Peter, the #12345 is a generic number. If you place your cursor over the # symbol next to the date of the post you will get that posts number.

The 18% home mortgage interest rate caused Carters demise, it had very little to do with Iran.

Same to you Maani, when are folks going to see that their is no light at the end of the Clinton tunnel?

What utter rubbish!

Clinton’s continued claims to the throne as some sort of entitlement, her slight of hand and empty tricks of numerology, manages only to shed further light onto her desperately depraved ego, willing to stoop to the lowest in order to steal the highest. Her current numbers game is absolute gibberish and only reflects the delusional qualities of her character. What ever respect she might have commandeered, early on, is slowly falling by the wayside. I am confident that if we were to have a re-vote in California, Texas and Ohio that her assumptions may not bare the wind she so currently claims fill her sails.

Who in their right mind, especially the younger generation, turning out in droves, would vote for the warmonger McCain? This majority is sick and tired of the ‘Corporate Warmongers’, ‘Experience as Usual’, the good old boy network. Obama fully understands these issues. He holds his cards close to his chest so as not to get ‘Kuciniched’ off the stage. Obama will win the General by a landslide; he has already won by a landslide against the pretentious and grasping Hillary.

Peace, Best Wishes and Hope

What utter rubbish!

Clinton’s continued claims to the throne as some sort of entitlement, her slight of hand and empty tricks of numerology, manages only to shed further light onto her desperately depraved ego, willing to stoop to the lowest in order to steal the highest. Her current numbers game is absolute gibberish and only reflects the delusional qualities of her character.

What ever respect she might have commandeered, early on, is slowly falling by the wayside. I am confident that if we were to have a re-vote in California, Texas and Ohio that her assumptions may not bare the wind she so currently claims fill her sails.

Who in their right mind, especially the younger generation, turning out in droves, would vote for the warmonger McCain? This majority is sick and tired of the ‘Corporate Warmongers’, ‘Experience as Usual’, the good old boy network. Obama fully understands these issues. He holds his cards close to his chest so as not to get ‘Kuciniched’ off the stage.

Obama will win the General by a landslide; he has already won by a landslide against the pretentious and grasping Hillary.

Peace, Best Wishes and Hope

Peter RV, March 24 – most excellent overview and summery. BTW, go ahead and register, that should clear up any problems your experiencing with your posts.

I think Richardson would be an excellent choice as Obama’s VP for his change strategy. The few here who clamor for change, but when a glimmer of hope does arrive, become subconsciously narcissistic, fearful of any real legitimate hope for change, undermine its only viable path.

Maintain a steady course; disregard the subliminal xenophobic psycho-babble seeking to knock the stuffing out of Obama, spewed forth by the Clinton/McCain fear mongering, ‘Public Relations Firms’. In the end, they will simply unglue themselves.

Other than Obama, I don’t see a single candidate wishing to break ranks with the ‘Experience as Usual’ oligarchs, in attempting to stretch out the hand in dialog, from the perspective of wisdom. Both Clinton and McCain, belong to the same ‘good old boy cabal’, whose turbid mental faculties become stressed at such a notion, that not all cultures wish to experience the, so called, American Dream; who need to be deceived, bribed or blasted into submission; that is the motto of the multi-national.

Obama has stated, “it is not the immigrant; the different races; the different skin colors of the mixed ethnicities existing within the borders of America, that have brought about the inequalities we so often feel, but rather the predations of the corporate monolith that we should be pointing our collective finger at.” Let us not be distracted!

If given the opportunity, I am confidant that Obama will address the highly explosive and xenophobic nature of the Israeli/Palestinian issue with the same philosophical calm which he has already demonstrated by the example of his most recent capacity for quelling of such divisive volatility. Obama has repetitively stated the necessity for dialog, rather than the imposition of will through the club of force. Wisdom and Understanding, this is what Obama brings to the table and this is what Clinton and McCain are utterly devoid of.

Might does not make right, it only breeds contempt. The corrupt U.S. foreign policy of plunder and exploitation; a decades long, festering boil, resulting in the eruption of 9/11, is not something that manifest itself in a vacuum. It needs to be vetted! Let’s not allow ourselves to be pulled deeper into the abyss of this madness, by voting for ‘business as usual’.

Obama’s meteoric rise has been a benevolent movement from the bottom up and its massive crescendo, obliviously swelling to unexpected heights, to some minds, causes those now biting their fingernails to concern over the fact that, possibly, their girl Hillary may slip on the stage. How deep into the gutter are these miscreants of desperation willing to stoop in effort to steal the lofty heights? We sit and watch as they self-immolate and fall to the ground in a heap of ash.

A significant majority of the public has matured and sees through this pretentious façade of deception. Obama is a breath of fresh air to these lungs that have for far too long been gasping and choking on the toxic atmosphere belched forth by corporate greed and its rule by the force of arms.

Peace, Best Wishes and Hope

Simplistic, approach to a non issue.  Iran was trying to get away from United States control, opportunists in Iran, just like the ones we have here, manipulated people to take over the Embassy in Iran.

I suggest it was our manipulation and controlling presence in Iran and not Carter that caused the problem.

Anyway, I did not know Obama was a peanut farmer too?

