posted June 05, 2008 11:02 PM            

You hate Hillary Clinton, what is your point? If this was reversed you'd be going after Hillary Clinton. You are, if nothing else, incredibly transparent.

posted June 06, 2008 12:03 AM              

One In The Same

posted June 06, 2008 12:11 AM            

I already said I don't like Hillary but that's no reason to ignore the fact Hillary has been given a raw deal and women resent the hell out of it. It's no secret I don't like Hillary Clinton but the issue is not like or dislike. The issue is fairness and on that issue the democrat elitists need their a$$es kicked and kicked hard.

Yeah, look at McCain...not my guy but hey, McCain is a certified war hero and O'Bomber is a wimpy wuss who has been waving the white flag of surrender to terrorists in Iraq as has the rest of the leftist surrendercrats in the demoscat Congress.

It's far too late to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq for the US and Iraqi military. O'Bomber and the rest of the surrendercrats just haven't realized that...yet.

posted June 06, 2008 12:29 AM            

Leftists put up a far left candidate against Richard Nixon...George McGovern and he lost in a landslide. This, at the height of the Vietnam war.

Leftists put up far left candidate, Jimmy Carter...the worst president in the history of the republic...and he lost his reelection bid in a titanic landslide to Ronald Reagan. Americans couldn't wait to get rid of Jimmy Carter.

Leftists put up far left candidate Walter Mondale against Ronald Reagan and he lost in a landslide to Ronald Reagan.

Leftist put up far left candidate Michael Dukakis against George H. W. Bush and he lost in a landslide to Bush.

Leftists keep repeating the same flawed strategy and expect a different result. The very definition of insanity.

The O'Bomber candidacy is just an extension of the same flawed leftist insanity.

posted June 06, 2008 01:07 AM            

I would make the white house in to a white home where a Mother finally gets to to do a real job and the father takes care of household chores and the children

If I Were a Black man....

I would not paint the white house black.
But yes I would certainly construct a basketball court in the white house.

I changed the original lines I wanted to say because it may be too condescending to some of the folks here

posted June 06, 2008 03:00 AM              

Something doesn't seem right still for some reason; time will tell...

posted June 06, 2008 12:03 PM            

If I were O'Bomber and got elected with Hillary as VP, my first order as Prez would be to mount security zones around me 10 rings deep. Also food tasters, door openers, car starters, toilet flushers and phone answerers. I wouldn't touch a thing until someone else did first.

I agree with you silverstone. The nominating process run by Howard Dean and the rest of the demo elitists violates the dems own propaganda..."count every vote". They disenfranchised fully half of Florida dem voters and gave O'Bomber 59 Michigan delegates when O'Bomber didn't get a single vote in Michigan. This doesn't come close to passing the smell test.

OBAMA WAS SELECTED, NOT ELECTED
June 4, 2008

Ann Coulter

Words mean nothing to liberals. They say whatever will help advance their cause at the moment, switch talking points in a heartbeat, and then act indignant if anyone uses the exact same argument they were using five minutes ago.

When Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 election by half a percentage point, but lost the Electoral College -- or, for short, "the constitutionally prescribed method for choosing presidents" -- anyone who denied the sacred importance of the popular vote was either an idiot or a dangerous partisan.

But now Hillary has won the popular vote in a Democratic primary, while Obambi has won under the rules. In a spectacular turnabout, media commentators are heaping sarcasm on our plucky Hillary for imagining the "popular vote" has any relevance whatsoever.

It's the exact same situation as in 2000, with Hillary in the position of Gore and Obama in the position of Bush. The only difference is: Hillary has a much stronger argument than Gore ever did (and Hillary's more of a man than Gore ever was).

Unbeknownst to liberals, who seem to imagine the Constitution is a treatise on gay marriage, our Constitution sets forth rules for the election of a president. Under the Constitution that has led to the greatest individual liberty, prosperity and security ever known to mankind, Americans have no constitutional right to vote for president, at all. (Don't fret Democrats: According to five liberals on the Supreme Court, you do have a right to sodomy and abortion!)

Americans certainly have no right to demand that their vote prevail over the electors' vote.

