The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Any consideration of who would be a stronger candidate must account for the current state of the race. Most forseeable paths for Hillary to get the nomination will be alienating to major portions of the base she needs to win.
That puts her at an inherent disadvantage to Obama, unless there is an as yet unforseen scandal of major proportions.

Any consideration of who would be a stronger candidate must account for the current state of the race. Most forseeable paths for Hillary to get the nomination will be alienating to major portions of the base she needs to win.
That puts her at an inherent disadvantage to Obama, unless there is an as yet unforseen scandal of major proportions.

Obama is the least experience man to run for President in Modern times. He is a great speaker, and has a great press agent, but he's been caught in so many lies and his friends are racist... that does say something about him, considering he fictionalizes his past in books, says he has no records from the time he spent in the Illinois Senate, and has leid about Rezko, again and again.

At 47, his only real experience helping people outside of his qust for power in politics is 10 months as a civil servant.

This should have been an easy win for Hillary, who is brilliant and down to earth and has devoted her life to working for change. People deep down knows she has what it takes to lead us back to peace and prosperity.

Obama uses race to intimidate the press and manipulate everything. He talks about drugs in his books, and race, but the press is afraid to mention any of that accept on Obama's terms.

Obama is tied to Bush trhough Rezko, and I bet his purpose all along was to destroy Hillary so a republican could win.

His friend Farrakhan is helping him, Bush is helping him, Axelrod is helping him, sexists are helping him, and McCain will be the big winner.

Obama said "he can't help it if Farrakhan thinks he's a nice guy", and I hadn't hear Farrakhan, and saw this on another post at it's scary.

YOU HAVE TO SEE THIS!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-MH7ty55E28&feature=RecentlyWatched&page=1&t=t&f=b

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrP706-MZKM&eurl=http://youtube.com/profile_video_blog

For those who will for McCain if Hillary gets the nomination because you support Obama and to those who will vote McCain if Obama gets the nomination because you support Hillary, you should be ashamed and YOU are the reason the dems will lose in November, not any campaign or media or any other excuse you want to use to justify your spite. Bottom line, we vote for the issues and our two candidates, as tarnished as they are right now, are still the best two choices of the three. I support Obama, but I WILL vote for Hillary and not because I love the dems and hate repubs, but because McCain does not support the policies on issues I believe in. Any other option is clear indication that you vote not based on necessity or intellect but on your emotional need for the day.

CassZives: I checked your petition and the first signature was from March 22. Where have you been as a champion of voter's rights and democracy? Where was the petition BEFORE it mattered to Hillary? I agree wholeheartedly that Florida and Michigan should have a right to vote and have them count, and I have long argued that much of our election process is un-democratic and should be changed... but I resent that when I was complaining about the injustice democratic loyalists were saying "that's the rules...", the same loyalists that have long supported Hillary. The rules should be fair from the start and you should have complained when it really mattered!

Obama is more of a Republicrat and wolf in sheeps clothing. He's been cutting Hillary off at the Knees, and playing the race card this entire campaign, all the while saying he's a uniter and not negative. Every been conned by a really good con man? Meet Obama the Republicrat. I really think he's a Bush operative and his gola was to stop Hillary to protect Wall Street Oil and Defense profits. Status Quo? Obama is status Quo, h wants to Unite Republicans and Democrats so Republicans can win all their objectives with no contest. That's Obama's game. Ever had someone claim you were guilty of what in fact they are doing? Negative? Status Quo? Vicious? Obama, you guessed it, that's been his game all along.

Obama's longtime friend Rezko, the one who original gave Obama 60K... Not he made a mistake... 125K... No he made a mistake it was more like $250 K he said recently... well Rezko also fund raised for Bush, fancy that. Obama is a Bush Operative and his goal was to destroy Hillary and pave the way for a Republican to -- you guessed it -- preserve the status quo. The opposite of what Obama says? You guessed it he lied, he's a really good con man. He destroyed his pastors career... but what the heck there are casualties of war. Obama is against war? No he said his views and Bush's are not that different, now he claims to be the one Senator who did not vote for the war... OH? He wasn't in the Senate... but Bill Clinton he says is a racist for claiming Obama's claim to be for peace is a fairytale... yet Obama wants to NUKE Pakistan and Dodd said that was Crazy... of course that was before Dodd became an Obama operative... Then there is AXELROD Obama's Bad Cop... His Press Agent... He keeps the Obama show on the road, and Obama is a good actor and brilliant Orator (though he panics in a conversation so can't negotiate effectively) but it's all working... right?

If we want to know which Democrat people want for the nomination we better well let every State have a vote!

Let Florida and Michigan Democratic Voters Vote!
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/let-florida-and-michigan-democratic-voters-vote
FL & MI Citizens Deserve a Democratic Vote

The fifteenth Amendment (1870) of the US Constitution promises:
The right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged, by the United Sates, or any other State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

The Nineteenth Amendment (1920) of the US Constitution promises:
The right of citizens of Citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, on account of sex.

Twenty-Fourth Amendment (1964) promises:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election... shall not be denied or abridged...

Twenty-Sixth Amendment (1971) promises:
The right of Citizens of the United States, who are 18 years old age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or any other state...

If you want to protect the right under the constitution for all people to vote, PLEASE SIGN PETITION and Forward to your friends:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/let-florida-and-michigan-democratic-voters-vote

I have also written the DNCC to Protest at:
http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contactissues

ajs.vhc: Obama will not be a disaster for America, but rather it's saving grace. He will introduce much stronger ethics in Government, something that perhaps does not sit too well with the Clintons? I don't know. I just shake my head when I hear people like yourself saying Clinton supporters must do everything in their power to take Obama down - whether in the primary or beyond. Goodness knows I wonder whether Clinton would prefer to destroy Obama, lose herself in November, but be pleased to see McCain win. That being the case, she has some cheek to run as a Democrat.

