t9sauvnjnttgi06yx 4ctz64m8x rq901ltwbftla

t9sauvnjnttgi06yx [URL=http://www.610535.com/485876.html] wbb91ihrsd6 [/URL] rq901ltwbftla

f.fox wrote:
"Regardless of whom you favor, would it change your mind if the Democratic nominee is capable of winning swing states?"

Good question. It does matter. That's why I favor Obama, who according to the latest polls runs stronger than in the following states:
Colorado (Obama 46, McCain 46; McCain 52, Clinton 38)
Connecticut (Obama 52, McCain 35; Clinton 45, McCain 42)
Delaware (Obama 50, McCain 41; Clinton 46, McCain 41)
Iowa (Obama 50, McCain 44; McCain 48, Clinton 44)
Michigan (McCain 43, Obama 42; McCain 45, Clinton 42)
Minnesota (Obama 47, McCain 43; McCain 47, Clinton 46)
Nebraska (McCain 45, Obama 42; McCain 57, Clinton 30)
Nevada (Obama 45, McCain 41; Clinton 44, McCain 43)
New Hampshire (McCain 46, Obama 43; McCain 47, Clniton 41)
North Dakota (Obama 42, McCain 42; McCain 54, Clinton 35)
Oregon (Obama 48, McCain 42; McCain 46, Clinton 40)
South Carolina (McCain 48, Obama 45; McCain 48, Clinton 42)
Texas (McCain 47, Obama 46; McCain 49, Clinton 42))
Washington (Obama 48, McCain 43; McCain 46, Clinton 43)
Wisconsin (McCain 48, Obama 46; McCain 50, Clinton 39)

Source: www.electoral-vote.com (relying on latest state-by-state match-up polls from various mainstream polling organizations)

The Clintonites keep doggedly insisting that Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Michigan, and Florida are the only "swing" states that matter, but the fact is, polls show Obama competitive with McCain in virtually all those states (with the possible exception of Florida). And Obama is in better shape than Clinton in a slew of other swing states. Together, the 15 states listed above account for 140 electoral votes---far more than the 83 represented by Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Florida.

Bottom line, Obama is far more competitive in far more swing states representing far more electoral votes---and makes far more states genuine electoral battlegrounds---than Clinton, whose strategy is to replay the same narrow, "big-state battleground" strategy that failed for Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. So if you want a candidate who "is capable of winning (the most) swing states," it's Obama.

Clinton's pastor

http://www.uticaod.com/homepage/x1637676857

If this election is decided without allowing Florida and Michigan to either RE-VOTE or let the numbers stand as they are ...then this election will be a FRAUD.

I cannot believe that the DNC has allowed this mess to happen. Even the Republicans handled the Flordia situation better. Why couldn't our bright guys in the DNC come to a similar compromise when we needed it?

Now we have this huge mess and no one has the guts to make the tough call.

Wake up people...we are going to lose the election if Florida and Michigan are not counted. By the way a 50/50 split is not going to fool anyone....that is the same as saying you don't matter.

mark in austin; I have turned off all media in my office including Ed Schultz and only listen to Potus as you. Potus seems to be the only network playing the campaign just right. I agree with that selection as even Olberman has crossed the line of anything approaching objectivity, it is all starting to sound like nothing but white noise.

Calling for Clinton to quit were Sens. Christopher Dodd, Patrick Leahy and Gov. Bill Richardson.

Around the same time, media elites starting pontificating that Hill should quit. For the good of the party, of course; nothing to do with Barry's ambitions.

But...like Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia is quoted as saying, "Obama campaign was probably behind the remarks."

Duh, you think???

This compares to a 53 - 41 percent lead in a March 18 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University. In general election match ups of the three largest and most important swing states in the Electoral College, the survey finds.

* Florida: Clinton 44 percent - McCain 42 percent; McCain beats Obama 46 - 37 percent;

* Ohio: Clinton beats McCain 48 - 39 percent; Obama gets 43 percent to McCain's 42 percent;

* Pennsylvania: Clinton tops McCain 48 - 40 percent; Obama leads McCain 43 - 39 percent.

Regardless of whom you favor, would it change your mind if the Democratic nominee is more capable of winning swing states?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=2016

.

ktll claims that HC did not know about the Texas caucus 2 days before our primary. That is an interesting comment. I am here in Texas and on the HC legal team. Exactly where are you getting this nonsense from? We worked our tails off to stop hispanic voter supression starting 6 weeks out and reported caucus incidents where our supporters were spit on, deliberately told that there was no caucus and robo calls to our supporters with other misinformation. A tape recording of these robo calls was reported and played on our houston cbs affiliate on sunday. Its ok to come here and post deliberately false information, just don't expect us to lap it up. Its one thing to hear informed Obama opinions from folks like mark in austin , who actually knows what he is talking about, its another to hear supposed expert opinions about Texas politics from those that just want to make up things to spread disinformation.

Another post this morning predicted that how their candidate runs their campaign predicts how they will run their administration. Curious if you really want to make that argument considering the last 2 succesful Presidential campaigns. Are you suggesting that Sen Obama is following the successes of Karl Rove and George W against John McCain in South Carolina reflecting how he ran the Whitehouse the last 7 years?
That is not a proposition I would brag about.

"My guess is that the way the candidate runs their campaign is probably a good insight on how they would run the Whitehouse and their administration" your exact words.

As for fla its time that HC give up making that argument. I posted weeks ago that there was absolutely no way that the Obama campaign would ever agree to anything other than a full blown caucus in those 2 states because to do so would jepordize his popular vote lead and a loss in those 2 states likely derail his chances to become the nominee. Sen Obama demanded it be paid for and that he be allowed to have a firehouse primary in michigan. Even when that was agreed to by HC's campaign his surrogates in the Michigan state legislature cynically admitted on MSNBC that that would not be in their candidate's political interest. Why should we expect anything any different?

yesterday an Obama supporter argued that the Rev Wright story has no legs and will not effect the primary voting. CNN today reported that HC leads BO by 25% in Pa among white voters, I suspect the Wright story is the reason why despite bsimon and media spin otherwise.

Another Obama supporter posted that when BO wins Pa and Indiana he should become the nominee. I totally agree that if that happens he should be the nominee. My question though is how you will respond if HC wins both Pa and Indiana? My guess is that you will either dismiss it or say she didn't win by 20% points so its a loss, setting up ridiculous hurdles that you will require her to exceed.

Consistency?

lylepink writes
"So lets try and not judge them to harshly unless they keep repeating themselves."

Agreed.

For instance, seeing Mark in Austin's correction/clarification/rebuttal of the Zeifman allegations was helpful.

Correction: "an entirely DIFFERENT thought than was intended."

For All: Lets try and be Accurate in our Posts. Anyone can take a couple of words and twist them to reflect an entirely thought that was intended. All pols get their tonges tied around their eye teeth at times and can't see what they are talking about. So lets try and not judge them to harshly unless they keep repeating themselves.

svreader - do you like make this stuff up yourself or crib from another source? Talk about beating a dead horse. Maybe you could talk about something that is more au courant to voters like the economy and the latest messup in Iraq. When you dont have a job or money is tight or your mortgage keeps you up at night, the last thing you are worrying about is Obama pastor; you're wondering if we can get Bush out of office fast enough.

This is not a Clinton/Obama issue.

It's a lot simpler than that.

Michigan/Florida willfully CHOSE to violate party rules, knowing full well what the consequences were.

And now they want to be **rewarded** for willfully breaking those rules?

You've got to be kidding me.

If they want to be "counted", then why can't they hold another set of primaries?

"It'll cost too much."

Boo hoo. Should of thought about that when you made the decision to willfully violate the rules.

Want a voice in the process? Then pay for the consequences of your actions from your own pocket. Both candidates and the DNC have agreed to allow another set of primaries, if these states are willing to pay for it themselves.

You get no sympathy for your so-called plight, and you deserve none.

