Obama Starts Ad Blitz in Pennsylvania

Barack Obama has begun an ad blitz in Pennsylvania, trying to overcome Hillary Clinton's substantial poll lead in the state.

With 31 days until the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, Sen. Barack Obama yesterday began airing the first pre-primary ads on Philadelphia TV stations. According to public records, the campaign spent about $330,000 on 30- and 60-second spots that will run on six area stations through Monday, the state deadline for voter registration.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, with a double-digit lead in state polls, has yet to hit local airwaves in the run-up to the April 22 primary. A total of 158 Democratic delegates are in play.

Obama has more money to spend than Hillary. Her campaign says his ads are misrepresenting the facts.

"Itís unfortunate that Barack Obama continues to talk about his leadership on ethics but doesnít have much action to back it up. Senator Obamaís campaign still refuses to honor requests to disclose his tax and state records, and answer questions on inconsistencies with Tony Rezko. Itís a continuing pattern of words with no action.

"Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has literally criss-crossed the state talking with the people of Pennsylvania about the issues that matter to them and what they're concerned about is results, not rhetoric. They're not interested in which candidate spends the most money. They want to know which candidate is best prepared to beat John McCain in November, create good, new jobs and provide everyone with healthcare. That candidate is Hillary Clinton."

Donations would help her.

Obama is also ratcheting up his effort to register Republicans and Independents as Democrats to vote in the primary. Of course, he's not calling it "Be a Dem for a Day" -- he calls it an effort to "expand the party." He has volunteers going house to house.

Voting registration for the Dem. primary in PA ends Monday.

< Sara Jane Olson Taken Back to Prison, Clerical Mistake | Who's On the DNC Credentials Committee? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I donated yesterday and encourage all to (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by athyrio on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:33:17 PM EST
    do the same. Dig deep cause she is worth it. :-)

    Yup, did tonight (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by suisser on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:00:56 AM EST
    My 10 year old daughter, an insulin dependent Diabetic wants Hilary for her President. How could I not?  Hilary is the real deal. It's not glamorous, or striking, but it's what we need. It's the President my kid needs.

    Oh, hey (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by zyx on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:11:30 AM EST
    whatever happens, best wishes to your daughter.

    Next donation I make to Clinton, I'll be thinking of her, okay?  Tell her that!


    Thanks! Done, BIG SMILE in reply (none / 0) (#271)
    by suisser on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:29:01 AM EST
    Me, too... (none / 0) (#272)
    by AmyinSC on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:30:59 AM EST
    I do hope your daughter will HAVE Hillary as her president, and for the rest of us, as well.  

    I have been thinking about this a LOT since I had knee surgery on Thurs. and was released the same day - our health care system is a mess.  There is only one reason why I did not spend one night in the hospital - money.  It certainly wasn't therapeutically helpful for ME, that's for sure.  I trust Hillary to do something to CHANGE that - for your daighter, for me, for so, so many others...

    By golly, I think I'll go give her some more money right this minute!


    I had to donate again (5.00 / 1) (#243)
    by Curtis93433 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:08:08 AM EST
    These last few days have been crazy.  First a picture shows up on the internet with Bill Clinton and Obama's Pastor. Then KO has a special on the Obama Passportgate to change the narrative.  Followed by everyone from the Obama crowd crowing about someone in the Clinton camp claimed they had less than a 10% chance, thus she was bringing down the party and should get out.  Then as Obama was standing on stage a5t a rally, one of Obama surrogates, supposedly a respected Genral, said right in front of Obama, Bill Clinton reminded them of Joe McCarthy. In some ways that is the same as him sitting in the pew listening to anti American comments and not responding or walking out.  

    This is a signs of a desperate man who supposedly has this thing wrapped up...  I couldn't take it any longer and as long as Hillary has a chance even if it is 10%, I will keep on helping her out.  I gave another $150 tonight and am now up to $750 since February 5th.  From a guy, You Go Girl!!!!


    Thank You! :) (none / 0) (#247)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:19:44 AM EST
    I need to hold off until after the first (yeah, got behind on my client billing), but it's great seeing others continuing support until I can again. It's real hard not to when I see a bogus slam or smear against her. The guy you saw today was McPeak. Obama called him up and HANDED him the mic. And then stood there and allowed that BS statement to be made.

    Nice way to promote unity . . .


    And McPeak was a Dubya backer (none / 0) (#293)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:46:36 PM EST
    and state party chair for Bush in 2000.   That tells me McPeak has been anti-Clinton for a loooong time.

    correct me if i am wrong here, but (none / 0) (#297)
    by hellothere on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:48:04 AM EST
    didn't this guy have to resign with a scandal during the clinton years? i also read that he really screwed up his command also. the air force was glad to see him retire. so it would follow that he might have some resentments.

    I donated (none / 0) (#280)
    by tek on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:43:21 AM EST
    yesterday and I want to donate every week from now on.  If only I could take back the money I gave to John Kerry and Barack Obama (2004)and Rod Blagojevich and send it to Hil!

    Ok, I'll bite! (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by mbuchel on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:37:14 PM EST
    Just making sure I have the double standard straight...
    It's ok if repubs cross over in states like TX, OH, and MS if they're voting for Hillary, but if the Obama has indys and repubs voting for him it's a subversion of the democratic party selection process.
    If I have this wrong, please correct me.  Thanks!

    Two things... (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Exeter on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:44:06 PM EST
    1. The whole myth about Rush Limbaugh getting GOP to vote for Hillary and that caused her to win TX is pure myth.  There was a slight evidence of that, but not enough to make a difference in the outcome.

    2. Why isn't there the same scrutiny of why GOP is voting for Obama? Obviously there is a large fraction of these voters that simply hate Hillary and have no intention of supporting Obama in the general, but see it as a way to kill her off in the primary.

    Then explain (none / 0) (#17)
    by ROK on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:49:47 PM EST
    the Exit polls from OH, TX and TN where up to 15% of those who voted for Hillary did not want her in the White House. That is staggering and more than "slight evidence".

    Do you have a link for that (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:53:20 PM EST
    I have never heard such high numbers.  The only item I have heard of is a very slight amount voted for Clinton and still didn't counteract the number that had voted for Obama.  I think you just made the odd supposition that Repubs that voted for Obama will vote for him in Nov and those that voted for Clinton only voted for her because they don't want her to win but they gave her a vote that may allow her to win. fun.

    CNN Exit Polls... (none / 0) (#27)
    by ROK on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:56:48 PM EST
    CNN exit poll? That's BS (none / 0) (#113)
    by Exeter on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:02:22 AM EST
    Limbaugh Myth in TX (none / 0) (#36)
    by Davidson on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:01:22 PM EST
    Here is an article that disproves it.  Besides, Limbaugh has been pushing Obama for months, consistently praising him and bashing Clinton; it was only until right before TX, OH that he began to try and cover his tracks by seeming to push for Clinton.  Here is a great summary of how the right-wing has been universally pushing for Obama--until he became the Democratic leader for the nomination.

    Key part of the Dallas Morning News article (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Davidson on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:13:20 PM EST
    Obama won the Republican vote.  And even if you subtract all those who could likely be Republicans, Clinton would still win.

    1) Nine percent of the voters in the Democratic primary were Republicans, according to exit polls. They voted for Barack Obama 53-49. They certainly didn't follow Limbaugh's instrucitons.

    1. The exit polls show that 7 percent of Democratic voters described themselves as "very conservative," a good indicator they might actually be Republican crossovers. They supported Clinton all right 58-42. So let's subtract them all, every vote. Clinton still wins.

    2. The same with other subgroups revealed in the exit polls: Texas voters who say Hillary doesn't inspire them, voters who say neither Democratic candidate inspires them. Voters who say they go to church more than once a week (sounds like a good Baptist to me). Subtract them, pretend them never voted, and Clinton still wins.

    3. The Collin County effect. The heart of the Republican Party is in fast-growing suburban counties like Collin. There's evidence that Republicans did crossover and vote in the Democratic primary. But how did they vote? Obama won 55-44. The same thing happened elsewhere -- suburban Williamson County north of Austin and Fort Bend County in Tom DeLay's old congressional district. Obama won them all by sizeable margins.

    There are domocrats in both those (none / 0) (#226)
    by Jgarza on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:47:29 AM EST
    counties, especially in Williamson.  Winning in a republican county doesn't prove anything.  Exit poll s give you the best data on who republicans voted for.  Remember any democrats in WilCo and Colling are probably close in ideology to those in Dallas and Austin, both places where Obama had huge margins of victories.

    Was the exit poll from Obama people? (none / 0) (#110)
    by Prabhata on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:00:36 AM EST
    I've looked at most exit polls and I've not seen any exit polls with those numbers.  Most exit polls do not ask such questions.  Sounds like another fairy tale from Obama.

    CNN exit polls (none / 0) (#141)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:22:43 AM EST
    Right here.  You need to go to page 5 of 7 (using the arrows) near the bottom.

    The link doesn't (none / 0) (#165)
    by popsnorkle on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:50:05 AM EST
    have a poll question about whether people want Hillary in the white house.  Closest I see is whether you'd be satisfied if she wins the election, presumably talking about the primary.  For that it says that of the 58% of all voters who will be satisfied if Clinton wins, 55% voted for Clinton.

    A significant amount of Clinton voters (none / 0) (#204)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:29:03 AM EST
    said they would not be satisfied with Clinton as the nominee. 14.5% to be exact.  Here's the math:

    Out of the 41% of the candidates who would be unhappy with Hillary as the nominee, 13% voted for her.  This represents 5.3% of the MS Dem voters.  She picked up 37% of the total Dem vote.  About 1/7th of her voters didn't want her to win the office she was contesting.


    So... (none / 0) (#259)
    by ROK on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:08:58 AM EST
    Those who voted for her in primary would be upset if she won? Hmmm...

    You must have missed (none / 0) (#150)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:36:32 AM EST
    the exit polls in every state with an open primary. In TX and OH Obama had more support from independents and Republicans than Hillary had.

    In those states, Obama has won with independents and Republicans. In Missouri the numbers are very clear.  It was Republican support that gave Obama his narrow win. The exit polls are also very clear in Iowa and New Hampshire. Without independents and Republicans Obama loses. Hillary has carried the states with closed primaries.

    This whole scam is the Obama campaign trying to head off the criticism when it's revealed that Hillary has more votes from Democrats than Obama.

    This is something that superdelegates should give close attention.


    Well... (none / 0) (#258)
    by ROK on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:05:34 AM EST
    "Republicans" voting for Obama doesn't suggest that they are voting against Clinton. What suggests that is the number of those who voted for her in the primary who would not vote for her in the GE.

    There is some truth that Obama really does appeal to Repubs and that they will vote for him in the GE. As much as those who comment on here love to get excited about "Dems for a Day", it is possible that Obama does appeal to many disenchanted GOP voters.  

    I know, I'm in trouble. Let me have it.


    Pro Obama for a Day (none / 0) (#260)
    by andrys on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:15:03 AM EST
    Well, this Republican call to arms was referenced or linked-to often on Free Republic and other conservative forums and they did laugh about being "for Obama" for a few days.

     For those who don't go to links:

    Attention All Texas Republicans and Independents!!

    On March 4th, Texas Republicans and Independents will have an opportunity to end Hillary Clinton's (and Bill's) presidential ambitions once and for all!

    Since Texas has on open primary, Republicans and Independents should sign in at their polling place and request a Democratic ballot. They should then vote for Barack Obama. Even James Carville admits that if Hillary loses Texas, "she's done!" Republicans can help make this a reality!!! Just think, no more Clintons in the White House!

