Craig Crawford's Trail Mix

Edwards is part of the this coalition as well
http://www.noiraqescalation.org/

Sweet: Obama did NOT "hold the title" of a University of Chicago law school professor.(Posted by Lynn Sweet on March 28, 2008 06:25 PM)

WASHINGTON—The University of Chicago released a statement on Thursday saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) “served as a professor” in the law school—but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed on Friday.

"He did not hold the title of professor of law,” said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the school, on East 60th St. in Chicago.

At issue in the Clinton memo was Obama’s claims—mostly specifically on several direct mail pieces produced for his 2004 U.S. Senate race-- that said he was a law professor at the university."

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_obama_did_hold_the_title.html

Wendy,

all I am doing is showing what the University of Chicago Law School posted on their letter head. Believe what you want.

Yo soy un demócrata amarillo del perro.

Yo soy Hussein Horsedooty!

Both Al Gore and John Edwards have said the primaries should continue, why is the media still quoting Obama supporter Leahy.

Let's parse Edwards statement. It's much better for Clinton, He is saying Obama should be a minister while Clinton has put in the hard work to be a successful problem solver.

all I am doing is showing what the University of Chicago Law School posted on their letter head. Believe what you want

That is their statement as of yesterday. Up until then Obama was liar.

Yes..............minister.

"all I am doing is showing what the University of Chicago Law School posted on their letter head. Believe what you want."

Horsedooty - I'm happy to give him the benefit of the doubt. I don't think THIS one matters or is at all important.

Plenty of other Obama lies that are much more interesting and pertinent to the discussion

:-D

Wonder why this isn't playing on an endless loop on MSNBO

http://nwitimes.com/articles/2008/03/28/updates/breaking_news/doc47ed3fa7bfdaf567313464.txt

"Seven Indiana mayors are throwing their support behind U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign"

More parsing

Edwards on Obama
There's no way to contest the fact that he's inspired this country."

The unspoken part of the comment ..."using ideas and rhetoric he stole from me"

Wendy -- MSNBC (and the rest) will never play anything that benefits Hillary unless it's something like the Wright tapes/ They'll only play those in hopes of inciting a race war to up ratings. I just now heard Tim Russert salivating over what a great and HUGE story an Obama victory over Hillary will be...."A giant killer!"

The whole thing has made me so disgusted with the media....and I might add, the many democrats who don't want to allow people to vote.

Tim Russert is an ignorant maroon.

http://www.rogerailes.blogspot.com/2008_03_23_archive.html#1162896082341019013#1162896082341019013

from the link

One of the many problems with Tim's memory is that his reporting on the economy is no different than his reporting on the White House. Pumpkinhead sits in his office and receives calls from the White House and its flacks and then dutifully spews out the fiction as remembered fact. Working people without multi-million dollar book contracts -- or even jobs -- perceived the economy as bad because it was bad for them and it had been bad for them for four years. (Perhaps the electorate would have been more optimistic if they'd been given more free rides on corporate jets.) But Russert's job is to put McCain in the White House, so he's gone to therapy and recovered some memories of the Bush economic miracle

On Reliable Sources this morning they showed Tweety going into a rant so over the top in praise of Obama, that another ancho asked him if he was endorsing Obama.

Tweety stops cold, and says, "No. Why would you ask that?" seemingly stunned that he was caught in the act, to which the anchor replies, "Just wondering".

If it hadn't been so pathetic, revealing, and demonstrably biased, it would have been hilarious.

Jamie helped me get my little key...Thank you, Jamie!...and I'm just showing it off before I head out to take one of my dogs to the groomer....

KGC,
Before I eat my brunch....

I don't know if Edwards hates the Hillary machine that ran over him more than the lifting Obama has done with Edward's message. Tough call. I do respect he has steered clear of the mess so far. He also knows what Obama said to get himself that key speech at the 2004 convention, so he knows the duplicitious tact Obama has spun. Edwards must be burned that the press gave Obama a free pass over his contradictions and false pretense and let Edwards have it over haircuts and where his campaign office was located.

Niether Hillary nor Obama would give Edwards a VP spot, so I don't know how Edwards will play this.

Wendy, I'll drop you a note later, but keep ducking that sniper fire. And again, Gordo, without using World Net Daily, any more links between the indiviudals in Obama's history of associations? It would be a shame if new information about Khadili, Auchi, AAAN, Cairs and Rezko surfaced this week to keep the eye on those who Obama considered his friends as he considered the WH.

Oh, I forgot...he never had thoughts about being President and I guess his personal history proves it...LOL

I posted this on the last thread but a woman on C-Span called in this morning and said

The media sold us Bush in 2000, they sold us the Iraq war and now they're selling us Obama.

Would be nice if the "lemon law" applied to the media.

Hillary Vows to Stay in Race 100 Years
http://www.borowitzreport.com/archive_rpt.asp?rec=6854

Obama was the first to play the race card

"Having injected racial posturing into the contest, Obama's "post-racial" campaign finally seems to be all about race and sensational charges about white racism. But the mean-spirited strategy started even before the primaries began, when Obama's operatives began playing the race card - and blamed Hillary Clinton.

Had she truly conspired to inflame racial animosities in January and February, her campaign would have brought up the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his incendiary sermons. But the Clinton campaign did not. And when the Wright stories and videos finally did break through in the mass media, they came not from Clinton's supporters but from Fox News Network.

Instead, she had to fight back against a deliberately contrived strategy to make her and her husband look like race-baiters. Obama's supporters and operatives, including his chief campaign strategist David Axelrod, seized on accurate and historically noncontroversial statements and supplied a supposedly covert racist subtext that they then claimed the calculating Clinton campaign had inserted.

Obama's bogus "race-baiter" strategy is one of the main reasons he has come this far, and it is affecting the process now. But by deliberately inflaming the most destructive passions in American politics, the strategy has badly divided and confused Democrats, at least for the moment. And having done so, it may well doom the Democrats in the general election."

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/20080330_Obama_was_the_first_to_play_the_race_card.html

Maxtrue

Edwards is relatively young, has a lot of money and wants to have an impact. Like Al Gore he may be more effective out of office.

