What happened to the posts after 8:35pm last night?
I didn't expect Obama to do very well in last nights primary since it's a Klan state and after all a black man on the ballot with a white person is not expected to win in a racist state.
Still I congratulate the Hillary supporters on her win.
Tucker is one of the worst trouble makers out there.
His insinuations are much worse than lies. (It is much easier to point out the truth than untangle it.)
Because Tucker claims the "media" supports Obama - all the jackass things the pundits say can also be tied to Obama. (And then he proceeds to say some of the most despicable things on the airwaves.)
And let's be clear. There were plenty of states Hillary did not campaign hard in where she knew she had no shot.
Obama went to WV (and shot a mean game of pool I might add). And it wasn't as if he was sitting on his ass the rest of the time. Obama is campaigning in the battle ground states in order to cut off McCain's tour at the pass.
(And I think he did not make a late speech because he did not want to steal any of HRC's thunder.)
I Wil say this once and only once, that myspace page is someone's sick idea of a joke! If whoever did it thinks it will intimidate me sorry, wont work, is there no low trick you obama supporters will resort to? I never had a myspace page and now onward towards victory for Hillary
Sen. Clinton may have taken the center at the expense of the base, but isn't that what any Democratic candidate will have to do in order to win in November?
Nobody is saying it is a "game changer," dog. This game has actually been over a long time. The supers HAD to give this to Obama no matter what. Even if he desecrates a cross, he'll be the candidate. The old boy network picked their candidate, put him in a "change" mask, and give him the nomination.
Oh,and Anon -- I knew you'd be taking aim at working class, rural America with your usual mentally challanged world view. Klan state! Nazis! Aliens! Black helicopters!
Any candidate that is close to winning the Presidential nomination and had the kind of results they got in WVA should be embarrassed by it. There is no excuses for that one.
I respect you a lot and agree with you that Hillary appeals to a centrist
group of Democrats and that, sadly, she is probably down for the count. But, I don't think that the real base of Dems is the ultra-liberal Obama elites.
For the last eight years, certain factions of the Dem party have been moving more to the far left, succeeding in nominating unelectable candidates who appeal to the Huffington-Post set. The neo-libs are louder, have more money, and are generally more educated, but not always. Their voices drown out the true majority of Dems who often are bullied by the Darth Axelrods and Howard Deans.
What is happening this year is that many young, first time voters are
charmed by the media blitz and bling, bling that the Obama campaign has
presented. I don't believe that most of these kids actually know much about
the policies of Obama--they are not what I would call the base of the Dem
Party. But, for this year, they are voting in droves for Obama.
I don't believe Hillary Clinton is losing this race because she has miscalculated her base or for any serious mistakes in her campaign. She is
losing because the media trashed her and mocked Bill, painting them as racists in order to pull in 95% of the African American vote. Also, sexism played a part in marginalizing Senator Clinton, too. Pundits created a daily hostile environment for Hillary, whether on the internet or on television.
The Dem elites may win the race against Hillary Clinton but for the third
time in a row, they will probably lose the Presidency.
Heather: you absolutely did have a myspace page and no Obama supporter put that thing up there. Your first misstatement of the day and it's only 7:13 a.
If you took it down, that is your choice and your prerogative.
It included a slide show with nice photos of a graduation ceremony from Notre Dame College (congrats there, if that's true) and next slide show in queue was of your purported masturbation fantasies.
I'm told all the Notre Dame grads are doing that on their Myspace pages this year. De rigeur.
=========
Heather: I could care less what is up on your Myspace page. Free speech and a free personal expression. Have no problem with porn, if it is how you chose to express your unique personality and gifts. It appears you went to some effort creating the page, and you have a nice eye for composition and color. So do admire your creativity there.
Isn't a little early to be fighting? As I said before , it's not about who supports who here. Some people think others are just jerks. That's how I see it.
Why are you guys being mean to Heather? You just can't be happy enough that your candidate won? You best be thinking about how to pull him through the general election instead of using your time and energies harassing women who are Clinton supporters.
Some people don't like each other here , Sturge. We all know that. We're just more direct in expressing that dislike now. We gave up being subtle about it awhile ago.
"She is losing because the media trashed her and mocked Bill, painting them as racists in order to pull in 95% of the African American vote. Also, sexism played a part in marginalizing Senator Clinton, too. Pundits created a daily hostile environment for Hillary, whether on the internet or on television. "
the people in Iowa are mostly white, and the people in W V are mostly white.......something must have happened in between, eh? an inference which has been drawn by mo dowdy, for one......
On my other group , someone went to the profile page of someone nobody liked and wrote up a bogus profile on her page a few years ago. This person who did it thought it was pretty funny , apparently. But , I knew the person they did this to well enough to know that it was not their own work. It was a bogus profile.
Alicia K: Heather has put up some brutally nasty posts that border on psychotic.
I would suggest cruising through some earlier Crawfords List threads -- you can use the "find on page" function at "EDIT" on internet toolbar -- look at what Heather has put up over the past few weeks.
Substitute Hillary or Clinton or whomever you admire for what she's said about Obama and his supporters.
And pay note to the meanness towards Republicans and those she sees as the enemy. Some cruel and disturbing imagery and language.
No one is harrassing Heather. I just called her on a lie, plain and simple, which she is trying to blame on some grand conspiracy.
The early voters got all excited about the new kid on the block. Like a consumer they liked the packaging, I need one because everyone else has one. Then in the last few weeks they opened the package and were not that pleased what they found inside. Some found it pretty empty, not much there. So now what do the supers do?
But do you have kids? Do you ever hear what people do on myspace or even on facebook?
Ever read about how false pages get set up to mess with people... and not just by teenagers?
Someone I know had a page like "Heather's" set up by someone she had dumped with reason. It caused her a lot of hurt. But very little real damage as no one who knew her believed she was a high dollar bop escort.
False personal pages get created all the time using cut and paste... most often from unlovely motivations.
I went to look.
Did you notice that person's ID reads "married", the city is NYC and the state is... Alabama?
I will add that Heather on her blog and at this site has a distinct writing style which seems to be a healthy part of her identity. That myspace page hasn't any.
If I thought it was her creation, I'd agree with you.
While anything's possible and I have no proof... I say it's a fake.
Again, that's my opinion just as what you expressed was yours.
Go take on the world as you always do, fighting hard and fairly.
Corey: if that happened to Heather, she has my sympathy and I wish her success in having the authorities track down whoever put up the myspace page, which one accessed off a link to her blog.
Once upon a time (called the 70's) there was a young actor working in NYC who appeared in a lot of plays at the Circle in the Square in midtown. (There was one downtown, too.) He specialized then in playing English working class blokes.
Ted, who ran the place (into the ground), liked that actor as did a group of women from Connecticut who formed a theater club dedicated to him.
When they went to see a play called "Spokes", the Times ran a nice piece about them as well as the young guy whose name was John Lithgow.
In today's NYT there's a review of a terrific one man Lithgow show (directed by one of a bunch of great directors 'round here, Jack O'Brien) about his family... and storytelling. Which is something every family does from generation to generation.
It's gotten ugly here. People have changed. The people here are gonna believe what they wanna believe. Be it about other posters or the candidates. As they say, believe half of what you see and none of what you hear. I knew a guy who got banished from a website I frequent . After he got banished I checked his profile page. Here's what I found on it:
Dang. Craig, it ate my post, again. (It was most eloquent and a great loss to all, I assure you.) Back to cut & paste from Word for me.
Still wondering why BO supporters think the only reason people don't vote for their guy is race? Could it be that he comes off as arrogant, insincere, lacks the ability to illuminate us all with details of his plan for "change" and seems about as competent to hold office as W? Could it be that people don't want to vote for an unknown & now, an unknown with some uncomfortable associations? Nope, just play your little race card. Very simple & you get to blame someone else instead of taking a good, hard look at your candidate.
Great Hillary victory yesterday - wish it had come earlier and more often.
AP, I'm sorry, you're wrong. WV is not a Klan state. There is certainly racism here - sort of like in NH. It had a modest Klan presence 50 years ago, mostly in the southern coalfields down in the part of the state near Kentucky and Tennessee, but there is no evidence of the Klan here now. Sounds like sour grapes and your typical BS to me. I'd wager you can find much more of a KKK presence among the shitkickeing rednecks in the northern part of your state than the southern part of mine.
vad, told you the voters would come out in big numbers.
Heather, FWIW, I never saw the link or the Myspace site - stuff like that is blocked at work, and I don't go looking for that sort of stuff at home. Plus, if it is like what was described by some who dislike you and your opinions here, it strains credibility to say the least. Kill the link and don't worry about it.
profmarcia, I agree about the media slant you point out, but I don't agree that Hillay's camaign isn't guilty of gross miscalculations - failing to organize and get a higher percentage of the delegates in caucus states while Obama ran rampant there was a miscalculation that has likely cost her the nomination.
You're right on!! This is a coronation of Obama now.
WRITE IN HILLARY IN NOV.. GO HILLARY
Dean, Kennedy et al have sold out the heart and soul of the larger democratic base for the "new" paradigm.. blacks, far left elites, and college kids. The hard working white men and women have been officially classified as a non factor in their "new" 50 state strategy for the electoral college.
41 point victory in WV and a look at Clinton wins in large swing states is still a powerful message to send to super delegates today.. must be some significant nail biting going on. I think the new coalition is a loser
that was always her risk. To win the general election she might not win the nomination.
Obama has been shortsighted with his campaigning. He views winning the nomination at the only goal.
Last night it came back to bite him with a vengence. I know of counties here in Missouri that have an active Klan , where Obama did better than he did in WV. It is hard to find a county in Missouri where he fell under 30%. WV is a result of his campaign messages and choices. He could have done much better in WV. It is all the stupid mistakes he made over the last 2 months that has brought him down.
They showed interviews where the people said that they would never vote for a black man.
They also stated that 27 % I believe it was would never vote for a black person. Outside of that I believe there is still a lot of racism in the rural areas there.
And your probably right that there are more racists in my state, but like you said they must be further north than I am.
As to Heathers website I looked at it and there is what appears to be a link to a myspace page. The link was inactive though when I went to her site.
I did a look at the page source and found the link and did check it out last night after it was mentioned she had a myspace page and it was porn. Unless someone hacked her blog account I don't see how anyone could have put that in her template though it is entirely possible.
I think Dean advantaged the Obama campaign in all those caucus states. My theory is he's been setting up his 50 state strategy since 2004. I remember reading he went down South and then out West to open office/outposts etc. Then he let the Deanics and the power of his internet operation from 2000 kick in to advantage BO. I believe Obama is the invention of the Dean, Kennedy et al. if not hand picked.
I have been troubled by this primary election since kennedy had his tantrum in Feb. Something didn't feel right. Hillary polls very well against mcCain in the electoral college and any reasonable person or super delegate can see that.
So this proud democrat will not be coming home to the party in Nov.
The problem is that the Democratic party's "Base" is not liberal. The party's movers, shakers, power brokers, and activists are "liberal". The majority of the voters likely to vote Democratic (except for the extremely important AA vote) is going to Hillary. This race has stayed as close as it has because he has gotten that core AA vote, the smaller "elite" vote, and the new "idealist" crowd that he has brought in who may or may not stay around. She has the older AA vote and the broad mass of the populist, working class, somewhat conservative branch.
For votes, that is about as close to 50/50 as you can get and no matter who finally gets the nomination, there had better be a lot of making nice going on.
"I did a look at the page source and found the link and did check it out last night after it was mentioned she had a myspace page and it was porn. Unless someone hacked her blog account I don't see how anyone could have put that in her template though it is entirely possible."
Who frequents this site and has IT experience and is a psycho? And who has pals who are cyber stalkers and have tried to control this site...
Bowwow, I agree with your skepticism of the new coalition and the planned redrawing of the electoral math - the polls in the states that are expected to switch don't support its success.
BTW, to put the Clinton victory in perspective, she won every county in WV. WV was a Clinton mirror of Obama's Hawaii results - of course she had no ties to the state.
Who frequents this site and has IT experience and is a psycho? And who has pals who are cyber stalkers and have tried to control this site...Questions
Questions, I've been trying to figure this out too.
I don't know much about hacking but it's scary to think that if you speak your mind, there's an enemy here.
Corey..... I believe that Obama will be the Democratic nominee.... but I think it's finally come to dawn on the Obama supporters on this blog that he may indeed have a huge problem come the general election..... namely... a big group of Clinton supporters who will not vote for him....
and I think as that realization turns into a reality come this fall..... the Obama supporters will get much nastier...... I suggest you ignore them.....
it's a beautiful day up here...... gonna party hardy today......... YEEEEHAAAW!
Oh. Super DELEGATES! My bad. BTW , the Obama rally starts at 7:00 tonight. The doors open at 5:00. No bags will be allowed. The Van Andel Arena holds 12,000+ people. A full house is expected. Too bad I have my Mom's b-day party tonight and then the Red Wings are on at 8:00. If he could have waited a day , I would have a free evening.
I believe that Obama will be the Democratic nominee.... but I think it's finally come to dawn on the Obama supporters on this blog that he may indeed have a huge problem come the general election..
RebelliousRenee
Renee, that huge problem is the so called "working class"..
Way back, they used to be called the backbone of America.
Now they're just a contituency that Obama doesn't need.
Corey......what's all this I hear about super deli gates? What was wrong with the old deli gates? what, is someone going to break in and steal some corned beef?
Well Jack , I didn't really care for that guy. So , when I saw that picture , I laughed. I thought , "Wow , somebody hated that guy enough to put up a picture like that!" Then I thought , "Maybe he did that himself? Just tell tell us what we could all do." I guess it's all in how you look at it.
It has been amusing and disgusting to watch the morning shows this A.M. They had a "plan" for
Clinton and it just didn't work out exactly how they imagined it would.
The "plan" has been successful enough to do irrepairable damage to Clinton. Not in the "plan", is when the people started waking up from their hypnotic stupor and smelling the coffee. Hillary hung in long enough for people to really get to know her and see that she is not the monster that the Repubs have discribed her as.
The people are also starting to realize that just maybe someone they don't know much about will be running this country. Yes they woke up a little too late for Clinton but maybe too early for Obama.
Many are banking on the fact that the Repubs are so unpopular that the Dems can push anyone thru. I am not sure that is a workable plan. I think Hillary supporters are some of the least politically naive. We are not easily manipulated. We have been paying attention all this time. More of the Obama supports are the one who are new to politics.
And please stop trying to blame racism. It is getting old and only works on those who want to look cool. Yes there are a lot of "isms" going on here. I think racism is the least of the "isms" and I am pleased with that.
" traveling later today and have to get my pups to their dog dude ranch."
OMG! Dog -- Thank you! Thank you! You have just made today's potentialy horrible lunch with two Republicans bearable! They almost always end up making some snotty comment about the Democrats being a party of welfare mothers. Now I can say, "No, no, no! In the new party, Dem wives spend their days driving pets to dude ranches."
And the fellow who made the film which glorified the Klan -- which the stubborn idealist Woodrow Wilson ADORED beyond any film (or play or book) -- next made the monumental film Intolerance about the destructive history of human prejudice.
I copied the link from the view source info which anyone can do by right clicking on the page your on and it went to the myspace page which was a porn page. Anyone can copy a link from the view source page info, but can not alter the template its on.
Only the blog owner can change information on their template, no one else. Unless someone hacked her blog account she's the only one who can put that link in it.
So the link I copied and pasted into my url came from her view source info look.
I said it was possible that someone could have hacked her account, but again only she can edit her template, no one else can unless it was hacked.
ap, as I said, there is racism here. If you find a state where it isn't, let me know and I'll be packing to move there. (Same goes for stupidity, poverty, illiteracy...) It's the unfounded Klan state accusation that bugs me and makes your "analysis" look like it is nothing more than rantings of an obsessed madman. Had Obama made a respectable showing here, I doubt that you would have been flinging those accusations - I don't recall you making them about MS, AL, VA, the Carolinas or GA, and they actually do have the Klan and active, angry racism that still exists, just as in TN & AK. Racism is not a distinguishing factor between the HRC states won and the states BHO won, so drop the gratutitous innuendos - they just reflect the racism in your candidate's campaign.
1) As one Hillary supporter said, It ain't over till the lady in the pant suite says it's over
2) No matter what happens - it was fun to watch Obomie get his clock cleaned in West Virginia LOL
3) Guess they were so embarrassed by their shellacking last night they decided they should immediately dispatched Michelle Obama to Puerto Rico -- I guess they hope her message of negativity and hate will resonate with voters there.
hahaha
OK - back to my paper - it's due in 11 hours ahhhhhhh!
"The people are also starting to realize that just maybe someone they don't know much about will be running this country. Yes they woke up a little too late for Clinton but maybe too early for Obama. "
This is at the core of the party's problem at present. Sen. Obama was put forward as the darling of media and power brokers hoping that none of the inadequacies would show through the great make up job. Clinton hung in there past when the coronation was expected and some of the Obama warts are starting to show.
I'm not giving up on her, but if he is the nominee a great deal will hinge on the VP and other surrounding supporters. McCain is a weak candidate and the Dem nominee is likely to win, but only if the that great mass in the middle doesn't believe that they will be replacing a Republican incompetent with a Democratic incompetent.
Oh and just to mention the caucuses. There were a lot of people who felt they "had" to vote for Sen. Obama because it was public and they didn't want people from their churches seeing them vote for Sen. Clinton.
The amount of intimidation going on in the AA community during the caucuses was not pretty.
Before anyone starts accusing someone here of hacking you better be careful because you may be opening yourself up to a defamation lawsuit.
I know because talk like your suggesting was done about my brother and right now not only is a lawsuit pending, but the FBI is looking into also because of the words used.
"DNC leadership tell the superdelegates that they should follow the wish of the voters. How many House members have directly placed party politics above the wishes of the very people they represent."
I'm confused: She supposedly doesn't have the delegates, right? But he doesn't have the delegates, either. So how does he win the nomination again? It's hard to be a Democratic these days when so many of us are so stupid. It's like having your parents and your friends together at the same time, and you really pray your mom doesn't say anything embarrassing and that your dad will keep his pants on. I hate that feeling.
What a great night for the divided government movement.
Does anybody think Obama is going to do better with working class Democrats in Ohio then he did across the river in WV
Put Ohio in the McCain column
That gives him 269 electors only one more to go.
Woohoo
Other good news for the divided government movement.
CNN projects that Democrat Travis Childers defeated Republican Greg Davis in a Tuesday special election for an open congressional seat in northern Mississippi.
This is a seat the Democrats lost in 94.
The real good news is Obama was not a negative although the National Republican party tried to tie him to the local Dem.
hey
A McCain presidency
With a dominating congress
The best of both worlds
As I said last night
Maybe the Democrats will be able to tell that weasel Lieberman to take a hike
Friends don't let friends vote a straight ticket
Vote for divided government
Vote McCain
Who did you all support in the primary 4 years ago? Were you strongly for your candidate? And if Kerry was not your choice- how disgruntled were you?
To me, whoever is the nominee- this reminds me more of 2000 when I knew people who were going to vote (and did vote) for Nader. The refrain was "there is not difference between Bush and Gore anyway". I remember objecting that Bush would be a horrible choice- due to the supreme court- and the environment, and my friend- a liberal environmentalist- said "well maybe things have to get really bad before they get better.
So, here we are with a war with 4000 Americans dead, many more irreparably mentally hurt and physically maimed. God knows how many Iraqis our weapons have murdered, and the occupation continues with no end in sight.
We have record deficits, billions more a week-
no progress on health insurance, gas at 4 dollars a gallon, and no work on climate change.
We have Sam Alito and the youthful John Roberts.
We don't have habeus corpus.
When this is over.....whether it is Obama or Clinton- the differences between Clinton or Obama and McCain will be very clear.
To my eyes, if one really cares about any of the issues I wrote of above, the choice will be very apparent and very clear and very easy. Just because one feels strongly in a primary, does not dictate that they will vote against the other in the general.
A vote for MCCain - or not to vote at all- is to continue to Bush legacy and endless occupation, an even more conservative supreme court. Les protections for women's reproductive rights.
By the way, I have no doubt that Hillary would work incredibly hard for Obama and vice versa,
But they choice will be yours.
As I said racism exists here - it's existed in each of the 6 states I've lived in (in this election, half went for BHO, half for HRC). It does trouble me. That is not my beef with AP. And 18% of voters in your state said the same thing about race being a factor - and I could be mistaken, but that represents about eight times as many racists in what by all accounts should be a much more open and enlightened state considering that 57% of N'yawkers IDed themselves as liberal while only 34% of WVers did. And in NY, 25% said gender was a factor while in unenlightened WV, only 18% did. I assume that troubles you.
The owner of the private page -- which was the link on her blog I clicked this morning for the first time -- was "heathergobragh".
The public page did use an email address of hers on the myspace search. Its ID was NOT heathergobragh.
But thanks, as always, for the sanctimony. It goes as well with your aspersions and visions as it does with George W. Bush's.
Good luck to your brother.
But it's kind of weird given your hatred of this government and its abuses of law on every level that you of all people would use the FBI as a threat....
As I said racism exists here - it's existed in each of the 6 states I've lived in (in this election, half went for BHO, half for HRC). It does trouble me. That is not my beef with AP. And 18% of voters in your state said the same thing about race being a factor - and I could be mistaken, but that represents about eight times as many racists in what by all accounts should be a much more open and enlightened state considering that 57% of N'yawkers IDed themselves as liberal while only 34% of WVers did. And in NY, 25% said gender was a factor - a staggering higher number, to steal your phrase - while in unenlightened WV, only 18% did. I assume that troubles you.
However... you've got to admit... given your complete distrust of the government and particularly the Justice Department's forsaking of the Constitution...
It's kind of odd that you of all people on this planet to summon the FBI in your warning about legal actions.
Kind of odd... weird.
Makes me wonder where you're actually coming from.
