Lazy Monday Morning Open Thread
Chat away...
Comments (346) «
My condolences to the family of Rev. Orange!
2/18/2008
Clinton Statement on Death of Civil Rights Activist Reverend James Orange
Hillary Clinton issued the following statement on the death of Rev. James Orange, a key figure in the civil rights movement:
"Reverend James Orange was a tireless leader in the civil rights movement who worked alongside Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for social justice and equal rights.
In 1965, Reverend Orange's imprisonment was the catalyst to the Selma to Montgomery, Alabama March for voting rights. Reverend Orange not only believed in Dr. King's philosophy for non-violence but also practiced it.
He will always be remembered as one of the drum majors of change."
Good morning lady,
I have been looking for an opportunity when the site seemed fairly trolless, to have a real conversation about Hillary with someone who has done their research and sincerely supports her.
I, as a 60 year old woman, who has spent a lifetime fighting for civil/womens rights, I can’t tell you how much I want to vote for a woman for President. That said
I will have a lot of trouble supporting a candidate that did not do due diligence and or have the ability to make good decisions on War for the United State. Or for that matter a candidate that has voted to try and PROVOKE another country into a war, as she did Iran.
Something like 130+ senators did know and if you listened to their speeches in the house, they were very convincing. Many countries did know, and France even came out saying that the evidence that Powel used at the U.N. was forged. IT WAS.
In her defense she said “she trusted GEORGE BUSH to do the right thing”
After ALL THE YEARS of being IN THE FIRE, due diligence or not, she said:
“I TRUSTED THE WAR MONGERS“, and that was certainly NOT the defense that could have swayed me to trust her.
In my view: She has shown a propensity to lean toward supporting the Oil cartel and the MILITARY COMPLEX, (not the “boots on the ground” military).
Do you trust Hilary Clinton and her ability to hire capable people to protect this country from people who would do us harm?
Do you think she is capable of doing the research to find out if someone in this country is bad or hiring STAFF and/or a cabinet that are capable of doing this?
Hillary Unveils Food Safety Plan
by Lindsay Levin
in News, Issues
2/18/2008 1:06 PM
Following the largest beef recall in our nation's history, Hillary highlighted a series of food safety proposals she would pursue as President. This recall is not an isolated case - it is yet another troubling reminder that our food supply is at risk. Each year, tens of millions of Americans contract food-borne illnesses every year; hundreds of thousands are hospitalized; and thousands die. And the risks are only growing. Last year alone, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) oversaw 21 recalls related to E. coli in meat, compared with just eight in 2006. One of those recalls involved more than 20 million pounds of ground beef that caused nearly 100 illnesses in the United States and Canada. In addition, yesterday's recall by Hallmark/Westland is the second-largest supplier to the U.S. School Lunch program and a substantial supplier to other federal food and nutrition initiatives.
Hillary believes that American families should not have to worry about the safety of food on their dinner tables or in their children's school lunches. That is why she has proposed common-sense - and long-overdue - food safety reforms, building on her work in the Senate.
Read the full plan here.
Posted by highserenity on February 18, 2008 at 01:12 PM
Kerry and a shit load of OBIwan supports also fell for the CRAP W was dishing out! And at the least they bought into Wolfie's lies about it being EASY.
Whether it was by choice or being stupid - I can't hold ONLY one Senator accountable for what half of them did.
A pacifist will NEVER agree to war so you can't say those that didn't want Afganistan were any more SMART about it and did less research (I'm sure) as they are predestined by "attitude or whatever" to oppose ANY war or conflict.
That is a pacifist. That is HALF the democratic party. I am a WArrioR! Not by choice but by nature. I fight it daily. I served and bled but NOT in war (thank GOD). I admire Hillary as a woman and as a fighter. I NEVER liked her until I started watching her. I always respected her for standing by her husband for what ever reason as I LEFT MINE FOR CHEATING.
Again he was NO bill clinton - I only wish he had half the charm. anyway, my point is I am (as my friend CYN says) voting for Hillary not BECAUSE she is a Woman but because I AM!
Now I do have to go but we'll chat more later.
Peace to you. :-)
"Food safety plan?"
Just giving the USDA the money and manpower they really need, and not continually cutting back on inspections would have eliminated a lot of the problems with our food supply in the last few years. That and firing the Bush appointees.
We had plans in place for food safety, for workplace safety, for environemntal safety. One of the continual Bush agendas was putting industry shills in charge of these programs, and continually cutting back on funding and manpower. The same is true of the Veterans' administration.
Before we go kiting off with new programs, we need to restore the old programs, and then assess where we need to go from there.
And end that damn "war"!!!
Great article below. I've talked about this here before. It's a real problem we're all facing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502901.html?nav=hcmodule
The Dumbing of America Call Me a Snob, but Really, We're a Nation of Dunces By Susan Jacoby Sunday, February 17, 2008; Page B01"The mind of this country, taught to aim at low objects, eats upon itself." Ralph Waldo Emerson offered that observation in 1837, but his words echo with painful prescience in today's very different United States. Americans are in serious intellectual trouble -- in danger of losing our hard-won cultural capital to a virulent mixture of anti-intellectualism, anti-rationalism and low expectations.
If we are going to continue to argue about seating the Florida delegates, we need to process this information.
Obama spent $1.3M, plus change, in FloridaHe didn't get a very good return on his campaigning in Florida:
Hillary Clinton and Obama each spent about $130,000 in Michigan while Obama spent $1.3 million in Florida--more than any other Democratic candidate and more than eight Republican candidates, who were eligible to win delegates from the state.
That, from the Center for Responsive Politics. I realize that it's still going to be a fight to make the Democratic Party convention a 50-state event, rather than the 48-state event that some want it to be, but this puts to rest the notion that Obama didn't campaign in Florida.
DW is assembling a group for Opposition Reserch.
http://www.democraticwarrior.com/forum/announcement.php?f=158&a=43
It looks like the opposition is going to be McCain.
Posted by puggles on February 18, 2008 at 01:26 PM
---
I saw her interviewed, probably on PBS, and it was great. I felt like it was mostly stuff I already knew and had been "spouting" about for years, but she is able to orate it so well, that maybe more people will pick up on it.
"Food safety plan?"
Just giving the USDA the money and manpower they really need, and not continually cutting back on inspections would have eliminated a lot of the problems with our food supply in the last few years. That and firing the Bush appointees.
Posted by Butte on February 18, 2008 at 01:20 PM
--------------------------------
Good point. You don't get something for nothing and the cutting taxes mantra has resulted in a country in debt to the Chinese with corporations having more power over our lives than our own government [of the people] has.
I still think we need to impeach Cheney and Bush: and try Rummy, Wolfie and Rove for treason. But that's just me, I'm a Moderate!
Cyn
Don't you think Floridian Democrats should take responsibilty for THEIR part in this that has again put this country at risk?
Unlike a week ago, there is much information out there now about what happened and why
Here are a couple of quick sites
Here is just a couple of sites,
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1836
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=7903
Please review them before and then comment on them
thanks
goodfoe: If impeaching Bush is one of the signs f a moderate, then there's a lot of us out there!
Maybe Congress ought to get a clue, and get that bill of impeachment off the table, while we still have a country left!
I am a brand spanking new Dem. I have never voted for one before in my 38 years. So I just re-registered as a Democrat, aside from the embarrasment of my former party, to be able to vote in the primaries for Obama. This is my firts visit to this website too. So far - all things HILLARY.
Now, we can all probably agree that Ms. Clinton would be a fine candidate for any ohter election. BUT: Barack is just to special.
Although I would probably vote for Hilary if she gets the nomination, I am wondering if any other party members have previously discussed the ramifications of an outcome that goes against the will of the people - based on Superdelegates. If we look accurately at the delegate count without the pledged supers, Obama is clearly ahead. Has anybody thought thru that it could be the demise of the Democratic party altogether if this occurs? And what is with the 21 yr old Superdelegate I saw on TV last week. How can this voting virgin pack the vote power of over 9000+ regular voters? I have repeatedly heard on TV that the superdelegates will not go against the people, but how do we really know this? Some have pledged before even knowing the will of the people. And that is NOT what the 21 yr. old said on national TV.
Lastly, I am feeling that the old fashioned Dems are really hoping for Hillary. That in and of itself, is why some folks are going against her. Is this an automatic bias of the party as a whole. I guess what I am asking is....Is there a place for me and the millions, literally MILLIONS, who have joined this party for Obama. Or should we consider you one hit wonders?
I kind of like Hillary - as "that type" of politician. But our excitement is due to Obama.
THOUGHTS?
In an earlier post someone mentioned that they thought there had been a lot of trolling going on because so many posters are saying that if HC doesn't win they will vote for McCain. I am newer to this blog and I have observed that if someone posts something that others (primarily BO supporters IMO) don't want to hear they must be trolls. I am from Michigan and with the way things are going here and in Florida, I believe this is really the way people are feeling. I don't think these people should be refered to as trolls. Please keep this in mind...I have felt the same way and I don't really know what I am going to do come Nov. However, I have a right to my opinion and I will vote the way that I think is best for me!
Hi freshdem,
I also am a new implant, although from independant)
New to this site a week+ ago
Yes there is LOTS
You can visit many of the last days of back blogs.
Hi, Gregg! 54 degrees in upstate. It has me itching to plant flowers. Spring cannot arrive soon enough.
I'm not trying to start a fight just point out to those that think HILLARY should give it up. This is a RACE all the way. It will be Clinton/Obama or Obama/somebody ELSE (he'd never be generous enough to include the other HALF of the country that is NOT wanting him. NO that won't happen!) Which means he'll probably LOSE. But that's JUST MY opinion! whoopee doo.Puhleaseeeeeeeeee! That was my point. I can't hardly stay here anymore. It's just not the OPEN minded place it used to be. I feel like a stranger in my own party that's walking around mostly with blinders on.
Peace OUT - so much for democracy and every voter counting. pffffffffft.
Posted by Ladydawn on February 18, 2008 at 12:54 PM
1. I've never implied Hillary Clinton should give up either. I don't think Clinton OR Obama should give up, precisely because it IS a close race.
2. I didn't follow the "link" because the post to which *I* was responding didn't HAVE a link:
http://www.democrats.org/a/2008/02/evening_open_th_16.php?comments=1#c395932
3. I don't trust those numbers as much as I trust the numbers from RCP
3. Yes, you ARE trying to start a fight:
(he'd never be generous enough to include the other HALF of the country that is NOT wanting him. NO that won't happen!)
4. No offense to either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, but I really don't want to see them as running mates. I don't know if America can handle TWO major firsts in one administration, ya know?
Besides, we need the other in the Senate doing the leg work and whipping the rest of the Democrats into line..err, that sounds sorta Republican, doesn't it? :)
Obama spent $1.3M, plus change, in Florida
He didn't get a very good return on his campaigning in Florida:
===================================================
Cyn, why do we need to process that? Why all the emphasis on Florida and Michigan? I don't get it. Can't HRC win any other way?
IMO anyone who is willing to vote for another warmonger is not someone I can blog (debate) with.
I come here to learn about what is going on in the government, and everyone is pretty good about posting links (documentation) with the information they share, so I know it is true.
If Obama wins the nomination because the Florida Delegates are not seated, we will lose Florida in the general election. I was very torn as to what to do before the information came out that Obama had campaigned in Florida. Now that I know he did I think the delegates should be seated. I further think the decision to seat them should be now, before it is clear they will be relevant. I would seat them however in proportion to their state vote, not winner take all. i.e 50% Clinton 33% Obama and 14% Edwards.
Who was the idiot the other day saying the troops and the vets are being treated just fine by this Crazy Neo Con administration? Sign the petition for them , please:
Join Veterans to Demand Hearings on Substandard Helmet Procurement
Last week, the New York Times reported that the Bush Pentagon had agreed to a contract for more Kevlar helmets for our troops from the very company that was being sued for cheating troops out of helmets that met military standards. Especially at a time when so many troops are in harm’s way, no such company should ever receive a new contract. Demand that Congress investigate how this could have happened, by signing our petition below. We’ll deliver your signatures to Capitol Hill.
http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/1138/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=335
I don't think we should be saying that supporters of one candidate are usually like this and voters for another usually have these characteristics. If that was the case I would be an Obama supporter(young and educated), but I am not. After Kerry lost to Bush in '04, I started reading books and political materials about Hillary Clinton. I think she is awesome and there is nothing anybody can do or say to change my mind. She is actually quite interesting...
Posted by Cyn_NY on February 18, 2008 at 01:31 PM
---------
I asked Cyn to respond earlier so now
anyone
Don't you think Floridian Democrats should take responsibilty for THEIR part in this that has again put this country at risk?
Unlike a week ago, there is much information out there now about what happened and why
Here are a couple of quick sites
Here is just a couple of sites,
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1836
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=7903
Please review them before and then comment on them
thanks
Posted by highserenity on February 18, 2008 at 01:38 PM
Posted by Butte on February 18, 2008 at 01:43 PM
Hi Butte, I suspect that you know me too well, that "Moderate" thing was a little tongue in cheek sarcasm. But, yes, in spite of what Nancy Pelosi says, I feel Congress is derelict in their duties in not up holding the Constitution and impeaching these two mega maniacs before they attack Iran and draw us into another conflict, possibly a nuclear war. There are those who say we don't have the votes: nonsense, by starting impeachment proceedings we would be focusing the national spotlight on all the crimes of this administration before the election. Having or not having the voted is not the only issue!
Please review them before and then comment on them
thanks
Posted by highserenity on February 18, 2008 at 01:38 PM
Your Highness:
I prefer a more casual format. I like to do my own research and form my own opinion. I sometimes post articles that I find worthy of thought.
I'm not in the habit of reading things someone else picks out and then asks me to comment on.
I never did respond well to despots.
Do you trust Hilary Clinton and her ability to hire capable people to protect this country from people who would do us harm?Do you think she is capable of doing the research to find out if someone in this country is bad or hiring STAFF and/or a cabinet that are capable of doing this?
Posted by highserenity on February 18, 2008 at 01:12 PM
LOL! You said you wanted answers from someone who supports her, but I don't "support" her, and I'll actually answer those two questions with a "Yes, I do trust her in this matter".
Look, she screwed up with the whole Iraq thing, she got played with the fear card. All of the ones who voted for it did it because of that, not because they "didn't know" They knew. But they were afraid of looking soft in front of the American people who were SCREAMING for blood.
And she will never admit this. But neither will anyone else.
But I don't believe she will go running willy-nilly into any pre-emptive aggressions. Especially not with feelings the way they are now.
As for her cabinet/staff? Come on, darlin'...this is Hillary CLINTON we're talking about...she probably decided BILL's cabinet. And although there were SOME missteps in his Presidency, it was a HELL of a lot better than what we have NOW.
A must watch video from one of the Dept of Education hearings in Florida over teaching evolution.
Comparing oranges and pet dogs and cats to put down evolution.
In a way this is sad.
Posted by Ladydawn on February 18, 2008 at 01:12 PM
Good plan...shows quick thinking on her part, also, to respond so quickly with a proposal. :)
Florida is NOT going to count and neither SHOULD they. Michigan is a no brainer seeing as there was only one candidate on the ballot. Finally to Florida voters, you WENT for Bush in '00 and '04 so I don't know why you think you carry so much weight, JMHO.
Good afternoon fellow dems.I think as Democrat we have a great opportunity to win the white house if we can stick together. I was posting on the blog over the weekend and I read a lot of Dems attacking Dems over several different issues. If we continue to divide ourselves over these things the pugs are going to steal this election!!even if we pick up some seats in the house and senate we will not have the 2/3s majority to overcome a pres. veto and will have the same stalemate we have now.We must win the White house and stop the failed policies and attacks on our constitutional rights!We have to stop this petty bickering and come together!! It's bad enough we have those hateful trolls on here attacking us,we don't need to attack each other. Ok I'm done ranting now lol.
Posted by puggles on February 18, 2008 at 01:26 PM
Ya ever notice the people of this country seem to jump from one "anti" to the next without really understanding what it is they are "anti"-ing?
Bombing kills 38 Afghan civilians,
wounds Canadians
The Taliban is reportedly claiming responsibility for a suicide bombing that targeted a convoy of Canadian soldiers but killed 38 Afghan civilians.
Full Story:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080218/afghan_bombing_080218/20080218?hub=TopStories
Posted by GregL on February 18, 2008 at 02:10 PM
You went "yard" on that one , otta de park!..I've got some things to do, I'll see you at the "Big Dance" on March 4th when we pick the next president of these United States!
Posted by GregL on February 18, 2008 at 02:10 PM
---------------
thanks
If you trust her in the matter of being able to research important issues, I would think you would trust her to research Obama.
T that if you can trust her capabilities in this, she would have dug up anything dirty about OBAMA, and would have shared that with us. Not only so she could win, which she is determined, of course to do, but also to protect us from another president that would hurt us.
I DO NOT TRUST HER BECAUSE she voted with the war mongers, I believe she is tied to the corporations that run the present government, that are determined to do us harm to keep their coffers overflowing, and I believe that she KNEW Bush was going to pre-emptive war. I DON’T BELIEVE SHE IS THAT STUPID TO NOT KNOW. She has too many contacts to not know what is going on.
EVEN SAYING THAT, I will vote for her if she is the candidate the DEMS. Elect.
My hope is that the women in this country will revolt if she shows signs of
“geeeeee we didn’t know they didn’t have WMD.”
But then, CONDALEEZZA certainly did this and got away with it from we the powerful women in this country that want to hold ours to a higher standard
Thank you for listening, and the only thing that I know for sure is that I will vote a complete D ticket in November
Hillary Clinton- Making Our Dreams
Come True- Wisconsin
Let's go Wisconsin, Ohio, Texas, & Penn State!
Check out the video:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=HxtN0u23Tdc
http://blog.mlive.com/chronicle/2008/02/most_romney_delegates_plan_to.html
SCAROLINADEM,
I agree with you. Florida and Michigan should be seated....like yesterday!
I have said it a couple of times and I will say it again. The democratic candidate needs Michigan (and Florida for that matter) to win in November. The GOP already fixed the delegate problem in Michigan... The link shows how important this really is. In the 2000 primary, McCain beat Bush in Michigan largely due to independent voters. Michigan, has been a blue state. If we turn red I will be totally embarrassed! Do we really want to be messing around with this issue for much longer?? Lets get it fixed immediately!!!!!
For those who want to know what really happened in Florida, here are a couple of sites that explain it. If you know of better ones, please post so that we all know and we don't have to waste time here saying it is the fault of one of our candidates, whom we need to unite behind
thanks
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1836
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=7903
I am two days old on this site too, I blog on CNN
Well we should wait and see what happens in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania before bashing Hillary as power hungry, every politician is power hungry Obama is no exception.
Florida was, is and always will be important and therefore should count, I believe that it is for the state to move up the primary and not for DNC to dish out punishment or practice draconian rules, now that is a power hungry committee. At least they could have compromised rather than shooting from the hip.
now to Obama and others who want to change Washington but didn't stand up against their own party elders how the heck are they going to change Washington? I have real credibility issue with the candidates when it comes to Florida and Michigan. If superdelegates didn't speak up when the rules were set so shall hold their peace on this subject until after the elections
Justaguy,
Florida does carry a lot of weight. If they didn't go red in the last two elections we wouldn't be dealing with what we are dealing with now. Please see the light on this. Everytime the FL/Mi issue comes up you seem to write both states off. I really don't think you know how much weight both of these states have. If you want them to go red and think the election is going to go blue, you might want to rethink that. Without Fl/Mi the Dems will be walking on thin ice. Do some research on it. The truth is the Democratic candidate needs both states to win in Nov.....sorry, but that is the reality! If nobody has told you that yet, you have heard it now! JMHO
The delegates being sitted in MI and FL would be absolutely unfair and it'd be more detrimental than if they weren't. They agreed to the rules, both candidates, before the primary season, so tough luck.
And since when was FL a Democratic state, screw them. Screw Michigan too, they should have played by the rules.
The only reason this is brought up now is because Clinton is behind.
Millenial,
This has been going on for weeks.... when Hillary was ahead it was a topic of discussion. Look back and see! It has nothing to do with who is winning/losing. It has to do with the voters being heard!
All I am saying is I am afraid that there is going to be a big problem for the Dems in Nov. if this is not taken care of before the convention.
I don't think these people should be refered to as trolls.Posted by jenar on February 18, 2008 at 01:52 PM
You don't think people who come on to the Democratic National Committee blog and say they are going to vote for a REPUBLICAN candidate should be referred to as trolls? You're a Democrat who will vote for a Republican because one Democrat won over another in the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY NOMINATING PROCESS DESIGNED TO CHOOSE A DEMOCRATICE CANDIDATE FROM THE POOL OF DEMOCRATS WHO WANT THE JOB. Hmm, what else would we want to call that besides "trollish"....how about "childish", then? Will you also hold your breath until you turn blue?
And we call them trolls no matter which candidate they "support", it's not just directed at one candidate's supporters.
