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

[Johnnymac]

Obama is something we haven't had in a long time as president -- a Good man !

A strong family man , good morals , a strong persona , compassionate , maybe the most well spoken canidate since the pre alzheimers Reagan.

Sorry but I can't judge a person by mistakes as a teenager with Drug use a few times or if he went to a Muslim school at age 10.

Actually I think the fact he has a Islamic name will help more than hurt especially in dealing with the middle east issues. Should give him much more credibility on that alone. We have spent years making enemies and alot of times we were right in what we did - But I think now is the time to start reaching out and making alies instead of enemies.

The real enemy is the forming Russia / China alliance and we need a leader that can Unite us with Europe and everyone else. Obama is the only canidate that could really make that happen - Hillary would be a healthcare nightmare and on Foriegn policy just like Bill in just trying to keep everyhting alfloat rather than really trying to make progress and improving relations. With Russia and China formaing a strong bond we need the same thing with the EU - The USA isn't as strong as it was and China is rising like a rocket on the world economic stage and is anxious to throw it's muscle around.

How do you know this?

 

[adonis]

Two things in response to posts above:(1) On Hillary's strategy, or lack thereof. I agree, but I think what it really highlights is how AWESOME a campaign Obama has run. Think about what he is doing - he is going toe to toe with the most famous name in the Democratic party, and beating her, without her making any glaring mistakes at all. It is really unbelievable what we are witnessing. They left no state uncontested, no stone unturned, have fought for every single delegate, and it has paid off.

Yes its quite remarkable I think. Also note that right now its down to Hillary, Obama, and McCain. 3 senators. A senator hasn't won the White House since JFK, and now its already a lock.

Not to mention two of them are minorities. Gonna be a big deal, no matter what this year. Probably, one of the most memorable elections in our lifetimes, and maybe a monumental one in the history of the US.

uh no.

Is it hard to be so consistently wrong about almost everything?

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Two things in response to posts above:(1) On Hillary's strategy, or lack thereof. I agree, but I think what it really highlights is how AWESOME a campaign Obama has run. Think about what he is doing - he is going toe to toe with the most famous name in the Democratic party, and beating her, without her making any glaring mistakes at all. It is really unbelievable what we are witnessing. They left no state uncontested, no stone unturned, have fought for every single delegate, and it has paid off.

Yes its quite remarkable I think. Also note that right now its down to Hillary, Obama, and McCain. 3 senators. A senator hasn't won the White House since JFK, and now its already a lock.

Not to mention two of them are minorities. Gonna be a big deal, no matter what this year. Probably, one of the most memorable elections in our lifetimes, and maybe a monumental one in the history of the US.

uh no.

Is it hard to be so consistently wrong about almost everything?

Who are the two minorities?

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

So how many of you guys have read The Audacity of Hope? I just picked it up this weekend. I'm only about a third of the way through but am really impressed.

Fax it to me when you're done. TIA

Will do. But I'll have to copy if by hand on to bar napkins first and then FAX those. That OK?

Whatever works.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Two things in response to posts above:(1) On Hillary's strategy, or lack thereof. I agree, but I think what it really highlights is how AWESOME a campaign Obama has run. Think about what he is doing - he is going toe to toe with the most famous name in the Democratic party, and beating her, without her making any glaring mistakes at all. It is really unbelievable what we are witnessing. They left no state uncontested, no stone unturned, have fought for every single delegate, and it has paid off.

Yes its quite remarkable I think. Also note that right now its down to Hillary, Obama, and McCain. 3 senators. A senator hasn't won the White House since JFK, and now its already a lock.

Not to mention two of them are minorities. Gonna be a big deal, no matter what this year. Probably, one of the most memorable elections in our lifetimes, and maybe a monumental one in the history of the US.

uh no.

Is it hard to be so consistently wrong about almost everything?

Who are the two minorities?

As he gets older, I believe that John McCain is turning into a Keebler elf.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Today is voting day here in Maryland and I've noticed something that I'm curious about. For weeks I've been driving around and seeing lots of Obama signs on people's lawns. Almost no Hillary signs.

Today, on election day, there are tons of Hillary signs everywhere. Not on private property, but in the median of the streets, and stuck in the grassy areas near the supermarkets, and on other commercial or public areas. It seems like some Hillary supporters just drove around last night sticking signs everywhere they could find.

This suggests to me that Obama's support is much more "real" than Hillary's. A sign on someone's lawn means that person supports the candidate. A sign on the highway means someone, somewhere, supports that candidate.

Anyone else notice this anywhere else?

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

Today is voting day here in Maryland and I've noticed something that I'm curious about. For weeks I've been driving around and seeing lots of Obama signs on people's lawns. Almost no Hillary signs.Today, on election day, there are tons of Hillary signs everywhere. Not on private property, but in the median of the streets, and stuck in the grassy areas near the supermarkets, and on other commercial or public areas. It seems like some Hillary supporters just drove around last night sticking signs everywhere they could find.This suggests to me that Obama's support is much more "real" than Hillary's. A sign on someone's lawn means that person supports the candidate. A sign on the highway means someone, somewhere, supports that candidate.Anyone else notice this anywhere else?

I haven't noticed signs of any kind for either here in Richmond. But I'm not very observant. There weren't even any supporters for either where I voted. I was looking forward to :X with some Obama folk.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Two things in response to posts above:(1) On Hillary's strategy, or lack thereof. I agree, but I think what it really highlights is how AWESOME a campaign Obama has run. Think about what he is doing - he is going toe to toe with the most famous name in the Democratic party, and beating her, without her making any glaring mistakes at all. It is really unbelievable what we are witnessing. They left no state uncontested, no stone unturned, have fought for every single delegate, and it has paid off.

Yes its quite remarkable I think. Also note that right now its down to Hillary, Obama, and McCain. 3 senators. A senator hasn't won the White House since JFK, and now its already a lock.

Not to mention two of them are minorities.

Hillary Clinton is not a minority. She's white, she's a protestant, and she's female. It is rumored that she's also a heterosexual. Those are all majorities among the American population.

 

[adonis]

Two things in response to posts above:(1) On Hillary's strategy, or lack thereof. I agree, but I think what it really highlights is how AWESOME a campaign Obama has run. Think about what he is doing - he is going toe to toe with the most famous name in the Democratic party, and beating her, without her making any glaring mistakes at all. It is really unbelievable what we are witnessing. They left no state uncontested, no stone unturned, have fought for every single delegate, and it has paid off.

Yes its quite remarkable I think. Also note that right now its down to Hillary, Obama, and McCain. 3 senators. A senator hasn't won the White House since JFK, and now its already a lock.

Not to mention two of them are minorities.

Hillary Clinton is not a minority. She's white, she's a protestant, and she's female. It is rumored that she's also a heterosexual. Those are all majorities among the American population.

Females aren't considered minorities?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Two things in response to posts above:(1) On Hillary's strategy, or lack thereof. I agree, but I think what it really highlights is how AWESOME a campaign Obama has run. Think about what he is doing - he is going toe to toe with the most famous name in the Democratic party, and beating her, without her making any glaring mistakes at all. It is really unbelievable what we are witnessing. They left no state uncontested, no stone unturned, have fought for every single delegate, and it has paid off.

