home

Obama and Alice Palmer Back in the News

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:04:33 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

CNN is doing a big segment tonight on how Barack Obama won his first state senate seat by booting Alice Palmer from the ballot. (Article here.)Palmer now supports Hillary Clinton.

Shorter version: How did Obama win his first Senate seat? By challenging his opponents' right to be on the ballot and succeeding, so he could run unopposed.

I wrote about this in detail in April when Palmer campaigned for Hillary in Indiana. Here's the back story, from the Chicago Tribune: [More...]

Palmer served the district in the Illinois Senate for much of the 1990s. Decades earlier, she was working as a community organizer in the area when Obama was growing up in Hawaii and Indonesia. She risked her safe seat to run for Congress and touted Obama as a suitable successor, according to news accounts and interviews.

But when Palmer got clobbered in that November 1995 special congressional race, her supporters asked Obama to fold his campaign so she could easily retain her state Senate seat.

Obama not only refused to step aside, he filed challenges that nullified Palmer's hastily gathered nominating petitions, forcing her to withdraw.

"I liked Alice Palmer a lot. I thought she was a good public servant," Obama said. "It was very awkward. That part of it I wish had played out entirely differently."

He actually got four of his opponents off the ballot that year.

"He wondered if we should knock everybody off the ballot. How would that look?" said Ronald Davis, the paid Obama campaign consultant whom Obama referred to as his "guru of petitions."

In the end, Davis filed objections to all four of Obama's Democratic rivals at the candidate's behest.

Obama responded:

[H]e defended his use of ballot maneuvers: "If you can win, you should win and get to work doing the people's business."

The politics of change? A new kind of politics in Washington?

< Bonior, Wexler to Represent Obama at FL/Mi Meeting | Harvey Korman, RIP >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama and Alice Palmer Back in the News | 129 comments (129 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    This has to give the real low information (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:10:11 PM EST
    voters information that they need to decide who to vote for in the GE or in the primaries that are left...

    More info then re Palmer and other history (4.00 / 4) (#97)
    by andrys on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:46:14 PM EST
    I stored 3 stories about his happily booting off Alice Palmer and the 3 other candidates so that he could run unopposed. As we've seen this is his basic methodology.

      In the same reference area, there are also other articles about his rise in Chicago politics.  BTD's Chicago Tribune cite includes

    In the end, Davis filed objections to all four of Obama's Democratic rivals at the candidate's behest.

    While Obama didn't attend the hearings, "he wanted us to call him every night and let him know what we were doing," Davis said, noting that Palmer and the others seemed unprepared for the challenges.While Obama didn't attend the hearings, "he wanted us to call him every night and let him know what we were doing," Davis said, noting that Palmer and the others seemed unprepared for the challenges.

    But Obama didn't gloat over the victories. "I don't think he thought it was, you know, sporting," said Will Burns, a 1996 Obama campaign volunteer who assisted with the petition challenges. "He wasn't very proud of it."

    But it's the only game he enjoys and the one he's used to, so he spent months having his surrogates call for Clinton to leave the race, especially just before his spreadsheet showed that she would likely win Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Indiana, WVa, Kentucky etc

      I have previously referred to recent articles (one of them NY Times but I have to go back and get that) that referred to Axelrod pressing the Chicago Tribune to print the stories about his rivals' marital and other private problems that then caused two senate candidates to withdraw from the race and leave Obama with only Alan Keyes to run against.

      This is the candidate of hope and change - meaning hoping by any means to change the office holder to himself.

    Parent

    And your point is! (1.00 / 0) (#134)
    by Bradgrp1961 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:10:33 AM EST
    This article shows that Sen. Obama is a shrewed and meticulous politician. It speaks volumes about his potential to be a world leader by showing he can pick apart competition based on what the rules and regulations spell out. If this story is suppose to show some inadequate or distasteful aspect of Sen. Obama's character, I believe it does just the opposite. It shows how much of a brushier the senator can really be.

    Parent
    Somehow (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by frankly0 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:10:36 PM EST
    that episode kind of makes the claims of his supporters that it would be unfair to count the vote in MI because Obama's name wasn't on the ballot as a trifle inconsistent -- especially since he himself took his name off the ballot quite deliberately, rather than someone else doing so by exploiting some technicality.

    If the people's will is said to have been fulfilled in a vote even after what Obama did to Alice Palmer, and she is essentially denied any votes, how can one say that a ballot without Obama's name on it can't represent the will of the people (again, especially since he took his name off)?

    To put my point more sharply (5.00 / 9) (#32)
    by frankly0 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:26:31 PM EST
    If Obama can claim that his win over Alice Palmer was legitimate, even though he got her name thrown off the the ballot, how can he claim that if his name is not on the ballot in MI, and by his own choice, it is not a legitimate vote? How can he claim that he has any more right to votes on the ballot in MI than Palmer had in the State Senate election?

    Parent
    because they are completely different situations (none / 0) (#122)
    by dogooder on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:11:43 AM EST
    Palmer didn't have enough legitimate signatures, so she couldn't be on the ballot. I fail to see how this is in any way relevant to the Michigan primary.

    Parent
    Do you not get (3.66 / 3) (#129)
    by frankly0 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:01:41 AM EST
    that it was Obama himself that took his name off the ballot?

    Look, between the two, which is a more compelling reason to call an election illegitimate: a situation in which an opponent keeps a politician off the ballot due to some technicality, or one in which the politician himself voluntarily takes his name off the ballot? Isn't it obvious that if the politician has their name taken off very much involuntarily rather quite voluntarily, then there is only more, not less, reason to complain that the outcome of the election was unfair?

    The point is, if the outcome of Alice Palmer's election is legitimate -- and it certainly is -- then it's very, very hard to see how either Obama or anyone else can rightly complain that Obama's getting no votes in MI renders the election illegitimate.

    Parent

    I understand that Obama (none / 0) (#149)
    by dogooder on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:28:33 PM EST
    took his own name off the ballot, but you are willfully ignoring the rather important points that (1) the DNC ruled to strip all of Michigan's delegates prior to their primary, (2) every candidate (including Clinton) agreed with the DNC penalty and pledged not to participate there, and (3) the voters were repeatedly told (including by Clinton) that their votes would not count.

    Of course if you were oblivious to these differences then the two situations would seem more alike.

    Parent

    That is a (none / 0) (#126)
    by magisterludi on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:43:09 AM EST
    sad rationalization, my friend.

    Parent
    My friend? (none / 0) (#127)
    by dogooder on Fri May 30, 2008 at 06:36:20 AM EST
    You aren't John McCain, are you?