John Edwards was the best of the field, but he was ignored and/or marginalized by the media to the point that he was pushed aside...as were several other good, very qualified candidates. We now have exactly the candidates the media want us to have.

Wouldn't it be something if we, the Democratic people, outsmarted them by nominating someone like Edwards or Gore as the answer to the rancor of the race and gender wars? And wouldn't it be fun to watch the Republicans scrambling to catch up because they thought they'd be running against Obama or Clinton?

I know...I'm dreaming.....

"wonder why this isn't playing on an endless loop on msnbo?"

The same reason that the media continues to have "private" conversations with so many superdelegates they claim want Hillary to get out---it simply does not serve their agenda.

If so many superdelegates want her out now (as the media keeps telling us) then they should come forward now, end this race, give Obama their vote now, why wait, show the democrats, just how little they think of the will of the voters who have not yet voted.

Hillary’s St. Patrick’s Day Massacre
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/opinion/30rich.html?ex=1207540800&en=668f45e460f34063&ei=5070&emc=eta1

How can you not love Frank Rich?

Harborwoman

Gosh the Steekworkers still haven't endorsed Obama. Since he claims responsibility for their success in the Chicago area I am surprised. Oh right another Obama inflated statement.

HW

For an Edwards nomination to occur, Sen. Clinton would have to fight this battle all the way to the convention, survive through a first ballot and have Edwards brought forward as an acceptable alternate who could get votes.

Oh, and one more note:

http://poligazette.com/2008/03/29/un-fitna-is-hate-speech/

Seems Obama doesn't mind the associations to many on the Left that spout anti-American, anti-Jewish and even some anti-Christian things (see Khadili, Ayers and others).

Now how does that position square with free speech and valid claims about Islam (the historical use of the Koran to promote violence)?

Doesn't Obama's position seem to support the UN in regards to the new movie? Now it is okay for PBS to silence documentaries that find fault with Islamic extremism, but we all should be more sensitive about Islam? Again, I don't think Americans are buying the moral equivilancy spin of Obama here. And do Democrats want to stop the monitoring of Islamic charities in order to prevent the funding of terror? I can't wait until Obama pivots more to center. I guess then he can't condemn this new film about Islamic responsibility without drawing fire over his Church's newsletters, can he?

See how better it would have been to step completely away from his associations? But then what would Left of his story? Okay, my rant for the morning.

What happened to the floodgates of Super Delegates that were going to flock to Obama?

The large uncommitted block shows Obama has not closed the deal. Perhaps they will be the impetus for the Draft Edwards movement.

Ranked voting by delegates could prove a winner for Edwards

Yea...and whatever happened to the 50 superDs waiting in the wings to endorse Obama...where have they been?

KGC

ROFL

I should have refreshed before I posted.

Wendy

Great minds!

The Intellectual Poverty of Frank Rich
By Larry Johnsonclose

While the competition has been keen at the New York Times to secure the mantle as the most virulent Hillary hater, Frank Rich is in a class by himself. No other columnist now writing for the “Gray Lady” is more intellectually dishonest and lacking in basic integrity than Frank Rich, the bloviating former theater critic turned professional Hillary basher. Maureen Dowd? Alternating between catty and crazy, Dowd’s nose is out of joint apparently because Hillary looks better in boots. How about Bob Herbert? You can’t fault an African American who wants to give a brother a break and devotes his time to peddling moralizing conventional wisdom and cheer leading like there’s no tomorrow for Obama. And William Kristol and David Brooks? They are just neocon party-liners. (Only one among the NY Times line up ever writes anything complimentary about Hillary–Paul Krugman, who has a day job at Princeton as an economist, actually knows something, and let’s the chips fall where they may.)

The NYTimes proud of its editorial page of Bill Kristol
Bobo Brooks and Frank Rich.

No fact checking or facts for that matter necessary.

"No other columnist now writing for the “Gray Lady” is more intellectually dishonest and lacking in basic integrity than Frank Rich, the bloviating former theater critic turned professional Hillary basher"

How can you not love Frank Rich?

Posted by: Brian Hussein

KGC,

Agreed, so perhaps Edwards has his crystal ball out and is weighing what will happen should Obama win the nomination. If it becomes a fiasco, then he had best triangulate with the centrist side for a future. If Obama loses to McCain over this issue of centrism, then again, Edwards might tack a path back to Kerry's centrism. If Hillary wins and is a successful Presdient, then too, Edwards should move center. If Hillary is nominated and loses to McCain, then Edwards should play it safe and not get involved much. In any case, Edwards was a far more effective candidate when he was a centrist. The over the top popularist will never suit him. His anger is best served directed at foreign objects instead of such hositlity directed to US. Sure there are problems here but Edwards goes completely ballistic and steers far from foreign policy.

Gore would lose to McCain and is not a good candidate. He is a much better pundit. MAD TV was blasting Hillary and Clinton last night. Funny. If Barak wins, one comedian has a career.

"How can you not love Frank Rich?"

Quite a few theater people he screwed over and laughed about could tell you. Rich needs to go ahead and come out of the closet. He'd be so much happier.

John Edwards was perceived as a real threat to corporate interests and as such, imo, the media deliberately silenced his message.

He could not be allowed to gain any traction with the voters--and he did not appear to have much support from the dem. party insiders.

editorial from Denver

http://www.denverpost.com/quillen/ci_8733149

Yo soy un demócrata amarillo del perro.

Yo soy Hussein Horsedooty!

William SafLiar -- Kerry's the Fearmonger.
Advertisements [?]Edited on Wed Oct-20-04 03:57 AM by kaitykaity
I guess Mr. SafLiar hasn't been to any Bush rallies
lately, and he didn't hear Cheney say that if Kerry's
elected that the terrorists WILL strike again in the US.
This lame attempt to deflect the charge is good for comic
relief only. Lame lame lame.

quoting a gooper liar

Damn Frank Rich really pisses you Clintonista off, take heart you have some big name journalist on your side, Pat Buchanan for example.

cartoon for today,

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?id=1736

Yo soy un demócrata amarillo del perro.

Yo soy Hussein Horsedooty!

