Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/07/31/obama-believes-himself-to-be-the-second-coming/
By American Girl in Italy
Could he BE any more arrogant? Do you think Obama makes kissy faces in the mirror in the morning?
Check out his latest statement:
Obama’s Symbolic Importance
By Jonathan Weisman
Perhaps he’s beginning to believe the hype.
In his closed door meeting with House Democrats this evening, presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama delivered a real zinger. According to a witness, he was waxing lyrical about last week’s trip to Europe, when he concluded, “this is the moment, as Nancy [Pelosi] noted, that the world is waiting for.”
The 200,000 souls who thronged to his speech in Berlin came not just for him, he told the enthralled audience of congressional representatives*.
“I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions,” he said.
Seriously?
This guy, who openly admits to illegal drug use, has Reverend Meeks, Reverend Wright, and Father Phleger as his spiritual leaders, hangs out with terrorist William Ayers, is best bussies and does illegal business with slumlord Tony Rezko, has an American-hating wife who complains constantly about America, makes sexist attacks on the Former First lady, pays his female staff members less than their male counterarts, calls women *sweetie* and offers up kisses for votes, tells reporters that the *vibrating* in his pocket is *just his cell phone*, makes up fake Presidential seals, and play acts that he is already President, removes the American flag from his lapel pin, his airplane, and (which I now believe) doesn’t place his hand over his heart for the National Anthem, cancels trips to visit wounded Iraq vets, because he can’t bring a camera, flip flops on major party policies, lies to the American people, and HE is the symbol of America returning to the best of our traditions????
What the hell does he think we are like NOW? He does NOT like America, does he.
He is our only hope of returning us to our best traditions? Lord help us all…
*Yes, they came not just for Obama, but the advertised Free Concert by two of Berlin’s hottest bands, free beer and food helped drawa in those 200,000 adoring fans who swarmed to see Obama. Similar to the free concert in Portland.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
AFL-CIO Reminds Us About Obama Rumors
Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/07/31/afl-cio-reminds-us-about-obama-rumors/
By NancyA
The AFL-CIO endorsed Obama. They have released two mailers. The first mailer is here:
• “Does he wear a flag pin on his lapel? Yes, but not always. Like many presidential candidates, sometimes he wears a flag pin, sometimes he wears a breast cancer awareness pin, sometimes he wears his U.S. Senate membership pin and other times he wears no pin at all.”
• “Is he a Christian? Yes. He is a committed Christian. In 1985, he began working as a community organizer with a Christian church-based group seeking to improve the living conditions in poor Chicago neighborhoods.”
The mailer missed the mark! It reminds of us those rumors, that he is unpatriotic and a Muslim, rather than dispels them. Once again our family, friends and neighbors will be discussing the rumors anew.
Here is the second mailer. Part of this mailer has an older white woman saying “I am voting for the candidate who will fix our health care system.” Today, it was revealed that a health care plan backed by the AFL-CIO and SEIU may derail Obama’s healthcare plan.
And now this on a union backed health care plan is called “guaranteed affordable choice”. More on that:
If SEIU and the AFL-CIO get their way, the day that all Americans have affordable insurance will be pushed into the unforeseeable future.
The labor-backed plan, which they call “guaranteed affordable choice,” would create a public program like Medicare that would allegedly compete with the nation’s 1,500 insurance companies. Americans would get tax-financed subsidies to purchase insurance from either a private insurance company or the public plan. Competition, which has never worked in the health insurance industry, would magically come to life.
By leaving the bloated insurance industry smack in the middle of our health care system, “guaranteed affordable choice” would have taxpayers and premium-payers continuing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on unnecessary administrative costs.
The other two faces on the mailer show white older males, one a retiree and one still employed. It will evoke memories of the comments spoken in front of wealthy donors in San Francisco. Here are Obama’s exact words:
“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them,” Obama said. “And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
And of course we will be reminded of Obama’s stance on NAFTA. Or were those just words and he didn’t mean it?
“While Senator Obama was telling voters he would fix NAFTA, his chief economics advisor was telling Canadians that his position was just words.
The AFL-CIO wasted their money and time. The AFL-CIO needs to go back to the drawing board on these mailers! If the mailers evoke these memories in me, what will they do for the union members and the bitter people living in Pennsylvania? All those campaign gaffes during the primaries will haunt Obama’s dream again, while I sleep peacefully at night!
By NancyA
The AFL-CIO endorsed Obama. They have released two mailers. The first mailer is here:
• “Does he wear a flag pin on his lapel? Yes, but not always. Like many presidential candidates, sometimes he wears a flag pin, sometimes he wears a breast cancer awareness pin, sometimes he wears his U.S. Senate membership pin and other times he wears no pin at all.”
• “Is he a Christian? Yes. He is a committed Christian. In 1985, he began working as a community organizer with a Christian church-based group seeking to improve the living conditions in poor Chicago neighborhoods.”
The mailer missed the mark! It reminds of us those rumors, that he is unpatriotic and a Muslim, rather than dispels them. Once again our family, friends and neighbors will be discussing the rumors anew.
Here is the second mailer. Part of this mailer has an older white woman saying “I am voting for the candidate who will fix our health care system.” Today, it was revealed that a health care plan backed by the AFL-CIO and SEIU may derail Obama’s healthcare plan.
And now this on a union backed health care plan is called “guaranteed affordable choice”. More on that:
If SEIU and the AFL-CIO get their way, the day that all Americans have affordable insurance will be pushed into the unforeseeable future.
The labor-backed plan, which they call “guaranteed affordable choice,” would create a public program like Medicare that would allegedly compete with the nation’s 1,500 insurance companies. Americans would get tax-financed subsidies to purchase insurance from either a private insurance company or the public plan. Competition, which has never worked in the health insurance industry, would magically come to life.
By leaving the bloated insurance industry smack in the middle of our health care system, “guaranteed affordable choice” would have taxpayers and premium-payers continuing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on unnecessary administrative costs.
The other two faces on the mailer show white older males, one a retiree and one still employed. It will evoke memories of the comments spoken in front of wealthy donors in San Francisco. Here are Obama’s exact words:
“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them,” Obama said. “And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
And of course we will be reminded of Obama’s stance on NAFTA. Or were those just words and he didn’t mean it?
“While Senator Obama was telling voters he would fix NAFTA, his chief economics advisor was telling Canadians that his position was just words.
The AFL-CIO wasted their money and time. The AFL-CIO needs to go back to the drawing board on these mailers! If the mailers evoke these memories in me, what will they do for the union members and the bitter people living in Pennsylvania? All those campaign gaffes during the primaries will haunt Obama’s dream again, while I sleep peacefully at night!
Tapper Calls it Race-Baiting, Chiat thinks Obama should go negative
Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/07/31/tapper-calls-it-race-baiting-chiat-thinks-obama-should-go-negative-alternative-iraqi-read-of-obama-money-promises-and-that-manger-in-bethlehem/
By LisaB
1) Is the MSM finally reporting on race-baiting? Jake Tapper, at Political Punch, is doing just that. During recent campaign stops, Obama trotted out the old race-bait bit about having a “funny name” and that no other presidents “look like me.”
Jake Tapper calls him on it - but good. Quoting Obama during stops in Rolla, Springfield and Union Missouri, Tapper shows how Obama continues to flog the idea that he is a victim of racist attacks by McCain.
Then in Union, Mo., this evening, Obama seemed to specifically accuse McCain and the GOP of peddling racism and xenophobia.
Read the rest ->
Jake is right. By the way, just count how many times Obama talks about John McCain during any interview. He nearly always answers a tough question he otherwise cannot answer by first starting with John McCain.
Tapper ends with:
I’ve seen racism in campaigns before — I’ve seen it against Obama in this campaign. . . and I’ve seen it against McCain in South Carolina in 2000, when his adopted Bangladeshi daughter Bridget was alleged, by the charming friends and allies of then-Gov. George W. Bush, to have been a McCain love-child with an African-American woman.
What I have not seen is it come from McCain or his campaign in such a way to merit the language Obama used today. Pretty inflammatory.
Definitely worth the read. Keep your eye on this guy.
2) Strangely enough, the LATimes seems to think Obama’s not being negative enough. Jonathan Chait’s op-ed piece today says Obama needs to stop being a nice guy and go negative. He says Obama’s “weak-tea” responses are similar to John Kerry’s in 2004.
To go on the attack, Obama doesn’t need to engage in character assassination and baseless charges, as his opponent has done. All he needs to do is stop letting McCain paint a wildly distorted self-portrait.
Apparently, Chiat’s view of Obama’s race-baiting remarks covered by Jake Tapper is entirely benign. I doubt Chiat has seen many campaign stops.
Obama’s strategy seems predicated on convincing voters that they really, really like the inexperienced black guy with the foreign-sounding name.
For an op-ed guy, I think Chiat is remarkably unsophisticated about what is going on when Obama talks about his “funny sounding name.”
3) In the NYPost today is a column by Amir Taheri on the recent Obama world tour. Taheri wasn’t impressed. Even so, this is a stunner.
“He looked like a man in a hurry,” a source close to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said last week. “He was not interested in what we had to say.”
Still, many Iraqis liked Obama’s claim that the improved situation in Iraq owed to Iraqi efforts rather than the Gen. David Petraeus-led surge. In public and private comments, Obama tried to give the impression that the Iraqis would’ve achieved the same results even without the greater resources America has poured into the country since 2007.
After Taheri asserts that Iraqi officials privately say the surge was both necessary and helpful comes this:
Iraqis were most surprised by Obama’s apparent readiness to throw away all the gains made in Iraq simply to prove that he’d been right in opposing the 2003 overthrow of Saddam Hussein. “He gave us the impression that the last thing he wanted was for Iraq to look anything like a success for the United States,” a senior Iraqi official told me. “As far as he is concerned, this is Bush’s war and must end in lack of success, if not actual defeat.”
Wow. I don’t know who Taheri’s sources are, but I’ve not seen anything like this before. Interesting. Will it go anywhere?
4) Realclearpolitics has Obama’s recent remarks on the economy. During this speech, along with promising a “chicken in every pot” Obama outlined some of the money people will see if he’s elected.
That starts with giving immediate relief to families who are one illness or foreclosure or pink slip away from disaster. To help folks who are having trouble filling up their gas tank, I’ll provide an energy rebate. To help hardworking Americans meet rising costs, I’ll put a $1,000 tax cut in the pockets of 95% of workers and their families, including 3 million folks here in Missouri. To help end this housing crisis, I’ll provide relief to struggling homeowners. And to protect retirement security, I’ll eliminate taxes for seniors making under $50,000 a year.
If Senator McCain wants a debate about taxes in this campaign, that’s a debate I’m happy to have. Because while we’re both proposing tax cuts, the difference is who we’re cutting taxes for. Senator McCain would cut taxes for those making over $3 million. I’ll cut taxes for middle class families by three times as much as my opponent. Let me be clear: if you’re a family making less than $250,000, my plan will not raise your taxes - not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes. And unlike my opponent, I’ll pay for my plan - by cutting wasteful spending, shutting corporate loopholes and tax havens, and rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
He also talks, briefly, about education.
We can choose to stay mired in the same education debate that’s consumed Washington for decades, or we can provide every child with a world-class education so they have the skills to compete and succeed in our global economy. We can invest in early childhood education, recruit an army of qualified teachers with better pay and more support, and finally make college affordable by offering an annual $4,000 tax credit in exchange for community or national service.
Keep an eye on education. Obama has long ties with Bill Ayers, once a domestic terrorist and now an education professor in Il.
5) Also at LAT is a blog trying to figure out why Obama’s freight train is looking a little like the engine that couldn’t.
It looks like political strategists are puzzled about why Obama’s lead isn’t bigger. He’s got the looks, the money, the rhetoric, etc. The author doesn’t have any answers either, but he finishes with this:
Americans bought George W. Bush’s message of changing Washington in 2000. But he was a governor coming from Austin. Americans like governors as chief executives; four of the last five presidents were governors first.
Voters have proven more suspicious of legislators. This year they have no more choice; it’ll be only the third time in American history a sitting (or standing) senator has been elected to the White House.
Obama’s talking change too. But he’s a legislator who’s been in Washington three years now, two of them as a member of a Democratic-controlled Congress that was elected in 2006 with great promise but currently holds historically low favorability ratings.
What’s Obama done for D.C. change since arriving? What’s Obama done for reform back home within the historically monolithic and corrupt Chicago Democratic machine, where some up-and-comers are sent off to Congress for seasoning before advancing to the big-time of City Council?
The longer the Obama campaign goes without pulling comfortably ahead of the former fighter pilot who was trained to stay on his opponent’s tail, the more worrisome it’ll become for chief strategist David Axelrod . . . and others behind the closed doors in their Windy City headquarters.
While many of these people are trying to look for complex answers, could it simply be that for all his gifts, Obama just doesn’t offer near enough experience? Nah, that couldn’t be it.
6) Today at Politico is an article saying the recent McCain ad tying Obama in with celebrity culture is gaining traction.
It wasn’t until the last week, however, that the narrative of Obama as a president-in-waiting — and perhaps getting impatient in that waiting — began reverberating beyond the inboxes of Washington operatives and journalists.
Perhaps one of the clearest indications emerged Tuesday from the world of late-night comedy, when David Letterman offered his “Top Ten Signs Barack Obama is Overconfident.” The examples included Obama proposing to change the name of Oklahoma to “Oklobama” and measuring his head for Mount Rushmore.
“When Letterman is doing ‘Top Ten’ lists about something, it has officially entered the public consciousness,” said Dan Schnur, a political analyst from the University of Southern California and the communications director in John McCain’s 2000 campaign. “And it usually stays there for a long, long time.”
Jon Stewart teased that the presumptive Democratic nominee traveled to Israel to visit his birthplace at Bethlehem’s Manger Square.
Heh. Missed that. Darn. It’s at Truveo. Take a look - and take a look at all the “Obama Quest” bits. It will make you smile.
Anyway, in response to an apparent question about arrogance, Obama had this to say:
“I was puzzled by this notion that somehow what we were doing was in any way different from what Sen. McCain or a lot of presidential candidates have done in the past,” Obama said Sunday, speaking about his trip at a conference of minority journalists. “Now, I admit we did it really well. But that shouldn’t be a strike against me.”
“Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful.” The new Obama slogan. But WTH? “PUZZLED?” Puzzled? A guy who has said he plays lots of b-ball and probably talks a little smack like any competitive hoopster, is PUZZLED about what might constitute cockiness? Seriously? Well, bless his heart. Maybe language IS that difficult for him without the teleprompter.
And, as always, the HuffyPot rushes in to race-bait:
Bloggers at the Huffington Post launched a backlash to the backlash against Obama’s overseas trip, arguing in part that he wouldn’t face such criticism of acting premature if he were white.
You know, perhaps we’ve all been a little too believing of the Obama rhetorical brilliance bit. He does have trouble talking without a script and he is quite often “puzzled” by what other people say.
Maybe his listening and language skills need some work.
By LisaB
1) Is the MSM finally reporting on race-baiting? Jake Tapper, at Political Punch, is doing just that. During recent campaign stops, Obama trotted out the old race-bait bit about having a “funny name” and that no other presidents “look like me.”
Jake Tapper calls him on it - but good. Quoting Obama during stops in Rolla, Springfield and Union Missouri, Tapper shows how Obama continues to flog the idea that he is a victim of racist attacks by McCain.
Then in Union, Mo., this evening, Obama seemed to specifically accuse McCain and the GOP of peddling racism and xenophobia.
Read the rest ->
Jake is right. By the way, just count how many times Obama talks about John McCain during any interview. He nearly always answers a tough question he otherwise cannot answer by first starting with John McCain.
Tapper ends with:
I’ve seen racism in campaigns before — I’ve seen it against Obama in this campaign. . . and I’ve seen it against McCain in South Carolina in 2000, when his adopted Bangladeshi daughter Bridget was alleged, by the charming friends and allies of then-Gov. George W. Bush, to have been a McCain love-child with an African-American woman.
What I have not seen is it come from McCain or his campaign in such a way to merit the language Obama used today. Pretty inflammatory.
Definitely worth the read. Keep your eye on this guy.
2) Strangely enough, the LATimes seems to think Obama’s not being negative enough. Jonathan Chait’s op-ed piece today says Obama needs to stop being a nice guy and go negative. He says Obama’s “weak-tea” responses are similar to John Kerry’s in 2004.
To go on the attack, Obama doesn’t need to engage in character assassination and baseless charges, as his opponent has done. All he needs to do is stop letting McCain paint a wildly distorted self-portrait.
Apparently, Chiat’s view of Obama’s race-baiting remarks covered by Jake Tapper is entirely benign. I doubt Chiat has seen many campaign stops.
Obama’s strategy seems predicated on convincing voters that they really, really like the inexperienced black guy with the foreign-sounding name.
For an op-ed guy, I think Chiat is remarkably unsophisticated about what is going on when Obama talks about his “funny sounding name.”
3) In the NYPost today is a column by Amir Taheri on the recent Obama world tour. Taheri wasn’t impressed. Even so, this is a stunner.
“He looked like a man in a hurry,” a source close to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said last week. “He was not interested in what we had to say.”
Still, many Iraqis liked Obama’s claim that the improved situation in Iraq owed to Iraqi efforts rather than the Gen. David Petraeus-led surge. In public and private comments, Obama tried to give the impression that the Iraqis would’ve achieved the same results even without the greater resources America has poured into the country since 2007.
After Taheri asserts that Iraqi officials privately say the surge was both necessary and helpful comes this:
Iraqis were most surprised by Obama’s apparent readiness to throw away all the gains made in Iraq simply to prove that he’d been right in opposing the 2003 overthrow of Saddam Hussein. “He gave us the impression that the last thing he wanted was for Iraq to look anything like a success for the United States,” a senior Iraqi official told me. “As far as he is concerned, this is Bush’s war and must end in lack of success, if not actual defeat.”
Wow. I don’t know who Taheri’s sources are, but I’ve not seen anything like this before. Interesting. Will it go anywhere?
4) Realclearpolitics has Obama’s recent remarks on the economy. During this speech, along with promising a “chicken in every pot” Obama outlined some of the money people will see if he’s elected.
That starts with giving immediate relief to families who are one illness or foreclosure or pink slip away from disaster. To help folks who are having trouble filling up their gas tank, I’ll provide an energy rebate. To help hardworking Americans meet rising costs, I’ll put a $1,000 tax cut in the pockets of 95% of workers and their families, including 3 million folks here in Missouri. To help end this housing crisis, I’ll provide relief to struggling homeowners. And to protect retirement security, I’ll eliminate taxes for seniors making under $50,000 a year.
If Senator McCain wants a debate about taxes in this campaign, that’s a debate I’m happy to have. Because while we’re both proposing tax cuts, the difference is who we’re cutting taxes for. Senator McCain would cut taxes for those making over $3 million. I’ll cut taxes for middle class families by three times as much as my opponent. Let me be clear: if you’re a family making less than $250,000, my plan will not raise your taxes - not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes. And unlike my opponent, I’ll pay for my plan - by cutting wasteful spending, shutting corporate loopholes and tax havens, and rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
He also talks, briefly, about education.
