Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 18, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

On Climate, Business as Usual




The Divide


Truthdig Bazaar
The Divine Comedy

The Divine Comedy

By Dante Alighieri
$21.57

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Another Sweep for Obama

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

Posted on Feb 12, 2008
Obama
politico.com

For those keeping score at home, Tuesday’s victories in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C., make it eight in a row for Barack Obama since Super Tuesday. Hillary Clinton is looking forward to Ohio and Texas, which are now must-win states for her, but Obama’s impressive streak of landslide victories (which could grow) might upset her early advantage there.

Obama won by a commanding margin in all three states, including Virginia, the only primary of the three that Hillary Clinton seriously contested. With almost all precincts reporting, Obama was beating Clinton by about 30 percentage points in the commonwealth.


Politico:

Obama, who stretched his streak of consecutive victories over Clinton to eight, also emerged for the first time as the Democratic delegate leader. A count by the Associated Press showed him leading Clinton by a 1,186 to 1,181 margin Both are far from the 2,025 needed to win the nomination.

Turnout was high throughout the region as voters went to the polls in chilly temperatures and a gathering glaze of sleet and rain. A Maryland judge extended voting statewide for 90 minutes - until 9:30 p.m. - because of traffic problems caused by bad weather. Returns from D.C. also also were delayed.

Republicans also had contests in all three localities, with Arizona Sen. John McCain hoping to brush back a recent surge by his chief remaining rival, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. McCain, after trailing Huckabee in early returns, won in Virginia and also triumphed handily in Maryland and D.C.

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

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 Michael Shaw, February 14, 2008 at 6:52 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Waxman, with all due respect(a courtesy you never granted me)all you are doing here is going out of your way to make what I presented as meaningless and you know that is simply not true. Your methods are sophisticated(I have no degree from UCLA) but they won’t cheapen the Obama campaign or the grand effort he made to move toward amending that FISA bill either. OK you’re right, the vote was on a motion to end debate. There I’ve said it. I’ll admit that initially I wasn’t quite clear in this regard. But that motion which was defeated, was the only chance at making this bill right in the senate. Now that chance is all but gone. Yes they still have a slim chance in the congress or perhaps a last minute filibuster but since the democrats in general have once again showed their willingness to cave in to Bush, either proposition at this point seems unlikely. The vote to dismiss that final bill only had a meager 37 votes. That’s a pretty dismal response from a senate majority.

The vote on the motion to end debate was a key vote and you know it. Obama did participate in it. Hillary was absent(now we know because she was campaigning in Texas). This suggests to me her campaign is more important then illegal domestic spying or holding Bush and the telecoms responsible. Obviously you do not share the same sentiments.

I was not trying to pass bullshit around as you immediately suggested. I merely presented this vote and you manipulated it into an argument by basically calling me a liar without even presenting your facts or acknowledging the importance of that vote! You could have simply pointed out these things without calling me liar, especially since we don’t even know each other from Adam. But instead you directly attacked me without presenting your facts or an explanation. That isn’t right! Nor is it fair!

I read the article in question, wrote a nasty letter to Hillary’s buddy Feinstein, who voted with the republicans to end discussion, felt it worthwhile in sharing so I passed it along to another poster who happens to support Obama and I made no quips about choosing to support Obama myself because of it. That’s when you butted into the conversation calling me a bullshitter. I’d like to add I already voted in the primary and neither Obama or Clinton received my vote. So my support at this point is of a spiritual nature and a moral one.

The vote to end discussion was a key and extremely important vote, something you are yet to admit. Why is that? 

“Mr. Obama did oppose immunity on a key earlier motion to end debate. Mrs. Clinton, campaigning in Texas, issued a statement saying she would have voted to oppose the final measure.”

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021308J.shtml

Well saying she would have and actually voting against are too different things. But at least Obama did vote to keep the the discussion of non-immunity on the table. Hillary did not. That was my point and the reason behind my decision to support Barrack Obama! The fact you have a problem with that bears little weight on my decision.

Report this

By Paracelsus, February 13, 2008 at 10:20 pm Link to this comment

No acusations of insanity or drug use? For a moment there you sounded like some character out of Gulag Archipeligo. Don’t you wonder when politics seems like a family affair?

Report this

By Paracelsus, February 13, 2008 at 10:17 pm Link to this comment

Yes but what are the odds of this?

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, February 13, 2008 at 9:56 pm Link to this comment

So what, we’re all 256th cousins of some Orangutan.

Report this

By cyrena, February 13, 2008 at 9:30 pm Link to this comment

We already heard this paracelsus…you’re kind of late with the news. Obama already said cheney was the black sheep of the family, so he took it graciously enough.

