Posts with the tag dirty politics

Morning After

Bodie P — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:29:04 EDT

I voted the other day, sort of. Sat down at my kitchen table, opened up my ballot, and stared in dismay at the long list of names, initiatives, and proposals on which I was supposed to offer an opinion, and spaced. I admit it. Actually, it was probably more of a fugue state. I'm a new voter, for God's sake. I followed the national election coverage, watched the debates, read the coverage in a variety of papers, checked accuracy on at least two fact check websites, and I formed an opinion. I wanted to vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

Imagine my dismay to discover that I hadn't even scratched the surface of the electoral process. I read down the list on the ballot, checked out the summaries of the various proposals and the bios of the various candidates, and made a unilateral decision.

Dirtmeister McCain

Paul Lai — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 23:47:03 EDT

Every time I hear that McCain commercial that talks about Obama's "association" with "terrorist" Bill Ayers and "blind ambition", it makes my skin crawl. This campaign has really plumb new lows that even a Rove campaign has not touched. It is disgusting and sad.

Not even the hockey crowd in Philadelphia booing Sarah Palin dropping the puck makes up for it.

Hey wait a minute...

Paul Lai — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 23:44:36 EDT

...it's not a big deal, but it bugs me that every time I come in here, it looks like I've done nothing, when in fact I've knocked on literally hundreds of doors, and made more than a few calls. Oh well - I'll get my satisfaction out of doing even MORE unrecognized work!

Please Play Fair

Beverly — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 23:51:27 EDT

I would like to encourage any and all, especially avid Democrats, to not play dirty. Do not tell lies. Do not exaggerate the truth. Do not help publish documents that say Palin abused her power but at the same time did not break the law. I am not a Palin fan but all this did was just make the Democrats look bad.

We want Obama to win, but getting dirty does not help him, it only makes him look just as bad as McCain already looks for all his lies, exaggerations, and misleading statements. McCain is clearly desperate. Let him hang himself. Getting dirty in a campaign will only hurt Obama not help.

I encourage you not to "fight fire with fire" to create a dirty campaign to match McCain's dirt. I know this is counter intuitive. People want to hear good news at a time when everything they hold dear is going into the proverbial "toilet". People need hope.

Waging a dirty campaign is what killed Hillary and it is what is now killing McCain. Obama can win by using his stand on the issues, especially his stand on the economy. He is giving people hope, which is what he has done from the beginning. This is how he will win and not with dirty politics.

You Take the High Road...

Bodie P — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 21:40:45 EDT

I became an Obama supporter during the primaries. It wasn't that he had extensive experience--though I was impressed by the people from whom he had sought advice--or that he had a crackerjack plan to offer. It was that he ran a clean, dignified campaign in spite of the provocation to do otherwise.

He focused on his vision, what he wanted to accomplish, and if he was light on details, at least the details he offered weren't designed to discredit his opponents through side issues. And while it won him my admiration, it cost him. The pundits said that he needed to "get tougher," that he could not win without resorting to dirty tricks.

I hoped they were wrong.

Obama Dream Speech

fredfuller — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:49:48 EDT

Here is a speech I would love to hear Senator Barak Obama deliver:

I need to address a few words concerning the smears and character assassinations being promulgated by Senator McCain and Governor Sarah Palin.

First, better watch your back. Smears and character assassinations can come from me, too. If you continue, I will describe in detail your involvement, Senator McCain, in the Savings and Loan scandal of the 1980s. You were a member of the Keating Five, and although you were cleared of charges, you still are a member of the Keating Five. I have been cleared on my association with Ayres in fact check after fact check, so back off or I will get deeper into your involvement with Keating.

I would recommend your calling off your attack dog in lipstick because she has some explaining to do, also. Troopergate, which is still viable, firing of a librarian for not censoring books Palin wanted censored, and even though she rehired the librarian, it still shows the governor is a censor. As vice president what will she bowdlerize then?

Much more from Alaska is available, and I will make it famous if you persist.

Finally, Senator McCain, your smears have affected my wife and my little girls. I am thick-skinned and can take it because I know you are lying in most cases, but they are not thick-skinned. No one hurts my family. If you persist, we’ll re-acquaint the American people with how you dumped your first wife for a younger, more beautiful woman when you got back from your stay at the Hanoi Hilton. Carol McCain, your first wife, was broken like a glass doll from a car accident and was no longer the beauty queen you left behind to fight in Vietnam. Don’t force me to talk about your relationship with your present wife while Carol recuperated.

There’s a lot more Senator and you know it and you know I can verify it all unlike your assassinations, which are based on rumor.

Stick to the issues, John. All this offal your dishing out has nothing to do with how the American people will pay their mortgages, pay for health care, pay taxes, or do the myriad other things they need to do. I can help them do it, Senator. Apparently you cannot so you hide in the filth of smears and character assassination.