It will be the same for who wins this election in 08, down the road people will say the same thing about the premeditated problems developed for them by our great existing president.

Stench of corporate America the driving force for our great political machine.  As the accumulated wealth fills the coffers of the elite, thier hoarding of inordinate amounts of wealth, is just a game for them. A game where the poor of the world die while helping them gather even more powere, the big Monopoly game is never over. 

Differences between the candidates are minor, some say Obama is not in the pockets of the special interests, if one is to believe in a loose cannon being our president, I say it may only be wishful thinking. 

Our two party system is tainted on both sides of the aisle, manipulation by special interests has toned down and even hidden real issues of substance. 

Selected for us the remaining candidates running for president, will do their job of illusion to give some feeling of being involved.  The real power brokers are still in charge.  Prove me wrong, please.

Peter RV

Good to hear from you again!! And, I love your post.

You are right of course, about my expectations for ‘unity’ at least in the traditional political party sense of the word, because it can’t happen.
I guess I’ve said as much many times before.

No doubt we’re not the only ones who’ve figured out, that we cannot hope to survive without the the change that Obama has recognized we need. It might even be a good time to remind, that enough of ‘we the people’ of the old parties, be it conservative/liberal/democrat/republican, realized it as well, and encouraged Barack Obama to run.

At any rate, for the old status quo the ‘party’s over’. No pun intended there, but we are not a society of elite, and we cannot afford to support, (with our blood, treasure, and moral reputation) that small batch of ‘elite’ that have brought us so much pain and misery, not to mention the destruction of our relations with the rest of the world. It’s a new dawn, and if we expect to see many more ‘new days’, we’ve gotta shake loose from that grip.

So, this is the opportunity to accomplish that. The old Dems, and the old Repugs have simply got to go. They’ve become like a cancer, feeding off of our healthy cells, and killing us.

And of course you’re right that they won’t go quietly. That’s why all the smears, no matter how petty or insignificant. But ya know, I’ve been thinking that even all of THAT, might very well serve the greater purpose, and that part of what we need to move forward. If nothing else, it’s forced some truths to light. And THAT, is actually a very good thing.

There’s something to be said for the fact that ‘the truth will set us free’. Even when those truths are ugly, facing them, and KNOWING those truths, can change the course. Matter of fact, it’s really the only way.

OK, I’m going to read the article you posted the link for...I like St. Claire.

Meantime, it’s perfectly fine that you’re a white guy. I’ve got a few of ‘your type’ in the family.
Matter of fact, that makes me think of something kind of comical. We discovered in the course of a family discussion not long ago, that my niece, (now 15 years old) thought that her mother, (my sister) was white, until she was old enough to figure out that she wasn’t. (we asked her when she figured it out, and she said she doesn’t really remember).

So my sister asked her what she thought her dad was. Well, that was a pretty stupid question, since he’s quite obviously a black man. You can LOOK at him and know that. My neice was more diplomatic in her response. (guess she didn’t have much of a choice. )

OK...cheers to you too.

Cyrena:

I will not waste my time responding to every jot and tittle of your lengthy post.  I will, however, say that I most certainly HAVE expressed my reasons for supporting Hillary, in a rather lengthy post to Louise.  I will not repeat it here; go find it.

As well, I would not BE supporting Hillary if I did NOT think that her presidency would be for the greater good of ALL.  To suggest otherwise is simply patently absurd.  Nor do I have anything “personal” to gain from her winning the nomination or the presidency.  I have exactly the same to gain or lose as anyone here.

Your comments and accusations are getting wilder and wilder, and more absurd and insupportable as things get worse for your candidate.  His poll numbers are going down.  He is losing ground in almost every remaining primary state.  The numbers no longer support an absolute win for him in either delegates, popular vote or superdelegates.  In short, he is self-destructing, as some of us predicted he would - and you can’t exactly tell us it’s our fault, since I’m fairly certain that Obama and his campaign have never heard of bert, Doug, myself or anyone else on this site (except for Tony Wicher, who works for the Obama campaign).

You are going to need to come up with better - and FAR more supportable - than (i) accusing me of not expressing why I am supporting Hillary over Obama (since I have), (ii) suggesting that my support for Hillary has nothing to do with the common good (since that is patently absurd), and (iii) suggesting that I may have something “personal” to gain from her nomination.

You truly are grasping at straws.

Peace.

the larger portion of the American public NOT

Cyrena:

“Apparently, the larger portion of the American public feels the same way, as evidenced by the process thus far.”

The larger portion of the American public? LARGER???

Right now just on the Dem side about 30 million people have voted. That is out of a country of 300 million. Granted not all of them are eligible voters and of those that are many are not even registerd.

Obama has garnered 15.6 million of those votes and Clinton 14.8 million. That is nearly 50-50 and the primary elections are not yet over. The Dems are split. Obama in no way, shape or form “has the larger portion of the American public.” He barely has a larger number of Dem primary voters.

I will give you Obama has a higher NUMBER, but he clearly does not have a larger portion of the AMERICAN public.

And haven’t you forgotten something heer, Cyrena?

In the General Election Obama will have to be able to get more than 15.6 million votes. And it is not at all clear yet that he can do that.

In the last Presidential election, which had massive turn out, Bush got 62 million and Kerry 59 million. A grand total of 121 million votes were cast.

