That whole thing he said about how he's the one in first place and Clinton was offering him the sidekick gig was awesome. I think that's contributing to his success at the present moment. If he can do even marginally well in PA he's going to sew this thing up.

She also ripped Obama in a debate about not being in any meetings for the position he just took, yet she was probably in VERY little meetings outside her health care responsibilities as first lady (which failed BTW).
His subcommittee is a none-of-the-above potpourri kinda thing. It met less than once a year long before he ever took over. Theoretically, it has broad jurisdiction. But in practice, it's for issues that there aren't more specialized committees or subcommittees for. So yeah, you could talk about NATO or EU trade in Obama's subcommittee, but you're much more likely to talk about it in the Armed Services Committee or Finance Committees. Topics of recent past hearings of Obama's subcommittee before he took it over include anti-semitism and worldwide standards for the disabled. While these are important matters, they're not earthshattering.

Often, issues get referred to or yanked from subcommittees, depending on their magnitude. If denouncing what the Ottoman Empire 80 years did to Armenians is going to create an international incident with Turkey, it isn't going to be on a piddly subcommittee, nor should it be. What issues you have on your plate are a function of the committee chair atop you as much as stuff you might want to initiate. Joe Biden, overall chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, was also running for president at the time, and wouldn't have given Obama any daylight on "big" issues at the time.

Of course, it's hard to explain all this insider crap. Even when you do, it just makes Obama look small in the cog of the Senate machine, which he is. This was a subcommittee that was intended for first-term senators doing odd jobs, nothing more or less.

An update today on the Michigan and Florida situation. Here are the important parts (with "..." as I skip the parts we already know):


"The results of those primaries were fair and they should be honored," Clinton (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/hillary.clinton.html) told a breakfast gathering hosted by the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Foundation in Washington.

...Various ideas have been suggested -- including a mail-in vote or even a do-over, but political leaders have been unable to reach a consensus.

Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida has called for a mail-in primary in which voters would express their preference for Clinton or Obama. After he met with Democrats in Florida's House delegation on Tuesday night, however, that prospect seemed less likely, CNN's Dana Bash reported.

"Our House delegation is opposed to a mail-in campaign or any redo of any kind," the state's Democratic House delegation said in a statement sent by the office of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

The statement said, "We are committed to working with the DNC, the Florida State Democratic Party, our Democratic leaders in Florida and our two candidates to reach an expedited solution that ensures our 210 delegates are seated."

...Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, also has said he doesn't think there is a fair way to redo the vote in his state.

"There's no way to have a primary. That's state law. That can't be changed, and that can't be paid for," Levin said Sunday on ABC's "This Weekend."

Levin said a mail-in caucus is one possibility, but "there's some real problems with that, too."

"Not just cost, but the security issue. How do you make sure that hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million or more ballots, can be properly counted and that duplicate ballots can be avoided?"

Yep, here we go. For a candidate who's squaking as much as Obama about "change", she's doing pretty well for herself pulling some old-guard political tactics out of that "A" cup bra of hers.

This is a person who's not so different from Bush. Refuses to admit wrongdoing. Let's her pride cloud her judgement. Talks out of both her mouth and her ass...concurrently!

As far as "experience" goes... well, there's really nothing that can prepare you for a job as leader of the free world. Being the Governor of Georgia, Governor of California, Governor of Texas, etc. is quite different from assuming a role that, if not handled properly, could lead to the end of civilization. The only Prez in the past couple of decades who DID have adequate experience was George H. Bush (CIA, VP). But, alas, he was a tool... you can't make up for that (points to supermarket barcode scanner, "What's that?").

More important than experience is JUDGEMENT. Choosing the correct cabinet to surround you. Setting the table properly in the first 100 days. Understanding when to compromise and when to hold steadfast. Working out solutions, rather than imposing them.

I simply have a bad feeling Hillary will be WORSE than GWB in just about every category. If she gets the nom, I'm voting for McCain without a second thought.

Yep, here we go. For a candidate who's squaking as
much as Obama about "change", she's doing pretty well for herself pulling some old-guard political tactics out of that "A" cup bra of hers.
She's doing so well that she's behind 53%-47% in pledged delegates with 84% of them already having voted (or only 77% if FL and MI have do-overs). She can't win a majority of states. She has less popular vote as well (though it's difficult to say exactly how much less, given that many caucus states don't count quite so closely). And Obama continues to poll better than her against McCain for the most part. Her big comeback netted her 6 delegates or less.

The only things that keep her in are the Clinton name and the Republicans who want to prop a her up just to tear her down. Her "tactics" consist of acting like those Republicans she's supposed to be against, and the real Republicans will vote for McCain in the end. This is the part of the dance where party elders should anoint Obama and give her the choice of the pasture or the woodshed. Being a Clinton has spared her that.


I simply have a bad feeling Hillary will be WORSE than GWB in just about every category. If she gets the nom, I'm voting for McCain without a second thought.
One argument says "vote for her, then we won't get wingnut Supreme Court justices". Another argument says "don't vote for her, or we'll get some huge Republican majority in Congress in 2010, like what happened in 1994". Which one is worse? I think it's kinda moot in Michigan, as she'd lose here. But I doubt she gets on a presidential ticket in any form.

As far as "experience" goes... well, there's really nothing that can prepare you for a job as leader of the free world. Being the Governor of Georgia, Governor of California, Governor of Texas, etc. is quite different from assuming a role that, if not handled properly, could lead to the end of civilization. The only Prez in the past couple of decades who DID have adequate experience was George H. Bush (CIA, VP). But, alas, he was a tool... you can't make up for that (points to supermarket barcode scanner,


Obama also has more exprience than her hubby had when he was elected. Clinton was never a senator of any kind, just a governor.

Obama also has more exprience than her hubby had when he was elected. Clinton was never a senator of any kind, just a governor.

Bill Maher had some fun with that last week on his show.

Are you guys watching Maher on HBO?

It's some great, great TV during election season.

i didnt like real talk when it came out, buts getting better.

the whole experience card is probably the most overrated aspect of this election. for one, while hilary has been on the scene and knows how it works, clearly, its unclear how much executive experience she actually has.

but the reason its overrated is because there are probably as many negatives as positives to having DC experience.

more, i'd take judgement over experience any day. lincoln wasnt exactly the most experienced and he did alright...

Obama also has more exprience than her hubby had when he was elected. Clinton was never a senator of any kind, just a governor.
Bill Clinton had more elected experience than Obama does -- 13 years to Obama's 11 years.

Note that there hasn't been a president since Truman who has had elected experience in BOTH federal and state/local office. This is one big reason I initially liked Bill Richardson, before he (surprisingly) turned into a big ol' gaffe machine on the big stage.

I guess it shouldn't be surprising that Ferraro "resigned" from Hil's campaign.

i loved the way she went out. quitting so she could say whatever she wanted.

the best was that she went out saying barack should appologize to her, and that he better change his ways if he wants her to fundraise for him, should he get the nomination. what world does she live in?

I heard on the radio yesterday that one of options Florida is considering is calling it a tie. lol Hey, its cheap.

i loved the way she went out. quitting so she could say whatever she wanted.
Just the day before, Ferraro claimed she wasn't part of Hillary's campaign so she couldn't quit something she wasn't part of.


the best was that she went out saying barack should appologize to her, and that he better change his ways if he wants her to fundraise for him, should he get the nomination. what world does she live in?
She still owes $500k from her campaign for Senate 10 years ago.

Here is a summary of Hillary's "Foreign Experience" from factcheck:


On March 6 Hillary Clinton claimed that, unlike Barack Obama, she and likely Republican nominee John McCain have "cross[ed] the commander-in-chief threshold." In a CNN interview the day before, Clinton had listed five foreign policy accomplishments. We can't determine how much behind-the-scenes work Clinton did while first lady, and she certainly took an active interest in foreign policy when her husband was president. Moreover, her time as first lady plus her longer Senate career do give Clinton more foreign policy experience than Obama. But the public record of her actions shows that many of Clinton's foreign policy claims are exaggerated.

Clinton claims to have "negotiated open borders" in Macedonia to fleeing Kosovar refugees. But the Macedonian border opened a full day before she arrived, and her meetings with Macedonian officials were too brief to allow for much serious negotiating.
Clinton's activities "helped bring peace to Northern Ireland." Irish officials are divided as to how helpful Clinton's actions were, and key players agree that she was not directly involved in any actual negotiations.
Clinton has repeatedly referenced her "dangerous" trip to Bosnia. She fails to mention, however, that the Bosnian war had officially ended three months before her visit – or that she made the trip with her 16-year-old daughter and two entertainers.
Both Bill and Hillary Clinton claim that Hillary privately championed the use of U.S. troops to stop the genocide in Rwanda. That conversation left no public record, however, as U.S. policy was explicitly to stay out of Rwanda, and officials say that the use of U.S. troops was never considered. Clinton's tough speech on human rights delivered to a Beijing audience is as advertised, though Clinton herself has been dismissive of speeches that aren't backed by solutions.

In responce to this:


"The results of those primaries were fair and they should be honored," Clinton (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/hillary.clinton.html) told a breakfast gathering hosted by the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Foundation in Washington.
Obama had this to say (paraphrased from what I saw on TV):

If that is the way she feels then maybe they should just skip the whole primary process and simply pick their nomination by the polls months ago. If they did that, she would have already been the nominee at this point. But, as the campaings rolled on and people got to know him clearly they started voting for him. So why does she want to count the votes of a bunch of people that never heard his message, and couldn't even vote for him (at least in Michigan).

Also, on KO's show they had the actual signed document by Hillary Clinton pledging not to campaign or participate in any primaries not sanctioned by the DNC in their approved time frames. Yet she still put her name on Michigan's ballot even though she said last night that it was "their choice whether or not to be on the ballot and Barack chose not to put his name on there"

Pretty funny line-item response to the latest Clinton letter by the Obama people:


From: Bill Burton
Sent: Wed 3/12/2008 6:36 PM
To: Bill Burton
Subject: FW: The Clinton Memo... as annotated by the Obama communicationsdepartment

To: Interested Parties

From: Clinton Campaign

Date: Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Re: Keystone Test: Obama Losing Ground
[Get ready for a good one.]

The path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania so if Barack Obama can't win there, how will he win the general election?

[Answer: I suppose by holding obviously Democratic states like California and New York, and beating McCain in swing states like Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia and Wisconsin where Clinton lost to Obama by mostly crushing margins. But good question.]

After setbacks in Ohio and Texas, Barack Obama needs to demonstrate that he can win the state of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is the last state with more than 15 electoral votes on the primary calendar and Barack Obama has lost six of the seven other largest states so far - every state except his home state of Illinois.

[If you define "setback" as netting enough delegates out of our 20-plus-point wins in Mississippi and Wyoming to completely erase any delegate advantage the Clinton campaign earned out of March 4th, then yeah, we feel pretty setback.]

Pennsylvania is of particular importance, along with Ohio, Florida and Michigan, because it is dominated by the swing voters who are critical to a Democratic victory in November. No Democrat has won the presidency without winning Pennsylvania since 1948. And no candidate has won the Democratic nomination without winning Pennsylvania since 1972.

[What the Clinton campaign secretly means: PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT WE'VE LOST 14 OF THE LAST 17 CONTESTS AND SAID THAT MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA WOULDN'T COUNT FOR ANYTHING. Also, we're still trying to wrap our minds around the amazing coincidence that the only "important" states in the nominating process are the ones that Clinton won.]

But the Obama campaign has just announced that it is turning its attention away from Pennsylvania.

[Huh?]

This is not a strategy that can beat John McCain in November.

[I don't think Clinton's strategy of losing in state after state after promising more of the same politics is working all that well either.]

In the last two weeks, Barack Obama has lost ground among men, women, Democrats, independents and Republicans - all of which point to a candidacy past its prime.

["A candidacy past its prime." These guys kill me.]

For example, just a few weeks ago, Barack Obama won 68% of men in Virginia, 67% in Wisconsin and 62% in Maryland. He won 60% of Virginia women and 55% of Maryland women. He won 62% of independents in Maryland, 64% in Wisconsin and 69% in Virginia. Obama won 59% of Democrats in Maryland, 53% in Wisconsin and 62% in Virginia. And among Republicans, Obama won 72% in both Virginia and Wisconsin.

But now Obama's support has dropped among all these groups.

[That's true, if you don't count all the winning we've been up to. As it turns out, it's difficult to maintain 40-point demographic advantages, even over Clinton]

In Mississippi, he won only 25% of Republicans and barely half of independents. In Ohio, he won only 48% of men, 41% of women and 42% of Democrats. In Texas, he won only 49% of independents and 46% of Democrats. And in Rhode Island, Obama won just 33% of women and 37% of Democrats.

[I'm sympathetic to their attempt to parse crushing defeats. And I'm sure Rush Limbaugh's full-throated endorsement of Clinton didn't make any difference. Right]

Why are so many voters turning away from Barack Obama in state after state?

[You mean besides the fact that we're ahead in votes, states won and delegates?]

In the last few weeks, questions have arisen about Obama's readiness to be president. In Virginia, 56% of Democratic primary voters said Obama was most qualified to be commander-in-chief. That number fell to 37% in Ohio, 35% in Rhode Island and 39% in Texas.

[Only the Clinton campaign could cherry pick states like this. But in contrast to their logic, in the most recent contest of Mississippi, voters said that Obama was more qualified to be commander in chief than Clinton by a margin of 55-42.]

So the late deciders - those making up their minds in the last days before the election - have been shifting to Hillary Clinton. Among those who made their decision in the last three days, Obama won 55% in Virginia and 53% in Wisconsin, but only 43% in Mississippi, 40% in Ohio, 39% in Texas and 37% in Rhode Island.

[If only there were enough late deciders for the Clinton campaign to actually be ahead, they would really be on to something.]

If Barack Obama cannot reverse his downward spiral with a big win in Pennsylvania, he cannot possibly be competitive against John McCain in November.

[If they are defining downward spiral as a series of events in which the Clinton campaign has lost more votes, lost more contests and lost more delegates to us - I guess we will have to suffer this horribly painful slide all the way to the nomination and then on to the White House.

Thanks for the laughs guys. This was great.]

deliciously snarky

It looks like Michigan will have a full-on state run Primary June 3rd. The only peeps that can't vote are the peeps who voted in the Republican primary.

So can you vote in either primary in Michigan?

This latest stab at a Michigan re-do is amusing:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5igrYLRrHG3P6lIbs2E7pSH0bxhvgD8VDCLS80

As near as I can figure, the Michigan Dems wants to pay the state to run a primary, presumably so they can exclude the folks who already voted R in the first primary. To do this would require legislator support. The key point is -- why would the Republican state senate would vote for such a thing?! Here's something from yesterday:

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080313/POLITICS01/803130392/1022/POLITICS


Matt Marsden, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, said Democrats have not approached GOP leadership about a redo primary. He said Bishop may not be inclined to go along if such a request is made.

"This is a democracy. We already had a primary. Some Democrats chose not to take part," Marsden said.

