*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (4 Viewers)

[djcolts]

On MSNBC this morning:

1. Obama leads Clinton nationally 49 to 42 in the latest Gallup poll. His first lead in a national Gallup poll.

2. Clinton is going to leave Wisconsin a day before their primary. Puzzling to say the least - and IMO another big misstep by the Clinton campaign.

 

[Marc Levin]

On MSNBC this morning:

1. Obama leads Clinton nationally 49 to 42 in the latest Gallup poll. His first lead in a national Gallup poll.

2. Clinton is going to leave Wisconsin a day before their primary. Puzzling to say the least - and IMO another big misstep by the Clinton campaign.

A few more pieces of evidence. One negative for Obama in an article here.

In delegate-rich Texas, where a new poll gives Clinton an 8-point lead over Obama, Latinos could represent up to 40 percent of the vote. Ohio, where a new Quinnipiac poll gives Clinton a 21-point lead, is a stronghold of white, blue-collar and elderly voters, despite a large African-American presence in Cleveland. That poll also gives Clinton a nearly 2-1 lead among whites and almost as big an advantage among women and older voters.

But as Obama continues to build momentum, there is no denying he is attracting more blue-collar whites, as well as independents and even Republicans.

That information is based on this:

The survey found that among likely Democratic primary voters in Pennsylvania, Clinton leads Obama 52 percent to 36 percent.

In a general election matchup with Republican front-runner John McCain, Ohio voters give the Arizona senator 44 percent support to 43 percent for Clinton and 40 percent for Obama.

In Pennsylvania, Clinton leads McCain 46 percent to 40 percent in the general election, Obama has 42 percent to McCain's 41 percent, the poll said.

The Quinnipiac University poll was taken February 6 through 12, after the "Super Tuesday" contests in which McCain all but wrapped up the Republican nomination with coast-to-coast primary victories.

The Ohio poll of 1,748 voters has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.3 percent, including 564 Democratic likely voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 4.1 percent.

The Pennsylvania poll of 1,419 voters has a margin of error plus or minus 2.6 percent, including 577 Democratic likely voters, with a margin of error of plus or minus 4.1 percent.

Check out stuff for yourself here. (note the tabs on the left side of the page). This last site is a link to real clear politics - awesome site for raw data. In a national general election against Obama, McCain loses. In a national election against Clinton, he squeaks by. If I were a conservative, I'd be blasting Obama, too, since it is conceivable that, by election day, Obama would outstrip McCain nationally by near double digits.

 

[Eviloutsider]

Last I heard Wisconsin is still tight. I am pretty pumped. Can't wait for Wolf to circle my city and talk about us.

It's the little things that excite me.

 

[Marc Levin]

Wisconsin is leaning clearly to Obama. See here

ETA - note the swing: Wisconsin was +7 for Clinton in early December and now it is +4.3 for Obama.

When he focuses on Ohio and Texas, I expect Texas to tighten up to under 5 and Ohio to drop to under double digits - maybe by as soon as the end of next week.

 

[Gopher State]

Bill Clinton: Obama's ignoring my White House legacy

NACOGDOCHES, Texas (AP) — Former President Clinton on Friday accused Sen. Barack Obama, his wife's rival for the Democratic nomination, of trying to ignore any accomplishments they achieved during their years in the White House.

"You have one candidate who's made the explicit argument that the only way we can change America is to move into a post-partisan future and therefore we have to eliminate from consideration for the presidency anybody who made good things happen in the '90s or stopped bad things from happening in this decade," said Clinton, who was winding up a day of East Texas campaign appearances for his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"It doesn't matter how much good you did," the former president said at Stephen F. Austin University. "We've got to get rid of you because you had to fight to make something good happen. You had to fight to stop something bad from happening. And if you fought, you made somebody mad, we ought to give you an old watch and retire you. You can't possibly make a contribution to America's future."

Without mentioning Obama by name, Clinton said the Illinois senator was promoting a position that it's "actually an advantage to not have any experience because you've not made anybody mad."

"It's been very effective," Clinton said. "It's already taken four good candidates out. It would have taken Hillary out if she didn't have so much grass-roots support and so much guts."

Clinton said his wife's position is to "bridge the party divides when we can, but we also need to be prepared to fight."

Earlier in the day, Clinton said Democratic voters who support Obama over his wife in the March 4 Texas primary are missing out on an opportunity to back a universal health care system for the nation.

"It would be truly tragic if the Democratic Party walked away from universal health care for the first time in 60 years when we finally got the business community and the medical community in line behind us," Clinton said in Texarkana.

Hillary Clinton's health plan would require everyone to have health insurance and would provide government assistance to people who can't afford it. Obama has proposed government subsidies to help people buy insurance, but he doesn't mandate that they purchase it. Her campaign says Obama's plan would leave up to 15 million people without insurance.

"Her opponent excites more Americans … but would in fact deny us universal health care coverage for the first time," the former president told about 200 people in a gymnasium of a Texarkana community center. "She represents the solution business."

Responding to the criticism, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said: "Now that Senator Clinton's campaign is floundering, the old Bill Clinton has returned with yet another false accusation about Barack Obama of the kind that failed his wife's campaign in South Carolina. Senator Ted Kennedy, who has made health care a cause of his career, said that he wouldn't have endorsed Barack Obama unless he was 'absolutely convinced' he would deliver universal health care as president."

The former president also touched on the war in Iraq, saying indecision by the Iraqi government forces the U.S. to keep its combat troops there.

