Campaign 2008

[SuperJerk 0]

Realistically, though, when was the last time we had a president better than Clinton? It's not just W Bush who makes him look good.

 

He'd probably make a top five presidents of the 20th century list.

The 20th Century had the blessing of 4 of the greatest presidents in a row, followed by the curse of having 4 of the worst.

 

That, however, does not forgive the only two reasons people can give to vote for his wife: greatness by association, and electing a woman just for the sake of electing a woman. That's not to say that Mrs. Clinton doesn't bring her own qualifications and experience to the table as a candidate, but those seem to be the only two rationales her supporters have been able to give for continuing to support her candidacy.

[spiny norman 0]

The 20th Century had the blessing of 4 of the greatest presidents in a row, followed by the curse of having 4 of the worst.

 

I don't think that was ever the case. I'm going to assume you're referring to Roosevelt-Truman-Eisenhower-Kennedy and Johnson-Nixon-Ford-Carter. Though I'd massively disagree, mainly with Eisenhower (though Kennedy to an extent), and especially Johnson.

 

That, however, does not forgive the only two reasons people can give to vote for his wife: greatness by association, and electing a woman just for the sake of electing a woman. That's not to say that Mrs. Clinton doesn't bring her own qualifications and experience to the table as a candidate, but those seem to be the only two rationales her supporters have been able to give for continuing to support her candidacy.

 

I disagree. While I'm not too fussed either way by Obama/Clinton - either way I think there'll be a good president - there are other reasons to nominate her. Also, I disagree with those saying she doesn't bring her own qualifications and experience to the table, as those that do are the same people who abuse her for being a de facto VP to her husband - you can't have it both ways.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Is Obama going to be forced to do some kind of interview where he repeatedly says "I am not a Muslim" and spells it out for these hicks, or what?

 

He should have just said when the Rev. Wright stuff started coming out "I liked it better when they were saying I'm a secret Muslim, not a militant Baptist", to get these people's brains to explode.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

This has to be the funniest thing I've read today

 

The race issue is complicated by false, but rampant, rumors that Obama is Muslim. In Leslie County, a Republican county where Obama won 5 percent of the Democratic vote, the county judge-executive doesn't hesitate before mischaracterizing Obama's religion.

"I think one of the big problems for him is he's Muslim," said Jimmy Sizemore, the highest elected official in the county. "It's his religion, plus when his pastor came out and started talking, that was a problem, but that's just my opinion."I don't think it's because he's black, what everybody says is he is a Muslim."

 

http://www.kentucky.com/news/state/story/414800.html

Strange. That ended up being the saddest thing I've read today. The sooner that guy kills himself, the safer we'll all be before reality implodes in on his mental retardation. For fuck's sake... "Muslim"... "pastor". No, just no. Fail.

 

 

I found it scary that he's the highest elected official in the county. So, he's one of the smarter ones!? I don't know if he is genuinely that ignorant or its a willful ignorance, where he knows Obama probably isn't a Muslim, but doesn't pick up a newspaper or watch any of the news shows, so he can keep believing it.

[SuperJerk 0]

The 20th Century had the blessing of 4 of the greatest presidents in a row, followed by the curse of having 4 of the worst.

 

I don't think that was ever the case. I'm going to assume you're referring to Roosevelt-Truman-Eisenhower-Kennedy and Johnson-Nixon-Ford-Carter. Though I'd massively disagree, mainly with Eisenhower (though Kennedy to an extent), and especially Johnson.

Yeah...that's a discussion for another thread.

 

That, however, does not forgive the only two reasons people can give to vote for his wife: greatness by association, and electing a woman just for the sake of electing a woman. That's not to say that Mrs. Clinton doesn't bring her own qualifications and experience to the table as a candidate, but those seem to be the only two rationales her supporters have been able to give for continuing to support her candidacy.

 

I disagree. While I'm not too fussed either way by Obama/Clinton - either way I think there'll be a good president - there are other reasons to nominate her. Also, I disagree with those saying she doesn't bring her own qualifications and experience to the table, as those that do are the same people who abuse her for being a de facto VP to her husband - you can't have it both ways.