Right now I’m not angry because I know that politics is a dirty game; I’ve got dirt on me, too, just as all politicians have. But I’m warning you to back off, or I’ll cover you in manure even though I lose the election. You will not do to me what Bush did to John Kerry, and what he did to you, Senator McCain, in 2000.

For your sake and Governor Palin’s sake, do not get me angry. Yes, I am a half black man, and you can accuse me of being an angry black man, but if you do get me angry, you can honestly say you have an angry black man on your tail.

Answer McCain's challenge: Debate him NOW!

Q Manning — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:51:03 EDT

I have no idea if these blogs get anywhere near Barack Obama or his closest advisor's eyes, but look -

JOHN MCCAIN HAS CALLED BARACK OBAMA OUT ALL WEEK LONG. OBAMA MUST ANSWER THE CALL AND DO A DEBATE/JOINT TOWN HALL! IMMEDIATELY

He has asked you, repeatedly, to debate him in a town-hall setting, on tv, in a conference, in another debate before September 26, and Barack Obama has ignored his calls.

Why? I don't get it. I am a HUGE Obama Supporter. I have already gotten a number of friends, who were staunch apathetics or conservatives, to understand the importance of the issues and this election, and they support Barack Obama's plan.

But I can't get 250 million people to pay attention. God knows I've been trying.

MCCAIN DOES NOT WANT TO DEBATE OBAMA EARLY.

Do not doubt this. He is very scared, and he only calls Obama out on this because he knows Obama will continue to ignore it. So why the hell don't you guys call his bluff?

Obama will mop the floor with McCain in a debate or a town hall.

Right now, at this point, our team is losing the spin war. McCain will play meaner, dirtier, and will lie. He doesn't care, his honor has disappeared, because he needs to get elected. McCain will say and do anything to make that happen.

EXCEPT TALK ABOUT THE ISSUES!

Obama, you HAVE to understand this is the ONLY place you have left. The only way to get the American people to pay attention to you, to realize that McCain is offering nothing new, nothing real, nothing at all.

Call him on his bluff. Do it today, before the news cycle is out. Tell him to choose the place, and you just meet him there. Or you choose the place. It doesn't matter. Make it a town hall, schedule it for next week, and then tell him you'll do as many as he likes.

Because he cannot spin your words when you are saying them directly to the American people.

Shoes and ships and sealing wax and lipstick tubes and pigs

extremepain — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 22:57:01 EDT

As I've grown older I have seen so many of these utterly regrettable tactics by republicans. I've come to believe that the reason we have up to 20% undecided voters is due to the inability of these fence sitters to develop an opinion of their own. They are perhaps the only group that does not see through these transparent attacks. They buy into cheap clichés and slogans. Tax and spend liberals, Wrong on Family Values, Wrong for America, Universal healthcare is socialism and of course the latest: Obama wants to teach sex ed to kindergarteners.

I have always admired the fact that Democrats have always tried to take the high road. No More. I say kick em in the teeth. If thats what the swing voters understand, then do it. It's ugly, I don't like it, but if you don't go toe to toe with them, you lose, plain and simple. Bill Clinton had a response team that responded to every negative attack within one hour. It worked. It didn't hurt that he was a Rhodes Scholar that came across like a fishing buddy, but thats not Barack's personality.

Both Barack and Joe have to dig deep and go bare fisted. Biden is particularly good at this, but the media is so taken with Palin that Biden's rallies get little to no coverage. He speaks so well to the common man, and he can cut like a knife without being condescending.

People may disagree with me but Palin was picked as much for how much the camera loves her as anything. The most sexist thing that has happened is McCain's selection of her with the idea that Clinton women would vote for her based on her genitals. Ask yourself this: Had Palin looked like Bea Arthur, would she have been picked?, and if she had been picked despite that, would there be this buzz about her? No

Another Palin point: If this woman is so damn tough, why can't she speak for herself about these non-issues, and just why isn't she tough enough to talk to reporters, or take questions from plain ol Americans at all the events she appears at with John?

Folks, the truth is, she is not ready, not now, not in November and not in January. They are hiding her from real questions. The press is debunking her "reformist" image daily and the more they dig up, the less likely McCain will expose her to "Meet the Press". We know Charlie Gibson will set softballs on the tee for her, so that can go in the fluff category. As an unimportant aside, is anyone else sick of her shrill grating voice? She can assert on the topic of the "Bridge to nowhere" "Thanks, but no Thanks" as many times as she wants, but that has been disproven. The point is, she comes across great with a acript, lets see her have to speak her own words.

The McCain campaign has zero policy ideas, they have zero substance, so distraction and slimeball attacks are what they use to keep Obama defending rather than asserting the issues. So I say slap him down on the dirty stuff, and let the 527 groups play in the mud, then hammer him on the issues and force him to answer about the policies he doesn't have. They admitted they don't want this to be an election about policy and issues, they want it to be about the candidates, well force him into the issues, he's given us the roadmap on exactly what his weakness is.

