RIGHT ON, LEE!!!!!!!!!!!!  And keep writing and posting. Using another persons words, or turning a person’s words against them in debate is a legitimate, effective, and outstanding way of making your point. If cyrena doesn’t like that then she shouldn’t post. And thanks for calling out cyrena for her bullying ways.

RE: Cyrena

Cyrena,

First of all I’m not a plagiarist ... I merely used some of YOUR own words to make my argument, which is opposed to yours. Second, I’m not a biggot, I have friends and family representing several different races, but I simply do not like your candidate, who had a 20 year association with an anti-American racist like Jeremiah Wright, and his friend and traveling companion to Libya, Louis Farakan.
... and, I’m only one of millions of Americans who feel this way. Cyrena, perhaps you’d voice your disagreement, if Obama’s opponent spent 20 years with a white supremist who spewed hatred towards black people. Furthermore, just because Obama made a few public statements repudiating these people, it doesn’t automatically make it so. After all, it was after a 20 year relationship with Wright ...  as well as Obama’s OWN decision to swear allegiance to the racist ‘Black Values System’ for not only 20 years, but he is still attending the church, with the same ‘Black Values System’. Once again, if Obama’s political opponent swore 20 years allegiance to a ‘White Values System’, which included some of the same racist precepts, you’d flip your wig!
Now Cyrena, it’s true I don’t like you! You’re a bully! You respond to people who don’t agree with you with intimidation, vile name calling and threats.
Furthermore, you can look forward to me posting whatever I want to ... this is America, remember ... and, freedom of speech does not just apply to you.

I WANT A PRESIDENT WHO REPRESENTS ALL AMERICANS

Here is Pastor Wright’s ‘Black Value System’
posted at his website. This is what Barak Obama
pledged an oath to for the past 20 years:
http://www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html

Pastor Wright gave Louis Farakan a life time
achievement award. Here is what Louis Farakan believes:
Posted at his own website.
http://www.noi.org/muslim_program.htm

I admit that I’m not all that easily impressed with campaign ads, regardless of who their from, because..well, their usually pretty boring, even if one likes the candidate well enough.

That said, I received these via email, and from several people that I’ve known for years. They aren’t as politically involved as I am, but as we know, the past 7 years have everyone far more involved than they ever were before, just because that’s how bad our collective situation has become, under the gangsters.

Still, I almost wasn’t going to bother reviewing these. But, I did, and I’m really, really, really, glad that I did.

No words here. Just enjoy the music and the people…

American Women

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoKPnhdv8Yo

American Men

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPjXqkZXbQ4

I know our film students are swooning over these. They are extremely well done.

Well, bert, why do you think i labeled it informal?

Seems that when Taylor Marsh has an opinion it isn’t anecdotal…

Why is it that everyone you argue against must present airtight logic and citations, while you don’t hold yourself to the same standards?

How many times have you simply said that Obama can’t win in November...no citations, no firm evidence, nothing, just your opinion.

And when people do provide solid evidence...like Bill Clinton calling himself a Republican, you simply ignore it.

How is it, riding the high horse down the low road?

Stop with the plagiarizing Lee. If you have to copy another poster, (me or anyone else – and word for word) you shouldn’t bother.

You ‘tell on’ yourself immediately. (not that we haven’t long ago figured you out for the bigot you are).

My only question is, based on all of your previous posts, there’s absolutely NO reason for anyone reader to believe that YOU are supportive of the other ‘so-called’ Democratic candidate either. In other words, you are a hater of democracy, and you only hate Hillary Clinton less than you hate Barack Obama.

We ‘got that’ ages ago Lee, when you established yourself as the racist/bigot TROLL that you are. You’ve been at the forefront of creating a ‘controversy’ out of the remarks that Jeremiah Wright made over 6 years ago, and your die hard attempt to connect them to Barack Obama. (such as you insistence that they are ‘joined at the hip’ which is something else that you’ve lifted from my own or other posts). They aren’t, and you know it. The bottom line is that Barack and Michelle Obama are 2 of at least 6,000 members of that Church in Chicago.

The same think with all this shit that you keep posting from the NOI, and trying to make a connection between Louis Farrakhan, and Barack Obama, despite the fact that Barack Obama has publicly stated on GLOBAL television and every other method of communication, that he DOES not subscribe to, or otherwise espouse the ideology of Louis Farrakhan, OR the NOI. Period. Most folks don’t even know what the NOI IS, because they are basically a fringe group that long ago faded from any prominence within the larger society.

Now I suspect that you KNOW that, and that’s what makes your perfidy that much more despicable.

Lee, we know who and what you are. A racist radical right bigoted repug troll. Yes, those of us who’ve had to put up with your chicanery and hate mongering have long ago figured it out.

