Top Leaderboard, Site wide
July 24, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates






War of the Whales


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Richardson Backs Obama

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

Posted on Mar 21, 2008
Richardson and Obama
latime.com

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who gave up his own run at the nomination in January, is endorsing Barack Obama. The nod from the country’s only Latino governor comes at a point in the campaign when the Hispanic vote will be less of a factor.

Still, it’s good news for Obama, who has suffered through a spate of terrible news cycles. According to the L.A. Times, Obama’s campaign is planning “a series of such endorsements and announcements.”

As a former Clinton White House official, Richardson had been under pressure to support Hillary, but he said recently of his obligation to the former president: “I paid him back. Because I served well.”

Many progressives had gravitated toward Richardson, who, other than Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, had perhaps the strongest anti-war platform. But his role as secretary of energy in the immoral imprisonment of American scientist Wen Ho Lee is a permanent stain on his record.

Updates: You can watch video of Richardson’s announcement and read up on how he almost went for Hillary and his response to the Clinton campaign’s dismissal of his endorsement here.

Also, Clinton fixture James Carville says the timing of the endorsement is appropriate, since it’s like Judas betraying Jesus.

(h/t: The Page)


Los Angeles Times:

He also ran against Obama, of course. But in a prepared statement he’ll release today, Richardson will say:

““I believe he is the kind of once-in-a-lifetime leader that can bring our nation together and restore America’s moral leadership in the world,” AP reported.

Richardson will also say, “There is no doubt in my mind that Barack Obama has the judgment and courage we need in a commander in chief when our nation’s security is on the line.”

Campaign sources indicate Obama hopes to roll out a series of such endorsements and announcements during the long run-up to the Pennsylvania primary April 22 to create a sense of momentum. There’s still former Sen. John Edwards out there and, of course, former senator, former vice president and former presidential candidate Al Gore, who’s not always had the closest relationship with his ex-boss’s wife.

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.

PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, March 27, 2008 at 2:55 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, March 27, 2008 at 2:53 pm Link to this comment

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

Report this

By Peter RV, March 27, 2008 at 1:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Zeitgeist,
I did what you told me and here is the response:
  “The screen name you chose is not available”
  “The email you chose is not available”
Always the same.

  Cheers

Report this
amunaor's avatar

By amunaor, March 27, 2008 at 12:00 pm Link to this comment

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

Report this
amunaor's avatar

By amunaor, March 27, 2008 at 11:51 am Link to this comment

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

Report this
amunaor's avatar

By amunaor, March 27, 2008 at 11:42 am Link to this comment

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

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 27, 2008 at 6:22 am Link to this comment

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.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 27, 2008 at 6:14 am Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By Betty Martin, March 26, 2008 at 5:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

While many go ga ga over Obama, it would be interesting to point out the similarities between Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. I was a college student when Carter was voted into office. I remember he sparked a lot of excitement among college students back then too. He was a great speaker, and he was going to be a new type of leader after we went through Watergate and Vietman. His theme was Human Rights. Carter was ultra liberal, anti-war and he wanted to talk not fight. He promised to support Israel during his campaign, but was anything but a friend of Israel’s during his Presidency. His Presidency ended up with the Iranian hostage crisis, and Carter is largely considered one of the worse Presidents in US history. Even the attempt to rescue the hostages fell apart when two copters crashed into each other. Is the country headed for the same failed leadership again if the Democrats nominate Obama? Something to think about because we’ve since this all before and it didn’t turn out so good. Feel free to continue the conversation on my blog at http://www.elections2008online.com. Thank you.

Report this

By Peter RV, March 25, 2008 at 4:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Cyrena,
It is embarassing to read several versions of one’s own posting, but that is the result of the TruthDig editors who keep refusing to register me. They post me with such delays that getting bored waiting that something appears, I re-edit and send my wisdoms again causing a traffic jam.
(Does one have to grease the hand here-to get registred?)

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, March 25, 2008 at 6:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“So, we are on the road, with the apparent Obama/Richardson ticket, to having the leadership of the most complicated country on the planet, to be decided by the blacks, Hispanics and the loony left, all of who have such a stellar record of running their own lives.”

I marched in Selma with my mother and father in the 50’s. I was in Birmingham one week after the Bomb blast at The 16th Street Baptist Church. I was in Georgia while Lester (axe-handle) Maddox was governor, and the racist statements of those days are equal to the one you post.

Just like a “typical white girl” to think all Hispanics and blacks are financially insolvent losers, or that they all share a “lack of success” (might want to run that by Condoleezza Rice, Bill Cosby, Bill Richardson, Eleanor Holmes Norton, or hundreds of thousands of VERY successful Black and Hispanic folks.) 

Jefferson felt it might be good to require education as a qualifier to vote… I’m currently re-evaluating.

Report this

By Peter RV, March 25, 2008 at 4:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is a duplicate of my #12345 (what a lovely orderly number) comment that for some mysterious reason,never went through.
Hi Cyrena,
Good post, I completely agree with you.
But I am switching to the mainstream subject. Obama.
In my opinion, it is wrong and useless to insist on the unity of Democrats by suggesting that Hillary should throw her towel in. Anyway, it is irrelevant.
Obama is poised to create a New Majority which won’t have much to do with Democrat-Republican, Left-Right or Progressive-Conservative shenanigans of the past. No presidential candidate has ever had such a knock-out superiority over any prospective rivals. Only he has the trump card for this round which is- his unwavering stand against this ghastly immoral War, right from the beginning, the war which is transforming our Nation into an authentic rogue state.
Only Obama is believable when he promises to end it. To end it for the sake of America which can’t withstand further four years of insanity, that Clinton contemplates and McCain pledges.
  Once obtaining the nomination,(and you can bet your sweet life, AIPAC will try its utmost best to prevent) Obama will face an intellectual and moral midget, obssessed with ‘winning’ glorious wars even if they last hundred years.Captured by his delirious Armaggedon peddlers and Israeli Jihadists, McCain can’t but get slaughtered in any debate with Obama.
  Hillary, another AIPAC stooge, if there ever was one, will not give up. This scorned woman with a shady past, has already burnt her bridges back to decency, so one should expect her desperate attempts to damage Obama, to continue to the end . ( Now her beloved husband has discovered that Obama is, well,-not as patriotic as McCain or his wife) ( To read a very credible scenario of Clintons by Jeffrey St. Clair, go to http://www.counterpunch.org/ )
I have always considered myself a Conservative. I have supported and worked for Goldwater and Reagan’s campaigns, was an ardent anti-communist (that is, until communism collapsed) and, like all conservatives, rather luke-warm toward Civil Rights. Now,I’ve made up my mind that it is only Barack Obama that can pull this Country away from the precipice.
(Oh, I almost forgot, I am also White, you know, of that Superior Race which produces Bushes,Clintons and McCains).
Cheers

Report this

By cyrena, March 25, 2008 at 1:16 am Link to this comment

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. wink 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. smile )

OK…cheers to you too.

Report this

By Maani, March 24, 2008 at 8:38 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By bert, March 24, 2008 at 7:16 pm Link to this comment

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.”