Today, they're saying:

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080313/METRO/803130480&imw=Y


Matt Marsden, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, said Thursday Senate GOP leaders and Democratic officials have had talks about a redo Democratic primary.

"If in order to right this situation we need to play a role in this, we will play a role," Marsden said. "But we will have a voice in how that happens

If I'm only approaching the Republican leadership NOW about this, either I:

a) managed to sucker two Republican state senators into voting for this, so it's pointless to resist and look like asses, OR
b) have some sort of bribe to force Republicans to accept this (but of course, such a bribe would be bad to Dems campaigning in November somehow), OR

Wow...BO's Preacher is a fuckhead. What a moron asswipe this guy is.

More of his cough cough...sermons are coming out and this guy is fucking looney toon.

Bill and Hillary's famous marriage counseling preacher during the Lewinsky years was hiding the fact that he cheated on his wife and had a kid behind her back, and referred to Jews as Hymies. McCain's latest preacher endorsement, John Hagee, is as batshit-crazy as Jeremiah Wright, and he kissed up to another toxic dipshit in Falwell.

What does someone endorsing McCain have to do with BO's preacher being a douchebag?

I think what Unc is saying is that a lot of preachers are douchebags, and it's not just Obama's problem.

And what I'm saying is that a douchebag preacher endorsing someone is way way fucking different then going to this church and having that douchebag be your spiritual leader.

Look, I want a choice in November. This could hurt BO in a huge way. He needs to handle this well and he hasn't so far.

This preacher is a bigot. BO chooses to go to this church. If BO wants to keep up the good work, he can't just denounce a statement here or there.

BO has sort of transcended race in this country and that is part of his apeal to supporters imo. For him to keep maintain this support, I think he needs to come out and talk about his, not just issue a prepared statement here or there.

I think this is huge and really fucked up if it hurts his chances.

They all have religious batshit-crazies in their circles if you dig. It's hard to conclude much other than it comes with politics. Jeremiah Wright is Oprah's preacher too, long before Obama came on the scene, and was batshit-crazy then. It didn't do squat to her rep (and in fact, it'd be helpful if she spoke out on this). Team Bush had armies of batshit crazies like Wright. McCain decided to convert religion on short notice in the name of pandering. Ugh.

I thought BO said today that he condems those words and words like that were never uttered in the 20 years he attended that church. What more can he say? He never listened to a message like that according to him.

Look, I want a choice in November. This could hurt BO in a huge way. He needs to handle this well and he hasn't so far.

This preacher is a bigot. BO chooses to go to this church. If BO wants to keep up the good work, he can't just denounce a statement here or there.

BO has sort of transcended race in this country and that is part of his apeal to supporters imo. For him to keep maintain this support, I think he needs to come out and talk about his, not just issue a prepared statement here or there.

I think this is huge and really fucked up if it hurts his chances.
BTW, the daily Gallup poll has trended UP for Obama in the 2 days since this came out.

BTW, the daily Gallup poll has trended UP for Obama in the 2 days since this came out.

Thats way WAY to early for this to take an effect.

I'll admit it, if I'm wrong, but if he doesn't handle this correctly, this could sink him.

That's daily. They're polling people every day to get that data, precisely so they can track breaking news. I was kinda amazed that his polls actually went up, but the Ferraro and Spitzer things have gotten play too, neither of which helps Hillary.

I thought BO said today that he condems those words and words like that were never uttered in the 20 years he attended that church. What more can he say? He never listened to a message like that according to him.

If thats all the voting public needs, then this isn't as big an issue as I think it is.

But the Church's own CDs they sell, with Rev Wright sermons, have him saying this stuff. I find it hard to believe that BO wasn't around for some of these things.

BTW...you know the story is growing when first you have a deputy communications person issue a statement, then you main Communications guy issues a statement that BO denounces, and now BO has issued his 3rd statement( I think its his 3rd) denouncing these things.

Hillary will pounce on this if the news outlets let up on it.

That's daily. They're polling people every day to get that data, precisely so they can track breaking news. I was kinda amazed that his polls actually went up, but the Ferraro and Spitzer things have gotten play too, neither of which helps Hillary.

but some of the sermons were out for the first time today. Its fucked up, but its politics.

The operating theory for Obama's bounce is that people now know he's not Muslim. Honest!

My operating theory is that the Dems finally are seeing that Hillary will do anything to get elected.

Yeah, but that'd put people in the "undecided" camp, typically, and not to Obama's benefit. Obama just broke 50% on -daily- Gallup tracking polls in the days this came out, something he's NEVER done before. He'll take a hit over the weekend, as a function of old people overrepresented on the weekends. It'll be interesting to see how that develops, though. I think Obama talking about faith could prove to be a good thing.

Yeah, but that'd put people in the "undecided" camp, typically, and not to Obama's benefit. Obama just broke 50% on -daily- Gallup tracking polls in the days this came out, something he's NEVER done before. He'll take a hit over the weekend, as a function of old people overrepresented on the weekends. It'll be interesting to see how that develops, though. I think Obama talking about faith could prove to be a good thing.

Saw the report on it.

We'll see...

I think what Unc is saying is that a lot of preachers are douchebags, and it's not just Obama's problem.

i'd like zip to weigh in on this comment.

The operating theory for Obama's bounce is that people now know he's not Muslim. Honest!

this one made me laugh at how depressingly true this statement is.

BO was just on FoxNews and I thought he answered the questions pretty well. I don't think BO believes ANY of the shit his pastor said(and it is shit), but he was late to denounce them.

In a way its a shame he had to be associated with Wright politically, but then again BO says it was Wright that helped him find Jesus.

So hopefully this doesn't derail a good candidate like BO.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/on-my-faith-and-my-church_b_91623.html

obama put out the dl on rezko. smart move by him. with 5 1/2 weeks til the next vote, going into the weekend (especially one where many people plan on getting wasted), and with the pastor already the main issue, good time to get this out of the way. doesnt put it to bed, but better to have it in the news cycles now than probably any other time.

news.google.com, a decent barometer of "what's hot or not", has "Obama denounces", Obama actively against his old preacher dude, as opposed to leading with the batshit-crazy preacher himself. It's already slid behind the tornado in Atlanta, CNN-country. Most people that didn't "know" he was a Muslim already knew he had a "black power" kind of preacher, and may have even heard of the guy if they were Oprah chicks. Even FoxNews leads with "Obama slams sermors" -- successful language -- in contrast to the "Hillary tries to shake racist charges" which isn't nearly as effective sounding.

FoxNews did a story about the story and CNN was about the only other news outlet that covered it. Stewart Anderson 360 ??? covered it apologetically.

So I was wrong. There is a double standard in this country. No big.

What do you mean by double standard?

Barack to respond to this stupid shit on Hannity and Colmes here shortly, apparently. Fucking Fox News and their malarkey...

Fox News is fucking ridiculous...

Now they are just shoving words in his mouth. WT.... They showed McCain's preacher talking shit about gays and America being the end for Islam and just totally say "that's not important" "that's a non sequitur."

This is awful, awful, awful.

Barack said he knew of a few of the statements and they are saying... fuck this shit...

lol. unbelievable. Yeah, let's corner a democrat with three republicans and see how it works out. Interrupt and make fun with stupidity! Raw haw har.

I realize this will not make sense to anyone who is not watching Fox News right now.

hahaha. the sad thing is I agree with (a select) few of the things that Wright was preaching about that they just showed.

They keep saying Barack "said he knew nothing about the comments" when that simply is not true. He recognized before and tonight said he recognized a few of them. Ugh.

Barack to respond to this stupid shit on Hannity and Colmes here shortly, apparently. Fucking Fox News and their malarkey...
I'm pretty sure that was a replay. He was on Hannity & Colmes just last night.

In news that happened today, as part of Iowa's caucusing process, Obama gained 7 delegates while Clinton gained only 1, all at Edwards' expense. Hillary dissing the caucus states appears to have been a bad thing.

Probably. Didn't think news channels did replays though?

Go caucus!

Clinton backs Michigan revote plan

By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer
Sun Mar 16, 5:10 AM ET

SCRANTON, Penn. - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton Saturday said she supported an effort by Michigan Democrats to hold a new primary in June.

"It needs to get resolved and hopefully Michigan by the end of this week will have done that," Clinton told reporters on her campaign plane between stops in Pennsylvania. "I think they are moving in an appropriate direction to have a revote."

Under a plan being finalized by several Democratic members of Congress and other party leaders in Michigan, the state would hold a new primary in early June — most likely on June 3 — that would allow its delegates to be seated at the party's national convention this summer in Denver. The state Legislature is expected to take up the matter next week.

The Democratic National Committee punished Michigan and Florida for moving up their primaries before Feb. 5, stripping them of all their delegates. The two states have been struggling to come up with alternative plans, but Michigan appears closer to resolving the matter.

Clinton won the Michigan primary on Jan. 15 and has said she would like those results to stand. But Obama removed his name from the ballot after the DNC stripped the state of delegates for moving up its primary and did not campaign there.

Clinton also won Florida's primary on Jan. 29, where both candidates names were on the ballot but neither campaigned in the state at the request of the DNC.

"I feel really strongly about it," Clinton said. "The 2.5 million people (in Michigan and Florida) who voted deserve to be counted. If it were my preference, we'd count their votes but if not, then they should have the opportunity to have a full-fledged primary waged for them and revote."

Obama currently leads Clinton among overall delegates, 1603 to 1497, and his campaign has been openly skeptical of Clinton's eagerness to seat the delegations from the two disputed states. Spokesman Tommy Vietor Saturday said the campaign was open to a "fair and practical" resolution of the conflict.

"Hillary Clinton said in October the Michigan primary would not 'count for anything.' Now she is trying to change the rules and claim the votes of the primary she said didn't count should be counted," Vietor said. "We will evaluate the details of any new proposed election carefully as well as any efforts to come to a fair seating of the delegates from Michigan."

Clinton marched in two St. Patrick's Day parades Saturday in Pittsburgh and Scranton. In Pittsburgh, she walked the mile-long parade route alongside the city's mayor, Luke Ravenstahl; Gov. Ed Rendell, and Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato. Dozens of supporters waving "Hillary 08" shamrocks and green "Clinton Country" signs led the crowd in rousing cheers.

"Happy St. Patrick's Day, Pittsburgh. This is a great parade," Clinton shouted into a microphone near the end of the parade. "Let the luck of the Irish be with us all."

Pennsylvania holds its primary April 22, the next big prize in the nomination race between Clinton and Obama.

Also Saturday, the former first lady said her primary wins in big states like Ohio showed she would be a stronger candidate in the general election against Republican John McCain. Clinton has won just 17 contests compared to 29 for Obama, but her campaign has said many of the states Obama won would not be competitive for Democrats in November.

"I don't think anyone doubts that a Democrat has to have a number of the big states anchored in order to put together the electoral votes needed to win," Clinton said. "I think it is significant that I won Ohio, that I won Florida, I've won the big states that serve as anchors on the electoral map. And I also think it's significant because those states represents a much broader cross section of the voters we're going to need to win in the fall."

Clinton refused to comment on new information about Obama's relationship with Antoin Rezko, a former political patron on trial for felony fraud charges. In interviews with two Chicago newspapers published Saturday, the Illinois senator disclosed he had accepted $250,000 in campaign donations from Rezko — about $100,000 more than had previously been disclosed.

But on a conference call with reporters, Clinton senior strategist Mark Penn said the new information pointed to a "troubling pattern" of obfuscation.

"We're finding out on Rezko, much of what he said turns out to be just words as we learn more and more information," Penn said.

Obama "has talked about the politics of hope, but he has throughout this campaign launched a series of personal attacks on Senator Clinton, calling her disingenuous," Penn said. "We think now the real question before us is to Senator Obama, is, 'Will you make full disclosure of all this information related to the Rezko matter? Will you put to rest all these troubling questions?'"

As for the Rezko stuff, Obama came clean to even the satisfaction of the Chicago Tribune, the right-leaning newspaper (like the Detroit News is to the Freep) who dug up the story and made the most substantive noise about this by far. At the end, they damn near gave Obama a blowjob in print, which is as surprising as their endorsing Obama at all (the right-leaning NY Post, by contrast, endorsed Obama in Hillary's so-called "home town"):

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0316edit1mar16,0,2616801.story


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

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


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

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

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


Barack Obama now has spoken about his ties to Tony Rezko in uncommon detail. That's a standard for candor by which other presidential candidates facing serious inquiries now can be judged.

Here's the actual transcript of the interview:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-obamafullwebmar16,0,7569169.story

And here's all the paperwork Hillary's folks claim Obama hasn't disclosed:

http://answercenter.barackobama.com/cgi-bin/barackobama.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=174&p_created=1205534256&p_sid=i5jdVI-i&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=173&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX 3Jvd19jbnQ9MiwyJnBfcHJvZHM9JnBfY2F0cz0wJnBfcHY9JnB fY3Y9JnBfcGFnZT0xJnBfc2VhcmNoX3RleHQ9cmVjb3Jkcw**&p_li=&p_topview=1

It's getting comical.

I was wondering why he was spending so much time in Chicago. I get the feeling this was "bad story week" for Obama, trying to dump out every last little bad thing with over a month before the next set of primaries, trying to disarm Republicans who've probably had this shit queued up. I wouldn't be surprised if was Team Obama themselves who leaked out that Rev. Wright business. Thus far, Obama's still leading in the Gallup tracking polls, so all his bad news doesn't appear to have done any real or lasting damage. More folks appear to know he's Christian than ever before, and it gives him an opening to talk religion, a topic he can talk sincerely about that McCain or Hillary can't.

yea, this is the ideal weak for bad news, if there is such a thing.

Fox News is fucking ridiculous...

Coming from your perspective, prolly so.

But any reasonable person knows that we've been fed liberal news for decades(and they fed us that crap as fair), so to finally have a news chanel to be fair and balanced it kind of bugs you.
this shit is fun
It really is a good chanel...to most of America that is.

btw...e-ray it was a preacher that endorsed McCain, not his pastor where he went to church. Its a non-sequitur.

So while your rant seemed to make sense, you wrong.

I was inebriated, FWIW. I was just taking some of the things I saw and trying to put them together. I though that they said it was McCain's pastor.

And to say Fox News is fair and balanced is laughable. Go watch Outfoxed then come talk.

Another thing that pissed me off about this whole fucking thing is I was with some white people yesterday and they were saying Wow, when it came to the Pastor, doesn't sound like church to me. And it won't take long for peeps to make the leap that all black churches are like that. I went to 2 black churches, one maybe about 8 times over almost a year and the other a couple less than that. I worked with this one chick, her parents were divorced and they went to seperate churches, so she did too and I went along. I was banging her but it we played the 'just friends card' and they bought it.

Anyway, I didn't hear any of that fucking stupidity in these churches. It was prolly the best experience I've ever had in a friggin church... and my dad helped start the church where I grew up.

This douche bag pastor needs to retire. ITs a good thing. He doesn't represent black churches in general imo. I have zero say-so as far as that goes but I have my own experience. This guy is out in pluto land.

He is retiring, from what I understand.