I know because talk like your suggesting was done about my brother and right now not only is a lawsuit pending, but the FBI is looking into also because of the words used.
God Bless
'as opposed to calling people nazis and klan members...
A refresher in the slander and libel laws is in order.
No names were mentioned and yet someone sprang to your mind immediately..
The West Virginia Chamber of Commerce has asked the FBI to look into your charges
Before anyone starts accusing someone here of hacking you better be careful because you may be opening yourself up to a defamation lawsuit.
Posted by: anon-paranoid
Just another example of someone trying to use fear to shut us up. Don't say anything controversial folks.
stephanie Tubb-Jones on MSNBC now speaking for Hillary. She is hardly alone. Maya Angelou, Tavis Smiley and Maxine Waters have been a particularly strong voices.
Congressional Black Caucus and state officials breakdown
"I didn't expect Obama to do very well in last nights (sic)primary since it's a Klan state and after all a black man on the ballot with a white person is not expected to win in a racist state." - anon
Posting ignorant and bigoted remarks followed by "God Bless" still doesn't make it acceptable.
Sen. Obama would be proud to see how his supporter is following the rallying cry to bring people together and overcome the politics of division.
Obama has run a superb campaign, there is no doubt about that. The bean counters that work for him should be well rewarded for their expertise. But please, let's not pretend that his victory represents a mandate in the Democratic party, OK? Enough with the old people, bitter women and hicks characterizations. It demeans the person hurling the insults and it demeans the process.
But please, let's not pretend that his victory represents a mandate in the Democratic party, OK?
Ally
yeah, but Ally. How is he going to win the General Election because he ran a good primary? The rules will make more sense in the General. I can't understand why the DNC would slant this process. It's actually a tool for them to find out who would be most likely to win against McCain. It seems odd to slant the evaluation process that was set up to get at the truth. Maybe this is why the dems keep losing (except WJC).?
hacked off, good one - RFLMAO. I personally know the WVCoC executive director and many of the members of its board (since I sit on 2 of its committees) and I can assure you that the WVCoC would not ask the FBI to look into anything that does not directly effect one of its members, and even then only after a vote of the Board approving the request. LOLOL
I have yet to see any compelling analysis of the relative performance of the two candidates since Rev Wright and the "bitter" remarks. It seems to me that those two events, rather more than race, constituted a dividing line in the campaign.
My take is that African Americans have discounted the Rev Wright information as a race-based attack of some sort, particularly since it was made so much of by Sean Hannity. But that moderate to conservative Democrats were and remain very troubled by the politics of Rev Wright. And, yes, troubled by bittergate, which struck many as a dismissive slap at more traditional Democrats.
. I am certain you do not really mean to state categorically that the only people voting for Hillary are those over 55 and the "less educated."
maggisd
Maggi, and this thing about less educated is always stated in such a way that it portrays those of us who don't have a college degree to be ignorant, unworldly, bigoted and not wise enough to make an educated decision. The numbers of who votes for who are questionable too. They get them from exit polls, don't they? Polls aren't 100% right and they know that people do lie on them (for many different reasons, I imagine). It all comes back to the middle class. In the old days, the Democrats used to be the party "for the little guy" (that's how it was put back then). Now they say the new coalition doesn't need the working class. So who is going to represent the middle class? Nobody?
"But it's kind of weird given your hatred of this government and its abuses of law on every level that you of all people would use the FBI as a threat...."
I thought the same thing, 9/11. Wow, Anon-paranoid....your true colors are showing.
Pogo
I don't know. I think calling West Virginia a klan state is actionable. I can recommend a very fine attorney. :)
Would you want to go riverrafting in a klan state? I think it can adversely effect tourism.
nogrudge: I agree with you. My point is that to hear Obama supporters tell it, Clinton was resoundly defeated. I simply reject that most of the Democratic party has told the Clintons to FO.
nogrudge: Exactly right.
Here's the thing -- Republicans (generally) dislike government while Democrats (generally) dislike politicians. Sen Obama's campaign
1. Brilliantly positioned him as a nonpolitician, although everything in his record points to him as exactly that -- a politician.
2. Understood and used the arcane weighted-delegate system of the Democratic primaries and early caucuses in such a way that the contest was over almost as soon as it began.
We should have listened to Michelle Obama when she said that Iowa was the key to Sen Obama's victory. I would add SC to that, since the way the Obama campaign used the race card there was quite brilliant.
I do fault the broadcast media for some of this. The print media knew and wrote about Sen Obama's history in Chicago, including the radical views of Rev Wright...but the broadcast media never picked up on it. The blogs, of course, also did not because, I suspect, most of them agree with Rev Wright -- or with Michelle Obama that America is mean.
i still think after the bitter and cling to their guns and religion remarks..Penn.Indiana WVa are representing how people feel...all the other states that voted before those remarks and the typical white people remarks can't take their vote back...but i would bet that many would...congratulations to Hillary Clinton for clobbering her opponent in WVa....
9/11 - In response to your original question, I was a Jerry Brown supporter in 1992 (of course). But I was quite pleased to vote for then-Gov Clinton, although his voice always annoyed me (still does) and I found most of his speeches soporific (still do). On the other hand, his ability to connect in town hall meetings...to get to the core of the question, analyze it on the spot -- well, no one was ever better.
During his time in office, like his predecessor, he was able to compromise and work with the Republican Congress and between them I think they steered a solid middle course that did some good. I personally benefited from the Family and Medical Leave Act and I am sure many people have benefited both from the CHIPS program and Welfare Reform.
I will not, however, vote for Sen Obama. Call me hidebound, call me conservative, call me what you will...I would rather rely on a fairly moderate, secular Republican checked by a Democratic Congress than to see my beloved Democratic Party drift ever more radically leftward.
BTW, based on performance only, I find Sen McCain to be more reliably Green than Sen Obama.
For the previous Presidential races I was living in California which until this year meant we took whatever the Democratic party gave us. So the only choice was in the general. For me that meant voting Democratic except for Carter. I wasn't crazy about Kerry and thought he was boring and unqualified, but the alternative was nauseating and unqualified.
And one more thing before I go...with regard to Heather's real or not real mySpace page. I have not seen the page but I'll say this: There sure is a lot of sanctimony going on in the discourse regarding the subject. For goodness sakes, what would JFK have had on his mySpace page?
"never trusted Jerry Brown's temperament as a leader. As he pretty much blew his chances all on his lonesome I didn't need to worry too much"
True that. I supported Jerry Brown based on his appointments as governor. He bought bright, hardworking, nonpols into government. I think he over estimated the social progress of the public and under estimated the shallowness of the media. It is interesting to me that like Al Gore, Brown has never really left public service. He is currently Californias
attorney general. There is talk about Brown running for governor and out of the named Democrats Brown is the best. (Newsom and Villaraigosa)
It all depends on which McCain shows up for the debates: The rather fusty and fuzzy old man who sort of rambles around right wing positions or the very sharp, military and foreign policy maven. Sen Clinton could handle either. Sen. Obama would have trouble with the second.
GAKaren: I don't believe the PEOPLE of the Democratic party have told the Clintons to FO. The votes simply don't suggest that. Maybe the DNC has and maybe the media has and maybe the legislators have but have the PEOPLE? The voters? Really? I don't believe they have.
I did not post twice ... I refreshed the screen when I got an error (as per Craig's advice) and the comment posted twice.
Any technical advice out there?
"For the previous Presidential races I was living in California which until this year meant we took whatever the Democratic party gave us"
Ironically California moved up its primary to have a role.
If they had left it in June, think of how different the race would look today. California would be deciding the nominee.
My favorite non-Mt. Baldy incarnation of Jerry Brown was as Mayor of Oakland.
However, Mt. Baldy Jerry Brown remains my favorite because I love Mt. Baldy.
Also... when I was a boy Pat Brown was "my" governor. It wasn't until Cuomo that I felt similarly about the chief exec of any state in which I'd lived.
Jamie: I didn't vote for Carter either. Only time I didn't vote Dem.
Lynn C: As for Brown for governor again -- I think you are right. We are at last ready for him.
Just as a comment here ... I voted for Jesse Jackson in 84 and 88, although the vote was meaningless for all practical purposes. Still, since I knew that Reagan would no doubt be re-elected in 1988 I hoped that Rev Jackson would at least be asked to run for Veep, because I thought it was time for the Dems to make a statement equally as powerful as Mondale had done with Geraldine Ferraro. As it turns out, I think Dukakis could really have used some of Rev Jackson's charisma and oratory.
I am having a senior moment...who was Dukakis's actual running mate? I don't remember anymore.
9/11 - To me Gov Pat Brown will always evoke the death penalty and Caryl Chessman...the sort of film noir Los Angeles of my girlhood. I was young then and didn't really grasp the entire story, but it seemed then and it seems now that putting someone to death (at least for a crime other than some sort of heinous murder) is not something the State should do.
If Jerry runs, I might move back to CA for the election just to cast one more vote for the family. They have their peculiarities but they have been good for California.
Ally and 9/11: How could I have forgotten? The famous You're no John Kennedy moment. Dan Quayle as the poster boy for the proposition that the VP candidate no longer matters.
Jamie: I would be very surprised if Jerry did NOT run. It might depend upon who else decides to run, however. So far I think we can count on Newsom and Villaragosa, both of whom have personal issues and Garamendi who has constituency issues. If Jerry could win his suit against the EPA somehow or the other, it might be just the political coup he needs.
And yes, you're right....the Brown family was always good for California...although I think Kathleen was the brains of the family.
"By other counts, Obama’s lead is far less than his winning margin in Cook County. In other words, take away Cook County and Obama is the loser in the national popular vote race. He’s the president of Chicago."
This morning Robert Novak mentioned again that Clinton's know something bad about Obama but don't want to be the one's to expose it.Novak said he would, just give him the info.He said that is why she is not giving up.She is waiting for it to come out .Of course most of media will sit on it until he gets nomination.Then look out .Goodbye democrats,Hello McCain
Ruth
This morning Robert Novak mentioned again that Clinton's know something bad about Obama but don't want to be the one's to expose it.Novak said he would, just give him the info.He said that is why she is not giving up.She is waiting for it to come out .Of course most of media will sit on it until he gets nomination.Then look out .Goodbye democrats,Hello McCain
Ruth
With regard to the proposition that Vice Presidential picks somehow don't matter, another thing the pundits like to say with very little proof ... I would suggest that they do matter.
I think Clinton's selection of Gore was absolutely perfect and that it did help him. Whereas Gore's selection of Lieberman was, IMHO, a disaster. As a Jew, I was proud that Gore had the political courage to do it, but I saw it as the worst sort of political gamble -- if you're going to pick an out of the box candidate, at least choose someone with a personality.
I also think GWB was helped enormously by Cheney ... the old gravitas thing. As it turns out the combination was the worst possible choice for the country ... because? The issues changed! As they always do.
We probably come close to sharing childhood memories of that "film noir" Los Angeles. I was four when he was arrested and he was finally put to death just after I turned 16 the year before I graduated from HS.
Another personal note... he mentions how Phillip Roth shaped his sensibility. Admirable... but given Roth's misogyny (more in life, less in writing)... oy.
Painter: I have often thought about that Novak allegation from early in the campaign. I have done a lot of research on Obama, primarily because of Rev Wright's comments "we have groomed him for years" and that the two of them had discussed that the time would come when Sen Obama would have to forcefully break his ties with Wright. It caused me to wonder about how and why Sen Obama initially came to Chicago at all, since he had no prior ties to the city.
There are little niggling things, but nothing substantial ... no smoking gun. Things that bother me but that would probably not bother others. Suffice it to say that I suspect Sen Obama is far more radical than his rhetoric would lead us to believe. I do not think it is criminality or anything like that. I think it is associations.
OK, here's one to consider - why has the Obama campaign not reponded to Hillary's recitation of the AP story saying Obama isn't winning the votes of the "working, hard working white" voter (which, btw, WV seems to demonstrate) by proving the AP wrong and demonstrating that it can win white working class voters (as it has won working, hard working black voters instead of simply casting her comments as a racist statement? This hole in the voting base could be a circle of doom in Nov.
Jamie: What high school? I graduated in 1959, but my beloved younger brother graduated the same year as you did. I have been in San Diego far longer than I lived in LA but I can still visualize perfectly all the places of my youth ...
I think they haven't responded because they know it was a slip up of an exhausted candidate trying to move from quoting the AP White vote figures to hardworking "blue collar" workers in the same sentence. The media made a big brouhaha out of it and probably offended even more of those blue collar people to her benefit.
Sen. Obama also said he had been in 57 states when he probably meant 47. The media didn't jump on that because they knew it wasn't important. No one on the Clinton camp has pretended he doesn't know how many states are in the union.
Jamie: It is interesting that Novak writes for a Chicago paper, although he no longer lives there (if he ever did). His colleague, Lynn Sweet, has been covering Obama for quite some time -- some of her reports have suggested a greater involvement with Rezko and his colleagues than has been reported elsewhere, but no real smoking gun.
Painter: Novak could just ask his colleague Lynn Sweet. Perhaps the Clinton staffer in question just hopes to prod Novak into doing some investigative reporting.
I got my rhubarb pie baked and our own home cured and smoked ham almost ready.Some scalloped potatoes and open a can of beans and we're ready for dinner.Of course for all you elites that would be called lunch.To me tho lunch is something you take in a sack.
Ruth
My children went to Venice for a short while until I moved north of Wilshire in Santa Monica. They didn't graduate though. Both opted for GED and the military. Chris became a lifer for 20 years and got his college degree that way. He is now with a military contractor here in Washington. Lani stayed reserve for six years and has been with the police department in Sacramento for ten years now.
Jamie: Santa Monica was one of our gathering points ... we used to hang at Robertson's Drive In. Many of my high school friends went to SaMo High and many more went to SMCC rather than University.
My brother and I both went to UCLA (he actually taught there for many years); I married a career Navy man, which is how I came to wind up in San Diego ... he is back in LA County but I just stayed on here in my pink collar job. My daughter lives nearby ... she was a professional student for years (three degrees) and now works retail sales and is a garment maker. It's not much of a living, granted, but she is at least happy in her work, something I never was.
BTW, I love your state of Washington ... have a good friend who lives on Whidby Island (am I spelling that right?)
Honoring the 57 states and forgetting he had been to Hawaii just to name the most recent.
Obama, speaking at the start of a two-day swoop through Oregon, let it slip that during this marathon 16-month Democratic presidential nomination struggle, he had already visited 57 states with one more to go.
That's not counting Alaska and Hawaii, he said, which his staff decided aren't important enough to visit yet.
Has this aging freshman senator -- he'll be almost 60 in 13 years -- lost his bearings? Obama's gaffe caused a noticeable stir online during the day, and even the respected Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic anticipated that the political media would kindly write off the Democrat's misstatement to fatigue. But he wrote that if, say, the Republican nominee-to-be had uttered the same silly flub, it would surely be added to eager suspicions of senility
I agree with Craig. Hillary chose the wrong strategy. If she had chosen a different strategy, she'd be the nominee.
I think her strategy was developed before Bill left the White House. The move to New York, the Senate race, the vote to authorize the Iraq war, were all elements of the strategy to "run for the middle."
When that strategy did not resonate with the Democrats, as Obama's message of "change" did, Hillary was not able to change her strategy. (That's ironic.)
There is plenty of "dirt" that can be thrown at Obama, but the Clinton campaign can't do it. Most of you on Craig's blog have no idea how bad it would be for Obama. The "Willie Horton" ad is nothing compared to what would be used against BO and MO.
Plenty of time to take down Obama before the roll call vote, but Team Clinton will have to use very damaging scandals to "destroy" Obama - that's the only thing that will move SDs.
Idaho, Wyoming etc. will not go BLUE in the fall, so much for winning all the western states, they can stick the math in their ear.
The MSM, Matthews and Russert know better, they've been around Washington a long time. I don't know if Olbermann is a sexist, maybe it's just that he spent so much time around jocks - you know, the ones that can't put a sentence together - when he was a sportscaster that it's become a bad habit. Tucker Carlson has always been Ann Coulter in a bow tie. But the one that threw me was when Roland Martin(CNN) said last night that, "it wasn't Obama who couldn't reach working class voters, it was the Democratic Party." I thought Hillary was doing just that and doing it well, and I believe that Kentucky will be more of the same. GOOD ON HER!!!!!
I guess the party powers that be, want a puppet, I mean it worked so well for Cheney. I think it's Vince Lombardi's fault, "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." Alas, there went the spirit of fair play.
I'm not talking about me. Just got back in the shop and was starting to read the previous comments when I saw your reply to my comment.
I don't know but I think hacking is a felony so I suggested that no one should be accusing anyone of it unless they knew the person who may be doing it and had proof.
But than comments left here lately seem to gather new meaning from what is actually posted.
Nash: IMO, Hillary's biggest mistake was not policy but process. None of her campaign staff truly grasped the significance of the weighted delegates and the caucus states.
The Obama campaign knew that he absolutely had to garner the lion's share of the AA vote, because every AA precinct garners a larger share of delegates than other precincts. The differences are small -- one delegate per district, but they add up over time. The same with caucus voters ... a small difference in voters in a place where there are very few Dems yields a disproportionate result.
This is very careful inch by inch voting. It is clear that the Obama campaign also hoped for more momentum than they achieved in some states by this time, but all credit to Axelrod ... he plays Hardball.
via talkleft
Quote of the Day
The narrative of the racist southern and/or working class white voter serves disappointed liberals by giving them a way to cope with rejection, and it serves Republicans by reassuring them that people can still be easily manipulated by racial bias.
Nash: How would McCain go about getting more conservative judges with 54 Dems voting against his appointments? Just asking....
McCain will have to compromise with the Dems...and guess what, he has demonstrated an ability to do just that.
maggisd: Hillary's mistake wasn't just the decision to ignore the caucus states. Her "message" (or lack of one) was a problem. Obama's promise to "change the way Washington works" may be a bit vague, but voters liked it. I honestly don't know what Hillary's message was, originally.
Lynn C: I reject the notion that these voting patterns are entirely or even largely racist, unless one wants to claim that the 90% AA vote for Sen Obama is racist. If this is white racism then how to explain the fact that Sen Obama does win a measurable number of white voters?
IMO we are still missing the effects of Rev Wright and bittergate. Look at the internal Obama projections ... they expected to be doing better by now and I think they would have done if not for Wright and bittergate.
Those two incidents (whatever you want to call them) reflect a cultural rather than a racial divide. It is the urban folk vs the rural folk. For the rural folk it's not Sen Obama's skin color it's the people he hangs with ...
Remember when we all had a hard time believing that folks were still pro-Bush & wondered why the media was asleep when things went from bad to worse in Iraq? Well, I have that same feeling of disbelief when I hear BO supporters or the love-struck media fawning over him. Same story, different day.
Nash: Sen Obama's campaign recognized from the start that a change message could work wonders with younger voters and that his anti-war message would play well in Iowa. Knowing that there was same-day registration in Iowa, they concentrated on the larger venues, made a deal with Richardson, and left Edwards and Clinton to split the more rural areas of the state. Sen Obama's young adherents -- many of whom did not live in Iowa but did attend college there, some of whom went there (from Illinois) early enough to establish residency, proved more steadfast than Gov Dean's young supporters had been.
Once Sen Obama won Iowa (as Michelle stated) he was on his way...the SC talking points memo was the second nail in the coffin for Hillary. It mattered little what she said about any policy at all once the African-American population could be made to believe that the Clintons were closet bigots finally exposed.
Sen Clinton should run as an independent in the General Election because the Democratic party has already been captured by the left leaning liberals.
politicsIsdirty
and at least the "working class" would have a party too.
Nash: And do not forget that Sen Obama ruthlessly attacked Sen Clinton's claims of experience ... talked about taking tea with ambassadors, calling for her to release her WH papers while claiming that his state Senate papers either no longer existed or were in the Illinois archives (apparently not true). Brezenski compared Sen Clinton to Mamie Eisenhower, for pity sake.
It was really never about policy at all. 'Cuz when the contest began, Sen Obama actually had no policies; he had positions. His policies now are largely an amalgam of Clinton and Edwards proposals.
maggisd: "Experience & Competence." Well, the vote to authorize the Iraq war took the wind out of those sails. Also, the Clintons gave us NAFTA, and outsourcing of jobs is a big issue this year. If people want change, and you played a major role in creating the status quo, then you have a problem.
It mattered little what she said about any policy at all once the African-American population could be made to believe that the Clintons were closet bigots finally exposed.
maggisd
I use Firefox and on a open spot I right click on the page. A pop up menu shows up and gives me these choices as they will give anyone using Firefox.
Back {active}
Forward {greyed out}
Reload {active}
Stop {greyed out}
---------------------------
Bookmark this page...{active}
Save page as...{active}
Send link...{active}
-----------------------------
View background image {active}
Select all {active}
----------------------------
View page source {active}
View page info {active}
I clicked on the View page source info here on Craig's blog and here's a little of it that I copied and pasted. Anyone can do this, however you can not change anything on the page.
So here's a little section I copied and am pasting below.
Clinton Wins Center but Loses Base - Craig Crawford's Trail Mix
That's where I got the link to copy from on Heathers Blog which I went to from Craig's Blogroll to see what everyone was talking about.
I repeat what I said earlier, only Heather can put links in her template no one else unless someone hacked her blog account.
Now you all can read anything you like into what I posted since you all do anyway.
All of you folks calling WV Klan Kountry and other insults might note that although Sen. Obama lost by getting 91,000 votes, Sen. McCain "won" by getting 71,000 votes.
I would insult all those "white" WV Obama voters too often. They might decide that the GE should go to someone who actually liked them.
If Sen. Obama does get the nomination and then lose the GE, it will be because of the Obama supporters who drove off the people they didn't want during the primaries and who never bothered to come back for the GE.
maggisd:
re: McCain and the Supreme Court. How could he get a conservative on the court, if the Dems control the Senate?
