Noted the "assault weapons ban" discussion on previous thread.
Let's clarify something.
Assault weapons are military fully automatic weapons which are already controlled by federal law, have been since the Tommy guns were used by the bootleggers in the 1930s.
The "assault weapons" that have been under discussion lately are NOT assault weapons, but rather semi-automatic weapons which have military style stocks. They are not capable of automatic fire, where you hold down the trigger and the weapon keeps cycling.
The semi-automatic weapons need to be manually triggered each time a shot is fired. The automatic part of semi-automatic means only that the recoil is used to load another shell in the chamber. Their rate of fire is slower because of this and that type weapon has not been used as military weapons since the M14 was taken out of military service in the Viet Nam era, except for "automatic" pistols which are really semi-automatic.
Some guys like military style stocks, and the autoloading feature comes in handy when you are deer hunting. But they are NOT using automatic weapons.
There are real assault weapons on the streets, but they are not there legally, and there are already laws in place to deal with them. Like drug cartels care about that.
Law abiding gun owners should not be punished for the actions of the lawless.

Good morning from Northern California

Supposed to be triple digits here today
And already water rationing going on in many areas

DEMOCRATS: DON’T LET REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP TAKE THEIR CHEAP SHOT AT POLITICALLY PLAYING ARMS CONTROL - SUGGEST BOTH, AUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONRY OUT OF CRIMINALS HANDS AND THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS STILL PROTECTED

Bill of Rights
Amendment II
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

What about a ‘Democratic’ ban on automatic assault weaponry that includes a clause that if the government raises assault weaponry on any peaceful protest the assault weaponry ban will automatically be lifted for six months? (An established message to the U.S. Government from the American Public not to use such weaponry against public protesters and protect the rights of the militias and the right to bear arms at the same time?)

_______________________________

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: www.hrw.org

“The Role of Shell in the Ogoni Crisis and Shell’s Attempts to Import Weapons”

“During 1996, newspaper investigations revealed that Shell had recently been in negotiation for the import of arms for use by the Nigerian police. In January 1996, in response to these allegations, Shell stated that it had in the past imported side arms on behalf of the Nigerian police force, for use by the “supernumerary police” who are on attachment to Shell and guard the company’s facilities (and other oil company facilities) against general crime. The last purchase of weapons by Shell was said to be of 107 handguns for its supernumerary police, fifteen years before. But court papers filed in Lagos in July 1995 and reported in the British press in February 1996 revealed that Shell had as late as February 1995 been negotiating for the purchase of weapons for the Nigerian police.”

“During the height of the Ogoni crisis, allegations of Shell collaboration with the military were regularly made, even after the company ceased production from its flow stations in Ogoni in January 1993. A document alleged to be a leaked government memorandum from 1994 implicated Shell in planned “wasting operations” by the Rivers State Internal Security Task Force, stating that the oil companies should pay the costs of the operations. The head of the Task Force several times publicly claimed to be acting so that Shell’s oil production could resume.”

“The most serious case in which an oil company is directly implicated in security force abuses continues to be the incident at Umuechem in 1990, where a Shell manager made a written and explicit request for protection from the Mobile Police (a notoriously abusive force), leading to the killing of eighty unarmed civilians and the destruction of hundreds of homes.”

_________________________________

(Keep in mind people and/or gun owners, that a ban on automatic assault weaponry in the U.S. will also keep U.S. corporations from buying assault weaponry in the U.S. and sending them to other countries to fight against certain rebels or supply certain rebels for their business interests. As well as keeping assault weaponry out of the hands of criminals, the morally disturbed mentally challenged, criminal gangs and organized crime groups and members.)

By all means people and/or gun owners, have both your protection, and the world’s protection and your rights to the militia too. Don’t take the Republican leaderships politically easy shot at your vote in giving you just one while ignoring the other; vote Democratic and push a Democratic agenda where both the American minority and majority views have their voices heard and answered in what is suppose to be, this Democratic country.

Posted by highserenity on May 14, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Then I won't brag about the cool rainy/snowy spring we are having. Too bad we can't all have some normal weather at the same time.

Posted by ElizabethJW on May 14, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Don't bet on it. There will either be big loopholes in exporting assault weapons, or the guilty corporations will just make themselves agents of the foreign governments involved, set up a out of country front corporation to buy the weapons, or the check will be from that government's account and not the "US" multinational who put the money in the account.
Never underestimate the deviousness of the rich and greedy.
As I said before, there are already regulations in place to deal with automatic weapons in the US, and that won't stop the miltinationals from purchasing weapons from other countries.
AK-47s are actually superior under field conditions to the M16 and its derivatives, and the Chinese ones are cheaper.

Bill Clinton reinvents the party rules while campaigning in Oregon.

Bill Clinton in Oregon denigrates DNC rules, says Florida did no wrong.

Posted by anne_smith on May 14, 2008 at 09:42 AM

You have me and Pam mixed up today...instead of me and Essie. I guess that's progress of some sort. You really need to keep the opposition straight so you can target us better.

Your ineptitude has certainly worked out well in all the Congressional run off elections so far this year.

Getting down to your latest false issue/strawman argument of the day...Bill Clinton is not running for president even though you, your party, and even he would like that to be the case.

Mission not accomplished. Throw Limbaugh a fish.

We will run the strongest ticket the GOP has ever had to face....because anybody will be able to win against you incompetent, corrupt, and arrogant Republicans this year. You have proven how totally useless you are to anyone in this country.

And we could care less about your advice or analysis....nobody in America will ever again solicit your privatized, no-bid contract gossip and inuendoes except a bunch of rich frat boys over at the Heritage Foundation.

And they're getting sick of wasting their money on you, too.

I'd suggest that you get into a exercise program for your brain. The chances of memory loss setting is huge for all career Republicans. Facing the truth is not one of your best suits.

And you really don't want your children sending you to a nursing home where you will be at the mercy of minimum-wage workers who were screwed out of health care coverage by your efforts. You may think they are stupid, but they can spot a Republican a mile away.

Catch the rest of you real Democrats later today.

high,

We have more water than we know what to do with. I'd send it your way, but you don't want the flooding we've had all spring and most of the winter.

Just wait. With global warming, I'm sure your weather will go to the opposite extreme in no time. Batten down the hatches. It's only a matter of time before violent weather will be coming your way courtesy of failed Republican energy and environmental policies.

Posted by Butte on May 14, 2008 at 10:11 AM

At last, a voice of reason and clarity! Thank you foe your post Butte.

I live in one of the Houston burbs. The Houston Police Department has been accused of falsifying the crime stats downward. They don't wanr to admit the problem is as bad as it is. Bad for tourism, convention business and new business moving into the area. But the truth is that I live in a shooting gallery.

HPD has many other problems not of it's own making. They are over a 1000 officers short on a 4000 man force. It takes money to hire more police officers. HPD has problems hiring more officers because they are not competitive with other police agencies, especially in the area of hiring experienced officers. Why would an experienced officer hire on at HPD for less money and be in a shooting gallery when he or she could go to work elsewhere for more money abd less risk?

