|
|
|
|
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/14/2008 9:14:47 PM | | So Philly, does this mean Hillary will called upon too, being as the Clintons took funding for campaigning some time ago? | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/14/2008 9:23:08 PM | I'm not sure what you mean there Vyper... or rather... the laughing heads suggest you're being sarcastic.
Surely the man has a right, as a citizen, to vote for whomever he wants... but still feel that it's his duty as a superdelegate to back up how his constituents voted. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/14/2008 9:28:34 PM |
"The reason I'm here tonight is because the Democratic voters have made their choice, and so have I. There is one man who knows and understands that this is a time for bold leadership. There is one man that knows how to create the change, the lasting change, that you have to build from the ground up,There is one man who knows in his heart there is time to create one America, not two ... and that man is Barack Obama."
- John Edwards
Yeah, I always thought Edwards was a dimwit, but he does have really great hair:
John Edwards Feeling Pretty.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q
I doubt that Edwards joining Obama's campaign will change the perception that Obama is the candidate of effete snobs.
PhillyFellow | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/14/2008 9:53:54 PM | Philly please get over it. It must be hard being in your situation. I know that you must continue to put up this game face. Yes, it is going to the convention and it has to be hard to be in such a minority right now. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/14/2008 10:48:17 PM | Violet, the schemes Rezko was involved in and some already convicted Chicago officials were involved in are known as kickback schemes or sometimes "pay-for-play". They involve payoffs to public officials to get multi-million dollar contracts the city or state has put up for bid. In the case of Rezko he also stacked the boards that had the responsibility of awarding these contracts with people that were favorable to him through payoffs. In at least one of these cases with a planning board controlled by Rezko, Obama played a key role in insuring one of the co-conspirators in the scheme Stuart Levine maintained his position on the board:
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Rezko and Peoria...Connect the Dots.
"Stuart Levine is a lawyer from upstate Illinois. He is the star prosecution witness in the trial of indicted political fixer Tony Rezko. On March 10, 2008, Levine told the jury that even before he got involved with the Blagojevich administration, he used to funnel campaign contributions to Democratic candidates through straw donors at the request of former Chicago Alderman Edward Vrdolyak, who has also been indicted on federal fraud and bribery charges in a related case.
"Levine’s term on the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board was set to expire in 2004, but key people and politicians involved in the Rezko indictment (and in big trouble with the feds now) made sure Levine remained on the panel. It appears that Levine’s appointment on the Board had a wide array of support, including Mr. Rezko of course.
"Also, Senator Barrack Obama’s name showed up in the email exchanges as reviewing the recommendations to appoint Levine and others to the Board. While all this was going on, as a state senator, Senator Obama was the chairman of the Senate Committee on Health and Human Services. As such, his name also appeared in the email exchanges as a member of a team working on legislation to keep the Board from expiring under a sunset provision of Illinois law.
"In other words, they wanted to keep the Board alive.
"Well the political leaders, including Senator Obama, were able to keep the Board alive and, in the end, changes made by lawmakers in 2003 dropped the number of members on the Board from 15 to 9, making it much easier to stack the panel, and by the summer of 2003, all they needed was a 5-bloc vote."
http://pmmdaily.blogspot.com/2008/05/rezko-and-peoriaconnect-dots.html
The Rezko trial went to the jury this week. Given the overwhelming amount of evidence against Rezko he will almost certainly be convicted:
Rezko replay
10 key developments in case of gov's indicted fund-raiser
May 12, 2008
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/rezko/944236,CST-NWS-rezko12.article
Current Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich will also almost certainly be indicted. Quite likely the federal prosecutors will try to make a sentencing deal with Rezko for lesser time in exchange for testimony against Gov. Blagojevich or Sen. Obama.
One more point. If Obama became president, since the Rezko trial is a federal case Obama would have the authority to pardon Rezko of all crimes. Rezko would therefore have a great desire to see Obama become president at all costs.
It has now become known that the DNC rules committee went against their own rules to fully strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates. The rules committee's own rules only allowed them to punish states by removing half their delegates.
Rezko had great experience in corrupting small committees and boards.
PhillyFellow | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 12:30:15 AM | Vyper:
So, if indeed Barack is headed off to his certain demise in November, I just could appreciate a little help in understanding why that is so inevitably the case.