If it was ME, I’d be thoroughly PISSED off that Lynne Cheney had been snooping around in my business. How far and deep did she have to snoop, to find some 13th removed connection?

Besides, I don’t even ‘claim’ my FIRST cousins.

Report this

By Paracelsus, February 13, 2008 at 8:38 pm Link to this comment

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10172007/news/regionalnews/dissing_cousins__obama__cheney.htm


DISSING COUSINS: OBAMA, CHENEY, BUSH RELATED
By HASANI GITTENS
PrintEmailDigg ItRedditPermalinkStory Bottom

October 17, 2007—Who says Barack Obama doesn’t have what it takes to be president? Turns out, he’s a distant cousin of both Dick Cheney and George Bush.

The vice president’s wife, Lynne Cheney, announced her discovery yesterday while hawking her new book, “Blue Skies, No Fences,” on MSNBC.

When asked if she would support Hillary Rodham Clinton because she is a woman, Lynne Cheney said, “I have to admit to a certain bias here . . . Dick and Barack Obama are eighth cousins.”

Mrs. Cheney said that it was “an amazing American story that one ancestor . . . could be responsible down the family line for lives that have taken such different and varied paths.”

Then asked if she supported Obama she quickly said, “No.”

Obama’s camp made light of the family ties. “Every family has a black sheep,” said spokeswoman Jen Psaki, with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

The Chicago Sun-Times revealed the genealogical link in early September, claiming that the shared ancestors were Mareen and Susannah Duvall, 17th century immigrants from France.

The newspaper, however, claimed that the senator from Illinois and the vice president were 11th cousins.

The Duvalls are Obama’s great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents, and Cheney’s great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents, the paper said.

George W. Bush and Obama, meanwhile, are 10th cousins once removed - linked through a 17th century Massachusetts couple, Samuel Hinckley and Sarah Soole, according to the Sun-Times.
******************************

Change, shmiange.

Report this

By Maani, February 13, 2008 at 8:14 pm Link to this comment

Michael:

What EXACTLY were these people voting on?  You seem to be mighty unclear, or in error.

Peace.

Report this

By jbart, February 13, 2008 at 7:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If a groundswell of American voters, exhibiting a passion for an election’s outcome, occurs…take notice. Our recent past of “emotion & passion” has been a missing component in the process that defines our great country’s political process. 
To all those that are ready to “dismiss” us to past apathies shown, I present this fact.  The youth now seem to “care” and seem to to be caring again. 
This comment is intended to reach all of you “participating bloggers/commentors”:
This is their world, going forward. And,I think that their increased “involvement” may spark an energy and commitment to a better future that has not, really, truly existed for decades. I don’t know them, per se, but I understand and support them with all my being. I’ve had always believed that the “barriers” between us were artificial and the only reason they existed were to maintain the policy of divisiveness. I, truly thought that they had abandoned true “ideals” and sold out to the “ the way things are” doctrines of “business”.
They are now “truly” involved and they “truly” care. Maybe they represent what our country is to become?  Imagine that shit.  These “spoiled” offspring have abandoned the “easy money” of Wall Street for the “salvation” of our country.  I’m proud that they have exhibited good “eyesight” and want to make this “world a better place”.  For that realization, I love all of you guys.  The old ones, like me, and you young “upstarts”, willing to challenge the establishment for the sake of America’s future.  From and old guy that believes in my country…I “salute” you, and your efforts to help our country……………….OUR COUNTRY !!!.

Report this

By jackpine savage, February 13, 2008 at 6:54 pm Link to this comment

Maani,

Sen Dodd has explained it, the WSJ has explained (even lambasted Sen Obama for his vote), the information is all over the internet.

“We lost every single battle we had on this bill,” conceded Chris Dodd, which ought to tell the Connecticut Senator something about the logic of what he was proposing. His own amendment — to deny immunity from lawsuits to telecom companies that cooperated with the government after 9/11 — didn’t even get a third of the Senate. It lost 67-31, though notably among the 31 was possible Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama. (Hillary Clinton was absent, while John McCain voted in favor.)”

That is from the WSJ.

Not everything can be twisted…

Report this

By jackpine savage, February 13, 2008 at 6:46 pm Link to this comment

You should probably work on that refund appeal.  The vote Mr. Shaw is talking about was to amend the bill before the final vote.  Had the amendment passed, it would have been added to the bill.  Then there would have been a vote on the bill (including the amendment).

