David Corn

"That aside, Ickes' argument was situational, not principled. "

As is every insane and inane arguement from HRC and her minions.

Principles went out the window when HRC was waxed on super Tuesday.

With all due respect, I simply can not fathom why any normal, intelligent person is still supporting Senator Clinton. "I wish she would too". Be honest Hillary supporters, hasn't that thought crept into your mind more than a few times in recent months? I mean I've got to believe that as a supporter, you've seen a lot of what she's done recently (Hillary, not her supporters or surrogates or husband...her) and found it at least irksome.

So at what point does a candidates behaviour get assimilated into your assessment of that candidate? Or do you, like Scott McCellan, just decide initially that someone is worth backing and then remain puppy dog loyal no matter how vicious or floundering they become?

Hillary told a fairly detailed fable about sniper fire(four times)and then claimed she "mispoke"..., Claimed to not have supported NAFTA (when the only documentation of her NAFTA dealings shows her...yep, supporting NAFTA), tried to turn Barack's clumsy remarks into some "elitist" nonsense, while living a 150 million dollar lifestyle, pretended she was oh so disappointed with Barack about his association with questionable people(yet in her time, has been associated with a laundry list of scandals and stayed married to a serial adulterer who repeatedly lied to the country about his affair), has been so willing to pander, that she proposed a gas tax holiday that not a single economist in the US thought was a good idea (and then tried to marginalize the importance of economists opinions on...yep, the economy), and is now disingenuously evoking Zimbabwe and voter disenfranchisement in a cynical attempt to alter a process she agreed to. And that’s just the stuff we have hard evidence for.

Quite a rap sheet.

Honestly, could she do anything to alter your view of her? Or do you simply find a man who had a good and honest (if short) career as a senator, probably agrees with you on 95 percent of the issues, and seems to inspire a lot of people, just that objectionable?

(kos)

*****

Any person that cannot be object, honest and unable to see the nose on their faces can still support HRC.

Beyond that I am at a loss, why support her after what she has done and said?

Obama in good mood before final primaries

If Obama was ruffled by attacks from McCain and the Republicans or his own recent missteps, it's not apparent on the trail or on his sometimes raucous campaign plane.

Obama, 46, is upbeat when he steps back for casual banter with the press corps traveling with him. When asked whether he was surprised at how hard McCain had come after him last week, Obama replied, "Of course not."

"So far it's pretty standard Republican fare," he said.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5810644.html

*****

I guess gramps doesn't scare Barack.

Unflappable. That is the kind of temperment we need in a president.

Hillary reportedly using McCain and Huckabee supporters to beef up numbers at DNC protest this weekend

One of the "grassroots organizers" of Hillary's fake protest this weekend at the DNC rules committee meeting (the one deciding what to do with FL and MI), just sent this email out to a lot of the wrong people in DC:
We have Fantastic News!

As you know, our efforts to present a unified front this weekend on Sat, May 31 at the DNC meeting has proven to be quite successful…in fact, we have now an approximate 10,000 marchers. The marchers will be coming from across the country and they aren't just Clinton supporters. For a unified showing will be Obama, McCain, Clinton and even a few Huckabee supporters who will rally together in Washington DC.

How did a grass roots group of politically inexperienced organizers get an overwhelming response of thousands of supporters…supporters that cross partisan lines for the unified message: All Voices Heard, All Votes Matter?

Anyone still working for Hillary should be ashamed of themselves.

(americablog)

*****

Typical neocon fascist jerks, too bad they find so much in common with HRC and her neochronic supporters.

I'm sure you've heard about former White House Press Secretary, Scott McClellan's new book where he admits Bush misled the country into war. Well, coming clean is great--but profiting from lying to the public isn't. McClellan was a critical part of the effort to sell us the war and now he's poised to make millions of dollars for it. That's wrong.

I just signed a petition calling on him to donate the proceeds of his book to a group that helps Iraq veterans--like IAVA. McClellan's going to be on all the news shows this weekend and if we can make lots of noise about this he'll probably get asked about it. Can you click the link below to add your name?

http://pol.moveon.org/mcclellan/?r_by=-3496851-LK.RA3&rc=confemail

Her associates said the most likely outcome was that she would end her bid with a speech, probably back home in New York, in which she would endorse Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton herself suggested on Friday that the contest would end sometime next week.

(NYT's)

McClellan promises to donate portion of book profits to Iraq veterans.

Yesterday, MoveOn launched a petition calling on former White House press secretary Scott McClellan to donate the proceeds from his new book to veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. This morning on NBC’s Meet the Press, McClellan promised to give a portion of the profits to these men and women.

Watch it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYZY3A2Jllc

******

Better than nothing. I hope he is serious and the portion substantial.

I thought of you, David, as we watched the vitriolic and embarrassing meeting yesterday. Indeed, we mispredicted this ugly flareup.

My sister and I have written the bumper sticker that will adorn our cars:

ONE WHITE MENOPAUSAL WOMAN FOR
OBAMA

About sums it up, don't you think?

With the decision just around the corner, there has been much speculation as to who John McCain will pick for a running mate. Here's his own personal list recently leaked to the press.

http://tinyurl.com/5qb6fp

I guess gramps doesn't scare Barack.

