Go Barack

Home Forums Politics Go Barack

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 25 posts - 551 through 575 (of 961 total)
  • Author
  • #617867


    Do you honestly think that one of the worlds richeset men (297 on Forbes list) needs the extra million?? I dont buy it. She was trying to buy another supporter to bad it got shut down to quickly becuase everyone else saw how ridiculous this was!!!

    And has Hillary started to take accountability for the acquantices she knows such as Norman Hsu who was wanted in california for failing to show for a grand theft charge? or what about NAFATA? or Bosnia? She laughs it off..wow real accountable.



    you are right about texas..

    i forgot the caucus.. interesting state where they get to vote twice:)

    and we all know Obama does well in caucus’s…

    not so well in the same state if there is an actual primary election… but that was all explained away in some article referenced here…

    funny what you think counts and when you think it counts…

    Also funny that you think it isn’t changing the rules to require superdelgates to vote the same as the delegate count in their state…

    So that does mean that you think Kerry and Kennedy should have immediately stopped campaigning for Senator Obama when their state went for Clinton…

    doesn’t it?

    oh my … taking things to their logical conclusions ;-0



    Yes I do. I think it is A-okay for Superdelegates to follow their state. it is their due diligence.

    “funny what you think counts and when you think it counts”…i think you got the two camps confused that is Hillary referring to Michigan, Florida, and the popular vote the problem is she voted for the rules from the beginning.




    Great article on the myth of exit polling from primaries transferring to the election. Like I said last week- Huckabee won big in the south, and John McCain was never able to make inroads into that base. Romney dominated in states that he was a resident of, and McCain was never able to cut into that.

    It was a definite sign that he didn’t appeal to all demographics of his party in a primary. Do you really think the evangelicals are going to break for Obama because of it? Of course not…



    so you will publicly berate Kennedy and Kerry for campaigning for Senator Obama after their states voted for Hillary?

    You will no longer choose to refer to them or their endorsements because they are unethical?

    because you don’t think it’s just A-OK for superdelegates to follow their state..

    you think it is their obligation…

    choosing one standard and applying it equally is ethical behavior.

    The problem here is the double standard…

    You think the rules are the rules if they break for Obama…

    but if they don’t.. you think they should be changed.

    you think supedelgates should be obligated to vote the way their state voted unless they voted for Senator Clinton.. in which case they should follow their consciences…

    This is not ethical behavior…

    if the rules are up for grabs.. then i think all the rules should be up for grabs…

    let’s count everyone…

    and as for the matter of the museum…

    are you against public private partnerships? Would you be happier if the taxpayers picked up the entire bill? Becasue that’s the other option…

    you really should look into things a little deeper before making judgements…

    if you honestly feel that public/private partnership is a bad idea for the citizens in Woodstock after looking carefully at it.. then make that case…

    i don’t think you will.. but who knows… it sure looked like a good deal for them.. and something i would choose to visit.. after i looked into it.



    JoB- whine all you want. Here is one fundamental truth:

    The Obama campaign has had one metric by which it has measured the race, being pledged delegates. It was the metric used to plan the campaign strategy. It was the method used by all of the campaigns to win the election. It is the metric that has been reported by all news outlets from the end of the very first primary until today.

    The Clinton campaign has changed the metric by which it measured the race close to a dozen times now based on the results of the election. After the Iowa loss- “its a race for delegates” they said, to downplay the 3rd place finish. After Super Tuesday they championed they had won the night because they won the most delegates. Then, they started losing contests. The campaign said- pay no attention to these 11 states- we have Ohio, and Texas ahead and we will regain all our delegates they are the big states, you know the ones that count. Since then, they have not mentioned delegates except to say silly things like “there is no such thing as a pledged delegate”. It became about the popular vote- not because there is some deep sense of fairness in them, that should insult anyones intelligence. The popular vote because its the only way they could win. Then that went to hell, so now we exclude caucus states, but include states where campaigning was not allowed, where the other candidates weren’t on the ballot, and where she said “it won’t count for anything”. That’s the ticket! And lets not forget, its not the delegates, or the popular vote (since we won’t win either) but instead its the big states! You can’t win without the big states. You know George Bush won California twice? How’d that work out in the general? So now what is the metric of the day?

