The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

http://geo.ya.com/kotimare/ bleper

http://geo.ya.com/kotimare/ bleper

http://geo.ya.com/kotimare/ preved

http://geo.ya.com/kotimare/ preved

http://geo.ya.com/kotimare/ preved

http://geo.ya.com/kotimare/ preved

justsayNOtoHILLARY&BILL!!! BOTH SCUMBAGS!!!NO HONESTY, NO INTEGRITY, NO ETHICS, NO MORALS, SHAMELESS!! NEW YORK, NEW YORK

And here's McCain's position:
"Mr. McCain's advisers said that the candidate, despite his signature legislative efforts to restrict the money spent on political campaigns, would not accept public financing and spending limits for this year's general campaign." [ny times 2008 02 13 us politics 13mccain]
"McCain campaign's latest stand on the issue" is that it will accept public funding if McCain's Democratic opponent does the same [ ny times 2008 02 15 us politics 15finance]
"On Tuesday, one of Mr. McCain's advisers told The New York Times that the campaign had decided to forgo public financing in the general election...." [ny times 2008 02 15 us politics 15finance]

Hey Edwcorey:

Obama Campaign Never Committed To Public Financing in a General Election, But That He Would Pursue a Deal When He Is the Nominee

Obama Campaign Asked the FEC to Determine Whether It Could "Retain the Option" of Accepting Public Financing During the General Election. On February 1, 2007, the Obama campaign asked the FEC to determine whether if "Senator Obama becomes a candidate, he may provisionally raise funds for the general election but retain the option, upon nomination, of returning these contributions and accepting the public funds for which he would be eligible as the Democratic Party's nominee... the Senator would not, if the law allows, rule out the possibility of a publicly funded campaign if both major parties' nominees eventually decide, or even agree, on this course." [Letter to FEC, 2/1/07]

Burton: If The Republican Agreed, Public Financing "Would Be Something We Would Explore." Politico reported, "'It would be a situation where if the Republican agreed to opt-in to the public financing system, it would be something we would explore,' Burton said." [Politico, 2/27/07]

Burton: "There Is No Pledge." The AP reported, "Obama spokesman Bill Burton on Thursday called public financing "an option that we wanted on the table," but said "there is no pledge" to take the money and the spending limitations that come with it." [AP, 2/17/08]

Hillary Clinton has shown a lack of creativity in running her campaign especially when the landscape changed and it stalled. Instead of taking personal responsibility for poor planning and short-sightedness she resorts to her usual m.o. by blaming and firing key campaign managers. And make no mistake no one in her campaign does anything without her permission.

Interesting that the 'candidate of change' has such a problem with change. But of course, nothing changes for the president and when they make a plan it is etched in stone. So one doesn't need a backup plan.

Now this is the third time the Clinton's have promised universal health insurance and as yet have been unable to deliver it. Rigidity not flexibility will always plague her and this was exemplified in her first universal health care plan. when creating the first health care package she was counseled by Donna Shalala, secretary of health and human services, who predicted defeat of the package warning Hillary that her package was too broad and expensive, more in keeping with the policies of FDR, during the depression and of course, HRC didn't listen for no one knows more about anything than Hillary. And what did the experienced Ms Shalala know compared to the vision of the inept, inexperienced MRS Clinton? It is her arrogance and inability to change that typifies MRS Clinton and there will be nothing delivered by her except the hope of universal health insurance and and we know what she thinks of hope.

Castglib, you admit not knowing anything about Obama and what you think you know about Hillary isn't based on reality. According to this weeks NewYorker.com he's run a nearly perfect campaign whereas hers suffers from the same problems our current Bush Administration suffers from. She only appears competent and actually has many of Bush's faults.

Castgilb--What good was Hillary's "experience" when it came time to authorize the war in Iraq? Hillary voted to authorize the war while Obama was speaking out against it. No grey area there. The Democratic party I grew up with did not support war mongers. No grey are there, either.

Castgilb--What good was Hillary's "experience" when it came time to authorize the war in Iraq? Hillary voted to authorize the war while Obama was speaking out against it. No grey area there. The Democratic party I grew up with did not support war mongers. No grey are there, either.

Posted by: sskyvickers | February 17, 2008 09:35 PM

Thanks for providing that web site on Obama. Very, very impressive.

The Obama Cult (the OC) is becoming frightening.

http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/

See this and forward it to everyone you know. Get the word out on this cult leader.

I cannot believe that people are actually joining the Obama bandwagon. He has vertually no experience, doesn't really know policy (sound like someone we know who won back in 2000) and has really never run anything. If he wins the nomination, he will lose the general election, mark my words.

I am writing from Texas and a hispanic, I have been talking to a lot of people that are mexican americans and I have yet to encounter anyone who will vote for Obama or even know anything about him. I for one will vote for Hillary, because I feel she gives us the best chance to win and can actually run the country better than Obama. If Hillary does not win, I will not vote in November. I cannot be part of the disaster that will ensue. My family, relative and friend also say the same thing. Whe will win Texas...viva Hillary all the way!

Hillary saids she been "Tested" hope shes talking about STDs given Bill's habits. The woman is an absolute pig. If she gets the Nomination, Mc Cain will be or next President.

mw_lovelace....Canada does quite well. Politicians here are'vetted' extensively when they run for public office. I admit sometimes it takes a few yrs to catch some, but, we don't have the problems you guys have. Not even close. Canada has a proven record in 'washing out' criminals from the candidate tickets. Equality for all is our motto, regardless of race, gender etc., a multicultural society that thrives, health care for everyone. Resources for all. Our goals are similar, affordable housing is main item, but many agencies work for all the less fortunate. We are grateful, ambitious and compassionate in our communities, but we also lose loved ones to a commited war, the 9/ll attacks, and if you think I am the only one that feels that this American election is a global concern you should read the blogs globally. You should try to understand how American Policy and Administration affects the entire world. Why do you think the propoganda from your country is so blatant. I am near 60 yrs old, have heard everything...and you must be a liberal, telling me where to blog, but really, sounds like you don't like to hear what other's think, so why do you blog? Regardless, what you think of Bush, he doesn't lower himself to respond to anal, sarcastic, degrading, insulting attacks from the left, he stays committed, focused (ith humour) and honest.

I wonder if Mr Ickies would be willing put a wager on this statement:

By the end of this process by the 7th of June, when Puerto Rico votes, she will be neck and neck with Mr. Obama . . . Then she will wrap up the nomination."

=====

That will not happen.

Puerto Rico? Huh?? No way this is lasting to June. Hey Ickes, here are some numbers to chew on:

The latest Rasmussen Reports poll in Oregon shows Barack Obama leading John McCain 49% to 40% while McCain leads Hillary Clinton 45% to 42%. In Pennsylvania Obama leads McCain 49% to 39% while McCain leads Clinton 44% to 42%.

http://rasmussenreports.com/

=======

The supers will be looking at these kinds of polls very closely. How can any Democrat lose in Oregon?? Plus Pennsylvania is a must win for Democrats in Nov. Very troubling signs for Ms. Clinton indeed.

My my, there are a of lot of oxygen thieves from Camp Hillary here! Florida and Michigan will not be seated; the supers will abandon Hillary, nevermind help her steal. Try not to hate Obama too much, as you will soon be voting for him. Love ya!

Claiming a WIN in FL is rather hilarious.

Stop the hate, I don't understand some of the Anti-Obama sentiment. He's a very capable guy, yes his rhetorics are called naive by his opponent, but don't expect more than half of the democratic constituency to simply rely on his Naiveness

Im not asking you for believe Obama, I'm asking those of you to believe yourself and believe in your fellow americans, and simply take a second look at his detailed plans on the website, that's before you start running your mouth

canadagirl I thiink you have enough problems in Canada to deal with. Please blog there!

Superdelegates are suppose to be "independent". They make their own decision as to whom they will support. They are not tied to anything else. Any question forward them to the DNC!!!

SFTS

Superdelegates are suppose to be "independent". They make their own decision as to whom they will suppose. They are not tied to anything else. Any question toward them to the DNC!!!