So, again, it is a question of resources which translates into taxes. An "assault weapons" ban
which would also ban the semi automatic rifles and shot gus does not cost much money. Just some ink and paper. But who is going to enforce it and against whom?

The criminals in the street are not going to voluntarily comply with it. It is presently against the law for a convicted felon to be in possession of a weapon and the criminals don't voluntarily comply with those laws. It takes dedicated, well trained police officers to find and capture these criminals. Assets, which mean tax revenue.

The Harris county jail is under federal court order because of over crowding and we are having to ship criminals out of state. Assets, means more taxes.

There is anew brouhaha that just erupted, HPD is cutting out, for budget reasons, the overtime program they instituted to make up for the short fall in officer ranks. These overtime programs were devoted and detailed to the worst crime areas. Now that those programs are being stopped, those citizens, usually the poorest, are being left to more or less fend for themselves.

The "assualt weopons" ban that was proposed last year by a lady from Long Isald, a Dem, was far more reaching than the "assualt weapons" ban that was in effect under President Clinton.

It would have literally made almost all rifles, shotguns and most semi automatic handguns illegal.

So, the private, law abiding citizen, even if liciensed to carry, might have found himself or herself in the postion of having to defend his or her home with a sixshot revolver against one or more criminals armed with 15 shot 9MM pistols. The height of insanity.

Until someone, anyone, shows me how they are going to disarm the criminals that threaten me and my family every night, I will oppose all new gun control pandering legislation!

Posted by Butte on May 14, 2008 at 11:06 AM

Guns are not the problem. It's Republican neocons and frat boys who don't know how to use them safely.

You know, like those that drink and hunt. Or those that invent bogus WMD intel to start wars for political fun and profit.

Or those who can't think of anything constructive to do for this country...they'd rather drag it down to their swarming levels of incompetence and perversion. Give Larry Craig a gun and get him out of the public restrooms for heaven sakes.

nov. results as I see it now the electorial outcome would be, mcain301 obama 237.with Hillary-Hillary 297 mcain 241

I hear you. I knew that corporations and criminals could purchase guns from other countries when I suggested a ban on automatic assault weaponry with a clause of a temporary lift if the government would ever use those certain weapons against public protesters. However, such a ban would be a start on leading an example for other nations which could also someday make their own ban that could contintue to make it harder for corporations and criminals to obtain those weapons.

While I support the right of the militias and the equal ownership of weaponry between government and the public, (I understand its importance) I do not see the publics need having automatic assault weaponry in their personal possession more important than the need to protect the public from them.

It is sad that their are some misled people in the world who have made the suggestion of some gun-control a violation of the liberty of others who abide by the law. However understand that I am saying that those gun owners have a right to make their views heard and those views could be met with some form of automatic assault weapon gun-control with a clause that protects their rights.

Don't we all, including gun owners want a change on the status quo of the controversy?

There are, in this country, approximately 240 million guns. There are approximately 60 million gun owners. That's four guns owned by each gun owner in the US. Which is exactly what I own, two revolvers and two rifles. But I digress.

I don't know what percentage of gun owners are moderates or independents. Do you?

Let's say that the Democratic Party proposes more unwanted gun legislation and loses 1/3 of the votes of those who own guns.

That would be 20 million votes lost. Does anyone think that the Dem's can afford to lose 20 million voted in a general election up and down the ticket?

Instead of proposing more gun legislation in order to pander to those who want a simplistic quick fix, the Dem's would be better off to look at Clinton's program to put more cops in the streets and at education so these youngsters have some way to get out of poverty and break the cycle of lawlessness.

In today’s New York Times’ Caucus blog, Carl Hulse reports that House Republicans have got themselves a brand-new slogan:

It looks like Republicans will counter the Democratic push for change from the years of the Bush administration with their own pledge to deliver, drum roll please, “the change you deserve.” […]

What the GOP doesn’t seem to realize, because they are idiots, is that “the change you deserve” is the registered advertising slogan of Effexor XR. … also known as Venlafaxine, is approved for the treatment “of depression, generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, and panic disorder in adults.”

And if that wasn’t funny enough for you, as Jason points out, the FDA took issue with the company over the Effexor ad “saying that the company made “unsubstantiated superiority claims.”“

GOP: The party of Irony

The problem is "gun control" has become one of those hot button single-issue-voter-issues on both sides of the fence.
Back in the early days of this country, all able-bodied citizens (meaning those who could shoot a gun) were considered part of the militia. There was no draft deferment when hostile Indians, outlaws, or rogue predators were running through your neighborhood.
The Founding Fathers, having just fought free from a rogue tyrant, didn't want another one to crop up, and by ensuring that the citizens had the right to keep their personal weapons also ensured that anyone who had dictatorial desires would know they'd have to face armed and irate citizens.
Of course that was in a time of small military budgets and when personal weapons included rifles which were far more accurate than the cheap and inaccurate smoothbore "Brown Bess" muskets. But it also ensured that taking over the military would not bring a dictator to power.
The point is that it still holds in this day and age of home invasions, and slow police response. I'm not faulting the cops. As goodfoe pointed out, they are over worked and under financed.
But even more scary is the fact we currently have a president who considers the Constitution just a "damned piece of paper" and is closer to the type of tyrant feared by the Founding Fathers as anyone has come since the Constitution was ratified. Even scarier is the fact that the Bushiato has done a lot to ensure that the military is run by loyal yes-men and to discredit those officers who are dedicated to their oaths to serve their country and defend the Constitution.
The Bill of Rights is like an arch with 10 keystones. If one falls, they all fall.
How much can we loosen the mortar holding any one of them before the whole thing crashes down on our heads and the oligarchists take over?
We have laws in place. Passing another law that won't/can't be enforced is window dressing, and doesn't do anyone any good. EXCEPT, that the Republicans will use it every chance they get to discredit and panic people to vote against Democratic candidates and the people's own best interests.
Gun laws should be local, and we need to enforce the ones which go after the bad guys, not the law abiding citizens.
Something to think about. I have to go to a conference, I wish I could stay for the ensuing discussion.

goodfoe,

Before we levy numbers of hand gun owners as opposed to machine gun owners for a political vote on the subject would not we always in the past have looked at the Democratic views of both sides for and against an automatic assault weapons ban anyway?

After all, isn't that what is wrong with today's Republican leadership, they divide the views and pit them against each other like Hussien use to do the sects of his nation? Like it is a black and white, win all or lose all situation and cause; that's not Democratic. That's part of what I mean when I say the Republican politicians take a cheap shot at this machine gun weapons ban. In part enouraging gun owners fears that a machine gun ban could lead to a ban on simple hand guns. The other part is that it's ignorant politics at their worst that refuses to look at the views of both supporters and non-supporters and take BOTH on!

The American Public deserves more! WE ARE INTELLIGENT PEOPLE WHO SHOULD DEMAND MORE INTELLIGENCE FROM OUR GOVERNMENT INSTEAD OF THEIR BELITTLING OUR VIEWS DOWN TO THE APPEARANCE OF STUPIDITY FOR THEIR POLITICAL INTERESTS.