Start attacking already

Michael from Seattle, WA — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:24:30 EDT

Barak really needs to attack the experience argument. It's probably the biggest argument people keep in their heads when they think of voting for McCain. The captain of the Titanic had plenty of experience.

I think he needs to start attacking McCain hard now as well. McCain is doing a good job of painting Obama as a elitist. A man who has multiple homes an more money than God is painting him as an elitist. Where are the democrat 501's? Where are the highly effective ads attacking McCain where Obama can say "What a horrible ad. My campaign does not support those despicable 501 ads.

Very low, McCainites!

Donna — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:55:51 EDT

This is no doubt old news, but has anyone else received this e-mail? I've been getting a lot of these type of hateful e-mails forwarded by a friend who I thought knew better. I haven't confronted her on them because she's a useful source of information about what is being said about Senator Obama in certain circles. I know I should confront her, but I'm tired of fighting. It's like that old game where you bop the "moles" whenver they pop their heads out of their holes. It's an exercise in futility and distracts attention from the real issues.

I hope Senator McCain is blissfully unaware of the whisper campaign against Senator Obama, because, if not, he's not the man of honor I always have believed him to be. Then again, if he isn't aware, is he sharp enough to be president? Either way, these tactics do him no good. He can't stop people from forwarding this type of e-mail, but he can certainly speak out against it.

[If he has, then my apologies to the good senator, but I haven't heard about it on the nightly news nor read it in the myriad of articles on the Internet].

What surprises me is how the American public seems to fall for the same old, same old time and again. I know we Americans are brighter than that, so what gives?

Beware Charismatic Men Who Preach 'Change'
    Editor, Richmond Times-Dispatch:

       Each year I get to celebrate Independence Day twice. On June 30 I celebrate my independence day and on July 4 I celebrate America 's. This year is special, because it marks the 40th anniversary of my independence.
    On June 30, 1968, I escaped Communist Cuba and a few months later I was in the United States to stay. That I happened to arrive in Richmond on Thanksgiving Day is just part of the story, but I digress.
    I've thought a lot about the anniversary this year. The election-year rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there. In the late 1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right. So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.
    When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said "Praise the Lord." And when the young leader said, "I will be for change and I'll bring you change," everyone yelled, "Viva Fidel!"
    But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner's guns went silent the people's guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans. And now I'm back to the beginning of my story.
    Luckily, we would never fall in America for a young leader who promised change without asking, what change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America ?
    Would we?

    Manuel Alvarez Jr.
    Sandy Hook , VA

McCain Continues to Show True Colors

Fred - Team Liaison - Smyrna-Vinings — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:34:51 EDT

Need more proof that John McCain has become exactly the kind of politician he despised (or at least claimed to despise) back in 2000? Below is a screenshot of his current campaign website as of right now.

Not only is Clark not a part of the Obama campaign...not only has Barack rejected Clark's statement...but here the McCain campaign put two images together purposely trying to make it look like Barack and Clark may have even been sitting right next to each other or talking about it when Clark said it and/or that Barack somehow agrees with or supports what Clark said...AND completely mischaracterize what Clark actually said.

This is as slimey and as "negative politics" as you get. It just shows that a desperate John McCain is no different than the campaign that totally destroyed him personally back in 2000.

Also, this points out just a fundamental difference between McCain and Obama's approaches. The fact that McCain takes up the prime real estate on his website with an unfair and untrue attack against Obama shows he's as focused (or more focused) on being negative against the other candidate as he is about being positive about himself. Obama's entire homepage is dedicated to news about himself, campaign events, his stance on issues, and positive news stories...responses to attacks from the other campaign or anyone else are a completely separate and dedicated sub-section of the site

The Clinton Guide to Winning an Election

Naomi — Mon, 26 May 2008 18:24:04 EDT

I've finally figured it out. I have figured out what the pattern is that we see in Hillary Clinton's campaign, over and over again. I also think we saw it in the Bill Clinton years, although frankly I was so glad Bush and Dole didn't win that I didn't care. I care now.

Here's the formula:

Step 1: Say something offensive, stupid or outrageous that could be taken two ways, one of which is legitimate and the other of which is evil.

Step 2: Shortly thereafter, apologize "if anyone was offended." Alternately, apologize to the wrong person. For extra bonus points, apologize if the wrong person was offended.

Step 3: Wait for opposing candidate or side to be asked for comment.

Step 4: No matter what the opposition comment is, accuse them of politicizing your remarks for their own gain.

Step 5: Watch as news coverage swings away from what you said and towards the "playing politics" of the other side.

Step 6: Congratulations! You've accomplished three things: a) making a legitimate point, b) getting something you wanted to imply but didn't want to come right out and say into the public consciousness, and c) making your opponent, who was a completely innocent bystander, look like the bad guy.

What follows is this week's case study, the RFK comment:

Dirty Political Campaigning...

