The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Why doesn;t the press cover this. Obama held a rally in the meadowlands arena in NJ. The arena holds 19 thousand, but only about 1,500 showed up at the event. The media shows Robert Denero making a speech. I do not vote the way celeberties tell me to apparently Mr. Denero and Mr. Obama star power wasn't enough to draw a crowd.

Mr. Obama was only elected to the Senate in 2004. Electing Mr. Obama to office is the equivelent of giving your 16 year old permit driver the keys to the Mack truck and tellign him or her to take a drive on the interstate. Obama will spend the first 90 days in office trying to figure out where the bathrooms are in the Whitehouse nevermind running Homeland Security, Treasury and making policy. Also the press coverage is so slanted trying to make a story that the election is So close Obama surging. What non sense. HRC voters get out and vote today. Lets send the Media a messgage. HRC is intellegent compentent experienced. HRC has what it takes to be the first women president. It is about time we have a female president. When will a women get another chance. Lets start now and give HRC the nomination.

Look at all the hypocrite hypocrite Obama supporters miring in the mudslinging then crying foul when Obama is exposed for his faults. Look at all the hypocrite Obama supporters here saying they detest 'politics as usual' while they then turn and engage in it themselves, look at all the hypocrite Obama supporters who will 'say anything to get Obama elected' tsk tsk tsk..

Hillary is so much classier than all of these sleazy, desperate attacks, and she actually has many solid plans to fix the mess created by Bush. In fact she is the complete opposite of Bush on all the issues if you bother to listen and read what she actually has to say. She voted on the issues with her position in the Senate instead of skipping her votes 130 times like Obama. Hillary is exactly what America needs at a time when gambling on unproven rookies just does not make any sense.

Our country is in great peril and we can no longer afford to mess around with a President who talks alot and does nothing, like Bush has and like Obama would. Hillary will take care of business and will get to work on day one and she already knows exactly hat to do. We do not have time to waste on rookie Obama's mistakes. If you really care about the future of America, you don't buy the snake oil of 'dreamers' you hire a pro, Hillary is the only one qualified to lead us out of this darkness and Hillary will do just that on her first day as President of the United States.

Hillary All the Way!!!!!

Anyone want to change parties?

THIS VIDEO HELPS MAKE A CHOICE BETWEEN ROMNEY, MCCAIN AND HUCKABEE. SEE WHY HUCKABEE OUTSHINES THEM SO MUCH.
HERE IS MY QUICK VIDEO:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnU3G-HCf9w

Dan Campbell

Feminist Leaders Oppose Hillary, Endorse Obama
Posted February 3, 2008 | 07:40 PM (EST)

More than 100 New York feminist leaders released a joint statement Sunday afternoon criticizing Hillary Clinton and supporting Obama for president - evidence that Clinton's support among women activists has declined significantly in the days before the super-Tuesday primary.

Clinton's support for the war in Iraq was the leading reason she lost the support of the group, which calls itself "New York Feminists for Peace and Barack Obama!" "We urgently need a presidential candidate whose first priority is to address domestic needs," the group added.

Those endorsing Obama include longtime peace activist Cora Weiss; Katha Pollitt, columnist for The Nation; Pulitzer-prize winning New York Times writer Margo Jefferson; award-winning women's rights historians Alice Kessler Harris and Linda Gordon; Barbara Weinstein, president of the American Historical Association, and Ellen P. Chapnick, Dean for Social Justice Initiatives at Columbia Law School. Susan Sarandon and Francis Fox Piven signed on Monday.

"Choosing to support Senator Obama was not an easy decision for us," the group stated, "because electing a woman president would be a cause for celebration in itself." They "deplored" the "sexist attacks against Senator Clinton that have circulated in the media." But, they stated, they nevertheless supported Obama because his election "would be another historic achievement" and because "his support for gender equality has been unwavering."

The group based their opposition to Clinton on "her seven-year record as senator." Despite her recent pledges to remove troops from Iraq, the group stated, Clinton's "record of embracing military solutions and the foreign policy advisers she has selected make us doubt that she will end this calamitous war."