"If they think we are going to stay there forever and a day, they have no incentive to fix them," Clinton said. "If we stay there, we are not doing them any favors."

Filed under: AP • Bill Clinton

 

[Marc Levin]

The more Bill Clinton opens his mouth, the more he buries his wife.

Bill had 8 years to try and get a dialogue going on universal health care and failed.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

The more Bill Clinton opens his mouth, the more he buries his wife.

Bill had 8 years to try and get a dialogue going on universal health care and failed.

The above article is really a negative for Clinton and Clinton. He is just making bad press for his wife.

 

[My Hope Street Alias]

On MSNBC this morning:

1. Obama leads Clinton nationally 49 to 42 in the latest Gallup poll. His first lead in a national Gallup poll.

2. Clinton is going to leave Wisconsin a day before their primary. Puzzling to say the least - and IMO another big misstep by the Clinton campaign.

I agree that this is a misstep, especially since her early departure is being trumpeted in the state's biggest newspaper. Heck, what's one day? Stick it out and try to keep the margin down or possibly get the big "upset".

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

On MSNBC this morning:

1. Obama leads Clinton nationally 49 to 42 in the latest Gallup poll. His first lead in a national Gallup poll.

2. Clinton is going to leave Wisconsin a day before their primary. Puzzling to say the least - and IMO another big misstep by the Clinton campaign.

I agree that this is a misstep, especially since her early departure is being trumpeted in the state's biggest newspaper. Heck, what's one day? Stick it out and try to keep the margin down or possibly get the big "upset".

It's not a good play but the best of her bad options. If she loses, she has to (again) minimize the states importance. If she stays she'll have to give a concession speech - apparently repugnant for Hillary.She HAS to leave and try to redirect attention to Texas and Ohio.

 

[datonn]

I agree that this is a misstep, especially since her early departure is being trumpeted in the state's biggest newspaper. Heck, what's one day? Stick it out and try to keep the margin down or possibly get the big "upset".

That's been Clinton's M.O. lately though....campaign in a State, then turn-tail, run and re-group while drawing new battle lines while it looks as though you'll be facing a tough night. It's the old "I quit" when you already know that you've been fired routine...

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Harlem Mystery: Did Rangel's District Go for Barack Obama?

LINK

The Nation -- New York Congressman Charlie Rangel was an early and essential backer of Hillary Clinton's campaign for president.

The support of the senior House Democrat was required if the senator from New York was to be able to run nationally with the assurance that her home turf was "locked up." And Rangel, as the dean of New York's Democratic House delegation, and a dominant player in the politics of Harlem for four decades, helped to do just that.

Along with the support of Georgia Congressman John Lewis, Rangel's backing also gave Clinton credibility in the African-American community beyond New York. But, now, Lewis is wavering in his support for Clinton -- suggesting to the New York Times that, after his Atlanta-area congressional district voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama, he is likely to cast his superdelegate vote at the Democratic National Convention for the surging senator from Illinois.

When word came that Lewis and other African-American House members were starting to talk about "keeping faith" with their constituents and voting for the candidate who could be the first African-American nominee for president, I immediately checked the results from Rangel's congressional district.

According to figures reported after the February 5 New York primary, Rangel's Harlem-based 15th district voted rather comfortably for Clinton. The unofficial count with 100 percent of the votes supposedly tabulated was:

Clinton -- 55,359 votes, 53 percent

Obama -- 47,514 votes, 45 percent

That was close enough to create a 3-3 delegate split. But it was a clear Clinton win, and thus there would be no pressure on Rangel to vote the will of a congressional district that backed Obama.

Or so it seemed.

Now comes Saturday's New York Times Metro Section report headlined: "Unofficial Tallies in City Understated Obama Vote."

According to the paper:

"Black voters are heavily represented in the 94th Election District in Harlem's 70th Assembly District. Yet according to the unofficial results from the New York Democratic primary last week, not a single vote in the district was cast for Senator Barack Obama.

That anomaly was not unique. In fact, a review by The New York Times of the unofficial results reported on primary night found about 80 election districts among the city's 6,106 where Mr. Obama supposedly did not receive even one vote, including cases where he ran a respectable race in a nearby district.

City election officials this week said that their formal review of the results, which will not be completed for weeks, had confirmed some major discrepancies between the vote totals reported publicly -- and unofficially -- on primary night and the actual tally on hundreds of voting machines across the city.:

The Times adds this relevant information: "The 94th Election District in Harlem, for instance, sits within the Congressional district represented by Charles B. Rangel, an original supporter of Mrs. Clinton."

No one is suggesting that Rangel did anything wrong. There are many explanations for why vote counts are off, and there are many players in the process -- and Rangel is one of the more honorable of the lot.



What New Yorkers should be asking for, however, is a complete review of the results in New York City, with a heavy focus not just on the 80 election district where Obama supposedly received no votes but also on those where it appears that his vote was far below the level of support that he received in surrounding districts -- and that might reasonably be expected.

Could there be another 8,000 votes for Obama in the 15th?

That's a lot. But it is not beyond the realm of possibility that they exist.

No one, be they Clinton or Obama supporters, should question that every effort must be made to find every Obama vote in Harlem, along with "missing" Obama votes from other congressional districts in Manhattan and Brooklyn.

At issue may be a few more pledged delegates for Obama -- no small matter in a close race for the nomination -- and the broader question of how superdelegates who want to respect the sentiments of their constituents, a group that could include Rangel and several other House members from New York, cast their votes at this summer's convention.