Unflappable. That is the kind of temperment we need in a president.

~~~~~

When you have just lost PR by a landslide in all demographics to the person that's not going to win the primary then i guess unflappable would be presidential.

Ha ha ha ~~~

You trolls have been trying to slime McCain as Bush now for over six months and McCain is running even with Obummer in gen match up. Obummer has lost more primary's and more of the popular vote to Hillary since Feb.

I guess Obummer doesn't scare Gramps-

would be the proper use of the phrase.

At the South Carolina state GOP convention today, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) “used his remarks to embrace President Bush, just hours before he was to meet Bush at Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport.” But when Graham first mentioned Bush’s name, the GOP crowd stayed silent, refusing to applaud the President:

****

Wow, McSame had better try to get some distance from Bush but since Bush is raising the RNC money McSame has to dance to his tune. The old guard might be able to keep a few rank and file but Indy's want change and McSame will be a name change only.

Maybe that will work? I doubt it.

David Corn wrote:
"But if she and Ickes and the rest of the Clinton posse continue to question the legitimacy of Obama's victory, there will be problems."
----------------------------------------------
Indeed, and they will all be Obama's problems. With respect to this issue, Hillary has him by the shot and curlies.

If she decides to take it to the convention (and she has every right to do so) the tacit theme of that new campaign (nearly three months to a floor vote) will absolutely be Obama's illegitimate grab of delegates to which he had no right, aided and abetted by the DNC. The overt message will of course be, she can win and he can’t.

It may be the numbers we see today of the erosion of his core constituencies, mark Obama’s decline. She would be nuts to get out now. Certainly, my instinct is that its unarguable that she should persevere AFTER Tuesday. If Obama goes over the top at that point in DECLARED delegates, fine. She still carries on, super delegate declarations have no standing (as we’ve seen), and a lot can change in 80 days (or so). She seems to be getting stronger as he grows weaker, ergo she’s got to stay in the game, which ONLY need end after a decisive floor vote.

Why would she listen to Reid or Pelosi, they have no power to prevent her continuing, and crucially, she is supported by demographic cohorts, crucial to a Democratic win in the fall? As for the rest of the party bosses – they’ve already given her the shaft.

With respect to her presence inducing fractures in the party, it’s too late. I don’t think many in the party’s hierarchy understand that (or may be they do after Saturday’s events). I think Hillary’s a good bet to win the nomination (no – Obama will NOT be the nominee on Tuesday or Wednesday) in the convention.

The key constraint wont be political, it will be financial. But there is a money tree of life that may blossom for her in the campaign, phase II, in the form of the internet. Hers is now a grass route campaign, and if Obama reaches the required number of declared delegate in will become a guerrilla campaign in a war that most certainly CAN be won. It seems to me there is a clear line of attack here that begs to be utilized. I notice though that Chris Matthews, the deeply disturbed sociopath and host of hardball disagrees. So does the rest of that network, and every other network, and talking head contained therein. That comes as a great relief, since they are never right, and couldn’t find their assets with directions and a mirror, it augurs well for the approach.

J.D. Winterbottom

McClellan's Memoirs Hurt McCain Just as Much as Bush

[...]

Americans don’t like being lied to by their leaders, especially if there are casualties involved and especially if there’s no accountability. We view it as a crime story, and we won’t be satisfied until there’s a resolution.

That’s why the original sin of the war’s conception remains a political flash point, however much we tune out Iraq as it grinds on today. Even a figure as puny as Mr. McClellan can ignite it. The Democrats portray Mr. McCain as offering a third Bush term, but it’s a third term of the war that’s his bigger problem. Even if he locks the president away in a private home, the war will keep seeping under the door, like the blood in “Sweeney Todd.”

Mr. McCain and his party are in denial about this. “Elections are about the future” is their mantra. On “Hardball” in April, Mr. McCain pooh-poohed debate about “whether we should have invaded or not” as merely “a good academic argument.” We should focus on the “victory” he magically foresees instead.

But the large American majority that judges the war a mistake remains constant (more than 60 percent). For all the talk of the surge’s “success,” the number of Americans who think the country is making progress in Iraq is down nine percentage points since February (to 37 percent) in the latest Pew survey. The number favoring a “quick withdrawal” is up by seven percentage points (to 56 percent).

http://www.alternet.org/election08/86891/

*****

Maybe most American have changed and like being lied to, hearing lies to start unnecessary and illegal wars.

Then again maybe not, eh?

[...]

Now Mr. McCain is chastising Mr. Obama for not having visited Iraq since 2006 — a questionable strategy, you’d think, given that Mr. McCain’s own propagandistic visit to a “safe” Baghdad market is one of his biggest embarrassments. Then again, in his frantic efforts to explain why he sided with Mr. Bush to oppose an expanded G.I. bill that the Senate passed by 75 to 22, Mr. McCain has attacked Mr. Obama for not enlisting in the military.

Besides making Mr. McCain look ever angrier next to his serene opponent, this eruption raises the question of why he chose double-standard partisanship over principle by not applying this criterion to the blunderers who took us into Iraq. Unlike Mr. Obama, who was 7 years old in 1968, Mr. Bush and company could have served in Vietnam as Mr. McCain did.

The McCain campaign may have no choice but to double down on Iraq — what other issue does the candidate have? — but it can’t count on smear tactics or journalistic and public amnesia to indefinitely enforce the McCain narrative. As the McClellan circus shows, unexpected bombshells will keep intervening — detonating not only on the ground in Iraq but also in Washington, where more Bush alumni with reputations to salvage may yet run for cover about what went down in 2002-3.

As F. Scott Fitzgerald would have it, we will be borne back ceaselessly into the past. Or so we will be as long as Americans continue to die in Iraq and as long as politicians like Mr. Bush, Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton refuse to accept responsibility for their roles, major and minor, in abetting this national tragedy.

This week brought yet more proof that John McCain's grasp of his signature issue -- the war in Iraq -- is less than firm. "I can look you in the eye and tell you [the surge] is succeeding," he told a town hall crowd. "We have drawn down to pre-surge levels." Only we haven't. There are currently 155,000 troops in Iraq; there were 130,000 before the surge. He also announced that Mosul is "quiet" -- even though earlier that day three suicide bombings rocked Mosul and a nearby town, leaving 23 dead. The day before, McCain mocked Obama for declining to accompany him on a trip to Iraq, saying: "We've got to show him the facts on the ground." Which facts are those, Senator -- the ones you're making up as you go?

(huffpo)

lol

Obama Hits McCain on Veterans Benefits

ABC News' Sunlen Miller reports: Sen. Barack Obama used a Sunday morning pancake breakfast with veterans in Sioux Falls, S.D., to once again blast McCain over veteran’s issues.

Obama highlighted the difference he has with the presumptive Republican presidential nominee over the 21st Century GI Bill proposed by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., a bill that passed overwhelmingly in Congress but is now up for looming veto by President Bush.

"John McCain -- like George Bush -- opposed it, even though John McCain didn’t come back to vote, " Obama explained, "I don’t understand why he would side with George Bush in opposing a bipartisan bill that does so much to make college affordable for veterans. George Bush and John McCain may think that the bill is too generous, but I could not disagree more."

The GI Bill would expand education benefits for veterans who served at least three years in the military after Sept. 11, 2001. Obama used the story of his grandfather, who fought in World War II, to demonstrate the need for veterans benefits when they return from war.

"We have an obligation to do everything that we can to extend opportunity to those who serve. Doing so will not only help us with recruitment, not only will it help veterans live their dreams, but that’s what built the middle class in this country was the ability to train a new generation after they’d come back from war," Obama said, "America stood by my grandfather when he took off that uniform, and it never left his side."

(ABC)

JD Winterbottom; 8:16pm.
I couldn't have said it better myself. I have only a couple of things to add.

The DNC didn't go very far toward creating unity yesterday. O-bot making nice now is too little, too late. They have dissed her for so long they don't even realize when they're doing it now.

I mean the poor man, what is he to do??? He's tossed his pastor under the bus, dumped his church, what is he going to do now, divorce his wife for trashing "whitey" on tape. All this in his hypocritical run for the WH.

Let's see: He has all his "new voters", the latte-drinkers and the AAs. He's losing the Independents to her, she has the blue-collar, the women(mother or wife)in almost every home in the country,the latinos, and the uneducated, you know, the ones who go to school on the G.I. bill....... I think he loses in Nov., for the reasons stated in Puerto Rico today, "we don't know enough about him to have an opinion."

Since speech-making is supposed to be his forte, maybe he should give people an inkling what his cabinet would look like, what policies he would pursue, and how he intends to fix an economy spinning out of control, raging gas prices, the mortgage meltdown and Bush's - war of choice - and stop chanting change, that's what "dubya" ran on. So far I haven't seen any difference in Obama. He also is a great political puppet.

McCainocrats: Eager to Tell Me You Told Me So?

I’m not prescient or plugged-in enough to have any special window on how many of you Clinton supporters who are saying you will vote for John McCain in November will come to your senses by then. Many people I respect think that most of you will. I suspect they’re right. I hope they are. But it’s obvious that more than a handful of you are serious in your vindicativeness and will join Joe Lieberman to support the Senator from Arizona over Obama. That would be the anti-choice, hundred-year-war, two-faced, Republican Senator from Arizona.

Thus is born a new subspecies, McCain Democrats, McCainocrats.

