Honestly, now that Obama is the nominee........

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

Even CNN is reporting today that it was totally fabricated by the blogger then picked up by ol' pigface Rush and others ...despicable really.

Right, because CNN is perfectly objective and is not biased towards Obama in any way. As I said, I don't know what to think. I am skeptical, but I'm not going to dismiss it outright because that pig face Roland Martin says it doesn't exist.

Anyway, don't be fooled... Obama is far from being some perfectly honest angel:

http://savagepolitics.com/?page_id=326

I'm just sayin'...

Also, on an unrelated note, a totally different potential bombshell drops on the National Press Club on June 18. Again, I don't know what to think... it could either end Obama's career or it could be the laughing stock of the year. The guy sounds like a whack job, but his story is luridly sensational. We shall see...

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

Also, on an unrelated note, a totally different potential bombshell drops on the National Press Club on June 18. Again, I don't know what to think... it could either end Obama's career or it could be the laughing stock of the year. The guy sounds like a whack job, but his story is luridly sensational. We shall see...

Oh right that must be the Michelle Obama is really Michael Robinson Obama impending scandal I mentioned earlier!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

Even CNN is reporting today that it was totally fabricated by the blogger then picked up by ol' pigface Rush and others ...despicable really.

Yea - either Obama is starting damage control (I am such a cynis ) -- or, it is untrue. I think it is untrue and I am glad it is not as that is one less hate in the world. As for Rush L., what an a$$. This is a play straight from Rove. Highly popular people like Rush L. just say it couched in terms if "if it is true" and people accept it as fact and the damage is done. Obama is smart to take a play from Bill Clinton's book and address these things before they get too large, a la the Swift Boat fiasco that Kerry seemingly ignored until it was too late. I mean think about that example. Kerry actually went to Vietnam and Bush was all but MIA at his cushy job in the US and Bush got kicked out of being a pilot. If I had been Kerry, I'd of walked right up to W in the debates and called him a coward to his face and pointed out that I VOLUNTEERED to go to Vietnam while W's daddy got him a job here that he could not even successfully complete and that Cheney had "better things to do" than go to Vietnam. I think had Kerry done that, W would have had no response and that would have IMO shut that shiitte down on the spot.

[vermicious knid]

That blogger still maintains that the video exists, and that it features Michelle on a panel with Louis Farrakhan, and making racist generalizations. He used to work for the CIA and the Department of State, so if he is wrong, his reputation has a long way to fall. I think he will be shunned and never taken seriously again if this video never materializes. Which is certainly possible given that he says he hasn't seen the video himself. Whatever the truth is, we will all know it within a few months.

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

Anyway, don't be fooled... Obama is far from being some perfectly honest angel:

I'd hazard a guess that just about any politician is far from being a perfectly honest angel..The most honest of the lot that ran for President this time IMHO is Dennis Kucinich..he just introduced articles of impeachment against Bush and it is to the shame of the Democratic congress that it was to a nearly empty House..now that is a man who doesn't falter from the right course and if he were the nominee I'd be cleaning out my savings accounts to contribute to him..as it stands though I'll settle for Obama.

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

I'd hazard a guess that just about any politician is far from being a perfectly honest angel..The most honest of the lot that ran for President this time IMHO is Dennis Kucinich..he just introduced articles of impeachment against Bush and it is to the shame of the Democratic congress that it was to a nearly empty House..now that is a man who doesn't falter from the right course and if he were the nominee I'd be cleaning out my savings accounts to contribute to him..as it stands though I'll settle for Obama.

I agree... I have great respect for Kucinich, but he is so far left that Obama looks like Nixon by comparison. I'm not sure where he stood on the economy, but he seems to be a man of unflagging integrity with a blind eye to gender, sexual orientation and race- the complete opposite of Obama in many ways.

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by vermicious knid

That blogger still maintains that the video exists, and that it features Michelle on a panel with Louis Farrakhan, and making racist generalizations. He used to work for the CIA and the Department of State, so if he is wrong, his reputation has a long way to fall. I think he will be shunned and never taken seriously again if this video never materializes. Which is certainly possible given that he says he hasn't seen the video himself. Whatever the truth is, we will all know it within a few months.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

I'd hazard a guess that just about any politician is far from being a perfectly honest angel . . . .

I agree. However, perhaps it is the attempt of the media to paint him as such by giving him a free pass and slamming people like Clinton to the wal over a clear mistake about something like Bosnia and the billets. So she made a mistake - big deal. I agree they should have called her on it. But, they acted like she killed and ate her first born. Yet, Obama never got or gets that kind of scrutiny. It is all part and parcel of the same image of him the press and he portrays of him that rubs me the wrong way.

