[...] Obama: I’m Still the Underdog Sunday, January 27th, 2008 Article Tools Print Email addthis_url = location.href; addthis_title = document.title; addthis_pub = ‘timecom’; RSS “Senator Clinton, I think, has the advantage in a lot of these states,” the South Carolina winner says of February 5 contests. [...]

Anybody that raises their arms to the sky and does the “jesus” thingy needs to have THAT

behavior questioned. But no…. they instead make comments about a former President (who kept

peace and balanced our budget) Hillary will also do a great job as President because she states

the FACTS even when some folks don’t like the facts and she is COMMITTED to the Constitution.

Obviously Mr. B. O. doesn’t present himself as a person commited to his faith since he has to fire

accusations or excuses and do his dramatic “jesus” presentation to gain popularity among those

less knowledgeable.

So, because of Obama’s poor behavior, anyone with good old common sense will realize that Mr.

B.O. would not be able to commit to being a good President.

Having a candidate like Hillary Clinton , who is not riding towards the Presidency on a cloak of

superstitious religious beliefs, is refreshing. I would vote for any candidate that had guts to

state, “SEPARATION of church and State is what I believe!!!!!”

Charmers like Barack and Bush seem to leave a stench in their path…. you know… a B. O.

And, that is exactly who we need protection from. haha.

Taxes and Fees

A survey of states by the National Conference of State Legislatures found Massachusetts led the nation during Romney’s first year, raising fees and fines by $501 million. New York was second with $367 million. Nine other states raised fees and fines by more than $100 million.

“We renamed him ‘Fee-Fee.’ He was so unwilling to raise taxes that he was wanting to put all these fees in place instead,” Hachey said.

“It’s a shell game,” said Julian Zelizer, professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. “He (Mitt Romney) can still say he didn’t raise taxes, but fees are taxes by another name. It’s a trick.”

Romney’s fees could also grate on some of those he is courting as he seeking the GOP nomination, including gun owners.

Under Romney’s plan for Massachusetts, the cost of registering firearms would have jumped from $25 to $75. He also called for increases in the cost of firearm identification cards, application fees for a license to carry firearms, and gun dealer fees.

Gun owners said they felt unfairly targeted by Romney’s proposed increases. Democratic lawmakers applauded Romney’s proposal — ultimately raising the cost of gun licenses to $100.

“We certainly shouldn’t be paying anything for our Second Amendment right, because it’s a civil right,” said Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owner’s Action League.

Boston.com - August 2007

2nd Amendment

In his 1994 US Senate run, Romney backed two gun-control measures strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups: the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on certain assault weapons.

“That’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA,” Romney told the Boston Herald in 1994.

At another campaign stop that year, he told reporters: “I don’t line up with the NRA.”

And as the GOP gubernatorial candidate in 2002, Romney lauded the state’s strong laws during a debate against Democrat Shannon O’Brien. “We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them,” he said. “I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.”

Today, as he explores a presidential bid, Romney is sending a very different message on gun issues, which are far more prominent in Republican national politics than in Massachusetts.

He now touts his work as governor to ease restrictions on gun owners. He proudly describes himself as a member of the NRA — though his campaign won’t say when he joined. And Friday, at his campaign’s request, top officials of the NRA and the National Shooting Sports Foundation led him around one of the country’s biggest gun shows.

Boston.com - January 2007

Abortion

The National Review article, by John J. Miller, also noted that Romney said during his gubernatorial campaign that he would “fully protect a woman’s right to choose” abortion but now says his “political philosophy is pro-life.” And it quoted Romney adviser Michael Murphy as saying: “He’s been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly.”

WashingtonPost.com - June 2005

When he ran for US Senate in liberal-leaning Massachusetts in 1994, Romney said abortion should be ‘’safe and legal.” As a candidate for governor in 2002, he said he would keep the state’s abortion rights laws intact and has since said that he kept that promise. But this year, as he began preparing a potential run for president, Romney said he is ”in a different place” than he was when he first ran for office in 1994 and has stressed that he is ”personally prolife.”

Boston.com - July 2005

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43TVmSoaQ7c

Like Frist, John McCain, the Republican senator with the highest national profile, has reversed his position on the issue and now supports an expansion of the research.

“It’s a very complex scientific issue,” McCain (Ariz.) told NBC’s Tim Russert earlier this year. “But for us to throw away opportunities to cure diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s and many others I think would be a mistake.”

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), another possible presidential contender, is a longtime critic of the House approach.

“The vote in the House to allow taxpayer-funded destruction of young human lives is deeply troubling,” Brownback said. “We all have a duty to protect the innocent, and this vote represents a failure to recognize the scientific fact that stem-cell research that destroys embryos kills young human children.”

TheHill.com - October 2005

That doesn’t sound like a 100% Pro-Life voting record to me.

In 2004, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said he opposed a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage:

Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona broke forcefully with President Bush and the Senate GOP leadership Tuesday evening over the issue of same-sex marriage, taking to the Senate floor to call a constitutional amendment that would effectively ban the practice unnecessary — and un-Republican. “The constitutional amendment we’re debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans,” McCain said.

But yesterday, ABC reported that McCain confided to Jerry Falwell that he would support such an amendment:

McCain “reconfirmed” to Falwell that he would support a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman if a federal court were to strike down state constitutional bans on gay marriage.

