The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

Video Report

Pelosi Hails Obama's Historic Victory

Note: Please upgrade your Flash plug-in to view our enhanced content.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hailed the victory of Sen. Barack Obama in Tuesday's election and said she thought the American people had spoken out "loudly and clearly" for change in the country. (Video by the Associated Press.)

By Paul Kane
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who placed a congratulatory phone call to President-elect Barack Obama this morning, said that she would continue to work with the Illinois Democratic to craft an agenda for early next year.

In a brief lame-duck session starting Nov. 17, Democrats may trim back their proposal for a stimulus plan for the economy to a "first step," Pelosi suggested, reverting to the $61 billion plan that the House approved in late September.

"The least we can do is the package we put forward," she said, indicating a larger stimulus package would be offered in January for the new administration to consider.

Posted at 1:07 PM ET on Nov 5, 2008  | Category:  Video Report
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Rahm Emanuel Mulling Obama Job Offer | Next: Palin Says Loss Wasn't Her Fault


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



JRM2:

I did answer your prior questions. We simply disagree it was "fair". To answer your most recent question, there are plenty of possibilities, including but not limited to ACORN fraud or Obama not being a "natural born" citizen.

Posted by: JakeD | November 5, 2008 6:40 PM

"So, it's "sour grapes" only when you like the candidate? I am implying that he, Barack HUSSEIN Obama, will not be sworn in as President, of the United States, on January 20, 2009, A.D. What I am NOT implying, or even explictly saying, is any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the [unofficial] President-elect.

Posted by: JakeD | November 5, 2008 5:12 PM"
---------
Evading the questions AGAIN with not-so-clever word play.

The distinction is that there was a potentially flawed election against a most definitely Democratic fair election.
and
What makes you think that a democratically elected candidate would not be sworn in in January?

Posted by: JRM2 | November 5, 2008 6:07 PM

So, it's "sour grapes" only when you like the candidate? I am implying that he, Barack HUSSEIN Obama, will not be sworn in as President, of the United States, on January 20, 2009, A.D. What I am NOT implying, or even explictly saying, is any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the [unofficial] President-elect.

Posted by: JakeD | November 5, 2008 5:12 PM

"So, now you just have to wait until January 20, 2009 to see if I'm wrong. Regardless, he will never be my President.

Posted by: JakeD | November 5, 2008 4:26 PM"
-----
Whiner,
I remember saying the same thing about Bush after the 2000 election because of the alleged voter fraud, they certainly didn't stop the recount because they were afraid Gore would lose.

However, Obama CLEARLY won in a fair election that was not even close, did not come down to one county and 500 or something votes. So to say "He'll never be my President" is just sour grapes but I expected that from you JakeD.

Like it or not, he IS your President JakeD, any GOOD PATRIOTIC AMERICAN respects Democracy and fights against others that try to destroy it.

Just what are you implying by saying that he will not be inaugurated in Jan?

Care to answer that question?

Posted by: JRM2 | November 5, 2008 4:59 PM

zuckermand:

So, now you just have to wait until January 20, 2009 to see if I'm wrong. Regardless, he will never be my President.

Posted by: JakeD | November 5, 2008 4:26 PM

OBAMA MUST IMMEDIATELY TACKLE SYSTEMIC PREJUDICE AND CIVIL LIBERTIES VIOLATIONS


Ensuring the civil liberties of all Americans, and weeding out prejudice within the federal government, must be a top priority of the new administration -- as the comments on accompanying threads here so graphically demonstrate.

The free ride for the forces of hate and extremism, hiding behind programs to "keep America safe," must come to an abrupt end.

Perhaps one of the first executive orders of the new administration should be mandated sensitivity training for all federal personnel, and a refresher course on the meaning of the U.S. Constitution.

All federal departments should be screened for policies and ongoing operations that are violating the civil liberties of American citizens.

Again, the sentiments expressed in this thread demonstrate the urgency of this mission.

And wrongdoers should be brought to account before the bar of the law.


BUT WILL THE ELECTION EVEN MATTER? Not when government-supported extrajudicial "vigilante injustice" squads are "gang stalking" American citizens, making a mockery of the rule of law:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/american-gestapo-state-supported-terrorism-targets-u-s-citizens
OR members.nowpublic.com/scrivener


WHAT IF THEY COULD SHOOT YOU
WITHOUT LEAVING A TRACE? THEY CAN.
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/zap-have-you-been-targeted-directed-energy-weapon-victims-organized-gang-stalking-say-its-happening-usa-1

Posted by: scrivener50 | November 5, 2008 3:05 PM

Wack jobs need to understand that, one way or another, the democratic platform is going to become the law of land. This is bigger than Obama. Business cycles are inevitable, but war is always someone's choice. And we now have a genuine opportunity for peace in our lifetime.

Previous democratic admins have been marked by peace agreements in the m.e. Previous republican admins have been defined by wars there. That is not coincidental.

Posted by: jrob822 | November 5, 2008 2:40 PM

Can you people do that for your country?

Posted by: jrob822
=========

Unfortunately, jrob, if history is any guide, no, they can't.

Posted by: zukermand | November 5, 2008 2:37 PM

Obama will not be sworn in as President on January 20, 2009 -- mark my words.

Posted by: JakeD (at least 300 times over the past year)

==========
OK, your words are marked. So, what now?


Thanks, Mark.

Posted by: zukermand | November 5, 2008 2:34 PM

All we are saying... is that we voted for peace and prosperity.

We expect politicians to plan and deliver; we expect the media to report on *that*.

Silly season is over. If the media decides to. for example, obsess about how some appointee hired an illegal nanny - and allows the politicians to the play their old games - then you should be strung, drawn, and quartered for treason.

These are serious times; and we expect serious reporting. If you write about the *issues* then, who knows? maybe people will develop the habit of understanding - and wanting to read about - them.

Can you people do that for your country?

Posted by: jrob822 | November 5, 2008 2:32 PM

Congratulations, Dems.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | November 5, 2008 2:01 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company