MyDD :: Richardson Endorsement Thread

by theninjagoddess on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:55:25 PM EST

i'm so stoked about him coming to oregon.
me and my friends are gonna try to get into his event at Mac Court.

this kinda stuff rarely happens here, it should prove to be awesome.

by Nobama on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:56:19 PM EST

Yaaaaaaaaawwwwwnnnnn.

Re: Richardson Endorsement Thread (2.00 / 3)

clever.
I'm not sure which is more subtle, your dismissal of the endorsement or your name.

by theninjagoddess on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 12:59:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by johnnyappleseed on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:54:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The response (i.e. "yawwn") was certainly pedestrian. The screen name (i.e. "nobama") is actually pretty witty. Even I as an Obama supporter would admit that, although playing games with candidates names is typically a symptom of freeperism.

Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America

and "nobama" has proven himself to be afflicted with that terrible ailment time and time again.

by JDF on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:58:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson Endorsement Thread (2.00 / 2)

Oh yeah, Mr. Wrongyaddledseed :-)

by zonk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:58:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton Camp bitter much??? (2.00 / 3)

Here's the official Clinton Camp response to Richardson endorsing Obama...

Clinton strategist Mark Penn responds on Friday media call:

"The time that he could have been effective has long since passed.... I don't think it is a significant endorsement in this environment."

So, the Clinton Camp continues to belittle any person who doesn't endorse hillary and any state that votes Obama.

Interesting that they don't think it was a significant endorsement, yet we all know they courted Richardson aggressively and wanted this endorsement badly

BTW - you didn't hear Obama criticize Murtha when he came out for clinton... I am sick of the clintons acting like babies when they don't get what they want

by uscpdx1 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:00:12 PM EST

Re: Clinton Camp bitter much??? (none / 0)

the clinton name has really taken a hit because of this campaign. I have little to no respect for both of them at this point. and yes, I'll vote for her if she wins. but hopefully she'll get sent back to the senate and become something better then she's been in the past. Not the biggest benefactor from lobbyists in the health industry, drug and health insurance companies as she has been. my, makes you wonder where "progressive" health care plans come from, don't it?

by alex100 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:28:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah the Obama campaign has trashed the Clinton name and you have participated in that. I find your gloating about this to be just one more reason that over half of the democrats are choosing Clinton, not Obama. Your arrogance only reflects Obama though so I guess its par for the course.

by democrat voter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:39:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by alex100 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:41:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

not so much gloating going on.

and no, obama has not trashed the Clinton name. he's stayed above the fray.

She trashed her own name by running one of the nastiest Democratic campaign I've seen to date. Race baiting, using religion in a negative way, distorting photographs to make Obama look "blacker" and "sicklier", praising the GOP candidates experience, attacking Obama for being to "liberal", writing off caucuses, red states, black states, states that weren't big enough, etc...

there's a reason why I, as an edwards supporter, who used to like Hillary and like her just slightly less then Obama have no such tolerance for her anymore. and it's not because of your revisionist POV.

Re: Clinton Camp bitter much??? (none / 0)

err. two corrections. to=too and meant to say liked her slightly less then Obama.

by alex100 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:43:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by pholkhero on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:50:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

my very first reason for supporting barack was that he was trying to move past all these divisions. I really do NOT look forward to more Clinton/Bush-era infighting and division, and i think many others in the country feel the same way.

that being said, at the outset, i would've voted for HRC with no problem, but now, after the "kitchen sink" started getting thrown and her duplicity on FL/MI, i am just sick of her.

by ejintx on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:56:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Because Murtha is a representative in a state that has yet to have a primary...

"insignificant" (none / 0)

All the states that don't vote for Clinton are "insignificant" and now Richardson is "insignificant" too.

Not a good way make friends and influence people and build a ruling coalition.

by xtrarich on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:34:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary WIll Be Another Lieberman (none / 0)

After stabbing all the Democrats in the back, Fox News will hail her as the messiah.

by bernardpliers on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:56:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by beachbum bob on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:58:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

this why I lost all respect for the clintons

The Debate story (2.00 / 1)

I love this story from Richardson.

This was really a window into Obama.

by zonk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:01:06 PM EST

Re: The Debate story (none / 0)

?? Just like Kerry, the Kennedys, Oprah?

by mjc888 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:07:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Debate story (2.00 / 2)

I'm not sure what that has to do with story Richardson just recounted about the debate where, whether than hang a then-competitor out to dry, Obama tossed him a whisper.

Back in those days - when Richardson was among the 4 Dems with a good shot at the nomination, Obama probably could have let him gaffed his way through the question.

by zonk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:10:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Debate story (none / 0)

I thought it was a joking reference to Lieberman's lifeline to McCain the other day...

"If you ever post anything on that website again, I will shove a motherboard so far up your a$$...!" C.J Cregg

by JenKinFLA on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:21:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Debate story (none / 0)

There was actually a bit of rumor going around about 7-8 weeks ago when Richardson first recounted the story that he was going to endorse then... I actually cited it and said it was evidence that Bill Richardson would endorse Obama.

I was just a few months late :-)

by zonk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:26:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by ogondai on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:03:54 PM EST

Well, it's true. An endorsement now has limited weight -- where was it when New Mexico or Texas was voting? For that matter, it wasn't even out there when there was a possibility that Florida would be heard.

Richardson was my first choice for president, but it's odd to make an endorsement when it is too late to really have an impact. It's nice for Obama, but it doesn't help him a whole lot, and it doesn't change the political and policy defects in Obama's campaign. Not really a surprise either -- the two of them were trading delegates in Iowa for heaven's sake.

I can see on impact from the endorsement. Richardson had made it rather clear from his behavior that he wanted to endorse the likely winner as earliest as he could safely do so. I wonder what made him think that Obama was pretty likely the nominee -- probably Obama's successful silencing of Florida and Michigan.

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

But can't you see that what you pointed out is exactly why this endorsement is important? You're right, his statements and his timing make it clear that he was just trying to wait until the nomination was a done deal and then jump on the winning bandwagon. This endorsement on the heels of the news that the Flordia and Michigan primaries are actually going to be treated like Hilary and everyone else agreed they should before the primary season started is a signal to the other SDs. This could net Obama more delegates than a pre New Mexico endorsement would have. As for Texas... well... Obama won Texas.

by lockewasright on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:15:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by mikes101 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:49:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

>>As for Texas... well... Obama won Texas

Right... keep repeating the lie... maybe if you repeat it enough it will be true. The fact is he lost Texas by over 100,000 votes, yet still won more delegates because the system is deeply flawed.

Obama can win more delegates while losing the popular votes. Is that the superior candidate, or a flawed election system? You tell me. I'll go with the candidate that wins the popular vote in a state.

Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America

The bottom line is the primary is a race for delegates and by that barometer Obama won Texas. Is it right? No, it certainly is not. However, it not being right doesn't make it less true.

by JDF on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:01:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by mikes101 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:30:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, the real bottom line is more like:

If this thing is ultimately decided by the 1-2 delegates that Obama netted vs. Hillary in Texas, then you are right.

Otherwise, if this race is in any way influenced by attempts to convince supers who won Texas and who is therefore the stronger candidate, I'm right, because the "reasonable person" knows that Hillary won Texas, and that selecting her reflects the will of the people. Hillary wins because she is the stronger candidate despite a caucus system that favors the other candidate (as clearly demonstrated in Texas).