Yes its quite remarkable I think. Also note that right now its down to Hillary, Obama, and McCain. 3 senators. A senator hasn't won the White House since JFK, and now its already a lock.

Not to mention two of them are minorities.

Hillary Clinton is not a minority. She's white, she's a protestant, and she's female. It is rumored that she's also a heterosexual. Those are all majorities among the American population.

Females aren't considered minorities?

Why would they be?

 

[adonis]

Two things in response to posts above:(1) On Hillary's strategy, or lack thereof. I agree, but I think what it really highlights is how AWESOME a campaign Obama has run. Think about what he is doing - he is going toe to toe with the most famous name in the Democratic party, and beating her, without her making any glaring mistakes at all. It is really unbelievable what we are witnessing. They left no state uncontested, no stone unturned, have fought for every single delegate, and it has paid off.

Yes its quite remarkable I think. Also note that right now its down to Hillary, Obama, and McCain. 3 senators. A senator hasn't won the White House since JFK, and now its already a lock.

Not to mention two of them are minorities.

Hillary Clinton is not a minority. She's white, she's a protestant, and she's female. It is rumored that she's also a heterosexual. Those are all majorities among the American population.

Females aren't considered minorities?

Why would they be?

Because they're underrepresented in politics, in positions of authority, in income. They benefit from affirmative action which targets minorities.Wikipedia says:

While in most societies, numbers of men and women are roughly equal, the status of women as a "subordinate" group has led some to equate them with minorities.

 

[Jeremy]

(2) The article cited above is what I have been saying - if Obama has the most pledged delegates, the Supers will not throw the election to Hillary, It will not happen. It would cause a rift in the Democratic party that maybe would never heal. I honestly think there would be a potential for riots from some blacks. And this is not to cast dispersions on blacks. I'm just saying that the prospect of having the base of your party be able to claim that the election was stolen from the first viable African American candidate by a bunch of old white guys in back rooms is not something the DNC wants. It will not happen. If it does, the DNC is lost and it's not worth worrying about anyway.

African Americans have been among the most loyal supporters of the Democratic Party over the years. Some would say blindly loyal. I don't know if they'll riot, but they're not going to turn out to vote for Hillary, IMO, at least under this scenario. And let's not forget about young people. College kids, many of them voting for the first time are showing excitement for Obama. You don't want to quash that enthusiasm by handing the election to Hillary that way. At best it would sour them on the process. At worst it would send them to the other side. I think they're smart enough to realize this.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Two things in response to posts above:(1) On Hillary's strategy, or lack thereof. I agree, but I think what it really highlights is how AWESOME a campaign Obama has run. Think about what he is doing - he is going toe to toe with the most famous name in the Democratic party, and beating her, without her making any glaring mistakes at all. It is really unbelievable what we are witnessing. They left no state uncontested, no stone unturned, have fought for every single delegate, and it has paid off.

Yes its quite remarkable I think. Also note that right now its down to Hillary, Obama, and McCain. 3 senators. A senator hasn't won the White House since JFK, and now its already a lock.

Not to mention two of them are minorities.

Hillary Clinton is not a minority. She's white, she's a protestant, and she's female. It is rumored that she's also a heterosexual. Those are all majorities among the American population.

Females aren't considered minorities?

Why would they be?

Because they're underrepresented in politics, in positions of authority, in income. They benefit from affirmative action which targets minorities.Wikipedia says:

While in most societies, numbers of men and women are roughly equal, the status of women as a "subordinate" group has led some to equate them with minorities.

I dunno. Whenever a group of people amount to about half the total population, I'm reluctant to call them a "minority." But I'll admit that the only reason I called you out on it was just so I could make a cheap joke about Hillary being a lesbian. I know what you meant, so I'll let it go.

 

[goonsquad]

Two things in response to posts above:

(1) On Hillary's strategy, or lack thereof. I agree, but I think what it really highlights is how AWESOME a campaign Obama has run. Think about what he is doing - he is going toe to toe with the most famous name in the Democratic party, and beating her, without her making any glaring mistakes at all. It is really unbelievable what we are witnessing. They left no state uncontested, no stone unturned, have fought for every single delegate, and it has paid off.

Yes its quite remarkable I think. Also note that right now its down to Hillary, Obama, and McCain. 3 senators. A senator hasn't won the White House since JFK, and now its already a lock.

Not to mention two of them are minorities.

Hillary Clinton is not a minority. She's white, she's a protestant, and she's female. It is rumored that she's also a heterosexual. Those are all majorities among the American population.

Females aren't considered minorities?

Why would they be?

Because they're underrepresented in politics, in positions of authority, in income. They benefit from affirmative action which targets minorities.Wikipedia says:

While in most societies, numbers of men and women are roughly equal, the status of women as a "subordinate" group has led some to equate them with minorities.

I dunno. Whenever a group of people amount to about half the total population, I'm reluctant to call them a "minority." But I'll admit that the only reason I called you out on it was just so I could make a cheap joke about Hillary being a lesbian. I know what you meant, so I'll let it go.

It was worth it, BTW.

 

[malice]

Two things in response to posts above:(1) On Hillary's strategy, or lack thereof. I agree, but I think what it really highlights is how AWESOME a campaign Obama has run. Think about what he is doing - he is going toe to toe with the most famous name in the Democratic party, and beating her, without her making any glaring mistakes at all. It is really unbelievable what we are witnessing. They left no state uncontested, no stone unturned, have fought for every single delegate, and it has paid off.

Yes its quite remarkable I think. Also note that right now its down to Hillary, Obama, and McCain. 3 senators. A senator hasn't won the White House since JFK, and now its already a lock.

Not to mention two of them are minorities.

Hillary Clinton is not a minority. She's white, she's a protestant, and she's female. It is rumored that she's also a heterosexual. Those are all majorities among the American population.

Females aren't considered minorities?

Until she gets elected, Hillary firmly believes this...

 

[adonis]

Two things in response to posts above:(1) On Hillary's strategy, or lack thereof. I agree, but I think what it really highlights is how AWESOME a campaign Obama has run. Think about what he is doing - he is going toe to toe with the most famous name in the Democratic party, and beating her, without her making any glaring mistakes at all. It is really unbelievable what we are witnessing. They left no state uncontested, no stone unturned, have fought for every single delegate, and it has paid off.

Yes its quite remarkable I think. Also note that right now its down to Hillary, Obama, and McCain. 3 senators. A senator hasn't won the White House since JFK, and now its already a lock.

Not to mention two of them are minorities.

Hillary Clinton is not a minority. She's white, she's a protestant, and she's female. It is rumored that she's also a heterosexual. Those are all majorities among the American population.

Females aren't considered minorities?

Why would they be?

Because they're underrepresented in politics, in positions of authority, in income. They benefit from affirmative action which targets minorities.Wikipedia says:

While in most societies, numbers of men and women are roughly equal, the status of women as a "subordinate" group has led some to equate them with minorities.