I cannot believe how democrats are beating up on each Hilary and Obama. This primary has taught me how little value the party really has for people. I think that the party has two extremely capable people running. Even though Even though I am a Hilary supported I refuse to tear down Mr. Obama. Right now the way I see Dems going at each other I will refrain from voting in November.

Can Washington do anything fair? Are most delegates in bed with the Clinton Machine? Why have these two con artists got washington by the balls? How can anyone think the Clinton's have integrity, honesty, purpose or premise on any idea of theirs when it is but a game of power to them. These two bumpkins role into office, sliding and slipping at every turn and Washington is 'nervous' of them? Show's how much corruption in Washington and why the world has lost trust in your nation. It is not George Bush, it is all of you that are tangled up in your own earmarks, dirty laundry and Clinton schams. If Hillary wins the nomination, I'm sure a show of force by terrorists will be seen. Can you imagine these two at the helm? Their actions will scare all of us. Blackmail is another problem for this couple of nuts. Their foreign financiars will have a ball. Is this what you want America????

The Obama supporters just dont get it..Hilary can win the states that are needed to defeat Mc Cain.Obama will never win Florida and I doubt some other seats with large electorate college votes that wins, its the arithmetic that counts if the Democrats want to take the whitehouse back.

As an Obama supporter, I can actually agree with one thing Mr. Ickes said: the superdelegates SHOULD vote for the best interests of the party AND the country.

For, if they did that, they'd vote in overwhelming numbers for Senator Obama - he is the party's future (and they know it).

Then, too, the people are having their say first. (And I trust in that.)

Fund raising was allowed by the DNC in Florida but TV ads were not allowed. Barrack was the only candidate to break the rules and his word in Florida!!!

VOTE HILLARY CLINTON 08

Oil Spcs,Oil selling side of the Kennedy's,
Murdoch,Bush,Rockefeller Central Bank ie
Federal Reserve,IRS(internal rockefeller
scam),verichip,NAU,NAFTA,....
ALL SUPPORT "I"HILLARY!

When you think the Republicans want Hillary to run against McCain, think about the fact Democrats WANTED to run against Ronald Reagan. Remember what happen? When the left wing of the party was determined to win the nomination during the Vietnam War (and I was there), they nominated McGovern in 1972. Remember what happen? The same elements are at play. Obama cannot win a national election, I don't care what the polls say. They have all been wrong in every state and every contest so far. McCain will win Latino voters (who will not vote for Obama despite all the Ra!Ra!Ra! by the news media); and McCain will also win independents. McCain has won more independents than Obama during the Primary season. He is strong on national security while Obama has NO credentials at all. In fact, he has no credentials. 2 years in the Senate out of a 6 year term (which he won with no competition), 4 years running for President out of a 6 year term. That qualifies him? I don't think so. Read this blog. Many people will not vote for Obama because HE IS NOT QUALIFIED. Hate the Clintons all you want but Bill Clinton was the only Democrat since FDR to win two terms in the White House in spite of the left, which is why the left hates him so much. Good for them. The left has NEVER won a national election with their candidate. You can jump up and down all you want, but Alaska, Idaho, Utah, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, etc., are not going Democratic in the national election (where Obama won). New York, Mass, New Jersey, California, Florida hopefully will go Democratic where Hillary won. You can change perception, but you can't change reality.

The superdelegate or automatic delegate system REALLY needs to be analyzed for the future. In addition to it's potential to be the most undemocratic system in all of American politics, it has the potential to create a melt down in the Democratic party at just the point when healing of wounds and reconciliation is required To prepare for the general election.

It is refreshing to hear that there is such a thing as a 'long view.' The future president must be more than a policy wonk - well, what exactly is the job of President?....
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/02/18/what-is-the-job-of-president/

The Clintons had 70 million dollars worth of Republican investigation. Nothing was shrugged off as you are doing for Obama.

And the Republicans won;t shrug this off about Obama either.

I am not listing campaign donations. Obama and Clinton return contributions when they are found to be from an illegal source, although Obama required a lot of prodding from news organizations investigations to fess up to how much came from Rezko, so was done over a period of time by him amidst public pressure.

rd

Sheesh, if Rezko is an issue, what about every innuendo-laden accusation ever made against the Clintons? Norman Hsu? Mark Rich? Ron Burkle? Frank Giustra and Kazakhstan? Whitewater? Cattle futures? The Rose Law firm files? The travel office firings?

It's awfully hard to avoid the appearance of impropriety at least once or twice over the course of a public career, no matter how scrupulous you are. McCain had the Keating Five scandal, as you'll recall.

To put the Rezko issue in perspective, the Sun-Times, the paper which has been single-handedly pushing that investigation, enthusiastically endorsed Sen. Obama over Sen. Clinton.

So please don't push the innuendo of this story -- which is nothing more than innuendo -- unless you'd like to explain a long trail of Clinton behavior.

Obama is using the double standard for sure. He wants to void one agreement, the agreement to let Super Delegates be independent, but stick to the agreement to violate the 1965 Civil Rights Act by denying voters in Florida and Michigan representation at the convention.

The press is not calling Obama on his double standard because he is black. They are giving him a lot of leeway because they're afraid of the RACE antagonists.

I would love to see black President in my life time, but if it comes at the expense of voiding two million votes, then I will vote for McCain.

It was blacks who stuggled harder than anyone for the right to vote, and now we will elevate a candidate to the Presidency by denying two states representation?

As far as the rules are concerned. It was not for Howard Dean at the DNC, or the candidates themselves to agree to void my vote. This agreement was done in ERROR. As third parties, they can't decide where and when my vote is valid-- it has nothing to do with them. They don't negotiate the meaning of my vote under any circumstances.

It doesn't matter who leads in the polls in Florida, or who would be hurt or benefit from a new primary.

Two million people got in their cars and stood in line to vote. How dare ANYONE, whether it be Hillary, Barack, or John to pre-determine what my vote means.

Obama is using the double standard for sure. He wants to void one agreement, the agreement to let Super Delegates be independent, but stick to the agreement to violate the 1965 Civil Rights Act by denying voters in Florida and Michigan representation at the convention.

The press is not calling Obama on his double standard because he is black. They are giving him a lot of leeway because they're afraid of the RACE antagonists.

I would love to see black President in my life time, but if it comes at the expense of voiding two million votes, then I will vote for McCain.

It was blacks who stuggled harder than anyone for the right to vote, and now we will elevate a candidate to the Presidency by denying two states representation?

As far as the rules are concerned. It was not for Howard Dean at the DNC, or the candidates themselves to agree to void my vote. This agreement was done in ERROR. As third parties, they can't decide where and when my vote is valid-- it has nothing to do with them. They don't negotiate the meaning of my vote under any circumstances.

It doesn't matter who leads in the polls in Florida, or who would be hurt or benefit from a new primary.

Two million people got in their cars and stood in line to vote. How dare ANYONE, whether it be Hillary, Barack, or John to pre-determine what my vote means.

Howard Dean's power trip, denying Floridians representation creating the super delegate mess

It is true the Florida Democratic Party moved its primary date against the DNC bylaws; it is true that Florida's GOP legislature moved the primary date; and it's true that three democratic candidates agreed to null and void the votes of Floridians and the delegates those votes would harvest.

Neither of these parties had the right to disqualify two million votes.

When you call the DNC to complain, they tell you Florida is not in compliance, but they won't tell you is what gives them the pre-ordained right to disqualify two million votes just to settle a score with the Florida Democratic Party. Florida's noncompliant status is not an adequate justification to disqualify two million votes.

The number of people involved in this dispute couldn't fill up a school bus, yet they've decided that two million voters will not be represented at the DNC convention, potentially altering the outcome of the nomination, and possibly the outcome of the general election.

Florida voters are caught in the middle of a hissing war where the DNC Chairman Howard Dean and the Florida Democratic Party are not playing well together. This should not be the voters' problem because the voters didn't create this mess. If the DNC wants to punish the Florida Democratic Party, find another punishment, but to shut out two million voices to settle an inter-organizational dispute is totalitarianism.

No third party/parties may take away a person's right to vote, FOR ANY REASON. One vote or two million votes can not be taken away to serve the interests of the DNC.