The most dis-heartening thing I'm seeing with this primary is that I no longer hear people saying: "Well regardless who wins the primary, F*** the GOP, I'm voting Democratic." Let me just say, F*** the GOP, I'm voting Democratic.

I think all of these predictions are a bit stupid. Obama supporters will not support Hillary if she wins the nomination and Clinton supporters (like me) will not support Obama. McCain wins. I have never supported a Republican for any office in my life. If Obama wins the nomination I will vote for McCain and urge all Clinton supporters to do the same. Obama will be a disaster for this nation and we mst do everything we can to defeat him.

If the SOOPERDELEGATES will follow Queen Pelosi's dictum (i.e., essentially "ratifying" the candidate their voters chose), then when can we expect Big-Head Ted, John Heinz Kerry, and Bill Judas Richardson to throw in their hats for Hillary? After all, she won both Massachusetts and New Mexico.

Oh? You say they're Obama supporters? Huh! Well then apparently the SOOPERDELEGATES don't follow Queen Bee Pelosi after all.

In that case neither Hillary NOR OBAMA can win the nomination. NOT UNTIL AUGUST.

So shut up already and quit trying to shove a candidate down our throats.

Forget what polls say right now, because Obama has been playing catch-up with Clinton in all but a few of the primaries. By Obama expanding the democratic base, and his ability to attract independents and and even real moderate Republicans (not crossing over to keep the primaries going like Clinton in TX), he has the best shot. If somehow Clinton wins the nomination (God help the Democratic party), I will vote for McCain regardless if Obama is on the ticket or not as a matter of principle, and there are many more like me. I am strongly against her tactics because they distract from the process rather than help it.

The attempts to distort Obama by his relationship with Jeremiah Wright and make us believe he doesn't love this country will not stop, but the American People will see through it in the end.

Obama is the stronger nominee. I recommend this site: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

Now note that a couple of weeks ago, Obama had a much stronger win margin over McCain, but as is the case now - Clinton lost to McCain.

What we are seeing is the damage created to Obama by Clinton remaining in the race and using the tactics that she uses - however, it does not improve her position in November - it just harms the Democratic Party.

Now if with Obama going down she was actually doing better that would be a different story - but these figures show all she is achieving is destroying the Democratic party.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this until it gets through people's heads - but since it was clear who the Republican nominee was - Republicans have been cross-voting for Clinton in order to try and take out their strongest opposition. Happened in OH, TX and Missi - in fact, Obama would have won the popular vote in TX if it wasn't for the many Republicans 'sent by Rush'.

These republicans won't be voting for Clinton in November - they are voting against their competition. Now some may say 'all is fair in the world of politics' - but seriously - give yourselves a slap upside the head if you haven't already realized the remaining primaries are not going to accurately reflect the will of the Democratic voters.

And yeah - 5% of the vote does make a difference - a big difference - particularly when Clinton is more than happy to continue to run her campaign off the smell of an oily rag.

For Clinton to then claim this as her being the stronger candidate is beyond the gall and the Dems deserve a D cap, to be sent to the corner to remain there for the next 8 years, if they can't figure out that their chances are being stolen from them.

If Clinton will not exit willingly I advocate strong pressure to force her out - now, not in 6 weeks, not by June - now.

JakeD,

The idea that Obama is going to win even one of those Southern States is silly. South Carolina, Alabama, and Mississippi have always voted for Republicans since the Civil Rights Legislation in the 1960's so much so that they voted for Goldwater in 1964. Georgia only broke to elect Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Not happening, it will be a GOP sweep with Obama as the nominee because while you pointed out the African American Demographics, you failed to point out the racial demographic from the primary. White voters including Democrats in every Southern State will overwhelmingly vote for McCain in November against Obama. Conversely, African Americans would sit out if it is a Clinton McCain Match Up. It means that the GOP will dominate the Southern States including North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Florida is another issue but since the DNC has disenfranchised the state and Obama wants to open a dialog with Castro's brother, it will most likely go to the GOP as well.

And no, I am not a Republican but a Democrat, who will cross over and vote Republican for the first time in my life to beat Obama.

Hi douggriffith
Al Gore is a great option ( Gore/Obama!!). However, since it is infeasible Obama is OK. At least foreign countries can see the progress we made socially.

Who runs strongest against McCain? Al Gore. That's right, the once and future President needs to signal his availability now that neither Clinton nor Obama are electable. He was correct on Iraq, the environment, he represents the prosperous 90's, is acceptable to the left, to the Clinton wing, and could answer the phone at 3:00am.

Dear awb75,
If more of us behave like responsible citizens like you and do research ( I mean really put effort in finding the truth). Good candidates automatically win.
I am an independent who never followed much of politics but HRC statements:
"I won most of swing states"
" Ohio (no mention Missouri) is bell weather state"
work with uneducated masses.

Then again the political paid campaigners and hate preachers abound who muddle the issues. Please keep your wisdom present. May be it will have effect on the innocent people who get swayed by foxes...

Just to instigate a SPLIT among dems. strategists talk about disenfranchising FL and MI. It is shameless to talk about Fl/MI.

Sincere thanks.

