Top Leaderboard, Site wide
August 1, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Give Kerry a Break




My Age of Anxiety


Truthdig Bazaar
TunaFish

Thinking Tuna Fish, Talking Death

By Robert Scheer
Hardcover $13.16

Hugo!

Hugo!

By Bart Jones
$19.80

more items

 
Arts and Culture

Moore Throws Hat Into Obama’s Ring

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Apr 21, 2008
moore
johnmurneysblog.blogspot.com

For presidential candidates, celebrity endorsements can be a mixed bag—especially when the star in question is a polarizing figure, as is the latest famous figure to give the nod to Barack Obama: audacious auteur Michael Moore. The documentary filmmaker aired his thoughts on the Democratic front-runners in a blog entry Monday, critiquing Hillary Clinton’s campaign choices of late and laying out his reasons for backing Obama (while also acknowledging that the world hasn’t exactly been waiting for this bit of news from him).


MichaelMoore.com:

I haven’t spoken publicly ‘til now as to who I would vote for, primarily for two reasons: 1) Who cares?; and 2) I (and most people I know) don’t give a rat’s ass whose name is on the ballot in November, as long as there’s a picture of JFK and FDR riding a donkey at the top of the ballot, and the word “Democratic” next to the candidate’s name.

Seriously, I know so many people who don’t care if the name under the Big “D” is Dancer, Prancer, Clinton or Blitzen. It can be Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Barry Obama or the Dalai Lama.

Well, that sounded good last year, but over the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw. I’ve watched Senator Clinton and her husband play this game of appealing to the worst side of white people, but last Wednesday, when she hurled the name “Farrakhan” out of nowhere, well that’s when the silly season came to an early end for me. She said the “F” word to scare white people, pure and simple. Of course, Obama has no connection to Farrakhan. But, according to Senator Clinton, Obama’s pastor does—AND the “church bulletin” once included a Los Angeles Times op-ed from some guy with Hamas! No, not the church bulletin!

This sleazy attempt to smear Obama was brilliantly explained the following night by Stephen Colbert. He pointed out that if Obama is supported by Ted Kennedy, who is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is led by a Pope who was in the Hitler Youth, that can mean only one thing: OBAMA LOVES HITLER!

Read more


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By cann4ing, May 5, 2008 at 9:00 am Link to this comment

Figures.

Report this

By THE MANGEMEISTER, May 4, 2008 at 7:24 pm Link to this comment

Ernest I’am not an American and have no interest in your politics or politics in general.

Report this

By cann4ing, May 4, 2008 at 11:21 am Link to this comment

I’ll bet the mangemeister had no trouble with “celebrity clowns” when the Terminator was running for Gov. of CA.  Then, of course, there was the ultimate “celebrity clown” who became the President of the U.S.—Ronald Reagan who, until 2000 when W. entered the White House, was probably the dumbest buffoon to ever occupy the Oval Office.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, May 4, 2008 at 9:11 am Link to this comment

For some reason I cannot sit and watch a movie anymore, because I feel as if they are all acting.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, May 4, 2008 at 8:23 am Link to this comment

We need a guy like Moore to shine a light on the issues the MSM doesn’t want to cover.

I don’t like alot of the Zionist movie producers and directors in hollywood because of their Israel first positions but I like their movies.

Report this

By THE MANGEMEISTER, May 3, 2008 at 7:59 pm Link to this comment

Who cares what this f#cking celebrity clown has to say.Truthdig you have truly lost your way.

Report this

By Max Shields, May 3, 2008 at 2:40 pm Link to this comment

@CT, TOM, and Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD,

I’m surprised the Obama has tracked you guys down yet.

They don’t like facts.

Report this

By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, May 2, 2008 at 6:39 am Link to this comment

Bravo, Tom. I said earlier that MM sold out.

We’re in a real mess in America and, while Nader the man may not be the answer, Nader’s ideas embody REAL,POSITIVE CHANGE for working class Americans and our government.

What kind of system is it when we all know he’s right but can’t make him a candidate/standard bearer because by doing so we will ensure a continuation of the wrongs of the last 8 years?

Report this

By Tom Semioli, May 1, 2008 at 1:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

May 1, 2008


Dear Michael Moore:

I think I have a fantastic new title for your next documentary about yourself: Hollywood Hypocrite.


Last night on the Larry King Show, you made disparaging remarks about Ralph Nader’s presidential campaign. May I remind you that Ralph Nader is the only high-profile candidate that supports the single-payer health plan – H.R. 676 – which your acclaimed film Sicko and your website emphasizes is “the right of all Americans.”


You encourage support of any candidate with a “D” (Democrat) - either Clinton or Obama – two potential presidents who will keep health care under the corrupt jurisdiction of insurance and pharmaceutical companies! Would you like to borrow my DVD of Sicko – did you even view your own film?


Thanks to your method of voting, forty-seven million Americans have no health insurance and health costs are the number one cause of bankruptcy in the United States, among other facts which I learned from watching…..Sicko!


No Michael, the worst of the Democrats are not better than any Republican.


And with regard to your upcoming movie on the 2004 presidential election, had your Democrat candidate, John Kerry, adopted just one of Ralph Nader’s platforms on health care, ballot reform, cracking down on corporate crime including the savings and loan/mortgage shenanigans, or the atrocity of Iraq – Kerry would have land-slided Bush. Think of the hundreds of thousands of lives that have been lost because of this “lesser of two evils” methodology.


Keep it up Michael, and fasten your seatbelt for four years of John McCain – he’s unsafe at any speed!

Tom Semioli
New York City

Report this

By @CT, May 1, 2008 at 8:57 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“My endorsement is more for Obama The Movement than it is for Obama the candidate.”

To see Michael Moore adopt the Tom Hayden line is sooo depressing. What the “left” should really be working for is the nomination of John Edwards—as a way around the Democratic “leadership”‘s determination to lose the election with two corporate “diversity” candidates.

I’ve gone from being a person who said I’d never vote for Clinton to being one who will never vote for faithless puppet Obama. In the unthinkable eventuality that this fraud should become the Democratic nominee, I’m voting for Cynthia McKinney—and urge others to do likewise.

Finally, from blackcommentator in 2004, please read this exerpt from “In Search of the Real Barack Obama: Can a Black Senate Candidate Resist the DLC?”:

“His passion evaporated, a leading black candidate for the US Senate mouths bland generalities on war, peace and the US role in the world. Barack Obama, professor of constitutional law, is mum on the Patriot Act, silent about increased surveillance of US citizens, secret searches, and detentions without trial. His campaign literature and speeches ignore Patriot Act 2, which would detain US citizens without trial, strip them of their nationality and deport them to - wherever, citizens of no nation.


For a black candidate who is utterly reliant upon a fired up base among African American and progressive voters, who must distinguish himself from a crowded Democratic field, this is strange behavior, indeed. Polls show Blacks have consistently opposed administration war policies by at least two to one, as does the white progressive “base” of the party. Yet Obama appears determined to contain, rather than amplify, these voices.”

There’s more at
http://www.blackcommentator.com/45/45_dixon.html

Report this

By cann4ing, April 30, 2008 at 9:28 pm Link to this comment

Not as militant as the fanatic right-wing Christian John Hagee, whose endorsement Mad Dog McCain actively sought.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 30, 2008 at 4:52 pm Link to this comment

Not as militant as Hillary oblitherating whom she does not agree with.

Report this

By Marshall, April 30, 2008 at 12:02 pm Link to this comment

The irony here is that Reverend Wright is turning out to be at least as militant and controversial as Farrakhan himself.  Hillary doesn’t need Farrakhan anymore; Wright has become just as bad for Obama’s campaign on his own.

Report this

By Max Shields, April 30, 2008 at 7:09 am Link to this comment

Ernest, so when you post it’s all sweeping inclusivism and when I post it’s some kind of dogmaticism (Commissar). How democractic of you.

So, why did the Democratic Party move to get rid of Dennis Kucinich and successfully do the same with Cynthia McKinney. And you still “call” the Democratic Party “home”. Awfully loyal of you.

Your only case for Obama is that he’s not John McCain. How pitiful.

Report this

By cann4ing, April 29, 2008 at 3:51 pm Link to this comment

Ya gotta do better than that!

Report this

By Max Shields, April 29, 2008 at 1:09 pm Link to this comment

ta ta ta. That sounds like the kind of leap you made when you went from Kucinich to Obama.

On substance you’ve yet to make a case. You’re sounding more and more like a dedicated pol with each post. Is it the law degree?