In news that happened today, as part of Iowa's caucusing process, Obama gained 9 delegates while Clinton lost 1, almost all at Edwards' expense. Hillary dissing the caucus states appears to have been a bad thing.
Fixed. Obama got +10 instead of +6 delegates in Iowa. They misunderestimated him.

I misremembered that Edwards' delegates could come over.

my understading is that flo will compromise. no re-vote, hilary will get 1/2 the delagtes she won in the original vote, so its a net of +19, which is reletively insignificant, plus she loses that argument towards the SD's.

if this is so, its just another huge blow to clinton. michigan is probably a split. so even if she picks up 40 delegates in pennsylvania, she's still looking at 100 delegate spread with alot of pro obama states left.

its too close to say hilary needs to drop out, but its too lopsided for hilary to win in any manner that would give her a legit victory that would be paletable to the entire democratic party.

im thinking that one day we will wake up and hilary will shockingly have withdrawn. but its far likelier she takes this thing to the very bitter end.

National TV news sucks, for the most part. The suckage has seeped into a lot of historically non-partisan print media, like AP. Fox sucks, but the alternatives have actively competed with Fox to suck harder. News outlets want to create news and ratings rather than report it, and they're lazy with how they go about creating news.

BTW, Fox doesn't always suck in comparison to the others. They did the best job of covering the Mississippi primary, AFAICT. And certainly, the Detroit area Fox 2 reporters aren't like the national ones. But at the end of the day, Fox is owned by biased Murdoch, with Viacom, GE, Time/Warner, and Disney all in the act with their own flavors of bias.

fox news is pretty bad, and down right criminal sometimes, but alot of times theyre the only ones talking about real issues while cnn has some fluff piece on like tina turner or some dumb shit that belongs on E!.

msnbc is alright, but i think theyre kind of melodramatic and embarressing sometimes. especially keith olbermann (who i kind of like, but also get annoyed by often).

really, bbc and pbs are he best place to go to news, imo.

NewsHour is the best news on television, bar none. The best part is that when guests are invited on, they are actually valuable and interesting, instead of just being there to promote their latest retarded book.

I've always been a fan of MTV News.
NOT SERIOUS

NewsHour is the best news on television, bar none. The best part is that when guests are invited on, they are actually valuable and interesting, instead of just being there to promote their latest retarded book.

jim lehrer is good. damn good.

and of course, the best interviewer on television is none other than charlie rose.

pbs in high definition is kind of unfortunate, though.

my understading is that flo will compromise. no re-vote, hilary will get 1/2 the delagtes she won in the original vote, so its a net of +19, which is reletively insignificant, plus she loses that argument towards the SD's.
No one really knows what the fuck will happen with Florida. Prominent Florida Democrats are throwing shit at the wall, seeing what sticks. The same goes for Michigan.

The issue with a do-over at this point is simple -- money. People with the big money can usually do math, which is how they end up with big money. They know that a do-over won't help either candidate enough to matter. Even the party heads know that. If the state parties try to fund with their warchests, it'll drain on their ability to fund other candidates in their state. This would've worked before 80% of the race was decided, but not now. All of the do-over plans thus far have one thing in common -- a nebulous supply of money.


its too close to say hilary needs to drop out, but its too lopsided for hilary to win in any manner that would give her a legit victory that would be paletable to the entire democratic party.
It's not really that close. Pledged delegate math is harsh and just gets harsher as all the caucus states she's dissed are going to rejigger to favor Obama. It won't be quite as extreme as Iowa which had all those Edwards delegates in play, but it'll sure be interesting to see how Nevada plays out. The superdelegates won't overturn the pledged delegates, either.


im thinking that one day we will wake up and hilary will shockingly have withdrawn. but its far likelier she takes this thing to the very bitter end.
No one has the balls to pull Hillary aside and say "it's hopeless". As long as Obama isn't totally burned by Hillary going nuclear, Howard Dean loves having this battle go everywhere because it builds up the party in all 50 states.

FoxNews usually beats the other outlets COMBINED. Cept for Hardball, I think.

The latest word is that Michigan Democrats want to delay school elections, currently happening in May, to accomodate another Democratic primary. This sorta makes sense, inasmuch as there's no fucking way the county clerks could have an election in May, then rush off to do another one in June. No one has shown them the money or resources. But it has big problems.

1) Unfortunately, the clerks already spun up a lot of stuff for a May election, because lots of shit has to happen 60 days before an election by law. It may require some sort of separate legislative act to have that stuff "count". Also, there's an August election (for all the non-presidential primaries) and the 60 days before that would smack right into the proposed primary timing. This may mean wedging into the August primary, which could be bad for candidates.

2) There are lots of bad and good aspects to many local schools have their elections happen in May. The bad? It's relatively costly, easy to hide stealth ballot proposals, etc. But, one big reason lots of schools still do this is because it lines up to the school year, and gives proper time for transition as needed. Delaying by a month cuts into that. In some cases, it's possible the schools may not want Democrats overweighing in on a ballot proposal.

In other words, Michigan Republicans have many valid reasons to not decide quickly in favor of some scheme that the Democrats have slapped together. If it doesn't happen early this week, before a two-week recess, it ain't gonna happen.

And of course, the main stream news isn't picking up on this much.

Honestly? At this point I'm pretty much of the opinion that Michigan can and should do nothing at all, and just let that retarded fake primary fizzle out. The MDP was told not to do what they did, let somebody live with the consequences of their actions for once.

Honestly? At this point I'm pretty much of the opinion that Michigan can and should do nothing at all, and just let that retarded fake primary fizzle out. The MDP was told not to do what they did, let somebody live with the consequences of their actions for once.

My problem with that is that there are a lot of people like me, who didn't vote in the last primary because it was obviously a sham. I want my vote to count for something meaningful, and I'm guessing that I'm not alone.

Why punish the voters of Michigan because some suits make a huge blunder?

My problem with that is that there are a lot of people like me, who didn't vote in the last primary because it was obviously a sham. I want my vote to count for something meaningful, and I'm guessing that I'm not alone.

Why punish the voters of Michigan because some suits make a huge blunder?
See, you're saying "voters" here, but these aren't "voters" in the same way that people who vote in a general election are "voters." People voting in a party primary only have the rights allocated to them by their state (which is generally not very much) and then after that, by the party (which allocates the rest). By rights, a state isn't required to hold a primary at all. They don't even need to hold a caucus. They could just get a group of bigwigs together in a smoky back room and make that decision if they wanted.

Basically, Michigan has a Democratic primary because the party decided a primary was a good idea. If at any point, they decide it's not a good idea, well, too bad for you. Ironically enough, there's nothing that requires them to actually be democratic in the selection of candidates - it's just a smart PR move.

Now, having said that, I sure wouldn't mind it for Michigan to have a primary, so I could vote in it. But I think it's quite justified that the state Dems get spanked for their stupidity. They're the ones who fucked up. It's not the DNC who fucked up, and Democrats should hold their state party accountable. They were warned, and whatever happens now is perfectly justifiable.

Thanks for the education, seriously.

I seem to do better when I think of things in simplistic terms.

Me want to vote = re-do primary good

Me want to vote = re-do primary good

Sounded a bit like Cookie Monster there, eh?

Carl Levin and Jennifer Granholm are the two big reasons you can't vote and have it count.

Levin's had a hard-on to crack the Iowa/NH racket since he was on the Munsters. He persists even though our last Democratic president won it WITHOUT winning either Iowa or NH. He persists even though this year, Iowa/NH was far from decisive (even for Edwards, who could've been kingmaker by sticking around through Super Tuesday). Levin's up for reelection. I'd be forcing him to take a pledge to never interfere in the Iowa/NH racket. I'd be doing the same for others up for re-election.

Especially since Levin didn't retire so she could have an easy ride to Senator, Granholm's had a nip-on to get into a cabinet slot and away from Michigan's woes. To do that, she had to back the right horse early and she backed Hillary. She cut a deal with Republicans (who had their own horse to back in Romney) and screwed constituents out of a fair hearing of all the candidates. She continues to cut deals with Republicans (enabling Crist in Florida with her joint statement) which screw their constituents, in the name of Hillary. She deserves a president not named Hillary.

LOL @ the Al Lewis comparison

I think lots of peeps feel like Glenn that don't even live in the state. The first go around was not legitimate. Hillary can tear up about the voters being disenfranchised in the first one, but what about the peeps didn't vote cuz she was the only person on the ballet?

I think lots of peeps feel like Glenn that don't even live in the state. The first go around was not legitimate. Hillary can tear up about the voters being disenfranchised in the first one, but what about the peeps didn't vote cuz she was the only person on the ballet?

and after she signed a document stating she would not partake in any contest not sanctioned by the DNC. It doesn't bug me that she put her name on the ballot since it didn't count. What bugs me is that she keeps saying that was a win.

Yep, and in trying to get it considered a win, she talks about the disenfranchment of the voters, when she knows in her heart that many didn't vote cuz of the confusion.

If things were reversed and BO was on the ballet and had more votes, you know she'd have a completely different take on it. Which is why they are the Clintons.

Bill and Hillary Clinton are not pro-Democratic, not pro-Left, not pro-Center, not pro-choice, not pro-worker, not pro-gun, not pro-black, not pro-Latino, not pro-church, not pro-anything.

They're pro-Clinton.

Obama's got her beat in all the areas that you and I can take part in - state delegates won in primaries and caucuses. Hillary CANNOT win in that way. The only way she can win is by talking the superdelegates into supporting her in spite of the decisions made in primaries and caucuses so far. This would basically cause an ugly split in the Democratic Party that would take a very long time to fix, if it could ever be fixed.

And yet Hillary Clinton is still in the race. Think about that for a moment.

Interesting and if the Politician Delegates (Dems call them super) take the race from the people, it really could destroy the party for a few years. There would be HUGE amounts of anger and resentment.

That said, there may be a silver lining to all of this...a 3rd party? It will take a huge war within either the Dem or Rep party for a 3rd party to emerge. This could(prolly not, but could) be the impitus for the creation of a 3rd party.

It would be worth it. The 2 parties have way too much control over the election process thats supposed to be about us.

I propose the name "Alpaca Party"

You'd have an elephant, a donkey and now, an alpaca

VOTE ALPACA

I think you might be on to something...

Interesting and if the Politician Delegates (Dems call them super) take the race from the people, it really could destroy the party for a few years. There would be HUGE amounts of anger and resentment.

That said, there may be a silver lining to all of this...a 3rd party? It will take a huge war within either the Dem or Rep party for a 3rd party to emerge. This could(prolly not, but could) be the impitus for the creation of a 3rd party.

It would be worth it. The 2 parties have way too much control over the election process thats supposed to be about us.
If the Dems split, there would be one populist/progressive wing and one douchebag/lobbyist wing. They would both lose the Presidency every 4 years because the Republicans, while not being a majority, would still be a plurality that got the most votes.

Congress would end up fractured, and majorities would have to be built through coalitions like they do in Canada. The Douchebags would probably vote with the GOP most of the time because that's where the lobbyist money is going. The populist wing would dry up and blow away if they weren't being supported by right-wing shadow groups and normally GOP fundraisers, because that's what would keep the governing coalition together, and themselves in control of it. The GOP wouldn't have to spend nearly as much money keeping themselves elected because they could just shift the focus to districts that used to be solidly Democratic, and are now being fought over between the Populists and the Douchebags.

Hillary is dream come true for people who want the Republicans in control forever. She may not realize it, but that's why she shouldn't be President.

I differ a little...I think there are more moderate minded Republicans than you give the GOP credit for. There are the McCainiacs that would support some of the Hillary/McCain types. Abortion, same sex marriage, etc keep the GOP fractured a lil.

So I agree there would be the BO supporters, which I consider fairly far left, but true Liberals, then the middle of the road peeps that would made up of moderate Republicans and conservative Dems and the far Right conservative on everything.

The latest word is that Michigan Democrats want to delay school elections, currently happening in May, to accommodate another Democratic primary.
They want to delay them to August, necessitating a bunch of localities to re-jigger term lengths of elected offices and specifics of ballot proposals.

There's apparently a $12 million fund to be set up for this. It looks like the state is essentially giving the party a short-term loan to consummate this.

I'm expecting righteous outrage by Republicans, unless there's some hell of a kickback I'm just not seeing. McCain is gaining ground in Michigan because Democrats can't sort this out. Unlike Florida, it's not at all clear that a new election would really favor Hillary. I'd cite all of the very legitimate issues with the Democratic proposal, then campaign about how Democrats are too stupid to count Michigan votes.

BTW, this requires two-thirds of both houses to pass, because it has to take "immediate effect".

It looks like Florida's vote-by-mail proposal is DOA, as well. In fact, every Florida proposal is DOA, so says the head of the FDP.

http://us.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/17/florida.primary.decision/index.html

In an e-mail sent to Florida Democrats late Monday afternoon, state party Chairwoman Karen Thurman said, "We researched every potential alternative process -- from caucuses to county conventions to mail-in elections -- but no plan could come anywhere close to being viable in Florida."

It looks like all proposals in Florida are dead.

MXY has yet to post a post about the Dems problems without including the Reps as the cause of the problems....just saying... :) sorry mxy.

Looks like BO will make a speach on the Reverend??? did I just hear that right?

The reverend where Oprah left cuz he was too radical.

MXY has yet to post a post about the Dems problems without including the Reps as the cause of the problems....just saying... :) sorry mxy.
Whatever problems the Dems have are because they did not successfully fend off the Republicans. What other kinds of problems could they have?

MXY has yet to post a post about the Dems problems without including the Reps as the cause of the problems....just saying... :) sorry mxy.
Hmmm... is this the post where I blame Michigan Democrats for the voting woes:


Carl Levin and Jennifer Granholm are the two big reasons you can't vote and have it count.

Or the post where I say Republicans are justified in telling Democrats to fuck off on their re-election plans:


In other words, Michigan Republicans have many valid reasons to not decide quickly in favor of some scheme that the Democrats have slapped together.

<confused>

I must have misremembered(e-ray term), cuz it seemed to me that you were blaming the Reps.

My bad. I officially say that Mxy does not blame the Reps for the Dems woes.

Favorability Ratings for Rev. Jeremiah Wright
Very Favorable
2%
Somewhat Favorable
6%
Somewhat Unfavorable
17%
Very Unfavorable
41%
Not Sure
33%

Do Wright's Remarks Make You More or Less Likely to Vote for Barack Obama?
More Likely
11%
Less Likely
56%
No Impact
30%
Not Sure
2%

LOL @ 11% who say it makes them more likely. I love polls.

Saw that. I also saw a poll taken post-Wright shows Obama is favored among registered Democrats, with numbers that surprised me:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/17/poll.democrats/index.html


Fifty-two percent of registered Democrats questioned in a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey say the senator from Illinois is their choice for president, with 45 percent supporting Clinton.

The poll also suggests Democrats are more enthusiastic about an Obama victory (45 percent) than for a victory by the senator from New York (38 percent).

I'm not losing much sleep over Wright once Obama gets past Hillary. Anyone opens that door with Obama and gets a greatest-hits of religious whack-jobs who McCain has sucked up to, without Obama lifting a finger. I suspect that Obama will connect with the true social conservatives as well as McCain, if not better.