Most people seem fixated on her time as First Lady. It's valid experience, since she helped shape policy and advance the agenda of the administration (whether that was a "proper" roll for a First Lady is irrelevant...that didn't make her a de facto VP given how Constitutionally limited that roll is). The extent to which she shaped policy and helped advance policy is something that has become a campaign issue. Even within that time there are issues she is running away from, such as her support for NAFTA; and there are things she's embracing, such as her travels abroad and her attempt to get universal health insurance.

 

What I don't see a lot of is discussion of by her supporters is 7 years as a U.S. Senator. In that area, I see more running away from positions than I do embracing them. Her vote for the Iraq War has been something she's only come to regret in the course of her presidential campaign. Her support for No Child Left Behind has reversed. She voted for the original PATRIOT Act, but later tried to get its reauthorization blocked before voting for the watered-down compromise bill.

 

I am beginning to wonder if the entire reason she's running for president just to undo the things she's previously supported.

[SuperJerk 0]

Looks like Pelosi is going side with Obama...

 

Pelosi prepared to 'step in' to end race

 

(CNN) – Hillary Clinton has hinted that she is prepared to take her fight to fully seat Florida and Michigan all the way to the party's convention in late August, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says that's not going to happen.

 

In an interview with her hometown newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle, the California Democrat said she is prepared to "step in" if the presidential race does not resolve itself by the end of next month.

 

"I will step in," Pelosi told the paper. "Because we cannot take this fight to the convention…It must be over before then."

 

Pelosi, who will serve as chair of the convention, has largely stayed on the sidelines during her party's prolonged primary race. But the House Speaker has said Democratic superdelegates should not overturn the pledged delegate winner, and has warned of irreparable harm if they do so. Barack Obama officially won the majority of pledged delegates in last Tuesday's primary contests, though it's been clear for several weeks Clinton could not overtake him in that category.

 

Pelosi also indicated she opposes the Clinton campaign's desire that both Florida and Michigan's delegations be fully seated at the convention. The party stripped both states of their entire delegations last year after they moved their presidential primaries ahead in the nominating calendar.

 

Pelosi said she agreed the two states should be seated in some way, but said only "in a way that is not destructive to any sense of order in the party."

 

"If you have no order and no discipline in terms of party rules, people will be having their primary in the year before the presidential election," she said. "So there has to be some penalty."

 

The Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee meets Saturday in Washington to consider exactly how to seat both states. It's likely the committee will vote to meet the rule-breaking states halfway — a move that will help Clinton close the delegate gap with Obama but not overtake him.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...in-to-end-race/

 

[NoCalMike 0]

The reality is there is a percentage of people out there that will listen to the loons out there like Beck, Limbaugh, "Fox News Contributers" that will repeatedly drop innuendo that Obama is a "muslim" or "hates white people" etc etc etc...and believe them, and there is just nothing AT ALL that will convince them otherwise.

 

Trust me, there is a lady at my work that fits that profile. A nice lady in general, but she doesn't need to go anywhere for news because Rush "has it covered" and I live in "liberal California"

[SuperJerk 0]

Priest apologizes for mocking Clinton while at Obama church

Story Highlights

• Sermon at Sen. Barack Obama's church took aim at Sen. Hillary Clinton
• The Rev. Michael Pfleger said Clinton cried because she felt entitled to presidency
• Obama says he's "deeply disappointed" by what he calls a "divisive" sermon
• Pfleger apologizes, says his words were inconsistent with Obama's message

 

(CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama said he was "deeply disappointed" by a sermon at his church this week that mocked Sen. Hillary Clinton.

 

A video making the rounds on YouTube shows the Rev. Michael Pfleger mocking Clinton for becoming teary-eyed before the New Hampshire primary in January.

 

In the video, Pfleger wipes his eyes with a handkerchief and suggests Clinton wept because she thought that as a white person and the wife of a former president, she was entitled to the presidency.

 

"And then, out of nowhere, came 'Hey, I'm Barack Obama,' " Pfleger said during a sermon Sunday at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Illinois. "And [Clinton] said, 'Oh damn, where did you come from? I'm white! I'm entitled! There's a black man stealing my show!' "

 

The video shows the congregation laughing and cheering.