However, for those newcomers who may NOT know, you can COUNT ON me to call you out, each and every time you try to plaster this hate propaganda on this site.

So, look forward to it Lee. And, stop plagiarizing. If you’re so pathetic at your troll job, that you can’t even come up with your own stuff, then you need a different job.

Here’s the bottom line. It would be really great to have a black president, and we should have had one long ago.

The problem is that Obama...AIN’T THE ONE!! And, it has nothing to do with his being black, but everything to do with who he is, and what he’s reduced himrself (and the democratic party) to...just since he decided to spend 20 years joined at the hip with an anti-American racist like Pastor Jeremiah Wright, who gave an even bigger racist, Louis Farakan a lifetime achievement award ... not to mention Obama’s 20 year pledge to the church’s racist
‘Black Values System”.

Before he did that, he had a better chance. That’s not to say that he won’t still get the nomination by throwing his friend/advisor/mentor under the bus, and we all know he’ll do absolutely anything to get it. We’ve watched it for the past 3 months, and it’s painfully disgusting.

Here is Pastor Wright’s ‘Black Value System’
posted at his website. This is what Barak Obama
pledged an oath to for the past 20 years:
http://www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html

Pastor Wright gave Louis Farakan a life time
achievement award. Here is what Louis Farakan believes:
Posted at his own website.
http://www.noi.org/muslim_program.htm

Great post Debra Istvanik-Strotman. Thanks for telling it like it is. I liked Collea-Devi’s post too.

Hillary had my vote on Feb. 5th.

You are so wrong about blue collar workers drinking with Hillary.."You doubt that Hillary was drinking with blue collar workers,” And you based your doubts on what?

I am from the area and we have seen Hillary here many times over the years. Yes, blue collar workers drank with her and had a great time.

So do you doubt that Obama went bowling? Oh, yeah he did, all the while saying: “Hillary only drank to appear to fit in.” Well I can tell you as the worst bowler in the world that Obama is in my league and is not a bowler. He did it to fit in, yet accuses Hillary of doing what he himself did.

The best and most accurate opinion was written by Collea-Devi who put considerable thought and facts and not “I think” or “I doubts” pulled out of the sky.

I don’t think Obama is a bad man, but he is not the innocent he would have you believe.
Hillary has my vote April, 22.

Eric Barth writes:  “However, the prosperity was more apparent than real.... a lot of what the Clinton Administration provided was rhetoric which was belied by the actual policies which actually hurt average Americans. “

Someone must have kidnapped you during Bill Clinton’s term as President. Held you hostage in a dark room, cut off from the news. How else to explain your,and other posters here at TD, persistent and erroneous recounting of history?

The following data from Bill Clinton’s Presidency is just for Pennsylvania.

EXPANDING ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL

Unemployment Down to 4.1%: The unemployment rate in Pennsylvania has declined from 7.3% to 4.1% since 1993.

503,600 New Jobs: 503,600 new jobs have been created in Pennsylvania since 1993 — an average of 71,096 jobs per year. In contrast, an average of 500 jobs were lost each year under the previous administration.

486,300 New Private Sector Jobs: Since 1993, 486,300 new private sector jobs have been created—an average of 68,654 jobs per year, compared to an average loss of 2,325 private sector jobs per year in the previous administration.
43,600 New Construction Jobs: 43,600 construction jobs have been created in Pennsylvania since 1993 — an average of 6,155 jobs per year. In contrast, an average of 8,775 construction jobs were lost each year during the previous administration.

Poverty Has Fallen: Nationally, the poverty rate has fallen from 15.1% in 1993 to 12.7% in 1998. In Pennsylvania, the poverty rate has fallen from 13.2% in 1993 to 11.2% in 1998 –down 2.0% under President Clinton. [Census Bureau]

450,000 Have Received a Raise: Approximately 193,000 Pennsylvania workers benefited from an increase in the minimum wage—from $4.25 to $4.75 — on October 1, 1996. They, along with about 257,000 others received an additional raise—from $4.75 to $5.15 — on September 1, 1997.

A $500 Child Tax Credit to Help Families Raising Children: To help make it easier for families to raise their children, the balanced budget included a $500 per-child tax credit for children under 17. Thanks to President Clinton, the Balanced Budget delivers a child tax credit to 1,185,000 families in Pennsylvania.

Homeownership Has Increased in Pennsylvania: Homeownership in Pennsylvania increased from 72.3% to 75.2% since 1993.

Business Failures Down 7.0% Per Year: Business failures have dropped an average of 7.0% per year since 1993, after increasing 30.8% per year during the previous four years. [Oct 98 data]

Over $25,000 of Reduced Federal Debt for Every Family of Four: The national debt will be $1.7 trillion lower in FY99 than projected in 1993 — that’s $25,000 less debt for each family of four in Pennsylvania this year.

