Watch for Obama-Clinton unity bounce

If I were a Republican, I'd be demoralized too.

That said, I have a little friendly advise for my fellow Americans who also happen to be Republicans. Stop the fear, smear, swiftboat stuff and get back to the things that made your party the GOP. Things like fiscal responsibility and smaller government where you actually had a point.

Don't be a 26% dead-ender.

I am so sick and tired to hear about the 18 million people that Hillary has to support her, maybe 18 million voted for her but how many people stopped supporting her?The only people she has supporting her now are the uneducated and racist people , If I was Hillary I would not be bragging about it.She is irrelevant , Obama can win without her, actually he has a better chance of winning

It all boils down to one simple question:

In Obama, will Americans elect a hard-left socialist whose entire career has been spent in greviance politics in partnership with unrepetant terrorist, America-haters, racists and felons?

The answer is that Obama and hard left will be defeated by intelligent, decent and caring Americans everywhere.

Wanna see what McCain's party is already doing to sow disinformation?

I just watched a video at Chicago Tribune's site where Obama is addressing 4000 members of SEIU in Puerto Rico. They did not mention WHERE he was, however. I had to find that out later, for myself. What I also had to find out later was much more sinister.

After watching the video, I was incensed at the SEIU. They didn't applaud even once, even for things which service employees ought to be glad to hear him saying. There was DEAD SILENCE, while Obama simply waited, with a straight face, and then, after a few seconds of - no response at all - he smiled, then casually continued with his speech. In the entire 13-minute video, there were pauses for applause, but not a sound from the audience.

THAT was what Chicago Tribune offered. And it pointed to the notion that absolutely NOTHING Obama said interested those 4000 people in the least. In fact, when he was finished speaking, he waited a long time for some kind of applause to thank him for speaking to them, a grin occasionally, but there was DEAD SILENCE from the audience.

I was appalled at the sheer ungraciousness of the members of SEIU, and was beginning to write a letter to them to shame them for not even giving him a "thank you for speaking to us" kind of applause. Dead silence is worse than a rebuke or a disagreement with what he said; it's a rejection of the speaker as a person, and a slap in his face.

So I wanted to know where this meeting was held, and learned it was in Puerto Rico. I knew Obama wasn't terribly popular there, but was it really THAT bad? Were Puerto Ricans THAT ungracious? It seemed an inescapable conclusion that they were, indeed, that inhospitable and hostile.

But I wanted confirmation of such a thing. I live in Mexico, and have NEVER known Latinos to be this unspeakably unkind and ungracious. It's more a North American trait than a Hispanic one. So I dug deeper.

I went to Youtube and looked up the EXACT same speech. It wasn't all there, but what was there was quite enough. To my surprise, there was a whole LOT of audience response, much of it applause and cheering.

Yet on the Chicago Tribune site, there was absolutely no sound from the audience. To erase overlapping audience sounds without erasing the speaker's voice takes skill and a determination to surgically separate them on a video. It could not have been done merely by pausing the recording or turning down the audio while Obama was not speaking. It still didn't account for the overlaps, where both audience and speaker could be heard simultaneously.

Yet, for all I could see of the Tribune video, he might as well have been speaking to an empty room. In the youtube video, the SEIU members exonerated themselves entirely in my opinion, for which I was glad. There was considerable applause, some of it thunderous.

Do your own comparison. Go to chicagotribune.com and click "more" on the video section, choose Nation/World on the drop down list, then go to the 20th video in that list. Compare that with the same speech on youtube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al8yw_E0Vm8. You'll notice that the full speech is not given on youtube, but you'll recognize sections where there is a lot of applause on youtube but none whatever at the same point in the speech, on the Trib's video. In case the Trib has changed the number of that video, its title is: "Obama addresses SEIU members." You'll find spaces on the youtube video where he's speaking and the audience is also applauding. At the same place on the Trib's video, you hear HIM, but not the audience. This could NOT be accidental, or the result of some kind of "tech failure."

There is no other possible conclusion:

Tribune had DELIBERATELY cut out the audience response to give viewers the impression that Obama was speaking to a group for whom his views were in a vacuum. They had DELIBERATELY doctored the areas of the video where audience applause OVELAPPED words Obama was saying. That takes skill and a high level of "doctoring" equipment to pull off.

Actually, this ploy to mislead the public failed with me utterly. There was Obama, speaking to an obviously "hostile" audience, but keeping his chin up, holding his own, saying what he would have said to a receptive group, with courage, maturity and conviction. When he spoke earlier in Puerto Rico, his reception was cool, but not hostile or ungracious. This speech' reception was both. I was proud of his strength in the face of such blatant hostility. Until, that is, I discovered there WAS no hostility at all. I'm still proud of him, though!