Saw that. I also saw a poll taken post-Wright shows Obama is favored among registered Democrats, with numbers that surprised me:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/17/poll.democrats/index.html



I'm not losing much sleep over Wright once Obama gets past Hillary. Anyone opens that door with Obama and gets a greatest-hits of religious whack-jobs who McCain has sucked up to, without Obama lifting a finger. I suspect that Obama will connect with the true social conservatives as well as McCain, if not better.

We'll see...

They all have religious batshit-crazies in their circles if you dig. It's hard to conclude much other than it comes with politics. Jeremiah Wright is Oprah's preacher too, long before Obama came on the scene, and was batshit-crazy then. It didn't do squat to her rep (and in fact, it'd be helpful if she spoke out on this). Team Bush had armies of batshit crazies like Wright. McCain decided to convert religion on short notice in the name of pandering. Ugh.

Now I heard today that he Op left the church because of Wright? No?

Hmmm... I dug this up. Not sure how accurate it is, but the impression is that she left to form her own religion. I haven't seen anything in the past that says "she left because of Wright", not at all:

http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20051203/news/news5.html

Hmmm... I dug this up. Not sure how accurate it is, but the impression is that she left to form her own religion. I haven't seen anything in the past that says "she left because of Wright", not at all:

http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20051203/news/news5.html

She did start her own religion, its called the Oprah Winfrey Show... ba dum bum. I try.

I couldn't find anything that said that specifically either. I heard that today on radio coming home, so I can't verify it, but I did find some articles that said that after she left REPORTS SAID that Wright excoriated her for leaving.

I can't go on 'reports said' said the Ope leaving thing can't be verified. My bad.

obama put out the dl on rezko. smart move by him. with 5 1/2 weeks til the next vote, going into the weekend (especially one where many people plan on getting wasted), and with the pastor already the main issue, good time to get this out of the way. doesnt put it to bed, but better to have it in the news cycles now than probably any other time.

You are right. It was a good move.

95+% of what he said to the Chicago press was stuff he and his staff said before, often to the same Chicago press who wrote stories about it. There wasn't anything really "new", other than the fact that he was gathering them together and wearing them out as opposed to a competent editor. And, it wasn't something he could've done any earlier, simply because it'd have been dragged up by the opportunistic media once Rezko went to trial. Obama's handling of this says as much about modern journalism as it does about him.

Obama just gave a remarkable speech about race this morning. There were many concepts that didn't lend themselves to soundbites-as-usual. I'm sure there'll be gushing and grousing about the speech, but the so-called journalist response interests me as much as the speech itself. CNN's initial headline (until a gazillion people bitched) was:

"Obama: Constitution Stained by 'sin of slavery'"

This isn't news (unless 3/5ths of a person is a foreign concept), nor was it the central part of his speech by any definition. It's one thing to fixate on the pastor part, as Fox did and will continue to do. At least that's somewhat germake to what's being responded to. But this is the sort of crap that just shows the media at its most incompetent. They're not journalists, just tools.

I was on my way here to post the AP story.


Obama confronts racial division in US

By NEDRA PICKLER and MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writers

PHILADELPHIA - Democratic Sen. Barack Obama on Tuesday tried to stem damage from divisive comments delivered by his pastor, while bluntly addressing anger between blacks and whites in the most racially pointed speech yet of his presidential campaign.

Obama confronted America's legacy of racial division head on, tackling black grievance, white resentment and the uproar over his former pastor's incendiary statements. Drawing on his half-black, half-white roots as no other presidential hopeful could, Obama asserted: "This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected."

Obama expressed understanding of the passions on both sides in what he called "a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years."

"But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races," he said in a speech at the National Constitution Center, not far from where the Declaration of Independence was adopted.

Obama rarely talks so openly about his race in such a prominent way, but his speech covered divisions from slavery to the O.J. Simpson trial to the recovery efforts after Hurricane Katrina. He also recognized his race has been a major issue in the campaign that has taken a "particularly divisive turn" in the last few weeks as video of his longtime pastor spread on the Internet and on television.

Obama said the sermons delivered by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright "rightly offend white and black alike." Those sermons from years ago suggested the United States brought the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on itself and say blacks continue to be mistreated by whites.

While Obama rejected what Wright said, he also embraced the man who inspired his Christian faith, officiated at his wedding, baptized his daughters and has been his spiritual guide for nearly 20 years.

"I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community," Obama said, speaking in front of eight American flags. "I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother — a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."

Obama said he knew Wright to occasionally be a fierce critic of U.S. policy and that the pastor sometimes made controversially remarks in church that he disagreed with, but he said he never heard Wright talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms. The comments that have become a source of debate recently "were not only wrong but divisive" and have raised questions among voters, he said.

"I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and YouTube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way," he said. "But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man."

He said he came to Wright's church because he was inspired by Wright's message of hope and his inspiration to rebuild the black community.

Obama said Wright's comments have sparked a discussion that reflect complexities of race in the United States that its people have never really resolved.

"We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country," Obama said. "But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow."

Obama said anger over those injustices often find voice in black churches on Sunday mornings. "The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning," he said.

Obama argued that the anger often distracts from solving real problems and bringing change. But he said it also exists in some segments of the white community that feels blacks are often given an unfair advantage through affirmative action.

"If we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American," Obama said, drawing a rare burst of applause in a somber address.

Obama said one of the tasks of his campaign to be the first black president is "to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America."

95+% of what he said to the Chicago press was stuff he and his staff said before, often to the same Chicago press who wrote stories about it. There wasn't anything really "new", other than the fact that he was gathering them together and wearing them out as opposed to a competent editor. And, it wasn't something he could've done any earlier, simply because it'd have been dragged up by the opportunistic media once Rezko went to trial. Obama's handling of this says as much about modern journalism as it does about him.

Mxy, I'm not trying to disagree just to disagree but that is not what I heard at all. There were new revelations and he got them out there. One of his campaign peeps(I think it was) said something like they called the Chicago papers and said You know those interviews you've been wanting about Rez? Lets do them" It was a political move and a good one.

Look, I want a choice in November. This could hurt BO in a huge way. He needs to handle this well and he hasn't so far.

This preacher is a bigot. BO chooses to go to this church. If BO wants to keep up the good work, he can't just denounce a statement here or there.

BO has sort of transcended race in this country and that is part of his apeal to supporters imo. For him to keep maintain this support, I think he needs to come out and talk about this, not just issue a prepared statement here or there.

I think this is huge and really fucked up if it hurts his chances.

I haven't heard it yet, but at least the BO campaign did the right thing, imo.

Mxy, I'm not trying to disagree just to disagree but that is not what I heard at all. There were new revelations and he got them out there. One of his campaign peeps(I think it was) said something like they called the Chicago papers and said You know those interviews you've been wanting about Rez? Lets do them" It was a political move and a good one.
Here's Obama's words from the start and from the end of the Rezko transcript with the Tribune reporters:


Many of these things are points that have been raised in previous stories and have been asked and we felt had been answered, but I want to just reiterate it once again and then we can fill out anything else.


...we had a fairly extensive and thorough press conference around this issue. I talked to your reporters, Sun-Times reporters, gave them a lot of information. I talked to the Washington Post, appeared on all the Sunday shows.

And the fact is my answers really haven't changed much, and so, so to that extent I think a part of the reason we didn't have this conversation was, the feeling was maybe we had the conversation. What had changed was not so much my answers but that it looked like now I was really a viable presidential candidate and Tony Rezko had been indicted.

And, from the corresponding Tribune editorial:


But Obama's explanation was less a font of new data or an act of contrition than the addition of nuance and motive to a long-mysterious relationship.

The only somewhat-"new" thing related to the Rezko event itself (as opposed to the media spin) was the notion that it was really around $250k that Rezko had raised for Obama (over three campaigns). But it'd already been reported that it was a number somewhat bigger than $160-170k. That specific tidbit didn't break any real new ground with anyone.

I must have misremembered(e-ray term), cuz it seemed to me that you were blaming the Reps.

Actually a Roger Clemens term.

Actually a Roger Clemens term.

My universe is WTFDetroit. So for me, its is and always will be an e-ray term.

btw...I knew I heard that somewhere, but couldn't place it.

Man I'd like to bang that Kirsten Powers or whatever name is on FoxNews.

Wouldn't it be ironic if Floriduh, the state that fucked the Democrats in the 2000 elections, fucks them again in 2008? Only this time, they'd be fucking themselves.

I'm not in favor of primaries in either Michigan OR Floriduh. When the states made their primary moves, I fail to believe they had no clue the DNC would nullify their primaries.

It's intereting that, while the other candidates at the time focused on primaries that counted, Hillary campaigned in these states. And NOW, well, lookie here -- Florida and Michigan might have a shot at do-overs.

[...wondering out loud if Bill anything to do with it... hmmm...]

[...wondering out loud if this was planned all along...hmmm...]

Side note to Mxy: Yes, Arizona should have gone to Gore (where Clinton cleaned house four years prior. and he lost it...which would've made Floriduh a moot point

^ Denny needs to post here more

I haven't been able to see the speech but from the clips I've seen, something that stood out to me, is when he said

"I can no longer disown Rev Wright than I can..." I think he gave 2 different endings.

I hope this was the way he felt and not some political move where his campaign handlers did the math and found that he would lose more votes if he did X and less if he did Y. I have no reason to believe its anything other than his true feelings.

I liked that part. He didn't cave. He stood by his guy. Unlike Hillary with Ferraro or Bush with Lott.

I'm not a reigious guy but the peeps that are can usually point to a person that was huge for them in that whole thing. So for him, Wright was/is too big a person for him to disown. And hopefully he felt that if I don't get elected because of it, fine, fuck it, I'm doing what i think is right. Admirable trait.

I'm not in favor of primaries in either Michigan OR Floriduh. When the states made their primary moves, I fail to believe they had no clue the DNC would nullify their primaries.
A "0 delgate" death penalty happened in 1996 in Delaware for its attempts to do Iowa/NH busting. It was reiterated to all the states in August 2006 when the early primary/caucus schedule was done:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/19/AR2006081900567.html

Under the rules, candidates who venture into states that ignore the party schedule would not get any delegates from those contests.
So, yes they knew.
(FWIW, I agree that the Iowa/NH scheme is stupid because it's ALWAYS Iowa and NH. A good fix involves randomization, but that's too apolitical and scary for scheming politicians.)


Side note to Mxy: Yes, Arizona should have gone to Gore (where Clinton cleaned house four years prior. and he lost it...which would've made Floriduh a moot point
I think you meant Arkansas, Clinton's home state. Arizona did go to Clinton in 1996, but it was very close. I doubt Gore could've won AZ against Bush.

I hope this was the way he felt and not some political move where his campaign handlers did the math and found that he would lose more votes if he did X and less if he did Y. I have no reason to believe its anything other than his true feelings.
He wrote positively about Wright, in his 1995 book Dreams From My Father. The book's not your typical politician book in the slightest, and more in the tone of a Harpers magazine. His "race" speech is an extension of his book from 13 years ago, in tone and content.

I think you meant Arkansas, Clinton's home state. Arizona did go to Clinton in 1996, but it was very close. I doubt Gore could've won AZ against Bush.

Probably. I suppose what I was trying to say was Gore and the Democrats could not hold some states Clinton took four years prior. Because of this, Florida (and good ol' Jeb) were allowed to steal the electoral college.

Some speculate that, if this all comes down to the convention, and the superdelegates cannot determine the winner, Gore might step in and take the nomination. I'm really not certain how this could happen, if at all. Even if it's possible, Gore is in a position now to do more good than he could as the leader of the free world. He's doing what he loves, and winning #$@% Oscars and Nobel Prizes in the process.

Though it would be interesting to see McCain and Gore in a debate. All Gore really has to do is bring his gold props, point to them every chance he gets, and mumble "scoreboard". McCain then can try to raise his arms and reply "scoreboard" (don some military bling as well). All we'll hear all night is "scoreboard" "scoreboard" "scoreboard". It will be the most useless (as well as the most apropos) debate in history.

Probably. I suppose what I was trying to say was Gore and the Democrats could not hold some states Clinton took four years prior. Because of this, Florida (and good ol' Jeb) were allowed to steal the electoral college.
Yup, had Gore held either his home state or Clinton's home state, there wouldn't have been problems. Clinton's wins in the 1990s were often pluralities, owing to Perot. If a state gives you 45% of the vote, it's not a given that it'll transfer over, even if Clinton hadn't splooged on a blue dress.


Some speculate that, if this all comes down to the convention, and the superdelegates cannot determine the winner, Gore might step in and take the nomination.
If superdelegates aren't going to act decisively, they hand McCain a victory. Gore's not coming back into politics at that level... not a chance.

In other news, Hillary ditched veterans in West Virginia to come to a Detroit AFSCME thing this morning to stoke the fires for a do-over, which the state legislatures would have to vote on by Thursday.

Her problem is, even if there were absolute unity on the Obama and Hillary camps, it requires a supermajority, and Republicans will rightly not vote for that clusterfuck of a proposal. They'd be right. Here's how it'd go:

"No, we won't totally eliminate May school elections with <6 weeks notice."

"No, we won't loan the Democratic party some unknown amount of state and local resources for a month while it gets its funding act together."

"No, we're not going to confuse voters by having another primary."

Trying to do this as a primary was a dumb idea from the get-go. I think it's telling that, amongst the brain trust that came up with this silly scheme, none of them is a member of the state legislature.

I forgot a biggie:

"No, we're not going to expose our state to that much potential for lawsuits. The first primary had three of 'em."

And Team Obama has kindly provided a roadmap of probable legal messes:

http://thepage.time.com/obama-campaign-memo-on-michigan-primary/

So I finally got around to listening to Obama's speech. All I can say is Obama told the truth.

I actually really liked the speech. He didn't throw the minister under the bus, but he also flat-out said that his minister was wrong. He didn't hold up the black anger thing as irreducible, but he didn't hold up the white anger thing as irreducible either. He clarified his position without hurting his image, and took a stand, and at the same time he got a good discussion going on about race issues. I can't believe he pulled it off. This speech is the dagger in the Dem race, mark my words.

A lot of white people who are thinking "let's put this black-white thing to bed once and for all" are suddenly thinking very seriously about Obama.

I haven't seen the speech, but all the experts I've listened to have said it was a great speech.

Of course, you've got the hit pieces. This bit is amusing:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4480868&page=1

His initial reaction to the initial ABC News broadcast of Rev. Wright's sermons denouncing the U.S. was that he had never heard his pastor of 20 years make any comments that were anti-U.S. until the tape was played on air.
He'd been clear that he'd never heard THOSE sermons. And it's probable that Wright tailored his sermons for his audience. Some of the stuff that has been Youtube'd to death wasn't in his church.


But yesterday, he told a different story.

"Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes," he said in his speech yesterday in Philadelphia. Obama did not say what he heard that he considered "controversial," and the campaign has yet to answer repeated requests for dates on which the senator attended Rev. Wright's sermons over the last 20 years.
Tell me what days you went to church over a period of 20 years. :)

And for real amusement:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/black_guy_asks_nation_for_change

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html

Ok, maybe the last one isn't so amusing.

