Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama: Of the two, who do you like?

[Musicman408]

So, we all know about the long drawn out DEM primanry. Which of the two candidates would you/have you voted for/ which on are you cheering for?

I like Hillary. 'Nuff Said~

[jr2280]

Hillary has my vote

[GoldDustOrphan]

<a href="http://s71.photobucket.com/albums/i156/rickdunn101/?action=view&current=StevieforPresident.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i156/rickdunn101/StevieforPresident.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

[Chrislit18]

Hil's my girl!!
:thumbsup:

Seriously, I want her to be president...

[David]

They're both tyrannical collectivists & I wouldn't vote for either of them if my life depended on it.

[DavidMn]

They're both tyrannical collectivists & I wouldn't vote for either of them if my life depended on it.Where's Bob Dornan when you nee him?:lol:

[littledarling88]

Hillary all the way!!!!

[Sarah]

I don't like any of the candidates. In any party.

I'm not sure whether I think our problems are the system's fault or the voters' fault.

[mylittledemon]

So, we all know about the long drawn out DEM primanry. Which of the two candidates would you/have you voted for/ which on are you cheering for?

I like Hillary. 'Nuff Said~

Neither. Hillary is...well, Hillary. And Obama is the Antichrist. So....yeah.

It's really good to see that more people are actually voting this time around though. I think 90% of the "Bush complainers" I've come across didn't even vote. I think we all have a duty to vote to be honest. I'm sure Nader is having fun this time around.

[mylittledemon]

So, we all know about the long drawn out DEM primanry. Which of the two candidates would you/have you voted for/ which on are you cheering for?

I like Hillary. 'Nuff Said~

Neither. Hillary is...well, Hillary. And Obama is the Antichrist. So....yeah.

It's really good to see that more people are actually voting this time around though. I think 90% of the "Bush complainers" I've come across didn't even vote. I think we all have a duty to vote to be honest. I'm sure Nader is having fun this time around.

[darklinensuit]

Hillary.

- Jake

[jannieC]

Obama. :wavey:

[Chrislit18]

Neither. Hillary is...well, Hillary. And Obama is the Antichrist. So....yeah.

It's really good to see that more people are actually voting this time around though. I think 90% of the "Bush complainers" I've come across didn't even vote. I think we all have a duty to vote to be honest. I'm sure Nader is having fun this time around.

wow....that post literally made me lol!!
:lol:

seriously, my friend Rachel and I were discussing this the other day,
and neither of us trust him.
plus I just think Hil is way more experience, and McCain is way too old....not that I'm agest, but just for some reason, we need someone who looks like they can take control if needed, and personally, I don't think even Bush has that look. [Don't shoot the messenger, but I really think he looks like a monkey...:shrug:...]

That is part of the reason why I like Hil so much, she has a powerful presence, plus she has had experience in the white house.

[Madelow]

Hello all-- I stood up for John Edwards in the Iowa caucus. Believe we will be all right with either Hil or Obama. Just my 2 cents worth. Best always, Madelow.:wavey:

[goldustsongbird]

wow....that post literally made me lol!!
:lol:


But did you spit out your diet coke all over your keyboard? :shrug:

:lol:

[LiamMcConville]

Hillary, as of now, but if McCain names Dr. Rice as his running mate, I might have to reconsider. :shrug:

[Hawkeye]

Could someone please clearly point out to me the differences between the two specifically? I can't tell from the debates or anything really.

[LukeA]

Could someone please clearly point out to me the differences between the two specifically? I can't tell from the debates or anything really.

Well, one voted to authorize war in Iraq- the other is on the record for opposing it since the beginning.

One also has tons of political baggage and a whole lot of enemies, and the other has an actual chance to beat McCain in November.

That's the long and short of it.

[LukeA]

Hillary, as of now, but if McCain names Dr. Rice as his running mate, I might have to reconsider. :shrug:

Uh... why?

[LiamMcConville]

Uh... why?

I think she is an extremely intelligent woman. Unfortunately, she's been trapped under Bush, and I think if she had a chance to work independantly she'd have a chance to really show us what she's made of. :shrug:

[vermicious knid]

Condoleeza Rice is the woman who made a Freudian slip when she referred to President Monkey as "my husband". She is with him because she wants to be.

[estranged4life]

I don't like any of the candidates. In any party.

I'm not sure whether I think our problems are the system's fault or the voters' fault.

I basically have gotten to the point I consider myself as anti-politician! The ONLY good politicians are the ones on the dollar bills and coins, and they are all dead!

[HejiraNYC]

Condoleeza Rice is the woman who made a Freudian slip when she referred to President Monkey as "my husband". She is with him because she wants to be.

Um... her negligence and ignorance of intelligence pretty much allowed 9/11 to occur.

[HejiraNYC]

Well, one voted to authorize war in Iraq- the other is on the record for opposing it since the beginning.

For the record, Obama was not yet a senator and did not vote on the invasion of Iraq. I think it's very convenient for someone who never voted on the war to go around telling everybody that he was against it from the very beginning. The fact is that he was not privy to the so-called intelligence at the time (which was subsequently found to be untrue), and is therefore unable to understand the situation that congress was in. By contrast, if Hussein indeed had weapons of mass destruction and they blew Israel off the map, there would have been hell to pay if we sat by and did nothing. Of course the reasons for war were a sham and a hoax, but there was no way for anyone to know at the time. Perhaps Obama had a crystal ball or something...

Also, please note that Obama and Clinton have identical voting records on war-related issues (that is, after Obama was elected to the senate).


One also has tons of political baggage and a whole lot of enemies, and the other has an actual chance to beat McCain in November.

That's the long and short of it.

Apparently even Reverend Wright and Obama are now enemies. Something seriously bad must have gone down between them, because Wright now seems on this crusade to kill Obama's chances at the Dem nomination.

[gldstwmn]

Well, one voted to authorize war in Iraq- the other is on the record for opposing it since the beginning.

One also has tons of political baggage and a whole lot of enemies, and the other has an actual chance to beat McCain in November.

That's the long and short of it.


Obama never had an opportunity to vote on IWR because he wasn't a senator then.

Obama has his baggage too; Rezko, Reverand Wright, the bull**** about him not taking PAC money or money from the oil industry or lobbyists.

As an aside, did anyone see Roger Waters (now missing) inflatable pig at the Coachella festival with "Obama" written on its underbelly?

[gldstwmn]

seriously, my friend Rachel and I were discussing this the other day,
and neither of us trust him.


I agree. What is this guy about anyway? Hope? We had hope in the Bush presidency too- hope that we'd make it through. Look how that's worked out. :lol:

[gldstwmn]

Apparently even Reverend Wright and Obama are now enemies. Something seriously bad must have gone down between them, because Wright now seems on this crusade to kill Obama's chances at the Dem nomination.

Can you imagine if the Clintons had gone to a church that had named Louis Farrakahn man of the year? :shocked:

[vermicious knid]

The governor of North Caronlina endorses Hillary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZZlvHFS_-A


I will be happy if 1) she wins Indiana and 2) she loses North Carolina by less than Obama lost Pennsylvania.

[LukeA]

For the record, Obama was not yet a senator and did not vote on the invasion of Iraq. I think it's very convenient for someone who never voted on the war to go around telling everybody that he was against it from the very beginning.

I didn't say that Obama voted on the war, did I?

There are many documented instances from the time surrounding the initial vote to authorize force up until the actual start of the war where (State) Senator Obama was quite vocal about being opposed to it. He spoke at several anti-war rallies in the Chicago area in early '03, weeks before the invasion.

This isn't a "hindsight is always 20/20" thing here- as an elected official, he was very clear about his position. If the Illinois House/State Senate held a symbolic vote on the war (as many states/municipalities around the country did), you would have had your vote.

[HejiraNYC]

I didn't say that Obama voted on the war, did I?

There are many documented instances from the time surrounding the initial vote to authorize force up until the actual start of the war where (State) Senator Obama was quite vocal about being opposed to it. He spoke at several anti-war rallies in the Chicago area in early '03, weeks before the invasion.

This isn't a "hindsight is always 20/20" thing here- as an elected official, he was very clear about his position. If the Illinois House/State Senate held a symbolic vote on the war (as many states/municipalities around the country did), you would have had your vote.

Indeed, but as I said above, as a state official I do not think he was privy to the type and extent of "intelligence" regarding the weapons of mass destruction that officials within congress were privy to. Accordingly, I suspect that it was not such an easy, arbitrary decision, and I also suspect that there must have been a very compelling case, even if it was completely fabricated. I just think Obama's attempt to paint Clinton out to be some warmongering monster is specious and unfair. I am sure she, as well as other Dems, struggled with the decision to vote for the war; even John Kerry, who witnessed the tragedy of war firsthand, voted for it. If Obama was so sincere about his opposition to the war, he should have rebuked Kerry's endorsement.

[Chrislit18]

Can you imagine if the Clintons had gone to a church that had named Louis Farrakahn man of the year? :shocked:
Exactly, the only thing he promises is 'hope for our country' but Hil actually could accomplish things, and has a mindset agenda.

oh you should have heard the View ladies on this...god...I wanted to slap Hasselbeck upside the head...

Personally, I think that Hil will win the dem nod, if it is too close to call [which will happen], because the super dels like her, and plus she is WAY more qualified.

[Sarah]

heh.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v326/soiraile/hopetrainbaby.jpg

[Chrislit18]

^^*gigglesnort*

:laugh:

[vermicious knid]

George W. Bum**** has screwed up so royally and tarnished Republicans so bad that I could picture Democrats controlling the white house for 16 years IF Hillary Clinton were to preceed Barack Obama as President. But if Barack Obama swoops in and gets the nomination now, I don't think that will happen. It is probably now or never for Hillary, whereas Barack could benefit greatly from a possible eight years in the white house. When was the last time there was one, let alone two candidates that Democrats were so enthusiastic about? Everybody can end up happy if they are put in the correct order.

[BombaySapphire3]

I've been steadfast in my support of Obama but what disturbs me is why both Democratic candidates now have to pander to the Christians ..what ever happened to the seperations of church and state that the writers of the Constitution so clearly intended? It should be no one' s f*#king bussiness what a candidate's religious beliefs are (if any)nor should they be discussed and dissected ad nasuem..McCain's stance on the Iraqi war is execrable but at least he didn't bother to show up at the preposterous 'faith and compassion ' forum the way Obama and Clinton did .I know plenty of atheist and humanist with far more compassion than most Christians I have come across so how absurd it seems to even equate faith with compassion.

[gldstwmn]

I've been steadfast in my support of Obama but what disturbs me is why both Democratic candidates now have to pander to the Christians ..what ever happened to the seperations of church and state that the writers of the Constitution so clearly intended?

I think they are trying to appeal to that elusive swing voter.

[gldstwmn]

heh.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v326/soiraile/hopetrainbaby.jpg

I am stealing this.

[dontlookdown]

Wow - I'm really surprised that people on this board are siding with Hillary Clinton.
Senator Clinton
began with such a promising start in January. For a while I saw her as a stronger candidate then both
Al Gore and John Kerry.

But since then, she has done nothing to win my
confidence. Instead I have witnessed an embarrasing
determination to pander to elderly voters and voters who
are not educated. She has mixed republican-style fear
mongering with an appaling level of racism that has left me with
only one qiestion: Why would any Democrat that's truly
paying attention buy into this disgusting mafia of a campaign?

We expected more from the Clintons and you will
find that smart voters in places like LA and San Francisco
will no longer welcome them.

After 8 years of sleaze & bigotry, this country will
no longer tolerate a candidate like Hillary Clinton.
They can race-bait to people in
Appalachia, but the rest of us are watching in
disgust with our jaws on the floor.

I'm disappointed to hear fans so easily condone the racism in this campaign.
But all that aside, I know Senator Obama has what it takes to actually get things done.
Clinton would have spent her entire presidency fighting off the Republican attack machine.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/opinion/11rich.html



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/opinion/10herbert.html?em&ex=1210737600&en=6a6f9fd991a404a7&ei=5087%0A

[BombaySapphire3]

Hillary at this point is just doing what she can to hobble Obama's chances in the general election..and yes her fear mongering and pandering to the god and guns contingent in Appalachia and other places is despicable..she is really coming across as a Medea willing to sacrifice the chance to get the Republicans out of the White House for her own aggrandizement .I don't think it is any coincidence at all that Meryl Streep deliberately patterned her power mad harpy in the remake of The Manchurian Candidate after Hillary.If she continues on her ruinious and deluded course we may have her to thank if we are looking at Mccain's old mug in the White House come January..If she really cared about what happens to this nation she will step down now and throw her support behind Obama.

[HejiraNYC]

Wow - I'm really surprised that people on this board are siding with Hillary Clinton.
Senator Clinton
began with such a promising start in January. For a while I saw her as a stronger candidate then both
Al Gore and John Kerry.

But since then, she has done nothing to win my
confidence. Instead I have witnessed an embarrasing
determination to pander to elderly voters and voters who
are not educated.

I am not going to pretend that I know how it feels to live out in rural smalltown America, or how it feels to be elderly or trying to make ends meet in a faded rustbelt city. All I know is that a lot of the American population falls into one of those categories, and they are segments of society that don't receive a lot of attention. Sure, it appears that Hillary seems to have tapped into this underserved demographic with her populist speeches and platforms, but guess what? Obama is now doing the same thing with his "I was raised by a single mother on food stamps" narrative in his speeches. Everyone is pandering. Everyone is doing whatever it takes to get a vote. And I don't blame them at all- they need to do whatever it takes to get a non-Republican into the White House. However, where I do take exception is Obama's supposed high road moral superiority. At the end of the day, he is playing the same dirty politics as anyone else, except he has brainwashed a bunch of yuppies with white guilt into believing he is somehow different.


She has mixed republican-style fear
mongering with an appaling level of racism that has left me with
only one qiestion: Why would any Democrat that's truly
paying attention buy into this disgusting mafia of a campaign?

Put down the Huffington Post and step away. She is hardly fear mongering. Yes, I think the whole 3AM telephone call business was a bit tacky, but I hardly call that fear mongering. But it does raise a valid point. Put another way, do I want a newbie who has failed to serve a single term in the senate, that has not sponsored any meaningful legislation, who has voted "Present" on over 100 occasions, has hardly traveled, hardly exposed to foreign policy issues, has never served in the military, to make critical decisions if the nation is under attack?


We expected more from the Clintons and you will
find that smart voters in places like LA and San Francisco
will no longer welcome them.

I would tend to disagree, especially since Obama has not made much progress with Latinos. And the gays are certainly uneasy about his background with the notoriously homophobic black church and prominent homophobe evangelists like Donnie McClurkin. It is no accident that she won CA by double digits on Super Tuesday.


After 8 years of sleaze & bigotry, this country will
no longer tolerate a candidate like Hillary Clinton.
They can race-bait to people in
Appalachia, but the rest of us are watching in
disgust with our jaws on the floor.

Can you please name me one instance where she race baited? Sure, the Obamatons are screaming bloody murder at Hillary's comments to USA Today about the fact that Obama is not appealing to the white working class Democrats. Sure, Jesse Jackson won the South Carolina primary. These are statements of fact. This is not mere conjecture or a hasty generalization based upon racist ideology. It's fact, fact, fact, fact. And it also is worthwhile to mention that if Hillary had a KKK leader as a spiritual advisor for 20 years, and she never renounced him or parted ways with him until she was forced to, she would have been thrown out of the race months ago. As far as I am concerned Obama totally got a pass on the Wright issue. Also, if Hillary had said "a typical black person," she would have been kicked out of the Democratic party, whereas Obama's "a typical white person" comment doesn't even cause a flicker. Hello, double standard?

Also, I am purely disgusted at the notion that white people who don't vote for Obama are considered "racists," whereas, when 92% of the black Democrats voted for Obama (rather than Hillary), that's considered appropriate. So, in other words, blacks voting based on race is okay, but it's not okay for whites. Talk about race baiting!


I'm disappointed to hear fans so easily condone the racism in this campaign.
But all that aside, I know Senator Obama has what it takes to actually get things done.

Based on......? His "stellar" U.S. senate record? :rolleyes: Surrounding himself with questionable, shady figures? His ability to give a good speech (with passages lifted directly from Reverend Wright)? What has he done for you lately? What I fear about Obama is that he will be indecisive and unwilling to take the correction actions when they are needed. I fear that he will be singing Kum Ba Ya with Iran while Israel gets erased off of the map. I fear that he will keep talking about issues rather than taking active, decisive steps toward implementing solutions. His "Present" voting record in the senate pretty much sums it up for me.


Clinton would have spent her entire presidency fighting off the Republican attack machine.

The first Clinton did that, yet presided over the longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history coupled with a budget surplus by the end of his term. The Clintons are a known entity, and much of their dirty laundry has already been aired and retired. They are by no means perfect people, but at least they know how the game is played, and they have extensive roots. Obama for me is still just a nice speech... and he can play a good game of basketball. :shrug:
[/QUOTE]

[strandinthewind]

^^^^

Amen

It is very easy to talk a good game - but actions speak louder than words and Obama has had few actual actions to support his convictions.

In the end, the far left cannot abide that Clinton voted to give W the authorization to, inter alia, use military force against Iraq if SH did not comply with the renewed inspections. To me, the far left conveniently ignores the decade or so of unanimous UN resolutions calling for Iraq to produce the WMD the UN unanimously thought Iraq had. Moreover, the far left conveniently ignores that they likely voted for Bill Clinton and/or their D Congressperson, who likely voted to give Clinton the authorization to routinely bomb Iraq and kill innocent Iraqi's in the name of the same WMD that W asserted were there. All of those facts apparently matter not; It matters only that she voted to give W, inter alia, the authorization to go to war if SH did not comply. Interestingly and consistently with that vote, since then Hillary has condemned W for rushing to war and botching the war from the get go. That explanation is not good enough for the far left despite its consistency. They want her to say that is was a mistake to vote to give W the authorization to renew the inspections in Iraq or Iraq must (finally) face severe consequences. She cannot say that and nor should she say that. Again, the world unanimously though SH had those WMD and the D's screamed for SH's head and killed in the name of those WMD for a decade or so before W took power :shrug: But and again, all that matters not to those with their ostrich head in the sand.

For those who would misquote me - I wish SH had never put us in the position to have to force the inspections to continue. I also with W had never been so hell bent on playing the shell game of the war in Iraq to hide the failures in Afgan and OBL. I can even stomach deposing SH by invasion if W had listened to his top advisors and executed the post invasion with any coherent plan to win the peace. So, I am no fan of W; yet, I assuredly will be called that. I am just saying Hillary's vote was not the horrid mistake people are trumping it up to be. In other words, had W done what he said he was going to do, her vote would not be in question :shrug: Was hillary a fool for casting that vote because everyone knew that W was going to war with Iraq no matter what W said to the contrary - I still say no because I think not to do the inspections was the wrong course to take - a position solidly supported by the D party for over a decade mind you.

As for Obama - for the reasons set forth above, he gets a pass because he is black - no two ways about that. I voted for him here in GA. I kind of regret it because Hillary is far more qualified than the man who can finish an eloquent sentence but not a full term of anything but rhetoric equating to talking a good game. But I still have the audacity of naivete I suppose.

Finally, it is in the interest of the fourth estate to fabricate intent and racial tension between Hillary and Obama. It allows them to sell 30 seconds of air time for a greater price. When I read their comments, Obama's have more racial tension in them. But, as a white male, I am automatically branded a racist for saying it, which the reverse does not happen. Such is life.

[Serrart]

Wow - I'm really surprised that people on this board are siding with Hillary Clinton.
Senator Clinton
began with such a promising start in January. For a while I saw her as a stronger candidate then both
Al Gore and John Kerry.

But since then, she has done nothing to win my
confidence. Instead I have witnessed an embarrasing
determination to pander to elderly voters and voters who
are not educated. She has mixed republican-style fear
mongering with an appaling level of racism that has left me with
only one qiestion: Why would any Democrat that's truly
paying attention buy into this disgusting mafia of a campaign?

We expected more from the Clintons and you will
find that smart voters in places like LA and San Francisco
will no longer welcome them.

After 8 years of sleaze & bigotry, this country will
no longer tolerate a candidate like Hillary Clinton.
They can race-bait to people in
Appalachia, but the rest of us are watching in
disgust with our jaws on the floor.

I'm disappointed to hear fans so easily condone the racism in this campaign.
But all that aside, I know Senator Obama has what it takes to actually get things done.
Clinton would have spent her entire presidency fighting off the Republican attack machine.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/opinion/11rich.html



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/opinion/10herbert.html?em&ex=1210737600&en=6a6f9fd991a404a7&ei=5087%0A

Obama is a magnetic character, seems honest and makes great, inspiring speeches, I can see why people adore him (I even like him very much), and not only in Usa. I can't even say I'm a great Hillary Clinton fan. But don't you think if he became the Democratic candidate he would mercilessly lose with McCain? I know that If I were American, I'd vote Democratic, but in this case probably not. Obama simply hasn't any experience to be President. I have this vision of him, awaken in the middle of the night to cope with some international menace and simply not knowing what to do.