2.0% Growth in Total Bank Loans and Leases: Pennsylvania has seen a 2.0% average growth rate in total bank loans and leases per year since 1993. In contrast total bank loans and leases fell an average of 1.3% per year during the previous administration.

1.1% Growth in Commercial and Industrial Loans and Leases: Since 1993, Pennsylvania has experienced a 1.1% annual growth rate in commercial and industrial loans and leases. In contrast, commercial and industrial loans and leases fell an average of 5.5% per year during the previous administration.

For the full report click on the link below:

http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/states/Pen nsylvania.html

This link deals with several categories. In addition to what I posted above on Economic Opportunity, this link will give figures for Pennsylvania in these additional categories.

Expanding Access to Education, Fighting Crime and Violence, Moving PA from Welfare to Work, Investing in PA Health, Protecting the Environment, Spearheading Urban Renewal, Providing Disaster relief, Expanding Funds for Transportation.

Thanks!
And you’re welcome.

Hi bert!

I figured you meant that. I also grabed it as an opportunity to give a little history lesson. No reflection intended on you, or your metaphor. I promise.

One of the things I love about visiting various web sights is I always learn something. And, as you probably know, a lot of people believe the Equal Rights Ammendment IS law!

bert...if there is any ‘sexism’ in this campaign, it’s only because you and your cronies put it there. Otherwise, it’s truly in your imagination and paranoia.

Here’s the bottom line bert. It would be really great to have a female president, and we should have had one long ago.

The problem is that Hillary...AIN’T THE ONE!! And, it has nothing to do with sexism, but everything to do with who she is, and what she’s reduced herself (and the democratic party) to...just since she decided to clone the Rove tactics for herself.

Before she did that, she had a better chance. That’s not to say that she won’t still get the nomination by cheating, and we all know she’ll do absolutely anything to get it. We’ve watched it for the past 3 months, and it’s painfully disgusting.

Regardless, you can knock of the sexism charges because it’s not that...at least not now. Now if Hillary manages to get this nomination against the will of the democratic voters, (I mean please..she’s so far behind in votes that the ONLY way she’s gonna get it is by the continued rove shit, and then some) THAT’S when you’ll see the sexism start. Hill will be run out of dodge quicker than you can mispell “I”.

Fantastic post Collea-Devo. Great in fact. I agree. And thanks for posting this great info.

Your “...personal and informal, poll of Republican voting friends, acquaintances, and coworkers,.....” is anecdotal and therefore without merit and totally meaningless hearsay.

Anecdotal evidence is an informal account of evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay.

[.....]

Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical FALLACY and is sometimes informally referred to as the “person who” fallacy ("I know a person who...”; “I know of a case where...” etc. Compare with hasty generalization).

Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily typical; statistical evidence can more accurately determine how typical something is.

Also see my reply to Outraged above.

APOLOGY FOR CALLING CLINTON A CHEATER DESERVED

Clinton did not cheat and this is a bold faced lie, Outraged. And I have the proof.

Hillary did not actively go out and seek or ask for any Republican to vote for her in any of the primaries.

Now, Obama on the other hand, has ACTIVELY been seeking Republican and Independent voters, going so far as to post on his web site, and on PAID TV ads in several different states asking for Republicans votes and going so far as telling them how to change their registration. He even provided links ro the necessary paperwork on his web site for people to download, along with deadlines and Boards of Elections addresses.

This is why so many of the votes he has won so far, and delegates he has won are FROM REPUBLICAN CROSSOVER VOTES.

But you don’t consider that cheating, do you? When Obama does it well that’s OK. In FACT, 8 percent of Clinton votes came from Republicans. On the other hand, about 10 percent of Obama’s votes in that state were from Republicans. Is that cheating Outraged?

As for your totally inaccurate statement regarding what percentage of Ohio votes for Hillary were from Republicans, that too is wrong.

As reported by Fact Check.org with Sources:

Q: Did 10 percent of Hillary’s votes come from “Limbaugh Democrats” in the Ohio and Texas primaries?

On the “far right” radio talk shows there has been discussion about how 10 percent of the votes for Hillary were created by Republican crossover votes in both Texas and Ohio. I know that Republicans have been doing this for many years, but a 10 percent crossover is a very substantial quantity of votes. Is this a true fact?

A: According to exit polls, she didn’t get that many of her votes from Republicans, and it’s hard to know how many of those she did get were the result of Rush Limbaugh’s exhortations.
[….]