My guess is that the Superdelegates, as well as the less lofty electorate in general, don't want to revisit Florida 2000 yet again. Clinton's bringing it up serves to associate her even more closely with a sad and unhappy era for the Democrats. Her yelling "Florida" just makes people want to turn the page. It is yet another example of why Obama's change message has such strong legs, and why many voters regard Hillary as being more like electing another Bush (or perhaps a mirror image of him) than moving forward with a Democrat for a new century. The voter attitude is "Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, what's the difference?" The superdelegates understand this, which is why they're quietly hoping for the electorate to rescue them from Hillary so they won't have to do the dirty work.

mcohill asks
"Who ever heard of a political party punishing its voters by not counting their votes?"

Isn't that usually what happens during primary season? You'll recall that the reason states keep moving their primaries and caucuses to dates earlier in the calendar is in order to 'have a say' in the process of selecting each party's nominee. Recent Presidential primaries have normally ended fairly early - certainly by 'super tuesday'. This year, states decided that they wanted a say - or a piece of the financial pie - so they moved their events earlier in the calendar. As it turns out, people that made such decisions picked a bad year - seeing how the Dems are still running a close race & the Repub's race also lasted longer than expected. Point being: in a 'normal' year, most states 'don't have a say' in the process because momentum garnered in early contests has usually brought the races to an early close. In other words, all this hogwash about 'disenfranchised voters' is nothing new. Far more voters have had a say this year than in most years. Had FL & MI not messed with the process, they would have been important stops on the campaign trail. The same goes for the states that jumped to 'super tuesday' - so many states held events that day that few of them actually benefitted from getting any special attention. My own state of MN had pretty limited appearances by the candidates - one Obama rally, one Clinton rally, and a couple fundraisers from GOP candidates. Had we held a later event - like PA - we'd have far more influence on the process. Its kindof funny how that has worked out this year...

harlemboy - stop complaining about the past and HIllary's poor showing in the caucuses (because she thought she didnt need them) and go out and advocate and lobby to change the system in the future. Hillary knew the rules and she tries to subvert them at every turn ( or at least tries to make herself look like the injured person.) This is BS and hopefully voters in theremaining primaries will decide they dont need a crybaby as their nominee.
BTW - brevity is the soul of wit. The longer the post the more likely you lose at least my attention

If Obama gets the nominaton, Democrats lose in November, but they lose even more than that because they lose their mainstream supporters.

Obama supporters are in denial.

They just don't "get it"

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

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

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

People are really, really, angry about it.

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

Its not.

Its about a 20 year relationship.

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

It's about Obama's lies.

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

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

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

He's like a human chameleon.

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

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

America doesn't trust him anymore.

He's toast.

He deserves to be.

How can anyone support Barry Obama when he let the poorest of the poor who elected him in Chicago freeze in slums in his district his friend and campaign contributor Rezok got $100M to repair or replace?

Obama knew, but did nothing.

That says everything.

Before you send any more of your, or your parent's, hard earned money to Barry Obama --

Please Watch this report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100M of wasted taxpayer money, from NBC news, Chicago's most respected TV news program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

How do you explain away the fact that Barry Obama never followed up on the 11 slums that his friend Rezko was supposed to repair in Obama's district in Chicago, and continued to do nothing about the 40 slums that Rezko was supposed to repair or replace in Chicago, even after Obama joined the US Senate?

From the Chicago Sun Times:

For more than five weeks during the brutal winter of 1997, tenants shivered without heat in a government-subsidized apartment building on Chicago's South Side.

It was just four years after the landlords -- Antoin "Tony'' Rezko and his partner Daniel Mahru -- had rehabbed the 31-unit building in Englewood with a loan from Chicago taxpayers.

Rezko and Mahru couldn't find money to get the heat back on.

But their company, Rezmar Corp., did come up with $1,000 to give to the political campaign fund of Barack Obama, the newly elected state senator whose district included the unheated building....

The building in Englewood was one of 30 Rezmar rehabbed in a series of troubled deals largely financed by taxpayers. Every project ran into financial difficulty. More than half went into foreclosure, a Chicago Sun-Times investigation has found.

"Their buildings were falling apart,'' said a former city official. "They just didn't pay attention to the condition of these buildings.''

Eleven of Rezko's buildings were in Obama's state Senate district....

Rezko and Mahru had no construction experience when they created Rezmar in 1989 to rehabilitate apartments for the poor under the Daley administration. Between 1989 and 1998, Rezmar made deals to rehab 30 buildings, a total of 1,025 apartments. The last 15 buildings involved Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland during Obama's time with the firm.

Rezko and Mahru also managed the buildings, which were supposed to provide homes for poor people for 30 years. Every one of the projects ran into trouble:

* Seventeen buildings -- many beset with code violations, including a lack of heat -- ended up in foreclosure.

* Six buildings are currently boarded up.

* Hundreds of the apartments are vacant, in need of major repairs.

* Taxpayers have been stuck with millions in unpaid loans.

"I did not hear one word about the delegates in those states not counting, just that the candidates wouldn't campaign or advertise in those states."

Then you weren't paying attention, Iowatreasures. First, there was no specific mention of Michigan and Florida at the 06 convention, because they hadn't moved up their primaries yet. Second, both Michigan and Florida were stripped of their delegates in 2007; Michigan in December and Florida in August:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22054151/

This isn't a recent change. The only new aspect of this is the outrage of Hillary supporters, when they realize that their "inevitable" candidate can only win by changing the rules.

My idea for the Friday Fix Line is the ranking of "people" who wander in here just to lie and provoke. I would put Hispana, USMC_Mike, ProudtobeDumb, leichtman, and svreader at the top of the list. Any other lying skunks for the list.

Who ever heard of a political party punishing its voters by not counting their votes?

The party leaders caused this problem. They should be the ones punished, not the voters.

Make the party leaders hold a car wash as their punishment, give the money to the party, count the votes, award delegates and get on with the business of electing a president.

Or punish the voters, lose a historic chance to win the WH and end up like the Whig Party.

The O-man will still be ahead with all the votes in Florida and Michigan counted.

Nancy Pelosi's campaign finance manage is also Barack Obama's campaign finance chairman. Nancy has to go. Donna Brazile and Howard Dean need to be vetted. gw.

Posted by: Iowatreasures | April 2, 2008 10:14 AM
----------------------
Could not agree more, which is why Cindy Sheehan is running against her as an independant.

http://www.cindyforcongress.org/

INDIANAPOLIS -- Former Indiana Rep. Lee Hamilton is backing Sen. Barack Obama in an endorsement that could boost the presidential hopeful's national security standing, The Associated Press has learned.

Hamilton, who during a three-decade House career rose to be chairman of the Foreign Affairs and Intelligence committees, also was vice chairman of the Sept. 11 commission. He planned to announce his endorsement of Obama on Wednesday.

In an interview Hamilton said he viewed the Illinois senator as a champion of "the politics of consensus and not of partisan division."

"I think he is driven by the search for the common good," Hamilton said.

Hamilton is best known as the top Democrat on the panel that investigated the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He also was co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan commission that assessed U.S. policy in Iraq.

I've asked this before, but no answer yet: where was the "capable, experienced" Hillary Clinton back when the Democratic Powers That Be were deciding what to do in advance about the out-of-compliance Florida primary? Didn't she care then (hence now flip-flopping), or was she just incompetent to effect the change she now deems so necessary?

Posted by: FlownOver | April 1, 2008 06:01 PM
------------------------------------------
It wasn't Hillary's responsibility to make sure the rules were right.

The rules were decided upon in August, 06, in Chicago, Illinois.

Howard Dean, then, said that the rules for Florida and Michigan were that if anyone campaigned in those states, they couldn't get any delegates in those states - and Howard Dean said that if anyone advertised in those states, they could not receive any delegates in those states.

I did not hear one word about the delegates in those states not counting, just that the candidates wouldn't campaign or advertise in those states.

