*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (2 Viewers)

[adonis]

Updated the first post. I'd appreciate it if anyone has any links to other speeches, videos, or anything that would be helpful in dispelling this controversy.

Links to interviews, speeches that give insight into obama's character, etc. I'll try to add them to the first page, and we can maybe direct people who have questions to the first post as a depot for information on this issue.

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

i'll list 'em as i find 'em...

Ebenezer Baptist Church - Atlanta GA Jan '08

Unity is the great need of the hour – the great need of this hour. Not because it sounds pleasant or because it makes us feel good, but because it’s the only way we can overcome the essential deficit that exists in this country.

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

duh, i forgot this one...

Keynote at the 2004 DNC

Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America - there's the United States of America. There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

 

[Poppa]

Seems he learned from his "8 questions" stumble a few weeks back.

Obama on Rezco with the editorial board of the Chicago Trib yesterday...and the Tribune's response today - Obama's Rezko narrative

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama waited 16 months to attempt the exorcism. But when he finally sat down with the Tribune editorial board Friday, Obama offered a lengthy and, to us, plausible explanation for the presence of now-indicted businessman Tony Rezko in his personal and political lives.

The most remarkable facet of Obama's 92-minute discussion was that, at the outset, he pledged to answer every question the three dozen Tribune journalists crammed into the room would put to him. And he did.

Along the way he confronted the starkest innuendo that has dogged him and his campaign for the presidency: the suggestion that the purchase of an adjacent lot by Rezko's wife subtly subsidized the Obamas' purchase of their home on Chicago's South Side. "This notion that somehow I got a discount and Rezko overpaid is simply not true ... simply, factually, incorrect," Obama said Friday, adding that he didn't need any intervention from Rezko to grease the purchase of the house.

Having said that, Obama also admitted, "You can back up and say the red light should have gone off."

No argument here. The red light would have warned Obama that Rezko might want to own property adjoining his in order to tighten their relationship -- or that Rezko might be prepping to ask Obama for a favor at some later date. Instead, Obama now acknowledges that he was drawing too close to a campaign contributor and political player whose name was cropping up in articles about the Illinois culture of political sleaze.

***

Obama said he hadn't suspected Rezko of wrongdoing, or of scheming to exploit their friendship: They were friends who occasionally socialized; Rezko had been a loyal supporter; and, Obama says, Rezko had never asked him for anything in the many years they'd known one another. Rezko always had been above board with him, Obama explained, so "my instinct was to believe him" when Rezko said the talk of illicit dealings on his part was untrue.

For those who follow news about Obama's Rezko connection in granular detail: Obama said Friday that his "smaller lapse of judgment" was inviting Rezko to help him evaluate the house before he purchased it. Obama insists, though, that the Rezkos' simultaneous purchase of the abutting lot was entirely independent of his house purchase -- not a choreography of transactions, but a blur of dealings among the sellers' and buyers' real estate brokers and attorneys.

Obama's "bigger lapse of judgment," he said, came later when he bought a strip of the Rezko lot to expand his own yard. That embroiled the two men in negotiations over fencing and other issues at a time when Rezko was under increasing suspicion. That involvement with Rezko in the land deal, Obama said Friday, was the "boneheaded move" to which he's previously confessed. "In retrospect," he said Friday, "this was an error."

To be precise about that: Obama contends that all of his Rezko-related transactions were lawful and above reproach, but he didn't keep a prudent distance from Rezko.

***

So what really happened Friday when Obama detailed his Obama connection? And will his attempt to exorcise Rezko keep U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign from exploiting that connection?

Obama fleshed out his relationship with Rezko -- including the disclosure that Rezko raised as much as $250,000 for the first three offices Obama sought. But Obama's explanation was less a font of new data or an act of contrition than the addition of nuance and motive to a long-mysterious relationship.

We fully expect the Clinton campaign, given its current desperation, to do whatever it must in order to keep the Rezko tin can tied to Obama's bumper.

When we endorsed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination Jan. 27, we said we had formed our opinions of him during 12 years of scrutiny. We concluded that the professional judgment and personal decency with which he has managed himself and his ambition distinguish him.

Nothing Obama said in our editorial board room Friday diminishes that verdict.

***

We said in that same editorial that Obama had been too self-exculpatory in explaining away his ties to Tony Rezko. And we've been saying since Nov. 3, 2006 -- shortly after the Tribune broke the story of Obama's house purchase -- that Obama needed to fully explain his Rezko connection. He also needed to realize how susceptible he had been to someone who wanted a piece of him -- and how his skill at recognizing that covetousness needed to rise to the same stature as his popular appeal.

Friday's session evidently fulfills both obligations. Might we all be surprised by some future disclosure? Obama's critics have waited 16 months for some new and cataclysmic Rezko moment to implicate and doom Obama. It hasn't happened.

Obama said Friday that voters who don't know what to make of his Rezko connection should, in the wake of his discussion with the Tribune, "see somebody who is not engaged in any wrongdoing ... and who they can trust." Yes, he said, he comes from Chicago. But he has risen in this corrupt Illinois environment without getting entangled in it.

Obama tries to live by "high ethical standards," he said. Although "that doesn't excuse the mistake I made here."

Obama should have had Friday's discussion 16 months ago. Asked why he didn't, he spoke of learning, uncomfortably, what it's like to live in a fishbowl. That made him perhaps too eager to protect personal information -- too eager to "control the narrative."

Less protection, less control, would have meant less hassle for his campaign. That said, Barack Obama now has spoken about his ties to Tony Rezko in uncommon detail. That's a standard for candor by which other presidential candidates facing serious inquiries now can be judged.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion...0,2616801.story

===============================

Will Sunday's talking heads discuss...?

