Talk show host Rush Limbaugh is sparking controversy again after he made comments calling for riots in Denver during the Democratic National Convention this summer.

He said the riots would ensure a Democrat is not elected as president, and his listeners have a responsibility to make sure it happens.

Isn't this some sort of fedral offense? To me it's like saying bomb on an airplane. You can't say that shit.

BTW, I listen to progressive radio out here pretty often and they never pull these kinds of stunts. Sure, they bad mouth conservative policies all the time, but they don't play dirty like Rush. They'll have an honest conversation as to why they don't like the policy.

^ Its fucking ridiculous. Plus, I think most Republicans would rather run vs BO then Hillary anyway. It seems illegal to me.

Making jokes is one thing, inciting violence is quite another.

I don't think he's inciting violence but it isn't very 'American like' Something mr pillpoppindouchebag likes to consider himself.

I don't think he's inciting violence but it isn't very 'American like' Something mr pillpoppindouchebag likes to consider himself.

Calling for riots is not violent? OK, you got me. Calling for protests, ok. Riots involve beatings, burnings, looting, etc. If you don't consider that violent I don't know what to tell you.

I have to go reread some posts. Didn't see that part.

I was just reading how mr ppdb was calling on Reps to crossover and vote to fuck up the elections in PA and Indiana.

I crosscontabulated the Rush topics.

my bad

Oh, yeah the crossover thing is fine with me. I think it's stupid (because it shows he has no faith in the GOP's canidate), but nothing deplorable. It's like hoping your biggest rival is shorthanded when they face you (in sports).

BO on FoxNews with Chris Wallace. BO did a really good job.

BO on FoxNews with Chris Wallace. BO did a really good job.


Wish he would have given more substantive answers given his complaints after the debate, but I understand the guy is a politician.

I'll be really curious about how Wright's recent public displays, reported in generally positive terms, impact Obama. Are people focusing on what he has to say, or just the fact that he's in the news again? My hunch is the latter, but that's the cynic in me.

I'll be really curious about how Wright's recent public displays, reported in generally positive terms, impact Obama. Are people focusing on what he has to say, or just the fact that he's in the news again? My hunch is the latter, but that's the cynic in me.

I have only seen extremely negative coverage on TV, especially for the Detroit NAACP speech. I literally cringed when I saw that he was speaking the Detroit NAACP. Especially with Kilpatrick, I can't think of a worse place for Wright to show up.

Also, someone in the media who has some clue about the implications of the gas tax "holiday" needs to call clinton and mccain on their bullshit proposal. Our freeways and bridges are falling apart and they are taking pandering to the height of political cynicism. Gas prices will not fall by the amount of the gas tax decrease. In fact, the loss of summer time construction jobs would be far worse for the economy than any change in gas prices would be positive. Give people another stimulus check for gas money if you want, but do not drop the gas tax. It is a giveaway to the oil companies and Arab shieks!!! My prediction is that 50% of the gas tax drop goes to oil companies/suppliers and 50% to consumers.

Hmm... it passed my "news.google.com" test, where I looked at a smattering of the headlines last night and this morning and saw how negative they are, and skimmed the articles to make sure that it wasn't too out of whack.

This little tidbit about the Clinton Foundation should get more attention than the Wright crap, but it won't:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120908058761543293.html

Hmm... it passed my "news.google.com" test, where I looked at a smattering of the headlines last night and this morning and saw how negative they are, and skimmed the articles to make sure that it wasn't too out of whack.

This little tidbit about the Clinton Foundation should get more attention than the Wright crap, but it won't:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120908058761543293.html

I personally believe that the far right talking heads (hannity, limbaugh, kristol) dictate the focus of attacks on democrats. They are holding all their fire for clinton in hopes that she wins the nomination. I think it is foolish to believe that she has really been vetted in any way. No logical person would say that serving on a non-profit board or attending a fund raiser in 1995 with a weatherman who was not convicted is in any way more offensive than pardoning 2 other weathermen who were convicted in participating in a robbery that resulted in the murder of 2 police officers. In fact, hillary's fellow state senator schumer lobbied vigorously against the pardons, because the murder occurred in NY. There is also the pardon of FALN members by clinton, which just happened to coincide with hillary's senate run and her need to build support from puerto ricans. If hillary wins the nomination, there will be an all-out assault, which she helped validate by her seeking their support for the nomination. All of this recent fawning over hillary would end the minute she got nominated.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/04/27/hillary_strangelove/

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080418/NEWS02/804180468

i actually watched Wright's speech this morning. If you hear the entirity of what he has to say, he comes across as mostly reasonable, but slightly outdated. He definitely does not come across as a black supremecist. He takes great pains to note that his religion and the United Church of Christ (UCC) is predominantly white. He also notes the history of his UCC and its progressive and conciliatory bond between whites and blacks. Apparently, the white UCC was much more involved in the Underground Railroad than the predominantly black northern churches were. Most of his large issues are with the govt. and not with whites. Black supremecists would not advocate the discussion between and healing of rifts between whites and blacks. They also would not point out the strong collaboration between the predominantly white and black branches of the UCC. Nor would he invite whites to attend services at his church. I also doubt that he would discuss the fact that his god daughter is serving abroad in the military if he hated America as much as has been reported.

If he were as anti-semitic as his critics paint him, he would not assert the right of the Israel to continue as a state. He admonishes the acts of Israeli settlers in the West Bank, but so do a lot of Jewish people I know and so do a lot of Israelis themselves.

He is strongly against some of US foreign and domestic policy and believes that we as citizens should be held accountable for our govt.'s actions. I happen to agree with him. Our govt. should be held accountable for our foreign policy blunders. I personally am ashamed of our actions in South America, the Vietnam war, and the Iraq war. It is not anti-american of me to think this way. I would never have pursued those actions, but my conscience is guilty that those acts were performed by my representatives. If I do not fight against immoral practices in the future, than god damn me for letting them happen. He says that his church helped the peasants in El Salvador, while the Iran-Contra scandal sold weapons to their oppressors. Why wouldn't you be angry at the govt. for that.

Of course, I think it is crazy to believe that our govt. invented AIDS, but I do believe that the difference between crack vs. cocaine sentencing are rediculously racist. I also think that it is rediculous that our govt. is recruiting more convicted felons, but still bans gays. I think it is rediculous that the govt. is given free reign to spy on us and pursue wars based on doctored intelligence. It incenses me that repubs continually tell us to trust them to be ethical in their torture of prisoners and in their wire taps, but then tell us that we can't trust the public sector to be efficient in social welfare programs. In many ways, I hate our govt. but I don't hate our people. Perhaps, Wright's greatest flaw is that he doesn't differentiate our govt. and our people. Of course, the counter argument is that our govt. should reflect our people, making the distinction arbitrary.

Anyways, I wish the media would spend more time on the good when they point out the bad. I don't think any person would like to be judged on their worst character traits without any context for their positive character traits. Thus, I understand why he is making speeches despite the adverse impacts on Obama's campaign.

quotes from rev write:


Maybe this dialogue on race, an honest dialogue that does not engage in denial or superficial platitudes, maybe this dialogue on race can move the people of faith in this country from various stages of alienation and marginalization to the exciting possibility of reconciliation.


God’s desire is for positive, meaningful and permanent change. God does not want one people seeing themselves as superior to other people. God does not want the powerless masses, the poor, the widows, the marginalized, and those underserved by the powerful few to stay locked into sick systems which treat some in the society as being more equal than others in that same society[QUOTE]

[QUOTE]These two foci of liberation and transformation have been at the very core of the United Church of Christ since its predecessor denomination, the Congregational Church of New England, came to the moral defense and paid for the legal defense of the Mende people aboard the slave ship Amistad, since the days when the United Church of Christ fought against slavery, played an active role in the underground railroad, and set up over 500 schools for the Africans who were freed from slavery in 1865.


Our congregation, as you heard in the introduction, took a stand against apartheid when the government of our country was supporting the racist regime of the African government in South Africa.

Our congregation stood in solidarity with the peasants in El Salvador and Nicaragua, while our government, through Ollie North and the Iran-Contra scandal, was supporting the Contras, who were killing the peasants and the Miskito Indians in those two countries.


Our congregation has sent dozens of boys and girls to fight in the Vietnam War, the first Gulf War, and the present two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. My goddaughter’s unit just arrived in Iraq this week, while those who call me unpatriotic have used their positions of privilege to avoid military service, while sending

– while sending over 4,000 American boys and girls of every race to die over a lie.


When Richard Allen and Absalom Jones were dragged out of St. George’s Methodist Episcopal Church in Philadelphia, during the same year, 1787, when the Constitution was framed in Philadelphia, for daring to kneel at the altar next to white worshippers, they founded the Free African Society and they welcomed white members into their congregation to show that reconciliation was the goal, not retaliation.


And we recognize for the first time in modern history in the West that the other who stands before us with a different color of skin, a different texture of hair, different music, different preaching styles, and different dance moves, that other is one of God’s children just as we are, no better, no worse, prone to error and in need of forgiveness, just as we are.

Rev Wright is a racist, race baiting fuckhead.

Rev Wright is a racist, race baiting fuckhead.
I find your ideas intriguing, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Me too NOT
Me NOT too
NOT me too

Me too NOT
Me NOT too
NOT me too

You're not smelling what Tahoe's cookin?

So after Hillary was on the tube yesterday saying 'its terrible how the Republicans are keeping this Rev Wright issue alive" Today Lanny Davis (Clinton Supporter, former WH counse to Bill) was just on the tube saying 'BO doesn't get it. He needs to tell us why he sat silent for all these years"

If that isn't shenanigans by Hillary, I don't know what is.

Its like when Hillary sez..."The only reason I'm calling BO an elitist, unpatriotic liar is cuz the Republicans will be doing it this fall"

Thats its Hillary, hit him over the head with a brick while you tell us that the only reason you are doing it is cuz its the patriotic thing to do.

So after Hillary was on the tube yesterday saying 'its terrible how the Republicans are keeping this Rev Wright issue alive" Today Lanny Davis (Clinton Supporter, former WH counse to Bill) was just on the tube saying 'BO doesn't get it. He needs to tell us why he sat silent for all these years"

If that isn't shenanigans by Hillary, I don't know what is.

Yeah, she's two faced. She'll say one thing while her peeps say another. She'll point to how great we had it under Bill, and then distance herself when he gets into trouble. She wants to have her cake and eat it too. It's like one big song and dance with her while BO attempts to cut through the production and lay all the cards out on the table for the people to decide on.

Obama wins Guam by a nose.

http://www.guampdn.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080504/NEWS01/80504018

Just win NC and Oregon and he's fine.

http://www.unconfirmedsources.com/index.php?itemid=3246

lol My support, changing it is.