We can choose to stay mired in the same education debate that’s consumed Washington for decades, or we can provide every child with a world-class education so they have the skills to compete and succeed in our global economy. We can invest in early childhood education, recruit an army of qualified teachers with better pay and more support, and finally make college affordable by offering an annual $4,000 tax credit in exchange for community or national service.
Keep an eye on education. Obama has long ties with Bill Ayers, once a domestic terrorist and now an education professor in Il.
5) Also at LAT is a blog trying to figure out why Obama’s freight train is looking a little like the engine that couldn’t.
It looks like political strategists are puzzled about why Obama’s lead isn’t bigger. He’s got the looks, the money, the rhetoric, etc. The author doesn’t have any answers either, but he finishes with this:
Americans bought George W. Bush’s message of changing Washington in 2000. But he was a governor coming from Austin. Americans like governors as chief executives; four of the last five presidents were governors first.
Voters have proven more suspicious of legislators. This year they have no more choice; it’ll be only the third time in American history a sitting (or standing) senator has been elected to the White House.
Obama’s talking change too. But he’s a legislator who’s been in Washington three years now, two of them as a member of a Democratic-controlled Congress that was elected in 2006 with great promise but currently holds historically low favorability ratings.
What’s Obama done for D.C. change since arriving? What’s Obama done for reform back home within the historically monolithic and corrupt Chicago Democratic machine, where some up-and-comers are sent off to Congress for seasoning before advancing to the big-time of City Council?
The longer the Obama campaign goes without pulling comfortably ahead of the former fighter pilot who was trained to stay on his opponent’s tail, the more worrisome it’ll become for chief strategist David Axelrod . . . and others behind the closed doors in their Windy City headquarters.
While many of these people are trying to look for complex answers, could it simply be that for all his gifts, Obama just doesn’t offer near enough experience? Nah, that couldn’t be it.
6) Today at Politico is an article saying the recent McCain ad tying Obama in with celebrity culture is gaining traction.
It wasn’t until the last week, however, that the narrative of Obama as a president-in-waiting — and perhaps getting impatient in that waiting — began reverberating beyond the inboxes of Washington operatives and journalists.
Perhaps one of the clearest indications emerged Tuesday from the world of late-night comedy, when David Letterman offered his “Top Ten Signs Barack Obama is Overconfident.” The examples included Obama proposing to change the name of Oklahoma to “Oklobama” and measuring his head for Mount Rushmore.
“When Letterman is doing ‘Top Ten’ lists about something, it has officially entered the public consciousness,” said Dan Schnur, a political analyst from the University of Southern California and the communications director in John McCain’s 2000 campaign. “And it usually stays there for a long, long time.”
Jon Stewart teased that the presumptive Democratic nominee traveled to Israel to visit his birthplace at Bethlehem’s Manger Square.
Heh. Missed that. Darn. It’s at Truveo. Take a look - and take a look at all the “Obama Quest” bits. It will make you smile.
Anyway, in response to an apparent question about arrogance, Obama had this to say:
“I was puzzled by this notion that somehow what we were doing was in any way different from what Sen. McCain or a lot of presidential candidates have done in the past,” Obama said Sunday, speaking about his trip at a conference of minority journalists. “Now, I admit we did it really well. But that shouldn’t be a strike against me.”
“Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful.” The new Obama slogan. But WTH? “PUZZLED?” Puzzled? A guy who has said he plays lots of b-ball and probably talks a little smack like any competitive hoopster, is PUZZLED about what might constitute cockiness? Seriously? Well, bless his heart. Maybe language IS that difficult for him without the teleprompter.
And, as always, the HuffyPot rushes in to race-bait:
Bloggers at the Huffington Post launched a backlash to the backlash against Obama’s overseas trip, arguing in part that he wouldn’t face such criticism of acting premature if he were white.
You know, perhaps we’ve all been a little too believing of the Obama rhetorical brilliance bit. He does have trouble talking without a script and he is quite often “puzzled” by what other people say.
Maybe his listening and language skills need some work.
An e-mail, with perspective, from a reader
Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/07/31/an-e-mail-from-a-reader/
By SusanUnPC
When Obama starts reaching for the race card for no apparent reason you know he is against the wall and has run out of options.
I have told people that Obama is not just going to lose, but he is going to lose in a landslide:
That world tour may have impressed the Grey Goose drinkers but it had the opposite effect on the Crown Royal drinkers.
His complete lack of experience (my son at 27 has far more accomplishments).
The unchecked and overwhelming support from mainstream media is having a backlash.
His energy policy of inflating tires, getting a tune-up and waiting 20-30 years for his development of alternative energies (see his website) will not only make him lose but he could take Congress with him.
His association with Jeremiah Wright.
In ‘92 I made a bet with a GOP lobbyist friend of mine over the Clinton/Bush election. Instead of betting him on win/lose I bet him on Clinton winning and winning what states he will win. I actually won that bet (lucky).
As much as Hillary would have beaten McCain convincingly the GOP knows they were handed a gift with Obama. There is a woman I know who is GOP operative who would have taken a pass on McCain had the Democrats nominated Hillary. But with Obama she and others are energized to prevent a catastrophe.
McCain will be a one term President and this time Dems won’t be stupid. Hillary in 2012.
By SusanUnPC
When Obama starts reaching for the race card for no apparent reason you know he is against the wall and has run out of options.
I have told people that Obama is not just going to lose, but he is going to lose in a landslide:
That world tour may have impressed the Grey Goose drinkers but it had the opposite effect on the Crown Royal drinkers.
His complete lack of experience (my son at 27 has far more accomplishments).
The unchecked and overwhelming support from mainstream media is having a backlash.
His energy policy of inflating tires, getting a tune-up and waiting 20-30 years for his development of alternative energies (see his website) will not only make him lose but he could take Congress with him.
His association with Jeremiah Wright.
In ‘92 I made a bet with a GOP lobbyist friend of mine over the Clinton/Bush election. Instead of betting him on win/lose I bet him on Clinton winning and winning what states he will win. I actually won that bet (lucky).
As much as Hillary would have beaten McCain convincingly the GOP knows they were handed a gift with Obama. There is a woman I know who is GOP operative who would have taken a pass on McCain had the Democrats nominated Hillary. But with Obama she and others are energized to prevent a catastrophe.
McCain will be a one term President and this time Dems won’t be stupid. Hillary in 2012.
McCain erodes Obama lead in three big states
Original Link: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/McCain_erodes_Obama_lead_in_three_big_states_polls_/articleshow/3311763.cms
Republican John McCain is gaining on White House rival Barack Obama in the pivotal swing states of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to Quinnipiac University polls released on Thursday.
The Connecticut university said Obama had seemingly gained no traction from a much-hyped foreign tour last week that was designed to flag his credentials to serve as commander-in-chief. "The $64,000 question is whether Senator John McCain's surge is a result of Senator Obama's much-publicised Middle Eastern and European trip, or just a coincidence that it occurred while Senator Obama was abroad," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
"While Obama was on tour, trying to show voters he could handle world affairs, voters were home trying to fill their gas tanks," he said. In Florida, according to the survey, Obama has 46 per cent to McCain's 44 per cent, compared to a 47-43 edge for the Democrat in mid-June.
The numbers were the same in Ohio, 46-44 per cent for Obama, from a 48-42 lead last time. In Pennsylvania, Obama has a slightly bigger lead of 49-42 per cent, compared to 52-40 per cent last month. As Quinnipiac noted, no candidate has been elected president since 1960 without taking two of these three largest swing states in the US electoral college.
Republican John McCain is gaining on White House rival Barack Obama in the pivotal swing states of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to Quinnipiac University polls released on Thursday.
The Connecticut university said Obama had seemingly gained no traction from a much-hyped foreign tour last week that was designed to flag his credentials to serve as commander-in-chief. "The $64,000 question is whether Senator John McCain's surge is a result of Senator Obama's much-publicised Middle Eastern and European trip, or just a coincidence that it occurred while Senator Obama was abroad," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
"While Obama was on tour, trying to show voters he could handle world affairs, voters were home trying to fill their gas tanks," he said. In Florida, according to the survey, Obama has 46 per cent to McCain's 44 per cent, compared to a 47-43 edge for the Democrat in mid-June.
The numbers were the same in Ohio, 46-44 per cent for Obama, from a 48-42 lead last time. In Pennsylvania, Obama has a slightly bigger lead of 49-42 per cent, compared to 52-40 per cent last month. As Quinnipiac noted, no candidate has been elected president since 1960 without taking two of these three largest swing states in the US electoral college.
30% of Conservative Democrats Say They’ll Vote for McCain
Original Link: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/30_of_conservative_democrats_say_they_ll_vote_for_mccain
Thirty percent (30%) of conservative Democrats say they’re voting for John McCain. Rasmussen Reports data also shows the Republican hopeful picking up support from 19% of White Democrats and 15% of Democrats over the age of 50. These results are from national telephone survey interviews conducted with 14,000 Likely Voters during the two weeks ending July 24. The sample includes 5,074 Democratic voters.
The data shows that 43% of Democrats consider themselves politically liberal, 37% say they’re moderate, and 18% are conservative.
Forty-one percent (41%) of conservative Democrats have a favorable opinion of John McCain. Sixty-seven percent (67%) say the same about Obama.
Among liberal Democrats, just 23% have a positive opinion about McCain, but 90% give Obama favorable reviews.
Obama is supported by 78% of Democrats overall, a figure that includes 62% of conservative Democrats. He leads 84% to 13% among Democrats under 30. But, among those over 65, Obama earns just 74% of the vote while McCain is preferred by 16% of Democratic senior citizens. It is interesting to note that just 2% of Democrats under 30 hold back from selecting either Obama or McCain. That number grows to 9% among Democrats over 65. Full crosstabs are available for Premium Members.
While Obama is losing some Democratic voters, he begins with a significant advantage over McCain by virtue of the fact that there are far more Democrats in the country than Republicans.
Overall, there are twice as many uncommitted voters at this point in Election 2008 as there were four years ago. An analysis released yesterday showed that there are more Democrats than Republicans in the uncommitted category, but that they are leaning more towards McCain than Obama.
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows that the race between Obama and McCain remains competitive. Other key stats of Election 2008 are updated daily at Obama-McCain: By the Numbers.
Thirty percent (30%) of conservative Democrats say they’re voting for John McCain. Rasmussen Reports data also shows the Republican hopeful picking up support from 19% of White Democrats and 15% of Democrats over the age of 50. These results are from national telephone survey interviews conducted with 14,000 Likely Voters during the two weeks ending July 24. The sample includes 5,074 Democratic voters.
The data shows that 43% of Democrats consider themselves politically liberal, 37% say they’re moderate, and 18% are conservative.
Forty-one percent (41%) of conservative Democrats have a favorable opinion of John McCain. Sixty-seven percent (67%) say the same about Obama.
Among liberal Democrats, just 23% have a positive opinion about McCain, but 90% give Obama favorable reviews.
Obama is supported by 78% of Democrats overall, a figure that includes 62% of conservative Democrats. He leads 84% to 13% among Democrats under 30. But, among those over 65, Obama earns just 74% of the vote while McCain is preferred by 16% of Democratic senior citizens. It is interesting to note that just 2% of Democrats under 30 hold back from selecting either Obama or McCain. That number grows to 9% among Democrats over 65. Full crosstabs are available for Premium Members.
While Obama is losing some Democratic voters, he begins with a significant advantage over McCain by virtue of the fact that there are far more Democrats in the country than Republicans.
Overall, there are twice as many uncommitted voters at this point in Election 2008 as there were four years ago. An analysis released yesterday showed that there are more Democrats than Republicans in the uncommitted category, but that they are leaning more towards McCain than Obama.
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows that the race between Obama and McCain remains competitive. Other key stats of Election 2008 are updated daily at Obama-McCain: By the Numbers.
Obama, McCain tied in Ohio, Florida
Original Link: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jul/31/poll-obama-mccain-tied-in-ohio-florida/
THE RACE: The presidential race in Florida
___
THE NUMBERS
Barack Obama, 46 percent
John McCain, 44 percent
___
OF INTEREST:
Independent voters in the state have shifted toward McCain _ 46 percent support him compared with 41 percent who prefer Obama. In the same poll taken last month, Obama led among independents, 47 percent to 37 percent. White voters prefer McCain, 53 percent to 39 percent. Black voters overwhelmingly favor Obama, 89 percent to 2 percent.
When it comes to addressing the nation's energy woes, six in 10 respondents back President Bush's call for more offshore drilling and want Congress to go along.
Obama has opposed lifting a moratorium that blocks energy development in 80 percent of the country's coastal waters. He proposes that oil companies be required to use existing drilling leases or pay a fee. McCain supported the moratorium in the past, but last month called for lifting it.
Floridians also back drilling for oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, 53 percent to 42 percent. Both Obama and McCain oppose oil drilling there.
Respondents are split over who has the best energy policy _ 34 percent of likely Florida voters say Obama and 32 percent say McCain. Thirty-four percent are undecided.
____
THE RACE: The presidential race in Ohio
___
THE NUMBERS
Barack Obama, 46 percent
John McCain, 44 percent
___
OF INTEREST:
Obama had a 6 percentage-point lead in the same poll taken last month. Both men and women are closely split in their support of either candidate. When it comes to their pick for first lady, respondents preferred Cindy McCain to Michelle Obama by 6 points, 33 percent to 27 percent.
Most Ohio voters back drilling for oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, 55 percent to 40 percent. Neither candidate's energy plan has an advantage with the voters. Thirty-four percent support Obama's policy, 33 percent favor McCain's and 33 percent are undecided.
___
THE RACE: The presidential race in Pennsylvania
___
THE NUMBERS
Barack Obama, 49 percent
John McCain, 42 percent
___
OF INTEREST:
Obama's lead in the state has narrowed. The same poll taken last month showed him ahead of McCain, 52 percent to 40 percent. Women favor the Democrat by 11 points, 50 percent to 39 percent. Obama has a 4-point lead among men. White voters are divided, with 46 percent for McCain and 45 percent for Obama. More Pennsylvania voters support drilling for oil in the Alaskan refuge, 55 to 41 percent. More respondents also say Obama has a better energy policy than McCain, 36 percent to 30 percent.
___
The Quinnipiac University polls were conducted from July 23-29. They involved telephone interviews with 1,248 likely Florida voters, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.8 percentage points; 1,229 likely Ohio voters, with a 2.8 point margin of sampling error; and 1,317 likely Pennsylvania voters with a 2.7 point margin of sampling error.
___
COMPLETE RESULTS: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/polling.xml
THE RACE: The presidential race in Florida
___
THE NUMBERS
Barack Obama, 46 percent
John McCain, 44 percent
___
OF INTEREST:
Independent voters in the state have shifted toward McCain _ 46 percent support him compared with 41 percent who prefer Obama. In the same poll taken last month, Obama led among independents, 47 percent to 37 percent. White voters prefer McCain, 53 percent to 39 percent. Black voters overwhelmingly favor Obama, 89 percent to 2 percent.
When it comes to addressing the nation's energy woes, six in 10 respondents back President Bush's call for more offshore drilling and want Congress to go along.
Obama has opposed lifting a moratorium that blocks energy development in 80 percent of the country's coastal waters. He proposes that oil companies be required to use existing drilling leases or pay a fee. McCain supported the moratorium in the past, but last month called for lifting it.
Floridians also back drilling for oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, 53 percent to 42 percent. Both Obama and McCain oppose oil drilling there.
Respondents are split over who has the best energy policy _ 34 percent of likely Florida voters say Obama and 32 percent say McCain. Thirty-four percent are undecided.
____
THE RACE: The presidential race in Ohio
___
THE NUMBERS
Barack Obama, 46 percent
John McCain, 44 percent
___
OF INTEREST:
Obama had a 6 percentage-point lead in the same poll taken last month. Both men and women are closely split in their support of either candidate. When it comes to their pick for first lady, respondents preferred Cindy McCain to Michelle Obama by 6 points, 33 percent to 27 percent.
Most Ohio voters back drilling for oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, 55 percent to 40 percent. Neither candidate's energy plan has an advantage with the voters. Thirty-four percent support Obama's policy, 33 percent favor McCain's and 33 percent are undecided.
___
THE RACE: The presidential race in Pennsylvania
___
THE NUMBERS
Barack Obama, 49 percent
John McCain, 42 percent
___
OF INTEREST:
Obama's lead in the state has narrowed. The same poll taken last month showed him ahead of McCain, 52 percent to 40 percent. Women favor the Democrat by 11 points, 50 percent to 39 percent. Obama has a 4-point lead among men. White voters are divided, with 46 percent for McCain and 45 percent for Obama. More Pennsylvania voters support drilling for oil in the Alaskan refuge, 55 to 41 percent. More respondents also say Obama has a better energy policy than McCain, 36 percent to 30 percent.
___
The Quinnipiac University polls were conducted from July 23-29. They involved telephone interviews with 1,248 likely Florida voters, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.8 percentage points; 1,229 likely Ohio voters, with a 2.8 point margin of sampling error; and 1,317 likely Pennsylvania voters with a 2.7 point margin of sampling error.
___
COMPLETE RESULTS: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/polling.xml
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Why nothing the press throws at Obama sticks
Original Link: http://www.slate.com/id/2196196/
By Jack Shafer
You're welcome to believe otherwise, but I don't think the press has gone in the tank for Barack Obama.
As long ago as March, the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz demolished charges that the press was soft on Obama by cataloging the tough pieces published by reporters exhuming the candidate's past: his financial relationship with friend and fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who is now a convicted felon; his friendship with former Weather Undergrounder William Ayers; his casting of 130 "present" votes as an Illinois legislator; his nuclear energy compromise in the U.S. Senate, said to benefit a contributor; incendiary comments made by his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright; and more.
To that list add the recent critical dispatches tarring Obama as a flip-flopper. The New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg found "the big papers … assembling quite a list of matters on which the candidate has 'changed his position,' including Iraq, abortion rights, federal aid to faith-based social services, capital punishment, gun control, public financing of campaigns, and wiretapping."
What's unique about Obama and his candidacy is that almost none of the stuff the press throws at him sticks. Nor is the press alone in its inability to stick him. Hillary Clinton hurled rocks, knives, and acid at her rival even before the primaries (see this Jake Tapper piece from ABC News) and later upped the ante in desperation. She claimed that he was unprepared to serve as commander in chief and accused him of insulting gun owners and the religiously faithful. The eleventh-hour tactics may have won Clinton votes, but they failed to undermine Obama.
You could call Obama the Teflon-coated candidate, but this would miss the fact that his slickness goes all the way to the core. What has gone unexplored until now is this: How did Barack Obama achieve superslipperiness without becoming greasy?
In a 2006 profile in Men's Vogue by Jacob Weisberg, Obama acknowledges that every politician, himself included, has "some of that reptilian side to him." To win public office, a politician must powder his scales, trim his nails, and tame his swinging tail. It's called persona-building, and everybody does it. But just compare the persona Obama crafted to the one crafted by Mitt Romney. The Romney bodysuit is all snapping teeth and empty glad-handing. Obama, on the other hand, projects a remarkably appealing and authentic character. He's the koala of iguanas.