Obama would be the stronger candidate. While Clinton has her share of supporters one only has to look at the poll between McCain, Obama and Clinton on the matter of trust. Clinton fell 30 points below McCain and Obama. She falls so far below for good reason.

cspan has been showing the DNC meetings where the rules were drafted as well as the meeting last August when the Fl State Dem Party appealed the decision and was again defeated

After that, the Fl State Dem party sued the DNC and lost in court -- despite all this they still moved up their primary date

Do not let the spin machines and the ill informed tell you otherwise. The bill introduced in the Fl State Senate to move the primary to Jan 29th was introduced by democratic (uncommiteed) state senator Jeremy Ring of Broward County

The Fl democratic party disenfrachised itself

As a Florida delegate I know this to be a fact --

There was never a change of a revote in Florida for the following reasons:
a: the Fl State statute forbids a mail in vote if a nomination is at stake (and despite some state legislators saying they could get around this - they could not unless a primary would be run outside the board of elections)
b: there could not be a primary because Fl is in the process of redoing all the voting machines - and at any given time at least 10 counties will not have machines until the transition is complete in mid July
c: the last option wss a caucus and when the Clinton campaign realized they backed themselves into this corner is why they quickly turned their attention to Michigan

Anyone else interested in any facts can clearly get them on the internet.

The people of Florida knew the presidential primary was not going to count.

This is why 466,000 people who coted for the property tax amendment to the Fl State constitution (which was what spurred the turnout) did not even bother to check off a candidate for president

This is why only two states that have held primary's so far this year have had less democrats vote than republicans. In Florida 1.7 m dems voted and 1.9 m repubilcans voted (and a total of 4.2m voted for the property tax amendment0

Coincidentally the only other early primary state where more repubilcans voted than democrats was --- yup -- you guessed it -- Michigan

(and to the uninformed person above: Detroit Mayor Kilpatrick has not declared support for either candidate - and will be unlikely to do so from jail)

Any other questions on Florida - lmk

None of McCain supporters who post here are posting at http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/03/more_incoming_for_clinton.html

Because anything that hurts Hillary is a threat to McCain. Republicans are great strategists. I admire their brains.

Hillary cannot tell the difference between truth and lies. For example, she did not misspeak when she lied about coming under sniper fire. She told the same lie about the sniper fire with eyes wide open and a bright smile, in public, on over a dozen recorded occasions. This story is one of her claims to her experience making her ready to be commander-in-chief from day one. The 3 a.m. red phone call will lead to disaster for the nation when Hillary, as President, answering it cannot tell the difference between fact and self-engrandizing fantasy. As President, Hillary will lie every day to the American people, just as Bill lied under oath with his hand on the Bible. If she cannot tell the difference between sniper fire and a welcoming poem, can we trust her with our national security? Where is her judgment?

Obama's unfavorables are already in the 50s. Clinton's may be higher, but what the heck can they find on her at this point, the republicans spent 8 years driving up her negatives. His unfavorables have no where to go but up, especially since the media has failed to vet him. Never mind Pastor Wright, the footage where he fails to put his hand on his heart during the national anthem, his admitted cocaine use, his awful wife. McCain Obama race wouldn't be close, President McCain in a landslide. Americans require passing the commander in chief threshold, Obama doesn't even pass the patriot threshold. Obama is the weakest, most vulnerable general election candidate in decades. But what do I know, I'm just a "typical white person".

Earlier someone said half the people dislike Clinton because of what's reflected in the polls. Put another way half will not vote for Obama even if they like him.

Sen. Obama himself said he didn't have the experience to be president in 2005 in an interview on television. I believed him then and I believe him now. Although he says is about taking the higher ground, he has perfected the art of gaming the system. He won his seat in the IL legislature by getting his three other opponents disqualified and their names removed from the ballot, one of the candidates was his mentor. He ran unopposed.

He has not proven to be a uniter. In fact the party is split right down the middle. HRC is currently winning the popular vote of the Democrats. He has invited folks to become Democrats for a day in order to vote for him. The knife fight as he calls it is real. At least one can see HRC's knife when it is coming; he stabs you while he is smiling.

He has damaged himself with Rev. Wright and Rezko. No one could damage him worse. Even if he wins the nomination, he is going to lose the GE because there are many women and blue collar Democrats who will either stay home or cross party lines. Either way the Democrats lose.

HRC can be victorious by a narrow margin.

~

"Now he says the FL/MI votes must be counted and the race is not over yet, so why call for Clinton to get out. WHY? Because she has the potential to show superdelegates Obama is not electable.

Posted by: vammap | March 24, 2008 09:02 PM"

Well,for chrissakes, if he's not electable -- which he's not -- let's find out now.

There are millions more people left to vote.

And, MI and FL HAVE to count. If Obama tries to claim a legitimate victory without Clinton getting the 50 - 33% victory Floriday, no one is going to accept it.

Pelosi and Dean are going to try to force it their way. If they do, there will be hell to pay.

~

I'll see your Pastorgate and raise you Snipergate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It6JN7ALF7Y

With Snipergate the words in question come straight from the candidates mouth.

Between this and "I did not have sex with that woman..." how can we ever trust the Clintons.

Hillary is the best choice. Obama's Pastor disaster makes him unelectable period (not to mention the "typical white person") If Hillary doesn't get the nod then a whole bunch of Democrates that I know will be switching to Mccain.

Obama now has at least three significant perceptual problems:

1. Under the rigors of campaign scrutiny his campaign of unity and hope has resorted to the very thing he said he would always avoid: playing the same old Washington game.

2. Though it may have been a party rule, Obama camp was given the opporunity to seat FL/MI. He chose not to by running down the clock, by demanding half the votes, when in fact he has not done well in most primary contests. So, he is disenfranchising millions of voters, yet the press is giving him a pass? Why? The DNC was willing to work something out; Hillary camp wanted to work something out; Obama camp has essentially stymied the process. If you don't think voters will remember that; if you think Hillary supporters will vote for him, NOT.