Since the vote on the amendment failed, the bill was voted on without the amendment.  It passed, but because it is different than the House bill, it goes back to the House.  If the House approves the bill as the Senate voted on it, it goes to the President’s desk.  If the House changes it, then the Senate takes the bill up again.

You are really confused, the bill did exist.  But without the amendment, the bill simply gives the administration everything that it wants.  There were other amendments, and there have been other amendments to that bill that failed.  Feinstein’s amendment put some checks on the administration, while Dodd’s amendment nixed immunity all together.

Man, and i had always heard that UCLA was a good school.  I managed to learn how our system works before i even left HS, and i’ve managed to remember it all these long years.

Report this

By lilmamzer, February 13, 2008 at 5:33 pm Link to this comment

“The Blacks really puzzle me as Obama has never lived as a black person.”

Are you serious? How do black people live, anyway? If a racially black person decides (they do have free will, you know) that he is a conservative and registers as a Republican, is he no longer a black man?

You are what is wrong with liberals, “progressives”, and the left. You propagate stereotypes and asinine standards of behavior based on pre-determined (read: party line) profiles of how blacks “should” behave.

Report this

By Paracelsus, February 13, 2008 at 5:14 pm Link to this comment

Do not fear; Diebold is here!

Report this

By waxman, February 13, 2008 at 4:50 pm Link to this comment

This mess should be good Virgin Air’s space flights to get out the chaos thats coming..

Report this

By waxman, February 13, 2008 at 4:48 pm Link to this comment

MR. Shaw, you can’t amend a bill that doesn’t exist so I’m really confused…YOU ARE EITHER DEAD WRONG OR I’M GOING TO GET A REFUND FROM UCLA…

Report this

By Paracelsus, February 13, 2008 at 4:28 pm Link to this comment

If it is Obama, then McCain will get the prize. But I think the Diebold will favor Clinton. The system wants Clinton.

Report this

By lib in texas, February 13, 2008 at 4:01 pm Link to this comment

joseph, Your Zen like Obama has people following him who have no idea what is needed in the country at this time and the young people are to young to know how it used to be before Bush was elected by a bunch of ________! Now that same stupid mistake is going to be repeated by electing a phony who pretends to be so intelligent when all his arrogant *ss wants is to be president.  The Blacks really puzzle me as Obama has never lived as a black person.  He has no idea he was privileged growing up

Report this

By lib in texas, February 13, 2008 at 3:51 pm Link to this comment

Stormy7, Amen !!!!!

Report this

By lib in texas, February 13, 2008 at 3:49 pm Link to this comment

michael shaw, you and your boy Obama sure know how to twist things to make yourself right somehow !

Report this

By Michael Shaw, February 13, 2008 at 3:40 pm Link to this comment

Maani I already provided the link of the vote in my first post and again to waxman. Obama did vote to add the amendment holding the telecoms responsible to the final bill, and Hillary didn’t. That was all that I posted and yes because of it my leanings of favoratism swung to Obama. If Hillary gets the nod I will vote for her. I’m not trying to undermine her campaign, which by the looks of things she has done a pretty good job of doing herself. As we know, the senate shot down the amendment Obama and thirty other democrats voted for. I provided the roll call list. Hillary wasn’t present. The only thing I will apologize for is that Hillary condemned the senate bill because they voted down the amendment to hold the telecoms responsible, something I did not know until recently. Kudas to her for that.

But Obama did in fact vote against telecom immunity and although Hillary condemned it, she didn’t vote against it either. That was my entire point. Nor did I attempt to promote BS as waxman put it. I merely showed the vote on the amendment.

  Presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) was not present to vote, but issued a statement condemning the Senate bill. Her rival Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was in the chamber and voted against immunity.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021308J.shtml

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Senate_OKs_immunity_for_telecoms_0212.html

Report this

By Maani, February 13, 2008 at 1:55 pm Link to this comment

Michael:

A cloture motion only provides for additional time for debate.  It has nothing to do with amendments.  Only two votes were taken.  One on “cloture” - i.e., extending (but limiting) the time for debate in the absence of a filibuster - and one on the bill itself.

If you have some other understanding, please provide a reference or link.

Thanks.

Peace.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, February 13, 2008 at 12:05 pm Link to this comment

Maani, the final bill was meaningless since the amendment holding the telecoms responsible for their actions was removed. Also it was Waxman who brought up the final bill thing, something I never brought up myself. But what I did bring up was the only vote that had meaning or importance. The final vote was passed in favor of the telecoms. It could have been filibustered or sent on to the congress with the hope of removing immunity for the telecoms. So yes the final vote neither participated in, but the final vote was meaningless. The vote to amend, the vote I presented was the only piece of this legislation that had meaning, purpose. Something that neither you or Waxman bothered to point out. So I stand by my initial statements. Obama did the right thing and Hillary abstained on the most crucial part of that legislation.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, February 13, 2008 at 11:33 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

First of all Waxman, the vote in discussion was the amendment to the final bill, or in other words the only important part of that legislation. Without the amendment we were left with two possibilities, either to filibuster(which we didn’t) or to allow it to pass on to the congress with the hope immunity clauses for the telecoms can be removed.