I dunno. Whenever a group of people amount to about half the total population, I'm reluctant to call them a "minority." But I'll admit that the only reason I called you out on it was just so I could make a cheap joke about Hillary being a lesbian. I know what you meant, so I'll let it go.

:( , had I known that, I would've tried to set you up better.

 

[culdeus]

Obama is something we haven't had in a long time as president -- a Good man !

A strong family man , good morals , a strong persona , compassionate , maybe the most well spoken canidate since the pre alzheimers Reagan.

Sorry but I can't judge a person by mistakes as a teenager with Drug use a few times or if he went to a Muslim school at age 10.

Actually I think the fact he has a Islamic name will help more than hurt especially in dealing with the middle east issues. Should give him much more credibility on that alone. We have spent years making enemies and alot of times we were right in what we did - But I think now is the time to start reaching out and making alies instead of enemies.

The real enemy is the forming Russia / China alliance and we need a leader that can Unite us with Europe and everyone else. Obama is the only canidate that could really make that happen - Hillary would be a healthcare nightmare and on Foriegn policy just like Bill in just trying to keep everyhting alfloat rather than really trying to make progress and improving relations. With Russia and China formaing a strong bond we need the same thing with the EU - The USA isn't as strong as it was and China is rising like a rocket on the world economic stage and is anxious to throw it's muscle around.

Honestly I'd like to believe you here, but HRC is probably best setup for this based on the connections Bill setup.

 

[adonis]

Obama is something we haven't had in a long time as president -- a Good man !

A strong family man , good morals , a strong persona , compassionate , maybe the most well spoken canidate since the pre alzheimers Reagan.

Sorry but I can't judge a person by mistakes as a teenager with Drug use a few times or if he went to a Muslim school at age 10.

Actually I think the fact he has a Islamic name will help more than hurt especially in dealing with the middle east issues. Should give him much more credibility on that alone. We have spent years making enemies and alot of times we were right in what we did - But I think now is the time to start reaching out and making alies instead of enemies.

The real enemy is the forming Russia / China alliance and we need a leader that can Unite us with Europe and everyone else. Obama is the only canidate that could really make that happen - Hillary would be a healthcare nightmare and on Foriegn policy just like Bill in just trying to keep everyhting alfloat rather than really trying to make progress and improving relations. With Russia and China formaing a strong bond we need the same thing with the EU - The USA isn't as strong as it was and China is rising like a rocket on the world economic stage and is anxious to throw it's muscle around.

Honestly I'd like to believe you here, but HRC is probably best setup for this based on the connections Bill setup.

Yes, she does have connections but those were forged with Bill's personal charm and personal skills. Hillary doesn't have these, so she'd largely be resting on her husband's earlier efforts. Obama does have personal skills that rival, if not best, Clinton's. I believe he certainly comes off as being at least as good as Clinton, and could likely use his charisma, public speaking ability, and young status to bring us into better and newer relationships with Europe and Russia. On an individual level, Obama is much more qualified and capable of building good relations with other heads of states and nations than Hillary. He just has it, and it translates well into every language.

 

[Tremendous Upside]

Obama is something we haven't had in a long time as president -- a Good man !

A strong family man , good morals , a strong persona , compassionate , maybe the most well spoken canidate since the pre alzheimers Reagan.

Sorry but I can't judge a person by mistakes as a teenager with Drug use a few times or if he went to a Muslim school at age 10.

Actually I think the fact he has a Islamic name will help more than hurt especially in dealing with the middle east issues. Should give him much more credibility on that alone. We have spent years making enemies and alot of times we were right in what we did - But I think now is the time to start reaching out and making alies instead of enemies.

The real enemy is the forming Russia / China alliance and we need a leader that can Unite us with Europe and everyone else. Obama is the only canidate that could really make that happen - Hillary would be a healthcare nightmare and on Foriegn policy just like Bill in just trying to keep everyhting alfloat rather than really trying to make progress and improving relations. With Russia and China formaing a strong bond we need the same thing with the EU - The USA isn't as strong as it was and China is rising like a rocket on the world economic stage and is anxious to throw it's muscle around.

Honestly I'd like to believe you here, but HRC is probably best setup for this based on the connections Bill setup.

Yes, she does have connections but those were forged with Bill's personal charm and personal skills. Hillary doesn't have these, so she'd largely be resting on her husband's earlier efforts. Obama does have personal skills that rival, if not best, Clinton's. I believe he certainly comes off as being at least as good as Clinton, and could likely use his charisma, public speaking ability, and young status to bring us into better and newer relationships with Europe and Russia. On an individual level, Obama is much more qualified and capable of building good relations with other heads of states and nations than Hillary. He just has it, and it translates well into every language.

It = info

 

[tdog]

Today is voting day here in Maryland and I've noticed something that I'm curious about. For weeks I've been driving around and seeing lots of Obama signs on people's lawns. Almost no Hillary signs.Today, on election day, there are tons of Hillary signs everywhere. Not on private property, but in the median of the streets, and stuck in the grassy areas near the supermarkets, and on other commercial or public areas. It seems like some Hillary supporters just drove around last night sticking signs everywhere they could find.This suggests to me that Obama's support is much more "real" than Hillary's. A sign on someone's lawn means that person supports the candidate. A sign on the highway means someone, somewhere, supports that candidate.Anyone else notice this anywhere else?

I haven't noticed signs of any kind for either here in Richmond. But I'm not very observant. There weren't even any supporters for either where I voted. I was looking forward to with some Obama folk.

There has been a big effort in Arlington the last couple weeks for Obama--people at the metro every morning, farmer's market this weekend, phone calls, etc. Some lawn signs as well. Almost no Hillary effort at all. Guess she has written off the latte liberal vote, although she did appear at a local high school last week. There wasn't even a Hillary sign outside the polling place this morning.

 

[valhallan]

Today is voting day here in Maryland and I've noticed something that I'm curious about. For weeks I've been driving around and seeing lots of Obama signs on people's lawns. Almost no Hillary signs.Today, on election day, there are tons of Hillary signs everywhere. Not on private property, but in the median of the streets, and stuck in the grassy areas near the supermarkets, and on other commercial or public areas. It seems like some Hillary supporters just drove around last night sticking signs everywhere they could find.This suggests to me that Obama's support is much more "real" than Hillary's. A sign on someone's lawn means that person supports the candidate. A sign on the highway means someone, somewhere, supports that candidate.Anyone else notice this anywhere else?

I've seen a handful of residential Hillary signs in Virginia, but much more Obama. I think your observation is fairly accurate because there seemed to be quite a few new Hillary signs on the highway I take to work.

 

[Sweet J]

Today is voting day here in Maryland and I've noticed something that I'm curious about. For weeks I've been driving around and seeing lots of Obama signs on people's lawns. Almost no Hillary signs.Today, on election day, there are tons of Hillary signs everywhere. Not on private property, but in the median of the streets, and stuck in the grassy areas near the supermarkets, and on other commercial or public areas. It seems like some Hillary supporters just drove around last night sticking signs everywhere they could find.This suggests to me that Obama's support is much more "real" than Hillary's. A sign on someone's lawn means that person supports the candidate. A sign on the highway means someone, somewhere, supports that candidate.Anyone else notice this anywhere else?