(1) You don't need all the Dems to defect, just a few of them.
(2) Traditionally the Senate goes along with whomever the President appoints, unless they are grossly incompetent.
(3) McCain could appoint a "stealth" candidate, one without a judicial record, or law review publications indicating his/her philosophy.
"I honestly don't know what Hillary's message was, originally."
Guess you missed the part about experience, competence, and more than six years in the Senate working with both sides of the aisle ... the 30 years with the Children's Defense Fund probably attracted a few women as well.
Tell me again how your guy the professional campaigner is better equipped to be President?
Jamie: If Obama loses it will be because of Hillary's decision to "go negative," and all of her lemming-like supporters who followed her over that cliff.
She (and you) have nothing substantive to say, except that Obama is a horrible person, incompetent, dishonest, unqualified, etc.
"If Sen. Obama does get the nomination and then lose the GE, it will be because of the Obama supporters who drove off the people they didn't want during the primaries and who never bothered to come back for the GE."
Why should someone base their vote on something an Obama supporter said - as opposed to what Obama himself has said.
Obama has been striking a much different tone than the media and plenty of his supporters. He has never called for her to get out. He has also been very complimentary anytime someone brings up the "Dream Ticket" - but always makes sure to point out that he doesn't have this thing wrapped up yet.
If you are mad and angry about how this primary race has gone - and you are furious about how the media and SOME Obama supporters have treated either you or Clinton - than take it out on them.
politicsIsdirty....
I agree that it's the center that will hold this country together.....
but there is no such thing as "ideology" when referring to that center.....
only common sense...... IMO... natch....
Jamie..... do you think anyone will be rooting for another horse other than Big Brown in this Saturday's upcoming Preakness...... I really, really, really...... Big Time Really..... want to see another Triple Crown winner in my lifetime.....
ATTACK/GLOAT MODE: Hillary is eeeeevil! Clintonistas are racist, uneducated, old irrelevant, feminist white trash Republicans. And I am not an elitist! I’m just better than you! I have a college degree. Even though I’m flipping burgers. YOU are just a bitter, blue-collar religion-cling gun nut! We won! You lost!
OVER-CONFIDENCE MODE: I’m not worried. The Hillaryites will come around and vote for Obama. After all, where else can they go? Like a battered wife, they’ll come crawling back. So let’s have fun beating them up some more!
STARK REALITY MODE: Oh! Maybe we DO need them. Come on Can’t we just get along?
TANTRUM MODE: Oh all right! Vote for McCain. We don’t want you anyway. We’ve already replaced you with REAL voters!
THREAT MODE: If McCain wins, say goodbye to Roe v. Wade. Say hello to 100 years in Iraq. Say goodbye to life on earth. We’re DOOMED and it’s your fault!
I know Obama will need MI and FL in November but it's interesting that he went to MI today before they decide what to do with their primary vote. I don't understand the logic of going to MI and & FL before becoming the actual nominee. It's not the voters fault that the party messed their vote up but he could allowed a revote a few weeks back. If he's going this route then maybe he needs to go into areas where is not that well received and explain his reasoning to get their vote.
I almost don't want to post anything today with all the fireworks and venom flying throughout the blog. I think Hillary Clinton's win in West Virginia is significant. But as I predicted, the MSM decided it meant nothing.
I've been posting about "unity" more intently since the NC and Indiana primaries. For once Nash posted something that I agree with, thinking seriously about the many reasons that the DEMS need to take back the White House.
Nash wrote: "
You'd don't want McCain in the White House. All we need is one more arch-conservative on the Supreme Court and you can say goodbye to...
Roe v. Wade, Miranda, National Labor Relations Act,
Environmental Protection Act, Sherman Anti-Trust Act, etc."
Posted by: nash | May 14, 2008 12:34 PM
Nash began by saying he hopes the Clinton supporters will stop "trashing" Obama once the nomination is settled. It would help GREATLY if the Obama supporters would stop trashing Hillary, one of the former First Ladies of the United States. I think we all need to chill... We seem to be on this downward slope of "attack, counter-attack, counter-counter attack, counter-counter-counter attack" awww damn I am running out of comment space. Anyway you get my drift.
It's interesting what maggisd wrote regarding "racist" voting. I kept wondering why it's considered "racist" for Hillary Clinton to point out the majorities she has received from white voters, but everyone and their cousin is RAVING about the majorities that Barack Obama has received from black voters. This sort of double standard creates even more divisions. We shouldn't be supporting a set of rules for one group and another set of rules for the other. Doesn't make sense to me.
I don't get at all the whole My Space, Heather, Sheila, Dog, Paranoid, etc. etc. etc. discussion. I didn't get it and still don't. But it sure seemed to waste a lot of space here and I don't think anyone involved felt particularly happy about it.
Re: politicsIsdirty, I have always been a "left leaning liberal". In the states I had sympathies toward a Democratic realignment via Democratic Socialists of America. I am not ashamed of left-leaning liberals or socialists. We are all part of this process. To be honest, I don't even know what makes a "centrist" a "centrist". Perhaps someone can explain this to me?
I am calm now, as a big thunderstorm heads our way. I ask we try not to go for each other's jugulars. We are really becoming a "drive by posting" online neighbourhood. I don't think it suits us very well.
Also, if people want to write in Hillary Clinton as their Presidential ballot in the general election, I think that is fine. The beauty of the ballot is that it gives us the freedom to take a stand when it is important to us! I am sometimes faltering as well. If we want unity, perhaps BYE BYE, Skylark, and the other flame throwers could reel it in and stop insulting each other's candidates and try to find our commonality. Oh and I pointed out "BYE BYE" not because his posts have been the most egregious, but because he takes particular delight in attacking Hillary and her supporters via his moniker. On the other hand Skylark simply adores tarring and feathering anything and everything on Hillary that conspiracy theorists and right-wing nut cases conjure up.
Let's let this process play and TRY TRY TRY to show some respect... Both sides could take some steps to meet the other halfway.
A few days ago - after NC - EuroTom was talking about how the Obama supporters should watch what they say in order to faciliate bringing the party together.
Or at least not trying to do anything to tear it further apart.
That is all well and good and I completely agree. At this point I don't see any need to "pile on" Clinton and there has been nothing her campaign has done recently that has caused me to think any differently.
But I would say that how you Clinton supporters act is even more important. Of course if Obama gets the nomination - none of his supporters are going over to vote for McCain.
And most everything I or other Obama supporters say to Clinton supporters is going to fall on deaf years (except of course the outrageous comments that add fuel to the fire). In other words, Clinton supporters are going to be follwing your lead - not mine.
So yes - Obama supporters should stop gloating and bringing up divisive and silly comments like the Clintons are racists. But if we are going to bring this party together - what you do and say is going to be a heck of a lot more important.
(As always - feel free to say whatever the hell you want. But don't throw strategy or how important November is out the window.)
If you really care about Hillary, send her a big check. She has $20 million in debt and, if her followers don't chip in, she and Bill will have to pay it themselves.
That would leave them with only $30 million or so, and who can live on that?
Why should someone base their vote on something an Obama supporter said - as opposed to what Obama himself has said. Warren
yeah Warren, but you know someone always does the candidate dirty work for them-surrogates. And it's up to the candidate to straighten them out. Most of it didn't come out of his mouth, but it came from the campaign. And his supporters acted accordingly. You remember the things his campaign put out there about Hillary and how they trashed Bill Clintons Presidency-the only Democratic administration in how many years. Couldn't he have found a Republican to trash? He should have know that many supporters of the Clinton years would have been offended(and dumbfounded). He's played the game of politics continually and then accused Hillary of it. The Media were pawns in his hand. How that happended, I'm not sure. But you can't possibly find it to be fair to the Clintons.
Very good webcast today. Thanks for telling it straight. You had me worried recently; indeed, I suspected you were doing little more than shilling for the Clinton campaign in recent days. Last night I was involved in a series of sometimes heated exchanges here on the very point you made today: namely, that Clinton has alienated many of the supporters she needs to be the democratic nominee. Good work. I am particularly impressed that you resisted the temptation to label the democratic "liberal" base as elitist, as so many conservative pundits seem to do.
Jamie said: "Show me one place where Senator Clinton has said that Sen Obama is horrible, dishonest, incompetent, or unqualified. She has said that she is more experienced and ready to be President."
Have you LISTENED to her speeches? I have. 3/4 of the content is negative commentary about Obama. Her primary argument these days is "He's black, so he can't win, so you HAVE to nominate me."
That's not a positive message, it's a racist threat.
I would love to see a Triple Crown as well and Big Brown has the talent. Now I have to admit to being intrigued by an exacta of "Behind the Bar" and "Tres Borrachos" (three drunks). : )
For those who would like to get in on the race. Here are the entries:
Behindatthebar
Trainer: Todd Pletcher Jockey: David Flores
Big Brown
Trainer: Richard Dutrow, Jr. Jockey: Kent Desormeaux
Gayego
Trainer: Paulo Lobo Jockey: Mike Smith
Giant Moon
Trainer: Richard E. Schosberg Jockey: Ramon
Dominguez
Hey Byrn
Trainer: Eddie Plesa Jockey: C.C. Lopez
Icabad Crane
Trainer: Graham Motion Jockey: Jeremy Rose
The media has told all the Obama lemmings that "Clinton has alienated many of the supporters she needs to be the democratic nominee."
Obamabots buy that crap hook, line and sinker. Just like they buy their lousy candidate's message of change and new politics.
New politics, my ass. The Messiah will find that out in the GE when the Republicans wipe up the floor with him with the help of the once-fawning press that will undoubtedly be "in the tank" for McBush come September.
Then the thin-skinned Chosen One will get all pissy and stamp his feet about how all the "old" white people are being mean to him. Feet of clay. Empty suit. Loser Democratic nominee. Obama will be an interesting footnote in presidential election history but that is about it.
The positive in all this? Perhaps, just perhaps the morons in the Democratic party will realize that their ridiculous primary system needs a complete overhaul.
AP, I wasn't talking about you necessarily, either - that's why is said "for example." And defamation is a private, civil suit, which has nothing to do with felonious behavior.
maggi, recently I haven't sided with nash on much, but he is right about the judicial nomination prucess under McCain. There is nothing the Senate Judiciary Committee or the full senate has done during Bush's 2 terms (save about two proposed nominees that were rejected before actually going through the vetting process) to give me any comfort that 54 of them would vote against a qualified, but conservative candidate. Alito and Roberts are stark examples of how resolute the Senate is in the face of known arch conservative candidates who have otherwise impressive legal credentials - elevated from the Circuit courts, for instance. And McCain has already said he'll nominate "strict constructionist" and "original intent" type judges - that is not so thickly veiled code for conservative judges. You do not want to rely upon the Dem senate acting in such a manner as to control the judicial nomination process.
jamie, there is virtually no chance WV will vote for Obama in the Fall. McCain will beat him by 20 points (Pogo's prediction). Neither will PA, OH, or FL. But that's OK, all those western red states are going blue for him. Oh, crap, I think I pulled muscle laughing.
warren, aside from his own slights of Hillary, what Obama did by ignoring WV spoke volumes to the WVians who didn't vote for him. What his supporters say just seals the deal for them. Supporters on both sides conflate the candidate, the candidate's campaign staff and the candidate's supporters and hold the negative comments of any of those against the candidate. Don't be naive enough to think they try to draw those distinctions.
"Obama people are wrong to make fun of WV voters."
Have any of you people ever been to West Virginia? I have. It's a spooky place, like an episode of the "Twilight Zone." On my first night there, driving along a foggy road at night, I saw a 100 foot red neon lighted cross on a mountain top.
If someone did they would need her username and password to log into her account. That's the only way I can think of to gain access to her account.
Then whomever it was would be able to change her template.
So it would have had to have been hacked to do it. As far as myspace or whatever the other one is I don't go to any of those sites or know anything about them.
I only went to look after all the comments that were made in reference to the myspace was commented on here.
I never threatened anyone with a lawsuit or with the FBI, but like many of the comments people leave they are often read with whatever the reader wants to see and then thrown back with different words such as what I referenced earlier about what someone said I said.
I was suggesting that no one should be making accusatory statements unless they had proof to back them up and stated why. Of course than I was accused of threatening to call the FBI which I didn't do.
Sheila was right, this blog has become toxic and I will only lurk here now.
Now go ahead people and accuse me of something else as I'm sure you will.
btw, ap, out of which side of your mouth are your incessant accusations that heather is lying coming? You might consider following your own admonitions.
vad, Obama is trying tunburn his bridges. A good trick if you can pull it off.
nash, the dems will have an uphill fight in Nov. We don't vote nationally, and Obama won't have enough states to win the EC. (And I hope I'm wrong).
many of the comments people leave they are often read with whatever the reader wants to see and then thrown back with different words anon-paranoid
anon, Thanks. I was afraid people could get into your accounts without a password, by backtracking somehow. And as far as people interpreting what they want, I know.
Yeah, nash, I've been there (since I live here), and it is scary. Not necessarily in the way any other rural state is scary, but yeah, it is. That said, I've spent lots of time in the WV hinterlands and have never had a moment's problem even when my occupation, employer and client became known to the folks I have dealt with there.
I've seen lots of crosses on hillsides here (one guy made it his life's mission to put them in places that could be seen from the interstes) but I've never seen that 100' lighted red neon cross, but I'd like to know where it is - I want to go see it.
Please show me where in my comment I said she was lying?
I never did and said her site could have been hacked.
I did say that only she could put a link in her template unless it was hacked. It seems that everyone read that I said she was lying by what your saying. Once again I did not say she was lying.
And I'll email you later about my brother with more details than I posted about it some time back.
http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/photo541091.htm
This Mormon Temple is located in the Oakland hills, overlooking San Francisco Bay. It is a prominent landmark and, especially when lit up at night, it can be seen for miles around. As the Latter Day Saints website states: “The Oakland Temple is so prominently placed and such a distinctive landmark that ships entering San Francisco Bay use it for navigation purposes."
the East coast is not all there is to America." GAKaren
GA, I lived most of my life on the west coast and people were the same way there. By the same way, I mean they looked down on everyone else, felt somehow inferior. And when you live there long enough, it becomes who you are. Once moving to Texas (a place that was a big laugh to Californian's) I found out how much more open minded and less arrogant people are. And I've never turned back. I read the New York columnist, and am amazed at their pompousness and arrogance-the way the look down on everyone different than them. Then I see Keith Oberman and it reminds me again. Speaking of antipathy toward others. Unbelievable.
Here is another reason why Hillary would make a good VP.
Everyone agrees is that she is better than her campaign.
The Clinton campaign ran the "old politics" of attack, distract and demonize.
Attack = Wolfson
-Obama has not passed the "Commander in Chief" test
-"How dare the Obama campaign 'claim' that Hillary will 'say anything or do anything' to win!" (even though this was a clear issue from the "exit polls" and even most Clinton supporters like her because she is a "fighter")
Distract = Terry Mac
-"This thing will be over Feb. 5!!"
-"It's all about the delegates!!"
-"Hillary will have more votes!!"
-"Hillary wins the important states!!"
Demonize (mind you - which in Barack Obama's case means: "you can't trust this guy...") = Bill Clinton
-Obama is a "roll of the dice"
-"I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country," said the former president. "And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."
Amen brother!! But why is this impossible with Obama - and somehow possible with Hillary (all politicians have baggage - and even if they didn't - the GOP would just make something up ; )
-Obama's position that he opposed the Iraq War from the outset is "a fairy tale"
(As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq, and warned of “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.”)
And don't forget how TOUGH it was to be against the War in 2002 with Hannity's nuts (and law makers) screaming you were a "coward" or "unpatriotic".
Yes - Hillary took some shots. But her major focus was on why she should be President and her surrogates focused on why Obama shouldn't be.
Unfortunately, her surrogates are three of the biggest "media hogs" in the Democratic Party - and often their message drowned out her's.
Obama Featured With Farrakhan MANY Times on Trinity’s “Trumpet” magazine cover
"Barack Obama is considered — by the extremist, racist proponents of “Black Liberation Theology” and “Black Nationalism” — to be their TICKET to taking over the United States of America. Here is more proof:"
I live near an old mining town in Northern Illinois and there is a cross on top of the old slag pile.What's the problem.There are mostly catholics and protestants in the area
Ruth
"As to Heathers website I looked at it and there is what appears to be a link to a myspace page. The link was inactive though when I went to her site.
I did a look at the page source and found the link and did check it out last night after it was mentioned she had a myspace page and it was porn. Unless someone hacked her blog account I don't see how anyone could have put that in her template though it is entirely possible."
Give me a break. You know full well HRC did not campaign hard in states where she knew she couldn't win.
And like i said - Obama did campaign in WV and he was not sitting on his ass when he wasn't there. He has been campaigning in battle grounds states that we need to win in order to win the general.
(And if you want to engage in this child's play - "Obama thinks more states are important than Hillary" because he is trying to expand the electoral map. But that is complete nonsense and if you don't think so - you are being naive.)
"He's black, so he can't win, so you HAVE to nominate me."
Go to You Tube and find even ONE speech where Sen. Clinton has said anything even remotely like the above. About the worse she has ever said is that she is more qualified, more experienced, and more capable than her opponent.
She has repeatedly said nice things about him. You really have to stop listening to what others think she has said, interpreted what she said, or imagined what she was thinking when she said something and listen to what she has actually said.
It's like here where people read into a posting what they want to see rather than what was actually said.
Now find where I have attacked YOU ... individual YOU ... the person who signs themselves NASH. rather than an opinion you may have uttered.
YOU: "If you are mad and angry about how this primary race has gone - and you are furious about how the media and SOME Obama supporters have treated either you or Clinton - than take it out on them."
darn I could have sworn that is what I said
ME: "If Sen. Obama does get the nomination and then lose the GE, it will be because of the Obama supporters who drove off the people they didn't want during the primaries and who never bothered to come back for the GE."
It's like here where people read into a posting what they want to see rather than what was actually said. Jamie
Jamie, it's the same thing people do when they look at their chosen candidate. With Obama, who was an empty slate at first (by his own admission, I'm told, from one of his books) - people were able to project on him whatever they wanted him to be. It was a lot harder with Hillary, so we just went for Reality. Like she said in one of her earlier debates :Can we have a reality check here? That's when i fell in love with her. What you see is what you get.
Technically she would be right. It was probably a dumb thing to say, but it was accurate. Sen. Obama has no military exprience, has never sat on a military committee, has never held any hearings of the one foreign related committee he chairs, and has not been outside the country since his late teens.
Just because McCain has more experience with the military and with military related committees in the senate does not mean he would be a good CIC, but it certainly does mean that he has more experience for the job.
Hillary was present in the WH for eight years and saw and heard about CIC work, she has visited more than 80 countries and knows the majority of world leaders. It may have been a lot of figurehead work, but she actually knows them and they know her. She sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Airland, Emerging Threats and Capabilities. and Readiness and Management Support subcommittees.
So yes. She and McCain are more qualified for that part of the job. Sen. Obama can get good advice to bring him up to speed if necessary as long as he is willing to listen to it unlike Shrub.
warren, I live here and know how much Obama campaigned here. It was virtually not at all. A few national ad buys showed up on the tube, and he made 3 campaign appearances here, rejecting the governor's invitation to attend the "old time democratic rally" he sponsored in Fairmont - on a night when Obama was actually in the state. A rally and a game of pool the day before the election? You call that campaigning here? Give me a break. Who's naive? And I have and do criticize Hillary for not campaigning in the caucus states she ignored. She's relied too much on the big, elector rich state approach, and he's relied too little on it.
I grant you that Obama isn't sitting on his ass - and he damn well better be trying to identify and pet the battleground states. He's created more of them since he's not likely to take the traditional swing states that Dems have been able to ride to the WH. I frankly don't understand the DNC's and Obama's either/or approach to the states they think they can get in the 50 state strategy approach (and WV and FL would certainly say its a 48 state strategy at best), but then again, it's been explained only in summary terms in what I've heard and read. IMHO (which btw is supported by the polls in those states).
I agree what you see is what you get. And often it is hard to see under the bright lights of the campaign. But I started supporting Obama long before he started running for President.
For years - he has stood out to me as a politican that gave detailed and insightful answers to the complex issues facing this Country. (And I focus on what politicians say on Charlie Rose and MTP instead of cable news).
I think if people see Obama for who he is - he will win.
(If they choose to believe in a caricature painted by self-interested "artists" - well then it will be tough ; )
I think a Republican would have a tough time getting elected against a ham sandwich this year.
The GOP is the party of ideas - and their President is often just a talking head that imposes the party line. McCain may be a maverick in the Republican Party - but that ain't saying much. And if there is one thing we have learned over the past 8 years - it that the Republican ideas are flawed. Especially when juxtaposed to the Clinton years.
There is more division in the Democratic party - because there is more diversity. Diversity is of course a great thing when its working for you - the competion and celebration of ideas, the melting pot, etc. - and a fire-storm when it is working against you.
(And Hannity and Tucker, etc. just sit calmly on the side throwing in lighter fluid and kindling....)
And if he seems unconcerned about some of the "sillyness" of politics - it is only because he is focused on the bigger picture.
"The Obama campaign has argued that Super Delegates ought to vote in accordance with the “will” of the people.
Under that metric, who would have a lead in Super Delegates?
The Super Delegate total from the states that Hillary has won thus far (including FL and MI) is 418, to Obama’s 372. If the MI delegates are split 50/50, Clinton still wins 403.5 to Obama’s 386.5. If Super Delegates are counted according to Barack’s formula, Hillary wins the nomination. Period.
The numbers are even more impressive after Hillary crushed Obama in West Virginia. WV has 11 Superdelegates. Hillary is now ahead, even if you exclude FL and MI: she leads 374 to Obama’s 372."