How do you guys feel about one of Clinton's top aides calling people in Indiana shit (back when he was helping Bill get elected)?

I like his stance on the gas debate as well. Clinton is just pulling the same BS that Bush is right now (throwing a small bone to everyone to boost approval ratings while ignoring the real problems).



Clinton and Republican Sen. John McCain (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#1701) have both proposed suspending the levy from Memorial Day to Labor Day as a way of providing relief from record gasoline prices for consumers.
Obama opposes the plan, saying it would save a mere 30 cents a day and cost thousands of construction jobs. Money from the tax goes into a federal fund that pays for highway projects such as bridge and road construction.
Beyond the arguments for and against the tax, the issue has assumed a far larger significance in recent days -- Clinton using it to buttress her argument that her rival is out of touch with the needs of working-class Americans, Obama citing it as an example of his opponent's embrace of what he calls old-style politics.
"Only in Washington can you get away with calling someone out of touch when you're the one who thinks that 30 cents a day is enough to help people who are struggling in this economy," Obama said in a speech at a school in Indianapolis.
He cited a published report in which an unidentified Clinton aide was quoted as saying the proposal wouldn't have much of an impact on gasoline prices, but was a good political position to take.
"This is what passes for leadership in Washington -- phony ideas, calculated to win elections instead of actually solving problems," he said.
Mocking other Clinton campaign themes, he added, "I wish I could stand up here and tell you that we could fix our energy problems with a holiday. I wish I could tell you that we can take a time-out from trade and bring back the jobs that have gone overseas. I wish I could promise that on day one of my presidency, I could pass every plan and proposal I've outlined in this campaign."
"But my guess is that you've heard those promises before. You hear them every year, in every election."

I saw this last night on TV. All the analysts agreed you can't say you'd obliterate them like that. It wonder if it hurts her much at all though.

(CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama on Sunday accused Sen. Hillary Clinton of echoing the "bluster" of President Bush when she said the U.S. would be able to "obliterate" Iran if it used nuclear weapons against Israel.

"It's not the language we need right now, and I think it's language reflective of George Bush," Obama told NBC's "Meet the Press."
Clinton made the statement about Iran on ABC's "Good Morning America" on Tuesday.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran [if it attacked Israel]," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

Not long after Obama weighed in Sunday on Clinton's remark, she was asked if she stood by her statement on ABC's "This Week."
She stuck with her message, saying warnings of "massive retaliation" are needed to keep the Islamic republic in check.

Obama (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/barack.obama.html) and Clinton's sparring comes two days before critical Democratic primaries in Indiana and North Carolina.

Obama, addressing Clinton's statement about Iran (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/iran), said, "We have had a foreign policy of bluster and saber-rattling and tough talk, and in the meantime have made a series of strategic decisions that have actually strengthened Iran."

Israel (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/israel) is "the most important ally" the United States has in the Middle East, and that Washington would respond "forcefully and appropriately" to any attack, Obama said Sunday.

"But it is important that we use language that sends a signal to the world community that we're shifting from the sort of cowboy diplomacy, or lack of diplomacy, that we've seen out of George Bush," he said. "And this kind of language is not helpful."

"When Iran is able to go to the United Nations complaining about the statements made and get some sympathy, that's a sign that we are taking the wrong approach," Obama said.

She was never very diplomatic, not compared to Bill. Bill had to save her from foreign gaffes while he was on office.

At this point, it's very clearly up to the superdelegates, and I'm getting pretty bored. It'll be over in a month. <yawn>

"The psychology of the race has chanced but the facts haven't"

Great statement about the Dem race. Meaning Hill has gained some momentum on the tube but she is still behind.

Mxy did you see BO and Hill pandering for the Union endorsements?

They were both saying how they should look at the oversight the
Govt has on the union attempting to get the endorsement.

No, not particularly. Honestly, since the playoffs started, I haven't been paying too much attention to the Dems day-to-day politicking/potlicking.

You have a pointer or more specifics?

No, I don't. It was a taped conversation with no video. It was just politicians being politicians. But it was funny listening to them both toe the line wthout promising to take away the oversight the Govt has on the union.

Its ovah!

BO gave a general election speech in NC tonight. The Dem race is over.

Congrats to BO.

They still going at it mainly because Hillary is the projected winner in Indiana. You watching too much fox news?

Doesn't matter. She might gain a couple of delegates in Indiana and BO gains maybe as many as 15 delegates in NC.

Plus she lost ground in her one argument left, the popular vote.

The Dem race is over.

watching too much fox news

:cogent:

If the counts are correct, BO needs to only win 36ish% of the remaining vote or delegates.

So she needs to win almost 2 to 1 the rest of the way. Ain't happening.

Congrats BO

If the counts are correct, BO needs to only win 36ish% of the remaining vote or delegates.

So she needs to win almost 2 to 1 the rest of the way. Ain't happening.

Congrats BO
BO's ahead in pledged delegates by 150-odd. AFAICT, there's only 214 pledged delegates left and 270.5 superdelegates that haven't committed. Overall, the remaining pledged delegates lean Hillary somewhat, but not by a whole lot. Call BO ahead by 140 on the pledge count at the end of the day, for round numbers' sake. So, Hillary needs ~200 of those 270.5 undecided superdelegates to break her way. Unless there's an unknown felony in BO's past, that just isn't happening.

I wonder how much dough their campaigns have. Obama just broke 1.5 million unique donors, with 500k NEW donors since March. Hillary supposedly did well after the PA primaries. Neither is saying how much they raised in April. There could be a lot of good and bad reasons for that.

And on cue, it looks like Hillary gave herself another $6.4 million, in addition to the $5 million loan she still hasn't repaid herself, plus something like $10 million her campaign owes. I saw a fight like this in the 80s -- Reagan vs. Gorbachev.

Doesn't matter. She might gain a couple of delegates in Indiana and BO gains maybe as many as 15 delegates in NC.

Plus she lost ground in her one argument left, the popular vote.

The Dem race is over.

She lost big ground. Last night totally cancelled her gain from Pennsylvania. He already had a half million vote lead there, and added another 220,000 last night. With only small states left there is no way she can close there (even though popular vote doesn't even count). Even if you count Florida it barely makes a dent. Even if you counted Michigan's (and gave him the uncommitted vote) she's still way behind there.

She has no arguement for being in this race except that she can be.

I wonder why BO never mentions the new donors. She talks about how every time she eeks out a win it's the people saying they want her to go on. Why doesn't BO say "look, we've got thousands of new contributors after every contest saying they are tired of the same old politics and want a fresh face"

Interesting that Rush Limbaugh instructed his followers, um, I mean listeners, in Indiana (where the primary was open to all party affiliations) to vote for Hillary.

I'm sure that he'll be boasting about this victory and taking credit for it today, and it might be well deserved credit.

McGovern to Clinton: Time to go (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/07/mcgovern-to-clinton-time-to-go/)

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif
(CNN) – Former Sen. George McGovern urged Hillary Clinton Wednesday to drop out of the Democratic presidential race.
McGovern, who had endorsed Clinton, told CNN he was switching his support to endorse Barack Obama.
“It certainly was not out of any less respect for Senator Clinton,” McGovern told CNN in a telephone interview early Wednesday afternoon about his decision to switch his support to Barack Obama. “I think she has waged a really courageous and valiant campaign. She will have my affection and admiration for all of my days.
“But I think mathematically the race is all but won by Barack Obama and the time has come for all of us to unite and get ready for the general election in the fall.”
McGovern also told CNN he had just spoken to former President Bill Clinton about his decision to back Obama – a conversation he described as “very good.”
“I have had many conversations with him over the years, none better than today," McGovern said. "He did me the honor of talking to me about this. There will be no hard feelings with him or Senator Clinton.”
McGovern said he has not spoken to Sen. Clinton today, because he thought she would be too exhausted after Tuesday’s primary but plans to talk to her in the future.”
McGovern is not a Democratic superdelegate, though he is the first major Clinton supporter to publicly suggest the New York senator should abandon her presidential bid following Tuesday night's results.
Responding to the news, Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee said "Senator Clinton appreciates Senator McGovern's friendship, but believes the voters in the upcoming states should have their voices heard in this process."

The analyst all said she gave a pretty weak speech last night and Obama's redefined him as the nominee in the fall.

His speech is a long read, but a good one:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGCR2K

Here is hers:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/06/raw-data-hillary-clinton-rally-speech-in-indiana/

BTW, why can't she eliminate the you know's from her written speeches? She sounds like a stupid athelete. If we already know, why are you telling us?

^ it was a good one. I listened to it and posted that it was a general election speech last night.

If I were BO, I'd simply ignore Hillary the rest of the way.

So she just loaned herself another 5 million? Doesn't look like she plans on going anywhere.

A lil OT but BO will NOT pick her for his VP. I thought that would really help him, but picking Hill is like picking Bill and I just don't see that threesome working.

A lil OT but BO will NOT pick her for his VP. I thought that would really help him, but picking Hill is like picking Bill and I just don't see that threesome working.

Thanks, I'm skipping lunch now.

I think mixing poitics and the bedroom is apropos in this case. A big 'yuk' in either case.

So she just loaned herself another 5 million? Doesn't look like she plans on going anywhere.

A lil OT but BO will NOT pick her for his VP. I thought that would really help him, but picking Hill is like picking Bill and I just don't see that threesome working.

Yeah, I said he'd never do that from the start. You can't preach change and bring along an old hat. I think the GOP would call him out on that. I've felt Richardson would be his choice (long before his endorsement). I'd like to see Edwards, but I think he'll decline (if asked).

and I just don't see that threesome working.
Bill does.....

Bill does.....

Late.

Also Ledezma-ish.

Wait, why are Hillary, Bill, and Obama having a threesome? How will that affect the primaries?

Bill does.....

I don't know. Bill's threesomes usually don't involve 2 other people that wear the pants in their families.

Yeah, I said he'd never do that from the start. You can't preach change and bring along an old hat. I think the GOP would call him out on that. I've felt Richardson would be his choice (long before his endorsement). I'd like to see Edwards, but I think he'll decline (if asked).

I remember you saying that.

I just thought it was the best way to bring the party back together.

Know one knows for sure what effect/affect(?) the Dem race will have on the general. All the 'experts' love to prognosticate about it...I'm no expert but I like to chime in about it too.

I think it will hurt the Dems but maybe only a % pt or 2. If the race is that close it MIGHT effect the outcome, but I doubt it.

I think the division is overblown really. Dems are not going to cross over and vote for McCain. Especially when the Dems both have such similar policy stances. That would be rediculous for voters to approve Hillary's message and then not Obama's. Those polls only show the division because the race is still on (though basically over).