It's not about who benefits from ceding the delegates, or if the results of a new election would tip the scales in favor of any candidate. It's not about any agreements made between Hillary, John, and Barack in the primary not to acknowledge the voters and their appointed delegates. A citizen's vote is not a unit of measurement for them to barter with; it's not about fairness to either of the candidates- they don't decide the fate of anyone's vote, and it's not about an internal dispute over a date on a calendar.

IT'S ABOUT THE RIGHT TO VOTE

When a voter goes to cast a vote for President, it is with the knowledge they will be represented according to who wins the popular vote in his or her district. A voter also accepts the absoluteness of two possible outcomes. One: The candidate will win and delegates will be ceded at the convention to vote according to the outcomes. Two: The candidate will lose and another candidate will receive the support of the delegates.

Florida voters had no say in moving the primary date, and their votes should carry the full weight of representative democracy to the floor of the convention. If the January 15 primary is dated and not an accurate representation of voters today, then Florida should have another primary.

If all the votes are not counted, the nominee, and possibly the next President, will have a legitimacy deficit............like the president we have now, and it will again point to Florida.

If the interests of Florida are not represented, there is a strong case to exempt all Floridians from federal income taxes. By denying Floridian and Michiganers representation, less than 300 super delegates will determine the outcome of the Democratic Nomination. history.

Howard Dean is on a power trip, and he needs to be removed from his post if he insists on denying any American equal representation at the DNC Convention.

The super delegates could be nuetralized by allowing new primaries in Florida and Michigan.

Both Clinton and Obama signed up for a system where party leaders and elected officials could hold the deciding votes. Both camps also signed up for a system where the DNC could disenfranchise voters if the state moved up their primary or caucus. It is simply sour grapes if either camp now complains about either aspect of the system that they both agreed to.

I do, however, think that the DNC should look at FL differently than MI. The Republican Party moved up the state vote in an effort to heighten the state's prominence and, I believe, to present the Dems with a dilemma. Mission actually accomplished this time.

Both candidates fudged the rules on FL in an effort to gain an advantage in the vote. Obama bought an ad that included, not coincidentally, the state of FL right before the vote. Clinton visited the state for fund raising purposes, not coincidentally, right before the vote. Both camps could have avoided both actions, but chose not to.

Regardless of both camps stretching the rules, I do not believe it is right or healthy for the party to disenfranchise democratic voters in FL becs republicans moved up the vote.

Barack Obama: he knows the meaning of "is".

I'll defer to your judgement on that. That they have been a minority in Arab lands for centuries may not be able to be said much longer. I think the Christians in Iraq, Syria, Iran, and other middle east countries are in the process of being driven out.

rd

Ralph, I don't think Rezko converted to Christianity just to blend in with Chicagoans. Christians have been a minority in Arab lands for centuries. Any annotated New Testament will often contain references starting with the abbreviation "Syr.", indicating a Syriac translation was used as the source for a given word or verse.

Actually Hillary didn't say it, I meant Ickes about te automatic delegate count.

rd

she's not going to win 65%. It's between 50% to 55% in her big state wins.

The seeking of automatic delegate votes went on from the beginning and continues daily from both sides. What hillary said was that she had a certain number committed to her that was larger than Obama's. There are many more uncommitted and some are changing their votes to Obama.

The delegates for Florida and Michigan are only 55 votes more for Hillary and they won't be seated if those 55 were to give Hillary the lead. If someone has the 2025 then at that point it makes no difference. The Florida and Michigan delegates can't be used to get to 2025, that's a number that excludes Michigan and Florida. The number goes higher with them.

rd

OK - according to the Clinton folks, this is the path to the nomination:

-win big in all the remaining contests and collect more delegates, cutting into Obama's lead

-win support of superdelegates by whatever means that can be done

-fight at the convention to get Michigan and Florida delegates seated

All three elements are pretty unlikely, and would be really ugly and divisive to accomplish. Even if Clinton were successful in getting the nomination, in the process she would have divided the party and turned off independent voters. In this scenario, she could very well end up losing to McCain.

Let's keep this from happening. If Clinton doesn't win Wisconsin, Hawaii, Ohio, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Texas 65-35 or better, or at least 5 out of 6 of these, she should withdraw from the race. Otherwise, she's choosing to slog it out to the convention, and nobody needs that, except McCain.

oh yeah, I guesss that's part of the whole thing. when in Chicago, do as chicagoans do.

thanks for the info. appreciate the feedback.

rd

treetopflyer, the purchase and ownership of $625,000 property for Obama when he bought his house both gave Obama a $625,000 lot as part of his mansion property for free and got him $300,000 off the price of his house. It can't be proved that Rezko didn't pick it up with the property purchase but that's a whole lot of free financing for Obama.

The letters thing is more than letters. It goes all the way back to all of Rezko's 17 properties paid for with taxdollars. Obama was involved all the way back in the church non-profit partnership for Rezko to qualify, the legal work, and then as political sponsor for more millions while Rezko was milking taxpayers dry.

A huge scam. That's what Obama's history is. It is not benign "oh shucks, I goofed" bad judgement or whatever Obama has tried to pass this off as.

Believe me, I'm being nice about it, and of course so are you. The Republican swiftboaters will tie this intimacy with a a Syrian Muslim getting millions wired to him from sources in the middle east during this corruption indictment to national security imnplications of our potential commander in chief come October, you can count on it. Swift boating at its ugliest is what America has in store this fall.

rd

Oh, by the way, Ralph, just to correct you on one thing. According to the salon.com article, Rezko's Christian, not Muslim. Not that he's practiced christian charity, muslim zakat or just plain human decency, though.

Obama hasn't admitted these lies about Rezko. He just told them.

For that matter, he hasn't admitted to anything except being a drug user. A felony drug user with cocaine, as pointed out above.

The rest of his lies are just that, still lies.

rd

Obma hasn't admitted these lies about Rezko. He just told them.

rd

Ralph,

Thanks for your comments. I've done a little more reading, and it's obvious Rezko is not someone you'd want to marry your daughter. That said, I think the most level-headed assessment of Obama's actions was in the salon.com article about him:

"James L. Merriner, an Illinois political expert who has conducted the only interview with Rezko since his indictment, says Obama has done 'nothing illegal. It's just unsavory.'"

(http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/01/rezko/index1.html)

I think it's believable when Obama said that in writing letters to fellow IL legislators to get public funding for Rezko's projects that he was thinking in terms of getting low income housing for his constituents. It seems like there was nothing illegal going on, and that the only blatant political figure was the getting that kid the Washington internship. What gives me more pause is that it puts his judgment, something that he's made a cornerstone of his campaign, into question. I really need to read up more on this and chew on it before I come to a final decision. My guess is I'll still come down on Obama's side, but this is obviously something that bears looking into.

See, an Obama nut can actually refrain from insulting those who disagree with him and be interested in examining his candidate, warts and all.

I am a bit curious as to all the statements that Clinton has states that were lies as well. If your going to air dirty laundry, why not bring those up too?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekNceS2zJtY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46REHGSwc_8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt2_XKeKTGI

Just a few of her many lies. So don't try to parse words, your candidate is not perfect either. At least Obama can admit when he was wrong.

you're welcome.

rd

TO ALL COMMENT POSTERS:

I would like to THANK those of you who have posted rational, thought-out conclusions, or have linked to information about the candidate's positions.

To the rest of you who (often repeatedly) exaggerate your opponent's positions and histories, or use purposely inflammatory words and lies such as "coronation of sleazy Queen Hillary" or "Obama the muslim cocaine-smoker": SHAME ON EVERY ONE OF YOU. Each and every one of you should be deeply ashamed for engaging in precisely the tactics which you CLAIM the other side is using against your favored candidate.

Those of you who do this are no better than the swift-boaters. You claim the moral high ground while at the same time abandoning it completely.

I should like to feel proud of the Democratic party and its supporters, as all of us are ready for a positive change after the catastrophe of the Bush years. But instead, you only shame yourselves, and make your whole party look like dirt in the process.

All it does is uselessly polarize the Hillary-vs-Obama debate, and ends up with comments from both sides to the effect of "good luck winning the nomination without 1/2 of the party's support!" If the eventual Dem nominee does lose some of the party's support, consider yourself part of the problem - and duly warned.