Patti — Sat, 10 May 2008 23:49:39 EDT

To ALL Americans,

I for one do not understand why “the Clinton’s” and others in “her” campaign have and continue to run a dirty political campaign. The same goes for McCain, especially after his wife stated her husband promised to run a clean campaign. I will speak about him at another time.

Yet, I do remember H. Clinton stating the same facts at the beginning of this campaign over two years ago. Well, I see she did not keep her promise.As a 45 year old Caucasian/Latino woman (for those who care) and born in OUR “United” States of America. Who has finally gotten involved in politics because of Barack Obama’s stance regarding his, my, our issues. I am extremely proud of myself for getting involved because of Barack Obama. I am even more proud and honored to have Barack as OUR future President of “The UNITED” States of America.

It is unforgivable in my opinion, how “the Clinton’s” as well as others have used the race card time, and again. However, when the Clinton team, have been questioned regarding this topic they deny it, get defensive, or say Barack was doing this. Sadly, to state, B. Clinton has used the race card on several occasions and dares to deny it.

Geraldine Ferraro as well as others used the race card before the Pennsylvanian primaries. She tried to reverse it by stating, she was the one discriminated against because she is white. She later “quit” H. Clinton’s campaign and I use the word quit loosely because I do not know whom to believe anymore due to Mark Penn (which is another topic needing more serious discussion).

Thus far, H. Clinton has allowed others to do her dirty work for her. Recently, just prior to the West Virginia and Kentucky primaries, H. Clinton spoke. Stating, I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on. She as well stated she has support among “white” working, hard working Americans. White Americans is weakening against Barack. She then stated how “whites” in both states who had NOT completed college were supporting her. Then to top it off she said, there is a “pattern” emerging here, as well as stating she does better with independents than Barack does.

Yes I would agree with the Clinton’s and their campaign, there is a pattern emerging here, which would be you, the “Clinton’s”, your campaign, and a few select others that ARE THE ONE’S INJECTING RACE INTO THIS CAMPAIGN AND FEAR MONGERING TACTICS. I find this to be so incredibly LOW and SAD.

I FIND THESE TACTICS TO BE DISTASTEFUL, DEGRADING, AND PATHETICALLY SAD. DO YOU NOT REALIZE WHAT THESE DISGRACEFUL WORDS SOUND LIKE TO US, THE “UNITED” STATES OF AMERICA! IS THIS THE REASON BOTH YOU AND McCain CHOSE TO CALL BARACK OBAMA AN ELITIST? SOME FOOD FOR THOUGHTS – THINK – AMERICA – PLEASE THINK – PRIOR TO VOTING!Thank you,

Patti

Proud of Barack after the PA debate

Sierra Hussein Cajun — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:19:29 EDT

I am really thankful that Sen. Obama stayed above the fray. Yes, many people believe he "lost" the debate, but Sen. Obama did not stoop to the brand of dirty politics that so many Americans are tired of. He was on the defensive, but did not go after Sen. Clinton -- and even went so far as defending her 1992 comment that was all over the media ("I guess I could have just stayed home and baked cookies...").

Today, I feel more strongly that Sen. Obama should lead this country for the next four years than I did when I first got involved with the campaign. I don't think Sen. Clinton should drop out, but her "kitchen sink" attacks are getting her campaign and the Democratic party nowhere fast.

PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN GLASS HOUSES...

Super Sistah — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:12:36 EDT

People who live in glass houses SHOULD NOT THROW STONES !

There is something awful about the way that some people...particularly those pundents at FOX NEWS and other politicians have tried to degrade and slander Rev. Jeremiah Wright. He is a highly respected icon in Chicago and around the nation. Although some of us may not like the way he expressed himself...he did not lie about anything. By taking a few seconds of sound-bites from some videos and running them over and over...these hypocrites have tried to reduce Rev. Wright to some type of black villain. And then they have tried to distort and degrade Obama. This is especially SHAMEFUL coming from the inept, RIGHT-WING biased characters who have done this-- SEAN HANNITY, BILL O'REILLY, RUSH LIMBAUGH, GLENN BECK...and the like. And Rev. Wright was not speaking in a racist way...he was addressing INJUSTICES.

Finally, many people are coming forth to defend this man for telling the TRUTH.

WHITE CATHOLIC PRIEST SUPPORTS

Rev. Jeremiah Wright...

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

Watch this video

WHY WOULD ANYONE TRY TO DISTORT Rev. Wright or Barack Obama?

RELIGIOUS HYPOCRISY---

It is so hypocritical for Hillary Clinton, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh--- and most of the others who have criticized Obama's pastor to say a word, since they have strong ties to questionable right-wing fanatics, extremely controversial churches, racketeers...and worse.

THEY CONTINUE TO ASK..."Why did Obama stay at the church for 20+ years...."

This question comes--after they reduced the career of Rev. Wright to a 30-second sound-bite

of..."most controversial statements" .... AND without any review of the church's programs,

services or the 30 years of preaching and teaching of Rev. J. Wright.