That airport scene reminds me so much of my older sister growing up. Today, she's still as phony as a three dollar bill.
Back in HS, she could be screaming holy hell (cussing) at someone, usual me, and then the phone would ring. She'd answer in the sweetest of voices, flirt a bit, then hang up, and go back to cussing. It's a whole notion of a shameless flaunt about her.
That's a persona I pick up from Hillary and probably one of the reasons she turned me off to begin with. Obviously I have no idea if she's that way. I just pick up on the mannerisms and expressions I've seen in interviews and in speeches. I guess she loses out because of my relationship with my sister.
Jamie: I was playing nice today, until attacked. When
attacked, I like to hit back twice as hard. Stop whining or you'll never get to be President.
Posted by: nash | May 14, 2008 2:11 PM
Nash, that's grade school playground antics! It's also war mentality. You attack us and we will go back at you "twice as hard" or worse. I'm surprised at your comment !!!
I just saw some jackass on MSNBC saying all Clinton would bring to the ticket is NY. "And of course that is going blue anyways." What?
Clinton has received 16,710,298 votes (incl. FL & MI). And most of those voters will vote for her in the GE even if it comes out that she sat down and drafted NAFTA herself, Mark Penn was formerly employed by Karl Rove and the Clintons go sailing with the Bushes in the summers....
G-man,
I wonder if those idiots on NQ bothered to break down those votes by Congressional Districts. I'd like to see those totals. Besides, that was not the purpose of SDs. If so, why have them.
Obama's position that he opposed the Iraq War from the outset is "a fairy tale"
(As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq, and warned of “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.”)
It wasn't the US Senate in 2002 - It was Illinois State Senate. You might want to brush up on his bio
In 1996 he was running for office from one of the most liberal districts with heavy opposition to the war, he was strongly opposed. During the next campaigns in 1998, where the state senate was concerned, all of a sudden his anti war stance wasn't quite so strong (he fudged the issue a lot). Then in 2002 he was back to being anti war, but when running of the US Senate in 2004, again not so much totally opposed and once in the Senate having an identical voting record on military issues as Sen. Clinton. Then came the run for President and he is back to "I was against it in 2002".
DBCooper... it's none of my business, but I hope you find peace over the relationship with your sister Family divides are painful and even when we are disappointed with a family member we still love them significantly on several levels -- some consciously, some subconsciously.
I see a different Hillary than you do. When I see her big smile and warm laugh and the twinkling eyes, I see someone who is caring and loving. I know she has another side, don't we all ?? (rhetorical question).
Anyway, my point here was in reaction to your comment about your sister. It saddens me when I see families split over past issues and/or slights. I have this in my own family and with my own father I have tried to extend olive branches to no avail. I've been resentful for years, but have chosen to accept what I cannot change and if the relationship is really "toxic", to put space between me and the other person.
Euro Tom,
It's no big deal. I love my sister. We talk all the time. She just has a personality I don't care for. It's phony and arrogant.
btw, I don't select my political preferences based upon my family relationships. I have other more serious reasons why I disagree with HRC et al.
It amazes me that the Obama campaign wants the SDs to vote the same way as the "people" unless the "people" voted for Clinton, or vote the way the state did not their district unless the district was for Obama but the state wasn't.
In OTW: If it is in my favor, I get it, but if it is in your favor I still get it.
Obama's position in 2002 was the correct one but he renegged on it whenever it was politically expedient. He often does the politically expedient. Which is really strange unless you notice ... Oh yeah! He's a politician.
Rez - you are right about the purpose of the SDs, but that "vote the will of the people" was what the Obama folks (campaign mouthpieces and supporters) were arguing when Hillary started talking about lobbying the SDs to vote for her even if their districts did not. And one could argue that only the USHoRep SDs would be so constrained - certainly the Dem senators and governors would look at statewide results.
God, are we back to arguing the war positions? Didn't we do that in Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr? OK, good. I have to go.
Doesn't BO remind you of Howdy Doody. So..... keeping Edwards in the wings was to take yhe sting out of the BIG, BIG, win in WV. Who are they going to trot out after Kentucky? It was Bill Richardson after Ohio, who's next I wonder, I mean poor prince shouldn't have to put up with losses, how can he keep his strings untangled if he's upset. I think the thing that upsets me the most is that big-mouthed nasty bitch he's married to is going to get her way and that sucks. the first lady used to mean something, I guess not anymore, now, I guess, just any nasty, no-class hag will do. He keeps blathering about judgement, I guess he was drunk when he married her. He's an empty shirt , tied to back money in the party. Welcome to the New World Order, hope that all you Bo supporters out there are still so enamoured when you find out your low man on the totem pole. They say people get the legislators they deserve, Good Luck !!!!!!.
![[RSS]](http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
![[ARCHIVES]](http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/templates/images/archives_icon.png){kind=icon}
Comments
Morning Craig.
I am not going to give up on her...until she says its over....Where there is a "Will " there is a "Way" !!!!
Posted by: Tan | May 14, 2008 6:39 AM
Good morning Craig.
What happened to the posts after 8:35pm last night?
I didn't expect Obama to do very well in last nights primary since it's a Klan state and after all a black man on the ballot with a white person is not expected to win in a racist state.
Still I congratulate the Hillary supporters on her win.
God Bless.
Posted by: anon-paranoid
| May 14, 2008 6:50 AM
Tucker is one of the worst trouble makers out there.
His insinuations are much worse than lies. (It is much easier to point out the truth than untangle it.)
Because Tucker claims the "media" supports Obama - all the jackass things the pundits say can also be tied to Obama. (And then he proceeds to say some of the most despicable things on the airwaves.)
And let's be clear. There were plenty of states Hillary did not campaign hard in where she knew she had no shot.
Obama went to WV (and shot a mean game of pool I might add). And it wasn't as if he was sitting on his ass the rest of the time. Obama is campaigning in the battle ground states in order to cut off McCain's tour at the pass.
(And I think he did not make a late speech because he did not want to steal any of HRC's thunder.)
Posted by: warren
| May 14, 2008 6:51 AM
Time for the Obama campaign song again!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN8dP4CoFaw
Posted by: warren
| May 14, 2008 6:54 AM
Congrats to Senator Clinton, but don't think WV was a game changer. But may she revel in the glow of victory today.
Catch you all later.
Posted by: dog hussein dog | May 14, 2008 7:04 AM
Good morning dog,
Well nothing has really changed here so I guess I'll go back to lurking.
God Bless.
Posted by: anon-paranoid
| May 14, 2008 7:13 AM
I Wil say this once and only once, that myspace page is someone's sick idea of a joke! If whoever did it thinks it will intimidate me sorry, wont work, is there no low trick you obama supporters will resort to? I never had a myspace page and now onward towards victory for Hillary
--Heather
Posted by: Heather
| May 14, 2008 7:13 AM
Heather.......what myspace page?
Posted by: sturgeone | May 14, 2008 7:16 AM
For Renee and other Monty Python fans: Dana Milbank's column this morning, "This is an Ex-Candidate"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/13/AR2008051302862.html?hpid=topnews
Posted by: dog hussein dog | May 14, 2008 7:21 AM
Sen. Clinton may have taken the center at the expense of the base, but isn't that what any Democratic candidate will have to do in order to win in November?
Posted by: Mary Kitt-Neel
| May 14, 2008 7:22 AM
"don't think WV was a game changer."
Nobody is saying it is a "game changer," dog. This game has actually been over a long time. The supers HAD to give this to Obama no matter what. Even if he desecrates a cross, he'll be the candidate. The old boy network picked their candidate, put him in a "change" mask, and give him the nomination.
Oh,and Anon -- I knew you'd be taking aim at working class, rural America with your usual mentally challanged world view. Klan state! Nazis! Aliens! Black helicopters!
Posted by: Patsi
| May 14, 2008 7:27 AM
Any candidate that is close to winning the Presidential nomination and had the kind of results they got in WVA should be embarrassed by it. There is no excuses for that one.
Posted by: vadaryl
| May 14, 2008 7:28 AM
Patsi,
You forgot his evil, ungrateful Jews.
Posted by: 9/11 survivor (sort of)
| May 14, 2008 7:32 AM
Hi Craig,
I respect you a lot and agree with you that Hillary appeals to a centrist
group of Democrats and that, sadly, she is probably down for the count. But, I don't think that the real base of Dems is the ultra-liberal Obama elites.
For the last eight years, certain factions of the Dem party have been moving more to the far left, succeeding in nominating unelectable candidates who appeal to the Huffington-Post set. The neo-libs are louder, have more money, and are generally more educated, but not always. Their voices drown out the true majority of Dems who often are bullied by the Darth Axelrods and Howard Deans.
What is happening this year is that many young, first time voters are
charmed by the media blitz and bling, bling that the Obama campaign has
presented. I don't believe that most of these kids actually know much about
the policies of Obama--they are not what I would call the base of the Dem
Party. But, for this year, they are voting in droves for Obama.
I don't believe Hillary Clinton is losing this race because she has miscalculated her base or for any serious mistakes in her campaign. She is
losing because the media trashed her and mocked Bill, painting them as racists in order to pull in 95% of the African American vote. Also, sexism played a part in marginalizing Senator Clinton, too. Pundits created a daily hostile environment for Hillary, whether on the internet or on television.
The Dem elites may win the race against Hillary Clinton but for the third
time in a row, they will probably lose the Presidency.
Craig, correct me if I'm wrong.
Posted by: prof marcia
| May 14, 2008 7:33 AM
Heather: you absolutely did have a myspace page and no Obama supporter put that thing up there. Your first misstatement of the day and it's only 7:13 a.
If you took it down, that is your choice and your prerogative.
It included a slide show with nice photos of a graduation ceremony from Notre Dame College (congrats there, if that's true) and next slide show in queue was of your purported masturbation fantasies.
I'm told all the Notre Dame grads are doing that on their Myspace pages this year. De rigeur.
=========
Heather: I could care less what is up on your Myspace page. Free speech and a free personal expression. Have no problem with porn, if it is how you chose to express your unique personality and gifts. It appears you went to some effort creating the page, and you have a nice eye for composition and color. So do admire your creativity there.
Your lying? Not so fond of that.
Posted by: dog hussein dog | May 14, 2008 7:35 AM
Dog:
Its easty for a hacker to access that info and stop accusing me of something not true cause you hate my views and YOU WANT it to be true
Posted by: Heather
| May 14, 2008 7:37 AM
This was posted by Rezdog last night. These are states that the majority is white.
I guess these people aren't hard working class by your comment.
"Obama won WY, ME, AK, CO, DE, ID, KS, MN, WI, VA and Iowa without them too."
But then Obama won them so they don't count as far as the Hillary supporters think.
God Bless.
Posted by: anon-paranoid
| May 14, 2008 7:39 AM
Isn't a little early to be fighting? As I said before , it's not about who supports who here. Some people think others are just jerks. That's how I see it.
Posted by: Corey
| May 14, 2008 7:40 AM
wo.....I mussa missed something somewhere.....calling people liars this early in the AM?
what's that all about?
Posted by: sturgeone | May 14, 2008 7:40 AM
Why are you guys being mean to Heather? You just can't be happy enough that your candidate won? You best be thinking about how to pull him through the general election instead of using your time and energies harassing women who are Clinton supporters.
Posted by: Alicia Knight
| May 14, 2008 7:41 AM
Heather: Enough already. You have an internet footprint, apparently, and the myspace page was similar to other webpages you have put up over time.
Go with your creativity and be whoever you want to be.
But enough of the misrepresenting yourself and pretending to be something you are not.
Posted by: dog hussein dog | May 14, 2008 7:43 AM
Some people don't like each other here , Sturge. We all know that. We're just more direct in expressing that dislike now. We gave up being subtle about it awhile ago.
Posted by: Corey
| May 14, 2008 7:43 AM
"She is losing because the media trashed her and mocked Bill, painting them as racists in order to pull in 95% of the African American vote. Also, sexism played a part in marginalizing Senator Clinton, too. Pundits created a daily hostile environment for Hillary, whether on the internet or on television. "
Absolutely true, Prof.
Posted by: Patsi
| May 14, 2008 7:43 AM
the people in Iowa are mostly white, and the people in W V are mostly white.......something must have happened in between, eh? an inference which has been drawn by mo dowdy, for one......
Posted by: sturgeone | May 14, 2008 7:44 AM
9/11 survivor (sort of)...
I never said what you just posted.
"You forgot his evil, ungrateful Jews."
That's in your mind, not mine.
Back too lurking.
God Bless.
Posted by: anon-paranoid
| May 14, 2008 7:47 AM
On my other group , someone went to the profile page of someone nobody liked and wrote up a bogus profile on her page a few years ago. This person who did it thought it was pretty funny , apparently. But , I knew the person they did this to well enough to know that it was not their own work. It was a bogus profile.
Posted by: Corey
| May 14, 2008 7:48 AM
Alicia K: Heather has put up some brutally nasty posts that border on psychotic.
I would suggest cruising through some earlier Crawfords List threads -- you can use the "find on page" function at "EDIT" on internet toolbar -- look at what Heather has put up over the past few weeks.
Substitute Hillary or Clinton or whomever you admire for what she's said about Obama and his supporters.
And pay note to the meanness towards Republicans and those she sees as the enemy. Some cruel and disturbing imagery and language.
No one is harrassing Heather. I just called her on a lie, plain and simple, which she is trying to blame on some grand conspiracy.
Posted by: dog hussein dog | May 14, 2008 7:51 AM
The early voters got all excited about the new kid on the block. Like a consumer they liked the packaging, I need one because everyone else has one. Then in the last few weeks they opened the package and were not that pleased what they found inside. Some found it pretty empty, not much there. So now what do the supers do?
Posted by: vadaryl
| May 14, 2008 7:52 AM
dog,
I always respect you. (How could I not?)
But do you have kids? Do you ever hear what people do on myspace or even on facebook?
Ever read about how false pages get set up to mess with people... and not just by teenagers?
Someone I know had a page like "Heather's" set up by someone she had dumped with reason. It caused her a lot of hurt. But very little real damage as no one who knew her believed she was a high dollar bop escort.
False personal pages get created all the time using cut and paste... most often from unlovely motivations.
I went to look.
Did you notice that person's ID reads "married", the city is NYC and the state is... Alabama?
I will add that Heather on her blog and at this site has a distinct writing style which seems to be a healthy part of her identity. That myspace page hasn't any.
If I thought it was her creation, I'd agree with you.
While anything's possible and I have no proof... I say it's a fake.
Again, that's my opinion just as what you expressed was yours.
Go take on the world as you always do, fighting hard and fairly.
Posted by: 9/11 survivor (sort of)
| May 14, 2008 7:53 AM
dog...
Maybe Heather has a split personality.
God Bless.
Posted by: anon-paranoid
| May 14, 2008 7:54 AM
Corey: if that happened to Heather, she has my sympathy and I wish her success in having the authorities track down whoever put up the myspace page, which one accessed off a link to her blog.
Posted by: dog hussein dog | May 14, 2008 7:54 AM
I'll take your word for it Heather, thank you for explaining.
Posted by: JennBe
| May 14, 2008 7:56 AM
Morning 9/11. You are right about internet mischief and its potential for real tragedy and harm to an innocent.
I do not think that is what we are dealing with here, but very fair of you to bring that up, so kudos!
Shall check back later; traveling later today and have to get my pups to their dog dude ranch.
9/11: I hope you are having a good day, in terms of physical comfort. Be strong there. And best to Vanilla Birdies.
Posted by: dog hussein dog | May 14, 2008 8:00 AM
Once upon a time (called the 70's) there was a young actor working in NYC who appeared in a lot of plays at the Circle in the Square in midtown. (There was one downtown, too.) He specialized then in playing English working class blokes.
Ted, who ran the place (into the ground), liked that actor as did a group of women from Connecticut who formed a theater club dedicated to him.
When they went to see a play called "Spokes", the Times ran a nice piece about them as well as the young guy whose name was John Lithgow.
In today's NYT there's a review of a terrific one man Lithgow show (directed by one of a bunch of great directors 'round here, Jack O'Brien) about his family... and storytelling. Which is something every family does from generation to generation.
A few of you may really enjoy reading this one.
http://theater2.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/theater/reviews/14lith.html
Posted by: 9/11 survivor (sort of)
| May 14, 2008 8:01 AM
It's gotten ugly here. People have changed. The people here are gonna believe what they wanna believe. Be it about other posters or the candidates. As they say, believe half of what you see and none of what you hear. I knew a guy who got banished from a website I frequent . After he got banished I checked his profile page. Here's what I found on it:
http://www.capperwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=JurassicPork
Posted by: Corey
| May 14, 2008 8:02 AM
Dang. Craig, it ate my post, again. (It was most eloquent and a great loss to all, I assure you.) Back to cut & paste from Word for me.
Still wondering why BO supporters think the only reason people don't vote for their guy is race? Could it be that he comes off as arrogant, insincere, lacks the ability to illuminate us all with details of his plan for "change" and seems about as competent to hold office as W? Could it be that people don't want to vote for an unknown & now, an unknown with some uncomfortable associations? Nope, just play your little race card. Very simple & you get to blame someone else instead of taking a good, hard look at your candidate.
Posted by: blueINdallas | May 14, 2008 8:05 AM
dog,
A link off the blog?
That is something to consider.
Posted by: 9/11 survivor (sort of)
| May 14, 2008 8:08 AM
Thanks for the link, 9/11 -- I love Lithgow.
Posted by: Patsi
| May 14, 2008 8:09 AM
dog,
It is ABSOLUTELY not the same page.
The myspace page link on her blog is for a PRIVATE page.
The lurid page is a public one.
Posted by: 9/11 survivor (sort of)
| May 14, 2008 8:18 AM
mornin' all.
Great Hillary victory yesterday - wish it had come earlier and more often.
AP, I'm sorry, you're wrong. WV is not a Klan state. There is certainly racism here - sort of like in NH. It had a modest Klan presence 50 years ago, mostly in the southern coalfields down in the part of the state near Kentucky and Tennessee, but there is no evidence of the Klan here now. Sounds like sour grapes and your typical BS to me. I'd wager you can find much more of a KKK presence among the shitkickeing rednecks in the northern part of your state than the southern part of mine.
vad, told you the voters would come out in big numbers.
Heather, FWIW, I never saw the link or the Myspace site - stuff like that is blocked at work, and I don't go looking for that sort of stuff at home. Plus, if it is like what was described by some who dislike you and your opinions here, it strains credibility to say the least. Kill the link and don't worry about it.
profmarcia, I agree about the media slant you point out, but I don't agree that Hillay's camaign isn't guilty of gross miscalculations - failing to organize and get a higher percentage of the delegates in caucus states while Obama ran rampant there was a miscalculation that has likely cost her the nomination.
Posted by: pogo
| May 14, 2008 8:21 AM
Heather,
I understand entirely why you took your blog private.
Please keep at it, will you?
Thanks.
Posted by: 9/11 survivor (sort of)
| May 14, 2008 8:23 AM
pogo,
A-P should join the AP: he's got the same lack of interest in fact checking.
Me, I don't interpret "anon" as abbreviated anonymity.
'Round here it's again and again and again and again and again.
Even comes with a soundtrack -- Talking Heads singing "Road To Nowhere".
Posted by: 9/11 survivor (sort of)
| May 14, 2008 8:27 AM
damnn typos - must...learn...to ...prooread.
Posted by: pogo
| May 14, 2008 8:29 AM
prof marcia
You're right on!! This is a coronation of Obama now.
WRITE IN HILLARY IN NOV.. GO HILLARY
Dean, Kennedy et al have sold out the heart and soul of the larger democratic base for the "new" paradigm.. blacks, far left elites, and college kids. The hard working white men and women have been officially classified as a non factor in their "new" 50 state strategy for the electoral college.
41 point victory in WV and a look at Clinton wins in large swing states is still a powerful message to send to super delegates today.. must be some significant nail biting going on. I think the new coalition is a loser
Posted by: BOWWOW44
| May 14, 2008 8:29 AM
The Nancy and Harry show gets really bad reviews
http://www.gallup.com/poll/107242/Congress-Approval-Rating-Ties-Lowest-Gallup-Records.aspx
Posted by: Jamie
| May 14, 2008 8:30 AM
Craig
good analysis
that was always her risk. To win the general election she might not win the nomination.
Obama has been shortsighted with his campaigning. He views winning the nomination at the only goal.
Last night it came back to bite him with a vengence. I know of counties here in Missouri that have an active Klan , where Obama did better than he did in WV. It is hard to find a county in Missouri where he fell under 30%. WV is a result of his campaign messages and choices. He could have done much better in WV. It is all the stupid mistakes he made over the last 2 months that has brought him down.
Jack
Posted by: whskyjack | May 14, 2008 8:34 AM
I think Dog and Sheila are the same person. I'm not sure about anon yet.
Posted by: nogrudge
| May 14, 2008 8:35 AM
pogo...
They showed interviews where the people said that they would never vote for a black man.
They also stated that 27 % I believe it was would never vote for a black person. Outside of that I believe there is still a lot of racism in the rural areas there.
And your probably right that there are more racists in my state, but like you said they must be further north than I am.
As to Heathers website I looked at it and there is what appears to be a link to a myspace page. The link was inactive though when I went to her site.
I did a look at the page source and found the link and did check it out last night after it was mentioned she had a myspace page and it was porn. Unless someone hacked her blog account I don't see how anyone could have put that in her template though it is entirely possible.
God Bless.
Posted by: anon-paranoid
| May 14, 2008 8:37 AM
Pogo
I think Dean advantaged the Obama campaign in all those caucus states. My theory is he's been setting up his 50 state strategy since 2004. I remember reading he went down South and then out West to open office/outposts etc. Then he let the Deanics and the power of his internet operation from 2000 kick in to advantage BO. I believe Obama is the invention of the Dean, Kennedy et al. if not hand picked.