If your shrieking can be believed, you McCainocrats are premeditating ballot support for an exclusive club of racist, union-busting, woman-suppressing, bedroom-peering, rights-scoffing, warmongering, torture-backing, buccaneering, global warming-denying, privatizing, public land-grabbing, Supreme Court stuffing, empire-building, Constitution-shredding raptors. All for self-indulgent revenge. You’re unhappy that your candidate has not won the nomination. I understand that. Mine didn’t win either. But you’re not just unhappy, you're also willing to contribute to the election of someone who stands against most of what your candidate has been promoted as standing for. That, I don’t comprehend at all. Emotionally, intellectually or morally. I get the feeling you would vote for George W. Bush in 2008 if the 22nd Amendment weren’t in the way.

You McCainocrats might recall that you have ancestors.

There were George Corley Wallace Democrats, for example. Whether Wallace was really a racist or merely used racism opportunistically is a semantics game I’ll leave for others to sort out. Having lost an election in which his foe was deeply racist, Wallace vowed never to be "out-ni**ered" again. Until he was reborn and publicly repented of his segregationist ways, nobody could doubt that his policies epitomized Jim Crow apartheid. Because of those policies and his ferocious rhetoric, millions of registered Democrats abandoned the party in 1968 to vote for Wallace, running as an independent against Humphrey and Nixon. Four years later, he attracted droves of Democratic voters, peppering his campaign with racist code phrases (while claiming he no longer supported segregation), and winning six primaries, including Michigan, where the open primary allowed massive crossover votes from independents and Republicans, just as it did this year. After that, he more or less faded away, and most of his supporters drifted permanently over to the Republicans.

http://www.dailykos.com/

*****

I think DINO's should vote for McSame.

It is where their true loyalty lies so . . .

Hillary Will Win the Nomination if...

Superdelegates accept that she has won the popular vote

Superdelegates believe that she is a much stronger general election candidate and,

About 85% of the remaining superdelegates choose her over Obama, overturning the pledged delegate result

Here’s why this is not going to happen in a million years...

Based on the results from Puerto Rico and the expected results from Montana and South Dakota on Tuesday, Hillary Clinton will only be ahead in the popular vote if you accept that 0 people in Michigan intended to vote for Obama when they cast their ballots for "uncommitted" in January because his name was not on the ballot. There are very few people in this country who have followed this race who are foolish enough to believe that is true.

Even if you call the popular vote a "tie" by counting Hillary’s votes in Michigan and giving Obama something like 60% of the "uncommitted" vote (because Edwards wasn’t on the ballot either), you are still faced with the problem of the caucus states. Not only can we merely guess their popular vote totals, but if those states had known that so called "popular vote" was a legitimate measure of support in this primary, they would not have chosen to do caucuses in the first place. You can’t change the rules at the end of the game.

The bottom line is that the popular vote is not a legitimate measure of support in this primary. Pledged delegates are how the Democratic Party fairly represents the will of the people in the same, uniform way across every single state.

Polls, Polls, Polls

Hillary sent out a letter to the superdelegates several days ago that laid out, using multiple polls, the case that she is a much stronger general election candidate than Obama. Hillary has constantly maintained that she is stronger in the "swing states" that "democrats must win" like OH, FL, and PA, but what she doesn’t seem to understand is that Obama has polled consistently stronger in WA, OR, NV, NM, CO, WI, MN, IA, MT, and arguably other states as well. If Obama has been experiencing a dip in head to head polls lately, it is probably due to the fact that Hillary’s supporters are trying to come to terms with the fact that their candidate will lose and are reluctant to turn around and support they guy that is beating her. Superdelegates know this, and they aren’t going to be fooled. They know that the vast majority of democrats will eventually come around to back Obama over McCain.

Despite the letter’s obsession with polls, it neglected to show the national gallup poll, which has Obama beating Hillary among national democrats by a 52-42% margin.

Superdelegate Revolt!

Not only has there been story after story about how the superdelegates aren’t paying attention to Hillary and how most of them quietly support Obama, Hillary will need somewhere in the neighborhood of 85% of the remaining superdelegates to commit to her after the last primary in order to overtake Obama in the overall delegate count and reach the magic number. If you think that it’s unlikely that this would happen, it’s made even more unlikely by the fact that Obama has won 72% of the superdelegates who have declared their support since February 5th. Hillary would have to take the trend that has been continuous for months and completely reverse it in her favor. Impossible.

Superdelegates are aware of the problem that disgruntled Hillary supporters pose for party unity. They are even more aware, however, of the exponentially worse problem Hillary would have with disgruntled Obama supporters if they were to overturn the pledged delegate result. Even though Hillary’s electability argument may be at least partially true in a vacuum, it cannot hold because she has no path to nomination that does not involve outraging millions of Obama supporters and literally tearing the party to shreds.

To Summarize...

Sueperdelegates aren’t going to believe Hillary is ahead in the popular vote because she is not.
Superdelegates aren’t going to believe that Hillary is more electable, because winning the nomination would make her unelectable.

Superdelegates aren’t going to flock to her because they have been flocking to Obama for months in a continuous stream.

This race is over, it’s up to Hillary what she decides to make of it.

(kos)

*****

"The greatest test of courage on earth is to bear defeat without losing heart."

~ Robert Ingersoll (1833 - 1899)

Some good advice:

http://tinyurl.com/4fxgmv

Move on folks, nothing to see. It's over. Mrs. Clinton's advisers have left the stage. They've as much as admitted that it's over. Time for some funnies. The Late Nite Crew is on vacation, I got nothing but Comedy Central stuff:

JON STEWART: As for still-President Bush, he's continuing to sprint to the finish. He gave what would be his final address to a graduating class of a service academy at the Academy of the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. How did he handle the occasion? Oh, great, chest bump. Great, that's great, just great
ON SCREEN: photo of Bush chest-bumping an Air Force Academy graduate.
JON STEWART: When I see the president do the chest bump, I cannot help but think that if he hadn't been fucking things up for the past seven years, and was goofing around like this, would we love him?"

JON STEWART: But here's how I explain it....Imagine that we had never gone into Iraq, that this president had taken immediate and effective action on Katrina, gas was like 99 cents for regular unleaded, and Cheney had never been born. Just imagine that. And then look at these pictures. Look, hey, it's president doing the Heisman, a little ring a ding ding, oh, kiss, kiss, blow, blow, and of course, the old power flick
ON SCREEN: montage of photos of Bush at the graduation
JON STEWART: But of course, he did fuck things up. So it all just seems asinine."

STEPHEN COLBERT: Nation, yesterday, Democratic party lawyers found that Michigan and Florida must forfeit at least half their delegates for breaking DNC rules and holding primaries early. Michigan responded by changing its shape from a mitten to a angry mitten
ON SCREEN: a doctored map of Michigan with a 'middle finger' at the top
COLBERT: while Florida just became limper
ON SCREEN: a doctored map of Florida, with the tip of the state drooping to the left.

sTEPHEN COLBERT: As you may recall, all the frontrunners agreed not to campaign in those states, and all of them pulled their names from the Michigan ballot, except for Hillary Clinton. Then, huge surprise, Hillary won Michigan! Not, of course, [that] it would ever count
ON SCREEN: audio of Clinton saying Florida and Michigan votes won't be counted.
COLBERT: Then, 23 states later and trailing Obama, Clinton added
ON SCREEN: audio of Clinton saying the Democratic Party must count the Florida and Michigan votes.
COLBERT: Now, some say this is inconsistent. But I say she's being remarkably consistent in SAYING whatever it takes to win.

On Gramps McBush's medical records:
JON STEWART: 1,200 pages. And here's the amazing part: It only covered the last eight years. 150 pages a year. I am hoping that that is a font issue [
ON SCREEN: pages shown with one word on each, in very large font.

JON STEWART: What would a 1,200-page document be without totally unnecessary draconian parameters? First, the records were made available for three hours, and could not be taken out of the room. Second, no internet or cell phones were allowed. Third, if you left the room for anything but a bathroom break, you were not allowed to return. And fourth, well, I think that's entirely reasonable
ON SCREEN: rule #4: No Masturbating.
STEWART: I think that, actually, that one was necessary. I'm looking at you, Brit Hume.

JON STEWART: So what did they find?
ON SCREEN: explanation of McCain's various maladies, including kidney stones and high blood pressure.
STEWART: Yeah. Two small kidney stones. Fairly common malady. No big deal ... There's a montage coming, isn't there?
ON SCREEN: montage of different reports saying McCain has had various types of skin cancer and other issues.
STEWART: Yeah, Chin herpes. Dry heart. Swimmer's thumb. Inflammation of the rickets. Something called John McCain's Disease. And root fungus, which is apparently more common to trees.

JON STEWART: But still! That's what they found in three hours. Imagine if they'd had four. Well, I think with all this information we can make a diagnosis
ON SCREEN: reporters saying McCain is "fit as a fiddle" and is "in really good health." One reporter also asks whether 71 is the "new 30".
STEWART: I guess that makes dead the new 50."

JON STEWART: I don't usually like to bring personal feelings and let them interfere with my fake journalistic feelings. But a dermatologist was quoted in a report as saying John McCain's, quote, '...buttocks are unremarkable, except for some very light tan freckling.' ... But I need to address this idea, this fallacy, this lie, that John McCain's ass is unremarkable. We have had him on our show over a dozen times. You watch the senator walk out to sit down, but when the interview is over, I have the distinct pleasure of watching this man leave."

JON STEWART: Barack Obama released his medical records detailing the last 21 years, and this is them, I kid you not
ON SCREEN: Stewart holds up one sheet of paper.
STEWART: A one-page letter from Obama's doctor stating that the senator -- and it is to whom it may concern -- [is quote] in excellent health and, continuing quote, on physical compression his blood pressure was 90 over 60, pulse 60 beats per minute, his build was lean and muscular with no excess body fat. His chest was smooth and hard like the hood of a Mustang. As I watched the dewy beads of moisture glisten on his corrugated stomach, I was thankful this was my last appointment of the day."