Hillary didn't campaign in those states.

Obama did pay for national t.v. ads that ran in Florida for two weeks, and radio ads under the radar in FL and MI.

When Karen Thurman, Chairman of the FL Democratic Party, in August 07, came to the rules committee, she gave a long, complete dissertation about how hard they had worked to get the GOP controlled legislature to comply with the DNC dictates about their primary date.

After Karen's very good assessment of what went on, Donna Brazile tartly chimes in that "the rules are the rules." She is an Obama supporter, so her assessment shouldn't count.

Nancy Pelosi's dictates to the super delegates shouldn't count either. In fact Nancy Pelosi should lose her next election. She has used her bully pulpit in an arrogant and self-serving fashion.

Nancy Pelosi's campaign finance manage is also Barack Obama's campaign finance chairman. Nancy has to go. Donna Brazile and Howard Dean need to be vetted. gw.

Can't we talk about Obama's bowling adventures? Really, I don't think enough air time has been spent on that yet . . . .

I forgot the most useful Lib excuse/standby:

We need to spend more money to get the result we planned.

As a thinking man's Lib you simply repeat this every year at accounting time.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 1, 2008 06:52 PM

By your arithmetic - Bush and McBush are libs (see $9 trillion deficit - $5 Trillion being charged to the Repugs.

Bipartisan worthies from the Brookings Institution, the Heritage Foundation, and elsewhere have identified a great threat to the nation's future. "Without addressing" this problem, we are told, "our newly elected leaders in 2009 will have little chance to meet the challenges that Americans face in a world of intense global competition and rapidly changing technology."

The health care crisis? The dropout crisis? Global warming?

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The problem is "automatic spending growth and the deficits they engender." More specifically, the problem is "projected increases in spending for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security." To address this crisis, the authors propose an automatic mechanism that forces Congress to cut the benefits in these programs, to raise taxes, or to cut spending within 5 years.

Committed to "hard choices" and "responsibility," the authors stand ready to slash benefits for the old, the poor, and the infirm. But is this really necessary? Brookings' own Henry Aaron, a senior fellow in economic studies, disagrees:

A CONSENSUS HAS EMERGED AMONG BUDGET ANALYSTS that potentially ruinous deficits await the nation unless current policy is changed soon and fundamentally: The baby-boom generation is about to start retiring; the nation is committed to paying the elderly and disabled pension and health benefits--Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--that are unaffordable; and demography and budgetary overcommitment threaten fiscal meltdown. A political recipe to avoid this specter seems to follow: The nation must cut aid to the aged, disabled, and poor; reduce all other public spending; raise taxes; or do some combination of all three.

This view omits key information. As a result, the political recipe mentioned above is misguided. The United States must reform its health care financing system, public and private. If it does so, there will be no remaining long-term fiscal problem. Reducing current budget deficits is also desirable. But the long-term problem is health care spending, private and public, not a general budget shortfall or entitlements. [...]

Thus, a three-premise syllogism emerges: (1) Near-universal coverage is an essential precondition for controlling health care spending. (2) Rising health care spending is the only source of long-term budget shortfalls. (3) Controlling spending under public-sector health care programs cannot proceed independently of control of private-sector health care spending. Therefore, extending health insurance coverage to nearly everyone is a necessary precondition for dealing with long-term budget challenges.

CNN catches McCain making contradictory statements about Sadr.»

In an interview with CNN earlier today, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) claimed that he has long understood the influence of Iraqi Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr:

'I said he was still major player and his influence is going to have to be reduced and gradually eliminated.'

But in a report on The Situation Room today, the network noted that just two weeks ago McCain -- trying to paint a rosy picture of Iraq -- described Sadr very differently while speaking to CNN's John King in Baghdad:

His [Sadr's] influence has been on the wane for a long time.

This isn't the first time McCain has inaccurately characterized Sadr's influence in Iraq. In April 2007, McCain claimed that Sadr's forces were "not contesting American forces," at the same time Sadr's urged his loyalists to "turn all their efforts on American forces."

This constant fake outrage by Clinton supporters is really getting old. If Michigan and Florida wanted to have their votes count in a primary sanctioned by the DNC, they should have followed the DNC rules. They broke those rules, and they're being punished for it.

This isn't a legal issue, like the Florida recount. This is a primary campaign. The DNC isn't legally required to have primaries or caucuses in every state. If they wanted to choose their nominee based on a handful of primaries, or through on meetings in smoke-filled rooms, or by flipping a coin, they could do so.

The DNC set the rules for how the nominee would be chosen. All of these rules were public knowledge, and nobody complained. But now that Hillary is losing (instead of winning by Super Tuesday like she originally planned), she's suddenly concerned about changing the rules to make them more "fair". (Coincidentally, all of those proposed changes help her and hurt Obama.) Well, that's not the way this process works. You can't change the system just because your candidate is losing.

Chris

I was wondering if you can put together a story on HRC's experience? It seems that people have accepted that she is more experienced than Obama, but I was wondering (1) exactly what kind of experience is she talking about; and (2) whatever kind of experience it is, does she have more of it?

It seems that in light of the Bosnia issue, a fuller vetting of her entire politcal "experience" is in order.

The much-bally-whoed 'surge' is over, as it has to be because we don't have replacement troops. And what has changed. What has been accomplished? Nothing.

There is a cease-fire peace between the two Shia groups that was engineered by a cleric in Iran, for chrissake. Tell me again how we are winning. Tell me again what we have gained after 4000 dead and a trillion dollars.

Let me tell you something. I went to an engineering fair this weekend with my daughter and spoke to a student who is graduating this year. He told me he was studying robotics and nanotechnology to work in the new and burgeoning field of prosthetics for Iraqi war veterans. There are tens of thousands who need new arms, legs, skulls, joints and other body parts.

All this sacrifice, jesus christ, and FOR WHAT?

Did Obama give his "permission" for Clinton to say that?

After all, Obama doesn't want the votes counted for FLorida and Michigan (though he pledged he would "do right by them")

now his minions are claiming that it's "THE RULES"
by that standard, Bush won 2000 fair and square, it's "THE RULES".

and we all know bush didn't win, and he's been a disaster, just like Obama would be

Well, Biden is holding hearings on Iraq, so we shall see what various candidates propose. But the idea that we should stay in Iraq forever, protecting the Shias in power from the Shias who want to be in power is absolutely ludicrous. This latest Maliki adventure had nothing to do with 'rogue elements' -- it had to do with his rivals in the upcoming elections. And guess what, he lost. We are beyond back to square one.

Immediate withdrawal is apparently impossible, yet because of the weakened nature of our military, staying is impossible. Fine mess you've got us into, Ollie...

"Biden, who'll hold hearings on Iraq over the next 10 days, spoke shortly before lawmakers were to be briefed on an updated, classified National Intelligence Estimate on security, political and economic trends in Iraq.

The apparent misjudgment of the Iraqi security forces' capabilities and the strength of Sadr's Mahdi Army militia, as well as the revived political controversy over the war, come at an inopportune moment for the White House.

Petraeus and Crocker are due to testify to Congress next week about the strategy in Iraq now that the 30,000 troops Bush ordered there in a "surge" are being withdrawn.

In the larger sense, "this is a reminder that nothing has changed," said a senior State Department official, who also wasn't authorized to speak publicly."

drindl, If both Ds had strictly adhered to Richardson's repeated suggestions that they make no personal attacks on each other do you think the blogosphere would have been cleaner?

I read many of these folks to be in a foodfight with each other - unidentified posters hiding behind screen names finding an outlet for personal aggressions. I read some as provocateurs.

And yes, some are motivated by the candidates' own inability to differentiate on policy issues and their turn to the personal.

So if you think being a D is worthwhile, do not let the food fight disengage your best judgment.

I, however, like being able to split my ticket in every election without betraying a false sense of loyalty to an organization whose prime motivation is self- perpetuation.

