I heard McCain in a speech sometime ago and he talked about how Cindy McCain's Dad had served in the military, came home, pulled himself up by his bootstraps, started a small business, and became a great success. Great American story! I thought. But today, someone sent an article to me about James Hensley, Cindy McCain's Dad. I had never heard anything at all about this history, and I was appalled. Maybe some of you already know this story, but it was news to me. It is a very long article to read but worth the time. And it is not a great American story.
I don't think John McCain would be running for President today if he had not married into the Hensley bootlegging forture.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/content/printVersion/167059

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/04/palin-speech-pulls-in-8-million-for-obama/

Today show did a segment on "Women's fashion on the trail"

It began with Jack Kennedy all the way up to the VP pick Sarah Palin. I was enjoying it until they had Michelle on the screen, and then the host said "Oh, we're running out of time and made what seemed a one second narrative about Michelle and then switched right to Cindy and Laura and then Sarah. Maybe I misinterpreted what I saw so I am giving you the link so you can judge for yourself. It made me mad.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/26543701#26543701

Check out what one Hillary supporter's view of the VP pick...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/3/122231/5056/134/584643

From a bio written by Ann Kilkenny, who lives in Wasilla, known Palin since 1992 and is a voter registrar and teaches a voting program in schools.

http://www.andrys.com/palin-kilkenny.html

God please, we can not put this woman in a position of being a heartbeat away from the Leader of the free world.

The article is a long read but really gives us an intensive look into the person of Sarah Palin.

"It was obvious anyway, but became beat-you-over-the-head-with-a-two-by-four obvious when Palin referenced the �glass ceiling� line, that this choice is a blatant pander to women. I would like to believe that women will actually feel insulted by this. Yes, it would have been historic if Hillary had gotten the nomination. It was historic that she made it as far as she did. Yes, it would be great to have a woman in the oval office, or in the VP slot if they are the right woman�a woman who got there with her own drive, grit, determination, intelligence, skill and merits. When you�re hand-picked by a man to win votes simply because you are a woman, that doesn�t count, and it doesn�t break any kind of ceiling. Would we have had a Stan Palin as our VP pick? No. So choosing a woman because you think her gender will get votes is insulting."

John seems to do really wierd things in his "Senior Moments", well this time he's really done it... How in the Hell can he believe that all of Hillary's supporters would dump their issures of equal pay, right to their own productive lives, health care,etc.... to vote for Palin. She should feel disgraced. Here is John McCain again just using a woman for his own pleasure and gain.... This is how some Alaskans feel and check out the city she was may of, UNREAL....

http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/08/29/what-is-mccain-thinking-one-alaskans-perspective/

I just joined this partybuilder site during the Primaries, and of course I had my favorite as far as the candidates. There was a lot of arguing, mud slinging, family feuding going on, and most of the time lots and lots of hurt feelings.

It was a long tough primary and both of the candidates were but inches apart, but Obama won the nomination.

I thought the goal of the Democratic Party was to put a Democrat in the White House for the first time in a long time. I thought that was the goal whether it was Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

What happened to that goal? Have we lost sight of that hope of turning this White House around. What has happened to the "united" Democratic party?

Are we still "united" if our candidate did'nt win? Those of us that loved Hillary were hurt and are still kinda of angry about her loss, and if it had been the other way around there would be the same hurt and anger for Obama's loss from those that support him.

But if they are both democrats and our goal is the White House, why is there still so much division the Party? Is this a blog to still crucify either of the candidates or is this a blog to encourage and console each other and show verbal support for the presumptive nominee instead of dishing him?

I have been logging on to the blog to just be an observer of the blog and not a participant as I was before, and my observation (whether you care or not) is that this so-called unity that both of the nominees are asking of us does not exits on this blog. There is still lots of arguing, mud slinging, family feuding going on.

Keep in mind the proverb "A House divided can not stand"

Isn't this the "United" States of America and aren't we representatives..

I agree Hillary should not be the VP choice for Obama, but my reasons are a little different. Hillary has lost her chance to be, what she feels and will always feel, the PRESIDENT of the United States. She has made very controversial remarks in this campaign "it's not over yet, something could still happen" and then she cites the assasination of RFK.