 

[Orange Crush]

Obama Robbed in NY

New York Post

By GINGER ADAMS OTIS

February 16, 2008 -- Barack Obama's primary-night results were strikingly under recorded in several congressional districts around the city - in some cases leaving him with zero votes when, in fact, he had pulled in hundreds, the Board of Elections said today

Unofficial primary results gave Obama no votes in nearly 80 districts, including Harlem's 94th and other historically black areas - but many of those initial tallies proved to be wildly off the mark, the Board of Elections confirmed.

Truth is, in some districts getting a recount, the senator from Illinois is even close to defeating Hillary Clinton.

Initial results in the 94th District, for example, showed a 141-0 sweep for the New York senator, but Board of Elections spokeswoman Valerie Vazquez said today that the ongoing recount had changed the tally to 261-136.

As yet, none of the results has been certified, Vazquez said, adding that the Board of Elections had begun a painstaking ballot-by-ballot canvassing of all voting machines four days after the Feb. 5 election.

"We are doing a recanvass, and we will be counting all paper ballots, including absentee ones," Vazquez said.

"Some initial tallies had zeros, but it was most likely due to human error. Those were unofficial numbers, and no confirmed results have been released yet."

In a predominantly black Brooklyn district for which Clinton was given credit for a 118-0 victory on Primary Night, the Board of Elections' latest figures indicate that she may not even come out the winner - Obama currently has 116 votes to her 118.

 

[The Juggernaut]

Harlem Mystery: Did Rangel's District Go for Barack Obama?

LINK

The Nation -- New York Congressman Charlie Rangel was an early and essential backer of Hillary Clinton's campaign for president.

The support of the senior House Democrat was required if the senator from New York was to be able to run nationally with the assurance that her home turf was "locked up." And Rangel, as the dean of New York's Democratic House delegation, and a dominant player in the politics of Harlem for four decades, helped to do just that.

Along with the support of Georgia Congressman John Lewis, Rangel's backing also gave Clinton credibility in the African-American community beyond New York. But, now, Lewis is wavering in his support for Clinton -- suggesting to the New York Times that, after his Atlanta-area congressional district voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama, he is likely to cast his superdelegate vote at the Democratic National Convention for the surging senator from Illinois.

When word came that Lewis and other African-American House members were starting to talk about "keeping faith" with their constituents and voting for the candidate who could be the first African-American nominee for president, I immediately checked the results from Rangel's congressional district.

According to figures reported after the February 5 New York primary, Rangel's Harlem-based 15th district voted rather comfortably for Clinton. The unofficial count with 100 percent of the votes supposedly tabulated was:

Clinton -- 55,359 votes, 53 percent

Obama -- 47,514 votes, 45 percent

That was close enough to create a 3-3 delegate split. But it was a clear Clinton win, and thus there would be no pressure on Rangel to vote the will of a congressional district that backed Obama.

Or so it seemed.

Now comes Saturday's New York Times Metro Section report headlined: "Unofficial Tallies in City Understated Obama Vote."

According to the paper:

"Black voters are heavily represented in the 94th Election District in Harlem's 70th Assembly District. Yet according to the unofficial results from the New York Democratic primary last week, not a single vote in the district was cast for Senator Barack Obama.

That anomaly was not unique. In fact, a review by The New York Times of the unofficial results reported on primary night found about 80 election districts among the city's 6,106 where Mr. Obama supposedly did not receive even one vote, including cases where he ran a respectable race in a nearby district.

City election officials this week said that their formal review of the results, which will not be completed for weeks, had confirmed some major discrepancies between the vote totals reported publicly -- and unofficially -- on primary night and the actual tally on hundreds of voting machines across the city.:

The Times adds this relevant information: "The 94th Election District in Harlem, for instance, sits within the Congressional district represented by Charles B. Rangel, an original supporter of Mrs. Clinton."

No one is suggesting that Rangel did anything wrong. There are many explanations for why vote counts are off, and there are many players in the process -- and Rangel is one of the more honorable of the lot.



What New Yorkers should be asking for, however, is a complete review of the results in New York City, with a heavy focus not just on the 80 election district where Obama supposedly received no votes but also on those where it appears that his vote was far below the level of support that he received in surrounding districts -- and that might reasonably be expected.

Could there be another 8,000 votes for Obama in the 15th?

That's a lot. But it is not beyond the realm of possibility that they exist.

No one, be they Clinton or Obama supporters, should question that every effort must be made to find every Obama vote in Harlem, along with "missing" Obama votes from other congressional districts in Manhattan and Brooklyn.

At issue may be a few more pledged delegates for Obama -- no small matter in a close race for the nomination -- and the broader question of how superdelegates who want to respect the sentiments of their constituents, a group that could include Rangel and several other House members from New York, cast their votes at this summer's convention.

Not one vote???? Nobody messed up and accidently pulled the wrong lever?????? Hey Homer, can I borrow your lighter?

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Hey Homer, can I borrow your lighter?

That was exactly my first thought.

 

[Orange Crush]

I actually liked what Bloomberg had to say, especially about immigration, and I'm not against targeted infrastructure investment. Obama's plan, however, as best I understand it, is a bigger, new deal type WPA investment that would cost billions of dollars and create a large new bureacracy. Obama like so many other progressives seek more and more government involvement and eventual control over industry, as opposed to the market philosophy which this nation has so long prospered under.