THE REPUBLICAN LEADERS HAVE GUN OWNERS LOOKING LIKE SOME WILD GUN SLINGING PEOPLE AND PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT A MACHINE GUN BAN LOOKING LIKE VILIANS OF PEOPLES LIBERTIES AND LABELED LIBERAL (TO THEIR DESERVING). WORST THAN THAT REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP HAVE MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN AMERICA WHO SO HAPPEN TO BE REPUBLICAN LOOKING LIKE THEIR REPRESENTED BY A BUNCH OF FOOLS DURING POST-9/11.

goodfoe
I agree with no more gun legislation, except to crack down (yea, I mean actual tough consequences) to those that traffic assault weapons.
other than than PLEASE no more cops
California turned into a police state a couple of decades ago, and it only gets worse.

The idea that more cops on the streets, and more people being arrested to protect the public has proven to create the opposite of how it has been framed.
and yet, it is still promoted, ie/ "vote to build more prisons, and hire more cops, and you will be protected."
Everyone still rushes to the polls to vote yes.

Against their best interests on many levels, including loss of personal rights, economic costs, humane costs, actually protecting public, as these 10's of thousands come out of prison, broken and broke, and turn to drugs for relief and must steal to live.
are returned to the Prison complex and on and on

Why do you hate President Bill Clinton? Did you call Bill Clinton a draft dodger back in the 1990s? Well, I'll tell you what I believe. Bill Clinton was a great president. President Clinton turned around a failing economy, and an era of peace and posperity for Americans.

Posted by anne_smith on May 14, 2008 at 09:42 AM

LOL, anne.

You must be a real newcomer here. From day one, I have defended Bill Clinton, researched his accomplisments and listed them here and other blogs. I still defend Hillary's right to continue running. I loved Bill Clinton and post over and over how he left office with a 76% approval rating, DESPITE how the Republican's big witch hunt found NOTHING on him, outside of Lewinsky.

give me a break, kiddo.

The Vicious Election Cycle:

http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/

In today’s New York Times’ Caucus blog, Carl Hulse reports that House Republicans have got themselves a brand-new slogan:

It looks like Republicans will counter the Democratic push for change from the years of the Bush administration with their own pledge to deliver, drum roll please, “the change you deserve.” […]

Posted by BlueinIdaho on May 14, 2008 at 11:55 AM

Yeah! If you are in the top 1% of wealth, you will be fine, but for the rest of Americans, the change we deserve will be to bend over and get ready to get screwed, because that is all they think we deserve!!!

I watched a segment on TV yesterday. It was talking about Rural America and the white voters there who notoriously vote Republican. Now I would LOVE to have the DNC or MoveOn take out ads and play them all over these "Rural" areas and ask them "Name one thing the Republicans have done for you"! "ONE". Ya think these people can begin to understand they vote against themselves over and over and over??? That they have been taken for stupid all these years?

West Virginia just keeps outdoing itself! The state—which is separate from regular Virginia because they used to like black people—is expected to overwhelmingly support Hillary Clinton in tonight's primary. Because Senator Clinton has been quite effective in drumming up support among older, blue-collar voters, yes, but also because Barack Obama is a Muslim and a terrorist who will enslave the white race and probably suicide bomb the White House. In the clip above, a voter explains that she can't support a Muslim. The reporter half-assedly attempts to correct her. Our voter will have none of it. Doesn't anyone remember Barack Obama's crazy black Christian preacher? There's more!

This recent Financial Times piece about West Virginia voters quotes a "lifelong Democrat":

"I heard that Obama is a Muslim and his wife's an atheist," said Mr Simpson, drawing on a cigarette outside the fire station in Williamson, a coalmining town of 3,400 people surrounded by lush wooded hillsides.

Mr. Simpson, that does not even make sense. You think a secret radical Muslim would marry an atheist? Even if it was purely to piss off Christians? Sleeper agent jihadists are not known for their tolerance of Enlightenment principles!

Seriously, West Virginia, we are going to give you back to Virginia unless you can demonstrate that you can handle statehood again. And no one wants that.

http://gawker.com/389976/old-white-people-know-the-truth-about-barack-obama?autoplay=true

Good afternoon fellow Democrats.

Obama \ Clinton 2008

Yes we can!

Si se puede!

Change we can believe in!

Sen. Clinton's website.

Posted by Butte on May 14, 2008 at 12:11 PM

That was a great contribution, thanks Butte. Have a good one! I too, have to leave for awhile. I should be mailing out packages to Congressmen on health care, but this issue of gun control is very important to me. I'll try to return later.

DR. DEAN:

THANK YOU FOR THE FIFTY-STATE STRATEGY!!! THANK YOU FOR PROVING ALL YOUR DETRACTORS WRONG!!!!

Butte,

Good post, promote responsible gun ownership.

nov. results as I see it now the electorial outcome would be, mcain301 obama 237.with Hillary-Hillary 297 mcain 241

Posted by fanspeed on May 14, 2008 at 11:31 AM

Anyone can do that, see: Dems 538, McCain 0 -

of coarse, I am Bias, I can not honestly see how the republicans win anywhere with their twisted outlook on the world.

Posted by sunny on May 14, 2008 at 11:06 AM

It's REALLY disheartening to think that I placed so much trust in such a man; unfortunately, he is proving that all that the "right-wingers" described him to be is true.

Hi everyone! Special congratulations to Gov. Dean for his 50 state campaign! Thanks to him we might just get this country back on the right track! Go Gov. Dean Go!

I just had to tell everyone! After T. Childers (D) won in Mississippi last night, they showed his campaign headquarters on our local news. I saw a woman that I worked with years ago. She is a wonderful person and she is a hard-core evangelical Christian, very fundamentalist! There she and her husband were, celebrating a democratic win! I called her this morning and she was almost giddy. She said "yes, that was me! Me and the other ladies in my Bible study group campaigned for Mr. Childers - and we even got our husbands to help too!"
This is HUGE! That area of Mississippi is, to a large degree, a series of 'white flight' communities. These are middle/lower middle class white people who are - for the first time in more than a decade - voting Democratic! There may be hope for my home state of Tennessee, yet! Afterall - we do have a Democratic Governor!
Go Democrats Go!

Posted by PamB on May 14, 2008 at 12:34 PM

...Name one thing the Republicans have done for you"! "ONE". Ya think these people can begin to understand they vote against themselves over and over and over??? That they have been taken for stupid all these years?

Pam, they have been taken for stupid for all of these years becuase they are stupid. Let the calls of "Bob is an elitist" begin.

Very few could answer your proposed challenge. Few can name their two U.S. senators. Fewer still can name their House Representative or any of their local officials. And yet they drag their ill-informed, uneducated butts to the polls to vote for someone because they wear a flag pin or advocate school prayer or some other ridiculous "hot-button" issue that has little to no bearing on the operation of the Federal government.

And the most inisiduous part of all of this is that the GOP always benefits from a stupid electorate. Hence why they always thwart attempts at improving public education.