Report this

By cyrena, March 24, 2008 at 6:06 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By cyrena, March 24, 2008 at 6:05 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By Peter RV, March 24, 2008 at 5:41 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is a duplicate of my #12345 comment that for some mysterious reason,never went through.
Hi Cyrena,
Good post, I completely agree with you.
But I am switching to the mainstream subject. Obama.
In my opinion, it is wrong and useless to insist on the unity of Democrats by suggesting that Hillary should throw her towel in.
It is a mistake to think, this time round, the final outcome of the race might depend critically on this “unity”. That unity is already rendered trivial by Obama’s excellent performance in spite of the viscious smear attacks he has been subjected to.
Obama is poised to create a New Majority which won’t have much to do with Democrat-Republican, Left-Right or Progressive-Conservative shenanigans of the past. No presidential candidate has ever had such a knock-out superiority over any prospective rivals. Only he has the trump card in this round which is- his having been against this ghastly immoral War, right from the beginning, the war which is transforming our Nation into a rogue state.
Only Obama is believable when he promises to stop it. To stop it for the sake of America which can’t withstand further four years of insanity, that both, Clinton and McCain contemplate.
  Once obtaining the nomination,(and you can bet your sweet life, AIPAC will try its utmost best to prevent) Obama will face an intellectual and moral midget, obssessed with ‘winning’ glorious wars even if they last hundred years.Captured by his delirious Armaggedon peddlers and Israeli Jihadists, McCain can’t but get slaughtered in any debate with Obama.
  Hillary, another AIPAC stooge, if there ever was one, will not give up. This scorned woman with a shady past, has already burnt her bridges back to decency, so one should expect her desperate attempts to damage Obama to continue to the end . ( Now her beloved husband is even having doubts that Obama is, well-not as patriotic as McCain or his wife)    (Read a very credible scenario of Clintons by Jeffrey St. Clair, in(http://www.counterpunch.org/ )
I have always considered myself a Conservative. I have supported and worked for Goldwater and Reagan, was an ardent anti-communist (that is, until communism collapsed) and like all conservatives, rather luke-warm toward Civil Rights.But-I’ve made up my mind to vote for Barack Obama.
(Oh, I almost forgot, I am also White, you know, of that Superior Race which produces Bushes,Clintons and McCains).
Cheers

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, March 24, 2008 at 4:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Who says Hill-the-business-shill deserves any votes from “super delegates”?  Who says Obama does?

Supers were installed to prevent another McGovern, Mondale disaster.  Since we have both a Mondale and a McGovern running, they should sit home and suck their…...thumbs!

Report this

By bert, March 24, 2008 at 2:39 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By Maani, March 24, 2008 at 1:27 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By cyrena, March 24, 2008 at 1:04 pm Link to this comment

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=18785663

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

Report this

By Maani, March 24, 2008 at 12:55 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By Maani, March 24, 2008 at 12:52 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By lib in texas, March 24, 2008 at 12:40 pm Link to this comment

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!!!!!

Report this

By Sharon Ash, March 24, 2008 at 11:24 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

So, we are on the road, with the apparent Obama/Richardson ticket, to having the leadership of the most complicated country on the planet, to be decided by the blacks, Hispanics and the loony left, all of who have such a stellar record of running their own lives. But of course, their lack of success is ‘not their fault’ and how racist to even suggest that we are individually responsible for our own choices and outcomes in life!  Correction Reverend Wright, it is not “God damn America” but rather “God help America”.

Report this

By bert, March 24, 2008 at 8:29 am Link to this comment

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 !!!!!

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, March 24, 2008 at 8:29 am Link to this comment

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.aspx?aid=32033&sid=80280&bw=hi&cat=80

Report this

By Maani, March 24, 2008 at 7:53 am Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By Maani, March 24, 2008 at 7:47 am Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, March 24, 2008 at 7:34 am Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By lib in texas, March 24, 2008 at 7:25 am Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By lib in texas, March 24, 2008 at 7:12 am Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By Maani, March 24, 2008 at 6:58 am Link to this comment

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)

Report this

By Expat, March 24, 2008 at 4:54 am Link to this comment

^ 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.

Report this

By cyrena, March 23, 2008 at 11:47 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By cyrena, March 23, 2008 at 10:55 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By Thomas Billis, March 23, 2008 at 6:55 pm Link to this comment

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.”

Report this

By Maani, March 23, 2008 at 1:54 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By Maani, March 23, 2008 at 1:52 pm Link to this comment

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)

Report this

By cyrena, March 23, 2008 at 1:38 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 23, 2008 at 11:45 am Link to this comment

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.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 23, 2008 at 11:20 am Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By Peter RV, March 23, 2008 at 11:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hi, Cyrena,
  Good post, I completely agree with you.
  But, I am switching to the mainstream subject. Obama.
  I think it is completely wrong and useless to insist on the unity of Democrats by suggesting that Hillary throws her towel in.
  It is wrong to think, this time round, that the final outcome of the race could depend very much on this ‘unity’. That unity has been shattered for good by Obama’s excellent performance, and the viscious attacks he is subjected to by Clintons.
  Obama is poised to create a New Majority which has little to do with Democrat-Republican, Left-Right or Progressive- Conservative shenanigans of the past. No presidential candidate has ever had such a knock-out opportunity over any prospective rival. Only he has the trump card in this round which is to stop this immoral war that has transform this nation into a ‘par excellence’-rogue state and which can’t possibly withstand another four years of McCain’s or Clinton’s.
  Once obtaining the nomination (and you can bet your sweet life,AIPAC will do its utmost best to prevent), Obama will face an intellectual and moral midget, obssessed with Wars he is already promising in abundance. Backed by delirious Armaggedon peddlers
and Israeli jihadists, McCain can expect to be slaughtered in November.
  Hillary, another APAC stooge, if ever there was one, will not give up. This scorned woman with the shady past, has already burnt her bridges back to decency, so, one should expect only more rascist hysteria from her or her sleezy husband, who is now working fievrishly to prove that Obama is, well, unpatriotic.
I have always considered myself a conservative. I have supported Goldwater and Reagan’s campaign, anti-communist,( until their fall) to the marrow of the bone, and I have made up my mind,
I am going to vote for Barack Obama.
(P.S. Almost forgot, I am a White, you know, of that superior race which produces Bushes,Clintons and MCCains)
Cheers Cyrena!

Report this

By Maani, March 23, 2008 at 9:29 am Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By Lee, March 23, 2008 at 9:16 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Why does Bill Richardson want Hillary to drop out of the campaign ASAP! ... Because, he has tied his own political future to Obama ... and, he knows that because of the Obama/Wright debacle, Hillary will dramatically lead over Obama in all the up-coming democratic primaries.

Obama and his supporters keep saying that the democratic nominee should be the one who gets the most popular votes ... not super delegates. But, in addition to Obama accepting Richardson’s delegate vote, even though Hillary won the popular vote in New Mexico ... it’s apparent that if Obama’s 20 year association with racist Wright (and indirect association with Farrakan) had been known a year ago by the public ... Obama would not have gained a lead in the popular vote ... in fact, he probably wouldn’t even still be in the race at all!

The current political situation is exactly why super delegates should vote for Hillary. Obama might have gotten this far, because we didn’t know about his racist affiliations for an entire year ... but, from this point on, there’s now way Obama could win in the general election.

Report this

By Maani, March 23, 2008 at 9:02 am Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By bert, March 23, 2008 at 8:40 am Link to this comment

“...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? Please say it is. PLEEAASSEE!!

Cyrena…...the operative word was ‘here’ in this, in this and only this post. I made no promise, and your polite language will not persuade me.

I AM NOT GOING AWAY !!!!!! I AM HERE TO STAY!!!!!!!!!

Report this

By Hammo, March 23, 2008 at 8:40 am Link to this comment

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

The issue of ethnicity in America is front and center in this campaign ... and it is complex.

Even in “white” America, there are many diverse ethnicities with religious and historical variations.

Some of these issues are explored in the articles:

“Obama faces Ohio hearts and minds”

AmericanChronicle.com
February 28, 2008

http://americanchronicle.com/articles/53747

-  -  -

“Obama’s Iraq position, mixed ethnicity are key factors”

AmericanChronicle.com
February 22, 2008

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/53128

Report this

By Maani, March 23, 2008 at 8:32 am Link to this comment

bert:

“I challenge you Cyrena to take each of my points,one by one, and rebut them with facts and citations from biographies or other sources rather than just personal feelings, ideas, and thoughts.”