Whether by design or by chance (I'd say design), Obama took possession of this public face with the publication of his confessional memoir, Dreams From My Father, in 1995. Written before he ran for office, Dreams shrewdly moots his youthful drug use as "some bad decisions." When the New York Times rereported this period in Obama's life for a Feb. 9, 2008, piece, it probably expected to uncover spectacular dope-crazed tales. Instead it found evidence that Obama's memoir might have exaggerated his drug use. An Obama friend—now a fundraiser—tells the Times Obama was somewhat of a reticent drug user: "If someone passed him a joint, he would take a drag. We'd smoke or have one extra beer, but he would not even do as much as other people on campus. … He was not even close to being a party animal."
Obama's poise and discipline allow him to resist whatever bait the press and politicians dangle in front of him. When he does address scandalous material, he generally does so to his advantage. In June, when the Web and cable news advanced false rumors that Michelle Obama had called white people "whitey" on a videotape, Obama squelched the gossip with a denial and, as Ben Smith of Politico reported, put the press on notice by questioning the appropriateness of the question. Smears undermine a politician only when they appeal to voters' pre-existing idea of what sort of person a politician is. Seeing as the pre-existing idea of Obama is so positive, the Obama-haters have had trouble portraying him either as a literal bomb thrower, like William Ayers, or a figurative one, like the Rev. Wright. When the smear artists dress him up as a radical or as "madrassa"-educated, the ploys only backfire.
Like Chief Justice John Roberts, Obama has constructed a professional résumé low on embarrassing material. In this regard, Obama's lack of legislative accomplishment is a genuine achievement. They can't hit you where they can't find you, which is a gambit that worked for Roberts in his confirmation hearings. Separating the real Obama from the persona is probably impossible, as Ryan Lizza hints in The New Yorker, where he writes:
[Obama] campaigns on reforming a broken political process, yet he has always played politics by the rules as they exist, not as he would like them to exist. He runs as an outsider, but he has succeeded by mastering the inside game. He is ideologically a man of the left, but at times he has been genuinely deferential to core philosophical insights of the right.
Obama has maintained his persona by keeping the campaign press corps on a starvation diet. Yet such a strategy becomes self-limiting as the race for the White House narrows down to a two-person contest. Voters in the general election, as opposed to the primaries, tend to want more answers and fewer gestures.
At some point he's going to have to start answering questions, an observation that shouldn't come as a surprise to Obama's chief strategist, former journalist David Axelrod. Last week, Slate's John Dickerson excoriated Obama for his double-talking ways in an interview with NBC's Brian Williams about his position on the surge. Writes Dickerson: "[H]e suggested that he'd always said the surge would decrease violence in Iraq. That's not just spin. It's not true."
It's one thing to stiff-arm the press, but quite another to lie. Lying isn't something that becomes Obama—or his persona.
By Jack Shafer
You're welcome to believe otherwise, but I don't think the press has gone in the tank for Barack Obama.
As long ago as March, the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz demolished charges that the press was soft on Obama by cataloging the tough pieces published by reporters exhuming the candidate's past: his financial relationship with friend and fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who is now a convicted felon; his friendship with former Weather Undergrounder William Ayers; his casting of 130 "present" votes as an Illinois legislator; his nuclear energy compromise in the U.S. Senate, said to benefit a contributor; incendiary comments made by his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright; and more.
To that list add the recent critical dispatches tarring Obama as a flip-flopper. The New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg found "the big papers … assembling quite a list of matters on which the candidate has 'changed his position,' including Iraq, abortion rights, federal aid to faith-based social services, capital punishment, gun control, public financing of campaigns, and wiretapping."
What's unique about Obama and his candidacy is that almost none of the stuff the press throws at him sticks. Nor is the press alone in its inability to stick him. Hillary Clinton hurled rocks, knives, and acid at her rival even before the primaries (see this Jake Tapper piece from ABC News) and later upped the ante in desperation. She claimed that he was unprepared to serve as commander in chief and accused him of insulting gun owners and the religiously faithful. The eleventh-hour tactics may have won Clinton votes, but they failed to undermine Obama.
You could call Obama the Teflon-coated candidate, but this would miss the fact that his slickness goes all the way to the core. What has gone unexplored until now is this: How did Barack Obama achieve superslipperiness without becoming greasy?
In a 2006 profile in Men's Vogue by Jacob Weisberg, Obama acknowledges that every politician, himself included, has "some of that reptilian side to him." To win public office, a politician must powder his scales, trim his nails, and tame his swinging tail. It's called persona-building, and everybody does it. But just compare the persona Obama crafted to the one crafted by Mitt Romney. The Romney bodysuit is all snapping teeth and empty glad-handing. Obama, on the other hand, projects a remarkably appealing and authentic character. He's the koala of iguanas.
Whether by design or by chance (I'd say design), Obama took possession of this public face with the publication of his confessional memoir, Dreams From My Father, in 1995. Written before he ran for office, Dreams shrewdly moots his youthful drug use as "some bad decisions." When the New York Times rereported this period in Obama's life for a Feb. 9, 2008, piece, it probably expected to uncover spectacular dope-crazed tales. Instead it found evidence that Obama's memoir might have exaggerated his drug use. An Obama friend—now a fundraiser—tells the Times Obama was somewhat of a reticent drug user: "If someone passed him a joint, he would take a drag. We'd smoke or have one extra beer, but he would not even do as much as other people on campus. … He was not even close to being a party animal."
Obama's poise and discipline allow him to resist whatever bait the press and politicians dangle in front of him. When he does address scandalous material, he generally does so to his advantage. In June, when the Web and cable news advanced false rumors that Michelle Obama had called white people "whitey" on a videotape, Obama squelched the gossip with a denial and, as Ben Smith of Politico reported, put the press on notice by questioning the appropriateness of the question. Smears undermine a politician only when they appeal to voters' pre-existing idea of what sort of person a politician is. Seeing as the pre-existing idea of Obama is so positive, the Obama-haters have had trouble portraying him either as a literal bomb thrower, like William Ayers, or a figurative one, like the Rev. Wright. When the smear artists dress him up as a radical or as "madrassa"-educated, the ploys only backfire.
Like Chief Justice John Roberts, Obama has constructed a professional résumé low on embarrassing material. In this regard, Obama's lack of legislative accomplishment is a genuine achievement. They can't hit you where they can't find you, which is a gambit that worked for Roberts in his confirmation hearings. Separating the real Obama from the persona is probably impossible, as Ryan Lizza hints in The New Yorker, where he writes:
[Obama] campaigns on reforming a broken political process, yet he has always played politics by the rules as they exist, not as he would like them to exist. He runs as an outsider, but he has succeeded by mastering the inside game. He is ideologically a man of the left, but at times he has been genuinely deferential to core philosophical insights of the right.
Obama has maintained his persona by keeping the campaign press corps on a starvation diet. Yet such a strategy becomes self-limiting as the race for the White House narrows down to a two-person contest. Voters in the general election, as opposed to the primaries, tend to want more answers and fewer gestures.
At some point he's going to have to start answering questions, an observation that shouldn't come as a surprise to Obama's chief strategist, former journalist David Axelrod. Last week, Slate's John Dickerson excoriated Obama for his double-talking ways in an interview with NBC's Brian Williams about his position on the surge. Writes Dickerson: "[H]e suggested that he'd always said the surge would decrease violence in Iraq. That's not just spin. It's not true."
It's one thing to stiff-arm the press, but quite another to lie. Lying isn't something that becomes Obama—or his persona.
The Presumptuous Candidate: “This is the moment . . . that the world is waiting for”
Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/07/30/the-presumptuous-candidate-this-is-the-moment-that-the-world-is-waiting-for/
By SusanUnPC
To whom did Mr. Obama utter those astonishing words?
Democratic members of the House of Representatives.
Imagine heavyweights like Reps. John Murtha and Norm Dicks hearing that from this lightweight candidate. Heavyweights like those two who wield enormous power — QUIETLY — through their committee positions. Dicks, for example, has reached the highest tiers of the Appropriations committee, and has served for years on the Intelligence committee.
ABC News caught the story in The Note:
The latest entry in the (bulging) Obama files: “This is the moment . . . that the world is waiting for,” he told House Democrats Tuesday night, per The Washington Post’s Jonathan Weisman. “I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions.”
(Read that sentence again, and try to imagine how it would look if it was said on camera.)
Obama may be right (and if he is, he wins) — but the first person singular is the most dangerous of tenses, particularly when the meme is being set. Toss in a jettisoned faux-presidential seal, a canceled visit with troops, maybe a sprinkling of broken promises, and you’ve got enough to weave an uncomfortable yet unforgettable suit.
With a public schedule that “would have made Dick Cheney envious,” this is Obama going from presumptive to presumptuous, Dana Milbank writes in his Washington Post column.
“Some say the supremely confident Obama — nearly 100 days from the election, he pronounces that ‘the odds of us winning are very good’ — has become a president-in-waiting,” Milbank writes. “But in truth, he doesn’t need to wait: He has already amassed the trappings of the office, without those pesky decisions.”
“Toss in a jettisoned faux-presidential seal, a canceled visit with troops, maybe a sprinkling of broken promises, and you’ve got enough to weave an uncomfortable yet unforgettable suit. …”
Add to that the faux outrage over Kotel. The Obama campaign designed the “outrage” for consumption by Israeli newspapers, which are widely read by Jews in the U.S. (and the Obama campaign knows this).
But, the Israeli newspapers followed through, and discovered that the Obama campaign purposely leaked Obama’s prayer note. As LisaB quoted yesterday:
What initially seemed to be a journalistic scoop of dubious moral propriety now seems to be a case of an Israeli paper being played by the Barack Obama campaign.
Mr. Obama, American Jews will read this story too. You’ve just lost more credibility with an important group of voters already skeptical because of your associations with those close to Louis Farrakhan.
The central point of the ABC News story is the presumptuousness that Mr. Obama parades.
Reality check: There remains a nomination to be secured, and an election to be won.
ACTION item: Obama gamed the primaries by exploiting the weaknesses in the caucuses. We can put a stop to that by taking this simple survey from IOwnMyVote.com. Why? Because the people behind this survey will ensure that our views get in the right hands.
By SusanUnPC
To whom did Mr. Obama utter those astonishing words?
Democratic members of the House of Representatives.
Imagine heavyweights like Reps. John Murtha and Norm Dicks hearing that from this lightweight candidate. Heavyweights like those two who wield enormous power — QUIETLY — through their committee positions. Dicks, for example, has reached the highest tiers of the Appropriations committee, and has served for years on the Intelligence committee.
ABC News caught the story in The Note:
The latest entry in the (bulging) Obama files: “This is the moment . . . that the world is waiting for,” he told House Democrats Tuesday night, per The Washington Post’s Jonathan Weisman. “I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions.”
(Read that sentence again, and try to imagine how it would look if it was said on camera.)
Obama may be right (and if he is, he wins) — but the first person singular is the most dangerous of tenses, particularly when the meme is being set. Toss in a jettisoned faux-presidential seal, a canceled visit with troops, maybe a sprinkling of broken promises, and you’ve got enough to weave an uncomfortable yet unforgettable suit.
With a public schedule that “would have made Dick Cheney envious,” this is Obama going from presumptive to presumptuous, Dana Milbank writes in his Washington Post column.
“Some say the supremely confident Obama — nearly 100 days from the election, he pronounces that ‘the odds of us winning are very good’ — has become a president-in-waiting,” Milbank writes. “But in truth, he doesn’t need to wait: He has already amassed the trappings of the office, without those pesky decisions.”
“Toss in a jettisoned faux-presidential seal, a canceled visit with troops, maybe a sprinkling of broken promises, and you’ve got enough to weave an uncomfortable yet unforgettable suit. …”
Add to that the faux outrage over Kotel. The Obama campaign designed the “outrage” for consumption by Israeli newspapers, which are widely read by Jews in the U.S. (and the Obama campaign knows this).
But, the Israeli newspapers followed through, and discovered that the Obama campaign purposely leaked Obama’s prayer note. As LisaB quoted yesterday:
What initially seemed to be a journalistic scoop of dubious moral propriety now seems to be a case of an Israeli paper being played by the Barack Obama campaign.
Mr. Obama, American Jews will read this story too. You’ve just lost more credibility with an important group of voters already skeptical because of your associations with those close to Louis Farrakhan.
The central point of the ABC News story is the presumptuousness that Mr. Obama parades.
Reality check: There remains a nomination to be secured, and an election to be won.
ACTION item: Obama gamed the primaries by exploiting the weaknesses in the caucuses. We can put a stop to that by taking this simple survey from IOwnMyVote.com. Why? Because the people behind this survey will ensure that our views get in the right hands.
President Obama Continues Hectic Victory Tour
Original Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072902068.html
By Dana Milbank
Barack Obama has long been his party's presumptive nominee. Now he's becoming its presumptuous nominee.
Fresh from his presidential-style world tour, during which foreign leaders and American generals lined up to show him affection, Obama settled down to some presidential-style business in Washington yesterday. He ordered up a teleconference with the (current president's) Treasury secretary, granted an audience to the Pakistani prime minister and had his staff arrange for the chairman of the Federal Reserve to give him a briefing. Then, he went up to Capitol Hill to be adored by House Democrats in a presidential-style pep rally.
Along the way, he traveled in a bubble more insulating than the actual president's. Traffic was shut down for him as he zoomed about town in a long, presidential-style motorcade, while the public and most of the press were kept in the dark about his activities, which included a fundraiser at the Mayflower where donors paid $10,000 or more to have photos taken with him. His schedule for the day, announced Monday night, would have made Dick Cheney envious:
11:00 a.m.: En route TBA.
12:05 p.m.: En route TBA.
1:45 p.m.: En route TBA.
2:55 p.m.: En route TBA.
5:20 p.m.: En route TBA.
The 5:20 TBA turned out to be his adoration session with lawmakers in the Cannon Caucus Room, where even committee chairmen arrived early, as if for the State of the Union. Capitol Police cleared the halls -- just as they do for the actual president. The Secret Service hustled him in through a side door -- just as they do for the actual president.
Inside, according to a witness, he told the House members, "This is the moment . . . that the world is waiting for," adding: "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."
As he marches toward Inauguration Day (Election Day is but a milestone on that path), Obama's biggest challenger may not be Republican John McCain but rather his own hubris.
Some say the supremely confident Obama -- nearly 100 days from the election, he pronounces that "the odds of us winning are very good" -- has become a president-in-waiting. But in truth, he doesn't need to wait: He has already amassed the trappings of the office, without those pesky decisions.
The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder reported last week that Obama has directed his staff to begin planning for his transition to the White House, causing Republicans to howl about premature drape measuring. Obama was even feeling confident enough to give British Prime Minister Gordon Brown some management advice over the weekend. "If what you're trying to do is micromanage and solve everything, then you end up being a dilettante," he advised the prime minister, portraying his relative inexperience much as President Bush did in 2000.
On his presidential-style visit to the Western Wall in Jerusalem last week, Obama left a written prayer, intercepted by an Israeli newspaper, asking God to "help me guard against pride and despair." He seems to have the despair part under control, but the pride could be a problem.
One source of the confidence is the polling, which shows him with a big lead over McCain. But polls are fickle allies: A USA Today-Gallup poll released Monday found McCain leading Obama by four percentage points among likely voters. Another reason for Obama's confidence -- the press -- is also an unfaithful partner. The Project for Excellence in Journalism reported yesterday that Obama dominated the news media's attention for a seventh straight week. But there are signs that the Obama campaign's arrogance has begun to anger reporters.
In the latest issue of the New Republic, Gabriel Sherman found reporters complaining that Obama's campaign was "acting like the Prom Queen" and being more secretive than Bush. The magazine quoted the New York Times' Adam Nagourney's reaction to the Obama campaign's memo attacking one of his stories: "I've never had an experience like this, with this campaign or others." Then came Obama's overseas trip and the campaign's selection of which news organizations could come aboard. Among those excluded: the New Yorker magazine, which had just published a satirical cover about Obama that offended the campaign.
Even Bush hasn't tried that. But then again, Obama has been outdoing the president in ruffles and flourishes lately. As Bush held quiet signing ceremonies in the White House yesterday morning, Obama was involved in a more visible display of executive authority a block away, when he met with Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani at the Willard. A full block of F Street was shut down for the prime minister and the would-be president, and some 40 security and motorcade vehicles filled the street.
Later, Obama's aides issued an official-sounding statement, borrowing the language of White House communiques: "I had a productive and wide-ranging discussion. . . . I look forward to working with the democratically elected government of Pakistan."
It had been a long day of acting presidential, but Obama wasn't done. After a few hours huddling with advisers over his vice presidential choice, Obama made his way to the pep rally on the Hill. Moments after he entered the meeting with lawmakers, there was an extended cheer, followed by another, and another.
"I think this can be an incredible election," Obama said later. "I look forward to collaborating with everybody here to win the election."
Win the election? Didn't he do that already?
By Dana Milbank
Barack Obama has long been his party's presumptive nominee. Now he's becoming its presumptuous nominee.
Fresh from his presidential-style world tour, during which foreign leaders and American generals lined up to show him affection, Obama settled down to some presidential-style business in Washington yesterday. He ordered up a teleconference with the (current president's) Treasury secretary, granted an audience to the Pakistani prime minister and had his staff arrange for the chairman of the Federal Reserve to give him a briefing. Then, he went up to Capitol Hill to be adored by House Democrats in a presidential-style pep rally.
Along the way, he traveled in a bubble more insulating than the actual president's. Traffic was shut down for him as he zoomed about town in a long, presidential-style motorcade, while the public and most of the press were kept in the dark about his activities, which included a fundraiser at the Mayflower where donors paid $10,000 or more to have photos taken with him. His schedule for the day, announced Monday night, would have made Dick Cheney envious:
11:00 a.m.: En route TBA.
12:05 p.m.: En route TBA.
1:45 p.m.: En route TBA.
2:55 p.m.: En route TBA.
5:20 p.m.: En route TBA.
The 5:20 TBA turned out to be his adoration session with lawmakers in the Cannon Caucus Room, where even committee chairmen arrived early, as if for the State of the Union. Capitol Police cleared the halls -- just as they do for the actual president. The Secret Service hustled him in through a side door -- just as they do for the actual president.
Inside, according to a witness, he told the House members, "This is the moment . . . that the world is waiting for," adding: "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."
As he marches toward Inauguration Day (Election Day is but a milestone on that path), Obama's biggest challenger may not be Republican John McCain but rather his own hubris.
Some say the supremely confident Obama -- nearly 100 days from the election, he pronounces that "the odds of us winning are very good" -- has become a president-in-waiting. But in truth, he doesn't need to wait: He has already amassed the trappings of the office, without those pesky decisions.
The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder reported last week that Obama has directed his staff to begin planning for his transition to the White House, causing Republicans to howl about premature drape measuring. Obama was even feeling confident enough to give British Prime Minister Gordon Brown some management advice over the weekend. "If what you're trying to do is micromanage and solve everything, then you end up being a dilettante," he advised the prime minister, portraying his relative inexperience much as President Bush did in 2000.
On his presidential-style visit to the Western Wall in Jerusalem last week, Obama left a written prayer, intercepted by an Israeli newspaper, asking God to "help me guard against pride and despair." He seems to have the despair part under control, but the pride could be a problem.