If we want to propose a 527 ad, how about one that says something to the effect of, "If you're stupid, and you probably know if you are, stay home and let the intelligent people run the country. If you don't, America may not survive your ignorance."

Posted by TMH on May 14, 2008 at 12:51 PM

You were just using the wrong formula. The equation goes something like:

Y = (a + b) x 3a - 4x ÷  - (22 + 7x) ÷ x(x − ap)(x + bp).

Now, I’m no mathematician, but I’ve been told that this tried and true formula will accurately and unequivocally predict the final winner of any primary. The exceptions to this rule are those primaries held in “small” states and those states that hold caucuses….and sometimes those states where the formula doesn’t work. But, since it is math and math is really for elitists, we really don’t expect the formula to work anyway.

Posted by BlueinIdaho on May 14, 2008 at 12:34 PM

watching and reading about the results of WV, I was struck by their reference to 'uneducated white working class "people voting for Hillary !

Now one can be uneducated, without being uninformed! One can wish to know what is going on in the world and the country. One can desire to make up one's own mind about information they see on TV or papers, than what someone else tells them it means !

You have to give it to the Republicans and to Karl rove for the last 30 years of finding just the right phrases to make this party look like the enemy to those people who get the most out of it.

"abortion on demand" , "partial birth abortion", "tax relief", "tree huggers", "death tax", "marriage penalty", "weak on defense", "want to take your guns away"

Don't ever use their words, folks.

Instead show how the Republican party lost it's core values - fiscal responsbility, limited government, foreign policy now based on delusional fantasies of some apocolyptic ideas. Republicans are not leaving the party, the party has left them!!!

CNN) — While exit polls from the West Virginia primary seemed to suggest the party is deeply divided between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, a new poll out Wednesday suggests either candidate would easily beat Republican John McCain in the fall.

According to a new Quinnipiac University poll, both Democratic candidates beat McCain by a gap well outside the margin of error. Obama beats McCain by 7 points in the poll, 47 percent to 40 percent, while Hillary Clinton bests the Arizona senator by 5 points, 46 percent to 41 percent.

The Country says NO to McBush

"If you're stupid, and you probably know if you are, stay home and let the intelligent people run the country. If you don't, America may not survive your ignorance."

Posted by BobVADemHawk-Obama08 on May 14, 2008 at 12:57 PM

LOL, Bob

You really think these people believe they are stupid? Why just take a look at the trolls who come in here! they are about as stupid as they come, but they do not know it! they have been duped over and over and over, and they crawl on their bellies back for more !

West Virginia is an interesting state. I live close to West Virginia and I even have family in West Virginia. Yes, there are quite a few votes that went to Hillary because of Obama's complexion but I don't think that's the whole story. West Virginia voted for Adlai Stevenson in 1952 against Eisenhower and in 1960 went with JFK, with Johnson in 1964 and with Humphrey in 1968. West Virginia was one of the 4 states won by Jimmy Carter in the 1980 election. It also went for Clinton in both 1992 and 1996.

If West Virginia had gone with Wallace in 1968 then I think there would be a stronger case for those who think that the votes for Hillary were negative votes based on Obama's skin color. Still, Wallace did get about 10% of the West Virginia vote in 1968 but I don't know how much of that is still around 40 years later. Let's hope that it was more pro-Hillary than anti-Obama.

Posted by fanspeed on May 14, 2008 at 11:31 AM

John Maccannery?

Look....if I have said it once, I have said it a hundred times....the only win that poor John will have in November is being able to remember his name and where he lives when this is over.

There is an absolute wealth of dirt on this man. Where is the choir of support from the GOP for him? Mcknucklehead is as scary as a $2.00 whore in Bangkok to them.

So to suggest that he is going to carry any states, let alone, 301 electoral votes, is delusion.

Got me efffed...how or where these polls come up with these numbers, but the pain that the american public is feeling now, is only going to be worse in November.

That being the case, do you think anyone is going to vote for a man who has consistently stood behind a president and the administration responsible for the pain?

There might be a few dumbf**k's out there or remaining in November..but it will be less than the current 26 percenters that still have their heads in their rectum.

I am encouraged that the Republican party is clearly moving left, to appease the majority of Americans------ie/ recognizing the majority of Americans believe in a Democratic based America.
Big Corporations have been paid to move our jobs overseas, (paid by we the taxpayers, taking money out of our pockets and transferring it to their pockets, to take our jobs), and more and more of us don’t buy the explanations of why this is a good thing any more. Particularly, the blue collar republican base. They are waking up? They don’t particularly want a black man as their president, so McCain is presented as a democratic compromise. WHAT A GREAT INDICATION FOR US

We democrats, of course, don’t want any more compromise.
We have moved clearly left (well, I have always been way left), no longer feeling we need to be center to get elected.
I will continue to fight hard, for no compromise.
To compromise on this would only let the bad cancel out the good.

TAKE A MINUTE AN READ THIS FROM THE RIGHT WING BLOG, REDSTATE !!! They KNOW they are dead in the water come November, and we do not have to do too much to get rid of Republican House Reps and Senators, they plan on cleaning house themselves!!! (ps, the blog is on fire with a whole 16 comments !! Just plain on fire !) :)

Look no further than this 2007 profile of NRCC Chairman Tom Cole.

"Oh, I don't think the problem was spending," Cole said. "People who argue that we lost because we weren't true to our base, that's just wrong."

That quote is half right. The problem was not spending. Tom Cole was right. The public really does not care. The problem is the GOP lost because it was not true to its base. And if Tom Cole really believes the GOP was and is being true to its base, he is full of crap.

And how is the GOP not being true to its base? Well, it is fresh out of ideas. The problem, you see, is not earmarks. A lot of people would have you believe earmarks are the problem. Earmarks were never the problem, they were a symptom of being out of ideas. Earmarks were a perceived solution for the GOP -- they'd just bribe voters to keep them in office. But then as the ideas ran out, the bribes became addicting and corrupting. The GOP, with no ideas, decided staying in power was the idea, not actually making government smaller or more efficient.

Now the GOP is out of power. To get back into power it will need new ideas, but it will also need scandal on the House Democratic side. The first step for the GOP must be to purge its party leadership. We cannot get into the promised land with those in charge who got us thrown out of the promised land. The second step is the GOP must purge itself of people like Don Young and Jerry Lewis and Ted Stevens. We cannot capitalize on Democrat scandal when we have our own open wounds walking around. The third step is fresh ideas. Of course, this becomes circular. It's really hard for the present leadership that failed on stale ideas to now come up with new ideas, so we must get back to step one and purge the present leadership.

I like John Boehner. I like Roy Blunt. I even like Tom Cole. They are, by and large, victims. But they chose to be the leaders and now must face the consequences. I do not want to kid you or be naive. I know nothing will happen now.

But after the blood bath in November, the House GOP must be prepared for bold leadership changes -- changes that get it back in touch with its roots. And in the meantime, we, the base, must actively work to clear out the dead wood like Don Young in the primaries.