Still there’s hope - the real stuff, not the Obama fluff he feeds to the kids like we were all born yesterday.

Report this

By cann4ing, April 29, 2008 at 12:03 pm Link to this comment

Kucinich told his supporters at the Iowa caucus that if they were unable to get the base-line 15% at a precinct, they should then cast their vote for Obama.  In subsequent postings he made it clear that this was for Iowa only.  When he appeared on Democracy Now he declined to endorse either candidate though he “reserved” his right to do so in the near future.

Report this

By shanenol, April 29, 2008 at 11:59 am Link to this comment

I agree with Moore’s opinion that Hillary Clinton’s reference to Farrakhan was out of line and irresponsible. Obama has no ties to the man and Clinton’s remarks confirm she is desperate to stir anything up in an attempt to gain votes and scrutinize Obama. Often times Clinton complains of dirty politics and false remarks, however, her comments regarding Obama and Farrakhan come from the same model. Furthermore, I also support Obama for president in 08’ as does Moore and for many of the same reasons.

Report this

By cyrena, April 29, 2008 at 11:06 am Link to this comment

Ernest,

I think MY problem was the suggestion that your move from Kucinich to another candidate besides Nadar or Cynthia McKinney is some sort of a defection from the traditional democratic principles. And that annoys me, because I actually like them both, and neither has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning. We’ve already seen a preview – just a trailer, of what they would do to McKinney, when they tried to burn her at the stake a couple of years ago, and were deciding whether or not to file assault charges against here.

That appears to me to be exactly what Shields was accusing, and so I take it as personally as I believe anyone would, who actually DOES value the principles that Dennis Kucinich stands for. There is no reason to believe at this point, that Barack Obama does NOT have those same principles, and every reason to believe that he does.

I also don’t believe that any of these people who suggest that at this point, even ARE progressives. They’re self-absorbed ideologues who take a condescending view of what may help the rest of us. They offer some vague notion of standing on principles, which is, as you say,  a ‘their way or the highway’ approach, which seems to be the ‘new norm’ these days.

Now you suggest that Nadar is excellent on policy. Maybe so, but how would the huge numbers of voters just coming into the political process even know that? People under the age of 35 never even heard of him, so does that mean they don’t count? For decades now, we’ve managed to normalize our political perspective to accept that some Americans are more worthy or somehow deserving than a huge number of others. The response to Katrina might be the most obvious of that, but the same is occurring everywhere else, as the ‘haves’ continue to pontificate on their alleged ‘principles’.

These same people, (and Max Shields isn’t the only one) haven’t bothered to note what you have in the larger picture, which is that the thug regime in charge now have high jacked the Justice department, and even as I write, more and more and more voters are being disenfranchised.

The latest on that here:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042908O.shtml

That doesn’t even address all of the attorney firings for the same reason, or the extremely volatile balance on the Supreme Court, that could crash with the tiniest of changes. Where is Nadar, (or any of these other ideologues) on addressing all of these multiple components of our fascist system that has no more resemblance to a democracy than China these days? Has he said or done anything while it’s been taking place. We have nearly all of the components of a fascist system…the corporatism, the militarism, the autocracy, (unitary executive) and the totalitarianism that creates new laws and disregards the constitution which is the blueprint/structure for a democracy. And on top of that, we’ve got the religios. They’ve turned their ‘family values’ by means of evangelical zealotry into a complimentary component to fit right in with the militarism, corporatism, totalitarianism and autocracy. They can make Iran’s Mullahs look like secularists.

Meantime, the Nadar gang is living in the past, thinking all we have to do is to just get back to that. So these aren’t Democrats themselves, or even progressive Independents. They’re repuglicans, and reactionary ones at that.

Report this

By cann4ing, April 29, 2008 at 9:22 am Link to this comment

Viva Nader!  What’s next, Long live Big Brother?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 29, 2008 at 5:47 am Link to this comment

To Obama?  Must have missed it. Hope Obama listened to what Kucinich was saying. Obama does offer us the best of the three, his medical plan sucks though.  Having to pander is what it is about, I cannot feel happy about being force fed by the MM and special interests.

Hopefully Obama will provide some change of course away from the ice berg.  I know the other two will not.

Nader has lost my interest, he is history. 

Unrighteously thinking coming from the self proclaimed righteous do not make for reality.  Dost seem like political bigotry to me.

Report this

By Max Shields, April 29, 2008 at 4:49 am Link to this comment

It’s just a “no brainer” that’s why the facts don’t matter.

Report this

By cann4ing, April 28, 2008 at 11:51 pm Link to this comment

Sure thing, Commissar Shields.  It must be great knowing that you are the sole repository of progressive virtue.

Report this

By cann4ing, April 28, 2008 at 11:23 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena, I have no problem with Max’s personal decision to throw his vote away on Nader.  That is his right.  I also have no problem with Nader getting into the debates.  Indeed, I think there would be much for all of us to gain if he did.  But when Max attacks everyone who does not think his choice is wise as somehow being intellectually dishonest and of selling out the cause, I believe Max has gone way beyond the pail.  I think that on policy, Nader is not merely right, but brilliant.  But on tactics, I get back to what my history prof. told me back in 1969—the American left can always be criticized for its inability to count.  I also think that Max Shields deludes himself when he projects that he is somehow the sole repository of progressive virtue.  In his mind, it is the Max Shields way or the highway.  I simply reject that type of narrow-minded thinking.

Report this

By cyrena, April 28, 2008 at 10:29 pm Link to this comment

Max Shields writes:
•  “Let me explain. Ernest Canning is a very articulate poster and he made a consistently strong case for Kucinich….The movement from Kucinich to Obama undermines the very principles under which he supported - with unusually consistent and intelligent vigor the message(s) of Kucinich.”
In a word Max, this is bullshit. You’ve decided, (consistent with the fascist mentality that has taken over) that pragmatism and the acknowledgement of reality is a BAD thing. George W and Karl Rove would agree.
So, instead of supporting a candidate based on the reality of the fact that he has the best chance of winning, and possibly regaining at least a measure of all that we’ve lost, you’d argue a base ideology that has zero chance of survival, EVEN IF IT WAS LEGITIMATE! And quite frankly, I can’t even agree at this point in time, that Nadar’s principles ARE legitimate, unless you need the manufacturer in China to make good on your busted washing machine. Fat fucking chance!!

In short, your argument is that Ernest Canning has ‘swung’ or otherwise made a ‘movement’ from Kucinich to Obama, which sounds like typical Karl Rove and now Hillary Clinton tactics. Of COURSE Ernest Canning made a strong case for Kucinich. I supported Kucinich myself, and NOT just this time around, but back in 2004 as well. Need I remind anyone here, that Ralph Nadar LOST THEN AS WELL? (that was the SECOND time)

And now you want to make the accusation that just because Dennis Kucinich did not get the amount of support that he needed to survive what were pre-planned obstacles put in his way, that for any of us to now put our support behind Barack Obama designates some sort of ‘shift’ in our original principles?

Are you also arguing that we should instead WASTE another vote on Nadar, or stand accused of playing ‘party politics’? Is this the same Nadar that has done a great deal of good work a few decades ago in addressing CONSUMER needs, but hasn’t bothered to campaign in any way, shape or form so far in this election season, to gain some support for our vote?

You’re an ideological bully Shields. Where do you and all the rest of your types get off insulting so many Americans who have been brought into the process as a result of the Barack Obama campaign, who have otherwise long been ignored by the ideologues among us? Nadar hasn’t asked for my vote, not worth a damn. Kucinich had my support, until he was left crippled by the opposition, at which point he asked those who had supported him, to consider Barack Obama. Nadar hadn’t even bothered to enter the picture back then, (for the 3rd time).

TIMING is everything. Nadar has been, and I’m sure would continue to be very helpful for those of us who get stuck with a lemon of a car or a washing machine. That doesn’t do a damn bit of good for the 1 in every 10 adults currently warehoused in US prisons, or for those who can’t find a job or buy food, let alone a washing machine.

So, while you continue to sit on your ass and preach unrealistic ideologies, the rest of us will do the realistic and pragmatic thinking for you. And it has little to do with party politics, and everything to do with regaining the government that has been highjacked by a fascist cabal.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 28, 2008 at 8:45 pm Link to this comment

We do not live in a Democracy, I have said it many times in many different ways.  We do not spread democracy around the world, we spread an illusion of something that smells of greed, usually connected with death. 

