The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

lequ ospnuzqle wsaegrdjz zkofyvt dehtxyzcq mkjna zlwfdq

lequ ospnuzqle wsaegrdjz zkofyvt dehtxyzcq mkjna zlwfdq

lequ ospnuzqle wsaegrdjz zkofyvt dehtxyzcq mkjna zlwfdq

The writer reports that 17,000 attended and not all seats were full. He must not be aware that the Dallas Fire Marshall shut down admission, leaving over 1000 people waiting in lines, that wound throughout the multi-tiered parking lot. My husband and I waited two hours but were among the huge crowd not able to enter, by order of the Fire Marshall, with police officers blocking all entrances. It was a big disappointment to all of us who could not attend. f.y.i. at no time did we see anyone whose behavior was "boisterous" - just hundreds of people delighted to be part of the unprecedented turnout in support of Obama.

Here are just a few of Senator Obama's accomplishments, many achieved by "reaching across the isle." It took only minutes to find them.

After visiting weapons stockpiles in Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan, Senators Lugar (R-IN) and Obama introduced the Cooperative Proliferation Detection, Interdiction Assistance, and Conventional Threat Reduction Act of 2006, which would expand the cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons. The Lugar-Obama bill would energize the U.S. program against unsecured lightweight anti-aircraft missiles and other conventional weapons and would strengthen the ability of America's allies to detect and interdict illegal shipments of weapons and materials of mass destruction. The Lugar-Obama bill was included in the Department of State Authorities Act of 2006 and was signed into law by President Bush in January 2007.

In June 2006, legislation authored by Senator Obama, which requires the Air Force to issue a report on its plans for all Air Guard and Air Forces bases affected by Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) passed the full Senate as part of the Department of Defense Authorization bill.

Obama's very first bill in the U.S. Senate, proposed an increase in the maximum Pell Grant award to $5,100. As a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee, Obama helped pass legislation to achieve that goal in the recent improvements to the Higher Education Act.

Barack Obama and Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) passed a law to create a search engine to citizens to approximately track federal grants, contracts, earmarks, and loans online. The Chicago Sun-Times wrote, "It would enable the public to see where federal money goes and how it is spent. It's a brilliant idea."

He passed legislation with Senator Jim Talent (R-MO) to give gas stations a tax credit for installing E85 ethanol refueling pumps. The tax credit covers 30 percent of the costs of switching one or more traditional petroleum pumps to E85, which is an 85 percent ethanol/15 percent gasoline blend. Obama also sponsored an amendment that became law providing $40 million for commercialization of a combined flexible fuel vehicle/hybrid car within five years.

Barack Obama introduced the Patriot Employer Act of 2007 to provide a tax credit to companies that maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in America relative to those outside the US; maintain their corporate headquarters in America; pay decent wages; prepare workers for retirement; provide health insurance; and support employees who serve in the military.

In 1998, Obama joined forces with former U.S. Sen. Paul Simon (D-IL) to pass the toughest campaign finance law in Illinois history. The legislation banned the personal use of campaign money by Illinois legislators and banned most gifts from lobbyists.

This 46 year old woman is a proud supporter of Senator Barack Obama. He brings hope, substance, and solutions.

Mrs Obama is a RACIST!

God help us, from "ANOTHER UNATTRACTIVE ANGRY UNGREATFUL BLACK WOMAN"

She is so angry, I will get her pregnant

Dear Fellow Americans,
The endorsements of Barack Obama is a reflection of the confusion this country is in. This man has done absolutely nothing to deserve any one of his endorsements. We are choosing experience and leadership for empty words. Its nice to know that my fellow Americans are so easliy taken in by a smooth talker. This man has come out of nowhere and has brainwashed the country. Sure we all want change, but we cannot blame the disarray in Washington on Clinton. WE cannot blame the ways of the world on her. She is a movement for change herself and wants to change the condition of this country just as much as Obama. I just hope this cloud of confusion will clear up before we make the wrong decision

Those who cling to the fantasy that Barack Obama is merely "empty rhetoric" just don't get it.
That "empty rhetoric" has created the most powerful campaign in history.
It's revolutionized campaign financing, and is actually steering the narrative of the other campaigns, on both sides.
Senator Obama has already changed the way campaigns have traditionally been run and financed.
Maybe he really can change the way Washington works as well.

Someone has purposefully tried to spin the Michelle Obama speech in a negative way. Check out the two links below where the first link is the original video of the speech and then compare it to the one below which is what FOX and the Associated Press used. Watch her lips and listen to the video. The word "really" has clearly been edited out by someone on purpose.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffGpYcTu5GI

Video that has been edited where the word "really" was edited out.

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

This constitutes fraud on the part of the networks and should be investigated.

The Obama's clearly have a case for a lawsuit against whomever is trying to perpetrate this fraud against the Obama's.