S if you become an independent because you think each Party fails you and the best interest of the country, I applaud your choice, and if you stay a D because you think the Ds are closer to your own views of what is right and just, I support your choice.

But there is no need to be driven out by idiot posters, I think.

The Clinton campaign is as disgusting as Monica's dress.

Posted by: democraticvoter | April 2, 2008 08:55 AM
---------------------------------
And your comment is as disgusting as most of the Obamacult's being thrown around on the web. Just keep on pushing the people he'll need if he is the winner this fall. Douche.

Last night was like watching the news in a foreign country. What happened between the time Obama supporters and endorsers began shoving Hillary out of the race, and today, is anyone's guess, but there's just been a 360o turn around, the media indicting itself, including CNN, for giving this race to Obama on a silver platter. Radio talk show hosts, admitted they found his story and his candidacy, newer and fresher.

According to Lou Dobbs, who interrupted Bill Schneider tonight saying, "Bill, you said Hillary can't win? You know what Obama can't win without supers either." In response Bill screwed his lips into a half smirk.

Dobbs to Bill- The media has exercised a clear demonstration of favoritism for Obama against Clinton.

Dobbs to Bill- When it's all said and done, Supers will decide this race.

Dobbs to Bill- The Democratic party has crushed the votes among Democrats (FL/MI).

Even the polls didn't predict this media awakening, this sudden and massive rethink by the media. So, what caused it, now?

Obama has been ushered into the public arena as the budding star of a major studio, the Democratic Party, He's been long on oratory in a time of short attention spans--so the swooning is over; Obama has reinvented his routine, taking on Hillary's pitch in Hillary's territory. Though he's spending three times more in PA, he will lose there.

What happened?

In the last month there was a fervor of Obama endorsements, a slow-walk by Obama camp to get votes counted, the emergence of the Wright association at the wrong time, the much alluded to dysfunctionalism and failure of the party itself, this list keeps growing...

In an interview on CNN tonight Howard Dean back tracked the DNC's delegate and superdelegate position saying they will reflect wins, losses and their estimation of who would make the best President.

Now even Pelosi is saying the race should run its course, a switch from her stated position that the race should end sooner, than later.

Not count votes? Believe it or not that's still an unresolved issue when it comes to FL/MI and will remain so according to who wins, so says Dean.

Enter Rocky Balboa- The underdog- (Hillary Clinton) who just challenged Obama to a bowling match and at the same time accused him of not wanting to count votes.

That's the BIG that just happened in this race. Media perked up, got over their amnesia, listened to the public, something..happened?

And maybe, party leaders started listening and learned they're going to ppay for not counting votes: there's something about voters, they're after all, the ones, who are supposed to determine the end results of a race, but first, they have to vote and the votes have to be counted. Voters just aren't the fools the DNC took them for, on any day of the year, after all..

Obama's outward role has been to appear that he wants Hillary to keep running; but it's just an attempt to mitigate the public fall-out from Obama supporters pressuring Clinton to get out of the race.

The public perception is that on behalf of Obama, his supporters are trying to push her out, and the slow-walk to any solution to count votes, is just another no-vote ploy.

Obama camp doesn't' just want to disenfranchise FL/MI; they want Hillary out now so they can disenfranchise the voters of 10 more states.

This is the straw that is going to break the camel's back.

We don't.... under any circumstances.... NOT count VOTES.

It's the most powerful point of contention in the race so far; it's the breaking point in the campaign; it makes the Wright debacle and all its implications moot in comparison....

Marl, what makes you think McCain would listen to Biden when all of his advisors are neocons who advocate permanent US occupation of the Middle East?

The monumental incompetence and failure this represents is difficult to even put into words.

5 YEARS LATER AND WE ARE NO CLOSER TO GETTING OUT

"WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration was caught off-guard by the first Iraqi-led military offensive since the fall of Saddam Hussein, a weeklong thrust in southern Iraq whose paltry results have silenced talk at the Pentagon of further U.S. troop withdrawals any time soon.

President Bush last week declared the offensive, which ended Sunday, "a defining moment" in Iraq's history.

That may prove to be true, but in recent days senior U.S. officials have backed away from the operation, which ended with Shiite militias still in place in Basra, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki possibly weakened and a de facto cease-fire brokered by an Iranian general.

"There is no empirical evidence that the Iraqi forces can stand up" on their own, a senior U.S. military official in Washington said, reflecting the frustration of some at the Pentagon. He and other military officials requested anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak for the record.

Having Iraqi forces take a leadership role in combating militias and Islamic extremists was crucial to U.S. hopes of withdrawing more American forces in Iraq and reducing the severe strains the Iraq war has put on the Army and Marine Corps.

The failure of Iraqi forces to defeat rogue fighters in Basra has some in the military fearing they can no longer predict when it might be possible to reduce the number of troops to pre-surge levels.

"It's more complicated now," said one officer in Iraq whose role has been critical to American planning there."

Our own economy is going down in flames, we are being bled dry by this occupation, and there is no end in sight. Only more long, brutal, exhausting years of endless war.

Happy now? Be sure and vote for John McCain

4 MORE YEARS

optimyst, Both D campaigns seem to resort to telephone conferences with the MSM that sound like elementary school blamefests. I hear them on POTUS'08, and the only qualitative difference would be in ear of the listener, I am sure.

You may be writing to specifics other than these campaign finger pointing orgies.

drindl, I want to hear McC flesh out how he will rebuild a multilateral strategy in the Middle East. I want to hear the Ds multilateral strategy for the Middle East. I reserve judgment on all their policies because none of them are campaigning on policy. They all talk sound bites. "Victory" or "Rapid draw down" - these are not strategies. So I take McC at his word that he is for multilateral pragmatism; that he does want to listen to our allies as well as talk to them. But I am not ready to buy any of their Iraq plans until I see plans that are tied to strategies -
like Joe Biden presented.

But you knew this.

"The Clinton campaign is as disgusting as Monica's dress.

Posted by: democraticvoter | April 2, 2008 08:55 AM"

And so are you. How juvenile this all is. After looking at all your comments, I have realized I no longer want to be a member of the Democratic party. What a bunch of f*cking children. Fiddle while your country burns, idiots.

The Clinton campaign is as disgusting as Monica's dress.

Is it me, or are the statements coming out of the Clinton campaign starting to sound more and more like the pleas of court-appointed counsel ensuring that his or her client receives the benefit of constitutional protections in the face of a preponderance of evidence against the client?

You have to realize that the long term occupation of a Muslim country is seen quite differently than our presence in say, South Korea. We can maintain long-term pressence in countries where we are actually wanted, as evidenced by the fact that their people don't kill our troops.

But when our soldiers are being blown up in substantial numbers by the very citizens we are supposed to be 'protecting' -- what does that mean? It means Iraqis DON'T WANT US THERE.

Who attacks US soliders? Everyone. Every group and subgroup. Sure there's 'al queda in Iraq' -- nothing to do with bin Ladin, but a homegrown Sunni group supplemented by the largest group of foreign fighters, who are -- tada! SAUDIS.

Then they routinely get attacked by various Shi'ites group, clans and militias, the thugs that runs the government being one of them. It is total chaos which is spreading into further chaos in neighboring countries. What our presence has done there is, instead of spreading democracy, breaking down democracy and increasing terrorism.

This is why no other countries [with the exception of Saudi Arabia, who uses us to curb Iran for them] wants us there. This is why John McCain is speaking empty words. He will have no more support for a failed policy than George W, Bush.

"McC has also said he would discard unilateral foreign policy as initiated by the neocons in the GWB Admin in favor of multilateral pragmatism."

How can he d that when the leaders of no other country beleive in the course of action he wishes to follow in Iraq? That's very nice talk, but what does it have to do with reality?

McC has also said he would discard unilateral foreign policy as initiated by the neocons in the GWB Admin in favor of multilateral pragmatism.