1) There's no such thing as a bigger program than the New Deal programs, so long as you adjust for inflation. Saying otherwise is not a serious comparison.2) How do you foresee there being market solutions in rebuilding infrastructure? The only way I can think of is having every road be a toll road, every bridge be a toll bridge, and rural and low-income areas being undersupplied with water, power, and other utilities since there will be no profit in those areas. That's a perfectly viable political choice to make, I guess. I would rather spend a couple pennies on the dollar extra for the opposite.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Hey Homer, can I borrow your lighter?

That was exactly my first thought.

Plenty to go around, my boys.I love how they chalked up the 0 votes as "clerical errors". THE SAME ERROR IN 80 PRECINCTS! By golly, it's a miracle.

 

[Statorama]

On MSNBC this morning:1. Obama leads Clinton nationally 49 to 42 in the latest Gallup poll. His first lead in a national Gallup poll.2. Clinton is going to leave Wisconsin a day before their primary. Puzzling to say the least - and IMO another big misstep by the Clinton campaign.

The Governor is endorsing Obama, the mayor of MIL is endorsing Obama and the Newspaper is endorsing Obama.I don't see how Clinton was going to get any traction here.I've only lived here a few years, but one thing I know about Wisconsin voters is that the higher their taxes go, the better. You read that right. They will actually vote for the candidate that flat out says they will raise their taxes the most (see Doyle, Jim). Bodes well for whoever gets the Democratic nomination.

 

[bigbottom]

On Meet the Press, Margaret Carlson summed up Hillary's current strategy predicament in an interesting way. She said essentially that Hillary is in the unenviable position of having to convince voters that the candidate they have fallen in love with really isn't good for them. She's like a scolding mother.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Based on my viewing of the various news channels this morning, you can all breathe easy. Hillary got her memo out to everyone that Obama is trying to change the rules in the middle of the game by saying that the superdelegates should vote the same as the pledged delegates. Whew, I thought they were going to let that one get away.

 

[NCCommish]

Based on my viewing of the various news channels this morning, you can all breathe easy. Hillary got her memo out to everyone that Obama is trying to change the rules in the middle of the game by saying that the superdelegates should vote the same as the pledged delegates. Whew, I thought they were going to let that one get away.

Luckily that isn't at all transparent. No one will ever guess her motivation.

 

[Gopher State]

Clinton adviser: The race will be over in June

(CNN) — One of Hillary Clinton’s senior advisers said Saturday on a conference call with reporters that the New York senator would have the nomination “nail(ed) down” after primary season voting ends in June, when Puerto Rico weighs in.

“At or about, certainly shortly after, the seventh of June, Hillary’s going to nail down this nomination. She’s going to have a majority of the delegates,” Harold Ickes said, thanks to a combination of pledged delegates awarded through primary and caucus votes, and superdelegates – Democratic elected officials and party leaders who are free to choose any candidate they wish. Ickes is himself a superdelegate.

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe immediately responded to Ickes, saying in a statement the Clinton campaign was “attempting to have superdelegates overturn the will of the Democratic voters, or change the rules they agreed to at the 11th hour in order to seat non-existent delegates from Florida and Michigan.

“The Clinton campaign should focus on winning pledged delegates as a result of elections, not these say-or-do-anything-to-win tactics that could undermine Democrats’ ability to win the general election,” said Plouffe.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told a Bloomberg interviewer Friday that voter preferences and primary results should play a part in how superdelegates made their decision. DNC Chair Howard Dean later sent a memo to Talking Points Memo in which he said that “their role is to exercise their best judgment” of what is best for the party, but did not mention the pledged delegate result as a critical deciding factor.

Ickes – a Democratic National Committee member and Bill Clinton’s former White House deputy chief of staff — told reporters that neither of the Democratic White House hopefuls is close to winning the nomination, and that Obama was trying to prematurely call the primary season to a close.

“I understand Sen. Obama wants to rush to judgment on this deal and cut this thing down. You know, he’d like to be nominated right now. But there are a lot of delegates yet to be selected,” he said, pointing out that 18 states and territories have yet to vote this primary season.

Ickes voted last year to penalize Michigan and Florida — who moved their primary votes up in violation of party instructions — to seat their delegation at the party’s nominating convention this summer. On Saturday, he said both states’ delegations should be seated, and the results of those contests should stand. Hillary Clinton won the primaries in Florida and in Michigan, where she was the only major Democratic candidate to appear on the ballot.

He also said the Clinton campaign should have paid more attention to caucus states, where Obama has done very well this year — an observation that has been made by other Clinton staffers in recent calls.

–CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca Sinderbrand

Filed under: Hillary Clinton

 

[Orange Crush]

Ickes voted last year to penalize Michigan and Florida — who moved their primary votes up in violation of party instructions — to seat their delegation at the party’s nominating convention this summer. On Saturday, he said both states’ delegations should be seated, and the results of those contests should stand. Hillary Clinton won the primaries in Florida and in Michigan, where she was the only major Democratic candidate to appear on the ballot.

Way to stand by your principles, guy.

 

[Sup_Yo]

I'm going to hear him speak tomorrow afternoon in Youngstown, OH.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I'm going to hear him speak tomorrow afternoon in Youngstown, OH.

SH#TE! Where's he gonna be? And when?:jealous:

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Oh, and I finally sent an email to the DNC.

Hi there.

With all the talk of the upcoming issues with the Presidential nomination regarding the superdelegates vs pledged delegate, I just thought that the DNC should know how this Democrat feels about the situation. If the superdelegates override the decision of the people, I will never vote for another Democrat in any election at any level of government. Ever.