It is a long, long, LONG way to tipperary. Some how Obama has to come up with 46.4 MORE votes just to get what Bush won with in ‘04.

Tell me again where he is going to get those votes, Cyrena.

Think MI and FL are going to vote for him after he disenfranchised them?

Think those who find Rev. Wright’s statements are outrageous, not to mention those who find them hateful and un-American are going to vote for him.

Think a majority of those Republicans and Independents who supported him in the primary will vote for him after watching those Wright ads this fall?

Think Asian-Americans will vote for Obama? The only state where Obama carried Asian-Americans was Hawaii.

Think all Hillary’s Latino voters will vote for Obama? Don’t count on it. In ‘04 they voted for Bush.

And I am not going to belabour all the women and other Dems supporting Clinton that Obama has pissed off big time by his constant negative attacks on the Clintons.

He will still have the black vote, he will have the smallest wing of Democrats - the ultra-liberal elitists; and up for grabs the strugging middle class.

Not much of a coaltion there, Cyrena. Also not “the larger portion of the American public.”

Part 1
Maani writes:

• “So those calling for Hillary to simply fold her tent are being just a tad premature - to say nothing of overly optimistic. “

Only YOU would call it ‘optimistic’ Maani, because for you and a few others, this is a WAR, rather than an attempt to select the best person to represent the people of the nation, (ALL of us) to lead the country.

So, there’s nothing ‘optimistic’ in terms of Hillary folding her tent, and I wouldn’t even call it that. I would prefer to see it as an opportunity to focus on what it will take to get Obama to the White House, for the benefit of all Americans, because we’ll never survive another repug administration, and we SURELY can’t live through many more days of war.

That said, there is nothing ‘optimistic’ about her ‘simply folding her tent’. I’d far more prefer to see her simply relocate it, (after dumping supporters and/or advisors like you, because of your drastically negative effect) to use the energy to unify the effort.

Ya know Maani, long before you took up your ‘job’ here as a smear strategist, many of us here were largely supportive of Dennis Kucinich, as well as John Edwards. That was ‘in the beginning’ of course, and we see how Dennis particularly, became so marginalized, and Gravel (who would have been OK as well) never had much of a chance either. That’s NOT to say that I wasn’t very impressed with Obama, because of what he could do to break the ‘politics as usual’ syndrome that has us in such corrupted decay. But, for a long time there, we weren’t even sure that he would run for the office, and I also had my fears that the racism that has always existed in this country, (and has actually grown worse instead of better over the past decade) would prevent him getting very far in such a contest. That said, I was looking at Kucinich, and Edwards as possibly being our best chance.

Then, my fellow citizens in Iowa surprised me. Even then, I have to admit I was wary, because I’m old enough to be skeptical, though I don’t allow myself the danger of cynicism, because that is a poison that kills everything else. Still, since reality must always be considered, I knew it would require more than a single contest in Iowa, to get a real feel for how the rest of the country might be thinking and feeling, EVEN though it is important to my own work, to keep track of that anyway, and not just in terms of elections.

And so they have. Unfortunately, Kucinich was marginalized, and maybe the others, (Edwards included) just didn’t get their messages across to enough people, in enough time. Or maybe, because some folks already had a glimpse of these candidates from earlier political positions, they decided on the new path/ positions that Obama has been able to offer. No doubt there has been a combination of elements that have brought us to where we are now, in terms of what Americans want from a new leadership.

That’s been, as anyone can see from the numbers, Barack Obama. Do I absolutely agree with each and every one of his positions or policies? No. However those are very minor disagreements in terms of the larger picture, and I don’t expect to agree 100% with ANY candidate or president.  My issues with HRC are far, far greater. That too, is unfortunate, because I would very much have appreciated having a female at the helm. I agree with you that it is long over due. But, I guess it’s gonna have to wait, because it would be totally stupid for Americans to elect a president, just because she was a female, just as it would be to elect one just because he’s black, even though that TOO, is long overdue.

Part 2

Apparently, the larger portion of the American public feels the same way, as evidenced by the process thus far. And, that’s a good thing, because any strength has to be in unity, at least in so far as ‘we the people’ are concerned.

I think it’s more than evident from your many posts, that yours is NOT a concern for the greater good, or the American people as a whole. You fail to recognize the concept of unity, or even the connection between the greater good, and YOUR OWN. Yours is a singular purpose, and that is to get YOUR person in the job, regardless of whether or not that is the overall better choice. Whatever you PERSONALLY have to gain from that is not something that we would know, just from reading your posts.

Again, as zeitgeist has made clear, (without referencing any individuals) too many people (who claim to be democrats) have engaged these primary contests as if it were a WAR. You of course, are one of them. Your presence here on these blogs (which means that we do still have some measure of that ‘freedom of speech’) portrays you as a saboteur to the greater cause, and the greater good. Dick Cheney would hire you in a heartbeat. (no pun intended, but he does keep his batteries in top shape).

