Our jimmyjam seems to have bought the bogus “choir boy” image of John McCain erected by the American propaganda network, aka the corporate media.  McCain is neither a maverick nor a moderate.  When it comes to foreign policy, John “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” McCain is so far to the right, he makes the neocons look like pacifists.  He claims to be the scourge of special interests, yet has more corporate lobbyists operating within his campaign than any other candidate.  While he has attached his name to a major campaign finance legislation (McCain-Feingold) he has also outspent every opponent in every Arizona race.  Over the past decade McCain became the largest recipient of corporate media campaign contributions.  Just as he did during the Keating Five scandal when he accepted free travel on Keating’s corporate jets, then intervened in a federal investigation of Lincoln Savings & Loan--this at a time when his heiress wife was partnered with Keating in a real estate development, McCain has accepted free travel on the private jets of Ruppert Murdoch and Lowell Paxson, then intervened with the FCC on Paxson’s behalf.

“Zero pork?” Please!

Such is the one who not only turns against the hand of friendship ....but has taken up the game of spitting in peoples’ faces on TruthDig for her own spurious pleasure, ugh.

Not sure what you hoped to gain from this Chalmers. The post (my own) wasn’t to you, (that which you’ve sited) and the fact that you’ve chosen to post it in the context that you have, only reveals more of yourself.

I would question however, your use of the word ‘US’, since you are simply throwing your IEDS via internet, from somewhere in the South Pacific, (Australia is where I believe your troll location is set up) and I’m going to futher speculate at this point, that if you ever DID reside in the USA, you did NOT ‘leave willingly’.

So, just so all are aware, of who your are, and who you are NOT!

Now I suggested to Maani, that he leave ME out of his lies. Your plagerism of Obama’s speech here,

“...the past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past...”

taken out of context to apply to me, is yet more proof of your willingness to indulge in slander and the like. (Intentional lies delivered via innuendo, and very racist in nature. (since we know you are, you’ve proven that time and time again, in everything you post).

It is certainly true that I’m from California, and it’s equally true that I’ve lived much of my lifetime in other locations as well. Without doubt, I’m a global citizen. I’m actually quite proud of that.

Ipersonally am not ‘from’ the generation of Rev. Wright. He was slightly ahead of my times. HOWEVER, the most important thing to note here (about that) is that NOBODY CARES (about where I’m from, including my generation) EXCEPT YOU!!!

Yes, that’s what it all boils down to here Chalmers, and it’s not the first time that this has come up, but I guess we just have to keep dealing with it, until all can see it for what it is.

So, while we’re here on this TRUTH-revealing site, let’s make sure that ALL are aware of this OBSESSION that you’ve maintained with me, (via this website and blog) for well over a year now, beginning with the PRIVATE MESSAGES that you heaped on me, within a month of my first registering with this site. And let us take it from there, so that it is clear to ALL, that it was my very first clue that there was something seriously creepy about you, and that soon after that, I made a conscientious decision at the time, NOT to engage in any ‘private messages’ with you.

The rest I believe, most of the readers can figure out, but…to sum it up…

You’re obviously a racist, and have serious issues with people of color, but specifically MEN of color.

You do NOT reside in the US, and you probably do not or CANNOT VOTE in US elections, as a US citizen living abroad. (many ex-patriots can indeed do that, but I suspect you are not among them).

With that in mind, and considering all of our ‘new laws’ in the US under the dictatorship of Dick Bush, your comments on this site can overwhelming be categorized as ‘terrorist’ in language and context. Is this how you were deported to begin with?

Lastly, you’re a coward Chalmers. You’re a washed-up, “wanna-be-somebody”. Didn’t you say you once operated a similar site?  What happened there? You never told us. It would seem though, that you’re a disenfranchised wanna-be pundit/journalist.

Well, I really don’t care to know the story of your sad life. But, will say AGAIN, that you need to check your obvious ‘obsession’ with ME.

You’ve overplayed your bi-polar and/or other mentally compromised ‘hand’ so to speak, and I don’t like being your chosen victim.

Just keeping it real Chalmers.

McCain smokes them all.  Self enrichment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five

Hillary=200+ mil. for pork
Obama= 90+mil. for pork,and he has only been honest for 2+ years(snicker includer)
McCain= 0 for pork over 30 years,

Now wouldnt that mean at this rate Obama will be selling the country to Corp.America by 2010, Yes Cyerna I know it is off topic.

on an old episode of Oprah, while interviewing Obama, OB stated that if he had the same Intel as Hillary,when she voted for the Iraq war, he would have voted the same way, It,s amazing that has not leaked out.. and did you see Obamas nice guy side yesterday , just pushing and berating a man for wanting a picture, and yes he was an autograph hound, but OB did not know that until after… Don’t shoot the messenger

Expecting or even hoping a bigot would grasp the idea of just what acting and speaking like a bigot is, expecting and asking way to much of them.  Racists would hang blacks for entertainment while eating fried chicken after church on Sundays.  They also would not grasp or see themselves as racists.

Discrimination, racism bigotry all very real and unknown as such to the perpetrators.  Maybe this is the meaning of, ignorance is bliss.

Subconsciously way in the back of racists thick empty skulls, must lurk some guilt or semblance or acceptance of who they are?  Is it much deeper than that, no sadly much shallower.

It was the leadership council of the MDP, the vote was 79-1...and i said that in my original post.

Hahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa....

He of circular arguments is back again, accusing others of it.  No, Maani, no Clinton supporter has ever voiced the idea of “i’ll vote for McCain”, never...not here or anywhere.