I have been troubled by this primary election since kennedy had his tantrum in Feb. Something didn't feel right. Hillary polls very well against mcCain in the electoral college and any reasonable person or super delegate can see that.
So this proud democrat will not be coming home to the party in Nov.
Posted by: BOWWOW44
| May 14, 2008 8:39 AM
Craig,
The problem is that the Democratic party's "Base" is not liberal. The party's movers, shakers, power brokers, and activists are "liberal". The majority of the voters likely to vote Democratic (except for the extremely important AA vote) is going to Hillary. This race has stayed as close as it has because he has gotten that core AA vote, the smaller "elite" vote, and the new "idealist" crowd that he has brought in who may or may not stay around. She has the older AA vote and the broad mass of the populist, working class, somewhat conservative branch.
For votes, that is about as close to 50/50 as you can get and no matter who finally gets the nomination, there had better be a lot of making nice going on.
Posted by: Jamie
| May 14, 2008 8:40 AM
"I did a look at the page source and found the link and did check it out last night after it was mentioned she had a myspace page and it was porn. Unless someone hacked her blog account I don't see how anyone could have put that in her template though it is entirely possible."
Who frequents this site and has IT experience and is a psycho? And who has pals who are cyber stalkers and have tried to control this site...
Posted by: Questions | May 14, 2008 8:41 AM
a-p,
Once again you're as hostile as your blessings are bland.
The link on Heather's blog to myspace is to a PRIVATE page.
The link to the lurid page is a PUBLIC one.
What on earth do you do for a living?
Do lives depend on it?
If so.... forget God bless.
God help 'em all.
Posted by: 9/11 survivor (sort of)
| May 14, 2008 8:42 AM
I have my super delicates in the wash. I use Woolite.
Posted by: Corey
| May 14, 2008 8:43 AM
Yep, 9/11, I'd call him fact challenged.
Bowwow, I agree with your skepticism of the new coalition and the planned redrawing of the electoral math - the polls in the states that are expected to switch don't support its success.
BTW, to put the Clinton victory in perspective, she won every county in WV. WV was a Clinton mirror of Obama's Hawaii results - of course she had no ties to the state.
Posted by: pogo
| May 14, 2008 8:44 AM
Who frequents this site and has IT experience and is a psycho? And who has pals who are cyber stalkers and have tried to control this site...Questions
Questions, I've been trying to figure this out too.
I don't know much about hacking but it's scary to think that if you speak your mind, there's an enemy here.
Posted by: nogrudge
| May 14, 2008 8:46 AM
good morning gang.....
Corey..... I believe that Obama will be the Democratic nominee.... but I think it's finally come to dawn on the Obama supporters on this blog that he may indeed have a huge problem come the general election..... namely... a big group of Clinton supporters who will not vote for him....
and I think as that realization turns into a reality come this fall..... the Obama supporters will get much nastier...... I suggest you ignore them.....
it's a beautiful day up here...... gonna party hardy today......... YEEEEHAAAW!
Posted by: RebelliousRenee
| May 14, 2008 8:46 AM
Oh. Super DELEGATES! My bad. BTW , the Obama rally starts at 7:00 tonight. The doors open at 5:00. No bags will be allowed. The Van Andel Arena holds 12,000+ people. A full house is expected. Too bad I have my Mom's b-day party tonight and then the Red Wings are on at 8:00. If he could have waited a day , I would have a free evening.
Posted by: Corey
| May 14, 2008 8:48 AM
Cory
For some of the more delicate personalities around here, that comment may have been porn.
It certainly created some unwanted images in my mind.
LOL
Jack
Posted by: whskyjack | May 14, 2008 8:49 AM
I believe that Obama will be the Democratic nominee.... but I think it's finally come to dawn on the Obama supporters on this blog that he may indeed have a huge problem come the general election..
RebelliousRenee
Renee, that huge problem is the so called "working class"..
Way back, they used to be called the backbone of America.
Now they're just a contituency that Obama doesn't need.
Posted by: nogrudge
| May 14, 2008 8:51 AM
Renee , you are right. I guess we need to remember we are voting vote the candidates , not their supporters.
Posted by: Corey
| May 14, 2008 8:53 AM
Cory
I was referring to the 8:43 post
Jack
Posted by: whskyjack | May 14, 2008 8:54 AM
Corey......what's all this I hear about super deli gates? What was wrong with the old deli gates? what, is someone going to break in and steal some corned beef?
---emily latella
Posted by: sturgeone | May 14, 2008 8:57 AM
Well Jack , I didn't really care for that guy. So , when I saw that picture , I laughed. I thought , "Wow , somebody hated that guy enough to put up a picture like that!" Then I thought , "Maybe he did that himself? Just tell tell us what we could all do." I guess it's all in how you look at it.
Posted by: Corey
| May 14, 2008 8:59 AM
sturgeone,
What do you know about deli gates?
You live in the appetizing store! Where the doors and the windows are are loxed. And the employees are all Emily Latella's cousins --
Hard of herring!
Posted by: 9/11 survivor (sort of)
| May 14, 2008 9:02 AM
Clinton Extends Her Lead Among Congressional Districts! \
http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com/
Posted by: nogrudge
| May 14, 2008 9:05 AM
It has been amusing and disgusting to watch the morning shows this A.M. They had a "plan" for
Clinton and it just didn't work out exactly how they imagined it would.
The "plan" has been successful enough to do irrepairable damage to Clinton. Not in the "plan", is when the people started waking up from their hypnotic stupor and smelling the coffee. Hillary hung in long enough for people to really get to know her and see that she is not the monster that the Repubs have discribed her as.
The people are also starting to realize that just maybe someone they don't know much about will be running this country. Yes they woke up a little too late for Clinton but maybe too early for Obama.
Many are banking on the fact that the Repubs are so unpopular that the Dems can push anyone thru. I am not sure that is a workable plan. I think Hillary supporters are some of the least politically naive. We are not easily manipulated. We have been paying attention all this time. More of the Obama supports are the one who are new to politics.
And please stop trying to blame racism. It is getting old and only works on those who want to look cool. Yes there are a lot of "isms" going on here. I think racism is the least of the "isms" and I am pleased with that.
Posted by: ct | May 14, 2008 9:07 AM
Coolio...
Sweet beans..
My o myspace.
Someone very special speaks such fluent fourteenese.
Posted by: 9/11 survivor (sort of)
| May 14, 2008 9:07 AM
9/11
Thank you for that Lithgow link. That review will fit perfectly with my regular blog rants about telling family stories.
Posted by: Jamie
| May 14, 2008 9:07 AM
" traveling later today and have to get my pups to their dog dude ranch."
OMG! Dog -- Thank you! Thank you! You have just made today's potentialy horrible lunch with two Republicans bearable! They almost always end up making some snotty comment about the Democrats being a party of welfare mothers. Now I can say, "No, no, no! In the new party, Dem wives spend their days driving pets to dude ranches."
ROFL! This is going to be fun.
Posted by: Patsi
| May 14, 2008 9:08 AM
And by the way -- Denver, Colorado was once a Klan stronghold. It ain't just redneck Southerners who act stupid.
Posted by: Patsi
| May 14, 2008 9:11 AM
Patsi,
And the fellow who made the film which glorified the Klan -- which the stubborn idealist Woodrow Wilson ADORED beyond any film (or play or book) -- next made the monumental film Intolerance about the destructive history of human prejudice.
Posted by: 9/11 survivor (sort of)
| May 14, 2008 9:14 AM
9/11 survivor (sort of) ...
I copied the link from the view source info which anyone can do by right clicking on the page your on and it went to the myspace page which was a porn page. Anyone can copy a link from the view source page info, but can not alter the template its on.
Only the blog owner can change information on their template, no one else. Unless someone hacked her blog account she's the only one who can put that link in it.
So the link I copied and pasted into my url came from her view source info look.
I said it was possible that someone could have hacked her account, but again only she can edit her template, no one else can unless it was hacked.
God Bless.
Posted by: anon-paranoid
| May 14, 2008 9:19 AM
ap, as I said, there is racism here. If you find a state where it isn't, let me know and I'll be packing to move there. (Same goes for stupidity, poverty, illiteracy...) It's the unfounded Klan state accusation that bugs me and makes your "analysis" look like it is nothing more than rantings of an obsessed madman. Had Obama made a respectable showing here, I doubt that you would have been flinging those accusations - I don't recall you making them about MS, AL, VA, the Carolinas or GA, and they actually do have the Klan and active, angry racism that still exists, just as in TN & AK. Racism is not a distinguishing factor between the HRC states won and the states BHO won, so drop the gratutitous innuendos - they just reflect the racism in your candidate's campaign.
Posted by: pogo
| May 14, 2008 9:19 AM
unless it was hacked.
and the biggest hack of all posts here
Posted by: Hacked off | May 14, 2008 9:21 AM
1) As one Hillary supporter said, It ain't over till the lady in the pant suite says it's over
2) No matter what happens - it was fun to watch Obomie get his clock cleaned in West Virginia LOL
3) Guess they were so embarrassed by their shellacking last night they decided they should immediately dispatched Michelle Obama to Puerto Rico -- I guess they hope her message of negativity and hate will resonate with voters there.
hahaha
OK - back to my paper - it's due in 11 hours ahhhhhhh!
Posted by: Wendy!
| May 14, 2008 9:23 AM
ct
"The people are also starting to realize that just maybe someone they don't know much about will be running this country. Yes they woke up a little too late for Clinton but maybe too early for Obama. "
This is at the core of the party's problem at present. Sen. Obama was put forward as the darling of media and power brokers hoping that none of the inadequacies would show through the great make up job. Clinton hung in there past when the coronation was expected and some of the Obama warts are starting to show.
I'm not giving up on her, but if he is the nominee a great deal will hinge on the VP and other surrounding supporters. McCain is a weak candidate and the Dem nominee is likely to win, but only if the that great mass in the middle doesn't believe that they will be replacing a Republican incompetent with a Democratic incompetent.
Posted by: Jamie
| May 14, 2008 9:24 AM
Oh and just to mention the caucuses. There were a lot of people who felt they "had" to vote for Sen. Obama because it was public and they didn't want people from their churches seeing them vote for Sen. Clinton.
The amount of intimidation going on in the AA community during the caucuses was not pretty.
Posted by: Jamie
| May 14, 2008 9:29 AM
Before anyone starts accusing someone here of hacking you better be careful because you may be opening yourself up to a defamation lawsuit.
I know because talk like your suggesting was done about my brother and right now not only is a lawsuit pending, but the FBI is looking into also because of the words used.
God Bless.
Posted by: anon-paranoid
| May 14, 2008 9:30 AM
"DNC leadership tell the superdelegates that they should follow the wish of the voters. How many House members have directly placed party politics above the wishes of the very people they represent."
http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com/
Posted by: nogrudge
| May 14, 2008 9:31 AM
I'm confused: She supposedly doesn't have the delegates, right? But he doesn't have the delegates, either. So how does he win the nomination again? It's hard to be a Democratic these days when so many of us are so stupid. It's like having your parents and your friends together at the same time, and you really pray your mom doesn't say anything embarrassing and that your dad will keep his pants on. I hate that feeling.
Posted by: Ray | May 14, 2008 9:34 AM
Hey
What a great night for the divided government movement.
Does anybody think Obama is going to do better with working class Democrats in Ohio then he did across the river in WV
Put Ohio in the McCain column
That gives him 269 electors only one more to go.
Woohoo
Other good news for the divided government movement.
CNN projects that Democrat Travis Childers defeated Republican Greg Davis in a Tuesday special election for an open congressional seat in northern Mississippi.
This is a seat the Democrats lost in 94.
The real good news is Obama was not a negative although the National Republican party tried to tie him to the local Dem.
hey
A McCain presidency
With a dominating congress
The best of both worlds
As I said last night
Maybe the Democrats will be able to tell that weasel Lieberman to take a hike
Friends don't let friends vote a straight ticket
Vote for divided government
Vote McCain
Posted by: Pugnacious
| May 14, 2008 9:38 AM
Who did you all support in the primary 4 years ago? Were you strongly for your candidate? And if Kerry was not your choice- how disgruntled were you?
To me, whoever is the nominee- this reminds me more of 2000 when I knew people who were going to vote (and did vote) for Nader. The refrain was "there is not difference between Bush and Gore anyway". I remember objecting that Bush would be a horrible choice- due to the supreme court- and the environment, and my friend- a liberal environmentalist- said "well maybe things have to get really bad before they get better.
So, here we are with a war with 4000 Americans dead, many more irreparably mentally hurt and physically maimed. God knows how many Iraqis our weapons have murdered, and the occupation continues with no end in sight.
We have record deficits, billions more a week-
no progress on health insurance, gas at 4 dollars a gallon, and no work on climate change.
We have Sam Alito and the youthful John Roberts.
We don't have habeus corpus.
When this is over.....whether it is Obama or Clinton- the differences between Clinton or Obama and McCain will be very clear.
To my eyes, if one really cares about any of the issues I wrote of above, the choice will be very apparent and very clear and very easy. Just because one feels strongly in a primary, does not dictate that they will vote against the other in the general.
A vote for MCCain - or not to vote at all- is to continue to Bush legacy and endless occupation, an even more conservative supreme court. Les protections for women's reproductive rights.
By the way, I have no doubt that Hillary would work incredibly hard for Obama and vice versa,
But they choice will be yours.
Posted by: Kathy | May 14, 2008 9:38 AM
a-p,
The owner of the private page -- which was the link on her blog I clicked this morning for the first time -- was "heathergobragh".
The public page did use an email address of hers on the myspace search. Its ID was NOT heathergobragh.
But thanks, as always, for the sanctimony. It goes as well with your aspersions and visions as it does with George W. Bush's.
Posted by: 9/11 survivor (sort of)
| May 14, 2008 9:44 AM
"Clinton Extends Her Lead Among Congressional Districts"
Read the full article, and what the Obama campaign doesn't want to talk about at:
http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com/2008/05/clinton-extends-her-lead-among.html
Support The Obama Truth Week
Posted by: MB | May 14, 2008 9:44 AM
As I said racism exists here - it's existed in each of the 6 states I've lived in (in this election, half went for BHO, half for HRC). It does trouble me. That is not my beef with AP. And 18% of voters in your state said the same thing about race being a factor - and I could be mistaken, but that represents about eight times as many racists in what by all accounts should be a much more open and enlightened state considering that 57% of N'yawkers IDed themselves as liberal while only 34% of WVers did. And in NY, 25% said gender was a factor while in unenlightened WV, only 18% did. I assume that troubles you.
Posted by: pogo
| May 14, 2008 9:46 AM
a-p,
The owner of the private page -- which was the link on her blog I clicked this morning for the first time -- was "heathergobragh".
The public page did use an email address of hers on the myspace search. Its ID was NOT heathergobragh.
But thanks, as always, for the sanctimony. It goes as well with your aspersions and visions as it does with George W. Bush's.
Posted by: 9/11 survivor (sort of)
| May 14, 2008 9:46 AM
a-p,
The owner of the private page -- which was the link on her blog I clicked this morning for the first time -- was "heathergobragh".
The public page did use an email address of hers on the myspace search. Its ID was NOT heathergobragh.
But thanks, as always, for the sanctimony. It goes as well with your aspersions and visions as it does with George W. Bush's.
Good luck to your brother.
But it's kind of weird given your hatred of this government and its abuses of law on every level that you of all people would use the FBI as a threat....
Posted by: 9/11 survivor (sort of)
| May 14, 2008 9:47 AM
As I said racism exists here - it's existed in each of the 6 states I've lived in (in this election, half went for BHO, half for HRC). It does trouble me. That is not my beef with AP. And 18% of voters in your state said the same thing about race being a factor - and I could be mistaken, but that represents about eight times as many racists in what by all accounts should be a much more open and enlightened state considering that 57% of N'yawkers IDed themselves as liberal while only 34% of WVers did. And in NY, 25% said gender was a factor - a staggering higher number, to steal your phrase - while in unenlightened WV, only 18% did. I assume that troubles you.
Posted by: pogo
| May 14, 2008 9:47 AM
a-p,
Serious good luck to your brother.
However... you've got to admit... given your complete distrust of the government and particularly the Justice Department's forsaking of the Constitution...
It's kind of odd that you of all people on this planet to summon the FBI in your warning about legal actions.
Kind of odd... weird.
Makes me wonder where you're actually coming from.
Posted by: 9/11 survivor (sort of)
| May 14, 2008 9:50 AM
sorry about the double post - I tried to stop it - drat. Ignore the first one - oops, too late I guess.
Posted by: pogo
| May 14, 2008 10:01 AM
I know because talk like your suggesting was done about my brother and right now not only is a lawsuit pending, but the FBI is looking into also because of the words used.
God Bless
'as opposed to calling people nazis and klan members...
A refresher in the slander and libel laws is in order.
No names were mentioned and yet someone sprang to your mind immediately..
The West Virginia Chamber of Commerce has asked the FBI to look into your charges
Posted by: Hacked Off | May 14, 2008 10:03 AM
Before anyone starts accusing someone here of hacking you better be careful because you may be opening yourself up to a defamation lawsuit.
Posted by: anon-paranoid
Just another example of someone trying to use fear to shut us up. Don't say anything controversial folks.
Posted by: o | May 14, 2008 10:13 AM
stephanie Tubb-Jones on MSNBC now speaking for Hillary. She is hardly alone. Maya Angelou, Tavis Smiley and Maxine Waters have been a particularly strong voices.
Congressional Black Caucus and state officials breakdown
http://blackpoliticsontheweb.com/african-american-endorsement-tracker/
You can dig for the private ones on your own.
Posted by: Jamie
| May 14, 2008 10:13 AM
If there is actually any hacking being done, I think it may be starting at TrakKey. Don't know anything about hacking, but
think that's the tie in.
Craig, are your guys able to check this out on Heathers behalf.
Posted by: o | May 14, 2008 10:17 AM
"I didn't expect Obama to do very well in last nights (sic)primary since it's a Klan state and after all a black man on the ballot with a white person is not expected to win in a racist state." - anon
Posting ignorant and bigoted remarks followed by "God Bless" still doesn't make it acceptable.
Sen. Obama would be proud to see how his supporter is following the rallying cry to bring people together and overcome the politics of division.
Posted by: QuitFoolingAround
| May 14, 2008 10:18 AM
How Obama Won by Karl Rove: 20,000 voters in Idaho caucus. 18 delegates awarded.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoL-niwDASY
Obama has run a superb campaign, there is no doubt about that. The bean counters that work for him should be well rewarded for their expertise. But please, let's not pretend that his victory represents a mandate in the Democratic party, OK? Enough with the old people, bitter women and hicks characterizations. It demeans the person hurling the insults and it demeans the process.
Posted by: Ally
| May 14, 2008 10:19 AM
maggisd,
He amazes me.
His range... well, I'll just say that he never does the same thing over and over again.
And his Shakespeare is among my favorites of all time.
Posted by: 9/11 survivor (sort of)
| May 14, 2008 10:21 AM
But please, let's not pretend that his victory represents a mandate in the Democratic party, OK?
Ally
yeah, but Ally. How is he going to win the General Election because he ran a good primary? The rules will make more sense in the General. I can't understand why the DNC would slant this process. It's actually a tool for them to find out who would be most likely to win against McCain. It seems odd to slant the evaluation process that was set up to get at the truth. Maybe this is why the dems keep losing (except WJC).?
Posted by: nogrudge
| May 14, 2008 10:25 AM
Primary season 1994 -- who was your candidate of choice?
What did you see in him?
How did you feel about the eventual nominee?
Posted by: 9/11 survivor (sort of)
| May 14, 2008 10:29 AM
hacked off, good one - RFLMAO. I personally know the WVCoC executive director and many of the members of its board (since I sit on 2 of its committees) and I can assure you that the WVCoC would not ask the FBI to look into anything that does not directly effect one of its members, and even then only after a vote of the Board approving the request. LOLOL
Posted by: pogo
| May 14, 2008 10:30 AM
I have yet to see any compelling analysis of the relative performance of the two candidates since Rev Wright and the "bitter" remarks. It seems to me that those two events, rather more than race, constituted a dividing line in the campaign.
My take is that African Americans have discounted the Rev Wright information as a race-based attack of some sort, particularly since it was made so much of by Sean Hannity. But that moderate to conservative Democrats were and remain very troubled by the politics of Rev Wright. And, yes, troubled by bittergate, which struck many as a dismissive slap at more traditional Democrats.
Posted by: maggisd
| May 14, 2008 10:32 AM
9/11 - Primary season of 1994? There wasn't a primary season of 1994.
Posted by: maggisd
| May 14, 2008 10:35 AM
. I am certain you do not really mean to state categorically that the only people voting for Hillary are those over 55 and the "less educated."
maggisd
Maggi, and this thing about less educated is always stated in such a way that it portrays those of us who don't have a college degree to be ignorant, unworldly, bigoted and not wise enough to make an educated decision. The numbers of who votes for who are questionable too. They get them from exit polls, don't they? Polls aren't 100% right and they know that people do lie on them (for many different reasons, I imagine). It all comes back to the middle class. In the old days, the Democrats used to be the party "for the little guy" (that's how it was put back then). Now they say the new coalition doesn't need the working class. So who is going to represent the middle class? Nobody?
Posted by: nogrudge
| May 14, 2008 10:36 AM
"But it's kind of weird given your hatred of this government and its abuses of law on every level that you of all people would use the FBI as a threat...."
I thought the same thing, 9/11. Wow, Anon-paranoid....your true colors are showing.
Posted by: Patsi
| May 14, 2008 10:36 AM
I'm sorry, maggie sd -- I've got a bunch of new treatments to try starting tomorrow and have been premedicating unhappily this morning.
1992!!!!!!
Posted by: 9/11 survivor (sort of)
| May 14, 2008 10:38 AM
http://www.kkkk.net/
Pogo
I don't know. I think calling West Virginia a klan state is actionable. I can recommend a very fine attorney. :)
Would you want to go riverrafting in a klan state? I think it can adversely effect tourism.