Your position, or at least the mentality that you display here, is not unlike that of the current regime in DC. It’s so similar to the Rovarian tactics, as to be scary. In other words, anyone who has been ‘burned before’ should be on the look-out for those like you, and of your ilk. For you, it’s only about WINNING, based on what “WINNING” is… for YOU!  It isn’t about winning for the people, or even the party, (and even party politics are uncomfortable for me). No, it’s more about winning for the same reasons it’s been about winning for the thugs currently overseeing the overall destruction of the majority. It’s about winning to retain the power of that same corporate class of the elite, which has been at the center of American politics for at least 3 decades now, if not longer.

That’s why folks like Jimmy Carter didn’t do well. His efforts were too largely focused on what was better for the majority, (as in Humanitarian well being) and less focused on the minority, (as in the Corporate oligarchy).

So, you can claim to be a democrat Maani, and in name/registration/whatever…you may be. But, that’s where it ends. You are far closer to the neocons, or what might now be called the ‘neo-liberals’ than you ever could be to the real principles of democracy.

And….just so you know, it shows. Without a doubt, we’re wise to your ‘agenda’. Now what it will net you personally, is nothing we can be assured of, but I doubt any of us really care. It’s enough to know that we simply must…BEWARE.

Now I know Obama supporters want to look only at delegates won in the primary.

However, there are other legitimate ways to look at this race: The big states, the Republican states and electoral votes.

According to the Wall Street:

Obama has won among affluent voters in caucuses and primaries in states with small populations of Democrats—such as Idaho and Wyoming—and among African Americans in Republican states unlikely to turn blue in November—such as South Carolina and Georgia.

Obama has won 10 out of the 11 core Republican states that have held primaries or caucuses this year.  But most, if not all, of those states will not go Democratic in November. Wyoming, for instance hasn’t voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1964.

As Senator Evan Bayh has pointed out, so far Clinton has won states with a total of 219 Electoral College votes, not counting Florida and Michigan, while Mr. Obama has won states with a total of 202 electoral votes.

You need 270 Electoral votes to win the General Election in November.

But let’s get back to what Obama supporters really like to talk about – delegates and so called super delegates. (I say ‘so called’ because officially they are referred to as Automatic delegates. This ‘super’ word is an Obama campaign term.)

If ALL Automatic Delegates endorsed the candidate who won their state, and remember, this is what Obama supporters have been saying they SHOULD do so as not to thwart the will of the voters) if that occured then, tah dah.......

The result: Hillary Clinton wins the Automatic Delegates decidedly.

Here’s the Automatic Delegate breakdown:
* States and territories voting so far (as of 3/22/08) = Clinton 346, Obama 309

Clinton States:

AR = 12
AS = 6
AZ = 10
CA = 65
FL = 23
MA = 26
MI = 27
NH = 7
NJ = 18
NM = 11
NV = 8
NY = 45
OH = 19
OK = 10
RI = 11
TN = 17
TX = 31

Obama States:
AL = 8
AK = 4
CO = 14
CT = 11
DE = 7
GA = 13
HI = 8
ID = 4
IL = 27
IA = 11
KS = 8
LA = 9
ME = 7
MD = 27
MN = 14
MS = 6
MO = 14
NE = 6
SC = 8
UT = 5
VA = 16
VT = 7
WA = 17
DC = 23
WI = 16
WY = 5
Dems Abroad = 8
VI = 6

So no matter how you slice it, no mater how you try to spin it, this primary season is NOT over, the math is NOT against Hillary, and she is NOT going to be BULLIED by a member practicing Daley Chicago Political machine style politics.

Alot has been said about Hillary’s inability to catch up to Obama re delegate totals.  If you look at the remaining six primaries, this is actually not true: Hillary COULD catch up, and even possibly have a minimal number more.  And even if not, she could definitely end up with a larger popular vote total.

Here are the remaining primaries, the number of delegates apportionable for each, and the most current polls in those states (with Hillary’s number coming first).  And note that Obama has been steadily LOSING ground in Pennsylvania, North Carolina and West Virginia.

Pennsyvlania: 188 delegates.  56%/40%.  An almost certain win for Hillary.

Indiana: 84 delegates.  25%/40%.  An almost certain win for Obama.

North Carolina: 134 delegates.  43%/44%.  Obama is currently ahead by a single percentage point, but this represents a significant downturn from just a month ago - and he continues to lose ground here.

West Virginia: 39 delegates.  37%/22%.  An almost certain win for Hillary, although for some reason Obama is battling fiercely for this state, despite its minimal number of delegates.

Kentucky: 60 delegates.  No polls available.  My understanding is that they are fairly close here.

Oregon: 65 delegates.  36%/28%.  A close race here.

Given the above, depending on the actual final numbers, Hillary would not even necessarily need a blow-out in Pennsylvania to obtain enough delegates to tie, and possibly edge out, Obama.  My own calculations, based on scenarios played out based on the poll numbers above (and giving one-half of the KY delegates to each) COULD have Hillary with a total of 1850 delegates to Obama’s 1822 (assuming no changes in quasi-pledged superdelegates).  And even if we “downgrade” my calculations a bit - allowing for minimal “surges” by Obama in one or two states - they could still end up tied.  And, again, even if Obama IS ahead in total delegates after the remaining primaries, Hillary could easily be ahead of him in popular vote.  [N.B. If we discount Michigan entirely and the Florida delegates, but include the popular vote in Florida - where both of their names were on the ballot - Hillary is currently less than 100,000 votes behind in popular vote.]