Clinton supporters see nasty comments towards their candidate and thus choose never ever to support Obama. Obama supporters see nasty comments towards their candidate and thus choose never ever to support Clinton. What nonsense is this!

Of course, we all should remember that the folks who take the time to post in forums like this one tend to be the most vitriolic ones, with the least regard for rational discussion. Please remember these fools do not reflect how most Democrats think or behave. In forums such as this, the worst elements inevitably come out to play.

Before you go spouting off about how one or the other candidate is deficient on the issues, do us all a favor and actually LEARN about them.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/

Thank you in advance.

Well said for now.
It seems that most Democrats are now obsessed with a movie star.
I will vote for Sen Mccain
He is definitely a better choice at this point that the hoopla with no reasoning from Obama. He sounds like George Bush Jr or Ronald Reagan ( another movie star) but with liberal rhetoric.

I don't need youtube to tell me the difference of credibility in the hundreds of detailed statements that Hillary has made on what she will do versus the hope and change rhetoric from Obama.

rd

Lets listen to the two candidates speak for themselves and you decide who is the more honest, respectable and trustworthy Presidential Candidate......http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQY_9ZcsjpQ&NR=1

Lets listen to the two candidates speak for themselves and you decide who is the more honest, respectable and trustworthy Presidential Candidate......http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQY_9ZcsjpQ&NR=1

teeetopflyer, the sources are the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times and their ongoing investigations and articles. I got wind if it from an ABC News article a couple of weeks ago and read the Chicago investigation articles.

The reasonn the Rezko link to Obama's house and property wasn't publicized before was because it just came out in paperwork Rezko filed in bail paperwork trying to stay out of jail (unsuccessfully due to millions of dollars being wired to him mysteriously from middle east). He was forced to divulge his interest in Obama's property, and reporters saw it was done same day.

Obama refuses to answer Chicago reporters questions on it. And he just blatantly lied to all Americans in the debate when he said Rezko was someone he did about five hours worth of legal work for several years ago.

He lies effortlessly. He also lied about not knowing the father of an intern in his Senate office who is an associate of Rezko used to funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars to Obama.

rd

teeetopflyer, the sources are the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times and their ongoing investigations and articles. I got wind if it from an ABC News article a couple of weeks ago and read the Chicago investigation articles.

The reasonn the Rezko link to Obama's house and property wasn't publicized before was because it just came out in paperwork Rezko filed in bail paperwork trying to stay out of jail (unsuccessfully due to millions of dollars being wired to him mysteriously from middle east). He was forced to divulge his interest in Obama's property, and reporters saw it was done same day.

Obama refuses to answer Chicago reporters questions on it. And he just blatantly lied to all Americans in the debate when he said Rezko was someone he did about five hours worth of legal work for several years ago.

He lies effortlessly. He also lied about not knowing teh fater of an intern in his Senate office who is an associate of Rezko used to funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars to Obama.

rd

The argument about Florida and Michigan delegates is a silly one. Voters in both states knew long before hand they had been stripped of their delegates for non compliance with DNC rules.

To call either election fair is just a fancy. Obama was and still is in some areas a name that was not familiar, and Hillary Clinton is a house hold name because of her husband and the divisiveness of the 1990s.

The argument that either will not show up for democrats in November is a ridiculous one at best.

What needs to be done at this point is figuring out a way to make sure this fiasco never occurs again.

The rules were made and they should be stood by at this time. They also should be revisited after the election along with some of others.

in the past we wanted change so badly and got president Carter (a disaster). no more. we need an experience president on day one - go clinton

Excellent post amassa!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq7VCQO5siU
10 minutes on whether Hillary can win

and its longer version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdDzvmY1XPo

are both excellent discussions by Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig on how both Clinton vs. McCain and a Obama vs. McCain elections would turn out and why.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig
"Lawrence Lessig (born June 3, 1961) is an American academic. He is a professor of law at Stanford Law School and founder of its Center for Internet and Society. He is founder and CEO of the Creative Commons and a board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and of the Software Freedom Law Center, launched in February 2005. He is best known as a proponent of reduced legal restrictions on copyright, trademark and radio frequency spectrum, particularly in technology applications."

I absolutely agree, mamamia and atomicfront.

well said.

The CNN reference is to alwin.zachariah post.

rd

Ralph - can you cite a credible source for your charges? I'm not saying there isn't one, but would like to see it for myself.

I really hope you people will not forget that the enemy of Democrats are the republicans that want to extend this never ending, unpopular war.

If you look at the two candidates they are 98% the same on the issues. Their personalities are different sure and their paths are a little different. Both have used different strategies, and gotten different results. They are both politicians and prone to spinning things in their own right.

Obama is offering something new, exciting, and unpredictable. This scares a lot of you.

Clinton offers a chance to reclaim part of the 90s. She has been vetted by the Republicans who have attacked her endlessly. Some will say this is her biggest strength and why she will win in November, but the fact there is so much to relive with her is the reason the Republicans want to go up against her. They feel they have a better shot against her than Obama. Of course, some don't want to admit to this, so they claim it will be easier against Obama.

The fact that Obama has not been on the national stage is the reason why they want to go after him. Unfortunately, he is driving November election turn outs during the Primaries. This scares the crap out of the Republicans. Even worse, the moderates in their party are siding with him. I have heard the arguments that they wont stay with him. That the new voters won't stay either. This is all speculation, and it is based on past trends from year to year elections. I feel that the turns outs in the primaries are a good indication that past trends have been bucked.

Both candidates have their weakness. Clinton's is her past, her lack of real executive experience (just like Obama), and her stubbornness. It is the reason her health care plan failed before, and unfortunately it will be the same this time. She is just as stubborn as she was before, despite what she claims (look at this race as an example of this), and this time she is trying to spin it to get it perceived as a strength. It is not.

Obama wants to talk to everyone. His weakness is that he is a little bit naive, not real executive experience, and I think he under estimates the challenges in front of him. If he gets into the oval office he will be on a learning curve, just like Bill Clinton, and just like George W. Bush. His message is more positive than Clinton, and while he can not possibly get everything done that he wants to, he will get some stuff moving in the right direction.

The republicans also play a part in this election. Right or wrong, the Republicans will form a stone wall if Clinton is elected. The 90's were divisive times though we don't really like to admit it. It is just like the last 7 years. The economic boom of the 90's was not due to the Clintons. It was because of the tech bubble, and the Federal reserve making good calls. The chairman was already serving when Bill was president, and all that he did was ensure that the same guy kept the post.

We are heading into uncertain times. We have two potential leaders in the democratic party. They both have strengths and they both have weaknesses. They are evenly matched either way among voters.

Obama is probably the strongest of the two just because the Republicans don't have nearly as much to throw at him. But that doesn't mean they won't try. They are already calling him by his middle name like children.

The biggest problem right now for the democrats is that they have two senators vying for the office of President of the United States. Either one, is going to weaken the senate when they leave, as the democrats barely have a majority at the moment.

Clinton does represent the past. She can be the future, but at best, that future is only more of what we have now.

Obama represents change to lead to the future. He presents something different than the status quo, but it is not a sure thing. The worse that can happen with him is a maintaining of the status quo.

I really hope that if either candidate gets the nod that the true democrats will line up behind them. I can not promise you that the moderates will vote for Clinton. I can not promise you that those "annoying" masses of new Obama supporters will true out for Clinton either. The democrats have a lot more enthusiasm than the republicans right now.

I do ask that you please realize that these candidates are two of the best that the party has put up in a long time.

I leave you with this last reminder. Before, Reagan stepped forward to Unite this nation in 1980, that the political field was similar to what it is now. We were a nation divided. There were red states and blue states. Reagan managed to transcend the politics of the day with a message of unity at a time when the US was ready. He carried all but 6 states plus DC that year. Four years later, he carried all but 1 state and DC.

We have two leaders now. One is a fighter and probably can get some stuff done. The other is a uniter in a time when the American public wants change.

The choice is up to us. Both will be a change. The goal, I think, should be duplicating what Reagan did in 1980. What Johnson did in 1964. What FDR did in 1932.