3. His choice of associations continue to pop up making his message appear disengenuous, unity for all? with the potential to haunt him throughout the remainder of the campaign.

Obama has more critical negatives now than Hillary.

If you watched Carville on CNN tonight, though he says he's not speaking for Hillary, what he did say is how things will progress for Hill Camp: remember Carville is the one who said she had to win Texas and Ohio. Now he says the FL/MI votes must be counted and the race is not over yet, so why call for Clinton to get out. WHY? Because she has the potential to show superdelegates Obama is not electable.

lpeter59:

I agree with you -- it doesn't matter SEVEN MONTHS before the general election who we think is the stronger candidate -- a lot will happen between now and then.

See you tomorrow.

Obama wins by a mile. Ultimately people will get over their fear of the unknown and take a chance on the possibility that we can get beyond partisan politics. Which candidate can best get us there? It's a no-brainer. HRC, on the other hand, is completely polarizing and will undoubtedly unify and energize the opposition ... all it will take is a directive from Rush Limbaugh, and we've already seen how effective that can be. If we don't grab the opportunity to get behind Obama, we are as ignorant as the rest of the world thinks we are.

It is impossible to know who would be the best candidate in the fall. They are basically tied now, but Clinton has a relatively small downside due to the exhaustive investigations and media scrutiny.

Oh the other hand, Obama has a virtually limitless downside. He has not been vetted or tested or investigated and who knows what's out there. How many times can he give a campaign saving speech?

Tell me what the 527 ads will say about Obama in the fall, and I'll tell you if he'll win.

Given the postings I have read above, I can see why I have been concerned about this dilemma our party has gotten itself into.

Both sides will not vote for the other if their candidate is not the nominee. That seems to be the case and is getting worse. The latest polls indicate this is the case. It is obvious that the party is splitting and will be in shambles by November.

Personally, I am supporting Hillary and would not even think of supporting or voting for Obama. I would just not vote for president in November, if that would be the case. Unfortunately, I have several friends who are considering voting for McCain. Granted, most of them are female and are around my age - 52.

In fact, I think we are doomed to defeat in Novemeber, and I count myself among those who may make that a reality. Neither of our candidates can win a general election. We will already start at a disadvantage in Florida and Michigan. McCain could even put California in play, even as he is reviled by the right for his immigration stance. On the other hand, it may entice Hispanics to vote for him. I know he can probably win Ohio.

I also happen to be a Democratic committeeperson from Ohio and serve on my county's central committee, as do all committeepeople. This just informs some of my perspective. I find the whole situation gloomy and see no reason to engage in the nastiness some on here seem to enjoy. It just highlights the problems we will have from now through November, and that is a losing proposition.

Obama/Rezko '08: "Change without experience"

Clinton Vs McCain = Status Quo Vs The Same

This was an article in the LA Times today, Below in quotes:

It speaks to how endemic this racial profiling has become for blacks. The sense that the black community has only the white community to blame for all its ills; this is ingrained in Obama's psyche partially because the role models he chose to follow represented this militant anti-white theme. This was reflected in Michelle Obama's comments, and in Barack's. It's undeniable and there's no way it won't be an issue. People feel betrayed by a "hope" that is not hopeful...the result now is that the very premise he stood by, to unite us...is nothing more than words...

"As far back as that sort of exchange in high school, a recurring character type has played a role in the life of Obama: a friend or associate who is quick to blame white America for the troubles of the black community, so says the LA Times news analysis."

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obama24mar24,0,2430610.story

Almost all of these posts are hysterically amusing. Personal insults, rhetorical lynchings, accusations of theft, sexual improprieties, fraud, undue influence, graft, corruption...why you'd think we were talking about Huey Long here! But no, you people are talking about HRC and BHO. And you have either forgotten or choose to ignore or have ignorance of basic facts, or perceptual truths, about either Dem candidate.

Let me acquaint you with some practical reality. I can tell you first hand HRC is no longer who the GOP wants. Its BHO. Go to Rasmussen or Gallup and look at the data from individual states, do the math. BHO's apparent collection of anti-American associations and actions seems to have left a bitter taste in the mouths of many swing voters in critical states. Current perceptual reality. Get in touch, folks. Deal with reality in America. Get off of the interstate and out of your Volvos and talk to real people.

Press is so baised and dishonest with their profession that they can not stop their pro-Obama bias.

Clinton should be a stronger candiadate especially against Mccain.
That shows in almost all polls.
BTW, I realized internet political junkies form only 10% of actual voters.

Don't get panic with all posting for anti Clinton (and pro-obama). Luckily They represent fraction of the actual voters.

richmonet:

Then why hasn't she beat Obama yet?

Hillary Clinton is clearly the better candidate

Wolfeman:

Another scenario is that she is turned out of office in New York and has to wait MORE than 8 years to run.

I understand that too, Logan6, but we will simply have to agree to disagree whether anyone in the Bush Administration betrayed the country by identifying Valerie Plame. See you around.

JakeD, I understand your points.

Just a last comment on the patriotic issue... Georges Bush's administration betrayed the country by identifying Valerie Plame as a secret agent in order to attack her husband who was criticizing the evidences of the possession of nuclear material by Saddam.

If the republicans did not react to this, it's because the patriotic issue is like the faith issue... Most people wear them only on their sleeves.

whatmeregister - I'm still curious. I asked you in an earlier post if you were from the South because of the statistics you used in an earlier post. As an often silent reader and sometime commenter in these posts, it always amuses me when assumptions are made about a specific demographic group. No insults or inferences are being made - I'm just curious. Are you a southerner?

