askia filed 1,899 signatures, but the Obama team sustained objections to 1,211, leaving him 69 short, records show.
Leafing through scrapbooks in his South Shore apartment, Askia, a perennially unsuccessful candidate, acknowledges that he paid Democratic Party precinct workers $5 a sheet for some of the petitions and now suspects they used a classic Chicago ruse of passing the papers among themselves to forge the signatures. “They round-tabled me,” Askia said.
Palmer to this day does not concede the flaws that Obama’s team found in her signatures. She maintains that she could have overcome the Obama team’s objections and stayed on the ballot if she had more time and resources.
It was wrenching to withdraw, she said. “But sit for a moment, catch your breath, get up and keep going. I’m a very practical person. Politics is not the only vehicle for accomplishing things.” She became a special assistant to the president of the University of Illinois and is now retired.
Obama said he has not been in touch with Palmer since 1996. “No, not really, no,” he said.
Though she hasn’t determined whom to support in the presidential race, Palmer, 67, said her dispute with Obama doesn’t affect her assessment of his fitness to hold office.
Saying that jobless high school dropouts “are sitting on the steps next to my house,” Palmer added: “There is a savage economy going on out here, and we’ve got collateral damage. I am looking closely to see who has the courage, the smarts.”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,1,57567.story
In first campaign, Obama revealed hard-edged, uncompromising side in eliminating party rivals
By David Jackson and Ray Long
Tribune staff reporters
April 4, 2007
Some Parts have Been Removed
The day after New Year’s 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.
There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city’s South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama’s four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.
Fresh from his work as a civil rights lawyer and head of a voter registration project that expanded access to the ballot box, Obama launched his first campaign for the Illinois Senate saying he wanted to empower disenfranchised citizens.
But in that initial bid for political office, Obama quickly mastered the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like Palmer.
A close examination of Obama’s first campaign puts a hard edge on the image he has honed throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.
One of the candidates he eliminated, long-shot contender Gha-is Askia, now says that Obama’s petition challenges belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights.
“Why say you’re for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?” Askia said. “He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?”
In a recent interview, Obama granted that “there’s a legitimate argument to be made that you shouldn’t create barriers to people getting on the ballot.”
But the unsparing legal tactics were justified, he said, by obvious flaws in his opponents’ signature sheets. “To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had been set up,” Obama recalled.
“I gave some thought to … should people be on the ballot even if they didn’t meet the requirements,” he said. “My conclusion was that if you couldn’t run a successful petition drive, then that raised questions in terms of how effective a representative you were going to be.”
Asked whether the district’s primary voters were well-served by having only one candidate, Obama smiled and said: “I think they ended up with a very good state senator.”
Obama behind challenges
America has been defined in part by civil rights and good government battles fought out in Chicago’s 13th District, which in 1996 spanned Hyde Park mansions, South Shore bungalows and poverty-bitten precincts of Englewood.
It was in this part of the city that an eager reform Democrat by the name of Abner Mikva first entered elected office in the 1950s. And here a young, brash minister named Jesse Jackson ran Operation Breadbasket, leading marchers who sought to pressure grocery chains to hire minorities.
Palmer served the district in the Illinois Senate for much of the 1990s. Decades earlier, she was working as a community organizer in the area when Obama was growing up in Hawaii and Indonesia. She risked her safe seat to run for Congress and touted Obama as a suitable successor, according to news accounts and interviews.
But when Palmer got clobbered in that November 1995 special congressional race, her supporters asked Obama to fold his campaign so she could easily retain her state Senate seat.
Obama not only refused to step aside, he filed challenges that nullified Palmer’s hastily gathered nominating petitions, forcing her to withdraw.
“I liked Alice Palmer a lot. I thought she was a good public servant,” Obama said. “It was very awkward. That part of it I wish had played out entirely differently.”
His choice divided veteran Chicago political activists.
“There was friction about the decision he made,” said City Colleges of Chicago professor emeritus Timuel Black, who tried to negotiate with Obama on Palmer’s behalf. “There were deep disagreements.”
Had Palmer survived the petition challenge, Obama would have faced the daunting task of taking on an incumbent senator. Palmer’s elimination marked the first of several fortuitous political moments in Obama’s electoral success: He won the 2004 primary and general elections for U.S. Senate after tough challengers imploded when their messy divorce files were unsealed.
Obama contended that in the case of the 1996 race, in which he routed token opposition in the general election, he was ready to compete in the primary if necessary.
“We actually ran a terrific campaign up until the point we knew that we weren’t going to have to appear on the ballot with anybody,” Obama said. “I mean, we had prepared for it. We had raised money. We had tons of volunteers. There was enormous enthusiasm.”
And he defended his use of ballot maneuvers: “If you can win, you should win and get to work doing the people’s business.”
At the time, though, Obama seemed less at ease with the decision, according to aides. They said the first-time candidate initially expressed reservations about using challenges to eliminate all his fellow Democrats.
“He wondered if we should knock everybody off the ballot. How would that look?” said Ronald Davis, the paid Obama campaign consultant whom Obama referred to as his “guru of petitions.”
In the end, Davis filed objections to all four of Obama’s Democratic rivals at the candidate’s behest.
While Obama didn’t attend the hearings, “he wanted us to call him every night and let him know what we were doing,” Davis said, noting that Palmer and the others seemed unprepared for the challenges.
But Obama didn’t gloat over the victories. “I don’t think he thought it was, you know, sporting,” said Will Burns, a 1996 Obama campaign volunteer who assisted with the petition challenges. “He wasn’t very proud of it.”
Endorsement or informal nod?
By the summer of 1995, Obama, 34, had completed his globe-trotting education and settled deep into Chicago’s South Side.
He had gone to Harvard Law School with private ambitions of someday following Harold Washington as mayor of Chicago. At Harvard, where Obama was celebrated as the first black president of the Law Review, classmate Gina Torielli remembers him “saying that governor of Illinois would be his dream job.”
Back in Chicago after graduation, Obama won respect for running Project Vote, which registered tens of thousands of black Chicagoans. “It’s a power thing,” the volunteers’ T-shirts said.
Community organizers packed his wedding to Michelle Robinson, a South Shore resident and fellow Harvard Law graduate. The newlyweds bought a Hyde Park condo.
His memoir, “Dreams from My Father,” was published that summer to warm reviews. He was working at a small but influential legal firm, teaching constitutional law as a University of Chicago adjunct professor and sitting on the boards of charities.
At the same time, the South Side’s political map was thrown up for grabs when then-U.S. Rep. Mel Reynolds was convicted of sex crimes and a special election was called to fill his congressional seat.
Palmer joined the race and, according to multiple accounts, introduced Obama as the successor for her Illinois Senate seat.
“She said, ‘I found this wonderful person, this fine young man, so we needn’t worry that we’d have a good state senator,’” said former 5th Ward Democratic committeeman Alan Dobry, who volunteered to help both Palmer and Obama that year.
In recent interviews, Obama and Palmer agreed that he asked her whether she wanted to keep her options open and file to run for her state Senate seat as a fallback in case her congressional bid failed.