Romy

[strandinthewind]

Obama is a magnetic character, seems honest and makes great, inspiring speeches, I can see why people adore him (I even like him very much), and not only in Usa. I can't even say I'm a great Hillary Clinton fan. But don't you think if he became the Democratic candidate he would mercilessly lose with McCain? I know that If I were American, I'd vote Democratic, but in this case probably not. Obama simply hasn't any experience to be President. I have this vision of him, awaken in the middle of the night to cope with some international menace and simply not knowing what to do.

Romy

Well, just about every black person who votes will vote for him, at least that is what the D primaries and the major polls show. So, if the blacks come out and vote for him, which they have done in spades, and he gets most of the rest of the D vote, then he likely will defeat McCain. Interesingly, the black vote has not yet called Obama an "Uncle Tom" for rejecting a major black religious figurehead who apparently is racist against whites and jews. If that happens, Obama will get a resounding defeat come Nov.

[gldstwmn]

But all that aside, I know Senator Obama has what it takes to actually get things done.


He cannot and will not win the general election. He is a one term senator with little real experience. Mainstream America sees him as either a devotee of a church that supports Louis Farrakahn or even worse, a Muslim.
I think it's wonderful that the Dems are willing to nominate an African American and or a woman for president. But that is also one of the party's fatal flaws. It sometimes has too tight a grip on it's idealism.
I have a very bad feeling about this. I think it's going to make the McGovern and Dukakis bids look like a pony ride. I hope I'm wrong about all of this. :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

Well, just about every black person who votes will vote for him, at least that is what the D primaries and the major polls show. So, if the blacks come out and vote for him, which they have done in spades, and he gets most of the rest of the D vote, then he likely will defeat McCain.

And we know that the black vote hasn't been surpressed over the last two presidential election cycles. While I agree he may win with the numbers, we may never actualy know about it. :shrug:

[HejiraNYC]

Well, just about every black person who votes will vote for him, at least that is what the D primaries and the major polls show. So, if the blacks come out and vote for him, which they have done in spades, and he gets most of the rest of the D vote, then he likely will defeat McCain. Interesingly, the black vote has not yet called Obama an "Uncle Tom" for rejecting a major black religious figurehead who apparently is racist against whites and jews. If that happens, Obama will get a resounding defeat come Nov.

Well, in recent history, blacks have always gone for the Dem candidate by an overwhelming majority in the national presidential race. So, yes, no matter which Dem gets the nomination, the black vote is almost in the bag. But what is troubling about Obama is that his popularity seems to be limited mainly to the small traditionally red states that have a relatively small number of Democrats. So even though he has stirred up huge numbers of voters in states with high black concentrations like Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina, it is ultimately useless because these states will go red in November. And for that matter, the vast majority of the states he won in the primary will also go red in November. His inability to connect with Catholics, white women and white blue collar workers in battleground states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida basically means that he will not be able to muster the number of electoral college votes to win against McCain. Add to this the fact that he has essentially disenfranchised Michigan and Florida by blocking their say in the Dem nominee process. By contrast, not only does Hillary have a much better chance of winning the battleground states, she actually has a chance of capturing traditionally red states like Kentucky and West Virginia in the presidential election.

I realize that Hillary is polarizing and that half of the Democratic party hates her, and that some of her positions are dubious at best. But the cold hard reality is the fact that she is the Democratic party's best chance of winning in November. And if the superdelegates would pull their heads out of Obama's arse long enough to think rationally, they would back the stronger candidate. This is not an issue of personal preference; it's an issue of tactical strategy to recapture the White House, period.

[HejiraNYC]

He cannot and will not win the general election. He is a one term senator with little real experience. Mainstream America sees him as either a devotee of a church that supports Louis Farrakahn or even worse, a Muslim.
I think it's wonderful that the Dems are willing to nominate an African American and or a woman for president. But that is also one of the party's fatal flaws. It sometimes has too tight a grip on it's idealism.
I have a very bad feeling about this. I think it's going to make the McGovern and Dukakis bids look like a pony ride. I hope I'm wrong about all of this. :shrug:

He didn't even complete his one term! And most of that time he voted "present." I do think all of this talk about him being Muslim and supporting Farrakhan is rather silly. However, if his whole campaign is based upon his ability to make good decisions, his associations are not helping matters.

I fear that the damage has already been done and that the Dem party will be too divided to get it together by November. As much as Clinton has been accused of being divisive, look at Obama's tactics! All of this taunting and bullying Clinton to drop out of the race, even though he has not secured the nomination and she is barely behind him in the popular vote, did not exactly give Clinton supporters the warm and fuzzies. And the fact that Obama chose to ignore the MI and FL Dems is quite telling- he operates based on what is best for him rather than on what is best for the people. If the tables were turned, and they were talking about not seating the NC and Georgia delegation, you know Al Sharpton would be rioting in the streets. And the mainstream media has helped create the illusion of this golden child and has made it appear that he was somehow winning in a landslide, even though he is only ahead by a couple of percentage points in the popular vote. No matter the outcome, unless there is a "dream ticket" of Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama, I think there is going to be a lot of angst and party defection. It truly is disgusting how this has all played out, and IMHO, I think the Obama camp shoulders most of the blame.

[strandinthewind]

. . . and IMHO, I think the Obama camp shoulders most of the blame.

RACIST :rolleyes:

In the end, I think the D's will rally around Obama, if he gets it. I also think that the blacks will come out of the woodwork to vote for him and he will get some of the white vote as he did in the primary. I also think he is smooth and cagey enough to get around McCain, who is not. Personally, the running mates of either may prove more interesting and influential.

I also think it is important to remember that pretty much every national poll condicted in the last few months has Obama beating McCain. They are not dispositive. But, they show that the race is his to lose as of now.

I want to clarify that I do not think Obama is worse than any of the other three. I am just saying that his lack of really doing anything to its fruition will harm him when weighed against a rather moderate senior senator and former POW.

Only time will tell.

[strandinthewind]

And we know that the black vote hasn't been surpressed over the last two presidential election cycles. While I agree he may win with the numbers, we may never actualy know about it. :shrug:

I don't know. I am pretty sure the D will make damn sure that places like Harlem have enough voting machines. But, I suppose we'll see.

[dontlookdown]

Obama will win the general election and for one simple reason:

Hillary Clinton has not been able to get a big enough chunk of the independent vote.
Independents have come out in lop-sided margins for Barack Obama - and that is why he will be elected in November with some surprising new swing states in play. Watch Colorado, Virginia, Oregon, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, Michigan, and possibly Indiana.
His support has been broad - not unlike that of Reagan's when he was running for his first term.
The yellow pants suit express may have the poor/white/uneducated vote locked up, but elections aren't won with that bloc for Democrats. They are won by educated urban people in big cities along with swing voters.
All of the Appalachian states that Hillary is priding herself in winning will go to McCain anyway.
So her WV victory speech will be all about poor white dumb people tonight and she'll ride that wave until ultra-white Oregon goes overwhelmingly for Obama next week. Super-dels will continue to side with Obama every day until the last week of May when we can call it a day.

Educated Americans make the world go 'round. I find it pathetic to think that such a smart candidate like Clinton would alienate them from "day one". Given her background and education, it's hilarious to watch her call Obama elitist. He's worked his ass off and became the editor of the Harvard Law Review - credentials that are not unlike her own.

You will also find, my fine fellow political historians; that most of our presidents who we think of as "great"
did not go into office with what you define as experience. Often the most "experienced" first termers have ended up miserable failures.

I'm sure Lindsey Buckingham voted for Obama - but not so sure about Stevie.

[HejiraNYC]

RACIST :rolleyes:

In the end, I think the D's will rally around Obama, if he gets it. I also think that the blacks will come out of the woodwork to vote for him and he will get some of the white vote as he did in the primary. I also think he is smooth and cagey enough to get around McCain, who is not. Personally, the running mates of either may prove more interesting and influential.

I also think it is important to remember that pretty much every national poll condicted in the last few months has Obama beating McCain. They are not dispositive. But, they show that the race is his to lose as of now.

I want to clarify that I do not think Obama is worse than any of the other three. I am just saying that his lack of really doing anything to its fruition will harm him when weighed against a rather moderate senior senator and former POW.

Only time will tell.

BITCH! :wavey: :p :xoxo:

I think it's very possible that we may have another 2000 situation in which Obama wins the popular vote, but McCain wins the electoral college vote. It really boils down to the battleground states where Obama is clearly losing.

Regarding the polls, there are some that have Obama ahead of McCain, others have him behind. In any event, it's very close. Those same polls, however, show that Clinton is consistently ahead of McCain by a larger percentage. I think the most interesting (and objective) analysis is at electoral-vote.com, which forecasts the electoral vote breakdown based on prevailing polling data. Interestingly, as of May 11:

An Obama vs. McCain contest has McCain winning 290 vs. Obama's 237 (11 tied)

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Pngs/May11.png

A Clinton vs. McCain contest has Clinton winning 280 vs. McCain's 241 (17 tied)

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Pngs/May11.png

[HejiraNYC]

Obama will win the general election and for one simple reason:

Hillary Clinton has not been able to get a big enough chunk of the independent vote.
Independents have come out in lop-sided margins for Barack Obama - and that is why he will be elected in November with some surprising new swing states in play. Watch Colorado, Virginia, Oregon, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, Michigan, and possibly Indiana.

I think it's hard to quantify exactly how much the Independents will factor into this. If the past is any indication, based upon the votes that Nader has gotten previously, they are perhaps 5-10% of the electorate :shrug:. I think it's hasty to assume that they will all go Obama's way since McCain, in all is bearing-losing flip-floppery, is actively trying to distance himself from Bush and trying to take more moderate positions on the economy and the environment. Meanwhile, Obama may be perceived as being too liberal and inexperienced next to McCain. :shrug: It's anyone's guess how they will factor in, but in my opinion, I think they may be split evenly between Obama and McCain.


His support has been broad - not unlike that of Reagan's when he was running for his first term.

You've got to be joking! It's that very demographic, the so-called "Reagan Democrats," that are coming out strongly for Hillary and shunning Obama.


The yellow pants suit express may have the poor/white/uneducated vote locked up, but elections aren't won with that bloc for Democrats.

You can also add to that the elderly, the Latinos, white women and Catholics. I would dare say that since she is perceived as being more right leaning than Obama, she may appeal to moderate Republicans who are just sick of Bush policies.


They are won by educated urban people in big cities along with swing voters.

What is a "swing voter?" :shrug: If you are referring to swing states, current polls indicate that he is losing these states to McCain. Also, I disagree- the majority of adults in this country are not college educated, and the majority of people live in small towns and suburbs. Take a state like New Jersey. Not a single big city, yet it's one of the most densely populated and populous states in the country.


All of the Appalachian states that Hillary is priding herself in winning will go to McCain anyway.

West Virginia is actually favoring Hillary at the moment, and went blue for Bill Clinton for both of his terms. However, they were red in 2000 and 2004. Kentucky is a potential upset for Clinton.


Educated Americans make the world go 'round. I find it pathetic to think that such a smart candidate like Clinton would alienate them from "day one".

In what way has she specifically alienated educated Americans? Because she is showing pathos for working/lower middle class people? I guess you could say the same thing about John Edwards, whose entire raison d'etre is about abolishing poverty in the U.S.


Given her background and education, it's hilarious to watch her call Obama elitist. He's worked his ass off and became the editor of the Harvard Law Review - credentials that are not unlike her own.

I think his comments about guns speaks volumes about his disdain for bigoted white hicks. I'm not saying what he is saying is untrue, but it does come across as being decidedly self-superior. Obama says it all without Hillary having to say a word.


You will also find, my fine fellow political historians; that most of our presidents who we think of as "great"
did not go into office with what you define as experience. Often the most "experienced" first termers have ended up miserable failures.

And there are also numerous inexperienced presidents who were horrendous. Carter? Grant?


I'm sure Lindsey Buckingham voted for Obama - but not so sure about Stevie.

I'll bet he is a registered Republican! :lol: Stevie was probably too busy performing on Super Tuesday (seriously!), but I am sure Stevie would have voted Hillary. I am sure the fact that she has been invited by the Clintons to perform on multiple occasions has something to do with that.

[dontlookdown]

That electoral map on election night will look nothing like that. There's not a single poll, primary election result, or exit poll that supports either of those scenarios. Another thing to keep in mind:
whatever voters are feeling today will be completely different in November.


Today's Gallup national tracking poll puts Obama at 50% and Clinton at 43%.
In a McCain vs. Obama general election, today Gallup has Obama at 47% and McCain at 43%
In a McCain vs. Clinton general election, today Gallup has Clinton at 49% and McCain at 44%

Today's polling also reveal this:
voters believe Obama has a 90% chance of becoming the nominee.
voters believe Clinton has a 8.5% chance of becoming the nominee.

In the general election they think McCain has a 37.1% chance of winning,
Clinton has a 6.5% chance of winning, and Obama has a 55.5% chance of winning.

Interesting but take it with a grain of salt.
Historically Gallup has often been Republican-leaning.

Another look at how Obama could change the electoral map in November:

http://progressillinois.com/2008/05/11/features/obama-over-the-top

[dontlookdown]

some fun facts:

Buckingham is more liberal than the rest of the band put together.
New Jersey may not have any big cities (unless you consider Trenton big), but the state is home to millions of people that work in New York and Philadelphia. All those commuter towns in the suburbs are filled with Obama loving educated white people.


I've been loving Frank Rich's column in the New York Times. Here's a sample from earlier this year:

The Audacity of Hopelessness

By FRANK RICH
WHEN people one day look back at the remarkable implosion of the Hillary Clinton campaign, they may notice that it both began and ended in the long dark shadow of Iraq.

It’s not just that her candidacy’s central premise — the priceless value of “experience” — was fatally poisoned from the start by her still ill-explained vote to authorize the fiasco. Senator Clinton then compounded that 2002 misjudgment by pursuing a 2008 campaign strategy that uncannily mimicked the disastrous Bush Iraq war plan. After promising a cakewalk to the nomination — “It will be me,” Mrs. Clinton told Katie Couric in November — she was routed by an insurgency.

The Clinton camp was certain that its moneyed arsenal of political shock-and-awe would take out Barack Hussein Obama in a flash. The race would “be over by Feb. 5,” Mrs. Clinton assured George Stephanopoulos just before New Year’s. But once the Obama forces outwitted her, leaving her mission unaccomplished on Super Tuesday, there was no contingency plan. She had neither the boots on the ground nor the money to recoup.

That’s why she has been losing battle after battle by double digits in every corner of the country ever since. And no matter how much bad stuff happened, she kept to the Bush playbook, stubbornly clinging to her own Rumsfeld, her chief strategist, Mark Penn. Like his prototype, Mr. Penn is bigger on loyalty and arrogance than strategic brilliance. But he’s actually not even all that loyal. Mr. Penn, whose operation has billed several million dollars in fees to the Clinton campaign so far, has never given up his day job as chief executive of the public relations behemoth Burson-Marsteller. His top client there, Microsoft, is simultaneously engaged in a demanding campaign of its own to acquire Yahoo.

Clinton fans don’t see their standard-bearer’s troubles this way. In their view, their highly substantive candidate was unfairly undone by a lightweight showboat who got a free ride from an often misogynist press and from naïve young people who lap up messianic language as if it were Jim Jones’s Kool-Aid. Or as Mrs. Clinton frames it, Senator Obama is all about empty words while she is all about action and hard work.

But it’s the Clinton strategists, not the Obama voters, who drank the Kool-Aid. The Obama campaign is not a vaporous cult; it’s a lean and mean political machine that gets the job done. The Clinton camp has been the slacker in this race, more words than action, and its candidate’s message, for all its purported high-mindedness, was and is self-immolating.

The gap in hard work between the two campaigns was clear well before Feb. 5. Mrs. Clinton threw as much as $25 million at the Iowa caucuses without ever matching Mr. Obama’s organizational strength. In South Carolina, where last fall she was up 20 percentage points in the polls, she relied on top-down endorsements and the patina of inevitability, while the Obama campaign built a landslide-winning organization from scratch at the grass roots. In Kansas, three paid Obama organizers had the field to themselves for three months; ultimately Obama staff members outnumbered Clinton staff members there 18 to 3.

In the last battleground, Wisconsin, the Clinton campaign was six days behind Mr. Obama in putting up ads and had only four campaign offices to his 11. Even as Mrs. Clinton clings to her latest firewall — the March 4 contests — she is still being outhustled. Last week she told reporters that she “had no idea” that the Texas primary system was “so bizarre” (it’s a primary-caucus hybrid), adding that she had “people trying to understand it as we speak.” Perhaps her people can borrow the road map from Obama’s people. In Vermont, another March 4 contest, The Burlington Free Press reported that there were four Obama offices and no Clinton offices as of five days ago. For what will no doubt be the next firewall after March 4, Pennsylvania on April 22, the Clinton campaign is sufficiently disorganized that it couldn’t file a complete slate of delegates by even an extended ballot deadline.

This is the candidate who keeps telling us she’s so competent that she’ll be ready to govern from Day 1. Mrs. Clinton may be right that Mr. Obama has a thin résumé, but her disheveled campaign keeps reminding us that the biggest item on her thicker résumé is the health care task force that was as botched as her presidential bid.

Given that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama offer marginally different policy prescriptions — laid out in voluminous detail by both, by the way, on their Web sites — it’s not clear what her added-value message is. The “experience” mantra has been compromised not only by her failure on the signal issue of Iraq but also by the deadening lingua franca of her particular experience, Washingtonese. No matter what the problem, she keeps rolling out another commission to solve it: a commission for infrastructure, a Financial Product Safety Commission, a Corporate Subsidy Commission, a Katrina/Rita Commission and, to deal with drought, a water summit.

As for countering what she sees as the empty Obama brand of hope, she offers only a chilly void: Abandon hope all ye who enter here. This must be the first presidential candidate in history to devote so much energy to preaching against optimism, against inspiring language and — talk about bizarre — against democracy itself. No sooner does Mrs. Clinton lose a state than her campaign belittles its voters as unrepresentative of the country.

Bill Clinton knocked states that hold caucuses instead of primaries because “they disproportionately favor upper-income voters” who “don’t really need a president but feel like they need a change.” After the Potomac primary wipeout, Mr. Penn declared that Mr. Obama hadn’t won in “any of the significant states” outside of his home state of Illinois. This might come as news to Virginia, Maryland, Washington and Iowa, among the other insignificant sites of Obama victories. The blogger Markos Moulitsas Zúniga has hilariously labeled this Penn spin the “insult 40 states” strategy.

The insults continued on Tuesday night when a surrogate preceding Mrs. Clinton onstage at an Ohio rally, Tom Buffenbarger of the machinists’ union, derided Obama supporters as “latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust-fund babies.” Even as he ranted, exit polls in Wisconsin were showing that Mr. Obama had in fact won that day among voters with the least education and the lowest incomes. Less than 24 hours later, Mr. Obama received the endorsement of the latte-drinking Teamsters.

If the press were as prejudiced against Mrs. Clinton as her campaign constantly whines, debate moderators would have pushed for the Clinton tax returns and the full list of Clinton foundation donors to be made public with the same vigor it devoted to Mr. Obama’s “plagiarism.” And it would have showered her with the same ridicule that Rudy Giuliani received in his endgame. With 11 straight losses in nominating contests, Mrs. Clinton has now nearly doubled the Giuliani losing streak (six) by the time he reached his Florida graveyard. But we gamely pay lip service to the illusion that she can erect one more firewall.

The other persistent gripe among some Clinton supporters is that a hard-working older woman has been unjustly usurped by a cool young guy intrinsically favored by a sexist culture. Slate posted a devilish video mash-up of the classic 1999 movie “Election”: Mrs. Clinton is reduced to a stand-in for Tracy Flick, the diligent candidate for high school president played by Reese Witherspoon, and Mr. Obama is implicitly cast as the mindless jock who upsets her by dint of his sheer, unearned popularity.

There is undoubtedly some truth to this, however demeaning it may be to both candidates, but in reality, the more consequential ur-text for the Clinton 2008 campaign may be another Hollywood classic, the Katharine Hepburn-Spencer Tracy “Pat and Mike” of 1952. In that movie, the proto-feminist Hepburn plays a professional athlete who loses a tennis or golf championship every time her self-regarding fiancé turns up in the crowd, pulling her focus and undermining her confidence with his grandstanding presence.

In the 2008 real-life remake of “Pat and Mike,” it’s not the fiancé, of course, but the husband who has sabotaged the heroine. The single biggest factor in Hillary Clinton’s collapse is less sexism in general than one man in particular — the man who began the campaign as her biggest political asset. The moment Bill Clinton started trash-talking about Mr. Obama and raising the specter of a co-presidency, even to the point of giving his own televised speech ahead of his wife’s on the night she lost South Carolina, her candidacy started spiraling downward.