    Parent
    Your point is no logical!! (none / 0) (#137)
    by Bradgrp1961 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:20:14 AM EST
    In the case of Alice Palmer, she did not have the requisite signatures needed for her to be a legitimate candidate for the state senate race. That's why Sen. Obama challenged her petitions. Whether its by technicalities or otherwise, Ms. Palmer wasn't eligible to compete because of her own short-sightedness.
    On the other hand, Sen. Obama removed his name off of the MI ballot because the DNC informed his campaign that votes in MI would not be counted to award delegates. In FL Sen. Obama did not remove his name off the ballot because FL elections law required it. Fl law states that if a candidate does not run in the primary election there, he or she can not participate in the general election either. That's the reason he left his name on the ballot in FL.

    Parent
    Axelrod on CNN w/Wolfe (4.42 / 7) (#8)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:15:25 PM EST
    tonight said Obama took his name off the MI ballot as part of the rules (he said it really fast, but he lied and said it).He also said Obama didn't campaign in FL, and we all know he did. He keeps stepping on people..and the piper will have to be paid.

    Parent
    FL was unfair election!! (none / 0) (#143)
    by Bradgrp1961 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:30:32 AM EST
    No one campaigned in FL. Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton only left their names on the ballots during the primary election. Neither actually campaigned there because their campaign would have been spending money for no reason.

    Sen. Obama was vastly disadvantaged during the FL election because noone knew of him and Sen. Clinton has name recognition from her time in the White House. The election in Fl was not fair based on the fact that Sen. Obama wasn't permitted to get his name and message out to the people who didn't know who he is.

    Parent

    Barack spent 1.3 million dollars (none / 0) (#155)
    by LatinoVoter on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:44:07 PM EST
    on the Florida primary. More money than any of the Republican candidates who were allowed to campaign and would be awarded delegates. Barack was also running ads on Florida television.

    To say that nobody knew who he was is ridiculous. There were grassroots efforts to get people to vote for him and there was even a Republican for a day campaign to vote against Hillary and for Barack. You  and the rest of his supporters act like the people of Florida are stupid and don't get things like television, internet and newspapers. Since you claim that nobody knew who he was I wonder who you think Floridians thought the guy standing on stage with Ted Kennedy and Caroline was. Do you think Floridians thought that was Will Smith receiving the endorsement of Ted Kennedy?


    Parent

    All the more reason to seat the delegates (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:12:20 PM EST
    and count the votes in FL and MI...

     "If you can win, you should win and get to work doing the people's business"

    GO HILLARY...

    When Hillary gets the nod (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by ccpup on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:17:43 PM EST
    I hope she repeats verbatim Obama's own words in response to his inevitable whining about how her "stealing" the SDs and the Nomination from him is so unfair.

    Some might call it karma.  I call it delicious Justice.  And somewhere Palmer (and those four other candidates he finagled off the ballot) will be smiling.

    Parent

    yummmm...delicious justice.....so good :) (none / 0) (#138)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:21:26 AM EST


    Parent
    Can't Take the Heat..... (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by Athena on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:18:01 PM EST
    The CNN reporter tonight said that the Obama campaign called the CNN report a "hit job" and would not comment.

    Facts are dangerous things.

    Parent

    more info for SDs (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by ccpup on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:22:29 PM EST
    to put in their thinking caps while deciding who to give the Nomination to.

    Obama has sold himself as something he's not, and the Past -- pushed and sold and trumpeted over the airwaves by Republicans -- will catch up with him and catch up with him big.

    And he thinks he has Electoral Vote Issues now?

    Parent

    And Reason for Hillary to go to Convention (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by felizarte on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:41:34 PM EST
    because between June 3 and the August convention, more information about Barack Obama will surface that affects how SD's decide.  

    It's quite possible that the effect of Murdoch's endorsement of Obama is a boon to Hillary.  CNN will not be caught dead parroting the Fox Network's POV and A360 is already the result of it; this places MSNBC in a predicament as well. I don't know about CBS and ABC. It would be worth the watch.  

    Parent

    If Hillary suspends her campaign, then (none / 0) (#65)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:52:13 PM EST
    obama can take all the hits on his own.  The GOP is going to start slinging stuff at obama and we can watch as he crumples into a heap.

    Parent
    Hillary doesn't have to suspend her campaign (5.00 / 6) (#72)
    by felizarte on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:57:56 PM EST
    John Edwards did that and it gives the impression that she is withdrawing.  She doesn't have to do anything until the convention.  She could give speeches on issues but not to compete in the news cycle when Obama is taking heat.  I think her experience will guide her in mapping out the best strategy.

    Parent
    There is talk she may do that, but it remains (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:16:29 PM EST
    to be seen.  And, if she did suspend, she will not make the same mistakes Edwards did.  All the way to the convention is how it should be!!

    Parent
    Keep dreaming!! (none / 0) (#144)
    by Bradgrp1961 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:39:31 AM EST
    I know you're having nightmares about the outcome of this election. Hillary isn't going to get the nomination under any scenario. Obama has it locked up. She can not change the rules in any way to benefit her mismanaged campaign.

    As for the GOP, their candidate is one dimensional and can only talk about Iraq and he's even on the wrong side of that. Scott Mcclellan's book exposes Iraq for what it is: Bush 'forcing' Democracy on Iraq!! That is more than an oxymoron. It is just plain lunacy!!

    So keep hope alive. Your worst nightmares are yet to be realized.

    Parent

    It does show a pattern... (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by citizen53 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:55:53 PM EST
    of not wanting to allow people to decide, of form over substance.

    The Democrats, as usual, have allowed the process to get out of hand.

    These folks obtained the majority in 2006 and accomplished very little.

    Then the campaign turns into a farce.  It's like an extended version of Survivor (I think), or Last Comic Standing, or some other dumb reality show, which is what it has become.

    If only it did not matter so much.

    Parent

    Heh, Survivor (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by ap in avl on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:02:50 AM EST
    and BO has been granted permanent immunity.....

    Dean and Pelosi as Jeff Probst?

    Parent

    The rules are the rules. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by oculus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:13:17 PM EST


    Interesting point not pursued by CNN (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:24:22 PM EST
    or other media, it seems to me, is that the CNN piece and every one of the stories on this has the apparently obligatory toss-off that this is the way it's done in Chicago, everybody knows it, everybody expects challenges to signatures, etc., etc.

    Yet that clearly contradicts the Palmer story, the interview with the other candidate in the CNN story, etc. -- all quite surprised by the cadre of lawyers for Obama who came in at the last-minute with the challenges and eradicated all of his challengers.