No this is not brought up because Hillary is behind, but the pressure brought to bear on the so called superdelegates by Obama and co
you can't have it both ways if you don't want Florida and Michigan to be seated then let the super delegates vote the way they want as per and allowed in the rules
I think if the ones who created this problem have to take responsibility for it, then maybe there will be change. Florida, of course, effects the whole country
Quote from Democratsunderground
"
A Democrat introduced the bill.
More about Karen's photo op press conference which ignored facts and such realistic stuff as what really happened.
When Karen Thurman surrounded herself with Broward County Democrats last Sunday to tout the Jan. 29 primary: state Sen. Jeremy Ring. No one invited the Broward state Senator who sponsored the original bill moving Florida’s primary from March to January and undercut the Democrats’ argument that the early primary was all the Republicans’ fault.
...It would be inconvenient to acknowledge Ring’s role in a process where the Florida Democratic Party has morphed into the Defiant Victim — victimized by the Republican-dominated legislature, victimized by its own national party and victimized by the prez candidates, yet standing up on its hind legs and saying “Go to hell” to its victimizers. The reminder that Ring ran on the notion of moving up the primary date, was elected on it and followed through on his campaign promise is an inconvenient truth that the FlaDems simply must ignore.
The Florida Democrats voted for the bill 115 to 1, then they immediately sent the word out that the DNC and Howard Dean had "disenfranchised" them.
The DNC ruling should stand, the delegates must not count toward choosing a nominee. If Hillary Clinton wins with those delegates, she will not be considered the legitimate nominee by many people
This has been going on for weeks.... when Hillary was ahead it was a topic of discussion. Look back and see! It has nothing to do with who is winning/losing. It has to do with the voters being heard!
All I am saying is I am afraid that there is going to be a big problem for the Dems in Nov. if this is not taken care of before the convention.
Posted by jenar on February 18, 2008 at 02:44 PM
There is nothing to take care of, the problem is trying to change the rules. The states knew what was going to happen, that is their own fault. Maybe they'll learn next time.
And seating them obviously benefits Clinton, Obama and Edwards weren't even on the ballot in one of the states. As Bill Clinton would say, "Give me a break".
No this is not brought up because Hillary is behind, but the pressure brought to bear on the so called superdelegates by Obama and co
you can't have it both ways if you don't want Florida and Michigan to be seated then let the super delegates vote the way they want as per and allowed in the rules
Posted by SS16 on February 18, 2008 at 02:46 PM
They can technically vote however they want, so your point is moot. And they can put as much pressure as they want, maybe the DNC will learn how stupid and undemocratic the superdelegate system is. Even the guy who created it, now admits it is a failure.
well, so much for Dems in Florida taking responsibility for their actions
I guess that was my bad idea
it is settled
Obama did it
superdelegates voting with their state or independently point is not moot, both are intrinsically linked with Fl/MI delegates.
End of the day who ever has the most number of pledged+super delegates wins end of story.
The Florida Democrats voted for the bill 115 to 1, then they immediately sent the word out that the DNC and Howard Dean had "disenfranchised" them.
The DNC ruling should stand, the delegates must not count toward choosing a nominee. If Hillary Clinton wins with those delegates, she will not be considered the legitimate nominee by many people
Posted by highserenity on February 18, 2008 at 02:47 PM
================================================
Truly nonsense. So why did they expect they could just do this with no consequences? I think the voters in these states should be mad at their state party and not the DNC.
Tomorrow is my turn to vote(WI). I have a friend who sent me this and even though I am a 'Yellow Dog Democrat' it gave me pause. Are there any more informed people out there who can rebut this effectively?
REMINDER OF POLITICS PAST
Social Security
Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat of Republican. Facts are
Facts!!!
Our Social Security
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA)
Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only
be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are
getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away' --
you may be interested in the following:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
A: That's right !
Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country,and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments!
The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social
Security away! And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure
of what isn't so. But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong
enough to
take everything you have.
-Thomas Jefferson
Good grief, where do these buffoons with their trash come from????
GregL,
I was just saying that I feel these so called "trolls" pain and I don't think anybody should be telling them they don't have a right to feel that way....A lot people are not seeing the big picture. If we don't agree and can't say what we think nicely then don't say it at all! If you saw my later post, I showed that in the 2000 Michigan primary, McCain beat Bush due to the independent voters. Independent voters can go either way and if one happens to be on the DNC website we should not be attacking them for the way that they feel! I have a hunch that these are the people saying that if ***** doesn't win I will vote for McCain. It is not to be childish, but rather to point out a reality. The reality is not everybody votes a straight democratic ticket! Myself included! However, I would like to think that the DNC still cares about me and my vote!
I DO NOT TRUST HER BECAUSE she voted with the war mongersPosted by highserenity on February 18, 2008 at 02:25 PM
Was it you that said you used to be an Edwards supporter?
I believe she is tied to the corporations that run the present governmentPosted by highserenity on February 18, 2008 at 02:25 PM
I don't believe the corporations actually RUN the government, I just believe they have undue influence owing to the amount of money they can funnel to politicians. That being said, Senator Obama has ties to corporate America himself and his positions and solutions are not that different from Senator Clinton's.
Dawn is REALLY gonna wonder who I am and what I've done with the real GregL
Oh, here is those wonderfully treated Troops and Vets again. Funny, this one comes from their own site !
Study: Lack of MRAPs Cost Lives
WASHINGTON - Hundreds of U.S. Marines have been killed or injured by roadside bombs in Iraq because Marine Corps bureaucrats refused an urgent request in 2005 from battlefield commanders for blast-resistant vehicles, an internal military study concludes
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,162278,00.html?wh=wh
Posted by Hickabee on February 18, 2008 at 03:07 PM
___________
thanks for the links
Went to the first one---won't bother with the rest
promoting repub fear/hate
I went to the first one and found that the
Andy Martin (whom the link is quoting) was a columnist who was trying to get Obamas book banned
HE IS ALSO RUNNING FOR REPUBLICAN U.S. SENATOR 2008!!!!!!!!
VII. 2008 ILLINOIS U. S. SENATE ELECTION
Andy is a candidate for U. S. Senator in 2008. He wants to maintain the Republican Party as a conservative party
Guess that is why you didn't make them easy links to follow.
Repub. policy
Tell a half-truth, then show proof that no one will bother with THEY WILL BELIEVE IT
guess I won't waste any more time trying to track down false proof of what you say
Posted by highserenity on February 18, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Vote by mail, nationwide. Every registered voter gets their ballot a month before it's due back at their county Board of Elections. Drop it off at that office or mail it back in.
Wa-La! No lines, no dealing with pollworkers, no chance of voting in the wrong precinct.
No need for a holiday. (now really, if people were given a day off, would they really bother with going to vote, or would they slack around or maybe shop?)
And what kind of holiday would it be for the election workers?
Posted by GregL on February 18, 2008 at 03:17 PM
----------
thank you
yes, i agree w/everything you said
I may not always sound like it, but am always looking for which way is best and getting good info.
Yes, I am an Edwards supporter.
He was not my first choice, because of the same concerns I have stated about Hillary, but was convinced that some of his attributes would have to outweight that issue.
I was supporting Kucinich and even sent Ron Paul some $ to help keep him in the debates, because I wanted to hear what he had to say.
All of the DEM candidates are so much better than any repub. but they all have this corporate connection issue and we have to juggle and pick and choose what is important to us.
The military complex and using our young soldiers for blood money is probably one of my highest.
thanks for responding
The American people need to be asking Barack Obama a whole different list of questions when they attend his political rallies on his quest to become the leader of the free world. They need to ask the man who he really is because, up to this point on the campaign trail, he has lied to them. The American people need to find an honest candidate. Barack Obama is not that man.
Posted by Hickabee on February 18, 2008 at 03:08 PM
It seems to me that the Republicans are having a hard time trying to get any traction with Obama. The resort to using his middle name of Hussein doesn't seem to generate the type of bile that they are aiming for. On the other hand, the mere mention of Hillary's name in a group of right wingers will get you some real loud opinions and talk of "Billary."
I'm still a little torn because of that. After seven and a half years of having a President that I truly disliked, I'd like to see the neo-con crowd suffer through eight years of Clintons. However, there is a real downside to it since it would keep Limbaugh and Hannity and the rest on the radio for another eight years. I think if Obama is elected those fools are going out of business.
Posted by Esmeralda on February 18, 2008 at 03:41 PM
---
Hi Esmeralda
I do and have since 2000, but now so much information saying the "if" they get counted, it is sometimes too late to actually revisite.
I have never had to stand in line----I have always lived in a little community where everyone knows everyone and have never had to wait a minute.
Just have seen unbelievable lines and sometimes (because I feel so spoiled) have questioned myself if I would bother and admire and appreciate those who do.
thanks for response
Pam- I was going to post the snopes thing and - as usual- you beat me to it. Honest to g-d the DNC should be paying you.
Essie nice to see you here for a change...
Both Obama and Clinton are quite electable. Either candidate would be far superior to the current admin.
As rj has said repeatedly
McCain = Bush
who in their right mind wants that?
Obamaniacs must be realists and accept their fate. Otherwise, let them see their psychiatrists!
Posted by Yama on February 18, 2008 at 03:52 PM
---------
I will vote for whomever is our nominee
I will vote straight D in November
I also believe that Hillarys base is mostly long time Democrats that loved the Clintons in the 90's. I was one of them. Not a Dem but liked the Clinton Whitehouse for the most part and my life while they were there.
I believe that Hillarys people will VOTE Democrate no matter who is our candidate
I also believe that Obama has pulled in a VAST majority who have never had a party
I DON'T SAY THEY WOULD VOTE REP because I don't think most of them would, or they wouldn't be THE OBAMANIACS (your word)---that they are. I think they would revert to NOT VOTING.
THE REPUBS WOULD COME OUT EN MASS TO VOTE AGAINST HILLARY
the REPUBS WOULD WIN
and I would have to hurt someone
;-)just kidding (maybe)
4. Hillary’s vote was not for War but for the authorization of the use of force, Obama should get his facts straight the congress of the United States of America never I repeat never voted on or past a “Declaration of War” resolution.
Hillary's words
I TRUSTED GEORGE BUSH
Cate, lol. that would be nice.
However, there is a real downside to it since it would keep Limbaugh and Hannity and the rest on the radio for another eight years. I think if Obama is elected those fools are going out of business.
Posted by Manymoonsago on February 18, 2008 at 03:42 PM
I was listening to Bob Brinker, Money Talk the other day while traveling. Someone called in and asked him "WHY do you think that Talk Radio show hosts are degrading McCain?" and Brinker said, "Because they want to see a Democrat in the White House, why else'. And Brinker is a right wing leaning guy.
Thank you for directing me to Snopes concerning the S.S. Scam. It sounded bogus to me but I wanted clear facts for rebuttle this site had them. These disinformation E-mails must not go unanswered. Again thank you.
Thank you for directing me to Snopes concerning the S.S. Scam. It sounded bogus to me but I wanted clear facts for rebuttle this site had them. These disinformation E-mails must not go unanswered. Again thank you.
Thank you for directing me to Snopes concerning the S.S. Scam. It sounded bogus to me but I wanted clear facts for rebuttle this site had them. These disinformation E-mails must not go unanswered. Again thank you.
highserenity-
Try to remember it is only the truly indoctrinated repubs that hate the Clinton to the degree you bring up. the 26%ers would vote against whatever candidate we put forward. They are the same folks who insist on using Obama's middle name in attepts to scare people. They'll vote just as rabidly against him.
Posted by TexasBill on February 18, 2008 at 03:58 PM
Let's really be honest here, Bill.
BOTH campaigns are slinging stories and distortions about each other's campaigns. Bill Clinton has been no Sweetheart out there as the gun man for Obama.
Go to Fact Check.org and see all of their articles on Both candidates and what they have said.
Let's not get carried away with one candidate being the villain, and the other innocent.
PAM
Where do you live? I always listen to Bob Brinker when I can and yes, sometimes his politics make me have to open the window and scream. LOL
2. Obama likes to claim he was right about the war, lets be honest even a blind squirrel can find a nut every now and then, that does not make him a good provider.Posted by TexasBill on February 18, 2008 at 03:58 PM
Whoo! I was right about the illegal pre-emptive invasion and subsequent occupation of a sovreign nation who had no chance of attacking, much less harming, our country too! Should I run for President?
Yama=dropped on your head as a baby. No really that's what it means in Myglianese.
Look it up.
ou must remember Barack Obama’s main slam on Hillary Clinton is she voted for the war well lets begin with that statement.
1. Obama was not there to have to make the vote, he had the luxury of viewing things from the cheap seats.
2. Obama likes to claim he was right about the war, lets be honest even a blind squirrel can find a nut every now and then, that does not make him a good provider.
3. Another Obama famous slam is its alright to be ready on day one but it is more important to right on day one Woo Hooo. I keep waiting for Hillary to point out that “it must be nice to be so perfect and to be right all the time” however we have had seven plus years of that type of arrogant attitude and look at were we are now.
4. Hillary’s vote was not for War but for the authorization of the use of force, Obama should get his facts straight the congress of the United States of America never I repeat never voted on or past a “Declaration of War” resolution.
Posted by TexasBill on February 18, 2008 at 03:58 PM
1. He was a state senator and made his claims known before the war, so he isn't lying about this. Nice pathetic rationalization.
2. He's shown better judgment than Clinton on most of the important issues.
3. No it's not arrogance and being right that's screwed us, it's arrogance and being wrong, like Bush and Clinton were on Iraq.
4. Correct, but Clinton still voted on this unconstitutional war in favor of it. Oh well, the Constitution is a goddamn piece of paper, right Hillary?
Get real, chump.
Ok, TexasBill...now you've stepped over the line. What next? Obama is Hitler reborn?
Done listening to you now.
Posted by TexasBill on February 18, 2008 at 04:07 PM
--------------------
Bush already had a history of "KARL ROVE SPEAK" LIES (when I say lies, i include 1/2 truths, lies by ommisssion, clean air really means repeal all the environmental protections put in place)
WHEN HE STARTED CAMPAIGNING FOR PRES.
Anyone who actually did homework on what he had done in Texas KNEW IT and made our skin crawl.
Obama does not have that history
You voted for Bush in 2000 because of these promises that he knew we hungered for.
Well now, 7 years later, we still hunger for them and much much more.
Maybe we will get them with Obama
superdelegates voting with their state or independently point is not moot, both are intrinsically linked with Fl/MI delegates.
End of the day who ever has the most number of pledged+super delegates wins end of story.
Posted by SS16 on February 18, 2008 at 03:02 PM
Um, I said they vote independently, so your point is moot. There is no issue surrounding this because the rules are set. You are making an issue out of nothing because ultimately the super delegates can vote however they want. Also Dean said the FL/MI delegates won't be seated. Get over it.
Full disclosure - I'm a Michigan straight-ticket democrat and I support Clinton. I took time away from work to vote absentee in our primary, knowing full well it wouldn't be counted (laughed and cried about it, I assure you).
That aside, here are some interesting statistics (found on The Green Papers site):
- 2.3 million democratic primary voters between MI and FL
- that's 11% of the total popular vote to date
- That's more than 2.5x the primary turnout for 2004 (2.3M vs. 0.9M)
- 3.6x 2004 turnout in MI (592k in '08 vs 164k)
- 2.3x 2004 turnout in FL (1.7M in '08 vs 754k)
- Despite not counting, top democrat (Clinton) received far more votes than did the top republican in both states:
- 327k (55% of dem) in MI vs. Romney's 257k (30% of repub)
- 865k (50% of dem) in FL vs. McCain's 700k (36% of repub)
- 1.4M people who didn't turn out in 2004 stepped up this year (2.3M - 0.9M).
Maybe it's fair. I can accept that. Maybe fairness matters above all else. I can accept that, too.
However, these numbers make for one ENORMOUS elephant in the room.
Hi, highserenity,
Interesting posts this "lazy" Monday (I thought today was President's Day; is the blog saying all of our presidents were lazy?)
You commented that Hillary supporters would almost all vote Democratic no matter who the nominee is for the party. I don't see it that way. To be fair, she has brought a lot of new people into the process. Barack Obama isn't the only one attracting new and disenfranchised voters. The Democratic Party doesn't "own" any of the voters for either candidate. That is part of what I love about this country; we are free to vote as we choose.
Many within the Democratic Party are threatened by so many new faces and so many new voices. That is why party rules become so important. They can control outcomes with super-delegates, credentials committees, and other establishment tricks that keep the power in the few. The problem with this mentality is that the party never really grows.
One example is a Hillary Clinton advisor, Harold Ickes. He wanted the power of being DNC chair and lost out to Howard Dean. Instead of being a gracious loser, Ickes decided to set up his own database outside the party to mirror the party in a way that he could control mailings, phone calls, etc. and rather than attempting to build the party he attempted to build his own power base. The Clintons are sore losers. Many of their supporters are clearly emotionally involved with the outcome of this primary (as are the Obama supporters) and it wouldn't surprise me if numerous Hillary supporters would sabotage an Obama victory just to spite the one that beat their candidate.
I've got a question that I can't seem to find the answer to in any of the regular media, so I'm turning to this forum for enlightenment. When the party decided not to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates, did we reduce the number of delegates necessary for a candidate to win? If so, by how much? If not, why not? I hope we didn't take two populous states off the table while keeping the required number of delegates to win the same - it seems like that would just increase the probability that neither candidate will have enough to clinch, and therefore increase the chance of internal friction within the party.
Hello dems.
A lot of activity on here today. Good to see quite a few new voices.
However, these numbers make for one ENORMOUS elephant in the room.Posted by MichiganCarrie on February 18, 2008 at 04:15 PM
I agree, that this issue won't solve itself. I appreciate that you knew your vote wouldn't count and you voted anyway. My state, Washington, is holding a primary tomorrow. Every voter that is on the mail in ballots (which is most of the state) received ballots a few weeks ago without any mention that the Democrats choose all of their delegates through the caucus process and the Republicans choose about half of their delegates through the caucuses. Our caucuses were held February 9, and both my wife and I were selected as delegates to the Legislative District caucuses for Obama.
Washington voters can't complain when they realize their votes don't count, any more than "straw poll" voters at the Iowa State Fair can complain about their vote not counting. We go into situations with knowledge of the importance or outcome and live with the weight of those results.
MichiganCarrie, would you be willing to vote again if your state could set up another opportunity for your voice to be heard and counted?
andersonislanderforobama -
I think what highserenity is referring to (kick me, high, if I'm wrong), is that polls have shown that Obama supporters are much more likely to vote against the party if he isn't the nominee than Clinton supporters are. This, I believe, is his point in arguing electability: He can get all of her voters, but she can't get his.
This isn't surprising to me, given that Obama's own wife stated that she'd "really have to think about" voting for Clinton herself.
Maybe Ickes is a sore loser. However, for all the mudslinging WJ Clinton has done, he has always said he would back any nominee. I would hope Obama would do the same.
Anyone who wouldn't is certainly a sore loser!
The military complex and using our young soldiers for blood money is probably one of my highest.
Posted by highserenity on February 18, 2008 at 03:41 PM
A major reason why I won't vote Republican is because I think they will lead us down the same path we went in Vietnam with Iraq. I don't buy into either the left wing or the right wing mythology about Vietnam. Whether our involvement there was right or wrong, it wasn't a decision made exclusively by one party.
In military terms the war was over in January 1973 and it ended with favorable terms for the South Vietnamese. The problem with it was that we were supporting an unpopular minority government and that it was taking a great amount of military and financial aid to do that. When OPEC got together in 1973, the U.S. could no longer afford to provide the level of financial and military aid that was necessary to prop up the South Vietnamese government.
That's what I'm afraid will happen in Iraq. The politicians that are friendly with the U.S. will stay in power only so long as we can keep their government propped up with military and financial aid.
Politicians may be able to keep some people in this country from believing that the Iraq invasion and the benchmarks for foreign investment are not about oil but I don't think they are going to be able to sell that particular line of B.S. to the average Iraqi of any sect and I think that once our military and financial aid dries up, the present government will be taking their multi-national oil kickbacks to villas in Europe as the people remaining in Iraq resume killing each other until somebody wins, nationalizes the oil industry anyway, and their country ends up with another monster like Saddam Hussein.
The only candidate that talked openly about the particular "benchmark" of foreign investment though was Kucinich. So I'm a little concerned that both parties may be leading us in the same direction in Iraq.
Posted by ToucanSam on February 18, 2008 at 04:20 PM
GOOD QUESTION I can't find it
Hope someone with more web skills can
Michigancarrie you must NEVER come on here because all I see is Hillary supporters saying they will switch to independent and vote for McCain. I, and all the other Obama supporters have said is that we will vote straight Democratic in November regardless of the outcome.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s campaigns each accused the other of plagiarizing portions of their campaign speeches Monday, with the Clinton campaign accusing Obama of borrowing from a close supporter — and the Illinois senator’s campaign accusing his rival of lifting from Obama himself.
Hi Dawn and everyone, I have had a busy weekend, hope everyone is fine. Dawn you've got mail!
Posted by justaguy on February 18, 2008 at 04:37 PM
I've seen both...and I'm through trying to talk them off the ledge.