 

[Orange Crush]

Watching local news today, the political reporters said that here in North Carolina Obama has 4 superdelegates, Clinton 1, and 12 remain uncommitted. But they went out of their way to say that all 12 said they would cast their votes for whichever candidate won the state's primary.

They also mentioned polling data that showed 20% still undecided.

 

[Jeremy]

Obama Gains 14 More Delegates

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

Pelosi is giving another strong indication that she is behind Obama, although this stops short of a formal endorsement of course. Note that this is from today, so if the party leaders were nervous about the whole Wright deal it isn't apparent here.

Link

WASHINGTON (AP) – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says it would be damaging to the Democratic party for its leaders to buck the will of national convention delegates picked in primaries and caucuses, a declaration that gives a boost to Sen. Barack Obama.

"If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic party," Pelosi said in an interview taped Friday for broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week."

The California Democrat did not mention either Obama or his rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, by name. But her remarks seemed to suggest she was prepared to cast her ballot at the convention in favor of the candidate who emerges from the primary season with the most pledged delegates.

Dont want this to get lost in the shuffle. I feel that Pelosi's statement is significant and a great sign that the Dem biggies (Pelosi, Gore, Edwards) will step in at some point and apply the necessary pressure to HRC. Gore, Edwards....we're waiting...

 

[Sweet J]

Where the heck is homer? Too much news is falling under the radar.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Where the heck is homer? Too much news is falling under the radar.

I think he's on a timeout.

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

Where the heck is homer? Too much news is falling under the radar.

Given his new avatar I think he may be out at all the local Home Depots, Lowes, and 86 Lumbers purchasing kindling and "supplies"

 

[Sweet J]

Where the heck is homer? Too much news is falling under the radar.

I think he's on a timeout.

Crap. Somebody's gonna have to pick up the slack in here.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Where the heck is homer? Too much news is falling under the radar.

I think he's on a timeout.

Crap. Somebody's gonna have to pick up the slack in here.

I get timeouts also, so it cant be me.

 

[Josie Maran]

Where the heck is homer? Too much news is falling under the radar.

From Andrew Sullivan's blog:The exposure of Jeremiah Wright's worst moments of racial ugliness is, to my mind, overdue in the MSM. It's not something new to anyone who has closely followed the Obama candidacy or Obama's history. If you've read his books, it's very old news. It's also very hard to argue that Obama was somehow trying to hide this association. He titled his campaign book with a slightly different formulation of a Wright sermon.



The relevant - the only relevant - question is: are Obama's beliefs represented by the handful of video clips of the most incendiary of Wright's sermons? Or to unpack it a little further: Does Obama believe that black people should damn America? Does he believe that racial separatism is a viable option? Is he a black liberation theologian?

Seriously, I can find absolutely no evidence that he is, and if anyone can, I will gladly eagerly air it.

Give me a speech or a sentence or an off-hand remark in the last twenty years in which Obama has said such a thing or reflected such a worldview and I will gladly post it. On the other hand, we have many, many, many examples of Obama's own thoughts on these issues, several extraordinary sermons and speeches, two books, one of which is searingly honest about race and faith and identity. The notion that this immense record should be displaced by a few YouTubes by someone else seems, well, disproportionate.

I still believe airing all this is important and salient. God knows there is plenty in Wright's theology I find repugnant - although my knowledge of the tradition from which he springs is limited. But the same could be said for the Southern Baptist Convention, for example, or the eccentric but obviously sincere former hippie, Arthur Blessit, who brought our current president to Christ. Or my own church, for that matter. What they have all said about gay people is horrifying to me, and I do not share all the political views of my spiritual leaders. The key - it seems to me - is the candidate's public positions on these issues - not what his pastor has said and says in the pulpit. I remain in a church which describes gay people as "intrinsically disordered." But my own record in the secular world is obviously radically different. Exactly the same standard should apply to Romney or Obama or McCain. No one should get a pass; but they also all deserve a chance to say what they think in the secular world on the relevant issues.

Of course, if people really think that someone shouldn't be elected because of some bigoted statements from the pulpit of his church or his congregation, and his continuing to be a part of that church, that's their right in a democracy. If people want to believe that Obama has been deceiving the entire world in everything he has ever said for twenty years and is, in fact, a Christian version of Louis Farrakhan, then that's their right in a democracy. But the evidence we have doesn't only not support it; it rebuts it. If our democracy cannot handle that empirical evidence and prefers to engage in mind and soul-reading of the most paranoid kind, then it is in a much direr state than we imagine.

 

[Josie Maran]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ope...98.story?page=2

The Barack Obama I know

Not so long ago, the phone rang in my office. It was Barack Obama. For more than a decade, Obama was my colleague at the University of Chicago Law School.

He is also a friend. But since his election to the U.S. Senate, he does not exactly call every day.

On this occasion, he had an important topic to discuss: the controversy over President Bush's warrantless surveillance of international telephone calls between Americans and suspected terrorists. I had written a short essay suggesting that the surveillance might be lawful. Before taking a public position, Obama wanted to talk the problem through.

In about 20 minutes, he and I investigated the legal details. He asked me to explore all sorts of issues: the president's power as commander in chief, the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Authorization for Use of Military Force and more.

Obama wanted to consider the best possible defense of what Bush had done. To every argument I made, he listened and offered a counterargument. After the issue had been exhausted, Obama said he thought the program was illegal, but now had a better understanding of both sides. He thanked me for my time.

This was a pretty amazing conversation, not only because of Obama's mastery of the legal details, but also because many prominent Democratic leaders had already blasted the Bush initiative as blatantly illegal. He did not want to take a public position until he had listened to, and explored, what might be said on the other side.

