Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Bob Casey and the Endorsement Hierarchy

Sen. Bob Casey's (Pa.) endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign has dominated cable news today and led to all sort of speculation as to what it might mean for the Illinois Senator's chances in the Keystone State.

Lucky for The Fix, we already have our handy-dandy Endorsement Hierarchy chart to fall back on in order to put the Casey announcement in context.

Casey fits nicely into the state-specific (statewide) endorsement category -- the second highest in our hierarchy.

Having served as both state treasurer and state auditor before defeating Sen. Rick Santorum (R) in 2006, Casey has a clearly demonstrated statewide appeal with voters. He also carries one of the most famous last names in Pennsylvania politics thanks is no small part to his father's two terms as governor from 1986 to 1994.

The Caseys have long been the power brokers of the northeastern Pennsylvania thanks to their power base in Scranton. The Casey name should help Obama make inroads into the blue-collar, white, rural communities that he struggled to penetrate in Ohio -- though it's unlikely that simply being supported by Bob Casey will change voters' mind about Obama.

It also should give him a foothold among party establishment types. Until the Casey endorsement, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton had secured most of the key party figures including Gov. Ed Rendell, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter and Rep. John Murtha.

The impact of Casey's endorsement is somewhat less interesting than the potential reasons behind it. While Casey cited Obama's speech on race last week and the urgings of his four children as the main reasons for his backing of the Illinois Senator, there are also a few other reasons that might have influenced his decision.

First, Casey's father was VERY publicly denied a speaking role at the 1992 Democratic convention due to a long-running feud between he and former President Bill Clinton -- their mutual animosity was nicely detailed in the Boston Globe.

For his part, Bob Casey Jr. has his own reasons not to side with Clinton. Clinton's biggest supporter in Pennsylvania is, without question, Rendell. Rendell and Casey engaged in one of the nastiest primary fights in recent memory in 2002 as they both sought the governor's mansion. (One of Casey's ads during that race, as detailed in the 2008 Almanac of American Politics, featured a Philadelphia police officer saying the following about Rendell: "He lies. Cops deal with liars all the time, and we have no respect for anybody who lies." WOW.)

Rendell won that primary overwhelmingly -- 57 percent to 43 percent -- but the bad blood lingered. Both men claimed it as water under the bridge when Rendell as governor aided the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's recruitment effort of Casey. But, make no mistake: politicians -- especially those who have been at it for decades like Rendell and Casey -- never forget.

Regardless of the reasons, Casey's endorsement makes today a good one for Obama in Pennsylvania. And, it meets one more superdelegate for the Illinois Senator.

By Chris Cillizza  |  March 28, 2008; 3:39 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Friday Line: Pin the VP on the Nominee
Next: Clinton Seeks to Cash In on 'Drop Out' Talk

Comments

Any endorsement that Obama gets is good news. I am not a big Obama fan but the notion of Hillary Clinton as president of the United States is one SCARY thought!

Her day of judgment is coming! And boy oh boy, what a great day that will be. I want to hear the words "you're out!"

Hillary Clinton is one of the great liars of our time. Hands down she can out lie any of the former great liars. A title fit for this queen!!!

Posted by: delakile | March 31, 2008 1:01 AM | Report abuse


Oprah: A Sister, or a Sistah?

Oprah Winfrey has been dubbed a "traitor" by some of her female fans for supporting Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton...In the original post, a reader called austaz68 said... "For the first time in history we actually have a shot at putting a woman in the White House and Oprah backs the black MAN. She's choosing her race over her gender."

White women thought Oprah was their sister, but they found out she's a sistah first.

Oprah recently attended a celebrity-studded Obama rally that included pop music legend Stevie Wonder.

OK, why is even Stevie Wonder supporting Obama? I mean, if anyone should be color-blind, it's Stevie Wonder.

Posted by: kendreik | March 30, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Th Endorsement Obama won't get...

Joe Klein reported in the Times about efforts by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to woo John Edwards...

Evidently Clinton impressed..

Speaking to Edwards on the day he exited the race, Obama came across as glib and aloof. His response to Edwards's that he should make poverty a central part of his agenda was "shallow, perfunctory, pat."

Clinton, "by contrast, engaged Edwards in a lengthy policy discussion. Her affect was solicitous and respectful. When Clinton met Edwards face-to-face in North Carolina ten days later, her approach continued to impress; she even made headway with Elizabeth."

"Whereas in his Edwards sit-down, Obama dug himself in deeper, getting into a fight with Elizabeth about health care, insisting that his plan is universal (a position she considers a crock), high-handedly criticizing Clinton's plan (and by extension Edwards's) for its insurance mandate."

"This flies in the face of Obama's public image: the natural politician, whose emotional intelligence is off the charts, whose first instinct is conciliation.

Not good news for Dr. O...according to Klein.
This is what should be front and center in every media outlet..You won't find it.

Instead you'll see pics of Obama bowling.

Posted by: vammap | March 30, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

mark -

Remember the expression, "Partisanship stops at the water's edge?" It meant that, like a family that fights among themselves, we were united when confronted with an outside threat. There were no political parties when it came to foreign policy -- until GWB and Cheney and his neocon cohorts came along, that is. The ONLY good thing about the Iraq fiasco is that it has thoroughly discredited these bastards, as confirmed by McCain's prudently distancing himself from them in last week's speech. I think, though, that McCain's support of the Iraq invasion is going to continue to be an albatross around his neck -- especially with the regrettable deterioration in the security situation there the past few days. (His newfound enthusiasm for the Bush tax cuts ain't gonna help, either.)

Posted by: jac13 | March 30, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

I was also unsuccessful in trying to post a quote from Obama's foreign-policy speech in response to Mark's query to leichtman about it yesterday. It didn't contain any links; just a cut-and-paste of several paragraphs of the speech from the MSNBC politics page. Strange. Unlike other pages, I always see my posts on WaPo right away.

Posted by: jac13 | March 30, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

mteng, the WaPo is blocking links.

I tried to send you a link to the Austin paper's coverage of the three counties in our metro. I posted quotes on two other threads.

As amazing as 1m+ at Precinct Conventions were the 100k+ at the County Conventions. BHO may now be leading in caucus delegates 38-29 going into the State Convention in June. He led, by most estimates, 37-31 out of the Precincts.

The County Conventions had their superdelegates as speakers - from what I have read, they spoke for Party unity
everywhere - generally to cheers.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 30, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Chris,

You're a smart guy, but you need a refresher course in English grammar.

I cringed when I read this in paragraph eight:

"...due to a long-running feud between he and former President Bill Clinton..."

No, no, no. It should be between HIM and the former President. Between is a preposition. Prepositional objects always take the objective case. "He" is subjective.

I learned this stuff in the 5th grade.

Posted by: goddessljt | March 30, 2008 8:47 AM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:

I tried 3 times to post the quote from Obama for you before I left work, but WaPo blocked me. Either I've been a very bad boy or they don't like posters to link to Fox News. I agree with your synopsis -- it will really help McC and HRC to come out and affirm their commitment to a multilateral foreign policy, particularly since a President McCain would have to deal with a D Congress.

Have the county conventions in TX been resolved yet?

Posted by: mnteng | March 30, 2008 12:35 AM | Report abuse

leichtman, thank you, I think I found it.

I am an indie who has been pushing for a bipartisan foreign policy, multilateral diplomacy, and a strong military. BHO struck a responsive chord for me here. The Cold War foreign policy, from Truman through Bush 41, was, in fact, mainly bipartisan. The naive unilateralism and liberty-at-gunpoint of the neocons is a GWB innovation. BHO is clever to try to stick McC with the neocons and himself with the traditional multilateralist pragmatists, including Bush 41. That's my take, anyway.

McC is signalling that he too is a multilateral pragmatist. That is a good sign as well. HRC will probably do the same. That will be OK with me, too.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 29, 2008 11:10 PM | Report abuse

Cantabrigian -

What makes you so sure they're not?

Posted by: jac13 | March 29, 2008 9:33 PM | Report abuse

Before parents follow the advice of their new voting-age children, they ought to check their advice with some current affairs outside their I-Pods, Nintendo and television: Obama's qualifications to be President, Iraq war, American dead and wounded vs Iraq killed, meaning of WMD, Katrina survivors, mortgage crisis, American economy, Roe vs Wade, global warming, GOP candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton's qualifications to be President - get the drift?

Posted by: Cantabrigian | March 29, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

There was a comment about Obama's speech: ..."typical white people". This seems to be a LIE. There is only "typical white person" referring to his family member. There seem to be tremendous effort to spread falsehood about candidates. Especially racial. Very sad..

Posted by: DrCha | March 29, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Go-Bama! Thanks, Sen. Casey!

Posted by: ferryaptosblue | March 29, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Several good comments this afternoon. More information is sure to come out during the Pa. contest, and I am quite interested in seeing how The Media will play each side.

Posted by: lylepink | March 29, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

...it is rather arrogant of you to asume anyone that doesn t agree with you is shallow....

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

I didn't say you were shallow because you disagreed with my views, I said your reasons for switching parties were shallow if they rested upon the churlish postings of anonymous bloggers.

It's the thing you most carp about. If you have substantive reasons, based on policy issues etc, I can understand.

I just don't see how a fervent supporter of Edwards, as I believe you once described yourself, can embrace the McCain/Bush viewpoint.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 29, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

leichtman -

It's interesting how our allegiance to our candidate colors our view of events. For example, I take a diametrically different view of MI and FL. Everybody agreed to the rules in advance. Hillary indisputably changed her mind after the fact, when she started falling behind. I do not blame Obama one bit for resisting do-overs which simply cannot replicate the original circumstances and would allow Hillary to gain an advantage by changing the rules in the middle of the game. In my view, her shouting "disenfranchisement," when this is all about her own advancement, thereby pouring fuel on the flames of resentment in those two states, is another example of her disregarding the good of the party where it interferes with her personal advancement.

Don't get me wrong; I respect your views. I just don't agree that Obama is the villain here.

Posted by: jac13 | March 29, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

mark the Reagan and GEORGE H comparison by Sen Obama was all over CNN this morning curious why his supporters think its OK to return to George H failed economy over Bill's? I will ignore the personal attacks.

Posted by: leichtman | March 29, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

jac3 my major concern about McCain is his choice to replace Stephens. If I hear him cotow to the right with a Ted Olson or Scalia comment I will leave that spot blank. Obama has not earnwd my support and if he wins the nomination by shutting out Fla or Michigan I will view it as his have stollen the election and will join the dc poster from yesterday who stated and I join him that I will not give the dnc a dime. I take politics seriously and have been very turned off by how the dnc and Pelosi have treated the Clintons. I find their behavuor as dispicable and doing a kot to destroy the democratic party. When the dnc and Obama campaign have given the finger to Hillary and her supporters they should expect as much and its too bad his supporters or campaign seem slow to understand that. I don t come here to win friends, that is not what politics is about.

Posted by: leichtman | March 29, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

leichtman, I missed your earlier post addressed to me.

You wrote:

"Still curious why no one has mentioned Obama's comparison today to Reagand George H."

What was that about? Is there a source?

Were you critical of HRC for praising McC above BHO? As you imply, that was an unusual moment.

The carping between supporters of the two Ds at "The Fix" has driven off some of the rational regulars.

You [your very own self] have responded to stupid personal attacks with barbed ones of your own. You are allowed to ignore the personal attacks and choose to engage in fact based debate.

We all get sucked in sometimes, but by training and experience you should be able to stay with the relevant and avoid the personal.

Hook 'em.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 29, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

'O tempore! O mores!'

Indeed -- very relevant at this time, wpost, when the Treasury is being systematically plundered by certain characters within our own government..why it's time to change direction.

Posted by: drindl | March 29, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Briscoe won easily...

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 29, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

mark-

Great story. Of course, we now know McG never did have much of a chance of being "competitive" in TX -- or anywhere else -- but maybe these people's attitude is one of the reasons why.

Posted by: jac13 | March 29, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

I am an alum of that McG campaign too, but he was not my first choice before he was nominated.

I have told this story here before.

Sam Houston Clinton chaired the D State Convention in '72. He was General Counsel to the AFL-CIO and the TCLU. He was a "lawyer's lawyer" who had won three notable cases in the US S.Ct., one of which you may remember; the reversal of Jack Ruby's conviction. Sam looked like John Wayne and was a hero to most of us.

In August 1972, the McGovern Campaign asked to meet with Sam. He set the meeting for my firm's conference room and invited my partner and me to sit in, but not to spak unless spoken to. The Campaign wanted Sam's views on how to carry TX.

Taylor Branch and a black woman whose name eludes me represented the Campaign.

Sam told them that the rural/small-town weeklies had not yet weighed in and they could be had for McG. He suggested a column ad, topped by a photo of McG stepping out of his B25, captioned "decorated WW2 bombardier". The ad would stress that McG was the son of a Methodist minister, had won the DFC, had always voted against gun control, and would close with the pledge to help Gov. Briscoe eradicate screw worms in TX.

The black woman laughed. "SCREW worms?" Sam patiently and colorfully described how these larvae were hatched in the nostrils, worked their way to the brain, and destroyed not individual cows, but herds. He explained
that Briscoe was getting a cold shoulder from Nixon's USDA, and that ranchers throughout the plains were suffering.

Then Branch said "We cannot say that about gun control." Sam pointed to McG's voting record, which was pure SD and against gun control. Branch explained that it would not fly in L.A. Sam allowed as how he had been asked how McG could win in TX; polls showed Nixon would carry CA no matter what. The meeting ended and so did McG's prospects of running a competitive race in TX.
---------------------------------------------------------
Sam later told us he met WJC and thought WJC was the brightest young pol he had ever met, btw.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 29, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

The University has redacted it's statement. Obama was never a professor:

Sweet: Obama did NOT "hold the title" of a University of Chicago law school professor.
WASHINGTON--The University of Chicago released a statement on Thursday saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) "served as a professor" in the law school--but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed on Friday.

"He did not hold the title of professor of law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the school, on East 60th St. in Chicago

The U of C statement was posted on the school's website two days after the Clinton campaign issued a memo headlined "Just Embellished Words: Senator Obama's Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements." The memo was generated by the Clinton campaign as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) was put on the defensive for claiming incorrectly that she dodged sniper fire while First Lady when her plane landed in Bosnia.

Another university spokesman, Josh Schonwald, said the Obama campaign did not request that the statement be generated and that it was posted because reporters were calling the school with questions about Obama's status. However, the Obama campaign was interested in making sure reporters saw the U of C statement.

Posted by: brigittepj | March 29, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

leichtman -

Fine. So you don't think Obama's up to the job (I disagree -- surprise!!). But what about the effect on public policy of McCain's election? The war? Tax policy? The Supreme Court? The environment? We cannot, as a country, afford four more years of Republican government -- they've almost ruined us as it is.

Posted by: jac13 | March 29, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

wpost I have not gotten there yet and will likely vote for all dems and skip the presidential race. There are many many reasons beyond his arrogant supporters why I oppose Sen Obama and it is rather arrogant of you to asume anyone that doesn t agree with you is shallow. My vote for Pres is most of the most impt decisions I make and I take it very seriously. Unfortunately for you I don t believe that Sen Obama is entitled to my support when he in my opinion is not up to the job.I don t agree with asubstantial number of his positions from healthcare to foreign policy and according to you I am still obligated to betray my own values and support your candidate. Its called chutzpah.

Posted by: leichtman | March 29, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

leichtman -

I am also an alumnus of the McGovern campaign. Volunteered during law school; wrote news summaries for him to read on his way to various states so he would be familiar with local issues. Also did a little speechwriting. My wife was on the payroll, working as a receptionist at the DC headquarters. Seems like yesterday . . . .

Posted by: jac13 | March 29, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

mark -

I have a divorce practice in McLean, the senior/founding partner in an 11-lawyer "boutique" family-law firm. I'm 59, have been at it for almost 35 years, still working very hard, and still enjoying it a lot. Have been active in the organized bar for 30 years or so, served as pres of my local bar in the 80's and the state bar in 2000-01.

I've spotted some fellow Virginians on this blog (I'm not a native; grew up in northern NY; moved here after graduating CU Law School in '73) such as novamatt and vammap -- obviously of different political allegiances. I'm pretty active in VA politics, although not as a party worker or activist -- mostly with my checkbook. The Old Dominion is moving, slowly but surely, into the 21st century, and I like to think I've made a small contribution to that.

Posted by: jac13 | March 29, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Again it is this precise sense of arroganceand know it all that will drive every Clinton supporter to McCain.

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

Why?

Why should petty anonymous posts ever dislodge your belief and support for Democratic Party principles and force you to embrace a party you have worked your whole life against?

It is the shallowest of reasons and makes me doubt your political sincerity.

This isn't high school, it is the very serious business of deciding which direction our nation heads, and the policies of Hillary and Obama are nearly identical.

O tempora, O mores!

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 29, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:

I'd like to add my thanks for your reply to jacksmith1. I don't often post because I don't want to contribute to the volume of naivete displayed here. Plus, I'm not that good of a writer. But I have learned a lot about numerous topics from you and some of the other regulars who post here, though it took a while to figure out whom to read and whom to skip.

Posted by: mnteng | March 29, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

mark I specialize in Criminal Defense an PI but Tort refoem as you know has crushed that part of my practice. All of my family is in Va and that is why I spent so much time with the Webb campaign.Va is defitely trending blue from the statehouse to national politics.

Still curious why no one has mentioned Obama's comparison today to Reagand George H. As a lifelong Dem that sickens me mark and being constantly told that my Democratic politics is suddenly not pure enough. I worked in the McGovern state office on 19th and Guadalupe in 1972 and as antiwar as our generation was I can t recall ever tellinf a Eugene McCartgy or Humphrey supporter that if you don t support McGovern you must leave thr party because you are an obvious Nixon shill. Did you ever hear that mark, I doubt it.

Posted by: leichtman | March 29, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

I hear that Michelle Obama got into colleges on a quota basis depriving other deserving poor whites. It is time MSM does some investigation

Posted by: vs_sv | March 29, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

xcuse me truth. I graduated from UT law school in '76 interned in the Harris Cty D.A.s office,moot court and worked with the ACLU. Don t think I need to publish my Texas law license number to prove to another Obama idiot my bonafides. Again it is this precise sense of arroganceand know it all that will drive every Clinton supporter to McCain. It is beneath you to even consider an apology.

Posted by: leichtman | March 29, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

jac13 -

I practice employer side employment law in Austin. There is a sole practitioner in Bellaire [surrounded by Houston] named "Ira Leichtman" who may be our "leichtman". On the assumption that he is, I have sometimes engaged him about TX politics. You could google him.