Politicians may be able to keep some people in this country from believing that the Iraq invasion and the benchmarks for foreign investment are not about oil but I don't think they are going to be able to sell that particular line of B.S. to the average Iraqi of any sect and I think that once our military and financial aid dries up, the present government will be taking their multi-national oil kickbacks to villas in Europe as the people remaining in Iraq resume killing each other until somebody wins, nationalizes the oil industry anyway, and their country ends up with another monster like Saddam Hussein.
The only candidate that talked openly about the particular "benchmark" of foreign investment though was Kucinich. So I'm a little concerned that both parties may be leading us in the same direction in Iraq.
Posted by Manymoonsago on February 18, 2008 at 04:32 PM
-----------
Yes I agree and have been saying all along that the biggest problem Bush is having in Iraq is that he didn't count on not being able to control the IRAQI PEOPLE. I totally think he believed that he would "install" the right people in power and the oil, or at least 2/3 of it would be handed to EXXON, CHEVRON, AND YES BRITISH PETROLEUM. It is why BLAIR also bamboosallled his people.
The 7 military bases were planned by the
PNAC members in the 1990's while we were sleeping.
Look up PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY
I think it is on pg 54 of their doctrine that they stated they needed another PEARL HARBOR to be able to persuade (trick), the american people into attacking Iraq and occupying it.
I also supported Kucinich
MichiganCarrie,
for all the mudslinging WJ Clinton has done, he has always said he would back any nominee. I would hope Obama would do the same.Anyone who wouldn't is certainly a sore loser!
Obama has not only supported Democratic candidates with his words, he campaigns very actively for Democrats to win in numerous states, and he donates to their campaigns through his HopeFund. He was on the ground for many of the new representatives and senators elected for the first time in 2006. Barack is very much a party supporter, while pointing out areas of weakness and possible ways to improve the party.
oops sorry
should be
7 permanent military bases
and
the Pearl Harbor they needed of course turned out to be 9/11
Obama spent $1.3M, plus change, in Florida
Posted by Cyn_NY on February 18, 2008 at 01:31 PM
Everyone seems to be accepting this without much question. Some are calling it "fact". It smells kind of fishy to me.
I checked on the link. It linked to another site which provided only this:
Although the Democrats weren't able to earn delegates in Michigan or Florida, because the states scheduled early primaries without the national party's blessing, the hopefuls still spent nearly $3.4 million in those states. Hillary Clinton and Obama each spent about $130,000 in Michigan while Obama spent $1.3 million in Florida—more than any other Democratic candidate and more than eight Republican candidates, who were eligible to win delegates from the state.http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=335
I do not believe Obama went to FL. What was the money spent on? I have heard that he did a national air buy which had commercials on in many states including FL. Is that the $1.3M expenditure?
What makes no sense, is why would someone spend $1.3M on delegates that won't count. Say what you like about Obama, but he is not dumb. I think there is something fishy in these "facts". And the "facts" being provided aren't "facts". What was the money spent on? How much and to who?
Let's have some real facts before we make up our minds.
I would vote again in a heartbeat. My problems with a redo are two-fold:
1) A primary would be costly and (from all I've heard/read) unfeasable. I don't believe a caucus here would be fair - not because my gal doesn't do well in caucuses, but because we have a 24-hour workforce here. I was floored when I moved to Philadelphia a few years ago and couldn't even shop for groceries in the middle of the night! In MI, when I checked into a campground at 11pm only to find I'd forgotten my tent, what did I do? Ran to the store and bought a new one! What I realized quickly after moving to PA was that MI's auto industry and shiftwork have led to a 24-hour workforce. Between that and the fact that we have ZERO public transportation, I believe a 2-3 hour caucus window is too restrictive to be fair to the lion's share of voters. I'd love to be corrected, but I've also read that, while we had >2,000 polling sites for our primary, we'd only have ~200 caucus sites.
2) We don't have the resources to spare around here. Our state is really struggling economically, so the state committee would have to shoulder the burden. Our democratic legislators are extremely vulnerable - at last count reported on local public radio, 12 were under recall petition for a tax increase made to cover a staggering budget shortfall & protect vital services (ahhh, the legacy of a horrible republican governor). I'd first focus resources on protecting those seats and our embattled governor (also under recall petition). The situation is pretty dire here, all around.
Given that, as much as it pains me, I would rather just consider my vote a sacrificial lamb on the alter of misgivings we now all have about the party's nominating process. I'd rather set out next year to reform the process than further burden my state. That's a hard one to swallow.
What I think could go a long way is a smidgen of empathy and compassion, instead of the hard-line "state in which there are zero" delegates and rules-for-the-sake-of-rules mentality. It would have felt a whole lot different to we the people of MI had the message been, "This is a dilemma. We realize your state has by far the highest rate of unemployment, and that you are in desperate need of strong democratic leadership. We recognize that drove you to move your primary, and that, despite the consequences, your voters turned out at the polls. However, the move for early primaries was spiralling out of control. These consequences may not have been our only or even our best option, but in fairness to the 44 states who waited, we feel it is only right to stand by them."
As a former teacher, I learned quickly that consequences dealt with empathy and compassion are always the most effective - they're the ticket to peace and respect within a community.
Maybe, kind of a non-answer, but does that sound reasonable?
PAM
Where do you live?
highserenity, I live in CT.
I believe I saw that you live in the SF bay area? so does my daughter, who is moving back home after 10 years. I am headed back out there in a few weeks, for the final flight home with her and her pets she got from her Animal Rescue efforts.
MichiganCarrie,
for all the mudslinging WJ Clinton has done, he has always said he would back any nominee. I would hope Obama would do the same.
Anyone who wouldn't is certainly a sore loser!
------------------------
Obama has not only supported Democratic candidates with his words, he campaigns very actively for Democrats to win in numerous states, and he donates to their campaigns through his HopeFund. He was on the ground for many of the new representatives and senators elected for the first time in 2006. Barack is very much a party supporter, while pointing out areas of weakness and possible ways to improve the party.
Posted by andersonislanderforobama on February 18, 2008 at 04:48 PM
---------
thanks you for exposing MichiganCarrie
I forgot about the Hope Fund
which actually is Senator Barack Obama's PAC promoting Democratic candidates and leaders
Michigan
I thought your whole post explaining Michigan was truely informative
this part where you said
"Given that, as much as it pains me, I would rather just consider my vote a sacrificial lamb on the alter of misgivings we now all have about the party's nominating process. I'd rather set out next year to reform the process than further burden my state. That's a hard one to swallow."
is actually one of the most responsible I have heard for days and days
and p.s. I started a week ago trying to do the compassionate, as I really do feel bad for the innocent ones, but I just got unbelievable NON-SOLUTION oriented responses---mostly from Floridans who just wanted to scream, call foul, and tell everyone how abused they are. I gave up and needed reminded (by you just now) that it actually is the best way most times. thanks
who was the idiot on here the other day, saying that McCain NEVER uses his POW or heroic events as a campaign tool??
"Bush led us on a righteous crusade, but most Americans now see through the smoke and mirrors. Now John McCain campaigns for more of the same.
Ironically, the fundamentalist Muslims who headed the 9/11 attack probably enjoy seeing how the fundamentalist Christians in America exploited our fears. In the aftermath of the catastrophe, we allowed G. W. Bush to erode our rights in exchange for his claims to security. Meanwhile, in the name of national security, he grabbed power far beyond the limits of our own Constitution. Has our society begun to resemble that of our theocratic enemy?
The archdeacon of the theocon movement that began with Nixon and strengthened with Reagan, William Kristol is close friends with Bush and an avid admirer of John McCain. Dubya now passes the theocon torch to McCain who has begun to use Christian faith as a political springboard to demagoguery. He skillfully meshes his heroic POW experience with a religious re-awakening. He has learned from Dubya that using religion in a political campaign works miracles. When talking up his POW calamity, he melds the heroic event to his religious devotion. In speeches, he often blends religion with military heroism, the perfect persona in the popular Americana, a powerful sales pitch for votes.
justaguy -
That is pretty wild. You're right. This is my first day blogging here, but I've spent a lot of time on other sites (most of which favor Obama). Your experience here seems to fly in the face of the other blogs I've frequented and the statistics being cited by the media and the Obama campaign. Maybe the difference is that those statistics are based on democrats + independents?
Anyhoo - Let me just say - I love and support Hillary, but I'm FAR more committed to my convictions than my candidate. There's no way I'd abandon our platform.
andersonislanderforobama -
I know - both of these candidates have done a GREAT deal to support other party members. Hillary supported Obama's bid in IL. I'm sure he supported hers in NY.
I was just pointing out that, if by association with Ickes, the Clintons are sore losers, then - by association - Obama would be, too, given his wife's comments.
Fortunately, I don't think either of these candidatese will slink away and let McCain win - cutting off their nose to spite their face!
I fully expect that the non-nominee (must we say loser?) will throw all his/her weight behind the nominee. Like me, I'm confident both of these candidates are more committed to their convictions than their pride.
Hi Pam wow CT because it is KGO i listen to I keep forgetting that it can be heard all over the country. actually mexico and canada too.
I live about 2 1/2 hrs northeast of SF
I am 5th generation in this little town and my 6th and 7th generations are here.
I was born in SF because that was in the 1940's and my Dad was in WWII and my mom had moved to SF to help in the war effort. Worked as a cab driver, all the cab drivers were men before the war, then the women took over sooooo many of their jobs. I guess that was the first indication of
ooooo maybe a woman can do the job of a man
needed a little levity there :-)
HI. I live in Ohio and am wondering who I should vote for on March 4th? Anyone have any suggestions?
High,
I have a cousin in Eureka. Daughter down in Simi Valley. Sister in law in El Cajon.
Friends and past bloggers in other parts of CA.
Love the state. Hate the high cost of living. My daughter's house is for sale for almost a million dollars, for a house we would get SO much less for here in CT. But of course, her income out there is a lot higher.
I would move there, but husband is a yankee through and through.
ToucanSam asks (about an hour ago):
When the party decided not to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates, did we reduce the number of delegates necessary for a candidate to win? If so, by how much? If not, why not?
The answer is Yes, the number of delegates is always 50%+1. Without Florida and Michigan, 2025 delegates are necessary to secure the nomination. With Florida and Michigan, 2,206 delegates would be needed.
You can get a lot of great information about delegate counts, including names of Super-delegates and their preference, at http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/
On this idea of "you can't have it both ways". This is a half-truth argument. Neither candidate is trying to have it "both ways".
On the first "way" - Should the delegates count? I don't see how they can. The DNC ruled before the primaries that they would not. Some were not on the ballot. Will that change who the nominee is? No because the delegates don't count. Does that mean the people from those two states should not vote in the general election? Only if they like Bush and the job he has done. So if you are a Democrat from either state, vote out those people who chose to move up the primary against the rules and vote for whichever Democrat wins the nomination.
On the second "way" - superdelegates can vote for whomever they choose. Neither candidate is trying to change that. The candidates are trying to change the minds of some of these superdelegates. Currently, Obama I believe Obama is trying to convince them to vote for him because he is ahead in the delegate count. If Hillary takes the lead after OH/TX she will likely agree with him. But NEITHER candidate (unless I have missed something) is seeking to take away the freedom of choice from the superdelegates.
Sorry for the long post. Had to get that off my chest.
NewDealer08 -
Howdy! What a dilemma you have! Sometimes choosing between two amazing options is a whole lot harder than choosing between a couple of duds.
I, of course, would suggest Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton. I'll be driving down from Michigan to talk to Ohio voters about why, probably toting my little one around in her stroller, because I feel so strongly that she's the best of these two great choices.
If you'd like to know more, let me know. I'm happy to gush. :)
Your neighbor,
Carrie
I suppose you are refering to the supposed racist statements that the media keeps pointing to? Well lets see who words are more hateful using their own words on the matter of playing the race card I am curious as to why journalist and others who pounce on the Clintons are
No Texas Bill, I am not referring to ANY specific statments, racist or otherwise. I am making a statement that both campaigns are EQUALLY negative about each other! I don't think about race, because I am not racists myself.
hmmmmm, here is another look at that old satellite they say they have to shoot down!
"Anybody who thinks that the government is telling the truth about the plan to shoot down a dead spy satellite--that it's all about protecting us, and not about testing an anti-satellite weapon--has to be really stupid.
And stupid is what the Bush administration and the Pentagon apparently think we are.
They're claiming they need to shoot this thing down because it's got a tank with 1000 pounds of hydrazine, a fuel used for maneuvering satellites while in orbit which is said to be as toxic as chlorine if breathed.
Well, the odds of a tank of hydrazine surviving an 18,000 mph plunge into the atmosphere intact and making it to the ground is basically zero. That sucker will heat up to a fine redhot glow and blow up before it even makes it to the stratosphere.
Posted by MichiganCarrie on February 18, 2008 at 05:11 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you will look back at all todays posts ( don't have time or I would search it) you will find a NEW POSTER WONDERING IF THIS WAS A HILLARY ONLY SITE BECAUSE AT THE TIME EVERYONE POSTING WAS BIG HILLARY SUPPORTERS.
WOW. Any of you know any Canadians who think their Government has been above the fray, not involved in Iraq?????
18/02/08 "CommonGround" -- - On March 25, 2003, during the “shock and awe” bombardment of Iraq, then US Ambassador Paul Cellucci admitted that “… ironically, Canadian naval vessels, aircraft and personnel... will supply more support to this war in Iraq indirectly... than most of those 46 countries that are fully supporting our efforts there.”
Cellucci merely scratched the surface of Canada’s initial “support” for the Iraq War, but he had let the cat out of the bag. As then Secretary of State Colin Powell had explained a week earlier, “We now have a coalition of the willing… who have publicly said they could be included in such a listing.... And there are 15 other nations, who, for one reason or another, do not wish to be publicly named but will be supporting the coalition.”
Canada was, and still is, the leading member of this secret group, which we could perhaps call CW-HUSH, the “Coalition of the Willing to Help but Unwilling to be Seen Helping.” The plan worked. Most Canadians still proudly believe that their government refused to join the Iraq War. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here are some of the ways in which we joined the fray:
Escorting the US Navy: Thirteen hundred Canadian troops aboard Canada’s multibillion dollar warships escorted the US fleet through the Persian Gulf, putting them safely in place to bomb Iraq
Posted by TexasBill on February 18, 2008 at 05:16 PM
------------------
Ooooh silly me you fooled me earlier and I actually tryed to respond to you
I try to give anyone from Texas (or Florida) for that matter a little extra consideration and the benefit of the doubt because of what they have to live with (ie/the Bush Cartel that runs their states)
SOOO I DIDN’T recognize you immediately.
A bit more "On this idea of "you can't have it both ways". This is a half-truth argument. Neither candidate is trying to have it "both ways"."
What this person might have been reacting to is the resounding cry from people like Donna Brazile were threatening to quit the party when Obama took the pledged delegate lead, but Clinton held the pledged + super delegate lead. At that time, it appeared that, while the very clear rules around primary dates was one everyone needed to stick to, the very clear rules about unpledged super delegates were suddenly unfair and should be scrapped.
Sure, now Obama is leading in the combined delegate count, so for now the point may be moot. From where I sit - in Michigan, accepting that my vote won't count - I see it as only fair that super delegates could override the will of the people, particularly if they feel the pledged delegates are overrepresenting independents.
I won't hold Obama responsible for Brazile's statements.
I do find myself pretty angry with her, though, as she's been very cold in delivering the consequences to the 2.3M voters and 366 pledged delegates in the MI/FL primaries.
The message of "not having it both ways" is a fair one, I believe, when targeted at the right person/people.
this one kind of makes me chuckle, because by summer time, the RNC will have about $50 left in their war chest !
RNC Donor Event Outlines Obama Attack Plan
By Jeffrey Ressner
18/02/08 "Politico " -- - Focusing on Barack Obama’s “inexperience” and “undisciplined messaging” are two ways to ensure that the senator from Illinois doesn’t get to be president, according to honchos at the Republican National Committee. Big RNC contributors got an earful this weekend about methods the GOP will use to battle the Democrats for control of the White House this fall, as well as other initiatives central to the conservative cause.
MichiganCarriesays:
I fully expect that the non-nominee (must we say loser?) will throw all his/her weight behind the nominee. Like me, I'm confident both of these candidates are more committed to their convictions than their pride.
And while the candidates will say and do what seems to be right, the supporters of both will independently make up their minds. People's voter preference gets determined by all sorts of strange logic. Some will vote anit-Clinton for sexist reasons. Others will vote anti-Obama for racists reasons. Some have convinced themselves that his experience isn't sufficient enough (the same arguement used against blacks long after their civil rights where won when denying them jobs or housing options). Some will vote for Hillary because she is a woman, but when faced with two men in the general election will have to rethink. Others will vote for Obama because he is black but when faced with two whites in the general election will have to rethink.
Neither candidate can move all of their voters to the other for the general election. I personally believe that Obama is much more palitable and therefore more electable. Others believe that Hillary Clinton brings more experience to the table (I don't see it) and find her to be more electable. Hillary's support has stayed pretty steady and even throughout the past year. She isn't gaining a great number of new supporters but she is demonstrating a very solid and deep support base by not losing a lot of her supporters. Barack seems to be building his base, but I have seen the press build someone up only to tear them down (remember Jimmy Carter?).
A non-nominee throwing all of their support may not mean anything on the ground, unless a case can be made that everything said during the primary is now meaningless. A lot of harsh words have been thrown by supporters of both candidates, and words do mean something, and words are very difficult to bring back once they are out.
No,the Delegate count is the same as it was before they stripped Michigan,
Posted by marvin08 on February 18, 2008 at 05:29 PM
I don't believe that is correct.
I believe Andersonislanderforobama had it right and posted a link.
If the delegates from FL and MI are NOT counted, the total is 2025.
If the delegates from FL and MI ARE counted, the total is 2206.
No,the Delegate count is the same as it was before they stripped Michigan, and Florida. As for as your question of why not, i can't answer that one. But its a good question, typical political crap i guess, they thought 2 wrong would make it right, i guess. And we all know that it never does. Its almost as they wanted to see a train wreck.
Posted by marvin08 on February 18, 2008 at 05:29 PM
---------
The answer is Yes, the number of delegates is always 50%+1. Without Florida and Michigan, 2025 delegates are necessary to secure the nomination. With Florida and Michigan, 2,206 delegates would be needed.
You can get a lot of great information about delegate counts, including names of Super-delegates and their preference, at http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/
Posted by andersonislanderforobama on February 18, 2008 at 05:21 PM
I am not from Michigan or Florida, and I voted for Obama, in a state that had its primary early and was not punished. None the less the most important thing for me is to win in November. I do not want to write off Michigan or Florida, and I do not want to anger voters in those states. Michigan is a real problem. Obama, was not on the ballot. I can not see how that state can be seated without a revote of some type.
That is not the case in Florida, Obama was on the ballot, spent 1.3 million dollars (more than any other Democrat) campaigning there, and received a respectable share of the statewide vote. If the delegates are seated proportional to the vote it will have little effect on the overall delegate count.
If Obama supporters cannot live with that then they should not expect the Super Delegates to do anything other than follow the rules and vote for who they think will win in November.
And to justaguy and others. Florida is very important. If prior voting patterns hold Florida, and Ohio will decide our next President, just as they have for the last two elections.
Its not just about fairness in the primary, its about winning in November. Eight more years of Republican rule would be a nightmare.
I hate our leadership bungled this issue but they did and now they have to fix it.
Read this one Dems. Merely knocking out that One DINO in MD by a true progressive, we are getting other DINO's starting to worry!
Rep. Leonard Boswell Signs onto Cheney Impeachment
Congressman Leonard Boswell, right-wing Democrat from Iowa'a third district, would apparently like to avoid the fate of Congressman Al Wynn in Maryland. Al Wynn nearly lost a primary in 2006 to a challenger from his left, Donna Edwards. He transformed himself from one of the most corporate and militaristic members of Congress into one of the most responsive to his constituents, reversing his position on the occupation of Iraq and signing onto articles of impeachment against Dick Cheney. It wasn't enough to save him, as Edwards showed Wynn the door in the 2008 primary earlier this month.
Boswell is being challenged by Ed Fallon, who - like Edwards - seems to inspire more courage in the incumbent than he himself actually exhibits. Fallon's website says nothing about impeachment. Edwards said she was for it when asked, but never brought it up, and kept it off her website.
So I didn't vote for Clinton or Obama in the primaries so assume I'm one of those undecided registered Democrats. I gotta say that this petty name-calling and who-stole-somebody's-speech stuff is getting ridiculous. THIS is why the Democrats will NOT win the Presidential seat. It's not because people won't vote for a woman or and African-American or a Democrat. It's because the only 2 candidates we have left are so desperate they have to resort to nit-picking each other, thus making undecided voters like myself angry and fenceline voters look to the other party. As soon as I start leaning towards Hillary, she starts this "Obama said a pronoun instead of a preposition" stuff and when I lean toward Obama, he hits me with this "Bill ate 14 cheeseburgers and yelled at a lousy reporter today" garbage. At the start of this election year, didn't we all agree to come together as a party so we could make a BETTER change for the country? How is this helping? Yeah, one of em is gonna lose, but why run each other into the ground, build up your campaign issues, lay off nit-picking the other guy or gal, and let the people decide who's better! If this keeps up, McCain is gonna win and our country continues the downward slide for 4-8 more years!!!! I would encourage the DNC to get on your candidates and tell them to clean up their acts!