Because it is quite likely that regardless of the little kumbaya speeches that our dear Hillary is forced to give in order to "unify the party," the great majority of Clinton supporters are not going to put Barack Obama and whomever his running mate turns out to be, into the White house. Were that running mate to be Senator Clinton, we would be somewhat hardpressed not to vote for her, but most of us who don't like or trust Obama, do not want him anywhere near the White House. I don't believe that is going to change come November. I don't believe that is going to change regardless of Edward's fancy rhetoric that just ...sucks, either. It really doesn't matter who Obama's running mate is; most of us don't want Obama as the president of the USA. And many of us don't vote along party lines..
And I definitely do believe that Obama cannot gain the White House without the Clinton constituency backing him. And the stats seem to back me up, according to every liberal news media outlet out there. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 12:52:01 AM | Fortunately for us all, your personal beliefs will have zero impact on the results. Get over it. We'll have our first black president. And if McCain is ever thorougly investigated, it will be interesting to know his father's mob ties in Arizona and who exactly his wife is supporting (and you have to wonder why she refuses to reveal her income taxes). Well, either way, in January McSame can retire to a nice quiet ranch where he won't have to remember much of anything except when to milk the cows...or whatever it is they do on ranches.  | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 2:31:57 AM |
Fortunately for us all, your personal beliefs will have zero impact on the results. Get over it. We'll have our first black president.
Who might be under a federal indictment by the time he gets there.
PhillyFellow | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 3:21:42 AM | | Message 1157, division is not really clarifying Vyper's question. We'll know more as soon as McCain and Obama can focus on running against each other what things look like, but I don't think McCain is going to blow him out of the water, not in the least. In fact, when McCain is finally forced to actually do some campaigning, I think his popularity will go way down as soon as people look at how closely he resembles Bush. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 3:45:55 AM | | Isn't it amazing how HRC supporters can blast Obama for his involvement with the Rezko deal, but totally forget Whitewater??? I am really beginning to think that HRC supporters are just closet racists -- supporting her "ideals" is like clinging to the proverbial "reed in the wind!" | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 6:02:15 AM |
So Philly, does this mean Hillary will called upon too, being as the Clintons took funding for campaigning some time ago?
From the New York Times, published today:
Mr. Rezko, who was once a major fund-raiser for Senator Barack Obama, Mrs. Clinton’s top rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, has never donated money to either President Clinton or Mrs. Clinton, records show.
The article was about a picture of Rezko and the Clintons, at a 1997 fundraiser, which was questioned by Matt Lauer on the Today Show.
"Today’s" co-host, Matt Lauer, showed the photo to Mrs. Clinton on the air this morning, and Mrs. Clinton responded that she had no relationship with Mr. Rezko and had no idea where the picture was taken.
During the debate among Democratic presidential candidates earlier this week, Mrs. Clinton had called Mr. Rezko a "slumlord" and questioned Mr. Obama’s long-time ties to him. It is not clear how the "Today" show got the old photo. But its surfacing seems likely to extend the political sparring over the businessman, who is scheduled to go on trial next month on federal fraud charges.
"I don’t know the man," Mrs. Clinton told Mr. Lauer. "I wouldn’t know him if he walked in the door. I don’t have a 17-year relationship with him."
She added: "There’s a big difference between standing somewhere taking a picture with someone you don’t know and haven’t seen since, and having a relationship that the newspapers in Chicago have been exploring."
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/the-rezko-clinton-connection/
So exactly what contribution are you talking about? | |
|
| Return those delegates!
Posted: 5/15/2008 7:42:52 AM | PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
Choice of Democratic nominee may rest with panel.
Convention's Credentials Commitee could have to decide on Fla., Mich. delegates.
By AARON GOULD SHEININ
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 03/23/08
"HOW DELEGATE DISPUTE BEGAN
"...Florida's Republican-controlled Legislature adopted a measure setting Jan. 29 — the date the DNC gave to South Carolina — as the day the state would hold presidential primaries. In Michigan, the Democratic-controlled government set its primaries for Jan. 15.
"Both the DNC and the RNC imposed sanctions on those states. Republicans in Florida and Michigan lost half their delegates. DNC rules said those states also would lose half their delegates, but then the Rules and Bylaws Committee voted to increase the sanctions to strip all the delegates from Florida and Michigan."