One source of the confidence is the polling, which shows him with a big lead over McCain. But polls are fickle allies: A USA Today-Gallup poll released Monday found McCain leading Obama by four percentage points among likely voters. Another reason for Obama's confidence -- the press -- is also an unfaithful partner. The Project for Excellence in Journalism reported yesterday that Obama dominated the news media's attention for a seventh straight week. But there are signs that the Obama campaign's arrogance has begun to anger reporters.
In the latest issue of the New Republic, Gabriel Sherman found reporters complaining that Obama's campaign was "acting like the Prom Queen" and being more secretive than Bush. The magazine quoted the New York Times' Adam Nagourney's reaction to the Obama campaign's memo attacking one of his stories: "I've never had an experience like this, with this campaign or others." Then came Obama's overseas trip and the campaign's selection of which news organizations could come aboard. Among those excluded: the New Yorker magazine, which had just published a satirical cover about Obama that offended the campaign.
Even Bush hasn't tried that. But then again, Obama has been outdoing the president in ruffles and flourishes lately. As Bush held quiet signing ceremonies in the White House yesterday morning, Obama was involved in a more visible display of executive authority a block away, when he met with Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani at the Willard. A full block of F Street was shut down for the prime minister and the would-be president, and some 40 security and motorcade vehicles filled the street.
Later, Obama's aides issued an official-sounding statement, borrowing the language of White House communiques: "I had a productive and wide-ranging discussion. . . . I look forward to working with the democratically elected government of Pakistan."
It had been a long day of acting presidential, but Obama wasn't done. After a few hours huddling with advisers over his vice presidential choice, Obama made his way to the pep rally on the Hill. Moments after he entered the meeting with lawmakers, there was an extended cheer, followed by another, and another.
"I think this can be an incredible election," Obama said later. "I look forward to collaborating with everybody here to win the election."
Win the election? Didn't he do that already?
Women voters aren't warming to 'cool' Obama
Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/07/30/are-superdelegates-for-sale/
BY CAROL MARIN Sun-Times Columnist
The Obama campaign has a woman problem. How big? How small? It's not clear, but in a close election, small can be big.
And Michelle Obama spoke to it Monday in Chicago.
Departing from her prepared remarks, she cautioned a ballroom of applauding "Women for Obama" that despite their unwavering support, "there's a whole country out there that still needs a little convincing."
You wouldn't have known it from this mostly well-dressed, mostly well-heeled crowd. Many of the women, black and white, young and old, were early donors who gave money back when Barack Obama was a long shot, and they were gladly giving again now. A lovely lunch of organic chicken prepared by a renowned chef, Alice Waters, brought in somewhere between $400,000 and $700,000 for the Obama Victory fund.
But the women Obama needs right now are the ones who do not dine downtown. They're the ones who can't afford organic anything, forced to choose between a gallon of gas and a gallon of milk because they can't buy both on the same day.
Women like Sarah.
A few hours after leaving the "Women for Obama" luncheon, I ran into Sarah, not her real name. I've known her for a few years. A single mom, she free-lances, working as many jobs as she can to support two growing boys. She dreams of a permanent gig with benefits, but it's still just a dream.
A 37-year-old Democrat, she is also a college grad and a news junkie who has watched this campaign like a hawk. She surprised me with her anger Tuesday, saying she's voting for McCain.
To Sarah, Barack Obama is like the organic chicken at lunch. Sleek, elegant, beautifully prepared. Too cool.
Though both Obamas have spoken often and in great personal detail of their own humble beginnings, of Michelle's hardworking blue-collar dad and Barack's struggling single mom on food stamps, it somehow hasn't sold Sarah. You might ask if she was a die-hard Clinton supporter. The answer is yes, a supporter, but die-hard? Not really.
At the luncheon, I'd asked women if there was still a sizable breach between the Clinton and Obama camps.
Most told me not anymore, that on issues of choice, national health insurance and gender parity of wages, Clinton supporters know they have far more differences with Republican John McCain than they do with Obama. And Republican women, including Paula Wolff, who for 14 years was in the high command of Republican Gov. James R. Thompson, were there to demonstrate that Obama has crossover appeal, too.
"The Supreme Court," said Wolff. "I think for most women when they walk into the voting booth, that will be the first thing on their minds."
Some of the numbers bear that out. The July 15 Quinnipiac University poll shows women overall backed Obama over McCain 55 percent to 36 percent. Then again, the margin was far smaller among independent women, who preferred Obama by just three points, 45 percent to 42 percent. And finally, there's that Clinton problem. The Associated Press/Yahoo News "found that just 12 percent of former Clinton supporters say they are excited about Obama."
It seems pretty clear that if Obama is not going to pick Clinton as his running mate, he'd better not pick a woman at all. That, Sarah made clear in our conversation Tuesday, would be unfair.
The Obamas, for their part, have in recent weeks spoken warmly and respectfully of Hillary Clinton and she of them. On Monday, Mrs. Obama called Sen. Clinton an "extraordinary woman" and added she was "thrilled to welcome Dana Singiser to the campaign as our new senior adviser for women."
Singiser, who worked for Clinton's campaign and Senate office before that, told me Tuesday by phone, "We're working really hard for all women voters and leaving no stone unturned."
They may need to try offering more macaroni and cheese.
BY CAROL MARIN Sun-Times Columnist
The Obama campaign has a woman problem. How big? How small? It's not clear, but in a close election, small can be big.
And Michelle Obama spoke to it Monday in Chicago.
Departing from her prepared remarks, she cautioned a ballroom of applauding "Women for Obama" that despite their unwavering support, "there's a whole country out there that still needs a little convincing."
You wouldn't have known it from this mostly well-dressed, mostly well-heeled crowd. Many of the women, black and white, young and old, were early donors who gave money back when Barack Obama was a long shot, and they were gladly giving again now. A lovely lunch of organic chicken prepared by a renowned chef, Alice Waters, brought in somewhere between $400,000 and $700,000 for the Obama Victory fund.
But the women Obama needs right now are the ones who do not dine downtown. They're the ones who can't afford organic anything, forced to choose between a gallon of gas and a gallon of milk because they can't buy both on the same day.
Women like Sarah.
A few hours after leaving the "Women for Obama" luncheon, I ran into Sarah, not her real name. I've known her for a few years. A single mom, she free-lances, working as many jobs as she can to support two growing boys. She dreams of a permanent gig with benefits, but it's still just a dream.
A 37-year-old Democrat, she is also a college grad and a news junkie who has watched this campaign like a hawk. She surprised me with her anger Tuesday, saying she's voting for McCain.
To Sarah, Barack Obama is like the organic chicken at lunch. Sleek, elegant, beautifully prepared. Too cool.
Though both Obamas have spoken often and in great personal detail of their own humble beginnings, of Michelle's hardworking blue-collar dad and Barack's struggling single mom on food stamps, it somehow hasn't sold Sarah. You might ask if she was a die-hard Clinton supporter. The answer is yes, a supporter, but die-hard? Not really.
At the luncheon, I'd asked women if there was still a sizable breach between the Clinton and Obama camps.
Most told me not anymore, that on issues of choice, national health insurance and gender parity of wages, Clinton supporters know they have far more differences with Republican John McCain than they do with Obama. And Republican women, including Paula Wolff, who for 14 years was in the high command of Republican Gov. James R. Thompson, were there to demonstrate that Obama has crossover appeal, too.
"The Supreme Court," said Wolff. "I think for most women when they walk into the voting booth, that will be the first thing on their minds."
Some of the numbers bear that out. The July 15 Quinnipiac University poll shows women overall backed Obama over McCain 55 percent to 36 percent. Then again, the margin was far smaller among independent women, who preferred Obama by just three points, 45 percent to 42 percent. And finally, there's that Clinton problem. The Associated Press/Yahoo News "found that just 12 percent of former Clinton supporters say they are excited about Obama."
It seems pretty clear that if Obama is not going to pick Clinton as his running mate, he'd better not pick a woman at all. That, Sarah made clear in our conversation Tuesday, would be unfair.
The Obamas, for their part, have in recent weeks spoken warmly and respectfully of Hillary Clinton and she of them. On Monday, Mrs. Obama called Sen. Clinton an "extraordinary woman" and added she was "thrilled to welcome Dana Singiser to the campaign as our new senior adviser for women."
Singiser, who worked for Clinton's campaign and Senate office before that, told me Tuesday by phone, "We're working really hard for all women voters and leaving no stone unturned."
They may need to try offering more macaroni and cheese.
Are Superdelegates For Sale?
Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/07/30/are-superdelegates-for-sale/
By Dr. Lynette Long
In a few weeks the historic 2008 Democratic Party Presidential Primary between an African American Man and a White Woman will end. The two candidates competed in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the US Virgin Islands, and Guam. At the end of these contests, neither candidate had earned enough pledged delegates to garner the necessary 2118 needed to win the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. Hillary Clinton earned 1640 pledged delegates while Barack Obama earned 1763 pledged delegates. A paltry 123 pledged separated the two candidates at the end of the primary season. Since there was no clear winner, the superdelegates would determine the Democratic nominee.
Approximately 800 superdelegates will make up around 20% of the 4000 delegates at the convention. These superdelegates are Democratic Party leaders, Democratic governors, and Democratic members of Congress. They have the right to endorse either candidate without reason and can change their endorsement from one candidate to another at any time. The superdelegates are very powerful and highly sought after by candidates. One superdelegate is equal to one pledged delegate or 11,361 voters in California or 7,220 voters in New York. Many factors influence which candidate a superdelegate a superdelegate endorses but they usually vote the way their constituents vote. Some superdelegates have intense personal relationships with particular candidates that may influence their endorsement. Members of Congress may also be influenced by money given or promised by party leaders, the DNC or the candidates themselves.
Politicians collect money for their campaigns but most Americans don’t realize that politicians collect a separate a pot of money called a Leadership Political Action Committee or PAC. These PACs are used to hire additional staff and pay for additional perks such as limos and first class flights. But one of the major reasons for these PACs is to donate to the campaigns of other candidates. Nancy Pelosi’s PAC is called PAC to the Future, Barack Obama’s PAC is called Hope Fund, and Hillary Clinton’s PAC is called HillPAC. Money was distributed by these PACs to the superdelegates to influence their voting. The Federal Elections Commission requires scrupulous reporting of how PAC money is obtained and how it is spent. This data can be retrieved at www.opensecrets.org.
In 2007, Obama distributed 299,000 from his PAC to superdelegates. He especially targeted the states of Iowa and New Hampshire. On July 25, 2007, the Hope Fund made $1000 donations to each of the following groups: Hillsborough=2
0County Democrats, Hudson, NH; Martha Fuller Clark for State Senate, Portsmouth, NH; Merrimack County Democrats, Chichester, NH; New Hampshire for John Lynch, Manchester, NH; Sgambati 4 NH Senate, Tilton, NH; Stafford County Democratic Committee, Durham, NH and Sullivan County Democrats, Claremont, NH. Obama also gave $5000 contributions to New Hampshire Democratic Party, Concord, New Hampshire, on July 26,2007; New Hampshire for John Lynch on July 25, 2007, and New Hampshire Democratic State Committee, Concord, New Hampshire on November 3, 2006. Obama did not announce his candidacy until May 2, 2007.
Obama also gave New Hampshire Democratic State Senator Jacalyn Cilley $1000 on July 25, 2007. She endorsed Obama on July 31, 2007, just six days after his contribution to her campaign. On July 26, 2007, first term New Hampshire Congressman Paul Hodes of New Hampshire endorsed Obama. The New Hampshire Primary was not until January 8, 2008 and Hillary won New Hampshire.
By March 28, 2008, Hope Fund donated $710,900 to superdelegates, more than three times as much as HillPAC. ($236,100). A study by the Center for Responsive Politics showed that presidential candidates who gave more money to a superdelegate received their endorsement 82% of the time. This is especially disturbing when the superdelegates endorse a candidate that is decidedly contrary to the will of the voters in their state and their districts.
After reviewing state and congressional voting records as well as PAC donations, members of Congress were identified that fulfilled the following four criteria: 1. These members endorsed Barack Obama. 2. The constituents of their state preferred Hillary Clinton. 3. The constituents of their district preferred Hillary Clinton. 4. They got more PAC money from Hope Fund than from HillPAC. These senators are Jeff Bingaman, Frank Lautenberg, and Jay Rockefeller. The members of the house are Jason Altmire, Dennis Cardoza, Jim Costa, Joe Donelly, Gabrielle Giffords, Baron Hill, Ron Klein, Patrick Murphy, Gerald Mc Nerney, Carol She-Porter, Zack Space, Niki Tsongas, and Charlie Wilson.
Charlie Wilson is the perfect example. He ran in Ohio’s District 6 in 2006. His seat was the seat of the former governor and is located in Southern Ohio. Wilson was a last minute candidate for his seat and because of this was a write-in candidate. The governor and the party worked hard to get Wilson elected. President Clinton made an audio recording endorsing Wilson that went out to 50,000 homes. The governor of Ohio is a big Clinton supporter, the voters of Ohio voted 54-44% percent in favor of Clinton, and District 6, Wilson’s District, voted for Clinton 70% - 27%. Yet Wilson endorsed Obama. It looks like there is no loyalty in politics to either your constituents or your friends. Wilson got $7,000 of PAC money from Barack Obama, but no money from Hillary Clinton. Was this a factor in his choice?
This chart summarizes the data culled from a variety of sources. The data raises obvious questions about the inherent power of superdelegates and their vulnerability to financial contributions. Contributions from other PACs such as PAC to the Future need to be reviewed.
Chart of Contributions to Superdelegates
The video at the top of this post is the result of a collaboration between myself, GeekLove, and RealDemocratsUSA. We put our heads together to develop a video that would tell the story about superdelegates in dynamic style. We highlighted those members of the Senate and the House of Representatives who met the following criteria:
1. Their home states (and congressional districts, for House members) voted for Senator Clinton in the Democratic primary,
2. they accepted PAC money from Obama, and
3. they endorsed Obama.
Please share, link, or embed the video far and wide: Money Changes Everything: Superdelegates Are For Sale.
By Dr. Lynette Long
In a few weeks the historic 2008 Democratic Party Presidential Primary between an African American Man and a White Woman will end. The two candidates competed in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the US Virgin Islands, and Guam. At the end of these contests, neither candidate had earned enough pledged delegates to garner the necessary 2118 needed to win the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. Hillary Clinton earned 1640 pledged delegates while Barack Obama earned 1763 pledged delegates. A paltry 123 pledged separated the two candidates at the end of the primary season. Since there was no clear winner, the superdelegates would determine the Democratic nominee.
Approximately 800 superdelegates will make up around 20% of the 4000 delegates at the convention. These superdelegates are Democratic Party leaders, Democratic governors, and Democratic members of Congress. They have the right to endorse either candidate without reason and can change their endorsement from one candidate to another at any time. The superdelegates are very powerful and highly sought after by candidates. One superdelegate is equal to one pledged delegate or 11,361 voters in California or 7,220 voters in New York. Many factors influence which candidate a superdelegate a superdelegate endorses but they usually vote the way their constituents vote. Some superdelegates have intense personal relationships with particular candidates that may influence their endorsement. Members of Congress may also be influenced by money given or promised by party leaders, the DNC or the candidates themselves.
Politicians collect money for their campaigns but most Americans don’t realize that politicians collect a separate a pot of money called a Leadership Political Action Committee or PAC. These PACs are used to hire additional staff and pay for additional perks such as limos and first class flights. But one of the major reasons for these PACs is to donate to the campaigns of other candidates. Nancy Pelosi’s PAC is called PAC to the Future, Barack Obama’s PAC is called Hope Fund, and Hillary Clinton’s PAC is called HillPAC. Money was distributed by these PACs to the superdelegates to influence their voting. The Federal Elections Commission requires scrupulous reporting of how PAC money is obtained and how it is spent. This data can be retrieved at www.opensecrets.org.
In 2007, Obama distributed 299,000 from his PAC to superdelegates. He especially targeted the states of Iowa and New Hampshire. On July 25, 2007, the Hope Fund made $1000 donations to each of the following groups: Hillsborough=2
0County Democrats, Hudson, NH; Martha Fuller Clark for State Senate, Portsmouth, NH; Merrimack County Democrats, Chichester, NH; New Hampshire for John Lynch, Manchester, NH; Sgambati 4 NH Senate, Tilton, NH; Stafford County Democratic Committee, Durham, NH and Sullivan County Democrats, Claremont, NH. Obama also gave $5000 contributions to New Hampshire Democratic Party, Concord, New Hampshire, on July 26,2007; New Hampshire for John Lynch on July 25, 2007, and New Hampshire Democratic State Committee, Concord, New Hampshire on November 3, 2006. Obama did not announce his candidacy until May 2, 2007.
Obama also gave New Hampshire Democratic State Senator Jacalyn Cilley $1000 on July 25, 2007. She endorsed Obama on July 31, 2007, just six days after his contribution to her campaign. On July 26, 2007, first term New Hampshire Congressman Paul Hodes of New Hampshire endorsed Obama. The New Hampshire Primary was not until January 8, 2008 and Hillary won New Hampshire.
By March 28, 2008, Hope Fund donated $710,900 to superdelegates, more than three times as much as HillPAC. ($236,100). A study by the Center for Responsive Politics showed that presidential candidates who gave more money to a superdelegate received their endorsement 82% of the time. This is especially disturbing when the superdelegates endorse a candidate that is decidedly contrary to the will of the voters in their state and their districts.
After reviewing state and congressional voting records as well as PAC donations, members of Congress were identified that fulfilled the following four criteria: 1. These members endorsed Barack Obama. 2. The constituents of their state preferred Hillary Clinton. 3. The constituents of their district preferred Hillary Clinton. 4. They got more PAC money from Hope Fund than from HillPAC. These senators are Jeff Bingaman, Frank Lautenberg, and Jay Rockefeller. The members of the house are Jason Altmire, Dennis Cardoza, Jim Costa, Joe Donelly, Gabrielle Giffords, Baron Hill, Ron Klein, Patrick Murphy, Gerald Mc Nerney, Carol She-Porter, Zack Space, Niki Tsongas, and Charlie Wilson.
Charlie Wilson is the perfect example. He ran in Ohio’s District 6 in 2006. His seat was the seat of the former governor and is located in Southern Ohio. Wilson was a last minute candidate for his seat and because of this was a write-in candidate. The governor and the party worked hard to get Wilson elected. President Clinton made an audio recording endorsing Wilson that went out to 50,000 homes. The governor of Ohio is a big Clinton supporter, the voters of Ohio voted 54-44% percent in favor of Clinton, and District 6, Wilson’s District, voted for Clinton 70% - 27%. Yet Wilson endorsed Obama. It looks like there is no loyalty in politics to either your constituents or your friends. Wilson got $7,000 of PAC money from Barack Obama, but no money from Hillary Clinton. Was this a factor in his choice?
This chart summarizes the data culled from a variety of sources. The data raises obvious questions about the inherent power of superdelegates and their vulnerability to financial contributions. Contributions from other PACs such as PAC to the Future need to be reviewed.