    Voting Democratic this one time will have NO effect on your ability to vote in the next Republican primary or obviously on your vote in November. Since John McCain has the Republican nomination locked up, voting for McCain or Huckabee at this point will have no effect on the outcome on the Republican side.

    After you vote during early voting or on March 4th, you ARE NOT done! Report back to your regular polling place at 7PM on March 4th to sign the Barack Obama list for caucus delegates. In a little known Texas voting quirk, 67 delegates to the Democratic convention will be seated because of these caucuses. This is a full one-third of the total number of Texas delegates. For Hillary to lose, she has to lose the primary votes AND the caucus votes.

    I urge you to vote against Hillary Clinton by voting for Barack Obama. Please forward this e-mail to all your Texas Republican and Independent friends so that we can help ensure the Clinton's defeat on March 4th!!!

    By the way, Wisconsin vote was about 30% Republicans and Independents.  It'd be nice if we were smart enough to have a way to choose our own candidates instead of allowing or, in Obama's case, openly encouraging other party members to choose ours when an Obama realizes his own party members are not likely enough to choose him in that primary.


    No. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by ajain on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:45:43 PM EST
    That's not the point. When obama supporters crib about Clinton getting repub votes, why do they forget that repubs have supported obama in most states? There is no outrage then. But when clinton gets repub votes people start crying foul about the primary being hijacked.

    Obvioulsy (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by echinopsia on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:51:17 PM EST
     You didn't get the memo from Obama HQ.

    When indies and Republicans cross over to vote for Obama it's "building the party," regardless of whether they intend to vote Dem in November.

    When they cross over to vote for Hillary, it's "gaming the system" and voter fraud.


    what are you drawing your inspiration from? (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by TheRefugee on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:11:41 PM EST
    I don't remember seeing anyone say that its ok for Hillary but not for Obama.

    1.  Some states let indies and GOPers vote in Dem primaries.  Which is much different than trying to get nonDems to sign up and vote in a Dem primary where only registered Dems are allowed to vote.  And yeah, I have a problem with open primaries, Dems should choose Dem nominees.  And yeah, I also have a problem with 'Dems for a day'.  If a person doesn't have the conviction to stand behind the Dem party as registered Dem voter then I do not think that they have the right to change registry for one vote then change back the next day to vote Republican or third party in the GE.  

    2.  for reasons cited above I do think that courting non-registered Dems, ie people who don't stand behind or for the party on most basic Dem issues, is a subversion of the nominating process.  The Dem that wins the nomination should be chosen by registered dems, not independents and republicans.  Just as dems shouldn't try and game GOP primaries.

    If the primary rules remain the same in 2012 and beyond I will cease to vote in primaries.  Caucuses are elections of exclusion and open primaries are inherently unfair.  Republicans that vote in open primaries are voting for the candidate they think is more easily defeated in the GE and vice versa for Dems voting in GOP primaries.  

    In all seriousness... (none / 0) (#9)
    by mbuchel on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:43:45 PM EST
    On a site which features "Big Tent Democrat" we are opposed to attracting support from indys?

    One day support is not something that (none / 0) (#12)
    by tigercourse on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:45:50 PM EST
    I'd call great.

    Why do you assume... (none / 0) (#13)
    by mbuchel on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:48:06 PM EST
    that they're registering just for one day?  Believe it or not, a vote for Obama is not necessarily a vote against Clinton.
    You know what they say about assuming...

    I assume many are "Dems for a Day" (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:38:40 PM EST
    because that has been the phrase on Obama flyers to recruit such voters in several states.  Google to see some discussed here in past, read the rest of these appeals, and see the promises that switching to Dem registration in primaries does not prevent switching back to Republican for the fall election.

    I also assume that Obama advertising, such as this, is effective and worth the outspending of Clinton by as much as 5 to 1 in other states so far.  Those are expensive votes -- but the real cost to the party comes when those voters don't come back in November to vote for the nominee that they picked to beat.


    Can you provide any proof (none / 0) (#149)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:29:19 AM EST
    for your wild claims about some nefarious Obama "Dem for a Day" campaign?  In NV, a single precint captain, on his own, sent out flyers saying something similar, but I haven't heard about anything else like this happening.

    Meanwhile, Bill and Hillary have praised McCain as having CiC credentials and loving his country while declining to say the same thing about Obama.


    Ask nicely (nt) (none / 0) (#154)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:38:07 AM EST
    I think they may also have said (none / 0) (#168)
    by echinopsia on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:52:07 AM EST
    that they are proud of their lovely and accomplished daughter Chelsea, but they didn't say they were also proud of the lovely and accomplished Barry.

    Call Edward R. Murrow.


    YOU provide proof they will stay! (none / 0) (#289)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:16:46 AM EST
    come on now! we are waiting! sound of crickets!

    Party Building Nonsense (none / 0) (#171)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:54:31 AM EST
    Another Obama myth is the 'we're attracting new people into the party.'

    In Texas an analysis of the vote reveals that Obama supporters voted for only President and left the rest of the ballot blank.

    A much smaller percentage of Clinton supporters vacated the ballot after registering their choice for President. Basically Clinton supporters went through the entire ballot.

    It is not a demonstration of potential coattalis when supporters are only interested in one person on the ballot.

    It certainly does not demonstrate party building.

    Real party building is when the number of people willing to work election after election for down ticket candidates is increased.

    If Obama's appeal is to those dumb enough to want reconciliation, compromise with Republicans, etc.; it's really hard to picture any of those people as partisan party loyalists going door to door canvasing for the Democratic candidate for state represntative or county commissioner, etc.


    Because Republicans are never going (4.66 / 3) (#19)
    by tigercourse on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:51:39 PM EST
    to vote for Obama in a contest against McCain. If they are anti-choice, pro-gun, pro-military, anti-tax, etc. they have absolutely no reason to back Obama.

    I have 3 close friends who self ID as Republican (none / 0) (#35)
    by Knocienz on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:00:45 PM EST
    2 are strongly committed to voting for Obama over McCain. I haven't discussed it with the third (who I suspect will stick to McCain.)

    Not a statistically significant sample, but certainly relevant.


    3 on 301,000,000 (none / 0) (#42)
    by lilburro on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:06:43 PM EST
    speaking of which, when did that happen???  why am i used to 260,000,000 as my figure?



    They're balanced out by two Republican friends (none / 0) (#264)
    by andrys on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:04:04 AM EST
    I'm just kidding here, but it's also the truth.  

      I have two Republican friends who have never voted Democrat but they are hoping to be able to vote for Hillary in Nov.

      :-)   You're right, it's relevant but I can't guess how much of each will be happening where.

      In the meantime, Rasmussen Reports came out today with poll results after the speech, and it's not looking good for Obama in their poll.

       A progressive blog page shows electoral maps as of SurveyUSA's 3/20 results and that definitely doesn't look good, though at least Clinton looks better for a win in this one, over McCain.  (Colors are the reverse of what's expected.)

       Those are based on Survey USA's latest poll on the 20th.  It'll be interesting to see what happens with longer range effects of the speech and also the "a typical white person" remark.


    Then we aren't disagreeing (none / 0) (#286)
    by Knocienz on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:10:11 AM EST
    I was responding to a statement that insisted that Republicans were never going to vote for Obama and that those switching over were just engaged in dirty tricks.

    My experience is that there are plenty that will and targeting those individuals is appropriate; that we want them to join the party and. That there are some who will also vote for Hilary wasn't relevant to that specific point. That people might accuse Rush Limbaugh of dirty tricks for encouraging people to vote for the person he thinks states is a weaker candidate (but really things will get him better ratings and material) isn't the same thing at all IMO.

    I followed your Rasmussen link and the main ad was for John McCain. ;-)  Gallup has Obama mostly recovered from the worst of it and back ahead of Hillary in national numbers. So it appears to be a 'pick your poll' moment. We'll see how things continue over the next few days.


    when to target and how (none / 0) (#291)
    by tree on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:51:11 AM EST
    is an important aspect of coverting Republicans for real, and not just to skew a primary for the personal gain of one candidate. I don't think that targeting Republicans with a GOTV drive in a democratic primary is the way to get REAL republican converts. Its just a way to game the system in your favor. If Republicans really do want to vote Democratic, they don't need to vote in the Democratic primary to prove it. The difference in the issues between the two candidates is relatively small, so if a Republican is seriously considering voting Democratic, it really shouldn't matter in November which one wins the primary. But, if a Republican is voting in a Democratic primary just to game the system, that is not a good thing, and should be greatly discouraged. That's why knowing when to target and how is so important, unless you're just using those votes to try to help wreck your primary opponent's chances in the primary--which is very shortsighted.

    Gaming the system is bad. We agree (none / 0) (#294)
    by Knocienz on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:26:05 PM EST
    But considering the large number of Republicans who have stopped self-identifying as such, it isn't unreasonable at all to tell those folks that they may also want to re-register.

    I also think that encouraging them to re-register as a Dem rather than as Independent is a fine thing.

    As for the difference on the issues being so small that it shouldn't matter who they vote for, THAT we disagree on. Consider how many folks on this site insist that they would vote for McCain over Obama if he wins.


    I haven't noticed more than one or two that said (none / 0) (#295)
    by tree on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:03:46 PM EST
    they'd vote for McCain-and that may include some Obama pprimary voters. I've seen more that won't vote for either Obama or McCain. But again, supporters views don't translate to differences on the issues between the candidates.

     I don't think of Obama as any more liberal than Clinton. They are both centrists. I'm more concerned with Obama's advisers, especially those from the U of Chicago school of economic thought, and of course Brennan, his intelligence advisor, who thinks telecom immunity is a good and necessary thing. Of course, maybe Obama's slight rightward slant is a reason for Republicans to back Obama, but then again, why wouldn't they vote for the real deal in McCain if they want a rightward slant.

    As for telling all those folks to re-register as Democrats, why not wait until the general starts and just urge them to vote Democratic in the general. That gives the Democrats the good, new voters, without the bad--gamers who aren't sincere.    


    The firearms vote (none / 0) (#105)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:56:09 PM EST
    Nearly all the tickets split between Feingold and Bush in Wisconsin in 2004 were from the "Gun Belt" counties of northern and western Wisconsin. Obama, while less pro-firearms rights than Russ, has framed the issue correctly for November, as a Rights matter, rather than "hunters and sportsmen."

    and people who don't think realistically (none / 0) (#205)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:29:15 AM EST
    are called naive.

    Yes, when it doesn't suit Hillary (none / 0) (#14)
    by digdugboy on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:49:01 PM EST
    Encouraging indys and republicans to join the democratic party != a vote for Obama. They could just as easily vote for Hillary. But we don't want to risk more voters in the election, when the opinion polls have Hillary ahead by a good margin.

    On the other hand it's a capital affront to democracy when voters in Florida and Michigan get slighted.


    I have (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by sas on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:14:51 PM EST
    handed out voter registration forms to 5 Republicans - 4 women and 1 man - so they could change their registration here in PA. Four of them wanted to vote for Hillary and 1 wanted to vote against Obama.

    Keep up that voter registration drive , Barack! Barack


    Exactly (none / 0) (#68)
    by digdugboy on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:25:58 PM EST
    If Obama brings more people to the democratic party, even if they vote for Hillary, good for him.

    You do realize that Hillary's (none / 0) (#80)
    by jes on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:40:26 PM EST
    people were all over today also doing registrations. On one side of the street are Hillary signs and registration booths and on the other side of the street the Obama signs and registration booths.

    Are you the Pittsburgh one or is that SAS? (none / 0) (#128)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:10:03 AM EST

    I'm Philly n/t (none / 0) (#144)
    by jes on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:25:51 AM EST
    OK, I am the NE PA One (none / 0) (#181)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:03:39 AM EST
    In the country outside of Scranton. So, isn't there anyone from the middle? And SAS has to cover all of the West side of the State until someone else pops in. Heh. Very exciting indeed.