OK, I'll ask.

What are the accomplishments of Mrs Clinton during her reported 35 years of experience?

Matthews was way out of line. If he asked me my name in that manner on national TV, I may not have remembered. Stage fright, brain fart, legitimate unfamiliarity... does it matter? Who is Matthews to demand, especially in such a condescending fashion, anything of anyone? He owest the man an apology. I thought his reference to "Hardball" was soundly refuted by Keith ..."this isn't Hardball, it's election results!" Lack of manners, very selectively applied BTW, is unbecoming to Matthews. He should be ashamed of himself to attempt to publicly humiliate another human being for such a shallow "victory". We have a right to our opinions whether or not we can state them in a 15-second sound bite.

Kirk Watson may have drawn a blank, but I won't. During the first eight years of Senator Obama's elected service he sponsored over 820 bills he introduced:

233 - regarding healthcare reform
125 - on poverty and public assistance
112 - crime fighting bills
97 - economic bills
60 - human rights and anti-discrimination bills
21 - ethics reform bills
15 - gun control
6 - veterans affairs and many others.

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427 including:

- The Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law)
- The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law)
- The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate
- The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law)
- The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee)

You're pushing a bit hard Chris. Couldn't be you've got a hidden agenda in this issue could it? I didn't witness the same ferocity leveled at the other guest. In fact, she, unlike Watson, was allowed to expound ad nauseam, about Hillary.

I'm European and I must say that even across the Atlantic your mr. Obama is inspiring. People here are starting to say things such as stopping our own partisanship and put action behind words. To base our decisions on positive thoughts instead of out of fear. The attitude is actually changing and it is amazing to see it slowly unfold. I have in my 35 years never seen such an influence from an American president, let alone a president candidate. This is what I think some people are forgetting. Words from a charismatic person do inspire and when millions of people are inspired, things do change. I'm not saying he's the second coming at all, but he is definitely intelligent and extremely influential. And no offense to Hillary supporters, but she does not influence people outside of the US. And hardly anyone even knows who McCain is.

Cindy McCain, 40, told them that she had been a drug addict for three years. From 1989 to 1992, as the Keating Five made headlines, she was addicted to Percocet and Vicodin. Worse, she had stolen pills from the American Voluntary Medical Team, a relief organization that she founded to aid Third World countries.

"More than anything, I wanted to be able to face my children, for them to know I wasn't lying to them," she said at the time. "They're too young to fully understand right now, but someday they will."

OBAMA IS THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE

WISCONSIN CINCHED IT!

IT'S OVER

and because he will win against McCain,

BARACK OBAMA IS OUR NEXT PRESIDENT!

2/19/2008
Hardball
Chris Matthews to Kirk Watson, Texas rep supporting Obama:

"Sir, can you name Senator Obama's legislative accomplishments"? "Can you name any of them? Name one."

Watson - NO, I CAN'T!

Could not name any Obama legislative accomplishments

Why did Chris Matthews hammer Bill Clinton and some of Billary's surrogates as to why she won't fork over those tax returns, pronto? And he should have hammered those surrogates on that issue.....is it that Matthews is ticked because his precious Clinton Machine is failing and falling by the wayside with each election? He keeps pumping up the Clinton Machine and the expected comeback like he made a huge donation to her campaign or something....isn't the news media suppose to be unbiased?...hmmmmm....

If every seat in Reunion Arena wasn't filled, it wasn't due to any lack of support for Senator Obama. I waited in line with my son for over two hours only to have the doors literally closed in our faces after the Dallas fire marshall declared the venue "Full." There were thousands of of other disappointed Obama supporters behind us. We stayed around for a while, hoping they might squeeze us in but finally gave up and went home.

Kirk Watson,a Texas Senator, wasn't just asked, on msnbc last night, to name any of Obamas accomplishments. The way he was hammered by Chris Matthews was disgraceful!

Posted by: akbriskwood | February 20, 2008 03:30 PM
=====================================

I really like matthews, and I found it really slimey. Sure, ask the guy, but why be so angry about it? Why not ask the other person for the hill camp that was there.

It really came across as bad form.

Matthews wife is a very heavy Clinton supporter. She has already maxed her gift limit.

The Cult of Her Own Personality

To my fellow Democratic Party American's; we have a dark specter crossing the landscape of our Party. Divisive primary politics aside, we have a radical element among our membership. This element is becoming more evident with each and every loss that they rack up, in that they are pulling apart of our Party. This element is showing that the pulling apart, and possible fracturing of our great Party, for what seems to be nothing more then feelings of self-entitlement toward the nomination, is a justifiable cost for their goals and aspirations.

"Senator Obama's words are contradicted by deeds. He said he would -- he pledged to take public financing as now Senator McCain has pledged. He has just reversed that pledge.
--Hillary Clinton surrogate Lanny Davis, CNN Late Edition, Feb. 17. 2008.