Also, just a note to Obama supporters - you really should stop arguing in any way for victories that come at the expense of disenfranchising voters or do not reflect the will of the people. If Obama is ultimately the nominee, as he very well may be, you need to convince your fellow Democrats that he is rightfully the nominee. Arguing that he won Texas or that Florida should split its delegates 50-50 is really a sham!

Remember Florida 2000? You do not want a nominee that many Democrats see as illegitimate - trust me. Arguing "the math" is really lame. I know what "the math" is, I know that "rules are rules" - but I'm still not going to get too excited to vote for someone who I think that, if nominated, has done so only because of a highly flawed and biased nominating process. There is "the math", but then there is also "politics" - and right now Obama supporters are alienating roughly 1/2 of the Democratic party through his campaign's tactics to claim victory where there really wasn't one (Nevada, Missouri - here I am referring to the constant claim that somehow Obama would be stronger in the GE based on a .1% victory, Texas) or disenfranchise voters (Florida, Michigan) .

Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America

You are right 50% of all Democratic voters are sooooo angry about the way the process has been discussed... of course, by your theory about 50% of Democratic voters are equally angry about the way the Hillary campaign and her supporters have spoken about the process... guess that means neither can win; we should all just welcome McCain to the White House.

Thanks for simplifying everything for me.

by JDF on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:37:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by mikes101 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:46:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, a McCain victory is very likely the outcome.

My point is that either side should be as conciliatory as possible to the other side. If Obama is such a great uniter and such a great candidate, why won't he accept re-votes for Florida and Michigan?

This guy got into politics by pushing some old lady out of her seat in Illinois. Now he wants to push his way into the White House. That's cool - old-school politics - but like I said I think it undermines the entire rationale his candidacy. He was supposed to be better than that.

On the one hand, people say this is the second coming of Lincoln or JFK. Something tells me Lincoln would want to win his party's nomination fair and square.

Obama has already lost my vote in November. I am not sure yet whether I would write-in Hillary, vote Nader, or McCain... but barring some transformation that I have yet to see in Obama, I think he is the worst of my options.

by cwsaterfield on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:57:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree that Hillary won the popular vote in Texas. But it is also a fact that Obama won the caucus. While you might find the process flawed, you cannot fault someone for saying that Obama won more delegates in Texas. In addition, the Clinton camps attempt to seat the MI and Florida delegates is a much more egregious example of disenfranchisement. I am in complete support of a re-vote and I wish that Obama was more of a leader with regards to this. However, Clintons stance on this issue is deeply flawed and if you cannot acknowledge that then you are beyond any objectivity.

by mikes101 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:14:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

>>In addition, the Clinton camps attempt to seat the MI and Florida delegates is a much more egregious example of disenfranchisement.

I opposed that as well. I am not saying I was happy about that position in the Clinton camp, but let's look at where the candidates stand now.

>>However, Clintons stance on this issue is deeply flawed and if you cannot acknowledge that then you are beyond any objectivity

Flawed by what? By the fact that she now supports a re-vote? I agree with you that she started out with a position that is nearly as egregiously wrong as Obama's current stance. But given both candidates current positions, Obama is clearly trying to "run out the clock" when it's a 51-49 game. That's really lame and old-school, sorry.

I'm not saying Hillary wouldn't be doing the same thing if she were in Obama's shoes. But either way it's a lame position to take...

by cwsaterfield on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:22:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree with Senator Clinton when she argues for a re-vote. I don't agree with her when she argues for simply seating the delegates. For me, the problem is that she's argued both and that the latter, if catered to, will only lead to more problems for the DNC and our party both in this election and in 2012.

That said, I agree that if Obama is "waiting out the clock" on the re-votes then he is manipulating the system in a way which I find objectionable and disappointing.

Thanks for the respectful tone and civility. It's appreciated.

by mikes101 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:26:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

>>you cannot fault someone for saying that Obama won more delegates in Texas

Nobody said "Obama won more delegates in Texas". They said, "Obama won Texas". Obama supporters may not think there is a distinction between the two. But I (and most of the country, apparently)refuse to call someone who loses a state by 100,000 popular votes the "winner", sorry. He is "the net winner of delegates in Texas" - yes, probably. But far be it from me to deny someone a huge popular vote victory.

John McCain the flip-flopper...

I seem to be repeating this whenever I post, but the race for the Democratic Party's nomination doesn't take the 'popular vote' into account (though super delegates may take whatever they want into account).

It is a delegate race where each state's delegates are apportioned in sometimes strange and often un-democratic manners. Just look at the fact that some districts (that voted heavily for Dems in '04 and '06) are given a disproportionately high number of delegates. It is a clear statement that some people's votes count more than others. This is just one of the reasons that, officially speaking, the popular vote has no meaning.

So, yes. In the only measure that really matters, Obama won Texas.

by chinapaulo on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:37:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by mikes101 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:44:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

>>So, yes. In the only measure that really matters, Obama won Texas.

You sound like the Republicans in 2000. We can disagree to disagree, but you are not going to convince me or the millions of others like me that the popular vote does not matter.

Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America

I think perhaps what you mean is that it should matter, and on that I agree with you.

However, for something to matter there has to be a tangible way in which it is important and in this case there isn't one.

Is it bad? Yes, but being bad does not make it less true.

by JDF on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:14:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by falseintellect on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:58:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

lol. Hillary wouldnt be willing to throw out FL/MI if that helped her? you're dreaming.

it only helps reinforce that im backing the right candidate to see that Hillary supporters would rather McCain be president then Obama. There isnt anything Hillary could ever do that would allow me to help McCain be president.

When the supreme court is packed with a couple more Roberts/Alitos we will know who to thank.

"If you ever post anything on that website again, I will shove a motherboard so far up your a$$...!" C.J Cregg

The majority of voters in Florida did not want a redo...

by JenKinFLA on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:12:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Want a progressive global warming novel, not a right wing rant? Go to www.edwardgtalbot.com for a free audio thriller.

he won't accept the proposed revote for the same reason Hillary said she would not support a caucus revote. A caucus revote would disenfranchise voters. The proposed revote would disenfranchise a whole new set of voters - those who voted repub because the first election wasn't gonna count. if you want to argue that the proposed primary disenfranchises less than a proposed caucus, well we can have that argument, but it completely destroys the idea of one candidate supporting the voters and one not.

All that said, I am disappointed with Obama's lack of leadership on his issue - all his statements (other than that he would follow the will of the DNC) have come by way of campaign proxies, not him. And I will freely admit that Hillary is more right on this issue at this exact moment than Obama is. But I have real trouble having it sway me much, given that when it was politically exepedient last fall, Clinton said the Michigan vote didn't count for anything, and now that it may be politically expedient for her, she wants a revote. The best you can say for her is that political expedience has caused her to flip flop to a position that's marginally better than the position Obama has had all along (also due to political expedience).

by edparrot on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:45:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson Endorsement Thread (none / 0)

I will vote for the Democratic candidate no matter who that candidate might be, Clinton or Obama. A
McCain presidency is unthinkable!

by ps9mm on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:49:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by beachbum bob on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:00:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

what bar does obama have to leap after most delegates, most votes and most superdelegates? whats the next clinton bar they be setting???

obama has more money, most votes and most delegates. Coming in 2nd to obama aint that bad of thing...but 2nd is still 2nd

Texas delegates (none / 0)

Obama hasn't "won" Texas delegates either

The County Conventions haven't been held. TDP doesn't even know all the results of the local precinct conventions held on March 4.

The delegate totals won't (can't) be final until the State Convention on June 6-7.