So would HRC, as far as I can tell.

Many of us think that partisanship should end at the water's edge and the signals from all three candidates are hopeful for us in this regard.

kalliming posted at 2:06A:

"I read somewhere that Obama favors Reagan and Bush Sr economic policy; say what - supply-side economic policy."

Actually, the WaPo wrote about BHO's financial and economics advisers just the other day. They and he are not supply-siders.

Perhaps Kalliming is confused. The other day BHO expressed that he would move away from unilateral power projection to reality based coalition building in foreign policy - like we had under both Rs and Ds during the Cold War - and had kind words in that regard for Bush 41 and Reagan, as well as for Ds since Truman.

lylepink posted:

"These LIES by Obama about the 100 year war, is not what McCain said, but a LIE is a LIE."

Fair, as far as it goes.

See

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/04/mccains_100year_war.html

wherein the "Fact Checker" gives both Ds
"2 Pinocchios".

"The Washington Post leads with the release of a notorious 2003 Justice Department memo that argued that military interrogators didn't have to follow the law because they were defending the country. "

Well just about anybody could say that, under just about any circumstances, especially is it's kept secret, and it's all relative anyway. Why bother with those silly old laws? Who needs them? After all, your government would never do anythng to hurt you.

If you can't beat 'im on the issues, and your PA lead is dwindling, it's time to change the subject.

But if you're trying to de-legitimate the process, better make sure your team's efforts to disenfranchise Obama voters in the Texas second-step caucuses don't come to light.

While you morons slam each other over petty differences between obama and hllary, McCain's financial advisors want to party like it's 1929:

"One of them helped deregulate the financial services industries in the 1990s, and now sits in the corporate suites of Swiss banking giant UBS, which yesterday announced $19 billion in investment losses tied to the crumbling U.S. real estate market.

The other pushed one of the most aggressive and controversial mergers of the technology boom, then was sacked by the disenchanted board of Hewlett-Packard.

Former senator Phil Gramm, with his aw-shucks Texas drawl, may at first blush have little in common with Carly Fiorina, the telegenic former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard. But they share a bond: Both are leading economic advisers of Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive Republican nominee for president, and both have reputations as the kind of aggressive capitalists that may be sliding from favor as the nation's economy edges toward recession."

4 MORE YEARS! 4 MORE YEARS!

You think the country is in great shape now -- wait'll these people get their hands on you. You won't have ANYTHING left. No job, no health insurance, no home.

Goodbye middle class. 4 more years will put most of us on the street.

More hyperbole from the Clinton camp and their surrogates. Enough already!

Another hospital, but not the VA. Thanks for your concern, I still have no symtoms. These LIES by Obama about the 100 year war, is not what McCain said, but a LIE is a LIE. No splan'ning cuts it with me.

Where are Clinton's tax returns anyhow?

Where are Clinton's tax returns anyhow?

Where are Clinton's tax returns anyhow?

Isn't this the same Maggie Williams who made $200,000 off of sub-prime loans?

Obviously a very ethical character.

I say to people that say Obama is a great campaigner, outsmart, outdo, and outstrategize the Clinton campaign, be very careful what you wish for. GWBush is a great campaigner, outdo, outsmart Al Gore and Kerry and see us 7 years later - deficit skyhigh, deregulations coming home to roost, economy and reputation tanking, borrowing to finance economic stimulus. I could go on and on. Just remember great campaigner does not translate to great leader or great president. Please do not make the mistake again.

I read somewhere that Obama favors Reagan and Bush Sr economic policy; say what - supply-side economic policy. Please people of the democratic party you don't want the Reagan and Bush economic years.

Don't hold it against her.

Its nothing compared to what Obama has done.

She was brave enough to go into a "hot zone"

She was trying to convey the feeling of fear she had in doing so and went a little bit "over the top" in doing so.

She probably started off with a speech that said "we were warned there could be snipers" and people convinced her to simplify the wording because they thought it would better convey the danger she faced.

Its nothing compared to the whoppers Obama has told.

HUH?

Are you serious?

Have you read the reports from those that were there?

Come on already, this is one of HER biggest lies, and certainly not a first.

What really gets me, is that she has her daughter lying now.

I will vote for the Democratic NOM no matter who it is. I am a Republican, however I do not like McCain.

I do not like HRC.... But, I will vote dem in the next election. I am hopeful Obama will be the person.

HRC will get things done, however not as well of as much as Obama can get done.

Obama will also do a much better job at changing the world perception of America.

Over the long haul, Obama is better for America over all.

Don't hold it against her.

Its nothig compared to what Obama has done.

She was brave enough to go into a "hot zone"

She was trying to convey the feeling of fear she had in doing so and went a little bit "over the top" in doing so.

She probably started off with a speech that said "we were warned there could be snipers" and people convinced her to simplify the wording because they thought it would better convey the danger she faced.

Its nothing compared to the whoppers Obama has told.

HUH?

Are you serious?

Have you read the reports from those that were there?

Come on already, this is one of HER biggest lies, and certainly not a first.

What really gets me, is that she has her daughter lying now.

I will vote for the Democratic NOM no matter who it is. I am a Republican, however I do not like McCain.

I do not like HRC.... But, I will vote dem in the next election. I am hopeful Obama will be the person.

HRC will get things done, however not as well of as much as Obama can get done.

Obama will also do a much better job at changing the world perception of America.

Over the long haul, Obama is better for America over all.

johnnycheng1,

"who decided the rules? I did not see the voters decide the rules, is Howard Dean and his gang are the God? even Hillary and Obama have agreed to the rules, who give them the right to agree? To disfranchise people is against the US constitution under the equal protect clause, it has be be decided by the supreme court. It is a matter of principle, the voters should fight all the all way to the convention, or to the supreme court to protect voters right."

None of this logic applies to this primary campaign. To start, voters did decide the rules, just as voters in Florida and Michigan decided to break the rules. Party officials and legislators are not appointed by God; they are elected. Voters chose these people, and so voters effectively made the decisions about the rules.

What is more, the candidates did agree to abide by the rules. Even if they hadn't, the rules would still apply, but the fact that they did and that Clinton is now trying to upend those rules smacks of the opportunism with which Clinton operates her political career.

Also, the Constitution really has little say over the rules governing a party primary. Political parties are private organizations, and they can organize themselves and set their rules more or less however they like. Were this the general election, then that does fall under the control of the Constitution, but a primary is really not a matter over which the Constitution or courts have jurisdiction.

Besides, do you really want the Supreme Court jumping into another election fiasco? The last time this happened, half the country left pissed off, after all.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, 4 million voters are not being disenfranchised. Four million voters disenfranchised themselves, which is an important distinction. However, that disenfranchisement was only partial because the Florida vote did help reconfigure the national nomination campaign. Clinton received a significant boost following the Florida results, and that vote helped erase some of the memory of her bad loss in South Carolina.

To give Florida the chance to vote again would be to doubly enfranchise that state, giving them one chance to change the race's momentum, and then another chance to change momentum and select delegates. Regardless, a revote in Florida would not be fair at this point--Clinton's pandering there about seating the delegates means that the state will go even more heavily for her than before, and the previous vote was even tainted because Clinton broke a vow not to campaign in the state and promised a day or two before the vote that she would see to it that Florida's delegates were seated at the convention.

The original Florida vote was not fair; a revote would be even less fair, and Florida voters supported the decision to break the rules and disenfranchise themselves. Why should the rest of the country now reward Florida voters for their own error?

Oops, sorry!

But wasn't it Senator Clinton who didn't think she needed a game plan after Super Tuesday? I could buy into this whole "every vote counts" thing if it were consistent with her campaign the past few months, but it isn't. It just doesn't seem at all sincere.

But wasn't it Senator Clinton who didn't think she needed a game plan after Super Tuesday? I could buy into this whole "every vote counts" thing if it were consistent with her campaign the past few months, but it isn't. It just doesn't seem at all sincere.