This is the Barack Obama I have known for nearly 15 years -- a careful and evenhanded analyst of law and policy, unusually attentive to multiple points of view.

The University of Chicago Law School is by far the most conservative of the great American law schools. It helped to provide the academic foundations for many positions of the Reagan administration.

But at the University of Chicago, Obama is liked and admired by both Republicans and Democrats. Some local Reagan enthusiasts are Obama supporters. Why? It doesn't hurt that he's a great guy, with a personal touch and a lot of warmth. It certainly helps that he is exceptionally able.

But niceness and ability are only part of the story. Obama has a genuinely independent mind, he's a terrific listener and he goes wherever reason takes him.

Those of us who have long known Obama are impressed and not a little amazed by his rhetorical skills. Who could have expected that our colleague, a teacher of law, is able to inspire large crowds?

The Obama we know is no rhetorician; he shines not because he can move people, but because of his problem-solving abilities, creativity and attention to detail.

In recent weeks, his speaking talents, and the cultlike atmosphere that occasionally surrounds him, have led people to wonder whether there is substance behind the plea for "change" -- whether the soaring phrases might disguise emptiness and vagueness. But nothing could be further from the truth. He is most comfortable in the domain of policy and detail.

I do not deny that skeptics are raising legitimate questions. After all, Obama has served in the U.S. Senate for a short period (less than four years) and he has little managerial experience. Is he really equipped to lead the most powerful nation in the world?

Obama speaks of "change," but will he be able to produce large-scale changes in a short time? What if he fails? An independent issue is that all the enthusiasm might serve to insulate him from criticisms and challenges on the part of his advisers -- and, in view of his relative youth, criticisms and challenges are exactly what he requires.

Fortunately, the candidate's campaign proposals offer strong and encouraging clues about how he would govern; what makes them distinctive is that they borrow sensible ideas from all sides.

He is strongly committed to helping the disadvantaged, but his University of Chicago background shows he appreciates the virtues and power of free markets. He is not only focused on details but is also a uniter, both by inclination and on principle.

Transparency matters

Transparency and accountability matter greatly to him; they are a defining feature of his proposals. With respect to the mortgage crisis, credit cards and the broader debate over credit markets, Obama rejects heavy-handed regulation and insists on disclosure above all so consumers will know exactly what they are getting.

Expect transparency to be a central theme in any Obama administration, as a check on government and the private sector alike. It is highly revealing that Obama worked with Republican (and arch-conservative) Tom Coburn of Oklahoma to produce legislation creating a publicly searchable database of all federal spending.

Obama's health-care plan places a premium on cutting costs and making care affordable, without requiring adults to purchase health insurance. (He would require mandatory coverage only for children.) Republican legislators are unlikely to support a mandatory approach, and his plan can be understood, in part, as a recognition of political realities.

But it is also a reflection of his keen interest in freedom of choice. He seeks universal coverage not through unenforceable mandates but through giving people good options.

It should not be surprising that in terms of helping low-income workers, Obama has long been enthusiastic about the Earned Income Tax Credit, an approach pioneered by Republicans that supplements wages but does not threaten to throw people out of work.

But Obama is not a compromiser; he does not try to steer between the poles (or the polls). "Triangulation" has no appeal for him. Internationally and domestically, he is willing to think big and to be bold. He publicly opposed the war in Iraq when opposition was unpopular.

He favors high-level meetings with some of the world's worst dictators. He would rethink the embargo against Cuba.

He proposes a $150 billion research budget for climate change. He wants to hold an unprecedented national auction for the right to emit greenhouse gases. He has offered an ambitious plan for promoting technological innovation, calling for a national broadband policy, embracing network neutrality and proposing a reform of the patent system.

His campaign has spoken of moving toward "iPod government" an effort to rethink public services and national regulations in ways that would make things far simpler and more user-friendly.

A new tone

These are points about policies and substance. As president, Obama would set a new tone in U.S. politics. He refuses to demonize his political opponents; deep in his heart, I believe, he doesn't think of them as opponents. It would not be surprising to find Republicans and independents prominent in his administration.

Obama wants to know what ideas are likely to work, not whether a Democrat or a Republican is responsible for them. Recall the most memorable passage from his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention: "We coach Little League in the blue states, and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq, and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq."

In his book "The Audacity of Hope," he asks for a politics that accepts "the possibility that the other side might sometimes have a point." Remarking that ordinary Americans "don't always understand the arguments between right and left, conservative and liberal," Obama wants politicians "to catch up with them."

After he received an e-mail from a doctor who opposes abortion, Obama recalls how he softened his Web site's harsh rhetoric on abortion, writing: "That night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own -- that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me."

In short, Obama's approach is insistently charitable. He assumes decency and good faith on the part of those who disagree with him. And he wants to hear what they have to say. Both in substance and in tone, Obama questions the conventional political distinctions between "the left" and "the right." To the extent that he is attracting support from Republicans and independents, it is largely for this reason.

Natural born leader?

From knowing Obama for many years, I have no doubts about his ability to lead. He knows a great deal, and he is a quick learner. Even better, he knows what he does not know, and there is no question that he would assemble an accomplished, experienced team of advisers. His brilliant administration of his campaign provides helpful evidence here.

But there is some fragility to the public fervor that envelops him. Crowds and cults can be fickle, and if some of his decisions disappoint, or turn out badly, his support would diminish. Some people think it might even collapse.

My concern involves the importance of internal debate. The greatest American presidents (above all Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt) benefited from robust dialogue and advisers who avoided saying "how wonderful you are" and were willing to say, "Mr. President, your thinking about this is all wrong."