In Ohio, according to exit polling conducted by CNN, about 9 percent of the Democratic vote came from Republicans. They split their votes, 49 percent going to Clinton and the same percentage to Obama. Since Clinton received 1.208 million votes in that state, that means about 8 percent of her votes came from Republicans. On the other hand, about 10 percent of Obama’s 979,000 votes in that state were from Republicans.

There’s little doubt that turnout in Ohio, some of it due to Republican crossover voting, was high.

[…..]

Overall in Ohio, the number of voters who chose Democratic ballots increased 76 percent over 2004, while the number picking Republican ballots was up only 11 percent. Other factors, such as the lack of a competitive GOP race in early March, could account for some of the difference.

[……]

We’ve seen fewer stories out of Texas that deal with this phenomenon, but Republican pollster Mike Baselice has said that a 9 percent to 15 percent crossover vote is typical in that state. That’s what exit polls showed there: Only 9 percent of those who voted on Democratic ballots identified themselves as Republicans.

But they didn’t seem to follow Limbaugh’s prescription. According to the exit polls, REPUBLICANS PREFERRED OBAMA OVER CLINTON, 53 percent to 46 percent. Our calculations show that, as in Ohio, about 8 percent of Clinton’s votes in Texas came from Republicans; for Obama, the figure was about 10 percent.

–Viveca Novak

Sources
Foley, Edward B. “Cross-over voting under Ohio law,” Electionlaw at Moritz. 4 March 2008, accessed 11 March 2008.

Slater, Wayne and Gromer Jeffers Jr. “Texans for Clinton tended to mark rest of ballot; Obama voters stopped with him,” The Dallas Morning News, 9 March 2008.

Garrett, Amanda. “16,000 Republicans in Cuyahoga crossed over and voted Democratic in primary.” The Plain Dealer, 9 March 2008.

Brown, Jessica and Barrett J. Brunsman. “Turned away at poll? Click here.” The Cincinnati Enquirer, 5 March 2008.

By passed I meant IT IS NOT AN AMENDMENT TO THE U.S CONSTITUTION. Not enough states ratified or passed it to become a part of the Constitution.

My statement was metaphor for all the sexism in this Presidential primary election. It was not meant to be a history lesson.

And yes, if there were to be another try, we would have to start anew and get three-foyrths of the states to ratify.

Hillary’s ‘misrememberance’ of landing in a hail of gunfire and having to duck and run for the terminal may turn out to be a premonition, if she tries to land Hillary 1 at any airport South of the Mason-Dixon line.

Screw ‘er.

PS. Won’t it be fun to watch how she spins:

‘Screw you, working whitey’

Tune in tonight

This should clinch the election!!

A quote from Hillary at a January 1995 Camp David meeting re: should something be done for Southern working class whites?

Her opinion: “Screw ‘em. They’ve done nothing for you, Bill’.

Will the MSM pick up on this??

Go, ‘Bama.

Whats next, spotlighting deer in the back of a pickup?

Louise...on this..

“.. personally believe the biggest single obstacle to ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment before the 1979 deadline, were the various Organized Religions.

Were the ERA to become Constitutional Law, a lot of Churches would be forced to re-work their present Parochial views or risk losing their tax exempt status.

Interesting to note, while the battle for the ERA was at it’s height, it was the woman who were most vocal in protesting it’s ratification. [They are well trained, those religious women...”

*******

You just answered a question I’ve had for years, and that the very best and brightest of my professors of Constitutional Law have never come up with...(and neither have I - obviously).

THIS makes more sense to me, (for why the thing was never ratified by all) than absolutely anything else.

And, I’m gonna hold out for the ‘done deal’.

Thanks again...what a find.

“Here’s my other problem: Clinton’s argument assumes that regular is a synonym for unsophisticated—that to communicate with voters who have not attained a certain income or educational level, a candidate has to put on an elaborate disguise and speak in words of one syllable.”

***

That describes the baffling reality that republicans win votes by pointing out how stupid people are. Which by the way they really believe.

Perhaps Hillary is simply trying to appeal to the republican voters. Since they don’t take offense to being categorized as stupid when W. does it, why should they now?

But if those of us who like to believe we are not republicans don’t take offense to this, then Eugene Robinson’s question has been answered.

This IS how we pick a president!

***

bert:

“No wonder we never got an Equal Rights Amendment passed.”

***

Actually House Joint Resolution No. 208, was adopted by the House on October 12, 1971, (117 Congressional Record 35815). And was then adopted by the Senate on March 22, 1972, (118 Congressional Record 9598). And with that, the ERA was then passed by the 92nd Congress to the state legislatures for ratification, as Article V of the Constitution prescribes, with a seven-year deadline for ratification by the required three-quarters of the legislatures (38 legislatures).

Eight States have never ratified ERA. Initially, thirty five States ratified, then five rescinded their ratification. The balance have ratified ERA only in one body of their legislature. Leaving the Amendment eight short of becoming Constitutional law.