Ignorance a tool, truth is well hidden behind closed doors.  Many of us know this, so why cannot we play the game and hope for a better county, one that may have even the slightest hint of hope, a tiny sliver of reason, even a speck of direction to better our lives. 

Obama offers nothing except a slight chance of what he proposes.  If he does any of what he says or talks about that he will do it would be a direction away from the sinking ship that is now.

Hillary offers nothing except status quo, not much different than Obama, except she is so entrenched with special interests, she has become quite the warfear monger.

McCain, offers nothing except the sadness that is now, with more of BushCheney fear and war on terror, a life not worthy of much except imperialistic sameness.

Three choices made for us by the elite, we know this is so, what are we to do but choose the best of the worse again.  The cycle is never ending, vote or not to vote that is the question.

Report this

By Max Shields, April 28, 2008 at 7:24 pm Link to this comment

“In terms of the very survival of the rule of law, these are dangerous times.  As much as I would like to see a President Ralph Nader, it won’t happen unless and until Nader wises up and runs as a Dem.  For now, Obama provides the logical choice of progressives.  Anything else is irresponsible.”

This is the kind of “get in line” talk that keeps Nader’s motor running. “We’re in charge. Get in or get out.”

I hear it locally where the Dem machine elbows it’s way and we try to call it democracy. But the choice is “take it or f@@k’n leave it”. “we’re in charge and you just live here. Ready, now bend over and enjoy it.”

So, Squirer Canning know just how unprogressive your in the face “get with the party program” comes off. this is the mafioso of party politics.

Viva Nader!!!

Report this

By cann4ing, April 28, 2008 at 5:42 pm Link to this comment

I’m not certain that’s how I framed it, but I’ll accept your characterization.  What I will say is that there are areas of fundamental difference, especially when it comes to application of the rule of law.  As a lawyer, I have a deep and abiding concern for the damage the current administration, in particular, but that damage really dates back to the Nixon administration and the nomination of William H. Rehnquist to the U.S. Supreme Court first as an associate justice and later as chief justice.  When it comes to appointing judges to the federal judiciary there has been a major difference between the appointments made by Carter & Clinton on the one hand and all of the Republican presidents since Reagan.  I don’t know if lay individuals can truly appreciate just how radically subversive the Robert Bork founded, Richard Mellon Scaife funded Federalist Society is.

Currently there are four Federalist Society Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice Roberts.  As Senator Kennedy observed during the Clarence Thomas confirmation fight, “If we confirm a nominee who has not demonstrated a commitment to core constitutional values, we jeopardize our rights as individuals and the future of our nation.  We cannot undo such a mistake at the next election or even in the next generation.”

Every Federalist Society jurist is committed to a concept that did not even exist in the 1970s when I attended law school—the Unitary Executive—the invention of Samuel Alito at a time he was serving in the Reagan administration.  It is this radical concept that seeks to undermine the entire system of checks and balances; that is behind the now more than 800 presidential signing statements that suggest the president can pick and choose which aspects of the law he or she will enforce, and it is this concept that provided the underpinning for the torture memos.  It is the position of these jurists, still in the minority, that the Court and well as the Congress, had no right to require that the administration abide by the Geneva Conventions because this would, in the words of Thomas’s dissent in Hamdan, interfere with the rights of the unitary executive.

In terms of the very survival of the rule of law, these are dangerous times.  As much as I would like to see a President Ralph Nader, it won’t happen unless and until Nader wises up and runs as a Dem.  For now, Obama provides the logical choice of progressives.  Anything else is irresponsible.

Report this

By VillageElder, April 28, 2008 at 4:34 pm Link to this comment

This is an internecine squabble; Hill, Obama & McSame are all members of the same club - the corporatist party which masquerades as repuglicans and dimocrats.  From Reagan on all holders of the Executive Office (POTUS) have advanced a repuglican adgenda since Warren G.. Harding.  (Was Reagan the greatest president since W. G. or what?)

Every one of these candidates are to the right of Eisenhower and Nixon.  Lieberman would be a suitable VP for all the candidates.  Perhaps they should all announce him now.

Despite all our progressive fantasies, universal health care, the end of the Iraq folly and the rape of the citizens will not stop.  The choices given us are the choices we have.  Nader is on a party’s ticket which is not recognized completely by 37 of these fifty states.

We have nowhere to go.  Ernest had defined the question:  Which of these corporatist will most pander to our positions?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 28, 2008 at 2:10 pm Link to this comment

After all your for thought and round about comments about Obama, you support Hillary, now I understand, thanks for clearing that up. 
I will respond to the Hedges comment on the Hedges post.  Like Hedges you and he are Hillary supporters, but you make a big ado about the same old stuff.
Sure Obama may be some more of the same, but your misleading comments from before made it sound like you were offering something worthy of response.  But Hillary?
Now your posts seem like they were from the Twilight Zone.

Report this

By cann4ing, April 28, 2008 at 1:28 pm Link to this comment

I suppose Max will also condemn Dennis Kucinich himself when, after Obama receives the nomination, Kucinich endorces him.

Report this

By bert, April 28, 2008 at 8:12 am Link to this comment

Reply to Leefeller - Trply yo hettie - “Obama the lier, so much to call attention to.  You have been busy hettie, oh so busy!”

This is spitting in the wind as I have posted many of Obama’s lies here at Truth Dig and you never seem to remember them. Oh!!! That’s right. I forgot. Excuse me! There are Obama rules and Clinton rules. Obama rules state that his lies don’t count, don’t matter. Nevertheless, below I present some of the top 10.

***“I am the only candidate who isn’t taking a dime from Washington lobbyist” - LIAR-

The record shows quite the opposite. According to USA Today, Obama’s campaign fundraising team includes 38 members of law firms that were paid $138 million last year to lobby the federal government, records show.  Those lawyers, including 10 former federal lobbyists, have pledged to raise at least $3.5 million for the Illinois senator’s presidential race. Employees of their firms have given Obama’s campaign $2.26 million, a USA TODAY analysis of campaign finance data shows.
Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-15-obama_N.htm

***I did not take money from oil companies: - LIAR - [03/31/2008]

THE FACTS: True enough, Obama does not take money from oil companies. No candidate does. It is illegal for corporations to give money to politicians. Corporations, however, do have political action committees that collect voluntary donations from employees and then donate them to candidates. Obama doesn’t take money from PACs. He also doesn’t take money from lobbyists.
But he does accept money from executives and other employees of oil companies and two of his fundraisers are oil company executives. As of Feb. 29, Obama’s presidential campaign had received nearly $214,000 from oil and gas industry employees and their families, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Clinton had received nearly $307,000 from industry workers and their families and Republican Sen. John McCain, the likely GOP presidential nominee, received nearly $394,000, according to the center’s totals.
Two of Obama’s fundraisers are Robert Cavnar, the chairman and chief executive of Houston-based Mission Resources Corp., and George Kaiser, the president and CEO of Tulsa-based Kaiser-Francis Oil Co. Source: Associated press via Yahoo News
28.) No One Contacted Canada About NAFTA - LIAR, the Candian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.

***No One Contacted Canada About NAFTA - LIAR, the Candian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them. (NOTE: in case you missed it I have a 2 page timeline of each lie on Mafta-gate)

***Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - LIAR, you didn’t write it, introduce it, change it, or create it.

***The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - LIAR, it took just 14 days from start to finish.

***I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - LIAR, your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear Donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came.

***I Have Released My State Records - LIAR, as of March, 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden within.

Report this

By cann4ing, April 28, 2008 at 8:02 am Link to this comment

You know, Max, there are times when someone says something profound and it sticks.  For me, it occurred in 1969.  I had just returned from Vietnam, getting an early out to attend college.  My freshman history professor made the following remark:

“If the American right can always be criticized for its absolute insensitivity to the human condition, the American left can always be criticized for its inability to count.”

Are the substantive positions of Nader and McKinney superior to Obama’s?  Yes!  There are many issues on which Obama falls short, especially single-payer, but if the seven and one-half year neocon quest for U.S. hegemony over the Middle East, the ongoing assault on civil liberties, NSA spying on our own people, torture, the rise of Blackwater, the world’s largest mercenary army, the assault on science and the rule of reason, have not convinced you that there would have been a fundamental difference between a Gore administration and a Bush administration, then nothing I can say would serve to convince you of how dangerous it would be to put Mad Dog McCain in the White House, a fingertip away from the nuclear trigger, or why there would be a fundamental difference between a President Obama and a President McCain. 