They talked about polls not mattering last night on CNN a lot. They pointed out how Dukakis had a good lead in the polls at this time and got owned by Bush. They cited many more examples of that. The polls will change a lot once the nominee is chosen. The key is simply to have this settled in time to mend fences at the convention.

So she just loaned herself another 5 million? Doesn't look like she plans on going anywhere.
She lent herself and spent that before IN/NC. In fact, some hypothesize that loan was part of her $10 milllion dollar day.

She'll have a win, and Obama will talk big about "donors" once the bad news from WV hits. WV may not be so bad if Obama can get Byrd's endorsement there, and WV's particular delegate math should keep Hillary from getting a big pickup out of WV even with a blowout.

If they split the primaries the rest of the way pretty close, she'd have to pick up %80 of the supers to pass him. I checked this out with the delegate counter here:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.counter/index.html

Without the supers, she has to get %86 of the remaining pledged delegates to catch up to him.

Not a chance. ABC News has an even more in-depth look at how things are shaking out.

It doesn't look good for Hillary. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU)

It's a longer read, so I made a quick summary (in brown) for each item.


The Five Mistakes Clinton Made
By KAREN TUMULTY (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:void%280%29)

1. She misjudged the mood (understimating a desire for change)
2. She didn't master the rules (picked loyal people, not smart)
3. She underestimated the caucus states (had no plan there)
4. She relied on old money (maxed out from people in circle)
5. She never counted on a long haul (she would end it quick)


Full story from Time Magazine here (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1738331,00.html?cnn=yes)

I liked this part from #2:

As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all. Sitting nearby, veteran Democratic insider Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified — and let Penn know it. "How can it possibly be," Ickes asked, "that the much vaunted chief strategist doesn't understand proportional allocation?"

What a weasel:



Rush Limbaugh urges vote for Obama

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- He has publicly urged Republicans to vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton to keep the divisive Democratic nomination fight alive, but talk radio host Rush Limbaugh said Wednesday he really wants Sen. Barack Obama to be the party's nominee.http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif
"I now believe he would be the weakest of the Democrat nominees," Limbaugh, among the most powerful voices in conservative radio, said on his program. "I now urge the Democrat superdelegates to make your mind up and publicly go for Obama."
"Barack Obama has shown he cannot get the votes Democrats need to win -- blue-collar, working-class people," Limbaugh said. "He can get effete snobs, he can get wealthy academics, he can get the young, and he can get the black vote, but Democrats do not win with that."
But Jamal Simmons, a Democratic strategist and Obama supporter, disagreed, saying the Democratic Party has "the best coalition to go out and talk to people across racial lines, which are the unions."
If Obama wins the nomination, he said, support from unions should help him gain support among blue-collar workers when "they don't have to choose between two Democrats."

Full Story (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/07/limbaugh.obama/index.html)

The deal that the MDP had in the works for a 69-59 seating of Michigan's delegates in Hillary's favor is being protested -- by Hillary!

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/hillary_campaign_says_no_to_ne.php

It's not that this deal necessarily had a high likelihood of making it through. Any deal that considered the January 15th primary as legit was likely to be nixed by the DNC unless both candidates agreed to it.

Hillary just took a piss on her Michigan political supporters. Awesome!

Nice use of brown text, Chris.

The deal that the MDP had in the works for a 69-59 seating of Michigan's delegates in Hillary's favor is being protested -- by Hillary!

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/hillary_campaign_says_no_to_ne.php

It's not that this deal necessarily had a high likelihood of making it through. Any deal that considered the January 15th primary as legit was likely to be nixed by the DNC unless both candidates agreed to it.

Hillary just took a piss on her Michigan political supporters. Awesome!

If they counted both MI and FL (which is stupid), she gains 18 in MI (if you give BO the uncommitted), and 35 in Florida. Those silly results would cut his lead by 53.

Obama 1967
Clinton 1867

The gap would be very close (obviously why she is so greedy), but even if his camp was dumb enough to accept that she'd still need to get %75 of the remaining pledged delegates to pass him (not counting supers). I don't know why nobody talks about that. Even if you totally screwed him over and she got her way, she'd still have to convince the supers to ignore the masses to make this a race.

Nice use of brown text, Chris.

Brown text is underrated

If they counted both MI and FL (which is stupid), she gains 18 in MI (if you give BO the uncommitted), and 35 in Florida. Those silly results would cut his lead by 53.

Obama 1967
Clinton 1867

The gap would be very close (obviously why she is so greedy), but even if his camp was dumb enough to accept that she'd still need to get %75 of the remaining pledged delegates to pass him (not counting supers). I don't know why nobody talks about that. Even if you totally screwed him over and she got her way, she'd still have to convince the supers to ignore the masses to make this a race.

I heard someone say, on Tuesday, that BO will prolly agree to whatever Hillary was asking for in Mich and Fla. Cuz, it just doesn't matter anymore.

I heard someone say, on Tuesday, that BO will prolly agree to whatever Hillary was asking for in Mich and Fla. Cuz, it just doesn't matter anymore.

It won't matter as long as he handles it right. He can't let her then spout off about how close the race is (I hope she'd make that arguement because you could crush it real fast based on the bogus results from MI and FL).

True.

As soon as more Supers go to his camp, he can simply agree to whatever she wants.

I suspect he will allow them to be counted when those delegates he would pick up will end the race in his favor (or close to it). That way she can't complain about him finally agreeing because at that point she'll have lost and should be mending fences.

At the very least I would think he'd wait to see how she does in WV (which should be one of the few states left she has a solid chance in). If she won big he wouldn't want to help her out then. If it's close or he wins it might be a good time to do that.

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc140/drmicro/hoops.gif

^ I sense fatigue on Mxy's part.

I'm thinkin he can't wait to get to the general so he can do his homework and see who he wants to vote for....JM or BO.

Also on this Hillary getting out thing...I bet she wins WVA and Kentucky even if she withdraws. That would'nt look the best for BO.

Just let her bleed out. Ignore her.

I think one thing that would help her get out sooner is for the party to promise her that she would be drafted if there is something catastrophic happened to BO.

Probably the best time will be May 21st (for Obama to allow them to count). At that time he'll probably cancell her probable wins in WV and KY with a big win in OR.

^ I sense fatigue on Mxy's part.
What you sense is the lengths I will go to find a good backup PG with Chauncey hurt, because Lindsey and Dixon scare me. This Obama dude may be a little old, but he has a decent jumper and seems to know how to lead a team. He could be better than Horace Jenkins.

Sure, the Dem primaries still make for good reality TV, but I'll gladly tune in for NBA playoff action over any reality TV show.


I'm thinkin he can't wait to get to the general so he can do his homework and see who he wants to vote for....JM or BO.
JM vs. BO is easy for me. Had it been JM vs. AG vs. RN in 2000, I would've struggled hard, since I never liked AG or RN politically.

This guy is serious.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/08/california-superdelegate-wants-20-million-for-his-support/

What you sense is the lengths I will go to find a good backup PG with Chauncey hurt, because Lindsey and Dixon scare me. This Obama dude may be a little old, but he has a decent jumper and seems to know how to lead a team. He could be better than Horace Jenkins.

Sure, the Dem primaries still make for good reality TV, but I'll gladly tune in for NBA playoff action over any reality TV show.


JM vs. BO is easy for me. Had it been JM vs. AG vs. RN in 2000, I would've struggled hard, since I never liked AG or RN politically.

Its Stuckey.

BTW...Mxy, I forgot the green text on the 'Mxy not knowing who he'll vote for' thing.

This guy is serious.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/08/california-superdelegate-wants-20-million-for-his-support/
This guy is a jackass.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b67/billydanielus/godscrackobamavg0xk4av2.jpg

Did Limbaugh Sway Contests?

By ALEC MACGILLIS And PETER SLEVIN
Washington Post
May 8, 2008

Barack Obama's aides charged Wednesday that their candidate would have done even better Tuesday were it not for meddling by an unlikely booster of Hillary Rodham Clinton: longtime Clinton family nemesis Rush Limbaugh.

The impact of the popular conservative radio commentator's "Operation Chaos" emerged as an intriguing point of debate, particularly in Indiana, where registered voters could participate in either party's primary, and where Clinton won by a mere 14,000 votes. As he had before several recent primaries, Limbaugh encouraged listeners to vote for Clinton to "bloody up Obama politically" and prolong the Democratic fight.

Limbaugh crowed about the success of his ploy all day Tuesday, featuring on-air testimonials from voters in Indiana and North Carolina who recounted their illicit pleasure in casting a vote for Clinton. "Some of the people show up and they ask for a Democrat ballot, and the poll worker says, 'Why, what are you going to do?' He says, 'Operation Chaos,' and they just laugh," Limbaugh said Tuesday.

But Limbaugh called off the operation Wednesday, saying he wants Obama to be the party's pick because "I now believe he would be the weakest of the Democrat nominees."

The Obama campaign and many of its supporters condemned Limbaugh's intervention tactic Wednesday. Campaign manager David Plouffe said Limbaugh "had a clear factor in the outcome."

Whether that is true remains in question.

Those citing Limbaugh's influence pointed to Clinton's edge among Republicans in Indiana and North Carolina.

In Indiana, 10 percent of Democratic primary voters described themselves as Republicans, a higher rate than in any state but Mississippi, and they went for Clinton by eight percentage points, according to exit polls. In North Carolina, they were 5 percent of the electorate, and went for her by 29 points.

By contrast, Obama won GOP voters, often by big margins, in many earlier contests.

Also notable was that in Indiana, six in 10 Republicans who supported Clinton on Tuesday said they would vote for presumptive GOP nominee John McCain over Clinton in the fall, if that were the matchup. By contrast, most Republicans who voted for Obama said they would back him against McCain.

But at least as much data suggested that many Republicans voted for Clinton because the Democratic primary was the more meaningful one and because they simply preferred her to Obama. In Indiana, about nine in 10 GOP Clinton voters said she would make a better commander in chief, and more than six in 10 said she would have a better shot at beating McCain.

And Clinton's edge among Indiana Republicans was relatively small. Her eight-point advantage among Republicans, nearly all of whom are white in the state, was much narrower than it was among white Democrats, whom she won by nearly 2-to-1 over Obama.

Edward Carmines, a political scientist at Indiana University, said that he concluded from the data that while Operation Chaos "existed to some extent, I don't think it was a major factor."

Obama narrows Clinton lead in superdelegates

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama closed in Friday on Sen. Hillary Clinton's lead among supedelegates, the Democratic officials who hold the balance of power in determining the party's presidential nominee.
The Obama campaign announced the support of two new superdelegates -- including a previous Clinton backer.
Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon told The Oregonian newspaper that he will support the presidential bid of the senator from Illinois. Oregon voters are in the middle of primary voting, which takes place through the mail.
Rep. Donald Payne, a New Jersey Democrat and an early Clinton supporter, told The (Newark) Star-Ledger that he was switching to Obama (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/barack.obama.html).
Both Payne and DeFazio are superdelegates -- party officials, elected representatives and activists who are free to vote the way they want or to change their minds after pledging to a candidate.
Obama holds a commanding lead in the number of pledged delegates awarded from primaries and caucuses.
The latest announcements narrow Clinton (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/hillary.clinton.html)'s lead in superdelegates to five.