 

Pfleger is a Catholic priest at St. Sabina Roman Catholic Church on Chicago's southwest side.

 

He is also a friend of Trinity's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, from whom Obama distanced himself in April.

 

At the time, Obama said he was "outraged" by Wright's remarks suggesting the U.S. government might be responsible for the spread of AIDS in the black community and equating some American wartime efforts with terrorism.

 

Obama has known Pfleger for more than 20 years.

 

His campaign condemned Pfleger's comments.

 

"As I have traveled this country, I've been impressed not by what divides us, but by all that that unites us," Obama said in a statement Thursday.

 

"That is why I am deeply disappointed in Father Pfleger's divisive, backward-looking rhetoric, which doesn't reflect the country I see or the desire of people across America to come together in common cause."

 

The Clinton camp also condemned Pfleger's remarks.

 

"Divisive and hateful language like that is totally counterproductive in our efforts to bring our party together and have no place at the pulpit or in our politics," the Clinton campaign said.

 

"We are disappointed that Sen. Obama didn't specifically reject Father's Pfleger's despicable comments about Sen. Clinton and assume he will."

 

Pfleger apologized for his comments Thursday evening.

 

"I regret the words I chose on Sunday," he said in a statement. "These words are inconsistent with Sen. Obama's life and message, and I am deeply sorry if they offended Sen. Clinton or anyone else who saw them."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/30/oba...tml#cnnSTCVideo

 

This is the first election I've seen where people supporting a candidate are not allowed to criticize the opposition. This wasn't an official Obama event, and Pfleger isn't a paid Obama staffer. We're becoming way to sensitive about these things. Is everything that happens at Obama's church now going to be put under a microscope? Can we please apply that same standard to the other candidates? And whatever happened to Clinton's "if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen" stance? Its okay for Obama to get criticized, but not for her to be I guess.

 

[At Home 0]

I think it was more of an attempt to distance himself from immature things like characterizations or mockings and keep up with the "respectable campaign" motif, not to just say sorry for ever trying to offend anyone.

[EricMM 0]

No, Obama has been designated by the right as "apparently perfect" so if he or his supporters do anything besides that they can be attacked.

[Guest Desensitized]

This must be some kind of bizarre role reversal. In exchange for a Catholic ranting like he's on PCP, Jeremiah Wright is going to fuck a small boy in the ass.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

I disagree. While I'm not too fussed either way by Obama/Clinton - either way I think there'll be a good president - there are other reasons to nominate her. Also, I disagree with those saying she doesn't bring her own qualifications and experience to the table, as those that do are the same people who abuse her for being a de facto VP to her husband - you can't have it both ways.

 

Hillary's qualifications in the White House are SUBSTANTIALLY limited after Bill's first two years there. You have to remember, the health care reform debacle that she helped lead in 1994 was a major reason the Democrats lost control of Congress and were kept out of power until 2006. This essentially ruined the last part of Clinton's first term and could've turned out worse if Trent Lott hadn't stabbed Bob Dole in the back by making a deal on welfare reform (and don't read that much into this comment b/c we needed the reform and I could care less if it was made in the run-up to the election or not) which greatly aided Clinton in the '96 campaign. Hillary was pushed to the fringes in the WH after that mess so I have a major problem with her taking credit for things after that period b/c she wasn't playing that big of a role as has been substantiated by former Clinton staffers. Also, this contributed to Al Gore getting at least some influence back after sitting to the sides the first 2 years. So yea, Hillary was VP for about 2 years...and was a big failure.

 

I have no trouble with her running on her husband's record if she wants to but she can't just take credit for the good stuff (the economy/budget planning) and run away from what people perceive as bad (ex. NAFTA, the numerous scandals such as Travelgate and Whitewater, a weak response to the U.S.S. Cole attack, etc.). It has to be balanced. I would also 100% agree with the fact that her 7 years in the Senate haven't seen much leadership and have instead been a location for political manuevering/pandering. I also think its stupid for people to argue that she can come back to the Senate and be majority leader. This has two problems. First, not many of her Senate colleagues are more favorable to her than their other colleagues. And second, she simply doesn't have the seniority built up to make a viable play for that position.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

 

I couldnt resist posting the pic.