    I (none / 0) (#269)
    by sas on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:49:53 AM EST
    grew up near pgh

    live near philly now


    6 friends of mine changed over just to get (none / 0) (#122)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:06:50 AM EST
    to vote in the closed Dem Primary in Penna. They will vote for her in the Nov GE but will not vote Dem if it not her. BTW, I have not seen any ads in the NE area. I can do without. Her appearances all over Penna gave her great exposure without the ads.Very positive I might add.

    "Slighted" (none / 0) (#180)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:02:42 AM EST
    No.  SCREWED is what happened.

    Voters in PA will actually be counted.  Obama made sure that voters in MI weren't counted AT ALL.

    Obama supporters make the same kind of arguments used by Republicans.

    I love the one about winning more states.  


    Yeah I like the one (none / 0) (#184)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:05:06 AM EST
    about winning more states, voters and delegates!  Crazy like its a race or something.

    that's an interesting question? sorta! (none / 0) (#202)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:27:11 AM EST
    when people cross lines to vote with good intentions that will stay with the democrats in the general election, i say fine. when encouraging idiots with bad intentions to do so, i call wrong! and obama's campaign is not aimed at getting general election follow through. i suggest you go do your homework.

    Well its not ok in TX OH (none / 0) (#24)
    by TalkRight on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:55:02 PM EST
    but now in PA I guess it is OK..

    To be fair.. BO has been winning because of republican votes earlier and in TX, OH it looks voting has reversed (I guess because now even they are scared of him .. not sure why.) BO has tried to discredit Hillary's win in TX to her support from Rep vote but have been silent before.. and silently encouraging the "one day stand" .. but my gut feeling is that if would reverse fire going forward..  


    GOP Numbers (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Davidson on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:07:50 PM EST
    From the Village Voice article on how the right is seemingly gaming the system for Obama:
    Sixteen of the 45 Democratic primaries and caucuses held before this week were open affairs, allowing Republicans and independents to take part, and Barack Obama has won 11 of those contests. He almost invariably carried the Republican vote, which accounted for as much as 9 percent of the total in Wisconsin and Texas, and frequently ran even stronger among independents, who represented a fifth or more of Democratic primary voters in state after state. The 75 percent of the Republican vote that he won in Missouri, for example, may have pushed him over the top, and certainly, when combined with his 67 percent of the state's much larger independent vote, it delivered many of the district-apportioned delegates to him. Republicans in Obama states like Washington, Wisconsin, and Virginia were even freer to cross the aisle, since by the time they voted, John McCain had already sewn up the GOP nomination.

    anybody wanna bet (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by TheRefugee on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:14:20 PM EST
    as to whether those are solid Obama votes?  Against McCain he might split the indies but those crossover votes, I would assume, will vote GOP in the GE.

    After Wright: no (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Davidson on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:19:46 PM EST
    I don't see how Obama gets those votes.  Republicans really were never going to choose a Dem in the GE; Independents were Obama's supposed trump card and his numbers have dropped significantly amongst Independents alone (see: SUSA Ohio polls where before Wright he beat McCain and now he's significantly down; the drop is all or mostly from Independents).

    I've never believed in the crossover (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by TheRefugee on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:39:04 PM EST
    effect.  Someone who is absolutely center of the road, maybe, could draw a significant crossover vote in today's partisan climate.  Obama?  As soon as someone gets tagged as "most liberal in the Senate" they have no chance with even centrist Republicans.

    And all these Obama supporters who think that he has crossover appeal because he's won states like Utah and Kansas don't seem to realize that Utah and Kansas aren't going to be Dem states in the GE with Obama on or off the ticket.  


    i never believed that obama had (none / 0) (#207)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:32:37 AM EST
    cross over appeal in the general election. after the wright bruhaha, i know he doesn't. throw in floria, michigan and questionable campaign tactics, and you have a major democratic loss with obama in november.

    What are the chances . . . (none / 0) (#231)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:52:04 AM EST
    he ends up with more 'usable' baggage than Clinton by the GE?



    obama has lost the general election. (none / 0) (#234)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:55:07 AM EST
    but you stay in there and learn the hard way. sometimes that is the only way to learn it seems.

    I'm a Clinton supporter (none / 0) (#240)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:03:58 AM EST
    I was just noticing his baggage adding up. And wasn't that one of the reason's he was 'more electable'?

    If the democrats game the system and make hillary (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by TalkRight on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:22:17 PM EST
    quit.. they will pay back in November.. She is the only one that can carry Dem's to victory against McCain..

    Obama will be another Kerry ..


    Yeah...he is doing the Democrat for a Day thing (none / 0) (#174)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:57:20 AM EST
    Obama's effort has generated the most fanfare as his campaign has laid down a steady drumbeat of radio ads and e-mails leading up to the deadline for switching or joining parties.

    "For real change, register as a Democrat by Monday, March 24," advise Obama ads airing throughout the state.Since last fall's election, statewide Democratic enrollment has swelled by more than 111,000 -- an increase of about 3 percent in less than six months that state elections Commissioner Harry VanSickle said is apparently unprecedented. With days to go, Democratic registration is barely 5,000 votes shy of a record 4 million. Associated Press 3/20


    Yeah. Color me surprised (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:24:58 PM EST
    when my redder than red county in VA went overwhelmingly for Obama.

    so you don't think he wins the county in (none / 0) (#81)
    by TheRefugee on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:40:42 PM EST
    the GE?  or do?  And is VA an open primary?  or did he just win the registered Dems?

    Open. This is McCain Country. (none / 0) (#111)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:00:55 AM EST
    There is no party registration in VA. (none / 0) (#127)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:09:44 AM EST
    You just ask for the rep or dem ballot when you vote.

    suprised a lot of people (none / 0) (#89)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:45:57 PM EST
    of course in VA Clinton v McCain and Obama v McCain paints a different picture

    where there is no difference in performance against McCain...unlike many other states where there is a big difference and not in Obama's favor.


    Hmmm. Interesting. (none / 0) (#131)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:12:29 AM EST
    Last polls I saw (none / 0) (#189)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:10:31 AM EST
    McCain was leading among Independents against Obama.

    This is a reference to the GE.

    Davidson makeas a good point about GOP crossovers. In 1972 (Nixon was incumbent) Republican crossovers in Michigan gave George Wallace the state.  This was proven by analysis of Republican precincts.


    Sure, I'll correct you (none / 0) (#26)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:55:49 PM EST
    For one thing... when you post "the double standard" argument... make sure you back it up with some facts and logical reasoning...

    You do know that Rush is a Repub? He is not a Dem .. he does NOT want a Dem to win.

    By know you should be familiar with the demographics that vote for Sen Clinton. She has trouble winning thoise red state primaries.


    Correct just more mud slinging (none / 0) (#109)
    by Salt on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:59:38 PM EST
    in Ohio Obama got 49 percent of the cross over and Senator Clinton received 49 percent of the cross over vote as well.  Some voted for Obama because they say they wanted a weaker running mate against McCain and some voted for Hillary for the same reason... so whatever like the Passport files lots of slime not a lot of substance.

    You need to read the Obamablogs (none / 0) (#261)
    by alsace on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:31:32 AM EST
    Then you would learn that when Clinton wins, it's because all those dittoheads followed Limbaugh's instructions to sabotage the Democrats and vote for Hillary.  When Obama wins, it's because all those enlightened Independents and Republicans chose to walk with him into the wonderful new world of post-partisanship and political comity.  Got to get those talking points down!

    In fact he has not. (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by ajain on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:53:15 PM EST
    He has released only one year of tax returns and has not answered why he has changed stories when it comes to tony rezko. Also he claims to have "lost" his state senate records. What a careful and responsible staff he has.

    Its JUST WORDS when it comes to Barrack Obama (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by TalkRight on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:04:29 PM EST
    At this point, it's no secret that the Obama campaign is in political hot water given the news stories of the last few weeks and is desperate to change the subject. They are coming in full force asking Hillary to Quit!! What do they fear??

    The ground is shifting away from them and their response?

    First, disenfranchise voters - Prevent new votes in Florida and Michigan. Stop voting in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Oregon, West Virginia, Puerto Rico, Kentucky, South Dakota, Montana, West Virginia and Indiana.

    Second, peddle with remarks and photos of President Clinton shaking hands with Reverend Wright less than 48 hours after calling for a high-minded conversation on race. Well, President Clinton took tens of thousands of photos during his eight years as president. Stop the presses.

    Third, accuse Hillary's campaign of having something to do with Senator Obama's passport file being breached, a reckless charge that has zero merit.

    Fourth, continue attacks on Senator Clinton's character in an effort to implement what the Chicago Tribune called a full assault on her ethics.

    Fifth, stonewall the press: no tax returns, no state records, no answers about the inconsistencies in the Rezko story.

    So it's not a pretty sight - it's all part of a pattern of just words.

    Senator Obama talks about voter participation while actively disenfranchising millions.

    He calls for high minded debates while practicing lowdown politics.

    He promises a different kind of campaign while attacking Hillary's character.

    He promises transparency while hiding basic info and stonewalling the press.

    It's no wonder that Americans are coming to see that for all of his lofty rhetoric, Senator Obama's candidacy is really just words.

    It's no surprise that Americans are expressing serious doubts about his ability to answer the 3am call.

    It's no wonder that top journalists are calling the Obama campaign desperate, saying that it's amateur hour in Chicago. Why are they asking Hillary to Quit if they think they are in a very very strong position?


    Wrong (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by digdugboy on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:56:58 PM EST
    He sat down with a room full of reporters and editors from the Tribune and Sun Times and answered every one of their questions. The editorial staffs of both papers agreed the he's come completely clean on Rezko.

    How can he produce state records that don't exist?


    Don't exist? How conveeenient. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by echinopsia on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:03:23 PM EST
    Obama Rezko Story -- Just WORDS!! (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by TalkRight on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:13:40 PM EST
    April - Obama insists that Rezko is just one of `thousands of donors"
    11 months later, Obama admits he talked daily with Rezko when helping to raise money for Obama's Campaigns.

    November 2006 - Obama vaguely describes Rezko's purchase of adjacent lot as a coincidence.
    Over a year later, Obama campaign admits that Obama and Rezko toured the property together.

    January - Obama campaign says donation of $149,985 to charity encompasses `any and all funds that could be reasonably credited to Mr. Rezko.'
    Two months later, Obama admits that Rezko raised $250,000

    Every time he answers Rezko questions ... he provides a new story!


    Right (none / 0) (#38)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:03:15 PM EST
    Did you read the articles?  There were opportunities for follow-up questions but pertinent questions were never asked.  If he has no issues with his boneheaded decisions, why doesn't he release the transactions from the land purchase?  Many people are aware of the Rezko situation and Rezko's connections.  He knew since college he intended to be a politician yet didn't keep his records?  He also didn't have anyone competent enough to keep track of his campaign donations?

    stop posting misleading information (none / 0) (#86)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:43:42 PM EST
    and calling people liars Digdugboy. Several of your comments in this thread have been deleted.

    And on the Rezko questions, the issue is not whether he answered the Trib and Sun Times' questions. The Clinton campaign has asked him to produce other documents like records of his and Rezko's communications on the land deal and he's refused.

    Watch your allegations here please.


    Not the same (none / 0) (#198)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:21:41 AM EST
    Sitting down with the editorial board is not the same as answering questions in an open press conference.

    Obama must avoid open press conferences.  He'd be taken to the cleaners.


    don't exist? don't exist? and you (none / 0) (#210)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:35:25 AM EST
    believe that? i don't and neither will the general public. so believe what you want, but the rest of us won't follow the herd over the cliff.