Regardless of Obama's claims, the totals of Texas delegates awarded to each campaign from the caucuses are still very much up in the air.

by TxKat on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:01:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by comingawakening on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:08:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

over 130,000 republicans crossed over and voted for clinton because rush and other conservatives wanted her to win to extend the race.

barack will win the caucus by over 150,000 votes based on estimates so he will make up the 95,000 vote loss in the primary.

he will win texas: delegates and votes.

Obama 08!

by PracticalMagic on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:23:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just remember - NEITHER Obama or Clinton can win the nomination with delegate counts ... so if we look to the US Constitution for democratic guidance - in the case where no one wins the Electoral College for the Presidency, the election is thrown to Congress to decide, the House of Representatives and the Senate. It has nothing to do with the Electoral Count, the Popular Vote, or anything other than who the Congress picks. I believe the House picks the President, the Senate picks the VP. Since it would be between Democrat and Republican, we could have a Republican President and a Democratic VP, if the Congress is divided so. And, we did have that once in history.

In the nomination, the "Congress" is the Superdelegates. The same conditions apply. Delegates (=Electors) don't matter, Popular Votes don't matter, the "will of the people" could not pick a winner, period. Sooo, the Superdelegates vote on who would be the best nominee to win in November. I'm sure they pay attention to all factors, but who can win is most important, I would think. Those are the rules, they "mirror" the US Constitution process, and Obama, a constitutional lawyer knows that - everything else coming out of his campaign about delegates, 'will of the people', etc. is to convince the superdelegates, since he cannot win on the 'will of the people' alone.

by falseintellect on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:00:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Superdelegates will certainly take who is ahead in popular vote or pledged delegates into account.

But even if they go on your criteria, Obama would still be the nominee.

by mikes101 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:34:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You cannot count the caucus votes + the primary votes! The caucus votes were the same people that voted in the primary. It was just a smaller subset of the primary voters, since the caucus process is so inconvenient and undemocratic.

I voted in both of them - you really want to count my vote 2x? I really don't get that logic!

If you do want to do that, every state should get a caucus and a primary... so we know what the will of their citizens truly was.

How are you counting caucus-goers (none / 0)

In that voter count?

by faithfull on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:03:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by comingawakening on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:22:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

over 130,000 republicans crossed over and voted for clinton because rush and other conservatives wanted her to win to extend the race.

barack will win the caucus by over 150,000 votes based on estimates so he will make up the 95,000 vote loss in the primary.

he will win texas: delegates and votes.

Obama 08!

"If you ever post anything on that website again, I will shove a motherboard so far up your a$$...!" C.J Cregg

Strange, I'm in Florida and I'm not silent...

by JenKinFLA on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:23:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson Endorsement Thread (2.00 / 3)

this blog has just become so sad in it's attempts to marginalize every single thing beneficial to Obama and magnify anything beneficial to Clinton. Once he secures the nomination (which he will do) it will simply look pathetic.

by godemsin08 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:06:34 PM EST

by mjc888 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:07:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Even Richardson said that endorsements don't mean much.

What looks pathetic actually is the O supporters who found it necessary to continue insults and belittle Clinton in the misguided attempt to steam roll Obama and help him destroy our democratic president. This behavior from O supporters will make him basically unelectable.

by democrat voter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:44:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America

I can't do anything but laugh at this comment... oh, that and say I find it interesting that you don't complain when Clinton supporters behave badly.

At least be consistent.

by JDF on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:03:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I completely . . . (none / 0)

. . . agree . . .

by Keithb7862 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:01:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by kbuggy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:07:52 PM EST

Richardson was FANTASTIC, almost brought tears to my eyes...GO OBAMA/RICHARDSON

by mjc888 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:10:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Tears? Really?

by kbuggy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:04:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I've seen some of your other comments, you come across as very bitter, my prayers will be with you.

Re: Richardson Endorsement Thread (2.00 / 0)

He is really , sort of an average guy. Very smart. Very hardworking but very approachable and fun. I met him .

I think Bill Richardson is , at least in my book - the single most important political figure we have. If JFK could become a diplomat I think he would have looked like Bill . Ok. Maybe he'd be more handsome. And golf better. But still.

You should dig up some of JFK's old papers. Esp. the one on policy of appeasement, pre WW2 england - that thing is awesome. JFK believed that england would have likely not supported
Neville Chamberlain, if he had returned with
a declaration of war - however, he also proposed
an alternate path to stop hitler and its really interesting how the game is really played at that level.

Bill is coool.

by Trey Rentz on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:13:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The choice is simple: A President who voted for the worst of Bush's odius agenda, or one who didn't.

The Clinton campaign must be fuming that Obama is getting close to an hour of free time on MSNBC and CNN (I don't watch Fox).

by Liberal Avenger on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:07:53 PM EST

Re: Richardson Endorsement Thread (2.00 / 2)

Heh.

That's OK -- you can always catch the Fox transcripts on the diary list.

by zonk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:11:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The choice is simple: A President who voted for the worst of Bush's odius agenda, or one who didn't.

zing!

by Liberal Avenger on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:57:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Wiseprince on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:59:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

CNN has had an hour long special on Obama for each of the last 4 days. This is absurd and has gone too far.

Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America

Its not entirely the fault of the media; Hillary's campaign needs to give them some better things to cover.

by JDF on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:04:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

This is something I'm starting to notice too. Clinton's been fading for a while now, at least in terms of coverage. Why? Because even when her point of view is put forth, it's usually an attack on Obama, not a promotion of her. When Obama is talking about what he can do for the country and Clinton is talking about why Obama won't be able to do that, it makes Obama the constant focus.

I'd say that's a misstep from the Clinton camp, but I don't know what else they can do now.

by thezzyzx on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:17:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama Gets To Respond To Attacks On TV (none / 0)

Hillary can keep going on a rampage, but if it makes all the screen time go to Obama, who wins in the long run?

Eventually Hillary becomes the scary neighborhood crazy lady.

by bernardpliers on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:00:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Gets To Respond To Attacks On TV (none / 0)

The only thing I find scary is Obama supporters who are not embarassed to use blatant sexist stereotypes as part of their general comments.

by oh puhleeze on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:10:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Time to write the Politburo networks again and tell them they're not the propaganda arm of the Obama campaign. They're pissing off voters and viewers.

by oh puhleeze on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:30:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsm emo.com/2008/03/girl_in_hillary_red_phon e_ad_d.php

Girl In Red Phone Ad Denounces Hillary And Her "Politics Of Fear"

Maybe they can report on this. I would be free airtime for that awesome 3am ad.

http://www.yawnmccain.com

by enozinho on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:36:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by FlipYrWhig on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:52:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Clinton campaign must be fuming that Obama is getting close to an hour of free time on MSNBC

One hour of free time on MSNBC? Pshaw. There's 23 more hours of free Obama time after that, every day.

The choice is simple: A President who voted for the worst of Bush's odius agenda, or one who didn't.

Now THAT'S some fuming!

by Liberal Avenger on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:54:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

I spent 1 year on temporary assignment in Portland through work. It really is beautiful.

by lockewasright on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:07:55 PM EST

by el mito on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:09:27 PM EST

I also like Richardson, but at this point in time?...an endorsement on Good Friday?... as a Latino Catholic I think this is not the best day to be doing politics..

Ah Portland (none / 0)

Home of The Intel Corporation. I used to live there. Great Town.

by Trey Rentz on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:10:07 PM EST

Re: Ah Portland (none / 0)

Nike too.

The Intel facility is astounding!