Obama says he told her: “We haven’t started the campaign yet.”
“I hadn’t publicly announced,” he said. “But what I said was that once I announce, and I have started to raise money, and gather supporters, hire staff and opened up an office, signed a lease, then it’s going to be very difficult for me to step down. And she gave me repeated assurances that she was in [the congressional race] to stay.”
Obama “did say that to me,” Palmer says now. “And I certainly did say that I wasn’t going to run. There’s no question about that.”
But beyond that, the private discussions they held in 1995 are shrouded today in disputed and hazy memories.
Obama said Palmer gave him her formal endorsement. “I’m absolutely certain she … publicly spoke and sort of designated me,” he recalled.
Palmer disputes that. “I don’t know that I like the word ‘endorsement,’” she said. “An endorsement to me, having been in legislative politics … that’s a very formal kind of thing. I don’t think that describes this. An ‘informal nod’ is how to characterize it.”
In July 1995, Obama announced he was planning to run for Palmer’s seat. He filed papers creating his fundraising committee a month later and officially announced his candidacy in September.
He emerged that winter as a gifted campaigner who after finishing hectic workdays would layer on thermal underwear to knock on South Side doors.
In impromptu street-corner conversations and media interviews, he disparaged local pols for putting self-preservation ahead of public service. At the last house on a dark block, “he would start a discussion that should have taken five minutes and pretty soon someone was cooking him dinner,” said paid campaign consultant Carol Anne Harwell.
Then Palmer’s congressional bid collapsed. On Nov. 28, 1995, she placed a distant third behind political powerhouses Jesse Jackson Jr., who holds that congressional seat today, and current state Senate President Emil Jones Jr.
Palmer didn’t fade quietly away. Citing an “outpouring” of support, she upended the political landscape by switching gears and deciding to run in the March 1996 primary for her state Senate seat.
But she had two big problems. To get on the ballot, Palmer needed to file nominating petitions signed by at least 757 district voters — and the Dec. 18 deadline was just days away.
And then there was Obama, the bright up-and-comer she had all but anointed.
Obama’s aides said he seemed anguished over the prospect of defying Palmer. “I really saw turmoil in his face,” Harwell said.
Obama sought advice from political veterans such as 4th Ward Ald. Toni Preckwinkle and then-15th Ward Ald. Virgil Jones, who say they urged him to hold his course.
“I thought the world of Alice Palmer,” said state Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie (D-Chicago), now the House majority leader. But “at that point she had pulled her own plug.”
According to Palmer, it was without her knowledge that her supporters initiated discussions to persuade Obama to step aside. They invited him to the home of state Rep. Lovana “Lou” Jones, now deceased. Obama arrived alone.
“It was a brief meeting,” said Black, a Palmer friend who had advised Obama when he was a young community organizer in the mid-1980s.
Obama didn’t try to justify his decision to reject Palmer’s plea, Black said.
“He did not put it in inflammatory terms, he just did not back away. It was not arguments, it was stubbornness,” Black said. “Barack had by then gone ahead in putting together his own campaign, and he just didn’t want to stop.”
‘If you can get ‘em, get ‘em’
Just in time for the Dec. 18, 1995, filing deadline, Palmer submitted 1,580 signatures — about twice the minimum required. That day, Obama lashed out at her, telling the Tribune she had pressured him to withdraw.
“I am disappointed that she’s decided to go back on her word to me,” he said.
Obama campaign aides also responded that day — but quietly, and out of the limelight.
Davis and Dobry marshaled volunteers and began poring through the nominating petitions of Palmer and the three lesser-known Democrats, according to interviews.
“We looked at those petitions and found that none of them met the requirements of the law,” Dobry said. “Alice’s people, they’d done it in a great hurry. Almost all her petitions were signed a day or so before the deadline.”
According to Davis, Palmer “had kids gathering the names. I remember two of her circulators, Pookie and Squirt.”
Davis and others urged Obama to file legal challenges.
Such tactics are legal and frequently used in Chicago. Ballot challenges eliminated 67 of the 245 declared aldermanic candidates in Chicago before this past February’s elections, an election board spokesman said.
Davis recalled telling Obama: “If you can get ‘em, get ‘em. Why give ‘em a break?
“I said, ‘Barack, I’m going to knock them all off.’
“He said, ‘What do you need?’
“I said, ‘I need an attorney.’
“He said, ‘Who is the best?’
“I said, ‘Tom Johnson.’”
Obama already knew civil rights attorney and fellow Harvard Law graduate Thomas Johnson, who had waged election cases for the late Mayor Washington and had offered Obama informal legal advice since the days of Project Vote.
With Johnson’s legal help, Obama’s team was confident. They piled binders of polling sheets in the election board office on the second floor of City Hall, and on Jan. 2, 1996, began the days-long hearings that would eliminate the other Democrats.
Little-known candidate Marc Ewell filed 1,286 names, but Obama’s objections left him 86 short of the minimum, and election officials struck him from the ballot, records show. Ewell filed a federal lawsuit contesting the board’s decision, but Johnson intervened on Obama’s behalf and prevailed when Ewell’s case was dismissed days later.
Ewell could not be reached for comment, but the federal judge’s decision showed how he was tripped up by complexities in the election procedures.
City authorities had just completed a massive, routine purge of unqualified names that eliminated 15,871 people from the 13th District rolls, court records show.
Ewell and other Obama rivals had relied on early 1995 polling sheets to verify the signatures of registered voters — but Obama’s challenges were decided at least in part using the most recent, accurate list, records show.
Askia filed 1,899 signatures, but the Obama team sustained objections to 1,211, leaving him 69 short, records show.
Leafing through scrapbooks in his South Shore apartment, Askia, a perennially unsuccessful candidate, acknowledges that he paid Democratic Party precinct workers $5 a sheet for some of the petitions and now suspects they used a classic Chicago ruse of passing the papers among themselves to forge the signatures. “They round-tabled me,” Askia said.
Palmer to this day does not concede the flaws that Obama’s team found in her signatures. She maintains that she could have overcome the Obama team’s objections and stayed on the ballot if she had more time and resources.
It was wrenching to withdraw, she said. “But sit for a moment, catch your breath, get up and keep going. I’m a very practical person. Politics is not the only vehicle for accomplishing things.” She became a special assistant to the president of the University of Illinois and is now retired.
Obama said he has not been in touch with Palmer since 1996. “No, not really, no,” he said.
Though she hasn’t determined whom to support in the presidential race, Palmer, 67, said her dispute with Obama doesn’t affect her assessment of his fitness to hold office.
Saying that jobless high school dropouts “are sitting on the steps next to my house,” Palmer added: “There is a savage economy going on out here, and we’ve got collateral damage. I am looking closely to see who has the courage, the smarts.”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,1,57567.story
Ha, Told You He couldn't Win
On the morning of November 5, 2008 Democrats will wake up to the cold, hard realty. You should have picked Hillary Clinton. All the pundits are crowing about Obama's enevitable nomination and pondering the logic of her remaining in the race.
