The mandatory penalties set forth by the Democratic National Committee’s delegate selection rules call for outlaw states like Florida and Michigan to only lose half of their delegates to the national convention. And yet the DNC went beyond its own rules to add further penalties, stripping those states of all delegates.
The DNC rules also prohibited public appearances and electronic advertising before the polls closed by candidates in states that had jumped the approved primary calendar. Barack Obama made a public appearance in Florida in September 2007, talking to reporters after a fundraiser. His campaign also bought television ads on cable news outlets that ran throughout Florida before its renegade primary.
Strictly speaking, if the DNC rules were tightly construed in this case, Hillary Rodham Clinton would receive half of the Florida delegates she won and Obama would receive none -- the penalty for violating the campaign ban.

Comments
Obama Turns On the Race-Baiting Wurlitzer: Signs of Candidacy in Trouble
"The Democratic Party consists of two warring factions, and the precarious coalition that forms the Party is on the verge of splitting apart. Working class whites are not naive to Obama’s shenanigans. They’ve watched as the Obama team has smeared perhaps the most racially progressive president in our history as a racist, and they’ve seen Obama ridicule their concerns, faith, and culture.
The Obama campaign would like the superdelegates to believe that African Americans will revolt if Obama is not given the nomination. The more likely outcome–and this has actually been quantified, is that working-class whites will go with McCain if Hillary is not the nominee.
The narrative that Obama is a weak general election candidate is starting to take hold. Sensing this development, the Obama team has turned on the Wurlitzer and alerted its supporters that it’s time to smear the Clintons as racists once again. We’ve heard Axelrod and Clyburn."
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/04/28/obama-turns-on-the-race-baiting-wurlitzer-signs-of-candidacy-in-trouble/
Posted by: GORDO | April 29, 2008 6:31 AM
Sounds good to me, Craig. Give Mrs Clinton half, Mr Obama zilch, and the popular vote for each stands. Have you let Dean know that this is the way it's going to be?
Posted by: Flatus
| April 29, 2008 6:35 AM
Obama campaign has played the race card from the get go...he let's his people do the talking and now he has been found out..i knew his plan all along..so glad people found out before it was too late...Hillary Clinton has shown she is the most qualified and also the most upbeat candidate for President..Yeah Hillary
Posted by: emmy | April 29, 2008 6:38 AM
Hitler also sucked as an artist , Sturge!
Posted by: Corey
| April 29, 2008 7:09 AM
For Sheila...
Here's the link to the court filing in pdf format.
http://www.paulvclinton.com/pp_complaint_022504_njw.pdf
Alleges fraud and other charges against Bill, Hillary, Rendell, and others.
God Bless
Posted by: anon-paranoid
| April 29, 2008 7:10 AM
lol
Posted by: sturgeone | April 29, 2008 7:11 AM
Craig,
thank you ,finally someone putting in print what I have been saying all alongNow if the MSM would only say this..Clinton's have never used race card.
Ruth
Posted by: painter
| April 29, 2008 7:19 AM
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080429/NEWS06/804290403
A few of the commenters are spot on.
Posted by: Corey
| April 29, 2008 7:21 AM
matt taibbi on imus talking about his experience with Reverand Hagee.....
Posted by: sturgeone | April 29, 2008 7:34 AM
"The Great Derangement" by Matt Taibbi
Posted by: sturgeone | April 29, 2008 7:37 AM
Axelrod is dreaming if he thinks that issues like high gas prices are going to keep the media from focusing on Rev. Wright for long. For starters, Rev. Wright insists on not being ignored. I think another motivating factor, aside from self-aggrandizement, is that he wants Obama to pick sides. The Rev. is the one trying to force the issue, not the Clintons as the Obama campaign would like people to believe. This makes the Rev. feel very powerful, and we come full circle...it's all about the Rev. The more he talks, the more it hurts Obama.
On the other hand, could Obama do himself more harm if he had to debate and look like a hapless loser against Hil'ry, again?
Posted by: blueINdallas | April 29, 2008 8:00 AM
I remember posting a few days after the NH primary....... that if Obama didn't stop the press from claiming he lost because of hidden racism..... it would all come back eventually and bite him in the butt......
I hate to say..... I told you so....
once you start a divide along a black and white line..... that ball just gonna keep on rollin'......
too many divides..... and IMO, it ain't worth it....
Posted by: RebelliousRenee
| April 29, 2008 8:02 AM
m
Posted by: painter
| April 29, 2008 8:04 AM
Gordo,
I must have still been asleep when I read your comment and contributed it to Craig.Being you made the first post I continued reading as if it were Craig's.But I am gald you said it.Someone needed to.
Thank You
Ruth
Posted by: painter
| April 29, 2008 8:10 AM
Congratulations on Chopper, LaL. Does this now make you a terrierist?
Posted by: patd | April 29, 2008 8:35 AM
Gordo,
I agree with painter, a meaningful post.
toast
Posted by: Milquetoast | April 29, 2008 8:38 AM
mornin' all.
Craig, HOW DARE YOU suggest that all the rules should apply. That would not advantage Obama. You be in big trouble now. I'm gonna tell mama. :-)
AP, and what was the outcome of that lawsuit? Answer - it's still pending with a case management order in place. But what were the results of the FEC & DOJ investigations into the matter - let's rely on Paul's own website for that answer - "all investigations by the DOJ and FEC and Senate Ethics Committee and the criminal trial of David Rosen "exonerated" Hillary for lack of evidence of her personal involvement with Paul." Remember - this is the BUSH DOJ &FEC - if they couldn't find anything Hillary did, fat chance that anything is out there. Anyone who is completely bored can go to the LA Superior Court website (I think it's lasuperiorcourt.org) and put in the case number BC304174 to access the information on the website.
Posted by: pogo
| April 29, 2008 8:40 AM
Bob Herbert on Rev. Wright
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/opinion/29herbert.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Posted by: Jamie
| April 29, 2008 8:41 AM
blue - did you catch Axelrod's finesse - this is a paraphrase - Some of the other candidates are proposing a bogus program to address high gas prices. Hmmm, that right? Lessee, there are 2 other candidates who have addressed the issue (of only 2 other candidates, really). McNumbnuts, who proposed it, and Hillary, who said she would be open to it if after looking into it it looked like it might provide relief (or something like that). Note - Hillary has never proposed or supported dropping the federal gas tax.
I wouldn't want to get in to a cab after Axelrod - I'm afraid I'd slide off the seat.
Posted by: pogo
| April 29, 2008 8:48 AM
yep, its www.lasuperiorcourt.org
have fun (warning - that was sarcasm).
Posted by: pogo
| April 29, 2008 8:50 AM
j
Posted by: painter
| April 29, 2008 8:51 AM
The press wanted this primary to be over. If it did would Wright even be a story right now. Maybe he would have waited until Sept or October to come out. But now he gets all the attention and the press has a story for a few days. They might even get a closer primary on Tuesday because of it. What a gold mine for them. Be careful what you ask for.
Posted by: vadaryl
| April 29, 2008 8:58 AM
pogo...
I don't know the outcome. Sheila ask about it and I posted the court filing for her.
I also said alleged and did not accuse anyone of anything.
As to the Rev. Wright I can also see that as an attack on the church like he said.
I draw that from the inference that because Obama didn't leave the church than Obama must either hold the same thoughts\beliefs or agree with them.
On that basis one would have to believe that the whole congregation must also hold those same beliefs as they have not left the congregation either.
In the same token I would have to ask why all those who attend the churches of Hagee, Falwell, Robertson, Dobson and the like members not left those churches.
They must agree and hold the same beliefs of bigotry and hatred that is preached by their pastors.
So even though the Rev. Wright appears to be throwing Obama under the bus that question needs to be asked.
God Bless.
Posted by: anon-paranoid
| April 29, 2008 8:59 AM
Is Craig getting his info from Harold Ickes?
From Wikipedia:
Ickes is a political strategist working on Hillary Clinton's campaign in the 2008 presidential election.
Ickes was a member of the Democratic National Committee who voted in favor of stripping Florida and Michigan of their convention delegates for moving their primary dates earlier than allowed by DNC rules. He has since changed his support of these sanctions, however, calling on the DNC to reconsider its penalties.
Posted by: nash
| April 29, 2008 8:59 AM
Why is the media, except Fox last night,not mentioning that Hillary got the endorsement of Gov. of NC?
Silly me, of course the media will not mention it.
Obama needs to drop out now and call it a wash.
Yes, Hillary should get what she deserves in Fl and Mich.
I think the superdelegates are making her PROVE she can beat McCain and she can and she is proving it.
Posted by: Carol
| April 29, 2008 9:02 AM
Harold Ickes is the Clinton point man in dirty tricks involving the DNC rules.
They can't win the primaries and they can't win the super-Ds. So now they're going to try to twist the "rules" to steal the nomination.
Craig's entry today is pure Clinton spin.
Posted by: nash
| April 29, 2008 9:05 AM
NC Gov is endorsing Hillary now at her rally at NC State University, CNN.com is carrying the rally
Posted by: vadaryl
| April 29, 2008 9:12 AM
Mojo this AM didn't even try to hide his redneck hatred of all things Obama. Rev Wright is a communist, a terrorist, the antichrist, etc.
The more the GOP MSM wingnuts try to tear him down, the more I like Obama, and the more I detest Hillary for allying herself with them and running a swiftboat campaign.
Posted by: nash
| April 29, 2008 9:12 AM
AP I told you the outcome - there isn't one - the case is pending with a case management order in place. I can't acess it without registering there, and since you have to disable your popup blocker and allow cookies, I ain't registering.
I didn't say you suggested anything other than stating some of the allegations. If you haven't read the complaint, you should - if he can prove what he's alleged ( which will require incredible admissions by Bill Clinton and others who worked for his white house in order to get around about a million hearsay problems he's going to have - he might get something from someone. But of course he is a convicted felon, so best of luck to him.
And I do assume that the followers of Hagee, Falwell, Robertson, etc. do hold many of the same beliefs as their pastors - and differ on some others. I assume the same of Obama. He did dedicate his book to Wright, because, I assume, he agreed with and felt mentored in some way by Wright. I also assume that Obama does not agree with the soundbite crap that Wright uttered - it does not seem consistent with Obama's public image. But Wright is apparently just full of shit saying that this is an attack on the "black church." Nice try to turn the criticism back on the critics. All I'm hearing from other folks who go to "black churches" is that those kinds of things are not things they hear in their congregations. I imagine there are churches where such things are said from the pulpit - but I also imagine that they aren't mainstream black churches. And I don't give him a pass because he was a marine. Good for you, thank you for your service, but when you say despicable things, people won't ignore them because you served your country.
Damn - fire alarm - later.
Posted by: pogo
| April 29, 2008 9:17 AM
Gov NC is just endorsing Hillary on CNN
Posted by: Carol
| April 29, 2008 9:18 AM
Two things: religion and politics should never, ever mix. Rev. Hagee and Rev. Wright should be totally irrelevant.
Also, in past presidential elections, the electorate complained about nominees being decided too soon, before much of the country had a chance to weigh in. Now we're griping that it's taking too long. Why do we not have a national primary in February or March and eliminate both problems?
Posted by: Mary Kitt-Neel
| April 29, 2008 9:18 AM
As far as my church going experience , most churches I know have a church council. The church I went to in Adrian had one. The pastor we had when I was growing up was actually forced out of our church by our church council. We were a small church and our Sunday service attendance was declining , not increasing. When you are a small church and people start leaving , it's quite a hit to the church budget. Many people felt that our pastor was a big reason for that. So, they basically asked him to leave.
Posted by: Corey
| April 29, 2008 9:22 AM
Hillary couldn't win enough pledge delegates to get the nomination. Next she tried to bribe, threaten, and con the super-Ds into supporting her. That didn't work either.
So now her focus is on changing the rules to "fix" things. She wants to create a bunch of fake Florida & Michigan "delegates" for herself.
Is this the USA, or a 3rd world nation with fixed elections?
Posted by: nash
| April 29, 2008 9:24 AM
D: All of the above?
Posted by: Corey
| April 29, 2008 9:26 AM
More dirty tricks: Clinton supporter arranged for Rev Wright's speech at National Press Club.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/29/clinton-booster-organized_n_99129.html
Posted by: nash
| April 29, 2008 9:28 AM
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/04/where-the-dem-rules-really-lea.html#comment-74190
Jamie,
Thanks for that article link. It sure sounded like solid critique on Wright's behavior to me.
This is Wright's forte, speaking....he won't be silenced.
I can imagine Rev. Wright thinking: No skinny little yuppie whipper snapper is going to throw me under the bus, ever.
Religion and politics always mix...that's just a fact. Not saying it is right, just saying it is. Never going to change, as long as we keep our freedom of speech.
Posted by: unlikely_burrito
| April 29, 2008 9:28 AM
I live in Michigan. We oughta count for something!
Posted by: Corey
| April 29, 2008 9:28 AM
Her focus, nash? It seems to me her focus is to try and win primaries and convince SDs she's the better candidate against McNumbnuts. Where'd you get that? There's absolutely nothing about such an attempt at HuffGObamaPost - and if that were the case, it would likely be featured front and center. I am always interested in the rules issues - which have operated to disadvantage Clinton at every turn - and would love to see what information you have on that.
Posted by: pogo
| April 29, 2008 9:35 AM
btw, good job Craig - citing the rules as they should apply according to their own terms rather than fixing the rules to the benefit of Obama.
Posted by: pogo
| April 29, 2008 9:38 AM
Huffington Post does seem to favor Obama , doesn't it?
Posted by: Corey
| April 29, 2008 9:39 AM
Corey, ya think? You can't buy that kind of coverage.
Posted by: pogo
| April 29, 2008 9:41 AM
ahhh Craig - if only you were on the committee currently hearing the FL challenge.
News for today:
What is Obama talking about? Rev. Wright
What is Hillary talking about? Her endorsement from NC Gov. Easley and education.
Sounds like a good day to me.
Posted by: Wendy!
| April 29, 2008 9:54 AM
pogo: My source of information is Craig Crawford. See his entry above for an insight into Clinton's next dirty trick. I assume that Craig got this from the Clinton campaign, either directly or indirectly. Harold Ickes (as we speak) is trying to "fix" the convention, but I don't think he's going to get away with it.
If Clinton steals the nomination with dirty tricks, she'll lose the black vote, and the vote of all progressive Democrats. McCain will win, and he SHOULD win. A "Democratic" party that allows such undemocratic fraud should not win.
Posted by: nash
| April 29, 2008 9:56 AM
"The day after Clinton’s surprising victory in New Hampshire, Obama supporter Rep Jesse Jackson Jr. — in words which will live in infamy –said that Hillary’s tears in New Hampshire will “have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina and other things Mrs. Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head toward South Carolina where 45 percent of African Americans will participate in the process.”
This was followed by Obama suggesting to mostly black
audiences that the Clintons were playing them for fools by criticizing him. Obama appropriated Malcolm X’s “hoodwinked, bamboozled, okie-doke” speech and sent a clear signal that racial politics was on the table.
This narrative was given the blogger boy stamp-of-approval when Markos Moulitsas Zuniga claimed (falsely) that Team Clinton darkened a picture of Obama to make him look menacing.
On the heels of another Obama defeat and the prospect that Hillary is picking up genuine momentum, members of his team are again telegraphing to their supporters in the press and the blogs that it’s time for racial politics."