--Jon Stewart

I hope to live to see the first woman president. But I also hope she will be an idealist, not only a gender pioneer but a bold, brave, and innovative leader who is not part of a flawed Washington system. I want America to send a powerful signal to a watching world that we have now taken a giant step into the global culture by electing an African-American. But my hope and dream also is, and has been since the days of John and Robert Kennedy, that this president will call us to a nobler mission and a higher goal, that he will remind us always of our Constitutional principles and ideals, that he will place us back on our historic path to the establishment of a more perfect union and a principled republic.

Ever an idealist, I therefore place my hope in Barack Obama. It is time for the idealists, even the aging ones, to raise the flag again.

(Gary Hart)

*****

I too hope to see the first woman president but I want it to be the right woman, Hillary has never been that for me. She is not a good fit for the position. Her failed campaign proved what I always suspected, she is a poor manager and a failure as an executive - her sense of entitlement offends me.

I doubt she has done any good for her career by the words and actions. She may well have ended it to our collective advantage.

Mrs. Clinton can't continue her campaign as was pointed out earlier because 1) her campaign isn't bringing in enough $$$ to cover her debts and leave enough for future expenditures 2) her campaign crew has just deserted.

"It does appear to be pretty clear that Senator Obama is going to be the nominee," said Tom Vilsack, the former Iowa governor and a national co-chairman of Clinton's campaign. "After Tuesday's contests, she needs to acknowledge that he's going to be the nominee and quickly get behind him."

and later on in the article:
"The decision Saturday by the party rules committee to seat disputed delegations from Michigan and Florida at half strength extinguished the former first lady's last, slender hope of slowing Obama's march to the nomination. Clinton won both states' primaries, but their results were voided because their early primaries violated party rules. Obama's name wasn't even on the Michigan ballot."

"The committee, which includes several Clinton backers, rejected her argument that the contests were legitimate and the delegations should be recognized in full. It was a tacit acknowledgment by party insiders that Obama was poised to secure the nomination and that it was time to rally around his candidacy."

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has been neutral in the contest, said as much in a statement praising the decision immediately after it was announced."

later on:
"Clinton's top delegate hunter Harold Ickes, a Rules Committee member, said Sunday the committee had "hijacked" the vote. But he stopped short of saying she would make good on the threat to push the case forward."

==+==
Obviously if he thought that the Supers would have his back, he'd go to the mat with this issue. He won't go through with the threat because he knows it's a lost cause. They lost in front of the RBC and they'll lose the appeal. It's a delegates race and only the Supers can save her. They can jump through hoops of fire and do all the back flips they want. Their popular vote argument is unpersuasive because these are the numbers that everyone agreed would matter when this whole game started:

Obama's pledged dels: 1,740.5
Clinton's pledged dels: 1,624.5
As of 6/1.

Even Clinton's rules committee guys admit it's just a big show:

"Indeed, observers believe Clinton is simply trying to keep all options open until Obama is declared the winner, at which point she'll reassess."

""I think it's a position the campaign is taking until the primaries are over. Until then, I don't think it can be seen as anything more than posturing," said Don Fowler, a Clinton supporter and Rules Committee member who voted for the Michigan compromise."

"I don't think we're going to fight this at the convention," Rendell said on CBS's "Face the Nation" Sunday. "Because even were we to win it, unless it's going to change enough delegates for Senator Clinton to get the nomination, then it would be a fight that would have no purpose."
==+==
The Clinton backers want out. This much is clear:

"But privately, her aides have said Clinton's run is over and it's simply a matter of when it becomes formal. And after maintaining a respectful distance in the final weeks of the campaign, Obama campaign aides have begun to reach out to their counterparts on the Clinton campaign in hopes of pulling together and ameliorating hard feelings."

"You've got two very very strong candidates with a lot of committed supporters competing vigorously for a long time," Obama strategist David Axelrod said. "Of course there are strong feelings. It would be weird if it were any other way."
Yahoo/AP news: http://tinyurl.com/42llb9

Icke's threat only works if he can convince EVERYONE to play along. Fowler, Rendell and others are already waving the white flag. Their subordinates are already looking for a spot in the Obama campaign. It is time to Move On.

Some quick news on the DMW front.

McCain Campaign Manager's Firm Worked for Ukranian Billionaire with Ties to Iran

Before Rick Davis began serving as John McCain's campaign manager, his lobbying firm had a pretty cosmopolitan set of clients. For example, Ukranian billionaire Rinat Akhmetov, who has several business links to Iran. To be sure, there's a good crowd of lobbyists in Washington who work for international firms with ties to Iran.

But Davis isn't just any lobbyist. He's a lobbyist-turn-presidential campaign manager who just a couple weeks ago was drawing up rules on how to build a wall between lobbyists and McCain's political operatives.
==+==

Money talks. And with Gramps, Bullshit walks.
TPM: http://tinyurl.com/6xr5hd

Bad news for the DMW from a Rightwing Dingbat. Yes. You read that right. Even they know it's over. The Death Rattle of the DMW:

"The news in the survey is NOT the terrible political environment – you already are aware of that, and if you are not, please retire. The news is NOT that John McCain has a slight deficit when matched against Barack Obama, despite stronger support for McCain from Republicans than Obama gets from Democrats (see my April memo for why that is a challenge for ALL Republican campaigns). NOR is the news that voters are angry about gas prices and think the Democrats are better able to handle the economy."

" Instead, the news is the four match-ups between the Republican message and the Democrats’ message on the key issues of the economy, Iraq, trade, and taxes. The Democratic message consistently won out over the GOP message by eleven to 25 points."
==+==

Again, this is NOT a Radical Lefty talking. These words are from a DIngbat, regarding a poll with ominous signs for the DMW:

"Let’s start with the economy. When voters know what party each message comes from, we lose 37% to 58% and trail among independents by 18%. Ouch. However, when you read both messages without telling voters who they come from, the story gets worse."

"Republican voters like the Democrat’s message more than their own party’s message by a large 14% margin when they don’t know which party it comes from. Just as disturbing, numbers among independents drop by another 10%... giving the Democrats a massive 28% advantage. Even our horrifically damaged image is better than our message on the economy. Independents and even Republicans simply like the Democrats’ plan more than ours."

==+==

The conclusion is TOO FREEKIN' FUNNY for words:
"The takeaway? Our message right now is electoral poison and this isn’t all about “brand.”"
==+==

Electoral poison for a party that is already on life-support. Dead. Man. Walking

Please. Please keep up the whole Obama's uncle didn't go to Auschwitz, Obama's pastor is a bigot, Obama abandoned his church, Obama is Hamas' candidate, Obama wants to campaign in 57 states, Rezko, etc.

Americans have had it with those kinds of distractions. They are ready to Move On. Read the whole thing, then give $$$$ to the RNC or the RNSC. Give till I die laughing.

Bad news for everyone tonight (including Obama, who got his ass handed to him in PR. No worries, PR has 0 EVs in November).

The DMW:
"I can't say for certain the Democrats are assured of victory in November in the presidential race,but it's getting close to that in terms of the House and Senate races. There, the Dems advantages are so substantial, so structural, the Republicans are now just hoping for only modest Democratic gains in the House and Senate."

"Because Congress has two parties in it, and in every single poll I've seen for the past 2 years, the congressional Republicans always fare *very*, *very* poorly, much more so than congressional Democrats."

"Plus, a lot of the anger at Democrats is basically angry liberal base voters that are upset that Pelosi and Reid haven't impeached Bush and Cheney. Those are voters who are not going to be voting for House and Senate GOP candidates any time soon."

"No, the Pelosi-Reid Democrats are not popular, but congressional Republicans are *way*, *way*, *way* more unpopular right now. "

polls bear that out:
rASSmussen: http://tinyurl.com/34c5fz

And I believe Capt. has covered this one before:
"I've spent the past several months talking to as many super-delegates as any reporter in America, I'd guess, since I cover on a day-to-day basis about 280 of them here on Capitol Hill."

"I hate saying this, because all the Clinton people are going to flip out and say, You're biased, you're biased, you're biased. So go ahead and flip out if you want, but the simple basic truth is that the super-delegates stopped paying attention to the Clinton-Obama race about a couple days after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries."

"They've stopped paying attention to the primary, and instead they're focused on an Obama-McCain matchup in November. That's the basic, simple, definitive reality that has happened in this race. The "undecided" super-delegates at this moment are not going to "decide" any time soon, because to them the race is over, they're just waiting for Clinton to drop out. "

"Again, don't yell at me because I'm only the messenger here. But the super-delegates have moved on, they're no longer looking at how Hillary Clinton fares in battleground states against McCain. This is very hard for Clinton supporters to hear, I'm sorry, but the super-delegates are not paying attention to your candidate anymore. These head-to-head matchup polls (Clinton v. McCain, Obama v. McCain) are not having the impact on people's thinking anymore."
Washpost: http://tinyurl.com/6nrxby

Mr. Corn:
Mr. Ickes was entirely correct in his contention the RBC hijacked the process. Mr. Obama sent an affidavit to the Michigan Democratic Party requesting his name be removed from the ballot. Then he and John Edwards made it known a vote for uncommitted was a vote for them.

He earned zero votes in Michigan in order to gain favor in Iowa and their position as favored first caucus. This in and of itself was astute politically however when the RBC gave him delegates based on exit polls (which have been consistently wrong this election cycle) they broke their own rules and gave him four extra votes coming from Sen. Clinton's earned delegates.