ThinkProgress.org - March 2006

So which is it Senator McCain, for or against an amendment???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2eZ4-8a3zA

Just Like Her Daddy and Worse

The Princess Royal of the Kennedy clan, who has herself accomplished nothing in life except being born to wealth and privilege, has draped her father’s moth-eaten cloak on Barack Obama, who, in her father’s White House, would have been a footman or cook. Say what you will about Obama, he got there himself without the benefit of a rich daddy or corrupt political machine. He may be more unprepared to be president and more disastrous for this country than was JFK, but we hope, at least, that he will be impervious to “love notes” from middle-aged political camp followers who are still trying to be influential without ever being relevant.

http://reviewofcuban-americanblogs.blogspot.com

the american people will wakeup and see that hillary clinton will be the best president .

Why would you vote for a muslim?

Go Hillary!!!!!

Kenneth

I want to congratulate Barack Obama for picking up the endorsements of party establishment leaders and Washington insiders Ted and Caroline Kennedy. These two stalwarts of the status quo have banked upon their family name, used the corpse of a great president, and even managed to survive homicide. While you pick up these two wonderful endorsements from the party elite like John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, the rest of the country still has a vote.

Well, that is unless Howard “Scream” Dean decides that we cut in line. In that case, our votes will be thrown out the window and party tag-a=longs like Obama and Edwards will completely skip over your state.

I want to thank Ted Kennedy for endorsing Obama and giving him the huge boost to win that he gave John Kerry, who is now enjoying the end of his first term.

So here’s to the other 45 states. You know, the rest of the country?

You mean this race HASN’T been decided by South Carolina?! How about that.

“I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved.”

Red, why would you open up the comment column and spew ignorance. I don’t think you adequately understand the meaning of “separation of church and state”. Just cos a man is grateful to whatever diety he believes in and shows it some how or just because you think what Obams did looks like a “Jesus thingy” dosen’t neccessarily mean that he won’t observe the and respect the constitution. By the way Jesus is a name, spell it starting with a capital letter like you did for Hillary or do you suppose she is also superior to Jesus? ……..shaize.

Wow, there are some idiotic comments here.
@red. Where do i start. Hillary is scorching the earth before she loses - lying about opponents records, statements, trying the cheat the voters. She is bush-lite. The irony is that you compare obama and bush when billary is nothing but the same. What part of change do you not understand? Remember the embarassment of the clinton years? You think she’s telling the truth about anything? “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”, whitewater, etc, etc, etc. They’ve taken Rove’s dirty trick playbook and managed to screw up an almost guaranteed Democratic victory from division because of their greed.
@Joseph. You clearly are nitpicking. If those are issues that are more important to you than the war, our economy, and healthcare, then more power to you. You just don’t have a lot to choose from in the republican race this go around.
@Manuel. I’m not sure of your point. Is that an underhanded compliment to Obama or are you so disgusted by the Kennedy family that you can’t make a coherent point? I would think that for someone who complains about the lack of respect given Cuban-Americans on your blog, you would be more supportive of a democrat and minority candidate who would clearly be more on your side than the current regime.
@morgan. Define “best”. If best=most corrupt, lying, manipulative, divisive, evil, and “win at all costs” then I guess I agree. Has there ever been a party candidate in whom scores of lifelong democrats (myself included) have vowed that they wouldn’t vote for her EVER?!?!

Hillary (and Bill) now represent all that is wrong with American politics. A vote for Hillary now guarantees a Republican wins the White House again. She is unelectable.

Really, listen to the tone of Clinton supporters vs. Obama supporters. It is generally a perversely negative tone verses a fervor for leadership and new ideas. They want to feel good. They want to feel hope and possibility. They’re motivated! … makes you want to be part of something.
I might vote for Obama (Independent voter), but you’ll never get many non-Democrats to jump on the Clinton bandwagon. For most people, we’re not invited anyway … not a way to win an election. You Clintonites are all “us vs them” whomever your next “them” on the list would be.

Sorry to disappoint you, Red, but Hillary’s starting to mention Christianity, God, etc., in her speeches. As usual, she follows Obama’s lead. In addition to the Christian references (and looking upward as if thanking the Good Lord), yesterday Hillary said the word “change” about 1000 times (although the word somehow takes on a mocking tone coming from her lips), and she stressed the importance of repairing our reputation in the world…. all Obama initiatives. BTW, if you read up on Obama, you’ll find that his religiosity, while genuine, is quite sympathetic to secularism. He finds value in Christianity not only personally but as a reflection of community. You should check into it for yourself, but know that his was a largely intellectual evolution, and he employs religion in a humanistic manner (just the opposite of absolutists such as Bush). Still, it’s authentic, not calculated, as it appears to be with Hillary.

Kenneth,

You are a liar and bigot just like Hillary. Barack is a Christian, but there are many wonderful people who are Muslim.

These smear tactics may get Hillary elected but it will not make her a leader. It makes her like Bush.

Mr. Obama will win the nomination and will become the president. I still can not believe that Clinton was spanked last night by 28 points! This will bode well for Obama as he moves forward into super Tuesday. It is obvious that voters and democrats across the country can see that the Clintons are much less than truthworthy. And we all know that Mr. Clinton is not trustworthy as he LIED to the American public about his affair. Mr. Obama will bring the nation together and move America forward. Get prepared for major change in this country.

Brian is right. She is unelectable and making herself moreso as she continues with belittling rhetoric that spreads far beyond misrepresentations of Barack Obama. She exposes her (and Bill’s too) true insencerity for groups of people. Everything is a means to an end for them.

Those of you who claim that Clinton would guarantee a Republican win, think again. Polls show that Obama and Clinton have the same weakness, and the same strengths. They beat every Republican except for one — McCain.