My whole argument with bert started by her doing just that and having the polls to “prove” it.

The supers moving en masse to Clinton wouldn’t be monkey business; i never said that such a scenario would be.  But i guess that’s the best you have in hoping for a Clinton nomination.

I’d tear Obama apart, but there’s a lot less to work with...and i won’t lie, it’s a lot more fun to work on a shameless political hack like Clinton.  Plus, it has the upside of pissing you Clintonistas off to no end.

P.S. you do this all the friggin time.  You use one argument in one post, and then when someone calls you on it, you accuse them of using the faulty logic that you started with.

By cyrena, April 2 (3388 comments total) : “Maani, You are STILL full of shit, and STILL lying...”

Maani, for the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away.... nor has the anger and bitterness of those years for cyrena.

She’s old politics caught in a time warp..... the woman hanging on when she should give up gracefully, a brilliant (cough, cough) woman caught in a time warp. Such are the demographics of women supporting Barack Obama.

For her, the past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past. For the rest of us, who are more willing to say goodbye to all that, she could at least leave US out of her lies.........

To which post? But knowing you I probably did and disagreed and ignored it.

Thanks, jimmyjam. I think we all post as time permits. I know I have been working a lot so I don’t have as much time to post. Glad you are stil here to give ‘em heck, as Truman would say.  LOL

Maani,

THIS IS A LIE…

• “And yes, it WAS Cyrena who compared voting for Hillary to voting for McCain, and she is not the only Obama supporter to have made that comment.”

And it is intentional on your part, just like all of the other intentional lies, innuendos, obfuscations that you’ve indulged in here for months.

So, let me say what I already have on this…voting for Hillary Clinton will, in many respects of both foreign and domestic policy, (no matter what she ‘claims’) would result in the same as voting for John McCain.

Hillary and John are the SAME – IN MY OPINION - in their hawkish stance on the use of militarism to advance the global hegemonic ‘interests’ of the US oligarchy.

Got that Maani? That IS my opinion, and I don’t give a shit if Hillary lies now and claims otherwise, because her votes as a Senator tell me what she would do if she were president.

The ONLY ‘substantial’ issue where Clinton and McCain differ, (at least as far as the issues concerning most Americans, including me) is on health care. Hillary is willing to come up with something, and McCain is not. It’s that simple. The repugs have never been interested in the needs of the average citizen, so that does not surprise me. Hillary, on the other hand, DID attempt this health care thing long ago, and she has my respect for the attempt, even though it failed.

As far as the 180/360 degree comment goes, my overwhelming respect goes to Outraged for actually trying to explain what that means, to somebody who claims to be a lawyer. Even my 15 year old niece picked up on this a few months ago, when one of the ‘officials’ at her school made a similar 360 degree comment.

They were discussing the sorry shape of their school football team, which they all admit, ‘sucks’. The coach made a stupid remark that the team was due for a 360 degree turn around, in which case, (as my niece noted), they would STILL ‘suck’. If you don’t get that, then you’re stupid.

As for your lying, it’s been exposed before, and then you always come up with some bullshit for it, whenever it’s exposed.

And yeah, we know that your post was to JS, and I also read my own name in it.

Your intimidating talk is cheap Maani, because that’s ALL it is. Cheap and ignorant talk.

Touche Obamabots !!!!!

Thanks for pointing that out Jacob Freeze.

Maani,

You are STILL full of shit, and STILL lying. I have never suggested that ANY Democrat, or ANY supporter of either democratic candidate, SHOULD VOTE FOR JOHN MCCAIN.

Stop lying Maani, or at least leave ME out of your lies.

To verify what I HAVE in fact said…I SEE NO DIFFERENCE between Hillary Clinton and John McCain on the issues that matter the most to Americans, based on the polls that are consistently released. That is specifically on the WAR on Iraq, and the WARS to come, that both Hillary and McCain support.
The other is on the ECONOMY. As far as I’m concerned, Hillary and McCain are in the same position on that as well.

I base my assessment on more than what Hillary SAYS, but rather in conjunction with what she has said, and what she has DONE/voted in her capacity as a U.S. Senator. And, what she SAYS, is NOT consistent with what she has actually SAID where it counted the most…in her voting record.

As for criticizing Barack Obama, I’ve done it multiple times, and on this website, and MY criticisms ARE on substantial issues. Not just red herring bullshit that serves to confuse the masses, which is of course your intention.

You keep trying to blow smoke up the asses of folks you’ve already blown it right back in your face. Seems like you’d give up.

But, professional con artists never realize when their cons are being rejected.

And, I think bert probably voted for GW both times anyway.

A 360 degree angle is a circle.  You’ve claimed to be a lawyer and a pastor, so one would think you would be educated enough to have understood that.  Unless of course neither of which is true, which just could be.  The implication of my point is that if you went all the way around, you’d be right back where you started. Which then would qualify the premise that you (and others) DO have some sort of “blind love” for Clinton.  Were you able to follow that, or are you still confused?

As I said, possibly Cyrena did make such a comment ALSO, although I ALSO said, I couldn’t recall it offhand. Which is why I responded.  Were you able to follow that?

Your quote: “So why not just take chill pill, have a beer, and sit back and let people who have some semblance of coherent expression engage in debate”

**Your venomous intent is showing.

Outraged:

You know something?  I literally don’t understand one word of your reply.  It is so convulated as to say nothing at all.  360 degrees?  Where do you get that?  And yes, it WAS Cyrena who compared voting for Hillary to voting for McCain, and she is not the only Obama supporter to have made that comment.