Thanks,

Homer J Simpson

Columbus, Ohio

I figured I should hold off on the burning #### down rhetoric until the situation becomes a little more clear. Discretion is the better part of valor and all that.

 

[urbanhack]

Oh, and I finally sent an email to the DNC.Hi there. With all the talk of the upcoming issues with the Presidential nomination regarding the superdelegates vs pledged delegate, I just thought that the DNC should know how this Democrat feels about the situation. If the superdelegates override the decision of the people, I will never vote for another Democrat in any election at any level of government. Ever. Thanks,Homer J SimpsonColumbus, OhioI figured I should hold off on the burning #### down rhetoric until the situation becomes a little more clear. Discretion is the better part of valor and all that.

You should have enclosed a single match in the envelope.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Clinton adviser: The race will be over in June(CNN) — One of Hillary Clinton’s senior advisers said Saturday on a conference call with reporters that the New York senator would have the nomination “nail(ed) down” after primary season voting ends in June, when Puerto Rico weighs in.“At or about, certainly shortly after, the seventh of June, Hillary’s going to nail down this nomination. She’s going to have a majority of the delegates,” Harold Ickes said, thanks to a combination of pledged delegates awarded through primary and caucus votes, and superdelegates – Democratic elected officials and party leaders who are free to choose any candidate they wish. Ickes is himself a superdelegate.Obama campaign manager David Plouffe immediately responded to Ickes, saying in a statement the Clinton campaign was “attempting to have superdelegates overturn the will of the Democratic voters, or change the rules they agreed to at the 11th hour in order to seat non-existent delegates from Florida and Michigan.“The Clinton campaign should focus on winning pledged delegates as a result of elections, not these say-or-do-anything-to-win tactics that could undermine Democrats’ ability to win the general election,” said Plouffe.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told a Bloomberg interviewer Friday that voter preferences and primary results should play a part in how superdelegates made their decision. DNC Chair Howard Dean later sent a memo to Talking Points Memo in which he said that “their role is to exercise their best judgment” of what is best for the party, but did not mention the pledged delegate result as a critical deciding factor.Ickes – a Democratic National Committee member and Bill Clinton’s former White House deputy chief of staff — told reporters that neither of the Democratic White House hopefuls is close to winning the nomination, and that Obama was trying to prematurely call the primary season to a close.“I understand Sen. Obama wants to rush to judgment on this deal and cut this thing down. You know, he’d like to be nominated right now. But there are a lot of delegates yet to be selected,” he said, pointing out that 18 states and territories have yet to vote this primary season.Ickes voted last year to penalize Michigan and Florida — who moved their primary votes up in violation of party instructions — to seat their delegation at the party’s nominating convention this summer. On Saturday, he said both states’ delegations should be seated, and the results of those contests should stand. Hillary Clinton won the primaries in Florida and in Michigan, where she was the only major Democratic candidate to appear on the ballot.He also said the Clinton campaign should have paid more attention to caucus states, where Obama has done very well this year — an observation that has been made by other Clinton staffers in recent calls.–CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca SinderbrandFiled under: Hillary Clinton

Please quit spamming this thread with Clinton (or McCain) articles.

 

[timschochet]

Just a quick escape from the serious topics in this thread:

My seven year old daughter is hoping that Hillary will be elected, because this would mean that "girls rule" and also that "everyone will have to dress nicer."

However, my five year old daughter, always seeking to challenge her older sister, has firmly declared herself for "Aquabama."

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Just a quick escape from the serious topics in this thread:My seven year old daughter is hoping that Hillary will be elected, because this would mean that "girls rule" and also that "everyone will have to dress nicer."However, my five year old daughter, always seeking to challenge her older sister, has firmly declared herself for "Aquabama."

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Based on my viewing of the various news channels this morning, you can all breathe easy. Hillary got her memo out to everyone that Obama is trying to change the rules in the middle of the game by saying that the superdelegates should vote the same as the pledged delegates. Whew, I thought they were going to let that one get away.

Luckily that isn't at all transparent. No one will ever guess her motivation.

I know what her motivation is. It's 100% principle. Right?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Oh, and I finally sent an email to the DNC.Hi there. With all the talk of the upcoming issues with the Presidential nomination regarding the superdelegates vs pledged delegate, I just thought that the DNC should know how this Democrat feels about the situation. If the superdelegates override the decision of the people, I will never vote for another Democrat in any election at any level of government. Ever. Thanks,Homer J SimpsonColumbus, OhioI figured I should hold off on the burning #### down rhetoric until the situation becomes a little more clear. Discretion is the better part of valor and all that.

They're probably not going to believe that your name is really Homer J Simpson.

 

[datonn]

Just a quick escape from the serious topics in this thread:

My seven year old daughter is hoping that Hillary will be elected, because this would mean that "girls rule" and also that "everyone will have to dress nicer."

However, my five year old daughter, always seeking to challenge her older sister, has firmly declared herself for "Aquabama."

My two-year old one night at dinner promptly smiled at my wife, her oldest sister and I and, at the top of her lungs, announced: "RAH-ROCK OH-MAMA!" My wife and I were , as neither of us had ever mentioned Obama's name in front of her that we know of. All we can figure is that she must have picked it up from one of the daycare providers during the day. That's kind of been our running dinner joke for the past 4-5 weeks at the dinner table now...asking my youngest "Who are you going to vote for?!" We gotta get that on tape though...as she probably throws more passion into that endorsement than even the best endorsements I have seen on TV for Obama to date, LOL.