LMAO!!!!!!!!!

That being the case, do you think anyone is going to vote for a man who has consistently stood behind a president and the administration responsible for the pain?

Posted by Michigan_Dave on May 14, 2008 at 01:47 PM

all we have to do, dave, is to enlarge and post those pictures of McCain hugging Bush, clasping him affectionally, standing next to him looking at him with love, and kissing with him! Anybody who believes McSame does not mean 8 more years of what we just endured, is smoking weed !

"If you're stupid, and you probably know if you are, stay home and let the intelligent people run the country. If you don't, America may not survive your ignorance."

"Stupid is as stupid does....Sir"

Most stupid people, don't know they are stupid. In fact, most stupid people think everyone is just like them. They often think that they are smart and delight in figuring out the plastic rings on milk bottles.

Shit, I watched one stupid ass figure one out once and he ran around the room high fiving everyone. He had been working on the complexities for years.

Stupid people are dangerous. They are unpredictable. They often think they are smart enough to do something and end up with disasterous results, like the Iraq invasion. Some stupid people are just smart enough to hide how stupid they are.

Sometimes you can observe how a stupid person thinks. Take the above as an example. The Iraq Invasion and Occupation. Lot's of elitist...(intelligent people) saw it for what it was..an invasion and subsequent occupation.

But not stupid people. It was supposed to be a war. We have lots of guns and people to shoot them. We have lots of tanks and bombs. When we drop all this shit on people, they blow up along with buildings. Yep...it's a war.

Stupid people still insist that it is a war for the simple fact that we are killing people and they are killing a few of us.

Invasions are what other people do, like the Chinks, the Jap's,the Commies and the Nazi's..to a stupid person. To a stupid person, we only do wars.

Sorry...went off on a bender...

But, take heart. Neanderthal became extinct due to limited mental dexterity and capacity. There is a very good chance that stupid people will follow the same path.

The Venezuelan leader stopped short of telling Ms Merkel to go to hell, saying: "Ms Chancellor, you can go to... because you are a lady, I won't say any more."
______________________________________

Unlike John McCain who will "KKKeep us proud" as he screams his well know "f**ck you", at those who disagree with him.
Oh, she is a woman, ---so I guess McCain would add c**nt to that phrase at her.

Posted by PamB on May 14, 2008 at 01:30 PM

That is so true, my fine progressive friend. However, there are a few who come here that are not. Michelle Law is a good example and Harpo when he wants to be.

Having said that, my real beef is those who say, "I voted for George Bush because he goes to church", or "I voted for Barack Obama because he stands for change", or "I voted for Hillary Clinton because I liked her husband when he was President." There's no substance there.

I disagreed with the great William F. Buckley on almost every issue but, I could respect his intellect. Now I don't expect the electorate to rise to the level of a Buckley, or a Krugman from our side of the proverbial aisle, however, one would think that if a person did not know too much about the issues that currently face us, they would have enough sense to defer to those, from either side of the proverbial aisle, that do. And until I get my constitutional amendment passed that disqualifies stupid people from voting, we will keep having elections that are geared to the lowest common denominator, the "Jerry Springer crowd".

The New Media (and Clinton) Story Line: Democrats Need to Worry about Obama

Before the West Virginia primary vote on Tuesday, it was a foregone conclusion that Hillary Clinton would sweep the state, perhaps by over 70 percent. In the event, she came close to that, with 68 percent of the vote. Now that the vote has happened, Clinton and a corporate media anxious to spin out the ratings-boosting contest as long as possible, are arguing that Obama is in trouble.

It is true that twenty percent of those voting for Clinton in this almost lily-white, low-income, low-education state said they voted for her on the basis of race, which is to say they wouldn't vote for a black man. Theirs was a vote Clinton has actively pursued. Forty percent of her backers said they would not vote for Obama in the general election if he were the Democratic candidate.

What was not asked or reported, though, is what percentage of her voters would not vote for Clinton either, if she were to become the nominee. I'm guessing it's a fair number. That is to say, I think that people were voting for Clinton not because they support her, but because they wanted to vote against a black candidate.

You read it here: Hillary Clinton clearly has no more chance to win West Virginia in a general election than does Barack Obama.

How would the choice of running mate help Senator Obama’s chances of beating John McCain? Not very much! Lloyd Bentsen wasn’t able to help win Texas in 1988. John Edwards wasn’t able to help win North Carolina in 2004. Hillary Clinton might be able to help Senator Obama win New York...even if she is not on the ticket. However, Senator Clinton would have little influence outside of New York. Surprisingly, I agree with Ted Kennedy on Barack’s choice of running mate, should he become the nominee. Barack should look for someone that shares his vision. Someone like Gov. Bill Richardson.

Hey whats up with the farm bill. Is it true that most of it will go for food stamps for illegals. If that is true I have a problem with it and so will most americans. I'm tired of following the illegals out in the parking lot only to find they drive a newer car than me, after watching them pull their food stamps out to buy better food than me. The men work under the table, pay no tax, payroll, federal or state. They have money and don't contribute. I can see why, if it's true that the dems think giving illegals food stamps is OK, why they will take a hit for that. I don't care if the child was born in the US, if the parents are illegal, no food stamps, period. The dept. of Health and Human Serices has no way to know if they have money or not because they are undocumented. Too much waste, fraud and abuse at US taxpayers expense, escpecially in this economy will not fly.

Posted by PamB on May 14, 2008 at 01:58 PM

"Ba..Ba...Ba..Ba,Bomb Iran"

Ya Buddy...Lot's of pic's and bonus...shots from Afghanistan, clips from the Kite Runner, Charlie Wilsons War...let's demonstrate how we have participated and devestated an entire region.

Show them the tangled and maimed bodies...show them our wounded around the world and those currently in VA hospitals here.

Do that with a meter running ticking off the billions being spent, that should be spent, on schools, on healthcare, on infrastructure, on vets.

Show that... with McStupid walking through Baghdad street market picking out rugs and holding hands with that independent, ass kissing, putz, Liebermann.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.blogs.pn/images/blog-images/political/repubs/bush/bushsaudikiss.jpg&imgrefurl=http://thingsthatjustpissmeoff.com/category/war/&h=166&w=200&sz=13&hl=en&start=4&sig2=paTGcDigKqyd2zMw4AdNNQ&um=1&tbnid=NKWW4YS6oSeG2M:&tbnh=86&tbnw=104&ei=pC4rSPOLIJKUigGu1_T7BQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbush%2Bsaudi%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4ADBR_enUS255US255%26sa%3DN

Pam can we add this one?

Myanmar is socialist? That's funny, I thought it was a military junta.

Posted by MichelleLaw on May 14, 2008 at 02:33 PM

OK, fair enough. I stand corrected. As one who is often chastised for espousing the moderate and\or centerist views of the Party and the electorate, I know how you feel.

Congratulations to Sen. Clinton (D-NY) and her fellow "Hillraisers" for her decisive victory in WV yesterday. I, too, look forward to the convention in Denver.

I am a Democrat and I am voting for a Democrat on 4NOV08. Do you have the same position on this?