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/03/22/demdelegates_0323.html
DNC rules committee, the federal prosecutors have completed their case against Rezko. Given the overwhelming evidence against him, he will almost certainly be convicted. All that is left to do now is extract evidence from him about his political cronies including Sen. Barack Obama in exchange for a lighter sentence. Since your voting against your own rules to fully strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates specifically helps the key Rezko crony Obama and significantly harmed his opponent Hillary Clinton you will now be on the federal prosecutors short list to find the extent of Rezko's corrupt political dealings. To head this off there is one thing that MUST be done.
RETURN THOSE DELEGATES!!
PhillyFellow | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 7:58:30 AM | Page 47 Reply -
Thanks, guys for all your posts. They have been an interesting and informative read.
I've got a little bit of response for a few of you guys, so I will start in turn ...
(1) My man across the Ben Franklin, PhillyFellow:
It's going to the convention, bud. Let's see what happens there.
That's assuming that Obama isn't indicted after Rezko tries to work a deal for lesser time ... Curtain Time Part II will show that Obama was the inside guy in the Illinois senate as far as setting up the Health Facilities Planning Board to extort contributions from companies in exchange for the approval of applications to build medial facilities.
Is this the same Barack Obama who we've been clamoring about all this time as "having no experience," who is now being painted as this seasoned, politically-connected, "inside man" who is manipulating Boards, extorting corporations, and engaging in a host of ethically nefarious business practices, most typically engaged in by "career politicians" -- while at the same time pushing for (and successfully advancing) ethics reform legislation and championing the cause for "transparency" in government??! 
(2) My esteemed colleague Simlasa:
I'm not sure what you mean there Vyper... or rather... the laughing heads suggest you're being sarcastic. Surely the man has a right, as a citizen, to vote for whomever he wants... but still feel that it's his duty as a superdelegate to back up how his constituents voted.
We are in complete agreement of opinion here, Simlasa (as usual), although I think a credible argument can be made that his duty is to vote how he believes his constituency can best be served, irrespective of how it voted (i.e., substituting his professional judgment and political acumen for the "will of the people"). I wasn't being sarcastic. I simply was stating that I found it "humorous" that he was willing to share the fact that he was "right there," duly casting his superdelegate vote for Hillary but that -- for his own sensibilities -- with the curtain drawn, he really wanted to see Barack in office or, as my learned colleague and ally-in-post, Spitfire, said at Msg 1150, "The Force made him vote for Obama in spite of himself."
I REALLY cracked up pretty hard reading that one!  :roll "The Force"   ... REALLY!
(3) Southernlass:
Thank you. I actually appreciated reading your post, although Hillary's speeches have never struck me as "kumbaya" in nature . Still, I'd like to hear (see?) more from others in your camp. Your argument seems to be that the Dems are passionately divided over these two candidates; so much so that, if Barack wins the nomination -- despite the fact that, with respect to their policy positions, the two candidates are substantially similar (almost identical, really) -- "the great majority" of those from Hillary's camp would either abstain from voting, or vote for the GOP's Bushalike. And that, without the support of the galvanized and disgruntled/disappointed Hillary supporters, the floor will fall out from beneath him.
Do I understand you correctly? If not, please correct me. If so, I cannot say with any degree of certainty that you are wrong. But neither can I agree with you because I haven't seen any creditable data that supports or negates that argument. Can you please direct me to where you've found yours? Thanks. 
(4) Flyonthewall!, Southernlass AND PhillyFellow:
I read your postings and what seems to be a common theme emerging with respect to Clinton and Obama, is the same theme that seems to emerge from many of our posts: That of "trust." Each of us seems to trust our supported candidate, and distrust the others'. Barack is perceived by Hillary's supporters as a "snake oil salesman" of sorts, who can eloquently "talk" a good game but who, in the end, amounts to style without substance. Hillary, on the other hand, is perceived by Barack's supporters as a "chameleon" of sorts, who (like the masses of politicians that precede her have done) will do or say whatever is politically expedient and, therefore, cannot be trusted to live up to the representations she makes on the road (in addition to the objections many of us hold against her tough, combative style of effecting her will).