I haven't noticed signs of any kind for either here in Richmond. But I'm not very observant. There weren't even any supporters for either where I voted. I was looking forward to with some Obama folk.

There has been a big effort in Arlington the last couple weeks for Obama--people at the metro every morning, farmer's market this weekend, phone calls, etc. Some lawn signs as well. Almost no Hillary effort at all. Guess she has written off the latte liberal vote, although she did appear at a local high school last week. There wasn't even a Hillary sign outside the polling place this morning.

Obama people were at the metro in Alexandria every morning last week. No Hillary people.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Today is voting day here in Maryland and I've noticed something that I'm curious about. For weeks I've been driving around and seeing lots of Obama signs on people's lawns. Almost no Hillary signs.Today, on election day, there are tons of Hillary signs everywhere. Not on private property, but in the median of the streets, and stuck in the grassy areas near the supermarkets, and on other commercial or public areas. It seems like some Hillary supporters just drove around last night sticking signs everywhere they could find.This suggests to me that Obama's support is much more "real" than Hillary's. A sign on someone's lawn means that person supports the candidate. A sign on the highway means someone, somewhere, supports that candidate.Anyone else notice this anywhere else?

I haven't noticed signs of any kind for either here in Richmond. But I'm not very observant. There weren't even any supporters for either where I voted. I was looking forward to with some Obama folk.

There has been a big effort in Arlington the last couple weeks for Obama--people at the metro every morning, farmer's market this weekend, phone calls, etc. Some lawn signs as well. Almost no Hillary effort at all. Guess she has written off the latte liberal vote, although she did appear at a local high school last week. There wasn't even a Hillary sign outside the polling place this morning.

Obama people were at the metro in Alexandria every morning last week. No Hillary people.

Let's hope this translates into votes and a comfortable win. At this point I think expectations are so low for Clinton that she might even get some positive talk tonight if it stays close in VA. I'm concerned about what happens if there is an upset win at this point.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Today is voting day here in Maryland and I've noticed something that I'm curious about. For weeks I've been driving around and seeing lots of Obama signs on people's lawns. Almost no Hillary signs.Today, on election day, there are tons of Hillary signs everywhere. Not on private property, but in the median of the streets, and stuck in the grassy areas near the supermarkets, and on other commercial or public areas. It seems like some Hillary supporters just drove around last night sticking signs everywhere they could find.This suggests to me that Obama's support is much more "real" than Hillary's. A sign on someone's lawn means that person supports the candidate. A sign on the highway means someone, somewhere, supports that candidate.Anyone else notice this anywhere else?

It could mean they are low on money. Put them out, vote, gather, repeat.

 

[GSteps]

Obama better sew up the nomination before Pennsylvania because the govenor says he will not get carry that state:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08043/856727-153.stm

Gov. 'Blunt Talk' Rendell (and other topics)

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

By Tony Norman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

So many topics, so little space:

Gov. Ed "Don't Call Me 'Fast Eddie' " Rendell met with the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last week to talk about his latest budget. But before turning the meeting over to his number-crunchers, our voluble governor weighed in on the primary fight between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama and what the Illinois senator could expect from the good people of Pennsylvania at the polls:

"You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate," he said bluntly. Our eyes only met briefly, perhaps because the governor wanted to spare the only black guy in the room from feeling self-conscious for backing an obvious loser. "I believe, looking at the returns in my election, that had Lynn Swann [2006 Republican gubernatorial candidate] been the identical candidate that he was --well-spoken [note: Mr. Rendell did not call the brother "articulate"], charismatic, good-looking -- but white instead of black, instead of winning by 22 points, I would have won by 17 or so."

I know I have a habit of sometimes zoning out in these meetings, but it sounded to me like Mr. Rendell had unilaterally declared Pennsylvania to be Alabama circa 1963. Was he suggesting that Pennsylvanians are uniquely racist in ways that folks in the states Mr. Obama has won so far aren't? By the way, Mr. Obama won Alabama on Super Tuesday, thank you very much!

What accounts for Mr. Rendell's overweening confidence that, no matter what, he'll always find a way to overcome the odds by at least 17 points even in a racist commonwealth, but that Mr. Obama can't?

If Mr. Rendell, a Clinton backer, is right about Pennsylvania's racial attitudes, maybe we should get a new state slogan. How about: "You've got a friend with a pointy white hood in Pennsylvania"?

Will they vote for a woman or will the dems cross party lines to avoid voting for either of them?

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Obama better sew up the nomination before Pennsylvania because the govenor says he will not get carry that state:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08043/856727-153.stm

Gov. 'Blunt Talk' Rendell (and other topics)

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

By Tony Norman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

So many topics, so little space:

Gov. Ed "Don't Call Me 'Fast Eddie' " Rendell met with the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last week to talk about his latest budget. But before turning the meeting over to his number-crunchers, our voluble governor weighed in on the primary fight between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama and what the Illinois senator could expect from the good people of Pennsylvania at the polls:

"You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate," he said bluntly. Our eyes only met briefly, perhaps because the governor wanted to spare the only black guy in the room from feeling self-conscious for backing an obvious loser. "I believe, looking at the returns in my election, that had Lynn Swann [2006 Republican gubernatorial candidate] been the identical candidate that he was --well-spoken [note: Mr. Rendell did not call the brother "articulate"], charismatic, good-looking -- but white instead of black, instead of winning by 22 points, I would have won by 17 or so."

I know I have a habit of sometimes zoning out in these meetings, but it sounded to me like Mr. Rendell had unilaterally declared Pennsylvania to be Alabama circa 1963. Was he suggesting that Pennsylvanians are uniquely racist in ways that folks in the states Mr. Obama has won so far aren't? By the way, Mr. Obama won Alabama on Super Tuesday, thank you very much!

What accounts for Mr. Rendell's overweening confidence that, no matter what, he'll always find a way to overcome the odds by at least 17 points even in a racist commonwealth, but that Mr. Obama can't?

If Mr. Rendell, a Clinton backer, is right about Pennsylvania's racial attitudes, maybe we should get a new state slogan. How about: "You've got a friend with a pointy white hood in Pennsylvania"?

Will they vote for a woman or will the dems cross party lines to avoid voting for either of them?

um... wow

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Obama better sew up the nomination before Pennsylvania because the govenor says he will not get carry that state:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08043/856727-153.stm

Gov. 'Blunt Talk' Rendell (and other topics)

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

By Tony Norman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

So many topics, so little space:

Gov. Ed "Don't Call Me 'Fast Eddie' " Rendell met with the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last week to talk about his latest budget. But before turning the meeting over to his number-crunchers, our voluble governor weighed in on the primary fight between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama and what the Illinois senator could expect from the good people of Pennsylvania at the polls:

"You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate," he said bluntly. Our eyes only met briefly, perhaps because the governor wanted to spare the only black guy in the room from feeling self-conscious for backing an obvious loser. "I believe, looking at the returns in my election, that had Lynn Swann [2006 Republican gubernatorial candidate] been the identical candidate that he was --well-spoken [note: Mr. Rendell did not call the brother "articulate"], charismatic, good-looking -- but white instead of black, instead of winning by 22 points, I would have won by 17 or so."