Good luck!  Cyrena has made it abundantly clear that she does not even have the time, energy or inclination to type two words into Google to find out that she is wrong about something (e.g., Hillary “never” having been a law professor).  So what makes you think she will take the time to actually familiarize herself with the facts, and rebut you without resorting to accusation and ad hominem attack?

She will simply tell you that she doesn’t have time to “make your case for you” - which is, of course, a classic diversionary tactic from actually providing a serious response in rebuttal.

Peace.

Report this

By bert, March 23, 2008 at 8:21 am Link to this comment

I know, Maani. Isn’t it rich?

As it is so often, Shakespeare says it best - For ‘tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petard”

Report this

By bert, March 23, 2008 at 8:13 am Link to this comment

Re: Reply to Louise’s Challenge Cyrena writes:

“You just repeated some spin,..”

“It wasn’t HONEST…”

“That was my only point, and mostly because I do become annoyed with things that are outright false, and most of these things, (specifically the spin on her allegedly acknowledging some ‘regret’ in her war authorization borders on an outright lie.”


I challenge you Cyrena to take each of my points,one by one,  and rebut them with facts and citations from biographies or other sources rather than just personal feelings, ideas, and thoughts.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 23, 2008 at 8:11 am Link to this comment

After all the controversy about Obama and his Church, some of you may find this interesting Hillary information in “The Nation:http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080331/ehrenreich

It seems to be a negative spin on Hillary, it seems strange to me, almost sounds neocon?

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, March 23, 2008 at 8:10 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I see in both Token, and Hill-the-business-shill supporters a total lack of understanding toward anyone who has the balls to “diss” their candidate.

People see the world through different lenses, and they have different experiences. Hillary’s advocacy of pardon for folks who placed a bomb in my father’s office building, or all the candidates, whom I see as totally self-serving, or Token, an empty suit who masquerades as the second-coming of FDR

Report this

By bert, March 23, 2008 at 8:01 am Link to this comment

.....Reply to Cyrena’s Reply to Reply to Louise’s Challenge

Joe writes:    “The guy who has been groomed to run by powerbrokers and moneymen? A guy who did basically nothing in the IL legislature until someone decided to advance his career by cherry-picking the legislative efforts of so many others, erasing their names, and writing Obama over them in ink?”

GREAT point. However, I am willing to wager that most of Obama’s supporters have no idea what you are refering to. UNFORTUNATELY for us Democrats and even more unfortunately for the country and the Constitution.

Report this

By bert, March 23, 2008 at 7:54 am Link to this comment

Expat, you write,  “We whites are not in an enviable position; we’re a minority in the world..”

Explore this and develop this idea a bit more. What exactly do you mean by this statement? By white, I assume you mean white Europeans. If this is so, hasn’this group always been in the minority?

Toy also state, “....we will find ourselves a despised minority…’

Aren’t we (USA) already a despied minority?

Report this

By bert, March 23, 2008 at 7:46 am Link to this comment

Well thought out and written, Maani.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, March 23, 2008 at 7:38 am Link to this comment

You are right. Hillary should call it a day. I agree. She can’t win without the superdels support. (neither can Obama, but still) She can’t win without FL and MI. She can’t win unless Obama, according to Politico, “Gets hit by a political meteor”. Well given the massive shift in public opinion since TX and Ohio and the sudden realization that Obama’s momentum has been stopped and his negitive polling numbers jumped 15 points in a week, Hate-media sharks sniffing his gusher of blood in the water, are you willing to risk 4 more years of Bush policy? Don’t forget at least two SCOTUS seats and an energy policy that moves us no closer to energy independance. That’s a hell of a gamble to take with no insurance policy or fall back plan. Or did you think John Kerry, John Edwards, Nancy and Al were going to come up with a last minute plan if Obama implodes?

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, March 23, 2008 at 7:22 am Link to this comment

Oh Maani! That’s SOOOO 15 minutes ago, don’t you know we’ve all moved on from that? The Passport Investigation Obama screamed for just the other night has faded into the twilight of political distraction. No need to focus on this anymore the newscycle has moved on from Rev. Wright so they’re all set. No need to delve too deeply into the tactics of opposition research now that the nomination is over and Politico is calling for Hillary to get out. Notice how quickly when things get bad for Obama they start screaming for Hillary to get out of the race. Sorry this tactic won’t work in the general election. McCain won’t back down. The well-funded GOP Hate Machine won’t back down. If you think Hillary is splitting the party wait until there isn’t even a pretense of pulling a punch. Obama may have survived just long enough to fool the democratic voters, seven months are a hell of a long time in politics out there by yourself facing the full force of the opposition.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, March 23, 2008 at 7:15 am Link to this comment

Say what you want about Hillary but I know what to expect from her and her family. Do they have faults? Plenty for sure. But ask yourself who’s running on the Faith Hope and Change theme? Who’s pledged to run a different kind of campaign the one that doesn’t use the politics of personal destruction (personally anyway) it just brings another guy on stage to stand next to while HE or SHE beats the drum of personal destruction. It’s about character, huh? How much do you know and trust about Obama’s character? I know I was willing to believe at one time, but there have been too many gaps in his credibility to allow me to believe that he is anything more than a typical politician who will say (or have others say) anything and do anything to get elected. If you believe otherwise than prepare for the bitter pill of disappointment. I can honestly report that pill tastes like shit.

Report this

By Maani, March 23, 2008 at 6:55 am Link to this comment

Louise:

“Let’s see some honest Hillary elevating. Let’s see Hillary’s supporters rise to the challenge and present an honest thoughtful and precise case for her election.”

I have explained this before, but I will do so again.

It was never my intention to do as you suggest.  In that regard, I will state again that I support Hillary because I believe she would be the best, most effective president of the current candidates.  I base this on what I know of each of them politically and personally (both good and bad), their stated policies and positions (which ANY of them may or may not live up to), and the fact that I believe it is time, after 220 years, to put a “woman’s touch” to the presidency, which has been (mis)handled by men for most of its history. And, yes, I believe this even of THIS woman. Further, I do not believe that campaign tactics and even personal foibles (no matter how seemingly…unseemly) have one iota to do with how a candidate would actually govern.

Rather, when I first got here, I was so shocked at the degree of Hillary-bashing - some of it legitimate, but most of it visceral - that I chose instead to bring a measure of “balance” to this by bringing to light facts about Obama that were, yes, “critical” of him, but were meant to point out flaws in his character, judgment, approach, politics, etc. - things that most of the Obama supporters here seemed to be willfully blind to.  This was NOT an attempt to get Obama supporters to switch sides - I am not that naive - but rather to gauge whether they were even aware of their candidates’ “negatives.”

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.

I am NOT excusing Hillary’s words, actions, tactics or other negatives.  She has them, and I am well aware of all of them.  But I “expect” nothing else from her, so little she says or does is going to change my overall belief that she would STILL make the best, most effective president.  On the other hand, Obama “dug his own grave” when he ran on a platform of principle, integrity, character and judgment, only to have all of them blow up in his face as various aspects of his past - both political and personal - came to light. Thus, unlike Hillary - from whom we EXPECT a certain type of behavior - Obama claimed he has not and would engage in certain types of behavior, so when it came to light that he had and does, it betrayed the very foundation of his candidacy.  It made him (by perception if not by fact) an even bigger liar and phony than Hillary.

I apologize if this response does not satisfy you or others.  I have no obligation to do so. And I further apologize if you and others take my approach as simply “muckraking” for muckraking’s sake.  It is not that either.  As noted, my presence here has been and continues to be a matter of balancing the rabid anti-Hillary tone of both many of the participants here and the site in general.

Peace.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, March 23, 2008 at 6:32 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“The Democratic Party: Nominating Losers Since 1840.”

Well Joe, four of the largest landslides on record were between 1940 and now two belonged to the Republicans (Reagan Nixon) and two to the Democrats (Roosvelt Johnson. The Republicans clearly out-did the Democrats in numbers of Presidents, but they had
a much higher tendency to leave incomplete terms Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley were assassinated, Warren Harding Died in office, and Richard Nixon was forced to resign. During the same time period The Democrats lost FDR who died in office, and Kennedy who was assassinated.