Perhaps in December, after Sen. McCain has won the general election, you can watch a replay of this farce and ask yourself why the RBC would spit in the face of Hillary's supporters in order to give Obama four extra votes that were inconsequential to his delegate lead. I think Donna Brazil made clear the intentions of her "New Coalition" when she said the Hispanic, blue collar workers, Ky.,W.v. Florida and Michigan are not needed. Sen. Obama has drawn a new map which is heavy on western states, like my state, Colorado, with a total of eight electoral votes and it is amazing how many there are still ignorant of the real process. Puerto Rico may not have voting rights, but laws passed here affect them and they fight in this country's wars. The fact Obama moved late to campaign in Ky. and W.V. indicates to me, his campaign is rethinking his "new map" which is clear if your take a hard look at the electoral map. McCain is leading by close to twenty points in Mississippi and the only red state (where he won most of his delegates) where he is leading is Iowa. The idea that Sen. Clinton's supporters are uneducated, poverty stricken hicks is a myth perpetuated by a biased media and the "polarizing and divisive" adjectives used so frequently by Obama's supporters is revisiting Republican efforts to define the Clintons. A Democratic candidate who heaps praise on Reagan and GHW Bush and ignores or condescends to the only Democratic president to serve two terms since FDR does not deserve my vote after forty years in the Party and he won't be getting it. Neither will I vote for any Democrat running for office in this state. I have no fidelity to a party, only to ideas and decency which I have seen little of from Obama and his surrogates. The very idea he would allow the continuation of the depiction of the Clinton's as racist's is all I needed to make up my mind.

capt, I don't know in what numbers Hillary's supporters will defect to McCain, but I sincerely hope it is in the millions. This could have been very different if the twisted and malevolent posting of vile, obscene haters like you had been a discussion of policy, experience and ideas instead. I am surprised you are still writing, but it proves you have no clue what is happening. You are a buffoon who has torn down your own house in a rage and don't yet understand the destruction you have caused. Many of Hillary's supporters fought for the right to choose, the passage of the ERA (some things never change) and protested the Vietnam war in numbers you can't imagine. If you are lucky and learn the easy way, you will understand, the common thread running through humanity is a demand for respect and dignity. It IS the most enduring quest for every human being and transcends all other considerations. If you have to learn the hard way, you will find yourself derided and your soul in bondage to the hateful, mean spiritedness you exhibit here. This imperative is why you will lose in the end.

This from my husband.

It is difficult to pinpoint exactly when this turning point in history occurred, but it is clearly somewhere between “Bill Clinton is the first black president”, and “Bill and Hillary are racist bigots.”

Who are we that stood shoulder to shoulder with blacks while the bigots tried to hose them off the streets of Selma and Montgomery? Who are we that agreed with Dr. King that “this nation should rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed that all men are created equal”, and as such freely supported school integration for decades and helped rid this society of the workaday machinery of racist slang, slurs, jokes, and taught our kids tolerance and fairness.

We are the common decent Americans who helped install this ‘logic of equality’ in the land – as it is but a simple extension of: “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.

To cast us as racist for supporting Hillary is the most profane betrayal.

Common decency allows us to excuse some things said or done in the heady excitement of the times; however, blatant clownish mockery is premeditated to insult and the ensuing calculated apology presupposes us as fools. The logic of decency cannot be set aside by calculated political speeches designed to justify greedy actions. You are known by your deeds, not your words.

It is obvious that a cabal of DNC insiders (Dean, Pelosi, Brazille, et al) have carefully crafted a secret scheme designed to wring every conceivable advantage from the nominating process and have lay in wait to ambush and stab Hillary in the back.

A scheme so cunning even Karl Rove must lie jealously awake in bed at night giggling and howling at the fiendish deliciousness of it all. Even his own motives are audaciously included as he and his minions bite their collective tongues waiting to eviscerate their preferred nominee. Missing tax returns, campaign contributions from the man jailed for murdering the President of Iraq prior to Hussein. Rev. Wright, Phlegler, Hamas, committee plants, packed caucuses, intimidation, veiled threats, delayed election results, caucus fraud in Texas, and a vacuum of factual news so deafening, you might as well have written Resko across the sky. All arrayed in panoramic glory awaiting a proper presentation.

Karl must now realized his special talents may not even be necessary to secure victory in November!

Of all people who should have understood, you can iron your own goddamned pants Obama, until you learn that woman is NOT the nigger of the world.

P.S. Rev. Phlegler can Phuck Off.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find it quite funny that the pundits claim Hillary should make nice so that she will be the presumptive nominee in 2012 should Obama lose. Lest they forget, she was the presumptive nominee for 2008 and the voters said no! She will stay in this race to the convention and beyond. If she can't have it, Obama can't as well. That is the only thing she has going for her now and she will carry it out to the best of her ability, which isn't saying too much.

It's Obama vs Gramps now. Even the bigwigs in the Clinton campaign admit that she's just posturing until the inevitable becomes reality. So where do things stand looking to November? Gallup polls (or "Gallop," as Homeschool likes to call 'em) or CNN or USAToday or rASSmussen or Survey USA with National sentiment is helpful; but these are instructive.

Counting Electoral votes at Electoral-vot.com:
Obama 276
McCain 238
Ties 24

rASSmussen EV count:
DEM: 200
DMW: 189
Tie: 38

Dude you're ranking Rassmussen 3rd now, make up your mind or quit polling polls out your ass to prove the lies you spew.
Posted by: LBH May 29, 2008 7:42 PM

Polling Polls? LOL
Read for content homeschool, there'll be a quiz afterward:

First off, rASSmussen's polls are sooo skewed by the their samples. They include waaay too many Republicans and under-represent the crucial Indies and Dems. Look at their Presidential Approval rating. It is consistently 8 to 10 points higher than all other national polls, ALL of them. Their polling has been way off in the primaries, especially in states with large numbers of Independents and Democrats. In rASSmussen's world there are just as many Republicans as there are Democrats and Independants in the U.S.

Look at these numbers and see why rASSmussen is OK for looking at trends but not to see what people really think.
Poll_____________Date____Approve__Disappr.
FOX News______03/18 - 19___30%____60%
CBS News______03/15-18____29%____64%
USAToday/Gallup_03/14 -16___32%____64%
CNN___________03/14 - 16___31%____67%
Rasmussen_____03/09 -15____38%____59%
NBC/WSJ_______03/07 -10____32%____63%
Gallup__________03/06 -09____32%____64%
Newsweek______03/05 -06____30%____61%
AP-Ipsos________03/03 -05____30%____66%

In the real world there are fewer Americans identifying themselves as Republicans today (usually less than 30%), than at any point in the last 20 years. Nobody wants to be associated with the a bunch of LOSERS, criminals, and hypocritical weirdos like the grumps and Hatemongers in the Dead Man Walking Party. Americans identify themselves as Dems at a much higher rate and Indies are someplace between the Ds and Rs.

If they (rASSmussen) show Gramps McBush with only a 6 or 7 point lead over Obama. The race is virtually a dead heat in the real world. And that's with FauxNews running the Wright videos on a loop and running their hatespeech on a soundtrack. Things have gotten so over the top that the guys at FauxNews have started stabbing each other in the back (and in the face, as with the case of C. Wallace), walking out on each other, and shooting sarcastic barbs at each other.

If you want to look at trends, rASSmussen's daily tracking of the Dem race is a good indication of what has happened:
DATE____Obama___Clinton
March 19:____47______42
March 18:____45______44 -- Obama's speech
March 17:____46______44
March 16:____47______44
March 15:____46______45
March 14_____50_____42
March 13_____48_____41 -- Wright hits news
March 12:_____47_____42
March 11:_____48_____41 -- Mississippi
March 10:_____46_____44
March 9:_____45_____ 47
March 8:_____ 45_____46 --Wyoming
March 7:______43_____49
March 6:______43_____48
March 5:______43_____48
March 4______ 44_____46 -- OH, TX, VT, RI
Posted by: Pandemoniac March 21, 2008 7:46 PM

Look at the party identification numbers for rASSmussen:
http://tinyurl.com/2d34ul

They have 31% DMW
When the Pew poll has waaaay fewer DMW 27%.
http://tinyurl.com/3cgtzy

rASSmussen also bases their numbers on the theory that DMW vote more consistently than Democrats. They were wrong in 2006. And as energized as Dems are now, they will be wrong again. Not terribly wrong. Just skewed to the right a few notches

Clinton takes Puerto Rico by 68%

This does put her very close and if she gets those numbers in South Dakota and Montana she only needs 75% of the super delegates.

Harold Ickes is a political pariah. No one could have described him as well as he did himself.

Should she win the argument about Michigan and gain 35 delegates she is then in a dead tie. This would make it essential that the party take it to the floor.

Kinda depends on the super delegates ending it this week and Obama needs an extra 34 delegates to insure against the chance that Ickes gets Saturday decision overturned.

I love it when it goes to game 7.

I loved watching the process unfold on Saturday. Kucinich now has 2.5 Michigan delegates. Yea!

Ickes is totally disingenuous. This is the same Harold Ickes who in August of last year voted to strip both Florida and Michigan of their convention delegates for staging their party primaries too early in the season—and against the rules of the DNC. Rules that Ickes had voted to uphold. pffffffffth

Sounds like Pansy's trying to convince himself that his boy Obummer is gunna win with all his whining.

What's thew matter Pansy, did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed today or are you still trying to figure out why 68% of hispanics voted for Hillary in PR?

As Paul Rodriguez said on CNN:

"My mom doesn't know who Obummer is, she say's he isn't even American, is he?" This is the problem with most of the Hispanic population is that Obummer doesn't have an American name so they won't vote for him.

Now that's damn funny~~

Did I mention that Obummer lost in every demographic possible in PR? A new first for your boy Obummer who has lost more primaries and popular votes since Feb than Hillary.