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/04/28/obama-turns-on-the-race-baiting-wurlitzer-signs-of-candidacy-in-trouble/
Posted by: GORDO | April 29, 2008 9:56 AM
I imagine that most of you heard about this. The issue is not all that important IMHO - unless there are impediments I'm not aware of in getting state issued IDs. What is interesting is the alignment of the court - Kennedy and Stevens joined the RWNCs on the court in this opinion. If there is anyone who still thinks they can't vote for theother dem candidate if their own is not the nominee, I urge you to read this article on the decision, and replace in your mind Ginsburg and Stevens with 2 other RWNCs, then imagine any case that comes before the court involving rights you think may be important bu t not of interest to right wingers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/washington/29scotus.html?hp
Posted by: pogo
| April 29, 2008 10:00 AM
Mr. Crawford, thank you very much for this info. What I would like to know is 1) who at the DNC made the decision to strip the entire delegation? Was it the Committee or Howard Dean? 2) Why in the heck isn't Mr. Dean being asked questions about this? We've had Dean on NBC, CBS, Fox, ABC, MSNBC (oops, I'm sorry, MSNBC is after all the "Obama Network.") 3) Could you cite the DNC rules?
Posted by: Monty | April 29, 2008 10:00 AM
Someone posted this link late yesterday and I found it to be quite interesting and provocative so I thought I'd repost the link and a snippet.
"The group that is more than likely going to decide the election in the fall is a group I call the Merely Prejudiced. They are not pathological in their hatred of blacks, but they are not entirely comfortable with black people or black culture. They tend be older, less educated, sit on the fringe of being truly middle class,. . . These are people who don't think about themselves as racists. . They see themselves as typical middle class or working class people, nothing more, nothing less.. . .
These folks tend to live in all-white environments, don't get misty eyed over the joys of multiculturalism and racial diversity, and are increasingly worried about the future, both economically and socially. . . They don't trust big government or big business, and some of them know that big labor ain't all its cracked up to be either.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-duffy/merely-prejudiced_b_99006.html
Posted by: Rezdog
| April 29, 2008 10:01 AM
Damn Straight Craig, and the Democratic party had best be looking for anyway they can to get out of this mess, if not, and Obama is the nominated, they are going to lose their bums.
Posted by: Kudzu | April 29, 2008 10:06 AM
"Note - Hillary has never proposed or supported dropping the federal gas tax. "
I think she is actually supporting this now but only if it is coupled with a win-fall profits tax on the oil companies. Of course, a win-fall profits tax would have to include some component that didn't allow them to pass that onto the consumer or it's all just a wash.
Obama supports a win-fall profits tax as well.
In the end Hillary's plan addresses two issues - short term releaf while paying for the short term releaf with the win-fall profits tax and then long term with the win-fall profits tax going towards research and development to help curb our dependence on foreign oil.
Again - Hillary has the better, more well thought out and complete plan trumping both McCain and Obama.
Good job Hill!
Posted by: Wendy!
| April 29, 2008 10:07 AM
Pres Bus has a lot of gall. First for seven years he does everything possible to undercut the middle class, and now he is going to give a speech on how to fix the screwups he caused.
Posted by: Jamie
| April 29, 2008 10:11 AM
"Hillary couldn't win enough pledge delegates to get the nomination"
Can Obama win enough pledged delegates to win the nomination?
Nash - your arguments are always so counter productive because they continually indite your own candidate as having to take the same route to the nomination.
Fact: more people have voted for Hillary in the primaries that have already been held than have voted for Obama.
Posted by: Wendy!
| April 29, 2008 10:12 AM
If all the Democrats could have voted by ballot in primaries and not caucus, Obama would have a far less lead, if any, today. The caucus scheme literally took away the older population mail in ballot. Obama won't have the benefit of the caucus in the General Election. I don't think he can win without the caucus scheme.
Posted by: Dennis | April 29, 2008 10:12 AM
If Hillary can somehow win NC then all bets are off.
Posted by: vadaryl
| April 29, 2008 10:14 AM
Hillary knows that dirty tricks can't get her the nomination. Her goal now is to weaken Obama so McCain wins. Then, Hillary will run in 2012.
That's why McCain and Hillary both seem to be speaking from the same script these days.
Posted by: nash
| April 29, 2008 10:15 AM
"The issue is not all that important IMHO - unless there are impediments I'm not aware of in getting state issued IDs."
Pogo,
On the surface this doesn't appear to prohibitive to any voter and most likely would not impact the 2008 cycle(except in IN). But for the future I think the democratic party will be harmed because just as there are no impediments to voting, as a party we struggle to get people out to the polls. The smallest of obstacles can be mountains to the poor, minorities, and less informed and educated.
Posted by: Rezdog
| April 29, 2008 10:15 AM
nash, I've been on allergy meds for a week and know that i'm probably not thinking as straight as I might, but I don't see anything in Craig's post about Ickes(who YOU brought up and proceeded to accuse of trying to twist the rules) or his trying to fix anything. If changing his mind on his vote to strip FL & MI of all their delegates, and thinking the DNC should re-examine the issue and perhaps apply the DS rules as they are written is trying to "fix" the process, you have a curious notion about what "fixing" an election is.
I can't find a way to link this, but here are the rules that Craig refers to.
"C. 1. a. Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by
fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state’s delegation. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state’s delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number.
"b. A presidential candidate who campaigns in a state where the state party is in violation of the timing provisions of these rules, or where a primary or caucus is set by a state’s government on a date that violates the timing provisions of these rules, may not receive pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state. Candidates may, however, campaign in such a state after the primary or caucus that violates these rules. “Campaigning” for purposes of this section includes, but is not limited to, purchasing print, internet, or electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state; hiring campaign workers; opening an office; making public appearances; holding news conferences; coordinating volunteer activities; sending mail, other than fundraising requests that are also sent to potential donors in other states; using paid or volunteer phoners or automated calls to contact voters; sending emails or establishing a website specific to that state; holding events to which Democratic voters are invited; attending events sponsored by state or local Democratic organizations; or paying for campaign materials to be used in such a state. The Rules and Bylaws Committee will determine whether candidate activities are covered by this section."
Who fixed what?
Posted by: pogo
| April 29, 2008 10:15 AM
Pogo - I don't even know why you try to have a discussion with Nash about these issues.
You know how many of the Obama supporters are and in particular, Nash, the rules only count if they benefit Obama . We should only follow the rules that benefit Obama any other rule written or not is just a dirty trick.
Posted by: Wendy!
| April 29, 2008 10:15 AM
What is going to be more entertaing Bush Press conference on the economy in a few minutes or the Rev. Wright the last few days.
Posted by: vadaryl
| April 29, 2008 10:19 AM
Corey,
Between Huffington and KOS, Sen. Obama barely needs to put anything on the web. They do it all for him. If there is a pro Obama slant, they will find it and then use their press links to get on the TV commentary panels. Nothing wrong with that, but you have to weigh everything they say or print in line with the bias.
Posted by: Jamie
| April 29, 2008 10:20 AM
Rezdog,
"poor, minorities, and less informed and educated. "
The majority of this group already have picture IDs since they are required for unemployment, welfare, and medical. The law also offers a "free" day prior to the election to get IDs.
About the only thing other than this that needs to be done is possibly coming up with some totally free "voting only" picture ID for those currently disconnected to the system.
Posted by: Jamie
| April 29, 2008 10:31 AM
Nash are you off your medication again ? You are obsessed with Hillary attacks today.
Posted by: EuroTom
| April 29, 2008 10:32 AM
And now, nash, you can add mindreading to your resume - a good skill for your average professor, I imagine. And here I thought she was trying to weaken Obama so she could get the votes of the SDs and get the nomination. (Sorry, couldn't help myself).
Wendy! Silly me. But I do like to see them ignore facts and rant on.
Rez, as I said, I consider the alignment of the court more important than the actual decision. Although I assume the truth of the impediments you mentioned, challenging laws on discriminatory intent or effect is difficult because proof of it is elusive in many cases - which is why this case was decided as it was. I just shudder to think that the 2 justices who are likely to retire before the next presidential term is up are 2 of the 3 liberal voices on the court and may be replaced by immoderate right wing nominees.
Posted by: pogo
| April 29, 2008 10:33 AM
DO IT IN DENVER! SEE YOU THERE!
"Welcome to the "Re-create 68" website, your virtual activists' Convergence Center for the Denver Democratic National Convention of 2008. This website was created for all the grassroots people who are tired of being sold out by the Democratic Party."
http://recreate68.org/album1_dnc_001.htm
(Repubs or the Brzezinski Clan might be behind this.)
Posted by: GORDO | April 29, 2008 10:33 AM
"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has requested nearly $2.3 billion in federal earmarks for 2009, almost three times the largest amount received by a single senator this year."
The big payoff for the lobbyists' donations?
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-2.3b-in-earmarks-2008-04-28.htm
Posted by: Rezdog
| April 29, 2008 10:35 AM
hey all, the link to DNC delegate rules is in the first line of today's post, but here it is again: http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/2008delegateselectionrules.pdf
Posted by: Craig Crawford
| April 29, 2008 10:36 AM
What is bush on today, he's having trouble speaking as usual.
Posted by: vadaryl
| April 29, 2008 10:36 AM
why one should not argue with Nash
http://www.gasolinealleyantiques.com/celebrity/images/HowdyDoody/bluebonnet-bluster.JPG
Posted by: Nash's Mentor | April 29, 2008 10:38 AM
Craig, is Bush on something this morning.
Posted by: vadaryl
| April 29, 2008 10:42 AM
GLUE DAMN, the Democratic National Committee!!!!
Posted by: Blonde wino
| April 29, 2008 10:43 AM
Craig, Obama's national cable buy was no different from Clinton's internet advertising in that it was not targeted to Florida. If you count his ads seeping over into Florida then you have to count her internet ad buy seeping into the state as well.
So that means -- NO DELEGATES for anyone. Status quo.
Posted by: Rules Maven | April 29, 2008 10:45 AM
Nash's mentor - LOL.
Posted by: pogo
| April 29, 2008 10:47 AM
Nash is certainly right that Ickes is in a bit of a box having voted for the extra penalties against fla and mich -- but in those days the clinton camp was on board with trying to pressure both states to stick with the approved calendar -- many on DNC thought the harsher penalty would be enough to make fla and mich back down
but also on the hypocrisy front, Obama had vowed to seat the fla deleg (see link in today's post to his Sept '07 press conf -- which, btw, was a violation of the ban on public appearances in the DNC rules)
Posted by: Craig Crawford
| April 29, 2008 10:48 AM
Craig have you been listening to this news conference?
Posted by: vadaryl
| April 29, 2008 10:53 AM
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/04/where-the-dem-rules-really-lea.html#comment-74246
not a bad argument you've got there, Rules Maven. don't know if anyone can find a clinton interent ad that reached 6 million Fla homes as Obama's cable ads did (and isn't it interesting that was the only time i've found that Obama ever bought national cable ads, in the run up to florida)
Posted by: Craig Crawford
| April 29, 2008 10:54 AM
maven - there were internet ads that reached "a significant percentage of the voters" in FL? That would be surprising - could you provide a link that tends to show that?
Posted by: pogo
| April 29, 2008 10:54 AM
yep vadaryl, me thinks he's drinking again
Posted by: Craig Crawford
| April 29, 2008 10:56 AM
I think so too. He just got a little rattled with that reporter.
Posted by: vadaryl
| April 29, 2008 10:58 AM
mebbe i take it back, he almost prounounced nuclear proliferation correctly
Posted by: Craig Crawford
| April 29, 2008 10:59 AM
The one reporter asked him about the gas tax and he said it was a bait to get him to say something about the 08 race. I don't think so, I think the reporter really wanted him to come up with something quick to help lower the gas and it just happened to be mentioned by McCain. Then he cut him off when he tried to add some more to the question.
Posted by: vadaryl
| April 29, 2008 11:01 AM
"Obama had vowed to seat the fla deleg"- CC
We've been over this ground before.
"If he's the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, he'll seat a Florida delegation at the party's national convention, despite national party sanctions prohibiting it."-B Obama
I think the operative words are IF and "presumptive nominee" in this statement.
Posted by: Rezdog
| April 29, 2008 11:02 AM
He be on something! Don't take it back.
Posted by: vadaryl
| April 29, 2008 11:03 AM
As Rev. Wright would say he is stuck on stupid.
Posted by: vadaryl
| April 29, 2008 11:04 AM
I'm sure the Obama ad buy was just a mistake, as was the "fund raiser" that only cost $5 to get in the door.
No bending the rules here, move along.
Reverend Wright is all Hillary's fault.
Bad Bad Hillary,
Bad Bad Hillary.
Come on all you Obama supporter lets hear it,
Real loud this time
BAD, BAD, HILLARY
There doesn't that feel better
Jack
Yes, I've got a toothache.
Yes, I just took a handfull of painkillers.
Why do you ask?
Jack
Posted by: whskyjack | April 29, 2008 11:06 AM
I find it doubtful that Hillary did more advertising on the Internet than Obama throughout this race. I have seen too many people praising his amazing use of the Internets to take the bait on that one.
As far as Obama's TV buy...he CHOSE to buy national ads and not individual markets. Media buys are part of my job and trust me, this was a deliberate breach on his part.
Posted by: Ally
| April 29, 2008 11:08 AM
GWB looks awful...Craig in the above scenario, would Clinton gain 105 delegates from Florida? What about Edward's delegates from that state?
Posted by: Blonde wino
| April 29, 2008 11:12 AM
"think the operative words are IF and "presumptive nominee" in this statement. -- Posted by: Rezdog"
well his folks are trying to say he is the preumptive nominee, aren't they? so seat florida
Posted by: Craig Crawford
| April 29, 2008 11:13 AM
Craig,
"but in those days the clinton camp was on board with trying to pressure both states to stick with the approved calendar"
"and isn't it interesting that was the only time i've found that Obama ever bought national cable ads, in the run up to florida"
Do you have references for these?
I too think Bush may be drinking again. I'm not sure if it impacts his performance.
Posted by: frank | April 29, 2008 11:13 AM
Craig do you think Edwards will not endorse anybody and stay on the sidelines.
GW does look awful.
Posted by: vadaryl
| April 29, 2008 11:16 AM
Um, Craig, I think they meant to say AFTER he is the nominee, don't you? We don't want those votes to mean anything in the selection of a nominee, we just want to throw them a bone for the general.
Posted by: Ally
| April 29, 2008 11:17 AM
I believe a Governor's endorsement means more than a Senator's endorsement. Is that a widely held belief?
Posted by: Ally
| April 29, 2008 11:19 AM
We can't forget about the MI voters. They count too.
Posted by: vadaryl
| April 29, 2008 11:19 AM
frank -- last may when this was all getting debated, that was the official clinton postition according to fla dems i talked to
and in my discussion with the sales department at one cable company, that pre-Fla ad buy was the only order they ever got and i was told they knew of no other buys on their competitors. cant say for a fact that there weren't others, just havent found any yet.
Posted by: Craig Crawford
| April 29, 2008 11:21 AM
I am glad that is over. That was not one of his best! Good material for the late night guys.
Posted by: vadaryl
| April 29, 2008 11:21 AM
I agree Craig , it seems likely that he will be nominee.
I think he'll seat them if the DNC rules committee doesn't.
Posted by: Rezdog
| April 29, 2008 11:22 AM
He did not mention anything about the damage to VA. That would of been nice.
Posted by: vadaryl
| April 29, 2008 11:23 AM
Clinton's internet ad buy was on blog ads which serves to some of the largest sites like Daily Kos, Instapundit, and TPM.
If she wanted to avoid Florida she could have used a different service that allows targeting to specific states. She did not. I do not have a link to proof, but Henry at Blog Ads could easily confirm this. The issue here is not the volume or number of eyeballs. It's the principle of a broad national buy, or a targeted buy. Both Obama and Clinton were making broad national buys. I personally don't think either should be penalized.