This kind of "journalism" is despicable, for any journalistic media, and the Chicago Tribune should be castigated by their own industry for doing this. It was intentionally prejudicial, and reveals clearly the Republican bias of the Chicago Tribune, a bias which doesn't stick at doing dirty tricks, and deliberatly misleading the public, for political purposes.

Chicago Tribune is ANYTHING BUT an objective media source, and should be drummed out of the profession.

I may live in Mexico, but I am a registered Illinois voter. I demand that the Chicago Tribune be investigated for this, and punished to the full extent of journalistic canons of ethics as well as the law. Even though this kind of dirty trickery is a hallmark of the GOP, it should NEVER be part of the policies of any journalistic media. Chicago Tribune has just shamed ALL media sources in the free world. I won't trust a single one of them until the Chicago Trib has been thoroughly investigated and punished.

THIS is not exercise of freedom of the press. It is exercise of amoral political manipulation of the press, the continuation of which will surely result in the death of all our liberties. The public relies, absolutely, on the integrity of its major journalistic media, relies on their objectivity, their thoroughness and integrity in reporting events to us all. When they slant and manipulate events to serve a political party, they cause irreparable damage. How many people who viewed that video concluded, as I did myself, that Obama had absolutely no support from anyone in the SEIU? How many of those would not do further research, as I did, but would simply think labor unions and blue collar people don't want Obama as president?

I don't presume to know why the Chicago Tribune does not want Obama's popularity to rise; whether it's racism or special interests that make them want McCain to prevail over him. Nor do their motives matter. What matters is what they have chosen to DO with those motives.

And what they chose to do is 100% unacceptable in the United States of America.

It seems race is all Obama''s supporters care about, even stooping low enough to falsely accuse the Clintons of racism! the Clintons, who have stood up for blacks and against racism for so many years! I will NEVER vote for Obama now, he and his foul minded supporters don't deserve my vote, or the votes and support of any of Hillary''s supporters. Sorry Hillary, unless he chooses you for the other half of this ticket, I cannot support him even if you ask me to, can''t do it.

It's five months until the election -- a long time or about the same thing as about 50 political life times.

It will be a close election, but, ultimately, All will be Well in the Garden...

Joseph said:
"I am so sick and tired to hear about the 18 million people that Hillary has to support her, maybe 18 million voted for her but how many people stopped supporting her?The only people she has supporting her now are the uneducated and racist people , If I was Hillary I would not be bragging about it.She is irrelevant , Obama can win without her, actually he has a better chance of winning"
Who do you think you are! To claim that the only people who support Clinton are uneducated and racist, marks yourself in that same group. If anybody is irrelevent, it is people like you who make blanket statements.

We are already a nation with some socialism. Socialism is not dirty, when applied in a judicious manner. We have Social Security to prove that. It's worked beautifully for decades. It is only the "hard right" that wants to see it go.

Some aspects of life simply are NOT served well by capitalism. Most are, but health care and retirement security are NOT among them. That's because, when the life-and-death needs of the people conflict with the profit motive, it is ALWAYS the latter which prevails. It's "just a business" to them, but to the people in need of care, it's a LOT more than that. They always lose, and the business entities always win. Because they have the power to grant or deny honoring those needs of the people. Lives are often lost on account of the choices made against the individual, for "business reasons." At its core, capitalism-driven health and retirement care are completely at odds. Yet ALL of us MUST depend on THEM for serving these vital needs. Meanwhile, they spend much effort to avoid having to pony up for anything they can avoid.

A "socialist" program for health care only makes good sense. In fact, I'm enjoying it right now, because I'm living, retired, in Mexico. Mexico is NOT a socialistic state, but is very much a capitalistic one.

Nobody is turned down for Mexico's national healthcare program. After two years without claims, nobody can be dropped, see his premiums skyrocket, or have his coverage limited.

The protection includes ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING, from all hospitalization costs to office visits and prescriptions. No copayments or deductibles.

Cost? I pay more than usual for individual coverage because of my age. I pay about $500 U.S. per YEAR. Families pay a bit more, of course.

Baby, you BET I want this for every American! It's what our people need and deserve. They work hard, they rely on their coverage when something happens, and then it often just "goes poof" on them. That won't happen to me. It shouldn't EVER happen to them, either, never again.

Nine days in the hospital gave me professional care - the food was actually quite good, too. When I left, no paperwork, because it had already been done before I came in. I had IMSS; so it was done. I didn't have to sign papers giving up my firstborn to promise payment for the extra stuff, in order to go home. There WAS no extra stuff to pay for. No "deductibles," no "copayments." I only needed to stop at the hospital pharmacy to collect my medications, and I was out of there. Nor did my premiums rise, unless they rose for everyone. Nor was I hit with coverage limitations or cancellation because I had the audacity to USE my coverage.

Nobody has to take this coverage, but employers are required to provide it -and pay it in full - for all full-time employees.