And he spent a whole day in PR working his magic!

Hey Pansy,

If it wasn't obvious that you lie constantly here in Cornnut land:

Peter Schweizer: Conservatives more honest than liberals?

WASHINGTON (Map, News) -

The headline may seem like a trick question — even a dangerous one — to ask during an election year. And notice, please, that I didn’t ask whether certain politicians are more honest than others. (Politicians are a different species altogether.) Yet there is a striking gap between the manner in which liberals and conservatives address the issue of honesty.

Consider these results:

Is it OK to cheat on your taxes? A total of 57 percent of those who described themselves as “very liberal” said yes in response to the World Values Survey, compared with only 20 percent of those who are “very conservative.” When Pew Research asked whether it was “morally wrong” to cheat Uncle Sam, 86 percent of conservatives agreed, compared with only 68 percent of liberals.

Ponder this scenario, offered by the National Cultural Values Survey: “You lose your job. Your friend’s company is looking for someone to do temporary work. They are willing to pay the person in cash to avoid taxes and allow the person to still collect unemployment. What would you do?”

When the World Values Survey asked a similar question, the results were largely the same: Those who were very liberal were much more likely to say it was all right to get welfare benefits you didn’t deserve.

The World Values Survey found that those on the left were also much more likely to say it is OK to buy goods that you know are stolen. Studies have also found that those on the left were more likely to say it was OK to drink a can of soda in a store without paying for it and to avoid the truth while negotiating the price of a car.

Another survey by Barna Research found that political liberals were two and a half times more likely to say that they illegally download or trade music for free on the Internet.

A study by professors published in the American Taxation Association’s Journal of Legal Tax Research found conservative students took the issue of accounting scandals and tax evasion more seriously than their fellow liberal students. Those with a “liberal outlook” who “reject the idea of absolute truth” were more accepting of cheating at school, according to another study, involving 291 students and published in the Journal of Education for Business.

A study in the Journal of Business Ethics involving 392 college students found that stronger beliefs toward “conservatism” translated into “higher levels of ethical values.” And academics concluded in the Journal of Psychology that there was a link between “political liberalism” and “lying in your own self-interest,” based on a study involving 156 adults.

Liberals were more willing to “let others take the blame” for their own ethical lapses, “copy a published article” and pass it off as their own, and were more accepting of “cheating on an exam,” according to still another study in the Journal of Business Ethics.

Now, I’m not suggesting that all conservatives are honest and all liberals are untrustworthy. But clearly a gap exists in the data. Why? The quick answer might be that liberals are simply being more honest about their dishonesty.

However attractive this explanation might be for some, there is simply no basis for accepting this explanation. Validation studies, which attempt to figure out who misreports on academic surveys and why, has found no evidence that conservatives are less honest. Indeed, validation research indicates that Democrats tend to be less forthcoming than other groups.

The honesty gap is also not a result of “bad people” becoming liberals and “good people” becoming conservatives. In my mind, a more likely explanation is bad ideas. Modern liberalism is infused with idea that truth is relative. Surveys consistently show this. And if truth is relative, it also must follow that honesty is subjective.

Sixties organizer Saul Alinsky, who both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton say inspired and influenced them, once said the effective political advocate “doesn’t have a fixed truth; truth to him is relative and changing, everything to him is relative and changing. He is a political relativist.”

During this political season, honesty is often in short supply. But at least we can improve things by accepting the idea that truth and honesty exist. As the late scholar Sidney Hook put it, “the easiest rationalization for the refusal to seek the truth is the denial that truth exists.”

Peter Schweizer is the author of “Makers and Takers: Why Conservatives Work Harder, Feel Happier, Have Closer Families, Take Fewer Drugs, Give More Generously, Value Honesty More, Are Less Materialistic and Envious, Whine Less ... And Even Hug Their Children More Than Liberals” (Doubleday).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Explains why liberal Dem. Al Franken is a lying tax cheat who doesn't pay for his employees workers compensation and steals for Boys and Girls clubs to fund a idiot radio station.

Now that's lol my friend!

Some Republicans are Switching to Obama. Trend?

The argument that Obama can’t win Reagan Democrats is getting some holes punched in it.

http://tinyurl.com/5c2xpo

******

Big donors going to Obama? So he has to get his $$$ from Bush - ergo McSame as he dances for the neocons.

Sad really.

General Ricardo Sanchez's Book Slams Bush, Iraq Handling

The Washington Post points out that in the hubbub of the McClellan book, another scathing memoir has come out exposing the truth behind Iraq.

Getting lost in the media furor over McClellan's memoir is the new autobiography of retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the onetime commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, who is scathing in his assessment that the Bush administration "led America into a strategic blunder of historic proportions."

Among the anecdotes in "Wiser in Battle: A Soldier's Story" is an arresting portrait of Bush after four contractors were killed in Fallujah in 2004, triggering a fierce U.S. response that was reportedly egged on by the president.

During a videoconference with his national security team and generals, Sanchez writes, Bush launched into what he described as a "confused" pep talk:

"Kick ass!" he quotes the president as saying. "If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! We must be tougher than hell! This Vietnam stuff, this is not even close. It is a mind-set. We can't send that message. It's an excuse to prepare us for withdrawal."

"There is a series of moments and this is one of them. Our will is being tested, but we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!"

A White House spokesman had no comment.

http://tinyurl.com/58yqo4

******

Yep, that's be the "strategic blunder of historic proportions" that McSame has tied his whole campaign to?

OUCH!

Clinton camp converging on New York Tuesday, and shedding staff

Members of Hillary Clinton's advance staff received calls and emails this evening from headquarters summoning them to New York City Tuesday night, and telling them their roles on the campaign are ending, two Clinton staffers tell my colleague Amie Parnes.

The advance staffers — most of them now in Puerto Rico, South Dakota, and Montana — are being given the options of going to New York for a final day Tuesday, or going home, the aides said. The move is a sign that the campaign is beginning to shed — at least — some of its staff. The advance staff is responsible for arranging the candidate's events around the country.

With the future of her campaign in doubt, Clinton hasn't announced her plans for the final election night of the primary cycle or beyond, but the aides said she would stage her election night event in New York City. Her entourage is currently expected to wake up Tuesday in New York and to arrive in Washington, D.C. Tuesday night.

Clinton's senior aides didn't respond to requests for comment on her Tuesday night plans.

UPDATE: Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee says the advance staffers haven't been let go or told to find other jobs, just sent home. They aren't typically paid for off days. "We just haven't figured out our schedule past Tuesday," he said.

By Ben Smith 12:15 AM

****

The first part of our long national nightmare is over.

Did I mention Barack is the nominee?

lol

Americans Favor President Meeting With U.S. Enemies

An overwhelming majority of Democrats and Independents, and nearly half of Republicans, say that they agree with Barack Obama's position that, as president, he would meet with foreign leaders both friend and foe.

A recently release Gallup Poll survey shows that 67 percent of Americans think that president-to-president diplomacy, even with countries considered hostile to America, is a good idea. The findings suggest that far from being naïve and out-of-touch on international affairs, as Sen. John McCain has asserted, Obama is reflecting the overwhelming consensus of the rest of the country.

According to the study: 79 percent of Democrats, 70 percent of Independents, and 48 percent of Republicans say it is a "good idea" for the U.S. president to meet with enemy foreign leaders. In addition, 59 percent of those surveyed (including 48 percent of Republicans) say it would be a good idea for the president to meet with the president of Iran.

The bottom line, Gallup concludes: "McCain may eventually persuade more Americans that there is nothing for the president of the United States to discuss with hostile foreign leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and that to do so only undermines U.S. efforts to destabilize such regimes. However, for now, whether it's the leader of an "enemy" country, generally, or the president of Iran, specifically, Americans think it's a good idea for the president of the United States to meet directly with the nation's adversaries."

http://tinyurl.com/5of6lt

"Just like George Bush, John McCain is refusing to admit that he's made a mistake," the White House hopeful continued. "And that's exactly the kind of leadership that has got us fighting for five years in a war that should've never been authorized."

"We don't need more leaders who can't admit they've made a mistake, even about something as fundamental as how many Americans are serving in harm's way."

Another liberal tax dodger~

Keith Olbermann Owes Thousands In Back Taxes: Page Six

Huffington Post | June 2, 2008 08:02 AM

The New York Post's Page Six reports that Keith Olbermann owes thousands in back taxes to New York State. The News Corp-owned paper writes:

New York state has issued a tax warrant or judgment against the MSNBC host for $2,269.50 in back taxes owed by his personal corporation, Olbermann Broadcasting Empire Inc. Asked about the delinquency the other night by journalist Evan Gahr, the otherwise loquacious Olbermann uttered nary a word as he scurried into Trump Palace, where he bought condo apartment 40B last year, according to public records. "This was a bookkeeping disagreement between Keith's accountants and the state which was resolved months ago," an MSNBC spokesman told Page Six.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We don't need a tax increase by Obummer, just get liberals to pay their taxes they owe and problem solved!

lol

Yep, that's be the "strategic blunder of historic proportions" that McSame has tied his whole campaign to?

OUCH!
~~~~~~~~