These superdelegates (and their egos) must be loving this attention.

If it was me, I'd announce that I'm switching and then a few days later announce that I was just kidding.

Check this out:



Sources: Clinton supporter pressures Pelosi

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Hillary Clinton supporter Harvey Weinstein threatened to cut off contributions to congressional Democrats unless House Speaker Nancy Pelosi embraced his plan to finance revotes in Florida and Michigan, three officials familiar with their conversation said.
Weinstein and Pelosi talked on the phone late last month, the sources said.
The three officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk publicly about the conversation.
They said Weinstein, a top supporter of Clinton's presidential campaign, appeared determined to buy Clinton (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/hillary.clinton.html) more time in her battle against Sen. Barack Obama (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/barack.obama.html) by pushing for the revote. He was also pressing Pelosi to back off her previous comments that superdelegates should support the candidate who's leading in pledged delegates in early June, the sources said.
Weinstein (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/harvey_weinstein), a co-founder of Miramax Films who now runs the Weinstein Company, called CNN Thursday to vehemently deny that he issued any threats. "Never, ever was the thought about denying funding to Democrats," he said.

At this point, the reason I'm not voting for Hillary is not because she's annoying or that she's a woman or that I disagree with her positions - I'm not voting for her because she's almost incomprehensibly dense.

Well of course Hillary does well in the white demographic! How does she not put 2 and 2 together and realize that the states she's doing well in are states where there are a ton of Republicans? How does she not realize that she got her ass handed to her in every state until the Republican primaries were pretty much decided, and now she's suddenly competitive? She's acting like she's got a lot of support from Democrats as a whole, and if she really thinks that, she's hopelessly dumb and out of touch.

I like how Clinton attacks Obama as the man for the rich white snobs while she has movie moguls using their money to pressure for counting Michigan and Florida. That's impressive.

I don't think Clinton is dumb. She simply has a large ego and it ruined her campaign. She surrounder herself with people to stroke her ego and overlooked contests because of her ego. Now she thinks she can re-write the rules because of her ego. Many people get away with it. She is not. She probably has Bush to thank for that (people are tired of egos).

I don't think Clinton is dumb..
Then how do you explain the fact that she thinks Democrats are voting for her?

I think she just talks a good game. She'll put whatever spin she can on it to convince the supers to vote for her. She's simply playing the hand that is delt to her. She got behind on her own merit, now she's doing whatever she can to drag him down to where she is.

Obama picked up two more supers today (Espinoza and Gage) in addition to the 2 I posted earlier today:


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama on Friday closed in on Sen. Hillary Clinton's lead among superdelegates, the Democratic officials who hold the balance of power in determining the party's presidential nominee.
The Obama campaign announced the support of four new superdelegates -- including a previous Clinton backer.
California Democratic National Committee member and superdelegate Ed Espinoza endorsed the senator from Illinois Friday, according to the Obama camp.
Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon also told The Oregonian newspaper that he will support Obama's bid. Oregon voters are in the middle of primary voting, which takes place through the mail.
Rep. Donald Payne, a New Jersey Democrat and an early Clinton supporter, told The (Newark) Star-Ledger that he was switching to Obama (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/barack.obama.html).
John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, also said he is backing Obama. He had been uncommitted. His union, which is affiliated with the AFL-CIO, said it represents more than 600,000 workers.
Espinoza, Payne, DeFazio and Gage are superdelegates -- party officials, elected representatives and activists who are free to vote the way they want or to change their minds after pledging to a candidate.
There are now more superdelegates than pledged delegates among those who remain undecided. A flood of endorsements from superdelegates could virtually end the Democratic (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/u_s_democratic_party_politics) race.
Neither candidate has the 2,025 delegates needed for the nomination. Obama has 1,856 total delegates, 169 delegates short of clinching the Democratic nod, and Clinton has 1,691, according to a CNN survey.
Obama holds a commanding lead in the number of pledged delegates awarded from primaries and caucuses -- 1,592 to Clinton's 1,424.
The latest announcements narrow Clinton (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/hillary.clinton.html)'s lead in superdelegates to three -- 267 to 264. At the year's start, she led by more than 100 superdelegates.

Edwards: Tough for Clinton to 'make the math work' (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/09/edwards-tough-for-clinton-to-make-the-math-work/)
Posted: 12:35 PM ET

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif

(CNN) – John Edwards still isn’t backing a candidate in this year’s Democratic primary race – but it looks like he might be ready to pick a winner.
The former presidential candidate told interviewers on NBC and MSNBC that Barack Obama will probably top the Democratic ticket this fall.
Hillary Clinton has said that she can still win the nomination – but "it's very difficult to make the math work," said Edwards.
Which one of the remaining contenders is best-equipped to beat presumptive Republican nominee John McCain? Edwards tried to avoid picking between the two – then chose Obama, because he said the Illinois senator was the probable Democratic nominee.
He added that he worried the continuing campaign could take a toll on the party’s presidential chances. “I think it’s fine for Hillary to keep making the case for her,” said the former North Carolina senator. “But when that shifts to everything that is wrong with him, then we’re doing damage instead of being helpful.”
Edwards has been heavily wooed by both the Clinton and Obama campaigns since he ended his presidential run in January, but has not publicly endorsed either candidate.

tLFJTc3oExE

Obama takes superdelegate lead on eve of expected loss

(CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama took the lead in the race for superdelegates on the eve of a contest that's expected to fall easily into Sen. Hillary Clinton's column.
Obama and Clinton face off Tuesday in West Virginia, where polls show Clinton ahead by more than a 40-point margin.
Despite her predicted win, many suggest the senator from New York should abandon her White House run.
Rep. Tom Allen of Maine, Dolly Strazar of Hawaii, Sen. Daniel Akaka of Hawaii and Keith Roark of Idaho all endorsed Obama Monday, giving him a lead of four superdelegates for the time being.
Clinton currently trails Obama (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/barack.obama.html) across all fronts -- superdelegates, pledged delegates and the popular vote, according to CNN's latest estimates.
Obama leads in the race for superdelegates, 277 to Clinton's 273, and he's ahead in the overall delegate count, 1,869 to 1,697.
At the beginning of the year, Clinton led the superdelegate race by more than 100.

Obama's actually had the superdelegate lead for a little awhile. CNN's count doesn't seem to account properly for defections from Clinton to Obama:

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/

Obama's gonna be blown out in the land of Jerry Springer's guests. It's unclear what WVa turnout will be like, though.

Obama's slated to be in Macomb County and Grand Rapids on Wednesday.

Hillary merchandise isn't selling well:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/sign-of-the-tim.html

yeah, I'm just hoping he can keep the loss margain in the teens.

Hillary merchandise isn't selling well:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/sign-of-the-tim.html
I swear, there is nothing dumber than the discussions in political blog comment sections. No fanboy rant or spamming troll sucks away IQ points as well as these retards.

yeah, I'm just hoping he can keep the loss margain in the teens.
No way, not in West "By God" Virginia. He'll be lucky if he loses by less than 30 points. Of course, that would only map to a ~10 delegate loss. The only event that would've caused him to lose by 20 points instead of 30 is if Byrd endorsed him, but that didn't happen.

Obama's trying a different strategy, here. He's basically conceding the state instead of going all "50 state strategy" on it. By doing so, he's not giving the anti-Obama folks in the state a whole lot of red meat, and he's sets some low expectations with the press. It should be interesting to see how it plays out.

So do y'all think BO can bring the country together, like he says?

So do y'all think BO can bring the country together, like he says?

Like the country wants to be together. I hate most of you fuckers.

So do y'all think BO can bring the country together, like he says?
I think he won't act as divisively. He appears to respect the Constitution and rule of law, something that a lot of folks can get behind. I like the fact that he's NOT shooting for the moon with things like healthcare and gun control, two planks Democrats have used to jump off the ship time and time again.

I think his very presence will be divisive to some extent. But that's true of any of 'em, and has to be given our inherently two-party system. FWIW, I'm not altogether sure that "unity" is always a good thing. We had a great majority of people favoring war against Iraq under bogus pretenses. Ugh.

On this note, a PLEDGED delegate in Maryland has decided to jump the Hillary ship for Obama. Apparently, the county muckety-muck decided that being a pledged delegate for Hillary was a bad move in a county that went 80-20 for Obama. Oops!

I'm not necessarily keeping my hopes up for anything except 1) not making an ass of himself and 2) increasing regulation (or at least enforcement) on drug makers and insurance companies.

There's a lot of buzz being generated by his GR visit (tomorrow).

Hopefully, he packs the Van Andel Arena.

Doors open at 5 pm and no tickets are required, first come/first served.

There's a lot of buzz being generated by his GR visit (tomorrow).

Hopefully, he packs the Van Andel Arena.

Doors open at 5 pm and no tickets are required, first come/first served.

You going? My wife would be there, but we had a kid 10 days ago and she's all like "oh, we have to care for this thing".

Nah, too lazy to go.

Will it be televised locally?

No way, not in West "By God" Virginia. He'll be lucky if he loses by less than 30 points. Of course, that would only map to a ~10 delegate loss. The only event that would've caused him to lose by 20 points instead of 30 is if Byrd endorsed him, but that didn't happen.

Obama's trying a different strategy, here. He's basically conceding the state instead of going all "50 state strategy" on it. By doing so, he's not giving the anti-Obama folks in the state a whole lot of red meat, and he's sets some low expectations with the press. It should be interesting to see how it plays out.
Well, I'm hoping that the supers jumping ship will give him a little boost and the undecideds will come on board. It wouldn't be enough to win, but maybe enough to dampen her victory party.

From what I've seen she was up by 36 points yesterday, so you are probably right.

To put a WVa loss in perspective: Of the 33 states where either side won by 10+ points, Obama won 25 of them, and likely has three more coming.

I love this quote by a Dem...

"We've got Hillary who can't win the nomination and BO who won't be able to win the general"

I think he won't act as divisively. He appears to respect the Constitution and rule of law, something that a lot of folks can get behind. I like the fact that he's NOT shooting for the moon with things like healthcare and gun control, two planks Democrats have used to jump off the ship time and time again.

I think his very presence will be divisive to some extent. But that's true of any of 'em, and has to be given our inherently two-party system. FWIW, I'm not altogether sure that "unity" is always a good thing. We had a great majority of people favoring war against Iraq under bogus pretenses. Ugh.