--She wants to remain in the hunt just in case something happens. (A video appears of Wright calling for armed revolution? Fox News produces Obama's Secret Muslim Membership card?)
She is staying in for one last round of fundraising.
--(Her campaign is $20 million in debt and owes her $11 million.)
--She wants to end her historic campaign with a string of victories: West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico. (Puerto Rico? She is a senator from New York.)
--And the most obvious of them all: she's not yet ready to face the music. Why is the real reason, probably a combination of all four rasons is propelling her forward. But I believe there is a more poten reason: Hillary is setting up the biggest I-told-you-so in recent American political history.
--She wants to remain in the hunt just in case something happens. (A video appears of Wright calling for armed revolution? Fox News produces Obama's Secret Muslim Membership card?)
She is staying in for one last round of fundraising.
--(Her campaign is $20 million in debt and owes her $11 million.)
--She wants to end her historic campaign with a string of victories: West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico. (Puerto Rico? She is a senator from New York.)
--And the most obvious of them all: she's not yet ready to face the music. Why is the real reason, probably a combination of all four rasons is propelling her forward. But I believe there is a more poten reason: Hillary is setting up the biggest I-told-you-so in recent American political history.
Obama's Voting Record Finally Getting Scrutiny
I'm not going to hiold my breath, since myself and other Hillary supporters have been talking about Obama's voting record for months, to no avail.
Hagee Apologizes
McCain Endorser, John Hagee, apologizes. That's more than can be said about Obama's 20 year pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
Hillary As VP? For MCCain
Hillary Clinton should keep her options open. As a matter of fact, she should sreiously consider running with McCain! That would really F--- up the Democrats. You know, this Hillary bashing reminds me of Joe Leiberman's defeat to Ned Lamont! The Party tried to kill Leiberman's political career but instead, he turned the tables on them and ran as an independent and won! Now, he's a thorn in their sides. Serves their asses right. I, when I was a deleusional Democrat, merely a week ago, thought Leiberman was a traitor, but now that the Democratic Party has shown its true colors, I totally understand why Leiberman left the Party. They stabbed him in the back and expected him to fade into the sunset. Well, He sure showed them. They are doing much the same thing to Hillary Clinton now...even as they expect her to drop out and "dutifully" support Obama like a "good little girl." If I were her, I'd serously weigh my opinions. Already, I've heard the asshole talking able her "future" in the Party if she doesn't get out soon and support Obama. So now they are threatening her political future, as if her career depends soley on them?
Women Revolt In Democratic Party
THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING OF THE DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT AGAINST OBAMA:
An Ohio-based group of Democratic Hillary Clinton supporters say they’ll work actively against Sen. Barack Obama if he becomes the nominee, arguing that Clinton has been the subject of “intense sexism” by party leaders and the media.
Led by Boomer-aged women, the group, Clinton Supporters Count Too, is holding a press conference in Columbus at noon to release this statement.
Organizers Cynthia Ruccia, 55, and Jamie Dixey, 57, both from the Columbus area, say they’re coordinating women, men, minorities, union members and others in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan – all important swing states next November – to impress upon Democratic party leaders what they think has been outright discrimination – and not of the racial kind.
“We have been vigilant against expressions of racism, and we are thrilled that the society has advanced that way” in accepting Obama as a serious candidate,” Ruccia said. “But it’s been open season on women, and we feel we need to stand up and make a statement about that, because it’s wrong.”
With growing calls for Clinton to leave the race, she said, women feel like “we’re being told to sit down, shut up, and get with the program.”
An Ohio-based group of Democratic Hillary Clinton supporters say they’ll work actively against Sen. Barack Obama if he becomes the nominee, arguing that Clinton has been the subject of “intense sexism” by party leaders and the media.
Led by Boomer-aged women, the group, Clinton Supporters Count Too, is holding a press conference in Columbus at noon to release this statement.
Organizers Cynthia Ruccia, 55, and Jamie Dixey, 57, both from the Columbus area, say they’re coordinating women, men, minorities, union members and others in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan – all important swing states next November – to impress upon Democratic party leaders what they think has been outright discrimination – and not of the racial kind.
“We have been vigilant against expressions of racism, and we are thrilled that the society has advanced that way” in accepting Obama as a serious candidate,” Ruccia said. “But it’s been open season on women, and we feel we need to stand up and make a statement about that, because it’s wrong.”
With growing calls for Clinton to leave the race, she said, women feel like “we’re being told to sit down, shut up, and get with the program.”
I agree With Bush, For Once
I don't agree with the Republicans on much, but on this issue, I am 100% behind them. You cannot talk to terrorists and dictators without precondidtions. It is absurd. Obama is naive if he think he can sway these people by reasoning with them. Get real. Don't they understand that the middle East Governments, if they had their way, would wipe Israel off the face of the earth? If these people are willing to sacrifice their lives, their children's lives, and even disabled citizens to kill American troops, do you think they are going to listen to Obama's drivel? Ha! They will obliterate his ass too if given the opportunity.
If you want to be scared by a presidential candidate google Alice Palmer Barak Obama Chicago Tribune then go to Scoop.com and read Evelyn Pringle's 3 part series Curtain Time for Barak Obama. I have always backed Hillary but after reading these articles I can't even watch him on the news.
Bush is right on that one Obama panders and appeaese everyone for votes... he doesnt recognized the true vogte count from certified electons ... just like 2000 when the votes werent counted but when the old bag Katherine Harris certified the election it was done... its the reverse argument here so they have to count the votes... these Obamanuts are pathetic and we will beat them down eventually
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-bush-nazis-israel-web-051508may16,0,7493122.story
Obama Respponds
http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/World/2008/05/15/5578936.html
If you want to be scared by a presidential candidate google Alice Palmer Barak Obama Chicago Tribune then go to Scoop.com and read Evelyn Pringle's 3 part series Curtain Time for Barak Obama. I have always backed Hillary but after reading these articles I can't even watch him on the news.
Bush is right on that one Obama panders and appeaese everyone for votes... he doesnt recognized the true vogte count from certified electons ... just like 2000 when the votes werent counted but when the old bag Katherine Harris certified the election it was done... its the reverse argument here so they have to count the votes... these Obamanuts are pathetic and we will beat them down eventually
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-bush-nazis-israel-web-051508may16,0,7493122.story
Obama Respponds
http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/World/2008/05/15/5578936.html
If Hillary Take It To The Convention, I'm With Her
As James Carville says, the dog are still barking. It all depends on whether Hillary has the testicular fortitude to withstand the barrage of criticism from the media and Obama backers, in addition to Party elders and Superdelegates who could very well "flood" to Obama's side and tip the balance in his favor. Now, having said all that, she has earned the "right" to push this as far as she cares to...and why...because she has earned it. She has campaigned for all these ungrateful men in the Party and now when she has her own shot at the Presidency, they want to bring in some young guy (Obama) and she is supposed to "train him" (support) to do a job she is imminently more qualified to perform.