Also, it was not I who brought up any final vote of the bill(which in essence is meaningless) in my initial post. You did that and without any explanation about it beyond calling me a liar. The truth of the matter is the vote in question was the vote that could have placed an amendment to hold the telecoms responsible for their illegal actions. Here is where the only real importance lies. Voting for a bill without this amendment amounts to nothing! Hilary was not present for that crucial vote, Obama was and he did the right thing. All the final vote amounted to was capitulation at that point. There’s your apology!

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Senate_OKs_immunity_for_telecoms_0212.html

Report this

By Will Tepper, February 13, 2008 at 11:17 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Let’s just hope we don’t have to wait to Puerto Rico to have this one nailed down.

Report this

By STORMY7, February 13, 2008 at 10:49 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I WILL NOT RISK LOSING ANYMORE OF MY RIGHTS BY VOTING FOR A CANDIDATE WHO WILL BE CRUCIFIED BY THE REPUBLICANS. THE STATE OF MY COUNTRY IS WAY TO IMPORTANT TO ME.I’LL TAKE EXPERIENCE AND THICK SKIN OVER CHARISMA AND HOPE ANY DAY. HILLARY IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE THAT CAN WIN AGAINST A REPUBLICAN. SHE KNOWS WHAT HAS TO BE DONE, DAY ONE. OBAMA HASN’T A CLUE HOW THINGS ARE RUN. A VOTE FOR OBAMA IS A SURE WIN FOR THE REPUBLICANS.

Report this

By joseph, February 13, 2008 at 10:47 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I have begun to feel quite ambivalent about Hillary’s many statements through her campaign.

The experience argument. Failing at bringing healthcare about, not challenging the war more actively, Failing to foresee the disaster in Iraq. ‘35 years’ of doing what exactly? Not that it need to be that deep.

Does anyone else feel really deeply disturbed by the idea of two wealthy white political families being in power for what will be 20 years?

I don’t want to diminish what it could mean to have a woman in charge of america and what that could mean, this *ISN’T* just a woman. This is a woman who hadn’t won any political office until *after* her husband was president. This is a woman who is completely within the halls of power who is using everything in her and her husband’s political power to win an election.

Not that I don’t have some misgivings about mr. Obama, despite him having my support. His words on biofuel and closeness to illinois make me afraid of ecological disaster that is “biofuels”, but the clintons are on the same page as him.

And Hillary’s ability to relate to and reach a deep emotional affection from many women, isn’t something that should be downplayed or misunderstood either. All that hope and energy that young voters feel with the fever of Obamania, older women voters feel for Hillary.

Just as when a young person votes for Obama they are putting all their hopes for a world where racism can be a thing of the past that is as alien to us as the concept of slavery, a hope of the world where politics is something that creates action, excitement and new possibilities where there were none before, a world where the world no longer sees us as an imperial power but a force of stability, justice and a spirit of independence change and a new better world.

Women are voting for hillary because of everytime they were passed up for a promotion in favor of a younger man, every time an father or an uncle has ridiculed their dreams, every time they’ve been called a “bitch” for just speaking their minds. It is a message of solidarity for their hero, a woman who despite everything still stands strong. Hillary is vindication.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, February 13, 2008 at 10:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m sorry Maani but only two senators did not vote. One was Clinton and the other Graham.

Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Nay
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Clinton (D-NY), Not Voting
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Coleman (R-MN), Nay
Collins (R-ME), Nay
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Corker (R-TN), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Nay
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dole (R-NC), Nay
  Domenici (R-NM), Nay
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Not Voting
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Gregg (R-NH), Nay
Hagel (R-NE), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Nay
Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Martinez (R-FL), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
  Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Obama (D-IL), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Smith (R-OR), Nay
Snowe (R-ME), Nay
Specter (R-PA), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Nay
Sununu (R-NH), Nay
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Warner (R-VA), Nay
Webb (D-VA), Nay
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wicker (R-MS), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Vote Summary   By Senator Name   By Vote Position   By Home State

Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs—-31
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Casey (D-PA)
Dodd (D-CT)
  Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
  Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Tester (D-MT)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs—-67
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Carper (D-DE)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
  Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
  Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Wicker (R-MS)
Not Voting - 2
Clinton (D-NY)
  Graham (R-SC)