    Does anyone actually think, for one second- that if the situation was reversed, and Senator Clinton had a next to impossible stranglehold on the delegate lead- she would be saying that popular vote is more important? That it truly is her belief in democracy (no matter how deeply flawed the logic is) that we should now use the popular vote, and count every vote, so that I can argue that SUPER people can override the actual will of the vote? That it is a sincere motivation behind this dramatic shift with the wind? Or is it maybe, just maybe- possible that she is playing every card she can find in desperation, and would do anything to get elected? Is it possible her passionate belief that a race that she said “will count for nothing” be counted is because she goes where the wind takes her.



    thank you for your well spoken statement JoB.

    all of this back and forth from everyone regarding what is and isn’t ethical, what is an isn’t right, what will and will not happen, is just ridiculous to me…

    until the entire primary process is changed by our wonderful government (right…), what happens – happens (!) come this June at the Dem convention. All the webposts, weblinks, articles, speeches, etc to the contrary won’t do a darn this time around until that time comes.

    what will everyone do if Obama is not chosen? what will everyone do if Hillary is not chosen?

    still go on with your lives is what, just like you do today and will tomorrow.

    but we all better make damn sure that whomever it is that is chosen is given our full support in order to beat McCain come November, so that we can change the direction this country has been going the last 8 years. that to me is far more important than the whom…its the direction.

    any other answer than that, and you can all can sign for the Repugs voter registry from now on.



    If Hillary wins the election more power to her. Since that is next to impossible now, the question needs to be rephrased. If the superdelegates override the pledged delegates and give the race to Hillary, how would you vote.

    I’ll give you a hint, it wouldn’t be for Hillary, or a democrat. It would be the worst political decision a party has ever made. It would be so inherently self destructive, really self destroying that one would have to ponder what the goal of the party as the supposed opposition party actually was. It would be very clear that it could not be trusted to make decisions, to govern, or to bring change.

    I say this- not because there is any chance it will happen. Obama will be the nominee, and I will support him. But because Hillary folks don’t get it- she had absolutely ever possible advantage from name recognition, from money, from infrastructure, from popularity etc. Every possible advantage to win the nomination- and she didn’t win. Now she is trying to change all of the rules because she came pretty close. How do you justify that to the supporters of the guy that actually did win, despite having all those significant disadvantages and obstacles to overcome?

    Anyone else think its weird how in synch Karl Rove, FoxNews, Sean Hannity, John McCain, the North Carolina GOP, and Hillary Clintons campaign right now are? Spooky, spooky stuff…



    You go, Andrea!



    Bill Moyers (Bill Moyers Journal, PBS) interviewed Rev. Jeremiah Wright tonight. You should listen to or read the entire interview: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/profile.html

    Wright is a brilliant and articulate man; he knows theology (he’a a theological historian) and he speaks from a “dangerous” combination of intellect and emotion.

    The corporatist media is determined to make this into a “fight” between Wright and Obama: to talk about the damage Wright did to Obama’s campaign simply by being visible (ie, setting the record straight.)

    There’s some delicious irony in the audacity of the media people who frame the debate (decide the issues) “announcing” what the story is, Since they’re in charge of making it up, it’s hard for them to ever be wrong.

    The official sound bites that came from the interview are that Wright says he is a pastor and Obama is a politician. This was not said as an insult — it was said as a fact, in part to explain their differing viewpoints; that Obama has a different view of Wright’s sermons than Wright does. Duh.

    Listen to it because, in this age of character assasination masquerading as debate, it’s breathtaking to hear an exchange of important ideas between two intelligent and informed people.



    Thanks for the Moyers link, Charla…very fascinating.




    you never cease to amaze me…

    you just can’t resist inserting your foot when you open your mouth can you….

    first you trash Elizabeth Edwards.. then all wives.. then you go for Jon.. now…

    “If the superdelegates override the pledged delegates and give the race to Hillary, how would you vote.

    I’ll give you a hint, it wouldn’t be for Hillary, or a democrat.”

    So.. i guess you are so over the poll that said those pesky Clinton supporters wouldn’t vote for Obama.. and right back where you started ;->

    It’s Obama or nothing for you… and yo don’t much care what it takes to get there:)

    if nothing else. you are great for entertainment value…

    i guess politics makes for some pretty strange bedfellow….




    Reverend Wright is an articulate and intelligent man… and he fought bravely for his country.

    He is also hip deep in some of the more controversial elements of the black power movement.

    He is not a muslim.

    He is not secretly for Hamas.