Posted by: Rules Maven | April 29, 2008 11:29 AM
"i think he'll seat them if the DNC rules committee doesn't. -- Posted by: Rezdog"
think i wrote a post on this a while back, but i've always thought it might be a clever move for Obama to relent on Fla and Mich, be the leader and uniter of the party. her net delegate gain would not overcome his pledged lead and a lot of superd's would be so relieved that he might see a bunch of them endorse him
Posted by: Craig Crawford
| April 29, 2008 11:41 AM
Although I know the aol poll is skewed to the elderly,today's new poll shows
Hillary 69%
Barrack 31%
Weeks ago the difference was only about 4%
At least it shows a trend in the older vote against Obama
Ruth
Posted by: painter
| April 29, 2008 11:50 AM
no, maven the issue here is not whether the candidates were making broad national buys. The issue is one of rules, specifically whether the "internet, or electronic advertising [ ] reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state." That inescapably boils down to volume or number of eyeballs. One could make a broad national buy in any number of publications - whether print or electronic - including the ones you mentioned, that would not reach a significant percentage of voters in FL or any other state for that matter, and those buys would not violate that provision of the rules. FL & MI hits are tracked, I'm pretty certain, and could establish whether the rules were breached. (note that there is some wiggle in the rules - e.g. what is the threshold for "significant percentage?)
Posted by: pogo
| April 29, 2008 11:52 AM
"Fact: more people have voted for Hillary in the primaries that have already been held than have voted for Obama."
Above from wendy.
As too Wendy's comment about Hillary winning more votes in Primaries should be the determining factor I assume that she's saying that the other 30 States that Obama won shouldn't count.
She would disenfranchise the voters of those 30 States because Hillary won more Primary only states.
Wendy don't won't everyones vote to count.
God Bless.
And pogo...
How many dictatorships did we set up whom oppressed their people. Quite a few I believe. Shah of Iran anyone. How about Afghanistan? There are many others so did America through its Foreign Policies commit terrorists acts against other nations who didn't agree with our policies? I believe so.
And didn't our Government inject syphilis into black army soldiers to see what the long term damage would be if left untreated? I think that's what the Rev. Wright was talking about with the Tuskegee soldiers, though I could be wrong.
And yes I do believe that our Government is capable of harming our own citizens.
God Bless.
Posted by: anon-paranoid
| April 29, 2008 11:58 AM
u
Posted by: painter
| April 29, 2008 12:08 PM
"Clinton's internet ad buy was on blog ads which serves to some of the largest sites like Daily Kos, Instapundit, and TPM."
ummmm I was a frequent visitor to both TPM and Daily Kos pre-FL and ummmm NO Hillary ads - they both only run OBAMA ads. So rules you need to really find another argument or produce PROOF that Hillary ads ran on "Obama's Talking Points Memo" or the "Daily Obama".
and Anon-P - No what I'm saying is that in all the contests held to date more people have voted for Hillary than have voted for Obama. That is a fact! And yes, I believe ALL votes should count not just the one's Obama and his supporters pick and choose.
Posted by: Wendy!
| April 29, 2008 12:08 PM
AP, I'm not sure why that was directed to me, but I believe that as well. History is, after all, a teacher.
Posted by: pogo
| April 29, 2008 12:17 PM
Craig,
"cant say for a fact that there weren't others, just havent found any yet. "
Call the cable company and ask who placed the buy. For this large an enterprise there is usually only one broker used for the placement of all advertising throughtout the campaign, unless Sen. Obama has his own advertising departmentt or a buyer on staff.
You still might have a problem getting the information if the broker has a non disclosure agreement with the client or if it is part of the operation rules, but it's worth a try if you really need to know.
Posted by: Jamie
| April 29, 2008 12:23 PM
The DNC ruled that Florida and Michigan were out. Now, the Clinton people are trying to put them back in, in such a way as to Put Hillary ahead in delegate count. This stinks.
I don't object to finding some way to give Florida & Michigan a delegation, but I do object trying to "fix' the numbers so that Hillary, who is losing, ends up the "winner."
Any attempt to overturn the legitimate primary results and fix the nomination in favor of the #2 candidate will tear the party apart, but neither Hillary, nor her supporters seem to care. And the MSM, sensing a ratings-boosting "drama" is gleefully encouraging them to carry out this self-destructive plan.
Posted by: nash
| April 29, 2008 12:30 PM
I see the voice of reason has shown up. (Note, this statement may be offered in either a straightforward or sarcastic manner, applying in each sense to 1 of 2 people who have just now appeared. I leave it to you to determine how and to whom it applies).
Posted by: pogo
| April 29, 2008 12:30 PM
quoting "Henry from Blog ads"
More anonymous bullcrap from the Obama campaign
How often have we heard.."unidentified Democrats" when really quoting some Obama shill.
Rules Maven
My Mom says you are full it.
Posted by: Rev Wright should speak out on Blog Ads | April 29, 2008 12:30 PM
I see the voice of reason has shown up. (Note, this statement may be offered in either a straightforward or sarcastic manner, applying in each sense to 1 of 2 people who have just now appeared. I leave it to you to determine how and to whom it applies).
Posted by: pogo
| April 29, 2008 12:32 PM
Sorry - message said first post (at 12:30) didn't go.
Posted by: pogo
| April 29, 2008 12:34 PM
k
Posted by: painter
| April 29, 2008 12:34 PM
The CNN share of the audience in Florida is not going to be too substantial. In terms of actual reach they might pull 2 or 3 share at their highest rated hour. Most of the day they hardly even register. That's not exactly substantial. A big web buy and a CNN buy are not all that different. Most normal people in Florida are watching Criminal Minds - just like the rest of America.
Posted by: Rules | April 29, 2008 12:42 PM
Clinton's were willing to have revotes in Mi.And Fla.but Obama said no.Now I don't see where he has the power to decide who should be able to vote.That should have been up to the DNC.His outcome of new elections would have been better than the original.But then his campaign has been against everyone getting a chance to vote,witness the caucuses.Voting in those states were skewed to favor Obama.If he doesn't want everyone to vote in primary you can be sure they won't vote for him in general
Ruth
Posted by: painter
| April 29, 2008 12:44 PM
nash it's fun to discuss, but I doubt that it will happen - Dean has staked his ground, drawn his line in the sand, and the outcome is predetermined. But by all means continue to give the finger to Florida democrats so that in the Obama presidential election travel log we can hear the narator say, "And as we climb in to the blue, we wave a fond 'Goodbye' to Florida voters for the the 2008 presidential election."
Posted by: pogo
| April 29, 2008 12:45 PM
Tomorrow is the Post Position draw and I'll let you know where they end up. Need final choices by Friday morning
Adriano
Anak Nakal - Renee
Big Brown - Rezdog
Big Truck - Renee
Bob Black Jack -
Colonel John
Cool Coal Man - Jamie
Court Vision - EdVb
Cowboy Cal - Whiskey Jack
Denis of Cork
Eight Belles
Gayego
Monba
Pyro
Recapturetheglory
Smooth Air
Tale Of Ekati
Visionaire
Z Fortune
Z Humor
Posted by: Jamie
| April 29, 2008 12:50 PM
Rules, "A big web buy and a CNN buy are not all that different." Thank you for that fact from the BBFF.
Posted by: pogo
| April 29, 2008 12:52 PM
jamie, i like the sound of "Colonel John" -- put me down for him
Posted by: Craig Crawford
| April 29, 2008 12:55 PM
Obama Legitimizes FOX by Failing to Confront Them
Barack Obama didn’t call out FOX for what they are — a Republican propaganda outlet — when he appeared on FOX News Sunday to talk to Chris Wallace. Unfortunately, this means Obama, the Democrats, and American democracy lost.
Obama did a respectable job answering Wallace’s light/medium-biased questions, but he didn’t go after FOX the way his campaign claimed Obama would in a Friday statement to Talking Points Memo. Instead, he made the error of treating the interview as if it was actually an interview, not an ambush staged by enemies committed to destroying him. Because FOX had two main goals for Obama’s appearance: to further the appearance that FOX is actually a news organization and to gather ammunition against Obama.
http://foxattacks.com/
the anti fox web site
Posted by: Bock Bock Borrrrock | April 29, 2008 12:58 PM
Craig - Got it. You have Garrett Gomez as the jockey and he is wonderful. If you want to look at the horse, here he is
http://www.kentuckyderby.com/2008/contenders/colonel-john
Posted by: Jamie
| April 29, 2008 12:59 PM
Jamie, I'll take Visionaire. "What's with the 'vision' thing?"
Posted by: eprof2
| April 29, 2008 1:01 PM
Pogo....
are you asking "for whom the bells toll?"...... ROFL....
this debate gets funnier and funnier everyday....
Craig..... it's obvious that you are a bad, bad boy today......
no appletinis for you......
whskyjack..... see a dentist..... unfortunately, toothaches don't go away no matter how much advil or tylenol one uses....
and YES..... I saw Bushy's press conference..... I like to count how many times he says "the American people have got to understand"..... I lost track today..... and this American person understands very clearly that he's hitting the sauce again......
Posted by: RebelliousRenee
| April 29, 2008 1:02 PM
There has been no bigger hoe for Hillary Clinton than Craig "Yes I'm A Bigot Just Like My Buddy Don Imus" Crawford. SHAME ON YOU!
Posted by: Bill Chapman | April 29, 2008 1:05 PM
Denis of Cork
Like I said last week, Obama-ites are already setting the stage to blame Hil'ry if he gets the nom but can't pull it out in the general.
nash wrote - "Her goal now is to weaken Obama so McCain wins."
He IS a weak candidate; she did not make him weak. What's with the victim mentality? He hasn't got much of a record, hasn't flushed out his plan for "change," and increasingly, has ties to people/entities that will be a problem for many voters. He would take the credit for a win, so he must also take it for a loss.
Posted by: blueINdallas | April 29, 2008 1:07 PM
Move over Harold Ickes and Lanny Davis I'm Craig Crawford and I can be a bigger hoe for Hill than even you two hacks!
Posted by: Bill Chapman | April 29, 2008 1:10 PM
Eprof2
Here's Visionaire
http://www.kentuckyderby.com/2008/contenders/visionaire
Posted by: Jamie
| April 29, 2008 1:17 PM
Bill,
If you must insult your host in a way that even the other Obama supporters do not, would you please pick a different last name for an alias.
Besmirching "Chapman" around here is not a good idea.
Posted by: Jamie
| April 29, 2008 1:18 PM
LOLOLOLOLOL
Call 911
Bill Chapman is over dosed on Koolaid
It could be fatal
LOLOLOLOLOL
Posted by: LOL | April 29, 2008 1:18 PM
Thanks for this post, Craig. Sorry that some of the Obama people can't deal with facts.
Life's not fair, and it's a tragedy to see Obama sink because of Wright and bittergate. I hope to see him run again in 2012 or 2016, but right now, his candidacy is not worth the risk (in my view the probability) that McCain would win the electoral college if he is the Dem candidate. If you don't like Hillary, fine--get behind a Gore candidacy, but it's time for the Obama supporters to face the fact that while Obama can probably win the popular vote, there is no way he can win the electoral college without Fla, Ohio, Missouri, NH, WV, possibly even PA in the win column for him. He is sinking fast, and maybe that's for the best.
We should be thanking Craig Crawford for his objective analysis and honesty. It's pseudo-journalists like Arianna Huffington, Keith Olbermann, and Chris Matthews that gave Obama the pass he needed through Super Tuesday to be this close to winning the nomination and making John McCain president.
Posted by: Lynn | April 29, 2008 1:21 PM
put something on Big Brown...
Posted by: emmy | April 29, 2008 1:22 PM
to Anon-para
The US did not inject anyone with syphilis. What happened was that a group of black men with syphilis were chosen for study of possible cures at a time when there were no known cures--just a bunch of treatments that were felt to be bogus.
At some point during this lengthy experiment, it was found that antibiotic treatment was effective in curing syphilis. At that point the government could have discontinued the experiment and offered treatment to all the men. It did not.
This was shameful and inexcusable. It was also well documented. As Pastor Wright is an educated man, he must be aware of the truth; but his distrust of his own country is such that he cannot believe it.
My question about Obama and Wright is...did Obama sit in that church for 20 years because he too believes that America is guilty of innumerable sins, or did he sit there because he thought he could not afford to break with TUCC politically, or--given his upbringing (remember he didn't reach urban America until he was about 25 or so) did he just not know?
Posted by: maggisd
| April 29, 2008 1:22 PM
Emmy - Big Brown it is. Beautiful horse with Kent Desormeux up.
http://www.kentuckyderby.com/2008/contenders/big-brown
Posted by: Jamie
| April 29, 2008 1:28 PM
Hello Craig,
I see that your ability to read rules is a little weak. Let me help.
Section 20(C)(5) states: "Nothing in the preceding subsections of this rule shall be construed to prevent the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee from imposing additional sanctions..."
In other words, the 50% reduction is a MINIMUM reduction, but the Rules and Bylaws Cmte can impose a more severe penalty.
Section 20(C)(1)(b) states: "'Campaigning' for purposes of this section includes, but is not limited to, purchasing print, internet, or electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state; hiring campaign workers; opening an office; making public appearances; holding news conferences; .... The Rules and Bylaws Committee will determine whether candidate activities are covered by this section."
In other words, it is up to the Rules and Bylaws Cmte to determine if the ads in question reached a significant %'age of voters in the state, or if talking to the reporters unannounced constituted a public appearance or news conference. Under the rule, no one but the Rules and Bylaws Cmte can make that determination. Please feel free to file a complaint, but until the Rules and Bylaws Cmte has made a determination, there is no violation. And BTW, we all know exactly what the Rules and Bylaws Cmte will decide: that the ads did not reach a significant %'age of the voters in the state, and that talking to the reporters impromptu and unannounced did not constitute a public appearance or a news conference.
Next time, please do your homework before you publish this crap.
Posted by: Alan | April 29, 2008 1:28 PM
renee, I assume that refers to my 12:45? No, I never expect Hemingway. But I always liked those travelogues - and they always seemed to be leaving in a prop driven puddle jumper.
blue, you are out of your mind. He doesn't do acceptance of blame well. But he sure will let his surrogates assign blame.
Posted by: pogo
| April 29, 2008 1:32 PM
There are lots of angry, frightened Obama supporters posting today..
Perhaps the most idiotic observation is that Senator Clinton is tring to damage Obama so he will lose and she will win in 2012. What garbage!!!!
Hillary is "in it to win it".
It is becoming abundantly clear each day that here
winning this year is becoming more probable each day.
Obamamaniacs , pretending that he has the nomination in the bag, are not in touch with reality.
Posted by: Oregon Democrat | April 29, 2008 1:33 PM
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/29/hillary-clinton-to-appear-on-the-oreilly-factor/
Posted by: vadaryl
| April 29, 2008 1:37 PM
I'm off to telephone for Hillary.
Have a nice day.
Posted by: Oregon Democrat | April 29, 2008 1:37 PM
Next she could on hannity's show
Posted by: vadaryl
| April 29, 2008 1:38 PM
The same could be ask of all those who continue to attend church at Falwell, Hagee, Dobson, Robertson's churches as well.
I suppose you never heard your pastor say anything that you disagreed with as your comment would give one that impression.
After all I'm sure many of us have heard pastors say things they didn't agree with, but never left their church because of it.
However, you may be the exception to the rule.
God Bless.
Posted by: anon-paranoid
| April 29, 2008 1:40 PM
Does this mean FOX may be changing to Fair and Balanced after all?
Posted by: vadaryl
| April 29, 2008 1:41 PM
u
Posted by: painter
| April 29, 2008 1:44 PM
OD: You may think the idea that Clinton wants to weaken Obama so that McCain wins is "garbage" but Jim Clyburn, House Majority Whip and the leading black Democrat in Congress, has said that that is what the MAJORITY of black people believe.