Yup, had Gore held either his home state or Clinton's home state, there wouldn't have been problems. Clinton's wins in the 1990s were often pluralities, owing to Perot. If a state gives you 45% of the vote, it's not a given that it'll transfer over, even if Clinton hadn't splooged on a blue dress.

Not certain if he'd had won Tennessee. Regardless of he and his father before, Tennessee has mostly been a red state. I think this was one of those situations where the DNC should have stepped in and said: "Look, stop saying you're 'your own man'. Just say 'New face. Same economic prosperity' and you're golden... nevermind the wooden personality. 'Personality' doesn't keep America employed." IMO, the party screwed up 2000 just as much as Gore did.

Agreed re: McCain. I see a lot of disenchanted Dems easily voting for McCain. His general public image is that of bipartisan legislation. Many recall the rightful hatred he owned for Bush in 2000, and still carries with him as of this day. He's a military vet who can pitch the Iraq War as "not a wrongful campaign, but one we really botched up". While Obama or Hillary claim they can "bring the troops home", McCain probably understand better than either of them the realities of troop withdrawl, which if done properly can make them look extremely amatuerish.

In other news, Hillary ditched veterans in West Virginia to come to a Detroit AFSCME thing this morning to stoke the fires for a do-over,
She subsequently LIED to the veterans she ditched in West Virginia!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/19/AR2008031903258_2.html

Clinton's stop in Detroit pushed back her planned schedule in West Virginia. A stop in Huntington was moved to late afternoon. When she finally arrived, Clinton offered a different explanation for her tardiness. "We got off to a bit of a slow start this morning due to some weather delays," Clinton told a group of veterans.

And it turns out that when she came here, she came with a list of rich Hillary donors prepared to donate $12 million for a primary. This pissed off a lot of people into thinking she was trying to BUY the primary, why negotiations came to an abrupt end on the matter. Not that there was any real chance of it happening in any event, but Hillary's visit was counterproductive.

Mxy you still seeing BO trending up? Not what I'm seeing.

Up against whom?

Against Hillary, half the polls say "yes", and half say "no". Rasmussen's daily tracking poll has it Obama: 47, Hillary: 42, up since the speech. Gallup's daily tracking poll has it Hillary: 47, Obama: 42, down since the speech. CBS's poll taking on the 15th-18th (Wright-related coverage) shows Obama maintaining a narrow lead over Hillary, as does CNN's (14th-16th).

Against McCain, it's pretty clear. In most polls, Obama is tanking bigtime against McCain. Then again, so is Hillary, who supposedly has had a great month of media coverage thus far. Thus far, this is typical. McCain just won and doesn't get beaten up on a daily basis, so comes off positively relative to two candidates who are at each other's throat's.

Key words -- "thus far". Typically, these fights don't last as long as they have. At the point that the other candidate is waiting for an "extinction level" event in order to have a chance to win, sane people usually circle around and stop the madness. For a slew of reasons, that hasn't happened, and it's not clear if the delay in bringing closure will be "good" or "bad".

AFAICT, Obama's where Reagan was in 1976. Reagan lost to Ford in the 1976 primary. But it was clear that if Ford lost to Carter, Reagan was a shoo-in for 1980 because he just blew Ford away in most ways. With a little tweaking and time, he'd be unstoppable. I think if Hillary improbably wins the nod, she loses in the general, and Obama has the 2012 nomination in the bag.

Against McCain, it's pretty clear. In most polls, Obama is tanking bigtime against McCain. Then again, so is Hillary, who supposedly has had a great month of media coverage thus far. Thus far, this is typical. McCain just won and doesn't get beaten up on a daily basis, so comes off positively relative to two candidates who are at each other's throat's.

McCain should be taking a hit for his stupid comments about Iran. He had to be corrected by Lieberman in mid speech.

MSNBC story (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23697639/)

It doesn't matter. A few isolated dumb things won't change the dynamic. People will look kindly on the nice relatively-quiet person in the back, even if they are kind of dim sometimes, over the two uppity people fighting with each other all of the time.

BTW, the media treated the McCain story with kid gloves. It wasn't just Lieberman correcting a one-time gaffe in mid-speech. He'd been going on about that for awhile, in this speech and in another interview. He was being asked questions about what he was saying because what he was saying was crazy to people who knew anything of the Middle Eastern dynamic. The vid of this has been edited to gloss over that.

Here's Wright being feted by someone inconsequential for being a prominent religious leader:
http://bp0.blogger.com/_icmbtAgYu90/R-LelYDnwnI/AAAAAAAAAAU/Bbm3xehqJ6M/s1600-h/File0437.jpg
And here's him helping with the surgery of someone equally inconsequential:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_icmbtAgYu90/R-L19IDnwpI/AAAAAAAAAAk/Bwt1_87Tamg/s1600-h/File0441.jpg

i was proud of obama for not sacrificing his pastor. i realize this hurts him, but thats the kind of integrity that drew me to obama in the first place.

i read somewhere the cogent point: if that race speach given by obama on monday somehow negatively affects him, it will be the last time for generations that a politician attempts to honestly address an issue, rather than just persue political expediancy. you could not write a more honest,thoughtful, and yes, cogent (properly used!) meditation on race relations in america in the year 2008.

it sucks that its race and religion that will be the news of the day for a bit, but obama has to weather these storms. no more 'i was rattled', or whatever. hes got to do better than that now. move on.

---------

hilary desperately needed a legit primary in Flo. i thought with that off the table, and now MI, that backroom negotiations would be under way to end this thing. they still might be, and if those delegates wont go hard to hilary (along with a ton of popular votes), the ONLY card left she has to play is "hes unelectable". without wright, i think this may have been over before 4/15. i doubt that now.

it sucks that its race and religion that will be the news of the day for a bit, but obama has to weather these storms. no more 'i was rattled', or whatever. hes got to do better than that now. move on.
The passport fiasco alone moves things away from Wright. Obama's passport info was improperly browsed through by the State Department, which is a security breach. This happened over a period of a few months and was known, but neither Obama nor his Secret Service detail was informed. It's textbook incompetence on an information privacy where Obama is particularly strong. It's notably the same kind of shit that happened with Bill Clinton when he ran for President. Obama sits on the committee overseeing the State Department from the Senate end, too. Oh, and the most prominent Hispanic in politics, another Presidential candidate, endorsed him. I don't think too many will be terribly overwrought overWright overtime.


hilary desperately needed a legit primary in Flo. i thought with that off the table, and now MI, that backroom negotiations would be under way to end this thing. they still might be, and if those delegates wont go hard to hilary (along with a ton of popular votes), the ONLY card left she has to play is "hes unelectable". without wright, i think this may have been over before 4/15. i doubt that now.
It's kinda hard for Hillary to preach TOO hard against Wright when she and hubby were praising him before Obama ever got on the scene. Obama never lost a superdelegate over the mess.

Hillary will hang on until party elders close ranks and decide to end it. After Super Tuesday, it just wasn't mathematically possible for either side to knock each other out without them, and the continued uncertainty about Florida and Michigan clinches it. One big consequence of this show is sucking the life and money out of the other races. With the growing number of Republicans retirements, the "competitive contest" map is getting bigger, and ramping up for that is critical.

What's interesting is the spin claiming the Michigan primary fiasco is Obama's fault, despite so much evidence to the contrary. FWIW, if you're an Obama supporter, you probably DON'T want a Michigan primary while Kwame's still on the loose. I bet his main campaign manager Axelrod (who was Dennis Archer's campaign manager) knows that quite well.

Hillary's and McCain's passport files were breached too, per CNN

Do you think this is a ploy by Bush to show how his system works (catching people that illegally use their spying tools)?

Do you think this is a ploy by Bush to show how his system works (catching people that illegally use their spying tools)?

No, it is an embarrasment that they allowed private contractors to access that info.

I'm not sure he really cares about that. See FEMA, New Orleans

bill richardson officially endorsed barack. somewhat big. a bigger one, imo, would be edwards or gore.

i think gore's silence is deafening. he might not want to stain his now golden rep by getting too close to washington, but to not support the clintons is almost a defacto endorsement of barack. and with blue collar penn coming up, edwards word might mean something. i see richardson's endorsement is barack's need to get a positive story out there after almost 2 weeks of bad ones. q is, did he promise the vp?

Gore's staying neutral to break up a fight at the convention, if it gets that far.

This girl ain't staying neutral:

oXmYVRIpu2w

One thing to be aware of when it comes to Hillary and Granholm blaming Obama for the failure of Michigan's botched primary. According to Tim Skubick, 52 of the 56 House members were opposed to the proposed re-do. In the Senate, 14 of 17 Democrat Senators were opposed. Anyone who tries to spin this as "oh, Obama's being bad" is blowing smoke up people's asses.

Speaking of which, these guys are a hoot sometimes:

Wmh-7H5sJSQ

This is a great link worth watching - re: Fox News and Barack Obama. Have fun.

http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=19ba5a61-9510-4da5-abeb-e9a546cdc33a

how inane can you possibly get: 3 typical white people talking about being offended by barak using the phrase 'typical white person'. all i can say of that clip: typical.

^ From what I could tell, they were arguing so 2 completely different takes. Very typical of the white community to see things differently.

The Clinton camp today acknowledged that Hillary 'mispoke' cough cough when she said that she had to run from the helicopter to cover while visiting Bosnia. I think she said dodging sniper fire.

ROTFLMAO

The CBS news clip surfaced showing her in Bosnia (that much is true), but she wasn't dodging sniper rounds.

the damning pic is that of a 5 year old girl reading hilary poetry. lol.

the clinton campaign should have come up with a wag the dog type deal and just superimposed hilary's face onto a clip from rambo. that would have been only slightly more missleading.

"typical white woman" was a minor flub, sloppy wording in comparison to the way he speaks of his grandmother in his speech and book. If I were Obama, I'd stop talking about race once I got back from spring break. Last week, Obama gave a couple great speeches on Iraq and the economy that went unnoticed because the media's more concerned with guilt by association and "oooh he's black" than the issues. Likewise, with Hillary, they're more concerned about "was she in the White House when Bill got his blowjobs" than about the fact that she provably lied about NAFTA to everyone. <sigh>

Let's see if there's more focused insanity as April 22nd approaches.

It sucks thats what happens to our candidates, but that is what happens.

BO said that normally, at his church on Easter, one hears Jesus Christ and the resurection.

youtube has a clip of the sermon and it was about the public lynching they are going through.

This shit aint goin away if it keeps up, imo. We'll see.

Its no wonder that many good peeps don't run for office though. If you get disqualified cuz of your preacher, than I think we get what we deserve.

So i guess I come down on both sides of this. I need to get off the fence.

A lot of the stuff Wright said was taken badly out of context. There's very few people actually covering that to any great degree. A guy named Roland Martin at CNN is the one who's done the best job of it:

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-wright%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cgod-damn-america%e2%80%9d-sermon/

Some of what Wright said WAS clearly batshit-crazy, but at least somewhat understandable. That conspiracy shit about the government and AIDS makes sense when you consider than ~60% of all AIDS cases in the U.S. are black and they've had Tuskegee crap happen. Is it very rational? No. But it's how the beliefs form and fester. I heard some wonky honky on NPR totally not get that, and that's exactly the sort of cultural gap that the nation ought to be addressing. The ethnic strife has never really gone away, though now it's "immigration" and "the Chinese" along with "black vs. white".

A lot of the stuff Wright said was taken badly out of context. There's very few people actually covering that to any great degree. A guy named Roland Martin at CNN is the one who's done the best job of it:

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-wright%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cgod-damn-america%e2%80%9d-sermon/

Some of what Wright said WAS clearly batshit-crazy, but at least somewhat understandable. That conspiracy shit about the government and AIDS makes sense when you consider than ~60% of all AIDS cases in the U.S. are black and they've had Tuskegee crap happen. Is it very rational? No. But it's how the beliefs form and fester. I heard some wonky honky on NPR totally not get that, and that's exactly the sort of cultural gap that the nation ought to be addressing. The ethnic strife has never really gone away, though now it's "immigration" and "the Chinese" along with "black vs. white".

It is how beliefs form and fester.

And thats why peeps hoped BO wouldn't have set in the church and listened to it for 20 years.

Maybe he should have had something to say about this a long time ago.

Seems like a lot of people would have preferred it if Obama would have just been like "o he said that? Fuck that guy" and wrote him off forever...and a lot of those people are not voting for him anyway, which is bullshit. Fox News can fucking jam it up their stupid asses for making an issue out of this. No one who watches Fox News was going to vote for Obama anyway. They're just getting high off of Democratic schadenfreude.

It's fucking infantile to expect a public figure to immediately distance themselves from someone in their personal life who says or does some crazy shit. It's like Chris Rock sez: old black men are the most pissed-off racist dudes in the world. They're going to be bitter about their lives. It ain't right, but they have a doctor's note that says "I spent the glory days of my youth paranoid that I was going to be attacked by dogs for being out after dark."

So what do we want? Do we want Obama to take this guy who presided over his wedding and be like "I can't be seen with you anymore"? Is everyone that superficial about appearances? People need to grow up and deal with it, or they're going to end up getting what they asked for.

I know and love all kinds of people who have gone off and said some dumb racial shit, and I'm not turning my back on them for anything, because I love them. Forgive small flaws, for you have large ones yourself.

All this is Fox News fault. Fuckers.

Seriously, I heard a black guy say that where he went wrong was when he disinvited Wright to do his invocation last year, he should have kept the distance.

Obama did speak of the Wright issues long ago, actually, depending on your definition of "long ago".

1) Dreams from My Father talks of him, and it was written in 1995. It's clear from Obama's own words that Wright 20 years ago was provocative. But Wright was fresh off the Syrian rescue mission with Jesse Jackson, seemingly not as crazy, and showed Obama a Christian god. As preachers get older, some of 'em get a little nutty. I betcha Obama tuned him out when he got too far in the woods, in much the same way you tune out an old relative when he's shooting off his mouth but try to take the good in otherwise.

2) Last year: It was clear he'd already distanced himself somewhat right as the campaign started. The impression I got was that the only reason Wright was around the campaign was to ease the Muslim smears -- who better than your own preacher to debunk? He was already positioning Wright as someone who was retiring and in the past well before the video montage came out. Check this article out from last year:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0716/p01s01-uspo.html?page=1

Honestly, I'm uncomfortable with religious tests for the presidency, but it's where we are. We don't have anyone left who's really secular. Hillary's got religious wingnuts in her shadows, and McCain's tried to embrace it since 2000, going as far as changing his religion last year. Religion ranks up there with baseball as something I could do without in politics. If I want that kind of faith, I'll go to church, not listen to a President.

Current campaign dollars...

BO 30 million big ones. thirty million.

Hillary 3 million. Thats 3 as in not 30.

BO wins this thing. This part is over, I think.

zH1kHn8sWOM

Gone Swam.

That video was sultry.

Current campaign dollars...

BO 30 million big ones. thirty million.