You seem to think my response as about YOU; but it was not.  It was in response to JS, who has not weighed in with his own response yet.

So why not just take chill pill, have a beer, and sit back and let people who have some semblance of coherent expression engage in debate.

Peace.

Sorry, I forgot the link.  Here it is.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/1/12146/80206/920 /488267

BTW, Thanks Greg Jones.

The story appears to be legit.  Not that we did’t know that Clinton lies....  The story is here at Daily Kos with additional links at the bottom of the page.

Re: bert April 2

Yes bert, I understand that.  Did you get my point?

quote: “This is 180 degrees from fact.  I know that at least bert, Doug and myself have made it quite clear that we do not have “blind love” for Hillary”

**Make that a 360 and I’d agree, since then you’d be right back where you actually started, which, would be the opposite of what you’re implying here.

quote: “it is Obama supporters - like Cyrena, for one - who have compared Hillary to McCain, saying that a vote for the former is the same as a vote for the latter, so Obama supporters should simply vote for McCain or not vote at all.”

**Sorry Maani but that’s the most convoluted logic and spin I’ve ever heard.  First, I don’t think it was Cyrena who compared Hillary and McCain, although she may have also, I don’t recall that offhand.  I know I certainly have compared the two.  However that comparison stated that they were so similar one COULDN’T VOTE FOR EITHER.  How you came to the conclusion that “Obama supporters should simply vote for McCain” is beyond me.  That was NOT the premise of the comment.  What you’re implying is a stretch....a huge stretch...from the comment that was actually made.  Twisting the truth is the SAME as lying.

<<<<<<< But you cannot call their potential decision - no matter how seemingly “undemocratic” - “monkey business” if it is made WITHIN that system. >>>>>>>>>>>>

Exactly tight , Maani. Ans, since rules seem so imprtant to Obamabots, the rules state that the stper delagates vote for the best candidate.

And the AP reported yesterday that Pelosi took back her commnet about super delagtes must vote by the will of the people nad were free to vote their conscience:

“Pelosi: Dem race should go on

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the “super delegates” who may ultimately decide the Democratic party’s presidential nominee have a right to vote as they wish, and that the drawn-out contest between candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama should be allowed to reach its conclusion.

“These super delegates have the right to vote their conscience and who they think would be the better president, or who can win, but they also then should get involved in the campaigns and make their power known there,” Pelosi said in an interview aired Tuesday on ABC’s Good Morning America.”

JS:

You have become so hopelessly intellectually dishonest that I barely know where to begin.

“Clinton supporters...claim that Obama supporters have nothing but blind love for their candidate, and then display the same (or worse) blind love for their candidate.”

This is 180 degrees from fact.  I know that at least bert, Doug and myself have made it quite clear that we do not have “blind love” for Hillary: we have admitted that she lies, dissembles, obfuscates, spins, takes money from lobbyists, special interests and PACS, etc.  On the other hand, each and every time any Hillary supporter has brought up ANYTHING to criticize Obama, the Obama supporters here (and, yes, even some of you on the fence or voting otherwise) have justified, rationalized or spun it.  In fact, I dare you to find A SINGLE WORD - posted by ANY Obama supporter - that is critical of him in any real, serious regard.  Try it: find a single solitary acknowledgement that Obama, or anyone on his team, has lied, dissembled, obfuscated or spun ANYTHING at ANY TIME.

“And there is the constant assumption that if you’re not wholeheartedly for Clinton, then you must be firmly in the Obama camp.”

I can’t speak for others (bert, Doug, et al) on this, but for my part, I only believe this of those who have stated so.  And if I DO assume it about someone incorrectly, I immediately accept the correction and apologize for it.

“[T]he committed liberals/Democrats who back Clinton so loudly are the first ones to say, ‘I’ll vote for McCain.’...What kind of ‘Democrat’ votes for a Republican President?  Do you always try cutting off your nose to spite your face?”

This is yet again 180 degrees from fact: it is Obama supporters - like Cyrena, for one - who have compared Hillary to McCain, saying that a vote for the former is the same as a vote for the latter, so Obama supporters should simply vote for McCain or not vote at all.  I have NOT heard this from a SINGLE Hillary supporter.  In fact, I again dare you to point to any Hillary supporter here who has suggested that if Obama wins the nomination they will vote for McCain.  Yet Cyrena is not the only Obama supporter who has made this comment in reverse.

“Again, without any funny business, how does Clinton win the nomination?”

This depends on your definition of “funny business.” The superdelegates were not created to simply abide by the “will of the people,” no matter how nice and sweet and democratic that may be.  They were created for exactly the OPPOSITE purpose: not so much to “thwart” the “will of the people” as to take into consideration factors OTHER THAN SOLELY the “will of the people.” In this regard, if by July either (i) Obama is ahead in both pledged delegates and popular vote, but not by a clear and convincing majority, or (ii) Obama is ahead in pledged delegates, but Hillary is ahead in popular vote, then the superdelegates would have every right to consider other factors.  And this would NOT constitute “monkey business,” given how and why the superdelegate system was set up in the first place.

You can certainly question the entire logic and/or legitimacy of the superdelegate system.  But you cannot call their potential decision - no matter how seemingly “undemocratic” - “monkey business” if it is made WITHIN that system.

Peace.

Het bert and lib, glad to see you back here ,Thought Cryrena might have had you kicked or something.  Where is Maani/hinnis and Joe in Maine ,hope they are all well.