The fact is that neither Nader nor McKinney have any prospect whatsoever of prevailing in the fall.  Welcome to the real world, Max!

Report this

By Max Shields, April 28, 2008 at 7:23 am Link to this comment

Mr. Canning, now you’ve lost that sharp discriminatory mind.

A strong case would have been to deal with my post instead of making up some totally irrelevant point.

But such is the case when we move from priniples to political caculations. Good bye brain!! Time to get with the program - the Obama train ride..

Report this

By Max Shields, April 28, 2008 at 7:18 am Link to this comment

Leefeller,
That’s the kind of “thinking” I’m talking about. Read the Hedges post today and then explain how Hillary is worse than Obama.

But worse is almost besides the point. My grip is not with these candidates its with people who used there brains and wrote long eloquent posts here about the need to get move away from the corporatcracy, single payer healthcare, end the occupation not only of Iraq and Afganistan but around the world (700+ bases), support the liberation of the Palestinians against the oppression of Israeli occupation to create a true peace in that region, to impeach Bush and Cheney for breaking (numerous counts have been thoroughly documented)Federal, and international laws.

And what do these people, here, supported the cases made by Kucinich do? They turn around and support an eloquent windbag who hold JUST THE OPPOSITE!!!

Obama has voted to keep troops in Iraq, and elsewhere. He has absolutely nothing in common with Kucinich. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING,except they happen to be associated with the same party.

So, make your choice. Vote for more of the same with a little “honey”. After a while, you’ll hate the honey because underneath it is more conflict, occupation and probably much of the same incompetence because corporations rule.

Report this

By cann4ing, April 28, 2008 at 7:09 am Link to this comment

News flash, Max!  Dennis Kucinich is no longer a presidential candidate.  Obama is substantively better than Clinton on a host of issues, and, as Jim Hightower astutely observed, it isn’t Obama, the man, but the millions of progressives who have become active in his campaign that portend to meaningful change.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 28, 2008 at 6:55 am Link to this comment

Hillary and her experience is the corporate figurehead, Obama has instilled second thoughts in the corporate figurehead supporters. May only be a simple hope, but better than throwing away a vote on Nader?

Report this

By Max Shields, April 28, 2008 at 6:40 am Link to this comment

To quote Chris Hedges:
“Obama is an articulate, intelligent and attractive politician, but he is also a corporate figurehead. A vote for Obama is a vote for the corporate state. Under an Obama administration, the corporations would continue their ruthless drive to disempower the citizens, to protect an entrenched American oligarchy and to subvert what is left of our faltering democracy.”

Report this

By Max Shields, April 28, 2008 at 6:35 am Link to this comment

Let me explain. Ernest Canning is a very articulate poster and he made a consistently strong case for Kucinich.

The movement from Kucinich to Obama undermines the very pinciples under which he supported - with unusually consistent and intelligent vigor the message(s) of Kucinich. Where is the convergence between Kucinich’s message and Obama? Or Hillary Clinton? Since the result of the Dem primaries has left the Dems with fric and frac on the issues; it all seems to come down to some “hidden” belief that Obama really is something other than what he says he is (on the substantive issues). That is a very bogus and delusional reason to support Obama - particularly coming from someone like Mr. Canning who is not a little estute about the issues.

So, yea, I call that some kind of hypocrisy. Michael Moore is the ultimate. He doesn’t really give a damn about universal single payer health care (Clinton actually comes closer to it the Obama’s free market offering).

The only choices we have are the choices we make. Cacluating along the mainstream party line is politics as usual - which makes the choice of Obama a wishful thinking, almost certain to disappoint.

If someone could explain (other than the “speech” before he was in the Senate) why they think Obama is substantively the better candidate over say Clinton, or Nader, or Cynthia McKinney, I’d be very interested.

Report this

By Max Shields, April 28, 2008 at 4:31 am Link to this comment

And exactly what makes Obama the “best in the race”?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 27, 2008 at 9:03 pm Link to this comment

Max,
We live in a plutocracy we can decide to vote for the best of the worse or not vote at all.  I also voted for Kucinich and do not feel the hypocrite in supporting Obama, even though I do not find him as appealing as Kucinich, he seems the best of the three selected for us by the special interests.
What would you suggest?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 27, 2008 at 8:31 pm Link to this comment

Women haters every where, all over the place. You are missing something, Hillary is not a woman, she is Bill Clinton’s spouse. 

Obama the lier, so much to call attention to.  You have been busy hettie, oh so busy!

Report this

By cann4ing, April 27, 2008 at 8:30 pm Link to this comment

I voted for Kucinich; would have preferred Kucinich, would still be supporting him if he were still in the race.  Unfortunately, he is not.  If you read my prior post, you would have noted that I felt the time to make the choice was in the primaries.  At this point, Obama is the best of what is left, though if you felt compelled to vote for Nader, I certainly could understand that.

Report this

By Max Shields, April 27, 2008 at 7:25 pm Link to this comment

Ernest Canning

It’s been a while since last I visited TruthDig but I think there was a poster by that same name who was an ardent Dennis Kucinich supporter. You remember the guy who held to principles, get out of Iraq, end US occupations, WTO, proposed single payer health care, impeachment and more…

As I recall Mr. Canning was a pretty straight shooter on these boards, and so I’m disappointed that the lesser of evils has become your retreat…

To bad…where can one go and not find hypocrisy?

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 27, 2008 at 6:33 pm Link to this comment

How about Country Joe McDonald and the flag shirts?

Another great American hero.

Report this

By Maria Kors, April 27, 2008 at 9:37 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary Clinton has morphed into a true modern-time Republican. No point of return. This is very sad, since in the ideal world it would be wonderful to have a bright and inspiring and decent woman in the WH. Unfortunately, she has failed the decency test scandalously.
The GOP apologists are all over their heads with the joy of discovering a candidate who is digging against the Democratic Party with such spectacular efficiency and with such familiar and well perfected Rovian technique.

Report this

By hettie, April 27, 2008 at 3:30 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Interesting to note that lots of money from questionable sources plus a good dose of mysogyny can buy even Michael Moore’s vote. For the person who doesn’t know who Ayers is, use your search engine on your computer. There is lots of info about him and Obama working together through the 80’s in Chicago. Obama LIED about his association with Ayers in the debate, but you won’t hear MSM calling him on it. Look it up.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 26, 2008 at 8:08 am Link to this comment

Hillary and her supporters seem more Republican and less normal every day.

Report this

By cann4ing, April 26, 2008 at 7:45 am Link to this comment

Bert, give it up, you hopeless Orwellian.  Are you trying to say that the DNC did not make a ruling “after” MI & FL moved up their primary dates to strip those states of “all” there delegates?  If so, you are flat out wrong.  Are you trying to say that Hillary was not aware of that DNC “ruling” in advance of both primaries?  If so, you are flat out wrong.  Do you deny that Hillary did nothing to protest that DNC ruling in advance of those primaries, but, instead, entered a two way agreement with Obama not to campaign in FL?  If so, you are flat out wrong.

If Hillary thought the DNC “ruling” violated the DNC “rules” then the time to have protested was in advance of those primaries, not after she got trounced in eleven straight states.  Hillary, as well as all of the other candidates, went into the FL & MI primaries knowing full well that the DNC had decided to strip those states of “all” of their delegates and that these were merely beauty contests—a fact that was widely and contemporaneously reported in the media.

I am not certain whether you are dishonest or simply delusional, though I suspect it is the former.  What I am certain of is that your stubborn refusal to accept the truth about what the DNC’s (not Obama’s) decision to strip those two states of “all” delegates in advance of the primaries has fooled no one, except perhaps yourself and other delusional Clinton supporters. 

A lot of people get upset when they find someone who is too stupid or dishonest to admit error when their error is conclusively demonstrated to them.  But in the context of this nation’s present malaise, I find it truly sad.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 26, 2008 at 7:12 am Link to this comment

Flag pins for morons, the test of a true patriot. Wear two flag pins!

Great post as usual Ernest.

Report this

By bert, April 26, 2008 at 6:26 am Link to this comment

“And when you disagree with someone why do you feel the need to insult them.”

Great question, Debra. If you ever get an answer let me know.

Report this

By bert, April 25, 2008 at 3:48 pm Link to this comment

I see you’ve set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public.

Can you read and understand basic simple English? The rules adopted in 2006 were for the 2008 Convention. Says that on the front page. Those are the rules governing the 2008 convention.