What if she becomes the VP (hopefully the Obama campaign is smarter than that) and they will win the Presidency and"something could still happen" HAPPENS. Who becomes the President of the United States, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

 It is scary for me to even think about but it is still there just underneath my thoughts and emotions. I have read so much that the Clintons have been involved in, good and bad and that in itself scares me too, and I sure don't trust her or Bill at all. I'm not saying the Clintons in any way would be responsible, but as we saw at the rules and bylaws meeting, there are a lot of "over the edge" people out there.

Let those of us that believe in prayer ask God to put a hedge of protection around Senator Obama during this Historic time.

I was born and raised in Beckley, WVA just about 40 miles from Charleston.

My grandfather, father, uncles and cousins all worked in the coal mines and I am very proud of the contribution they have made to this country.

West Virginia is the Bible belt of the south. They are church going, bible believing, hard working, low income patriotic Americans, but are built together with a strong moral fiber for honesty, truth, and deep moral convictions.

I saw something in the Senator from Illinois that echoed my upbringing and I truly believe he will be our next President. I talked to my Aunt Margaret (79 yrs old) on Mother's Day,(the mines took both her husband and her first born son) and tomorrow she will be voting for Mr. Obama, because as she said "I believe He is more honest and trustworthy than his opponents".

We shall see......

To the blogger FemDem you have written posts to support your candidate which is fine even if there are arguing points, but to so offensive in your language to other bloggers of this site is an issure with me and I'm sure other bloggers as well. You should be hearing from
partybuilder@dnc.org soon.

You are an embarrassment to this site.

I hope others who have witnessed this abuse would reply.

Thank you.

This is in response to Deborah Williams post. I came across this about a week ago on The Huffington Post.

Here is the link

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/malcolm-friedberg/clinton-in-court_b_63308.html

As you read the article be sure you click on the phrase "this video...

Very compelling argument about the lawsuit. They were supposed to appear in court in March but it seems to have been postponed until after April 25?

Dear Dee,

Our first ad of the presidential campaign hit TVs across the country today, thanks to people like you.

The response from Democrats has been strong and overwhelmingly positive -- many of you are thrilled that we're standing up and fighting John McCain on television while Senator Clinton and Senator Obama work to win the nomination.

The response from Republicans has also been strong, but overwhelmingly negative -- they're frustrated their candidate has such a terrible understanding of economics and that the American people are beginning to find out.

John McCain himself has seen the ad. When he was asked tough questions about his economic plan after seeing it, he became testy and dismissive.

But while the ad starts running on national television today, we're still organizing places like your community, laying the groundwork that Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will need to win in November. And you can help.

Make a contribution today to help us keep John McCain out of the White House -- we're running ads, organizing volunteers, and building the tools we'll need to win. But it costs money, and we can't afford to wait. Watch our first ad and make a contribution today:

My Response:

I will not give a general donation to Democratic Party. I will only give an ongoing donation to the Obama campaign, because I want to be sure that none of my donation supports Mrs. Hillary Clinton. If Obama is the nominee for November of course then I will give generously to the Democratic Party to win over Senator McCain.

I did not switch from Republican to Democratic to watch an immoralist political machine, a liar , " A Woman with a Short Fuse" ruin the only chance this Country has to be the "UNITED" States of America.

From the New York Post...

TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE
HILLARY'S PENNSYLVANIA WIN
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

April 23, 2008 -- Hillary Clinton refuses to die. Having been given up for dead after losing Iowa, she rebounded in New Hampshire. Then a string of 11 straight consecutive losses - followed by a win in Ohio and a tie (in delegates) in Texas. Now, she's won Pennsylvania.

Problem is, it doesn't mean anything.

Because of the Democratic Party's arcane proportional-representation rules, her win stands to give her a net gain of 10 to 15 delegates when all is counted. That means that Barack Obama will fall from a lead of 161 in elected delegates to about 145 or so. Big deal.