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

by lockewasright on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:27:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

Obama's introduction to his speech is a long praise of Richardson. It sounds almost like a VP nomination.

by thezzyzx on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:10:11 PM EST

Re: Richardson Endorsement Thread (2.00 / 1)

Endorsements dont matter much, though, if he did come out for Clinton today - it would have continued the Wright narrative as a turning point in the campaign.
I find it VERY interesting with his close ties to the Clintions, and NM going to Hillary, he came out for Obama. I think it shows the strength of his candidacy and message.

'The only people for me are the mad ones, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing ...'

by stryan on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:11:20 PM EST

by mjc888 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:14:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And this, in the end, might actually help Clinton.

Smacks like this solidify her base and continue to position her as the underdog and fighter.

by Rockville Liberal on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:20:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No one said she isn't a fighter. It's just that maybe she has taken the proverbial shot to the head one to many times and isn't really seeing things as they are, sort of like not really in touch with the reality of her present situation.

by mjc888 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:25:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If it's basically over, as you are implying, then why is Obama fighting tooth and nail?

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

A Hilary supporter has a problem with a candidate fighting tooth and nail?!

Isn't that the whole reason for supporting her? Well, that and her bountiful experience watching some very heady television and reading some very serious novels in various rooms of the White House in between formal dinners where she shook hands with some of the smartest people in the world.

Speaking of formal dinners at the White House. Isn't Bill photogenic? He looks great in that picture with that one Reverend friend of his from Chicago. Gee whiz, I wonder if this means that Bill endorses every word that ever came out of the guys mouth.

by lockewasright on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:37:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson Endorsement Thread (1.00 / 1)

This deserves to be troll rated. You are a sexist louse who makes the most disgusting and wrongheaded comments to satisfy what? Hatred of women in general or is it just Clinton and her role in the WH for 8 years. You must think that belittling the first lady of this country is such a patriotic duty.

You do realize this is a stupid and worthless insult that only makes Hillary supporters feel that O surely doesn't need any of our votes, he has his movement, after all. Watch him get elected by refusal to count all the votes and you think he can unite this party? When so far, more dems are voting for her than him? Yeah right.

by democrat voter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:51:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

I said nothing about her gender. Not one word. You bandy about sexism as a tool of convenience while losing an argument to the detriment of true feminism. I am a democratic voter specifically because I can't stand gender bias, race bias, bias based on sexual preference, religious beliefs, etc.

I don't buy that living in the White House with president counts as expeience qulifying one as chief executive. On the day when we do have a female president, and I don't think that day is long in coming, I will not give credit to the first husband for the experience either.

Now do those of us who truly do believe in equality a favor and win or lose based on the merits of your argument rather than lean on the sexism crutch every time you start to lose.

We (the democratic party) have a very large and growing number of women doing an excellent job in office that are currently gaining more (actaully valid) experience than Hilary. I truly hope one of them becomes president soon. I am actually pretty tired of middle aged, white christian, straight, males being all that this nation puts in power. I am glad to see that that is changing in governorships and congress. I am very proud to have been alive for Nancy Pelosi's ascension to speaker. (rock 'n' roll!)

I have nothing against middle aged, white christian, males either. I just think that everyone else should be represented too.

by lockewasright on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:07:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Rockville Liberal on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:56:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Very well, consider yourself troll-rated.

by mady on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:27:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am an Obama supporter, but when I read a post like this one, "heady television," etc. want to dope-smack some of my fellow supporters for things that really do come out sounding horribly sexist. Needs to stop. Whatever you think of Hillary as a candidate for president, don't diminish her abilities, she is a smart, gifted person, deserving of respect.

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

Never said she wasn't any of those things. In fact, I think that she IS all of those things. I just don't buy that being in the first spouse counts as experience for a presidential candidate. I wouldn't give that credit to a first husband either. I never said a word about her gender. NOT. ONE. WORD.

Any sexism that you saw was added in your own mind. I think that this tendancy to find sexism where it isn't actually hurts feminism. I happen to truly believe that all human types are equal. Some are smarter than others. Some have greater patience than others. Some are more capable than others etc. But, and here's the big part; gender, weight, sexual preference, religion all of this is a nonfactor in those things! I believe that absolutely so again I say:
Any sexism percieved in my comment was added in the readers mind.

by lockewasright on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:17:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson Endorsement Thread (1.00 / 1)

Fighting tooth and nail?

The only thing that Senator Obama is fighting tooth and nail is the general election campaign.

The sixties [both senses] bra burners have got to get used to it. Senator H Rodham Clinton is as much yesterday's news as the Patriots perfect season and Senator Obama's pastor. Yes, sad to say, she will be a footnote in the history of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky.

Malcolm

by malc19ken on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:39:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America

Hmm...

Tasteless.

by JDF on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:07:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

ok, now that was sexist.

Can you see how the attack was based on gender? For those of you who insist on calling everything that anyone has to say in opposition to Hilary sexist her is a true example.

Memmorize it and then please only throw out the accusation where it truly fits. Otherwise it is simply crying wolf and it will lose effectiveness when you need to call out a jackassed statement like this one.

by lockewasright on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:12:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, the sneery fratboys who missed a generation of progressive politics are out in full force. Keep it up, you're solidifying a bra-load of voters against your candidate.

by oh puhleeze on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:24:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

OBAMA'S DEAN SCREAM!!!!! (none / 0)

OMFG!!!

It's the scream! He can't handle a microphone. Obama is SO toast.

by zonk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:12:03 PM EST

by Cycloptichorn on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:14:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Uh, what?

by zonk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:15:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It was snark...

Sorry - usually such items show up as diaries on the rec list, not inside threads.

by Trey Rentz on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:16:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks for counting yourself in with the people who tried to unseat the candidacy of what is now the current head of the democratic party.

I remember the Dean scream. I remember microphone volume. I remember Joe Trippi telling Dean to get out there and just "pump them up" and he did.

But I also remember Dean took over the party and our voter registration and attendance is up 76%
and the Dems won the House and the Senate.

So. Hillary Clinton Fan. Lets hear more about how Dean is such a loser.

Enlighten me.

by zonk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:20:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

OK.

Nerves a bit raw.

I'm both a Deanic from way back and an Obama supporter.

I suppose it might be considered a little telling that it's so hard to separate the snark as overreach from the overreach for campaign fodder.

"If you ever post anything on that website again, I will shove a motherboard so far up your a$$...!" C.J Cregg

yeah... we really need a snark tag or something... you almost had me, but I have read your other posts, so I knew where you were coming from...

by JenKinFLA on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:26:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Uh, President Dean? No? Guess he lost the nomination. Geez!

by democrat voter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:54:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by zonk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:59:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But won the DNC chairmanship and led the party to something MacAwful couldn't do -- gaining control of both the Senate and the House.

Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America

Can't you tell the new rules?

Unless you are with Clinton you are useless to the Democratic party.. just ask a Clinton supporter here at MYDD.

by JDF on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:08:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

HRC's War Against Dean (none / 0)

They hate everything about Dean, the 50 state strategy, growing the party, and will turn the Democratic party into a subsidiary of Fox News.

by bernardpliers on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:04:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We don't need a thinker. We need a doer: someone who'll act without considering the consequences. (H.J. Simpson)

This deserves a repost.

The Clinton response;

Clinton strategist Mark Penn responds on Friday media call: "The time that he could have been effective has long since passed.... I don't think it is a significant endorsement in this environment

That guy should be fired on the spot. What an @ss.

by Newcomer on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:15:34 PM EST

by mjc888 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:16:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wouldn't the Obama camp say the same exact thing?