    So frustrating, it can be, to apply logic to journalistic coverage.  Seeing this dichotomy in the Chicago stories, I figured it just was something between the lines that a Chicagoan understands or was referencing earlier stories I missed.  But now CNN does the same thing -- no doubt just retracing the Chicago stories . . . but still, that there is no fresh look at the illogic of the narrative introduced to a national audience is just, well, so-called journalism today.  That's what happens when experienced editors and producers are replaced by young 'uns for lots less pay, it seems.

    Parent

    Well, they the old 'uns are taking those (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:31:20 PM EST
    voluntary buyouts.  What is a newspaper to do?

    Parent
    Again, wishful thinking!! (none / 0) (#146)
    by Bradgrp1961 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:50:36 AM EST
    The repugnicians are already scrambling to find whatever rope that they can just to survive this election season. They have so many internal problems that its unreal.

    Don't it strike you as odd that there is no media coverage of what's going on in the republican party. They've lost three special elections in republican strongholds. The Scott Mcclellan story will capsize them because the republicans were the party in control of congress and the presidency when the Iraq war was started. Their the ones who gave Bush the free pass to do whatever he wanted in Iraq. Their the ones who gave him the rubber-stamp which reduced our civil liberties based on lies. The REPUBLICANS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT'S HAPPENING NOW WITH THE ECONOMY. It was a REPUBLICAN SENATOR (Phil Gramm) who paved the way for the current housing crisis by allowing banks to circumvent laws and rules.

    So the republicans are in great trouble as long as voters are informed and not mislead and disillusioned again by BS from republicans.

    Parent

    crickets (none / 0) (#87)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:15:31 PM EST


    Parent
    Has Obama ever won a fair and... (5.00 / 9) (#5)
    by Shainzona on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:14:38 PM EST
    competitive election?

    He forces his serious adversaries off the ballot and then wins against Alan Keyes.

    This man is pathetic.  I'm sorry.  I just can't stand the sight of him anymore.  His ego is more important than the good of this country.  Shame on him.

    Obama is not only the least (5.00 / 11) (#13)
    by RalphB on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:17:48 PM EST
    qualified candidate the Dems have nominated for president, he's also kind of slimy.  His whole campaign leaves a really bad taste behind.


    Parent
    He definitely is slimy and hypocritical. (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by rjarnold on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:27:35 PM EST
    He has his campaign constantly pedaling out negative memos to the press attacking Hillary for being racist and for the assassination comment and then acts like he is above it all since he hasn't commented on it.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 7) (#24)
    by Davidson on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:22:51 PM EST
    The only election in which he didn't run unopposed or his opponent suddenly didn't have to quit due to some "unforeseen" scandal was in 2000 and he was defeated in a landslide.

    This race for the Democratic nomination is his first competitive race ever.  And it's a farce of democracy and Democratic national "leadership."  To select a man who has hardly any legitimate chance against John McCain, of all people, is insane.

    Parent

    This explains the frantic effort (5.00 / 7) (#79)
    by felizarte on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:03:50 PM EST
    to PUSH HILLARY OUT because they were trying to outrun the negative information certain to come out.  They were actually juggling fireballs and hoping their expertise will give those in the air indefinitely.  I believe Hillary's tenacity cause them to lose their timing and control.  Soon they will be so busy putting out all the fires they started.  Karma.

    Parent
    Keep those in the air (instead of give) (none / 0) (#81)
    by felizarte on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:08:57 PM EST


    Parent
    And the source for the Chicago media (5.00 / 8) (#39)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:28:56 PM EST
    suddenly presented with those sealed divorce records of opponents not once but twice, both times doing collateral damage to women and children who did nothing to deserve such humiliation?  That source still seems to be only rumored in Chicago, but. . . .

    Parent
    Still Lookin' (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by Athena on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:31:49 PM EST
    That tells us that he found nothing on Hillary - or else it would have "magically" been all over the Internet.

    Parent
    Funny, isn't it (5.00 / 7) (#54)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:43:11 PM EST
    he put Jeri and Jack Ryan and their children through an extremely embarrassing public disclosure, but Michelle is out-of-bounds when she's out giving campaign speeches.

    Parent
    It's not just a rumor.. (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by rjarnold on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:45:40 PM EST
    With his Democrat opponent, Hull:

    In the following few days, the matter erupted into a full-fledged scandal that ended up destroying the Hull campaign and handing Obama an easy primary victory. The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had "worked aggressively behind the scenes" to push the story. But there are those in Chicago who believe that Axelrod had an even more significant role -- that he leaked the initial story. They note that before signing on with Obama, Axelrod interviewed with Hull. They also point out that Obama's TV ad campaign started at almost the same time.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/magazine/01axelrod.t.html?_r=1&ei=5070&en=765f1fc42884f6d3 &ex=1177905600&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all

    And with the Republican:

    Barack Obama's backers emailed reporters about the divorce controversy, but refrained from on-the-record commentary about the divorce files.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ryan_%282004_U.S._Senate_candidate%29#cite_note-Fornek-6

    So in both cases his campaign played a huge role.

    Parent

    the source (none / 0) (#60)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:47:31 PM EST
    I read that the Chicago Tribune went to court to get the court records unsealed and that was at the behest of david axelrod, who had been a reporter with the Tribune.  I read that on a blog.  Very distasteful!!

    Parent
    Has "naturally born" ever been ruled on (none / 0) (#22)
    by Exeter on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:22:20 PM EST
    by the USSC in the context of the presidency? I know the U.S. Senate recently passed a sense of the senate that McCain IS a "naturally born" citizen, but it does seem within the realm of possability for the DQ-happy Obama campaign.

    Parent
    You have to be an American born (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:26:34 PM EST
    citizen of this country to run for president.Not naturalized. McCain was born on an american base, to his american born parents, he is a american born citizen of the united states and therefore eligible to run.

    Parent
    Yes, all is okay, there is no question there (none / 0) (#35)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:26:55 PM EST
    for a candidate born at a Panama Canal military base -- unless you meant Obama, and there is no question that Hawaii was a state by then, by a year or so.

    It is interesting that only one of three candidates was born on the mainland (and smack dab in the middle of it, here in the Midwest).  And that if Obama is the nominee, then neither candidate will have been born on the mainland.  That may well be a first, and a future good question for U.S. history trivia. :-)

    Parent

    I understand that logic... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Exeter on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:32:27 PM EST
    ...but has ever been tested in the courts with regard to the presidency?  Is an overseas U.S. military base considered American soil, like a foreign embassy?