The betrayal that outrages me more, even more than Kennedy, George McGovern. She worked her ass off for this man, Bill Clinton too, and this is the thanks she gets? It has occurred to me that there is more than a heavy dose of jealousy toward Hillary Clinton, remember Bill Richardson's comment: "The Clinton's think they are entitled to the Presidency. What about the rest of us?"
My outrage extends to this ridiculous system they have created that favors who has the most money and prohibits a candidate from catching up, even as the front runner falters. The Democratic Party acts as if they have "never" taken the nomination from someone they thought couldn't win. As I recall, they took the nomination from Gary Hart and gave it to Mondale. They are also practicing selective memory, especially Ted Kennedy. He took his fight to challenge Jimmy Carter, who was running for re-election, to the convention, and when he lost, refused to shake Carter's hand. Needless to say, the Party was divided and the Democrats lost to Ronald Reagan. Of course Carter had other problems, including the Hostage situation, but this played a role in his unsuccessful re-election bid.
The betrayal that outrages me more, even more than Kennedy, George McGovern. She worked her ass off for this man, Bill Clinton too, and this is the thanks she gets? It has occurred to me that there is more than a heavy dose of jealousy toward Hillary Clinton, remember Bill Richardson's comment: "The Clinton's think they are entitled to the Presidency. What about the rest of us?"
My outrage extends to this ridiculous system they have created that favors who has the most money and prohibits a candidate from catching up, even as the front runner falters. The Democratic Party acts as if they have "never" taken the nomination from someone they thought couldn't win. As I recall, they took the nomination from Gary Hart and gave it to Mondale. They are also practicing selective memory, especially Ted Kennedy. He took his fight to challenge Jimmy Carter, who was running for re-election, to the convention, and when he lost, refused to shake Carter's hand. Needless to say, the Party was divided and the Democrats lost to Ronald Reagan. Of course Carter had other problems, including the Hostage situation, but this played a role in his unsuccessful re-election bid.
Does Edwards' Endorsement Mean Much?
Well, John Edwards, the the ever calculating, political opportunist has finally ended the speculation and endorsed Obama, although he let it slip last week on Morning Joe. I gotta say, he and Obama timed it perfectly. I'm sure it had "nothing" to do with the fact that Hillary was making the press rounds after her massive win in West Virginia and Obama was pissed and basically decided she would get no more attention. It worked, but not totally. People were still saying he lost West Virginia and Edwards could help him with the "white vote." maybe it's just me but does that not "highlight" his weakness, as opposed to downplaying them, that he has to get the "white man" to rescue him, to vouch for him?
Now, as to John Edwards' ability to "solve" Obama's "white people" problem, I have doubts. Excuse my sarcasm but wasn't Edwards in the race and was not making headway, at one point having to tell the moderators that he was still in it? As I recall, it was in South Carolina, and he dropped out shortly thereafter. So, tell me something, if he had this "following" why didn't he generate enough support to muster a strong run at the nomination. I'll tell you why....because people did not buy what he was selling, plus he was very angry. Do anyone really believe that the millionaire, John is a champion for poor people. How many houses has he built in Louisiana? Has he started a scholarship program for the poor? It seems I have seen this before. John Edwards was Kerry's VP running mate and could not deliver North Carolina. What makes Obama think he can "deliver" white voters? To put a fine point on it, Edwards' supporters have long since drifted to Obama so there are none left. The fact is...his endorsement will have very little impact on Kentucky. Yeah he will campaign with him but I don't think he will be able to shake Hillary's supporters loose. After all, it's not as if he's Al Gore. Now, that would cause an earthquake. And even then Hillary would still stay put. It has done what it was designed to accomplish, steal some of Hillary's thunder (momentum).
John Edwards is politically irrelevant, even in his home state. Here’s proof:
In the 2000 election, without Edwards on the ticket: North Carolina result is….Bush 56 %Gore 43 %
In the 2004 election, with Edwards on the ticket: North Carolina result is…Bush 56 %Kerry-Edwards 44 %
So the guy had zero impact EVEN IN HIS OWN STATE!
ZERO IMPACT, people. Sorry to burst your bubble with some cold hard data.
An interesting observation....Elizabeth Edwards' absence spoke volumes. Can we conclude that she does not support Obama? Could it be that there is a split in the Edwards camp?
Now, as to John Edwards' ability to "solve" Obama's "white people" problem, I have doubts. Excuse my sarcasm but wasn't Edwards in the race and was not making headway, at one point having to tell the moderators that he was still in it? As I recall, it was in South Carolina, and he dropped out shortly thereafter. So, tell me something, if he had this "following" why didn't he generate enough support to muster a strong run at the nomination. I'll tell you why....because people did not buy what he was selling, plus he was very angry. Do anyone really believe that the millionaire, John is a champion for poor people. How many houses has he built in Louisiana? Has he started a scholarship program for the poor? It seems I have seen this before. John Edwards was Kerry's VP running mate and could not deliver North Carolina. What makes Obama think he can "deliver" white voters? To put a fine point on it, Edwards' supporters have long since drifted to Obama so there are none left. The fact is...his endorsement will have very little impact on Kentucky. Yeah he will campaign with him but I don't think he will be able to shake Hillary's supporters loose. After all, it's not as if he's Al Gore. Now, that would cause an earthquake. And even then Hillary would still stay put. It has done what it was designed to accomplish, steal some of Hillary's thunder (momentum).
John Edwards is politically irrelevant, even in his home state. Here’s proof:
In the 2000 election, without Edwards on the ticket: North Carolina result is….Bush 56 %Gore 43 %
In the 2004 election, with Edwards on the ticket: North Carolina result is…Bush 56 %Kerry-Edwards 44 %
So the guy had zero impact EVEN IN HIS OWN STATE!
ZERO IMPACT, people. Sorry to burst your bubble with some cold hard data.
An interesting observation....Elizabeth Edwards' absence spoke volumes. Can we conclude that she does not support Obama? Could it be that there is a split in the Edwards camp?
Edwards Endorses, Media Gleeful
The left Wing Media (LWM) is practically gleeful with the near demise of Hillary's Campaign. The MSNBC crowd is particularly offensive. This morning on morning Joe, Mika Brzezinski and practically gloating, so was Andrea Mitchell. Harold Ford Jr. at least had the class to be more circumspect. They were particularly howling when Gibbs, Obama's campaign chair came on and the discussion about the "timing" of the endorsement. Gibbs basically confessed that they timed it to "step on" the positive press Hillary was getting after her massive West Virginia trouncing of Obama. They were also quite pleased that Hillary's interview with Brian Williams was knocked off the radar when the Edwards endorsement was announced.