Again, I feel it necessary that we examine the true benefit of tying the hands of a possible Republican challenger, in this case Sen. Obama, when it comes to financing a general presidential campaign. Is it a responsible move for a Party member to actively fight against another possible presidential candidate in such a way?

Is it wise for the Party to allow ourselves to enter into a most important election with one arm tied behind our backs? Of course it is not a smart political move, yet this dangerous element in our Party feels it is fair game to attack a fellow Party member on such a matter. And, in a sense, help the opposition's presidential candidate's campaign.

By rejecting public funds, which no major party candidate has done for a general election since public funding for elections was instituted in the 1970's, Sen. Obama will be putting himself at an obvious disadvantage. Not just because Sen. Obama would have to return more money then McCain. Sen. Obama has raised $6.1 million toward the general campaign, compared to the $2.2 million that McCain has raised, but his grassroots fundraising machine is massive and not nearly close to being tapped out. This would be not just poor politics on the part of Sen. Obama, but it would be irresponsible to the Party to do such a thing.

The Democratic Party has a wonderful advantage against the Republican nomination this election year cycle when it comes to funding. A tool, which if not utilized, would be a politically reckless action on the part of a presidential Party candidate.

What we are facing with this dangerous Party element, is a high ranking member of the Party that is willing, and desirous, that we concede such an advantage for what? Is it for a possible underlying feeling of presidential self-entitlement? Is it a campaign's last ditch effort to win? A do or die burn fest? Whatever the reasoning behind such a destructive move on the part of Sen. Clinton, it is nonetheless, a very dangerous ploy for such little possible gain.

Is this the kind of politics that we need in the party, let alone in America? The idea which seems to resonate with the American populace is that we need to move away from the typical day to day operations of our political leaders. We need to have a Party, and a Country, that is truly for the people by the people. Not a country controlled by the minority of its citizenry, or by its far right leaning religious minority, nor even by the money-throwing special interest groups, all of which attempt to circumvent the will and betterment of the majority of Americans. No, this is not the type of Party that we should be. This is not what the Democratic Party is all about.

What we are facing is a path that can take us either into a future, which is based on the belief, and yes hope, that we can do truly wonderful things if we pull together, or a future that concedes we have reached the pinnacle of American greatness, and we must go back to the way it was before these disastrous last 7 years. The idea and belief that America should be governed from the bottom up, and not the top down, is a crossroads sign post which we must use to choose our great nations future.

I, personally, will give the benefit of the doubt, and look to what great things we can hope to do with this belief and faith. The past was good, and we were served well by its purveyors, but it was just that, the past. To whatever future we find ourselves living in is yet to be seen, yet the leader of our Party is clear. The time is now to realize the fact that we have our leader for the campaign to reclaim the Presidency of the United States, and we must show unity and support behind Sen. Obama if we are to succeed. The alternative will be more of the same support for the status quo, which is both detrimental, and unacceptable to the American way of life.

The Cult of Her Own Personality

To my fellow Democratic Party American's; we have a dark specter crossing the landscape of our Party. Divisive primary politics aside, we have a radical element among our membership. This element is becoming more evident with each and every loss that they rack up, in that they are pulling apart of our Party. This element is showing that the pulling apart, and possible fracturing of our great Party, for what seems to be nothing more then feelings of self-entitlement toward the nomination, is a justifiable cost for their goals and aspirations.

"Senator Obama's words are contradicted by deeds. He said he would -- he pledged to take public financing as now Senator McCain has pledged. He has just reversed that pledge.
--Hillary Clinton surrogate Lanny Davis, CNN Late Edition, Feb. 17. 2008.

Again, I feel it necessary that we examine the true benefit of tying the hands of a possible Republican challenger, in this case Sen. Obama, when it comes to financing a general presidential campaign. Is it a responsible move for a Party member to actively fight against another possible presidential candidate in such a way?

Is it wise for the Party to allow ourselves to enter into a most important election with one arm tied behind our backs? Of course it is not a smart political move, yet this dangerous element in our Party feels it is fair game to attack a fellow Party member on such a matter. And, in a sense, help the opposition's presidential candidate's campaign.

By rejecting public funds, which no major party candidate has done for a general election since public funding for elections was instituted in the 1970's, Sen. Obama will be putting himself at an obvious disadvantage. Not just because Sen. Obama would have to return more money then McCain. Sen. Obama has raised $6.1 million toward the general campaign, compared to the $2.2 million that McCain has raised, but his grassroots fundraising machine is massive and not nearly close to being tapped out. This would be not just poor politics on the part of Sen. Obama, but it would be irresponsible to the Party to do such a thing.

The Democratic Party has a wonderful advantage against the Republican nomination this election year cycle when it comes to funding. A tool, which if not utilized, would be a politically reckless action on the part of a presidential Party candidate.