I tried [won] my last jury case in Jan '06 and my last contested trial in Aug '07. At 64, in good health, with a family I want to enjoy, I am really happy to be no longer at the mercy of the docket.

Where in VA are you, and what is the nature of your practice?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 29, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin-

Thanks for taking the time. Well written, well reasoned.

Posted by: jac13 | March 29, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Post 2.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

Fact: Virtually nothing you assert here is based on history. Somalia and Serbia were not nuclear powers. Somalia was a catastrophe. American soldiers died. Bosnia was an apparent success and provides a model for Iraq. Biden-Gelb follows that model and Baker-Hamilton is close, in some respects. Both candidates now favor rapid withdrawal. All three candidates appear to be blind to the consequences of their stated positions. First you misstate and exaggerate WJC's accomplishments, then you attribute them by osmosis to HRC, then you fail to see that she, like BHO, and like McC, refuses to follow the lessons learned from the single success.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

Fact: While there is an executive function here that the GWB Administration has utterly refused to carry out, all three candidates are committed to the law and all three have decent records in the Senate on environmental matters, except since they have been running for Prez.
I do not think enforcement in the 90s was tougher than in the 70s but I may be wrong. HRC has neither more expertise nor more experience than BHO here, and both have far less than McC.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

Fact: I repeat, the Prez is not the steward of the economy. BHO is well educated. higher education costs actually soared out of sight in the 90s and continue to do so now. But I do not blame WJC for that, just as I do not give him undue credit for the internet explosion.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

Fact: We can assume they slept together and talked occasionally during the day, although her calendar [correctly] would not detail that. She was busy with the ceremonial duties of a First Lady after the health care debacle. WJC was probably a B+ domestic Prez and a C+ foreign policy Prez, no more I think. From his Admin, any future Prez might want to consult Bob Rubin or Al Gore or WJC himself or MS. Albright, or Richardson, about something. They will be available.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

Fact: You have a point. DC will change, but not predictably, and not from speeches. But it will change for the better if it is not so polarized. To most Americans, even the ones who revere WJC, the Clintons are part of the polarization process. To many, the phrase "master politicians" is not weighted to the good.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Fact: There is no evidence of massive gamesmanship by R voters. The fear of gamesmanship has been generated by Limbaugh, who supports HRC because he believes she is weaker. Here you have raised a straw man argument that works as well in either direction; that is to say it probably does not work, at all.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 29, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Post 1.

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

Fact: neither D has much in the way of relevant accomplishments and experience and neither has an edge over the other and both were second stringers compared with Biden and Dodd. HRC claims her years as a transaction and banking lawyer and her years as First Lady of Arkansas and her years after the health care debacle as "experience". I am 64 and experienced, too, in that sense. I will concede readily that BHO does not have much relevant experience.
You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.


Fact: Presidents do nt have it within their power to fix the economy. It is not a Constitutional power, and the Commerce Clause gives plenary power over commerce among the states to the Congress.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

Prediction: No universal health care program will pass Congress before the entitlement explosion is addressed, nor should it. When it is addressed, it will look more like the Swiss model, which is a privatized model, as I understand it.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 29, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

JackSmith, I am more weary of your cut-and-paste post than jac or Boko and I am
going to deal with it one time, but in two posts.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 29, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Jacksmith -

I am not too proud to admit that, just as is true of us all at one point or another in our lives, on one topic or another, yes, I might be an idiot.

You, on the other hand, leave no room for doubt.

Posted by: bokonon13 | March 29, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

More dirty lies from leichtman. You never went to law school. Stop lying.

Posted by: TheTruth | March 29, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

As a life long democrat I am wondering why I am in a party that is full of dumb politicians. Hillary is how far behind? How many votes have yet to be cast? She got how many votes in Florida--ON AN EQUAL PLAYING FIELD? The press love Obama is so obvious. I am getting to the point where Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman make me want to throw up and I watch them religously. Obama gets a pass on so much and Hillary is pounded. Newsflash talking heads, being gentle on Obama will only hurt him in the general election where thin-skined politics doesn't work. And if you are honest with yourself, Obama comes across as thinned skinned.

Nader is correct, the press is fawning over Obama like he has it locked up.. HELLO???? Neither Hillary or Obama can not get enough ELECTED Delegates to secure the nomination. Why is everyone afraid of a primary that wil be decided at the Convention, something I have never seen in my adult life.

Also, here I am showing my Hillary support. OBAMA CANNOT WIN THE GENERAL. There are a couple of hard facts in Presidential politics that can't be disputed. #1 we have never elected a far left liberal to the White House. and #2 in modern political history we have only EVER elected a Populist or a Hero as President. I would like to see someone dispute that. Obama is neither. He is more Patrician--Kerry like. When he is on stage he acts more like John Kerry than even John Kerry. One look and you see a man whose whole demeanor is one of "I am above you" whether or not he believes it. America likes a fighter. Either in actual battle or political battle.

Posted by: rvme | March 29, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

SVreader

You have been posting your blogs repeatedly which are not only inaccurate but are meant to provoke decent intelligent people into accepting your lies. I would urge the blogmaster to block your comments as it is clear that you work for the Clinton campaign and have no desire for a fair and objective discussion. And incidentally your behaviour has certainly turned one person to a more negative view of your candidate. The law of uninteded consequences

Posted by: anil_malhotra | March 29, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

JackSmith1 -

I could respond point by point, but instead will only say that many of your assumptions are flawed ("35 years of experience," now shown to have been either embellished or outright fabricated, to name but one example).

I am almost 60 years old, a lifelong Democrat and successful professional, and I would say above-average informed about current affairs. I think I know leadership when I see it, and I see it in Barack Obama. You disagree, obviously, but please don't call me an idiot for my position. I fully understand why Hillary's supporters are backing her and would never refer to them as "idiots." She would make a good president. I think Obama would make a better one.

If I am an idiot, then so are the 220 or so public officeholders and party activists who have endorsed Obama, not to mention the millions of people who voted/caucused for him.

Let's just drop the insults and support our respective candidates for the rest of the primary campaign, and get behind whoever the nominee is to defeat McCain in November.

Posted by: jac13 | March 29, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

This article makes it sound like Casey's endorsement is more anti-Rendell than pro-Obama.

Posted by: brigittepj | March 29, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jacksmith...

Posted by: JackSmith1 | March 29, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Vice Presidential Hopeful, Pawlenty Under the Mantle of Deception

Minnesota Governor Pawlenty has been labeled, by McCain, as being the new style Republican which must mean it is fashionable for McCain's Vice Presidential hopefuld to wear a cloak designed to cover a complete mantle of deception. Underneath lies awards to judicial corruption, Draconian threats to Minnesota cities that they must struggle to act as Federal immigration enforcement, destruction of the Minnesota tax base, and the show of open disdain for Native American civil rights.

At a Pawlenty forum, Pawlenty's security team singled-out the obvious middle and lower class supporter(s) with the warning, "Do not extend your hand", while Pawlenty extended his arm, past those ordered to not touch him, and reached to shake hands with wealthy donors. Only then did Pawlenty's mantle of deception become viewable. Such shocking actions portrayed Pawlenty's typical disdain and contempt for any other than the wealthy.

--Under Pawlenty's mantle of deception, Pawlenty supported an affluent Republican judge who was openly holding secret meetings to determine court cases. When a Pawlenty supporter took one of the court cases, that the judge decided via a secret meeting, to the Minnesota Appellate Court, former Appeals Court Judge G. Barry Anderson took part in a decision and ordered that deciding a court case, via a secret meeting, could not be detrimental to judicial proceedings. However, at election time, the Minnesota Ninth Judicial District voters found secret meetings unacceptable for judges and removed, the ex parte district judge for violating Minnesota canon. During the campaign, the ex parte judge stated he held secret meetings all the time and couldn't run the court without them. "We do ex parte all the time." This ex parte judge had previously been cited, by the Chief Judge of the Ninth District, for holding a secret meeting, in a criminal case. Minnesota judicial canon demands that no secret meetings occur. Pawlenty's office was made aware of judicial impropriety, in the Minnesota Ninth District, by a northern newspaper which called for a special judicial investigation.

Following the ex parte Appellate decision, by Judge G. Barry Anderson, Pawlenty appointed him to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Concurrently, Pawlenty appointed Judge Russell Anderson to Chief Judge of the Minnesota Supreme Court where notably Russell Anderson is a friend to the ex parte judge who was removed by the voters. Shortly after the two (2) Andersons' appointments, the Minnesota Senate Majority Leader exposed that two (2) judges, with the surname of Anderson, were holding secret meetings to decided the fate of cases before them on gay rights, gay marriage, and abortion. The Judicial Board, under Pawlenty's administration, refused to investigate and hear the two (2) eye-witnesses to the judicial impropriety.

--Under Pawlenty's mantle of deception, Pawlenty gave an executive order, on January 7, 2008, using his office to essentially force Minnesota cities to take on federal immigration enforcement to bolster the presently failing federal ICE policies. Pawlenty, showing his disdain and Draconian view against Minnesota cities, threatened, in his new policy, to derail state funds, earmarked for Minnesota cities, if they do not take on the federal immigration enforcement duties. These Minnesota cities are already hard-pressed for financial resources. Pawlenty's new policy forces city resources to be spent on a job that is consstitutionally defined to be performed by the federal government instead of using the badly needed resources for fixing the crumbling state transportation system (until 6 Republicans overrode Pawlenty's veto as another poster above mentioned) and providing the uninsured population with health care in a struggling job market. This new policy has Pawlenty's administrative office being the determining factor for which cities meet Pawlenty's Draconian requirements.

--Under Pawlenty's mantle of deception, Minnesota taxpayers are now forced to pay a 30-40% increase in property and home taxes while the housing market is crumbling around the middle and lower class. Minnesota has a billion dollar deficit which shows the result of Pawlenty's feed the wealthy tax policies. Pawlenty's tax policies tax the poor and ignore home foreclosures which are at the highest rate ever recorded in Minnesota. No doubt the state deficit is due to Pawlenty's fixation to provide a billionaire public funding rather than providing for the needs of the middle and lower classes. Pawlenty forced his weight, as Governor, to assure a 700 million dollar public loan to a white billionaire (although Pawlenty refuses the colored owner a stadium and claims there isn't any way he can get a stadium - now or later) when Native Americans, in northern Minnesota, are restricted in their ability to buy, sell, and travel.

--Under Pawlenty's mantle of deception, Pawlenty's administration refuses to accept Native American I.D. as a primary form of identification by ignoring Minnesota law, thereby, disabling Natives from obtaining passports and transacting business in Minnesota. Small business owners, in morthern Minnesota, have informed the news media and this poster, that state, county, and city ordinances dictate what business software they must use. The state dictated software does not have an option to input a Native American I.D. card number, but the software has the ability to input foreign I.D.. I reached the Governor, during a talk show, and the Governor promised me that he would get back to me on the Tribal ID issue, but it's been months, and he has never responded as promised.

--Under Pawlenty's mantle of deception, Pawlenty appointed a prosecutor (Sheri Schluchter) to a state district court judge position where I live. In Schluchter's most infamous case, she went witch hunting after a Native American Roy Martin. According to the Northern Herald News, Schluchter had Martin charged with an alleged assault notwithstanding 1) That Martin did not fit the description that the victim gave which defined a young white man. 2) That Martin's wife said that Martin was in bed with her at the time of the assault. 3) That Martin, a disabled man, could not have used the escape route that police determined was used by the assailant. 4) That the victim had seen and exchanged greatings with Martin and his wife, at a restaurant, after the assault but did not recognize Martin as her assailant.

But, Schluchter had Martin in jail for about 7 months until a jury, hearing the evidence, took about 2 hours to fully acquit Martin of any involvement in the crime. During Martin's incarceration, the police were provided with the identity of another suspect that fit the description given by the victim and whose modus operandi fit the crime. This information was ignored as the concentration was on an effort "witch hunt effort" to convict the Native American whether he was guilty or not.

It seems, Pawlenty continues to hide under the mantle of deception of being a social conservative Governor, but under closer examination, when his actions and his policies are reviewed, the contempt for the middle and lower class and Native Americans is clear. One could look at Pawlenty's behavior and policies as catamount to racial and financial bias.

Posted by: gouldnen | March 29, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

jack13 I have been out of lawschool for 30 years and know precisely who my Dean, law school professors and adjunct profs were. It surprises me that you either don t know oe refuse to accept that that is precisely what Sen Obama was, an adjunct prof that maybe taught one class per week. Big Whoop. And that is precisely why I won t support him I don t want an adjunct law achool prof with a few terms in the Ill State Senate and a few years in the Sen as my pres. That is fine if you think being an adjunct prof counts for anything. I wouldn t even say that much less about the Dean of my oaw school which Obama wasn t

And today Sen Obama compares himself to Repubs Reagan and George H. And you have the audacity to say Hillary is campaiging as a Repub

'I wish the media would pay more attention to the fact that huge numbers of Republicans and swapping their affiliation to Democrat just to vote for Clinton cos'

Posted by: leichtman | March 29, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

kant1 -

I used to suspect that svreader's real name is Howard Wolfson -- but he's smarter and more articulate. Anyway, I've often wondered the same thing: does this person have a life?

Posted by: jac13 | March 29, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

svreader,

You seem to spend all your time posting absolute nonsense about Obama. Don't you have anything better to do, like earning a living? If you are typical of Clinton supporters, no wonder she has lost the pledged delegates, popular votes as well as the most states in the Union and is counting on superdelegates to win!

Posted by: kant1 | March 29, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Chris, I presume that your "backstory" on Casey's endorsement came from the Clinton machine, since you seem to have endorsed positions consistent with theirs of late.

Beware that source, or at least spell-check it: besides the "he," the segment also had a singular "ad" when it should have been plural. Perhaps it had more substantive flaws as well?

Posted by: ahs66 | March 29, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

JayKay -

Very interesting question. I'm an Obama supporter, but although I concede he's had his share of misstatements, exaggerations and omissions, I'm hard pressed to think of one that may have made a difference in a primary or caucus. On the other hand, I wonder how the Dems who voted for HRC in the Ohio primary feel now that it has been revealed that she lied about opposing NAFTA.

I agree with you: an objective analysis and a voter survey would be enlightening.

Posted by: jac13 | March 29, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

And while we are at it - isn't it time to review claims made over the course of the primary to date by both Clinton and Obama?

What claims did Obama camp make and how many of them, when checked, were valid claims?

What claims did the Clinton camp make and how many of them, when checked, were valid claims?

How many misrepresentative claims were made by the Clinton camp, when did they arise and how did they affect voting choices? When these claims were cleared up later, what views did it leave the voters from the States with about the Clinton camp?

I'm asking for no skewed evaluation here, and I'm asking for thorough and weighted evaluation. I'm asking the media to give a clear view of just what has happened to date in this campaign.

Posted by: JayKay2 | March 29, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

I wish the media would pay more attention to the fact that huge numbers of Republicans and swapping their affiliation to Democrat just to vote for Clinton cos they want to try and take out Obama - their stronger opposition. The evidence is there for TX, OH, Missi and also for PA - it will be infecting all future primaries. These people have been quoted multiple times as saying they won't vote for Hillary in November - they are trying to draw this thing out. And here the Democratic party is getting all excited about the expansion of their voter base. Well be excited about some of it, but be warned to be very afraid about a portion of it that is just to be destructive and confuse interpretation of the desire of sincere voters who intend to vote Democratic in November.

Posted by: JayKay2 | March 29, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

leichtman,

You changed the subject. Now that the accusation has been refuted that BHO was wrong in referring to himself as a "law professor," (and I have to say, I'm a lawyer and I really didn't pay attention in law school and don't remember now whether the people who taught me were "lecturers," "senior lecturers," or tenured professors. I always referred to them as law professors), you fall back on an argument that being a law professor doesn't qualify Obama to be president. Who ever said it did? It's just part of his resume, no more, no less.

Anyway, equating his possibly inaccurate reference to his status on the law school faculty with a phony story about ducking sniper fire (something you really can't be unsure about if you've ever been fired at) is -- to quote David Trimble's comment on another of HRC's whoppers -- "a wee bit silly."

Posted by: jac13 | March 29, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Do I see a pattern?

Every time Obama gets another high-profile endorsement, the Hillary Poster Corps goes up on the internet vilifying, ridiculing, or minimizing the endorser. I may have missed it, but I don't recall reading any posts from Obama supporters doing the same thing to her endorsers.

There's a like response when a senior Democrat points out the obvious fact that while HRC continues her scorched-earth campaign, John McCain has a free field to make himself look good, with the MSM too precoccupied with the car crash by the side of the road (the Dem race) to report his gaffes and screw-ups.

The talk about the math is valid. Those people who say it's "tied" seem to be ignoring that since Super Tuesday, Obama's superdelegate count has increased by 5 or 6 for every one added by HRC. Before Feb. 5, HRC's superdelegates were people who assumed she would cruise to the nomination and wanted to be on the winning bandwagon. But her sd total has been stagnant since she didn't knock Obama out on 2/5. Apart from the fact that a 150+ pledged delegate lead is NOT a tie, if the superdelegate alliances after the primaries follow the same pattern they've followed since Super Tuesday, barring some unforeseen calamity (Obama loses NC or gets blown out in IN) Obama will be well over the 2024 he needs for the nomination shortly after the primaries are over and the sd's start declaring.

I used to think the Obama posters' saying Hillary was positioning herself for 2012 was exaggeration. I'm beginning to wonder. Her comment about her and McCain having experience and Obama having a speech was inexcusable, as was Bill's reference to her and McCain as loving their country, pointedly excluding Obama (and, yes, I think it was deliberate; this is Slick Willy, after all). I was relieved to see that her negatives are up big-time (at a time when BHO's should have gone up a lot from the Wright issue), which tells me that the voters get it: she'll do/say anything to win

Here's how I see the wind-down:

I think she'll win in PA, but not by a landslide -- 10 points or so -- and lose by about the same margin in NC. I don't know who will win IN but it will be close either way, and Obama is close to a lock in OR.

The other 6 caucuses and primaries will probably be a wash, with HRC getting a slight advantage from winning PR comfortably.

Bottom line: we'll probably be pretty much where we are now, at the end, EXCEPT she will have had another 8 weeks or so to kneecap Obama and ensure a McCain win in Nov.

Thanks, Hil. Way to preserve your "political viability," to use a phrase your hubby coined during the Vietnam War.