Why would the Party adopt rules in 2006? Were those for the 2004 elections? No. They are for the 2008 election.

Doesn’t make any difference when the MI or FL Legislature moved up those primaries. The rule book I linked to still apply, becasue those are the rules giverning the seating of delegates to the 208 convention.

If you think I am wrong, then find the new rules book that would apply and post it. I am sure Howard Dean will be happy to send it to you just to shut me up. Just call the DNC office and ask for the rules: 202-863-8000.

Report this

By VillageElder, April 25, 2008 at 1:56 pm Link to this comment

A good post, Ernest.  It certainly reflects the feeling and position of a great many of us.

Report this

By cann4ing, April 25, 2008 at 1:48 pm Link to this comment

Bert, you are living proof of the axiom that a little knowledge is dangerous.  Look to the bottom of the first page of the “Rules” you have linked to.  They were adopted on Aug. 19, 2006—long before MI & FL moved up their primaries and long before the DNC made a ruling that if they moved up their primaries, both states would be stripped of “all” their delegates (other than superdelegates which were outside the primary process).  That doesn’t mean one half.  It doesn’t mean that if, later in the game, one candidate finds that he or she is losing, those delegates can be seated at the convention.

Report this

By cann4ing, April 25, 2008 at 10:51 am Link to this comment

Which truth is that, Bert?  That you are really Karl Rove?

Report this

By bert, April 25, 2008 at 9:59 am Link to this comment

You are both living proof that the truth will NOT set you free.

The truth may hurt but it beats delusion.

Report this

By cann4ing, April 25, 2008 at 9:56 am Link to this comment

“I wore my flag tonight, first time.  Until now I haven’t thought it necessary to display a little metallic icon of patriotism for everyone to see.  It was enough to vote, pay my taxes, perform my civic duties, speak my mind and do my best to raise our kids to be good Americans….It no more occurred to me to flaunt the flag on my chest than it did to pin my mother’s picture on my lapel to prove her son’s love….So what is it doing here?  I put in on to take it back.  The flag has been hijacked and turned into a logo…, the trademark of a monopoly of patriotism….During the State of the Union Address; did you notice Bush and Cheney wearing the flag?  How come?  No administration’s patriotism is ever in doubt, only its policies.  When I see flags sprouting on official lapels, I think of the time in China when I saw Mao’s Little Red Book…on every official’s desk, omnipresent and unread….But more galling than anything are all those moralistic ideologues in Washington sporting the flag in their lapel while…attacking dissenters as un-American.  They’re in the same league as those swarms of corporate lobbyists wearing flags and prowling Capitol Hill for tax breaks, even as they call for spending more on war….So I put this on as a modest repost to men with flags in their lapels who shoot missiles from the safety of Washington think tanks, or argue that sacrifice is good as long as they don’t have to make it, or approve of bribing of governments to join the ‘Coalition of the Willing.’  I put it on to remind myself that not every patriot thinks we should do to the people of Baghdad what bin Laden did to us.  The flag belongs to the country, not to the government, and it reminds me that it’s not un-American to think that war, except in self defense, is a failure of moral imagination, political nerve and diplomacy.  Come to think of it, standing up to your government can mean standing up for your country.”

Excerpt from 5/15/05 speech by Bill Moyers at the National Conference on Media Reform.

I quote this as a repost to the hypocrites in the American propaganda network aka corporate media who persist in raising the issue of whether the absence of such a pin on Obama’s lapel somehow demonstrates a lack of patriotism.  The one point I disagree with Moyers on is this.  If patriotism means a devotion to constitutional democracy and the rule of law, then the patriotism of Bush & Cheney, and not merely their policies, is called into question.

Report this

By cann4ing, April 25, 2008 at 8:57 am Link to this comment

Good post, Cyrena.  As you will note, our “Bert,” in replying to me, has deliberating chosen to repeat the same “rules” while ignoring the “rulings” made by the DNC.  She also choses to ignore the fact that, instead of challenging the DNC rulings “in advance of the primaries,” Hillary made a deal with Obama that neither of them would campaign in Florida.

I am beginning to think that our “Bert” is actually Karl Rove.  Anyway, I really don’t want this to be the “Bert & Ernie” show, so I will leave it at that.

Report this

By Margaret Currey, April 24, 2008 at 10:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If Ted Kennedy is Catholic and the Pope is Catholic and the pope before this one was in The Hitler Youth organization then by default OBAMA LOVES HITLER.

The ABC Debate was a joke, all silly season question and commercials, and by the way Charles Gibson told the audience not to clap, but when OBAMA said about Clinton (Bill) about partoning one of the WEATHERMEN, then the audience clapped against the rules.

If Obama was not against the Democrats for a Day he might have taken Penna. but he knew the deck was stacked against him, the Endorsement of the Governor, and the Mayor of Phila. Phila. was a given for Clinton, but I wonder will Indiana be given to her or North Carolina or Pureto Rico go to Clinton, maybe or maybe not, I as a Democrat will vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination, but only because a vote for McCain would be a disaster.

It would be really cool if Nader was Obama’s running mate or even Edwards, Edwards might be a one trick pony, but the one trick he can do is talk well in public, and his hair always is in place.

Report this

By Margaret Currey, April 24, 2008 at 10:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

RE:  Cyrena April 23rd, my setiments exately, the hard questions were the sily questions, like why don’t you wear a flag pin, and I noticed that Clinton did not wear any and neither did George or Charlie.

The Ayres guy I never heard of and how can he be called a friend just by sitting on a panel seems like pure spin.

And the Democrats for a day, thanks to dear old blowhard Lambaugh, life is a laugh with ole Limbaugh.

I am somewhat for Clinton but I also lean toward Obama, when the question comes up in the state of Oregon, I think something will happen, someone has to give it up and decide who will be on the ticket, will it be Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama if this dream ticket ever happens, I do not think it will happen but “The future is not ours to see”.

Report this

By cyrena, April 24, 2008 at 8:54 pm Link to this comment

Ernest,

Thanks so much for posting this, since I long ago realized that bert was gonna spin this stuff any way she could.

On another post, she goes on about what the ‘rules’ are, and then goes on to include MI and FL in her hypothetical counts, despite the fact that the RULES were set long ago regarding the 2008 Primary elections for the Democratic Party, AS YOU HAVE STATED PLAINLY ABOVE!!

And, it HAS BEEN STATED a few hundred times, in on this blog as well as ANY OTHER newspaper that one would or could possibly come across, EXACTLY HOW MI AND FL CAME TO BE EXCLUDED!!

These RULES, (based on the fact that MI and FL were moving up the dates of their primaries, AGAINST PARTY RULES), were all well established, prior to that date.

In SHORT..ALL PARTICIPANTS in the 2008 Democratic primary elections KNEW THIS IN ADVANCE, and AGREED TO IT!!!

I am one of the MANY that is truly sick of bert spinning this any other way.

Mind you, this was addressed SO FAR in advance of these elections, with the outcome CLEARLY STATED:

Outcome: IF YOU DO THIS (MI and FL) your delegates WILL NOT BE COUNTED!!!

It was clearly stated so far in advance, that both MI and FL had the opportunity to recognize and understand the consequences, and choose NOT to break these long standing rules, which prohibited any other than the established primaries for taking place prior to Feb 5. But, they did it anyway.

Bert has been whining about this for months now, and it’s old, and tired. Her newest attempt to now blame Barack Obama for somehow ‘blocking’ these votes is as treacherous and egregious as it gets.

So, thank you again, for pointing this out. It’s disgusting that she will not stop the very intentional spin, which is beyond ‘spin’ at this point, because they are outright LIES! The same stoop to whatever is needed to ambush democracy and the process.

I thought we were rid of this infection on this site, only to discover that she’d only left for 3 days. I’d bet money she spent the days in Pennsylvania disconnecting the electricity at the voting locations where the machines mysteriously failed. (only required throwing a switch here and there).

We must remain ever vigilant at calling out the liars and traitors lurking and trolling within and among the masses, looking for every opportunity to subvert democracy.

Bert, we know what you are.