But wasn't it Senator Clinton who didn't think she needed a game plan after Super Tuesday? I could buy into this whole "every vote counts" thing if it were consistent with her campaign the past few months, but it isn't. It just doesn't seem at all sincere.

The problem, of course, with Clinton's campaign invoking Florida in 2000 and pandering to Democrats' beliefs that the 2000 election was stolen is that those beliefs are sheer fantasy. Two independent recounts of the state were done, and both came to the same conclusion that Bush won Florida, and that he won by a few more votes than the original count had recorded.

In other words, what Clinton is effectively declaring is that Obama has legitimately won this race, but that she wants to drag out the process as long as possible with a bunch of legal maneuvers that will ultimately accomplish nothing?

Or maybe I shouldn't say that Clinton will accomplish nothing in this quest. She will hand the election to Republicans again, which is maybe the most important way in which the fight over Florida this year will end up being remembered in the same vein with the 2000 election.

lyle --

Don't hold it against her.

Its nothig compared to what Obama has done.

She was brave enough to go into a "hot zone"

She was trying to convey the feeling of fear she had in doing so and went a little bit "over the top" in doing so.

She probably started off with a speech that said "we were warned there could be snipers" and people convinced her to simplify the wording because they thought it would better convey the danger she faced.

Its nothing compared to the whoppers Obama has told.

lyle --

May God bless you and watch over you.

You are a good man.

Good luck!!!

Good luck, lyle. The 10th would have been my mother's 91st birthday. I will remember where you are that day.

Are you going into the VA Hospital for the procedure?

Why did Obama agree to a re-vote in Michigan (in theory) and then tank it talking about rules and GD Michigan. Was it preacher man? No I don't think he was ever going to allow a re-vote.

Can some one give me a reason for this two faced behavior - GOPish behavior.

MarkinA: I do remember this being discussed, And think this guy was pretty well discounted, by about all the people involved. This, and other stories about Hillary keeps coming up from time to time. The "Sniper Fire" thing is one I don't understand in the least, since it is a Flat Out LIE. These things simply are wrong, and no amount of explaining a LIE can make it any less a LIE. I go for another needle biopsy on the 10th, hope my lung don't collapse again.

Obamopaths,

How arrogant to think that you represent the "will of the people". First of all the popular vote as it stands now is under 52%-48%. That number which is by no means a landslide represents the union without 12 primaries/caucuses that have either not occurred or have not been counted/may not occur. Florida is the fourth largest state by population and Michigan is someplace between 8th and 10th. That is a pretty big exclusion. Additionally, Hillary leads in primary votes- it is the caucuses that have made up the difference. Caucuses represent voters who have the capibility in their lives to spend several hours getting to and participating in a procedure that has inherent time, transportation and monetary demands. They have ridiculously low turnout (9100 people was a record high in Wyoming which represents less than 2% of state population) and tremendously favor the professional/educated class.

What we have is an echo chamber telling itself how great the guy is and supporting this by the fact that everyone in the chamber agrees. The media has facilitated this as well- as most of them fall into this class of people.

Anyhow, by no stretch of the imagination is Obama "the peoples will". If Hillary were to win, which is unlikely given the obstacles presented to her- it would be meritorious. The "stolen" election/peoples will thing has been used since Feb. by the Obama advocates to drive a narrative where she only wins by cheating-

THE PEOPLE'S WILL HAS BEEN SPLIT ~50%/50% (popular vote)and is not Obama's- claiming to win because of having (slightly) more delegates is like claiming to win because you have more electoral votes rather than popular votes (familiar anyone?)- it creates an illigitimate nominee.

Leon

Considering Dennis Hastert flew his staff down to Florida to interrupt the vote counting (branding him forever a dirtbag), I'd easily say that Democrats ought to watch out for GOP electoral fraud.

They're the party of election dishonesty overall too. Rrom phone jamming to lying to people about their polling place, there is no low that's too low for a republican to try to win an election.

awb75 - I think Zeifman filed charges against WJC in the Hague claiming he was a war criminal for inspiring the NATO intervention in Yugoslavia. Really.

Please do not take Zeifman without a grain of salt.

If 4 million voters were disfranchised, how can we still say we are a democratic country. I know Howard Dean would say rules are rules, but who decided the rules? I did not see the voters decide the rules, is Howard Dean and his gang are the God? even Hillary and Obama have agreed to the rules, who give them the right to agree? To disfranchise people is against the US constitution under the equal protect clause, it has be be decided by the supreme court. It is a matter of principle, the voters should fight all the all way to the convention, or to the supreme court to protect voters right.

Obama is WINNING against Clinton and will WIN against McCain.

What the Clintons seems to be conveniently forgetting is that all candidates agreed at the beginning of the campaing that Fla and Michigan votes would not be counted and they therefore did not campaign there. Problem is that the voters have not forgotten that agreement. Their insistence in changing the rules in the middle of the game makes them look dishonest, poor losers, and desperate. Shame on them.

Barry will lose.

The only question is now or November.

Bleh. It's just more spin from a losing campaign, trying to claim what isn't so.

How can anybody call the Florida's vote "enfranchised" when it is so tainted? NOBODY CAMPAIGNED OR ORGANIZED THERE! Doesn't that mean anything? Is that what Floridians call a fair "enfranchised" election? Is that the kind of "enfranchisement" Sen. Hillary Clinton wants for Florida voters? Tainted?

Sheesh, if we REALLY want a replay of 2000, let's just put an official imprint on an unofficial result.

Bleh.

This is a CONTEST. Obama is WINNING by the rules created by the Democratic Party. PERIOD.

ajtiger --

Barry doesn't deserve someone like you.

Do what I did.

Dig.

Find out who he really is.

Once you do, you'll never push for him again.

He's not the kind of guy you think he is.

Harlemboy said: " ... and yet he manages to eke out all of these delegate victories at caucuses even in states where she won the popular vote." Did you forget the reason why? Remember that Clinton's camp didn't even know anything about the caucus thing in Texas until a few days before the voting!! Talk about incompetence on a large scale. That's why Clinton is in such a dire state.

As an Obama supporter, I am anxious for Obama to be the presumptive nominee so he can start campaigning against McCain. But Obama is not the nominee now. Hillary has every right to stay in the race until Obama reaches 2024 total delegates.

To all my fellow Obama supporters, I say let's not play in the politics of personal destruction. We have to keep up the fight! We must keep on donating, volunteering and campaigning for Obama. We must not stop. I won't! If we can make it competitive in Pennslyvania and then win both North Carolina and Indiana, then come June 3rd, Obama will be the front-runner in total delegates, pledged delegates, total popular vote, and contests won. The superdelegates will close ranks so that Obama will win the nomination by June 10th (i.e. 2024 total delegates reached)

The difference between 2000 and now is that Gore was actually his party's nominee, it was the general election, and the presidency was on the line. As much hyperbole as the Clinton camp wants to engage in, the fact is that there is still a long ways to go.

Harlemboy, let's not judge the candidates by the insanity on the message boards. I really don't think Obama or Hillary would make the case that the loonies that come out on either side are indicative of their average supporter.

You do make a fair point regarding caucuses. However, this point should be made prior to the primaries.

As long as all candidates (and the DNC) agree to the rules ahead of time, then the election is fair.

If next election cycle, the DNC decides to go to a winner-take-all approach, then fine. If they decide that primaries are necessary over caucuses, fine. But all such rules must be agreed to IN ADVANCE in order to be fair. You can't change the rules as you go.

Honestly, I think Hillary 's camp was very surprised by how well Obama did in caucuses. I don't think they expected that any more than he did this year.

By the way, states do have the right to come up with their own voting methods of choice, as long as they are approved by the DNC. So, many small states prefer caucuses (less cost) and this allows states like Texas to develop their own elaborate methods. States do have a right to determine their types of contests, HOWEVER, they must be approved by the DNC in advance.