 

Pink Pants FTW!

 

I find it funny he was the only one they could get to comment on sexism in the campaign, I remembered his "she's a stereotypical bitch" comment on the radio a while back and just knew they'd get on him for it..

[The Niggardly King 0]

This must be some kind of bizarre role reversal. In exchange for a Catholic ranting like he's on PCP, Jeremiah Wright is going to fuck a small boy in the ass.

 

and your signature has now come full circle.

[SuperJerk 0]

Obama resigns from controversial church

 

Barack Obama resigned Saturday from his Chicago church — where controversial sermons by his former pastor and other ministers had created repeated political headaches for the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination — his campaign confirmed.

 

The resignation comes days after the Rev. Michael Pfleger, a visiting Catholic priest, mocked Obama's Democratic rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, for crying in New Hampshire during the runup to the primary there.

 

Previously, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright — former pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ and Obama's minister for about 20 years — drew unwanted attention for the campaign when videos of several of his fiery sermons surfaced.

 

In them, Wright suggested the U.S. government may be responsible for the spread of AIDS in the black community and equated some American wartime activities to terrorism.

 

Obama has said he was not present for the controversial sermons by Wright or Pfleger and had condemned both — most recently saying he was "deeply disappointed" by Pfleger's "divisive, backward-looking rhetoric."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...versial-church/

 

Dumb Redneck Guy says...

 

"Does this mean he ain't a Muslim no more?"

 

______________________________

 

Also, Factcheck.org weighs in on Mrs. Clinton's bullshit...

Clinton Spins Her Donors

May 30, 2008

She claims recent national polls "consistently" show she'd win in November. That's not true.

Summary

The debt-strapped Clinton campaign is appealing for money with an e-mail telling potential donors that polls "consistently" show she would beat McCain in November, and that she's leading Obama in the popular vote. We find both claims are misleading.

 

A number of recent polls actually show Clinton tied with McCain, or even trailing. For most of 2008, polls have shown McCain ahead.

 

 

She can claim to have won more votes than Obama only by counting Michigan, a primary where Obama was not on the ballot and which Clinton once said "isn't going to count for anything."

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/cl...her_donors.html

 

______________________________

 

The Democratic Party Rules Committee just voted to seat all of Florida's delegates with half votes each. They are still bickering about Michigan. And Harold Ickes really likes saying "you bet your ass."

Edited May 31, 2008 by SuperJerk

[SuperJerk 0]

Party seats Fla., Mich. delegations

Compromise gives each delegate half a vote at convention

The Associated Press

updated 6:13 p.m. CT, Sat., May. 31, 2008

WASHINGTON - Democratic party officials said a committee agreed Saturday on a compromise to seat Michigan and Florida delegates with half-votes after Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton failed to get enough support to force their positions through.

 

The deal was reached after committee members met privately for more than three hours, trying to hammer out a deal, and announced in a raucous hearing that reflected deep divisions within the party. The sticking point was Michigan, where Obama's name was not on the ballot.

 

Clinton's camp insisted Obama shouldn't get any pledged delegates in Michigan since he chose not to put his name on the ballot, and she should get 73 pledged delegates with 55 uncommitted. Obama's team insisted the only fair solution was to split the pledged delegates in half between the two campaigns, with 64 each.

 

The committee agreed on a compromise offered by the Michigan Democratic Party that would split the difference, allowing Clinton to take 69 delegates and Obama 59. Each delegate would get half a vote at the convention in Denver this summer, according to the deal.

 

They also agreed to seat the Florida delegation based on the outcome of the January primary, with 105 pledged delegates for Clinton and 67 for Obama, but with each delegate getting half a vote as a penalty.

 

The resolution increased the number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination to 2,118, leaving Obama 66 delegates short but still within striking distance after the three final primaries are held in the next three days.

 

Obama picked up a total of 32 delegates in Michigan, including superdelegates who have already committed, and 36 in Florida. Clinton picked up 38 in Michigan, including superdelegates, and 56.5 in Florida.