Unfortunately you make a good point about the nomination process. Both the Dems and the Repubs have had some lousy presidents, BUT (in my personal estimation) The Derms have out done them selves in the “giving us shit” department.

James K. Polk gave us a war of aggression and the most racist anti-native policy of our history.

Franklin Pierce supported the Kansas-Nebraska Act, He proposed repeal of the Missouri Compromise and favored the expansion of slavery in the West.
He also was linked to the Ostend Manifesto which proposed yet another war of aggression. He was an alcholic who was abandoned by his party, and who before dying of cirrhosis, declared his support for the Confederacy.

James Buchanan was pro slavery, and just about killed his own party by his nefarious actions in support of the Lecompton Constitution in Kansas. This action made Kansas a hostile country, and caused much death and destruction.

Attempting to qull the fires raging over slavery, secession, and State’s rights, Lincoln and Johnson ran on the National Union ticket in 1864. Johnson was the only President (other than Bill Clinton) to be impeached.

The Country had had just about enough, and elected three Republicans in a row. The third was shot in his first year, bringing on a fourth.

Grover Cleveland was a Clintonesque president alienating the party’s union base.

Woodrow Wilson got us into an expensive war and gave us the “income tax.”

All in all a pretty sorry lot.

Hill-the-business-shill OR Token will fit right in!

Report this

By Maani, March 23, 2008 at 6:17 am Link to this comment

Cyrena:

“Hillary was never a law professor…”

She spent two years as a professor at the University of Arkansas School of Law.  You could easily have found this by simply typing “Hillary Professor” into Google, or even looking at her Wiki bio.  But you have already proven your laziness in obtaining facts, so it doesn’t surprise me that you would this unequivocal pronouncement without bothering to ascertain whether it was true.

Peace.

Report this

By Expat, March 23, 2008 at 5:08 am Link to this comment

James Carville is a fossil; who care what he says?  On the other hand, Gov. Bill Richardson is Hispanic and that makes him very relevant, unlike Carville.  He recognizes that blacks and Hispanic have a common enemy and a common goal.  Hillary (aka, the Clintons) has gone from candidate to spoiler. 
Not only did Gov. Bill Richardson endorse Obama, but gave clear and very important reasons why.  We whites are not in an enviable position; we’re a minority in the world and we better start paying attention or we’ll find ourselves in deep shit!  Equality and egalitarianism are the only acceptable alternatives cum realities.  If we cannot truly begin a policy based on these principals we will find ourselves a despised minority and suffer the worse for it.  We will find out first hand what discrimination is and it ain’t pretty.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, March 23, 2008 at 4:43 am Link to this comment

“But, when they found out that he actually owned the business, they were pissed. So I remember my friend’s dad telling her that if she was coming down to the station for any reason, to be sure NOT to drive one of their more expensive cars.”

The personal experiences one has with racial bias cannot help but influence that person’s beliefs. Would you agree? Cyrena you believe in your heart that most if not all of Rev. Wright’s comments are true, if not based at least in the truth, right? I can say that as a 40 yr-old white guy from a state, shall we say, not known for it’s rich racial diversity, I can’t quite get my head around your anger. Not only is it not a daily part of my day I’ve very seldomly been exposed to any racism. I’ll never forget dating a girl from Henry County, GA in college. I went to visit her at her home one summer and the very first words I head from her daddy were, “You strap in tight boy, I’m gonna drive you over to where we buried the Yankees after Sherman’s March.” No nice hello, right? That family made me feel really uncomfortable about where I was from and it got worse from there. I was shocked to be advised not to be ‘too noticable’ while taking the train (MARTA: Moving Africans Rapidly Through Atlanta - They laughed, I didn’t.) into Peachtree Center because College Park (Or Colored Park as they called it) was no place to find myself. I could not get out of there fast enough. I stopped dating southern girls at about that time and eventually found one of those liberal and beautiful California girls I had heard so much about. Just that one week, many years ago, convinces me that black America has a lot to be pissed about. I get that. Many won’t. At the same time we acknowlege the racial divides that crisscross the country, a really good candidate has been marginalized by his association with a church many will ignorantly decide (or be sold on by Fox)that this association with Trinity is a deal breaker. I think it’s too big a mountain to have to cross, but I hope I’m wrong and the Democrats take back the White House. In a long, rambling way, as usual my point is this. Please don’t assume that because I prefer Hillary that by default I am against the black guy in the race. I’m not a racist, but I know I’ve met some.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, March 23, 2008 at 3:39 am Link to this comment

“At best, (even with leaving out the more important truths because they were negative) you failed to present anything more than that Hillary was a nice person who’s done some good work in some areas, at some times. None of this is a case for her election to the highest office in the land.”

So then we should all get behind the groomed one then? The guy who has been groomed to run by powerbrokers and moneymen? A guy who did basically nothing in the IL legislature until someone decided to advance his career by cherry-picking the legislative efforts of so many others, erasing their names, and writing Obama over them in ink?

This party is crazy to nominate a one-third of one-term freshman senator who voted for the war and Dick Chaney’s energy plan. You Dreamcatchers and Rainbows go ahead and pump up the air inside the empty suit if you want to. Our party slogan should be something like:

The Democratic Party: Nominating Losers Since 1840.

Report this

By Expat, March 23, 2008 at 3:31 am Link to this comment

^ scholarsandrogues is great, I love it.

Report this

By cyrena, March 23, 2008 at 1:57 am Link to this comment

I understand Bert, but Louise said..Let’s see some HONEST Hillary evaluating, and an HONEST, thoughtful and precise case for her election.”

It wasn’t HONEST bert, even if you DID leave out the negatives. It wasn’t HONEST or thoughtful, because it included things that were untrue bert. So at best, that means that you didn’t check the stuff out.

You just repeated some spin, and called in an honest, thoughtful, and precise case for her election.

At best, (even with leaving out the more important truths because they were negative) you failed to present anything more than that Hillary was a nice person who’s done some good work in some areas, at some times. None of this is a case for her election to the highest office in the land.

That was my only point, and mostly because I do become annoyed with things that are outright false, and most of these things, (specifically the spin on her allegedly acknowleging some ‘regret’ in her war authorization borders on an outright lie.

Now the lie about her being a law professor may not seem all that significant, but it STILL is not an honest, thoughtful or concise case for her election.

MAYBE it showed some sort of ‘courage’ that she brought her African-American associates to her church even though that was when segregation was still in effect. (actually, in Arkansas, it still is). BUT, was that really a benefit to her associates? I ask because if somebody had dragged me into a fundamentalist church in Arkansas, I would have felt terrorized, and suffered PTSD for years afterward. Just thinking about it now gives me the willies.

So, it could be that as a white person, you thought that was really ‘admirable’ but to others, it may just be an indication of the assumed arrogance that the dominant culture has. Like, gee…I’m gonna be real brave, and let these black people come to my church, even though all of my white friends might not like it.

So no. It wasn’t an honest or thoughtful case for why she should be the president. Matter of fact, it just gave more reasons why she shouldn’t be.

Still, it was real nice of her to do all of that good work. (and invite her black associates to her white church).

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 22, 2008 at 10:48 pm Link to this comment

Not sure Bert, Richardson may have selected Obama, because Hillary did not appeal to him, maybe Hillary even insulted him, because he was late with his move. Plus he may feel more in line with Obama’s way of dealing with issues, maybe Richardson feels the momentum will carry Obama all the way. And a job in the Whitehouse.  Seems that a lot of the folks supporting their person, running are hopeing for some perks.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, March 22, 2008 at 7:18 pm Link to this comment

“The worst force we have to confront at present is the politically-correct fools who think that their education puts them so far above everyone else. Their denials and opinions are actually as biased as the most ignorant.”