Posted by highserenity on February 18, 2008 at 03:47 PM
I've been there in the trenches, up until the wee hours of the morning, making sure they all counted in my county. Now, I have to wait until ALL counties report counted. (4 a.m. is a safe prediction here in OH)
Absentees get counted if all information is filled out on the i.d. envelope, the stub intact, and if provisional; must be registered, in the correct precinct, and envelope completed.
I've said vote by mail for years, way before the beginning of the DNC KA. ;)
Posted by MichiganCarrie on February 18, 2008 at 05:36 PM
I don't think you understood my point on "having it both ways". "Having it both ways" would infer following the rules in one case and not following them in another. Counting the delegates would not be following the rules. The rule is that superdelegates can vote any way they want. NO ONE is proposing that superdelegates be FORCED to match the popular vote. Some are applying pressure that perhaps they SHOULD. That is not breaking the rules. So the "trying to have it both ways" argument in bogus.
By the way, I believe Donna Brazile clarified her statement indicating that she would not leave the party. I think she indicated she would leave the DLC. I'm not sure I have that 100% correct, but I am certain she "clarified" her statement.
andersonislanderforobama -
On your last point, we agree - the point that support of a non-nominee will only matter to the extent that the non-nominee can convince people they should look past the criticisms they yielded only a few months earlier.
I was only trying to make the point that it was premature to call either candidate a "sore loser" - particularly if the accusation was only based on association.
This was in response to your post about Ickes:
One example is a Hillary Clinton advisor, Harold Ickes. He wanted the power of being DNC chair and lost out to Howard Dean. Instead of being a gracious loser, Ickes decided to set up his own database outside the party to mirror the party in a way that he could control mailings, phone calls, etc. and rather than attempting to build the party he attempted to build his own power base. The Clintons are sore losers.
He certainly comes off badly, but that last sentence seems to require an unfair or illogical leap.
HI. I live in Ohio and am wondering who I should vote for on March 4th? Anyone have any suggestions?
Posted by NewDealer08 on February 18, 2008 at 05:16 PM
A democratic candidate!
What congressional district are you in?
Have you went to the ODP website and signed up for "free ticket(s)" to the Democratic Debate that is going to be held in Cleveland? State Executive Board holders all get first chance.
AUSTIN – The head of the state party said Friday that the Democratic primary "is the hottest ticket in Texas" and predicted a record turnout fueled by the tight race between presidential hopefuls Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.
He urged Texans to cast their ballots in early voting that begins Tuesday and runs through Feb. 29 to avoid lines on March 4.
"I will be shocked and stunned if it isn't a new record for Texas," Democratic chairman Boyd Richie said. The record Democratic primary turnout was 20 years ago, when 1.8 million voted. In the last Democratic presidential primary in 2004, about 840,000 voters turned out.
At stake are 228 delegates. Texas Democrats use a hybrid system of a primary and caucuses to decide delegates. The primary vote will decide how 126 delegates will be apportioned, and 42 will be based on the results of precinct caucuses held immediately after the polls close
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-dems_16pol.ART.State.Edition1.4515fbd.html?npc
Seriously, Texas Bill, wouldn't you be more effective out knocking on doors, and phone banking, and offering rides to the polls, etc, than sitting here spewing against the other candidate????????????? Or maybe this is your political contribution of choice?
Posted by TexasBill on February 18, 2008 at 05:46 PM
-------------------------------------------------
another diatribe from TEXAS
imagine that?
link is for texasBill
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/diatribe
Essie nice to see you here for a change...
Posted by Cate on February 18, 2008 at 03:49 PM
It's a federal holiday for me, the carpenter had to work. ;p
Spent some of my day slacking on the internet.
Good to read you too.
Now this is interesting........
Hispanic vote crucial in Texas' Democratic primary By KELLEY SHANNON
AUSTIN, Texas — It's known as President Bush's home turf, a red state, Republican ruled.
That familiar image of Texas is turning a shade of blue with its March 4 Democratic presidential primary and the legions of new, urban and minority voters choosing between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Hispanic support is crucial for Democrats in Texas, where 228 delegates are up for grabs and Latinos could comprise up to half of Democratic votes on primary day.
The Clinton and Obama campaigns are beginning to hit Texas hard. Clinton will campaign in El Paso on Tuesday and San Antonio, Corpus Christi and the Rio Grande Valley on Wednesday to shore up her Hispanic support. Her campaign also planned to begin television ads in Texas in Spanish and English
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/gen/ap/TX_Texas_Primary.html
in Florida, Obama was on the ballot, spent 1.3 million dollars (more than any other Democrat) campaigning there
I suppose if some misinformation is stated often enough then people may begin to take it as fact. I ahve attempted to follow the links and find the actual expenditures being lumped into the 1.3 million dollars spent by Obama campaign in Florida. They just aren't true statements. Teh information isn't there. The links prove to be hollow and unsubstantiated.
I would love to think that all the false statements about the Clintons were true because the American way of saying one candidate is good is to tear down their opponent, but many of the allegations against the Clintons are also unsubstantiated. I did my best to find evidence that Hillary and Bill trashed the Whitehouse and stole furniture on the way out of office, but it isn't true.
The truth about Florida campaigning:
Hillary stated on her web site prior to Florida's primary that she would do everything in her power to get their delegates seated. She didn't want to ignore Florida because she hadn't secured the nomination prior to thier primary. She clearly was campaigning for their votes.
Barack purchased regional advertising spots on television campaigning in neigboring states. Some of those ads aired in some Florida communities. They were not targeted to Florida, but they did make it into the Florida market.
Now where does the $1.3 million figure come from?
Chicago -
You and I might be getting into semantics, and maybe I misunderstood that you were focusing on how rules were being enforced. I was referring to the feelings of fairness felt by both sides. I'm sorry if I misunderstood!
My reaction stems from the flood of comments I read following the lead of Brazile's initial statement. Many people were crying foul when they realized that the super delegates could override the popular vote. Many joe-average voters were calling for the suspension of super delegates, and threatening to vote against the party.
It was looking pretty ugly!
I have heard Brazile on NPR since that statement, and she has sounded more reasonable on the topic, so you may be right about her clarifying. Boy howdy did she set of a firestorm, though! Yuck!
Posted by marvin08 on February 18, 2008 at 05:58 PM
I already filed my tax returns. I won't be getting a rebate check, but if I did, I would give part or all of it to my democratic nominee of choice. THAT would help the economy in the long run.
I can remember a time when a Delaware Senator plagiarized someone and then had to drop out of the Presidential race because of all of the media pressure on him. Well now that the Golden Boy has done the same thing lets see if the media will do the same to him. If they don't the only reason I can think of is because Obama is black and Biden is'nt.Posted by Illini on February 18, 2008 at 05:53 PM
Maybe because when someone has permission to use another persons words, it isn't plagiarism.
Posted by andersonislanderforobama on February 18, 2008 at 06:02 PM
I also could not find where the $1.3M was spent. It smells fishy to me. Doesn't make sense.
I would like to see the data if it exists.
I don't think Hiilry can win to be presdent caus she not friendly. Seem to me like she kind of meen.
Posted by Kosmo on February 18, 2008 at 06:08 PM
well, kosmo, you make sure you tell everyone that all of Hillary's closest friends and acquaintances, reporters, etc all say she is very warm, very down to earth, very funny!
She's not MEEN at all !
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12905#comment
Posted by PamB on February 18, 2008 at 05:50 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wooooopppeeeeeee thanks Pam
----------____________________________________
I would encourage the DNC to get on your candidates and tell them to clean up their acts!
Posted by indierock on February 18, 2008 at 05:50 PM
WELL SAID indierock
_____________________________________________
Posted by marvin08 on February 18, 2008 at 05:58 PM
--------------------
that is a great idea marvin that we can actually all do and accomplish something real
i like it
I have my own diatribe about how McCain is DEFINATELY NOT A HERO WITH LOTS OF DOCUMENTED PROOF LATER FOR THAT like before the
General ;-)
oh pam
can you imagine Texas turning blue because the elite needed to bring in the hispanics to do service and didn't count on them getting to vote?
the best laid plans of mice and men
Now you come on, Limbaugh, Coulter, other Repugs who are banging McCain! Old Poppy Bush says that is not fair!
HOUSTON (Reuters) - Former President George H.W. Bush urged disgruntled conservatives on Monday to rally around John McCain, calling their criticism of the Republican presidential front-runner "grossly unfair."
The father of President George W. Bush said he was annoyed by attacks within the conservative wing of the Republican Party against the Arizona senator, the all-but-certain Republican nominee to face Democrats in November election.
Many conservatives distrust McCain because of his moderate views on illegal immigration and campaign finance reform and for having originally voted against President Bush's tax cuts. Persuading them all to vote for McCain in November will be a central challenge.
"His character was forged in the crucible of war. His commitment to America is beyond any doubt," the 41st U.S. president, flanked by his very large and obese wife Barbara, told a joint news conference with McCain in a Houston airport hanger. Even though John is older than dirt, he can still probably be better than my son was."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080218/pl_nm/usa_politics_mccain_dc
BARACK OBAMA wants to take away our
RIGHT to BEAR ARMS?
Who supports this?
Is it true?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080216170807AANWW5R
Tucker Carlson on Obama's church: "[I]t's hard to call that Christianity"
During the "Obameter" segment on the February 7 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, host Tucker Carlson criticized Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), a presumptive candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, for being a member of a church that Carlson claimed "sounds separatist to me" and "contradicts the basic tenets of Christianity," a subject Carlson said he was "actually qualified to discuss." Carlson was referring to the "Black Value System" advocated by the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, of which Obama is a member.
Full Story:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200702090009
Posted by MichiganCarrie on February 18, 2008 at 06:06 PM
MichiganCarrie,
I see it as a lot more than semantics. It strikes me as a question of a candidates character. To say that someone is "trying to have it both ways" infers that they lack ethics and are interested only in winning at all cost. I hope neither of our fine candidates are that flawed. If I find that one of them is, I will vote for the other in a heartbeat. One basic reason we have suffered under these republican thugs for 8 years is that so many of their supporters believe or believed in the concept that "the ends justify the means". They believe or believed that even though their candidate was inept or corrupt, the results would be to their liking. So Repuplicans have accepted the corruption and ineptitude. And the republican representatives (especially Bush) have justified their actions based on this concept. For example, we may not have had adequate justification for invading Iraq, but Bush thought the result would be good. The ends cannot and should never justify the means. The "means" are more important. That is what the constitution is all about.
Join up in Texas to volunteer from March 1-5 and help Hillary make history! We encourage you to recruit a buddy and contact friends and family in Texas who can be your local host. Hillary is counting on all of us! For more information on the HillStars program and traveling to Texas please review the link below:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/action/txhillstars
highserenity,
can you imagine Texas turning blue because the elite needed to bring in the hispanics to do service and didn't count on them getting to vote?
It would be such poetic justice, so Sweet, if Texas turned Blue! LMAO!!! I'll send money for that !
ps, this statement:
I would encourage the DNC to get on your candidates and tell them to clean up their acts!
can never happen. Howard Dean has NO clout, no power , no influence over Clinton nor Obama,nor any Senator or Representative.
You see this is the difference between the Goose stepping RNC where every political figure adheres to the Rules set out by RNC, and the DNC where they do not. There is no organization, no Real Party line for Democrats.
I don't think any of them have ever given credit to Howard for his 50-State Strategy which took the 2006 election over the hump and at least turned a lot of Red states to Purple.
QUOTE OF THE WEEK
"We need a president who'll deliver real solutions to the urgent challenges we face - even when the going gets tough. It will take someone with strength and experience to fight to provide quality, affordable health care for every man, woman and child in America. I know that Hillary will bring the voices and values of all Americans to the White House," Texas State Senator Leticia Van de Putte
Hillary is "meen"? I thought the Republicans had a corner on "meen", like they invented it. Starting waaay back with Regan the 2d rate actor.
Mean is when you kick wounded vets to the side after they ruined their lives in your phony war.
Mean is denying poor kids health benefits.
Mean is taxing the working poor and middle class while your rich buddies get all the tax breaks.
Mean is putting industry lackeys in charge of the watch dog agencies for food, imports, and pharmaceuticals, and cutting back on their budgets while we get tainted toys, food, and improperly researched medicines.
There's more, shall I go on?
Either Democratic candidate is far far better than McCain.
There's not much to choose between them. The need to quit sniping at each other and talk about their positions on things, on issues, on their view of the future, on their priorities.
WE need to get as many populist Democrats into the House and Senate as possible to support OUR view of the future, OUR priorities, OUR issues, just in case whoever wins leans farther to the right than is good for this country.
NO Blue Dogs, "centrists", nor Republi-lites need apply.
Latinos Unite to Show Hillary Support
Support Hillary and help push her on to Victory.
Learn more . . .
http://www.latinosforclinton.com
Economic Blueprint for the 21st Century
Throughout the campaign, Hillary has outlined a comprehensive set of policies to jumpstart our ailing economy. Hillary's Economic Blueprint for the 21st Century. Full story:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/blog/view/?id=52032
The 1.3 million comes from the web site MyDD.com, a generally responsible liberal web site where it was attributed to the Center for Responsive Politics, a generally reliable nonpartisan group. Maybe its wrong, who knows?
Unfortunately that does not change my opinion. I supported Obama and continue to do so. I hope he wins; but if he does so and the seating of Florida delegates would have changed that, his nomination will be tainted.
Obama made a mistake, he should have put his name on the ballot in Michigan, and if he did not, he should have campaigned in Florida to the same extent as any other candidate. I am still not certain he did not.
I will support the winner, whoever that may be; but winning in november is the prize, not the Democratic nomination.
I have been watching the primaries with interest. I have slowly become more and more involved in politics with age. I have a couple of questions. 1) Did the general public (regular democrats like myself) in Michigan and Florida know that their primaries were not going to count? Who made the decision to hold the primary early?
2) Why are there all of these different primary dates and caucuses? Why not have one primary in all eligible territories on the same day so that we can know who we can stand firmly behind. This party will never succeed in beating McCain if it is disgruntled and not united. The Republicans are already starting to pull together and grab up those independents.
did you catch a glimpse of the Chimp in Africa on TV today? Dancing around with Native Indians, looking like a total fool? I feel such embarassment to say he is our President! YUKKKK
Bush decreases funds for AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria
.As President Bush tours Africa this week, the White House is touting its record fighting disease. “The president is requesting an increase for our contribution to the Global Fund [to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria], an increase above his last year request from $300 million to $500 million,” Mark Dybul, the president’s global AIDS coordinator, asserted. This figure, however, is misleading. The Washington Post reports:
Bush did request $300 million for the Global Fund for the current fiscal year, but Congress decided to go further and approved $841 million. So even though Bush’s request for $500 million for the next fiscal year is higher than he requested the year before, in reality it would cut the contribution back from the $841 million it is getting in cold hard cash this year.
Dybul “acknowledged that when pressed,” but added, “You don’t want to pile up money.” 6:00
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/18/bush-decreases-funds-for-aids-tuberculosis-malaria/#comments
LOL!!!!!!
The New York Times writes that Sen. John McCain will ask George W. Bush to fundraise for him, but does not “want the president to appear too often at his side.” U.S. News reports:
This idiot is certifiably insane !!!!!
Bush Dismisses Iraq Recession: The War Has ‘Nothing To Do With The Economy’
This morning on NBC’s Today Show, President Bush denied that the there’s any link between the faltering U.S. economy and $10 billion a month being spent on the Iraq war. In fact, according to Bush, the war is actually helping the economy:
CURRY: You don’t agree with that? It has nothing do with the economy, the war — spending on the war?
BUSH: I don’t think so. I think actually the spending in the war might help with jobs…because we’re buying equipment, and people are working. I think this economy is down because we built too many houses and the economy’s adjusting.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/18/bush-iraq-economy/#comments
DemoctratKicking... Does tearing down Barack Obama make Hillary Clinton look better, or less bad? your two most recent posts seem to be anti-Obama without substance.
Has Barack stated he wants to repeal the second amendment? He is a constitutional law expert by just about anyone's standards and he reveres the constitution. Empty allegations are "just words."
Does attending a church that honors the black tradition of religious worship necessarily imply separatism? Can't someone be for the "Black Value System" without others assuming that they are anti-white? Who is Tucker Carlson? Is he a religious leader that understands the rich nuances of liberation theology?
I was under the assumption he wrote his OWN stuff. Hmm. Interesting. But you know what they say about assuming right? lol
“It’s time to put our cynicism down. Put it down. Stand with me and take that leap of faith. Because I’m not asking you to take a chance on me. I’m asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations. Take a chance on hope.”Barack Obama, right?
Wrong.
These are the words of Governor Deval Patrick.
Tucker Carlson... really? Really? You are quoting Tucker Carlson?
The Clinton camp sure has some strange friends. Coulter, Limbaugh, Carlson. I did see Carlson and Ickes yucking it up on his show. Ickes even admitted he "greatly respects" Carlson. The once mighty "sure thing" Clinton camp having to pay homage to the Neocons. How sad and desperate.
I'm outta here for a while.
It's been nice chatting with most of you.
Carlson is no neocon
he's a less threatening libertarian Ahole
PamB I agree with a previous blogger
You are a wealth of information,
---------------------
and anderson
thank you for your elequency
it seems to usually be stated in such a way that I can understand.
It is a gift---
Like pam's is a gift to bring up informing info in a delightful way
pardon me but
who the HELL are all you people?
lol ok I feel better
carry on
(so many names so little time to investigate)
Yes, so much better to "greatly respect" a libertarian Ahole. It still is sad and maybe even MORE desperate.
I have seen posts on here time and time again about many blacks saying they will not vote for Hillary under any circumstance
uhhhhhmmmmm, Not ON HERE you did not!
Nor have I seen that comment on any other liberal blog I have visited !
There is a big fight between Hillary, wife of 'the first Black President', and Barack Obama for black voters. And that is because both of them are loved by Blacks. The older group for Hillary, the younger group for Barack!
Get your facts straight, will you??
posted by TexasBill on 18 Feb 08 at 6:35P
Don't bet on it. Non-Cuban Hispanics tend to vote Democratic.
Not only that, but Denver's Archbishop Chaput, who was one of the most vocal of the "don't vote Democratic" ultraconservative bishops has come out with "vote your conscience" this time, which is a softening of his position.
The National Council of Catholic Bishops position has always been to basically stay out of politics, unlike many of the more rabid evangelical TV evangelists.
A lot of the conservative Catholics have awakened to the fact that the Republicans will not do anything about Roe v Wade as long as they can use it to attract suckers to vote for them, and their positions on the "war" in Iraq, healthcare, torture, the environment, and other such issues have shown Republicans to be neither "pro-life" nor "pro-family".
Of course there's always been a bunch of us more liberal types, who have been repelled by Republican hypocrisy from the start, and have always voted our consciences.
mmmm
lady
stop it, it goes both ways and is petty
like I was listening to Hillarys speech in Davenport, Iowa and was so surprised to hear her using "fired up and ready to go" seriously
Let's talk about real issues, it isn't like we don't have any real issues in this country.
thanks for listening
Posted by LaSt on February 18, 2008 at 06:57 PM
they're probably trying to under cut TWEETY's influence
TWEETY is the one that needs to be CANNED
Posted by highserenity on February 18, 2008 at 06:59 PM
I mean I really thought he wrote his own stuff and didn't use a telepromter or notes or whatever.
It was just a mistake as I should realize all of them have speech writers and "handlers"
I was just surprised to hear it on the news tonight (tweety of course)
Butte,
I agree. I know MANY Catholics who vote Democratic, because they understand that Jesus and the bible are Liberal----
(they also have abortions when necessary, too, and they take Birth Control pills, and even have Gay relatives that they want to have the same rights as every other human being)
Posted by TexasBill on February 18, 2008 at 07:06 PM
don't vote for a PUKE under any circumstances
stay home if you must
but don't be a dee,dee,dee!
also
whom EVER wins will STILL have a LOT of US in their FACES to make sure they END THE WAR, FIX THE ECONOMY and RESTORE OUR NAME around the GLOBE.
imo
I won't take a very long winter nap after Nov. No matter WHO is the next Pretzeldent!
jmo
them wasnt inidians those was africcens
well, cactus Kosmos, I was trying to differentiate between an African, and the Dressed up Indian type. We have an African couple on our street, you see, and they wear genuine suits, not feather thongs, and head pieces ! Some people like you may have trouble telling the difference.
bill and I think you mean
conscience
unless you were passed out while you voted?
how's the Tequila down there? LOL kiddin! ;-)
Can we get more pictures of Democrats on this site. I sign over to read the blog and I see on the main page "McCain wins nomination." How many people sign on and think that McCain is a democrat? His picture is on this site more than our two great candidates.
just a thought.
trying to determine if I should continue to support a party which would field a candidate who has done things I disowned my own brother for or vote for McCain. Unlike some people it is truly a matter of conscious when I vote I am not monlythic nor an idealogue just one really digusted American.