The primaries coming up in the next two weeks - Indiana and North Carolina - are likely to give Obama back a goodly portion of those delegates. By the time all the primaries have been held, after June 3, there is no doubt that Obama will lead by more than 100 elected delegates, and likely 150. From there, it will be an easy route to the nomination.

The Democratic superdelegates aren't about to risk a massive and sanguinary civil war by taking the nomination away from the candidate who won more elected delegates. If they ever tried it, we'd see a repeat of the demonstrations that smashed the 1968 Chicago convention and ruined Hubert Humphrey's chances of victory.

Clinton won Pennsylvania for two key reasons: Only Democrats could vote in the primary, and the Keystone State electorate is dominated by the elderly, who are staunchly for Clinton.

Despite her claims of electability, Hillary has never done well among independent voters. And Obama usually loses the Democrats. Pennsylvania's closed-primary rules gave her a key advantage.

Older voters are flocking to Clinton as fears mount of what Obama might do as president mount. But those under 45 - less focused, perhaps, on race - are moving toward Obama. Here, that split helped her.

Of the 50 states, only Florida has a higher over-65 proportion of its population. But there's a key difference: Florida's elderly moved there - Pennsylvania's are the folks that are left after the young people moved away.

Pennsylvania Democrats, in other words, suffer from future shock. They welcome old, established ways and embrace dynasties happily because they are so familiar. (Look at the Bob Caseys - dad was governor, the son is senator.)

But don't expect the open primaries of Indiana and North Carolina to behave like Pennsylvania's geriatrics. Both states are younger, especially North Carolina, and independents can vote in each primary. (North Carolina is where a lot of the young people who fled Pennsylvania winters and job losses ended up).

Over the next two weeks, we'll be treated to much hoopla about how the Democratic race is once again up for grabs. Then, on May 5, Hillary's hopes will be dashed once more.

And then? After the votes are counted in all the primaries, look for the Gang of Four - Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and John Edwards - to join together and issue a challenge to the superdelegates: Make up your minds.

Together, they'll probably demand that these appointed delegates commit to one candidate or the other by mid June. And since the primaries will have lifted Obama over 1,900 delegates (elected and super), he'll only need about 100 more, out of about 300 uncommitted superdelegates.

Their hands forced, enough superdelegates will go to Obama to put him over the top - he'll be the candidate.

That's all, folks.

This was the interaction between myself and another blogger today talking about the front runner for the Democratic nomination.

By Dee Today at 2:06 pm EDT
It is an insane assumption that the superdelegates would overide the popular vote, and the pledged delegates. THAT WOULD destroy the Democratic Party.

This was the response:

Re: Wasting precious time.... Reply
By Rich Graham 51 minutes ago
It never has destroyed the party and it never will. That is why we have super delegates in the first place. Seems to me no matter what the democrats do there are certain people who claim it will destroy the party. Being against the war, being for raising the minimum wage, being for universal health care and abortion... all were supposed to destroy the party. This wont either.


It seemed to me He was saying that it doesn't matter who is ahead in this race that it's not really the popular vote or the pledged delegates, that the superdelegates will be picking the nominee.

Before I started observing the Democratic race I was a Republican and as I watched it was evident to me what the outcome should be.

I switched my party affiliation so that I could make a difference in choosing the next President which to me should be Senator Obama. I know there are thousands of others that have switched for the same reason. I voted for him in the California primary.

Now as I see him leading, there are those that say it doesn't matter , only the superdelegates mater. Then why did I Vote in the first place? If Hillary is "given" the nomination, I will not vote for her. I will not vote for John McCain, either. I just will not vote because I guess my Vote will not really count.

I am so disillusioned by this whole thing. I am sorry that I am learning about our whole political process, I thought it was "For the People, By the People", but I guess that's not the way is.....

My Vote must not really count.....

While searching the web I came across a comment posted by a blogger that refered to "Paul vs Clinton Trial". That was all that was said. I did a search on Yahoo and came up with quite a few references on the subject. I'm not quite sure what this was all about. I have never heard any thing about it in the media. It seemed to refer to donations, but I'm not really sure. Has anyone else heard of this?