They said they used to call Frank Rich "the butcher of Broadway" because of his negative reviews of Broadway shows.

http://stubbornfacts.us/botj/declinism_hysteria_as_secular_religion#comment-13805

Funny video of the praying bus driver...

thought yall could use a good laugh about the politics of decline.........

Frank Rich is a regular on Imus

Does Imus still refer to Senator Clinton as "Satan"?

Yo soy un demócrata amarillo del perro.

Yo soy Hussein Horsedooty!

Proof that Obama isn't good at everything!

http://www.startribune.com/politics/17138276.html

According to Brian no one should care what Imus thinks or the people who appear on his show.

"I now understand why the only TV outlet he now appears on is that of the king of racial jokes Don Imus, water seeks it own level. Over and out!"

Imus has endorsed McCain.

Okay, here it comes again.

Frank Rich has a long history of all sorts of irresponsibility.

Most of what's known is journalistic.

In the book he "wrote" on his forced "sabbatical" from the NYT opinion page, he simply recanted nearly every review from his ex cathedra run as the Times' last critic who had any power.

Those were the reviews which led to the destruction of independent commercial and non-profit theater in New York City and the creatively crushing rise of corporate theater.

His comments on his reviews were along the noble lines of "ooo-oh! poopsie made an oopsie!"

So why was he on "sabbatical"?

Because the writers on the paper and a lot of the shareholders wanted him canned and disgraced.

And his old pal Sulzberger wouldn't have that.

I mean... all Frank did was -- after making his NYT romance with fellow staffer Alix Witchel a ready for Oprah romance which happened to help him promote his childhood memoir (most memorable event -- he saw Gypsy!!!)....

And crushing theater and becoming an OpEd writer ex nihilo....

He dood something veeeery strange.

All of a sudden the Broadway musical "Scarlet Pimpernel" (whose book was written by his childhood pal) had a very good PR agency called the New York Times.

And then all of a sudden Frank Rich and the fellow who had redirected the show in mid-run (this show has a VERY funny history involving a lot of strange non-theater producers) were making out in public in Chelsea restaurants in that good old "I dare ya, I'm Frank Rich!" manner.

So this story breaks the week that his wife Alix's lovely, substantial memoir about her mother and sisters is published.

Alix vanishes, appearances are canceled, the book sinks.

But Frank himself rises like so many other things that are neither the phoenix nor the sun.

Oh, also -- the man who is considered the best architecture critic of the modern era was Paul Goldberger.

For years he was not only Frank's friend and confidante, when the first Mrs. Rich left him, Goldberger helped Frank raise his sons (who Rich does love).

He had no better friend in the world.

Goldberger was critical of Frank's actions as not only a journalist but as an opinion columnist who turned almost every section of the paper (save sports) into a forum for weekly articles about The Scarlet Pimpernel.

Goldberger got fired soon after and neither he nor his wife nor his kids have heard from Rich since.

Oh, yeah -- David Merrick saw how phony the romance was and how phony RIch was.

So his last major stunt was to run a silhouetted shot of Rich and Witchel sitting hand in hand watching a show of his Rich had bombed with this fine header:

"AT LAST! PEOPLE ARE HOLDING HANDS ON BROADWAY AGAIN!"

I wonder if Frank is friends with ex-Govs Jim and Eliot.

They certainly are peers.

I may have found the source of every single right wing Moslem conspiracy theory. One of my right wing friends, sent it along in an email. If this doesn't make you cross your eyes and shake your head over the directions human beings can go, nothing will. Let me know when you have the fall out shelter built. :-)

Http://www.usawakeup.org/

http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/mikeluckovich

http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/laloalcaraz

Brian In NYC vows this is the last time he'll post here...for the 100th time.

Oh, John Edwards. Must you be so coy?

http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/obamaobama/main.asp

Hillary may be teaming up with Richard Mellon Scaife to "destroy" Obama. Sure hope so - he deserves it. Dems should not reward Obama for playing the Race Card. I've seen subtle hints in several articles that something BIG is on the way and it is not going to be pretty. Considering the smear campaign run against the Clintons by Obama and MSM, Hillary can justify anything.

Wendy, Doots, et al.

I care about his misrepresented status at the College of Law. The University Statutes are quite clear on the subject, see Statute 11:

http://trustees.uchicago.edu/articles/statutes.pdf

"11.1. The Members of the University Faculties are classified as follows: Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, Collegiate Assistant Professor, and Instructor. Every person holding one of these titles with status as defined in §11.1 through §11.3 shall be a member of the Faculty. Membership in the University Faculties is restricted to persons holding appointment as prescribed in §11.1."

He came under §11.4, Other Academic Personnel. It matters.

I remember the second time I ran for office. The St Pete Times wrote that I was "a retired Chief Master Sgt of the Air Force."

I was mortified. In the history of the AF there had been only half a dozen CMSAFs and I was not one of them. I was in fact a 'retired Air Force Chief Master Sgt" which sure as hell isn't the CMSAF.

I checked all my bios making sure I hadn't misrepresented myself. Finding that I hadn't, I faxed and wrote the Times pointing out their error asking that it be corrected.

Although only a small number of people in the community might have questioned what the Times had written, it was wrong and untrue. My career stood for itself, it didn't need any embellishment.

The Times didn't see a problem, so they chose not to make the correction. I, in turn, gave copies of all the related correspondence to my attorney and left it at that, still dissatisfied at the way the Times had handled the whole affair.

One's stated qualifications matter. You're telling people "I can handle this position because I've done this." If this isn't true, then what other representations are untrue?

Yes, it matters. And, he should be ashamed of himself and should be standing before the community apologizing.

Just wanted to clear something up. First apologies for often misspelling Khadili as Kahlili...LOL

Of course I have always been refering to Rashid Khadili

http://pryce-jones.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2UyZTIxNzRiNDYxZGRlOTcyZWI4Njg5NGI4Yjg1MDk=

Now everyone has the right to express views, There are several characterizations Khadili has made that I could agree with. I haven't seen anything that would make me call Khadili a "monster". The question is whether Khadili has made some claims about his past and was fair in rejecting certain characterizations about his views and activities.