I personally believe the biggest single obstacle to ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment before the 1979 deadline, were the various Organized Religions.

Were the ERA to become Constitutional Law, a lot of Churches would be forced to re-work their present Parochial views or risk losing their tax exempt status.

Interesting to note, while the battle for the ERA was at it’s height, it was the woman who were most vocal in protesting it’s ratification. [They are well trained, those religious women.]

Most States that ratified the ERA have since passed laws similar on state levels. And many of the arguments presented to resist the law have since become meaningless. For example, women in the military are now serving in combat support units as truck drivers, gunners, medics, military police, helicopter pilots and more. In other words, in combat roles.

We are at a point in time now, where most likely the whole thing will have to be done over. And if folks are serious about getting it done, they’ll have to have a controlling democrat majority in Congress and a democrat in the White House, or it will never happen.

The eight states who have never ratified it probably never will. But if the same who did, do again and the fence sitters can be persuaded to do the right thing, it’s a done deal.

Hell, I don’t even know what’s on the youtube video, but I can say this much, there’s a WHOLE BUNCH the can be ‘gotten’ on Hillary.

The only reason she’s not been ‘gotten’ yet, is because her only real opponent for the moment isn’t willing to play dirty politics.

If somebody want’s to ‘get’ something on Clinton, there’s about 3 decades worth of ‘got cha’s’ that would run even the most brazen of hussies out of the country.

Ya’ll play a dangerous game.

Paraphrasing Descartes can be fun:

‘I hallucinate, therefore I’m Christian’

In our society, image is everything. ‘I image, why am I nothing?’

If your image is that you seek a PC image, you’ve failed.

That’s Hillary’s problem, she ‘images’ too much.

In my personal and informal, poll of Republican voting friends, acquaintances, and coworkers, the answer is clear.  They want to run against Clinton.  I’ve asked the question in multiple ways...and rarely has it been directly.

Mostly i run the arguments that i read on sites like Truthdig by them and gauge their reaction before getting to the question.

There seems to be some genuine fear of Obama.  Several of those Republicans have worried aloud that he appears to have that Reaganesque, teflon quality to him.

While i feel that both candidates will have a difficult road (and GE polls at this point are not even worth considering), i can’t find any merit in the idea that Clinton is more electable than Obama.

Hell, she can’t even beat a no-name, first-term Senator who’s black; has a Muslim name; and (until yesterday) didn’t even wear a stupid little lapel pin.

Re: bert

The whole problem with your numbers is that we are talking about people.  People don’t like McCain.  People don’t like Clinton either, that’s why OVER TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND of Clinton votes were cast by REPUBLICANS.

Republicans cheat to be sure.  They have to because they would NEVER win otherwise. We also KNOW that in actuality the dems won the last two elections.  So your fear mongering just doesn’t cut it with me.

From the Boston Globe:

“For a party that loves to hate the Clintons, Republican voters have cast an awful lot of ballots lately for Senator Hillary Clinton: About 100,000 GOP loyalists voted for her in Ohio, 119,000 in Texas, and about 38,000 in Mississippi, exit polls show.”

“Spurred by conservative talk radio, GOP voters who say they would never back Clinton in a general election are voting for her now for strategic reasons: Some want to prolong her bitter nomination battle with Barack Obama, others believe she would be easier to beat than Obama in the fall, or they simply want to register objections to Obama.”

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/17/ many_voting_for_clinton_to_boost_gop/

Yep, Republicans cheat and so did Clinton.  Why was she SILENT on this phenomenon?  She CHEATS to win, BECAUSE SHE HAS TOO, like any ol’ Republican candidate.  All decent republicans are in the process or have left the party already.

bert,

The whole problem with your numbers is that we are talking about people.  People don’t like McCain.  People don’t like Clinton either, that’s why OVER TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND of Clinton votes were cast by REPUBLICANS.

Republicans cheat to be sure.  They have to because they would NEVER win otherwise. We also KNOW that in actuality the dems won the last two elections.  So your fear mongering just doesn’t cut it with me.

From the Boston Globe:

“For a party that loves to hate the Clintons, Republican voters have cast an awful lot of ballots lately for Senator Hillary Clinton: About 100,000 GOP loyalists voted for her in Ohio, 119,000 in Texas, and about 38,000 in Mississippi, exit polls show.”

“Spurred by conservative talk radio, GOP voters who say they would never back Clinton in a general election are voting for her now for strategic reasons: Some want to prolong her bitter nomination battle with Barack Obama, others believe she would be easier to beat than Obama in the fall, or they simply want to register objections to Obama.”