The group supported Obama not only for his positions on the war and gender equality, but also because of "the dramatic engagement of young people" with his campaign.

We do know the Clinton's inside and out and we know them as the democrats who sold their souls and the country to get elected as the "new democrats who act like republicans except for the issue of a women's right to choose." An important issue, to be sure, but not one to throw out the rest of the democratic platforms of the New Deal and Great Society. Last quote I heard from Hillary was that she would be willing to garnish workers wages to push "universal health caree" through. I might be willing to pay higher taxes to fund single payer health care, but I'll be damned if I have to face garnishment of wages to fund this insurance and big pharma dominated privatized health care system. Clinton will not renounce torture; she will not renounce pre-emptive intervention and she has and does announce her support for corporate America in its continuing war on American workers. The Clinton's may have been better than the Bushes, but that's a pale claim. Have we reduced our sights that low? I'd take the great unvetted over what we know about the Clinton's any day of the week. It's not about hating Hillary; it's that I've vetted her and she doesn't hold up on any issue.

gp

There are too many reasons to vote against Hillary as president. Starting back shortly after they got married Bill and Hillary, seperately and together started having lapses of judgement in legal, moral and ethical matters. Since Hillary entered the Senate the lapses of judgement expanded to legislative matters, chief among them voting for the war powers act. I see nothing to make me believe that electing her to her own presidency would result in a different outcome.Remember the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over again and expecting a different outcome. This is written by a Democrat of 32 years.I supported Bill when he ran for office in the nineties, but I can't take it again. Their selfishness and immaturity caused too much collateral damage to the party.

Does anyone feel like addressing the article or do you all prefer taking any possible opening to rant about your like/dislikes of candidates?

Anyway, I think that presuming Clinton's "lock-up" of NY is premature. Having the support of African-American leaders doesn't necessarily translate to support from the African-American community. Obama has the support of numerous unions, the Hispanic vote is his for the taking, and yes, his own people in the black community are going to come out in favor of him. He's not Jesse Jackson, because his chances of winning are actually realistic(should seem obvious by now anyway).

As far as Hillary's home-field advantage, she won the Senate against Rick Lazio. Rick Lazio. Yeah, that guy. The one who replaced Giuliani because of his health issues, and who was easily trounced. Don't forget that Hillary doesn't actually come from NY, and as a a result, is a carpetbagger, so any home-field excuse given to prove how "locked up" NY is for her, is rendered useless.

I would just like to know when are you going to vet Obama? We know the Clintons inside and out. What do we know about Obama? Well, we know that one of his main supporters and "the guy" who got him elected to the Illinois state legislature was just arrested last week. Don't you want to know a little bit more about him before you bestow the highest office in the land unto him? Think about it.

Let's put vishalg_99's statements in context:

* Obama missed or voted present on around 100-votes out of four-thousand [4000] votes -- less than 10%

* Obama voted "present" when something objectionable had been added.

Insofar as McCain -- he has plenty to worry about:

* his votes for war

* plans on more wars

* he said recently he would not mind if we stayed in Iraq for 100 years or more

* the so-called purge "success" is not working

* more than plenty of his statements are fabrications

* his temper

* plans to cut back on health care

* lobbyists fund his campaign

* his admission a couple of days ago: he does not understand economics

Let's look at more of McCain's so-called "straight talk"

McCain positioned himself as the Republicans' leading advocate of campaign-finance reform." Simultaneously claiming to be a "reformer," railing against "special interests" and their "undue influence" McCain has an army of lobbyists.

Beneath the surface what he claims and what he does are in direct opposition. McCain associates with powerful corporate lobbyists and their wealthy clients. Meetings are held at exclusive retreats. Recently he flew "to a posh Utah ski resort, where he mingled with hundreds of top corporate executives assembled by J.P. Morgan Chase for its annual leadership conference."

"... [T]he Deer Valley event, arranged by J.P. Morgan Vice Chairman James B. Lee Jr., a top McCain fundraiser, put him in a room with the chief executives of companies such as General Electric, Xerox and Sony."

