pexcfd
http://ratetiti.fcpages.com/effexor-725-mg-daily.html effexor 725 mg daily

bxlfu bvsmuyn zxur
http://thebunio1.exactpages.com/is-effexor-a-ssri.html is effexor a ssri

bxlfu bvsmuyn zxur
http://thebunio1.exactpages.com/is-effexor-a-ssri.html is effexor a ssri

tbfv gart yfcub cbvk
http://loangov.envy.nu/risperdal-invega.html risperdal invega

dwrfpsg tcjdifr
http://loangov.envy.nu/drugs-similar-to-zyprexa.html drugs similar to zyprexa

vlmwqhs vmxqs umys
http://sandiego1.jvl.com/cymbalta-and-pain-management.html cymbalta and pain management

ympwuo
http://newhaven.builtfree.org/queen-levitra.html queen levitra

owar udtyv
http://imnipiteh.150m.com/paxil-causes-atrial-fibrillation.html paxil causes atrial fibrillation

dwsnj kbjy
http://imnipiteh.150m.com/quitting-effexor-cold-turkey.html quitting effexor cold turkey

tvhg ipfwkc
http://imnipiteh.150m.com/give-dog-prozac.html give dog prozac

eovg xkpfy nkwpdtc
http://armsasdrcd.1freewebspace.com/zyban-hats.html zyban hats

kfaue rgdckxl
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4719 effectiveness propecia

olqum hlkfcgj elfku trpm
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4693 optimum propecia dosage

olqum hlkfcgj elfku trpm
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4693 optimum propecia dosage

fiown hjkopvf gndxabp zircdo
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4600 buy ultram without prescription

fiown hjkopvf gndxabp zircdo
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4600 buy ultram without prescription

uaxewn iwsoz sedwvga jgnx
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4514 100 er ultram

uaxewn iwsoz sedwvga jgnx
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4514 100 er ultram

krasze tzhq
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4571 is ultram addictive

znby lcpgdyx mwojyc kzpv
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4481 sale ultram

znby lcpgdyx mwojyc kzpv
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4481 sale ultram

hepcr krzavp dngf
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4546 100mg er ultram

hepcr krzavp dngf
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4546 100mg er ultram

gisouyz etba wrytf otlqe
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4589 ultram order cheap

ebnkmcw
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4588 50 mg tablet ultram

rkdolq oezfabjq psljuy egbcjnykh qzodju nbpqj dkjyiar http://www.xtqyol.lsidg.com

qdzgev vwuazsc qrxtsnawf onsgemjfu ajhfkxp zutem lduozwhvx

What a great site!Thank you
automatic software forex trading

HILLARY is a fighter, I want her to lead. She has the brains. Presidents need brains.

This is the YOUTUBE video referred to in debate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuB_W8o_UsU

Obama was elected to the United States senate in 2004. In his first year (before he decided to run for president) he authored 152 bills, and co-sponsored another 427. These included the Coburn-Obama government Transparency Act of 2006 (signed into law by Bush), The Lugar-Obama initiatives (working with republican, Richard Lugar) aimed at nuclear non-proliferation and conventional weapons threat reduction. He is one of only 2 lawmakers sponsoring a campaign finance reform bill that currently sits in the senate. There are 890 bills in Obama's name since he entered the Senate. He has Cosponsored 1096. This is a long list, and it might lead you to conclude that people who say he has been doing nothing in the Senate are a little less than truthful.

Obama currently serves on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations; Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and Veterans' Affairs.

Obama has a degree in International Relations, a Law degree, and taught constitutional law for 10 years.

ENOUGH ABOUT EXPERIENCE ALREADY!
Proud - even YOU have to admit, McCain standing next to Obama is like looking at Father TIme and the 21st Century candidate.

Age and experiene are a GOOD thing - but not when you contradict your own experience and start saying torture is okay, the war could last 100 years, and Bush's policies have been good for the U.S.

I can't imagine it's even going to be a contest, if indeed, Obama is the nominee.

Don't get arrogant, Obama supporters. We still have miles and miles to go before we...wake up the rest of America.
Maybe hope really does float!
Obama 08!

CITIZEN, besides, public donation is not any private money. Read this citation from a Obama letter calling for donation today:

"Think about that ... nearly one million people taking ownership of this movement, five dollars or twenty-five dollars at a time.

We're already more than 900,000 strong, including over half-a-million donating so far this year. This unprecedented foundation of support has built a campaign that has shaken the status quo and proven that ordinary people can compete in a political process too often dominated by special interests.

Unlike Senator Clinton or Senator McCain, we haven't taken a dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. Our campaign is responsible to no one but the people."

***

"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.

***

CITIZENXX, worry not! I believe what Obama said regarding this issue is "IF I AM THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE, I will aggressively pursue...". Right now officially Obama is not yet the dem Presidential Nominee! HRD is again distorting. With so many aids, it's impossible for her to overlook Obama's qualification of his position in this using public funding only issue. Distortion on purpose is shamelessly lying. HRC shouldn't insult the intelligence of the public.

In wisconsiin, [open primary]

obama got 645,954 votes
clinton got 452,757 votes
mccain got 224,209 vote
huckabee got 151,181

so democrats together got almost 3 times more votes than combined republican tally. so who do you think is better placed to win? we've seen results like this in almost every state.
Posted by: claudialong

Claudia:
obama got 645,954 votes (Open Primary) but so, so, so many republicans didn't vote yesterday for Mc or Huck, they did vote for Obama for getting rid of Clinton !!!

To whom do you think they are going to vote in November ???

proudtobeGOP writes
"The Ds are fielding two lame candidates, without a dime's worth of executive experience between them....

John McCain U.S. senator (21 yrs). U.S. congressman (4 yrs). Businessman (2½ yrs). U.S. Navy (22 yrs, including 5½ yrs as a prisoner of war)."

proud, step back from the koolaid. Now, as your head clears, could you point me to the executive experience in the mcCain resume that you find so lacking in the Dem candidates? If I'm not mistaken, you have to go back to his pre-POW days running a squadron in the Navy - 35+ years ago.

And health savings accounts are a joke. Do you really think you could save enough for treatment for cancer [think of half a million or so] or even treatment of a minor heart attack? That's just another backdoor tax cut for the already wealthy.

