Obama's efforts to connect to the Republican Party, specifically Bush, and Dick Chaney, of the Halliburton Company, dates back to the Presidents Grandfather, Prescott Bush, and indeed Chaney was once an executive officer of Halliburton.

The American military pounds Iraq with Artillary, bombs, and the like, destroying large sections of cities, and infra-structures, then Halliburton comes in to rebuild. Halliburton and Halliburton associated companies have raked in ten's of billions.

Obama is just like the BIG HALIBURTAN. Haliburton has contracted to build detention centers in the U.S. similiar to the one in Quantanammo Bay, Cuba. Halliburton does nothing to earn the Two Dollars for each meal an American Serviceman in Iraq eats.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Halliburton was scheduled to take control of the Dubai Ports in The United Arab Emiirate. The deal was canceled when Bush was unable to affect the transfer of the American Ports.

Now we see what some might suspect as similiar financial escapading from the Democrats.

Two years ago, Iraq's Ministry of Electricity gave a $50 million contract to a start-up security company - Companion- owned by now-indicted businessman (TONY REZKO) Tony Rezko and a onetime Chicago cop, Daniel T. Frawley, to train Iraqi power-plant guards in the United States. An Iraqi leadership change left the deal in limbo. Now the company, Companion Security, is working to revive its contract.
Involved along with Antoin "Tony" Rezco, long time friend and neighbor of Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, and former cop Daniel T. Frawley, is Aiham Alsammarae. Alsammarae was accused of financial corruption by Iraqi authorities and jailed in Iraq last year before escaping and returning here.

LIKE FATHER LIKE SON --
Recently, Obama's campaign staff have been vetted by the IRS to disclose his connection to the criminal money generating underworld. Besides, his connections to the REZCO MAFIA types, his up-coming tax fraud charges -- Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and disclose Obama's MUSLIM Farrakhan mob connection to Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church are trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. Obama should stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke "GLORK" Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He is MAD!!! --

OBAM YOU'RE NO JFK --

"GLORK" Obama looks like Alfred E. Newman: "Tales Calculated To Drive You." He is a MUSLIM "Glork" He's MAD!!! Alfred E. Neuman is the fictional mascot of Mad. The face had drifted through American pictography for decades before being claimed by Mad editor Harvey Kurtzman after he spotted it on the bulletin board in the office of Ballantine Books editor Bernard Shir-Cliff, later a contributor to various magazines created by Kurtzman.
Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek.

Michelle Obama should be ashamed.

"GLORK" Michelle Obama should be ashamed of her separatist-racist connection to Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. If Michelle Obama new what her husband -- the Hope-A-Dope, Fonster Monster -- Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama did in Harlem, she would wash her wide-open, Hus-suey loving MUSILM mouth out, with twenty-four (24) mule-team double-cross X-boX-BorraX. He is a MUSLIM "Glork" It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He's MAD!!!

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

THE SPEECH --

The Apologia has arrived and once again the self-indicting, separatist-racist Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama, promises to heal the wounds of the world. The speech is the rude awakening of mass messianism of his campaign. Apologetically, Obama the MUSLIM double-cross X-boX-BorraX has an astonishingly empty two-prawn echelon explanation of his misjudgment.
In the first prawn: with regard to his connection to separatist-racist Rev. Wright; Obama summons voodoo and juju to express slavery as beginning and ending with the Rev. Wright.
In the second prawn: Obama's speech takes credit for Ashley's dream. A dream of unity Martin Luther King, Jr. borrowed from Ashley for his historic "I Have A Dream" speech. In Obama's speech, the connective bond Ashley, the elderly black man and Obama's grandmother share; represents Obama's self-indicting rise to the Harvard Yard. For Obama, the grand flag of language is the semi-fore of words, bestowed upon our nation by the messiah-alumni from Harvard. Obama's Swoon-Song Apologia to the nation represents a failed hymn -- a hymn that fails to heal the nation, repair the world, or make this time different than all the rest. Obama's speech is a brilliant failure.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

I read that Obama was planning a trip overseas. I think that would be a great move. Appearing with foreign dignataries would help voters see him as commander-in-chief and would counter some of the fantasy vs. reality rhetoric coming from Hillary. There's plenty of time before Pennsylvania.

Ring... Ring... Ring....Hillary Clinton answers.... "Yes hold on Bill's right here you better ask him."

This is the sum total of Hillary's experience!

I really do not underestimate or denigrate the role of the first lady, but the fact that Hillary is using her experience in the white house as first lady to say that she has more experience than Obama is not a reasonable comparison.

History has already recorded that he was not as close to her as she now claims, for he was clearly pusuing other romantic interests. Maybe Monica Lewinski an claim the same thing.

Why is the media not covering MS primary? It is tomorrow and is of vital importance. There are 33 delegates at stake and Obama could win a huge chunk if he wins big enough. He could come out of MS with more net delegates than Hillary got in Ohio. Isn't that an important story?

I love the gullible press response to Mrs. Clinton's claims of significantly more foreign policy experience than Mr. Obama (not to mention their virtual silence at lauding her Republican rival over the Democratic front-runner -- smooth, Mrs. Clinton). Mrs. Clinton claims vast foreign policy expertise during the time her husband was in office -- yet during all that time SHE DID NOT HAVE A SECURITY CLEARANCE!!! The most junior whitehouse aide with a passing contact with National Security materials has to have a security clearance; it would have been against the law for her husband to have whispered sweet policy nothings in her ear; for him to have shown her any classified documents or to have discussed those materials in any way was illegal and a threat to national security. People have gone to jail for less. Yet she ran that stupid 3 am ad (and the press replayed it ad nauseum) without a single, serious discussion of exactly how much superior experience she actually gained through her duties as First Lady since she legally was limited to much the same information as we read in this paper. So I believe Chris' point no. 4, getting the press to do their job, is a very important part of Sen. Obama's strategy from this point forward. And they can start by finally challenging this purported "experience" discrepancy asap.

Rezko Connections: More Reasons Obama Should Worry
by John Batchelor
Posted 03/06/2008 ET

Why does Barack Obama need to worry about a previously unknown court filing that revealed, on the second day of jury selection in the trial of Antoin "Tony" Rezko, that a prosecution witness accuses Mr. Rezko to have bribed the Iraqi Coalition Provisional Authority Minister of Electricity Aiham Alsammarae with $1.5 million for a bogus contract in 2005?

The reason Mr. Obama need worry is that the contract at issue, $50 million for an Illinois-based private security guard enterprise called Companion Security, turns up in Iraqi government court documents in the pursuit of $650 million stolen from the CPA between 2003 and 2006 by Mr. Alsammarae. "There are lots of names of companies in the States that they used to steal from us," a Baghdad official with full knowledge of the case says of the four-inch-thick file of court documents that convicted Mr. Alsammarae in October 2006; "and here is Companion."

The reason Mr. Obama need worry is that Mr. Rezko's accuser, Daniel Mahru, is not only a government witness in this present Rezko trial, but also was the lawyer for the original Companion Security deal and is reported to have pushed another Rezko partner in Companion Security, Daniel T. Frawley, to revive the Companion contract in the spring and summer of 2006 in conversation with both Governor Rod Blagojevich's office and Senator Barack Obama's office.

The reason Mr. Obama need worry is that, according to the same court filing, Mr. Mahru has been cooperating with the Federal investigation of Mr. Rezko since December 2005, ten months before Mr. Rezko was indicted. Mr. Mahru was Mr. Rezko's partner in the real estate development company Rezmar for 16 years until the two men broke in December 2005. Mr. Mahru then became partners with John Thomas in a troubled Miami real estate deal; and it is well established that Mr. Thomas has been a cooperating federal witness who wore a wire as a mole for the FBI in 2004 and 2005, including in many visits to Mr. Rezko's offices, where frequent callers included Governor Blagojevich and State Senator Barack Obama. The government states that Mr. Thomas did not record the governor or the state senator.

The reason Mr. Obama need worry is that Mr. Mahru's accusation means that federal prosecutors were watching what Mr. Rezko was doing -- the Rezko-Auchi deal with the 62-acre Chicago site from 2003, the Rezko-Auchi-Alsammarae deal with the CPA Ministry of Electricity plant at Chamchamal, Kurdistan, from 2004, the Rezko-Frawley-Mahru-Alsammarae Companion Security deal from 2005 -- while Mr. Rezko was fundraising for Mr. Obama in his successful campaign for the U.S. Senate in 2004 and then into Mr. Obama's first term.