Yeah. I am so often put off by those who support Obama who whenever challenged by debate on a point will scoff and suggest that I “just don’t get it”. I have encountered this attitude often (Usually from my own hyper-educated brother) during a debate but also from the media pundits. Obama seems to do better with those voters smart enough or have multiple advanced degrees. There is an elitist element to the Obama campaign that will never reasonnate with the regular Joes like me.

John Kerry and Al Gore were always trying to prove they were the smartest men in the room. How’d that work out for them? Voters turned their backs on them by the millions in favor of a guy they wanted to have a beer with. You can be sure they’ll never want to go to church with Obama. Nor will they appreciate the precise 37 minute, 16-page constitutional law lecture on race relations when all they wanted to know was do you really belive the shit your preacher says? Why’d you stay if you don’t?

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, March 22, 2008 at 6:55 pm Link to this comment

ALL RIGHT!  Now I was reading along here and I thought ****, so then I decided **** but that wasn’t quite right, so then ***. And, **** **** ************ **** but either way **** *** ****** ******* and **** ***** so then ****.  So anyway it got me to thinking about ****** and ******.  But you know, ***** **** *** *******.

But then I found this.  I think we/Y’ALL need comic relief.  So….check it out, From Scholars and Rogues:

http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/03/22/new-rules-mccain-is-a-walking-tom-clancy-action-figure-whos-going-to-get-us-all-killed/

Report this

By bert, March 22, 2008 at 6:43 pm Link to this comment

In all honesty, Leefeller, I think it too little too late.I think it was political expediency on Richardson’s part as he wants another White House position. And I think Obama is looking for any news right now that will divert people’s attention from Rev. Wright.

You may disagree and so I would like to hear your take on it.

Report this

By bert, March 22, 2008 at 6:39 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena…...........Louise challenged Maani to: “Let’s see some honest Hillary elevating. Let’s see Hillary’s supporters rise to the challenge and present an honest thoughtful and precise case for her election. Not by putting down her opposition, but by making the case for her being the best choice.”

She did not ask Maani or me to cite Hillary’s negatives. So I did not. I gave a reasoned, honest, thoughtful, and precise case for MY support of Hillary and why I consider her to be the best choice for President.

Report this

By cyrena, March 22, 2008 at 6:25 pm Link to this comment

•  “she was a law professor and director of a legal aid clinic that helped people who couldn’t afford lawyers.”

Hillary was never a law professor, but she WAS associated with this clinic. I think she was just out of law school then, and since she was FROM MONEY (the little there is in Arkansas) she was able to do some public work.

I agree that it’s admirable. More people should do public service work. So, this is a good thing. She didn’t do it for long, and thousands of other professionals have actually made their careers in public service..helping the disadvantaged. BUT, Hillary did do this very briefly, before joining the very CORPORATE Rose Legal firm, which later represented GW Bush in some of his many run-ins after failed businesses. Her firm protected him (and other cronies) from the investors that he’d ripped off, and of course from any punishment of any kind as well.. She was NOT, (let me repeat this NOT) a professor of anything.

(I hate it when people lie).

THIS is also true, and…it was…JUST LAST WEEK.

•  Just last week, Hillary sponsored a bill to change how we use and monitor private defense contractors.

Long story on this one, but to put it in the nutshell, an Illinois rep that has been on this issue for a long time, finally convinced Hillary to sign on to a bill. Hillary did NOT ‘sponsor’ it. And, she had AVOIDED ever responding to the crucial issue before, especially as it relates to Blackwater contractors. (her other partners in crime).

“Hillary publicly acknowledged regret for her 2002 Iraq war vote.  It’s refreshing to hear a politician admit regrets—after seven years of a president who stubbornly refuses to admit (and learn from) failures.”

Bert, you haven’t been here long, so you wouldn’t be aware of the detailed discussion on the issue of Hillary ever even ACKNOWLGING that she’d made an ‘error in judgment’ let alone an apology. John Edwards did, but Hillary has refused, (for over 5 years) to acknowledge that. The very best she’s come up with, (and only recently) is to say that ‘if she knew then, what she knows now”…blah, blah.
Well, this hasn’t been ‘missed’ by the American public, because too many average citizens KNEW THEN, and even more of us KNOW NOW that the war authorization Hillary provided was for an illegal war. Now we don’t expect every American to know the legalities involved in using preemptive military force against a sovereign nation state, but…WE DO EXPECT OUR LEADERS TO KNOW (THE LAWS) and we expect them to abide by them.

This is actually Hillary’s biggest error, and the largest thing that she had going against her when she came into this race. What it means is that she either DIDN’T KNOW THE LAWS that were violated by her authorization, OR…she didn’t care. Either way, millions have died, Iraq is in shambles, our economy is in shambles, and we’ve got wounded troops that will need care for decades. And…and they’re still dying. (4 more today.) So, tell us what Hillary has ‘learned’, and just how ‘refreshing’ it is, when it’s been at our expense?

One bill that you don’t mention here, is the one that she hawked to label one of Iran’s military units as a “terrorist” organization. That was the Kyle-Lieberman bill. It’s ugly, and just another indication of her warmongering stance.
The rest of the stuff about visiting the nations and all is really nice bert. I’ve done much of the same work, though not nearly as much as my colleagues who have devoted their entire careers to it.
None of us is qualified to be president though.

Neither is Hillary.

And, she’s already lost.

I’d be really impressed if she was a big enough person to step down, quit the race, and use her energies and influence to get the other Democrat elected.

Now THAT would show some integrity, character, and patriotism.

That isn’t gonna happen any more than she’s ever gonna admit error in authorizing an illegal war.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 22, 2008 at 5:58 pm Link to this comment

First positive post, thanks Burt.  What is your take on the Richardson support of Obama?

Report this

By cyrena, March 22, 2008 at 5:46 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller,

Kind of impossible to avoid the truth in this..

•  “From what I have seen from the Hillary crowd, most of them seem to have some aversion to black and minorities Anytime someone uses race to attack or belittle someone they are racist in my book.”

I mean, it is what it is…right? And, the truth shall set us free. And avoid a lot of wasted time and energy by just acknowledging it for what it is. I mean, some things and/or people just can’t change. But damned if a racist won’t go out of their way, and round and round to ‘prove’ that they aren’t racists.

Bingo! There’s the proof.

Anyway, this blog identifies them quickly enough, and probably more so, because a lot of these folks wouldn’t be able to post this stuff on other forums. And you’re right, ignorance DOES breed ignorance.

Still, it serves a purpose to get a very small dose of them, because unfortunately, these sorts never really go away. (lib in Texas..perfect example). This allows them to serve as ‘practice warnings’ for the rest of us.

I really wasn’t myself, until I was much older, and so I wasn’t really prepared for it. That is particularly the case since the semi-success of the Civil Rights Movement, because of course blatant racism and discrimination became illegal. That doesn’t change ignorant mentalities of course, and we know that morality can’t be legislated, and integrity can’t be purchased or injected.

So, the racist mentalities express themselves in other ways. With the Internet, people assume a certain amount of anonymity, so they will say and do more than they might otherwise.

Another interesting display of the same thing, that isn’t always easily recognized, is that racists may ‘seem’ perfectly OK with blacks and minorities, AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT SEEN AS ‘HAVING MORE’ than they do. When that happens, they (people like Obama) are considered ‘uppity’ blacks (or worse).  That’s when it really comes out.

When I first relocated to TX many years ago, I was amazed to learn that a dear friend’s father, who owned a gas/auto repair station in Dallas for years, could never let his customers know that he actually ‘owned’ it. As long as he was ‘just the mechanic’ it was fine, and he had lots of business.  But, when they found out that he actually owned the business, they were pissed. So I remember my friend’s dad telling her that if she was coming down to the station for any reason, to be sure NOT to drive one of their more expensive cars. She had to drive the raggedy ones. We couldn’t converse using big words either. That part was a little tricky for me, because I’m from Calif, and so I never developed an ‘accent’ or learned how to talk ‘Texan’. It was an ‘interesting’ experience.