Posted by: claudialong | February 20, 2008 12:48 PM

Actually, the HSA as currently defined serves a purpose. It is for use in conjunction with high-deductible plans. For instance, my plan has a $2200 family deductible, except for preventive care, which carries a copay. It also has a max out-of-pocket limit (thus providing catastrophic care). The HSA allows one to pay for that stuff in between preventive care and the max out-of-pocket.

HSAs are NOT a substitute for coverage, however. Nor is anybody's plan for tax credits to buy health insurance. Between my employer and me, the cost (as part of a big buying group) for even a high-deductible plan pushes $20k.

Oh, and if anyone wants to grow the unemployment rate, put a mandate on that $20k for all of the small businesses out there.

sorry, Claudia -- just saw yours...

I just opened up the Fix and have not had time to review the posts above, so if someone has already covered this, I apologize for the redundancy...

Did I see the results clearly last night? I got home very late, took a quick look at the tube and hit the sack.

Did Hillary, in her losing effort, garner TWICE as many votes as McCain in Wisoncsin?

In wisconsiin, [open primary]

obama got 645,954 votes
clinton got 452,757 votes
mccain got 224,209 vote
huckabee got 151,181

so democrats together got almost 3 times more votes than combined republican tally. so who do you think is better placed to win? we've seen results like this in almost every state.

Patrick, I suspect that those vicious attacks dircted at Hillary are actually coming from republicans, because the language and nature of them are what they have been saying for years.

To those that argue she should pull out to preserve her legacy, my argument is that it is in these final hours that America is finally seeing Hillary's essential character, that of an ANGRY CLOSETED LESBIAN WITH A FASCIST NATURE. She is being repudiated by voters all across America, yet she remains in the race.

Posted by: LondonInNY | February 20, 2008 12:20 PM

This is the kind of crap that I expect from the GOP not from my own party. While I have had problems with the Clintons over the years I also have reservations with Obama on some as well. Regardless I will vote for the winner and we should all take a deep breath and get ready because anyone who thinks that Rove and his sleeze brigade is going to sit out this election you are clueless.

The Ds are fielding two lame candidates, without a dime's worth of executive experience between them.

Let's look at the résumé issue again:

Hillary: U.S. Senator (7 yrs). Wife of president (8 yrs). Wife of state governor (12 yrs). Amateur, but sensationally successful, trader/investor (2 yrs). Wife of state attorney general (2 yrs). "Rainmaker" lawyer (on and off). Law school, lawyering.

Obama: U.S. senator (3 yrs). State senator (8 yrs). Lawyer on behalf of community groups and discrimination claims (4 yrs). Part-time lecturing (12 yrs). Community organizing (2-3 yrs). Office work (2 yrs). Law school, lawyering.

Compare:

John McCain U.S. senator (21 yrs). U.S. congressman (4 yrs). Businessman (2½ yrs). U.S. Navy (22 yrs, including 5½ yrs as a prisoner of war).

Perhaps the reality of this experience gap is causing Eleanor Clift to think of a better outcome from the convention ...

"Al Gore on the second ballot: A scenario that a few weeks ago seemed preposterous is beginning to look plausible to some nervous Democrats looking for a way out of the deadlock between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ..."

From John Derbyshire's article
"The Man on the White Stallion
Al Gore is inevitable."

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWQxY2Q2ZWRmZGRkMDYwNzU1ZWQxMGU4YzY5ODY1YTQ=&w=MA==

"But it's not just that McCain won't raise taxes. On his campaign website, McCain trumpets a laundry list of tax cuts:

- Permanently repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
- Cut the corporate tax rate from 35 to 25 percent
- Provide all individuals with a $2,500 [health care] tax credit ($5,000 for families)
- Expanded health savings accounts
- Allow first-year deduction, or "expensing", of equipment and technology investments.
- Establish permanent tax credit equal to 10 Percent of wages spent on R&D.

McCain may decry the current deficits, but his plan will only exacerbate them. The first three items on his tax cut list alone would cost more than $380 billion in 2009, far more than President Bush's tax cuts combined.

So, how will McCain pay for his tax cuts? He touts his pledge to eliminate earmarks, but this would save roughly $20 to $30 billion a year. McCain is still left with over $350 billion in tax cuts unaccounted for, which will require massive -- and unpopular -- spending cuts if he is going to keep his word.

McCain has said in the past that he thinks tax cuts should be paid for. He voted against Bush's 2001 tax cuts, for example, because the President did not provide a way to pay for them:

"All the predicates for the 2001 tax cuts and all the predictions for its results were absolutely, completely wrong,"he said. "And it will worsen the deficit before it ever helps the economy," he added. [Newhouse News Service, 2/24/03]

Despite admitting to not understanding the economy, McCain still needs to answer a fundamental question about his tax plan: if he's going to lower taxes and balance the budget at the same time, what programs will he cut?"

And health savings accounts are a joke. Do you really think you could save enough for treatment for cancer [think of half a million or so] or even treatment of a minor heart attack? That's just another backdoor tax cut for the already wealthy.

***
she is being thrown aside because, for the most part, the men in this country are willing to elect a black man as President, but NO WAY will they accept a woman. And that's what it's come down to. It's sickening.

Posted by: SMD | February 20, 2008 02:09 AM
***

This view is not enlightening at all. I'd agree with that there are still cultural and gender wars going on and will be going on as long as the true social equality in question is not achieved. However, that is not the direction of a better future for everyone. Keep in mind that colorblind and gender -blind when it comes to judging an individual are the way to achieve the real equality between people. I understand this is the ideal, not the reality. Yet this reality is getting very boring and narrow-minded. It needs CHANGE.

'My wife has done research in the area and had mentioned Obama's involvement in writing legislation for this to me.'

Then you know exactly how enormous the problem is, especially in Iraq, where there's scarcely any oversight --republican contractors get huge no-bid secret contracts for 'security projects' that turn out to be utter crap like comic books.

Imagine, millions of your taxpayer dollars went for propaganda comic books. Do you really think the Iraqi people are that stupid not to be able to see through that? Do you not think it insults their intelligence that the US can't afford/seem to help them get clean water or electricity, but can manage to produce COMIC BOOKS?