WHAT ABOUT THOSE WHO CLAIM TO BE CATHOLICS? --- e.g. Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity

And I am happy that more people are starting to speak out about this DOUBLE STANDARD --

Keith Oberman on MSNBC gave SEAN HANNITY the "worst person in the world" -- for his double talking.

Bill Maher wrote a great article:

http://www.236.com/blog/w/bill_maher/new_rule_catholics_must_get_up_5510.php

Hannity and O'Reilly have not left the Catholic Church despite its horrible CHILD MOLESTATION scandals.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE REAL QUESTION THAT SHOULD BE ASKED IS --

WHY DO THEY TRY TO HUSH UP THE SCANDALS SURROUNDING SEN. JOHN McCAIN? Not only does he have ministers who endorse him who have made controversial statements --- McCain has a long history of associations with "Mafia members" --people involved in crimes, embezzlement.... and other odd characters:

http://www.realchange.org/mccain.htm#keating

Rev. Hagee and Rev. Parsley (John McCain supporters) are not the only pastors who have said made some very strange comments. Recently, Hillary Clinton has stated that -- "she...would not have stayed in Obama's church...."

This is a weird answer from a woman who has stayed with her unfaithful husband through numerous transgressions with other women...and a major embarassment after the Monica Lewinski mess. Hillary is a former Republican who supported some very questionable people.

Hillary Clinton and many others on Capitol Hill are members of a controversial church...

**known as: "The Fellowship" or "The Family"

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html

INTERESTING HOW THEY DON'T PUBLICIZE THE CONTROVERSIAL BELIEFS OF THEIR OWN CHURCHES (temples, mosques...faiths, etc.)

And Hillary's own EX-pastor --stated that people should quit mistreating this good man (creating divisions) via soundbytes which distort Rev. Wright's great service to the community, and he supports Obama's pastor Rev. Wright:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/25/pastor-of-clintons-forme_n_93418.html

Some of the same aforementioned right wing zealots are responsible for using the little sound-bytes to paint Rev. Wright in a bad light....the head imp being the big ego-trip SEAN HANNITY who has ties to Neo-Nazis.

Learn more at this site: http://mypages.blackvoices.com/museum/frequentquestions

IF YOU LISTEN TO THE ENTIRE SERMONS...you will hear Rev. Wright talking about many injustices dished out to people of all races...(Japanese prison camps, Vietnam War, etc.) If you listen to the entire sermons, there is deep knowledge there.

Why isn't Senator McCain held to the fire for the highly controversial words of Rev. Hagee?

Why does Sean Hannity have 2 TV shows and a radio show...but he isn't confronted about his ties to Neo-Nazis?

Obama did not make the statements any more than Hillary made the statements that her minister makes.

Rev. Wright's comments about the ugly history of racism and injustices appears to also apply to those who have unfairly attacked and demonized him.

REMEMBER-- It was the U.S. Gov't (FBI) ...which once proclaimed that DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING was the "...most dangerous negro in the country."

IT IS THESE TYPES OF HYPOCRITICAL ACTIONS that contribute to the "post JIM CROW syndrome" --which many older Black Americans suffer... and offer reasons for them to have a lot of bitterness and anger.

Clean Politics vs. Gutter Politics

Otto Holland — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:09:50 EDT

My choice is clean politics and I am quite sure Senator Obama and most people supporting him agree.I am taking the time out to remind myself and anyone who may read this post that we need to keep it clean; we must keep it clean.For every dirty word there are a dozen returned and they make this movement look bad and give us a bad taste.Keep the discussion active, keep it real and at the same time; keep it above reproach. Never give an inch that will allow a competitor advantage or even give anyone something to talk about unless it is positive.

Pissed off in Ohio.

Becky in Bexley OH — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:18:37 EST

It's hard after Tuesday's loss in Ohio not to hear echos of the time when Ohio Democrats were saying, "Kerry on!" to encourage each other after that election was stolen. I was so disheartened after Kerry lost, and it has taken me until this primary election to even give a damn again about politics. Hillary and her ilk are so deft at disenfranchisement of the rank and file, that it doesn't seem worth getting involved in.

I've resisted writing a big, complaining, ranting tome somewhere, but this seems like the place to leave it. I am just so pissed about the Clinton campaign's dirty tactics on the day before two important primary elections (Ohio and Texas). Further, her idiot supporters here in Columbus were wasting their time picketing Obama's Columbus Campaign HQ with NAFTA signs. We saw the very same people who'd been picketing us, at the Board of Elections on Tuesday night with Clinton signs instead of "Fix NAFTA Now signs." Whatever that means.

This mult-layer BS about who leaked what to whom and who then twisted it beyond recognition to suit their own best interests, is maddening. It's a very simple tenet: It is dishonorable to win by using dirty tactics. If you fear your oponent's abilities so much that the only way to win is by deception rather than honest, forthright competition, then you don't have much going for you. Like those picketers: what we said was, "well, while they're busy picketing, we're busy canvassing." It's just fundamental good sportsmanship 101: Play Nice. This is probably why I'm not in politics; the same reason why I don't watch ice hockey: it moves too fast and I have no way of guessing what is coming out of right field next, or even where right field is. (please pardon the jargon - i'm just writing out of my thoughts on a first draft basis).