So those calling for Hillary to simply fold her tent are being just a tad premature - to say nothing of overly optimistic.

Peace.

It would appear that the vote/will of his constituents was damn near an even split.

But..you’re right bert,
NM has 26 delegates. (not counting Richardson) HRC got 14 of them, (after a recount because it was so close) and I think Edwards got 1, which would have given Obama 11.

You are so correct.

New Mexico’s Feb. 5 Voting Still Inconclusive
by Ted Robbins
In Focus

NPR.org, February 7, 2008 • It will be awhile before the last of the Super Tuesday states declares a winner. New Mexico Democratic Party officials announced Thursday that they will recount every ballot. Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama in the state by about 1,000 votes.

Originally, New Mexico’s Democratic Party had planned to count 17,000 provisional ballots, largely ballots cast by voters whose eligibility was in question or who came to the wrong polling place.
But the Democrat-only contest was plagued by so many problems that the state party, along with the Clinton and Obama campaigns, agreed that only checking all ballots cast would insure an accurate result.

New Mexico apportions its delegates, so Obama and Clinton will each end up with a share of the 26 delegates at stake. And with the national race so close, each delegate counts.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1 8785663

Meantime,

Looks to me like Richardson can give his superdelegate vote to whomever he wants. John Kerry too. (and he has given his to Obama) Now I say that because Hillary has ALREADY (and long ago) ordered the superdelegates to vote for her, no matter WHAT their constituencies indicated. So, I guess that’s what they’re doing.

It’s unfortunate that Hillary won’t leave the race, because she can’t win, (based on the numbers so far) and her supporters are casting a really negative blanket over the entire race.

Admittedly, I think some good has actually come out of it, like the created frenzy over Wright, which has opened the door for some truths that history has long hidden.

But overall, its way past time for Hillary’s supporters to get past the hate, and try to embrace this 21st Century, considering all of the horrific damage there is to repair.

If it’s not too much reading for you for one day, check out the article below. It’s a history lesson in Constitutional Law.

The Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright and the Audacity of Truth
By Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032208F.shtm

bert:

Brava!  This is the kind of brilliant retort to which Cyrena (and others) has ZERO room to wiggle.  She (and other Obama supporters) has indeed said, many times, that the superdelegates should abide by the will of the voters, whether in their own states or in general.  And you are correct that since Clinton won NM and MA, Richardson, Kennedy and Kerry should, by Cyrena’s own admission, be casting their superdelegate votes for Hillary.

Superb!

Peace.

mensa member:

“You are being very hard on Maani, and I’m kinda sweet on Maani…

While I am flattered by this, you ARE aware that I’m of the male persuasion, right?  LOL.

Peace.

Again, this time Sean Hannity said Richardson came back from vacation to endorse OBAMA!!! This tells me
Richardson got his arm twisted good and or a promise
of V.P.
Why is no one else reporting this, I think it’s important!!!!!

Cyrena writes:  “WHY do you suppose there is an Hispanic-American Governor of New Mexico Maani? Well, because New Mexico has a very large Hispanic constituency, and he most represents their interests and the values of their culture, and the politics and economy and social welfare of their area of the world/US. Maybe some of them will chose to follow Bill Richardson’s lead, since they DID choose him as their state Governor, and it follows that they would (maybe) follow his lead (as a leader) in a choice for President.”

Well since NM has already voted in the primary and it went for Clinton (she received 14 delegates) then we know how the voters think.

Richardson is a super delegate and using the logic of Obamateur’s as expressed loudly and often on Truth Dig (that is superdelegates should follow the will of the voters) then Richardson was wrong to endorse Obama. The will of the voters in his state, of which he is THEIR public servant, was Clinton. He should have endorsed Clinton and should vote for her at the convention.

As should Kennedy and Kerry too.

“...most represents their interests and the values..”

I don’t think so based on the vote/will of his constituents.

Talk about your basic hypocrisy !!!!!

If anyone is curious about what Bill Clinton’s role would be in a HRC White House. Here’s the interview he gave with our local NBC affiliate. The interview was later played on the Today Show and NBC Nightly News. Notice there is no mention of a co-presidency.

http://www.wcsh6.com/video/life/lifestyle/207/player.a spx?aid=32033&sid=80280&bw=hi&cat=80

Joe:

Re WJC’s role in an HRC administration, I fully agree.  But when I tried to bring this up a couple of times, only to have the Obamamaniacs roundly attack me for my naivete.

Not only has Hillary made it clear that Bill will indeed be some sort of “roving ambassador,” but he will also be VERY busy with the CGI.  In this regard, he will have little if any time to be “meddling” in HRC’s administration.  Besides, given his history, it’s a good bet that she wants him as far away from the White House as she can send him!  LOL.

Peace.

Cyrena:

“It is not true Maani, in the sense of what Law Professors are.”

Excuse me?  Exactly WHAT does THAT mean?  I always thought that a “professor of law” is a “professor” who teaches “law” (in whatever area).  What exactly is the difference between Obama’s claim to being a “professor of law” and Hillary’s similar claim?

Peace.