March 19, 2008
Hillary’s Nasty Pastorate
There’s a reason why Hillary Clinton has remained relatively silent during the flap over intemperate remarks by Barack Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. When it comes to unsavory religious affiliations, she’s a lot more vulnerable than Obama.

You can find all about it in a widely under-read article in the September 2007 issue of Mother Jones, in which Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet reported that “through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the “Fellowship,” aka The Family. But it won’t be a secret much longer. Jeff Sharlet’s shocking exposé, The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power will be published in May.

Sean Hannity has called Obama’s church a “cult,” but that term applies far more aptly to Clinton’s “Family,” which is organized into “cells” �" their term �" and operates sex-segregated group homes for young people in northern Virginia. In 2002, writer Jeff Sharlet joined the Family’s home for young men, foreswearing sex, drugs, and alcohol, and participating in endless discussions of Jesus and power. He wasn’t undercover; he used his own name and admitted to being a writer. But he wasn’t completely out of danger either. When he went outdoors one night to make a cell phone call, he was followed. He still gets calls from Family associates asking him to meet them in diners �" alone.

The Family’s most visible activity is its blandly innocuous National Prayer Breakfast, held every February in Washington. But almost all its real work goes on behind the scenes �" knitting together international networks of rightwing leaders, most of them ostensibly Christian. In the 1940s, The Family reached out to former and not-so-former Nazis, and its fascination with that exemplary leader, Adolph Hitler, has continued, along with ties to a whole bestiary of murderous thugs. As Sharlet reported in Harper’s in 2003:

During the 1960s the Family forged relationships between the U.S. government and some of the most anti-Communist (and dictatorial) elements within Africa's postcolonial leadership. The Brazilian dictator General Costa e Silva, with Family support, was overseeing regular fellowship groups for Latin American leaders, while, in Indonesia, General Suharto (whose tally of several hundred thousand “Communists” killed marks him as one of the century's most murderous dictators) was presiding over a group of fifty Indonesian legislators. During the Reagan Administration the Family helped build friendships between the U.S. government and men such as Salvadoran general Carlos Eugenios Vides Casanova, convicted by a Florida jury of the torture of thousands, and Honduran general Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, himself an evangelical minister, who was linked to both the CIA and death squads before his own demise.

At the heart of the Family’s American branch is a collection of powerful rightwing politicos, who include, or have included, Sam Brownback, Ed Meese, John Ashcroft, James Inhofe, and Rick Santorum. They get to use the Family’s spacious estate on the Potomac, the Cedars, which is maintained by young men in Family group homes and where meals are served by the Family’s young women’s group. And, at the Family’s frequent prayer gatherings, they get powerful jolts of spiritual refreshment, tailored to the already-powerful.

Clinton fell in with the Family in 1993, when she joined a Bible study group composed of wives of conservative leaders like Jack Kemp and James Baker. When she ascended to the senate, she was promoted to what Sharlet calls the Family’s “most elite cell,” the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast, which included, until his downfall, Virginia’s notoriously racist Senator George Allen. This has not been a casual connection for Clinton. She has written of Doug Coe, the Family’s publicity-averse leader, that he is “a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God."

Furthermore, the Family takes credit for some of Clinton’s rightward legislative tendencies, including her support for a law guaranteeing “religious freedom” in the workplace, such as for pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions and police officers who refuse to guard abortion clinics.

What drew Clinton into the sinister heart of the international right? Maybe it was just a phase in her tormented search for identity, marked by ever-changing hairstyles and names: Hillary Rodham, Mrs. Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and now Hillary Clinton. She reached out to many potential spiritual mentors during her White House days, including new age guru Marianne Williamson and the liberal Rabbi Michael Lerner. But it was the Family association that stuck.

Sharlet generously attributes Clinton’s involvement to the underappreciated depth of her religiosity, but he himself struggles to define the Family’s theological underpinnings. The Family avoids the word Christian but worship Jesus, though not the Jesus who promised the earth to the “meek.” They believe that, in mass societies, it’s only the elites who matter, the political leaders who can build God’s “dominion” on earth. Insofar as the Family has a consistent philosophy, it’s all about power �" cultivating it, building it, and networking it together into ever-stronger units, or “cells.” “We work with power where we can,” Doug Coe has said, and “build new power where we can't.”