There is no evidence of wrongdoing by Senator Obama, nor none alleged; however, there is an unsavory tale of how the Chicago political machine works for its friends and supporters, stretching from the South Side of Chicago all the way to Baghdad.

There is also now alleged a direct link, the bribe, between Mr. Rezko and Mr. Alsammarae for the Companion Security deal of 2005. This raises questions about the contract that may be difficult to answer for those who became involved in trying to revive the contract in 2006, such as the offices of Governor Rod Blagojevich and Senator Obama. There are large holes in the narrative, and some inconsistencies. For example, if Mr. Rezko broke with Mr. Mahru in December 2005, does that mean that Mr. Rezko continued to participate in the revival of the Companion Security deal that he had bribed Mr. Alsammarae to obtain? And did the fact that the protracted communication -- between Companion Security's representative, Daniel T. Frawley, and Senator Obama's Moline office aide, Seamus Ahern -- that was broken off sometime in late 2006 have anything to do with the indictment and arrest of Mr. Rezko in October 2006 or the Baghdad conviction for fraud of Mr. Alsammarae in October 2006?

.... more ....
http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2008/03/more-barak-obama-rezko-revelations.html

Rezko Connections: More Reasons Obama Should Worry
by John Batchelor
Posted 03/06/2008 ET

Why does Barack Obama need to worry about a previously unknown court filing that revealed, on the second day of jury selection in the trial of Antoin "Tony" Rezko, that a prosecution witness accuses Mr. Rezko to have bribed the Iraqi Coalition Provisional Authority Minister of Electricity Aiham Alsammarae with $1.5 million for a bogus contract in 2005?

The reason Mr. Obama need worry is that the contract at issue, $50 million for an Illinois-based private security guard enterprise called Companion Security, turns up in Iraqi government court documents in the pursuit of $650 million stolen from the CPA between 2003 and 2006 by Mr. Alsammarae. "There are lots of names of companies in the States that they used to steal from us," a Baghdad official with full knowledge of the case says of the four-inch-thick file of court documents that convicted Mr. Alsammarae in October 2006; "and here is Companion."

The reason Mr. Obama need worry is that Mr. Rezko's accuser, Daniel Mahru, is not only a government witness in this present Rezko trial, but also was the lawyer for the original Companion Security deal and is reported to have pushed another Rezko partner in Companion Security, Daniel T. Frawley, to revive the Companion contract in the spring and summer of 2006 in conversation with both Governor Rod Blagojevich's office and Senator Barack Obama's office.

The reason Mr. Obama need worry is that, according to the same court filing, Mr. Mahru has been cooperating with the Federal investigation of Mr. Rezko since December 2005, ten months before Mr. Rezko was indicted. Mr. Mahru was Mr. Rezko's partner in the real estate development company Rezmar for 16 years until the two men broke in December 2005. Mr. Mahru then became partners with John Thomas in a troubled Miami real estate deal; and it is well established that Mr. Thomas has been a cooperating federal witness who wore a wire as a mole for the FBI in 2004 and 2005, including in many visits to Mr. Rezko's offices, where frequent callers included Governor Blagojevich and State Senator Barack Obama. The government states that Mr. Thomas did not record the governor or the state senator.

The reason Mr. Obama need worry is that Mr. Mahru's accusation means that federal prosecutors were watching what Mr. Rezko was doing -- the Rezko-Auchi deal with the 62-acre Chicago site from 2003, the Rezko-Auchi-Alsammarae deal with the CPA Ministry of Electricity plant at Chamchamal, Kurdistan, from 2004, the Rezko-Frawley-Mahru-Alsammarae Companion Security deal from 2005 -- while Mr. Rezko was fundraising for Mr. Obama in his successful campaign for the U.S. Senate in 2004 and then into Mr. Obama's first term.

There is no evidence of wrongdoing by Senator Obama, nor none alleged; however, there is an unsavory tale of how the Chicago political machine works for its friends and supporters, stretching from the South Side of Chicago all the way to Baghdad.

There is also now alleged a direct link, the bribe, between Mr. Rezko and Mr. Alsammarae for the Companion Security deal of 2005. This raises questions about the contract that may be difficult to answer for those who became involved in trying to revive the contract in 2006, such as the offices of Governor Rod Blagojevich and Senator Obama. There are large holes in the narrative, and some inconsistencies. For example, if Mr. Rezko broke with Mr. Mahru in December 2005, does that mean that Mr. Rezko continued to participate in the revival of the Companion Security deal that he had bribed Mr. Alsammarae to obtain? And did the fact that the protracted communication -- between Companion Security's representative, Daniel T. Frawley, and Senator Obama's Moline office aide, Seamus Ahern -- that was broken off sometime in late 2006 have anything to do with the indictment and arrest of Mr. Rezko in October 2006 or the Baghdad conviction for fraud of Mr. Alsammarae in October 2006?

.... more ....
http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2008/03/more-barak-obama-rezko-revelations.html

The campaign of the Clintons will end as soon as they will have released their records (tax returns, White House records, donors for their foundation,...). Hillary Clinton will then become radio-active. So, it is in the interest of the democrats and of the DNC to have the Clintons releasing their records before the nomination.

OBAMA another corrupt Chicago Politician
http://poligazette.com/2008/03/09/was-there-an-obama-daley-deal-on-the-presidency/

Among his seedy past:
This behavior is not unusual for Obama if you examine the record. To wit:

1. His very first race for state senate, he used the time honored Machine tactic of challenging the nominating petitions of every other candidate, getting all 4 of them removed from the ballot.

2. He cultivated a relationship with the ancient President of the Illinois State Senate Emil Jones who told a colleague in 2002 after the Democrats swept into office "I'm gonna make me a senator." Jones then proceeded to give Obama credit on the passage of 26 key legislative measures - almost all of which had been pushed by other state senators for years - thus giving Obama a record of sorts to go with all that charisma. Obama calls Jones his "political godfather."

3. While in the Senate, Obama has had numerous opportunities to live up to his promised "post partisan" reforms and has never - repeat never - participated in any bi-partisan agreement reached by Democrats and Republicans on any issue. He has gone so far as to reject the outcomes of those compromises on immigration reform and an agreement on confirming federal judges.

4. When faced with a choice between supporting a mayoral candidate who stood for clean government and the corruption of the Chicago Machine, Obama chose old fashioned power politics.

Obama's political career is replete with examples of opportunism, cynical deal making, hack politics, and business as usual relationships with crooks and scam artists like Tony Rezko. His entire presidential campaign is built on a lie; that he is a different kind of politician and will be able to change the way business is done in Washington.

When given the opportunity in the past, Obama has usually chosen doing things the old fashioned way. Why in God's name should we believe him now? Did he try and "reform" Chicago politics? Did he try and "reform" the Senate while his colleagues worked on bi-partisan agreements on vital issues?

You can support the man's policies without holding him up (and throwing in our faces) the idea he is some kind of "new" politician who will change everyone's lives. And if he keeps pushing that meme, he will look like the emperor with no clothes as facts about his relationships with various shady Chicago characters come to light, giving the lie to his grandiose claims like "We are the change that we are seeking."

More to come on OBAMA's nexus with Rashid a Palestinian/PLO player.

Being more transparent is good for both candidates. Did Obama release his tax's for the past 6-8 years? Has he told us everything about his relationship with Tony Rezko? What was more important to him running for president or hold committee meeting on the UN involvement in Afghanistan? What are your experiences regarding foreign affairs? Why have you not continued, while in the Senate, to vote against paying for a war, you said should have never happened?

I have been watching all of this. You know, I have been around a while. I watch the Hart - Mondale race for nominee. Hart had the same message too, but he was running against someone with a lot more experience too.

Here is the point tally categories people should be basing their vote on NOW. We have a huge ecomonic issue and we not only should be thinking about our current debates with the Dem Party, but we should be seizing up on how to win against McCain.

Experience in handling the War:
Experience in getting our economy straighten out:
Someone who can take the heat from the Republican Party and make a stand against them.

I don't buy into this "if my candidate doesn't win, I am not voting for the other"
crap.
We have to get IN the White House. No matter what! Too much is at State.

I want someone who knows the ropes.
I want someone who understands what they need to know and how to get things done.

I don't want someone who doesn't understand what they don't know.

Hello USA!!!