Upon review of the play, the call is overturned -- ad hominem by #55 -- 15 yard penalty, first down.

gbooksdc:

Thanks for the link (just barely under the deadline ; )

I will review the play and be right back with my call.

Logan6:

The "implication" I took from Bill Clinton's actual WORDS was what a Hillary-McCain contest would look like -- not that an Obama-McCain contest would NOT look like that -- now, if it were MICHELLE Obama vs. McCain . . .

gbooksdc:

Thanks for the link (just barely under the deadline ; )

I will review the play and be right back with my call.

Hillary Clinton is the best candidate. She's winning in big-state primaries (now red-state caucuses that Dems won't pick up anyway....where at least half of Obama's victories came from). Barack Obama is tanking in the polls...he was 10 points up on McCain a few weeks ago and is now 8 points behind him. We don't care why he took his children to Re. Wright's church, but we do care that those kids have been "sermoned" on hate. We don't want a First Lady who spent her lifetime "ashamed of America" and who thinks this country is "mean." Barack Obama is (dare I bring a color into this) a GREENHORN with just 2 complete years in the U.S. Senate, an IL. statehouse legacy that leaves a string of "present" votes, and a lot of questions about who he is. His "teachable moment" speech will not be compared to Lincoln's or Kennedy's but to Nixon's "Checkers" speech. Nixon with his dog and Obama with his white grandmother. Talk about giving new meaning to the phrase "he'd sell out his own grandmother." Let me conclude with the words of one pundit: "Stick a fork in 'em he's done!" Now, parse that for nuance, boys!

JakeD,

I never implied that Bill Clinton "SAID" that Obama was unpatriotic. But his statemement did IMPLY it as I described. Implications are as important as words; there are the relationships between the words and they have meaning .

His "3 reasons" argument does not change the fact that Bill Clinton' statement implied that Obama was unpatriotic.

Clinton will tear Obama down to make him unelectable. Obama will be loathe to retaliate because - at minimum - to do so would be incompatible with the image he has cultivated.

The result will be that Clinton will appear to be the most electable. But she may not get the nomination since Obama will probably still lead in delegates and popular vote.

But tearing Obama down is a win-win for Clinton. Either she gets the nomination now or she gets it in 4 years against a 76-year old President McCain.

The worst case that she will avoid is helping Obama win. For then she'd have to wait 8 years to run.

It appears there are a quite a few of you, so-called Obama supporters, who have become so annoyed with one person's statements/opinions, that you have collectively, symbolically lynched him.

Now isn't that what Obama's church suggests whites have done to Pastor Wright?

What's being demonstrated in these posts is exactly the type of overzealousness and fervor that we don't want..and it's coming from Obama supporters, not svreader.

When a campaign doesn't want the votes counted and wants their opponent to give up the race when there are still contests to be won, it says only one thing...

svreader: "Whatmemregister --

"That story is has been repeatedly debunked.

"http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/05/23/vandals/index.html

"The White House vandal scandal that wasn't
How the incoming Bush team nudge-nudged a credulous press corps into swallowing a trashy Clinton story.

"Rumors of extensive damage inflicted on the White House by rowdy Clinton staffers in the end turn out to be just that -- rumors."

svreader,

You obviously didn't even read the story that I was commenting on. It had nothing to do with the false rumors of Clinton staffers vandalizing abything. It documented the very real taking of tens of thousands of dollars in White House furnishings and other property by the Clintons themselves when they left office in 2001.

It really would help if you would actually read something before baselessly contradicting it.

JakeD:

I said I'd post the links to the four times svreader called someone gay.

He called ME gay here:
____________________________
Comment on: The Audacity of Chutzpah at 3/18/2008 2:30 PM EDT
saraz1 --

gbooksdc is gay and is upset because I'm not and I refuse to sleep with him.
____________________________
He repeated it at http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/03/fix_pick_the_arrogance_equatio.html#comments:
____________________________
gbooksdc is gay.
He's angry because I'm not, and refuse to sleep with him.
Posted by: svreader | March 18, 2008 02:29 PM
____________________________

He called noozdude gay:
____________________________

Comment on: White Male Vote Especially Critical at 3/17/2008 3:59 PM EDT
Noozdude --

No, you're gay because you sleep with men.
____________________________

Now, svreader posted "u take my post to noozdude out of context. I posted it as a light-hearted response to a post by "noozdude" that was a series of back-and-forth posts, where he made a specious analogy regarding Obama and Wright."
Here are some of his other "lighthearted" posts to noozdude:

____________________________

Comment on: White Male Vote Especially Critical at 3/17/2008 2:57 PM EDT
noozdude --

Put down the crack pipe and READ.

____________________________

Comment on: White Male Vote Especially Critical at 3/17/2008 2:07 PM EDT
noozdude --

... From your handle, I assume your voting for Obama because you believe the line to the whitehouse should be paved with cocaine.

____________________________

Comment on: In Hillary Clinton's Datebook, A Shift at 3/19/2008 3:30 PM EDT
noozdude --

Your choice of screen names says it all.

Why don't you do some coke?

____________________________

Comment on: In Hillary Clinton's Datebook, A Shift at 3/19/2008 3:17 PM EDT
noozdude --

You've got too much nose candy up your nose.
____________________________

I leave it to the reader to judge whether svliar was being "light-hearted" when he called noozdude gay. Just as I leave it to the reader to judge whether svliar's claim that "My comment to you was a light-hearted attempt at humor in a vain attempt to get you to stop your vendetta against me" -- when he did it TWICE.