Posted by TexasBill on February 18, 2008 at 07:06 PM
Well, if you like the way the last 7 1/2 years have gone, then you choose McCain, because that is Exactly what you will get some more of.
If you are truly a disgusted American, then you will choose the Democrat and know that no matter how much you may not like them, they are FAR better than the last 7 1/2 years of Destruction we have gone through.
That is it in a nutshell. Period !
If you doubt that the delegate issue has legs in Florida, please review today's Rasmussen Reports, which reads as follows:
"The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Florida shows John McCain holding a six-percentage point lead over Hillary Clinton and an even larger lead—sixteen percentage points—over Barack Obama. It’s McCain 49% Clinton 43% and McCain 53% Obama 37%. This dynamic is the opposite of what we have found in most other states where Obama typically outperforms Clinton in general election match-ups."
Posted by pee-wee on February 18, 2008 at 06:58 PM
Wow that is a COMBO I'd like to live to see.
Schweitzer is Montana's Eco friendly Governor right? The one that thinks science will find a way to clean coal under ground beFORE bringing it back UP so to use a great commodity of that fine state? He also is a bit too NON partisan imo with a LT GOV that's a rePug but what ever his choice. He's still cool...... and he loves border collies!!
;-)
Posted by TexasLane on February 18, 2008 at 07:17 PM
I think you go to party builder for the candidate stuff
the dnc can't appear to be partial to either so it focuses on the enemy! (or just my impression)
Posted by Yama on February 18, 2008 at 07:18 PM
I think Mel Gibson played your part in that movie
with Julia Roberts
LOL you sound seriously parnoid (sorry but it just reads that way)
I doubt any of that is true. And all of you people that keep throwing B O's middle name out there like dirt I think that's pretty crappy of you no matter whom you support, Hillary or TrollKOOK.
Let's fight with a bit more dignity than that ok?
Just a suggestion k?
there are some lines that just are not worth crossing - in this world - otherwise society turns to chaos - you know like the middle east!
Posted by TexasBill on February 18, 2008 at 07:29 PM
that's not allowed is it?
I've received quite a bit of local dem stuff and non of it was pro any candidate except a while back they had a phone bank for Kucinich
I didn't respond as he was not my first choice
bill they are BOTH hip deep in the thick of it in WAshington
neither was or is a hard core progressive
Dennis was the ONLY real progressive imo
they are INSIDERS on different SIDES
it's some inner war within the two families and it's spilling out on everyone
hopefully there will be a truce at some point and the voters will have chosen which one IS PRES and which one is VP or turns it down and finds a way to HEAL the divide from within
if they agree to combine tickets I doubt there will be an interruption with a 3rd party ticket
If they don't - I'm betting GORE or someone else will step in and pull a magnificent reverse Perot
hopefully they don't do a belly flop on the way down ;-)
KBTV-TV4 the Jefferson County, TX Democratic Party is urging I repeat Urging people to vote for Obama, so much for the rules.
Could someone who knows how, contact this station, and if it is true, find out where it is coming from?
I received this e-mail and am only posting the brief first part as it goes on for quite some time about what his Republican peers are doing to him for not getting out of the debates
I thought it was from a Dem due to obvious similarities
It seems the Texas repubs are going after Ron Paul (big time)
I learned a lot by listening to him
I wish he would leave a party that is so opposite of what he speaks is right
February 18, 2008 The DC neocons think their old dream is about to come true. They think they can defeat me in the Republican congressional primary in Texas on March 4th. And you know what? They may be right. My opponent, who describes himself as a traditional conservative, is a dedicated servitor of all the special interests who have given us the disaster of recent years, from unconstitutional wars to a looming recession, from huge deficits to massive new welfare programs. A Republican operative allied with the worst forces in DC recently said: "Give what you can [to Ron Paul's opponent]. Ron Paul is running scared -- using his Presidential campaign's donors' money to subsidize a desperate last-minute attempt to save his Congressional seat." That is a lie, of course. It is illegal to use presidential campaign donations in my congressional race. The congressional campaign has to stand on its own. But so far, we have raised only about a third of what a well-funded effort would need.
Just felt the need to post this
Posted by marvin08 on February 18, 2008 at 07:46 PM
thanks for the "headsup" Marvin :-)
doh
Posted by marvin08 on February 18, 2008 at 07:46 PM
----------------
I AGREE
hey Dems, well, a couple of the so called 'newbies' have shown their colors, so let their hooks float right on by!
Cactus Dan and Harpo are having their little childish fun again. IGNORE them folks, IGNORE them.
Tomorrow, they will be flushed like they always are! Let's talk how to win this election !
The pundits are having a heyday with Hillary's accusing Barack of plagerism. (with permission)
Totally left open all the videos of the times she has used others words, including Obama's (without permission)
Obama never complained and stayed about the fray
She has got to stop this
If she can't find reliable bad stuff about him, she is just setting herself up. He is very good at staying above what looks like "silly stuff"
Dems, and when you are given the bullshit that is appearing on this blog these days about candidates, PLEASE do yourself a favor and google and fact check. They are all lies!
When asked if he agreed with his wife's comments, a spokeswoman for Barack Obama provided the Daily News with a section of Michelle Obama's interview that she said ABC did not broadcast.
"My hope and expectation would be when Barack becomes the nominee, that Bill and Hillary Clinton would roll up their sleeves and work for him. So I would have to say honestly, I would have to do the same thing," said Michelle Obama, according to the transcript provided by the senator's campaign to The News.
Check out snopes and all the lies about Obama and the Church, being muslim, etc.
http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=Obama&getit=Go&sp-a=00062d45-sp00000000&sp-advanced=1&sp-p=all&sp-w-control=1&sp-w=alike&sp-date-range=-1&sp-x=any&sp-c=100&sp-m=1&sp-s=0
Use this to check facts also.
Too much lying/trolling going on these days.
Don't buy into it.
Posted by marvin08 on February 18, 2008 at 08:11 PM
----------------
bit of a mis-quote
reallyproud
explained by pundits at meaning that of course she has been proud-----
she said really proud
nobody in their right mind could believe she meant she has never been proud, when history shows she has stated differently
and yes, they are really grabbing on
as this site will
I suspect she also will be able to rise above it and not take the bait
I hope we can on this site too
Posted by Yama on February 18, 2008 at 08:14 PM
I don't choose to fight dirty - I doubt a REAL Hillary support would either.
I've seen more Hillary haters than Obama haters (even though I'm for Hillary) so the fact you are so hateful of Obama makes me think you are probably really a troll.
IF you really are NOT a troll named harpo, sally, cactus or other, then my mistake. YOu are just plain nasty. The same as any Hill slandering frog that passes by here.
anyway consider this as our last communication (under the name yama)
And Obama speech copying was done FROM a friend, with approval to do so BY the friend. Doesn't anybody listen to the stories?????????????
Hi Pam, I am getting better at spotting them thanks
Dawn, I do not know what rocks these people are coming out from under ! Just keep printing the facts about Hillary and refute them. Use Fact Check and snopes .
there are other sites out there also.
OH chit I just remembered this is President's day so the SCHOOL kids are OFF (stuck at home) for there is school tomorrow
You guys - there are YOUNG teenagers that have nothing to do but go to blogs and try to annihilate chatters
it was rampant in the early days of chat rooms before blogs......... you would THINK you were talking to someone and all of a sudden find out there were some KID playing around getting their "shits and grins" at the havoc they could cause
then escape into the abyss to come back later as another name
the NET is just NOT a real example of how the rest of the country feels
too many people either don't have computers, don't type or are too old to want to learn it all now enough to do more than pick up their email (in the case of my elderly relatives)
the net is mostly kids out of school and pervs looking for hook ups (sometimes they are one in the same) LOL
It incredible what the Clinton campaign is capable of doing for power. Lies and more lies to regain the power that they enjoyed in the Whitehouse. This is one independent that is now sure that if The Clintons are the DNC nominees, my vote and that of as many idependents as possible will favor anyone but Hillary. It is hard to come to the notion that even a Republican would be more honest than the Clintons. God Save the USA and hopefully Democrats will understand that if they want to regain the Whitehouse they need our votes, the Independents. Obama is the DNC candidate that can do that, form a coalition of Dems, Republicans and more importantly Independents to help us regain the United States that we all deserve. Obama 2008.
and of course the BIGGEST part of the country that works and can't BLOG at work!!
NOT those of us that are disabled or ELITE enough to be able to work and blog or NOT work and blog.
spewing bigotry/FEAR/HATE/name calling/inuendos that say one thing but imply another
posting mis-information as if it is fact
leaving links as proof that aren't hoping that no one will look
and on and on and on
clearly all republican
so what is to guess
if they aren't , then I don't care,
I am going to skip the posts anyway
as it is not what attracted me to this party and not the other
It is going to get really nasty
They are hiring them in droves
and we are not going to have time
I am a 60 year old woman who was not a radical in the 60's but was working as a secretary. I remember when I applied for a job with Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio that I had to take a pregnancy test because if I was pregnant I would not get the job - my husband was in the Air Force and shortly thereafter went to Vietnam. Now that is the system I lived under for almost 20 years. We have have equal rights amendment and also the right to have off for maternity leave. Who do you think worked hard for that right. Was it a man? No way! So if you are not going to support a Sister for the rights we all enjoy today, then you will not properly thank the sisterhood. Vote for HRC not just because she is a woman but because she is the right woman. Thank you.
Democrats PLEASE WAKE UP. The only way you will regain the Whitehouse is with OBAMA. No independents will vote for the lies of the Clintons. We had 8 years of them and 8 years of the Bush administration. It is time for real change. Not even the lies from the Clintonites will convince us otherwise. OBAMA or anything but Hillary.
PLEASE WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by ThinkFlorida on February 18, 2008 at 08:56 PM\\
SCREW THAT I don't WANT Independents or disgruntled PUKES picking my DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!!!
SCREW THAT
pick your OWN candidate!!!!
now I'm out
Dan Abrams is coming on.
The only balance to tweety these days
Pam
Please keep doing what you do so well
Posting informative information for me to go look at that I might not have known
I, for one, and I know their are many really appreciate it.
really not like I never appreciated anything before LOL teeney joke bad?
if osama is the nomunee me and plenty of other ohions will vote mccain
Hi Everyone, Looks like the fighting has continued without me. I've been busy, haven't even seen the news, boy has my blood pressure went down. LOL!!
So what's up with the stolen lines from yet another southside of Chicago Democrat. What's up with that? The United States of Chicago or what?
Posting informative information for me to go look at that I might not have known
I, for one, and I know their are many really appreciate it.
Posted by highserenity on February 18, 2008 at 09:00 PM
It is my pleasure highserenity. It is nice to have you aboard. Please hang around from now until November. We need Good, open minded, intelligent Dems here for the fight ahead of us. This will be no piece of cake going up against the Republican Smear machine, the election fraud and intimidation we can expect. This blog is not always like this, trust me. Most of these so-called irate supporters are nothing more than our usual trolls .
Time to head out for the evening. Keep the light lit, Dems! Just scroll by the moonbats!
Indie, that's just shocking coming from Mr. Williams - from his own website, "Armstrong Williams is called “one of the most recognizable conservative voices in America” by The Washington Post. Williams is a pugnacious, provocative and principled voice for conservatives and Christian values in America’s public debates." Later it describes his George W. Bush fellowship... This is a serious bushie neocon. whatever.
Look at his stance on the issues:
http://www.armstrongwilliams.com/248053.ihtml
sorry, I just came in - didn't mean to feed them. I'll scroll now, I promise.
Illini, Looks like things have been hot here for the Obamamaniacs. Their hatred and arrogance have risen to new highs. I rode my husband very very tall horse one day in a horse show for him. He started bucking and he threw me up so high I remembered going up real high, but oh my, oh my the fall from that from that high up was a trememdous THUD!! You know what I mean Illini!! Its fun going up, oh my the going down, sucks!!LOL!!! Remember the ALAMO!!!
Good evening Dems!
How was everyone's president's day?
If I come on the site and spew hate/fear/etc against a candidate (either one, it doesn’t matter) and act like I am supporting the other. Guess what I will get?
Even if I like both of our candidates, which I do, I will have an immediate human reaction to link this VILE person to the candidate that s/he claims to be representing.
Mission accomplished.
From another site I picked up that within the “new marching orders” they are actually copy/pasting your replys, and taking them back to headquaters to prove how many they got to respond./react.
May even get paid extra for each.
Because it is so hard not to respond, the solution is to
NOT READ
Solution: a notice of any VILE talk or unreasonable thinking
Implying one thing while saying another
JUST SMILE TO YOURSELF AND SKIP THAT POST
It’s easy, they are actually easy to spot and if they are not trolls, I won’t care that I missed their post. I would not be able to do any good anyway.
If they are really looking for information, they will peruse the posts on this site and learn a lot.
Realize how it is done in the DEM WORLD and join us.
Thanks for listening
Now, let’s get back to work
Posted by TexasBill on February 18, 2008 at 08:45 PM
I don't know why you believe that right-wing spin about Obama or try to get others to buy into it. That is not his church. Here, you want the truth? Look here:
Went good for me, today. I have something I can use to convince people I'm in the right when it comes to the whole Video Game Violence war. Apologies to any parent who visits this blog if they get the idea I'm saying they don't do enough from this blog, I'm just expressing an opinion, like the rest of us are.
People link violence with video games because that's what the media includes a lot of. However, the same people continually say that the violence is degrading children's minds and turning them into slaves of the video game companies. They portray such friendly developers like Nintendo to be careless, money-eating, overweight executives who make games only for the sole purpose of making kids do crime for them.
However, this is far from true. Many analysts and researchers say that there's a link between crime and video games, and just as many researchers say that the exact link is preposterous. Well, I have found something neither side may see: The inherent failure of the parents in this situation. Neither side of the battle ever mentions the parents of the involved children.
How else do kids get their hands on games like Halo 3 (a game which, in most stores, you must present proof you're 17+ to buy, as with any M-rated game) at an age such as 12? Is it because the stores aren't doing their job? is it because the parent doesn't read the ESRB label? No! It is because the parent is uncaring and wants the government to do their work for them so they won't have to take any measures whatsoever.
I'm not directly blaming the parents, but I believe that many more should consider going after the parents instead of the video game developers or trying to push legislature that forces game developers to tone down violence. I'd rather be able to play the games I want to play and not what the soccer moms think I should be playing.
Thank you for your time, if you read all of that. I'll be watching this thread for replies.
Hunt, I sure haven't, but I wonder if anyone has read Hillary Clinton's Living History?
IVAW, I don't think you're a troll, and I sent nasty letters to my Congressman and Senators for voting for Iraq war funding. The reply I received actually made me think - I was told that the war needs to be funded, not to show support for the war, but to show support for the troops, and for the Iraqis, who were supposed to be benefitting from the redevelopment portion of the dollars that never ended up getting used for that.
Hillary is the Democrat to Beat John McCain
Let's envision how a general election between the Democratic nominee and John McCain will unfold, based on recent elections:
The GOP Attack Machine Will Redefine the Democratic Candidate; Hillary Has Withstood That Process. When it came to national security, "strong and wrong" won out over "right and weak" in the 2002 and 2004 elections. With Hillary, that is not and will not be an issue. Republicans will not be able to play the national security card against Hillary Clinton.
Read more . . .
ahmen, Foxwood! I also hate those commercials with the weeping mom watching her kid read with Leapster or PowerTouch, or whatever and being so proud. Why the heck isn't SHE reading with her kid?!! I don't know if it's uncaring, but it certainly isn't "quality" time that puts this crap into their hands, is it?! imho
Clearly people have strong opinions one way or another for Obama vs Clinton. It's strange, actually. In December, I really didn't think I cared - I felt either would make a fine President. My worry at the time was electability. As time has gone on, though, my opinion has sharpened and I definitely have a favorite. So do most people, it would appear. I don't think it makes sense on this blog to try to campaign for your candidate. Most people on this blog, I would think, have already made up their minds, or are trying to find very specific answers to questions that generalized campaign comments won't settle.
Of course, people can say what they want - that's what being here is all about. just giving my 2c
Hello Dems,
This will make you proud, I wonder if Laura Bush took time for Children like this?
http://badgerherald.com/oped/2008/02/17/make_chelseas_mom_pr.php
How likely is it that the collection of Superdelegate "conscience" is going to reflect the will of the people?
Gee, I dunno Illini, maybe the part where WestPA keeps pointing out Obama's middle name is Hussein repeatedly might be construed as racist. At the least, no more a steaming pile of race-baiting like the rest of the Hillary goon squad.
And you make me ashamed for my alma mater.
Frankly, I thought you robots were looking for consistentcy and experience. If Obama has, as you are saying, been giving the same "line" of unity for years and you aren't satisfied, then so be it.
As for his slogan, it is an adaptation of an UFW slogan and isn't original either. I'm sorry, how many politicians are completely original? Not that many, and neither is your Goddess "Yes We Will", which, by the way, is a complete slap in the face to Latinos everywhere. Obama borrowed a chant of hope, Clinton mutated it into a scream of inevitability.
I didn't come into this primary season with a chip on my shoulder. I was actually leaning towards Edwards until Obama turned me around. And yes, no matter how many position papers and speeches he gives, I know you drones will call him unoriginal and accuse him of having no ideas. That's what you have been told to say and you parrot it so well.
I'm a fourth generation Democrat and I tell you now, there is no way in hell I cast a vote for Hillary Clinton. Not with the imperious arm-twisting. Not with the race-baiting, and the open racism of her supporters. You guys might as well be Republicans.
No. Way. In. Hell.
I'm sitting this one out if she somehow gets the nomination. And I imagine I'm not alone.
Posted by MIKaren on February 18, 2008 at 09:56 PM
Well said!!
{{Karen}}
President Asshole broke our Air Force. Dumb Fucker. Now we will have to pay for it. He's the one that started up the cold war again. The Air Force is saying they must have extremely expensive new jets to fight Russia, China and Iran. Looks like they are complicit in starting up the Cold War again.
THANKS YOU FUCKING RETHUGS!
IMPEACH BUSH AND CHINNY!
if osama is the nomunee me and plenty of other ohions will vote mccainPosted by hillary on February 18, 2008 at 09:04 PM
You sure you'll be able to find the name on the ballot?
The Air Force should buy their planes from Walmart. Maybe they can get a bargain. We are stuck with Walmart, why not them.
Thank you poster hillary for proving my point so...eloquently.
Johne, perhaps you'd be interested to know that the War Crimes Tribunal has already indicted GWB. Impeachment would take longer than his Presidency. I say we let him leave office, then slam him with criminal and civil charges so that he can spend some time, broke,in the big house with all his "friends" - preferably in a Texas-area federal prison.
War Crimes Tribunal's Indictment
just a thought
It's good to see you too, I just stopped by briefly to check out if any news were posted. It's almost like walking into a firestorm in here these days.. so you be careful ;)
G'nite folks
Democrats '08
PRESIDENT ASSHOLE THE FIRST CAME OUT FOR MCLAME!
HOUSTON -- John McCain picked up former President George H.W. Bush's support on Monday, a critical blessing by a pillar of the Republican establishment whose members aren't completely sold on the party's next standard-bearer.
In endorsing McCain, the patriarch of the Republican political dynasty sent a strong message to a party base wary of the Arizona senator because of his reputation for bucking the GOP on several high-profile issues. The elder Bush also signaled to a vast network of Bush family activists and fundraisers that they, too, should swing behind the eventual nominee.
YEAH, THE BUSH MAFIA FAMILY!
McCain has drawn the ire of some high-profile conservative pundits and others for what they call infractions against the party. McCain twice voted against Bush's tax cuts. He pushed a campaign finance overhaul that critics said restricted their free speech rights. And, he has worked across the aisle with Democrats on issues like an eventual path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants - heresy in the eyes of many hard-core Republicans.
But McCain shows little willingness to distance himself, saying: "I'd be honored to have President George Bush's support, his endorsement. And I'd be honored to be anywhere with him under any circumstances." He added that any president who follows another in office could have different views "on particularly specific issues."
The president, during a visit to Africa, was asked Monday about reports the McCain camp wants his fundraising help but doesn't want him to appear too often with McCain.
I hear you, IVAW. Really, I do. I was just putting it out there. I wanna know what the Defense Department is spending its regular budget money on that makes "us" have to pay these extra hundred billions 'specially for Iraq, the Air Force, etc.
Here's the 2007 Defense Department Financial Report "highlights":
GiG, you're correct - that's troubling - are we really at a point where we can't count votes?!! AGAIN!?? Another "hanging chad" debacle?! ugh
Goodnight, friend!
Posted by MIKaren on February 18, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Fantastic. Is this really true? Now maybe we may finally see some justice.