Hillary 3 million. Thats 3 as in not 30.

BO wins this thing. This part is over, I think.
The numbers reported this week are current as of three weeks ago, the end of February. No one knows the March numbers yet, and a lot of shit went down in March. The most notable things about the FEC disclosures:

1) The loan to herself Hillary said she paid back already, she didn't. Either that, or she subsequently loaned it back to herself and hasn't paid THAT off. Gotta love that lying bullshit.

2) While Hillary has found the Internet, many donors don't understand Hillary's money predicament. She's getting large general election campaign $, which is absolutely useless to her for the time being.

3) Apart from minor snapshot-in-time kinda stuff, Obama's debt free. Hillary owes money, quite apart from her debt to herself, some of it debts over many months now.

4) McCain has formally exceeded the campaign spending limits for primaries by participating in public financing. No one's around in the FEC to enforce that, and no candidate's had breathing room to go to DC court for an injunction.

5) Obama's a fucking money machine. In fact, there's been rumors that he was trying to "pad" March because he did so well in February and didn't want to blow out people into thinking he didn't need more money.

The Clinton camp today acknowledged that Hillary 'mispoke' cough cough when she said that she had to run from the helicopter to cover while visiting Bosnia. I think she said dodging sniper fire.

ROTFLMAO

The CBS news clip surfaced showing her in Bosnia (that much is true), but she wasn't dodging sniper rounds.

Yeah, I saw her claim of "mispeaking" but I don't buy it. She said flat out they had to run from the chopper in because of sniper fire. They confirmed with a guy that was on the chopper that they had to take a different flight path because of the danger of sniper fire, but there was nothing on the ground to put them in danger. She totally embelished that one (and deliberately so).

BTW, I don't know if you caught the Anderson Cooper interview with James Carville last night. Anderson asked him about his comment that Richardson's Obama endorsement "came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver."

Carville said he thought he made a very cleaver observation and that he stands by his word. He said he feels Richardson betrayed the Clinton's.

When Anderson asked him why he thought Richardson owed the Clinton's his support and why he couldn't make up his own mind, Carville kept saying the same crap above. Anderson was trying to get him to admit he thinks Richardson should just support her because they helped him before. Carville just kept repeating the same crap. He really looked like an idiot.

I think it's huge for Obama considering Richardson would probably be her running mate if he backed her. That means he took a huge risk to back Obama, which shows how highly he thinks of him.

I didn't see it. and another reason its big is it righted the BO ship, so to speak (for those of us that thought he might be hurting a lil bit).

To me it shows that the Clinton's really do feel that they are entitled to the nomination.

I'm so sick of the crap about how they want Michigan and Florida counted and Obama does not. It's total BS. He just wants things to be done right and she doesn't really care how they are done because she can't pass him without counting both of them (and her winning well).

This 'misspoke' thing is laughable.

Like someone said, "you misspeak about dates and times, not about running from sniper fire"

Another said, "You don't mispeak the same way over years of telling the story(apparently its in her book too), misspeaking normally happens once, not over a period of years"

james carville is my favorite political analyst / whatever in america. hes phenomenal. he just got the wrong horse this time. the judas angle isnt a bad way of spinning the richardson endorsement, if your on hilary's side.

If she would have just said we had to fly in worrying about sniper fire, fine.

But to say more than once that you had to run to the hanger is absurd. And then when they told her about meeting the girl out there she even then said that she couldn't just walk by her, and that after they met they hurried in to the hanger. BS. The video showed her out there greeting military officers and other people for many minutes before talking to the girl. Plus there was a whole slew of other kids out there. You forgot that?

james carville is my favorite political analyst / whatever in america. hes phenomenal. he just got the wrong horse this time. the judas angle isnt a bad way of spinning the richardson endorsement, if your on hilary's side.
He looked like a moron to me. I didn't have a problem with his statement at all (the Judas angle). I thought he looked like an idiot defending it though. This guy looked totally flustered from someone asking him why he thought Richardson doesn't get to pick who he supports. And this was Anderson Cooper, not Glenn Beck, Oberman, Chris Matthews or someone else that really goes after people in interviews. He was totally unprepared to back up his statement. All he said is that he stood by it, over and over again. He never really justified why though.

I've been out of the loop a lil but apparently Hillary released her schedule or something from when she was the first lady. Finally, but the problem is that so much has been redacted you can't tell wtf is up.

More of the Clinton's being the Clintons. Can't wait for her tax returns next week.

He looked like a moron to me. I didn't have a problem with his statement at all (the Judas angle). I thought he looked like an idiot defending it though. This guy looked totally flustered from someone asking him why he thought Richardson doesn't get to pick who he supports. And this was Anderson Cooper, not Glenn Beck, Oberman, Chris Matthews or someone else that really goes after people in interviews. He was totally unprepared to back up his statement. All he said is that he stood by it, over and over again. He never really justified why though.

carville was the mastermind of bill clinton's 1992 campaign. if you saw primary colors, he was the billy bob thorton character (just an fyi). he also coined (or atleast popularized) 'its the economy, stupid'. dude has serious long standing loyalties the clintons. hes not just an analyst. im not sure what exact role he has with hilary, but no doubt he is part of the team.

im guessing he didnt back it up because its a rather hollow statement. it paints richardson in bad tones and hilary in good, and its relateable. but it also has the depth of a tv commercial, hence just saying he stands by it, or whatever. it got the job done, a good headline and a decent attempt at neutralizing the endorsement (much better than, 'it doesnt matter' when she obviously had worked hard for it).

IMHO James Carville is pretty much everything that's wrong with the Democratic Party. A highly-paid, center-conservative political spin doctor who lobbies for big corporations in the off-season.

His analysis cannot be trusted because he's always working for one candidate or another. He will say whatever he is paid to say. His relationship with the truth is tenuous, at best. Nothing he says should be taken at face value, considering the kinds of people he works with - the DLC.

Carville amuses me, especially when he's with Matalin. He's a partisan hack, but that's true for most of the national news political analysts. It's the nature of the beast.

The national news networks has the burden to maintain access and ratings. IMHO, it's no accident that we get better national political commentary from, say, Jon Stewart and Devin Scillian, than national news gasbags. Both have the resources and the wherewithal to stay relatively informed to do their thing with their constituencies. But, neither needs the extreme access to politicians and all the baggage that comes with it. They can call it like they see it on most matters, within the limits of corporately-owned media.

Obama's tax returns dating back to 2000 (mostly when he was in the Illinois state senate) came out. In a stunning indictment, after being in debt from a failed U.S. House race and student loans, Obama didn't spend a ton of money on charity. When he started making money from book sales in the wake of his 2004 speech, he did. <gasps> FWIW, Obama wrote of what his stepdad taught him about charity in his first book.

Hillary 'misspoke' about a lot of things. Bosnia and NAFTA are the tip of the iceberg. There's more gems for anyone who wants to keep digging, especially with her schedule "out there" and tax returns soon to be. I have to wonder how this plays in Pennsyltucky.

Have any of you guys ever heard Carville's weekly sports show on XM that he does with Tim Russert's son?

It's pretty entertaining.

http://newsbusters.org/static/2007/07/2007-07-27-MSNBC-Joe-Luke.jpg

Good read, but if you don't have time for the whole thing just skim the bolded parts:

Hillary Clinton: Truth or Consequences
- Carl Bernstein, 360° Contributor


Hillary Clinton has many admirable qualities, but candor and openness and transparency and a commitment to well-established fact have not been notable among them. The indisputable elements of her Bosnian adventure affirm (again) the reluctant conclusion I reached in the final chapter of A Woman In Charge, my biography of her published last June:
“Since her Arkansas years [I wrote], Hillary Rodham Clinton has always had a difficult relationship with the truth… Judged against the facts, she has often chosen to obfuscate, omit, and avoid. It is an understatement by now that she has been known to apprehend truths about herself and the events of her life that others do not exactly share. ” [italics added]

As I noted:
“Almost always, something holds her back from telling the whole story, as if she doesn’t trust the reader, listener, friend, interviewer, constituent—or perhaps herself—to understand the true significance of events…”
The Bosnian episode is a watershed event, because it indelibly brings to mind so many examples of this tendency– from the White House years and, worse, from Hillary Clinton’s take-no-prisoners presidential campaign. Her record as a public person is replete with “misstatements” and elisions and retracted and redacted and revoked assertions…
When the facts surrounding such characteristic episodes finally get sorted out — usually long after they have been challenged — the mysteries and contradictions are often dealt with by Hillary Clinton and her apparat in a blizzard of footnotes, addenda, revision, and disingenuous re-explanation: as occurred in regard to the draconian secrecy she imposed on her health-care task force (and its failed efforts in 1993-94); explanations of what could have been dutifully acknowledged, and deserved to be dismissed as a minor conflict of interest — once and for all — in Whitewater; or her recent Michigan-Florida migration from acceptance of the DNC’s refusal to recognize those states’ convention delegations (when it looked like she had the nomination sewn up) to her re-evaluation of the matter as a grave denial of basic human rights, after she fell impossibly behind in the delegate count.
The latest episode — the sniper fire she so vividly remembered and described in chilling detail to buttress her claims of foreign policy “experience” — like the peace she didn’t bring to Northern Ireland, recalls another famous instance of faulty recollection during a crucial period in her odyssey.
On January 15, 1995, she had just published her book, It Takes a Village, intended to herald a redemptive “come back” after the ravages of health care; Whitewater; the Travel Office firings she had ordered (but denied ordering); the disastrous staffing of the White House by the First Lady, not the President — all among the egregious errors that had led to the election of the Newt Gingrich Congress in 1994.
On her book tour, she was asked on National Public Radio about the re-emergence of dormant Whitewater questions that week, when the so-called “missing billing records” had been found. Hillary stated with unequivocal certainty that she had consistently made public all the relevant documents related to Whitewater, including “every document we had,” to the editors of the New York Times before the newspaper’s original Whitewater story ran during Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign.
Even her closest aides — as in the case of the Bosnian episode18 years later — could not imagine what possessed her to say such a thing. It was simply not true, as her lawyers and the editors of the Times (like CBS in the latest instance) recognized, leading to huge stories about her latest twisting of the facts. “Oh my God, we didn’t,” said Susan Thomasas, Hillary’s great friend, who was left to explain to the White House lawyers exactly how Hillary’s aides had carefully cherry-picked documents accessed for the Times in the presidential campaign. The White House was forced — once again — to acknowledge the first lady had been ‘mistaken;” her book tour was overwhelmed by the matter, and Times’ columnist Bill Safire that month coined the memorable characterization of Hillary Clinton as “a congenital liar.”
“Hillary values context; she does see the big picture. Hers, in fact, is not the mind of a conventional politician,” I wrote in A Woman In Charge. “But when it comes to herself, she sees with something less than candor and lucidity. She sees, like so many others, what she wants to see.”
The book concludes with this paragraph:
“As Hillary has continued to speak from the protective shell of her own making, and packaged herself for the widest possible consumption, she has misrepresented not just facts but often her essential self. Great politicians have always been marked by the consistency of their core beliefs, their strength of character in advocacy, and the self-knowledge that informs bold leadership. Almost always, Hillary has stood for good things. Yet there is a disconnect between her convictions and her words and actions. This is where Hillary disappoints. But the jury remains out. She still has time to prove her case, to effectuate those things that make her special, not fear them or camouflage them. We would all be the better for it, because what lies within may have the potential to change the world, if only a little.”
The jury — armed with definitive evidence like the CBS tape of Hillary Clinton’s Bosnian adventure — seems on the verge of returning a negative verdict on her candidacy.

Nice find and good read Chris. I'm at work and my boss is out, so I actually had the time to read the whole thing.

I found the little Chelsea comment last night funny too, but viewer responces are even funnier.

For those who missed it, Chelsea was asked by a Butler student if the Lewinski scandal hurt her mom's reputation at all. She basically said that's none of your business to the student.

The funny part is that it was a Clinton supporter who later said that he just wanted to give her the opportunity to show how strong her mom is to overcome that. He didn't understand why Chelsea wouldn't answer the question.

A viewer said that kid should know better than to expect a Clinton to be honest and open with him. LOL.

BTW, I couldn't care less whether she answered it or not (I did think the way she said it was a little rude, but who cares). I just found the whole exchange humerous when I found out it was a Clinton supporter.

Team Hillary has been trying to counter the "Hillary's a lying bullshitter" oopses by pointing out that Obama wasn't REALLY a law professor at U-Chicago, but only a "Senior Lecturer". It's been debunked before. Yes, it is technically true in a fashion. But, faculty and students routinely addressed him as "professor", and have stated flat-out that he didn't misrepresent himself by calling himself a professor. The only reason he didn't have the formal title of "Professor" was that he didn't work full-time, despite the U-Chicago offering him a full-time gig repeatedly. U-Chicago doesn't have Professors who are formally there only part-time, unless you count Emeritus. He's a professor, not a Professor. Talk about a total liar! <laughs>

There's actually stuff they could call Obama out for lying or flip-flopping about (gun control, death penalty, etc.) but the "professor" meme? Sheesh...

This is so rediculous. She's so far behind that not only does she want superdelegates to ignore the popular vote, but pledged delegates to ignore their voters as well. While she says she isn't trying to convince them to change, this is yet another ploy for her to claim she is still in the race.


Pledged delegates up for grabs, Clinton says

From Rebecca Sinderbrand
CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- For the second time in three days, Sen. Hillary Clinton told reporters that the pledged delegates awarded based on vote totals in their state are not bound to abide by election results.
It's an idea that has been floated by her or a campaign surrogate nearly half a dozen times this month.
Sen. Barack Obama leads Clinton among all Democratic delegates, 1,622 to 1,485, in the latest CNN count. Among pledged delegates, Obama leads Clinton 1,413 to 1,242.
"Every delegate with very few exceptions is free to make up his or her mind however they choose," Clinton told Time's Mark Halperin in an interview published Wednesday.

"We talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment," she said.
Clinton's remarks echoed her Monday comments to the editorial board of the Philadelphia Daily News.
"And also remember that pledged delegates in most states are not pledged," she said Monday. "You know there is no requirement that anybody vote for anybody. They're just like superdelegates."
Clinton (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#1746) also made similar comments in a Newsweek interview published two weeks ago.
The last time a major candidate lobbied pledged delegates to switch sides was at the 1980 convention, when Ted Kennedy's campaign tried to recruit delegates who arrived at the convention supporting eventual nominee Jimmy Carter.
After that battle, the Democratic Party (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/U_S_Democratic_Party_Politics) altered a provision that required pledged delegates to support the candidate they had arrived at the convention to back.
Clinton advisers have cited the altered rule, which dates to 1982 and says only that pledged delegates "shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them."
The same year, The Democratic Party created a new category of delegate -- the so-called "superdelegates" -- party leaders and elected officials who are free to support any candidate they wish, regardless of vote totals in their home states.
Some states require their delegates to support the candidate they are pledged to but most do not.
Earlier this month, Clinton adviser Harold Ickes first raised the prospect that pledged delegates were not legally bound to vote as election (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/U_S_Presidential_Election) results indicate -- an idea that has drawn sharp criticism from supporters of rival Obama.
"Despite repeated denials, the Clinton campaign has again admitted that they will go to any length to win," Obama (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#1918) spokesman Bill Burton said again Wednesday.
The Clinton campaign has said that they had not been planning to try to actively convince the Illinois senator's pledged delegates to switch sides and would not do so in the future.
But on a conference call with reporters Tuesday, Ickes defended Clinton's Monday remarks and repeated his view that pledged delegates were free to switch their allegiance at any time.
"I think what Mrs. Clinton was trying to make clear was that no delegate is required by party rules to vote for the candidate for which they're pledged," said Ickes.
"I mean obviously circumstances can change, and people's minds can change about the viability of a particular candidate and that's permitted now under our rules ever since the 1980 convention."
He added that although the rules permitted them to campaign pledged delegates to switch sides, they had not engaged in such an effort.
The timing of the latest round of comments was not an accident, according to veteran Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf.
"It keeps them in play. It makes party players understand that they're serious, and they'll stay in the game," Sheinkopf said.
He added that party insiders were likely to view the threat merely as a bargaining chip by an extraordinarily seasoned political team.