The Constitution states that electors from each state are to choose the president, and it is up to state legislatures to determine how those electors are selected. It is only by happenstance that most states use a popular vote to choose their electors.

When you vote for president this fall, you will not be voting for Barack Obama or John McCain; you will be voting for an elector who pledges to cast his vote for Obama or McCain. (For those new Obama voters who may be reading, it's like voting for Paula, Randy or Simon to represent you, instead of texting your vote directly.)

Any state could abolish general elections for president tomorrow and have the legislature pick the electors. States could also abolish their winner-take-all method of choosing presidential electors -- as Nebraska and Maine have already done, allowing their electors to be allocated in proportion to the popular vote. And of course there's always the option of voting electors off the island one by one.

If presidential elections were popular vote contests, Bush might have spent more than five minutes campaigning in big liberal states like California and New York. But under a winner-take-all regime, close doesn't count. If a Republican doesn't have a chance to actually win a state, he may as well lose in a landslide. Using the same logic, Gore didn't spend a lot of time campaigning in Texas (and Walter Mondale campaigned exclusively in Minnesota).

Consequently, under both the law and common sense, the famed "popular vote" is utterly irrelevant to presidential elections. It would be like the winner of "Miss Congeniality" claiming that title also made her "Miss America." Obviously, Bush might well have won the popular vote, but he would have used a completely different campaign strategy.

By contrast, there are no constitutional rules to follow with party primaries. Primaries are specifically designed by the parties to choose their strongest candidate for the general election.

Hillary's argument that she won the popular vote is manifestly relevant to that determination. Our brave Hillary has every right to take her delegates to the Democratic National Convention and put her case to a vote. She is much closer to B. Hussein Obama than the sainted Teddy Kennedy was to Carter in 1980 when Teddy staged an obviously hopeless rules challenge at the convention. (I mean rules about choosing the candidate, not rules about crushed ice at after-parties.)

And yet every time Hillary breathes a word about her victory in the popular vote, TV hosts respond with sneering contempt at her gaucherie for even mentioning it. (Of course, if popularity mattered, networks like MSNBC wouldn't exist. That's a station that depends entirely on "superviewers.")

After nearly eight years of having to listen to liberals crow that Bush was "selected, not elected," this is a shocking about-face. Apparently unaware of the new party line that the popular vote amounts to nothing more than warm spit, just last week HBO ran its movie "Recount," about the 2000 Florida election, the premise of which is that sneaky Republicans stole the presidency from popular vote champion Al Gore. (Despite massive publicity, the movie bombed, with only about 1 million viewers, so now HBO is demanding a "recount.")

So where is Kevin Spacey from HBO's "Recount," to defend Hillary, shouting: "WHO WON THIS PRIMARY?"

posted June 07, 2008 11:56 AM            

Covering a campaign is more like covering a sports team than either sort of reporter cares to admit. The same performance that’s labeled “gutsy” after a win becomes “inadequate” after a loss.

While Hillary Rodham Clinton managed more primary votes than any winning candidate before her, it wasn’t enough for the onetime front-runner to beat Barack Obama. And so the mistakes that would have been obscured by a victory have instead been brought into relief by her defeat.

Here are five of the key mistakes that helped cost her the nomination:

1) Hubris

Hillary didn’t just sell the press and the public on her inevitability as the general election candidate; she sold herself the same bill of goods, telling George Stephanopoulos before the Iowa caucus that “I’m in it for the long run. It’s not a very long run. It will be over by February 5.”

Hubris was the campaign’s fatal flaw, from which the others, both strategic and tactical, derived.

2) The Iraq War Vote

“There is a straight line from Howard Dean to Ned Lamont to Barack Obama,” said Carter Eskew, the chief strategist for Al Gore’s 2000 campaign.

The 2002 vote authorizing military intervention in Iraq has haunted Clinton since, and opened up a space for an anti-war candidate in this year’s primary. While John Edwards, who cast the same vote, later claimed to have made a mistake in doing so, Clinton — looking ahead to a general electorate disappointed with the war in Iraq but still hoping for some sort of victory there (and perhaps also back to the 1990s image of the Clintons as serial parsers) — continued to defend her vote even as she criticized the war.