Johne, unfortunately this came out in 2004 - yes, before the election - and no one reported on it, ran with it, or really even acknowledged it. But it's there... tell me what we can do to make something happen because of it and I'll support you 100%!!!
Does any Bush supporting McCain actually help McCain?! The picture in this article almost looks like Bush laughing at his choice to back McCain, while McCain looks a bit constipated in his "joy" over the support. heh heh
http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2008/02/18/ap/politics/d8ut0fq00.txt
Armstrong Williams, Right Wing Shill:
Education Dept. paid commentator to promote law
Administration Paid Commentator
Columnist axed after taking cash to promote Bush plan
Columnist dropped by syndicate over Education Dept. payments
Posted by Johne on February 18, 2008 at 10:09 PM
---------------------
This was a good reminder of the additiona work the next pres. is going to up against.
With all the speeches about bush supporting and taking care of the militry, it will be just like all the rest double-speak.
It has been destroyed and now even the good soldiers who had to sign a "pledge to the president" NOT THE CONTITUTION are starting to come out. Most, of course will keep their pledges, and we won't even begin to know the damage until repubs are completely out.
BUSH'S PLAN=STAY IN OFFICE AND INCREASE THE FUNDS TO THE PRIVATE MERCENARY'S THE ONES THAT HIS ELITE BUDDY'S KIDS ARE RUNNING
It will be interesting, IVAW. I'm at the point of staking my future Democratic involvement on this one. Not so much who wins, but how he/she wins, and how the Democratic elite respond. verrrrrrrrryyyyy interesting. Good luck with how your sort it out for yourself!
What's up, Dems?
Happy President's Day!
Anybody see W doing the dance with the African "War Party?" Nice picture for President's Day. Can comedy central come up something that goofy?
What's that show... "That's my Bush."
http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thatsmybush/
I remember they said LBJ was the attack machine for the Democratic Party against Nixon that a newcomer named JFK will lose to Nixon, because he was not qualified to be President, The rest was History and our first Catholic President, showed the world what an American President can be.
Now the Clinton's (LBJ) say Obaba is not qualified to lead this nation but I see the dream of America in him for all Americans. Even Caroline seen the magic and we need a big Change in Washington not makeup for the status quo.
Hillary says Obama is copying others, is not Hillary taking things from Edwards to put in her campaign.
Oh Washington, "We the people" need to have a Spring White House, and Congressional Government Cleaning Change. We must bring back the Constitution from the Bush extremes into checks and balanced accounting away from an "At Will" President, who dictates to all three branches.
We must elect someone to center the government with the people not to corporate fashion statements of corrupting our children's futures in "Made In India" child slave sweat shops taking American jobs. The price of the item staying the same price and never reduced from huge profits.
To highserenity,
I, too, am very opposed to the war, but I believe the Congress almost had to give the President the power to deal with the aftermath of 911. It was bigger than Pearl Harbor - the nation was stunned. We have to trust our President and he betrayed out trust. Hillary has not apologized for her vote, but has said if she knew then what she knows now it would have been a different vote. I do not think our Congress could have taken the time to fight with the President during that time. Hillary would not take war so lightly. This president was going to war with Iraq with or without evidence of WMD's - history will help us figure out why! Let's lay the blame clearly where it belongs. Hillary has the capability to work with the other side of the aisle and she has the intention to restore our place in the world. Let's get her elected. Saying he was opposed is simply too easy and I do not respect Obama's position on this issue.
Oh, Illini, I very much doubt he is ashamed of his middle name. I appreciate your attempt to twist my words though. Nice try, but not going to happen.
What *does* bother me are the nasty connotations Clinton supporters and Republicans put on it. It seems there is a fundamental problem with some folks having a person of mixed ancestry as president. Usually I call those folks racists.
If you have policy or image issues with the guy, stick to that, and do not encourage attitudes that should not belong to our party. As for a "Messiah", no, I don't subscribe to that either.
I know why *I* can't vote for a race-baiter and join forces with her supporters who want to silence others by force and by racial pressure. Why can't you vote for Obama?
What goes around, comes around, YoungPoet, and frequently slaps you in the face with your own tail. Wag the dog?! Isn't this what we want to get away from?! In other words, yep.
Barbi, remind of that ribbit place. I have forgotten it in all these months.
Thats why I can't wait for Denver..the media won't show it, but this convention will make Chicago 1968 look like a fair. The "real" left is pissed!
Posted by IVAWmemberGettingReadyForDenver on Feb 18, 08 at 10:35 PM
What about the RNC Convention? Any plans? After all, that's the Party that is STILL pushing the war.
Posted by Chicago on February 18, 2008 at 06:25 PM
Argh! I think we agree! I'm afraid to say more because it seems like I keep digging the hole deeper!
I also believe that our two fine candidates are above the fray on the "having it both ways" argument. My comment about semantics was with regard to supporters, not the candidates themselves. I was only trying to express what and why the average voter (particularly the average voter in MI or FL) might have felt when such a stink was being raised about the disenfranchisement that might be caused by super delegates.
As ticked off as I've felt at Obama at times, I still feel like one of the luckiest democrats in history to have these two potentials whose policies are extremely similar, and extremely positive.
In summary...I really think we agree!
Looks like Pakistan isn't afraid of change. Yes, they could - heh heh:
MichiganCarrie - another Michigander - there are several represented here tonight, although I won't "out" the others. What's your thought on the whole issue of trying to count MI and FL delegates and superdelegates et al. For me, I didn't vote because it wouldn't count, and now I don't want my non-vote to count. Does that make sense?
I don't know if anyone else saw the video of cows being tortured at the Hallmark plant, but when I saw it, this crossed my mind:
The Bush administration cut funds for inspection and enforcement at the FDA. They put meat-industry lobbyists and employees in charge of overseeing their own industry. And they've been doing the same thing throughout the FDA and throughout government.
How many MORE horrible surprises will be discovered in the years to come? And how many more won't be discovered?
I think that it's time that the government not only restore funding and oversight, but actually INCREASE oversight. And I also think that it's time that the government mandate humane treatment for food animals in the form of a mandatory stun. Those stuns are usually not used by slaughterhouses because they can cost up to a penny per animal.
I recognize that unfortunately kosher and halal animals cannot be stunned because of religious law, but apart from those two categories all cattle in the USA should be slaughtered humanely. I plan to write to my senators and to my Congressman to urge them to pursue this.
You might be a Michigander if...
sorry DNC - these are funny. btw, there's a "Speeding Ticket Fundraiser" through the month - state troopers in hordes 24/7 - trying to raise $8 million - pulling people over at less than 5mph over the speedlimit. Or so I've been told, and have seen myself on 94 Detroit to Ann Arbor - stealth Chargers. That's just not fair!!
ok, stopping with the Michigan thing now. And to think, I'm not even native, nor do I have a pref MSU vs UM!
Here's to a "new way of doing business" in Washington with the "same old players..."
Seeking Superdelegates
As the Democratic Party's superdelegates decide whether to support Clinton or Obama, will they take into account the $904,200 they've received from the candidates?
By Lindsay Renick Mayer
February 14, 2008
At this summer's Democratic National Convention, nearly 800 members of Congress, state governors and Democratic Party leaders could be the tiebreakers in the intense contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. If neither candidate can earn the support of at least 2,025 delegates in the primary voting process, the decision of who will represent the Democrats in November's presidential election will fall not to the will of the people but to these "superdelegates" —the candidates' friends, colleagues and even financial beneficiaries. Both contenders will be calling in favors.
And while it would be unseemly for the candidates to hand out thousands of dollars to primary voters, or to the delegates pledged to represent the will of those voters, elected officials who are superdelegates have received at least $904,200 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, who narrowly leads in the count of pledged, "non-super" delegates, has doled out more than $698,200 to superdelegates from his political action committee, Hope Fund, or campaign committee since 2005. Of the 82 elected officials who had announced as of Feb. 12 that their superdelegate votes would go to the Illinois senator, 35, or 43 percent of this group, have received campaign contributions from him in the 2006 or 2008 election cycles, totaling $232,200. In addition, Obama has been endorsed by 52 superdelegates who haven't held elected office recently and, therefore, didn't receive campaign contributions from him.
Clinton does not appear to have been as openhanded. Her PAC, HILLPAC, and campaign committee appear to have distributed $205,500 to superdelegates. Only 12 percent of her elected superdelegates, or 13 of 109 who have said they will back her, have received campaign contributions, totaling about $95,000 since 2005. An additional 128 unelected superdelegates support Clinton, according to a blog tracking superdelegates and their endorsements, 2008 Democratic Convention Watch.
Because superdelegates will make up around 20 percent of 4,000 delegates to the Democratic convention in August--Republicans don't have superdelegates—Clinton and Obama are aggressively wooing the more than 400 superdelegates who haven't yet made up their minds. Since 2005 Obama has given 52 of the undecided superdelegates a total of at least $363,900, while Clinton has given a total of $88,000 to 15 of them. Anticipating that their intense competition for votes in state primaries and caucuses will result in a near-tie going into the nominating convention, the two candidates are making personal calls to superdelegates now, or are recruiting other big names to do so on their behalf. With no specific rules about what can and can't be done to court these delegates, just about anything goes.
"Only the limits of human creativity could restrict the ways in which Obama and Clinton will try to be helpful to superdelegates," said Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia. "My guess is that if the nomination actually depends on superdelegates, the unwritten rule may be, 'ask and ye shall receive.' "
Superdelegates will make their decisions based on a number of factors, said Richard Herrera, a political scientist at Arizona State University. Some have long-time political and personal ties to Clinton or Obama, some will support the candidate they think is more likely to beat the Republican nominee and others will commit to the candidate who won their state's support. Deciding whom to support based entirely on contributions from the candidates would be a political liability, Herrera said.
"I think Democrats, both regular delegates and superdelegates, see this year as an opportunity to really take back the White House," he said, "and I don't think there's that short-term political concern that money will play that kind of role. It's a much bigger picture at this point."
The superdelegates themselves say the same thing—that any money flowing from the presidential candidates to the delegates' own campaigns hasn't had any sort of influence on their decisions. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell received $5,000 from Clinton in the 2006 election cycle and has endorsed her, while he hasn't received anything from Obama, campaign finance records indicate. Policy and a personal relationship with the Clintons, not money, swung his vote into her camp, according to spokesman Chuck Ardo. "The governor has known Mrs. Clinton for 15 years and has certainly had a close relationship with President Clinton as well," Ardo said. "I think those are the factors that are really more relevant, especially given the small fraction of his fundraising that Clinton's contributions made. It'd be ludicrous to tie that contribution to his support."
Yet the Center for Responsive Politics has found that campaign contributions have been a generally reliable predictor of whose side a superdelegate will take. In cases where superdelegates had received contributions from both Clinton and Obama, seven out of eight elected officials who received more money from Clinton have committed to her. The one exception: Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, whose endorsement of Obama was highly publicized, received more from Clinton than from the Illinois senator--$10,000 compared to $4,200. Thirty-four of the 43 superdelegates who received more money from Obama, or 79 percent, are backing him. In every case the Center found in which superdelegates received money from one candidate but not the other, the superdelegate is backing the candidate who gave them money. Four superdelegates who have already pledged received the same amount of contributions from both Clinton and Obama—and all committed to Clinton.
In addition to Gov. Rendell of Pennsylvania, at least two other governors who have endorsed Clinton have also received contributions from her in the past. Ohio's Gov. Ted Strickland received $10,000 and Oregon's Gov. Ted Kulongoski received $5,000. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who dropped out of the presidential race in January, has not endorsed a candidate but received $5,000 from Clinton in the 2006 election cycle.
The money that Clinton and Obama have contributed to the superdelegates who may now determine their fate has come from three sources: the candidates' campaign accounts for president and, before that, Senate, and from their leadership PACs. These PACs exist precisely to support other politicians in their elections—and, thus, to make friends and collect chits. Leadership PACs are supposed to go dormant after a presidential candidate officially enters the race.
Contributions to candidates for federal office are relatively easy to track, but money given to state and local officials is harder to spot. Campaign finance reports from Senate candidate committees are still filed on paper, making it difficult to know who is receiving money from them. For that reason it's possible that Obama and Clinton have given superdelegates even more than the $904,200 the Center for Responsive Politics has identified. While Obama has received the support of numerous state governors, state legislators and local officials, it does not appear that his leadership PAC or presidential candidate committee has contributed to any of them. His PAC did make one interesting contribution in 2006: for her Senate re-election, Hillary Clinton received a $4,200 contribution from Obama.
Another senator running for office in 2006, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, collected $10,000 from both Clinton and Obama. As a superdelegate, Whitehouse is backing Clinton for the White House. "His decision was based on his relationship with the Clintons. President Clinton nominated him to be United States attorney in 1994, in Rhode Island, and he believes Sen. Clinton is the strongest candidate," said spokeswoman Alex Swartsel, adding that money wasn't a factor in Whitehouse's decision. "We were a top targeted Senate race in 2006 and we received a number of contributions, including those from Clinton and Obama."
Though it might seem undemocratic to allow elected officials who have received money from the candidates to have such power in picking their party's nominee, the process was not meant to be democratic, Arizona State's Herrera said. "If anything, it was meant to take it out of the democratic process. In 1982 [the party] said they needed to have some professionals making decisions here to blunt the potential effects of what they perceived as amateur delegates making decisions—those who vote with their heart and not their head."
CRP Researchers Douglas Weber and Luke Rosiak contributed to this report.
Posted by mrsbntn on February 18, 2008 at 10:45 PM
----------------
We are going to have to disagree, I was soooo taken back when she said she voted that way because she TRUSTED GEORGE BUSH, but was even ready to let that slide----
then she supported the provoking saber rattling OF THE REPUBLICAN SENATE and voted to delare the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization
New york times Headline
"Senate Urges Bush to Declare Iran Guard a Terrorist Group
The measure, proposed by Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, and Senator Joseph I. Lieberman", ( A REPRESENTATIVE FROM ISRAEL) oops that () was mine!
here it is http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/washington/27cong.html
She pretty much lost my vote right then and there
After her last war vote and the excuses of trusting BUSH, my jaw hit the floor and I was shaking my head in sadness for days.
As a Clinton supporter, I want to make sure people know that there are many of us out there who:
1) feel very proud that we are far enough above bigotry and hatred to nominate a man who, by coincidence, has Muslim roots and shares his middle name with Sadam; and
2) don't criticize Obama supporters for voting based on hopes and inspiration. Those are the very same reasons I'm voting for Clinton!
When it comes down to it, our candidates can only talk about unity. We're the ones that must unite.
Peace to all, and to all a good night.
Carrie
Well, I'm having troubles with my Comcrap "we don't ever filter/but sometimes we do" connection, so I'm flying off for saner places.
Too much bullshit to step around in here anyway.
Good to "see" you, my {{Karen}}. Huggies to the kiddikins. "C" U.
never, Never, NEVER should Congress have ever, Ever, EVER put its right and duty of balance of power aside to support that invasion! I don't care if they WOULD HAVE had WMD's - Iraq did NOT CAUSE 9/11!!!!!!!!!!!!
whew, I feel better now. I guess there's no question where I stand on that one. so much for trying to be neutral today.
One more thing:
New Law in Michigan Effective Jan 1, 2008!
Just wanted to give you a warning if you are heading into Detroit on Interstate 75. The Michigan State Police are cracking down on speeders.
For the first offense, they give you two Lions tickets.
If you get stopped a second time, they make you use them.
goodnight, barbi! I'm off, too. starting to get a bit twitchy.
Posted by IVAWmemberGettingReadyForTheDenverConvention on February 18, 2008 at 11:00 PM
-------------
I think you got your posts mixed up?
AHEM:
John Sidney McCain III
Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton
Posted by Barbi on February 18, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Posted by IVAWmemberGettingReadyForTheDenverConvention on February 18, 2008 at 11:00 PM
---
oops sorry, I did
going to fast for this old lady tonight LOL
so sorry
Posted by MIKaren on February 18, 2008 at 10:54 PM
Take a look at my posts at 4:15 and 4:53.
I'm so conflicted on the subject. I thought I was probably one of the only people to vote in the primary (had to do it absentee, so didn't get to see the volume at the polling place). I was floored by the actual turnout here.
I don't think ours should count either, but for different reasons.
By the way - I see those low profile chargers on 94 every day on my way to work. Darnit! Fortunately, I've slowed down to 68 because I tested it out and I can get almost 10mi more per gallon if I do. They won't get me!
Watching the "Daily Show"
whew needed some relief
as baby bush would say "THIS IS HARD WORK"
LOL
thanks for all the GOOD information
Mr. Obama just lost me with his casual shrug that plagiarism is not a big deal! He also shows a lack of basic knowledge by claiming that he owns the phrase 'yes, I can'.
What would you do if you are a teacher and get this kind of explanation from your student "I should have but I did not do this time..."?
OMG
they are actually talking about why people are shouting at each other on political blogs on
"The Daily Show"
as I speak
Definitions of Racism
Seems the key elements include a behavior that indicates a preference for one race and a concomitant behavior that discriminates or somehow discredits another race. Simply voting for someone because they are the same race does not make one a racist.
MichiganCarrie - yeah, it's a toughie. I think we have to live with the consequences of the idiots who made the decisions - not fair to us, but the only fair way for the process at this point. imho.
ok really going away now. ttfn
I am surprised there haven't been many comments about this. So what do you think? Click on the link for the full story.
Michelle Obama: "For the First Time in My Adult Lifetime, I'm Really Proud of My Country"
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/michelle-obam-1.html
Whistle-blower site taken offlineA controversial website that allows whistle-blowers to anonymously post government and corporate documents has been taken offline in the US.
Wikileaks.org, as it is known, was cut off from the internet following a California court ruling, the site says.The case was brought by a Swiss bank after "several hundred" documents were posted about its offshore activities.
Other versions of the pages, hosted in countries such as Belgium and India, can still be accessed.
However, the main site was taken offline after the court ordered that Dynadot, which controls the site's domain name, should remove all traces of wikileaks from its servers.
The court also ordered that Dynadot should "prevent the domain name from resolving to the wikileaks.org website or any other website or server other than a blank park page, until further order of this Court."
I am not sure if it was a state or federal court but how could they take a whole site off the Internet immediately worldwide. They can demand certain things be taken off until a ruling, but we are not Red China in that the courts "At Will" can take a site down without due process. It seems the site was never notified or had time to defend itself. It was like a Guantanamo abuse, guilty until proven innocent. It seems that the California Court has some Swiss banking friends.
Question, can a state court "At Will" demand an Internet site be taken off worldwide? Can a Federal Judge without due process make an Interest site cease its site immediately. So Congress what is the law of censoring the Internet? It seems that America is now like Red China denying certain sites on the Internet. Oh, can one find the sites that the Bush White House censors in our Freedom and Democracy.
""Wikileaks claimed that the order was "unconstitutional" and said that the site had been "forcibly censored". ""
This forced closure sure has a the signs of Constitutional abuse in many ways, as well as the court censorship muting Free Speech.
Who was doing the laundering from Caymen to the Swiss accounts, it wasn't a Republican Royal Politician was it? Maybe the media should check this juicy tid bit, sounds like a good story.
I am surprised there haven't been many comments about this. So what do you think? Click on the link for the full story.
Michelle Obama: "For the First Time in My Adult Lifetime, I'm Really Proud of My Country"
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/michelle-obam-1.html
Posted by Hunt on February 18, 2008 at 11:31 PM
I HATE HATE HATE IT WHEN YOU MISQUOTE AND THEN ACTUALLY SIMI/LINK TO THE ARTICLE TO MAKE IT LOOK LEGITY
THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN PUNDITED TO DEATH AND DEBUNKED WHERE HAVE YOUR BEEN?????????????
GEE- MAYBE I CAN JUST PLANT SOME MIS-INFORMATION ON THIS POST AND SOMEONE SPREAD IT AS BAD
Geez, I needed that
One thought...Maybe a few super delegates - the ones who promise to remain neutral anyway - could "set aside" their votes to distribute in recognition of Michigan and Florida. It'd be nice to get a small bone - maybe 20-30 delegates (compared to our >300). It's not necessary, and it's completely up to each of the supers, but I think it would feel pretty good as a peace offering.
Oh well. I'm going to focus my frustration around this topic on becoming even more involved with the party in 2009 - after one of these candidates is settled in in the White House. :-)
Posted by highserenity on February 18, 2008 at 10:41 PM
Adolf Hitler made his military take a personal oath to Hitler. I believe they called it a blood oath.
HITLER, OOPS, BUSH IS A FASCIST PIG!
I thought we stamped out fascism 63 years ago when millions perished in europe and the South Pacific.
Senator Clinton is a great person and a fantastic Senator...but when it came to making the right call on the most important vote of her political career... she was wrong! We need a President who has good judgment... and by listening to the war machine (Bush regime) she proved to have wrong judgment...