Then why the support of Cairs? Many who look closely at the matter feel his rejection of certain hardline positions is refuted by the charter of AAAN and his collaboration with Cairs, let alone Khadili's former job with the PLO as Israel chased it out of Lebanon. We know of the purpose and activities of Cairs, yes? At what point do denials fail to deflect when positions and collaraborations get the light of day? No one is saying speech is not protected. We are discussing what that speech honestly is. And has the web of associations Khadili has been linked to involve any criminal activities? Does Khadili's support of Hamas blend into the very newsletters of Trinity?

And then there is the long association with Obama, the move to Chicago, support from Rezko and even Obama and Khadili at Woods Fund where AAAN and Cairs intersect. Is it fair to suggest that Khadili's spin is not accurate and that Obama had a close relationship with Khadili, knowing full well his opinion and advocacy?

I just wanted to clear that up. At the moment this is more a matter of perception than any criminal inuendos. It is fair however, to examine the degress of separation between what Americans do not accept and the spins coming from Obama and Khadili on the matter of their relationship and known ideology.

Again, the matter of judgment, honesty and ideology of association. Is this fair when appraising a Presidential candidate? I can't imagine a similar friendship and relationship involving money NOT being examined had Clinton been involved. I have never suggested that Obama supported extremist views against Israel, but rather the web revealed indicates Obama knew of the extremism embraced by associates of the Parties mentioned.

First, I have not been able to read my favorite blog in a while and am unable to accurately gauge the current mood of this crowd. My first impression is that divide between the Clinton and the Obama camps has really gotten bitter among the usual posters and a number of newbies. I’m afraid that this mirrors a similar and a troublesome national trend within the Democratic Party.

What’s the plan here?

Everyone seems to be staking positions with a dangerous kind of rhetoric that makes difficult coalescing support for the eventual nominee. What should be a comfortable November victory could turn into another squeaker. There is much at stake.

I am an Independent centrist who thinks that; maybe, just maybe, it is time to make a bold break from the usual crapfest-a-spectacular that the two Parties always serve up. And, I don’t think that I am the only one out here.

My impression of where this battle is headed is certainly not good. Democrats are poised to greatly expand their majorities in Congress, attract Independents and disaffected Republicans and risk the urgent need to put an end to the dangerous group of NeoCon dead-enders that will eagerly burrow into the woodwork of a McCain Presidency.

We have already witnessed the utter futility of fighting White House intransigence.

My personal belief is that the Democrats will nominate Obama. The alternative path appears unlikely without fracturing the fragile support that the Democrats have attracted away from the Republicans among key swing and Independent voters. Not to mention, what damage it would do to alienate the strongest segment of your Party’s base.

For God’s sake, keep some powder dry for Fall. McCain will be tough.

"Damn Frank Rich really pisses you Clintonista off, "

Want to address his ruining Broadway shows then laughing about it on Imus? Saying he was wrong but what the hell? It was only people's lives, after all.

Also the lives of his wives and his children, Patsi.

A fe weeks ago the media was all a twitter over the divisions in the Republican Party. Everyone is back on the straight talk express. There is plenty of time.

"Black voters will cheer and dash to the polls en masse for Obama, but their votes won't be enough to put him in the White House. Despite the myth, they haven't put any other Democrat candidate in the White House either."

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is The Ethnic Presidency: How Race Decides the Race to the White House (Middle Passage Press, February 2008).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/black-voters-cant-put-ob_b_90943.html

By the way, Doots....Hilary's Bosnia lie doesn't even compare to Obama saying he wasn't aware that Wright ever gave those speeches. I don't give a crap about what Wright said. But your Saviour saying he didn't know is a flat lie...just one of many lies. (Please genuflect when you type His name each time, by the way.)

Jeeez,
WTF is it about worldnet dailey with Gordo and Max

When I read Max's post and I read the link below plagiarism is the term I think applies to Max.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=57231

Of course, net kook also comes to mind.

So what is it with the Obama people on this site. Don't you have the ability to defend your man from obvious falsehoods?
First, It is Reverend Wright and now it is this terrorist crap that Max is spewing and all I've seen is a bunch of whining about how we are being unfair to a troll. If the troll was a true Obama supporter he would have been refuting the slander. But he is not. Why? Because he is a troll.
Does any body believe that KGC would let someone spread that kind of slander against HRC without a strong response?

Jack

"Everyone seems to be staking positions with a dangerous kind of rhetoric that makes difficult coalescing support for the eventual nominee."

Mad -- I will vote for him, but I will never "coalesce." It will simply be a vote for the Democratic nominee.

On Russert today a comment went right over Timmy's head (as usual) -- It was stated that early on in an Obama campaign strategy meeting it was determined that he could not take her on with policy or real issues, so he had to destroy her character. Now who is the scorched earth candidate? Did Russert follow it up. Nah, wouldn't fit the talking points.

By the way, that wasn't on MTP -- it was Russert's other show.

"I have never suggested that Obama supported extremist views against Israel,"-Maxtrue

Max, suggested is a pretty broad brush. The kind with which you love to paint.

G-man,

"I've seen subtle hints in several articles that something BIG is on the way and it is not going to be pretty."-GORDO

Here a good link for ya! I think memberships are discounted this week.

http://www.nostradamus.org/

nostradamus.org, LOL, good one Rez, you get a gold star for that!

PBS is showing a program on Eleanor Roosevelt. She was quite a woman.

who do the Democrats need to win

"Special to The Washington Post

The gender gap is now 25 years old and, according to recent polling, it is alive and well.

A Democratic polling memo released yesterday found that women, who voted for President Bush last year in large numbers, have begun migrating back to their traditional home in the Democratic Party as the public's agenda has shifted from homeland security and terrorism to domestic concerns such as jobs and the economy.

There has long been a gender gap between the parties, with women tending to vote Democratic in disproportionate numbers. Bush all but closed that gap last year, losing the female vote to Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) by three percentage points. But the memo pointed to a March survey that found women favoring Democrats when asked which party's candidates they would support if congressional elections were held today"

Nostradamus better accuracy rate then Tweety, Drudge or Frank Rich

"So what is it with the Obama people on this site. Don't you have the ability to defend your man from obvious falsehoods?"