In a word, it works, and very well indeed. Anyone wanting private care can still utilize it. It isn't perfect, because the poorest still can't afford it, but even there, the government provides health care at whatever they're able to pay.

Mr. Rogers speaks of "caring"? He should look south to see what the word really means. Mexico may have corruption (and of course WE don't...) but it IS a compassionate country. Much more than ours is, sad to say.

I am uninsurable back home, even for copayment and deductible insurance to use with my Medicare. Other than for trauma, no hospital in the States would treat me. In a word, back home, I'm SOL. Here, I have TOTAL coverage.

If Mexico can offer something this wonderful to all people - including foreign residents like me - why can't the richest and strongest nation in the Americas do likewise?

Derrick Rogers shows his bigotry when he implies that Democrats seek a "partnership with unrepetant terrorist, America-haters, racists and felons". He's simply lying.

That's so insane that it's amazing anyone would believe it. Yet that is what many of our bigots PREFER to believe.

Democrats can be thoroughly strict with those badguys; but they insist on doing so without compromising the rights - YOUR rights - to equal protection under the law. They have this silly notion that rights apply to everyone. But that doesn't mean the bad guys will go free; it only means that proof is required, without compromising those rights to get it. I'd bet Mr. Rogers thinks waterboarding isn't torture, too.

I guess Republicans think some people are "more equal" than others. It shows, pal.

I've worked in the legal system, under Democratic judges, etc., and can tell you that crime IS punished.

To imply that Dems "sympathize" with people who commit heinous crimes is the worst kind of immoral propaganda. To say they were partners with the worst kind of criminals is slanderous and IRRESPONSIBLE.

Mr. Rogers has an absolute inaleinable right to speak as he sees fit. That includes his inalienable right to make an ASS of himself, and to let his bigotry shine forth for all to see.

The people on the "hard RIGHT" haven't recognized yet that violating the rights of ANY person (even the worst of the worst) violates the rights of every last one of us.

Pity. The founding fathers knew it well; today's GOP thinks they know better.

He also implies that only Republicans are intelligent, decent and caring. Boy, that's a real line, considering the "decency" they show when they manipulate the press. Considering the "intelligence" they show with their racism, sexism, etc. Considering the "caring" they show when it's okay for a president to torture people and lie like a rug.

Methinks the GOP has a lot to answer for to the people of America. A whole lot.

The GOP has, by now, descended into the party of bigots, the greedy and the elitists, plus a few who want a theocracy and a few others who want every home to have an AK47. That's pretty much what they are, and what they stand for. It hasn't always been this way.

There was a time when, though they had disagreements with the Dems, there was no HATRED of them as there is today. At that time, the GOP was worth respecting, even if you were a Dem. Back then, the GOP also respected the Dems, whether they disagreed or not.

That's all changed now. The GOP is now the party of hate, bigotry, towering greed, torture, religious absolutism, and warhawks.

Yet THEY think they have standing to judge someone else's "decency".

The GOP represents a very small collection of groups with very specific attitudes and self-interests. The Dems have to represent everybody else: The bulk of our population. Naturally, that means Dems disagree among themselves more often. But that is one of the features that makes the Democratic Party vigorous and vital. Especially because the underlying theme for all of them is "equal justice under the law" for all, because "all men are created equal." Bigotry, though it exists among Dems here and there, is not tolerated when revealed. Hate is not welcomed among them.

But hate is sure welcome in the GOP, isn't it? Oh, yes, indeedy. Lots of hate.

As we're seeing, everywhere on the Internet, these days.

It's disgusting that people who don't revere the simple basics of what makes America a free country, and what has made our nation the greatest democracy in the world, should be able to retain their citizenship. Supposedly, every American believes "all men are created equal." This no longer applies to most hard-righters in the GOP. They find the concept loathsome. In doing so, they shame us all.

They are not real Americans, because they sneer at the most important values OF Americans. The GOP can no longer repudiate them, either, because by now they constitute their ENTIRE constituency. The real conservatives who still hold our American values as precious, have had to move to the Democratic party, because it was too loathsome to remain in the GOP. The GOP had become a cesspool.

Until that changes, the two-party system is merely one of haters and takers vs. Americans. I don't think the GOP can hold out too much longer, the way it has chosen to descend into respecting and validating our worst human attributes.

I'd suggest that people try to form a new conservative party - this time a responsible one. I think that new party would be able to squeeze out the "thing" that now calls itself the party of American conservatives. There is room in America for conservatism - but not of the kind we have now.

Such a party would prohibit bigots, haters, people who want to overthrow the government and turn us into a religious state, neocons, and warhawks. Such people should find themselves with NO party that is willing to accept them.