    So the Yahoo headline will be (none / 0) (#138)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:16:10 AM EST
    Obama: What am I Hiding?

    Sorry (none / 0) (#155)
    by muffie on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:39:52 AM EST
    simply false

    The Clintons stopped disclosing their tax returns after they left the White House in 2000, and their incomes began to soar, with book deals and lecture fees. Hillary did not release her returns during her Senate re-election campaign in 2006. Instead, she pointed to the annual financial disclosure forms that she files as a U.S. senator which are available here and here.

    By contrast, Obama has released the form 1040 portion of his tax return (but not the entire return) since he first ran for the Senate from Illinois in 2004. Obama has released all his returns since 2004.

    Read again (none / 0) (#178)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:01:32 AM EST
    ,,, the post said Clinton will release her returns around April 15 (mine aren't done).  The article states his attachments aren't released.  Obama has been very specific, he wants to see Clinton's attachments.  Interesting piece, loved the commentor who said the Rezko trial is bringing out the Clinton connections. (??)  

    Yes (1.00 / 0) (#208)
    by muffie on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:33:11 AM EST
    Clinton has not yet released tax returns (i.e. any component of the 1040) from 2000-2008, but has said she will release them "on or around April 15th".  Obama has released the 1040, but not attachments (which I presume are things like 1099s from the bank, etc.) I believe he has not released any tax info pre-2004.

    Therefore, the claim above that "Clinton has release[d] tax returns dating back to 1980" is false.  The claim that Obama "has released only one year of tax returns" is if not false, at least very inaccurate.


    yeah and obama wants congress to (none / 0) (#211)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:38:10 AM EST
    actually investigate his passport file bruhaha whereas clinton had hers looked at a year ago. she didn't demand special treatment. then we find out that the company handling all of this had their ceo on obama's campaign. now that is just so interesting. barry couldn't be there is help us with our privacy issues, but let's have congress check his out. really!

    Who cares what the hacks at the... (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Exeter on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:59:51 PM EST
    ...gutted Chicago Tribune say? The reality is that Obama has admitted that he couldn't afford to buy the whole property so he asked Rezko to buy the adjacent lot to close the deal because the sellers demanded that they be sold together. At this point, his behavior was questionable.

    THENNNN, Obama asked Rezko to sell him 1/6 of the vacant lot to him, pretty much making the corner lot unbuildable and worthless to Rezko.  Why is it that three years later that Rezko STILL owns this property -- even though he is supposedly hurting badly for cash? And why has Obama, since the begining taken care of all the lawn mowing and maintenance of this yard?  This, at the very least, is a gross violation of the Senate ethics gift guidelines and should be investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee.

    I care what the hacks at the (none / 0) (#46)
    by digdugboy on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:09:12 PM EST
    Chicago Tribune say. And the Sun Times. The issues you raise have all been put to bed or are meritless. Let's move on.

    Show me the documents (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:25:01 PM EST
    I haven't seen the documents yet.  I still haven't seen the campaign funds associated with Rezko and the funds he funneled to Obama.  I still want to know who else besides Rezko and his old boss, Obama wrote lettes (did favors) for.  Were there friends of Rezko he recommended for jobs?  The Rezko issue hasn't been answered yet.

    you still don't get Obama rules do you? (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by TheRefugee on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:30:06 PM EST
    I explain it all the time.  Obama says the race is over, so it is.  Obama says there was nothing to the Rezco story, so there isn't.  Obama said that he'd never heard Wright utter inflammatory comments...oops never mind, maybe you have a pt in disagreeing...Obama DID hear Wright make those statements after all, so maybe there is something to the Rezco story, maybe this race isn't over.  Maybe Obama rules aren't the rules on which to base reality.  Hmmm.  

    Straight talk express (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by TalkRight on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:26:05 PM EST
    When it comes to Rezko or Rev Wright, it seems it's Obama whose straight talk express wheels come out.. every time he opens his mouth he comes up with a new story..

    Rev. Wright's 9/11 (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Exeter on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:39:36 PM EST
    comments actually came out last year and only now the media decided to scrutinize. A reasonable person does not pay to have his neighbor's yard mowed and manicured.  It doesn't pass the stiff test and is an ad waiting to be made.

    Chuckle.. (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:52:07 PM EST
    the what test? :)

    Drop your tag line (none / 0) (#115)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:04:09 AM EST
    or you will be banned from commenting here.

    Actually, the Trib never gave (none / 0) (#123)
    by Exeter on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:06:56 AM EST
    Obama a clean bill of health over Rezko and some at the paper were VERY critical after the meeting with Obama.

    Move on my foot (none / 0) (#203)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:28:51 AM EST
    You can't counter the Rezko property story. Period.

    And the push to make Clinton concede is because Obama is losing ground.

    It ain't over till it's over.


    move on you say? let me assure the (none / 0) (#214)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:39:45 AM EST
    trial is just getting started. and there more coming out down the road. move on? naw!

    well, the "hacks" at the Chicago Tribune (none / 0) (#253)
    by wrkn129 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:42:58 AM EST
    didn't quite believe Obama. Read it for yourself. here

    Obama still has questions to answer. If you read the column, it says he paid $300,000 less than the asking price for the house. But, in an interview, he says he paid more than the price of the property that he purchased. see the video here


    this isn't quite accurate (none / 0) (#91)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:47:44 PM EST
    Rezko no longer owns the lot - they sold it to a lawyer.

    Rumor (none / 0) (#103)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:55:20 PM EST
    I keep seeing an odd rumor that the land is only accessible by Obama's property.  I think the insinuation is that he still has use of the property, but I thought he put up a fence?  Not sure I really care, but I would like to see the paperwork and know who was on the zoning board for the property line changes.

    ABC News showed the lawyer, the land (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:06:20 AM EST
    and the fence, with the gate opening only onto the Obama driveway, from which the now-owner of the former Rezko lot (the new owner is a former Rezko lawyer, btw) is prevented access by the Secret Service securing the Obama property.

    Odd that there's only one gate, and not onto the street but only onto the Obamas' land, isn't it?

    Anyway -- it was quite a good reporting job by ABC, maybe you still can find it on its site.  There were overhead (helicopter?) views of the properties that showed quite clearly how the land had been combined, since had been split, sold in part, resold, etc.

    It also showed that the lot is for sale, although difficult to sell when the current and prospective owners, any surveyors, etc., can't access it.  But I also saw reported that what is left now of the former Rezko part no longer meets code for another residence to be built.  So much remains a mystery.


    I agree... (none / 0) (#125)
    by Exeter on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:09:09 AM EST
    ... and as I mention above, the spin that the Trib gave Obama a clean bill of health isn't true and, in fact, some at the paper still strongly about Obama's wrongdoing

    That's pretty much (none / 0) (#152)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:37:48 AM EST
    everything I had been reading.  

    Obama has refused to provide all the details (none / 0) (#116)
    by TalkRight on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:04:49 AM EST
    It (none / 0) (#223)
    by muffie on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:45:56 AM EST
    is a corner lot.  From the pictures I've seen (and what I can make out from google maps), there is a fence around the two sides facing the street.   Presumably, the reports indicate that currently, the only way in is through Obama's land.  If the plot is developed, one would obviously remove at least part of the fence.

    Also, the driveway is not shared between the two lots.  In fact, it is on the opposite side of Obama's house from the vacant lot.


    Video story I saw clearly showed (none / 0) (#246)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:17:06 AM EST
    a driveway there, with a car (SUV type) in it.

    Weird but true.  I watched it a couple of times.  Was network tv lying?


    I don't know (none / 0) (#254)
    by muffie on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:53:48 AM EST
    Here's one picture, which shows the driveway on the other side.  Unless it's a photo of the wrong house, intended to mislead the public.

    Law question-If you put a fence (none / 0) (#167)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:50:53 AM EST
    around property that isn't yours, do you become the owner by adverse possession?

    Has to be hostile, open, and (none / 0) (#188)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:08:42 AM EST
    notorious.  Many factors, but, if the owner approves ahead of time to the incursion, not adverse possession.  

    One small correction (none / 0) (#197)
    by Prabhata on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:20:38 AM EST
    What's left of the lot has been sold.  Rezko's wife no longer owns it.

    Has it been sold (none / 0) (#257)
    by DaleA on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:41:01 AM EST
    or given to a lawyer to pay fees? This is a distinction that matters. The whole affair is incredibly murky.

    Mrs. Rezko paid $650,000 on a $37,000/yr salary (none / 0) (#265)
    by andrys on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:25:43 AM EST
    Mrs. Rezko really wanted that lot the same day Obama was buying the house which he said was already "a stretch" for them to buy and so he did ask for help, per earlier accounts in the Chicago Sun Times.  He considered the whole thing a bit "bone-headed" as it could be perceived by others as a 'favor' by Rezko warranting one or more in return.

      But Mrs. Rezko was making $37,000 a year so it was curious she wanted to spend $650,000 for the lot next door that day.

      To the Tribune, Obama's responses this year seemed to imply that it was more or less a coincidence that the Rezkos were interested in that lot.  The answers contradicted earlier ones to the more aggressive Sun-Times.

      So, the jury's out and the trial has just begun and he may be called as a witness.  In a tv interview, Obama said his attorneys would decide whether or not he would have to testify if called.  That would be interesting to follow during a General Election.

      I remember Obama saying before Texas and Ohio primary losses that something like 50 superdelegates were going to cross over to him the following Wednesday or something.  After his losses, movement stopped.  What struck me was that Teddy Kennedy said that everyone should take a breath, and wait.

      Probably an indicator.


    There is a new Obama Rule, did you hear? (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by echinopsia on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:00:03 PM EST
    Now you are not allowed to praise Hillary without giving equal praise to Obama, or else you are engaging in McCarthyism.

    Obama Rule #whatever:

    any praise of Hillary for any quality she might posses that is not immediately coupled with similar praise of Barack equals criticism of Barack for a deficiency in that quality.  Perhaps the FCC can fold that into a revived Equal Time rule - whenever one of her surrogates praises Hillary they must devote equal time to praising Barack.

    And if you want a real laugh, (none / 0) (#104)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:55:30 PM EST
    trot on over to DKos and read the diary on"Media Drip", it's at the top of the rec list. It's a hoot. It does, naturally, demand that Hillary quit, since she can't win. And they have several suggestions as to her future career. But the funny part is the ones that are mapping out Obama's career.

    Here is a funny one, really funny..Obama serves two terms as President, then at the end of the second term he nominates HIMSELF for Supreme Court Justice, and once he passes the confirmation hearings, he resigns and continues to save America from the bench at SCOTUS. They also had the suggestion for Hillary to be on SCOTUS, but that was shot down because she has never had any time on the bench. I guess it doesn't matter that he hasn't either.

    I really think they have lost their minds over there, I really do. And I have been a Kossack for years. But they have taken leave of their senses, and that diary proves it. Go read it for a good chuckle and a trip through the looking glass.


    please don't link to kos (none / 0) (#118)
    by TalkRight on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:06:09 AM EST

    at least... (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:08:16 AM EST
    he identified...friends don't let friends link to DK and people observing DK 'strike' (boycott) don't click on links to DK

    Ooops, sorry (none / 0) (#270)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:10:21 AM EST
    I drop in once a day there to see what idiocy they have posted lately. That one was so funny, I just had to share it. Will remember not to link to them in future. Is copy/paste of the funny stuff ok if I don't link to it? The site does say "take whatever you want" as far as copy perms go. Heh.

    Second (5.00 / 1) (#236)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:56:52 AM EST
    Accessing the KOS site bumps his numbers.