So the argument that Clinton will give you a Republican win is more Obama shrilling attempted to scare you into voting their way. That isn’t politics of change or hope, that’s what we experience with every politician.

I thought Obama was a candidate who doesn’t scare people into voting for him, but his surrogates keep trying to scare Democrats with the boogyman of a Republican. Too bad the facts do not match up with Obama’s change from reality to fantasy. Clinton is just as viable as Obama against Republicans.

Who’s Electible?

Democrats concerned about regaining the White House to move this country forward may want to reconsider the conventional wisdom as to who is the most electible candidate.

1) In Iowa, with hotly contested caucuses on both sides, Obama not only won by eight points over John Edwards, but garnered more caucusers than the top four Republicans combined. Record turnout on the Democratic side boosted him to a convincing victory, even though the third place candidate, Hillary Clinton, got the numbers of die-hard Democrats out they expected to need to win. Most precincts were flooded, with two to three times as many caucusers as had ever been seen before.

2) In another predominately white state, New Hampshire, Obama lost by just five thousand votes, with most, if not all, of her margin coming from early and absentee ballots cast before Iowa. Again, Independents flocked to Obama, despite having another candidate they greatly admired (and splitting that vote) in John McCain on the other side.

3) Speaking of John McCain: Mark McKinnon, McCain’s campaign manager, has twice now pledged publicly not to work for any candidate, including his own, that is running against Obama.

4) In Michigan, where Obama and Edwards withdrew their name from the ballot (due to all candidates pledging not to campaign in states that violated the plan to have four regional small-state primaries and caucuses before the big states came out) and where write-in ballots were not counted, Hillary Clinton failed to win a delegation due to barely edging out uncommitted voters, who came out in the cold to make sure everyone knew she was not their candidate. She lost reliably Democratic Detroit- where Obama had delivered a truth-to-power speech calling for automakers to stop fighting higher fuel efficiency standards- Clinton was crushed by Uncommitted. Democrats cannot win Michigan without Detroit.

5) In Nevada, where yet another record turnout can probably be explained by the fact that their state was caucusing early for the first time, Clinton carried reliably Democratic Las Vegas, but Obama brought new voters in from northern and southern Nevada, traditionally Republican areas, winning a majority of delegates.

6) Now, in South Carolina, Obama won a ten point victory over BOTH of his opponents combined, and a nearly thirty point victory over Hillary Clinton. Again, even with Republicans having a contested election, Obama’s 55% of the vote was more than all votes cast in 2004, the previous record for Democratic turnout.

These new voters and party-crossers are coming out and getting involved for the first time in winter cold to support Obama, while Clinton and Edwards are failing to win over even majorities of reliably Democratic partisans. Those voters will join Obama in November, but will the new voters join Clinton? That is doubtful, especially with Bill Clinton continuing to try to portray Obama’s crushing victory in South Carolina as a black vote only thing. (He only got two percentage points lower than Clinton among white men, and garnered 25 % of white women’s vote in a three-way race. Clinton quickly pointed out that Jesse Jackson had also won South Carolina, deliberately ignoring Obama’s strong showing in states with negligible black populations, and the record numbers of new voters Obama brought in, including the new black voters that provided his margin of victory, with older black (and again, reliably Democratic) black voters casting ballots for Clinton.
These latest tactics are certainly alienating a core democratic constituency- as the Detroit vote shows- while bringing no one new to our party. It remains to be seen whether alienated voters would come back, or just sit on their hands or even defect to a McCain candidacy.

“Dr Duane”, what major change is that? From a white male to a black male? That’s not major. A major change would be from an irresponsible, inexperienced, hands-off, pro-establishment president to an experienced, intelligent, hands-on leader that isn’t receiving endorsements from party stalwarts.

We’ve lived through 8 years of a man who promised unity, change, and better days. He brought us into one of the worst times in our country other than the Depression. Now you are telling me to take it on faith that another inexperienced, hands-off, pro-establishment Washington insider will bring about the same change I was promised 8 years ago?

Sorry, but I’m not a fool. I want real change, not just a change of name and skin color.

Drew, why do you feel like you have to scare people into voting your way? This isn’t the politics of hope, it’s the politics of fear and bullying.

@Jack. I think this Primary season has proven the validity and predictability of “polls”. You’re right that it is a bit of guesswork. I have friends that are Democrats and I have friends that are Republicans. All of the Democrats I know are disgusted by Billary and refuse to vote for her. And the Republicans have said that Obama appears to be the best Democratic candidate. I am not claiming that this is scientific data. My point is that we need unity not division. Hillary represents more of the same politics-as-usual that has gotten us to a point where either party would rather have nothing happen than give the other party credit for a good decision and action. If that’s what you want for your country, you should vote for HRC. I am ready for a departure from the 20 year monarchy of Bush/Clinton. I want my children to have a positive role model and I want to be proud of our president. Will Obama give us that? Not for sure but alot more likely than the kind of bitter, “win at any costs” approach that the Clintons bring to the table. Speaking of role models, what’s Hillary’s message to young girls in our country? That to get ahead you need to marry a man of power, put up with his philandering and lying, only to learn to lie yourself and cheat to win? That’s a message that will echo for generations.

As a 22 year-old African-American I cannot wait until my Caucasian & Latino friends get to vote on Feb. 5th. It’s no secret that people like to support people who look like them but this is ridiculous. This man has no experience–would you let a 3rd-year med student do open-heart surgery on you…NO. This means political war and I have distanced myself from some of my family who blindly support Obama because he is black. My city (Memphis) does the same thing—I guess some people love mayors that do nothing as a city declines, but my Mom & Dad got a clue and moved to the county, outside of city limits. I am currently in grad school and I want all you Obama supporters to email me at bhubbar@yahoo.com after Feb. 5 so I can gloat.