 

Obama's total increased to 2,052, and Clinton had 1,877.5, according to The Associated Press calculations.

 

'Party of inclusion'

A proposal favored by Clinton that would have fully seated the Florida delegation fully in accordance with the January primary went down with 12 votes in support and 15 against.

 

Tina Fluornoy, who led Clinton's efforts to seat both states' delegations with full voting power, said she was disappointed by the outcome but knew the Clinton position had "no chance" of passing the committee.

 

"I understand the rules. ... I can tell you one thing that has driven these rules was being a party of inclusion," Fluornoy said. "I wish my colleagues will vote differently."

 

The committee unanimously approved a measure supported by the Obama campaign that sat the delegates according to Clinton's winning vote in the Florida contest, but penalized the delegation by allowing each only half a vote.

 

"We just blew the election!" a woman in the audience shouted. The crowd was divided between cheering Obama supporters and booing Clinton supporters.

 

 

"This isn't unity! Count all the votes!" another audience member yelled.

 

Alice Huffman, a Clinton supporter on the committee, explained that the compromise was the next best thing to full seating.

 

"We will leave here more united than we came," she said.

 

Some audience members heckled her in response. "Lipstick on a pig!" one shouted.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24905193/

 

The article doesn't mention the shouts of "Denver! Denver!" and Ickes stating Sen. Clinton has the option of taking this to the credentials committee at the convention.

 

The only thing missing was someone yelling "Don't taze me, bro!"

[snuffbox 0]

I spent most of Saturday watching it all. Quite entertaining at points.

 

Also, what will the Liberal Media have to talk about constantly now that Barack Obama has left the Trinity Church?

[BUTT 0]

He left the Trinity Church to join Islam!

[SuperJerk 0]

I spent most of Saturday watching it all. Quite entertaining at points.

 

Also, what will the Liberal Media have to talk about constantly now that Barack Obama has left the Trinity Church?

Immediately following the Obama press conference this evening, Fox News got Hannity on the phone so he could ask why it took Obama 20 years to leave the church and talk about Obama's connections to people who cheered 9/11. I'm not kidding.

[snuffbox 0]

Was he able to mention Bill Ayers' name in there as well?

[Guest Vitamin X]

He left the Trinity Church to join Islam!

 

Beat me to it. Obviously, B.O. Hussein is showing his true colors now.

[godthedog 0]

i watched about an hour of it. mark brewer is a smart guy, who spoke very well.

 

harold ickes is scum.

[snuffbox 0]

He left the Trinity Church to join Islam!

 

Beat me to it. Obviously, B.O. Hussein is showing his true colors now.

 

Can you link us to a Wikipedia entry or a Charles Krauthammer article to prove it?

[AndrewTS 0]

Was he able to mention Bill Ayers' name in there as well?

 

You mean William "ADMITTED TERRORIST AND BARACK OBAMA'S BEST FRIEND" Ayers, right? I think that's his legal name now, or something, the way Hannity says it.

 

My favorite Hannity Obama-trolling moment is when he tried to Jaywalk up the dumbest Obama supporters he could find, although they curiously were not black or latte-sipping libs.

 

The resolution increased the number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination to 2,118, leaving Obama 66 delegates short but still within striking distance after the three final primaries are held in the next three days.

 

...

 

Obama's total increased to 2,052, and Clinton had 1,877.5, according to The Associated Press calculations.

 

So this should finally end in the next 2-3 days, finally.

[SuperJerk 0]

I'd like for someone to rake Sean Hannity over the proverbial coals for some of the positions HIS church has taken over the years. Except, when it comes to himself, he understands that you don't have to agree with everything your church believes or its leader says in order to belong to it. Too bad he's too much of a hypocrite to apply that understanding to others. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I'm not aware of any other time when a person's church made so much of a difference in his electability as president. Imagine if John F. Kennedy had been pressured to leave the Catholic Church, and then asked why he didn't do so sooner.

[2GOLD 0]

The resolution increased the number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination to 2,118, leaving Obama 66 delegates short but still within striking distance after the three final primaries are held in the next three days.

 

...

 

Obama's total increased to 2,052, and Clinton had 1,877.5, according to The Associated Press calculations.