    I stopped accessing his site.  I don't want to give him any help, now or in the future.

    I've felt for awhile, even before he became such a complete **, that he was simply too full of himself.

    I've got Josh Marshall pegged in a similar way.

    I really can't say I'm surprised since Marshall is a DLC type and KOS is a "free" trade supporter.

    Have to wonder if these people actually thought through the possible consequences of their actions.


    Funny ... (none / 0) (#132)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:12:47 AM EST
    of course you don't need any time on the bench to be on the Supreme Court. In fact, you don't even have to be a lawyer.

    I do think you have to be human though.  I know cats and dogs have held elective office before, but I don't think anyone has ever named one to the bench.

    I think it's a myth that Caligula made his horse Incitatus a Senator.  But I believe he tried to make him a consul.


    While I want Clinton to concede (none / 0) (#134)
    by magster on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:13:51 AM EST
    she won't.  The best thing for Obama, (and for Dems if Obama is going to be the nominee anyway) is for Obama to make PA competitive, and then win NC and IN.  

    In other words, he needs to beat her.


    the trajectory appears to be... (none / 0) (#140)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:22:39 AM EST
    PA won't be competitive but of course that all depends upon what the definition of competitive is...

    IN will go HRC

    NC at last poll was a dead heat and that was before Jeremiah Wright story.

    Then of course there is WV and KY and they are likely to be HRC trouncing BHO

    If this is your criteria for Obama victory, you had better start worrying.


    Not in Penna will he beat her (none / 0) (#143)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:25:22 AM EST
    This state is a done deal. I live here, I know. People know who they are voting for and I have yet to hear anyone waffling. He can spend the money, but it is not happening.

    I think at this time (none / 0) (#147)
    by standingup on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:28:56 AM EST
    both sides will question the legitimacy of either candidate is perceived to have been treated unfairly.  We should allow the process to continue and hope that at some point we will have a nominee that the full party can get behind in November.  

    "In other words, he needs to beat her" (none / 0) (#192)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:12:14 AM EST
    yes, he does. and he needs to beat her by breaking into her base. the Dem base.

    That would make me feel somewhat better about the GE if he gets the nom. There's a big assumption about what he can win in Nov, and I haven't seen enough to say the assumption will play out. He needs to be able to draw Clinton's voters to him. Not all will walk willingly and McCain does appeal to some, kinda folksy with experience.


    Wow, that one went off to left field (none / 0) (#200)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:25:18 AM EST
    I posted a comment in it early on, but I forgot the visual aids (maps from prior elections) for a reality check.

    I can't believe they actually discussed the Obama SCOTUS idea!


    That sounds familiar.... (none / 0) (#262)
    by Fabian on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:01:02 AM EST
    Not the SCOTUS Obama scenario.

    It's a different rule

    "Thou shalt not criticize a Republican unless thou also slam a Democrat or Democrats equally harshly."

    Rightwing pundits did that, most notably in 2007 when the whole "Serious" "Not Serious" and "Serious People" memes showed up.  

    I hope (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by sas on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:17:14 PM EST
    Obama puts on millions of dollars worth of ads here in PA, and generally spends lots of money here.

    It won't make a damn bit of difference.  

    He could campaign here everyday for the rest of his life.

    He is still going to lose by alot.

    Obama slogan (none / 0) (#75)
    by blogtopus on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:33:18 PM EST
    Instead of Ace in the Hole...

    Obama: Your Hole in the Pocket.


    didn't seem to help much... (none / 0) (#82)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:40:45 PM EST
    in TX or OH as he outspent HRC by a ton.

    The fact is, if you aren't aware of the options and have made up your mind in PA by now, you probably aren't watching TV. And if you're weak enough to be swayed, it's likely that Jeremiah Wright will sway more people than all the ads that Obama can run.

    The thing that works against him big time is of course the fact that it's a closed primary and that clearly won't work in his favor.

    That he's going to lose by a lot in PA is a given...he's trying to get that margin down to single digits to minimize the delegate and popular vote gains by HRC. A high turnout is clearly not his friend in PA


    well (none / 0) (#153)
    by clapclappointpoint on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:37:53 AM EST
    he did make up a 20 point deficit in TX, winning the delegate race and the caucus.  In OH, he reduced the deficit from about 20 points to 10 points.

    In a winner take all contest, it would matter a lot who won each state.  In this proportional system, it matters more by how much you win or lose each state.


    You don't know that yet -- (none / 0) (#158)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:41:31 AM EST
    no one does re caucuses, as the state of Texas is not reporting final results of those.

    And about the regular primary, Clinton won that, 51-47.  That was winning by pretty much.


    I suppose that we can spin this... (none / 0) (#179)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:02:11 AM EST
    in any number of different ways.

    Reduced the loss in a battleground state to 10 points.
    But getting creamed in head to head vs McCain whereas HRC wins relatively easily - LINK

    Reduced to a loss of 4 points but the from was a bit suspect. The day before the vote, Survey USA had him leading by a point - LINK I'm not gonna link the head to head v McCain because this is a red state anyway and neither dem will win it. As for the secondary caucuses for additional delegates...do we really need to cover that?

    And yes, the delegates are roughly distributed proportionately.

    At this stage it appears that BHO will lead in pledge delegates, might win the popular vote but will still have to answer the electability question because when you look at the Recent results from Survey USA - head to head and you look at OH, MO which are key battleground states, and see how poorly BHO fares, look at MA where all of a sudden, Massachusetts is in play, it's going to take a leap of faith for the 'super' delegates to give him the nomination.

    Just sayin'


    Maybe add dollars spent in each state? ;) (none / 0) (#185)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:06:01 AM EST
    Weren't they about even a few days before in OH? (none / 0) (#187)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:07:02 AM EST
    I vaguely recall (none / 0) (#190)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:11:44 AM EST
    some Zogby poll saying that but Zogby is not one of the more reliable polling companies and Zogby himself is not impartial.

    Yeah, he's had some, um, 'misses'. lol!~ n/t (none / 0) (#195)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:14:46 AM EST
    sas .. (none / 0) (#263)
    by Rainsong on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:03:15 AM EST
    He could campaign here everyday for the rest of his life. He is still going to lose by a lot.

    I hope so, but he was able to narrow the lead in earlier states through saturation advertising. Don't know how Wright might affect him, probably bad in some states, but not others.

    Ironically, the state-based polls seem to suggest that it seems to be hurting him most in the states he did best in? And Massachusetts?

    But since he's so obviously the best candidate, (-cough-) I guess the polls will bounce back, just a temporary setback.

    I also heard there is a larger file of the Wright videos floating around - which suggest that what went to air were taken, somewhat, out of context.
    I guess Wright and Obama can now truly appreciate exactly how the Clintons felt when their remarks were deliberately twisted.

    And now we have a new line of casual clothing on the market, complete with matching tote bags and underwear:
    Typicalwp T's

    Beam me up Scotty!


    Obama will lose PA (none / 0) (#267)
    by Josey on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:00:50 AM EST
    especially after his "typical white person" comment -

    From (none / 0) (#282)
    by tek on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:47:09 AM EST
    your mouth to God's ears!

    Funny story from my neighbor this evening... (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by jes on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:25:18 PM EST
    she went to 69th & Broad in Philly to help with Obama registration. She said almost everyone that passed by was already registered - perhaps one in 100 wasn't. She herself only got three registrations. The last one didn't think he was eligible because he was an Ex Con. She told him he could legally vote. After they completed the process, he told her thanks so much and that he was so proud that he would now be able to vote for Hillary.

    She was not pleased. But these people in this area were unlikely to be Dems for a day so I guess this is a bit off topic.

    That's rich (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by blogtopus on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:35:45 PM EST
    I'd give a Bwah hah hah but it hurt too much.

    Does Obama think he's making ANY friends by having those ads? His ads will be playing during commercial time, while the shows they are coupled with are playing All-Wright, all the time.

    People will likely associate one with the other after a long enough time, even if they hadn't before.


    A demographic for Clinton! (none / 0) (#100)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:52:57 PM EST
    Registrations turned in (none / 0) (#108)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:57:51 PM EST
    Here in CA, you drop off or mail in.  If they are registering in public, how are the forms secured for handing in?  Just curious.

    I didn't think to ask her (none / 0) (#126)
    by jes on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:09:38 AM EST
    good question. If no one else responds, I'll give her a buzz and ask.

    From chatter I saw on the website (none / 0) (#183)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:03:57 AM EST
    They were basically trying to make it 'easy' for the voter and handling the turn in for the voter. This way they could track the folks they registered to follow up.

    This was when they first started the drive.


    Obama a "Street Urchin"?!? (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Exeter on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:32:48 PM EST
    I just ran accross this while looking at something else, but anyway, in a 2/27/1990 Philadelphia Inquirer article it has the opening paragraph:
    Barack Obama, former street urchin and the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review, drapes his long, lean body over a squeaky swivel chair and puts his feet on top of his cluttered desk.

    Then it goes on to say:

    He thinks it all goes back to the years when he was a nomad of the streets and his friends were a pack of urchins living in Jakarta, Indonesia.

    And later:
    But the lessons he had learned on the streets of Jakarta kept haunting him.

    "I knew I wanted to work in an urban situation, to help people recognize that they could achieve things, change things."

    Am I missing something -- I don't remember ever hearing this before. It was my understanding that his step father was a wealthy oil company executive and that they had lived a large home, had servants, ect.

    uh oh (none / 0) (#93)
    by jes on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:48:14 PM EST
    wonder if there was any sniper fire on those dangerous streets.

    Sometimes the servants sniped; ) (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Exeter on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:51:39 PM EST
    Heh, you just reminded me that one of my (none / 0) (#177)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:59:10 AM EST
    oldest friends lived there for a few years as a child. Totally forgot that  :)

    lessons learned on the streets (none / 0) (#139)
    by echinopsia on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:20:35 AM EST
    when he was six to ten years old?

    Jakarta street urchin (none / 0) (#142)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:24:53 AM EST
    brilliant...was that the first draft of the "story".  I guess they settled on "son of a Kenyan goat herder"

    Little Dorrit, little Dorrit. (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:40:41 AM EST
    He went (none / 0) (#170)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:54:22 AM EST
    to some exclusive English type school in Jakarta, don't think many urchins were going there.  

    Haven't you read ... (none / 0) (#146)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:28:38 AM EST
    Obama's unpublished novel "The Heir and the Urchin"?

    A retelling of "The Prince and the Pauper" set in the teeming streets of Jakarta.  Barry, heir to an oil fortune, learns powerful lessons about life when he changes places for a week with a local street urchin who bears an uncanny resemblance to him.


    Weird. Wish that reporter would (none / 0) (#159)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:43:59 AM EST
    resurface and talk about the source for that story.  I mean, it would seem to be Obama himself -- but it would be only fair to find out whattheheck, huh?

    A thought about Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:44:39 AM EST
    I was thinking about how much stronger Hillary is than Obama.  Not only does she have to deal with her baggage she carries and responds to Bill's baggage.  Yet, golden man, Obama, cannot handle two little bitty issues without going into a panic.  

    Stay Tuned (5.00 / 2) (#216)
    by Prabhata on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:41:18 AM EST
     "Prediction is very difficult, especially the future" Niels Bohr
    In the meantime donate to HRC, she needs every buck to get her message out.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#283)
    by tek on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:48:48 AM EST
    a favorite saying around our house.

    Obama, tax records and Rezko (5.00 / 1) (#278)
    by 2liberal on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:25:18 AM EST
    Is this back and forth about taxes and controversies really helping the democratic cause?  I'd rather see both candidates attacking Mccain rather than writing (and running) his attack ads for him.