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I agree. However, perhaps it is the attempt of the media to paint him as such by giving him a free pass and slamming people like Clinton to the wal over a clear mistake about something like Bosnia and the billets. So she made a mistake - big deal. I agree they should have called her on it. But, they acted like she killed and ate her first born. Yet, Obama never got or gets that kind of scrutiny. It is all part and parcel of the same image of him the press and he portrays of him that rubs me the wrong way.

Totally. I think the media totally missed the point about the Bosnia gaffe- whether or not there was sniper fire, she did go to Bosnia during a time of war, which is more than you could say about Obambi; at least she had the "testicular fortitude" to risk her wellbeing by going there. Meanwhile Obama fabricates the story of a fictitious relative who freed the Jews at Auschwitz in a pathetic attempt to pander for the Jewish vote, yet the media totally gave him a pass on it. I think exploiting the Holocaust to manipulate voters is absolutely disgusting and it was an intentional lie. But, hey, I guess I must be alone in feeling this way.

[David]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

Meanwhile Obama fabricates the story of a fictitious relative who freed the Jews at Auschwitz in a pathetic attempt to pander for the Jewish vote, yet the media totally gave him a pass on it. I think exploiting the Holocaust to manipulate voters is absolutely disgusting and it was an intentional lie. But, hey, I guess I must be alone in feeling this way.

No, I feel that way, too. But Jews are intelligent & see through such phony pandering.

[strandinthewind]

Here is an example of reverse racism. Obama can talk about all blacks viting for him and no one bats an eye. Let a white candidate say that all blacks are voting for Obama and that white candidate is a racist. Moreover, let a white candidate say that white people are voting for the white candidate and both the white candidate and the white voter are racist.
_______________________________________________________

Can Georgia Be Obama's Ohio? By JAY NEWTON-SMALL/WASHINGTON

Tue Jun 17, 9:45 AM ET


No one who has been following Barack Obama's upstart path to the Democratic presidential nomination should be surprised at his campaign's claim that he does not need to win Florida and Ohio to have a chance at winning it all in November. Obama has been pursuing an ambitious national strategy from the start.


"I'm probably the only candidate who, having won the nomination, can actually redraw the political map," Obama replied to a question about his strategy from a Concord, N.H., woman at a house party last August. Pacing around the old Victorian home, the wooden floor creaking, Obama went on: "I'll give you one specific example: Mississippi is 40% African American, but it votes 25% African American. If we just got the African Americans in Mississippi to vote their percentage, Mississippi is suddenly a Democratic state. And Georgia may be a Democratic state. Even South Carolina starts being in play. And I guarantee you African-American turnout, if I'm the nominee, goes up 30% around the country, minimum."


It was an extraordinary boast, five months before the start of the primary season. But he stuck to it as the race with Hillary Clinton wore on through the winter and spring. Whenever Clinton asserted that Obama couldn't win states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, he would respond by saying he could bring other states into play, especially in the South.


Now that he is the presumptive nominee, Obama is working hard to make good on his prediction. In briefings last week with former Hillary Clinton supporters, Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, said he is focusing on Georgia and Virginia as potential swing states and, depending on the outcomes of voter registration drives, he's also keeping an eye on Mississippi and Louisiana. In Georgia, the Obama campaign has wasted no time, launching massive voter registration drives before he the primaries had even ended. "By some estimates we have about 600,000 African Americans in Georgia are eligible but unregistered. I think that number is a little high, but we will be working very hard to register as many voters as we can before the election," said Jane Kidd, chairwoman of the Georgia Democratic Party. "Georgia is one of the most progressive southern states. There are a lot of people moving in, there's a lot of transition, a lot of progressives."


Obama has 15 full-time paid staffers who have been in Georgia for over a month. They also have had staff in North Carolina and Virginia and have been "literally moving in dozens of people every week to all three states," said Jon Carson, Obama's national field director. They also expect to have staff in Mississippi, Arkansas and Louisiana before the end of the month. "It's very hard to sit here right now to say what's going to happen in November... Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Montana, North Dakota, Missouri - which of those is going to be most winnable? So our campaign is taking the approach of casting a wide net."


Yet Obama faces an uphill battle in most of the South. Even if there is vastly increased black turnout, he still needs to draw a portion of white votes in states like Mississippi and Louisiana, where less than a quarter of whites voted for John Kerry in 2004. Though he may have a legitimate shot in Georgia, he currently trails McCain by a margin of 12.3 percentage points, according to an average of Georgia polls by the non-partisan website RealClearPolitics.com.


In 1992 Bill Clinton lost most of the Deep South, except for Georgia and his home state of Arkansas). In Georgia the third party candidacy of Ross Perot helped leach enough votes from President George H. W. Bush to deliver Clinton the state. This year the Libertarian candidacy of former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr could help Obama in much in the same way. "Georgia would be very much in play, even if I weren't in the race, and it will be even more so now that I am," Barr told TIME. Republican presumptive nominee John McCain "does not really have a natural constituency in Georgia. Certainly, he'll appeal to die-hard Republicans and certainly the military folks, but it's not a state, if I were advising his campaign, that I would focus on."