Keep in mind that this is svliar's MO -- first he denies ("total BS"). Then he attacks ("liar"). Then he tries to dismiss (I was just being light-hearted). There is nothing light-hearted about someone posting the same thing 110 times.

Anyway, back to svliar's favorite slur:

Comment on: Outspoken Minister Out Of Obama Campaign at 3/15/2008 5:37 PM EDT
Obama's supporters must all be gay.
__________________________________________________

Comment on: The Incumbent at 1/25/2008 10:28 PM EST
... Republicans are .. all closeted self-hating gays.

Well now LABC, let's see, seems to me, he ought to be, in the Presidency! Golly gee!

Why? Because he alone out of the three Senatorial choices shares the qualification one of the last senators did that actually succeeded at getting and doing the Job. HE, is a Military Man. He, is Qualified for the title Commander in Chief, because He can actually be given a loaded gun, without being a risk to himself! ;~)

NOW, the missing ingredient in my Package(JakeD I believe would support this one), is the Economic and business expert and Venture Capitalist Mittster Romney-AKA St. Mitt! :-)

The savior of the American Middle Class Businessman! :-)

My Pitch; "Executives for the Executive Branch, and Congressional Lawyers back to the Playground!" ;~)

Logan6:

You didn't really answer my question (even though I think you imply that Carville's slam is much worse than the slam against Bill Clinton). Also, no need to paraphrase -- he never said that Obama was unpatriotic -- this is all he said after laying out "the three reasons" for his wife's candidacy ("She'd be the best for the veterans, she'd be the best commander-in-chief, and she'd be the best at managing this economy."):

Citing hypothetical match-ups between the Democrats and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the former president said his wife beats McCain in Ohio, Florida and Arkansas, while Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., would lose to him in those states.

"So she can win this election," he said to applause.

"And we need to change the direction of this country," he continued. "But it won't be an easy race. John McCain is an honorable man . . . and he and Hillary are friends. They like and respect each other."

He then told about how she and McCain had worked together on global warming.

"I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country," Clinton said, "and people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."

> svreader wrote:
> ...
> Obama supporters post the most vicious
> anti-clinton screeds imaginable.
> ...
> Stop attacking me and other Clinton
> supporters.
> ...
> Post about the candidates, and the
> issues.
> ...
> Not attacks on other bloggers.

svreader, in this comment and in the previous one you attack Obama supporters saying that they are vicious, that they are in denial, etc.

You also keep sending hate-based comments against Obama as I reported previously. Hate-based comments are and should be against the rules.

rat-the, what would be marketing for McSame, I mean, McCain? Or did I answer my question already? You should worry about McCain, let us worry about our nominee.

As Salon's Mark Benjamin has documented in this space, Hillary Clinton's telling of her experiences during a 1996 trip to Bosnia doesn't jibe with either her schedule for the trip or the memory of comedian Sinbad, who accompanied her. Plenty of other reporters, bloggers and pundits have done similar analyses. But it took video evidence (which you can watch at the bottom of this post) to make Clinton's campaign walk back these comments the candidate made last week:

I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia. And as Togo [West, former secretary of the Army] said, there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor or too dangerous, the president couldn't go. So send the first lady. I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.

In a conference call Monday, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson was asked about his candidate's description of what had happened in Bosnia. Wolfson said, "It is possible in the most recent instance in which she discussed this that she misspoke in regard to the exit from the plane, but there is no question if you look at contemporaneous accounts that she was going to a potential combat zone, that she was on the front lines."

According to the New York Times' Caucus blog, Wolfson cited Clinton's memoir, "Living History," noting that in it she wrote about sniper fire in nearby hills -- not at the tarmac -- and "clearly meant to say that" in the disputed account.
***********************
Gosh, I hope this little lie doesn't mess up Svrepeat's day...

Tony_in_durhamNC wrote(If you can believe it):

Oh dear Rat,

I write marketing copy all day long.

I'm sold on Obama because "business as usual" doesn't work anymore.
-----------------------------------------

Tony, does the thought of placing a Green Bean Junior Senator from a Congress with a dismal 11% approval, sound like any sort of Strong Marketing Spin?

FYI-HE, is a member of the Ruling Majority!

Does placing someone into a Position they do not have the proper background sound like advice a Marketing Expert would recommend to a client?

I can hear the Pitch now;

Heyyyy, he has never FAILED at anything like this yet! Just look at him! Just Listen to him! I'm telling you; HE can PLAY the Part!

It is not like he won't have experts behind him to tell him what he should say!

With the right Packaging we can really move this model! ;~)

Barack da Happa Haole for Da-Kine? No Shibai! He one Uffa-guy! :-(

> JakeD wrote:
>
> Is that any different than the Obama
> campaign playing the Joe McCarthy card
> against Bill Clinton?

Like most voters, I would like the campaign to be based on issues. Not weak assumptions based on gender, race, faith, patriotism, etc.

To respond to your question, I will paraphrase what Bill Clinton said...
"IF democrats choose Hillary, THEN we will have with McCain a general election between two patriots"

This statement appears to infer that Obama is not patriotic. Otherwise, Bill Clinton would have said... "We can choose anyone between Hillary and Obama, and we will still have with McCain a general election between two patriots"

Bill Clinton is a good guy, and so are McCain, Hillary and Obama. But Bill Clinton's statement questionned Obama's patriotism. And this is a sensible issue, like race, gender, etc. I understand Bill Clinton to make mistakes, but I also understand the strong reaction by Obama's camp when referring to McCarthysm.

More recently, James Carville made a about Judas to refer to Richardson's endorsment of Obama. People should turn down the rhetorics on both side and correct mistatements to help focusing on issues.