Chart of Contributions to Superdelegates
The video at the top of this post is the result of a collaboration between myself, GeekLove, and RealDemocratsUSA. We put our heads together to develop a video that would tell the story about superdelegates in dynamic style. We highlighted those members of the Senate and the House of Representatives who met the following criteria:
1. Their home states (and congressional districts, for House members) voted for Senator Clinton in the Democratic primary,
2. they accepted PAC money from Obama, and
3. they endorsed Obama.
Please share, link, or embed the video far and wide: Money Changes Everything: Superdelegates Are For Sale.
I Adore Carol Marin of the Chicago Sun-Times
Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/07/30/i-adore-carol-marin-of-the-chicago-sun-times/
By Un coup de des
Carol Marin of the Chicago Sun-Times is the blue flower in the landscape of journalistic vapidity. Indeed, she is the intrepid news reporter who appears in this video created by Flineo:
Casting a critical glance at Michelle Obama’s abortive attempt to woo women voters at the Palmer House this week in Chicago, Marin explains why Michelle’s bankrupt entreaties will fall on deaf ears. I quote Marin:
The Obama campaign has a woman problem. How big? How small? It’s not clear, but in a close election, small can be big.
Marin, in other words, acknowledges the schism in the Democratic Party, a schism, she correctly observes, that is a result of the disenchantment of a core constituency: women. Refer to them as small all you want, Democrats, but small is large in a competitive general election. And yes, size matters.
Marin continues:
You wouldn’t have known it from this mostly well-dressed, mostly well-heeled crowd. Many of the women, black and white, young and old, were early donors who gave money back when Barack Obama was a long shot, and they were gladly giving again now. A lovely lunch of organic chicken prepared by a renowned chef, Alice Waters, brought in somewhere between $400,000 and $700,000 for the Obama Victory fund.
Although visually diverse, the crowd of women attending the Women for Obama event are all wealthy; they are members of the haute bourgeoisie. This is in stark contrast to the many female Democrats the media has relegated to the penumbra. Marin, on the other hand, places one of these ignored women in the center of her column. I quote:
But the women Obama needs right now are the ones who do not dine downtown. They’re the ones who can’t afford organic anything, forced to choose between a gallon of gas and a gallon of milk because they can’t buy both on the same day.
Women like Sarah.
A few hours after leaving the “Women for Obama” luncheon, I ran into Sarah, not her real name. I’ve known her for a few years. A single mom, she free-lances, working as many jobs as she can to support two growing boys. She dreams of a permanent gig with benefits, but it’s still just a dream.
A 37-year-old Democrat, she is also a college grad and a news junkie who has watched this campaign like a hawk. She surprised me with her anger Tuesday, saying she’s voting for McCain.
To Sarah, Barack Obama is like the organic chicken at lunch. Sleek, elegant, beautifully prepared. Too cool.
At last a reporter highlights what everyone else suppresses. Obama is an elitist, Marin declares, and he must choose a different tack if he desires the support of women who have had to struggle their entire lives to receive an education and to raise their children. These women are the survivors of sexism, and they empathize with Hillary Clinton and all the other experienced women who have been forced to wait as the polished, groomed boy of little to no accomplishment is arbitrarily catapulted to the rung above her on the social and financial ladder. ”Too cool” is an apt characterization of Barack Obama: he is nothing more than a newfangled commodity, and the insidious glow that emanates from the burnished surface of this patriarchal blandishment does nothing more than contribute to the chilly environment too many working women have had to endure both inside and outside the sexist workplace.
Women whose dreams have been crushed continue to suffer, but Michelle and the donors with whom she cavorts nibble on organic chicken as they celebrate the destruction of Hillary Clinton. Because Marin understands this is not a winning strategy, she offers the Obamas a bit of advice. I quote Marin again:
They may need to try offering more macaroni and cheese.
In other words, the hopelessly aloof, indeed oblivious, Obamas must acknowledge the uncomfortable reality of their irrecoverable loss of the votes and the confidence of working women. Perhaps Michelle should ask the WAL-MART distributor to whose Board she was appointed if they have any boxes of macaroni and cheese mix to spare the family that spends $10,000 per annum on ballet lessons and summer camp. Perhaps it is time for the inhabitants of the Rezko mansion to learn how real Americans experience quotidian life. Perhaps Michelle Obama would understand working women if she spent less time at fashion shows with her husband’s slum landlord patron and more time with the ordinary women Carol Marin interviews.
If only reporters were as thorough and rigorous as Carol Marin of the Chicago Sun-Times.
The reception of Marin’s article can be reviewed at Memeorandum.
By Un coup de des
Carol Marin of the Chicago Sun-Times is the blue flower in the landscape of journalistic vapidity. Indeed, she is the intrepid news reporter who appears in this video created by Flineo:
Casting a critical glance at Michelle Obama’s abortive attempt to woo women voters at the Palmer House this week in Chicago, Marin explains why Michelle’s bankrupt entreaties will fall on deaf ears. I quote Marin:
The Obama campaign has a woman problem. How big? How small? It’s not clear, but in a close election, small can be big.
Marin, in other words, acknowledges the schism in the Democratic Party, a schism, she correctly observes, that is a result of the disenchantment of a core constituency: women. Refer to them as small all you want, Democrats, but small is large in a competitive general election. And yes, size matters.
Marin continues:
You wouldn’t have known it from this mostly well-dressed, mostly well-heeled crowd. Many of the women, black and white, young and old, were early donors who gave money back when Barack Obama was a long shot, and they were gladly giving again now. A lovely lunch of organic chicken prepared by a renowned chef, Alice Waters, brought in somewhere between $400,000 and $700,000 for the Obama Victory fund.
Although visually diverse, the crowd of women attending the Women for Obama event are all wealthy; they are members of the haute bourgeoisie. This is in stark contrast to the many female Democrats the media has relegated to the penumbra. Marin, on the other hand, places one of these ignored women in the center of her column. I quote:
But the women Obama needs right now are the ones who do not dine downtown. They’re the ones who can’t afford organic anything, forced to choose between a gallon of gas and a gallon of milk because they can’t buy both on the same day.
Women like Sarah.
A few hours after leaving the “Women for Obama” luncheon, I ran into Sarah, not her real name. I’ve known her for a few years. A single mom, she free-lances, working as many jobs as she can to support two growing boys. She dreams of a permanent gig with benefits, but it’s still just a dream.
A 37-year-old Democrat, she is also a college grad and a news junkie who has watched this campaign like a hawk. She surprised me with her anger Tuesday, saying she’s voting for McCain.
To Sarah, Barack Obama is like the organic chicken at lunch. Sleek, elegant, beautifully prepared. Too cool.
At last a reporter highlights what everyone else suppresses. Obama is an elitist, Marin declares, and he must choose a different tack if he desires the support of women who have had to struggle their entire lives to receive an education and to raise their children. These women are the survivors of sexism, and they empathize with Hillary Clinton and all the other experienced women who have been forced to wait as the polished, groomed boy of little to no accomplishment is arbitrarily catapulted to the rung above her on the social and financial ladder. ”Too cool” is an apt characterization of Barack Obama: he is nothing more than a newfangled commodity, and the insidious glow that emanates from the burnished surface of this patriarchal blandishment does nothing more than contribute to the chilly environment too many working women have had to endure both inside and outside the sexist workplace.
Women whose dreams have been crushed continue to suffer, but Michelle and the donors with whom she cavorts nibble on organic chicken as they celebrate the destruction of Hillary Clinton. Because Marin understands this is not a winning strategy, she offers the Obamas a bit of advice. I quote Marin again:
They may need to try offering more macaroni and cheese.
In other words, the hopelessly aloof, indeed oblivious, Obamas must acknowledge the uncomfortable reality of their irrecoverable loss of the votes and the confidence of working women. Perhaps Michelle should ask the WAL-MART distributor to whose Board she was appointed if they have any boxes of macaroni and cheese mix to spare the family that spends $10,000 per annum on ballet lessons and summer camp. Perhaps it is time for the inhabitants of the Rezko mansion to learn how real Americans experience quotidian life. Perhaps Michelle Obama would understand working women if she spent less time at fashion shows with her husband’s slum landlord patron and more time with the ordinary women Carol Marin interviews.
If only reporters were as thorough and rigorous as Carol Marin of the Chicago Sun-Times.
The reception of Marin’s article can be reviewed at Memeorandum.
Obama's Berlin Campaign Rally Too Presumptuous
Original Link: http://cayankee.blogs.com/cayankee/2008/07/obamas-berlin-c.html
In the wake of Obama's Berlin speech, the media debates whether Obama is too presumptuous.
ABC World News reported:
"To his admirers, it was a soaring speech, with a new vision. To his detractors, it was presumptuous that a candidate for president would deliver a speech as if he were president."
Michael Finnegan reports "the staging of the Berlin event has led critics to accuse Obama of being presumptuous about winning the White House:"
But critics, led by Obama's Republican rival John McCain, said the Democrat's speech showed that he was presumptuous about the presidency.
"While Barack Obama took a premature victory lap today in the heart of Berlin, proclaiming himself a 'citizen of the world,' John McCain continued to make his case to the American citizens who will decide this election," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said.
At ABC News, Rick Klein also hit the presumptuousness theme:
To Obama's critics, the speech in Berlin is likely to serve as another example of presumptuousness on the part of the Illinois Democrat. Obama has already been criticized for his presidential-like entourage and trappings during his foreign trip -- a trip that has an itinerary that's unprecedented for a candidate.
"I'd love to give a speech in Germany," McCain said on the trail in Ohio Thursday, "but I'd much prefer to do it as President."
To drive home the contrast, McCain on Thursday campaigned in the German Village section of Columbus, Ohio, where he chatted with German-Americans at "Schmidt's Sausage Haus und Restaurant."
Obama originally wanted to hold his Berlin campaign rally at the Brandenburg Gate. According to Reuters, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the landmark Brandenburg Gate was a place for presidents, not candidates to speak. Merkel's advisers tried to convince the Obama to hold the speech at a university or other low-key location.
Obama needs to be reminded that he is not yet president. You have his attempt to make a Presidential-like speech in Berlin, the Obama Presidential Seal, a 'President' label on the headrest of Obama's campaign plane seat, and the fact that twice in recent days reporters had to correct Obama staffers for saying White House practices govern Obama's dealing with the press.
In the wake of Obama's Berlin speech, the media debates whether Obama is too presumptuous.
ABC World News reported:
"To his admirers, it was a soaring speech, with a new vision. To his detractors, it was presumptuous that a candidate for president would deliver a speech as if he were president."
Michael Finnegan reports "the staging of the Berlin event has led critics to accuse Obama of being presumptuous about winning the White House:"
But critics, led by Obama's Republican rival John McCain, said the Democrat's speech showed that he was presumptuous about the presidency.
"While Barack Obama took a premature victory lap today in the heart of Berlin, proclaiming himself a 'citizen of the world,' John McCain continued to make his case to the American citizens who will decide this election," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said.
At ABC News, Rick Klein also hit the presumptuousness theme:
To Obama's critics, the speech in Berlin is likely to serve as another example of presumptuousness on the part of the Illinois Democrat. Obama has already been criticized for his presidential-like entourage and trappings during his foreign trip -- a trip that has an itinerary that's unprecedented for a candidate.
"I'd love to give a speech in Germany," McCain said on the trail in Ohio Thursday, "but I'd much prefer to do it as President."
To drive home the contrast, McCain on Thursday campaigned in the German Village section of Columbus, Ohio, where he chatted with German-Americans at "Schmidt's Sausage Haus und Restaurant."
Obama originally wanted to hold his Berlin campaign rally at the Brandenburg Gate. According to Reuters, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the landmark Brandenburg Gate was a place for presidents, not candidates to speak. Merkel's advisers tried to convince the Obama to hold the speech at a university or other low-key location.
Obama needs to be reminded that he is not yet president. You have his attempt to make a Presidential-like speech in Berlin, the Obama Presidential Seal, a 'President' label on the headrest of Obama's campaign plane seat, and the fact that twice in recent days reporters had to correct Obama staffers for saying White House practices govern Obama's dealing with the press.
Obama campaign rejects rapper Ludacris' rhymes
Original Link: http://www.examiner.com/a-1513761~Obama_campaign_rejects_rapper_Ludacris__rhymes.html
By DEANNA BELLANDI, Associated Press Writer
CHICAGO - Barack Obama's presidential campaign said Wednesday that a new rhyme by supporter and rapper Ludacris is "outrageously offensive" to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Republican Sen. John McCain and President Bush.
The song brags about an Obama presidency being destiny. It uses an expletive to describe Clinton, calls Bush "mentally handicapped" and says McCain doesn't belong in "any chair unless he's paralyzed."
The lyrics also don't spare the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who recently apologized for making crude comments about Obama. "If you said it then you meant it," intones the rapper.
Obama's campaign blasted "Politics As Usual," which is on the "Gangsta Grillz: The Preview" mixtape with Atlanta spinner DJ Drama.
"As Barack Obama has said many, many times in the past, rap lyrics today too often perpetuate misogyny, materialism, and degrading images that he doesn't want his daughters or any children exposed to," campaign spokesman Bill Burton said in an e-mail statement. "This song is not only outrageously offensive to Sen. Clinton, Rev. Jackson, Sen. McCain and President Bush, it is offensive to all of us who are trying to raise our children with the values we hold dear. While Ludacris is a talented individual he should be ashamed of these lyrics."
Ludacris' publicist and manager did not immediately return calls Wednesday for comment.
In a recent interview with Rolling Stone, Obama included Ludacris when he talked about hip-hop moguls and rappers he thought were "great talents and great businessmen." Obama met privately with Ludacris, talking with him in Chicago about young people in 2006 before he announced his run for president.
In the two-minute track, the song makes a pitch for Obama to pick Ludacris as his vice president, rhyming "Hillary hated on you, so that (expletive) is irrelevant."
In the song, Ludacris also encourages black people to vote on Election Day.
"The world is ready for change 'cause Obama is here," he says repeatedly.
By DEANNA BELLANDI, Associated Press Writer
CHICAGO - Barack Obama's presidential campaign said Wednesday that a new rhyme by supporter and rapper Ludacris is "outrageously offensive" to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Republican Sen. John McCain and President Bush.
The song brags about an Obama presidency being destiny. It uses an expletive to describe Clinton, calls Bush "mentally handicapped" and says McCain doesn't belong in "any chair unless he's paralyzed."
The lyrics also don't spare the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who recently apologized for making crude comments about Obama. "If you said it then you meant it," intones the rapper.
Obama's campaign blasted "Politics As Usual," which is on the "Gangsta Grillz: The Preview" mixtape with Atlanta spinner DJ Drama.
"As Barack Obama has said many, many times in the past, rap lyrics today too often perpetuate misogyny, materialism, and degrading images that he doesn't want his daughters or any children exposed to," campaign spokesman Bill Burton said in an e-mail statement. "This song is not only outrageously offensive to Sen. Clinton, Rev. Jackson, Sen. McCain and President Bush, it is offensive to all of us who are trying to raise our children with the values we hold dear. While Ludacris is a talented individual he should be ashamed of these lyrics."
Ludacris' publicist and manager did not immediately return calls Wednesday for comment.
In a recent interview with Rolling Stone, Obama included Ludacris when he talked about hip-hop moguls and rappers he thought were "great talents and great businessmen." Obama met privately with Ludacris, talking with him in Chicago about young people in 2006 before he announced his run for president.
In the two-minute track, the song makes a pitch for Obama to pick Ludacris as his vice president, rhyming "Hillary hated on you, so that (expletive) is irrelevant."
In the song, Ludacris also encourages black people to vote on Election Day.
"The world is ready for change 'cause Obama is here," he says repeatedly.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Michelle Obama Should Save Her Breath
Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/07/29/michelle-obama-should-save-her-breath/
By Un coup de des
Barack Obama believes his wife, Michelle Obama, will convince women to vote for her sexist husband. I quote CBS2 News Chicago:
CBS 2’s Dorothy Tucker reports Michelle Obama gave a speech Monday at the Palmer House Hilton, at an event called “Women for Obama.” But the message was clearly aimed at women for Hillary Clinton.
Michelle Obama walked into the room to a standing ovation. Most of the people in attendance were longtime Barack Obama supporters, but the candidate’s wife made it clear she was here to court the new supporters. And she did so by praising her husband’s former opponent.
“My husband is a better candidate because of her,” Michelle Obama said. “My daughters will look at themselves differently because of her. All of our children, our girls, will believe in the possibility of something bigger because of her.”
Someone please remind Michelle that relegating an eminently qualified woman to the role of supporter of the hopelessly unqualified man will not cajole women voters to support her husband. Someone also explain to Michelle that women are concerned with women’s rights, not with the manner whereby the Obama daughters perceive themselves. And please remind Michelle that a woman who allows her husband to accompany her to a job interview in order to determine if he approves of her boss is in now way qualified to discuss women’s rights and women’s issues.
Our intelligence will not be insulted. And no, unfounded statements gratuitously embedded in news reports will not convince us to support Barack Obama. I quote CBS2 News:
Michelle Obama is an articulate professional in her own right, and a role model herself.
Articulate professionals who serve as role models do not utter the following statements in public:
They also do not exploit misogyny for electoral and personal gain.
And no, Michelle, “good families” do not force their children to attend a God Damn America church in inner city Chicago wherein the pastor humps the altar and issues death threats from the pulpit. They also do not allow convicted slumlords named Antoin “Tony” Rezko to help them purchase their “own house.”
Michelle Obama can attempt to dupe the women and Hillary supporters she “wants,” but we will not budge, for we do not support sexist candidates whose spouses view women as a cache of voters to be manipulated and exploited. Insulting Hillary for her husband’s improprieties at a Women for Obama before the primary only to spin on your heals a year later with your praise for her ability to buttress your husband’s political ambitions after the primary reveals that you and those who handle you believe we have very short memories. Our memories are long, very long, however. And we will never forget that you betrayed your sex in order to secure the nomination of an unqualified man who believes men should vet their wives’ employers.
By Un coup de des
Barack Obama believes his wife, Michelle Obama, will convince women to vote for her sexist husband. I quote CBS2 News Chicago:
CBS 2’s Dorothy Tucker reports Michelle Obama gave a speech Monday at the Palmer House Hilton, at an event called “Women for Obama.” But the message was clearly aimed at women for Hillary Clinton.
Michelle Obama walked into the room to a standing ovation. Most of the people in attendance were longtime Barack Obama supporters, but the candidate’s wife made it clear she was here to court the new supporters. And she did so by praising her husband’s former opponent.
“My husband is a better candidate because of her,” Michelle Obama said. “My daughters will look at themselves differently because of her. All of our children, our girls, will believe in the possibility of something bigger because of her.”
Someone please remind Michelle that relegating an eminently qualified woman to the role of supporter of the hopelessly unqualified man will not cajole women voters to support her husband. Someone also explain to Michelle that women are concerned with women’s rights, not with the manner whereby the Obama daughters perceive themselves. And please remind Michelle that a woman who allows her husband to accompany her to a job interview in order to determine if he approves of her boss is in now way qualified to discuss women’s rights and women’s issues.
Our intelligence will not be insulted. And no, unfounded statements gratuitously embedded in news reports will not convince us to support Barack Obama. I quote CBS2 News:
Michelle Obama is an articulate professional in her own right, and a role model herself.