Report this

By bert, April 24, 2008 at 7:56 pm Link to this comment

For the 3rd time EC, the link was to the 2008 rules, and here is the link again. It says 2008 right in the link and if you open the pdf file the first page says the 2008 rules.

http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democratic1.download.akamai.com/
8082/pdfs/2008delegateselectionrules.pdf

Additionally I do not need nor do I appreciate you mis-quoting what I said, so I will post my original post again:

From Jon Winkleman and Jeffrey H. Campagna at MyDD.com

The thrust of their message is the lies about the DNC rules concerning FL and MI floating all over the place. Unfortunately most news outlets and commentators are repeating this misinformation without ever checking the Obama campaign?s claims for accuracy against the actual DNC rules.

?1) The DNC Rules state that pledged delegates elected by Florida and Michigan voters must be excluded because those states scheduled primaries before February 5, 2008.

FALSE: The DNC Delegate Selection Rules explicitly give the Rules and Bylaws Committee and the Credentials Committee ultimate jurisdiction over delegate selection. These committees, each in their independent capacities, can seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida at their discretion.

2) The mandatory penalty for a state holding a primary before February 5, 2008 is exclusion of that state?s delegates from the Democratic National Convention.

FALSE: The mandatory penalty is exclusion of one half of the offending state?s pledged and alternate delegates. Unless otherwise provided, the other half of that state?s pledged and alternate delegates will be seated at the convention.

3) Any attempt to seat 100% of the pledged or unpledged delegates of Florida and Michigan at this point is ?changing the rules.?

FALSE: The DNC Rules explicitly contemplate that excluded delegates will eventually be seated at the Convention. For states in violation of the timing rules, the DNC Delegate Selection Rules provide remedies to reinstate all of their delegates, both pledged and unpledged.

4) Florida is not entitled to reinstatement of its delegates because the Democrats in the Florida State Legislature did not make efforts to keep the state?s primary in compliance with DNC Rules.

FALSE: Evidence that that a Republican majority in the state legislature set the primary date in violation of the DNC timing rules in spite of efforts by the state?s Democratic legislators to keep the primary in compliance is grounds for appealing a DNC decision to strip a state of its delegates.
Though Florida has a 2:1 Republican legislative majority, the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee ruled that the Democratic minority did not make sufficient efforts to keep the primary date in compliance with DNC Rules. The Florida State Party disputes this factual finding. The State Party argues that the Democrats in the legislature were robbed of meaningful power to stop the Republican effort to set an early primary date because Republicans drafted the controlling legislation and packed it with other unrelated issues which the Democrats in the legislature felt they could not in good conscience oppose.
5) The DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee has taken action and is unable to change the sanctions imposed on Florida and Michigan.

FALSE: The Rules and Bylaws Committee has the power to lift any and all automatic sanctions along with the power to impose and modify additional sanctions. The Rules and Bylaws committee also has the power to create its own committee to create an alternative process for delegate selection should the state party not cooperate or be unable to resolve the issue on its own. The Rules and Bylaws Committee failed to use the tools it had to independently resolve the matter in good faith before Florida and Michigan voters went to the polls of the ill timed primaries to express their candidate preference. ?

From:  http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/17/93114/2956

Report this

By Debra Istvanik-Strotman, April 24, 2008 at 7:17 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I suggest you read a book.I noticed bert gave you the answer to when Hillary Clinton came out against torture. Why the need? Because Bush and company have their minions torturing prisoners and we now know these people are being drugged.

bert is one of the few people with sense. Great work bert.

And when you disagree with someone why do you feel the need to insult them.

Report this

By cann4ing, April 24, 2008 at 7:06 pm Link to this comment

Bert, an ardent Hillary supporter, has posted a link to the DNC rules which she claims establishes Hillary’s right to seat the delegates from the MI and FL primaries.  Unfortunately, Bert failed to note that the rules she posted were issued in August, 2006, long before the controversy in MI and FL arose by a change in primary date.  More importantly, Bert ignored the difference between DNC “rules” and “rulings” by the DNC.  Bert also linked to a post by an individual who claimed that the assertion that the DNC had excluded “all” delegates from those two primaries were simply the product of Obama supporter spin.

Here is what the New York Times said on Jan. 29, 2008 in a piece entitled “Phantom Democrats:” 

“Because Florida’s legislators insisted on leapfrogging their primary to be one of the first in the nation, the Democratic Party to all of Florida’s convention delegates away.”

“All,” my dear Bert, does not mean “one-half.”

On Jan. 30, 2008 Jim DeFede, a South Florida newsman appeared on Democracy Now and said:

“Well, Florida moved its primary up to January 29 in defiance of the Democratic National Committee, which said no state can move up earlier than February 5.  Florida went ahead and did it anyway, led by the Republican legislators.  But it was also some Democrats in the legislature that wanted it moved up, as well….So Florida got stripped of all its delegates.”

In an April 2008 summary of the primaries, the New York Times reported that the DNC had “stripped” both Michigan and Florida of all their delegates because these states moved ahead of February 5 without permission.

As is reflected by the Jan. 29 New York Times article, Hillary did not step forward to protest these DNC rulings in advance.  Instead, she entered an agreement with Obama to “limit their efforts in Florida to fund-raising, and forswore campaigning there—at least in the flesh.”

Hillary knew full well going in that the primaries in these states were simply to serve as beauty contests.  That was one of the reasons that only Hillary and Dennis Kucinich were on the Michigan ballot.  It was only after Obama trounced her in eleven straight primary contests after Super Tuesday that she made noises about seating these delegations.

I stand by my earlier observation.  Hillary has attempted to change the DNC rulings which had stripped these delegations only after it became increasingly clear that she could not otherwise win the nomination.  The effort by Hillary and her supporters to spin this into an effort by Obama to block the vote is so Orwellian it would have made Karl Rove proud.

Report this

By bert, April 24, 2008 at 6:20 pm Link to this comment

http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democratic1.download.akamai.com/
8082/pdfs/2008delegateselectionrules.pdf

Link CLEARLY says 2008 delegates eletion rules and leads to a pdf docnment that states 2008 on the front page. See link above, posted again in this post.

Report this

By cann4ing, April 24, 2008 at 6:10 pm Link to this comment

You have linked to rules issued in Aug. 2006.  My recollection is that this was long “before” the DNC said that they would exclude the delegations if they went forward with the early primaries.  No doubt you Hillary supporters believe that you can pick and choose.  As I said before, D-E-S-P-I-C-A-B-L-E!

Report this

By kath cantarella, April 24, 2008 at 5:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

stickers in bars and grafitti (sp?) all over the place pleading ‘Michael Moore for President’.

If the US was a rational place, Obama would win in a landslide.

Report this

By bert, April 24, 2008 at 4:23 pm Link to this comment

See my post above in response to BobZ. Wrong on all counts!

Report this

By bert, April 24, 2008 at 4:18 pm Link to this comment

Hillary is not trying to rewrite the rules. Have you read the rules? If so you will know the answers to these questions:

From Jon Winkleman and Jeffrey H. Campagna at MyDD.com

True or False?

1) The DNC Rules state that pledged delegates elected by Florida and Michigan voters must be excluded because those states scheduled primaries before February 5, 2008.

FALSE: The DNC Delegate Selection Rules explicitly give the Rules and Bylaws Committee and the Credentials Committee ultimate jurisdiction over delegate selection. These committees, each in their independent capacities, can seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida at their discretion.

2) The mandatory penalty for a state holding a primary before February 5, 2008 is exclusion of that state?s delegates from the Democratic National Convention.

FALSE: The mandatory penalty is exclusion of one half of the offending state?s pledged and alternate delegates. Unless otherwise provided, the other half of that state?s pledged and alternate delegates will be seated at the convention.

3) Any attempt to seat 100% of the pledged or unpledged delegates of Florida and Michigan at this point is ?changing the rules.?

FALSE: The DNC Rules explicitly contemplate that excluded delegates will eventually be seated at the Convention. For states in violation of the timing rules, the DNC Delegate Selection Rules provide remedies to reinstate all of their delegates, both pledged and unpledged.

4) Florida is not entitled to reinstatement of its delegates because the Democrats in the Florida State Legislature did not make efforts to keep the state?s primary in compliance with DNC Rules.

FALSE: Evidence that that a Republican majority in the state legislature set the primary date in violation of the DNC timing rules in spite of efforts by the state?s Democratic legislators to keep the primary in compliance is grounds for appealing a DNC decision to strip a state of its delegates.
Though Florida has a 2:1 Republican legislative majority, the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee ruled that the Democratic minority did not make sufficient efforts to keep the primary date in compliance with DNC Rules. The Florida State Party disputes this factual finding. The State Party argues that the Democrats in the legislature were robbed of meaningful power to stop the Republican effort to set an early primary date because Republicans drafted the controlling legislation and packed it with other unrelated issues which the Democrats in the legislature felt they could not in good conscience oppose.
5) The DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee has taken action and is unable to change the sanctions imposed on Florida and Michigan.