If y'all can bring yourselves to watch FoxNews tonight, Hill is on Greta Vansusteren's On The Record ( I think its called). Greta isn't in to politics; Her show is mainly legal issues, but I saw a clip and she was saying she is in this til lthe end...and if that means the convention...blah blah blah.

She's remarkable.

btw...Greta is on at 7pm out here.

Greta has had a lot of work done.

More than McCain's wife?

She had her eyes done when she went from lil brother CNN to big time FoxNews.

She said her eyes were flapping around. shes pretty down to earth old lady. She loves Ozzie Osbourne type things.

I really doubt the party lets this go on until the convention, contrary to Hillary's claims. If by June, Obama leads in pledged delegates, superdelegates will either converge or destroy the party. It's that simple.

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/8526/hillarymilitarydh0tu7.png

The party can't have one side or the other feeling that a back room deal was made. That could really destroy the party.

The party can't have one side or the other feeling that a back room deal was made. That could really destroy the party.
Theoretically, the convention is where the arguments happen, and where a candidate is selected. In practice though, on both sides, there's been back room deals to avoid having convention floor fights play out on TV and prolonged agony beforehand. They'd rather use that TV coverage to parade the chosen one in a victory ceremony. The last time there was ever a real floor fight was Ford-Reagan in 1976. Reagan gave his first "time capsule" speech, the highlight of the convention (like Obama's "red state blue state" speech was the highlight in 2004), and made Ford look like a second-rate candidate before a nation. All the pieces are in place for a replay, and no sane Democrat wants that.

I don't get the logic behind, "she's not running away with the election like she said she would so she should quit". I don't really get the whole "the party will be torn apart by having to chose" argument either.

The party can't have one side or the other feeling that a back room deal was made. That could really destroy the party.
concern troll

I don't get the logic behind, "she's not running away with the election like she said she would so she should quit". I don't really get the whole "the party will be torn apart by having to chose" argument either.
I don't know of anyone that thinks she should quit because she did not meet expectations (running away with the nomination). People want her to quit because it's basically impossible to catch up without the superdelagates totally swaying to her side. I really don't have a problem with her staying in it. The race isn't over. He's just on the verge of lapping her, but people do trip and fall sometimes.

The fear of the party being torn apart is a little overblown, but there will definately be people that cross the aisle because they are mad their canidate didn't win the nomination. The sooner a nominee is chosen the longer the party has to smooth things out and get those people back on board. The real issue I have is with Hillary doing the kitchen sink tactics (continuing on with the Wright issue, etc). They need to stick to the issues and argue about those. I don't think any bickering over the economy, foreign policy and health care is going to hurt either canidate much in the general.

Yeah, candidate races always go as predicted and never fluctuate wildly.

If the party is concerned with the time it has between selecting a candidate and the actual election, shouldn't it change the date that it chooses a candidate rather than pressure its candidates from competing for the candidacy?

Yeah, candidate races always go as predicted and never fluctuate wildly.

If the party is concerned with the time it has between selecting a candidate and the actual election, shouldn't it change the date that it chooses a candidate rather than pressure its candidates from competing for the candidacy?
Or they could say they can't figure out a solution to Michigan/Florida (and that those voters will have to have their voice heard in the general election) and that the pledged delegates will reflect their primary results. If both of those were true, there is no way she can catch up, and might have absolutely no argument for being in the race at this point. If they really wanted to, the DNC could put this to bed real fast by putting pressure on delegates to adhear to their vote and giving up on the revotes.

Right now she can toot her horn about voices that have not been heard, but if there aren't enough voices to make a difference (with MI and FL out of the picture) that can be a hollow cry real fast.

Yeah, candidate races always go as predicted and never fluctuate wildly.
With 80+% of the race over, it's usually pretty much settled. That's especially true with Democrats who have proportional allocation, where it's really hard to achieve "big wins" and create those wild fluctuations like you describe. Hillary occasionally points out that Bill's primaries in 1992 weren't wrapped up until June, but the reality is that it was pretty much done by April (and it started later, for that matter).


If the party is concerned with the time it has between selecting a candidate and the actual election, shouldn't it change the date that it chooses a candidate rather than pressure its candidates from competing for the candidacy?
Remember, over half the states voted by Super Tuesday. The schedule was specifically engineered to be especially Hillary-favorable by pushing NY, NJ, MA, and CA all to primary on Super Tuesday. The intent was to have this all wrapped up by February Obama blew that out of the water, and Hillary's struggled ever since. That's the surprise, and there's not a whole lot of elbow room for more surprises.

http://sports.aol.com/ncaabb/story/_a/obama-earns-hoops-vote-of-confidence/20080324190609990001


Craig Robinson: O’ Brother (In-Law) Where art Thou?

Now the head coach of Brown men’s hoops, the first ever two-time Ivy League Player of the Year Craig Robinson helped lead Pete Carrill-coached, Tigers to two NCAA Tournament appearances during his tenure (1981 and 1983), shocking Oklahoma State 56-53 in the ’83 first round. Robinson is also Barack Obama’s brother-in-law. Since we hear so much about Obama playing pick-up wherever he goes on the campaign trail and as we stand in the midst of March Madness, we thought we might find out from someone who knows first-hand (and with solid expertise) if Obama the ballplayer is like Obama the candidate, how much game the Democratic presidential hopeful actually has and whether we may be close to having the first president who can dunk?

DAVE HOLLANDER: Bill Bradley says you can learn a lot about person by playing pick-up basketball. What did you find about Barack Obama the first time you played pick-up?
CRAIG ROBINSON: The first time we played, I found that he was confident without being cocky. And our circumstances for playing were a little (pauses) different. My sister had asked me to take him to play. And, I’m used to playing with guys who are pros or almost pros so he was playing in a group of guys who were pretty good. What I found was that he was a real team player. He was confident in that he knew what he could do, and he would do that -- and not try to do things he couldn’t do in order to impress people. That’s a tell-tale sign of a lot of people who play pick-up basketball. Also because he was playing with his girlfriend’s brother, he didn’t pass me the ball all the time trying to suck up. I was very impressed with that.

DH: Was this the very first time you met him?
CR: I had met him before but I hadn’t played basketball with him. You quoted Bill Bradley but my father used to say that same thing and that’s why my sister asked me to take him to play. After [Michelle and Barack] met and it seemed like this was something that could last a little longer than you usual dating, she asked me to go play with him.

DH: Did your report seal the deal with Michelle?
CR: I don’t know if it was the actual closing argument but I think it helped his cause.

DH: Is he D-I material?
CR: No, I would say he’s your average pick-up basketball player.

DH: No pun intended but I hear his game is all left?
CR: Very.

DH: Do you think if we worked on it, he could go to his right?
CR: He can go to his right. But his strength is to his left. In pick-up basketball, left-handers have a huge advantage because most of the population is used to guarding someone who is right-handed. Even if you expect it, that move to the left is hard to stop.

DH: It’s hard to tell in a pick-up game but I think it’s important to ask: Can he take a charge?
CR: He’s a good basketball player so I imagine if he ever played in a game with refs he could take a charge.

DH: It’s often noted that he’s very fit with a slender build, but is he soft?
CR: I would never say he was soft. He’s very strong actually. He’s one of those wiry, strong type of guys. While he’s slight in stature he’s not weak.

DH: If he were to assume the point position, is he more “shoot first” or all about distribution?
CR: Well, he’s not a point guard. He’s a forward. He has a very good outside shot. And he’s unselfish but I would never call him a point guard.

DH: What his overall court awareness?
CR: He understands the game and the object of the game is to win. The object is also about passing and moving . He can see the court really well. It’s less peripheral vision and more being able to see a step ahead of what’s going on.

DH: What says a lot about somebody is can he rebound?
CR: Yeah, he can rebound. He can block out. He’s a good pick-up basketball. I’d say 85-90% of the population plays pick-up basketball, the other 10% are Division III to Division I college players and pros. He would rank high in the pick-up group.

DH: Can he dunk?
CR: He can dunk on the kiddie basket in his yard but not on a 10-foot rim.

DH: What is his signature move?
CR: Pump fake, one dribble right, pull up jump shot.

DH: This is important: What kind of player is he when he’s behind?
CR: He’s the kind of player who likes to win and stay on the court. As you know, in pick-up basketball, if you lose you’re off. If your behind or the game’s close, he’s going to be more focused. He plays hard and he likes to win.

DH: Is his style run and gun or more deliberate?
CR: He’s more of a deliberate player but when it’s necessary to fast break he can fast break. When you’re playing pick-up once you get our of your thirties there’s no more run and gun at all for anybody.

DH: As you know basket ball is a game with 10 players but only one ball. What kind of a player is he when the ball is not in his hands?
CR: A savvy player. Setting screens, always moving to get open and help other people get open. He’s proficient player. I’ll put it this way: He’s fun to play with. Some guys you hate playing with but he’s fun to play with because he’s not a selfish player.

DH: Is there a great pro or college player you can compare him to?
CR: Oh wow, that’s the first time I’ve gotten that question. (pauses) He’s like a left-handed Dennis Johnson. He made shots when he had to make shots. He played good D, passed the ball. He was like a big guard-small forward. When he played for the Celtics he played sort of that hybrid wing player that they call it nowadays. That’s who I think of when I think of Barack’s game.

DH: Although Obama graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law School, is he able to put all that aside and root for Brown?
CR: Oh yeah, Brown’s his favorite team.

DH: How good of a recruiting chip will it be to say, “… and my brother-in-law’s the president?”
CR: (Laughs) I don’t know because I haven’t been able to say it but I can tell that Brown is on more people’s radar screens than it has been in the past.

DH: You’ve played in the NCAA Tournament twice. In what ways has this Democratic primary been like March Madness?
CR: Like any kind of competition that has a long time frame, if you’re trying to make an analogy to a game, you have to break it into two halfs, four quarters what have you. The thing to remember is that there’s always going to be times where you’re going to have a run and the other team is going to have a run . The guy who wins the game withstands the other guy’s run. You have to withstand their run and stay within your game plan, which I think Barack has done tremendously well in this primary. He’s up against a formidable opponent who’s coming at you with all kinds of things, and he’s been able to sort of handle and stay above the fray, on message, whatever the colloquialism you want to use. That’s very much like participating in the NCAA Tournament. Each time you win you’re going to have another and often harder challenge the next game. You have to be able to withstand that next team’s challenge and move on.

DH: If you had to characterize Hillary Clinton as a basketball player what type of game do you think she would have?
CR: No comment. I can only get in trouble with that one.

DH: If you had to characterize Hillary Clinton as a basketball player what type of game do you think she would have?
CR: No comment. I can only get in trouble with that one.

She'd be the ball hogging guard that does uneccesary dribbles between the legs and turns the ball over every time down the court. On defense she'd grab shirts and trip whenever someone gets by her.

concern troll

I'm gonna lazarus your ass and now its between Zip and Mo, cuz of that comment.

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/8526/hillarymilitarydh0tu7.png
Watch out Hill, SNIPER FIRE!!!

She'd be the ball hogging guard that does uneccesary dribbles between the legs and turns the ball over every time down the court. On defense she'd grab shirts and trip whenever someone gets by her.
Hillary or Flip Murray?

I'm gonna lazarus your ass and now its between Zip and Mo, cuz of that comment.
Hee hee. But be honest, you don't really give a shit if the Democrat party blows up.

I'd get a laugh out of it for a while but, iyrc, I'm the one who wants 3 parties. Having only one those thieving parties in control for too long would be a disaster.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ijClHoidEl8XEJMJoUooHU1R_nmgD8VLULA80

Rasmussen disagrees

Poll: Clinton's negatives reach new high

(CNN) – The increasingly charged Democratic race for the White House appears to be hurting Hillary Clinton significantly more than Barack Obama, a just-released poll suggests.
According to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJ-20080326-poll.pdf), the New York senator's personal approval rating has dropped markedly, and those that hold a negative view of her have reached 48 percent — the highest in that poll since March 2001. Just 37 percent now have a positive view of Clinton — down from 45 percent two weeks ago.
The new poll comes at the end of one of the most hostile months in the Democratic presidential primary race, during which surrogates for both campaigns resigned after uttering controversial statements, and controversy swirled around Obama over past statements by his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright.
But despite fears by some of Obama's backers that the Wright controversy would take a toll on the Illinois senator and his presidential hopes, the new poll shows his approval rating has remained virtually unchanged at 49 percent. Only 32 percent of Americans give him a negative approval rating.
Meanwhile, in head-to-head matchups Clinton and Obama remain deadlocked for the nomination, each drawing 45 percent among Democratic voters. Both are also statistically tied with John McCain in matchups: Clinton is two points behind the Arizona senator while Obama is two points ahead — both within the poll’s margin of error of 4 percentage points.

Rev Wright...



Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., pastor emeritus of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago where Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has been a member for two decades, slurred Italians in a piece published in the most recent issue of Trumpet Newsmagazine.

"(Jesus') enemies had their opinion about Him," Wright wrote in a eulogy of the late scholar Asa Hilliard in the November/December 2007 issue. "The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans."

Lovely... <groan>

This is a bad transcript of a verbal eulogy given by Wright last year and printed in the magazine he publishes. The full text of the eulogy is at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5282479

There's some clear mistranscription, so I'll go out on a limb and say that he probably said "Gallic noses" rather than "garlic noses". My hunch is that he was mentioning Italians and such to jazz things up since the mob resonates more than the Romans.

The underlying context has been spun by the media, of course. There's real resentment by some black and asian churches against the historic Romans and Italians. One big gripe is that they morphed Jesus into a fair skin blue eyed icon, less real and less relatable to their peeps. There's also the little matter of the Romans crucifying Jesus, which is what Wright's referencing.

<

All this Wright stuff should prolly go in a new thread. I'm no longer associating what Wright says with BO.