Anyway, that’s the way it was then, and not a whole lot has changed in some of those places.

Report this

By bert, March 22, 2008 at 5:32 pm Link to this comment

Louise writes:    “Lets see some honest Hillary elevating. Let’s see Hillary’s supporters rise to the challenge and present an honest thoughtful and precise case for her election. Not by putting down her opposition, but by making the case for her being the best choice.”

Don’t know if Maani has taken you up on your challenge yet, but I sure will.  But since I am a lazy person and see no reason to reinvent the wheel I will simply provide what someone else did. It is the best I have seen and I agree with all of it.

Two things before the honest thoughtful and precise case for her election. One, to save space I did not copy the list of bills promised at the end of the piece. You can go to the site yourself to view. Two, this site is even and fair minded. The same day they also posted an article why Obama should be elected. I will leave it to you to go to the site and read.

The web site by the way is excellent and is Buck Naked Politics.

WHY I SUPPORT HILLARY AND YOU SHOULD CONSIDER SAME

“by D. Cupples | Buck Naked Politics

Long before she was first lady, Hillary Clinton worked to help under-represented citizens. In the ‘60s, she fought for civil rights—even brought black friends to a then-segregated church.  In the ‘70s, she worked for the Children’s Defense Fund and was one of the staff attorneys that helped investigate the Watergate scandal.  Before that decade closed, she was a law professor and director of a legal aid clinic that helped people who couldn’t afford lawyers. 

That’s more public service than many people perform in a lifetime.

Hillary was an active first lady and used those eight years in Washington to learn about and focus on policy and process.  Hillary visited many nations and helped her husband promote worldwide good will toward America.

Much of the world actually liked America during the Clinton years, and our next president will have to rebuild that good will which George Bush managed to crush.

Hillary tried to reform our health care system in the early ‘90s—which might have prevented the current crisis.  The political climate was unfriendly: 1) the Gingrich group opposed all things Clinton; and 2) poor health care coverage was not on most Americans’ radars, because it hadn’t yet reached crisis proportions.

Though Hillary’s efforts were resisted, she managed to increase health care for children a few years later—without even having a vote in Congress.
Hillary has worked with Republicans since joining the Senate, though some of those people had treated her badly just a few years earlier.

Hillary understands the many flaws of President Bush’s economic policies and has tried to change them.  Check out her detailed explanations and plans here.

Hillary publicly acknowledged regret for her 2002 Iraq war vote.  It’s refreshing to hear a politician admit regrets—after seven years of a president who stubbornly refuses to admit (and learn from) failures.

Hillary has actively served on the Senate Armed Services committee and managed to impress enough flag-rank military officers that 27 of them endorsed her candidacy last week.  I don’t know what “flag-rank” means, but the words general and admiral are all over the list.

Hillary’s Senate committee assignments encompass a broad array of issues—including education, labor, pensions, the environment, again, and health—which gives her a broad policy foundation.

Just last week, Hillary sponsored a bill to change how we use and monitor private defense contractors.
I can’t cover it all here, so I’ll list some of Hillary’s Senate votes that I like. Note that I haven’t found a single politician yet (local, state or federal) with whose voting record (or goals) I completely agree. ..... “

Go to site to view list of bills.

Report this

By bert, March 22, 2008 at 5:10 pm Link to this comment

“Truthfulness is a nasty word according to the Obamaholics!”

Obamabots prefer truthiness instead. Didn’t you know that lib? Has a nicer more liltting sound to it. Plus you don’t have to work or bother about research, logic, knowledge and thinking.

Report this

By bert, March 22, 2008 at 5:04 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller writes:    “but they may be surprised to find they are really alone.”

That is NOT correct, Leefeller. We comprise at least 50% of the voters. So keep on insulting us. Because when you need campaign funds and workers for your campaign in the fall don’t be surprised if we opt out.

Leefeller writes:      “From what I have seen from the Hillary crowd, most of them seem to have some aversion to black and minorities Anytime someone uses race to attack or belittle someone they are racist in my book. “

You are a ritual defamer per Laird Wilcox. You know nothing of me and my background or what I really think of Rev. Wright’s sermons and any facts contained within them.

However, I do know politics and how to win an election. And I can guarantee you that Rev. Wright’s views and sermons will be used in attack ads this fall. And I guarantee you they will not play well among a majority of ma and pop, red white and blue, Main Street voters in a General Election. Polls show they do not play well now. Weaved into a narrative with ‘lapel pins,’ ‘hand over heart,’ For the first time on my adult life I am proud of my country,’ they will weave a seamless portrait that will surely bring down Obama. Now those are cold, hard facts, sir.

Whether you like us or not, you will need us in the General if a Dem is to win. Best to stop your divisive and childish name calling now and begin to act as the unifying force you say your candidate represents.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, March 22, 2008 at 4:55 pm Link to this comment

By Conservative Yankee, March 22: “It is my understanding that Cyrena (still black and female) posted a “Maani-festo” (Maani like diatribe) by Frank Schaeffer… who is the white male… I don’t know why you and Maani are so bitter and angry, as an old hand in many political movements….”

I agree about politicians as a choice between “lesser-evils”, CY, but I don’t have anything to say against either cyrena or Obama except as their own words indicate.  I am neither bitter nor angry and nor is Maani…....

Perhaps things won’t actually turn out as bad as you assume, though. Hopefully, the days of presidential assassinations (in the USA and elsewhere) are over.

At least change and the emotional issues of human circumstance regarding living in America are now all open to discussion. That is something that both Hillary Clinton AND Barack Obama have contributed to.

The worst force we have to confront at present is the politically-correct fools who think that their education puts them so far above everyone else. Their denials and opinions are actually as biased as the most ignorant.

Matters of race and sex and age and religion all have to be addressed openly now. The issues of prejudice surrounding each must be admitted and positively analyzed. It is a cleansing process without which change will be impossible, never mind progress.

This is actually a time of great opportunity, CY. But the reality of UNITY must still be kept in mind. The Obama followers of The Ring have forgotten that they do NOT own the Democrats and are only no more than half of their party.

Report this

By Maani, March 22, 2008 at 4:53 pm Link to this comment

“CHIEF OF FIRM INVOLVED IN PASSPORT BREACH IS OBAMA ADVISOR”

WASHINGTON (CNN)—The CEO of a company whose employee is accused of improperly looking at the passport files of presidential candidates is a consultant to the Barack Obama campaign, a source said Saturday.

John O. Brennan, president and CEO of the Analysis Corp., advises the Illinois Democrat on foreign policy and intelligence issues, the source said.

Brennan briefed the media on behalf of the campaign this month.  The executive is a former senior CIA official and former interim director of the National Counterterrorism Center.  He contributed $2,300 to the Obama campaign in January.  When asked about the contribution, a State Department official told CNN’s Zain Verjee, “We ethically awarded contracts. Political affiliation is not one of the factors that we check.”

On Friday, the department revealed that Obama’s passport file was improperly accessed three times this year, and the passport files of the two other major presidential candidates—Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican John McCain—had also been breached…”

Read the rest here:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/22/passport.files/index.html

Peace.

Report this

By bert, March 22, 2008 at 4:45 pm Link to this comment

Already saw and read Politico.com article before you posted it.

But Hillary is not going to get out of this election because you want it or hope for it. And no matter how much Obama wants it.

The primary election cycle will play itself out. Period. To ask, let alone have the AUDACIATY to tell some one to get out the race is absurd.

For the sake of discussion and debate, let’s say that in the General Election McCain is ahead 80% ahead in the polls than Obama.  (Or reverse that if you want.) So McCain tells Obama, get out of the campaign, the election is over. You shouldn’t run any longer. You lost.