Behind the scenes they are very similar campaigns.

"If you ever post anything on that website again, I will shove a motherboard so far up your a$$...!" C.J Cregg

First off, I don't know that the Obama campaign said anything about Murtha...

Secondly, no one in Democratic politics has done anything to deserve a comparison to Mark Penn... that's just mean. The guy brings new meanings to the term odious.

by JenKinFLA on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:29:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson Endorsement Thread (2.00 / 2)

I didn't comment on Murtha here --

But at Kos, I said I respect Murtha greatly and really look forward to having him campaign in PA for Obama after the nomination is settled.

by zonk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:39:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"If you ever post anything on that website again, I will shove a motherboard so far up your a$$...!" C.J Cregg

I said something similar... I like Murtha and I certainly don't fault him for his endorsement... nor do I fault any else for their endorsements... It is a free country...

by JenKinFLA on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:56:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No (2.00 / 1)

What did Obama say when Murtha endorsed? Nothing. Good for Clinton for the endorsement. It's implied.

Right there is a microcosm of what is wrong with the HRC campaign. They have to try and spin every single little thing. I know that they may feel betrayed by Richardson who they have done a lot for - but so what. Richardson probably delayed the endorsement until after Texas out of that sense of loyalty. Everyone knows the endorsement is not as big now as it would've been before Texas, so why does Mark Penn have to spew his shit. He is spinning the obvious and frankly the country is tired of spin.

Belittle the Richardson endorsement, belittle or discount States where Obama won, discount the Caucus process - this is what Team Clinton does. It is no ones fault but HRC's that she took a winning hand and made it a loser. She is the one that voted for Kyl-Leiberman and it is her campaign that blew $120 million dollars before Super Tuesday. Without that K-L vote, the anti-war left would not have sought another candidate. If she did not comprehend the anti-war passion of a major portion of her party's base, then she is a poor judge of the political climate.

When the FEC reports come out in 2 weeks - the reports will show that Obama raised 65 to 70 million in March. That will be the trigger that unleashes a horde of uncommitted SD's to back Obama. The game is over.

by johnnyappleseed on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:48:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

What garbage this is. Ick! Ick!

Obama has not won, and you are simply upset that the majority of democrats favor Clinton. Obama is the flash you are just going to get a very hard lesson in politics. Enjoy your ride.

by democrat voter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:57:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

QUite a flash.

1600 total delegates.

A clear and decisive pledged delegate lead.

A clear popular vote lead.

More total states won.

I don't think you have a firm grasp on what the cliche "Flash in the pan" means.

by zonk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:02:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

I'm confused as to where you are getting this idea that the majority of Democrats support Clinton over Obama.

Exhibit A) Popular vote, which Obama leads in.
Exhibit B) Delegate count, which Obama leads in.
Exhibit C) A substantial amount of Republican support in primaries lately since the GOP nomination is settled and Republicans want to screw up the Democratic nomination battle more.

by sorrodos on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:05:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am not upset at anything (none / 0)

My candidate - Barack Obama - is going to be the Democratic nominee for President. There is no possible way that the SD's are going to overturn the pledged delegate leader.

And it's funny how you say I'll get a hard lesson in politics. You know what the first lesson in politics is - money talks and bullshit walks. The Super Delegates aren't about to shut off the faucet on the greatest fund raiser in the history of American politics. They are not even looking at the total raised, they are looking at the number of donors. His donor base is between 2 and 3 times larger than HRC's. If you don't think that that is going to be a major factor in the Super's decision process than you are naive.

by johnnyappleseed on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:15:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Murtha (none / 0)

Why didn't the Murtha endorsements get this kind of press. Curious

by Wiseprince on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:15:44 PM EST

Re: Murtha (2.00 / 1)

Murtha wasn't a prez. candidate, so his profile isn't as high as Richardson's.

by Cycloptichorn on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:17:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Murtha (2.00 / 1)

murtha's a good guy but he's not a presidential candidate, nor four time nominated for the nobel peace prize - or a former ambassador to the UN, nor someone who governed the state where Americas first spaceport is being built.

Seriously. He's great he's just... you know?
I think the Media is right to focus the lens on Bill today.

by Trey Rentz on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:18:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Murtha (2.00 / 1)

Murtha wasn't a presidential candidate. The same thing will happen when Edwards endorses Obama.

Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129

by Kobi on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:22:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by malc19ken on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:43:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's difficult to shout too loudly about 'pork barrel Murtha.' People may investigate him and if they do his endorsement might be kind of embarrassing.

Malcolm

Malcom: plez quit trying to be such an insulting brat about democrats.

by democrat voter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:59:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America

I agree with you...although I wish you would be as full-throated in your support of Democrats who aren't lined up behind Clinton.

by JDF on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:11:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by zonk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:04:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, that doesn't help.

As someone that absolutely does want our park barrel system overhauled, I know what you're getting at -- but Murtha is a good man and a good Democrat.

Like I said above, I certainly look forward to Murtha helping Obama win PA in the fall.

by PittsburghPete on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:46:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Because the timing of the Murth endorsement was poor; it got lost amid the universal praise of Obama's speech on Tuesday. It was an afterthought when it should have been a big moment for her. Any way you slice it, Hillary's campaign has had significant flaws since the beginning; the announcement of the Murtha endorsement is yet another flawed moment.

by awayer on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:18:41 PM EST

seems like a deal why indorse now when obama is fading away looks since obama is vert desperate he promised something big

Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129

Fading away? According to every bean counter, Obama has the nomination locked up. Hillary faded away for good back in Feb. when she lost 11 in a row. At this point her campaign is just an exercise in self indulgence at the expense of her own party.

by Kobi on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:24:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by mjc888 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:28:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Locked up? LOL. Rewind to the Wright controversy and ask yourself how supers can't be worried about its possible impact in the general election.

Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129

Do the math. Hillary's a dead woman walking who can only kill her own party too by continuing her divisive campaign.

by Kobi on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:31:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are so wrong, Obama has been the divisive one. He says it all the time about Hillary but the very saying it all the time means he is the dividing one. He first divided the black vote from her, now he is using republican and independents to divide the democrats from the person they have voted for. Over half of the democratic party is voting for Clinton and not Obama.

by democrat voter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:05:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129

Thanks for the card from Fantasy Island.

by Kobi on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:00:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"If you ever post anything on that website again, I will shove a motherboard so far up your a$$...!" C.J Cregg

Rewind to any of either of their respective controversies and I would say the super delegates are nervous all the way around.

Let's not pretend that HRC is a saint when it comes to affiliations for a moment. They both have baggage.

by JenKinFLA on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:32:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

agreed, but only 1 of them has a lead so large as to be practically prohibitive for the other.

by lockewasright on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:43:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You O supporters just keep thinking that his lead is prohibitive. Without SDs Obama can't win, neither can Hillary, so he must get them to vote for him, same with Clinton. It is still the fact that over half of the democrats are voting for Hillary. That is the truth.

by democrat voter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:02:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by zonk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:30:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Heh.

There are going to be a lot Clinton supporters that are going to be disappointed when they find that time is linear, not cyclical.