As a Dem, my honor requires that I recognize that there is room for conservatives. It's an attitude that almost nobody in the GOP would reciprocate to the Dems. The GOP would like to see us just "go away." They don't recognize that a liberal viewpoint can be as valid as a conservative one. They just want to destroy those "dirty liberals," and don't care how they do it.

So which represents America's values better?

We NEED a new conservative party, one which has integrity and would never cater to the vile attitudes of the lowest common denominators among us. A party steeped in the values that made us great. A party both capable of showing respect and equally capable of genuinely EARNING respect for itself. A party where haters, bigots, neocons, absolutist theocrats and warhawks are NOT welcome.

We had it once before; we can have it again.

Reporters and Democrats (mostly one and the same) need to guard against premature enthusiasm because of the "Wilder Factor." Named for former black governor Douglas Wilder, " it entails white voters being more likely to tell pollsters that they will support a black candidate than to actually vote for him." The same factor played itself out in the Clinton-Obama primaries...and that was just among Democrats.

FREE AMERICA

Direct Democracy

posted by jermaine 8:14,

bruce, you aren't fooling anyone. go back to polishing your musket.

Though I understand the disappointment of "Hillary all the way," I cannot condone the attitudes shown. But I think it is merely said out of disappointment, and I hope it will mellow out, as it certainly will for most Dems.

What matters now, above all, is UNITY. And we Dems already have a lot of practice at achieving that.

There were unpleasantries on both sides of the primary campaign. I could as easily point to those made BY Hillary herself as you can to those of the Obama camp, my friend. I won't go into chapter and verse, although it would be easy enough to cite the ones Hillary was guilty of. I won't, though, because NONE of that matters any more.

What DOES matter is winning the White House away from the GOP. Any real Democrat already knows this.

For some, this requires some time to "wind down" from the primaries, because there are some deeply faithful followers of Clinton who have not yet unwound enough to recognize this reality.

I think most of those people will do so, though. Any who don't, but would vote McCain instead of Obama are NOT Democrats at all; they're merely Republicans, masquerading as Dems, obeying their guru, Limbaugh. Their comments may be freely ignored.

Because the very LAST thing any genuine Democrat would do, under any circumstances, is vote for McCain.

We are the party that knows HOW to compromise, HOW to be conciliatory. It is one of our best common attributes. Whereas Republicans may not know how to mend their fences and form a new solidarity, Dems have been doing it all along. Hopefully, we always will, too.

I don't think that refusal to coalesce will apply to you, "Hillary all the way." I think you feel genuinely torn. But I don't think it will last. You seem to have forgotten something that is BASIC to being a Democrat: that we can holler at one another like mad, yet still reach conciliation. It is our finest trait, yet you don't wish, at the moment, to honor it. But I think that will change, because I sense it from your posting that you really want a Democrat as president. I just hope I'm not wrong!

I do hope that as you adjust to things, you will honor the reconciliation of our party. Because above all, we are all DEMOCRATS. No Republican comes close to what any Dem has to offer.

Pick any Democrat right off the street; he/she would STILL be a better president than McCain. A Democrat reveres human and civil rights - not just for themselves, but for every human being. The GOP believes in "selective democracy," an oxymoron, where "some people are more equal than others." It's why they could so comfortably strip us of our rights under the Patriot Act.

Getting a Dem into the White House is more than merely totting up another Democratic election victory; THIS time, it's reclaiming America for the Americans.

Obama will do virtually EVERYTHING that Sen. Clinton said she'd do - with differences in shading and approach, perhaps, but their stances on the vital issues of today are virtually identical. You'll be in as good hands with Obama as you would be in those of Hillary. His issues are Democratic issues, just as hers were - and still are.

And, of course, since the Democratic Party is unshakably hostile to bigotry, racism has no place among us. Nor does sexism.

I do doubt, however, whether they'd be able to work as a well-oiled machine together. Not so much because of their differences, but because of their similarities. Both are extremely dynamic, almost "alpha" people. That makes smooth cooperation difficult - too many cooks spoil the broth, as they say. It would be the same in reverse, for her to choose him as her running mate. Both were great, as choices for our nominee, but neither would function as well with the other as the driver. And it's truly nobody's fault. I'm sure Obama has no desire to slap Hillary Clinton's face. If he chooses another running mate it won't be out of malice. It'll be out of pragmataism. One of his best attributes is his pragmatism; he's a realist, and deals with reality as it IS, rather than as he wants it to be. It is this trait which will make him an extraordinary president. He'll choose his runining mate based on who can help him achieve his goals as president best. That person may not be Sen. Clinton. But he is sure to recognize her worth - because she has tremendous worth (even aside from the number of voters who chose her in the primaries) and deserves such recognition. If he chooses another running mate, it's my guess he'll do all he can to compensate her for it, because he will WANT to do so, not because he must. He's a brilliant man. He knows worth when he sees it, and isn't too small to deny giving that kind of worth its due.