    Amen (5.00 / 1) (#292)
    by trublueCO on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:23:41 PM EST
    Great comment 2liberal. How quickly we forget that McCain doesn't even understand the difference (and conflicts) between Shi'ite and Sunni extremists in Iraq.

    It would have been nice to see Obama and Clinton come out together, in a press conference, and show people which party truly understands the problems in the Middle East. Unlikely, I know...but I guess some forget that no matter which candidate wins the nomination, they will be up against McCain.

    Is it better for us to put personal allegiences to a particular candidate over the values of the party?


    Potato/Potahto, Clinton/Obama (5.00 / 1) (#279)
    by trublueCO on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:39:45 AM EST
    I prefer Obama. If he doesn't win, you better believe that I'll support Hillary over McCain any day.

    I'm tired of hearing all these people say that they will stay home or vote for McCain if their candidate doesn't win the nomination. Each are infinitely better for us and our country than a third term of compassionate conservatism with Bush-lite.

    I know we are all passionate about our particular candidate, but I hope that everyone remembers that both of our dem candidates embody liberal and/or progressive ideals!

    See (none / 0) (#285)
    by tek on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:56:55 AM EST
    that's just it.  It's very hard to believe Obama does have progressive ideals.  His plans don't look progressive to me.  And how any real liberal could possible believe that Ronald Reagan implemented positive change and Bill Clinton didn't mystifies me.

    I hope when this election is done some (4.33 / 6) (#3)
    by tigercourse on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:35:51 PM EST
    people can look back at Obama's campaign honestly, and see what he did. Here's a guy who should have known he was basically unelectable if he ever had to face a serious Republican (he might have thought he'd be going up against Romney) who decided to run anyway. And he ran, and won, by signing up people with absolutley no intention of supporting him in the general election, who were really only interested in beating Clinton.

    He (and many of the "leaders" of the Democratic party) set us up for failure.  I hope people realize that in the post mortum,

    Why is he (3.00 / 1) (#218)
    by Jgarza on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:43:43 AM EST
    unelectable?  Just because you state something doesn't make it true.

    The GOP media (none / 0) (#225)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:47:23 AM EST
    is winning this media campaign.  I believe either candidate will win in November. The American people are tired of the Bush policies and McCain is tied to them.  Even though the momentum has been stall by Democratic infighting once we unite it will be a different story.

    There will be a price for (none / 0) (#228)
    by Jgarza on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:49:17 AM EST
    a long primary.  Will it loose the election for us, i hope not, but it is definitely a negative.

    yeah it means vetting obama! (none / 0) (#230)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:50:11 AM EST
    Why don't you hope (none / 0) (#156)
    by AdrianLesher on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:40:07 AM EST
    that a Democrat will win?

    Wow (none / 0) (#255)
    by Jgarza on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:57:43 AM EST
    you actually believe that Obama's donors don't plan on supporting him?  What evidence do you have that his voters won't turn out in a GE?  

    His (none / 0) (#281)
    by tek on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:44:46 AM EST
    Dem for a Day tactic is one of the dirtiest things I've ever witnessed in politics.  He should be run out of the Party.

    speaking only for me, i want the major (none / 0) (#287)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:15:15 AM EST
    problems facing this country addressed. i don't see it anymore. obama's campaging was the one who opened the pandora's box of racist name calling for their benefit. now the media is having a field day while mccain sits back and looks presidential. i haven't seen obama do ONE thing this whole campaign that says to me presidential material. that is strictly a personal opinion. hope? naw. audacity? sure thing!

    Rezko and state records (1.50 / 2) (#51)
    by digdugboy on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:13:40 PM EST
    He answered every question that the Chicago Trib and Sun Times asked him. Thus, there are no unanswered questions, unless you can show me where somebody has asked him or his campaign a question and they've refused to answer it. But you can't. So far as the state records go, he didn't keep a schedule. How can he produce something he didn't keep?

    You may be right, but we won't really (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:54:51 PM EST
    know until Rezko's trial is over.  Plus, who knows, maybe some records will make it into the public domain about the real estate transaction, Obama's connections, if any, with the state board members and/or state contractors. Maybe not.

    Do you think it's dishonest (none / 0) (#274)
    by digdugboy on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:35:44 AM EST
    for the Clinton campaign's press release to accuse Obama of failing to release records when there is no proof they even exist, and when Obama himself has said they don't?

    How does a state senator NOT keep a schedule? (none / 0) (#148)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:29:03 AM EST
    Explain to me why a Harvard educated lawyer (who's a pretty smart guy I hear) with plans for higher office, doesn't keep records while in Public Office . . .

    That's just nuts. Or something . . .


    Probably because, as I think was (none / 0) (#275)
    by digdugboy on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:38:02 AM EST
    reported, there is not a lot of money available for staff and Obama didn't plan to open a library about his time as a state legislator. Staff efforts were directed to more important tasks. That's completely plausible to me. An interesting question to ask would be how many other state legislators kept a copy of their schedule.

    Tax Returns????? (1.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Jade Jordan on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:55:43 PM EST
    Obama won't release his tax returns???

    I guess Clinton decided to release her tax returns for the 2000's before her April proposed date?

    The Clinton Library Donor List???

    she has 20 yrs of tax returns in public (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by ajain on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:59:59 PM EST
    plus financial disclosures for the 2000s. How much do we know about obama's past?

    Don't you think (none / 0) (#30)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:58:16 PM EST
    you should be after John McCain to release HIS tax return. He is the Repub running againt the DEMs!!

    My understanding is that Obama has (none / 0) (#43)
    by Exeter on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:07:12 PM EST
    only released his 2007 tax returns.

    2006 I think (none / 0) (#88)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:45:38 PM EST
    I don't think 2007 returns are due until April 15.  It's that he won't release those prior to 2006 --

    It's the William Jefferson Clinton (none / 0) (#58)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:18:47 PM EST
    Library. An entity unto itself. Go ask them.

    you don't seem to understand (none / 0) (#224)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:46:09 AM EST
    that their talking points dictate this nonsense in order to deflect the issues that are hurting their candidate like...Rezko, Wright, 'typical white woman', etc.

    let's ask obama's church for their (none / 0) (#227)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:47:34 AM EST
    donor list too while we are at it. and question them why they are publishing articles written by hamas? tax exempt? huh?

    Yeah lets (none / 0) (#241)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:05:59 AM EST
    make the democratic party look more racist and divisive.  I thought we where the ones who fought for peoples rights not promoted this pattern of hate lead by the GOP.  

    PLEASE! you write the obama campaign (none / 0) (#290)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:22:36 AM EST
    and say that. they are the ones playing the race card 24/7. this primary and campaign is supposed to be about the american people and not obama. all we hear is poor obama is that poor obama that. i don't think so! it is the wright church that is racist so let them explain. i am sick of hearing we are supposed to tip toe here and there.

    Can anybody answer this? (none / 0) (#251)
    by wrkn129 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:28:58 AM EST
    Since Wright ranted about the Clintons and praised Obama in his now-famous sermon, is it possible for the church to lose their tax-exempt status or is that just if the politician campaigns at a church meeting? Or do Wright's words need to be more politically specific about endorsing/voting for one candidate? I know the whole UCC is under investigation for a speech Obama gave at a church meeting and where there were Obama campaign workers outside handing out flyers. But I don't think it was at Wright's church. I think it was somewhere else. So, I was wondering about Wright's specific branch. And since Wright is now retired, will it have any effect on the church?

    naw, it won't happen. then they'd have (none / 0) (#296)
    by hellothere on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:45:51 AM EST
    to go after the reglieous right, and the repubs will never stand for that.

    You (none / 0) (#284)
    by tek on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:53:47 AM EST
    Obama people are completely wrong in asking for the donor list to Bill Clinton's library.  That has nothing to do with Hillary's politics or finances or Bill's either.  It's a private project.  Then your candidate won't release the documents pertaining to  his longtime relationship with one of the biggest crooks in Chicago!

    Enough already with the Clinton Library donors.  That's right up there with calling the Clintons racists.  If you people knew anything about anything you could look at Bill Clinton's record and see that he is neither a racist or a Joe McCarthy.

    And BTW, if any white Democratic in this country called Bill Clinton a racist, he'd be run out on a rail.  So I don't want to hear how people are racist who say that Obama has an advantage being black.  He absolutely does.  Kudos to Geraldine Ferraro!  


    He's looking for... (none / 0) (#1)
    by Marco21 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:30:26 PM EST
    Joementum, so it appears.

    You have the wrong house (none / 0) (#7)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:41:00 PM EST
    I liked the LA Times piece.  I disapprove of the Obama camps tactics myself.  Remember when it used to be 'get out the vote.'  It sounds like a rough job to solicit people to sign up for voting Dem.  I got a kick out of the one response to the Obama supporter when she was inquiring if there was someone who would want to register Dem... Yeah, you have the wrong house. (door shuts).

    he calls it an effort to 'expand the party.' (none / 0) (#15)
    by jtaylorr on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:49:02 PM EST
    Because God forbid registered Independents be allowed a say in choosing our next president!

    then let them vote in the general election (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:41:00 PM EST
    the Democratic nominee should be chosen by Dems.

    Has someone told McCain? (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by leonid on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:57:35 PM EST
    If the Democratic primary is going to choose the next president McCain needs to drop out, 'cause he can't win.

    The primaries are about the parties. The general election is about the voters and picking our next president. It frightens me how many Americans don't understand American democracy.


    dear me the vapors! let the indies (none / 0) (#220)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:45:30 AM EST
    vote in the general election. that is why they are registered as indies. i happen to be one. i have no concerns regarding my vote if i am not registered and not allowed to vote for that reason. they can change it.

    Libertarians, Greens (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:05:28 PM EST
    we care for democrats.. (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by TalkRight on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:18:24 PM EST
    democrats for Hillary Clinton -- 1,000,000
    democrats for Barrack Obama   --   300,000

    False. (none / 0) (#72)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:32:10 PM EST
    And (none / 0) (#84)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:41:22 PM EST
    "cats for clinton"  6
    "cats for obama" 15,300

    and my bad, typo above was without quotes.

    "Librarians for Clinton" 3

    "Librarians for Obama" 802


    Now that is impressive indeed for Obama.. (none / 0) (#92)
    by TalkRight on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:48:02 PM EST
    and this is even more impressive (none / 0) (#95)
    by TalkRight on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:51:23 PM EST
    checkout: Obama - just words

    Ummm . . . (none / 0) (#151)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:37:10 AM EST
    The Cat Party says it's Hillary all the way. WJC  gives shoulder rides.

    The Dog Party also weighed in and agreed with the Cats 'cause the Dogs are just so agreeable, ya know  ;)

    To be fair though, I didn't tell either party about McCain. Didn't want them to be mislead by his large Pet Posse.


    Someone interpret this for me (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by leonid on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:14:46 AM EST
    Obama can't possibly satisfy either Greens or Libertarians. (He certainly can't satisfy both.) His policy positions are inconsistent with either one. That implies that Obama's appeal is unrelated to what he will do as president. I don't see how that is a good thing.

    How is support for Obama anything other than voting for the guy you'd most like to have a beer with? Here we go down that road again, I guess. Four more years.


    NO! He's SO different! (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:44:51 AM EST
    He's the guy you want to have a latte with, or so I've heard . . .  ;)

    Librarians For Glinton (none / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:14:50 PM EST
    290,000 Google hits

    Who is (none / 0) (#61)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:20:23 PM EST
    Glinton! LOL!!!

    Why, Glinda Glinton (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:51:50 PM EST
    . . . the Good Witch of the West -- who will gather the good women of the East and the North and the South, now that you ask.  And then she will win them all for her cousin in the Clinton clan with but a click of the heels of her ruby-red slippers.:-)

    Against the Good Women of Every Compass Point in This Country, Obama is To-to-toast.


