Senator Obama promised that while he would not throw the first punch, he would through the last. Tuesday night he threw the last punch.
The second Presidential Debate was the town hall meeting that wasn’t. Town hall meetings are supposed to be a more relaxed political discussion with questions from the audience and interaction between the candidates. Instead we ended up with what felt like a drier standard debate where the candidates could walk around, and the moderator seemed to be part of the action. What little action there was.
What little action there was included the ‘last punch’ that was promised by Senator Obama a few days before. It was really more of a left-right combination. Nonetheless, it had all the appearance of a knock-out blow.
Read entire article.
You can call the Debate Commission at this number: 202-872-1020.
Let them know you think the debates should go on as planned!
<a href="http://mentalshift.newsvine.com/>mentalshift </a>
Perhaps the biggest secret of the Presidential campaign is the choice of the Vice Presidential nominee. The choice is revealed at the last minute and raises the stakes of the election game a great deal. It is often called 'the first act as President.' The selection is thought to expose strategy, temperament, and planning.
Read entire article...
Democratic nominee for the Presidency, Barack Obama, vowed to monitor the situation and support recovery efforts however he could, pledging to tap his extensive digital network for money. Today what may be only the first message went out, asking supporters to donate five dollars to the Red Cross by texting a reply, or to visit the Red Cross web site to donate more.
We just call them how we see them.OK. I will admit it. The media is in the tank for Obama. But it is more than the media; the country is in the tank for Obama. We love to watch him. We want to know what he is going to do next. We want to see him speak. Let's admit it now: even if you could never vote for Senator Obama, you still find him fascinating.On the other hand, there is John McCain. Well, my friends....it seems the most interesting thing about him is his wife.
Read more here.
Stop looking for the bump. Don't bother measuring the margin or comparing the gap. Senator Obama is ahead and he is going to stay ahead - all the way to the White House.
Read More.
Of all the contradictory frames that opponents of Senator Obama have tried to place around him, few have been repeated more often with more disdain than that of Obama as a sort of 'Ultra Liberal,' even a socialist. He was a Muslim then he was a Christian. He is an inexperienced 'Bambi' or he is a savvy political operator from the Chicago school. Now some would even have us believe that he was against the Iraq war, but now is for it.
Read the rest here.
You thought the Tuzla sniper fire lie was bad? Well, according to this author, that isn't the really bad part of the story.
Apparently it is Hillary Clinton who argued against taking action against Serbian ethnic cleansing. It seems that it is Hillary who is responsible for for four extra years of death and suffering, all to ensure the success of her health care plan. Which failed.
My God.
Article here.
Mental Shift
Mental Shift.news
Watch the former president of Chicago NOW talk about swithching support from Clinton to Obama because he is "100% honest."
Video.
"Inaccuracies" are nothing new to Senator Clinton's campaign. I am beginning to believe that it isn't intentional; apparently there is a problem with being straightforward.
In the latest, the Clinton campaign said on Wednesday they wouldn't be making challenges before the credentials committee in the Texas primary.
On Thursday, "Clinton campaign officials delivered a large packet of challenges."
Here is some of what the iching had to say when I asked if senator Obama would win the general election...
#32 - Continuing
...Act out the laws of your inner Self, trust the inherent correctness of your instincts as you go about your business. In this way you will meet with success.Social customs will offer assurances and support because of their very endurance. Continuing in traditions that are the understood bases of social interaction will now bring order, unity, and a deep sense of security to you and your community.
This does not mean a blind attachment to arbitrary social institutions, but rather an adherence to foundations that support the growth of sound and smooth-working systems in life.
In business and political affairs, pay particular attention to the support of policies that have proved themselves useful. This is not the time to change methods for the sake of change. Instead, it is a time to make these methods work with new trends in thought. Success now comes through Continuing movement toward long-standing objectives that are harmonious with a well-ordered life....
*fifth changing line*
When you are seeking earthly things, apply earthly methods. When your goals are lofty and ambitious, your methods must be inventive and daring. Learn to apply the appropriate kind of effort to achieve the effect you desire.
And the future? Check this out....
#44 - Temptation
...Even in a normally relaxed social environment you should now guard against the fostering of inferior ideas or persons. This may manifest most often in political affairs, for it is here that temptations pose the greatest threat. Do not give power to the people who support these ideas, regardless of the circumstances. Confront issues that seem inferior and encounter publicly persons who represent deficient ideals. Your words will have impact now. ..