I think you've totally lost your mind. There's nothing like that on CNN. You're hallucinating. Maybe drank too much of Obama's kool-aide.

rd

Florida's delegation should be seated. Both candidates had an equal chance at the delegates and the move to strip the delegates from Florida was idiotic to say the least. Florida along with Ohio are states that Democrats need to win if they want to become president. Why alienate a whole state so South Carolina can have more of say. No way South Carolina votes for a democrat anyway.

The Super Delegates should vote for whomever they want to. This is how the rules work. Just like caucus voters are not a public election the super delegates have descretion whom to vote for.

Michigan should have another primary. Let the democrats pay for it.

As to the fact that right now Obama is slightly a head of McCain in polling that is immaterial. Do you really think that will last. Wait until the republicans start airing commericals against Obama then he will start to fall. Obama has been lucky in the primaries becuase Hillary has run a very nice campaign. That will not happen in the general election.

'how much they'll spend investigating Obama who gained hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Syrian Muslim on trial for political corruption'.
we need change not investigations.
WE NEED A DOER NOT A PREACHER.
WE NEED EXPERIENCE NOT A DREAMER

GO HILLARY!!!!

Mr. Ickes is really showing signs of desperation with in the Clinton camp. All we have as voters are hollow comments with no substance (hot air) when these guys talk.

Hillary has gone on record (according to CNN) that she will quit the democratic party is she does not get nominated.
If I have any sanity left in me, why should I be supporting a QUITTER like Hillary (unless I've totally lost my mind, reasons that I can't explain).

I lost all the respect for Hillary when she play unfair politics and mud-slinging. She called a truce and now she back to her old self.

I hope she (Hillary) reads this. He latest comments are really not helping her, rather leave her more vulnerable to failure

"The best way we could have met the people is through a debate that is televised and everyone could have watched and drawn their own conclusions," Clinton said when asked why she had limited her campaign appearances in Wisconsin.

She always seems to want to change the past. You cannot lead a nation always looking in the rear view mirror.

I can understand the Clinton camp's frustration with the Florida and Michigan situations. If those states had been contested properly, HRC had an excellent chance of winning them and would probably still have the delegate lead. However, what's done is done and gearing up for a fight to change the rules mid-stream does nothing but portray HRC as desperate and petty. It's simply not possible for the Democratic nominee to emerge from the convention having won in that manner. It's too Bush-like and just the idea that she is seriously considering it as a strategy lessens her appeal. There's no way those delegates are going to get seated in a manner that gives her an advantage so she might as well stop talking about it and sounding like she wants to steal the election.

I will vote McCain if obama is the Demo to run

To all Clinton and Obama supporters: please watch this video by famous Stanford Law prof. L. Lessig.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq7VCQO5siU

goldmdm, so you think Hillary, probably the 2nd most polarizing democrat (after Bill), is going to attract more independent voters than Obama?

The polls do not agree with you and show Obama as the stronger candidate against McCain.

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

Obama has been attacting more independents and previously unregistered voters, these are more of a threat to McCain rather than less.

Hillary would get out the vote for sure in November, unfortunately it would be the Republican vote.

Vote for a winner in November, vote Obama '08.

treetopflyer - Obama funnelled 41 million dollars of taxpayer money to Rezko for low income housing renovation, and Rezko walked away from all 17 properties leaving poor tenants freezing without heat. That's what Obama did for Rezko, helped make him a wealthy man by ripping off taxpayers.

And still Obama went to him just three years ago after beig elected Senator to get financial help buying his Chicago house and property, even though Rezko was supposed to be bankrupt, leaving thousands of Obama's former constituents in abandoned buildings.

Rezko and his associates, who Obama bought into with on some deals, skimmed millions of dollars of taxpayer money and then funnelled hundreds of thousands back as campaign contributions. He was Obama's main financier.

Rezko bought a $625,000 property for Obama along with Obama buying his house for 1.6 million, getting $300,000 off the house but none off the property Rezko bought.

This is serious money. For example, Republicans spent 70 million dollars of taxpayer money investigating $40,000 the Clintons lost in a land investment.

Just think how much they'll spend investigating Obama who gained hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Syrian Muslim on trial for political corruption.

rd

If the Clinton's steal the nomination from senator Obama, I will not vote for them. America deserves better and is tired of the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton dinasties. The Clintons should get out of the way and give a chance to the new generation.
Go Obama!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha,
You people are idiots, all of you and your really stupid opinions hahahahahha.

The dems have already lost, neither person will win.

"I won't vote if Obama wins! I won't vote if Hillary wins"!

What the suck is that about. If what you idiots say is true no one is going too vote for a dem. So all you idiots lose. Get a life garbage heads. You clowns blew a chance to make history.hahahaha you sit at your computer's spewing this garbage!

Like someone really sucking cares if you don't vote for him or her.

Believe me when I tell you if just 25% of Obama supports don't vote Hillary loses. If just 5% of African Americans don't vote for her she's lost. So you sit here pissing off Obama and Hillary supports and in one or two months you clowns will be begging for Obama or Hillary supports to vote for a dems ..listen clowns it ain't going to happen.Hate loves hate. Stop dragging your knuckles on the ground!

So you idiots just keep it up, keep showing each other how stupid you really are. I was a dem until I started reading these blogs, but you dems ain't about nothing,never will be, the same racist,sexist party you were when you support lynching and segregation in the south. Grow the suck up.

Don't you apes smell the other apes fanny? If you don't stick together you lose. But your deep racism and sexism won't let you smell the crap that's coming out of your own mouths and bodies.

It's not the candidates that suck it's the idiots that have too vote for them that suck, you! America has 300 million loser running around.

Somebody needs to drop a bomb on all of us. The internet is the biggest mirror in the world. The man or women in the mirror is you and you are a really ugly, pathetic, excuse for for a human being. Willing to cut off your nose to spite your clown faces, so filled with hate. Clowns you deserve what you get, which is nothing, sucking losers!

Obama can't win jackass if Hillary loses and Hillary can't win if Obama loses.

That's where you clowns are at how pathetic, you blew your chance too change the world. Racism and sexism wins again.

Look at how you fools are talking too each other.......

One other thing I wanted to mention, agreeing with a previous comment -- although mainstream Democrats may not run from Obama if he is the candidate, McCain will retain and add more independents. In the end, more will vote for him rather than Obama. So, yes, McCain and company will be ecstatic if Obama gets the nomination. It is a long, long time until the general election. By then, the initial infatuation with Obama will have greatly waned, many independents and moderate Democrats will have "snapped out" of the Obama trance and McCain will be elected. So, yes, Obama is the choice of the Republicans for sure.

Economicaly, I should be a Republican. In fact I used to be one.

I became a Democrat after a near-death experience.

I decided I wanted to help the less fortunate, and decided to focus on health care.

Edwards and Clinton both have great health care plans.

Obama's plan stinks.

Obama's supporters remind me of a bunch of drugged-out moonies.

They need universal health care more than anyone else, especially mental health care.

If Obama gets elected they think that he'll legalize pot, when in fact, he'll run in the opposite direction because of his drug history.

I've yet to meet a single clear-headed Obama supporter, or one that had a good grasp of any of the issues.

In the final analysis, its not going to hurt me if Obama gets nominated, but its going to hurt the poor.

The saddest thing is that the people who believe in Obama the deepest will be hurt by him the most.

I have always viewed the Clintons as "corporacrats" (I coined this myself) They work for the benefit of the mega- corporations; using the political party that fits their agenda best. Look at the heartbreaks associated with NAFTA. Hillary's suspiciously hidden long term ties to "her favorite" the Wal-Mart corporation puts her political aspirations in question. Until she ran for New York Senate she was a major board of directos\'s member for over 14 years. So if Hillary gets her way, the nation will get the opportunity to pay for all the poverty level,mistreated, part time Wal-Mart worker's health insurance. With no union, Wal-Mart loves Hillary. It is rather like Bush using the US military as free labor to fight his family's oil war that was so carefully planned since the end of WWII.

Read the constitution,there is no dog in the hunt. We are in deep trouble on both sides. We are headed for the USSA.