I live at Brazil and love politic. I read everything about politic at USA and in the world.
Congratulations for all Obama's supporter democrats, congratulations for all Obama's supporter independents and congratulations for all republicans that wish to vote at Obama to president.
Obama is realy changes and hopes to USA. Just ignorants, idiots and conservative minds want not accept the reality.
I never saw in the history from USA so many youngs, students and people participating of the politic and wanting changes at USA.
I am very happy because USA still have people with brain wanting changes and hopes for all.
I read the comments writen here and congratulations for all by correct vision about new strategy to Obama's camapaign.
I think that Obama need before of the primary at Pennsylvania visit the leaders of different countries and, speacially, leaders from countries at conflicts.
He need visit Europe, Asia, Israel and also some countries of the South America, because Obama won primaries out USA with almost 70% of votes from expatriates.
Polls at Brazil and also at many different countries show Obama as the candidate more favourite for different citizens of the world.

Congratulations Obama!

Hugs from Brazil for all USA.

Hillary Clinton is the Most Divisive Politician ever, Very Polarizing and Manipulative. This game should be over based on the Math, but no that won't happen because its all about the Clintons

She can't win farely, so she wants to burn the whole ship. Democrats are so dumb, they'll loss again in November

Why isn't the Goal Post North Carolina? Why must the goal post be Clinton Country? It Baffles me!!!!!!!!! Hillary has tamed all of you in the press, you guys are scared of her

HILLARY WANTS TO BURN THE WHOLE SHIP COS SHE CAN'T WIN THE NOMINATION WITH OUT CHEATING!!!!!!

Hey Hill ... Monica Lewinsky as VP? Afterall, doesn't she have the same qualifications as you?

if i hear that dumbass term "glass jaw" one more time...

senator obama's doing fine. to all the wannabe campaign strategists/analysts i offer this cliche: PLEASE DON'T QUIT YOUR DAY JOBS (IF YOU HAVE ONE)!!!

OBAMA '08!

victory in WYOMING, now on to MISSISSIPPI!!!

Sorry, I posted my precedent comment 3 times by mistake (the submission process was hanging and I clicked 3 times).

Obama's campaign transcends party lines. Because of this, he can run as an independent if the establishment of the DNC or the superdelegates try something funny by giving the nomination to Hillary...

In order to push for her electability, Hillary Clinton's pundits have mentionned several time recently that if Hillary is not elected as the nominee, 25% of her supporters will prefer to vote for John McCain than for Barack Obama.

This made me realize that if Hillary Clinton would be the nominee, it would be because a lot of people in the democratic party and in its establishment would be in favor of a politic as usual based on mistatements, lies and fear... what Barack Obama does not seem to stand for from the campaign he is running.

So, if Hillary Clinton is the nominee and if she has run (as she is currently running) a campaign of mistatements, lies and fear, then it would be in the nature of things for Barack and his supporters to start a new party, aiming to unite people from red states and blue states according to Barack's principles.

If Barack's pundits signal to the news medias that his movement has the potential to become a major political party, the DNC establishment, Hillary Clinton and her pundits will realize very soon that they should begin to play fair and stop the campaign of mistatements, lies and fear.

Obama's campaign transcends party lines. Because of this, he can run as an independent if the establishment of the DNC or the superdelegates try something funny by giving the nomination to Hillary...

In order to push for her electability, Hillary Clinton's pundits have mentionned several time recently that if Hillary is not elected as the nominee, 25% of her supporters will prefer to vote for John McCain than for Barack Obama.

This made me realize that if Hillary Clinton would be the nominee, it would be because a lot of people in the democratic party and in its establishment would be in favor of a politic as usual based on mistatements, lies and fear... what Barack Obama does not seem to stand for from the campaign he is running.

So, if Hillary Clinton is the nominee and if she has run (as she is currently running) a campaign of mistatements, lies and fear, then it would be in the nature of things for Barack and his supporters to start a new party, aiming to unite people from red states and blue states according to Barack's principles.

If Barack's pundits signal to the news medias that his movement has the potential to become a major political party, the DNC establishment, Hillary Clinton and her pundits will realize very soon that they should begin to play fair and stop the campaign of mistatements, lies and fear.

Obama's campaign transcends party lines. Because of this, he can run as an independent if the establishment of the DNC or the superdelegates try something funny by giving the nomination to Hillary...

In order to push for her electability, Hillary Clinton's pundits have mentionned several time recently that if Hillary is not elected as the nominee, 25% of her supporters will prefer to vote for John McCain than for Barack Obama.

This made me realize that if Hillary Clinton would be the nominee, it would be because a lot of people in the democratic party and in its establishment would be in favor of a politic as usual based on mistatements, lies and fear... what Barack Obama does not seem to stand for from the campaign he is running.

So, if Hillary Clinton is the nominee and if she has run (as she is currently running) a campaign of mistatements, lies and fear, then it would be in the nature of things for Barack and his supporters to start a new party, aiming to unite people from red states and blue states according to Barack's principles.

If Barack's pundits signal to the news medias that his movement has the potential to become a major political party, the DNC establishment, Hillary Clinton and her pundits will realize very soon that they should begin to play fair and stop the campaign of mistatements, lies and fear.

leichtman posted:

"In our pct there were 168 caucus voters out of 1350 of actual voters so I don't know where you got the 1 million caucus number mark."

I posted in response that

"there are over 8000 precincts in TX. Mine voted 399 in Precinct Convention.
I have read that the TX average was over 120/precinct - that would approach a million votes in precinct conventions."

NPR reports the one million plus in caucus, now.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87961802

I have just accepted the hard cold reality that when all is said and done, the one standing as our President will represent without a doubt what kind of country and people we are.

If that should be Hillary C. or John McCain, all of us might as well accept the fact that America and her people have coward to the lies of the very same people who are responsible for the continued decline of a once great country populated by proud and brave people.

If God willing and our next President is one Barack Obama, it will be the spark that ignites the flame to light the way back to a strong and faithful nation of people.

The truth about insecure people is that they only hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest. The Clinton's are masters at manipulating herds of sheep.

Clinton supporters don't know anything about Hillary, because they choose to live their life in denial. How many Clinton supporters know that in California last week the Clinton's lost their appeal in court in what will most likely end with a verdict of guilty in what will be the biggest political fraud case in history.

And those John McCain supporters are just as stupid because they will bite any bone the republicans throw them. A little history lesson for you McCain supporters.
John McCain is no hero just like he wasn't the only POW. However, out of thousands of
POW who were claimed to of died in captivity, John McCain was one of the very few who survived. A little research uncovers that at and during John's time as a POW in Nam his father just so happened to be the Commander in Chief of Pacific forces

A reasonable person might question how someone who got shot down in his plane and spent his entire tour in Vietnam as a POW earned the title of war hero when thousands of real hero's never came home.

Sound judgment comes by way of using your brain and not your false ego.

YES WE CAN!

ObamaforUSPresident.com

I said Wednesday that Hillary would rather divide the party and see McCain win than lose the nomination to Obama. That way she could run again in 2012 saying "I told you so". So, Obama can lump McCain and Hillary together and run against 'em both! They both employ campaign personnel from the same company, for gosh sakes! The dude riding McCain's bus, Charlie Black, has made 57 MILLION DOLLARS lobbying congress since 1998, and sleazy Mark Penn works for the firm that polished Blackwater's image in the recent investigation. Both Hillary and McCain are a symptom of a system that simply no longer works for regular people in this country. They assume that lobbyists and big business "know what's best" for the rest of us, and don't seem to notice that we're falling a little farther behind every day. I honestly think they believe, as George W. Bush believes, that their way is the best for the country.

The choice is clear: If you like how things are going now, Pick Hillary or McCain. If you want America to be better, choose Barack Obama.

I am of the opinion that according to polls, since the voters are more concerned about the Economy than they are about Iraq, BIn Laden, or Terrorism, Obama is missing a real opportunity to remind the voters of how much money is being spent every month for the war. And worse, it is borrowed money that their grandchildren will pay for through debt service-- because W has cut taxes and not asked the people to sacrifice in order to pay for this war.
And since Hillary voted to authorize the war, this truth would give Obama a two-fer: he could talk about how to turn the economy around while also reminding people how we got into this mess.

1. Math Matters:

In a general election, Obama will win more democratic states and purple states than Hillary because of the independent and moderate republicans. He may lose voters in the democratic base who are racists but he will win those that are sexists. So, the color of his skin won't make a difference after all.

2. Fight Back (Politely BUT THOUGHER)?

Hillary's pundits have taken control of the discussion in the TV media. From my observation, 50% of the attacks remained unchallenged or are not answered correctly. Obama must have better pundits to answer the attacks and to begin attacks.