I can know how disappointed you are, because it's how I'd feel if Obama had lost. But I would NOT have eschewed Hillary, using that disappointment as an excuse! I'd have accepted the result, and would then have set my disappointment aside and started hooting for Hillary for all I was worth. Warts and all.

Especially because, compared with McCain...

Both were extremely vital, capable and very determined to mend our nation. They agreed on almost everything that matters most to us all.

McCain doesn't seem to think our nation NEEDS any mending.

BOTH Clinton and Obama would have made fine presidents. And that is so, in spite of any of the things one camp sought to lay on the other to discredit them. When the primaries ended, the time for Dems to bash one another also ended.

It's only natural that her strong supporters would now feel kind of "adrift." Perfectly understandable. But they will realize, as they come down from the powerful energy behind the primary campaigning, that they still DO have an anchor, and a fine one indeed. Obama will work just as hard as Sen. Clinton would for the very same goals.

Don't give in to the attributes that are held in reverence in the GOP: the "I won't have it any way but MY way" mindset.

Democrats now must hang together, even if they didn't get their first-choice candidate nominated. That now pales into insignificance, compared to the cesspool of immoral politicking our party now faces. (And which has already begun.) And particularly compared to the black horrors we will face if McCain wins the presidency. The economy will continue its meltdown. The war in Iraq will continue without limit. The rich will get their tax cuts made permanent, so we will have to pay the difference ourselves. The housing crisis will devolve into total collapse. The broken health care system will continue betraying their obligations, life-and-death needs abandoned in the name of profit. The broken infrastructure, including schools, highways and bridges, and GENUINE homeland security, will accelerate.

What Dem in his right mind could consider voting for McCain? No matter how much they wanted Hillary? To vote for him in a fit of pique is the height of masochism for any Dem.

Among our blue-collar workers, it is no state secret that many, though Democrats, are bigoted. They should learn that bigotry has no place in our party, but also that only our party can serve their own genuine needs.

THEY may not like Obama because of his color, but it won't stop HIM from doing all he can to improve THEIR lives. Maybe they ought to give that a bit of thought.

On the other side of the coin, the GOP doesn't care two puffs of comet gas about them, their welfare, or their lives. Maybe it's time to rethink the racism or, at the very least, rise above it, set it aside, and not let it rule you in this election. The consequences - to yourselves - are simply too terrible.

Whether Sen. Clinton goes on the ballot or not, we are ALL Democrats! We not only stand for equal rights, but we stand against the hate, greed, absolutism and warlust of the opposing party. We must stand together.

And stand together, we WILL, even if a few Dems become unreasonable because their preferred candidate wasn't nominated. The right to vote does not confer wisdom on anyone. The GOP is very good at getting people to vote for them, even when it is very much against their own best interests.

Don't let them get away with it this time!

"Hillary all the way"? Give yourself some time to calm down. Neither candidate was a racist, nor said the other one was. What any supporter may say does not bind the candidate. Neither of them is a racist or sexist. Relax and have faith that your Democratic values will be very thoroughly well served by Obama. If Hillary Clinton didn't think that was so she would not have considered endorsing him. We know that much about her independence of thought and her integrity, don't we? If she thinks he'd take good care of her supporters, she MEANS IT. If you have faith in her, then, you should start supporting Obama. Because SHE wants you to.

We are Democrats. Which means there's one thing that NONE of us is: a Republican.

Never forget that, my friend.

I love Hillary. I voted for her in the primary. My next vote goes to Obama. I would never in a million years vote for McBush.

McBush wants us to stay in Iraq for a century - or is it until 2013? He made both statements.

McBush mistakenly thought that Iran was training "Al Qaeda in Iraq." However, Iran is Shi'ite, and Al Qaeda is Sunni. Luckily, a whisper in his ear made him issue a correction.

McBush refused to support the 21st Century G.I. Bill this year. He opposed the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008. Last year, he voted against requiring minimum periods between deployments.

McBush wants to "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." Death and destruction aren't cute or funny.

McBush used to believe that waterboarding is torture. Then he decided that it isn't, and, this year, he voted against a bill that would have prevented the CIA from waterboarding prisoners.

McBush opposes a ban on assault rifles.

McBush used to support deficit reduction and oppose tax cuts. Now he supports tax cuts, especially for oil companies.

McBush opposed the farm bill that would help farmers comply with state and federal environmental laws, boost federal research on the fruits and vegetables the region relies on, open new markets for the region's products, and increase the amount of fruits and vegetables in school lunches.

McBush opposed expanding the children's health insurance program.

McBush opposes publicly-funded health care, universal health care, and health coverage mandates. Somehow, he believes that competition between health insurance companies will bring prices down.

McBush supports teaching "intelligent design" in public school classrooms. Apparently, he isn't any fonder of science than George W. is.