Because Obama is exceptionally able, and because so many people are treating him as a near-messiah, his advisers might be too deferential, too unwilling to question. There is a real risk here. But I believe that his humility, and his intense desire to seek out dissenting views, will prove crucial safeguards.

In the 2000 campaign, Bush proclaimed himself a "uniter, not a divider," only to turn out to be the most divisive president in memory. Because of his certainty and lack of curiosity about what others might think, Bush polarized the nation. Many of his most ambitious plans went nowhere as a result.

As president, Barack Obama would be a genuine uniter. If he proves able to achieve great things, for his nation and for the world, it will be above all for that reason.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ope...98.story?page=2

The Barack Obama I know

Great article!

 

[suspected]

Pelosi is giving another strong indication that she is behind Obama, although this stops short of a formal endorsement of course. Note that this is from today, so if the party leaders were nervous about the whole Wright deal it isn't apparent here.

Link

WASHINGTON (AP) – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says it would be damaging to the Democratic party for its leaders to buck the will of national convention delegates picked in primaries and caucuses, a declaration that gives a boost to Sen. Barack Obama.

"If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic party," Pelosi said in an interview taped Friday for broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week."

The California Democrat did not mention either Obama or his rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, by name. But her remarks seemed to suggest she was prepared to cast her ballot at the convention in favor of the candidate who emerges from the primary season with the most pledged delegates.

Dont want this to get lost in the shuffle. I feel that Pelosi's statement is significant and a great sign that the Dem biggies (Pelosi, Gore, Edwards) will step in at some point and apply the necessary pressure to HRC. Gore, Edwards....we're waiting...

This IS meant to apply pressure to HRC right now. Until recently I think most of the Dem biggies believed that HRC would eventually concede the nomination to Obama because she would be too far behind in the delegate count and would not have a strong case to make to superdelegates. However, things have changed. Unless Obama can turn around his recent negative publicity, HRC might have several compelling arguments to fight for the superdelegates and win the nomination:

1) Polls are changing and show her to be a more favorable matchup vs McCain than Obama; if true this would be the most compelling argument

2) Momentum. The latest Dem primaries could change in Hillary's favor. She could win PA by 15% or more.

3) By convention time Obama's popular vote lead could shrink to less than 1/2%, and HRC could spin that as a practically a tie statistically.

4) HRC can lay a claim to be more competitive than Obama in important, traditional battleground states: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey

5) Obama's pledged delegate lead could be less than 2-3%. HRC could spin this as "minimal". She could argue that it was gained by Obama's strength in caucus states. While he has every right to these delegates by DNC rules, superdelegates could be reminded that in the general election states are not determined by caucus. This is an interesting read: http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011950.php

Bottom line, HRC can argue that the nomination needs to go to the candidate with the best chance to win in November, and she is that candidate.

Pelosi sees this coming. With Obama's recent bad press, Pelosi sees that HRC could actually make a pretty decent argument. If HRC makes a strong push for the superdelegates, Pelosi sees the inevitable damage that would be caused to the party. She's sending out a public warning to HRC now. This warning may have been unnecessary one week ago.

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

Pelosi is giving another strong indication that she is behind Obama, although this stops short of a formal endorsement of course. Note that this is from today, so if the party leaders were nervous about the whole Wright deal it isn't apparent here.

Link

WASHINGTON (AP) – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says it would be damaging to the Democratic party for its leaders to buck the will of national convention delegates picked in primaries and caucuses, a declaration that gives a boost to Sen. Barack Obama.

"If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic party," Pelosi said in an interview taped Friday for broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week."

The California Democrat did not mention either Obama or his rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, by name. But her remarks seemed to suggest she was prepared to cast her ballot at the convention in favor of the candidate who emerges from the primary season with the most pledged delegates.

Dont want this to get lost in the shuffle. I feel that Pelosi's statement is significant and a great sign that the Dem biggies (Pelosi, Gore, Edwards) will step in at some point and apply the necessary pressure to HRC. Gore, Edwards....we're waiting...

This IS meant to apply pressure to HRC right now. Until recently I think most of the Dem biggies believed that HRC would eventually concede the nomination to Obama because she would be too far behind in the delegate count and would not have a strong case to make to superdelegates. However, things have changed. Unless Obama can turn around his recent negative publicity, HRC might have several compelling arguments to fight for the superdelegates and win the nomination:

1) Polls are changing and show her to be a more favorable matchup vs McCain than Obama; if true this would be the most compelling argument

2) Momentum. The latest Dem primaries could change in Hillary's favor. She could win PA by 15% or more.

3) By convention time Obama's popular vote lead could shrink to less than 1/2%, and HRC could spin that as a practically a tie statistically.

4) HRC can lay a claim to be more competitive than Obama in important, traditional battleground states: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey

5) Obama's pledged delegate lead could be less than 2-3%. HRC could spin this as "minimal". She could argue that it was gained by Obama's strength in caucus states. While he has every right to these delegates by DNC rules, superdelegates could be reminded that in the general election states are not determined by caucus. This is an interesting read: http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011950.php

Bottom line, HRC can argue that the nomination needs to go to the candidate with the best chance to win in November, and she is that candidate.

Pelosi sees this coming. With Obama's recent bad press, Pelosi sees that HRC could actually make a pretty decent argument. If HRC makes a strong push for the superdelegates, Pelosi sees the inevitable damage that would be caused to the party. She's sending out a public warning to HRC now. This warning may have been unnecessary one week ago.

Right, so we agree. HRC is going to try to back door the nomination, creating a huge fracture in the Democratic party, all but guaranteeing a McCain victory, and pushing away an entire generation of new voters.I dont agree that most Dem biggies ever believed that HRC would concede. A couple weeks ago after her 3/4 split, her plea was all about momentum. During the FL/MI debacle, it was popular vote. Now it is electability (whatever the heck that truly is). She will ALWAYS try to find ANY way to win, regardless of how it looks. I think she has proven that time and time again during this campaign.