Now I, for one, do not know for certain which of these two would best serve the country, but I DO know that MOST of the politicians I have seen in my own lifetime, who have served us poorly, have done so because they have proven untrustworthy. They have resorted to lies, cheating, "omissions", misrepresentations, subterfuge, pandering, calling in favors, changing laws, engaging in back room deals, refusing to speak "on the record", "under oath", or both, and even destroying evidence of their misdeeds. That is a large part of American politics as I have known it all my life.
It would seem that -- gender and race prejudices aside -- if we look strictly at the issue of "trustworthiness," Clinton defeats Obama like Dewey defeated Truman. With Barack, the questions of his trustworthiness seem (to me, at least) more remote from his public representations. For example, the "Muslim", Canada/NAFTA, Rezco and Rev. Wright muds that Hillary has slung into this contest all relate to questions of "if he knew ...", "what he might have done", etc. -- in short, rank speculation on whether Obama has been engaged in ethically- or legally-questionable conduct (as it seems is the political norm), despite his outward claims that he has done nothing out of hand.
Hillary, on the other hand, has been called and undeniably caught -- DEAD TO RIGHTS -- on many issues where the empirical and circumstantial evidence demonstrates that she has lying through her teeth or, at best, misleading the public (e.g., files being found in a closet, Canada/NAFTA, foreign policy experience, Bosnia, etc.). CLEARLY, at every major campaign site, she works to show not only that she understands and empathizes with their concerns, but that she is just like them. She knows that Barack comes from humble beginnings and is only recently starting to come into any kind of "wealth," yet she seizes on a statement he makes about disenfranchised PA voters, successfully labels him an "elitist," talks about how her "daddy" used to take her hunting in the same woods as the Pennsylvanians, drinks whiskey and swigs of beer (I would've paid to see that up close ), and portrays herself as being "the neighborhood girl up the road", all the while knowing it's probably been three decades or better since she's had a beer or even driven car AT ALL, up that road or any like it! She knows she's no "Annie Oakley" (or even a "Dick Cheney" )! She gets to the South and suddenly dons a southern drawl, etc. In short, Hillary repeatedly comes across as being the less truthful, forthcoming and genuine of the two candidates, and does so NOT through some loose association with others who "may" be of questionable character, but by HERSELF getting caught lying, making misleading statements and engaging in ethically-culpable deeds.
In the meantime, one of the primary elements of Barack's "change" theme is that of "tough ethics reform" and "transparency in government." He wants those back room deals that are made between politicians and lobbyists -- which typically result in huge corporate profits, at the expense of the health and welfare of average Americans -- brought out onto the front lawn; broadcast on C-Span; so Americans are seeing what their politicians (including the President) are up to every day in Washington. To me, such an agenda would only seem to come from a guy who has comparably little to hide from me. He doesn't strike me as one who would refuse to speak under oath; frustrate, obstruct, or quash public inquiry by hiding behind "presidential privilege" or "national security"; attempt to block the release of files properly accessible to the public; or hide files in a closet.
So I guess I have to wonder why it is that you and others of us distrust him so much -- ESPECIALLY if they feel they can trust HER.  | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 8:46:44 AM | | this is true to the more uneducated voter. People don't want a mother hen who appears to want to be a man leading the country. She's a bit stiff. If she would just loosen up a bit people would be able to identify with her on a more human level. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 8:51:16 AM | Hillary keeps trying to raise the minimum delegate number to 2210. She needs to stop focusing on that and start focusing on the most face-saving way to transition herself out of this race. How many clues does she need? Bill Richardson. Joe Andrew. Greg Craig. Roy Roemer. John Edwards. Those Obama endorsements are all warning signs telling Hillary to wrap it up.
The party is willing to seat some of the delegates Hillary is asking for, but she won't get all of the Florida and Michigan delegates she is requesting. She needs to meet the Democratic leadership halfway and agree on a reasonable number of FL/MI delegates for the Convention. Stop whining about that and start being a team player. LOL. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 8:59:48 AM |
Hillary keeps trying to raise the minimum delegate number to 2210. She needs to stop focusing on that and start focusing on the most face-saving way to transition herself out of this race.
She should drop out now....
Obama would lose upcoming primaries too someone that withdrew..........
That would be Great for the image going into the Convention..
Why do you think Edwards came out when he did???