Brian, you discount polls yet I’m sure if they said Obama was leading, you would trumpet them as magically accurate.

I do not care about your friends and who they like, nor do they show me that we’re divided. If anyone is dividing this country, it is Obama whose wife has divided states up according to if they are black or white. Iowa, according to Michelle Obama, “has no blacks”.

Hillary represents politics as usual? Maybe you should guess again with Obama picking up Ted Kennedy, the Democratic institutional candidate. Or Obama blindly following DNC demands, even when it means entire states are silenced. Or when he sends his surrogates memos dictating how to attack Clinton as a racist (search Google for Obama racist memo). Or when Jesse Jackson likens last night to the Simpson trial. Or when Obama calls himself “a brother” but says that to be black you have to be able to dance. That doesn’t sound like progress, hope, and flowers.

That sounds like the same politics that have been going on.

Why should we hold Clinton’s married name against her? If we had such a close-minded point of view, we wouldn’t have had a great president to get us out of the Depression. Just because Clinton’s last name is Clinton does not mean she should be disqualified from election. That point of view flies in the face of Democracy.

Obama doesn’t win at any cost? See above. He does. He’s a politician, which is why he send Oprah EXCLUSIVELY to South Carolina. He says that his candidacy is like the Civil Rights era, but what does that make the white candidates? He will do anything to win. Just like every else.

Finally, I don’t care what Hillary says to youth. That doesn’t factor into my decision. It shouldn’t factor into yours if you’re an intelligent voter who cares about the real issues.

I hate to inform you of this, but this is not high school, and the President is not the Prom King. You were supposed to grow up when you left there, and your thinking was to follow its progression. Start acting like it.

OJ Simpson would of won in South Carolina. Obama don’t break your arms patting yourself on the back

Obama is *not* electable in the general election - and unfortunately Democrats up and down the ballot will pay the price for the irrational exuberance that fuels his candidacy. The Obama supporters can’t have it both ways - they argue on the one hand that we’ve moved beyond race and Obama is electable - but on the other hand, many argue that we still need affirmative action, hate crime legislation, etc. So, which is it? If you think that race still matters *and* you really want to win the White House in November, then its clear that Obama is not the one to do it. The Republicans will steam roll this guy — just like they did Kerry. Obama is lazy and has a relatively unaccomplished legislative record. Hillary is the only one who can win - which she has proven in both bids for the Senate AND in being part of a winning team in the nineties.

I don’t want a Muslim president. Why does he try to hide it?

Furthermore, in response to Obama not saying anything to win. What has his candidacy been about? Hope and change. Those are two very vague concepts. What hope? What change? What details does he have that will bring about these concepts of hope and change?

None. There’s no plans for how he will change what ails us. There’s no plan of how hope will descend on us. There’s just the vague promises. He’ll give us Change? What will change? How will he change it? When will it change? How will it happen? These are all things Obama cannot and will not answer, because the promise is intentionally vague. They aren’t things you can deliver easily and readily.

But he still promises them, and his supporters eat it up. He says it not because he can deliver it, but because it will get him votes. He may never be able to deliver this massive shift in the country, but we’re to pretend he will? No. I do not take change on faith, I did that 8 years ago. I want plans of action, not words of promise.

Obama will continue to give just promises, because that gets him the votes from gullible Americans who are tired of Bush’s errors. He knows he can’t deliver, but he still promises…and THAT makes him just like every other politician. He will say what he has to say to win, regardless of reality.

So save your rhetoric of magical change, and give us plans. Otherwise, there’s no reason for rational voters to vote for such hollow words.

my vote will go for anyone but obama.

The media hounds (especially at MSNBC- such ridiculous coverage!) love to buid someone up and then tear them down … this will inevitably happen to Obama if he is the nominee. It won’t be pretty.

And I agree with Jack. Once Obama actually has to provide substance to his ridiculously vague speeches, we’ll see how much of a “unifier” he really is … his rhetoric — nothing but empty calories. If he is the nominee, he will have just as high negatives as Hillary by the time the general election rolls around. Obama voters: We live in a 50/50 nation - so give up your pipe dreams and deal with it.

Jack et al — Obama’s challenge is he’s trying to do something profoundly different in an era where everyone just assumes any politician’s words are cynical (so we end up voting for whoever we think is the best at calculation). I’ve studied Obama (and the Clintons) pretty seriously for a long time, and found that he’s quite substantial and authentic. It’s easy to ridicule words like “change” and “hope,” but I think the more people see of him (and even better, if they read his work, interviews, etc.) they will see he’s operating on a different level. That’s leadership. He’s not an empty suit with a lot of slogans. He’s someone with a true vision and the temperament to execute it. He didn’t get into this race because of ego or a sense of entitlement, he got in because he saw a window of opportunity for transforming the public sphere of the sort we may not see again for many years. The passion you see from more and more people is the realization that we could actually be on the verge of a new era in American politics — or not.