 

[Josie Maran]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ope...98.story?page=2

The Barack Obama I know

Great article!

The first part is the most important IMO...him calling to get a reasoned argument of the other side of the issue. Love that.

 

[shining path]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ope...98.story?page=2

The Barack Obama I know

Great article!

I don't think we should downplay the language arising out of the Rev. Wright fiasco. I think it actually supplies an important subtext to a lot of what he's saying. But don't dismiss the man simply because one of his associates went off the rails like that. He's an incredibly intelligent and (I believe) important voice in american politics. I hope he gets elected as our next President. He's a by far better choice than McCain and Clinton, neither of whom is particularly weak in presidential credentials. (I hate to admit, especially in Hillary's case)

 

[Josie Maran]

Great line from Tracy Morgan on Weekend Update in response to Tina Fey's "B##ch is the new black" comment.

"B##ch may be the new black, but black is the new president, b##ch."

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

Victor DiMaio (sp) and Mike Steinberg. If you dont already know these names, get used to them. Apparently they filed a lawsuit against the DNC...in August '07, to have the FL primary vote count as is. Case goes to a Court of Appeals tomorrow (3/17) and they say it could be in the Supreme Court by next month.

I see their point in that they are arguing it under the 14th amendment. The fact that are comparing it to Blacks being given the right to vote in the early 20th century is disgusting IMO. But, there are precedents on this issue nonetheless.

My question is: Does FL have to count as full delegates? Or, can it be like the GOP primary, where they counted half their delegates (i think half anyway)?

 

[NCCommish]

Victor DiMaio (sp) and Mike Steinberg. If you dont already know these names, get used to them. Apparently they filed a lawsuit against the DNC...in August '07, to have the FL primary vote count as is. Case goes to a Court of Appeals tomorrow (3/17) and they say it could be in the Supreme Court by next month.I see their point in that they are arguing it under the 14th amendment. The fact that are comparing it to Blacks being given the right to vote in the early 20th century is disgusting IMO. But, there are precedents on this issue nonetheless.My question is: Does FL have to count as full delegates? Or, can it be like the GOP primary, where they counted half their delegates (i think half anyway)?

I don't know under what jurisdiction they think they can force the party to seat delegates. The party is well within it's legal right to both set rules for primaries and to punish states that act outside those rules. To bring the feds in to make those rules leads us to some very problematic places.

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

Victor DiMaio (sp) and Mike Steinberg. If you dont already know these names, get used to them. Apparently they filed a lawsuit against the DNC...in August '07, to have the FL primary vote count as is. Case goes to a Court of Appeals tomorrow (3/17) and they say it could be in the Supreme Court by next month.I see their point in that they are arguing it under the 14th amendment. The fact that are comparing it to Blacks being given the right to vote in the early 20th century is disgusting IMO. But, there are precedents on this issue nonetheless.My question is: Does FL have to count as full delegates? Or, can it be like the GOP primary, where they counted half their delegates (i think half anyway)?

I don't know under what jurisdiction they think they can force the party to seat delegates. The party is well within it's legal right to both set rules for primaries and to punish states that act outside those rules. To bring the feds in to make those rules leads us to some very problematic places.

I'm far (F A R) from being a legal expert. But, their case as i heard it, is saying that by not counting FL votes, the DNC is essentially denying the right of the citizens to vote. They likened it to some case in the 40s about Blacks being turned away from the polls in Texas.Personally, i dont feel the spirit of the 14th covers this type of ruling (by the DNC). But, who knows where the conservative Sup will take this to?

 

[timschochet]

Great article from Detroit Free Press:

Democrats risk losing a generation

BY RON DZWONKOWSKI • FREE PRESS COLUMNIST • March 16, 2008

If -- and it's still an if -- the numbers just don't add up for U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic presidential nominee, but the party, through its arcane rules and superdelegates process, gives it to her anyway, Democrats will pay dearly, for a generation or more.

Instead of re-establishing themselves as the party in power for perhaps the next 20 years, Democrats could be effectively handing the White House to Republican John McCain and alienating up to 30 million young voters who have gotten engaged in politics this year for the first time because of Barack Obama. If these voters feel that Obama has been cheated out of a chance to run for president, they and the hordes more of them becoming eligible to vote in the years ahead, will not easily return to the Democratic fold. Even if they like the party's principles, they will distrust its processes.

In this scenario, Clinton mitigates the damage only somewhat by choosing Obama as her vice presidential candidate -- a role he has said he doesn't want anyway.

More likely, young voters sit out the election (as they have in the past) and McCain wins and Democrats dissolve again into their bickering, finger-pointing ways while an emerging generation that desperately wants to see a stronger, safer and better America backs out of the political system.

This is truly a nightmare scenario for the Democratic Party, which has on its hands a much closer battle for the presidential nomination than anyone, especially Clinton, expected when the race took shape last fall. It seems as if it can be avoided only if in the weeks ahead either Clinton or Obama emerges with an indisputable command of the contest and the loser delivers a strong, convincing endorsement of the victor. Given the way they've been going at each other for weeks, the convincing part may be difficult.

This Democratic dilemma came up this week in a conversation with two old-line party members who have written a new book on young voters. "Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube and the Future of American Politics." The book is all about the political potential of the so-called Millennial Generation, born from 1983-2003, and at 80 million strong, the largest generation in American history. It also is the most diverse and most technologically savvy and has been forecast to be America's next great generation, reshaping the nation to the same extent that the "GI Generation" did after World War II.