What role do you think WJC would have in a Hillary admin? When he came to Maine he gave a 1 on 1 interview with our local NBC affiliate. The interviewer asked him the role question directly. He answered directly. He will not hold a staff position of any kind. He will advise Hillary when asked, much the same way she did for 8 years. His answer went on to say that it is the duty of any formaer president to be at the service of the sitting president. He will be available to be an ambassador-at-large to go where needed to do what’s needed. Not a bad gig if you can get it, eh? This talk of co-presidency is bull puckies and is being fed to you by Obamabots and Rethglicans who want to try to scare you somehow. Wait. I thought only Hillary engaged in fearmongering! How can this be? I clearly need to drink more Kool-Aid and all those pesky questions and doubts will all fade away again. Oh thank goodness MSNBC is here to push Obama on me and think for me.

Expat, stop the spin, Bill Richardson didn’t even get the Hispanic votes when he ran for president and I don’t believe he even had ONE delegate.  Hillary won his state. Richarsons very important reason for backing OBAMA??  V.P.!
I think (can’t remember for sure) Buchanan and another talking head on MSNBC said they called Ricardson back from vacation to back Obama ( said he’d like to have heard that phone call) I am repeating it cause I heard it but I think MSNBC has quashed it.  Haven’t seen it since.

DESPICABLE, FULL OF SH**,BOTTOM FEEDER, SLIMY.  YOU NEED TO GO INTO ANGER MANAGEMENT.  I SEE YOU QUITE A FEW TIMES SAY YOU DON’T CALL PEOPLE NAMES. WHEW, THAT IS A HUGE LIE RIGHT THERE.
YOU OBAMAHOLICS MAKE A VERY GOOD CASE AS TO WHY OBAMA
SHOULD NOT BE NOMINATED.  GOING INTO THE WHITEHOUSE WITH THESE ATTITUDES IS NOT WHAT ME NEED.
Futher more I saw nothing in Maanis post that would make anyone that angry.

Cyrena:

“So Maani, you’re full of shit. You’re a bottom feeder...you are a dealer of dirt. You are the worst of the worst in terms of slimly character...You are despicable.”

Don’t mince words, Cyrena - tell me what you REALLY think...LOL.

And, of course, the above comments are coming from someone who SWEARS that they do not engage in name-calling…

Peas.  (and carrots)

^ have been a majority in America since we wiped out 20 - 30 million natives.  We have enjoyed the luxury of this for so long we take for granted we will always be a majority and perceive America is our (whites) country.  Because we Americans have a myopic view of the world and are so provincial (redundant?); we don’t (rarely) see the big picture outside of our own existence (the greater world).  A future reality is now becoming apparent; we American whites will be a minority in America (our own country).  With this eventuality our power will also diminish and we will increasingly have to co-exist: A thing we do now, only when forced to.  Thus my suggestion of equality and egalitarianism. 

That’s my best shot at the moment; I hope I answered your questions.

It is not true Maani, in the sense of what Law Professors are.

In short, HRC has never been a “Professor of Law”, though we do know that she is a corporate lawyer.  End of discussion on that Maani, because in the big picture, it isn’t important. The office does NOT require one to be a “professor of law” but it does require one to at least KNOW the law, or have an advisor that would advise one on the law.

Now in Hillary’s case, we KNOW that she is a lawyer. She has been a corporate lawyer, and we know that from her full partnership at the Rose Firm in Arkansas. It is THERE that she conducted her professional career until entering politics with her husband. I remember well, their first run for the oval office.

So what is actually MORE problematic Maani, is the fact that HRC IS an attorney, and is SUPPOSED to know the law, and yet she either willing violated many laws in her authorization to conduct an illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. OR…she DIDN’T know the laws, and didn’t bother to consult anyone who MIGHT know the laws. (let’s give her the benefit of the doubt and say that SHE JUST DIDN’T KNOW, despite being an attorney herself).

Let’s move on to your earlier post, where you defend Hillary’s religious affiliations. (which I accept with no problems) but ONLY in the context of LYING – AGAIN, about Obama. You make a comparison between Obama’s church affiliations, and Hillary’s, which is as dishonest and vile as all of the other stuff that you post about him.

Your ‘excuse’ has been that you want to ‘balance’ the ‘Hillary bashing’ that you first discovered when you first visited this site. So, what you’ve done is to CREATE multiple lies, distortions, innuendo, and blacklisting against other candidates, and that’s what you call ‘balancing’.

You even go so far, (obviously without a clue to the arrogance that it conveys) to say that you are just making sure that Obama supporters are ‘aware’ of the negative things about him.

• “…but rather to gauge whether they were even aware of their candidates’ “negatives.”

Now Maani, if you said something like that to someone smart enough in person, they could LEGITIMATELY KICK YOUR ASS, and would be likely to do so.

And then you go on…

“Sadly, what I have found is that most of the Obama supporters here engage in one of the deepest forms of cognitive dissonance that I have yet encountered, while others are simply in a state of almost frightening denial.  This is shown by the constant justification, rationalization or ignoring of any fact or criticism that may be leveled against Obama.  In the world of most Obama supporters, virtually anything Obama says or does - no matter how wrong or revealing of flaws in character or judgment - is justifiable, while almost anything Hillary says or does - no matter how innocuous - is attacked and vilified.
Well, this is really more than enough for anyone to be overwhelming pissed off, because they are FALSE ACCUSATIONS, and an insult to everyone’s intelligence, because for one thing, I personally have seen VERY LITTLE vilification of what Hillary says or does, UNLESS it has been language or behavior that SHOULD be attacked as vilified.