But what the hell do they know, right?
Posted by: nash
| April 29, 2008 1:47 PM
Vadaryl
Don't get your hopes up. I think FOX is just enjoying tweaking MSNBC now that it has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Obama campaign.
CNN is glad to get back the viewers it lost to MSNBC.
Once the election is over, they will all go back to No News all the time.
Posted by: Jamie
| April 29, 2008 1:48 PM
I was surprised to see this entry, because usually what you say is accurate. Clinton also did fundraisers in Florida before the primary, and she also talked to reporters. Both of those things were allowed under the rules, although that definitely leaves room for interpretation whether something qualified as campaigning.
"Presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is in the state of Florida for private fundraisers. Because Florida displeased the Democratic Party by moving its primary to Jan. 29 the delegates won't count and candidates have pledged not to campaign here, but attending fundraisers is allowed." (source: AHN)
"In addition, Clinton (NY) has reportedly been getting little sleep as she crisscrosses the country campaigning. She flew into Sarasota, FL on Sunday for the first of the fundraisers she is attending and announced that she will stay in the state through Tuesday night to thank her supporters for voting for her after the votes are tallied." (source: AHN)
Also, the Obama campaign sought and was granted legitimacy for the national ad buy. The campaign asked for the Florida feed of that ad buy to be barred, but the networks said they could not technically accomplish that. There was an official waiver, according to the rules.
It's definitely too bad, because both campaigns got some exposure in Florida before the vote, too bad because it allows for this to be one more area in which clear bright lines don't exist and therefore can be spun.
But the conclusion of the original article that Obama violated the rules is not true and is easily proven so.
Posted by: mission419 | April 29, 2008 1:51 PM
I knew it was just a dream, but Obama on Sunday and Hillary twice in one week. Yah Keith still has it right The FOX Noise Channel. Just doing it for ratings since she is hot right now.
Posted by: vadaryl
| April 29, 2008 1:51 PM
Barack Obama’s Latest Pastor Problem: Anti-Gay Rev. James T. Meeks
Op-Ed
Duane Wells | 4/01/2008 | 0:00:00
Just as the dust surrounding Sen. Barack Obama’s long-term association with controversial minister Rev. Jeremiah Wright has begun to settle comes new reports of the democratic presidential hopeful’s connection to another racially divisive public figure—the stridently homophobic Rev. James T. Meeks, an Illinois state senator who also serves as the pastor of Chicago’s 22,000 member strong Salem Baptist Church.
Described in a 2004 Chicago Sun Times article as someone Barack Obama regularly seeks out for “spiritual counsel”, James Meeks, who will serve as an Obama delegate at the 2008 Democratic convention in Denver
http://www.gaywired.com/NewsArticle.cfm?Section=66&id=18614&CFID=21546521&CFTOKEN=37822081
Posted by: Links with that waffle | April 29, 2008 1:51 PM
Hi blue: First Hillary has to win, without stinking up the joint.
Posted by: nash
| April 29, 2008 1:53 PM
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/04/where-the-dem-rules-really-lea.html#comment-74323
alan, you]re not much of a reader yourself. i didn't write that the DNC could not exceed the mandatory penalty, just that they did. and i merely observed that a strict intepretation of the rules would view obama's ad as a violation, but of course the rules cmte is free to interpret broadly in order to exonerate Obama. you make a fine presentation of your opinions and predictions, tho. unlike yourself i do not consider alternative views "crap"
Posted by: Craig Crawford
| April 29, 2008 1:54 PM
Hey Jamie put me on Recapture the glory.That speaks for what will happen when obama drops out
Ruth
Posted by: painter
| April 29, 2008 1:56 PM
Barrack id throwing Wright under the bus
Posted by: painter
| April 29, 2008 1:57 PM
One wheel over Rev. Wright, two wheels, three, four, five, six, seven, eight
Sorry about the tire marks
Posted by: Jamie
| April 29, 2008 1:57 PM
At the rate people are flying down the road, we may need to put in more bus stops.
Posted by: Jamie
| April 29, 2008 1:59 PM
pogo....
no.... it was in reference to your 12:30 post..... about the "voice of reason" showin' up.......
Nash.... the 60s and 70s are soooooo over...... we don't need no stinkin' joints....
Jamie.... if I must pick one to win let me pick Anak Nakal.....
and if I could I like to pick Big Truck to place or show.....
Posted by: RebelliousRenee
| April 29, 2008 2:00 PM
Alan, rules of construction (which would be applied should the sanction be challenged legally) require that rules be read in their entirety to resolve ambiguities, which are apparent in this instance, and determine the meaning of the rules. (Yes, I know that Nelson challenged the decision, and lost because he challenged the authority of the DNC to set its calendar). You left out the second clause of 20(C)(5), which specifies those additional sanctions referred to in the portion of the clause you quoted, which states "including, without limitation, establishing a committee to propose and implement a process which will result in the selection of a delegation from the affected state which shall (i) be broadly representative, (ii) reflect the state’s division of presidential preference and uncommitted status and (iii) involve as broad participation as is practicable under the circumstances." In Dean's zeal, and under his incompetent leadership, the DNC has ignored these limitations on the sanctions process. Clearly, the rules did not contemplate disenfranchising voters, except for violations of 20(C)(1)(b), which is specifically provided for. What is not contemplated in the additional sanctions of 20(C)(6) is a reduction to zero of the state's representation in the nominating process, which, particularly in light of the mandatory language of the 50% reduction in delegates of 20(C)(1)(a) - and since that sanction was included in 20(C)(1)(b), would be considered an intentional omission.
Posted by: pogo
| April 29, 2008 2:03 PM
consulting with the state chair of the SC Democratic party is not a waiver from the DNC
“For that reason we consulted with … South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler who told us unequivocally she did not consider this to be in violation of pledge made to the early states,” Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement.
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/obama_campaign_responds_to_cli.html
Posted by: Wavering making me seasick | April 29, 2008 2:03 PM
What have I missed so far. Just tuned in to the conference.
Posted by: vadaryl
| April 29, 2008 2:05 PM
Will Rev. Wright counter this?
Posted by: vadaryl
| April 29, 2008 2:10 PM
Watch all the networks fight to get the Rev to speak on their network first. This could be fun to watch play out. Also it sad to see this happen.
Posted by: vadaryl
| April 29, 2008 2:12 PM
put me down, please, for "PYRO"......maybe he'll burn up the track..........
Posted by: sturgeone | April 29, 2008 2:14 PM
Renee, oh, I get it- yeah, that was inspired. (He says, laughing at himself).
Wavering, those were just more words uttered to suggest something other than what they say.
Posted by: pogo
| April 29, 2008 2:15 PM
one thing to make clear -- the written pledge among candidates to ban fla/mich campaigning (that some have discussed here) is separate and distinct from the DNC rules i wrote about today. the most important difference is that i know of no venue for litigating the private candidate agreement. however, there is a legal process in place for evaluating compliance with DNC rules if a complaint is filed, as Alan correctly noted in his comment above.
Posted by: Craig Crawford
| April 29, 2008 2:17 PM
jamie, if unspoken for, I'll take Z Humor. (I really just love the name)
Posted by: pogo
| April 29, 2008 2:18 PM
Listen, the whole thing is rather incongruous and I think this is the way it will be played in the media. My recommendation from the beginning was for Obama to say that he was not a regular church-goer. He only joined the church for street cred and as a way to get elected by having the support of 8.000 members of this church. It is too late to do that now and to attempt to explain having Wright downstairs the day he announced while Dick Durbin waited upstairs is just not going to pass the sniff test for most Americans. It may make sense for the people on this blog but this is a group that is a little outside the norm and above average in their quest for knowledge and understanding. And, also, he is rambling. Nightmare.
Posted by: Ally
| April 29, 2008 2:19 PM
You are either so politically unaware that you have no expertise to be reporting on the Presidential race, or you are pretending to present unbiased news and in actually are very much in the Hillary camp. I strongly suspect the latter.
Let us take what you said on face-value. 4 months before the election Obama spoke with reporters who were from Florida. Trust me, to the extent Floridians knew about this, they forgot it by the time the election came around.
This compares with two days before the election, Hillary suddenly switched positions to say Florida's votes should count. Then the day of the election she openly campaigns in Florida, going to two "Florida fundraisers" and getting off the plane to tell reporters she's happy to be there, as palm trees wave in the background. Is it any wonder that she won Florida? Floridians certainly remembered her campainging for Florida votes and in Florida in the two days leading up to the election. This was the blatant violation of election law.
Shame on you for trying to mislead readers and voters through your omissions, making it seem as if Obama had committed the act that Clinton actually did far more greviously. Sadly, this is what we have come to expect from the Clinton campaign: attempt to make Obama seem guilty for the very things that Clinton did. The Principle of Violent Mimicry: we become what we hate. She's following straight in the footsteps of the master, Karl Rove.
Posted by: Jedidiah Palosaari | April 29, 2008 2:21 PM
Craig what do you think of this news conference?
Posted by: vadaryl
| April 29, 2008 2:21 PM
j
Posted by: painter
| April 29, 2008 2:22 PM
Well, gotta go - you kids have fun, and don't put anybody's eye out.
Posted by: pogo
| April 29, 2008 2:23 PM
Boy, he's not doing much better speaking now than he does in the debates....I chose to think it may be because he's upset, but it's not impressive...a little rightous anger would be justified here.
Yikes.
Posted by: Gidget
| April 29, 2008 2:24 PM
What did he say at the end, he was only his pastor?
Posted by: vadaryl
| April 29, 2008 2:24 PM
What did the media get wrong?
Posted by: vadaryl
| April 29, 2008 2:26 PM
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/04/where-the-dem-rules-really-lea.html#comment-74367
Jedidiah Palosaari, thank you for your opinions. but dont see any facts in what you've got there that would be relevant to the DNC delegate rules linked in today's post -- or even helpful in the upcoing DNC rules committee hearing
Posted by: Craig Crawford
| April 29, 2008 2:28 PM
Jedid is really spinning the Obama line
Posted by: painter
| April 29, 2008 2:30 PM
already hitting the web sites:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/29/obama-i-am-outraged-and-angered-by-wrights-comments/
Posted by: vadaryl
| April 29, 2008 2:30 PM
pogo, nice job of lawyering today. perhaps you should be our house counsel pending the return of long lost trial lawyer rich
Posted by: Craig Crawford
| April 29, 2008 2:30 PM
BHO should have had Mrs. O throw the good reverend under the bus...she was also married by him, attended sermons and had her children baptized by him and he could have kept his hands clean.
Posted by: Blonde wino
| April 29, 2008 2:31 PM
http://obamaandjesus.blogspot.com/
Jedidiah Palosaari's blog...
Posted by: Information, please | April 29, 2008 2:33 PM
Someone just sent me this:
Obama live denouncing remarks of wright, and saying again how media wants to tie him in to wright. He was not his spiritual advisor or gave spiritual guidance he was just merely his um pastor. he married him, baptized his kids and prayed with them but was not his spiritual guide.
What? I am confused here.
Posted by: vadaryl
| April 29, 2008 2:34 PM
Jamie,
I like the looks of Pyro - so put me down for him wi th show Anak.
My dad's brother was quarter horse trainer of the year back in 60's. My dad trained quarter horses that won Ks & Okla futurities, & ruidoso downs , and a blind uncle who was a quarter horse trainer around Okla. He had several articles written about him. So horsey family & They are probably up/or down there laughing at my pick...
Julie
Posted by: Julie - Young 73 | April 29, 2008 2:38 PM
This sort of backtracking by BHO isn't good especially coming from a man who will sit down with any dictator of the world. If he can't judge a man from knowing him for 20 years, how can he make a sound judgement from someone he just met? WIll he be that naive as President?
Posted by: Blonde wino
| April 29, 2008 2:40 PM
Obama strongly denounces former pastor
Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:28pm EDT Email | Print | Share| SALEM, North Carolina (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama denounced his former pastor in his strongest language to date on Tuesday, saying he was outraged by Rev. Jeremiah Wright's assertions about the U.S. government and race.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2934816520080429
Posted by: Wright Wrong | April 29, 2008 2:40 PM
Bri-Bri,
His remarks on those videos were entirely consistent with his Sunday speech before the NAACP and his Monday appearance with Q & A at the National Press Club.
What changed other than the crap you were chanting to get attention then to the crap you are chanting to get attention now?
I'd ask you to wrap your head around that --
But it's as always spelunking your butt... which are truly your two frontal lobes.
Posted by: 9/11 survivor (sort of)
| April 29, 2008 2:46 PM
Anybody who has been divorced can testify that people change over time. This whole issue with Obama's relationship with Wright is a red herring. Is this a diversionary tactic by the GOP to deflect attention away from Iraq?
Posted by: Nancy | April 29, 2008 2:50 PM
Section C5 says that nothing in the preceding rules shall be construed as preventing the Rules and Bylaws Committee from imposing additional sanctions.
I think the Committee had the right to take away all the delegates.
Also, Hillary was in Florida at a fundraiser before the vote, then went outside and talked to reporters.
Posted by: carrie | April 29, 2008 2:51 PM
I love it when lawyers fight, :)
Posted by: Flatus
| April 29, 2008 2:52 PM
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
So who do African Americans vote for now?
Silly Hawaian white boy, ashamed of his black adopted daddy
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Posted by: LOL | April 29, 2008 2:52 PM
On Fox News, Chris Wallace just said that all this at least proves Obama is not a Muslim. How is that? Not if Obama is a "secret" Muslim.
Posted by: GORDO | April 29, 2008 2:55 PM
At first it was the media's fault for playing the famous "GD America" video on endless loop. Today, the duck is telling everyone how dispicable his moral leader has become. Wow, two ducks today in political theater...one lame (GWB) and one daffy (Barquack).
Posted by: Blonde wino
| April 29, 2008 2:55 PM
NC poll is getting closer - SurveryUSA
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=d4d1bc7e-32d4-438e-8143-75c8b25b3435
Posted by: vadaryl
| April 29, 2008 2:55 PM
love it when lawyers fight, :)
Posted by: Flatus Author Profile Page | April 29, 2008 2:52 PM
Anybody who has been divorced can testify that lawyers fight to increase their billable hours.
Posted by: Nancy | April 29, 2008 2:56 PM
It will be interesting to see next survey usa poll after the Rev & BO snaggle. Wonder how much of his black constituency he loses. If any?
Julie
Posted by: Julie - Young 73 | April 29, 2008 3:04 PM
Mrs Edwards endorsed Senator Clinton's health plan.
Posted by: sturgeone | April 29, 2008 3:06 PM
Nancy, why are these foolish puppies fighting when it's pro bono? Uh oh, do you think they might not realize??
Posted by: Flatus
| April 29, 2008 3:08 PM
Clinton snaps up the biggest endorsement of the day, North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley. Easley's backing is symbolic for several reasons. First, he's got cred among NASCAR voters, which could help Clinton perpetuate the Obama-is-elitist narrative. Second, he initially backed John Edwards, suggesting that this could foretell an Edwards announcement. (Elizabeth Edwards is reportedly pushing him to endorse Clinton.) And lastly, his state will almost certainly go for Obama, making his decision that much more difficult. Some reports claim Easley was disappointed with Obama for refusing to debate Clinton in his state.
Posted by: Lynn C | April 29, 2008 3:15 PM
Wow, Obama was so flat today. My impression was that he has info (polling data, perhaps) that lead him to conclude things are really quite bad for him. If Clinton comes within a couple points in NC and then wins Indiana, KY and WV, isn't Obama's superdelegate boat going to start leaking badly, Craig?