With its defining moment so far the 9/11 attacks, the Millennial Generation is concerned about security and is in constant communication via cell phones and the Internet. Thanks in part to Title IX and growing up with TV shows that melted down stereotypes, the generation has little sense of traditional roles for men and women, doesn't make much of racial or ethnic differences, and relies for advice largely on friends and peers. Millennials prefer "win-win" solutions to outright victories for one side, which means they have little use for politics as practiced in this country for the past 20 years or so.

Although, at 46, not part of the generation, Obama obviously is in tune with it. His campaign is the first to tap nationally into the online "social networking" that is an essential part of life for just about every Millennial.

"They don't see a black candidate; they see hope," said Morley Winograd, the former Michigan Democratic chairman and adviser to Vice President Al Gore who wrote the book with Michael Hais, a researcher and analyst who worked on campaigns for Michigan U.S. Sen. Carl Levin and former governor James Blanchard.

"They are not out to resist government authority, but for them that authority has not worked very well," Hais said of the coming generation of voters, who have only known presidents named Clinton or Bush. "They want to make it work better and don't see the current leadership doing that."

For them, Obama means change. And if he can claim the most votes or the most states going into the Democratic convention, that makes it pretty simple for Millennials to decide who should be the nominee.

Although McCain, at 71, is almost three generations removed from the voting-age Millennials, he still could appeal to them with his personal example of "serving a cause greater than yourself" -- a theme from his 2000 presidential run.

"The Republicans can take advantage of this," Hais said of the Democrats' dispute. "The partisanship among Millennials is not so firmly set that they couldn't lean Republican."

And the Democrats are not so forward-thinking that they couldn't screw up the chance to capture a generation.

RON DZWONKOWSKI is editor of the Free Press editorial page. Contact him at dzwonk@freepress.com or 313-222-6635.

 

[Jeremy]

Great article from Detroit Free Pressemocrats risk losing a generationBY RON DZWONKOWSKI • FREE PRESS COLUMNIST • March 16, 2008If -- and it's still an if -- the numbers just don't add up for U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic presidential nominee, but the party, through its arcane rules and superdelegates process, gives it to her anyway, Democrats will pay dearly, for a generation or more. Instead of re-establishing themselves as the party in power for perhaps the next 20 years, Democrats could be effectively handing the White House to Republican John McCain and alienating up to 30 million young voters who have gotten engaged in politics this year for the first time because of Barack Obama. If these voters feel that Obama has been cheated out of a chance to run for president, they and the hordes more of them becoming eligible to vote in the years ahead, will not easily return to the Democratic fold. Even if they like the party's principles, they will distrust its processes.In this scenario, Clinton mitigates the damage only somewhat by choosing Obama as her vice presidential candidate -- a role he has said he doesn't want anyway.More likely, young voters sit out the election (as they have in the past) and McCain wins and Democrats dissolve again into their bickering, finger-pointing ways while an emerging generation that desperately wants to see a stronger, safer and better America backs out of the political system.This is truly a nightmare scenario for the Democratic Party, which has on its hands a much closer battle for the presidential nomination than anyone, especially Clinton, expected when the race took shape last fall. It seems as if it can be avoided only if in the weeks ahead either Clinton or Obama emerges with an indisputable command of the contest and the loser delivers a strong, convincing endorsement of the victor. Given the way they've been going at each other for weeks, the convincing part may be difficult.This Democratic dilemma came up this week in a conversation with two old-line party members who have written a new book on young voters. "Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube and the Future of American Politics." The book is all about the political potential of the so-called Millennial Generation, born from 1983-2003, and at 80 million strong, the largest generation in American history. It also is the most diverse and most technologically savvy and has been forecast to be America's next great generation, reshaping the nation to the same extent that the "GI Generation" did after World War II.With its defining moment so far the 9/11 attacks, the Millennial Generation is concerned about security and is in constant communication via cell phones and the Internet. Thanks in part to Title IX and growing up with TV shows that melted down stereotypes, the generation has little sense of traditional roles for men and women, doesn't make much of racial or ethnic differences, and relies for advice largely on friends and peers. Millennials prefer "win-win" solutions to outright victories for one side, which means they have little use for politics as practiced in this country for the past 20 years or so.Although, at 46, not part of the generation, Obama obviously is in tune with it. His campaign is the first to tap nationally into the online "social networking" that is an essential part of life for just about every Millennial."They don't see a black candidate; they see hope," said Morley Winograd, the former Michigan Democratic chairman and adviser to Vice President Al Gore who wrote the book with Michael Hais, a researcher and analyst who worked on campaigns for Michigan U.S. Sen. Carl Levin and former governor James Blanchard."They are not out to resist government authority, but for them that authority has not worked very well," Hais said of the coming generation of voters, who have only known presidents named Clinton or Bush. "They want to make it work better and don't see the current leadership doing that."For them, Obama means change. And if he can claim the most votes or the most states going into the Democratic convention, that makes it pretty simple for Millennials to decide who should be the nominee.Although McCain, at 71, is almost three generations removed from the voting-age Millennials, he still could appeal to them with his personal example of "serving a cause greater than yourself" -- a theme from his 2000 presidential run."The Republicans can take advantage of this," Hais said of the Democrats' dispute. "The partisanship among Millennials is not so firmly set that they couldn't lean Republican."And the Democrats are not so forward-thinking that they couldn't screw up the chance to capture a generation.RON DZWONKOWSKI is editor of the Free Press editorial page. Contact him at dzwonk@freepress.com or 313-222-6635.