Posted by: jac13 | March 29, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

crt; I asked a very simple question. OK so Sen Obama was an adjunct law school professor. I sure as heck don t want any of my law school prof running for Pres. Naybe for Cty or Dist Judge or D.A. but how in the world if we accept your premise that an adjunct (part time) prof is a prof, does that in any way shape or form give him one oz of qualifications to become the most powerful person in the world. Hillary was actually named by Who's Who in America as a real lawyer as as one of the top 50 litigators in the country but we don t use that lame argument as reason for her to be Pres. You are a lawyer and think that someone equal to your lawschool prof should be the Pres.? That is preposterous and doesn't speak well of your lawschool logic training.

Posted by: leichtman | March 29, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

On Casey, wasn't his pro life support anathema to any candidate hoping to gain national support?

AS to the Wright comments, I don't think BHO's campaign is in touch with white Americans who take offense to any slight to America as unpatriotic just as black Americans take offense to any slight to black America as racist. Neither is true. Unfortunately, for BHO to win, he must be the candidate of all and not just a few. HRC will stay in the race until Rezko is over. BHO owes her a debt of gratitude if he wins the general because everything she raised and then some will be raised maybe not by McCain, but certainly in innuendo on talk radio and by his surrogates.

That all said, Wright is not Obama's pastor, a 'father figure' or his spiritual adviser but a true proxy for his own father. Obama was abandoned by his own deadbeat dad. As much as he may have contributed to his color or culture, he was not there. Didn't Obama's dad die around the time that Obama met Wright. I'm not Freudian, but you could probably do an interesting analysis on this. The bottom line is that Obama will never disown his own dad (Wright). That's why many voters (probably mostly those with single parents who know Obama's history) may be willing to accept that Obama won't disown him as hateful as many of the things he said (most were directed to America, but his slights against others can't be ignored), as they (and the majority of other Americans who either grew up in children of divorced or never married parents or are one relationship removed from it). The analagy between Wright and BHO's grandmother becomees much more understandable not as to the degree of hurt caused by the statements (Wright's anti white, people in power America, grandmother's micro indignities against blacks) but as to two people who substituted for parents who left him in differing ways although his dad's departure would seem much more egregious. It's different than HRC saying she would leave the church if Wright were her pastor. It's not that simple. Wright becomes much more plausible when considered by authentic, imperfect Americans who have their own imperfect families. HRC grew up in a more conventional, intact family. It's no wonder she has difficulty connecting with the pain of working through the issues of having a deadbeat dad and a caring, but still abandoning, mom. See the expose on Obama's dad, as first reported by the London Daily Mail, in http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=59850.

Posted by: BillfromLA | March 29, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

No one objects to a honest and healthy debate, but what they do object to is one based upon lies, smear, distortion -- swiftboating and/or the Tonya Harding, however, Tonya Harding was sent packing in disgrace. And does she have to divide and separate the country by Gender & Race while she is Pressing on to win the top job? This is a New Era -- the Age of Aquarius/Brotherhood. It is about turning the page -- it is the old separative and corrupt politicians vs. the new moral/ethical politicians (I call them the New Age Politicians as they work on building a more holistic and unified society.)

Camp Clinton, is enraged with Barack that people have discovered that Hillary has a "truth" problem, that she got caught telling that horrendous tall tale, "the Bosnian Sniper Fire" story and now everyone knows her true character and the depths she will go to embellish her own persona, and the fact that now people are skeptical to believe anything that she says... However, I am surprised that Andrea Mithcell, who went on that trip with her, never reported that there wasn't any Sniper fire until it became public knowledge, though Hillary had told that story three (3) times, but Andrea does think it is her personal mission to dig up old sermons of Rev. Wright's and expose them to the public. Rev. Wright is no worse than Pat Buchanan who is allowed to make a cushy salary on talk shows while he continually is allowed to speak in ways which introduces fear, separatism and hate within our society, and he has been getting away with it for years! And, if that is not Anti-American, I do not know what is! On these talk shows he says very controversial and racial statements, and all he gets is a pat-on-the back and more air time! He is the very thing he accuses Rev. Wright of and worse. Yet, Rev. Wright's words would be pertienent except for the fact that we are electing a President, Not a Pastor, and those are Rev. Wright's words NOT Barack's, as in the Sniper Fire Story which are Hillary's and Hillary's alone.

Then there is the statement Hillary likes to make "that she would never meet with her enemies", than why did she meet and sit down with her Arch Enemy, Richard Mellon Scaife, to re-introduce the Rev. Wright matter. This is the same Richard Scaife, who accused Hillary and Bill of Vince Foster's murder, 60 murders in all, and was their personal persecutor and devil while they were in the White House and took them on a witch hunt for years, What's that about, what did she really tell him?

In her desire to make Barack look unelectable it seems, instead, the Chickens are Coming Home to Roost.

Posted by: wdsoulplane | March 29, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Another example of Barack Obama misleading the American People.

BY ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON -- Democrat Barack Obama seemed to suggest in an interview aired Friday that his former pastor has acknowledged that his controversial remarks were inappropriate and hurtful, although there are no public accounts of the minister having done so.
Obama discussed his relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright on ABC's ''The View,'' which was taped Thursday and aired Friday.
''Had the reverend not retired and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying there at the church,'' Obama said.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the senator's remarks did not imply that Wright has expressed misgivings about his statements. ''Sen. Obama was clearly saying that were Rev. Wright not retiring, he would need to be assured that Wright understood why what he had said had deeply offended people and mischaracterized the greatness of this country,'' Burton said.
Obama sharply condemned Wright's remarks in a speech last week, but did not leave the church or repudiate the minister himself, who he said was like a family member.
March 29, 2008

Posted by: chersplace | March 29, 2008 8:52 AM | Report abuse

gmundena

If you are supporting Obama, it is not smart to compare Hillary to Hitler.

The similarities between Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler have been mentioned before and they are striking.

They both gave great speeches, talking about change.
They both moved masses of people with their speeches who after the speeches were often unable to tell you what they had actually said.
They both had followers who when asked had no idea what the details were of what they had said was but said they were inspired by the speech.
The both believed one race of people had been held down or damaged by another.
They both had followerss who followed them inspite of evidence that there were questionable aspects to their background.

Posted by: chersplace | March 29, 2008 8:27 AM | Report abuse

JUDAS IS ALIVE, WELL, IN THE U.S. SENATE


WHAT HAPPENED? READ ON:
________________________________
Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate

By MIKE McINTIRE
Published: February 3, 2008 Read complete story at NY Times

When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago upon learning that the Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, the state's freshman senator, Barack Obama, took up their cause.

Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was "the only nuclear legislation that I've passed."

"I just did that last year," he said, to murmurs of approval.

A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story.

While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.

Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama's comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate.

The history of the bill shows Mr. Obama navigating a home-state controversy that pitted two important constituencies against each other and tested his skills as a legislative infighter. On one side were neighbors of several nuclear plants upset that low-level radioactive leaks had gone unreported for years; on the other was Exelon, the country's largest nuclear plant operator and one of Mr. Obama's largest sources of campaign money.
___________________

So the Lobbyist becomes a fund raiser, then milks workers in the industry to contribute to the campaign....no footprint of Lobbyist!

We are American Democrats, and we are NOT STUPID OBAMA....we want a real candidate, NOT A SYMBOL OF ANY KIND

And, yes, Casey is eager to hide in the Obama hiders camp..he is in trouble in PA

Posted by: accountability_in_gov | March 29, 2008 8:12 AM | Report abuse

JUDAS IS ALIVE, WELL, IN THE U.S. SENATE


WHAT HAPPENED? READ ON:
________________________________
Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate

By MIKE McINTIRE
Published: February 3, 2008 Read complete story at NY Times

When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago upon learning that the Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, the state's freshman senator, Barack Obama, took up their cause.

Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was "the only nuclear legislation that I've passed."

"I just did that last year," he said, to murmurs of approval.

A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story.

While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.

Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama's comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate.

The history of the bill shows Mr. Obama navigating a home-state controversy that pitted two important constituencies against each other and tested his skills as a legislative infighter. On one side were neighbors of several nuclear plants upset that low-level radioactive leaks had gone unreported for years; on the other was Exelon, the country's largest nuclear plant operator and one of Mr. Obama's largest sources of campaign money.
___________________

So the Lobbyist becomes a fund raiser, then milks workers in the industry to contribute to the campaign....no footprint of Lobbyist!

We are American Democrats, and we are NOT STUPID OBAMA....we want a real candidate, NOT A SYMBOL OF ANY KIND

Posted by: accountability_in_gov | March 29, 2008 8:02 AM | Report abuse

The real reason Hillary Clinton will never be President is because she is a co-conspirator with Bush, starting the Iraq War. When the country needed leadership, she was to busy covering her ass and triangulating her way to a run for the White House. The blood of thousands drip from her hands, regardless of how she mis-remembers her support for the war. Sort of like how she mis-remembers her trip to the Balkans. The only thing more pathetic then this mean spirited beeotch, are the morons who still support her.

Vote for McCain? She is McCain.

Obama 08

Posted by: Rubiconski | March 29, 2008 7:51 AM | Report abuse

Add to my 03:49 AM Post. Ohio and Pa. are needed for the Dems to win in 2008. The thing I find almost unbelievable is that California [YES] and New York [YES] COULD be lost if Obama is the nominee. My reasoning and DATA supporting this is the high number of Hispanic, Catholic, and Jewish voters that have been so disparaged by his Mentor/Pastor the Rev J. Wright., who has retired and disappeared at the most convenient moment.

Posted by: lylepink | March 29, 2008 5:07 AM | Report abuse

Another super whose going to lose sleep at night, fearful of things going south for Obama.

Posted by: autowx | March 29, 2008 4:27 AM | Report abuse

to all persons trying to belittle obamas academic achievments answer why hrc flunked the bar exam after graduating from wellesley and later took her exam in arkansas, afar less pretigiousstate ,

Posted by: kmcksf | March 29, 2008 4:14 AM | Report abuse

By calling for the candidate who will ultimately have the majority vote, Clinton, to drop out while their preferred candidate is ahead, the leaders have officially re-christened their party "The Anti-Democratic Party". Congratulations! Shame on you, especially after Florida 2000, for trying to stop the vote.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | March 29, 2008 4:14 AM | Report abuse

Again, I will ask--"Why are so many Dems Hell bent on destroying any chance of winning back the WH in 2008, by their support of Obama??". Any and all reasonable [Non-Partisan] DATA shows Obama CANNOT win the GE. I have gone over the Electoral College Map again this past hour and can only come up with less than 200 for Obama. I have done this several times in the past weeks and think 209 was the best I could find. My state, WV, favors Hillary by a 2 to 1 popular vote margin as best as I can determine. More to follow.

Posted by: lylepink | March 29, 2008 3:49 AM | Report abuse

ndolan662 --

I only post here.

This isn't a high-school football game.

This is the most serious decision any of us can make regarding our government.

Why don't you try reading my posts?

I'll do the same with yours.

The goal for all of us should be to make the best decision possible.

I'm not afraid of the truth.

You shouldn't be either.

Our country is more important than our candidates.

Our future, and that of our children depends on all of us making the most informed choice possible.

We all have the same goal.

None of us should ever lose sight of that.

Posted by: svreader | March 29, 2008 3:34 AM | Report abuse

crt12 --

I'm about to turn in for the night.

Why don't you read this before jumping to Barry's defense.

I know a lot more about him than you do.

Click the link at the bottom of this post and you'll see what kind of guy he really is.

If Obama's guaranteed to lose the national electon, it would be foolish for Democrats to nominate him, regardless of what the current vote totals are.

The more we find out about Obama, the more we find that his "accomplishments" aren't his at all, but that he was given credit for the work done by others to make him look far more impressive than he actually is.

Obama is like a "Potemkin Village"

He looks good on the surface, but there's nothing behind it.

He's spent his entire political career running for office, and strong-arming people into putting his name on bills he never even did any work on.

The WP says so themselves in their recent article.

The NYT says "big image, little results"

All this will come out before the general election.

As will the truth about how his negligence led to people who voted for him freezing in slums in his district that Rezko, and in the rest of Chicago, that Rezko got $100M to repair, but never touched.

He can't win the general election.

But he can cause Democrats to lose it.

Everyone interested in the Presidential election should read the article that there's a link to at the bottom of this message.

Its from a Chicago reporter who's known Obama since the beginning of his career and has followed Obama's career ever since then.

The take-home message is that Obama is a total fraud, a manufactured product of the chicago politicial machine.

It tells about him stealing credit for bills he never worked when he was in Chicago, just like he did in Washington.

It talks about "Obama's Slums" and fact that Barry didn't care one bit about the people who elected him.

Its about the fact that Chicago Barry Obama is the one of the most clever con-men in the world and the biggest fraud that's been put over on the American public since Bush.

Its filled with facts about Obama from someone who has known him for years.

The title's cute. Obama isn't. He's a fraud.

http://news.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/

Posted by: svreader | March 29, 2008 3:29 AM | Report abuse

Does anyone here saying Michigan and Florida were "cheated" know the sequence of events that led to the two state's delegations not being seated?

Can anyone here saying Michigan and Florida were "cheated" explain why Hillary Clinton didn't say anything about the status of those two states until AFTER Super Tuesday?

Can anyone here saying Michigan and Florida were "cheated" explain why, when questioned why her name was still on the Michigan ballot, Hillary stated that it was the error of an aide who was supposed to take the proper steps to remove her name, but didn't file the proper paperwork in the proper timeframe, and how that squares with her comments on the situation now?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Didn't think so.

Posted by: critter69 | March 29, 2008 01:10 AM

Ahh she went to Florida the night of the election.

You are a cult member but I will try and respond in a way I would a thinking adult.

The reasons the Dels were taken away is to take the "bounce away". Mac got it in Florida but Hill did not. Everyone thought that there would be a winner and then the dels would be seated - they would be counted but not - count (following). There are 2 more chances for them to be seated by party rules - It looks like Dean is going to have 'control' of the first chance. A-hole Obama F up not letting Michigan re-vote. Now if Michigan gets seated as is Hillary is going to get a lot of dels. He needs Michigan to win the GE so does not want to antagonize them even more. It is not such a bad state for him so he would not have lost many dels < 10.

This could have been avoided if Obama let Michigan re-vote and not gloat like an A$$. Florida could have just gotten half there dels and they could battle over supers.

Posted by: mul | March 29, 2008 3:07 AM | Report abuse

I've noticed svreader on several sites, also. Many of us simply decided to ignore svreader. Sounds too much like Clintonease...everyone else is wrong and I'm right. Can't have intelligent discussion with someone like that...too angry and self-absorbed for actual discussion...so not worth the trip.

Posted by: ndolan622 | March 29, 2008 2:28 AM | Report abuse

svreader, you've managed something a bit unheard of for me--I'm swearing off an otherwise intelligent comment board because of one commenter.

Here's my final response.

You've chosen not to deal with the evidence I presented to show your attack as complete bunk. You haven't said one thing about why one wouldn't consider being in the company of those judges a profound accomplishment. Instead, you've tacked. Your tack now is that he's not published.

I know how much work goes into publishing an article in a law review. I am published in one.

Nevertheless, the job of a law professor is not necessarily to write articles. Again, I know because my career depends on the job that professors did raising me to be a lawyer, and many that did quite well at their charge are not publishing hounds. Many are, but that's beside the point.

The job of a law professor is to teach young lawyers the law. Schools created for the same purpose use a wide variety of professorial ranks to achieve a well-rounded education. In my three years in law school, I had tenured and tenure track professors that sauntered down from their offices to wax philosophical about federal jurisdiction, adjunct profs that came in after a long day of depos to work over trial technique, local judges that schedule motion hearings around their ethics lecture, visiting professors from Harvard who were working on a whim, and so on. They all did their job, and I'm at least a serviceable attorney today because of it. Some are more honored than others. Here's the simple fact--Senior Lecturer at Chicago Law is just one of those ranks of professors, and it happens to be a very prestigious one. Don't dodge the evidence I presented that proves this point, and don't point to Obama not being an ivory-tower professor because he was too busy having a real job as some sort of discrediting point.

By the way, I'm really sick of your ominous portends about how he let people freeze to death and we don't know the real him. That's not political argument. That's sensationalism. You sound like an old man at a bus stop. Just saying.

Posted by: crt12 | March 29, 2008 2:26 AM | Report abuse

Why should we care one iota if Sen Obama was a law school prof. Whoopie that makes him qualified to be President, we are really impressed with that qualification. He was probably an adjunct profes we had lots at my law school who taught one class a week, Big Deal is that the best you have.

And to get it straight, Begalla and George Stephanopholous(in his book) claim Gov Casey was refused a speaking role because he refused to endorse the nominee Bill Clinton.

And Bob Casey had to make his endorsement now because he fully knows that the endorsement after Pa votes for Hillary would lookjust as ridiculous and hypocritical as the cynical Obama endorsements by Kerry, Kennedy an Richardson,of the campaign that disenguinely insists that superdelegates vote exactly the way as their state, of course unless they support Sen Obama. The Audacity of Cynicism.

Posted by: leichtman | March 29, 2008 2:01 AM | Report abuse

we flew into the tarmac at Tuzla after one of those corkscrew landings, the kind you get when you drink too much champagne. Audi Murphy was there. He told me to run for the cars. When I got to the cars, they wer all locked. I knocked on the doors. The people inside were all laughing at me . Then I recognized the faces . It was Harry Reid and Chris Dodd and Teddy Kennedy and Bob Casey. I tried to get them to open the door but they wouldn't .I went to another car and it was Pat Leahy and Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean. The doors were locked to that one also. I knocked and then I see Obama was in there with them. I went to a third car and I beat on the doors and yelled "there's sniper fire out here. Let me in." The window rolled down and it was Jack Webb. He said"JUst the facts Ma'am." It was an awful nightmare.

Posted by: majorteddy | March 29, 2008 1:26 AM | Report abuse

a_bignone,

i bet i know what the 'a' stands for ... and i note your first name is not 'headley.'

As they say in Spanish, the truth hurts, but it doesn't offend.

Please take those meds.

You are embarrassing yourself.

Seriously.

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | March 29, 2008 1:19 AM | Report abuse

Does anyone here saying Michigan and Florida were "cheated" know the sequence of events that led to the two state's delegations not being seated?

Can anyone here saying Michigan and Florida were "cheated" explain why Hillary Clinton didn't say anything about the status of those two states until AFTER Super Tuesday?