More importantly, while I cannot speak for every person on this blog, I PERSONALLY have always spoken up when I disagree with something that Barack Obama has said or done, or any decision that he has made.

So Maani, you’re full of shit. You’re a bottom feeder, and you have not ‘revealed’ any character flaws of Barack Obama that intelligent people cannot discern for themselves.

So let’s just admit that you are a dealer of dirt. You are the worst of the worst in terms of slimly character. You will dig as far down in the sewer as you possibly can, to find something that you will then attempt to SPIN into something ‘negative’ on Barack Obama, and when intelligent people won’t buy into it, you insult them as well.

You are despicable.

Bert, I already DID rebut one of them. Hillary Clinton was never a professor of law. That has zero to do with my feelings, ideas, or thoughts.

I agreed, (because I HAVE read her biographies) about the Clinic and the pro bono legal work.

Matter of fact, I agreed about a lot of things.

The issue still comes back to the original challenge though, and that was to come up with an HONEST and precise case for why Hillary would be a good president.

You failed to do that.

In fact, Louise has since done it, because she believes that Hillary is at least a good Senator. I don’t necessarily agree, but that however, is very relative to many things. For one thing, Louise is a New Yorker, and so Hillary would be her Senator. If I was a New Yorker, I would have voted for her as well. (for Senator) But, I don’t agree that Hillary would make a good President.

So I’m sorry. My ‘problem’ as I’ve admitted many times, is in what I personally see (and can substantiate) as hypocrisy by means of political expediency at best, and downright dishonesty or lying at worst.

Obviously, Hillary has good qualities, but it was not YOU who put them forward. And again, your points were dishonest.

And for the record…in case you’ve missed it in previous posts..I voted for William Jefferson Clinton both times that he ran for the office. I was very annoyed by the right wing hatred that was directed at Hillary from the beginning. (and it was, and I knew people THEN that hated her, and still do). I have never failed to make my disgust known to those who have spewed that hate, based on ignorance, or jealousy, or whatever else. It was NOT based on any facts in evidence..at least not at the time.

I was equally disgusted by the attempts to impeach Bill Clinton because of his dealings with Monica Lewinsky or anybody else. Common sense tells ANY of us that it was just standard sewer behavior from the repugs, and it was an expensive disservice to the Americans.

I DO appreciate, (as I did then) Hillary’s efforts at putting together some sort of health care plan for Americans. No one had ever made any attempts before. I believe it was admirable. The same can be said (for the most part) of her contributions as First Lady. They were more than most have accomplished, (as first lady…Eleanor Roosevelt being the very best on record).

That does NOT however, simply ‘exempt’ her from some of the more egregious mistakes or bad judgments that she has made –ALSO as ‘first lady’, as well as in her position as a US Senator. And, those things can ALSO be substantiated as beyond any particular ideas, feelings, or thoughts that I might personally maintain.

Even those things could be overlooked (at least by me) if she had not allowed her candidacy to sink to such bottom-feeding levels of poor sportsman and statesmanship, AND if she had been willing to learn and gain some humility from those errors. She hasn’t.

Rather, instead of doing what her own conscience and good sense may have directed, (and there’s no way to know for sure if this is even the case) she has APPEARED to simply go with whatever she thought would put her in the office.

The most important case in point has been her stance on the war, which has only recently changed. I am not convinced that HRC isn’t just as much a war monger as her repug competition. I am NOT convinced that Hillary does not share the same ideology that calls for US Hegemony throughout the world. Her rhetoric says that she is perfectly OK with the idea that the US should control the world, and by military force if necessary.

Now you can take THAT as my personal opinion if you like, even though it too can be substantiated by remarks she herself has made.

Now, this should pretty much cover your points, unless you want me to weigh-in on her Senate activity, except you didn’t even bother to do that. You just put a link to some bills that she was involved in.

Those of you oldest enough to remember the Cisco Kid. Pancho Richardson wants a job in a new administration.He has finally determined that Cisco Obama is about to win the nimination so “Cisco wait for me.”

Leefeller:

“Making mountains out of mole hills is what the Mass Media fees on when the mood strikes.”

Rarely has a truer statement been made!  And this is true for any and every candidate.

Peace.

Cyrena:

“For you to twist this around and claim that Hispanic Americans are stupid and mindless because they might be influenced by the wisdom of someone THEY’VE ALREADY SELECTED as their local leader, is the arrogance and racism that is real.”

And you accuse ME of twisting things?  I NEVER made any such claim.  In fact, I was clearly suggesting that HAMMO’s POST was insinuating this, and that it was NOT true.

As well, re “You’ve made the same put down from the beginning, to any black people who have supported Obama, by suggesting that it’s only because he’s black,” I DARE you to find a single instance in which I suggested this!  I DOUBLE DARE you!  I TRIPLE DARE YOU!  Because I have NEVER made such a broad-brush generalized statement of ANY sort about ANYONE with regard to ANYTHING.  I may have suggested, or even stated, that SOME black people are voting for him because he is black, and that would be a completely true statement.