    Parent
    SC has not addressed the issue (none / 0) (#67)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:52:49 PM EST
    That is why there was movement in the congress vis a vis McCain. It was meant ot clarify, if hte event there was a problem.  There is no case law on the issue.

    Parent
    Interesting tidbit on Obama's birth (none / 0) (#63)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:50:58 PM EST
    Seems noone can get his birth record in HA.  Also, seems that there is a birth record in Kenya with his father named as the father on the pertinent date and his mother supposedly went there then.  Boy, that would be amazing!!!

    Parent
    What? (none / 0) (#77)
    by RalphB on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:03:14 PM EST
    Are you not considered a native born citizen if you're born to an American mother on foreign soil?

    It would be the irony of ironies, considering the Alice Palmer post.

    Parent

    McCain was born to a Naval Officer (none / 0) (#51)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:40:22 PM EST
    on a US Naval base. How much more American can one get?!

    Obama, on the other hand, was born with dual citizenship. Only his mother was a US citizen.

    So, if anyone wants to question the eligibility of birth circumstances, I'd think Obama would hope the subject wouldn't be pursued.


    Parent

    The issue, though, is proof (none / 0) (#82)
    by Exeter on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:10:11 PM EST
    although it does seem far-fetched that a pregnant Ann Durham would travel to Kenya BEFORE Obama was born.

    Parent
    I think that (none / 0) (#123)
    by dogooder on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:15:47 AM EST
    he's beaten (or is close to beating) Hillary Clinton in a pretty competetive primary race. It was hard to see anyone winning against her, but he did it (or is about to).

    Parent
    What are people thinking? (none / 0) (#148)
    by Bradgrp1961 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:05:22 AM EST
    I suppose you believe it would be okay if a court of law said, "okay, a jury of your peers found you guilty of a crime, but we're gonna let you go with no consequences at all. You're free to go!!"

    I'm sorry, but that's not the way of the world. We all must follow the rules and toe the line. If we're caught speeding, we will get a ticket. If you don't have eligible signatures on a petition, the petition is no good. That's the way it works.

    Anybody who hopes to be an effective politician should know that and ensure that they are following the rules accordingly. Especially so because the general public will be proposing regulations and rules. Under that circumstance, they will make citizens submit petitions with eligible signatures as well. How can they ask for a waiver, when the average citizen won't be given the same consideration?

    Parent

    Obama has NEVER won a general election (5.00 / 8) (#10)
    by Exeter on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:16:51 PM EST
    ...worth any significance. He ran unopposed in his deep blue Senate seat and faced joke candidate Alan Keyes in blue Illinois to get into the Senate.  There is nothing but hope and faith that he will EVER win a significant general election.

    he ran against Keyes (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by ccpup on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:19:57 PM EST
    after private divorce papers "somehow" hit the public news and took his strong Republican challenger out of the game.

    And I think another Republican challenger was taken out with some other "leaked" info, but I'm not sure what exactly.

    The only race he ever really had a strong opponent for (2000, I think), he lost.

    Parent

    I have hope and faith (5.00 / 7) (#17)
    by RalphB on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:19:59 PM EST
    that he will NEVER win a significant election.  Speaking for myself only, of course.


    Parent
    Out of His League (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Athena on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:21:42 PM EST
    He is a minor leaguer who's being called up for the 9th inning in the 7th game of the World Series.  Only a team with a death wish would be so stupid.

    Parent
    Sadly (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by janarchy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:24:20 PM EST
    the DNC and those in charge seem to be on a suicide mission. They see big dollar signs in his contributers and want to get rid of those EEEEEVIL Clintons so they're continuing this farce.

    Happily, some of us are not going to enable them.

    Parent

    and I'm beginning to believe (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by ccpup on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:33:05 PM EST
    more and more that the SDs won't enable Dean and Brazile's Electoral Vote Suicide Mission either.

    Parent
    Ladies & Gentlemen (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by janarchy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:20:47 PM EST
    New politics and the high road at work.

    I'm pleasantly surprised to hear that CNN actually did the story without glossing over the details. I just want to know why the heck they waited until NOW to bother.

    hmmmm (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:52:16 PM EST
    because they feel Obama has the nomination and it's time to vet him.

    BTD: media darling electability theory-they love him, they'll take him through November?

    Waldenpond: media money theory - the media will do the story that gets them the best ratings/money... knock out Clinton and then watch (gasp) the Dems picked a weak candidate again and they lost!!! How could they lose!

    Looks like my theory, might, just might mind you, be playing out.  bwaahaaahaahaaa!

    Parent

    they're jumping the gun (4.50 / 2) (#80)
    by ccpup on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:04:15 PM EST
    because they're believing their own spin.  Hillary's NOT out yet and stories like this may just cause enough SDs to doubt their support and choose (or switch back to) Hillary.

    If CNN is running something like this, I suspect an ok was given from high up the food chain because Obama's becoming a liability and they're attempting to provide cover for nervous SDs.

    Then again I do have a tendency to imagine things.  It's the writer in me, I guess.  :-)

    Parent

    I remember when I first heard about this, (5.00 / 12) (#20)
    by Anne on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:21:37 PM EST
    and decided pretty much then and there that whatever message Obama was delivering, about how he was a new kind of candidate seeking to change the tone, was nothing more than snake oil.

    What's interesting is that all of this well-known, Chicago-era information has been sitting there, virtually ignored by the mainstream - and only now sort of dribbling out, but still shunted to the background.

    You know, I get that the job of a candidate and his or her campaign is to sell him- or herself to the voters, but it's supposed to be the job of the press to inquire and question and challenge and fact-check - not become unpaid shills.  I cannot believe that after the sales job we got on the Iraq war, people continue to eat up whatever is dished out, and accept it as truth.

    Obama is just an endless informercial for a product that far too many people have put a down payment on and are breathlessly expecting to be all that it promised.  

    Alice Palmer was an eye-opener for me - the moment I realized that whatever it was he was selling, I was not buying.  Not even the testimonials were enough to convince me, as most of them probably should come with the disclaimer that remuneration was part of the deal.

    It all just makes my skin crawl.

    Hope (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by RalphB on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:25:04 PM EST
    Since Hillary is still in the primary race, it would appear that a great many ordinary people are not buying what the MCM is selling this time.

    I cannot believe that after the sales job we got on the Iraq war, people continue to eat up whatever is dished out, and accept it as truth.


    Parent
    Passive (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by Athena on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:23:22 PM EST
    Excellent.  Who, me?  I woke up one day and found out I was elected.  Must have been the will of the people.

    the new boss same as the old boss (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by pluege on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:24:08 PM EST
    for those not blinded by the Obama-light, it is plain as day that Obama is a pol through and through. Nothing more, nothing less.