What we are facing with this dangerous Party element, is a high ranking member of the Party that is willing, and desirous, that we concede such an advantage for what? Is it for a possible underlying feeling of presidential self-entitlement? Is it a campaign's last ditch effort to win? A do or die burn fest? Whatever the reasoning behind such a destructive move on the part of Sen. Clinton, it is nonetheless, a very dangerous ploy for such little possible gain.

Is this the kind of politics that we need in the party, let alone in America? The idea which seems to resonate with the American populace is that we need to move away from the typical day to day operations of our political leaders. We need to have a Party, and a Country, that is truly for the people by the people. Not a country controlled by the minority of its citizenry, or by its far right leaning religious minority, nor even by the money-throwing special interest groups, all of which attempt to circumvent the will and betterment of the majority of Americans. No, this is not the type of Party that we should be. This is not what the Democratic Party is all about.

What we are facing is a path that can take us either into a future, which is based on the belief, and yes hope, that we can do truly wonderful things if we pull together, or a future that concedes we have reached the pinnacle of American greatness, and we must go back to the way it was before these disastrous last 7 years. The idea and belief that America should be governed from the bottom up, and not the top down, is a crossroads sign post which we must use to choose our great nations future.

I, personally, will give the benefit of the doubt, and look to what great things we can hope to do with this belief and faith. The past was good, and we were served well by its purveyors, but it was just that, the past. To whatever future we find ourselves living in is yet to be seen, yet the leader of our Party is clear. The time is now to realize the fact that we have our leader for the campaign to reclaim the Presidency of the United States, and we must show unity and support behind Sen. Obama if we are to succeed. The alternative will be more of the same support for the status quo, which is both detrimental, and unacceptable to the American way of life.

The way the media has been fawning over Barack and Hillary has been disgraceful. No impartiality there at all!

I was glad to see Chris Matthews hammer the clueless senator about why he supports Mr. Obama.

I'll be happy to see what the lovefest does once everyone wakes up from their hangover over Barack. No substance to him at all. You know he's a liberal weenie. All the way left!

At least with McCain, you KNOW he tries to work with the other side. How many pieces of legislation has Mr. Obama co-sponsored with someone from the opposing party?

Yeah, chew on that one and you'll see that the only change he's talking about is the opposite polarity from the Rep's to the Dem's, but don't kid yourself, it IS more of the same with him.

ALOHA TEXAS!!

GREETINGS FROM OBAMA-LAND---ALSO KNOWN AS HAWAII.

IT'S UP TO U-ALL TO KEEP THE OBAMA-MENTUM GOING AND GET TEXAS IN THE "WIN COLUMN" FOR THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE "UNITED" STATES.

I CHALLENGE YOU TO GET THE 76% WE GOT FOR BARACK HERE IN PARADISE---YOU COME CLOSE AND WE'LL SEND HILLARY A LEI THAT MEANS ALOHA AND GOOD BYE.

THE EYES OF THE WORLD NOT JUST TEXAS ARE UPON YOU!

ALOHA NUI LOA,

I got there at 11:15 and stood in line till 1:00. At that point they said it was full and turned everyone else away. I would say several thousand people were outside the arena at that point wanting to get in.

Emmitt Smith is not in the Hall of Fame yet.

I hope Obama takes time out today and all day tommorrow to get over his cold and prepare for his debate. I have a feeling that Hillary is going to get negative and nasty. He needs to be medicine free and prepared.

Go Obama!

Not every seat was filled, yet there were 30,000 people outside the arena trying to get in.

I guess that's a swipe, although it doesn't seem out of line or unfair. Obama does need to respond to the Clinton attacks, and do so without lowering himself to their level, which can present a difficult balance to strike. Clinton's defining herself more and more as the negative candidate, and he's certainly entitled to call attention to it.

Also, loved the line by Kirk about Obama and yo mama...

Kirk Watson,a Texas Senator, wasn't just asked, on msnbc last night, to name any of Obamas accomplishments. The way he was hammered by Chris Matthews was disgraceful!

Well, it should be Watson who is embarassed, not Obama. Cripes, all Watson's fumble does is reinforce the notion that Obama has no experience and no record, though that is not true. I could have named at least three bills off the top of my head. (For the record, the ones I thought of as Kirk Watson was hemming and hawing were: nuclear non-proliferation with Dick Lugar, ethics reform with Tom Coburn, and improved oversight for military and veterans' hospitals with Claire McCaskill.) Egads.

Barack should stick to what he has been doing, as that was working. (No need to swipe really, if it could be called that.)

Barack vs Hillary Analysis
The Home Stretch- Hillary's Personal Alamo: The Web:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=53

Hillary absolutely needs Texas and Ohio for that matter- things may get even more interesting...