On this note, a PLEDGED delegate in Maryland has decided to jump the Hillary ship for Obama. Apparently, the county muckety-muck decided that being a pledged delegate for Hillary was a bad move in a county that went 80-20 for Obama. Oops!

Well if theres anyone who has worked across party lines its JM, not BO.

BO is stright up liberal. Nothing wrong with that, but these peeps who say he will work across lines are more statements of 'hope he does' than 'he has'.

I don't see any of his ideas as throwing an olive branch. and theres nothign wrong with that either. It just depends on how many voters he can sell on that bullshit.

How is his healthcare plan "straight up liberal" when compared to previous and usual Dems? It's much less liberal than Hillary's and the usual Democrats. Same can be said with gun control and some other stances he has.

Will it be televised locally?

Why would Hermy's kid be televised?

Hillary netted maybe 10 delis today.

But his serious weakness in working class votes is huge going forward, imo.

Will it be televised locally?


TV 8.

Hillary netted maybe 10 delis today.

But his serious weakness in working class votes is huge going forward, imo.
Appalachian voters are the serious weakness.

Working class? Not so much. The "working class" meme doesn't explain places like Oregon, Iowa, and Maine, which are nothing if not filled with white working class sorts. Apart from the Appalachian territories, Hillary's "working class" strength here has been among women. There's roughly even support with Hillary among working class men, but the white working class women break for Hillary bigtime (and women are more likely to be working class, owing to pay disparity).

Hillary manages to rack up huge votes in the poorest and least educated state in the country. I didn't see her victory speach but I'm sure she must be real proud.

Hay, are we bashing WVA here now?

Might be time to pull up some of those old Rich Rodriguez threads.

West Virginia (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/West_Virginia) ranked 50th among the states in household income and 48th in the percentage of adults with a high school diploma.

Cue the dueling banjoes.

Is there any chance that Obama came to Michigan today to get a photo op with a prominent converted superdelegate(s)?

Working class? Not so much. The "working class" meme doesn't explain places like Oregon, Iowa, and Maine, which are nothing if not filled with white working class sorts.

Maybe the problem is that "working class" is too broad to be useful.

I agree. How can you define WV as the working class anyway when %18 of the state is below the poverty line. They say Obama gets the young, educated voters. Are they not part of the working class? The "working class" they are talking about isn't going to vote republican anyway, so what's the difference? You can't tell me a state with 1/6 of the people on food stamps is going to vote for a party that has left the "working class" behind for years.

Hillary manages to rack up huge votes in the poorest and least educated state in the country. I didn't see her victory speach but I'm sure she must be real proud.
Obama's racked up votes in a lot of poor, uneducated states as well.

Turnout was interesting. It was a huge margin, but not a huge number of votes. Absentee/mail-in voting was off the charts, but the WV Secretary of State said overall day-of turnout as "average", not the elevated Democratic turnouts seen in the other states. There could be a number of reasons for that (e.g. Obama didn't show up and rally, it's over) but none of them are favorable to Hillary's cause. 7% voted for Edwards, and up in the teens in some places. How much of that was protest, and how much was people honestly thinking Edwards was still in it?

It should be interesting to see who Byrd endorses.

Is there any chance that Obama came to Michigan today to get a photo op with a prominent converted superdelegate(s)?
He's starting to do general election stops in areas where McCain and he look to be neck and neck. Yesterday, it was Missouri. It was no accident that McCain was in both states just last week.

If I were a BO supporter, last night would concern me.

He had some momentum with the a few Super Delis coming to him from Clinton this week, then the presumtive nominee gets thumped by 41%.

OUCH!

I think BO was smart to focus on the general and not WV. He wasn't going to win there anyway. His best bet was to not give McCain a free pass. He doesn't have to beat Hillary in "her states", he simply has to keep McCain from gaining momentum there.

If I were a BO supporter, last night would concern me.

He had some momentum with the a few Super Delis coming to him from Clinton this week, then the presumtive nominee gets thumped by 41%.

OUCH!

Meh, Huckabee.

At 1 pm, there were about 20 people standing in line in the rain out front of Van Andel Arena.

Doors open at 5 pm.

LOL @ 20 people. I heard they were worried about 100s.

Might have been 30, I didn't try to count.

They were all huddled up against the side of the building facing Ottawa Ave.

Now that I think about it, the cops might have outnumbered them.

Oh, I was wrong. It's on Wood radio (1300?), and WXMI. Your station with game, and the occasional "yes we can".

Cue the dueling banjoes.

YES.

Da-da-ling-dang-ding-dayng-dayng-doyng-dayng....

EDWARDS ENDORSING OBAMA IN GR TONIGHT.

LOL @ me, it's already full.

If I were a BO supporter, last night would concern me.

He had some momentum with the a few Super Delis coming to him from Clinton this week, then the presumtive nominee gets thumped by 41%.

OUCH!
He could've worked hard to cut his losses there, but it'd have likely gotten him only 4 delegates at most. He'd have been dinged by the media and the Hillary, drawn comparisons to JFK (who historically won WV, but with a very different time and dynamic), and had a bad news day. As it stands now, he laughed at Hillary pissing away money she didn't have in favor of races where she might make it competitive, got more superdels today than her, and won the media cycle even before the Edwards endorsement.

Mxy...didn't Hillary NOT campaign in some of those early primaries? Cuz I was on the phone, but listening to one of her campaign peeps say they made some early mistakes.

If so, good thing for BO that she didn't have a few of his proportional delis, or she'd really be making some noise.

Edwards looked and sounded like the VP tonight.

Not sure why I put this here

http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/1751/bclips7.jpg

Mxy...didn't Hillary NOT campaign in some of those early primaries? Cuz I was on the phone, but listening to one of her campaign peeps say they made some early mistakes.
Her peeps were the ones who managed to get NY, CA, MA, etc. front-loaded to Super Tuesday. She helped create a situation where no one could do justice to all of those states. With this and other moves, the idea was that the Clinton name and her formidable fund raising would seal the deal quick, fast, and in a hurry. She created a lot of the "early" landscape for her "early mistakes".

Dear Tahoe,



What the fuck is that?

^ What? The pic?

BILL CLINTON EVERYWHERE!!!

Edwards looked and sounded like the VP tonight.

It was mentioned on Countdown with Keith Olbermann that he'd be best suited for a Secretary of State position, but I'm comfortable enough with my manly manliness to say that DAMN those two looked hawt on stage togetha.

BTW, did anybody actually watch Olbermann tonight. Holy shit!!! Fool tore into Bush like nothing I've ever seen. I don't think MSNBC is going to do anything about it, but I've gotta give Keith props for huge brass balls.

If you can find it on YouTube, please do.

They usually have videos of Olbermann rants on HuffingtonPost.com or crooksandliars.com.

EDIT: Yessir! http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/14/countdown-special-comment-to-president-bush-shut-the-hell-up/

I love KO's "worst person in the world" segment at the end of every show.

Back to Obama's GR visit. I've talked to a few people that were there and they said it was amazing. "Bigger than any rock concert that Van Andel has ever held" one of them claimed. Someone else said it looked like some kind of religious revival, with people in the crowd holding their hands up to the sky.

Anybody hear about this little "issue" with a female reporter that BO called "sweetie"?

Anybody hear about this little "issue" with a female reporter that BO called "sweetie"?
http://www.wxyz.com/content/news/2008vote/story.aspx?content_id=8190d4d2-a1da-457c-af83-de8a427fff6b

I heard about that comment. I think it points out that he clearly doesn't respect women. He is not fit to be our Prez, cuz of comments like these.j/k

Totally condescending.

I heard about that comment. I think it points out that he clearly doesn't respect women. He is not fit to be our Prez, cuz of comments like these.j/k

Totally condescending.

Didn't McCain marry a stripper?

I KNOW YOU WERE KIDDING, TAHOE

Marrying a stripper helps out low-esteemed women. It shows he's a compassionate conservative.

I heard about that comment. I think it points out that he clearly doesn't respect women. He is not fit to be our Prez, cuz of comments like these.j/k

Totally condescending.
There is a minor but real problem here... a pattern I've seen in his interactions. Pesty person gets in his face chronically and testy Obama comes out eventually. Similar sorts of stuff happened with Amy Goodman (another reporter, can get pretty obnoxious), and a dude who wanted to take his picture for EBay, both within the past few weeks. It shouldn't get to that point. Obama needs someone running interference for him, where he gives a quick signal to them and they escort the nuisance to the side.

Wyclef recomends falling in love with a stripper and I believe everything Wyclef says.

Edwards endorsement pays off for Obama

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama collected the support of four of John Edwards' Democratic National Convention delegates on Thursday, then gained the backing of four superdelegates and a large labor union as he marched steadily toward the party's presidential nomination.

The fresh support brought Obama's overall delegate total to 1,895, compared to 1,718 for his rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton. It takes 2,026 to clinch the nomination at the party convention in Denver this summer.

Edwards, who bestowed his long-sought endorsement on Obama on Wednesday, won 19 delegates before departing the presidential race in January.

Within hours, Obama picked up the backing of three of them from South Carolina and one in New Hampshire.

In addition, three superdelegates — Reps. James McDermott of Washington, and Henry Waxman and Howard Berman of California — endorsed Obama.

"I believe now is the time to unite behind Barack Obama so we can be in the strongest place possible to win in November," McDermott said.

Waxman said in a statement: "I have the greatest respect and admiration for Senator Clinton and former President Clinton ... It is now clear, however, that the Democratic Party is nearing a broad consensus on our nominee."

Edwards had been backed by the United Steelworkers Union, which announced it would now support Obama. The union has 600,000 active members, many of them blue-collar workers of the type that have favored Clinton in recent primaries.

Obama also picked up the personal endorsement of superdelegate Larry Cohen, the president of the Communication Workers of America union.

"Senator Obama is uniquely positioned to broaden the Democratic party base and lead the party to election gains at every level this year as well as reclaiming the White House," said Cohen, who lives in the nation's capital.

There is a minor but real problem here... a pattern I've seen in his interactions. Pesty person gets in his face chronically and testy Obama comes out eventually. Similar sorts of stuff happened with Amy Goodman (another reporter, can get pretty obnoxious), and a dude who wanted to take his picture for EBay, both within the past few weeks. It shouldn't get to that point. Obama needs someone running interference for him, where he gives a quick signal to them and they escort the nuisance to the side.

BO "Brother, you are wearing me out" That was the guy who wanted a pic. I thought that was a perfect comment. I LOL on that one.

I don't mind a lil cantankerousivity with our Prez. JM will outshine BO, imo, in that category.

I read an article where a post cold-war Russian column quoted some of the higher ups in Russia, always having a question in the back of their minds that Reagan might just be crazy enough to send them a present in the form of a nuke.

