by BlueGAinDC, Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 07:19:43 AM EDT
With all this information coming out in the last few days about Palin, her pastor, and her church, I quickly realized that while I already knew Palin could never be allowed anywhere near the White House, a lot of my Jewish friends and family may have already been considering McCain. They NEED to know about Palin's connection to Jews for Jesus and her pastor who does not support Israel.
So, taking to the medium that unfortunately worked so well against Obama, I decided to compile an email about Palin and the Jewish Community. Unlike Obama emails, its all fact, and everything points directly to its source.
Please help by spreading this email to all your Jewish friends and family and by reccing this diary so I can get it out to as many people as possible.
We must stop Palin.
by BlueGAinDC, Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 04:53:39 PM EDT
This should put to rest the complaints about Hillary not being considered as VP. Even though I never supported her as a VP, it seemed to me that it was an odd choice not to consider her or vet her. Well, I think we're all relieved that this wasn't Obama "dissing" Clinton as Drudge would like us to believe.
In fact, Clinton merely asked not to be vetted unless she was going to be the pick.NYT:
Hillary Rodham Clinton, who ran so closely to Obama in the primary, was never seriously considered, said two officials involved with the search. She asked not to be vetted unless she was going to be picked, the two officials said, speaking on a condition of anonymity to describe the private discussions.
Now, I know the first part of the quote may seem to reaffirm the idea that Obama just dismissed her, though I don't think that is what the source means. I suspect that Obama did in fact seriously consider her personally, but made his decision independent of the committee not to put her on the list to be vetted.
Hillary Clinton will have a major opportunity to make an impact on this general election campaign on Tuesday (and hopefully after that as well), but I hope we can finally get passed the idea that Obama deliberately insulted Clinton, doesn't want her support or that of her voters, or doesn't care about whole parts of the party.
We need Hillary Clinton supporters to win this election. I hope this convention, Obama, Biden, and Hillary herself can help change the minds of the 9 million or so people that are reluctant to support Obama.
by BlueGAinDC, Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 05:14:52 PM EDT
Despite the "conventional wisdom" that Obama's dreams of winning Georgia are just that, new Rasmussen polls show that not only does Obama have a reasonable shot at winning Georgia, but Democratic candidate Jim Martin has an even better shot of unseating horrible Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss.
Jim Martin, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate after defeating Vernon Jones in a run-off primary election earlier this month, is now trailing incumbent Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss by just six percentage points. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the Peach State finds the incumbent ahead of his challenger 48% to 43%.
When "leaners" are included, Chambliss leads 50% to 44%.
by BlueGAinDC, Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:08:30 PM EDT
All this VP speculation seems to have most Clinton supporters agreeing on one thing: If Obama picks another woman over Hillary Clinton to be Vice President, it will be insulting to her and her supporters.
Talk about sexism.
Among the candidates for VP on an Obama ticket are Kathleen Sebelius, Janet Napolitano, and Claire McCaskill.
Two governors and a Senator. All three endorsed Obama early on, all three are from red states. All three are popular in their state. All three would bring both pros and cons to the tickets.
As any VP candidate would.
To me, selecting any one of them would be no more of a slap in the face than choosing any male over Senator Clinton. To take offense to Obama choosing another woman is to dismiss Senator Clinton as a token female candidate (like the self-admitted token female candidate Geraldine Ferraro). Clearly, Hillary Clinton had reasons for running far better than the fact that she is a woman. Personally, she never convinced me to support her. But I have enough respect for her not to dismiss her as just the female candidate in the race. I always was kind of mystified by Clinton's own constant references to her gender. When asked if she was for change, she often pointed out her gender. And recently she has taken to making her campaign about sexism and its effect on the campaign.
Is picking the best reason y'all can come up with for making Clinton VP is that she's a woman? If Obama picks another woman and you get offended, arn't you essentially saying: What the hell? If he was going to pick a woman he should have at least picked the most qualified one?
This meme should not only be insulting to Clinton herself, it is also insulting to the other possible female candidates. They were in the running for VP long before Obama's alleged problem with women arrived. They are candidates for Vice President in their own right, and should be treated with respect.
So for those of you who warn Obama not to choose another woman over Clinton for VP, answer me this: how is that not sexist?
If you don't think gender should stop someone from being President or Vice President, why is it okay that the gender of Napolitano, McCaskill and Sebelius disqualify them?
by BlueGAinDC, Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 07:30:24 AM EDT
It seems everyone's angry about the RBC's decision to partially reject the Michigan vote. Everyone finds something wrong with the 69-59 split.
Among the complaints:
- FL and MI Should have been seated in full
- 59-49 is the worst choice, at least 50/50 would have rejected the vote. This compromise made votes up.
- Its just 4 delegates, why didn't the Obama campaign just give in?
First, to address the last point, its because no matter what the solution, there would have been complaints. Seriously, unless the Clinton campaign got everything they wanted (and knew they couldn't get), they would have made the same threats about going to the convention. The 69-59 split just made it slightly less difficult to reach the magic number.
Now, the second point. This, I think, must be a joke. There is no way Jerome or any other Clinton supporter would have actually found 50/50 better than 59-69. That would have rejected completely the will of the people and boy would everyone be mad. But the RBC didn't make up anything. They took the Michigan results in full. Then they took the Obama argument, that the Michigan results are completely flawed and should be thrown out. Both arguments had merit. So they did an interesting thing. They compromised. They met in the middle. They didn't "make up" primary results, they compromised between two arguments.
by BlueGAinDC, Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:48:33 PM EDT
Watching "Recount" on HBO brought back all the terrible memories of the 2000 fiasco and so much more. I was only 12 when it happened, and I'll admit I was thoroughly confused by what went on. All I knew was that the election was very close and the U.S. Supreme court decided democracy just took too much damn time.
HBO did a fantastic job of clarifying that awful mess. It certainly wasn't a feel good movie--in fact, it was more of a "feel like complete shit" movie. It made me pissed off again. How the hell did this happen? Voters disenfranchised by the thousands, non-partisan decisions in the hands of the most partisan of people, butterfly ballots, hanging chad, planted protestors disrupting vote count and assaulting a lawyer, election officials being tricked left and right by the disruption created by the Republicans.
But about 20 minutes after the movie ended, my frustration about what happened in 2000 came to an abrupt halt. It dawned on me that the situation we now find ourselves in is making those very same Republicans open bottles of champagne and celebrate the Democratic party once again shooting itself in the foot.