I know I have a habit of sometimes zoning out in these meetings, but it sounded to me like Mr. Rendell had unilaterally declared Pennsylvania to be Alabama circa 1963. Was he suggesting that Pennsylvanians are uniquely racist in ways that folks in the states Mr. Obama has won so far aren't? By the way, Mr. Obama won Alabama on Super Tuesday, thank you very much!

What accounts for Mr. Rendell's overweening confidence that, no matter what, he'll always find a way to overcome the odds by at least 17 points even in a racist commonwealth, but that Mr. Obama can't?

If Mr. Rendell, a Clinton backer, is right about Pennsylvania's racial attitudes, maybe we should get a new state slogan. How about: "You've got a friend with a pointy white hood in Pennsylvania"?

Will they vote for a woman or will the dems cross party lines to avoid voting for either of them?

um... wow

Really. Only 5% racist? PA has come a long way.

 

[djcolts]

Obama better sew up the nomination before Pennsylvania because the govenor says he will not get carry that state:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08043/856727-153.stm

Gov. 'Blunt Talk' Rendell (and other topics)

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

By Tony Norman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

So many topics, so little space:

Gov. Ed "Don't Call Me 'Fast Eddie' " Rendell met with the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last week to talk about his latest budget. But before turning the meeting over to his number-crunchers, our voluble governor weighed in on the primary fight between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama and what the Illinois senator could expect from the good people of Pennsylvania at the polls:

"You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate," he said bluntly. Our eyes only met briefly, perhaps because the governor wanted to spare the only black guy in the room from feeling self-conscious for backing an obvious loser. "I believe, looking at the returns in my election, that had Lynn Swann [2006 Republican gubernatorial candidate] been the identical candidate that he was --well-spoken [note: Mr. Rendell did not call the brother "articulate"], charismatic, good-looking -- but white instead of black, instead of winning by 22 points, I would have won by 17 or so."

I know I have a habit of sometimes zoning out in these meetings, but it sounded to me like Mr. Rendell had unilaterally declared Pennsylvania to be Alabama circa 1963. Was he suggesting that Pennsylvanians are uniquely racist in ways that folks in the states Mr. Obama has won so far aren't? By the way, Mr. Obama won Alabama on Super Tuesday, thank you very much!

What accounts for Mr. Rendell's overweening confidence that, no matter what, he'll always find a way to overcome the odds by at least 17 points even in a racist commonwealth, but that Mr. Obama can't?

If Mr. Rendell, a Clinton backer, is right about Pennsylvania's racial attitudes, maybe we should get a new state slogan. How about: "You've got a friend with a pointy white hood in Pennsylvania"?

Will they vote for a woman or will the dems cross party lines to avoid voting for either of them?

um... wow

Sometimes, Clinton surrogates do more harm than good. See: Penn, Mark - Clinton, Bill - Shaheen, Billy - Johnson, Robert - and now, Rendell, Ed.

 

[scoobygang]

Good ole Pennsyltucky.

 

[flufhed]

Dear Media -

In case you have forgotten over the past week since last time we brought it up, this Obama guy is BLACK!! Not that this should matter anything, and we think it is great and all that a BLACK GUY is doing so well. But, don't forget, he is BLACK!!

Sincerely,

The Hillary Clinton Campaign

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Voted this morning. :X

Voted at 9:00AM. The 21º temperatures had all the campaign workers hiding in their cars when I snuck in.

Voted at 8:00 a.m. in the Del Ray neighborhood of Alexandria, VA (eclectic neighborhood with mix of working-class, hispanic, black, and white upper-middle). Many people in line indicated that this was the longest they'd had to wait. It is an "open" primary, so anybody can vote in either primary. The table where you sign in had a guy with a blue "democrat primary" book and a guy with a red "republican primary" book. In my half-hour wait, I didn't see one person sign-in at the redbook. When I finally got to the beginning, I said "you must be the loneliest guy in the world." He chuckled, and then both guys checked their notes: 350 people had signed-in for the Dem primary, and 30 had signed-in for the Repub. primary.

Was he naked when you had this conversation?Just curious.

 

[Sweet J]

Voted this morning.

Voted at 9:00AM. The 21º temperatures had all the campaign workers hiding in their cars when I snuck in.

Voted at 8:00 a.m. in the Del Ray neighborhood of Alexandria, VA (eclectic neighborhood with mix of working-class, hispanic, black, and white upper-middle). Many people in line indicated that this was the longest they'd had to wait. It is an "open" primary, so anybody can vote in either primary. The table where you sign in had a guy with a blue "democrat primary" book and a guy with a red "republican primary" book. In my half-hour wait, I didn't see one person sign-in at the redbook. When I finally got to the beginning, I said "you must be the loneliest guy in the world." He chuckled, and then both guys checked their notes: 350 people had signed-in for the Dem primary, and 30 had signed-in for the Repub. primary.

Was he naked when you had this conversation?Just curious.

lol.Another interesting article. Sums up one of Hillary's problems nicely.:

huffington article

I know the Clinton family pretty well and can speak very highly of her and her capabilities. Unfortunately for her, she adopted the Bill/DLC approach to politics. And I told her that in 2000 when she ran for then Senate.

During the 2000 election I attended a Hillary fundraiser in Chicago for a small group of Democratic elites. I asked her whether she really supported the death penalty and her answer was pretty telling. She said that she was. In my opinion, grass roots liberals do not support the death penalty nor do any humane societies. I was disappointed with her answer and did not then grasp the significance of her answer.

Bill Clinton had a ######ed person executed in Arkansas in 1992. He actually left his campaign briefly to show his DLC strategy. The DLC strategy which he helped found was to mimic the Republicans on the death penalty and national security issues whether you believed in that or not. Can you imagine a Democrat supporting a position just to be elected? I could not at the time but I have since learned the disaster that this has caused for the Democratic Party.

Selecting Bill Clinton to be the standard bearer for the DLC was perfect. He was the best at arguing for stuff he himself did not believe in. And like many lawyers chooses to parse words for his own benefit. That was good for him in 1992 and 1996 especially since he had Ross Perrault pealing off votes from papa Bush and Dole. However, during the Clinton years, the DLC strategy caused the collapse of the Democratic majority which started in 1933.

Last Sunday on This Week with George S, George Will made a comment about how Bill Clinton's political skills were essentially an urban myth. I generally do not agree with Will except for his passion about the Chicago Cubs. However, in this case he is dead on. And I have said this for years to my DLC advocates. You may win a few elections by saying things you don't believe in. But, as it was with Bill and the DLC, insincerity is no longer a good political strategy.