Articulate professionals who serve as role models do not utter the following statements in public:
They also do not exploit misogyny for electoral and personal gain.
And no, Michelle, “good families” do not force their children to attend a God Damn America church in inner city Chicago wherein the pastor humps the altar and issues death threats from the pulpit. They also do not allow convicted slumlords named Antoin “Tony” Rezko to help them purchase their “own house.”
Michelle Obama can attempt to dupe the women and Hillary supporters she “wants,” but we will not budge, for we do not support sexist candidates whose spouses view women as a cache of voters to be manipulated and exploited. Insulting Hillary for her husband’s improprieties at a Women for Obama before the primary only to spin on your heals a year later with your praise for her ability to buttress your husband’s political ambitions after the primary reveals that you and those who handle you believe we have very short memories. Our memories are long, very long, however. And we will never forget that you betrayed your sex in order to secure the nomination of an unqualified man who believes men should vet their wives’ employers.
Elitist Dean and "The Low Class"
Original Link: http://helpmejoseph.typepad.com/charlotte_front_and_cente/2008/07/elitist-dean-an.html
...from Jyoti Friedland, Charlotte Front and Center, a Puma Lady, who confronted Howard Dean
This is an excerpt from the newspaper, Charlotte Observer, when Howard Dean visited Charlotte , NC on 25th of July as part of his tour program: Shouts of protest continued intermittently. When Dean mentioned what he called “the biggest job for President Obama,” they hollered, “He’s not the president!”
Speaking to reporters later on his bus,he dismissed the protesters.
“I’m not sure all of them are Clinton supporters,” he said. Some of them are having fun at the Democrats’ expense. I think shouting during somebody’s speech is low class.”
Wow! We’re “low class” . I believe his words were so calculating because he knew no AA were with us that afternoon. Imagine if there were, it becomes racist and the AA community would rise and there would be a pandemonium. But since we’re an "old" bunch of ladies, “low class” was appropriate for us. Hey, Coward Dean, remember what else we hollered, “I will not fall in line, I own my vote.”
Through the auspices of our leader, and a bunch of "old" but wiser ladies from http://www.Charlottefrontandcenter, Asheville, and Greenville , we were able to have a dignified coup to express our freedom of speech and freedom to assembly. I thought I’ve got thick skin and would never be affected by this; you know that I cried..... I know this is so silly compared to the maltreatment thrown to Hillary, so my message is now to Howard Dean, I hold grudges and I will get even in the general election...Jyoti
...from Jyoti Friedland, Charlotte Front and Center, a Puma Lady, who confronted Howard Dean
This is an excerpt from the newspaper, Charlotte Observer, when Howard Dean visited Charlotte , NC on 25th of July as part of his tour program: Shouts of protest continued intermittently. When Dean mentioned what he called “the biggest job for President Obama,” they hollered, “He’s not the president!”
Speaking to reporters later on his bus,he dismissed the protesters.
“I’m not sure all of them are Clinton supporters,” he said. Some of them are having fun at the Democrats’ expense. I think shouting during somebody’s speech is low class.”
Wow! We’re “low class” . I believe his words were so calculating because he knew no AA were with us that afternoon. Imagine if there were, it becomes racist and the AA community would rise and there would be a pandemonium. But since we’re an "old" bunch of ladies, “low class” was appropriate for us. Hey, Coward Dean, remember what else we hollered, “I will not fall in line, I own my vote.”
Through the auspices of our leader, and a bunch of "old" but wiser ladies from http://www.Charlottefrontandcenter, Asheville, and Greenville , we were able to have a dignified coup to express our freedom of speech and freedom to assembly. I thought I’ve got thick skin and would never be affected by this; you know that I cried..... I know this is so silly compared to the maltreatment thrown to Hillary, so my message is now to Howard Dean, I hold grudges and I will get even in the general election...Jyoti
The Economy
Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/07/29/the-economy/
By Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy
So, the blaring headline today is that the next president is going to inherit a GAZILLION dollars in debt. Okay, that was not the exact figure. The actual figure is $482 BILLION, which does not include $ for the war.
So, once again, here is a video of Jim Cramer, from Mad Money on CNBC, telling Ellen Degeneres who is the BEST candidate for president in terms of dealing with the economy. That candidate is HILLARY CLINTON!
OKAY, Superdelegates - REALLY - open your eyes! It is not Amateur Hour here. We already had one of those, and it has been DISASTROUS.
Heck, that guy was way more experienced than the guy the DNC is pushing now!! We simply cannot AFFORD another president who is getting on the job training.
We need someone who has a good handle on the economic issues confronting the country, and the ability to lead us into economic stability. Hillary Clinton is the ONLY candidate to be able to do that. And really, there will be no hard feelings for your brief foray into the Obama camp. Unlike the Jesse Jackson, Jr.’s of the Obama camp, we will forgive and forget, as long as you come to your senses already, and realize this was just a crush, a passing fancy. But now it is time to get SERIOUS, and support the candidate who is best for the country. And who can beat John McCain with one hand tied behind her back. Don’t worry - we’ll have your backs against those rabid cultists. You can do it. We’re right there with you. We NEED Clinton as the nominee. The COUNTRY needs Clinton as the nominee. All right. You can do it! We know you can.
You know - come to think of it, the DNC completely breaking with tradition and moving the Convention to August might be one of the best things they have done in a year. It has given the Superdelegates, and the rest of the country, the opportunity to see that Obama is not at all ready, or able, to lead this country. It has made it abundantly clear that only Hillary Clinton can beat John McCain. And that her plans and policies are what this country needs. Who woulda thunk it?!?
Okay, SDs - just come on back to the reality-based community. We are here for you!
By Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy
So, the blaring headline today is that the next president is going to inherit a GAZILLION dollars in debt. Okay, that was not the exact figure. The actual figure is $482 BILLION, which does not include $ for the war.
So, once again, here is a video of Jim Cramer, from Mad Money on CNBC, telling Ellen Degeneres who is the BEST candidate for president in terms of dealing with the economy. That candidate is HILLARY CLINTON!
OKAY, Superdelegates - REALLY - open your eyes! It is not Amateur Hour here. We already had one of those, and it has been DISASTROUS.
Heck, that guy was way more experienced than the guy the DNC is pushing now!! We simply cannot AFFORD another president who is getting on the job training.
We need someone who has a good handle on the economic issues confronting the country, and the ability to lead us into economic stability. Hillary Clinton is the ONLY candidate to be able to do that. And really, there will be no hard feelings for your brief foray into the Obama camp. Unlike the Jesse Jackson, Jr.’s of the Obama camp, we will forgive and forget, as long as you come to your senses already, and realize this was just a crush, a passing fancy. But now it is time to get SERIOUS, and support the candidate who is best for the country. And who can beat John McCain with one hand tied behind her back. Don’t worry - we’ll have your backs against those rabid cultists. You can do it. We’re right there with you. We NEED Clinton as the nominee. The COUNTRY needs Clinton as the nominee. All right. You can do it! We know you can.
You know - come to think of it, the DNC completely breaking with tradition and moving the Convention to August might be one of the best things they have done in a year. It has given the Superdelegates, and the rest of the country, the opportunity to see that Obama is not at all ready, or able, to lead this country. It has made it abundantly clear that only Hillary Clinton can beat John McCain. And that her plans and policies are what this country needs. Who woulda thunk it?!?
Okay, SDs - just come on back to the reality-based community. We are here for you!
Major DNC Donor to Party Treasurer: Obama is a Bad Investment
Original Link: http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs067/1102157694732/archive/1102187504383.html
The following is a letter sent to DNC Treasurer Andy Tobias (pictured at right) telling him why, from a rational investor's point of view, Obama has not earned the author's vote. The letter was sent by one of the DNC's biggest donors, a donor who has historically maxed out to the DNC and who was a maxed out donor in both the Kerry and Clinton campaigns, in response to comments by Tobias that she could not see the forest through the trees.
You decide.
Dear Andy,
So you want to know what is taking me so long to "get on board"? Let me try to answer with some discussion of what my 25 years on Wall Street and the Hedge Fund community have taught me, and what insights I can share in order to explain my stance.
As you know, anyone in our profession meets with countless management teams on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis. The "plots" change from time to time and the cast of characters play musical chairs. After awhile, they become all too familiar. You have seen the movie before. When you spot the corrupt CFO enter the scene, it immediately casts a doubt on the rest of the management team. One or two conclusions can be drawn - either they are inept or they wanted a dishonest player. Neither answer provides any comfort, but always insight. I have been lied to by the best of them over the decades; I am sure you have had similar experiences.
After years of stepping in land mines, I learned to read people and situations. I had no choice - my listening skills were honed, my gut fine-tuned. I picked up on what was and was not said, and I always paid close attention to the cast of characters. The actions of a management team always told me more than anything they ever said. If they were bailing out, so was I. If the head of sales left unexpectedly, alarm bells went of.
In the thirteen years that I have had audited results, I lost money in only one year, and then only in single digits. I am proud that I was able repay my investors' faith and confidence in me by compounding their funds assets, net of fees, at 18% over those 13 years. I took my responsibilities seriously and when I knew I could not give it 110% of my energies, I turned it over to someone who would. My investors deserved someone who would work tirelessly on their behalf, looking under every rock in support of their interests.
The fact that I became successful was not what made me proud. It was how I did it. My soul is intact. It was the self-imposed rules and standards that I adhered to. I believed in a win, win, and still do. My investors always came first. I never screwed anyone over. I made plenty of mistakes, but I always owned them, never blaming others. I treated everyone fairly and with respect, believing everyone has
something to offer. I always tried to do the right thing.
So what does this have to do with me not falling in line and
supporting Obama? Well everything as you can see.
Andy, if I worked and served the people in the 13th District in
Chicago, I would have known all of the players. And to win that district, would I have gamed the system to run unopposed? Tony Rezko would not have had a seat at my table. Either Obama is a fool and is blind to what should have been obvious, or someone like Tony is fine by Obama's standards. The guy is a dirtball. And a dirtball would not
be part of my circle, certainly not my inner circle. I would rather not be elected than associate with someone like Rezko.
Nor for political or any other reasons would I choose Rev. Wright, Rev. Meeks, or Father Plager as my spiritual mentors. Again, he is either blind or an opportunist. Would I be hanging out with Mr. Ayers? Would you? Would you refuse to be photographed with Gavin Newsom? There is a pattern with this guy - he manipulates; the ends justify the means. He lacks character.
Getting not one bill passed in the first 6 years of his career in not inspiring. Having Emil Jones hand him the ball 26 times on the one-yard line in order to make Obama a United States Senator does not cut it either. What deals he made, he did to benefit no one but himself. He never worked long enough in either Senate to help the people who elected him. Andy, I could never imagine you taking credit for legislation someone else slaved over. Starting in his community organizing days he claimed sole responsibility for other people's accomplishments all for the purpose to boosting his career.
In terms of the campaign itself, I had the opportunity to witness his methods up close. During the primaries I was in 6 states, 2 of which had caucuses; it was not clean. El Paso was a joke with the Obama campaign stealing the caucus packets, locking supporters out - Intimidation 101, 102 and
103. Fair elections do not seem to be a priority in my birth state. No other machine exists from the days of Boss
Tweed, but Chicago's. How many elected officials are in jail?They are the joke of the nation. It is called the Chicago machine for good reason.
It was clear that what I saw and experienced was not a fluke or isolated incidents, but coordinated, deliberate and arrogant. I got to see him and his organization for who he is and what it is - not inspiring, to say the least. Not something I would have, in business, endorsed in any way. In fact, I would most likely have reported them to the appropriate regulators.
Andy, I have consistently found you to be a compassionate person, but more importantly you have always put your money where your mouth is. Does it not bother you that a guy like Obama can serve a poor district and give away a paltry $1000 to charity? He only stepped up his giving when he decided to run for President and he knew his charitable
giving would be made public. How could anyone see that much misery and not try to personally do something about it?
Please, show me something this guy ever did that was not done in a calculated fashion to create and advance his own personal narrative? Something selfless, perhaps, just because it was the right thing to do?
Every person I have talked to who worked at the Law Review at Harvard with him, or in the later part of his career, said the same thing: he was arrogant and self-centered. One person laughed, saying Obama wanted to be King of the World, that he was always running for something, never staying in one place long enough to amass accomplishments or be held accountable.
Do you not you find it troublesome that he has hundreds of paid bloggers, posting vicious attacks not only about the Clintons but her supporters as well? The whole purpose was to cast him as the second coming, while trashing her and quashing other points of view.
At first I thought is was just some hyped up kids, and then a pattern emerged. He paid others to do his dirty work. The most egregious sexist cracks were rampant, both on the Internet and the MSM. Yet, what did Howard and Obama say? Nothing. Obama promoted it, paid his bloggers to write it. Never once did he try to stop it. Howard, after the damage was done finally commented on it, but barely. Wink,
wink.
Andy, I heard remarks that still make my jaw drop.
You know I consider myself a centrist. The right wing of the
Republican Party scares me, but so does the left. Ideologues of either side should not have control simultaneously of the executive, legislative, and judicial arms of the government. Absolute power corrupts, be it on the left or the right. Ha, but you will say.... the courts. If you have the legislative branch, all will be fine. McCain voted Ginsberg in, he is not a stupid man and certainly not an Ideologue, and he took heat in the primaries for refusing to have a litmus test for judges. And need I remind you that Obama thought Roberts was an acceptable appointment until some more experienced hands in the Senate told him that would not do?
Painting him as Bush 3 is a little annoying, and what's up with the MoveOn Baby Alex commercial? Give credit where credit is due. McCain went against his own party twice on immigration reform, on ethanol subsidies, and campaign finance reform. He started talking about Global warming 8 years ago. I don't agree with McCain on a number of topics, but I do believe he has principals and a backbone. He is not
willing to say anything to get elected.
I can't say the same for Obama who is turning out to be more like Bush than McCain; Obama is at least as arrogant as W, just more polished. Are you not ashamed, in these past weeks, of his reckless abandon of any pretense to a moral center on issues such as FISA, separation of church and state, gun control? And what he did to one of my heroes,
Wes Clark? Insulting my intelligence and my standards will not win me over.
But, in this conversation, you will say, McCain wants to be in Iraq for 100 years. No, he said that as in Japan, or Korea, we could have a presence. We have been in both of those countries for 60 years and not leaving any time soon, and the world is safer for it.
Next will be, McCain is not knowledgeable about the economy. While with Carly Fiorina, who I remember from her Lucent days, at a town meeting he turned the mic over to Carly when asked about the mortgage mess, painting her as the expert. Wow - he gave a woman a compliment, praising her knowledge, referring to her as the expert. How often
have you praised Charles, or me, and everyone for that matter? Why? Because you are gracious and you know it reflects well on you.
All this might not bother me if so much if the stakes where not so high, but they are. I am an issues person, not a cult of personality devotee. Substance matters. Barack is a politician, an inexperienced one at that, pretending he is different. I just see him as arrogant and power hungry. Our country deserves better, someone I would be proud to do business with.
Andy, my country comes first, not the Democrat party. Having said that, I believe that the Democratic Party has just kicked away the best candidate and our best chance to redeem our country, Hillary Clinton, a proven centrist. Given his resume, or should I say the lack of one, he is either ineffective or hiding something, neither answer gives me the warm and fuzzies. If she is chosen in Denver, you can count on my full and enthusiastic support. Until then, I own my vote.
The following is a letter sent to DNC Treasurer Andy Tobias (pictured at right) telling him why, from a rational investor's point of view, Obama has not earned the author's vote. The letter was sent by one of the DNC's biggest donors, a donor who has historically maxed out to the DNC and who was a maxed out donor in both the Kerry and Clinton campaigns, in response to comments by Tobias that she could not see the forest through the trees.
You decide.
Dear Andy,
So you want to know what is taking me so long to "get on board"? Let me try to answer with some discussion of what my 25 years on Wall Street and the Hedge Fund community have taught me, and what insights I can share in order to explain my stance.
As you know, anyone in our profession meets with countless management teams on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis. The "plots" change from time to time and the cast of characters play musical chairs. After awhile, they become all too familiar. You have seen the movie before. When you spot the corrupt CFO enter the scene, it immediately casts a doubt on the rest of the management team. One or two conclusions can be drawn - either they are inept or they wanted a dishonest player. Neither answer provides any comfort, but always insight. I have been lied to by the best of them over the decades; I am sure you have had similar experiences.
After years of stepping in land mines, I learned to read people and situations. I had no choice - my listening skills were honed, my gut fine-tuned. I picked up on what was and was not said, and I always paid close attention to the cast of characters. The actions of a management team always told me more than anything they ever said. If they were bailing out, so was I. If the head of sales left unexpectedly, alarm bells went of.
In the thirteen years that I have had audited results, I lost money in only one year, and then only in single digits. I am proud that I was able repay my investors' faith and confidence in me by compounding their funds assets, net of fees, at 18% over those 13 years. I took my responsibilities seriously and when I knew I could not give it 110% of my energies, I turned it over to someone who would. My investors deserved someone who would work tirelessly on their behalf, looking under every rock in support of their interests.
The fact that I became successful was not what made me proud. It was how I did it. My soul is intact. It was the self-imposed rules and standards that I adhered to. I believed in a win, win, and still do. My investors always came first. I never screwed anyone over. I made plenty of mistakes, but I always owned them, never blaming others. I treated everyone fairly and with respect, believing everyone has
something to offer. I always tried to do the right thing.
So what does this have to do with me not falling in line and
supporting Obama? Well everything as you can see.
Andy, if I worked and served the people in the 13th District in
Chicago, I would have known all of the players. And to win that district, would I have gamed the system to run unopposed? Tony Rezko would not have had a seat at my table. Either Obama is a fool and is blind to what should have been obvious, or someone like Tony is fine by Obama's standards. The guy is a dirtball. And a dirtball would not
be part of my circle, certainly not my inner circle. I would rather not be elected than associate with someone like Rezko.
Nor for political or any other reasons would I choose Rev. Wright, Rev. Meeks, or Father Plager as my spiritual mentors. Again, he is either blind or an opportunist. Would I be hanging out with Mr. Ayers? Would you? Would you refuse to be photographed with Gavin Newsom? There is a pattern with this guy - he manipulates; the ends justify the means. He lacks character.
Getting not one bill passed in the first 6 years of his career in not inspiring. Having Emil Jones hand him the ball 26 times on the one-yard line in order to make Obama a United States Senator does not cut it either. What deals he made, he did to benefit no one but himself. He never worked long enough in either Senate to help the people who elected him. Andy, I could never imagine you taking credit for legislation someone else slaved over. Starting in his community organizing days he claimed sole responsibility for other people's accomplishments all for the purpose to boosting his career.
In terms of the campaign itself, I had the opportunity to witness his methods up close. During the primaries I was in 6 states, 2 of which had caucuses; it was not clean. El Paso was a joke with the Obama campaign stealing the caucus packets, locking supporters out - Intimidation 101, 102 and
103. Fair elections do not seem to be a priority in my birth state. No other machine exists from the days of Boss
Tweed, but Chicago's. How many elected officials are in jail?They are the joke of the nation. It is called the Chicago machine for good reason.