McBush took a long, long time to "unaccept" the endorsements of John Hagee and Rod Parsley.

McBush chairs the Senate committee that oversees the telecommunications industry. Interestingly, his lead strategist, Charlie Black, lobbies on behalf of telecommunications companies. McBush is still in the pocket of lobbyists.

McBush is anti-choice. He said last year that he wants Roe v. Wade overturned. As president (Lord, spare us), he will most likely be in a position to appoint one, two, or more Supreme Court justices who could overturn Roe v. Wade.

McBush opposes funding for family planning programs. He voted against requiring insurance coverage of birth control. He didn't support legislation that would help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and the need for abortion.

McBush opposes a federal minimum wage.

Don't vote for McBush!

Obama wins the primary battle and might win the election battle. However, the democratic party will eventually lose the political war. How you ask, cause millions like myself will eventually leave the party. The DNC simply abandoned and thrashed the Clintons just out of fear of insulting black democrats. Obama is a one time freak, 4 maybe 8 years. Do Democrats really expect blacks to show this same enthusiasm and this same level of support for future non-black democratic candidates. I dont think that blacks will donate time and money for a spanish or white candidate in the future. The DNC will lose its base, yep you won this time but you lost millions like me forever.

Quote:
My first reaction to Clinton's speech was that Chelsea Clinton was tied to a chair bound and gagged in an abandoned warehouse somewhere in Washington and as soon as the speech was over she was set free by Bill Richardson and Nancy Pelosi.

That speech was nothing less than the best endorsement either candidate received from anyone through the entire process.

But the more I listened the more I started to realize that it wasn't Clinton's concession I was listening to. It was Obama's.
Quote:
Not to put too fine a point on it, but McCain didn't go see Huckabee and he didn't go see Romney. And the VP candidates that McCain is considering also went to see him, he didn't go see them.Obama went to see Clinton because he understood that he couldnt win without her and that she wanted something and that if he wanted her support there was something he was going to have give.

And so he went, and they met privately, and based on her speech, she got what she wanted.

I don't know if Obama left that meeting with Clinton's footprints all over his back but the more I listened to the speech the more I realized that whatever she wanted he agreed to. Her speech on Saturday was Clinton holding up her end of the bargain.

What that price was, I have no idea. Whether wanted the VP slot or whether it something else. Clinton doesnt need the VP slot. She has a lot of options including keeping them all open. But listening to that speech she certainly sounded like a VP candidate stumping for the top of the ticket and doing it better than Edwards ever did it for Kerry or Lieberman ever did it for Gore or either of them could ever do for Obama.
Quote:
NOTE: If Clinton does not release her delegates, technically she is still a candidate;. If polls next week start to show that Obama will have an uphill climb against McCain now that people are going to focus on him as the candidate, then, showing that she has been a team player and doing all that she could have done in that speech to support him, will make it a lot easier for super delegates to change their minds once again before making it official at the convention. And if by August it should start to look like McCain has a huge lead instead of it being a competitive race, changing their minds is exactly what some super delegates might do.

NOTE #2.: Donna Brazille said on CNN back in February when Clinton had a substantial lead in declared super delegates that " if super delegates decide this nomination Im resigning from the Democratic Party". We're still waiting.
http://tominpaine.blogspot.com/2008/...on-speech.html

I wonder why Chuck Todd set the parameters at 10 to 15 point lead for Obama. That seems quite high. Obama is already up 8 in Rasmussen, but 15 is a BIG lead.

I suppose you have to look at all the polls to get a sense of things. I would think that if Obama jumps to a 10 point lead, he's doing pretty darn good.

I have tried to give Obama a chance, doing research, really examining illinois, calling his offices. His staff in Chicago - no clue, Campaign office, nice guy, no clue, DC? DC? Voicemail (more irritating than stepping on a thumbtack) - No excuses - none of those offices could answer me on several questions.

I just read an article on his campaign manager's "masterminded strategy" - Oh please. He did not have my vote before - he will defintely NOT have it come November if he does not choose Hillary as VP.

What I see are cowards that pushed Hillary to run and then scattered from supporting her when it started to look like she wouldn't win so that in the event they wouldn't be sitting on the wrong fence. Her fundamental beliefs have not changed or wavered like I have seen Obama's do in the past 6 months. Oh I see articles that he has his /poor wife don't trust the Clintons - awe - who the heck could trust ANY politician. My comment to that garbage? - Get over it! - you don't have the experience or full on talent to run the country, Get over yourselves. Mt feelings are that SHE is not for anyone but herself and one group of people. He has not convinced me at all that he is the best candidate. His staff can't even tell me why I should vote for him, kind of like that Senator supporting him couldn't name ANY ANY accomplishments as JR Senator of Illinois -