When the history of this is finally written, the Iraq occupation will be seen for what it is -- a massive modern Gold Rush. Only the US treasury is the gold.

Hillary Clinton needs to take a cold hard look at the data. She has a run a campaign that appeals largely to left side of the bell curve preying on less informed and naive voters. Her campaign scares up the ghosts of Jessie Helms and is repugnant that it is being run by a Senator from the most diverse state in America, New York. The excessive race and gender baiting and over use of the politics of "victimization" have alienated thinking voters from Senator Clinton. While Obama is building a broad based coalition of grassroots Democrats, Independents and disaffected Republicans, Hillary's focus has been to divide up the Democratic base and create an internal war: white vs. black, women vs. men, older vs. younger voters, latino vs. black and white, middle vs. lower middle class, professionals vs. blue collar. It is a horrendous campaign appealing to the worst instincts of man and it illustrates the perceived self entitlement and blind ambition that the Clintons have for the oval office. To those that argue she should pull out to preserve her legacy, my argument is that it is in these final hours that America is finally seeing Hillary's essential character, that of an ANGRY CLOSETED LESBIAN WITH A FASCIST NATURE. She is being repudiated by voters all across America, yet she remains in the race.

jac - perhaps you read this correctly. But banks have a history of dealing with unsecured loans to campaigns that later default. I think a bank lawyer may tell us that this language was stipulated by the bank. There is no actual gaming going on if the borrower must execute the bank's document to take the loan.

The "game" would occur under FEC. And it would happen if McC actually paid the loan for the primary campaign out of fed funds earmarked for the GE. I do not see that as ever being likely. The fed funds for the GE are audited, correct? Misuse has penalties.

I am not trying to be partisan here. I am trying to understand a transaction that makes no legal sense to me.

"That will be John McCain's argument. He has a long record of taking risks in the Senate and pushing bipartisan solutions to problems. A true non-partisan maverick."

Who cares? Like Willard Mittens Romney, McCain has been sucking up to the far-right GOP base. You can forget about those indy voters now; they'll be breaking heavily for Obama.

mark_in_austin

Hell, I don't know if it's enforceable or not. That's not really the point. The point is that it demonstrates a willingness on the part of "straight-talk" McCain to game the public financing system in his self-interest, if necessary. Nobody is pure -- nobody. Not Obama, not McCain, not Clinton.

claudia, glad to hear you liked it. My wife has done research in the area and had mentioned Obama's involvement in writing legislation for this to me.

Hopefully it can get somewhere....

jac13 - So enforceable or not, this was a matter of honor for McC as it was for JRE -
regardless of how they fared, they would not destroy their credit by defaulting. Is that how you see it? Whoo do you think drafted the provision? Do you see it as enforceable?

" S.674 : A bill to require accountability and enhanced congressional oversight for personnel performing private security functions under Federal contracts, and for other purposes." (also in committee)"

YES! Transparency in government spending! The opposite of all the secret blackbox wholesale funneling to a few select private contractors. This would save taxpayers uncounted billions.

This is one of the most important bills this year... this definitely cements my feelings about Obama.

"But in a general election against either Obama or Clinton, it's hard to see conservatives defecting in real numbers. Do some stay home? Sure. Do enough stay home to change the final outcome? Doubtful."

Be honest here Chris,
When you wrote "Doubtful", you really meant "I hope not!" I think you are ignoring some basic realities. There's little doubt that "the f'ing faith-based" community that Rove so callously trivialized, has figured out by now that they were unwitting Christian pawns of the devil himself.

Many of them aren't about to take part in it again, since they won't have a Huckabee to believe in, and they WILL stay home just to protect their Christian conscience from culpability in another debacle like the Bush tribulation.

They already know Romney and McCain have fudged their "liberal" records to pander to the fundie base, but this time around they've still got Karl Roves f'ing words ringing in their spiritual ears.

PS. Your recent confession that you don't vote suggests you must have forgotten you were a citizen long before you were a poundit... the fact you don't vote in order to achieve some elite pounditous perspective, and that you seem to excuse political journalists from that responsibility really, REALLY surprised me.

And disappointed me, to be honest.

Everyone should vote, especially if they constantly, and quite publicly declare their opinions as a writer.

If you can't do both, something is wrong.

drindl, its not a conspiracy theory. Assume the language is unenforceable as written - that's what I am asking other lawyers to comment upon - if McC does not keep his word and pledge the fed funds, then if it is a demand note the bank may call it due. If it is a term note the term may not be extended.

The potential to embarrass provides the additional security - not the unenforceable
promise to make a promise.

Mark: thanks as usual for making my next point. Obama is not the bolt-eating Marxist commie pinko that Faux News and every R seems to be desperately trying to make him out to be. He's a rank-and-file D just as McCain is a rank-and-file R. This relabeling exercise ("News Flash: Obama is the most Liberal Senator in History!!!!") shows only that the poster/source is either (a) ignorant or (b) dishonest.

lilly1 wrote: "51% to 48% is a "virtual tie" only when you're talking about polling numbers with a plus or minus error factor. These are real Democratic voters we're talking about and Obama won them by a 3% margin. Please, get your terminology straightened out here."

No, these numbers are the result of a scientific sample through exit polling. They DO have a margin of error.

judge- that's the post to which I referred. Mark, that's also good info. Thanks to everyone.

Obama's numbers look bad for both Hillary and McCain. True, conservative die-hards probably will form ranks behind McCain come November. But Obama's more respectful campaigning against Hillary means Democrats, too, will likely form ranks behind Obama. Add the independent vote and moderate Republican crossovers, and Obama has the winning coalition.

No, conservatives won't stay home in numbers large enough to change the outcome. The rest of the country will make their turnout a moot point.

bsimon, were you looking for these?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300022
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400629
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300071

bsimon: sure. BTW, I had a discussion with a different poster who convinced me that they are about equally effective at getting legislation passed. It wasn't clear whether the gist of Obama's legislation was broader than Clinton's but that's what the information below implies.