Edwards endorsement of BO pays off.

I think it helped take away the good press Hillary was getting for her stomping of BO in WVA.

Is there any chance that Obama came to Michigan today to get a photo op with a prominent former Democratic Presidential candidate?
El fixo.

Wyclef recomends falling in love with a stripper and I believe everything Wyclef says.

^ He's a fucking genious, Yo!

Someone should ask Hillary about the math now. If you give him a solid win in Oregon (%64) and her a decent win in Kentucky (%59)...btw I have no idea what the current polls show right now...and then Clinton a win in Puerto Rico and Obama in the rest of the states...she'd have to get over %90 of the supers to back her in order to steal the nomination.

I think that is pretty much what is expected from the remaining races.

EDIT - right now they are showing BO with a 14 point advantage in Oregon, and Clinton with a 32 point edge in KT. So my guess was a little off, but that would still require over %85 of supers to back her.

Its best for BO to let her bow out on her own at this point. If he pushes, he might piss off her voters. If he lets her go gracefully, they'll be more apt to support him.

But, I agree with your assessment.

Hillary is actually selling a poster of herself as Chairman Mao on her website!
http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/8876/hrc2xi5.jpg
http://www.hillarystore.com/store/HC0925.html

Obama had a little rally...
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/6950/obamaoregon5332pb6.jpg

That is fuckin' spectacular...

That looks like Woodstock.

http://www.jimhillmedia.com/mb/images/upload/summerofwoodstock.jpg

This is a pretty nice endorsement to have.

Buffett backs Obama for President (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080519/ts_alt_afp/germanyusinvestpoliticsbuffett_080519163709;_ylt=A oMZ0By0QIhdx_88YO8En7Fh24cA)

Warren Buffett, the world's richest man, is backing Barak Obama for US president and thinks current US economic policy will push the dollar lower against other global currencies.

http://ad.yieldmanager.com/pixel?adv=23351&code=&t=2http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=YE30u0WTVvobnX6bSCwg7Qd8RgjXQ0gx4Z0AA1Gi&T=1csejq156%2fX%3d1211228573%2fE%3d95972313%2fR%3d news%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d2.1%2fW%3dH%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3d9 39706445%2fH%3dY2FjaGVoaW50PSJuZXdzIiBjb250ZW50PSJ tYW47ZG9sbGFyO2N1cnJlbmNpZXM7RGVtb2NyYXRpYztIaWxsY XJ5IENsaW50b247aXQ7ZGVwcmVzc2lvbjtzdG9jaztidXNpbmV zczt0YXg7Z2l2ZTtyZWZ1cmxfd3d3X3N0ZXJlb2h5cGVkX2Nvb SIgcmVmdXJsPSJyZWZ1cmxfd3d3X3N0ZXJlb2h5cGVkX2NvbSI gdG9waWNzPSJyZWZ1cmxfd3d3X3N0ZXJlb2h5cGVkX2NvbSI-%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3dF8519345&U=13f6gvdp2%2fN%3dQ0dNK9GDJHE-%2fC%3d619213.12513759.12865454.1442997%2fD%3dLREC %2fB%3d4919452%2fV%3d1
Buffett told a press conference here Monday he had offered support to both Obama and Democratic rival Hillary Clinton but that since it appeared Obama would win the party's nomination, "I will be very happy if he is elected president.

"He is my choice," Buffett said. Commenting on the US economy, the 77-year-old investor who is known as the "Sage of Omaha," stressed that fiscal, monetary and trade policies were of great importance.

O snap! There goes that pro-business mystique of the GOP.

O snap! There goes that pro-business mystique of the GOP.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/14/AR2008051401275.html


Three former U.S. SEC chairmen endorse Obama
By Jeff Mason
Reuters
Wednesday, May 14, 2008; 3:18 PM

WARREN, Mich (Reuters) - Three former chairmen of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Wednesday, bolstering the Illinois senator's economic credentials and bipartisan appeal as he closes in on his party's nomination.

Former SEC head William Donaldson, who was appointed by Republican President George W. Bush, joined Arthur Levitt and David Ruder in backing Obama, who leads rival Hillary Clinton in the number of delegates necessary to become the Democratic White House nominee.

Levitt was appointed by former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, while Ruder was appointed by former President Ronald Reagan, a Republican.

All three commended Obama for his approach to regulation.

"Each of us has been committed to prudent economic policy and effective financial regulation for many years," they said in a joint statement along with former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, also an Obama supporter.

"We believe Senator Obama can provide the positive leadership and judgment needed to take us to a stronger and more secure economic future."

From CNN:

If the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination is almost over, Clinton isn't acting like it.
"I'm going to make [my case] until we have a nominee, but we're not going to have one today and we're not going to have one tomorrow and we're not going to have one the next day," Clinton said Monday in Kentucky.
She continues to make her argument that she leads in the popular vote. "Right now, more people have voted for me than have voted for my opponent," she said. "More people have voted for me than for anybody ever running for president before. So we have a very close contest."
But that's creative math. For Clinton to have the lead in the popular vote, primary states but not caucus states -- mostly won by Obama -- would have to be counted, plus the popular vote totals in Florida and Michigan. Obama's name wasn't on the Michigan ballot, and he received no votes in that state's contest.
Neither Florida nor Michigan's results are being counted by the Democratic Party. That's because both states broke party rules by moving their primaries up to January.
Clinton also argues that she's won the states that she contends would stack up stronger against McCain.
"The states I've won total 300 electoral votes. If we had the same rules as the Republicans, I would be nominee right now," she said. "We have different rules, so what we've got to figure out is who can win 270 electoral votes. My opponent has won states totaling 217 electoral votes."
While those totals include states like Texas and Oklahoma, which have been solid Republican territory in general elections, "I still have a cushion, if you look at all the states that I have won and take out those that may not be in our column come the fall," she said.

"My opponent has 217 electoral votes from places like Alaska and Idaho and Utah and Kansas and Nebraska and many of his votes and his delegates come from caucus states, which have a relatively low turnout," Clinton said.

So far, though, Clinton's arguments appear to be falling on deaf ears.

BTW, Obama is expected to wrap up the majority of pledged delegates tonight, which allows him to make a huge statement based off that. After tonight, it will be impossible for her to catch him in pledged delegates. Since he also holds the popular vote (unless you use her crazy math), she doesn't have much to argue besides her "swing state" nonsense.

She's dead guys. Let's lock this thread.

^ she may be but they said that a presumed winner like BO has never been thumped by 40 plus points. And now he gets thumped again tonight by 30pts?

I think that shows some pretty serious flaws going forward. We shall see.

If he would pick her for a running mate, JM might as well not even show up.

^ she may be but they said that a presumed winner like BO has never been thumped by 40 plus points. And now he gets thumped again tonight by 30pts?

.

McCain got beat by 80 points in Utah.

Did he really? I didn't know that.

These TV peeps don't know what the fuck they're talking about and I regurgitated it.

Did he really? I didn't know that.

These TV peeps don't know what the fuck they're talking about and I regurgitated it.

To be fair, that's like Lieberman beating Byrd in Israel.

Well... and Clinton beating Obama in WVa, in a way.

How in the hell did the DNC ever even begin to consider to count all of Florida and Michigan? It just does not make any sense at all to me...

It doesn't even make sense to me to count them at all. I guess since they knew about this beforehand that's how they should keep it.

I know, I know, what about the voices of those in FLA and MI? Well, if anything, do a revote... I know Clinton would still win both states, but I think it would be much closer...

The Michigan/Fla situation is a mess. But the Dems cannot NOT count the peeps that went out to vote. I've changed on that.

I mean, the voters did what the State Dem Party wanted. Dean decided they don't count.

How can the Dems say their votes don't count after the Florida debacle with Bush in the general?

I go back and forth on it, but the peeps voted. Let the votes count. She still isn't winning even with them counted.

I know, I know, what about the voices of those in FLA and MI? Well, if anything, do a revote... I know Clinton would still win both states, but I think it would be much closer...
Florida? Yes. Michigan? Not so fast... Hillary doesn't necessarily win Michigan, not at all. Polls generally show them neck and neck. We don't have any white southern or Appalachian folks here. AFAICT, 55% is her peak. If she can't win 55% in a straw poll with no one else on the ballot...

Michigan's top leaders are in the tank for Hillary, but much of that seems to be burying their heads in the sand regarding the early primary.


The Michigan/Fla situation is a mess. But the Dems cannot NOT count the peeps that went out to vote. I've changed on that.

I mean, the voters did what the State Dem Party wanted. Dean decided they don't count.
LOTS of Obama, Edwards, and other voters didn't vote because they were told it wouldn't count. That's especially true in Michigan, which is unique in having depressed turnout in their primary. Florida had decent turnout, but it was greatly skewed owing to an old-person property tax issue on the ballot along with the primary.


How can the Dems say their votes don't count after the Florida debacle with Bush in the general?

I go back and forth on it, but the peeps voted. Let the votes count. She still isn't winning even with them counted.
But, if you let Florida and Michigan get away with what they did and you will have mass chaos in 2012 and beyond. McCain got the winner's nod by virtue of Republicans caving into Florida's scheduling. If McCain loses the general election, do you think that Republicans will

If people in Florida go out of their way to make themselves not count, after the Florida debacle, that says more about Florida than it does about Dems at a national level. Florida isn't going to go Democratic, no matter what.

The Michigan/Fla situation is a mess. But the Dems cannot NOT count the peeps that went out to vote. I've changed on that.

I mean, the voters did what the State Dem Party wanted. Dean decided they don't count.

How can the Dems say their votes don't count after the Florida debacle with Bush in the general?

I go back and forth on it, but the peeps voted. Let the votes count. She still isn't winning even with them counted.

It is a clusterfuck. Here's the problem with counting them....my wife didn't go out and vote because the democratic party told her not to...the state fags went ahead anyway and pissed her off....now if the national party gives any credence to those results, she feels put off.

This is what happens when you give politicians (the people who give us rules) rules. They find a way to suit themselves. Makes me want to smoke a lefty.

She's such a hyppocrite on Michigan and Florida. She sits here and trumpets "count the votes" and on the other hand she wants the supers to ignore the votes and side with her. And I agree on Michigan. She barely 'won' Michigan while being the only name on the ballot. I'm betting that it would be even closer than the Hillary vs Uncommitted margain was. I read that Obama agreed to take the uncommitted vote and give her the win there long ago and she wanted a larger piece of the pie.

At this point they should give Hillary her votes and Obama the remainder in those two states (uncomitted and his/edwards votes). Is it fair to Obama, no. But it would put her arguement to bed and also seat those two states.