    He is a Christian who believes in political activism.

    but politics does indeed make for some strange bedfellows…

    and many of his won’t stand up to scrutiny…

    and by association if nothing else..

    neither will some of Obama’s who was pursuing political power in the same constituency…

    Many great men have made poor choices in associates…

    that doesn’t make them lesser men…

    but it does make them less electable.



    Clearly you did not listen to or read the actual interview. HE IS NOT HIP DEEP IN THE BLACK POWER MOVEMENT (whatever the hell that is.)

    The link I posted, and my comment on it, had nothing to do with the effect of Wright on Obama’s electability. The only connection I made between the two was to point to yet another media attempt to stir up a fake feud.

    Where do you take it? More “proof” that Obama is not electable. It’s what I’ve come to expect from the Clinton campaign, but I’m always disappointed.

    I will say it again: At this point, the Clintons are less interested in getting the nomination than they are in making sure Obama is not elected. They do not want to follow two terms of a successful, bright YOUNG president.

    Obama is not doing ANYTHING to make sure Clinton cannot be elected if she is nominated. The Clintons are doing that themselves.

    The fact is that Clinton would have a very difficult time winning back black voters — but they’ve done that to themselves. Obama was getting a majority of the black vote in early primaries — his “90 percent” margins started when Bill dismissed him as just another Jesse Jackson.

    By the way, I find it stunningly hypocritical that people who railed about the possibility of Obama supporters not voting for or working for Clinton, now seem to think that’s fine — since their supporters are even worse.

    By the way, II — we can beat McCain — easily — if Clinton (and Obama to a lesser degree) stop moving to the right as a competitive tactic. The American(sic) people support progressive positions ON ISSUES by huge margins. If we have the cojones to embrace those positions, we can win. If not — well, as someone famous said, “If people want to vote for Republicans, they’ll vote for the real thing.”

    And yes I will still vote for and work for Clinton, if she’s nominated. But I will also MAKE SURE she is not nominated in 2012 if she manages to pull off the coup she’s attempting.



    why you might want an insider who knows how to get things done in Congress for your next President…


    that is if you believe campaign promises should be more than just words…



    You mean the one who’s supporters are throwing cold water on the health care plans?

    From the link you posted above:

    “”Schumer (certainly in the Clinton camp,) like a reliable Fox News anchor, tells us that America isn’t “ready” for national health care plan, despite polls over the last decade showing strong support for such a concept. Likewise, Meek – playing right into the Grover Norquist “drown it in the bathtub” mantra, claims the federal government doesn’t have the cash to pay for a health care overhaul – even as Congress continues writing blank checks to fund the Iraq War.”

    The “fair and balanced” media, of course, had to identify an Obama supporter who, allegedly, throws him under the bus, too. However, Jay Rockefeller didn’t quite say he health care wouldn’t be supported:

    ““We all know there is not enough money to do all this stuff,” said Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), a Finance Committee member and an Obama supporter, referring to the presidential candidates’ healthcare plans. “What they are doing is … laying out their ambitions”.

    “All this stuff” isn’t quite the same as saying Health Care, specifically.

    If the right wing of the Democratic Party has it’s way, it’ll be another Clinton giving the store away to big bidness and the Republicans.

    Unless she loses to McCain, of course. She likes to quote Harry Truman, but didn’t he say something about choosing between a Republican and a Republican?



    Bowling for Obama “Get out of the House” Party!

    Come see how you do compared to Barack’s Bowling Score from Pennsylvania! (Hint: it’s 37)

    This will be a 21+ and over FUNdraising event where we will network, socialize, have fun and bowl for Obama! This is a great way to get everyone motivated and out there for Obama!

    Sunday, May 4th, 3-5pm

    Garage Billiards and Bowl

    1130 Broadway

    Seattle, WA 98112, near the intersection of Broadway and Madison.

    RSVP: http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/4rj8z



    Another thread sent me to the National Journal which announced Senator Obama as the most liberal Senator in the 2007…. which is calculated by the percentage of votes he cast correctly for 99 issues that the National Journal designated liberal.

    Buried in the commentary were a couple of comments I thought might be relevant to the discussion here.

    I have included the link to the entire article for those who are curious.


    “For her part, Clinton at times has emphasized her nuts-and-bolts pragmatism. She cites her work with GOP colleagues such as Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, with whom she collaborated for three years to secure medical benefits for National Guard troops. Clinton hit that theme in a December ad aimed at independent voters in New Hampshire. “I’ve learned if you want to get things done, you have to know when to stand your ground and when to find common ground,” she said as she looked into the camera.