What’s next? Despite Mrs. Clinton’s valedictory tone at Thursday’s debate, there remains the fear in some quarters that whether through sleights of hand involving superdelegates or bogus delegates from Michigan or Florida, the Clintons might yet game or even steal the nomination. I’m starting to wonder. An operation that has waged political war as incompetently as the Bush administration waged war in Iraq is unlikely to suddenly become smart enough to pull off that duplicitous a “victory.” Besides, after spending $1,200 on Dunkin’ Donuts in January alone, this campaign simply may not have the cash on hand to mount a surge.

Well, I prefer Americanos to latte's and I don't wear Birkenstocks. As far as I know. But I'm off to test drive a Prius.
Later dudes.

[strandinthewind]

. . . I find it pathetic to think that such a smart candidate like Clinton would alienate them from "day one" . . . .

How exactly has she done this?

[HejiraNYC]

That electoral map on election night will look nothing like that. There's not a single poll, primary election result, or exit poll that supports either of those scenarios. Another thing to keep in mind:
whatever voters are feeling today will be completely different in November.


Today's Gallup national tracking poll puts Obama at 50% and Clinton at 43%.
In a McCain vs. Obama general election, today Gallup has Obama at 47% and McCain at 43%
In a McCain vs. Clinton general election, today Gallup has Clinton at 49% and McCain at 44%

Today's polling also reveal this:
voters believe Obama has a 90% chance of becoming the nominee.
voters believe Clinton has a 8.5% chance of becoming the nominee.

In the general election they think McCain has a 37.1% chance of winning,
Clinton has a 6.5% chance of winning, and Obama has a 55.5% chance of winning.

Interesting but take it with a grain of salt.
Historically Gallup has often been Republican-leaning.

Another look at how Obama could change the electoral map in November:

http://progressillinois.com/2008/05/11/features/obama-over-the-top

The gallup poll is flawed in the sense that it is polling purely popular vote, which, as you know, doesn't mean a hill of beans in November. It's the electoral college vote, especially in the swing states, that spells V-I-C-T-O-R-Y.

Also, consider what the Democratic primary map would look like if they adopted the winner-take-all rule like the GOP primary (and the electoral college). Clinton beats Obama handily!

And that progressillinois site is purely fiction. Their projections are based purely upon wishing and speculation. But their baseline map, i.e., the one based on today's reality, is that Obama is currently losing to McCain by a landslide.

[dontlookdown]

the winner take all electoral college count is meaningless for Obama vs. Clinton.
but it does get interesting when you consider November: Obama has turned out voters triple fold over McCain.
hopefully he'll keep the momentum.

a few weeks ago Obama was quoted as saying "Hillary is throwing the china at me".

do you think it was the china she stole from the White House?

[strandinthewind]

. . . I've been loving Frank Rich's column in the New York Times. Here's a sample from earlier this year . . . .

He is as vile and manipulative as Sean Hannity, though he has a better vocabulary. He also HATES any Clinton and likely would kick the hapless Chelseain the po po if given half the chance. It seemingly all stems back to Hillary's vote to authorize W to use force if SH failed to comply with the new (but really the same), UN sanctions based ont he unanimous and consistent thought regarding the WMD. So, I take his "facts" with little to no credit. I liked him better when he was reviewing Lupone in Anything Goes.

Notice he never once chides in any significant way Obama for playing the race card and/or negative politics - a rather Bill O'Reilly method I might ad.

In the end, no one can really point to anything Obama has done other than follow someone else's (usually Hillary's) lead. I mean exactly what legislation has he sonsored during his whopping two or so years in the US Senate?

The R's should be salivating at this, though they better figure out a way to stop the buses in Harlem, Watts, and the South from transporting the record numbers of IMO mostly blindly voting blacks to the polls.

I do agree with you that in some states, Obama will get much of the 20-35 year old white vote.

Will it be enough though.

[dontlookdown]

I'm still not quite sure why people are interested in John McCain.
I find him to be incredibly unexceptional.

Are voters really going to turn out for Grampa Munster over Barack Obama?

[strandinthewind]

the winner take all electoral college count is meaningless for Obama vs. Clinton.
but it does get interesting when you consider November: Obama has turned out voters triple fold over McCain.
hopefully he'll keep the momentum.

a few weeks ago Obama was quoted as saying "Hillary is throwing the china at me".

do you think it was the china she stole from the White House?

Um - please prove they actually legally sole anything. They did not. The people who packed their stuff included some things that did not belong to them, which I believe they promptly returned. Also, the GAO launched an investigation and found they sole nothing. Poor Arianna - rhetoric as usual.

It pisses me off when people like her use inuendo to imply fact. Frankly, she is richly better than that :cool:

[HejiraNYC]

some fun facts:

Buckingham is more liberal than the rest of the band put together.
New Jersey may not have any big cities (unless you consider Trenton big), but the state is home to millions of people that work in New York and Philadelphia. All those commuter towns in the suburbs are filled with Obama loving educated white people.


Yes, that's why Clinton handed Obama's ass to him on Super Tuesday in New Jersey. :rolleyes: NJ will definitely go blue no matter what in November, but Pennsylvania? Possibly-maybe-no.

Also, Frank Rich's column only validates my own feeling that Obama is an empty suit- that he has bamboozled the media and has used clever marketing and strategy to somehow get people to drink his brand of Kool Aid. If cult of personality and media manipulation are all it takes to become president, I think Oprah should be running instead of Obama.


[/QUOTE]

[strandinthewind]

I'm still not quite sure why people are interested in John McCain.
I find him to be incredibly unexceptional.

Are voters really going to turn out for Grampa Munster over Barack Obama?

Because he is intolerant of fags, hates baby killers, is far closer the christian right than any D, and fully supports keeping troops in Iraq :shrug: Note - keeping troops in Iraq mostly supports the Christian right, who want an all out war in the Middle East so Christ will have His Second Coming.

Those are the only issues that matter to millions of voters. Sad - very true.

[HejiraNYC]

Poor Arianna - rhetoric as usual.

It pisses me off when people like her use inuendo to imply fact. Frankly, she is richly better than that :cool:

I can't believe that wart-faced hook-nose skank had the utter gall on CNN last week to say that she remains "undecided" on the Democratic nomination. :rolleyes: Bitch, please.

[strandinthewind]

I can't believe that skank had the utter gall on CNN last week to say that she remains "undecided" on the Democratic nomination. :rolleyes: Bitch, please.

I know :rolleyes:

I am no huge fan of Hillary Clinton. But, I call a spade a spade when I see someone use an invalid assertion as fact to make a non-sequitor point. People see that and they think it is true - both the incorrect legal assertion and the conclusion on which is it inappropraitely based and then covered in allegedly wry humor.

Ditto for people saying Hillary calling Obama an elitist. She never said that and, in fact, said the opposite. She said his comments came off that way and that it was a legitimate campaign issue to say they did. How is she wrong there?

[HejiraNYC]

http://blogplatoon.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/obama.jpg

[dontlookdown]

Ariana is a smart woman. I like hearing what she has to say, even if I don't agree with it.

I'm not sure I'd say Clinton handed Obama his ass in NJ. She beat him for sure there, with similar wins in CA and NY. But I can promise you the results would be quite different if those primaries were this month.

The White Guilt poster is really offensive.
It makes you seem like a suburban kid who doesn't get out enough.

[strandinthewind]

Ariana is a smart woman. I like hearing what she has to say, even if I don't agree with it.

I'm not sure I'd say Clinton handed Obama his ass in NJ. She beat him for sure there, with similar wins in CA and NY. But I can promise you the results would be quite different if those primaries were this month.

The White Guilt poster is really offensive.
It makes you seem like a suburban kid who doesn't get out enough.

Yes, esp. considering Rev. Wright's comments knowing how NJ, CA, and NY love a blindly religious leader protesting too much about how the law and not religion guides him :eek:

[dontlookdown]

I thought we had moved beyond the Fox News Wright sound bites. If you're not willing to hear Wright's comments in context, than what's the point of bringing him up? So you can sound like you're from West Virginia?

Separation of Church and State!

I vote for someone who can lead and govern. I don't care where or who they worship with.

Obama has more than a 12 point lead in current CA, NY and NJ polls. The Hillary signs are coming down in droves and being replaced by O's.

Trivial arguing aside, I think Hillary would have made a great president. She was poised to be our first truly progressive president.
But the tenor of her campaign has been so sour and negative, that I just don't see it translating into leadership for the whole country.
I think different advisors may have been able to get her to look at the country as it is today, rather than as it was in the 90's.
It seems as though the old Clinton sense of entitlement is finally backfiring on what looked like the Democratic party's strongest candidate in years.
Clearly Senator Clinton went into this primary season assuming she would clean up with nothing but wins. Instead she is facing a candidate that is gaining the kind of broad support this country has not seen since Ronald Reagan swept the country on the way to winning his first term.
Clinton is now firmly equated with the past, while Obama seems to be opening new doors and new eyes every day. The Bush administration planted the seeds for a big wake up call. Barack Obama was the only candidate politically astute enough to reap what's been sown. In my book, thats how you define judgement. In my book, that's leaps and bounds more "presidential" than anything we've seen or heard from Hillary Clinton this year.

[strandinthewind]

I thought we had moved beyond the Fox News Wright sound bites. If you're not willing to hear Wright's comments in context, than what's the point of bringing him up? So you can sound like you're from West Virginia?

Separation of Church and State!

I vote for someone who can lead and govern. I don't care where or who they worship with.

Obama has more than a 12 point lead in current CA, NY and NJ polls. The Hillary signs are coming down in droves and being replaced by O's.

There is no separation of Church and State and never really was. All there was ever supposed to be was that the govt. could not officially sanction one religion over another a la the Church of England - thus avoiding European esq religious prosecution. The problem come when establishing how far the govt. can go when legislating morality, or crimes. Are all so called victimless crimes, which are immoral unable to be prosecuted. Prostitution is a good example. Ignoring the spread of disease and the other criminal activity (mostly victimless I submit) that surrounds prostitution, it is okay to use religious immorality as a reason for calling it a crime. Same with suicide. The line is easier to draw in things that do not involve consenting adults, but even there, some religious aspect is part of the morality question. In other words, though it looks good on paper, it is all but impossible to sep. religion from the law, which as noted above, was never the framer's written intent, see the establishment clause. But, I digress.

Obama himself disowned Rev. Wright because of the comments by stating "After seeing Reverend Wright's performance, I felt there was a complete disregard for what the American people are going through and the need for them to rally together to solve these problems," he said. "What mattered to him was him commanding center stage." Obama said he was "particularly angered" by Wright's allegation that the candidate was engaging in political posturing when he denounced the minister's earlier remarks. "If Reverend Wright considers that political posturing, then he doesn't know me very well," Obama said. "Based on his comments yesterday, well, I may not know him as well as I thought, either." :shrug: But, if you are implying that Rev. Wright's comments were taken out of context or that the news is giving them more incendiary value than Rev. Wright intended, I submit that is an implication unsupported by the facts.

[HejiraNYC]

I thought we had moved beyond the Fox News Wright sound bites. If you're not willing to hear Wright's comments in context, than what's the point of bringing him up? So you can sound like you're from West Virginia?

So what part of "g*****n America" and "the government created AIDS and infected black people" did I take out of context? :shrug: And his recent performance before the Press Club pretty much confirmed what people had suspected all along- he's a hatemongering whack-a-doodle, and Obama is guilty by association.


I vote for someone who can lead and govern.

And give me one example where Obama has proven his mettle in this regard.


Obama has more than a 12 point lead in current CA, NY and NJ polls. The Hillary signs are coming down in droves and being replaced by O's.

I work in NJ and I live in NY. From all accounts, this is still solidly Clinton country. :wavey:

Also, I have not seen any recent polls that would suggest that Obama is leading her in these states. Source, please?

[strandinthewind]

. . . I work in NJ and I live in NY . . . .

I hear they make you alone pay an extra toll to get back into NYC - AND - they make you take the GW bridge :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

. . . So you can sound like you're from West Virginia?

Actually, I minored in English and have doctorate degree :wavey:

But, from what I have read in this thread and judging by that comment, you seem to look down on poor white Americans. Do you really think that way? if so, how is that better than me saying you sound like an ignorant ni**er from Alabama? To me, they are the same, though my comment in real life gets you in MUCH more trouble, thus the underlying reason Obama gets a race pass and Hillary does not.

[HejiraNYC]

I hear they make you alone pay an extra toll to get back into NYC - AND - they make you take the GW bridge :wavey:

As if paying $8 for the Holland Tunnel wasn't enough, I have to pay a $3 Fabulosity surcharge. :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

. . . I have to pay a $3 Fabulosity surcharge. :wavey:

Is that because the glare from your forehead provides blindness to the opposing drivers :wavey:

[HejiraNYC]

Is that because the glare from your forehead provides blindness to the opposing drivers :wavey:

The glare is from my halo, not my forehead.

Are you mocking my unnaturally wrinkle-free pate? :p

[strandinthewind]

The glare is from my halo, not my forehead.

Are you mocking my unnaturally wrinkle-free pate? :p

yes - and let me say it is rather wrinkle free even at 1:00 a.m. and after $5.00 margtaritas, bad vegan food, a fruity drink, and beer :woohoo: - and I am rather jealous.

[HejiraNYC]

yes - and let me say it is rather wrinkle free even at 1:00 a.m. and after $5.00 margtaritas, bad vegan food, a fruity drink, and beer :woohoo: - and I am rather jealous.

That was $3 margaritas! And don't forget the tequila shot and gin. :lol: Not that I remember very much from that evening, mind you...

[dontlookdown]

I'd like to think that there are bigger issues to debate than the ones you've been bringing up today.
For starters - watch what happens with the special election in Mississippi tonight.
It could very well be an indication of how the country goes in November.

Whatever one makes of the uneducated white voter vs. the urban liberal argument, I will promise you that the majority of the former group will go for McCain or they won't vote at all.



Has anyone heard anymore rumors of some Springsteen/Arcade Fire GOTV shows this summer?

[strandinthewind]

. . . And don't forget the tequila shot . . . .

You broke into a sweat :eek:

Fortunately, I did like half of mine and then poured it into my alread potent $3.00 margarita :eek: I left my fukcing shirt in the rest. as well :mad:

[BombaySapphire3]

He cannot and will not win the general election.

And did you not also say in regard to Obama becoming the Democratic nominee for President "it ain't gonna happen"? ..a rhetorical question I know..

[strandinthewind]

And did you not also say in regard to Obama becoming the Democratic nominee for President "it ain't gonna happen"? ..a rhetorical question I know..

With all due respect, it is not like Obama ran away with it and no one I know really though Hillary would run away with it :shrug:

I think Obama is electable though - he must, however, find a way to negate the R's spin machine (read Sean Hannity) who is already doing the Hillary stealing the China thing by directly equating Obama to Rev. Wright's comments, which he is making even more inflammatory if that is possible :shrug: I mean look at how inept Kerry was at the Swift Boat attack ads and those were mild in that there was no crazy minister still speaking and speaking loudly :shrug: I do not think Rev. Wright will alienate any black voters for Obama, but he will white ones - and, mostly rightly so in that . So, Obama has to hit at it and hit at it hard. Interestingly, I do not think McCain will condone that type of attack and he likely will speak out against it as evidenced by his actions in North Carolina and the third party ads placed on his behalf. But, we'll see.

Again, I'll vote for Obama, but I think Hillary is the better candidate as far as the ability to get things done and being powerful enough in other circles.

[dontlookdown]

and i will enthusiastically vote for Hillary in November if she's the nominee.
But I'd rather punch the hole for Obama.

So - see...there's hope that we can unify as a party.

[strandinthewind]

^^^

I think the vast majority of D's will float over to the eventual nominee. I speculate though that many whites will find it hard to vote for Obama, though they eventually will. A slightly more interesting question is whether the blacks will vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination -- or will many of them see it as further oppression by the whites. If anything, this is a very groundbreaking election on many fronts.

And, McCain is an apparently decent man I might vote for in another election.

[HejiraNYC]

^^^

I think the vast majority of D's will float over to the eventual nominee. I speculate though that many whites will find it hard to vote for Obama, though they eventually will. A slightly more interesting question is whether the blacks will vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination -- or will many of them see it as further oppression by the whites. If anything, this is a very groundbreaking election on many fronts.

And, McCain is an apparently decent man I might vote for in another election.

In my opinion, if the impossible happens and somehow Hillary gets the nomination, she must have Obama as a running mate. And in many ways, I think it applies vice versa as well, but maybe not to the same extent. At least with a Clinton Obama ticket, Obama finally gets an opportunity to flex his muscles and to really prove that he can walk the walk. If successful, it virtually assures a Democrat White House for the next 16 years, especially since Obama has time on his side.

[HejiraNYC]

You broke into a sweat :eek:

Fortunately, I did like half of mine and then poured it into my alread potent $3.00 margarita :eek: I left my fukcing shirt in the rest. as well :mad:

Eh... it was merely a black mumu. You should stick to wearing something that accentuates your cleavage better. :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Eh... it was merely a black mumu. You should stick to wearing something that accentuates your cleavage better. :wavey:

Ma decolletage :o

[strandinthewind]

In my opinion, if the impossible happens and somehow Hillary gets the nomination, she must have Obama as a running mate. And in many ways, I think it applies vice versa as well, but maybe not to the same extent. At least with a Clinton Obama ticket, Obama finally gets an opportunity to flex his muscles and to really prove that he can walk the walk. If successful, it virtually assures a Democrat White House for the next 16 years, especially since Obama has time on his side.

The Clinton/Obama ticket was a shoe in and they were FOOLS not to do it. Obama almost cannot take Hillary now as he has said he is the candidate who cannot sotmach the past, which he then pinned on her. One of his many blunders IMO.

But, she sure slammed Obama hard in WV, which IMO does not bode well for Obama amongst the blue collar typical D's in the Fall :eek:

[Travis]

I’m no political expert by any means and I can’t recall the order of the states won by each Obama and Clinton in the past few months but I remember reading an article after Obama had won 10 or maybe it was 11 straight wins in a row. The article went on to say which states would be won by each candidate and that Clinton would ultimately get the nomination. Again, not an expert but the states that the article predicted that Clinton would win she has in fact won so … maybe there is hope for Clinton yet.

[strandinthewind]

Note -- she carefully attacks Obama, but then focuses on racism - the white version only.
___________________________________________________________

May 14, 2008

Op-Ed Columnist

Raspberry for Barry

By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON

In grim times, a bitter Hillary clings to bitter voters who in grim times supposedly cling to guns, religion and antipathy to people who aren’t like them.

Mining that antipathy, the New York senator has been working hard to get the hard-working white voters of hardscrabble Appalachia so she can show that a black man can’t yet be elected president.

Obama breezed through West Virginia, the state he couldn’t charm even wearing a flag pin and promising to invest in “clean coal.” Fast Barry shot some pool Monday afternoon at Schultzie’s Billiards in South Charleston, including prophetically sinking an eight-ball in the pocket, and then fled from Hillary territory to pursue white, blue-collar workers in battleground states and convince them not to vote for John McBush.

Obama is acting the diffident debutante, pretending not to care that he was given a raspberry by a state he will need in the fall. He was dismissed not only by the voters Hillary usually gets, but was also edged out in blocs that usually prefer him — the under-30 set, college graduates and affluent voters.

Interviews with West Virginians leaving the polls showed some profound weaknesses that could haunt the Illinois senator in the fall. More than half said they would be dissatisfied if Obama was the nominee. Half believe he shares the views of the Rev. Wright, and more than half said he does not share their values. More than half also said that he is not honest and trustworthy. Just under half of the Clinton voters said they would not support Obama in the fall.

Obama may have started the primary season with an inspiring win in 94-percent-white Iowa, but he is winding it up with a resounding loss in 94-percent-white West Virginia.

“As the song says, ‘Almost heaven,’ ” Hillary said at her Charleston victory party, hailing herself as “the strongest candidate,” the one who can win swing states, and urging again that Michigan and Florida votes be counted.

“You know I never give up,” she said, with a W.-strength denial of reality.

Two in 10 white voters said race was important in how they voted, and more than 8 of 10 of these went for Hillary. This echoes an article in The Washington Post on Tuesday that chronicled the racism that some Obama volunteers found in Indiana and Pennsylvania.

The story quoted Victoria Switzer, a retired social studies teacher, who could take only one night on an Obama phone bank in the nearly all-white Susquehanna County, Pa.: “One caller, Switzer remembers, said he couldn’t possibly vote for Obama and concluded: ‘Hang that darky from a tree!’ ”

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution wrote about complaints of racism after a bar in Marietta, Ga., began selling an Obama 2008 T-shirt with a picture of Curious George peeling a banana.

Charlie Peters, the legendary former editor of the liberal Washington Monthly who ran Jack Kennedy’s campaign in Kanawha County, W. Va., said Obama should study how J.F.K. managed to win there despite raging anti-Catholicism.

(My father, in West Virginia once on business, found his car had been flipped over by some locals furious about a sign on it supporting the first Catholic Democratic nominee, Al Smith.)

“The point of West Virginia in 1960 is that you can change attitudes,” Peters, an Obama supporter, said on Tuesday evening. “But if you don’t act to change them, he could lose West Virginia and I think he could lose the country.

“He has to change those perceptions of the people who think he could actually agree with the Rev. Wright.”