 

So this should finally end in the next 2-3 days, finally.

 

Well unless something happens at the convention with this crazy thing about Michigan. I just KNEW Michigan is where the whole "party unity" thing was going to explode. And wow, it exploded. Crowd pissed off that Florida wasn't fully counted, pissed that Michigan was split the way it was [Clinton people are really mean] and just making it clear this circus is far from over. Oh no, it's only at the dancing Elephants. We've seen the clowns and the sword swallower, so all that is left is the tight rope act and the final parade.

 

Can Obama get the final 60 some in the last three and close this out or is it impossible he gets them?

[Markme123 0]

I'm 22. I'm a college student. I'm Latino. I'm a Democrat. I love Bill Clinton.

 

I will never vote for Hilary in any sort of election ever.

 

A few weeks ago when someone joked that Hilary was still in the race not because she could win but because she wants McCain to win, I laughed. Now, I'm not so sure that isn't her motivation. She is destorying her party, and i have to believe she knows that.

 

 

Ironic considering millions of young, Barack supporters will feel similarly if Hilary is the reason for the Dems losing in November.

[SuperJerk 0]

Thanks for the insight...

 

As far as the picture goes...I can't understand why someone supporting Clinton could be so vehemently opposed to Obama as the nominee, or vice versa. Its not like we're talking about a Goldwater/Rockefeller or a Truman/Thurmond size split on the issues.

 

 

New delegate totals, heading into Puerto Rico...

The new mathPosted: Saturday, May 31, 2008 8:31 PM by Domenico Montanaro

Filed Under: 2008, Michigan, Florida, Delegates

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro

 

Out of the day, Clinton got 87 pledged delegates to Obama's 63 for a net of 24. (52.5 to 33.5 out of Florida; 34.5 to 29.5 out of Michigan.)

 

Obama is now 62.5 delegates away from clinching the nomination with a new magic number 2,118. This is when the nine (cut to 4.5) Edwards pledged delegates (out of 13) in Florida, who have pledged to vote for Obama, are factored in. Without them, Obama would be 67 away.

 

Clinton, on the other hand, would need 238 delegates.

 

NBC NEWS has also now added officially 5.5 more superdelegates for Obama and 7.5 for Clinton (half of 8-6 for Clinton in FL; and 7-5 for her in MI).

 

Assuming Clinton and Obama split the remaining 86 delegates at stakes in Puerto Rico, South Dakota and Montana evenly (43 apiece), that would put Sen. Obama 19.5 away from clinching the nomination. (So, for all practical purposes, he would need about 20 superdelegates to hit the magic number.) Clinton would need 195.

 

The NBC NEWS Delegate Counts:

PLEDGED: 1712 to 1587

SUPERDELEGATES: 327 to 293

EDWARDS PL. DELEGATES: 16.5 to 0 (adding the 4.5 from Florida)

OVERALL: 2,055.5 to 1,880

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...31/1091679.aspx

[Markme123 0]

Thanks for the insight...

 

As far as the picture goes...I can't understand why someone supporting Clinton could be so vehemently opposed to Obama as the nominee, or vice versa. Its not like we're talking about a Goldwater/Rockefeller or a Truman/Thurmond size split on the issues.

 

I only say that because I honestly feel she is fucking her party over for her own personal gain. Not that personal gain is foreign to politics, but when the world knows you are disingenuous... come on. I can't, in good conscience, vote for someone I know is so self-serving. That's my own reasoning.

[spiny norman 0]

Thanks for the insight...

 

As far as the picture goes...I can't understand why someone supporting Clinton could be so vehemently opposed to Obama as the nominee, or vice versa. Its not like we're talking about a Goldwater/Rockefeller or a Truman/Thurmond size split on the issues.

 

I only say that because I honestly feel she is fucking her party over for her own personal gain. Not that personal gain is foreign to politics, but when the world knows you are disingenuous... come on. I can't, in good conscience, vote for someone I know is so self-serving. That's my own reasoning.

 

But you can, in good conscience, vote for the person you think'd be a better president, based on their policies and whatnot?

 

Is that so novel an idea?