    I agree wholeheartedly, (none / 0) (#124)
    by dogooder on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:27:22 AM EST
    but please, tell me about the magical non-pol-ness of Hillary Clinton...

    Parent
    Alice is currently campaigning for Hillary (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:25:10 PM EST
    She's never run for public office since, and she did refuse to participate in the CNN piece. One of the others who was pushed off the ballot was happy to speak, though.

    It was not a complimentary piece for Obama, though Anderson Cooper merely ended with, "well, we'll let the viewers decide."

    I understand from articles I've read previously that the U.S. Senate seat Obama currently holds included his campaign getting the divorce papers of his opponent, Jack Ryan, unsealed and made public. Easy to find on the internet if you don't recall the nature of the allegations in the divorce. Jack Ryan withdrew from the race (he was the Republican opponent) for the Senate after that.

    Politics is a dirty business, but some acts are just more muddy than others. I understand why Obama needed to pin "she will do anything and say anything" on Hillary before anyone tried to pin that on him.

    Not true. (none / 0) (#108)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:42:48 AM EST
    It was the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago ABC affiliate, WLS-TV, that filed the FOIA lawsuit in Los Angeles that forced the courts to partially unseal Jack and Jeri Ryans' 1999 divorce records, and not the Obama campaign.

    While it is true some of Obama's more emphatic supporters pushed the media to pursue the release of those records, the candidate himself urged restraint, and stated to the Chicago Sun-Times, "I don't think [the Ryan divorce] an appropriate topic for debate."

    Parent

    Surely, you're not that naive (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by andrys on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:28:41 AM EST
    Axelrod pushed the Chicago Tribune in both cases.  You're saying that all these campaign staffers do things without ever letting Barack know or never with his approval -- in other words they're out of control but he doesn't mind.

    Please.

    His staff sent the Olbermann transcript and link to the video (which repeated "We will NOT forgive you this time!) to the entire press, as both George Stephanopoulos - and Joan Walsh pointed out, and Stephanopoulos was saying to Obama staff (on tv) that they did this while saying they were not stirring it up.

    That kind of tactic is played only when you feel it's needed -- in other words they don't feel THAT secure about the nomination.  

    Parent

    but of course (none / 0) (#125)
    by dogooder on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:31:35 AM EST
    Hillary had no part in pushing "bittergate"... or Wright, or Rezko, or NAFTA-Canada, or whatever other gaffes Obama's made. Has she ever taken the high road?

    Parent
    You were saying how above it all Obama is (none / 0) (#128)
    by andrys on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:53:08 AM EST
    Hillary does not pretend to be magnanimous - she openly will answer when asked about ihs problems.  She doesn't leave it to her staff while pretending to be oh so generous.

      It's the continued hypocrisy of Obama and also the halo his supporters insist on seeing in everything he does, including this farce of being above it when his staff was mailing quotes not even noticed by the first AP articles reporting her editorial interview, and distorting the meaning and then mailing entire press list the ugly and insane rant by Olbermann, but that latter is up the alley of many of the Obama supporters, hoping to see ANYthing they can grab on while pretending to feel sure Obama will win.

     If Obama staff were sure they would not do all this, and, yes, he is THE BOSS of his staff and those were official mailings and not denied.

      You have no idea how much harm to Obama in November you do posting in this vein, because the party has NO CHANCE at unity with all this.

    Parent

    That's a fair statement. (none / 0) (#151)
    by dogooder on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:39:19 PM EST
    Although I'd disagree about calling him a hypocrite based only on the fact that his campaigned sent an email with Olbermann's over-the-top commentary. That was a mistake, but it pales in comparison to the way Clinton has pushed all of Obama's gaffes.

    Parent
    This was a media request (none / 0) (#150)
    by TomLincoln on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:30:15 PM EST
    to unseal, but we do not know whether media was tipped off by his former wife, or someone else. See the Smoking Gun at http://tinyurl.com/ypsfz

    JUNE 22--In what may prove a crippling blow to his U.S. Senate campaign, divorce records reveal that Illinois Republican Jack Ryan was accused by his former wife, actress Jeri Ryan, of pressuring her to have sex at swinger's clubs in New York, Paris, and New Orleans while other patrons watched. The bombshell allegation is contained amidst nearly 400 pages of records ordered released yesterday by a Los Angeles Superior Court judge who ruled on media requests to unseal documents from the Ryan case. The salacious charge leveled at the politician was made by Jeri Ryan, who has starred in TV's "Star Trek: Voyager" and "Boston Public," in a court filing in connection with child custody proceedings (you'll find a portion of that heavily redacted September 2000 document below). The performer alleged that she refused Ryan's requests for public sex during the excursions, which included a trip to a New York club "with cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling." While Ryan, a former Goldman Sachs executive, confirmed the trips with the actress, he described them simply as "romantic getaways," denying her claims that he sought public sex. The politician has repeatedly claimed that his divorce file--portions of which were sealed in 2000 and 2001--contained no embarrassing information that would harm his chances against Democratic nominee Barack Obama. The Ryans were married in 1991 and, in November 1998, Jeri Ryan filed for divorce citing "irreconcilable differences." Another unsealed document reveals that Jeri Ryan, as part of the divorce settlement, received about $20 million in Goldman Sachs stock, while Jack Ryan retained a $40 million stake in the investment giant. (8 pages)]


    Parent
    Expect that (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by janarchy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:26:51 PM EST
    after he gets declared the nominee. He's the one they've been waiting for...to knock down and trample over so that McCain can win. The MSM is mostly in the pockets of big corporations and big defence industry. It's been that way for decades. Obama and his followers have no idea what they're in for over the next few months (Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow and one or two other True Believers being the exception)

    I just don't get it. (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by davnee on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:27:23 PM EST
    Sometimes I think the house of cards built by the disgraceful hypocrite known as Obama is on the verge of collapsing.  That his supporters couldn't possibly support his bs campaign one moment longer.  And then the media carries more water for him and more SD's come out of the woodwork to kiss his a$$.  It reminds me a bit of the wide-eyed disbelief Bob Dole had when he ran against Bill Clinton.  He just couldn't believe Americans loved such an imperfect rogue and would forgive him anything.  Now I know Bill Clinton, who let's all agree is in reality an imperfect rogue, was also a good president on balance and a sincere servant of the American people despite his many faults.  Is Obama the same?  Am I just caught up in some kind of hate-induced wingnut dementia?  Is he really just misunderstood by his enemies who can't love him despite his feet of clay?  What am I missing?  Is shamelessly booting mentors from ballots; taking money from slumlords and unrepentent domestic terrorists; attending hate-based churches for political gain; insulting ordinary every day Americans; and running on a campaign of pure blown smoke all just the functional equivalent of having a wandering sexual eye and occasionally renting out the Lincoln bedroom?