The irony of claims that Clinton is substantive is that those claims aren't actually backed by substance.
So, for you substance hounds out there, here's a look at Obama and Clinton's records in the Senate.
OBAMA
What has Obama done in the 3 years he's been in the Senate?
Bills authored or co-sponsored by Obama include 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), and many more.
In all since he entered the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.
CLINTON
Senator Clinton, who has served seven years, has managed to author and pass into law exactly twenty pieces of legislation. These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress (www.thomas.loc.gov), but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you:
1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site. 2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month. 3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor. 4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall. 5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson. 6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea. 7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day. 9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death. 10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship. 12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program. 13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda. 14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death. 15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.
Only five of Clinton's bills are more substantive.
16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11. 17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 18. Assist landmine victims in other countries. 19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care. 20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.
(Thanks to poster p3ng for looking all this up on the Library of Congress site.)
I recognize it's an asymmetric representation of their records, but the point is that Obama has written and passed major legislation, while Clinton has mostly just taken care of her constituents without demonstrating real vision.
So who's the candidate of substance?

(By the way, for an amusing example of Clinton trying to be the "doer", watch her try to make a big deal out of a diplomatic trip to Bosnia taken with -- drum roll, please -- ... Sinbad!
Here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddgom0QWvLs)
Posted by: davestickler | February 8, 2008 12:07 PM

'So the language, if written by the over-reaching bank, is designed merely to embarrass McC if he fails to pay the loan in full'

That's kind of a strange conspiracy theory, isn't it, Mark?

proud, thanks, because I hadn't bothered to look at Thomas for a list of bills that Obama has sponsored so far.

By checking that, you can find 113 bills that Obama has sponsored. Lots of them are the typical stuff to honor someone from their state, or designating a day for a specific cause. But there are others...

"S.J.RES.23 : A joint resolution clarifying that the use of force against Iran is not authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, any resolution previously adopted, or any other provision of law." (Currently in committee)

"S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes." (also in committee)

and one that I had already heard about:

" S.674 : A bill to require accountability and enhanced congressional oversight for personnel performing private security functions under Federal contracts, and for other purposes." (also in committee)

(claudia, I thought you might be interested in this one...)

You can look at thomas.loc.gov for more...

And yes, those are all bills that haven't been passed. He's co-sponsored a bill for non-proliferation, and also worked with McCain and Feingold on the last campaign finance reform bill.

mark writes "If BHO ultimately agrees to keep his commitment, all the better, b/c McC would gain parity and b/c it is "the right thing."

That looks like a pretty big IF at this point.

When Obama promised to "aggressively pursue" such an agreement with his Republican counterpart, I guess we shouldn't have taken him at his word.

When he says he'll aggressivley pursue Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden, we probably shouldn't take his word for that, either.

COPY of a Complaint I just filed with the FCC:

Marketing, Promoting, Campaigning, Propagandizing FOR the election of Barack Obama using deception - because he supports the owner's of NBC & MSNBC (GE's) PLANS to build nuclear power plants. Nothing but negative, scurrilous, deceptive "news" "coverage" about the Clintons - because Hillary did not vote for "the Cheney Energy Bill" (H.R.6) and stated that her Energy Plans do not include nuclear. Attempted subversion of a Presidential Election to further GE's and the nuclear industry's PLANS to reap billions in Profits ... without any risk of losing a dime ... due to the Cheney Energy Bill's Guarantee of taxpayer payback of any default on the loans to build the nuclear power plants.

DATES: From the inception of their campaign "news coverage" to the present date.

Please feel Free to FILE Your OWN COMPLAINT ... You can do it in minutes with the FCC's Online Complaint FORM.

(Details of MSNBC's SELLING of Obama can be found at Media Matters Website)

mark_in_austin:

Olbermann discussed this the other night. I think McCain agreed to maintain himself as a candidate, albeit with a "suspended" campaign, a la John Edwards, so he could get federal matching funds to repay the loan. To quote Jack Nicholson in "As Good as it Gets," "Is there any other way to see it?"

A Fellow Counselor

For my brothers and sisters at the Bar: A lawyer friend has found the peculiar language in McC's loan.

"Additional Requirement. Borrower and lender agree that if Borrower [McCain's campaign commitee] withdraws from the public matching funds program, but John McCain then does not win the next primary or caucus in which he is active (which can be any primary or caucus held the same day) or does not place at least within 10 percentage points of the winner of that primary or caucus, Borrower will cause John McCain to remain an active political candidate and Borrower will, within thirty (3) days of said primary or caucus (i) reapply for public matching funds, (ii) grant to Lender, as additional collateral for the Loan, a first priority perfected security interest in and to all Borrower's right, title and interest in and to the public matching funds program, and (iii) execute and deliver to Lender such documents, instruments and agreements as Lender may require with respect to the foregoing."

He asks my opinion from a transactional view, because he knows I like McC, not b/c I am a transactional lawyer! My quick and dirty is that this language is beyond the pale of UCC 9.204 that allows after acquired security, because it requires another agreement, first, and fails under the general proscription against agreements to make agreements in the future. Thought of as a transaction, that language is unenforceable - under what circumstances could the Bank obtain specific performance? None. The legal remedy is the collection of the loan. So the language, if written by the over-reaching bank, is designed merely to embarrass McC if he
fails to pay the loan in full. What do you think?

'Ignoring your editorializing,' -- hey, i wasn't criticizing you bsimon, sorry, it did sound like it. my apologies. i was referring to proud and the many others who continue to say that obama has no 'substance' because they refuse to look at his record.

Last year the bloggers here at the Fix laughed at me when I suggested Obama would run and win the nomination. His entire campaign at this point is based on an artificial high. When the truth comes out - he will crash - his entire campaign is a myth.

John Kerry, who remains spineless, will stand next to Eddie Lucio III on Saturday in support of Obama. (This will happen in South Texas) Lucio's political career has been bought and paid for by Bob Perry - who funded Swift Boat Veterans. These people have no shame and do not merit my support. These people love power for the sake of power and consider the people to be an inconvenience of office.

How in gods name can Kerry stand next to someone whose entire political career has been bought and paid for by the same man who funded the Swift Boat Veterans? Because of Bob Perry this country suffered 4 additional years of hell, and Obama asks us to forget it because his supporters here in the LRGV are Bob Perry puppets.