Report this

By GW=MCHammered, February 13, 2008 at 9:37 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If our corpocracy behaves as though they have us by the short and curlies
And we act as though they do, then they do

So don’t act that way
Especially, NEVER THINK that way

Whoever represents US in the White House
Must be held fully accountable for promises AND actions

Anything less by them is pissing on the American Spirit
Anything less by US is playing the groveling submissive victim

So as America adds up its losses, remember from where they came
And when ready to hold thieves accountable, do so with rightful vengeance

Report this

By jatihoon, February 13, 2008 at 8:00 am Link to this comment

Win or loose, play the game. Black or white, only election will tell who is right. Man or woman, it is a good omen. Finlly, America is coming of age. Long live, “DEMOCRACY”.

Report this

By Aegrus, February 13, 2008 at 6:53 am Link to this comment

Hillary is in the do-or-die position of her political career. It’s just sad, though, how she’s going to both do and die simultaneously. The decisions she makes and her actions in the next coming weeks will wreck her campaign.

Texas and Ohio have been officially advocated as the quintessential battleground states to decide the direction of the democratic presidential campaign. Both states were named such because Hillary had strong support amongst either state’s democratic constituents. She is in danger of losing both primaries.

Barack Obama’s momentum has an effect on the psyche of voters. Sometimes voters perceive these victories positively and sometimes negatively. What I would be asking Texans and Ohians is, “What do Barack’s wins mean to you?”. Their answer might be surprising.

Overwhelmingly, these victories implicitly say to the American voters Obama is already the winner. This much has been true since Super Tuesday, but more evidence needed to be presented before people in big swing states (who take their job as swingers very seriously) felt the Obama wave. His nomination is well within his reach.

IF Clinton manages to win either Texas or Ohio (I don’t think she has a chance of winning both), it will be as close as Missouri. Now think about these questions. If it is really close, what kind of impression will that leave on the super delegates? What kind of momentum will a tie give Hilary? What other states could she presumptively win to secure her place? These are the questions the American people need to ask, and the answers will all lead people to the next president of the United States of America, Barack Obama.

Report this

By Maani, February 13, 2008 at 12:58 am Link to this comment

Cyrena:

“The assassinations of the 1960’s were probably coverups that we’ve never been able to ‘uncover’ so they’ve existed for all of these years.”

A little factoid here.  On Inauguration Day, you will notice that the newly sworn-in president disappears for about 20 minutes before appearing again at the reception.  Know why?

Two things happen during this period. First, the “nuclear football” (that briefcase we see in all those movies, the one with the nuclear launch codes) is passed from the outgoing president to the incoming one.  Second, the incoming president is shown a file of all “black ops” undertaken by the U.S. - both active (i.e., in progress) and past (including political assassinations, etc.).

I know this because the father of a friend of mine was a top-level black ops coordinator for the U.S. for almost 30 years (thru Reagan’s presidency).  (As an aside, my friend was a Navy SEAL who was involved in some of those black ops.)

Ugly stuff.

Peace.

Report this

By cyrena, February 13, 2008 at 12:29 am Link to this comment

Ah ha!! You are SO right. People already are NOT believing them this time Tony, and ESPECIALLY since 9/11.

The assassinations of the 1960’s were probably coverups that we’ve never been able to ‘uncover’ so they’ve existed for all of these years.

9/11 however, is the coverup of all coverups, (because there was so much MORE to coverup) but not many people believe it.

So, what to do about that one? Well, since so many people don’t believe it, it SHOULD be easier to ‘uncover’, and there are certainly plenty of folks attempting to do exactly that…me included.

So far though, I’ve only gotten as far as being able to note that the official story has absolutely NO documentable proof, aside from what has been obtained under torture, which makes it null and void.

Aside from that, there is absolutely NOTHING to confirm ANY detail of the offical coverup. Unfortunately, there also isn’t much (at least not available to the average person) to prove the details of what actually DID happen.

So, the coverup might continue for a while longer, but not because most folks actually believe it.

Here’s the kicker though, (respective to any assassinations) the sinister forces don’t really seem to give a damn whether we believe them or not, as long as they feel certain that they’ve covered their tracks.

I mean, that’s the entire message of the 9/11 coverup. There are all kinds of gaping holes in that story, that nearly anyone paying more than a glancing notice would question. BUT…the sinister forces DON’T GIVE A SHIT!! It’s the same as them saying…Yeah, you might know we did it, and you might have even figured out HOW. But…you can’t PROVE it, so there!!