And it's not like you have to go very far to refute Max.
You just have to want to do it. A link from Politifact, they can be found on the CQ web site

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/402/

Jack

KGC,

What's the 25 years part to that? Maybe not ehough java yet:)

Don't you think McBush will try to hold that in check with his fear and war campaign? Plus, toss in a few red alerts this summer with the help of W.

Jack,

I've traveled the road with Max once too many lately.

I think George barricaded it for me yesterday.

Rez

The thesis behind Washington Post Story only Bush using has been able to erode the gender gap but that as early as 2005, women were returning to the Democratic party and their traditional bread and butter issues.

The argument in the story is that women no longer respond to the fear argument .

More people now believe Bush has made us less safe so more fear mongering probably won't work.

Ps Rez

Even McCain doesn't want anything to do with Bush.
His last speeches have all been "I am not George Bush."

Rezdog --------------------------

Apparently, the imminent attack on Obama is so hard-hitting that several top Clinton campaign people are going to leave - they don't have the "stomach" for it. If Hillary does not annihilate Obama, the Repubs will in the GE. One person said : "Obama will be reduced to dust". Sounds good to me - Obama deserves it.

G-man,

If that's the case (holding out info that hurts the O man),
then Hillary camp is not as smart as I thought and deserves to lose. btw. that sympathetic workers leaving story is about two old.

Why do I do this??..my day for backyard dog crap duties. lol

Now I get the Obama campaign totally. I can't believe it took me so long. However, I won't be voting for him as the author states in the conclusion.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15138

Sorry, if you've already seen it

KGC,

"The gender gap is now 25 years old and, according to recent polling, it is alive and well."

what's this about? just curious..

Wigs,

Sorry, if think that's insightful, I don't! jmo

Rez

The gender gap in that story refers to women.
Over 25 years of keeping data, women particularly women who are heads of households have been reliable Democratic voters.

In the same way, the Republicans have a more reliable male voters.

NYTIMES
It wasn’t until Ronald Reagan’s victory in 1980 that observers first noticed the “gender gap”: men supported Reagan by 8 percentage points more than women did. Of course, more women supported the incumbent, President Jimmy Carter, than did men. And ever since, women have been more likely than men to favor Democrats. Both parties have tried a variety of strategies to open or close the gender gap: nominating a woman for vice president (Geraldine Ferraro), pretending there was no difference, collecting women into smaller subgroups (soccer moms, security moms), emphasizing feminist issues (equal opportunity, reproductive rights), emphasizing economics (health, welfare, child care). A host of feminist institutions — the Democratic pro-choice political action committee Emily’s List; the nonpartisan White House Project, which promotes political activity among women — have arisen to try to drive up the numbers and harness the power of the women’s vote.

Talk about a nice retirement bonus:

Church builds $1 million mansion for Wright
TINLEY PARK | Welcome home, Rev. Wright

http://www.suntimes.com/business/867629,CST-NWS-wright29.article

Wonder how much of a pension he'll need to run his household. I also wonder if this is a non-taxable event for Wright. In other words, are the taxpayers of GD America subsidizing his new lifestyle.

Final Jeopardy question:
Which campaign will report a 1st quarter contribution intake of $150 Million?
Answer: The Obama Campaign
Maximum love and respect to the Clinton camp.
See , I am sticking to the theme of of Love written by St.John!

Thx KGC,

All of those strategies require a time of peace. The switch by women to econ issues from terrorism (to Dem from Rep issues)makes sense to me, but then all it would take would be another 911like event to halt that migration. .

Rez

Even another 9/11 won't send women back to the GOP
at least not until the least neocon is gone. Bush squandered all their goodwill for the next century.

Paul Krugman said HRC is more liberal than Obama. That is a tough position to be in the general. She has had to run to the left and attack Obama because she has been losing most of the race. (Let's not forget that 11 in a row streak, 30-14, etc.)

And all that stuff about Obama's lie about whether he was a "Professor" or not is just "silly season" my friends. The fact remains he taught Constitutional law at one of the finest law schools in the Country - on top of being a community organizer and a state legislator. He was loved by his students and greatly admired by the faculty.

(Here is what Cass Sunstein has to say. btw, Cass is one of the most well-respected law "Professors" in the world):

http://baldwinparkdemocrat.blogspot.com/2008/03/cass-sunsteins-obama-i-know.html

And I won't do it again - but I could put together a laundry list of Clinton campaign misstatements including the definition of "victory", MI & FL, not going after Obama's pledged delegates, and the infamous "sniper fire" comments. (That video tape and the several instances on which she "mis-spoke" would be very effective images in the general against G.I. John McCain. Not too mention some clips of the candidate's husband and former POTUS saying her opponent is "admirable", "moderate" and a "hero.").

(And Wendy. Didn't you get the memo from LL? I thought we were going to play nice...oh well. There will be plenty of time for that later - whoever wins.)

"Which campaign will report a 1st quarter contribution intake of $150 Million?"

Thank you Penny Pritzker Queen of the Subprime Mortgages. How much has come from the families of lobbyists?

One reason Barack Obama might not want to talk about the role of financially irresponsible bank board members in creating the subprime mortgage foreclossure financial disaster is that the national finance chair of Obama's campaign, Penny Pritzker, is a former board member of the failed Superior Bank S&L that engaged in irresponsible subprime mortgage lending during the 1990s.

Apparently Penny was into subprime lending before it became all the rage starting in around 2000. It continues:

Penny Prtizker's chairmanship was apparently "to concentrate on subprimelending, principally on home mortgages, but for a while in subprime auto lending, too," after the Pritzkers' bank acquired its wholesale mortgage organization division, Alliance Funding, in December 1992.

Back then they called it "predatory lending

Jack take responsibility for the people on your team, I don't read the scum posted by your buds max and gordo.

Fact check, please, re Mr Obama: "...He was loved by his students and greatly admired by the faculty."

Posted by: Brian Hussein In NYC | March 30, 2008 4:46 PM

You must be very proud of Karolenna your team captain

Posted by: Brian Hussein In NYC | March 30, 2008 4:46 PM

You must be very proud of Karolenna your team captain

Must be Team Panty Sniffers. Do you wear them on your head.