Why I Became an Independent
I was a registered Democrat until last Tuesday but after the India and North Carolina Primaries, I decided to switch to Independent. My decision was a painful one. However, my reasons for switching are as follows:
--Disgusted by the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan voters
--The media's blatant disrespect for Hillary And Bill Clinton
--The lack of leadership by Dean and Pelosi
--The disloyalty of close friends and former aides of the Clintons
--Media giving Obama a "pass" and "explaining" away his problems
--Disrespect for Hillary's supporters. Saying "we will unite"
--Race card being played by Obama Camapign/supporters
--Obama supporters/surrogates defending 20 year history of radicalism
--Obama's poor "judgement" regarding Ayers and Wright
--Condescending tone when referring to voters
--His wife is mean-spirited and speaks disparaginly of her country
--He has not earned the right to the nomination
--Obama is dismissive of Bill Clinton's Presidency. Praises Republicans, not Bill
--Ted Kennedy's apparent disdain for Hillary
--The Boy's ganging up on Hillary, shaming her into leaving the race
--My perception that the nomination has been "decided"
--The Men telling Hillary she can go back to the Senate
--Ted Kennedy was 700+ delegates behind and he went to the convention
--Ted Kennedy divided the party, refused to shake Carter's hand, DEMS lost
--They accuse Hillary of tearing Party apart but have done worse
--Sick of the media focusing on Math. Neither can win without superdelegates
--Tired of media saying if Hillary gets nomination, she will have "taken it" from Obama. He does not have it, at least publicly
--Tired of threats from blacks about riots if he is not nominee
--Obama is dishonest and opportunistic. Only distanced himself from Wright for Political expediency
--Blacks voting against Hillary 90-97% even after Bill Clinton did so much for them
--The Democratic Party apparently wants to push the Clinton's aside. They have treated his family with disdain
--The Obama Campaign planted supporters to harass Chelsea about Monica. Other supporters have referenced the incident in crude ways
--James Clyburn has publicly said Bill Clinton was not appreciative because blacks supported him during impeachment
--Obama has effectively divid the party along racial, economic,gender, and generational lines
--Howard Dean did not exhibit leadership and force both campaigns to re-vote Florida and Michigan. His and Nancy Pelosi claiming neutrality is bull
--The men in the Democratic Party and a lot of women for that matter, for all their talk about diversity, does not want a woman as President. Their whole premise is a sham
--Telling superdelegates to "vote the will of the people" when Kerry and Kennedy supports Obama, defying the will of the people of Massachusetts.
--Superdelegates are supposed to "independent judgement" and pick the strongest candidate. which Hillary clearly is, despite media chatter to "drop out." The calls are offensive.
--Media surrogates claiming Hillary is selfish and should help Obama get the "white vote"
I feel liberated.
--The sense that the Party is humoring Hillary but they already gave their "man"
--The Party's willingness to "forgive" and believe Obama's explanation about the Pastor Problem
No longer will I vote blindly for someone because he/she has a (D) beside his or her name. I will evaluate the "person" and his/her positions, voting records, etc.
I just got tired of the game that is the Democratic Party. I never thought the day would come when I would agree with conservatives that the Democratic Party are a bunch of elitists, but I fervently believe that now. They talk a good game about voting rights but only when it benefits the party or the candidate they want to crown.
--Disgusted by the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan voters
--The media's blatant disrespect for Hillary And Bill Clinton
--The lack of leadership by Dean and Pelosi
--The disloyalty of close friends and former aides of the Clintons
--Media giving Obama a "pass" and "explaining" away his problems
--Disrespect for Hillary's supporters. Saying "we will unite"
--Race card being played by Obama Camapign/supporters
--Obama supporters/surrogates defending 20 year history of radicalism
--Obama's poor "judgement" regarding Ayers and Wright
--Condescending tone when referring to voters
--His wife is mean-spirited and speaks disparaginly of her country
--He has not earned the right to the nomination
--Obama is dismissive of Bill Clinton's Presidency. Praises Republicans, not Bill
--Ted Kennedy's apparent disdain for Hillary
--The Boy's ganging up on Hillary, shaming her into leaving the race
--My perception that the nomination has been "decided"
--The Men telling Hillary she can go back to the Senate
--Ted Kennedy was 700+ delegates behind and he went to the convention
--Ted Kennedy divided the party, refused to shake Carter's hand, DEMS lost
--They accuse Hillary of tearing Party apart but have done worse
--Sick of the media focusing on Math. Neither can win without superdelegates
--Tired of media saying if Hillary gets nomination, she will have "taken it" from Obama. He does not have it, at least publicly
--Tired of threats from blacks about riots if he is not nominee
--Obama is dishonest and opportunistic. Only distanced himself from Wright for Political expediency
--Blacks voting against Hillary 90-97% even after Bill Clinton did so much for them
--The Democratic Party apparently wants to push the Clinton's aside. They have treated his family with disdain
--The Obama Campaign planted supporters to harass Chelsea about Monica. Other supporters have referenced the incident in crude ways
--James Clyburn has publicly said Bill Clinton was not appreciative because blacks supported him during impeachment
--Obama has effectively divid the party along racial, economic,gender, and generational lines
--Howard Dean did not exhibit leadership and force both campaigns to re-vote Florida and Michigan. His and Nancy Pelosi claiming neutrality is bull
--The men in the Democratic Party and a lot of women for that matter, for all their talk about diversity, does not want a woman as President. Their whole premise is a sham
--Telling superdelegates to "vote the will of the people" when Kerry and Kennedy supports Obama, defying the will of the people of Massachusetts.
--Superdelegates are supposed to "independent judgement" and pick the strongest candidate. which Hillary clearly is, despite media chatter to "drop out." The calls are offensive.
--Media surrogates claiming Hillary is selfish and should help Obama get the "white vote"
I feel liberated.
--The sense that the Party is humoring Hillary but they already gave their "man"
--The Party's willingness to "forgive" and believe Obama's explanation about the Pastor Problem
No longer will I vote blindly for someone because he/she has a (D) beside his or her name. I will evaluate the "person" and his/her positions, voting records, etc.
I just got tired of the game that is the Democratic Party. I never thought the day would come when I would agree with conservatives that the Democratic Party are a bunch of elitists, but I fervently believe that now. They talk a good game about voting rights but only when it benefits the party or the candidate they want to crown.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Major Garrett Interview
What the hell does she need to apologize for, the facts are the facts. She was simply quoting from the AP article to lend credence to her argument that she is more electable. Of course, the Obama surrogates in the media wants to fuel talk that Hillary is inciting race. This is such bull crap. Is it racist when black people vote 90, 92, 97% for Obama. Why the hell is that not racist? The Obama Camapign and the media brand Bill Clinton a racist, give "permission" for blacks to jump ship and voting in an obscene fashion but that is not racist? Give me a damn break!
http://bourbonroom.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/05/14/transcript-major-interviews-hillary-clinton-after-w-va-win/
Susan Rice, and all them assholes Bill Clinton put in his Administration and those that worked for Hillary are a bunch of traitors. But, like I said before, they better hope Bo wins or they are "TOAST."
http://bourbonroom.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/05/14/transcript-major-interviews-hillary-clinton-after-w-va-win/
Susan Rice, and all them assholes Bill Clinton put in his Administration and those that worked for Hillary are a bunch of traitors. But, like I said before, they better hope Bo wins or they are "TOAST."