    Just for fun ... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:53:05 PM EST
    I googled "Glinton" 95,200 hits.

    I'm not sure what google hits prove.  Some really wacky ones get you numerous results.  I just picked the following absurd collections of words to illustrate this point:

    "elephant pants" 3,750 hits

    "round shiny things" 1,300 hits

    "happy pudding" 1,200 hits

    And my favorite:

    "stupid blogs" 13,600 hits


    LMAO (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:05:17 AM EST
    try lmao... 43,800,000

    Not on MY google (none / 0) (#114)
    by zyx on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:03:52 AM EST
    ha. ha. ha.

    I would love to see Jeralyn post (none / 0) (#56)
    by lilburro on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:17:24 PM EST
    on exactly what these folk are basing their opinions on.  Then again, she already did.  TALKLEFT

    But then again, when candidates feel comfortable throwing principles wherever they may before your eyes, I guess it's not important.  Cos, you know, at this stage, promises mean nothing (Samantha Powers) so don't worry!... and criticism means everything (Hillaryhate v. the slim chance 'good' triumphs)...and nifty posters are good to focus on.  

    As Morrissey might say, Oh you did a bad thing...

    Well I'm not happy and I'm not sad.


    Well, thanks for that (none / 0) (#135)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:14:45 AM EST
    I'm new here so I hadn't seen those.  It reminds me of the debates I watched and how twisted the answers seemed.  Now, I'm annoyed again.

    he answered all questions to (none / 0) (#67)
    by TheRefugee on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:25:42 PM EST
    a group of hometown editors.  Lets wait until someone besides a homer who has already endorsed Obama's campaign gets to ask the questions and make the conclusions before making the assumption that Obama/Rezco is no big deal.

    He's worked harder and smarter for the money?  No, he has a sycophantic following with deep pockets.  The money he is spending is obscene.  Obama routinely outspends Hillary in every state.  Yet he has a slight delegate lead and slight popular vote lead (both of which would narrow if he didn't lie about his involvement in suppressing a revote.)  What does that tell me?  That like Mitt Romney Obama has no choice but to try and buy the election.  So is Obama smarter?  Working harder?  Or is Hillary just that much smarter and more efficient that she doesn't need to blow a ton of money to stay competitive and win states like Ohio with a 3 to 1 monetary disadvantage?  

    Relationship with Rezko, Schedules, tax returns (none / 0) (#85)
    by TalkRight on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:42:13 PM EST
    He hasn't answered a simple question:

    What has been your relationship with Rezko and how much money has he raised for him in his previous campaigns..

    Regarding Rev Wright, it might be useful if he could shed light on what remarks he had witnessed from the pews ...

    Release his own previous schedules, tax returns (since the time he has been in public office) .. just like he had been asking Hillary !!!!!


    i think we agree (none / 0) (#133)
    by TheRefugee on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:13:10 AM EST
    i thought i posted this to one of digdugboy's strawmen. I'm saying talking to a paper(s) that has endorsed him, in closed session is not akin to full disclosure as digdug suggests it is.

    What specific questions (none / 0) (#74)
    by digdugboy on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:33:06 PM EST
    has he been asked about these alleged inconsistencies that he has not answered?

    Breaking: Rezko Has Close Ties (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Exeter on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:50:28 PM EST
    To Nation of Islam founder's son

    interesting... (none / 0) (#121)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:06:27 AM EST
    circle of friends

    Ooops. n/t (none / 0) (#164)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:49:17 AM EST
    Here's some answers I'd like to see (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:15:04 AM EST
    Why did you, in a nationally televised debate, say that your only relationship with Rezko over all these years was but a total of five billable hours as a lawyer -- and only remotely, not a direct relationship with him?

    And about the designation of national historic landmark district status for your home, how much in tax credits and/or deductions has that meant in your federal and state income taxes -- including for improvements such as the fence around the remaining former Rezko lot -- and, in the city of Chicago's additional incentives for historic home preservation, your property taxes?  (Yes, please provide all your tax returns for previous years.)

    How and when did that historic designation occur, requested by whom, was the usual hearing waived and by whom, and just how soon after Michelle Obama stepped down from the designating board?  Was that in the middle of a term, her second term?  And doesn't that board have one-term limits?  


    Who's moderating the next debate? (none / 0) (#166)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:50:11 AM EST
    I believe (none / 0) (#182)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:03:49 AM EST
    Katie Couric is one.

    geez, she is not what i'd want (none / 0) (#232)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:53:32 AM EST
    to moderate. a big disappointment over all.

    Just checked, it's ABC hosting. n/t (none / 0) (#252)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:28:59 AM EST
    At that debate (which was (none / 0) (#191)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:12:06 AM EST
    really, really feisty; I just re-watched part of it), Clinton stated Obama represented a slumlord.  Obama replied he only did legal work for Rezko for 5 hours or so.  

    Rezko... (none / 0) (#90)
    by TalkRight on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:46:07 PM EST
    His relationship with Rezko and how much money he has raised for him....

    It is true he has answered these questions already.. the only problem ... every time he answers.. they contradict the old answers..


    Well a question is easy to answer (none / 0) (#130)
    by Foxx on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:12:27 AM EST
    I'm sure his answers would all be no

    Until they were I didn't know
    Until they were I only met him once
    Until . . .
    Until  . . .


    Nobody's answered the question (none / 0) (#273)
    by digdugboy on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 09:33:04 AM EST
    I didn't ask you to state what you'd like to ask Obama. I asked you to state what specific questions HE HAS ALREADY BEEN ASKED that he's refused to answer.

    That's what Hillary's press release is talking about. Since nobody can identify a single question that OBAMA HAS ALREADY BEEN ASKED THAT HE'S REFUSED TO ANSWER I take it you'll concede that the press release contained a lie.


    Questions from the Clinton press release (none / 0) (#277)
    by tree on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:05:17 AM EST
    are here:

    1. Will Sen. Obama release all documents related to his relationship with Tony Rezko, including all documents related to his controversial land transaction?

    2. When, specifically, did Sen. Obama become aware of Mr. Rezko's legal problems?

    3. Sen. Obama has returned money from several individuals who are publicly associated with Mr. Rezko. How much money did Mr. Rezko bundle for Sen. Obama's campaigns in total, including people who are not business associates of Mr. Rezko? How many fundraisers did Mr. Rezko hold for Sen. Obama? Has there been an internal investigation to determine how many straw donors Mr. Rezko used to funnel money to Sen. Obama?

    4. Much of the upcoming trial involves Mr. Rezko's efforts to control state boards as a means to defraud the state government. Have Sen. Obama and Mr. Rezko ever communicated about potential appointments to Illinois boards and commissions? It's been publicly reported that Sen. Obama lobbied these same state boards to secure contracts for campaign donors. Did Sen. Obama ever confer with Mr. Rezko concerning how to successfully lobby state boards?

    5. The New York Times reported that Sen. Obama attended a business meeting on behalf of Mr. Rezko to impress potential investors for his business schemes. How many events did Sen. Obama attend on behalf of Mr. Rezko to impress investors? What was his role? Why did Sen. Obama agree to attend?

    6. How many times did Senator Obama visit Tony Rezko's house? What was the purpose of these visits?

    7. Did Sen. Obama intercede on behalf of Mr. Rezko in any governmental capacity?

    Details on why these questions are relevant are contained in the press release.


    This Looks Like ... (none / 0) (#99)
    by Tortmaster on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 11:52:28 PM EST
    ... excellent Obama political campaign move number 43,121 and bad HRC political campaign move number 6,984. When will Hillary Clinton remove Mark Penn? Surely, she can find a pollster who will advise her that political advertising is a good thing.

    Why wouldn't she want an ad to go out to non-registered voters? Although it was interesting that the Pennsylvania article linked by Jeralyn would print an accusation by the Clinton campaign that the Obama ad was "misleading" without any specifics to back up that characterization. So, I guess HRC got some free advertising with that ....  

    You can read how the ad is misleading (none / 0) (#120)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:06:25 AM EST
    here.  It's in my post. Please follow the links.

    I did not say there was anything wrong ... (none / 0) (#196)
    by Tortmaster on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:17:16 AM EST
    ... with your post, Jeralyn. Quite the contrary, I just noted that the newspaper only chose to write that the Clinton campaign condemned the ad as misleading without any attempt at providing a reason why. These are the relevant passages:

    In a conference call with reporters yesterday, Nevins called an ad about Obama's efforts at ethics reform "misleading at best."

    Phil Singer, Clinton's deputy national communications director, said he wanted to "put the alert out" concerning the type of commercials he expects Obama to use in Pennsylvania in the weeks ahead.

    "During the course of the campaign, he has made a number of misleading charges against our campaign," Singer said. "It's important that we continue to be vigilant in pushing back."

    My comment was about the media printing an accusation without providing any basis for it. If there is a basis for it -- great -- but provide the readers all the information and let them decide. Interestingly, the newspaper went so far as to alert their readers to future misleading Obama ads, apparently using some type of Tom Cruise/Future Crime device.  

    As for shoephone, regarding your comment,

    There's no such thing. You're not a voter unless and until you're registered.

    I would submit that we're both wrong! You're not a voter until you vote. Of course, I meant that it would seem to behoove both candidates to attract as many "potential" voters as possible.  


    Small point, but (none / 0) (#160)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:44:17 AM EST
    regarding your question:

    Why wouldn't she want an ad to go out to non-registered voters?

    There's no such thing. You're not a voter unless and until you're registered.


    She only needs to get a few ads here (none / 0) (#169)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:52:10 AM EST
    To begin with, Monday is the deadline to register or change. Next, she has been criss crossing the state like mentioned in the article. Twice in one week in NE PENNA. The people have been coming out to see her. The parade was amazing. Of the friends who drove to Scranton to see her, all are Republicans and all are voting for her. My one co-worker brought in her video camera to show me the pictures. A few got to shake her hand and they ARE so excited. These are not people who are going to change in the November unless she is not the candidate. And THEY were telling me about the small Obama group on the one corner. They were saying no one was paying attention to them. It was all Hillary signs. And this is the thing. On her rally, she was on all 3 networks locally for about 90 mins. 90 mins of free advertising. Then the parade was televised on 2 stations. That was another 30 minutes of personal exposure. And when BHO was here, he gave a speech and they interrupted to show it. Fair and balanced. But he gave a 9 minute speech and then back to the regular programing. So, by crisscrossing with personal appearances she is advertising. Yes, I stopped on over to her site and gave again. I don't believe she will have to spend so much here and can use it for NC.

    Thanks for the reminder. (none / 0) (#163)
    by Iphie on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:48:58 AM EST
    I just made another contribution. Here's a question though, are campaigns required to report multiple contributions from the same person if the total is greater than $250, but none of the individual donations are?

    I think they do (none / 0) (#172)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:55:46 AM EST
    I got an email that had a contribution amount about what I had donated during a certain time period when they were doing a matching funds drive.

    I'm pretty sure the campaigns are keeping close track and reporting. Once you hit the limit it bounces to the GE fund.


    But what is the limit? (none / 0) (#176)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:59:00 AM EST
    I know over $200 is reported but aren't individuals allowed to give to the primaries in the $2k's?

    I thought (none / 0) (#186)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:06:25 AM EST
    it was $2300 per person or $4600 per couple.  I hope I am not giving to the GE.  I want to contribute to the primary, not have my money shuttled off to the GE.

    Me too (none / 0) (#193)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:13:35 AM EST
    I think you are right $2300. They were having a money drive tonight. Hope they did well.

    it is 2,300 afaik (none / 0) (#221)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:45:30 AM EST
    there may be a way to get a total. perhaps email them and ask?