"Thank you Penny Pritzker Queen of the Subprime Mortgages"

"Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, Maggie Williams, served on the board of a lending company that engaged in practices that the New York senator is now criticizing on the campaign trail:"

Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign manager, Maggie Williams, earned about $200,000 on the board of a Long Island subprime lender that charged prepayment penalties -- a practice that Clinton, a critic of the subprime industry, now seeks to eliminate.

Williams, who took over the reins of Clinton's campaign in early February, served as a director on the board of the Woodbury, N.Y.-based Delta Financial Corp. from April 2000 until the firm declared bankruptcy in December, according to Securities and Exchange Commission records.

She was originally recruited by former New York City Deputy Mayor Bill Lynch, a Delta consultant. Her assignments were to create a new code of "best practices," and to improve the company's crisis management operation in the wake of state and federal predatory lending probes that resulted in a $12 million payout to borrowers.

Maggie Williams, served on the board of a lending company that engaged in practices that the New York senator is now criticizing on the campaign trail:"

Yes also bad. But not the chairman of the Board and did not make nearly as much money as Pritzker

So it appears Williams was brought on board to fix the problems. Prtizker walked away with a boatload of money.

Flatus:

"Fact check, please, re Mr Obama: "...He was loved by his students and greatly admired by the faculty.""

Here you are sir:

Law students gave Obama big thumbs-up
'I LOVED TEACHING' | Consistently rated one of top instructors at U. of C.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/law-students-gave-Obama121807/index.html

And Obama is our team captain!!

"Those are tremendous ratings, especially for someone who had a day job," Professor Cass Sunstein said. "We wanted him to join the faculty full-time at various different junctures. That's not a trivial fact. . . . If we want to hire someone, the faculty has to think they're tremendous. But he liked political life."

News Clintonites could use:
PHILADELPHIA, March 30 (UPI) -- U.S. presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama is reporting $10 million more in Pennsylvania campaign donations than his Democratic rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Obama collected donations from 162,286 Pennsylvania voters, compared to Clinton's 95,415, netting the Illinois senator $31.7 million compared to Clinton's $22 million in February, The Philadelphia Inquirer said Sunday.

Patsi said snarkyly, "By the way, Doots....Hilary's Bosnia lie doesn't even compare to Obama saying he wasn't aware that Wright ever gave those speeches. I don't give a crap about what Wright said. But your Saviour saying he didn't know is a flat lie...just one of many lies. (Please genuflect when you type His name each time, by the way.)"

Sr Horsedooty said, "So, one can lie and the other can't, come on Patsi, Double standard if you ask me. You can come up with something better than that. Remember Bear's thoughts about if this was a job interview and it sorta is and you get caught with a whopper lie like that, you don't get the job. So, excuse me now as the sniper fire is starting to pick up again and I need to keep my head down and run for the building"

Yo soy un demócrata amarillo del perro.

Yo soy Hussein Horsedooty!

fix the problem. It went bankrupt. lol She was there aparently to put lipstck on a pig.. No wonder she was brought in to HRC campaign..roflmao

Clinton voters are the hardest hit by the economic turndown.

Must be nice having predatory lenders as your finance director,

Not all sub-prime lenders are bad. So quit the feeding frenzy.

Moreover, they are necessary to make sure people can get money to buy home.

The problem with the industry was GREED. It happened with technology, oil, S & L's, etc.

We don't need to damn the whole industry - we just have to make sure greed does not trump proper underwriting standards. (Also remember when you see these statistics - not all foreclosures are kicking people out on the streets. At least some of those foreclosures are based on real estate speculators who were doing the "buy and flip" strategy championed by the 2 a.m. infomercials....)

Both America and Americans - need to quit spending money we don't have!! The entire country, including Washington, needs to get better with money management.

Obama backers

Pritzker predatory lender company also went out of business but she did nothing to reform it or save jobs

Williams new code of lending and repayment and trying to save jobs

Off to clean up my apt. before poker. Have fun peeps and try not to slit anyone's throat.

You Annon's are seriously ruining this blog for everyone else. Why don't you stop the bickering and then slamming and post links for factual Data that everyone can take part in too.

...stepping back into the darkness>>>>>>

You Annon's are seriously ruining this blog for everyone else.

Let me know when your name is Craig Crawford

This doesn't sound like good money management:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9259.html

(good ole "Washington experience" - combined with a lack of experience in the "real world" - at least recently).

Can't wait till we see those tax returns to see just how far from the "real world" they have been. (Tell Wolfson to break out his "Romney material"!!! Hah! ; )

WTF: STFU. Leave Sheila alone, you impotent coward.

Craig: the anonymous sniping and sliming is seriously out of control here.

Signed,
dog

Quit spending money? Are you insane? Consumer confidence (proven by continued spending) is the only thing that keeps it all from collapsing. Didn't you see that episode of Monty Python with the rickety, high-rise building that started to collapse as soon as the residents started to question its stability? I'll bet you didn't clap for Tinkerbell when her fairie light was going out, either.

"(And Wendy. Didn't you get the memo from LL? I thought we were going to play nice...oh well. There will be plenty of time for that later - whoever wins.)"

Warren...what are you talking about?

about clinton's tax returns''' she is a smart politician
if there was anything damaging there she would have
already released them early in the campaign
took the hit and done damage control
she wants obama to make a big fuss about'' then
boom'' nothing''
remember the white house schedule documents

Warren - this is for you from the last thread this morning - a little reminder of what really goes on and you turn a blind eye to. Go send a memo to your friends on the Obama side:

[begin quote]
Just for the record

Yesterday the first name calling (bully) was done by an Obama supporter

and today the first name calling (stupid) was done by an Obama supporter

If anyone is keeping score

;-)

Posted by: Wendy! Author Profile Page | March 30, 2008 12:00 PM
[end quote]

Signing in as myself, and standing behind all my statements.

Mustard: enjoyed your 2:43 post. I hope you are right about Obama as Dem nominee. Hillary as president is DOA with too much of the electorate. She's an excellent and effective senator. She should stick with that.