Florida and Michigan BROKE THE RULES. Their leaders let down the people by going against the DNC. This problem was being predicted as far back as last summer (google the articles to check). Howard Dean was warning and discussing changes with the leadership of these states, which decided to go ahead and jump in line unfairly anyway. THERE IS PUNISHMENT for that, as well there should be.

End of story, those votes cannot and should not be counted. How many voters stayed at home because they knew the results wouldn't count? Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. PATENTLY unfair to try to count those votes.

Nominating Barry Obama ensures defeat.

Democrats can't afford for that to happen.

Not again.

Obama is unelectable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAYe7MT5BxM

What, suddenly we have to justify disenfranchising votes from just to crown our favorite candidate? We need an excuse? I thought we were the Republican Party!

Oh wait.....

If you're sick and tired of Billary & Co.'s color-arousing histrionics, then sign a petition for Hillary to simply "Concede Now!"

http://www.petitiononline.com/ACUDP2/petition-sign.html?

There are 1,350 signatories so far, including 30 afrosphere bloggers. Maybe Hillary doesn't care that she is alienating crucial constituencies of the Democratic base, but the super-delegates are going to be more objective than Hillary Clinton is.

No, Repub, that's not what I'm telling you. Of course the campaigns all knew the ground rules for each state. And of course the Obama campaign out-organized the Clinton campaign. However, I just think it's hypocritical for the Obama campaign to whine about the superdelegates while they take full advantage of other elements in the system which don't reflect the true "will of the people." I don't begrudge them anything. Let the Obama campaign use every possible advantage. Just don't be intellectually dishonest and sanctimonious about the supposed "injustice" of superdelegates potentially thwarting the "will of the people." Hillary won a popular vote majority in Texas, but not a majority of that state's delegates. Oh, well, that's the way the cookie crumbles, and rules are rules. And the superdelegates could hand the nomination to Hillary, if she's still not far behind in the count in June. Oh, well, the rules allow that, too. Get over it.

awb75 - Here is one book review of Zeifman's book.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/reviews/matthewdallek.htm

They're bringing up 2000 again?

I can't wait to see Hillary with an Al Gore beard.

awb75, I posted my concerns about this story when it surfaced, last year, but another attorney who used to post here linked me to several sources that led me to apologize for having posted the Zeifman charges. I will try to find the sources. Although I was concerned, I became certain that Zeifman was so motivated that his take could not be accepted at face value.

lylepink will remember the entire matter.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/01/hillary-fired-for-lies-unethical-behavior-from-senate-job-former-boss/

Hillary fired for lies, unethical behavior from Congressional job: former bossposted at 5:55 pm on April 1, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Dan Calabrese's new column on Hillary Clinton's past may bring the curtain down on her political future. Calabrese interviewed Jerry Zeifman, the man who served as chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate hearings, has tried to tell the story of his former staffer's behavior during those proceedings for years. Zeifman claims he fired Hillary for unethical behavior and that she conspired to deny Richard Nixon counsel during the hearings:
As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.
The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary's history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther - and goes much deeper - than anyone realizes.
Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy's chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation - one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman's 17-year career.
Why?
"Because she was a liar," Zeifman said in an interview last week. "She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality."
This isn't exactly news. When her lachrymose performance arguably won her New Hampshire, Zeifman tried to tell people about Hillary's duplicity. Patterico noticed the effort, but few others picked it up. Zeifman wrote at his website:
After hiring Hillary, Doar assigned her to confer with me regarding rules of procedure for the impeachment inquiry. At my first meeting with her I told her that Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, House Speaker Carl Albert, Majority Leader "Tip" O'Neill, Parliamentarian Lou Deschler and I had previously all agreed that we should rely only on the then existing House Rules, and not advocate any changes. I also quoted Tip O'Neill's statement that: "To try to change the rules now would be politically divisive. It would be like trying to change the traditional rules of baseball before a World Series."
Hillary assured me that she had not drafted, and would not advocate, any such rules changes. However, as documented in my personal diary, I soon learned that she had lied. She had already drafted changes, and continued to advocate them. In one written legal memorandum, she advocated denying President Nixon
representation by counsel. In so doing she simply ignored the fact that in the committee's then most recent prior impeachment proceeding, the committee had afforded the right to counsel to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.
I had also informed Hillary that the Douglas impeachment files were available for public inspection in the committee offices. She later removed the Douglas files without my permission and carried them to the offices of the impeachment inquiry staff -- where they were no longer accessible to the public.
Hillary had also made other ethical flawed procedural recommendations, arguing that the Judiciary Committee should: not hold any hearings with - or take depositions of -- any live witnesses; not conduct any original investigation of Watergate, bribery, tax evasion, or any other possible impeachable offense of President Nixon; and should rely solely on documentary evidence compiled by other committees and by the Justice Departments special Watergate prosecutor .
The right to counsel is considered one of the inviolable tenets of our justice system. It doesn't speak well of ambitious attorneys working on a highly-charged political investigation that she wanted to deny someone the right to an attorney. Small wonder Zeifman questioned her ethics.
If all she did was to propose that as a tactic, that would not make it terribly concerning -- but she did much more than just spitball ideas. When informed that public evidence showed a precedent for the right to counsel, she absconded with the files to eliminate the evidence. Does that remind anyone of later incidents in the Clinton narrative, such as the billing records for the Rose Law offices and the 900+ raw FBI files on political opponents of the Clintons?
Hillary's advocates could accuse Zeifman of conjuring up these stories in order to draw attention to himself in the middle of a presidential campaign. However, Calabrese reports that Zeifman kept diaries during this period, urged on by friends mindful of the historical nature of the Watergate investigation. No one would have known at the time that this 27-year-old barracuda would have any sort of national significance -- which makes Zeifman's testimony all the more compelling.
We know that the Tuzla Dash covered for something much more significant in Hillary's character. Zeifman shows that all of this forms a pattern of lies, obfuscations, deceit, and treachery. Don't miss a word on either site.

Update: Not Senate, but the House. I changed the title to Congressional, but Zeifman worked for the House Judiciary Committee.

Her pantsuits bring all the voters to the yard!

If you ALL don't stop supporting that MAN, me and ALL of the other members of Sensitive Guys for Hillary will just up and take our wine coolers to Hispana's house to watch The View! (Girls - I hear lylepink is on this week, with a lesson in capitalization AND a new fruitcake recipe!)

Harlemboy, Give it a rest! Are you telling me the Clinton Campaign was unaware that many states hold caucuses? If so, then she doesn't deserve to be president. The simple fact is she thought the race would be over after Super Tuesday and it wouldn't matter. The Obama Campaign out organized, out planned, and out thought the Clinton Campaign at every step. My guess is that the way the candidates run their campaigns is probably a good insight on how they would run the White House and their administration.

Well, to the commentator who made these racist comments about black America let me advise you that the issue that prevails in this relationship of Obama with Rev. Wright is that what is being promoted by this church to their followers is nothing better than pure HATRED and ANTI-AMERICAN sentiments. It is surprising to some to see that many of you in the black community endorse this kind of behavior and beliefs.

No matter how much suffering ocurred due to the racial injustices of our past, our nation has done a great deal to correct and move forward. This HATRED only promotes division and you are choosing a path of stagnation that will lead you nowhere. You are NOT the only minority group that has suffered in this country and it is time for everyone to realize that there are many emerging minorities in this country and the path for all is one of working hard and get recognition by the fruits of our labor. You are not entitled to anything that you do not earn!!!

So, enough of this HATRED and INTOLERANCE and look to learn how to integrate yourself in this society or you run the risk of remaining stagnated.

Promoting HATRED for this COUNTRY is totally ANTI-AMERICAN and if you know our history we do not take kindly to such behavior!!!