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/17/ many_voting_for_clinton_to_boost_gop/

Yep, Republicans cheat and so did Clinton.  Why was she SILENT on this phenomenon?  She CHEATS to win, BECAUSE SHE HAS TOO, like any ol’ Republican candidate.  All decent republicans are in the process or have left the party already.

campaign-killer.

Yeah, that’s what all the whooping and cheering was all about - campaign killer. Plus this is as old as old can be. This occured, I am pretty sure, before the first primary election. It was last spring or summer I think. Is this all you cna get on Hillary?

Op-Ed piece. Not that there is anything wrong with that, Outraged. It just is what it is.

I would add that Obama won nine of ten of the whitest sates and nine of ten of the blackest states in the Democratic PRIMARY election. It remains to be seen if he can win those same 18 states in the GENERAL election.

I know many Obama supporters do not like it when I interject facts into any discussion. That perplexes me, because to win a campaign takes an incredible amount of planning and looking at facts in order to design a good strategy to win.

If you don’t you will wake up the day after the election and wonder how you lost.

Since this was an Op-Ed criticizing Ferraro, Gary Yonge does not name the 18 states he is referring to.

But I can make a pretty educated guess just by looking at what states Obama has won.

Most of those mostly white states are going to be in the heartland, and most of the mostly black states are going to be in the south.

I looked at 5 states from each category: WY, NE, ID, IA, KS, MS, LA, GA, SC, AL.

To win the Presidency Obama has to get 270 Electoral College (EC) votes. Let’s see how 10 of those 19 states he won in the PRIMARY stack up for him in a General Election.

WY 3 EC has gone Republican every Presidential Election since 1968.

NE 5 EC has gone Republican every Presidential Election since 1968.

ID 4EC has gone Republican every Presidential Election since 1968.

IA 7EC has gone Republican 6 times and Democrat 4 times since 1968.

KS 6EC has gone Republican every Presidential Election since 1968.

MS 6EC has gone Republican 8 times, 1 Democratic, and 1 Independent

LA 9EC has gone Republican 6 times, Democrat 3, Independent 1

GA 15EC has gone Republican 6 times, Democrat 3 and Independent 1

SC 8 EC has gone republican 9 times, Democrat 1 time

AL 9 EC Has gone Republican 8 times, Democrat 1, and Independent 1 time.

It is not likely that Obama will carry any of these states that he did win in the primary in the General. It is like that for most of the other states Obama has won; except for IL (21EC) I even checked out WI (10EC) They have gone Democrat 6 times and Republican 4 times.

Even if he won ALL of the states I just mentioned (and that he did win in the primary) in the General that would only net him 103 Electoral College votes, less than nalf what he needs to win.

For purposes of lambasting Ferraro Younge’s use of the 19 states he cites is as good an example as any.

But if you think this is proof that Obama will win the General Election with these states, you are in for one rude awakening come November 4th.

Lee:

From The Nation:  “Quite what concept Ferraro was referring to is difficult to fathom. Of the ten whitest states to have voted so far, Obama has won nine of them. Of the ten blackest states to have voted so far (including the District of Columbia), he has won nine of them. The votes are not weighted for melanin content. His lead is the product not of affirmative action but of democratic election.”

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080407/younge

Probably Obama did us a favor and hopefully we can capitalize on it. We wouldn’t have known how much a ruthless opportunist that Hillary is if she had no viable and principled opponent for the nomination.

Truly she is not a “regular gal” but is proving herself to be a Rove-like Machiavellian monster. I’m not on the Obama staff so I can say that.

HRC recalls the lesson of 2000.  One of the reasons GWB got “elected” over Gore was that people felt comfortable with Bush; he’s the kind of guy you’d like to have a beer with and watch a game on TV.  (Look how good that turned out.) Who said you can’t pander a little bit.  Personally I’d rather fire up some good herb and kick it with Barak.

Hillary has read the writing on the wall, and, facing certain defeat, is angling to become McCain’s running mate. After all, they are old, dear friends, and have similar positions and policies, foremost of which is to maintain power among ‘those who know how to use it’.
Clinton would be an almost-dead-certain-cinch as McCain’s VP to become president by succession (how long can old farts hang around?), and, after all, isn’t that what this is all about, ‘winning’ at any cost?
‘Bomb, bomb, bomb Iraq’ will be the McCain/Clinton theme, sung in close harmony. Endless war is a small price to pay for Hillary’s success.
Bill’s job, as assistant to the VP, will be to foment piece among the interns.
McCain/Clinton, the Dream Ticket for the Status Quo.
(Voters vomiting on the Touch Screens may have their votes disqualified)

This is so true, Lee. I have also deteced a not so subtle sexism here, on other blogs, and at the MSM. No wonder we never got an Equal Rights Amendment passed.