Another great article. And this is why Republicans are all of sudden almost warm and fuzzy toward Hillary Clinton after so many years of hatred toward the woman.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

All the PA phony polititians lined right up behind their man rendell for HRC now. Obama makes his first stop in Western PA today. Hopefully he can start to turn the tide here some. A 10 point loss will be a problem.

 

[djcolts]

All the PA phony polititians lined right up behind their man rendell for HRC now. Obama makes his first stop in Western PA today. Hopefully he can start to turn the tide here some. A 10 point loss will be a problem.

I don't think a 10 point loss would be a problem. A 20 point loss would be a problem. If I was told today that Obama can keep it within 10 points in Penn, I'd take the deal.

 

[My Hope Street Alias]

All the PA phony polititians lined right up behind their man rendell for HRC now. Obama makes his first stop in Western PA today. Hopefully he can start to turn the tide here some. A 10 point loss will be a problem.

I don't think a 10 point loss would be a problem. A 20 point loss would be a problem. If I was told today that Obama can keep it within 10 points in Penn, I'd take the deal.

I agree. Also, Pelosi can't be the most popular Democrat with the Clinton campaign right now. What is the history between the Clintons and her?

 

[Sweet J]

All the PA phony polititians lined right up behind their man rendell for HRC now. Obama makes his first stop in Western PA today. Hopefully he can start to turn the tide here some. A 10 point loss will be a problem.

I don't think a 10 point loss would be a problem. A 20 point loss would be a problem. If I was told today that Obama can keep it within 10 points in Penn, I'd take the deal.

Yep. 55-45 Clinton-Obama would be fine. 65-35 would be trouble.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

All the PA phony polititians lined right up behind their man rendell for HRC now. Obama makes his first stop in Western PA today. Hopefully he can start to turn the tide here some. A 10 point loss will be a problem.

I don't think a 10 point loss would be a problem. A 20 point loss would be a problem. If I was told today that Obama can keep it within 10 points in Penn, I'd take the deal.

Yep. 55-45 Clinton-Obama would be fine. 65-35 would be trouble.

I dont like lowering expectations and I think her having double-digit margins in PA and OH gives her a lot of ammunition that I would rather her not have as the talk of FL and MI heats up.

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

All the PA phony polititians lined right up behind their man rendell for HRC now. Obama makes his first stop in Western PA today. Hopefully he can start to turn the tide here some. A 10 point loss will be a problem.

I don't think a 10 point loss would be a problem. A 20 point loss would be a problem. If I was told today that Obama can keep it within 10 points in Penn, I'd take the deal.

Yep. 55-45 Clinton-Obama would be fine. 65-35 would be trouble.

I dont like lowering expectations and I think her having double-digit margins in PA and OH gives her a lot of ammunition that I would rather her not have as the talk of FL and MI heats up.

I view that as more realistic than lowering my expectations. PA has a very similar makeup to OH and that race ended up at 54-44. HRC will always have Ammo as she will find it where it does and does not exist. Even if she ends up winning PA by 1 pt, she will rely heavily on her new argument that primary results are valued more than caucus results. Clinton politics is win-at-all-costs, and Obama's is "logic and common sense determine results". I would much rather have logic on my side than HRC's games and tricks. We'll see if the DNC agrees with me, but my support of their party rides on their decision

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

All the PA phony polititians lined right up behind their man rendell for HRC now. Obama makes his first stop in Western PA today. Hopefully he can start to turn the tide here some. A 10 point loss will be a problem.

I don't think a 10 point loss would be a problem. A 20 point loss would be a problem. If I was told today that Obama can keep it within 10 points in Penn, I'd take the deal.

Yep. 55-45 Clinton-Obama would be fine. 65-35 would be trouble.

I dont like lowering expectations and I think her having double-digit margins in PA and OH gives her a lot of ammunition that I would rather her not have as the talk of FL and MI heats up.

I view that as more realistic than lowering my expectations. PA has a very similar makeup to OH and that race ended up at 54-44. HRC will always have Ammo as she will find it where it does and does not exist. Even if she ends up winning PA by 1 pt, she will rely heavily on her new argument that primary results are valued more than caucus results. Clinton politics is win-at-all-costs, and Obama's is "logic and common sense determine results". I would much rather have logic on my side than HRC's games and tricks. We'll see if the DNC agrees with me, but my support of their party rides on their decision

Right there with you.

 

[brock]

check out this email i got today

: The Bible has warned us that 'A man will come from the East that will be charismatic in nature and have proposed solutions for all our problems and his rhetoric will attract many supporters!'When will our pathetic Nation quit turning their back on God and understand that this man is 'A Muslim'....First, Last and always....and we are AT WAR with the Muslim Nation, whether our bleeding-heart, secular, Liberal friends believe it or not. This man fits every description from the Bible of the 'Anti-Christ'!I'm just glad to know that there are others that are frightened by this man!Who is Barack Obama?Very interesting and something that should be considered in your choice.If you do not ever forward anything else, please forward this to all your contacts...this is very scary to think of what lies ahead of us here in our own United States...better heed this and pray about it and share it.Who is Barack Obama?Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHEIST from Wichita , Kansas.Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii.When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya. His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia.When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocated to Indonesia. Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a Catholic school.Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is quick to point out that, 'He was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic school.'Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that that he is not a radical.Obama's introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son'seducation.Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, introduced his stepson to Islam. Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta.Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background. ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Koran.Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegiance nor will he show any reverence for our flag. While others place their hands over their hearts, Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches. Do you want someone like this as your PRESIDENT?Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential candidacy.The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States, one of their own!Please forward to everyone you know. Would you want this man leading our country?...... NOT ME!