Obama and Kerry have no shame - not an ounce of shame

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes

Proud, read my advice at 7:41A and my next post, please.

Prud, read my advice at 7:41A and my next post, please.

proudtobeGOP writes
"It looks like Sen Obama won't be keeping his word"

Jump to conclusions much?

This is the essence of republican rule -- corruption, mismanagement, incompetence, and theft of taxpayer funds for personal use:

"AP) The Federal Emergency Management Agency misspent millions of dollars it received from selling used travel trailers, government investigators have found.

Instead of buying more trailers - as allowed under the law - FEMA used more than $13 million toward fully loaded sport utility vehicles, travel expenses and purchase card accounts, according to a draft report by the Homeland Security Department's inspector general obtained by The Associated Press. The report is to be released Friday. "

"here's a bit of it, bsimon... amzing how easy it is to google if you actually want to know"

Ignoring your editorializing, I am actually looking for the list of US Senate accomplishments that judge posted a couple times last week. But thanks for the link, as that is handy for me elsewhere.

It was Obama's idea in the first place! Last year, both Obama and his campaign promised to "aggressively pursue" such an agreement with their Republican counterpart.

One year later, he's waffling and going back on his word. He seemed be saying that he never made the commitment, when it was his idea, his pledge, his gaunlet that was thrown down at the start of the campaign!

Now he says "It would be presumptuous of me to start saying now that I'm locking myself into something when I don't even know if the other side is going to agree to it." Oh please, the audacity indeed.

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.

--- Matthew McGovern

Dirty Cindy McCain should keep her mouth closed and not be so critical of Michelle Obama.

Cindy, who was addicted to prescription painkillers and who stole pills from a medical-aid charity she headed. Cindy McCain who used the names of unsuspecting employees to get prescriptions to compensate for her drug addiction... hmmm. and she was critisizing Michelle for what reason? Ohhh yeah! For saying "that for once in my adult life.. I am proud of my country"... Mrs. McCain should learn to keep her opnion to herself, especially with a dirty past like this..

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a389bc0cd788b.htm

OK, everyone. Before you run off and condemn Obama on campaign financing based on third-hand oppo research BS, read this:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/opposing-view-3.html

'It looks like Sen Obama won't be keeping his word on public financing. '

I don't suppose you heard about how McCain had a deal that if he lost, his debt would be 'retired' by taxpayers? I'll look it up if you want. Saw it yesterday.

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA.

GOOD ONE PROUD. Fear, I like that from the gop after all these years.

What else you got? Any other gripes.

Well, I am a small donor (compared to the unions that support Obama) and I donate to John McCain. He has defied the CW of elections being all about how much money you can raise.

It looks like Sen Obama won't be keeping his word on public financing. He must have had a change of heart sparked by his massive fundraising haul. Promises be damned!

The republican election strategy:

"Secret evidence. Denial of habeas corpus. Evidence obtained by waterboarding/torture. Indefinite detention. The litany of complaints about the legal treatment of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay is long, disturbing and by now familiar. Nonetheless, a new wave of shock and criticism greeted the Pentagon's announcement on February 11 that it was charging six Guantánamo detainees with war crimes--and seeking the death penalty for all of them.

Now, as the murky, quasi-legal staging of the Bush Administration's military commissions unfolds, a key official has said that the trials are rigged from the start. According to Col. Morris Davis, former chief prosecutor for Guantánamo's military commissions, the process has been manipulated by Administration appointees in an attempt to foreclose the possibility of acquittal.

Colonel Davis's criticism of the commissions has been escalating since he resigned this past October, telling the Washington Post that he had been pressured by politically appointed senior defense officials to pursue cases deemed "sexy" and of "high-interest" (such as the 9/11 cases now being pursued) in the run-up to the 2008 elections. "

Bueler? Bueler? Bueler?

It actually is kind of surprising how many people continue to come out to vote for Huckabee as a protest vote (many, many more than for the other remaining protest candidate, Ron Paul), since no one seriously thinks he can win the nomination. In the meanwhile, Obama continues to get favorable press, even from some conservative commentators (watch Fox News), since he is not Clinton. Once the general election starts, however, the campaign will get really, really nasty. You can be assured that conservatives will make a point of including Obama´s middle name (Hussein) when talking about him, both for the negative connotation the name has in general, and to continue to fruther the erroneous rumor that Obama was at some time Muslim. I imagine you may even see more photos of his black father than of his white mother (not in official GOP campaign materials, mind you).

"Republican Sen. John McCain raised nearly $12 million in January, mostly from former Bush supporters.

According to filings with the Federal Election Commission late Tuesday, McCain had $5.2 million cash on hand at the start of February and $5.5 million in debts, including a loan of nearly $4 million."

Obama, on the other hand, raised $36 million in January, almost entirely from small donors.

Oops, you're basing the 51%-48% on EXIT POLLS so I guess you can say "virtual tie". My mistake.

Ooops drindl! You forgot to paste that next important sentence! "Since most of Obama's legislation was enacted in Illinois, most of the evidence is found there"

I'm sure it was an honest oversight on your part.

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.

51% to 48% is a "virtual tie" only when you're talking about polling numbers with a plus or minus error factor. These are real Democratic voters we're talking about and Obama won them by a 3% margin. Please, get your terminology straightened out here.

here's a bit of it, bsimon... amzing how easy it is to google if you actually want to know:

"People who complain that Barack Obama lacks experience must be unaware of his legislative achievements. One reason these accomplishments are unfamiliar is that the media have not devoted enough attention to Obama's bills and the effort required to pass them, ignoring impressive, hard evidence of his character and ability."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html

According to a WaPo article, most of Obama's legislative accomplishments were in Illinois, not Washington. I guess he can really pump up his resume with that community organizer stuff, but I'm just sayin'.... it doesn't hold a candle to Mack's record.

"People who complain that Barack Obama lacks experience must be unaware of his legislative achievements. One reason these accomplishments are unfamiliar is that the media have not devoted enough attention to Obama's bills (that mean old media, always picking on poor Obama. NOT!) and the effort required to pass them, ignoring impressive, hard evidence of his character and ability.