It would be divided like this:
Michigan (157 del)
Clinton 328,151 (%55)
Obama 237,762 (%40)

Florida (211 del)
Clinton 857,208 (%50)
Obama 817,645 (%47)

And in California, the Dems are kicking themselves right now cuz if we had our usual date for a primary, they would have been inundated with the candidates, press and oh yea, money.

Instead they moved the date up.

so Hillary is still running and Obama is focusing on McDemocrat.......when is this race officially DONE?

Did he really? I didn't know that.

These TV peeps don't know what the fuck they're talking about and I regurgitated it.

It's more than just the TV peeps. Bill Kristol is a neo-conservative* commentator who writes a syndicated column for the Washington Post, and he appears a lot on FNews, and he's been saying this a lot. "Obama's loss in WV is unprecedented! I can't think of another time this has happened!" And he knows what happened in Utah this year with the GOP primary, but he's still saying it.

When a guy admits in advance that he's willing to lie in order to promote a narrative he thinks is important, it's the media's dumbass fault for still giving him an audience.



*He's the son of Irv Kristol, the college professor who invented neo-conservatism.

Kristol is a straight shooter. I've seen him correct himself if he says something wrong. Unlike that Engel guy.

Kristol writes for the NY Times and I can't stand him; how this neo-con hack got to inherit Buckley's legacy is amazing to me. Buckley was an ideologue who could talk concepts and ideas as well as comment on specific political issues. Though you might not agree with him (and I very rarely did) you could see the ideas, the full plan behind what he was saying in many of his articles. I always enjoyed reading him. Kristol simply grabs the popular/populist neo-con agenda and runs with it on issues

He has been very critical of Bush. Not saying he's going to vote for BO, but he lit Bush up a couple of times.

Kristol has said over and over again that he'd gladly lie to everyone's face if it meant that American strength in the world would be enhanced or preserved (however he sees it).

When a guy admits that he'd lie in theory, and then gets caught over and over again lying in practice (you really should read the stuff Glenn Greenwald has to say about him, he publishes corrections to everything Kristol says), then what in the hell is anyone doing giving him a chance to talk on TV or write for a newspaper?

He's not a serious commentator. He's strictly pushing an agenda, and everyone who hears him talk should know in advance that anything he states as fact has a very strong possibility of having been fixed to serve a political agenda. He's no more a serious commentator on politics than Shaq is a serious commentator on the playing abilities of his teammates on the Phoenix Suns.

^I'll keep that in mind.

cFrk9awj35I&feature

APx2YJ-_jos

http://www.politico.com/blogs/anneschroeder/0508/Terry_McAuliffe_a_guy_named_Mac_Cummings_the_Palm_ and_porn.html

Yikes, that wasn't a good way to justify staying in the race"


Clinton apologizes for RFK assassination comment
Posted: 05:03 PM ET

From CNN Political Producer Peter Hamby (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/tag/cnn-political-producer-peter-hamby/)
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif
BRANDON, South Dakota (CNN) – Hillary Clinton said Friday she regretted comments that evoked the June 1968 assassination of Robert Kennedy as part of her explanation for why she was staying in the presidential race late into the primary season.
"Earlier today, I was discussing the Democratic primary history and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns that both my husband and Senator Kennedy waged in California in June in 1992 and 1968, and I was referencing those to make the point that we have had nominating primary contests that go into June. That's an historic fact,” she told reporters.
“The Kennedys have been much on my mind in the last days because of Senator [Ted] Kennedy, and I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever,” she added.
Earlier Friday afternoon, she told the editorial board of the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader that "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it," complaining that “people have been trying to push me out of this ever since Iowa," saying that that position “historically… makes no sense.”
The Obama campaign reacted quickly. "Sen. Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign," they said in a statement.
Her campaign first defended the remarks, saying that the New York senator had been making a historical parallel and any “any reading into it beyond that is inaccurate and outrageous."
Clinton made a similar reference to Robert Kennedy in a March interview (http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/05/hillarys_bizarre_rfk_comment.html) with Time Managing Editor Richard Stengel, telling she could not envision a scenario where party elders would step in and call for the race to end. "I think people have short memories," she said then.
"Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual."

Yeah, what an idiot crazy ass bitch. I like her less and less every day. She probably has a hitman lined up to tragically end him right before the convention.

also just kidding i hope

I read today that someone in the Clinton camp is saying that she'd be pissed if he doesn't offer her the VP spot. Not sure if she really feels that way or if that's just a loose cannon.

If I'm Obama, I'd try to get her as Senate majority leader. She could do a lot of good there. It would help with her supporters and also not bring down his campaign.

Her history is bogus too. Primaries started much later. At the point RFK was assassinated in June, he'd been on the primary trail for a whopping 4 weeks. This has been a supremely long primary season, contrary to her bullshit.

Well that was over with quickly.

It was 10 weeks, not 4 weeks. The reporter dude on TV got the timing wrong, but I knew RFK wasn't in it for too long.

I wonder what RFK Jr., a Hillary support, is saying.

On a completely unrelated note...

I remember people on FOX News saying Obama would have to drop out of the campaign b/c of the Reverend Wright stuff when it first happened.

Her history is bogus too. Primaries started much later. At the point RFK was assassinated in June, he'd been on the primary trail for a whopping 4 weeks. This has been a supremely long primary season, contrary to her bullshit.

They also went on and on about how Bill had it wrapped up long before California. He basically had it wrapped up in early April (his closest competator Brown won no primaries after that). The nail in the coffin was California, but Brown was just holding out for hope there.

They said she should have used other examples of long primary seasons like Dukakis.

Some statistical woulda-shoulda-coulda regarding Michigan:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/michigan-what-would-have-happened.html

Question: I just had a thought come across my mind today. What are the problems with a revote in MI and FL? Mainly expenses?

If so, would this not be a good time to try out online voting? Some sort of system that isn't so costly?

Just a very brief thought that came across my head, I have literally done no research on the subject, so it may have to be dismissed.

Yes, imo, its mainly the cost.

And, if they go to the trouble to revote in MI and FL, I heard representatives in both states say its NOT the time to try something new. Just a thought.

Yeah, I suppose those fogeys down in FL won't know how to use the internets...

jokes, sorta

Yeah, I suppose those fogeys down in FL won't know how to use the internets...

jokes, sorta

JM would prolly end up voting for BO.

I'm sure its a concern in the back rooms but you just can't say that out loud if you are an elected official.

Yes, imo, its mainly the cost.

And, if they go to the trouble to revote in MI and FL, I heard representatives in both states say its NOT the time to try something new. Just a thought.
Money isn't the only issue.

There's no good way to pretend those first 30-40 odd races never happened as a do-over delegate selection process is schemed up. And, since the initial processes involved Republicans and (in Florida's case) other big issues on the ballot, it's just not possible to recreate all the home cooking that went into the first delegate selection process. There's no way any do-over WON'T be something new. The practical reality is that Obama's ahead by enough where a legitimate do-over in both states is unlikely to turn his ~5% victory margin into a narrow loss, unless he gets assassinated like RFK. People aren't gonna throw money or political capital into something that doesn't change anything.

The damage is already done.

That's why they should just count it when it officially doesn't matter anymore.

I think one could read Bill Clintons remarks today as there is a 'vast left wing conspiracy' against Hillary.

Heard them on the tube. I'll go look for a link. But who really cares anyway.

It appears that the leaked NAFTA memo that gave Obama trouble in Ohio may have been orchestrated by a Republican from the U.S.:

http://www.thestar.com/News/USElection/article/431367

The very modern model of a modern minor undecided superdelegate:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080529/ap_on_el_pr/indecisive_delegate_1

There's a theory that the person was bribed by one of Hillary's rich donors. Supposedly, Haim "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers" Saban has been offering a million bucks to key superdelegates to switch to the side of the Hillarista.

I'm betting when Hillary gets more votes in PR she'll bring up the popular vote arguement once again and include PR, even though they do not vote in the general election.

BTW, if the current margain in PR holds true and Clinton wins %57 to %43 then Obama needs 22 delegates to clinch. There are 31 at stake Tuesday in Montana and South Dakota. It's not impossible to clinch without the supers at all, especially if he can just pick up a few more prior to then. I hope he picks up a half dozen the rest of this week so he clinches after Tuesday's results (as opposed to a super putting him over the top).

Even if they split Montana and SD (he should win them), he only needs 6 of the remaining 194 supers. I hope her math teacher isn't following this campaign.

Yea, another Pastor problem.

Flegler or something. I'm not posting it. Look it up if you think another Pastor controversy is important.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/05/obama_deeply_disappointed_in_f_1.html

Pfleger is a known nutjob and the association with Obama is fairly weak. What he said about Team Hillary was politically incorrect, but actually fairly accurate.

I guess Fleger's sermon(or whatever you call it) was at BO's church, no?

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/05/obama_deeply_disappointed_in_f_1.html

Pfleger is a known nutjob and the association with Obama is fairly weak. What he said about Team Hillary was politically incorrect, but actually fairly accurate.

'tenuous at best", por favor.

I guess Flegler served some role in the BO campaign. He also has a relationship with him for 20 years now?

If this were McCain, the liberal press would be all over it.

I guess Flegler served some role in the BO campaign. He also has a relationship with him for 20 years now?

If this were McCain, the liberal press would be all over it.

It's been the lead story on CNN, Fox, and MSNBC, is that not over it enough?

He's an activist white Roman Catholic priest on the south side of Chicago. He's been a known well-intentioned nutjob long before Obama came into prominence. I remember him from years ago as the guy who was buying prostitute time so he could convert them, and cracking jokes at the time. I suspect Obama's ties with him involve using him every great once in awhile on issues they mutually agree on. I doubt Obama endorses buying hookers as a consequence. We'll see where this goes, but Pfleger's about as white as it gets, so there should be nothing like the flap that accompanied Wright.

If he's such a known jutjob, then why would BO be associated with him for 20 years?

This isn't about Wright, Pflegler or Ayers, its about judgement on BO's part in associating with these types for almost all of his adult life.

And so much for the party coming together.

If you're doing community organizing, you often associate with people you don't agree with on any number of things for some common cause. I'm not surprised by the fact that he's known such people. I'm only mildly surprised that they're at the periphery of his campaign, especially since he has to pimp his Christianity to downplay the Muslim smear.

If you're doing community organizing, you often associate with people you don't agree with on any number of things for some common cause. I'm not surprised by the fact that he's known such people. I'm only mildly surprised that they're at the periphery of his campaign, especially since he has to pimp his Christianity to downplay the Muslim smear.

Every once in a while, you come across a post that is just so fucking cogent that you have to yell :cogent: !

If you're doing community organizing, you often associate with people you don't agree with on any number of things for some common cause. I'm not surprised by the fact that he's known such people. I'm only mildly surprised that they're at the periphery of his campaign, especially since he has to pimp his Christianity to downplay the Muslim smear.