J.F.K. bought affection in West Virginia. “The boss of Logan County said 35,” Peters recalled. “He meant $3,500, but Kennedy thought it was $35,000, so he gave him $35,000. They put out all this money and they carried the precincts.” (Hillary has been using street money more than Obama, though it is unclear how much it has helped.)

West Virginia loved F.D.R. “because the Depression had been very tough for them and F.D.R. was kind to them,” Peters said. (On my father’s trip, he was threatened by a man who asked him about “rumors” that President Roosevelt was in a wheelchair and threatened to thrash any man who said so. My dad, a detective who served on protective details for F.D.R., assured the ruffian that Roosevelt was “a fine, athletic man.”)

So the campaign brought down F.D.R. Jr., Peters recounted, to “say it’s O.K. to vote for this Catholic.” Because West Virginia had a lot of veterans, they distributed a little tabloid emphasizing J.F.K.’s war record, including a Reader’s Digest piece about his heroism in the Pacific.

And finally, there was the beguiling Kennedy wit and smile. “Kennedy turned out to be this engaging person,” Peters said, “especially with young people, and children talked to their parents.”

Peters says Obama needs imagination and a “tremendous effort” to dispel bias in West Virginia, and quickly, “because once it’s set in concrete, you’ll have a hell of a time.”

www.nytimes.com

[strandinthewind]

May 14, 2008
Democrat Wins House Seat in Mississippi
By ADAM NOSSITER
COFFEEVILLE, Miss. — Democrats scored a remarkable upset victory on Tuesday in a special Congressional election in this conservative Southern district, sending a clear signal of national problems ahead for Republicans in the fall.

The Democrat, Travis Childers, a local courthouse official, pulled together a coalition of blacks, who turned out heavily, and old-line “yellow dog” Democrats, to beat his Republican opponent, Greg Davis, the mayor of Southaven, a Memphis suburb. With 99 percent of the precincts reporting, the vote was 54 percent for Mr. Childers to 46 percent for Mr. Davis.

The seat had been in Republican hands since 1995, and the district, largely rural and stretching across the northern top of Mississippi, had been considered one of the safest in the country for President Bush’s party, as he won here with 62 percent of the vote in 2004.

Having lost a similar Congressional race this month in Louisiana, Republicans had worked desperately to win this contest, sending Vice President Dick Cheney to campaign for Mr. Davis, along with Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi and former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas; President Bush and Senator John McCain recorded telephone messages that were sent to voters throughout the district.

Merle Black, a Southern politics expert at Emory University, called a Democratic victory potentially “a huge upset, and an indication of a terrible year ahead for the Republicans.” He added, “In theory, this should be an easy win for them.”

Mimicking a strategy that proved successful in 2006, Democrats ran staunch conservatives in both this and the Louisiana race, forcing their Republican opponents to attack national party figures as surrogates.

Mr. Davis had been hoping for a large turnout in his home of DeSoto County, where roughly 15 percent of the district’s voters live, and which is solidly Republican and mostly white. But a last-minute appearance for him by Mr. Cheney on Monday apparently failed to rally his base sufficiently; indeed a modest room at a local convention center was hardly packed.

“There are indications that the normal Republican turnout is just not there,” Mr. Black said. “If they can’t win up there, where are you going to win?”

Both Mississippi candidates depicted themselves as down-the-line conservatives on social issues, and there was little difference between them on abortion and gun rights: staunchly against the first, and for the second.

But the Republican strategy of trying to link Mr. Childers to more liberal national Democratic figures fell short, as it did in Louisiana. Indeed, voters here were bombarded by advertisements equating Mr. Childers with Senator Barack Obama, a tactic intended to turn conservative whites away from Mr. Childers and which some politicians said played on white racial resentments. Mr. Childers, for his part, fiercely resisted the connection, calling himself over and over a “Mississippi Democrat.”

The defeat is certain to put a damper on plans by Congressional Republican plans to roll out their new policy agenda this week in an effort to turn around their fortunes.

Several House Republicans, who were already scheduled to meet on Wednesday, have said privately they do not see a wholesale leadership shake-up or an overhaul of their campaign operation as a strong option, given that the election is just six months away. But they are likely to consider some changes in response to the Mississippi defeat. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich warned last week that Republicans need a major shift to forestall heavy losses in November.

When Mr. Childers is sworn in, the House will have 236 Democrats to 199 Republicans. The seat was vacated when Representative Roger Wicker, a Republican, was appointed to succeed former Senator Trent Lott.

In the end, tying the white Democrat to the black presidential candidate may have helped Mr. Childers more than it hurt him, as campaign aides reported heavy black turnout, heavier than in a vote three weeks ago when he came within 400 votes of winning.

“I like what Childers was saying: he was more truthful and down to earth,” said Mary Shelton, an African-American who had just voted for him at the Yalobusha County courthouse here.

And Mr. Childers’s association with the party that might nominate Mr. Obama didn’t hurt either. “We need a change, we really do,” Ms. Shelton said.

Mr. Childers won Yalobusha, having lost it in the April vote.

And even in this district, it is not difficult to find conservative voters dissatisfied with the administration in Washington. “There’s a lot of people that are mad at Bush,” said Jim Jennings, a retired businessman, sitting at a table with Republican voters at a barbecue restaurant in DeSoto County.

Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said the party was disappointed and needed to be better prepared to deal with conservative Democratic candidates, but he warned that time is short.

“Voters remain pessimistic about the direction of the country and the Republican Party in general,” Mr. Cole said. “Republicans must undertake bold efforts to define a forward-looking agenda that offers the kind of positive change voters are looking for.”

Carl Hulse contributed reporting from Washington.

www.nytimes.com

[HejiraNYC]

I’m no political expert by any means and I can’t recall the order of the states won by each Obama and Clinton in the past few months but I remember reading an article after Obama had won 10 or maybe it was 11 straight wins in a row. The article went on to say which states would be won by each candidate and that Clinton would ultimately get the nomination. Again, not an expert but the states that the article predicted that Clinton would win she has in fact won so … maybe there is hope for Clinton yet.

It's not really about how many states you win as much as it is which states you win. And in general, Obama has won the sparsely populated, predominantly Republican states via caucuses, which are a complete joke and should be eradicated; caucuses heavily favored Obama. In states like Idaho, I think there were something like 5,000 caucus voters, or something ridiculously small like that. So by combing a few college campuses and bussing them in, Obama racked up huge numbers via the college students who had lots of free time to participate in the time-consuming caucus process, which discourages the participation of people who, um, actually have to work for a living. And it's quite telling that Hillary won the Texas primary decisively, yet lost the Texas caucus for the same reason. And then you have caucus states like Minnesota that went heavily for Obama, which, it should be noted, also elected Jesse "The Body" Ventura as their governor. :rolleyes: The fact remains that Obama only won 2 large states and eked out a slight edge in one battleground state (Missouri). Hillary won all of the major large states and almost all of the battleground states by decisive margins; polls in those key battleground states are currently favoring her in the presidential election vs. McCain. This leaves me dumbfounded as to why superdelegates are not backing the candidate who can deliver the White House in November. I know there are many who hate Hillary, but as far as I am concerned, a superdelegate vote for Obama is a vote for McCain. They may as well already start printing up President McCain's Oval Office stationary now.

[gldstwmn]

I don't know. I am pretty sure the D will make damn sure that places like Harlem have enough voting machines. But, I suppose we'll see.

I don't think it's Harlem that will be a problem.

[gldstwmn]

Obama will win the general election and for one simple reason:

Hillary Clinton has not been able to get a big enough chunk of the independent vote.
Independents have come out in lop-sided margins for Barack Obama - and that is why he will be elected in November with some surprising new swing states in play. Watch Colorado, Virginia, Oregon, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, Michigan, and possibly Indiana.
His support has been broad - not unlike that of Reagan's when he was running for his first term.
The yellow pants suit express may have the poor/white/uneducated vote locked up, but elections aren't won with that bloc for Democrats. They are won by educated urban people in big cities along with swing voters.
All of the Appalachian states that Hillary is priding herself in winning will go to McCain anyway.
So her WV victory speech will be all about poor white dumb people tonight and she'll ride that wave until ultra-white Oregon goes overwhelmingly for Obama next week. Super-dels will continue to side with Obama every day until the last week of May when we can call it a day.

Educated Americans make the world go 'round. I find it pathetic to think that such a smart candidate like Clinton would alienate them from "day one". Given her background and education, it's hilarious to watch her call Obama elitist. He's worked his ass off and became the editor of the Harvard Law Review - credentials that are not unlike her own.

You will also find, my fine fellow political historians; that most of our presidents who we think of as "great"
did not go into office with what you define as experience. Often the most "experienced" first termers have ended up miserable failures.

I'm sure Lindsey Buckingham voted for Obama - but not so sure about Stevie.

There is so much wrong with this post that I don't even know where to start. I wish I had more time this morning. I'm kind of shocked that this talk is coming from you.

[strandinthewind]

I don't think it's Harlem that will be a problem.

:p:p:p

:angel:

Are you wearing your foil hat again :eek:

[gldstwmn]

And there are also numerous inexperienced presidents who were horrendous. Carter? Grant?

Bush? What's that saying? Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it? :lol:

[gldstwmn]

I'm still not quite sure why people are interested in John McCain.
I find him to be incredibly unexceptional.

Are voters really going to turn out for Grampa Munster over Barack Obama?

I talked to my daughter's grandmother about him this morning (she's 65 and voted for Bush in the last election). Her exact quote was "He needs to go take a nap." I laughed so hard. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Bush? What's that saying? Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it? :lol:

Bush and Carter had experience as Gov.'s - then again, so did Clinton :angel:

[gldstwmn]

a few weeks ago Obama was quoted as saying "Hillary is throwing the china at me".

do you think it was the china she stole from the White House?

Maybe he meant to say "She's throwing the Chinese at me." :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

If cult of personality and media manipulation are all it takes to become president, I think Oprah should be running instead of Obama.

Her I think I could vote for at least. Depending on how this plays out, it's going to be hard for me to pull the lever for Obama.

[strandinthewind]

. . . it's going to be hard for me to pull the lever for Obama.

Meh - I did it and it wasn't that painful :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

And did you not also say in regard to Obama becoming the Democratic nominee for President "it ain't gonna happen"? ..a rhetorical question I know..

Probably. But I've been wrong about a few things. I'm still not sure that he will be the nominee.

[HejiraNYC]

Her I think I could vote for at least. Depending on how this plays out, it's going to be hard for me to pull the lever for Obama.

But then we'd have Gail King as First Lady. :lol:

[gldstwmn]

and i will enthusiastically vote for Hillary in November if she's the nominee.
But I'd rather punch the hole for Obama.

So - see...there's hope that we can unify as a party.

Unfortunately there are a lot of other people who don't feel that way.

[gldstwmn]

It's not really about how many states you win as much as it is which states you win. And in general, Obama has won the sparsely populated, predominantly Republican states via caucuses, which are a complete joke and should be eradicated; caucuses heavily favored Obama.

Agreed. When I first moved out west at the tender age of 18, I was shocked to find out I could not vote in a primary election. The caucus system is hugely flawed and unecessary in this day and age.

[gldstwmn]

:p:p:p

:angel:

Are you wearing your foil hat again :eek:

When it comes to this kind of stuff you know I am. :lol:

[gldstwmn]

Bush and Carter had experience as Gov.'s - then again, so did Clinton :angel:

Did Bush finish his term as governor?

[gldstwmn]

Meh - I did it and it wasn't that painful :laugh:

Did you have a little liquid help darling? :p

[strandinthewind]

Did Bush finish his term as governor?

I believe he was 1994-98 for the first term and then 1998 -99 for the second term. He was actually not a bad gov. for Texas in that he successfully sponsored legislation for tort reform, increased education funding, set higher standards for schools, and reformed the criminal justice system. He also used a budget surplus to push through Texas's largest ever tax-cut of two billion dollars.

He also did the religious stufgf like extending government funding for organizations providing education, alcohol and drug use and abuse prevention, and reduction of domestic violence, so long as those organizations are religious - and, my personal fav. pandering - he proclaimed June 10, 2000 to be Jesus Day in Texas, a day on which he urged all Texans to answer the call to serve those in need :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

Did you have a little liquid help darling? :p

Actually soon thereafter - and it was a barnburner :eek:

[HejiraNYC]

Probably. But I've been wrong about a few things. I'm still not sure that he will be the nominee.

I know nothing about nothing... but for some reason I feel that the Hillary camp has one more nuclear device up their collective sleeves. I'm not sure what it is... but I have a hard time thinking they would keep fighting so hard on this uphill battle unless they had some kind of an extreme contingency plan to fall back upon; they must know something that nobody else knows. I'm not saying this is even remotely likely, but for all we know, Hillary could very well threaten to leave the Democratic party and, in the process, take all of her supporters with her- guaranteed doomsday for the Dems. I mean, she is 60, she and Bill have left their mark on history, she's filthy rich and it really is now or never for her; I doubt that she will be physically capable of doing this again in 8 years. She is the underdog in the race, but she still is party royalty, and she can inflict incalculable damage if she was so inclined. And given the horrible treatment she has received from her party recently, I wouldn't blame her if she did retaliate, although I would be shocked.

Another thing I have noticed is that there have been no new superdelegate endorsements for Hillary recently, whereas Obama's superdelegates are trickling in slowly. Sure, maybe it's because they see the writing on the wall and don't want to back a loser. But then again... maybe her camp is trying to create momentum by unleashing a huge block of endorsements all at once- possibly the day before the Democratic rules committee decides on the fate of MI and FL (May 31). Again, this is pure speculation... but I wouldn't put it past Hillary's campaign to pull some kind of D-day tactic like this.

[Hawkeye]

I keep going back to John McCain. I really like the guy. And for the most part I love what he stands for. He's big on acknowledging climate change unlike Bush, he wants to control spening, which I think would be good for our economy. But its so hard for me to get over his danmed support for continuing the war. That's an awseome way to reduce spending right there. We need to fly Stevie down to Arizona so she can tell him this:

"John, This isn't about winning or surrendering, It's about finances"

And if that worked to change his mind JM would 100 percent be my choice, until then, I'm very conflicted.

[HejiraNYC]

I keep going back to John McCain. I really like the guy. And for the most part I love what he stands for. He's big on acknowledging climate change unlike Bush, he wants to control spening, which I think would be good for our economy. But its so hard for me to get over his danmed support for continuing the war. That's an awseome way to reduce spending right there. We need to fly Stevie down to Arizona so she can tell him this:

"John, This isn't about winning or surrendering, It's about finances"

And if that worked to change his mind JM would 100 percent be my choice, until then, I'm very conflicted.

Thanks for your "other side" viewpoint. But considering that Hillary and Obama have similar viewpoints (as McCain) in terms of the environment and the need for energy independence, why would McCain get your support? And given the Clintons' record of balancing the budget, as well as Hillary and Obama's desire to end the war, why wouldn't you consider them?

[strandinthewind]

I keep going back to John McCain. I really like the guy. And for the most part I love what he stands for. He's big on acknowledging climate change unlike Bush, he wants to control spening, which I think would be good for our economy. But its so hard for me to get over his danmed support for continuing the war. That's an awseome way to reduce spending right there. We need to fly Stevie down to Arizona so she can tell him this:

"John, This isn't about winning or surrendering, It's about finances"

And if that worked to change his mind JM would 100 percent be my choice, until then, I'm very conflicted.

I think McCain is a decent and honorable man. I also think he would be a decent president. My beef with him is a civil rights one. He wants to overturn Roe and throw the fags to the wolves.

I think he has the most realistic view on the war in Iraq in that I think he knows that we cannot immediately withdraw all troops and not likely suffer serious consequences. I think he is for a staged withdrawal in the near future, but the withdrawal will go more slowly than either pandering plan Clinton or Obama are currently selling. I think McCain is likely correct on this point, though I am loathe to admit it. For me, the one who can make the Iraqi govt. take control faster is the one with the winning plan and I am not sure an immediate withdrawal over the next year is the way to do that. I also think anyone (in general) who thinks that any of these three candidates with have all troops home in a year is not facing the reality of the situation.

[gldstwmn]

I believe he was 1994-98 for the first term and then 1998 -99 for the second term.

Well at least he finished something. :laugh:

[dontlookdown]

With the state most of the world is in right now, I think putting a guy in office with a serious anger-management problem, is a huge mistake. I appreciate that McCain served the country honorably, but I'm having a hard time with the idea of a prisoner of war (who's been tortured) negotiating international issues in a way that we would demand - having suffered through Bush's retarded cowboy diplomacy for 8 years.
The fact that he doesn't quite grasp the situation in Iraq or the rest of the middle east is scary especially when you factor in his geriatric senior moments that seem to strike daily.
And then we have Roe vs. Wade.
I think he's an awful candidate, even if he has done a lot in the past to work across the aisle.

[dontlookdown]

[QUOTE=HejiraNYC;755337]So what part of "g*****n America" and "the government created AIDS and infected black people" did I take out of context? :shrug: And his recent performance before the Press Club pretty much confirmed what people had suspected all along- he's a hatemongering whack-a-doodle, and Obama is guilty by association.


If you understood the black community at all, and listend to Wright's rants in full, you'd get what he meant.
But you only want to hear the Fox News bytes.
He's referring to the history of blacks in urban America. The Aids comment was silly, but it referred to gov't testing on a black community generations ago.

But this is the big problem with all this Wright ****. Nobody is going to "get" him the way they want him to unless they want to understand. The only thing I've seen that spelled it out was his interview with Bill Moyers.

[gldstwmn]

I just got a phone call from Obama for America. :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

I know nothing about nothing... but for some reason I feel that the Hillary camp has one more nuclear device up their collective sleeves.


There have been persistent rumours for the last several months that there are more skeletons in Obamas closet. If anyone knows how to play this game, it's the Clintons.

[HejiraNYC]

If you understood the black community at all, and listend to Wright's rants in full, you'd get what he meant.
But you only want to hear the Fox News bytes.
He's referring to the history of blacks in urban America. The Aids comment was silly, but it referred to gov't testing on a black community generations ago.

N*****, please. :rolleyes: For one thing, I am not white and, secondly, I grew up in an area that was 80% black and had mostly black friends. I know from racism (as a recipient of it!) and I know from anger and resentment. I also know that two wrongs don't make a right and that hate is hate, regardless of whether it is white-on-black, black-on-white, black-on-black, etc. I know that Wright was quoting another speech in his "chickens coming home to roost" sermon, but it was the way that he conveyed that message with such conviction and vitriole. And the only reason he would stand up there and deliver that speech within a sermon is because he believed it and wanted to spread his message of militant outrage. He is/was a terribly polarizing figure, even in the black church, and either you agreed with him or you didn't. Obviously Obama chose to agree with him until it no longer fit in with his political ambitions.

But this is the big problem with all this Wright ****. Nobody is going to "get" him the way they want him to unless they want to understand. The only thing I've seen that spelled it out was his interview with Bill Moyers.

So do you "get" Wright? :shrug: I just hear a cuckoo clock when I see him.

[strandinthewind]

If you understood the black community at all, and listend to Wright's rants in full, you'd get what he meant.
But you only want to hear the Fox News bytes.
He's referring to the history of blacks in urban America. The Aids comment was silly, but it referred to gov't testing on a black community generations ago.

But this is the big problem with all this Wright ****. Nobody is going to "get" him the way they want him to unless they want to understand. The only thing I've seen that spelled it out was his interview with Bill Moyers.

Do you honestly think Rev. Wright is not a racist :eek:

And - I and I am sure Ed (HejiraNYC) read all of this guy's statements as opposed to talking them in a limited context from whatever source. Interestingly, every black person I know thinks Rev. Wright is, at the least, incorrect. Surely, they get it even though they may have a preacher just like that :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

With the state most of the world is in right now, I think putting a guy in office with a serious anger-management problem, is a huge mistake. I appreciate that McCain served the country honorably, but I'm having a hard time with the idea of a prisoner of war (who's been tortured) negotiating international issues in a way that we would demand - having suffered through Bush's retarded cowboy diplomacy for 8 years.
The fact that he doesn't quite grasp the situation in Iraq or the rest of the middle east is scary especially when you factor in his geriatric senior moments that seem to strike daily.
And then we have Roe vs. Wade.
I think he's an awful candidate, even if he has done a lot in the past to work across the aisle.

If anything, McCain's POW status made him stand pretty solely against the R party and W's position on torture - so that mostly negates your conclusion :shrug:

As for Iraq, do you really think come next Jan., Obama will whisk the troops home in a month? I suggest that will never happen and it will take years of a staggered withdrawal. Again, I want them home now, but realize that cannot happen without huge consequences. Have we learned nothing from the past?

[dontlookdown]

Of course not. Nobody with a brain thinks the troops should be whisked home "on day one".
It will be a long slow gradual withdrawl and if Obama or Clinton says otherwise, it's an appeal to all those rural voters who haven't had the advantage of acquiring critical thinking skills in college.