<<<<< It doesn’t change what Mark Brewer said to my face well more than a month ago.  >>>>>>>>>

No, but maybe you ought to ask him a follow up question. You indicated ‘they’ or someone voted 76 to 1 for the new date.

Who is they? Was it the legislature? Was it the MI dem Party?

Or was it the NAYIONAL DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee?

It would make a difference in how your otiginal posy made an inference that MI ot MI Dems were fro the calendar change. All of them were not and they chnaged their mind as the process went on over several months.

Uoir origanl post was not clear on that and may have left some people with a mis-impression.

RE:  “leave “the details” aside...” Refers to my paragraph above that sentence. It refers to the set of questions RIGHT ABOVE IT.

Not to facts, oytraged.

I get outraged that you jump to wild and crazy conclusions without fully understanding what someone is posting.

First jackpine savage

Nice to hear I am not alone in my belief that the Hillary crowd displays an odd sense of misogamy, a dysfunction extrodnare of new ideas or change.  At first, until after my first sip of coffee, I have to agree with you when you say “But the truth of the matter is that we are the ones who have fucked this country up to its current sad, sad state.” I agree with you, maybe with further discussion, and qualifications. 

Of course apathy, has provided the Washington crowd their good old boy career politician status.  Elevated cronies, this special Washington country club of opportunism, ivory tower of handpicked Washington lemmings, just like Hillary and so many others, so experience they drag us into a war, a war that should never have even happened. Yes experience of a mob.

We should vote the bums out and make a radical change of the status quo. Of course we know that will never happen.

Jessie Ventura has just made some interesting comments about the establishment, he was not very kind to those selected for us by the elite.

I find it pretty damned funny that Clinton supporters like to call Obama supporters “cult-like”...and then behave like they’re in a hurry to get those bags packed for Guyana.  They claim that Obama supporters have nothing but blind love for their candidate, and then display the same (or worse) blind love for their candidate.

And there is the constant assumption that if you’re not wholeheartedly for Clinton, then you must be firmly in the Obama camp. (As i’ve stated on many occasions, i didn’t vote for Obama in my primary, nor would i have had he been on the ballot.  I find him intriguing and preferable to Clinton...but i’d find a two week old, road kill skunk preferable to Clinton...so that doesn’t say all that much about my feelings for Obama.)

I also find it humorous that the committed liberals/Democrats who back Clinton so loudly are the first ones to say, “I’ll vote for McCain.” Why?  Is it because you secretly prefer Republicans. (that would explain your love for the Clintons, i suppose) What kind of “Democrat” votes for a Republican President?  Do you always try cutting off your nose to spite your face?

And still, none of the faithful has answered my challenge.  Again, without any funny business, how does Clinton win the nomination?

Being so personally invested in a presidential candidate (any candidate) does not speak well towards one’s mental capacity.  It suggests a belief that someone else will be able to fix your/our problems, and that is not the case.  It also suggests a basic discomfort with yourself, in that you have a need to live vicariously through the accomplishments of others. 

Obama likes to say that “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” But the truth of the matter is that we are the ones who have fucked this country up to its current sad, sad state.  All of us, no matter what you believe nor how you vote...to be sure, some worse than others, but all of us are responsible in the end.

Go ahead and keep believing that it’s all the Republicans’ fault, or the fault of the VRWC, or Al-Queda’s fault, or Alan Greenspan’s fault, or Bush’s fault.  Reality will, eventually, smack the living sh*t out of belief every time.

My point, which you missed, was that in terms of MI and FL, disenfranchise is the wrong word.  Bert has been arguing the point with me.  I said it’s the wrong word because Parties are private organizations, not public institutions.

My point was that if the voters of MI and FL are being “disenfranchised” by not having their “votes” counted, then what about the people in closed primary states who’s tax dollars pay for a ballot procedure that they’re not allowed to participate in without at least nominally joining a private organizations.

I voted in MI, and not for Obama (nor would i have if i had been able to).

Oh my CY, you seem to be in the clutches of the VRWC too.  /snark

May i add deep connections to Monsanto to that list as well?

I’d read that article before you linked it.  It doesn’t change what Mark Brewer said to my face well more than a month ago.  My state’s politics is screwed up on both sides of the aisle.  When all this was going on, they were bickering over a budget: they had to pull an all nighter to write an extension so that the state wouldn’t shut down.  And it still doesn’t change the fact that the Governor signed it willingly.

Your quote: “But leaving those details aside for now,”

Sure bert, let’s just leave “the details” aside...sure..., I hear ya, you mean the ones that show Clinton is LOSING.......All polls show it, some albeit, show Clinton LOSING moreso than others...so I forget, what am I “supposed” to be figuring out...?

<<<<<< And after 27 years, i think that we can start calling them Republicans. >>>>>>>>

So any one who does campaign voter and issue research is automatically called Republican. 

I call them intelligent.

I am not sure that that makes you.

<<<<<<<< The latest polls show a NATIONWIDE lead for Obama over Clinton of 10 pts. >>>>>>>>

I am not disputing you. Yet. Taking one sentence from a poll does not help me evaluate it. It makes no sense as writtne. Obama is not running against Clinton nationwide. Who did the poll? gallup? Rasmussen? And what were they polling? A match up of Obama and Mccain? and Clinton and McCain?

But leaving those details aside for now, you did not get what Joe in Maine is saying.

It doesn’t matter what the polls say right NOW. The elction is not right now. THINGS CHANGE. The General is a little over 7 months a way. A lot can and will happen between now and then. And what goes up can also go down.

Heaven forbid Truth ,would want accurate facts

That’s right, but everyone knows that without the election fraud and overt cheating by the republicans Bush wouldn’t have had a chance.  BTW, Bush didn’t win, remember.