The Fix is In
Obama can bury his head in the sand and trot out Superdelegates before and after Hillary's win in West Virginia and it still won't change the facts: He has a BIG weakness...winning in swing states among working class, (yes) white voters, women, the elderly, etc.
He can toss these voters aside, claiming he can win without them but I doubt that he can win with Blacks and the youth vote and intellectuals. Hasn't anybody ever told him that older voters are more reliable voters? Does he really think he can carry all those Republican States?
I suspect the reason he's built this "new" coalition is because he knows "older" people are not buying the bull he's selling. I knew sooner or later the halo was going to dim.
Maybe it's too late for Hillary to get the nomination, I don't know, but I want her and the campaign to know that her supporters love and respect her and her husband. I think it is appalling that her former supporters have turned on her. I was so disgusted by this that I switched to Independent. I now have a sense that the fix is in: It has already been "decided" that Obama is the nominee, unless he collapses. How else would you describe the flooding of superdelegates to him even after what we have learened? It almost as if they have said: "We don't care." Any one who believes his explanations is an idiot. So, since I'm not, I don't plan on supporting him. I no longer will vote based on a "D" beside someon'e name. And by the way, the bad times won't sway me either as his surrogates is quick to counter. What is more important is voting my conscience and belief...and I believe Obama shares Wright's views.
He can toss these voters aside, claiming he can win without them but I doubt that he can win with Blacks and the youth vote and intellectuals. Hasn't anybody ever told him that older voters are more reliable voters? Does he really think he can carry all those Republican States?
I suspect the reason he's built this "new" coalition is because he knows "older" people are not buying the bull he's selling. I knew sooner or later the halo was going to dim.
Maybe it's too late for Hillary to get the nomination, I don't know, but I want her and the campaign to know that her supporters love and respect her and her husband. I think it is appalling that her former supporters have turned on her. I was so disgusted by this that I switched to Independent. I now have a sense that the fix is in: It has already been "decided" that Obama is the nominee, unless he collapses. How else would you describe the flooding of superdelegates to him even after what we have learened? It almost as if they have said: "We don't care." Any one who believes his explanations is an idiot. So, since I'm not, I don't plan on supporting him. I no longer will vote based on a "D" beside someon'e name. And by the way, the bad times won't sway me either as his surrogates is quick to counter. What is more important is voting my conscience and belief...and I believe Obama shares Wright's views.
Who The Hell is Edward kennedy?
I have been practically ranting and raving about this very issue: Kennedy, Mr. no judgement (Chappaquidick), dumping on Hillary about her not being a leader, and "nobler"whatever he said.
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/20080514_HILLARY_SITUATION_REMINDS_ME_OF_1980.html
He was farther behind than Hillary and he took his case to the convention. He refused to shake Carter's hand after he lost, ripping the Party and cost the Dems the Election. Now he wants to tell Hillary she not Presidential material. She is closer than he ever was or will be.
The gall of the asshole.
I am so sick of the Kennedys now. They think they are Royalty. Do not let me get into the peccadillos of both Kennedys. They make Clinton lokk like a boy scout!
http://777denny.wordpress.com/2008/05/11/ted-kennedy-says-nobler-aspirations-and-real-leadership-but-not-hillary-for-vp/
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/20080514_HILLARY_SITUATION_REMINDS_ME_OF_1980.html
He was farther behind than Hillary and he took his case to the convention. He refused to shake Carter's hand after he lost, ripping the Party and cost the Dems the Election. Now he wants to tell Hillary she not Presidential material. She is closer than he ever was or will be.
The gall of the asshole.
I am so sick of the Kennedys now. They think they are Royalty. Do not let me get into the peccadillos of both Kennedys. They make Clinton lokk like a boy scout!
http://777denny.wordpress.com/2008/05/11/ted-kennedy-says-nobler-aspirations-and-real-leadership-but-not-hillary-for-vp/
The Beat Down in West Virginia
Hillary Clinton stomped Obama in West Virginia last night. No amount of rolling out Superdelegates before people voted (4) or after he lost (2) is going to change that narrative. It is a glaring fact that he is a weak General Election candidate because he has not been able to connect with the blue collar voters that everyone agrees he needs to have to win and become President of The United States. He, his campaign and supporters have said they don't need West Virginia to win in November. He has a recurring habit of dismissing Hillary's successes and seems to think he can fundamentally change how Presidential races are won. For example, he and and his supporters seem to think he can win with College kids, Blacks, and high income intellectuals, therefore thumbing his nose at the people who have consistently rejected his candidacy. Unless I have been living under a rock for twenty five years, Democrats have tried that coalition before and have lost with McGovern, Dukasis, and Kerry. Only Bill Clinton was able to put together that "magic" formulae and win the Presidency, twice. Now Obama thinks he is so special that he can win out west ( Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington), along with California, therefore, negating Hillary's argument that she is beating McCain in the states Democrats need (swing States) to win the White House and is therefore the stronger candidate?
My question is, if he so strong in these Western States and intend to change the electoral college math, why then is he going to Missouri, Michigan, Florida and other states to get the "white" vote? First, let me say that he barely won Missouri, lost New Mexico and Arizona. Second, he has win in Republican states that have not gone Republican in years, or never. I know the argument is going to be that Democrats just won three seats in Louisiana, Illinois and Mississippi and that the earth is shifting but don't count on much more shifting. It would take a earthquake to shake more seats from Republican's grip, and believe me, that received a big wake-up call last night in Mississippi. So, if Obama and his supporters think they can count on more erosion in Republican ranks, I wouldn't stake my life on it.
Despite Obama's dissing and the media's incessant chatter about "The Math" there in an undeniable fact that Hillary is forcing Superdelegates to think about: Do you really want to take a risk and roll the dice with Obama? Do you want to dismiss a Proven formulae or take a risk with unreliable voters, especially young voters? Do you really want to take a gamble that Obama can win western states Republicans have consistently, the notable exception being Bill Clinton? Only they can make that call but they had better understand this: The White House is at stake. What scenario do you envision playing out? If they are not careful, they will wake up November 4, 2008 to a nightmare. They had better be thinking about winning, as opposed to who they "like."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/14/AR2008051400890.html
My question is, if he so strong in these Western States and intend to change the electoral college math, why then is he going to Missouri, Michigan, Florida and other states to get the "white" vote? First, let me say that he barely won Missouri, lost New Mexico and Arizona. Second, he has win in Republican states that have not gone Republican in years, or never. I know the argument is going to be that Democrats just won three seats in Louisiana, Illinois and Mississippi and that the earth is shifting but don't count on much more shifting. It would take a earthquake to shake more seats from Republican's grip, and believe me, that received a big wake-up call last night in Mississippi. So, if Obama and his supporters think they can count on more erosion in Republican ranks, I wouldn't stake my life on it.