Posted by: Hacked Off | May 14, 2008 10:40 AM
Today's Savage Chickens
http://www.savagechickens.com/blog/2008/05/believe.html
There is a political message there somewhere. : )
Posted by: Jamie
| May 14, 2008 10:40 AM
nogrudge: I agree with you. My point is that to hear Obama supporters tell it, Clinton was resoundly defeated. I simply reject that most of the Democratic party has told the Clintons to FO.
Posted by: Ally
| May 14, 2008 10:43 AM
nogrudge: Exactly right.
Here's the thing -- Republicans (generally) dislike government while Democrats (generally) dislike politicians. Sen Obama's campaign
1. Brilliantly positioned him as a nonpolitician, although everything in his record points to him as exactly that -- a politician.
2. Understood and used the arcane weighted-delegate system of the Democratic primaries and early caucuses in such a way that the contest was over almost as soon as it began.
We should have listened to Michelle Obama when she said that Iowa was the key to Sen Obama's victory. I would add SC to that, since the way the Obama campaign used the race card there was quite brilliant.
I do fault the broadcast media for some of this. The print media knew and wrote about Sen Obama's history in Chicago, including the radical views of Rev Wright...but the broadcast media never picked up on it. The blogs, of course, also did not because, I suspect, most of them agree with Rev Wright -- or with Michelle Obama that America is mean.
Posted by: maggisd
| May 14, 2008 10:43 AM
i still think after the bitter and cling to their guns and religion remarks..Penn.Indiana WVa are representing how people feel...all the other states that voted before those remarks and the typical white people remarks can't take their vote back...but i would bet that many would...congratulations to Hillary Clinton for clobbering her opponent in WVa....
Posted by: emmy | May 14, 2008 10:44 AM
1992- liked Harkin but voted for my home state Senator Tsongas-
Posted by: Kathy | May 14, 2008 10:45 AM
yes, troubled by bittergate, which struck many as a dismissive slap at more traditional Democrats. maggisd
You mean us bitter gun totin', bible thumpin' Bigots .Why would we be offended?
Posted by: o | May 14, 2008 10:49 AM
Kathy...
I liked Harkin, too. I was going to vote for Tsongas but he withdraw before the NYS primary.
I never trusted Jerry Brown's temperament as a leader. As he pretty much blew his chances all on his lonesome I didn't need to worry too much.
I voted for Clinton despite my dislike of the DLC.
Posted by: 9/11 survivor (sort of)
| May 14, 2008 10:51 AM
9/11 - In response to your original question, I was a Jerry Brown supporter in 1992 (of course). But I was quite pleased to vote for then-Gov Clinton, although his voice always annoyed me (still does) and I found most of his speeches soporific (still do). On the other hand, his ability to connect in town hall meetings...to get to the core of the question, analyze it on the spot -- well, no one was ever better.
During his time in office, like his predecessor, he was able to compromise and work with the Republican Congress and between them I think they steered a solid middle course that did some good. I personally benefited from the Family and Medical Leave Act and I am sure many people have benefited both from the CHIPS program and Welfare Reform.
I will not, however, vote for Sen Obama. Call me hidebound, call me conservative, call me what you will...I would rather rely on a fairly moderate, secular Republican checked by a Democratic Congress than to see my beloved Democratic Party drift ever more radically leftward.
BTW, based on performance only, I find Sen McCain to be more reliably Green than Sen Obama.
Posted by: maggisd
| May 14, 2008 10:52 AM
For the previous Presidential races I was living in California which until this year meant we took whatever the Democratic party gave us. So the only choice was in the general. For me that meant voting Democratic except for Carter. I wasn't crazy about Kerry and thought he was boring and unqualified, but the alternative was nauseating and unqualified.
Posted by: Jamie
| May 14, 2008 10:53 AM
Jamie: Here's my fear in the general—John McCain is not boring or unqualified.
Posted by: Ally
| May 14, 2008 10:55 AM
Or nauseating.
Posted by: Ally
| May 14, 2008 10:57 AM
And one more thing before I go...with regard to Heather's real or not real mySpace page. I have not seen the page but I'll say this: There sure is a lot of sanctimony going on in the discourse regarding the subject. For goodness sakes, what would JFK have had on his mySpace page?
Posted by: Ally
| May 14, 2008 11:00 AM
"never trusted Jerry Brown's temperament as a leader. As he pretty much blew his chances all on his lonesome I didn't need to worry too much"
True that. I supported Jerry Brown based on his appointments as governor. He bought bright, hardworking, nonpols into government. I think he over estimated the social progress of the public and under estimated the shallowness of the media. It is interesting to me that like Al Gore, Brown has never really left public service. He is currently Californias
attorney general. There is talk about Brown running for governor and out of the named Democrats Brown is the best. (Newsom and Villaraigosa)
Posted by: Lynn C | May 14, 2008 11:00 AM
Not only has the Democratic party told the Clintons to FO, that is pretty much their message to women.
Posted by: GAKaren
| May 14, 2008 11:00 AM
Ally,
It all depends on which McCain shows up for the debates: The rather fusty and fuzzy old man who sort of rambles around right wing positions or the very sharp, military and foreign policy maven. Sen Clinton could handle either. Sen. Obama would have trouble with the second.
Posted by: Jamie
| May 14, 2008 11:01 AM
GAKaren: I don't believe the PEOPLE of the Democratic party have told the Clintons to FO. The votes simply don't suggest that. Maybe the DNC has and maybe the media has and maybe the legislators have but have the PEOPLE? The voters? Really? I don't believe they have.
Posted by: Ally
| May 14, 2008 11:05 AM
I did not post twice ... I refreshed the screen when I got an error (as per Craig's advice) and the comment posted twice.
Any technical advice out there?
Posted by: maggisd
| May 14, 2008 11:06 AM
Jamie: Republicans better hope that John is taking his ginkgo biloba!
Posted by: Ally
| May 14, 2008 11:07 AM
"For the previous Presidential races I was living in California which until this year meant we took whatever the Democratic party gave us"
Ironically California moved up its primary to have a role.
If they had left it in June, think of how different the race would look today. California would be deciding the nominee.
Posted by: Lynn C | May 14, 2008 11:08 AM
maggiesd,
My favorite non-Mt. Baldy incarnation of Jerry Brown was as Mayor of Oakland.
However, Mt. Baldy Jerry Brown remains my favorite because I love Mt. Baldy.
Also... when I was a boy Pat Brown was "my" governor. It wasn't until Cuomo that I felt similarly about the chief exec of any state in which I'd lived.
Posted by: 9/11 survivor (sort of)
| May 14, 2008 11:10 AM
"You mean us bitter gun totin', bible thumpin' Bigots .Why would we be offended?"
That's right! What do all those lazy ass minority people know. They're just sitting around.
Posted by: hard working white voter | May 14, 2008 11:11 AM
From Obama's projections spreadsheet:
WV: Clinton + 12, IN: Obama + 7, Guam: Obama + 11
http://www.correntewire.com/wv_primary_open_thread
Posted by: GORDO | May 14, 2008 11:11 AM
Jamie: I didn't vote for Carter either. Only time I didn't vote Dem.
Lynn C: As for Brown for governor again -- I think you are right. We are at last ready for him.
Just as a comment here ... I voted for Jesse Jackson in 84 and 88, although the vote was meaningless for all practical purposes. Still, since I knew that Reagan would no doubt be re-elected in 1988 I hoped that Rev Jackson would at least be asked to run for Veep, because I thought it was time for the Dems to make a statement equally as powerful as Mondale had done with Geraldine Ferraro. As it turns out, I think Dukakis could really have used some of Rev Jackson's charisma and oratory.
I am having a senior moment...who was Dukakis's actual running mate? I don't remember anymore.
Posted by: maggisd
| May 14, 2008 11:13 AM
maggisd,
Prednisone is helping!
Senator Lloyd Bentsen.
Posted by: 9/11 survivor (sort of)
| May 14, 2008 11:15 AM
Maggie:
Some of the worst chemistry in Presidential/Vice Presidential chemistry ever recorded: Dukakis/Bentsen. Total nightmare.
Posted by: Ally
| May 14, 2008 11:16 AM
9/11 - To me Gov Pat Brown will always evoke the death penalty and Caryl Chessman...the sort of film noir Los Angeles of my girlhood. I was young then and didn't really grasp the entire story, but it seemed then and it seems now that putting someone to death (at least for a crime other than some sort of heinous murder) is not something the State should do.
Posted by: maggisd
| May 14, 2008 11:17 AM
1992 -- Bill Clinton was in Nashville very early in the process. One of my friends went out to meet him, and she convinced me.
Posted by: Patsi
| May 14, 2008 11:17 AM
here's the NYT on the Childers race. What is amazing to me is why this part of MS was ever considered a "safe" Republican district.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/us/politics/14mississippi.html?hp
btw, that was 17% AA voters in IN, not 175.
Posted by: pogo
| May 14, 2008 11:19 AM
9/11: John Lithgow's performance in The World According to Garp is one cinema's greatest moments.
Posted by: Ally
| May 14, 2008 11:20 AM
Maggie and LYnn
If Jerry runs, I might move back to CA for the election just to cast one more vote for the family. They have their peculiarities but they have been good for California.
Posted by: Jamie
| May 14, 2008 11:22 AM
Ally and 9/11: How could I have forgotten? The famous You're no John Kennedy moment. Dan Quayle as the poster boy for the proposition that the VP candidate no longer matters.
Posted by: maggisd
| May 14, 2008 11:23 AM
gotta link to that "fact", Bri?
Posted by: pogo
| May 14, 2008 11:25 AM
Maggie
If you get that error screen, don't go back ... go forward and come in again. If you go back it posts twice.
We must be getting heavy traffic again.
Posted by: Jamie
| May 14, 2008 11:25 AM
And the parallels between Jenny Fields/Sexual Suspect and our current times are staggering...
Posted by: Ally
| May 14, 2008 11:25 AM
Jamie: I would be very surprised if Jerry did NOT run. It might depend upon who else decides to run, however. So far I think we can count on Newsom and Villaragosa, both of whom have personal issues and Garamendi who has constituency issues. If Jerry could win his suit against the EPA somehow or the other, it might be just the political coup he needs.
And yes, you're right....the Brown family was always good for California...although I think Kathleen was the brains of the family.
Posted by: maggisd
| May 14, 2008 11:28 AM
Hillary: I’m Here, Get Used To It
"By other counts, Obama’s lead is far less than his winning margin in Cook County. In other words, take away Cook County and Obama is the loser in the national popular vote race. He’s the president of Chicago."
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDcyMGRjMTc1NjQ4NDJhMjBjMzlhZTE2NTc4OTdmMzE=#more
Posted by: GORDO | May 14, 2008 11:30 AM
This morning Robert Novak mentioned again that Clinton's know something bad about Obama but don't want to be the one's to expose it.Novak said he would, just give him the info.He said that is why she is not giving up.She is waiting for it to come out .Of course most of media will sit on it until he gets nomination.Then look out .Goodbye democrats,Hello McCain
Ruth
Posted by: painter
| May 14, 2008 11:30 AM
This morning Robert Novak mentioned again that Clinton's know something bad about Obama but don't want to be the one's to expose it.Novak said he would, just give him the info.He said that is why she is not giving up.She is waiting for it to come out .Of course most of media will sit on it until he gets nomination.Then look out .Goodbye democrats,Hello McCain
Ruth
Posted by: painter
| May 14, 2008 11:33 AM
With regard to the proposition that Vice Presidential picks somehow don't matter, another thing the pundits like to say with very little proof ... I would suggest that they do matter.
I think Clinton's selection of Gore was absolutely perfect and that it did help him. Whereas Gore's selection of Lieberman was, IMHO, a disaster. As a Jew, I was proud that Gore had the political courage to do it, but I saw it as the worst sort of political gamble -- if you're going to pick an out of the box candidate, at least choose someone with a personality.
I also think GWB was helped enormously by Cheney ... the old gravitas thing. As it turns out the combination was the worst possible choice for the country ... because? The issues changed! As they always do.
Posted by: maggisd
| May 14, 2008 11:34 AM
Jeffrey Goldberg's May 12th conversation with Senator Obama.
The subjects? Jews, Israel, Hamas, settlements.
Personal note: he likes David Grossman. (Why not Amichai? Shabtai? I think he'd like them, too.)
http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/obama_on_zionism_and_hamas.php
Posted by: 9/11 survivor (sort of)
| May 14, 2008 11:38 AM
Maggie
You reminded me of Chessman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caryl_Chessman
We probably come close to sharing childhood memories of that "film noir" Los Angeles. I was four when he was arrested and he was finally put to death just after I turned 16 the year before I graduated from HS.
Posted by: Jamie
| May 14, 2008 11:40 AM
Another personal note... he mentions how Phillip Roth shaped his sensibility. Admirable... but given Roth's misogyny (more in life, less in writing)... oy.
Posted by: 9/11 survivor (sort of)
| May 14, 2008 11:41 AM
Painter: I have often thought about that Novak allegation from early in the campaign. I have done a lot of research on Obama, primarily because of Rev Wright's comments "we have groomed him for years" and that the two of them had discussed that the time would come when Sen Obama would have to forcefully break his ties with Wright. It caused me to wonder about how and why Sen Obama initially came to Chicago at all, since he had no prior ties to the city.
There are little niggling things, but nothing substantial ... no smoking gun. Things that bother me but that would probably not bother others. Suffice it to say that I suspect Sen Obama is far more radical than his rhetoric would lead us to believe. I do not think it is criminality or anything like that. I think it is associations.
Posted by: maggisd
| May 14, 2008 11:43 AM
OK, here's one to consider - why has the Obama campaign not reponded to Hillary's recitation of the AP story saying Obama isn't winning the votes of the "working, hard working white" voter (which, btw, WV seems to demonstrate) by proving the AP wrong and demonstrating that it can win white working class voters (as it has won working, hard working black voters instead of simply casting her comments as a racist statement? This hole in the voting base could be a circle of doom in Nov.
Posted by: pogo
| May 14, 2008 11:43 AM
Ruth
Remember that it doesn't matter what the Supers do in June. Nothing is final until the ballots are cast in August.
If there is anything and Novak isn't just making his usual blowhard noises, he has two months to produce it.
Posted by: Jamie
| May 14, 2008 11:44 AM
Jamie: What high school? I graduated in 1959, but my beloved younger brother graduated the same year as you did. I have been in San Diego far longer than I lived in LA but I can still visualize perfectly all the places of my youth ...
Posted by: maggisd
| May 14, 2008 11:51 AM
Pogo
"working, hard working white" voter "
I think they haven't responded because they know it was a slip up of an exhausted candidate trying to move from quoting the AP White vote figures to hardworking "blue collar" workers in the same sentence. The media made a big brouhaha out of it and probably offended even more of those blue collar people to her benefit.
Sen. Obama also said he had been in 57 states when he probably meant 47. The media didn't jump on that because they knew it wasn't important. No one on the Clinton camp has pretended he doesn't know how many states are in the union.
Posted by: Jamie
| May 14, 2008 11:51 AM
Maggie
Westchester HS for graduation in 1961, but I attended Aviation HS the previous year and scads of others (long story) in 58/59
Posted by: Jamie
| May 14, 2008 11:57 AM
Hey
You Obama supporters
How is your man going to win?
What swing states is he going to take to win the election
and how is he going to do it without working class white Democrats
Playing with the map I find it very easy to find a way for McCain to win but Obama? not so much
Posted by: Pugnacious
| May 14, 2008 11:58 AM
Jamie: It is interesting that Novak writes for a Chicago paper, although he no longer lives there (if he ever did). His colleague, Lynn Sweet, has been covering Obama for quite some time -- some of her reports have suggested a greater involvement with Rezko and his colleagues than has been reported elsewhere, but no real smoking gun.
Posted by: maggisd
| May 14, 2008 11:58 AM
Novak said the Clinton campaign does not know how to get the "dirt' on Obama out. If they really have anything, just give to him and he will do it.
Posted by: GORDO | May 14, 2008 12:00 PM
OOPS , I forgot
Friends don't let friends vote a straight ticket
Vote for divided government
Vote McCain
Posted by: Pugnacious
| May 14, 2008 12:01 PM
I consider nothing Novak speculates on as having any merit until it is in B&W and is verified through independent sources.
Posted by: pogo
| May 14, 2008 12:01 PM
Jamie: Westchester High? We were practically neighbors. Venice High here ... small world.
Posted by: maggisd
| May 14, 2008 12:02 PM
and Novak would be the one to find it if he wanted to.Remember Valerie Plane
Posted by: painter
| May 14, 2008 12:02 PM
lunch
Posted by: pogo
| May 14, 2008 12:05 PM
Painter: Novak could just ask his colleague Lynn Sweet. Perhaps the Clinton staffer in question just hopes to prod Novak into doing some investigative reporting.
Posted by: maggisd
| May 14, 2008 12:05 PM
"So much for that 3:00 AM phone call"
It was the middle of the day for Obama's 57. I guess he would be half asleep all the time.
Your insults get more childish by the day.
Posted by: Jamie
| May 14, 2008 12:06 PM
I got my rhubarb pie baked and our own home cured and smoked ham almost ready.Some scalloped potatoes and open a can of beans and we're ready for dinner.Of course for all you elites that would be called lunch.To me tho lunch is something you take in a sack.
Ruth
Posted by: painter
| May 14, 2008 12:10 PM
Maggie,
My children went to Venice for a short while until I moved north of Wilshire in Santa Monica. They didn't graduate though. Both opted for GED and the military. Chris became a lifer for 20 years and got his college degree that way. He is now with a military contractor here in Washington. Lani stayed reserve for six years and has been with the police department in Sacramento for ten years now.
Posted by: Jamie
| May 14, 2008 12:11 PM
Jamie: Santa Monica was one of our gathering points ... we used to hang at Robertson's Drive In. Many of my high school friends went to SaMo High and many more went to SMCC rather than University.
My brother and I both went to UCLA (he actually taught there for many years); I married a career Navy man, which is how I came to wind up in San Diego ... he is back in LA County but I just stayed on here in my pink collar job. My daughter lives nearby ... she was a professional student for years (three degrees) and now works retail sales and is a garment maker. It's not much of a living, granted, but she is at least happy in her work, something I never was.
BTW, I love your state of Washington ... have a good friend who lives on Whidby Island (am I spelling that right?)
Posted by: maggisd
| May 14, 2008 12:20 PM
Obama's had a lot of "slips" of the tongue
Honoring the 57 states and forgetting he had been to Hawaii just to name the most recent.
Obama, speaking at the start of a two-day swoop through Oregon, let it slip that during this marathon 16-month Democratic presidential nomination struggle, he had already visited 57 states with one more to go.
That's not counting Alaska and Hawaii, he said, which his staff decided aren't important enough to visit yet.
Has this aging freshman senator -- he'll be almost 60 in 13 years -- lost his bearings? Obama's gaffe caused a noticeable stir online during the day, and even the respected Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic anticipated that the political media would kindly write off the Democrat's misstatement to fatigue. But he wrote that if, say, the Republican nominee-to-be had uttered the same silly flub, it would surely be added to eager suspicions of senility
Posted by: Lostbearings | May 14, 2008 12:20 PM
Hey Al Gore
Where is that global warming.It's the middle of May and I'm still wearing winter clothes and have my heat on.
Ruth
Posted by: painter
| May 14, 2008 12:24 PM
I agree with Craig. Hillary chose the wrong strategy. If she had chosen a different strategy, she'd be the nominee.
I think her strategy was developed before Bill left the White House. The move to New York, the Senate race, the vote to authorize the Iraq war, were all elements of the strategy to "run for the middle."
When that strategy did not resonate with the Democrats, as Obama's message of "change" did, Hillary was not able to change her strategy. (That's ironic.)
Posted by: nash
| May 14, 2008 12:26 PM
There is plenty of "dirt" that can be thrown at Obama, but the Clinton campaign can't do it. Most of you on Craig's blog have no idea how bad it would be for Obama. The "Willie Horton" ad is nothing compared to what would be used against BO and MO.
Plenty of time to take down Obama before the roll call vote, but Team Clinton will have to use very damaging scandals to "destroy" Obama - that's the only thing that will move SDs.
Posted by: GORDO | May 14, 2008 12:27 PM
Idaho, Wyoming etc. will not go BLUE in the fall, so much for winning all the western states, they can stick the math in their ear.
The MSM, Matthews and Russert know better, they've been around Washington a long time. I don't know if Olbermann is a sexist, maybe it's just that he spent so much time around jocks - you know, the ones that can't put a sentence together - when he was a sportscaster that it's become a bad habit. Tucker Carlson has always been Ann Coulter in a bow tie. But the one that threw me was when Roland Martin(CNN) said last night that, "it wasn't Obama who couldn't reach working class voters, it was the Democratic Party." I thought Hillary was doing just that and doing it well, and I believe that Kentucky will be more of the same. GOOD ON HER!!!!!
I guess the party powers that be, want a puppet, I mean it worked so well for Cheney. I think it's Vince Lombardi's fault, "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." Alas, there went the spirit of fair play.
Posted by: politicallypissed
| May 14, 2008 12:29 PM
pogo...
I'm not talking about me. Just got back in the shop and was starting to read the previous comments when I saw your reply to my comment.
I don't know but I think hacking is a felony so I suggested that no one should be accusing anyone of it unless they knew the person who may be doing it and had proof.
But than comments left here lately seem to gather new meaning from what is actually posted.
God Bless.
Posted by: anon-paranoid
| May 14, 2008 12:30 PM
I hope that you Hillary people will stop trashing Obama when your candidate finally quits.
You'd don't want McCain in the White House. All we need is one more arch-conservative on the Supreme Court and you can say goodbye to...