Get the full context of Reverend Wright's statements and forward the videos. You may be surprised by what Rev. Wright actually said.
I received this email written by Rev. Wright (unverified):
March 11, 2007 Jodi Kantor The New York Times 9 West 43rd Street New York , New York 10036-3959
Dear Jodi:
Thank you for engaging in one of the biggest misrepresentations of the truth I have ever seen in sixty-five years (link). You sat and shared with me for two hours. You told me you were doing a "Spiritual Biography" of Senator Barack Obama. For two hours, I shared with you how I thought he was the most principled individual in public service that I have ever met.
For two hours, I talked with you about how idealistic he was. For two hours I shared with you what a genuine human being he was. I told you how incredible he was as a man who was an African American in public service, and as a man who refused to announce his candidacy for President until Carol Moseley Braun indicated one way or the other whether or not she was going to run. I told you what a dreamer he was. I told you how idealistic he was. We talked about how refreshing it would be for someone who knew about Islam to be in the Oval Office. Your own question to me was, Didn't I think it would be incredible to have somebody in the Oval Office who not only knew about Muslims, but had living and breathing Muslims in his own family?
I told you how important it would be to have a man who not only knew the difference between Shiites and Sunnis prior to 9/11/01 in the Oval Office, but also how important it would be to have a man who knew what Sufism was; a man who understood that there were different branches of Judaism; a man who knew the difference between Hasidic Jews, Orthodox Jews, Conservative Jews and Reformed Jews; a nd a man who was a devout Christian, but who did not prejudge others because they believed something other than what he believed.
I talked about how rare it was to meet a man whose Christianity was not just "in word only."
I talked about Barack being a person who lived his faith and did not argue his faith. I talked about Barack as a person who did not draw doctrinal lines in the sand nor consign other people to hell if they did not believe what he believed.
Out of a two-hour conversation with you about Barack's spiritual journey and my protesting to you that I had not shaped him nor formed him, that I had not mentored him or made him the man he was, even though I would love to take that credit, you did not print any of that. When I told you, using one of your own Jewish stories from the Hebrew Bible as to how God asked Moses, "What is that in your hand?," that Barack was like that when I met him. Barack had it "in his hand." Barack had in his grasp a uniqueness in terms of his spiritual development that one is hard put to find in the 21st century, and you did not print that.
As I was just starting to say a moment ago, Jodi, out of two hours of conversation I spent approximately five to seven minutes on...
... Barack's taking advice from one of his trusted campaign people and deeming it unwise to make me the media spotlight on the day of his announcing his candidacy for the Presidency and what do you print?
You and your editor proceeded to present to the general public a snippet, a printed "sound byte" and a titillating and tantalizing article about his disinviting me to the Invocation on the day of his announcing his candidacy.
I have never been exposed to that kind of duplicitous behavior before, and I want to write you publicly to let you know that I do not approve of it and will not be party to any further smeari ng of the name, the reputation, the integrity or the character of perhaps this nation's first (and maybe even only) honest candidate offering himself for public service as the person to occupy the Oval Office.
Your editor is a sensationalist. For you to even mention that makes me doubt your credibility, and I am looking forward to see how you are going to butcher what else I had to say concerning Senator Obama's "Spiritual Biography."
Our Conference Minister, the Reverend Jane Fisler Hoffman, a white woman who belongs to a Black church that Hannity of "Hannity and Colmes" is trying to trash, set the record straight for you in terms of who I am and in terms of who we are as the church to which Barack has belonged for over twenty years.
The president of our denomination, the Reverend John Thomas, has offered to try to help you clarify in your confused head what Trinity Church is even though you spent the entire w eekend with us setting me up to interview me for what turned out to be a smear of the Senator; and yet The New York Times continues to roll on making the truth what it wants to be the truth.
I do not remember reading in your article that Barack had apologized for listening to that bad information and bad advice. Did I miss it? Or did your editor cut it out? Either way, you do not have to worry about hearing anything else from me for you to edit or "spin" because you are more interested in journalism than in truth.
Forgive me for having a momentary lapse. I forgot that The New York Times was leading the bandwagon in trumpeting why it is we should have gone into an illegal war. The New York Times became George Bush and the Republican Party's national "blog." The New York Times played a role in the outing of Valerie Plame. I do not know why I thought The New York Times had actually repented and was going to exhibit a diff erent kind of behavior. Maybe it was my faith in the Jewish Holy Day of Roshashana. Maybe it was my being caught up in the euphoria of the Season of Lent; but whatever it is or was, I was sadly mistaken. There is no repentance on the part of The New York Times. There is no integrity when it comes to The Times. You should do well with that paper, Jodi. You looked me straight in my face and told me a lie!