Despite Obama's dissing and the media's incessant chatter about "The Math" there in an undeniable fact that Hillary is forcing Superdelegates to think about: Do you really want to take a risk and roll the dice with Obama? Do you want to dismiss a Proven formulae or take a risk with unreliable voters, especially young voters? Do you really want to take a gamble that Obama can win western states Republicans have consistently, the notable exception being Bill Clinton? Only they can make that call but they had better understand this: The White House is at stake. What scenario do you envision playing out? If they are not careful, they will wake up November 4, 2008 to a nightmare. They had better be thinking about winning, as opposed to who they "like."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/14/AR2008051400890.html
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Black Superdelegates Risist Calls to Switch
You mean not all blacks are overcome with by Obama's rhetoric? What a concept!
http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/movingamerica08/cbcclintonsupporters513
It that didn't work, threats and intimidation will suffice
http://www.eurweb.com/story/eur43443.cfm
http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/movingamerica08/cbcclintonsupporters513
It that didn't work, threats and intimidation will suffice
http://www.eurweb.com/story/eur43443.cfm
Primary Day in WesT Virginia
Well, Hillary Clinton is projected to win West Virginia by a huge margin, by as much as 40% according to polls. The question is....will it change the narrative in the main stream media (MSM) that Obama is the presumptive nominee? He has already taken the step of "rolling out" four more "superdelegates" to stem Hillary's momentum attempting to blunt the "stomping" she is expected to give him in West Virginia. Every time something big happens, or is about to happen, Obama and his "people" roll out his "superdelegates." I wonderthough....If he has so many, why hasn't he rolled them out and ended the contest? I am highly suspicious when I hear his campaign say he has the delegates to win the nomination locked up. The time to roll them out if he had a large number of them was after North Carolina. I think a large chunk of them are still highly sceptical of his strength as a General Election Candidate.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Why Are these Things Not Lapses In Judgement?
This is not an inability to "hire good help" but a clear case of blaming others and a sign of lapses in judgement. Anerica had better wake up before its too late. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/obamas-inabilit.html
Is It Math or Electability?
I keep hearing from the media that it is over. If that is the case, why can't BO win and end the race outright. He cannot win without superdelegates either, yet the media portrays the race as if Hillary would be stealing the nomination if they made the determination that she was the stronger candidate. To make it clear, no matter what the lead is now, BO cannot get the nomination without superdelegates. They will BOTH be short, whatever the number. These are the facts.
Join Me In Swiching To Independent
Last Wednesday night, I was so PO ed about the election coverage and the pronouncement by Tim Russert that BO was "now the nominee" that I filled out a new voter registration application. I sat on it but then decided after hearing how they (media) chose to report BO's and Hill's victories. I was especially mad at the "victory lap" BO gave by going to Washington. Also was mad that all the "men" in the DEM Party was taking the victory lap with him. It felt like a kick in the gut...like I/we did not matter because we now have "our guy." So, when my card comes back, I'll be an Independent, with no allegiance to the DEM Party. I doubt I ever will again.
The Media Calls The Election For Obama
The media is despicable, the way they have maligned Hillary. The have all but declared the race over. Now, they want her to deliver her supporters to BO like sacrificial lambs! I am so sick of the DEM Party.
Should Kennedy Be Accusing Hillary of Divisiveness?
Edward Kennedy has some nerve claiming Hillary does not have "noble causes." He was 500 delegates behind Jimmy Carter and took his fight all the way to the convention. Hillary, by contrast is much closer the he ever was to the nomination. Even when he lost, he refused to shake Carter's hand, thus leaving the Party divided, and handed the victory and the Presidency to Reagan. Now he wants to criticize Hillary and Bill Clinton about negative politics?! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
The Drumbeat gets louder
It is patently clear that the chorus is getting louder and louder for Hillary to get out of the race and support Obama. Despite polls showing she is beating McCain in key states ans beating him by a bigger margin, Democratic insiders seem intend on ignoring these facts and giving BO the nomination. Does it seem odd to anyone that a presumptive nominee will lose WY, and KY by 30+% points? Does the Democratic Party really hate the Clinton so much that they will risk the election? It appears that way.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Hillary Should Not Accept VP Position
Hillary Clinton should not accept the VP position because it would be an insult. You have worked all your life for this opportunity and out of nowhere this hurry-cum-up takes it away and you shout settle for the #2 spot when you clearly are better equipped than him? No way!
Nobody cares what the hell Michele Obama thinks because Hillary does not want to work for her Husband. She has been saying derogatory things about Hillary for months, such as "if she can't take care of her own house, how can she take care of the White House?" What I think she needs to do is worry about her own marriage, if what has been alleged on the Internet and in Globe and The Enquirer is to be believed. I always say, "if you live in a glass house, you shouldn't throw stones."
him be the Nominee if the Party chooses to go that way because he will lose and she Hillary does not want that to be a part of her legacy.
Nobody cares what the hell Michele Obama thinks because Hillary does not want to work for her Husband. She has been saying derogatory things about Hillary for months, such as "if she can't take care of her own house, how can she take care of the White House?" What I think she needs to do is worry about her own marriage, if what has been alleged on the Internet and in Globe and The Enquirer is to be believed. I always say, "if you live in a glass house, you shouldn't throw stones."
him be the Nominee if the Party chooses to go that way because he will lose and she Hillary does not want that to be a part of her legacy.
Why Obama Won North Carolina
I am somewhat perplexed as to the "crowing" in the media about Obama's North Carolina win. The truth is, he won because Blacks voted for him in the 90+%. According to Robert Novak:
"Clinton's failure Tuesday was a product of demographics rather than Obama's campaign skill. Consistently winning over 90 percent of the African-American vote, Obama is unbeatable in a primary where the black electorate is as large as North Carolina's (half the registered Democratic vote there). Indiana differed from seemingly similar Ohio and Pennsylvania, where Clinton scored big wins, because it borders Obama's state of Illinois, with many voters in the Chicago media market."One thing is clear....It was blacks that destroyed Hillary Clinton's Presidential chances when they defected. If she had received even 10% of their vote throughout these primaries and caucuses, she would be the nominee.
When he gave his victory speech after his North Carolina win, Obama seeming was saying his 20 year association with Jeremiah Wright, the connection to the Terrorist Bill Ayers, Rezko, questions about his patriotism and his wife's comments should be off limits. Again, Novak says: "Obama in Raleigh Tuesday unveiled his general election strategy. Dismissing McCain's "ideas" as "nothing more than the failed policies of the past," Obama denounced what he called the Republican campaign plan: "Yes, we know what's coming. ... We've already seen it, the same names and labels they always pin on everyone who doesn't agree with all their ideas."
Thus, Obama seems to be ruling out not only discussion of his 20-year association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright but also any identification of the Democratic presidential candidate as "liberal" or as an advocate of higher taxes, higher domestic spending, abortion rights and gun control. These issues appear to be included in what Obama at Raleigh called "attempts to play on our fears and exploit our differences."
I think these issues will be a part of the General Election, and rightly so. Those who will characterize the scrutiny as racism do not want and examination of the Barack Obama the man. Who is he really? Why has he been loath to condemn the words and actions of the people that have emerged as a part of his social network? If he wants to be our President, he needs to answer the questions and let us judge whether he is fit to set foot in the White House. I for one am not convinced he has been forthcoming about his beliefs. I suspect his membership in the church was political, that he heard the sermons, and maybe he shares some of the views. One way to clear that up is to release the church guest book on the dates the sermons was given. Would it reveal that he was in fact in attendance, at least once? Probably.