Posted by IVAWmemberGettingReadyForTheDenverConvention on February 18, 2008 at 11:00 PM
I don't understand the tunnel vision here. Look at it from a legislators point. When the CIA and Gen Powell give you piles of "intelligence," you believe it. With all the areas you are trying to focus on, you don't have time to run your own investigation. We Americans pay hundreds of billion$ of dollars for intelligence, so you would think it would be the best in the world, wouldn't you? Before Iraq, NOBODY would dare question America's intel.
And here you are trying to blame Sen. Clinton for following the chain of command, and believing the best intelligence (not long ago) in the world? Get real! (You understand you are following a very patriarchal system and just blaming a woman, rather than looking at the big picture?)
The thought that a Senator would doubt the (formerly) best intel on the face of the Earth is crazy. Furthermore, had they found WMD, nobody would be saying it was the wrong vote. And don't think that it's not possible for something to be dug up at some point. You do know that it's possible that WMD will still be found?
Sen. Clinton, like the vast majority of Americans, believed the intel that Iraq had WMD. After watching the highly respected Gen. Powell deliver the very convincing report on Iraq's WMD, very few doubted the intel. And had they found WMD, nobody would be saying she voted the wrong way.
If you have a problem with the Iraq vote, blame the people who fudged the intel, not Sen. Clinton. I truly believe she did the right thing to vote for the authorization because of the intel she was given. Just remember this, if you, as US Senator, are giving piles of intel proving a WMD program, and you vote to NOT authorize war, you are being negligent in your duty, and jeopardizing the security of ALL Americans.
btw, at the time, Obama's constituency was Democratic Chicago. Most people hate Bush there. (The surrounding area are a different story.) So Obama's early opposition to the war is expected. Also, I believe he's admitted that if he was in the US Senate at the time, he might have voted for the authorization. Surely he knows that not supporting and believing the most expensive intel this country has ever known would only open himself up to charges of not giving the President the power needed to protect us, and thus be responsible. But make no mistake, the responsibility for going to Iraq is on Executive, not the Legislative Branch.
I am surprised there haven't been many comments about this. So what do you think? Click on the link for the full story.
Michelle Obama: "For the First Time in My Adult Lifetime, I'm Really Proud of My Country"
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/michelle-obam-1.html
Posted by Hunt on February 18, 2008 at 11:31 PM
I understand it is the second time for me, the first time was with JFK and what he accomplished so quick in inspiring America in so many ways.
Now with Obama, I have this same feeling that CHANGE is on the way to "We the people" where after years of divisions and labels we have someone to bond US in a greater love of uniting this country on "Made In America" politics blessing this nation and the world.
highserenity, the article is at that link, and it has been on major news stations this evening.
IF it has been debunked, why don't you post that instead of attacking me and saying that I have misquoted?
Posted by Johne on February 18, 2008 at 11:39 PM
____________________
Soooo much of the headway we made on so many levels have been SHREDDED.
and yea---even back to Hitler
Bushes grandfather was Hitlers financer
I am not posting the link cause I am too tired to look;;;
take my work for it or just google his grandfather on wiki
BUSH quote "this is hard work, it would be alot easier if it was a dictatorship" I think that was shortly after he took office.
are you familiar with the PNAC?
Project for a New American Century that was formed in the 90's?
They stated in their doctrine they needed a new Pearl Harbor to get the people behind attacking and occupying Iraq. 9/11 was their new Pearl Harbor
check out the original members and the ones Bush has put into power here and around the world
I don't get why people keep holding Hillary's vote for the Iraq's war. I first thought that Mr. Obama was in the same meeting and vote NO. I then found out that Mr. Obama was not even in the Senate for the vote. Where in the world is Mr. Obama for that most important vote? If he is not in the same room, hearing the same data that was presented by our so-called intelligence experts that even fooled people such as Mr. Powell, then he has no right to criticize those actually showed up for work and did their best given the data available. If he is so against the war then he voted to continue funding the war?
Posted by highserenity on February 18, 2008 at 11:51 PM
The bush crime family and the neocon party have committed high treason punishable by death!
The next president must demand that the republic party be declared a subversive organization and declared such publicly. The republic party must never again be allowed to hold public office.
"Some conservatives out there (HERE for instance) seem to find Mrs. Obama's quote offensive, wondering why a 44 year old woman never felt proud before today -- but their anger seems based on an erroneous early version of this quote first reported in the Boston Globe, inaccurately stating that she said "for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country, because it feels like hope is making a comeback.”
The Globe has now been corrected, though oddly there's no note that an error had been made or a correction given.
Asked for a response to the remark, Obama campaign spox Bill Burton said, “Of course Michelle is proud of her country, which is why she and Barack talk constantly about how their story wouldn’t be possible in any other nation on Earth. What she meant is that she’s really proud at this moment because for the first time in a long time, thousands of Americans who’ve never participated in politics before are coming out in record numbers to build a grassroots movement for change."--emph mine-
Boy, that early Globe version is quite different than the later fuller one…But others still might find it controversial....What do you think?
-----------------------------------
I took that (copy/paste) right from YOUR article
The news pundits have been talking about how people are doing exactly what you did with your inference
Just post the headlines and let the imagination run wild PLANT THE DIRTY SEED
Rove tactic
ALSO, she has been shown many times stating how proud she is and that she said she is really proud now with the movement. Read or listen to the whole interview.
You didn't actually mis-quote----my brain was again moving faster than my fingers
You mis-informed IMHO BY OMISSION
for the reason it appeared
TO DROP IN (since you haven't been here for awhile) AND STIR THE SH**** WITH THAT QUESTION.
but can you explain to me why 23 Senators and 133 congressmen voted against the authorization? ...Isn't New York a very blue state too, what was she worried about?
Posted by IVAWmemberGettingReadyForTheDenverConvention on February 18, 2008 at 11:46 PM
Yes, I can. It's very simple. Legislators vote how the constituents want them to vote, or they don't get re-elected. New Yorkers, still hyped about 911, were mostly for authorization.
And no, NY is not "very blue." You do remember Sen. Alfonse D'Amato (R-NY), and two term Republican Gov George Pataki, don't you?
HERE'S A STORY FROM RED STATE.COM ENJOY! In Hillary's Pocket All Along.
By Erick Posted in 2008 | 2008 Presidential Campaign | Barack Obama | Hillary Clinton | Netroots — Comments (32) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
By and large, the online left hates Obama. It's one of the underreported ironies of this political season. Obama has more in common with the netroots than Hillary. He's to the left of her on the war, on corporate issues, on social welfare issues – even on life issues Obama appears to the left of Hillary. But the online left does not like him.
There are a few reasons for this. For one, Obama is no Ned Lamont. He's a dazzling, rising star of the left, but unlike Lamont, Obama is not a product of the online left. He has, in fact, done it on his own. Obama has had a brilliant online operation. His online fundraising was Dean'esque without Joe Trippi's involvement. His website and Web 2.0 strategy has been dazzling without Jerome Armstrong's involvement. His ability to get people fired up and directed in a particular direction has been stellar without Kos's involvement. In fact, Obama's relations with bloggers have been frosty and he hasn't spent much time stroking their egos.
Obama is, by and large, a testament that the online movement remains ancillary to the cause.
There is another reason too, and one we should pay attention to.
Read on . . .
The online left is interested, more than anything else, in the accumulation of power in their hands. The shallowness of Obama on policy issues is right at home with this, but Obama actually tries to play to the center. He talks too nicely about bipartisanship. The same argument the right frequently makes in criticizing McCain — that he's too eager to work across the aisle — is also a criticism the left has of Obama.
In other words, whether you realize it or not, the online left has been in bed with Hillary Clinton for a good long while, and they have a vested interest in defeating Obama. If Obama is defeated, they can maintain the fiction a little longer that the online movement is a vital part of the cause.1
Let's look at a few of their recent arguments:
First, the online left is beginning to agitate for Michigan and Florida to be seated at the convention. This does nothing but help Hillary. It's also based on shoddy thinking. And this should be a lot of fun. It puts the online left in bed with Jesse Jackson and against Al Sharpton. It also puts them against the bulk of black voters within the Democratic party. But considering the demographics of the online left, that shouldn't be too surprising.
Second, the online left has decided that Obama is … wait for it … too far left to win. He is, they argue, George McGovern. This is actually the best argument, given Obama's total failure to win in swing states and primaries — he is the Mike Huckabee of the Democratic Party, needing caucuses to win. I suspect it'll also be the argument we hear them push more and more.
Lastly, and some of you will totally get the irony in this one (others won't), Armando is accusing Obama of being sexist and misogynist. Why? Because Obama said, of Hillary's attacks,
I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal.
"Periodically" … "feeling down"… it's a good thing he didn't use the word "bloated" or the New York Nags would fire bomb him. Clearly, Armando knows his misogyny and we should bow down before his abilities to pick up PMS references.
Unfortunately for the left, time is running out. Obama is winning. He is advancing. They are going to have to unleash hell on Obama now to hurt him. And they are going to have to pressure superdelegates to go with Hillary, despite Obama thus far getting the popular vote. I wonder if Al Gore will support that argument.
Many Republicans, including me, have thought all along that we were screwed this year. More and more, it's looking like the Democrats may rescue us from our hopelessness and screw themselves in the process.
We should continue to root for the Ned Lamont left online left.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good Evening/Night Dems!
Here's something to remind you why we're really here.
Hindsight, we said that vote to the war was wrong. It is always 20/20 hindsight! I wonder what would any of us do if we were presented by the same information provided by the highest intelligence agencies in the country? Do we have any reason to doubt these experts?
Posted by cybervote on February 18, 2008 at 11:53 PMI don't get why people keep holding Hillary's vote for the Iraq's war. I first thought that Mr. Obama was in the same meeting and vote NO. I then found out that Mr. Obama was not even in the Senate for the vote. Where in the world is Mr. Obama for that most important vote? If he is not in the same room, hearing the same data that was presented by our so-called intelligence experts that even fooled people such as Mr. Powell, then he has no right to criticize those actually showed up for work and did their best given the data available. If he is so against the war then he voted to continue funding the war?
Posted by cybervote on February 18, 2008 at 11:53 PM
--------------------
anybody else want to take this one???
no???
He wasn't in the Senate because he was not a U.S. Senator. He was in his state of Illinois, doing the state work and trusting our U.S. Senators to do their job.,
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
I promise IF YOU GOOGLE SOME OF THIS STUFF THE ANSWERS ARE ALL THERE
FIND THE ANSWERS TO THE REST OF YOUR QUESTIONS ON THE WEB
then found out that Mr. Obama was not even in the Senate for the vote
----------------
He wasn't a U.S.Senator
I'm outa here guys
later
I don't understand the tunnel vision here. Look at it from a legislators point. When the CIA and Gen Powell give you piles of "intelligence," you believe it. With all the areas you are trying to focus on, you don't have time to run your own investigation. We Americans pay hundreds of billion$ of dollars for intelligence, so you would think it would be the best in the world, wouldn't you? Before Iraq, NOBODY would dare question America's intel.
Posted by Big_Yellow_Dog on February 18, 2008 at 11:41 PM
Part of the job of Congress is to be our protector as the checks and balances of our government. Congress never accept Intelligence for a War without doing its homework, it is what they are paid to do, go over the data and correlate the facts instead of accepting Bush LIES time and again "At Will." It is like the Supreme Court, do they take what the White House gives them as the truth? No they dissect the data on Constitutional grounds that the Trilogy must have three equal parts. What is the role of Congress in the Trilogy , to be a White House Bush puppet?
When has a Congress failed the people so much as in the last twenty years, where a few select Royals in secret run our nation, conspiring against the Truth by orchestrating LIES for a certain conclusion. Congress is our Enron Board, where Kenneth Lay slaughtered the "We the people" stockholders.
Had someone done their homework on NAFTA, and plugged the loop holes, where the Clinton Administration needed to do its homework, America and those states like Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and well, just all America would have been better off. So Hillary spouts NAPTA needs change, well it is about time, the CHANGE is long, long overdue. It should have done by Bill, when he had a chance to make his mark on Change, now the results are a patchwork piece meal that Hillary say she will Change. I heard that from politicians before, and four years later America hurts worse.
Congress has a staff for each Senator, and Representative, and how hard is it for them in a Democratic group to go over the data? It is like Clinton, Edwards, and other Democrats bought house s of Swiss cheese wormy LIES. When you buy a house you do the homework to check it out.
Wow, Hillary is getting a lot of Conservative Right Wing endorsements. It seems they prefer her to McCain. It seems she has also got praise from another High Republican official, who the Republicans want to hide. It seems they do not like Obama. I know she does not claim them by she will do anything to win the nomination like Obama.
We have plans for the RNC, but its the Democrats that were elected back in November 2006 on a platform to end the war and since January 4th 2007, they have given George Bush his blank check...
Posted by IVAWmemberGettingReadyForTheDenverConvention on February 18, 2008 at 11:05 PM
This is not true. Democrats took control of Congress because ethics were non-existent, many Republicans were under investigation or going to jail, including House Leader DeLay, spending was out-of-control, and special interests were writing the laws. Basically, Republicans had turned Congress into a broke joke. Clearly, Iraq was not the only reason Dems were elected. How soon we forget...
Dems have fought Bush on the matter, but with 150,000 troops and 150,000 American contractors there, you don't think Congress would not give the President what's needed to keep them safe, do you?
Democrats don't like funding the war... but they gotta do what they gotta do... or they will be responsible for not providing for the troops. Again, I don't see how and WHY you are blaming Dems for the war. Maybe W, Cheney, Fox News, and the MSM have something to do with it?
that even fooled people such as Mr. Powell, then he has no right to criticize those actually showed up for work and did their best given the data available. If he is so against the war then he voted to continue funding the war?
Posted by cybervote on February 18, 2008 at 11:53 PM
--------------
there is much evidence that MR. POWELL was not fooled. He played the good soldier and followed hia Commander in Chiefs orders and has since said
HE IS ASHAMED.
vote Hillary if you want
better than McCain any day
just don't place your vote with such
ridiculous information
Thank God for the Web there is so much good information for those who want to track it down and eliminate the double innuendos
EVERYONE VOTE A STRAIGHT DEM TICKET IN THE GENERAL IN NOVEMBER
thanks for all the good information that was shared here today
Congress never accept Intelligence for a War without doing its homework, it is what they are paid to do, go over the data and correlate the facts...
Posted by YoungPoet on Feb 19, 2008 at 12:26 AM
Yeah, a few underpaid, over-worked staffers are capable of researching and DISPROVING the intel that comes from the Langley, the Pentagon, and the NSA? Get real. All those big building with tens of thousands of employees who are experts in the field... and our legislators should NOT believe them? Please.
Have you ever been into a Senators office? If you had, you would know that one or two people handle all the issues in a given area... like agriculture or national security. And you think a couple of people in a Senator's office can do the kind of research to prove the Pentagon, Langley, and NSA wrong? That's a good one.
Congress was given a War Exam, part of the homework included finding all the Lies inside the report. So the Bush report was given out and everyone went out to Party and signed off on it, except a few who voted no, and aced the test. The rest failed America in the lowest approval rating ever for Washington. No wonder "We the people" are ready to kick them out of our Washington.
Here is where Obama got his health care plan!!!
by: Matt Stoller
Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 14:05
Mike Lux, a veteran of the Clinton health care wars, pointed out today that Obama is using as a surrogate on health care Bush Dog Democrat Jim Cooper. Cooper spent a good amount of time in 1993-1994 working to undermine Clinton's health care plan by offering more insurance friendly proposals with former Senator and current lobbyist John Breaux. Breaux, an architect of Bush's tax cuts as a Democratic Senator, was the only Democrat on the comp list at Jack Abramoff's restaurant, Signatures. That Obama is using Cooper as a surrogate means that he is sending a signal to Capitol Hill and the business community that he will take their concerns into account when formulating his plan, and that he's not going to repeat Clinton's experience in 1993-1994. It could be a really bad sign, but it might actually be the right strategy on health care, considering the enormous amount of organizing being done outside of the Presidential contest - let health care reform come to the President, rather than driving it from the White House. The next President is going to be whacked with a series of economic and foreign policy crises, and I'm not sure where health care fits in.
So I'm left wondering and reading the tea leaves about what his priorities might be as President. If I had to guess, I'd pick global warming.
Obama said he would not wait until January 2009, when the new president takes office, to get started.
"The moment I secure the nomination, I want to bring together experts in this area to start putting together the U.S. position ... what we're going to be doing internally, what we can agree to with other countries," he said.
There's been a huge amount of youth organizing around global warming, so this problem fits into Obama's overall demographic base. It's also something of a creative class originated issue, coming first from the scientific/academic world and now being driven into the mainstream by scientists and young people. Health care as an issue, by contrast, was the one piece of the New Deal that FDR never completed.
Obama as President will probably be driven a lot more by outside organizing pressure than Clinton or McCain, so his priorities are somewhat up for grabs. If I had to guess, I'd say he's probably going to move quickly on climate change, media reform, corruption, energy, and transparency in government.
On economics and foreign policy, I'm less sure, since there's been less organizing around those two topics.
And on health care, Obama is giving signal that it is not an issue of much personal interest, but SEIU, the AMA, and the AFL-CIO are putting enormous resources into organizing around it, so it might just be unavoidable.
Discuss :: (45 Comments) digg it
Clinton Winning The Space Race
by: Chris Bowers
I got an email because I'm on the Hillary list as a supporter but I wanted to share a few things from that email because I think it makes good points and I agree.
WHAT ABOUT "SUPERDELEGATES"?
.The Democratic Party chooses its delegates in different ways: through primaries where millions vote -- through caucuses where thousands votes - and it gives a role to elected leaders and other officials in the process as well, each of whom has been chosen by their constituents to represent them. This system has been in place since 1982 -- more than 25 years.
.These elected officials and party leaders are sometimes called "superdelegates". They are more accurately described as "automatic" delegates, because they become delegates by being elected to other office. They have the same vote as every other delegate.
.Because this campaign is currently almost exactly tied, both campaigns are working hard to win the support of the "automatic" delegates.
What are superdelegates supposed to do? Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, says: "Their role is to exercise their best judgment in the interests of the nation and of the Democratic Party."
.Our campaign, and the Obama campaign, agree. For example, David Axelrod, Senator Obama's strategist, says: "These are elected officials from across the country and they're supposed to exercise their judgment as to what would be best for the party. And as they look at this, they need to decide who would be the strongest candidate for the party ... I think they and all the superdelegates should vote according to what they think is best for the party and the country."
.In fact, in several states, like Massachusetts, that Hillary has won, the automatic delegates are supporting the other candidate. They are making their own decision, which is to be respected -- and so should decisions by those who are supporting Hillary!
******************
Last week, Congress passed Hillary's bill to protect children from injury in and around motor vehicles. The Cameron Gulbransen Kids and Cars Safety Act, was co-sponsored in the House by Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. It ensures that cars will be equipped with safety technology that prevent unintentional accidents to children
http://www.clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=293026&&
Sorry All,
The video wasn't working. Check back tomorrow and I'll have it fixed.
Anyways, its too late for me to get into a debate like this, so I'll let the die-hards handle it. Nite!
The Democratic electorate has become pro-war!
Posted by IVAWmemberGettingReadyForTheDenverConvention on February 18, 2008 at 11:59 PM
Wrong. None of us are for war. The only Democrat for the war is Lieberman, and Democrats voted him out. So get real. You seem to have a problem with placing the blame where it belongs. Both Clinton and Obama, and all the former candidates, have said that they want to get out as soon as possible.
So I don't understand your logic. Maybe as soon as possible is not soon enough for you, and you don't care if it's done haphazardly, and they are endangered? Is that what you want?
Since you're so fired up, I suppose you were at one of the huge rallies in DC with the UPJ? Did you see the 500,000 Democrats mobilize who you now call pro-war? Believe me, the crowd was much bigger than what the MSM reported.
Posted by marvin08 on February 19, 2008 at 12:43 AM
Good Point
Gore as a compromise candidate, very interesting. Gore with either Obama or Hillary, now that would be a ticket. If the Superdelegate all go for Gore and no one wins outright, then the winner will come from a Democratic Convention of compromising delegates that after the first vote will dance to their own song, where Gore could very well be the nominee. Or even Edwards in the combination somewhere.
I wonder if Hillary or Obama play Chess? Because in a brawl another candidate will be the uniting peacemaker.
If Hillary came out fighting like she is know and had not Bill tainted her in South Carolina, it would have been a run away for Hillary. She has finally opened up to the "We the people" too late. Her fashion statements have toned down to a more charismatic tone, but she still does not have the natural flow of Obams's magic touch. She is less polarizing but shows her strength of character. (Not feminine nor masculine very good) Hillary's closeness to the Bush family, especially the War President hurts her, as for her supporting the White House c0ncept of one branch of government. She needs to say she will restore "We the people" to the equation and make them a part of her administration. That is what Obama is doing, making America a part of his thought process.
The Trilogy of a three branch government must be restored in checks and balanced in Constitutional Freedom and Democracy.
My opinion, it seems some love them others hate them then they switch sides.
If George W Bush endorses McCain, then that is ten points for the Democratic Party. If he campaigns with him that takes it up to twenty points. Finally if McCain says he will use George W Bush as a Good Will Ambassador that is the election. The Democrats must ask McCain will he use the Bush's as Good Will Ambassadors. This will drive a spike down the Republicans.