Roe v. Wade, Miranda, National Labor Relations Act,
Environmental Protection Act, Sherman Anti-Trust Act, etc.
Posted by: nash
| May 14, 2008 12:34 PM
OOps, doubled up, So sorry guys!!!!
Posted by: politicallypissed
| May 14, 2008 12:35 PM
Nash: IMO, Hillary's biggest mistake was not policy but process. None of her campaign staff truly grasped the significance of the weighted delegates and the caucus states.
The Obama campaign knew that he absolutely had to garner the lion's share of the AA vote, because every AA precinct garners a larger share of delegates than other precincts. The differences are small -- one delegate per district, but they add up over time. The same with caucus voters ... a small difference in voters in a place where there are very few Dems yields a disproportionate result.
This is very careful inch by inch voting. It is clear that the Obama campaign also hoped for more momentum than they achieved in some states by this time, but all credit to Axelrod ... he plays Hardball.
Posted by: maggisd
| May 14, 2008 12:39 PM
And I did not threating anyone with the FBI as some had suggested.
The FBI got involved in the action of my brothers because of the comments made about him. He did not call them in and I am not like my brother.
But go ahead and read anything you like since you all do so anyways.
God Bless.
Posted by: anon-paranoid
| May 14, 2008 12:41 PM
OOps, doubled up, So sorry guys!!!!
Posted by: politicallypissed
| May 14, 2008 12:44 PM
via talkleft
Quote of the Day
The narrative of the racist southern and/or working class white voter serves disappointed liberals by giving them a way to cope with rejection, and it serves Republicans by reassuring them that people can still be easily manipulated by racial bias.
A. Serwer, The American Prospect
http://www.progressiveinvolvement.com/progressive_involvement/2008/05/quote-of-the--3.html
Posted by: Lynn C | May 14, 2008 12:45 PM
Nash: How would McCain go about getting more conservative judges with 54 Dems voting against his appointments? Just asking....
McCain will have to compromise with the Dems...and guess what, he has demonstrated an ability to do just that.
Posted by: maggisd
| May 14, 2008 12:46 PM
maggisd: Hillary's mistake wasn't just the decision to ignore the caucus states. Her "message" (or lack of one) was a problem. Obama's promise to "change the way Washington works" may be a bit vague, but voters liked it. I honestly don't know what Hillary's message was, originally.
Posted by: nash
| May 14, 2008 12:56 PM
So Craig, the bottom line is:
Sen Clinton should run as an independent in the General Election because the Democratic party has already been captured by the left leaning liberals.
The only ideology that can appeal to both side of the spectrum is the centrist ideology. The center will hold the country together.
Posted by: politicsIsdirty | May 14, 2008 12:56 PM
Lynn C: I reject the notion that these voting patterns are entirely or even largely racist, unless one wants to claim that the 90% AA vote for Sen Obama is racist. If this is white racism then how to explain the fact that Sen Obama does win a measurable number of white voters?
IMO we are still missing the effects of Rev Wright and bittergate. Look at the internal Obama projections ... they expected to be doing better by now and I think they would have done if not for Wright and bittergate.
Those two incidents (whatever you want to call them) reflect a cultural rather than a racial divide. It is the urban folk vs the rural folk. For the rural folk it's not Sen Obama's skin color it's the people he hangs with ...
Posted by: maggisd
| May 14, 2008 12:57 PM
Nash: Experience and competence.
Posted by: maggisd
| May 14, 2008 1:00 PM
Democrat wins House seat in Mississippi. (Apparently having Cheney campaign for the GOP candidate was NOT a good idea.)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-s-mcelvaine/paintin-it-blue-in-missis_b_101625.html
Posted by: nash
| May 14, 2008 1:02 PM
Remember when we all had a hard time believing that folks were still pro-Bush & wondered why the media was asleep when things went from bad to worse in Iraq? Well, I have that same feeling of disbelief when I hear BO supporters or the love-struck media fawning over him. Same story, different day.
Posted by: blueINdallas | May 14, 2008 1:07 PM
Nash: Sen Obama's campaign recognized from the start that a change message could work wonders with younger voters and that his anti-war message would play well in Iowa. Knowing that there was same-day registration in Iowa, they concentrated on the larger venues, made a deal with Richardson, and left Edwards and Clinton to split the more rural areas of the state. Sen Obama's young adherents -- many of whom did not live in Iowa but did attend college there, some of whom went there (from Illinois) early enough to establish residency, proved more steadfast than Gov Dean's young supporters had been.
Once Sen Obama won Iowa (as Michelle stated) he was on his way...the SC talking points memo was the second nail in the coffin for Hillary. It mattered little what she said about any policy at all once the African-American population could be made to believe that the Clintons were closet bigots finally exposed.
Posted by: maggisd
| May 14, 2008 1:07 PM
Sen Clinton should run as an independent in the General Election because the Democratic party has already been captured by the left leaning liberals.
politicsIsdirty
and at least the "working class" would have a party too.
Posted by: o | May 14, 2008 1:09 PM
"I hope that you Hillary people will stop trashing Obama when your candidate finally quits. "
I hope you Barack people will stop slandering Clinton and insulting her supporters when your candidate gets the nomination (if he does).
Posted by: Jamie
| May 14, 2008 1:10 PM
Nash: And do not forget that Sen Obama ruthlessly attacked Sen Clinton's claims of experience ... talked about taking tea with ambassadors, calling for her to release her WH papers while claiming that his state Senate papers either no longer existed or were in the Illinois archives (apparently not true). Brezenski compared Sen Clinton to Mamie Eisenhower, for pity sake.
It was really never about policy at all. 'Cuz when the contest began, Sen Obama actually had no policies; he had positions. His policies now are largely an amalgam of Clinton and Edwards proposals.
Posted by: maggisd
| May 14, 2008 1:12 PM
" Well, I have that same feeling of disbelief when I hear BO supporters or the love-struck media fawning over him. Same story, different day."
Sadly true. Bush supporters, Obama supporters. Separated at birth?
Posted by: Patsi
| May 14, 2008 1:12 PM
maggisd: "Experience & Competence." Well, the vote to authorize the Iraq war took the wind out of those sails. Also, the Clintons gave us NAFTA, and outsourcing of jobs is a big issue this year. If people want change, and you played a major role in creating the status quo, then you have a problem.
Posted by: nash
| May 14, 2008 1:14 PM
It mattered little what she said about any policy at all once the African-American population could be made to believe that the Clintons were closet bigots finally exposed.
maggisd
maggi, so do see this as over.
Posted by: Meg
| May 14, 2008 1:15 PM
Gotta go ... gardening
Posted by: maggisd
| May 14, 2008 1:15 PM
Here's a example of View page source.
I use Firefox and on a open spot I right click on the page. A pop up menu shows up and gives me these choices as they will give anyone using Firefox.
Back {active}
Forward {greyed out}
Reload {active}
Stop {greyed out}
---------------------------
Bookmark this page...{active}
Save page as...{active}
Send link...{active}
-----------------------------
View background image {active}
Select all {active}
----------------------------
View page source {active}
View page info {active}
I clicked on the View page source info here on Craig's blog and here's a little of it that I copied and pasted. Anyone can do this, however you can not change anything on the page.
So here's a little section I copied and am pasting below.
Clinton Wins Center but Loses Base - Craig Crawford's Trail Mix
That's where I got the link to copy from on Heathers Blog which I went to from Craig's Blogroll to see what everyone was talking about.
I repeat what I said earlier, only Heather can put links in her template no one else unless someone hacked her blog account.
Now you all can read anything you like into what I posted since you all do anyway.
God Bless.
Posted by: anon-paranoid
| May 14, 2008 1:16 PM
BTW,
All of you folks calling WV Klan Kountry and other insults might note that although Sen. Obama lost by getting 91,000 votes, Sen. McCain "won" by getting 71,000 votes.
I would insult all those "white" WV Obama voters too often. They might decide that the GE should go to someone who actually liked them.
If Sen. Obama does get the nomination and then lose the GE, it will be because of the Obama supporters who drove off the people they didn't want during the primaries and who never bothered to come back for the GE.
Posted by: Jamie
| May 14, 2008 1:19 PM
Should Hillary drop out?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa1UhxzpDsc
Posted by: jeejee
| May 14, 2008 1:20 PM
maggisd:
re: McCain and the Supreme Court. How could he get a conservative on the court, if the Dems control the Senate?
(1) You don't need all the Dems to defect, just a few of them.
(2) Traditionally the Senate goes along with whomever the President appoints, unless they are grossly incompetent.
(3) McCain could appoint a "stealth" candidate, one without a judicial record, or law review publications indicating his/her philosophy.
Posted by: nash
| May 14, 2008 1:20 PM
I repeat what I said earlier, only Heather can put links in her template no one else unless someone hacked her blog account. anon-paranoid
Can someone from here log into her blog account? it can be done?
Posted by: Meg
| May 14, 2008 1:22 PM
"I honestly don't know what Hillary's message was, originally."
Guess you missed the part about experience, competence, and more than six years in the Senate working with both sides of the aisle ... the 30 years with the Children's Defense Fund probably attracted a few women as well.
Tell me again how your guy the professional campaigner is better equipped to be President?
Posted by: Jamie
| May 14, 2008 1:22 PM
Craig..would you host your own show at MSNBC..they may have already offered you a show?..would you want your own show? just curious.....or CNN ?
Posted by: emmy | May 14, 2008 1:23 PM
Hillary Rodham Clinton ---- 235735
Barack Hussein Obama ---- 90656
John Reid Edwards --------- 25683
http://www.wvvotes3.com/results-statewide.php
Posted by: GORDO | May 14, 2008 1:23 PM
Jamie: If Obama loses it will be because of Hillary's decision to "go negative," and all of her lemming-like supporters who followed her over that cliff.
She (and you) have nothing substantive to say, except that Obama is a horrible person, incompetent, dishonest, unqualified, etc.
Oh. He's also a ________.
Posted by: nash
| May 14, 2008 1:26 PM
Jamie:
"If Sen. Obama does get the nomination and then lose the GE, it will be because of the Obama supporters who drove off the people they didn't want during the primaries and who never bothered to come back for the GE."
Why should someone base their vote on something an Obama supporter said - as opposed to what Obama himself has said.
Obama has been striking a much different tone than the media and plenty of his supporters. He has never called for her to get out. He has also been very complimentary anytime someone brings up the "Dream Ticket" - but always makes sure to point out that he doesn't have this thing wrapped up yet.
If you are mad and angry about how this primary race has gone - and you are furious about how the media and SOME Obama supporters have treated either you or Clinton - than take it out on them.
Posted by: warren
| May 14, 2008 1:26 PM
"Also, the Clintons gave us NAFTA, and outsourcing of jobs is a big issue this year"
And Again Nash can't tell the boy from the girl. The "CLINTONS" did not give us NAFTA.
Posted by: Jamie
| May 14, 2008 1:28 PM
politicsIsdirty....
I agree that it's the center that will hold this country together.....
but there is no such thing as "ideology" when referring to that center.....
only common sense...... IMO... natch....
Jamie..... do you think anyone will be rooting for another horse other than Big Brown in this Saturday's upcoming Preakness...... I really, really, really...... Big Time Really..... want to see another Triple Crown winner in my lifetime.....
Posted by: RebelliousRenee
| May 14, 2008 1:32 PM
Obama strategy from blog world….
ATTACK/GLOAT MODE: Hillary is eeeeevil! Clintonistas are racist, uneducated, old irrelevant, feminist white trash Republicans. And I am not an elitist! I’m just better than you! I have a college degree. Even though I’m flipping burgers. YOU are just a bitter, blue-collar religion-cling gun nut! We won! You lost!
OVER-CONFIDENCE MODE: I’m not worried. The Hillaryites will come around and vote for Obama. After all, where else can they go? Like a battered wife, they’ll come crawling back. So let’s have fun beating them up some more!
STARK REALITY MODE: Oh! Maybe we DO need them. Come on Can’t we just get along?
TANTRUM MODE: Oh all right! Vote for McCain. We don’t want you anyway. We’ve already replaced you with REAL voters!
THREAT MODE: If McCain wins, say goodbye to Roe v. Wade. Say hello to 100 years in Iraq. Say goodbye to life on earth. We’re DOOMED and it’s your fault!
Posted by: Patsi
| May 14, 2008 1:34 PM
Jamie: I know how much it bothers you, but Obama is going to win the general election. This year, the Dems could nominate a ham sandwich and win.
Posted by: nash
| May 14, 2008 1:35 PM
I know Obama will need MI and FL in November but it's interesting that he went to MI today before they decide what to do with their primary vote. I don't understand the logic of going to MI and & FL before becoming the actual nominee. It's not the voters fault that the party messed their vote up but he could allowed a revote a few weeks back. If he's going this route then maybe he needs to go into areas where is not that well received and explain his reasoning to get their vote.
Posted by: vadaryl
| May 14, 2008 1:38 PM
I almost don't want to post anything today with all the fireworks and venom flying throughout the blog. I think Hillary Clinton's win in West Virginia is significant. But as I predicted, the MSM decided it meant nothing.
I've been posting about "unity" more intently since the NC and Indiana primaries. For once Nash posted something that I agree with, thinking seriously about the many reasons that the DEMS need to take back the White House.
Nash wrote: "
You'd don't want McCain in the White House. All we need is one more arch-conservative on the Supreme Court and you can say goodbye to...
Roe v. Wade, Miranda, National Labor Relations Act,
Environmental Protection Act, Sherman Anti-Trust Act, etc."
Posted by: nash | May 14, 2008 12:34 PM
Nash began by saying he hopes the Clinton supporters will stop "trashing" Obama once the nomination is settled. It would help GREATLY if the Obama supporters would stop trashing Hillary, one of the former First Ladies of the United States. I think we all need to chill... We seem to be on this downward slope of "attack, counter-attack, counter-counter attack, counter-counter-counter attack" awww damn I am running out of comment space. Anyway you get my drift.
It's interesting what maggisd wrote regarding "racist" voting. I kept wondering why it's considered "racist" for Hillary Clinton to point out the majorities she has received from white voters, but everyone and their cousin is RAVING about the majorities that Barack Obama has received from black voters. This sort of double standard creates even more divisions. We shouldn't be supporting a set of rules for one group and another set of rules for the other. Doesn't make sense to me.
I don't get at all the whole My Space, Heather, Sheila, Dog, Paranoid, etc. etc. etc. discussion. I didn't get it and still don't. But it sure seemed to waste a lot of space here and I don't think anyone involved felt particularly happy about it.
Re: politicsIsdirty, I have always been a "left leaning liberal". In the states I had sympathies toward a Democratic realignment via Democratic Socialists of America. I am not ashamed of left-leaning liberals or socialists. We are all part of this process. To be honest, I don't even know what makes a "centrist" a "centrist". Perhaps someone can explain this to me?
I am calm now, as a big thunderstorm heads our way. I ask we try not to go for each other's jugulars. We are really becoming a "drive by posting" online neighbourhood. I don't think it suits us very well.
Also, if people want to write in Hillary Clinton as their Presidential ballot in the general election, I think that is fine. The beauty of the ballot is that it gives us the freedom to take a stand when it is important to us! I am sometimes faltering as well. If we want unity, perhaps BYE BYE, Skylark, and the other flame throwers could reel it in and stop insulting each other's candidates and try to find our commonality. Oh and I pointed out "BYE BYE" not because his posts have been the most egregious, but because he takes particular delight in attacking Hillary and her supporters via his moniker. On the other hand Skylark simply adores tarring and feathering anything and everything on Hillary that conspiracy theorists and right-wing nut cases conjure up.
Let's let this process play and TRY TRY TRY to show some respect... Both sides could take some steps to meet the other halfway.
That's it, off to watch DEADWOOD.
Tom
Posted by: EuroTom
| May 14, 2008 1:39 PM
Clinton supporters:
A few days ago - after NC - EuroTom was talking about how the Obama supporters should watch what they say in order to faciliate bringing the party together.
Or at least not trying to do anything to tear it further apart.
That is all well and good and I completely agree. At this point I don't see any need to "pile on" Clinton and there has been nothing her campaign has done recently that has caused me to think any differently.
But I would say that how you Clinton supporters act is even more important. Of course if Obama gets the nomination - none of his supporters are going over to vote for McCain.
And most everything I or other Obama supporters say to Clinton supporters is going to fall on deaf years (except of course the outrageous comments that add fuel to the fire). In other words, Clinton supporters are going to be follwing your lead - not mine.
So yes - Obama supporters should stop gloating and bringing up divisive and silly comments like the Clintons are racists. But if we are going to bring this party together - what you do and say is going to be a heck of a lot more important.
(As always - feel free to say whatever the hell you want. But don't throw strategy or how important November is out the window.)
Posted by: warren
| May 14, 2008 1:40 PM
"This year, the Dems could nominate a ham sandwich and win. "
And that may be exactly what we are nominating.
Posted by: Patsi
| May 14, 2008 1:43 PM
Nice timing ET. Must be something in the air....
Posted by: warren
| May 14, 2008 1:44 PM
Patsi:
If you really care about Hillary, send her a big check. She has $20 million in debt and, if her followers don't chip in, she and Bill will have to pay it themselves.
That would leave them with only $30 million or so, and who can live on that?
Posted by: nash
| May 14, 2008 1:45 PM
Why should someone base their vote on something an Obama supporter said - as opposed to what Obama himself has said. Warren
yeah Warren, but you know someone always does the candidate dirty work for them-surrogates. And it's up to the candidate to straighten them out. Most of it didn't come out of his mouth, but it came from the campaign. And his supporters acted accordingly. You remember the things his campaign put out there about Hillary and how they trashed Bill Clintons Presidency-the only Democratic administration in how many years. Couldn't he have found a Republican to trash? He should have know that many supporters of the Clinton years would have been offended(and dumbfounded). He's played the game of politics continually and then accused Hillary of it. The Media were pawns in his hand. How that happended, I'm not sure. But you can't possibly find it to be fair to the Clintons.
Posted by: Meg
| May 14, 2008 1:52 PM
Craig,
Very good webcast today. Thanks for telling it straight. You had me worried recently; indeed, I suspected you were doing little more than shilling for the Clinton campaign in recent days. Last night I was involved in a series of sometimes heated exchanges here on the very point you made today: namely, that Clinton has alienated many of the supporters she needs to be the democratic nominee. Good work. I am particularly impressed that you resisted the temptation to label the democratic "liberal" base as elitist, as so many conservative pundits seem to do.
Posted by: Politics of Utopia
| May 14, 2008 1:53 PM
Jamie said: "Show me one place where Senator Clinton has said that Sen Obama is horrible, dishonest, incompetent, or unqualified. She has said that she is more experienced and ready to be President."
Have you LISTENED to her speeches? I have. 3/4 of the content is negative commentary about Obama. Her primary argument these days is "He's black, so he can't win, so you HAVE to nominate me."
That's not a positive message, it's a racist threat.
Posted by: nash
| May 14, 2008 1:56 PM
Renee,
I would love to see a Triple Crown as well and Big Brown has the talent. Now I have to admit to being intrigued by an exacta of "Behind the Bar" and "Tres Borrachos" (three drunks). : )
For those who would like to get in on the race. Here are the entries:
Behindatthebar
Trainer: Todd Pletcher Jockey: David Flores
Big Brown
Trainer: Richard Dutrow, Jr. Jockey: Kent Desormeaux
Gayego
Trainer: Paulo Lobo Jockey: Mike Smith
Giant Moon
Trainer: Richard E. Schosberg Jockey: Ramon
Dominguez
Hey Byrn
Trainer: Eddie Plesa Jockey: C.C. Lopez
Icabad Crane
Trainer: Graham Motion Jockey: Jeremy Rose
Kentucky Bear
Trainer: Reade Baker Jockey: Jamie Theriot
Macho Again
Trainer: Dallas Stewart Jockey: Julien Leparoux
Racecar Rhapsody
Trainer: Kenny McPeek Jockey: Robby Albarado
Riley Tucker
Trainer: Bill Mott Jockey: Edgar Prado
Stevil
Trainer: Nick Zito Jockey: John Velazquez
Tres Borrachos
Trainer: Beau Greely Jockey: Tyler Baze
Yankee Bravo
Trainer: Paddy Gallagher Jockey: Alex Solis
Posted by: Jamie
| May 14, 2008 1:57 PM
The media has told all the Obama lemmings that "Clinton has alienated many of the supporters she needs to be the democratic nominee."
Obamabots buy that crap hook, line and sinker. Just like they buy their lousy candidate's message of change and new politics.
New politics, my ass. The Messiah will find that out in the GE when the Republicans wipe up the floor with him with the help of the once-fawning press that will undoubtedly be "in the tank" for McBush come September.
Then the thin-skinned Chosen One will get all pissy and stamp his feet about how all the "old" white people are being mean to him. Feet of clay. Empty suit. Loser Democratic nominee. Obama will be an interesting footnote in presidential election history but that is about it.
The positive in all this? Perhaps, just perhaps the morons in the Democratic party will realize that their ridiculous primary system needs a complete overhaul.
Posted by: GAKaren
| May 14, 2008 2:03 PM
AP, I wasn't talking about you necessarily, either - that's why is said "for example." And defamation is a private, civil suit, which has nothing to do with felonious behavior.
maggi, recently I haven't sided with nash on much, but he is right about the judicial nomination prucess under McCain. There is nothing the Senate Judiciary Committee or the full senate has done during Bush's 2 terms (save about two proposed nominees that were rejected before actually going through the vetting process) to give me any comfort that 54 of them would vote against a qualified, but conservative candidate. Alito and Roberts are stark examples of how resolute the Senate is in the face of known arch conservative candidates who have otherwise impressive legal credentials - elevated from the Circuit courts, for instance. And McCain has already said he'll nominate "strict constructionist" and "original intent" type judges - that is not so thickly veiled code for conservative judges. You do not want to rely upon the Dem senate acting in such a manner as to control the judicial nomination process.
jamie, there is virtually no chance WV will vote for Obama in the Fall. McCain will beat him by 20 points (Pogo's prediction). Neither will PA, OH, or FL. But that's OK, all those western red states are going blue for him. Oh, crap, I think I pulled muscle laughing.
warren, aside from his own slights of Hillary, what Obama did by ignoring WV spoke volumes to the WVians who didn't vote for him. What his supporters say just seals the deal for them. Supporters on both sides conflate the candidate, the candidate's campaign staff and the candidate's supporters and hold the negative comments of any of those against the candidate. Don't be naive enough to think they try to draw those distinctions.