[Hawkeye]

The thing I like about Mcain is his willingness to work witht he opposing party. If the (seemingly) Democratic congress wants to get things done, Mcain is not going to veto everything if he feels its a good idea. He's not tied to his party, although he'll obviously side more with R's since he is one.

[dontlookdown]

I loved Bob Herbert's Op-Ed from last weekend. It's a nice summary of why things went so wrong for the Clintons. It's also why I believe many longtime Clinton supporters voted for Obama.

Seeds of Destruction

By BOB HERBERT
The Clintons have never understood how to exit the stage gracefully.

Their repertoire has always been deficient in grace and class. So there was Hillary Clinton cold-bloodedly asserting to USA Today that she was the candidate favored by “hard-working Americans, white Americans,” and that her opponent, Barack Obama, the black candidate, just can’t cut it with that crowd.

“There’s a pattern emerging here,” said Mrs. Clinton.

There is, indeed. There was a name for it when the Republicans were using that kind of lousy rhetoric to good effect: it was called the Southern strategy, although it was hardly limited to the South. Now the Clintons, in their desperation to find some way — any way — back to the White House, have leapt aboard that sorry train.

He can’t win! Don’t you understand? He’s black! He’s black!

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.

(Representative Charles Rangel of New York, who is black and has been an absolutely unwavering supporter of Senator Clinton’s White House quest, told The Daily News: “I can’t believe Senator Clinton would say anything that dumb.”)

But it’s an insult to white voters as well, including white working-class voters. It’s true that there are some whites who will not vote for a black candidate under any circumstance. But the United States is in a much better place now than it was when people like Richard Nixon, George Wallace and many others could make political hay by appealing to the very worst in people, using the kind of poisonous rhetoric that Senator Clinton is using now.

I don’t know if Senator Obama can win the White House. No one knows. But to deliberately convey the idea that most white people — or most working-class white people — are unwilling to give an African-American candidate a fair hearing in a presidential election is a slur against whites.

The last time the Clintons had to make a big exit was at the end of Bill Clinton’s second term as president — and they made a complete and utter hash of that historic moment. Having survived the Monica Lewinsky ordeal, you might have thought the Clintons would be on their best behavior.

Instead, a huge scandal erupted when it became known that Mrs. Clinton’s brothers, Tony and Hugh Rodham, had lobbied the president on behalf of criminals who then received presidential pardons or a sentence commutation from Mr. Clinton.

Tony Rodham helped get a pardon for a Tennessee couple that had hired him as a consultant and paid or loaned him hundreds of thousands of dollars. Over the protests of the Justice Department, President Clinton pardoned the couple, Edgar Allen Gregory Jr. and his wife, Vonna Jo, who had been convicted of bank fraud in Alabama.

Hugh Rodham was paid $400,000 to lobby for a pardon of Almon Glenn Braswell, who had been convicted of mail fraud and perjury, and for the release from prison of Carlos Vignali, a drug trafficker who was convicted and imprisoned for conspiring to sell 800 pounds of cocaine. Sure enough, in his last hours in office (when he issued a blizzard of pardons, many of them controversial), President Clinton agreed to the pardon for Braswell and the sentence commutation for Vignali.

Hugh Rodham reportedly returned the money after the scandal became public and was an enormous political liability for the Clintons.

Both Clintons professed to be ignorant of anything improper or untoward regarding the pardons. Once, when asked specifically if she had talked with a deputy White House counsel about pardons, Mrs. Clinton said: “People would hand me envelopes. I would just pass them on. You know, I would not have any reason to look into them.”

It wasn’t just the pardons that sullied the Clintons’ exit from the White House. They took furniture and rugs from the White House collection that had to be returned. And they received $86,000 in gifts during the president’s last year in office, including clothing (a pantsuit, a leather jacket), flatware, carpeting, and so on. In response to the outcry over that, they decided to repay the value of the gifts.

So class is not a Clinton forte.

But it’s one thing to lack class and a sense of grace, quite another to deliberately try and wreck the presidential prospects of your party’s likely nominee — and to do it in a way that has the potential to undermine the substantial racial progress that has been made in this country over many years.

The Clintons should be ashamed of themselves. But they long ago proved to the world that they have no shame.

[BombaySapphire3]

I'm just concerned about how low Hillary will sink in her not so subtle to anyone with half a brain race baiting..she has already done quite a bit of damage IMO .Now with Edwards endorsing Obama she should just do the right thing for her country and step down..I have this sickening feeling that she may not even do this if Obama reaches the set finish line of 2025 delegates .There is just something chillingly power hungry about her that goes beyond what one would anticipate in a Presidential candidate .Any fleeting thoughts I ever had about voting for her if she were the nominee are gone now and I truly hope he is not coereced into accepting her on the ticket.

[LukeA]

The thing I like about Mcain is his willingness to work witht he opposing party. If the (seemingly) Democratic congress wants to get things done, Mcain is not going to veto everything if he feels its a good idea. He's not tied to his party, although he'll obviously side more with R's since he is one.

"I'm a uniter, not a divider" - Gov. George W. Bush, 2000 Campaign Race

[BombaySapphire3]

"I'm a uniter, not a divider" - Gov. George W. Bush, 2000 Campaign Race

Well he does have more than a 70% disapproval rating ..isn't that kind of uniting people?:laugh:

[Phoenix]

DIE HILLARY/OBAMA THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DIE!:mad::mad::mad::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[HejiraNYC]

I'm just concerned about how low Hillary will sink in her not so subtle to anyone with half a brain race baiting..she has already done quite a bit of damage IMO .Now with Edwards endorsing Obama she should just do the right thing for her country and step down..I have this sickening feeling that she may not even do this if Obama reaches the set finish line of 2025 delegates .There is just something chillingly power hungry about her that goes beyond what one would anticipate in a Presidential candidate .Any fleeting thoughts I ever had about voting for her if she were the nominee are gone now and I truly hope he is not coereced into accepting her on the ticket.

He technically will not have 2025 delegates until the convention in August. Until then we can consider him to be the "presumptive nominee." My prediction is that Hillary is going to finish out the remaining primaries and hope that somehow, after including Michigan and Florida, she does squeak out ahead in the popular vote, even though she may end up with fewer pledged delegates (depending on how MI and FL are seated). Hillary's only hope is that the summer will drag on and the current battleground states needed for election will continue to poll red. At the convention floor in late August, she can then make her case yet again and hope to convert a anxious party back to her side, that is, assuming that she continues to poll better than Obama against McCain. At that point, nobody could accuse of her of "stealing" the nomination since she had already won the popular vote.

This should be an interesting summer.

Regarding her so-called "race baiting," I think that is hardly the case. If anything, she is guilty of being too honest with the press; that type of discussion should have been held behind closed doors with the party. And that whole "I have a dream" speech he gave on race wasn't race baiting? Puhlease... white guilt, anyone? And even though Hillary could have skewered him over the multiple scandals that cropped up regarding Obama's past, she pretty much took the high road and kept mum about them; he basically created his own scandals and pratfalls. If anything, Obama's campaign calling Hillary a "monster" and calling her "pandering" and "politics as usual" was more divisive and mean-spirited than anything Hillary could have ever said about him. This is a clear example of how Obama has gotten a golden pass from the media and the party; he's like the baby brother that gets away with everything while the older sister gets burned at the cross.

[strandinthewind]

I'm just concerned about how low Hillary will sink in her not so subtle to anyone with half a brain race baiting . . . .

Do you actually assign no guilt to the Obama camp for taking her words out of context and/or doing race baiting of their own :eek:

[strandinthewind]

Well he does have more than a 70% disapproval rating ..isn't that kind of uniting people?:laugh:

:xoxo::xoxo::xoxo::xoxo:

Bush was regarded as a uniter when he was the Gov. of Texas. However, any truth to that seemingly stopped when he became Pres. In fact, I can think of not one issue he bent on, save perhaps for the education bill with ( I think Ted Kennedy) which was a farce.

[strandinthewind]

. . . This is a clear example of how Obama has gotten a golden pass from the media and the party; he's like the baby brother that gets away with everything while the older sister gets burned at the cross.

Exactly, but those who hate Hillary cannot see it this way. Again, I am no huge fan of Hillary. But, I see the facts for what they are. My fav. was when she commented on Senator Obama’s support among working, hardworking Americans, white Americans, was weakening again. Was that not a fact - see http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/movingamerica08/clintontoutswhites509

[strandinthewind]

Of course not. Nobody with a brain thinks the troops should be whisked home "on day one". It will be a long slow gradual withdrawl . . .


Then, I am at a loss to find any significant difference between the three possible candidates for Pres.

. . . and if Obama or Clinton says otherwise, it's an appeal to all those rural voters who haven't had the advantage of acquiring critical thinking skills in college.

There again with the slamming :shrug: Those people are Americans as well.

Moreover, to assert that well educated people do not want the immediate withdrawal of the troops is likely incorrect. Many intelligent and well educated people on this board and elsewhere want that.

I, like you, just do not think it can happen and the withdrawal will be slow and take years.

[gldstwmn]

This is disappointing:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-campaign15-2008may15,0,2998660.story

John Edwards finally makes his choice: Barack Obama

GRAND RAPIDS, MICH. -- Barack Obama advanced his drive to unite the Democratic Party behind his candidacy for president Wednesday by winning the long-sought endorsement of vanquished rival John Edwards at a boisterous rally.

The announcement was a blow to Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose bid for the Democratic nomination appears all but lost, and brought Obama a welcome distraction from his landslide defeat Tuesday in the West Virginia primary.

The 41-percentage-point rout sparked new questions about his persistent troubles appealing to white, blue-collar voters, even if it did little to boost Clinton's prospects. In Edwards, Obama picked up the support of a former presidential candidate who had emphasized his roots as the son of a mill worker and aimed his pitch at working-class voters.

"The Democratic voters in America have made their choice, and so have I," Edwards told the enthusiastic crowd. "There is one man who knows and understands that this is a time for bold leadership. There is one man that knows how to create the change, the lasting change, that you have to build from the ground up. There is one man who knows in his heart that it is time to create one America, not two. And that man is Barack Obama."

In another sign of Obama's progress in uniting the party, the Illinois senator also won the endorsement Wednesday of a major abortion rights group, NARAL Pro-Choice America. The group praised Clinton, but its rejection of her was stinging nonetheless for the New York senator, who is seeking to become the nation's first female president.

Even though Clinton vowed Wednesday to fight to the last contests on June 3 in Montana and South Dakota, Obama's rally with Edwards appeared choreographed to ease her exit.

Speaking to 12,500 Obama supporters here in a sports arena, Edwards, one of the most prominent Democrats who had not endorsed a candidate, paid lengthy tribute to Clinton. The mention of her name initially sparked boos, a sign of the fractured state of the party as the nominating race winds down.

"It is hard to go out there and speak up when the odds turn against you," Edwards said, adding that Clinton had "shown strength and character" in battling for improved healthcare and a better life for millions of Americans.

"She is a woman who, in my judgment, is made of steel, and she's a leader in this country, not -- not -- because of her husband, but because of what she has done," he said.

Obama, too, offered kind words for Clinton as he ripped into President Bush and Arizona Sen. John McCain, the presumed Republican White House nominee. Both Republicans, Obama said, champion tax cuts for "those with the most, and tell everyone else to fend for themselves."

"John Edwards and I believe in a different America," Obama said, borrowing an Edwards campaign theme. "Hillary Clinton believes in a different America. The Democratic Party believes in a different America -- one America, where we rise and fall together as one people, and that's why we are going to take Washington by storm this November."

"Yes, we can!" the crowd shouted.

Obama also pledged to take up Edwards' campaign to cut poverty in half over the next 10 years. "He will have a partner in that effort," Obama said, "because that is a goal that I will set as president of the United States of America."

A former North Carolina senator and his party's 2004 nominee for vice president, Edwards dropped out of the race in January after poor showings in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Clinton and Obama competed fiercely for his endorsement, each visiting his home in Chapel Hill. For more than three months, Edwards declined to take sides, indicating recently that he would let voters decide. He did not explain why he changed his mind, but Obama told reporters Wednesday that Edwards had made his decision in the last several days.

Now, some of the 19 delegates whom Edwards won in the early contests could swing toward Obama. His endorsement could also sway some superdelegates, the party leaders who probably will settle the nomination. In the race for delegates, Obama leads 1,887.5 to 1,718, according to the Associated Press. It takes 2,026 to win the nomination.

Clinton campaign Chairman Terry McAuliffe said her team respected Edwards, "but as the voters of West Virginia showed last night, this thing is far from over."

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds was caustic. "Despite months of lofty claims," he said, "Barack Obama's best effort at uniting his party relied on the same divisive partisan attacks that only reminds Americans that he's a candidate with no record of bipartisan success."

The Grand Rapids event capped a daylong Obama swing across Michigan, part of a tour of fall battleground states that he launched on Tuesday in Missouri and will resume next week in Florida.

Obama has tried to strike a balance between jumping ahead to the general-election race without seeming presumptuous about the nomination he has yet to capture. He plans to campaign this week in South Dakota and Oregon, which holds its primary Tuesday.

In the Detroit suburbs on Wednesday morning, Obama set out to build ties with the Midwestern blue-collar workers whose support has eluded him in primaries and caucuses. Wearing goggles and earplugs, he toured the assembly lines of a Chrysler factory in Sterling Heights. He also sported a flag pin on his lapel, an apparent gesture to quiet conservative critics who have questioned his patriotism because he often doesn't wear a pin.

In the nearby suburb of Warren, Obama sharply attacked McCain's economic agenda at Macomb County Community College. Faulting McCain for advocating extensions of Bush's tax cuts, Obama told invited guests that he and the Arizona senator would offer Americans a stark choice in November.

"It's going to be a clear choice between four more years of the same failed Bush policies that have wrecked Michigan's economy, or real change that allows us to write a new chapter in American manufacturing and the American economy and American history," he said.

Obama called for public investment in alternative energy production to help revive the manufacturing sector in Michigan and other economically pressed states.

Obama also said that McCain's plans to remedy economic troubles closely resembled Bush's. "I think that is going to be the central issue in this election: Who can restore a sense of fairness and economic growth for everybody -- bottom-up economic growth instead of trickle-down nonsense that doesn't end up working for the American people," he said.

[HejiraNYC]

This is disappointing:



In another sign of Obama's progress in uniting the party, the Illinois senator also won the endorsement Wednesday of a major abortion rights group, NARAL Pro-Choice America. The group praised Clinton, but its rejection of her was stinging nonetheless for the New York senator, who is seeking to become the nation's first female president.


I think this is absolutely disgraceful considering all of the efforts that Hillary took for womens reproductive rights, e.g., pushing through approval for the morning after pill, while Obama just paid lip service or voted "present" on womens issues in the IL senate :rolleyes:. NARAL is taking a lot of well-deserved heat for this unfortunate endorsement, and I hope more enlightened women wake up and snap out of their infatuation with Obama. Women: what has Obama done for you lately??

[vermicious knid]

Was the Edwards endorsement a quid pro quo with Obama or the DNC? How did he suddenly get use of email lists that he didn't have before?




I am one of many who immediately received a request for funds for Edwards' pet project just after the endorsement. But I am not a subscriber to any of his stuff. Where did he get my name, and how did he get this mailing out so fast? This bears exploring, I think. I build websites for a living, and I can tell you that getting a huge mass mailing out like this is no small task. It is very server intensive, and a list of that size would require quite a few servers to be crunching those emails out in order to get them all to their destinations as quickly as these did. Did he get the list from the DNC? I used to be on their list, but unsubscribed after they started being so biased toward HRC. I also signed up a long time ago onto barack's website so I could look around. So it may have been BO's list. I have never received any solicitations from him, however. Is this the deal Edwards made with Obama? - MB
link (http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27686)

[gldstwmn]

Was the Edwards endorsement a quid pro quo with Obama or the DNC? How did he suddenly get use of email lists that he didn't have before?




I am one of many who immediately received a request for funds for Edwards' pet project just after the endorsement. But I am not a subscriber to any of his stuff. Where did he get my name, and how did he get this mailing out so fast? This bears exploring, I think. I build websites for a living, and I can tell you that getting a huge mass mailing out like this is no small task. It is very server intensive, and a list of that size would require quite a few servers to be crunching those emails out in order to get them all to their destinations as quickly as these did. Did he get the list from the DNC? I used to be on their list, but unsubscribed after they started being so biased toward HRC. I also signed up a long time ago onto barack's website so I could look around. So it may have been BO's list. I have never received any solicitations from him, however. Is this the deal Edwards made with Obama? - MB
link (http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27686)

I hope he got more than a mailing list out of it.

[strandinthewind]

I hope he got more than a mailing list out of it.

One could say the pics look almost as if they are a team running together :nod: Edwards would be an interesting choice. He is very well liked in the South and for that matter elsewhere. True, he could not get enough votes to win, but his is well liked and spoken. Intersting to say the least.

I think McCain is likely to pick Condi, so Obama better do something to keep the blacks from straying. I also think Condi is a bad choice because although I admire her intellect, she is too attached to Mr. 70% disapproval rating and can, therefore, only harm McCain. Bobby Jindal, the Gov. of La., is a far more interesting candidate as he is, I believe, of Indian descent and looks it. He also is the Obama of the R party right now.

[dontlookdown]

Obama is a statesmen. Clinton is a politician.
And that is why organizations like NARAL (and dozens of others) have endorsed him.
After 8 years of a retarded person in office, we need our president to be a statesmen, not a politician.

All the civil rights, women rights do-gooding that the Clinton's can deservedly claim - has been rendered worthless after the way Hillary's campaign has been run this year.


I was at a Clinton rally in Kentucky on Tuesday and couldn't believe it when "Dueling Banjos" played as Hillary took the stage.

[vermicious knid]

Doesn't a statesman have to have foreign policy experience? Hillary Clinton has visited more than eighty countries. And I don't know what your definition of a politician is, or why Obama transcends that. He lies, exagerates, equivocates, and dodges. He is down in the mud with the rest of them, all the while saying "Look how clean and righteous I am".

When all is said and done, Obama will probably get the nomination despite getting less votes. And that will make him just as undeserving as that retarded person was in 2000.

[strandinthewind]

Obama is a statesmen

All his "present" votes certainly demonstrate that :rolleyes:

Seriously, a statesman or stateswoman is a politician or other notable figure of state who has had a long and respected career in politics at the national and international level. Obama hardly qualifies as that. Hillary, on the other hand is the very definition of it.

Also, I was at a Clinton rally in Kentucky on Tuesday and couldn't believe it when "Dueling Banjos" played as Hillary took the stage.

Again with the bashing of the South :shrug: We are not all dirt eating racists down here ;) - if that is what you think dueling banjos implies because of the connotation suggested by the movie "Deliverance."

[strandinthewind]

. . . All the civil rights, women rights do-gooding that the Clinton's can deservedly claim - has been rendered worthless after the way Hillary's campaign has been run this year . . . .

I just want to note that you have yet to provide any example of any racists tactics employed by Clinton or her campaign. Saying it does not make it so.

[strandinthewind]

. . . He lies, exagerates, equivocates, and dodges. He is down in the mud with the rest of them, all the while saying "Look how clean and righteous I am" . . . .

The difference is Obama is black and any attack on him suggests that he is being attacked because he is black. I think he knows this and this is the very significant race card he often plays through third parties. When the gloves come off over the Summer, it will be interesting to see what kind of free pass the press gives him then.

Note - I'll still take him over McCain.

[BombaySapphire3]

Fully 20% of those who voted for Hillary in the Kentucky primary exit polls admitted that race played a part in their decision to vote for her.She should have made a point of saying if you are a racist I don't want your vote .She is pandering to the same god ,guns and gays contingent that got the abominable Smirky elected in 2004 and enabled him to steal the election in 2000.Has this country really made so little progress that we must appease this element to win back The White House?I'll admit I was not a big fan of Hillary at the outset of this election process but I am disappoitned that she could sink so low .Clearly she has lost her way in her singleminded quest for power.

[Steviefan49]

All his "present" votes certainly demonstrate that :rolleyes:

Seriously, a statesman or stateswoman is a politician or other notable figure of state who has had a long and respected career in politics at the national and international level. Obama hardly qualifies as that. Hillary, on the other hand is the very definition of it.

Also,

Again with the bashing of the South :shrug: We are not all dirt eating racists down here ;) - if that is what you think dueling banjos implies because of the connotation suggested by the movie "Deliverance."

WOOHOOO... Go Strandie! :thumbsup: Very nicely stated my friend!!:woohoo:

[Steviefan49]

Fully 20% of those who voted for Hillary in the Kentucky primary exit polls admitted that race played a part in their decision to vote for her.She should have made a point of saying if you are a racist I don't want your vote .She is pandering to the same god ,guns and gays contingent that got the abominable Smirky elected in 2004 and enabled him to steal the election in 2000.Has this country really made so little progress that we must appease this element to win back The White House?I'll admit I was not a big fan of Hillary at the outset of this election process but I am disappoitned that she could sink so low .Clearly she has lost her way in her singleminded quest for power.

It's funny that you mention this, as I had seen a program on "Obama's" people saying the very same thing! Being that they were black, they were saying that basically, the reason they voted for him in the primaries, were due to his ethnicity! Hmmm:laugh: I found that one to be rather hilarious! I always voted for the better person, (IMHO) who I felt would be the better choice..