I wish voters would make their choice in November based on their opinion of the candidates, not their opinion of the candidate's online supporters. That is just giving away the power of one's vote for what seems to me a fairly trivial consideration. It is certainly the case, too, that anonymous Republicans can keep the nasty tit-for-tat going by making incendiary remarks posing as Obama supporters online. If Hillary supporters are upset over the media's role in this campaign, then they should realize that the online comments are an element of the media that can be manipulated very easily. While there is no doubt that feelings ran high, I am certain that ordinary people (Obama supporters) will get past their need to vent fairly soon, as after all their candidate prevailed. It is highly likely that if the provocations continue they will be similar to Operation Chaos, the right -wing Republican attempt to sow divisiveness within the Democratic Party. Perhaps the best way to make one's voice heard is to ignore the inflammatory comments, avoid the media you consider biassed, and look to your candidate herself for the most realistic, helpful approach to the general election. Look what the spoilers delivered to us in 2000! Nader and the Florida voters that were single issue voters( the Everglades?!) delivered us to the 8 years of hell we've had under Bush. Unless of course, unlike your preferred Democratic candidate, you find the past 8 years to be a reasonable period in American history, in which case you have good reasons for voting for McCain. It's just that you hurt only yourself if you base your vote on what someone else writes in total anonymity. You give too much power to others when you let your reaction to them determine your vote, rather than your reaction to the candidates themselves. Respect yourself and do not let yourself be drawn in. Do you think for one minute that Hillary lets the vitriol on the Internet affect her life? No, she knows where she is going and the lunatic fringe is irrelevant to her. I bet she will cast her vote for the Democratic nominee, because she feels that is the better choice for the future of the nation. It would be nice if you at least tried to see your vote in this way, instead of as a reaction to completely anonymous comments. When I read of voters with such a shallow basis for their vote, it makes me think that they have little appreciation for what other Americans have sacrificed over the generations for our democracy to prevail. How spoiled and frivolous we've become, to throw our votes away, as a "protest" , to use them as a bargaining chip, etc. Our votes have very real consequences and the privilege of having a voice should be coupled with a responsibility to cast our votes in utmost seriousness.

I would just like to comment on one more thing - not everyone who will not vote for him are racist.

A teacher told her classroom, that if their parents did not support Obama they were racist.
My choice has nothing to do with his races.

Oh, and just for giggles, you might consider this.

We've all known - for ages - that Bush is slathering for war with Iran. Don't we? If he's going to get his war, he hasn't much time left. And Bush is nothing if not a linear thinker.

Every hint that he might be considering it is usually highly publicized and wild speculation begins anew. That wouldn't happen if we didn't already know his mindset.

Then he talks to the Knesset in Israel - to thunderous applause - making references to Hitler and castigating "appeasers." More thunderous applause.

Back home, we took a dim view of him injecting domestic politics into an international situation. But was he?

Maybe he was referring to the "appeasers" WITHIN Israel, those who don't want war with Iran.

And that puts a WHOLE new slant on the whole thing, doesn't it?

And isn't it funny that the very next week, here comes Olmert, visiting the White House, and in his words to the press at the photo-op, he strongly praises Bush's Knesset speech. He knew how Americans felt about it, yet he praised it anyway. One would think tact would have kept him from mentioning that speech at all. Maybe he knew something we didn't, though: That "appeasers" didn't reference Obama, but Israelis who oppose war with Iran.

So Bush and Olmert have their unpublished talks - nothing strange in that. But the next DAY, a high-ranking official in Israel BRAZENLY and openly threatens war on Iran. One has to ask, "what brought THAT on?" What gave him the confidence to say such a thing, especially now? Might it have been the tete-a-tete between Bush and Olmert?

Boys and girls, something is definitely "up" here. And it's not pretty. It's my guess that Olmert's visit was much more than just "a visit."

It was a council of war.

I'll make an educated guess (and hope passionately that I prove wrong) that there will be a horrific attack, attributed to Muslims, and VERY specifically to Iran. It'll happen either in Israel or the U.S. But it'll be BIG. It will happen before January, but more likely before the November elections.

That'll give Bush a "crisis" to justify cancelling the elections and retaining power indefinitely. A nice "plus" for him, huh?

Besides, just imagine Obama as President, with access to ALL top secret documents, among which there remain some that would convict the Bush neocons - can they AFFORD to let that happen? They've tried to destroy whatever they can, but there must be plenty they can't destroy. Obama as president would equal indictments for many neocons. I don't think you need much imagination to know how desperate they are right now. Their only hope is to stay in power. Somehow.

After the attack, blame will then be laid squarely on Iran. Wrath of Americans and Israelis will be fired up, and can then be relied upon as the basis for attacking Iran - with FULL public approval. Nobody, in either country, will DARE oppose the war then - just as happened after 9/11, when people dared to question invading Iraq. They got labeled "unpatriotic" for their efforts, though today, most Americans now realize they were right.