Allow me to summarize your comment.

“Black people are scary!”

With all the Pro Obama anti-Hillary articles Truthdig chooses to publish online ... Truthdig should really change it’s name to the Obama website.

Well if 20 years of action means more than mere words in a couple of speeches ... then, I’d have to say a 20 year alliegence to the ‘Black Values System”
http://www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html
strongly indicates who Obama gives a damn about.
Remember Obama ... the candidate who trandscends race ... the candidate who has 90% of Blacks voting for him, simply because he is black.

It’s really depressing when a Democratic candidate is taking speech-writing lessons from Jeff Foxworthy.

Honestly, I could not agree more with Eugene because it actually is condescending to say every American is too stupid to vote for a qualified candidate because they want to have beers and shoot a buck with the president. That’s really insulting, Hillary. Even to me, and I love hunting, fishing and beer. Thing is, American people (like all people) are much more complex than some people (like Hillary) give credit because I also love philosophy, learning foreign languages, politics, history, ancient artwork, mythology, chess, foreign culture, music, cooking, horticulture/gardening and baking.

Anyone who oversimplifies an entire group of people is being condescending and bigoted. Something to be expected from the big boss Hillary Clinton, who wants to pretend she isn’t an elitist, extraordinarily wealthy corporate trial lawyer who doesn’t understand neither the time she is living in or the “average Joe.”

I’ll join you for a few Purple Girl. (I doubt Hillary would be brave enough though). And, I also doubt any blue collar workers were having any drinks in the bar either.

How many blue collar jobs are left in MI, and how many of the workers can afford drinks? Was she buying?

You’re so right about the plantation mistress, and that you could fold 78 right into 08...I remember the intervening years quite well.

As for getting off of the oil, back when we were talking about it? Well, they didn’t ‘ignore’ that, they VERY PURPOSEFULLY PREVENTED any alternative sources of energy from coming to the fore. It damn sure didn’t happen by accident. Oh no...as you said, there was far, far, far too much profit for a few in THAT venture.

So, I’m sure Hillary didn’t need to stick around in the bar to hear the truth. She damn well already KNOWS it. She was right there in the thick of it all in Little Rock, and in her partnership in the Rose Law Firm...the same firm that protected the potted plant from his investors after he bankrupted Harken Oil…

SHE KNOWS…

“Somebody get Hillary a camouflage pants suit for the next duck hunt.”

Jeeze Thomas, she’s already got a million of these suckers, how many more of these pantsuits does she need?

Besides, all she has to do is ring up WalMart on the speed dial…

They’ll send the duck hunting equipment along with more suits…

Ah yes she remembers it well.Coming out of the Airplane in Kosovo with her six shooters blazing while she was ducking sniper fire.It is nice to know that Hillary is running as GI Josephine.Pretty soon the Hillary campaign will morph into John McCain’s.Guns,Gays and God.Somebody get Hillary a camouflage pants suit for the next duck hunt.

I found Hillary’s comments offensive when she did her “the clouds will pass, the sun will shine...” when discussing those who suport Obama. The real criticism to our ‘audacity to hope’.
Now she refers to US midwesterners as if we are the slaves on her Plantation- ‘Oh they can take a beating, don’t mind if their children are raped, can’t read a word- but they roll up their sleeves and get back to work while singing a Happy tune’
She is out of Touch. As a MI’er we are not just ‘bitter’ we are PISSED! The industries our ancestors built, our parents nurtured and who have now left US for cheaper pastures have not only screwed US but have spit & danced on the graves ,Stolen the retirements and the Futures of the very spirits She now patronizes.
i’m not a gun owner, and follow no organized releigion (recoverd catholic)- but realize those are the only two Rights and Freedoms The real Elitist have been Unable to pry from our cold dead hands.Obama was being reather Mild- it hasn’t been 25 yrs - it’s been 35 yrs. The ‘70’s were our First Cry to get off M.E. Oil- Recession, Oil shortage, Hostage Crisis, Hijackings. We could fold time over ‘78 on top of ‘08. had we made step for alternative fuels we would not be in thispositon now- 9/11 would not have happened (we’d have been out of the region for decades). but Oil, Auto & Banking were making to huge of Profits- So Who is truely responsible for the situation we find our selves in. One only have to ask thoe in the’Rust Belt’(Canaries in the Coalmines,assemblylines)- We’ve been telling them for Decades.Obviously Hillary didn’t stick around long enough in that Bar to hear the Truth- or there was not one blue collar worker invited. come have a few Drinks with Me Hill!