Sen. Clinton has said that superdelegates should vote for the person they believe will be the best candidate. People should consider, though, how Sen. Clinton has gained superdelegate commitments as long as a full year ago (see: "Blacks in Congress Torn . .. " Wash Post article) How could a member of Congress have known a year ago who the best general election candidate would be? That's some serious foresight.

The sad truth may be that early committing superdelegates are solely considering personal benefit rather than trying to determine who can best represent the party. Consider a few scenarios. Let's say Bill calls a member of Congress and says that he'd love to lend a hand campaigning and fundraising for that person's '08 reelection campaign. Or, imagine if Bill tells the state Dem party chairperson for, say, Idaho that he'd sure like to speak at their annual fundraising banquet. Suffice it to say that the Clintons have means of influencing superdelegates that have nothing whatsoever to do with Sen Clinton's qualifications or electability.

The only hope for the health of the Dems is that its leadership won't let Bill's influence win the nomination if Hillary can't seize the lead through ballot boxes and caucuses. It wouldn't be surprising if there's a pattern among superdelegates committing to Clinton. Superdelegates facing a fight for his or her seat in '08 or leading an organization with urgent fundraising needs were probably more inclined to commit to Clinton early.

Obama has next to no experience to be the President of the United States of America. I don't even like Hillary Clinton -- never did, but if I had to choose between her and Obama, I'd choose Hillary because I would like to have someone who has some semblence of what issues are at stake in this Country and the specifics of how to carry out such plans. Obama is a cheerleader. It's amazing to see how easily people respond like sheep to his oratories. He has a great voice quality and is extremely adept at motivating people with generalities and rhetoric. I need to stop being so surprised by how dumb people can be. The backlash to GW is to ordain a person who chants "Change" with promises that will never materialize. No wonder cults are full of people! Barack Hussein Obama, the United States answer to defending out Country agains Muslim extremists. Note to the Middle Class - hide your money because both he and Hillary are coming to take it away and give to all those parasitic constituents of theirs who just love not having to work. The Obama supporters are completely in a trance when he speaks, and all the hard-working American citizens are going to pay for it.

Sen. Clinton has said that superdelegates should vote for the person they believe will be the best candidate. People should consider, though, how Sen. Clinton has gained superdelegate commitments as long as a full year ago (see: "Blacks in Congress Torn . .. " Wash Post article) How could a member of Congress have known a year ago who the best general election candidate would be? That's some serious foresight.

The sad truth may be that early committing superdelegates are solely considering personal benefit rather than trying to determine who can best represent the party. Consider a few scenarios. Let's say Bill calls a member of Congress and says that he'd love to lend a hand campaigning and fundraising for that person's '08 reelection campaign. Or, imagine if Bill tells the state Dem party chairperson for, say, Idaho that he'd sure like to speak at their annual fundraising banquet. Suffice it to say that the Clintons have means of influencing superdelegates that have nothing whatsoever to do with Sen Clinton's qualifications or electability.

The only hope for the health of the Dems is that its leadership won't let Bill's influence win the nomination if Hillary can't seize the lead through ballot boxes and caucuses. It wouldn't be surprising if there's a pattern among superdelegates committing to Clinton. Superdelegates facing a fight for his or her seat in '08 or leading an organization with urgent fundraising needs were probably more inclined to commit to Clinton early.

cvhch

why do we need to forget obama's drug use and attending a madrasa, but remember that clinton voted for the war. go hillary

why do we need to forget obama's drug use and attending a madrasa, but remember that clinton voted for the war. go hillary

The article neglects to mention that Mr. Ickes is himself a superdelegate - oh, excuse me, "automatic delegate." As is Sen. Clinton's husband. And her adviser/fundraiser Terry McAuliffe. I guess there's no such thing as recusal among superdelegates. Mr. Ickes is right. We shouldn't call them super. They don't exactly stand up for "truth, justice, and the American Way."

All right. I've read a couple of articles in the Chicago Sun Times about Rezko, one an interview with Obama and his relationship with the developer, the other an 8-point synopsis of the relationship. The URLs are:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article
http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/757340,CST-NWS-watchdog24.article

First off I'll freely admit I know next to nothing about real estate. Second, it seems that Rezko got no favors from Obama for his political contributions and Obama did not abuse his public trust to get money from Rezko. Aside from the ill timing of Obama's buying land at a fair value from Rezko when he was under indictment, nothing seems wrong here. Obama broke no laws and only damaged his own image, nothing else.

Which brings me to point three. Obama is quoted by the Sun Times as saying the deal was "boneheaded", that even though he'd received no special treatment from Rezko or vice versa, mere truth never stands in the way of a good innuendo where politics is concerned (my spin on his words). To me that means he at least has the guts to admit when he's made a mistake, he doesn't try to shade it or pretend it didn't happen. Far from throwing his character into doubt for me, doing the reading on this has confirmed my belief in him all the more.

It reminds me the China's culture revolutionary when I see the huge crowds at Mr.Obama's speech last week. At the begining of the culture revolutionary,the red guards want to get rid of the old and want changes. Mr.Obama is doing the same thing. I think Mr.Obama need more experience before he can be a world leader.

I'm an old, over 70, white male. A life long Republican. I cannot stand Bush and voted for Kerry in 04 and no one in 2000 since I thought, think, Gore is a loser. I would strongly consider voting for Obama because I think the country needs someone that can start to talk to the two sides. Not all Democrats are evil and the same is true of Republicans. I will also consider McCain. I think a race between Obama and McCain would be so refreshing. If it is McCain and Clinton then it will be another period of political hate leaving the winner with a nation divided and four more years of gotcha, gotcha, gotcha. Bottom line is I will never vote for Clinton but will give Obama a hard and favorable look.

It is the Republican's great hope the Clinton backdoor strategy works.

So many Democrats will be unable to ignore the Clintonian hypocrisy and theft of the nomination from Obama they will either sit it out or vote for McCain.

This is classic arrogant Clinton.

Of course, the Democrats are use to changing the rules to suit themselves, i.e., New Jersey, Washington State, Florida, etc. Just keep changing the rules and counting until you get the results you want--not the truth.

The Clintons are doing just what they did for eigth years. Hell, she could not find the Rose Law Firm records until the investigation closed then they turned up in her office!!

Got to love it--or puke!

yes we can elect hillary. i don't like a dreamer as a president i want experience.
if hillary is not the democratic nominee I will vote Republican.

yes we can elect hillary. i don't like a dreamer as a president i want experience.
if hillary is not the democratic nominee I will vote Republican.

If Clinton tries to take delegates from either Michigan or Florida when it was so clearly decided that those delegates would not be seated, it will be worse than the 2000 election as it would be more than obvious, particularly if she's behind in the popular vote and state delegates, that she's planning an end run around the will of the people. And have I got news for her; we're more than sick and tired of the last seven years of THAT happening. I am praying to God that the rest of these primaries/caucuses are decisive in Obama's favor.
Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania.....are U LISTENING? MAKE IT DECISIVE.

This choice is getting simple. Forget the rhetoric and fancy speeches. Even forget the policy promises. We know they will be changed during negotiations with Congress. Obama has shown the better administrative skills in this race by far. He started as a long shot and has caught the inevitable winner. He has out-campaigned his opponents, he has developed a better organization and he paid attention to the whole country. No other candidate, democrat or republican has accomplished this. He has shown to be the best leader whether or not he has less experience. After the last 7+ years, we could use someone who might bring the country together and run it right. Clinton or McCain haven't shown this ability through the campaign process.

When Clintons and their 'NY supporters' are in the room, you have to watch your wallet real close!