    If those are equivalent (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by RalphB on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:30:44 PM EST
    we're in the Twilight Zone.


    Parent
    About the Lincoln Bedroom... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:33:45 AM EST
    The thing that most people don't realize is that when a President has a guest who is not a state visitor, he is charged for their keep during the visit. He pays out of his own pocket for the food and bedroom at a rate set by the GAO. At least, I think it's the GAO. So if he gets some contributions for a campaign, or a charity, he still has to pay out of his own pocket for the people who stay over. And it's expensive too. Why do you think Presidents don't encourage their adult children to hang around?? Even the ones that work nearby?? It costs a lot of money to have someone stay over at the White House. And it is an accepted form of paying political debts. It is a huge privilege to stay overnight in the White House, and most people remember it and talk about it for a very long time. Good politics to have the people come to visit. Even if they are contributors.

    Parent
    A Prelude to the Michelle Tapes? (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by themomcat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:30:05 PM EST
    The MCM is holding back the big guns for October. The Swift Boaters will look like amateurs after the Corporate Media is finished with Obama. I blame the DNC for this because they have backed the weaker candidate because they can't manipulate HRC.

    on the other hand (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by ccpup on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:36:28 PM EST
    those SDs who've received golden-tongued promises from Precious in exchange for their support may sit up and take notice when they learn what happened to the last Experienced Pol who trusted Barack.

    No one -- not even a SD -- likes to be lied to or made a fool out of.  And no one likes a knife in the back, political or otherwise.

    Add this nugget of info to the Electoral Map favoring Clinton and it may be enough to change the race.

    Just sent emails to DNC, RBC and my SD's (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by ap in avl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:40:27 PM EST
    with only subject header:

    Alice Palmer.

    :-)

    Shame on them if they didn't know (none / 0) (#74)
    by ap in avl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:59:20 PM EST
    about this before.

    Of course you have to believe that they did.  Otherwise, they are incompetent.  (OMG, isn't that what we used to say about W?)

    What's really funny is that if you go to the DNC website and go to their "Contact Us" page you can send emails on different issues.  I sent an email with subject "Alice Palmer?" in regard to the 3 following issues:

    1. 2008 election
    2. Honest leadership
    3. Voter protection

    Can you believe they even give us the choice to comment on the last 2 issues?  

    Clueless.....

    Parent

    Astroturfing Axelrod (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by fctchekr on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:50:17 PM EST
    This is a bit off topic, but local to Chicago, and Obama's head strategist, David Axelrod.
    Here's a case where Axlerod and Pfleger were involved in pulling off an astroturfed 'caucus of sorts' in order to change the result of a decision about a local Children's Museum.
    IMO this is huge. Why didn't the media report this?

    Read:

    The Chicago Children's "museum retained high-powered lobbyists (Axelrod) to advance its interests behind the scenes. In a profile of lobbyist (and Barack Obama's chief strategist) David Axelrod in the current Business Week, Reilly characterizes Axelrod's firm ASK Public Strategies as "the gold standard in Astroturf organizing. This is an emerging industry, and ASK has made a name for itself in shaping public opinion and manufacturing public support."

    Axelrod's ASK is the politically-connected muscle behind the CCM's campaign. You can see the Astroturf under its fingernails in the hijacking of a community meeting on the proposal last year where museum supporters, of whom few, if any, appeared to be from the community, filled up the auditorium and forced the actual residents, overwhelmingly opposed to the CCM's plan, into side hallways. The gutter politics continued with Father Michael Pfleger who, based on an encounter with a single person attending the meeting, began echoing the canned message refrain that museum opponents were acting out of racist motives. Astroturf, in abundance. Will Axelrod's operatives succeed in placing their Astroturf blindfolds over the eyes of Plan Commission members?

    http://arcchicago.blogspot.com/2008/03/childrens-museum-battle-moves-to-plan.html

    Ah, a practice run for flinging racism (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:01:28 PM EST
    charges around -- and from a priest who likes to talk okey-dokey style.  Ugh.  It just gets worse.

    Parent
    as well as for the caucuses (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Dawn Davenport on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:50:58 PM EST
    Hmm, all that "community organizing" may come back to bite him.

    Parent
    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:12:34 PM EST
    I saw an advertisement for Obama supporters $9.50 per hour, I read an article where white 'supporters' marching in SC wouldn't answer an interviewers questions and referred them to campaign headquarters (not supporters if they are paid) and kept hearing that 'supporters' were paid at events to attend and chant, and are bussed around.  Also the reports that out of staters were interfering at caucus sites.

    I think someone's supporters have been astroturfed but they actually think they were part of a ground up effort and live in denial as to what Axelrod does for a living.  I would smile if it wasn't all so slimy.  

    Parent

    Oh, I just had a really evil thought... (none / 0) (#109)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:44:07 AM EST
    Hillary supporters should take that job, and send the money to Hillary's campaign. That way she can get in on the Obama gravy train too. That's not cheating, is it?? Using his paying "supporters" to help fund her campaign?? And I hear he has good concerts at his rallies. Heh.

    Parent
    Obama Girl clearly came from Axelrod's (none / 0) (#85)
    by Exeter on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:14:20 PM EST
    "astro turf" company

    Parent
    This would make a great diary... (none / 0) (#104)
    by citizen53 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:11:32 AM EST
    as Axelrod id NOT Obama, and this is no different than disclosing Penn's ties and tactics.

    Parent
    Actually, I really admire ... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:12:24 PM EST
    ... Barack Obama's willingness to go to the mattresses on this particular occassion. I've been overtly critical of him on any number of things, but this won't be one of them.

    Alice Palmer was clearly the bad political actor here, wanting to have her cake and eat it, too. I mean, she recruits Obama for the 1996 race to succeed her in the Illinois Senate as she begins her campaign for Congress. And then, after she unexpectedly loses the special congressional election, she expects him to just shut down his entire campaign organization, fold up the tents and withraw, so she could waltz back in and reclaim her old seat?

    I'm sorry, but political campaigns don't work that way.  Had Obama acquiesced and shut down operations, he would have damaged his political credibility and broke faith with everyone who had pledged to support him.  Her selfish request was not only terribly unreasonable, it was truly bad political form on her part.