That is why Hillary's case is so unfortunate. I have suggested to her and others in her inner circle that she cannot be her husband. He is a rock star and his popularity emanates from that phenomenon. She is a hard working, intelligent, and capable political candidate. Unfortunately she drank too much of her husband's Kool-Aid without understanding the consequences. She could not pull off the insincerity game that some men can get away with. There is a real gender difference in this area between men and women. Men may be hunters and women may be gatherers. But men are great at denying and women are more into self denial. They have to be to live with the men that lie to them frequently. This may be an over generalization, but it is particularly true for Hillary.

Hillary's vote for the Iraq war was bad enough. Her denying that she made a mistake was the one that most Democrats cannot forget. And Hillary got her denial advice from Bill who is the champion of deniers. Had she fessed up to her responsibility for that vote, she would be the nominee. However, she continued to take the advice from Bill's group in her campaign. They are still living in the 90s thinking that Bill and the DLC are running. In my heart I know that she is a sincere ethical person who would never have supported the Iraq war but for Bill's advice and the advice of people like Madeline Albright. And I also think that she is a humanitarian who would not have supported the death penalty.

The lesson in all this is that you have to be true to yourself and your own beliefs to do anything in life and especially politics. The old Abraham Lincoln (happy BD Abe) still is applicable regarding fooling the people. It is also a lesson in being true to oneself. As I wrote in previous posts, the real Hillary Clinton is the best qualified to be President in 2008. Unfortunately for her and America, her husband has dominated their marriage to her detriment. Sometimes you have to say no even to your own spouse. However, the good news here is that the DLC is dead. May they not rest in peace.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Feb 12, 1:35 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Resisting calls from Barack Obama to release her income tax returns, Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday she would only do so if she secures the Democratic presidential nomination and contended her rival had been less than candid about his relationship with major campaign contributors.

In a televised interview Monday with Politico.com and local television station WJLA, Sen. Clinton said her financial holdings had been disclosed in her Senate ethics filings and that she had liquidated all her assets when she became a presidential candidate so her investments would not present a conflict of interest.

After the former first lady acknowledged she had lent her campaign $5 million in personal funds, Sen. Obama suggested she release her tax records as he has done to give voters a better accounting of where her money comes from.

The Clintons have become wealthy since leaving the White House in 2001, largely through Bill Clinton's consulting and speaking fees and the couple's lucrative book deals.

The New York senator shot back at Obama's suggestion, saying such transparency should apply to other aspects of his life.

"Senator Obama has some questions to answer about his dealings with one of his biggest contributors, Exelon — apparently he cut some deals behind closed doors to prevent them from full disclosure," Clinton said. "We still don't have answers about Senator Obama and his dealings with Mr. Rezko."

Obama has faced questions about his relationship with Chicago businessman Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who raised money for past Obama political campaigns and played a role in the purchase of the Illinois senator's home. Obama has not been accused of any wrongdoing in connection with felony fraud charges against Rezko.

Clinton and Obama tangled over Rezko at a televised debate in South Carolina, where she referred to Rezko as a "slum landlord."

Executives and employees of Exelon Corp., a Chicago-based energy giant and nuclear plant operator, have contributed more than $200,000 to Obama's campaigns since 2004. This month, The New York Times examined whether Obama, at the behest of Exelon lobbyists, had watered down legislation aimed at tightening regulations on the nuclear industry.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton noted that Sen. Clinton had co-sponsored the nuclear regulatory legislation she now criticizes.

 

[cstu]

Obama better sew up the nomination before Pennsylvania because the govenor says he will not get carry that state:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08043/856727-153.stm

Gov. 'Blunt Talk' Rendell (and other topics)

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

By Tony Norman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

So many topics, so little space:

Gov. Ed "Don't Call Me 'Fast Eddie' " Rendell met with the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last week to talk about his latest budget. But before turning the meeting over to his number-crunchers, our voluble governor weighed in on the primary fight between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama and what the Illinois senator could expect from the good people of Pennsylvania at the polls:

"You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate," he said bluntly. Our eyes only met briefly, perhaps because the governor wanted to spare the only black guy in the room from feeling self-conscious for backing an obvious loser. "I believe, looking at the returns in my election, that had Lynn Swann [2006 Republican gubernatorial candidate] been the identical candidate that he was --well-spoken [note: Mr. Rendell did not call the brother "articulate"], charismatic, good-looking -- but white instead of black, instead of winning by 22 points, I would have won by 17 or so."

I know I have a habit of sometimes zoning out in these meetings, but it sounded to me like Mr. Rendell had unilaterally declared Pennsylvania to be Alabama circa 1963. Was he suggesting that Pennsylvanians are uniquely racist in ways that folks in the states Mr. Obama has won so far aren't? By the way, Mr. Obama won Alabama on Super Tuesday, thank you very much!

What accounts for Mr. Rendell's overweening confidence that, no matter what, he'll always find a way to overcome the odds by at least 17 points even in a racist commonwealth, but that Mr. Obama can't?

If Mr. Rendell, a Clinton backer, is right about Pennsylvania's racial attitudes, maybe we should get a new state slogan. How about: "You've got a friend with a pointy white hood in Pennsylvania"?

Will they vote for a woman or will the dems cross party lines to avoid voting for either of them?

Did Rendell just say that 5% of his state is blatantly racist?

 

[NCCommish]

Voted this morning.

Voted at 9:00AM. The 21º temperatures had all the campaign workers hiding in their cars when I snuck in.

Voted at 8:00 a.m. in the Del Ray neighborhood of Alexandria, VA (eclectic neighborhood with mix of working-class, hispanic, black, and white upper-middle). Many people in line indicated that this was the longest they'd had to wait. It is an "open" primary, so anybody can vote in either primary. The table where you sign in had a guy with a blue "democrat primary" book and a guy with a red "republican primary" book. In my half-hour wait, I didn't see one person sign-in at the redbook. When I finally got to the beginning, I said "you must be the loneliest guy in the world." He chuckled, and then both guys checked their notes: 350 people had signed-in for the Dem primary, and 30 had signed-in for the Repub. primary.

Was he naked when you had this conversation?Just curious.

lol.Another interesting article. Sums up one of Hillary's problems nicely.:

huffington article

I know the Clinton family pretty well and can speak very highly of her and her capabilities. Unfortunately for her, she adopted the Bill/DLC approach to politics. And I told her that in 2000 when she ran for then Senate.

During the 2000 election I attended a Hillary fundraiser in Chicago for a small group of Democratic elites. I asked her whether she really supported the death penalty and her answer was pretty telling. She said that she was. In my opinion, grass roots liberals do not support the death penalty nor do any humane societies. I was disappointed with her answer and did not then grasp the significance of her answer.

Bill Clinton had a ######ed person executed in Arkansas in 1992. He actually left his campaign briefly to show his DLC strategy. The DLC strategy which he helped found was to mimic the Republicans on the death penalty and national security issues whether you believed in that or not. Can you imagine a Democrat supporting a position just to be elected? I could not at the time but I have since learned the disaster that this has caused for the Democratic Party.