No one would expect Obama to cede the election at that pint in time.

So get real folks. Political commentators nor candidates have the right to tell another candidate when to get out of a race.  It is undemocratic.

Then there is another issue here. When I or Maani, or someone, maybe Douglas Chalmers, posted an article on this site from Politico.com many of you jumped on that sating Politico was a CONSERVATIVE blog and that proved we were mot Democrats, but trolls. Are you saying that about yourselves now?

As for the Truth Out article which says in part:    “Obama won. The delegate race is effectively over. Dick Cheney was up front with Bush campaign minions during the 2000 Florida recount, “Just get control of the Oval Office ... it doesn’t matter how ... just do it.” Machiavelli could not have said it better himself.”

I agree with that 100%. Obama IS a Machiavellian dirty politics at its worse politician. He is right up there with the best: Cheney, Bush, and Rove.

Report this

By Maani, March 22, 2008 at 4:36 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena:

“He was talking about her meeting with a group of workers in India/Latin America/take your pick. They were complaining about losing some contract work, (according to Maani) so Hillary worked it out with Gloria Vanderbuilt, to have them get more of the market to manufacture/produce more of the Gloria Vanderbuilt line over in whatever country it was that needed the work. So, Maani presented that as something ‘positive’ that Hillary accomplished.”

Once again we see how bad your memory is.  Just as with the other case in which you attributed to me something that someone else said - and then at least had the humility to apologize to me when you realized that you “might” have done so - here you are again attributing to me something put forth by someone else.  In fact, I don’t even know what the heck you are talking about here.

So please.  If you are going to accuse me of things, at least make sure the things you accuse me of are things I actually said.

Peace.

Report this

By Lee, March 22, 2008 at 4:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Obama and his supporters keep saying that the democratic nominee should be the one who gets the most popular votes ... not super delegates. But, in addition to Obama accepting Richardson’s delegate vote, even though Hillary won the popular vote in New Mexico ... it’s apparent that if Obama’s 20 year association with racist Wright (and indirect association with Farrakan) had been known a year ago by the public ... Obama would not have gained a lead in the popular vote ... in fact, he probably wouldn’t even still be in the race at all!

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, March 22, 2008 at 4:33 pm Link to this comment

Its the boys’ club thing all over again, bert…....

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, March 22, 2008 at 4:28 pm Link to this comment

Worse to come from The Ring’s psychos and sickos,  lib in texas…...

Report this

By lib in texas, March 22, 2008 at 4:11 pm Link to this comment

Louise, typical Obamaholic reply.  Do you not watch t.v.  Unless they made it up on t.v. its not lie, lies and more lies. 
Thats your forte !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Report this

By cyrena, March 22, 2008 at 4:02 pm Link to this comment

Oh Louise…

You know he isn’t up to the challenge!!

How long have I been asking him to do exactly this?

Probably months at this point. He never has.

I remember one single time, where maybe he was trying, and by then, he didn’t realize that he wasn’t really making a case for her at all.

He was talking about her meeting with a group of workers in India/Latin America/take your pick. They were complaining about losing some contract work, (according to Maani) so Hillary worked it out with Gloria Vanderbuilt, to have them get more of the market to manufacture/produce more of the Gloria Vanderbuilt line over in whatever country it was that needed the work.

So, Maani presented that as something ‘positive’ that Hillary accomplished.

Aside from that, there’s been NOTHING. All he ever does is bad-mouth the competition via lies/innuendo/distortion/distraction/spin…

When he isn’t attacking Obama or somebody that knows Obama, or somebody that knows somebody that knows Obama, or somebody that knows somebody that knows somebody that knows Obama’s pharmacist, meter reader, grocer, or gardner…he’s attacking ME!!

Oh…sometimes he posts campaign funds (always with nice round numbers) and then sometimes he posts names of different people who he thinks are attached to the CFR or the Trilateral Commission, and then he puts those names under another column that attaches them to Obama or even Hillary.

I’m not sure why he thinks anybody cares, but hey, sometimes I have to break out the leggos when the little guys are around.

Same principle I guess…

Report this

By lib in texas, March 22, 2008 at 4:00 pm Link to this comment

Richardson flew back from a vacation (some islands)
to back Obama. One pundit said he would have liked to have heard that phone call.  Sincerity, in his I’m backing Obama speech what a farce !!!!! He had no intentions of coming out for Obama when he did.  The whole Obama campaign is full of nasty dirty politics.

Report this

By lib in texas, March 22, 2008 at 3:46 pm Link to this comment

Hate and divisive tactics from the Obama supporters is unprecedented.  Hillary supporters are bigots racists, morons, idiots, that according to a whole lot of posts on this tread alone. They are the ones dividing the party.  Truthfulness is a nasty word according to the Obamaholics!

Report this

By cyrena, March 22, 2008 at 3:45 pm Link to this comment

A few reality checks here. Clintonistas can cover their eyes if they want. Or, pray for miracles. Or, keep up the scorched earth plan.

Story Behind the Story: The Clinton Myth
  By Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen
  The Politico

21 March 2008
  One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.

  Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.

  Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote - which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle - and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.

  People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet.

  As it happens, many people inside Clinton’s campaign live right here on Earth. One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives.

  In other words: The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe.

  The real question is why so many people are playing. The answer has more to do with media psychology than with practical politics.

  Journalists have become partners with the Clinton campaign in pretending that the contest is closer than it really is. Most coverage breathlessly portrays the race as a down-to-the-wire sprint between two well-matched candidates, one only slightly better situated than the other to win in August at the national convention in Denver.

  Contd here
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032208A.shtml

Time to Bow Out
  By Marc Ash
  t r u t h o u t | Perspective
06 March 2008

  Hillary Clinton had a good day on March 4. She reminded us she exists in her own right, and we may feel free to assume she played more than a trivial role in the Clinton presidential administration of the 90s. That said, she is the second most successful Democratic presidential candidate running this year, not the first. The most successful candidate running this year is Barack Obama.

  Can she make a comeback? Sure. But it would necessarily involve “politics by other means.” Scorched earth politics, to be specific. As Jonathan Alter, writing for Newsweek, points out, Hillary does have an unsolvable Math Problem. To put March 4 in perspective, with three wins out of four primaries (and a caucus in Texas), Clinton gained a grand total of 12 delegates. That’s according to The New York Times. Bottom line, she’s not going in the front door. Obama will arrive at the convention with a pledged delegate lead in triple digits.

  How we got here matters. The Clinton campaign assured us in advance they would prevail in the “big states” of Texas and Ohio; and so they did. But what made them so sure? They pursued a big state strategy from the onset, the traditional Democratic strategy of the last two decades. The Obama camp, however, went with the newly minted Howard Dean strategy, a small state, small ball game plan. Obama won. The delegate race is effectively over.

  Dick Cheney was up front with Bush campaign minions during the 2000 Florida recount, “Just get control of the Oval Office ... it doesn’t matter how ... just do it.” Machiavelli could not have said it better himself.

read more:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030608A.shtml

Report this

By Louise, March 22, 2008 at 3:38 pm Link to this comment

bert, March 22 at 11:47 am #

“Reply to Louise
I kind of lost your point in that long and rambling piece. It sort of lacked coherence.”

coherence:
“A set of beliefs or theories are in coherence when they are mutually supportive and none are inconsistent with any other ... “

Uhh ... memorizing, long wordy speechifying via memorizing. play acting via memorizing. Stand up comic routine via memorizing. Preaching via memorizing ... uhhh,
Oh never mind.

I am sorry bert.

From now on. I will keep it simple. Four or five word sentences. So you wont get confused.

Report this

By cyrena, March 22, 2008 at 3:20 pm Link to this comment

“...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? Please say it is. PLEEAASSEE!!