That’s really what they’re telling us. (even though they haven’t PROVED their coverup story either).

It’s enough to really piss one off, eh?

Report this

By Maani, February 12, 2008 at 11:59 pm Link to this comment

Michael:

“Excuse me Waxman but frankly I don’t appreciate your insinuations. I provided that tally vote directly from the US senate. Obama voted against the telecoms, Hillary didn’t show up.”

Sorry, but you misread the tally.  The vote that Obama was present for was the cloture motion.  However, he and Hillary were BOTH absent from the vote on the final bill itself.

Peace.

Report this

By Maani, February 12, 2008 at 11:50 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena:

Actually, your history is a bit skewed.

The first settlements on the mainland of the U.S. were Spanish, around 1565.  The first settlement by Europeans was founded in 1609.  The first instance of black slavery did not occur until 1619, and was not institutionalized (legalized) until around 1700.

However, sexism and misogyny arrived WITH the settlers.  So the country was FOUNDED on sexism and misogyny, and only added slavery a little bit later.

As well, sexism and misogyny have existed as part of almost every global culture since practically the beginning of time.  Slavery - and specifically the slavery of blacks by others - did not occur until much later.

Thus, sexism and misogyny are FAR more “ingrained” - historically - than racism.

Peace.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, February 12, 2008 at 11:37 pm Link to this comment

There are questions in my mind about all the 1960’s assassinations. Were they all done by lone crazies? Or was there a coverup that has continued all these years? Then there was 9-11, and it’s looking like an inside job. I fear such sinister forces, which will once again cover their tracks. But perhaps the people will not believe them this time. Then what?

Report this

By cyrena, February 12, 2008 at 11:28 pm Link to this comment

CJ, this country has always been patriarchal, but it’s always been racist as well. It was FOUNDED on it.

So, you and Gloria have it all wrong. If this country is ready and willing to elect a black man to the highest office, it’s ready to elect a woman. JUST NOT HILLARY CLINTON. I wish you all would finally get that!!

In all fairness, Hillary may have indeed been able to become the first woman in the office, (since the country DOES seem to be shedding some of that patriarchal mentality after a couple of hundred years), IF there wasn’t a better candidate running, who just happens to be a black man!

So you and Gloria should just get over yourselves, and join the rest of the reasonable people who only want the best of the choices available, to get the office. That’s what a political election is about. Citizens are expected to select the most qualified person who presents a platform that is most amenable
to their individual and collective interests.

Yeah, I admit that American’s have been exceedingly
lazy and naive in that doing that, at least for the past decade. (though actually, we DID elect Al Gore). But, the past 7 years have most certainly provided
a lesson for THAT! I mean, how much stronger a lesson can ‘we the people’ get, to know that it pays to pay attention. It’s called seriously learning from past mistakes. (if one has survived to actually ‘get’ the lesson).

So sorry. It’s just NOT about gender, as much as you’d like to make it that. It’s about..there’s a better candidate, and in all sincerity, there was actually MORE than one better candidate than Hillary Clinton; AT LEAST for the job of president. (She’s
probably OK as a Senator, except of course her voting record in the Senate hasn’t displayed much in the way of good decision making).

Get over it. Be glad there’s actually somebody willing and ABLE to lead more of the people, most of the time.

Report this

By cyrena, February 12, 2008 at 11:13 pm Link to this comment

Fadel,

I just wanted to add to Tony Wincher’s comments, but also to admit that I also have shared your concerns about whether or not the dominant culture in the US, having been founded upon the institution of slavery and the resulting racism, could ever even elect a black person as president. And indeed, your concerns about his safety remain valid. I have them as well.

BUT…Tony is right that we have apparently, finally begun to heal. In the 60’s and 70’s, I honestly believed, (idealistically I realize…the product of youthful optimism) that the old racist culture would eventually die off. It seemed that’s what MLK and the Kennedy’s and the entire Civil Rights Movement had ushered in). But, as we see..it WAS cut short, or maybe I should say suspended, and the racism continued, because it was simply recycled.

Well, it is still alive and living in many spots in the U.S. As a matter of fact, it would be curious to know how Obama would do in states like Florida, (you’ll note that Hillary DID win Arkansas) where racism is still very blatant. Texas and Ohio also have their fare share, though I would say Texas is probably worse. So, Hillary could still pick up that state, and of course it’s a big one. There are of course parts of Texas that have ‘come of age’ in respect to the racism, but overall, the state is overwhelmingly of a repuglican mentality, and while the racism is not overwhelmingly overt, it’s definitely there.