 

[goonsquad]

Just a quick escape from the serious topics in this thread:

My seven year old daughter is hoping that Hillary will be elected, because this would mean that "girls rule" and also that "everyone will have to dress nicer."

However, my five year old daughter, always seeking to challenge her older sister, has firmly declared herself for "Aquabama."

My two-year old one night at dinner promptly smiled at my wife, her oldest sister and I and, at the top of her lungs, announced: "RAH-ROCK OH-MAMA!" My wife and I were , as neither of us had ever mentioned Obama's name in front of her that we know of. All we can figure is that she must have picked it up from one of the daycare providers during the day. That's kind of been our running dinner joke for the past 4-5 weeks at the dinner table though...asking my youngest "Who are you going to vote for?!" We gotta get that on tape though...as she probably throws more passion into that endorsement than even the best endorsements I have seen on TV for Obama to date, LOL.

Good stuff.

 

[Sup_Yo]

I'm going to hear him speak tomorrow afternoon in Youngstown, OH.

SH#TE! Where's he gonna be? And when?:jealous:

He'll be at YSU, speaking at 2pm.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I'm going to hear him speak tomorrow afternoon in Youngstown, OH.

SH#TE! Where's he gonna be? And when?:jealous:

He'll be at YSU, speaking at 2pm.

I spent forty minutes today trying to convince my parents to vote for him. I've got my mom leaning but my dad is a pretty stubborn mofo...they're both way too hung up on the experience thing. Anyway, they won't go see him tomorrow because it'll be "too crowded".

 

[Sup_Yo]

I'm going to hear him speak tomorrow afternoon in Youngstown, OH.

SH#TE! Where's he gonna be? And when?:jealous:

He'll be at YSU, speaking at 2pm.

I spent forty minutes today trying to convince my parents to vote for him. I've got my mom leaning but my dad is a pretty stubborn mofo...they're both way too hung up on the experience thing. Anyway, they won't go see him tomorrow because it'll be "too crowded".

I doubt it'll be too crowded. The building he's speaking in is a basketball gymnasium. They're still taking RSVPs too.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Hey Homer, can I borrow your lighter?

That was exactly my first thought.

Plenty to go around, my boys.I love how they chalked up the 0 votes as "clerical errors". THE SAME ERROR IN 80 PRECINCTS! By golly, it's a miracle.

Like you've never typed 0 when you meant 4,527.

 

[bigbottom]

I'm going to hear him speak tomorrow afternoon in Youngstown, OH.

SH#TE! Where's he gonna be? And when?:jealous:

He'll be at YSU, speaking at 2pm.

I spent forty minutes today trying to convince my parents to vote for him. I've got my mom leaning but my dad is a pretty stubborn mofo...they're both way too hung up on the experience thing. Anyway, they won't go see him tomorrow because it'll be "too crowded".

What is exactly her edge on matters of experience? He's been a legislator longer than she has. She's been a lawyer in private practice, while he was a community organizer, civil rights lawyer and law school lecturer. Unless you count serving as First Lady as "experience," then she has no real substantive edge on the experience front as far as I'm concerned. Now if Richardson were still in the race, the experience divide would be a real one.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I'm going to hear him speak tomorrow afternoon in Youngstown, OH.

SH#TE! Where's he gonna be? And when?:jealous:

He'll be at YSU, speaking at 2pm.

I spent forty minutes today trying to convince my parents to vote for him. I've got my mom leaning but my dad is a pretty stubborn mofo...they're both way too hung up on the experience thing. Anyway, they won't go see him tomorrow because it'll be "too crowded".

What is exactly her edge on matters of experience? He's been a legislator longer than she has. She's been a lawyer in private practice, while he was a community organizer, civil rights lawyer and law school lecturer. Unless you count serving as First Lady as "experience," then she has no real substantive edge on the experience front as far as I'm concerned. Now if Richardson were still in the race, the experience divide would be a real one.

You're preaching to the choir here, brutha. I'm chipping away at them though. Still got a couple of weeks. I gave my mom his entire history and she was pretty impressed...I think she's just bought into the experience thing for so long that it's kind of entrenched in her thinking. She's coming around though. They both actually really like Obama and actually hung out with him at a fundraiser for Ted Strickland back in '06.I didn't get into that with my dad, though. More about Obama how he is right now. The one thing he doesn't quite buy are the polls showing Obama over McCain in the general...the thing is that Youngstown is an extraordinarily racist city and he doesn't buy it that people will vote for the "colored guy", as he says.*They both came down a bit from their Hillary perches a bit since neither one really likes her, they just have bought into the "the 90's were good" and the experience things a bit too much. I'm just gonna keep chopping wood.*My dad's 77 and can get away with saying "colored guy" without even the slightest hint of malice or offensiveness. Quite amazing really.

 

[cosjobs]

I'm going to hear him speak tomorrow afternoon in Youngstown, OH.

SH#TE! Where's he gonna be? And when?:jealous:

He'll be at YSU, speaking at 2pm.

I spent forty minutes today trying to convince my parents to vote for him. I've got my mom leaning but my dad is a pretty stubborn mofo...they're both way too hung up on the experience thing. Anyway, they won't go see him tomorrow because it'll be "too crowded".

Remind them again who may or may not be changing their depends for them in 5 yeears.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I dunno if anyone cares, but Michelle Obama is on Larry King right now. I think it's a rerun, but still worth watching. She is impressive. And a lot better looking than Bill Clinton...