We won't be redoing the 38 states that have already selected delegates.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/030 8/9147.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/030 8/9149.html

Politico has a few pieces out making the point that it will be very, very hard for Clinton to win.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:42:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Wiseprince on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:55:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It will be very difficult for Obama to win the general too. Typical white racist may not appreciate how the "next President" sees them

Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129

Hillary and her people have always overblown the number of "typical white racists," who won't vote for any African American, as well as ignore the fact that they'll be voting GOP regardless -- especially since they're also "typical male chauvinists," who will never vote for a woman either.

by Kobi on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:01:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by Wiseprince on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:03:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You missed the point. Obama suggested that his grandmother was afraid of black people whenever she saw them on the street and followed that by saying that she's just a typical white woman.

I personally think that is a ridiculous claim and I am pretty sure there are plenty of "typical white" people who will think that is an outrageous statement. The media may not want to make a big deal of it now but it will come out (If America is still free)

by rejectandenounce on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:08:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It is a sad day when FOX news Chris Wallace and Brian Kilmeade has some perspective on the issue. Everyone knows Obama isn't a racist (the guy is half-white for heaven's sake!)however, this parsing of every single word he says is so petty and I am sick and tired of it. White people need to lighten up and stop acting so sensitive

/THE GUY IS HALF WHITE PEOPLE!!!!

Obama doesn't actually understand a typical white person. He has a warped view because he has spent so much time at that black church. He doesn't know what some of us think or feel, but I don't think we spend our time afraid of black people generally.

This is one more myth Obama expects us to buy. In that way he can make white people feel guilty of hidden racism, so as to make us more likely to see he can save us from our racism. all we must do you see, is elect him. Clear as day to me.

by democrat voter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:59:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank You Jonah Goldberg (none / 0)

by bernardpliers on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:07:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

http://www.yawnmccain.com

Can we just do away with the word "typical" in our political discourse? It is important that we stick to the issues here, and not hang on every word a candidate utters looking for an angle to attack them. The only way to do that is to ban words and images that dishonest people will make sure others are offended by. I propose the candidates stop using this word entirely. And to preempt Republican attacks in the general, Clinton and Obama should stop attending rallies and giving interviews, because their respective genders and races are likely to offend, and in some cases frighten, Republicans in the fall.

by enozinho on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:12:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by zonk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:06:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well...

Fortunately, I don't attracting the "white racist" vote was a big part of Obama's strategy for the fall.

I mean, his speech to the National Alliance fell pretty flat, and I think he's given up on winning the endorsement of David Duke.

It is distressing that O supporters keep proclaiming the second coming while there is a race going on. After all, it is tough when over half of the party is in fact voting for Clinton and not their chosen ONE. Troubling signs. The self indulgence is on the part of O supporters who have this very bad habit of premature gloating. The vote in Penn is coming. Obama needs to secure the base of the democratic party if he has a chance in hell of winning this election.

by democrat voter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:03:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by zonk on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:08:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ummm...

over half of the party is in fact voting for Clinton

Well... he's magically been able to build a huge pledged delegate lead and maintain a clear popular vote lead --- while "over half the party" votes for Clinton, then I think we have no choice but to nominate him.

His lead is not huge, in fact only half of the SDs are required to chose her for her to actually have just as many delegates as he does. So he needs to get the base of the party to support him. If he does not then he will lose.

by democrat voter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:53:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by LindaSFNM on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:22:02 PM EST

Only because his only chance at getting back to DC, his ultimate dream, is with Obama. Richardson is always looking out for himself. Hillary told Bill long ago that Richardson wouldn't be on her ticket. That's why.

Richardson is uttering the same words in 04, when he told Governor Dean to get out of the race to make room for uniting behind John Kerry. I didn't believe the rumors then that Richardson wanted to run for President himself. Time has a way of always proving right.

Look out McCain (2.00 / 1)

Obama had been coasting for a while, but in the wake of The Speech, he's reenergized. This is the first time in weeks where Obama has been really been on his game like this.

But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

by thezzyzx on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:22:22 PM EST

Re: Look out McCain (2.00 / 1)

I noticed that as well. I am thinking Wright is the new Jennifer Flowers. Look at all the white people in the audience, many of them haven't fallen for the Republican talking point and this is a good thing for America.

by rejectandenounce on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:26:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by mjc888 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:29:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Better yet, look at the polls, which show that 56% are now questioning Obama since the Wright controversy.

Re: Look out McCain (2.00 / 2)

Yeah and since the election is tomorrow, there's no chance that Obama can win.

What?

November.

Oh, I guess I can calm down a little.

But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

by thezzyzx on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:32:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"If you ever post anything on that website again, I will shove a motherboard so far up your a$$...!" C.J Cregg

well, that might fade once the Clintons' tax returns are released... there, I said it.

The Wright controversy won't fade.. the Republicans will not let it. But I think he can weather the storm about it.

by JenKinFLA on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:34:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by rejectandenounce on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:38:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What are the republicans going to do? If they dare put out an ad, there will be an another ad of Hagee preaching America derserved Katrina, there will be the latest tirade of Robertson on display, and lets not forget Rod Parsley's comments about Muslims. I for one am not worried November is a long time from now and it is worthless to predict what will happen then.

"If you ever post anything on that website again, I will shove a motherboard so far up your a$$...!" C.J Cregg

For reasons that pass my understanding, Wrights words are considered more inflammatory...

An ad is already on the internet...

by JenKinFLA on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:55:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by rejectandenounce on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:00:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The thing is Wright is being saturated on the airwaves to the point that people are tired of hearing about it. There will be no ad from the Republicans because they don't want Hagee, Richardson, Parsley comments out. That ad on the internet was seen barely seen by 30,000 people and McCain himself quickly suspended the guy who made it. I just wish democrats would stop being afraid of the Republicans. Fight fire with fire and let's go from there.

Believe it or not the American people actually don't care all that much about Clinton's tax returns, it is only the O supporters and the msm ( the Clinton hit squad) that cares about that garbage. It is not so much of value in their lives.

by democrat voter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:08:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by rejectandenounce on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:11:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Apparently, Hillary thought it was important when she was running for the Senate. She used that against her opponent for days if you remember.

This is where you chose to spend your time, in the gutter. without a doubt, O supporters will claim some great revelation that will again make Hillary unelectable. I wonder why she keeps on winning elections then? She is after all getting more than half of the democratic votes.

by democrat voter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:48:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by rejectandenounce on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:35:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's good I am glad they are questioning him rather than blindly following him, but in that same poll, only 16% people actually think Obama believes in Wright's politics. This is a good vetting process for Obama and he did the best he could with the situation. That speech on race was fantastic and he helped raise the dialogue on race, so there is some positive in this mess.

by Cycloptichorn on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:36:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, that pretty much adds up the Hillary supporters and Republicans. Why are you surprised?

by PittsburghPete on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:47:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

...and yet 57% of them don't believe Obama share's Rev. Wright's views, so....

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

from your lips to.....

well I am an atheist, but you get the point.

Yes, we can. (and, as far as the nomination is concerned, I think we just did!)

by lockewasright on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:45:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by LindaSFNM on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:36:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL oh yeah, this is a real energizer . Maybe a full half of his own support will go to Obama. And most of that support was in heavy Conservative areas like New Hampshire, Arizona and Texas.

Want a progressive global warming novel, not a right wing rant? Go to www.edwardgtalbot.com for a free audio thriller.