“When you have voted the wrong way on the signature issue of the change election, it’s very difficult to position yourself as the change candidate,” Eskew continued. “The whole energy in this campaign was [in] being anti-war.”

Voters associated Clinton with her husband’s administration, in part explaining why she based her run on “experience” and ceded the more appealing “change” role to Obama, whose limited tenure in Washington, soaring rhetoric and the historic nature of his candidacy all aligned nicely with that narrative. (Though as the first woman with a serious chance at the presidency, Clinton would been a historic nominee, too.)

Obama’s consistent opposition to the war, from the outset to the present, helped build his brand and voter base, and plugged him in to a network of small-contribution donors that continues to fuel his record-setting fundraising.

Joe Trippi, who served as a top strategist for John Edwards in 2008, believes a Clinton apology would have helped take the issue off the table. But many saw Clinton’s refusal to apologize as a testament to her strength, which she saw as a character trait a female candidate couldn’t afford to compromise.

“They were determined not to make primary mistakes” that would come back to haunt them against the Republican nominee, said Tad Devine, Sen. John F. Kerry’s chief strategist in 2004, who remained neutral in this year’s primary. “My reaction to that, you don’t get to participate in the general election unless you win the primary.”

3) The Trouble With Iowa

Clinton’s deputy campaign manager Mike Henry wrote a May 2007 campaign memo arguing that the campaign should “skip” the Iowa caucuses since they "will cost over $15M" but "we will not have a financial advantage or an organizational advantage over any of our opponents” and going all-out there “may bankrupt the campaign [but] provide little if any political advantage." (The memo, it should be noted, also offered the less prescient claim that “In effect, the Democratic Party is holding a national primary with over 20 states choosing a nominee on Feb. 5.”)

As it turned out, Clinton spent more than $20 million and finished third and short on cash. A great unnoticed irony is that had Clinton mostly skipped Iowa, Edwards would likely have won, and become Clinton’s presumptive rival, leaving Obama out in the cold.

“She should have gone to Iowa but she should not have not doubled down on it. And it cost them the resources that she needed to fight a long fight,” said Devine. “She was the candidate to win a war of attrition.”

4) The Great Caucus Blunder

In the same interview with Stephanopoulos, Clinton shrugged off the effect of a potential loss in Iowa, saying “I don’t think it’s a question of recovery. I have a campaign that is poised and ready for the long term. We are competing everywhere through Feb. 5. We have staff in many states. We have built organizations in many states.” But “many states” turned out to mean organization myopically focused on big state and Super Tuesday primaries.

“Keep everything else the same and add that she competed in the caucus states, she would have won,” Trippi said. “It’s actually fairly amazing.”

There were some built-in advantages for Obama in the caucus states. Party activists are most likely to turnout for caucuses, and Obama was the favorite of the progressive grassroots. But by mostly neglecting these small contests, Clinton conceded delegates that effectively cancelled out her gains in larger states. In Minnesota, for example, Obama beat Hillary by 24 delegates, twice as many delegates as Clinton gained on her rival in the much larger Pennsylvania primary.

After Super Tuesday, the smaller contests also allowed Obama to offer his own, more credible, narrative of inevitability. Between his Super Tuesday draw and the Virginia vote, Obama won five small contests in a row, including three caucuses. Those victories gave Obama a winner’s aura heading into Virginia, which may have helped him increase his margin there, which in turn further increased his perceived momentum.

“You could look at any point in this process and change one or two states and had a totally different outcome,” said Tony Fabrizio, who served as chief strategist for Bob Dole in 1988.

Devine agreed. “If his numbers had not looked so overwhelming, the movement of superdelegates would have been inhibited,” he added. “It would have been a different dynamic; a different narrative.”

5) An Old-Fashioned, Offline Campaign

“It’s like no one watched from 1984 to 2004,” Trippi said of Clinton’s campaign.

The spectacular internet fundraising success of Howard Dean’s 2004 primary run seemed to have had little impact on Clinton, who’d built a tremendous network of old-school big-money donors.

Fundraising online might have been more difficult for Clinton, considering how much of her support came from the establishment. Trippi, though, disputes that assertion, pointing out that in February, when Clinton’s campaign adjusted to new-fashioned fundraising and she began mentioning her Web site frequently in her speeches, about half of the contributions she received were for less than $200 — while only about a fifth of her contributions had been in that range in the last quarter of 2007.