3. What Are You Hiding?:

Be more specific about the needs for the Clintons' records (tax returns, White House records, the Clintons library records, etc.) What did Bill Clinton had to do to receive $35 millions recently in donation for his library from a lobbyist? What was the leadership experience from Hillary Clinton as first lady in the White House? Where the $5 millions that Hillary loaned to her campaign comes from? ...

4. Guilt the Press:

In general, the press should be more critic to answer pundits who raise false accusations. The common voter does not have a college degree and is not a political expert. What pundits say has a direct impact on the voters. The press has the moral obligation to be critic when false accusations are made.

5. Electability is Essential:

Obama can win independent and moderate republican. Hillary Clinton has high negative with these groups.

leichtman, that "399" turnout was not historically average, of course. In 1968 I saw @135 at a precinct convention but have never seen 40 since 1976. It was average for this incredibly motivated year, in Austin, TX.

leichtman, there are over 8000 precincts in TX. Mine voted 399 in Precinct Convention.
Mine was average in Austin.
I have read that the TX average was over 120/precinct -
that would approach a million votes in precinct conventions. Do not know if that will hold up.

Of course TX only assigns precinct caucus delegates to encourage Ds to come to the Conventions. If "ground up" organization is not as important as proportional rep - and since I do not care about either party to me it is not - I agree with you that we can dispense with them. They live in the west as a relic of the populist and grange movements, long dead.

Is Turner one of the 25 or so pledged supers? He is not one of the 35 unpledged, as far as I know. He supports Craddick, you know.

The rules are what the rules are and yes caucus votes count the same and actually sometimes more than direct primary state votes, but could an Obama supporter please explain calmly, why they believe caucus states are some how more democratic and somehow are more representative of the party's support for a candidate then a direct primary vote. Personally when I see maybe 5% of the state's voters turnout at caucuses I see them as being more elitist than as representative voting. I see caucuses discriminating against the elderly, especially those who are hoembound or in nursing homes like my mom(her vote counted only as 1/2 of a vote here in Texas), the disabaled, the poor and those hard working folks that have to work during the short window of the caucus including nurses and shift worker working two jobs. Some how I always thought those were the core Democratic voter. I don't raise this issue to minimize the importance of the caucus or to complain b/c as I said the rules are what they are and both sides knew that going in. My only querry is an understanding by the Obama supporters why they objectively feel that a caucus system is a more legitimate form of voting than a mail in or virtual primary for 2012. I feel that this is a legitimate question to ask.

Groups 1,2, 6, and 7

Group 1. States in which Obama and Clinton both have a margin of 10% or more over McCain:

Obama does substantially better than Clinton in his home state of Illinois (which is also Clinton's childhood home state) and in Vermont and Connecticut. He does marginally better in California. Clinton does marginally better in her home state of New York and in Rhode Island. They fare almost identically in Ohio, each leading by 10%, not bad for a so-called swing state. On the average in these seven states Obama's performance relative to McCain is 7.0 percentage points better than Clinton's. Apparently, no polling was done in the District of Columbia, but it is safe to say that it would appear in this group, and the poll assumes that.

Group 2. States in which either Obama or Clinton, but not the other, leads McCain by 10% or more:

Clinton has a substantial lead in her other home state of Arkansas where Obama trails McCain badly. Clinton's lead in Massachusetts is substantially larger than Obama's despite the endorsements of Obama by Kennedy, Kerry, and Patrick. Obama has a strong lead in his school age state of Hawaii and bests Clinton in varying degrees in Washington, Maine, Wisconsin, and Maryland. On the average in these seven states, Obama's performance relative to McCain is 1.8 percentage points better than Clinton's.
Group 6. Additional states in which McCain leads either Obama or Clinton by less than 10%:

These are longshots at becoming competitive. Obama is closer in Montana and Indiana, while Clinton is closer in Kentucky, Oklahoma, Mississippi. They are approximately even in Kansas, although one might be inclined to give Obama a slight advantage because the undecided equal McCain's margin. On the average in these six states, Clinton's performance relative to McCain is 1.8 percentage points better than Obama's.

Group 7. States in which McCain's lead is 10% or greater against both Obama and Clinton:

These are probably beyond becoming competitive unless there is a major development disqualifying McCain in the eyes of the electorate. Clinton is closer in Alabama and Louisiana while Obama is closer in Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Georgia, and Arizona. On the average in these seven states, Obama's performance relative to McCain is 9.4 percentage points better than Clinton's.

The caucus system is a joke and probably more so here in Texas mark. Obama superdelegate Silvester Turner Houston Dtae Rep has already promised to end the caucus system here in Texas in the next legislative session it was such a waste of yime. My resolution in my Texas precict to do precisely that won a standing ovation by Obama and Clinton supporters alike. Read the Turner statement today mark where teachers complained they could not stay at their caucus because they had tast test to administer on wed.

In our pct there were 168 caucus voters out of 1350 of actual voters so I don't know where you got the 1 million caucus number mark.

I am exited about Noreiga's chances, Supreme Ct and some Harris Cty judges mark, but it comes from the 3.3 million voters and the new enthusiasm of our wonderful Hispanic supporters who finally flexed their muscle in politics after the failed Sanchez for governor debacle, but caucuses are a relic of the 20th century and this is one Democrat that is hoping for either statewide mailin or virtual online primaries by 2012.

Groups, 3,4 and 5 mentioned in my post above:

Group 3. Additional states in which either Clinton or Obama, or both, lead McCain by 5% or more:

Both lead in New Mexico, Oregon, and Delaware, with Obama having an advantage in each case. Clinton leads in Florida, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, while Obama trails in these states. Obama leads in Colorado, Iowa, Oregon, and Nevada, while Clinton trails in those states. On the average in these eleven states, Obama's performance relative to McCain is nearly 2.2 percentage points better than Clinton's.

Group 4. Additional states in which Obama leads McCain by less than 5% while Clinton trails:

Obama leads McCain in North Dakota, Virginia, New Hampshire, and Michigan, while Clinton trails. It should be noted that in Michigan, Obama leads McCain by 1% while Clinton trails by less than 1%, easily within the margin of error. Also Obama leads by less than a percentage point in Virginia, while Clinton trails by 10 percentage points. On the average in these four states, Obama's performance relative to McCain is 10.3 percentage points better than Clinton's.

Group 5. States in which McCain leads both Clinton and Obama, but his margin over one or the other is less than 5%:

Clinton is closer in Missouri and Tennessee, while Obama is closer in Alaska, Nebraska (leading for two of Nebraska's five electoral votes), North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Texas. On the average in these eight states, Obama's performance relative to McCain is 5.9 percentage points better than Clinton's.

In a poll released March 6, Survey USA polled 600 voters in each of the fifty states to determine how the two Democratic potential candidates Obama (http://www.surveyusa.com) and Clinton (http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-clinton-276-mccain-262) would match up against the known Republican candidate McCain. Please remember that this is how they would match up at this time under the limitations of the polling methodology. The results are nevertheless quite revealing. Among other things, the results remind us that how Clinton and Obama match up against each other in the primaries does not tell us how they would match up respectively against McCain. For instance, Clinton substantially won the primary voting in Ohio and narrowly won it in Texas, but, against McCain, Obama does as well as Clinton in Ohio and does better in Texas. Clinton defeated Obama in New Hampshire, but in this poll Obama wins against McCain in New Hampshire while Clinton loses. Why is this? I suspect that Clinton often does better with core Democratic primary voters while Obama often does better with the general electorate.

Survey USA reports the electoral college totals that would result if the election matched the poll results. Both Clinton and Obama would win by narrow margins with Obama's margin being slightly larger. But this does not tell the whole story.

If we place the fifty states in seven groups with Group 1 appearing to be safely Democratic, with Group 7 appearing to be safely Republican, and with the remaining groups arranged on a continuum between, we can see the pattern. The electoral college advantages versus McCain that this poll shows for Clinton and Obama would based entirely on Groups 1 through 4. The election would most likely be decided in Groups 3, 4, and 5. By examining Groups 3, 4, and 5, it appears to me that Obama is positioned to extend the battle into states that have not been in play for some years.

Much can change yet, but this is the best data I have seen for evaluating whether Clinton or Obama would be the stronger candidate. Nothing is clear cut, but this data should be sufficient to put a stop to estimating general election strength based on primary election performances.