Can anyone here saying Michigan and Florida were "cheated" explain why, when questioned why her name was still on the Michigan ballot, Hillary stated that it was the error of an aide who was supposed to take the proper steps to remove her name, but didn't file the proper paperwork in the proper timeframe, and how that squares with her comments on the situation now?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Didn't think so.

Posted by: critter69 | March 29, 2008 1:10 AM | Report abuse

Maybe CNN got the drift that their coverage is less than adequate, ie. counting votes in elections, is newsworthy, but no one in the media seems to care about counting the votes in 2008?

Tonight they aired a segment on the MI Legislature, interviewing several Obama supporters who helped kill the revote there.

One of the legislators said, "He had no problem sleeping at night, " and after all they were leading, something to that effect.

The other legislator was less blatantly
in-your-face and said something to the effect that they were just doing what was lawfully right.

It made me think of the Abolitionists and Feminists who fought together for the right to vote, for over one hundred years, eventually changing the constitution, giving both women and African Americans equal rights.

The Legislators did not view the process of impeding votes as anything to be ashameed of because of course, as one of the Legislators conveyed they were winning.

These legislators made a decision to negate other people's votes based on their support for a particular candidate.

If you recall the 2000 election, the media reported widespread voting violations in black communities, where blacks were turned away and weren't allowed to vote. So-called voter identification rules, and out right harrassment were some of the hindrances.

How history will view this deliberate prevention of the right to vote will reflect on Barack Obama, the candidate and the DNC, for their obvious bias and their unfair and inept handling of the process to seat delegates and count votes-- to make sure voters are not disenfranchised.

One can only wonder what the Democrats in the up-coming states are thinking: their party wants to take away their right to vote for the candidate of their choice. Their party wants to choose the candidate.


It's the outrage of 2008 Election.

Posted by: vammap | March 29, 2008 12:42 AM | Report abuse

U Chicago issued a statement today confirming that Obama was a professor.

svreader (Bill sitting around in his underwear) lies.

Posted by: ajacobs | March 29, 2008 12:30 AM | Report abuse

U Chicago issued a statement today confirming that Obama was a professor.

svreader (Bill sitting around in his underwear) lies.

Posted by: ajacobs | March 29, 2008 12:30 AM | Report abuse

"Regardless of the reasons, Casey's endorsement makes today a good one for Obama in Pennsylvania. And, it meets one more superdelegate for the Illinois Senator."

Not necessarily, Chris. According to Mr. Obama's own argument, the will of the voters should decide the race. If the voters of Pennsylvania throw their support to Senator Clinton, then the voters have made clear whom they support. Now, Casey can do what Deval Patrick has vowed to do and disregard the will of the voters in his own state, but he does so at his own peril. See, the voters will never forget either. And come next election, both Patrick and Casey may be headed back to the Board room instead of Washington or the Corner Office.

Posted by: tfburke19 | March 29, 2008 12:27 AM | Report abuse

Mr Casey seems to hold some animosity towards our former president. No french kiss an make up for the good of the party! I think not. Anyway Hillary is the one who suffers and the BOMB-A-DIKES RALLY on. Mrs. Obama - Jessie Jackson - Big Al Sharpton - Rev Wright all in the sound of silence. Perhaps bound and gagged. So the people bowed and prayed to the neon man they made But a sign put out its warning "It aint over till it's over.

Posted by: jfisher23 | March 28, 2008 11:42 PM | Report abuse

Bob Casey is a pro-life Democrat whose family has had a grudge against the Clintons since 1992 because they didn't want Casey's father speaking at the convention about baby killings liberals.

Casey endorses Obama, who voted in Illinois for partial birth abortions.

Another Obama hypocrisy which will come back to haunt the Dems in the Fall.

It just keeps getting worse for the Dems.

Posted by: dyend | March 28, 2008 11:41 PM | Report abuse

It seems all of you YOUNG voters go off foaming at the mouth about Sen. Obama and Sen Clinton when most of you don't know squat about politics. The reason Sen. Casey's father's dust up with the Democratic Party and with Bill Clinton as the nominee was that Casey--the father-- is a devout Catholic WHO IS ANTI-ABORTION and he insisted on making remarks at the convention that was against the party's stance on the issue - which was PRO-CHOICE- as was Bill Clinton the Democratic nominee. The party leaders in charge of the platform and the sppech's at the convention asked Gov. Casey to moderate his remarks and not cause an upheavel at the convention that would start an unneeded fight at the convention. The Dem. leaders and then Gov. Clinton ALL tried very hard to move Gov. Casey to a more nuansed stance--Gov. Casey would NOT BUDGE and demanded that he be able to give his speedch to the whole convention. The Dem. leaders and Gov. Clinton could not move Gov. Casey from his stance and insisted he give the speech with the anti-abortion comments prominent in the speech. The leaders and party officials then had no choice but to take him off the list of speakers. They felt Gov. Casey's stubborn stance would be destructive to the party's chance of winning the election--which THEY DID!! There came a time after the convention THAT GOV. CASEY did give the speech BUT at a different venue. As to the endorsement today of the current Sen Casey--he is and ran for election as an anti-abortion candidate. He is Roman Catholic and is certainly allowed to follow his religious beliefs- but he handled this issue a lot better than his father. It could be that his opponent-Sen Santorum--also a breast beating anti-abortion supporter--was easier for Sen. Casey to fineese the issue. The question is how does this ANTI- ABORTION STANCE FIT IN WITH SEN OBAMA'S well known PRO CHOICE stance? A PRO CHOICE candidate--Sen. Obama--accepting the endorsement of a well known ANTI ABORTION Senator. IT DOES SEEM THAT ELECTIONS FOR PRESIDENT DOES MAKE STRANGE BEDFELLOWS!!! I guess he'll accept this endorsment and make some idiotic explanation JUST LIKE HE DID WITH THE REVEREND BIGOT!!!! This man HAS NO CORE!! When will he stand up for something important and tell the truth!!!!

Posted by: vergens2 | March 28, 2008 11:23 PM | Report abuse

how about let's look at the books for

Halliburton
Bechtel
KBR
DynCorp
Blackwater
Carlyle Group????

you repulsive scammers posing as democrats

it won't happen if you don't elect Hillary, 'cause the bama saying it don't mattah


you know after Nixon was ousted in the 70's


everyone wanted someone that wasn't crooked and had no Washington D.C. connections...

listen closely, no Washington D.C. connections or understanding translates to


no support.


Jimmy Carter was a great thinker, and ahead of his time in working towards peace. He was the antithesis of a war monger. He didn't fit in with the Washington D.C. Military Industrial Complex, though he had been a commander of a submarine and had a degree in engineering.


He thought that because he had been elected President that people in Washington would treat him special, and with respect.


they didn't.


I don't want to waste four years with Obama finding out that it takes more than rhetoric to survive and get things done. And a democratic congress made up of elitists forging for thier own class isn't much better than a repulsive scammer congress....spending every dime on themselves.


Obama, hasn't faced what it takes to be president in these transitory times. Slamming the one person willing to address "today," as a person living in the past shows


his ignorance.


. look HERE, at this GOP disguised as a DEMOCRAT !!!!!


doing the BS link, or "appeal to emotion as it is popularly called...


Martinedwspinningandersen wrote:

Clinton-Spitzer '08,
Laissez Les Bon Temps Roulez!!!

so how are Hillary and Spitzer linked again....in fact ???? there is no link ??? then why are you trying to link them ??


and calling Ralph Nader a neocon ??? how stupid are you...

SO AMERICA, are you getting the truth from guys like MEA

or is that just the way you're being led ???


and I'm not talking morality, I'm talking shear ignorance...


they bell the ram to lead the sheep to slaughter...I see a lot of sheep

ple


. is that a bell on O baaaaaaaaaa baaaaaaaaa mans neck ???


.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 28, 2008 10:55 PM | Report abuse

oh,

here's that a major teddy article I was looking for:

Voice of the White House February 28, 2005
TBR News.org February 28, 2005

"An absolute non-issue with the American print and TV media is the control by very powerful gays of the top policy levels of the White House. Growingly pointed comments inside the Beltway social clubs, homes and watering places about Karl Rove's "good friend" 'Jeff Gannon' are being very thoroughly ignored by the mainline press.

There are two reasons for this crashing silence. One is the fact that a large number of powerful and wealthy Republicans are gay and do not want their wives and children to discover that they put on leather underwear and spend their spare time at the Eagle over on New York Avenue or getting rough trade action at the Crew Club. Fat Karl Rove was seen by one of my people entering a private homosexual orgy at a five-star Washington hotel over the Mid-Atlantic Leather (MAL) weekend last year. All the self-hating loyal Republican gays at the no-pants party, many of them Senatorial aides and military types, of course pretended they didn't recognize him, and who can blame them - imagine how repulsive Fat Karl must look without his clothes. The report that came back was that Fat Karl greatly enjoyed the supervision of a certain hairy 350-lb.

Leather Dominator, who had won the

Miss Virginia Daddy Bear

title at the MAL festivities.

Karl used hang out at JR's, which is on 17th between P&S, before he became so well-known. This is a "respectable" gay bar for discreet people who do not wear mesh panties, high-heeled pumps and wear terrible wigs. How many people know about these activities? In Washington, a hell of a lot of the prominent. But very few of them dare to open their mouths because of their own small problems.


.small problems.


Obama Accuses Clinton of Deception ?????

tax records???? wow is it APRIL 15th already...this is serious, I've lost a whole month...FOAD


how about let's look at the books for

Halliburton
Bechtel
KBR
DynCorp
Blackwater
Carlyle Group????

you repulsive scammers posing as democrats don't want AMERICANS to catch on..

GETTING RID OF CORRUPITON, won't happen if you don't elect Hillary RODthem CLINTON as your next PRESIDENT, 'cause the baaaaaa man saying it don't mattah,


it duh past.....


and it's his future, if he's elected. Because the people that have been in charge of most of Washington for the past 60 years,


are in control now...


but they CAN BE REMOVED, by someone that can see them...


don't see 'em. No chance to remove 'em.

Ralph Nader doesn't have a position,


he's a consumer advocate.


Martin Ed'sSPIN hinderson is a ROVIAN sponsor and disbursor of dishonesty...


he's a little pink boy...a Jeff Gannon playmate.


.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 28, 2008 10:50 PM | Report abuse

Here's how Hillary might be able to win my vote:

Hillary needs to tell me why she is the best candidate and I should vote FOR her. Enough of the trash-throwing. Enough of the dirty politics. Enough of the snide comments.

She could have told me how she differs from McCain, and why a Clinton presidency would be better for America than McCain's proposal to continue tax breaks for the rich only, continue our occupation of Iraq. She also could have explained to me how she would be better at getting health care to all Americans, not just a "My plan is better than anyone else's plan".

This past month has seen her go further and further away from telling me why she is the best candidate. She has not given me a single reason to support her.

Prior to this past month, I could have been an enthusiastic supporter if she were the nominee, even contributing to her campaign, both time and money. Her actions of the past month have turned me off to her. I will support the Democratic nominee in the voting booth in November, but if it is Clinton, I will almost certainly hold my nose as I vote for her - the old "who is less worse, candidate A or candidate B?" conundrum.

And even then, if Mark Penn is still one of her campaign advisers (IF she is the nominee), I still might not vote for her.

Posted by: critter69 | March 28, 2008 10:50 PM | Report abuse

Webster51,

I second the emotion.

SVreader is truly a "Bush"-league Clinton.

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | March 28, 2008 10:47 PM | Report abuse

svreader,,,why dont you give it up....you put these long "supposedly" posts on here...many of which are lies...and you yourself have lied many times on here...are you related to Hillary???????

Posted by: Webster51 | March 28, 2008 10:42 PM | Report abuse

DISPATCHES FROM THE GROUND WAR ...

RALPH NADER, GOP'S BEST FRIEND ON LEFT, URGES HILLARY TO STAY IN THE RACE ...

Politico.com reports that on his web site today, Nader had a little advice for Hillary Clinton.

Senator Clinton: Just read where Senator Patrick Leahy is calling on you to drop out of the Presidential race. Believe me. I know something about this.

Here's my advice: Don't listen to people when they tell you not to run anymore. That's just political bigotry. Listen to your own inner citizen First Amendment voice. This is America. Just like every other citizen, you have a right to run. Whenever you like. For as long as you like.

It's up to you, Hillary. Just tell them - It's democracy. Get used to it. Yours truly, Ralph Nader

THE AUDACITY OF VANITY ...

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | March 28, 2008 10:37 PM | Report abuse

false democrat


lylepink...notice the linkage to "pink" it's a code word for white house...as in code pink

why do republicans hate america so?


they don't, they're simply put _ignorant_ of their effect.

they don't care about you or their eefects on the world.

because you're not real to them, they haven't encountered you...in some centuries. Do you think bush was feeling for the men and women dying in Vietnam? How could he, no one in his class was _over there_....Rummy Cheyney?


in a certain sense it is "business as usual,"


_they_

are old fashioned rulers.

They rule by ruleset, not by understanding what is happening.

Their words, and actions reflect a lack of appreciation or deeper understanding of what the world is going through...as a whole.

The prattling about democracy for Iraq as Africa is busy going up in flames and aids, and we sell them arms to further inflame their tribal wars....

the thoughtlessness, is evident in that they didn't realize that what the administration was saying was an _obvious_ lie, in light of what was going on in the rest of the world.

The mindset that they have and use is _inherited_.

It's olde European manipulation of wealth by the wealthy...they're not even American in a way...they are Stuarts...royalty. Bush Sr's uncle was part of the West Indies Spice company, which is multiple centuries old and why Poppy was involved with CIA in trying to depose Castro...in the early 50's...family business...not United States.


Rupert Murdoch is of the same molde even if he's newly rich...Austrailian owner of the media who attempted to monopolize it about 10 years ago...all he got was FOX and some others but not controlling interest in World media...they stopped that in California, as he tried to buy up several newspapers and some newscasting agencies.

Newer minds, unfettered by class belief, can see the effects that deals have on "the people," because in an enclosed society...one that has reached it's borders, we affect each other.


For the olde rich, the inherited,

part of the mindset is _they_ "the people" are not of our class and we are not affected by _them_ "the people."


ANY engineer can tell you that all parts of a ecological system affect each other.

Hell Heisenbergs uncertainy principle, tells you that.

.

this is like shooting fish in a barrel...


I would imagine that the repulsive scammers have infiltrated both camps and are ratcheting things up whilst the Obamanauts and the Hillary crowd try and make sense of it...


there is none. republicans have no character, no morality, and no agendae except to control


how do you identify a republican on these boards, find the people attributing those traits to Hillary.

and Bill


"bash the Clintons !!!"


has been the rushing limp bought's and Karls kid Goebbels ROVE's agendae for the last 16 years...


expect to see it continue until bush, rove, cheney, gonzales, libby, rumsfeld, baker, rice, eliot abrams, otto reich, wolfowitz, goss, negroponte, mcconnel, feith, kristol, krauthammer, perle, and others


are imprisoned for treasonous conduct....

and their sentences executed.

.

you don't understand the past, the land you're building your house on...


could be a problem, children don't want to plan for a trip...


they got a mom and dad to take care of them...


who gonna take care of you all?

the bama? right.


uh hummmmmm shure he know all 'bout it....he been there done thet


ummmmmmmmmm hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

ha ha hah ahhhahahhahha right.


.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 28, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

this is hilarious. i just watched the pastor of ebenezer baptist church say that rev. wright preached against materialism. meanwhile we find out he paid 345000 for two lots,sells them to his church,the money paid goes into a trust fund for the pastor,the church takes out a 10000000 line of credit,builds a new 1600000 house for wright using money from the credit line. what a bunch of hooey. he must have taken real estate lessons from obama in exchange for the great spiritual insights about white people.

Posted by: 12thgenamerican | March 28, 2008 10:29 PM | Report abuse

MENTAL HEALTH QUARANTINE

SVREADER, SERIAL PREVARIACATOR, IS AT IT AGAIN.

DON'T READ, DON'T RESPOND.

TOXIC TOUCH MAKES YOU THINK UP IS DOWN AND RIGHT IS LEFT, AND THAT HILLARY IS SINCERE AND ESCHEWS HEAVY HANDEDNESS.

HIS LIBELS AGAINST BARACK OBAMA ARE FREQUENTLY MIXED WITH HIS CLAIM HIS HERO HILLARY IS THINKING OF TAKING THE FRONTRUNNER AS HER RUNNING MATE.

CAVEAT EMPTOR.

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | March 28, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has the same attitude that Hitler had just before the end: Without me, the nation deserves to fall. After me, there will be no more.

She'll engineer an electoral knife fight on the convention floor in Denver before stepping aside. The party and the country desperately need to exorcise her.

Posted by: gmundenat | March 28, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

I have been the strongest supporter, and still am, of Hillary on "The Fix" since this race began. I have checked Polls, News/Talk TV shows, Newspaper/Magazine Articles, and other Blogs all over the Internet, and there is so much FALSE Information being put out about how Hillary has no chance . I am not a math whiz, but neither has the required number, AT THIS TIME, of Delegates going into the Convention to be the nominee. My question still remains--"Why are so many Dems Hell bent and willing to destroy the Party's chance of winning the WH in 2008 because of the "Envy/Jealous" Factor, or the "HATE" Factor that is now becoming more apparent on a daily basis. All "Common Sense" Analysis I have seen clearly show, IMHO, there is no way Obama can win the GE. I will check back to see if anyone can give me a plausible answer.

Posted by: lylepink | March 28, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

"Liberal Timothy McVay" friend can not win. Supporter of domestic terrorist Dorhn and Ayres can not be trusted (http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/22/15723/1610).

Liberal terrorist and their supporter like Obama has encouraged conservative terrorist like Timothy McVay.

American will not vote for cold hearted killers and their surrogates.

Vote smart. Vote to win.

Stop those who prevent others from voting and only try to win through liberal gang politics in unwinnable red states.

Posted by: SeedofChange | March 28, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

mvers --

Obama's lies are far worse!

From DD --

Just Embellished Words: Senator Obama's Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements

Once again, the Obama campaign is getting caught saying one thing while doing another. They are personally attacking Hillary even though Sen. Obama has been found mispeaking and embellishing facts about himself more than ten times in recent months. Senator Obama's campaign is based on words -not a record of deeds - and if those words aren't backed up by facts, there's not much else left.

"Senator Obama has called himself a constitutional professor, claimed credit for passing legislation that never left committee, and apparently inflated his role as a community organizer among other issues. When it comes to his record, just words won't do. Senator Obama will have to use facts as well," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said.