And, it only has to be HERE. We don’t care where else you might keep repeating yourself. Just please promise that you mean this.

BTW…I too support single payer health care. You say Obama doesn’t. Hillary doesn’t either. Their plans are the same, with the exception of the fact that Hillary’s has a mandate that she can’t enforce.
McCain doesn’t have one at all.

Meantime, Americans who pay attention actually DO know Barack Obama’s REAL position on Iraq. Maybe you missed it when you were in one of your coma’s.

But, if you’d just maybe do some of the hard work and research, you could figure it out. (actually, just some basic reading skills would do it…not really hard at all).

Last on the list…

Hillary doesn’t stand a chance, for anyone who (as Maani would say) is keeping a count of those annoying little FACTS. Like…the NUMBERS!!

Report this

By Louise, March 22, 2008 at 3:14 pm Link to this comment

Maani,

Prove me wrong. Lets see the attacks that threaten the chance of a democrat wining in November stop. Lets see some honest Hillary elevating. Lets see Hillary’s supporters rise to the challenge and present an honest thoughtful and precise case for her election. Not by putting down her opposition, but by making the case for her being the best choice.
Lets see that Maani.

Are you up to the challenge?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 22, 2008 at 2:25 pm Link to this comment

You you do, maybe you should give it up.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, March 22, 2008 at 2:12 pm Link to this comment

It seems to me supporters under Hillary’s great armpit of wisdom and solid unifying abilities have been able to handedly destroy the Democratic Party.  When Hillary supports McCain and herself as the best candidates, she has attempted in her unifying way to take votes from the Democratic Party. 

Richardson stated he found the Hillary staff insulting, while I have found the Hillary supporters shrill negative and constant form of attack both bigoted and divisive. Hillary unifying tactic works so well.  And I also know, we have not seen anything yet. 

The bigots have been enjoying themselves, but they may be surprised to find they are really alone.  Sorry, when I see racism in any way shape or form, I want to call them on it, racism and ignorance provide a breeding ground for more of the same. 

Bigots and racists love the Wright comments, even though taken out of context, even though the comments may be the blunt truth, even though Wright served his country in the Marines. Especially though, because Wright is black, having this black talk about our great country this way should not be.

From what I have seen from the Hillary crowd, most of them seem to have some aversion to black and minorities Anytime someone uses race to attack or belittle someone they are racist in my book.

Hate and divisive tactics are from the Hillary side, to argue against Hillary is only to receive the wrath of Hillary and her clones. Sure I could ignore them, but what’s the fun in that?

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, March 22, 2008 at 1:30 pm Link to this comment

Nice try bert.

I think your KKK analogy is badly flawed. It has to be an organization that at least has a veneer of public respectability. Belonging to a church like Trinity might be closer to being a member of an all-white country club. You go for the God/Golf and in doing so you aren’t necessarily a racist/sexist because although there may be some underground racial beliefs at the core of the organization, if you never personally heard any then what’s the harm when the sky is so blue and the grass is so green?

Supporting a racist church is not too much different than joining the Whites Only Please Country Club and Tennis Resort. It’s about $20,500 a year in dues, you get the political benefits of belonging and you can always say you were only there for the golf. If anyone ever questions you, that is.

You just better hope the teaching pro doesn’t utter a racial slur at his African American caddie on the video lessons he sells on the internet. Then you might have a political problem on your hands…

Report this

By Maani, March 22, 2008 at 1:27 pm Link to this comment

Louise:

“It’s really sad that you folks who claim to support Hillary never spend any time promoting Hillary. With supporters like you, she doesn’t need any detractors.  In fact I think you’re all frauds. I think the last thing in the world you want is Hillary Clinton for president. I think the only thing you want is to destroy Obama, so Hillary will win the nomination so you can then destroy her.”

Sounds like someone is engaging in ad hominem attacks because their words and positions are being challenged - and all too often shown up for the fact-challenged blind loyalty they express…

Peace.

Report this

By Maani, March 22, 2008 at 1:24 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena:

“The consideration of FACT requires objectivity. You are steeped in subjectivity, and wouldn’t know a real ‘fact’ if it flew up your nose and came out of your ear to bite you on the ass. If one did get through your brain on occasion, you’d immediately spin or otherwise distort it.”

While YOU, of course, are the most objective person here - no, pardon me, the most objective person on earth…no, wait, pardon me again - the most objective person in this or any other universe…

Do you realize how many things you say are actually self-revealing?

Peace.

Report this

By cyrena, March 22, 2008 at 1:15 pm Link to this comment

^including politicians

•  “I don’t get overly hyped by politicians and their campaigns.”

Gee bert, a look at any number (maybe ALL) of your posts would suggest OTHERWISE. “Overly hyped?” How about downright fanatical in the hate mongering? If that stuff isn’t ‘overly hyped’ I sure wouldn’t wanna be anywhere within a few thousand miles if you were.

•  “I look at it all in a more matter of fact way. I am looking to hire some one for a job. And I want to choose the best candidate, one that 1.) can win the next round of interviews (the general), and 2.) one that can run this huge beau racy. It is a pretty matter of fact exercise for me.”

Same with the rest of this bert. It belies just about every single other post you’ve ever ‘contributed’. The ‘matter of fact’ part of it is the biggest farce of these linguistics, because you’ve contorted everything to be as far from ‘fact’ as one possibly could.

The consideration of FACT requires objectivity. You are steeped in subjectivity, and wouldn’t know a real ‘fact’ if it flew up your nose and came out of your ear to bite you on the ass. If one did get through your brain on occasion, you’d immediately spin or otherwise distort it.

It’s highly patronizing for you to suggest that anyone other than you has somehow ‘placed all of their hopes’ in politicians. Most of us don’t place our hopes in ‘individuals’ because our government wasn’t set up that way. Rather, we place our hopes in the system that was established (by the founders as you mentioned) to have a government determined by the RULE OF LAW, and NOT the rule of man, which prohibits ANY man or woman from attempting to operate above the law, or outside the parameters of the law.

Politicians are simply there to make sure that the Constitution is upheld, and that’s what most Americans expect them to do.

In so far as our huge bureaucracy is concerned, it cannot be, and was never designed to be ‘run’ by one or a few people. (That’s Dick Cheney’s interpretation, and it’s incorrect). That same ‘bureaucracy’ has also doubled in size over the past 7 years, because of the typical tactics used by all fascist regimes. That is to set up duplicate government offices/agencies/bureaus which eventually create an ‘ostensible’ government, and a REAL government..where the action and the power lies.

Georgie is the mascot for the ostensible government, (the one the people see) while Dickie boy runs the real government in secret. THAT government of course, is the one that has collapsed, leaving us with a shell and nothing inside. Our real government was highjacked nearly 8 years ago.

For you to suggest (after your rantings and ravings here) that you view politicians matter-of-factly, is completely disingenuous. If that were the case, we damn sure wouldn’t be talking about Rev. Wright, who is NOT running for office.

That means you’re pretty much full of shit here bert, if only because your earlier posts prove otherwise.

Maybe if you had STARTED OUT with this, and had managed to maintain the duplicity, you could get away with it. But, you didn’t and you haven’t.

Meantime, most Americans are now fully aware of their power to hire who they want for the job, and Hillary is NOT the choice. She had determined long ago that she was ‘entitled’ to the position, and so it’s been a total upset for her to confront real competition.

That’s unfortunate for her, but that’s what happens when politicians forget that they work for us, or just assume that the people will not scrutinize them carefully. It’s a really stupid assumption to make, considering what the American people have been subjected to for over 7 years now. The old stuff just won’t fly.

So, she’s dead in the water, and we need to hire somebody who actually CAN win and do their part of the job.

Meantime, I don’t do ‘blessed’ Easters or any other such thing. Do ya think the folks in Iraq and elsewhere are having any ‘blessed’ or wonderful days?

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

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

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