Selecting Bill Clinton to be the standard bearer for the DLC was perfect. He was the best at arguing for stuff he himself did not believe in. And like many lawyers chooses to parse words for his own benefit. That was good for him in 1992 and 1996 especially since he had Ross Perrault pealing off votes from papa Bush and Dole. However, during the Clinton years, the DLC strategy caused the collapse of the Democratic majority which started in 1933.

Last Sunday on This Week with George S, George Will made a comment about how Bill Clinton's political skills were essentially an urban myth. I generally do not agree with Will except for his passion about the Chicago Cubs. However, in this case he is dead on. And I have said this for years to my DLC advocates. You may win a few elections by saying things you don't believe in. But, as it was with Bill and the DLC, insincerity is no longer a good political strategy.

That is why Hillary's case is so unfortunate. I have suggested to her and others in her inner circle that she cannot be her husband. He is a rock star and his popularity emanates from that phenomenon. She is a hard working, intelligent, and capable political candidate. Unfortunately she drank too much of her husband's Kool-Aid without understanding the consequences. She could not pull off the insincerity game that some men can get away with. There is a real gender difference in this area between men and women. Men may be hunters and women may be gatherers. But men are great at denying and women are more into self denial. They have to be to live with the men that lie to them frequently. This may be an over generalization, but it is particularly true for Hillary.

Hillary's vote for the Iraq war was bad enough. Her denying that she made a mistake was the one that most Democrats cannot forget. And Hillary got her denial advice from Bill who is the champion of deniers. Had she fessed up to her responsibility for that vote, she would be the nominee. However, she continued to take the advice from Bill's group in her campaign. They are still living in the 90s thinking that Bill and the DLC are running. In my heart I know that she is a sincere ethical person who would never have supported the Iraq war but for Bill's advice and the advice of people like Madeline Albright. And I also think that she is a humanitarian who would not have supported the death penalty.

The lesson in all this is that you have to be true to yourself and your own beliefs to do anything in life and especially politics. The old Abraham Lincoln (happy BD Abe) still is applicable regarding fooling the people. It is also a lesson in being true to oneself. As I wrote in previous posts, the real Hillary Clinton is the best qualified to be President in 2008. Unfortunately for her and America, her husband has dominated their marriage to her detriment. Sometimes you have to say no even to your own spouse. However, the good news here is that the DLC is dead. May they not rest in peace.

I hope she is right. The DLC is the worst thing to happen to the Dems in some time. Bunch of wannbe GOPers.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I honestly think there would be a potential for riots from some blacks. And this is not to cast dispersions on blacks.

They may even burn #### down.

Oh they will most definitely burn #### down.

 

[adonis]

I honestly think there would be a potential for riots from some blacks. And this is not to cast dispersions on blacks.

They may even burn #### down.

Oh they will most definitely burn #### down.

And I'll bring my lighter...

 

[Alan Smithee]

Obama better sew up the nomination before Pennsylvania because the govenor says he will not get carry that state:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08043/856727-153.stm

Gov. 'Blunt Talk' Rendell (and other topics)

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

By Tony Norman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

So many topics, so little space:

Gov. Ed "Don't Call Me 'Fast Eddie' " Rendell met with the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last week to talk about his latest budget. But before turning the meeting over to his number-crunchers, our voluble governor weighed in on the primary fight between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama and what the Illinois senator could expect from the good people of Pennsylvania at the polls:

"You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate," he said bluntly. Our eyes only met briefly, perhaps because the governor wanted to spare the only black guy in the room from feeling self-conscious for backing an obvious loser. "I believe, looking at the returns in my election, that had Lynn Swann [2006 Republican gubernatorial candidate] been the identical candidate that he was --well-spoken [note: Mr. Rendell did not call the brother "articulate"], charismatic, good-looking -- but white instead of black, instead of winning by 22 points, I would have won by 17 or so."

I know I have a habit of sometimes zoning out in these meetings, but it sounded to me like Mr. Rendell had unilaterally declared Pennsylvania to be Alabama circa 1963. Was he suggesting that Pennsylvanians are uniquely racist in ways that folks in the states Mr. Obama has won so far aren't? By the way, Mr. Obama won Alabama on Super Tuesday, thank you very much!

What accounts for Mr. Rendell's overweening confidence that, no matter what, he'll always find a way to overcome the odds by at least 17 points even in a racist commonwealth, but that Mr. Obama can't?

If Mr. Rendell, a Clinton backer, is right about Pennsylvania's racial attitudes, maybe we should get a new state slogan. How about: "You've got a friend with a pointy white hood in Pennsylvania"?

Will they vote for a woman or will the dems cross party lines to avoid voting for either of them?

Did Rendell just say that 5% of his state is blatantly racist?

Carville's famous quote is that Pennsylvania is Pittsburgh and Philadelphia with Alabama in between.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I hope she is right. The DLC is the worst thing to happen to the Dems in some time. Bunch of wannbe GOPers.

Interesting blurb from a 2005 article in The Nation.

In May 2003 the centrist Democratic Leadership Council published its yearly list of "100 New Democrats to Watch." The DLC frequently puts out these lists as a way to publicly solidify its identification with the New Democratic movement within the Democratic Party. The 2003 list, however, contained a number of questionable additions, including then-Illinois State Senator Barack Obama. As a state senator, Obama had continually passed progressive legislation--a record that he vowed to add to when he began his run for the US Senate on a platform of clear opposition to the Patriot Act, the Iraq War and NAFTA, all positions anathema to the DLC. The puzzling addition caused The Black Commentator magazine to wonder, a month after the DLC list came out, whether Obama had been "corrupted" by the centrist group. Obama's reply to the Commentator was indicative of how the DLC plays the "New Democrat" card."Neither my staff nor I have had any direct contact with anybody at the DLC since I began this campaign a year ago," Obama wrote. "I don't know who nominated me for the DLC list of 100 rising stars, nor did I expend any effort to be included on the list.... I certainly did not view such inclusion as an endorsement on my part of the DLC platform." After realizing that his name appeared in the DLC's database, Obama asked to have it removed. The message was clear: The DLC needed Obama a lot more than Obama needed the DLC.

 

[Sweet J]

More fodder

Senator Hillary Rodham (D-N.Y.) mocked Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) tonight for his high-flown rhetoric, suggesting she would fight important fights when he would back down....

..."I think that both Michigan and Florida should count, because these are two states we have to carry," she said. "This is not about so much as the ins and outs of the Democratic National Committee as to whether the Democrats are going to win in the fall. "In Michigan, all of us had a chance to leave our names on the ballot - I chose to do so," she continued. "My opponents ran a very vigorous campaign to get people to vote 'uncontested.' There was a campaign going on - it was a campaign against me, and I still won a majority.

 

[adonis]

More fodder

Senator Hillary Rodham (D-N.Y.) mocked Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) tonight for his high-flown rhetoric, suggesting she would fight important fights when he would back down....

..."I think that both Michigan and Florida should count, because these are two states we have to carry," she said. "This is not about so much as the ins and outs of the Democratic National Committee as to whether the Democrats are going to win in the fall. "In Michigan, all of us had a chance to leave our names on the ballot - I chose to do so," she continued. "My opponents ran a very vigorous campaign to get people to vote 'uncontested.' There was a campaign going on - it was a campaign against me, and I still won a majority.