Sen. Obama consistently and falsely claims that he was a law professor. The Sun-Times reported that, "Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." In academia, there's a significant difference: professors have tenure while lecturers do not. [Hotline Blog, 4/9/07; Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/04]

Obama claimed credit for nuclear leak legislation that never passed. "Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was 'the only nuclear legislation that I've passed.' 'I just did that last year,' he said, to murmurs of approval. A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks. Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama's comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate." [New York Times, 2/2/08]

Obama misspoke about his being conceived because of Selma. "Mr. Obama relayed a story of how his Kenyan father and his Kansan mother fell in love because of the tumult of Selma, but he was born in 1961, four years before the confrontation at Selma took place. When asked later, Mr. Obama clarified himself, saying: 'I meant the whole civil rights movement.'" [New York Times, 3/5/07]

LA Times: Fellow organizers say Sen. Obama took too much credit for his community organizing efforts. "As the 24-year-old mentor to public housing residents, Obama says he initiated and led efforts that thrust Altgeld's asbestos problem into the headlines, pushing city officials to call hearings and a reluctant housing authority to start a cleanup. But others tell the story much differently. They say Obama did not play the singular role in the asbestos episode that he portrays in the best-selling memoir 'Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.' Credit for pushing officials to deal with the cancer-causing substance, according to interviews and news accounts from that period, also goes to a well-known preexisting group at Altgeld Gardens and to a local newspaper called the Chicago Reporter. Obama does not mention either one in his book." [Los Angeles Times, 2/19/07]

Chicago Tribune: Obama's assertion that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing 'strains credulity.' "...Obama has been too self-exculpatory. His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004 -- more than a year before the adjacent home and property purchases by the Obamas and the Rezkos." [Chicago Tribune editorial, 1/27/08]

Obama was forced to revise his assertion that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House.' "White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was forced to revise a critical stump line of his on Saturday -- a flat declaration that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House' after it turned out his own written plan says they could, with some restrictions... After being challenged on the accuracy of what he has been saying -- in contrast to his written pledge -- at a news conference Saturday in Waterloo, Obama immediately softened what had been his hard line in his next stump speech." [Chicago Sun-Times, 12/16/07]

FactCheck.org: 'Selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers pump up Obama's health plan.' "Obama's ad touting his health care plan quotes phrases from newspaper articles and an editorial, but makes them sound more laudatory and authoritative than they actually are. It attributes to The Washington Post a line saying Obama's plan would save families about $2,500. But the Post was citing the estimate of the Obama campaign and didn't analyze the purported savings independently. It claims that "experts" say Obama's plan is "the best." "Experts" turn out to be editorial writers at the Iowa City Press-Citizen - who, for all their talents, aren't actual experts in the field. It quotes yet another newspaper saying Obama's plan "guarantees coverage for all Americans," neglecting to mention that, as the article makes clear, it's only Clinton's and Edwards' plans that would require coverage for everyone, while Obama's would allow individuals to buy in if they wanted to." [FactCheck.org, 1/3/08]

Sen. Obama said 'I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage,' but Obama health care legislation merely set up a task force. "As a state senator, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to pass legislation insuring 20,000 more children. And 65,000 more adults received health care...And I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage." The State Journal-Register reported in 2004 that "The [Illinois State] Senate squeaked out a controversial bill along party lines Wednesday to create a task force to study health-care reform in Illinois. [...] In its original form, the bill required the state to offer universal health care by 2007. That put a 'cloud' over the legislation, said Sen. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon. Under the latest version, the 29-member task force would hold at least five public hearings next year." [Obama Health Care speech, 5/29/07; State Journal-Register, 5/20/04]

ABC News: 'Obama...seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he made' on ethics reform. "ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: During Monday's Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he has made on disclosure of "bundlers," those individuals who aggregate their influence with the candidate they support by collecting $2,300 checks from a wide network of wealthy friends and associates. When former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel alleged that Obama had 134 bundlers, Obama responded by telling Gravel that the reason he knows how many bundlers he has raising money for him is "because I helped push through a law this past session to disclose that." Earlier this year, Obama sponsored an amendment [sic] in the Senate requiring lobbyists to disclose the candidates for whom they bundle. Obama's amendment would not, however, require candidates to release the names of their bundlers. What's more, although Obama's amendment was agreed to in the Senate by unanimous consent, the measure never became law as Obama seemed to suggest. Gravel and the rest of the public know how many bundlers Obama has not because of a 'law' that the Illinois Democrat has 'pushed through' but because Obama voluntarily discloses that information." [ABC News, 7/23/07]

Obama drastically overstated Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance. "When Sen. Barack Obama exaggerated the death toll of the tornado in Greensburg, Kan, during his visit to Richmond yesterday, The Associated Press headline rapidly evolved from 'Obama visits former Confederate capital for fundraiser' to `Obama rips Bush on Iraq war at Richmond fundraiser' to 'Weary Obama criticizes Bush on Iraq, drastically overstates Kansas tornado death toll' to 'Obama drastically overstates Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance.' Drudge made it a banner, ensuring no reporter would miss it." [politico.com, 5/9/07]

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

Obama's supporters are being intentionally misleading about Rev. Wright.

Since all Obama supporters are saying the same thing, the only reasonable thing to assume is that its a coordinated attempt to mislead the voting public.

They know very well it wasn't just "One Sermon"

It was sermon after sermon.

It was official church dogma.

Rev Wright was so proud of it he published a set of CD's.

Go to Youtube.

There are more videos than you can count, and they show many, many sermons with similar anti-white, anti-semitic, and yes, even anti-American content.

Here are just a one of them, showing multiple sermons, and among other things, Rev. Wright "humping" his pulpit!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hPR5jnjtLo

Its not about one sermon.

Its about 20 years of bad judgement.

Its about Obama's lies.

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Fact; Family leave act was not Hillary's legislation.

Fact: No threat of sniper fire in Bosnia.

Fact: Hillary will make up anything to try to win this election.

Fact: The Clinton's can't stand the thought of not regaining the power in the White House.

Fact: Hillary would destroy anyone who would get the nomination other than her just so she could have one more chance to run in 2012.

The only thing Hillary stands to win is the liar of the year in politics award!

At that she could be an Olympic Champion!!!

Posted by: mvers | March 28, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

the people who criticize mr. obama never planned to vote for him anyway.

they just needed an excuse to "cover their racism"

as a white guy, I am frequently ashamed of some members of my race.

Please, get back on the Mayflower and go back to Europe

Posted by: bobnsri | March 28, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse

actually,


the neocons have a lot of options.

most of them involve sinking people, in order to get the "preferred candidate," in place...

the preferred candidate would be one that would let them call the shots...


and would't necessarily be democratic or even running right now.

. if Mc Cain disappears Mitt Romney will step in, if o baaaaaaaaaa baaaaaa man cuts a deal


they don't need mc cain .


The only thing the republicans want is


ABC


anyone but clinton.

that's what the republicans want....and they are willing to pay for it


and do anything that they have to to get that to happen.


because she's the worst candidate? no

because she will reverse what they have put in place.


she will give AMERICA back to the people


and funny thing is, it's not a threat

it's a promise.


.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 28, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Obama Supporters ... may well ... HOPE ...
for some Good Government CHANGES ... but
... all they're likely to get is a CHANGE from one lying corrupt administration to another:

Obama is a Product of The Corrupt Chicago Mob-Connected Daley Political Machine ... according to the hometown CHICAGO NEWS:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_none_080328_barck_obama___the_wi.htm

EXCERPTS:

The most trusted leaders of the Democratic party, such as John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, ought to be ashamed of themselves for supporting Barack Obama. With use of the internet, a fifth grader could connect the dots to show a picture of a guy who was picked up in college and carried up the political ladder by a corrupt gang of influence peddlers.

John McCain is just drooling waiting for Obama to become the nominee so that he can come out with the trail of dirt that the Democratic party is too afraid to reveal this late in the game. If nominated, Obama will not survive a month when faced with the Republican attack machine.

The Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland law firm, where Obama worked for nearly a decade, served as a hub for a slew of slumlord deals, many that benefited the firm's founder, Allison Davis, and Obama's claims that he knew nothing about the inner workings of this small firm, represent an insult to the intelligence of the American public.

For a year, he also minimized his relationship with Rezko by telling the media that he only had dinner or lunch with Rezko one or twice a year. But when confronted by Sun-Times reporters during the March 14 interview, with the allegation that an FBI mole saw him coming and going to Rezko's office often and that three sources said he talked to Rezko on the phone daily, Obama changed his tune.

The trail of corruption involving the people raising money for Obama's political career stretches from the city of Chicago to the Illinois tollway to the O'Hare airport all the way over to Iraq. And testimony in Rezko's corruption trial reveals that an equal number of Democrat and Republican crooks benefited from all the moneymaking schemes.

Rezko is not a Democrat; he's an equal opportunity profiteer. He supported President George Bush and attended a Christmas party at the White House in December 2003, at the same time that he was a top fundraiser for Obama's US Senate campaign.

In terms of dollar amounts of campaign contributions directly from Rezko in Illinois, the top four earners were, the now deceased President of the Cook County Board, John Stroger, Blagojevich, Chicago Mayor, Richard Daley, and Obama - in that order.

Obama's ties to the corrupt Daley machine began when he was dating his wife Michelle and she brought him into the fold. Valerie Jarrett, the deputy chief of staff to Mayor Daley, hired Michelle as her assistant in 1991. Daley made Jarrett the chairman of the Chicago Department of Planning and Development and Michelle worked as her assistant in that Department during 1992-93.

From there Michelle moved up the political tiers to the University of Chicago and ultimately got an overnight pay raise from about $121,000 to close to $317,000, after Obama became a US Senator, as a vice president at the University of Chicago.

Mayor Daley's chief image defender, David Axelrod, is a top strategist for Obama's campaign and he was also the media consultant for Obama's US Senate campaign.

On April 1, 2007, Dick Simpson, a former Chicago alderman who is now chairman of the political science department at the University of Illinois at Chicago, told Ben Wallace-Wells in the New York Times: "David Axelrod's mostly been visible in Chicago in the last decade as Daley's public relations strategist and the guy who goes on television to defend Daley from charges of corruption".

On September 5, 2007, the New York Post reported that, "Alexi Giannoulias, who became Illinois state treasurer last year after Obama vouched for him, has pledged to raise $100,000 for the senator's Oval Office bid."

"Giannoulias is so tainted by reputed mob links," the Post noted, "that several top Illinois Dems, including the state's speaker of the House and party chairman, refused to endorse him even after he won the Democratic nomination with Obama's help."

Posted by: elme13 | March 28, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton needs to begin to prepare her exit from the race... Several sources in her own camp admit that she has virtually no chance of winning the nomination except if she succeeds in finding James Hoffa's body and moving it in Obama's flower garden to put the blame on him.

Since there is little chance for the body to be found, she makes all these negative assertions. The goal seems to be the 2012 election. By putting enough doubts on Obama, Hillary is hoping that he will lose to McCain and that she or Chelsea (who is also an experienced leader after her journey at the White House mansion) will be able to run in 2012. The Clintons might then be able to capitalize again with the rental of the Lincoln Bedroom to big lobbyists.

Whatever happens, since the Judas story with Richardson, we know that Hillary believes in ressurection; she or her husband Bill would be Jesus if I understood correctly the story. So, we can assume that Hillary will not hesitate to play the kamikaze with this election or the next one since she will probably reborn again, as the savior.

Hillary Clinton needs to begin to prepare her exit from the race before she hurts herself or others.

Posted by: Logan6 | March 28, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

Invasion of the Endorsers

Da- da-da-da-da-da

Another frantic Superdelegate in a mission to save the Democratic party...from HER....click, step, clap, step, the lady in the yellow coat..


Stop her, stop her, she might show her mettle and we dont'want that..stop her...


Da da- da- da- da -da -da


We only have weeks to get rid of her; there's still 10 to go and FL and MI haven't been counted....


Da- da- da- da- da-da

She'll ruin everything, the longer the race goes the less viable Obama will become...

Da- da- da- da- da da- da,da


The Holy Mountain of Moutains, the DNC, high comand wants to call the race for the Obamanite now, forget the millions of voters, the Holy Command Center has already decided the race...

Da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da.

There she is, that one, that one, in the awful yellow coat..go, go, grab her...

Da-da -da, da, da-da, da da, da

Twightlight Zone will resume its regular scheduling when Howard Dean comes back down to earth...

Where is he???

Da- da- da -da- da -da da,da,da

Posted by: vammap | March 28, 2008 8:51 PM | Report abuse

We need a President that will represent all Americans, not just one particular group.

Here's what Obama said when he was selected to be President of the Harvard Law Review.

From the NYT --

"I personally am interested in pushing a strong minority perspective. I'm fairly opinionated about this"

How did he get selected in the first place?

Contrary to what he'd like you to believe, it wasn't his grades.

From the NYT --

Change in Selection System

Mr. Obama was elected after a meeting of the review's 80 editors that convened Sunday and lasted until early this morning, a participant said.

Until the 1970's the editors were picked on the basis of grades, and the president of the Law Review was the student with the highest academic rank. Among these were Elliot L. Richardson, the former Attorney General, and Irwin Griswold, a dean of the Harvard Law School and Solicitor General under Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon.

That system came under attack in the 1970's and was replaced by a program in which about half the editors are chosen for their grades and the other half are chosen by fellow students after a special writing competition. The new system, disputed when it began, was meant to help insure that minority students became editors of The Law Review.

He was selected by a system that "was meant to help insure that minority students became editors of The Law Review"

We need to choose a President based on who the best person for the job is, not on the basis of race.

That's racisim.

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

so why did the Soviet Union fail again ????


why is the United States becoming a rentor nation as


foreigners buy up our homes because all of our jobs are


overseas....

no taxpayer base you say?


because the middle class don't have jobs, and george's friends don't pay taxes...

as another poster or two said,


how far would that money go towards bailing out some failed homeowners who are going to put a strain on social services ????


are the leaders of our country playing dominoes with our lives...


how can _they_ be so incredibly naive and stupid?


oh, I forgot, they've never worked for a living....they paid and or cheated to get their jobs....they're incompetent.


FOAD.
.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 28, 2008 8:43 PM | Report abuse

I think Hillary, needs to be what she is


capable. If people feel that makes her a beeatch...


I feel sorry for those people, they've probably never worked for a living with white collar people.

I see Hillary as someone that is being belabored by the same corporatocracy that impugned Al Gore for winning the Nobel Prize.


Same mindset. The same attempt to stain with innuendo and false linking.

George Bush has a $200 an hour male prostitute do sleepovers at the White House for 2 years and there is zero coverage. Karl Rove is linked to homosexual parties in Washington D.C. where the participants come sans pants, and we here nothing.


where's the equal coverage ???


where's the outrage for Larry Craig dancing for his supper in a Minnesota Airport Restroom ????


he is still here. Think his wife's health might be at risk from that kind of behavior ????


think he's a liar ???


Think Iraq wasn't about anything but the oil ????


It's a known fact that there was never a terrorist link.


but since propaganda is a powerful tool in the hands of liars and propagandists, it's treated "as a tool," by


poll takers, pundits, politicians


it's a form of fraud. and should be treated as such.


Hillary is Cinderella and Snowhite rolled into one compared to the rest of the candidates,


and she doesn't want the job for personal satisfaction, she can and will do a good job.

Anyone saying otherwise is selling or eating B.S. pie.


.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 28, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who thinks being elected President of the Harvard Law Review isn't a major academic and professional honor is an idiot. Typically only about 7% of each Harvard class are even elected to serve on the law review, based on academic performance and a blind-graded writing competition. Out of those, only one is elected President, the equivalent of Editor-in-Chief at other major law reviews. The Harvard Law Review is widely considered the nation's premier law review, or #2 at worst. Other Presidents of the Harvard Law Review have gone on to distinguished legal careers, some as Supreme Court Justices or judges in the lower courts, some as Attorney General or Solicitor General, some in private practice, many as law professors or law school deans. Indeed, the current deans at both Harvard and Yale are former Harvard Law Review Presidents.

Barack Obama also graduated from Harvard Law School "magna cum laude," an academic honor reserved for the top 5% of the class. It is because of these stellar academic credentials that he was invited to teach courses on constitutional law at the University of Chicago, one of the nation's top law schools---another outstanding career accomplishment. Although he held a part-time teaching position there, first with the title Lecturer and then Senior Lecturer, there is no doubt that his students would have called him "Professor" and his colleagues would have referred to him as "Professor Obama." To that extent, he is entirely justified in referring to himself as "a law professor"--a point the University of Chicago itself confirms--- and anyone who says otherwise either doesn't know what they're talking about, or is deliberately lying in an effort to smear Sen. Obama.

Posted by: bradk1 | March 28, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

let's get real here.


the only one who wants Hillary to drop out are the REPULSIVE SCAMMERS...


like allenridge .....

Why, they don't want to lose their place at the feeding trough.

If Al Gore had taken his rightful place in history, IRAQ would have never happened...


The OIL WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN AN ISSUE.


We would have been steered towards conservation and renewable energy sources.

BUSHes family and friends, including the SAND BROTHERS UAE / KUWIAT / SAUDI ARABIA


had plans for IRAQ, and the ZIONISTS in Israel provided them with a reason to take IRAQ...


the nebulous terrorist !!!!!!!!!!!!!!


threat, aka the B.S. ploy.

AL GORE DIDN"T GO THROUGH WITH THE VOTE COUNT BECAUSE THERE WAS PRESSURE FOR HIM NOT TO...


HILLARY IS BEING PRESSURED THE SAME WAY NOW, in the same manner...


The reality is, more people are registering to vote, and Mc Cain is getting


no coverage, no one will know who he is by November, anyone saying other wise is selling a slice of B.S. Pie


don't buy it, it won't taste as good as it looks.


Hillary needs to finish. O mama, will be gone in 5 weeks.


Count on it....


Revelations will shake his camp regarding some of his private parties.


.eat that.


.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 28, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

Revenge is sweet. BTW, did you notice that Obama endorsements are frontpage news while Clinton endorsements (John Glenn in Ohio, John Murtha in Pennsylvania) are generally ignored?

Posted by: flosstoss | March 28, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Should the Democrats turn their backs on the woman who ...

braved sniper fire and bad hair in the Bosnian wind ...

helped Ireland achieve peace after decades of strife ...

tried to stop Nafta (by buttonholing women's groups in the White House and telling them to support it) ...

etc.,

etc.,

etc.


Yes!

Credibility counts.

Individual responsibility is the cornerstone of government accountability.

No one believes that a party represents change if it is also a party to corruption.