McCain is immersed in lobbyist fundraisers' and lobbyist staffers' funding. His chief fundraisers, consisting of more than 30, are more than other candidate's lobbyists

McCain, I believe, will be like Bush only on steroids wrt war and will further empower corporations. Bush exponentially sped-up increasing corporate power, McCain is likely to follow in his footsteps.

Iam puzzled why independents and moderate republicans overwhelmingly like McCain -- he has voted on just about every piece of legislation that Bush wanted. But McCain is the media's darling after all. So it is rare to see much published about him that is unfavourable. They call him a "Maverick" which is hardly the case.

McCain has, by his own admission, indicated America could very well be entangled in wars in the Middle-East for the next century!

Claims to the contrary regarding special interests and lobbyists, McCain has been less than forthcoming about other events as well.

Another example: Several months ago McCain seen strolling down a street in Baghdad, professing it was safe left out a small detail: He was surrounded by 100 soldiers with 2 or 3 Blackhawk helicopters flying overhead to protect him.

This occurred during the time Bush and his party faithfuls were trying to convince the public things were fine and dandy in Iraq which they weren't; It was just another photo-op in Iraq.

It is one thing to say you stand for or against something, but hypocrisy is not something Americans want. We've seen too much of it and we want change.

"Straight-talking" and McCain do not belong in the same sentence IMHO.

Theretofore as for Clinton and/or McCain beating Obama seems unlikelier by the day.

Moreover Obama has a larger lead than Clinton does in the polls on a one-to-one match-up with McCain.

The question is: what do you want? More of the same or change? Inspiration or not? More wars or peace?

Obama represents the future. In contrast Clinton & McCain represent the past and more of the same!

Well, from the start I did want to vote for Obama but it was Ted and Caroline that put me over the edge. It was with Jackie's classic touch that Camelot a reality reality in the 1960's.

Camelot has changed with the times it needs not only Obama's reflection but Hillary's power. But refection should always preceed power, as Bush was to prove with Iraq.

What a ticket it would make and I can only imagine the power you would bring to Obama's sharp eyed reflection.

In the New York metropolitan area, there are many Democrats like me who will not forget what happened in 2002.

I wrote to Sen. Hillary Clinton then pleading with her not to give George W. Bush the power to invade Iraq and warning that, if she did, I would never vote for her for any office. Tomorrow I will keep that promise.

http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/2008/02/iraq-iraq-iraq.html

Hillary Clinton is George Bush in a pantsuit. She has a proven record of voting FOR most all neo-con causes.
If you want to continue the failed policies of George Bush then you should vote for Hillary tomorrow.

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D. is Professor of Psychology at Florida International University in Miami.

YOU ARE A CERTIFIED, OVER EDUCATED, OUT OF TOUCH INDIVIDUAL THAT NEEDS TO REALIZE THE FACT MOST PEOPLE DESPISE WINDBAGS.
Ever heard of the KISS Principle....

Billary is NOT PRESIDENTIAL MATERIAL!

I don't need another 4 years of either a Clinton or a Bush - 20 is enough....

Hillary has a lot going for her and no doubt she is intelligent. However there are a few things to take into consideration that people ought to know before they vote that she hasn't been vetted on .

While I believe "experience" is necessary it is only relevant if one grows and learns from his or her experiences. Actually judgment is more important than just "experience". One can have the "experience", but still lack judgment.

For instance Hillary's decisions are more political than anything such as her vote for attacking Iraq. She is afraid to take political risks. More importantly what defines Hillary for example are her votes against 3 amendments that would have curbed Bush's rush to war. One of which was submitted by Dick Durbin (D-Il) that would have compelled Bush to demonstrate "imminent threat" prior to invading Iraq.

The second was Levin's amendment. Granted Levin's bill called for the UN's approval before force could be used, but it also reinforced America's right to defend itself even if the UN voted against it. Therein nothing in that bill was an impediment to the US in any way. Yet Hillary claimed it would have made the president "subordinate" to the UN.

So basically her vote against Levin's bill meant she was against international support and the UN's consensus. Moreover that vote would be relevant only if she believed that Bush 41 was wrong to go to the UN for international support and approval before he attacked Iraq.