Sixpack:
I didn’t write it.  If you follow the link you will see that.  Although given the tactics of the Clinton campaign it is fitting.

Had to erase some “esp Fact Check” before Truth???dig would let it post.

April 1, 2008
A widely forwarded e-mail claims that Obama’s bills are more substantive and numerous than Clinton’s. Don’t believe it.
Summary
A misleading e-mail has been making the rounds, alleging that Clinton has fewer legislative accomplishments than Obama, and that they are less substantive. We’ve had questions about it from a number of readers, and blogs have jumped into the fray. So what’s the real story on the Senate careers of the Democratic presidential candidates?

We find that the e-mail is false in almost every particular:

It sets up a face-off between apples and, well, broccoli, comparing only the Clinton-sponsored bills that became law with all bills sponsored or cosponsored by Obama, whether they were signed into law or not.

It includes legislation Obama sponsored in the Illinois state Senate, a very different legislative body.

It tells us that Obama has sponsored more legislation than Clinton, when in fact he has sponsored less.

It implies that Obama has passed more bills into law than Clinton, when the opposite is true.
Contrary to the e-mail’s assertions, Clinton’s and Obama’s contributions are not qualitatively different, and quantitatively, Clinton has the edge.

Hahahah ,that was great.

Didn’t Gore have a 20 point lead on Bush 8 months before the election?

Nothing is static about a presidential race.

Momentum changes as people get sold on candidates in a general election. Wait until the nominees start fighting each other and you’ll be able to see how the race really shapes up.

In a poll I saw today John McCain is in a statistical tie with either democrat. You think that will change in Obama’s favor, right?

We’ll see.

Oh Leefeller… You know what? I totally agree with you. Hillary is a political monster and is losing popular support by the nanosecond. No arguement from me. She’s as bad as Kerry was, as pompous as Gore was, and universally disliked by everyone, especially the media.

Everything he does is regarded as fresh and unique.
Everything she does is a political tactic or a dirty trick.

You know exactly what I’m referring to.

I only hope for your sake and for the sake of the entire Youth Brigade energized by the Obama Crusade that the mass media doesn’t suddenly lose it’s “crush on Obama” before the fall election.

MSNBC: “And now topping our political news, Obama Girl has released a new video… Oh is there anyone that doesn’t have a crush on Obama yet?”

And now the sound of 48.8% of democratic voters in a collective vomit.

You don’t need to worry about any gaff, misstatement or embarrasing moment caught on video. You can even rest easy if an even more destructive friend pops up like Rev. Wright did. In the long haul it won’t matter to the MSM. They love Obama. The only thing Obama needs to do now is make sure he doesn’t piss off the reporters. Keep the seduction of the media going and you’re all set! Just ask WJC how much the media loved him in ‘91 when they could have ruined him. GWB could have been destroyed by the Texas ANG flp, but no, his media friends reminded us how much we all wanted to have a beer with him. Same with Obama. As long as they don’t suddenly fall in love with a grandfatherly older gentleman named McCain. Fat chance of that, right?

It’s funny how easy it is to discount the media bias when they are constantly telling you what you want to hear and telling you nothing of what you NEED to hear.

But hey. Someday you’ll figure that out for yourself. They turned on Bill sooner than you could say “Blue Dress”. They turned on GWB faster than you could say, “Mission accomplished”. When will Obama jump the shark? Only a matter of time… tick tock, tick tock.

Please keep in mind that 4000 kids have been killed and over 40,000 maimed in Iraqi streets. Many by real improvised explosive devices. I find your use of the IED acronym to be very offensive. Use the words if you must, but you dishonor the brave by implying that any campaign’s use of political tactics is somehow the same thing.

Have a little good sense and tact for once.

Expect a two-pronged attack, as follows:

1. Oh well the larger issue is that we raised $20 MILLION MORE than Hillary raised last month.
2. Hillary is a bigger receiver of Oil dollars.

You make the assertion that in fact Clinton will win in Nov. against McCain.  There is nothing valid about your premise.  The polls show otherwise.  The latest polls show a NATIONWIDE lead for Obama over Clinton of 10 pts.  Now...I won’t tell you don’t have the right to disagree but don’t sit here shaking your Lou Dobbsish finger at us when there is no validity to your claim.

Where’ve ya been? 

I’ve been making similar comments as your’s here.

I believe in a complete government makeover. That’s not going to happen.  So as you suggest, the best that we regular people can do is to adapt to the change thrust on us, because the money and the power is their’s, and try to help one another. 

Those left after the implosion will be o-kay. 

You “old Indians” have an advantage over us pale-faces in that you already are highly experienced at this. Peace, man!

I read in the paper where Oklahoma primary voters are asking pledged delegates to have a second look at Obama, they say if voting today they wouldn’t vote for him.
I have cousins in Iowa who are emailing everyone they can to change the delegates mind re Obama.  They seem to be coming out of their stupor for Obama.
Needless to say I had to ask them where their heads were in the first place.

FactCheck.org, Obamas oil spill march 31, 2008
Obama ad claims he doesn’t take money from oil companies.
Obama took $213,00 from people and their spouses who work for the oil and gas industry.

TWO of Obama BUNDLERS are top execs at oil companies listed on his web site raised $50,000 to $100,000.

Imagine that !! I’m sure Cyrena, savage, outraged and a few more will spin this some how.