I just hate it that a person can't win under their own steam without dragging their opponent down and standing on their head. That's how nuclear pissing contests get started: I can't best you, so I will insult and infer and then you will be "guilty" before the thing even starts, so you might as well pull a nuclear punch, and then my bullshit becomes reality and "I win." Great, Hillary, so you win. Just great. Not at all the kind of leadership I've been working towards. This is why I will never vote for Hillary or any other Clinton or anyone in their gang.

At least with McCain there is some kind of road map of consistency. At least he has a firm stance on the war, and is consistent with that message. Hillary will say whatever the handlers tell her to say and somehow slip out of the part where facts are checked and it turns out that she has contradicted herself. Agggggghhhh. As long as politicians can overcome their own contradictions and keep on keeping on, it will be politics as usual.

Barack Obama offers something else. He offers honesty and integrity. None of the existing politicians wants to come to that dance, because their honesty and integrity have been shoved to the back of their closet for so long they don't even fit any more...

Well, I could go on forever on this, but to what end? I gotta go make some phone calls to Wyomin'.

Did Clinton Win Ohio on a Lie?

C Dornfeld — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 20:39:54 EST

Suppose someone in the North Korean government released a false story that shifted a key American election. If Bush were negatively affected, we might be bombing Pyongyang by now. But this just happened with what Hillary Clinton called “NAFTAgate” Without it, she might never have won Ohio, or her margin would have been minuscule. But as a Canadian Broadcasting Company story reveals, practically the entire story was a lie, one that played so central a role in Clinton’s Ohio victory as to thoroughly taint any claim she raises about a swing state mandate.

Did Clinton Win Ohio on a Lie?

C Dornfeld — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 20:38:38 EST

Stay Positive and Address the Issues

Clyde from Houston, TX — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:51:17 EST

The Clinton Campaign is fighting dirty. Every positive proposal Barack has come up with ends up as Hillery's Message. The 35 years of experience she speeks of are comprised of visits to friendly nations as a guest, not an official government representative. She is not Condolizza Rice. She has had many questionable business dealings in her past which have conveniently been swept under the rug by her husband. She has accused Barack of stealing other peoples speeches and runs the 3 in the morning fear mongering TV ad, which had been done by Walter Mondale back in 1984. She said she will not talk with World Leaders if elected until she has some underling diplomat go pave the way, so she can continue her celebrity appearances in foreign countries rather then doing the work herself. When asked if she thought Barack was a muslam, she said she didn't think so, having full knowledge that he has been a Christian for at least 20 years. She is two faced. When she is stumping she blasts Barack, then when confronted on National TV, she side steps and puts on her "I'm so inocent" routine. She praised her husband for NAFTA and now says she wants to rebuild our manufacturing communities. Ross Perot said "Once NAFTA becomes law, the only thing you will hear is a big whoshing sound as American jobs and businesses leave the country". How right he was. She says she will mandate all Americans to buy health insurance, and garnish peoples wages if they do not. Barack offers a more resonable alternative. She voted in New York to give illigal imegrants driver's licenses, then turned around and said, well maybe not.

I beleive Barack is a much stronger candidate, and will lead our country back to the World Leadership position we should have. The American people have been kept busy worrying about red, yellow and green terror alerts, than realizing many of our Constitutional Rights have been stolen and supressed by the bush administration. Barack offers a partnership of, by, and for the people of America, not just another player of the same game.

I beleive what we are really asking for is not just "Change", but a Constitutional Revolution. Our forefathers were brilliant in the design of our government functions, but over the years it has been eroded, minipulated, and misinterperted to become an empty shell of a book of dreams. We need a leader that can reopen that book and make the "American Dream" a reality.

A nation divided does not work. History has proven that, and we see it happening around the world today. Strength in numbers and unity are proven facts. And that is what Barack must stick to, the facts.

We have a "War on Drugs" and a drug zarr. What's that about?

We have a "War on Poverty" and people living in the street. Come on.

We have a "War on Terror" and give the terrorist weapons and money. Is that logical?

We send our bravest to fight in the wrong place, with the wrong equipment, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons, and treat them as second class citizens when they finally get home. I'm a veteran and I'm ashamed. Let's get the FIRE back in this campaign, Barack Lead on!

A rose by any other name

Tom Hayes, working for change — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:20:10 EST

The attempts to feign plausibility while employing "Hussein" to imply connections between Senator Obama and fundamentalist Islamic extremists fall apart when compared to behaviors by those writers and/or speakers in analogous situations. Political candidates are referred to by any serious commentator in whatever way the campaigns prefer. It's respectful to not refer to Senator Clinton as Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton even though she employed Rodham deliberately earlier this decade. Willard chose to be known as Mitt Romney, and that wish was respected. Some years back now, J. Danforth Quayle was greeted by the pundits and columnists on both ends of the political spectrum as "Dan" which was obviously a political decision to make him sound less snobbish (or more folksy and normal.) How many voters today know that Senator McCain's middle name is Sidney, or that he's John Sidney McCain III?