[HejiraNYC]

Fully 20% of those who voted for Hillary in the Kentucky primary exit polls admitted that race played a part in their decision to vote for her.She should have made a point of saying if you are a racist I don't want your vote .She is pandering to the same god ,guns and gays contingent that got the abominable Smirky elected in 2004 and enabled him to steal the election in 2000.Has this country really made so little progress that we must appease this element to win back The White House?I'll admit I was not a big fan of Hillary at the outset of this election process but I am disappoitned that she could sink so low .Clearly she has lost her way in her singleminded quest for power.

Oh puhlease. :rolleyes: Are we all so virtuous that we should now be responsible for everyone's decisions? So I'm sure where you work that there are people in management and higher up who are misogynists, racists, homophobes, etc. Therefore it is your responsibility to seek out exactly who is paying your paycheck and tell them that you don't want their money. :rolleyes:. And at least one cashier at the grocery store where you shop is probably a racist, homophobe or misogynist, so you should refuse to shop there. And the 90% of black people who voted for Obama should be asked whether their votes were based on race, and Obama should come out and renounce the votes of those who replied "yes." :rolleyes: As far as I'm concerned this business with KY is yet another dirty race-based campaign tactic that the Obama camp decided to hurl at Clinton, which, yet again, paints him out to be the saint and Hillary as the she-devil. The race carding in this campaign by the Obama campaign has been utterly despicable and it irks me when so-called "educated" people cannot see through the manipulation. White guilt is top on their list of strategies.

Still, the fact remains that many, many people in this country have not evolved and cling on to the same prejudices that their parents and their parents' parents, and their parents' parents' parents, etc. espoused. But you can't peg that on just white people. It's everyone. And some of that blame lies with the Bible, which espouses slavery, ownership of women as property, etc., despite the fact that it also espouses compassion, tolerance and kindness (the latter of which many choose to conveniently forget). And, ironically enough, much of it comes from the notoriously anti-gay black church as well. But then again, we are still pretty early in the evolution of our country and of the civil rights movement; it's probably only a matter of time before people move beyond our demographic characteristics.

[GypsySorcerer]

Fully 20% of those who voted for Hillary in the Kentucky primary exit polls admitted that race played a part in their decision to vote for her.She should have made a point of saying if you are a racist I don't want your vote .She is pandering to the same god ,guns and gays contingent that got the abominable Smirky elected in 2004 and enabled him to steal the election in 2000.Has this country really made so little progress that we must appease this element to win back The White House?I'll admit I was not a big fan of Hillary at the outset of this election process but I am disappoitned that she could sink so low .Clearly she has lost her way in her singleminded quest for power.

:rolleyes:

Obama blew off Kentucky. If he had campaigned here more, the results would have been closer. Granted, he would not have won, but still closer.

One could say the pics look almost as if they are a team running together Edwards would be an interesting choice. He is very well liked in the South and for that matter elsewhere. True, he could not get enough votes to win, but his is well liked and spoken. Intersting to say the least.

I think McCain is likely to pick Condi, so Obama better do something to keep the blacks from straying. I also think Condi is a bad choice because although I admire her intellect, she is too attached to Mr. 70% disapproval rating and can, therefore, only harm McCain. Bobby Jindal, the Gov. of La., is a far more interesting candidate as he is, I believe, of Indian descent and looks it. He also is the Obama of the R party right now.

I think Edwards would be a terrible choice for Obama. He would do nothing to offset Obama's inexperience problem and probably couldn't deliver either of the Carolinas. I would love to see him pick Richardson or Napolitano.

As for McCain, I don't think he will pick Condi. I had totally forgotten about Jindal, but you're right -- he is the "rising star" among the Repubs. I think McCain will go for Romney.

[HejiraNYC]

I think Edwards would be a terrible choice for Obama. He would do nothing to offset Obama's inexperience problem and probably couldn't deliver either of the Carolinas. I would love to see him pick Richardson or Napolitano.

As for McCain, I don't think he will pick Condi. I had totally forgotten about Jindal, but you're right -- he is the "rising star" among the Repubs. I think McCain will go for Romney.

Edwards is the Susan Lucci of presidential campaigns.

McCain has to choose someone who is strong on economics since McCain already (stupidly) admitted that he didn't know squat about the economy. As such, I also tend to think Romney would be his choice. However, I think that if Condi hadn't done such a horrible job, having her on the ticket would have almost guaranteed a GOP victory. Thank Buddah she is incompetent!

[BombaySapphire3]

Oh puhlease. :rolleyes: Are we all so virtuous that we should now be responsible for everyone's decisions? So I'm sure where you work that there are people in management and higher up who are misogynists, racists, homophobes, etc. Therefore it is your responsibility to seek out exactly who is paying your paycheck and tell them that you don't want their money. :rolleyes:. And at least one cashier at the grocery store where you shop is probably a racist, homophobe or misogynist, so you should refuse to shop there. And the 90% of black people who voted for Obama should be asked whether their votes were based on race, and Obama should come out and renounce the votes of those who replied "yes." :rolleyes: As far as I'm concerned this business with KY is yet another dirty race-based campaign tactic that the Obama camp decided to hurl at Clinton, which, yet again, paints him out to be the saint and Hillary as the she-devil. The race carding in this campaign by the Obama campaign has been utterly despicable and it irks me when so-called "educated" people cannot see through the manipulation. White guilt is top on their list of strategies.

Still, the fact remains that many, many people in this country have not evolved and cling on to the same prejudices that their parents and their parents' parents, and their parents' parents' parents, etc. espoused. But you can't peg that on just white people. It's everyone. And some of that blame lies with the Bible, which espouses slavery, ownership of women as property, etc., despite the fact that it also espouses compassion, tolerance and kindness (the latter of which many choose to conveniently forget). And, ironically enough, much of it comes from the notoriously anti-gay black church as well. But then again, we are still pretty early in the evolution of our country and of the civil rights movement; it's probably only a matter of time before people move beyond our demographic characteristics.

It is apples and oranges to compare someone that works at a grocery store to someone that votes for a candidate in a primary. As for the workplace in my case if someone in management or higher gave voice to any of those things they would soon find themselves unemployed but Hillary's supporters actually admiited it..as for Barack I support him not because of race but due to the fact that he is the candidate with the ideaology I most agree with ,unlike Hillary he came out against the "war"debacle before it began as I did on this very forum ..that was back when less than 20% of America was against it.If Dennis Kucinich, the candidate with whom I most concur ideaologically with were still a viable candidate he is the one I would be supporting.I agree 100% with you about the many contradictions of the so called Christians..most of whom notoriously cherry pick from the Bible to suit their own veiws and needs ignoring that which does not.

[Enchanted_Stevi]

I like Hillary

[BombaySapphire3]

I like Hillary

Personalitywise I like John McCain but I could never vote for someone who is stupider about foreign policy than I am and that goes for the Iraqi invasion endorsing Hillary as well.

[HejiraNYC]

Personalitywise I like John McCain but I could never vote for someone who is stupider about foreign policy than I am and that goes for the Iraqi invasion endorsing Hillary as well.

As the old saying goes, hindsight is 20/20. Yes, it was a regrettable decision and it seems that buyers remorse had already set in even before the military occupation began. But I think Hillary had a number of issues to consider in her decision:

-It was 2002 and everyone was still jittery due to 9/11.

-There was "intelligence" at the time (that was later discredited) that indicated the presence of WMD. Additionally, the Iraqis were not really cooperating with NATO inspectors.

-As the senator for New York, Hillary's number one priority was to look out for the welfare of her constituents. And with NYC undoubtedly the prime target for any act of aggression, she did what she had to do to protect New Yorkers. Imagine what would have happened if an Iraqi-made nuclear weapon flattened NYC? She would have had the blood of millions of her constituents on her hands. And back when the U.S. still had some of that post-9/11 zeitgeist, Hillary would have been painted out as being "weak" and unwilling to take a stand for her people if she voted against the war. It was a no-win situation.

I think it is rather distasteful for anyone to paint her up to be some kind of warmongering tyrant with an itchy trigger finger. She was clearly between a rock and a hard place, and she had nothing but this fabricated intelligence to base her decision upon. John Kerry probably wrestled with the same issues, especially considering that Boston was also affected by 9/11 and is quite vulnerable to attack. So ultimately both of them voted for the war, as well as Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and John Edwards. If you're going to paint HRC with the stain or war, then you may as well do that with over half of the Democrats in the senate.

[Travis]

As the old saying goes, hindsight is 20/20. Yes, it was a regrettable decision and it seems that buyers remorse had already set in even before the military occupation began. But I think Hillary had a number of issues to consider in her decision:

-It was 2002 and everyone was still jittery due to 9/11.

-There was "intelligence" at the time (that was later discredited) that indicated the presence of WMD. Additionally, the Iraqis were not really cooperating with NATO inspectors.

-As the senator for New York, Hillary's number one priority was to look out for the welfare of her constituents. And with NYC undoubtedly the prime target for any act of aggression, she did what she had to do to protect New Yorkers. Imagine what would have happened if an Iraqi-made nuclear weapon flattened NYC? She would have had the blood of millions of her constituents on her hands. And back when the U.S. still had some of that post-9/11 zeitgeist, Hillary would have been painted out as being "weak" and unwilling to take a stand for her people if she voted against the war. It was a no-win situation.

I think it is rather distasteful for anyone to paint her up to be some kind of warmongering tyrant with an itchy trigger finger. She was clearly between a rock and a hard place, and she had nothing but this fabricated intelligence to base her decision upon. John Kerry probably wrestled with the same issues, especially considering that Boston was also affected by 9/11 and is quite vulnerable to attack. So ultimately both of them voted for the war, as well as Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and John Edwards. If you're going to paint HRC with the stain or war, then you may as well do that with over half of the Democrats in the senate.



HejiraNYC, I like you - Go Hillary !!!!!!!!!!! :D

[strandinthewind]

and, let's not forget that Obama hardly is in a position to judge as he was not there :shrug:

Moreover, the US and the UN (unanimously) had been killing in Iraq for a decade or so based almost entirely on the WMD intelligence. So, it is not like W and his cronies (who I despise mind you) just made all of it up one day.

To wit (generally):

Obama's Creative Clippings Part Deux
January 17, 2008
The ad may be new, but we've seen this tactic, from this candidate, before.
Summary

The Obama campaign's new ad uses an old trick and takes quotes from newspapers out of context.

Once again, the campaign uses a quote from a news story to say Obama's health plan would offer universal coverage. But the full article points out that his plan "does not guarantee" full coverage.


The ad also shows a clip saying that Obama has been against the war in Iraq since the beginning. True enough, but the story also chastises him for making too much of the boldness of his early stance.

Analysis

This is the second time in as many weeks that we've written about Democratic candidate Barack Obama's misleading use of quotes pulled from newspapers. This ad is running in Nevada in advance of Saturday's caucus.


Obama for America Ad: "President"

Obama: I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message.

Obama: I'll be a president who finally makes health care affordable to every single American by bringing Democrats and Republicans together. I'll be a president who ends the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas and put a middle class tax cut into the pockets of working Americans. And I'll be a president who ends this war in Iraq and finally brings our troops home. We are one nation and our time for change has come.

Universally Wrong About
Health Care Plan

The ad flashes the quote "Obama offers universal health care plan." That was a headline on a May 29, 2007, Associated Press story.

Correction, Jan. 17: We originally reported that the AP story didn’t include the quote used in the ad. We were looking at the final version sent on the AP wire that day. But the Obama campaign contacted us to point out, correctly, that an earlier version of that story included those words as a headline.

However, the story merely reported that Obama said he would sign a universal health care plan. The article goes on to cast doubt on the universality of his own plan:

AP: Obama's first promise as a presidential candidate was that he would sign a universal health care plan into law by the end of his first term in the White House. But there is some dispute over whether his plan would provide universal care. It's aimed at lowering costs so all Americans can afford insurance, but does not guarantee everyone would buy it.

It's an important distinction we've raised a few times. Obama's plan wouldn't guarantee that every individual had health insurance, just that everyone would have the opportunity to obtain it. The AP story also includes a quote from a representative of Families USA, a liberal group that pushes for expanded government health coverage, who says, "It's not totally clear that it would result in universal coverage." The ad even shows video of Obama using more accurate language when he says he wants to make "health care affordable."


Cutting Out the Critique


The ad also shows a quote that says "Obama opposed Iraq war from the start." The AP analysis from Oct. 2, 2007, certainly did say that, but it also included some less-than-flattering words about Obama's stance on Iraq.
AP: Nobody can dispute that Barack Obama opposed the Iraq war from the start and, with striking prescience, predicted U.S. troops would be mired in a costly conflict that fanned "the flames of the Middle East." But nobody should accept at face value the Illinois senator's claim that he was a "courageous leader" who opposed the war at a great political risk. ... And once elected to the U.S. Senate two years later, Obama waited months to show national leadership on Iraq.

The article goes on to point out that Obama had been quite politically careful about how he approached the war.

We're used to seeing ads for movies that artfully clip fragments of reviews that may, in fact, pan the film in question. Candidates should know better. This might be a good time to remember an admonition we heard a few times when we were children: No running with scissors.

– by Justin Bank
Sources
Fournier, Ron. "Analysis: Obama prescient on Iraq, but 'courageous leader' tag may be a stretch." Associated Press, 2 Oct. 2007.

Glover, Mike. "Taxes on wealthy would rise to pay for health care under Obama plan." Associated Press, 29 May 2007.

Whitesides, John. "Obama calls for middle-class tax relief." Reuters, 19 Sept. 2007.
Related Articles
Stacking the Deck
Dems deal misleading statements in Vegas debate.
Sliming Obama
Dueling chain e-mails claim he's a radical Muslim or a 'racist' Christian. Both can't be right. We find both are false.
Obama's Creative Clippings
Selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers pump up Obama's health plan.


http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/print_obamas_creative_clippings_part_deux.html

[BombaySapphire3]

-


-As the senator for New York, Hillary's number one priority was to look out for the welfare of her constituents. And with NYC undoubtedly the prime target for any act of aggression, she did what she had to do to protect New Yorkers. Imagine what would have happened if an Iraqi-made nuclear weapon flattened NYC? She would have had the blood of millions of her constituents on her hands. And back when the U.S. still had some of that post-9/11 zeitgeist, Hillary would have been painted out as being "weak" and unwilling to take a stand for her people if she voted against the war. It was a no-win situation.

I think it is rather distasteful for anyone to paint her up to be some kind of warmongering tyrant with an itchy trigger finger. She was clearly between a rock and a hard place, and she had nothing but this fabricated intelligence to base her decision upon. John Kerry probably wrestled with the same issues, especially considering that Boston was also affected by 9/11 and is quite vulnerable to attack. So ultimately both of them voted for the war, as well as Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and John Edwards. If you're going to paint HRC with the stain or war, then you may as well do that with over half of the Democrats in the senate.

Uh... let's see for the umpteenth time Iraqi had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.Is not that the same inane argument that the Chimp and his cohorts have been implying lo these many years ?and that none but the most fanatical neo-cons would buy into anymore and some of us (thank you Congressman Kucinich and Senator Kennedy ) never did.As for the Democrats in Congress that voted to invade Iraqi I am not terribly overjoyed with them either .I voted for John Kerry in 2004 only because of who he was running against.

[HejiraNYC]

I have finally found an essay that captures perfectly everything I have seen in this year's Democratic nomination campaign. It was published in last Thursday's "New Statesman" by Andrew Stephen, Editor. It's long, but illuminating.

http://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2008/05/obama-clinton-vote-usa-media

Hating Hilary

Andrew Stephen

Gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear - will have to account for their sins

History, I suspect, will look back on the past six months as an example of America going through one of its collectively deranged episodes - rather like Prohibition from 1920-33, or McCarthyism some 30 years later. This time it is gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind. It has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear - will have to account for their sins. The chief victim has been Senator Hillary Clinton, but the ramifications could be hugely harmful for America and the world.

I am no particular fan of Clinton. Nor, I think, would friends and colleagues accuse me of being racist. But it is quite inconceivable that any leading male presidential candidate would be treated with such hatred and scorn as Clinton has been. What other senator and serious White House contender would be likened by National Public Radio's political editor, Ken Rudin, to the demoniac, knife-wielding stalker played by Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction? Or described as "a ****ing whore" by Randi Rhodes, one of the foremost personalities of the supposedly liberal Air America? Would Carl Bernstein (of Woodward and Bernstein fame) ever publicly declare his disgust about a male candidate's "thick ankles"? Could anybody have envisaged that a website set up specifically to oppose any other candidate would be called Citizens United Not Timid? (We do not need an acronym for that.)

I will come to the reasons why I fear such unabashed misogyny in the US media could lead, ironically, to dreadful racial unrest. "All men are created equal," Thomas Jefferson famously proclaimed in 1776. That equality, though, was not extended to women, who did not even get the vote until 1920, two years after (some) British women. The US still has less gender equality in politics than Britain, too. Just 16 of America's 100 US senators are women and the ratio in the House (71 out of 435) is much the same. It is nonetheless pointless to argue whether sexism or racism is the greater evil: America has a peculiarly wicked record of racist subjugation, which has resulted in its racism being driven deep underground. It festers there, ready to explode again in some unpredictable way.

To compensate meantime, I suspect, sexism has been allowed to take its place as a form of discrimination that is now openly acceptable. "How do we beat the bitch?" a woman asked Senator John McCain, this year's Republican presidential nominee, at a Republican rally last November. To his shame, McCain did not rebuke the questioner but joined in the laughter. Had his supporter asked "How do we beat the nigger?" and McCain reacted in the same way, however, his presidential hopes would deservedly have gone up in smoke. "Iron my shirt," is considered amusing heckling of Clinton. "Shine my shoes," rightly, would be hideously unacceptable if yelled at Obama.

Evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, American men like to delude themselves that they are the most macho in the world. It is simply unthinkable, therefore, for most of them to face the prospect of having a woman as their leader. The massed ranks of male pundits gleefully pronounced that Clinton had lost the battle with Obama immediately after the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, despite past precedents that strong second-place candidates (like Ronald Reagan in his first, ultimately unsuccessful campaign in 1976; like Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson and Jerry Brown) continue their campaigns until the end of the primary season and, in most cases, all the way to the party convention.

None of these male candidates had a premature political obituary written in the way that Hillary Clinton's has been, or was subjected to such righteous outrage over refusing to quiesce and withdraw obediently from what, in this case, has always been a knife-edge race. Nor was any of them anything like as close to his rivals as Clinton now is to Obama.

The media, of course, are just reflecting America's would-be macho culture. I cannot think of any television network or major newspaper that is not guilty of blatant sexism - the British media, naturally, reflexively follow their American counterparts - but probably the worst offender is the NBC/MSNBC network, which has what one prominent Clinton activist describes as "its nightly horror shows". Tim Russert, the network's chief political sage, was dancing on Clinton's political grave before the votes in North Carolina and Indiana had even been fully counted - let alone those of the six contests to come, the undeclared super-delegates, or the disputed states of Florida and Michigan.

The unashamed sexism of this giant network alone is stupendous. Its superstar commentator Chris Matthews referred to Clinton as a "she-devil". His colleague Tucker Carlson casually observed that Clinton "feels castrating, overbearing and scary . . . When she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs." This and similar abuse, I need hardly point out, says far more about the men involved than their target.

Knives out

But never before have the US media taken it upon themselves to proclaim the victor before the primary contests are over or the choice of all the super-delegates is known, and the result was that the media's tidal wave of sexism became self-fulfilling: Americans like to back winners, and polls immediately showed dramatic surges of support for Obama. A few brave souls had foreseen the merciless media campaign: "The press will savage her no matter what," predicted the Washington Post's national political correspondent, Dana Milbank, last December. "They really have their knives out for her, there's no question about it."

Polling organisations such as Gallup told us months ago that Americans will more readily accept a black male president than a female one, and a more recent CNN/Essence magazine/ Opinion Research poll found last month that 76 per cent think America is ready for a black man as president, but only 63 per cent believe the same of a woman.

"The image of charismatic leadership at the top has been and continues to be a man," says Ruth Mandel of Rutgers University. "We don't have an image, we don't have a historical memory of a woman who has achieved that feat."

Studies here have repeatedly shown that women are seen as ambitious and capable, or likeable - but rarely both. "Gender stereotypes trump race stereotypes in every social science test," says Alice Eagley, a psychology professor at Northwestern University. A distinguished academic undertaking a major study of coverage of the 2008 election, Professor Marion Just of Wellesley College - one of the "seven sisters" colleges founded because women were barred from the Ivy Leagues and which, coincidentally, Hillary Clinton herself attended - tells me that what is most striking to her is that the most repeated description of Senator Clinton is "cool and calculating".