Although the amendments were defeated Hillary had 3 chances to slow down Bush's rush to war, but chose not to! Now what kind of judgment is that! Furthermore she will not say whether the US will maintain permanent bases in Iraq. For someone entrenched in the Washington politics translates into more of the same.

Hillary also shifted her policy on torture. At first she said she would seek "legal" exemption to saying her current position, "torture cannot be American policy."

All of which leads me to believe Hillary will be more of the same, but as a "Bush-lite." And the republican contenders will be like Bush, only on steroids!

Additionally Clinton never talks about her tenure as a corporate lawyer at the Rose Law Firm, an Arkansas corporate powerhouse.

In the mid-1980s, as a member on the board of Wal-Mart while the company mounted a campaign against unions Hillary was silent. She claims she fought for women's rights, but nothing was ever achieved.

I suggest taking a closer look at her actions rather than believe everything she says; it is what she doesn't say that worries me.

Actions speak louder than words.

I support Obama. I did my research and found him to be the most qualified. Insofar as experience he has been an elected official for 11 years -- 4 more years than Hillary.

Furthermore Obama's experience as a community organizer requires having insight into the inner-workings of the mind. Obama knows and understands people. He is a fighter who cares passionately about the causes he believes in without demonizing those whom differ.

Moreover his record shows he believes justice is a strength and the rule of law matters, accountability and transparency are vital components for a healthy democracy. Legislation and bills he's written and/or co-sponsored are proof he is a man of his word. "Actions speak louder than words." He earned my trust based on his actions, not just his words.

Sound judgment, reasoned logic, intelligence tempered with forethought and foresight reflect the qualities of a leader.

Obama has all that and more.

One Path to the Presidency

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D.

Both leading Democratic candidates repeatedly have emphasized "change" as a core theme in their campaigns for the presidential nomination. They talk of changes to improve the lives of women, Blacks, Hispanics, and children -- but I still am waiting to hear what changes they have in mind to help me, other white men, and boys specifically.

In October, 2007 David Paul Kuhn published The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma. The most important statistic in this book is that white males constitute the second largest voting bloc in America: "They [white males] make up between 36 and 39 percent of voters, roughly five times more than Hispanic male and female voters combined. White women are about a 5 percent larger voting bloc than white men..." (p. 6).

Listening to the acceptance and concession speeches following the Democratic primary in South Carolina last night, I heard no candidate speaking to us. Not surprisingly, Kuhn argues, white men vote Republican. Democrats seeking to win big on Super Tuesday next week might well want to begin by reading Kuhn's book today.

To help them along, here are three critical issues for men. The first is job outsourcing and the economy -- focusing on jobs for men as well as jobs for women. The next is divorce and child support. The biggest negative consequence for men of past presidential pandering to the women's vote is that federal law now funds the divorce and domestic violence industries that separate fathers from their children and transfer wealth from men to women. To regain the male vote of all racial and ethnic groups, Democrats must come to value boys and men, support marriage, discourage divorce by leveling the legal playing field, and encourage father-child relationships.

If this does not constitute change, I don't know what would.

The third and most important long-term issue is the boy and man crisis in education. As widely documented, in K through 12, boys are losing ground to girls on virtually all indices. At the undergraduate, level men constitute at best 40% of college students, and at the graduate and professional levels they constitute distinct minorities in most fields.

What boys need is a massive change in social attitudes giving them the same kinds of social support and encouragement now given to girls. At the federal level, boys also need the same kinds of interventions designed to remedy and enhance educational attainment currently offered to girls.

So, what's all this got to do with the path to the presidency in 2008? In my view, just as candidates began attending to the needs, wants, and aspirations of girls and women in the 1960's, so too today, do candidates need to attend to the needs, wants, and aspirations of boys and men not only if they wish to win the Presidency - but far more importantly - if they wish to improve the quality of life for all citizens in 2009 and beyond.

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D. is Professor of Psychology at Florida International University in Miami. His faculty web site is: http://psych.fiu.edu/Faculty&StaffPages2/Finley/Finley.htm

In the news today: Cluster bombs and landmines are particularly terrifying weapons that wreak havoc on communities trying to recover from war. They are fatal impediments to reconstruction and rehabilitation of agricultural land; they destroy valuable livestock; they disable otherwise productive members of society; they maim or kill children trying to salvage them for scrap metal.