HIGHSERENITY, check out my last two posts and tell me what your come back will be for these!!
Anybody catch Karl Rove on Geraldo last night? He says that eventually the media will get around to examining Obama, which they have yet to do. He hinted that they have some dirt on Obama.
One of the problems with nominating a candidate who has never been vetted in the National Press is you don't know what kind of business deals they've done, and things like that. Let's not forget, Obama lost his only race for the House of Representatives. Today a poster here just revealed that the RNC is planning of running against Obama's lack of experience and empty rhetoric... who saw that one coming? Didn't take a rocket scientist.
I'm sure Rove and the RNC would rather argue the facts about Obama... than 8 years of Clinton vs 8 years of Bush, and "are you better off now?" Rove is no fool. He wants to run against the rookie for this leadership debate, and the last thing he wants is to be totally repudiated by a Clinton... using Reagan's own words. Rove would go do in history as a failure if another Clinton is elected.
Have you ever been into a Senators office? If you had, you would know that one or two people handle all the issues in a given area... like agriculture or national security. And you think a couple of people in a Senator's office can do the kind of research to prove the Pentagon, Langley, and NSA wrong? That's a good one.
Posted by Big_Yellow_Dog on February 19, 2008 at 12:39 AM
If you tell me that Congress cannot get the right people to check the Intelligence the White House feeds Congress by forming Democratic committees to do their homework then, why vote for a War with no WMD's. Plame's husbands was firing up flares that everyone ignored. Maybe Congress along with the Supreme Court, and maybe a few civilians should oversee the Intelligence process with the White House.
So you say Hillary had no choice but to vote, yes. So sad this Congress, that does not have the facts to vote on important issues like Wars, but must rely on a Bush White House to tell the truth. Where is the leadership in that? Look at Bush's Patriot Act it seems Congress does not have the Intelligence for that and just votes, YES.
No wonder bills are failing US like NAPTA, Congress does not have the Intelligence to figure out the loopholes, But damn, I thought Congress had tons of lawyers. Oh yeah they are called Politicians and that is different. Conclusion: Congress failed "We the people" period.
Some Dems are asking me to support Obama, the ONLY candidate who doesn't have a Universal Health Care plan, and supports nuclear power plants that would take our alternative energy policy back 20 years. If I wanted nuke power and insurance companies getting the best deal, I would vote Republican.
One thing for sure, with Obama's backing from the insurance industry, and the nuclear power industry, he should get lots of funding, and be the darling of the corporate funded MSM.
Maybe the Obama supporters will wonder how this "grassroots" guy (who supported the insurance industry and nuke lobby in the State Senate) now has the most pro-insurance and nuclear power plans? And how has he paid the Super-Delegates $700,000 in such a short time? This is his "new way" of doing business in Washington.
Notice his rhetoric at play again today: when questioned about his plans surrounded with flowery rhetoric, he conjures up MLK and others. Clinton inquires about his rhetoric-based plan of action, which is totally fair, and he plays the race card. He totally spun the issue, his experience, by playing the race card and ego-ishly inflating his rhetoric to MLK and JFK. That tell me about his character... or lack of it.
HIGHSERENITY, check out my last two posts and tell me what your come back will be for these!!
Posted by connfloyd on February 19, 2008 at 01:24 AM
--------------
Hi conn
you still up fighting the good fight?
I am on my way to bed and was going to shut down puter when I saw this last post
so
Erick Posted ---I have no respect for his articles are often scewed and too often debunked
Matt Stoller I have some respect for. Article caught my interest
I am truly not that fond of Obama’s health care plan personally
Makes me sad because I actually hung a lot of hope on Hillary in 1993. I was devastated, because I just knew it would happen.
My family, like most, have suffered a lot due to our health insurance corporations and their power along with the drug companies and on and on and on.
You do know that I was supporting Edwards before he dropped out?
I liked his health care plan----
I was supporting Kuccinich before that
I liked his better.
It is all about compromise
Hope that helps
So you say Hillary had no choice but to vote, yes. So sad this Congress, that does not have the facts to vote on important issues like Wars, but must rely on a Bush White House to tell the truth. Where is the leadership in that?
Posted by YoungPoet on Feb 19, 2008 at 01:47 AM
What are you talking about... it's not the "Bush White House" they believed. It was the Pentagon, NSA, and CIA. You are dreaming if you think a few staffers in Congress can disprove these highly-funded government institutions. Maybe you forget about the media's drumbeat for war too? Will you say anything to support Obama? You do know that he admitted that he doesn't know how he would've voted IF he was in the Senate?
Two of the most important issues to me are renewable energy and universal health care, and Obama is way too far to the right, in fact Republican, for me to support him. Unlike some others, I'm not voting on race or gender. I'm voting on the issues, and Obama is not progressive in these most important issues facing America.
I started reading this thread and had to stop to make this statement before I could continue.
To the guilty....
I am sooooo tired of hearing "one candidate on the ballot in Michigan". Wrong, wrong, WRONG! and if 'you' say it one more time you will be lying because you have been corrected time and again.
I voted in Michigan as I have for the past 37 years. There were THREE candidates on the Democrat ballot. It looked just like this, in this order:
Hillary Clinton
Mike Gravel
Dennis Kucinich
Everyone else removed their names of their own free will. All the Republican candidates were on their ballot.
And to be clear, NO DEMS CAMPAIGNED IN MICHIGAN.
Posted by highserenity on February 19, 2008 at 01:54 AM
I was for Kucinich first, Edwards second, and now Obama third.
It seems both Obama and Hillary are doing a great job, either one will be a good candidate. It does remind me of the LBJ and JFK battle, where fangs were out before the nomination. After the nomination the friction between LBJ and JFK, you could feel, but JFK had such a magical way of Camelot that united this country when it was really needed like right now. So I will root for Obama first Hillary second, and hope they do the homework of "Made in America" dreams being delivered to our children's future. That is what it really about passing the Heritage of generations of America with Constitutional Freedom and Democracy.
Posted by hoipolloi on Feb 19, 2008 at 02:02 AM
Thanks for "keeping them honest." I'm getting tired of hearing that too. They don't mention that Obama ran commercials in Florida too.
Hi Connie! you have your Hillary sign up in the Great State of Texas? As you know, Texas was very Democratic at one time. I'm not too sure we can trust the voting machines anywhere, especially Texas. You have to wonder how W beat the very popular Ann Richards. Well, I suggest you vote early, and help the rest of the day. Go Hillary!
Two of the most important issues to me are renewable energy and universal health care, and Obama is way too far to the right, in fact Republican, for me to support him. Unlike some others, I'm not voting on race or gender. I'm voting on the issues, and Obama is not progressive in these most important issues facing America.
Posted by Big_Yellow_Dog on February 19, 2008 at 02:02 AM
Point taken, good reply!
Police feared 'airport stand-off'An Israeli general wanted for alleged war crimes escaped arrest in the UK because British police feared an armed confrontation at Heathrow airport.
Documents seen by BBC News reveal that Major General Doron Almog was flown back to Israel after officers refused to board his plane in September 2005.He stayed on board for two hours after a tip-off that he was facing detention.
Police were concerned about a potential clash with air marshals or possible armed personal security on the plane.
I wonder who in the Bush inner circle will be the first to face this problem?
Big Yellow Dog
I will never ever buy that 'fudged intel reports excuse' as why Hillary Clinton voted for The Moron Chimp to have his war authorization. NOT ONCE DID I or most of the people I know believe for one minute that there were EVER WMD in Iraq. The UN weapons inspectors scoured that place inside and out and found NOTHING!! Everytime W went on TV all you could see was him itching to have his little war. I think Hillary would make a damn good President but she is paying for her conceding to this little weasel's evil plan. Will it cost her the election? We'll see. Most polls show that Obama has a way better chance of beating McCaine. I even know Republicans (who hate HRC) who have Obama signs on their lawns.
Regarding; Bush/Cheyney's CIA etc. reports on Iraq WMD.
And if Bush/Cheyney did 'fudge the reports' from all these goverment agencies and if that is Hillary's excuse as well as Kerry's or whoever else in the Democratic party who voted for this war, then they have REAL SERIOUS grounds for impeachment. And despite the Democrats not having a 'wide' majority they should have stuck together and made a case. It is too historic and way too criminal to shrug off. Wimps.
Good Morning Good Dem's....have a great day!.....John Boy........
The Clinton camp hasn't been this excited in months. Why?? Not because their candidate is a heading in the right direction in the polls, not because she has recieved an important endorsement, not because she has won a recent primary, No. Because they used a 10 month old story to play gotcha. Get that base rallied. But... wait... the story is starting to turn. Anyone with any sense has started to recognize this for what it is an act of desperation and they are starting to be called on it. See Countdown on MSNBC, see Slate.com., etc.
Expect the backlash in the next day or so. Who exactly is running the Clinton camp? They can't count, the don't understand definitions, they were suprised how the Texas primary was set up, they alienate anyone that is not from a "big" state, now they don't seem to understand the ebb and flow of a big campaign. These people are the experts, these are the experienced advisiors??? Right now I'm having a hard time believing they even graduated from high school.
Morning JohnBoy and LaSt,
It's 34 here this morning and clear. I understand there will be a lunar eclipse on Wednesday I believe.
I hope California doesn't have an earthquake. With the moon gravity pulling exactly opposite the sun's gravity, this could be the case.
Will bush stay in Africa with rice. He can have his rice and eat it too.
Good morning LaSt,...pardon my ignorance, what are you referring to?
Good morning Johne,....very funny!
Obama is hot stuff in Houston. 15000 tickets available to the rally were gone in two hours. Clinton still ahead in the local polls. Wouldn't surprise me to see Obama take it. I'm just now starting to hear that Texas is a combination of caucus and primary vote, don;t understand it but from what little I know about it, I think it favors Obama.....John Boy....
Last, I kind of agree. First she runs out of money because she assumes the coronation would take place on Super Tuesday. Now she doesn't understand the whole Texas debacle (thanks to Tom Delay) and is out there basically telling everyone else if your not from a BIG state you don't count. I think it is time ,for the good of the party, after todays results SHOW the people want Obama, for her to step aside and endorse the Senator for Illinois.
Good morning fellow Democrats.I would like to see a debate between Michelle Obama and Bill Clinton.I heard her speak last night in on cspan, she is pretty sharp.
FISA Fight: How a(nother) lie is born Hotlist
by mcjoan
Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:56:23 PM PST
How do you know when Republicans think they're losing a public relations battle? They bring out the "trial lawyer" argument. Again. In the FISA fight, the fear card was played and fell remarkably flat among all but the true Bush believers.
Here's the next try, with Robert Novack trotting out the trial lawyer lie.
The true reason for blocking the bill was Senate-passed retroactive immunity to protect from lawsuits private telecommunications firms asked to eavesdrop by the government. The nation's torts bar, vigorously pursuing such suits, has spent months lobbying hard against immunity.
Christy has a great run down of the development of this talking point, from the wingnut blogs to Boehner on FOX News to Dick Cheney on Limbaugh. (She missed its great debut, however, when in the SOTU George Bush changed the telco amnesty theme from "immunity" to "liability protection.")
The fact that the claim is factually inaccurate, piggybacking on the fearmongering inaccuracies by raising the favorite wingnutty spectre of "an evil trial lawyer lobby" inaccurately? That they have been trying, unsuccessfully, to float out this idiotic meme for months now? Or that it was wholly manufactured as a wurlitzer pot stirrer? Or that even the conservative CATO Institute has called bullshit? Or that the telecoms have lobbyied for months on this -- spending oodles of cash and hours doing so on the Hill? If at first you don't succeed, sty, sty again, eh, Bob?
So let's just put this one to rest before it even gets a foothold. First, these cases were brought by public interest lawyers at the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/18/14140/6183/584/459110
====================================================
The GOP spin machine is just unbelievable. This has to be close to government sponsored propaganda. Welcome to the Soviet Union of the United States. Disgusting!
Bradbury: Torture? Don't look at us! Hotlist
by smintheus
Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:08:22 PM PST
Steven Bradbury's rancid testimony to the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, his special pleading on behalf of torture, has already attracted plenty of commentary on line, for example here and here. As always with testimony from Bush administration officials, however, a lot of mud was stirred up. So it's worthwhile stepping back to single out one important implication of the "analysis" offered up by Bradbury, the acting head of DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel: He essentially placed responsibility upon the victims for any torture committed by the Bush administration.
From the Sunday WaPo:
Under questioning from lawmakers of both parties, Bradbury said pain suffered by a prisoner had to be both severe and long-lasting for an interrogation tactic to be considered torture. "Something can be quite distressing, uncomfortable, even frightening," Bradbury said, but "if it doesn't involve severe physical pain, and it doesn't last very long, it may not constitute severe physical suffering. That would be the analysis."
The implication is clear, however much Bradbury might prefer beat around the bush: If the prisoners subjected to severe sleep deprivation, say, or hypothermia, or waterboarding, don't give in quickly enough and tell their captors whatever the latter want to hear (which is what the abuse is all about), then they have only themselves to blame. Tortured you, did we? It's on your hands. Too bad you wasted so much of our time.
That of course is one of the particular attractions of waterboarding (the specific torture technique Bradbury was promoted to excuse). Waterboarding is so excruciatingly painful and terrifying that victims have no choice but to give in immediately. Hence Bradbury, author of secret torture memos, would assure you that nobody is culpable because the torture is brought to perfection (almost) before it begins.
The other main attraction of waterboarding is that it leaves no obvious physical marks to betray that a prisoner had been tortured. Not coincidentally, the administration's preference for "clean" torture techniques also means that nobody can be held culpable. The torture regimen Bush & Co. adopted was designed with that very goal, originally by European colonial powers more than a century ago. As Darius Rejali states...
...the style of torture American forces used in Iraq and Afghanistan derived from two venerable traditions of torture, French modern and Anglo-Saxon modern.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/18/19822/9657/920/458774
US banks gobble up government free money
by Chris in Paris · 2/19/2008 03:59:00 AM ET ·
But please do not call this a government bailout. Just because banks are "borrowing" tens of billions from US taxpayers below inflation rates under new conditions (which are troubling) doesn't mean it's a handout. Hundreds of billions down the drain, but all is forgiven. Take one guess who is getting stuck with the bill? Surprise! It's you!
“The TAF ... allows the banks to borrow money against all sort of dodgy collateral,” says Christopher Wood, analyst at CLSA. “The banks are increasingly giving the Fed the garbage collateral nobody else wants to take ... [this] suggests a perilous condition for America’s banking system.”
The Fed announced the TAF tool on December 12 as part of a co-ordinated package of measures unveiled by leading western central banks to calm money markets.
The measure marks a distinct break from past US policy. Before its introduction, banks either had to raise money in the open market or use the so-called “discount window” for emergencies. However, last year many banks refused to use the discount window, even though they found it hard to raise funds in the market, because it was associated with the stigma of bank failure.
http://www.americablog.com/2008/02/us-banks-gobble-up-government-free.html
Will bush stay in Africa with rice. He can have his rice and eat it too.
Posted by Johne on February 19, 2008 at 07:36 AM
=================================================
Hi JE,
Bush can stay there!
Well, those posts were long enough and two of them to boot.
Need a new thread!
Is there some computer application named "String together really long nonsense words and post them online"?
Hey, World-do-not -- TAKE YOUR MEDS!
Here is where Obama got his health care plan!!!
by: Matt Stoller
Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 14:05
Mike Lux, a veteran of the Clinton health care wars, pointed out today that Obama is using as a surrogate on health care Bush Dog Democrat Jim Cooper.
================================================
Actually Stoeller should know better. Both Obama and Clinton got their health care plan from the one proposed by John Kerry in 2004:
Kerry Health Plan: Who Will Pay?
Brief Analysis
No. 488
Friday, October 8, 2004 Download this page in PDF format
Get Adobe Acrobat Reader Get Adobe Acrobat Reader
by John C. Goodman
Sen. John Kerry has a plan to radically change the U.S. health care system. If he is successful, millions of middle-income families will be enrolled in Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor. Millions more will get their insurance through a system of managed competition modeled after the federal employee’s health system and similar to what Hillary Clinton proposed more than a decade ago. Most people would not be able to continue in the private health plans they have today.
The Plan. Kerry’s program has no mandates. Instead, it would use economic incentives to induce people to acquire public or private health coverage. Very few of the subsidies will actually go to individuals, however. About 90 percent of the funds will go to state governments, employers and insurance companies.
The Kerry proposal uses existing federal programs to extend health insurance coverage. First, the federal government would pay the full costs of 20 million children in Medicaid, in exchange for states expanding coverage to more people under the Medicaid and State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) — in some cases to people with incomes at three times the poverty level. Second, Kerry would create the Congressional Health Plan, similar to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP), to offer insurance to individuals and employer groups. Third, the Kerry plan would have the federal government “rebate” three-fourths of employers’ catastrophic health claims costs (above $30,000 per beneficiary in 2006, rising to a projected $50,000 in 2013) if employers offer insurance to all employees and pay one-half the premium costs.
=================================================
The only difference between Clinton and Obama is the issue of mandates.
"String together really long nonsense words and post them online"?
Posted by GregL on February 19, 2008 at 08:41 AM
================================================
GregL, there must be. I can't anyone writing that!
I can't anyone writing that!
====
I can't fathom anyone writing that!
Ben & Jerry's new flavor: "Cherries for Change"
by Chris in Paris · 2/19/2008 02:36:00 AM ET · Link
Discuss this post here: Comments (126) · reddit · FARK ·· Digg It!
Their choice, Obama.
"If there was ever a need for real change, and if there ever was a candidate to inspire us and make that happen, it's now," said Ben Cohen.
Added Jerry Greenfield: "Barack is showing that when you lead with your values and follow what you have inside that good things will happen."
So what would you call McCain's ice cream flavor?
=================================================
I won't answer that last question ...
Posted by WORLD_DO_NOT_USA on February 19, 2008 at 08:33 AM.... I don't know what you expected to accomplish with that post other than irritating people, but I for one spent only enough time on it to scroll by it. You're wasting your time posting.
This year in the Democratic Party, "We the people" have had a chance for real Change in the Party over Corporate interests running Washington. The status quo of twenty tears of pandering to corporate corruption to our moral government fiber, may be on the down cline with Washington coming back to "Made In America" futures for our children heritage to invest in future generations of patriots not a Patriot Act, where like Red China, Washington controls US like slave puppets.
Superdelegates remind me of plantation owners, some say they are voting for the good of the Party, and their self interests. How many are for human, civil, civil liberty, and Constitutional rights? Look at how they dress, this is not Middle or Working Class America but a Royal class like Republicans. What is the division by race, gender, and faith of the DNC Superdelegates, you will find major elements of mainstream America missing? You will find a major elements supportive of Corporate interests over union interests.
Morning Dems,
Just a hit and run this morning.
I see the trolls had fun last night, and the
Anti-Candidates spewed their mis information .
I don't understand what part of "Come November, there will be a Democrat and a Republican on the ballot. The choice will be another 8 years of the misery we just went through, OR a chance to see a change." It is as simple as that!
This attacking the other candidate does not help YOUR candidate one little bit! It merely makes them look like the people who support them are head cases !
from the continuing series...evolution 49,987...creationism 0
New Fossil Finds on Three Continents
Last week also saw new reports of dinosaur fossils around the world. The latest issue of the journal Acta Palaeontologica Polonica describes a new species of carnivorous dinosaur discovered in the Sahara Desert in 2000. The remains of the 110-million-year-old theropods were found by Paul Sereno, a paleontologist at the University of Chicago. The creatures grew to about 25 feet long, had large, sharklike teeth and are thought to have been scavengers.
Across the Atlantic, a second new species of dinosaur has been unearthed in Mexico. It's described in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. Known as hadrosaurs, the giant duck-billed plant-eater measured up to 35 feet long and lived in western North America some 72 million years ago.
Farther north, in Wyoming, a third recent find suggests that bats flew before they developed echolocation to track and capture their prey. The study, by an international team, was published in Nature.
And the largely intact fossil of one of the smallest pterosaurs ever known has been found in northeastern China. The new species of flying reptile had a wingspan of less than 30 cm. Researchers from Brazil and China say the toothless, sparrow-sized specimen contains several unique anatomical features.
Lest our own species be left out, the New York Times reported that researchers are revising their estimates of when farming first began in Egypt, based on the discovery at a desert oasis of what may be the earliest known farming settlement there. Animal bones, pottery and carbonized grains date the settlement to roughly 5200 B.C.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/02/080213-new-dinosaurs.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/02/080212-mexico-dinosaur.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7239862.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/science/12egyp.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
and remember kids like gracie slick said...science is mankinds brother....or was it mother??
Good morning Pammy, I hope you have a really great day!!
It merely makes them look like the people who support them are head cases !Posted by PamB on February 19, 2008 at 09:08 AM
Ummm, that would be cuz they are...all those ones who don't support the Flying Spaghetti Monster for President, that is. :)
« Hide Comments
Comments are now closed for this entry.