The Clintons used to be able to bully people in the Democratic Party.

Look at the Pavlovian response by Party fat cats who support Hillary--how they tried to push Nancy Pelosi around.

But they are burdened with more quiver than arrows.

Their no-holds-barred threats have been transformed into ineffective heavy handedness.

The Democratic Party can do better.

It will do better ...

With Barack Obama as its nominee come this November.

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | March 28, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

slavicdiva

Little Barry & Little Bobby Show!

Good one for today.

Posted by: YesWeCanForFREE | March 28, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Little Bobby Casey's endorsement is supposed to be "significant"? How? He's a freaking freshman Senator that most fellow Democrats don't even like.

How did he end up being our Senator? Because most of us held our noses and voted *against* our previous nutjob, Rick Sanitarium, not *for* Little Bobby. Remember Rick? Mr. Man-on-dog? We were embarrassed enough by him to actually vote for the DINO Bobby Casey. Until next time, when we can get a real Democrat in there.

How is Casey influential? He isn't. What has he done in the Senate? Nothing. What has he done for Pennsylvania? Nothing. What does his endorsement amount to? Nothing. Since the endorsement comes after Casey "vowed" to remain neutral and not to endorse *anyone* until after the primary, that tells you what Bobby's vows are worth - nothing.

Now if his old man were around to endorse somebody, that would matter - but he's not. And Little Bobby isn't anywhere near his old man, not in stature, influence or integrity. He's just a DINO who rode disgust with Santorum into office.

Little Barry & Little Bobby - what a pair! A pair of empty suits sitting there patting each other on the back.

Posted by: slavicdiva | March 28, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Casey who??? Maybe it makes a difference to Pennsylvania voters, but probably not. Granted, Casey is a white man ... but hardly "working class."

Posted by: mo897 | March 28, 2008 07:30 PM
---------------------------------------------

Not working class? Who is? Hillary Clinton?

Posted by: middlerd1 | March 28, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Hey Miata7 -- it appears that you think that if you assault us with enough of your messages that we might start to believe them? Sorry, but the voters are smarter than you are.

Posted by: mo897 | March 28, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

bondjedi --

The only voice in my head is the voice of reason.

Your insults only show how desperate you are to defend the indefensible.

They say far more about you than they do about the people you so viciously attack.

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Casey who??? Maybe it makes a difference to Pennsylvania voters, but probably not. Granted, Casey is a white man ... but hardly "working class."

Posted by: mo897 | March 28, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

I am looking at the county convention results for Texas, and I can see that Clinton only won a majority in 10 of 31 counties. Am I reading this wrong? Does anyone know?
Unofficial results
http://precinctconventionresults.txdemocrats.org/election08district

Posted by: middlerd1 | March 28, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

"The position of "President" of the law review is like "class president"

Its a popularity contest."

You're utterly insane and haven't a clue what you're talking about. You haven't changed one person's mind about Obama with your drivel.

But I grow weary of your tripe. I feel like a cat who has been batting a dead mouse back and forth across the kitchen floor, and I am bored. Tell all the voices in your head I said good-bye.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 28, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

There is no reason for Sen. Clinton to drop out. However, she needs to quit being a B**** all the time. This tactic is not working for her. Maybe a more lady like side of Sen. Clinton could help her win some extra votes.
As a woman, I would love for her to win this in a manner that is fair and dignified. I have 2 grand daughters that really worship her. However, the recent gamesmanship is really turning them as well as others like them completely off.

Posted by: fwasti | March 28, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

truth_hunter --

The question is one of priorities.

The rights of the voters in a democracy must be paramount.

That's the most important rule of all.

The right to chose our own leaders is what makes democracy, democracy.

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

bondjedi --

The position of "President" of the law review is like "class president"

Its a popularity contest.

He's a charming guy.

However, he never did any legal research of his own as far as anyone can tell.

His record doesn't seem to have any substance to it, just lots of "flash"

That's not enough to qualify him to be President of the United States of America.

Its not even close.

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

CC: Rendell won that primary overwhelmingly -- 57 percent to 43 percent -- but the bad blood lingered.

Close enough! I know you meant to say: Clinton won PA overwhelmingly -- 57 per cent to 41 percent (16% win).

PS: YesWeCanForFREE is also "Official Fix T-Shirt Winner".

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/03/primary_predictions_redux.html

Posted by: YesWeCanForFREE | March 28, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

bondjedi --

I repeat. Your attempts to discredit me only discredit yourself and your candidate.

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 7:15 PM | Report abuse

svreader.... the DNC has every right. The right to set the party rules and enforce them. What they don't, and shouldn't, have is the right to change the agreed upon rules after the fact to the benefit of the losing candidate.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth_Hunter | March 28, 2008 7:14 PM | Report abuse

"As far as anyone can tell, Obama never did the legal resarch and journal publications that law professor do."

He only edited the Harvard Law Review, genius. But I suppose that he made that one up, also.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 28, 2008 7:14 PM | Report abuse

bondjedi --

The articles and news reports about "Obama's Slums" are from the Chicago Sun-Times and NBC news, which is Channel 5 in Chicago.

Their credibility is beyond question.

Please Watch this report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100M of wasted taxpayer money, from Channel 5, Chicago's most respected TV news program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

How do you explain away the fact that Barry Obama never followed up on the 11 slums that his friend Rezko was supposed to repair in Obama's district in Chicago, and continued to do nothing about the 40 slums that Rezko was supposed to repair or replace in Chicago, even after Obama joined the US Senate?

From the Chicago Sun Times:

For more than five weeks during the brutal winter of 1997, tenants shivered without heat in a government-subsidized apartment building on Chicago's South Side.

It was just four years after the landlords -- Antoin "Tony'' Rezko and his partner Daniel Mahru -- had rehabbed the 31-unit building in Englewood with a loan from Chicago taxpayers.

Rezko and Mahru couldn't find money to get the heat back on.

But their company, Rezmar Corp., did come up with $1,000 to give to the political campaign fund of Barack Obama, the newly elected state senator whose district included the unheated building....

The building in Englewood was one of 30 Rezmar rehabbed in a series of troubled deals largely financed by taxpayers. Every project ran into financial difficulty. More than half went into foreclosure, a Chicago Sun-Times investigation has found.

"Their buildings were falling apart,'' said a former city official. "They just didn't pay attention to the condition of these buildings.''

Eleven of Rezko's buildings were in Obama's state Senate district....

Rezko and Mahru had no construction experience when they created Rezmar in 1989 to rehabilitate apartments for the poor under the Daley administration. Between 1989 and 1998, Rezmar made deals to rehab 30 buildings, a total of 1,025 apartments. The last 15 buildings involved Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland during Obama's time with the firm.

Rezko and Mahru also managed the buildings, which were supposed to provide homes for poor people for 30 years. Every one of the projects ran into trouble:

* Seventeen buildings -- many beset with code violations, including a lack of heat -- ended up in foreclosure.

* Six buildings are currently boarded up.

* Hundreds of the apartments are vacant, in need of major repairs.

* Taxpayers have been stuck with millions in unpaid loans.

* At least a dozen times, the city of Chicago sued Rezmar for failure to heat buildings.

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

"Everything I've posted is fully credible.

The sources are major newspapers and highly regarded TV news programs."

Whatever - they're preposterous garbage that do not even come close to proving what you allege. Some aren't even about the topic you say.

Pull yourself away from your fantasy world for one minute and tell us what we want to know - your high-placed Washington, DC "sources" that you called to check up on Obama, and the name of at least one Harvard lawyer that you have hired or fired.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 28, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Truth_hunter --

The DNC is punishing the wrong people.

They have no right to punish the voters of Florida and Michigan by denying them the right to participate in choosing the Democratic nominee for President.

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

crd203 --

It is important.

As far as anyone can tell, Obama never did the legal resarch and journal publications that law professor do.

He lectured. That's all, as far as we know.

Professors have publication lists as long as your arm.

It takes a ton of them to get tenure.

There's also a huge difference between an assistant professor, an associate professor, and a full professor.

Obama made it sound like he was a tenured full professor.

He wasn't. He was a senior lecturer.

Its a huge difference.

The impression he gave people was very misleading.

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

svreader.... Give it up. Michigan and Florida's party leaders knew the rules and decided not to abide by them. If they wanted their votes counted they should have stayed within the guidelines that would have guaranteed this.

The voters of Michigan and Florida have every right to be mad.... at their state party. Or their state GOP legislature.

Patrick Leahy (D-VT) today called for Hillary to step aside and support Obama rather than give McCain an open field.

If Hillary wants to ever run a national campaign again she needs to reconsider her scorched-earth policy and focus instead on the greater good of defeating McSame.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth_Hunter | March 28, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Say it ain't so Hillary


Is it possible that Hillary has been caught in Another Lie this week?


It has to be astonishing to the average person who leads their life by telling the truth.


It turns out that John Podesta, former Clinton Chief of Staff, heads up the Center for American Progess, which in turn runs thinkprogress.org which ran the false story last week that Senator John McCain had plagiarized some passages in a speech.

One has to ask oneself: Are they serious?


How in the world can another lie, a smear campaign, have as its source a group of Clinton people? The funding and the contributors of the Center for American Progress and thinkprogress.org should be checked out for connections to the Clinton campaign.

At first glance, thinkprogress.org appears to be run by a relatively young editor named Faiz Shakir who has apparently refused to resign over this episode.

A few more clicks of the mouse yields the name of the parent organization and an actual picture or John Podesta.


Enough with the lies. Enough with the smear campaigns. Enough with sending your daughter out to tell the country that the credibility of a Presidential candidate is "none of our business."

America deserves better.

Posted by: Miata7 | March 28, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Say it ain't so Hillary


Is it possible that Hillary has been caught in Another Lie this week?


It has to be astonishing to the average person who leads their life by telling the truth.


It turns out that John Podesta, former Clinton Chief of Staff, heads up the Center for American Progess, which in turn runs thinkprogress.org which ran the false story last week that Senator John McCain had plagiarized some passages in a speech.

One has to ask oneself: Are they serious?


How in the world can another lie, a smear campaign, have as its source a group of Clinton people? The funding and the contributors of the Center for American Progress and thinkprogress.org should be checked out for connections to the Clinton campaign.

At first glance, thinkprogress.org appears to be run by a relatively young editor named Faiz Shakir who has apparently refused to resign over this episode.

A few more clicks of the mouse yields the name of the parent organization and an actual picture or John Podesta.


Enough with the lies. Enough with the smear campaigns. Enough with sending your daughter out to tell the country that the credibility of a Presidential candidate is "none of our business."

America deserves better.

Posted by: Miata7 | March 28, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Say it ain't so Hillary


Is it possible that Hillary has been caught in Another Lie this week?


It has to be astonishing to the average person who leads their life by telling the truth.


It turns out that John Podesta, former Clinton Chief of Staff, heads up the Center for American Progess, which in turn runs thinkprogress.org which ran the false story last week that Senator John McCain had plagiarized some passages in a speech.

One has to ask oneself: Are they serious?


How in the world can another lie, a smear campaign, have as its source a group of Clinton people? The funding and the contributors of the Center for American Progress and thinkprogress.org should be checked out for connections to the Clinton campaign.

At first glance, thinkprogress.org appears to be run by a relatively young editor named Faiz Shakir who has apparently refused to resign over this episode.

A few more clicks of the mouse yields the name of the parent organization and an actual picture or John Podesta.


Enough with the lies. Enough with the smear campaigns. Enough with sending your daughter out to tell the country that the credibility of a Presidential candidate is "none of our business."

America deserves better.

Posted by: Miata7 | March 28, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Say it ain't so Hillary


Is it possible that Hillary has been caught in Another Lie this week?


It has to be astonishing to the average person who leads their life by telling the truth.


It turns out that John Podesta, former Clinton Chief of Staff, heads up the Center for American Progess, which in turn runs thinkprogress.org which ran the false story last week that Senator John McCain had plagiarized some passages in a speech.

One has to ask oneself: Are they serious?


How in the world can another lie, a smear campaign, have as its source a group of Clinton people? The funding and the contributors of the Center for American Progress and thinkprogress.org should be checked out for connections to the Clinton campaign.

At first glance, thinkprogress.org appears to be run by a relatively young editor named Faiz Shakir who has apparently refused to resign over this episode.

A few more clicks of the mouse yields the name of the parent organization and an actual picture or John Podesta.


Enough with the lies. Enough with the smear campaigns. Enough with sending your daughter out to tell the country that the credibility of a Presidential candidate is "none of our business."

America deserves better.

Posted by: Miata7 | March 28, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Say it ain't so Hillary


Is it possible that Hillary has been caught in Another Lie this week?


It has to be astonishing to the average person who leads their life by telling the truth.


It turns out that John Podesta, former Clinton Chief of Staff, heads up the Center for American Progess, which in turn runs thinkprogress.org which ran the false story last week that Senator John McCain had plagiarized some passages in a speech.

One has to ask oneself: Are they serious?


How in the world can another lie, a smear campaign, have as its source a group of Clinton people? The funding and the contributors of the Center for American Progress and thinkprogress.org should be checked out for connections to the Clinton campaign.

At first glance, thinkprogress.org appears to be run by a relatively young editor named Faiz Shakir who has apparently refused to resign over this episode.

A few more clicks of the mouse yields the name of the parent organization and an actual picture or John Podesta.


Enough with the lies. Enough with the smear campaigns. Enough with sending your daughter out to tell the country that the credibility of a Presidential candidate is "none of our business."

America deserves better.

Posted by: Miata7 | March 28, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

"To start, you contend that Sen. Obama was not a law professor, but rather a senior lecturer. This is true. It is also misleading."

Agreed. His official title may not have been "professor," but that's neither here nor there.

Ignore the idiots.

Posted by: crd203 | March 28, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

bondjedi --

Yes. The entire european branch of my family was wiped out by the Nazis.

Every man, woman, and child.

Why do you keep bringing that up?

Do you not see how cold-hearted and cruel it shows you to be?

Have you no shame???

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

bondjedi --

Everything I've posted is fully credible.

The sources are major newspapers and highly regarded TV news programs.

Your constant attempts to discredit me only discredit yourself.

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Extremely helpful endorsement. The expected huge win in PA a la Ohio looks more doubtful because of it, which is bad news for Hillary.
North Carolina still looking for strong for Barack.

Unless they have Rev Wright on tape damning NASCAR, his place as Dem nominee will be assured by May.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 28, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

svreader - You were asked if you had anything that had not been discredited as garbage, and you have posted the same cut-and-paste trash.

I thought you said you had nothing more to add. We'll add that to your long list of lies (sources inside the beltway, someone stole my Post PW, I have hired and fired many lawyers, my family died in the Holocaust, etc.)

Posted by: bondjedi | March 28, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

thisworld --

As far as I can tell, people who support Clinton believe that she's the best candidate and would be the best President.

I do know that Obama has made massive campaign contributions to the supers.

I hope that does not effect their votes.

The most important thing right now is to make sure that Florida and Michigan voters have their votes counted as well.

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

By the way svreader, you really personify desperation, repeating yourself again and again and again and again and ....... zzzzz

Posted by: thisworld | March 28, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

It's a pretty big endorsement. I wonder how long after PA it'll take for Clinton to bow out? Perhaps Chris will set up a betting pool with one of the Fix t-shirts for the winner.

How 'bout it, Chris?

Posted by: crd203 | March 28, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Drindl, I agree that McCain copying and "inuendo-ing" Obama's own campaign slogan against him is.... unimaginative and smarmy. Luckily, it's such a clumsy tag line that few will remember it.

Insofar as implications that Obama isn't "American," a patroit... yada, yada... that's not going to go away. We'll see Hillary's Obama smears until November in GOP campaign commercials.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth_Hunter | March 28, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

crt12 --

How do you explain the lack of journal articles authored by Obama?

I did my research.

As far as anyone can tell, Obama never did his.

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Gosh, svreader, I see you here as well. But then again, I guess you see me here too so that evens. My point here is that it really doesn't matter what motives drive supers to endorse their chosen candidate. After all, we are talking about politics which is in a nutshell all about back-stabbing and back room dealings. Have you tried to dig into the possible motives of those supers behind Clinton? Of course not. You know you don't even wanna go there and that sums it up for me.

Posted by: thisworld | March 28, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

OK svreader, I've ignored you for long enough. I'll take you one comment at a time, because (a) it's all I have time for, and (b) it will keep us from muddying the waters.

To start, you contend that Sen. Obama was not a law professor, but rather a senior lecturer. This is true. It is also misleading. Here is why.

"Senior Lecturer" at Chicago Law is a title Sen. Obama shared with three other folks during his time there. They are as follows: Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals; Judge Diane Wood, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals; and Judge Richard Posner, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Along with the nine Supreme Court Justices, and two or three other Circuit Judges, Easterbrook, Wood, and Posner are some of the most respected practicing legal minds in the country, if not in history. If you cite to one of their opinions or articles or books, judges and other lawyers tend to listen. They are, quite simply, giants of the legal profession.

By giving Senator Obama the Senior Lecturer title, the University of Chicago intended to put him in that rarified air. He was not called a "professor" because he was not tenured. However, to say he was a law professor is quite simply the truth--he taught 1L Constitutional Law and some other intensive courses, apparently much to the satisfaction of the student body. This is not a situation where Sen. Obama was an adjunct professor, a practicing attorney who comes in and teaches a specialized practicum or something.

What bothers me is your attempt to spin his title at Chicago as a misrepresentation of his qualifications. Senior Lecturer is meant to connote someone who is not only academically qualified to teach the most intellectual of legal subjects to some of the country's brightest law students, but is also currently working in the field in such a manner that tenure is impracticable. It is an honor to be placed in the company of Easterbrook, Posner, and Wood. Your characterization attempts to make it look as if he is exaggerating his experience, when in actuality, the opposite is true.

Please do your research.

Posted by: crt12 | March 28, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Typical whoever media in full force today for Obama. He has been endorsed by Casey from Pennsylvania. BIG NEWS ALL OVER! The real news is that Clinton has everybody else that counts in Pennsylvania, so who cares. But this is never mentioned! And the next news the media missed was also the typical bias had roles been reversed....Clinton had to terminate a campaign worker that was TRULY working for Obama's campaign. Yes, like a spy! Yes, like Watergate. But this is Obamagate. He must drop out. He must. No spy or any endorser will ever allow you to carry the states that are necessary to win in a General Election. Those are Senator Clinton's states. The General Election has never changed. It is not how many states you win or the Popular vote, but the swing states. If Democrats had to carry the majority of "states" in a General Election, we would never have won a Presidency. What we do is wait by the T V to see Ohio and Florida go blue. Please, Wake Up Democrats!