It was clear that what I saw and experienced was not a fluke or isolated incidents, but coordinated, deliberate and arrogant. I got to see him and his organization for who he is and what it is - not inspiring, to say the least. Not something I would have, in business, endorsed in any way. In fact, I would most likely have reported them to the appropriate regulators.
Andy, I have consistently found you to be a compassionate person, but more importantly you have always put your money where your mouth is. Does it not bother you that a guy like Obama can serve a poor district and give away a paltry $1000 to charity? He only stepped up his giving when he decided to run for President and he knew his charitable
giving would be made public. How could anyone see that much misery and not try to personally do something about it?
Please, show me something this guy ever did that was not done in a calculated fashion to create and advance his own personal narrative? Something selfless, perhaps, just because it was the right thing to do?
Every person I have talked to who worked at the Law Review at Harvard with him, or in the later part of his career, said the same thing: he was arrogant and self-centered. One person laughed, saying Obama wanted to be King of the World, that he was always running for something, never staying in one place long enough to amass accomplishments or be held accountable.
Do you not you find it troublesome that he has hundreds of paid bloggers, posting vicious attacks not only about the Clintons but her supporters as well? The whole purpose was to cast him as the second coming, while trashing her and quashing other points of view.
At first I thought is was just some hyped up kids, and then a pattern emerged. He paid others to do his dirty work. The most egregious sexist cracks were rampant, both on the Internet and the MSM. Yet, what did Howard and Obama say? Nothing. Obama promoted it, paid his bloggers to write it. Never once did he try to stop it. Howard, after the damage was done finally commented on it, but barely. Wink,
wink.
Andy, I heard remarks that still make my jaw drop.
You know I consider myself a centrist. The right wing of the
Republican Party scares me, but so does the left. Ideologues of either side should not have control simultaneously of the executive, legislative, and judicial arms of the government. Absolute power corrupts, be it on the left or the right. Ha, but you will say.... the courts. If you have the legislative branch, all will be fine. McCain voted Ginsberg in, he is not a stupid man and certainly not an Ideologue, and he took heat in the primaries for refusing to have a litmus test for judges. And need I remind you that Obama thought Roberts was an acceptable appointment until some more experienced hands in the Senate told him that would not do?
Painting him as Bush 3 is a little annoying, and what's up with the MoveOn Baby Alex commercial? Give credit where credit is due. McCain went against his own party twice on immigration reform, on ethanol subsidies, and campaign finance reform. He started talking about Global warming 8 years ago. I don't agree with McCain on a number of topics, but I do believe he has principals and a backbone. He is not
willing to say anything to get elected.
I can't say the same for Obama who is turning out to be more like Bush than McCain; Obama is at least as arrogant as W, just more polished. Are you not ashamed, in these past weeks, of his reckless abandon of any pretense to a moral center on issues such as FISA, separation of church and state, gun control? And what he did to one of my heroes,
Wes Clark? Insulting my intelligence and my standards will not win me over.
But, in this conversation, you will say, McCain wants to be in Iraq for 100 years. No, he said that as in Japan, or Korea, we could have a presence. We have been in both of those countries for 60 years and not leaving any time soon, and the world is safer for it.
Next will be, McCain is not knowledgeable about the economy. While with Carly Fiorina, who I remember from her Lucent days, at a town meeting he turned the mic over to Carly when asked about the mortgage mess, painting her as the expert. Wow - he gave a woman a compliment, praising her knowledge, referring to her as the expert. How often
have you praised Charles, or me, and everyone for that matter? Why? Because you are gracious and you know it reflects well on you.
All this might not bother me if so much if the stakes where not so high, but they are. I am an issues person, not a cult of personality devotee. Substance matters. Barack is a politician, an inexperienced one at that, pretending he is different. I just see him as arrogant and power hungry. Our country deserves better, someone I would be proud to do business with.
Andy, my country comes first, not the Democrat party. Having said that, I believe that the Democratic Party has just kicked away the best candidate and our best chance to redeem our country, Hillary Clinton, a proven centrist. Given his resume, or should I say the lack of one, he is either ineffective or hiding something, neither answer gives me the warm and fuzzies. If she is chosen in Denver, you can count on my full and enthusiastic support. Until then, I own my vote.
Stop Picking On My Messiah!
Original Link: http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/07/29/stop-picking-on-my-messiah/
By Ani
In today’s Washington Post, Richard Cohen discusses Obama the Unknown. Here’s the main juice:
Obama “gave a hell of a speech, but it was just a speech.” There is little else to back it up.
He wouldn’t want to underestimate Obama, but his paper thin record is troubling.
Obama can flip flop with the best of them, just like any other politician.
Cohen states that Obama is a ‘near perfect political package although he’s just not sure what’s in it,’ but in a mystifying moment of pandering rivaling that of his subject, he’s still willing to compare BHO to JFK and FDR.
WTF?
Richie, if you’ve been watching this man campaign and perusing what there is of his record for a year and a half and you’re still not sure what’s in the package – maybe the package is empty. Whadaya think?
If this passes for mainstream commentary, I’ll take the net. However, Cohen still finds a lot more in Senator McCain’s record, conduct and proven courage over time to admire and trust. It ain’t a smoking gun, but frankly, given the media’s love-fest with Obama, I’ll take what I can get.
Yes, Richard, we know. One speech, or even two, does not a President make. Lofty generalities and lefty platitudes designed to seduce latté liberals and young minds for the primary, only to throw those ‘principles’ away lock, stock and suitcase for the general election does not FDR make.
Obama wishes he had the resolve of FDR. As for Kennedy, this is a romantic notion, nothing more. Neither packaging nor symbols lead people: women do, men do.
Far more interesting, and entertaining, than the piece itself, however, are the blogger comments that follow. Senator Obama’s fans, or should I say, believers, are absolutely apoplectic over this article, as if Richard Cohen has just told Obama to bow out of the race. Some of the insults are really quite comical, like telling Cohen what to do with his typewriter…I’ll leave out the more vitriolic references. You have heard them before, too.
Now as a huge Hillary supporter, of course I’m going to defend my gal, so I can understand their inclination. Then again, her record of 35 years of work on behalf of children, education, veterans’ benefits, first responders, Medicare and women’s rights (both in evidence again just last week), and her correct vote on FISA, give me a lot to crow about.
Given Obama’s 130 present votes, 6 ‘oops-I-pushed-the-wrong-button’ votes in the state legislature; missing over 40% of his votes in the Senate; reneging on FISA, voting for Bush/Cheney’s energy bill; his penchant for throwing everyone under the bus as soon as the heat is on him, I guess Cohen could not find anything in Obama’s record worth advertising.
One incensed commenter suggested that Cohen:
1. Read one of Barack’s books…
Would that be one of the books where he takes creative license with his own life story?
2. Go to the web site and look at his policy stances.
Does she mean the policies he sort of lifted from Hillary or the ones he has now completely done an about face on?
Even Cohen chimes in on this one:
Obama is not noted for sticking to a position or a person once that position or person becomes a political liability. (Names available upon request.)
…
He has been for and against gun control, against and for the recent domestic surveillance legislation and, in almost a single day, for a united Jerusalem under Israeli control and then, when apprised of U.S. policy and Palestinian chagrin, against it. He is an accomplished pol — a statement of both admiration and a bit of regret.
3. Interview Obama.
But Barack is too busy to answer real questions from the press corps. Isn’t that their main complaint about him now? Read his interviews. When you are done, I defy you to figure out where he really stands on anything.
His fans also wrote that: Judgment trumps experience. Obama has no scandals. Obama is an honest man.
Oh, where do I begin? The judgment that put him in a racist church for twenty years, canoodling with Wright, Pfleger, Auchi, Ayers, and buying a home with the aid of the convicted criminal Rezko? Or running to the right as fast as feet will carry him? How about now vetting Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine for VP – who has a faith-based opposition to abortion? Ladies? Ladies? Are you sure Barack’s got your back?
No scandals? Let’s just say a few too many people are riding shotgun for him to make me comfortable with that statement. The man won’t even show his birth certificate, his college records, state senate records and more…
An honest man? Painting everyone who does not vote for him as racist and outright lying on national television about his relationships and knowledge of certain associates is not what I would call pure as the driven snow.
Here was one of the few reasoned responses to Cohen’s article:
For god’s sake stop freaking out any time someone makes a legitimate point that you perceive as anything other than a glowing recommendation about your guy. It’s getting old.
Cohen is correct that ‘the next president will have to be something of a political Superman.’ The qualities crucial to wading through these dangerous waters are experience, character and moral courage. So far, Obama is batting zero.
We also require humility rather than hubris. No President is anointed by anyone. No President is going to get everything right. But someone who is addicted to, and insists upon total adulation from, his supporters, and who has had the DNC all but hand the nomination to him tells me he has no clue how deep in over his head he is.
Obama is supposed to be the ‘new politics,’ so unlike the Chicago political machine from whence he matriculated. Yet, even his mentor Rev. Wright admits that “he says what he has to say as a politician.” Obama’s behavior to this point shows that he is the old politics, head to toe.
How ironic is this July 3, 2008 Obama statement:
“Let me be as clear as I can be. I intend to end this war. My first day in office I will bring the joint chiefs of staff in and I will give them a new mission and that is to end this war.”
Well, after his overseas trip, I think that’s, uuhh, changed. Uh oh.
So if he is not the change we have been waiting for, if his judgment is suspect, if his resolve and moral courage are not in evidence, all he has left is character. And how can his supporters still be so hooked when his character is to abandon when the going gets tough? Why is he their chosen one, again?
Ironically, Jim Kramer of CNBC’s Mad Money , and many others have made it clear to the American people that the best choice on the economy is Hillary. 34 flag officers also endorsed her. Somebody surely trusts this lady’s judgment.
Oops, sorry. We don’t have her to choose from right now.
I recently heard the phrase, ‘faith is restful, hope is stressful.’ I have complete faith in Hillary Clinton because I see evidence of her work ethic. But hoping he ‘won’t be too bad’ is not enough reason for me to go with Obama the unknown.
By Ani
In today’s Washington Post, Richard Cohen discusses Obama the Unknown. Here’s the main juice:
Obama “gave a hell of a speech, but it was just a speech.” There is little else to back it up.
He wouldn’t want to underestimate Obama, but his paper thin record is troubling.
Obama can flip flop with the best of them, just like any other politician.
Cohen states that Obama is a ‘near perfect political package although he’s just not sure what’s in it,’ but in a mystifying moment of pandering rivaling that of his subject, he’s still willing to compare BHO to JFK and FDR.
WTF?
Richie, if you’ve been watching this man campaign and perusing what there is of his record for a year and a half and you’re still not sure what’s in the package – maybe the package is empty. Whadaya think?
If this passes for mainstream commentary, I’ll take the net. However, Cohen still finds a lot more in Senator McCain’s record, conduct and proven courage over time to admire and trust. It ain’t a smoking gun, but frankly, given the media’s love-fest with Obama, I’ll take what I can get.
Yes, Richard, we know. One speech, or even two, does not a President make. Lofty generalities and lefty platitudes designed to seduce latté liberals and young minds for the primary, only to throw those ‘principles’ away lock, stock and suitcase for the general election does not FDR make.
Obama wishes he had the resolve of FDR. As for Kennedy, this is a romantic notion, nothing more. Neither packaging nor symbols lead people: women do, men do.
Far more interesting, and entertaining, than the piece itself, however, are the blogger comments that follow. Senator Obama’s fans, or should I say, believers, are absolutely apoplectic over this article, as if Richard Cohen has just told Obama to bow out of the race. Some of the insults are really quite comical, like telling Cohen what to do with his typewriter…I’ll leave out the more vitriolic references. You have heard them before, too.
Now as a huge Hillary supporter, of course I’m going to defend my gal, so I can understand their inclination. Then again, her record of 35 years of work on behalf of children, education, veterans’ benefits, first responders, Medicare and women’s rights (both in evidence again just last week), and her correct vote on FISA, give me a lot to crow about.
Given Obama’s 130 present votes, 6 ‘oops-I-pushed-the-wrong-button’ votes in the state legislature; missing over 40% of his votes in the Senate; reneging on FISA, voting for Bush/Cheney’s energy bill; his penchant for throwing everyone under the bus as soon as the heat is on him, I guess Cohen could not find anything in Obama’s record worth advertising.
One incensed commenter suggested that Cohen:
1. Read one of Barack’s books…
Would that be one of the books where he takes creative license with his own life story?
2. Go to the web site and look at his policy stances.
Does she mean the policies he sort of lifted from Hillary or the ones he has now completely done an about face on?
Even Cohen chimes in on this one:
Obama is not noted for sticking to a position or a person once that position or person becomes a political liability. (Names available upon request.)
…
He has been for and against gun control, against and for the recent domestic surveillance legislation and, in almost a single day, for a united Jerusalem under Israeli control and then, when apprised of U.S. policy and Palestinian chagrin, against it. He is an accomplished pol — a statement of both admiration and a bit of regret.
3. Interview Obama.
But Barack is too busy to answer real questions from the press corps. Isn’t that their main complaint about him now? Read his interviews. When you are done, I defy you to figure out where he really stands on anything.
His fans also wrote that: Judgment trumps experience. Obama has no scandals. Obama is an honest man.
Oh, where do I begin? The judgment that put him in a racist church for twenty years, canoodling with Wright, Pfleger, Auchi, Ayers, and buying a home with the aid of the convicted criminal Rezko? Or running to the right as fast as feet will carry him? How about now vetting Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine for VP – who has a faith-based opposition to abortion? Ladies? Ladies? Are you sure Barack’s got your back?
No scandals? Let’s just say a few too many people are riding shotgun for him to make me comfortable with that statement. The man won’t even show his birth certificate, his college records, state senate records and more…
An honest man? Painting everyone who does not vote for him as racist and outright lying on national television about his relationships and knowledge of certain associates is not what I would call pure as the driven snow.
Here was one of the few reasoned responses to Cohen’s article:
For god’s sake stop freaking out any time someone makes a legitimate point that you perceive as anything other than a glowing recommendation about your guy. It’s getting old.
Cohen is correct that ‘the next president will have to be something of a political Superman.’ The qualities crucial to wading through these dangerous waters are experience, character and moral courage. So far, Obama is batting zero.
We also require humility rather than hubris. No President is anointed by anyone. No President is going to get everything right. But someone who is addicted to, and insists upon total adulation from, his supporters, and who has had the DNC all but hand the nomination to him tells me he has no clue how deep in over his head he is.
Obama is supposed to be the ‘new politics,’ so unlike the Chicago political machine from whence he matriculated. Yet, even his mentor Rev. Wright admits that “he says what he has to say as a politician.” Obama’s behavior to this point shows that he is the old politics, head to toe.
How ironic is this July 3, 2008 Obama statement:
“Let me be as clear as I can be. I intend to end this war. My first day in office I will bring the joint chiefs of staff in and I will give them a new mission and that is to end this war.”
Well, after his overseas trip, I think that’s, uuhh, changed. Uh oh.
So if he is not the change we have been waiting for, if his judgment is suspect, if his resolve and moral courage are not in evidence, all he has left is character. And how can his supporters still be so hooked when his character is to abandon when the going gets tough? Why is he their chosen one, again?
Ironically, Jim Kramer of CNBC’s Mad Money , and many others have made it clear to the American people that the best choice on the economy is Hillary. 34 flag officers also endorsed her. Somebody surely trusts this lady’s judgment.
Oops, sorry. We don’t have her to choose from right now.
I recently heard the phrase, ‘faith is restful, hope is stressful.’ I have complete faith in Hillary Clinton because I see evidence of her work ethic. But hoping he ‘won’t be too bad’ is not enough reason for me to go with Obama the unknown.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Media Expert Decries Campaign Coverage
Original Link: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8V4T5282&show_article=1
By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer
The founder of a prestigious institute on media and politics added his voice Saturday to the chorus of complaint over perceived press bias in favor of Democrat Barack Obama.
Walter Shorenstein, a prominent San Francisco-based real estate developer, Democratic fundraiser and longtime supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, penned a memo to Democratic party "superdelegates" and other activists criticizing media coverage of the presidential campaign.
Shorenstein is the founder of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University. His memo came days before Tuesday's key primaries in Ohio and Texas, which Clinton must win to save her waning candidacy.
The former first lady and her advisers have lashed out at the press in recent days, suggesting unfair coverage of the campaign has in part led to Obama's victories in the last 11 voting contests. They've encouraged supporters and voters to watch a "Saturday Night Live" skit that aired last weekend, depicting a group of journalists fawning over Obama.
In his memo, Shorenstein concurred with the Clinton campaign's assessment.
"I am absolutely outraged with the media coverage of the presidential campaign," Shorenstein wrote in the memo, which was obtained by The Associated Press. "This is the most important election in my long lifetime, and to quote one of my favorite movies, 'I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!'"
He was quoting the 1976 movie "Network," in which a mentally disturbed television news anchor played by Peter Finch went on the air and implored viewers to rebel against gimmicks staged by network news executives.
"There is too much on the line for the media to ignore important issues while they obsess about Hillary's hairdo or Barack's baritone," Shorenstein continued. "Is it in the country's best interest that voters received far more information about Hillary's laugh than Obama's legislative record? Is it good for our nation that more attention is paid to the differences in their speaking style than their health care plans?"
Shorenstein attached several studies to the memo indicating the press had given more favorable coverage to Obama than to Clinton, and urged activists to forward the material to friends and voters and to complain to reporters.
"Our democracy depends upon the fourth estate to fulfill the uniquely critical role of informing voters about the important issues facing our nation," Shorenstein wrote. "Yet far too often, the campaign coverage has been biased, blase, or baseless."
By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer
The founder of a prestigious institute on media and politics added his voice Saturday to the chorus of complaint over perceived press bias in favor of Democrat Barack Obama.
Walter Shorenstein, a prominent San Francisco-based real estate developer, Democratic fundraiser and longtime supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, penned a memo to Democratic party "superdelegates" and other activists criticizing media coverage of the presidential campaign.
Shorenstein is the founder of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University. His memo came days before Tuesday's key primaries in Ohio and Texas, which Clinton must win to save her waning candidacy.
The former first lady and her advisers have lashed out at the press in recent days, suggesting unfair coverage of the campaign has in part led to Obama's victories in the last 11 voting contests. They've encouraged supporters and voters to watch a "Saturday Night Live" skit that aired last weekend, depicting a group of journalists fawning over Obama.
In his memo, Shorenstein concurred with the Clinton campaign's assessment.
"I am absolutely outraged with the media coverage of the presidential campaign," Shorenstein wrote in the memo, which was obtained by The Associated Press. "This is the most important election in my long lifetime, and to quote one of my favorite movies, 'I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!'"
He was quoting the 1976 movie "Network," in which a mentally disturbed television news anchor played by Peter Finch went on the air and implored viewers to rebel against gimmicks staged by network news executives.
"There is too much on the line for the media to ignore important issues while they obsess about Hillary's hairdo or Barack's baritone," Shorenstein continued. "Is it in the country's best interest that voters received far more information about Hillary's laugh than Obama's legislative record? Is it good for our nation that more attention is paid to the differences in their speaking style than their health care plans?"