One can only hope that Hillary doesn’t misplace her script and start shooting ducks in a Cathedral some Sunday morning, or pounding down boilermakers while huddled in a feathered blind with Bill on Lake Minipoopoo.
The big question is: Would a Hillary presidency be as good for the nation as Bush’s was? I mean, Bush hopefully weaned us from the temptation to almost-elect a friggin’ moron who piously claimed to be born-again and take direction directly from ‘god’.
Would a couple of years of Hillary-Gate persuade us that the demented delusions and the figmental memory of a once-presidential housewife do not an adequate ‘leader’ make, so we’d never be bamboozled again?
And could the country stand the double-curse of a Bush/Clinton succession redux? Can we once-and-for-all remove the spectre of a potential Chelsea campaign?

Ford f150, jesus rocks, gun rack. Does w have the same graven images to trick the masses? Chewing tobacco, clearing brush on his ranch, cowboy boots. Wow, this are all qualities that make a regular american? I am not so sure I want a regular person running the show here. There seems to be a be of false bravado involved and with the real record for these folks(you won’t see that on msm)make you wonder what could be wrong with the lack of true character? Classic example, running campaigns about the person and not the issues.
Think of all current and developing problems in this country and the world, and really think hard if you think the next president, and especially if it is hillary, if or how many of these issues will be dealt with much less corrected.
That is the best way I can word this as I have no faith in the upcoming election because the candidates do not:
1) seem to be interested about cutting the monoply on the mainstream media.
2) seem to be interested in regulating corporations.
3) seem to be interested in instituting regulations on fianacial institutions.
4) seem to be interested in oversight and investigation
5) this list can go on and on because they all are running on their personalities which if people would just try to get the real info on that, it should think harder about how they would vote. But the choices seem slim and next to none for a real election and that goes for all the ‘class acts’ running for congress, especially the incumbents.

Eugene…my point…EXACTLY!

• “Here’s my other problem: Clinton’s argument assumes that “regular” is a synonym for “unsophisticated”—that to communicate with voters who have not attained a certain income or educational level, a candidate has to put on an elaborate disguise and speak in words of one syllable.
• So tell me: Who’s being patronizing?”

Just who the hell is being patronizing, when they lie and totally ignore the reality that voters are living, as if WE don’t know that the jobs are gone, or that we don’t have access to education or health care or anything else? How pissed off would ANYBODY be when some politician tells them that she sees ‘resilience’ and blah, blah, blah? Resilient my ass…how are we supposed to eat? Suppose the ducks aren’t running today, or we’re out of bird shot?

And, I don’t know which mansions the Clinton’s hang-out at the most, but what Obama notes right here, is what is happening everywhere I look, and it’s been this way for years now, but specifically since 2000…

“…..describe the resentment felt by some working-class Americans, venturing that “they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

ANYBODY who has been paying even 40% attention to the social psychology of the America public over the past several years can actually CHART this mood in the American public, and it’s been evident right here in articles and reader comments. The increased religiosity is a major sign, and all of this family values stuff is too. Competition among people for even the most benign sorts of things is off the charts. People are resentful as hell, and spend their time obsessing on what OTHER PEOPLE HAVE, (or at least what they think they have) and what they presumably (and probably) DON’T have.

Mexicans are the scapegoat of the new Century, because they blame THEM for all of the lost jobs, even though it far more complex than that, and so now we’re building a damn wall that isn’t gonna make any difference, but DOES cost a bunch of money. These are just a couple of the most obvious REACTIONS to these times, and most folks don’t even understand WHY.

Seriously, I know so many people who have become regular church goers and bible studiers, who NEVER WERE BEFORE, (and NO…I don’t see anything positive about it) and all of a sudden everybody is complaining about ‘all of these Mexicans” (less PC than the ‘illegal immigrant’ term) when the fact of the matter is that at least in my own geographic area, “Mexicans’ have ALWAYS BEEN HERE! This is California, so of COURSE they have!! But, all I hear are that illegals are getting this, that, or the other thing, when THEY aren’t getting it.

And NO…it hasn’t always been this way. It’s because of the decreased resources and more folks fighting over them. CLASS WAR, and everybody is pissed at the wrong folks for causing it.

Meantime, Mr. and Mrs used-to-be middle class, have been bumped out of their semi-first class seats, (which they were never paying the real cost of to begin with, but still felt important) and so they’re pissed as well. Must be SOMEBODY’S fault. So, they just wanna go get their guns.

Like I said, anybody who hasn’t noticed this, can’t be paying attention. So again, Obama ‘gets it’ and Hillary doesn’t. She also doesn’t care, (she’s got HERS) so that’s why she just says whatever the hell she thinks she has to say to ‘bond’ with the voters, for long enough to get a vote.

Well, that super glue ain’t workin’ Hill, cause you haven’t given any indication in your 7 years as a Senator, that you did any duck hunting, or went to church, or gave less than a damn about the regular folks.