    In recent interviews, both candidates’ supporters contended that they can handle any charges that they are too liberal for the country. Whitehouse, a Clinton supporter, said that she weathered that storm throughout her years as first lady. “What people remember as polarizing was the rabid Republican smear attack that lasted for years against the Clintons,” he said. “When you actually look at her on the record and working, she’s solidly bipartisan and very productive.” “

    “In the general election, Cornyn said, the ideological differences between the Republican and Democratic nominee “would be certainly a stark contrast.” Drawing that distinction “would be important to present to people,” he said, adding that notwithstanding Obama’s appeal “really across party lines,” his ideology “would be certainly what the election would focus on.”

    Graham, a McCain supporter, was equally adamant that ideology would be very important. Whether Clinton or Obama is the nominee, Graham said, the differences between the two parties’ candidates on taxes, judicial nominees, and war policy would be significant. “I mean, there would be big, huge thematic differences,” he said.

    When asked about the Clinton ad featuring her work with him to show how she reaches across party lines, Graham noted he was proud that they extended military health care to the Guard and Reserves. “I don’t want her to be president not because I don’t like her,” he added. “I know the judges that she will appoint will be the opposite of what I would like. I know what she would do with the tax problems we have — she will not make the tax cuts permanent. And I know what she would do in Iraq. She would withdraw. She said she would begin withdrawing in 60 days of becoming president. That would be a disaster.” “



    Faced with a list of issues, the American(sic) people come down on the liberal side. Faced with the word, “liberal” they do not. The Repugs are better at framing and lying about their frames. We had best learn to do both or we will lose too.



    >charlabob seemed to dismiss him by saying “there >is no reason to reason with you” and that “you >are wrong”

    When Socrates came back with reasonable questions, I fully intended to write about them — I haven’t done so for two reasons; I’ve been very busy and writing anything reasoned on this blog seems a waste of my time.

    As usually happens, it has been taken over by a few bullies who push any discussion to prove what they want to prove and see what they want to see.

    I apologize to Socrates for not having done so. However, I also have to say, as far as I’m concerned, any trace of open debate about any issues disappeared long ago.

    A few people still actually try to communicate. Mostly, it’s just frantic, shrill, depressing noise.




    i had to go back to see what all of the fuss was about…

    and i find i have a couple of questions for you..

    you said…

    “A proxy war is happening in Iraq (with Al Qaida/Iran) instead of NYC and the Taliban is crushed.”

    I honestly don’t understand why you think that…

    other than the fact hat the evening news has been giving us this justification for years…

    You seem like a guy who cares about the facts… you sure are a guy who cares about details:)

    The taliban forces in Iraq are not the same as the guys that were in Afghanistan… same name.. not the same core group.

    So we aren’t fighting them in Iraq…

    Current thinking is that Osama Bin Laden.. if he still lives… and there is some limited evidence that he does.. is living in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan…

    And that group gets kinda p..d off when anyone says they weren’t solely responsible for 911…

    they’re even anti Iran right now because they think Iran has been taking credit for 911.

    I don’t know if the Iran taking credit thing is actually from Iran…

    or another rumor floated to make us happy about invading Iran…

    but i do know the second in command of the original group made a huge fuss about it recently.

    “I suppose your preferred policy in regards to terrorists is shooting million dollar missiles at empty tents like Pres. Clinton?”

    was this our only other option?

    I suppose it may well be now with our troops overcommited in Iraq… but i don’t think it was before we invaded them…



    Charlabob this is for you and Kayleigh too! :)

    While trying to defend the homeless on the front page I found some exciting news (at least for you two)!!!

    Last year, I went to the Plymouth Housing Groups luncheon which was truely amazing! Anyhow, it made me remember to check to see when this years luncheon was because I wanted to be sure to go anyhow trying to check the dates…and the key note speaker pops up and GUESS WHAT???

    THE KEYNOTE SPEAKER IS SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS!!! I just had to share it with you two as well as anyone else who was a huge Edwards fan!!!:)



    the date for that luncheon is Sept. 25…plenty of time to save up for the “donation” :)

    and here’s another thing for Charla and Kayleigh…




    So, one thing I dont get is how the media is trying to pull the b.s. that Obama can’t close the deal…hmm shouldnt they be askign Clinton that since this should have been a slam dunk for her and she failed???



    BDG: :-) x 10!!!!

Viewing 25 posts - 551 through 575 (of 961 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.