Shorenstein attached several studies to the memo indicating the press had given more favorable coverage to Obama than to Clinton, and urged activists to forward the material to friends and voters and to complain to reporters.
"Our democracy depends upon the fourth estate to fulfill the uniquely critical role of informing voters about the important issues facing our nation," Shorenstein wrote. "Yet far too often, the campaign coverage has been biased, blase, or baseless."
Media Bias Toward Obama Inexcusable
Original Link: http://blog.thehill.com/2008/07/24/media-bias-toward-obama-inexcusable/
The liberal media’s now completely blatant bias is as evident as it is extraordinary. Never before have we seen such an overt, over-the-top, seemingly coordinated effort by press in totality to back the play of a politician. It is shameless.
That 49% of the American people now say they see the media’s Obama cheerleading leads me only to wonder: What are the other 51% drinking?
No Presidential candidate EVER has received this level of fawning, luminescent and servile coverage. Not Kerry, not Gore, not Clinton, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter, McGovern, Humphrey, Johnson, not even the liberal media’s hallowed John Fitzgerald Kennedy garnered this level of gushing, glowing press attention.
The liberal media’s only hope of salvaging some semblance of journalistic credibility is, when it’s their turn with Sen. Obama, to put to him the very obvious questions that need to be asked. However, given their coverage of him thus far, I’m afraid we will find that they will remain incapable of helping themselves, and that their credibility is unrecoverable.
The liberal media’s now completely blatant bias is as evident as it is extraordinary. Never before have we seen such an overt, over-the-top, seemingly coordinated effort by press in totality to back the play of a politician. It is shameless.
That 49% of the American people now say they see the media’s Obama cheerleading leads me only to wonder: What are the other 51% drinking?
No Presidential candidate EVER has received this level of fawning, luminescent and servile coverage. Not Kerry, not Gore, not Clinton, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter, McGovern, Humphrey, Johnson, not even the liberal media’s hallowed John Fitzgerald Kennedy garnered this level of gushing, glowing press attention.
The liberal media’s only hope of salvaging some semblance of journalistic credibility is, when it’s their turn with Sen. Obama, to put to him the very obvious questions that need to be asked. However, given their coverage of him thus far, I’m afraid we will find that they will remain incapable of helping themselves, and that their credibility is unrecoverable.
Media Bias Favors Obama
Original Link: http://www.alphecca.com/?p=864
By Jeff Soyer
I’ve pretty much sworn off of TV news these days as major media such as NBC, CBS, and ABC continue to give Obama far more — and more favorable — coverage. Any stories about McCain usually come as a brief afterthought and generally consist of him criticizing Obama or otherwise appearing in a negative way. Looks like it isn’t just my imagination:
For each of the weeks between June 9 and July 13, Obama had a much more significant media presence. The Project for Excellence in Journalism evaluates more than 300 political stories each week in newspapers, magazines and television to measure whether each candidate is talked about in more than 25 percent of the stories.
Every week, Obama played an important role in more than two-thirds of the stories. For July 7-13, for example, Obama was a significant presence in 77 percent of the stories, while McCain was in 48 percent, the PEJ said.
Sure, there are some weeks Obama’s going to make more news, said Tom Rosenstiel, the project’s director.
But every week?
“No matter how understandable it is given the newness of the candidate and the historical nature of Obama’s candidacy, in the end it’s probably not fair to McCain,” he said.
The Democrat has proven an attractive commodity; TV debates involving Democrats this campaign consistently drew more viewers than the Republicans. A Time magazine cover with Obama in 2006 was the second-best-selling of the year, and a Men’s Vogue cover outsold every issue but the debut, according to circulation figures reported by Portfolio.com. Newsweek has done six covers with Obama over the past year, two with McCain. A Rolling Stone cover with Obama stopped just short of adding a halo.
At this point, I generally rely on the Internet for all of my news. That way I can pick-and-choose my sources and yes, I even try to read some stories from “the left” to give myself some balance, or at least to see what the left is thinking.
By Jeff Soyer
I’ve pretty much sworn off of TV news these days as major media such as NBC, CBS, and ABC continue to give Obama far more — and more favorable — coverage. Any stories about McCain usually come as a brief afterthought and generally consist of him criticizing Obama or otherwise appearing in a negative way. Looks like it isn’t just my imagination:
For each of the weeks between June 9 and July 13, Obama had a much more significant media presence. The Project for Excellence in Journalism evaluates more than 300 political stories each week in newspapers, magazines and television to measure whether each candidate is talked about in more than 25 percent of the stories.
Every week, Obama played an important role in more than two-thirds of the stories. For July 7-13, for example, Obama was a significant presence in 77 percent of the stories, while McCain was in 48 percent, the PEJ said.
Sure, there are some weeks Obama’s going to make more news, said Tom Rosenstiel, the project’s director.
But every week?
“No matter how understandable it is given the newness of the candidate and the historical nature of Obama’s candidacy, in the end it’s probably not fair to McCain,” he said.
The Democrat has proven an attractive commodity; TV debates involving Democrats this campaign consistently drew more viewers than the Republicans. A Time magazine cover with Obama in 2006 was the second-best-selling of the year, and a Men’s Vogue cover outsold every issue but the debut, according to circulation figures reported by Portfolio.com. Newsweek has done six covers with Obama over the past year, two with McCain. A Rolling Stone cover with Obama stopped just short of adding a halo.
At this point, I generally rely on the Internet for all of my news. That way I can pick-and-choose my sources and yes, I even try to read some stories from “the left” to give myself some balance, or at least to see what the left is thinking.
Hillary supporters, still angry, frustrate attempts at party unity
Original Link: http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Hillary_supporters_still_angry_frustrate_attempts_0727.html
By Andrew McLemore
Hillary Clinton supporters have been criticizing Barack Obama with increasing frequency as the senator's trip overseas captured media attention bordering on adulation.
A political action committee named PUMA, or People United Means Action, has devoted itself to the continued support of Clinton and in an announcement on its blog called Obama's trip 'a flop' and an 'ego trip'. Alternatively, PUMA also means Party Unity My Ass.
The entry continued in a tone directed at Obama supporters:
"Your guy can’t even make a dent against an old guy who hasn’t even begun to campaign against you in earnest. You’re losing during the warm-up?"
Questions of Obama's viability as a presidential candidate from fellow Democrats have resurfaced in Texas recently as the Obama campaign attempts to unify Texas Democrats, The Austin American-Statesman reported.
"An uncounted swath of Clinton backers" is supporting the nation-wide efforts of PUMA and frustrating Democratic politicians in Texas trying to boost party unity, including those who worked for Clinton's campaign.
"We all need to do whatever it takes to get him elected," said Garry Mauro of Austin, who directed Clinton's campaign in Texas.
But many Clinton supporters are still angry over the perceived injustices committed against her during the Texas primary. Clinton won the primary, but Obama took more delegates because of caucus turnouts.
Austinite Frances Morey said she will skip the November presidential election entirely.
"So why is he prancing around in Europe like he's the president-elect?" Morey said this week. "I cannot vote for him. I cannot bring myself to vote for this poseur."
Protesters brought their anger over the supposed mistreatment of Hillary Clinton by the Democratic Party to a Howard Dean appearance in Charlotte Friday, some carrying signs that read "Dump Dean."
Two dozen of the New York Senator's supporters shouted down the Democratic National Committee Chairman with a chorus of, "I own my vote!" the Charlotte Observer reported.
The protest was sparked by a rumor that Clinton's name would not be put in for nomination at the Democratic National Convention in Denver next month.
The supporters were loud enough that Dean was forced to stop his speech to the 150 people who showed up for the voting rally and address the demonstrators.
"There will be a roll call vote at the convention if Hillary Clinton wants one," Dean said. "We all respect each other and we certainly respect Sen. Clinton. This is a unified party. It is not easy to be on the losing side, and I know ... because four years ago, I was on the losing side."
By Andrew McLemore
Hillary Clinton supporters have been criticizing Barack Obama with increasing frequency as the senator's trip overseas captured media attention bordering on adulation.
A political action committee named PUMA, or People United Means Action, has devoted itself to the continued support of Clinton and in an announcement on its blog called Obama's trip 'a flop' and an 'ego trip'. Alternatively, PUMA also means Party Unity My Ass.
The entry continued in a tone directed at Obama supporters:
"Your guy can’t even make a dent against an old guy who hasn’t even begun to campaign against you in earnest. You’re losing during the warm-up?"
Questions of Obama's viability as a presidential candidate from fellow Democrats have resurfaced in Texas recently as the Obama campaign attempts to unify Texas Democrats, The Austin American-Statesman reported.
"An uncounted swath of Clinton backers" is supporting the nation-wide efforts of PUMA and frustrating Democratic politicians in Texas trying to boost party unity, including those who worked for Clinton's campaign.
"We all need to do whatever it takes to get him elected," said Garry Mauro of Austin, who directed Clinton's campaign in Texas.
But many Clinton supporters are still angry over the perceived injustices committed against her during the Texas primary. Clinton won the primary, but Obama took more delegates because of caucus turnouts.
Austinite Frances Morey said she will skip the November presidential election entirely.
"So why is he prancing around in Europe like he's the president-elect?" Morey said this week. "I cannot vote for him. I cannot bring myself to vote for this poseur."
Protesters brought their anger over the supposed mistreatment of Hillary Clinton by the Democratic Party to a Howard Dean appearance in Charlotte Friday, some carrying signs that read "Dump Dean."
Two dozen of the New York Senator's supporters shouted down the Democratic National Committee Chairman with a chorus of, "I own my vote!" the Charlotte Observer reported.
The protest was sparked by a rumor that Clinton's name would not be put in for nomination at the Democratic National Convention in Denver next month.
The supporters were loud enough that Dean was forced to stop his speech to the 150 people who showed up for the voting rally and address the demonstrators.
"There will be a roll call vote at the convention if Hillary Clinton wants one," Dean said. "We all respect each other and we certainly respect Sen. Clinton. This is a unified party. It is not easy to be on the losing side, and I know ... because four years ago, I was on the losing side."
Party leadership, Obama rejected by these Dems
Original Link: http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080728/OPINION01/807280304/1002/OPINION
By Dylan Asdale
We know very little about Barack Obama, but we do know he is unwilling to take a firm stance on issues.
He said he would accept public financing for the general election, and later rejected it.
He voted in favor of the government's eavesdropping program and legal immunity for telecommunications companies after promising his supporters he would reject it.
He advocates both an individual's right to own a gun and the government's right to regulate ownership.
He assured America he would negotiate a better deal with NAFTA and then winked to the Canadian government that this was simply political posturing.
He assured his supporters he would pull all American troops out of Iraq immediately. Now he calls this impossible.
The list is endless.
I am a member of PUMA PAC (People United Means Action), a group of citizens who favored Hillary Clinton and are motivated by belief that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has abrogated its responsibility to represent the interests of all Democrats in all 50 states. I and thousands of other PUMA members will not vote for Obama, the DNC's selected, not elected, nominee.
Dylan Asdale
PUMA PAC Democrat
By Dylan Asdale
We know very little about Barack Obama, but we do know he is unwilling to take a firm stance on issues.
He said he would accept public financing for the general election, and later rejected it.
He voted in favor of the government's eavesdropping program and legal immunity for telecommunications companies after promising his supporters he would reject it.
He advocates both an individual's right to own a gun and the government's right to regulate ownership.
He assured America he would negotiate a better deal with NAFTA and then winked to the Canadian government that this was simply political posturing.
He assured his supporters he would pull all American troops out of Iraq immediately. Now he calls this impossible.
The list is endless.
I am a member of PUMA PAC (People United Means Action), a group of citizens who favored Hillary Clinton and are motivated by belief that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has abrogated its responsibility to represent the interests of all Democrats in all 50 states. I and thousands of other PUMA members will not vote for Obama, the DNC's selected, not elected, nominee.
Dylan Asdale
PUMA PAC Democrat
MSM Mostly Ignores Surge of Anti-Obama PUMA Democrat Activity
Original Link: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/07/26/msm-mostly-ignores-surge-anti-obama-puma-democrat-activity
By P.J. Gladnick
Imagine if a bunch of disgruntled Mitt Romney supporters were currently stalking John McCain or Republican events loudly demanding that their candidate be nominated. Think the national press would be featuring it bigtime as an example of Republican party disunity? Well, the same thing is happening except the people are disgruntled Democrats expressing their opposition of Barack Obama while loudly continuing to support Hillary Clinton. They are known as PUMA ("People United Means Action" or "Party Unity My Ass"). PUMA was formed last month in the aftermath of Hillary Clinton conceding the Democrat nomination to Obama. However, contrary to being just a desperate last gasp by Hillary's supporters, PUMA activities seem to be surging lately despite the overseas trip by Obama which was widely heralded by the mainstream media. In fact, the official PUMA PAC website has today announced, in a message directed towards Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod, their view that the Obama trip was a "flop":
So if you fancy yourself the Democrats’ Karl Rove — an unbeatable master of politics and strategy, how come the Grand Tour was such a flop for your guy? Sinking in blue swing states, tanking in red states. . . Most Americans believe the Ego Trip, I mean World Tour, hurts or doesn’t help his chances in November. Your guy can’t even make a dent against an old guy who hasn’t even begun to campaign against you in earnest. You’re losing during the warm-up? Oops. Groan.
Don't think the online PUMA activities are restricted to mere online grumbling. They are actively protesting in public what they feel is unfair treatment of Hillary by the DNC. Here is what happened to Howard Dean while visiting North Carolina yesterday according to the Charlotte Observer:
About two dozen Hillary Clinton supporters, some carrying signs saying “Dump Dean,” shouted down Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean during an appearance Friday in Charlotte.
The protesters, who described themselves as members of a group called “Charlotte Front and Center,” shouted and waved signs as Dean spoke to an otherwise enthusiastic crowd of about 150 at a voter registration rally on West Boulevard.
The demonstrators, mostly women, were protesting a rumored decision not to put Clinton's name in nomination at next month's Democratic convention in Denver. At one point, Dean was drowned out by shouts of “I own my vote!”
You can see examples such as the previous story and this article in the Austin-American Statesman about dissatisfied PUMA Democrats cropping up with increasing frequency in recent days (emphasis mine):
...an uncounted swath of Clinton backers, including voters who see Clinton as a groundbreaker mistreated by the media and national party, is taking a hard line in step with a national Web-driven effort dubbed PUMA (Party Unity My Ass).
Some say they will never cotton to the first-term senator from Illinois. Some fume at the way Texas delegates were chosen via the March 4 primary election and primary-night caucuses. Clinton won the primary, but Obama took more delegates because of caucus turnouts.
...Frances Morey of Austin, a Clinton delegate to the party's June state convention, noted that Obama lacks the 2,118 delegates needed to seal the nomination. (Projections put him over the threshold based on surveys of superdelegates — party dignitaries and members of Congress who don't have to commit until the convention.)
"So why is he prancing around in Europe like he's the president-elect?" Morey said this week. "I cannot vote for him. I cannot bring myself to vote for this poseur."
Morey said she'll likely skip the presidential election on her fall ballot.
Despite being ignored for the most part by the MSM which desires to present the view of a Democrat party united for Obama, more and more stories such as the ones above are seeping out with increasing frequency.
For a surrealistically bizarre look at one of the prominent PUMA types on YouTube, check out this video of Perry Logan who was previously best known for slamming Republicans but has now switched to attacking Obama. Warning: You might need to have your brain scrubbed after watching the incredibly eccentric Perry Logan who was recently banned from the Democratic Underground for switching from attacking Republicans to slamming Obama. On the plus side you will also have some good laughs although you will be laughing more at Perry Logan than with him.
By P.J. Gladnick
Imagine if a bunch of disgruntled Mitt Romney supporters were currently stalking John McCain or Republican events loudly demanding that their candidate be nominated. Think the national press would be featuring it bigtime as an example of Republican party disunity? Well, the same thing is happening except the people are disgruntled Democrats expressing their opposition of Barack Obama while loudly continuing to support Hillary Clinton. They are known as PUMA ("People United Means Action" or "Party Unity My Ass"). PUMA was formed last month in the aftermath of Hillary Clinton conceding the Democrat nomination to Obama. However, contrary to being just a desperate last gasp by Hillary's supporters, PUMA activities seem to be surging lately despite the overseas trip by Obama which was widely heralded by the mainstream media. In fact, the official PUMA PAC website has today announced, in a message directed towards Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod, their view that the Obama trip was a "flop":
So if you fancy yourself the Democrats’ Karl Rove — an unbeatable master of politics and strategy, how come the Grand Tour was such a flop for your guy? Sinking in blue swing states, tanking in red states. . . Most Americans believe the Ego Trip, I mean World Tour, hurts or doesn’t help his chances in November. Your guy can’t even make a dent against an old guy who hasn’t even begun to campaign against you in earnest. You’re losing during the warm-up? Oops. Groan.
Don't think the online PUMA activities are restricted to mere online grumbling. They are actively protesting in public what they feel is unfair treatment of Hillary by the DNC. Here is what happened to Howard Dean while visiting North Carolina yesterday according to the Charlotte Observer:
About two dozen Hillary Clinton supporters, some carrying signs saying “Dump Dean,” shouted down Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean during an appearance Friday in Charlotte.
The protesters, who described themselves as members of a group called “Charlotte Front and Center,” shouted and waved signs as Dean spoke to an otherwise enthusiastic crowd of about 150 at a voter registration rally on West Boulevard.
The demonstrators, mostly women, were protesting a rumored decision not to put Clinton's name in nomination at next month's Democratic convention in Denver. At one point, Dean was drowned out by shouts of “I own my vote!”
You can see examples such as the previous story and this article in the Austin-American Statesman about dissatisfied PUMA Democrats cropping up with increasing frequency in recent days (emphasis mine):
...an uncounted swath of Clinton backers, including voters who see Clinton as a groundbreaker mistreated by the media and national party, is taking a hard line in step with a national Web-driven effort dubbed PUMA (Party Unity My Ass).
Some say they will never cotton to the first-term senator from Illinois. Some fume at the way Texas delegates were chosen via the March 4 primary election and primary-night caucuses. Clinton won the primary, but Obama took more delegates because of caucus turnouts.
...Frances Morey of Austin, a Clinton delegate to the party's June state convention, noted that Obama lacks the 2,118 delegates needed to seal the nomination. (Projections put him over the threshold based on surveys of superdelegates — party dignitaries and members of Congress who don't have to commit until the convention.)
"So why is he prancing around in Europe like he's the president-elect?" Morey said this week. "I cannot vote for him. I cannot bring myself to vote for this poseur."
Morey said she'll likely skip the presidential election on her fall ballot.
Despite being ignored for the most part by the MSM which desires to present the view of a Democrat party united for Obama, more and more stories such as the ones above are seeping out with increasing frequency.
For a surrealistically bizarre look at one of the prominent PUMA types on YouTube, check out this video of Perry Logan who was previously best known for slamming Republicans but has now switched to attacking Obama. Warning: You might need to have your brain scrubbed after watching the incredibly eccentric Perry Logan who was recently banned from the Democratic Underground for switching from attacking Republicans to slamming Obama. On the plus side you will also have some good laughs although you will be laughing more at Perry Logan than with him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)