FALSE: The Rules and Bylaws Committee has the power to lift any and all automatic sanctions along with the power to impose and modify additional sanctions. The Rules and Bylaws committee also has the power to create its own committee to create an alternative process for delegate selection should the state party not cooperate or be unable to resolve the issue on its own. The Rules and Bylaws Committee failed to use the tools it had to independently resolve the matter in good faith before Florida and Michigan voters went to the polls of the ill timed primaries to express their candidate preference.

http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democratic1.download.akamai.com/
8082/pdfs/2008delegateselectionrules.pdf

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/17/93114/2956

Report this

By cann4ing, April 24, 2008 at 4:04 pm Link to this comment

Bert:  The DNC—not Obama—made the ruling in advance of both the MI and FL primaries that these were only beauty contest and would not count. What you propose would be the equivalent to changing the rules at the end of a football game when your team’s final drive fell short.  The Clinton answer, shorten the field by ten yards and we win.

If Clinton was all that concerned about this issue why didn’t she seek a reversal from the DNC “before” those primaries took place.  She is coming forward now only because she knows that, within the rules of the game she had played, she has already lost.  I find that position despicable.

Report this

By DennisD, April 24, 2008 at 3:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

That’s one hell of a big hat to throw anywhere.

Report this

By Kiwi, April 24, 2008 at 3:15 pm Link to this comment

How Hollywood! Looks are everything. Beauty only needs to be skin deep. Beautiful people are intelligent and plainer people are ignorant. Obviously the most physically attractive candidate will be the best President. Yeah right!

Report this

By tyler, April 24, 2008 at 10:27 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

i’m arguing principle patrickhenry, not semantics.  get your panties out of a knot.

moore is good at talking the talk, not walking the walk, so why should anyone pay attention to him?

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 24, 2008 at 3:29 am Link to this comment

I stated Moore is free to spend HIS money the way he see fit, this is America and the economy depends on people like him.  Moore is a private citizen and dresses, eats and sleeps the way he wants to, he doesn’t need your approval to do so.

Your equation with the current administration spending our TAX money (yours and mine) is an entirely different arguement, it is public money and the folks spending it are suppose to have our approval.

Report this

By BobZ, April 23, 2008 at 7:07 pm Link to this comment

Bert,

Michigan and Florida votes are not going to count. How many ways are the Clinton’s going to try and rewrite the rules to work in their favor? What chutzpah! Obama has got to be seething at the ways Hillary has tried to game the system to work in her favor. She has embarrassed the Democratic party leadership and given the entree for the Republican’s to roll out the Karl Rove playbook in the general election ad nauseum.

Report this

By bert, April 23, 2008 at 6:14 pm Link to this comment

You write:  “Hillary needed 60% not only in PA but in every remaining state just to catch Obama in either pledged delegates or the popular vote.”


According to ABC News:
POPULAR VOTE NUMBERS: ABC News Delegate Tracker notes that, if you count Michigan, Hillary has taken the lead in the popular vote:
    Hillary - 15,005,761
    Obama - 14,893,607

Of course few of you here at TD want to count FL or MI. But those figures are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And the truth is always better than delusion in my book.

Report this

By bert, April 23, 2008 at 6:01 pm Link to this comment

You ask:    “Can you please tell us WHEN this happened…that Hillary ‘came out’ against torture?”

Octoner 4, 2007 according to the New Youk Observor.

“Hillary Clinton just made public a letter she sent to the American Freedom Campaign affirming her opposition to the practice of torture.
“It should never be the policy of the United States to torture,” Clinton writes in the letter.”

Full link below:

http://www.observer.com/2007/hillary-torture

Report this

By tyler, April 23, 2008 at 2:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

would you use the same arguement for the current administration?

You just can’t present yourself as one thing and live like another, its called hypocracy, go look it up.

Report this

By Maria Kors, April 23, 2008 at 2:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It would be interesting to break the newly switched Republicans in Clinton camp on those who went sincerely Democratic and those who voted for her to derail Obama nomination. There should be a sizeable chunk of the Dem-haters, judging from how many of Clinton’s supporters responded that she is not trustworthy and honest.

Report this

By cyrena, April 23, 2008 at 10:27 am Link to this comment

•  “During the 21st debate between Obama and Clinton we finally heard Obama get tough questions”..

WHO heard TOUGH QUESTIONS? I listened as carefully as my stomach allowed, and I never DID hear any ‘tough questions”. I heard bullshit about a flagpin, and about a guy I never even heard about until (Ayers) until Obama started leading in the primary presidential elections of 2008, and somebody ‘dug up’ the fact that this guy (who apparently did criminal acts 40 years ago) happened to wind up on one of the same committee boards as Obama.

Now, tell me how those are TOUGH QUESTIONS, and I’ll tell you why it seems like there are some stupid Americans allowed to vote and post on blogs.

•  “As far as torture goes, Hillary came out against torturing long before Obama.”

Can you please tell us WHEN this happened…that Hillary ‘came out’ against torture? It’s pretty pathetic to say that a 60 year old American running for president, and former first lady with allegedly some ‘experience’ would have to “come out’ against torture. When the hell did she do that? How long after she approved it for the CIA in ‘the war on terror’? How long after her husband’s administration was involved in supporting the genocide in Rwanda?

Go read a book debra…just one would help.

And, did you see what time Obama left your state? (you said it was before the polls closed). Did you have a reason to want him to hang around? Maybe you should have told him you wanted to talk to him, (even though you didn’t vote for him) and he might have stayed.

Report this

By Scott, April 23, 2008 at 7:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The idea either of these corporate parties is going to do anything to really change the lot of people in this country is ludicrous. Bill Clinton was the best republican president we have ever had, this coming from Alan Greenspan, and if you ask me Obama sounds eerily similar to how Clinton sounded in 1992, and we saw how well that turned out. The truth is Al Gore would have been a disaster as president; he would gotten bogged down in a quagmire in Afghanistan and not Iraq. The truth is George Bush has been helpful to the corporate Democrats, does anyone really think they would have gotten the congress back if not for Bush. Not to forget Bush has been able to unleash all of this havoc because of the spineless, corporate democrats which is why I will proudly be voting for Ralph Nader this election. The way I see it, if it takes four more years of Republican rule to wake people to how corrupt both theses parties are then is what must been done. It’s a lot chemotherapy, you have to just about kill the thing to save it; and I believe that may be were are government is. One final thought, I think the best way to describe the Obama phenomenon is summed up from an exchange in the movie the American President:
Lewis Rothschild: People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they’ll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They’re so thirsty for it they’ll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there’s no water, they’ll drink the sand.
Andrew Shepherd: Lewis, we’ve had presidents who were beloved who couldn’t find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don’t drink the sand because they’re thirsty. They drink the sand because they don’t know the difference.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 23, 2008 at 7:14 am Link to this comment

Like why he does not have a flag pin? Cannot wait for the flattering new information coming out tomorrow, sounds like inside information from a fence sitter?

Let’s see, Obama insulted you because you feel he said bitter? You say you sat on the fence, but you have hot scoop tomorrow such a fence sitter you are.

Hillary was supposed to win Pennsylvania, it was a forgone conclusion, he closed the gap by 10 to 12 points, not bad in some peoples books.

Hillary says the peoples White House, how noble of her, now that is inclusive.

Glad your no longer a fence sitter and one is supposed to believe you are not a Republican?

What will tomorrow show, cannot wait?

Report this

By BobZ, April 23, 2008 at 7:03 am Link to this comment

Debra: 
If Obama was “whining” he was correct. The almost unanimous opinion was that the ABC debates were not only an insult to Obama but to the American people. ABC got an overwelming negative response to their inane questions during the first half of the debate. Obama has run one of the cleanest campaigns on record, and tried to avoid all of the typical sleaze that comes with politicking. In desperation Clinton started using “Karl Rove” attack ads to try and hurt Obama. All she has done is to hurt herself and the Democratic Party. Her negative ratings will go even higher and if somehow she does secure the nomination all she will do is energize the Republican’s to come out in force against her. And by the way, Obama did thank his supporters in Pennsylvania. He cut her lead in the state from 20 points to 10 in a state he had no chance of winning.  Hillary Clinton also set a new first by complimenting John McCain at the expense of Barack Obama. Talk about desperation. The country cannot afford another four years of Republican rule and Clinton goes out and practically endorses McCain!