Posted by: Lynn | April 29, 2008 3:19 PM
Repubs now willing to bet $ 500,000 on BO down voter liability.
www.politico.com top story
julie
Posted by: Julie - Young 73 | April 29, 2008 3:23 PM
think i wrote a post on this a while back, but i've always thought it might be a clever move for Obama to relent on Fla and Mich, be the leader and uniter of the party. her net delegate gain would not overcome his pledged lead and a lot of superd's would be so relieved that he might see a bunch of them endorse him
Posted by: Craig Crawford | April 29, 2008 11:41 AM
Interesting thought Craig, but I don't think Mr. Obama is *THAT* much of a "new politics" believer. He'd have to really believe there would be a major pay-off for him and I don't think he views it your way. He's a politician, as calculating, suspicious, and power hungry as the next person, man or woman. Which brings me back to my contention that the "new politics" audacity is total hoodwinking and not based in reality.
Posted by: EuroTom
| April 29, 2008 3:39 PM
And it seems to me that what Barack Obama has been trying to say is that he's not just another politician, that he's trying to descend -- transcend the old politics. And here, his pastor -- I think Barack -- I think the pastor did a lot more of throwing Barack Obama under the bus than Barack Obama did to him.
And, I would definitely agree with Gergen and Martin. I'll be interested in seeing those polling results around the middle of next week, once everything's said and done.
IMHO, this is a major tactical error (Gergen and Martin apparently concur), and one which is, perhaps, out of the Obama campaign's control, too. We'll see. Then again, if Obama's handlers think this is another positive preemptive communications maneuver--a la Obama's Philadelphia speech--there are some pretty objective (and not so objective) folks in punditland that would beg to differ, including yours truly.
Let the fireworks continue
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/25/53530/9798
This has been a lose/lose for Obama.
Posted by: Mr. Wrong | April 29, 2008 3:42 PM
here are lots of angry, frightened Obama supporters posting today..
Perhaps the most idiotic observation is that Senator Clinton is tring to damage Obama so he will lose and she will win in 2012. What garbage!!!!
Posted by Oregon Democrat
Oh that's just Nash... he's our "broken record" just a flowing stream of consciousness saying anything and everything that comes into his brain.
Sort of an online version of tourette syndrome
Posted by: EuroTom
| April 29, 2008 3:45 PM
I sure as hell would like to know what Matthew Dowd meant when he said Hillary Clinton is the candidate of the 20th Century and Barack Obama is the candidate of the 21st Century. From what I gathered watching the THIS WEEK roundtable he seemed to imply that the "social movement" surrounding Barack transcends everyday politics. I was just listening in disbelief. He was practically describing a cultist figure. So what if his kids like Barack? I mean he actually used them as an example to prove his point. Maureen Dowd, no relation, was a boring, sour and uninteresting person. She seemed the most "out of their league" participant in the discussion.
Posted by: EuroTom
| April 29, 2008 3:54 PM
I was away for a few hours, so everyone double check and make sure I got you on your horse. If you want to look at your horse, go to the website below and click on the name
http://www.kentuckyderby.com/2008/contenders
Adriano
Anak Nakal - Renee
Big Brown - Rezdog, Emmy
Big Truck - Colorado Bob Memorial Fund
Bob Black Jack -
Colonel John - Craig Crawford
Cool Coal Man - Jamie
Court Vision - EdVb
Cowboy Cal - Whiskey Jack
Denis of Cork
Eight Belles
Gayego
Monba
Pyro - Sturgeone, Julie
Recapturetheglory - Ruth
Smooth Air
Tale Of Ekati
Visionaire - EProf2
Z Fortune
Z Humor - Z Humor
Posted by: Jamie
| April 29, 2008 4:08 PM
I don't follow Oprah or her press. But, there was mention, here, that she attended the same church but stopped some time ago.
Is anyone aware of an Oprah reaction to any of this?
Posted by: Flatus
| April 29, 2008 4:13 PM
Sign me up for Bob Jack Black. I like a longshot.
Posted by: Bowmanc
| April 29, 2008 4:22 PM
Where's Oprah?
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/04/29/where-s-oprah.aspx
Hot off the press
Posted by: Where in the World is... | April 29, 2008 4:23 PM
First things first...because I was one as a child, my derby pick is Pyro...(fire...fire)
Now please allow me to climb on my soap box...
Can we declare a moratorium on this race card BS? Anyone who doesn't think any of the candidates are using it, put down the joint and then pass it to me.
I am so sick of everyone using their race as a crutch. Have an adult conversation about what troubles you and leave it at that.
If you are white, at some point you need to accept the fact your race has a checkered history of slave ownership and racial exploitation. Either fix it or embrace it. If you embrace it, don't be shocked if someone holds it against you... Whatever you decide, be honest about it and people will respect you even if they disagree...
If you are black, if you refuse to act in a way that society can understand, don't be shocked if people assume you are welfare leaches, drug dealers or some other burden on the community. It's easy to see if you are a hard working, God fearing person. When you start telling your kids you can resist authority because they are slave drivers, you make everyone of your race look like the same ignorant fool you are.
The whining that permeates any discussion in this country is sickening. People are way to F@#$ sensitive or willing to play the victim. Instead of aspiring to reach the same heights of someone else, they would much rater knock the others down into the gutter with them and I freaking hate it.
I am 2 minutes away from launching a write in candidacy for Clayton Bigsby to be the next POTUS.
Posted by: Bear
| April 29, 2008 4:27 PM
Where's Oprah?
Thanks!
Posted by: Flatus
| April 29, 2008 4:29 PM
"love it when lawyers fight, :)"
Posted by: Flatus2:52 PM
Lawyers arguing about FL elections process! That reminds me of something?? Damn, I hope not!! What's with you FL folks?
Posted by: Rezdog
| April 29, 2008 4:31 PM
Bowman and Bear I have you both.
Bowman, Black Jack Bob was my second choice purely as a hunch for my dad, but I had to go with Cool Coal Man as a hunch for my grandfather.
Posted by: Jamie
| April 29, 2008 4:33 PM
Oprah could also be at home writing a response to this letter forwarded to her by Wright.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obamas-church-published-anti-israel-letter
Posted by: Lost Art of Letter Wrighting | April 29, 2008 4:35 PM
Nice, Bear! Since I lead a sheltered life, I had to google:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Clayton+Bigsby
Posted by: Flatus
| April 29, 2008 4:35 PM
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/291638/clayton_bigsby/
Posted by: Bear
| April 29, 2008 4:46 PM
Hi, folks, you probably don't remember me, I signed up for this place about a month ago, then vanished. Tax season kind of got in the way. But it's over tomorrow! For a few months anyway.
So what's the deal with the horses?
Posted by: jeejee
| April 29, 2008 4:51 PM
Bear, too much, too much! If the local Faux station gets a hold of it, they'll think it's breaking news!
We are what we are...
Posted by: Flatus
| April 29, 2008 4:59 PM
Well I am bored. Frankly the most interesting story I've read today is this one which I found when googling Oprah...
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23615417-5012974,00.html
Posted by: EuroTom
| April 29, 2008 4:59 PM
Jee Jee
We pick horses for the Triple Crown purely for bragging rights. Pick any horse you want.
Adriano
Anak Nakal - Renee
Big Brown - Rezdog, Emmy
Big Truck - Colorado Bob Memorial Fund
Bob Black Jack - Bowman C
Colonel John - Craig Crawford
Cool Coal Man - Jamie
Court Vision - EdVb
Cowboy Cal - Whiskey Jack
Denis of Cork
Eight Belles
Gayego
Monba
Pyro - Sturgeone, Julie, Bear
Recapturetheglory - Ruth
Smooth Air
Tale Of Ekati
Visionaire - EProf2
Z Fortune
Z Humor - Z Humor
Posted by: Jamie
| April 29, 2008 5:05 PM
Jamie....
you missed Blue's pick of Denis of Cork.....
and Pogo wants Z Humor....
Bear...... clap! clap!..... you get the post of the day....
Posted by: RebelliousRenee
| April 29, 2008 5:13 PM
OK, for purely sentimental reasons, my pick is Eight Belles, because we're both KY born & bred.
She's going to come from behind & win it by a neck, just like Hillary.....
Posted by: jeejee
| April 29, 2008 5:13 PM
Jamie
can sock puppets play?
double down, double down, double down,
ON
Z Fortune
Your
little socky baby wants to play
Posted by: just another sock puppet | April 29, 2008 5:15 PM
Jamie
May I have Col. John, please ?
~Gidget
Posted by: Gidget
| April 29, 2008 5:19 PM
Jamie
If I may, gotta go with the girl--Eight Belles--please.
Thanks, Coreen
Posted by: Coreen | April 29, 2008 5:21 PM
Hey Craig-
President Carter just blamed the creation of Super Delegates on Teddy Kennedy!
Then he suggested that Bill and HRC have more class than Ted...too funny.
~Gidget
Posted by: Gidget
| April 29, 2008 5:22 PM
JeeJee
What you sayin'?
Hillary has a long neck?
I say she will win it by a nose.
Pinocchio, Pinocchio, Pinocchio
Hey, hey
Just like me A PUPPET.
poor little Pinocchio
Posted by: just another sock puppet | April 29, 2008 5:22 PM
Jamie...
I'm riding Big Brown along with Rez and Emmy. Hope we don't weigh him down!
Posted by: harborwoman
| April 29, 2008 5:26 PM
Jamie,
I tried to leave a comment at your blog, but can't seem to get it done either because I do or don't have a google account.
Leaving work soon. I'll try again from home.
Posted by: EdVB
| April 29, 2008 5:30 PM
Hi everyone,
Just got in from work. I saw the news and I did predict the Obama situation unfolding regarding Wright. I also have skimmed a few comments.
First, of course, Wright said a number of things that make perfect sense. There a many things that are differences and not "deficiencies". I even understand a certain anger as racism is far from extinct. That said, the saddest thing I can observe is that someone Obama dedidcated a book to, helped raise money for would be so egotistical and dim-witted as to butcher Obama's chances. I could point out the mean-spririted, stupid, callous and dishonest responses from Wright, but what would be the point? Personally, I doubt Obama believes much of what Wright spews. The real damage is that it took the general public a few sittings of Wright live to understand this person is a questionable Pastor far from the mainstream. It took only an hour or so to imagine what this guy says in private. The idea that Obama could be at Trinity for twenty years shows horrible judgment for a candidate for President. Even Oprah couldn't stomach this person.
It is clear that Obama felt the need to exploit the South End connection to further his political aims. The same could be said for Rezko and even Khaildi (large Palestinian population in the South End).
I am not going to rail against Obama's beliefs or that I think he secretly believes Wright's take on history, psychology or even the bitter parody of JFK. I will continue however, to question the judgment of Obama, how he responds only when cornered, his conventional rise to power while touting a fictional history of bipartanism and centrism. I don't mean to demean his patriotism or rationality. I just think his rhetoric and promises are ill-founded. The disingenuity of it strikes at his character. I really smart candidate would have anticipated this complete mess. Instead, he wants us to over-look his record and history and embrace a rather NeoLiberal agenda packaged as some kind of moderate centrism. Forget the pivot to center. He attacks Hillary for being a Republican Lite and dishonest (throw in racist inuendos) and hides a litany of sour friends, radical mentors, dubious advisors and questionable fund raisers.
Many of us saw this coming and predicted Obama would continue to shoot himself in the feet. The associations he drags have rendered him damaged goods. Again, just look at what a friend Wright is to Obama. He stabbed him in the back while mocking whites and defending Farrakhan. This is the person Obama declared his mentor and spiritual advisor. I would suggest another word for Wright than audacity. He basically called Obama a liar.
Rezko, Ayers, Wright, Power, Meeks and others that Obama associated with (by no means all the same) and called friends are his undoing coupled with a questionable foreign policy team and retread domestic policies. He has introduced divisiveness into the campaign, polarized the Democrats, denies Florida and Michigan. He should step down. The polls are going to get worse for Obama. Throwing in the towel would be the high road and perhaps he could be VP. If I were Obama, I would be considering this very seriously.
But then I suspect Obama and Michelle share a certain degreee of ego with Wright. I think Obama would rather drag down the Democrats in a losing battle with McCain.
Posted by: Maxtrue | April 29, 2008 5:35 PM
Why poor?
Posted by: Jamie
| April 29, 2008 5:35 PM
You're not saying Hillary has a long nose, I hope.
Well folks, I'm out of here, going to the vet. Will check in tomorrow. Have a nice evening.
Posted by: jeejee
| April 29, 2008 5:37 PM
You're not saying Hillary has a long nose, I hope.
Well folks, I'm out of here, going to the vet. Will check in tomorrow. Have a nice evening.
Posted by: jeejee
| April 29, 2008 5:38 PM
EdvB
The default is the dot in google. You can just put it in any of the other options that apply such as open ID or anonymous.
Posted by: Jamie
| April 29, 2008 5:49 PM
Jamie-
Poor Big Brown.because he now has three riders with the addition of Harborwoman...
~Gidget
Posted by: Gidget
| April 29, 2008 5:51 PM
Just wondering what if any effect Obama's repudiation of Rev. Wright today may have on Rev. Wright's fellow black ministers--and by extension their congregations.
We have been told that Rev. Wright is very well respected within the black church community(as well at the general community) therefore willl his fellow ministers rally around one of their own or will they follow Obama and distance themselves from Rev. Wright?
Posted by: Coreen | April 29, 2008 5:53 PM
Wonder how Obama's nose is holding up.
Sniff Sniff
Nose is a nose and by any other name...
Posted by: Kid Shalleen | April 29, 2008 5:53 PM
So...when are the C-Listers gonna have another get together in Vegas? I think it would be a lot fun for us to get together again and have a few drinks and a few laughs!
Posted by: Corey
| April 29, 2008 5:54 PM
Jamie...
Poor Big Brown because he has too many riders...we're squashing him!
Posted by: harborwoman
| April 29, 2008 5:56 PM
At the NAACP meeting the introductory remarks included the statement that the attacks on Reverend Wright were attacks on the black church community.
Apr 28, 11:07 PM EDT
Wright says criticism is attack on black church
By NEDRA PICKLER
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a defiant appearance before the Washington media, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright said Monday that criticism surrounding his fiery sermons is an attack on the black church and he rejected those who have labeled him unpatriotic.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OBAMA_WRIGHT?SITE=FLDAY&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Posted by: Harpy Diem | April 29, 2008 5:59 PM
Coreen,
If he wasn't attacking them, I wish he would attack the ignorant black parents who threatened to blow up a local school because the teachers, who bought pizza for their students attending Saturday school, committed the high crime of telling their child to clean up after themselves.
Apparently if a white teacher tells a black child what to do, it's slavery. They then said "let the Mexican janitors clean up, that's what they paid fo..."
When I told my friends to let the parents know that they as teachers were the real slaves because they had to put up with this crap while being unappreciated because they needed the paycheck...that really pissed off the black teachers...
F#$@#$ them all...I am now in the market for some good used firearms...Dooty, where should I look for something? How is that Winchester store?
Posted by: Bear
| April 29, 2008 6:00 PM
The rules will lead to Hillary because Obama is a chicken shit and a punk. I'm a liberal and she is what I've been waiting for. A real fighter! A white Muhammad Ali!
Hillary, Hillary...
Posted by: Ghost of Brian | April 29, 2008 6:00 PM
Ghost,
She may compare to Ali post Parkinson's but neither she, nor her husband nor her daughter could hold the Greatest's mucus filled mouth piece, his jock strap or his spit bucket.