He has yet to do everything to win. Yes, he is a politician, but have you ever read anything about the Clinton’s that isn’t favorable? Jesus, Barack has not used the many weapons at his disposal. They are rollin’ in dirt and he hasn’t brought up anything but a Walmart association. There are far bigger things in the dirty Clinton treasure chest. Funny thing is, I don’t like bustin’ on the Clintons. I loved it when they were in office. I voted for them. But folks, its 2008. There are new paradyms of progressive thinking and decision making needed for the coming years. Clinton is a really good Senator. But can we step back for a second and realize that the presidency is not a legislative branch. Leadership is what we need. Voting for a president primarily because of their political positions is pointless. I’m libertarian in most of my political views, but Obama seems “automatic” for the times. Look at the last 8 years. Who better to repair that image? I don’t give a rats butt about his politics. He is a once in a life-time leader. People need to get off their butts and jam, and he seems to get folks motivated. That’s what we need. Hillary believes she can change the country. Barack knows that people will need to change the country.

Pete, how will he execute his plans? What are his plans? What will he do about the problems ailing our country today?

Thomas, what change? How will he change the country? What exactly is he going to do? What plan is there to change the country?

You can both say the word change as many times as you can, but it doesn’t mean a thing when there’s no concrete plan behind it. Obama lacks those plans. All he has is desire to enact some sort of unknown change, but we cannot wait for him to get into office and decide “Oh, well this here Social Security thing is sure messed up. What can we do, Cabinet?”

We need someone who has that plan NOW.

Give me a break - this type of “excitement” happens whenever there is a down turn for the governing party. It happened in 1992 — when all the talking heads were characterizing Bill Clinton’s candidacy as reminiscent of Camelot. So, Obama’s candidacy is not unique in that regard. It’s actually very creepy the way in which Obama is treated as this messianic character … he had an unaccomplished record in the state legislature - and he’s only been in the US Senate for two years — he is woefully unprepared to be president - which is perhaps why his speeches are short on specifics and details — he either doesn’t know the issues as well as his supporters think he does — or — he know his positions will actually alienate a substantial proportion of voters - thereby destroying his message of being a “unifier.”

Or, John, he knows he doesn’t have a plan. So, instead of trying to come up with one, he’ll distract Americans with a razzle dazzle show until he can figure out what it is he wants to do. By then, if we are stupid enough to be distracted, he would be the candidate and Republicans would rip him to shreds as a weak candidate without a plan.

And if he managed to pass that through charisma, he would be president without any real plan. We would be stuck with a George W. Bush scenario again of a president in office with no idea what he wants to do.

But hey, he wants to do SOMETHING. We’re supposed to just take him at his word.

For those of you argue “the Republicans don’t know how to run against a candidate like Obama” - umm, did you follow the TN Senate race in 2006? Or the TX Senate race in 2002? Or how about the NC Senate race in 1990? How many African-American Senators are there? Or governors? So, Obama voters — please don’t act ignorant and pretend that the electability question isn’t a serious one — if Democrats are serious about winning the white house, they will support Hillary.

Jack, you’re not being fair. Obama articulates many, many specifics about all issues. You’re spreading false rumors. However, the reason his vision is emphasized so much is because, more than anything, the presidency is a leadership job. His diverse experience, his communication skills, his natural bridge-building sensibilities, etc, are what makes him the most qualified person to be president today. Your comparing him to Bush is disingenuous as well (as it was when the Clintons did it). Everybody knows Obama is absolutely nothing like Bush. Obama is intensely curious, intensely interested in exposing himself to (and empathizing with) diverse viewpoints and healthy argumentation, etc, etc. And, no offense Jack, but you say you voted for Bush in 2000. I’d say that puts your judgment in serious question.

Thanks Pete. I’m done with this blog. Human decisions are all driven by emotions - like it or not. Some people are looking for the positive and identifying it when they see it, others, cynical, grasping on to issues large and small, history, even the metaphysical to justify the politics of their own identity. Ya know what, Obama might not end up being all that, but what he has done so far sort of reflects that he actually might be. Historic voter turn-out. Historic crowds. Guiding the issues of “more experienced” candidates (of both parties). I’m willing to take the chance that he may be Great with the assumption that if he isn’t, he’ll not likely be as poor as GB.

Pete, then tell me those specifics. All you’ve done is give me vague concepts of “change” and qualities that any politician can possess.

I voted for Bush because I was ignorant enough to get caught up in the same concepts you are caught up in. Bush was communicative, intelligent, and he promised unity and change. He was a candidate, he said, to deliver us all from politics as usual. He also said that he was a hands-off leader that would run the Presidency like a business, without constant intervention. He was, in his own words, a builder of bridges.

All of this should sound familiar to you. Every last ounce of it was used in 2000, and every drop is being used again in 2008. The difference is now, I can spot it because I’ve experienced a failure in my judgment as I chose the candidate that had no plans, no knowledge, no experience, but promised grand, abstract concepts like change, hope, and unity.

It’s just unfortunate that you repeat my error, this time with a Democrat.

And before you try, Pete, I do not know if I am making the same mistake. However, I can and will guarantee you this — I’ve learned from my mistake of trusting rhetoric over solid plans and concrete concepts. I will never again vote for an inexperienced candidate who says he or she will change without telling me how and when.

If Obama gives original, concrete ideas then I will consider him. As of yet, his only ideas have come from HillaryClinton.com and JohnEdwards.com

I voted for Clinton twice and for Kerry — and I agree with Jack re: the utter lack of specific in Obama’s speeches. We need voters like Jack to support the Democratic nominee this fall - and Obama is not the one to bring them to the polls … once independents learn about his relatively weak legislative record - his lack of accomplishments in the Senate — he will likely prove to be more polarizing than Hillary. She has proven to be a hard worker - and not merely a show boat candidate whose policy accomplishments are very thin.