Nice win for Obama today, but he needs a little more help -- and can get it from John Edwards. Barack, tell John you promise to appoint him attorney general (sorry to all your Harvard Law buddies), and he'll throw his support behind you, thus gaining a key ally for the progressive white male vote and thrusting Hillary further into a corporate mode.

More on why WY was a good thing, if tou think two party politics is healthier than one-party politics. from the LAT:
-----------------------------
At precisely 9 this morning, Laramie County Democratic Chairman Mike Bell gaveled his county's caucus to order. The civic center, with a capacity of 1,500, was nearly full, and hundreds of voters were still lined up outside, in a relatively balmy 38-degrees, waiting to sign in to cast their ballots in the Democratic presidential contest.

"Good morning Wyoming Democrats!" said Bell. "I gotta question for you: Where in the hell did you come from?"

The crowd roared its approval. He was right to ask: in 2004, exactly 160 people turned up for the Laramie County Democratic caucus.

I don't know why, but the sky in Wyoming is just bigger than the sky anywhere else.

The state may not be as big as Texas, but its citizens are no less important. i find it historic that Wyoming Democrats turned out so strongly and for an African-American.

CH1234 - good on -topic post.

Leichtman is certainly correct about WY not being a player for Ds in the Fall, but the state has elected a D Gov. and it is a better strategy for Ds to campaign there than to ignore it. The Clinton family and BHO did more to help WY Ds in three days than the National Ds have done in years and years. When AlaninMissoula tells us that the mountain states are changing and points to MT having a D gov. and two D US Senators
it should not be shrugged off as meaningless.

It is beginning to look as if about a million people caucused in TX. Frankly, McC will carry TX, but if the Ds could bottle the enthusiasm from their precinct conventions TX could be on the road back to being a two-party state. I favor that result, btw.

The first caucus to report results, in Niobraa County, reported a tie between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton. Fredda Lou Kilmer and her husband, Everett, hosted the caucus at their home in Lusk, in east central Wyoming. There are 101 registered Democrats in the county, she said, and 20 participated in the caucus on Saturday.

"Nobody will admit to being a Democrat
here," Mrs. Kilmer said.

I sincerely hope that none of the Obama supporters will try and tell us today that this looks like a state Obama can win in Nov. Nobody can even admit to being a Democrat here, what does that tell us.101 Democrats in a county and 20 show up, what a joke. 20 voters in a whole county, there are more Democrats on my street for goodness sakes.

CASPER, Wyo. -- Sen. Barack Obama captured the Wyoming Democratic caucuses Saturday, seizing a bit of momentum in the close, hard-fought race with rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for the party's presidential nomination.-WPost

Senator Barack Obama beat Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton by a wide margin, continuing his string of victories in caucus states.-NYTimes

Obama wins Wyoming
Barack Obama handily dispatches HRC in Wyoming's Democratic presidential caucuses.-Politico

6. CAMPAIGN. Obama needs to be on the ground pressing the flesh with the good folks of Pennsylvania. At his rallies he needs to be *SURROUNDED* by teamsters. The TV cutaways of his current rallies are just reinforcing the Clinton story line that all he really has showing up for him are African-Americans and young voters. Those images alienate low-income older whites in states with low minority populations. Race IS a factor but Obama can navigate around it if he's smart.

7. TAILORED POLICY INITIATIVES. Obama needs to seriously court the Pa demographic with at least one tailored MAJOR policy initiative. Something for the elderly would help. Maybe some kind of elder care issue. This will appeal to Penn elderly voters and women who often end up being the primary caregivers of elderly relatives. Side benefit of a major policy initiative is that it addresses all talk no substance strategy.

Congratulations to the Obama campaign today. I ask that we speak respectfully of both candidates if Progressives truly intend to win in Nov.

But I just can't get worked up over 7,000 caucus voters in Wyoming which represents 1/4 of my small neighborhood in Houston. 7,000 vs 3.3 million Texas voters, really doesn't represent much.

NBC CALLS OBAMA WINNER IN WYOMING

According to Associated Press, Obama led 59 percent, or 4,000 votes, to Clinton's 40 percent, or 2,756 votes, with 18 of 23 counties reporting.

Perhaps stranger than the anticipated fiction of the "National Enquirer" is the slow pitch softball story at CNN.com "analyzing" HRC's foreign policy claims. An in-context quote:

"'I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo,' she said on CNN's American Morning.

It's not clear how much she helped since CNN reported at the time that Macedonia reopened its border to Kosovar refugees before Clinton's visit."
----------------------
What is "not clear" is whether CNN understands that it "is clear" that HRC had nothing to do with opening the borders from Kosovo to Montenegro whatsoever, from CNN's own reporting of the facts.

I would like to add another item to the blueprint: Experience DOES NOT equal judgement. Senator Clinton keeps boasting (and exaggerating) her experience, but it says little about her judgement.
In 2000 President Bush boasted how the great experience of VP Cheney and Secretary Rumsfield would enhance the Bush administration. Instead their actions have been disastrous for the nation.
Surely, people know better than to accept that argument again.

jordan - thanks for an on-topic post that was thoughtful and food for thought, as well.

Jim - I imagine that the super market periodicals will provide equal opportunity fiction. Has not Laura Bush both moved out of the WH and conceived an alien child according to them - or have I confused headlines in my rush to find the shortest checkout line?

Obama doesn't even have to consider being Vice President. There will not be a Clinton or a Bush on the ticket for the first time in over two decades. Loud Mouth pantsuit knows she will not be President or Vice President. She is having her last hoorah. She throws confetti just to have the feel of winning the election because she will not get to throw any in November. She won't release her tax returns because it is a moot point. Obama has to remain a Gentleman and not waddle in Hilly's dirt. She is not Lady-like. The lady is acting like a loud mouth tramp or is that monster?

big development: Obama refuses VP spot.

Chris:
This is an excellent start for the Obama blueprint for victory. Further refinements are needed as follows:

1. Math- the votes of the citizens of the little states are an equal part of the democratic equation. The big state mantra is anti-democratic.

2. Fight Back- Use high and low level surrogates more strategically. If their comments hit hard, but are helpful, make sure to say " its a free country, everyone is entitled to their opinion". If the comments are unhelpful, like Goolsbee, and Power, an immediate public firing or resignation serves the campaign.

Develop a theme for the "contrasts".

Timing is everything. Don't throw out the most important charges now. Wait until 48 hrs before Pennsylvania.

Press: Feed the press, specifics always get more follow up than generalities. Give time for investigation of anything more complex than a basketball score.

Hold a mandatory orientation for all academics who are associated with the campaign. Politics is not a seminar filled with weird hypotheticals and hyberbolic language. Beware of the foreign press and/or embassy set up. Don't just waltz into a consulate without knowing that a post-contact report is standard policy. The writer can characterize and leak the conversation as they see fit. The only defense is to tape yourself, or refuse the contact until the timing works for the campaign.

Michelle and the girls are the only indispensible members of your campaign family.

In December 1969, the man Rove had known as his father, Louis
Claude Rove Jr left the family, and divorced Rove's mother soon afterward; it later became known he was homosexual. After his parents' separation, Rove learned from his aunt and uncle that the man who had raised him was not his biological father; both he and his older brother Eric were the children of another man. Rove has expressed great love and admiration for his adoptive father and for "how selfless" his love had been. In 1981 Rove's mother committed suicide in Reno, Nevada. ---- Wikipedia
-----------------------------
drindl forget the Grandfather, his father, or step father, was a closet case who left his Mother 3 months after Rovie left for College, which he did to skip the draft. I wonder how really "selfless" his love had been. Seemed to do a number on his Mother. Funny she offed herself right after he started working for W.

Strange that someone with a person so close in their life who is gay can be one of the most homophobic bigots in modern politics.

From today's "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-obama-can-win.html

"Saturday, March 08, 2008
How Obama Can Win

Obama, as many recognize, now seems to be in a box of his own making.

By declaring himself the candidate of the new politics, putting the politics of Rove et al. aside for a politics of honesty, straight-forward decency, and strength, he has putatively left the field open for Clinton et al. to lob innuendo after innuendo. If he responds, he is in violation of his commitment to the new; if he continues with his current path of non-response, he will be taken down by a series of attacks, that however false or fantastic, will eventually raises doubts in the mind of the electorate as to the validity of his new politics, and will, in the great viscera of the electorate, so responsive and so easily changed, appear "weak."

If he attacks, it is said, he betrays himself; if he continues on the same path, he is whittled down by rumor and insinuation.