This, she says, would never be said of a male candidate - because any politician making a serious bid for the White House has, by definition, to be cool and calculating. Hillary Clinton, a successful senator for New York who was re-elected for a second term by a wide margin in 2006 - and who has been a political activist since she campaigned against the Vietnam War and served as a lawyer on the congressional staff seeking to impeach President Nixon - has been treated throughout the 2008 campaign as a mere appendage of her husband, never as a heavyweight politician whose career trajectory (as an accomplished lawyer and professional advocate for equality among children, for example) is markedly more impressive than those of the typical middle-aged male senator.

Rarely is she depicted as an intellectually formidable politician in her own right (is that what terrifies oafs like Matthews and Carlson?). Rather, she is the junior member of "Billary", the derisive nickname coined by the media for herself and her husband. Obama's opponent is thus not one of the two US senators for New York, but some amorphous creature called "the Clintons", an aphorism that stands for amorality and sleaze. Open season has been declared on Bill Clinton, who is now reviled by the media every bit as much as Nixon ever was.

Here we come to the crunch. Hillary Clinton (along with her husband) is being universally depicted as a loathsome racist and negative campaigner, not so much because of anything she has said or done, but because the overwhelmingly pro-Obama media - consciously or unconsciously - are following the agenda of Senator Barack Obama and his chief strategist, David Axelrod, to tear to pieces the first serious female US presidential candidate in history.

"What's particularly saddening," says Paul Krugman, professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton and a rare dissenting voice from the left as a columnist in the New York Times, "is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the . . . way pundits and some news organisations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent." Despite widespread reporting to the contrary, Krugman believes that most of the "venom" in the campaign "is coming from supporters of Obama".

But Obama himself prepared the ground by making the first gratuitous personal attack of the campaign during the televised Congressional Black Caucus Institute debate in South Carolina on 21 January, although virtually every follower of the media coverage now assumes that it was Clinton who started the negative attacks. Following routine political sniping from her about supposedly admiring comments Obama had made about Ronald Reagan, Obama suddenly turned on Clinton and stared intimidatingly at her. "While I was working in the streets," he scolded her, ". . . you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wal-Mart." Then, cleverly linking her inextricably in the public consciousness with her husband, he added: "I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes."

One of his female staff then distributed a confidential memo to carefully selected journalists which alleged that a vaguely clumsy comment Hillary Clinton had made about Martin Luther King ("Dr King's dream began to be realised when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964") and a reference her husband had made in passing to Nelson Mandela ("I've been blessed in my life to know some of the greatest figures of the last hundred years . . . but if I had to pick one person whom I know would never blink, who would never turn back, who would make great decisions . . . I would pick Hillary") were deliberate racial taunts.

Another female staffer, Candice Tolliver - whose job it is to promote Obama to African Americans - then weighed in publicly, claiming that "a cross-section of voters are alarmed at the tenor of some of these statements" and saying: "Folks are beginning to wonder: Is this an isolated situation, or is there something bigger behind all of this?" That was game, set and match: the Clintons were racists, an impression sealed when Bill Clinton later compared Obama's victory in South Carolina to those of Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988 (even though Jackson himself, an Obama supporter, subsequently declared Clinton's remarks to be entirely inoffensive).

The pincer movement, in fact, could have come straight from a textbook on how to wreck a woman's presi dential election campaign: smear her whole persona first, and then link her with her angry, red-faced husband. The public Obama, characteristically, pronounced himself "unhappy" with the vilification carried out so methodically by his staff, but it worked like magic: Hillary Clinton's approval ratings among African Americans plummeted from above 80 per cent to barely 7 per cent in a matter of days, and have hovered there since.

I suspect that, as a result, she will never be able entirely to shake off the "racist" tag. "African-American super-delegates [who are supporting Clinton] are being targeted, harassed and threatened," says one of them, Representative Emanuel Cleaver. "This is the politics of the 1950s." Obama and Axelrod have achieved their objectives: to belittle Hillary Clinton and to manoeuvre the ever-pliant media into depicting every political criticism she makes against Obama as racist in intent.

The danger is that, in their headlong rush to stop the first major female candidate (aka "Hildebeast" and "Hitlery") from becoming president, the punditocracy may have landed the Democrats with perhaps the least qualified presidential nominee ever. But that creeping realisation has probably come too late, and many of the Democratic super-delegates now fear there would be widespread outrage and increased racial tension if they thwart the first biracial presidential hopeful in US history.

But will Obama live up to the hype? That, I fear, may not happen: he is a deeply flawed candidate. Rampant sexism may have triumphed only to make way for racism to rear its gruesome head in America yet again. By election day on 4 November, I suspect, the US media and their would-be-macho commentators may have a lot of soul-searching to do.

[seeker007nmss]

Hating Hilary



People hate Hilary?

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a88/Dreamtimezzz/hillary.jpg

And for eqal time....

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a88/Dreamtimezzz/obama.jpg

[vermicious knid]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3U0df0qGoA

This Democrat will not vote for Barack Obama in November. He and his supporters sunk to a new low when they inserted Obama in something that had nothing to do with him. They want everyone to believe that Hillary is waiting and hoping for Obama to be SHOT DEAD. Disgusting. Her comments didn't have anything to do with him, yet he comes out feigning indignity like they did. She was arguing that it is not unprecedented for primary races to go this far, and she gave examples from the past. Granted, it would have been better if she had said "In 1968 there were not two but three candidates still fighting for the nomination in June". But if any apology were owed, it would be to Robert Kennedy's children, and they know she wasn't saying anything sinister.

This man came to prominence promising unity and hope and all that poppycock, but he can't even unite his own party. I am not alone in my disenchantment with the Democratic party. Maybe the choice is tougher for people in swing states, but living in Texas which is sure to vote Republican, I won't even consider voting for him.

[BombaySapphire3]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3U0df0qGoA

This Democrat will not vote for Barack Obama in November. He and his supporters sunk to a new low when they inserted Obama in something that had nothing to do with him. They want everyone to believe that Hillary is waiting and hoping for Obama to be SHOT DEAD. Disgusting. Her comments didn't have anything to do with him, yet he comes out feigning indignity like they did. She was arguing that it is not unprecedented for primary races to go this far, and she gave examples from the past. Granted, it would have been better if she had said "In 1968 there were not two but three candidates still fighting for the nomination in June". But if any apology were owed, it would be to Robert Kennedy's children, and they know she wasn't saying anything sinister.

This man came to prominence promising unity and hope and all that poppycock, but he can't even unite his own party. I am not alone in my disenchantment with the Democratic party. Maybe the choice is tougher for people in swing states, but living in Texas which is sure to vote Republican, I won't even consider voting for him.

Can you post proof that anyone in Obama's campaign or Barack himself tried to imply that Hillary was referring to a hope that Obama would be shot by mentioning Robert Kennedy's assasination in the June primaries in L.A.?I have seen nothing .I'm an Obama supporter and don't think there was anything wrong with Hillary referencing that and although I'm no fan of hers I don't think she meant that at all..This contest has just gotten so silly and we are not even in the general election yet.

[gldstwmn]

Obama Staffer's Lobbying Work Runs Counter to Candidate's Guidelines, Ethics Watchdogs Say

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 28, 2008; 6:55 PM

The co-director of Barack Obama's presidential campaign in Puerto Rico is a Washington-based federal lobbyist for the government of Puerto Rico.

Ethics watchdogs said that the high-profile role of Francisco J. Pavía appears to contradict the Obama campaign's ethics guidelines, which forbid federal lobbyists from working on staff. But Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Pavía is an "active volunteer" -- not a paid staffer -- and can hold the job without running afoul of the campaign's rules.

Obama and Arizona Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, have been trying to outdo each other in their repudiation of lobbyists and the "special interests" they represent.

Obama has criticized McCain for enlisting "some of the biggest lobbyists in Washington" to run his presidential campaign. McCain has instituted tough new rules against lobbyists working for his campaign, which recently led to the resignation of five senior McCain advisers, including his top fundraiser, Tom Loeffler.

Obama also has tried to impose high ethical standards by refusing to take contributions from federal lobbyists and by not allowing lobbyists on his payroll.

But Obama's rules also have been somewhat ambiguous. Some of his campaign's volunteer policy advisers are lobbyists. And at least one lobbyist said he was asked to take a leave of absence from his firm before he volunteered for the campaign.

Moses Mercado, a lobbyist for Ogilvy Government Relations in Washington, said in an interview that he was told by the Obama campaign that he must take an unpaid leave from his firm before working as a get-out-the-vote volunteer earlier this year.

"It was pretty clear," Mercado said. "It was so clear that I made sure I wrote a letter to our office manager saying that on these days I'm taking a leave of absence."

Later, after he said he received a call from Burton, Mercado said he had not been asked to take a leave.

Pavía is not on leave from his law firm, Winston & Strawn, according to the managing partner of its Washington office, Thomas L. Mills.

But he has been an important part of the Obama campaign in Puerto Rico, which holds its Democratic primary Sunday. Obama wrote to Puerto Rico's State Elections Commission in March to designate Pavía and Andres Lopez as "our local representatives" to the commission. In May, Pavía and Lopez signed a posting on Obama's campaign Web site that identified them as co-directors of the Puerto Rico effort and solicited volunteers.

Pavía has been a registered lobbyist for various arms of the Puerto Rican government since 2001, according to disclosure reports filed with the U.S. Senate. His firm's total compensation for lobbying for the commonwealth over that period was more than $3 million.

For the first three months of this year alone, Winston & Strawn was paid $110,000 by the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration, which is the government's primary lobbying entity in Washington. Pavía is listed as the firm's primary contact.

Pavía did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

"It sounds like a conflict with Obama's policy," said Melanie Sloan of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "They need to provide an explanation."

Burton said that Pavía's role with the campaign was permissible but that the rules were not airtight. "This is not a perfect solution to the influence of special interests in Washington," he said. "But it is a symbol of the effort that Senator Obama is going to make to decrease the influence that the special interests do have."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/28/AR2008052802499.html?hpid=topnews

[vermicious knid]

His campaign saw an opportunity in her words and quickly said it had "no place in this campaign". Then they sent to members of the press Keith Olbarmann's rant against her, in which he falsely interprets her as using possible assassinations as a reason for her to stay in the campaign. According to him, she was calling for a "dark curse upon the land" (Obama's killing) and that her soul was "frightening". They try to ensure that everyone interprets her like this:
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/228/reeslv4.png



And then after all the damage has been done, Obama absolves himself of any involvement, saying "I don't think that Senator Clinton intended anything by it," and that "we should put it behind us."

[David]

I hate all these politicians. They're all liars & charlatans. Give me a tender pot roast with potatoes, onions, & rich gravy & I'll give you back the politicians every time.

http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/1170/images/1170_MEDIUM.jpg

[HejiraNYC]

The internets are ablaze over the "nuclear bomb" that Hillary was (probably) waiting for: the Michelle Obama "whitey" tape. Supposedly it will surface on Monday, June 2.

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/01/breaking-news-on-whitey-tape-from-fox-news-a-tv-network-has-the-tape/

Say hello to our new Madame President. :wavey:

[henryscutter]

Im sure Obama would love to be the president of the "57" united states (and you thought Dan Quayle was stupid) but even with the media drooling all over him he is showing that the more you know about him the more you want to tell him to keep the change.
Hillary would be a more viable candidate if she can draw people more to the middle. Appeal to undecided voters and non far left wing dems. Im sure some repubs would probably vote for her over McCain too.
So I guess I would go Hilton, but 6 billion people on the planet and these are our choices?

[BombaySapphire3]

Say hello to our new Madame President. :wavey:


More like say hello to Grampa President..even if all this did come to pass do you really think she could become President without the black vote?fat chance.

[BombaySapphire3]

The internets are ablaze over the "nuclear bomb" that Hillary was (probably) waiting for: the Michelle Obama "whitey" tape. Supposedly it will surface on Monday, June 2.



mayhaps she was referring ot McCain :shrug: he is a rather ghastly shade of white.

[LukeA]

The internets are ablaze over the "nuclear bomb" that Hillary was (probably) waiting for: the Michelle Obama "whitey" tape. Supposedly it will surface on Monday, June 2.

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/01/breaking-news-on-whitey-tape-from-fox-news-a-tv-network-has-the-tape/

Say hello to our new Madame President. :wavey:

I'll pick Michelle Obama on her worst day over Krazy Teresa Kerry any day of the week.

[HejiraNYC]

More like say hello to Grampa President..even if all this did come to pass do you really think she could become President without the black vote?fat chance.

I think there is only the *assumption* that black people will, for whatever reason, refuse to vote if Obama is not the nominee. I don't think that is the case at all. Will she garner Bill Clinton-like numbers? Definitely not- Obama has inflicted too much damage- but I think she would still garner a vast majority over McCain. Another thing to consider is that many of the more heavily black population centers are located in southern red states which will be GOP anyway. But areas like DC and Maryland, which have relatively high black populations, are safely blue, even for Clinton.

By the way, I just read that the Michelle Obama "whitey" bombshell may stay in the vault a little longer- possibly until Obama becomes the undisputed presumed nominee or the general election. But I just read that this tape is from a TUCC panel session starring Michelle and Louis Farakhan! An inside source who has seen the tape described it as "stunning." The rumor is that FOX definitely has it (Sean Hannity), and that ABC may have it as well. The thing that worries me is that the Obama campaign, flush with gazillions in cash, may have the wherewithall to bribe the owner of the tape. :distress: After a weekend where Hillary mopped the floor with Obama in Puerto Rico and where she was given a renewed sense of purpose for starting a convention floor fight (after being robbed over MI), releasing this tape today would be SO perfect. I'm keeping my non-"whitey" fingers crossed!

[strandinthewind]

If the Whitey tape exists and is released - IMO, it will do nothing but embolden the black community to vote in larger numbers. I suppose it will embolden white people as well, but the white supporters of Obama already mostly turn a blind eye to the reverse racism of the Obama campaign - so, I think it will not matter to them and/or they will be pacified by whatever demurrer he and she proffer.

In the end, I think the D's are fools for chosing, albeit mostly through caucases and in states that are electorally irrelevant, Obama. But, the D party historically is not the swiftest :shrug:

In the end, he may win though because people buy into what he says even though the facts rarely support what he says.

[strandinthewind]

. . . (after being robbed over MI) . . . .

I disagree in the sense that FL and MI knew the rules before they played the game. I think the D made the wrong decision when it chose way back when to disqualify the TWO OF THE LARGER TRADITIONALLY D STATES ELECTORALLY over a technicality. But, those were the rules. I think the far wiser thing now would have been to have a fairly inexpensive mail in revote in those two states. That Obama was staunchly against this is very telling.

[HejiraNYC]

I disagree in the sense that FL and MI knew the rules before they played the game. I think the D made the wrong decision when it chose way back when to disqualify the TWO OF THE LARGER TRADITIONALLY D STATES ELECTORALLY over a technicality. But, those were the rules. I think the far wiser thing now would have been to have a fairly inexpensive mail in revote in those two states. That Obama was staunchly against this is very telling.

She was totally robbed for the following reasons:

1. Under the rules of the DNC, states that are in violation may have 100% of their delegation restored if they repaired their violation, i.e., a revote. Obama staunchly refused to allow this to happen despite attempts by MI and Hillary to conduct a revote. Here he is yet again exploiting an arcane loophole in the process for his own personal gain at the expense of the will of the voters.

2. Obama intentionally removed his name from the MI ballot; it was there initially. He did this to appease voters in Iowa, who were peeved that MI moved up their primary (even though four other states moved up their primaries without any penalty). I would also venture to guess that he did this to help ensure that, in view of his catastrophic loss in MI, he sought to invalidate the primary by making it look like Hillary was running unopposed.

3. The RBC on Saturday apportioned 59 "uncommitted" delegates to Obama, even though the DNC rules explicitly indicated that "uncommitted" votes should be treated just like an actual candidate and should not be divied up/allocated to any candidate. The DNC had the utter gall to impute the will of the people by giving votes that were not cast for Obama to Obama. Their rationale for doing this was based on exit polling. This is absolutely unprecedented in the history of the United States. This is what has become of the (un)Democratic party. :distress:

4. This type of "punishment" is unconstitutional. I understand that Arlen Specter (R) is actually mulling a legal challenge to the DNC ruling on the grounds that every vote, even in primaries, equals one vote. Although there is probably a GOP-centric reason for doing this, e.g., prolonging the primary fight, I think Specter, as a legal scholar and a citizen of the U.S., is appalled by these banana republic-like antics.

In a nutshell, it is so blatantly obvious that Dean/Pelosi/Reid/Brazille all worked in collusion to ensure that the so-called "rules" were twisted, re-interpreted and bent so that their golden boy walked out of there almost unscathed. And to add insult to injury, they actually removed 4 of Hillary's won pledged delegates and handed them to Obama because they felt that would be "fair." Arbitrarily, of course! They applied one line of reasoning for MI, but used another for FL. Hillary has every right to have this nonsense appealed and end this with a floor fight in August. It's not like this party can be any more divided.

[HejiraNYC]

I disagree in the sense that FL and MI knew the rules before they played the game. I think the D made the wrong decision when it chose way back when to disqualify the TWO OF THE LARGER TRADITIONALLY D STATES ELECTORALLY over a technicality. But, those were the rules.

Another thing to mention is that the rules indicate that the penalty for moving up the primaries may be losing 50% of the delegation. It was Donna Brazille, the so-called "undeclared" superdelegate and chair of the RBC, who fought vociferously for MI and FL losing 100% of their delegation, which is contrary to the aforementioned rule. Somehow she managed to twist everyone's arm into believing this. Clearly, she knew that her boy was going to get kicked to the curb in FL and MI, so she did whatever she had to do to make sure they didn't count. It should be noted that South Carolina moved up their primary too, but they were given a pass because SC was considered to be such a "diverse" state. :rolleyes: And we all know how the SC primary turned out. :rolleyes:.

It should also be mentioned that, I think disenfranchising votes in the Democratic primary is unprecedented. Sure, states have violated the primary date before, but I don't think any of them were stripped of their delegation. It's just that this year they happened to actually enforce, quite arbitrarily, this arcane rule on a couple of states that were bad for Obama. And it should also be mentioned that Obama should have forfeited his FL delegates because, contrary to his pledge not to campaign, he did run cable TV ads as well as holding a fundraiser/rally in Tampa.

Also, yes, states should be punished for moving up their primaries. Why can't they punish them by some other means besides stripping votes and disenfranchising voters? Why can't they push FL and MI back into June for the next presidential primary, for example? :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

In a nutshell, it is so blatantly obvious that Dean/Pelosi/Reid/Brazille all worked in collusion to ensure that the so-called "rules" were twisted, re-interpreted and bent so that their golden boy walked out of there almost unscathed. And to add insult to injury, they actually removed 4 of Hillary's won pledged delegates and handed them to Obama because they felt that would be "fair." Arbitrarily, of course! They applied one line of reasoning for MI, but used another for FL. Hillary has every right to have this nonsense appealed and end this with a floor fight in August. It's not like this party can be any more divided.

Fukcing Howard Dean. :distress: I'd take Terry McAuliffe back in a heartbeat at this point.

[HejiraNYC]

If the Whitey tape exists and is released - IMO, it will do nothing but embolden the black community to vote in larger numbers. I suppose it will embolden white people as well, but the white supporters of Obama already mostly turn a blind eye to the reverse racism of the Obama campaign - so, I think it will not matter to them and/or they will be pacified by whatever demurrer he and she proffer.

In the end, I think the D's are fools for chosing, albeit mostly through caucases and in states that are electorally irrelevant, Obama. But, the D party historically is not the swiftest :shrug:

In the end, he may win though because people buy into what he says even though the facts rarely support what he says.

The black community will vote in large numbers no matter what. But I think it's unfair to characterize all of them as being of the radical white-resenting Farakhan preaching left. I think many will be disgusted by what they hear and would realize that they were backing someone whose social mindset remains firmly in the painful past. Sure, Wright and Pfleger were pretty outrageous and controversial, but, as usual, people gave Obama the benefit of the doubt because those things were not spoken by him, despite the fact that there is every reason to believe that he espouses those views on one level or another. But to hear this nonsense coming out of the potential First Lady's mouth is just beyond the beyond! And it's not like Michelle has been some kind of retiring daylily in the press. She seems like the Queen of Mean, and that busted mug of hers does not help matters. The buzzwords "Farakhan," "muslim," and "whitey" are enough to deter any undecided voters out there.

[vermicious knid]

The internets are ablaze over the "nuclear bomb" that Hillary was (probably) waiting for: the Michelle Obama "whitey" tape. Supposedly it will surface on Monday, June 2.

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/01/breaking-news-on-whitey-tape-from-fox-news-a-tv-network-has-the-tape/

Say hello to our new Madame President. :wavey:

I tried to watch that video, but I had to stop because of that Republican slimeball Roger Stone. Would anybody like to know about Roger Stone's sordid past?
HOT POTATO! (http://www.bartcop.com/stone-2008.htm)


I think the far wiser thing now would have been to have a fairly inexpensive mail in revote in those two states. That Obama was staunchly against this is very telling.
Yes, and just last year he was supporting the "Universal Right to Vote by Mail Act". Clearly, to him, expanded Democracy and increased voter participation are not core values. Only when it suits him.