One more thing …
WHAT!?
BUSH COMMUNICATIVE!!!
I will not comment on a person’s intellegence as none of us really know, but no one will never attribute W with being a great communicator. Don’t ever say that in public again. You seem like a smart passionate guy. Don’t ever say that again in public. Anyone that would want to have a healthy debate with you, just moved to another blog.
Peace.

YOU KNOW THEY KEEP ON SAYING THAT BILL TURNED BLACK VOTERS AWAY FROM CLINTON . I WONDER WHAT POOR EDWARS DID TO TURN BLACK VOTERS OFF ,HE WAS MUCH BETTER IN DEBATE THAN OBAMA .

Jack, I’m not going list all his specifics, because you’re not interested. If you were, you would have no trouble finding them. You could start with his website, then move on to hundreds of articles, interviews, etc. As has often been pointed out, the specific plans of all three Dems are largely similar. That’s why it’s important to debate the real substantial differences (e.g. “experience” vs. “change”), because none of the plans have a chance without good leadership. I see your fierce opposition to Obama is rooted in your bad judgment with Bush. The problem is I know you haven’t done any real research on this comparison. If you exposed yourself to Obama’s intellect you would discover there’s no similarity. You’re not seriously arguing that if Bush falsely touted a concept (like “compassion”), then no one else can use that concept again? Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore all vegetarians are fascists? Sounds to me like you’re just swallowing the Clinton lingo mocking Obama’s leadership aspirations, and that it’s time for you to do a little more research on your own.

YOU KNOW WHEN YOU GO TO DISNEYLAND , YOU FEEL GOOD . THE WORLD SEEMS A BETTER PLACE . ITS WHEN U COME OUT OF IT U REALIZE THIS IS LIFE , WE MAKE MISTAKES, WE NEED HELP ,AND THATS WHAT I THINK OBAMA IS ,WHEN HE GIVES SPEECHES ,ITS LIKE DISNEYLAND AND WHEN IT COMES TO REAL PROBLEMS IT STILL IS DISNEYLAND .TOO MUCH TALK .

I LIKE HILLRY ,SHE DOES NOT JUST TALK THE TALK BUT SHE IS WALK THE WALK ,REAL PROBLEMS AND REAL SOLUTIONS .

VOTE HILLARYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

AND WHO DID OPRAH ENDORSE FOR .AND WHERE DOES SHE OPEN MORE FREE SCHOOLS . AND WHO DID CLYBURN (AFRICAN AMERICAN DEMOCRAT )SUPPORT ON TV

OH I KNOW OPRAH SUPPORTED HER BROTHER

WOW , I LEARNED A VALUABLE LESSON FROM AFRICAN AMERICAN VOTERS IN S.C. ,AND NOW I HOPE ALL AMERICANS LEARN THAT MESSAGE AND FOLLOW AND MAKE HILLARY WIN

DONT GO FOR SWEET TALK , LOOK INTO FACTS ON WHO IS REAL ,AND WHO IS OFFERING SOLUTIONS HILLARY 2008

Comment by Kenneth Michaels
January 27th, 2008 at 5:18 pm

Why would you vote for a muslim?

PERHAPS YOU THINK YOU ARE BEING HURTFUL AND OFFENSIVE BUT ALL YOU DO IS SHOW YOUR PREJUDICE AND IGNORANCE. JUST BECAUSE A VERY MINOR PROPOTION OF MUSLIMS ARE TERRORIST, IT DOES NOT MEAN ALL MUSLIMS ARE. BECAUSE SOME MEN COMMIT MURDER, IT DOES NOT MAKE ALL MEN MURDERS, AND IF YOU CANNOT GRASP THIS SIMPLE LOGIC THEN I PITY YOU AND THE POOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO INHABIT THE SAME SPACE AS YOU.

OH AND YOU MIGHT WANT TO TRY GETTING YOUR FACTS RIGHT. BARACK OBAMA IS A CHRISTIAN. REPEATING A LIE REPEATEDLY DOESN’T CHANGE REALITY.

Congressman Clyburn should absolutely be ashamed of himself … he declared that he was “neutral” in the contest - but could hardly contain his glee last night while being interviewed … when Hillary gets the nomination, I hope she remembers to repay her good “friend” in South Carolina …

Well, I think you can learn a lot about a candidate from their campaigns. For instance, you’re seeing more and more leading politicians from both “red” and “blue” states passionately preferring Obama to Clinton. Mock it if you like, call it inconsequential, but it’s indicative of an ability to form concrete political alliances (compare this to Hillary’s closed-door, arrogant approach to health care — oh yeah, she’s a fighter, but it kept millions from getting health care for 15 years!). Obama’s very ability to build support is concrete evidence that his vision is not Disneyland. This is how politics works. Compare Obama’s ability to defend himself yet still run a dignified, honest campaign with the Clintons’ win-at-all-cost-screw-the-destruction approach. These are huge indicators of how much success we’ll have with a progressive agenda. If you’d rather fight, vote for Hillary. If you want to see real progress, vote for Obama.

HRC/THE BILLARY is experienced at
1. low-ball, low-class political tactics.

2. She is a “LEADER” in being “experienced” at witnessing and endorsing her hubby be a serial adulterer and “DOER” of other women. A “Man” she and America truly RESPECTS.

3. She WORKS HARD at being self-entitled, hardcore and driven for power.

4. During this current campaign she has proven that she WORKS HARD at saying and doing ANYTHING no matter how unseemly in her ultimate goal of being the Presidential nominee then hides behind her “man” when the mud slinging begins.