AND NOW FOR THE REST OF THE STORY - Part 2

When two court rulings found the move-up bill unconstitutional for technical reasons, giving Democratic state legislators who initially voted for it a chance to reconsider, they took it. Dillon and his House Democrats refused to support a bill that would’ve protected the January 15 date from threatened judicial cancellation by correcting the technical deficiency.

The Senate, again voting along party lines, quickly adjusted the bill to the court decisions, but Dillon refused to allow a vote in the House. All of this suggests a “good faith” effort to block an early primary—as required by DNC rules.

Had not the state’s highest court overturned the earlier decisions by a 4-to-3 vote just days before absentee ballots had to be mailed out, the early primary would not have been held. Significantly, all four of the judges who voted to allow the election were Republicans, and two of the judges who voted against it were Democrats.

In fact, it was a Democratic political consultant who brought the lawsuit that almost killed the primary. While the Republican state party filed an amicus brief in support of the bill, the Democrats took a barrage of editorial potshots in the Detroit Free Press, the Detroit News, the Flint Journal, and other papers for refusing to stand up for the state’s interest. Salivating over all the attention and revenue that would come with an early primary, the papers accused Democrats of “withering,” “carrying water for presidential candidates,” and “blocking a bill to rescue the election.”

State GOP chair Saul Anuzis declared: “The Michigan Democrats and the House Democrats in particular appear willing to blow up the primary for petty, political, selfish, self-preservationist motives, to protect their hides.”

Even before the court rulings, 19 Democrats in the House co-sponsored an October bill to repeal the one that authorized the election, including eight members who’d initially voted for the January 15 date. That bill was doomed from the outset since the Senate would never agree, but it was a measure of how fiercely Democrats had come to oppose the early primary. The ultimate result in Michigan, with a triumphant Clinton the only major candidate on the ballot, is, without a doubt, a Republican result.

<<<<<<<<Funny, that’s not what Mark Brewer, the head of the MDP>>>>>>>>>

AND NOW FOR THE REST OF THE STORY Part 1

The article I linked to last night and that you and cyrena refused to read has a slightly different story. Wayne Barret is an excellent investigative reporter. This isi only about one-soxth of the article, the part on MI.

Michigan: Republicans on the Bench and in the Statehouse

Let’s start with Michigan, whose Democratic chair Mark Brewer is a member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the national party and in that capacity voted to sanction Florida—a pretty good indication that he wasn’t a great champion of challenging the DNC calendar in his own state.

Brewer in fact declared the Republican-sponsored move-up bill unacceptable from the start.

When it weaved its way through the divided Michigan legislature last August, only 29 of the state’s 75 Democratic legislators (in the House and Senate) supported it. A week after the bill cleared the Senate over unified Democratic objections, these 29 Democrats in the House voted for it, precisely the same number that voted against it or abstained (22 and seven).

It was 38 Republican yes votes in the House that made it law.

While Democrats like the governor, U.S. Senator Carl Levin, and DNC committeewoman Debbie Dingell favored moving the primary date up, it was a Republican state senator, Cameron Brown, who proposed the January 15 date. Levin and Dingell only supported that date when they concluded that the DNC was allowing other states, like New Hampshire, to defy the party’s prescribed schedule while threatening Michigan with sanctions if it shifted its date.

And Levin and Dingell certainly weren’t calling the shots for the Democrats in the legislature. Andy Dillon, the Democratic House speaker who’d voted for the move-up initially, walked away from the early primary in November, almost a month before the DNC voted to strip the state of its delegation.

<<<<<<<<the latest polls that show that Obama actually became more popular during the Wright ‘Crisis’.>>>>>>

Only with Democratic PRIMARY voters. Not so much in other categories.

Yes. I forgot Truth Dig. Add that to the list. And thanks for the reminder. 

You write:  “Seems the whining about the Mass Media not giving Hillary a fair or positive spin will never cease.”

That’s OK buddy boy. You and Obama will have your turn in the fall when the media turns on Obama and continues its love fest with McCain. The all you Obamabots will be ‘whining’ about the mass media not giving the annoyed one a fair ot positive spin.

“In other words, stop the IEDs—“no way, Jose.” Because this is all she’s got left. Obama has already won the hearts and minds of the majority of Democratic voters. If she stops the IEDs now Obama would have a nearly unobstructed path to the nomination. She’s can no longer count on just slowing him down, she’s got to stop him. She needs to wound him so badly he can no longer win.

There’s two ways to get this nomination: win it fair and square, or finagle it. Since she can no longer win, she’s now onto finagling. Which means encouraging her surrogates to keep planting IEDs while she works the political angles—Super-delegates, seating Michigan and Florida delegates, etc.

Meanwhile out on the field of battle her surrogates have turned to the nuclear option—or as her own spokesmanr and snake turned snake charmer, Howard Wolfson describe it, “the kitchen sink strategy.”

full article:
http://www.alternet.org/election08/79869/

See it is all a foregone conclusion now. Obama is making a better case through the media that she can’t win without “party bosses and insiders” STEALING the election from Obama. There is also the implied threat of rioting in the steets, burning down the cities if the election is STOLEN from Obama by Super Delegates.

Do you want to be responsible for race riots Maani? Come on! Get on board now! Don’t destroy the party, hell, the NATION by prolonging a fight that divides us when we could all be united in a massive defest in November.

No one seems to understand that Obama can NEVER, EVER get to 2025 without those nasty “party bosses and insiders” STEALING the election from Hillary either. That’s OK as long as there are no RIOTS and BEATINGS and FIRES!

Who’s the real fear monger?

Simple minded blind love affair with Hillary has some people in denial. 