[strandinthewind]

The fact that the D party would in any way alienate to any degree the voters in Florida (27 electoral votes) and Michigan (17 electoral votes) is irrational. Certainly they must know that although Michigan likely will vote D, Florida is not a sure thing by any stretch and it is very hard to get elected President without those 27 votes, no matter how many Iowas (7 electoral votes) you MAY win.

Once again, the D party looks like a confederacy of dunces.

[David]

The fact that the D party would in any way alienate to any degree the voters in Florida (27 electoral votes) and Michigan (17 electoral votes) is irrational. Certainly they must know that although Michigan likely will vote D, Florida is not a sure thing by any stretch and it is very hard to get elected President without those 27 votes, no matter how many Iowas (7 electoral votes) you MAY win.

Once again, the D party looks like a confederacy of dunces.All those damn Liberals shooting us in the foot. :mad:

I support John McCain & a second surge. :thumbsup:

[strandinthewind]

. . . I support John McCain & a second surge. :thumbsup:

Perhaps, we can revive the Walkürenritt :eek:

Seriously, I am all for the D party. However, they often appear foolish, unprofessional, and inept when compared to the seemingly slicker R party. To me, that is sad.

[David]

The black community will vote in large numbers no matter what. But I think it's unfair to characterize all of them as being of the radical white-resenting Farakhan preaching left. I think many will be disgusted by what they hear and would realize that they were backing someone whose social mindset remains firmly in the painful past. Sure, Wright and Pfleger were pretty outrageous and controversial, but, as usual, people gave Obama the benefit of the doubt because those things were not spoken by him, despite the fact that there is every reason to believe that he espouses those views on one level or another. But to hear this nonsense coming out of the potential First Lady's mouth is just beyond the beyond! And it's not like Michelle has been some kind of retiring daylily in the press. She seems like the Queen of Mean, and that busted mug of hers does not help matters. The buzzwords "Farakhan," "muslim," and "whitey" are enough to deter any undecided voters out there.
I'm so sick of identity politics I can't even describe it. If I hear the phrase "African American" or "Asian-America" (the Associated Press hyphenates the latter but not the former, for some reason unknown & unknowable to God & Man -- at Yale or elsewhere) or "diversity" one more time, I'm going to cut off my right hand & sight-read Ravel's piano concerto for the left hand at the speed of sap oozing down the tree trunk. I'm sick of people's congratulating themselves smugly on their ethnic & genetic traits. To get belligerent about it is only ten times as bad. It's time that each individual stood up on his own accomplishments (or lack thereof).

The single exception to all this identity politics **** is THE RED-HEADED LEAGUE by Conan Doyle. That's just plain funny.

[strandinthewind]

. . . But I think it's unfair to characterize all of them as being of the radical white-resenting Farakhan preaching left . . . .

I did not mean to do that. You are correct. I was trying to say that the polls demonstrate that the vast majority of black voters (mostly D) are voting for Obama, seemingly with little care or regard to Wright's statements. That indicates to whatever degree that these same voters may give him the same pass when it comes to Michelle Obama's statements. I know many of my black friends might view the term "whitey" as part of the black culture and not something white people can really realte to. Note - I am speculating here and not saying all black people are like this, though I think many are likely to be more willing to give Obama a pass on this.

[strandinthewind]

. . . It's time that each individual stood up on his own accomplishments (or lack thereof).

I agree. But, when you tell the black community that, they cry foul and never want Federal programs, like Affirmative Action, to end. They want the leg up on other groups all in the name of correcting the ills of the past. I think that is wrong and the test for eligibility for the leg up should be poverty instead of race. But, I have been branded a horrible racist for even suggesting that. Interestingly, no one branding me as such can give any coherent answer for what future generation will have to stop paying for or benefiting from the sins of the past.

The single exception to all this identity politics **** is THE RED-HEADED LEAGUE by Conan Doyle. That's just plain funny.

As a brunette : American, I object.

[strandinthewind]

She was totally robbed for the following reasons:

1. Under the rules of the DNC, states that are in violation may have 100% of their delegation restored if they repaired their violation, i.e., a revote. Obama staunchly refused to allow this to happen despite attempts by MI and Hillary to conduct a revote. Here he is yet again exploiting an arcane loophole in the process for his own personal gain at the expense of the will of the voters.

2. Obama intentionally removed his name from the MI ballot; it was there initially. He did this to appease voters in Iowa, who were peeved that MI moved up their primary (even though four other states moved up their primaries without any penalty). I would also venture to guess that he did this to help ensure that, in view of his catastrophic loss in MI, he sought to invalidate the primary by making it look like Hillary was running unopposed.

3. The RBC on Saturday apportioned 59 "uncommitted" delegates to Obama, even though the DNC rules explicitly indicated that "uncommitted" votes should be treated just like an actual candidate and should not be divied up/allocated to any candidate. The DNC had the utter gall to impute the will of the people by giving votes that were not cast for Obama to Obama. Their rationale for doing this was based on exit polling. This is absolutely unprecedented in the history of the United States. This is what has become of the (un)Democratic party. :distress:

4. This type of "punishment" is unconstitutional. I understand that Arlen Specter (R) is actually mulling a legal challenge to the DNC ruling on the grounds that every vote, even in primaries, equals one vote. Although there is probably a GOP-centric reason for doing this, e.g., prolonging the primary fight, I think Specter, as a legal scholar and a citizen of the U.S., is appalled by these banana republic-like antics.

In a nutshell, it is so blatantly obvious that Dean/Pelosi/Reid/Brazille all worked in collusion to ensure that the so-called "rules" were twisted, re-interpreted and bent so that their golden boy walked out of there almost unscathed. And to add insult to injury, they actually removed 4 of Hillary's won pledged delegates and handed them to Obama because they felt that would be "fair." Arbitrarily, of course! They applied one line of reasoning for MI, but used another for FL. Hillary has every right to have this nonsense appealed and end this with a floor fight in August. It's not like this party can be any more divided.


All true - but I think MI and FL knew that the D threatened to strip them of the votes and they did it anyway. So, they knew before. I could be wrong though.

[BombaySapphire3]

By the way, I just read that the Michelle Obama "whitey" bombshell may stay in the vault a little longer- possibly until Obama becomes the undisputed presumed nominee or the general election. But I just read that this tape is from a TUCC panel session starring Michelle and Louis Farakhan! An inside source who has seen the tape described it as "stunning." The rumor is that FOX definitely has it (Sean Hannity), and that ABC may have it as well. The thing that worries me is that the Obama campaign, flush with gazillions in cash, may have the wherewithall to bribe the owner of the tape. :distress:

Come now and you think that the Clinton's would not have mortgaged the house and Chelsea's first born to get their mitts on such a tape if it does indeed exist.:lol:

[strandinthewind]

Come now and you think that the Clinton's would not have mortgaged the house and Chelsea's first born to get their mitts on such a tape if it does indeed exist.:lol:

The far more interesting question is "Is the tape relevant?" I think it is because to me, the content shows Michelle Obama is prejudiced against white people. Now, the question will become "Is it okay for her to be so?" In other words, is it okay for black people to be prejudiced against, or really even suspicious of" white people. Certainly the popular trend is that all black people have have some sort of race related issue against them caused by white people - many suggest that they cannot escape it. Is that enough to validate Michelle Obama's comments? Moreover, is it enough to tip people toward Hillary (and for that matter Bill), who to my knowledge has never made a racist statement, a position seemingly loftier than the alleged one Michelle Obama is in now.

[HejiraNYC]

The far more interesting question is "Is the tape relevant?" I think it is because to me, the content shows Michelle Obama is prejudiced against white people. Now, the question will become "Is it okay for her to be so?" In other words, is it okay for black people to be prejudiced against, or really even suspicious of" white people. Certainly the popular trend is that all black people have have some sort of race related issue against them caused by white people - many suggest that they cannot escape it. Is that enough to validate Michelle Obama's comments? Moreover, is it enough to tip people toward Hillary (and for that matter Bill), who to my knowledge has never made a racist statement, a position seemingly loftier than the alleged one Michelle Obama is in now.

Well, the fact is that the full gravity of the Wright tapes has not truly been put to the test; most of Obama's victories occurred pre-Wright. Anecdotally, the argument could be made that post-Wright, Obama lost most of the primaries and earned far fewer pledged delegates and popular votes than Hillary. I definitely think that America in general is fearful of an "angry ____ bitch," which is part of the reason why Hillary doesn't poll very well. And if they perceive that Michelle is that, and a militant racist to boot, then Houston, we have a problem. So what can Barack do after something like this? Although he has thrown every other of his shady associates under the bus, I don't think he can do that to his own wife. If the tape is indeed as sensational as it sounds, there is no way he will recover. Fox News will have that playing in perpetuity until November.

The latest anti-spin I'm hearing now is that Michelle is actually saying "why'd he" instead of "whitey." :rolleyes: Still, "whitey" or not, it's going to be impossible for them to justify her general condemnation of white people for all of society's problems. Of course, that is if this tape actually exists.

[HejiraNYC]

Come now and you think that the Clinton's would not have mortgaged the house and Chelsea's first born to get their mitts on such a tape if it does indeed exist.:lol:

My hunch is that since this tape supposedly was originally sold by the Trinity Church to its members, there must be dozens of copies in existence. I'm sure that they have vowed not to give it to the media, but I'm surprised that nobody has sold out. I know that if someone was offering me some major coinage to hand over the tape, I'd say "Obama who?" "What has that fool done for me lately?" :lol:

[strandinthewind]

My hunch is that since this tape supposedly was originally sold by the Trinity Church to its members, there must be dozens of copies in existence . . . .

That alone negates the existence of the tape in this instance IMO. No one could resist the millions thrown at them and I am sure that more than one person on that church now hates Obama. In fact, I could see Wright selling it himself. Like you, I'd be looking at a two bedroom co-op with outdoor space or perhaps a townhouse about now if the tape were mine :cool:

[HejiraNYC]

That alone negates the existence of the tape in this instance IMO. No one could resist the millions thrown at them and I am sure that more than one person on that church now hates Obama. In fact, I could see Wright selling it himself. Like you, I'd be looking at a two bedroom co-op with outdoor space or perhaps a townhouse about now if the tape were mine :cool:

Or how about a white Georgian colonial in Chappaqua? :lol:

If that is indeed the case, then how can you account for the fact that the original Wright and Pfleger videos have not surfaced? All we have now are those pixelated hurky-jerky clips from YouTube. Perhaps it's the same person who uploaded those clips on YouTube who just realized that he/she could start getting paid for these little bombshells. :shrug:

[HejiraNYC]

All true - but I think MI and FL knew that the D threatened to strip them of the votes and they did it anyway. So, they knew before. I could be wrong though.

Oh, they definitely knew. But in the case of FL, the republican-lead state senate voted to move up the primary, penalty or not. The general feeling is that the GOP did this intentionally to screw with the DNC (and it worked!). Basically there was nothing anyone in the DNC could do to stop the trainwreck. I believe a similar thing happened in MI, but I'm no 100% sure. I think MI wanted to get permission to move up their primary, like SC, NH, IA and NV, but ultimately they were told "no," but they did it anyway for some reason.

Anyway, now the rumor is that Hillary's speech in New York on Tuesday night is either going to be a concession speech or a joint announcement with Obama (who will also be in New York) regarding a dream ticket. I hope it's NEITHER! :eek:

[strandinthewind]

Or how about a white Georgian colonial in Chappaqua? :lol: . . . .

A Richardsonian Romanesque in Westport!

Me in a blousy smock most of the time and you in a Nehru jacket and tam. To quote Hepburn as Eleanor of Aquitaine:

I'd hang you from the nipples,
but you'd shock the children.

:eek:

[strandinthewind]

. . . I hope it's NEITHER! :eek:

Maybe Obama will utter the single word "present" while Michelle in the back ground and with a manical laugh sticks pins in a white doll resembling Hillary.

[HejiraNYC]

A Richardsonian Romanesque in Westport!

Me in a blousy smock most of the time and you in a Nehru jacket and tam. To quote Hepburn as Eleanor of Aquitaine:

I'd hang you from the nipples,
but you'd shock the children.

:eek:

:eek: Why, that would just rip those pencil erasers right out of their sockets! :eek:

[strandinthewind]

:eek: Why, that would just rip those pencil erasers right out of their sockets! :eek:

Well, they've supported your weight Baby Ruth :wavey:

[HejiraNYC]

Well, they've supported your weight Baby Ruth :wavey:

As well as poking out the eyeballs of those who dared enter my personal space!

[strandinthewind]

. . . who dared enter my personal space!

Must you ALWAYS bring up your bikini area :rolleyes:

[HejiraNYC]

Must you ALWAYS bring up your bikini area :rolleyes:

Well, if you would just stop staring at it... take a picture, it will last longer. :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Well, if you would just stop staring at it... take a picture, it will last longer. :wavey:

Well, if where you step grass dies, what do you think that area will do to the silver halide crystals of film :eek:

Also, like a train wreck . . . . :wavey:

[HejiraNYC]

Well, if where you step grass dies, what do you think that area will do to the silver halide crystals of film :eek:

Also, like a train wreck . . . . :wavey:

Oh, that silver halide should be so lucky! :rolleyes:

[HejiraNYC]

Oh... it's on... found this on a forum somewhere:


Bob Beckel says Bombshell is heading Michele Obama's way. (Vanity)
Fox & FRiends ^ | 05/03/08 | mware

Posted on Tuesday, June 03, 2008 7:02:24 AM by mware

If any of you had the opportunity to watch Fox & FRiends this morning, you probably saw Bob Beckel being interviewed about todays political events.

Towards the end of the interview he announced to the Fox & FRiends hosts that he has been told by numerous people,(enough and in a way that convinced him) that a bombshell will be dropping tomorrow about Michele Obama.

The Friends turned white and asked what it might be...was it worse than a college thesis? Bob said—Oh yes, in a BIG way. He said that the Repubs were behind it and it was dumb because it meant that Mrs. Clinton would be the nominee.

So the die is cast, IMHO Hillary will suspend her campaign within the next 24 hours and then the bomb will drop, leaving the Republics to take the blame.

Beckel said that this will make Hillary the candidate. Whatever is on that tape (if it is a tape)it must be a beaut.

You heard it first on the Ledge! :wavey:

[BombaySapphire3]

It can only be one thing!! Michelle is in reality Michael Robinson Obama!:lol:

[strandinthewind]

Obama creeps past McCain in opinion poll

Democratic White House candidate Barack Obama has pulled ahead of Republican John McCain in the latest Gallup voter opinion survey, published Tuesday in USA Today.

Obama lead McCain 47 to 44 percent, in a reversal from Gallup's findings a month ago, which saw McCain ahead of Obama 47 to 45 percent.

Both leads are within the poll's four point margin of error.

A matchup pitting Hillary Clinton against McCain saw the former first lady with a sharper advantage of 49 percent versus 43 for the presumptive Republican nominee, Gallup found.

Obama was favored to win Tuesday's final two primaries in Montana and South Dakota and also to clinch the Democratic nomination, possibly in the same day.

The poll found that 58 percent of Americans have a positive image of Obama, 56 view McCain favorably and 54 have a good opinion of Clinton.

But President George W. Bush's approval rating was just 28 percent.

And the poll depicted Americans as pessimistic about their buying power, with 55 percent saying they are worse off now than they were a year ago and just 26 percent saying the reverse.

Americans have not been so gloomy since 1976, Gallup said, adding that such sentiment generally leads voters to oust whatever political party is currently in the White House.

www.yahoo.com
___________________________________________________

This certainly will fall for Obama when and if the "whitey" comment comes out, which I hope it does not. Interestingly, all the talk about the "whitey" comment through unofficial channels as well as the innuendo on Fox, has not seemed to affect Obama. I am thinking that though "whitey" most certainly is a racist comment, she may be able to get away with it because she is black and the bar for racism does not really apply in reverse, e.g., the use of ni**er in a significant percentage of rap songs and in the black vernacular. Also, if she apologizes for it and then ties it to racial frustration by the whites, it likely will seem softer.

[strandinthewind]

It can only be one thing!! Michelle is in reality Michael Robinson Obama!:lol:

:laugh::laugh:

Talk about being on the DL :eek:

[strandinthewind]

Oh, that silver halide should be so lucky! :rolleyes:

Perhaps it could act as fly paper.

[HejiraNYC]

Obama creeps past McCain in opinion poll

Democratic White House candidate Barack Obama has pulled ahead of Republican John McCain in the latest Gallup voter opinion survey, published Tuesday in USA Today.

Obama lead McCain 47 to 44 percent, in a reversal from Gallup's findings a month ago, which saw McCain ahead of Obama 47 to 45 percent.

Both leads are within the poll's four point margin of error.

A matchup pitting Hillary Clinton against McCain saw the former first lady with a sharper advantage of 49 percent versus 43 for the presumptive Republican nominee, Gallup found.

Obama was favored to win Tuesday's final two primaries in Montana and South Dakota and also to clinch the Democratic nomination, possibly in the same day.

The poll found that 58 percent of Americans have a positive image of Obama, 56 view McCain favorably and 54 have a good opinion of Clinton.

But President George W. Bush's approval rating was just 28 percent.

And the poll depicted Americans as pessimistic about their buying power, with 55 percent saying they are worse off now than they were a year ago and just 26 percent saying the reverse.

Americans have not been so gloomy since 1976, Gallup said, adding that such sentiment generally leads voters to oust whatever political party is currently in the White House.

www.yahoo.com
___________________________________________________

This certainly will fall for Obama when and if the "whitey" comment comes out, which I hope it does not. Interestingly, all the talk about the "whitey" comment through unofficial channels as well as the innuendo on Fox, has not seemed to affect Obama. I am thinking that though "whitey" most certainly is a racist comment, she may be able to get away with it because she is black and the bar for racism does not really apply in reverse, e.g., the use of ni**er in a significant percentage of rap songs and in the black vernacular. Also, if she apologizes for it and then ties it to racial frustration by the whites, it likely will seem softer.

Actually I read that she is polling 30 points ahead in South Dakota and just a few points behind in Montana. It will be amazing if she pulls two upsets today, on BO's supposed day of victory.

Yes, Obama has always gotten a pass on those other controversies because they probably had to give him the benefit of the doubt since he did not utter the hate speech himself. This is different. This garbage is coming right out of Michelle's mouth and she is right next to Farrakan. Talk about getting caught red handed! :eek: Or black-handed, as the case may be :p ! But until I get to see the tape for myself, I am going to remain cautiously skeptical. But the timing could not be worse for BO- just when the Dems have annointed their king, who is off doing early victory laps. Unleashing this bombshell, if it is as bad as they are saying, will totally de-rail the general DNC campaign for a while- perhaps all summer until the convention.

Anyway, I am thinking about hitting Hillary's closing night speech tonight. It *may* be historic! FYI it's at the Baruch College gymnasium located at 55 Lexington Ave @ 24th. See y'all on the TV! :wavey:

[David]

I am very bigoted in my views. I favor immediately eliminating all entitlements.
It's a dog eat dog world, & only the strongest, most favored will survive. I have no candidate to vote for. :(:(
I am very sad.

[BombaySapphire3]

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about ??? I mean wouldn't Louis Farrakan make a great secretary of state??:shrug:

[strandinthewind]

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about ??? I mean wouldn't Louis Farrakan make a great secretary of state??:shrug:

Well, he'd be an interesting one :eek: Talk about the Nation of Islam rejoicing :eek:

The thing I find sad is that people like him have some legitimate points to make. Sadly, much like the crazy Christians, they dress it up in hate speech which negates the legitimate point they are trying to make.

[HejiraNYC]

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about ??? I mean wouldn't Louis Farrakan make a great secretary of state??:shrug:

Well, now the story is that this was a panel including Michelle, Mrs. Farrakan (Louis' wife) and Reverend Meek's wife- an angry wives club, if you will. Can I get an "amen, sistah!" :mad: :mad:

With details like this slowly coming to light, I think there is no way that this is a fabrication; where there's smoke, there's fire, I always say. Now it's just going to be a matter of whether the tape will be released, which words she used, how she used them and the severity of the scowl on that busted up mug of hers.

[Travis]

HejiraNYC,

Did any superdelegets go Hillary's way today?

[David]

Could Rachael Ray really be an Islamic jihadist?

[strandinthewind]

Could Rachael Ray really be an Islamic jihadist?

She certainly dresses like one :cool:

[gldstwmn]

Could Rachael Ray really be an Islamic jihadist?

Is Dunkin Donuts coffee really that good?

[David]

Is Dunkin Donuts coffee really that good?You shouldn't drink that ****, Chris. I want you to drink homemade smoothies with granny smith apples, bananas, wheat germ, frozen raspberries, frozen blueberries, frozen boysenberries, very vanilla soy milk, peach nectar & pomegranate juice.

[gldstwmn]

You shouldn't drink that ****, Chris. I want you to drink homemade smoothies with granny smith apples, bananas, wheat germ, frozen raspberries, frozen blueberries, frozen boysenberries, very vanilla soy milk, peach nectar & pomegranate juice.

I loooove coffee. I can't bring myself to give it up. I do love Jamba Juice too though.