Why don't we hear these full names? Primarily because it's not respectful. We all know that.

McCain's Victory Speech Sets the Ground Rules

Joshua Kupetz — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:50:18 EST

On the eve of the Potomac Primaries, Senator John McCain used his victory speech as an opportunity to mark the territory for his supposed campaign against now-frontrunning Senator Barack Obama. Characterizing Senator Obama as ego-driven and messianic, claiming that:

The American people don't send us to Washington to serve our self-interest, but to serve theirs. They don't send us to fight each other for our own political ambitions; but to fight together our real enemies.

Moreover, Senator McCain attempted to co-opt Senator Obama's message of hope, reflecting that:

Hope, my friends, is a powerful thing. I can attest to that better than many, for I have seen men's hopes tested in hard and cruel ways that few will ever experience.

Senator Obama is not averse to challenging Senator McCain in his stump speeches--we've all heard the wheels falling off the Straight-Talk Express countless times--but McCain's attacks on Senator Obama are not based upon fact, but upon misrepresentation. For example, McCain intentionally portrays Obama as a self-serving, ego-maniacal politician when he claims that,

When I was a young man, I thought glory was the highest ambition, and that all glory was self-glory. My parents tried to teach me otherwise, as did the Naval Academy. But I didn't understand the lesson until later in life....

While McCain calls Obama's promises mere "platitudes," we are supposed to forget that Republicans for years have campaigned under the platitudes of God, Country, and Apple Pie, often avoiding the plight of working men and women by recharacterizing their struggles as struggles inherent to democracy. In fact, such politicking, as Senator McCain inaugurated last night during this campaign, is simply disinformation designed to promote the dominant ideology that keeps the disenfranchised and powerless in place and allows the hegemons to fill their coffers. And our nation's coffins.

Hopefully, Senator Obama and his hopemongering will continue to take the high road, countering Senator McCain's empty rhetoric with a discussion of policy, a discussion which can only reveal how bankrupt McCain's beliefs truly are.

McCain, John. "John McCain's Feb. 12th Speech." New York Times. 13 Feb 2008. <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/us/politics/12text-mccain.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin>.

Experience: Obama vs. Clinton

Dr. Barbara Palmer — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:42:18 EST

Those who wonder if Clinton's constant harping on her "experience" is important or true might find this article interesting. Senator Obama actually has more experience. Change is what America needs and Senator Obama is the candidate to bring it! Go Senator Obama. All the way to The White House!New York Times Article of interest: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/opinion/20kristof.html?em&ex=1201064400&en=56246b39bf197e5b&ei=5087%0A

Clinton's Economy With the Truth

David Butterfield — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:37:15 EST

Former Prez Clinton tends to exercise a certain economy of the truth when the going gets tough. I don't think it will hurt our campaign to gently remind people that Bill will lie publicly if it suits him. We want to rise above petty conflict and sniping but the fact remains that Bill Clinton will lie under durress and we are seeing that behavior again as he attacks our candidate. Oblique references and subtext reminders are in order: under heat Clinton lies. That is the truth of what we are seeing and hearing from him lately and the truth deserves the light of day.

Setting the Record Straight

SCAron — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:38:37 EST

Please join me in helping to the set the Obama record straight whereever you find misinformation. For example, if someone posts a response to a news article about him being raised in a madrassa, reply with links to reliable news organizations (which leaves Fox out) that disprove that lie. One of my favorite referrence is www.politifact.com. I recommend not getting upset, electronically YELLING, name calling, or smearing other candidates but calmly state the facts. Dirty politics is death by a thousand cuts, but if we, the supporters, work hard to stop the spin, we can assure an Obama victory in South Carolina, the primaries and in November.

The Truth must shine brightly.

Aron Kuch

An Open Letter to David Axelrod and Associates

CJC — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:49:13 EST

I composed the following letter yesterday, which I plan to send to the Obama campaign (probably on MySpace, although I have no idea if it will reach the right people in time). I encourage other Obama supporters to write similar letters:

Please take the time to read this letter and perhaps pass it on to other folks in the campaign who might be able to put these ideas into action. I'm sure much of what I will say has already occurred to the higher ranking folks in the Obama campaign, but I am so "fired up" that I thought I would take a moment to humbly suggest a few new courses of action.

First of all, let me say that I just ran across the Factcheck section of your website. This is an excellent resource, and I will definitely be diverting people to it when I hear unfounded attacks on Senator Obama in the future.

There's only one problem.