NH - heavy conservative? I'm not trying to argue with your general point, but NH is far from heavy conservative. It is a swing state that leans blue when it's close. 2 repub senators, but all dem congresspeople.

by edparrot on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:03:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by pholkhero on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:14:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree. He's had FOUR great speeches this week, each done really well.

today's speech was one of his best ~ he IS back on his game

is he kidding? (none / 0)

in this moment, isn't it time that the superdelegates scope out if race will be THE issue in the fall campaign? Because Rev. Wright and the "typical white person" remark DO NOT HELP. This guy may not be electable. Superdelegates were created for moments just like this, when a candidates electability is in doubt. Idk, maybe Richardson is trying to shore up hispanic support incase Obama wins the nod, to stop McCain, but he's also betraying the people who gave him a political career the Clintons. what a backstabbing ass

"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States

by DiamondJay on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:25:59 PM EST

Re: is he kidding? (none / 0)

We'll see what happens. Personally I think the "typical white" racist statement is going to play very poorly if McCain has the guts to seize on it (Guts Clinton doesn't seem to have; Win at all cost is certainly not true of the Hillary Campaign to date)

by Wiseprince on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:57:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: is he kidding? (none / 0)

betraying the people who gave him a political career the Clintons. what a backstabbing ass

loyalty uber alles, eh?

sounds like a bushspeak to me ~

by pholkhero on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:13:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

if our party knew loyalty, (none / 0)

we woulda been a lot better off during the Clinton Era, as the reason we lost Congress in 1994 was because Democrats didn't follow through on Clinton's health care plan, actually criticizing it in public. There were also Dems who didn't vote for the 1993 deficit reduction bill, which hurt Clinton in that party showed no loyalty honor. As was the fact the it was the Dems who let Whitewater be investigated and called for it to be in 1994, before the election. They tried to thro their own leader under the bus, but he just wouldn't fall under it.

"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States

by DiamondJay on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:00:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Electability" criteria irk me. (none / 0)

We create or destroy electability ourselves, one vote at the time.

When we vote for a candidate because of (or despite) an issue, we make him electable.

When we vote against a candidate because of that issue, we help make him unelectable.

Trying to decide which of our candidates has the 55% chance to be victorious in the General and which one has the 45% chance is a sucker's game. Too many variables that can change by November.

Votes create electability, it's not electability that ought create votes.

Vote for the candidate you prefer and then fight to make him more electable, that's the proper course of action.

by Aris Katsaris on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:38:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Who Will Tell The Clintons Hillary Has Lost? (2.00 / 1)

May I suggest this post . . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3 /21/112047/802

This might, perhaps, be the reason for Gov. Richardson's endorsement today.

by Keithb7862 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:28:06 PM EST

Re: Who Will Tell The Clintons Hillary Has Lost? (none / 0)

Really sharp of Richardson to wait until after the Wright controversy.

by mjc888 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:30:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Who Will Tell The Clintons Hillary Has Lost? (none / 0)

"Really sharp of Richardson to wait until after the Wright controversy."

True that---Obama needed a good news day and Richardson delivered. Thanks Bill!

by wasder on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:02:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

http://www.yawnmccain.com

What does it say about Obama that he would associate himself with a guy with such a long history of lying. Didn't he lie about being a professional baseball player? And what's with that tan? Is he trying to scare off white voters? It worked...I think I just peed my pants.

And what about that goatee? Didn't Malcom X have a goatee? I think the salt of the earth Democrats in PA, and Super delegate dandies are in agreement that this is "troubling".

by enozinho on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:53:13 PM EST

Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129

Some might ask what it says about Hillary that she still associates herself with a "guy with such a long history of lying."

Her husband, that is.

by Kobi on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:07:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America

LOL

by JDF on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:16:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Goatee? Evil Richardson from a Parallel Universe (none / 0)

¡Si, soy PUMA!

by RonK Seattle on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 07:42:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton campaign - Classy as usual (2.00 / 0)

Can they ever just say - well good for Obama.

What are they going to say when Al Gore endorses or Nancy Pelosi? Somebody never taught the Clinton campaign grace. Some may call them fighters, I would call them poor sports.

by johnnyappleseed on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:04:05 PM EST

If Obama wins nominations, dems lose (none / 0)

I dont want this to happen, but it's my educated guess. Maybe Hillary would run in 2012? She would win for sure then, even if Obama also ran again, once a loser...

by rigsoHC on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:13:31 PM EST

Re: If Obama wins nominations, dems lose (none / 0)

Wow... you can see the future?

Who is going to win the NCAA tournament? I need a big win to get out of this hole with my bookie

Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America

by JDF on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:17:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Its called a "guess" for a reason... (none / 0)

I will vote for Obama 100%, so I'm not even talking about myself, its just my sense... after seeing OH/FL/ numbers, I just dont think he'll win those states, and I don't think he'll change the map considerably, meaning we need them still...

by rigsoHC on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:49:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Its called a "guess" for a reason... (none / 0)

Ask John Kerry about electability.

Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129

by Kobi on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:55:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

he received more votes than (none / 0)

any dem. candidate in history, so Id say he was still probably the most electable...

by rigsoHC on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:58:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he received more votes than (none / 0)

If so, it doesn't say much for the Theory of Electability.

Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129

by Kobi on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:01:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

no, it just means BushCo ran a dirty (none / 0)

campaign and it worked wonders, doesnt mean he wasnt electable, he came closer than Dean would have, I believe... Maybe John Edwards could have better.

by rigsoHC on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:02:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no, it just means BushCo ran a dirty (none / 0)

Since electability is but a bad guess, you might as well keep guessing about who would have done worse.

But when Democrats choose their candidates based on who they think others will vote for, rather than their qualities, they will lose.

Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129

by Kobi on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:37:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Obama wins nominations, dems lose (none / 0)

Can you also provide some lotto numbers as well Karnak?

by rejectandenounce on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:18:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Obama wins nominations, dems lose (none / 0)

It's a curious twist of illogic to say Hillary can lose to Obama in 2008 and not be a "loser" herself in 2012. Especially when she's blown what may have been the greatest presumptive certainty of being the nominee of anyone in history.

Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129

by Kobi on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:37:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

losing primaries is not a killer (none / 0)

for a future primary win, historically, losing a G.E on the other hand, especially on Dem. side, is...

by rigsoHC on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:50:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: losing primaries is not a killer (none / 0)

Obama hasn't lost the general, whereas Hillary has lost the primary.

And as Edwards learned the hard way, when people don't want you the first time around they aren't going to want you the second time either.

Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129

by Kobi on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:52:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Richardson Endorsement Thread (1.00 / 1)

How much of Obama's illegal overseas campaign funds did he pay to Richardson for the endorsement? This guy's a loser. He's a nobody without the Clinton's. Talk about opportunistic. So much for loyalty. Now I'm definitely writing her in. 1 in 10 Obama voters go for McCain; 1 in 4 Hillary voters go for McCain. Welcome President McCain. Nice job ___-bags.

by too damn bad on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:18:09 PM EST

Looks Like The VP Deal has Been Made (none / 0)

They must have run the numbers and seen that it makes Obama a contender in AZ, NM, CO, maybe FL and adds some heat in Texas. However, it doesn't say a lot of Bill R's loyalty to Bill C, who really made him a more significant player. But hey, they are politicians.

Let the change begin!!!!!

by demwords on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:28:02 PM EST

Re: Looks Like The VP Deal has Been Made (none / 0)

Bill Clinton isn't running.

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

by lockewasright on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:34:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

From what I heard... (none / 0)

...I think his wife is.

Let the change begin!!!!!

by demwords on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:35:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From what I heard... (none / 0)

So it's a question of Bill R's loyalty to Bill C's wife, not his loyalty to Bill C.

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

by lockewasright on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:38:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Looks Like The VP Deal has Been Made (none / 0)

Richardson isn't the only Democrat tired of being under the heel of The Clintons. Since Obama's early wins and beyond the uberdelegates have gone (with rare exception) to him rather than Hillary.