Her negatives are too high and she's trying to take Obama there with her. Too much a risk we all get to see President McCain inaugurated.

WhiskeyJack: good point about Obama supporters not fighting back more. A few thoughts on that:

1) refuting Maxtrue and GORDO would take reading their posts. Too high a bar.

I skim GORDO's and actively avoid Max's -- (he put up a 1,252 word post yesterday. For purposes of comparison, a nice NYTimes article that the majority of people here will like -- "The Game's Not Over, Clinton Backers Agree" -- is 891 words, by my Microsoft Word Count. Link at bottom of this post.)

2) Max and GORDO know their audience. As MSNBC is "the place for politics" [and non-stop Hillary-bashing, per regulars here], Craig's blog has become the go-to place to bash Obama among relatively gentle souls.

Today we hear that he is a liar regarding his title when teaching Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago. No point too trivial for this audience.

If you are troubled by the turn this blog has taken, you might be an Obama supporter.

Other indicators: you are enthused about a candidate who appeals to a broad coalition -- including Republicans who love America more than party loyalty.

You may have stopped posting as much here and lurk occasionally, because this used to be a beloved site.

But you do not want to get drawn into the arguments and vibe here. You do not believe in kitchen sink fighting. (300 words)

Here's the NYTimes story, 891 encouraging words to Clinton supporters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/us/politics/30clinton.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1206905200-sQSPci0XWUksBxEtoHUO5A

FWIW, the only "change" I see from Obama is that he has successfully turned Democrats into Republicans as exhibited by the vitriol from Obama supporters on this blog.

BTW, it's interesting that Obama supporters are always taking other people to task for "attacking" them. You certainly take orders from your leader whom
often appears thin-skinned when the negativity his campaign spews daily gets volleyed back at him.

Obamaworld and the candidate himself better develop a tougher skin for the GE. They're going to need it.

"...is about to come crashing down around the ears of Barack ..."

May post the link to this later - I'll take plenty of "HEAT" for doing so, but that's OK.

My post looked correct when I previewed it.

But I'm sure HRC had something to do with it looking that way since she is the cause of all evil in this world. Ooops! I almost forgot Bill Clinton's zipper. Can't flame Hillary without mentioning that.

people don't take kindly to being called uneducated
white hillbilly rascist just because they work for
a living'' and don't support obama
hell i'll vote for mccain just for spite

mqw: Please don't vote for McCain. Our country cannot risk any more right-wing wackos being appointed to the Supreme Court.

GAKaren: what vitriol from Obama supporters? Honestly? Because most have left, since it's so inhospitable here.

Please provide several examples. Thank you.

"Walking into our conference room, not knowing what to expect (or even, perhaps, expecting the worst), took courage and confidence. Not many politicians have political or personal courage today, so it was refreshing to see her exhibit both.

Sen. Clinton also exhibited an impressive command of many of today's most pressing domestic and international issues. Her answers were thoughtful, well-stated, and often dead-on.

Particularly regarding foreign policy, she identified what we consider to be the most important challenges and dangers that the next president must confront and resolve in order to guarantee our nation's security. Those include an increasingly hostile Russia, an increasingly powerful China and increasing instability in Pakistan and South America...

...I have a very different impression of Hillary Clinton today than before last Tuesday's meeting -- and it's a very favorable one indeed."

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_559659.html

Quit spending money? Are you insane? Consumer confidence (proven by continued spending) is the only thing that keeps it all from collapsing. Didn't you see that episode of Monty Python with the rickety, high-rise building that started to collapse as soon as the residents started to question its stability? I'll bet you didn't clap for Tinkerbell when her fairie light was going out, either.----BlueNdallas
BND,
The University of Michigan 6 month future Consumer confidence Index is 49, the lowest since 1973.
Some Repubicans will accuse Dems of been alarmist but the S hasn't hit the fan quite yet. We have some ways to go before that happens.

G-man,

All that, Obama a Muslim wolf in Christian wool, is a pile a crap only you and Maxtrue want everyone to believe.

people don't take kindly to being called uneducated
white hillbilly rascist just because they work for
a living'' and don't support obama
hell i'll vote for mccain just for spite - mqw

It's funny you should say this, I don't like it when they say this either. I know plenty of white professionals who are not racist that wont vote Obama because they do not think he is best qualified for the job.

Ever notice no one ever DARES to call any voting group uneducated urban black racists?

That's much better, Wendy!, putting up a positive article about HClinton by Tribune publisher Richard Mellon Scaife, with links where one can access her interview remarks in greater depth.

Sheila, Dog...

I agree the anonymous posting is out of control, and I've put out several pleas to regulars here for weeks to refrain from doing it -- no matter how funny or clever or timely a fake name like "nixon's ghost" or "oops i forgot" or "you still here?" might seem at the time. Trust the rest of us. It's not really that funny, and it degrades the discussion because the rest of us don't know who the hell we're dealing with. The joke has not only jumped the shark, but been eaten and crapped out by the shark.

So I'd like to be able to assume that the ones still doing it are totally drive-bys who will be here today, gone tomorrow. But, like you, I wish they'd stop too.

--Lardass

That's mah boy, John.

Ever the diplomat. :-)

tt

Dog...I'm glad my latest post meets with your approval.

Dog: Are you joking? Just look at any pro-Obama post on this blog.

As was pointed out up-thread, any thing a certain "someone" posts is always mean-spirited and calls the intelligence of those that support the other candidate into question.

I don't mind political debate, but the underlying position of those that support Senator Obama is that the other side is stupid for not seeing the Senator as they do. If someone has the audacity to criticize him (which is the only way that pro Obama people can speak of Senator Clinton) that person will surely be insulted or subjected to name-calling.

If you review pro-Obama posts you will see that while defending Senator Obama and presenting information, facts, cites etc. the information is always followed up with some sort of snarky comment directed at either Senator Clinton or those that support her.

The nature of political campaigns is that candidates are passionately supported by those that intend to vote for them. I get that. What I don't understand is all the hatred that is being directed at Hillary Clinton, her family, and those that think she is the better candidate.