Good lord, that's the kind of thinking we're considering putting in the white house?

 

[djcolts]

More fodder

Senator Hillary Rodham (D-N.Y.) mocked Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) tonight for his high-flown rhetoric, suggesting she would fight important fights when he would back down....

..."I think that both Michigan and Florida should count, because these are two states we have to carry," she said. "This is not about so much as the ins and outs of the Democratic National Committee as to whether the Democrats are going to win in the fall. "In Michigan, all of us had a chance to leave our names on the ballot - I chose to do so," she continued. "My opponents ran a very vigorous campaign to get people to vote 'uncontested.' There was a campaign going on - it was a campaign against me, and I still won a majority.

This is so pathetic. The comments below the article are just as funny as the statement.

 

[adonis]

More fodder

Senator Hillary Rodham (D-N.Y.) mocked Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) tonight for his high-flown rhetoric, suggesting she would fight important fights when he would back down....

..."I think that both Michigan and Florida should count, because these are two states we have to carry," she said. "This is not about so much as the ins and outs of the Democratic National Committee as to whether the Democrats are going to win in the fall. "In Michigan, all of us had a chance to leave our names on the ballot - I chose to do so," she continued. "My opponents ran a very vigorous campaign to get people to vote 'uncontested.' There was a campaign going on - it was a campaign against me, and I still won a majority.

This is so pathetic. The comments below the article are just as funny as the statement.

Mrs. Clinton has the most flexible policy possible when it comes to which votes really count. She insults all democratic voters in non primary states by dismissing their votes. She claimed victory in Florida and Michigan where everyone knew their votes did not count. In California she won with the absentee votes which were cast before people even knew Obama. She is not running a very impressive campaign by any measure.

Dear Hillary -

First, let me say how proud I am of you for all your efforts to be our next Fearless Leader.

Next, I want you to know that I personally remember the tremendous political pressure put upon those Michigan by Mr. Uncontested.

It was, in a word, brutal.

At the time, I didn't understand it - but now I know it was past of a vast left wing conspiracy.

You truly showed your fearless leadership skills by standing firm against it. More than that, you gave proof - throught the night - that our Hillary flag was still there.

Keep fighting the good fight, for your own greater good - and even the good of others.

Sincerely,

Your friend OTAYPANKY

I'm a MI voter and that statement is BS. There was some "campaigning" for uncommitted, but it was something that happened in the last few days and it was as much about sending a message to the MDP and the DNC as it was anything else.

And keep in mind that if you wrote in the candidate you actually preferred, they threw away your ballot. And she still only beat "uncommitted" by 15%.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

I honestly think there would be a potential for riots from some blacks. And this is not to cast dispersions on blacks.

They may even burn #### down.

Oh they will most definitely burn #### down.

And I'll bring my lighter...

I'll bring marshmallows!

 

[culdeus]

More fodder

Senator Hillary Rodham (D-N.Y.) mocked Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) tonight for his high-flown rhetoric, suggesting she would fight important fights when he would back down....

..."I think that both Michigan and Florida should count, because these are two states we have to carry," she said. "This is not about so much as the ins and outs of the Democratic National Committee as to whether the Democrats are going to win in the fall. "In Michigan, all of us had a chance to leave our names on the ballot - I chose to do so," she continued. "My opponents ran a very vigorous campaign to get people to vote 'uncontested.' There was a campaign going on - it was a campaign against me, and I still won a majority.

O
M

G

 

[Oscar]

More fodder

Senator Hillary Rodham (D-N.Y.) mocked Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) tonight for his high-flown rhetoric, suggesting she would fight important fights when he would back down....

..."I think that both Michigan and Florida should count, because these are two states we have to carry," she said. "This is not about so much as the ins and outs of the Democratic National Committee as to whether the Democrats are going to win in the fall. "In Michigan, all of us had a chance to leave our names on the ballot - I chose to do so," she continued. "My opponents ran a very vigorous campaign to get people to vote 'uncontested.' There was a campaign going on - it was a campaign against me, and I still won a majority.

This is so pathetic. The comments below the article are just as funny as the statement.

Seems as if Hillary has been forced to play dirty politics and slam her opponent due to the heat she is feeling at the polls.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

More fodder

Senator Hillary Rodham (D-N.Y.) mocked Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) tonight for his high-flown rhetoric, suggesting she would fight important fights when he would back down....

..."I think that both Michigan and Florida should count, because these are two states we have to carry," she said. "This is not about so much as the ins and outs of the Democratic National Committee as to whether the Democrats are going to win in the fall. "In Michigan, all of us had a chance to leave our names on the ballot - I chose to do so," she continued. "My opponents ran a very vigorous campaign to get people to vote 'uncontested.' There was a campaign going on - it was a campaign against me, and I still won a majority.

This is so pathetic. The comments below the article are just as funny as the statement.

Seems as if Hillary has been forced to play dirty politics and slam her opponent due to the heat she is feeling at the polls.

Dirty politics I could understand. This is just stupid politics.

 

[beavers]

Two things in response to posts above:(1) On Hillary's strategy, or lack thereof. I agree, but I think what it really highlights is how AWESOME a campaign Obama has run. Think about what he is doing - he is going toe to toe with the most famous name in the Democratic party, and beating her, without her making any glaring mistakes at all. It is really unbelievable what we are witnessing. They left no state uncontested, no stone unturned, have fought for every single delegate, and it has paid off.

Yes its quite remarkable I think. Also note that right now its down to Hillary, Obama, and McCain. 3 senators. A senator hasn't won the White House since JFK, and now its already a lock.

Not to mention two of them are minorities.

Hillary Clinton is not a minority. She's white, she's a protestant, and she's female. It is rumored that she's also a heterosexual. Those are all majorities among the American population.

Females aren't considered minorities?

Not necessarily. In employment, for example, females (gender) are protected from discrimination but are not classified as a racial or ethnic minority.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

More fodder

Senator Hillary Rodham (D-N.Y.) mocked Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) tonight for his high-flown rhetoric, suggesting she would fight important fights when he would back down....

..."I think that both Michigan and Florida should count, because these are two states we have to carry," she said. "This is not about so much as the ins and outs of the Democratic National Committee as to whether the Democrats are going to win in the fall. "In Michigan, all of us had a chance to leave our names on the ballot - I chose to do so," she continued. "My opponents ran a very vigorous campaign to get people to vote 'uncontested.' There was a campaign going on - it was a campaign against me, and I still won a majority.

This is so pathetic. The comments below the article are just as funny as the statement.

Seems as if Hillary has been forced to play dirty politics and slam her opponent due to the heat she is feeling at the polls.

Dirty politics I could understand. This is just stupid politics.

This is freaking awesome. This is MUCH better than the questions about her tax returns. I hope reporters keep bringing this up. They've already caught on to her BS about all the different state races that didn't count for one reason or another.

 

[Kleck.]

Running a little late, but I'm on my way to Barrack rally in Madison.