Since most of Obama's legislation was enacted in Illinois, most of the evidence is found there"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html

I nominate Nicholas Hacker for President; as a North Dakota Senator he has some extremely significant accomplishments too!

I thought Matthews's attack on the hapless senator was cheap, underhanded and rude. Obviously Matthews -- whom I generally like -- is feeling a little self-conscious after his unfair attack on Clinton and his foolish comment about how Obama's speeches gave him "a funny feeling running up his leg (!)." Even Olbermann was stunned.

Going negative is not going to help Hillary. It was rejected by the voters of Wisconsin. Most polls of the last two weeks have had Hillary at 40% to 42% support, which turns out to have been accurate. A poll on 2/10 had Obama up 45% to 41% with 14% undecided. This was before the Potomac primaries and the negative ads she ran in Wisconsin.

There is no other way to read the results than ALL of the undecided voters broke for Obama. Her advertising and campaigning approach was completely rejected.

I don't have any advice for Hillary, but I do know that if she goes more negative, she'll be even more strongly rejected.

judge- could you dig up that post about Obama's legislative accomplishments for proud?

Zogby's new poll shows the electability argument in the Democratic race is over.
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/02/20/electibility/

No one can deny Obama did well last night - especially in his rally in Houston - 20k plus. At some point Obama is going to be vetted by the press and the Republicans. I am not saying Hillary is the choice. There is very little doubt in my mind Obama will falter before November and McCain will become president.

American is in the middle looking for someone who can unite the people. McCain and Obama both fit the needs of the American people. The people who are high on Obama will come crashing down once he is vetted during the formal campaign.

You cannot win Texas as a Democrat without the Lower Rio Grande Valley. The LRGV has refused to turn out and vote for nearly 17 years. This has cost the Democrats power in Texas. Everyone in the LRGV knows the Dems treat us like evil step children who need to learn their place. The Dems have been out of power 15 years and more.

Obama and Hillary have both gotten in bed with the evil which is everything bad in LRGV politics. Everyone I know, save one Hillary supporter, voted for Edwards yesterday in Texas early voting. The Lucios are tied to 21.4 million dollars missing from the Port of Brownsville. It was spent on a non-existent bridge between Mexico and the port. The Lucios are hated across the board.

The Lucios decided the best way to insure a new Democratic President not authorize a criminal investigation into the missing 21.4 million dollars decided the son, III would support Obama, and the father Jr would support Hillary. To a person every Obama supporter I know cut and ran the day we heard Lucio III would be his spoke person in the LRGV. This told us a lot about Obama. He will get in bed with whomever it takes to win. He sees no reason to investigate his friends.

Lucio the III has also voted to make our community college the most expensive community college in Texas. He openly supports the continued policy of local taxpayers paying property taxes to support UT Brownsville. No other state university is funded by local property taxes. We are the second poorest county in the US. Obama clearly does not care about the people - he cares about power and this should scare people.

The high people are on about Obama will eventually go away and a true list of his friends and supporters will come to light. The crash will be hard and McCain will be the next president.

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes

EVEN A BLIND SQUIRREL FINDS A NUT ONCE IN A WHILE...
MSNBC's Chris Matthews: "You are a big Barack supporter, right, Senator?"
State Sen. Watson: "I am. Yes, I am."

Matthews: "Well, name some of his legislative accomplishments. No, Senator, I want you to name some of Barack Obama's legislative accomplishments tonight if you can."

State Sen. Watson: "Well, you know, what I will talk about is more about what he is offering the American people right now."

Matthews: "No. No. What has he accomplished, sir? You say you support him. Sir, you have to give me his accomplishments. You've supported him for president. You are on national television. Name his legislative accomplishments, Barack Obama, sir."

State Sen. Watson: "Well, I'm not going to be able to name you specific items of legislative accomplishments."

Matthews: "Can you name any? Can you name anything he's accomplished as a Congressman?"

State Sen. Watson: "No, I'm not going to be able to do that tonight."

Matthews: "Well, that is a problem isn't it?"

It will be in November. Hope and change sound great ... for a while. At some point, the spell breaks, and people wonder how all this hope and change will morph into actual policy, and whether the candidate can actually deliver it. That usually means looking at the record to see how the candidate did so in the past, when they had the opportunity to do so.

Obama simply doesn't have any record to show. He has been in the Senate a grand total of three years, one of which he's spent running for President.

Obama has no record of even attempting to bring any of the themes on which he's running now to the Senate for consideration as actual legislative product. Why didn't he act when he had the chance?

That will be John McCain's argument. He has a long record of taking risks in the Senate and pushing bipartisan solutions to problems. A true non-partisan maverick.

He hasn't just sat around talking about change; he's actually accomplished it, sometimes in directions that angered Republicans then and now. McCain can cast himself as the real agent of change and bipartisanship, while Obama just poses as such for an election without once taking any real risks.

No-bid contracts to cronies who kick back cash to campaigns in an to create a permanent Republican majority would have been a nightmarish thought to our founders. Yet, this is what we have today.

This is what the Republican party is all about. Dirty money, bribery and privatization of government services -- and virtual theft of taxpayer's money to grease the skids and line the campaign coffers. McCain is a republican -- and as such, he will keep doing exactly what they are doing now.

@ ssergio:
Don't worry about Hillary getting nasty. The Clintons' mud attacks are too well known to have any effect. The people want to hear the candidates talk about the issues.

The difference is Leadership - It also appears that (at least for now) many people have learned the lessons of the negative attacks and ignore them. It is insulting to concerned voters to play out the balance of this campaign with dirty politcs. Tell me why I should vote for YOU.

The Democrats are succeeding in McGovernizing the party in time for the November election. With the new walk-up registration rules they have allowed kids and sabotage voters to come in and mess up the primary state election. Instead of the Democrats fielding a solid experienced candidate, we are getting a guy who has not a blither of a chance to win even one state in the general election in November. The very biased anti-Hillary media has had a lot to do with what has happened. In my lifetime of voting in the presidential campaigns I have never seen the meadia so out of control and so viciously biased against a candidate as they have been against Sen. Clinton. Terrible bias.

Wonder if the new president will continue to use our taxpayer dollars in Iraq for -- comic books?