OBAMA ROBBED IN NY

"Truth is, in some districts getting a recount, the senator from Illinois is even close to defeating Hillary Clinton."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02162008/news/regionalnews/obama_robbed_in_ny_97932.htm

It's been so great to see Hillary showing her determination to lead our country especially now how our economy is going. Compared to Obama, Michelle wants the people of the United States to vote her husband because he is black. I am not sure that race is not one of the qualities to become a president. Well, too bad, we are intelligent voters. I have never heard any candidate in my whole life that would say to vote him or her because of his or her race. Michelle Obama tried to undermine our intelligence. There are black people that knew better than that. To be a president, you need to have experience, you have proven results. Now Obama's just running for the president, Obama and Michelle already showed their main goal.......their ambitious act to be president. Fortunately, all of us are seeing them with their selfish motives. It came from their mouth.......vote for us because we are black....not their qualifications. I love my country and I don't vote for who you are, whether you black, white, hispanic or asian, I am voting the best qualified candidate that have proven herself or himself, have the experience..not because he or she is black. Our economy is in unstable condition. Under the Clinton administration, our econmy was in good shape. We got surplus the. Hillary can do it again. We are becoming intelligent voters than ever. We cannot afford to have someone that does not have any experience and become on the job training. We suffered already under the Bush Adm. We don't want to suffer again. Viva America! Viva Hillary!

jovitman --

The fact I'm bothered by Obama's repeated cocaine use comes from the fact that I'm a parent.

Kids are constantly looking for role models.

By giving Obama a "get out of jail free card" we are sending a horrible message to our children.

Obama's messsage is that if you don't get caught and you publish it in a book, it doesn't matter that you committed multiple felonies.

That's morally indefensible.

If we choose Obama as our standard-bearer it sends the message that doing anyhing illegal is alright, as long as you don't get caught and have a silver tongue.

Obama is the most slick salesman I've seen in quite a while, but I'm lucky to have seen a lot of them over the years.

My personal experience has been that the slicker they are the less they deliver.

I'm sincerely concerned that Obama will be a disaster.

He's good a "faking it" but he doesn't know what he's doing, and it shows in every debate.

That's why I post.

In the perhaps futile hope that I can get at least one person seduced by Obama to focus on the issues instead.

Hillary didn't campaign in the states.

All the Democrats names were on the ballot in Florida. 1.7 million democrats voted in the Democrat primary, 52% voted for Hillary.

Obma did run national advertising that played here in Florida daily , Hillary did not.

As I posted earlier in this thread, there's only a 38 delegate difference between Hillary and Obama in the Florida delegates and 17 in the Michigan delegates.

Those 55 delegates shouldn't be counted to put Hillary in front of Obama, but if one or the other gets 2025 (which of course requires some of the 795 automatic delegates to get there) then itr's no big deal to seat them at that point.

The 2025 figure raises if Florida and Michigan count, so it's not like they can help to get to 2025.

And it's only 55 delegates difference. Basically Democrats are too politically correct and did this because of Jesse Jackson. So we're basically screwed unless they go back to a winner take all system as normal elections including the Republican primaries are done.

rd

I have been reading all the blogs and those who are real democrats are missing a big picture. We are all forgetting that a wide rift that is happening between Obama and hillary Clinton is going to help tremendously and they do not have to do much to acheve division in Democrats and walk away with another victory in 2008. I have heard big promises from candidates but they sound the same in election rhetorics. What we need is majority in house and senate and the bickering between Democratic candidates is not going to achieve that. Any president is not going to achieve if he is not going to get comfortable majority in the house and senate. Republicans have already picked their candidate and they can now concentrate on increasing their numbers in the house and senate. I hope and pray that the people in charge of Democratic party wake up and see where these wide rift between Obama and Hillary Clinton is going to affect the Democrats in the bigger picture.

I guess the Hillary supporters have no "accomplishments" to set forth in this forum.

Svreader, we're waiting. Also waiting for an explanation from you as to why the Clintons' association with Rezko, Norman Hsu, Marc Rich and the MacDougals are acceptable to you....

About Florida and Michigan...

I think many people are missing the big idea here. Florida and Michigan decided to be special and show the U.S. that there votes are significant by going against the schedule established by the Democratic Convention.

Obama and Edwards followed the mandate by Howard Dean, leader of Democratic Convention, by not putting their names on the ballot and not campaigning there.

Hillary went against her party's mandate (can anyone say say-anthing do anything-politics) in order to claim a "win" and get her name in the newspaper headlines as having won "Florida."

Clinton broke the rules! They all agreed not to campaign in these two states! Obama's and Edwards' names were not on the ballot!

Should the delegates be counted as they stand? Heck no.

As usual, the Clintons are being unfair and they don't even make sense.

And yes, the only way to give these two states the respect they deserve by having the votes count is by a revote. But the Clintons dont want to re-vote for two reasons:

1. They are probably scared to lose.
2. Because ballot voting would be too expensive to reproduce, they'd have to do a caucus and Obama has won every single caucus. Again, scared to lose.

Obviously, I support Obama. But up is up and down is down. It's plain to see that to count those votes as they stand right now would simply not be fair.

Three students in my son's 7th Grade class independently chose to recite Obama speeches during this month's speech tournament. No one is reciting a Clinton, Hilary or Bill. I'm not voting for someone who boasts of her record fighting Republicans. I'm voting for Senator Obama who inspires me, my son, his friends to do better, to want better. They've got The Hope. I've got The Hope.

People don't despair. If Hillary's name is not on the ballot for the General Election, we can write her name in.

I won't vote for McCain and I won't vote for Obama, but I can make a statement, and my vote will be counted that the DNC was stupid to interfere with the delegates from Florida and Michigan, and also to let Obama get away with dictating how anything is going to be done - with those delegates or the super delegates.

It bothers me that Obama sends memos every day, some times several times a day, to the media to tell them what they can and cannot say, and Obama gets to tell the Media what the delegate count is. Doesn't anyone out there know for sure?

Obama is very arrogant, haughty, and his "uniting" and "hope" and reaching across party "lines," doesn't fit with what he has done to this country - he has set civil right movement back 75 years. I don't see anything "uniting," about what Obama has done, it is more like "divide and conquer." gw.

If Obama's take-no-prisoners momentum continues to shove Clinton aside, is that not unlike the Bush/Cheney go-it-alone march on Baghdad that Barack railed against as being so obviously short-sighted and stupid?

Posted by: 4to125characters | February 16, 2008 03:43 PM
*********************************
I can't claim to be enough of a poet to understand the basis for that analogy, but I do remember that Clinton was a big supporter of marching on Baghdad.

elme13: Your comments were very informative. I have been trying to get people's attention to the Obama/Rezko 17 year relationship ever since Obama said in a recent debate that he "only did about five hours of work for a church doing business with Rezko."

To find out what I have learned researching Obama, it is obvious Obama is a liar of some sort, pathological or regular liar, I am not sure, but a liar in any case.

A seventeen year association with someone is not to be sluffed off as only five hours of work.

To add to your comments, Rezko was picked up by the FBI, when he was free before trial, because he was "moving large sums of money around."

I am glad you filled us in on the Obama/Rezko political involvements. I was sure that REzko and Obama are trying to "fix" and buy this election for Obama. I believe it more than ever now. gw.

I'm resigned to John McCain being elected president. The majority of Americans aren't going to vote for a person as our commander in chief whose political mentor is a Syrian Muslim jailed awaiting trial on political corruption because of all the mysterious millions of dollars he was being wired from the middle east, and who bought and still owns through an associate Obama's Chicago mansion property for Obama when Obama went to him for "help and advice" after being elected a Senator.

This despite Rezko just having been publically indicted at the time.

No, not very many are going to entrust this guy as our commander in chief.

rd

I am always curious when people are saying that the Michigan and Flordia should be seated so their votes would count.
No one seems to mention the people who were told their votes would not count and chose not to take time out of their busy day to vote. Changing of the rules would disenfranchise them twice. The 1st time when their state party decided to not follow the DNC rules and 2nd when the delegates are seated at the convention who did not represent their choice.

I want to sum up a little bit of what I've been saying in a slightly more coherent post.

Essentially the point of what I've been getting at is that Clinton's campaign is centered around a claim of competence that's not well-supported. There's plenty of evidence that Barack Obama is just as good, perhaps better, at getting things done, and that his judgment is just as good as hers, perhaps better.

Obama's campaign has been about his admittedly general vision for how government should function. He essentially believes that a bad system with good people produces bad results, and that the system we have right now is a bad one.