I'd vote for her over Hillary in a heartbeat.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I'm going to hear him speak tomorrow afternoon in Youngstown, OH.

SH#TE! Where's he gonna be? And when?:jealous:

He'll be at YSU, speaking at 2pm.

I spent forty minutes today trying to convince my parents to vote for him. I've got my mom leaning but my dad is a pretty stubborn mofo...they're both way too hung up on the experience thing. Anyway, they won't go see him tomorrow because it'll be "too crowded".

Remind them again who may or may not be changing their depends for them in 5 yeears.

I noticed you changed it to 5 years form 30. Meh. I'm just one of 7...they know there's a lot of backup. And if they're depending on me, they've got a lot worse problems than a bad President.

 

[cosjobs]

Which Republican are we most afraid of?

The one who thinks humans and dinosaurs co-existed

or

The one who knows better from first hand knowledge?

(from Fredo email reminding us to vote early tomorrow)

 

[datonn]

Which Republican are we most afraid of?The one who thinks humans and dinosaurs co-existedorThe one who knows better from first hand knowledge?(from Fredo email reminding us to vote early tomorrow)

I am for Obama. However, I don't think there's any reason to take knocks on McCain because of his age. Hillary?! She's the incarnate, so mock, roast, etc. to your heart's desire! McCain though? He is a very worthy adversary and a stand-up guy who has served our nation more than the average 20 of us on this board...so you won't catch me talking smack about him until it is deserved. I wish other people would do the same.

 

[cosjobs]

Which Republican are we most afraid of?The one who thinks humans and dinosaurs co-existedorThe one who knows better from first hand knowledge?(from Fredo email reminding us to vote early tomorrow)

I am for Obama. However, I don't think there's any reason to take knocks on McCain because of his age. Hillary?! She's the incarnate, so mock, roast, etc. to your heart's desire! McCain though? He is a very worthy adversary and a stand-up guy who has served our nation more than the average 20 of us on this board...so you won't catch me talking smack about him until it is deserved. I wish other people would do the same.

I don't think smack means what you think it does.

 

[datonn]

I don't think smack means what you think it does.

[sniff] Yeah, whatever. Not trying to pick a fight...as I know you weren't beeatch-slapping McCain (just relaying a quote). I just have a lot of respect for McCain (regardless of how you might feel about his politics), and I don't like people taking pot-shots at him, any more than I would like people taking pot-shots at Obama. ESPECIALLY Obama supporters too...since I think we can easily carry Obama into the White House without having to go negative. That is, *IF* the Wicked Witch of the South (or is it Northeast now) doesn't take the nomination away.

 

[Orange Crush]

I am for Obama. However, I don't think there's any reason to take knocks on McCain because of his age. Hillary?! She's the incarnate, so mock, roast, etc. to your heart's desire! McCain though? He is a very worthy adversary and a stand-up guy who has served our nation more than the average 20 of us on this board...so you won't catch me talking smack about him until it is deserved. I wish other people would do the same.

I used to like McCain quite a lot. I thought his "Straight Talk Express" schtick in 2000 was great and he seemed to really have a lot of principles, which is so rare in politics. But in 2004, McCain let his ambition for the presidency get the better of him, and he sacrificed his principles in an attempt to get in with both the establishment base and the religious right of the Republican party. He embraced George W. Bush, the man who did the most vile political attacks in probably 100 years on him in the 2000 South Carolina primary, in order to get support from Bush's backers. And McCain suddenly did an about-face on his stated and public opinions on the evangelical leaders such as Pat Robertson, seeking their support and pandering to their supporters. Bleck. I lost all my admiration for the man then. And in the end, for what? It didn't even work, for crying out loud. He sold his soul and got nothing back - talk about proving the man's bad judgment. He's the Republican's presumptive nominee based on only getting a third of the Republican voters to back him, but that was enough in a crazy year where the party was fractured and supported six different candidates.

McCain's ridiculous statements over Iraq and Iran in the past year have only cemented my dislike for the man. I wish we had the McCain of 2000 running in this election. I'd be tempted to vote for him (provided Obama didn't get the nomination, of course). Unfortunately, I think that McCain is long lost to history and we'll never see him again.

 

[timschochet]

I am for Obama. However, I don't think there's any reason to take knocks on McCain because of his age. Hillary?! She's the incarnate, so mock, roast, etc. to your heart's desire! McCain though? He is a very worthy adversary and a stand-up guy who has served our nation more than the average 20 of us on this board...so you won't catch me talking smack about him until it is deserved. I wish other people would do the same.

I used to like McCain quite a lot. I thought his "Straight Talk Express" schtick in 2000 was great and he seemed to really have a lot of principles, which is so rare in politics. But in 2004, McCain let his ambition for the presidency get the better of him, and he sacrificed his principles in an attempt to get in with both the establishment base and the religious right of the Republican party. He embraced George W. Bush, the man who did the most vile political attacks in probably 100 years on him in the 2000 South Carolina primary, in order to get support from Bush's backers. And McCain suddenly did an about-face on his stated and public opinions on the evangelical leaders such as Pat Robertson, seeking their support and pandering to their supporters. Bleck. I lost all my admiration for the man then. And in the end, for what? It didn't even work, for crying out loud. He sold his soul and got nothing back - talk about proving the man's bad judgment. He's the Republican's presumptive nominee based on only getting a third of the Republican voters to back him, but that was enough in a crazy year where the party was fractured and supported six different candidates.