Clinton's current strength is her ability to attack, however true the nature and content of the attacks. Obama must turn this very behavior into its own negative. To do so, Obama must relentlessly name what she is doing and anchor it--calling for an "end to the era of 'kitchen sink' politics, i.e.:

"It's about time that we left the era of "kitchen sink" politics, of distortion and insinuation, behind us. We have all seen it before this--a period where it was often difficult to tell falsehood, rumor, and misinformation from truth. It was this type of politics that contributed to a war in which we have lost the best of our national treasure, our nation's men and women. It is this type of politics that our opponents not so long ago decried. And it is this type of politics that, more than anything else, signals weakness--the inability to base one's statements and actions on the firm ground of truth, on our collective and honest dedication to the construction of a new and positive future--and instead, on a retreat into the politics of personal destruction.

It's time to take out the dirty dishes; It's time to empty the kitchen sink. After an era where it was often difficult to distinguish fantasy from truth, it's time to put that era behind us, to base our future efforts on strong and honest desire to build a new and better future."

What Obama can create is his own "There you go again" moment--one that will both define Clinton (someone, after all, has to do it), and places the Clinton camp in their very own box, of their own making: Where any attack will be immediately associated be in the voter's mind, and accompanied by a roll of the voter's eyes, as another example of Clinton's "kitchen sink" politics--of the chaotic, inconsistent, contradictory and frantic willingness to say or do anything to be elected--be it the changing of one's personality, tone, degree of honesty--or one's degree of tolerance or gusto for the politics of personal destruction.

Without attack, this demonstrates the nature of the Clinton camp: when attacked, and in danger of loss, rather than respond with strength, principle and authority, they throw the "kitchen sink", abandoning principles and frantically strewing innuendo as they do so.

With moral force, it names exactly what the Clinton camp is doing, and anchors it both to the politics of the past Administration, and to the very political tactics that Clinton herself has denounced and disavowed. It provides direct evidence--thus far, the only direct evidence, of how a Clinton Administration would likely govern in times of chaos, crisis, and other "3 a.m. moments", thus disempowering her already factually shaky appeals to foreign policy superiority--with a "kitchen sink" approach of tumultuous, changing, disorganized and contradictory attack--rather than with consistent purpose and moral authority.

Obama must persistently name what the Clinton camp is doing rather than complain--and he must then link it to the very essence of an old politics that has been lived through by all of us, and denigrated by most, over the past 8 years.

Thus named, and thus defined, Obama can then invite Clinton up to the higher ground--to a debate based on policy and principle--or she can choose to stay in the box that she and her camp have created.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-obama-can-win.html

dsbtog:
Means Obama has the most experience.
Obama has 11 years to Hilly's 8 years.
So much for her 35 years claim!

fyi: Sheridan caucus and i think the other 4 remaining counties end at 6:30 MT.

At least some of the press is doing it's job:
The Real Story of Rezko and Obama: 10 Myths Debunked
by JohnKWilson
Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:20:40 PM PST

Note: I'm the author of a new book, Barack Obama: This Improbable Quest, but I'm not part of the Obama campaign.

There's been a huge amount of misinformation and rumor about Barack Obama's dealings with Tony Rezko. This is not a new story. At the first Democratic debate in 2007, Brian Williams of NBC asked Obama about his connections to Rezko. The same thing happened on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos. But it's a complex set of charges, and a lot of details have been falsely reported on blogs and in the mainstream press.

Here are 10 myths debunked about Obama and Rezko:

* JohnKWilson's diary :: ::
*

Myth #1: Obama did legal work for Rezko

Claim: Hillary Clinton during a debate denounced Obama for "representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago."

The truth: According to Factcheck.org, "Obama was associated with a law firm that represented the community groups working with Rezko on several deals. There's no evidence that Obama spent much time on them, and he never represented Rezko directly. So it was wrong for Clinton to say he was 'representing ... Rezko.' That's untrue."

Myth #2: Obama knew Rezko was a slumlord

Claim: The Chicago Sun-Times reported that in 1997, Rezko's company failed to turn the heat back on in one of his buildings, while giving $1,000 to Obama's campaign fund.

The truth: There's no evidence that Obama knew about problems with Rezko's buildings. A state senator doesn't deal with tenant complaints, and the Chicago newspapers never reported on Rezko's problems as a landlord until after he was indicted. According to the Chicago Tribune, "in the years before 2005, Rezko enjoyed a reputation in Illinois as an up-and-coming, even enlightened entrepreneur with a strong interest in the risky low-income and affordable housing markets." http://www.chicagotribune.com/...

Myth #3: Obama underpaid for his house in a deal with Rezko

Claim: Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass wrote: "Rezko paid more than the asking price for the side lot, and Obama paid less than the asking price for the big house. It's the Chicago way." Kass claimed that Rezko was "Obama's Real Estate Fairy" and this is "the story of the dream house the Obamas wanted and couldn't quite afford and how the Rezkos helped."

The truth: None of this is true. The seller decided to divide the lot in offering it for sale, not Obama or Rezko. Rezko had paid the list price for his lot, not an excessive amount (as the resale value later proved). The owner reportedly had already been offered $625,000 for the side lot, so Rezko didn't offer any more money and there was no way Obama could have gotten a special deal this way. The only special arrangement Rezko provided was selling the two lots on the same day, which simplified matters for the seller. Obama paid $1.65 million for a house originally priced at $1.95 million. His was the higher of two bids for the main property. It's not unusual at all in the Chicago real estate business to see a 15 percent price cut on an expensive house that's been on the market for four months. Nor is it unusual that a vacant lot next door would sell to a condo developer without such a discount. In the Hyde Park market, there are a lot of upper-middle-class residents making six figures, but not very

From Politico:

78% precincts reporting

Obama 58.59%

Clinton 40.37%

Point to emphasize:

Obama entered elected office, when he was 35.
Hillary entered elected office, when she was 52.

Worth trying?

What do you think?

More slime oozing from the usual suspects- I was standing in line at the super-market a few hours ago and noticed the National Enquirer. Obama was on the front page and the bullets were: "His close friendship with terrorist". Something refering to Rezko and "Screaming matches with his wife over other women".

Now I know that anyone with an IQ over 45 knows the Enquirer makes things up but that cover is seen by millions in super-markets and reinforces the under-the-radar smear campaign.

There is no honor in the republican party, no decency, no humanity. there is no low to which they will not sink. No matter who the nominee is, we are going to spend the next few months in a sewer, a charnel house, exploring the depths of bigotry, racism, sexism, demagoguery, fearmongering and hatred with the successors of Goehring and Goebbels... but then, it runs in the family:

Rove's grandfather was Karl Heinz Roverer, the Gauleiter of Oldenburg. Roverer was Reich-Statthalter---Nazi State Party Chairman---for his region. He was also a partner and senior engineer in the Roverer Sud-Deutche Ingenieurburo A. G. engineering firm, which built the Birkenau death camp, at which tens of thousands of Jews, Gypsies, dissidents and other were slaughtered en masse.

'An Iowa Republican congressman said Friday that terrorists would be "dancing in the streets" if Democratic candidate Barack Obama were to win the presidency.

Rep. Steve King based his prediction on Obama's pledge to pull troops out of Iraq, his Kenyan heritage and his middle name, Hussein.

"The radical Islamists, the al-Qaida ... would be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11 because they would declare victory in this war on terror," King said...'

Here's who you're voting for, Mark -- George Bush. McShame isn't even pretending he's different any more. Thanks for 4 more years.

'John McCain is getting much more than President Bush's endorsement and fundraising help for his campaign. He's getting Bush's staff.

It's no secret that Steve Schmidt, Bush's attack dog in the 2004 election, and Mark McKinnon, the president's media strategist, are performing similar functions for McCain now.

But other big-name Bushies are lining up to boost McCain, too.

Ken Mehlman, who ran Bush's 2004 campaign, is now serving as an unpaid, outside adviser to the Arizona Republican. Karl Rove, the president's top political hand since his Texas days, recently gave money to McCain and soon after had a private conversation with the senator. A top McCain adviser said both Mehlman and Rove are now informally advising the campaign. Rove refused to detail his conversation with McCain.

The list could grow longer. Dan Bartlett, formerly a top aide in the Bush White House, and Sara Taylor, the erstwhile Bush political adviser, said they are eager to provide any assistance and advice possible to McCain.

Rove explained that he and McCain "got to know each other during the 2004 campaign." In a separate interview, Mehlman noted that "McCain was completely loyal to the president in 2004 and worked incredibly hard to help him get elected." According to Taylor, "The Bush Republicans here in town are excited for John McCain." '

Cheyenne just announced: 61% to 38% for Obama.