I do think BO can make a mistake of condemning the statements and then defending them, though.

garlic nose? lol.

a little talk of an obama/bloomberg ticket. i would love that, but doesnt seem to likely.

obama's vp is going to be the front runner for the president in '16, presumably (hows that for thinking ahead?). bloomberg would be too old (74), so that wont be why he would accept. so, if you were 66, a billionaire, and the mayor of new york, would you trade that for the reletively mundane and lowly position of VP? i wouldnt. i think bloomberg would only accept if he were really drinking obama's koolaid, like all in on the campaign. doesnt seem too likely.

A Cross-Party poll shows McCain getting 18% of Dem votes and BO getting 11% of Republican votes.

http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x147/dspiewak/032808DailyUpdateGraph1.gif

Cool chart, although I find it surprising that Hil was +7 as recent as the week of 3/16.

There are 18 female U.S. Senators and 9 female Governors currently serving in 2008. By contrast, there've been 3 black U.S. Senators and 4 black Governors TOTAL since the Civil War. More women vote than men. So, of course, it's totally harder for a woman than a black man. Just ask a Hillary supporter.

FWIW, Obama's "gap" with whites is entirely with white women. He actually has a narrow lead over Hillary among white men. But of course, the media presents it as "white against black" because, ironically enough, it's sexier than presenting it as a sex thing. Just as an Obama supporter.

Cool chart, although I find it surprising that Hil was +7 as recent as the week of 3/16.
They're tracking polls that carry over results from previous days. There's a gap between when bad or good events happen and when tracking polls reflect it. A lot of the results are within the margin of error and confidence levels and aren't relevant by themselves. The idea behind these kinds of polls isn't so much to show particular numbers over particular day, but to show general trend lines.

http://www.sportspickle.com/features/volume7/2008-0326-clinton.html


Hillary Clinton Fondly Recalls Leading Arkansas to 1994 NCAA Title

Asked by a reporter if she was participating in an NCAA Tournament pool today, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton wowed media members by recalling the magical run the Arkansas Razorbacks made to the 1994 championship – a run Clinton says she fueled by averaging 38 points, 12 rebounds and 10 assists, good enough to be named the tournament’s Most Outstanding Player.

“The mid-90s were a tough time for Arkansas with Bill and I off to the White House,” said Clinton. “We felt the hard-working men and women there needed something to uplift them. Bill was wrapped up in various things, so it was left to me to go down there and win them a championship. And I did.”

Clinton says her championship illustrates a big difference between herself and her rival, Sen. Barack Obama.

“He likes to talk about how he is a basketball player, how he was a sixth man in high school, how he still plays pick-up games,” said Clinton. “But he never led a team to a national championship. I have. I have years of experience playing basketball. He has one left-hand dribble.”

The junior senator from New York says she will never forget the 1994 championship game.

“We had Corliss 'Big Nasty' Williamson, Scotty Thurman – good players,” said Clinton. “But we were going up against Duke, a powerhouse. We didn’t have a chance without me bringing my A-game. But you all know I never duck from a fight.”

Clinton recalls one series of plays in the second half that allowed the Razorbacks to pull away.

“Cherokee Parks got the ball down low in the post and had great position on Corliss,” she said. “He had an easy lay-up to tie the game. But I came flying in and just swatted that shit out out of there. Just jumped up, ripped the ball out of the air and came down with it. I had to have been two feet above the rim. At least. Maybe more. I remember almost catching my chin on the top of the backboard. Then I pushed it up court, went behind my back to get past Chris Collins at midcourt, and then just fucking dunked right on Grant Hill’s head. Just right on his motherfucking head. I mean, I teabagged the kid. I remember hanging on the rim screaming and my man-balls were dangling on his head. And that was pretty much the game right there. We were national champions.”

Questioned by a reporter who said there is no record of Clinton on the 1994 Razorbacks, Clinton said she may have remembered incorrectly.

“Well, that’s what I recall happening,” she said. “But, who knows. It was many years ago. I may be wrong. Perhaps I just watched the game on TV at the White House. But let’s not get off the main point here: Barack Obama hates white people. White people and America. White people, America and Christians."

Yea Humor Yea

FDP_u2YDrFA

BTW...Hillary also said she was the first first lady to be taken into a war zone since ?? forgot who...long time ago, but Pat Nixon went to Viet Nam.

Stop digging Hillary.

Dean said today that the 'Politician Delegates (super) should declare their support by July 1st.

You can blame Dean a lot for the mess the Dems are in, but this would be a good move...or maybe the day after the last primary June 3rd.

Pat Leahy said that Hillary should drop out of the race and support BO. He said there is no way she can win it.

Pat Leahy said that Hillary should drop out of the race and support BO. He said there is no way she can win it.
He's right.

Didn't Pat Leahy play for the Jets in the 80's?

Dean said today that the 'Politician Delegates (super) should declare their support by July 1st.

You can blame Dean a lot for the mess the Dems are in, but this would be a good move...or maybe the day after the last primary June 3rd.
Dean clarified that it'd be great if the supers decided before July 1st.

Don't blame Dean for the Florida/Michigan mess. It was a committee, including someone who's now one of Hillary's chief advisors, who made the mess. All that committee did was what they said they'd do for any state who broke the rules, and something that they DID do in the recent past. Dean's just the enforcer. The Clinton folks have never liked Dean, so they just love to paint Dean as the bad guy in all this.

Sorry! Jeez.

Dean is the man!

One could say bad things about Dean. But on this matter, he's right on and acting as a straight shooter. Here's what he's said:

- the pre-Super Tuesday primaries by out-of-order states don't count
- if they do another reasonable delegate selection event, it will count
- the national party will chip in some money so there's no one fall guy

Dean could be more aggressive. Instead of throwing money at new state election, they could do another election thingie all by themselves. Most of the apparatus exists already, for overseas folks. Have a postal-mail and Internet vote independent of the stupid state party. Buy and acquire the Democratic voter lists from donor lists and pollsters, and create a process so others could participate. Make it worth only one delegate per congressional district -- enough so states disenfranchised by their state party would have some say, not enough to make any difference in results. Of course, it's not like the state parties don't look stupid enough as it is...

REFORM!

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc283/charliedecker84/sometimes.jpg

Sorry Jeez! I thought I was agreeing with you that the Dems process needs reforming.

Doh! Nononono... sorry, the "finger" wasn't directed at you at all! Honest, I just saw an amusing picture of the Team Hillary demographic and posted it. I AGREE that it needs reform.

Richardson's responce to Carville's comments:


(CNN) — Barack Obama supporter Gov. Bill Richardson, D-New Mexico, responded on Sunday to controversial comments by James Carville, saying that he would not "stoop to Carville's level."
Carville, a Hillary Clinton supporter and former strategist for her husband's 1992 presidential campaign, compared Richardson to the Biblical figure Judas in an interview with the New York Times last week. When later asked whether his comment was accurate, Carville made no attempt to apologize, saying that it had "the desired effect."
"I haven't gotten into the gutter on this. And you know, I'm not going to stoop to Carville's level. I barely know the guy in the first place," Richardson told Bob Scheiffer on CBS's "Face the Nation."
Carville had argued that Richardson's endorsement of the Illinois senator was an act of betrayal since the governor has a long history of political ties with her husband. Richardson disagreed.
"I think loyalty to the nation, loyalty to the party is a lot more important than personal loyalty," he said. "I owe the Clintons a lot. I served in the president's cabinet. That loyalty is to President Clinton. That doesn't mean that I'm going to for the rest of my life be in lockstep with whatever they do."

Though Richardson did not personally attack the Democratic strategist, he criticized the Clinton campaign's behavior.
"I ran against Senator Clinton. I was a presidential candidate. And what I ran against this personal venom that people like Carville and many others in the Clinton team that feel a sense of entitlement, that the presidency is theirs. "
On CNN's Late Edition, Carville acknowledged that his comment was harsh, but said that these kind of campaign spats are "powder puff stuff" compared to the general election.
"I don't think this campaign has been particularly negative. I've probably said the most negative thing in the whole campaign," he told Wolf Blitzer.

(CNN)—Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#1918) extended his lead nationally over Sen. Hillary Clinton (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#1746)Monday according to the latest national polls.
The Gallup Poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/105841/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Now-52-Clintons-42.aspx) conducted March 27-29 with a margin of error of 3 percentage points shows the Illinois Senator has a 10 percent lead over the New York Senator among Democrats, marking the first time since early February Gallup polls have shown either candidate with a double digit lead. In February, Gallup showed Clinton held an 11 percent advantage over Obama.

The Bosnian girl Hillary met up with under "sniper fire" is bitching about her lies.
Bwahaha...

I've been shot at more than Hillary.

Here's a little something about Obama's political experience 16 years ago:

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-1993/Vote-of-Confidence/

nice read, thanks.

I like the last part:


Obama shrugs off the possibility of running for office. "Who knows?" he says. "But probably not immediately." He smiles. "Was that a sufficiently politic 'maybe'? My sincere answer is, I'll run if I feel I can accomplish more that way than agitating from the outside. I don't know if that's true right now. Let's wait and see what happens in 1993. If the politicians in place now at city and state levels respond to African-American voters' needs, we'll gladly work with and support them. If they don't, we'll work to replace them. That's the message I want Project Vote! to have sent."

This part shows what he is about. He's not running for president to fullfil personal apirations (see Hillary), he's running to initiate a change that he feels won't happen without him.

The book he wrote afterwards, Dreams From my Father, was definitely NOT the book to write if his next step was politics. It's more a stepping stone to a gig at intelligentsia rags like The New Yorker or Harper's (for bukdow's masturbatory pleasure). Had Obama made it to Oprah's Book Club, my hunch is that he'd have been a full-time writer, not big in elected politics.

After Chelsea returned from a date, Hillary asked her if she had a good time.

Chelsea said she had a wonderful time and thinks she's in love.

Hillary said, 'You didn't have sex, did you'?

Chelsea said, 'Not according to Dad.'

Obama Senate colleague pledges to him


By Rebecca Sinderbrand
CNN Associate Political Editor

(CNN) -- Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar -- a superdelegate holdout from a traditional swing state -- backed fellow freshman Sen. Barack Obama Monday morning.
While Obama rival Sen. Hillary Clinton began the presidential campaign with a massive advantage in Congressional endorsements, Klobuchar's endorsement now gives Obama a 13-11 edge over Clinton among their Democratic Senate colleagues.
"I believe I have an obligation to try to bring our party together," Klobuchar said, adding that continuing to stay silent would be, in the words of her 12-year-old daughter, "awkward, Mom. Awkward."
Clinton maintains a 243-212 advantage among superdelegates -- 800 or so elected officials and party activists who are free to cast their vote how they wish -- in the most recent CNN count.
But since Super Tuesday on February 5, Obama (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#1918) has added more than twice as many to his total as she has, 106-50. Since the March 4 contests, the trend is greater than 3-to-1.

BTW, there's 7 superdelegates who pledged to vote for whoever has the most pledged delegates, which favors Obama. There's roughly 70 add-on superdels who haven't yet been elected in various states, and that will break for Obama as well. There's really only about 200 truly uncommitted superdels left.

This was on a crawler but it says..."Hillary aide confirms Wright is key topic in talks with Super-Delegates"

This was on a crawler but it says..."Hillary aide confirms Wright is key topic in talks with Super-Delegates"
ugh.

For the elected superdelegates, the spin is that Wright will negatively impact their re-election chances. Do they want Wright in campaign ads against them if they support Obama? Of course, Wright pales in comparison to "Do they want Hillary in campaign ads against them if they support Hillary?" It'd take a decade of demonization for Wright to get to Ted Kennedy/Hillary/Michael Moore levels.

She's aware that the GOP is running a candidate this year, right? And that it is not her?

I heard Randi Rhodes (not the dead guitar player) on Air America the other day say that she feels that it is a real possibility that Hillary will run as an Independant (possibly with Joe Lieberman) if she doesn't get the Democratic nomination.

Naw. She's in this party business way too deep. She's so firmly lodged in the asscrack of the Democratic Party, it's going to take a wire brush to get her out. Everyone she knows is some kind of operative in some kind of Democratic committee. She's nowhere near as awful a person as Joe Lieberman, and if I were her I would be insulted.*

I don't buy it, but I'm certainly not the first person to call bullshit on Randi Rhodes.

* And also, I'd probably try to learn a different way of speaking in public. She shouts all the time.

Sounds like one more reason to avoid Air America. The liberal talk show media annoys me as much as the conservative pundits.

Of course, I'm an odd duck on the political spectrum. I have a Libertarian (but emphatically non-Republican) dad and a Democratic (but very much a Milliken Republican) mom. It's clear that I was a bastard child of the two, long before I became politically conscious in 1984.

If Hillary did that, she'd be truly stupid. She'd hand the election to McCain and go down in history as one of the most selfish people alive (after burying her own party).

But, and please correct me if I'm wrong, isn't Lieberman already 100% behind McCain?

^ thats what I thought.

Lieberman is 100% behind flip-flopping. His support is inherently limp-dicked.

I never got his appeal at all. was dumb-founded when Gore picked Lieberman over, say, Gephardt for VP.

I feel Lieberman is a pretty principled and iirc, polls show that...the same with McCain. Tried to cut spending, tries to stop earmarks, etc.

"Earmarks are great for Connecticut." -Joe Lieberman, 2006
http://www.lincolntribune.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4902
http://blogs.courant.com/photos/englehart_photos/october192006.jpg

I didn't read yet, but thats true. Any state getting them is great, cuz you have the other 49 paying for it too. Earmarks represent Death

_9AH-ufAkCU

And who are the top 3 earmark recievers? All Republicans. FoxNews did a piece on it. I know it prolly shocks most of you that Fox would give Reps bad press, but they do. Fair and Balanced.

My point wasn't about earmarks. It was about Lieberman being a flip-flopper. Support from him on most matters is... are you ready for it... tenuous at best.

gotcha.

re: Earmarks...I just can't believe that this country lets ourselves get ripped off like we do.

Its time for a tea party, imo.

The people who should really be pissed off about earmarks are states like California, New York, and Massachusetts. They contribute tons more tax money to the federal government than the government spends in their states.

In per-capita terms, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota have historically been bigger "donor states" than California, New York, and Massachusetts. In the past couple years, we've improved. It's only been about as bad as CA or NY. That's primarily because we're paying less in taxes, not because we're taking in more federal dollars. I posted about this way back when.

This isn't a Democratic or Republican issue for Michigan. We were just as bad a donor state when Gerard Ford was pres and Milliken was governor. But for many states, there are some party politics involved. It's quite notable that how "red" a state is ties pretty closely with federal giveaways. 85% of the states that got more in federal money than they paid out voted red in 2004.

I remember that thread Mxy.

That's all I really have to say.

Final numbers won't be in until just before the Pennsylvania primary, but Obama raised "over" $40 million in February, while Hillary raised "close to" $20 million. I suspect it's even more in Obama's favor as far as dollars available for primary spending. He bumped up his small donor pool big-time.

Obama picked up a couple extra pledged delegates in Mississippi because they oopsed on the vote count and delegate math. He's in minor danger of losing a couple delegates he thought he had in Texas owing to some caucus tallying snafus in San Antonio, but that seems unlikely.