His vision is that the system be designed so that an active electorate holds elected officials accountable for being honest and for representing everyone's interests equally. That's why his campaign finance legislation in Illinois placed a heavy emphasis on disclosure, it's why he worked on the "Google for government" bill to make government spending more transparent, it's why he wanted to work on ethics legislation in the Senate, and it's why he's placed such a heavy emphasis on organizing volunteers and getting new voters engaged.

I contrast that with Hillary, who's shown little interest in the broader flaws with the system in Washington, and who is apparently satisfied that an election with only one candidate on the ballot, or an election without campaigning, constitutes an acceptable brand of democracy.

I recognize that a vision so nebulous and broad as Obama's is easy to mistake for fluff -- especially when it's couched in very poetic language. But I think it's a mistake to underestimate Obama's intelligence or his drive, and I think many Clinton supporters are missing the fundamental idea of his candidacy.

Now that it appears that Clinton will not be a shoo-in for the nomination, her campaign wants to change the rules which were agreed to by all before the primaries and caucuses began.

The only fair way to seat the delegates at the Democratic Convention would be to rerun the primaries in both Michigan and Florida, with BOTH Clinton AND Obama on the ballot. There should be enough lead time beforehand to allow reasonable campaigning. Since the DNC created this mess, they should have to foot the bill to rerun these primaries.

I believe that if Obama gets on the DNC ticket, my voice/vote will go unheard for yet another presidential term. I would vote for him, but he's untested, so I could not vote for him this go around which means the GOP might stay in the White House and that would suck.

"Be prepared WI, TX & OH, to witness the Clintons descending to the darkest depths of gutter politics, a place they both call home."

Yeah, this is true. But where were all you people the first time around? How come people couldn't see this before? How big does the sign have to get before people can read the writing?

Be prepared WI, TX & OH, to witness the Clintons descending to the darkest depths of gutter politics, a place they both call home. Their disingenuous attempt to seat the bogus delegates from FL & MI is utterly nauseating. Cheating, lying, distorting, triangulating are all second nature to the Clintons. Their arrogant sense of entitlement and ruthless determination to extend the Bush/Clinton dynasty at any cost should make all Americans turn their collective backs in disgust.

The Clintons epitomize the broken, dysfunctional status quo. For sixteen, long years they have fueled the rabid, polarizing partisan division that has crippled Washington.

Barack Obama represents the opportunity to reject the failed politics of the past and unite Americans around an uplifting, inspirational vision for the future. Those, whom have never felt a reason worth participating in the political process, are supporting Barack in record, unprecedented numbers. They have found in Barack Obama a candidate worthy of believing in. He is a man of integrity, wisdom, and compassion with the strength to take on the political machines that are determined to destroy his message of hope and unity.

Our nation is at a historic crossroad, facing enormous challenges both at home and across the world. It is time to seize this moment in history, look to the future with an optimistic, unyielding resolve and make Barack Obama the next President of the United States.

Robert Luciano- Atlanta, GA

Check out the phony, pandering fraud....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu9TQq0C3Ac&NR=1

Sorry Hillary folks...there is more and more mounting evidence that your candidate cares more about a "victory" than she does about the Democratic Party and making sure we have a Democratic President in the White House next November.

I am puzzled and saddened.

A friend in Ohio, an Independent who is sick of GW Bush and WANTS to vote Democratic this time (he won't tell me who he voted for in 2004, so I assume it must have been the Shrub) said -- "That is, of course, unless you guys screw it up somehow!"

Well -- this unseemly potential campaign "Deathmatch" promised by Ickes and HRC will almost guarantee a loss in November.

Now, go at me, Hillary folks. Talk about how evil I am, how I am a robot, how you won't vote for Obama because I am so horrible!

(BTW: I will vote for Hillary, if she is the nominee -- I just don't think she will win.)

It is very sad. Remember when we all used to post our criticisms of the GOP and the Bush Administration on these sites? Now, if you say your honest opinion about a cadidate's electability or election strategy, you get nasty comments directed at you that used to be directed toward Karl Rove.

What have we come to, fellow Democrats?

This in-party fighting saddens me (and I am an independent). I believe The Clintons behave this way because they believe they can get away with it.

Every time Bill and Hillary have done something reprehensible democratic voters have rushed to forgive them. Whether it's cattle futures, the Rose Law firm, Whitewater, Travelgate, HillaryCare or serial adultery, there has never been a shortage of democrats to rush forward as apologists to defend them and vote for them. I, along with half the country, have always distrusted them.

But it gives me no pleasure to watch this Frankenstein, created by naivety, tear the democratic party apart. I just wish they would go away, and let the country move forward. I do hope some folks now realize that where there's smoke there often is fire. It's burning us all now.

Hillary voted to authorize the war in Iraq, now she's against it. She was for removing FL and MI delegates, now against it. She was for NAFTA, and now against it. This pattern certainly tends to reinforce the image of the Clintons as spineless poll-driven milquetoasts.

Hillary should just take the gloves off and call Obama out for the fraud that he is.

It's absolutely disgraceful that the Clintons would do anything to win despite what's best for the party!

How can the Dems continue to support anyone who brazenly deceives and manipulates the public, the media, and now the DNC!!

What a nightmare. Next time, I'll register "un-decided" - it's become far to difficult to call myself a democrat amongst sociopaths like these.

(email FORWARD this message to everybody on your email list -- because nobody is
going to hear about this on the TV "News")

...Guess WHO wants to SELL YOU an Obama...

Dick Cheney, Excelon, Entergy, GE, Westinghouse and 3 Consortiums
of other corporations.

...Guess HOW they are SELLING YOU an Obama ...

GE owns NBC & MSNBC. Westinghouse owns CBS.

They're Selling Obama every day all day long ...on the TV "news" - while
pretending they're just "reporting the NEWS, as usual". NBC/MSNBC have been
so blatantly and obviously selling Obama & slamming the Clintons one of their
guest talking heads from the newspaper media (Craig Crawford) said: "I just have to say this Clinton bashing has gone so far out there it verges on insanity."

EXACTLY. Their Pro-Obama Propaganda & Clinton-bashing was so obvious,
so fake, such blatant outrageous nonsense ... it prompted me
to start looking for the reason WHY.

This is what I found:

Excelon, Entergy, Ge, Westinghouse, are planning to build 29 new nuclear power plants - Thanks to: Dick Cheney &
"The Cheney Energy Bill" - H.R.6 - passed by Congress in 2005.

No new nukes have been built in the U.S. for 30 years -because the banks
wouldn't loan money to build them - too risky. Dick Cheney's Energy Bill
solved that problem for them by specifying the Federal Government (US Taxpayers) would GUARANTEE payback of those loans.

Congress passed H.R. 6 - despite the Congressional BUDGET Office's
rating of loans to build nuclear power plants at 50% or greater Risk of default.

Obama voted FOR the Cheney Energy Bill. One of his largest contributors
since the beginning of his career in politics has been ... Excelon Corp.
based in his home state of Illinois; largest nuclear power plant operator
on the planet; owner of Con-Ed of New York. Excelon is planning to build some
of those 29 new nukes -along with GE & Westinghouse. (The New York Times has
published several reports about those planned nukes & a map showing the
locations of all 29 of them).

So, what's wrong with nuclear power plants? Nuclear Waste Dumps: POLLUTING
the earth with deadly radioactive waste, leaking into groundwater, tons of
plutonium particles scattered over thousands of acres in the vicinity of
Denver Colorado. Lookup Hanford Washington, Rocky Flats Colorado, Barnwell
South Carolina, and you will begin to see the dimensions of a nuclear waste
dump nightmare that has been going on for more than fifty years.

Nuclear power plants are the most expensive to build and operate. Electricity
rates are based on the COSTS of building & operating the power plant. The higher
the costs = the higher the rates they can charge the customer. Given the BILLIONS
of Taxpayer dollars the Federal Government spends supporting the nuclear industry
... the REAL Cost of nuclear power plants is astronomical.

The Cheney Energy Bill is: Cheney's Big Monopoly Energy RIPOFF #3 - waiting in the wings
....IF... either McCain or Obama is elected.

They don't want Hillary Clinton to be President; they are selling Obama & slamming her on TV every day because she voted NO on the C