Many people do not like Hillary for any number of reasons. I have already explained my reasons, I am sure others have different reasons.  Not liking something and hating it are two different things so keep that one were the sun does not shine.

Seems the whining about the Mass Media not giving Hillary a fair or positive spin will never cease.  It may have to do with the fact her entitlement is not a given and the kitchen sink, fear monger republican approach to her campaign does not bode well with many people. Yeh, I know Obama has been a naughty boy according to the Hillary crowd.  Seems you are not selling the kitchen sink very well.

Sounds like some folks have lot’s of time on their hands, to watch all the talking heads to find a positive story on Hillary.  As I said before, maybe she is really not all that positive.

“By your use of “disenfranchise”, are the independent voters who live in states with closed primaries “disenfranchised”?  Yes or no?”

Who was it that committed to be registered as an Independant?

If it’s a closed democratic or republican primary and you feel strongly about voting, then change your affiliation.

How is that the same as being a republican, making the effort to go to the polls, voting on a legal ballot and then have the vote not count because of party bosses and the state legislature?

How is that the same as a coordinated political tactic of refusing to agree to any do over because you’re polling far behind your opponant and there is no political upside to allowing a re vote to take place?

Don’t you get it? The Wright thing is over. Nobody cares. don’t believe me? check out the latest polls that show that Obama actually became more popular during the Wright ‘Crisis’. yeah. It’s true. According to the TV News Obama’s 20 year relationship with Wright is all Hillary’s fault. Well, she didn’t actually force him into that 20-year mentor relationship, and no she was not the reason ABC and Fox decided to run the Wright story now when Obama had more than a month to recover before the next primary. Somehow the American people polled believe that “THE SPEECH” was the end of the discussion of race. It’s over for Hillary. Obama can take a punch, when he has the media in his corner to help him recover and the friendly pollsters eager to over sample the African American voters.

There won’t be any more talk of this Wright business. I’m sure Mr. McCain will keep the discussion on the issues of experience and national security. I can’t imagine that anyone on the right wing would stoop as low as the Clintons! It’s a given now that Obama will be our next President. The media will play and poke ‘fun’ of McCain’s age and run an endless loop of McCain saying, “100 years”.

Get your Obama Inauguration tickets now, while you still can.

the much higher profile television network talking heads that are so in the tank for Obama? I don’t see you so Outraged about MSNBC’s every daypart effort to elect Obama. You have Mika in the Morning, her dad and brother work for the Obama campaign. There’s Chris Mathiews who feigns objectivity with remarks like, “I hear him speak and a chill runs up my leg” and then there is Keith’s Clinton Smackdown every night. There are as many examples as there are mainstream media outlets, but hey if you can’t see past the thin veneer of feigned objectivity - “Obama misspoke, Clinton lies”. “Obama’s on a Hope tour of PA - Clinton on the attack in PA” then attacks of any kind on Obama must seem very harsh to you.

I can see why you’d want to point out the terrible attacks on Obama from one obscure blogger and radio host. It must all seem so terribly unfair!

Our party slogan should be:

The Democratic Party. Nominating the Unelectable Since 1840.

Uhh, there have been many bad days for Hillary on Truthdig too, bert.........

So Taylor Marsh, MyDD, and BigTentDemocrat are fonts of truth and wisdom, while Kos is worse than Ann Coulter.

Sounds like truth and wisdom are in the eye of the beholder to me.

Where do Richard Mellon-Scaiffe and Rupert Murdoch fit into all of this?

So you’re telling me that Taylor Marsh, one of the elite, somehow has her finger on the pulse of the little people “Reagan Democrats”?  Ok, that makes sense.

And after 27 years, i think that we can start calling them Republicans. 

This article is full of Marsh putting thoughts into other people’s heads.  And i’ll bet dollars to doughnuts that she doesn’t know anyone who works in a factory or is on unemployment.

They “relate to her struggle”...that’s a good one, since she’s been waited on hand and foot since she entered the governor’s mansion in Arkansas.  Yes, Sen Clinton and her $50M really know what it’s like to live hand to mouth.

I never said that Obama would win the general.  I have a hard time seeing either Dem candidate winning the general at this point.

Funny, that’s not what Mark Brewer, the head of the MDP told me.  He never said anything about the Republicans.  In fact, he told us (at a local meeting concerning the issue) that the MDP leadership council voted to move the primary forward by 79-1.  That sure sounds like they hated the idea. 

I know full well that pledged delegates can change their vote at the convention.  That’s kind of funny, because at the same meeting with Mark Brewer, a young lady asked about being a delegate.  She was an Obama voter but just wanted to go.  So she asked if she signed up as a Clinton delegate if she could change her vote on a second ballot.  He screamed at her.  He told her that if she went to Denver as a Clinton delegate, then she’d have to go all the way...that she wasn’t allowed to change.

When another person attending mentioned that the whole thing seemed kind of crooked, Brewer screamed at him too.  It was all, “how dare you” and the like.  Now, if the situation had been shoved down the Dems throats by the Reps in the legislature, it sure seems like that would have been a good time for Mark to explain that the Dems were just trying to make the best of a bad situation.

And the candidates signed pledges not to participate.  I provided the actual pledge.  It all depends what participate means, but there it is.

The Republicans have a strong presence in the MI legislature, but not a super majority.  Neither party can “ram” anything down the other’s throat here.  (hence the inability to pass a budget) The Dems in MI didn’t even try to stop it...at least not publicly.  So the chances of me believing politicians who’ve lied to me before and are running my state into the ground after the fact, when they say “it’s not our fault”, are slim to none.  Especially when the leadership is so blatantly partisan.