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

check out this email i got today

: The Bible has warned us that 'A man will come from the East that will be charismatic in nature and have proposed solutions for all our problems and his rhetoric will attract many supporters!'When will our pathetic Nation quit turning their back on God and understand that this man is 'A Muslim'....First, Last and always....and we are AT WAR with the Muslim Nation, whether our bleeding-heart, secular, Liberal friends believe it or not. This man fits every description from the Bible of the 'Anti-Christ'!I'm just glad to know that there are others that are frightened by this man!Who is Barack Obama?Very interesting and something that should be considered in your choice.If you do not ever forward anything else, please forward this to all your contacts...this is very scary to think of what lies ahead of us here in our own United States...better heed this and pray about it and share it.Who is Barack Obama?Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHEIST from Wichita , Kansas.Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii.When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya. His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia.When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocated to Indonesia. Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a Catholic school.Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is quick to point out that, 'He was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic school.'Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that that he is not a radical.Obama's introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son'seducation.Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, introduced his stepson to Islam. Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta.Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background. ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Koran.Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegiance nor will he show any reverence for our flag. While others place their hands over their hearts, Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches. Do you want someone like this as your PRESIDENT?Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential candidacy.The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States, one of their own!Please forward to everyone you know. Would you want this man leading our country?...... NOT ME!

You need to talk to the person who sent you that and also hit "reply all" and destroy this non-sense point by point and then provide links to some of the things on page 1 of this thread.

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

check out this email i got today

The fact that there are people out there who actually believe that kind of stuff isA) Really good for capitalists in that they are complete sheep, unwilling to separate fact from fiction, and follow most if not all of the typical marketing gimmicksB) Really bad for politics in that there are enough of them to impact electionsC) Really funny as it provides endless fodder for comedians

 

[whitem0nkey]

sounds like Obama is planning on making a major speech on race tomorrow

 

[Jeremy]

check out this email i got today

The fact that there are people out there who actually believe that kind of stuff isA) Really good for capitalists in that they are complete sheep, unwilling to separate fact from fiction, and follow most if not all of the typical marketing gimmicksB) Really bad for politics in that there are enough of them to impact electionsC) Really funny as it provides endless fodder for comedians

On Hardball a couple weeks ago they showed a statistic where 13% of Americans think Obama is a Muslim. 1 in every 8 adults is that freakin' stupid.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

1 in every adults is that freakin' stupid.

Never fails.

 

[NCCommish]

1 in every adults is that freakin' stupid.

Never fails.

 

[whoknew]

Wow. Jim Cramer just RIPPED Obama's speech on the economy.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Who's Jim Cramer?

 

[NCCommish]

Wow. Jim Cramer just RIPPED Obama's speech on the economy.

Ah yes the guy who was still hyping the dot.com bubble in 2000 is really the guy I turn to for sound advice on the economy.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Good news Obama! Bill Clinton's campaigning again!

South Carolina a Myth

"What happened there is a total myth and a mugging," Clinton told CNN's Sean Callebs in New Orleans, Louisiana, over the weekend.

"It's been pretty well established. Charlie Rangel ... the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said in unequivocal terms in South Carolina that no one in our campaign played any race card, that we had some played against us, but we didn't play any."



Hillary's gonna be pissed!

 

[brock]

You need to talk to the person who sent you that and also hit "reply all" and destroy this non-sense point by point and then provide links to some of the things on page 1 of this thread.

done

check out this email i got today

The fact that there are people out there who actually believe that kind of stuff isA) Really good for capitalists in that they are complete sheep, unwilling to separate fact from fiction, and follow most if not all of the typical marketing gimmicksB) Really bad for politics in that there are enough of them to impact electionsC) Really funny as it provides endless fodder for comedians

 

[Josie Maran]

You need to talk to the person who sent you that and also hit "reply all" and destroy this non-sense point by point and then provide links to some of the things on page 1 of this thread.

done

Sometimes the ReplyAll button is the best available tool in the ever present War on Stupidity.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

No mail-in vote for Florida

 

[Pooch]

No mail-in vote for Florida

No re-vote either. Not sure how they'll deal with the delegate issue at this point.

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

No mail-in vote for Florida

No re-vote either. Not sure how they'll deal with the delegate issue at this point.

Hello Supreme Court

 

[skol asylum]

Good news Obama! Bill Clinton's campaigning again!

South Carolina a Myth

"What happened there is a total myth and a mugging," Clinton told CNN's Sean Callebs in New Orleans, Louisiana, over the weekend.

"It's been pretty well established. Charlie Rangel ... the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said in unequivocal terms in South Carolina that no one in our campaign played any race card, that we had some played against us, but we didn't play any."



Hillary's gonna be pissed!

A mugging eh? Hmmm...sounds like that could be construed as a racist remark.

 

[Pai Mei]

Unfortunately, i am realizing yet again that this sort of empathy and understanding is preached by many, but practiced by few. Deep down, much of America is still hard headed, incapable of forming their own opinions, and follow the loudest and most boisterous soap box speakers (Limbaugh et al).

That always get a chuckle out of me. The media constantly misquotes and twists things that Rush Limbaugh says. When anyone else makes a supposedly controversial statement, the media bends over backwards to try to give them a second, third, or fourth chance to correct the record. Take Michelle Obama for example when she said it was first time she'd ever been proud of America. When she said that, the media gave her every opportunity to fix it. But when Rush says something, all too often the media will immediately to the worst conclusion possible and run with that as gospel. I'm at a point where the mainstream press has lost any and all credibility here. I don't care if the press has an axe to grind with Rush, it is their job to get the story right. If that is too much trouble, if they can't let Rush correct the record on a regular basis, then they have stopped being media worth listening to. Its tiring seeing CNN toss the "limbaugh" card out there with impunity and never get called on it. I trust Rush more (which in its own way is sad because I know he is half comedian).