Still, I said all of that to say that I have a bit of my original optimism returning now, (after that near 40 year gap) that we as a society, may have begun to overcome that. Racism will never ‘go away’ of course. But, I do think we’re finally trying to enter the modern world – rather than to simply pay lip service to it, or to carry on a farce. So, maybe time does heal.

That’s not to say that a crazy person might not want to do harm to Obama, but in all honesty, that’s been tried before on other Presidents that weren’t even black. It’s amazing to me, given the state of collective depression that we’ve fallen into these past 7 years that a mentally malfunctioning person hasn’t attempted to do attack GWB or Dick Cheney. No doubt advances in security measures have prevented that, though there’s no doubt that there’s been a horribly increased number of the attacks that Americans are perpetrating against EACH OTHER. (can’t get to the real culprits, and we can’t seem to impeach them either). So, we’ll just have to take a chance that Obama will practice the same measure of security. At the same time, nothing much is ever accomplished without risk, and I’m sure Barack has carefully considered that. I’m very grateful that he’s willing to take it.

Report this

By waxman, February 12, 2008 at 11:08 pm Link to this comment

MR. SHAW, I STILL HAVE NOT SEEN I’M SORRY YET !!!!  OBAMA DID NOT VOTE ON THE FINAL BILL….I REPEAT DID NOT VOTE…...

Report this

By Michael Shaw, February 12, 2008 at 10:20 pm Link to this comment

Excuse me Waxman but frankly I don’t appreciate your insinuations. I provided that tally vote directly from the US senate. Obama voted against the telecoms, Hillary didn’t show up. Her buddy Feinstein sided with the republicans and a vote to alter the FISA bill that takes telecoms off the hook has lost. Yes they are trying to revise the bill and rush it in before the deadline on Feb 15th, but nothing I provided in here is bullshit.

Senate OKs Immunity for Telecoms
  By Pamela Hess
  The Associated Press


http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021208A.shtml

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, February 12, 2008 at 10:16 pm Link to this comment

The assassinations of the Kennedys and Martin Luther King deeply hurt our democracy. Since 1963 there has been something wrong; the people have become alienated from their government. Now it is 40 years later and the trauma has had time to heal. There is a new generation coming up that is young and innocent, not old and cynical, and Obama speaks for them Kennedy and MLK once did. God forbid that anything should happen to Obama.

Report this

By Maani, February 12, 2008 at 10:01 pm Link to this comment

Michael:

As Waxman correctly points out, Obama did NOT vote on the final bill: he only voted on the cloture motion.  He and Hillary were BOTH absent during the vote on the final bill.

Peace.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, February 12, 2008 at 9:51 pm Link to this comment

Well Maani of course you may be right, but at this point will that be the right thing for the nation, to anoint Hillary the winner? She really teed me off by not showing for that crucial telecom vote. Her buddy out here in California, Feinstein voted with the republicans. As I’ve always said, I will vote for whomever the democrats nominate because the neocons must go. But at this point I’ll be rooting for Barrack Obama and by the looks of things, Hillary’s going to have a very tough time in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Report this

By CJ, February 12, 2008 at 9:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As one who can be objective, since I wouldn’t be caught dead voting for Obama, Clinton, McCain or Huckabee, since voting for any of them would amount only to having a choice among rare, medium rare, medium or well-done steak when I’d far prefer salmon, I thought I’d mention what Gloria Steinem said not too long ago, about how Americans wouldn’t likely vote for a woman for top job.

Looks like Ms. Steinem might be right, despite media’s long-time promoting of Ms. Clinton. (And now that media has jumped aboard Obama bandwagon.) Throw out all those media-generated polls, vague numbers, so-called analyses and whatnot, since those have got nothin’ to do with it. Boiled down, Americans can’t come to terms with the very idea of a female as president; notwithstanding the fact Hillary too is steak. Unfortunately for her, however, a cow (not meant disparagingly, but as female version of beef on the hoof), not a bull.

Apparently not just “white men who love guns and boats” (little Russ, if I recall, citing Chris Matthews this evening), but lots of white women as well as black and Hispanic men and women, whether young or old and poor or rich, who also love guns (certainly not butter) and boats. Is this country staunchly patriarchal or what? What a tragicomedy on the part of a politically illiterate mob—hardly citizenry, since to be a citizen means, among other things, to find out a couple things and then pay attention, something we Americans mostly can’t be bothered to do; compared to, say, the average Pakistani, Peruvian, Indian, German and Brit, to mention just five nationalities who’ve elected females to top job. Apparently, other polities around the world are more enlightened than the American polity. Course, we suspected as much.

I expect Saudi Arabia will sooner be led by a woman than will the U.S.A.