It wasn’t just fundraising, though. Politico’s Kenneth P. Vogel calculates that Obama spent $6.8 million on web advertisements from the beginning of the campaign through the end of April, while Clinton spent just $350,000. When she finally caught on — spending more on online advertising in March and April than in the previous 14 months — Obama had already built a substantial lead in online presence (including ads on the Politico website).

As with any losing campaign, there’s practically no end to the mistakes that can be blamed for contributing to Clinton’s defeat. Other culprits would include Bill Clinton’s at times unhinged public appearances, the racially coded messages the campaign was repeatedly accused of sending, the Bosnian sniper tall tale, the double talk about drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, and her damning admission that she did not read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq before voting to authorize the use of military force.

What we know with certainty is that pundits and historians will be busy for years assigning and assessing blame — and that the long run was longer than Clinton anticipated, and the end result different.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080607/pl_politico/10911;_ylt=Apb2Z.0byTYRQdDjMdeLRKhsnwcF

posted June 07, 2008 12:11 PM            

Her campaign is over 20 million dollars in debt. If she can't handle the money in her campaign, how in the world is she going to handle our economy???

posted June 07, 2008 12:20 PM            

These shameless party hacks decided to not count every vote and actually gave O'Bomber votes...59 delegate votes in Michigan where not a single vote was cast for O'Bomber.

It is utterly shameless for the elitist press and the elitist party hacks to attempt to get Hillary to drop out of the primary race when it was entirely too close to call...not to mention all the primary races which were yet in the future...in March this year.

Hillary is a better candidate than O'Bomber who is a radical leftist marxist, as anyone with an ounce of common sense or curiosity would discover with little effort.

The fact there are O'Bomber Kool-Aid drinkers whose minds are in neutral says all that needs to be known about them.

posted June 07, 2008 01:25 PM            

That's your opinion. That doesn't mean that it's fact.

another thing...
be mature and please stop referring to Obama as O'Bomber. His last name is African. Don't disrespect it.

posted June 07, 2008 01:36 PM            

quote:

---

They disenfranchised fully half of Florida dem voters and gave O'Bomber 59 Michigan delegates when O'Bomber didn't get a single vote in Michigan. This doesn't come close to passing the smell test.

---

As a Michigander and voter, I resent and am PO`d by the primary delegation. Obama thought so little of the voters here , he didn`t put his name on the ticket... NOW he wants the delegates and GETS them...

Yep, selected not elected

Has anyone followed the astro outlook on the election & swearing in in January?
From the little I`ve read, they seem to see the elected Prez not being the one to actually fullfill the duties in office.

------------------
~
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted June 07, 2008 01:47 PM            

nice spin.....NOT!

Obama's name wasn't on the ballot because Michigan was disqualified for breaking DNC rules.

so don't even go there.

LANSING, Mich. — The Democratic National Committee is pressuring Michigan and Florida to hold Democratic presidential caucuses so the delegates they’ve lost for holding January primaries could be seated at the national convention, a top Michigan Democrat said Wednesday.

DNC member Debbie Dingell said it’s unclear whether either state would hold caucuses since they’ve already held primaries. But she said the DNC is asking the two states to consider such a plan.

DNC spokesman Damien LaVera had no comment.

But Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer said the DNC isn’t saying anything it hasn’t said before to Michigan and Florida.

”Everybody involved, the candidates, the DNC and we, need to remain open-minded. So if someone comes up with a creative way that meets everyone’s interests, we can do that” and get the delegates seated, he said.

Florida Democratic Party spokesman Mark Bubriski agreed with Brewer that the DNC’s position isn’t new. But he said the party has no intention of holding another election.

”We’ve said all along that we’re going forward with our delegate selection program using the vote on Jan. 29,” he said. ”We’ve got more delegate applications than ever.”

The stakes are increasingly high as Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton slog through what’s expected to be a protracted fight to win enough delegates to gain the party’s presidential nomination.

The decision could end up being made at the August Democratic National Convention in Denver, which makes the question over whether the Michigan and Florida delegates are seated an important strategic point.