    I was going to search my bank record online to see where I was at. Handy thing to be able to do if you have record keeping issues like me  ;) Plus, I know I've done some spontaneous donations after certain things have happened . . .


    You are correct. (none / 0) (#222)
    by Iphie on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:45:39 AM EST
    There is a maximum contribution amount per election of $2,300 per person. The primary and general elections are considered separate elections, so unless you've already maxed out, then yes, you are still giving for the primary. I'm wondering about reporting though -- small individual contributions do not have to be reported by name -- but what happens if you've been making small individual donations that eventually add up to the amount that requires reporting?

    I would think they would have to (none / 0) (#238)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:02:01 AM EST
    otherwise, we could just keep giving small amounts that would be unreported.

    I hit that as a realization at one point (privacy nut here) and accepted it. But don't really know the law on it. I just decided to accept it as fact  :)


    Kenneth Lay (none / 0) (#173)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:56:52 AM EST
    'Who came up with the idea of running a candidate with no foreign policy experience, sparse legislative credentials
    Remember Karl Rove saying he never met a person who had so much personality and charisma. And he was not talking about BHO.

    In regard to BHO,it would be interesting to know.

    I believe (none / 0) (#175)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:57:27 AM EST
    that the people on this blog are Clinton supporters.  And clearly show a bias.  Many of the statements in terms of disenfranchising voters, flip flop on NAFTA, not releasing tax returns, full disclosure on calender while First Lady which she credits as being her experience, not releasing funding for Presidential library.

    Negative statements such as "shame on you", saying in certain terms McCain would be a better president(This kind of bother me the most!), saying she will focus on the issues and then having campaing bring up Wright issues, plagerism, saying I'm not sure if he is a muslim, and so on and so on.

    I'm not trying to bash Clinton but only say that this is a Political race and both sides are throwing blows.  I for one only care about two things.  Democracy is used when the Democratic nominee is chosen, not superdelegates.  And that a Democratic President walks through the doors of the White House in 2009.

    Democracy? (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by cdalygo on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:23:59 AM EST
    Elections won with caucuses that deny most democrats the opportunity to participate due to hours and procedures?

    Elections that allow non-Democrats to chose the Party's nominees?

    Elections that disenfranchise two of our bigger states, Florida and Michigan? (Moreover, basically disenfranchise the other big states that went for Hillary by artificially lowering her vote and delegate count?

    Oh right, I forgot, those are allowed under the rules. Well, guess what so are the Super Delegates.

    More to the point, Obama was perfectly willing to use the Super Delegates to force Hillary to concede months ago. He also is willing to use the endorsements of Richardson, Kennedy and Kerry despite the fact they are breaking with the results of their states.

    For many of us, it has gone beyond preferring Senator Clinton as the better candidate. We are deeply angered over the hypocrisy Senator Obama and his supporters have shown.

    (I let others deal with your falsehoods regarding the Clinton campaign.)


    So you believe that (none / 0) (#209)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:34:20 AM EST
    the superdelegates should choose the Democratic nominee for President of the United States against the will of the people who voted.

    Your issue with caucuses and having open primaries I do agree with, but I believe that's a matter for the states and the DNC to resolve.

    And as for Michigan and Florida this was huge blunder by the DNC.  I don't believe Obama is jumping on the revote train, but I believe they will be seated.  Although the manner of this seating will not be beneficial to Clinton.  The GOP press and Clinton campaign are playing this up like crazy.  Obviously Clinton needs the votes to be competetive and GOP is looking to fan this flame for the GE.  I do believe anyone with any intellegence sees that Clinton is doing this with self preservation in mind.  If not why did she not say in anyway that we should have a revote or count the delegates in Michigan and Florida until the likelyhood of her not winning the nomination.


    you have rules for super delegates (none / 0) (#215)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:40:57 AM EST
    Nice...I'm sure they'll listen to you too

    I think... (none / 0) (#213)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:39:44 AM EST
    you covered all of the talking points for Obama quite well actually...not that they mean anything.

    • Who's disenfranchising voters? Seems to me that distinction belongs to Obama
    • Flip flop on NAFTA? Not according to David Gergen
    • Tax returns - April 15
    • Calendar available
    • Funding of Presidential Library is not her concern...it's Bill's library
    • She never said that McCain would be a better president - at least make an attempt to be accurate, especially since it bothers you the most.
    • Campaign never raised Wright issue - you can thank ABC News & Fox

    Oh yes, you are very much trying to bash Hillary and covered a morass of points to do so. You only insult yourself by making such a claim.

    This has to be one of the most dishonest, factually incorrect and disgusting posts I have seen on TL


    This is not dishonest (none / 0) (#239)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:03:30 AM EST
    First I don't have rules for superdelgates, I have beliefs in Democracy.  I have no influence like you I can cast my vote, I just hope that my vote counts.

    Second you can research each of the points I made.

    1. Disfranchising voters is not Obamas fault he doesn't hold any authority in Florida or Michigan.  I don't think he is actively trying to seek it but anyone who claims that Clinton is fighting for this out of anything but self preservation is dillusional.

    2. She was involved in creating NAFTA and was part of promoting NAFTA as First Lady.  Then she states that she has been against NAFTA from the beginning.  Read her book if you question her thoughts on it (It was one of the greatest successes of the Clinton Presidency - these are her words)

    3. Tax returns - This would not be an issue but it has funded $5 million of her campaign, I believe that funding for campaigns should always be transparent.

    4. Believe me if their are questionable funders this will be a huge issue in the General Election.

    5. She said "John McCain and myself have passed the Commander and Chief threshold" while Obama has just given a speech.  These are her words.

    6. Two days ago Clinton surrogate says Obama needs to answer questions about Wright. I'm not saying that she brought up the Wright issue but she brought it up instead of focusing on issues that affect Americans.  

    All of my statements can be supported by factual evidence.  Now to say you don't like my words is one thing but to question them as lies is simple wrong.

    those aren't even your points (none / 0) (#245)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:12:50 AM EST
    but are straight from the book Obama talking points

    I would hope that people would have more respect for TL than come on here and regurgitate them.

    All of my statements can be supported by factual evidence.  Now to say you don't like my words is one thing but to question them as lies is simple wrong.

    You are so completely twisted and error prone that it's pointless to debate you. I never said that they were lies. I said you are factually inaccurate, much as you have proven by clarifying your earlier points and substantially changing them in the process.

    Yes she supported NAFTA because it was her husband's desire...but she privately expressed reservations about it and that has been independently confirmed. You actually don't give a crap about facts...you only want to regurgitate talking points...bye


    psst! apparently, she was supposed to throw Bill (none / 0) (#248)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:24:37 AM EST
    under the bus while she was First Lady and he was Prez. Happens all the time, don'tcha know?  ;)

    And then of course, we now have 'proof' she supported it. A schedule that says she was at mtgs . . . OY! 'tis the silly season  ;)


    Yeah I 100% agree (none / 0) (#250)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:28:14 AM EST
    this is the silly season.  When you join a LeftTalk and find 90% of posts are attacking the leading Democratic Nominee for President of the United States.  On top of that 85% are not even on issues but sound more like FOX commentary then honest criticism.

    Insulting other (none / 0) (#268)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:34:08 AM EST
    TL commenters by saying they are like FOX isn't gonna win a whole lot of support here. And the point is that it is still the Primary Season, the leader isn't leading by all that much and he isn't winning the base. What is your point other than to chastise those that have a difference of opinion with you?

    These are your words (none / 0) (#249)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:25:14 AM EST

    believe if you want that they are talking points but I don't believe they are I was simply answering your claims that you can re-read below.  I'll conceed on NAFTA I don't know what she was thinking at the time, but if you personally object to something and publicaly support it then it makes me have more questions then answers.  I'm not trying to bash Clinton but bring up points that others on TL ignore.  That both candidates are imperfect.  And if they are talking points it appears that the only true issue on TL is that they are not for Clinton.

    Your words
    This has to be one of the most dishonest, factually incorrect and disgusting posts I have seen on TL


    bias? so expecting a clean campaign (none / 0) (#229)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:49:37 AM EST
    and not disenfranchising voters is a bias? oh and if we kneel and the feet of obama then we are all rational people, right? please!

    I don't (none / 0) (#244)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:10:02 AM EST
    understand your point? I want a revote, this is a huge mess but one that can't be blamed on Clinton or Obama.  The DNC perhaps, local democratic leadership perhaps but not anyone running for President.  

    Bad news (none / 0) (#194)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:13:41 AM EST
    for Clinton National Tracking Polls are showing Obama up by 4 points again, including poll used by CNN and other major media outles to proove the change in Momentum.  The Gallup poll which has Obama up 3 points.  It's within the margin for error, but she clearly needs to be up by double digits to win over the superdelegates.  For reference please go to www.realclearpolitics.com

    Take A Closer Look (none / 0) (#201)
    by cdalygo on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:25:31 AM EST
    This came up on mydd as well. If you look at Rasmussen it shows a different result in Hillary's favor. Further a closer look shows that these types of polls have been in a virtual tie for months.

    Yeah I agree (none / 0) (#219)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:45:11 AM EST
    I'm more worried that why Clinton and Obama have been tied McCain is starting to tie and take the lead against both candidates.

    realclear (none / 0) (#206)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:32:15 AM EST
    uses Gallup...so what you're pointing to, they're one and the same

    Gallup's poll is a curious poll for sure...I would like to see Monday and Tuesday results because they have a statistically small sample for the US and it jumps a bit day to day.

    Just sayin'

    More importantly though is can Obama win the GE and I think not...elsewhere in this thread I have covered it...and he's got some real issues in the general election.


    No I was using the combination of all the (none / 0) (#212)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:38:56 AM EST
    polls.  I just pointed out that the Gallup poll was used to show the change in momentun on CNN and other new outlets.  But now that poll has changed back in Obama's favor.

    I do believe that Obama can win in the General Election.  The only way this will happen though is if all the Clinton supporters and Obama supporters come together.  The same is true if Clinton wins.

    Going back to polling I believe once we have a solidified candidate the polls will improve greatly for whichever Democratic candidate we select.


    nope (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:43:42 AM EST
    he will be creamed in the general.

    The polls other than Gallup on that page were OLD

    Stop using the fact that you can't comprehend the information presented on a web site to prove your point...it doesn't. Only 1 poll - the Gallup poll and I am telling you that come Monday or Tuesday, it won't look like that.


    Are you hoping... (none / 0) (#233)
    by mbuchel on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:54:48 AM EST
    ...he'll get creamed?  

    not a bit (none / 0) (#237)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:59:02 AM EST
    and I promise I will vote for him if he is the nominee.

    On the other hand, I see the handwriting on the wall.


    I will (none / 0) (#242)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:08:02 AM EST
    also vote for her if she is the nominee.

    rasmussen poll out today (none / 0) (#266)
    by andrys on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:42:28 AM EST
    I posted about this in this thread above.

      This latest one was released today.


    This makes no sense to me at all (none / 0) (#256)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:22:22 AM EST
    Polling suggest that Obama has a bigger lead in NY and CA then Clinton.  Regardless of who you support that doesn't make any sense what so ever.  

    Of late I am seeing a mob of Obama supporters tryi (none / 0) (#288)
    by TalkRight on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:16:11 AM EST
    trying to hijack the threads here at TalkLeft.. good try .. but it just helps TalkLeft with the clicks.. keep trying it!!

    c'mon (none / 0) (#298)
    by sas on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:55:24 PM EST
    Barack baby -spend your money here in PA.

    It won't do a damn thing for you.

    We are solid for our Hillary. You can't touch her.  We are unmoved.