His book is a little late, cuz we are winning now!

A recently release Gallup Poll survey shows that 67 percent of Americans think that president-to-president diplomacy

~~~~

As Pansy like to say: Gallop is worst of the worser when it comes to polling.

Did I mention Barack is the nominee?
Posted by Capt

~~~

Still trying to convince youreslf?

Bill Clinton: 'This May Be the Last Day I'm Ever Involved in a Campaign of This Kind'

ABC News' Sarah Amos Reports: Speaking to a crowd in Milbank, SD former President Bill Clinton admitted that today could be the last time he has such an active role in presidential politics.

"I want to say also that this may be the last day I'm ever involved in a campaign of this kind. I thought I was out of politics, 'til Hillary decided to run. But it has been, one of the greatest honors of my life to go around and campaign for her for president," said Clinton as he began his speech.

Watch the VIDEO HERE.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4980174

It was certainly not a long thought - nor something he seemed to want to dwell on. But for a man who has rarely shown even an inkling of defeat in the past year, even uttering the words says a lot.

*****

Sad that the big dog can't show some class with the loss.

Just in:

Keith Olbermann names himself;

"Worst Person In The World"

for getting caught not paying his taxes.

What an idiot~

Kennedy shows his famous humor right after surgery...to his wife Vicki:

"I feel like a million bucks. I think I’ll do that again tomorrow."

*****

That is good news! I hope he has a quick and smooth recovery.