Posted by: Bear
| April 29, 2008 6:04 PM
"His mama named him Clay , I'ma call him Clay." - The barbers in Coming To America
Posted by: Corey
| April 29, 2008 6:17 PM
Jamie, I'll take whatever nag no one else wants.
Posted by: Flatus
| April 29, 2008 6:17 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyfQzoUpdwY
Posted by: Corey
| April 29, 2008 6:20 PM
Barack Obama proved today that he is not what his supporters purport him to be.
My sympathies to them.....
Posted by: Oregon Democrat | April 29, 2008 6:20 PM
Oh that's funny ghost.
All Obama had to do was to make the changes before he ran. Instead, he felt he had to out flank Hillary on the Left and distancing himself from his history and associations ran the risk of hurting his Left support. He jumped on the Iraq slant and nurtured the activists.
Hillary failed to come up with a caucus strategy and didn't control her handlers. She did adapt, but Obama is sinking because of his arrogance in thinking Media would never turn on him and that he could have it both ways. On one hand, nurture the Left and on the other appeal to Republicans and Indies by pretending to be a moderate centrist while calling vetting a "distraction"..
He nearly pulled off the primary, but he would have been grilled in the general. I just don't see why the DNC would want to commit suicide and nominate Obama, but they have done it before. Maybe Obama still has a good chance...LOL
Bear, chill......serenity now serenity now
Posted by: Maxtrue | April 29, 2008 6:20 PM
Flatus , I don't think that Ann Coulter is running in the Derby. LOL!
Posted by: Corey
| April 29, 2008 6:23 PM
I like Hillary--She's tough and a winner. Like Me!
Posted by: Muhammad Ali | April 29, 2008 6:23 PM
Ali was a great one, no doubt. A shame he spent his greatest years in jail. His pretense was backed up by fire power. He never quit. He fought with a broken jaw. His style was anchored in talent and heart.
A lesson in this jaded era of pretenders......
Posted by: Maxtrue | April 29, 2008 6:27 PM
Yeah, Corey, but sure is a nag.
Posted by: Flatus
| April 29, 2008 6:30 PM
Max
That's why I like Hillary. She can adapt and change her strategy in midstream. Just as i did with Foreman "The Rumble In the Jungle"
My strategy changed from dancing to the "Rope a Dope"
She is flexible and adapts to the environment at hand, and overcomes!
A winner--like Me!
Posted by: Muhammad Ali | April 29, 2008 6:31 PM
ET I got you.
Flatus for obvious reasons I gave you "Smooth Air" : )
Posted by: Jamie
| April 29, 2008 6:37 PM
Max,
My title and my livelihood were taken from me by the bigoted Louisville draft board but i was never in jail.
Posted by: Muhammad Ali | April 29, 2008 6:37 PM
And Ali never lost his mind or center like some posters here. Takes some balls or delusion to have the nerve to use Ali's username. Must be an Obama supporter or just the local crank....
Hillary didn't win this yet and when she does it will not be without Obama haveing dug his own disaster. I don't think there was a single problem a real moderate/centrist could have not spun into the safety zone several months ago before the Obama-friendly media was FORCED to drill him.
I think the words were smug and arrogant. Today shows exactly why Hillary didn't drop out. I didn't see Wright making an obnoxious parady of Bill.
Posted by: Maxtrue | April 29, 2008 6:38 PM
ET I got you.
Flatus for obvious reasons I gave you "Smooth Air" : )
Posted by: Jamie
| April 29, 2008 6:40 PM
And Ali never lost his mind or center like some posters here. Takes some balls or delusion to have the nerve to use Ali's username. Must be an Obama supporter or just the local crank....
Hillary didn't win this yet and when she does it will not be without Obama haveing dug his own disaster. I don't think there was a single problem a real moderate/centrist could have not spun into the safety zone several months ago before the Obama-friendly media was FORCED to drill him.
I think the words were smug and arrogant. Today shows exactly why Hillary didn't drop out. I didn't see Wright making an obnoxious parody of Bill.
Posted by: Maxtrue | April 29, 2008 6:42 PM
Jamie, you are now an honorary Ohlfahrt.
Posted by: Flatus
| April 29, 2008 6:43 PM
Jamie...I would like my pick to be Smooth Air.
Since it is so windy here this year, I like the calm name. I need it to get over Richardson's and Bingaman's hot air
Posted by: Blonde wino
| April 29, 2008 6:43 PM
ET I got you.
Flatus for obvious reasons I gave you "Smooth Air" : )
Posted by: Jamie
| April 29, 2008 6:46 PM
I found this insightful essay on the Black Church and Reverend Wright
"What’s news to some is another day at church for others. I wish it would all go away, but I know that it won’t. I’m glad that Dr. Wright has the courage to stand up for what he believes in, and fight against this unfair, undeserved portrayal of his ministry."
http://dallassouthblog.com/2008/04/28/a-day-of-jeremiah-wright-in-dallas-church-this-morning-detroit-naacp-banquet-sunday-evening/
Jack
Posted by: whskyjack | April 29, 2008 6:47 PM
Max,
By the way, thanks for the nice words.
Posted by: Muhammad Ali | April 29, 2008 6:48 PM
Maxtrue: You nailed it
Posted by: Lynn | April 29, 2008 6:49 PM
The internal server error is running amok.
Flatus and Blonde Wino together it is.
Posted by: Jamie
| April 29, 2008 6:49 PM
"Appearing for his scheduled induction into the U.S. Armed Forces on April 28, 1967 in Houston, he refused three times to step forward at the call of his name. An officer warned him he was committing a felony punishable by five years in prison and a fine of $10,000. Once more, Ali refused to budge when his name was called.
As a result, on that same day, the New York State Athletic Commission suspended his boxing license and stripped him of his title. Other boxing commissions followed suit.
At the trial two months later, the jury, after only 21 minutes of deliberation, found Ali guilty. The judge imposed the maximum sentence. After a court of appeals upheld the conviction, the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court. During this time, people turned against the war, and support for Ali grew. Ali financially supported himself by opening a restaurant chain called "Champburger" and visiting many college universities to give speeches across the country. Joe Frazier, who had become champion during Ali's absence from the ring, often gave financial assistance to Ali during this time".
Wiki
Yes, spent his greatest days making Champburgers....
Posted by: Maxtrue | April 29, 2008 6:51 PM
I don't think anybody is having a worse week than Roger Clemens is.
Posted by: Corey
| April 29, 2008 6:54 PM
I am watching the most delightful movie called "August Rush" with a wild range of music. I hope this works, I did a You Tube search on the movie and there are scads of clips. Here is the search result page
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=August+Rush&search_type=
If the link doesn't work, do the search. It's worth it.
Posted by: Jamie
| April 29, 2008 6:59 PM
Flatus...Smooth Air is predicted to be the "Wiseguy Horse" this year --
It happens every year. And this year will be no exception.
By Wednesday of Derby Week, one horse will assert himself as the Derby contender who is all set to outrun his odds and sneak away with the roses. As the public takes notice, the horse in question will be labeled “The Wiseguy Horse.” For fans and handicappers who plan to stake their cash on his nose, this title will be unwelcome to say the least. The odds will drop, and the value will disappear.
Posted by: Blonde wino
| April 29, 2008 7:00 PM
I wonder what the rest of the church members are going to do. Will they shun the Obamas? Support him? Take away Wright's mansion?
Many possibilities.
Posted by: Flatus
| April 29, 2008 7:05 PM
Jamie...I like Robin WIlliam's "look" in the movie.
Posted by: Blonde wino
| April 29, 2008 7:09 PM
Jamie..I really liked August Rush..I only wish the ending had been developed more..Think I'll order it from Netflix and watch it again.
Posted by: Oregon Democrat | April 29, 2008 7:10 PM
Wino, I was hoping you'd share the ride because it's clear that you've got a handle on this type of thing. Should we sell tomorrow?
Posted by: Flatus
| April 29, 2008 7:10 PM
Wino, I was hoping you'd share the ride because it's clear that you've got a handle on this type of thing. Should we sell tomorrow?
Posted by: Flatus
| April 29, 2008 7:13 PM
C'Mon Superdelegates!!! Hillary is the only one who stands a chance to win in November.
And C'Mon People!! Help me raise money for Hillary so she can continue to compete!!
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/contribute/CVDH
Posted by: Tim | April 29, 2008 7:15 PM
Tim..I will give Hillary a donation now!!!
Posted by: Oregon Democrat | April 29, 2008 7:19 PM
Here's something to watch for now that Jeremiah Wright has spent another week casting feet of clay for Barack Obama:
Is anyone in the pro-Obama crowd (including Russert, Olbermann, et al) still using the imagery of Hillary and her evil superdelegate pals "ripping the nomination away" from him? That image was all the rage last week, but I haven't heard it much in the past couple days. Maybe people are re-computing the calculus of Idealism vs. Pragmatism.
I'm starting to think the Dem establishment might be looking at Obama like he's the guy who just had his third glass of Scotch at the afternoon tea party. As in:
After first Scotch: "Wow, we didn't realize he even drank. But what the heck. It's already 3 p.m."
After second Scotch: "Just watch. All these prudes are are going to start criticizing him for drinking."
After third Scotch: "He's not quite drunk yet, but we need to keep an eye on him in case he REALLY gets out of control. And for God's sake, let's start arranging now for someone to drive him home, just in case."
Fourth Scotch, anyone?
Posted by: LardassLiberal
| April 29, 2008 7:25 PM
Shuster took Gregory's place this afternoon and I wonder if it signals the end to G's show - if so, I may have to delete msnbc from my remote. Shuster let Maddow control the show as is her wont. Try muting her when she talks - it's fun to see if you can guess when she's going to stop.
Posted by: bethyboo
| April 29, 2008 7:27 PM
Flatus said: "Jamie, I'll take whatever nag no one else wants."
Flatus,
Choose your words carefully. Don't be surprised if you receive a large shipment of ex-wives.
Posted by: EdVB
| April 29, 2008 7:30 PM
Flatus...sorry, internal server error got me to...we wait. And LL, I like the scotch analogy.
Posted by: Blonde wino
| April 29, 2008 7:31 PM
Shuster took Gregory's place this afternoon and I wonder if it signals the end to G's show - if so, I may have to delete msnbc from my remote. Shuster let Maddow control the show as is her wont. Try muting her when she talks - it's fun to see if you can guess when she's going to stop.
Posted by: bethyboo
| April 29, 2008 7:32 PM
M.addow should reveal with each appearance that she is a schill for Obama on her AirObama radio show each day
Posted by: Oregon Democrat | April 29, 2008 7:32 PM
The rules this media hack is quoatingf are the REPUBLICAN PARTY rules; the rules of the CURRENT DEMOCRATIC primary season are just as the DNC presnts them.
Sorry for shouting but the level of dishonesty shown in the media is reaching new levels of disgusting loss of credibility. What happened to Ed Murrow and Walter Cronkheidt? Instead, we get P.T. Barnum.
Posted by: Emmanuel Winner | April 29, 2008 7:33 PM
Jamie...
Since me own dear grandmother Kate, God rest her soul, was born in Cork, I'd be remiss in not selectin' Denis of Cork. If Blue doesn't mind sharin', that is.
Posted by: LardassLiberal
| April 29, 2008 7:37 PM
Emmanuel Winner...
Who is Walter Cronkheidt? I never heard of him.
Posted by: LardassLiberal
| April 29, 2008 7:39 PM
Ed, I hope they know about Stinky--she has absolutely no sense of humor about, um, middle-aged waifs.
Posted by: Flatus
| April 29, 2008 7:46 PM
Anyone,
A couple weeks back both camps and some media outlets were suggesting that the right (i.e. Rush) were promoting Hillary so as to keep the contest competitive throughout the summer and implode the dems. So, if this is a bonafide strategy of the right, then with the Wright fiasco destroying Obama and making Hillary the front runner as has been suggested here the past week, might we expect the right to "come to the rescue" of Obama in the near future?
Posted by: Rezdog
| April 29, 2008 7:55 PM
I'll take Adriano , Jamie.
Posted by: Corey
| April 29, 2008 7:55 PM
I always learn something new in your postings, Craig, so here's something you may have missed. Your cohorts at MSNBC are running a "snippet" of Barama playing basketball against the University of North Carolina varsity, with the helpful if obvious commentary that the squad would never play such passive defense against anyone else. Ironically, the man who would be Dribbler in Chief still blew the easy layup!
Posted by: Tomas Gordon
| April 29, 2008 7:59 PM
Just out of curiousity, does anyone else find it horribly depressing to read the comments sections of political blogs? Does anyone else see most of the engagement here or in similar venues as being pretty knee-jerk? Does anyone else have to console themselves with the thought that perhaps the average voter may be thoughtful enough to research their candidate and come to their own conclusions completely outside of this echo chamber before deciding who gets their vote?
Posted by: Patient | April 29, 2008 8:05 PM
I wonder what the rest of the church members are going to do."
If you had watched this introduction at the NAACP meeting then you would have no doubt what they will do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSTFMl2vlow
It looks as if the real leaders of the African American community are circling the wagons. Thjey seem to view the attack on Reverend Wright as an attack on all of them
Barack Obama may have made a very serious mistake today. He may have failed the "are you one of us" test.
Jack
Posted by: whskyjack | April 29, 2008 8:06 PM
Now on KO...Wright being called a 'nut case' and buffoon.
Posted by: Blonde wino
| April 29, 2008 8:09 PM
I see where Hillary is offering to pay everyone's mortgage or something and giveaway free gas to the poor. A chicken in every pot maybe.
Does anyone here know where I go to sign up?
Posted by: pander bear | April 29, 2008 8:10 PM
Fourth Scotch:
He is soul searching looking in the mirror asking himself, am I white Barry or black Barack ? Who am I ? Why am I here?.....oh yeah... HOPE, that's what he said,....or did I say that? .... Who's talking? Stop screaming "yes we can". Can what? What do you people want from me? I am not God. He looks in the mirror again... am I? Gimme that cigarette! And pop in another Rev Wright video.
Posted by: unlikely_burrito
| April 29, 2008 8:13 PM
I see where Hillary is offering to pay everyone's mortgage or something and giveaway free gas to the poor. A chicken in every pot maybe.
Does anyone here know where I go to sign up?
Posted by: pander bear | April 29, 2008 8:13 PM
Now on KO...Wright being called a 'nut case' and buffoon.
Posted by: Blonde wino
| April 29, 2008 8:14 PM
The problem with the Republicans "rescuing" Obama is that it would let him off the hook over the very things they plan to nail him on. I think the moment is to crush Obama, but they won't even do that too much because it might rally support around Obama. They will just sit back and let surrogates rip him like Fox. MSM better be careful because their poll numbers are dropping fast. As they defend Wright, their numbers will drop further. We are seeing the tipping point. And man is there more coming Obama's way. I hear there is a picture of Obama toasting Auchi and even other bloggers are checking out the ISM connections that Gordo loves to post. Meanwhile, I also hear the DNC is getting an ad ready that shows US soldiers being blown up. Imagine the US running our foreign policy like the DNC runs the campaigns...holy crap. I though Democrats were looking to improve the situation.
Carter looked silly last night on Stewart and did anyone catch his lie? He said the administration did not object until after he was in the Middle East. What? Carter then says Hamas is ready to recognize Israel. Just amazing.
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/989ad9a1-d0ee-454f-94a2-8cb96b0b35cf
Posted by: Maxtrue | April 29, 2008 8:16 PM
It is quite amusing to watch some of you show your ignorance of Senator Clinton's proposals.
I suggest you go to HillaryClinton.com and get the information.
That would be preferable to shooting your mouths off with incorrect information.