If Barr just wins his former district, to the west of Atlanta, he could sap more than 8% of the vote. A May Insider Advantage poll of likely Georgia voters showed Barr garnering just about that amount, to McCain's 45% and Obama's 35%. "I'm still not ready to call any of the Southern states probable for Obama," said Larry Sabato, a political science professor at the University of Virginia. "If the election were held now, I think McCain would hold on in all of them. But Obama is going to bury McCain in expenditures, and thus broaden the playing field in his favor, and if economic conditions don't improve rapidly, McCain's chances of winning the election are quite small."


Mike DuHaime, political director of the Republican National Committee, doesn't argue with Obama's fundraising advantage. But he disputes the notion that Obama can afford to keep throwing money at long shots once the campaign really heats up in the fall, and he contends that Obama's defense of vulnerable states like New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Ohio will be much more expensive. "It would take a major swing to swing these [Southern] states," says DuHaime. "I don't fault them for trying to expand the map, but we have better opportunities in other states that are just as big, if not bigger - Pennsylvania, Ohio, for example."


Yet McCain has shown some weakness in the South. During the primaries, he lost Georgia and much of the South to former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister. McCain has struggled to connect with Southern social conservatives, who are leery of his positions on issues such as global warming, campaign finance reform, immigration, domestic oil drilling and gay marriage. He's also gotten himself into trouble with high-profile Evangelicals like James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, who never warmed to the Arizona senator and has said he won't vote for him.


There is no question that Obama can turn out Southern blacks: African American voter participation in the 2008 Georgia primary, which Obama won by 36 percentage points over Clinton, increased 85% over the 2004 primary, for example. And there's lots of room to grow from the last general election; in 2004 just 54.3% of the 1,090,000 registered blacks in Georgia voted.


But black votes alone cannot win him Southern swing states like Georgia, according to David Bositis, senior political analyst at the non-partisan Joint Center, which tracks black voter trends. "In states that could potentially flip it isn't just about increasing black turnout. They have to be states where Obama can win a fairly significant portion of whites," Bositis said. In the Georgia primary Obama edged out Clinton among young white voters, but lost white voters over the age of 45 by more than 20 percentage points, according to CNN exit polls. Certainly, the idea of a black candidate winning the South appealed to those New Hampshirites last August - the Concord audience gave Obama's answer an ovation. But no one has to tell Obama that the North and the South don't always see eye to eye. View this article on Time.com

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/2008061...We1imD5QPBF4l4

[vermicious knid]

When Hillary said that working class white people were choosing her, I read that she was "fanning new flames of racial tension". And she was equated to segregationist George Wallace and Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. I read that with my own eyes.

And then there was the firestorm over her blanket racial generalization she made on the Jimmy Kimmel show. Oh wait, there was no firestorm, because that was Barack Obama who said Asian people are short.

[BombaySapphire3]

What is the point of continuing to fan the flames of divisiveness in the Democratic party? Do you really want a 72 year old geezer with a terrible Iraqi policy who is likely to keel over in his first term leaving his rightwingnut vice president in charge to appoint Supreme court justices and maybe start a few more illegal wars while setting back women's and gay rights issues decades and lining the pocketbooks of the very rich while the middle class becomes poorer and the environment continues to be ruined .? If so just keep it up and you may just get your wish.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

What is the point of continuing to fan the flames of divisiveness in the Democratic party? Do you really want a 72 year old geezer with a terrible Iraqi policy who is likely to keel over in his first term leaving his rightwingnut vice president in charge to appoint Supreme court justices and maybe start a few more illegal wars while setting back women's and gay rights issues decades and lining the pocketbooks of the very rich while the middle class becomes poorer and the environment continues to be ruined .? If so just keep it up and you may just get your wish.

1. Please cite which law made the war, presumably the Iraqi war, illegal. Last I checked, Congress gave W the legal authority to go to war, which is the crux of why you hate Hillary

2. Racism is racism and appeasing that by ignoring it all for the lesser of two evils is rather distasteful.

If Hillary had won the nomination, could you have voted for her even though she voted to give W the authority to go to war in Iraq, which you equate as voting to go to war unconditionally in Iraq and which is why you stated you loathe her?

[BombaySapphire3]

Please show me where I said that I "hate" Hillary in fact if you scroll back a few pages I say that I don't hate the Clintons.I am not ignoring racism but given our nation's sordid history it is doubtful we will really be able to move past it in our lifetimes sad to say.Please see Dennis Kucinich's articles of impeachment if you want to read about the illegal activities and outright lies that went into duping people into going along with the Iraqi war.I can't say 100% if I would vote for Hillary but when ruminating over what I wrote in the posting just before this I probably would have and like I supplied the stats for earlier significantly more of her supporters would vote for McCain than Obama's would have if she were the nominee and that I would never do.