Is there ANYTHING you won’t do to accuse me of racism?  Indeed, is there anything you won’t spin to make ANYONE who disagrees with you “racist?”

You are a seriously angry and dangerous woman to be leveling that kind of charge so broadly against so many people here.  You need to get a grip and work through your issues.

Peace.  (hopefully)

You’ve screwed it up again, Maani, because all it takes is a change in wording, to put in your interpretation, and it is YOU, who in changing the wording, create the arrogance.

There is nothing here that suggests what Hispanic-Americans SHOULD do, but rather what Hispanic-Americans MIGHT do, as a result of the endorsement.

WHY do you suppose there is an Hispanic-American Governor of New Mexico Maani? Well, because New Mexico has a very large Hispanic constituency, and he most represents their interests and the values of their culture, and the politics and economy and social welfare of their area of the world/US. Maybe some of them will chose to follow Bill Richardson’s lead, since they DID choose him as their state Governor, and it follows that they would (maybe) follow his lead (as a leader) in a choice for President.

Or, maybe not. For you to twist this around and claim that Hispanic Americans are stupid and mindless because they might be influenced by the wisdom of someone THEY’VE ALREADY SELECTED as their local leader, is the arrogance and racism that is real.

So you just keep twisting, and in the process, I’ll keep putting the truth to it. The arrogance is yours, in that you choose to ignore that all people can and will make their own decisions. It the Native American and Hispanic cultures/traditions, the opinions of the Elders/selected leaders IS very important, and it DOESN’T mean for an instant, that they are mindless or stupid.

Rather, Bill Richardson has already been vetter. He has been THEIR choice, and they will decide (not you or anyone else) if they choose to follow his lead.

You’ve made the same put down from the beginning, to any black people who have supported Obama, by suggesting that it’s only because he’s black. You are apparently too stupid to realize that you only put people off with this total disregard and arrogance.

So, you just keep twisting, and as you do, I’ll keep exposing your lies and distortions, and innuendo for what they are.

Again, nobody has suggested what anyone SHOULD do, but rather what considerations they may take. Exactly why do you think endorsements are even a part of the political process?

Why have you tried so hard to defame and smear the character of anyone even indirectly connected to Barack Obama, (whom you hate) if you didn’t believe endorsements to be a important issue?

Your perfidy and deceit are obvious.

Not Richardson, I mean Bill Clinton.  If Hillary dumped Bill Clinton, I would reconsider supporting her.  Most of her baggage comes from hanging him around her neck, like an albatross.

Knowing they are a team, seems to be the big handicap for most Clinton detractors, at least this one.

Thanks for the reply, it really did not seem all that important to me, but could be used as some sort of negative in the long run, from the McCain crowd. Making mountains out of mole hills is what the Mass Media fees on when the mood strikes.

Hammo:

“Richardson’s endorsement is sure to make Hispanic-Americans take another look at their attitudes about Obama vs. Hillary Clinton.”

Methinks you give Richardson a tad too much credit re

Indeed, what you are saying is: “Richardson is a Hispanic-American politician.  He has endorsed Obama.  Therefore, Hispanic-Americans should vote for Obama.”

At best, this is identity politics.  At worst it is (according to one definition of the term) racist; i.e., suggesting that Hispanic-Americans should vote for Obama simply because a prominent Hispanic-American has endorsed him.  At very least it suggests that Hispanic-Americans are mindless and stupid and are simply going to (or should) vote for Obama based on Richardson’s endorsement.

Peace.

Leefeller:

I have responded to this before, but would be happy to do so again.

Hillary has been a member of the Family since 1993. And, yes, its leader, Doug Coe, is right-of-center, and many of its members are (ohmigod!) Republicans (though there should be nothing “nefarious” or “sinister” about Democrats learning and praying with Republicans).  As well, there is a certain amount of political “networking” that occurs, but no moreso than in any other similar context.

In this regard, you are correct that this may be an attempt to create the same kind of (false) association between Hillary and Coe as has been made (legitimately) between Obama and Rev. Wright.

Here are some facts.  Although a member since 1993, Hillary did not begin attending regular services until 1997, and has attended fewer services w/the Family than Obama has at Trinity.  Hillary and Bill were not married by Coe, nor was their child baptized by him.  Coe is not Hillary’s “spiritual advisor” (except perhaps informally), and Hillary does not consider Coe “family” the way Obama does Rev. Wright.  Finally, Hillary has never named Coe to any political or quasi-political committee, as Obama did with Rev. Wright.

Most importantly, Hillary has never shown any tendency toward fundamentalism, much less “Christian Right” thinking or action - even were it true (as the conspiracy-minded would have it) that the Family is hopelessly fundamentalist and right-wing in its teaching.  Indeed, Hillary (along with Obama and Edwards) made her religious views quite plain during the Sojourners/CNN forum on Faith and Religion, and nothing she said (and, again, nothing she has said or done in her entire public life) would lead one to believe that she is some kind of “stealth” fundamentalist candidate.

In these regards, her membership in the Family, no matter how secretive they may be or attempt to be, is a non-story.  It is, as you surmise, coming from somewhere else.

Peace.

“...There are so many more and I have posted on them repeatedly and I am not going to repeat myself here...”

Bert, is this a PROMISE