Posted by: Oregon Democrat | April 29, 2008 8:19 PM
LARRY SINCLAIR UPDATE
In this 38 minute interview (from last night), Sinclair discusses the meeting he will have next week with Chicago Police Detective McVickers. It is about Donald Young, the gay choirmaster at Obama's church. He telephoned Sinclair shortly before his murder. Other Obama/Sinclair issues are covered, including efforts to block "discovery".
Interview link:
http://rense.gsradio.net:8080/rense/special/rense_L_Sinclair_042808.mp3
Posted by: GORDO | April 29, 2008 8:20 PM
Whskyjack, I read your comment as fececious. Not sure if that's how you meant it.
Does anyone think that if the democratic party IS actually tearing itself apart from the inside, which it very likely isn't, it might be doing so via the controversy-dependent blogs that receive advertising revenue by the hit counter? Might these blogs benefit from blowing daily events and revelations out of proportion, or presenting harsh or damning opinions about subjects that are perhaps in a grey area when they are given proper consideration? Is this annoying anyone?
Posted by: Self-Righteously Detached (Patient) | April 29, 2008 8:22 PM
Just heard a black XM radio host on O'Rielly say that his Black audience has a saying if Hillary gets the nomination....
They are going to " make it rain for McCaine"
isn't that special ?
Posted by: unlikely_burrito
| April 29, 2008 8:22 PM
McCain - no e
Posted by: unlikely_burrito
| April 29, 2008 8:24 PM
Pander Bear
You ignorance of the housing problem is showing. Home owners pay property taxes which fund education. If many families lose their homes, the whole house of cards collapses. In an inter-connected economy, it all comes tumbling down. When the housing crisis started raging last August, I knew a great depression was not far behind."The home bone is connected to the gas bone and gas bone is connected to the food bone and so on..."
I remember asking an economist from our local university how the self-employed are counted in the unemployment numbers. He told me the census bureau does a spot check on the self-employed and reports the numbers. I had asked him this question in January because of the large number of builders, realtors, mortgage brokers who are self employed were out of work. He told me most of them probably would find other employment and the problem was not that big. I disagreed. And I am sure the my local census worker is in Iraq or something, because I have never received "spot check" from the census bureau about employment.
Posted by: Blonde wino
| April 29, 2008 8:27 PM
Raise the gas tax , I say. Raise it! G-d damn these pot holes!
Posted by: Corey
| April 29, 2008 8:27 PM
I'd rather pay more at the pump than to have to drive these roads around here like an obstacle course trying to avoid all the potholes we now have because of the harsh winter we had!
Posted by: Corey
| April 29, 2008 8:31 PM
Jack..regarding your 8:06 post. I think it's right on target.
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/04/where-the-dem-rules-really-lea.html#comment-74575
Thing is, when I saw Obama coming out full bore against Rev. Wright today...all I could think of was that he has now had two major opportunities to deal with this in one of two ways: Either (Truly) embrace the guy or (truly) disown the guy.
And since he has instinctively sought the muddled middle in each opportunity (ie., first "kind of embracing" and now "almost totally disowning") he has actually managed to maximize the downside of BOTH options, while minimizing the advantages of either.
He's lost.
Posted by: LardassLiberal
| April 29, 2008 8:32 PM
Have nice evening everyone.
Three of my friends are going with me to do Hillary sign holding now.
Be sure to check out HillaryClinton.com for accurate information concerning her proposals and how they would be paid for.
Unfortunaely, you are all getting a lot of purposeful distortion of her proposals on this blog.
See you later..
Posted by: Oregon Democrat | April 29, 2008 8:33 PM
Max,
So there never was any efforts by the righties to keep Hill in the game to keep the dems at odds with one another? That was all hype.
BTW: I read that Scowcroft said, "that the U.S. would benefit from having direct talks with the leaders of its most distrusted adversaries."
I bet you think he's a kook like most folks who disagree with you about foreign policy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/28/brent-scowcroft-echoes-ob_n_99026.html
Posted by: Rezdog
| April 29, 2008 8:34 PM
Obama's stance on lifting the gas tax , both as a Illinois legislature and now. He was for it , now he's against it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/29/politics/main4056059.shtml
Posted by: Corey
| April 29, 2008 8:34 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVoPG9HtYF8&feature=related
Posted by: sturgeone | April 29, 2008 8:35 PM
Oh...and if you need any more evidence of how screwed Obama is by today's developments, look at the talking points of the most visceral BHO supporters on this very blog. They're desperately trying to change the subject.
Gas tax?
Uhhhhhh...I'd actually rather talk about Belgian Endive or combat-tank headgear safety, if you don't mind.
Posted by: LardassLiberal
| April 29, 2008 8:35 PM
Obama's stance on lifting the gas tax , both as a Illinois legislature and now. He was for it , now he's against it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/29/politics/main4056059.shtml
Posted by: Corey
| April 29, 2008 8:38 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVoPG9HtYF8&feature=related
Posted by: sturgeone | April 29, 2008 8:38 PM
Oh...and if you need any more evidence of how screwed Obama is by today's developments, look at the talking points of the most visceral BHO supporters on this very blog. They're desperately trying to change the subject.
Gas tax?
Uhhhhhh...I'd actually rather talk about Belgian Endive or combat-tank headgear safety, if you don't mind.
Posted by: LardassLiberal
| April 29, 2008 8:40 PM
How about this one , Sturge? LOL!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C85kTwFEymo&feature=related
Posted by: Corey
| April 29, 2008 8:43 PM
Has any other Trinity church goer said that Rev Wright's preaching out of character or very different then his church sermons?
Posted by: unlikely_burrito
| April 29, 2008 8:44 PM
LaL,
I think he did the right thing today. Everything can be said and done better, but overall he did a great job giving the circumstances. I haven't read or heard of any big backlash against Obama by Blacks over Wright as others have suggested here. Maybe someone should post the links about Black backlash against Obama. Jack?
Posted by: Rezdog
| April 29, 2008 8:45 PM
LaL,
I think he did the right thing today. Everything can be said and done better, but overall he did a great job giving the circumstances. I haven't read or heard of any big backlash against Obama by Blacks over Wright as others have suggested here. Maybe someone should post the links about Black backlash against Obama. Jack?
Posted by: Rezdog
| April 29, 2008 8:46 PM
How about this one , Sturge? LOL!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C85kTwFEymo&feature=related
Posted by: Corey
| April 29, 2008 8:46 PM
Wino, when I was in Florida, a nice woman from the Commerce Department (Census Bureau) would bring her laptop computer up to my condo every month and dissect the family finances. This went on for two years (I think) then she got another 'client'.
Posted by: Flatus
| April 29, 2008 8:47 PM
corey.........you win, you win..............lol
Posted by: sturgeone | April 29, 2008 8:47 PM
Sturg...Dry bones~
LOL
Posted by: Blonde wino
| April 29, 2008 8:51 PM
Not flip-flopping?
Posted by: Corey
| April 29, 2008 8:51 PM
corey..........you win, hand bones down.........lol
Posted by: sturgeone | April 29, 2008 8:54 PM
Not flip-flopping?
Posted by: Corey
| April 29, 2008 8:54 PM
Corey...LOL
White monsters have no rhythm.
Posted by: Blonde wino
| April 29, 2008 8:56 PM
Mr. Crawford,
Please see Rule 20(c)(6) which provides that "Nothing in the preceding sections of this rule shall be construed to prevent the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee from imposing additional sanctions..."
In other words, the rules require that a state be stripped of 50% of its delegates, but it permits the Committee from imposing any additional sanctions it sees fit.
Also, Senator Obama made a nationwide ad buy on CNN from which the network could not exclude Florida. The campaign, if I remember correctly, had this buy approved ahead of time by the DNC.
So under any rational reading of the rules, and considering that the primaries in those states were uncontested, the delegate breakdown for Michigan and Florida would be as follows:
Hillary Clinton - 0
Barack Obama - 0
John Edwards - 0
The Clinton must be getting desperate to claim the rules say something they plainly do not.
Posted by: Justin from VA | April 29, 2008 8:56 PM
Imagine this conversation if it could take place:
Rev Wright: See you in church this Sunday , Barack?
Barack: Sure thing , Reverend. NOT!
Posted by: Corey
| April 29, 2008 8:59 PM
Did any one notice that Rev.Wright came close to praising BillClinton when he said BC was the only one who tried to apologize for slavery but got a lot of flack for it
Ruth
Posted by: painter
| April 29, 2008 9:02 PM
LL,
Obama is certainly screwed. He was caught trying to have it both ways which is the eseential disingenuity of his campaign. He needed the Black vote to run the table on Hillary. He should have long ago expalined that being President and uniting the country means distancing himself from the extremes. He could have diffused the problems, but he arrogantly thought with MSM hekp he could deflect and ignore. His credibility is damaged on the Left and even more in the center.
He had his chance but decided to lecture America on race when much of the problem is anti-Americanism. Wright mocked JFK and LBJ and remember, Hillary was blasted for her LBJ remarks. This was all so inevitable.
Rez,
Just becasue Scowcroft says it is so, doesn't make it true. Some of Buch 1 policy lead to unecessary economic hardships for Russia and we all know the role played in Iraq. I could go on, but Iran and Hamas, Hizb'Allah have meade very clear their strategy. Talking is always a possibility and the door not locked shut. This has little to do with Carter's visit. He did nothing but trigger more attacks on Israel that have yet to stop as Gaddai calls Gaza a Nazi situation. Iran won't even listen to China or Russia while Syria was going forward with a nuclear program until Israeli talking slowed it down. Anyway, another thread perhaps....
McCain said that Hillary would be a tougher opponent. He is right. He did say he would like to see her bounce back however, because it drags out the Democratic fight. Sounds pretty accurate. Many Republicans would like to see Obama win because they will beat him.
Bottom line? Many Republicans think Hillary can't win so let her beat up on Obama. Once she gets ahead, I expecxt the attacks will come, but she is ready. Bosnia is a cakewalk compared to what she will unleash on the Republicans..
Posted by: Maxtrue | April 29, 2008 9:03 PM
Corey...since summer is approaching, I am sure the repugs will bring out the worn out pair of John Kerry flip flops for BHO to wear.
Posted by: Blonde wino
| April 29, 2008 9:07 PM
obama and wright are running out of busses to throw each other under.........
Posted by: sturgeone | April 29, 2008 9:08 PM
That's what a lot of people admire about GWB. He never panders. He does what he thinks is right , not what people want him to do.
Posted by: Corey
| April 29, 2008 9:09 PM
Had a steak buriito while I wrote that last post...sorry for the typos...LOL
Posted by: Maxtrue | April 29, 2008 9:11 PM
Well if you would like to count Obama's campaign running an ad in a market (intended for voters in SC) that happens also cover FL, as attempting to advertise in FL then fine. Strip all of his delegates and give her 1/2 of the delegates she would have won. So she gets an extra 50 delegates (if that). So she drops his total lead from 135 to 85. So even with your twisted, best case scenario logic, she still cannot make up 85 delegates. That would mean 200 out of the last 300 super delegates would have to vote for her. Not going to happen.
Posted by: mcdormbmm
| April 29, 2008 9:15 PM
Dinner time...have a good evening.
Posted by: Blonde wino
| April 29, 2008 9:15 PM
I am really loving how the Obamedia just a few weeks ago was defending Wright ("He speaks the truth," "White people don't understand black churches," etc.) Tonight: Wright is a lunatic, a traitor, an egomaniac, maniacal, a buffoon etc. Now Barack is a hero for having the guts to disavow him and poor Barack, how painful this must be for him. Jiminy crickets. This just keeps on getting better and better.
Posted by: Ally
| April 29, 2008 9:17 PM
j
Posted by: painter
| April 29, 2008 9:18 PM
I'll take a 4th Scotch!
Hola amigo/as! Hope you didn't kill anyone while I was gone.
Doesn't look like much has changed. Obama is still the presumptive nominee - and unless he somehow decides to drop out - there is no way the Super D's are overturning the entire primary season based on the results in the "big states" and arguments based on "polls" for a general election 6 months away.
Remember Obama has racked up a huge lead in pledged delegates based on (1) his dominance of the caucus system through superior organization and the enthusiasim of new voters, (2) his 10-in-a-row streak, and (3) 19 HUGE victories of more than 20 (not 9.2) points in states all over the Country including Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi, DC, Georgia, Vermont, Wyoming, Colorado, Dems Abroad, Nebraska, the Virgin Islands, Idaho and North Dakota (to name a few ; ).
If you think HRC is going to covince a Super Majority of the remaining Super Delegates to ignore these facts and be swayed with arguments based on polls and speculation - you might have another thing coming.
Plus - all the arguments I have made about this race still hold true - regardless of what the daily polls say.
http://www.dailykos.com/user/Warrentowers13
(and again - don't hold the "Kos" against me - it was the first blog I tracked down and use it only to post.)
Si Se Puede!
Posted by: warren
| April 29, 2008 9:21 PM
Everyone keeps talking about Rev. Wright as if he actually matters.
HRC keeps talking as if this is her nomination to win. A "sense of entitlement". How can HRC win if at least 67% of the electorate finds her untrustworthy and unethical?
And Lanny Davis, the worn sock puppet, is on Larry King talking about Rev. Wright about his judgement.
What at about HRC's judgement to stay married to a lying, cheating red-neck.
Posted by: Very Afraid | April 29, 2008 9:23 PM
News of the Day:
Obama drama Reverend Wrong
details at 11.
Posted by: sturgeone | April 29, 2008 9:47 PM
Max,
i'll defer to Scowcroft on matters of foreign policy whether I agree with him or not. Sorry!
IMO, it's too early to tell how all this Obama/Wright issue is going to shake out in the Black community. and sorry again, I think I'll look to some Black sources for guidance.
Posted by: Rezdog
| April 29, 2008 9:53 PM
Nick: Fine by me...won't be the last time.
I don't think Obama went to church all that often. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. I don't think he wanted to come out and say he wasn't a good "Christian" since he was so invested in being a man of faith who wanted to reach out to Evangelicals etc. He didn't want to admit that he joined the church for networking purposes. Period. It's really the only explanation that makes sense because if he went to church, he knew this man and what he was capable of.
As it is Obama is almost inferring that Wright is off his meds. It's like: "I just don't know what is up with the guy! I've never seen him like this! It must be his impending retirement! He's all outta whack!"
Posted by: Ally
| April 29, 2008 9:56 PM
Nick: Fine by me...won't be the last time.
I don't think Obama went to church all that often. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. I don't think he wanted to come out and say he wasn't a good "Christian" since he was so invested in being a man of faith who wanted to reach out to Evangelicals etc. He didn't want to admit that he joined the church for networking purposes. Period. It's really the only explanation that makes sense because if he went to church, he knew this man and what he was capable of.
As it is Obama is almost inferring that Wright is off his meds. It's like: "I just don't know what is up with the guy! I've never seen him like this! It must be his impending retirement! He's all outta whack!"
Posted by: Ally
| April 29, 2008 9:56 PM
I swear I am not doing anything kooky...it just posted twice for no good reason!
Posted by: Ally
| April 29, 2008 10:00 PM
barack is saying the good Rev is off the reservation.....that's kind of chancey, eh wot? Is Obama attacking the black church?
Posted by: sturgeone | April 29, 2008 10:01 PM
Without being familiar with Mr. Crawford, this has to go down as one of the most ridiculous stories written during the entire course of this primary. People are well within their rights to criticize Obama for his light experience, for the fact that his speeches often lack substance, for his inept handling of the Wright spectacle, and his comments about small town Americans. However, this story is so far off base that it is laughable. Alleging that Hillary Clinton should be entitled to 1/2 of the delegates that she would have won if the Florida primary would have been official while Obama should receive none for violating DNC regulations against campaigning in Florida is ridiculous. The link that Mr. Crawford puts in his article exposes this fabrication. Senator Obama bought ads on CNN and MSNBC which are national networks. There would have been no way for him to prevent these adds from being received in the Florida market. If we are going to criticize Obama, lets do so for legitimate reasons.