Over 150 nations have signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. It pains me that our great nation has not. But in the autumn of 2006, there was a chance to take a step in the right direction: Senate Amendment No. 4882, an amendment to a Pentagon appropriations bill that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.

Senator Obama of Illinois voted IN FAVOR of the ban.

Senator Clinton of New York voted AGAINST the ban.

Analysts say Clinton did not want to risk appearing "soft on terror," as it would have harmed her electibility.

...First ask yourself these questions:

Do you agree with Hillary's vote in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman ammendment?

Do you agree with Bill Clinton's bombing the pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan which eventually killed tens of thousands due to lack of medicine?

Did you know that Hillary voted in favor of No Child Left Behind in 2001?

Did you know that Hillary did not in fact vote against the bankruptcy reform bill in 2005 (as she claimed in the recent Nevada debate). It turns out she didn't vote at all.

Do you agree with Hillary's appointing Sandy Berger as one of her National Security advisors? Berger plead guilty to stealing and destroying classified intelligence documents (they were related to 9/11).

Do you agree with Hillary's having Mark Penn as one of her chief strategists (a major voice for her campaign) who represents Blackwater as well as a huge uniform supplier that refuses to deal with the Culinary Workers Union and that he has a history of being a known union buster?

Do you agree with the Clinton's support of NAFTA?

Do you agree with Hillary's voting against increasing fuel economy and the production of renewable fuels like Ethanol?

Do you agree with Bill Clinton's selling attack helicopters to Israel used to kill "terrorists" and many innocent civilians?

Do you agree with Hillary's mandated health care plan that to this day leaves out the consequences for middle to lower income families who can't afford the rates she is proposing?

Do you agree with Hillary's statement in regards to social security that the majority of Americans in this country make over 90,000 dollars a year?

Do you agree with Hillary's voting against providing seniors with a prescription drug benefit?

Do you agree with Hillary's support and defense of lobbysists?

Do you agree with Hillary's support of current bankrupcy laws that continue to hurt lower income Americans and small businesses?

Do you agree with Hillary's voting against medical liability reform so that doctors are not forced out of practice for junk lawsuits?

Do you agree with Hillary's opposition against a level playing field so that people who pay for health insureance out of their own pocket get the same tax break the big corporations get for providing health care benefits to their employees?

CONT.

My letter to earth-loving Democrats:

Well it's almost time now. Here's my quivering argument for whatever it counts.

Let's first perspectify the Clinton legacy. Obama supporters are very tearful about Clinton's affair with Lewinsky and his hurtful lying. There are politicians, you know, who are both, pristine in private life and make competent presidents. Let's take a historical shot at this Audacity of Hope. JFK was a serial philanderer, poking every hole in sight. He gave us Bay of Piglets and near Apocalypto. Then, LBJ fatally perpetuated Vietnam. Nixon - criminal. Carter - exquisitely incompetent. Reagan of soaring national debt/Iran Contra/S&L crises. George Recession Sr - no, he was in bed only with the Saudis. Then, Bill Clinton. Wipe away the scum thrown at your faces by the republican propaganda, and if you attained puberty a bit before 90s, you will see quite easily, Bill Clinton's were the best presidential years in recent history. Who compares?

Let's get to near history and Hillary's vote for the Iraq war resolution. Our country had just been devastatingly attacked. Such was the patriotism that a Democratic Senator who left most of his body parts in the fields of Vietnam was knocked out of the senate for not being patriotic enough! 29 Democratic senators voted for the resolution. Many of them, like Kerry, were finally persuaded that the vote will be used primarily for getting Saddam Hussein to come clean. They might not have trusted him. Bush was going to war anyway. Only, we might have given Republicans a 60 vote senate. Friends, Hillary Haters, Monday Morning Quarterbacks, Backseat Drivers, what would have happened then?
Meanwhile, on a hilltop, far away from the battlefield, there was a Senator in the safe confines of a very blue state. His state not devastated like New York. Sears Tower still towering. He made a fine anti-war speech. Simultaneously, he was lustily voting Present in his state legislature instead of taking a stand on radioactive issues to avoid providing propaganda material to the Republicans. Political expediency, it's called. Clinton haters are very intimate with this phrase. If Obama had to be politically expedient in the Bluest of Blue states, what, you must think, he would have done in the jingoistic pressure cooker of the 2002/03 senate? When we did not know where and when again we might be hit again. One anti-war commentary given from the distant, safe, liberal confines of IL should not a president make!
Predictably, once Obama was in Senate, his voting was identical to democrats like Clinton. He raised no hell, showed no leadership. Why should he? You see, voting against war funding is a somewhat unpopular thing. You can't do that and hope to become President. And you can't just say Present, you know. You have to vote.