If you can't see that, I'm sorry.

Wendy!: it did. It beat anything put up by a slurrogate.

Those include an increasingly hostile Russia, an increasingly powerful China and increasing instability in Pakistan and South America...Wendy
Wendy,
Repeat that to Maxtrue , principal cheerleader for Bush's Foreign Policy successes.
Even CIA Director Gen. Hayden is voicing concerns about the Pakistan/Afghan border situation.
Include for Maxtrue Sadr and Maliki performing that well choreographed "Musharaff Dance".
They all speak to the foreign policy genius of Max's crowd!

Rezdog-----------------------

What is the truth? How do any of us know? Do you still believe in MSM? Only the naive trust corporate media - sometimes they slip up and it is easy to spot the lie. But most people don't really pay close attention to the news and accept what they see, hear, and read.

lets have a national discussion about race
but we won't talk about the crack epidemic
gang violence''''black on black crime''' teenage pregnacies'''children being born with no fathers carjackings'' jails full off young black men
lets talk about personal responsibility'' every body
being equal''
haven't heard obama address any of these problems
i guess he fixed all that in chicago
must be a regular utopia around there

The "political" discussion that occupied the second half of MTP this morning was the usual blather which has a half-life of about 15 minutes.

But I thought the first half with Hayden was pretty excellent and newsworthy. I mean, the guy is like the pleasant, Rotary Club version of Dick Cheney. Which, such a paradox is possible, makes him even scarier than Cheney.

I also think it's enjoyable to watch so-called "principals" like Hayden who actually have keen intellects and expertise chew up and spit out the Russerts and other poseurs of the world without breaking a sweat. I mean, Russert wasn't even able to press Hayden or make him stumble on anything. Hayden had all the answers right there, ready to spit out -- almost as if he had the questions in advance.

It makes you realize that what we're watching most of the time on cable TV news is amateurs just shouting at each other. It might as well be the corner bar. And what they are talking about is SO FAR DIVORCED from the reality that's taking place, it's pathetic.

Dog: Another point ... I'm here because ALL the places I frequented in the blogosphere are inhospitable for Clinton supporters (or Clintonistas - a term that is thrown around here all the time).

I find it very amusing that those in Obama's camp have left this blog for other climates. They certainly have their pick of places to land.

Craig Crawford is a lone voice in the wilderness and that is why I am here. He is not a shill, but since the entire left/progressive blogosphere is "totally in the tank for Obama" - anyone that even attempts to be even-handed is branded a HRC supporter. That's how bad the political coverage of the Dem primary has become.

If any pundit dares to say something positive about Senator Clinton -- Obama supporters decry that they can only be a shill for her. Does that really enhance the political discourse? I think not.

Craig wasn't far off the mark when he suggested that the media needs an intervention for their hysterical anti-Clinton coverage. It is truly a pandemic.

GA Karen: you couldn't come up with any vitriol, other than alluding to Brian?

Because there actually is not much here, is there?

Maybe the misperception was yours?

GaKaren:

:-D

Well said. I do still plan to criticize Obama.

I believe I take a balanced approach.

I post commentary and links to items that support my view of Hillary.

AND

I post commentary and links to items that support my view of Obama.

I don't plan to stop doing either just because I got a pat on the head by an Obama supporter.

I hope Obama supporters read the article but more importantly viewed the video answers.

Because there actually is not much here, is there?

Maybe the misperception was yours?
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/03/clintons-tortured-path-to-vict.html#comment-60376

LL: Russert has become so intellectually lazy and dishonest he can only engage in "gotcha" scenarios while interviewing his guests. It has really taken him off his game. At one time he did add something to political discussion but that train has certainly left the station. What passes for political commentary today is terrifying.

It was just a couple of months ago that Wolf and Tweety were commenting on how amazed they were that the economy is the issue Americans care about and that immigration was way down the list of concerns. They need to get out of the beltway once in awhile ... and we wonder why Congress is out of touch.

G-man,

"What is the truth? How do any of us know?"-GORDO

I can cynical and as skeptical as most, but I think you take the cake. jmo

KGC: Thanks! : )

Dog's question was pretty remarkable in itself. I didn't cite any post in particular because there are so many to choose from! Thank you for your effort, it is greatly appreciated.

Yikes KGC! That "be damned" post last night scared me off to bed!! Why'd ya have to go and post it again?? ;-)

GAKaren

Consider it payback for telling us about the bumpersticker "Jesus would slap the sh-t out of you."
I have told that story to a lot of people and everyone loves it.

Sorry LL

I should have posted a warning for those who have already seen it.

KGC: LOL That bumpersticker is my absolute favorite!

I so want to put it on my car! Just don't feel like ending up in a ditch.

GAKaren...I lost all respect for Russert a few months ago when MTP landed Karl Rove as a guest for what basically amounted to his first substantive interview after leaving the Bush White House (this was back before Rove was going on TV everywhere). This "coming out" interview was really a moment that could have made news -- and Rove could really have been made to answer lots of questions about the disastrous administration that he helped lead.

Instead, Russert couldn't be bothered to haul his Buffalo-sized ass back in from vacation to do the interview. So they let David Gregory do it. And Rove handled Gregory like he was the correspondent from "The Weekly Reader." It was totally disappointing. And the moment was lost.

Of course now, Rove is busy marketing himself as this cuddly Teddy Bear who just jokes about his horrible reputation -- as if it weren't based on reality. At a speech at GWU a couple days ago, he was so cute joking about how his "horns and tail are retractable." And all the Young Repugs in the audience ate it up.

Dog & GAKaren,

Things have been generally calm, so I wouldn't dwell on our rudeness quotient today, but there is still some here. Not counting anyone from my home state, I'd say I may have read two personal insults from the Hillary camp and either one or zero from Obama supporters. (I didn't read everything, but I've stopped by several times today, so I'm kind of up to date. As a further disclaimer, I don't bother reading the various anonymous entries and seldom read the overly long entries. So any insults there were, and will remain, well below my radar.)

We have several posters, who have proven themselves knowledgable and enjoyable. I read them and skip over the rest. I may occasionally miss some valuable information, but I'm betting I'm not missing much.