I dont why people dont seen what's going on. These is no longer a battle for the nomination. It's a battle to see who will be on top the ticket. as of right now Obama is winning that argument. Obama is a team player, hillary is not. My guess is the delegate math and the popular vote math along with the most states won argument will be a more compelling argument to the super-delegates than the most"big states" won argument. The Democratic party worst fear is for Obama to break away from the democratic party, form his own party and take his followers with him.

ThinkProgress spoke with ret. Army Lt. Gen. Harry E. Soyster, who served as the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) during DESERT SHIELD/STORM. He called Bush's veto a "mistake":

"I think that he will be sending an unclear message to the troops. ... Gen. Petraeus has made it very clear in his letter to the troops that the standard is the Army Field Manual."

Soyster also sharply criticized McConnell's defense of the techniques:

I would say that if Mike McConnell worked for me, I'd fire him. That is one of the weakest arguments. The Army has a lot of good training, 10-, 18-week courses at the school. And many of our interrogators have been in the Army for 28 years. They're not 18-year old kids. [...]

And the idea, in fact, these techniques [used by] the experts at the CIA -- waterboarding, sleep deprivation, hypothermia, whatever those techniques are -- it doesn't take much expertise to use those. You know, dumb guys in the Middle Ages were doing the same thing. The KGB were strong on sleep deprivation. So there's no skill required from the CIA. They may need those techniques because of their skill level. And they think that they need them.

Soyster added that one of the interrogation experts who had worked for him at the DIA laughed "at the idea that anyone would be so incompetent as to have to use any of these [torture] techniques." Many interrogators, in fact, don't even go to the extend that the Field Manual authorizes, "because good interrogators don't need those techniques."

Soyster also noted that the three-star commander in Afghanistan confirmed that the Army Field Manual "gives him everything he needs."

And five years, 4000 dead, tens of thousands critically wounded, lives ruined and a trillion dollars later and here's how this adventure in Iraq has turned out -- you know the one that was going to lasst 3 months and be paid for by Iraqis.

'BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Thousands of Iraqis have marched on the Basra police headquarters demanding better security for their crime-ridden city.

Demonstrators, holding pictures of victims of crime, call for the resignation of Basra's police chief.

Kidnappings, murders and thefts have risen in the southern oil-rich city since British troops handed over responsibility for the province to Iraqi soldiers and police.

In Basra, Iraq's second-largest city and the urban center of the country's oil-rich region, Shiite groups have been fighting for control of the area.

Saturday's protest started as angry citizens took to the streets of southern Basra and walked to the center of the city and the Basra Police Headquarters, according to Hakim al-Mayahi, the head of Basra's security council.

"We, as the security council in Basra, hold the central Iraqi government and security forces in Basra responsible for the recent deterioration in security situation," al-Mayahi said.

The protesters, estimated by The Associated Press to be as many as 5,000 people, criticized Police Chief Gen. Abdul Jalil Khalaf -- who has held the post for nine months -- for failing to establishing security in the city.'

i wonder which language jreno actually speaks, if any.

So our lying sack of sh*t Torturer-in-Chief has banned a bill that would prevent the CIA from torturing people, from using methods considered torture [and by this country as well] going back to the Inquisition. Torture which is effective only in forcing false confessions. But that's all they want it for, isn't it? So they can parade the bodies around beating their chests like baboons and say they are 'winning the war on terror'

How did my country become so infantile and barbaric? What has happened to this once great republic? When did we devolve into lesser primates? Is it because we are led by one?

Too bad Hillary is screwing any chance we had of regaining our honor. John McCain has already said he will veto a bill preventing torture too -- so just forget any ideas you had that anything, ANYTHING, would change in the next four years of the same f*cking nightmare.

We will continue to do everything we possibly can to incite the world to hate us and attack us, until someone finally does. The world, which used to love and admire the US, now hates us and universally calls us one of the most brutal and dangerous regimes on earth. How does it feel to be reviled?

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Saturday he vetoed legislation that would ban the CIA from using harsh interrogation methods such as waterboarding to break suspected terrorists because it would end practices that have prevented attacks.

President Bush waits to speak to the Heritage Foundation about waterboarding and terrorism in November 2007.

"The bill Congress sent me would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror," Bush said in his weekly radio address taped for broadcast Saturday. "So today I vetoed it," Bush said. The bill he rejected provides guidelines for intelligence activities for the year and has the interrogation requirement as one provision. It cleared the House in December and the Senate last month.

"This is no time for Congress to abandon practices that have a proven track record of keeping America safe," the president said.

Supporters of the legislation say it would preserve the United States' ability to collect critical intelligence while also providing a much-needed boost to country's moral standing abroad.

"Torture is a black mark against the United States," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California. "We will not stop until [the ban] becomes law."

He/she are forgetting the promise made to John Edwards. If Obama gets part of John's speech on track maybe he would be able to get back the white male voters.
Regarding above we must remember that it was Bill the one who dismantled all the social programs for the poor. It wasn't as if we were in a recession back then: He left a surplus while 30+ million Americans were in the poverty line. Couldn't he have done worse with that than what he did?

CC,
Nice work on Russert today!
But get a wardrobe consultant...lose that tie!

Mark my words: Barack Obama = Ned Lamont. If antiwar activists push him over the top to win the nomination, he'll lose in a landslide in the general.

The Super-delegates have to be aware that the anger Samantha Power was expressing at the Clinton "knife fight" tactics is shared by many others.
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/tai-chi-in-a-knife-fight/

Wow!

Jreno8 provides a living example of why we need health care reform. Evidently jreno8 cannot afford to renew the prescription for the meds needed for impulse control issues.

They are both honorable candidates and just like Hillary's tirless efforts in 2004 for John Kerry and in 2006 to win the Senate back for the Dems, BOTH have pledged and I take them at their word that they will work, fund raise and campaign for the other.

Obama's efforts to connect to the Republican Party, specifically Bush, and Dick Chaney, of the Halliburton Company, dates back to the Presidents Grandfather, Prescott Bush, and indeed Chaney was once an executive officer of Halliburton.

The American military pounds Iraq with Artillary, bombs, and the like, destroying large sections of cities, and infra-structures, then Halliburton comes in to rebuild. Halliburton and Halliburton associated companies have raked in ten's of billions.

Obama is just like the BIG HALIBURTAN. Haliburton has contracted to build detention centers in the U.S. similiar to the one in Quantanammo Bay, Cuba. Halliburton does nothing to earn the Two Dollars for each meal an American Serviceman in Iraq eats.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Halliburton was scheduled to take control of the Dubai Ports in The United Arab Emiirate. The deal was canceled when Bush was unable to affect the transfer of the American Ports.

Now we see what some might suspect as similiar financial escapading from the Democrats.

Two years ago, Iraq's Ministry of Electricity gave a $50 million contract to a start-up security company - Companion- owned by now-indicted businessman (TONY REZKO) Tony Rezko and a onetime Chicago cop, Daniel T. Frawley, to train Iraqi power-plant guards in the United States. An Iraqi leadership change left the deal in limbo. Now the company, Companion Security, is working to revive its contract.
Involved along with Antoin "Tony" Rezco, long time friend and neighbor of Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, and former cop Daniel T. Frawley, is Aiham Alsammarae. Alsammarae was accused of financial corruption by Iraqi authorities and jailed in Iraq last year before escaping and returning here.

LIKE FATHER LIKE SON --
Recently, Obama's campaign staff have been vetted by the IRS to disclose his connection to the criminal money generating underworld. Besides, his connections to the REZCO MAFIA types, his up-coming tax fraud charges -- Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and disclose Obama's MUSLIM Farrakhan mob connection to Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church are trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. Obama should stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke "GLORK" Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He is MAD!!! --

OBAM YOU'RE NO JFK --

"GLORK" Obama looks like Alfred E. Newman: "Tales Calculated To Drive You." He is a MUSLIM "Glork" He's MAD!!! Alfred E. Neuman is the fictional mascot of Mad. The face had drifted through American pictography for decades before being claimed by Mad editor Harvey Kurtzman after he spotted it on the bulletin board in the office of Ballantine Books editor Bernard Shir-Cliff, later a contributor to various magazines created by Kurtzman.
Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek.

Michelle Obama should be ashamed.