"As part of it continuing bid to beef up its "strategic communications" capabilities, the U.S. government has tried many things in Iraq, including, it turns out, distributing comic books. The military recently put out a solicitation for "twelve (12) issues of 6th Brigade Comic Book series" which is designed "to highlight the professionalism of the Iraqi Special Operations Forces (ISOF) and to enhance the public perception of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) as a capable, well-trained, and professional fighting force IAW Information Operations Objectives..."

This apparently isn't a new thing. Last year, a published announcement said a sole source contract for 6th Brigade Comic Book went to the Lincoln Group, the private contractor that gained notoriety for paying to place favorable press coverage in Iraqi newspapers."

Now the head of the Lincoln Group is Christian Bailey, who currently holds over $300 million in no-bid goverment contracts, mainly in Iraq:

"Bailey was a founder and active participant in Lead21, a fund-raising and networking operation for affluent young Republicans, some of whom have gone on to serve in the Bush administration. Click on the links to Lead21's site today and no mention of Bailey is to be found. But on a subscriber business and social networking site, there's an archived e-mail of Bailey discussing setting up a New York branch of Lead21, and his "personal network," which lists a half-dozen members of the organization's current board, including the chairman of the California Republican Party and the senior policy adviser to the Justice Department's chief information officer. "These are going to be the big supporters, the big donors to the Republican Party in five years' time," Bailey told The New York Times in an Aug. 31, 2004, video interview during a Lead21 party at the Republican convention in New York."

"McCain attacked the "empty call for change that promises no more than a holiday from history" and wondered whether the country will "risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate." Yowza."

"...the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate?" Ummm, John, you've been sucking up to Bush, the poster child for confused leadership and (in 2000) an inexperienced candidate, for years. Find another tack. 'Sides, that just gives BHO an opening to tag you with the twin failures of Iraq and Afghanistan. What? Iraq is a success? Great, so the troops must be home by now. What? You want them to stay for another 100 years? What's your definition of 'success' again?

As far as attacking calls for change, that dog won't hunt either. People are hungry for change and McCain needs to go with that flow as much as he can. His biggest negative is that many of his policies appear to continue what Bush started. Labeling him as "Bush II" is a powerful negative that he must be ready to counter with fresh ideas. Staying in Iraq for 100 years ain't one of them. Neither is turning back the clock on Roe v. Wade. C'mon John, "think different" (TM Apple Computer, 1997).

Saumuelson picks up the "Where's the beef" meme:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902336.html

If my memory serves me correctly, Bubba has lost only one election, way back when.

I guess the Billarys are on strange territory.

Will they go down gracefully, no please no. I'll miss the Bubba's big red face in all its smug air of superiority. Will they concede sooner rather than later, no please, no. I would miss the Mark Penn clueless put downs. Should Hill congratulate Sen. Obama on his recent ten to nothing winning streak, yes, please yes. Time to look after the little people of your phony "home" state of Nueva York, senadora.

Out with old, in with the new!

Thank you Wisconsin and Hawaii. Clinton won't bow out gracefully, at least not until after Texas and Ohio. I do hope some of the nastiness subsides. Save it for Four More Years McCain.

Happy Birthday, Chris.

I hope the Clintons can accept their defeat gracefully, and not besmirch their record by an undignified exit. If they again fail to win a SUBSTANTIAL victory -- not just by a few votes -- in BOTH Texas and Ohio, then Party leaders like Al Gore and Ted Kennedy should step in.

Happy Birthday, Chris

The argument that Hillary Clinton is entitled to the nomination because she has won the big states is ridiculous. The candidate who wins the most votes and the most delegates is the winner. Furthermore, does anyone think that those big blue states won't vote for Obama in the general? Does anyone think that Hillary Clinton has a snowball's chance in Hades of carrying enough red and purple states. I am also amazed at the myopia of the Clinton supporters who whine about her supposedly being a stronger general election candidate against McCain. Every poll I have seen shows Obama beating McCain and Clinton losing to him.

Hillary will not drop out, at least not until after March 4th.

UNLESS, that is, some of the party elders look down the road and see that she can't win big enough in OH and TX -- if she wins one or both, that is -- to catch Obama in pledged delegates, and so the only way she wins is with Superdelegates (unlikely, since the trend there seems to be all Obama since Super Tuesday); or starting and winning a nasty fight to seat the MI and FL delegates she claims she won. The latter two would be widely seen, IMHO, as undemocratic and would cheapen the nomination even if she got it.

So the wise old heads who have kept silent so far (Gore, Biden, Dodd, maybe Richardson, maybe Edwards) go to Hillary and persuade her to throw in the towel, for the good of the party.

Do I think this might happen? Possible.

Do I think Hillary would do it? Not likely.

From the San Antonio Express-News:

"Obama paced around the plaza's center for nearly 90 minutes, the focal point of an eager crowd of more than 4,000 supporters that was almost evenly divided among African Americans, Anglos and Hispanics. He took nearly an hour's worth of questions from the audience."

"Mortola said it was a difficult choice between two good candidates, and she was worried about the campaign fracturing the party, since even at the Bexar County level, Democrats can't get along."

Mark, your advice for McCain is spot on. MPR broadcast some excerpts from his latest speech & it didn't come across well. Arguing against change is not an effective strategy to win elections. As far as the experience argument goes, I was thinking "John, its not working for Hillary, why do you think that attack will work for you?"

From the Houston Chronicle:

"Obama spokesman Josh Earnest said 7,000 tickets were printed for the Toyota Center, which cost $35,000 to rent, and another 14,000 people signed up online. He said the Obama Web site had a waiting list of 10,000 people requesting tickets."

The Rockets do not draw THAT well.

Chris,
Happy Birthday....and many happy returns of the day!