Posted by: Texan2007 | March 28, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

bondjedi --

Obama is all talk and no substance.

Everyone interested in the Presidential election should read this article.

Its from a Chicago reporter who's known Obama since the beginning of his career and has followed Obama's career ever since then.

The take-home message is that Obama is a total fraud, a manufactured product of the chicago politicial machine.

It tells about him stealing credit for bills he never worked when he was in Chicago, just like he did in Washington.

It talks about "Obama's Slums" and fact that Barry didn't care one bit about the people who elected him.

Its about the fact that Chicago Barry Obama is the one of the most clever con-men in the world and the biggest fraud that's been put over on the American public since Bush.

Its filled with facts about Obama from someone who has known him for years.

The title's cute. Obama isn't. He's a fraud.

http://news.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

bondjedi --

If Obama brings the same kind of "change" to America that he did to Chicago, we'll all freeze to death...

Please Watch this report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100M of wasted taxpayer money, from Channel 5, Chicago's most respected TV news program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

How do you explain away the fact that Barry Obama never followed up on the 11 slums that his friend Rezko was supposed to repair in Obama's district in Chicago, and continued to do nothing about the 40 slums that Rezko was supposed to repair or replace in Chicago, even after Obama joined the US Senate?

From the Chicago Sun Times:

For more than five weeks during the brutal winter of 1997, tenants shivered without heat in a government-subsidized apartment building on Chicago's South Side.

It was just four years after the landlords -- Antoin "Tony'' Rezko and his partner Daniel Mahru -- had rehabbed the 31-unit building in Englewood with a loan from Chicago taxpayers.

Rezko and Mahru couldn't find money to get the heat back on.

But their company, Rezmar Corp., did come up with $1,000 to give to the political campaign fund of Barack Obama, the newly elected state senator whose district included the unheated building....

The building in Englewood was one of 30 Rezmar rehabbed in a series of troubled deals largely financed by taxpayers. Every project ran into financial difficulty. More than half went into foreclosure, a Chicago Sun-Times investigation has found.

"Their buildings were falling apart,'' said a former city official. "They just didn't pay attention to the condition of these buildings.''

Eleven of Rezko's buildings were in Obama's state Senate district....

Rezko and Mahru had no construction experience when they created Rezmar in 1989 to rehabilitate apartments for the poor under the Daley administration. Between 1989 and 1998, Rezmar made deals to rehab 30 buildings, a total of 1,025 apartments. The last 15 buildings involved Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland during Obama's time with the firm.

Rezko and Mahru also managed the buildings, which were supposed to provide homes for poor people for 30 years. Every one of the projects ran into trouble:

* Seventeen buildings -- many beset with code violations, including a lack of heat -- ended up in foreclosure.

* Six buildings are currently boarded up.

* Hundreds of the apartments are vacant, in need of major repairs.

* Taxpayers have been stuck with millions in unpaid loans.

* At least a dozen times, the city of Chicago sued Rezmar for failure to heat buildings.

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters are in denial.

They just don't "get it"

The fact that Obama allied himself with someone who spouts anti-white, anti-semitic, and anti-American rhetoric is a "deal breaker"

Its the number #1 topic of water cooler conversation around the country.

Most "Typical White People" had no idea that stuff like this has been going on.

People are really, really, angry about it.

Obama's supporters try to spin it into being about a single sermon.

Its not.

Its about a 20 year relationship.

Its about Obama choosing Wright to be his "Spritual Advisor"

It's about Obama's lies.

Its about Obama talking out of"both sides of his mouth.

Obama presented himself as a paragon of virtue and someone on a higher ethical plane than other candidates.

He's repeatedly shown through his actions that he isn't.

He's like a human chameleon.

He turns into a completely different person depending on what group of people he's with.

He's lied to us and fooled us over and over.

America doesn't trust him anymore.

He's toast.

He deserves to be.

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

bondjedi --

Obama's spent his entire political career running for office, and strong-arming people into putting his name on bills he never even did any work on.

The WP says so themselves in their recent article.

The NYT says "big image, little results"

All this will come out before the general election.

As will the truth about how his negligence led to people who voted for him freezing in slums in his district that Rezko, and in the rest of Chicago, that Rezko got $100M to repair, but never touched.

He can't win the general election.

But he can cause Democrats to lose it.

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

"The American people promise the members of the cult of Obamam that their leader, Barack Obama, will never be President of the United States of America."

Which one of your sources is telling you that?

Posted by: bondjedi | March 28, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

mark --

I've hired and fired lots of lawyers, including ones that got their degrees from Harvard, but only one that was President of the Harvard law review.

My grandfather left europe long before the 30's.

And, yes, I lose a lot of money by taking the time to post here.

I hope not all of it is wasted.

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Judge, It is the Jewish PhD in EECS from Berkeley, the entrepreneur and millionaire with connections in DC and Chicago, who is losing big bucks not compiling while it posts to 'The Fix'. It's grandfather escaped Europe in the thirties. It has hired and fired many presidents of the Harvard Law Review.

Simply attend quietly to it.

Resistance is futile!

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 28, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

bondjedi --

The American people promise the members of the cult of Obamam that their leader, Barack Obama, will never be President of the United States of America.

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

judgecrater --

Can't Obama or his supporters come up with ANYTHING original?

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

"You discredit youself so effectively, there's nothing I or anyone else can add."

Well, since Obama's going to be the Democratic nominee and probable president, I don't know how effective I have been.

Nevertheless, is that a promise that you won't be adding anything?

Posted by: bondjedi | March 28, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

roohnjay --

You're got it backwards.

Its over for Obama.

You just don't realize it yet.

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

"bondjedi --
You discredit youself so effectively, there's nothing I or anyone else can add.
Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 06:13 PM"

Hard to imagine that the pot could call the kettle 'black' any better than that.

Posted by: judgeccrater | March 28, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

svreader:

It's over:

http://www.slate.com/id/2187558/

The deathwatch has begun.....

Posted by: rohnjay | March 28, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

bondjedi --

You discredit youself so effectively, there's nothing I or anyone else can add.

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Mark, here is why I don't like McCain's tagline.

Obama's campaign uses this line. I find it annoyingly Messaniac, but here it is:

"We are the ones we've been waiting for."

So McCain picks up the same line and uses the same Messianiac theme, but substitutes thus:

"The American president Americans have been waiting for"

..suggesting that Obama is not American, and that true Americans will vote for McCain.

This sort of thing is quite calculated. Every word is focus-grouped, and each word tested in different phrases. I just find his iteration objectionable.

Posted by: drindl | March 28, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

"They act like a dangerous cult."

Because obsessively posting the same, tired, discredited rants on multiple message boards is not cultlike behavior.

Your wasting your talents here, svreader. You should be begging for change in airports.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 28, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

"Tenure-track vs. non=tenure-track is a huge difference."

Knock me over with a feather, I'm agreeing with svreader. I found that among my professors in college, the non-tenure track were far more interesting & valuable to my future career. The tenured types were stuck in academia, rather than reality.

Posted by: bsimon | March 28, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

bondjedi --

The more you hurl personal insults at me the more you discredit yourself.

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

"If you got one too, and we both win, I would look forward to meeting you"

Likewise, mark. I'm keeping my fingers crossed!


Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 28, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

bondjedi --

You're the one who registered the handle "svreader" in columbus, aren't you?

I don't post there.

You only discredit yourself, and your candidate, when you try to use this kind of "dirty trick"

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

scott --

No, its not.

You call someone "Professor" out of respect, but Tenure-track vs. non=tenure-track is a huge difference.

Why don't you try not insulting the person you disagree with?

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

svreader: Do people bat down your lunacy on the Columbus Dispatch site, too? Or is it just here? Tell us which message boards you post to that people believe you, and which candidate you are running down. Has your account been hacked on other newspapers, also? Whick sock puppet here is your favorite alias? Do you hear the sock puppets' voices when you post under an alias?

We've read your posts, and those are the questions I have come up with and I'm sure others would like to know the answers to.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 28, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

jkallen --

Actually, I'm Jewish.

Is there no level Obama supporters won't stoop to in order to try to supress any non-flatering information about him?

They act like a dangerous cult.

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Thanks proud - I'll pass.:-)

But I got an email from Rick Davis that could put me in the running for a ride on the STE.

If you got one too, and we both win, I would look forward to meeting you!

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 28, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

FOLLOW THE MONEY. ACORN, lures lured low income people into loans they couldn't afford at 0 down, 100% financing, no income check, Then, when foreclosures skyrocket, Senator Casey is among group of democrats in senate that give $200,000,000 of taxpayer money to this corrupt group for "credit counseling". But the money is being timed for voter registration, with a long history of fraud and abuse.

Senator Casey, corrupt power broker.

Giving In the 1980s, groups such as the activists at ACORN began pushing charges of "redlining" - claims that banks discriminated against minorities in mortgage lending. In 1989, sympathetic members of Congress got the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act amended to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants; this allowed various studies to be ginned up that seemed to validate the original accusation.
In fact, minority mortgage applications were rejected more frequently than other applications - but the overwhelming reason wasn't racial discrimination, but simply that minorities tend to have weaker finances.
Flexible lending programs expanded even though they had higher default rates than loans with traditional standards. On the Web, you can still find CRA loans available via ACORN with "100 percent financing . . . no credit scores . . . undocumented income . . . even if you don't report it on your tax returns." Credit counseling is required, of course.


U.S. Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) today announced that more than $11.5 million in funding he helped to secure is on its way to organizations and Housing Agencies in Pennsylvania for subprime mortgage prevention counseling. This initial allocation of grant funding will help counsel more than 20,000 families in Pennsylvania.

"This money is a down payment to help keep Pennsylvania families in their homes," said Casey. "I will continue to fight to ensure that Pennsylvanians have the resources they need to prevent foreclosure."

Organizations in Pennsylvania receiving money:

ACORN Housing Corporation- $7,850,939.00

ACORN Workers Indicted For Alleged Voter Fraud


Posted by: Cornell1984 | March 28, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Bob Casey Jr. to Bob Casey Sr. is very much like Bush Jr. to Bush Sr. The Jr. is only the name sake, no other merits.

Posted by: sangliu | March 28, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

mark, I got an invite today from the Obama camp...looks like he'll be up here in the Great White North next week for the state Dem Convention. I'll be attending the R convention tommorrow as a delegate for my district at the State Republican Convention.

I just can't bring myself to do this Obama dinner thing, but if anyone else wants to here's the link (of course it may involve some travel for most of you):


--------------------------------------
If you make a donation in any amount between now and 11:59 pm EDT on Monday, March 31st, you could join Barack and three other supporters for dinner and a conversation about the issues that matter most to you.

Make a donation and share your story, and you could join Barack for an intimate dinner for five:

https://donate.barackobama.com/dinner

Thank you for your support,

David

David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 28, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin - leichtman has been put in check by various truth squads. Since there has been very little spin from Wolfson & Penn, there is nothing for her to repeat, thus nothing to post.

Too bad - "Today's Gallup Poll Daily tracking update finds Barack Obama with an eight percentage point advantage over Hillary Clinton (50% to 42%), this gives him a statistically significant advantage for the first time since before the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy." No poll is too obscure for leichtman to quote if it shows Hillary with a lead, but she is mum when the credible ones report what she and other propagandists don't want to hear.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 28, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

drindl --

What post in particular?

Please provide evidence to support your charge.

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Why do Obama supporters think they gain anything by insulting individuals that have a different perspective than they do, and that post information about Obama that shows him to be a politician like any other?

They ignore any negatives about him and try to discredit anyone who posts anything negative.

It just makes them look foolish.

Even worse, it confirms that they are members of a dangerous, delusionsal, cult.

There is no way Obama can win a general election.

His comment about "Typical White People" shows that he absorbed the hatred that Rev Wright preached, no matter how much he protests that he didn't.

The fact that he chose Rev Wright as his "spiritual advisor" and stayed in his church for 20 years isn't going to go away.


Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

leichtman, did you get tis email from the TDP?

"Unfortunately, that enthusiasm may sometimes lead people to act irresponsibly. We have heard reports that misinformation is being spread about tomorrow's County and Senate District Conventions, perhaps using the name of the Texas Democratic Party. Some delegates have reported receiving emails saying that conventions have been cancelled. We have also heard unconfirmed reports that someone is placing robo-calls, claiming to be from the Texas Democratic Party, suggesting that county or district conventions have been cancelled."

Ghost of Richard Nixon?

It is lightweight stuff. I am sure the BHO folks are annoyed, however.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 28, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

It is never over for old Hillary, not even when the fat lady sings. No chance. I can see it now: They will have to drag her kicking and screaming off the stage in Denver.

Posted by: dunnhaupt | March 28, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

I do not think the Ds have run dirty campaigns against each other. I do not think there is a fig leaf worth of policy differences between them. I do not think their resumes offer any substantial validation for claims of superior experience or accomplishments, as between them.

Having run local campaigns, I have seen much worse. Only HRC's McC moment amounted to an "apostasy". We do not laud candidates in the other Party above candidates in our own, as a rule.

They earned their bad grades as well as their good ones; the other candidate did not cause the misery.

Indies like me understand Party loyalty as being less rational than rooting for the 'Horns. It is certainly less fun. So we understand that some will vote for HRC but not BHO against McC. Indies like bsimon and I approve of free will.

But it is peculiar to read the preface "I am a D" before a post that reads another D out of the Party, especially when their two candidates espouse the same policies.

As for Rs, Bhoomes and AggieMike, I have said the same to you, too. Although I did agree with you that there were more differences among the Rs then between these two Ds.

Hook 'em. Tonight.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 28, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

jkallen001,

What can I say? I stubbornly believe everyone can learn from well reasoned, positive and factually accurate discourse.

Plus, I never like to let lies stand when I can easily speak the truth on a topic.

Posted by: scott032 | March 28, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

In my humble opinion the Democratic Party needs to examine itself very closely.
This Clinton-Obama circus show should teach all Democrats a lesson.
As far as I am concerned the Democratic Party needs to take an emema, starting with flushing down the drain this ongoing disgraceful carnival show of politics performed by both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Anyone in the right mind would not vote for either one of these candidates because neither one has the proper credentials to be President of the United States.
I am deeply saddened with both these candidates. I feel the folks who make up the Democratic Party could have found far better candidates to run for such an important political office as President of the United States.
This is more proof in that the American trademan,labor workers, and those workers who make up the automotive manufacturing sector need a new party to represent them, for the Republican and Democratic Parties have failed them.

Posted by: jtynoble | March 28, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

svreader

'Obama supporters are the ones that are trying to prevent others from presenting their views.

I encourage everyone to.

Please read my posts.'

when you stop lying and posting insanity? maybe.

Posted by: drindl | March 28, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

svreader--I have edited your Ctrl V so that is more in line with what you say on the Columbus Dispatch and what you were writing in here the other day (when you say someone hacked the Post's computers to get your info):

Obama supporters are right on.

They "get it"

The fact that Obama is an exemplary, upstanding Christian is a "deal maker"

Its the number #1 topic of water cooler conversation around the country.

Most "People" had no idea that stuff like this has been going on.

People are really, really, excited about it.

Obama's supporters state righteously his exemplary record.

Its more than that.

Its about a 20 year loving relationship with his wife.

Its about Obama choosing the righteous path.

It's about Obama's skills.

Its about Obama talking to all of America.

Obama presented himself as a paragon of virtue and someone on a higher ethical plane than other candidates.

He's repeatedly shown through his actions that he is.

He's like a human god.

He is the same great man no matter what group of people he's with.

He's truthful over and over.

America loves him.

He's the toast of the free world.

He deserves to be.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 28, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

scott032,

don't waste you keystrokes on him. his IQ is well below 60 so he can't grasp what you're spewing.

Posted by: jkallen001 | March 28, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

svreader:

Since the candidates policy positions differences are few...

And we are not deciding on race or gender......

1. How about the most pledged delegates (the currency which is earned thru one man one vote)
2. How about the argument that Clinton served two terms, his wife is really a fatally flawed bald faced liar with a thin resume, and is being propped up by the connections and favors 8 years in the white house will produce.
3. How about we explain how the world works. Black voters after being 90% rubber stamp democrats will bolt Clinton in mass if not some potential for violence. Obama has the ability to finance his own third party candidacy (something Clinton can not do) and he could join with Blumberg - the B with a billion.

Posted by: weinbob | March 28, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

svreader,

That IS how it works. Different academic institutions use different titles for faculty. They also recognize that for professional purposes these faculty members may need to be able to utilize more commonly known titles such as "professor." To accommodate those members of the faculty these schools either formally or informally recognize which titles are equivalent to other titles, such as "professor." This is extremely common, and you can't just say "nuh-uh" because you don't want to acknowledge the University of Chicago would approve of the title "professor" for Mr. Obama.

Posted by: scott032 | March 28, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

svreader is a known nazi sympathizer so i would take his words w/ a grain of salt people...

Posted by: jkallen001 | March 28, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

svreader - The spaghetti you are throwing to the wall is not sticking. Perhaps if you had some fresh spaghetti, rather than ancient news clips that mean nothing, it might stick. Go back to the Columbus Dispatch, and comb through your anti-Hillary rants there for something fresh.

Second, are you really that dumb that you think that it's a slight to lecture at one of the world's most prestigious law schools? Whoops, guess you are that dumb.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 28, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

"Why not learn everything you can about the man you're supporting?"

I prefer credible sources. You've proven yourself not to be included in that category.

Posted by: bsimon | March 28, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

scott --

That's not how it works.

Is there nothing that Obama's supporters won't excuse him fudging?

bsimon --

Why not learn everything you can about the man you're supporting?

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

In a press release issued today, the university's Law School explains:

From 1992 until his election to the US Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

Posted by: weinbob | March 28, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

svreader,

Academic institutions get to decide how they title their faculty; not you. If the University of Chicago says he could rightfully be called a professor that is the authoritative word.

Posted by: scott032 | March 28, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

weinbob writes
"Given enough time I may be able to debunk all false claims"


bob, take a scan through some of the topics from earlier this week & check out svreader's ongoing efforts. If you're looking for rational discussion, you need to engage another.

Posted by: bsimon | March 28, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

scott --

Obama supporters are the ones that are trying to prevent others from presenting their views.

I encourage everyone to.

Please read my posts.

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

dave asks
"So where does the Nancy Reagan endorsement of McCain rank?"

That would be the 'celebrity' endorsement, which doesn't amount to much.