Now on the other hand, who should Hillary Clinton choose for her running mate? Dream team? Clearly, Michael Jordan would be a big plus to the ticket, but the VP slot wouldn't pay enough to get M.J. Yet, for Hillary, Rep. Charles Rangel would be a big plus. He is a Korean War veteran. Chairman of the House Ways and Means...bringing budget constraint. Known for his tax-cut plans on financial shows. And he'd help re-united the Democratic Party base behind Hillary, in the wake of Ted Kennedy's revolt. As West Virginia told us loud and clear, Hillary Clinton is the Democrat's best chance of beating John McCain. Support Hillary Clinton for president in 2008!

Posted by MichelleLaw on May 14, 2008 at 02:23 PM
__________________________________________
Can't answer that question, as I haven't studied what the rift is yet.

Was able to comment on the issue of how leaders around the world express their dissatisfaction with those who disagree with them.
George just says stupid things, and chews with his mouth open, letting food fly while talking to Chancellor Merkell, proud of that?
Cheney says: go f**ck yourself, proud of that?
McCain says: f**ck off you c**nt, proud of that?

While the "misbehaved" in third world countries, that we like to denigrade, seem to know how to disagree more respectfully, there by no burning their bridges.

Why are you diverting the present conversations with such irrelevant information?

My post was addressing another reason I can't stand the thought of John McCain representing me here or around the world.

Posted by anne_smith on May 14, 2008 at 02:27 PM

That is probably the most sensible post I've ever seen from you and just my luck I have to respectfully disagree.

Some would argue that putting Sen. Clinton (D-NY) as our VPOTUS nominee would bring along all of her unsavory baggage. But knowing all of her fallacies, the ignorant masses still seem to like her enough to vote for her as evidenced in WV, OH, PA, and a few others. Having Sen. Clinton as our VPOTUS nominee, IMHO, will satisfy the masses, expedite Party unity, and since she got, or will get, about 45% - 49% of the popular vote in the primaries she deserves the first shot at the number two slot on our ticket for her strong second place finish.

Furthermore, I think she can out "Dick Cheney" the real Dick Cheney. And there is a certain vindictive part of me that wants to see the GOP squirm under a VP Clinton as we have under a VP Cheney. Darth Cheney's reign is over on 20JAN09. Hail Darth Clinton!

If you can't stand the thought of John McCain as president, support Hillary Clinton for president!

Posted by Manymoonsago on May 14, 2008 at 02:38 PM

There is nothing remotely close to Socialism in Burma/Myanmar other than the label. Myanmar is ruled by a single party backed by the military and has nationalized it's industry.

It operates under the guise of a socialist state banner but is authoritarian in practice.

That is not socialism or socialist.

Again: Even with $200 Million, Barack has not been able to win over large numbers of key voter demographics needed to win in November. This has changed very little since Super Tuesday. For months, I've been blogging what many Democrats that support Hillary Clinton for president (and the RNC) already know...Senator Obama would lose in an electoral landslide to John McCain. In this election year, voters want the next president to be strong on national defense (as they viewed Ronald Reagan), and strong on fixing the economy (like they view Bill Clinton). Unfortunately, Senator Obama is viewed by the vast majority of American voters as inexperienced and unproven. In contrast, Hillary Clinton and John McCain are well-known, and well-tested. Democrats in West Virginia reminded us again. Hillary Clinton is the Democrat that can beat John McCain in 2008.

Realistically, I think Obama will choose Richardson and Clinton will choose Obama. It will be more interesting to me if McCain choses Lieberman. That will have Limbaugh's Dittoheads going crazy and I think it's a real possibility because of the McCain Lieberman Climate Control Bill, the McCain Lieberman federal drivers license bill, the McCain Lieberman gun control bill, etc., etc.

Those two guys can work together and it drives the bat wing section of the Republican Party nuts.

Personally, I don't understand why Lieberman is a Democrat. He seems to be in favor of letting the feds do whatever they want no matter how limited they are by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

anne
I hope you and other Hillary supporters, will bother to visit John McCains website and visit with those who started jumping Hillary's ship 8 days ago, and talk continuously about how McCain is so much like her and how hard they are going to work to take down the DNC and Barack Obama that took the election away from her.

there are many sites, of course, and you can easily google---but here is a start, where you can make a difference for the democratic platform that your candidate supports

http://www.johnmccain.com/Blog/Read.aspx?guid=2fb5d4ca-732c-4d9a-bd65-d6ccaa56ae98

Senator Obama is viewed by the vast majority of American voters as inexperienced and unproven. In contrast, Hillary Clinton and John McCain are well-known, and well-tested.

Posted by anne_smith on May 14, 2008 at 03:13 PM

_________________________

oops sorry, delete my last post

I had not done my homework, and until reading this post of yours --- did not realize that you are a John McCain supporter, second supposedly to Hillary Clinton.

You are on the DNC website, so a wrongly made a stupid assumption that you would be voting Barack Obama second to Hillary Clinton

That label was thrown at me by one particular person on here who seems to feel that they have the final say on all bloggers and the rest of you must adhere to their opinions.
Blah to that!Posted by MichelleLaw on May 14, 2008 at 02:33 PM

hmmmmmm, if I remember correctly, the blog moderators have zapped you more than once because they find you offensive, and that is THEIR decision ! Yet here you are back again!

Don't start on me today, because I have learned you are a waste of typing power! If you find us so extreme, find another blog where they will welcome your right wing ideas with open arms. For instance, trying to start a little something with Chavez is so typical of the trolls ! You are so easy to see thru, buddy!

Posted by Michigan_Dave on May 14, 2008 at 03:11 PM

Actually I think they were "Socialist" only until the late 1980's when the military took over. Before that they were the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma. Their Constitution was suspended in 1988.

YOu can't just walk up to a window and get food stamps.

WHO CANNOT GET FOOD STAMPS?

The following CANNOT get food stamps, regardless of how low their income is:

Most strikers.
Most college and university students between the ages of 18-59, unless they meet one of the exceptions listed above
Illegal immigrants
http://www.infoline.org/InformationLibrary/Documents/Food%20Stamps%20cw.asp

I WROTE ON THIS SIGHT BEFORE? mAYBE THEY TOOK IT OFF BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE hILLARY?

My message is this. I am worried about OBama because he listened to Rev. Wrights hate messages for Twenty(20) years.

The bible tells you not to clog your mind with hate messages but rather the Love God has for all mankind and gave his son to die for us while we were still enemies of God. Can anyone you know can do that? Die for your enemies sake?

OBama is way off from the true reason for going to church. We go to Church to remember his son's death until he comes again. And to have God's word preached to us.

Surprise...Surprise...but you won't hear it from Lou Dobbs.

The usage rate for food stamps and welfare among illegal migrants has remained low at just 3 percent to 4 percent over the past two decades; but the percentage sending children to public schools fell from 12 percent during 1987-92 to just 7 percent between 1997 and 2002. Over the same period, the share using a hospital dropped from 30 percent to 20 percent. On the revenue side of the ledger, however, federal tax withholding rose from 60 percent to 67 percent.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060602/news_lz1e2massey.html

For those of you who are not John McCain admirers, it is fun to go to his site anyway and watch the great rift that started with his speech on Global Warming.