Senator Obama has to start shooting down these attacks by Senator Clinton as soon as they are made, in real time, in a fair but firm manner. I don't think I'm going out on a limb to suggest that this next debate in Nevada is absolutely crucial to the future of this campaign. I love Senator Obama for his disdain for dirty politics, but he absolutely has to come out swinging in this next debate. He has to correct Clinton on her false allegations as soon as they are made. As I see it, she is getting away with political murder.

He also needs to challenge her on her new argument that she has "35 years of experience/change." She has offered absolutely NO specifics on this, and besides, many of us know Senator Obama has more years as a publicly elected official than she does!

Which brings me to my final point: Senator Obama has to start trumpeting his own experience! We supporters know of his rich and varied experience on the streets of Chicago where he touched the lives of real people on a grassroots level, and of the positive changes he implemented while serving in the Illinois state Senate, but he has to start letting the public at large know what his accomplishments are. Sadly, most people aren't going to take the time to go on the internet and read about his accomplishments (even though it takes all of ten seconds to do).

I found this brief but excellent article on cnn.com that underscores what Clinton is trying to do with her "experience" argument (essentially, moving the goalposts) and how Obama should counter it:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/11/martin-clinton-redefines-what-experience-is/

I hope you'll take my comments in the spirit with which they are intended. I support Mr. Obama 100 percent and want to see him take this country by storm!

Welcome To The Machine

CJC — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 03:58:35 EST

Senator Barack Obama has been running an exceedingly positive campaign, for the most part, while his major opponent, Senator Hillary Clinton, has not. While it may not be quite in keeping with Mr. Obama's message to make negative allegations about his main opponent, I think it's important that we take a long look at the cheap tactics and awful--and occasionally downright disgusting--attacks that have come out of Senator Clinton's campaign in the past few months.

The following dirty tactics have been used by either Mrs. Clinton, former President Bill Clinton or those close to the Clinton campaign:

(1) Telling an audience member not to ask Hillary about the war during a CNN debate

(2) Bob Kerrey's rumor that Obama is a Muslim who studied in a madrassa

(3) Bill Shaheen's "did he sell drugs?" comment

(4) Mark Penn casually mentioning "cocaine" on "Hardball"

(5) Andrew Cuomo's "you can't shuck and jive through a press conference" comment

(6) The anonymous Clinton advisor's comment that Obama is "your imaginary, hip black friend"

(7) Hillary dismissing the legacy of Martin Luther King, saying he needed LBJ to get anything done

(8) Bill calling Obama a "kid"

(9) Deliberately distorting Obama's record on abortion, the war ("fairy tale"), the Patriot Act

(10) Hillary slamming Obama's "lack of experience" when he has more experience as an elected official than she has and spent more time changing lives on a grassroots level than she could ever hope to

(11) Planting audience members and questioners at her rallies

(12) Copping the talking points and even campaign slogans of the other major candidates ("Fired up!," for instance)

(13) Planting men in her audience who yelled "iron our shirts!," leading to her "sexism, alive and well" comment

(14) Changing her resume from "experience" to "35 years of experience" to "35 years of change"

(15) Recruiting Massachusetts residents to fill up her New Hampshire rallies

(16) Hillary saying "that hurts my feelings" in the debate (so obviously sarcastic, but everyone took it at face value)

(17) Tearing up before the New Hampshire primary...and attacking Obama in the next breath

(18) Finally "finding her voice"...despite having "35 years of experience and change"

(19) Hillary playing the Fear card ("[Obama presidency] could be the costliest on the job training")

(20) The ridiculous "he wanted to be president in Kindergarten" smear

(21) The entire "Charlie Rose Show" interview with Bill ("it's a roll of the dice")

(22) Hillary accusing him of being a "part-time state senator"

EDIT 1/13/08:

(23) Challenging his voting record ("he voted present 130 times"...out of 4,000 votes! And this was a common tactic in Illinois state legislature anyway. He often stood in solidarity with other Democrats because a measure was unconstitutional.)

(24) BET founder Bob Johnson says Clintons were involved with black issues while Obama "was doing something in the neighborhood that I won't say what he was doing but he said it in his book."

(25) Suing the state of Nevada over setting up caucus sites in certain casino locations, citing "disenfranchisement" of voters (even though the sites were agreed upon half a year ago).

(26) Bill calling Obama the "establishment candidate."

(27) Hillary deriding Bush's "politics of fear" in the Nevada debate...while playing the fear card and saying we need a leader who will be ready for a terror attack on day one.

(28) Both Hillary and Bill claiming Obama said Republicans had "better" ideas.

I am going to keep a running tally of these despicable tactics being used to bring Sen. Obama down. Some are unfounded and some, in my opinion, are simply borderline racist. I don't necessarily think the "race card" should be played (and Obama is wise to go easy on that, as it were) but when you have people in the Clinton campaign using phrases like "shuck and jive" (a well known derogatory phrase against African Americans) there is simply only one conclusion one can come to.

Do we really want another four years of these kinds of tactics?

It's time to turn the page and write a new chapter in American politics. It's time for Barack Obama.