Posted by: pogo
| May 14, 2008 2:04 PM
"Obama people are wrong to make fun of WV voters."
Have any of you people ever been to West Virginia? I have. It's a spooky place, like an episode of the "Twilight Zone." On my first night there, driving along a foggy road at night, I saw a 100 foot red neon lighted cross on a mountain top.
You don't see that in New England.
Posted by: nash
| May 14, 2008 2:05 PM
OK, Nash. We get it. You are better than West Virginians. Enough.
Posted by: Ally
| May 14, 2008 2:09 PM
I am not a fan of that Jonathan Capehart guy on MSNBC.
Posted by: warren
| May 14, 2008 2:10 PM
Meg...
If someone did they would need her username and password to log into her account. That's the only way I can think of to gain access to her account.
Then whomever it was would be able to change her template.
So it would have had to have been hacked to do it. As far as myspace or whatever the other one is I don't go to any of those sites or know anything about them.
I only went to look after all the comments that were made in reference to the myspace was commented on here.
I never threatened anyone with a lawsuit or with the FBI, but like many of the comments people leave they are often read with whatever the reader wants to see and then thrown back with different words such as what I referenced earlier about what someone said I said.
I was suggesting that no one should be making accusatory statements unless they had proof to back them up and stated why. Of course than I was accused of threatening to call the FBI which I didn't do.
Sheila was right, this blog has become toxic and I will only lurk here now.
Now go ahead people and accuse me of something else as I'm sure you will.
God Bless.
Posted by: anon-paranoid
| May 14, 2008 2:10 PM
btw, ap, out of which side of your mouth are your incessant accusations that heather is lying coming? You might consider following your own admonitions.
vad, Obama is trying tunburn his bridges. A good trick if you can pull it off.
nash, the dems will have an uphill fight in Nov. We don't vote nationally, and Obama won't have enough states to win the EC. (And I hope I'm wrong).
Posted by: pogo
| May 14, 2008 2:11 PM
Jamie: I was playing nice today, until attacked. When
attacked, I like to hit back twice as hard. Stop whining or you'll never get to be President.
Posted by: nash
| May 14, 2008 2:11 PM
many of the comments people leave they are often read with whatever the reader wants to see and then thrown back with different words anon-paranoid
anon, Thanks. I was afraid people could get into your accounts without a password, by backtracking somehow. And as far as people interpreting what they want, I know.
Posted by: Meg
| May 14, 2008 2:19 PM
Yeah, nash, I've been there (since I live here), and it is scary. Not necessarily in the way any other rural state is scary, but yeah, it is. That said, I've spent lots of time in the WV hinterlands and have never had a moment's problem even when my occupation, employer and client became known to the folks I have dealt with there.
I've seen lots of crosses on hillsides here (one guy made it his life's mission to put them in places that could be seen from the interstes) but I've never seen that 100' lighted red neon cross, but I'd like to know where it is - I want to go see it.
Posted by: pogo
| May 14, 2008 2:21 PM
h
Posted by: painter
| May 14, 2008 2:23 PM
pogo...
Please show me where in my comment I said she was lying?
I never did and said her site could have been hacked.
I did say that only she could put a link in her template unless it was hacked. It seems that everyone read that I said she was lying by what your saying. Once again I did not say she was lying.
And I'll email you later about my brother with more details than I posted about it some time back.
God Bless.
Posted by: anon-paranoid
| May 14, 2008 2:23 PM
Well lit religious sites
oh those whacky Northern Californians
http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/photo541091.htm
This Mormon Temple is located in the Oakland hills, overlooking San Francisco Bay. It is a prominent landmark and, especially when lit up at night, it can be seen for miles around. As the Latter Day Saints website states: “The Oakland Temple is so prominently placed and such a distinctive landmark that ships entering San Francisco Bay use it for navigation purposes."
Posted by: Well lit | May 14, 2008 2:25 PM
the East coast is not all there is to America." GAKaren
GA, I lived most of my life on the west coast and people were the same way there. By the same way, I mean they looked down on everyone else, felt somehow inferior. And when you live there long enough, it becomes who you are. Once moving to Texas (a place that was a big laugh to Californian's) I found out how much more open minded and less arrogant people are. And I've never turned back. I read the New York columnist, and am amazed at their pompousness and arrogance-the way the look down on everyone different than them. Then I see Keith Oberman and it reminds me again. Speaking of antipathy toward others. Unbelievable.
Posted by: Meg
| May 14, 2008 2:28 PM
Here is another reason why Hillary would make a good VP.
Everyone agrees is that she is better than her campaign.
The Clinton campaign ran the "old politics" of attack, distract and demonize.
Attack = Wolfson
-Obama has not passed the "Commander in Chief" test
-"How dare the Obama campaign 'claim' that Hillary will 'say anything or do anything' to win!" (even though this was a clear issue from the "exit polls" and even most Clinton supporters like her because she is a "fighter")
Distract = Terry Mac
-"This thing will be over Feb. 5!!"
-"It's all about the delegates!!"
-"Hillary will have more votes!!"
-"Hillary wins the important states!!"
Demonize (mind you - which in Barack Obama's case means: "you can't trust this guy...") = Bill Clinton
-Obama is a "roll of the dice"
-"I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country," said the former president. "And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."
Amen brother!! But why is this impossible with Obama - and somehow possible with Hillary (all politicians have baggage - and even if they didn't - the GOP would just make something up ; )
-Obama's position that he opposed the Iraq War from the outset is "a fairy tale"
(As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq, and warned of “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.”)
And don't forget how TOUGH it was to be against the War in 2002 with Hannity's nuts (and law makers) screaming you were a "coward" or "unpatriotic".
Yes - Hillary took some shots. But her major focus was on why she should be President and her surrogates focused on why Obama shouldn't be.
Unfortunately, her surrogates are three of the biggest "media hogs" in the Democratic Party - and often their message drowned out her's.
Posted by: warren
| May 14, 2008 2:32 PM
Obama Featured With Farrakhan MANY Times on Trinity’s “Trumpet” magazine cover
"Barack Obama is considered — by the extremist, racist proponents of “Black Liberation Theology” and “Black Nationalism” — to be their TICKET to taking over the United States of America. Here is more proof:"
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/14/obama-featured-with-farrakhan-many-times-on-trinitys-trumpet-magazine-cover/
Posted by: GORDO | May 14, 2008 2:33 PM
I live near an old mining town in Northern Illinois and there is a cross on top of the old slag pile.What's the problem.There are mostly catholics and protestants in the area
Ruth
Posted by: painter
| May 14, 2008 2:34 PM
Nash
What did I say that was an attack against you?
Posted by: Jamie
| May 14, 2008 2:35 PM
pogo...
Here's the original comment I left to you.
"As to Heathers website I looked at it and there is what appears to be a link to a myspace page. The link was inactive though when I went to her site.
I did a look at the page source and found the link and did check it out last night after it was mentioned she had a myspace page and it was porn. Unless someone hacked her blog account I don't see how anyone could have put that in her template though it is entirely possible."
God Bless.
Posted by: anon-paranoid
| May 14, 2008 2:36 PM
vad - that would be trying to unburn his bridges.
must...lear...to...prooread.
Posted by: pogo
| May 14, 2008 2:37 PM
pogo:
Give me a break. You know full well HRC did not campaign hard in states where she knew she couldn't win.
And like i said - Obama did campaign in WV and he was not sitting on his ass when he wasn't there. He has been campaigning in battle grounds states that we need to win in order to win the general.
(And if you want to engage in this child's play - "Obama thinks more states are important than Hillary" because he is trying to expand the electoral map. But that is complete nonsense and if you don't think so - you are being naive.)
Posted by: warren
| May 14, 2008 2:41 PM
Nash,
"He's black, so he can't win, so you HAVE to nominate me."
Go to You Tube and find even ONE speech where Sen. Clinton has said anything even remotely like the above. About the worse she has ever said is that she is more qualified, more experienced, and more capable than her opponent.
She has repeatedly said nice things about him. You really have to stop listening to what others think she has said, interpreted what she said, or imagined what she was thinking when she said something and listen to what she has actually said.
It's like here where people read into a posting what they want to see rather than what was actually said.
Now find where I have attacked YOU ... individual YOU ... the person who signs themselves NASH. rather than an opinion you may have uttered.
Posted by: Jamie
| May 14, 2008 2:44 PM
AP, your insinuation is pretty clear to me, unless you meant to suggest you think that her site had been hacked.
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/05/clinton-wins-center-but-loses.html#comment-82321
If that was your intent, I apologize.
Posted by: pogo
| May 14, 2008 2:47 PM
AP, your insinuation seemed pretty clear to me, unless you meant to suggest you think that her site had indeed been hacked.
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/05/clinton-wins-center-but-loses.html#comment-82321
If that was your intent, I apologize.
Posted by: pogo
| May 14, 2008 2:50 PM
Did anybody notice that McCain called Hillary last night to congrat her on the big win. That's interesting!
Posted by: vadaryl
| May 14, 2008 2:51 PM
Hillary: I’m Here, Get Used To It
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDcyMGRjMTc1NjQ4NDJhMjBjMzlhZTE2NTc4OTdmMzE=&w=MQ==
Posted by: Meg
| May 14, 2008 2:52 PM
Jamie...
She also said that John McCain was more qualified to be Commander In Chief as was she then Obama.
A Democrat saying a Republican is more qualified than another Democrat.
I'm sure one of the more eloquent Obama supporters can find a youtube of her saying that than I can as I' m sure someone put it on the web somewhere.
God Bless.
Posted by: anon-paranoid
| May 14, 2008 2:54 PM
Warren
YOU: "If you are mad and angry about how this primary race has gone - and you are furious about how the media and SOME Obama supporters have treated either you or Clinton - than take it out on them."
darn I could have sworn that is what I said
ME: "If Sen. Obama does get the nomination and then lose the GE, it will be because of the Obama supporters who drove off the people they didn't want during the primaries and who never bothered to come back for the GE."
Posted by: Jamie
| May 14, 2008 2:55 PM
pogo...
See 2:36pm comment where I left my original comment.
I'm outta here, time to go home.
God Bless.
Posted by: anon-paranoid
| May 14, 2008 2:58 PM
This is kind of a funny article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/13/AR2008051302862.html
Look, in particular, at Milbank's 2:57 PM entry.
Posted by: Politics of Utopia
| May 14, 2008 2:59 PM
It's like here where people read into a posting what they want to see rather than what was actually said. Jamie
Jamie, it's the same thing people do when they look at their chosen candidate. With Obama, who was an empty slate at first (by his own admission, I'm told, from one of his books) - people were able to project on him whatever they wanted him to be. It was a lot harder with Hillary, so we just went for Reality. Like she said in one of her earlier debates :Can we have a reality check here? That's when i fell in love with her. What you see is what you get.
Posted by: Meg
| May 14, 2008 3:00 PM
Anon
Technically she would be right. It was probably a dumb thing to say, but it was accurate. Sen. Obama has no military exprience, has never sat on a military committee, has never held any hearings of the one foreign related committee he chairs, and has not been outside the country since his late teens.
Just because McCain has more experience with the military and with military related committees in the senate does not mean he would be a good CIC, but it certainly does mean that he has more experience for the job.
Hillary was present in the WH for eight years and saw and heard about CIC work, she has visited more than 80 countries and knows the majority of world leaders. It may have been a lot of figurehead work, but she actually knows them and they know her. She sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Airland, Emerging Threats and Capabilities. and Readiness and Management Support subcommittees.
So yes. She and McCain are more qualified for that part of the job. Sen. Obama can get good advice to bring him up to speed if necessary as long as he is willing to listen to it unlike Shrub.
Posted by: Jamie
| May 14, 2008 3:09 PM
Wolf Blitzer interview with Sen. Clinton in 45 minutes on CNN.
Posted by: Jamie
| May 14, 2008 3:12 PM
damn! double post. user error.
warren, I live here and know how much Obama campaigned here. It was virtually not at all. A few national ad buys showed up on the tube, and he made 3 campaign appearances here, rejecting the governor's invitation to attend the "old time democratic rally" he sponsored in Fairmont - on a night when Obama was actually in the state. A rally and a game of pool the day before the election? You call that campaigning here? Give me a break. Who's naive? And I have and do criticize Hillary for not campaigning in the caucus states she ignored. She's relied too much on the big, elector rich state approach, and he's relied too little on it.
I grant you that Obama isn't sitting on his ass - and he damn well better be trying to identify and pet the battleground states. He's created more of them since he's not likely to take the traditional swing states that Dems have been able to ride to the WH. I frankly don't understand the DNC's and Obama's either/or approach to the states they think they can get in the 50 state strategy approach (and WV and FL would certainly say its a 48 state strategy at best), but then again, it's been explained only in summary terms in what I've heard and read. IMHO (which btw is supported by the polls in those states).
Posted by: pogo
| May 14, 2008 3:13 PM
n
Posted by: painter
| May 14, 2008 3:13 PM
anon,
Sorry to hear you missed out on the porn pics...LOLOLOLOL!!!
Posted by: LushIsLinda
| May 14, 2008 3:24 PM
Meg:
I agree what you see is what you get. And often it is hard to see under the bright lights of the campaign. But I started supporting Obama long before he started running for President.
For years - he has stood out to me as a politican that gave detailed and insightful answers to the complex issues facing this Country. (And I focus on what politicians say on Charlie Rose and MTP instead of cable news).
I think if people see Obama for who he is - he will win.
(If they choose to believe in a caricature painted by self-interested "artists" - well then it will be tough ; )
I think a Republican would have a tough time getting elected against a ham sandwich this year.
The GOP is the party of ideas - and their President is often just a talking head that imposes the party line. McCain may be a maverick in the Republican Party - but that ain't saying much. And if there is one thing we have learned over the past 8 years - it that the Republican ideas are flawed. Especially when juxtaposed to the Clinton years.
There is more division in the Democratic party - because there is more diversity. Diversity is of course a great thing when its working for you - the competion and celebration of ideas, the melting pot, etc. - and a fire-storm when it is working against you.
(And Hannity and Tucker, etc. just sit calmly on the side throwing in lighter fluid and kindling....)
And if he seems unconcerned about some of the "sillyness" of politics - it is only because he is focused on the bigger picture.
Posted by: warren
| May 14, 2008 3:24 PM
Lush:
Do you support Clinton or Obama?
Posted by: warren
| May 14, 2008 3:27 PM
A national political campaign is better than the best circus ever heard of, with a mass baptism and a couple of hangings thrown in.
H. L. Mencken
Posted by: Jamie
| May 14, 2008 3:30 PM
"The Obama campaign has argued that Super Delegates ought to vote in accordance with the “will” of the people.
Under that metric, who would have a lead in Super Delegates?
The Super Delegate total from the states that Hillary has won thus far (including FL and MI) is 418, to Obama’s 372. If the MI delegates are split 50/50, Clinton still wins 403.5 to Obama’s 386.5. If Super Delegates are counted according to Barack’s formula, Hillary wins the nomination. Period.
The numbers are even more impressive after Hillary crushed Obama in West Virginia. WV has 11 Superdelegates. Hillary is now ahead, even if you exclude FL and MI: she leads 374 to Obama’s 372."
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/14/according-to-obama-hillary-is-winning/
Posted by: GORDO | May 14, 2008 3:34 PM
Nice timing ET. Must be something in the air....
Posted by: warren | May 14, 2008 1:44 PM
Warren, it scared me! LOL... I see your point as well and I appreciate what you had to say!
:-)
Posted by: EuroTom
| May 14, 2008 3:35 PM
Utop,
That airport scene reminds me so much of my older sister growing up. Today, she's still as phony as a three dollar bill.
Back in HS, she could be screaming holy hell (cussing) at someone, usual me, and then the phone would ring. She'd answer in the sweetest of voices, flirt a bit, then hang up, and go back to cussing. It's a whole notion of a shameless flaunt about her.
That's a persona I pick up from Hillary and probably one of the reasons she turned me off to begin with. Obviously I have no idea if she's that way. I just pick up on the mannerisms and expressions I've seen in interviews and in speeches. I guess she loses out because of my relationship with my sister.
Posted by: DBCooper
| May 14, 2008 3:37 PM
Jamie: I was playing nice today, until attacked. When
attacked, I like to hit back twice as hard. Stop whining or you'll never get to be President.
Posted by: nash | May 14, 2008 2:11 PM
Nash, that's grade school playground antics! It's also war mentality. You attack us and we will go back at you "twice as hard" or worse. I'm surprised at your comment !!!
Posted by: EuroTom
| May 14, 2008 3:44 PM
I just saw some jackass on MSNBC saying all Clinton would bring to the ticket is NY. "And of course that is going blue anyways." What?
Clinton has received 16,710,298 votes (incl. FL & MI). And most of those voters will vote for her in the GE even if it comes out that she sat down and drafted NAFTA herself, Mark Penn was formerly employed by Karl Rove and the Clintons go sailing with the Bushes in the summers....
Posted by: warren
| May 14, 2008 3:50 PM
"accordance with the “will” of the people."
G-man,
I wonder if those idiots on NQ bothered to break down those votes by Congressional Districts. I'd like to see those totals. Besides, that was not the purpose of SDs. If so, why have them.
Posted by: Rezdog
| May 14, 2008 3:52 PM
Warren,
As with any politician context is everything:
Obama's position that he opposed the Iraq War from the outset is "a fairy tale"
(As a candidate for the United States Senate in 2002, Obama put his political career on the line to oppose going to war in Iraq, and warned of “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.”)
It wasn't the US Senate in 2002 - It was Illinois State Senate. You might want to brush up on his bio
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all
In 1996 he was running for office from one of the most liberal districts with heavy opposition to the war, he was strongly opposed. During the next campaigns in 1998, where the state senate was concerned, all of a sudden his anti war stance wasn't quite so strong (he fudged the issue a lot). Then in 2002 he was back to being anti war, but when running of the US Senate in 2004, again not so much totally opposed and once in the Senate having an identical voting record on military issues as Sen. Clinton. Then came the run for President and he is back to "I was against it in 2002".
Posted by: Jamie
| May 14, 2008 3:52 PM
DBCooper... it's none of my business, but I hope you find peace over the relationship with your sister Family divides are painful and even when we are disappointed with a family member we still love them significantly on several levels -- some consciously, some subconsciously.
I see a different Hillary than you do. When I see her big smile and warm laugh and the twinkling eyes, I see someone who is caring and loving. I know she has another side, don't we all ?? (rhetorical question).
Anyway, my point here was in reaction to your comment about your sister. It saddens me when I see families split over past issues and/or slights. I have this in my own family and with my own father I have tried to extend olive branches to no avail. I've been resentful for years, but have chosen to accept what I cannot change and if the relationship is really "toxic", to put space between me and the other person.
Warmest thoughts...
ET
Posted by: EuroTom
| May 14, 2008 3:52 PM
Euro Tom,
It's no big deal. I love my sister. We talk all the time. She just has a personality I don't care for. It's phony and arrogant.
btw, I don't select my political preferences based upon my family relationships. I have other more serious reasons why I disagree with HRC et al.
Posted by: DBCooper
| May 14, 2008 4:00 PM
It amazes me that the Obama campaign wants the SDs to vote the same way as the "people" unless the "people" voted for Clinton, or vote the way the state did not their district unless the district was for Obama but the state wasn't.
In OTW: If it is in my favor, I get it, but if it is in your favor I still get it.
Posted by: Jamie
| May 14, 2008 4:04 PM
Jamie:
Obama's position in 2002 was the correct one. Hillary's was not.
Posted by: warren
| May 14, 2008 4:09 PM
NEW THREAD
Posted by: Craig Crawford
| May 14, 2008 4:13 PM
Obama's position in 2002 was the correct one but he renegged on it whenever it was politically expedient. He often does the politically expedient. Which is really strange unless you notice ... Oh yeah! He's a politician.
Posted by: Jamie
| May 14, 2008 4:15 PM
Rez - you are right about the purpose of the SDs, but that "vote the will of the people" was what the Obama folks (campaign mouthpieces and supporters) were arguing when Hillary started talking about lobbying the SDs to vote for her even if their districts did not. And one could argue that only the USHoRep SDs would be so constrained - certainly the Dem senators and governors would look at statewide results.
God, are we back to arguing the war positions? Didn't we do that in Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr? OK, good. I have to go.
Posted by: pogo
| May 14, 2008 4:24 PM
Doesn't BO remind you of Howdy Doody. So..... keeping Edwards in the wings was to take yhe sting out of the BIG, BIG, win in WV. Who are they going to trot out after Kentucky? It was Bill Richardson after Ohio, who's next I wonder, I mean poor prince shouldn't have to put up with losses, how can he keep his strings untangled if he's upset. I think the thing that upsets me the most is that big-mouthed nasty bitch he's married to is going to get her way and that sucks. the first lady used to mean something, I guess not anymore, now, I guess, just any nasty, no-class hag will do. He keeps blathering about judgement, I guess he was drunk when he married her. He's an empty shirt , tied to back money in the party. Welcome to the New World Order, hope that all you Bo supporters out there are still so enamoured when you find out your low man on the totem pole. They say people get the legislators they deserve, Good Luck !!!!!!.
Posted by: politicallypissed
| May 14, 2008 6:14 PM
Post A Comment