Obama supporters are in denial.

They just don't "get it"

The fact that Obama allied himself with someone who spouts anti-white, anti-semitic, and anti-American rhetoric is a "deal breaker"

Its the number #1 topic of water cooler conversation around the country.

Most "Typical White People" had no idea that stuff like this has been going on.

People are really, really, angry about it.

Obama's supporters try to spin it into being about a single sermon.

Its not.

Its about a 20 year relationship.

Its about Obama choosing Wright to be his "Spritual Advisor"

It's about Obama's lies.

Its about Obama talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Obama presented himself as a paragon of virtue and someone on a higher ethical plane than other candidates.

He's repeatedly shown through his actions that he isn't.

He's like a human chameleon.

He turns into a completely different person depending on what group of people he's with.

He's lied to us and fooled us over and over.

America doesn't trust him anymore.

He's toast.

He deserves to be.

The real Barry Obama is a really bad guy.

"But probably Rush Limbaugh has already answered this question for all of us about who can win against McCain, by urging Republicans to go vote for HRC in the primaries where they can.

Posted by: jallison1 | March 24, 2008 04:52 PM "

-------------------------------------
So true, jallison1

svreader - screed? Found a thesaurus, didya? Also learned how to use it

kristin2 --

What are you taking about????

Obama talks about his COCAINE use in his own books.

Is this another Obama campaign dirty trick?

Don't forget Obama's history of Cocaine use.
The Republicans' 527's will make sure America doesn't.
Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 12:45 PM

This seems to be where svreader gets some of his information--about cocaine, for example.
Maybe I am wrong. svreader. I wish you would give links. 

New Anti-Obama Smears in Tabloids Owned by Staunch Clintonista
http://www.opednews.com/articles/3/opedne_skeeter__080323_new_anti_obama_smear.htm

excerpt:
"Why would the editors of the Enquirer, Globe, Examiner and other Altman-controlled tabloids publish these wild allegations about Obama without a shred of evidence to back them up -- and knowing full well of their boss' ties to the Clinton campaign?"

Many of us will not vote democratic if the nominee is Obama. His resume is too light and he has created a racial divide w/ his speech and 20 yr association w/his toxic preacher. McCain is too Bush..Hillary has a resume and is your work horse, who keeps working away..she represents middle America! She initiated the health care conversation, she has better economic knowledge and she will get us out of Iraq the right way!

Don't forget Obama's history of Cocaine use.
The Republicans' 527's will make sure America doesn't.
Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 12:45 PM

This seems to be where svreader gets some of his information--about cocaine, for example.
Maybe I am wrong. svreader. I wish you would give links. 

New Anti-Obama Smears in Tabloids Owned by Staunch Clintonista
http://www.opednews.com/articles/3/opedne_skeeter__080323_new_anti_obama_smear.htm

excerpt:
"Why would the editors of the Enquirer, Globe, Examiner and other Altman-controlled tabloids publish these wild allegations about Obama without a shred of evidence to back them up -- and knowing full well of their boss' ties to the Clinton campaign?"

One thing the individuals interviewed for this article ignored is that McCain appeals to the same Independent voters as Obama and will siphon off some of their support. McCain will weaken Obama's message of unity because he has proven he can reach across the aisle to get things done.

Experience may not have been a factor in the Democratic primaries, but it will be in the general election if Obama is the nominee. McCain is sure to get votes from some of the Democrats who supported Clinton for this reason.

Clinton appears to be a stronger candidate than Obama because she has demonstrated toughness and resilience throughout the campaign. Obama will appear weak next to McCain.

Post about the candidates, and the issues.

Not attacks on other bloggers.

***************************
What frigging substantive, current issues have you discussed in the last 1000 + posts you have made cutting and pasting National Enquirer b.s? Give me a break, svRerun...

kreuz_missile:

What about a live, MALE hooker?

and one more thing, peterjurk..."negros" are not some voting monolith. I know plenty who will vote for Clinton and some who will vote for McCain (military guys). But thanks for stereotyping...

Logan6 --

Get off your high horse.

Obama supporters post the most vicious anti-clinton screeds imaginable.

Stop attacking me and other Clinton supporters.

Post about the candidates, and the issues.

Not attacks on other bloggers.

That's explicitly against the rules.

Doing so ruins the experience for everyone.

peterjurk - hey, how about just "black" voters, okay? Surprised you didn't use
"colored".... (shaking head sadly)

I am one of those "elderly white women", also a yellow dog, feminist Democrat, and I support Obama as being the better candidate for the party and the country. Most or all of my reasons are listed above. But probably Rush Limbaugh has already answered this question for all of us about who can win against McCain, by urging Republicans to go vote for HRC in the primaries where they can.

A dead hooker, maybe, but it's still a maybe...

How can Clinton supporters insist with a straight face that she's been "fully vetted"? This is a candidate who fought tooth and nail to prevent the release of her public schedules as First Lady for fear of what they might reveal; who to this day has released only partial and heavily redacted versions of those schedules (which by the way were nonetheless enough to put the lie to her oft-repeated claim to foreign policy and national security "experience"); who to date has refused to release income tax returns that might give us a clue as to how she and her husband, who left the White House dead broke just over 7 years ago and are now said to be worth up to $50 million, acquired all that money; who has conspired with Bill to keep secret the sources of the hundreds of millions of unrestricted dollars raised for his presidential library, much of it allegedly from overseas "business partners" in deals in which Bill's substantive role has been murky, at best. There's a whole lot we don't know about the Clintons and the money trail, about who's buying influence (or thinks they are). This will surely come out in a general election campaign. Hillary hasn't been "vetted" in the least; the claim that she has is just another Clinton smokescreen, trying to raise questions about Obama to deflect attention from themselves.