Clinton won both states’ primaries. Obama was on the Florida ballot but had pulled his name from the Michigan ballot because Michigan had broken DNC rules by moving up its primary to Jan. 15. That forced his Michigan supporters to vote for Uncommitted and hope for a share of the uncommitted delegates.

It’s unlikely that Clinton would favor holding caucuses, which could open the door to Obama victories in two states she already has won. But there’s also pressure to hold some kind of alternative election that meets DNC rules so the states don’t have to wait to find out if the delegates are to be seated.

Both states were stripped of their delegates after they violated DNC rules by holding their primaries in January. Democratic leaders in the two states expect the delegates will get seated at the convention, and Clinton said a week and a half ago that she planned to ask her convention delegates to support seating the Michigan and Florida delegations.

So far Obama has not heeded her call to do the same, and it’s unlikely he would if it means Clinton would get the larger share of delegates from both states. Florida has 185 pledged delegates and 25 superdelegates who face not being seated at the convention, while Michigan has 128 pledged delegates and 28 superdelegates.

Brewer said he has continued to talk to both the Clinton and Obama campaigns, stressing that Michigan is an important state for either candidate to win in November. Florida officials have said their swing state also could be crucial to a Democrat getting into the White House.

”We’ve got to win Michigan in November. And you don’t win Michigan in November by refusing to seat Michigan in August,” Brewer said. ”So somehow, this has got to be worked out.”
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/02/06/dnc-suggests-michigan-florida-hold-caucuses-to-reclaim-lost-delegates/

posted June 07, 2008 02:01 PM            

This guy..O'Bomber..is an empty suit, an intellectual lightweight.

Now, thank you for confirming what I said. The DNC did disenfranchise millions of democrat voters in Florida and Michigan and then, further disenfranchised them by giving O'Bomber delegates he didn't win.

posted June 07, 2008 02:21 PM            

"Must label...cannot control myself."

posted June 07, 2008 02:42 PM            

quote:

---

Of course, the whole world knows you talk to enemies and bomb allies.

---

He's never talked about bombing innocent people in Pakistan. Only terrorists, and only in the absense of Pakistan doing the job themselves (something the Bush Administration has already done itself). That's a really impotent argument you're trying to make.

posted June 07, 2008 03:40 PM            

His very public statement touched off waves of protests in Pakistan and inflamed radical islamics who despise the United State and who have already attempted to assassinate Musharraf four or five times.

O'Bomber's grandstanding BS was intended to portray the idiotic notion O'Bomber would be tougher on terrorists than Bush..or McCain.

Musharraf doesn't need O'Bomber inflaming the citizens in the sovereign nation of Pakistan. Musharraf must have wondered why he literally risked his life to be a helpful friend and ally of the United States.

O'Bomber is a bonehead of the first order.

posted June 07, 2008 03:50 PM            

quote:

---

His very public statement touched off waves of protests in Pakistan and inflamed radical islamics who despise the United State and who have already attempted to assassinate Musharraf four or five times.

---

No it didn't. Further, it's exactly in line with Bush's position.

quote:

---

O'Bomber's grandstanding BS was intended to portray the idiotic notion O'Bomber would be tougher on terrorists than Bush..or McCain.

---

posted June 07, 2008 04:43 PM            

quote:

---

"Obama thought so little of the voters here , he didn`t put his name on the ticket... NOW he wants the delegates and GETS them..."
nice spin.....NOT!

Obama's name wasn't on the ballot because Michigan was disqualified for breaking DNC rules.

so don't even go there.

---

quote:

---

Clinton won both states’ primaries. Obama was on the Florida ballot but had pulled his name from the Michigan ballot because Michigan had broken DNC rules by moving up its primary to Jan. 15. That forced his Michigan supporters to vote for Uncommitted and hope for a share of the uncommitted delegates.

---

Yep, read it, HE pulled his name and is he REJECTING the delegates he was "selected" for when Hillary won them ??

IF he believed in MI voters perhaps he would have fought for their rights and not have pulled his name? Opinion only

Those broken rules went out the window when he smelled free delegates,yes ?

------------------
~
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~