5. You can’t trust her to keep her word. She is a cunning liar that GETS THE JOB DONE to cover her own personal back. If not , why is she trying to change the rules for herself, in spite of what she gave her word on with the DNC?

6. Question: Why did Bill Clinton stipulate that his personal papers and records of conversations with his spouse be sealed until 2012?

This dastardly duo have been gleefully eyeing this contest since before the carpetbagger Hillary ran for the New York Senate seat she now holds. They both “planned” to be the BILLARY President Team for at least 1 term so that no one could document their post-Bill Clinton’s last presidential terms’ uncouth deeds.

Wake up HILLARY- ites!

Hillary Clinton has been in elected office for 7 years, Obama 13 years.

Her time as first lady in the white house is the main body of her so called experience. If that is so why is she has a huge chunk of her White House Record been censored until the 2008 election.

Why are they not in the public domain so may see exactly what experience she gained while in the White House? So much for experience if we are not allowed to see a huge chunk of your resume.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-hillarydocs8aug08,0,1546719.story

Hillary? Solutions?
Are you serious? Like voting for the war? Like wanting universal health care 15 years ago and NOW getting bought out by the health insurance industry? Hillary says Obama’s solution doesn’t “guarantee health insurance for everyone”. In reality, Obama doesn’t want to FORCE people to have insurance that they can’t afford, effectively lining the pockets of the insurance industry. And Hillary’s “solution” to Iraq? That she voted for? Simply to start withdrawl within 60 days. Whopteefreakindoo! Oh yeah, and she’ll “consult her secretary of defense and come up with a solution”.

If you actually listen to Obama talk he preaches about shared sacrifice and shared prosperity. NONE of these issues are easy. They are more complicated than most of us realize. We need a LEADER that can bring unity to a sharply divided political landscape. We need to have unity to determine where the sacrifices lie and where the much needed resources are applied FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY. And Jack, you’re the one that should grow up. It’s not US against THEM anymore. Keep your lemming philosophy to yourself. You’re so close minded and ignorant when you can’t win an argument you start assuming what people think. You are just like the Clintons - when you can’t win an argument insult the opponent. Maybe you need to actually finish high school.

aisha - Perfect comment that I would love an answer to…..how did Edwars piss off the Black vote???? I can understand te whole Clinton thing but it’s not true when you apply to Edwards….could it be bloc voting??????????

AND WHO DID OPRAH ENDORSE FOR .AND WHERE DOES SHE OPEN MORE FREE SCHOOLS . AND WHO DID CLYBURN (AFRICAN AMERICAN DEMOCRAT )SUPPORT ON TV

OH I KNOW OPRAH SUPPORTED HER BROTHER

WOW , I LEARNED A VALUABLE LESSON FROM AFRICAN AMERICAN VOTERS IN S.C. ,AND NOW I HOPE ALL AMERICANS LEARN THAT MESSAGE AND FOLLOW AND MAKE HILLARY WIN

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I THINK THESE ENDOREMENTS ARE SIMPLE….IF KERRY & KENNEDY DON’T DO THIS THEY WOULD LOOK LIKE RACISTS. THEY ARE TRYING TO PROTECT THEMSELVES. THEY KNOW HILLARY WILL WIN, BUT THEY WON’T LOOK LIKE THEY ARE FAVORING THE WHITE PERSON. IT’S SO EASY!!!!!!!!!!!! IT’S O.J. ALL OVER AGAIN.

HEY JOHN I HEAR YOU FRIEND
I M A MUSLIM WOMAN
ALL MY BEST FRIENDS ARE BLACK
AND I FEEL SO UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE WHOLE THING
BUT THATS THE REALITY
WHO PLAYED THE RACE CARD
THE THING IS CLINTONS DID NOT GIVE EXTRA FAVORS TO SOME PEOLE AND THOSE PEOPLE ARE SO PISSED OFF
PLUS THEY KNOW CLINTONS KNOW WHO TO ADD AND WHO TO TAKE OUT OF WASHINGTON .SO PEOPLE ARE AFRAID ,SO THEY ARE SAYING WHATEVER THEY CAN TO KEEP CLINTONS OUT OF THE WHITEHOUSE ,SO THEY RATHER HAVE AN INEXPERIENCED GUY WHO MIGHT GIVE THEM FAVORS
PLUS EVERYBODY HAS TO WORRY BEFORE THEY OPEN THIER MOUTH AGAINST OBAMA BECAUSE OBAMA MAY LABEL THEM WITH RACE CARD TOO

HEY JOHN GO CHECK HILLARY WEBSITE ,SHE ALREADY GOT ENDORSED BY KERRY KENNEDY,KATHLEEN KENNEDY AND BOBBY KENNEDY

Ted Drunken Kennedy that left a woman to die in river and Princess Kennedy are complete jokes.

JFK must be rolling in his grave.

Hillary Clinton is the biggest supporter of outsourcing American Jobs than any other Democrat.