It might be at the periphery of his campaign but its not at the periphery of him. Wright was his Pastor, married him, baptized, announced his run for Prez at Ayers house (<--iirc), worked with Plfeger in his community organization and that person started Catholics for BO or something like that, preaches at his church. Thats not periphery, imo.

The Muslim thing y'all always talk about cracks me up. Who cares if he was a Muslim? I don't.

The Muslim thing y'all always talk about cracks me up. Who cares if he was a Muslim? I don't.

This is exactly why we talk about it. You said this^ like it is true that he was a Muslim, and you don't care. As far as I know, he isn't and never was a Muslim, but the smear was designed to make people think that he is/was.

You may not care if he was, but some will, even if they are just being duped.

Who cares if he WAS a muslim. Means he isn't in my speak. If i said who cares that he is a muslim, would be different.

Do we have some poll some place that says he won't get elected if he WAS a muslim(which he isn't)?

The smear by Teddy Kennedy? CNN?

The fact that we even have to have the discussion means the smear worked.

The fact that we even have to have the discussion means the smear worked.


I agree.

The fact that we even have to have the discussion means the smear worked. LOL Mxy brought it up.

Secondly....I DO see what you are saying about what I wrote now. When I said, who cares if he WAS a muslim, its the past tense thing, like he was at one time. My bad.

No problem, simple syntax misunderstanding.

Now we can go off drinking... like this person:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2071/2537308758_9a806e996d.jpg

BTW...Trinity's Pastor introduced Pflegler as a Pastor ala Excellance or something and thanked him for he great message after Pfleglers sermon.

That is BO's church.

Now we can go off drinking... like this person:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2071/2537308758_9a806e996d.jpg


Rain check... I have to work tomorrow and Sunday. Can't drink...damn.

Also, BO got Pflegler $200,000.00 in earmarks. Not periphery

It might be at the periphery of his campaign but its not at the periphery of him. Wright was his Pastor, married him, baptized, announced his run for Prez at Ayers house (<--iirc), worked with Plfeger in his community organization and that person started Catholics for BO or something like that, preaches at his church. Thats not periphery, imo.
I didn't say Wright was at the periphery... was referring to Pfleger. Most of the other non-mentoring Chicago area sorts whose names have come up are peripheral, too.

Yeah, Pfleger got money from Obama toward a youth center. In Chicago, it's a minor miracle if such monies actually went to kids and not someone's back pocket. By all accounts, Pfleger seems to help people when he's not being dropped on his head. Was Obama wrong to try and help him?

Obama announced his run for president in Springfield, IL at one of the Lincoln memorial places, not at Ayers' house. Ayers was on a charity board with him. Are charities bad if everyone running them isn't politically correct?

Rezko is another typical Chicago patronage politics sort... seedy developer pumping money in the hopes of undue backscratching. Of course, it's not like there was ever undue backscratching that happened. Was it wrong to take money but not commit crime?

Obama represented the south side of Chicago. I'm 1000% sure there's other random shitheads Obama's associated with. There was agreement on some facets that involved helping people, doing good things. Does that mean Obama was bought by or otherwise ideologically influenced by these sorts? Did Obama facilitate/commit crimes or bad laws as a consequence? That's usually where this sort of shit leads to fallen politicians. So far, no one's really reported evidence of that.


The Muslim thing y'all always talk about cracks me up. Who cares if he was a Muslim? I don't.
Keep in mind that I REALLY HATE the fact that the juxtaposition of religion and politics is necessary. I didn't like it with Carter, with Reagan, with Dubya. I could give two shits if Obama or McCain WERE Muslim or Scienfuckingtology or Jewish or whatever. I don't believe that moral authority derives from any particular religious persuasion. This makes me un-American, AFAICT.

Is anyone esle watching this hearing about what to do with the Michigan primary results?

I've had it on for over an hour and it is absolutely riveting.

Carl Levin laid some serious smack down, IMO.

Yeah. I watched a portion of the guy from florida (obama supporter) and most of Levin (before CNN cut him off and went to commercial). Levin was laying the smack down on them for approving some states to jump NH and then allowing them to jump back in front.

I think their 69-59 split is pretty good for Michigan. I didn't hear what Florida's committee proposed, did you?

I didn't hear much about Florida.

Chris, MSNBC or CNBC is still carrying the hearings live if you want to check them out.

Blanchard is just finishing up (representing Hillary) and I think they will be taking a lunch break.

Very interesting stuff.

busy at work actually (making up hours). Right now I am posting in between print jobs, but don't have time to watch their coverage. Hopefully there is some podcasts to watch afterwards.

Hillary = DONE.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080531/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble

I didn't hear much about Florida.

Chris, MSNBC or CNBC is still carrying the hearings live if you want to check them out.

Blanchard is just finishing up (representing Hillary) and I think they will be taking a lunch break.

Very interesting stuff.

Like what? I had to work.

Is everyone on Hillary's side or BO's side? And you can tell as soon as they get their first sentence out?

Or are they trying to figure this mess out regardless of the candidates and who they support?

They covered it LIVE? Thats crazy.

I didn't watch the political theater. I figured I'd see the highlights on YouTube. The results were pretty predictable. Hillary wins some token battle, and Obama wins the war. The 69-59 (well, really 34.5-29.5) split for Michigan is bogosity drawn out of someone's ass, but it doesn't matter as long as it wasn't too out of whack. The same goes for Florida.

In related news: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/31/21611/5253


BREAKING: Detroit Placed in NBA Finals!!!

In a historic decision of epic proportions, the National Basketball Association today decided to strip away the title of Eastern Conference Champions and award it to the Detroit Pistons and thereby giving them the privilege of representing the Eastern Conference in the NBA Finals agains the Los Angeles Lakers. David Stern gave a fiery speech in support of this decision that got the crowd riled.

After careful deliberation, there was no other solution that David Stern could think of and he provided the following explanations.

1. The Detroit Pistons have been together longer and thus deserve the nomination. The Boston Celtics have only just come together as a team this year by adding Ray Allen and KG, but they have not truly earned the right to represent the Eastern Conference after the Detroit Pistons have kept their core starters together for years and endured victory and defeat. The Pistons have truly earned this right to go into the '08 finals to represent the Eastern Conference one last time before the old geezers retire.

2. They have been battle tested and are experienced in the ways of the NBA. Billups, Prince, Wallace, and Hamilton have already proven they can bring the championship to the Motor City and they can do it again. It would be foolish to send a team that just formed this year into the finals. We have no idea how KG, Allen, and Pierce are going to react when they are faced with the likes of MVP Bryant and Gasol. Do you want to send some inexperienced team into the finals? I didn't think so.

3. The Pistons didn't have a healthy Billups. Therefore, not all of the 12 players were fully represented in their strength to defeat the Celtics. If we had counted Billups in the equation and he would have been at full strength, the Pistons would have won and the Celtics would be heading back to Boston.

4. They have proven that they are better at key positions that you need to have in order to win the championship. History has shown that you need a great point guard, and Billups is easily better than Farmar and Fisher. If you don't have a good point guard, you don't win. Rondo just doesn't cut it for the Celtics.

I'm really surprised that the rules committee went with the Michigan Dems 69/59 proposal that was based, in part, on estimates derived from exit poll data.

I think Levin sold it.

Guesstimating from exit polls is just as stupid as anything else when half the people didn't show up. Fortunately, no one on the Obama side really cared as long as things weren't too terribly out of whack. Obama still have an absolute majority of pledged delegates and will meet those new goalposts for victory. Reportedly, Team Obama had enough votes for Michigan to be seated as a 50-50 split, but decided not to do that (presumably as a kindness to Hillary and the Michigan Democratic Party).

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/31/1091448.aspx

Obama left his church. He cited obvious differences of opinion on pastor things, but one thing that came out was that the church was getting death threats because of him. He was causing distractions for the church as much as the other way around. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out.

Ahhh... Clinton is now DONE.

Agreed on the church thing. After the whole Wright thing, I don't understand of Pfleger wasn't more careful on the thing he said... O well though, I don't see it playing TOO huge a part. I hope.

Obama left his church. He cited obvious differences of opinion on pastor things, but one thing that came out was that the church was getting death threats because of him. He was causing distractions for the church as much as the other way around. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out.

I can't believe BO put this on the media though. He was saying how he had to leave the church to allow it to continue its good work and it was just that certain cable channel that was attacking his church. So to let Trinity do its thing, he would leave.

And then he said how hard it is to find a church to worship in where the circus of the election wouldn't hurt the church.

BO...buddy, I don't think its hard at all. Its hard when you belong to bat shit crazy church, but if you just go to a regular church, peeps would'nt give a shit.

He makes himself and Trinity out like THEY are the victims. I don't see it that way.

I disagree. Barack Hussein Obama is the Muslim candidate -- didn't you get the email? I get at least a spam a week to that effect. Any religious thing he does would have gotten extra scrutiny.

Mitt Romney went to a "normal" Mormon church, and got just as much scrutiny on his religious activities as anyone. I betcha he would've gotten lit on fire over the Texas Mormon ranch if his candidacy lasted that long.

I disagree. Barack Hussein Obama is the Muslim candidate -- didn't you get the email? I get at least a spam a week to that effect. Any religious thing he does would have gotten extra scrutiny.

Mitt Romney went to a "normal" Mormon church, and got just as much scrutiny on his religious activities as anyone. I betcha he would've gotten lit on fire over the Texas Mormon ranch if his candidacy lasted that long.

I've never rec'd an email saying that. Post a part of one sometime. Honestly, I've never seen one.

And like I said to Glenn, who cares he was a muslim? I don't care if you are Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or any other religion, just don't be some radical religious person who wants to disolve the divide between church and state. I see NONE of that with BO.

I disagree. Barack Hussein Obama is the Muslim candidate -- didn't you get the email? I get at least a spam a week to that effect. Any religious thing he does would have gotten extra scrutiny.


I got an e-mail a while back from someone (a family friend) who told everyone not to vote for Obama because Muslims are trying to destroy the US. lol

There's still something like 10-15% of people surveyed who think he's a Muslim, and who react extremely negatively to this owing to decades of demonization over Iran and Iraq, more recent 9/11 stuff, the fact that a growing number of Muslims don't care much for the west, etc. It's morbidly amusing seeing doofuses like Michael, Matthew, etc. bitch about Barack the Muslim when they have <gasp> Jewish first names.

I'll post the next Obama spam I get if I remember to. (My fingers are awfully fast at deleting whatever spam that doesn't get filtered out. I can delete spam in my subconscious, and I often do. :) )

Oh, one recent "Obama" thing I found in my inbox that's of interest is a pointer to:

http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080529/COLUMNISTS40/805290374/1005/NEWS0103