Report this

By Maezeppa, April 23, 2008 at 6:54 am Link to this comment

Moore didn’t vote for Nadar which is a relief. Maybe this time a few hundred votes in a swing state won’t make a difference but I do predict that if Hillary is the Candidate she will win 51-49.

Report this

By Debra Istvanik-Strotman, April 22, 2008 at 10:22 pm Link to this comment

I have watched Obama smile when Hillary was asked the tough questions, and in 20 debates asked first. During the 21st debate between Obama and Clinton we finally heard Obama get tough questions, and first, and what did he do but whine about the way he was treated.

Why do I think Obama is slick? Becuase he insulted the people of Pennsylvania when it appeared we were leaning toward Hillary. We didn’t take kindly to his insults and watched him try to turn everything he said around and make us believe blatent insults weren’t really insults. When Obama gets caught in a lie he says “I misspoke.” When Hillary lies, Obama says “She is a liar.” Double standard.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know when you are being insulted. It would have taken a fool to believe the line of bull Obama attempted to feed us to defend his insults.

As far as torture goes, Hillary came out against torturing long before Obama.

As for the war, Obama at one time said he would bring the troops home as soon as he became president. Now he is saying he will not bring any home until 18 months after he takes office. Hillary said, She will start bring troops home with in 60 days of taking office.

Obama tells us how he is going to run “His White House,” not the peoples White House. Puts me in mind of Bush and ‘his’ White House.

I was on the fence for awhile, as were a few family members, but after seeing and hearing them in person it was a no-brainer. Obama is good a speaker and smart enough to play the victim but not quite smart enough to get over on the majority of Pennsylvanians’.

Obama said Hillary would win Pennsylvania, so he left the state long before the polls closed. He didn’t care about us, only our vote, and since he didn’t have it, he left. Should have stayed to thank those who worked for and voted for him.
Hillary won Pennsyvania by 10%.

Tomorrow new informations is to come out about Obama and none of it flattering. It will be interesting to see how he handles it.

Report this

By cann4ing, April 22, 2008 at 8:18 pm Link to this comment

How shallow!

Report this

By cann4ing, April 22, 2008 at 8:17 pm Link to this comment

No more endorsements are needed.  Hillary needed 60% not only in PA but in every remaining state just to catch Obama in either pledged delegates or the popular vote.  Looks like it will be about 53% in PA, her strongest state.  She will lose big in NC and probably in Indiana.  Based on the math, the Democratic race is already over.  Obama will be the Democratic nominee.  Then the Hillary supporters will have a choice to make.  Vote for McCain and sit back while the nation continues endless war, a descent into fascism and total economic collapse, our show some political maturity by backing the guy who has won the nomination fair and square.

By the way, Obama was not my first choice either.  Kucinich would have been the best, but at this point, with Nader not representing a viable option, anyone who considers him or herself will climb aboard the Obama bandwagon.

Report this

By cyrena, April 22, 2008 at 7:07 pm Link to this comment

I’m with ya on the forest view Dr. Knowitall.

I also agree with the CLASS WARFARE diagnosis. No way around that. Never have all the trees in the forest been ‘equal’.

And, it’s the same on the global scale as well. As much as we claim that ‘equals’ should be treated as ‘equals’, power always wields.

It’s no doubt that Nader had a good philosophy, and I’ve always felt the same way about Kucinich. (Actually, I supported Kucinich in the 2004 run-up).

But, I don’t blame the MSM for not ‘delivering’ either one of them to us. The MSM is actually the Corporate Elite, and the current thugs that have taken over. So, why would they? Why would we even ‘expect’ them to? Of COURSE they would do everything to keep them silenced. I would have expected nothing more.

HOWEVER, if any of ‘them’ (the Corptocracy that runs the media which is now the state propaganda machine) had even a clue that Obama would have this much success, you can be damn sure they would have silenced him too. Of that…I am convinced.

That’s why timing is everything, and that’s why smart people can and do find ways around what so many of us accept as ‘inevitabilities’. The success of the Obama campaign has actually been part of that ‘forest’. In other words, it’s been a reverse of what generally happens when we ‘slip through the cracks’. He slipped though the cracks because he wasn’t a ‘danger’ to the status quo at the beginning. Just some black guy with a funny name and no chance of making any dent in the public conscience. But alas…by the time anybody ‘of importance’ (meaning the ones who would have silenced him early on) got around to paying any attention, far too many of us, (whom they’ve also failed to pay any attention to) were becoming aware.

Here again, nothing is inevitable, and if in fact the Obama campaign WAS ‘working within” the ESTABLISHED system, (ie, the Corporate MSM) he would never have made it this far. He wouldn’t have made it this far if the past 8 years hadn’t been the worst that we’ve lived through in a very long time. (Regan’s reign was very bad for much of the middle class, though I know many who don’t agree.)

So, it’s back to the timing. The timing of the forest. I won’t deny that much can be artificially manipulated, and there’s no doubt that’s what the past 40 or so years have wrought. But, just as human nature is flawed, so does natural law do its own thing, beyond what can be manipulated.

Based on that…the forest can heal, if only because of the natural cycle of things.

At least that’s what I want to believe.

Report this

By cyrena, April 22, 2008 at 4:15 pm Link to this comment

Quite on spot there SpinCycle…

I agree wholeheartedly. I also suspect that when Big Al does get around to his endorsement, it will be for Barack Obama.

Thing is, Al Gore is a really classy guy, and the epitome of integrity. In my own opinion, that’s why he has so far NOT made a public endorsement. And, I respect his wisdom there.

Still, if I had any money, I’d put it on Al endorsing Obama before ‘the end’.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 22, 2008 at 4:11 pm Link to this comment

Here Here.

Report this

By GrammaConcept, April 22, 2008 at 3:51 pm Link to this comment

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes…..
and, what’s ‘Moore’, Michael is a genuine, courageous, oh-so-human,
working class hero…

We Strive On…

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 22, 2008 at 3:17 pm Link to this comment

EC, good start. 

The people need to give him a new congress and new senators.

A whole lotta entrenchment in D.C.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 22, 2008 at 3:13 pm Link to this comment

He’s free to spend his money the way he sees fit.

Report this

By VillageElder, April 22, 2008 at 1:41 pm Link to this comment

“We progressives have our work cut out for us.”

We sure do and we can hope that it will come to pass that we may begin and perhaps complete some of the work you have mentioned.

Dr. Knowitall has nicely pointed out: it is class warfare. 

Cyreana, your point about torture is well taken.  Now what does it say about a country when choosing the candidate that won’t torture is the progressive choice?

Report this

By Greg, April 22, 2008 at 1:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I saw this story already on http://www.Larryflynt.com I’m liking that site more and more.  They must have made a change or something it looks a lot more like truthdig than it used to. They need to work on the comments section though however I heard something about them doing that.

Report this

By Fade, April 22, 2008 at 12:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Jade, Voting your conscience means Defeating the Next George Bush- and that is McCain. Hillary, as has been obvious by her Senatorial record and her failure to vote on the FISA matter- is NOT working as hard as Obama for progressives, who did vote the progressive way.

I was for Edwards, but Obama is the one. Hillary is a sham.

Report this

By SpinCycle, April 22, 2008 at 11:54 am Link to this comment

Right now there is only one democratic political endorsement that will really matter, and that is Al Gore.

Why is Hillary confident that she can flip superdelegates?  Because most of the superdelegates are elected officials and Hillary can dangle one big carrot in front of them…“Bill will appear at a campaign or fundraising event for you”.  Bill Clinton at a local campaign rally moves it from the bottom of local media to the top of regional media. It turns crowds of dozens to crowds of thousands It turns two-figure checks into four-figure checks.

Who, other than the candidate themselves has that kind of draw among Democrats or far better?  Gore.

Report this

By Sue Cook, April 22, 2008 at 10:21 am Link to this comment

Michael Moore?
He should pay as much attention to his appearance!

Report this

By tyler, April 22, 2008 at 9:01 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

michael moore is a moron.  who cares what he thinks.  he carries himself as a champion of the liwer class, when really he just wants to be part of the upper class.  he’s an attention whore, why do you think he’s on the cover of most every one of his films as well as the narator.  when he travels, instead of stayin with his crew at the motel 6, he’s downtown, 5 star all the way, nothin but the best for him.  a real zero.

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.