     And, lest anyone not see the forest through the trees, it was Alice Palmer who turned in her nominating papers without the requisite number of qualified signatories. Whose fault is that? If her candidacy had been approved without challenge, her campaign would have been the fraudulent one, not Barack Obama's.

    So let's give the guy some credit for playing hardball when it was sorely needed.  Alice Palmer had it coming, and I'll shed no tears for her.

    That was funny (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:21:47 PM EST
    Just too funny.   Yeah, so much better to trot out lawyers to knock everyone off the ballot so you can run unopposed, admirable.  Yeah, so much better to leak divorce documents to take out another candidate, admirable.  Yeah, so much better to trot out lawyers in MI, admirable. FL? admirable.

    OTOH...Some might think that someone who does that has a sleazy character and may need to do it because, well, he has no experience or accomplishments and would lose if he had to run on his own merits.  But not me.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#88)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:15:41 PM EST
    Except it was more candidates than just Palmer, and the deficiencies included hypertechnical issues like otherwise legitimate signatures not being in cursive.

    Parent
    Whatever. (none / 0) (#111)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:43:53 AM EST
    Call it collateral damage, if you like. But they obviously didn't garner enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot, either.

    You just can't choose to ignore whole provisions of Illinois state election law here, simply because it's convenient for your argument to do so.

    Parent

    That included (none / 0) (#119)
    by andrys on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:18:50 AM EST
    people who printed their names rather than do them in cursive style -- and people who registered just fine but the person taking their names wasn't 'correctly registered' as a signature taker.

      To me, doing this with all opponents running is a pretty desperate type of measure.  But by someone as 'calm' as Obama, how could it be bad?  Only if Clinton did this.

    Parent

    Yes of course (none / 0) (#95)
    by ap in avl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:33:27 PM EST
    anyone other than Barry who dared to try to represent teh peoples "had it coming".  

    Just who did Alice Palmer (and all those other guys) think they were?

    How dare they try to disenfranchise his voters?

    Parent

    Except that Palmer was supported in her efforts (none / 0) (#107)
    by jeffhas on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:38:49 AM EST
    to run for Congress by State Dem. Leadership.  They/She knew she was running for a strong Repub district, and Obama was recommended as a PLACEHOLDER.

    Only he decided he could take the whole thing.  

    He would've been rewarded by the party for holding the seat for Palmer and given many other opportunities - but he took this one, and used lawyers to win.

    I don't fault him the win, I fault his method and loyalty and opportunism.... the latter of which follows him (or leads him) everywhere.

    Parent

    Well, that's your opinion. (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:38:26 AM EST
    Here's mine, bluntly: Politics ain't for sissies.

    Alice Palmer says now, well after the fact, that Barack Obama was to be merely a placeholder for her while she ran for Congress, while he and his supporters clearly understood otherwise. She said, he said. Proves nothing.

    Further, you're making some very grand assumptions about the state party leadership's level of support for Palmer's re-election to the State Senate in 1996.

    I'll state this again, because it obviously bears repeating: Alice Palmer failed to obtain the requisite number of valid signatures from qualified voters in the 13th Senate District, prior to her filing of her 1996 nominating petition.

    And that's the salient point here, and not this hush puppy that Barack Obama had the impudent audacity to challenge the 13th District's resident queen bee.  

    Palmer needed to get the number of signatures equal to or greater than 5% of the total number of registered voters who cast ballots in her district in the previous general election, or 25,000 signatures, whichever is the lesser amount.  This she failed to do.

    If the state party leadership was so gung-ho about her candidacy, then why didn't the party work to ensure that she properly qualified for the primary ballot?

    Elections are supposed to have rules and laws governing their conduct. Obama had every right to challenge the validity of the Palmer petition, and the very fact that he succeeded in knocking her off the primary ballot is evidence enough that her campaign was premised on a false demonstration of active support for her candidacy in the 13th District.

    Look, I don't really care for Barack Obama, either. But I refuse to let that dislike lead me to the point where I'm capable of misrepresenting fact in order to make a case that he's a ruthless SOB. That's not a principled stand, but rather one of political expediency that's based entirely upon a willingness to engage in situational rationalization. I simply won't go there.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    All you've proved here ... (none / 0) (#112)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:07:54 AM EST
    ... is that if you pull a statement completely out of context, you can say that it means whatever you want it to mean. Congratulations.

    In the meantime, please read and educate yourself the applicable statute regarding the official challenge of nominating petitions, 10 ILCS 5/10-10.

    Parent

    We the brave the few (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:34:43 PM EST
    knew all this..back in January.  All I did is google him and found some articles from a lefty from chicago.  It was all there.  But they wanted the demographics, the hype.  I am so disgusted.  

    Like you say...this was out there... (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by citizen53 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:49:48 PM EST
    a LONG time ago, but no real media.

    Just another piece of the pattern that shows Oboma is not atypical.  Like his stealth lobbyist ties.

    Change is an illusion, politics of hope is a product.  It will be gone once he is in office, and does just what the Post said today, govern as a moderate, and nothing will really change.

    Clinton should have run on change.  She, too, is change.  She ran a bad campaign and dug her own hole.

    We all may lose in terms of the progressive agenda.

    My friend has Donna Brazille for a class (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by michellemarie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:19:27 AM EST
    and Donna said the pitfall of HRC's campaign is that she did not position herself as the change candidate. I still loathe Donna B., but she has a point.

    Further, I do not think Hillary should lose the nomination just because her campaign organization sucked. If she had been the candidate she is today at the beginning of the race, SHE WOULD BE THE NOMINEE. If the MSM had reported all this crap about Obama, he wouldn't have gotten a single delegate in Iowa, no way.
    She has the better platform, she is the voters' favorite, she is honest, she should win.

    I've read a lot about his race against Palmer... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Dawn Davenport on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:14:56 PM EST
    ...but very little about his futile race for Bobby Rush's congressional seat in 2000.

    Anyone know any background or good links about this race? (Hope this isn't too OT.)

    Recent NYT article about (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:22:57 PM EST
    connections Obama made in his early years in IL includes some information about that.  

    Parent
    An interesting aspect of Obama's challenge (none / 0) (#38)
    by Exeter on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:28:42 PM EST
    is that it was immediately after Rush challenged Daley for Mayor. Obama is clearly a Chicago machine guy and my view is that Obama's primary challenge was payback for Rush going against the machine.

    Parent
    Probably just what you heard. (none / 0) (#113)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:30:05 AM EST
    Obama became overly ambitious, and had his rear handed to him by Congressman Rush. Most voters became convinced that Obama was merely going to use the seat as a springboard to higher office. Obviously, in retrospect, they had ample reason for their suspicions.