"GLORK" Michelle Obama should be ashamed of her separatist-racist connection to Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. If Michelle Obama new what her husband -- the Hope-A-Dope, Fonster Monster -- Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama did in Harlem, she would wash her wide-open, Hus-suey loving MUSILM mouth out, with twenty-four (24) mule-team double-cross X-boX-BorraX. He is a MUSLIM "Glork" It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He's MAD!!!

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

"A lot of the states he's winning are states that we're not going to win in November," said Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), a Clinton supporter. "It's not a strategy that bodes well, in my opinion."

Does Obama stand to alienate Florida & Michigan voters in the National Election if he does not call for a redo of the Primary?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1849

.

I think he should emphasize his experience.
CIVIL RIGHTS LAWYER VS. ROSE LAW FIRM.

HE SHOULD READ THE 'SPEECH' OR HAVE JACK NICHOLSON READ IT. OR MAYBE HE CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH. HE COULD CONTRAST WITH THINGS HILLARY, BUSH AND MCCAIN SAID AT THE TIME.

HE SHOULD SEGUE INTO COST. NOT BILLIONS, BUT OVER 12 MILLION DOLLARS EVERY HOUR, 24 HOURS A DAY, FOR THE LAST 5 YEARS. MY STUDENTS WOULD ALWAYS GLAZE OVER UNTIL I STATED PUTTING IT INTO HOURLY TERMS AND COMPARING IT TO WHAT WE COULD BUY.

A RE-DO IN FLORIDA?? 2 hours of the war in Iraq.
HE SHOULD TALK ABOUT THE HEALTH CARE THAT WOULD BUY...IF SHE HAD LISTENED TO "just a speech" TALK ABOUT THE ENERGY PROGRAMS THAT MONEY WOULD HAVE BOUGHT.... THE SOLDIERS WHO WOULD STILL BE ALIVE.... OR WHO MAY HAVE DIED WHILE CAPTURING BIN LADEN and shutting down al qaeda SO MAYBE THAT PHONE WOULDNT BE RINGING FOR THE NEXT GENERATION.

I THINK HE SHOULD GO AFTER MCCAIN, HILLARY AND RUSH, POINT OUT ALL THE PEOPLE SUPPORTING HILLARY. KEEP PUTTING HER NAME IN THE MIDDLE OF ALL THE PEOPLE ON THE TV----BUCHANAN, TUCKER,EVERY REPUBLCAN WHO KEEPS SUPPORTING HER.

BARACK GOT MORE VOTES THAN MCCAIN IN ALL OF THESE STATES. HE MADE UP A 20 POINT DEFICIT AGAINST HILL BY CAMPAIGNING AGAINST HER. IN A DEBATE AGAINST MCCAIN WHERE MAC CANT READ FROM A TELEPROMPTER OBAMA WILL DOMINATE.

IN THE GENERAL ELECTION, OBAMA WILL WIN EVERY STATE--PROBABLY EVEN ARIZONA. GET RON REAGAN TO CAMPAIGN FOR HIM. PUT JIM WEBB IN HIS COMBAT BOOTS ON THE TICKET.

NO TIE IS OKAY, BUT WEAR A JACKET.
MORE MILITARY PEOPLE AROUND.

I think he should emphasize his experience.
CIVIL RIGHTS LAWYER VS. ROSE LAW FIRM.

HE SHOULD READ THE 'SPEECH' OR HAVE JACK NICHOLSON READ IT. OR MAYBE HE CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH. HE COULD CONTRAST WITH THINGS HILLARY, BUSH AND MCCAIN SAID AT THE TIME.

HE SHOULD SEGUE INTO COST. NOT BILLIONS, BUT OVER 12 MILLION DOLLARS EVERY HOUR, 24 HOURS A DAY, FOR THE LAST 5 YEARS. MY STUDENTS WOULD ALWAYS GLAZE OVER UNTIL I STATED PUTTING IT INTO HOURLY TERMS AND COMPARING IT TO WHAT WE COULD BUY.

A RE-DO IN FLORIDA?? 2 hours of the war in Iraq.
HE SHOULD TALK ABOUT THE HEALTH CARE THAT WOULD BUY...IF SHE HAD LISTENED TO "just a speech" TALK ABOUT THE ENERGY PROGRAMS THAT MONEY WOULD HAVE BOUGHT.... THE SOLDIERS WHO WOULD STILL BE ALIVE.... OR WHO MAY HAVE DIED WHILE CAPTURING BIN LADEN and shutting down al qaeda SO MAYBE THAT PHONE WOULDNT BE RINGING FOR THE NEXT GENERATION.

I THINK HE SHOULD GO AFTER MCCAIN, HILLARY AND RUSH, POINT OUT ALL THE PEOPLE SUPPORTING HILLARY. KEEP PUTTING HER NAME IN THE MIDDLE OF ALL THE PEOPLE ON THE TV----BUCHANAN, TUCKER,EVERY REPUBLCAN WHO KEEPS SUPPORTING HER.

BARACK GOT MORE VOTES THAN MCCAIN IN ALL OF THESE STATES. HE MADE UP A 20 POINT DEFICIT AGAINST HILL BY CAMPAIGNING AGAINST HER. IN A DEBATE AGAINST MCCAIN WHERE MAC CANT READ FROM A TELEPROMPTER OBAMA WILL DOMINATE.

IN THE GENERAL ELECTION, OBAMA WILL WIN EVERY STATE--PROBABLY EVEN ARIZONA. GET RON REAGAN TO CAMPAIGN FOR HIM. PUT JIM WEBB IN HIS COMBAT BOOTS ON THE TICKET.

NO TIE IS OKAY, BUT WEAR A JACKET.
MORE MILITARY PEOPLE AROUND.

any candidate that offers to pay for the revote marc would unfortunately then be tagged as buying the Fla vote I can guarantee that, especially if its offered by Hillary's campaign. The conspiracy theories especially now that Obama is on the defensive, are truly out of control.

The conspiracy theories here are out of control marc. Its called politics and psychological warfare that the Obama campaign is just not up to and that is one reason I think Hillary is the better general election candidate.

My reference to being shrill and conspiracy theorists does not apply to you marc as I see you as one of the mature folks here even though not on the same side. These are the kinds of inappropriate conspiracies Obama supporters are spinning today, its totally ridiculous and they probably understand that:

I am wondering why the media doesn't explore the strange strategy of Hillary trying to give this election to the GOP.

Did you read the Turner story today. I presented this very resolution at my pct caucus. Hope you will support these reforms at your district and state conventions.

That should be "...implication of..." or "...inference from...".

BlunderBush -

In the years since I first voted in 1964, I have never heard of a major party's presidential contestant intentionally providing the opposing party with the seeds to destroy her own party's nominee. The necessary inference of her statement is that the Ds deserve to lose if she is not the candidate.

As a probable McC voter, I see HRC as the gift that keeps on giving.

I wonder what the D pros, not the voters or even the posters at this blog, think they are going to do about her.
------------------------
FWIW - the Ds should hold new primaries in MI and FL; they are big states. The first campaign to offer to donate $1m to each state's D Party, earmarked for the new primaries, gets more than good pub for a day-that commitment will be followed by the other campaign and the D faithful, until the kitty is big enough to create the reality.

I am wondering why the media doesn't explore the strange strategy of Hillary trying to give this election to the GOP.

One day after John McCain received the endorsement of President Bush, Senator Clinton solidified her endorsement of McCain as well. Her recent outright gifts to John McCain include the "who should answer the 3 am phone," ad, which, I am sure, had many people thinking "John McCain." Or her "John and I have full resumes, while Obama only has a speech." Or her latest clear endorsement, "John McCain and I have crossed the threshold to qualify as the CINC." (Evidently, being married to Bill involved him carrying her over the threshold.)

What kind of strategy is this - praising the Republican candidate in order to distinguish herself from her Democratic primary opponent? It sounds suspiciously like "if I can't win, then let my good friend John win - and the Dems be damned!" It also makes one wonder whether she is no more of a long-range thinker than the current president.

While it may not have been obvious before, it certainly should be by now: Hillary is running for president because - in her mind - Hillary deserves to be president. Perhaps in her view, she's played second fiddle to her wayward husband all these years and - "darn it, she is owed this office." She is willing to do anything she feels necessary to get the nomination, including destroying the Democratic Party's chances in this most important election. She has shown that this isn't about the party or the American people, but all about Hillary and what she feels she has coming to her.

In her mind, "it's me or John," and, with McCain's age as a factor, she likely figures she' have another chance in 2012. If, by dint of the superdelegates, she does get