Clearly, Obama is the stronger Democrat. His handling the of the Rev. Wright situation was nothing short of Presidential, and his poll numbers bounced back after his demonstration of his leadership in crisis.

The Republicans are DYING to run against Hillary, they have so much to throw against her they will have their own, at the instructions of Rush Limbaugh, go vote Hillary, though they have no intention of voting for her later.

The Republicans KNOW Clinton will energize their base and increase turnout.

That alone should tell you who the stronger Democrat for November is.

Oh dear Rat,

I write marketing copy all day long.

I'm sold on Obama because "business as usual" doesn't work anymore.

svreader, I will begin to respect your comments and believe that you are not from FOX News when you will stop using hate-based assumptions similar to those from FOX News (assumption about Barack being a muslim and which would be something bad, assumption about Barack's middle name, Hussein, being something bad, ...).

There is nothing bad about beeing muslim (but Barack is not), and there is nothing bad about having the middle name Hussein (but Barack was baptised with it, there is nothing he can do about the coincidence of sharing a name with Saddam). But the intentions at FOX News are obvious; they play the hate-based and fear-based cards. Your intentions seem similar to me.

Until you stop using hate-based assumptions in your comments, I will continue assuming that you are from FOX News because of the reasons I listed in my previous message.

I respect all people who argue against Obama if the comments are not hate-based or fear-based.

"Who will be a stronger candidate?" is not THE important issue. The most important issue is whether Democrats will be united in the general election regardless who is nominated. I doubt democrats will be united.

If you look the posts on the liberal blogs, they hate Clinton more than they hate Republicans. Clinton cannot expect to have many of Obama's supporters' votes. Obama likes to believe that Clinton's supporters will vote for him in the general election, but he forgot that people who did not vote for him in the primary have their reasons not to vote for him. If Obama is nominated, many Clinton supporters will simply not to vote. McCain is an honorable guy and not a religious right. It is easy for McCain to neutralize Clinton supporters in a general election.

I have very little hope that Democrats will be united.

Obama is a great speaker but he is pushing change and this appeals to his core voters younger people and negroes.
He is not doing very well with the over 55 group especially if you factor out the negroes in this group. Remember change is not a high priority for this group - stability, the known is.
His is also doing very poorly with the hispanics - 30% or less in most cases.
He also doesn't get over 50% of the white vote in most of the bigger states.
McCain is white, a known product, older and has a track record with hispanics. Therefore, unless Obama can show he can win
with these groups in the remain primaries he may get the nomination but I don't think he can win.
Also right now if negroes were not voting race (over 80%), just a 10% shift in the their vote would put Obama behind in delegates, popular vote and this discussion would not be held.

Tony_in_durham-What YOU are willing to call smart, I prefer to call calculating, sly, devious, conniving, slick...

But, to the un-Burned eye, it appears "Smart"!

Of course, I am in Sales. It's harder to "Sell" a Salesman! ;~)

JakeD --

I could never vote for Obama knowing the kind of person he really is, as demonstrated by the contrast between his actions as compared to his words, especially after what he did in Chicago.

If Obama gets the nomination, he will lose regardless of how I vote.

I think Hillary is great and that she should and will win both the nomination and the general election.

Logan6:

Is that any different than the Obama campaign playing the Joe McCarthy card against Bill Clinton?

svreader: "Most of Clinton's supporters post regarding Obamma are fact-based, rather than personality based, which is what Obama's supporters attacks on Clinton tend to be.

"Obama's supporters ignore the facts we post, claim they don't exist, and then try to discredit the person posting them."

Please tell us exactly what facts you used to claim that Sen. Obama had sexual affairs with some of his female students while teaching law. If you can't, then obviously the lack of anything factual in your own posts is what discredits you. Don't blame us for simply setting the record straight by pointing out those glaring fallacies.

Elephant in Tent Scripted by Karl Rove. Obama won "Red States" because republican strategy involves G.O.P. crossover voting to take out Clinton, marketing newcomer Obama. Once Obama is Nominee, Rezko and skeletons will "SwiftBama"!

Evidence of a covert campaign to undermine the presidential primaries is rife, so it's curious that the Democractic Party and even some within the G.O.P. have ignored the actual elephant in the room this year. That would be Karl Rove. Long accused of rigging the two previous presidential elections, this master of deceit would have us believe that he's gone off to sit in a corner and write op-eds.

Not so. According to an article in Time magazine published last November, Republicans have been organized in several states to throw their weight behind Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic rival of Hillary Clinton. At least three former fundraisers for President Bush flushed his coffers with cash early on in the race, something the deep pockets had not done for any candidate in their own party. With receipts topping $100 million in 2007, the first-term Illinois senator broke the record for contributions. It was a remarkable feat, considering that most Americans had not even heard of him before 2005.

The Time article went on to explain that rank and file Republicans were switching parties this spring to vote for Obama in the Democratic primaries. Though not mentioned in the piece, a group called Republicans for Obama formed in 2006 to expedite the strategy, and the Obama campaign launched its own "Be a Democrat For a Day" campaign in 2007.(An official video distributed in in Florida, Nevada and Vermont explains how this legal form of vote stacking is accomplished .) Many states have open primaries, allowing citizens to vote for any candidate, regardless of their party affiliation. In Nebraska, the mayor of Omaha publicly rallied Republicans to caucus for Obama on February 9th. The tactic, called crossover voting, appears to be part of a Rove-coordinated effort to deprive Clinton of the nomination.
http://thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winte...