"Clinton's failure Tuesday was a product of demographics rather than Obama's campaign skill. Consistently winning over 90 percent of the African-American vote, Obama is unbeatable in a primary where the black electorate is as large as North Carolina's (half the registered Democratic vote there). Indiana differed from seemingly similar Ohio and Pennsylvania, where Clinton scored big wins, because it borders Obama's state of Illinois, with many voters in the Chicago media market."One thing is clear....It was blacks that destroyed Hillary Clinton's Presidential chances when they defected. If she had received even 10% of their vote throughout these primaries and caucuses, she would be the nominee.
When he gave his victory speech after his North Carolina win, Obama seeming was saying his 20 year association with Jeremiah Wright, the connection to the Terrorist Bill Ayers, Rezko, questions about his patriotism and his wife's comments should be off limits. Again, Novak says: "Obama in Raleigh Tuesday unveiled his general election strategy. Dismissing McCain's "ideas" as "nothing more than the failed policies of the past," Obama denounced what he called the Republican campaign plan: "Yes, we know what's coming. ... We've already seen it, the same names and labels they always pin on everyone who doesn't agree with all their ideas."
Thus, Obama seems to be ruling out not only discussion of his 20-year association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright but also any identification of the Democratic presidential candidate as "liberal" or as an advocate of higher taxes, higher domestic spending, abortion rights and gun control. These issues appear to be included in what Obama at Raleigh called "attempts to play on our fears and exploit our differences."
I think these issues will be a part of the General Election, and rightly so. Those who will characterize the scrutiny as racism do not want and examination of the Barack Obama the man. Who is he really? Why has he been loath to condemn the words and actions of the people that have emerged as a part of his social network? If he wants to be our President, he needs to answer the questions and let us judge whether he is fit to set foot in the White House. I for one am not convinced he has been forthcoming about his beliefs. I suspect his membership in the church was political, that he heard the sermons, and maybe he shares some of the views. One way to clear that up is to release the church guest book on the dates the sermons was given. Would it reveal that he was in fact in attendance, at least once? Probably.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Is There Still A path To The Presidency For Hillary?
According to Jay Cost of Real Clear Politics, there is. I would desperately love to believe it, but I'm sceptical.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/05/not_quite_yet_1.html
Oh, I would love for this to become a reality. Let's wait and see.
Could Wesy Virginia and Kentucky be her saving Grace? What if she wins both by Huge percentages as she is projected to? What then I wonder. how will That change the psychology of the race, or will it. Will Superdelegates still stubbornly stick with Obama regardless? Probably.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/05/not_quite_yet_1.html
Oh, I would love for this to become a reality. Let's wait and see.
Could Wesy Virginia and Kentucky be her saving Grace? What if she wins both by Huge percentages as she is projected to? What then I wonder. how will That change the psychology of the race, or will it. Will Superdelegates still stubbornly stick with Obama regardless? Probably.
Polls Confirming That Clinton Is Strongest Candidate
Despite what looks to be a defeat for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primary because of the number (Math), Hillary Clinton is polling stronger than Obama in a match up against John McCain (9%), according to a poll by the LA Times, although Obama would win, albeit by a narrower margin (6%).
The numbers are as follows:In a hypothetical match up between Clinton and McCain, the New York senator led the Arizonan by 47% to 38%, with 11% saying they were undecided.And in a contest between Obama and McCain, the poll gave the Illinois senator a 46% to 40% lead over the Republican, with 9% undecided. The nationwide poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
The poll offered fresh insights for Democrats trying to discern whether Obama or Clinton would best represent their party in the fall against McCain.For example, Clinton and McCain were essentially tied among voters ages 65 or older. But if the race were between Obama and McCain, the Republican would lead, 47% to 41%.Among people ages 18 to 44, Obama led McCain by 55% to 35%.Clinton generated less enthusiasm with this age group, leading McCain by 48% to 35%.
No matter who they chose for choice for president, voters judged Hillary Clinton to be the most capable of the three candidates when it comes to dealing with economic problems. She got 32%, compared with 26% for Obama and 23% for McCain."This is an issue that McCain really has to work on to turn people's attitudes around," Pinkus said. "This is an issue that is a positive for Democrats, and that may explain why they are doing better -- even though they are still fighting each other and McCain is getting a free ride."
Argument For Hillary clinton Candidacy--Power Point
(available here: HRC_Pitch.ppt.)
Open Letter for Clinton Candidacy
The open letter from 16 members of congress urging the undeclared superdelegates to consider that Clinton won the key battleground states of Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, as well as the rural and suburban vote.
Update: The presentation apparently didn't sway the nine superdelegates that Obama picked up on Friday (including Ed Espinoza, aka on the web as "Mr. Super.")
Clinton did receive the endorsement of Rep. Chris Carney of Pennsylvania, who by virtue of being an elected official in Congress, is a superdelegate.
Michigan And Florida Delegates won't count
http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/05/08/why-florida-and-michigan-won-t-matter-in-the-end.aspx
The numbers are as follows:In a hypothetical match up between Clinton and McCain, the New York senator led the Arizonan by 47% to 38%, with 11% saying they were undecided.And in a contest between Obama and McCain, the poll gave the Illinois senator a 46% to 40% lead over the Republican, with 9% undecided. The nationwide poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
The poll offered fresh insights for Democrats trying to discern whether Obama or Clinton would best represent their party in the fall against McCain.For example, Clinton and McCain were essentially tied among voters ages 65 or older. But if the race were between Obama and McCain, the Republican would lead, 47% to 41%.Among people ages 18 to 44, Obama led McCain by 55% to 35%.Clinton generated less enthusiasm with this age group, leading McCain by 48% to 35%.
No matter who they chose for choice for president, voters judged Hillary Clinton to be the most capable of the three candidates when it comes to dealing with economic problems. She got 32%, compared with 26% for Obama and 23% for McCain."This is an issue that McCain really has to work on to turn people's attitudes around," Pinkus said. "This is an issue that is a positive for Democrats, and that may explain why they are doing better -- even though they are still fighting each other and McCain is getting a free ride."
Argument For Hillary clinton Candidacy--Power Point
(available here: HRC_Pitch.ppt.)
Open Letter for Clinton Candidacy
The open letter from 16 members of congress urging the undeclared superdelegates to consider that Clinton won the key battleground states of Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, as well as the rural and suburban vote.
Update: The presentation apparently didn't sway the nine superdelegates that Obama picked up on Friday (including Ed Espinoza, aka on the web as "Mr. Super.")
Clinton did receive the endorsement of Rep. Chris Carney of Pennsylvania, who by virtue of being an elected official in Congress, is a superdelegate.
Michigan And Florida Delegates won't count
http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/05/08/why-florida-and-michigan-won-t-matter-in-the-end.aspx
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)