Posted by: bsimon | March 28, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

weinbob --

Please don't misrepresent the facts.

Obama was NOT a Professor. He was a part-time lecturer.

They say that they offered him the job of professor, but he never was one.

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Saying that Obama's positives in Insider Advantage have also fallen is worth noting. Of course Insider Advantage is not really comparable to today's 50/42 Obama in Gallop, or WSJ/NBC findings prior to Bosnia Bull Story.

Being subjected to the kitchen sink, false claims re law professor, "shame on you" for NAFTA - oops that was another lie uncovered by the release of the first lady schedule.

Posted by: weinbob | March 28, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

svreader, join the GOP. you are no longer needed in the Democratic Party.

Posted by: thecrisis | March 28, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Senator Casey's endorsement is a reflection of the animosity between the Casey and Clinton families, not as a result of the Casey children urging their father to support Senator Obama. Would you want public servants making decisions based upon their childrens' requests?

Posted by: burkdogs | March 28, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Professor Obama
The University of Chicago says that Obama is entitled to describe himself as a professor during his time teaching there
March 28, 2008 1:00 PM
Well here's a thing: after the Clinton campaign accused Barack Obama of falsely claiming to have been a professor at the University of Chicago, when he was merely a lecturer, it now turns out that he was indeed a professor - according to the University of Chicago.

In a press release issued today, the university's Law School explains:

From 1992 until his election to the US Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

Given enough time I may be able to debunk all false claims

Posted by: weinbob | March 28, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

svreader, posts that will take 10 minutes to read will not attract readers...

As for the issue, each person has the right to express their preference and opinions about the candidates, including Senator Leahy and Senator Casey. Similarly, Governor Rendell is well within his bounds to support Hillary. I will note that the Clinton supporters seem to be the only ones whining about these endorsements, but they still will tout Rendell's and Strickland's endorsements as giving their candidates credibility. You can't have it both ways folks. Everyone has the right to make their views public if they choose to. That's call freedom.

Posted by: scott032 | March 28, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

weinbob --

Please look at the post right above yours.

Obama has told far more lies than Clinton.

I assume that means you will not be supporting him either?

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

I have voted R last 30 years, but I really believe Obama is sincere in his own words and deeds that he is going to work to build a working majority for change.

The question? During all of Hillaries previous brushes with telling false statements - the was always a thread of plausible deniability for the most partisan to hold onto.

For the first time we have Four Pinnocios from the WaPo with video and more video.

Since we have multiple bald face lies, with no (NO) plausible deniability combined with the damning details that no one being honest could forget the details of being under sniper fire with their 16 year old daughter. Does it matter??

I mean are you Clinton kool aide drinkers going to differentiate - or did you know all along she was lying and you really did not need the thread of plausible deniability.

Posted by: weinbob | March 28, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Obama's lies are far worse than Clinton's.

From DD --

Ok now why don't we take a look at some of the instances where St. Obama's misspoken, eh?


Just Embellished Words: Senator Obama's Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements

Once again, the Obama campaign is getting caught saying one thing while doing another. They are personally attacking Hillary even though Sen. Obama has been found mispeaking and embellishing facts about himself more than ten times in recent months. Senator Obama's campaign is based on words -not a record of deeds - and if those words aren't backed up by facts, there's not much else left.

"Senator Obama has called himself a constitutional professor, claimed credit for passing legislation that never left committee, and apparently inflated his role as a community organizer among other issues. When it comes to his record, just words won't do. Senator Obama will have to use facts as well," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said.

Sen. Obama consistently and falsely claims that he was a law professor. The Sun-Times reported that, "Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." In academia, there's a significant difference: professors have tenure while lecturers do not. [Hotline Blog, 4/9/07; Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/04]

Obama claimed credit for nuclear leak legislation that never passed. "Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was 'the only nuclear legislation that I've passed.' 'I just did that last year,' he said, to murmurs of approval. A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks. Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama's comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate." [New York Times, 2/2/08]

Obama misspoke about his being conceived because of Selma. "Mr. Obama relayed a story of how his Kenyan father and his Kansan mother fell in love because of the tumult of Selma, but he was born in 1961, four years before the confrontation at Selma took place. When asked later, Mr. Obama clarified himself, saying: 'I meant the whole civil rights movement.'" [New York Times, 3/5/07]

LA Times: Fellow organizers say Sen. Obama took too much credit for his community organizing efforts. "As the 24-year-old mentor to public housing residents, Obama says he initiated and led efforts that thrust Altgeld's asbestos problem into the headlines, pushing city officials to call hearings and a reluctant housing authority to start a cleanup. But others tell the story much differently. They say Obama did not play the singular role in the asbestos episode that he portrays in the best-selling memoir 'Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.' Credit for pushing officials to deal with the cancer-causing substance, according to interviews and news accounts from that period, also goes to a well-known preexisting group at Altgeld Gardens and to a local newspaper called the Chicago Reporter. Obama does not mention either one in his book." [Los Angeles Times, 2/19/07]

Chicago Tribune: Obama's assertion that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing 'strains credulity.' "...Obama has been too self-exculpatory. His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004 -- more than a year before the adjacent home and property purchases by the Obamas and the Rezkos." [Chicago Tribune editorial, 1/27/08]

Obama was forced to revise his assertion that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House.' "White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was forced to revise a critical stump line of his on Saturday -- a flat declaration that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House' after it turned out his own written plan says they could, with some restrictions... After being challenged on the accuracy of what he has been saying -- in contrast to his written pledge -- at a news conference Saturday in Waterloo, Obama immediately softened what had been his hard line in his next stump speech." [Chicago Sun-Times, 12/16/07]

FactCheck.org: 'Selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers pump up Obama's health plan.' "Obama's ad touting his health care plan quotes phrases from newspaper articles and an editorial, but makes them sound more laudatory and authoritative than they actually are. It attributes to The Washington Post a line saying Obama's plan would save families about $2,500. But the Post was citing the estimate of the Obama campaign and didn't analyze the purported savings independently. It claims that "experts" say Obama's plan is "the best." "Experts" turn out to be editorial writers at the Iowa City Press-Citizen - who, for all their talents, aren't actual experts in the field. It quotes yet another newspaper saying Obama's plan "guarantees coverage for all Americans," neglecting to mention that, as the article makes clear, it's only Clinton's and Edwards' plans that would require coverage for everyone, while Obama's would allow individuals to buy in if they wanted to." [FactCheck.org, 1/3/08]

Sen. Obama said 'I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage,' but Obama health care legislation merely set up a task force. "As a state senator, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to pass legislation insuring 20,000 more children. And 65,000 more adults received health care...And I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage." The State Journal-Register reported in 2004 that "The [Illinois State] Senate squeaked out a controversial bill along party lines Wednesday to create a task force to study health-care reform in Illinois. [...] In its original form, the bill required the state to offer universal health care by 2007. That put a 'cloud' over the legislation, said Sen. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon. Under the latest version, the 29-member task force would hold at least five public hearings next year." [Obama Health Care speech, 5/29/07; State Journal-Register, 5/20/04]

ABC News: 'Obama...seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he made' on ethics reform. "ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: During Monday's Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he has made on disclosure of "bundlers," those individuals who aggregate their influence with the candidate they support by collecting $2,300 checks from a wide network of wealthy friends and associates. When former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel alleged that Obama had 134 bundlers, Obama responded by telling Gravel that the reason he knows how many bundlers he has raising money for him is "because I helped push through a law this past session to disclose that." Earlier this year, Obama sponsored an amendment [sic] in the Senate requiring lobbyists to disclose the candidates for whom they bundle. Obama's amendment would not, however, require candidates to release the names of their bundlers. What's more, although Obama's amendment was agreed to in the Senate by unanimous consent, the measure never became law as Obama seemed to suggest. Gravel and the rest of the public know how many bundlers Obama has not because of a 'law' that the Illinois Democrat has 'pushed through' but because Obama voluntarily discloses that information." [ABC News, 7/23/07]

Obama drastically overstated Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance. "When Sen. Barack Obama exaggerated the death toll of the tornado in Greensburg, Kan, during his visit to Richmond yesterday, The Associated Press headline rapidly evolved from 'Obama visits former Confederate capital for fundraiser' to `Obama rips Bush on Iraq war at Richmond fundraiser' to 'Weary Obama criticizes Bush on Iraq, drastically overstates Kansas tornado death toll' to 'Obama drastically overstates Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance.' Drudge made it a banner, ensuring no reporter would miss it." [politico.com, 5/9/07]


Twelve instances... when oh WHEN will they start doling out Pinocchios for these, eh?

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

"between he"? Shouldn't that be "between him?" I know it's picky, but you are a writer.
Wasn't Casey pro-life and not allowed to speak at the Democratic Convention?

Posted by: dwbalessr | March 28, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

"First, Casey's father was VERY publicly denied a speaking role at the 1992 Democratic convention due to a long-running feud between he and former President Bill Clinton..."

How about "between him and former President Bill Clinton..."? Don't the most elementary rules of grammar mean anything to the Washington Post?

Posted by: dbk12 | March 28, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

I think the reason for the endorsement is simply that Casey can see which way the wind is blowing.

Posted by: skrut003 | March 28, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

I wonder what this means for undeclared super delegates. Dean wants them all to declare by July 1st so there is time for party unity to develop before and at convention. In the unlikely event they did this in an orderly fashion, that would mean about 26 per week would need to declare. Only about 1/3 of the 336 are governors or in Congress. Obama has an edge in their ranks. It is in the DNC party leadership positions where Clinton's strength is.

I suspect we'll see just a trickle of elected officials to declare between now and the PA primary with the DNC types hanging tough until after PA results are in. But the few who do declare are bigger names, like Richardson and Casey, and will tend to convey to PA voters that Clinton's time is about up. So the PA voters will have to decide whether to make a stand, even if it turns out to be symbolic, or whether they go with the flow of inevitability, aided by Obama's well funded ads and ground troops.

If Clinton wins PA by a narrow single digit margin, I think she'll have a tough time keeping the supers from breaking to Obama in a way that makes the outcome certain, even if Clinton continues on as Huckabee did.

I'll be looking for the next round of PA polls to see if the race is tightening. Every super delegate is paying close attention. This is a lot like an Alaska town taking bets on the date of the spring ice breakup up in the river. It could come quickly, but come it will.

Posted by: optimyst | March 28, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

CC,
So where does the Nancy Reagan endorsement of McCain rank? You remember McCain, don't you? You know, the candidate that is leading in the polls, has sewn up his party's nomination and has unveiled his first General Election TV ad? The one that has his formal Republican rivals campaigning with him? I realize that watching Hillary and Obama shoot holes in the bottom of the Democratic boat while Dean, Pelosi and Leahy are busy trying to bail water is fascinating, but there are three people in this race and when news happens with the third, you should be on it.

As far as Casey goes, your last sentence pretty much says it all.

Posted by: dave | March 28, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

weinbob --

From Slate --

Join the Club

A new poll shows Obama's unfavorability rating is similar to Hillary Clinton's.

By Mark Blumenthal and Charles Franklin
Updated Friday, March 28, 2008, at 2:59 PM ET

Yesterday we wrote about a new poll (PDF) that suggested Hillary Clinton's unfavorability rating reached a new high of 48 percent, while Barack Obama's rating was significantly lower at 32 percent. Considering Obama's rough press coverage over the past few weeks because of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's sermons, this was a blow to the conventional wisdom that Obama's candidacy had been harmed by Wright's rhetoric.

However, a new SurveyUSA poll shows the two candidates' unfavorables to be much closer. Obama and Clinton have similar numbers in this poll, with Clinton polling unfavorably among 42 percent of voters. He is viewed unfavorably by 40 percent of the voters. She is viewed favorably by 35 percent of voters, while Obama is viewed favorably by 38 percent of voters

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

CLINTON BACKERS - PLEASE READ!!

This is a game called connect the dots.....


...1996 NYT William Saffire "HRC is a congenital liar (commodities, travelgate, grand jury, billing records).......Within the last 90 days she has lied repeatedly about what most people agree is the one event in life (sniper fire) no sane person forgets....after being sleepy, misspeaking, offering false statements about sitting on flak jackets, corkscrew landing, and first first lady in war zone since Eleanor (oops pat nixon).....Her campaign accusses Obama of claiming to be a law professor when he is only a senior instructor....AP Wire - U of Chicago, Sr. Instructors are faculty and as such law professors, Obama twice turned down professor slot.......


Connect the dots......

Congenital Liar 1996 NYT
Pathological Liar 2008
Gallop Positive 38% lowest since Clinton Pardongate period.

Posted by: weinbob | March 28, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters are in denial.

They just don't "get it"

The fact that Obama allied himself with someone who spouts anti-white, anti-semitic, and anti-American rhetoric is a "deal breaker"

Its the number #1 topic of water cooler conversation around the country.

Most "Typical White People" had no idea that stuff like this has been going on.

People are really, really, angry about it.

Obama's supporters try to spin it into being about a single sermon.

Its not.

Its about a 20 year relationship.

Its about Obama choosing Wright to be his "Spritual Advisor"

It's about Obama's lies.

Its about Obama talking out of"both sides of his mouth.

Obama presented himself as a paragon of virtue and someone on a higher ethical plane than other candidates.

He's repeatedly shown through his actions that he isn't.

He's like a human chameleon.

He turns into a completely different person depending on what group of people he's with.

He's lied to us and fooled us over and over.

America doesn't trust him anymore.

He's toast.

He deserves to be.

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Was Obama freebasing while Hillary was vacationing in Bosnia? Will Obamas dealer get interviewed on Hardball.

Does anyone know the timing for both events?

Posted by: hhkeller | March 28, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Most interesting to me are the number of politician whose children influenced their decisions to endorse Obama. Clearly Obama message of change resonates strongly with younger people, as they look at the world we are leaving them with concern, distain, and fear that we will hold onto power too long and leave them with a real mess. By we, I mean we 40-60 yr old. Younger people have an entirely different take on the world, much as we see the younger generation culture as unintelligible. But Obama seems the first national politician really to be comfortable in both worlds.
That being said endorsements are hardly worth the paper they are written on (of should be the video they are spoken on?) The following though should continue to be the case - The more people see or hear Obama the more favorable their impression, the more that see Hillary the higher her negatives go. Endorsements won't change that

Posted by: nclwtk | March 28, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Most interesting to me are the number of politician whose children influenced their decisions to endorse Obama. Clearly Obama message of change resonates strongly with younger people, as they look at the world we are leaving them with concern, distain, and fear that we will hold onto power too long and leave them with a real mess. By we, I mean we 40-60 yr old. Younger people have an entirely different take on the world, much as we see the younger generation culture as unintelligible. But Obama seems the first national politician really to be comfortable in both worlds.
That being said endorsements are hardly worth the paper they are written on (of should be the video they are spoken on?) The following though should continue to be the case - The more people see or hear Obama the more favorable their impression, the more that see Hillary the higher her negatives go. Endorsements won't change that

Posted by: nclwtk | March 28, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

From Slate --

Join the Club
A new poll shows Obama's unfavorability rating is similar to Hillary Clinton's.
By Mark Blumenthal and Charles Franklin
Updated Friday, March 28, 2008, at 2:59 PM ET
Yesterday we wrote about a new poll (PDF) that suggested Hillary Clinton's unfavorability rating reached a new high of 48 percent, while Barack Obama's rating was significantly lower at 32 percent. Considering Obama's rough press coverage over the past few weeks because of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's sermons, this was a blow to the conventional wisdom that Obama's candidacy had been harmed by Wright's rhetoric.

However, a new SurveyUSA poll shows the two candidates' unfavorables to be much closer. Obama and Clinton have similar numbers in this poll, with Clinton polling unfavorably among 42 percent of voters. He is viewed unfavorably by 40 percent of the voters. She is viewed favorably by 35 percent of voters, while Obama is viewed favorably by 38 percent of voters

Posted by: svreader | March 28, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

I love that Clinton has all of the old, baggy white guys behind her (Murtha, Rendell, etc.) while Obama gets the young, hopeful endorsements. It only cements the fact that he's the candidate of the future, Clinton is the candidate of the old, gritty past.

(sorry for the repost, edit needed)

Posted by: thecrisis | March 28, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Maybe to be fair the media should preface every news report by saying - HRC was caught lying to the American people multiple times in the last 30 days - upon being presented with proof - she launched a series of false claims aimed at her opponent. The following statements are newsworthy - yet this network reminds you that most knowledgable pundits rate this candidates chances of winning the nomination between 5% and 20% (politico - intrade). The primary reason we find this newsworthy is because market research has shown people like a horse race and our ratings improve when we reveal the dirty tactics, bare knuckles, race and gender politics of personal destruction.

Posted by: weinbob | March 28, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Was Obama freebasing while Hillary was vacationing in Bosnia? Will Obamas dealer get interviewed on Hardball.

Posted by: hhkeller | March 28, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

I love that Clinton has all of the old, baggy white guys behind her "Murtha, Rendell, etc.) while Obama gets the young, hopeful endorsements. It only cements the fact that he's the candidate of the future, Clinton is the candidate of the old, gritty past.

Posted by: thecrisis | March 28, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Or it could be that Casey just believes that Obama would make the better president. Not everyone triangulates 24/7 like the Clintons.

Posted by: Stonecreek | March 28, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Chris writes
"[I]t's unlikely that simply being supported by Bob Casey will change voters' mind about Obama."

Which is as it should be. If a Casey endorsement will merely induce some voters to take a 2nd look at Obama, it can be considered a positive.

Posted by: bsimon | March 28, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Love the Rendel "liar" line. Rendel represents the sort of old school, machine politics that the Clintons have relied upon in this campaign, and that have failed miserably.

That being said, Clinton will still squeak out a win in PA. Of course, she needs PA to be the first landslide in a series of landslides. That Casey has hopped aboard signals a diminshed possibility of that happening. More ominous, Sen. Casey is one less super for the Clintons to strongarm.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 28, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Come on Hillary - it is over. Put your ego on hold and help Obama defeat a continuation of Bush's presidency.

Posted by: shann23 | March 28, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps a more likely reason for today's endorsement is to deflect attention from yesterday's front-page story in The Philadelphia Inquirer (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/breaking/news_breaking/17046571.html), which says Casey's former finance chairman, Bob Feldman (along with other Casey backers) is being charged with federal campaign finance-related crimes. Obama was also mentioned in this story. Why is no one talking about this? This is the second time Sen. Casey is getting away without having to explain the large sums of money he's received from people charged with serious crimes (Vince Fumo being the first).

Posted by: bcnchick | March 28, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company