And this whole thing, this whole "setup to war" will have been orchestrated by the Bush neocons, and very likely, this time, with a lot of help from the Israeli government.

Let us not forget that, at least for the moment, it is the neocons who are still in power.

It has worked for Bush once before. So why not again?

I'm a firm supporter of protecting Israel against the bloodlust of the enemies all around them. They ARE a democracy, and that's reason enough to be their ally. That doesn't mean they don't have THEIR warhawks, just as we do, people who, like Bush, will go to any length to get the war they want, even if they have to "arrange" for the motivation to go to war themselves.

I am by no means anti-Jew or anti-Israel. But I can see something moving in a very sinister direction - in my own country for sure, but now it seems it's finding acceptance in certain "quarters" over there, too. I'd bet there are those in Israel who are thinking the same way I am right now. And they're scared. They have reason to fear.

Israel is quite capable of defending itself. If they feel they must bomb Iran, that doesn't mean the U.S. should help them do it. Defending Israel does NOT have to include helping them be aggressors. Which is why I guess that the attack will be on U.S. soil - it'll FORCE us to join Israel in a war against Iran.

We can't let them do this. To us, to each other, or to the world.

Iran IS a terrible regime. It IS hateful and bent on destroying Israel. But that doesn't mean Bush & Co. should surreptitiously choreograph an "attack by Iran" and push Israel and the U.S. into war against Iran. Even with a vile regime, THAT isn't the way to deal with them.

If they do this, that makes Bush & Co. even WORSE than Ahmadinijad. Committing a heinous attack against our own people, for the purpose of justifying a war against the people they'll "blame" is as evil as it gets.

If they do it anyway, remember to save your videos of the attack "event" and see what they look like slowed down, before deciding Bush & Co. are all THAT innocent this time.

Remember? "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice..."

I have a feeling that, when all is said and done, the American people will deeply regret having passed over their chance to impeach Bush - while they still HAD such a chance.

I greatly fear that, very soon, things are going to get...very bad.

Be afraid - be very, VERY afraid. And pray we reach January without something truly godawful happening. Because there isn't a bloody thing we can do, at this point, to stop them.

Except, just MAYBE, to let them know we're wise to that game and that this time it will NOT work. Because, this time, we'll investigate THEM before going to war.

Holly B has quite a rant suggesting there is nothing wrong with socialism when you say Obama say Marxist.
Obama surrounds himself with people leaning Marxist like Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger add a few common crooks like Tony Rezko and it is quite a stew.
You socialists can talk about hope and change all you want Doug Zook but we see Obama for the phony he is and we are going to define him while he calls us a distraction excuse me we are inquisitive voters who are not going to fall for character flaws and have you dismiss us as rascists. Rascists we aren't Colin Powell, Condalessa Rice, Justice Thomas all have plausible backgrounds B Hussein Obama is a fraud invented by Dickie Durbin and Emil I want my raise Jones. Sorry gang we aren't falling for it! Jerry White, Springfield, IL

Jerry White,

I have never called you (or anyone else on this blog) a rascist. I figure you aren't until you give me a reason to think you are, (As an aside, how many black members of Congress do you expect the Republican Party to nominate this election cycle?)

What I've tried to do is point out that the fear and smear stuff didn't work for you in 2006 and hasn't worked in the 3 special Congressional elections held since then (all won by Democrats).

But you go right ahead and have at it. Gotta go now, I need to make another contribution to Presin..., er, Senator Obama's campaign.

BETH WROTE;

"Obama wins the primary battle and might win the election battle. However, the democratic party will eventually lose the political war. How you ask, cause millions like myself will eventually leave the party. The DNC simply abandoned and thrashed the Clintons just out of fear of insulting black democrats. Obama is a one time freak, 4 maybe 8 years. Do Democrats really expect blacks to show this same enthusiasm and this same level of support for future non-black democratic candidates. I dont think that blacks will donate time and money for a spanish or white candidate in the future. The DNC will lose its base, yep you won this time but you lost millions like me forever".

your statement shows your ignorance of the fact that african american voters have been the most loyal to the democratic party since they fought for and won the right to vote.

every democratic politician since has betted on that african american democratic loyalty to fuel their campaigns.

for generations, they have loyally poured their time, hearts and dollars into the democratic party.

YOU however if you really were a democrat are not a loyal democrat or american. By your own admission, you reveal your bigotry, cowardice and betrayal of the party while falsely accusing african americans of your own treachery. and no, there are not millions of you...a few hundred at best...maybe. the vast majority of democrats are loyal.

if you weren't tripping over your white sheet because you can't see through the eyeholes in your hood you would know better than to make such idiotic statements.

if you're not a bigot, rebup troll you are a traitor, get outta here,we don't need ya!