Great analysis, Chris. As you said, on paper Clinton should have won the primary, or at least performed better in it. I'm no fan of Oprah, but did she know something the pundits didn't? When she first endorsed Obama, many politicos were already calling the Dem nomination for Clinton. Cross referencing the results of both parties' primaries in the same states, the sheer numbers are astounding. I guess it's normal for a party to get energized after the other party has "won" (using the term lightly) the last two elections. And as Chris mentioned, most Republicons will probably begrudgingly be a good conformist and vote for McCain. But when 2nd place Clinton gets more votes in a state than all Repubs combined, that speaks volumes. I still argue that where race and gender are involved, national polls don't necessarily siphon into votes--most people are at least ashamed to admit that they're harboring racial or gender biases. But with each passing generation, America gradually moves toward a more post-modernist environment. Ironically, "change" was the mantra of the baby boomers in the 60's and 70's, but now Hillary has nearly reached retirement age. So perhaps the country is ready to at least consider taking change to the next level. In another Irony, McCain fought in 'Nam, but is over 70-years-old. Wasn't the average age of U.S. troops in 'Nam--19? By opting for Bush Jr. over McCain in y2k, it seemed that the Repubs were at least acknowledging that the electorate was getting younger. Now in the tradition of the Republican Bizarro world, they're reverting back to a candidate who's old enough to be 20-somethings' grandfather. It's safe to say that a 71-year-old who has battled cancer, raises issues about health. Finally, Obama did the right thing in honoring McCain for his service in 'Nam, particularly with the vast majority of Repub leaders, preachers, and pundits being chickenhawks. Kerry should have ripped the GOP a new one after the Swift Boat fiasco. In any case, McCain is simply too old and too senatorial to have any GD chance of winning a national election. As someone mentioned on this blog, the y2k8 election could become a deja vu of '92.

Happy Birthday, Chris.

Happy Birthday.

Clinton should have known that the route of the "Dirty Little Secret" would fail. The "secret" was no secret at all--it was a gift from a friend and colleague.

Now here's a real Dirty Little Secret:

dlsxpatriate.blogspot.com

brad, did you win a "lottery" ticket?

Chris - Does it mean anything that Clinton in a losing effort complied more votes than the entire Republican field? What does this say about the blowhard's (Limbaugh) effort to drum up votes for Clinton?

mark_in_austin | February 20, 2008 08:06 AM

Lawyers will be present if the little people say so. This is an election, not a Bubba Restoration/Coronation, come hell or high water.

Off with your little heads, you shameless ambulance chasers. This cadaver has been vetted and sent to the morgue!

We hold these truths to be self evident; Obama will win the dem nomination. The only thing remaining is to see how the Clintons go out. Will it be like Rudy and go out with class or will the Clintons go out ugly, slinging mud at everyone. I would bet on the latter.

Confident Clinton Takes Aim At Attackers
Hillary Clinton Tells Katie Couric Time To "Draw Contrasts" With Her Rivals
CONCORD, N.H., Nov. 26, 2007

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/26/eveningnews/main3540666.shtml

Couric asked Clinton if she's lowering her expectations as the primary approaches.

"I never raised them, you know when I got into race at the beginning of the year. I wasn't even in double-digits. I was so far behind in Iowa, it was embarrassing," Clinton said.

Her campaign instead is "encouraged" she said, because "we're making progress - but I take nothing for granted, this is going to be a tight race."

"I think everybody should just take a deep breath and say 'let's just go to the finish line,' which will be probably be midnight West Coast time on Feb. 5," she said.

Ready on day 1?

piktor - Lawyers must represent; at any moment, half of us are representing losers...
[grin]

mark_in_austin | February 20, 2008 07:41 AM

Mark, what we got in Hillary is a Democratic Huckabee. It is a matter of time until she wakes up and smells the coffee. Lawyers need not apply.

Ah, the aroma of failure...

In your opinion is Hillary Clinton finished?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1754

.

It will be interesting to see the tone of the debate tomorrow night in Austin. If the saner people are winning the argument in her camp, then it will be a tame, tepid affair. If we get feisty, attack-mode Hillary, that's probably a signal that she's not bowing out gracefully. And I wouldn't be at all surprised to see that Hillary.

At some point though, the Clintons have to worry about their long-term standing in the party, and the people working for her have to start thinking about their post-'08 careers. A bitter, ugly, protracted fight will likely hurt them much more than it would hurt Obama.

Were I lawyering for HRC:

I would say to the supers - even if DNC excludes the FL delegation, remember that FL is one of the two pivotal states in recent elections and that HRC has shown she is stronger there than BHO. OH is the other; wait and see who wins OH.

I would avoid arguing about "constituencies", or about states any D will win [CA, NY, IL] or states any R will win [TX].
-------------------------------
Were I advertising for McC against either D, I would posterize Putin, for example, and ask who do we ultimately want sitting on our side of the table from him.
I would never talk about "experience" but always talk about "accomplishments". I would avoid bluster, but suggest that knowing the military realities as McC does will allow him to see all of our options as we prudently transform our mission from daily combat to peacekeeping and nation building. In the case of BHO, only, I would hammer "the Pledge" [http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/the_obama_pledge.html]
and argue that McC is the true reformer. If BHO ultimately agrees to keep his commitment, all the better, b/c McC would gain parity and b/c it is "the right thing."
------------------------------
BHO does not need my help, right now.
-----------------------------

Obama has now won 10 in a row and not just wins but landslides -- all wins were by 15% or more! Its over Madame Clinton. Your coronation has be called off, you have been stripped of your title and the crown given to Barack Obama.

Latest polls have Hillary up by only single digits in TX and OH. One poll has Obama up in TX. And this is before he has really started to campaign there in earnest. Plus the momentum of 10 in a row will also impact those numbers. There is no plausible way she can win this now.. without cheating. I think this thing is over. It is time for Hillary to withdraw and let the party rally around the nominee and focus on winning in Nov.

dyinglikeflies | February 20, 2008 06:57 AM

What will we write about if she concedes?

Stay, Hillary, stay!!!

Go, little people, go! Riff raff multitudes and flyover raffle of puny inconsequential little states, go! The Hillary says you are not what this election is about. Bubba and his big time amigos from here and far abroad thought they had this deal signed, sealed, delivered.

Guess not.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/us/politics/20obama.html

As of now Clinton polls ahead in Ohio and Texas. If she wins those and Pennsylvania, Obama will have failed to carry ANY of the large states except his own (Illinois) and will not be entitled to the nomination. If Obama wins those, he is definitely entitled to it. No spin here- it's just that simple. Clinton should not bow out, any more than Obama should have bowed out when he was still behind in delegates after Super Tuesday.