For the last two days almost every other poster is a republican slamming him for pandering

They have actually squeezed out the Hillary supporters, that actually took over his site last week.

fun fun fun

Can't wait to be in full majority and get my country back

Posted by MichelleLaw on May 14, 2008 at 03:07 PM

...Yes Bob, indeed I am voting democrat in "08. Obviously you already know my candidate.

Very well, as I assume you already know my candidate as well. I look forward to working with you in earnest after the convention for the Democratic nominee. May the best Democrat win in Denver.

anybody got MSNBC going, btw?

Interesting read on why Hillary is still going forward. They KNOW they cannot win now, no matter what, and even Mcauliffe has acknowledged they can't. Plus they need to plug on and hope for more cash to come in, so Hillary can try and recoup her money she loaned.

I feel for her. She will need money in the future for her Senatorial campaign and has to start from a negative position.

Posted by Manymoonsago on May 14, 2008 at 03:23 PM

Again, nothing remotely socialist, other than the labels. Ironical, prior to a military take over in 62, it was called a democracy.

Go figure.

On 4 January 1948, the nation became an independent republic, named the Union of Burma, with Sao Shwe Thaik as its first President and U Nu as its first Prime Minister. Unlike most other former British colonies and overseas territories, it did not become a member of the Commonwealth. A bicameral parliament was formed, consisting of a Chamber of Deputies and a Chamber of Nationalities.

Democratic rule ended in 1962 when General Ne Win led a military coup d'état. He ruled for nearly 26 years and pursued policies under the rubric of the Burmese Way to Socialism. Between 1962 and 1974, Burma was ruled by a Revolutionary Council headed by the general, and almost all aspects of society (business, media, production) were nationalized or brought under government control (including the Boy Scouts).[

Another sign indicating the state of our economy.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=adsUTJJ8e6WY&refer=home

The URL points to an article from Bloomberg, and is titled:
"Foreclosures Climb 65% as Loan Workouts Fall Short (Update3)"

A few quotes from the article:
"``Loan modification isn't working,'' Rheingold said. ``It's extremely difficult for a homeowner to talk to a servicer and even if they do, it's hard to get the servicer to change the terms. You get voice-mail hell, they don't return calls, you can't get a live person on the phone.''"

"Banks will seize about 60,000 properties a month through December, when about 1 million U.S. homes, or a quarter of all homes for sale, may be bank-owned, Rick Sharga, RealtyTrac's executive vice president of marketing, said in an interview."

I believe the mortgage crisis will figure prominently in the November election.

I believe the Republicans will be blamed for this mess.

Personally,I would like to see a boat load of superdelegates come out and end this.However,the continual exposure of everything seems to take the spotlight.The media loves a soap opera. It wouldn`t be nearly as bad if the Clintons weren`t playing so fiesty.They are fighters.

Follow the bouncing ball and don't try that crap on me.

Posted by MichelleLaw on May 14, 2008 at 03:23 PM
_________________________________________

What the heck are you talking about?

What a convoluted spin

I am working against any and all republicans and will point out thier desire and progress in destroying this country at any opportunity I can get---

Having converted many republican friends and aquaintances over the last couple of years, showing them how they have been voting against their own best interests for decades, and looking forward to getting back the America I love---

Posted by MichelleLaw on May 14, 2008 at 02:48 PM

Perhaps you should read the proposed bill before you so wholeheartedly agree with someone who is completely ignorant of the bill....

My message is this. I am worried about OBama because he listened to Rev. Wrights hate messages for Twenty(20) years.

Oh...brother...

I don't think you have anything to fear oneforall and allforone...

I've heard from reliable sources and get this..some people say...that for those 20 years (or it may have been more...maybe his momma taped Rev Wrights "Hate those White People Speeches including Obama's white mother and grandmother" and she played them back into the womb) that Obama had his ears covered whilst in church.

That's right! There are pictures on youtube of him in church, in the front row, prostrate, with his fingers in his ears. He may have attended the services for those 20 years and not heard a thing.

That's right and you heard it here first, so spread the news (the good news that is).

Obama didn't hear a single word that Rev. Wright said. Not one word, not one hate the honkey phrase.

Feel Better now?

Yes Bob, indeed I am voting democrat in "08. Obviously you already know my candidate.
Very well, as I assume you already know my candidate as well. I look forward to working with you in earnest after the convention for the Democratic nominee. May the best Democrat win in Denver.
Posted by BobVADemHawk-Obama08 on May 14, 2008 at 03:32 PM

Bob, I love ya man, but you are really very gullible you know. These trolls play you like a fine violin! You don't REALLY think this 'person' who has come in here time and time again with not one single positive Liberal comment, is going to vote Democratic in November, do you? Honey, believe me, he is not!

Posted by oneforall on May 14, 2008 at 03:26 PM

Personally, I go to church to practice my faith and be closer to my God. My faith is within me, not in the pastor speaking to me. I do not worship my priest/pastor, I worship God. I will not allow a pastor/priest, or any human being to keep me from my faith. That is because my faith is strong. If you would allow another human being to do so, perhaps your faith is not as strong.

And, btw, Mrs. Clinton has spent 6+ years hearing hatefilled speech shouted at her in the great halls of Congress. That should turn anyone into a mess...but somehow it doesn't.

For the ditto heads that post on here criticising food stamp programs...

Assholes...

For the record...the bill gives more to race horse breeders than it does to starving children.

The bill, which would cost more than $300 billion, includes an increase of $1 billion a year for food stamps and other nutrition aid,

The deal also contains tax cuts of up to $1.8 billion, including depreciation incentives for racehorse breeders sought by the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky

Bob, here is just one more reason WHY I do not respect nor like so-called centrists/moderates! They vote against our platform time and time again.

Blue Dogs Fight Tuition Perks for Vets
By Mike Lillis
The Washington Independent

Conservative Democrats siding with GOPers on Webb's GI Bill

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051408C.shtml

Posted by oneforall on May 14, 2008 at 03:26 PM

Huh? What? That is as dumb as the people who said they wouldn't vote for Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon or JFK because he was a Catholic.

Furthermore, name one policy that Sen. Obama (D-IL) has introduced or supported that comes from Rev. Wright's somewhat jaded view of America. Show me a speech where Sen. Obama said, "God damn America", or something akin to that.

There is absolutely no substance whatsoever in your assertion. What's next? "Psssst, I heard that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim hellbent on imposing Sharia Law in the U.S."

Angels and ministers of grace defend us...
- Hamlet Act I Scene IV

Howard Dean announces fund raising agreement with Obama & Clinton---
just heard this
anyone know about what this means?

Michael?

Posted by anne_smith on May 14, 2008 at 02:59 PM

The President and the VP can not be from the same state. That's why everyone knew that Cheney was going to "choose" himself. He snuck into Jackson Hole WY on the last day of voters registration and quietly rescinded his TX residency.