Wow, bert, you selectively answer things really well.

By your use of “disenfranchise”, are the independent voters who live in states with closed primaries “disenfranchised”?  Yes or no?

Did you read the part where i said that i live in MI, and i neither need, nor want, you to come rushing to my defense.  I don’t care who won.  The only time i vote major party for President is when i’m voting against a Bush.

And like i said, were you raising a stink about this in September?  If not, kindly drop it.

“Pledged delegates” is in actuality a misnomer. No one is bound by the primary or caucus vote.

Delegates can vote for any candidate once they get the Convention.

It is generally accepted that a delegate will vote for the candidate for whom they pledged in the caucaus or primary. I know in the OH primary voters did not really vote for a candidate. They voted for a slate of delegates who supported that candidate.

But none of us were bound by that vote or pledge.

Now there are all sorts of reasons why a delegate would vote for the candidate they pledged for - and all of them are political, i.e. move up in the state party, curry favor with a particular politician, erc. I know in 1976 when I was a delegate the state party bigwigs suggested we at least vote for who we were pledged for in the first round. Then you were free. But that year it never got that far that year.

But the fact of the matter is each delegate can vote their conscience. A lot of things can change between the date of the primary election and the Convention.

I remember in ‘68 many delegates were pledged for Bobby Kennedy. But by the time the Convention rolled around he had been assassinated.

Things change.

Don’t patronize me jackpine. I know all about how the system works. I don’t need a elementary civics course from the likes of you. I was an elcted member of a state Dem party executive board, I was an elected Dem precinct captain, a paid political consultant to various local and state campaigns, I have successfully run campaigns, and I was a lobbyist at the state and federal level.

“...then disenfranchise would be the right word.”

That sounds just like the definition of ‘is.’ That is an absurd statement. Tell a MI or FL voter they haven’t been disenfranchised. they will not appreciate your super fine distinction. The definition in Miraiam’s I quoted this morning did not mention the Constitution.

But if you wnat to play that game. Fine. MI and FL were disenfranchised by the Dem party in violation of the Dem’s own rules. Read my answer to Cyrena.

If the tables were turned and Clinton was leading in delegates right now I am 1,00,000 % certain that Obama and all of his darling little followers would be screaning to high heaven and DEMANDING that MI and FL votes and delegates be counted. And I am just as certain that you would be finging around the word ‘disenfranchised” with impunity.

You and Cyrena are such hypocrates!!!!!!!!!

YOU WANT TO TALK RULES, I’LL TALK RULES

“that the leaders of the State Elections’ Committees, or the Dem Party Leaders in either state actually allowed this to happen. In hindsight, WAS IT REALLY WORTH IT, to break the party rules? “

That statement shows just how damn ignorant you are about what really occured in both MI and FL. The state elections committes and the Dem party leaders in both states had absolutelt positively nothing to do with changing the rules. It was totally and completely out of their hands.

SWEETHEART, IT WAS THE G-D REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED LEGISLATURES IN BOTH STATES THAT INTRODUCED BILLS - RAMMED THEM DOWN THE THROATS OF THE DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATORS- AND PASSED THEM INTO LAW THAT SET THE DATE FOR THE ELECTIONS. (Rs control both states)

Plus the candidates did not sign pledges that said they would not be on the ballot. They signed pledges not to CAMPAIGN ( which Obama did - broke the rules hon - in FL ) in those states. Huge difference. Plus in FL if a candidate wanted to be off the ballot they had to withdraw from the Presidential race entirely. Which is why Obama did not take his name off the ballot in FL as opposed to MI.

Plus three other states ( NH, Iowa, and SC) also set their primary dates ahead of the DNC calendar, yet they were not so penalized.

So I guess the rules matter for some states but not for others. I guess they do not count in swing states where Dems MUST win the state to win in November.

Plus the DNC rules also state that if the primary date violates the rules that - like with the Republican party/McCain in these same states - the delagates will be seated but only half of their delagates count. Hell if the Dems had just followed their own rules this would not even be an issue now.

But again the rules were not followed equally for everyone. And therein lies the problem.

P. S. to previous post.

Ignore the truth at your own peril. On Nov. 5, 2008 there will be a lot of you on thsi site who will be very disappointed that McCain is the President elect. The Democratic Party can’t even seem to learn from its mistakes. They just keep making the same one over and over again. Choose the weakest candidate. So mamy of you on this site are so myopic it is unbelievable. And you live in an echo chanber.

So sad.

If it were not for the fact that I don’t want to live under 4 more years Bush 2 I wouldn’t care.

Hard for the actual voters to follow “the rules” when Republicans set them up without a vote from them.

Seems Obama likes stuff like this starting with Alice Palmer. He doesn’t like to lose or fail so he cheats.

You know, there used to be “rules” in the south, too, to prevent black people from voting. But we got rid of those rules.

You can’t tell good folk like live in MI and FL (and I have good freinds in both states - some support Obama and some like me support Hillary. All of them are mad as hell.) to f*ck off and then come Novemeber ask them to forget and vote for your candidate. Especially when that candidate disenfranchised them. (Yep, jackpine, I am still using that word. If the shoe fits and all that.)

Markos Moulitsas has disgraced a once-fine site.  Kos has devolved into an anti-Clinton smear machine —worse than The American Spectator, worse than Limbaugh, worse than Murdoch, worse than Ann Coulter.

He has actively encouraged folks over at You Tube to make Hillary look as foolish as they can.

Now that is a new kin