HILLARY CLINTON (D-PUNJAB)’S
PERSONAL FINANCIAL AND POLITICAL TIES TO INDIA
The Clintons have reaped significant financial rewards from their relationship with the Indian community, both
in their personal finances and Hillary’s campaign fundraising. Hillary Clinton, who is the co-chair of the
Senate India Caucus, has drawn criticism from anti-offshoring groups for her vocal support of Indian business
and unwillingness to protect American jobs. Bill Clinton has invested tens of thousands of dollars in an Indian
bill payment company, while Hillary Clinton has taken tens of thousands from companies that outsource jobs to
India. Workers who have been laid off in upstate New York might not think that her recent joke that she could
be elected to the Senate seat in Punjab is that funny.
IT’S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY
PERSONAL HOLDINGS
2006: Bill Clinton Invested Tens of Thousands In An Indian Bill Payment Company. According to Hillary
Clinton’s personal financial disclosure form, as part his ownership of WJC Investments, LP LLC, Bill Clinton
held between $15,001 and $50,000 worth of stock in Easy Bill Limited, an Indian company. According to the
company’s website, “Functioning as a one-stop bill payment shop, Easy Bill facilitates payment of utility bills
as well as recharging of pre-paid mobile connections at a place the consumer is already familiar and
comfortable with the neighbourhood store.” In addition to providing terminals throughout India where
customers may pay their bills, the company also maintains a call center described as “a dedicated response
centre for efficient customer service.” [Hillary Clinton 2006 Financial Disclosure Report, http://www.easybillindia.com/
2006: Bill Clinton Collected $300,000 From Cisco In 2006. Hillary’s personal financial disclosure forms
indicate that Bill Clinton gave two speeches to Cisco Systems, each for $150,000 on 5/18/06 and 8/17/06.
[Hillary Clinton 2006 Financial Disclosure Report; 3,4]
CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING
Hillary Clinton Accepted Almost $60,000 In Contributions From Employees Of Cisco Systems, Which
Laid Off American Workers to Hire Indian “Techies.” Clinton’s Presidential Exploratory Committee took
$39,450 from Cisco employees during the first quarter of 2007. Cisco employees have also donated $18,900 to
Clinton’s Senate committee between 1999 and 2006. Forbes reported, in a feature called “A Tale of Two Cities”
that Cisco was laying off $60,000-a-year “techies,” while hiring new employees in Bangalore, India. “Cisco
used only a few Infosys workers in Bangalore six years ago [in 1998]; [by 2004, it used] almost 300 contract
staff, plus 550 full-fledged employees in its own Bangalore office.” In 2006, Newsweek reported that “for
Cisco, India is the new frontier, where it’s investing $1.2 billion to build a gleaming R&D campus that will
employ 3,000 people.” [FEC filings; Forbes, 4/12/04; Newsweek, 3/6/06]
Clinton Donor, Sant Singh Chatwal, Cited Clinton’s India Caucus Work Vowed To Raise $5 Million. In
March 2007, the Economic Times wrote, “[Clinton] has roped in New York-based hotelier Sant Chatwal as cochair
of her recently formed presidential exploratory committee to run for the 2008 White House race. […] He
is also creating an organization called Indian Americans for Hillary 2008.” In April 2007, Mangalorean reported
that Indian Americans for Hillary 2008 (IAFH) had already raised $1 million and “aimed to raise at least five
million dollars.” A major fund raiser on June 24 hosted by Chatwal, the founder of IAFH; steel baron, Lakshmi
Mittal, and businessman SP Hindujas, was expected to pull more than 1,000 guests. In June 2007, The New
York Times reported that “two Indo-American receptions have a total of $450,000 in commitments.” In the
picture (right), Sen. Clinton speaks at a reception hosted to push forward the US-India nuclear deal while Sant
Singh Chatwal listens carefully. [New York Times, 6/7/07; Economic Times of India, 3/18/07; mangalorean.com, 4/14/07,
accessed 4/18/07; picture, Tribune India, 9/14/06]
􀀀 Chatwal Owed The City Of New York More Than $2 Million In Back Taxes, Fled Prosecution For
Fraud But Was Arrested During Visit to India With Bill Clinton. Sant Singh Chatwal, who raised more
$200,000 for Sen. Clinton in 2000, owed New York City $2.4 million in back property taxes. In addition,
during a visit to India with Bill Clinton, in May 2001, Chatwal was arrested by authorities there and charged
with defrauding the New York City branch of the Bank of India out of $9 million he borrowed in 1994. He
posted bail, then fled India, boarding a flight to Vienna despite an attempt by authorities to detain him. .
[New York Daily News, 11/24/02; New York Daily News, 11/7/00]
􀀀 FDIC Charged Chatwal With Obtaining Improper Loans. In a separate 1996 case, the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corp. charged Chatwal with obtaining improper loans from the First New York Bank for
Business, causing the bank to lose more than $25 million. Chatwal, who was a director of the bank,
arranged more than $14 million in loans to himself and his businesses, often with no collateral, said the
FDIC. He didn’t repay the loans and the bank failed. [New York Daily News, 11/24/02; New York Daily News,
11/7/00]
CLINTON AND THE SENATE INDIA CAUCUS
Clinton Co-Founded The Senate India Caucus, A Project Of The U.S. India Political Action Committee.
In 2004, Clinton co-founded and became the co-chair of the Senate India Caucus which was coordinated by the
U.S. India Political Action Committee (USINPAC). Roll Call reported, “The goals of the caucus, which already
has 31 members, include increasing trade with India and improving security against global terrorism.” Sen.
Clinton said, “It is imperative that the Unites States do everything possible to reach out to India. This Caucus is
dedicated to expanding areas of agreement with India and engaging in a candid dialogue of differences.” [link to
photo at USINPAC website, accessed 4/17/07; Roll Call, 4/28/04; PR Newswire, 4/29/04]
CLINTON WINS “WEASEL AWARD” FOR COMMENTS ON INDIA
2005: Anti-Offshoring Advocacy Group Gave Sen. Clinton A “Weasel Award,” Citing Pro-Outsourcing