To Mute an A$$ kicking... | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 9:03:28 AM |
So I guess I have to wonder why it is that you and others of us distrust him so much -- ESPECIALLY if they feel they can trust HER.
Standing O, Vype!
The message that comes across while I don't think it's even realized is that the main argument given against Obama is "You shouldn't pick him because he's probably just as bad as my candidate". He's got his affiliations with a McDougal, a Garin, and a Bill Clinton.
The choice has been presented to be stick with the old known disingenuous candidate or the new probably disingenuous candidate. I might be choosing a liar in the end, but I prefer to not tell the old liar that it's okay to keep lying. | |
|
| |
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 9:17:59 AM |
Get over it. We'll have our first black president. Actually, if Obama won we'd have our first mixed-race president.
It's possible he could get 270 Electoral College votes, but highly unlikely.
People don't want a mother hen who appears to want to be a man leading the country. She's a bit stiff. Um I think Obama wins out on being the more stiffer candidate of the two. While Hillary knocks down whiskeys, Obama sips on an 8oz can of Red Bull.
Edwards gives long-awaited endorsement to Obama Funny who wasn't present at the Obama-Edwards pep rally: Edwards wife, who knows Hillary clearly has the better health plan proposal.
I don't think Edwards adds much to the Obama ticket. It pushes it further left, not where Obama needs to be if he wishes to win in November, despite being from NC he won't deliver NC Obama (see the Al Gore precedent, he couldn't win his home state); the election will be won in the center, Hillary and McCain are closer to the center than Obama. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 9:22:31 AM |
How about seating the delegates and not counting the popular vote?
Oh, you mean the way it's been done since the inception of the delegate nominating process?
June 4. Concession speech. Be there. | |
|
| |
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 9:37:19 AM | | I don't know itech. I saw something this morning that clinton is going to keep fighting until obama gets all 2210 delegates he needs. she's a stubborn one. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 9:46:19 AM |
I attribute the present acrimoniously-polarized state of the party as a direct consequence of the typical "attack/smear politics" approach that Hillary has employed in this nomination process.
It's really sad.
What was the date of the "84" negative ad....
What was the date " if you cannot run you own house how could you run the White House?" Michelle statement...
What was the date of the Greatness of Ron Reagan statement......
You high standard Obama in not typical....
He set the fires....
Now he has to attempt to control it...
I DO wish we didn't have so much vitriol within the Democratic party over this.
Good luck...
The Number One Progressive Talker Randi... calls her a fat A$$ in Pant suits.... | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 9:46:30 AM | Itechman42
McCain is more liberal then conservative more Democrat then republican so in fact you descriminate against him cause of his political afiliation has nothing to do with being disingenuous.
The Democrats win no matter how this election plays out.
Facts are that with Obama you take great risks in voting for him.
Hussein is in fact his middle name no matter how much or often people think this is irrelevent. He has ties to the Muslim background and he has even pursued those ties in present with a Pastor that damns our country and encourages intense hatred for our way of life. When analyzing someone you definately pay attention to the little things cause these are tell tale signs of who they are. It is very important that he doesn't think showing honor to flag and country is necessary. He is in fact a great orator but he continually misspeaks when he has no lines to read. He unravels as a face that covers up a radical belief system. In my opinion he is a dangerous man but only if handed a position of Commander in Chief.
Hilary has no chance. Hillary is running on the backs of cross over republicans who have no intentions of continuing to fight for her in the general election. Nobody not even past Clinton supporters want this woman in the Commander in Chief position. Her role is only to do what Clintons do best and that is to destroy the oponate. The destructive Clinton attack machine was set in place to expose Obama. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/15/2008 9:47:54 AM |
I don't know itech. I saw something this morning that clinton is going to keep fighting until obama gets all 2210 delegates he needs. she's a stubborn one.
With the steady trickle of uncommitted superdelegates -- and Hillary Clinton defectors -- making their way to Barack Obama's camp (the opposite CERTAINLY isn't true), I suspect he will very possibly win on delegate counts by the second week of June.
I'm with Itech!
No doubt she's a tough old bird but, in the end, like all we birds, she will flap her wings less vigorously, soar less frequently ... and then die. | |
|
|
| Page 47 of 98
|
33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73 |
|
Home
login 
Bravo, Itech! 