Sincerely and respectfully yours, Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. , Senior Pastor Trinity United Church of Christ
The irony in the datasphere is getting so thick, I am starting to wonder if all motion will soon stop, leaving us stuck like flies in amber.
The charges about Senator Obama keep flying. The strange thing is the charges are becoming increasingly strident, about less significant subjects, and are more and more likely to be about third parties. What does it say when all the criticism about someone is because of what someone else did or said? When did Senator Obama become everyone's daddy?
I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise. The cry of "he hasn't been vetted" has been ringing forth from Senator Clinton's campaign for months now. As people search his history and find little, the net gets cast further and further. The wider the search and the less found, the more absurd the charges become.
"Senator Obama told the Canadians he doesn't want to get rid of NAFTA!"
Never mind that it wasn't Senator Obama but an adviser, and never mind that the adviser didn't say that, and never mind that Senator Obama's position all along has been rework NAFTA, not opt out. There must be some sort of scandal there!
Not that these sorts of questions-slash-charges haven't been surfacing from the beginning.
First he was too black. Then he wasn't black enough. He was denying his black father (his father is dead), or he was denying his white mother(his mother is dead). He was raised a Muslim. OK, he wasn't raised a Muslim, but everyone knows Muslims can never change religions, they are branded at birth. OK, OK, they can change religions, and he might not be a Muslim, but that wont matter to Islamic radicals, BECAUSE HIS MIDDLE NAME IS HUSSEIN! They'll be dancing in the streets! In fact, when Elton John is done fund raising for Senator Clinton, he plans to play a nomination celebration in Iran at President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's house.
Now the latest ingredient to thicken the irony soup: the Reverend Wright. Suddenly, the same people who have been decrying Senator Obama's "Muslim connection" are now trying to place him in the pews of a Christian church on every Sunday for the last twenty years!
Well I am not voting for a saint, father, or teacher. I am voting for someone I think is going to go to Washington, work the levers of government, and get this country moving forward into the future. I am voting for someone who is going promote the common welfare, the rule of law, and a climate of accountability.
You should too.
Senator Obama: he's not your daddy.
The Obama campaign finally put the clamps on Senator Clinton's spin machine, and I would say shut it down pretty good judging from the response. Their response to a Clinton email from yesterday morning really knocked it out of the park:
Here's a bit of the records of some of our former Presidents:
Ford - U.S. Rep onlyNixon - Senator only 2 yearsEisenhower - no prior elected officeHoover - no prior elected officeWilson - New Jersey Gov for 2 years, no U.S. congressional officeTaft - no prior elected officeCoolidge - Governor 1 year, State Legislator 2 years, no U.S. congressional officeRoosevelt - Governor 2 years, state legislator 2 years, no U.S. congressional officeCleveland - Governor 2 years, no U.S. congressional officeArthur - no prior elected officeGrant - no prior elected office
Reprinted from the comments section of Ben Smith's blog at Politico.com:
" The bigger issue in Ferraro's comments that the Obama people should seize on is not the racial aspect, but the utter hypocrisy. Hillary Clinton and George W Bush have both benefited from a far worse form of affirmitive action known as the legacy. While race-based affirmitive action tries to correct historical inequalities, legacy based affirmitive action tries to perpetuate historical inequalituies. So, Obama campaign, what you need to do can be encapsualted in 2 steps. Step 1: Vigorously rebut the notion that Obama got to where he is based on race-based preferences...he did it on talent and talent alone. There is no evidence that Obama has benefited from affirmitive action...that is baseless speculation on Ferraro's part and an attempt to tie Obama with the unpopular affirmitive action creed. Step 2: Take Hillary's charge of preferential treatment and throw it back in her face and make the point that Hillary is getting unfair treatment for her last name. Then tie her to George W Bush by saying he gor special treatment for his last name, and look where that got us. Make the point that poppy bush wasn't able to stop baby bush from being a bad president, so there is no reason to think bill clinton will be able to stop hillary clinton from being a bad presdent. The Obama campaign should use this as an opening to push a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynastic nepotism argument against a Hillary nomination Obama campaign, these are the messages that will resonate with low info PA voters...not some discussion of race-based affirmitive action. Today, I think the Obama campaign is making the same mistake the Hillary campaign made in expressing outrage on the monster comments...which gallup polling shows led to a bumps for Obama after the clintons showed outrage and got the reasonable slur more play and ultimate resonance with the public While the Obama camp have every right to be outraged at the Clinton race baiting, but doing so is only getting media play to the comments and low info white PA voters are not going to be offended by what Ferraro said or Hillary's anemic disagreement. The smarter, more effective strategy for Obama would be to rebut the notion he has benefited from affirmitive action and then to hang the legacy nepotism meme around Hillary's hypocritical neck. Now, there are 6 weeks to the next vote, so making a shot accross Hillary's racial bow is not the worst idea. However, the Obama campaign needs to make sure that low info voters don't perceive him to be a beneficiary of affirmitive action...and the best defense against that is a good offense...and in my opinion, it is time to define Hillary as a beneficiary of nepotism."