Obama has given a beautiful speech on race and his affiliation with the Trinity Unity Church of Christ. Now it’s up to Clinton to explain �" or, better yet, renounce �" her longstanding connection with the fascist-leaning Family.

You know Vidya, I have watched and read your blogs without really commenting on them, but you are way off base here. You seem to be(but not efficiently) to always address the differences between the 2 democratic nominees. As most every one has learned the differences in their policies are minute. They both are in for a hard road in "09 due to the Bush Administration. I was unbiased when Super Tuesday began, and I began to pay attention to each of their campaigns. Your eyes must be free of prejudice for just one candidate from the beginning and then at one point begin to see the real diffferences that will matter in the next administration>

How have these campaigns been managed?
How much chaos has come out of their campaigns?
Have they been mostly respectful and honest in their response to criticism from others?
Has there been an ongoing victim mentality portrayed either in race or gender?

No one can deny these are relationship issues which speak to character, diplomacy and electability are vitally important for the next "Commander in Chief"...

Have you not been watching the "parade of horribles" within Hillary's campaign? Has she shown that she can be trusted? Has she shown she can be honest? What about the questionable associations within her campaign? What about her explosive personality?


I don't see any evidence from her own words or in the media and print that she has learned from her mistakes. And of course if we don't learn from our past mistakes we are doomed to repeat them.

Another very important point is that her House (family) is divided. Your right hand must know what your left hand is doing. I'snt Bill more a negative for her and the White House than before?


"A House Divided Will Not Stand" We can not have a new Adminstration that will undivide us instead of UNITE us.

I believe that tells me that not only is Barak the right choice but at this point He is really the only choice , the choice of CHANGE, and the polls (popular vote, pledged delegates, Democratic voter registration) seem to strengthen that view.

You talk about race not being an issue. Here are your words "and old Chicago trick...to recognize home grown sleaze does not require skin color to assess." Words of racial overtone remarks, don't you think.

Who are you trying to kid?....

Born in 47, went thru Vietnam War, the turbulent sixties, the "just make me a sandwich" era. I am a Wife a Mother a Nana and a older White Woman voting for Barak Obama because we need a change in the White House. I guess it's never to late to CHANGE. Let's follow the example of our younger americans......

Election 2008 Another Clinton fundraiser has a suspect past
By Greg Gordon and Will Connors | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Thursday, April 3, 2008 email | print tool nameclose
tool goes here
Josh Merwin / Houston Chronicle / MCT

Fundraiser Kase Lawal, of Houston, in October 2003. | View larger image
HOUSTON â�" A Texas oilman who's accused of defrauding the Nigerian government by illegally pumping and exporting 10 million barrels of oil is a major fundraiser for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

Kase Lawal of Houston is at least the fourth person accused or convicted of criminal wrongdoing to help finance Clinton's political ambitions since 2000 and the second in her quest for the White House. The list also includes Chinese and Pakistani fugitives and a former Miami lawyer who was convicted of defrauding Cuba.

There's no indication that Clinton's campaign was aware of Lawal's legal problems when it accepted his help in raising more than $100,000, but a McClatchy investigation in the U.S. and Nigeria suggests that her campaign did little to scrutinize the background of one of its top fundraisers.

Jay Carson, a campaign spokesman, brushed off such criticism.

"While no vetting process is perfect, our vetting department does extensive vetting in order to catch any issues with donors," he said. "And to our knowledge, Mr. Lawal is an upstanding member of his community in Houston."

However, a simple Google search by McClatchy produced reports of serious allegations about some of Lawal's business dealings in Nigeria and South Africa.

Clinton's campaign lists Lawal among about 250 "Hillraisers" who pledged to collect at least $100,000 in donations. Clinton attended a fundraising luncheon at Lawal's home in Houston last Aug. 11 that generated more than $100,000, and she spoke to about 250 guests gathered around Lawal's indoor swimming pool, including two former Houston mayors and Shell Oil President John Hofmeister.

You can read the rest of the article at their site....