So now we have a tight race. Hillary might very well lose. No doubt, Hillary supporters will have to show up.

Obama supporters also feel about his electability. Good night, good luck and sweet dreams. We wouldn't let Hillary lay a hand on Obama. No, we must be all tea/coffee only. If you criticize - you are racist. Dearest, I am going to go out on a very dangerous limb here. I have a feeling, Republicans won't be so sensitive. No, I think they will have a thing or two to say about that. *Despite* all the hype, Obama is not doing dramatically better than Hillary against McCain. How will it look after Republicans have worked him over? To those who insist that our gem, Obama is still unknown - he has spent aver $120 million dollar introducing himself. Media has been all ga-ga about him. Can it really get better for him? You know, Fox, i.e., conservative media won't keep giving him a pass. They won't mind asking him about his drug use. Pox on them but they will - and much more. Though, in my personal opinion they ought not to bother with that. McCain's strong, maverick character and years of experience will be quite enough. To a left of center and right of MoveOn org type of a person like me, when I put Obama next to McCain, I see a shrub next to a Titan. Obama's experience? He has organized in Chicago - shame on me if I deny him that. In a general election, Comrades, that only works if the public has a seizure while rolling on the floor in laughter. Bird flu, global warming have nothing on the effect Obama's record-setting lack of experience might have on the general population.

No, wrong, I am not a purple Democrat. I thought Howard Dean was a better candidate than Al Gore/John Kerry. I was devastated when he was knocked out because he dared to be emotional/spontaneous. He had such a strong executive experience but the media didn't like his laughter. He had no style. In America we must have Style.

I doubt if an undecided voter comes all the way here. And I don't have the Audacity of Hope to believe I can make any impression on those who love Obama. But try I must.

...First ask yourself these questions:

Do you agree with Hillary's vote in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman ammendment?

Do you agree with Bill Clinton's bombing the pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan which eventually killed tens of thousands due to lack of medicine?

Did you know that Hillary voted in favor of No Child Left Behind in 2001?

Did you know that Hillary did not in fact vote against the bankruptcy reform bill in 2005 (as she claimed in the recent Nevada debate). It turns out she didn't vote at all.

Do you agree with Hillary's appointing Sandy Berger as one of her National Security advisors? Berger plead guilty to stealing and destroying classified intelligence documents (they were related to 9/11).

Do you agree with Hillary's having Mark Penn as one of her chief strategists (a major voice for her campaign) who represents Blackwater as well as a huge uniform supplier that refuses to deal with the Culinary Workers Union and that he has a history of being a known union buster?

Do you agree with the Clinton's support of NAFTA?

Do you agree with Hillary's voting against increasing fuel economy and the production of renewable fuels like Ethanol?

Do you agree with Bill Clinton's selling attack helicopters to Israel used to kill "terrorists" and many innocent civilians?

Do you agree with Hillary's mandated health care plan that to this day leaves out the consequences for middle to lower income families who can't afford the rates she is proposing?

Do you agree with Hillary's statement in regards to social security that the majority of Americans in this country make over 90,000 dollars a year?

Do you agree with Hillary's voting against providing seniors with a prescription drug benefit?

Do you agree with Hillary's support and defense of lobbysists?

Do you agree with Hillary's support of current bankrupcy laws that continue to hurt lower income Americans and small businesses?

Do you agree with Hillary's voting against medical liability reform so that doctors are not forced out of practice for junk lawsuits?