    One district resident with whom I corresponded stated bluntly that Obama "always had that look on his face at events, like the guy next to him just f-rted."

    Parent

    At least it shows ... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Demi Moaned on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:15:14 PM EST
    some determination to win. I haven't seen much of it in his Presidential campaign lately, and, frankly, it's got me worried.

    If you knock every else out of (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:18:24 PM EST
    a race, and it's only you running, then you smile pretty, say the right/scripted things and voila, people think you're terrific and they vote for you. Obama has tried to get Hillary out of the race and has met a really great opponent. So he has tried to minimalize her. Step and squash.

    Parent
    O'Reilly just went on a hollaring jag (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:46:35 PM EST
    over NBC being in the tank for Obama while they carved up Hillary.

    As much as I don't like the guy, I could kiss him right now :)

    Parent

    The only (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by cal1942 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:51:01 PM EST
    REAL worry would be if Obama got the nomination. What an embarrassment for the Democratic Party

    Parent
    this is bad (none / 0) (#40)
    by manish on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:30:00 PM EST
    So your bringing this garbage up and Oliver Willis is bringing up Lewinski.  Can't we all just get along?  What side is everyone on?

    Some of us are on the side of (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:32:43 PM EST
    Truth, Justice and the American Way!!!!

    Parent
    great minds :-) (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by RalphB on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:33:30 PM EST


    Parent
    Truth, justice and the American Way :-) (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by RalphB on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:33:12 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes, it makes Oliver look bad, doesn't it? (none / 0) (#55)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:44:04 PM EST


    Parent
    Oh, no, you di'nt! (nt) (none / 0) (#73)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:59:04 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes, he did. (none / 0) (#114)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:31:41 AM EST


    Parent
    Old Politics at Work (none / 0) (#57)
    by santarita on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:45:27 PM EST
    Play the rules even if those rules disenfranchise voters, eliminate opposition on  technicalities, game the flawed nominating system all the while pretending that you are above the fray, and slam the opponent for what you are doing on the sly. I give Obama and his advisors a lot of credit for running a very clever campaign and for excelling at deception.  Winning isn't everything, it is the only thing, right Sen. Obama?

    CHANGE (none / 0) (#70)
    by delacarpa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:55:49 PM EST
    Oh, we need this kind of change don't we. Seems we have been dealing with this kind of politics for 8 years. Can someone please get all the Trinity tapes together and send them in please. Somebody better come to their senses, this is not the CHANGE America is needing. Obama is nothing but a plain old more of the same politician.

    Renowned AA scholar (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:03:41 PM EST
    Dr. Mary Frances Berry said just that tonight on CNN -- that someone ought to get all the tapes and see what there is to see, once and for all, and fast.  She is an independent soul, but she has seemed on the side of Obama before (but only seemed, as she is always seemly:-).  Tonight, she sounded different about Obama.  What's up, hmmm?

    Parent
    What a wise soul (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by ap in avl on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:00:23 AM EST
    Shouldn't anyone who wants to field a successful Democratic nominee for the general election want to know what we'll be dealing with over the next few months?  

    Despite his campaign's characterization, this is not a "hit job".

    Hillary has been vetted for (at least) 16 years now.

    Any potential problems from Obama's past need to come to light as soon as possible so that we can make an informed choice.....

    er, I mean, so that the DNC and SD's can be accountable for the choice we have not been allowed to make :-)

    Parent

    Just watched it -- and yes, at last (none / 0) (#71)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:57:33 PM EST
    this story surfaces on tv, if late at night here.  But it was rougher on him than I would have thought -- and it was tied back to Obama using "teh rules" to get a woman out of the way again this weekend.  

    And that was after Dr. Mary Frances Berry, bless her, showed her famous straightforwardness in talking about Obama and the new "pastor problem."

    The W.O.R.M. turns.  Too late, of course.  So much more fun after the coronation already is scheduled.  Er, make that rescheduled.  Er, rescheduled again.

    I don't think it's too late. (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:00:01 PM EST
    I'm sure CNN has started the "vetting" because they consider Obama the nominee, but the timing here is good to ruin Obama's chances, IMO.

    Parent
    who says it's too late? (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:14:37 PM EST
    Last I checked the convention is in August.

    Parent
    Excellent comment (none / 0) (#103)
    by citizen53 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:03:05 AM EST
    You hit the nail on the head.  I said so below or somewhere earlier this evening.

    So glad Hillary is proving (none / 0) (#115)
    by splashy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:58:43 AM EST
    To be much harder to push out like that.

    This Would Matter if (none / 0) (#130)
    by Randinho on Fri May 30, 2008 at 08:47:47 AM EST
    Hillary were not such a hypocrite on this subject. Representative Nita Lowey, a native New Yorker was the likely candidate for Senate from New York in 2000, but Chuck Schumer opened his yap and suggested Hillary instead. The media jumped on it and Lowey was pressured to bow out.

    No (none / 0) (#152)
    by Randinho on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:19:39 PM EST
    She just carpetbagged her way into a state where she had never lived.

    Parent
    Is This Necessary (none / 0) (#154)
    by Randinho on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:34:57 PM EST
    god you must be full of kool-aid to make the comparison

    First of all, I have never insulted you. I suggest that if you cannot afford me the same courtesy that acknowledges my ability to think for myself, perhaps you should avoid forums in which mature, civilized discussions are supposed to take place.

    I was an Edwards supporter before he dropped out. I don't think Obama is the second coming, nor do I think Clinton is evil incarnate. I have never voted for her, however and I hope I never see her name on a ballot again.

    If Pat Moynihan had stood for reëlection in 2000, Hillary Clinton would not have run for the Senate from new York. She certainly would have looked for another venue. If she doesn't make it to the White House, I truly hope Carolyn Maloney runs for her senate seat in 2012.

    Parent

    Obama was RIGHT!!! (none / 0) (#132)
    by Bradgrp1961 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:00:55 AM EST
    When you're a politician you are making laws that people must abide by. Somewhere in the past, the rules were written by politicians or an administrative agency. If the politician don't follow those rules then they can't be given a waiver so they can get their sh*t together. They're suppose to already have their ducks in a row before they venture out and ask the public to trust them with their tax dollars. How can we trust them to manage our tax dollars when they don't effectively manage their campaigns. How do we reconcile that as responsible, tax-paying, voters.
    Obama showed that these people were not ready to be elected officials and should not be given a waiver for their inadequate preparations. Period!!

    Obama and Alice Palmer Back in the News | 129 comments (129 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment