Ah... ok that makes sense.  

What a "Foxy" answer...  Maybe it was the "Copper" standard.  ;-)

Sorry couldn't resist.

Just want to clear something up... let's just take the issue of the racial language out of it since it's a touchy subject. You think it's perfectly acceptable for some Clinton-supporting Democrats to spend the summer publicly sowing doubt about the party's presumptive nominee?

That doesn't make any sense to me, as someone who's interested in having a Democrat win the White House.  Wouldn't it be more constructive to focus on figuring out how to win with the nominee we have rather than waste our time with endless grumbling over the possibility that he or she might lose?

numerous public statements in support of bush...iraq...etc.

i would suspect he did vote for bush over kerry though he might not cop to it.

vote for bush

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/articl e.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40088

but he basically called kerry a pussy as well.

he endorsed Bush...even spoke at the Republican Convention.

um

see response above and maybe read the article.

though you can decide for yourself which party koch has chosen to align himself with; i think its pretty clear.

any other questions?

Nope you heard wrong...

It was the Hillary supporters who say they WON'T vote for Obama and will vote for McCain that are not real Democrats.  There is nothing wrong with Normal Hillary supporters who fought hard for her, but now will focus on getting the Party back the WH AND increase our majorities.

Ed Koch aligns himself with the GOP on just about every non-Hillary news story. I don't doubt he'll be campaigning for McCain.

Hillary would do better with another surrogate.

only said he was for Hillary "in the primary" and reserved the right to change in the general, which led me to believe he'd endorse McCain in the end over anyone.

The real reason he came back to the Democratic Party this year was his pure blatant hatred for Giuliani, whom he thought would be the GOP nominee. He loves McCain.

I'd assume the 1994 Conogressional elections, where the Democratic massacre was widely blamed on Hillary Clinton's handling of health care policy.

Please elaborate.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107110/Obamas -Support-Similar-Kerrys-2004.aspx

Most recent Gallup: Obama loses. He starts behind Kerry or the same as Kerry in almost every demograhic group.

Sorry but look no further than the EC on this website. Obama has less ways to win than Clinton.

It also shows Democrats losing New Mexico, which doesn't seem likely to me. There are going to be a lot of resources poured into that state for Udall, and Richardson might even be the Vice Presidential nominee.

Obama could win those two states and lose Florida, Ohio AND Michigan and still win.

Kerry won WI by 1/2 of a percent. It's entirely possible that Obama would lose it too. I understand that the GOP recently defeated an AA candidate for supreme court by turning him into Willie Horton.

A lot of WI is very red.

Bush was 10 points up on Kerry in Wisconsin at this point.

Bush was also up in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Hampshire and Minnesota.

"The current EV tracker "

You mean, the "most current poll" as the tracker is based on every most recent poll, nothing more, nothing less.

OK in the nicest way.  Did you really read what i wrote. ""But the fact is BO will not do very well in OH, FL, VA, KY, or WV"? I clearly said in the GE not the primaries.  Could you please read a little closer.  And are you saying you really think BO can win the popular vote in VA.

david

You mean couldn't vote for the AUMF because he wasn't a member of the Senate and his home state wasn't attacked on 911.

I feel obligated to respond to some of your comments, not to say that Hillary bests Barack on some of theses votes or issues but merely to enlighten his stance on some of these points:

"And didn't vote for the Iraq invasion". You can't be more right! In fact, it's impossible for Barack to have voted for the Iraq invasion because he wasn't even in the senate at time. But you already know that and might say that he was opposed to the war from the start anyways. This is probably true, but when asked how he would have voted he responded: "What would I have done? I don't know." Is that the type of strong leadership we can expect from him? Opposing the war in public but not knowing how to vote?

Read this article if you don't believe me:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht ml?res=9407E2DF153DF935A15754C0A9629C8B6 3&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

"Didn't threaten the nuclear obliteration of Iran?" No he certainly hasn't done that. But let's look at the context for this comment. She would attack Iran with nuclear weapons IF Iran nuclear attacked Israel. Now Israel is our ally (whether you agree with it or not) and we will protect our allies from enemies. Do you know of NATO? Well she might as well have mentioned that she would nuclear attack Iran if it attacked any of the NATO countries. But what would Barack do? Would Barack not protect our allies? Now I hope to god that this will never happen and that there will be no nuclear attacks period, but a president must be ready for anything.

But when, MSNBC asked him what HE would do. He responded by noting to the press that she sounded like a certain republican (alluding to Bush) and didn't outline what he would do in such an event. This to me is attacking Hillary and not answering what he would do. Now I know that the Barack campaign has been avoiding these type of questions saying that he is for a new kind of politics and that today's system is broken but it's a honest question that, at least to me, is a very important one, especially if he is attacking Hillary because of it.

"Didn't back the surge last year" Well this is about Barack: "since taking office in January 2005, he has voted for four separate war appropriations, totaling more than $300 billion." Now this does not not mean that he was supporting the surge you are refering to but he has been backing a number of appropriations that has help make the continuation of the Iraq war very possible.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washin gton/articles/2007/03/20/obamas_record_s hows_caution_nuance_on_iraq/

And go on, ask me about the vote to so called authorize an Iran war, this is similar to the Iraq vote only she has coauthored a bill the will not allow Bush to use it as an authorization for war.

And those people with lots of money want to earn more of that money by having the firms they work for succeed. So instead of using a lobbyist to grease palms they do it themselves.

Oh, no, indeed.

Read the article, fool. Because clearly you did not do so, or you wouldn't make such an ignorant comment.

Barack Obama is the front man for Wall Street Corporadoes, and he's already paid them back in spades for their support.

What makes you think he won't do it again? He's already done it THREE times that I can think of, and the cost to black consumers as well as white consumers--as outlined in the article--is in the billions of dollars.

For example:

On February 10, 2005, Senator Obama voted in favor of the passage of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Senators Biden, Boxer, Byrd, Clinton, Corzine, Durbin, Feingold, Kerry, Leahy, Reid and 16 other Democrats voted against it. It passed the Senate 72-26 and was signed into law on February 18, 2005.

Here is an excerpt of remarks Senator Obama made on the Senate floor on February 14, 2005, concerning the passage of this legislation:

"Every American deserves their day in court. This bill, while not perfect, gives people that day while still providing the reasonable reforms necessary to safeguard against the most blatant abuses of the system. I also hope that the federal judiciary takes seriously their expanded role in class action litigation, and upholds their responsibility to fairly certify class actions so that they may protect our civil and consumer rights...."

Three days before Senator Obama expressed that fateful yea vote, 14 state attorneys general, including Lisa Madigan of Senator Obama's home state of Illinois, filed a letter with the Senate and House, pleading to stop the passage of this corporate giveaway:

The AGs wrote:

"State attorneys general frequently investigate and bring actions against defendants who have caused harm to our citizens... In some instances, such actions have been brought with the attorney general acting as the class representative for the consumers of the state. We are concerned that certain provisions of S.5 might be misinterpreted to impede the ability of the attorneys general to bring such actions...."

The Senate also received a desperate plea from more than 40 civil rights and labor organizations, including the NAACP, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Human Rights Campaign, American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Justice and Democracy, Legal Momentum (formerly NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund), and Alliance for Justice. They wrote as follows:

"Under the [Class Action Fairness Act of 2005], citizens are denied the right to use their own state courts to bring class actions against corporations that violate these state wage and hour and state civil rights laws, even where that corporation has hundreds of employees in that state. Moving these state law cases into federal court will delay and likely deny justice for working men and women and victims of discrimination. The federal courts are already overburdened. Additionally, federal courts are less likely to certify classes or provide relief for violations of state law."

This legislation, which dramatically impaired labor rights, consumer rights and civil rights, involved five years of pressure from 100 corporations, 475 lobbyists, tens of millions of corporate dollars buying influence in our government, and the active participation of the Wall Street firms now funding the Obama campaign.

"The Civil Justice Reform Group, a business alliance comprising general counsels from Fortune 100 firms, was instrumental in drafting the class-action bill," says Public Citizen.

The article names Obama's biggest corporate contributors, including Citigroup and Mayer-Brown, which is the leading business lobby group:

One of the hardest working registered lobbyists to push this corporate giveaway was the law firm Mayer-Brown, hired by the leading business lobby group, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Chamber of Commerce spent $16 million in just 2003, lobbying the government on various business issues, including class action reform.

According to a 2003 report from Public Citizen, Mayer-Brown's class action lobbyists included "Mark Gitenstein, former chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee and a leading architect of the Senate strategy in support of class-action legislation; John Schmitz, who was deputy counsel to President George H.W. Bush; David McIntosh, former Republican congressman from Indiana; and Jeffrey Lewis, who was on the staffs of both Sen. John Breaux (D-La) and Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La)".

While not on the Center for Responsive Politics list of the top 20 contributors to the Obama presidential campaign, Mayer-Brown's partners and employees are in rarefied company, giving a total of $92,817 through December 31, 2007, to the Obama campaign. (The firm is also defending Merrill Lynch in court against charges of racial discrimination.)

"Obama helped  gut one of the few weapons left to seek justice against giant corporations and their legions of giant law firms."

Why does this matter? Because these corporate Obama donors are the very same people who are thieving from minorities and the elderly in predatory lending practices. And, Barack Obama voted against the cap in lending, even when it was at 30%. Ergo: Wall Street Financial Powerhouses like Citigroup gave Obama big money. He rewarded them by helping them to rip off minorities and the elderly:

According to a comprehensive report from the nonprofit group, United for a Fair Economy, over the past eight years the total loss of wealth for people of color is between $164 billion and $213 billion for subprime loans which is the greatest loss of wealth for people of color in modern history:

"According to federal data, people of color are more than three times more likely to have subprime loans: high-cost loans account for 55 per cent of loans to blacks, but only 17 per cent of loans to whites."      

If there had been equitable distribution of subprime loans, losses for white people would be 44.5 per cent higher and losses for people of color would be about 24 per cent lower.  "This is evidence of systemic prejudice and institutional racism."

And, here's the kicker: Black voters get a black candidate they think will represent their interests. He won't. He has already hurt their interests for the next 500 years by supporting Corporate Financial Donors in a quid pro quo. The current mortgage crisis is the result of these same Corporate Obama Cronies:

Before the current crisis, based on improvements in median household net worth, it would take 594 more years for blacks to achieve parity with whites. The current crisis is likely to stretch this even further.

You'd better realize the ultimate ugly truth about Obama. He isn't interested in representing YOU. He's just a vehicle for others interested in continuing the status quo:

So, how should we react when we learn that the top contributors to the Obama campaign are the very Wall Street firms whose shady mortgage lenders buried the elderly and the poor and minority under predatory loans? How should we react when we learn that on the big donor list is Citigroup, whose former employee at CitiFinancial testified to the Federal Trade Commission that it was standard practice to target people based on race and educational level, with the sales force winning bonuses called  "Rocopoly Money" (like a sick board game), after "blitz" nights of soliciting loans by phone? How should we react when we learn that these very same firms, arm in arm with their corporate lawyers and registered lobbyists, have weakened our ability to fight back with the class-action vehicle?

Should there be any doubt left as to who owns our government? The very same cast of characters making the Obama hit parade of campaign loot are the clever creators of the industry solutions to the wave of foreclosures gripping this nation's poor and middle class, effectively putting the solution in the hands of the robbers. The names of these programs (that have failed to make a dent in the problem) have the same vacuous ring: Hope Now; Project Lifeline.

Vote for Barack. But be fully aware of who you're voting for. Read the full article, stop deluding yourself:  

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.p hp?option=com_content&task=view& id=613&Itemid=1

Thats a great come back.  Erhmm, spew anyones crap?  Please.  The center for investigative reporting is partnered with news agencies like CNN, ABC, Los Angeles Times, MotherJones, The Washington Post, etc etc.

My fellow Americans, we need to take this country back from lobbyist like these!  That is why this independent is going to be voting for Obama in the general.

Ding ding ding ding ding

The problem is that he is starting from where Kerry left off. He hasn't shown the ability to turn his demographic problems around in the primaries so how do you think he'll be able to do it in the general?

He has even said that he thinks these people are idiots and his campaign has said that they don't want their votes. Good luck winning a general election with only the youth vote, AA vote and creative class vote. You might pull 45% of the vote in a general election with those demographics.