*I think this sounds like a good strategy. What do you think?
Unbelievable, but they just keep coming....
Now it appears that Senator Clinton's campaign made unauthorized charges to many supporter's credit cards - in this particular case over the legal limit for nomination contributions. Then they tried to keep the money. It seems they only returned the dough when their [ex]supporter filed a police report...
Gee, how did I know I would have to number these? *smh*
So, on March 4, the day of the Texas primary, Bill Clinton appeared on....wait for it...the Rush Limbaugh show. That's right, this is not a joke.
"
You may have missed it - almost everyone missed it - but Bill Clinton was on Rush Limbaugh's show the day of the Texas primary. You can hear the radio here. Limbaugh himself was sick that day, apparently, but he had already urged Republicans to cross over to keep Hillary Clinton in the race. Bill saw an opening - and went there.
Article with links here.
So the latest idea that seems to be gaining 'traction' in the stripped delegate debate is the idea of mail-in balloting in Florida and Michigan. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Sunday "Every voter gets a ballot in the mail."
First, I want to make clear that as a supporter of Senator Obama, I have no qualms about a recount, re-vote, re-do, mulligan, or whatever you want to call it, no matter what form it might take. It seems clear to me that, within the next month, Senator Obama will reach the magic number (2,025) between his pledged and super delegates even without actual victories in the upcoming elections.
I have to say, however, that this mail-in balloting sounds like Florida and Michigan are trying to sell us another pig in a poke. The first one was that everything would be fine if the primaries were moved up. Now we are to believe that mail-in balloting will work out just fine. I have to say, I don't believe it.
First, there seems to be a lot of contortion going on to avoid the obvious solution, simply because it doesn't favor the establishment candidate. Of course, the obvious solution is caucuses. I know, suddenly caucuses aren't fair, they disenfranchise the elderly and infirm, yada yada yada. Well no one complained about them before. Bill Clinton won caucuses. As far as I know there aren't any plans for caucus states to change their processes for the next election. The one exception is Puerto Rico, which is actually changing (or attempting to) its process in the middle of the nomination schedule. Don't get me started on that.
Bottom line, three factions don't want the simplest solution because they know what the outcome will be: an Obama win. Those three factions are legislators in Florida who are Clinton supporters, administrators in Michigan who are Clinton supporters, and Senator Clinton herself.
OK, fine. We'll find another way...but mail-in?
"Every voter gets a ballot in the mail." See, here is the first problem (well, actually the second). Every voter gets mailed a ballot, they do not necessarily receive one. Mail gets lost and stolen. Absentee balloting by mail is fairly low-risk for the few thousand that use it in a normal election, but in a highly contested election where every vote will be by mail? Sounds like a recipe for disaster, and yet another DNC snafu. There is no way to ensure that ballots get delivered, get delivered to the correct people, and absolutely no way to be sure that they are actually filled out by the people whose names appear upon them.
As Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Florida, said, "we have never conducted a mail-in ballot in Florida, and in an election that is this important...now is not the time to test that."
The second problem (well, actually the first) is that there are over 1.5 million Democratic voters in Michigan, with similar numbers in Florida. Ballot designs have to be made, agreed upon, approved, and then printed, addressed, mailed, and then enough time has to be allowed for them to be returned in the mail.
There are only three fair solutions to this mess:
1] Hold caucuses.2] Split the delegates 50/50.3] Don't seat the delegates.