It must have really sucked to kowtow to the same political cabal for 16 years, and be a relief to finally be free of them.

Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129

by Kobi on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:49:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well Richardson just confirmed it, he is voting because of race. It is so obvious but just in case we missed that part Bill tells us so. After Obama has used race where ever it can do him good, after turning our democratic president and the dems choice of president down, Richardson confirms that he is doing so because of race. What a louse he has become. What a guy. Yeah the good old boys club is trying to assure that a woman will NOT be president, and to insure his own deal, now he climbs on the bandwagon.

And yet, his state went for Clinton. Strange he is trying to end this race while the votes are still being cast. Fortunately, the voters are wise to this thing by now. We can see how cynically Obama has used the race issue to first divide the democratic party on racial lines, accusing people of racism to get not only the black votes, but tarnish the reputation of the president and Hillary. For the sake of winning at any cost, Obama has cost the respect he is not getting from the base of our party. It seems this man will do or say anything including the insulting and trash talking about Bill and Hillary Clinton, this man has no respect.

He will use any means to twist the racial issue to his benefit, but why? Why is He the the man to bridge the racial gap? What does he do? Not what is he saying because he is saying anything, but what does he actually do? He uses race as a wedge in this campaign calling any question of his record, racist. Anyone who challenged him he labeled their criticism racist. He attended a church that pervertedly supported him by saying the most disgusting and degrading things about our democratic president and his wife, Hillary, the dems choice in this election.

Obama conflates comments from Ferrero and his own grandmother with the hate filled rants of Wright. This man has no honor when it comes to the subject of race. He excuses Wright and condemns Ferrero. With a cynical speech he tries to make race, and his winning this election some great thing when it comes to race. Nice, Obama. So if we are to continue ahead we must have you represent us on this subject that we are all just dying to tackle. We are just all ready to sign on to your brand of racial justice. That means we allow you your spiritual adviser because he's not going to be disowned, but you then belittle your own grandmother as if saying she is in any way equal to Wright. As if her feelings are the same as his, somehow making him more acceptable to us. Ah yes, your grandmother is a typical white woman.

This is such a convoluted thing and it is so disturbing that I just can't believe that people are swallowing this stuff. The people Obama is lifting up? Well its Obama that's who. Simple really, elect him and our great guilt as Americans will be assuaged. Really? God the arrogance of this man is appalling. His speech was self serving and insulting to women as well. His casual dismissal of women's struggle was par for the course.

As if he is the only one who can speak to the issue of race. As if race is the most important thing we need to work on, well for Obama it surely is, but for the rest of America? Apparently Richardson thought race was the most important thing, much more important than loyalty or honor. But what the hell, alls fair in politics, right?

by democrat voter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:35:47 PM EST

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

Got shut down on the false sexism rant, gonna move on to race now?!

Can't you just argue ideas?

by lockewasright on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:40:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There are ideas, you may not like these ideas but ideas they are anyway. Sexism is not false any more than racism is a false reality. its just that I don't happen to see them the way you do. My opinion is just as valid as your is.

Shut down? Shut down! No I am not shut down. I am fired up, and ready for you to go. This is the base of the party looking at you. I represent exactly one democratic vote, that is all, it is alsy all you represent. The same one vote.

by democrat voter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:22:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

I didn't say sexism was false. I said your accussation that I am a sexist and a louse is false.

That's right we each represent one vote only mine is cast along with about 900,000 more than yours. Who does that make part of the base?

by lockewasright on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:32:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Walgreens Called - Your Rx is Ready (none / 0)

by bernardpliers on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:09:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Walgreens Called - Your Rx is Ready (none / 0)

You think of resorting to drugs? Oh that's suppose to be an insult? Or is that some indulgent user out there? It is easy to casually dismiss these ideas but after all, I am not alone in my assessment. Perhaps if you had more perspective it would help.

by democrat voter on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:26:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by hebi on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:36:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

high time for Pelosi to make it official.

democrat voter, this should be a full diary.

by oh puhleeze on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:49:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.

Video is up, if you want to up date - <iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/23745548#23745548" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>

Will the Clinton supporters on this site tear apart anybody who is with Obama? This thread is sad.

by CardBoard on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:55:24 PM EST

by nzubechukwu on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:02:38 PM EST

THERE IS NO WAY OBAMA WILL BE ELECTED. Where is Gov Warner or John Edwards when you need them.

The choice is simple: A President who voted for the worst of Bush's odius agenda, or one who didn't.

"THERE IS NO WAY OBAMA WILL BE ELECTED."

I'll bet there's a sideshow somewhere that would pay top dollar for you and your crystal ball.

by Liberal Avenger on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:04:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by hebi on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:34:49 PM EST

Wow, this is really good. Not simply a nod, but a really inspired, heratfelt, powerfull ENDORSEMENT.

Great to sensethe positive energy during te rally.
Would love to have been in that auditorium.

Here's yet another . . . (2.00 / 0)

. . . post worth reading . . .

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/030 8/9149.html

Do the math. Evidently Gov. Richardson did.

by Keithb7862 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:50:40 PM EST

by TaiChiMaster on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 03:57:26 PM EST

Quite clever when you think about it. I assume that he did not just realized that obama is "a once-in-a-lifetime leader", so why no endorse it before if he's so great? I'm sure that Obama could have used his support in Texas.

Well quite simple, what would he have gained by endorsing Obama when he was at his highest... Nothing. BUT by endorsing him now when Obama is in trouble, although Obama's victory is less likely, the reward to Richardson if he wins skyrocket. He casts himself as a "loyal" friend, and if his endorsement coincide with a rebound of Obama's poll number, he's VP for sure.

Those people make me want to puke.

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

Obama won Texas. He didn't need the help.

by lockewasright on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:36:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by TangerineDreams on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:48:58 PM EST

There have been long standing 'rumors' that Richardson has issues of being a womanizer. Wonder if these rumors will come to light now ...

The choice is simple: A President who voted for the worst of Bush's odius agenda, or one who didn't.

I don't think The Clintons will want the narrative to be about womanizing.

by Liberal Avenger on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:56:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The choice is simple: A President who voted for the worst of Bush's odius agenda, or one who didn't.

I don't think The Clintons will want the narrative to be about womanizing.

by Liberal Avenger on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:02:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's Good Friday.

by oh puhleeze on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:04:17 PM EST

Re: Richardson Endorsement Thread (2.00 / 0)

HUGE endorsement! It couldn't have come at a BETTER time!!

http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2008/03/s peaking-of-obama-new-mexico-governor.htm l#links

by KYJurisDoctor on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 05:23:48 PM EST

by LP from MD on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 07:48:06 PM EST

Why is everyone acting surprised? Richardson stabbed Clinton in the back in Iowa with his secret wink-wink.

Repeat after me: Bill Richardson has no pull with the Latino community.

Also, Obama thought Ted Kennedy singing in Spanish would grab the Latinos for him.

So, everyone pees their pants over this, but Murtha endorsing Clinton means nothing?

by vdeputy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:24:38 PM EST

I don't know how many people there are like me. Maybe not many but if there are, Obama bringing the Democrats together is bull---.

vdeputy

by LP from MD on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 08:46:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama-mania is a media mind meld. Repub-owned media hype up the worst candidate the Dems can run up the flag pole.

It worked with Kerry in 04.

By the way, has anyone noticed how much Kerry-campaign influence is within the people managing Obama?

As i said before, Richardson is major, but Murtha isn't noteworthy?