Well, to the commentator who made these racist comments about black America let me advise you that the issue that prevails in this relationship of Obama with Rev. Wright is that what is being promoted by this church to their followers is nothing better than pure HATRED and ANTI-AMERICAN sentiments. It is surprising to some to see that many of you in the black community endorse this kind of behavior and beliefs.

No matter how much suffering ocurred due to the racial injustices of our past, our nation has done a great deal to correct and move forward. This HATRED only promotes division and you are choosing a path of stagnation that will lead you nowhere. You are NOT the only minority group that has suffered in this country and it is time for everyone to realize that there are many emerging minorities in this country and the path for all is one of working hard and get recognition by the fruits of our labor. You are not entitled to anything that you do not earn!!!

So, enough of this HATRED and INTOLERANCE and look to learn how to integrate yourself in this society or you run the risk of remaining stagnated.

Promoting HATRED for this COUNTRY is totally ANTI-AMERICAN and if you know our history we do not take kindly to such behavior!!!

Attention black America there is a war going on in the media against our views and opinion's.This is evident when you see how FOX NEWS,CNN and MSNBC have covered Rev. Wrights comments. It is a fact that a lot of black people agree with Rev. Wright and when the media call him wrong or crazy they are disrespecting our views, it is a same how the black opinion is disrespected by the white media. Rev Wright comments have not been disproved and to shun them without investigating its truth, is stupid and unreasonable. The media in this country is against blacks. Everyday on t.v the media disrespects us.

MORE

Some in the democratic party has also disrespects black Americans. People like the Clinton's have bamboozled us for years well in the words of BARACK OBAMA not this time!! Its time all truth fighters come together and join the black out vote movement tell the Democratic party that if they rob OBAMA after he has won more states and votes then we will not vote for Hillary Clinton. For more information listen to WARREN BALLENTINE Mon to Fri on WERE the people station 1490 from 10AM to 1PM.ET

It would be easier to sympathize with Clinton's position of "counting all the votes" if it were not for the memories of all the Democratic lawyers flocking to Florida and challenging the absentee ballots of my son and others serving overseas last time around.

yes we can sounds to me like you are talking about your muslum friend Obamo he is the lier cheater and the vote stealer he will never get my vote he is worse than any bush

They're arguing that the candidate with fewer votes should win...JUST LIKE IN 2000! .

cjuanita, perhaps you should go back and read what I wrote before you totally misinterpret it. I was referring to caucuses, not primaries. A caucus is a lousy way to conduct an election, unless you only want the elites to determine the outcome.

Someone up above said:

Anyone with any ounce of intelligence can see that all Obama followers are up in arms to find any way to affect the Pennsylvania results and to cause so much havoc that could make Hillary stop her campaigning.

My gosh, have you never heard of "Operation Chaos"? Well, perhaps you haven't, since the MSM doesn't want to give it any pub. Perhaps you are buying into the MSM line that all those new last-minute Repub registration switches to Dem in PA is made up of all young, latte-drinking Obamabots. There is reason to believe another explanation, especially if you are open-minded enough to find the biggest mouth on the radio from 12-3 ET and spend a few minutes listening to what the opposition is saying.

The reasons why Obama is winning the nomination against Clinton and why he will win the general election against McCain are the following...

With McCain, we have someone who lives for wars and who is missing the heros of WW-II (see the reference to Churchill in one of McCain's publicity). We also have someone who didn't object to the idea of starting a war under false pretenses.

With Hillary Clinton, we have someone who is associated to too many scandals with her husband before, during and after the White House:

- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

Before Bill left office, he gave favors in exchange of money... For example, shortly after beeing pardonned by President Clinton, fugitive financier Marc Rich had his ex-wife giving $400 000 to the Clintons library foundation: Source:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,98756,00.html

The Clinton foundation received recently a $31.3 million donation after Bill expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader's, undercuting both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan's poor human rights: Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html

The reasons why Obama is winning against Clinton and why he will win against McCain are that voters are sick of people starting wars for false pretenses and they are sick of corrupted politicians (I include the Clintons and some of their pundits who have been allies in their past scandals).

harlemboy please...students and latte liberals stealing the election because working class people can take off to vote? Well I'm working class, I voted absentee. I realize not everyone has that option, but last time I checked voting wasn't held from 9-5pm. I'd comment on the rest of your argument, but the first part was so ridiculous I didn't bother reading it.

Just wondering : Why no other posts ( that I've seen ) about Representative Cleaver.

Cleaver happens to be black.

He also happens to be the latest in a long and growing line of Clinton super-delegates sent out to stir up racism; to come right out and say that Obama will win, if he does, 'because he is black'.

Cleaver's 'reasoning' ?

White people have a chance now to get rid of their 'guilt' for the way blacks have been treated in this country for so long.

So, in other words, it's not possible that white people (like myself) support Obama BECAUSE HE IS THE BETTER CANDIDATE ??????

Cleaver, you are thoroughly disgusting and should be ashamed of yourself.

I don't care what color you are, you're an ass-kissing shill for a pack of race-baiting liars.

The Clintons should get out. Now.

"Harlem crybaby"? Oh, please. Can we stop it already with the silly name-calling? That doesn't sound like the politics of hope. It's just another example of the disingenuous nature of Obama's supporters, who would have us believe that Obama's vision of a unified post-partisan political world that appeals to people's better natures is a real one, even as they rail about Hillary, Republicans, Christians, and others in the most divisive way possible. Obama's supporters in the online/blogging community could be Exhibit A in the case against his own vision for the presidency.

"Harlem crybaby"? Oh, please. Can we stop it already with the silly name-calling? That doesn't sound like the politics of hope. It's jut another example of the disingenuous nature of Obama's supporters, who would have us believe that Obama's vision of a unified post-partisan political world that appeals to people's better natures is a real one, even as they rail about Hillary, Republicans, Christians, and others in the most divisive way possible. Obama's supporters in the online/blogging community could be Exhibit A in the case against his own vision for the presidency.

There could be quite a different interpretation by many people on why Hillary decided to stay with Bill and that is FORGIVENESS and STRENGTH OF CHARACTER. While so many women would not have been able to deal with this crisis that she endured, she chose to forgive and stay with her husband and work through this. So, on the contrary it speaks of strength of character.

Also, there is absolutely no comparison between this and Obama's participation in this 20 year relationship with this radical, hateful and anti-semite so called Reverend who promotes Anti-American sentiments under the cover of "gospel" or religion. See him unraveling himself as just a charlatan who has milked his followers for his own gain. And Americans see through this smoke clearly. If this is the way that the black community chooses to integrate themselves to everyone else in America, we are shocked!!! Promoting this to the new generations is totally wrong and evil and it should be condenmed for what it really is!!!!

I think that Harlemboy was right on the money with his comments and Chris, can we dare you to come forward with some FAIR reporting. The media is so determinedly bias towards Obama that is utterly nauseating.

Anyone with any ounce of intelligence can see that all Obama followers are up in arms to find any way to affect the Pennsylvania results and to cause so much havoc that could make Hillary stop her campaigning. This effort is utterly hypocritical by calling it for the good of the party. We have 2 candidates here that are too close for anyone of them to drop. What is it that all of the sudden we become so SOFT that we cannot see these candidates engage? The differences are so minimal on them that we have to see who can bear the pressures best. My opinion is that Obama has an easy ride and has much to prove to us in terms of his abilities. Much of him is still a MAJOR MYSTERY that perhaps could unravel during these next months of campaigning. I want to see the 2 of them engage in some additional debates and see how both interact. Hillary has been beaten up by the press so unduly but her grit and determination need to be admired. So, she gives a good perception of what we can expect from her.

With respect to this campaign, there are too many questions that arise of the Caucus process and Obama winning mainly because of it and Harlemboy put it in good context. This could result in grounds for Litigation on the Legitimacy of this process and the tactics use. Research and see the numerous complaints raised. So, there is a marked impression that this process of winning could leave a major stain on Obama. Nothing could be worst that a win that will pose many questi