American Research Group, Inc: South Dakota, Hillary 60, Obama 34

Presidential Primary Preference: South Dakota Likely Democratic Primary Voters -- May 31-June 1 Clinton ---60% Obama ---34% Undecided --6% About this Survey - Survey Sponsor: American Research Group, Inc. The American Research Group has been conducting surveys of voters since 1985.

~~~~~~~~~~

Boy, Obummer is on a roll now!

The only problem is that he's a rollin down hill!

lol capt

Hey Capt,

Why is it that Obummer still can't win a state when everyone knows he's the nominee?

Hey Pansy,

I thought you said Oregon was the turning point for Obummer?

Are you ever right?

http://tinyurl.com/23op5w

Too true to be very funny but . . .

Obummer has more than a Pastor Disaster:

Dem Blog Calls Alleged Michelle Obama Tape "Stunning"

The rumors that a tape exists in which Michelle Obama utters racist remarks have been floating around now for several weeks. But the last two days have brought signs that it may be far more than a rumor.

Yesterday on the Fox News Channel a Republican operative, Roger Stone, said he believes the tape exists and that a major network is in possession of the tape. Today, Larry Johnson at No Quarter - a pro-Hillary Democratic Blog - is giving shocking details of what he says five sources have confirmed about the tape:

I learned over the weekend why the Republicans who have seen the tape of Michelle Obama ranting about “whitey” describe it as “STUNNING.” I have not seen it but I have heard from five separate sources who have spoken directly with people who have seen the tape. It features Michelle Obama and Louis Farrakhan. They are sitting on a panel at Jeremiah Wright’s Church when Michelle makes her intemperate remarks. Whoops!! When that image comes out it will enter the politcal ads hall of fame. It will be right up there with the little girl plucking daisy petals in the famous 1964 ad LBJ used against Barry Goldwater.

Barack may have quit his church but his religious problems are not over. Barack Obama has a Nation of Islam problem that will receive more attention in the coming days. . .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How ya gunna spin this one Capt?

http://tinyurl.com/55dagj

Another very funny piece.

lol

Things have gotten so over the top that the guys at FauxNews have started stabbing each other in the back

Posted by Pansy

That's your excuse for Obummers Pastor Disaster?

I'm still laughing at you!

Gallup polls or CNN or USAToday or rASSmussen or Survey USA with National sentiment is helpful; but these are instructive.

Counting Electoral votes at Electoral-vot.com:
Obama 276
McCain 238
Ties 24

Posted by pansy

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hey knucklehead, they are instructive. They show that your boy is running even with McCain who as running on McBush (as you dingbats like to say) and Obummer can't close the deal just as he couldn't with Hillary. He should be trouncing McCain. Maybe he can steal some delegates from McBush like he did Hillary in MI if it gets real tight.

Obummer is looking at a blow out by Hillary in SD even with Tom Daschles endorsement. Now that's pathetic!

Things have gotten so over the top that the guys at FauxNews have started stabbing each other in the back

Posted by Pansy

Hey at least the guys at Fox pay their taxes, unlike your boy Olbermann on MSNBC, the Obama network.

At primaries' end, American Indians in rare focus

LAME DEER, Montana (Reuters) - Often paid scant attention in U.S. presidential elections, Native Americans are taking an unusually high profile in the final stretch of the Democratic primary campaign.

Both Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and front-runner Barack Obama recently have visited remote Indian reservations in the rugged Western states of Montana and South Dakota, which hold the final contests in the drawn-out state-by-state battle on Tuesday.

One Montana tribe, the Crow Nation, has ceremoniously adopted Obama, giving him a name which means "one who helps people throughout this land."

"Never before have we had such hope for a candidate, except maybe a Kennedy," said Crow Chairman Carl Venne, who said Obama was the first U.S. presidential candidate ever to visit his tribe in southeastern Montana.

http://tinyurl.com/5yfc6t

******

I might be too cynical but is this because so many tribes actually have money to donate? (Casino income?)

Money talks.

Is There a Shocking Michelle Obama Recording?

Monday, June 2, 2008 4:34 PM

By: Newsmax Staff Article Font Size

An untold story lies behind Hillary Clinton’s determination to remain in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination — the possible revelation of a shocking recording of rival Barack Obama’s wife Michelle.

That’s the word from longtime political analyst Roger J. Stone Jr., who writes on his The StoneZONE Web site that the recording purportedly documents Michelle Obama making racist comments in a speech.

According to Stone, Hillary aides are in a race with Republicans to get their hands on the offensive recording.

“On the heels of Michelle Obama’s quote that she ‘has never been proud of her country’ until now, the new controversy could turn the contest upside down, but it more likely” to benefit “John McCain than to boost Hillary Clinton to the nomination — if the alleged recording exists,” Stone writes.

He also asserts that Mark Penn, Clinton’s former chief campaign strategist, has told sources that the bombshell “could come this week.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Just in:

Obummer has annouced that he is leaving his wife for offensive and hate filled sermons about Whitey.

Possible McCain SecDef questions recognition of Israel

A Democratic source, just in time for the Aipac conference sends over two clips from Charlie Rose: The first is McCain saying he thinks Fred Smith, the chief of FedEx, would make a good Secretary of Defense. The second is Smith, in a more recent Charlie Rose interview, sympathizing with George Marshall's opposition -- overruled by Harry Truman -- to recognizing Israel.

"In retrospect, there would be a large body of thought thta would have said that Marshall was correct in what would precipitate from that recognition, which is now sixty-some-odd years of war," he says, going on to say that McCain reminds him of Marshall.

McCain has pressed to keep Obama on the defensive on Israel, and the RNC likes to point to Jimmy Carter's hostility to Israeli policy to taint Democrats.

But in fact, pro- and anti-Israel stances are historically bi-partisan, particularly among an older generation of Republicans, and McCain supporter James Baker, for instance, draws some of the same ire as Carter from parts of the Jewish and pro-Israel communities.

Watch it:

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

(politico)

*****

McSame is all over the map and that is going to be hard to sell to even the republicans.

GOP unwise to call Obama inexperienced

Now that it’s obvious Barack Obama will be the Democratic candidate for president, GOP nominee apparent John McCain and the Republican attack machine predictably have started in on the Illinois senator as a callow youth with scant foreign policy experience and a resultant naive view of the world.

Hillary Rodham Clinton herself took that same tack (remember the 3 a.m. phone call ad?), and it clearly didn’t work. So if I were a Republican, I’d be a mite careful about such a line of attack. Clearly, the GOP’s aim is to contrast McCain’s extensive military service and 26 years in Congress and the Senate with Obama’s fewer than four years as a member of the world’s most exclusive club.

But the danger is that the criticisms might just provoke an unwelcome retrospective on the inexplicably scrawny foreign policy credentials and international exposure of the past two cycles’ GOP nominee, the man whom the Gallup Poll says 60 percent of Republicans still think is doing a bang-up job: George W. Bush.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/10758.html

*****

Unwise is what the GOP does so . . .

GOP unwise to call Obama inexperienced

~~~

Only a liberal would say that the truth is unwise.

Then again liberals like to lie more than conservatives!

he he he

GOP unwise to call Obama inexperienced

~~~~

Well if your talking about 20 years experience attending a racist, hate filled church then yes~

Pastor Disaster~~

Exclusive: McCain Almost Took "One-Term" Pledge

When he formally announced his presidential candidacy last year, Sen. John McCain was inches away from making an unprecedented pledge: if he were elected, he would serve only one term as president.

It could have been an earth-shifting moment for the campaign and the primary. At the time, McCain’s fundraising pace was falling well short of its target and Republicans were not treating McCain as the frontrunner.

The idea to serve one term had long been discussed among top advisers, and McCain was on board.

A one-term pledge was set to be the central thread of his presidential campaign, and Mark Salter, McCain's chief speechwriter, crafted an announcement speech around it.

http://tinyurl.com/6aszpd

*******

McSame doesn't have to worry about serving one term but the idea makes sense. McSame is FIVE years oldre than Cheney and has more health problems than Cheney - who would vote for Cheney?

lol

McCain is now acknowledging that he did misspeak. At a campaign event today, McCain “nitpicked” his “verb tense” and said that U.S. forces are currently in the process of drawing down to pre-surge levels:

[Petraeus] is gonna come back in July, when our drawdown from the surge. Three of the five brigades are already back. There’s two more brigades that will coming back at the end of July. … But we are drawing back down from the surge. And then in July, he said that he wants to pause.

Watch it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvOeC8WvlfU

This assertion is still inaccurate. In February, Joint Staff director for operations Lt. Gen. Carter Ham testified that even after the Bush administration’s draw down, troops will still be higher than pre-surge levels:

Q: General, coming back to Iraq and the troop numbers, so what you’re saying is by the time we get to the end of July, we’re going to be at 140,000, which looks to me like we’re still talking about significantly higher than pre-surge levels in Iraq. Am I reading that correctly?

GEN. HAM: Yes.

McCain is wrong, no matter which verb tense he’s in.

(thinkprogress)

*****

Did I mention McSame will continue to misspeak?

The gaffes that keep giving.

Elise, if your so-called fidelity is only to ideas and decency then please tell me why you would hope for McCain to win. Please tell me why you want a hair-trigger, anti-choice, lobbyist-loving old man like McCain , one who calls his wife names like c**nt , to be our next president. Please tell me what is decent about this man. Please tell me what great ideas he has to change our current situation. I am a young woman and do not want to lose my rights because some old man appoints bible-thumping, woman-hating supremes to new vacancies.

Neither one of these dem candidates were my first choice, but I'll gladly vote for the one that wins the nomination. If you are so adamantly against Obama you have other options than McCain. McKinney or Nader if you must.

You are either cutting off your nose to spite your face or, and this is my pick, you are a repub who always intended to vote for McCain.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Most of the 17 Democratic senators who are uncommitted superdelegates will endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president this week, sources told CNN Monday.

And:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The House majority whip and the top ranking African-American in Congress is expected to endorse Sen. Barack Obama in the Democratic presidential race on Tuesday, several sources told CNN.

As an example, of his innovative "new" thinking McCain suggests sanctions and a worldwide divestment campaign. But, Obama proposed the same sanctions and divestment in 2007 -- which McCain opposed!

"We should privatize the sanctions against Iran by launching a worldwide divestment campaign," he said. "As more people, businesses, pension funds, and financial institutions across the world divest from companies doing business with Iran, the radical elite who run that country will become even more unpopular than they are already."
But, as demonstrated by the CNOOC anecdote, if choking off Tehran's economic lifeblood is McCain's goal, he could have personally started down that road years ago -- with his own advisers.

... In 2007, moreover, Obama sponsored an Iran divestment bill that he claimed "would educate investors and pressure foreign companies to reconsider doing business with Iran by requiring the U.S. government to publish - every six months - a list of companies that invest more than $20 million in Iran's energy sector."
It was Alabama Republican Richard Shelby who held up the measure in the Senate in what was described by the Israel paper Haarezt, as "a favor" for the Bush administration. Today, it is still on hold.

What else can I say? This isn't satire folks. This is the same McCain who got the Shias and Sunnis mixed up four times in the same week.

(kos)