McCain's ridiculous statements over Iraq and Iran in the past year have only cemented my dislike for the man. I wish we had the McCain of 2000 running in this election. I'd be tempted to vote for him (provided Obama didn't get the nomination, of course). Unfortunately, I think that McCain is long lost to history and we'll never see him again.

I've been hearing this same refrain from lots of people, but the truth is quite different. First, it wasn't McCain who moved to Bush, it was the other way around. Bush signed the Campaign Finance Reform Act, then he took McCain's advice about Rumsfield and the Surge, and he also agreed to McCain's immigration ideas. McCain "embraced" Bush the same way he "embraced" Kennedy and Feingold- he is willing to work with anyone who agrees with his core principles.As fae as the meetings with Fallwell and Robertson went, sure he shook hands with them, but what else did he do? McCain refused to go along with a traditional marriage amendment to the constitution. He refused to accept their ideas on immigration, and he led the Gang of 14, which they didn't like at all. McCain knows there's a big difference between having your photograph taken and actually taking action. He has stayed remarkably consistent to the views he has held his entire life, and which he had in 2000.

As far as his comments about Iraq and Iran, that is a whole other matter and I will address it in detail in coming weeks in the McCain thread. But you need to stop this "John McCain is a different man than in 2000." He isn't.

 

[datonn]

Yeah, McCain's sometimes a tough one to figure out. He's probably the closest thing the Republicans have had to a "fiscal conservative" in quite some time, but he's always caught between a rock (the Religious Right) and a hard place (folks just left of center). If he votes his conscious (as I think he does...at least MOST of the time), he upsets one group or the other or sometimes BOTH. My assumption is that if Obama is the nominee, he'll probably drift "right" a bit in his talks and rallies after Saint Paul (and get his ### handed to him), and if Clinton is the nominee, he'll probably drift "left" (right of center) where he belongs and have a much better shot at winning the November election (given Hillary's high-negatives in survey after survey).

The only thing that concerns me about McCain is his age. He'll be in his mid-70s at the end of a first term. He seems ten years younger than he actually is, but that would make his choice of VP incredibly important IMHO. With Obama, all he has to do is choose a guy like Richardson as his VP candidate and he'll be a runaway freight-train by the time November rolls around. Unless the Bushies start military action with Iran or send troops into Pakistan or the U.S. is hit with another major terrorism attack or ??? before November...then all bets are off.

I think with McCain in a nutshell though, he's got people chirping in his ear ALL THE TIME to do/be things he is not around election seasons. Without Hillary as the Democratic nominee, he has little/no chance of winning in November, all things being equal.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I am for Obama. However, I don't think there's any reason to take knocks on McCain because of his age. Hillary?! She's the incarnate, so mock, roast, etc. to your heart's desire! McCain though? He is a very worthy adversary and a stand-up guy who has served our nation more than the average 20 of us on this board...so you won't catch me talking smack about him until it is deserved. I wish other people would do the same.

I used to like McCain quite a lot. I thought his "Straight Talk Express" schtick in 2000 was great and he seemed to really have a lot of principles, which is so rare in politics. But in 2004, McCain let his ambition for the presidency get the better of him, and he sacrificed his principles in an attempt to get in with both the establishment base and the religious right of the Republican party. He embraced George W. Bush, the man who did the most vile political attacks in probably 100 years on him in the 2000 South Carolina primary, in order to get support from Bush's backers. And McCain suddenly did an about-face on his stated and public opinions on the evangelical leaders such as Pat Robertson, seeking their support and pandering to their supporters. Bleck. I lost all my admiration for the man then. And in the end, for what? It didn't even work, for crying out loud. He sold his soul and got nothing back - talk about proving the man's bad judgment. He's the Republican's presumptive nominee based on only getting a third of the Republican voters to back him, but that was enough in a crazy year where the party was fractured and supported six different candidates.

McCain's ridiculous statements over Iraq and Iran in the past year have only cemented my dislike for the man. I wish we had the McCain of 2000 running in this election. I'd be tempted to vote for him (provided Obama didn't get the nomination, of course). Unfortunately, I think that McCain is long lost to history and we'll never see him again.

I've been hearing this same refrain from lots of people, but the truth is quite different. First, it wasn't McCain who moved to Bush, it was the other way around. Bush signed the Campaign Finance Reform Act, then he took McCain's advice about Rumsfield and the Surge, and he also agreed to McCain's immigration ideas. McCain "embraced" Bush the same way he "embraced" Kennedy and Feingold- he is willing to work with anyone who agrees with his core principles.As fae as the meetings with Fallwell and Robertson went, sure he shook hands with them, but what else did he do? McCain refused to go along with a traditional marriage amendment to the constitution. He refused to accept their ideas on immigration, and he led the Gang of 14, which they didn't like at all. McCain knows there's a big difference between having your photograph taken and actually taking action. He has stayed remarkably consistent to the views he has held his entire life, and which he had in 2000.

As far as his comments about Iraq and Iran, that is a whole other matter and I will address it in detail in coming weeks in the McCain thread. But you need to stop this "John McCain is a different man than in 2000." He isn't.

You can't be serious. 2000 McCain would have spit on GWB before he shook hands with him after the way GWB smeared him in SC. Now, McCain's embraced Bush and basically running on more of the same.McCain was against the Bush tax cuts before he was for them. He admits he doesn't know much about the economy. McCain is a shell of his former self, and it's actually pretty sad to see, even from the other side of the aisle. I used to disagree with McCain, but I always respected him. Now, he's political slime like 90% of those in office.