Report this

By waxman, February 12, 2008 at 9:40 pm Link to this comment

Obama did DID NOT VOTE ON THE FINAL BILL.. KEEP YOUR STATEMENTS CORRECT PLEASE….THIS IS HOW B.S. GETS STARTED….

Report this

By Maani, February 12, 2008 at 9:23 pm Link to this comment

For what it’s worth, even if Obama won every state remaining to vote in primaries, he would not have enough delegates to capture the nomination outright.  In fact, because of the proportionate share rule, even if he did win every state between now and convention (which is unlikely), while he would be ahead of Hillary, they would still be fairly close (this is NOT counting ANY superdelegates).

Thus, it seems that there will be a brokered convention after all, and that the superdelegates will come into play.  The question will be whether the superdelegates follow the momentum of Obama’s run (which could still be slowed, at least a little, if Hillary wins two or more states between now and the convention, particularly Texas, Ohio and/or Pennsylvania), or whether they still believe (despite the polls, which are notoriously inconsistent) that Hillary has a better chance of beating McCain.

My guess is that if Hillary wins Texas, Ohio and Pennsyvlania, the superdelegates will end up backing her.  If not, it is a toss-up.

Peace.

Report this

By GrammaConcept, February 12, 2008 at 8:52 pm Link to this comment

Ditto…... 
And, In the Spirit of your cheer I wish to add:

Much deeply morale-boosting work is taking place in the souls
of so very many people during this campaign…
This highly significant revival work Will have been accomplished,
whatever the election outcome…

Report this

By MarthaA, February 12, 2008 at 8:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I do not want another possible 8 years of RIGHT WING corporate DLC cooperation that I know fascist Hillary will do because she told us so before she realized cooperation with the RIGHT was not appreciated by the common population she is busy trying to get away from and demise.  I am hoping that Obama will not see fit to cooperate with the DLC RIGHT to the demise of the LEFT like Hillary does and Bill did, and still would if he could.  At least if Obama does cooperate with the demise of the common population, he will be a new cooperator.  It is going to be plain to see that WE THE PEOPLE do not want COOPERATION WITH THE RIGHT DLC at the expense of the LEFT, instead WE THE PEOPLE want the RIGHT cooperating with the LEFT to repair and rebuild the infrastructure of the nation and provide for the well being of the people of the common population like the constitution says.

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, February 12, 2008 at 8:22 pm Link to this comment

I have mixed feelings about Obama’s winning the Democratic nomination and possibly becoming the next president. Though I hope that would happen, I have a gut feeling that this whole thing might turn out tragic with some racist individual or a group assassinating him. I have a gut feeling that white America is not yet ready for a man of color to be president. I hope my fears are not founded!

Yes, a white Catholic, with a lot of charisma, managed to capture the hearts and votes of many Americans to become president, but we painfully remember how Kennedy was mysteriously assassinated because a resentful segment of the society did not like that. I personally believe that Obama is even at more disadvantageous position than Kennedy was!

Report this

By Michael Shaw, February 12, 2008 at 8:21 pm Link to this comment

Well Rae if this will make you feel any better, Obama did the right thing in the senate vote to not take the telecoms off the hook for helping Bush illegally spy upon us. 18 fellow democrats however sided with the republicans and the administration. Hillary was a no show. But Obama stood up for us. I’m no longer on the fence! Go Obama go!

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?c

Report this

By weather, February 12, 2008 at 8:13 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

RAE, you’re far too charitable, Bush pushed the country into on coming traffic on a poorly lit road w/a terrible weather forcast.

Instead of leaving a template for a new economic model, a hydrogen option or a hopeful vision to impart enthusiam and pride - we’re left suffering from such a collective low self-esteem that if America were a person, it would resemble Britney Spears.

Sorry, but it bears repeating;when they goto put up the George Bush library it’ll be a 24hr. Video Peep Show of crimes commited in broad daylight and MSM approved.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, February 12, 2008 at 7:44 pm Link to this comment

Well now RAE, you have really shown some hope for change.

Report this
RAE's avatar

By RAE, February 12, 2008 at 7:14 pm Link to this comment

I hope he wins the Presidency but I’m not sure why. He’s selling vaporware… just like all the religions that parade fantasies through the theatre of your mind and hope you just “join in.”

BUT… when compared to all the other candidates, and even he being a complete crap shoot, I’m still hoping to see what he’ll do in Office.

After all, could he possibly be more reckless, more ignorant, more hypocritical, more embarrassing, more STUPID than the jerk in there now who, I hope, is spending his last days disinfecting everything he’s touched in the last 8 years?

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
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.