Posted by: max czernin | April 29, 2008 10:02 PM
Sturg: At first we were told we didn't get Wright because we didn't understand the Black Church. I cannot tell you how many times I had to listen to Air Ameribama tell me what a rube I was. Now Wright doesn't represent the Black Church. Did you not get the memo?
Posted by: Ally
| April 29, 2008 10:04 PM
Wright not black church?
sturgeone confused.......
Posted by: sturgeone | April 29, 2008 10:06 PM
i bet obama never wanted to go to that danged church to begin with.......his wife probably made him go.......
Posted by: sturgeone | April 29, 2008 10:10 PM
Maxtru,
Keep dreamin... Many people I know have Clinton fatigue. If Hillary had the gall to lie about an event that she knew was documented on film.... or in other words told and un-necessary lie, what won't she lie about?. Bill and Hillary had their chance and his (Bill's judgment) was controlled by the little head. Bill chose instant gratification in the Oval office instead of leaving a legacy worth remembering. Bill disgraced this country and now he and Hillary in their all consuming quest for power, arrogantly feel entitiled to 4 more years. Now... Now.. I know you will say we shouldn't hold Hillary responsible for the past actions of her spouse. Wish you were that generous with Obama regarding Wright.
ONLY THE PEOPLE will determine what happens to Obama and his campaign from this point forward. All true Obama supporters will stay with him. Nobody in America should have expected his run as the first black president to be an easy one, but I think all that doesn't kill us makes us strong. What Obma is going through is tough, its sad, but it is also necessary. The remaining events left in this election season are going to remind all Americans of the good, the bad and the ugly in these United States especailly as it relates to race.
Posted by: andersting
| April 29, 2008 10:22 PM
Sturge: Another theme of the media coverage yesterday and today was that Wright did not represent the "Black Church" as he indicated in his speech at the National Press Club. Again, there has been a weeving and meandering media narrative surrounding this story. Take your Dramamine...no saying what will curves are ahead.
Posted by: Ally
| April 29, 2008 10:23 PM
obama probably never wanted to go to that danged church in the first place.......his wife probably made him go.......
Posted by: sturgeone | April 29, 2008 10:23 PM
harrumph.
Posted by: sturgeone | April 29, 2008 10:25 PM
Mr Crawford
You should tell the truth - You know very well it was Sen Clinton who campaigned in Florida before the primary. She was here Jan 27th the day after she lost in SC - and the hastily arranged rally in Davie on Jan 29th was part of the campaign as well
Sen Obama did NOT campaign here
His cable ads ran thru Feb 5th - the Fl primary was Jan 29th. I think the Obama campaign has proved they know how to handle money - and do you think they would waste monet advertuising in Florida AFTER the Jan 29th date had passed?
I have seen you shill for Sen Clinton on MSNBC so many times - but if you put it in print- try for accuracy
The MSM needs to have some conscience - at least try and fake it
Posted by: alison | April 29, 2008 10:36 PM
Nick...I totally got it. I knew what you were up to.
Posted by: Ally
| April 29, 2008 10:38 PM
yep.....honesty seems to have a clinton bias.......
Posted by: sturgeone | April 29, 2008 10:40 PM
Hey...what's up with all of the protesters coming to the site today? Is Craig's post really all that controversial or is there a calling to come here and riot on somebody's blog somewhere in cyberspace?
Posted by: Ally
| April 29, 2008 10:41 PM
Nick...no worries! I totally knew what you were referring to. I thought it was hilarious that you remembered and I love ya for it : )
(And by the way, I was right about Chris being sweet.)
Posted by: Ally
| April 29, 2008 10:56 PM
Oh Yeah... really fair, Craig. Hillary signs a pledge that both states will not count and that the primaries in both states are INVALID, then turns around and claims to have won both states, when her opponent in MIchigan was "uncommitted".
And, whether Obama gave an "interview" or made a statement to the press in Florida, he did not campaign there, not giving voters a chance to know him at a time when Clinton name recognition was far greater than Obama recognition. IS IT FAIR TO SAY SHE WON THERE???
And in both states, thousands upon thousands of voters did not even go to the polls because they were told their "primaries" were invalid and would not count. Does that make for a fair election???
PLEASE, GIVE ME A BREAK !!! To try and change the rules, or the results, of an election AFTER THE FACT, is a direct assault, I believe, on the very heart of our democracy. Is this what the Clinton campaign will be able to shove down our throats??
Are we sheep, believing that Hillary "won" these primaries just because she, and a few gullible or biased reporters say so???
Posted by: Hill-B-Gone | April 29, 2008 11:03 PM
Seriously, where are all these people coming from? This is not exactly a fiery post by Craig...at least not fiery enough for all of this OUTRAGE!?$#
Posted by: Ally
| April 29, 2008 11:06 PM
Ally...it is an invasion of the Obama spinning tops. Funny thing, Craig and his broken leg were in Florida at the time of the primary and we know he was watching a lot tv.
Posted by: Blonde wino
| April 29, 2008 11:12 PM
Invasion of the Obamasnatchers?
Posted by: Ally
| April 29, 2008 11:15 PM
Obama needs to drop out NOW:
What's been most disturbing about this entire episode is how dishonest Obama has been, from his pretense that he didn't know about Wright's radicalism to his excuse now that Wright has somehow become a different person. How insulting that he thinks we'd buy any of this. I was struck in the FNS interview how, when asked what controversial statements he had heard from Wright, he said Wright would talk "about some of the problems in the black community in very controversial ways." He probably did—but these were the most controversial things Obama heard? He was obviously trimming, trying to make Wright sound like an equal-opportunity hater. The simple thing for Obama to have done would have been to tell the truth from the beginning and say that he had made a mistake in staying at the church for so long, but he did so for complicated reasons that he could have spelled out in eloquent terms that would have made the press swoon. Instead, he did his dance in Philadelphia and uttered that line that will now haunt him. So now is Obama disowning the black community?
Posted by: fladem23 | April 29, 2008 11:23 PM
I live in Fla. and Clinton did NOT campaign here. You are allowed per the rules to attend fundraisers which she did. That does not qualify as campaigning under the rules. The rally she held on the 29th was held AFTER the primary and also therefore did not violate the rules. Obama's commercial, which WAS campaigning, and did violate the rules, ran here DURING the run-up to the primary.
Posted by: Countourvotes | April 29, 2008 11:27 PM
Ally and Nick
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OwHU3rCu2Yc&feature=related
Posted by: Blonde wino
| April 29, 2008 11:29 PM
Ally
This has been linked somewhere.
So we are getting their drive by posters.
Jack
Posted by: whskyjack | April 29, 2008 11:30 PM
"All true Clinton supporters will stay with her. Nobody in America should have expected her run as the first woman president to be an easy one, but I think all that doesn't kill us makes us strong. What Clinton is going through is tough, its sad, but it is also necessary. The remaining events left in this election season are going to remind all Americans of the good, the bad and the ugly in these United States especailly as it relates to gender and sexism."
The names and situations were changed to protect the innocent.
Posted by: Blonde wino
| April 29, 2008 11:36 PM
Rez,
Backlashs don't happen in 7or8 hrs.
But with this Wright thing, Obama is at odds with a number of important local, AA leaders across the country. It can't help him.
HRC could take advantage but she is too stupid.
Jack
Posted by: whskyjack | April 29, 2008 11:38 PM
Yesterday on npr, I listened to a piece about Reverend Wright. They had on an Obama supporter and a Clinton supporter.
Obama had some cracker from North Carolina who was busy attacking Wright. Clinton Had Reverend Emanual Cleaver , my congressman from Kansas City.
I like my congressman, instead of attacking Obama with the latest HRC talking points as the Obama man was, he tried to give context to what Wright was saying and even defended him some. I didn't catch it all as I was in and out of the house but what I did hear I found interesting.
BTW Cleaver is the real deal when it comes to being a community leader.
Jack
Posted by: whskyjack | April 29, 2008 11:52 PM
I maintain my support for Obama, 100%. I am not in the least disturbed by the Wright affair. We are not completely defined or bound by all the people around us, not even by those close to us.
I have seen enough of Wright at this point to know that he's very bright and compelling. And I also acknowledge that he says very controversial things that I don't agree with. So what?? I'm not so narrow-minded to be disturbed by this. NOR IS OBAMA.
I think Obama is COMPLETELY capable of having people in his life of ALL PERSUASIONS. This is part of what makes him so broad in his perspective and his vision.
He is capable of understanding many different points of view, while maintaining his own. This is one of his greatest strengths, and if he gets a chance to be president, it will make him a magnificant world leader, capable of communicating with and negotiating with anybody.
Yep, he's still my guy. The Clinton attempts to keep Wright the focus in this campaign won't fool anybody with an ounce of brains in their head. Obama has confidence in the intelligence and discernment of voters. So do I.
Posted by: Hilly-Billy | April 29, 2008 11:53 PM
first of all, i wouldn't be surprised if craig, a racist, is on the clinton payroll...
from the beginning, before iowa, he's been dogging obama and talking up hillary...
bottom line you bunch of whiners, if you don't like the rules and actions of your own party, state and national, quit it...
get a new party or better yet, as most of you love to say, vote for mccain...
never gonna happen...
so deal with the mess your local politicians put you in and stop complaining...
at the end of the day, i think the racist in disguise hillary will succeed in making obama electable..
she may in fact convince other old white dixiecrats/reagan democrats who are superdelegates to give this thing to her...
i REALLY hope that happens so we all know what this party is all about and then my guy can run as an independent, hillary your dixiecrat and mccain as the devil...
i know who is going to win...
Posted by: RLamas | April 29, 2008 11:55 PM
A FEW FACTS FOR EVERYONE'S EDIFICATION:
Obama is now only 288 delegates short of winning the nomination. OK FOLKS, HERE'S THE REAL SCOOP...... even by conservative estimates, by the end of all the primaries, Obama will be less than 100 delegates short of winning the nomination.
THIS MEANS that Obama will only have to win 1/3 of the remaining superdelegates' endorsements, in order to GO OVER THE TOP and win the nomination.
Superdelegates have been climbing on board with Obama to the tune of 79 since February 5th. In this same time period, Hillary has only gotten a total of 8 superdelegate endorsements. YES, YOU READ THIS RIGHT !!
Any questions, folks???
Posted by: Hillary=Glenn Close/Fatal Attraction | April 30, 2008 12:02 AM
Wow, Ally, the pods are opening.
Who knew this group of extremely persuasive and intelligent posters would come by and straighten us out? Maybe Craig was correct that HRC supporters get up earlier. : )
Posted by: Blonde wino
| April 30, 2008 12:06 AM
A FEW FACTS FOR EVERYONE'S EDIFICATION:
Obama is now only 288 delegates short of winning the nomination. OK FOLKS, HERE'S THE REAL SCOOP...... even by conservative estimates, by the end of all the primaries, Obama will be less than 100 delegates short of winning the nomination.
THIS MEANS that Obama will only have to win 1/3 of the remaining superdelegates' endorsements, in order to GO OVER THE TOP and win the nomination.
Superdelegates have been climbing on board with Obama to the tune of 79 since February 5th. In this same time period, Hillary has only gotten a total of 8 superdelegate endorsements. YES, YOU READ THIS RIGHT !!
Any questions, folks???
Posted by: Obama '08 | April 30, 2008 12:06 AM
Floor fight is now located on the NEW THREAD
Posted by: Blonde wino
| April 30, 2008 12:15 AM
It is amazing that OPRAH has not been mentioned lately.Well she is smart and can run faster than the rest from rev. Wright and her church AND OBAMA.What does that say?You can answer for yourself.
Posted by: ice | April 30, 2008 12:44 AM
"But with this Wright thing, Obama is at odds with a number of important local, AA leaders across the country."-Jack
What do you have on this, I'm curious.
Posted by: Rezdog
| April 30, 2008 12:56 AM
Thanks for the information, Craige! We should demand the DNC to stick to its rule, and give the delegates that Hillary won, and gave Obama nothing!
This will give Hillary a net gain in delegate count of
105, which means if she does well for the rest of the primaries, she will take the lead in delegate count as well as the popular vote count. So, she should be the legitimate nominee! I hope the DNC plays fair with Hillary!
Posted by: Jake | April 30, 2008 1:28 AM
Anyone blaming Hillary for Obama's Wright/Ayers/Elitist problems is grasping at straws. He's just not a solid candidate. His real problems are inexperience and naivete, and trying to always have everything both ways. Oh, yeah, and that sense of entitlement. And it's his own damn fault for running too soon and airing his dysfunctional relationships during a presidential primary. If he had had the dedication, stamina, and perseverance to complete a term or two at a national office level - to observe, and to learn - we would have gotten to know him in action like any other politician. We would have watched him through history. We would have studied his record. Now, he has neither history nor a record.
Republicans and middle-Americans alike want to know every single thing about this guy; and most realize the latte liberals and 90 percent of blacks have given him the benefit of the doubt while wearing blinders. The politically correct MSM also gave him a pass for the first two thirds of the race. It's his supporters' own fault he's in a tough spot and his campaign is imploding. Your uncritical adulations have raised suspicions tenfold. You go on and on without saying anything: many supporters I know - like Obama himself - won't even debate the merits of his candidacy. "I'm for Obama, and I don't want to talk about it." You look foolish.
Posted by: doctorate | April 30, 2008 1:52 AM
NEW THREAD
Posted by: Jamie
| April 30, 2008 8:10 AM
welcome to newcomers, and thanks to RealClearPolitics Evening Edition for linking us yesterday: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2008/04/29/index.html
hope some of the newbies will stick around and engage the daily debate here
New thread at http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/
Posted by: Craig Crawford
| April 30, 2008 9:39 AM
The United States is a beacon of freedom to the entire world. The United States of America is a great nation populated by a kind, compassionate and generous people who value human life, defend the poor and downtrodden. When elected, the President of the United States takes an oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
What are they saying about Barack Obama:
Ahmed Yousef, chief political advisor to the Prime Minister of Hamas stated "We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the elections,"
Ali Abunimah, co-founder of the Electronic Intifada website, which is a website for the radical Palestinian liberation group International Solidarity Movement (ISM), wrote of Senator Obama "Obama implicitly admitted that Wright's views were rooted in opposition to Israel's deep ties to apartheid South Africa, and thus entirely reasonable,"
The Electronic Intifada website (http://electronicintifada.net) recounts
Israel's assault on the people of Gaza is so horrendous that it will not soon be forgotten. This vicious attempt by Israel to destroy an entire nation has tipped the scales for good and Zionism will forever be remembered as a blemish in the history of the Jewish people. The people of Gaza, however, give us hope and they will forever be remembered for their courage and resilience during these trying times
Rashid Khalidi, international scholar and critic of Israel’s policy of defending itself against Palestine is a good friend of Barack Obama’s. Obama recalled meals prepared by Kahlidi’s wife, Mona, and the intellectually stimulating conversations that challenged Obama’s thinking. Referring to lessons learned from Rashid, Obama says these have been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."
MICHELLE OBAMA: ‘FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MY ADULT LIFETIME, I AM REALLY PROUD OF MY COUNTRY’
What are they saying about Senator Clinton:
The Sudanese paper Al-Sahafa in an editorial stated if Senator Hillary Clinton were to be elected U.S. president, she was likely to fire Tomahawk missiles on Sudan just as President Bill Clilnton did.
Who do you trust to defend the United States of America and your freedom?
Posted by: BIll | May 13, 2008 11:40 PM
Post A Comment