Posted by PamB on May 14, 2008 at 03:52 PM

Gullible? Perhaps. But regardless of her, or his for that matter, identity, she at least has the common decency not to post in classic troll fashion. I'm sticking to the "benefit of the doubt" arguement, for now.

Conservative Democrats siding with GOPers on Webb's GI Bill

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051408C.shtml

Posted by PamB on May 14, 2008 at 04:05 PM

Pam: While I 100% support this bill as is, I thought that the GOPers are just plain against the bill but the Blue Dogs are for the bill provided that it is pay as you go. Am I wrong on that one?

just found it

Dean Announces Joint Fundraising Agreement with Clinton and Obama Campaigns

Washington, DC -Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean
announced today that the DNC has signed a joint fundraising agreement
with the Clinton and Obama campaigns. As part of the agreement, a new
entity, "Democratic White House Victory Fund," has been formed. The fund
will allow both candidates to raise money for the Party, forming one
joint fundraising committee account that will accept money for the
nominee's primary and general election and for the DNC.

"The Democratic Party is incredibly fortunate to have two strong
candidates who have generated transformational enthusiasm across the
country. We've seen historic turnout as new voters have come out to show
their support for our candidates and fundraising numbers have been
through the roof," said Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard
Dean. "While this is a close primary, at the end of the day both of our
candidates understand that this election is about the future of our
country. In signing this agreement, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are
demonstrating their commitment to unifying our party and ensuring that we
have the resources needed to win the White House, no matter who the
nominee is. The message is clear. Democrats are unified to put a Democrat
back in the White House so we can get our economy back on track, bring
our troops home and finally do something about our ailing health care
system."

###

Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee, www.democrats.org .
This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

(CNN) -- Hillary Clinton on Wednesday reiterated her vow to stay in the Democratic presidential race, but she said it would be a "terrible mistake" for her supporters to vote for John McCain over Barack Obama.

"Anybody who has ever voted for me or voted for Barack has much more in common in terms of what we want to see happen in our country and in the world with the other than they do with John McCain," Clinton said on CNN's "The Situation Room."

"I'm going to work my heart out for whoever our nominee is -- obviously I'm still hoping to be that nominee, but I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that anyone who supported me ... understands what a grave error it would be not to vote for Sen. Obama."

This finally sounds like the Hillary I thought we alll knew

I'm sticking to the "benefit of the doubt" arguement, for now.Posted by BobVADemHawk-Obama08 on May 14, 2008 at 04:20 PM

I did too, the first 2-3 times he appeared, but then I caught onto the theme of what he was posting. Looks like Michael checked out his IP and identified him as one of the regular trolls and has zapped him. Let's watch when he comes back in, despite being told he is unwanted, and pay attention to the topics he likes to go after !

There is a troll in MN right now, pounding his computer with his purse ! :)

Y = (a + b) x 3a - 4x ÷  - (22 + 7x) ÷ x(x − ap)(x + bp).

Posted by BlueinIdaho on May 14, 2008 at 01:04 PM

Blue,

You are an absolute genius :].

Using your formula for the General Election it worked perfectly:

Yd=538 Electors
Yr=0 Electors

Yep, Looks like a landslide for the Dems.

Posted by marymac_memphis on May 14, 2008 at 04:23 PM

Normally, I side with the Blue Dogs on fiscal issues especially when it comes to spending however, I disagree with them on this for one simple reason. The whole damn war has been waged on the nation's "credit card". We may as well as finance the soldier's benefits as well especially since we, as a nation, will benefit far more from an educated workforce than we will from the folly of Iraq or the necessity of Afghanistan.

Posted by marymac_memphis on May 14, 2008 at 04:23 PM

Normally, I side with the Blue Dogs on fiscal issues especially when it comes to spending however, I disagree with them on this for one simple reason. The whole damn war has been waged on the nation's "credit card". We may as well as finance the soldier's benefits as well especially since we, as a nation, will benefit far more from an educated workforce than we will from the folly of Iraq or the necessity of Afghanistan. BTW, you hit the nail on the head with your assessment.

Anybody who has ever voted for me or voted for Barack has much more in common in terms of what we want to see happen in our country and in the world with the other than they do with John McCain," Clinton said on CNN's "The Situation Room."
"I'm going to work my heart out for whoever our nominee is -- obviously I'm still hoping to be that nominee, but I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that anyone who supported me ... understands what a grave error it would be not to vote for Sen. Obama."

Posted by BlueinIdaho on May 14, 2008 at 04:27 PM

I watched this interview, and she was sincere. She cried when they talked about Chelsea working so hard for her.

In the meantime, despite big win in WV, Obama gained two more Super Delegates today.

Posted by marymac_memphis on May 14, 2008 at 04:23 PM

Did you see the poem that you requested for the Democratic victories?

I disagree with them on this for one simple reason. The whole damn war has been waged on the nation's "credit card". We may as well as finance the soldier's benefits as well especially since we, as a nation, will benefit far more from an educated workforce than we will from the folly of Iraq or the necessity of Afghanistan.

Posted by BobVADemHawk-Obama08 on May 14, 2008 at 04:39 PM

Bob - we are 100% in agreement on this one. BTW - I have left several posts thanking you for pointing me toward Tuke for Tennessee. I hope that you have gotten them because, I'm having a great time in the short time that I have been working for him!

Normally, I side with the Blue Dogs on fiscal issues especially when it comes to spending
Bob, don't get caught up in the Framing that the republicans have done calling Dems tax and spend. Remember----Bill Clinton entered office with a similar situation to what we have now. He was told raising taxes was gas on a fire. Yet he did it, and created one of the greatest economies we have known, despite any spending that was done.

Here's another Republican idea of what he will do with Spending and the budget!

"In our last installment we looked at McCain's pronouncements on spending cuts to help balance the budget. In Part II, we examine what he's said on a subject that might be more pleasing to many Americans: lowering taxes. We found exaggerations and distortions here, as well.

McCain says that eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax will save "more than 25 million middle-class families more than $2,000 every year." But McCain's "middle class" includes families making up to $200,000 per year, and the $2,000 figure is an average. Those earning more money will see the lion's share of the savings. McCain also leaves out the fact that the proposal could cost as much as $1.6 trillion over 10 years.
By the measure most economists prefer, McCain is wrong in his claim that Sens. Clinton and Obama want to implement "the single largest tax increase since the Second World War;" it would be the fifth largest. At a more basic level, it's misleading to tag Clinton and Obama for something that was scheduled during the Bush administration – the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which by law will occur at the end of 2010.

McCain also repeats the mantra that cutting the capital gains tax rate will increase government receipts. In fact, rate cuts produce a spike in revenue, but it's only temporary. McCain also falsely claims that higher capital gains tax rates will affect 401(k) plans.
McCain was the first to announce the now widely discredited proposal to suspend federal gas taxes. The proposal wouldn't lower prices at the pump and would result in (effectively) an $8.5 billion windfall to oil companies.

factcheck.org